It is a well-known fact that a number of the problems of modernity are in part due to industrialization. These problems extend far beyond the reach of “first world” countries, and affect the planet at large, and have inflicted severe damage on the environment. In the places where technology gave rise to the reign of quantity, it has also given rise to material surplus, allowing some people in those nations to become decadent and slothful, while regarding others as little more than “cogs in the machine,” whose primary purpose is that of material production.

Living in modern times, it’s easy to envision the future as a polluted and dysgenic dystopia, and current projections might indicate that even those projections are quite optimistic.  From the traditionalist point of view, the technologically-oriented society’s primary problem is the obsession with surplus and quantity, and as such experiences a state of spiritual stagnation and degradation as a result. The cultural planes, because of the surplus, are also degraded to the level of the lowest common denominator, and the environment which they engender is in fact dysgenic as a result of individuals no longer using intelligence, but instead relying on machines. Spiritually, people in technologically-oriented societies are also regressing. Evola duly noted such trends:

[America] has introduced the religion of praxis and productivity; it has put the quest for profit, great industrial production, and mechanical, visible, and quantitative achievements over any other interest. It has generated a soulless greatness of a purely technological and collective nature, lacking any background of transcendence, inner light, and true spirituality. America has [built a society where] man becomes a mere instrument of production and material productivity within a conformist social conglomerate.

Given the links between technology and modernity, we might be prompted to ask about the role that technology plays in traditionalist-oriented societies. This is a question which must be addressed cautiously. It is all too easy to over-simplify it, or worse yet, to involve too much emotion on the issue.  Pentti Linkola, perhaps has the most radical solution: the elimination of human and technological excesses.  Linkola pessimistically said:

The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness – even though all the proofs in history have shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn’t bring anything else than despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks.

Although Linkola may take a highly cautious approach, it is possible to recognize the limited benefit, and indeed some of the inevitable requirements of the techno-industrial system, while still rejecting the overall spirit of its consequences. Hideo Kishimoto, a professor of religion at Tokyo University made the following distinction:

Westernization would mean that a certain indigenous cultural element of the traditional East is replaced by the penetrating Western element, and the functional role of the former is taken over by the latter.

Modernization, on the other hand, basically means to remold a cultural system into a new mode.

Although Kishimoto’s terminology here is slightly different from our own, and he speaks from a purely technical standpoint, he is totally correct. In the case of Japan, wearing Western attire and listening to Western music, or adopting Western perspectives on philosophy and ethics would be regarded by Kishimoto as “Westernization,” while the use of introduction of telephones, TV, airplanes, mass communication, and other technology can be considered a form of modernization. For a Westerner this is no different: adopting the attitudes and behaviors of a modern person is a completely different concept from using contemporary technology such as cellular phones or the internet. In fact, a number of technologies, such as solar power, might be employed to serve some ends demanded by a Traditional society (in this case, environmental sustainability).

Environmental preservation might be one use of Traditionalist-oriented technology

We might say that the problem is not the use of technology itself, but the overarching mentality of a society. A society which is entrenched in modernist thought will continue along that path, even if they never developed metal tools or fire. On the contrary, a society which is rooted in its values and in tradition doesn’t necessarily have to forsake technology. From the economistic point of view, the problem is one of balances: finding the essential point at which it is possible to be prosperous, but not subjugate man to the material or the means of production. From the Meiji Reformation until fairly recently, the Japanese had done just this, but today the situation in Japan seems quite different, even to the casual observer.

It is sufficient to say that some technology might be required by force of necessity. For instance, it is advantageous for national military forces to possess modern weaponry, so that they can defend themselves against foreign invasions. However, the adoption of such technology should not come at the expense of the real warrior ethos. Again, an example comes from Japan: during World War Two, the Japanese kamikaze still upheld the ethical precepts of Bushido and held in high esteem a certain asceticism in which the noblest action was self-sacrifice. Other technologies, while not necessary, are not “wrong” in and of themselves. For instance, the ability to communicate quickly and efficiently over long distances can be useful in disseminating knowledge consistent with Traditionalist ideas.

