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.■

Aleksandr Dugin

Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin (Russian: Алексaндр Гeльевич Дyгин) is a Russian political scientist who came to prominence by promulgating a theory of geopolitics known as Eurasianism in his book Foundations of Geopolitics. He was a key member of a number of Third Positionist groups such as the National Bolshevik Party, which was an anti-liberal political organization critical of American interventions in the former Soviet Union. To some degree, he credited the Belgian theorist Jean-François Thiriart and Evola as inspiration.

In recent times, Dugin has become an increasingly mainstream fixture in the Russian intellectual élite.  It should be said at this point that many of Dugin’s political views have merit, and indeed some portions of his outlook are difficult or impossible to deny.  However, the focus of this article is not upon the Dugin’s theories themselves, but rather their genesis, and we will attempt, here to briefly analyze the relationship between Evola, Guénon and Dugin.

Evidence

The original basis of Traditionalism, as promulgated by Guénon was that, in high antiquity, a “primordial Tradition” (also referred to as “perennial wisdom,” or sophia perennis) had been revealed and existed among mankind.  As time progressed, the world and its people became decadent, slothful, and increasingly disconnected from this Tradition.  In the so-called “Kali Yuga” or “Iron Age,” there remain only a few traces of this Tradition, which manifests itself in the teachings of the major world religions.  Traditionalism, then, is a rejection of the myth of progress that had commonly been accepted throughout the 20th century.

Such a view was accepted by Julius Evola, whose works such as Revolt Against the Modern World and Men Among the Ruins, advanced Traditionalist theory.  Whereas Guénon expounded a religious and spiritual theory of Traditionalism, Evola expanded this to show how the religious and spiritual effects manifested in political and social phenomena.  In other words, Evola, though he has his differences, presents us with the utilization of Guenon’s ideas.  This can be seen readily in how Evola treats politics: while the “old” Traditionalists were not concerned with Politics, Evola does delve into politics.  Dugin, however, is explicitly and overtly political in his outlook.  It is Evola then, along with the other figures of the European New Right who influenced him, such as Alain de Benoist and Troy Southgate, who form the crucial link between the older Traditionalist school of  Guénon and Evola.

Dugin, however, does not reject modernity as definted by Evola or Guénon in its entirety.  In fact, he proposed “modernization without Westernization” in 1997.  While citing the two Traditionalists frequently in his work, it seems that his own theoretical work is geared towards an abstraction of these themes, and whilst Evola explicitly rejected the myth of progress, the national-Bolshevik idea coincided with the renewed sense of progress in Russia.  Moreover, On more than one occasion, Dugin has even proposed Alistair Crowley as a Traditionalist.  This shows a remarkable misunderstanding of the original Traditionalism, as Guénon had condemned Crowley as being a stark anti-traditionalist.

Verdict:

If Dugin is a Traditionalist, then he is the founder of a uniquely Russian interpretation of it, which instrumentalizes the original ideas of the 20th century Traditionalist scholars, but re-packages them so as to be useful in Dugin’s political Third Way-oriented worldview.  This is not to say that Dugin was not influenced by the Traditionalist school of thought, but rather that it does not play a major role in Dugin’s own thought.  And while it is true that there are plausible links between the Third Way and Traditionalist schools, the Third Way must be viewed first as a political system, and not as an entire worldview in and of itself.

There is a disturbing amount of silence regarding a portion of Oslo bomber Anders Behring Breivik’s ideology.  Although people have rushed to call him a “far-right reactionary,” it seems that the media does not want to tell us the whole truth.  This can hardly be surprising, given that the mainstream media can only conceive two plausible enemies for any given event: either the perpetrators are Jihadists of an Islamic persuasion, or else they must be right-wing extremists.  In this case, Breivik’s action will be used by politicians in an attempt to silence those who are critics of Third World immigration into Europe, in much a similar way that the attacks of September 11th were used to invite harsher criticism of Islam.  Breivik’s original Facebook profile which was seemingly changed, had originally no indication that he was a conservative or a Christian.  Instead it does list two anti-German politicians from the World War Two era, Max Manus and Winston Churchill who are to some degree held in esteem by certain leftists.

In his own words, he is a conservative and opponent of “cultural Marxism.”  However, he also describes himself as a Freemason, a philo-Semitic Zionist, and a “pro-gay anti-racist,” and an anti-National Socialist, who constantly uses Nazism as a paradigm for evil.  Breivik is also somewhat approving of feminism, at least in the context of the Vienna School.  If not, then he certainly makes no attempt to refute its ideological shortcomings in the same manner that he treats homophobia or racism.  His rhetoric in this regard is hardly distinguishable from any other Zionist group, who we find frequently copying the rhetoric the radical left wing when it comes to National Socialism; for instance, Breivik denounces certain European nationalist movements which he feels are too cold towards Israel.  This is being conveniently stifled in the press, and much focus has been given to his supposed nationalist, conservative tendencies, in such a way to make people who support such things without being supporters of the Zionist entity to appear to be violent and irrational – and thus in the same league as Breivik.

However, Breivik seems more than slightly ideologically confused, for at the core of his personal philosophy is an internal contradiction.  While most people might not understand it, these can be made obvious in a short amount of time.  For instance,  to be a “pro-gay anti-racist” is, in fact a very large part of modern-day cultural Marxism, and directly opposed to Christian culture.  Moreover, his philo-semitism seems in direct contradiction with acknowledging the largest proponents of Norwegian multiculturalism and open immigration.  His self-professed condescending attitude towards Islam, then, must also stem from a relativistic perspective, since he disavows the ethnonationalist path.  In particular, he views Islam as opposing Zionism, and also as opposition towards homosexuals and feminists, whom he claims to support in some degree.  In other words, Breivik incorporates half-truths with complete lies as a means of discrediting real social and cultural conservatism.  His only goal was to infiltrate conservatism and nationalism from within, so that those with thoughts like his could dominate that movement.  In this way, Breivik is far more reminicent of Henryk Broder, or the French Jewish-Communist Bernard Henry Levy, than he is of any nationalist writer.

It is clear that Breivik represents a neoconservative agenda close to that of Geert Wilders’ which exists to defend so-called “secular-democratic values,” without clearly defining what those values are, while also rejecting traditional nationalist sentiments, such as the importance of ethnicity.  In other words, Breivik did the nationalist movements of Europe no favor, his actions are detrimental to those who want European survival, and his ideology is a muddled agglomeration of inconsistent concepts.  His true colors will become very obvious in the coming months; it could be possible  that, if he is indeed a mole, that he may not even be prosecuted.

While we must for now mourn the tragedy which has recently befallen Norway, we must also realize that there are individuals and organizations who will now subvert these events to their benefit, and Breivik has given them a wide opportunity to do this.  If Breivik is not a mere actor, and the documents purported to be authored by him are genuine, then indeed he is a misguided individual who has done more harm than good to the cause of European nationalism.  True European nationalists must fully reject Anders Breivik, the child murderer, and his heinous actions.

J. Aage Ulriksen contributed this article from Oslo, Norway. A man of insatiable curiosity motivated by his passion for history, art, architecture, cuisine, and political science, Mr. Ulriksen has traveled the nations of the world. He maintains residences in New York and Oslo.

Links:

Breivik, l’attentatore di Oslo. Un’ideologia identitaria ma non fondamentalista
Israel Shamir: Norway – Mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is anti-racist, pro-homosexual and pro-Israel