Notes

Having indicated the general worldview Perspective that the reader may expect in my website and having defined some of its key Terminology, this paragraph offers the interested reader a summary overview of the key Premises underpinning my work.

(1) Traditionalist premise. The Traditionalist perspective stipulates that metaphysical and supernatural realities precede, create and shape physical and natural realities. Immaterial forces are assumed to create, project, guide and direct material forces: the mind directs the hand, the soul guides the body, spirit powers project natural powers and God rules the universe. From a Traditionalist perspective, therefore, materialist determinist descriptions of to human history and society are doomed to fail: they violate, invert and pervert the basic Traditionalist principle of the primacy of metaphysical and supernatural forces. Thus, inevitably, all the countless variants of Modern ‘political’, ‘social’ and ‘economic’ science fail to provide the one essential element that the world of Tradition sought and required in any form of human knowledge: meaning, as defined according to the Transcendental principle of capital-letter Truth. This does not mean that material factors and circumstances are to be ignored in the gathering of human knowledge, but rather that they need to be understood in terms of functionality and effect, rather than in terms of causality. The following illustrations taken from historiographical ‘debates’ about the rise of Modernity will serve to clarify this point: (a) Doubtlessly, the elimination of food restriction and the over-abundance of food supplies, reinforcing the Early Modern philosophical neglect of the Transcendental sphere, played a significant role in the development of Historical Materialism, but these factors constitute symptoms rather than causes. (b) Doubtlessly, biological devolution and genetic decline (e.g. IQ shifts, r/K-selection strategies) played a significant role in the Regression of the Castes, but, once again, these factors constitute effects rather than causes. (c) Doubtlessly, Modernity’s chronic stress, reliance on psychoactive drugs and nutritional disruptions (e.g. the metabolic-cognitive imbalances resulting from collective sugar addiction) played a significant role in Collective Narcissism, but they constitute aggravating factors, rather than fundamental causes. (d) Doubtlessly, the Modern phenomena of public sanitation, child immunization and the welfare state (increasing the demographic weight of the lower classes) played a significant role in Hyper-Democracy, but they represent its technical modalities (describing the attendant shift in collective reproductive strategy), rather than its actual causes.

(2) Transcendental premise. From a Traditionalist perspective, the only authentic determinist principle is Transcendental reality: in the final analysis, all immanent phenomena are functions (and manifestations) of that reality. The primacy of Transcendental reality underpins all Traditional metaphysical, religious and philosophical systems. All Traditional epistemologies assume a match between the Transcendent macrocosm and the immanent microcosm, which means that all phenomena – all material substances and all immaterial forces – occurring within the immanent realm are regarded as contingent functions of Transcendental reality. From a Traditionalist perspective, the Modern scientific paradigms of either immediate (environmental, biological, economical, technological) or mediate (political, social, psychological, linguistic) determinism, collectively constituting Historical Materialism, are no more than philosophical improvisations. They might allow for utilitarian analyses of specific phenomena within some academic specializations, but they fail to relate to the Transcendental reality that ultimately underpins all material and immaterial phenomena in the immanent sphere. For this reason, my work rejects Modern scientific determinism in all its forms. Instead, all the various material and immaterial forces that appear to ‘determine’ human history and society, including even those creating and shaping Modernity itself, are assumed to constitute functional reflections of Transcendental reality, even if highly mediated and attenuated. All of these forces may very well be scientifically analyzed as subject to self-contained deterministic frameworks, but my work rejects the notion that such frameworks are anything other than utilitarian descriptive models: they lack a hierarchic relation to Transcendental reality as well as holistic integration vis-à-vis each other. This means that political and social forces cannot assumed to be determined by economic and technological forces. Rather, all of these different forces are assumed to be equally important and equally unimportant: important to the extent that they are all interrelated and that they all affect each other, but unimportant to the extent that they are all mere functions of higher Transcendental principles.

