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

Every so often here at RidingTheTiger, we get messages saying that we’re going too far, and that we need to tone down our rhetoric. Such people sometimes say that we are pushing away allies and making our message less popular through advocating a reactionary or “extreme” platform.  In a word, they wish that we would become more moderate.

In some respects they are correct.  We do not pretend that our message is going to be palatable to the vast majority of the Western public.  Our mission is not to fish for allies, and our message is not meant to be one for the light-hearted. Our goal has never been to appease the misunderstandings of others, nor is it to uphold the status quo of a decadent society. Anyone who has been offended by what we say here fully has the right to feel offended, but we are under no obligation to change our worldview to appease them.

The spirit of Traditionalism embodies the noble Weltanschauung of all which is heroic, masculine, and at times, defiantly reactionary. While the pessimists hold that at worst, any political revival of Tradition may be impossible, there are those who believe that it may be possible to revive some of these traditions on a small scale through mobilising the masses to a truly culturally conservative revolution.  Such a revolution must have clear goals and clear principles around which those taking part should rally.

Today, many self-proclaimed “conservatives” are constantly agitating for compromise with “the other side”.  More often than not, such people are merely opportunists who ignore, at costly effects, the fact that the modernists and bourgeois-liberals have no desire to make any concessions of their own. This is to say that the “true believers” in the secular-liberal system are only interested in using the agents of compromise to sabotage the political process from within. To such people, the only “compromise” that they will accept is that of the opposite side’s values, and whoever disagrees is either a racist, anti-semite, a totalitarian, or mentally ill.  Needless to say, those who do not take a strong stand against such opponents are at a disadvantage.

In what we’ve come to know about politics, compromise is often viewed as a good thing.  Examining the voting records of any politician in the world will expose the fact that the modern politicians are known to waver on an issue in order to gain votes in the next election, as a result of the inverted materialistic, and short-term focus of democracy.  However, after centuries of subversion, even at the most practical level, it is not possible to gain the desired results by “working with the system”.

If we trace the devolution of society, we can contrast the modern world with that of the classical world. In the ancient world, there was a strict hierarchy of socio-political, and religious-spiritual functions.  Masculinity, bravery, honour, and intellectualism were upheld by men of good breeding.  By contrast, today’s world is ruled by financial oligarchs of questionable worth, who in turn rely on the consumers and anti-intellectual “proles” for support, promoting a dysgenic egalitarianism and the reign of quantity over quality.

However, we need not trace the irrationality of “compromise” to its most ancient roots. In fact, the rabid secularism and humanism of today would be at conflict even with the religion and general attitudes of a century ago. Whereas even liberals 100 years ago might have recognized the permission of a church to deny certain persons sacraments, in the ultra-modern era, “conservative” British Parliamentarians are demanding that churches be forced to perform homosexual marriages.

Yet another, but broader, example of where being “moderate” is useless is in the men’s rights movement.  There are surely a few activists who rightly point out the problems with feminism.  Still fewer go further and speak out  meekly voice protest against feminist policy at the highest level of government.  While these are good things to focus on, there relatively few, if any, who would actually dare to touch the Holy Grail of modernity, equality, seemingly forgetting that it was the demand for absolute equality in the first place that feminism was based on.  They also seem to forget that a majority of feminists don’t want equality, but reverse discrimination, and that fourth-wave feminists are anything but moderate.  But, sadly, a large portion of men’s rights activists seem to ignore this, and instead, they focus on minor issues that they face in the modern world, such as having to hold the door open for women (which they incorrectly define as “chivalry”).

Sometimes, non-violence is suicide.  Similarly, compromise is suicide when there are those who want nothing more than to see your downfall.

For these reasons, those who are meekly advocating a half-hearted “compromise” with liberals are doing more harm than good. They are in essence promoting the victory of the decadent liberal gradualists, who have incrementally been destroying Western civilisation, and who also aspire to destroy Eastern civilisation by proxy.  Continued compromise with Only when the liberals, secularists, and modernists disavow and fully condemn their own extremists, such as Andrea Dworkin, Jesse Jackson, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and last but not least, Barack Obama, a host of others, can any talk of mediation and compromise begin.

Until then, we must hold aloft the banner of Traditionalism and Traditionalist thought, and advance without fear.

With the arrival of 2012, the American Presidential election is sure to be a topic which is on many people’s minds, both in America and abroad.

Among the candidates, there is one person in particular who seems to earn the anger and vitriol of the media, special interest groups, and lobbyists.  That person is none other than Dr. Ron Paul, the 76-year old physician and congressman from Texas.

It seems every time there is a news story on the mainstream news regarding his campaign, it is almost always negative.  In contrast, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the media gushed over Barack Obama, and the media coverage of his campaign was almost entirely positive.  What can only be described as an all-out attack on candidate Paul in the media, by both neoconservative and far-left pundits, should be very telling indeed.  While the media is consistently lambasting Ron Paul for supposedly “racist” newsletters published in his name, they hardly ever bring up Obama’s association with a black supremacist church.  Then again, if observation tells us anything about the way that the media operates, the more vociferously the media clamours against something, the better the chance is that there is something half-way decent about that something.  And, when the “left” and the “right” (for the lack of better terms) start agreeing on who to hate, that something might be a very decent thing indeed.

