En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

samedi, 22 février 2020

Antaios, spiritual sources of Europe


Antaios, spiritual sources of Europe

Interview with “New Antaios” (Thor E. Leichhardt)

(interview taken by Robert Steuckers, late spring 2011).


Who are you? What’s the main purpose of your “New-Antaios” project? And why do you refer to the mythological figure of Antaios? Is it a revival of Jünger’s and Eliade’s Antaios or an English counterpart of the former Antaios journal of the Belgian novelist Christopher Gérard?

I was born in Agram (a German name for the city of Zagreb) in Croatia just over 42 years ago. I have lived in Zagreb during the times while my country was occupied by Yugoslav communist regime led by dictator Josip Broz Tito. There I have studied Political Sciences at the University of Zagreb and later on Philosophy and Psychology at Hrvatski Studiji, University of Zagreb. I have studied as well at Universities in Scandinavia, United Kingdom and Germany. I am coming from a family which is of an ethnic German heritage.

Antaios is uniting Earth and Sea, soil and water without whom both there is no life. Antaios father was Poseidon, the God of Sea and mother Gaia of the Earth. Antaios or Antaeus in Greek means as well ‘’against’’ so in this way ‘’The New Antaios’’ is in cultural and philosophical terms set to make an intellectual bulwark against that what is destroying Our European culture, tradition, heritage, folklore and with that ultimately our roots.




Journal ‘’The New Antaios’’ is the continuation of the original ‘’Antaios’’ Journal of Mircea Eliade and Ernst Jünger so we can say it is a revival albeit the Journal will/is as well reflecting on all that is happening in these postmodern times. Hence Journal represents what I call ‘’Postmodern European thought’’ and as such serves primarily as an outlet for the postmodern philosophers and thinkers.

I do respect and highly admire Christopher Gerard and his work on Antaios in years from years 1992 to 2001. Like Gerard I dislike New Age teachings and don’t have any interest in TraditionalistSchool. The New Antaios is made of four sections which are making the whole Journal. First part is ‘’Plethon’’ the name I gave after the Byzantine Hellenistic philosopher George Gemistos Plethon and articles in that section are related to Hellenism, Heathenism in a scholarly way. Contributions will be made as well by certain authors from Asatru background. Heathenism and Heithni comes from the Old Norse word heiðni which was used to describe the pre-Christian spiritual beliefs and practices of the Northern European peoples. The word Heithinn (or Heathen) comes from the Old Norse word heiðinn, an adjective to describe the ideals of Heithni (ex. Heithinn ethics – those ethics which conform to Heithni), or as a noun to describe those who live by the ethic and world-view of Heithni (ex. He is Heithinn, those people are Heithnir [plural]). Heiðni also means ‘high, pure, clear’ in Icelandic language. Word also describes person who is a dweller in place in the nature. Postmodern Heathens are those people who are reviving and revitalizing the tradition through serious study, research and dedication combined with the worship of the Gods and Goddesses or just simply in a way of their thinking without the ritual worship part. Personally I am keen of combining the two in a proper and balanced way. Second section is ‘’Aesthetic Vedanta’’ named after the book by Swami Bhaktivedanta Tripurari Maharaja, Western teacher of ancient tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Aesthetic Vedanta section deals with Hindutva, Hinduism,Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism exclusively. Third section is ‘’Suncovrat’’ a Croatian archaic word for the Solstice and deals with pre-Christian cultures which existed prior to Christianization of what makes nowadays Republic of Croatia. Fourth section is the main section of the Antaios Journal.

I would further like to point out that Christopher Gerard has no input whatsoever and isn’t in any way associated or affiliated with this new Journal. That is why the journal has prefix ‘’The New’’ to clearly mark difference with previous two journals. As far as I know Gerard’s Journal ceased to exist just on the turn of the century hence prefix ‘’The New’’ is completely appropriate here. While it will preserve and retain the original idea and concept with due respect to previous editors and directors of the Journal, it will be updated with short blog style texts, proper academic articles and essays which reflect on and take a critical eye of current state of affairs in different areas of philosophy, politics, culture, art, tradition, science and these postmodern times .

What was the maturation process of your worldview? Has it to do with Croatian politics or not?

I would say that I have spiritual and political Weltanschauung complementing each other. I was brought up in a family whose background is Christian albeit my late grandfather and my late father were both reading authors like Nietzsche and Jünger and considere themselves to be Pagans. I was brought up on stories from ancient Greece and Old Norse and Germanic tales whom my friends in school didn’t even hear about. My own father was a Heathen. He wrote small and up until now unpublished treatise on what he calls ‘’Raan’’. In this book Raan is knowledge of the Gods and Goddesses who once in previous Yugas did visit our planet. In this work he is influenced by Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s philosophy.


After spending years at the University in Croatia studying Political sciences in Zagreb I went to become a monk in Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. The reason for that was again in the Family. During the mid to late 80es my family got interested in Gaudiya Vaishnavism so I started reading and studying different books of Vedic knowledge like Upanishads, Puranas and Bhagavad Gita. I have discovered in mid 90es about Traditionalist School, Rene Guenon and Julius Evola. In years to come I have been reading and studying about diverse cultures, traditions of Europe and parallel with that I got initiated in the Traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism while travelling to one of my spiritual pilgrimages to India.

Hence as a result, my own spiritual belief system would be Traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism, while I permanently study and read about Indo-European beliefs of our ancestors, Ostrogothic pre-Christian beliefs, Old Norse, Hellenic and Germanic pre-Christian belief systems and Mithraism. Vedic knowledge in my opinion is very important key to unlock many secrets of the European tradition itself. In line with that I very much admire Hindutva writers such as Sita Ram Goel and Ram Swarup, Indian historian Bal Gangadhar Tilak , contemporary scholar from Belgium Dr. Koenraad Elst as well as Alain Danielou who are all big influence. Next influence would be primarily my own teacher Sri Ananta das Babaji Maharaja by whom I was directly initiated in Parivar or Traditional line which goes back many centuries ago, then authors such as: Sri Kunjabihari das Babaji Maharaja (who is the direct teacher of my own teacher Ananta das Babaji Maharaja), Kundali das, Binode Bihari das Babaji and Sripad Bhaktivedanta Tripurari Swami Maharaja whose certain books and teachings are in my opinion the Gaudiya Vaishnava answer to Traditionalist school. There should be veneration of our ancestors together with the firm belief in divine origins of Our Ancestral lines, veneration of Nature and veneration of the Gods and Goddesses which are part of our European Identity. Perhaps it would be the best to quote here another great influence of mine, Dominique Venner: ”To live according to tradition is to conform to the ideal that incarnates, to cultivate excellence according to its standard, to rediscover its roots, to transmit its heritage, to be in solidarity with the people who uphold it. ”

Croatian politics were influential to my worldview and perhaps it would be better to give a bit of background explanation from the not so well known Croatian history. Certain people would like such knowledge to remain hidden as such. In my opinion Croatian people have a unique position in Europe. There are people who label Croatia Western Balkans which is a complete nonsense. According to what I was reading from diverse sources Croats aren’t only just Slavs and are mixture of Slavenized Germanic tribes, Celtic tribes, Illyrians, ancient Romans, ancient Greeks and Indo-Persians. Over the span of more than half a century Croat academics and researchers who were proclaiming such theories were executed or ‘’disappeared’’. Persecutions started in times of the monarchist Yugoslavia up to late 80es of 20th century in the communist regime. Names like Haraqwati and Haraxvati which paleographic expert Dr. Kalyanaraman has found were names of the tribes, etnonymes which clearly show how early we can find about Croatian origins. Places where such names were found were part of Bharata Varsha or what is today India. Archaeologists have found along names emblems and coats of arms which look very much similar to Croatian coat of arms with the twenty – five field “chessboard”. In a similar way the remnants and artefacts were also found when those tribes have moved from what is today India to Persia and those names can be found in 6th century before Christ in places like Bagistan and Persepolis and also with ancient peoples like Hurrwuhé. Ancestors of today’s Croats were worshippers of Saraswati Goddess of Vedic India (Goddess of learning, arts and music) and from her name comes originally name Hrvati. Croats are therefore known as Hrvati, Haravaitii, Arachosians or Sarasvatians, descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the Harauti province & the Haravaiti or the Sarasvati River. The recent hravati /hrvati [sic] hence comes from haraxvaiti and earlier spelt as haraquati (arachotos, arachosia, araxes). Sarasvati is the river and Arachosia being the region.” Their mention is as well on the legendary inscriptions of Darius the Great. Early Croatian pre-Christian religion was derived from primordial Persian Sun-worship. Even the Croatian word for tie is kravat(a) which is again another connecting word.


