The Origins of Liberalism: The Roman Cult of Liber

The Origins of Liberalism: The Roman Cult of Liber

In the Ancient Roman Empire, the notion of political freedom, or what in Latin is called Libertas was one of the main goals of many of their citizens who were not born into aristocratic or elite families. It was through hard work for the Empire, merit, luck, and knowing the right elites, that one could earn the official legal status of a “free man.”

The Romans had devised a class system and a government that had kept a fine line between the two political factions. The most powerful were Rome’s Republican Patrician elite and the least powerful class were known as the plebs, or plebeian commoners.

One of the methods they used to keep order was to have different cults that could be celebrated among the common people depending on the class to which they belonged.

For the Roman plebs and plebeian commoners, their faith was based on “The Cult of Liber (Liber Pater)”, which has its origins in Rome during the third century BC, but goes back much further in history to the Ancient Greeks. The cult allowed the plebeians who had been excluded from membership in other cults by law and did not belong to the original aristocracy families to claim equal rights and opportunities as the elite class.

The 4th century AD Roman author and grammarian, Servius’ explanation of the deity, Liber a libertate, should not be unequivocally understood as referring to a political and juridical concept of liberty. In Ovid’s Tristia, he stresses that it means the beginning of a freer life on account of the new status.

The Cult of Liber had a festival every year that was heavily centered around the children and youth of their Empire. Liber’s festival, the Liberalia big festival, was held on March 17. Representations of a phallus were displayed at crossroads and then transported from the country into the city to encourage the growth of crops and to ward off witchcraft. Because Liber protected the seed of men, boys often had their coming-of-age ceremony during the Liberalia.

Writing in the Fasti at the end of the first century BC, Ovid explains how the toga virilis, the gown of manhood, was given to boys during the festival as a symbol of a freer life (sive, quod es Liber, vestis quoque libera peLiberaumitur et vitae liberioris iter). Ovid’s explanation shows that these celebrations were not intended to extend political liberty to all the youth, but that the white gown (toga) represented the idea of personal freedom or liberty as embodied by Liber.

The toga virilis symbolized the entrance of these young men into the civic community in which they obtained a new sort of personal identity, and freedom, but more importantly for the Roman republic, they were now registered to fight in wars.

True political freedom for plebians under Roman Law was symbolized by the hat worn by newly freed slaves called the
“pilleus.” It served as a sign of emancipation and freedom, while still acting as a visible reminder of past slavery.

As part of the Roman ceremonies when a slave would obtain his freedom, he had his head shaven and then placed upon his head, the pilleus.

This cap became the iconic symbol of freedom with the phrase “servos ad pileum vocare” to call the slaves to the Pileus (or cap). Often, these slaves would win their freedom by taking up arms with the Roman army with the promise of future liberty as the reward symbolized by the red hat.

The pileus was the Roman version of the Phoenician and Greek, Phrygian hat. It has also been called the Mithraic Cap, sacrificial Cap, miter, and in French as the bonnet de la Liberté or bonnet rouge. In English, we call it the Red Cap of Liberty.

Over time, I believe the Roman elite decided that it was easier and also more effective for governing to grant all plebs of their Empire the explicit freedoms afforded under Roman Law. Hence, the pileus hat came to represent a symbol of liberty to be applied to all members of a community or a fraternity, as living in a condition of non slavery

The Phrygian (Pilleus) cap was worn by the revolutionists during the masonic French Revolution in the 18th century.

After the overthrow of the French Monarchy, the French Declaration of Human Rights was said to be officially recorded as the Masonic values of the new French government, whose new motto was “Liberté, Égalité et Fraternité” (Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood).

The official document of the Declaration of Human Rights is guarded by Masonic pillars and contains several occult symbols such as the All Seeing Eye of God, and the red Phrygian cap, a symbol of freemen or freemasons representing the enlightened ones.

All these words I mention, liberty, liberties, liberated, liberalism, and even the word library find their etymology with the root word “liber.” These words are at the foundation of American culture and life.

It is from the word “cult” that we derive the modern notion of “culture” which are the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or another social group.

This culture we have today in the United States of the common people is based upon the ancient Roman religion and mythology of the God Liber (/ˈlaɪbər/ LY-bər, Latin: [ˈliːbɛr]; “the free one”), also known as Liber Pater (“the free Father”). The Cult of Liber originated when Rome conquered Greece and absorbed many of the cults and gods such as Bacchus and Dionysus into the Roman Empire.

Back then, the Romans found it much easier to manage newly conquered people by allowing them to keep many of their cults, rites, and customs than to impose their own. For example, if they found that the Greek government had such success managing their citizens with the Cult of Dionysus, they would just superimpose their Latin names on these foreign cults such as Liber and Roman laws to help manage them. Rome has a long history of not only looting conquered nations of their resources and wealth, but also taking advantage of their customs and cults to reappropriate them as their own.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

Just like the characteristics of Roman Liber and Bacchus, Dionysus in Greece was the god of viticulture and wine, male fertility, sexual excess, and the personification of liberty of the people for the right of self-expression, and free speech. The God Liber was depicted in many different ways to satisfy the various needs and desires of the people. He could be either young or old, drinking wine and delighting in the company of nymphs and satyrs.

In researching this era, you will find that many Roman historians used Liber and Liber Pater interchangeably with the Greek Bacchus or Dionysus, whom they regarded as identical to the Italian Liber such as Cicero. (Cicero de Nat. Deor. 2.24). Ovid in general uses the names Liber and Bacchus interchangeably.

However, there seems to be a separation in Rome or clear distinction between the rites and festivals found in the Cult of Liber versus the Cult of Bachus. The Cult of Liber was a Roman state sponsored cult with customs, rules, laws, and regulations, while the Cult of Bachus and its adherents, the Bachanalia were not based upon the same moral and liberal standards.

According to Roman historian and grammarian, Livy, the nocturnal version of the Bacchanalia involved wine-drinking to excess, drunkenness, and allegations of both heterosexual and homosexual license with young boys and the free mingling of the sexes and classes.

This was a form of unrestrained liberalism that had led to perverse human and sexual acts and could be compared to modern Satanism and Aleister Crowley’s religion of Thelema’s extreme neoliberal motto of “Do Thou Wilt is the Whole of the Law.”

In 186 BCE, the Roman Senate took legal action against the Cult of Bacchus with the largest systematic persecution of a religious group ever seen in Europe. Over 7000 people were persecuted in the campaign; the majority of them were executed (Ab urbe condita 39.17.4-39.18.9).

I will explain more about this cult and how it is comparable to Satanism  in the next chapter.

The most extensive history and information that we have on the Cult of Liber would be mainly on the Greek version of the God and Cult of Dionysus which lasted several hundred years in the Ancient Greek empire as their main state cult.

The Cult of Liber (Liber Pater) would be the Roman or Latin version of the Greek Dionysus that would later be renamed as the Cult of St Peter. Its priests were called “liberti” and its High Priest was the Liber Pontificalis who today we know as the Roman Catholic Pope.

The Liber Pontificalis (Latin for ‘Liber High Priest’) is known as a book of biographies of popes from Saint Peter until the 15th century. The earliest Church manuscripts refer to this book as “Liber episcopalis in quo continentur acta beatorum pontificum Urbis Romae” (episcopal book which contained the acts of the blessed pontiffs of the city of Rome).

According to Servius, Liber was associated with viniculture, and a similar function to that of air was performed by wine and music. He refers to dancing and singing as traits of Liberalia. Servius said that an alternative name for the sacra Liberi was orgia, deriving from the Greek ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς, and which he translates in Latin as furor, a status achieved by the power of music.

In Roman tradition, furor was seen as a complete darkening of the mind or in modern terms, a mental breakdown or someone losing their mind. Servius said that under Roman law, people affected by furor were said to be under the control or tutela of someone else. A form of extreme influence, mind control, or possession.

It is interesting to note Servius says that music was used to cause a certain mental state or orgia or furor. The meaning of this word is rage, fury or to go crazy. It makes sense that the Ancient Greeks and Romans would have known the power of music and its ability to affect people in certain ways both good and bad.

Ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato said that music played in different modes would arouse different emotions and that the kind of music to which humans were exposed during their early years determined the balance of their souls. Aristotle, Plato’s student agreed and added, “If one listens to the wrong kind of music he will become the wrong kind of person; but conversely, if he listens to the right kind of music he will tend to become the right kind of person.”

Liber became the symbol of free towns organized according to an Italic model. As a mode of Roman Imperialism, the God and Cult of Liber were how the Roman system would infiltrate other nations as a substitute to their ancestral traditions.

A time-tested Greek and Roman method of using the notion of liberatas, alcohol, music, and free speech to manage their citizens, while still maintaining control of the empire.

This is how I contend they would conquer and supplant a nation’s traditions with the new Cult of Liber and notion of freedom. It was as if once Rome took over a nation, very little would change in the customs of the common people at the societal level in order not to disrupt their ways of life.

They were free in many aspects of their lives to give them the illusion that they were 100 percent free. But all the while, the Roman elites would oversee that the laws and taxes would be enforced by the existing government, which they controlled and directed.

Give to God what is Gods and give to Ceasear what is Ceasars.

This helps explain how the Cult of Liber or what we know today as liberalism had influenced most of the Western world.

The current American culture, which is liberal and many would argue extremely liberal or neoliberal would be based upon the Ancient Cult of Liber. I believe the government was created to be a modern model of this old Roman mode of Imperialism and population control.

As I mentioned, this was a two-class system. One class was the plebs and the ruling class was the elites or nobles.
They were created legally to be like oil and water and not to be mixed.

This may be why the U.S. The capital of Washington D.C. was designed to be its own sovereign state. Like the Ancient Roman elite, the American political elite should be held to a higher standard than the people.

Liber’s associations with alcohol, intoxication, uninhibited freedom, sexual promiscuity, and the subversion of the powerful people had made many aspects of the cult to be considered very un-Roman by the Republican Elite. They believed the plebeian rights to ecstatic release, self-expression, free speech, and civil disobedience were immoral and disrespectful to their Roman heritage.

The Cult of Liber was described to have spread “like a plague” among the lower classes, morally weak, effeminate males, and anyone who may have leuitas animi (fickle or uneducated minds), but even some of Rome’s elite were not immune to its infection.

For the majority of Rome’s Republican patrician elite, their social norms were based upon Roman traditionalism, which was an unwritten code of the mos maiorum (Classical Latin: [ˈmoːs majˈjoːrʊ̃]; “ancestral custom” or “way of the ancestors.”

The mos maiorum was based upon ancient principles, behavioral models, and social practices that affected private, political, and military life. Roman Traditionalism can be compared to the modern Conservative and Traditionalist movement of the 19th – 21st centuries.

It is my contention that the Greek and Roman elites had devised this legal and social system for plebians to be the preferred method for population control and also a type of game (heiros gamos) or competition among their subjects and even their rulers.

This mode of government based on the Cult of Liber became the Cult of Liberalism.

Taken to the extreme, it becomes immoral and unlawful leading to the Roman problem of the Bachanalia.

Liberals who like the Bachanalia have taken the notion of personal freedom well beyond the set moral and ethical boundaries of a civil society to the extreme Left found today in neoliberalism and Satanism.

A Satanic State of Mind that has infiltrated all aspects of American culture – including the government and elite.

SOURCES:

Servius – Aeneis: Mit dem Commentar des Servius

Ovid – Tristia

Ovid – Fasti

Livy – Books XXXVIII-XXXIX Cambridge

Cicero de Nat. Deor. 2.24

René Guénon and the Antichrist

René Guénon and the Antichrist


Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/nginx/domains/gnosticwarrior.com/public/wp-includes/link-template.php on line 394

Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/nginx/domains/gnosticwarrior.com/public/wp-includes/link-template.php on line 409

Many scholars from different religious persuasions have believed that the Antichrist will likely be a unique individual who appears during the end times. The French mystic and Traditionalist thinker, René Guénon also believed that the Antichrist would likely be a specific person.

In The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, Guénon says the modern world is a realm of pure materialism because of the “Western deviation” from eternal truth. This resulted in the “reign of quantity”. This was not just about economics and politics, it was also a spiritual war.

He wrote of the current age – “the word ‘Satanic’ can indeed be properly applied”.

Guénon, uses the word satanic to represent the negation and reversal of order and denial of traditional truth. He says the spirit of negation is the spirit of lying that is often disguised by the unexpected, in order to avoid being recognized, and in even in order to pass itself off as the very opposite of what it is. The adversary naturally will try to pass himself off as an angel of light.

For Guénon, the Antichrist would be who he called an imposter who comes at an opportune time when everything traditional is inverted (upside down), which brings about his coming – the Great Parody. His rule will bring about the end of the reign of quantity, and he will claim it will be the Golden Age.

A counterfiet messiah that promises the people heaven on earth. But it’s a lie in the form of a pseudo traditional restoration and counter initiation.

According to Guénon, the counter-initiation is  the expression of the counter-tradition in the social order, which is precisely the reign of the Antichrist. This will be the time we have a reintroduction of quality, but of quality inverted with respect to its normal and legitimate significance. 

Guénon says the Antichrist will be a person who will be at the head of the thing as the incarnation of what it will represent. He will establish a new visible counter hierarchy, the summit of which will be occupied by this being. He wil be less an individual than a symbol, a synthesis of all the inversion of tradition that has led upto his time. 

We could interpret this event that Guénon describes as the Last Great Illusion to end all illusions for the people. As if the Antichrist will be a natural outgrowth of modern society at the agreed upon End Time, but he is also chosen or annointed to assume his role as the defacto leader of the last act.

Guénon said the Antichrist will also have specific physical traits and deformities showing inwardly that he is the closest to hell –  bearing the mark of the devil. He will have neither a predecessor nor successor. (326)

In The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, Guénon wrote;

“He [the Antichrist] will be an ‘imposter’ (this is the meaning of the word dajjāl by which he is usually designated in Arabic) since his reign will be nothing other than the ‘Great Parody’ in its completest form, the ‘satanic’ imitation and caricature of everything that is truly traditional and spiritual.

His time will certainly no longer be the ‘reign of quantity’, which was itself only the end-point of the ‘anti-tradition’; it will on the contrary be marked, under the pretext of a false ‘spiritual restoration’, by a sort of reintroduction of quality in all things, but of quality inverted with respect to its normal and legitimate significance.

After the ‘egalitarianism’ of our times there will again be a visibly established hierarchy, but an inverted hierarchy, indeed a real ‘counter-hierarchy’, the summit of which will be occupied by the being who will in reality be situated nearer than any other being to the very bottom of the ‘pit of hell’.” (pg. 271)

René Guénon wrote in The Reign of Quantity that the rule of the Antichrist marks the end times where the modern world and evil will vanish. But this does not mean it is the end of humanity.

Like a bad dream, it is simply the end of an illusion. Guénon had wrote;

“….the end now under consideration is undeniably of considerably greater importance than many others, for it is the end of a whole Manvantara, and so of the temporal existence of what may rightly be called a humanity, but this, it must be said once more, in no way implies the end of the terrestrial world itself, because, through the “reinstatement” that takes place at the final instant, this end will immediately become the beginning of another Manvantara…..it can be said in all truth that “the end of a humanity” never is and never can be anything but the end of an illusion.

Evil is effaced in the presence of the total order into which it is finally merged, and this seemingly excuses all crimes as mere negativities, as simply limitations, like contingent existence itself.

The evil vanishes completely because it was inreality only an illusion [a mere phantasy, like a bad dream] inherent in separativity.” (335-336)

How Liberals On the Far Left Are Plagued by Mental Illness

How Liberals On the Far Left Are Plagued by Mental Illness

Several studies on mental and physical health in relation to political ideologies have identified a significant gap between those people on the right, who are often called conservatives, versus the left who are associated with liberals.

Over two decades of supporting research has shown overwhelmingly that left-wingers or liberals tend to more often suffer from mental illness than right-wingers or conservatives.

This may surprise some people, but it shouldn’t because there is a lot of research showing that conservatives tend to be more grounded than liberals. They are less likely to be neurotic or psychotic, healthier, and happier than their counterparts on the left.

Liberalism has been found to be associated with higher levels of neuroticism (anxiety and emotional instability), social desirability, and self-esteem. Conservatives were more likely to be conscientious (high levels of self-discipline), whereas liberals were more likely to be open-minded, curious and creative.

