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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

If we make it we can all sit back and laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying…
…Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying.

Note: The following is the transcript of a lecture given at National Taiwan University in Taipei, Taiwan.  The lecture was delivered in English, with an optional Mandarin Chinese translation provided via headset.

Ladies and gentlemen, students, thank you for being here with me today, on the important occasion of what I hope will be the first in a series of many lectures in a series.  I myself am grateful to be here in Taiwan to address the professors and students in this lecture hall, and hope that what I’m going to say here can be of use to all of you, and perhaps challenges your view of the world around you.

Now then, to begin, I work in a technical field by profession. So you might be asking yourself, why me, of all people, would like to talk about Tradition and Traditionalism. But I would ask you to be patient and hear my reasons. First, I’ve always been interested in the development of new technologies, not just as isolated events, but as a continuum, so to speak. For instance, one could trace the American space program not just back to Werner von Braun, but much further to the 15th century, during which European countries started building bigger and bigger armies, requiring them to draft largely from civilian populations. During the Napoleonic Wars, this necessitated the creation of canned food rations. The quest for better food preservation lead to air conditioning and refrigeration, and in 1892 Sir James Dewar invented a container that could keep liquids hot or cold. This in turn eventually allowed people to store either liquid hydrogen or oxygen, which are key ingredients in rocket fuel.

How does this tie in with Traditionalism? In one sense, it shows the dominant paradigm of the world. Namely, the this is paradigm of progress. In 1932 English physician Montague David Eder wrote: “The myth of progress states that civilization has moved, is moving, and will move in a desirable direction.” But in another sense, it also raises some difficult questions: First, is it possible to sustain such “progress” forever? Perhaps there are some people here who will say, “Of course! Just look at where were were compared to even five years ago!” But in my opinion, given limited resources, given our lifestyles, given the occurences in the world today, it could be possible that progress might not be indefinite. This leads us to the idea that if progress may not be sustainable, can it regress? And the answer here, I think is much more certain. As we may glean from history, societies too display morbidity, and can easily collapse.

But, historical examples and current data state that this could very well turn out to be true, whatever the reasons are. Therefore we must re-think our attitude towards this idea of progress. It is true that technology has improved immensely, but what about in other fields? In third world countries, it has lead to poverty and suffering. And in the first world, what is plainly felt is the tragic way that man, a primary and supra-material essence, has been forgotten. The material “needs” that are generated every day now transform people into worshippers of consumption. Day by day, heavier burdens are imposed on a frenetic populace, so that modern technological prodigies, who ought to have freed mankind from servitude to manual labor and increased people’s leisure time, cannot do even that much. In effect, the material needs are now outpacing the tremendous speed of production technology. If progress is to be rejected then, it leads to a cyclical, rather than linear view of history, which rejects universal progress, and which is at the heart of all traditional outlooks: Egyptian, Chinese, Persian, Greek, Roman, Hindu, and so on and so forth. The Italian philosopher, Julius Evola, who was one of the foremost Traditionalists, draws upon the Cyclical model, as well.

Now if you will, the general “way of being” in the modern world can be largely divided into two main, overlapping categories: intellectual systems, and social systems. It goes without saying that the intellectual systems must precede social systems, because any social system — even an imperfect one — must have some theoretical and ideological basis. For instance, it would be impossible that we could conceive of a modern America without the deeply delusional “Americanisms” that their politicians and citizens are infamous for. Therefore, we can see that the social systems which a people ultimately come to reject or embrace inherently is a consequence of the weltanschauung of any given society. If our diagnosis that societies today are moribund and lifeless, then it should seem a matter of worldview, and not merely a matter of legal review which would be the cure, and the problems which the modern world faces – that is to say the entire world, but the West is more affected by it than other places – is a fundamentally internal and spiritual one.

There can be no doubt that we live in a confusing time of many contradictions and changing societal norms. Our intellectuals, who are engaged in the monumental struggle to uphold Tradition, find themselves not only bearing upon themselves the weight of defending it from the radical left, but also from self-professed rightists who act as the de-facto allies of the left.  You know, of course, that I refer to the American neo-conservatives, who, in reality derive their ideology from Trotsky.  This is a time when our enemies resort to unprecedented methods of viscous slander regarding those who resist globalism and liberalism.  Therefore we face the task of not only defending our line of thought from these misleading statements, but also protecting the youth from falling into the trap of adopting decadent lifestyles and espousing them among their peers.

