View Full Version : Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism

Monday, August 30th, 2004, 10:18 AM
From Nihilism to Tradition

Michael O' Meara

I. Race of Blood, Race of Spirit

In the United States, we nationalists take our stand on the question of race, arguing that it denotes meaningful differences between subspecies, that these differences have significant behavioral and social ramification, and that the present threat to white racial survival constitutes the single, most vital issue facing our people. In Europe, by contrast, our counterparts pursue a somewhat different strategy. Against the anti–white forces of multiculturalism, Third World immigration, feminism, and globalization, European nationalists tend to privilege not race per se, but the defense of their cultural/historical identity.

This identitarian emphasis might be explained by the absence of First Amendment rights and hence the freedom to treat racial questions forthrightly. But there is, I think, another, more interesting reason for these transatlantic differences: namely, that European nationalists define race not simply as a matter of blood, but also as a spiritual – that is, as a historical and cultural –– phenomenon. Implicit in this view is the assumption that the body is inseparable from the spirit animating it, that biological difference, as a distinct vitality, is another form of spiritual difference, and that the significance of such differences (given that man is a spiritual being, not merely an animal) is best seen in terms of culture and history rather than 19th–century biological science. Race, then, may be the necessary organic substratum to every historically and culturally distinct people, but its biological properties, however primordial, are only the form, not the substance, of its spiritual manifestation. Thus, whilst we Americans search for psychological, sociological, conspiratorial, or political explanations to account for the racially self–destructive behavior of our people, Europeans look to the loss of their culture and tradition –– and the identity they define.

These distinctions reflect not just strategic differences between US and continental nationalisms, but also the larger civilizational divide separating America from Europe –– and hence their different historical trajectories. This is especially evident in the fact that Europeans of all political persuasions are presently embarked on an epoch–making project –– a politically united Europe –– that promises them dominance in tomorrow's world. There is, moreover, real debate about how the European project is to be realized, especially in France, where the will to power is most developed. The New Class forces in control of the European Union, as might be expected, favor the liberal, economic, and quantitative principles that are leading white people everywhere to ruin, envisaging Europe as a multiracial civilization based on free markets, unguarded borders, and an ethnocidal humanitarianism. Against them, the various anti–system parties challenging the liberal–democratic order of money imposed on Europe in 1945, along with hundreds of New Right, far Right, revolutionary-nationalist, and revolutionary conservative formations making up the Right's extra-parliamentary wing, marshall an array of persuasive counter–arguments and do so not simply in the language of race. For unlike their New World homologues, these anti-liberals have the millennia–long tradition of Europe's race–culture to buttress their opposition.

It is as part of this larger debate on Europe that Dominique Venner's 'Histoire et tradition des européennes: 30 000 ans d'identité' (History and Tradition of the Europeans: 30,000 Years of Identity) is to be situated. Few living writers are better qualified than Venner to speak for the white men of the West. For five decades, on paper and on numerous battlefields, he has earned the right to do so. His first arena in service to the European cause was French Algeria, where he served as an elite paratrooper. Later, in the 1960's, after discovering that the cosmopolitan forces of international capital had captured all the seats of power, he fought on another front, playing a leading role in the period's far–Right campaigns. Besides getting to know more than one French prison, he helped launch the metapolitical career of the "European New Right"(or 'New Culture'), which has since become the chief ideological opponent of the Judeo–liberal forces allied with le parti Americain . But more than courage and integrity under fire, Venner is a favorite of the muses, having authored more than forty books and innumerable articles on the most diverse facets of the European experience.

In a 'Histoire et tradition des europeennes', this gifted European turns to his people's distant past to answer the great questions posed by their uncertain future.

II. Nihilism

Writing at the advent of the new millennium, Venner notes that for the first time in history, Europeans no longer dominate the land of their fathers, having lost control of their borders, their institutions, and the very means of reproducing themselves as a people. He characterizes the present period as one of cultural chaos and racial masochism. No fluke of fate, this dark age culminates a long period of spiritual upheaval, in which Europeans have been severed from their roots and forced to find themselves in all the wrong places, including the negation of themselves. The loss of meaning and purpose fostered by this upheaval in which traditional forms of identity have given way to false ones, Venner calls 'nihilism'.

