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.

In his 1981 book, The Nine Nations of North America, Joel Garreau argues that, because of the vast differences between several parts of North America, the many national borders are irrelevant, and, that indeed, the United States and Canada are not just two nations, but nine nations.  In its time, the book was hailed as a classic text on the current regionalization of North America” by American intellectuals.

Garreau’s idea that borders are essentially artificial must be taken in the proper context; they are not to be used in a sentimental sense which would make them easily appropriated by people who advocate massive immigration between nations.  Quite the contrary, Garreau’s idea establishes the opposite: that in defiance of the widely-accepted idea of huge superstates encompassing many different peoples, a smaller and localized nationalism, maintaining the local character of the people is needed.

The nine hypothetical nations of North America, according to Garreau

Indeed, the borders of the United States and Canada are artificial, with even less historical justification than Russia’s dominion over Siberia or China’s over its various regions.  In the case of the latter, Russia permits certain areas to form autonomous republics, many of which have the limited right of nullification, or the right to enact legislation at odds with the federal constitution.  China allows some autonomy in its outer regions by designating them as “autonomous regions”.  The United States was formed by the westward expansion of the Federal Government, incorporating land formerly belonging to the Red Indians into the newly-formed nation.  The American system also differs considerably, with a bloated federal government which maintains a “one-size-fits-all” outlook on their authority.  In reality, then, the “United States” is just that: 50 sovereign states in a union and that union can dissolve just like the Soviet Union did.

Perhaps, the nature of the Americans, as noted by Francis Galton, is nearly a recipe in itself for disaster when combined with a tyrannical but incompetent government.  As Galton once said:

The North American people has been bred from the most restless and combative class of Europe. Whenever…a political or religious party has suffered defeat, its prominent members, whether they were the best, or only the noisiest, have been apt to emigrate to America…Every scheming knave, and every brutal ruffian, who feared the arm of the law, also turned his eyes in the same direction. Peasants and artisans, whose spirit rebelled against the tyranny of society and the monotony of their daily life, and men of a higher position, who chafed under conventional restraints, all yearned towards America. Thus the dispositions of the parents of the American people have been exceedingly varied, and usually extreme, but in one respect they almost universally agreed…They are enterprising, defiant, and touchy; impatient of authority; furious politicians; very tolerant of fraud and violence; possessing much high and generous spirit, and some true religious feeling, but strongly addicted to cant.

One of the major possibilities for the breakup is the ever-widening political divides between Americans.  A few Americans are opposed to the current Obama regime and favor limited government intervention in property rights, some Americans favor the status quo of continued wars and interventions which have gone on since the end of the Second World War, while yet others wish to use the current conditions to pass and uphold every sort of socialist legislation such as hate speech laws, gun laws, immigration laws, socialized medicine, social activism and secular humanism agendas in schools.  Such people also want to expand the authority of welfare state and turn it into a Freudo-Marxist secular regime, while increasing big brother/nanny state police powers and many other laws and regulations that subvert individual freedoms given under the Constitution of the United States.

The American economy is not in good shape.  In a society which is materialistic and in which people demand their bread and circuses, this translates into a decreasing trust in the American government’s abilities.  Reckless deficit spending has caused our federal government to amass a fourteen trillion dollar debt.  The American dollar has lost its value significantly in recent decades, fallen by 1000% since 1950.  In other words, goods which cost $10 to purchase in 1950 cost $1000 today.  With such crippling debt, excessive spending on wars and entitlement programs, the American economy cannot be sustained.  Those who depend on the government dole for their bread will also revolt against the government.

Desolation: The Future of America?

At some point in the not too distant future I surmise that a significant segment of the population will rebel against this government.  Another crack in the American dam is noted by Toynbee, the noted British historian, who noted that:

First the Dominant Minority attempts to hold by force – against all right and reason – a position of inherited privilege which it has ceased to merit; and then the Proletariat repays injustice with resentment, fear with hate, and violence with violence when it executes its acts of secession. Yet the whole movement ends in positive acts of creation – and this on the part of all the actors in the tragedy of disintegration. The Dominant Minority creates a universal state, the Internal Proletariat a universal church, and the External Proletariat a bevy of barbarian war-bands.