You may already be familiar with some of these criticisms.  On the left, people criticise him for being a “racist” and an “isolationist” who opposes illegal immigration.  They also dislike his views regarding civil liberties, because he would apply civil liberties equally to all American citizens, including European-Americans, African-Americans and Asian-Americans.  Of course, this isn’t good enough for social liberals, who believe that human rights only apply to certain groups.  But while we’re at it, neoconservatives aren’t helping Paul either, citing, among other things, his refusal to become a hard-liner with respect to Iran, and lack of support for Israel (disregarding that he’d end all foreign aid) as a key reason why he is “too extreme” to be a viable candidate.  Even the more liberal wing of the Republican Party seems to think that Paul is “too conservative”.

Ron Paul: Visionary or dangerous man?

It’s far from the purpose of this essay to endorse any candidate in a democratic election.  Moreover, here at RidingTheTiger, we’re far from being libertarians, although we might agree with Ron Paul that the government wastes too much time and money with things that are ultimately non-issues.  However, in one respect, Dr. Paul does deserve credit.  He has been consistent, and stands up for what he believes in.  And he comes across as being an honest man.

Te way that the media, as well as certain non-government agencies view Ron Paul is revealing.  The current front-runner, as the Iowa Caucus would have us believe is Mitt Romney.  But, Romney, it turns out, is not that different from Obama.  His record as governor of Massachusetts was far from what might be called “conservative”.  The American Spectator reported that in 2008, despite his attempts to cast himself as a right-of-center conservative, he had “previously staked out liberal positions on abortion, guns, immigration and a litany of other issues”.  Santorum, who came in second place in Iowa, was originally projected to get only half as many votes as Paul, causing some people to suspect voter fraud.

It is a known fact that most of the media favors the Democratic party.  Because of this, a weak Republican candidate would be seen favourably to the media, if only because it would make Obama look stronger.  For instance, some observers had noted that the choice of McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008 was a blunder, which allowed Obama to more easily win the election in that year.  But leaving aside party-politics for a moment, to those who pull the strings on Capitol Hill, if Obama’s not going to win, his opponent should at least be someone who is not that different.

One group has a vested interest in smearing Paul (besides the obvious suspects at the Federal Reserve) seems to be the Zionist lobby.  As the Forward reports, the far-left ADL accuses Paul of having “extreme views on U.S. aid to Israel” and having “racist and homophobic but also anti-Israeli” views.  It should come as no surprise that these are the same accusations being made in the media by both the “mainstream” sources, as well as those who consider themselves more “conservative”.  Meanwhile, a more recent Forward article praises Romney and Santorum for being “professed Israel-lovers,” while hinting that Republicans should jump ship and vote for Obama, in the event that Paul should get the nomination.  The reason for the ADL’s hostility is clear.  Paul’s ideas do not benefit Israel exclusively.  And it follows that the media, which is closely linked, politically speaking, to the ADL is being used to slander him at every possible opportunity.

People who are aware of their situation in America are tired of having their Constitutional rights violated.  Many people have also begun to realise that the liberals and neoconservatives are both two sides of the same coin, and are no longer surprised by any revelation of the government’s hypocrisy or crookedness. Ron Paul, at least in his rhetoric, and to a large extent in his voting record, has shown that unlike the other candidates, who are willing to circumvent the Constitution to either the bankers or foreign interests, he is at least willing to defend the Constitution.  On the other hand, the candidates championed by the media all promote the expansion of Federal power and cater to every possible definable special interest.  Ron Paul clearly opposes such an abomination and the media, as well as special interest groups (namely AIPAC and the ADL) support it.  This is the fundamental difference between Ron Paul and other candidates, and why the media and special interest groups go out of their way to denounce Paul much in the same manner that the Soviet commissars would denounce dissidents.  The great danger for the lobbyists and the special interest groups is that to the average person, Paul represents something of a bye-gone era of American common sense.

So, in perhaps what can only be described as a “Bizarro-like,” down-is-up (or politically speaking, “left-is-right”) fashion, we’re being told that Ron Paul would destroy America, and is somehow going to be bad for us if he wins.  It may ultimately be true, as others have noted here on this site, that America’s collapse is not too far ahead.  While it’s sad that those who choose to vote are voting for the lesser of two evils, I doubt that if Ron Paul wins, it could be any worse than another term of Obama, or a term of Romney or Santorum.  The fact is that if the liberals and neoconservatives are free to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior through social engineering, this process will be far more painful than it already is.   Nearly a century of bad politics have shown that their manifesto is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad ideas which have done more to harm Western civilisation than anything else.

However, for those who believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility rather than the Freudo-Marxist welfare state that America has become.

Ron Paul, however imperfect he may be, is miles ahead of the other candidates.

Deus Vult!