Furthermore, the name of the Croatian capital, Zagreb, is related to the Zagros mountain range of Iran. The Dinara mountains in Dalmatia may be connected to Mount Dinar (Dene) of Iran. When the tribes came to what is nowadays Croatia they have mingled with the numerous local Slavic (or Slavenized Germanic tribes) tribes and adopted the Slavic language from them. Meanwhile after the collapse of the Hunnic Empire Croats organized the local Slavs into a state and gave them their national name. Before the invasion of the Avars ca. 560 the White or Western Croats created along with the Antes a great state extending north of the Carpathians from the upper Elbe to the upper Dniester. (35: Niederle, 263-266; Dvornik, The Slavs, 277-297) R. Heinzel is of the opinion that the Carpathians of the old Germanic Hervarsaga took their name from the Croats who called them the Harvate mountains i.e. Croatian mountains. (36: Heinzel, 499; Dvornik, op. cit., 284, sq.)” (Mandic 1970, Ch.1)

There are similarities in folklore as well. “There are old Croatian customs and national poems that have been cited as evidencing lingering traces of the fire and sun worship of the Persians. Fire, the essence of human origin, the sun, and the great boiling cauldron around which the warriors spring in the age old kolo or circle dance, all these are ingredients in the national lore of the Croatian nation. The Croat vilas or fairy witches resemble the peris of Iranian mythology. Then there is the legendary Sviatozov, the personification of strength, a being almost too huge for the earth to bear. He is strongly reminiscent of the “elephant-bodied” Rustum of Persian legend.” (Guldescu 1964, pt.1.II) “It should be noted that only the thesis of the Iranian origin of the Croats can explain the name “Horvath”, the title of a Croat dignitary Banus, the names “White” and “Red Croatian”, and the Bogumile phenomenon (like Cathars in Occitania). According to this theory, the Croats were a branch of the Caucasian Iranians, who lived somewhere in the western Caucasus during the era of the Roman Emperors. The Caucasian Anten were another branch of this group.” (Dobrovich 1963)

Research shows clearly everything what I have written and quoted above to be the truth although some oppose that theory as they want to preserve artificial Panslavism , idea of Yugosphere ( the idea for the 3rd united Yugoslavia without Slovenia and with Albania) under the guise of ‘’Western Balkans’’. In Croatian language there is an excellent word I really like: ‘’Samosvojnost’’. Samosvojnost means Identity in Croatian language. In my opinion Croatian identity should and must be preserved only through the independent republic of Croatia or as it is now. Hence Croatia does not need any new unions. Friendship yes, but union definitely not.

Serbia on the other hand would like to establish themselves as a regional leader. They play with naive Croatian government and Croatian president Josipović while behind their back they lobby in EU to make what was once war in ex-Yugoslavia look as a ‘’civil war’’ and accuse Croatia who were defending themselves . They do have some allies and friends in Europe who would like to see them as the leaders in the region. Those allies on the other hand actually don’t consider Serbia as a friend but as a tool for their own means and nothing else. It is a travesty of justice to see Croatian generals such as Gotovina and Markač to be sitting in Hague so just that Croatia can get a green light for EU so that bureaurocrats in EU they can say that ‘’all sides’’ were equally responsible. I would like to ask the question then. What about the people and country of Croatia which was invaded, whose homes are burned and destroyed? According to that ‘’theory’’ Croatians should not have been defending themselves as they were supposed just to sit and wait to be erased from the face of this planet.


Croatia has been suffering since demise of Austria-Hungary. It wasn’t good for Croatians either to be in any previous unions but union with Serbs has proven to be so far the worst one. Union with Austria-Hungary was far from perfect but at least we were in a monarchy which had culture and tradition. Croatian people don’t need anything anymore other than their own independence and peace with the neighbouring nations.

How the time is passing by I am less and less interested in Croatian politics. As a result I won’t be writing in Croatian language anymore since there is no purpose for it. I will rather use and invest my energy, effort and time for something I think will yield certain results than to write constantly for something what will anyway reach just a handful of people or just completely wither away. I have learned that from an example of the members of the ‘’Croatian Historical Revolution’’. Over the years I have read articles by leading Croatian intellectuals and scholars such as Dr. Tomislav Sunić then Dr. Jure Georges Vujić, prof. Amir Riđanović, prof. Petar Bujas (all members of Croatian group similar to G.R.E.C.E. – Arhelinea – www.arhelinea.com ) Dr. Zoran Kravar, then Croat republican conservatives such as: Tomislav Jonjić, Mario Marcos Ostojić, Hrvoje Hitrec, Croatian scientists such as : Dr. Vitomir Belaj, prof. Tomo Vinšćak, Dr. Radoslav Katičić, and prof. Mario Kopić and Dr. Hrvoje Lorković (of whom we can’t hear these days what is a real tragedy since Dr. Lorković is one of Croatian important intellectuals). Croatians should be happy to have such giants of free thinking yet many in Croatia don’t even know about some of them. That is for me completely bizarre. If one is carefully reading articles and books by above mentioned intellectuals and scholars one can only see that many of them are actually disillusioned with the current state of Croatia altogether. That is evident even from their articles. Hence as a result of that Zoran Kravar is not interested in any kind of politics neither he wants to be or get involved (yet he is one of authorities on Ernst Jünger in Croatia) same is with prof. Tomo Vinšćak as well, while others like Mario Kopić and Dr. Tom Sunić are publishing their new books outside of Croatia because there is hardly any interest in their ideas in Croatia. It seems that Dr. Jure Georges Vujić will publish his new books as well outside of Croatia. That is unavoidable since Croatians are lethargic in finding new solutions in political dialogue or any kind of new political ideas. They would rather stick to something what is completely falling apart while thinking that ‘’it would get better’’. I have a best friend in Croatia whose political ideas are in minority and while he wants betterment in any spheres of Croatian life (including politics and his fight against corruption) he doesn’t have as much support as he actually would and should get. It is the apathy and lethargy which are deeply rooted in certain parts of Croatian nation (thankfully not all of it) with its roots in the fear of change and political and historical lower self-esteem (which is really uncalled for, since Croats have such rich history, tradition and culture of whom they should be absolutely proud of) . The question they often ask themselves is: ‘’ What would happen if things change? ‘’ and because of constantly repeating that question they are indeed unable to make any significant change. I believe firmly that in the forthcoming parliamentary elections Croats will elect again some party or coalition of parties which will not bring nothing new to already stagnating Croatian political scene. In the right as well as left and centre there is nobody who could potentially have a quality for the deep changes Croatia needs desperately. In the right side of spectrum and as well on centre and left one can just see political opportunists in Croatia who long for their seat in parliament (called Sabor in Croatia) or certain position. That is their goal before anything else I am afraid, of course my humble bow to those politicians who aren’t like that and are in significant, significant minority.

My own political interests nowadays evolve around Eurocontinentalism and European Identitarian Communitarianism. Even though I do speak Croatian language I consider myself first and foremost an ethnic German with Prussian mentality, after that I am an European.

Eurocontinentalism in this case represents strong continental Europe which stands between USA and Great Britain on one and Russia on the other side. The question of Europe here is not just a matter a blood; it is spiritual, historical and cultural phenomenon.
This further quote actually explains some of my thinking on the matter: ‘’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 nineteenth-century biological science. American “white racialists” with their materialist-technical conceptions of race actually diminish the significance of the Racial Question by reducing it to a simple matter of genes, biology, equations….’’ ( Mladikov – The Phora Forum)

2013_05_Venner.jpgDominique Venner is in my opinion the greatest influence for the Eurocontinentalism and my own political Weltanschauung with his writings, articles and books. In Croatia some of his books are available as well.

His thoughts describe the best what I think further:

‘’ The idea that is made of love is no more frivolous than the tragic sense of history that characterizes the European spirit. It defines the civilization, its immanent spirit, and each person’s sense of life, in the same way the idea shapes one’s work. Is the sole point of work to make money, as they believe across the Atlantic, or, besides ensuring a just return, is it to realize oneself in a job well done, even in such apparently trivial things as keeping one’s house. This idea urged our ancestors to create beauty in their most humble and most lofty efforts. To be conscious of the idea is to give a metaphysical sense to “memory.”

To cultivate our “memory,” to transmit it in a living way to our children, to contemplate the ordeals that history has imposed on us–this is requisite to any renaissance. Faced with the unprecedented challenges that the catastrophes of the twentieth century have imposed on us and the terrible demoralization it has fostered, we will discover in the reconquest of our racial “memory” the way to respond to these challenges, which were unknown to our ancestors, who lived in a stable, strong, well-defended world.

The consciousness of belonging to Europe, of Europeanness, is far older than the modern concept of Europe. It is apparent under the successive names of Hellenism, Celticness, Romanism, the Frankish Empire, or Christianity. Seen as an immemorial tradition, Europe is the product of a multi-millennial community of culture deriving its distinctness and unity from its constitutive peoples and a spiritual heritage whose supreme expression is the Homeric poems. ‘’

To read further perhaps I would recommend this article (and as well all other articles by Dominique Venner) : http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/06/europe-and-europeanness/#more-881

What were your main sources of inspiration?

