Troy Southgate has posted links on his NR Forum to online pdf editions of two of the three principle works of the Sicilian nobleman, neo-pagan and tradionalist philosopher, political activist and soldier Baron Julius Evola.

I have not previously read Evola.  He is a little too Tolkienesque in his mysticism for my taste.  And to be frank, I am a little put off by the accent on the spirit of race, and on the decision for cultural restoration - as opposed to racial or ethnic preservation - which that triggers.  Nonetheless, as one of Nature’s more irredeemable lateral thinkers and someone who regards the European sociobiology as philosophically inevitable, I have to take an interest in a thinker who “seeks to restore the order, not of 100 or 200 years ago, but of literally thousands of years ago” (see below).

Revolt Against The Modern World

From a brief review by John Reilly:-

“Revolt Against the Modern World” is usually cited as the best general introduction to Evola’s thought. Generically, Evola’s ideas are an adaptation of René Guénon’s philosophy of Tradition. In this context, the Tradition in question is not so much the historical heritage of the West, or of any particular society, but rather of the archetypal forms of society, the state, and spirituality. Evola uses particular histories and particular myths chiefly to illustrate these ideal forms.

Evola claims to have little use for “apocalypticism,” which he regards as an example of spiritual degeneration that is both demotic and demonic. He also has little use for the principle of historical determinacy; for him, whatever happens in history is at least proximately the result of someone’s will. Nonetheless, one cannot help but notice that this book describes a model of history in which the modern world is at the very end of a dark age, the Kali Yuga. He offers the hope, though not the assurance, that an elect might come through the final collapse.

The book is divided into two parts: “World of Tradition” and “Genesis and Face of the Modern World.” The first is chiefly concerned with describing the archetypes that inform the world and history. The second describes how these forms have decayed over time, but with occasional revivals of “tradition” that interest the author keenly.

Men Among The Ruins

From Wikipedia:-

Evola argues for a radical restructuring of society based on his view of Tradition. Evola takes as his jumping off point Italian Fascism and to a lesser degree German National Socialism and describes the ways that the two failed to achieve his ideal. As in Fascism and Nazism, Evola champions a powerful state unified under a rigid code and caste system.

Despite similarities, Evola’s ideas differ dramatically from those of the fascists and, while preserving an appreciation of militarism, focus less on modernity than tradition, less on the technological than the spiritual, less on the masses than the person (which Evola distinguishes from the individual). In this work, Evola develops his radical reactionary philosophy. Reactionary is an important word for him, one that he seeks to own. In fact “reactionary” could be seen as an understatement in his case as he seeks to restore the order, not of 100 or 200 years ago, but of literally thousands of years ago.

This work constitutes Evola’s only attempt at a book-length explicitly political work and, as such, he regarded it as a failure.

READ MORE...

Kevin Myers, probably the most outspoken journalist writing in the British press, evidently indulges in even more page-scorching realism when he goes home to Ireland.  Certainly, he treated the readers of the Irish Independent to a refreshing view of the very dark continent.

Africa is giving nothing to anyone—apart from AIDS

No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia’s (and Bob Geldof’s) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia’s population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.

So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn’t count.

One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of ...

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.

It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority.

... But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30pc. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia’s has more than doubled.

Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.

Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.

... Meanwhile, Africa’s peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million: The equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley.

... For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.

It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates’ programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.

If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts. Oh good: then what?I know. Let them all come here. Yes, that’s an idea.

READ MORE...

The cover of Xenia’s new volume of poetry in English and in French

... which poetry lovers, students of modernity and prometheans alike can purchase here.

“Xenia has the uncanny ability to commit to paper the triumphs and tragedies of the natural world with its wonderfully emotive imagery of love, nostalgia and rebirth”
Troy Southgate (author, Tradition & Revolution)

“Xenia Sunic, whose first name in Classical Greek means “foreign lady,” is a foreign spirit indeed to this most shallow age of Western decline. Her poetry is deep, it is mystical, it is achingly aesthetic —and like all great art requires the reader to co-work, to participate, to ascend to an image-realm, to vault to a rarified, stark, new-old, sun-shadow world.”
John de Nugent

“In the nature poetry of Xenia Sunic there is an element of rapture and an aura of mystery in the poet’s exquisite responsiveness to and almost mystical expression of the change of seasons and a profound delight in the sheer loveliness of nature in its more solemn as well as in its more ecstatic moments.”
Joseph Pryce

“For me, Xenia’s poetic muse reminds constantly of just what the expansive heart’s creative beauty is capable of and what one day may be possible for all of us.”
Mervyn Soskolne

“Xenia Sunic is a marvelously sensitive wordsmith and the fact that she is a multilingual poetess renders her poetic accomplishments even more impressive. One can only hope that more of her poems will follow the publication of this work.”
Dr Paul E. Gottfried

If the data presented in the recently published book “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart” is true, there is hope for freedom:

Americans are assortatively migrating and have been for the last 3 decades!

To the author of the book, this means a disastrous destruction of “dialogue” resulting in an “extremist” flavor of diversity.

To those of us who believe experimentation is a better ultimate appeal than argumentation—and who believe consent is a primary ethical requirement for subjecting humans to experiments—the trend toward people finding other like minded people among whom to live out their strongly held beliefs is the most meaningful expression of freedom possible.

To those who believe that we should decide vital issues at a central point of control for all of us, no control groups (no “back up” environments to conserve prior demonstrated successes) after a national debate decides the way we should vote, this separation into distinct social experiments fosters “extremism”—never mind that experimental integrity requires “extreme” separation of treated groups so we can discriminate cause from effect.  To these neo-theocrats, “we” already know, even if only collectively as “we”, what is right and wrong.  “Our” only obligation is to have enough “dialogue” to decide the issue in a vote—mother nature be damned.

Books like “The Big Sort” a are a predictable response from the new theocracy of Holocaustianity to the emergence of a new Gutenberg revolution as the central points of control of “dialog” (such as capital-intensive academia, print and broadcast media) continue to lose ground to the new media.

By David Hamilton

An entry for the 2003 Turner Prize was a sculpture depicting bodies being picked at by maggots. Entitled “Sex”, it was by Jake and Dinos Chapman, who duly made the headlines as the most shocking nominees.

Maggots feeding off a body is a fitting out picture of contemporary artists.  They are corrupt, degraded, unimaginative and parasitic as they feed off our great artistic traditions and try to destroy them. Their aim is to destroy our values and something that gives meaning to our lives. Is a urinal, say, an artistic subject? No, it is intrinsically unartistic, even though it might have pleasing curves, and to write about it as such does not make it artistic but conceptually separates artistic form from subject

Contemporary art is not really art at all and should be called something else. But it is a financial asset for the global elites who buy and sell it and run the Arts Councils that manage artistic creativity.

Sotheby’s contemporary art auction in July 2008 raised more than $1 billion which shows how the global elites are investing in art regardless of economic predictions. Their evening contemporary art sale raised 95 million pounds ($189 million), the highest total for a summer contemporary auction held in Europe and just below the overall regional record set in February.  Francis Bacon’s “Study for Head of George Dyer”, the artist’s lover, fetched $27.4 million, including commission; Jean-Michel Basquiat’s “Untitled”, was sold by rock band U2 for $10.1 million. Competitors Christie’s sold art worth $172 million at its sale. Only the less important Sotheby’s contemporary day sale is left and the two main auctioneers have sold works worth just over $1 billion during the summer season, which includes impressionist, modern, post-war and contemporary art. Christie’s raised around $552 million and Sotheby’s about $449 million so far.

Senior executives are confidant that the art market will sustain soaring values in spite of falling stocks and house prices with rising oil costs. Russian elites have been a big factor in booming art sales, there is worry they may inflate impressionist prices in the same way Japanese money did around 20 years ago then disappeared causing the market to crash.

“Sex” by the Chapman Brothers

“Study for Head of George Dyer” by Francis Bacon

READ MORE...

“We’re going to need something new to combat liberalism and defend against it.”

Svi commenting on the thread to Takimag’s Paul Gottfried’s white nationalism article.

For me, Svi’s enlightened view of the totality of the struggle in which we are engaged is a joy to encounter.  One of only two ideas I can say I’ve really had is this notion that everything ... the forced march to a Global Age, the ethno-aggression of political Jewry, race-replacement immigration, hyper-individualism, everything ... fits within, is justified by, is dependent upon the universe of liberalism in which we live and breath.  Liberalism is at once the bulwark of the engine of European destruction and its achilles heel.  For in replacing liberalism we necessarily replace everything.

But selling this great idea is difficult.  And in two statements from his response to Paul Gottfried, Jared Taylor illustrates what the problem is.

Here’s the first:-

Prof. Gottfried sets for “white nationalism” a far grander task than it ever set for itself: creating or defining a civilization. At its most basic, racial consciousness has as its goal the preservation of a certain people. Its aim is to rekindle among whites what every previous generation until recently so took for granted they did not even give it a name: an instinctive preference for their own people and culture, and a strong desire that they should prosper ... Race realism therefore has no theory of religion, the family, art, or the role of government, except in the very general sense that it expects whites to love, first and foremost, the infinite riches created by European man.

And here’s the second:-

Ensuring our survival as a distinct people comes first. Once we have freed ourselves of the unwanted embrace of others, our civilization will unfold in accordance with our own destiny and genius.

Now, I don’t know why Gottfried chose to employ the word “civilisation”.  To my way of thinking, it was a mistake.  As Taylor says, “Civilizations arise organically from the collective efforts of an entire people or nation.”  Plainly, a civilisation is something different from, and inclusive of, a particular philosophy.  Philosophical dominance may be achieved by several ideas in the life of a great civilisation.  Post-classical European civilisation was tribal, feudal, clerical and monarchical (at the same time), and finally liberal and sometimes nationalist.

But I don’t think we can just assume that what Gottfried meant was not civilisation at all in this sense of a grand sweep through time, but in some lesser sense of ideas - and ideals - having historically productive consequences.  I think he was confused, and ended up confusing Taylor, too, who was reduced to saying “our civilization will unfold” when, really, European civilisation is what WNism is trying to revivify, not replace.

So we have to rid our heads of this nonsense - and of Gottfried in the process - and return to what these two gentlemen should have been debating: a nationalist philosophy with the historically productive consequence of a Nationalist Age ... a new world order centred on love.  This, politically and philosophically, is our reason for being.

I believe Taylor would still say no to this.  He seems to dislike the term “white nationalist”.  He employs the utilitarian terms “racial consciousness” and “race realism”.  He is a “race realist”, and race realism is not a philosophy at all but a protest movement:-

What race realists find most infuriating about the liberalism of the last half century is not just that it has lost its instinctive appreciation for the culture and people of the West but actively, viciously attacks them.

It surpasses the obvious to say that such an emphasis on the negative is too light of weight, and cannot effect change at the level of that universe of liberalism I mentioned earlier.  It is ideas which battle and overcome other ideas - not men, however “realistic” their discontent.  And this, tragically, is the reason why Taylor’s contribution will prove inadequate to the racial-preservationist goal he has set us.

Svi’s right - we will need something new and big and powerful to combat and replace liberalism.  We have to equip ourselves with a chain of nationalist logic.  But that is by no means a simple task, complicated as it is by the baggage of the nationalist past and the weaknesses of the present.  We may not succeed in it, and European Man may give away his lands, his world, his life for nothing.  But at least let us be aware of the real nature and immensity of the challenge.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident. —That freedom is the right to territory sufficient to support life, shared exclusively with those of like mind. —That the denial of others’ freedom entails the loss of one’s own. —That defense of freedom, even at the cost of life, is the greatest good. —That to secure freedom, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the mind of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their freedom.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to deny freedom to the governed, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future freedom.—Such has been the patient sufferance of the Posterity of the Founders of the United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present United States government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the denial of freedom. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It has denied the right of people to secede even when they have not denied freedom to others.

It has, in the name of “Civil Rights” imposed private relationships on people to which they did not consent.

It has taxed those who do not possess sufficient territory to support their lives, in order to support the lives of others.

It has refused to defend US territory from invasion.

It has, against the manifest will of the people, passed laws legalizing immigration that replaced the Posterity of the Founders of the United States.

It has drawn ever more power to itself from the States rendering the Laboratory of the States impotent to discover natural laws of Statecraft and the people impotent to alter their conditions by either changing their State governments or by changing their State of residence.

It has waged wars on foreign soil in the name of defending freedom while it assaults freedom on US territory.

It has deprived our inventors of the riches they need to continue to enrich us—favoring instead the transfer of technology ownership to others who, in turn, transfer technology to foreign nations, leaving our own inventors jobless, frequently impoverished and in any event incapable of further enriching us.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our United States government. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of its own Constitution and establishment on this land. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of Freedom, in Cyber Space, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good Posterity of the Founders, solemnly publish and declare, That this land is, and of Right ought to be Free, that the Posterity of the Founders are Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States government, and that all political connection between them and the United States government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free people, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

MR commenter Alex has posted (and is still posting!) some very interesting material on one of our recent threads, and I think it merits a full post.

Here is the post constructed from Alex’s comments.  My thanks to him for bringing this to our attention.
GW

Marvels That Our Grandchildren Will See

One of the few things I’d agree with FDR about is that things don’t just happen ‘by chance’ regarding political matters.  Below is an excerpt from a book published in 1870 in the US by ‘progressives’, yes, the very same sort who about 60 years later would be thinking Stalin and his ‘five year plans’ was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  The first section of the book describes the first ‘one hundred years progress’ of the United States (between 1770 and 1870) examining increasing production figures and values in those years in great detail for a wide variety of products.

Towards the latter portion of the book the writer attempts to describe things as they would be one hundred years in the future, in 1970.  That section of the book is entitled
Marvels That Our Grandchildren Will See; or, One Hundred Years Progress in the Future’, and it’s the part of the book from which the extract below is taken.

The future man is described on pg 515.  Perhaps they should have called this “the future economic man.”  Due to the American peoples wishes regarding immigration being respected at certain times, this has not come about in 1970.  It’s not for lack of trying on these peoples’ parts though.  One can’t help but notice the language used on this page (I’ve provided a link to it beneath this excerpt) is the same as would be used were a rancher attempting to breed a new strain of livestock.  It does seem what is described in this excerpt is what they (financial and business elites, and multi-cultists) are trying to do throughout the West in 2008.

‘The Coming Man’

Business Advertisement Promoting Multi-culturalism

“But the future man of the American Republic will be a thoroughly composite being. It is not simply the union of the Mongolian and Caucasian types to which we are to look forward, but an agglomoration of almost all races and nationalities to make up the coming man. The old English of New England, Virginia, and the Carolinas, already blended with Huguenot, Norman French, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, German, French, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian blood, will receive from the Canadian French on the one side and the Hispano - Americans on the other, an accession of French, Spanish, and Portuguese blood not wholly free from an admixture in all degrees with the Northern Indian, the aztec, and the negro races, and these, with the blending in our own Southern and Southwestern States with the African stock, and the combination in the not distant future of Chinese, Japanese, Hindoo, Malay, and Polynesian, will give to the average American of a hundred years hence, a darker complexion and very different intellectual and moral characteristics from those which we possess today…”

Now I’ll post a few additional excerpts from Marvels That Our Grandchildren Will See as they fit in with the subject.

READ MORE...