There exist today in America, in fact, many dominant minorities who are willingly subverting the interests of the United States for their own purposes.  Certainly, America is also fracturing along racial lines.  Even under the Obama regime, people of different ethnic groups are finding it difficult to co-exist, as evidenced by the rampant crime in American cities.  Latinos have come to dominate the American Southwest and display more loyalty to their Hispanic brethern across the border then they do to the United States.  Native Americans, perhaps the biggest victims of the Federal Government, also have a compelling case for secession, as does the former Confederacy.  The Catholic Knight points out that secessionist movements have already cropped up around the country.

What would a hypothetical re-drawn map of America look like?  On one extreme, it could resemble Europe during the Dark Ages: a vast continent composed of many small states and fiefdoms.  As the Union collapses, and states secede, different nations might arise, citing commonalities in their regional lifestyles.  For instance, the former Confederacy might form a single nation, while some West Coast states form another.  Some Canadian provinces might join with former U.S. states, but Quebec will certainly become its own nation.  The entire Southwest might be absorbed into Mexico, or certain Northern Mexican states may secede from Mexico and join the largely Hispanic Southwest.  Indian nations might also secede.  There is no telling how many nations America may be broken up into, and it is certainly possible that Garreau was rather kind in making his predictions.

Another proposal for what a Balkanized North America may look like (click to expand)

Those who are unlucky enough to witness this collapse will have to weather the initial storm of violence and social unrest before more stable and localized societies are formed.  Such an event may take a few generations.  Eventually, an equilibrium might be established, or these newly formed states could degenerate further into violent conflict.  If future generations are fortunate, a few centuries of peace and prosperity may arise out of these smaller nations, forcing people to return to a smaller ecological niche.  Unfortunately, history has been shown to be cyclical and not linear, and perhaps one day in the future, a new Union of North American states will be formed at the great expense of the people living there, thus initiating the cycle once more.

As the 2012 elections approach, the candidates of both American political parties are lining up to see who can best appease their masters.  A big issue, especially for certain lobbyist groups such as AIPAC, is how the next President of the United States will deal with Iran.  The major candidates, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, have already endorsed the position that military conflict with Iran may be necessary.  The Obama regime has not hidden its hostility towards Iran, by imposing sanctions in an effort to further cripple Iran’s economy, or by supporting anti-Iranian terror brigades.

So as Barack Obama attempts to run for a second term, it is only fair to compare to his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In 2010, the Indian press reported that Obama would spend nearly 200 million a day on a visit to India.  During that visit, he was accompanied by a staggering 40 aircraft and six armoured cars.  Obama’s private car, a black Cadillac had the ability to launch nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks at the press of a button.  Furthermore, Obama booked all 300 luxury suites and 27 deluxe penthouses of the five-star Taj Mahal Hotel, at a rate ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 Indian rupees (450 to 900 USD) per night, and arranged a private excursion to the Taj Mahal.  James Corum, an American military historian pointed out, that the trip was largely a lavish publicity stunt, complete with an entourage that would dwarf the armed forces of even large nations.

On an earlier trip to Spain, Michelle Obama was criticized as being a “modern day Marie-Antoinette.”  During her vacation, an entire beach was closed for Michelle Obama and 40 close friends, for a price that cost US taxpayers a staggering $100,000 a day, not including the $147,563 which it cost to fly Air Force Two to and from the destination.  The American Conservative reported that:

Americans have come to expect Michelle to wear $500 sneakers and carry $2,000 purses while dining on lobster and caviar prepared by her personal chef and traveling to five-star hotels on the Spanish coast. They are used to her wastefulness — and her hypocrisy, considering the lavishness that occurs while the Obamas ask Americans to make sacrifices for the good of the nation, vacation on oil-stained beaches off the Gulf of Mexico, and have patience while the president socializes the economy against the will of the people.

Obama’s inauguration, the most costly in the history of the United States, cost the American taxpayers a whopping $170 million USD.  His other expenses include a black-tie Super Bowl party, dinners consisting of $100/lb Wagyu steak, and flying in a personal chef to make his pizzas.  And, in 2008, Obama hosted a series of 28 parties with over 50,000 guests.

All this while Obama oversees three wars, sending the working poor to die on false pretenses, and a crippling deficit of 14.6 trillion dollars, and while six million Americans lost their jobs during the Obama’s first year in office and retail sales fell 6.2 percent for 2009.

Enter Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the son of a humble village blacksmith, and President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  A civil engineer by profession, he gained popularity during his tenure as the mayor of Tehran by working to improve the traffic system and placing an emphasis on charity by setting up free soup kitchens for the disadvantaged.  Even as President of Iran, a nation of some 74 million citizens, he wanted to continue living in the same house in Tehran his family had been living in, until his security advisers insisted that he move. Ahmadinejad had the antique Persian carpets in the Presidential palace sent to a carpet museum, and opted instead to use inexpensive carpets.  African leaders, impressed by Ahmadinejad’s humility in daily affairs, noted that he refused the V.I.P. seat on the Presidential plane, and that he eventually replaced it with a cargo plane instead.  While Obama wears suits costing $1500 and up, Dr. Ahmadinejad, a former University professor, dresses in modest clothing, and insists on driving to the Presidential offices in his own car.

As president, he vowed to “putting the petroleum income on people’s tables,”, meaning tht Iran’s oil profits would be used to benefit the citizens.  Under Dr. Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran’s real GDP reflected growth of the economy, while inflation and unemployment have also decreased.

With all this, we might be prompted to ask – who is really a man of the people?  Which one is a true leader, and which one is merely an extravagant figurehead with no real concern for his citizens?  If being a competent leader who has a genuine concern for his fellow man and living a modest life is any indication, then the answer is clear.

This article benefitted from the contributions of Lin Yu-han.

To liberals, almost everything everything is a social construct. Such people assume that things smply revolve around the given social environment rather than their inherent natures.  This allows for the liberal pseudo-intellectuals to engage in social engineering. After all, if these things are simply social constructs created by human beings than all you have to do is change the social construct and then you will have a new environment.

This is the type of ‘logic’ that liberals use on a daily basis and it is naturally irrational. The history of this ‘logic’ was first utilized in the 70’s when the cultural left infiltrated Western academia. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, was the first to propose that the Left should focus on social, rather than economic, change. This is why, since the 60s, many Western leftists abandoned the working class in favor of the political partisanism and social issues of their favorite minority groups (gays, women, non-Whites, etc). Unlike the Old Left, which advocated the rights of the Proletariat, the New Left has its basis in the intellectual output of an academia which has been infiltrated and hijacked by the petty bourgeois.

Antonio Gramsci: The intellectual forefather of the New Left

Postmodernism is simply one of the many insidious manifestations of New Left.  It includes the Frankfurt School’s critical theory, post-structuralist deconstruction, as well as Third Wave Feminism and Freudo-Marxism. Such ideas are not concerned with developing nations as a whole; they do not mobilize the people in a way to display the revolutionary spirit of self-reliance, and hence cannot solve its problems. In fact, the concerns of the New Left are not the concerns of most of the working class people around the world. Those in the first world, in fact, feel the effects of mass immigration of Third World migrants into their nations, which is promoted by the liberalism, while those in the Third World become the targets of economic exploitation.

The seemingly irrational character of this form of cultural ideology can be seen in the ways that leftists debate their opponents through what is called ‘deconstruction’. This form of argument holds that no ideas or words can be seen as objective truths since all ideas are simply social constructs used by a dominant culture to impose its will on those who are dominated. Hence, claim the postmodernists, these ‘truths’ have no legitimacy beyond the dominant culture, and are not true at all. By doing this, leftists cannot only avoid the debate by calling out their opponents as being part of this illegitimate dominant culture, they themselves need not even articulate an alternative to this because if there is no such thing as truth.

For all this sense of nihilism that Postmodernism conjures up, it remains a heap of nonsense. Postmodernism and the other ideas promoted by the cultural left are not just false alternatives to the current decay of society, but rather a part and parcel of it.  For one reason or another, these ideas fit perfectly into the globalist framework of multinational corporations, big banks, and other forms of internationalism. Why? For one, multiculturalism is no longer a thing of the Left but promoted across the entire spectrum of contemporary society and also by large corporations (think of affirmative action) or by public schools with their curriculum of anti-racism and equality. In fact, its quite compatible to the marketplace considering that traditional cultures from across the world (other than one’s own) have become a commodity to appropriate and trivialize through its commercialization (New Age should come to mind when one thinks of these things).

The term ‘postmodern’ of postmodernism is actually rather misleading: a truly postmodern age would be one after modernity itself has ended. Today, we are nowhere close to these conditions since the mass psychosis and uncertainties inherent to modernity are still ongoing.  Postmodernism only makes these uncertainties and this psychotic episode even worse and for this reason, cannot be considered to be a sufficient alternative to it, indeed, postmodernism itself is a product of modernism and this point should be emphasized.

The only authentic alternative is to take a Revolutionary Conservative path which is strongly grounded with Traditionalism, and which refutation of all the aspects of modernity and its products. If sometime in the future we can make this alternative viable, then and only then will we finally have a real alternative to the mass psychosis of contemporary society.

Until then, we simply have to weather this crisis.

Americans who are familiar with the two-party system labor erroneously under the delusion that the Democratic party represents “liberalism,” and the Republican party represents “conservatism.”  From within the ranks of each party, its respective members both claim that the other is inherently flawed in their ideology or policy.  This is where the divergence ends, however: both sides claim to be the heirs of the philosophy of the American founders, which in turn was influenced by the philosophy and culture of high antiquity, especially Greek liberalism.  In this sense, both American parties are two sides of the same coin, and the same thinking might be applied to various European parties as well. They certainly cannot be considered to be traditional or classical conservatives in the same tradition of Burke, for in fact, their ideology is totally opposed to it.  Nor can they, with their tendency towards humanism, materialism, and secularism, be considered to be culturally conservative.  But neither do they conform to the idea of classical liberalism, with their opposition to limited government, free markets, and property rights.

Here, a need for new terminology becomes important.  Neo-conservatism has been used to describe the new brand of politician who either call themselves conservative or attempt to subvert true social conservatism, derive their thinking from ultimately Trotskyism, and are proponents of  ”a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology.”  Neo-conservatism then, is a corrupt political viewpoint, being based on the aggregate mixture of both bourgeoisie liberalism and Marxism.  It is a viewpoint which is inherently flawed because it denies the existence of a “physical” nation composed of its citizens, and instead makes it an ideological one, as Irving Kristol so brazenly admitted in 2003:

…And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal.

The history of neoconservatism is worth mentioning.  Most neoconservatives had been on the left in the 1930s and 1940s, then moved right in reaction to Stalinism and supported the Cold War. Many were Jewish immigrants from Russia¹, and emerged from intellectual milieu of the mid-20th century New York City.Researcher Kevin MacDonald gives this brief summary of neo-conservatism on vdare:

Neoconservatism’s key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the “New York Intellectuals,” a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is in fact published by the American Jewish Committee). In the case of neoconservatives, their early identity as radical leftist disciples shifted as there began to be evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. Key figures in leading them out of the political left were philosopher Sidney Hook and Elliot Cohen, editor of Commentary. Such men as Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer and Seymour Martin Lipset, were deeply concerned about anti-Semitism and other Jewish issues. Many of them worked closely with Jewish activist organizations.

This brings us to the nature of modern neo-conservatism, which has evolved into a more sophisticated creature than it has historically been.  This sort of sophistication may be called a faux-conservatism, in that they combine some truth into a large matrix of falsehoods, hoping that individuals will swallow the lies along with the truth.  A prime example such sophisticated deception comes in the person of former radical Communist David Horowitz, who penned a book called “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts about the 60′s.” While Horowitz criticizes some superficialities of liberalism, claims that he is a supporter of “free speech,” and seemingly supports many “conservative” ideas, he remains unflinchingly supportive, and on the side of the media elites and liberal bourgeoisie in others. In a sense, he fits the mold of controlled opposition as a voice who attempts to throw a smokescreen over the faces of passers-by; he attempts to appease a certain segment of the population, but in reality seeks support for his own cause – and the cause of the media elites.

