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.

In the Name of The Master of Judgment

For those of us fortunate to live in the first world, if we have been blessed enough to have been born in a station where we do not have to struggle greatly simply for survival, it is a time in which much we could desire is at our reach.  Food, drink, entertainment, and music, all of these are easily and can be rather inexpensive.  Other pleasures both legal and illicit add more depth to the understanding of this world.  In these times, we find ourselves bombarded everywhere we go.  We are saturated and chained to the point of having no privacy whatsoever … shattering our intimacy and private moments needed by our family, and wanted by our Lover.  The senses bombarded constantly, especially for those in big metropolises; it takes discipline and periods of refreshment.  How often have we wanted that special time only to be interrupted by a mobile phone call?  Vibrant colors, strong fragrances, loud sound, the clamor of transport, the dust of movement, the heat of corporate clothing, the bright sun seems magnified by the fortresses of metal, glass, stone, and cement.  It is then not difficult to understand how many people simply become automatons until freed from their work.  Masks are worn as we are all in a great human drama which unfortunately is going in a direction that can be life-sapping.  In our quest for certainty and simplicity, it is important to try to set aside time for a healthy solitude.

Life in a Metropolis: Chaotic but Structured

Fall and winter approach.  Both allow us time in their very nature to contemplate life.  As the holiday weekends approach—namely the secular Thanksgiving weekend, and the December holiday season which contains the Christian and Jewish holidays of Christmas and Hannukkah—an opportunity presents itself for a period of contemplation and mild detachment.  For the Muslims, the most sacred month of Ramadan offers this very chance.  This need not be understood as completely separating oneself from the world, but a period of enjoying an increasingly forgotten simplicity.  It is a time to refresh and recharge, but also a time to try to reconnect with that which we must all eventually confront.  Odd is it may seem to “isolate” oneself, it can be necessary at times as it can allow the mind to be in some way restored to a state of clarity and perceptiveness we forget because of the numbness needed for modern life.  To slow down, to feel, to increase our perceptiveness, to increase our clarity, to learn something new beyond our work lives, to rekindle connections with those important to us, and to focus on our spiritual lives.

Reality can be complex, but understanding and appreciating it does not have to be!

This fall and this winter, use whatever free time to you have to genuinely and gently drop-out in order to be refreshed.  For those of us in very important positions it may not be possible to completely separate from our professional lives, but an exercise in judgment can help a lot of us make the most of what free time we have in the season of austerity.  Work to complete the circle and find a healthy medium so needed, so rare in this realm of medication, disorders, self-dosing, and weariness.  The most important aspects of your existence depend on you being at your best; the best will also know their flaws and so will the best for them understand and be merciful.

Bound to the Will of The Most Gracious

            It is not odd to feel alienated today.  In fact, the rates of alienation are increasing.  We are separated more than ever from our surroundings, from the people in our lives, from our work, and in some cases are barred from truly experiencing emotions: we have become detached and not in the way fostered by ascetic religious pathways.  For some of these people—those not mentally ill, or who simply manage to find satisfaction in this way of life—this is not an issue because they are content with their lot.  It is not a stretch of truth to say that there is a supernatural mirror to this physical reality: many of us have become distant from spirituality.  This means a true spirituality—an experience with God in proper form—rather than a shallow lingering at the surface.  It is an eternal quest to rekindle an old friendship with a lover and a friend for God is The Friend and The Lover of those who can open their hearts to Hum.  Like a human relationship, a Divine relationship also takes effort, requires sacrifice, needs understand, and demands acceptance of both good and evil in it.  In our atmosphere of rampant individualism, the necessity of seeking authentic spirituality is paramount.

Life becomes barren when we lack what we need.

What is authentic, you ask?  While a human being may understand spirituality to an extent, they do not always know authenticity, orthodoxy, or a proper understanding of rite.  To be authentic in your spirituality—to truly excel in cultivation—requires the points already addressed, but it also requires the choice of a living religion.  The serious embracing of a religion can be difficult for many, even those who are mentally and emotionally allied with a holistic worldview simply because it requires the lessening of their individuality and the self-denial of their freedoms.  Seekers must also find the correct interpretations in their newfound religions so that they can develop properly by not being stifled by ideas of political or legal extremism.  In the Islamic faith, the example laid down in the ahadeeth of Muhammad stresses the moderate enjoyment of what has been allowed and in constant mild-tempered behavior coupled with good deeds.  One can also find warnings against sectarian behavior for these traditions are very broad even in their conservative forms; most raised in hedonism will not see it, but even they can have change of heart.  Authenticity principally lies in the established religions which for those of us here in the West is the tradition of Abraham: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.  Cults, “movements,” and new age systems do not offer anything positive with the latter more a form of self-help with spiritual underpinnings meant for cash from corrupt “gurus.”