From one perspective, we must look at this from the perspective of a mass movement which rejects the Western idea of liberalism.  Western liberalism, is, in fact the last form of imperialism, but it has nothing to offer to the peoples of the developing world.  It has even destroyed the first world and made life there unbearable, so how could anyone think that it could have the potential to improve the developing nations?  Liberalism destroys cultures and subjects those living in other nations to a desolate fate.  The imposition of liberalism has undoubtedly destroyed families, and the very fabric of those societies.  So we cannot, as those living outside the West, embrace the idea of liberalism in any form.

But also, to the established politicians today the concept of “progress” means the promotion of all manners of destructive forces: the destruction of the family, the secularization of society and standardization of its members, and the corruption of economy and intellect. As it stands today, much of this ideological confusion is due to the fact that renegades have appeared in the upper strata of all areas of academics, politics, and economics. In the historical situation in which traditional moralities had become a powerful force in the guidance of the affairs of state, liberals attached a great importance to the strategy of either undermining and infiltrating it, or by declaring war outright. In accordance with this strategy, today’s liberals make increasingly malevolent attempts to ensure the success of their failed social engineering experiments, and make attempts to force the acceptance of the force acceptance their of propaganda.

If the problem’s genesis is internal, then it would be appropriate to look at the outward appearance of society for the symptoms of societal weakness and spiritual decay. On the first front, today we are witnessing the implosion of the American system, with both the Tea Party one one hand and the Occupation of Wall Street on the other. But if we look at social systems, economic systems at the root cause then there is a dead end. Utopianism ultimately becomes the failed dream which does not become a reality. Even if we change systems, we don’t have a real solution because all the modern outlooks regard man as an economic animal; their differing contours reflect the issue of which of the two will provide more successfully for the needs of this animal.

And once we begin to allow secular ideas to determine our needs, what passes for a need is really only a carnal or material desire. The result is a disaster. Starting with the French Revolution, Humanity became more and more alienated every day. People were drowned in a whirlwind of quantity, and moral greatness or spiritual aptitude had been cast aside. Societies fragmented because each person claimed for himself authority and a certain “individualism”. However, in a communist society, things are no better. In communist society, we find a similar downward curve in human moral values. It is true that the Soviet Union had a slightly better cultural life than the Americans, but for the most part these days are over. Contemporary communism, as idealized by American and European intellectuals, embraces the same bourgeois attitudes towards social behavior and individual outlook as do their capitalist counterparts. But really, these two systems are the same, are they not? Because they actually subscribe to the notion that man is not the master of the material, but rather that material is the master of man. Whereas the traditional outlook was in fact that man occupies the pinnacle of creation, and hence is the master of his surroundings, capitalism and communism and their variants, claiming as they do to be based on contemporary science, all negate the concept of man as a primary being.

We see the result is paradoxical, yet it makes sense: people yearn for individuality, but they do so by following the crowd. In their mental lives, they are also constrained by the modern method of thinking and cannot be bothered to analyze claims which their society would deem unacceptable. The Prussian Emperor Friedrich Wilhelm IV once remarked that, “Appearances become deceptive and the consequences of clearly present causes are dismissed as superstition,” and so it is with the modern outlook, which often must resort to sophistry in order to justify its conclusions. For instance, in order to safeguard democracy and freedom, the Americans now thing that it is inevitable that they must impose democracy by might on other nations. But such an action is inherently undemocratic, and what is more sets up undemocratic regimes.