The works of David Horowitz, really do nothing to absolve his work from the charge of subterfuge — in this case on behalf of Israel and the wider war on Islam (keeping in mind that most Muslims, socially speaking, have very conservative values themselves). His book “Indoctrination U.: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom”, for instance, appears sincere in some parts in its attack on the Left. But for anyone wishing to look carefully, it is obvious that the main point is to attack critics of Israel, who happen to be leftists. Of course, other pseudo-conservatives will stop at nothing to criticize non-neo-conservatives such as Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul.  This is essentially a technique which has been borrowed from the left².

Of course, it is no hidden fact that a number of faux-conservatives, are also socially liberal.  In the Netherlands, the radical homosexual and forerm Marxist Pim Fortuyn fits into this category quite well.  Geert Wilders, also from the Netherlands, similarly hold a number of left-wing views, except when it comes to protecting his culture from Islamic immigrants.  Of course, there are also countless more examples in the political sphere.  Notably, many of the architects of the Iraq War were self-confessed neo-conservatives: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, and Abram Shulsky.  Of course, there are other faux-conservatives as well: they range from people who occupy influential places in academia, like Daniel Pipes, to a whole army of influential bloggers and to clergy.

The problem with neo-conservatism is that it is a faux-conservatism.  In other words, it is claiming to be something that it is not.  Its proponents claim that it protects the conservative values of the people, while in reality faux-conservatism only exists to forcibly enforce an artificial ideology which contains all the trappings of modernism.  Moreover, they say that they have the antidote to liberalism, while, in reality they are the other side of the same liberal coin.  An authentic, spiritual conservatism which is aligned both with Traditional values and with the concept of identities, calls for a reform current society in a conservative-revolutionary direction.  This entails the rejection of most, if not all, of the so-called values espoused by today’s neo-conservatives.

In repudiating faux-conservatism, a revolutionary spirit is needed which places emphasis on the state as an organic concept.  As Evola states:

“A State is organic when it has a centre, and this centre is an idea that shapes the various domains of life in an efficacious way; it is organic when it ignores the division and the autonomisation of the particular and when, by virtue of a system of hierarchical participation, every part within its relative autonomy performs its own function and enjoys an intimate connection with the whole.”

In order for this to happen, there must be a complete revolution that repudiates both cultural Marxism, and its ideological cousins such as liberalism and neo-conservatism.

References:

1. Alexander Bloom, Prodigal sons: the New York intellectuals and their world (1986) p. 372
2. Jack Kerwick, Neoconservatives vs. Conservatives: Who Are the Real “Extremists”?, The New American. 12 July 2011.

At a time when the United States of America conducts aggressive wars in many countries around the globe, and the American imperialists are being equally detested by all classes of workers, professionals, and intellectuals, it is important to understand which parties are the perpetrators of the imperalistic American policy, and how the problem must be addressed.

The beginnings of modern American imperialism as we know it today, arose at the end of World War Two, when the American imperialists and their allies occupied the German nation, subjected its people to starvation and hardship, and deprived them of human dignity for the reason that they would not abandon their German identity or their way of life. The insidious plans of the American imperialists were supported by immense finance-capital, as well as key members of the American government, such as Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau. In the second half of the 20th century, a similar pattern was repeated in Korea, as well as in the 21st century in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Kevin MacDonald, the acclaimed (and somewhat beleaguered) professor of psychology, has done excellent work on the origins of neo-conservatism, the current ideology which dominates American politics, so it will not be discussed in depth here. The fact remains though, that America is a state controlled by imperialist finance-capital, making it a “prison” of nations. What is also true is that because American society is a rootlessly cosmopolitan society with a degenerate culture, America is the enemy of all the peoples of the world, whether they are Christian or Moslem, White or Black, Western or Oriental; they are not liberators, but aggressive globalist imperialists whose aim is the destruction of all identities other than the one they wish to impose on others.

The majority of Americans today are still of European descent, even though demographics are quickly changing due to the situation on America’s southern border.  Many of the European-Americans herald and praise the bombing and destruction of foreign nations in the so-called war on terror.  People often criticize American imperialism as “white imperialism,” but it can just as easily be shown American imperialism is the imperialism of liberalism, which in itself entails diversity and multi-racialism, because what ultimately manifests itself as materialism is nearly intertwined with the racial dynamics of America.  For example, though many Trotskyists and third-worldists would claim that American imperialism is “white imperialism,” many countries affected by American imperialism are white themselves.  Furthermore — what about the Mexican who receives citizenship in exchange for serving in the imperialist army’s wars of aggression which benefit Israel, or those who invent a metaphysical “poverty draft” to pretend that those from among their own ethnic group or social class aren’t equally traitors for actively participating in imperialist wars? What about those who overwhelmingly helped elect Barack Obama, the Kenyan Zionist lackey, merely because of the color of his skin?