Why is seeking it so necessary?  To reconnect with the Almighty whose Radiance pervades existence is the priority of many people.  Even those so enamored with materialism in science and mathematics are seeking answers.  That they do so wanting to do good is encouraging, but their materialism is its own folly as it can prevent a wider understanding of Divine reality because of its insistence on solely understanding physical phenomena.  The deductionist model is acceptable in the viewing of the merely physical manifestation of reality as it is rational, simple, logical, and has great yield.  Spirituality is not something with can be reduced to its parts.  It requires a willingness to cultivate a sense of holistic understanding in which everything is properly separate, but also properly interconnected.  This is necessary to re-center humanity in its proper role as guardian, steward, and user instead of predator and exploiter on Earth.  It also reestablishes the guideline for communication with God.  We are subordinate to The Fashioner of what we know.  One cannot simply desire something, but out of fear not act on it, and then expect an improvement or change.  This may seem elementary, but the entrance to an entirely new world—a new facet—can be a daunting task.  Strive, strive, and strive.

Even though barren, we can still find something of worth in the desert.

The individual, the human being, attains a level of completeness in his spiritual development when focused on its way.  Therefore in our zeal to follow our selves’ desires we are neglecting important parts of our very selves which need attention.  Such a message may seem paradoxical to newcomers, but religion is not anti-individual at all; individualism is anti-tradition.  Our full worth rests in our deeds and intentions as these are just husks of flesh and bone which will in turn give way to soil and dust.  Our full worth can be unleashed in understanding, embracing, and cultivating a spiritual love.

In Service to The One

     Our modern world is one fraught with conflict on multiple planes: political, religious, physical.  Each of these is worthy of an address in itself, but for the sake of simplicity and clarity the focus will be on a single facet which is important to all people who value their rights as ordained in their traditions..  Our world is undergoing profound changes, particularly in the knowledge that an increase in media coverage and networking has allowed both for greater communication for those who seek justice and surveillance for those wishing to increase their tyrannical control.  In this case we stand in our western nations at a crossroads between whether we will be able to preserve our rights—which in the end are incumbent on our fulfilling our responsibilities—as an increase in anti-traditional sentiment continues to rise.  The experiences of those who adhered to a traditional path, as well as those not of any way in these transitional periods and the authoritarian or totalitarian states should lead us to take action.  It is necessary to know how to preserve ourselves and our ways.  We must focus on an area that many neglect because the increase of anti-religious, anti-cultural, and anti-Traditional sentiment, is leading many communities to be at the whim of potentially violent forces: we must once again take up the forgotten tradition of chivalry.  Yes, that virile path known in all glorious peoples: bushido, futuwwa, the way of valor.   Above all, it is important to tread a fine line and remain humble to conceal one’s true nature.

Saladin: Chivalry Distilled in Man

     There are numerous traditions which extol the virtue of learning how to protect and provide for oneself and family beyond our professions and occupations.  Many examples through the ages have communicated to us that men should learn how to hunt, how to fish, how to fight, how to ride horses, and how to swim.  In the past the predominant arts were archery, wrestling, and other striking arts.  Today we drive cars, but few of us know how to swim, how to defend ourselves, how to shoot a bow or any other projectile weapon, or even how to have a serious garden that can supply food.  If some disaster was to happen, what would happen to so many who may be worthy but so ill-prepared?  In light of this knowledge passed down to us, we should act on it to increase our security.  First, one should train in martial arts or a self-defense system.  It need not be fancy—yet in our time in which the popularity of mixed martial arts and other systems is popular—must be realistic enough to give a person a fighting chance and means of escape if possible.  Secondly, to know how to use what is at hand for defense is important.  Many weapons that criminals use are illegal—they do not follow the law in the first place—and can land a decent person in an extremely hostile and violent environment known as prison should they have used them to defend themselves.  To know how to used items at hand under stress—improvised weaponry like a stick, or even a handful of sand—is important in these situations.  Third, many people are not land-owners, but this should not stop them from having a store of dried goods to sustain them in the event of chaos: rice, beans, grains, spices, dried meat, dried fruit.  Physical fitness is an important part of this entire formula.  It may not be possible for all of us to be in the best shape, but just a little bit … enough to keep some strength is important so as to not allow oneself to be a victim and statistic.

Mercy and Truth temper the martial path

     As important as the preceding is, it must be combined with a spiritual life, a mission, and responsibility.  It is not for those irresponsible, callous, arrogant, or cruel to have such knowledge as they may instead use it for abuse.  This path however martial it may seem is also one to be tempered with mercy and compassion lest it simply become a path to a lust of violence.  As the people who wish to honor our path, we have a higher moral standard to maintain even if we may not be able to fight against the torrent of the iron age.

Dan Abshear, who writes for Henry Makow’s excellent blog, recently wrote an article in which he explains the tragic situation in which he was accused of molesting his daughter.  As a loving father, this could have not been a more shocking accusation to him.  However his concern for his daughter resulted in accusations from the radical feminist camp that he was somehow molesting her.  In response, he threatened litigation against the school, but the school administration, lead by the principal (a close friend of his openly lesbian ex-wife) bans him in retaliation.

As it turns out, such accusations are very common when a child’s parents are divorced.  While the stigma against child abuse is rightly founded, many of the accusations are not: an estimated 77% of allegations are determined to be unfounded, according to Child Forensic Studies expert Dean Tong.  Still, such an accusation is sufficient to strip the father of all his custody rights, even if no evidence exists to substantiate the allegation.  Due to the commonality of such claims, an acronym known as Sexual Allegations in Divorce (S.A.I.D.) is used to describe instances in which women make false accusations of sexual abuse against their husbands during a divorce trial. The number of S.A.I.D. allegations has risen from 7% to 30% since the 1980′s.

The prolific increase of S.A.I.D. no doubt derives from the stranglehold that feminism has on the American legal system.  Michael Weiss and Cathy Young argue that, in addition to favoring women in custody:

[F]eminist pressure has also resulted in increasingly loose and subjective definitions of harassment and rape, dangerous moves to eviscerate the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases, and a broad concept of self-defense in cases of battered wives that sometimes amounts to a license to kill an allegedly abusive spouse (source).

In the radical feminist mindset, women are infallible; a woman’s word is irrefutable and must be taken at face value, while a man’s word is inherently false.   The radical feminist further argue that failure to abide by this unwritten rule is an example of misogyny and oppression.  Political correctness plays a significant role here to, as the left portrays the act of not treating a woman more favourably than a man as a form of impolite resentment towards women. Another reason for the increase of S.A.I.D. could be derived from the fact mothers are more likely than fathers to be believed when bringing false accusations of child abuse into court proceedings.  An estimated 86% of sexual abuse were not believed when they said the abuser was a woman.  Also, according to legal expert Aaron Larson:

“…in divorce proceedings, mothers are more likely to be believed. In one noteworthy case, a young child told her father of improper touching by a babysitter, and he reported the allegations to the authorities. When social workers investigated, the mother accused the father of molesting the daughter. This resulted in a long legal battle, where the father had to fight for even limited access to his daughter. During the father’s four-year legal battle, the mother was diagnosed as mentally ill, and was temporarily institutionalized… Eventually, the father managed to convince a court that the charges were false, and he did gain custody of his daughter, but the emotional and financial consequences of the false allegations were enormous.”  (source)

Such proceedings are only one example of rampant and radical feminism in Western society.  The result was that, for some time now, feminism has eroded the nuclear family, as divorce has become profitable to women.  For the first time in American history, the census of 2000 reported that nuclear families accounted for less than one in four American families.

What is taking place today in the West is not unique in history, but has been a characteristic of empires before it. Will Durant, the noted historian, wrote about the fall of the Roman Empire:

Biological factors were most fundamental. A serious decline of population appears in the West after Hadrian…the holocausts of war and revolution, and perhaps the operation of contraception, abortion and infanticide had a dysgenic as well as a numerical effect: the ablest men married latest, bred least and died soonest. The dole weakened the poor, luxury weakened the rich, and a long peace deprived all classes in the peninsula of the martial qualities and arts…Moral and aesthetic standards were lowered by the magnetism of the mass; and sex ran riot in freedom while political liberty decayed.

He could just as easily have been taking about today.

Dawud al-Sini, a freelance writer contributed to the writing of this article.