One of the distinguishing features of modern societies is a nagging sense of dissatisfaction. In a Traditional society, there is a feeling of solidarity: the Ancient City was regarded as having a divine founder who established its laws and rules of life. Political power was tied to the maintenance of the spiritual authority of the founder. Economic power was based not on money, but on landed estates, so it could not act independently of the polis as a whole.

Unlike the Ancients, who accepted that order was ordained by the Fates, the modern mind either rejects the idea of cosmic order totally or else suspects that the status quo is for the benefit of someone else. In a letter to a Mrs. Romanov in 1873, Vladimir Solovyov identified three elements that together formed an obstacle to any improvement in the politico-sociological situation.

1. The coarse ignorance of the masses
2. The moral devastation of the upper classes
3. The brute force of the state

The social situation in 19th century Russia is hardly different in its broad outlines from any society in the West today. Point 1 can be easily dismissed. Apart from Revolutionary movements, which in any case do not arise from below, the mass is passive and lunar. As such, it is a reflection of the upper classes, one of whose duties is to provide a spiritual, political and economic structure for the mass.

The upper classes today have nothing to do with the caste system of Traditional societies. In the ancient and medieval worlds, the upper classes held themselves to high standards of morality through a sense of duty, the desire not to shame their ancestors, and a system of oaths and pledges of fealty. The latter was enforced through orders, whether religious in the case of the priestly castes or chivalric in the case of the aristocracy and knights. Even the producing class had their own system of guilds, a membership in which was a requirements for participation in public life.

With the introduction of fractional-reserve banking and usury, the power of the aristocracy, which was based on large estates rather than cash, was challenged by a new caste of patricians, or mercantile elite, whose power was based on success in economic activity. As such, moral considerations play no essential part. At its best, it claims to reward productive and creative people, but at its worst, it rewards the most agressive and manipulative people. However, in every case, the traditional morality is irrelevant to any economic enterprise, although the Bourgeoisie often mimics more traditional ethics in order to butress their claim to be the rightful heirs of the aristocracy.

With the degeneration of the castes, the state became self-sufficient, that is, independent of any essential allegiance to a spiritual authority, despite any pro forma declarations. The revolutionary state in inherently atheistic, at least in practice if not in name. With nothing of a moral or spiritual nature to keep it in check, the state necessarily operates as a system of force. However, due to the immorality of the upper classes, its reflection, the lower class, becomes increasingly unruly, needing a system of “bread and circuses” to keep it in check. There is a different mass — the petty bourgeoisie — consisting of those who benefit from the economic system of the upper classes without, however, participating in the decision-making process. Nevertheless, they are supportive of the status quo which provides their largesse. Often they remain attached to somewhat traditional spiritual teachings, although they are deformations of the authentic traditions. Paradoxically, they praise the economic system as a moral good even when the plutocrats themselves suffer no such delusion.

Solovyov saw the solution to this triple problem in the return to Christianity as an effective spiritual force. As understood, however, this seems unlikely, despite similar calls, even today. First of all, now more than ever, there is hardly much consensus on what Christian teachings are, particular in their application to the socio-politico-economic spheres. Then, by its own teaching, it arises as a free gift of faith, so there is really no way to force or convince a population to believe a creed.

Aware of this, Solovyov devised a complex system that incorporated Platonic and Gnostic elements into a Christian philosophy and metaphysics. This would be more compelling than a creed. So he is not really calling for a Christian conversion per se, but rather for the more objective demand for a return to the Logos, and its terrestrial equivalent Sophia which he claimed is objectively knowable.

We must not therefore reproach each other with our mistakes and errors, but must guard against the only danger which peoples who have reached a high level of civilisation and knowledge need fear, the danger of false doctrines which imperceptibly undermine laws, morals and institutions. When Europe emerges from this violent crisis, she cannot perish except by wasting away. The day when the atheistic dogma of the sovereignty of the people replaces in politics the sacred dogma of the sovereignty of God; the day when Europe ceases to be Christian and monarchical, she will perish, and the sceptre of the world will pass to other hands.

This from Louis de Bonald writing in 1799, one of the defining figures of the Right, now called the Old Right to distinguish it from its contemporary pretenders. Is anyone giving this thought the consideration it deserves?

Rebellion, Tradition and Loud Music

This Traditionalist web site considers Black Metal music as the harbinger of tradition. Hardly the last word, it is not even the first word on the topic. Tradition is the opposite of rebellion, it is submission. We are left wondering what the Black Metal and Neofolk people are willing to submit to.

Republican Debates

• Apart from Ron Paul, why do the Republican Debates sound like a meeting of the Gorillas in Planet of the Apes?
• Michelle Bachman would be much more convincing if Iran threatened to wipe Florida or Colorado “off the map”. She needs to decide for which country she is running for President.
• While most of us contribute money to the Federal government, Newt Gingrich can give us lessons on how to suck money out of it.
• Rick Perry bobs his head when he talks just like George Bush. Must be a Texas thing.

V-I Day

• The USA celebrated Victory in Iraq day this week. Except there was no pubic celebration. I don’t think there has been a victory celebration since 1945.
• No Triumph for a General or President. Hussein and bin Laden should have been paraded around like Vircengetorix.
• Mission Accomplished. That means we have deprived Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and that it is safe to fly commercial airlines without begin searched…. Doesn’t it?

In old Europe human life received its ideal content from the Catholic faith, on the one hand, and from knightly feudalism on the other. This ideal content gave old Europe its relative unity and lofty heroic strength.

This is the content, then, of the Old Right: Throne and Altar, as it is often put, were the unifying factors in social life. The Revolution rejected that basis, but, as a purely negative movement, it had nothing to replace the old ideals. Solovyov explains:

The Revolution ultimately rejected the old ideals … but because of its negative character it could not provide new ones; it liberated individual elements, gave them an absolute significance, but deprived their activity of its essential foundation and nourishment. For this reason we see that the excessive development of individualism in the contemporary West leads directly to its opposite — a universal depersonalization and vulgarization.

Of course, from the Traditional perspective, it is impossible for the Revolution to provide the ideal for society. Without the transcendent ideals of the Spiritual Authority and the formal ideals of a hierarchic Temporal Power, there can be nothing but degeneration and vulgarization. Another consequence of the rejection of the hierarchies of Throne and Altar is egalitarianism. Solovyov backs this up:

The extreme preoccupation with self-identity, in not finding an appropriate subject for itself, is transformed into an empty and petty egotism that reduces everyone to the same level.

The result, then, was the replacement of the priestly and aristocratic classes by the bourgeois and proletarian classes. Since then, the Old Right has been ineffective and Joseph de Maistre‘s call for the “Opposite of a Revolution” never occurred. In the USA, the equivalent to the French Revolution was the War Between the States, which pitted the economic, manufacturing powers of the North against the landed quasi-aristocracy of the South. Old Europe, including the Vatican, tilted to the South, but its defeat led to the marginalization of the Old Right, not just in the USA, but also in Europe.

The Old Right persisted in some form, probably up until the time of its final spokesman, Russell Kirk. However, it never came close to gaining sufficient power to oppose the Revolution, managing merely to impede it from time to time. In the USA, it is also burdened by its association with the peculiar institution of African slavery, a factor which challenges its claim to the moral high road.

The Revolution, both in Europe and USA, has never fully resolved the relations between its Bourgeois and Proletarian components. While Fraternity, without a common spiritual heritage, is elusive, the Revolution did manage to effect a certain level of Freedom. However, the goal of Equality has never been met. In Old Europe, inequality was due to higher spiritual attainment or heroic valor. In the aftermath of the Revolution, which does not even recognize or admit to such ideals, inequality persists due to differences in wealth. Solovyov elaborates on this.

The only substantive distinction and inequality that still exists among people in the West is that between the wealthy and the proletariat; the only greatness, the only supreme body that retains actual power there is the mighty force and power of capital. The Revolution, which affirmed the principle of democracy, in reality to date has produced only a plutocracy. The people govern themselves de jure; but they are de facto governed by a very small minority—the wealthy bourgeoisie, the capitalists.

These then are the new Left and Right: the Left is the politcal movement of the Proletariat class along with its intellectual spokesmen, and the neo-conservative (neocon)Right sides with the Bourgeoisie. This neocon right pretends to be the rightful heir of the Old Right, although their ideal is Abraham Lincoln, rather than the Confederacy. To buttress this pretension, they also incorporate elements from the disjointed intellectual remnants of the old priestly class. These are called the “social issues”, although the interests of the Bourgeoisie always take precedence. Since the “social issues” have no independent class interest to represent them, they are mere window dressing and seldom find
anything more substantive than verbal support among the political power holders.

Hence, the Left and neocon Right each represents a different faction of the Revolution, so the Old Right is scorned by both. The interesting question that baffles the Left is why do the unwealthy neocon Right support the party of the Bourgeoisie? Apart from those dedicated solely to the social issues, there is the question of upward mobility, whether real or imagined. Unlike the closed aristocracy, the plutocracy potentially allows for movement, through “free enterprise” and “competition”, which is always “good”. Solovyov writes:

Since a plutocracy by its very nature is accessible to everyone alike, it remains a kingdom of free enterprise, or competition. But this freedom and equality of rights are far from being the direct result of the unconditional existence of inherited property, and its concentration in the hands of a small minority creates in the bourgeoisie a separate, privileged class; the overwhelming majority of members of the working class, deprived of all property despite its abstract freedom and equality of rights, in reality becomes an enslaved class of proletarians. However, the existence of the perpetual proletarian class, which constitutes the dominant trait of today’s West, is precisely in this regard denied any kind of justification. This is because, if the old order depended on well-known, absolute principles, the contemporary plutocracy may in its own interest rely on the strength of the fact, on historical conditions.

Hence, we see that the Revolution abolishes absolute or transcendent principles; in their stead, there is only the perpetual conflict of contingent historical events. The Proletarian classes use political power to try to extract wealth from the Bourgeoisie, while the latter seeks to consolidate and protect is wealth. Its supporters hope to become bourgeois through free enterprise; this happens often enough to make it seem plausible.

Since the Old Right is defunct without hope of restoring Old Europe, and the neocon right is a pretense, an alternative to both has arisen. This typically is called the New Right, or something similar. As yet, it appears to be an amalgam of various rightist movements without any unifying principle. It includes Tradition as just one among those many movements, so it cannot rely on Tradition for its absolute principles. It has a major task to define its vision, which necessarily must include roles for regenerated spiritual and political classes. Since there still is no consensus on a spiritual centre, it is more likely to devolve into another Revolution rather than its opposite.

I have seen two reactions in the Rightist milieu most commonly, and these often at a profound emotional levels. First, the OWS movement is a neo-hippy, dirty, Red/Green/Anarchist godless, lawless, shiftless movement consisting of losers of the worst kind, the lazy bums of society asking for the god government to furnish their every material well-being and, of course, they are therefore expecting a hand-out. These are simply the pinko underbelly of society, seeking attention and wishing to exploit the bad economic situation, just as the Nazis/Reds/Democrats/Spanish Republicans/Fascists/New Dealers did in the 1930′s. These are social and economic revolutionaries whose only wish is agitation and this may be exploited by “extremist” movements who will work the crowd to their causes.

At first gloss, there is merit to this view. The deliberate anarchical structure, groupthink and mob tendencies, and the large amount of free time many of the protestors seem to possess an enviable large amount of, all tend to point to this perspective. The one concern mentioned above, of “extremist” hijacking, does merit specific mention. We know from history that this has happened very often,  possibly legitimate protest movements infiltrated and moved to a different and more radical end. This happened prominently in the French Revolution, the revolutions of 1848, and the protest movements of the 1960′s. To this end I strongly recommend, if one can get a copy of it, Gary Allen’s Communist Revolution in the Streets. This book was written by a journalist for the John Birch Society in the 1960′s, who grew a beard and dressed like a hippy, joining protest movements and revolutionary groups and experiencing them from the inside. These groups were often similar to the current OWS, largely being shifting and disorganized at first, then building up structure later. It is clear that, in many instances, an “unseen hand” guided these groups into seeking the same goals, and it is very likely that this will happen again with OWS. A John Birch Society official personally told me that the JBS leadership had a former Communist approach them in the 1980′s and tell them that he and 3 other men intentionally started the Watts riots in 1965 to provoke a response. Only 4 men! The risk therefore, is a formidable one, and one that bears watching.

The second response is that the OWS movement is a hopeful sign of societal backlash against the neo-liberal establishment, represented most clearly by the investment banking houses, international finance, stock brokerages, and speculators. The OWS is a sign that society still has a fighting spirit, and their willingness to fight the plutocracy is a hopeful sign that the souls of men can still be inspired to fight for a good cause. Besides, who cannot help but agree with the OWS list of villains? In addition to the corrupted WS establishment, throw in the Federal Reserve and a better part of the government and OWS does seem to fight all the right people. Could this be a sign of opportunity, for the old order to finally die and the new society to rise like a phoenix from the ashes?

There is a certain degree of justification for this opinion as well. Indeed, like the Tea Party before it, the OWS seems to harness some of the energy of a restless generation, a group malcontent with the neoliberal economic empire, perpetual war, middle class values, and bourgeoise sentiment, aspiring to overcome the corporate/government symbiosis with hopes of struggle for a new and better society.

However, the next thought that comes time mind is: Do they really? Do they really struggle for a new society?

Some observations lead to certain doubt. Firstly, the overwhelming dependency of the OWS participants on corporate-sponsored life, not merely in their communications devices, though many boasted possession of products from one of the  world’s largest corporations, Apple, and used them often, but also in their food and fashion choices. Nike, Puma, American Eagle, GAP, the Limited Group, McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut (the last 3 all owned by one corporation, Yum!) were all not uncommon sights, and leaves one unsettled about how these protestors could survive without them. Secondly, the OWS movement, unlike the Tea Party, is a far more fragmented movement. People protested almost anything you can think of, or even nothing at all, at OWS events, including things completely unrelated to Wall Street or even the economy. When interviewed, responses as to what protestors sought or wanted ranged from incoherent and vague to downright authoritarian and scary. Certainly, the OWS is a broad assortment of individuals with contrasting and even conflicting goals, which leads right back to the question of: Where is this movement going?

Aristotle wrote: “Nature abhors a void.” If the OWS does not become organized in some fashion on its own, by focused and constructive people with a strong agenda for societal transformation, then one of two things will happen: A): The movement will simply dissipate, and the influence it may have had will disappear. B:) The movement will be harnessed by agitators as prior movements were, prompting either a crushing response and an excuse for authoritarian action on the part of the establishment, or, the protests will grow into a revolutionary movement, causing whatever destruction may occur as a result. Neither end is savory to the traditional man, although many of us have of suspected that the Kali Yuga would die in flames and not in its sleep.  Nevertheless, the civil upheaval, the overturning of law and order, and the upsetting of the current status quo may only deepen the cycle, so great care must be taken in how we of tradition are to approach this and any other mass movement. Maurras and Evola quickly learned the pitfalls of Nazism and Fascism, although Maurras was always a skeptic, and Guenon and Plinio de Oliveira both avoided these groups from the beginning, indicating that this is not the first time traditional men have had to study the mass movements to gauge the future, and come up with varying conclusions. Men of good will always have opportunities to disagree.

It was clear very quickly, however, to Maurras that the Nazis at least were no source of solace. Once, a young Camelot du Roi attempted to defend Hitler to Maurras, saying “But Hitler is a man of the Right!” To which Maurras replied: “Silly child, Hitler is a German.” Evola, whatever good his lectures might have done in some echelons of German and Italian society, ultimately wasted his time in turning these movements to Tradition, neither ever completely shedding their socialist, proletarian, populist, and nationalist roots, and in the case of Fascism, even compounded these features worse under the Salo regime. It is highly questionable, however excellent it is to see a spirit of fire in the souls of men against the plutocracy, that any attempt to turn these movement to the sensible Right will ever produce any fruit. The Ron Paul movement has already courted OWS indirectly, but with little to show for it (and thankfully for them little invested). The OWS seems to me rather a symptom, a symptom of the discontent underlying the prosperity of middle class America and the threat their plutocrat masters pose to their decadence. The Tea Party itself is simply a right-oriented symptom of the same disease. Neither indicates a spirit for higher things, and at this point, it is hardly likely it will be.

To those of Tradition, I recommend avoiding mass movement such as the Tea Party or OWS altogether. One would simply be wasting energy at this point, tossing pearls before swine. If one does decide this opportunity cannot be missed, go ahead with the spirit of detachment, engaging in the pure joy of the action and not expecting solid results. Recall the prayer of St. Ignatius of Loyola: “Teach us, Good Lord, To Serve Thee as Thou deservest; To give and not to count the cost; To fight and not to heed the wounds; To labor and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing that we do Thy will. Through Jesus Christ Our Lord, Amen.” In whatever course you find best, fight, my brethren, fight to the finish. 

I have noticed in a few conversations I have had recently that there is a strong tendency by people to vilify their opponents, no matter how trivial the issue. I refer to this as the “evil other,” someone unlike us who is ipso facto maliciously motivated and seeking to undermine all that is “good” and “rational.” This is also related to the “ignorant other,” someone who disagrees with us and  thus must know less than we do. Such views do not consider that perhaps “the other” understands matters differently, and therefore opens up an opportunity for us, if not necessarily to change our minds, at least to better understand our own positions. Instead, this view presumes the other person must have no good reason to argue their point aside from the fact that they are hateful, spiteful, and bigoted.

For example, I recently heard one “progressive” radio host argue that Republicans wish to ban abortion and cut back on social programs merely because they “hate women and children.” On the flip side, I have heard “conservative” radio hosts blast anyone attempting to cut one penny of military spending as “hating the troops,” the military, and probably America. They also probably hate Mom and apple pie, and how dare anyone insult their mother!

All of these views and the vilification of one’s opponent are tied to emotional responses. Instead of dispassionate, detached discussion based on reason and reasonable discourse, people instead defend a weak or non-existent argument with the response that their opponent is wicked and therefore not worthy of response. This approach is tempting, as it is an easy way to get out of an argument, but it does nothing for our inner growth, which is often painful and conflicting, and does nothing whatsoever to increase knowledge of the Truth.

Returning to Evola, Evola wrote more than once that a spirit of detachment, detachment from any particular belief, idea, thought, or view, with a dispassionate seeking of the Truth by following after it earnestly, is the only way to find true wisdom and understanding. In addition, Evola praised the detached conflict, wherein two opponents valiantly fight without malice for the other, but rather with a spirit of resolve and desire for the victory, not as an end in itself, but rather as a sign of “divine election,” an indication that you are on the side of God. In the Greater Holy War, even victory is irrelevant, for fighting in a just cause is reward enough. This can only be true if one is detached, free from passion and malice, and strives forth with the quest as your only joy.

This is the problem with the “evil other” mentality. By vilifying one’s opponent, one loses objectivity, and by losing one’s objectivity, one loses sight of Truth. A love of Truth rises above personal preference or prejudice, and by creating an “evil other,” one essentially restrains knowledge of Truth. Error will be error regardless of the virtues or vices of the person expounding the view, and likewise Truth will be Truth even if the person stating the fact is a pitiful wretch who deserves no sympathy. The detached, objective man can see this distinction, the passionate man cannot.

In one of my favourite films, the Godfather, Part III, Michael tells Vincent “Never hate your enemies, it clouds your judgement.”

Indeed.

The prole class, however, doesn’t seem to feel the same way, as the student riots demonstrated. Apparently, the moral dimension is lost on those addicted to bread and circuses, which American football has become. This reaction is not unlike that of the defenders of Michal Jackson. The peccadillos of the rich and powerful are overlooked. The coverup at Penn State makes us think that this phenomenom may be more common than we think, even among athletes.

Imagine, however, if a coach had sexually harassed Erin Andrews in the locker room, or made a racial or anti-Semitic slur. There would be no cover up, the outrage would be immediate, and the coach dismissed on the spot. However, the catamites have no spokesman and no pressure group; thus they are voiceless. Even the sting operations often seen on American television involve an older man seeking out younger pubescent girls. No one speaks up for the boys.

Thus far, defenders of Jerry Sandusky have maintainted a respectful silence. I suspect, however, that the vast publicity surrounding these events will lead to more public discussion. Given contemporary understanding of “natural” as whatever happens in nature, the practice of catamites cannot be regarded as unnatural. It was accepted in pre-Christian times, even institutionalized in Sparta. Today, it is a common and open practice in Afghanistan, a nation the West is trying to “save”. In the West itself, it is still closeted, but for how many more years?

Thomas Aquinas points out that sins of impurity have the most deleterious effects on man’s higher faculties, that is, his intelligence and will. The sexual drive is so strong that even the threat of prison and public humiliation do not act as a deterrence. Thomas lists the effect on the intelligence as a form of mental blindness leading to lack of reflection, acting out of impulses, and fickleness. Its effect on the Will is to lead to willfulness without any sense of transcendence; any consideration made to a cosmic order is described as “life-denying”, prudish, and an obstacle of the pursuit of happiness.

When mans discovers that all the freedoms and material goods provided by the modern world still do not make him happy, what will he pursue in the future?

The modern world, both in the values it projects and practical way it runs, is in a constant state of flux. Nothing is built to last, no person assumes it will, and few these days stop to ask why we would bother investing in transient, non-permenant solutions in our lives. Even government is content to close with “this will do for now,” as the Congress of the United States did in July with the non-solution it offered of a super-commitee on the deficit. Essentially, it was an elaborate way of saying we prefer to do nothing. There is always some bright idea waiting over the horizon, that great glorious tomorrow which never comes.

In traditional parlance, we refer to this as the spirit of becoming, as opposed to a spirit of being. We are always on the journey to some new and brighter place, which will inevitably come, and anything we have in the meanwhile is merely holding us over. The roots and ramifications of this philosophy are found in Theosophy, with its false emphasis on “continual evolution,” in Marxist analysis, and in Americanist “capitalism.” In Theosophy, the effect is spiritual. In Marxism and “capitalism,” the effect is material. In both cases, the result is the same: “Why invest today for what I can buy better tomorrow?” This attitude was built in to the recent real estate collapse, wherein people bought into a home with the assumption that the selling price would rise and they would simply sell it later to buy a better house. Gone were the ancestral homes of yesteryear, wherein people invested into but one dwelling once, and passed it on through generations as a patrimony, the people belonging to the land as much as it belonged to the people. All of society was built around this sense of permanent domicile. Many often speak of not knowing their neighbours now. People often knew their neighbours so well in times past because the neighbours were always the same. The modern man, by contrast, has attached himself to nothing. People leave the places they grew up in to seek a better living, better entertainment, even better weather. When a town lacks these incentives or even loses them, communities simply dry up overnight, as if there was nothing to them. Witness the decline of Riverside and Victorville California. People do not know their neighbours because the neighbour will probably change multiple times. It often surprises people to hear me say my great-grandmother, of blessed memory, lived in her same house for almost 60 years. To think at one time multiple generations would have passed through the same home!

As a result of this mentality, the crisis in society, and in the family, stems back farther than the last 40 years. Once people abandoned the single domicile attitude and instead opted for less permanent strictures, the stage for decline was set. No longer attached to a land, people lost their ancestors. No longer attached to ancestors, people lost tradition. Losing tradition, people lost their faith. In losing their faith, people lose their family.  Once people decided to live on the wings of the golden tomorrow, rather than capitalizing on the now, people bought into “the dream.” Society has become based on fantasies, not of a grand and glorious nature, but of a base and material one. People live thinking about what they will do next! All of modern marketing is geared to create dissatisfaction. Be unhappy with your current life! Be unhappy with your current self! Become someone or something more new, glamorous, and shiny! Sure, our new model was the best ever 6 months ago, but with a few minor changes the current one is even better! Buy now, have credit card ready!

The free market Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard once pointed out that, given economies of scale, and the speed of changing information, if all the artificial structures holding up the large corporations were removed, they would collapse. Artificially low-interest rates, inflated currency, globalist economic structures, “free trade” agreements, government sponsored banks, large amounts of credit, etc. all prop up a over inflated economy and corporate structure. The edifice keeps getting built higher and higher, in the hopes of staving off the day of reckoning. Try as they might though, the modern economic and political structures, built on bloated falsehoods and fakery, are doomed to collapse. It is inherent in their design. They were never meant to last. The very nature of the modern world is to be dissatisfied and agitate for ever more change. We must constantly move forward to our destiny, whatever that is. One often wonders if leftism even has an end result in mind? It is difficult to believe that at one time societies believe they were currently living in a blessed state. Byzantium, for example, considered itself the incarnation of the Christian polis, the fulfilment of a sacred destiny. The Holy Roman Empire saw itself as the revival of the glory of Rome. They did not believe they would become those things, they were those things.

To this Tradition responds with a society of being, not becoming. All that is great and wonderful exists now, and we must seize the day to capture the victory. This is not to say we cannot aspire to greater things, merely that we be content with our current state and capitalize on it. There is no need to become someone else, live another place, or wear the latest fashion to find satisfaction. All the tools of our victory are within us at all times, and they exist in the spirit of the universe. You are born and put where you need to be. By living in the now, rather than tomorrow, our opportunities become clear, our happiness evident, and our gifts and abundance overwhelm us. If people realized what they have right now, in this time, they could conquer all things. No more looking to some tomorrow. “ For he saith: In an accepted time have I heard thee; and in the day of salvation have I helped thee. Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2nd Epistle St. Paul to Corinthians 6:2) Semper Victoria! Always Victory!

Article 1

Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

Tradition is based on two related principles, which are both denied by article 1.

• Spiritual authority

  A traditional society is based on some spiritual authority which determines what is true and good. Man is born either in sin or under illusion and can only become free after initiation into the rites of the city. The declaration states that man is born free and not subject to anyone else, hence he himself takes the place of God or the higher authority

• Temporal power

  The traditional society is based on a hierarchy of increasing power. This is understood as natural or divincely ordained. The declaration, on the contrary, admits social distinctions only insofar as the serve the common good. Thus, such distinctions are considered conventional, not natural.

Article 3

The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

This emphasizes article 1. There is no soverignty beyond the nation, in particular, there is no spiritual authority higher than the laws of the nation. A fortiori, there is not church or spiritual organization beyond the nation.

Article 4

Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

In the traditional view, there is a cosmic law, sometimes called the natural law, which binds the liberty of man. Unlike the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms, which are determined by the natural law, man has the free will to either follow or reject the cosmic law. Article 4 states that man’s actions are totally conventional, oblivious to any higher law. A man’s actions need not even be rational, which is itself considered an artificial construct limiting his liberty.

Article 6

Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

The general will here takes the place of the will of God. In tradition, distinctions are viewed as a special calling or a birth rite. Article 6 regards distinctins as conventional and acceptable insofar as they serve the general will.

Article 10

No one shall be molested on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

This article guarantees freedom of religion. Since man is born free and his own sovereign, his beliefs cannot be limited. However, by article 2, his religious beliefs cannot be used to restrict others, hence the outer effects of such beliefs can be limited by law. In its statement, the American Bill or Rights seems more absolutist, but religious manifestations are still limited by law in the USA.

This articles differs profoundly from the Traditional view, any hint of which will raise all the forces against it. In the traditional view, “Error has no rights”, so religious views outside the spiritual authority have no guarantee, although they may be tolerated in order to maintain public order. This was certainly the case during the era of Christendom. Despite current misconceptions, even the ancient pagan world did not support complete freedom of religions.

Article 11

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

The same comments to article 10 apply here also. Freedom of speech is considered an advance over the Medieval period. Nevertheless, there is an “out” in that abuses of such freedom may be restricted by law. Thus we seen in many Western countries in Europe or Canada have laws restricting speech. Interesting, not even truth is the standard, but rather public order.

So the problem that was supposed to have been solved in the Enlightenment still exists, to wit, who is the ultimate arbiter of speech. Since in the modern state, not even rationality can restrict man’s liberty, so similarity conformance of speech to truth is not of ultimate import, even though the very goal of the Enlightenment is truth!

The traditional society regarded its foundation, laws, and mores as infallible. The modern state does not, nor can it do so. Actually, it is irrelevant, since the general will is the sole standard for law and is not subject to any higher truth, whether of a scientific, philosophic, religious, or metaphysical nature. This is critical to understand for anyone engaged in public debate in the modern world.

So whither nationalism? Why be concerned about it? There are actually several reasons.

Consider the race of the spirit. Nationalism effectively pretends the underlying unity of people are material, in a common area of origin, language, and ethnicity, and that this necessitates their union in a common state. For most of Europe’s history, therefore, the make-up of the states of Europe belied this, most especially in the Empire. The Holy Roman Empire consisted of several states, even several hundred, all divided according to custom, jurisdiction of princes and the Church, and Imperial vassalage. Whether or not the people spoke the same language, were of the same ethnicity, or had a common tribe was a matter of indifference. The Roman Empire which preceded was little different. Certainly, there was common tongue (German in the Empire, Latin for Rome), common customs and in some cases like France even common ethnicity, but the underlying unity of nations was spiritual. This unity was reflected in common ideals, such as the common Faith, and it was what defined a state. Therefore, that several hundred ethnicities were not “self-determining” because they held allegiance to a common Crown and Church does not mean they lost their identity. Ethnic identity was merely secondary to a spiritual one. One identified with Christ and Rome before one identified with Swabia or Prussia.  In the Roman empire, all the various nations under Rome shared its Romanity, the Latin tongue, and one Emperor, a superior unity based on their common allegiance to the ideal of Eternal City. These Peoples were no less of Gaul or Lusitania, it just meant there was a higher temporal unity above national division.  Therefore, we are not attempting to belittle race, ethnicity, homeland, or language, but simply trying to recall that the state is not merely meant, as the Enlightenment would have it, to strictly represent the people who live in it, but rather represents ultimate ideals, embodied in the Crown and in the law, for all people within it’s governance.

Nationalism denies all this. To the nationalist, all is secondary to the material unity of one ethnicity under a single state, which claims the “right” to rule all those in its ethnic group. Nazi Germany claimed this power, exemplified in  the taking of the Sudetenland and Austria to unite the “Greater Germany.” Hitler, in turn, was merely perpetuating a movement which began in the revolutions of 1848 and ended in the unification of Germany in 1871. This unity preceded the rise of centralizing power in the hands of Bismark, the Kulturkampf against the Church, and finally the demise of royalty and the Imperial idea from Germany with the destruction of World War I. Nationalism was also found in the ridiculous titles claimed by Napoleon and Louis Phillipe to being the “Emperor of the French” and “King of the French.” Instead of being “King of France,” which meant the bearer of the Crown reigned over all the lands that comprised French sovereignty, inherited by blood and found in land, the title “King of the French,” indicates that the validity of monarch’s rule was in his being a manifestation of the French people, and that qualities of royal blood and land were of secondary importance. It is also indicated that the  role of the monarch was conditional. So long as he was king “of the people,” he was legitimate. This denies the legitimacy of blood and spirit, and the primacy of lawful and just supremacy over royal lands, and therefore such royalty became dependent on popular approval, and not their in-born right to reign and right of inheritance. In such a system the monarch loses his place as being one fore-chosen by God, ruling by anointing and just inheritance, but rather become replaceable at any time by anyone else the people believe suitable to fulfill, as Louis Phillipe did when he replaced King Charles X. The Crown therefore loses its permanent nature, becoming thus debased of perennial value. No surprise then that Louis Phillipe himself later lost the throne, when the “people” were ready for something new. Thus we have seen the irrational nationalist assertions that the Greek Royal Family, being primarily Danish, and Maximilian of Mexico, being Austrian, cannot truly claim the thrones of these countries because they are “foreigners” who do not represent “the people.” They prefer, rather, monarchs who reign in Eva Peron-like fashion as one of their own. This is a revolt against hierarchy cloaked in royal robes. The fact that the Greek Royals are of Danish blood is irrelevant to the question of whether are not they are true royalty. If they are, then all lands are their home, and all legitimacy resides in their blood by virtue of their aristocracy, not ethnicity. A merchant is as much a merchant in Italy as in Spain. The same is for royalty.

Nationalism has stemmed from revolutionary fervour against Tradition from the beginning. Nationalism pervaded the French Revolution, and the revolutions of 1848. Italy was united by destroying longstanding independent and separate nations to unite all “Italians” under its banner. This was a people who in 1865 could not speak from county to county due to wide-spread dialects, had separate cultures, ate different foods, and had different climates. The Italian monarchs, who committed no injustice save being “foreign,” were overthrown and replaced capriciously with the Savoys. The Pope himself lost his over 1,000 years old Papal States, or Stati della Chiesa. What purpose did this serve? What did Italians at that time really share besides a peninsula?

Finally we see nationalism in all it’s glory here in the good ole’ US of A. The idea of American exceptionalism, borne as it was from Manifest Destiny, insisted America was nation unlike other nations, a nation blessed by a Puritanical compact with God (Mayflower), a “shining city upon a hill,” as Scripture, and Ronald Reagan, put it. The US acts as an opposition to Empire, who, instead of embodying the spirit, Tradition, and hierarchy of the Empire, instead embodies consumer materialism, liberalism, and democracy, a sort of counter-Empire. This idea perpetuates in the secular spirituality that pervades American civic religion, where God is routinely ordered and not asked to bless America. Whereas in the past nations asked to do God’s will, Americans often assume it does, and feel that America is immune to the law of the universe, and that no harm will ever come to it. This is nationalism in its purest form, where the nation no longer judges itself by impartial standards, but becomes itself the standard of action, sowing the downfalls in this century of France, Germany, Italy and others. Blinded by the obsession for national glory and clouded by pride, nations bury themselves in the wish to make their nation into something other what it is, an obscured attempt to become the new Rome. Britain, Italy, and Russia all failed in the regard, with US soon added to the list of failed would-be Romes, false empires built, as the Scriptures state, on a foundation of sand. (St. Matthew 7:24-27)

People of the spirit would be better served by heeding the criticism of Rudyard Kipling by G.K. Chesterton: “The great gap in his mind is what may be roughly called the lack of patriotism–that is to say, he lacks altogether the faculty of attaching himself to any cause or community finally and tragically; for all finality must be tragic. He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English.” A true patriot loves his nation because it is his, the land of his birth, and not because it “represents” his people, furthers his material interests, or can efficiently destroy other people. A people firmly rooted in the rock of their own soil shall never be lost, and never will they miss the glimmer of the lost façade empire. Be not misguided by nationalism, but rather seek the eternal, and set it as the ideal for your nation, as the West once did.