It is significant to mention that even though we may be by admission considered to be “reactionary”, it is also important not to be aligned with many movements and individuals which label themselves as such.  While many movements claim that they represent conservatism or even “paleoconservatism,” their actions and actual creed can speak volumes for their true intentions.  Tradition is a perennial set of principles which are eternal and ancient rather than a merely romantic yearning for dead past.  While pride in one’s own past and ancestry is a positive trait, and, indeed, a healthy one, traditional ideologies must show that they are living instead of frozen in time.  The web of espionage and controlled interests is thick, successful, and all too real.  There are many people who wish to wage a heroic, defiant, masculine, and aristocratic struggle only to fail because of idealism.  People of substance imbued with these values are hard to find, rare, and perhaps unreachable as they suffer from similar burdens of apathy, passion, and lack of trust.  It is necessary to bridge the spiritual distance between like-minded souls, but also with care and concern as the shadowy hand of spycraft will be close.  Caveat actor et cave canem.

Divide et impera – to divide and conquer is an ancient and effective strategy, but it is still very effective today.  The divisive natures of unwise men can be easily manipulated to achieve ends that unwittingly serve more Satanic interests.  Sadly, those manipulated are often completely oblivious to the real end of their actions, which are to continue to mental and spiritual slavery of others including themselves.  Those who are aware and yet still side with these foolish parties are committing a grave error.  They can be much more than just useful idiots oblivious: a real threat consuming resources and destroying legitimacy.  In this way, they are a part of the problem, and not a part of the solution to modernity, and become their own worst enemies.  A glimpse of their soul can be seen in actions and character.

There are also reasons beyond puppetry and incompetence that these “regressive” parties must be rejected.  Many of these movements do not only throw nations and regions into chaos, they also focus on ideas which are not all together Traditional in substance, and which in fact, will destroy society from within.  Syncretic, or atavistic, such organs often reject historical truth, spiritual developments, and philosophical thoughts indicative of a Divine Truth.  It is far simpler to deny a static yet adaptable form for something idealized, impossible, and dead.  In the convincing cloak of purity and piety these parties conceal changes to the doctrines of faith and ideology leading them to be erosive, violent, and toxic.  The yearning for wisdom, transcendent greatness, and temporal power leads to visions of a golden age.  Our young are most apt to fall for this image because it appeals to their need for a purpose.  It is important to guide them to the not-so-obvious true form of Truth in order to protect their hearts and souls while also protecting Tradition.  A struggle thus begins with these people to realize a vision impossible not just because of the difference of spirit between the ages, but also because the physical conditions make such goals impossible.  More simply, only time, effort, and perseverance will yield fertile fruits.  Enduring Tradition and Truth will prevail, but only with concerned spirits focused on cultivating it at the expense of those regressive and reactionary movements at once modern spiritually, intellectually contaminated reactions to modern realities.  The fungus and filth must be removed regardless of its seductive form.

The key is a return to the fundamentals.  Those who call themselves “fundamentalists” and who reject the fundamentals are charlatans.  They are a cancer.  Seek the Truth of Light, and find the reality behind the events and shifting formation of politics.  Though it is an optimism of our time to believe that religion and politics live truly in different spheres, the profane presence of the state and physical interests exist to corrupt, to control, and to strangle everything in its quest for a secular dominance.  Novus Ordo Seclorum: The goal to be attained by anti-Traditional forces cannot be withstood merely through political means, but also spiritually and mentally through proper skill.  This means not being led astray by that which is outwardly righteous and inwardly adulterous.  Always move with care and concern.  Remember, do not discount legitimate movements pursuing noble ends, but certain language, practices, and connections should make one wary.

During the past few months, I have had the opportunity to travel to several countries and speak to many audiences in an various settings. These travels have been most enlightening, because the attitudes I received have been markedly different.  In Europe, I was greeted mainly with suspicion and disdain: this was the 21st century, not the 19th, one Frenchman told me.  He said with a sort of triumphant disdain, that my ideas were dying out, and soon there would be not even “a single person who remembered what they were”.  In Asia, the reception was actually much more pleasant, for at least they had the politeness to “hear me out”.

One of the more surreal experiences occurred at a university in China. After I had delivered my scheduled lecture, the floor was opened to questions from the audience. Several Chinese students stood up, and asked for clarifications on what I had said, or requested that I expound on certain points that I had made during the lecture. Though their English was less than fluent, these exchanges were meaningful, and the students had made cogent points which in their own ways, were worthy of note. Among this crowd though, was an American exchange student. She stood up, and on the verge of crying, said that she was “deeply” offended by the many “misogynist, racist, crypto-fascist” remarks that I made throughout my speech.  Although she wasn’t able to identify precisely what had offended her, on my failure to deliver the expected apology, her tears turned to insults, as she began to berate the other listeners in the lecture hall for “giving hate a platform,” and stormed out of the room.

What was interesting about the entire incident was that the Chinese students, in this instance, were far more open-minded than the lone American student. I had always been taught that the Chinese were brainwashed, but in fact, it seemed as if the American student was the one who had been indoctrinated. But I really should have not been surprised. As anyone who has spent time in American academia can attest to, the “liberal arts” education in America is now a bland ritual in conformity. What passes for “education,” especially in the realms of politics or sociology is nothing but a test of adherence to a litany of political allegiances.  To deviate in any small way from these is to risk the permanent condemnation one’s career, as even the relatively “inoffensive” Hans-Hermann Hoppe can attest to.