Traditionalism acknowledges the timeless nature of certain eternal principles, and it is possible to use technology as a way to ensure that these principles remain dominant. However, a caveat does exist. As nearly every nation which has undergone modernization has shown, this is easier said than done. Adopting technology often carries with it the baggage of modern attitudes (the Persian writer Jalal Ahl-e-Ahmad described this in one word: ‘machinestruckness’ ). As history has shown, this ‘machinestruckness’ permeates nearly all modern societies, and it is practically inevitable that technologically advanced societies all too often begin to fall under the spell of progress.  The social implications of this are, of course disastrous from a Traditionalist point of view, because it paves the way for standardization and ultimately a regression of the castes.

In conclusion, technology in and of itself does not mean that one should ignore technology completely.  When used correctly, technology should give us more leisure time to engage in activities which are ultimately transcendent and beneficial, but used incorrectly, technology is malefic, and indeed may lead to our downfall.

Establishment Media: Critics of Obama Are Racists And Conspiracy Theorists - Saman Mohammadi confronts the pernicious lie that criticizing “Barry” is racism

Symbolism and Metaphysics - A short essay by ”Cologero” of Gornahoor.net on inner states and their representations

The New Blacklist - Patrick Buchanan talks about his recent dismissal from MSNBC

The Great Depression: Then and Now - An excellent photo-essay contrasting the Great Depression of the 1930′s with that of today.

The Sins of Dawkins - Another atheist exposed.  ”His obnoxious behavior is only the consequence of his selfish, selfish genes.”

Budapest: l’intervento fraterno dei dirittumanisti (in italiano) - Claudio Mutti, reknowned scholar criticizes “the attack by the western oligarchy against the Hungarian people”

And now, for your listening and viewing pleasure:

To the Editor:

I have been a frequent reader of RidingTheTiger, and have thus far been impressed by the quality of the articles.  The authors have presented interesting facts in a clear manner, and for this I thank them.

As we watch the current situation in Syria unfold, I’d like to weigh in with some perspectives, strictly as a neutral observer in the conflict.

It might be unpolitically correct politically incorrect to say this, but I don’t see a need to take a side in the current Syrian conflict. As I see this as a fundamentally Syrian matter. Some Syrians want Assad gone whilst others want him to stay. This decision is one to be made by the Syrian people themselves, and it is not up to other countries to make the decision for them.

The common perception of the Syrian situation in the United States is that Assad is a brutal dictator killing and cracking down on innocent protesters. However, just like the rest of the propaganda that the controlled media in the United States puts out against their enemies, we should all be skeptical. After all, those of us living in the United States should remember that this was the same media that told the world that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, resulting in a devastating war in Iraq. The lies went further than the media, though. The US State Department presented fraudulent evidence that Saddam had purchased yellow-cake from Niger, and that he had ties to Osama Bin Laden. Yet, here we are, years later having seemingly forgotten that the media and the government lied to justify a war in Iraq.

Then of course, we have the conflict in Libya. The liberal left in America that proudly objected and spoke out against George Bush’s invasion of Iraq seems to have proudly cheered Obama as he took action against Libya, claiming what transpired there was a “Success story”. The way the American media portrays Libya sets the stage for an invasion of Syria. Just like in Syria, Libya was portrayed as a dictatorship with the entirety of the population united against its tyrant ruler. The reason why it was so hard to dislodge Gaddafi was because he was using African mercenaries to compensate for his defecting military officers. The perception in the average American mind is that Gaddafi is out of power; Libya has regained its seat in the United Nations and the Arab League, and Libya is now becoming a democracy. It’s a shame that western media is not reporting the fighting which goes on in spite of Gaddafi’s death. In Bani Walid, A town in the Misrate district, Gaddafi loyalists retook the town and tore down the flag of the NTC, replacing it with the green flag of the Jamahiriya.

Of course, just like the propaganda in regards to Iraq, the truth was much more inconvenient for the neo-conservatives and liberals alike. A large part of the population was loyal to Gaddafi. This should come as no surprise due to the fact that Gaddafi provided the Libyans with free health care and education. He also funded public works programs that created running water, electricity, and homes for the Libyans. Moreover, every fact-finding mission that was dispatched to Libya disproved the myth of mercenaries. The so-called “African mercenaries” were simply African Migrant workers and Afro-Libyans. Even left-leaning organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, as well as former members of Congress Cynthia McKinney and Walter Fauntroy were forced not only to admit that the mercenaries were a myth, but that there was and is still a campaign of borderline genocide carried out against the Afro-Libyans by the rebels.