Previously I said that the modern world differs radically from the Traditional world. The differences are actually too great for me to entreat here. Actually, whole books have been written about it, so it would probably be a subject for a different lecture. Ancient society is, to use Evola’s maxim, “Upward not Forward,” meaning it seeks a fundamentally different orientation. This orientation is concerned with hierarchy, order, and moral principles. It looks to build aristocrats of the soul – people who are fearless and correct in moral bearing. It also seeks to establish the proper relationship between heaven and earth, between men and women, between kings and subjects, and so on. To illustrate the differences between now and then consider this: everywhere around the world, a wealthy merchant can today be considered a great person! Not so for the Traditional world, in which the material world does not subject mankind. Confucius placed the scholars and learned men on top, while in other societies, priests and monks were regarded as men pursuing the ideal. In ancient China, Taoism sought to remove people from the drudgery of an artificial life which tainting primordial human nature. Confucius set forth his ideas (which he said were transmitted and not invented), as the intellectual basis for a rational organization of social life, and developed into a stable society. In the Indian religions, which included Buddhism, that later was transmitted unto China, there was a clear knowledge of man coupled with a deep understanding of the unity of God, nature, and man.

When we began this lecture, I said that my interest in Traditional thought began with the simple notion of historicity and studying the progress of science. I postulated here that it might be possible for the system to collapse. The decline is especially fast in what is called the “Far West,” for a number of complex reasons which are out of the scope of this lecture. Surely, if we continue on our current path, there may be little hope for the future. There is ironically an inverted principle at play, where, although man seemingly abandons “religion” in its most formal definition, embraces a new faith: the faith of the faithless. But it is possible to at least mitigate the disaster, for those who are lucky enough to be blessed with history on their side. For those in the East, it means that you will find your own path culturally and socially, and abandon the disease that Ali Shariati, a famous Iranian philosopher once called “Weststruckness”.

We should look to the past rather than the future for the solutions to social woes. No, we do not need to abandon technology, but we need to recognize technology’s role in society and not be overcome by a so-called “machinestruckness”.  Technological advances might benefit man, but they should not be relied on for the whole of entertainment and culture.  But we need more than this. We need a reverence for traditional Culture, heritage, and language on which we can rebuild society and civilization. We must stop this insane worship of “things” and the glorification of the self: it was the revolutionary, Codreanu who said that it was necessary to kill in ourselves the lower world to recieve the blessings of the higher world. And this is the beginning of the path upward, not outward that Evola talked about.

At the national level, this means that issues should be faced with honesty and bravery. Nations can and should, develop self-sufficiency based on their own ideals, even if this means that they ultimately have to abandon democracy. The Islamic revolution in Iran is some indication, albeit not a perfect one, of how this may be carried out, as is the theory of Juche advanced by General Kim Il Sung of North Korea. Democracy is no sacred cow, and human rights is merely an illusion. Democracy merely posits that anyone’s opinion has as much merit as another’s, and from this representation may be formed merely by gleaning the opinions of the masses. Yet, it is the same system which also shapes the masses opinions – and in essence, it forms a dictatorship of idiots. But, even in a true dictatorship, as Pentti Linkola once said, there cannot ever be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than the majority of the people. As for human rights, we need only look at those bodies which are promoting them.  Are they not, then, selective? One can have rights for group A and not group B. For instance, in Europe one may be penalized if they dispute the official history, and they call it “hate speech”.  On the other hand, it is perfectly normal to insult the beliefs of nearly 1/3 of the human population, and this is called “free speech”.  At its end, the invention of human rights furthers the cause of global imperialism.  We must categorically deny human rights as being a politically correct form of worship of the individual. It may seem cruel at first, but realize that long before the contemporary model of human rights arose, in which nearly every degenerate action suddenly became legal under the veneer of freedom, rights had already been established. This is not a call for inhumanity, it is a call for a peaceful and orderly way of living.

We must derive a proper lesson from all the various occurrences in the world, and resolutely reject the excesses of the modern world, as well as the slander levelled at the Traditionalist ideas, and hold bayonets more firmly in the fight against liberalism and modernism. In this way, we can face our problems with vigor, and display the intelligence and courage to turn misfortune into a blessing.

America and ameriKwa are two ideas that represent the various aspects of the same geographical region.  The former, in its most literal sense, is a geographical designation which represents the landmass which separates the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  On a different level, it also metaphorically represents a nation which was founded some 200 years ago, when the descendants of British colonists living on the said continent revolted against the Crown and established independence.  In other contexts, it refers to a hedgemonic entity which arose from the imperialistic and interventionist nature of the said nation.Culturally, America is synonymous with the evolution of the nation from its inception until the post-WW2 era.   It is dominated by a sense of place and of history which is derived from its English ancestors.  It is concerned with the protection of property, but not its excess, and it is opposed to the therapeutic welfare state.

ameriKwa: the capital of quantity

The notion of “ameriKwa” is something quite different.  It does not refer to a place or a nation in the classical sense, but rather, is indicative of a type of civilization whose characteristics Evola termed the “reductio ad absurdum of the negative and the most senile aspects of Western civilization.”  While America can be assigned a number of positive traits, there are none to be found in ameriKwa, which is indeed the most recent manifestation of America.  Such negative traits of ameriKwa include the rootless nature of its culture, the fusion of consumerism and politics, its rampant egalitarianism and its liberal decadence.  Put another way, ameriKwa is the concept of the rejection of the organic society, and the embracing of the artificial anti-culture which is grounded in individualism and decadent modernist thinking.

We need to only observe the current state of ameriKwan society to understand what lies underneath its veneer of freedom, equality and benevolence: rap music, Hollywood movies which promote every form of degeneracy, dancing, violent racial conflicts, the crime in the streets and a generation of children born out of wedlock to a future of hopelessness are an example of some of these things.  In ameriKwa, the inversion of old orders are present everywhere: the irreligious are lauded to the heavens whilst those of faith are persecuted, and the most degenerate of individuals occupy high places once reserved for the most virtuous or intelligent.  Even as Hitler so concisely rendered his commentary on American society, “Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it’s half Judaized, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together?”

The ameriKwan lifestyle can only be compared negatively to a neurotic one, with their material wealth only partially covering up their interior formlessness and barbarism.  In all aspects of life, the need for accumulation and the subservience to the material creates a world in which people are bound by economism, and in which all of culture, media, and government exist to subject people to further indignities at its own hands while also inflicting severe damage on the natural world.  The condition of modern ameriKwan society causes young people to be frustrated in their expectation of meaning in life by endeavoring to satisfy material needs and creating artificial ones.  Out of this, a new value system arises, which includes democracy, individualism, freedom, tolerance, diversity, and secularism – one which is clearly at odds with the Traditional outlook on life.

The transition from home life to the office was especially difficult on the American woman.  Hysteria, neurasthenia, psychoneurosis and other neuroses were quick to take root in the female population after they gained their so called “liberation,” and spread to the rest of society.  By the end of the 70′s, nobody was was safe from the medico-cultural virus of neurosis.  In this respect, in modern times, internally and externally, America is the epitome of a deformed society with no identity, no real past and no real future.

The America that Never Was

What remains of America is ameriKwa, and under the steel-and-concrete cities, and behind the facades of Wall Street or Congress, is a world depraved and corrput to its heart, a soulless world rotting away.  People around the world must thus heed the call against ameriKwa, and preserve their own ethnic and religious characters without without pretending that the promises made by ameriKwa of democracy and freedom will better their lives.

Having defined the character of ameriKwa, it should now be clear the gravity of the cultural struggle which various peoples around the world are currently engaged in.  To put it concisely. it is the former is the world of being, while the latter is the world of ceaseless becoming.

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.

There was a time when Christianity was the religious dogma of the Western world. While the religion technically still exists, it has been usurped by new, modern values. One of these values, perhaps the most taboo to challenge, is egalitarianism. Instead of being told to praise an omnipotent God, we are told to praise our fellow man. We are told to celebrate “diversity” within societies, and indoctrinated to revel in the idea that all things may be correct, if only we look with open our hearts. Homogeneity, or the desire for it, has become a cardinal sin in the West. We might even say that egalitarianism itself is now a god.

A distinction must be made between legal equality and egalitarianism. While the roots of legal equality might not seem so sinister, egalitarianism is a highly destructive force. Legal equality implies the solidarity of individuals within a nation or a class, while egalitarianism follows the Orwellian concept that “some are more equal than others”. In other words, a system of legal equality is a codified method of judgment or rule, under which the ruler of a nation keeps order. In England, this was manifest as the Magna Carta, which codified the law and offered protection of property rights against corrupt monarchs. The Magna Carta offered legal equality because it bound all free English citizens to abide by it, without favoritism of any sort.

However, the devolution of legal equality into the creature we know today begain in the so-called “Age of Englightenment”. Today’s global hegemon, the United States, was founded during this period, and this new nation was more or less founded upon the roots of the egalitarian movement. This “Age of Reason” spouted out mass movements for “equality” and “liberty,” and on these principles were founded a cosmopolitan empire that was free and individualistic, and of course equal and diverse. Modern America has no real definition; America can be whatever one wants it to be. With the decline of the original Anglo-Saxon founding stock, there has been no one defining culture or identity. America has no common goal, but each individual individual embraces his so-called freedom. There’s no common goal; just the “freedom” to do what you want as an individual. The individual is king.

People are not innately equal, the law must make them so.  And it is within these laws which one finds a denial of truth, for truth must be denied if one is to accept equality as an absolute premise.  For instance,a worker or a farmer, or an intellectual, is invariably more useful than someone who subsists on welfare, but the State considers them to be absolutely equal, with an equal voice in the participation of government.  Developing nations, which need to rely on highly skilled individuals also realize that people are not equal when it comes to ability or intellect.  Yet the West currently is lagging in progress when compared to nations such as Iran, China, or Korea when it comes to intellectual and technical pursuits, because Western politicians focus on a vague concept such as equality, as oppose to ability or intellect, when it comes to selecting employees or members for a project.

We can say with safety that not all cultures are equal.  The European culture peaked in the 18th century, having brought forth the music of Bach, the paintings of Michelangelo, the science of Galileo, and the literature of Shakespeare.  Similarly, the Chinese, Indians, and Arabs, had also developed high cultures in their own times which are worthy of note.  It could be said what passes for culture among the Americans today, is by far inferior to the European culture of their ancestors, or any of the cultures of high antiquity.

With the rise of the holy individual came the dogma to protect it even from the slightest criticism.  Thus, it was only a short amount of time before feminism became a major force.  In the 1960’s, the protection of the individual became extended to homosexuals as well as blacks, and many other groups.  Affirmative action was also created to enforce equality.  In the last few decades, we have seen “hate crime” laws being passed, and even those who are fortunate enough to escape legal trouble are still at high risk for state-sponsored social outcast. After all, who are they to ignore the propaganda encouragement posters found in public buildings and public schools? throughout the West?

This dogma makes society into a two-dimensional narrative of victims and perpetrators.  Ironically, it has inverted the spectrum of society, making those who would otherwise fall to the bottom as pariahs become immune to criticism.  To make matters worse, we have a situation where the globalist governments and businesses gain support from these “victims”, and uses this system to their great advantage. After all, it is much easier for these people to manipulate nations that choose cosmopolitan equality, diversity and individualism over native Tradition and Culture.

This disease must be denied at its source. If we don’t reject this parasitic ideology, we are much farther from Culture and Tradition than we can ever imagine.

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.

From a biological perspective, there are innate characteristics that differentiate men and women.  Such characteristics are in themselves realities of physical form, and assign to each of them a different role or function in life. This means that men cannot replace women in carrying out these functions, nor can women replace men in other functions.

In the context of high antiquity and the Traditional world, and far removed from any biological determinism, the masculine and feminine are viewed as complementary yet distinct.  Guenon notes that to the Aryans, the puruṣa (पुरुष) is the masculine entity of the impassible spirity, while prakṛti (प्रकृति) is feminine in nature.  This concept re-appears in the Chinese tradition of yin and yang and the system of trigrams and hexagrams which comprise the I-Ching.  The hexagram which is purely yang, the male principle is composed of two trigrams signifying heaven, to produce the hexagram signifying ”the creative,” while the hexagram which is purely yin, the female principle is composed of to trigrams signifying the earth, producing the hexagram which means  ”the receptive”.

In Revolt, Evola discusses the ideal man as the warrior-ascetic.  The warrior is no mere soldier, but rather a heroic and sacral persona who embodies the principles of virility.  If the warrior-ascetic represents the active side of the heroic nature, then there is a passive sort of heroism to be found within the feminine nature.  This is to be found in the nurturing role of a wife and mother.  As Evola explains:

In the case of women, the actions of the warrior and of the ascetic…correspond to the act of the woman totally giving herslef and being entirely for another being, whether he is the loved one…or the son, finding in this dedication the meaning of her own life, her own joy, her own justification.  This is what bhakti or fides, which constitute the normal and natural way of participation of the traditional woman, really mean.

The Traditional idea of man’s relationship with woman recognizes the complementary nature.  However, the Traditional outlook recognizes the self-evident maxim, now somewhat forgotten in modern times, that women are females and men are males.  The outer label of “woman” is the designation for the interior identity of a female, and the outer label of “man” is the designation for the interior identity of a male.  In other words, a woman has a created nature which has assigned to her a natural role different from that of man.  However, at the same time, man himself is vital to the fulfilment of the female and, even in death, acts as a mystical doorway for his counterpart. This key traditional component is vigorously expressed by committed Hindu women who leap into the flames of their late husband’s funeral pyre in order to secure immortality for themselves. The Incas also believed that women should follow their husbands into the afterlife by committing deliberate and well-intentioned acts of suicide.

Such ideas, naturally conflict with the modernist idea that a woman should overtake the role of men in society, and that “rights” would supersede the relationship of the two sexes.  Evola once again describes the rise of feminism:

In a society that no longer understands the figure of the ascetic and the warrior; in which the hands of the latest aristocrats seem better fit to hold tennis rackets or shakers for cocktail mixes than swords or sceptres; in which the archetype of the virile man is represented by a boxer or by a movie star…or the busy and dirty money-making banker and the politician – in such a society in was only a matter of time before women rose up and claimed for themselves a ‘personality’ and a ‘freedom’ according to the anarchist and individualist meaning usually associated with these words.

Here, we may infer that modern feminism is not possible without the degeneration of men in the first place.  Indeed, once the Ghibelline ideal faded from the face of Europe, it was only a matter of time before monarchies degenerated weakling states and aristocracies of the spirit were transformed into aristocracies of wealth.  From here, it was only decades until the notion of democracy, complete with the trappings of the Kali Yuga, would reign supreme.

Once the appex dissapeared, authority descended to the level inmediately below, that is, to the caste of the warriors. The stage was then set for monarchs who were mere military leaders, lords of temporal justice and, in more recent times, politically absolute sovereigns. In other words, regality of blood replaced regality of the spirit. In a few instances it is still posible to find the idea of “divine right,” but only as a formula lacking a real content. We find such rulers in antiquity behind institutions that retained the traits of the ancient sacred regime only in a formal way. In any event in the West, with the dissolution of the medieval ecumene, the passage into the second phase became all-enbracing and definitive. During this stage, the fides cementing the state no longer had a religious character, but only a warrior one; it meant loyalty, faithfulness, honor. This was essentially the age and the cycle of the Great European monarchies.

Then a second collapse ocurred as the aristocracies began to fall into decay and the monarchies to shake at the foundations; through revolutions and constitutions they became useless institutions subject to the “will of the nation,” and sometimes they were even ousted by different regimes.  And what was the result on the relationship between men and women?  In such a society, feminism caused women to lose their personality.  Indeed, rather than exalting the true femininity, it forced women to adopt an imitation of the male personality, while ironically, it became opposed to masculinity.

Yet it was not here that modern feminism stopped, for where Traditional ideas had at least allowed man and woman to be equal, while fulfilling different roles in society, modern, radical feminism posits the superiority of women to men, and in so doing, transgresses all the boundaries of nature.  As Kenneth Minogue notes, “Radical feminism is essentially a humorless rationalism which seeks a single right attitude to be imposed on men and women alike.”

In the end, modern woman, subjected to feminism, will be affected by the neurotic complexes wrought by modernity.  All this cannot but have a dire consequence on the generations to come – not just on women, but on families and men as well.