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines psychotic individuals as having “distorted thinking” and “grossly disorganized behavior.” In other words, their thought processes are irrational and disordered.

A person with psychosis may experience delusions (false beliefs) or hallucinations (seeing something that is not there). Psychotic disorders include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression with psychotic features, schizoaffective disorder and schizophreniform disorder.

According to Pew Research Center survey published in March 2020, white liberals/Democrats are much more likely to have been diagnosed with a mental health condition compared with their moderate and conservatives peers. This poll showed that mental health conditions varied considerably by race, even in the “very liberal” category.

The studie’s author, Zach Goldberg, had published study’s info in a set of visuals and posted them to a thread on Twitter.

The difference is much more pronounced in the younger female aged category of 18 to 29-year-olds, with the highest percentage at a whopping 56%.

Here is an example of Pew Research statistics of young women diagnosed with a mental condition:

56% of young white liberals
28% of young white moderates
27% of young white conservatives

Here are the statistics of young men diagnosed with a mental condition:

34% of liberal/Democrat men
22% of moderate men
16% of conservative men

A recent study from the University of Pennsylvania found that conservatives were more likely to be happier and satisfied with their lives compared to liberals. The study also found that conservatives were more likely to have higher levels of well-being than liberals.

The study concluded that the difference in well-being was due to political ideology rather than demographics such as income or education level. It also found that this difference was most prominent in younger adults who were still forming their political ideologies.

Another study conducted by Duke University showed that liberals were more likely to experience depression than conservatives, and that they also had higher rates of suicide attempts as well.

Also, political conservatives are happier, healthier, and stronger than liberals. A 2012 study found conservatives score higher than liberals on personality and attitude measures that are traditionally associated with positive adjustment and mental health, including personal agency, positive outlook, transcendent moral beliefs, and generalized beliefs in fairness.

Several studies show conservatives believe more in cultural traditions of a developed society along with individual freedom combined with individual responsibility, a limited government, economic opportunity, strong national defense (and in-group preservation), and belief in a transcendent moral order.

In contrast, liberalism is based upon beliefs in progress, equality, tolerance, and pluralism in matters of morals, religion, and politics, and see government as a vital instrument for solving social injustice (Brooks, 2010; Chambers, Baron, & Inman, 2006; Hunter, 1992; Lakoff, 2002).

A 2019 political psychology study found that people with conservative political attitudes tend to have better physical health than their liberal counterparts (Chan, 2019).

In 2020, a study found that political ideology may also be relevant to mental health, as people who are more liberal, especially those identifying as “extremely liberal,” are more likely to have mental health problems.

The researchers found that these mental health issues on the Left were not just compared to conservatives, but also with those identifying as “liberal” or “slightly liberal.” This tendency for mental illness was more pronounced for people who identified as “extremely liberal,” who were reported to be worse off on several metrics.

However, the study found that those who identified as “extremely conservative” had comparable levels of mental health to those identifying as “conservative” and “slightly conservative.” Conservatives also reported being happier than liberal groups.

Another 2020 study investigated a large pool of adult Americans to see whether there was a relationship between political ideology and mental health. The researchers found a strongly elevated risk for mental illness among the extreme liberals (+150%), a small increase among the liberals and slightly liberals (+29 to 32%), and somewhat lower rates among conservatives and extreme conservatives (-17 to 24%).

Researchers in Brittain found people with clinical symptoms of anxiety disorders tend to express higher concerns about economic inequality and the environment, according to new research published in the International Journal of Psychology. The findings indicate that anxiety symptoms are slightly more common among those with a leftist worldview in Great Britain.

“It’s no wonder that researchers have been interested in the underpinnings of political orientation for so long,” said study author Vilja Helminen (@vilja_h), a doctoral candidate at the University of Helsinki.

“But a lot of the studies have focused on how individuals self-identify on a liberal-conservative continuum. So, we were interested in what goes on behind those labels, how threat sensitivity in the form of anxiety disorder symptoms is related to a wider range of political attitudes.”

Other studies have shown that while both conservatives and liberals experience stress, conservatives are better able to cope with stress than liberals, who tend to become depressed or anxious when facing difficult situations.

GNOSTIC WARRIOR CONCLUSION

It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to understand that some people in American culture suffer from mental illness. In fact, it is very common with nearly one in five U.S. adults living with a mental illness, which equates to 52.9 million people in 2020. This number must be much higher in 2022.

What that means is that when you walk down the street, 1 in 5 people you encounter are mentally ill. Now, we know that these people tend to be attracted to the left and liberalism.

There are several reasons why this may be so:

Conservatives tend to have stronger religious beliefs than liberals do, which gives them a sense of meaning in life and a sense of belonging that helps them cope with difficult situations.

Liberals often lack these things because they reject traditional religious beliefs and lack the support networks provided by church members who help one another through difficult times.

Conservatives are more likely to marry and stay married than leftists are, which provides them with another source of support during difficult times as well as social support for their ideas and beliefs from their spouse or partner. This is particularly true for men since men tend to be more active in politics than women do (although women have been getting more active recently).

I also believe that a major part of this problem is at U.S. universities because it is well-known that academics lean extremely to the left (especially in the softer fields), and show high rates of mental illness (Duarte et al., 2015; Kinman & Wray, 2013; Langbert, 2018).

Studies have also reported higher rates of mental illness among college students and PhD students in particular with a higher suicide rate (Levecque et al., 2017; Puthran et al., 2016; Rotenstein et al., 2016; Twenge et al., 2010).

This would help exacerbate the problem of mental health in younger liberal adults who are being influenced through the education system.

These findings above prove that there is a link between liberal political ideologies and mental health problems.

In recent years, there has been a rise in the number of people identifying themselves as liberals or leftists and also culture wars between the left and the right.

This can be attributed to a number of factors, including the increased acceptance of LGBTQ+ people, women and minorities in society; however, it is also mainly due to a growing prevalence of mental illness among this group and it is only getting worse by the year.

SOURCES:

Barry R. Schlenker a, John R. Chambers a, Bonnie M. Le b (2011) Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Chan, E. Y. (2019). Political orientation and physical health: The role of personal responsibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.005

EOW Kirkegaard · 2020 MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE LEFT

Clinical symptoms of anxiety disorders as predictors of political attitudes: A prospective cohort study Vilja Helminen,Marko Elovainio,Markus Jokela First published: 13 August 2021 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijop.12796

Other sources listed above or linked to

Traditionalism: The Meaning and History of Traditionalist Philosophy

Traditionalism: The Meaning and History of Traditionalist Philosophy

“Traditionalism is the only way to preserve the world.” – Julius Evola

Traditionalism is a reactionary and counter-revolutionary movement that arose in the early 20th century. Traditionalists believe that there is a spiritual decay in Western civilization owing to modernity and rationalism, which they see as being based on Judeo-Christian values and defines itself as “a philosophy which favors traditionalism, hierarchy, and authority”.

The word “Traditionalism” derives from the Latin word tradere, which means “to hand down”. The term “traditionalist” derives from “traditional”, which refers to the commonalities between all traditions, or customarily accepted beliefs and practices.

It is a school of thought that believes in the primacy of the wisdom and knowledge of traditional societies, especially those that existed prior to the modern period or what is often called Modernity by Tradionialists. They affirm that there is a transcendent order, which constitutes the objective reality of human experience.

The transcendent order as the “Traditional” or “Perennial” Way, and and advocates the return to “the Old Ways” which they believe has been manifested in all cultures at all times.

Over the last 200 years, Traditionalist thinkers have criticized modernity and liberalism, while advocating a return to our original values and ways of life. It is not a unified movement, but rather various different traditions that have existed throughout history under this name.

The term “traditionalism” was first used as a self-descriptor by French writer François-René de Chateaubriand in 1821, although tradition had been used prior to this by Joseph de Maistre and other counterrevolutionaries. These ideas have been popularized by a number of writers and thinkers in Europe, Russia, and America. They include Julius Evola, René Guénon, Martin Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, and Aleksandr Dugin.

Traditionalism can be seen as an attempt to preserve the traditionalist ethos against modernizing trends in Western culture. This includes preserving the identity and customs of one’s people from the erosion of globalism and multiculturalism, which are seen as diluting traditional values and religion with foreign influences; for example: Christianity replacing paganism in Europe or Hinduism replacing Buddhism in India.

The traditionalist worldview sees humanity as being on a spiritual journey through time; it sees all religions as having an essential truth about this journey; it sees modernity as bringing us further away from this truth; and it sees modernity as being associated with increasing inequality, injustice and environmental destruction.

Traditionalists reject universalizing ideologies such as rationalism (the idea that reason is supreme), liberalism (the idea that individual rights are paramount) and socialism (the idea that government should be controlled by the community).

They have traditionally been opposed to both communism and capitalism, which they regard as modern manifestations of an anti-traditional system of society. They are also often opposed to progressivism and industrialization for similar reasons.

Traditionalists believe these ideologies are contrary to human nature and lead to moral decay because they undermine natural hierarchies.

Many Traditionalists believe that our present condition is due not just to bad politics but also to bad ideas (because politics are always based on ideas). Bad ideas that simply need to be destroyed. They believe that there has been a decadence of thought since modern times began, which has resulted in all kinds of irrational beliefs such as materialism, atheism, and liberalism.

Traditionalists believe that various aspects of society and social life are organic wholes that exist whether or not humans recognize or acknowledge their existence. They further believe that these wholes have an inborn “spirit” or “soul” that one can only understand intuitively, rather than rationally.

Traditionalists thus reject abstract rationalist notions like natural rights and social contract theory as a basis for legitimacy and authority. Instead, they espouse an organicist conception of society as a living organism with a spiritual soul through which “legitimate” authority must be exercised.

It is opposed by both liberal individualism and modernist historicism in all its forms. It rejects what it sees as the rootless cosmopolitanism inherent to modernity—including capitalism, individualism, egalitarianism and multiculturalism—as well as the secularization of religion into a mere human institution devoid of its transcendent purpose.

They argue that society has been thrown into confusion by waves of materialistic thinking and has forgotten its spiritual foundation. They wish to restore religious practices and beliefs that are not bound by time or space.

Some traditionalists support monarchy or other forms of non-democratic government; others support various types of autocracy or oligarchy; some support democracy if it can be shown that it is consistent with traditional values; others oppose all forms of government intervention in political affairs.

They believe that the way forward is not to be found in any political ideology — liberal or conservative — but rather in a return to what they see as ancient wisdom traditions which developed over thousands of years before Christianity arrived in Europe (and which existed even before Judaism and Islam).

Traditionalism has been accused of being related to several other movements within the 20th century, including far-right politics, fascism, and Nazism. However, most traditionalists adamantly reject these associations.

Meet the Traditionalists

The Traditionalist School (la scuola tradizionalista) was founded by Julius Evola (1898–1974), an Italian philosopher who rejected modernity in favor of an idealized past. He argued that there was a perennial spiritual conflict between Tradition and Modernity, and sought to restore what he saw as the virtues of ancient Greece and Rome: hierarchy, excellence, spirituality and heroism.