(3) Ethical premise. From a Traditionalist perspective, non-illusionary forms of ethics can only be arrived at in reference to Transcendental reality. In Traditional metaphysical, religious and philosophical knowledge systems, Transcendental reality forms the basis of ethics. In the world of Tradition, these Transcendental principles impose an anagogic direction on all forms of human endeavour in all spheres of life, including the religious, political, social, psychological and economic spheres. In Traditional cultures these spheres are, in fact, not functionally separated – rather, they are holistically integrated through sacrosanct authority and organic social hierarchy. Thus, in the world of Tradition, all ethical categories are defined in terms of anagogic principles and holistic functions: ‘good’ and ‘evil’ do not represent ‘moral absolutes’, but are rather defined in relation to specific principles and specific functions (quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi; aliis si licet, tibi no licet). The ‘functional relativity’ of Traditional ethics always remains bound, however, to fixed Transcendental reference frame: the absolute ‘moral relativity’ and unrestrained nihilism of the Modern world is simply inconceivable in Traditional cultures. In the contemporary world of Modernity, the application of Traditionalist ethics beyond the private sphere is impossible –  except in a negative sense. Because Traditionalist ethics imply the comprehensive rejection of Modern existential modes in all guises and settings, any Traditionalist assessment of the existential conditions imposed by Modernity will inevitably result in analyses framed in negative terminology – phrases such ‘progressive subversion’, ‘deepening regression’ and ‘escalating decay’ simply become unavoidable. Thus, from a Traditionalist historiographical perspective, the Modern Age constitutes nothing less than the Dark Age: the eclipse and obscuration of the light of the world of Tradition.

(4) A-political premise. To the extent to which the  – ism suffix within the word Traditionalism might be mistaken to imply an ‘ideological’ stance, as tends to be the case with so many other ‘isms’, it is important to note that my work rejects any specific ideological allegiance, let alone specific political stances – even if some allegiances and stances are more aligned with the earlier mentioned premises. For the purpose of my work, ‘Traditionalism’ is best defined as the general scholarly discourse that proceeds from the epistemological premise of the Sophia Perennis, or ‘Perennial Philosophy’. This epistemological premise constitutes the heart of the Late Modern ‘Traditionalist School’, generally acknowledged as having been founded by Guénon, Coomaraswamy and Schuon. While my work is indebted to some of the authors of the Traditionalist School, it rejects all ideological and political associations popularly – often falsely – ascribed either to it or to its authors. Traditionalism is not an ideological project or a political program: it constitutes an apolitical – even anti-political –  ‘worldview’ fully compatible with scientific discipline. Under the presently prevailing conditions of Modernity, Traditional ethics no longer apply to the public sphere and they are therefore also no longer operational in the political arena. From a Traditionalist perspective, all of the various ‘modernized’ forms of ‘religion’, ‘ideology’, ‘politics’ and ‘ethics’ current in contemporary public discourse are equally inauthentic and equally illusory. The only contemporaneous function of the Traditionalist perspective is to provide a standard by which men can still take the measure of Modernity.