Coming from such an environment, those who manage to make it to an advanced stage of study in politics or sociological studies, inevitably become oversocialized, since one would be required to act and think in a prescribed manner in order to do so.  Moreover, they must subconsciously reconcile a multitude of contradictions in order to justify a worldview which is flawed at the core and ultimately unsustainable. As a consequence, they will inevitably develop severe psychological disorders that they inherit from their pseudo-intellectual bosses.

The tragicomic irony of the American student was that she did not realize to what degree her conditioning had taken place.  Throughout her education — perhaps even beginning as three or four — she was likely taught which ideas were acceptable (“tolerant”) and which were not (“offensive” or “intolerant”).  She was likely also trained to react with revulsion when confronted with “intolerant” ideas.  When she began her university education, she very likely was introduced to magazines, books, newspaper articles, and documentaries that also confirmed these particular concepts of what was acceptable and unacceptable.  When confronted with a new idea, she simply dismissed it because, supposedly, if the idea was true, then it might have validated the notions of a certain unpopular person.  To her, the conclusion that it lead to was unacceptable.  Therefore the idea itself must have been “intolerant”.

In the media, through subtle hints in entertainment, she also learned who to love and hate.  According to The Economist, Americans spend 8 hours every day in front of the television, soaking in the “programming” that it spews out.  Through television, they learn that certain groups of people are “innocent victims,” that others are “fashionable” and worthy of emulation, and that yet others are intolerant (and therefore evil).  They watch and learn exactly what the controlled media puts out as programming.  Raunchy soap operas and films, day in and day out subtly push for the acceptance of homosexuality, promiscuity, miscegenation, drug use, crime, and prostitution as being “cool,” while simultaneously demonizing religion, “masculinity,” traditional values, and culture.

Later that afternoon, I spoke with an emeritius professor who had been alive during the Cultural Revolution.  When we discussed that day’s earlier incident, he seemed to understand completely.  He told me that propaganda under Mao had been “nothing: compared to American propaganda.  Mao’s propaganda had been too obvious.  When you saw a poster, or when you heard a speech, or when you read a newspaper article, you knew it was propaganda, so it was not worth your attention.  For instance, anyone hearing the phrase “capitalist running dogs,” knew he was listening to propaganda.  When the military came and attempted to imprison those who adhered to the “Four Olds,” ten more would pop up in its place.

Innocents abroad?

He said that American propaganda, on the other hand was much more subtle, because it makes claims which, while not necessarily true, apply to the pathos of society.  In other words, people generally want those statements to be true.  Another key component of American propaganda, he said, was the illusion of choice on the bigger issues.  In America, you are officially “free” to believe whatever you wish, but it is increasingly difficult.  Thus, said the professor, Americans are not greeted with epic overstatements such as exhortations to “bravely fight the battle against reactionaries,” which connotes a sort of violent struggle.  Americans instead are bombarded with the notion that should they think “tolerant” thoughts, that a magical utopia will ensue.  Of course, this is never explicitly stated, but, in an indirect way, people become accustomed to thinking in such a manner; the idea grows, and it takes on a life of its own.  Totalitarianism never came to America by brute force, the professor finally explained: it came in the name of anti-totalitarianism.  It was ironically tolerance that eventually came to beget intolerance of any idea deemed to be “unorthodox” by American powers that be.

As Evola once said, “The Americans’ ‘open-mindedness’, which is sometimes cited in their favor, is the other side of their interior formlessness”.

Decades later, Evola’s words remain relevant.

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline.  This concept has been a concern for some scientists, politicians and economists for a while now, mainly because of the vast implications it may have on the world economy and society at large.  According to a National Geographic report, the world may have already passed their peak in oil production (although individual countries may have a decade or so).  A 2010 American military report suggested that for the United States,  ”By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day.”  Of course, this is speculative, as there maybe other sources of oil that have yet to be discovered.  What is obvious though, is that there will be a fundamental shift in our economy and culture should oil production decline, without a viable energy source to replace it.  American geophysicist and mathematician M. King Hubbert explained:

The third curve (on the left) is simply the mathematical curve for exponential growth. No physical quantity can follow this curve for more than a brief period of time. However, a sum of money, being of a nonphysical nature and growing according to the rules of compound interest at a fixed interest rate, can follow that curve indefinitely…Our principle constraints are cultural…we have evolved a culture so heavily dependent upon the continuance of exponential growth for its stability that it is incapable of reckoning with problems of non-growth…it behooves us…to begin a serious examination of the…cultural adjustments necessary…before unmanageable crises arise…

The bleakest scenarios project that oil will run out in the next few decades, all the while demand for energy, not to mention essential commodities, such as food, rises.  As a result, industry will be disrupted, resulting in a total economic collapse with implications of massive proportions.  In the 2008 book, Wealth, War and Wisdom, the American economist Barton Biggs hints at “the possibility of a breakdown of the civilized infrastructure,” and recommends that people must learn to be self-sufficient.