In his book Revolt Against The Modern World, Evola presents an extremely critical view of modernity and industrial civilization. He believed that Western civilization has been in decline since the 19th century because it had abandoned its traditional roots in favor of democracy, socialism and materialism. Evola argued that this decline could only be reversed by the development of an elite which would lead society towards an organic hierarchical order based on spiritual principles rather than liberal individualism.

Evola claimed that those people who are connected to their ancient traditions are those who are truly awake. He wrote in Revolt Against the Modern World;

“Beside the great “currents” of the world there are still individuals who are rooted in terra firma. Generally speaking, they are unknown people who shun the spotlight of modern popularity and culture.

They live on spiritual heights; they do not belong to this world. Though they are scattered over the earth and often ignorant of each other’s existence, they are united by an invisible bond and form an unbreakable chain in the traditional spirit… by virtue of these people, Tradition is present despite all; the flame burns invisibly, and something still connects the world to the superworld.

“They are those who are awake.” Evola wrote;

Evolian Traditionalism is thus a form of counter-Enlightenment philosophy, and stands in opposition to modernity, democracy and egalitarianism. It holds that the world changes in cycles: civilizations rise while others fall; humanity moves from one state of being to another. To Evola, these cycles corresponded with a natural law: what he called “metaphysics”.

According to the scholar Franco Ferraresi, he “is considered one of the most innovative and influential theorists of ‘traditionalism’—a current of thought within fascist ideology which emphasizes the need for a hierarchical social order based on natural differences.”

Next to Evola, René Guénon (1886–1951) was the most prominent figure of the traditionalist movement in twentieth-century France. He was a prolific writer whose works were influential all over the world and he also had an impact on Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, as well as Christian theology.

Guénon developed the “Primordial Tradition”, in which he presented his works as elaborative of “traditional metaphysical principles” through his publication, “Études tradition nelles.” He wrote another important book on Traditionalism called Crisis of the Modern World (1927) where he explains how modern society is facing a crisis and how this crisis can be solved by returning to our spiritual roots. Evola wrote the introduction to the book.

In 1931 he wrote his most famous work, “The Reign of Quantity and The Signs of The Times“. This book has been translated into several languages and continues to be studied by seekers all over the world.

Guénon’s work is characterized by its uncompromising defense of traditionalism and its rigorous criticism of modernity. His writings have been described as “an unsystematic exposition of traditional doctrines”, but Guénon himself maintained that his work could be understood only within the context of the whole tradition; consequently, many of his works are often referred to as “classics”.

Guénon wrote;

“Where is the notion of a real hierarchy still to be found in the modern world?

Nothing and nobody is any longer in the right place; men no longer recognize any effective authority in the spiritual order or any legitimate power in the temporal; the ‘profane’ presume to discuss what is sacred, and to contest its character and even its existence; the inferior judges the superior, ignorance sets bounds to wisdom, error prevails over truth, the human is substituted for the Divine, earth has priority over Heaven, the individual sets the measure for all things and claims to dictate to the universe laws drawn entirely from his own relative and fallible reason.

‘Woe unto you, ye blind guides,’ the Gospel says; and indeed everywhere today one sees nothing but blind leaders of the blind, who, unless restrained by some timely check, will inevitably lead them into the abyss, there to perish with them.”

After Guénon, the next most important person was German philosopher and a founding member of the Frankfurt School, Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). His ideas have had an enormous impact on western philosophy, yet he remains one of the most difficult and controversial philosophers to read.

Although Heidegger did not claim to be or belong to any of the Traditionalist groups that Evola and Guénon had developed and was sometimes critical of Traditionalism. Although he is often described as a Traditionalist and a favorite philosopher for people such as Alexandr Dugin, because he believed that modern society had lost touch with its past and we needed to preserve it.

Heidegger said this about Traditionalism:

“There are many different kinds of traditionalism. Some people think that tradition means simply living in the past, but this is not true. Tradition only means maintaining something that has been handed down from generation to generation.”

“Tradition is not just re-enacting things from the past; it means preserving them so they can be handed down to future generations.”

One of his most important contributions to philosophy was his analysis of the concept of being and is often referred to as his “Being and Time” period. In this early period, Heidegger attempted to develop a philosophical hermeneutics that would be able to interpret all forms of human existence in view of their being in the world.

In particular, Heidegger made a distinction between two types of being: ready-to-hand (Zuhandenes), and present-at-hand (Vorhandenes). The former is an understanding of being that is based in everyday life, where things are useful to us and part of our lives; the latter is an understanding of being as something detached from our lives, which we can examine through reason alone.

This distinction has become known as Dasein-analytic or existentialism.  In this kind of thinking we come to understand ourselves as human beings – in other words, we are not simply objects but subjects (what Heidegger calls Dasein). We are not simply products or objects, but subjects who have their own agency (being able to make choices).

His analysis focused on understanding being-in-the-world as being-with others (Mitsein). This approach was indebted to Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone and Immanuel Kant’s conception of practical reason.

Heidegger also stated that human existence cannot be understood apart from its relationship with other people in the world. This relationship is always already there before us, as we find it in our everyday dealings with others. But it is not something that can be analyzed by science or philosophy, because it is always changing according to circumstances and traditions particular to each historical era.

He argued that science and technology were destroying our sense of tradition and replacing it with calculative thinking. This led to humans becoming soulless “dwellers” in technology-dominated cities who are unable to think deeply about their lives or to have meaningful experiences with other people.

Heidegger wrote;

“It is not enough to think of a tradition as a kind of intellectual property, in which we have invested our money and labor. We must also recognize that our tradition is directly responsible for our present condition, and that we are therefore obliged to it.

This obligation is what makes it possible for us to overcome the danger of becoming “strangers and sojourners” in the world.”

He famously said that “only a god can save us” from technology and industrial society (“Der Spiegel” interview 1966). His critique of modernity has been compared to that of Friedrich Nietzsche — another philosopher who was accused by some critics of being anti-Semitic — but it is also true that Nietzsche thought highly of Heidegger’s work.

Heidegger’s work remains controversial because of its association with National Socialism — he was a member of the Nazi party from 1933 until 1945 — and because of his political views after World War II.

If we are to examine this time period with the German NAZI regime, we can see that they had attempted to preserve the Traditions of their race and their so-called Arayan ancestors who were seen as biologically superior to other racial groups. Adolf Hitler promoted his ideaologies about Germany’s ancestors in his 1925 book, Mein Kampf. The think tank called The Ahnenerbe (German: [ˈʔaːnənˌʔɛʁbə], ancestral heritage) operated between 1935 and 1945 to promote their doctrines with a group of Germany’s leading scholars and scientists.

Traditionalist conservatism takes its name from the Traditionalists, a group of French intellectuals known as Les Veilleurs or “The Watchers,” who first met in 1928 at the Institut Catholique de Paris, a Jesuit-run graduate university dedicated to training priests for the Catholic priesthood.

The original members were: Charles Champetier (1890–1946), Marcel Haedrich (1892–1952), Étienne Gilson (1884–1978), Louis Massignon (1883–1955), Jean Ousset (1905–1974) and Louis Lecerf (1906–1972). They were joined later by such men as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar and Jean Daniélou. The movement was part of a wider effort to defend the Roman Catholic Church against modernists who questioned some of its teachings.

Today, Alexander Dugin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Ге́льевич Ду́гин; born January 7, 1962) is one of the most influential and controversial Traditionalist thinkers on the world stage today. He is a Russian political scientist known for promoting a “traditionalist” worldview through his leadership of the International Eurasian Movement (Russian: Международное евразийское движение), a political party called “The Conservative Party of Russia”, and several books about geopolitics.

Dugin has been described as “Russia’s chief ideologist” by The New York Times. His work has been translated into many languages, including English, Spanish and Portuguese. He has influenced political movements from Ukraine to Brazil and Venezuela to Africa by providing them with a philosophical basis for their actions.

Dugin has expressed admiration for Julius Evola, who became an early influence on his thought and introduced him to Traditionalism; as well as for Martin Heidegar and Carl Schmitt, whose ideas on geopolitics influenced Dugin’s later works on geopolitics; and René Guénon (who Dugin calls “the master”) who introduced him to Gnosticism and Manichaeism.

He defines Traditionalism as a philosophy that “questions modernity” and advocates for a return to traditional values as “the recognition of the perennial character of human nature”. What is true, good and beautiful.

Dugin recently said;

“Traditionalism is a philosophy of life and a system of values based on the veneration of the past, particularly with regard to the preservation of what is perceived to be true, good, and beautiful.”

Dugin’s philosophy called Neo-Eurasianism or Fourth Political Theory (4PT). The 4PT is a syncretic ideology combining traditionalist ideas from Eurasian religions and European New Right with Russian nationalism and anti-liberalism. In 2006 he wrote The Fourth Political Theory, which proposed a new ideology for Russia based on traditionalism, conservatism and nationalism.

Dugin believes that Russia should be an empire like it used to be before Peter the Great. In his book The Fourth Political Theory, he argues for a postmodernist approach to politics:

“The Fourth Political Theory is thus openly opposed not only to liberalism but also to Marxism and fascism; it rejects them both as modernist ideologies that deny the uniqueness and specificity of each historical epoch.”

In 2007 he founded the Eurasia Party and in 2011 he left the party to create his own political party called Eurasian Youth Union (ESYU). The Eurasia Movement was established to promote Russian foreign policy in opposition to American hegemony. He has been described as a “key intellectual proponent” of the idea that Russia is destined to lead a new empire in place of the Soviet Union, which Dugin considers to have been usurped by Atlanticism (meaning liberalism) and globalism (meaning capitalism).

In a recent interview, Dugin speaks about the meaning of tradition and its relation to the West. He also talks about his role in Russia as a “philosopher” and what he hopes to accomplish with his work.

Question: What is your understanding of tradition?

Alexander Dugin said;

“Tradition is a complex concept. It is not just something that has existed for a long time, or that has been preserved from generation to generation. Tradition does not mean conservation of something that already exists; it means renewal and expansion of something that already exists.

Tradition is not the past but the future being born in the present,” Dugin said.

“Tradition is not a dead past but an alive future: when we look at tradition we see history being born again in us as we live our lives today. This concept is difficult for people today because they are used to living in front of their TVs or on Facebook where everything becomes “old news” within hours or minutes–or even seconds!

There’s no sense of continuity here; it’s all just fragments of information from various sources that have nothing in common except their ephemerality. We don’t live in one place anymore either; we’re constantly moving around from one place to another so there’s no sense,” he said.

While Dugin’s views are often described as fascist or neo-fascist, he rejects these labels as inaccurate and misused. In an interview with liberal Russian talk show host Ksenia Sobchak, Dugin claimed that any comparison between his views and those of Adolf Hitler was “ridiculous”.

He instead prefers to describe himself as a Traditionalist who advocates for “conservative revolution” against modernity.

Dugin recently said in an interview;

“The Traditionalists are not only a school of theology, but also a school of politics, and they have much to say about the laws of history. In particular, they believe that there is a law of cycles in history, according to which societies rise and fall according to their adherence or lack thereof to Tradition.

“The most important aspect of this Tradition is what I call the “vertical axis,” meaning the transcendent dimension of human existence. This does not mean that Traditionalists reject science or rationality — far from it! But it does mean that they think that there are levels of understanding in reality beyond our materialist vision; that is why we need both science and religion.”

In a recent interview I conducted with Alexandr Dugin on the Gnostic Warrior Podcast, he told me that this battle is not only against what he calls a Liberal Dictatorship that seeks to destroy our ancestral traditions and philosophical ideas, but for our very souls and for eternity.

He is not fighting just for the Russian Traditions, but the whole world’s Traditions.

We spoke about his 4th Political Theory and how it is the only political system right now that honors people’s traditions across cultures while bringing these issues to the political arena.

MOE: So you’re, you’re fighting for everybody’s traditions.

DUGIN: Exactly. I don’t fight only for the Russian tradition, my tradition, my church. I’m Christian. But I defend the principles that religion and tradition are not something that belongs to the past.

I argue that it belongs to eternity, but eternity is now, the past is now, and it will be tomorrow.

So that is the fight on the side of eternity, against the dictatorship or the temporality of the time of becoming. And we consider all these three models, ideology, communism, liberalism, and the French.

They are all based on a secular understanding of history. They are founded in a materialistic understanding of the world.

They don’t believe in eternity. Eternity doesn’t exist. There is only time. There is only this world. There is nothing outside of it.”

Here is my interview with Dugin.

In another article for The National Interest, Dugin is rallying the global troops of Traditionalists to join the fight against this dictatorship:

“All of us who consider ourselves traditionalists — whether religious or not — should join our efforts against the dictatorship of relativism and consumerism, against globalisation and its political instrumentality.”

I have found that a lot of what Dugin advocates for in the name of Tradition makes perfect sense. While his views at times can be considered extreme, we can also make a great case that the current Liberal Dictatoship are even more extreme to the point they seek to destroy all our Traditions – what is good, true and beautiful.

Instead, they want to indoctrinate the people and our children into their Godless Lberal religion that pisses on the past and makes up their own absurd ideologies, from changing the meaning of biology to what it means to be a man or woman and have a family by changing their genders and their identities.

So, how does a modern day Traditionalist fight against what seems to be a massive army of Liberal clones hell-bent on destroying your Traditions and indoctrinating your children into their Global Death Cult?

I will leave you with a quote by Julius Evola that accurately describes how Traditionalists battle the dregs of Modernity. Evola wrote;

“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measure.

Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins,” Evola wrote. (Revolt Against the Modern World)

In other words,  let the crazy Liberals keep spewing their irrational beliefs and acting like chimps. The more they do so, the easier it will be to defeat their ignorance and lies.

It is Traditionalist Watchers today, like Dugin, who believe that this is the Great Awakening and that we are in a war against Modernity. What he calls the “Serpents of Wisdom versus Serpents of Capitalism.”

It is philosophers like Dugin who are ready to defend these Traditions and, if needed, destroy Modernity into an eternal heap of ruins with Traditional ideas, and, if needed, one rocket launcher at a time.

One last final thought.

As an American, I’m on the side of Traditionalists and wish to fight for the original American ethos that honored their ancestors Traditions while also granting the people Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is being stolen from us all as we watch the liberals indoctrinate our children with their bad ideas and they piss on our country’s values as it all burns right before our eyes.

Dugin is right. This is a battle for eternity.

One that I believe that this will culminate into not only a world war of ideas, but the final battle for the World Soul.

May the best ideas, men, and women win.

The History of Traditionalism w/ Dr. Mark Sedgwick

The History of Traditionalism w/ Dr. Mark Sedgwick

Welcome to the Gnostic Warrior Podcast. This is my latest interview with British historian and author, Dr. Mark Sedgwick.

Dr. Sedgwick is a specialist in the study of traditionalism, Islam, Sufi mysticism, and terrorism. Mark Sedgwick is head of the Islamic Cultures and Societies Research Unit at Aarhus University in Denmark and is the author of several books.

You can listen to the audio or watch the video below.

[spreaker type=player resource=”episode_id=47236807″ width=”100%” height=”350px” theme=”dark” playlist=”show” playlist-continuous=”false” chapters-image=”true” episode-image-position=”right” hide-logo=”false” hide-likes=”false” hide-comments=”false” hide-sharing=”false” hide-download=”false”]

Please visit Dr. Sedgwick @ Traditionalistblog.blogspot.com

The Archetype of Traditional Man vs Modern Man w/ Miguel Fernandez

The Archetype of Traditional Man vs Modern Man w/ Miguel Fernandez

This is my latest interview with author and philosopher, Miguel Fernandez. Miguel is the author of the Solar Warrior book series and a website of the same name.

We talk about when in historical times men dominated the world and many other topics you will enjoy.

You can listen to the audio or watch the video below.

[spreaker type=player resource=”episode_id=47236810″ width=”100%” height=”550px” theme=”dark” playlist=”show” playlist-continuous=”false” chapters-image=”true” episode-image-position=”right” hide-logo=”false” hide-likes=”false” hide-comments=”false” hide-sharing=”false” hide-download=”false”]

Please visit Miguel @ TheSolarWarrior.com

E-mail Miguel

Contact Miguel on Facebook 

See Miguel´s books in AMAZON 

Pin It on Pinterest