I have mentioned some of them above. I would say that Ernst Jünger, Dominique Venner and Nicolás Gómez Dávila are the most significant and important influence for me personally simply because they complement each other perfectly and in my own opinion they represent the true European Tradition which Ram Swarup, Sita Ram Goel, Alain Danielou and Koenraad Elst represent in Hindu Tradition. Apart from them other authors, thinkers and philosophers I would say first of all I feel especially close regarding ideas and Weltanschauung are : Croatian thinkers and members of the ‘’Croatian Historical Revolution’’, Classical philosophers such as : Emperor Julian the Apostate, Porphyry, Celsus, Platonis Sallustius, Libanius, Julius Firmicus Maternus, Iamblichus, Gemistus Pletho(n) and other such philosophers, Erik von von Kuehnelt – Leddihn, Croatian philosopher prof. Mario Kopić, prof. Robert Steuckers, certain ideas of Alain de Benoist, certain ideas of Dr. Guillaume Faye, Dr. Georges Dumezil, Dr. Jan Assmann, Mircea Eliade, Emile Cioran, Alain Danielou, German greatest living poet Rolf Schilling, Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, German Romanticism period authors and artists, Felix Dahn, Antoine Saint du Exupery, certain ideas of Julius Evola, Norwegian composer Geirr Tveitt, composers Arvo Part and Johannes Brahms, Felix Mendelssohn, Sibelius, Ralph Vaughan Williams, postmodern musical projects such as Triarii, Arditi, In Slaughter Natives and new project Winglord, artists such as Ludwig Fahrenkrog, Karl Wilhelm Diefenbach, Fidus, Caspar David Friedrich, Hermann Hendrich, Franz von Stuck, Carl Larsson, John Atkinson Grimshaw, Jean Béraud and others.

Who are the main Croatian thinkers according to you and that are completely ignored in the rest of the world? How could we discover them?

6891271.jpgMain and most influential Croatian thinkers were: Dr. Milan von Šufflay (picture), Dr. Ivo Pilar, Dr. Vinko Krišković, Dr. Filip Lukas, Dr. Julije (Julius) von Makanec, Dr. Stjepan Buć and authors involved with journal ‘’Spremnost’’ : prof. Tias Mortigjija, Dr. Milivoj Magdić, Dr. Ante Ciliga & Dr. Vilko Rieger (Dr. George W. Cesarich) . Influential are also early works of prof. Ivan Oršanić, Dr. Ivo Korsky, then author Ivan Softa (Croatian Knut Hamsun), national poet Jerko Skračić and a few others. It is very hard for somebody in Europe to discover them as their works were burned, destroyed and left to be forgotten by Yugoslavian and Serbian communist regime. Back in 1970es of 20th century for just reading the works of these authors, philosophers and thinkers one could get a lengthy prison term and that would be of course if you did find their books somewhere. I am collecting their works wherever I can find them and that is in most cases extremely hard and on top of that some of their books command very high prices. Situation is not like with authors of Conservative Revolution whose works remain saved and translated to many languages now. Most of the above mentioned people were brutally murdered by either Serbian Monarchist regime who ruled the first Yugoslavia or by communist regime who ruled Yugoslavia and occupied Croatia after the year 1945.

At this point in time there is no translated literature in any of other languages except the book ‘’Southslav question’’ written by Dr. Ivo Pilar (under pseudonym Dr. Leon v. Südland) which was printed at the beginning of the 20th century in Vienna originally in German language. Book was never reprinted again either in German or English (or any other foreign language) and was translated in Croatian language and has since been in print only twice. Copies of both editions are virtually impossible to find. Books of other authors are not being reprinted at all. I really don’t know if that is because of the economic crisis in Croatia since many members of Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) turned out to be crooks and thieves who were stealing money from their own country and country’s resources. It has been going on like that for a long time and no government (even the coalition of liberals and social democrats which lasted for 4 years) didn’t make situation any better or because there is no interest in those books and those authors at all. It is partially because of many Croatians were killed and murdered from 1944 to early 1950es by communist regime (and in years after that up to 1990 just prior to war in Croatia) and because of the mentality which became a norm since 1918, after Croats lost the war as part of Austria-Hungary. Dr. Ivo Pilar did warn Croatians about those kinds of problems especially in two of his books. One of those books was above mentioned ‘’Southslav question’’.

I am afraid that the only way to discover them will be through book I am currently writing and subsequently I will translate some of the most important works by Šufflay, Pilar, Lukas, Krišković, Makanec, Mortigjija and Magdić. I will start with works of Dr. Ivo Pilar and Dr. Milivoj Magdić whose works I am collecting at the present time. I am putting together Dr. Milivoj Magdić’s and dr. Ivo Pilar’s articles and smaller important works and will include one very informative article about Milivoj Magdić’s life done by one Croatian historian. Dr. Pilar’s book ‘’Southslav question’’ will be most likely the first one to surface followed by Dr. Magdić’s collected works. It is very interesting to mention that Dr. Ivo Pilar and Dr. Milivoj Magdić had both the biggest private libraries in the city of Zagreb and most likely in Croatia at that time. I have heard that currently Alain de Benoist has one of the biggest private libraries.

So we can talk about a genuine Croatian “Conservative Revolution”?

Croatian Historical Revolution was a German Conservative Revolution’s and France’s Ordre Nouveau’s counterpart. It strikes me how there wasn’t anybody in Croatia trying to compare German Conservative Revolution with all these authors we have had. My guess is that certain levels of academia in Croatia have some sort of inferiority complex and lower self-esteem. Except post modern Croatian intellectuals and academics I have mentioned above (and most in this group were living, studying and teaching for some time outside of Croatia) other Croatian intellectuals constantly behave in a way which has ruined indescribably reputation of Croatia. Members of Croatian Historical revolution were totally opposite. Partially that is because they grew up in Austria- Hungary and partially because up until year 1918 influence of Balkan ‘’culture’’ wasn’t predominant in Croatia and our gene pool wasn’t almost destroyed as it is the case today (holocaust of Croats and ethnic Germans from years 1944 -1950es). Most of the people who today want any kind of communism to be back in Croatia are leftovers of previous regime and they are not even Croats by their genes or in spirit.

05224baf72f642bd03aea467e8abd40d.jpgMembers of CHR (Croatian Historical Revolution) have had experience with different ideologies and transformations as the ones in Germany. They rallied for the Croatia as an integral part of Europe and how some of them called it at the time ‘’Bieli Zapad’’ (White West). Like authors in German counterpart they have produced diverse works such as philosophical treatises, political journalism, manifestoes which have outlined their ideas for the transformation of Croatia and role of Croatia in Central Europe and Europe altogether. They were strongly opposing liberalism and even liberal democracy and they have rejected despiritualization and commercial culture. They advocated new conservative thought which was inspired by Croatian national patriotism. I find their ideal very much connected with ideals of German Conservative Revolution members and nowadays with prof. Dominique Venner.

How could we connect Croatian authors with their other European counterparts? Who are the Croatian authors that should be read together, beyond every language barrier?

My opinion is that all the works of the above mentioned members of the Croatian Historical revolution are very much worth exploring, studying and reading. They all do come highly recommended albeit due to totalitarian and primitive backwards communist regime headed by Josip Broz Tito and his blind followers lots of original writings are lost , destroyed or are very rare to that extent that only Croatian National Library may have only one copy or original of each of the original works of the members of the Croatian Historical Revolution. None of those works were translated in any languages (as I have mentioned above) except Dr. Pilar’s ‘’Southslav question’’ which was originally written in German and then translated to Croatian. Dr. Ivo Pilar was speaking and writing as Dr. Milan v. Šufflay and many other members of CHR, in several languages. In those times after the I WW it was quite normal for people of Croatia to speak German as a second and in many cases as their mother language together with Croatian language. Hopefully in time through my own ‘’ Hyperborea Press’’ which is the part of Somnium Media all the main works of the members of the Croatian Historical Revolution will surface and be translated in English language. As always one has to be realistic, as with any of such efforts good will isn’t enough, I will have to invest money and time into this project in a balanced manner.

Do you see original viewpoints or bias by these Croatian authors that you cannot find back in the works of their other European counterparts?

I know that I risk now sounding a bit vague but most of their viewpoints are similar or identical with their German and French counterparts, although one of their main focal points or focus was naturally fight against the repressive Serbian monarchist regime and its imperialistic hegemony. I have written recently some articles about this topic. I believe that I will answer much broader to this question in my book about Croatian Historical Revolution.

What are your projects for the near future?

The New Antaios Journal’s further development is my priority and alongside with TNAJ there is ‘’Eurocontinentalism Journal’’ and my own ‘’Somnium Media’’ website which offers music, merchandise and books which are serving as an alternative to world of mass consumerism we live in. Great help in that effort is my dear friend mr. Zvonimir Tosic who is an editor in chief and managing webmaster of The New Antaios Journal and Somnium websites. The New Antaios and Eurocontinentalism Journal will both have some interesting interviews and articles in months to come. Somnium Media imprint ‘’Hyperborea Press’’ will publish most significant works of members of the Croatian Historical revolution and hopefully some works by Nicolas Gomez Davila.

Further related to ‘’Hyperborea Press’’ I have plans for the three books and three translations. First one is above already mentioned book about Croatian Historical Revolution and its members and it will be an overview of the significance of Croatian Historical Revolution and works of its members and authors not only for Croatia but for Europe and European thought as well. Another book is ‘’ Gaudiya Vaishnavism – The Living and Timeless Tradition ‘’ which will explain how important Traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism is (a belief in Hinduism) not only for Hinduism but for the resurgence of Indo – European thought in general. I know that Dr. Alexander Jacob has written extensively on the topic of resurgence of Indo-European thought but his emphasis is not like in authors such as Georges Dumezil , Jan de Vries, or Ram Swarup, Sita Ram Goel and Alain Danielou in Hinduism or ancestral pre-christian beliefs. Rather he uses as an example for restoration of Indo –European thought resurgence of European Medieval Christian noble spirit of ‘’archaic and brave’’ and Prussian noble spirit. In my own opinion the best starting point for such study would be a Saxon epic ‘’Heliand’’.

Picture: Dr. Ivo Pilar

220px-Ivo_Pilar.jpgTraditional Gaudiya Vaishnava thought in this book will serve as an alternative for the Traditionalist thought which was espoused by Guenon, Schuon and other Traditionalists. Third book deals with Croatian pre-Christian and pre-Slavic legends and it delves in times of the heroic Croatian past. I have contacted one still living Croatian author who gave me information on stories and its characters which obviously have roots in pre-Christian and pre-Slavic times of Croatia. It is quite a work and a huge challenge to reconstruct those tales and to find out and connect certain characters. Some shortened versions of those stories I will be presenting at certain Storytelling Fairs in Ireland during the summer. Three translations will be my most likely first translation work on the new book by Dr. Jure Georges Vujic (which will be his first book in English language) followed by translations of two books of the members of the Croatian Historical Revolution, Dr. Ivo Pilar’s ‘’Southslav question’’ and Dr. Milivoj Magdić’s best and collected works complete with my own explanations and commentaries. I will also continue writing for Brett Stevens’s Journal on line www.amerika.org which is with Europa Synergon one of the most interesting journals to be found on line.

Thank you very much Robert for the opportunity you gave me with this interview and as well thank you for your influence on my own thought which is indispensable and very important. I would also like to thank to anybody who has read this interview and found it interesting or just thought provoking.

(interview taken by Robert Steuckers, late spring 2011).

William Galston’s Anti-Pluralism


William Galston’s Anti-Pluralism

William A. Galston
Anti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018

“It is time for an open and robust debate on issues of immigration, identity politics, and nationalism that liberals and progressives have long avoided.”—William Galston

Galston is right. I will debate any liberal or progressive about these topics, and if they don’t want to debate me, I will help arrange a debate with whomever they prefer. Contact me at editor@counter-currents.com [2].

William Galston (born 1946) has had a long career spanning both political theory and practice. He received his Ph.D. in political theory from the University of Chicago and has strong Straussian credentials, although he aligns himself with the center-Left, not the neocons. (Arguably, this is a distinction without a difference.) Galston has taught in the political science departments of the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Maryland. He is now affiliated with the centrist Brookings Institution. Galston has worked for the presidential campaigns of John Anderson, Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. He was deputy assistant for domestic policy in the Clinton White House from January 1993 to May 1995.

Galston’s Anti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy presents itself as a “liberal-democratic” centrist polemic against the populist Right, in much the same vein as Francis Fukuyama’s Identity: Contemporary Identity Politics and the Struggle for Recognition (2018, see my review here [3], here [4], and here [5]) and Mark Lilla’s The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics (2017, see my review here [6]).

But Galston, like Fukuyama and Lilla, received a Straussian education, so chances are good that his arguments are not entirely straightforward. Indeed, all three books can also be read as polemics against the Left, since they argue that Left-wing excesses are the driving force behind the rise of Right-wing populism. Therefore, if the “liberal democratic” establishment wishes to take the wind out of the sails of Right-wing populism, it needs to rein in the excesses of the far Left.

Galston’s theoretical account of liberal democracy is pretty much standard centrist boilerplate. His theoretical account of populism depends heavily of Jan-Werner Müller’s extremely flawed book What Is Populism?, which I have reviewed [7] already.

For Galston, following Müller, liberal democracy is essentially “pluralist” and populism is “anti-pluralist.” By this, he does not mean that liberal democracies recognize that every healthy society balances the needs of the family, civil society, and the state. Nor does he mean that a healthy polity has differences of opinion that might express themselves in a plurality of political parties. Nor does he mean that a healthy society has different classes. Nor does he mean the separation of powers or the mixed regime. Populists can embrace all those forms of pluralism, but without liberalism.

Instead, for Galston and Müller, pluralism just means “diversity,” i.e., the presence of minorities, which he describes as “helpless” and in need of protection from the tyranny of the majority. By “minorities,” Galston doesn’t mean the people who lose a vote—a group that changes with every vote—but rather more fixed minorities, such as social elites and ethnic minorities.

But what if some minorities are not helpless but actually dangerously powerful? What if liberal democracy has long ceased to be majority rule + protection for minorities? What if liberal democracy has become, in effect, minority rule? What if these ruling minorities are so hostile to the majority that they have enacted policies that not only economically pauperize them, but also destroy their communities with immigration and multiculturalism, and, beyond that, seek their outright ethnic replacement? Liberal democracy is really just a euphemism for minority rule, meaning rule by hostile elites. Naturally, one would expect some sort of reaction. That reaction is populism.

Galston understands this. He recognizes the four major trends that Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin argue are responsible for the rise of populism in their book National Populism: Revolt Against Liberal Democracy: popular distrust of elites, the destruction of communities by immigration and multiculturalism, the economic deprivation—falling largely on the working-class and middle-class—caused by globalization, and the consequent political dealignments in relation to the post-war center-Left/center-Right political establishment. (See my discussions of Eatwell and Goodwin here [8], here [9], and here [10].)

In his Introduction, Galston notes that “The people would defer to elites as long as elites delivered sustained prosperity and steadily improving living standards” (p. 2). Galston actually describes elitism as a “deformation” of liberal democracy: “Elitists claim that they best understand the means to the public’s ends and should be freed from the inconvenient necessity of popular consent” (p. 4).

People stopped trusting elites when economic globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism started making life worse, and not just economically but also in terms of culture and public safety (crime, terrorism): “A globalized economy, it turned out, served the interests of most people in developing countries and elites in advanced countries—but not the working and middle classes in the developed economies . . .” (p. 3). “Not only did immigrants compete with longtime inhabitants for jobs and social services, they were also seen as threatening long-established cultural norms and even public safety” (p. 3).

Galston outlines how our out-of-touch, hostile, increasingly panicked establishment can head off populism before it leads to genuine regime change:

. . . there is much that liberal democratic governments can do to mitigate their insufficiencies. Public policy can mitigate the heedlessness of markets and slow unwanted change. Nothing requires democratic leaders to give the same weight to outsiders’ claims as to those of their own citizens. They are not obligated to support policies that weaken their working and middle classes, even if these policies improve the lot of citizens in developing countries. They are certainly not obligated to open their doors to all newcomers, whatever the consequences for their citizenry. Moderate self-preference is the moral core of defensible nationalism. Unmodulated internationalism will breed—is breeding—its antitheses, an increasingly unbridled nationalism. (p. 5)

The Left, of course, has no problem using public policy to rein in markets, but they vehemently reject Galston’s “moderate self-preference,” which is what some people would call putting “America first.” The American Left is committed to open borders, which will pauperize the American middle and working classes as surely as Republican deindustrialization and globalization.

In chapter 6, “Liberal Democracy in America: What Is to Be Done?,” Galston recommends prioritizing economic growth and opportunity and making sure it is widely shared by everyone. The “second task requires pursuing three key objectives: adopting full employment as a principal goal or economic policy; restoring the link between productivity gains and wage increases; and treating earned and unearned income equally in our tax code” (p. 87). In effect, Galston proposes halting the decline of the American middle class that has been ongoing for nearly half a century by ensuring that productivity gains go to workers, not just capitalists. As a populist, these are policies that I can support.


Galston also suggests that a corrective to the decline in labor unions and worker bargaining power due to globalization can be offset by measures to “democratize capital through . . . worker ownership of firms, that share the gains more broadly” (p. 99).

Of course productivity can be raised in two ways: by making labor more productive through technological and organizational improvements—or simply by cost-cutting. Practically all the “productivity” gains of globalization are simply due to cost-cutting by replacing well-paid white workers with poorly paid Third Worlders, either by sending factories overseas or by importing legal and illegal immigrants. If public policy is to promote genuine economic growth, it needs to promote genuine increases in productivity, which means technological innovations, as well as better education and all-round infrastructure.

But technology doesn’t just make workers more productive. It also puts them out of work. However, if workers have no incomes, then they cannot purchase the products of automation. (Production can be automated, but consumption can’t.) So how can we maintain technological growth, a healthy middle class, and consumer demand at the same time? Galston points to a partial solution:

. . . the public should get a return on public capital the benefits of which are now privately appropriated. When the government funds basic research that leads to new medical devices, the firms that have relied on this research should pay royalties to the Treasury. When states and localities invest in infrastructure that raises property values and creates new business opportunities, the taxpayers should receive some portion of the gains. One might even imagine public contributions to a sovereign wealth fund that would invest in an index of U.S. firms and pay dividends to every citizen. (p. 99)

The key point is that when machines put us out of work, we should not fall into unemployment but rise into the class of people who live on dividends. A more direct route to the same outcome would be to adopt Social Credit economics, including a dividend or Universal Basic Income paid to every citizen. (For more on this, see my essay, “Money for Nothing [11].”)

Galston does not mention simple, straightforward protectionism, but there are sound arguments for it, and the arguments against it have been refuted. (See Donald Thoresen’s review [12] of Ian Fletcher’s Free Trade Doesn’t Work.)

The bad news for National Populists is that Galston’s proposals, if actually adopted, would significantly retard our political success. The good news is that Galston’s proposals are simply what Eatwell and Goodwin call “National Populism lite,” which means that Galston is abandoning globalism in principle. What he refuses to abandon is the existing political establishment, which he thinks will retain power only by abandoning globalism.

Another piece of good news is that the establishment will probably never listen to Galston. They are fanatically committed to their agenda. They are not going to drop their commitment to globalism in favor of nationalism, even if it is the only way to preserve themselves. Galston is trying to appeal to the rational self-interest of the existing elites. But they are not rational or even especially self-interested. Sometimes people hate their enemies more than they love themselves. But National Populists would implement Galston’s policies, and more. So perhaps he is rooting for the wrong team.

A third piece of good news is that Galston realizes that economic reforms are not enough. Galston also cites studies showing that populist Brexit and Trump voters were not motivated solely by economic concerns (pp. 76–77). They were also motivated by concerns about identity. Since Galston is talking primarily about white countries, National Populism is a species of white identity politics. Since Left-wing populism rejects nationalism and white identity politics (and only white identity politics), it can only address white voters on economic issues, which means that it has less electoral appeal than Right-wing populism.

As I never tire of pointing out, what people want is a socially conservative, nationalistic, interventionist state that will use its power to protect the working and middle classes from the depredations of global capitalism. The elites, however, want social liberalism and globalism both in politics and economics.


The two-party system is designed to never give the people what they want. The Republicans stand for conservative values and global capitalism. The Democrats stand for liberal values and the interventionist state. When in power, the parties only deliver what the elites want, not what the people want.

The consequence is neoliberalism: an increasingly oligarchical hypercapitalist society that celebrates Left-wing values. Galston offers interesting support for this thesis by quoting Bo Rothstein, “a well-known scholar of European social democracy” who argues (these are Rothstein’s words) that “The more than 150-year-old alliance between the industrial working class and the intellectual-cultural Left is over” (p. 103). Rothstein elaborates:

The traditional working class favors protectionism, the re-establishment of a type of work that the development of technology has rendered outdated and production over environmental concerns; it is also a significant part of the basis of the recent surge in anti-immigrant and even xenophobic views. Support of the traditional working class for strengthening ethnic or sexual minorities’ rights is also pretty low. (p. 103)

Since the Left’s values are the “exact opposite,” Rothstein proposes that the Left ally with the “new entrepreneurial economy.” Hence the marriage of some of the biggest corporations on the planet—Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google—with trannies, POCs, Muslims, feminists, and global warming fantasists. This coalition thinks it will win through replacing the white working and middle classes with non-whites. Galston notes that Democratic Party circles in the US hold essentially the same views:

The best known have based their case on long-cycle demographic shifts. There is a “rising American electorate” made up of educated professionals minorities, and young people, all groups whose share of the electorate will increase steadily over the next two generations. These groups represent the future. The white working class, whose electoral share has dwindled in recent decades and will continue to do so, is the past. This does not mean that the center-left should ignore it completely. [For instance, on economic matters.] It does mean that there should be no compromise with white working-class sentiments on the social and cultural issues that dominate the concerns of the rising American electorate coalition. (p. 103)

This is a crystal-clear statement of the White Nationalist thesis that the Left is counting on—and promoting—the slow genocide of whites [13] through race-replacement immigration in order to create a permanent Left-wing majority. What could possibly go wrong? Galston drily notes that “This was the theory at the heart of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.”

Obviously, there was going to be a reaction. The Left has been partying like whites are already a minority, but that’s not true yet. White demographic decline is obviously a serious threat if we do nothing about it. But there is nothing inevitable about white demographic decline. It is the product of particular political policies. Thus it can be reversed by different policies. And, as Eatwell and Goodwin argue in National Populism, we still have some decades to turn things around, although of course the time frame varies from country to country. Furthermore, National Populist political movements, once they break through, are highly competitive because, unlike the center-Left and center-Right, we will actually give the people what they want, for a change.

Galston is well aware that the center-Left cannot compete with National Populists on economic ground alone:

If concessions on cultural and social issues are ruled out, appeals to the white working class will have to be confined to economics. . . . The difficulty, as we have seen, is that the audience for this economic appeal cares at least as much about social and cultural issues. Immigration, demographic change, and fears of cultural displacement drove the Brexit vote, and they were the key determinants of Donald Trump’s victory. . . .

So the American center-left has a choice: to stand firm on social and cultural issues that antagonize populism’s most fervent supporters, or to shift in ways for which it can offer a principled defense. It is time for an open and robust debate on issues of immigration, identity politics, and nationalism that liberals and progressives have long avoided. (pp. 103–104)

Galston is absolutely correct here. The Left will not win by bread alone. It needs to address questions of values and identity. But it can’t really do so without abandoning its own values and identity. We really do need open and honest debate on immigration, identity politics, and nationalism, but the Left cannot permit this, because they know they’ll lose.

Galston also recognizes that tribal sentiments—meaning a preference for one’s own—are an ineradicable part of human nature. Because of this, “The issue of national identity is on the table, not only in scholarly debates, but also in the political arena. Those who believe that liberal democracy draws strength from diversity have been thrown on the defensive. Large population flows . . . have triggered concerned about the loss of national sovereignty” (p. 95).

Galston approvingly quotes Jeff Colgan and Robert Keohane’s statement that “It is not bigotry to calibrate immigration levels to the ability of immigrants to assimilate and to society’s ability to adjust” (p. 96). Of course, assimilation is the opposite of multiculturalism. Galston suggests that US immigration policies should shift toward meritocratic concerns about economic contribution, put increasing emphasis on English fluency, and demand greater knowledge of American history and institutions. The main virtue of these proposals is that they would dramatically decrease the numbers of immigrants (p. 96). I heartily agree with Galston’s final remarks on immigration:

One thing is clear: denouncing citizens concerned about immigration as ignorant and bigoted (as former British prime minister Gordon Brown did in an ill-fated election encounter with a potential supporter) does nothing to ameliorate either the substance of the problem or its politics. (p. 96)

But again, Leftists are unlikely to take Galston’s advice. If the Left moved away from moralistic condemnations of immigration skepticism and actually debated the topic, they would simply lose. Indeed, one of the reasons why the Left supports race-replacement immigration is because they have given up on convincing white voters and simply wish to replace them.

Galston also chides Leftists for their arrogance. One of the strongest predictors of Left-wing values is the amount of time people spend in higher education, especially the liberal arts and social sciences. This does not mean that such people are genuinely educated, of course, but they are flattered into thinking they are more enlightened and intelligent than ordinary people, which feeds into populism:

Put bluntly, if Americans with more education regard their less educated fellow citizens with disrespect, the inevitable response of the disrespected will be resentment coupled with a desire to take revenge on those who assert superiority. . . . elites have a choice: they can try to take the edge off status differences or they can flaunt them. . . . It is up to privileged Americans to take the first step by listening attentively and respectively to those who went unheard for far too long. (p. 102)

Galston is right, of course, but there is little likelihood that this recommendation—or any of his others—will be heeded. The pretense of intellectual superiority, no matter how hollow, is close to the core of Leftist identity. To win by abandoning one’s identity feels like losing to most people. Thus they will tend to hold fast to their identities and hope that somehow reality will accommodate their wishes.

William Galston is a perceptive, rational, and courageous writer. I can’t help but respect him, even though he is on the other side. He is a liberal democrat. I am an illiberal democrat. He wants to preserve the current establishment. I don’t. Given that the current establishment has fundamentally betrayed our people—with the Left openly pinning its hopes on the slow genocide of whites and the Right too stupid and cowardly to stop it—we need genuine regime change.

Even though Anti-Pluralism is a critique of National Populism, I find it a highly encouraging book. Rhetorically, the book was often cringe-inducing. Evidently Galston thinks that to communicate difficult truths to liberals, they need a great deal of buttering up. But in terms of its substance, Galston—like Fukuyama and Lilla—concedes many fundamental premises to National Populists, and the only way he can envision stopping National Populism and keeping the existing political establishment in power is by adapting National Populism lite. In short, he has all but conceded us the intellectual victory. Our task is now to achieve it on the political plane.

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: https://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2020/02/william-galstons-anti-pluralism/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/GalstonAntiPluralism.jpg

[2] editor@counter-currents.com: mailto:editor@counter-currents.com

[3] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/01/fukuyama-on-identity-politics/

[4] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/01/fukuyama-on-diversity/

[5] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/01/fukuyama-on-civic-nationalism/

[6] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/10/the-identitarian-dispensation/

[7] reviewed: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/12/what-populism-isnt/

[8] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/12/beyond-the-alt-right-toward-a-new-nationalism/

[9] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/07/national-populism-is-here-to-stay-2/

[10] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/11/uppity-white-folks-and-how-to-reach-them/

[11] Money for Nothing: https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/01/money-for-nothing/

[12] review: https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/09/free-trade-doesnt-work/

[13] genocide of whites: https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/09/white-genocide/

Ideología del gobierno mundial


Ideología del gobierno mundial

Ex: https://www.geopolitica.ru

Publicado en la revista Elementy #2, Moscú, Rusia. Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

“La perversión debe entrar al mundo, pero desgracia para aquellos a través de cuyos esfuerzos vendrá”. Evangile

Después de la Guerra del Golfo, casi todos los medios de comunicación en Rusia, así como en Occidente, inyectaron en el lenguaje común la fórmula “Nuevo Orden Mundial”, acuñada por George Bush, y luego utilizada por otros políticos, incluidos Gorbachov y Yeltsin. El Nuevo Orden Mundial, basado en el establecimiento de un Gobierno Mundial Único, como lo han admitido con franqueza los ideólogos de la Comisión Trilateral y Bildenburg, no es simplemente una cuestión de dominación político-económica de una cierta camarilla “oculta” de banqueros gobernantes internacionales. Este “Orden” se basa en la victoria a escala mundial de una determinada ideología especial, por lo que el concepto se refiere no solo a los instrumentos de poder, sino también a la “revolución ideológica”, una conciencia de “golpe de estado”, un “nuevo pensamiento”.  La vaguedad de las formulaciones, el secretismo y la cautela constantes, el misterio deliberado de los mundialistas no permiten, hasta el último momento, discernir claramente el contorno de esta nueva ideología, que decidieron imponer a los pueblos del mundo. Y solo después de Irak, como si siguiera las órdenes de alguien, se acabaron ciertas prohibiciones y aparecieron varias publicaciones, que comenzaron a llamar a las cosas por sus nombres propios. Entonces, intentemos, sobre la base del análisis realizado por un grupo de autores de la junta editorial de “Elementos”, definir, en los términos más generales, los conceptos básicos de la ideología del Nuevo Orden Mundial.

El Nuevo Orden Mundial representa en sí mismo un proyecto escatológico y mesiánico, muy superior en alcance a otras formas históricas de utopías planetarias, como el primer movimiento protestante en Europa, el califato árabe o los planes comunistas para una revolución mundial. Quizás, estos proyectos utópicos sirvieron como preludios a la forma final del mundialismo, ensayos que probaron mecanismos de integración, efectividad de las estructuras de mando, prioridades ideológicas, métodos tácticos, etc. Tomando esto por un lado, el mundialismo contemporáneo, absorbiendo la experiencia del protestantismo, de las herejías escatológicas, las revoluciones comunistas y los cataclismos geopolíticos de siglos pasados han agudizado sus formulaciones finales, determinando finalmente lo que era pragmático e incidental en formas anteriores, y lo que realmente compuso la tendencia básica de la historia en el camino hacia el Nuevo Orden Mundial. Después de una secuencia completa de vacilaciones, ambigüedades, pasos pragmáticos y retiradas tácticas, el mundialismo contemporáneo finalmente ha formulado sus principios fundamentales con respecto a la situación presente. Estos principios se pueden asignar a cuatro niveles:

1.      Económico: la ideología del Nuevo Orden Mundial presupone un establecimiento completo y obligatorio del sistema de mercado capitalista liberal en todo el planeta, sin tener en cuenta las regiones culturales y étnicas. Todos los sistemas socioeconómicos que llevan elementos de “socialismo”, “justicia social o nacional”, “protección social” deben ser completamente destruidos y convertidos en sociedades de “mercado absolutamente libre”. Todos los coqueteos pasados ​​del mundialismo con modelos “socialistas” se están deteniendo por completo, y el liberalismo del mercado se está convirtiendo en la única forma dominante económica del planeta, gobernado por el Gobierno Mundial.

2.      Geopolítico: la ideología del Nuevo Orden Mundial da preferencia incondicional a los países que comprenden el Occidente geográfico e histórico en contraste con los países del Este. Incluso en el caso de una ubicación relativamente occidental de un país u otro, siempre será favorecida en comparación con su vecino del este. El esquema implementado previamente de alianza geopolítica de Occidente con el Este contra el Centro (por ejemplo, el Occidente capitalista junto con la Rusia comunista contra la Alemania nacionalsocialista) ya no es utilizado por el mundialismo contemporáneo. La prioridad geopolítica de la orientación occidental se está volviendo absoluta.

3.      Étnico: la ideología del Nuevo Orden Mundial insiste en la máxima mezcla racial, nacional, étnica y cultural de los pueblos, dando preferencia al cosmopolitismo de las grandes ciudades. Los movimientos nacionales y mininacionales, utilizados anteriormente por los mundialistas en su lucha contra el “gran nacionalismo” de tipo imperial, serán reprimidos decisivamente, ya que no habrá lugar para ellos en esta Orden. En todos los niveles, la política nacional del Gobierno Mundial se orientará hacia la mezcla, el cosmopolitismo, el crisol, etc.

4.      Religiosos: la ideología del Nuevo Orden Mundial está preparando la llegada al mundo de una cierta figura mística, cuya aparición se supone que cambiará drásticamente la escena religioso-ideológica en el planeta. Los ideólogos del mundialismo están convencidos de que lo que se quiere decir con esto es la llegada al mundo de Moshiah, el Mesías que revelará las leyes de una nueva religión a la humanidad y realizará muchos milagros. La era del uso pragmático de las doctrinas ateas, racionalistas y materialistas por los mundialistas ha terminado. Ahora, proclaman la llegada de una época de “nueva religiosidad”.


Esta es exactamente la imagen que emerge de un análisis de las últimas revelaciones realizadas por ideólogos de la Comisión Tripartita, el Club Bildenburg, el Consejo Americano de Relaciones Exteriores y otros autores, atendiendo intelectualmente al mundialismo internacional en niveles muy diferentes, comenzando con el “neoespiritualismo” y terminando con diseños económicos y estructurales concretos de tecnócratas pragmáticos. El estudio cuidadoso de estos cuatro niveles de la ideología del Gobierno Mundial es una preocupación de muchos proyectos y trabajos de investigación serios, una parte de los cuales, esperamos, aparecerá en las páginas de los siguientes volúmenes de “Elementos”. Pero nos gustaría centrarnos en varios aspectos en este momento. En primer lugar, es importante tener en cuenta que esta ideología no puede calificarse como “derecha” o “izquierda”. Más que eso, dentro de él existe una superposición esencial y consciente de dos capas, relacionadas con las realidades políticas polares. El Nuevo Orden Mundial es radical y rígidamente “derechista” en el plano económico, ya que asume la primacía absoluta de la propiedad privada, los mercados completamente libres y el triunfo de los apetitos individualistas en la esfera económica. Simultáneamente, el Nuevo Orden Mundial es radical y rígidamente “izquierdista” en el frente político-cultural, ya que la ideología del cosmopolitismo, la mezcla y el liberalismo ético pertenecen tradicionalmente a la categoría de prioridades políticas “izquierdistas”. Esta combinación de la “derecha” económica con la “izquierda” ideológica sirve como eje conceptual de la estrategia mundialista contemporánea, la base para el diseño de la próxima civilización. Esta ambigüedad se manifiesta incluso en el mismo término “liberalismo”, que, en el nivel económico, significa “mercados absolutamente libres”, pero en el nivel ideológico designa una “ideología moderada de permisividad”. Hoy, podemos afirmar justificadamente que el Gobierno Mundial basará su dictadura no en algún modelo típico de “tiranía totalitaria”, sino en principios del “liberalismo”. Reveladoramente, es en este mismo caso que la terrible parodia escatológica llamada Nuevo Orden Mundial será perfeccionada y completada.

En segundo lugar, Occidente, al frente de las teorías geopolíticas del Nuevo Orden Mundial como el hemisferio donde se pone el Sol, el Sol de la Historia, asume el papel de un modelo estratégico y cultural. En el curso de la última etapa de realización de proyectos mundialistas, el simbolismo natural debe coincidir completamente con el simbolismo geopolítico, y la complejidad de la construcción, las maniobras y las alianzas políticas del bloque geopolítico anteriores, que los mundialistas usaron antes para alcanzar sus objetivos, ahora dan paso a Una lógica geopolítica clara como el cristal, que incluso un simplón es capaz de comprender. En tercer lugar, desde el punto de vista de tendencias religiosas tan diversas como el cristianismo ortodoxo y el islam, Moshiah, cuya llegada se supone que facilitarán las instituciones mundialistas en construcción, está claramente y sin ninguna duda asociada con la figura siniestra del Anticristo. Como se deduce de la lógica misma del drama apocalíptico, en el curso de la última lucha, el enfrentamiento ocurrirá no entre lo Sagrado y lo profano, ni entre Religión y ateísmo, sino entre Religión y pseudo-religión. Es por eso que Moshiah del Gobierno Mundial no es simplemente un “proyecto cultural”, un nuevo “mito social” o una “utopía grotesca”, sino que es algo mucho más serio, real, terrible. Es completamente obvio que los opositores al mundialismo y los enemigos del Nuevo Orden Mundial (los miembros del personal de “Elementos” se consideran entre ellos) deben asumir una posición radicalmente negativa con respecto a esta ideología. Esto significa que es necesario contrarrestar al Gobierno Mundial y sus planes con una ideología alternativa, formulada al negar la doctrina del Nuevo Orden Mundial.

La ideología radicalmente opuesta al mundialismo también se puede describir en cuatro niveles.

1.      Económico: prioridad de la justicia social, la protección social y el factor nacional “comunitario” en el sistema de producción y distribución.

2.      Geopolítico: una clara orientación hacia el Este y solidaridad con los sectores geopolíticos más orientales al considerar los conflictos territoriales, etc.

3.      Étnico: lealtad a las tradiciones y rasgos nacionales, étnicos y raciales de los pueblos y estados, con una preferencia especial por el “gran nacionalismo” de tipo imperial en contraste con los mini-nacionalismos con tendencias separatistas.

4.      Religioso: devoción a las formas religiosas originales y tradicionales: lo más importante, el cristianismo ortodoxo y el Islam, que identifican claramente la “nueva religiosidad”, el Nuevo Orden Mundial y Moshiah con el jugador más siniestro del drama escatológico, el Anticristo (Dadjal en árabe).

George Soros Art.jpg

El frente de guerra ideológica antimundialista también debe combinar en sí mismo elementos de ideologías “izquierdistas” y “derechistas”, pero debemos ser “derechistas” en términos políticos (en otras palabras, “nacionalistas”, “tradicionalistas”, etc.) y ” izquierdista “en la esfera económica (en otras palabras, partidarios de la justicia social,” socialismo “, etc.) De hecho, esta combinación no es solo un programa político convencional y arbitrario, sino una condición necesaria en esta etapa de la lucha. La prioridad geopolítica de Oriente nos obliga a renunciar por completo a los diferentes prejuicios “anti-asiáticos”, a veces sostenidos por la derecha rusa bajo la influencia de un mal y completamente inoportuno ejemplo de la derecha europea. El “anti-asiaticismo” solo juega en manos del Nuevo Orden Mundial. Y, finalmente, la lealtad a la Iglesia, las enseñanzas de los Santos Padres, el cristianismo ortodoxo es un elemento necesario y el más importante de la lucha antimundialista, ya que la sustancia y el significado de esta lucha es elegir al Dios verdadero, el “lado correcto”, la “parte bendecida”. Y nadie podrá salvarnos del falso encanto, el pecado, la tentación, la muerte, en este terrible viaje, excepto el Hijo de Dios. Debemos convertirnos en su anfitrión, su ejército, sus siervos y sus misioneros. El Gobierno Mundial es la última rebelión del mundo inferior contra lo Divino. Corto será el instante de su triunfo. Eterno será la alegría de aquellos que se unirán a las filas de los “últimos luchadores por la Verdad y la Libertad en Dios”.

El verdadero juez “vendrá inesperadamente”.

Un auteur et son oeuvre : Julius Evola (1898-1974)


Un auteur et son oeuvre : Julius Evola (1898-1974)

par Michel Malle

Ex: https:lemondeduyoga.org

De l’orient tantrique au club des seigneurs, en passant par l’hermétisme et le spiritualisme masqué, nombreux sont les sujets de réflexion de Julius Evola. Mais il est des caractéristiques que l’on retrouve dans chacun de ses écrits, donnant à l’ensemble de son œuvre une certaine unité : une compréhension particulière de la magie, l’aspiration à des altitudes inconnues …

« L’homme dont nous allons tracer le portrait tenta de suivre la voie d’un karma yogi, c’est-à–dire qu’il choisit l’action comme voie de réintégration spirituelle : l’action conforme au Dharma (la Norme Universelle). Il a toujours dit: « René Guenon fut mon maître », c’est pourquoi nous envisagerons son oeuvre en rapport avec celle de Guénon, et cela d’autant que, dans son testament, fondant l’association qu’il a laissé, Evola précise ainsi le but visé: « Défendre les valeurs traditionnelles au sens où l’entendait René Guénon, Julius Evola et d’autres auteurs de même doctrine ». Même si nous devrons nous opposer à lui, ce sera donc dans cette sienne optique. « Je ne me suis pas borné à exposer les doctrines traditionnelles, j’ai cherché quels pouvaient être leurs aboutissements dans la réalité » dit-il, en entendant par là « dans l’action « . « J’ai donc cherché les conséquences à tirer des doctrines traditionnelles dans le sens d’une organisation sociale et politique de l’État », et aussi, avec plus de succès selon nous, dans le sens d’une éthique et d’une pratique pour l’homme traditionnel contemporain. Cette volonté d’engagement a conduit Evola à travailler de concert avec les divers mouvements fascistes de ce siècle. Cet aspect de sa vie, indissociable de son oeuvre, est problématique et, pour cette raison, nombre de « spiritualistes » n’osent pas l’aborder ou la déforment. Cette couardise ne sera pas nôtre : l’oeuvre mérite d’être connue, les questions qu’elle pose doivent l’être, et si les réponses ne nous satisfont pas toujours, il nous faudra en trouver de meilleures.

[…] Il semble qu’il ait dirige lui-même sa formation humaine très tôt et très indépendamment: on ne sait d’ailleurs pratiquement rien de son enfance. Il fit des études techniques et mathématiques qui le menèrent au titre d’ingénieur mais, s’il en garda une tournure d’esprit « scientifique  » (à ne pas confondre avec « matérialiste »), il ne pratiqua jamais, pour des raisons éthiques délibérées. L’attitude anti–bourgeoise, qui est l’un des traits marquants de sa personnalité, semble avoir été précoce. Il en est de même de son caractère guerrier, puisqu’il « s’engage peine âgé de 20 ans et qu’il prend part à la première guerre mondiale en tant que sous-lieutenant d’artillerie sur le plateau d’Asiago » […] Chez lui, la pensée et l’action se développèrent toujours conjointement, ainsi, deux ans avant son engagement, il commença à écrire des poèmes en italien et en français (outre le grec et le latin, il maîtrisait parfaitement les principales langues européennes, ce trait dénote aussi la précocité de son européanisme, qui devait se développer dans le cadre d’une vision impériale). Parallèlement à la poésie, il pratiqua la peinture abstraite. Ce fut sa période « Dada »: il fut en effet, à l’époque, l’un des représentants italiens du mouvement : « J’ai adhéré à ce mouvement comme mouvement limite, et non pas comme mouvement artistique. Si l’on était sérieux, on ne pouvait en rester là. A partir de 1922, je me suis séparé des dadas » […]

Alors commença ce qui fut appelé sa « période philosophique » (1923-1927). II publia deux ouvrages sur « l’individu absolu », dont « la Théorie et la Phénoménologie de l’individu absolu », qui reflètent certaines idées de Nietzsche, Weininger et Michelstädter. II en dira finalement: « Je ne conseillerai à personne de les lire tant ils sont écrits en jargon universitaire ». […]


JE-yoga.jpgEn 1926 parut: « L’homme en tant que puissance ». C’est un premier essai qui, bien des fois repris, donnera en 1949 « Le yoga tantrique, sa métaphysique, ses pratiques ». Evola s’ouvre à l’Orient, en l’occurrence à la tradition hindoue, et cela est d’autant plus intéressant que l’orient d’Evola n’est pas le même que celui de Guénon, il s’agit essentiellement de doctrines émanant de la caste des ksatriyas, la caste guerrière, et par cet aspect on trouve quelque chose qui consonne remarquablement avec l’ancienne tradition occidentale: il s’agit aussi de science « magique ». Prévenons tout de suite une équivoque possible : ce qu’Evola nomme magie n’a pas grand-chose à voir avec ce que désigne le mot dans le langage courant actuel. […]


Prolongeant les oeuvres équivalentes de Guénon, il fait paraître en 1932 « Masques et visages du spiritualisme contemporain ». Le grand intérêt de cet ouvrage vient de ce qu’il aborde certains aspects du spiritualisme contemporain que Guenon n’avait pas analysés. […]


En 1934, Évola publia « Révolte contre le monde moderne ». Ce livre est considéré par ses disciples comme le plus important. Lorsque, du point de vue des idées, on se questionne sur la valeur de l’apport d’Evola, cette oeuvre, finalement, se dégonfle un peu. Elle présente l’intérêt d’une fantastique érudition retraçant l’histoire du point de vue d’une vision traditionnelle cyclique. De nombreux aspects du monde moderne y sont envisagés, que Guénon n’avait pas soulignés: aspects qui, sans être fondamentaux, méritaient d’être si remarquablement analysés. Le style est fort et, pourrait-on dire, vengeur. Mais, à notre point de vue, ce livre est entaché de cette idée, qui s’affirmera plus encore dans le suivant, que la caste noble est supérieure à la caste sacerdotale. La seule question qui nous intéresse est celle-ci: la connaissance est-elle supérieure à l’action, oui ou non? Si non, l’action ne peut plus se distinguer de l’agitation. Si oui, le spirituel est supérieur au guerrier, il convient alors qu’une civilisation traditionnelle reflète cette hiérarchie et peu importe que le spirituel et le temporel soient aux mains d’un même homme ou aux mains d’hommes différents, reliés hiérarchiquement. Ceci étant établi, l’importance qu’Evola a pu attacher à cette question reste problématique et la façon dont elle est abordée aussi. Dans « la Crise du Monde Moderne », c’est le monde moderne qui est en crise, non celui qui s’y oppose: si une révolution, au sens strictement étymologique, peut être traditionnelle, ce ne saurait être le cas d’une révolte.

Quoi qu’il en soit de ces critiques,  » Révolte contre le Monde Moderne » est un livre à lire, c’est probablement le plus important livre de « métaphysique de l’histoire » qui soit. […]


En 1937, dans « Le mystère du Graal et l’idée impériale gibeline », Évola apporte une nouvelle contribution importante à la restauration doctrinale de la tradition occidentale. Malheureusement, et encore une fois, il fausse en partie l’idée civilisatrice traditionnelle. Toute l’argumentation d’Evola consiste à dire que l’Église, en développant les valeurs d’une religiosité féminine, mystique, passive face au monde spirituel se révèle être inférieure à la tradition du Graal, qui représente l’idéal chevaleresque. Mais l’argument est spécieux car, si cette démonstration va de soi, elle ne permet pas d’en conclure que la contemplation puisse être au-dessous de l’action. La Chevalerie est supérieure parce qu’elle est plus profondément spirituelle, et non parce qu’elle manie les armes: quant à l’Église, tant qu’elle ne consiste qu’en un exotérisme religieux, elle ne représente pas la pure autorité spirituelle, elle n’est qu’un pouvoir religieux. Si bien que, si l’Église et la Chevalerie étaient vraiment ce qu’en dit Evola il faudrait dire que la Chevalerie est supérieure à l’Église parce qu’elle est plus spirituelle et non dire que le guerrier est supérieur au contemplatif. Tout ce qu’apporte Evola dans l’affaire c’est une fâcheuse équivoque, car, une fois posé que le guerrier est au-dessus du prêtre, il se laisse aller à considérer toute éthique guerrière comme potentiellement porteuse d’une plus haute spiritualité que le Christianisme ; de là découle l’erreur de son « action politique ».

Quoi qu’il en soit, ce livre se pose comme « une étude sérieuse et engagée sur le Graal et le gibelinisme « , ce qu’il est, incontestablement. […]


Cette même année 1937, il publia « Le mythe du sang » en rapport très étroit avec les doctrines racistes allemandes. Certes, dans cet ouvrage, et dans celui qui suivra en 1941 «Synthèse des doctrines de la race », Evola s’oppose aux idées racistes matérialistes d’un Rosenberg et leur substitue l’idée d’une race de l’esprit » dans laquelle la race physique n’est qu’un élément d’une vaste équation: « L’idée d’une race allemande – dit-il – est une absurdité ». « Mais -dit Guénon de ce livre – le mot même de race nous parait être employé d’une façon assez impropre et détournée car au fond, c’est bien plutôt de caste qu’il s’agit en réalité… alors pourquoi parler encore de « race », si ce n’est par une concession plutôt fâcheuse à certaines idées courantes, qui sont assurément fort éloignées de toute spiritualité? ». En 1941, et toujours dans le même genre d’équivoque, Evola publia « La doctrine aryenne de lutte et de victoire « . […]

Pour situer historiquement son action, précisons qu’il fut très proche des milieux germaniques conservateurs et aristocratiques qui se réclamaient du « prussianisme et cultivaient la nostalgie des chevaliers teutoniques ». « Himmler – continue Evola -me portait un intérêt particulier » ainsi que « le baron von Gleichen, dont j’étais un ami intime » et qui était lui-même le chef du « club des seigneurs ». « Je connaissais en outre intimement le chancelier von Pappen et, en Autriche, Karl Anton von Rohan, dans ce milieu opposé au « populisme dictatorial » du national socialisme ». Voici ce qu’il en fut en Italie du côté fasciste: « Au tout début de la guerre, Mussolini lut ma « Synthèse d’une doctrine de la race » et me fit chercher pour me féliciter et me demander de collaborer avec lui -Mais Duce, je ne suis pas fasciste- car je n’ai jamais été d’aucun parti…  » En fait, il travailla, comme écrivain et comme conférencier en Italie, en Allemagne et en Autriche, à la formation doctrinale de certains milieux proches du pouvoir. […]

Standing_Bodhisattva_Gandhara_Musee_Guimet.jpgLA GRANDE LIBERATION DU PRINCE SIDDHARTA

Très étonnamment, au milieu de tout cela, Evola publia en 1943 « la Doctrine de l’Éveil, essai sur l’ascèse bouddhique ». Le fait que ce livre essentiel et vraiment spirituel ait été publié au coeur de cette période truffée d’erreurs logiques et de drames montre que la personnalité et l’oeuvre d’Evola sont très difficiles à aborder. II existe le double risque d’adhérer à certaines voies d’action sous prétexte qu’elles ont été formulées par un homme dont la doctrine est souvent transcendante et de repousser une doctrine dont l’action qui prétend en découler s’est par trop évidemment fourvoyée.


Dans un appendice sur « les limites de la régularité initiatique », Évola reconsidère les notions guénoniennes sur l’initiation dans une optique qui nous parait aussi indispensable qu’intéressante. « Contre le schéma guénonien en lui-même il n’y aurait pas grand-chose à objecter », dit-il, tout en soulignant malicieusement le « caractère presque bureaucratique de cette régularité ». Néanmoins sa critique porte sur plusieurs points. D’abord sur les « débouchés »: « Le Compagnonnage est une organisation initiatique résiduelle d’origine corporative, de portée fort restreinte et d’ailleurs limitée à la France »; « La Franc–Maçonnerie moderne est l’un des cas d’organisation dont l’élément vraiment spirituel s’est « retiré » et chez lesquels le « psychisme » restant a servi d’instrument à des forces ténébreuses, pour qui s’en tient au principe de juger de l’arbre à ses fruits »; quant au « christianisme, c’est une tradition mutilée en sa partie supérieure », toutes choses nous semble-t-il indéniables; ce qui permet à Evola d’ironiser, peut-être un peu facilement,sur les « rares allusions des premiers siècles chrétiens de notre ère ou de certains rites de l’Église grecque orthodoxe à la chasse desquels sont partis certains guénoniens ». Outre ces problèmes pratiques, Évola affirme: « La continuité – « des influences spirituelles » – est illusoire lorsque n’existent plus de représentants dignes et conscients d’une chaîne initiatique donnée ».Il se propose d’éviter deux écueils: d’une part, les fantasmes auto-initiatiques à la Steiner qui ne font qu’appliquer au « domaine de l’esprit l’idéal américain du self made man » et, d’autre part, « une conception proche de celle du – « péché originel » -selon laquelle l’homme, irrémédiablement taré, ne pourrait rien par lui-même ». […]


« Il fut blessé à Vienne d’un éclat d’obus dans la colonne vertébrale vers les derniers jours d’avril 1945 au cours d’un bombardement aérien soviétique. A partir de cette date il resta paralysé des deux jambes sans aucun espoir de guérison » […]


C’est en 1949 qu’Évola reprit ses publications avec « Le yoga tantrique, sa métaphysique et ses pratiques », livre qui développait le premier essai de 1926.  » S’il advenait un jour -écrit Jean Varenne à propos d’Evola et de Guénon que fussent éditées les oeuvres complètes de ces deux seigneurs de la pensée, on verrait à quel point elles représentent les deux visages d’un seul et même mouvement ». « L’Homme et son devenir selon le Védanta » et « le Yoga Tantrique » illustrent parfaitement ce propos. […]


En 1951 il publie un livre au titre évocateur de son sentiment « Les hommes au milieu des ruines ». Il s’agit, comme pour faire le point d’une action passée, de poser les principes d’une reconstitution européenne traditionnelle. Sont envisagées les notions de révolution traditionnelle, d’autorité, de hiérarchie et d’état organique. Evola y développe aussi d’intéressantes considérations sur l’économie moderne et les corporations, sur la stratégie de la guerre occulte et sur le problème de l’explosion démographique. La doctrine y est solide, mais lorsqu’il s’agit de désigner le milieu humain propre à servir de moteur à un tel mouvement, la solution apparaît presque débile: en étant à peine méchant, on pourrait penser qu’un recyclage métaphysique de quelques divisions de parachutistes nourrirait l’espoir d’Evola.


Fruit d’une fabuleuse érudition, cet ouvrage parut en 1958. Évola commence par l’indispensable nettoyage d’un terrain qui est loin d’être « vierge ». « Ce n’est pas l’homme qui descend du singe par évolution, mais le singe qui descend de l’homme par involution ». […]

Ceci posé, la doctrine traditionnelle s’épanouit: « de la fréquentation, même sans contact, d’individus des deux sexes, naît, dans l’être le plus profond de l’un et de l’autre, une énergie spéciale ou « fluide » immatériel, appelé « tsing ». Celui-ci dérive uniquement de la polarité du ying et du yang ». Cet enseignement de la tradition chinoise se trouve confirmé par Swamy Shivananda Sarasvati: « La semence est une énergie dynamique qu’il faut convertir en énergie spirituelle (ojas) ». Cette opération, qui va à contresens de l’écoulement nature! des forces, « est appelée viparîta-karanî (opération de l’inversion) ». « Un homme n’aime pas une femme parce qu’elle est belle »; Evola, reprenant une idée connue dit: « Il aime parce qu’il aime, au–delà de toute logique, et précisément ce mystère révèle le magnétisme de l’amour ». « Le substratum du sexe est super-physique, il a son siège dans ce que, avec les Anciens, nous appelons l’âme du corps — »le corps subtil  » – « . « Le sexe qui existe dans le corps, existe aussi et d’abord dans l’âme et, dans une certaine mesure, dans l’esprit même ».


Avec « Chevaucher le tigre », en 1961, Evola fait oeuvre vraiment originale. I! pousse jusqu’à !’extrême ses audaces de pensée et formule un guide de conduite pour l’homme qui doit vivre dans un monde où tout hurle à la face du ciel et qui, refusant de « hurler avec les loups  » veut faire de leurs cris une musique pour son âme. […]”

Les carnets du yoga, n°43, novembre 1982, pp. 2-26.

00:07 Publié dans Hommages, Traditions | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : julius evola, tradition, traditionalisme, hommage | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook