En tout cas il y a une argumentation parfaitement bien menée et une vraie réponse à la question posée. Nous sommes loin d'un Islam irrationnel tel que notre Pape émérite Benoît l'a dénoncé assez raisonnablement dans son fameux discours de Ratisbonne (Regensburg). Il était dans le juste, mais parce que c'est cet Islam là qui domine et fait des ravages. Je m'approche pour donner envie de lire ce livre mais il faut suivre l'enchaînement des chapitres et le discursif au sein de chaque chapitre, même si, comme mystique, ce soufi se base sur une expérience qui dépasse le discursif, il en tire justement le meilleur au delà du meilleur de toute philosophie qui n'irait pas jusqu'à la mystique. 
Je dois revenir face à la contradiction qui m'a été faite sur le cas du mystique soufi Hallàdjj dans ce tournant du Xème. A noter puisque cela m'a été dit qu'il a été condamné aussi par des autorités libellées soufies ce qui porte au comble de la confusion sans explications précises. Nous sommes en cette année 922. Il a été crucifié et décapité ensuite, c'est dire tout de même dans cette mise à mort l'importance de la symbolique, comme chez nos révolutionnaires français. Je continue donc à penser qu'il a bien été sacrifié non comme un cas isolé d'un mystique délirant mais parce que nous sommes dans une période de tournant de l'Islam où il s'écarte de son ésotérisme tout à fait comme on le fait aussi en occident dans le Moyen Age chrétien... La doctrine de l'unité de l'existence a des relents panthéistes que la théologie musulmane ne pourra admettre.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
René Guénon is naturally the first Traditionalist name to reach Turkey. The oldest document bearing his name dates back to 1938, in the heading of a newspaper article stating : « René Guénon, the French philosopher who was lost for seven years has been finally found at the famous Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Everyone in Paris is astonished by the philosopher’s weird and curious adventure. » However, this article proves irrevelant. The intellectual works of Guénon will only reach Turkish intellectuals at the beginning of the 80’s. It began with small articles being published on a conservative magazine called ‘Ressurection’, belonging to an islamo-conservative party that was later closed down for refusing to participate in elections thrice in a row. Following this introduction, the translation of his books were lead off by Nabi Avcı, who was a column writer at Yeni Şafak newsapapers, the chief advisor of Prime Minister Erdogan in 2003, the Minister of National Education between 2013-2016 and then the Minister of Culture and Tourism until 2017. We already notice that peculiarly high placed academicians and intellectuals have tried to be the ‘precursors’ of Traditionalism in Turkey.
An increased effort can also be noticed in introducing the school of thought to the younger generation. GZT ( the youth section of the Yeni Şafak newspaper we had pointed out earlier, a conservative daily newspaper known for its hardline support of president Erdogan, having close relations with the AKP regime and frequently accused of using excessive hate speech and anti-semitism) has written a thorough and well-researched article about Traditionalism aimed at the younger generation, and has even made a 20 minute YouTube video explaining the legacy of Guénon. This ‘youth gazette’ which, along with Yeni Şafak, belongs to Albayrak Holding, a billion-dollar conglomerate involved in telecommunication, real estate, engine production, textile and paper, has also organised a live stream with Ibrahim Kalin ( the current chief advisor of president Erdogan ) where he harshly criticised modernity and recommanded the young Turkish populations to read Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s ‘Man and Nature’. New articles about Traditionalist writers appear very frequently in youth magazines of many universities ranging from Istanbul to Erzurum. We can therefore observe that, unlike in Europe where it appears as a dissident current, Traditionalism in Turkey can be found intertwined in the ruling class, the place you would least expect it.
Let us not omit the opposition as well. The strongest opposition to Guénon came from Zübeyir Yetik ( from Erbakan’s Milli Görüş) who consecrated a whole book on critisizing Guénon’s esoteric and ‘suprareligious’ positions, called “Man’s supremacy and Guenonian esoterism”.
We can easily take notice of the growing attention towards Traditionalism, particularly with arrival of Ernst Jünger on Turkish shelves. Jünger is the most recent thinker who has entered this ongoing ‘intellectual renaissance’ and oddly enough, the first translated book was ‘Gläserne Bienen’ (Glass Bees) in 2019, followed by ‘In Stahlgewittern’ (Storms of Steel) later that year. Thus, it took 99 years for Ernst Jünger to reach a Turkish audience. We can therefore conclude that, Traditionalism is still settling and creating significant intellectual changes in different parts of the world, each in independent contexts and Turkey, is only recently but thoroughly embracing this perennial worldview.
By now, even the most docile Gutmensch citizens of the West are turning to the online world of social and alternative media when they need substantial information about real-world events and developments. In the Netherlands, even the ‘hardcore’ readership of the governing VVD party’s
The only serious discursive push-back against the MSM’s globalist Brave New World narrative comes from the New Right (French: Nouvelle Droite, German: Neue Rechte, Dutch: Nieuw Rechts). The New Right is a meta-political project of revolutionary counter-deconstruction, consisting of a loose agglomerate of dissident thinkers, speakers, writers and activists ever since the founding of the French think tank GRECE (Groupement de recherche et d'études pour la civilisation européenne, ‘European Civilization Research and Study Group’) on 17 January 1969. The New Right bases itself on the political-philosophical work of French thinkers such as Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye and Dominique Venner and is internationally supported by famous publicists such as Anthony Burgess, Mircea Eliade and Arthur Koestler.
(1) Widespread popular mistrust of the MSM can be exploited by the establishment of reliable - i.e. objective, non-factionalist - alternative media outlets. These would need to provide up-to-date news and rapid analyses as well as in-depth research journalism and wide-spectrum opinion pieces. These would need to adhere to the principle of cross-party solidarity for the sake of a ‘minimum program’ set of common goals such as anti-globalism, anti-liberalism, ethno-national self-determination and culture conservation. Within these parameters, the principle of total freedom of expression would have to be respected concerning all major divisive issues within the New Right: ‘JQ’, ‘Islam’, ‘alt-sexuality’, ‘climate’, ‘free market’, etc.
In the mid-‘10s, a new ethno-nationalist movement arose across the Western world: the so-called ‘Alt-Right’ started appearing besides - and replacing - the growing civic-nationalist ‘populist’ movement: together, these movements caused several significant anti-globalist phenomena - ‘Brexit’ in the UK, ‘Trump’ in the US, ‘Lega’ in Italy and ‘FvD’ in the Netherlands. The ‘Alt-Right’ movement focused on metapolitical mobilization, asymmetric ‘memetic’ warfare and digital anti-MSM guerrilla tactics - it deliberately stayed away from institutional politics. The ‘Alt-Right’ wave was effective but short-lived: it was stopped by the hostile elite’s well-coordinated counter-strategy of ‘doxxing’ (character assassination, employer pressure), digital censorship (‘deplatforming’, ‘shadow bans’) and violent intimidation (‘antifa’, ‘home searches’). Its formal end is marked by ‘Charlottesville’, i.e. the sabotage, through infiltration and provocation, of the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in August 2017. The short-lived ‘Alt-Right’ movement, which owed its impetus to the autodidactic and digitally proficient ‘post-MSM’ generation, provided a much-needed boost to the older New Right movement that it became part of - it provided new faces, new ideas and new abilities. One new face widely. but not entirely correctly, associated with the ‘Alt-Right’ was that of Irish-Canadian podcaster Stefan Molyneux, who ran - and still runs - the independent media channel Freedomain Radio. The ‘extreme right’ and ‘white nationalist’ frame to which he has been assigned by the MSM - including the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia-style outfit ‘Wikipedia’ - is so self-evidently ridiculous that it is almost laughable: Stefan Molyneux is a (semi-)anarcho-libertarian philosopher whose online shows focus on men’s rights promotion, anti-feminist social critique, psychotherapy and philosophical analyses of current affairs. His intelligent, sincere and eloquent approach of various substantive issues in breach of political correctness, including the ‘controversial’ links between race and IQ, feminism and mass-immigration, welfare dependence and matriarchal social conditioning, apparently caused so much unease within the MSM that they have banished Molyneux to one-size-fits-all Devil’s Island of the ‘extreme right’. Of course, this idealistic Papillon is not exactly ‘at home’ in ‘extreme right’ exile. In fact, in the New Right - particularly among its impatient ‘young guards’ - Molyneux’ idealistic (cooperative-pacifist) ethics and naive (anarcho-libertarian) ideology are regarded with some suspicion. But the New Right would do well to pay attention to what Molyneux has to say: as a serious thinker and an amusing debater he deserves not only the benefit of the doubt but also the courteous consideration that was once part and parcel of Anglo-Saxon sportsmanship in the public arena. The author contends that the New Right owes Molyneux a debt of gratitude.
In the early and mid-‘10s, many young Westerners owed their ‘red pill’ moment to Stefan Molyneux: their online discovery of his systematic deconstruction of liberal-left political correctness allowed them to break out of the perceptive straightjacket that they were being squeezed into by parents, schools and MSM. Many of them may look back at that moment as no more than a ‘stepping stone’, but, with hindsight, it may very well be that that particular moment was much more than just a developmental ‘stage’ - it may have been a crucial turning point in the collective Weltanschauung revolution of a whole generation. It was the moment that many young Westerners freed themselves from their deeply internalized psycho-social conditioning through Molyneux simple recipe: sustained thinking, consistent truthfulness and ruthless self-examination. This combination is resurrecting the true direction of an old but much-misunderstood discipline: above all else, philo-sophy is the ‘love of wisdom’. It is possible to point out many gaps and shortcomings in Stefan Molyneux’ philo-sophy (e.g. his emotive appeals to ethical philosophy and his - typically Anglo-Saxon - neglect of transcendental philosophy), but he should not be denied praise for his authentically philo-sophical dissection of the psycho-social conditioning of contemporary Western ‘counter-culture’. At the core of Molyneux’ approach, sustained throughout his enormous and omnivorous oeuvre over decades, is the search for awareness - consciousness at the personal level above all. He operationalizes this approach by deep-digging analyses of the poisonous (cultural-marxist) ideological roots of the devolutionary conditioning of Western children. He points to the psycho-historical origins and psycho-social dynamics of contemporary Western society - a society that heavy-weight cultural-historical critiques, such as those of Peter Sloterdijk and Pim Fortuyn, have called ‘orphaned’ and ‘fatherless’. Molyneux points out the many negative but unnamed effects of ‘social progress’ and ‘individual freedom’: the anti-civilizational effects of hyper-feminism (activist anti-hierarchy, hedonist anti-rationalism, sadomasochist narcissism), the neo-slavery effects of totalitarian state control (fiscal exploitation of productive white males to subsidize ‘single mothers’ and ‘ethnic diversity’), the all-levelling ‘idiocracy’ that results from the ‘dictatorship of the feminist-multiculturalist proletariat’ and the cultural-marxist ‘permanent revolution’ against everything that retains a trace of masculine honour, white identity and Western civilization.
Even if Molyneux’ analyses focus on the inner sphere of Western civilization, they are still relevant to the New Right as the guardian of its outer sphere: every individual human guardian originates in the inner sphere - it is there that he is raised, motivated and equipped for his task. To the extent that the guardian lacks in character, motivation and equipment he is forced to account for the failings of the inner sphere: he is forced to become aware of the reasons for these failings. In the contemporary West, these failings are profound and elementary: they stem from an existential crisis. The contemporary West suffers from nothing less than an identity crisis, as evidenced by a simultaneous failure of bio-evolutionary continuity (the biological group - race, nation, lineage) and cultural transmission (the cultural forms, norms and values attached to the biological group). It is exactly at this point that Molyneux’ analyses are of great value to the New Right: he consistently traces the collective identity crisis of the West - failing parenthood and failing education at the individual level. It is exactly here that the globalist hostile elite is most guilty of deliberate maliciousness: the subtle combination of socio-economic manipulation, psycho-social deconstruction and anti-identitarian ‘diversity’ that it is forcing upon the Western peoples cause Western parenting and education to fail. Thus, the argument returns to what was said earlier on: nowhere is the inhuman hostility of the globalist elite towards the Western peoples more in evidence than in its insidious and cowardly attack on its most precious and most vulnerable group: the children of the West.
Quantitatively by the judicial outlaw status of traditional family structures and marriage contracts through the legalization, even the encouragement, of what any sane person would immediately recognize as irresponsible, even obscene, ‘freedoms’: ‘free partner choice’, ‘no-fault divorce’, ‘same-sex marriage’, ‘artificial insemination’, ‘donor reproduction’ and ‘free-choice abortion’. In combination with the suppression of traditional social controls over pre-marital intercourse, extra-marital childbirth and free-choice single motherhood these ‘new freedoms’ were bound to result in nothing less than neo-matriarchal and neo-primitivist social implosion. The exponentially multiplying non-standard ‘new family’ forms – step-parenting, adoptive parenting, foster parenting, open family parenting - are mathematically certain to lead in one direction: child abuse.
After eighty years, De Kadt’s analysis has not lost its validity. The globalist hostile elite ruling the early 21st Century is combining the failures of fascism with the failures of the other two failed historical-materialist ideologies of the 20th Century: (communo-)socialism and (neo-)liberalism. The hostile elite ruling the contemporary West on behalf of the now openly totalitarian New World Order project of globalism has achieved a remarkable fusion between the lowest decay forms of each of these three ideologies: the all-levelling resentment of socialism, the low-life anti-intellectualism of fascism and the malicious ‘money mind’ of liberalism. The children of the West deserve a different future: they deserve to see the day that the rule of the globalist hostile elite ends - the day that its pathological ideas and its demonic practices are eradicated from the surface of the planet for once and for all. The time has come for them to break out into their New Freedom:
ii
ix
xviii
Paul-Georges Sansonetti, faut-il le préciser, est un spécialiste des mythes et des symboles, titulaire d’un doctorat de lettres traitant de l’ésotérisme des romans arthuriens. Il a également écrit de nombreux articles et conférences, notamment dans l’excellente revue hélas disparue, « 
Le second, « Présence de la Tradition primordiale » (aux éditions Oeil du Sphinx), est un recueil de nombreux articles parus dans la défunte revue « Hyperborée ». Paul-Georges Sansonetti vient ici poser le doigt sur des œuvres que l’on pensait connaître, pour nous montrer toutes les traces que leurs auteurs y ont cachées plus ou moins volontairement. Nous revisitons ainsi des grands classiques. Tolkien bien sûr avec son « Seigneur des anneaux », mais aussi Howard Phillips Lovecraft, ou plus curieusement Alain Fournier et son « Grand Meaulnes ». Un grand chapitre est consacré à l’immense film de Stanley Kubrick « 2001, Odyssée de l’espace ». 
James J. O’Meara
Mysticism After Modernism: Crowley, Evola, Neville, Watts, Colin Wilson & Other Populist Gurus
Melbourne, Australia: Manticore Press, 2020
“For me real and imagined, by the way, is just the same. Because the world is our imagination.” — Aleksandr Dugin [1] [1]
“The whole vast world is nothing more than the confused imaginations of men and women.” — Neville [2] [2]
A new book from James O’Meara is always a treat, but until that long-awaited collection of film reviews arrives, this will serve to assuage the hungry public. Astute readers here at Counter-Currents will immediately perceive that this is a new, slightly but cunningly revised edition [3] of Magick for Housewives: Essays on Alt-Gurus (Manticore, 2018). Although the title was intended as an homage to Crowley titles like Yoga for Yahoos and Yoga for Yellowbellies, I am told that the publishers found that too many potential buyers were unable to look past the thumbnail online and took it to be a work of “kitchen magic,” which is a new one on me but apparently is a real thing.
I myself miss the perky housewife of the original cover, an icon of American postwar ascendancy who not only alluded to the “ladies who lunch” that filled Neville’s audiences, [3] [4] but also connected it to the author’s End of An Era: Mad Men and the Ordeal of Civility [5] (Counter-Currents, 2017). Arguably the new cover, a moody, misty collage of the subjects, is more appropriate to the contents as a whole.
The subtitle also frees the book from any links to the late, mostly unlamented “alt-right.” Strange as it may seem to our grandchildren — or children — there was a time when anything “hip” was linked to the “alt” phenomenon; sort of like those funny haircuts in old pictures. Potential readers were left asking, along with Steve Bannon:
“But why does a guy who is that sophisticated get hooked up with Richard Spencer? [He’s] a goofball, and you can’t get in business with goofballs like that.” [4] [6]
For the new edition, the contents have been carefully revised, occasional misprints silently corrected, and an index of gurus added for the reader’s convenience.
Since all but the title essay — a synoptic look at the Hermetic tradition from Plotinus to Evola to Neville, demonstrating the author’s easy mastery of the field, which first appeared in Aristokratia IV — appeared in some form here on Counter-Currents, the high level of scholarship and presentation can be taken for granted. But what is the principle of selection for this motley crew, ranging from the infamous Crowley and the underground magic of Evola, to the misunderstood “popularizer” Alan Watts, then to modern chaos magic and Colin Wilson’s Outsider, finally back to the barely remembered midcentury phenomenon who called himself Neville? As O’Meara explains it,
In the wake of the populist revolt against globalist tyranny, and its controversial tribunes like Trump, it’s time for a look at what can now be discerned as an equally new development, on the fringes of Western civilization, among what came to be known as “popular culture,” during the so-called pre- and post-war eras: a new kind of spiritual teacher or “guru,” one more interested in methods, techniques and results than in dogmas, institutions, or — especially — followers.
In the wake of even more recent developments, what O’Meara previously styled “alt-gurus” he now calls “populist gurus.” An equally good term, if we extend our temporal limits back into the 19th century, and acknowledge how geographically American this phenomenon is, [5] [8] might be what Arthur Versluis has dubbed “American gurus,” who espouse what he calls “immediatism.”
[Immediatism is] the assertion of immediate spiritual illumination without much if any preparatory practice within a particular religious tradition. Some call this “instant enlightenment.” [Its] origins precede American Transcendentalism, [6] [9] and whose exemplars include a whole array of historical figures, right up to contemporary New Age exponents. In this line, a figure like Timothy Leary, and other erstwhile psychedelic evangelists, play a significant role because what could be more immediate than the result of taking a pill? [7] [10]
Immediatism is based, in turn, on “an underlying metaphysics” which Versluis calls “primordialism”: “We as human beings have access to blissful awareness that is not subject to temporal or spatial restriction [and] is always present to us.” [8] [11] Since it is always present, it pops up from time to time in history, only to be occulted again by mainstream dogmatism, until rediscovered once more; it endures in time not by institutions but by texts and gurus, [9] [12] and above all by techniques: from Crowley’s convoluted and obscurantist rituals and doctrines to Wilson’s “pencil trick” and, perhaps most archetypally, Neville’s “simple method to change the future”; as Neville says repeatedly, “Go home and try it tonight — prove me wrong!”
So it’s no surprise that immediatism should be so prevalent today, and especially in the United States: in the Kali Yuga, where institutions are in decay, or, as in America, they never really existed.
Immediatism is sort of the Dark Twin of Traditionalism; or rather, seeing it from our Yankee perspective, it’s the Bright Twin. To Traditionalism’s innate pessimism — “You must submit to an orthodox tradition to have even a glimmer of a change, after arduous labor, to achieve enlightenment or even a fully human life; oops, looks there aren’t any around these days, too bad, better luck in the next kalpa” — Emerson, the original American Guru, asks bluntly:
The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? [10] [13] Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. [11] [14]
This may all seem too airy-fairy, but if you want a practical application, consider, as O’Meara does here, the role played by “meme magick” in the Trump phenomenon; it can also provide the key to understanding Steve Bannon’s surprising and complex relationship with Traditionalism.
Benjamin Teitelbaum, in his War for Eternity: Inside Bannon’s Far-Right Circle of Global Power Brokers, devotes considerable attention to Bannon’s idiosyncratic reading of Guénon and Evola. He never discusses Bannon’s American intellectual heritage, which is a pity, since it would help explain what he calls Bannon’s “horizontal Traditionalism”: rather than bemoaning the confusion of the castes in the modern world, and futilely wishing for a “return of kings” (with oneself, of course, as a king, or at least on the general staff), Bannon tips the hierarchy on its side, and puts his faith in the ordinary working-class Joe Schmoe (Bannon calls them “serfs”) as a perennial source of traditional values to counterbalance the elite’s secular globalism. It’s basically Jeffersonian “natural aristocracy” and a political application of Emerson’s primordialism. [12] [15]
But how does Evola fit in here, with all these mystical Yankee peddlers, these Melvillian confidence men, and lightning-rod salesmen? Was Evola not the proponent of capital-T Tradition with its hierarchies and fatalism?
Indeed; but before he became the darling of alt-rightists seeking “our Marcuse, only better,” before reading a word of Guénon, he was a magician; that is, neither a dogmatic theologian or a materialistic scientist, but an esotericist. That Evola is quoted as the epigraph of the work under review:
One can expect that one day religion, as well as theology itself, will become an experimental science, certainly an upheaval, not lacking interest, that leads us back to a proper view of mystical and traditional esotericism. [13] [16]
This was the “good” Evola. The “bad” Evola arose from what Pierlo Fenili, in an eye-opening article in Politica Romana — “The Errors of Evola” — calls the “wrong choice of traditions;” as Jocelyn Godwin explicates: [14] [17]
Fenili points out that of the four protagonists who were left at the end of the Western Empire in 476, only the Roman Senate and the Eastern Empire had authentic Roman roots. The other two players were the Church, whose origin was in the Near East, and the Germanic peoples of the north, and it was with these enemies of Romanity that Evola chose to align himself.
You can buy James O’Meara’s End of an Era here [5].
From this followed another error, “alienation from the ancestral tradition.” [15] [18] The true Western Tradition was
[Carried] onward by such figures, ignored by Evola [and loathed by Guénon], as. . . Boethius. . . who worked under a Gothic emperor to preserve all he could of Greco-Latin learning; Michael Psellus. . . the Byzantine Platonist; the early Humanists from Petrarch onwards, whom Evola dismisses as merely safeguarding the “decadent forms” of Antiquity; Ficino, who continued Boethius’s project by translating the works of Hermes, Plato, and the Neoplatonists; Pico della Mirandola with his defense of the dignity of man [which Evola] censured for its “rhetorical exaltation of individuality.”
The choice is not between secular science and “Tradition” in the form of dogmatic religion. [16] [19] The true “Roman” tradition is the one that gave birth to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, the bug-bears of both Traditionalists and Neo-Reactionaries. Needless to say, this is the Platonic tradition — pro-science but anti-scientism, pro-spirituality but anti-“churchianity” — to which Emerson and the “American Gurus” belong.
And this is why Evola belongs here; Fenili insists that “the most important part of Evola’s creative oeuvre consist[s] of the works of esoteric, orientalist and philosophic character,” which include The Doctrine of Awakening, The Hermetic Tradition, and The Yoga of Power, which, together with Magic: Rituals and Practical Techniques for the Magus, are the works constantly cited by O’Meara to explicate and justify what he calls “America’s homegrown Hermeticism, native Neoplatonism, and two-fisted Traditionalism” — a more authentic Tradition than anything dreamed up in Guénon’s cork-lined bedroom.
Bringing these figures together illuminates a uniquely American and Modernist phenomenon, excavates a third stream — esotericism — between science and religion, and de-occultates the hidden passage from Evola’s magic to post-Trump populism.
There is another thread of continuity in the studies presented here. Starting from reminiscences of teenage years listening to early Sunday morning radio broadcasts of Alan Watts, through the dense accumulation of names and references, surfacing in the clear, easy mastery of his presentation of Neville as the greatest voice of hermetic tradition in the 20th century, we have here, intended or not, an intellectual biography, a more modest version of Evola’s Path of Cinnabar.
And so we can say, as Teitelbaum says of the Brazilian Traditionalist and populist Olavo de Carvalho:
Thinking in these terms. . . made his ostensible journey seem like no journey at all: his activities since discovering Traditionalism in the 1970s would instead appear variations on a theme rather than a dilettantish succession of gimmicks and reinventions. [17] [20]
Whitman, one of the great voices of American immediatism, comes to mind. “This is no book, cammerade [sic]. Who touches this touches a man. . .”
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page [21] and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Notes
[1] [22] Quoted in Benjamin Teitelbaum, War for Eternity: Inside Bannon’s Far-Right Circle of Global Power Brokers (New York: HarperCollins, 2020), p. 153
[2] [23] “Neville’s Purpose Revealed,” in Let Us Go Into the Silence: The Lectures of Neville Goddard, compiled by David Allen (Kindle, 2016)
[3] [24] Described in the title essay, “Magick for Housewives: The (Not So) New (and Really Rather Traditional) Thought of Neville Goddard.” Neville, by his own admission, was known as “The Mad Mystic of 48th Street.” The haute bourgeois ladies Tom Wolfe later called “Social X-Rays,” looking for a new thrill, would say to each other: “Oh, do come along and hear him, it’s free and he’s terribly funny!”
[4] [25] Teitelbaum, op. cit., p.267.
[5] [26] Watts were British, but Watts emigrated to the US and gained fame there, while Wilson always felt like an “outsider” in British culture and openly preferred Americans. Neville was from Barbados, emigrated to New York at seventeen, and was given citizenship after being drafted in World War Two. The outlier is Crowley, but he would be an outlier anywhere, and at least spent some time in the US.
[6] [27] Versluis traces it back to Plato, via Emerson: see American Gurus, Chapter 2, “Revivalism, Romanticism, and the Protestant Principle.” Camille Paglia also delineates a “North American Literary Tradition” that originates in the collision of American Puritanism with European Romanticism; see my review “The Native American Nietzsche: Camille Paglia, Frontier Philosopher [28].”
[7] [29] See his interview here [30].
[8] [31] American Gurus: From Transcendentalism to New Age Religion (Oxford, 2014), p 248.
[9] [32] Like Zen, a “special transmission outside the scriptures” – Heinrich Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism: A History. Volume 1: India and China, World (Wisdom Books, 2005), pp. 85-94.
[10] [33] Neville: “Religious progress is a gradual transition from a god of tradition to a God of experience.” (“Control Your Inner Conversations [34],” 4-26-1971.
[11] [35] “Nature” (1844).
[12] [36] “When I was drafted, called, and sent, it was with the command, ‘Down with the bluebloods.’ In other words, down with all church protocol, with anything that would interfere with the individual’s direct access to God. There is only one foundation upon which to build. That foundation is I AM, and there is no other.” Neville, “No Other Foundation [37],” 11-04-1968.
[13] [38] Julius Evola, “The New Spirit Movement”; originally published in Bilychnis, June, 1928.
[14] [39] See Jocelyn Godwin, “Politica Romana Pro and Contra Evola,” in Arthur Versluis, Lee Irwin, and Melinda Phillips (eds.), Esotericism, Religion, and Politics (Minneapolis, MI: New Cultures Press 2012). I don’t read Italian and haven’t read the article itself, so I am relying on Godwin’s presentation.
[15] [40] Guénon, for his part, never even pretended to be “Roman” and in fact despised the Classical world, no doubt a reaction to a typical French education; after years of trying to interest the Catholic Church in his ideas, he eventually converted to Islam. Why rightists think he has anything to contribute to their struggle is a mystery.
[16] [41] Commenting on 1 Corinthians, Robert Price notes that in the “Catholic anti-wisdom section” of Chapter 3 we find “once again, the opposite of [worldly] wisdom is not esotericism but simplicity. The pious attitude is that which regrets the sampling of the knowledge tree in Eden, the erection of the Babel tower. Such a one is happy to mortgage his faith to the Grand Inquisitor.” The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2012); compare Evola’s The Hermetic Tradition: Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 1995), especially the “Introduction to Part One: The Tree, the Serpent, and the Titans.”
[17] [42] Teitelbaum, op. cit., p.260.
Existe una idea de elite que es amiga de Allah (swt), la cual para acceder a ese grado, a pasado por sucesivos estadíos, en los cuáles su elevación espiritual es variada. La elite compuesta por obviamente, los profetas, pero también otras categorías como los "Siddiqin" (los verídicos), los "Shuhada" (testigos o mártires) o los "Salihin" (hombres de bien).
Ibn Arabi de Murcia, llamado el "Shaykh Al Akbar" (el más grande los maestros), también hizo uso de la tinta para plasmar a través de sus textos sobre Caballería espiritual enseñanzas que provienen de una profunda raíz Abrahámica. En su libro, cada profeta realiza la Futuwah, de un modo que varía, sin embargo, muestran a través de sus actos su amistad con la Divinidad, su proximidad a Allah (swt).
In The Symbolism of Chess, which Titus Burckhardt (1908-1984) had published in the Spring 1969 issue of Studies in Comparative Religion, the Traditionalist School thinker shares with his readers an interesting viewpoint on the relationship between free will and destiny. 
Once states and empires began herding the masses beneath a single banner, many of those struggling to adapt to the game of life gradually discovered that the pieces on the chess board had already been set up on their behalf. In Burckhardt's example, a failure to conform with the rules has dire consequences and that also holds true for those who find themselves on the receiving end of the political establishment. The difference between his idea that spiritual liberty is attained by adhering to a primordial framework of truth, something that can be justified within that specific context, the very nature of the political system into which we are formally inducted at birth means that unless we retain the freedom to reject the game altogether our liberty remains non-existent. After all, I am perfectly sure that Burckhardt's competitor will have entered the tournament at his or her own discretion and yet from the very first move becomes subject to the parameters that have been carefully formulated by its architects.
« Tout est voile en plein ciel. Rien n'est allégorie et tout est Symbole ». Là se précise la métaphysique d'André Suarès dont l'œuvre toute entière semble destinée à nous délivrer de la fadaise allégorique et à laisser resplendir en nous la beauté et la vérité du Symbole. Alors que l'allégorie s'abolit dans ce qu'elle allégorise, qu'elle n'est qu'une formulation provisoire, vouée à périr dans l'abstraction qu'elle désigne, le Symbole sauvegarde le visible dans l'invisible et l'invisible dans le visible. La part visible du Symbole est inséparable de sa part invisible; elle demeure dans le mystère ingénu de sa forme, de sa vocation; et de ne point s'étioler dans l'invisible auquel elle se rapporte, lorsque nous l'atteignons, elle acquiert, ici-bas, comme pour la première fois, la splendeur de la beauté dont elle est le nom et l'épiphanie. 
Les ultimes pages écrites par André Suarès, réunies sous le titre Le Paraclet (et que nous devons lire exactement, selon la formule consacrée, comme son « testament spirituel ») ressaisissent en un seul geste les préoccupations esthétiques, métaphysiques, religieuses et morales de l'auteur. Elles sont à la fois son Ecce homo et un viatique pour ses successeurs. Elles récapitulent non moins qu'elles annoncent. Le dernier mot est toujours un avant-dire. 
Ne nous leurrons pas davantage: l'Art sera paraclétique ou ne sera pas. Tout Art est sacré par définition, c'est-à-dire par provenance et par destination. L'Art profane fut une utopie fallacieuse qui finit comme nous la voyons: en calembredaines publicitaires. Le grand Art moderne fut une reconquête du sacré contre les bondieuseries et les saintsulpiceries « réalistes ». Le retour aux ibères et aux étrusques de Picasso, le catholicisme mystique de Cézanne (dont il conviendrait de relire les écrits), les subtiles épiphanies de Vuillard qui irisent et approfondissent le réel, qui dévoilent ce réel qui est vrai et cette vérité qui est réelle, offrent au regard ce qu'il faut bien considérer comme les étapes d'un cheminement, les moments d'un combat qui ne sauraient se résoudre en une théologie rationnelle. « Paraclet, Paraclet, Saint-Esprit, sois l'hôte: reçois et sois reçu ». 
C'est assez pour comprendre que le Paraclet est à la fois au principe d'une Quête chevaleresque et d'une attente eschatologique. Toutefois cette attente ne sera point passive: elle ne sera pas ce consentement au destin que les matérialistes nomment déterminisme et que certains dévots veulent faire passer, en la profanant odieusement, pour un assentiment à la divine Providence. Pour André Suarès, le Règne n'advient que pour autant que nous le fassions advenir. L'attente n'est point soumise, elle est ardente: elle est cette attention ardente qui est le sens et la vertu même de la poésie, de l'acte d'être à l'impératif de celui qui crée dans le péril, dans l'attente extrême où tout se joue dans l'instant et à jamais: « A chaque pas, le coup de dé: le risque de tout perdre se joue contre une chance éternelle. Il ne s'agit pas de repos: la paix est dans la victoire, et l'on ne vainc que dans la lutte. Cette palme pousse sur l'arbre sacré de la connaissance. Le jardin de l'esprit est l'Eden, dont nul ne peut être chassé, s'il entre. Ouvre-le, Paraclet: c'est ton paradis. En proie à ton désir insatiable, l'homme en quête de son éternité, Paraclet, t'invoque: il t'appelle, entends sa voix et réponds-lui ».
Nulle âme ne fut moins servile que celle d'André Suarès, nulle n'aspira avec une telle ferveur, faite d'humilité et de colère, à l'amitié divine. D'où sa méfiance constante pour les religiosités légalitaires, les théologies rationnelles, et les dévotions grégaires. « Après le Père, le Fils; après le Fils, le Saint-Esprit: les grandeurs ne se distinguent pas, elles s'accomplissent. Le Troisième Règne n'est pas la confusion ni l'opposition des deux autres, mais leur révélation dans la conscience de l'homme. Et l'homme alors possédé par l'Esprit, doit entrer en possession. Les plus amants de Dieu, les plus spirituels et les plus mystiques sont les plus suspects d'hérésie. »
Ce monde est « en creux » du Paraclet. Il est le « non-être », l'ennui, l'informe, le malheur que l'on combat et ce combat est de chaque seconde car, en chaque seconde, se tient la promesse du Paraclet, du Tiers Règne, que nous faisons advenir. « Ce qui nous sépare de l'Esprit est le seul malheur qui compte: hélas, il surgit de toute part; tout lui est occasion de nous faire obstacle. Ce mal nous guette, il est partout. » L'attente paraclétique est ainsi, non point passivité, mais activité créatrice où les formes nouvelles renaissent des formes vaincues, où l'instrument même de l'Art en vient à modifier celui qui en use, dans une connaissance plus profonde du monde et de lui-même. « Connaître Dieu, c'est être et faire. Etre dans le faire, et faire dans être. Tel est le miracle: une connaissance si adéquate de l'objet qu'elle est l'objet même ». L'être est « acte d'être », le « faire », autrement dit la poésie, est l'être même. Il n'est point antérieur à l'être; il est sa puissance instauratrice, éternellement contemporaine de ce qu'elle instaure. L'Art métaphysique est ce site incandescent où l'être et le faire sont une seule et même réalité.
Nous empruntons cette citation, non plus à André Suarès, mais à ce roman initiatique ismaélien, commenté par Henry Corbin, auquel nous faisions allusion plus haut: « Savoir, c'est recevoir une information d'un autre. Comprendre, c'est voir soi-même de ses propres yeux. » Le Paraclet n'appartient point au dogme, il ne se récite point, il n'administre aucune conformité, il advient, il est le regard même, lorsque les yeux de chair se changent en yeux de feu. L'espace et le temps profanes sont alors frappés d'inconsistance, car le temps est devenu espace. Et ce qui se disait dans le secret des gnoses iraniennes entre en concordance avec l'attente de Caërdal et du Condottiere, ces deux figures suarésiennes. Il est ainsi permis de voir en André Suarès à la fois l'héritier et l'intercesseur, le continuateur et le recréateur de cet éternel combat entre le dogme oublieux de son propre sens, et le sens reconquis, la Parole Retrouvée par ses propres forces, par l'entremise d'un homme. « La vue du Paraclet est à moi. Tout ce qu'elle a de merveilleux est mien (...), je ne veux pas me laisser dépouiller d'une vaste espérance. Je ne laisse pas mon droit d'aînesse pour un plat de lentilles véreuses, bouillies dans un journal ». La révolte d'André Suarès est légitime, sa vision lui appartient, même si elle apparût à d'autres, et par-delà dix siècles le philosophe inconnu iranien lui donne raison: « C'est qu'en effet celui qui cherche le vrai sans connaître les portes de la recherche, celui-là sera d'autant plus prompt à accuser les autres d'erreur, et cela parce que les éclats du faux se manifestent par l'hypocrisie et l'accord des opinions, le conformisme ou de dogmatisme du groupe, tandis que les éclats du Vrai se manifestent par l'épreuve que l'on affronte et les passions que l'on déchaîne contre soi. »
L'impératif divin, le « soit ! » illuminateur se prouve en faisant de chacun un « unique ». Qu'en ce monde toute chose fût dissemblable, qu'il n'y eût point un flocon de neige à l'exacte ressemblance de son voisin dans la nuit de Décembre, cela vaut bien toutes les démonstrations de l'existence de Dieu. Au demeurant, Dieu n'existe pas. C'est à trop croire en l'existence de Dieu que se gonflent les grenouilles de bénitier, que s'hypertrophie le Moi des fanatiques, ces bœufs attelés. Là où il faudrait se dépouiller, se dénuder, s'abolir, le fanatique se vêt, s'adorne, s'affirme. Il ne mesure nullement ce qu'il convient de restituer à César car il veut être César à la place de César. Le pouvoir l'enivre plus encore que la puissance, l'existence lui paraît plus adorable que l'être, surtout lorsque ce qui existe, il croit le posséder. Le fanatique est ainsi l'avers du progressiste. Là encore Suarès voit juste, avant tout le monde. Ce ne sont point des contraires qui se combattent, mais des semblables, autrement dit deux formes de grégarisme au sein de la même termitière, et l'on hésite franchement à trancher pour savoir laquelle est la pire. Le pire ne se mesure point. « Au fond de tous les fanatiques, grouille l'hydre: le plus hideux amour-propre. Ils font semblant de servir un Dieu; plus d'un le croit peut-être, tant les fanatiques ont de complaisance à eux-mêmes, tant ils sont étroits et obscurcis par leurs propres ténèbres. Mais ils ne respirent que l'orgueil d'être soi. Ils sont prêts à tous les attentats, à tous les crimes pour continuer de prévaloir. Et ils font parler Dieu, l'Etat, la gloire, ou quelque autre abjecte incarnation de l'Empire. Ils sont stupide à la racine; et d'autant plus forte est la racine en eux qu'ils sont plus stupides. Le propre du fanatisme, en attendant que Dieu parle, est de faire parler Dieu. Et, bien entendu, la plupart ils n'y croient pas: il leur suffit de confondre Dieu avec soi. Les plus scélérats y réunissent mieux que les autres. » 
Métaphysique concrète, la prière est le « faire advenir », l'acte poétique accomplissant le pressentiment prophétique. « Non plus serviteur mais ami », comme le dit l'Evangile de Jean, l'homme de prière, selon la formule de Maître Eckhart, « ne trafique point avec Notre Seigneur » ni ne renonce aux ressources de la raison. Les œuvres sont des prières destinées à sauver ceux qui ne pas savent prier et ceux-là encore qui savent prier mais n'entendent point d'échos dans les nuées amassées au-dessus de leurs têtes. Ils se courbent alors et veulent convaincre autrui à vivre, comme eux, penchés: ce qu'ils nomment leur « prosélytisme ». L'inclination est forte, chez les dévots, à vouloir faire croire d'autres qu'eux-mêmes à ce dont ils croient si peu. Le fanatisme, dont on glose beaucoup ces derniers temps, n'est pas une intensification de la croyance, mais son épuisement. Les fanatiques ne vivent que dans une seule crainte: n'être pas assez nombreux, n'être pas assez agrégés dans leurs incertitudes. D'où leur girouettisme notoire. Mais ce n'est point le souffle de l'Esprit qui les oriente mais le typhon de l'Histoire humaine « pleine de bruits et de fureurs ». Ils veulent rassembler, marcher du même pas, chanter ou vociférer en chœur au bord des routes, ou, mieux encore, sur les écrans de télévision. Ils ignorent tout de la solitude du cœur, de l'esseulement de la pensée, de l'Un dont ils se targuent et qu'ils réduisent aux dimensions de leur Moi, voire de leurs petites affaires financières. 
« Il est le Grand Dieu qui a parlé ses membres ! Rà a fait de tous ses noms le cycle des Dieux. C’est Rà qui a créé ses membres devenus des dieux par la suite » ! J’abrège, mais non seulement les textes Egyptiens sont unanimes, mais les hindous diront la même chose de Brahma !
Le second personnage ce sera Charles Maurras, condamné comme « Collaborationniste », par la racaille Bolcho-Gaulliste, alors qu’il fut l’anti germaniste le plus virulent de son époque. ! Maurras était muré dans une surdité quasi-totale, ce qui lui avait donné une force de concentration extra-ordinaire. Philosophe de l’école très rationaliste d’ Auguste Conte , il n’avait jamais pu croire. Il était plutôt fervent de la sagesse Grecque, ce qui lui avait valu l’antipathie sectaire du Pape Pie XI. Quand il fut grabataire en prison, et mourant, il fut gracié par le président Auriol, et interrogé, il avoua même dans l’épreuve n’avoir pas pu faire un pas vers la religion, même après avoir fait une très belle prière poétique. Cependant sur le point de mourir, il accepta qu’un prêtre vienne l’assister, et il se produisit alors un fait extraordinaire. Alors que le prêtre montait l’escalier pour l’assister, Maurras se souleva sur son lit et il déclara : « Pour la première fois, j’entends venir quelqu’un ! ».
Max Jacob, artiste à la vie de Bohème, accro aux drogues dures et même homosexuel dit-on, 
We will surely remember 1994 better than 1984, which Orwell immortalised by writing his celebrated apocalyptic book predicting an ultra-totalitarian world in which we all would have been irredeemably crushed. We will not remember it solely for the political event of 27 March in Italy, but above all for the consequences that this “reversal” might (I insist on the conditional!) have in the cultural sphere. Whatever one may thing of the victory of Berlusconi and his allies, it has already had a first result: the organisation of a colloquium dedicated to the personality of Giovanni Gentile; it was held in Rome on 20 and 21 May 1994 on the initiative of the leftist municipal council (which does honour to the Italian left, as does the other colloquium it dedicated to Nietzsche). We remember he whom we always defined as the “philosopher of Fascism,” fifty years after his death, when he was assassinated by a commando of communist partisans in Florence on 15 April 1944. After having beaten a long and sinuous intellectual course, many post-Marxist philosophers, such as Colletti, Marramao and Cacciari, claimed him for an authentic figure of the left, at least in a decent part of his work.
La mission des êtres différenciés est triple : elle consiste d’abord à se protéger, à survivre pour faire repartir le nouveau cycle ; inutile de s’investir dans la mêlée ; laissons-les s’entretuer. Le deuxième volet de cette mission consiste à rassembler les bagages pour franchir le gué, c’est le sous-titre de mon livre : La Roue et le sablier ; cette mission consiste à réunir tout ce qui a fait la grandeur de l’Europe. Enfin, le troisième volet consiste, par notre seule présence et notre seule volonté, comme une sorte d’égrégore, à empêcher nos ennemis d’arrêter le mouvement de la roue et la naissance du nouveau cycle.
En su elaboración se han tocado, a nuestro parecer, todas las teclas que se debían de tocar: desde las bases socio-políticas en que deberá asentarse esa nueva Europa, que no soslaya cuál será su organización territorial-administrativa, pasando por la geoestrategia que deberá hacer propia, continuando por hasta cuál será la heráldica que deberá representarlo y acabando por tratar la que deberá ser su posición en el tema de la Trascendencia.
De tout temps, les carnavals et autres fêtes des fous ont compté, parmi leurs fonctions notoires, celle de dire leur fait à ceux qui le méritaient. Magistrats corrompus, seigneurs impitoyables, clercs aux mœurs dissolues… en prenaient pour leur grade. Il y avait là un fond très moral: les satires, même de mauvais ton, donnaient une leçon d’humilité et de sagesse populaires à ceux qui en faisaient les frais, tout en consolant leurs acteurs et spectateurs d’être parfois si mal dirigés. Mais un autre rôle, autrement important que celui d’une soupape de sûreté, peut être mis en évidence: celui de ciment de la vie commune, fût-ce en toute légèreté et sans avoir l’air d’y toucher. Un projet de recherche en cours à l’Université d’Utrecht vise à éclairer sous cet angle la culture festive du Moyen Age finissant et la production littéraire qui lui était liée 
En 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. […]
L’EPEE DE LUMIERE ET LE CHEVALIER D’OCCIDENT
LA GRANDE LIBERATION DU PRINCE SIDDHARTA
LES HOMMES AU MILIEU DES RUINES
On sait ce que Guénon pensait de l’occident et de sa mission civilisatrice. On va rappeler le grand hindouiste de Ceylan Coomaraswamy (s’il voyait ce qu’on a fait de son île…) qui écrivait vers 1945 :
« M. Brailsford objecte que «les seuls obstacles à l’accroissement du commerce intérieur sur une échelle gigantesque sont la pauvreté des villages et l’autarcie qui est propre à leurs plus anciennes traditions... Il existe encore maint village, où les artisans héréditaires, qui servent pour une ration de grains ou quelques arpents de terre franche, tisseront les étoffes dont il aura besoin, forgeront ses houes et tourneront ses pots». Malheureusement, «l’accroissement du commerce intérieur sur une échelle gigantesque » n’est aucunement l’une de nos ambitions principales. Nous tenons encore (avec Philon, De Decalogo, 69) pour vérité patente que l’artisan est de valeur supérieure au produit de son métier, et nous avons conscience que c’est avant tout dans les sociétés industrielles que cette vérité est ignorée. »
« Qu’avez-vous exactement à nous offrir, vous qui êtes si pénétrés de votre «mission civilisatrice»? N’êtes-vous point étonnés «qu’il n’y ait plus de peuple dans toute l’Asie qui ne regarde l’Europe avec crainte et soupçon», comme l’a dit Rabindranath Tagore, ou que nous redoutions la perspective d’une alliance des puissances impérialistes dont la «Charte de l’Atlantique» ne devait pas s’appliquer à l’Inde et ne s’appliquera pas à la Chine si on peut l’éviter? »
Until 1935, Iran was referred to internationally as “Persia” (or La Perse), and the Iranian people were broadly identified as “Persians.” This was the case despite the fact that Persians always referred to themselves as Iranians (Irâni) and used the term Irânshahr (Old Persian Aryâna Khashatra) or “Aryan Imperium” in order to designate what Westerners call the “Persian Empire.”
We have entered the era of a clash of civilizations rather than a conflict between nation states. Consequently, the recognition of Iran as a distinct civilization, one that far predates the advent of Islam and is now evolving beyond the Islamic religion, would be of decisive significance for the post-national outcome of a Third World War.