On the one hand, the rapid decline of society will be uncomfortable for many people who happen to be alive at that time.  They will see the institutions that they have become accustomed to disintegrate while their comfortable lifestyles rapidly change to adapt to a life of scarcity.  Many people will lament the rapid change of cultures, because the activities that they previously engaged in (such as sitting in front of the television for hours on end), will no longer be available to them.  In combination with a probable economic collapse, the days when sloth and decadence were easily affordable will be over.

With the rapid change in living conditions, other effects will rapidly follow.  Some of these are already occurring in many Western countries, not as a result of peak oil, but as a result of poor policy in other areas.  The emergence of a scarcity economy will thus only make such problems worse.  The three main effects of such a rapid change are:

• Depopulation: In many countries, the birth rate is already below replacement. In particular, Whites (~1 billion) have showed a severe population decline, while East Asian (~1 billion) growth has slowed and is expected to decline in the next few decades. With a decline in available resources and energy, it will be more difficult to obtain essentials for living. Since many people in industrialized nations now live in cities, they will not adapt to the new conditions. Many will not survive.
• Despecialization: One of the most characteristic features of complex civilizations (and in many cases the yardstick to measure complexity) is a high level of job specialization. Such people, may not adapt well to life in a post-oil economy. In the past, the social institutions supporting such specialization are removed and people must become more generalized in their work and daily habits.
• Decentralization: With more people having to abandon city life, as well as fewer people able to maintain the once-bustling techno-industrial complex, there will be a fundamental shift from urban centers to agricultural centers. Moreover, with communication being more difficult over long distances, the Federal government will not be able to maintain order as well as under an oil-rich economy. Geographically speaking, communities become more parochial or isolated. For example, following the collapse of the Mayan civilization many Maya returned to their traditional hamlets, moving away from the large cities that had been the centers of the empire.

These effects are not necessarily bad. The fact that in many industrialized nations, pollution is a result of use of oil in industry, may mean that the effects of environmental damage may be curtailed for a short while. Moreover, the rise of organic regional and local governments may mean that personal freedoms and local concerns can be attended to better, and inability of some world powers to wage wars of occupation will be welcome news for many around the globe.  Permaculture, particularly as expressed in the work of Australian David Holmgren, and others, sees peak oil as holding tremendous potential for positive change, assuming countries act with foresight. The rebuilding of local food networks, energy production, and the general implementation of ‘energy descent culture’ are argued to be ethical responses to the acknowledgment of finite fossil resources.  Of course, the direction under which industrialized societies develop in a post-peak oil world depends inherently on reforming the culture and mentality of the present era.  If these nations maintain a “quantity-over-quality” mentality, then things will be much more difficult.  It is only the failure to change our mentality – insisting on things like egalitarianism, secularism, liberalism, and massive immigration – which will lead to our downfall.

In other words, the breakdown of the techno-industrial system need not be as painful as many people think.  In the future, if man wishes to survive, they must not only embrace a spirit of self reliance, but also recover the values which have been destroyed over five centuries of the “modern” era. In fact, people have much to gain in a cultural sense, because decadence in a such a society will become prohibitively costly. For instance it will no longer be possible to build golf courses, classy hotels, and holiday resorts for the masses to aimlessly spend their money away. Perhaps equally hard to maintain will be a systems of finance capital and globalist media, because they inherently depend on a surplus of goods, which will not be available if the conditions change.

Despite the scaremongering that peak oil might bring about a “Dark Age,” those who are prepared need not fear.  Yes, it will be difficult to adjust to a world without an abundant oil supply, but eventually the world will need to come to a new equilibrium.  The key point to remember is that, this new equilibrium will be determined by way things play out in the coming few decades.  The Dark Ages between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance, after the turbulent first few decades, were in fact a period of social and religious harmony, and with some planning, foresight, and intelligence, a post-peak oil Western world can be just the same, and we will be able to welcome whatever situation comes our way with open arms.

Napoleon Bonaparte was reported to have once said, “History is a set of lies agreed upon”. In essence, he was correct. History is generated by consensus of individuals. The generally accepted narratives of what happened at any point in the past, and their relative importance to one another are not universal and vary from place to place. It can be said though, that written history, is not merely an objective record of events. In a deeper sense, history is myth.

In this context, myth does not imply that the narrative is completely false. Homer’s Iliad is considered to be well within the realm of myth for its larger than life characters, even though the Trojan War is regarded to have been a historical event. Such myths, which the Greeks referred to as αἴτιον (cause), serve a deeper meaning than the reporting of events. They seek to understand and explain and illustrate a deeper, underlying lesson about the world around us, and our place in it. History can therefore be a used as means for a deeper understanding of the human condition since the laws of nature and human behavior remain constant. History as myth is a tool for disseminating worldviews; a methodology of “distilling” the sacred and the universals truths.

However, while it is generally accepted that history can be studied and revised, there are certain events which remain taboo to discuss. For instance, it is “known” far and wide by every American schoolchild, that a heroic young Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to emancipate the slaves, despite the fact that he repeatedly said that he never intended to free the slaves. Those same children might also learn of the horrors of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow, but never get the chance to learn about the Black Liberation Army or the Black Panthers.