With the lies fresh in our minds, why should we buy into the propaganda that is being spread about Syria? It is true that there have been protests against Assad. However it’s also true that the Syrian rebels have been engaging in attacks against civilian targets. Whenever Israel launches an attack against the Palestinians, the American and British media demand that Israel be allowed to defend itself, even if the attack was unprovoked. By this logic, shouldn’t Assad also have the right to protect his nation from armed and violent gangs?

As someone who is not Syrian, I have no right to make a decision over what path the Syrians should take. However, if I could say one thing to them, it would be not seek the help of outside nations in deciding their fate. For them to appeal to any of the nations that belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would certainly be a fatal mistake. The Syrians who are calling for a no-fly zone and other forms of western intervention should take a long hard look at Nour Malaki’s brutal crackdown of the Iraqi people. They should look at the prolific amount of arms trafficked by the United States, Great Britain, and France to brutal dictators all around the globe. They should take a look at the consequences of economic “neo-liberalism” advocated by western leaders and by the IMF and the World Bank.

If perchance there are any Syrians reading this, you may think of your current situation as bleak and desperate, but consider the future.

-Alexander S.
February  17, 2012
Syracuse, NY, USA

Since the end of the Second World War we have been bombarded from all sides with references to the West’s “Judeo-Christian religion,” and “our Judeo-Christian heritage.” Politicians regularly invoke these principles, and even religious leaders trumpet the phrase as if it were a self-evident truth. So sacrosanct is this concept, that even secular leaders make appeals to it. In fact, in America, Judeo-Christianity is nearly secular, and almost always mentioned alongside concepts such as liberty, equality, and democracy – themselves purely concepts which are secular in nature.

In the secular realm, even liberal atheists can make appeals to “the West’s Judeo-Christian roots”.  They can never precisely name what these roots and values are, and in fact some liberals go so far as to say that things which are inherently anti-Christian are a part of that tradition based on a flawed understanding of Christian Scripture.  However, we know that truth is not relative.  It does not change depending on the speaker, and hence there must be something deeply flawed with the way that Judeo-Christianity is presented or how it is implemented by the elites.

There is no such religion as Judeo-Christianity. Judaism is a religion which is wholly independent of Christianity, and was in fact a rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The Talmud, Judaism’s second holiest book, refers to Jesus and his mother Mary in unequivocally harsh language, calling him a false teacher, and preaching hate against all Christians. Of course, in modern times, there are few Jews, and even fewer Christians who know about the Talmud, but the sentiment of Talmudism is present at the highest levels of Jewish leadership.

It is true that Judaism and Christianity share the “Old Testament”. However, the interpretations of the Old Testament differ greatly between Christians and Jews. Furthermore, according to Justin Martyr, the purpose of Christ’s ministry was to restore true religion and to denounce the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Consequently, Judaism establishes itself, as being inimical and opposed to Christianity from the very beginning, and diverged in that direction for the subsequent two centuries.

Thomas Aquinas, writing in the 13th century, believed that the moral precepts in the Bible predate Creation, being that they are established by God. Other precepts are ceremonial and judicial, and were established in the time of Moses, for a specific people and a specific time (in this case, the Ancient Hebrews). Accordingly, upon the coming of Christ they were not binding to non-Hebrews who converted to Christianity, because the New Covenant established through Christ is the instrument through which God offers mercy and atonement to mankind.

The anti-Christian nature of modern Judaism is one which Jewish scholars themselves are in agreement on. This very prominent and defining aspect of Judaism, is in fact what defines it as a religion. But it is more than a theological disagreement which defines Judaism as separate, and Judeo-Christianity to be an ahistorical concept.  Joseph Klausner, in his book, “Jesus of Nazareth” expressed the Judaic viewpoint that Christ’s teachings were “…irreconcilable with the spirit of Judaism.” Gershon Mamlak, a Zionist intellectual once claimed that Christianity is “in direct conflict to Judaism’s role as the Chosen people.”  Jewish writer Joshua J. Adler admits that, “The differences between Christianity and Judaism are much more than merely believing in whether the messiah already appeared or is still expected.”

If one takes the view that the religions of the world are in fact separate revelations of the Divine, through which man learns of a higher reality, then it follows that the diabolical attempts to distort, revise or eliminate these unique, ancient and divinely ordained patterns would be a grave error. The constant, politically motivated ideals to the imaginary entity of “Judeo-Christianity” are fully anti-traditional, because of its ultra-modernist theology. The fact is that Judeo-Christianity, given the voluminous history of anti-Christian attitudes by Jewish leaders and lay people alike, would not be viable had it not been secular in the first place.

Since the concept of Judeo-Christianity is invalid religiously speaking, it fulfills other purposes. In a world were political allegiances have replaced confessions of faith, Judeo-Christianity precisely fills the role of a secular cult. The purpose of such a cult is in fact to de-Christianize Christians.  The people who invented the concept predicted that, after the failure of the Soviet Union to enforce atheism, forcibly removing religion would be impossible.  However, by ostensibly appealing to a number of Christian ideas, and slowly inverting them, they could achieve their goal.  The role of Judeo-Christianity as a purely secular motivator is the reflection of the fact that one may be a considered “Jew” by birth even if he is not religious. It then proceeds from this that “secularism” is not, in fact, the enemy of Judeo-Christianity, but its mirror image. After all, if Judeo-Christianity is the kernel of Western civilization, there is no way that any society in the West can properly be identified as belonging to or being governed by Christian doctrines.

For Americans and other Western Europeans, one of the roles of propping up the term “Judeo-Christianity” is to integrate Jews into mainline of society, perhaps in an attempt to mitigate accusations against them of being usurpers of Western work ethic. In some ways, history once again speaks against this. From Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud to Leon Trotsky and the neo-conservatives of today, the politico-social movements which have gnawed away at what was once a Christian Europe were, in a large part, lead and organized by people who identified as Jewish.

The Jewish “core” of “Judeo-Christianity” can be seen through the attitude of modern Protestant churches towards Israel. In return, Christianity, or its secularized, institutionalized form, has become acceptable enough for the Jews to consider Christians (once their enemies) as allies. Under “Judeo-Christian” doctrine, the Jews reclaimed their status as the “chosen people” and so-called “Christian” Zionists began to sing the praises of Israel.  It is this belief which ascribes holiness to the state Israel.  This in itself is perhaps as an outgrowth the other bizarre Judeo-Christian “belief” of Shoahism. For this reason Judeo-Christianity is all to easily used by its by the leaders of Israel, to carry out a political agenda that favours that foreign political state over and ahead of the interests of America, or their fellow Christians. AIPAC and many American businessmen have profit interests in war and campaigned for new wars as a matter of business, but it is the Judeo-Christians who have added fuel to the fire.

Ultimately, the so-called Judeo-Christian values are ultimately another manifestation of modernism and militant secularism. They are an outgrowth of a doctrine which is needed not to improve oneself through the adherence to divine guidance, but a dogma which has created the modern societies.

RidingTheTiger author Hong Kyung-Jin assisted with the writing of this article.

In a little more than a week, Americans celebrate the birth of Abraham Lincoln, their 16th president as part of a federal “President’s Day” observance.

In the annals of American history, Lincoln, the sixteeth president of the United States, is accorded a special place because of his role in the Civil War.  After the Union won the war, Lincoln became known as the “Great Emancipator,” referring to his role in freeing African-American slaves from bondage.  Modern Republicans consider him the progenitor of the modern incarnation of their party, and the American people by and large portray him as a warmhearted Christian and a honest family man. Some people admire his humble upbringing on the then-frontier state of Kentucky, while others look up to his style of leadership and herald him as a military genius and master orator who helped the Union fight through the Civil War.

However, there is another side to Lincoln.  This tyrannical side is often overlooked by the victors of the Civil War, and as a consequence seldom mentioned in history books.  As American economist and historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo, and author of the book “Lincoln Unmasked” said:

The gigantic collection of myths, lies, and distortions that comprise The Legend of Abraham Lincoln is the ideological cornerstone of the American warfare/welfare state. It has been invoked for generations to make the argument that if the policies of the U.S. government are not “the will of God,” then at least they are the will of “Father Abraham.” Moreover, this legend — this false history of America — did not arise spontaneously. It was invented and nurtured by an intergenerational army of court historians who…are absolutely indispensable to any government empire.

The “real Lincoln,” is far from the benevolent and kind old man which has been taught for generations in schoolbooks and classrooms.  Lincoln’s faults, in fact were numerous, both as an individual and a politician.  Far from being the humble statesman that he is often portrayed as, he was, in fact a megalomaniacal tyrant whose influence on American politics were a death-knell for the Republic and the beginning of the American Empire.

Perhaps the most obvious were the draconian measures, that Lincoln took during the war to prevent criticism of his office and his person. Lincoln appropriated powers that no previous chief executive had thus far used. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and imprisoned 18,000 American citizens suspected of supporting the Confederacy without trial. Further, he jailed several thousand more citizens for attempting to vote against him, charging them with “polluting the ballot box,” and ordered purges of politicians who disagreed with him from congress in an attempt to supress anti-war sentiment within the Union. He also unconstiutionally invaded two non-seceeding states along with the Confederacy on the pretense that secession was treasonous, even though several states had attempted to seceed earlier in the 19th century and had not been found in violation of the law, and several states only signed the constitution in the first place under the assumption that secession was always an option.

Lincoln was ideologically very close to the German theoretician Karl Marx the father of communism. In his book Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution, the American historian James M. McPherson writes, “Lincoln championed the leaders of the European revolutions of 1848; in turn, a man who knew something about those revolutions — Karl Marx — praised Lincoln in 1865 as ‘the single-minded son of the working class’ who had led his ‘country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.” This is confirmed in a letter that Karl Marx himself wrote to Lincoln, in defense of his war against the Confederacy, stating: “From the commencement of the titanic American strife, the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the Star-Spangled Banner carried the destiny of their class.” In fact, Lincoln became such a hero to socialists and communists, that during the Spanish Civil War, the anti-Nationalist forces enlisted the help of the so-called “Abraham Lincoln Brigade,” which consisted of socialist and communist volunteers from the United States. In a nation which seems to be struck with horror at the slightest mention of Soviet or Chinese communism, it is indeed odd that Lincoln’s clearly socialist leanings are almost never referred to.

Lincoln is often referred to as the “Great Emancipator,” in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation. However, a close examination of the Proclamation reveals that it only freed slaves in states not currently occupied by the Union Army. Lincoln issued strict orders to the Union Army not to free any slaves they came across. Today, the historiographers and propagandists in America state that the War Between the States was fought to free the slaves, as evidenced by the Emancipation Proclamation. However, there were diverse issues leading to the Civil War, and the Emancipation Proclamation was only a political gesture which attempted to undermine the support that the Confederate States of America would recieve from European powers. Abraham Lincoln on many occasions claimed that African-Americans were an inferior, non-human race. He refused to align himself with abolitionists because he felt that they were too radical because of their claim that African-Americans were human beings. Finally, he wanted to forcibly deport all people of African descent back to Africa or possibly to a Caribbean nation because he believed that they were polluting the White race.

Another issue is that of Abraham Lincoln’s religious practices. Today, there are even many Christian churches which see Abraham Lincoln as a Christian. However, the truth is that despite the fact that Lincoln frequently quoted from the Bible as a political gimmick, he was never formally baptised in any church, nor did he join a church as an adult (it is possible, however, that he attended the Little Pigeon Church – the church his father attended – as a child). Historian and Christian author Dr. Mark Noll, Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame, states that “Lincoln never joined a church nor ever made a clear profession of standard Christian belief.” It is known that Lincoln had associations with the Freemasons, a satanic and anti-Christian cult. In 1860, while addressing the Grand Lodge of Illinois, Lincoln was recorded to have said, “Gentleman, I have always entertained a profound respect for the Masonic fraternity and have long cherished a desire to become a member.” Lincoln personally stated, “the Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma,” and was reported to have written a polemic against Christianity [1]. Lincoln was also known to have practiced witchcraft, often using ‘spirit mediums’ to contact his deceased son; Mary Todd Lincoln is said to have held séances in one of the upstairs rooms — a practice President Lincoln enthusiastically tolerated. Here, we see that history debunks yet another popular myth on a revered historical character. Far from being a Christian, Lincoln can be considered Deist at most, and atheist at worst.

Today, another American President has risen to fill Lincoln’s shoes — or so the media tells us.  For a person who supports foreign wars, eavesdropping on citizens, indefinite detention, or the right to kill citizens without due process, Obama perhaps fits the bill, although not in the way that the elites would like to admit. One can only wonder what extraordinary fabrications and tales of wonder the future court historians will invent to propagate that myth.

In 1956, the American anthropologist Horace Miner gave first shed some insight  into the nature of the Nacirema people and their customs.  It was through the landmark work, Body Ritual Among the Nacirema that the bizarre cults of these people first came to the knowledge of the American people.  Then, about thirty years ago, Neil B. Thompson continued that work by writing on the Elibomotua cult and environmental modification in the magazine “Natural History”.  In describing the fall of this mysterious culture, the latter also described the ‘ritual’ architecture of these people in the following passage:

“Trees, if in large enough numbers and size to influence the appearance of the landscape, were removed. In treeless regions, hills were leveled and large holes were dug and partially filled with water. In a few areas the Nacirema imported structural steel with which they erected tall, sculpturesque towers. Some of these towers were arranged in series, making long lines that extended beyond the horizon, and were linked by several cables running through the air. Others, particularly in the northern fringe area, were erected in no discernible geometric pattern and were connected by hollow pipes laid on the surface of the earth.”

Today, many students of anthropology have read, or at least heard of Miner’s work.  However, after reading, it is obvious that the “Nacirema,” are not an indigenous people of a distant time or place, but the Americans themselves.  While Miner’s intention might have been to satirize the language of his contemporaries, they also satirize aspects of American culture, such as medical practice and psychiatry.  Miner’s work serves as a sort of thought experiment, attempting to take a critical look at American modernity from a distant observer, rather than a person who is a part and parcel of that culture.

In some respects, Miner did not do anything new.  Johnathan Swift had satirized English society in Gulliver’s Travels.  However, by removing himself from the scene of American life, and looking inward, both Miner and Thompson essentially cast the American nation as seemingly primitive.  Because of this, while Miner may not have intended to critique modern life, the practice still recalls Evola’s notion that the American mind itself is “puerile and primitive” and an “example of regression”.  Therefore, while in technological terms, the America is “advanced” due to its technological-industrial complexes, there is a strong savage, primitive (or “telluric”) element that is prevalent within American culture.  As Evola believed that “primitiveness” did not necessarily refer to “original peoples,” but rather to the degenerating remains of more ancient races that have disappeared, this is not an unfounded comparison.  For instance, a number of aspects of modern-day American life, such as an almost fanatic dedication to secular, civic religion, are fairly reminiscent of certain primitive cults as practiced by indigenous peoples.  The main difference is that the former is purely of a chthonic and earthly nature, while the latter display some belief in a divine and other-worldly source.

The concepts of political correctness and democracy also form a sort of secular religion which creates a society without any ideals other than what its elites claim to be ideals.  A “secular religion” is essentially a set of philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet, possess qualities similar to those of a religion.  Political correctness often serves this function in modern societies, because it often serves to replace spiritual or religious values with secular ones, “counter-initiatory” values.  Another type of “secular religion,” although few might think of it as such, is ”Holocaustianity”, which is complete with a set of dogmas, commandments, high priests, sites of pilgrimages, temples, relics, miracles, and prophecies.  In this context, the mere fanaticism of liberalism is enough for it to be seen as no more than a superstitious and primitive cult.

The cultural practices of the Americans, too, could easily be mistaken for those of primitive peoples in a different context.  Many of the sporting contests resemble the regressive aspects of primitive rituals with their haphazardly violent and decadent actions.  Moreover in entertainment, we can observe young men and women gyrating their bodies to the a savage beat, as if venerating some type of ancient fertility cult!

In the material world, modern man is in a state of decline rather than progress.  For Guénon, the “Iron Age” or “Kali Yuga” has stripped man of his dignity.  Instead of elevating man to mastery over material elements, he was now controlled by the various things which were produced.  The mysticism of the soul, according to Guénon, had been replaced it with consumerism and materialism, with the most fashionable fads appealing to the wallet and the mind.  Guénon had also re-iterated that even “spirituality” appeals to the “lowest common denominator,” and at most is a distractive panacea.

Thompson’s work on environmental modification is also interesting given the nature of “modern” industrial society.  While industrialized nations allow people to live in relative comfort, those nations are also suffering from real environmental problems.  Consequently, when combined with the constant quest for quantity, this may ultimately be the downfall of civilization, as Thompson (fictitiously) suggests.  Already, alternatives to such such problems have been discussed by such “deep ecology” theorists as Pentti Linkola and others.

As the time goes on, the regression continues unabated as modernity drags us further into the path of degeneration.  Being able to recognize this problem is the first step in solving it.

At the request of some of our readers, RidingTheTiger.org has opened a discussion forum.