Though all segments of American society which profess support for the imperialist policies of their government need to equally distance themselves from the imperialist policy of their government, the largest burden does not lie on their shoulders.  The biggest peddlers of imperialism today are the globalist elites who control the American mass media, banking system, universities, and entertainment, and who continue to justify their suppression of the popular masses and their invasions of foreign countries through mass media.  It is this same imperialist clique which are the kingpins of degenerate American culture and the deplorable social situation which affects people of all races in the United States.  These individuals are the true supporters of imperialism, and its staunchest advocates.  I do not call them “American imperialists,” because in reality, America too is occupied by these same people who wish to use American blood and American resources as a springboard for their attacks on the rest of the world.

The lessons to learn here is that that America is a “prison of nations” which will only be dismantled by an active resistance to the the monstrous system of rootless cosmopolitanism.   Furthermore, it is in the self-interest of peoples all over the world to actively support their brothers and sisters in foreign lands on the front lines against the American imperialists today, particularly as they undergo armed struggle.  This includes those peoples living in the United States itself who are under occupation by the Washington-DC based regime.  Those in the various regions of the United States themselves must take it on themselves to initiate the revolutionary spirit against the globalist agenda and its propaganda presented to them by the powerful elites, and re-establish the spirit of national independence.

Election time is approaching in the United States of America, and along with it all the warm and fuzzy rhetoric about continuing commitments to democracy, freedom, and equality, so that nobody need question the intentions of any political candidate.  I probably won’t be voting in the 2012 election, probably not for whatever shill the Republicans will put out as a candidate, and certainly not for the Kenyan Zionist and winner of the world’s first affirmative action Nobel Peace Prize, but still, the election raises an important question.

Just what is the appeal of “democratic freedoms” and “universal suffrage” in today’s world to the globalist elite?  From a practical point of view, giving the common people the idea that they are choosing their leaders makes them feel as if they are in control, even when this is not the case.  In the case of American politics, where the two major parties are essentially the same in the spirit of their ideology, it serves to perpetuate the two-party itself, so that superficial solutions can be made merely by switching allegiances in the next election.  Also, the ideological and intellectual development of the masses, in the American democracy is hindered by the diversionary need of political parties to reinforce their existing ideologies and intellectual standards.

The so-called American democratic system is, in fact an artifact of the symptoms of disintegration and cultural and human regression, which relies heavily on a controlled media to operate. In America, democracy appeals to the ruling class, including the finance-capitalists, politicians, and media moguls because the people that are able to think for themselves are, in reality a small minority.  Under such a system, the ideological and cultural life of the people is also very poor because the people have their independent thinking paralyzed and are degenerating ideologically and culturally because they are poisoned by the false liberal-bourgeoisie ideologies touted by the media.  This creates the solution in which people rely on the controlled media to become active participants in a democracy.  In turn, the democracy legitimizes the controlled media and the ideas that it presents to the public, and at the same time, allows them to remain behind the scenes, evading responsibility for the cultural and ideological attacks on the general masses.

While the American imperialists might have found it convenient to enforce democracy by military might across the world, it is nearly impossible to do so domestically.  An “inclusive” democracy based on quantity rather than quality thus becomes positive for the real power-brokers, who can hide behind their appointed puppets to push social agendas, because the easily mislead Americans gain their perspectives from the media.  Whether in the news, or in movies, or in serials, people are likely to be influenced by the way they see characters interact with each other on screen, or by the tone of voice or visceral reactions of broadcasters.

To conclude, modern “democracy” is therefore a way by which the globalists wish to demean culture, knowledge and morality.  Whereas even in the classical democratic idea,  which was formed as an institution for protecting property rights, a semblance of culture might have flourished, today’s democracy is precisely for the destruction of the spiritual and political achievements created by traditional societies.