(5) Anti-historicist premise. If modern man lives out his life under the tyranny of modern time, characterized by an ever steeper curve of production goals, consumption rates and self-realizations, then modern history is his cruellest taskmaster. Modern history distorts modern man’s self-image by ascribing sub-human origins to humanity, reducing man to an arbitrary product of an exclusively naturalistic ‘evolution’, a mere animal life-form predestined to ‘samsaric’ recycling, a mere centre-less amalgam of instincts without a higher vocation. Modern history deprives modern man of any guiding sense of superhuman origin and supernatural destiny by representing mankind’s history as entirely subject to environmental contingencies and material determinants. Modern history views mankind’s historical trajectory exclusively in terms of environmentally-functional adaptations and materially-functional purposes: it defines mankind’s ‘development’ in terms of the accumulation of such adaptations and it defines mankind’s ‘progress’ in terms of the pursuit of such purposes. To modern man, who has been subject to the discursive dominance of modern historiography for over two centuries now, naturalistic and materialistic ‘evolution’ equals history and history equals ‘progress’. For almost all contemporary men, the intellectual mirage of small-letter modern history has entirely replaced the experiential reality of capital-letter Traditional History. Traditional mankind actively lived Traditional History: the temporal identities and actions of Traditional mankind were always experienced and perceived as the microcosmic and immanent expression of macrocosmic, Transcendental and supra-temporal identities and actions. Modern mankind, however, can only passively suffer modern history. From a Traditionalist perspective, modern men are the slaves of modern time: they are abjectly subject to the three ruling principles of modern time experience: Life, Labour and Language. These principles are defined in exclusively immanent terms and experienced as exclusively temporal modalities, closing off modern man from the Transcendental sphere and the freedom to pursue any form of higher vocation. This experiential reality is then abstractly projected backwards, creating the modern pseudo-science of ‘history’: this is the historicist illusion. Traditional History was a divinely-inspired art that served to provide macrocosmic concepts and models to measure and correct the microcosmic conditions of the present. Modern history reverses this relation: the modern pseudo-science of history serves to project modern ideologies and conditions back on the past, ‘proving’ the modernist dogma of ‘progress’. For a Traditionalist antidote to this modernist historiographical perversion, the reader may wish to consult the following wise words by Traditionalist philosopher Julius Evola: The notion of ‘history’ is recent and alien to every normal civilization; much more so is the personification of history into some kind of mystical entity that is the object of a superstitious faith, as are many of the other personified abstractions that have become fashionable in an age that claims to be ‘positivist’ and ‘scientific’. …The… more general meaning of historicism refers to the collapse or disastrous shift from a civilization of being (characterized by stability, form, and adherence to supertemporal principles) to a civilization of becoming (characterized by change, flux, and contingency). …[T]his caving-in has come to be seen as a positive thing that not only should not be resisted, but also should be accepted, extolled, and willed. On this basis, the ideas of [capital letter] ‘History’, ‘Progress’, and ‘Evolution’ have been intimately associated with one another; thus historicism has often appeared as an integral part of the progressive and enlightenment nineteenth century, constituting the 18 Introduction background of rationalist, scientific, and technological civilization. …[P]recisely because we live in the world of becoming, which is characterized by a rapid change of events, circumstances, and forces, that on the one hand historicism reduces itself to a ‘passive philosophy of the fait accompli’ and a theory that bestows a ‘rationality’ on everything that has successfully asserted itself; on the other hand, historicism may equally promote ‘revolutionary’ claims when one does not want to acknowledge [any form of being] as ‘rational’. In this case, in the name of ‘Reason’ and ‘History’, interpreted to one’s advantage, a condemnation is passed on [anything that] is. …[Thus, basically], historicism amounts to …a formless, useless, and vain philosophy, at times even cowardly and opportunistic; it is either unrealistic or coarsely realistic, depending on the circumstances. But aside from the lucubrations of historicism as a philosophy and the corresponding deformity of …academic culture …we must expose the myth of [historicism], especially when this myth fosters the narcosis of those who are not aware of the forces they have surrendered to, and when it helps those who want the current [of contingent historical flux] to become more rapid, any opposition to cease, and the last dams to be broken; appealing to [a false] ‘sense of history’, these people stigmatize every attitude different from their own as ‘antihistorical’ or ‘reactionary’. This type of historicism, when it is not a senseless hallucination of shipwrecked people, is obviously the smokescreen behind which the forces of world subversion operate. …[T]he anathema of being ‘antihistorical’ and ‘outside of history’ is cast against those who still remember the way things were before and who call subversion by its name, instead of conforming to the processes that are precipitating the world’s decline. Having made this clear, man is restored to a fundamental freedom of movement; at the same time, the groundwork is laid for a possible investigation aimed at judging the effective influences that have promoted this or that upheaval in history. …Having overcome all historicism …every historical factor will appear to have a conditioning role, but never a determining role. The possibility of an active attitude towards the past will be safeguarded, especially the possibility to uphold everything that is inspired by super-temporal values.

(6) Anti-scientist premise. In the final analysis, the historicist illusion that was discussed in the previous paragraph stunts the intellectual life of modern man and it should be understood as an inevitable side-effect of the ideology-based illusion that distorts his experiential reality, viz. Historical Materialism, which was discussed in the Transcendental premise paragraph above. Whereas the former illusion centres on the empty promise ‘progress’, the latter illusion centres on the baseless supposition of scientific ‘objectivity’. In terms of the modern Western epistème, these illusions are necessarily complementary. ‘Progress’ in history can only be ‘proven’ in terms of an ‘objective’ reference system that is accessible in the present: scientism provides that reference system. Vice versa, the unique ‘objectivity’ claimed by modern science is only tenable in terms of a total rejection of all other (‘obsolete’, ‘primitive’, ‘pre-scientific’) reference systems: scientism allows for that rejection. Through scientism, modern man tends to evaluate all forms of knowledge in narrowly ‘scientific’ terms of ‘objectivity’ and the only forms of knowledge he is still able to digest are ‘scientifically’ (positivistically, experimentally, statistically) verifiable ‘facts’, no matter how ethically unpalatable and aesthetically nauseous these facts may be, and no matter how detrimental they may be to individual and collective well-being. The scientist mindset makes it exceedingly difficult for modern men to accept facts and narratives that are not logically embedded in socio-economically and cultural-historically self-referential ‘scientific’ discourse. It makes it almost impossible for modern men to recognize larger fact-sets and larger narratives that exceed the narrowly ‘science-based’ discourse, i.e. to recognize that there are larger interpretative frameworks, operating in terms of hierarchically superior logical terms. This explains the almost complete disappearance of Traditionalist perspectives from contemporary mainstream narratives, which are, almost without exception, scientist in nature. Traditionalist hermeneutics, however, superimposes hierarchically superior systems of interpretation over these narrowly scientist narratives, allowing these superior interpretative systems to add value, in the form of meaning, to mere scientific facts and to derive meaning from mere scientific analyses. The fact that any such-derived value and meaning inevitably discredits Modernity basically itself renders Traditionalist hermeneutics unacceptable and, unpalatable – it is ‘politically incorrect’. The application of Traditionalist hermeneutics is, however, entirely compatible with modern science: it merely adds Traditionalist interpretation to scientific analysis. Thus, there is not necessarily a tension between the overall Traditionalist orientation of my work and the simultaneous claims to scientific accuracy in various parts of it. To the extent that my work does reject certain scientific methodologies, particularly those most commonly utilized in the modern historiographical mainstream, this is not necessarily because I hold them to be invalid, but simply because I consider the findings based on them of no more than marginal and short-term interest. In my view, the most overrated methodology of modern ‘science-based’ historiography is that of the supposedly ‘objective’ quantitative analysis method which imposes Historical Materialist ideology on the study of history through rational-utilitarian calculus models.

(7) Lost-race premise. Within Traditionalism, ‘race’ is primarily as a self-identification marker: it is a (pragmatically defined) marker of (necessarily shifting) individual experience and it refers to the subject perception that modern man describes as ‘personal development’. As a collective identity marker and as object perception, the category ‘race’ holds only limited value: it has some descriptive value in the Traditionalist analysis of ethnogenesis (ethnogenesis taken to reflect Sacred Geography), but only in a very limited manner. In Traditionalism race represents, first and foremost, an inner disposition, overriding, as such, any outer condition. Even so, given the ‘politically correct’ – and now semi-totalitarian – mainstream narrative of obligatory (but meaningless) ‘anti-racism’, it is important to dissociate the Traditionalist perspective on race from Modernist perspectives on race, thus pre-empting rash charges of ‘racism’ by over-zealous post-modern ‘Social Justice Warriors’. With regard to the Traditionalism, ‘racism’ is a non-issue, because the Traditionalist concept of race entirely excludes Modernist notions of materialist determinism and evolutionary superiority. From a Modernist perspective, the Traditionalist concept of race could effectively be characterized as ‘mythical’. Traditionalist historiography assumes that the original ‘races of mankind’, which were of a spiritual nature, became extinct at the same time that Sacred Geography disappeared as a living discourse, viz. no later than the beginning of the Modern Era. In terms of the Traditionalist concept of ‘nation’, these original categories of race remain only marginally relevant: the remnants of racial differentiation in the modern world basically represent highly distorted reflections of their irretrievably lost original meanings. Even these remnants, i.e. the material, visible and tangible (biological, genetic, phenotypical) residues of racial differentiation, having temporarily served as markers for modern national identities, are now rapidly fading away. From a Traditionalist perspective, any state or nation construct based on an exclusively material (biological, genetic, phenotypical) definition of its carrier race represents an artificial construct, doomed to failure, as an outer shell without inner support. In a contemporary setting, any such material definition can only be relevant in defining collective identity to the extent that it still, temporarily, overlaps and intersects with three other, equally important markers of national identity, viz. territory, language and religion. That said, any Traditionalist analysis aiming at scientific validity must take into account these material realities to the extent that they still exist, including their socio-economic and cultural-historic implications. This means that the contemporary mainstream narrative that race is merely a ‘cultural construct’ must be dismissed out of hand. From a Traditionalist perspective, the politically-correct ideology underpinning this narrative, and imposing artificial ‘racial equality’ (a contradiction in terms) on recalcitrant populations represents a deliberate attempt at depriving these populations of precious historical heritage and a direct assault on human diversity. It should be noted, however, that in its quest to achieve the ‘deconstruction’ of race, those seeking to impose the doctrine of ‘racial equality’ by force have an enemy much more powerful than Traditionalism, viz. modern natural science. Even if the ‘anti-racist’ ideological model has been successfully enforced (through censorship and persecution) right across the humanities and social sciences, causing these academic fields to self-destruct, it has – thus far – singularly failed to substantially affect the natural sciences. Recent race-research findings in the natural sciences could are not incompatible with Traditionalist discourse: they have complementary functions, each retaining their particular validity in terms of epistemological premise as well as philosophical method, while allowing a multidisciplinary understanding of race-related issues. It is therefore worth mentioning some avenues of current race-scientific research that are likely to become relevant to Traditionalist discourse within the foreseeable future: genetic research into the relations between IQ, race and gender (Helmuth Nyborg), epigenetic research into C/V alteration cycles (Jim Penman), socio-biological research into r/K selection strategies (Edward Wilson), psycho-historical research into psychogenetic evolution (Lloyd DeMause) and bio/techno-evolutionary epistemology (Jason Jorjani). For now, however, Traditionalist thinkers are advised to stay within Traditionalist methodology, which approaches the issues of race and ethnicity from the perspectives of comparative religion science and cultural history. As long as the natural sciences have not yet completed their work of formulating a comprehensive overview of human racial differences, their bio-evolutionary origins and their socio-cultural implications, it is important that the older Traditionalist reference frames concerning these differences remain available as standards of reference. It is proper to maintain these standards until, perhaps somewhere in the not-too-distant future, bio-history and epigenetics have developed sufficiently complete knowledge bases for Traditionalist epistemology and philosophy to work with and for their insights to be synthesized. As specialized biologists, geneticists and behaviourists continue their exploration of relatively new fields such as population genetics, epigenetics, bio-history, socio-history and psycho-history, the accumulated scientific evidence for the cultural-historical importance of racial and ethnic differences is already now so overwhelming, however, that the globalist-nihilist hostile elite feels obliged to resort to state-sponsored educational ‘dumbing down’ and to character assassination of individual publicists in order to divert attention from simple scientific facts. This combination of keeping the public ignorant and ‘shooting the messenger’ may gain the globalist-nihilist hostile elite a temporary stay of execution, but the historical record of totalitarian failure in meddling with scientific evidence – which includes the social and pseudo-sciences of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich – suggests that it is merely a matter of time before the politically-incorrect issues of race and ethnicity will come back to haunt it in the public arena. If the politically-biased racial proto-science of National Socialism already had the power to ignite war and genocide, then it is important to ponder the question of what will happen once the dispassionate findings of high-powered, data-driven science, such as those of bio-history and epigenetics, take centre stage in the public arena. Irrespective of the outcome of the impending struggle between globalist-nihilist ideology and (epi)genetic science, however, it is important to here reiterate the Traditionalist position regarding the issue of race: Traditionalism accepts the scientific reality of racial difference, but it rejects the ideological concept of racial superiority. While Traditionalism is bound to acknowledge the scientific relevance of racial differences in terms of socio-political and cultural-historical analysis, it is also bound to reject any (neo-social-darwinist) theories that evaluate race in terms of ‘evolutionary’ hierarchy. While Traditionalism is bound to acknowledge the legitimacy of ethnic identity and ethnocentric self-defence, it is also bound to reject any Modernist ideology that promotes racial supremacy and racist violence

(8) Lost-nation premise. From a Traditionalist perspective, it is of fundamental importance to properly distinguish between the traditional notions of (capital letter) State and Nation and their modern (small letter) counterparts: the ‘formal’ continuity between actually hides an abysmal historical discontinuity and, in my view, the First World War marks the great caesura that separates them. Essentially, under the post-war aegis of Modernity, state and nation are reduced to mere discursive phenomena, i.e. ephemeral ‘cultural constructs’ that can be deconstructed at will. In modern Geopolitics, state and nation theoretically still refer to sovereign power and ethnic identity, but this power and this identity are defined as temporal and fluid abstractions with the exclusively immanent referents of, respectively, ‘international law’ and ‘cultural history’. Under the aegis of post-war Modernity, ‘sovereign rights’ can be transferred and relinquished – even sold and bought – at will and ‘ethnic identities’ can be ‘constructed’ and ‘deconstructed’ at will: they are merely temporal constructs within an ever-shifting discourse. Thus, the ephemeral discursive phenomena of the modern ‘state’ and the modern ‘nation’ lack meta-historical substance as well as Transcendental reference. Given their exclusively discursive nature, the modern notions of state and nation represent structural inversions of their Traditional counterparts, which were substantive realities with Transcendental referents. The Traditional State and Nation were microcosmic reflections and immanent manifestations of macrocosmic order and Transcendental principle. In other words, their creation, sustenance and destruction were essentially supernaturally ordained. From a Traditionalist point of view, this means that the decline of the Traditional State and the Traditional Nation reflects nothing less than a cosmic catastrophe, indicating the full onset of the Dark Age, which is the age of subversion, dissolution and chaos – as well as a portent of the approach of the Apocalypse. Modernity cannot truly replace the creative and anagogic Traditional notions of State and Nation: it can only destroy them and set up illegitimate counterfeits. But while the ‘modern state’ and the ‘modern nation’ are mere contradictions in terms, they also provide illusions of a great suggestive power, bound to attract the leaderless masses of modern mankind, allowing inhuman and subhuman forces ‘to bring them all and in darkness bind them’.