Such an apology and a reform (or series of reforms) the real revolutionaries mightily feared. Never had they actually sought reform of French society, whatever their claims and protestations. Instead, from the moment they began the revolution in 1789, they wanted to destroy and overturn all that opposed them and to do so utterly and completely, leaving no remnant and no possible opposition. To destroy as violently and wholly as possible, they needed to make a caricature of the aristocrat and the monarch. They needed to take the particular evils of each and make the average person believe them the universal and norm of each. Rather than examining the human condition, the true revolutionaries exaggerated its faults as manifested in the elites of society. They, Burke claimed in true Aristotelian and Thomistic fashion, redefined the thing, claiming its accidents to be its essence. Being revolutionaries, they could not create, they could only mock and pervert. Though the revolutionaries claimed to hate the violence and errors of the aristocracy, they submitted themselves to the very same evils, creating excuses for their own sins, as if necessary to expiate all of those of the past.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Nous voudrions seulement préciser une chose en ce qui concerne le centralisme revendiqué de cet auteur russe : si, pour notre part, nous nous faisons le défenseur d'un certain fédéralisme, nous nous devons néanmoins d'ajouter que celui-ci ne pourrait être, selon nous, désaccouplé d'une vision centraliste du pouvoir suprême par le fait de la considération spirituelle et traditionnelle qui motive et soutient celle-ci. L'indépendance ne saurait qu'être illusoire au regard de la dynamique de l'autonomie régionale et nationale (tout comme civilisationnelle) et, dans les faits, elle n'est qu'un voile destiné à camoufler une influence néfaste (réelle celle-là et destructrice de la diversité culturelle) sur la culture des peuples et sur leur singularité (l'américanisation sous-jacente au soutien déclaré à la « réappropriation » par les peuples minoritaires de leur culture et de leurs « droits », par exemple). Le centralisme est une nécessité au regard d'une dynamique culturelle qui n'est telle que parce qu'elle peut trouver à s'élever par rapport à un lieux spirituel et politique central, et ultime du point de vue de l'affirmation de sa propre singularité. Il ne peut y avoir de véritable progrès humain sans qu'il ne soit donné à un peuple, comme à une personne, la possibilité perpétuelle de pouvoir s'élever et s'affirmer par rapport aux Autres en regard d'un Ordre qui en donne la réelle possibilité sans encourir le chaos et, au final, l'extinction. La croissance d'une culture comme d'une personnalité est autant à considérer d'un point de vue horizontal que d'un point de vue vertical. Or, il n'est qu'une juste hiérarchie pour octroyer le réel pouvoir de s'élever parmi, et non à l'encontre, des Autres.
Question inévitable : après la séparation de ces tribus de la Russie, qui les prendra sous sa responsabilité ? Quelle puissance étrangère se jouera d’elles et en retirera la sève vitale ?
" Malgré les nombreuses études qui lui ont été consacrées, une période cruciale de la vie de Julius Evola restait encore dans l’ombre, d’autant plus que l’intéressé, discret jusqu’à la réticence au sujet de lui-même, en avait très peu parlé : les années 1943-1951, qui furent celles de l’attitude à adopter face à la grande crise du régime fasciste et à la fondation de la République sociale italienne (rsi), puis de l’accident survenu à Vienne début 1945 qui le laissa paralysé des membres inférieurs, du véritable « chemin de croix » médical qui suivit entre l’Autriche, la Hongrie et l’Italie, enfin du retour définitif à Rome au printemps de 1951.
Alexander Wolfheze
The Sunset of Tradition and The Great War [2]
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2018
£67.99 (sale price £33.99 until December 1 [3])
Of the major (and even several of the minor) European languages, the Traditionalist school of philosophy – that articulated by René Guénon and Julius Evola and their offshoots – was a latecomer in the Anglophone world. After the better part of a century of near-total obscurity, it was only thanks to the hard work of publishers such as Sophia Perennis, Inner Traditions, and World Wisdom (not to mention Counter-Currents!) that most of the writings of the Traditionalist school finally appeared in English and became known – in certain circles, at least – in recent decades.
While this has been a major step forward, there is still a dearth of original, secondary works pertaining to the Traditionalist perspective in English. And most of what has been produced in English has focused exclusively on esotericism (particularly of the Islamic variety). What has been conspicuously absent have been works dealing with history, social issues, and politics from a Traditionalist point of view.
It’s not difficult to understand why, however, given that for a long time, Traditionalists have been operating under the guise of being purely concerned with religion and mysticism, remaining silent about the fact that Traditionalism in its complete form is one of the most – if not the most – reactionary current of thought that exists in the postmodern world. This is of course a consequence of the fact that most Traditionalist thinkers today have opted for the safety of academic careers (something which Evola noted already in the 1950s and for which he expressed his contempt), and thus want to avoid being called fascists. Their cover has been somewhat blown, however, as a result of Steve Bannon’s claim that Guénon was a crucial influence on him, which has in turn led to some superficial and ill-informed propaganda from journalists using Traditionalism as a branding iron with which to mark both Bannon and Trump (by association) as fascists, by bringing attention to the connection between Evola and Guénon. (And Evola had the audacity to call himself a “superfascist,” so by the logic of the average half-witted journalist of today, that makes Bannon and Trump really fascist!) It remains to be seen what the long-term consequences of this will be in terms of Traditionalism’s reception in the mainstream, although I’ve noticed that it’s become harder to find Evola and Guénon’s books on bookstore shelves these days. It may have the beneficial effect of forcing Traditionalists out of the realm of pure scholasticism and into putting their beliefs into practice, if academia ultimately becomes a hostile environment for them – which it inevitably will, if present trends continue. Time will tell.
Alexander Wolfheze is thus to be commended for defying this trend and producing a work which openly declares the anti-modern and anti-liberal spirit of Traditionalism and applies it to the temporal world, rather than focusing on esotericism alone. The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of The Great War, fortunately, takes a large step towards rectifying the lack of original Traditionalist literature in English, being essentially a Traditionalist historiography – or, according to the author, only the start of a multi-volume Traditionalist historiography – of the birth of the postmodern world. According to the biography included in the book, Dr. Wolfheze is a Dutch scholar who specializes in Assyriology, cultural anthropology, pre-modern epistemology, and (naturally) Traditionalism, and he has previously published studies on Near Eastern cultural history. He is also active with the Dutch Right-wing metapolitical organization, Erkenbrand [4], so clearly, unlike most Traditionalist scholars, Dr. Wolfheze is not content to merely sit on the sidelines while his civilization is destroyed, justifying it by whining about “muh Kali Yuga.” While many Rightists pay lip service to Traditionalism without actually knowing much about it, Dr. Wolfheze seems to be one who is bridging that divide.
The book’s Preface is titled “Childhood’s End,” and in it Dr. Wolfheze briefly discusses the Arthur C. Clarke science fiction novel of the same name as being symptomatic of the post-war (in this case meaning the Second World War) mentality: namely, that the rapid and dramatic progression of science and technology are leading us towards an apocalypse that we cannot yet identify, but which still fills us with a sense of dread. (Spoilers ahead; if you haven’t yet read the book but think that you might, skip to the next paragraph.) In that book, a near-future humanity is visited by an extraterrestrial civilization which helps to solve all of humanity’s problems, bringing about Utopia. The problem, as humanity soon learns, is that it turns out that it was the struggle to deal with those problems that gave their lives meaning, and having everything handed to them eventually leads to stagnation. It turns out that all of human history was merely a process leading us towards humanity’s real end, for which the aliens have come to act as midwives: evolving into a species of plain, anonymous children, all identical and part of a collective with no more distinguishing features than ants, but endowed with what we would consider to be superpowers. Ultimately, these children combine their forces and transform themselves into a non-corporeal being, destroying the Earth in the process and incidentally all of those unevolved humans such as ourselves – those who haven’t already committed suicide, that is.
As an allegory of the modern world, the parallels to the Right-wing and Traditionalist view of the modern world is clear, even if Traditionalists would deny that “progress” is leading us towards anything higher, collectively or otherwise. We, too, are fighting against the transformation of the world into a giant supermarket, where everyone is identical and meaning is to be found solely through the acquisition of material possessions.
Dr. Wolfheze does not seem to be an “orthodox” Traditionalist, in the sense that he is not nearly as pessimistic as many other Traditionalists have been about the predicament of the modern world, seeing potential amidst the devastation that is currently being wrought upon the traditional foundations of civilization:
In the second decade of the 21st Century it is clear, even to the most simple-minded and retired-living individuals, that mankind’s global natural and social habitat is changing beyond recognition – and that this change is taking place at breath-taking speed. Accordingly, culture and knowledge are being transformed at the same speed – and with it mankind’s experience of its history. Thus, a new form of audience for a new form of history is being created by sheer force of circumstances. It is this new audience, as yet un-defined and un-determined, that is addressed by this present work.
But one thing about this new audience is certain: it will not include the old audience. The old audience will cling to its complementary comforts of infotainment consumption and academic snobbery, but it will also be left behind because it is existentially unable to match the impudent curiosity and steel nerves required of the new audience. The old audience can only reject, up front and out of hand, the new realities and new concepts that will inevitably invalidate its own decades-long experience of educational indoctrination, media propaganda and political correctness – an experience that is approaching the ne plus ultra of Modernity. About the old audience little remains to be said.
This is a welcome development in Traditionalism, since it is surely the dark and pessimistic view of our era common to the scholastic Traditionalists, which in turn lends itself to apathy, that has led to Traditionalism being so marginalized among those who prefer to do more than just detach from the world around them. Dr. Wolfheze – much like the present reviewer – prefers to see what can be made of the postmodern world, even given the chance that it might all end up being futile, to just throwing up one’s hands and saying, “It’s hopeless.” For Dr. Wolfheze, the end of the Traditional world should not be seen as a cause for mourning, but rather the mark of a need for a new maturity, a desire to be a “man among the ruins,” to use Evola’s phrase, not by denying the world as it is, but by attempting to understand how it got there, and in so doing learning to stand for values that transcend it. Childhood’s end in this book thus means not “going gentle into that good night” by accepting our fate, but rather of discovering a form of maturity that gives us the power to be in this world, but not of it.
Nevertheless, I did find myself somewhat balking at the author’s own statement of purpose, which he gives as follows: “This present work, Sunset, will provide the young people of the world a tool to work towards childhood’s end.” A dense book on philosophy and metaphysics – 450 pages in length including the endnotes, with small type – might seem an odd way to attempt to appeal to young people in an age which, by the author’s own admission, the printed book has less appeal to the young than ever before; nonetheless, it is clear that Dr. Wolfheze wishes to address himself to the more capable elite among the youth, those who can straddle both the worlds of the past and the one just coming in to being, rather than attempting to reach a mass audience. And indeed, this book, while extremely interesting, is certainly not for everyone – but then Traditionalism has always been an elitist doctrine. And I myself have always been firmly convinced that there will always be things that only books can accomplish, even in the age of social media.
Dr. Wolfheze divides his critique of modernity in terms of Ten Key Concepts, which he identifies as Modernity (which he associates with “meta-history” in terms of cultural-historical perspective), the Dark Age (metaphysics), Apocalypse (religion), Materialism (philosophy), Ecocide (economics), Regression (sociology), Narcissism (psychology), Decadence (art), Anomy (domestic politics), and Imperialism (international politics). Each of these gets a chapter describing the way in which each thread developed towards and produced the Great War, and the world that came after it, in detail. The scope of the book actually goes far beyond the Great War, which the author sees as a pivotal event which witnessed the final end of the long-decaying world of Tradition that had been sustained by the ancient monarchies and empires that were swept away in the deluge, setting the stage for the coming of our own, rootless world. But the author also explores the trends which culminated and burst forth in the Great War, as well as their implications for the world since, and thus his analysis runs far afield from merely the War itself.
Engagement with history has always been a weak point in Traditionalism; the Traditionalist authors will make occasional reference to certain historical events as being indicative of the metaphysical trends they see at work in the world, but to my knowledge there has never before been a sustained analysis of modern history from a sacred, Traditional perspective, which has always seemed to me to be a major flaw in their work since it neglects to show how the forces which have produced the modern world have been at work in material and tangible ways. Dr. Wolfheze’s book thus takes Traditionalist thought in a new and welcome direction in this regard, citing very specific events that can be identified and examined, which led to the transition from the sacred world of Tradition and into the secular world of modernity. In his Postscript, Dr. Wolfheze tells us that The Sunset of Tradition – all 450 pages of it – is but a prologue to a series of books he is writing to offer “a Traditionalist history of the entire Great War,” although he also makes it clear that he regards it as a work that can be viewed as a standalone work. Given the value of this first book, it is to be hoped that he perseveres in this effort.
I intend to write a more in-depth review of The Sunset of Tradition at a later time – my primary purpose in writing this brief announcement is to make readers aware of the book, and of the special price for which it is temporarily being offered, given its hefty cover price ordinarily. The book’s publisher, Cambridge Scholars, is offering the book at a half-price discount until December 1 as part of a commemoration of the Armistice, and information on how to get it can be found on their Website [3]. For those who have found the Traditionalist perspective appealing, but who have longed for a more robust form of it which engages with real-world problems in a clear manner, this book is an important first step in this direction – and is thus for you.
Ook de transportcorridor door Pakistan heeft met dergelijke destabilisaties te kampen. In deze regio strekken veel bevolkingsgroepen zich uit over de grens tussen Afghanistan en Pakistan, zodat instabiliteit in Afghanistan ook uitstraalt naar Pakistaanse regio’s.
Nog groter is het potentieel van de zogeheten 
De Noordoostelijke Doorvaart biedt dus veel voordelen ten opzichte van de nu gangbare route. Het gebied rond het Suez-kanaal is momenteel immers bepaald instabiel. De Straat van Bab el Mandeb, die vanuit de Golf van Aden toegang geeft tot de Rode Zee en het Suezkanaal, ligt immers tussen Jemen enerzijds en Eritrea/Djibouti anderzijds. In Jemen voert een Arabische coalitie onder leiding van Saoedi-Arabië en met ondersteuning van de VS, het Verenigd Koninkrijk en Frankrijk een 
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
The paper was PM, and for the first two years of its existence (1940-42), it exulted in damning Father Coughlin as a seditionist, a yellow-journalist, a Nazi mouthpiece, and an impious opponent of democracy. PM began with a long series of articles in the summer of 1940. “Nazi Propagandist Coughlin Faithless to Church and Country: Hatred and Bigotry Spread Throughout the Nation by Priest,” screamed one headline. After American entry into the war, histrionic, full-page editorials by Editor Ingersoll became a regular feature; e.g., one titled “Has Charles Coughlin Lied Again?”
From the start, PM was renowned for its crankiness and an eagerness to print facts and speculation side-by-side, journalistic taste be damned. For example, in 1941 New Yorker editor Harold Ross discovered that his male secretary had embezzled about a hundred thousand dollars from him over the years. Ross wanted to keep the story hushed up, especially after the greedy amanuensis gassed himself in his Brooklyn apartment and was revealed to be a homosexual who squandered the dough on boyfriends, the turf club, and maybe a blackmailer. This was Harold Ross’ nightmare idea of a scandal. Most of his friends in the press were happy to help him bury the lurid tale. Not PM, though, which printed the murky details of the kitchen suicide, as well as the disarray of Ross’ personal finances.
Fr. Coughlin lived until 1979, seldom remarked upon or remembered. Since that time, the smear campaign has begun anew, as though taken straight from the pages of the 1942 PM. All the trite pejoratives get leveled at him: fascist, pro-Nazi, conspiracy-thinker. And, of course, “anti-Semite.” The website of Washington, DC’s Holocaust Museum even has a page dedicated to him, and it’s filled with every sort of twist and innuendo in the cliché barrel. For example, after Germany’s Kristallnacht made the headlines in November 1938, the priest gave a radio talk explaining the background to the news. This is spun as Coughlin “defend[ing] the state-sponsored violence of the Nazi regime,” although he did not, in fact, endorse violence, window-breaking, or persecution of Jews. From sites such as this, you might get the impression that Fr. Coughlin was a sort of Julius Streicher in a Roman collar.
Dans le monde arabe, à la défaite militaire s’ajoute la défaite symbolique. Il y a bien évidemment l’humiliation de l’occupation : le Sinaï égyptien (qui sera récupéré par le président Sadate), le Golan syrien (annexé en 1981), les fermes libanaises de Chebaa et les territoires palestiniens de Gaza et de Cisjordanie (dont Jérusalem-Est), administrés auparavant par l’Égypte et la Jordanie. Il y a aussi la spoliation du peuple palestinien, qui se retrouve occupé et malmené pendant des décennies par une puissance étrangère. Mais il y a aussi l’échec du nationalisme arabe qui en annoncera bien d’autres. Cet échec de trois grandes armées arabes encouragera le réveil de la résistance palestinienne. Dans les années 1970, l’Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP) jouera un rôle analogue à celui de Nasser, décédé en 1970. En Jordanie comme au Liban, Yasser Arafat apparaîtra comme une figure tutélaire à son tour, stimulé par quelques succès militaires dont les grandes armées arabes ont été incapables. On retrouvera ce phénomène avec le Hezbollah libanais. Un peu plus de dix ans après cette guerre, à la cause arabe contre Israël se substituera une cause nouvelle, nourrie par la montée du wahhabisme à la faveur des pétrodollars, celle de la guerre d’Afghanistan (1979). Tandis que l’Égypte vient de signer un traité de paix avec Israël (ce que la Jordanie fera en 1994), des milliers de combattants venus du monde arabe se retrouveront ainsi plongés dans un conflit lointain au nom d’une appartenance religieuse, encouragés par les Américains et contre l’ennemi « impie » tout désigné : l’Union soviétique.
Voici les propos qu’on lui prête :
Selon ce grandiose Calgacus, on est là aussi pour être rincés par les impôts qui n’ont jamais été aussi élevés (France, Allemagne, USA) pour les couches faibles et moyennes dans ce monde pourtant si libéral :
L’identité entre modernisation et occidentalisation du Japon est un des lieux communs les plus véhiculés. Les écrivains, les cinéastes, mais également, ce qui est plus grave, les historiens décrivent souvent un archipel féodal qui aurait embrassé la modernité occidentale en découvrant la puissance nouvelle des empires européens en pleine expansion au milieu du XIXe siècle. Les canonnières britanniques auraient suscité chez ce peuple de tradition isolationniste un sentiment d’urgence et de faiblesse, l’obligeant à rattraper son retard technique, économique et politique. Cette approche considère donc que la modernité japonaise est le produit de l’Occident, que les causes profondes de la transformation de la société japonaise sont exogènes et que ce changement radical peut se comprendre sur le mode de la pure et simple imitation, notamment à travers des tendances nouvelles comme le nationalisme, l’impérialisme ou encore le capitalisme à la japonaise.
La modernité japonaise se caractérise également par l’émergence de nationalismes de nature différente. Si les premiers intellectuels de la période Meiji s’interrogèrent sur la possibilité d’un changement de régime pour permettre aux Japonais de disposer de plus de droits individuels (liberté de réunion, d’association, d’expression…) et de véritables libertés politiques, le débat s’est ensuite orienté sur la question de la définition de cette nouvelle identité japonaise. « À partir des années 1887-1888 […], les termes du débat évoluèrent et se cristallisèrent désormais sur la question des identités à l’intérieur de la nation, avec un balancement entre trois éléments, l’Occident et son influence toujours fascinante et menaçante, l’Orient (mais il s’agit surtout de la Chine) qui devint une sorte de terre d’utopie ou d’expansion, et le Japon enfin, dont il fallait sans cesse redéfinir l’essence entre les deux pôles précédents. » Ce qui est particulièrement intéressant dans le cas japonais, c’est que le nationalisme, qui est par excellence une doctrine politique moderne, ne s’est pas seulement constitué à partir du modèle occidental. 
Dostojewski: National-religiöse Überwindung des Nihilismus
Danilewski: Der russische Spengler
Im Zuge der ukrainischen Krise geriet auch Dugin ins Visier der westlichen Öffentlichkeit; etablierte deutsche Zeitungen, darunter Die Welt und die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, porträtierten den vermeintlichen „rechtsradikalen Guru“ und „Einflüsterer Putins“29. Dugins Stern scheint jedoch zu sinken. Im Mai dieses Jahres wurde er als Soziologieprofessor an der staatlichen Moskauer Lomonossow-Universität vom Rektor entlassen. Grund waren unter anderem sein Aufruf, die Opfer des Massakers von Odessa vom Mai 2014 mit dem Blut der „Kiewer Junta“ zu rächen, sowie eine sich anschließende Unterschriftensammlung gegen ihn. Als aktuell bedeutendster Vertreter der langen Tradition russischer Großreichsideen dürfte seine Stimme jedoch nicht leiser werden. Europas Patrioten und Konservative sollten diesen Gegenpol zur ideologischen Dominanz des Westens zu schätzen wissen. Aber sie sollten auch nicht vergessen: Die Ideen dieses wichtigen Verbündeten stehen in einer langen Tradition russischen Reichsbewußtseins. Sie verkörpern nicht mehr und nicht weniger als den ideologischen Überbau nationaler Interessen.
Nach der Rückehr König Ferdinands (VII.) aus dem unfreiwilligen französischen Exil (1814) baten dieselben „Servilen“ ihn in einer später als „Manifest der Perser“ (Manifiesto de los Persas) berühmt gewordenen Schrift, die revolutionären Neuerungen zu verwerfen. Der seltsame Name rührt von einer Bezugnahme auf die alten Perserkönige zurück, welche der Überlieferung zufolge die Pflicht hatten, mit ihrem Thronantritt die alte Ordnung wiederherzustellen.
Französische Befreier
«i cavalieri liberi del barone Ungern von Sternberg, che sognava di ricostituire in Asia l’impero di Gengis Khan. Un giorno salì a cavallo e disse ai suoi: “Vado su Alpha Centauri”. Nessuno lo vide mai più».
Lors du référendum de Maastricht de 1992, il appelle à un « oui » critique au nom de l’intérêt de l’Europe, car Michel Jobert est très européen. « L’Europe, si elle nous tient à cœur, n’aura de visage, d’identité, que si elle est capable d’assurer elle-même sa sécurité, au lieu de faire semblant de ne pas voir que, au-dessus d’elle, le parapluie nucléaire américain est troué depuis des années et que les États-Unis se replient d’Europe, à l’évidence (dans L’aveuglement du monde occidental. Chroniques de politique internationale 1993 – 1996, Albin Michel, 1997, p. 334). » Parfois désabusé, il estime par exemple que « la fameuse trilogie – monnaie unique, politique étrangère commune, défense commune – est, malgré les étapes et les dates fixées dans l’accord de Maastricht, du domaine de l’imaginaire ou de l’approximation (op. cit., p. 25) ». 
Acabo de consultar la web de Siruela y veo que ya va por la 18ª edición, y el número de reseñas y entrevistas a la autora se multiplica desde su salida. Si escribo esta breve reseña no es por otro motivo que el de compartir sensaciones y reflexiones, animar a su lectura, recomendar el estudio serio y objetivo de la Historia, la de España y la del mundo, y cerrar el paso a toda suerte de racismo.
Luteranos y calvinistas no fueron mejores en su intolerancia, como demuestra la señora Roca, antes bien, fueron especialmente fanáticos en sus orígenes, y traidores a la civilización en la que se insertaron, aliándose con los turcos y prefiriendo el yugo de éstos, al yugo suave del Imperio carolino. La historia les juzgará, pues ahora son justamente esos países intolerantes y catolicofóbicos los que han hecho de la "tolerancia" su religión o sucedáneo de religión. Y ahora sí, deshecho ese Imperio universal que extendiera una civilización católica, tienen al "turco", o algún análogo suyo, metido dentro, destrozándoles en sus entrañas.