The discussion forum will serve as an area to discuss politics, current events, religion, philosophy, and science from a Traditionalist and Third Position perspective.  Registration is free, and forum members will be able to post as soon as they are approved by the moderating team.

We hope that you will take advantage of this opportunity, and we hope to see you at the forum.  You can click on the link below to reach the forum:

Recently, the news of a two British lesbians who decided to raise a child in a “gender neutral” environment reached newspapers both here and in England because the couple decided that to finally reveal that the child was a boy.

Only, the child wasn’t being raised to be “gender neutral”.  Despite the claims that they were just trying to encourage him to “avoid stereotypes,” he was encouraged to play with dolls to hide his masculinity, and banned from wearing clothes deemed too masculine.  In other words, the couple who are raising this child are actually obsessed with stereotypes, and wanted to mold him into the stereotype of an effeminate girl, all the while themselves living up to the stereotype of fanatically ultra-leftist and anti-male lesbians who at best will have created a completely confused child who will grow up to be a cross-dresser or transvestite who is unable to hold down a proper relationship.

It does not come as a surprise, that this social experiment was conducted at the expense of a boy, either.  Other instances in which “gender neutral” environments are propped up are always done at the expense of eliminating masculinity.  And in schools where this supposed ideology of “equality” is enforced, the focus is usually on encouraging boys to learn to be submissive, while simultaneously encouraging girls to be “strong and independent”.  Furthermore, we can only imagine the outrage which would be produced by the controlled media if a heterosexual Christian couple refused to allow their young daughter to wear men’s clothing based on the interpretation of the books of Deuteronomy or Leviticus.  The media would be ablaze with stories condemning the supposed “abuse” and decrying the parents for imposing religion on the young girl, and demanding that she be placed in a foster home.

This is not mere speculation; it has already begun.  A couple in England were removed from the list of foster parents refused to indoctrinate their children about homosexuality and take teens to teenagers to gay association meetings.  In America, parents who named their child “Adolf Hitler” had their children kidnapped by the state, despite the lack of abuse, merely because of the children’s given names.  Certainly, not enforcing the state’s ideology on foster children is no worse than inflicting your own ideology on your children.

It was the late leader of Libya, President Mummar Gaddafi once said quite simply that “women are females and men are males“.  He also said, “the male has played the role of the strong and striving not by design, but simply because he is created that way. The female has played the role of the beautiful and the gentle involuntarily because she was created so. This natural rule is just, partly because it is natural, and partly because it is the basic rule for freedom.”  Clearly, Gaddafi understood that there were some things which are characteristic of human behaviour which cannot be modified, unless it is done so forcefully.

This is a simple truth which liberals in the so-called “first world” want to go to utmost lengths to suppress and deny through social engineering and means of tyrannical suppression of human rights.  Liberals do not respect natural law, but rather declare an open revolt against it.  Because even the most radical feminist ideologues can never completely recreate the male personality in a woman, they created an ideology based on the hatred of men, which desires “revenge” through the destruction of Western culture (and indeed all cultures which cannot measure up to their expectations).  This alone shows that ultimately, feminism is a highly fallacious and malicious ethic, but of the decadence of our modern times.

Such is disturbing news, and one of many signs of the ‘beginning of the end’ of the West as we know it.  It was the masculine, heroic, and “Uranian” cultural tradition which gave rise not just to the Western-Atlantic tradition, but the great civilisations of the world.  Historically, Rome reached a peak under an undeniably patriarchal system lasted for 600 years, but declined in its later years because of its social decadence.  When we look back at Rome, it is almost a mirror image of any Western European country today.■

Robert James Fischer, known to the world and as “Bobby” Fischer, the world chess champion, passed away on this day in 2008.  He was 63 years old.  Widely known as one of the world’s best chess players, he was remembered as perhaps the man who revolutionized the game of chess more than anyone else in the 20th century.

As a child prodigy, Fischer defeated Byrne, then twice his age in the now-famous  ”Game of the Century“.  By the age of 14, he was playing in United States Championships, winning each by at least one point.  And by the age of 15, he was accorded the title of grandmaster, and became the youngest candidate for the World Championship up until that time.  He won the 1963–64 U.S. Championship 11–0, the only perfect score in the history of the tournament..

In 1972, he became the first, and so far only, American to win the official World Chess Championship, defeating defending champion Boris Spassky in a match held in Reykjavík, Iceland. In 1992, he played a rematch with Spassky in Yugoslavia, earning him the wrath of the US government, and forcing him to flee his homeland.

During his later life, he became a controversial figure, due to his critiques of the American government and the Zionist entity.  Never one to shy away from truth, he referred to former President of the United States, George W. Bush as a “war criminal,” and criticized the inordinate amount of power held by the Zionist lobby in America.

Constantly hounded by American authorities, he lived in Hungary, the Philippines and Japan.  After being deported from Japan (which Fischer maintained was a “kidnapping,” he finally settled down in Iceland in the latter years of his life.

His other contributions to the game include the Fischer delay game clock and the creation of Fischer Random chess, a variant of chess which is highly dependent on theory as opposed to the memorization of opening moves.

Today and tomorrow, children all over America, will likely spend some portion of the day eulogizing a modern-day saint, who has been canonized by the media.  Assemblies will be called, guest speakers will be brought in, and even others will be “mobilized” in memory of this supposedly greater-than-life hero.  Likewise, on this day (an honor not even accorded the founder of the United States) the media, on this day, will whip themselves up into a frenzy of praise for the so-called “Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.”

But like all icons of modernity, who are held to lofty heights by the sycophantic politicians and spineless media, let’s take a closer look. Who was Martin Luther King, and is there more to this man than meets the eye?

Let’s start with his titles, “Doctor” and “Reverend”.  According to many sources, King, was a habitual plagiarist.  For instance, in 1947, he delivered his first public sermon.  It is widely acknowledged today that this sermon was plagiarized from a homily by Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick entitled “Life is What You Make It”. King’s first book, “Stride Toward Freedom,” was plagiarized from numerous sources, all unattributed, according to documentation recently assembled by sympathetic King scholars Keith D. Miller, Ira G. Zepp, Jr., and David J. Garrow.  As if that weren’t enough, the four senior editors of “The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr” (available here from the University of California Press) admit that: “Judged retroactively by the standards of academic scholarship, [his writings] are tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism.”  Even King’s doctoral dissertation, “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman,” for which he was awarded a doctorate in theology, contains more than fifty complete sentences plagiarized from the PhD dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer, “The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich’s Concept of God”.

So it appears that the “Doctor Reverend King” was neither truly a doctor, nor a reverend, but neither was his real name “Martin Luther”.  Born Michael King, his name was changed by his father to “Martin Luther,” after the Protestant reformer.  He never legally changed his name. To this day, he lived and died as Michael King.  This, however, is a relatively small detail in comparison to other, more shocking details of King’s life.

Michael King, Jr: Human rights hero or fraud?

The late Samuel T. Francis, an iconoclastic columnist of the late 20th century, quotes Charles D. Brennan, the former Assistant Director of the FBI, as saying regarding King’s more intimate life was characterized by “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”  Because King was suspected of links with communist agents (most notably Stanley Levinson), under the order of U. S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, the FBI wired King’s offices and hotel rooms from 1963 to 1968.  The tapes showed that in Las Vegas, King’s aids paid $100 each to prostitutes to join him in orgies; they also show that in New York City, an intoxicated King threatened a young White girl working for civil rights to submit to his strange sexual tastes or he would jump from the 13th floor window.  Despite the fact that this was common knowledge at the time, a federal judge ordered that this damning evidence be sealed until 2027.  It should be noted that this kind of cover-up is not insignificant.  At a time when the media posthumously maligned Osama bin Laden and Colonel Mummar Gaddafi as borderline sexual deviants, even without much evidence, the very same media goes to the utmost lengths to disguise Michael King’s awful conduct.

Today, criticism of King’s lifestyle, even if they are mutually exclusive of his worldview, are met with disdain.  At a time when almost any living or historical figure can be cast as a villain, Michael King still occupies a prominent place in the pantheon of secular religion.  In America, any time a justification for any act is needed, King’s name is invoked, much as the devoutly faithful might invoke a saint’s intercession.  Perhaps we could only expect so much from a society in which the only article of faith is absolute egalitarianism.  As Francis pointed out: “In the new nation and the new creed of which the King holiday serves as symbol, all institutions, values, heroes, and symbols that violate the dogma of equality are dethroned and must be eradicated. Those associated with the South and the Confederacy are merely the most obvious violations of the egalitarian dogma and thereform must be the first to go, but they will by no means be the last.”

However, the iconclasts are finally speaking out, and with their bold new introspection, the myths are finally coming tumbling down.