The mythos of victimhood among some blacks is a stereotype that is common among Americans. Some black people can blame a number of socioeconomic factors on their current state; in common parlance, it might be referred to as playing the race card. The liberal media is of course, quite willing to go along with the idea that blacks are victims of various societal factors, and can do nothing about their condition. But at least one prominent black voice Bill Cosby once opined that the victimhood mentality among his community is partly the fault of an anti-intellectual culture.

Radical feminism, too, relies on the concept of victimhood. The central dogma of feminism is that every woman is a victim, and every man is an oppressor. It does not matter that more women than men now attend college, nor that women often receive less jail time than men for similar crimes, nor that there are quotas in many companies and government jobs specifically for women, nor that divorce law often favors women; there is still oppression against women. The gay rights movement also relies on seeing homosexuals as “victims” of imagined “homophobia”.

The most sacred historical concept today is, of course, the Holocaust. Everybody “knows” that, the Nazi State, on Adolf Hitler’s orders, planned and attempted to kill all European Jews, and succeeded in killing six million of them, mainly in gas chambers in such death camps as Auschwitz and Treblinka. Everybody “knows” this, and failure to have sufficient faith in this myth is met with consternation at best, or imprisonment at worst. Moreover, so potent is this mythic concept that today’s evildoers, both great and small are compared to Hitler or, in broader terms, the “fascists”. As Orwell once stated, “I have heard it [fascism] applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, dogs and I do not know what else.”

While it is not our intention here to debate the historicity of the Holocaust, (for there are many sites available on the internet that provide alternate views for those who feel curious or inclined to research them), we will discuss the role of the mythos of the Holocaust, as it is in no way a trivial matter when examining modernity. In such a sense, it becomes greater than the actual event, in that the Holocaust really does live up to its name: the supposed millions upon millions became the martyrs of the cult of victimhood.

Naturally, the most obvious role of the Holocaust is as the founding myth of the Israeli state. On the news, or in film, we are consistently reminded of the Holocaust, and that the “poor, persecuted Jews” must have their own state, lest they perish from the world. Fear is a powerful motivator. From the fiery depths of Auschwitz, we are told, emerged a beacon of hope, not just for Jews, but for all peoples. Zionists exploit and encourage the belief that Jews are a besieged people in a hostile world while offering the refuge of the Zionist homeland as the only chance for survival. The bogey-man specter of an ascendant anti-Semitism is bandied about – no matter what the Israeli government does, any criticism is derided as the next step towards a second Holocaust – as to the Zionist mind, there is always another “Hitler” out there desirous of finishing what the first on failed to do, so the only safe place for Jews is Israel.

While it is only natural that those who identify Judaism as a “race,” to want a state of their own, the victimhood complex is especially obvious when it comes to Israel. The status as “victims” allows for them to go beyond what any other nation would be condemned for doing. For instance, I remember at a pro-Israeli demonstration in Brooklyn, seeing signs bearing the slogan, “Keep Israel Jewish”. Could we really imagine what would be said if someone of European descent had a sign which said, “Keep Europe European” ?

"Nazis afoot!"

But, the fact is that the near-theological deference given to the Holocaust goes beyond the borders of Israel. If we were to take the Holocaust as it is known today as being factual, it would still mean different things to different people. To an American, America’s antics in its European escapade cement the role as the world’s “good guys”. The American believes sincerely, that his country rescued Europe from its dark days and liberated the camps, forever gaining the right to police the world and defeat the dark forces of fascism. To this end, the Holocaust serves as a reminder to Americans of certain evils, which can only be stopped by the “righteous Americans”. Hence, the reminder of the Holocaust is transformed into the necessity to spread the so-called ideals of “freedom” and “secular democracy” around the world, lest another “Hitler” should arise. It may be true that they do not truly believe in real democracy, but the pretext of “liberation” is often one which is welcomed enthusiastically by those who cannot see the true aims of the neoconservatives and world liberal elites. The American mentality is therefore merely a more universal version of the Israeli mentality (they, too, pay lip service to vague and lofty ideas such as “democracy”). Moreover, to modern American politicians, whether it is in Iraq or Iran, or any other nation, there are always certain “worthy victims” (usually certain ethnic minorities, women, ultra-leftist dissidents, or homosexuals) who need to be rescued from whatever regime they have chosen to deem heretical and oppressive at the moment. For instance, some propaganda surrounding the North Korean state goes to such lengths as claiming that there are gas chambers and concentration camps; propaganda against China, fabricated by the “Falun Gong” cult claims that there are secret crematoria in China (a claim debunked by even many China critics), and so on.

Naturally, groups like the Haifan Baha’i cult, “Falun Gong” cult, North Korean dissidents, Tibetan Buddhists, Iraqis, or Iranian atheists are considered “worthy victims,” worthy of invading entire countries (or at least some sabre rattling). Many others, such as Boers, white farmers in Zimbabwe, Iraqis, and others are considered “unworthy victims”. In this way, the cult of victimhood, lead by world liberal-elites, establishes a clear characteristic of cults: a polarized us-versus-them mentality.

There is no doubt that this cult of victimhood has shaped today’s world. The search for these “worthy victims” (as well as the simultaneous disregard for the “unworthy victims”) has become a way for the liberal elites to justify their interventionist policies. From the quest to “make the world safe for liberal secularist democracy,” to the social policies that they enact in our own countries, the concept of victimhood has become an important article of faith for those who ascribe to modernist, and liberal values.