For Nietzsche, the most prominent popularizer of the term, nihilism is a productof God's death, which undermines Christian belief and leaves the world without a sense of purpose. Venner sees it in somewhat broader terms, designating not simply the loss of religious belief, but the loss of the larger cultural heritage as nihilism's principal source. In this sense, nihilism subverts those transcendent references that formerly oriented the Occident, leaving modern man with a disenchanted world of materialist satisfactions and scientific certainties, but indifferent to 'all the higher values of life and personality'. Given its focus on the physical basis of existence, nihilism fosters a condition devoid of sense, form, or order and hence one deprived of those standards that might aid us in negotiating the great trials of our age. An especially dire consequence of this loss of transcendence is a civilizational crisis in which the survival of our race becomes a matter of general indifference. Venner traces nihilism's roots to the advent of Spengler's Faustian civilization, which began innocently enough when Saint Thomas introduced Aristotelian logic to Christian theology, privileging thereby the forces of rationality. Because Christianity held that there was a single truth and a single spiritual authority (the Church), reason in this Thomist makeover was made the principal means of accessing the divine. Once the Christian God became dependent on reason, He risked, however, eventually being reputed by it. This came with Descartes, the founder of modern philosophy, who turned reason into a purely instrumental and calculative faculty. In the form of science, technology, and industry, Cartesianism reduced everything to a mechanical causality, associating reason with the progressive mastery of nature, a belief in progress (soon to supplant the belief in Providence), and, ultimately, the rule of money.

Venner claims a desiccated mathematicized reason, no matter how technologically potent, is no substitute for transcendent references, for a disenchanted world governed by its principles is a world devoid of meaning and purpose. The on–going mechanization of human existence and the quantitative, economic priorities it privileges are, indeed, premised on the eradication of those transgenerational structures of history, tradition, and culture which inform all traditional belief systems. And once such structures give way to rationalism's anti–organic propositions, so too does the significance of those qualities distinguishing Europeans from other members of the human family. In this spirit, the world born of nihilism takes as its ideal an abstract, uniform, and coffee colored humanity indifferent to pre–rational life forms based on Europe's organic heritage.

The greater the barrenness of the encroaching nihilism, the greater, Venner contends, is the need to reconnect with the primordial sources of European being. This, however, is now possible only through research and reflection, for these sources have been largely extirpated from European life. In uncovering the principal tropes of Europe's history and tradition, Venner does not, then, propose a literal return to origins (which, in any case, is impossible), but rather a hermeneutical encounter that seeks out something of their creative impetus. From this perspective, Homer's Iliad,written 30 centuries ago, still has the capacity to empower us because it expresses something primordial in our racial soul, connecting us with who we were at the dawn of our history and with what we might be in the adventures that lie ahead. Whenever Europeans reconnect with these primordial sources, they take, thus, a step toward realizing an identity –– and a destiny –– that is distinctly their own.

III. Tradition

When Venner speaks of tradition he refers not to the customary rites and practices which anthropologists study; nor does he accept the utilitarian approach of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk, who treat it as the accumulated wisdom of former ages; nor, finally, does he view it as that transhistorical body of principles undergirding the world's religions, as René Guenon and Julius Evola do. Tradition in his view is that which is immutable and perpetually reborn in a people's experience of its history, for it is rooted in a people's primordial substratum. It ought not, then, to be confused with the traditions or customs bequeathed by the past, but, instead, seen as the enduring essence of a particular historical community, constituting, as such, the infrastructural basis –– the cultural scaffolding –– of its spirit and vitality.

From this perspective, Europe was born not with the signing of certain free–trade agreements in the late 20th century, but from millennia of tradition. Nowhere is this clearer than in the themes linking the Iliad,the medieval epics, the Norse sagas, even the national poem of the Armenian Maherr, where we encounter the same warrior ethic that makes courage the ultimate test of a man's character, the same aristocratic notions of service and loyalty, the same chivalric codes whose standards are informed by beauty, justice, and harmony, the same defiance in face of unjust authority and ignoble sentiments, but, above all, the same metaphysical rebellion against an unexamined existence. From these Aryan themes, Venner claims the organic legacy that is Europe takes form.

The word itself –– 'Europe' –– is nearly three millennia old, coined by the Greeks to distinguish themselves from the peoples of Africa and Asia. Not coincidentally, Hellenic Europe was forged –– mythically in Homer, historically in the Persian wars –– in opposition to Asia. The roots of Europe's tradition reach back, though, beyond the Greeks, beyond even the Indo–Europeans, who shaped the linguistic and cultural structures of its root peoples. It begins 30,000 years, at the dawn of Cro–Magnon man, whose cultural imagery lingers in the extraordinary cave paintings of Chauvet (France) and Kapova(Ukraine), in that region stretching from the Pyrannies to the Urals, where, for nearly 20,000 years, until the last Ice Age arrived, the germ of European civilization took form, as race and culture fused in a uniquely brilliant synergy. Every subsequent era has passed on, reframed, and added to this traditional heritage –– every era, that is, except the present nihilist one, in which liberals and aliens dominate.