By the Will of The Destroyer and The Creator

It is becoming unquestionable as a result of common knowledge bolstered by media that our societies have entered a decline.  We are looking at an uncertain period of transition in which—for Americans—we will remain relevant, but no longer the sole dominating force in world affairs.  Like Rome and Greece we find ourselves overburdened with our Pax Americana which followed after Pax Hellenica and Pax Romana.  The differences are there in that we do not annex other countries outright, but instead impose political restrictions, and through our popular culture then mold their own cultures and conception of us.  Even in the so-called anti-American nations, American products, “freedoms,” and way of life are held in high-esteem through an emulation of sorts even if America’s presence and policies are hated.  Nevertheless, what is to be said is universal to all western cultures whether European, American, or Hispanic.  The era of western power as the sole driving force of history as taught may very well be ending.  This shift in power is going to be a cause of economic, social, political upheavals.  Denial is useless and serves no one, even the blind political structure sapping countries of life as it has become unsustainable in its quiet corruption.  With surveillance increasing political activism has also become costly and dangerous: an option only for those who can deal with the consequences.  For those willing, non-political, yet not wanting to be conquered by the state of the age Stoicism finds new relevance.

            Once a major philosophical school of thought, Stoicism commanded great esteem in the very past empires we believe to model our nations after.  After some research, it will be revealed that Stoicism is not just philosophy as it is rather religious in character, but remains more a “way of life” than anything else as a person can be Stoic regardless of the state of their belief or non-belief.  Primarily, Stoicism teaches a person to be strong, courageous, calm, and composed: to not be swayed easily by emotion, events, nor by the consequence of the person’s being.  To simply exist and not compromise in virtue and morality become the marks of high character.  In a word it is a form of self-discipline.  This all seems quite simple on the surface, and it is, yet remains a great difficulty in practice.  However, this becomes a matter of worth considering as social elevation and stature, wealth, political and social rights, and general transparency once considered a birthright—if it ever existed all—have decayed.  The veil of illusion over the reality of our own selves is lifted: our true worth is not what we thought it to be in the eyes of the greater society.  We are part of the world in which we are parts, not the central force many of us want to be.

The appeal of a modern form of Stoicism becomes rather clear in uncertain times in which we feel as if we are being swept away.  The erosion of our rights and privileges is combined with an ever increasing hostile control makes us feel powerless, and we very much are.  Our human dignity, however, is not something that can be stripped away unless we let it happen.  Does such a notion hold weight with the masses of people concerned more with pleasure?  Of course not, but some deserve a measure of sympathy and compassion simply for knowing that there is something better even if they cannot find it.  The traditionalist is a person who despite their means is a person who wishes to imbue his soul with nobility.  There are no aristocrats but those who have sought to find ascension in their souls.

To be stoic is something both simple and complex.  It requires cultivating and conditioning not of the body, but of the soul.  Soldierly and martial stoics may also condition the body, but it is not a prime factor in being a stoic.  The serenity of the sage, a virtuous life, is not attained simply by doing good works, but by finding clarity devoid of extremes of emotion.  One must be ready and willing to accept what has been ordained or doled out to them by the Will of Divinity: fate, in a word.  If it happens to you, it was meant for you.  If it happens to you, you can handle it.  It is the anticipation of an unfortunate even that is worse than the event itself.  Fear … is often a prime motivator in control by hostile parties, but fear is still that same factor preventing us from finding our place and developing as men.  Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Zeno, these were real men who used courage, dignity, and intelligence to overcome their obstacles.  In the case of the former, lacking the power to prevent a greater decline, a great legacy applicable to combat, human relations, and other struggles was passed down through the ages.  Learn how to be an imperial Stoic from Aurelius’s Meditations and Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic.  Our age mirrors those of the past in many ways.  Go … be a man.

Webster defines “theocracy” as the government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.  Throughout high antiquity, theocracy, in one of many forms, was the standard, rather than the exception.  The rulers of Rome were the embodiment of a regal spirituality; in Tibet under the Lamas, political power became concentrated in the priestly class, who functioned as much as religious leaders, as they did as political ones. Evola, in Revolt Against the Modern World idealizes the “Olympian ruler” or Chakravartin, as the wielder of power and one who is divinely inspired.

In modern times, the church is either removed from any visible participation in the State, or it is governed and restricted by the State.  In other words, a sign of modernity is the overwhelming restriction being placed upon faith, in order that politics can dictate moral decisions.  In the process, divine guidance  is replaced by secularized theological concepts.  The end result is the creation of a secular theocracy, whose proponents are as zealous and imposing as any theocracy has ever been.  Modern existence is thus a contradiction in which any transcendent source of power is removed, yet there is a certain quasi-religious character.  While they do not claim a divine entity as their inspiration, their zeal is such that they believe their ideals to be unquestionable and infallible.  Indeed, if it was necessary to decry the kingdoms of Old Europe as being inherently tyrannical as a result of having imposed the unquestionable law of “divine right,” then the so-called democracies of the world too, must also be considered as such, and must be condemned even more forcefully.

Here we must pause and define the religion of this secular state.  As the notion of a “secular theocracy” is at once an inherent contradiction that implies a faith without revelation, so to is the society which arises from it.  In the secular theocracy, heresy against God becomes deified and the undifferentiated man becomes upheld as the example of individuality and uniqueness.  The modern state, possesses its own dogma and code of ethics, as well as a way in which it is promulgated in society.  In the political cults of many states, there are creation stories and formative myths, and many actions can be explained as a contrast between good and evil.  In other words, the ideas established by political consensus operates in order to replace the Church or another religious authority.

The most sacred tenets of this secular theocracy are ideas such as materialism, egalitarianism and feminism; its Heroic Epics are the lurid tales of persecution such as the Holocaust, with artificial heroes like Elie Wiesel; its sacred scriptures the countless pages of dreary and bureaucratic legislation; its rites are the mundane trips to fast-food restaurants or malls, where citizens worship at the shrine of quantity.  At the core of this modern world’s morality is the notion of “freedom” and the acceptance of everything that was once considered immoral and indecent.  And all these ideals are today as unquestionable to the common mind as the notion of geocentrism was in the time of Ptolemy; the heretics of secularism are those who profess opposition to its vapid values of “tolerance” and “inclusion,” or those who don’t accept the official histories and dogmas.  And like the religious empires of the past, liberals in what Guenon termed the “Far West” have never given up at bringing this new faith to other lands.  As the conquerors of old, they have attempted to transplant their denomination to the far-flung corners of the globe.

Israel Shamir points out that there are multiple ways of interpreting the problem of secular theocracy.  Its ultimate manifestation is liberalism, which as Shamir states, can be interpreted either as a secular Protestantism a là Max Weber, or as a secular Satanism.  However, he ultimately rejects these theses as being incomplete, and concludes that liberalism is secular Judaism.  Says Shamir:

[I]t is only natural that the ideology they promote is so close to Jewish heart. Its adepts retain classic Jewish attitudes; and the “uniqueness of Israel” is a tenet of this “non-religious” school, whether in the form of the “unique” Holocaust, or a “unique” attachment to Palestine, or a “unique” love of freedom and diversity. Indeed, while mosques burn in the Netherlands and churches are ruined in Israel, no emotions are stirred up in comparison to those set in motion when graffiti is written on a synagogue wall. The US grades its allies by their attitude towards Jews. The Holocaust Temple [“Museum”] stands next to the White House.

Certainly, if modern society is representative of “secularized Judaism,” then it is a rejection of Christianity.  And perhaps, this is why the media, in an effort to disguise the fact, claims a so-called “Judeo-Christian” origin for today’s society.  Where Western European society had historically been based on Roman Catholicism, the Emancipation of the Jews required a paradigm shift into which the Talmudic ideology was slowly but surely normalized.  Whereas before Judaism was a rabbinical the rejection of Christian doctrine, formed after Christ, Judaism — including the Talmud and its brazen hostility towards gentiles — was now incorporated into the ordinary faith of Europeans.   Thus, as long as Europe was Christian, they were able to maintain a semblance of a traditional society.  But with the rise of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revoltion, and subsequent historical events, this society was consumed entirely.

We need only look at the progression of events to realize the damage that the secular theocracy has caused: the denial of majority group rights and fragmentation of societies, the attacks on the cultural foundations of the peoples around the world, the promotion of homosexuality and feminism at the expense of families, and the fading of care and compassion.  Secular theocracy, along with liberalism and democracy have ultimately failed to produce the utopia that its propagandists claimed that it would create. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.  Such people are sure to be the vanguard in the fight against the tyranny of fundamental secularism.