In the modern world, environmental issues are polarized.  The so-called “right wing” of the industrialized world shuns any notion of environmental protection for a number of reasons, chief among them being that such controls harm the ability of businesses or corporations to create a profit.  Meanwhile, the left-wing, keen to seize upon such an opposition by political rivals, has taken up the cause of environmentalism as their own, falsely stating that their concern was for mankind.

Thus, the state of environmentalist movements in the modern world reflects an entirely modernist and defeatist perspective, which is characteristic of the liberal mindset.  Such people are merely sentimentalists who, being trivial, participate in what they consider to be “saving the environment” because they have become oversocialized and entrenched in their own delusions.

No!

In the past, the traditional attitude towards the environment was much more subtle.  For instance, we see that in Hellenistic mythology, that the “Golden Age” was  associated with a primordial purity of both the spirit and its surroundings.  The philosophers Empedocles and Hesiod also emphasized that during this time, there was harmony in all of nature, including human society.  Sayyed Hossein Nasr, the Iranian traditionalist scholar, articulates that the underpinnings of the environmental crisis stem from the modern materialistic and secular worldview.  For Nasr, the solution to the environmental problems of the modern day is not the sentimental behavior of leftists, nor necessarily a change in government policy, but a rediscovery of ‘traditional’ religious cosmology, values and truths. Nasr explicitly draws on religious, mystical metaphysical systems of thought that have, in his view, been eclipsed by modernity and need to be revived.

In light of this evidence, we need to re-visit the attitude of conservatives when it comes to environmental issues.  It can be said that there is a dichotomy between environmentalism and conservationism.  The former believes that man must be subordinated to nature, while the latter makes man the master of his surroundings; the former is chthonic and feminine, while the other is solar and masculine.  Environmentalism is at best a re-hashing of primitive pagan ideas.  Conservationism and deep ecology, however, make man the steward of his environment and accord him the position of being the master of his surroundings, a perspective which is common to many higher religions.  The earth then, is subject to man, and can be modified by man to help himself.

Because Traditionalism, when applied to any political action, is meant to transcend the dichotomous concept of left-vs-right, the Traditionalist outlook on the environment need not be limited to liberal-bourgeoise environmentalism, nor does it need to totally ignore the fact that there are environmental issues.  What is needed, however, is to integrate the need for environmental soundness into a fully holistic worldview which is consistent with the a truly conservative worldview.

This means no less than a rejection of the right of the material world to pre-eminence in all things, a wholesale rejection of globalism, and a massive cultural reformation toward harmony with nature.  Such a cultural reformation would have to be based in Traditionalist ideas rather than modernist ones, because it would embrace socially conservative views along with traditional religious and ethnic-national cultures.  At the same time, we cannot be fooled into thinking that bureaucracy will create a green utopia, and we must be equally pessemistic about the way in which globalists have used catch-phrases to discourage independent nations from developing nature-harnessing projects.

Key principles of a “Green Traditionalist” perspective might include the following:

• Agrarianism: While the most important aspect of Green Traditionalism, it is also one of the more difficult to define.  While most traditionalist conservatives are cosmopolitan and many live in urban centers, the countryside and the values of rural life are prized highly.  In a practical sense, this means reduction of the ecological niche occupied by people (achievable through a number of methods).  The principles of agrarianism (i.e., preserving the small family farm, open land, the conservation of natural resource, and stewardship of the land) are central to a traditionalist’s understanding of rural life.

It is possible to live alongside nature while minimizing our impact on it

• Hierarchy and organic unity: A common theme in Evola’s works is the refutation of the liberal myth that everyone deserves the “right” to “human dignity”.  Likewise, the Traditional worldview was that society is innately hierarchical.  Traditionalists for the most part reject the Marxist concept of class warfare, believing that the organization of society does not pit classes against one another, but instead through class cooperation, allows for the preservation of the whole community simultaneously, instead of protecting one part at the expense of the others.  From a practical perspective, this means putting an end to social engineering projects, and allowing the best and brightest to rise to the top.
• Rebuilding the foundations of culture: The perspective of Traditionalism towards so-called “popular culture,” is that it is a modernist corruption of true culture.  Traditionalists are classicists who revere high culture in all of its manifestations (e.g., literature, music, architecture, art, theater). Additionally, Traditionalists respect the right of respective peoples to define their own cultural values.  To quote from Guenon:

To be resolutely ‘anti-modern’ is not to be in any way ‘anti-Western’; on the contrary, it only means making an effort to save the West from its own confusion. In any case, no Easterner who is faithful to his own tradition would view matters differently, and it is certain that there are far fewer opponents of the west as such- an attitude that makes no sense- than of the West insofar as it has become identified with modern civilization.

• Localism, and regionalism: For some of the above points to be accomplished, it would be necessary to look towards an increased role in local and regional governments.  In combination with the previous point, a practical application would be the reduction of immigration; as each nation, locale, and region has a right to preserve its identity, Traditionalists frown upon an influx of outsiders which change the character of the said locales and regions.

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.

September 11th was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world.  As extensive as the damage to property and loss of life was, it does not compare with the damage done by cultural liberals and by liberal internationalists who seek to extend the hegemony of secular and liberal imperialism over the nations of the world.  In many places around the world, secular liberalism has failed, and the people living in such societies now face an unprecedented assault on their civil liberties and property rights, while in other nations, people face the ill effects of liberal interventionism in political and cultural affairs.

Although the events of September 11th have been seriously lamented in the press, there must also be a serious inquiry into the causes and perpetrators of this event.  If such an analysis can be faced with honesty, then it should come as no surprise that there are political and cultural dimensions that contributed, and indeed justified the attacks on the United States as a cultural and a political identity.  The political dimension is exemplified through internationalism and interventionism, which has been the prime motivator for the dislike of the United States in not only Muslim countries, but many European, Latin American, and Asian nations.  The cultural dimension is exemplified by organizations such as the ADL, SPLC, American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, and by individuals like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer.  To a lesser extent, it is also represented by the mainstream media, by Hollywood, and by the American music industry.

What could have caused the monotheistic affirmation of “Allahu Akbar!” to ring through the streets of the Muslim world?   The fact is that had America not been a hedgemon, and merely been a small decadent state, it would be ignored by the rest of the world, including the Islamic world.  The cultural left was responsible, since the end of World War Two, for the deluge of decadence and immorality in every sphere of human life, and combined with the interventionist tendencies, the deluge overflowed the boundaries of America comparable only to the pagan barbarity of the ancient Gauls, Celts, or pre-Islamic Arabs.

On the social scale, although they would seldom admit it for fear of criticizing a “non-white” people, liberals are violently opposed to the way of life in Muslim countries.  While some of these liberals became the so-called “neoconservatives,” others stayed liberal and joined the ranks of the media, or became members of radical activist organizations.  Furthermore, many leftists sympathized with Israel, which in its initial stages was a leftist state, as exemplified by the kibbutz and its distribution of labor.  The left, in fact, hates the socially conservative atmosphere of many cultures, including the Islamic culture of the Middle East, and the Confucian culture of China.  To them, those cultures represent something which is totalitarian, barracks-like, and patriarchal.  Indeed, in the early 20th century, when strong Nationalist and Populist movements held sway in Europe, many on the right looked for a potential ally in Islam, and the Traditionalists also thought highly of the Islamic system.  Evola, for instance, praised Islam, saying that it contained “a traditional completeness,” while Guenon and others converted to Islam.  On the other side of the spectrum, leftists like Orianna Fallaci, were deriding Islam for not abiding by the standards of Western leftism.

The extensive network of media, non-profit organizations, politicians (both “Democratic” and “Republican”) are crusading today not for Christianity, but for secularism, and herein lies the problem.  Although there have been wars between Islamic and Christian powers in the past, the conflict can be in no way compared to these conflicts. From Hollywood, where movies containing drug use and sexual perversions are rampant, to the promotion of gay rights by the American embassy in Pakistan, to non-profit organizations which distributed contraceptives to Muslim girls, values which are not only anti-Muslim, but anti-Christian, are being promoted extensively by political elites.  These same political elites have opened up American borders to millions of illegal immigrants, begun unjustified wars, promoted racial conflicts for their own gain, and have undoubtedly done irreversible harm to American society at home by promulgating the welfare state.

In 1925, decades before September 11th, Rene Guenon wrote the following:

To be resolutely ‘anti-modern’ is not to be in any way ‘anti-Western’; on the contrary, it only means making an effort to save the West from its own confusion. In any case, no Easterner who is faithful to his own tradition would view matters differently, and it is certain that there are far fewer opponents of the West as an attitude, than of the West as it has become identified with modern civilization.

There are those today who speak of a ‘defense’ of the West, which is odd, to say the least, considering that it is the West, as we shall see later on, that is threatening to submerge the whole of mankind in the whirlpool of its own confused activity…

The Islamic critique of American culture, then, cannot be dismissed as a mere “hatred of freedom,” and though it does not always match the Traditionalist outlook, is similar enough to give it some merit, and cannot be dismissed so easily.  Many Americans can agree that American culture is increasingly decadent and vulgar at all levels.  They would also agree that since the 60′s, there has been a cultural clash between the cultural left and right, which witnessed the destruction of the family, the secularization of society, and the eroding of human morals.  If this was disturbing to American conservatives, it must also be even more deeply disturbing to devoutly religious Muslims who not only have to endure the destruction of their homes by the American military, but also see their way of life threatened by relentless cultural assaults from left-wing organizations.

It is unfortunate that today America has not learned from the mistakes of the past.  In the end, both Muslims and Westerners face a common threat: the threat of liberalism and globalism, both of which are intertwined with each other: liberalism is like a virulent disease, and globalism the vector that carries it.  Liberals must not only apologize to their fellow Americans for September 11th, but they should apologize to the world for the cultural damage they have done prior to that incident, and the post-September 11th environment.  Meanwhile, America as a whole needs to not only cease and desist from its entangling alliances, dreams of nation-building, and interventionist politics, but needs to reassess its cultural orientations.  The people who are interest in self-preservation should join Muslims in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberalism.