academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressInteresting talk by Bowden. I’m not that big on Evola, I prefer Nietzsche, but either way this is a great discussion of religion, philosophy, and society. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7.
Categories: Uncategorized
 | Anonymous on Treasonous FISA Bill Passes |
 | anarchore on California Is the Homeland of… |
| Anonymous on The Forgotten Legacy of John S… |
| anarch0re on Holocaust Denial Now More Main… |
 | dystopiandeepdives on An Announcement |
| Anonymous on Autism and anarchy: The import… |
 | Dale Dombkowski on Are EVs Truly the Greenest For… |
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson
Yeah, I tried getting into Evola. Thing is, that was the very thing that turned Bill White from an anarchist to an off-the-wall nazi, so that made me not go much further.
I actually belonged to an anarchist group with Psycho Bill back in the 90s. I think he was still in his teens then. It was called Libertarian Socialist Movement USA.
Believe it or not, Bill White actually showed a lot of potential at one point until his personal pathologies got the better of him. He was a good speaker, writer, and organizer back then. But his behavior just kept getting weirder and weirder and the Hollywood Nazi thing was the last straw.
My take on him today is that he’s just a sociopath who uses extreme political ideologies as an outlet or vehicle for that aspect of his personality.
Yeah, during his time as an anarchist he seemed to be a rising star, but I guess his personal demons eventually got the best of him.
Hmm. It looks like your last post somehow got deleted.
Accident?
I probably deleted it inadvertently when clearing out spam from the comments section.
It’s alright. As long as it wasn’t intentional. Anti-censorship me…
Censorship will never be an issue on this blog.
So anyways, what is your own take on Evola? I know I’m with you as far as Nietzsche being better (although I think I forgot much of what I read of him…)
I like Evola’s critique of materialism and economic determinism, and I am sympathetic to his elevation of the spiritual, but his iron faith in this rather shaky concept of ‘Tradition’ leads him to some rather peculiar beliefs. While I am no rationalist, even I start to sharpen my Occam’s razor when reading Evola.
As it exists today, ‘Traditionalism’ seems to be a rather bizarre form of mystical fundamentalism; the theory of evolution is dismissed from the arbitrary metaphysical standpoint that something ‘higher’ cannot develop from something ‘lower’; in fact, evidence-based theories are dismissed as symptoms of the materialist age of Kali Yuga, leaving us free to believe in RE Howard-esque stories about Aryo-Hyperborean god-men being our ancestors…
When I tried reading Evola, his thinking struck me as an almost deliberately contrived anti-modernist, anti-rationalist, and anti-Enlightenment smoke and mirrors show.
What I mean by that is it seemed like Evola was someone who hated modernity so much that he sought to create a philosophy that would be its polar opposite in every conceivable way and in the most extreme ways. It’s like he way saying to liberal Enlightenment civilization: “Here, take that!”
He also reminded of some of the bizarre New Age cults with his theories about Atlantis and all that.
It is not so much that Evola’s teachings are deliberately contrarian as it is the fact that the modern age is anti-Tradition. The Traditionalists provide a valid and workable dialectical antithesis to many of concerns discussed here on this site even if the total package is too much for most to take. At the very least, a study of their teachings can help you to develop a habit critical doubt regarding most of what we just accept as truth but which is actually just consensus.
The pigs certainly study the ancient texts, Norbert Wiener’s treatise on Cybernetics “The Human Use of Human Beings” blatantly and consistently plagiarizes the Vedas, and that work is essentially the MIT manual of control, and it is no coincidence that Oppenheimer quoted the Vedas at Trinity. Whether you accept it or not, ancient wisdom is being studied by the other side, it can’t hurt to have some basic, cursory knowledge of these subjects.
Obviously, Traditional teachings can’t solve everything. Few will ever have the access and privilege afforded to Hakim Bey and as studying under one of the contemporary masters could not liberate him from his perverse predilections, I concede that much of it will be of little use to most.
“At the very least, a study of their teachings can help you to develop a habit critical doubt regarding most of what we just accept as truth but which is actually just consensus.”
I can certainly agree with that. My problem with many adherents of Traditionalism – including Evola – is they tend to disable this critical doubt regarding their own belief system. For example, they take from their interpretation of various ancient texts and belief systems a coherent system they call ‘Tradition’, which I have never seen properly quantified or argued for in a convincing or rational manner. Nonetheless, I agree that Traditionalism provides some interesting and insightful counter-blasts to accepted modern truths.
Aug20Jeff Braine I’ve been in the outback hunntig Wild Toffee Cream slices in their natural habitat. Futile, of course, but I did see a pack of them on the distant horizon.Also I no longer have usenet news access (we retired it a year or so ago at work), and I unfortunately haven’t had time to catch up with the WOS forums recently. NickH nice work doing all the linking, must have been tedious but certainly worth it IMO. Anyways, toodle pip, will try to keep up now!
Don’t get me wrong. I think the Traditionalist thinkers are well worth taking a look at if for no other reason because they do so strongly reject the presumptions and pieties of the modern era. Also, I think many of the values advanced by the Traditionalists overlap very well with those of classical Anarchism, with the only significant difference being the rationalism and anticlericalism of the latter.
The more I study Greco-Roman political philosophy, the more I tend to regard it as superior to modern political philosophy, or at least as the foundation of the better aspects of modern political philosophy. Likewise, I think that of the world’s religious traditions, Hinduism is probably the one most easily reconciled with the insights of contemporary physics.
I do agree with Luke, however, that to be defensible as “truth” an idea has to be able to be rationally defended (unless it’s going to be embrace merely as a pre-rational or non-rational type of aesthetic principle, which is fine.)
I don’t understand the criticism of Julius Evola in the comments. Remember that Troy Southgate was inspired in part by this man. National Anarchism as we know it would not be near the same without Evola’s influence. I also have to say that without an esoteric background, movements never pan out as well. Materialism has invaded our culture and a good dose of traditionalism is what we need. We evolved in tribes with a proto-traditionalism of ancestors embedded into it. JE could very well be a man in the wilderness which we would be foolish to ignore.
Nietzsche went mentally insane without an esoteric side to balance himself. That should always be remembered.
“I don’t understand the criticism of Julius Evola in the comments. Remember that Troy Southgate was inspired in part by this man. National Anarchism as we know it would not be near the same without Evola’s influence.”
One of the principle advantages of secessionism as a strategy and as an intellectual offer is its elegant simplicity. Adding unnecessary elements to the concept results in more “intellectual drag”, presenting more to criticise and reducing the potential pool of supporters. Southgate made this mistake in his original concept of NA, adding a large measure of reactionary conservative packaging to the principle (to say the least). The result has been to compromise the intellectual integrity of NA, arm its critics and attract the support of people whose support is not to be encouraged.
If we take a look at our misguided comrades on what we call the “left wing” of anarchism we can easily discern the disastrous consequences of their adoption of a prescriptive philosophy and value system which is entirely irrelevant and in many cases inimical to the principles of anarchism. The wasted efforts, the incoherent demands for more state for their favoured groups, the incomprehensible alliances with ultra authoritarian socialists, the tortured reasoning in the hopes of justifying the unjustifiable, the total focus on other radical traditions as the enemy rather than the system.
NA represents the mirror image on the right of this pathetic mess on the left. It is just harder for people sympathetic to those inserted right wing elements to see the effect.
One of the beautiful aspects of secessionism is that it does not require its advocates to understand it. It’s entirely possible for groups who completely fail to comprehend the moral, intellectual and political values of neighbourhood anarchism to support it in their own case simply because it offers them what they want for themselves. For example certain Islamic communities in the West would seize the opportunity to self govern, however they would be unlikely to go out of their way to afford the local homosexual district the same opportunity. I think it’s reasonable to assume that NA, like its counterpart on the left, probably is intellectually incapable of genuinely moving beyond its own political preconceptions. It will remain, and should be seen as, merely a community which might (in this case does) support secessionism in its own interest rather than as a coherent political ideology. It is of interest only because it has realised the advantages and necessity of local autonomy before many other groups and that the national anarchists are the loudest and first advocates of it on the radical right.
Of course it is possible that individuals might pass through a NA stage on their way to a more sophisticated understanding. Sooner or later serious people are going to get bored with worrying about the social standing of nuns or the significance of sigils in a modern society. At that point the opportunity presents itself to realise that it’s not our job to create a utopia for everyone else or even protect them from the consequences of their own beliefs. Do what thou Wilt (pay the price and maybe learn something) shall be the whole of the law.
Pearson,
I would agree with your comments with certainty. The problem with BANA was Yeoman’s mistaken choice of followers. A good portion of former BANA members were generic statist WNs who saw it as a new avenue for WN racial politics, attached to anti-statism and secessionism only as a means. Predictably, they have largely returned to statist WNism following the group’s demise. Your comments about NAs damaging themselves with irrelevant cultural politics is borne out by Yeoman’s public antics. His public burning of the Koran, something irrelevant to the movement’s stated purpose that you would expect from a Faux News watcher, is what finally deep sixed his credibility.
I would also opine that another significant problem of theirs is overreliance on pointless and ineffectual left wing “activism” methods, rather than intellectual work and solid organizing. Public demonstrations are a waste of time and effort, regardless of how clever one’s thinks the slogan on his placard is.
I think Evola’s critique of modern civilization fits with our own. Without an esoteric core, society will crumble. People take it as some sort of joke, but a materialist society cannot thrive. It is like a human body deprived of essential nutrients. It can last for a while, but will ware out and eventually die.