IV. History

Darwin may have been right in explaining the evolution of species, but, Venner insists, history operates irrespective of zoological or scientific laws. As such, history is less a rectilinear progression than a spiral, without beginning or end, with cycles of decay and rebirth intricate to its endless unfoldings. No single determinism or causality can thus conceivably grasp the complexity of its varied movements. Nor can any overarching cause explain them. Given, therefore, that a multitude of determinisms are at work in history, each having an open–ended effect, whose course and significance are decided by the historical actor, human freedom regains its rights. And as it does, history can no longer be seen as having an in–built teleology, as 'scientific' or ideological history writing, with its reductionist determinisms, presumes. This means there is nothing inevitable about the historical process –– for, at any moment, it can take an entirely new direction. What would the present be like, Venner asks, if Hitler had not survived the Battle of Ypres or if Lee had triumphed at Gettysburg? None of the great events of the past, in fact, respond to necessity, which is always an aposteriori invention.

In conditioning a people's growth, the existing heritage constitutes but one determinant among many. According to Venner, the existing heritage enters into endless combination with the forces of fortune(whose classic symbol is a woman precariously balanced on a spinning wheel) and virté (a Roman quality expressive of individual will, audacity, and energy) to produce a specific historical outcome. In this conjuncture of determinism and fortune, the virté of the historical actor becomes potentially decisive. Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini –– like Alexander, Ceasar, and Arminus before them –– or Frederick II, Peter, Napoleon –– were all men whose virté was of world historical magnitude. Without their interventions, in an arena organized by the heritage of the past and subject to the forces of chance, history might have taken a different course. This suggests that history is perpetually open. And open in the sense that its unfolding is continually affected by human consciousness. History's significance, therefore, is not to be found in the anonymous currents shaping its entropic movements, but in the meanings men impose upon them. For in face of the alleged determinisms justifying the existing order, it is the courage –– the virté –– of the historical actor that bends the historical" process in ways significant to who we are as a people.

In Venner's view, the European of history is best seen as a warrior bearing a sword, symbol of his will. The virté of this warrior is affirmed every time he imposes his cosmos(order) upon a world whose only order is that which he himself gives it. History, thus, is no immobilizing determinism, but a theater of the will, upon whose stage the great men of our people exert themselves. Both as intellectual discipline and individual act of will, it seems hardly coincidental that history is Europe's preeminent art form.

V. In Defense of Who We Are

Like history, life has no beginning or end, being is a process of struggle, an overcoming of obstacles, a combat, in which the actor's will is pivotal. While it inexorably ends in death and destruction, from its challenges all our greatness flows. The Hellenes enter history by refusing to be slaves. Bearing their sword against an Asiatic foe, they won the right to be who they were. If a single theme animates Venner's treatment of Europe's history and tradition, it is that Europeans surmounted the endless challenges to their existence only because they faced them with sword in hand –– forthrightly, with the knowledge that this was just not part of the human condition, but the way to prove that they were worthy of their fate. Thus, as classical Greece rose in struggle against the Persians, the Romans against the Carthagians, medieval and early modern Europe against Arab, then Turkish Islam, we too today have to stand on our borders, with sword in hand, to earn the right to be ourselves.

Europeans, Venner concludes, must look to their history and tradition ––especially to the honor, heroism, and heritage Homer immortalized –– to rediscover themselves. Otherwise, all that seeks the suppression of their spirit and the extinction of their blood will sweep them aside. The question thus looms: in the ethnocidal clash between the reigning nihilism and the white men of the West, who will prevail? From Venner's extraordinary book, in which the historian turns from the drama of the event to the scene of our longue duré) we are led to believe that this question will be answered in our favor only if we remain true to who we are, to what our forefathers have made of us, and to what Francis Parker Yockey, in the bleak years following the Second World War, called the primacy of the spirit.

Thursday, June 2nd, 2005, 05:36 AM
Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism

One lesson we should all learn early in life is that if what you're doing is not working, consider another method. This does not mean at the first sign of negative feedback, give up and do something different; it means that, if over time, what you are doing is not producing the desired results, change strategy. Square peg not fitting in round hole? You may have to think outside of your immediate task (cramming square peg in round hole) to the larger task at hand (which pegs go into which holes). This sounds so basic and fundamental, yet it is forgotten by most.

No clearer example of this can be felt in politics. Extreme leftists rant and cry in public, but in private spend much of their time bemoaning that few are involved, and wondering how to compel people to get involved. Environmentalists are known for being maudlin drunks who break into tears at the thought that most people don't care at all about the environment, with their proof for this supposition being the lack of mainstream involvement in their effete and radicalized groups. Similarly, what's left of conservatism - not bloody much - tends to wring its hands over the absolute disinterest that youth have for the conservative agenda.

Another potent example within politics is white nationalism. The WNs crowd around the fire, proclaim loudly their dogma, and then wait for the crowd to fall into step behind them for the final glorious race war. And why are they still alone, these brave WNs? The answer is quite simple: like liberals, they're a one-note party, and while they understand their own dogma, they don't understand how to apply it. The result is a radicalized, paranoid group of people who have no practical plan, and cannot even organize their own minds in order to organize their own political actions. (There are three real exceptions: Overthrow.com, Vanguard News, and the LNSGP, out of thousands of WN/NS groups.)

From my perspective, it's a pathetic state of affairs that both those who uphold our traditions and those who wish to protect our environment are afflicted by the same mental disease. When one looks at the ideals of environmental and white nationalist groups philosophically, it's clear that they are the two most related forms of belief out there today. Both are preservationists who seek to limit the selfishness agenda of modern society, and replace it not with bureaucracy but with a values system - a values system we share in common, in dramatic contrast to pluralistic systems, where the only shared value is a belief in pluralism. Both of these genres of politics could be easily drawn back from failure if they were willing to acknowledge what they lack.

As said above, it's simple: one has to organize a clear political platform that includes all aspects of the political system, and then organize one's agenda so as to contribute to society while reshaping it into something better. This means that one cannot speak up for green agendas alone, or ethnic preservation agendas (of which white nationalism is one) alone, but one must find some comprehensive way to remake society into something saner. One such method is to re-group white nationalism and environmental protection into the most time-proven system of governance we have, which is described as "tradition" because there is no other word for it. It's a viewpoint that is outside of the modern viewpoint, but since the modern viewpoint could be summarized as cramming square pegs in round holes, we might characterize tradition as a broader mindset in which one can correctly identify what shape of peg goes into what hole.

Tradition refers to the ways in which our societies (in this case, Indo-European; the author is Indo-European) have existed for millennia, and is an all-encompassing viewpoint. It is not just political, or philosophical, or economic, or religious, but all of these. Its genesis is an awareness of humankind's position not in a physical-economic order, but in a cosmic order, or in the patterns of life we find both in nature and in our own minds. In philosophical terms, traditionalism is a form of cosmic idealism, which means that it is a belief system where design-change in the external world (winning a battle, creating an idea, composing a symphony) is more important than personal comfort or survival; cosmic idealism is a dramatic contrast to Judaic moralism, as found in Christianity and liberalism, in which personal comfort and survival are more important than anything else (the one exception being, of course, when one fights for the "right" to live according to Judaic morality, at which point suicide and vengeance are celebrated as positive values).

Radical Traditionalism is a view of tradition from within a modern time. It recognizes that, in order to escape the modern crisis, we must first escape the modern mindset; this is the "radical" part, which means a total divorcing of values and expectations from what modernity has to offer. Radical in this context does not (necessarily) mean extremist action, but it means thought extremely removed from the norm. For most people living in a modern time, the concept of tradition is not one that makes sense on the first read, or the second, but sometime in the days following a reading after those. This is the barrier that radicalism is designed to transcend. As a natural consequence of this, Radical Traditionalist belief may seem "radical" to those in a modern time because it is far beyond what they are trained to comprehend.

Radical Traditionalism is a good solution because, unlike other political agendas which hope to make a few small alterations and then declare victory and go home, Radical Traditionalism recognizes the need to start thinking much differently about how we do things. It would take the entirety of our modern world and remake it into something more sensible, without abandoning our technology (although certainly limiting its use). Furthermore, Radical Traditionalism doesn't confine itself to race, although race is an inseparable part of the ideology. It doesn't confine itself to environmentalism, although concern and nurturing for our environment is an essential part of Radical Traditionalism. It is a holistic philosophy in that it addresses all human endeavors, and does so not from the perspective of the individual or of the collective, but of the whole: it places human individuals, collectives, and even our planet into a greater cosmic order.

This cosmic order, unlike those of humankind, is based upon pre-existing patterns found in nature. It is not arbitrary, like communism, nor of a one-track mind, like capitalism or any other state based on economic competition. It is not founded in the concept of dominion by the self over nature, nor does it pit humanity against its natural world. And, unlike white nationalism, its view of race is flexible; Radical Traditionalists believe races should be preserved, as racial differences are manifestations of a cosmic order called "karma" by some which is a spiritual approximation of what we know as evolution. Unlike moderns, traditionalists see evolution as a two-way street: one can evolve toward something higher, or devolve toward something more base and less noble. Naturally, they see the modern time as an example of the latter, and most credible evidence agrees with them.

Ultimately, however, despite its focus on cosmic ideals, Radical Traditionalism has a big leg over modernity in that it focuses on reality. Not simply physical reality, meaning the tangible things in front of us, but the reality of how our universe and physical environment operates. It doesn't substitute spacy "ideology" for knowledge, and it doesn't sidetrack itself into fighting for equality among people of varied abilities. Modern belief systems tend to take the form of "we should do (action) because (ideal)," but in tradition, the ideal is life itself, and what should be done is what is effective given how this order of life itself operates.

In this, Radical Traditionalism is similar to one type of nihilism. Since the word "nihilism" means different things to different people, it is important to define this type of nihilism as an outlook and a perceptual tool, not a conclusion or an ideal. Those who hold Nothingness up as an ideal, and as an assessment of life itself, are probably better referred to as "fatalists" because they do not believe any value can be found, and therefore believe their choices are irrelevant (a fancy way of giving up). Outlook nihilists believe nihilism is a way of removing illusion and looking into reality itself, from which we are separated by the frailty of (a) our own perception and (b) the errors of our interpretation of external reality. Where conclusion-nihilists take up nihilism as a means of ending further analysis of their existence, outlook nihilists use it as a means to look deeper into existence.

Nihilism of this form could be expressed this way: Upon waking up, I realized that nothing had any inherent value except for its presence as part of reality itself, such as a chair being useful for sitting upon, or food useful for eating because eating prolongs life and thus perception. While I was tempted to stay in this valueless state, I realized that to uphold a valueless state was in itself a value, therefore a valueless state cannot exist for long. For this reason, instead of rejecting reality, I rejected values outside of reality, and now try to see things only for what they are. This is the outlook nihilism of an experienced person.

Fatalism, or conclusion-nihilism, is solely the realm of life's failures. People who cannot make heads or tails of life, and have failed to find a place within it, find refuge in claiming that it never made any sense anyway and therefore they cannot be expected to participate - as if some cosmic parent were watching over them, trying to force them into it. People of this mindset are clearly quite lost, as they have not realized that their lives are their own and exist without need of interpretation, and furthermore, they've lost the ability to see the world beyond their own little existence. It may be that not all of them are stupid - most are simply misguided, and young, and underconfident, if not outright deficient. Those who haven't grown out of fatalism by their thirties are probably mental defectives.

When we look at nihilism and radical traditionalism, what jumps out at us is that both are ways of negating the values we have in a modern time and returning to a cosmic order based on the actual function of our reality. There is no morality in either that places the individual higher than a noble task; the opposite is true, since a nihilist recognizes that morality is not inherent and basically wishful thinking by those who fear they might succumb to violence. Radical Traditionalism, like nihilism, emphasizes a quieting of the internal dialogue over how to value life, and takes life at face value: things are simply what they are.

These forms of thinking are far more advanced than what most believe in a modern time. Most of the trousered apes of modernity have been taught that, thanks to technology and morality, we are slowly leaving a dark age behind and coming into a utopic state. This kind of worldview is called a "progressive" one, in that it believes in progress from a bad state to a good state. Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism shrug aside such concerns by recognizing that the basic dimensions of life remain as they always have been, and no new choices outside of technology have been presented to us. Evolve or devolve. It's all a factor of reality, no matter what moral excuses or numbers on spreadsheets we construct to support our own desires for what reality "should" be.

These beliefs are of the type that will dominate in the future. Humanity has had a thousand year hiatus from reality, first in the form of revolt by the masses, then via religious delusion and Judeo-Christianity, and finally through our economies, free enterprise, suburbs and wealth derived from fossil fuels. However, true to form, the delusional system of modernity brought us to a number of bad mistakes, and the end result has been the squandering of our fossil fuels and continued degeneration of our societies. Therefore, as the illusion ends, we return to common sense. If we want this common sense to succeed, we need holistic ideologies such as Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism to take the place of one-note philosophies like White Nationalism and Environmentalism, as they only increase divisions among us.

June 1, 2005


Thursday, June 2nd, 2005, 06:38 AM
Another potent example within politics is white nationalism. The WNs crowd around the fire, proclaim loudly their dogma, and then wait for the crowd to fall into step behind them for the final glorious race war. And why are they still alone, these brave WNs? The answer is quite simple: like liberals, they're a one-note party, and while they understand their own dogma, they don't understand how to apply it. The result is a radicalized, paranoid group of people who have no practical plan, and cannot even organize their own minds in order to organize their own political actions. (There are three real exceptions: Overthrow.com, Vanguard News, and the LNSGP, out of thousands of WN/NS groups.)

Truth hurts, but truth it remains.

Good article. I'm beginning to truly feel that any progress or success for germanic folkish preservation/rekindling is never going to occur through the traditional democratic illusion-of-choice system.

I like to think that simply by-passing the political system, and simply organizing ourselves and living the way we want, putting down Folkish roots underneath the radar so to speak. Working within the farce of democracy is not working, actually seems to be taking us backwards, and ultimately doesn't look like ever paying dividends.

A bright chap on tNP mentioned that perhaps operating behind the screen of a religion might be the way to go, as sanctioned religious groups are generally allowed to follow their beliefs unmolested.

If I had my way, I'd overthrow this rotten democratic farce and return to absolute monarchism, with a strong King or Queen of education and the correct blood. Actions would occur very, very quickly then.

White Iceland
Thursday, June 2nd, 2005, 04:58 PM
Didn't read the essay completely through, will do so as I have time... but the subject brought to mind Evola and the recently published Tyr journals... has anyone here read them? Excellent stuff! and highly recommended.

Also to quote:

(There are three real exceptions: Overthrow.com, Vanguard News, and the LNSGP, out of thousands of WN/NS groups.)

I wouldn't take sides with these outfits... there is every bit as much fault and more to be found there as say at Stormfront.

Friday, June 3rd, 2005, 03:50 AM
I wouldn't take sides with these outfits... there is every bit as much fault and more to be found there as say at Stormfront.

Please list them :)

Friday, June 3rd, 2005, 10:33 AM
(There are three real exceptions: Overthrow.com, Vanguard News, and the LNSGP, out of thousands of WN/NS groups.)

I hope the author is not serious about Vanguard, run by a 40 year old drunken dysfunctional clown named Alex Linder who still lives in his grandmothers basement. He was not hopeless until he partnered with an equally drunken character named Glen Miller, a totally crude, obnoxious, despicable individual, the epitome of the Federal gov snitch, having betrayed everyone he came into contact with to the federals in the late 1980's. Miller has also fathered at least one non-White (Pacific Islander) child, those who know him say more, but one is all he admits to.

Sadly, we do not have a lot of good choices in orgs in the USA, but this one is at the bottom of the snakepit :suomut:

Saturday, June 4th, 2005, 02:04 AM
A bright chap on tNP mentioned that perhaps operating behind the screen of a religion might be the way to go, as sanctioned religious groups are generally allowed to follow their beliefs unmolested.

I agree; it's one potent path:


I write for this concern and find their beliefs heartening, as I do these:


Hail the original Aryan religions... in whatever form they come, now.

Friday, July 15th, 2005, 05:30 AM
Nihilism as Holy Grail

In one of the oldest, and most popular, stories in English-speaking countries, a handful of knights seek a mythical object called the Holy Grail. In the course of their adventures in seeking it, they overcome illusion and fear and become one with a natural order to the cosmos, being thus able to do what is required to transcend the supernatural protections of the grail and to "achieve" it.

To anyone who has read much literature, or is familiar with the structure of legend, it is clear the grail is a symbol and that the real acquisition is the knowledge and strength gained from pursuit of the grail. Whether the grail itself has mystical powers, the mythos of the journey is that of the knights gaining mystical powers, and by it, passing from one level of power to another. This power affects the organization of their consciousnesses, and therefore, grants to them a higher degree of effectiveness, much as martial arts training improves one's combat skills.

When we speak of nihilism, it is extraordinarily difficult to come up with a basic definition of it for the same way that explaining language to a cow is difficult - unless you already have an understanding of the basic archetype on which the definition is built, it's almost impossible to comprehend. It is like a thing from another world, in the stories of H.P. Lovecraft, that appears to us as terrible because to correctly perceive it requires more dimensions than those in which we are conscious. Nihilism is to most of us this thing from another dimension, as being accustomed to Judeo-Christian morality, we have no knowledge of why such a thing would be valuable.

Nihilism can be described as a rejection of knowledge, a rejection of belief and morality, or a rejection of decision-making. It is all of these, but rarely in the way we describe. It does not make sense to reject all knowledge, or one stops in the middle of this sentence (here) because one has rejected the memories of language. It makes little sense to reject all belief and morality as that destroys even our faith in logic, or our ethos of wanting to discover truth. And to reject decision-making, as a whole, is passivity, not nihilism. So how to define it?

One way to look at it would be that nihilism is a rejection of any belief system that is exclusively human, e.g. does not have a paired structure in nature. That means that unless we see reason to believe in the Gods, we do not believe; that unless we see reason to believe in equality, we do not believe; it is a form of skeptical, educated, and yet open-minded empiricism. It does not make absolute rejections, but pares down our knowledge to what is realistic, passing on the Judaic-style moral systems that create arbitrary systems for artificially equalizing the wills of different individuals.

More than empiricism, however, nihilism could be described as a gateway to realism, but a form of realism in which the intangible is recognized; most realism translates rapidly into materialism, or belief only in the physical world, which is not what nihilism means. For the uninitiated, materialism seems fine until one realizes that in the philosophical definition, having any values outside of material things - comfort, wealth, survival - obviates materialism.

Nihilist realism is a grasp of reality that preserves our knowledge of the abstract structure of the cosmos, and thus avoids the blockhead interpretation of realism as literal materialism. Much like knights going to find the grail, we often must experience it in our lives before we can understand why it has value; this brings us back to the question of morality. Judaic-style morality revolves around the individual, and preservation of that individual. Nihilist morality frees itself from this absolute to consider only realism.

From a realistic view, for example, an overpopulated planet needs to be cleansed. Therefore a nihilist does not worry about whether it is "murder" (and thus taboo) to kill people, but concentrates on killing the right ones so that humanity and its world get healthier. For example, to a nihilist, it's very obvious that seven billion people are too many, and that killing the dumbest of those on planet earth will be a positive step toward sanity. Some may waffle on about sterilizing versus killing, but to a nihilist it is not a question: one does what fixes a bad situation, rather than worrying about the individuals within it, as individuals are like water - a commodity of nature, and more will be created.

A nihilist does not adhere to Judeo-Christian views about morality in other ways. Most nihilists are not inclined to violence, but where it is the right tool to better a situation, they would have no moral prohibition against it. Nor against war. Nor against laziness, or drug use, or any other "wrong" behavior - with the only caveat being that, in a realistic sense, it must have purpose. To a nihilist, an action without will is an admission of fatalism, or a lack of ability to make decisions, and probably merits death if repeated consecutively.

Only reality is real. Relegating what is in human minds without a natural correspondent keeps us in touch with what is real, so we don't drift off into fanciful notions of God, Justice, Freedom, Money, or other things which are our symbolic systems for interpreting life, but not relevant to life itself except when used accurately in that capacity. When one becomes a nihilist, it is no longer a question of accepting absolute values, but which values to pick - based on reality, and an enduring realism that recognizes the holiness of life as a whole.

This ultimately is the paradox of nihilism: as a philosophy, it is a gateway to an understanding of cosmic order as it is, not the creation of an alternate cosmic order (God/morality) with which to compel others to act for the benefit of the individual. It is the only transcendence of the individual, and thus of death-fear, which is available to us, and its tenets have been found in all of the ancient cultures and religions of merit, but its most enduring appeal has been through common sense: reality is real; get over the fear of death and low self-esteem, and do what is great, not what is a phantasm of a lonely and fearful mind.

July 14, 2005

Saturday, July 16th, 2005, 02:54 AM
The Original story of the quest for the holy grail and such actually before hand was the Celtic pagan story of the quest for the magical cauldron.

The Christian story of the grail stems from the previous pagan cultures.

As for Nihilism it is the rejection of everything and all reality. I really do not adhere to it nor do I like it.

Most Nihilistic philosophy I have read is were all doomed everything is worthless and blah blah blah blah.

If you ask me the world does not need hopelessness of Nihilism , but instead we need strength and honor.


Interesting writing I enjoyed your post. :)

Monday, October 17th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Radical Traditionalism is the doctrine of the occult and initiatic religious school created by the Italian Baron Julius Evola in the early and mid parts of the 20th Century. Because it is "occult" the doctrines it teaches are "hidden" (occult means hidden). To understand it requires research and study into areas of anthropology, history and religion that are concealed from the mainstream of the population, and which represent lost wisdom. Tradionalism synthesizes the major religions of culture -- the pagan faiths of Central America, Europe and Asia, as well as Stoicism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism and other major Eurasian cultural views. It is a non-Semitic religious tradition, meaning that it does not exist within the context of Judaism-Christianity-Islam, and it holds a generally negative views of those religions*.

What follows is the core "story" of Traditionalism, and its major beliefs. Because it is initiatic, the understanding of one idea in the faith is based upon the understanding of other, lesser ideas. By incrementally increasing one's understanding of this wisdom by degrees, one goes from the common understanding one has of the world to a deeper and more meaningful understand of the "hidden" underlying structure of the world. Because this knowledge is acquired by degrees, if one is exposed to the conclusions of a higher degree before one has understood the lesser ideas that support it, the idea is so divorced from the largely manufactured and artificial concepts of the modern world that it seems strange or ridiculous. Imagine being presented with the Bible stories if you had grown up in a culture without a Semitic religion as the dominant faith! However, as Evola points out, this doctrine was "normal" for all non-barbaric people of the world for millenia after millenia until just recently, where doctrines of the "dark side" -- things like progressive-"ism", liberalism, neo-conservatism, Bolshevism, globalism and the like have begun to destroy the real culture of all people, all over the world.

What follows is a distinctly normal view of the world, deeply rooted in your history and culture, whether you are Irish or Greek, Persian or Japanese, and it only seems so out of place in the context of the highly abnormal situation that has resulted from the convergence of a number of forces that have been developed over the past few centuries. I find the Traditionalist framework to be the best and most consistent context for understanding and explaining history and human social development, and the most useful in making predictive analysis of politics, culture and what makes a society prosper or fail. I don't ask anyone to convert to it, but I think it is important in judging a candidate to have a strong understanding of their underlying world view.

In the beginning, one race of man was civilized, and inhabited an area in the far North and in the Arctic. The other men of the earth were barbarians and animals, and incapable of acts of creation and reason. For reasons unknown -- likely a shift in climate -- the men oof the North were forced out of their homeland, and began to settle the rest of the Earth in two cycles. The first cycle came South through the far North of Asia in what is called the Hyperborean cycle. The second came South through a large continent that once existed in the midst of the Atlantic ocean, and is known as the Atlantean cycle.

Approximately 10 millenia before Christ -- circa 10000 BC -- the continent of Atlantis was destroyed in a natural disaster that sunk it beneath the sea. In the time between the beginning of its settlement and its destruction, the people of Atlantis had spread across the earth and had settled North and South America, parts of Europe, Northern Africa, and Southern Asia. The Egyptian civilization in particular always considered itself a colony of Atlantis, and the prehistoric inhabitants of Ireland -- the Tuatha de Danaan -- and Greece -- the Danaans -- were likely offshoot of Atlantean culture. The Incas and the Aztecs, too, considered themselves to have been given culture by a superior sea-faring nation in the far North of the Atlantic.

In competition with the people of Atlantis, were the people of the Hyperborean cycle, who spread across the Earth in waves that included the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic invasions of Europe, the Northern invasions that led to the founding of ancient Greek culture, the Aryan invasion in India, the settlement of the Middle East and Persia, and the founding of Chinese civilization.

All of the major civilizations of world -- the Central American (Mayan), Northern European (Norse-Slavic-Celtic), Southern European (Greco-Roman), North African (Egyptian-Carthaginian), Middle Eastern (Babylonian-Assyrian-Persian), Indian, and Chinese -- thus have their root in one common civilization. That civilization is the civilization of Tradition. When men possessed Tradition, they lived in a state of bliss and perfect harmony with the universe and natural law. As they lost their homeland, and interbred with the lesser people that inhabited the Earth, their culture became diluted and they began to enter into cyclical decline.

Key to the structure of a Traditional civilization is the idea of caste. Caste is not a limiting factor, but it is a system of social organization that is designed to let each man best find a method of expressing who they are. There are four castes in every traditional culture, from the Irish-Celtic-Druidic to the Hindu Brahmans. There is the emperor-king, who is a servant of the divine, and who sits above all caste, and there is a religious caste that serves him. There is a warrior caste that enforces social order. There is a merchant caste that tends to material needs. And there is a worker caste that performs physical labor. These castes each have symbolic representations -- gold for the highest, followed by silver, copper/bronze, and iron/lead/stone.

Similarly, the two races of men -- those within Tradition and those without -- have symbolic representations in other fundamental dichotomies: male/female, light/dark, white/black, good/evil, North/South, sun/moon, sky/earth, and the like. In Hermeticism and alchemy, for instance, this relationship becomes mercury/sulfur, and the "gold" that the Philosopher's Stone is supposed to reveal is the Lost Emperor and Secret King of the Golden People.

Society is declining in cycles of the castes. In the beginning, the golden caste -- the religious caste -- ruled. It's rule was followed by that of the warrior caste. Currently, we are living in a time of the rule of the merchant caste. In time, society will degenerate to the rule of the worker caste, and then society will self-destruct, being consumed in fire in a final battle between the forces of Tradition and the forces of "progress" and anti-Tradition. When the final "progressive" society is destroyed by fire (my guess is nuclear fire, but that's just my guess), from the ashes will arise the Secret King -- the true Emperor that once ruled over the regions of the Arctic -- and he will restore the Earth to the Golden Age. Those familiar with Norse myth can think Ragna Rokkr, Baldur, and the release of spirits from Valhalla.

Each cycle of the caste is characterized by its particular vice. Without an Emperor-King, the religious caste loses its center, and cannot function. Without a religious caste to control it, the warrior caste collapsed society into feudalism and war. The merchant caste used this as an excuse to turn them out, and then plunged civilization into an age of greed. The worker states that emerge will be characterized by an age of slavery.

Given that decline is inevitable, there is no question of reversing history. However, one cannot abandon society to "progress", either. One has to stand up among the ruins of civilization and conduct one's self according to the codes of honor that have been lost, and one must constantly fight against the suicidal destuction that society is hurling itself toward. By standing up and conducting one's self properly according to one's caste, one transcends one's current material form and becomes a spiritual entity that will be reincarnated in the final confrontation and destroyed to restore to the world its original form. By transcending material reality one becomes eternal and immortal. The body becomes an avatar of the universal spirit and the soul becomes unified with the eternal soul. It's a very good state of affairs to be in, becase material discomforts -- pain, fear, unhappiness and the like -- cease to exist as a state like Nirvana, Zen, or "Oneness with the Tao" replaces normal existence.

Source (http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/radical.html)

Monday, October 17th, 2005, 02:53 PM
by Bill White

Monday, October 17th, 2005, 03:40 PM
by Bill White

.. as it is stated in the source.

Monday, October 17th, 2005, 03:54 PM
I just thought maybe people want to know the author before reading it ;)