Revolt Against The Modern World Quotes

The blood of the heroes is closer to God than the ink of the philosophers and the prayers of the faithful.

No idea is as absurd as the idea of progress.

Nothing is further from the truth than the claim that the American soul is 'open-minded' and unbiased; on the contrary, it is ridden with countless taboos of which people are sometimes not even aware.

Being and stability are regarded by our contemporaries as akin to death; they cannot live unless they act, fret, or distract themselves with this or that. Their spirit (provided we can still talk about a spirit in their case) feeds only on sensations and on dynamism, thus becoming the vehicle for the incarnation of darker forces.

Nothing is further from the truth than the claim that the American soul is ‘open-minded’ and unbiased; on the contrary, it is ridden with countless taboos of which people are sometimes not even aware.

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 MEASURES…. 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.

The best and most authentic reaction against feminism and against every other female aberration should not be aimed at women as such, but at men instead. It should not be expected of women that they return to what they really are and thus reestablish the necessary inner and outer conditions for a reintegration of a superior race, when men themselves retain only the semblance of true virility.

According to traditional man the physical plane merely contains effects; nothing takes place in this world that did not originate first in the next world or in the invisible dimension.

One thing becomes very clear; if the Empire declines and if it continues to exist only nominally, its antagonist, the Church, after enjoying untrammeled freedom from its ancient foe, did not know how to assume its legacy, and demonstrated its inability to organize the Western world according to the Guelph ideal. What replaced the Empire was not the Church at the head of a reinvigorated "Christendom," but the multiplicity of national states that were increasingly intolerant of any higher principle of authority.

There are species that retain their characteristics even in conditions that are relatively different from their natural ones; other species in similar circumstances instead become extinct; otherwise what takes place is racial mixing with other elements in which no assimilation or real evolution occurs. The result of this interbreeding closely resembles Mendel’s laws concerning heredity: once it disappears in the phenotype, the primitive element survives in the form of a separated, latent heredity that is capable of cropping up in sporadic apparitions, even though it is always endowed with a character of heterogeneity in regard to the superior type.

Kingship was the supreme form of government, and was believed to be in the natural order of things. It did not need physical strength to assert itself, and when it did, it was only sporadically. It imposed itself mainly and irresistibly through the spirit.

At the origin of every true civilization there lies a "divine" event (every great civilization has its own myth concerning divine founders): thus, no human or naturalistic factor can fully account for it. The adulteration and decline of civilizations is caused by an event of the same order, though it acts in the opposite, degenerative sense.

According to the modern man, both causes and effects are relegated to the physical plane, framed within time and space. According to the traditional man the physical plane merely contains effects; nothing takes place in this world that did not originate first in the next world or in the invisible dimension.

Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and antihistorical; 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.

“Be radical, have principles, be absolute, be that which the bourgeoisie calls an extremist: give yourself without counting or calculating, don't accept what they call ‘the reality of life' and act in such a way that you won't be accepted by that kind of ‘life', never abandon the principle of struggle.”

My sister Sarah, with all the advantages of youth, was, strangely enough, less pliable. She did full justice to Pesca's excellent qualities of heart; but she could not accept him implicitly, as my mother accepted him, for my sake. Her insular notions of propriety rose in perpetual revolt against Pesca's constitutional contempt for appearances; and she was always more or less undisguisedly astonished at her mother's familiarity with the eccentric little foreigner. I have observed, not only in my sister's case, but in the instances of others, that we of the young generation are nothing like so hearty and so impulsive as some of our elders. I constantly see old people flushed and excited by the prospect of some anticipated pleasure which altogether fails to ruffle the tranquillity of their serene grandchildren. Are we, I wonder, quite such genuine boys and girls now as our seniors were in their time? Has the great advance in education taken rather too long a stride; and are we in these modern days, just the least trifle in the world too well brought up?

A political, economic, and social order created merely for the sake of temporal life is exclusively characteristic of the modern world, that is, of the antitraditional world.

حالما يتم اﻹقرار بالصفة المقدسة لقانون ما وكانت أصوله راجعة لتقليد غير بشري، حينها سلطته تصبح مطلقة؛ هذا القانون يصبح أقدس من أن يذكر، جامد، ثابت و وراء كل انتقاد. هكذا كل انتهاك لهذا القانون لا يعتبر كجريمة ضد المجتمع، بل أكثر من ذلك كتدنيس للمقدسات أو كفعل يعبر عن عدم التقوى، أو كفعل يعرض القدر الروحي للشخص الذي عصى للخطر فضلا عن الناس الذين كان هذا الشخص على علاقة بهم.

The older America, until the 1890s and in some respects until 1914, was wrapped in the security of continental isolation, village society, the Protestant denominations, and a flourishing industrial capitalism. But reluctantly, year by year, over several decades, it has been drawn into the twentieth century and forced to cope with its unpleasant realities: first the incursions of cosmopolitanism and skepticism, then the disappearance of American isolation and easy military security, the collapse of traditional capitalism and its supplementation by a centralized welfare state, finally the unrelenting costs and stringencies of the Second World War, the Korean War, and the cold war. As a consequence, the heartland of America, filled with people who are often fundamentalist in religion, nativist in prejudice, isolationist in foreign policy, and conservative in economics, has constantly rumbled with an underground revolt against all these tormenting manifestations of our modern predicament.

The dignity a god enjoys on earth is splendid, but hard to achieve for the weak. Only he who sets his soul on this objective, is worthy to become a king.' The ruler appears as a "follower of the discipline that is practiced by those who are gods among men.

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[.]

[T]hose who love to contrast the past with our recent times should consider what modern civilization has brought us to in terms of war. A change of level has occurred; from the warrior who fights for the honor and for the right of his lord, society has shifted to the type of the mere "soldier" that is found in association with the removal of all transcendent or even religious elements in the idea of fighting.

Knighthood, instead, appeared as a superterritorial and supernational community in which its members, who were consecrated to military priesthood, no longer had a homeland and thus were bound by faithfulness not to people but, on the one hand, to an ethics that had as its fundamental values honor, truth, courage, and loyalty and, on the other hand, to a spiritual authority of a universal type, which was essentially that of the Empire.

The people guilty of crossing the "caste line" were considered the only "impure" beings in the entire hierarchy... In India only the people "without a caste" were considered outcasts, and they were shunned even by the lowest caste, even if they had previously belonged to the highest caste; on the contrary, nobody felt humiliated by his own caste and even a sudra was as proud of and as committed to his own caste as a brahmana of the highest station was to his.

The "enemy" who resists us and the "infidel" within ourselves must be subdued and put in chains. This enemy is the animalistic yearning and instinct, the disorganized multiplicity of impulses, the limitations imposed on us by a fictitious self, and thus also fear, weakness, and uncertainty; this subduing of the enemy is the only way to achieve inner liberation or the rebirth in a state of a deeper inner unity and "peace" in the esoteric and triumphal sense of the word.

One thing becomes very clear; of the Empire declines and if it continues to exist only nominally, its antagonist, the Church, after enjoying untrammeled freedom from its ancient foe, did not know how to assume its legacy, and demonstrated its inability to organize the Western world according to the Guelph ideal. What replaced the Empire was not the Church at the head of a reinvigorated "Christendom," but the multiplicity of national states that were increasingly intolerant of any higher principle of authority.

It is a good thing for a man to live in a family for the same reason that it is a good thing for a man to be besieged in a city. It is a good thing for a man to live in a family in the same sense that it is a beautiful and delightful thing for a man to be snowed up in a street. They all force him to realise that life is not a thing from outside, but a thing from inside. Above all, they all insist upon the fact that life, if it be a truly stimulating and fascinating life, is a thing which, of its nature, exists in spite of ourselves. The modern writers who have suggested, in a more or less open manner, that the family is a bad institution, have generally confined themselves to suggesting, with much sharpness, bitterness, or, pathos, that perhaps the family is not always very congenial. Of course the family is a good institution because it is uncongenial. It is wholesome precisely because it contains so many divergencies and varieties. It is, as the sentimentalists say, like a little kingdom, and, like most other little kingdoms, is generally in a state of something resembling anarchy. It is exactly because our brother George is not interested in our religious difficulties, but is interested in the Trocadero Restaurant, that the family has some of the bracing qualities of the commonwealth. It is precisely because our uncle Henry does not approve of the theatrical ambitions of our sister Sarah that the family is like humanity. The men and women who, for good reasons and bad, revolt against the family, are, for good reasons and bad, simply revolting against mankind. Aunt Elizabeth is unreasonable, like mankind. Papa is excitable, like mankind. Our youngest brother is mischievous, like mankind. Grandpapa is stupid, like the world; he is old, like the world.

To fight on "the path of God" has been characterized as "medieval" fanaticism; conversely, it has been characterized as a most sacred cause to fight for "patriotic" and "nationalistic" ideals and for other myths that in our contemporary era have eventually been unmasked and shown to be the instruments of irrational, materialistic, and destructive forces... Soldiers went to the front to experience war as something else, namely, as a crisis that all too often did not turn out to be an authentic and heroic transfiguration of the personality, but rather the regression of the individual to a plane of savage instincts, "reflexes," and reactions that retain very little of the human

Thus, as far as the destiny of the soul after death is concerned, there are two opposite paths. The first is the "path of the gods," also known as the "solar path" or Zeus's path, which leads to the bright dwellings of the immortals. This dwelling was variously represented as a height, heaven, or an island, from the Nordic Valhalla and Asgard to the Aztec-Inca "House of the Sun" that was reserved for kings, heroes, and nobles. The other path is that trodden by those who do not survive in a real way, and who slowly yet inexorably dissolve back into their original stocks, into the "totems" that unlike single individuals, never die; this is the life of Hades, of the "infernals," of Niflheim, of the chthonic deities.

In order to understand the spiritual background typical of every non-modem civilization, it is necessary to retain the idea that the opposition between historical times and 'prehistoric' or 'mythological' times is not the relative opposition proper to two homogeneous parts of the same time frame, but rather the qualitative and substantial opposition between times (or experiences of time) that are not of the same kind. Traditional man did not have the same experience of time as modem man; he had a supertemporal sense of time and in this sensation lived every form of his world, Thus, the modem researchers of 'history' at a given point encounter an interruption of the series and an incomprehensible gap, beyond which they cannot construct any 'certain' and meaningful historical theory; they can only rely upon fragmentary, external, and often contradictory elements — unless they radically change their method and mentality.

The events of the last forty years have inflicted such a blow to the self confidence of Western civilization and to the belief in progress which was so strong during the nineteenth century, that men tend to go too far in the opposite direction: in fact the modern world is experiencing the same kind of danger which was so fatal to the ancient world--the crisis of which Gilbert Murray writes in his Four Stages of Greek Religion as "The Loss of Nerve.” There have been signs of this in Western literature for a long time past, and it has already had a serious effect on Western culture an education. This is the typical tragedy of the intelligentsia as shown in nineteenth century Russia and often in twentieth century Germany: the case of a society or class devoting enormous efforts to higher education and to the formation of an intellectual elite and then finding that the final result of the system is to breed a spirit of pessimism and nihilism and revolt. There was something seriously wrong about an educational system which cancelled itself out in this way, which picked out the ablest minds in a society and subjected them to an intensive process of competitive development which ended in a revolutionary or cynical reaction against the society that produced it. But behind these defects of an over-cerebralized and over-competitive method of education, there is the deeper cause in the loss of the common spiritual background which unifies education with social life. For the liberal faith in progress which inspired the nineteenth century was itself a substitute for the simpler and more positive religious faith which was the vital bond of the Western community. If we wish to understand our past and the inheritance of Western culture, we have to go behind the nineteenth century development and study the old spiritual community of Western Christendom as an objective historical reality.

Within a nominally Christian world, chivalry upheld without any substantial alterations an Aryan ethics in the following things: (1) upholding the ideal of the hero rather than the saint, and of the conqueror rather than of the martyr; (2) regarding faithfulness and honor, rather than caritas and humbleness, as the highest virtues; (3) regarding cowardice and dishonor, rather than sin, as the worst possible evil; (4) ignoring or hardly putting into practice the evangelical precepts of not opposing evil and not retaliating against offenses, but rather, methodically punishing unfairness and evil; (5) excluding from its ranks those who followed the Christian precept ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ to the letter; and (6) refusing to love one’s enemy and instead fighting him and being magnanimous only after defeating him. ... In reality, chivalry was animated by the impulse toward a ‘traditional’ restoration in the highest sense of the word, with the silent or explicit overcoming of the Christian religious spirit.

Being raised evangelical in the Midwest gave me a personal experience of the phenomenon called “religious fundamentalism.” A story illustrates. When I was a boy in high school, I was interested in a girl from our church. It was an evangelical church, although some might have called it a bit fundamentalist—taking a hard line on cultural issues. But I took a chance and invited her to a movie, which was certainly frowned upon back then in our church culture (though my own parents snuck us out to Walt Disney movies at the drive-in, where we were unlikely to be spotted). I chose The Sound of Music, thinking it was “safe.” Who could object to Julie Andrews, I confidently thought? I was wrong. As we left the house, my girlfriend’s father stood in the doorway, blocking our exit, and said to his daughter, “If you go to this film, you’ll be trampling on everything that we’ve taught you to believe.” She fled downstairs to her bedroom in tears. We missed the movie, and the evening was a disaster. A year later, the fundamentalist father watched The Sound of Music on his television—and liked it. Fundamentalism is essentially a revolt against modernity. It is a reaction usually based on profound fear and defensiveness against “losing the faith.” My girlfriend’s father instinctively knew that his religion should make him different than the world. That is a fair religious point, and to be honest, there is much about modernity that deserves some revolting against. But I wish he had chosen to break with America at the point of its materialism, racism, poverty, or violence. Instead, he chose Julie Andrews.

Ao cabo de séculos de «escravidão» a mulher quis pois ser livre, ser ela própria. Mas o «femininismo» não soube conceber para a mulher uma personalidade que não fosse uma imitação da masculina, de maneira que as suas «reivindicações» ocultam uma desconfiança fundamental da mulher nova em relação a si mesma, a impotência desta para ser o que é e a contar pelo que ela é: como mulher e não como homem. Devido a esta fatal incompreensão, a mulher moderna experimentou o sentimento de uma inferioridade absolutamente imaginária por ser apenas mulher e sente quase como ofensa o ser tratada «só como mulher». Foi esta a origem de uma falsa vocação frustrada: e é precisamente por isso que a mulher quis tirar uma desforra, reivindicar a sua «dignidade», mostrar o seu «valor» - passando a medir--se com o homem. Todavia, não se tratava de maneira nenhuma do homem verdadeiro, mas sim do homem-construção, do homem-fantoche de uma civilização standardizada, racionalizada, não implicando quase mais nada de diferenciado e qualitativo. Numa civilização como esta, evidentemente, já não se pode tratar de um privilégio legítimo qualquer, e as mulheres incapazes de reconhecer a sua vocação natural e de defendê-la, a não ser pelo plano mais baixo (pois nenhuma mulher sexualmente feliz sentiu alguma vez a necessidade de imitar e de invejar o homem), conseguiram facilmente demonstrar que também elas possuíam virtualmente as faculdades e as habilitações - materiais e intelectuais - que se encontram no outro sexo e que, em geral, se exigem e se apreciam numa sociedade de tipo moderno. O homem, de resto, deixou andar as coisas como um verdadeiro irresponsável, e até ajudou e impeliu a mulher para as ruas, para os escritórios, para as escolas, para as fábricas e para todas as encruzilhadas contaminantes da sociedade e da cultura modernas. Foi assim que se deu o último empurrão nivelador. (...) A mulher tradicional, a mulher absoluta, ao dar-se, ao não viver para si, ao querer ser toda para outro ser com simplicidade e pureza, realizava-se, pertencia-se a si mesma, tinha um heroísmo muito seu - e, no fundo, tornava-se superior ao homem comum. A mulher moderna ao querer ser por si mesma destruiu-se. A tão aspirada «personalidade» está a tirar-lhe toda a personalidade.

The sensational event of the ancient world was the mobilisation of the underworld against the established order. This enterprise of Christianity had no more to do with religion than Marxist socialism has to do with the solution of the social problem. The notions represented by Jewish Christianity were strictly unthinkable to Roman brains. The ancient world had a liking for clarity. Scientific research was encouraged there. The gods, for the Romans, were familiar images. It is some what difficult to know whether they had any exact idea of the Beyond. For them, eternal life was personified in living beings, and it consisted in a perpetual renewal. Those were conceptions fairly close to those which were current amongst the Japanese and Chinese at the time when the Swastika made its appearance amongst them. It was necessary for the Jew to appear on the scene and introduce that mad conception of a life that continues into an alleged Beyond! It enables one to regard life as a thing that is negligible here below—since it will flourish later, when it no longer exists. Under cover of a religion, the Jew has introduced intolerance in a sphere in which tolerance formerly prevailed. Amongst the Romans, the cult of the sovereign intelligence was associated with the modesty of a humanity that knew its limits, to the point of consecrating altars to the unknown god. The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world—in order to ruin it—re-opened the same breach in modern times, this time taking as his pretext the social question. It's the same sleight-of-hand as before. Just as Saul was changed into St. Paul, Mardochai became Karl Marx. Peace can result only from a natural order. The condition of this order is that there is a hierarchy amongst nations. The most capable nations must necessarily take the lead. In this order, the subordinate nations get the greater profit, being protected by the more capable nations. It is Jewry that always destroys this order. It constantly provokes the revolt of the weak against the strong, of bestiality against intelligence, of quantity against quality. It took fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity. We would therefore be wrong to sin by excess of confidence and proclaim our definite victory over Bolshevism. The more we render the Jew incapable of harming us, the more we shall protect ourselves from this danger. The Jew plays in nature the rôle of a catalysing element. A people that is rid of its Jews returns spontaneously to the natural order. In 1925 I wrote in Mein Kampf (and also in an unpublished work) that world Jewry saw in Japan an opponent beyond its reach. The racial instinct is so developed amongst the Japanese therefore compelled to act from outside. It would be to the considered interests of England and the United States to come to an understanding with Japan, but the Jew will strive to prevent such an understanding. I gave this warning in vain. A question arises. Does the Jew act consciously and by calculation, or is he driven on by his instinct? I cannot answer that question. The intellectual élite of Europe (whether professors of faculties, high officials, or whatever else) never understood anything of this problem. The élite has been stuffed with false ideas, and on these it lives. It propagates a science that causes the greatest possible damage. Stunted men have the philosophy of stunted men. They love neither strength nor health, and they regard weakness and sickness as supreme values. Since it's the function that creates the organ, entrust the world for a few centuries to a German professor—and you'll soon have a mankind of cretins, made up of men with big heads set upon meagre bodies.

بما أن "مخاطر الروح" معنية، اﻹنسان الحديث، الذي يتفاخر بكونه أخيرا حر ومنور، والذي يضحك على العصور القديمة التقليدية المستمدة من تلك العلاقة المختلفة بين اﻷنا وغير_اﻷنا، هو في الحقيقة يخدع نفسه ليظن أنه في مأمن منهم. هاته المخاطر حصلت فقط على أشكال جديدة؛ الرجل الحديث مفتوح على كل تعقيدات "اللاوعي الجماعي"، على التيارات العاطفية والغير عقلانية، على التأثير الجماعي وعلى إيديولوجيات لها تأثيرات جد مؤذية و وباعثة عن اﻷسى أكثر من تلك الموجودة في العصور اﻷخرى والمستمدة من مؤثرات مختلفة.

[T]here is a dangerous re-evaluation and exploitation of the work of Guénon as the inspirer of a "traditionalist" or "spiritualist" reaction to the modern world. They are often nothing other than attempts to manipulate the universal doctrine in order to legitimize certain thinking or power trends that are only interested in the government of this world, and which have no sense of the sacred. These readers of Guénon seem to get lost in fruitless analytic speculation about the crisis of the modern world or about a hypothetical militant revolt against it. So they make the mistake of always looking for evil outside themselves, creating a justification for being better than other people simply because they have read the work of Guénon and because the rest of the world is in chaos. They confuse their contempt for the chaos in the world with their contempt for the world itself, and their contempt for individuality with their contempt for humanity. They forget that humanity and the world are the fruit of God's creation and that, in any phase of a cosmic cycle, the life of every man is necessarily subject to the battle between the forces of good and evil. It is therefore to overcome those illusions of the soul that are a product of that imagination that is so typical of modern man who, not wanting to make the necessary changes to raise himself up spiritually by learning to control his instincts and stifling his own individuality, by a biased interpretation of tradition, tries to drag down the level of the world by disapproving of the decline of modern man in order to congratulate himself on his own supposed superiority. These people, rather than constructively delving into traditional teaching, only drag out arguments from tradition in order to oppose today's aberrations, and inevitably end up being trapped and fall into a form of dualism between good and evil, incapable of understanding the providential nature of the world that will remain like this as long as God allows it to continue to exist to be used for good. The next steps taken by these incurable idealists are usually to build a sand castle or an ivory tower lived in by a group of people romantically banded together by elective affinities or by an unstoppable missionary spirit aimed at forming a traditional society. Both cases are only a parody of the spiritual responsibility of every person on earth who lives in the world with the sincere aspiration to a genuine intellectual elevation, with a balanced awareness of a dimension of the Creation that is both universal and eschatological. On the one hand, we have people trapped like prisoners in a fantasy about the other world who often become theorists about the detachment from this world and, on the other hand, there are the militants of the illusions of this world who create confusion about the reality of the other world. Prisoners and theorists, fantasies, illusions and confusions, are all expressions of how far we are from an authentic traditional and spiritual perspective. But, above all, we must recognize that in some of these poor readers, there is a chronic inability to distinguish and bring together this world and the other world, without confusing them, and therefore cannot really understand the teachings of Shaykh 'Abd al -Wahid Yahya René Guénon and apply them to their lives.

طبقا للتقليد، كل سلطة هي احتيال، كل قانون هو ظالم ومتوحش، كل مؤسسة هي عقيمة وسريعة الزوال، مالم يكونوا صادرين عن المبدأ اﻷعلى لل"كينونة"، ومالم يكونوا مشتقون من الفوق وموجهون نحو اﻷعلى.

نقاء الدم أو العرق هما عاملان لهما قيمة في الحضارة التقليدية أيضا؛ قيمتهم، على أي، لا تبرر وظيفتهم، في حالة الكائن البشري، بنفس المعايير التي توظف بها لتحقيق وجود دم نقي في كلب أو حصان__ كما في حالة بعض اﻹيديولوجيات العنصرية الحديثة.

ﺗﻨﺎﻓﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ، ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺏ،ﻟﻴﺴﻮﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺒﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺧﺮﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺎﺭﺓ، فﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﺮ، ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺰﻭ، ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﺣﺘﻰ مﺎﺩﻳﺎ ﺃﻧﺴﺠﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﻭﻳﺔ، ﺗﺤﻴﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻈﻬﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﻠﻲ، ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﺩﻭﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺗﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻔﺾ، ﺍﻟﺸﻲء ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻬﻞ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻋﻤﻖ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﻧﺤﻼﻝ ﻟﻤﻤﻜﻨﺔ.

Baron de Coubertin, father of the modern Games, saw the Olympics as a chance to recognize and reward the struggle not the triumph. Former President of the Games, Avery Brundage, described them as ‘the greatest social force in the world’, seeing them as a revolt against twentieth-century materialism and discrimination – of whatever kind. To me, Eddie Edwards, they were, quite simply, the greatest days of my entire life.

Modern positivism draws its zeal from the conviction that there is, and can be, no order among humans that is not itself a product of the power of the human imagination – that is to say, the imagination of the enlightened few (the intellectuals who know) and their power to impose it on the unenlightened many (the ordinary mortals who get by on belief). This is different from the old Hobbesian position that there can be no order in the world because everybody seeks power and consequently will be involved in a war of all against all until someone decisively wins that war. … [Rather] than merely averting the war of all against all, which is the universal bad, political power should restore ‘human dignity’ by liberating humanity from the baleful consequences of its nature and its history. That liberation is supposed to be the universal good; to seek it is the hallmark of the progressive mind … ‘the revolt against, and liberation from, history and nature’, which is the original motive of the religious movement called Gnosticism.

[T]he proud self-assurance with which traditional man reacted valiantly and superindividually against the unrighteous, armed with faith and the sword, and the spiritual impassibility that placed him in an a prior, absolute relation to a supernatural power not subject to the power of the elements, sensations, and natural laws-all these things have come to be considered mere 'superstitions.

However, the objection that all truth is a power play falls prey to the same problem as the objection that all truth is culturally conditioned. If you try to explain away all assertions of truth as one or the other or something else you find yourself in an untenable position. C. S. Lewis writes in The Abolition of Man: But you cannot go on ‘explaining away’ for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? . . . a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see.6 If you say all truth-claims are power plays, then so is your statement. If you say (like Freud) that all truth-claims about religion and God are just psychological projections to deal with your guilt and insecurity, then so is your statement. To see through everything is not to see. Foucault was pressing the truth of his analysis on others even as he denied the very category of truth. Some kind of truth-claim, then, seems unavoidable. The inconsistency of working against oppression when you refuse to admit there is such a thing as truth is the reason that postmodern ‘theory’ and ‘deconstruction’ is perhaps on the wane.7 G. K. Chesterton made this very same point nearly a hundred years ago: The new rebel is a sceptic, and will not trust anything . . . [but] therefore he can never be really a revolutionary. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind. . . . Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything. . . . There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped.8

Before Luther's vehemence many humanists and others desirous of reform in the church now began to lose confidence that he was the prophet for whom they so earnestly waited. Erasmus had committed himself firmly to neutrality. Now his hostility to Luther hardened. A Louvain theologian, Peter Barbirius, tried to coax him into an alliance against Luther. Erasmus replied bitterly on August 13, 1521. He said he had read less than a dozen pages of Luther, and he reproached those who had attacked Luther as a seditious person inciting the common people to revolt-as Latomus had done, although Erasmus did not mention him by name. His bitterness and hostility extended to the Lutheran camp and to those Lutherans who "by odious means" had tried to seduce him to their side. Yet, said he to Barbirius, "I fear that they are very numerous who with mighty invective attack secondary propositions among Luther such as, Although one may do good works, they are sinful,' although they themselves do not believe in that which creates the foundation of our faith, that the soul survives the death of the body."'' Erasmus called such a paradoxical statement a "secondary proposition," and we may be tempted to follow his lead. On one level Luther's declaration that all good works are tainted with sin sounds like modern questions based on sociobiology and psychological inquiry. Is selfless human action possible, or is there in the very performance of an unselfish act a superior sense of generosity and magnanimity that are desirable emotional rewards for benevolence? At a certain point such questions may seem to lead only to sophomoric squabbles over meaningless issues. For Luther something grand and fundamental was at stake. That was that morality could not become a substitute for intimate involvement in the drama of redemption. To those satisfied with their conduct in the world (as most of us usually are) Luther's message was one of radical introspection, intended to drive us not to the enumeration of our sinful acts but to the examination of the spirit that motivated them. In the complexity of that infinite rejection of our own power of disinterested benevolence, we were to be driven to a saving despair about ourselves and into the arms of Christ, who alone could save us. Morality without Christ might have value in the world in helping people get along with one another, and Luther never denied the role of reason in helping human beings create orderly societies. By his assertion that we sin when we do good works, he made a frontal assault on Renaissance intellectuals enamored not only with classical literature but with the proud sense of culture that was part of it. He implicitly attacked the pride not only of those who found virtue in giving alms, going on pilgrimage, and the like but also of those who claimed to be good because they imitated virtuous men of classical times. Luther made Christ the only virtue and made it impossible to speak of goodness in any way without calling Christ into the argument.

This is what I think about the degeneration of the idea of regere once it has become secularized and separated from the traditional spiritual basis: it is merely a temporal and centralizing idea. When considering yet another aspect of this deviation, one will notice that it is typical of all priestly castes to refuse to acknowledge the imperial function and to aim at deconsecration of the concept of state and of royalty. Thus, without often realizing it, the priestly caste contributed to the formation of that lay and "realistic" mentality that unavoidably was destined to rise up against priestly authority itself and to ban any of its effective interferences against the state.

Il est donc facile de prévoir ce que doive devenir, dans cette perspective, les relations entre les sexes, y compris sur le plan matériel. Ici, comme dans le magnétisme, plus forte est la polarité, plus l'homme est vraiment homme et la femme vraiment femme, plus haute et vive est l'étincelle créatrice. En revanche, que peut-il y avoir entre ces êtres mixtes, privés de tout rapport avec les forces de leur nature la plus profonde ? Entre ces êtres où la sexualité commence et finit sur le plan physiologique, à supposer même que des inclinations anormales, celle du « troisième sexe », ne se soient pas déjà manifesté ? Entre ces êtres dont l'âme n'est ni masculine, ni féminine, ou bien qui sont féminins tout en étant des hommes et masculins tout en étant des femmes, et qui exaltent comme un au-delà du sexe ce qui, en fait, est régression en-deçà du sexe ? Toute relation ne pourra plus avoir qu'un caractère équivoque et falot : promiscuité agrémentée d'esprit de camaraderie, morbides sympathies « intellectuelles », banalité du nouveau réalisme communiste – ou bien souffrira de complexes névrotiques et de tout ce sur quoi Freud a édifié une « science » qui est vraiment un authentique signe des temps. (1934)

It is my governing conviction, in all that follows, that much of modernity should be understood not as a grand revolt against the tyranny of faith, not as a movement of human liberation and progress, but as a counterrevolution, a reactionary rejection of a freedom which it no longer understands, but upon which it remains parasitic. Even when modern persons turn away from Christian conviction, there are any number of paths that have been irrevocably closed to them—either because they lead toward philosophical positions that Christianity has assumed successfully into its own story, or because they lead toward forms of “superstition” that Christianity has rendered utterly incredible to modern minds. A post-Christian unbeliever is still, most definitely, for good or for ill, post-Christian. We live in a world transformed by an ancient revolution—social, intellectual, metaphysical, moral, spiritual—the immensity of which we often only barely grasp.

Modern political systems are labeled liberal democracies because they unite two disparate principles. Liberalism is based on a rule of law that maintains a level playing field for all citizens, particularly the right to private property, which is critical for economic growth and prosperity. The democratic part, political choice, is the enforcer of communal choices and accountable to the citizenry as a whole. Over the past few years, we’ve witnessed revolts around the world of the democratic part of this equation against the liberal one.

Dans une société où le type de l'homme viril – quand il ne s'identifie pas à la larve blafarde appelée « intellectuel » ou « professeur », au fantoche narcissique dénommé « artiste », ou à cette petite machine affairée qu'est le banquier ou le politicien – est représenté par le boxeur ou l'acteur de cinéma ; dans une telle société, il était naturel que la femme se révoltât et revendiquât pour elle aussi une « personnalité » et une liberté au sens moderne, donc anarchiste et individualiste, de ces termes. Alors que l'éthique traditionnelle demandait à l'homme et à la femme d'être toujours plus eux-mêmes, d'exprimer par des traits de plus en plus nets ce qui fait de l'un un homme, de l'autre une femme – nous voyons la civilisation moderne se tourner vers le nivellement, vers l'informe, vers un stade qui, en réalité, n'est pas au-delà, mais en-deçà de l'individuation et de la différence entre sexes.

Most areas of intellectual life have discovered the virtues of speculation, and have embraced it wildly. In academia, speculation is usually dignified as theory. It’s fascinating that even though the intellectual stance of the post-modern deconstructionist era is against theory, particularly overarching theory, in reality what every academic wants to express is theory. This is, in part, aping science, but it’s also an escape hatch. Your close textual reading of Jane Austen could well be wrong, and could be shown to be wrong by a more knowledgeable critic. But your theory of radical feminization and authoritarian revolt in the work of Jane Austen—with reference to your own childhood feelings—is untouchable. Similarly, your analysis of the origins of the First World War could be debated by other authorities. But your New Historicist essay, which includes your own fantasy about what it would be like if you were fighting in the first war…well, that’s unarguable. And even better, how about a theory of the origin of warfare beginning with Paleolithic cave men? That’s really unarguable.

The acceleration that characterizes all falling bodies causes the phase of individualism and rationalism to be overcome and to be followed by the emergence of irrational and elemental forces characterized by mystical overtones. It is here that we encounter further developments in the well-known process of regression. In the domain of culture this regression is accompanied by an upheaval that has been characterized with the expression "treason of the clerics.

Lead a cheerful, happy revolt against the spirit of materialism. It was said of Saint Francis and his band of followers that they “led a cheerful, happy revolt against the spirit of materialism.”59 They saw spreading Jesus’ message of simplicity as one and the same with spreading his message of joy. You don’t have to be grouchy about it or all uptight over how many socks you own. Just smile, relax, and let joy be your weapon in the fight. We often hear, “Less, but better.” But what if less is better?

For Evola, the key to life beyond life, to initiation, that is, to the Beginning, to the Origin, is precisely the ultimate oneness of Above and Below — spirit and matter, as well as spiritual and worldly power. Subject and object, myth and history, inner and outer, and thereby also word and deed. According to Evola, this unity that does not recognize other was the sign of the Original, the Godly man. For this man, looking inward was the same as looking outward, and every word, through the magic imagination, was simultaneously the fulfilment of the imagined.

Dem Zustand «Beständigkeit-Festigkeit» sind esoterisch noch die Attribute «olympisch« und «Friede» zugehörig. Die Könige, «die ihre uralte Macht auf den obersten Gott zurückführen und den Sieg aus seinen Händen empfangen haben, sind Lichter des Friedens im Sturm». Neben «Glorie», «Zentralität» (Pol-Sein) und Festigkeit ist Friede eines der Grundattribute des Königtums, was sich bis in relativ moderne Zeiten erhalten hat: Dante spricht vom imperator pacificus, «dem friedvollen Herrscher», einem Titel, den schon Karl der Große empfangen hatte. Natürlich handelt es sich dabei nicht um den weltlichen, äußeren, auf das politische System bezogenen Frieden, der höchstens Widerschein sein kann, sondern um einen inneren, positiven Frieden, der mit dem schon besprochenen «triumphalen» Element verbunden ist, so daß er nicht ein Aufhören, sondern vielmehr eine Vervoll- kommnung des Handelns ausdrückt, eines reinen, gesamthaften und in sich gesammelten Handelns. Es ist jene Ruhe gemeint, die tatsächlich das Über- natürliche bezeugt.

And yet, at the end of the story nothing has been said about what prostitution is, why it exists, or how it works. Instead, we have heard a contemporary saga of progress, a romantic tale of how an old, decaying tradition long tried to keep people down and tell them how they should live - until some brave individuals rebelled in order to gain the right to live as they wanted, standing up for freedom and sexuality! It is a story we know all too well. It fits into an even larger story: the revolt of sexuality against morality, Romeo and Juliet against their parents' narrow-mindedness, romantic love against arranged marriage, lust against the church, and also the sexual revolution, the 1968 revolt, anti-establishment rock and hippie cultures and their accompanying promotion of freedom and sex. In just a few quick rhetorical turns, prostitution became a contemporary story. Voilà, the total makeover of prostitution: once considered the world's oldest profession, prostitution is now the world's most modern one.

There was a stubborn strain of authoritarianism in More that embarrasses some of his modern admirers. Having never revolted against his own father, he could be merciless to those who dared to rebel against the surrogate fathers that every society raises as a standard of order in the world.

More traditional and conformist values ultimately give way to more progressive ones. Cultures that go against that progression regress or fail (ahem . . . Japan). It’s constructive that conservatives challenge new liberal technologies and values. That’s how we test these things and separate what’s productive and acceptable from what’s nonproductive and unacceptable. It demonstrates the ultimate principle of cycles and progress: the play of opposites. Like male and female, boom and bust, inflation and deflation, liberals and conservatives aren’t right or wrong. They are yin and yang. Inseparable. Together, they create the energy and innovation necessary for real life to function and evolve, just as opposite poles create energy in a battery. This dynamic has created the differences and comparative advantages in our global culture today . . . the very ones the world’s citizens are revolting against. And as this revolution runs its course, we’ll ultimately move back toward globalizing . . . to our mutual advantage and pain. The backlash against globalization is necessary at this extreme point, and it will take decades to work out. But it’s not the ultimate result. It’s just the pause that refreshes.

Recently a newly revised and expanded edition of my Revolt against the Modern World appeared and I think it was mentioned in it your Treatise on the History of Religions [not true]. But about this, and I say it a little tongue in cheek, one should employ some Vergeltungen [revenge]. The fact is striking that your works are so overly concerned to not mention any author who does not strictly belong to the official university literature; in your works, e.g., that lovable good man Pettazzoni [Italian professor of religion] is abundantly cited, while not a single word is found about Guenon, and not even other authors whose ideas are much closer to those that permit you to certainly orient yourself in the material that you write about. It stands to reason that this is something that concerns only you, but it would be the chance to ask yourself if, all things considered, if imposing these “academic” limitations is a game that is worth the candle. I hope that you will not resent these friendly observations. Letters from Evola to Eliade (II) - 15 Dec 1951

The society of the spectacle paints its own picture of itself and its enemies, imposes its own ideological categories on the world and its history. Fear is the very last response. For everything that happens is reassuringly part of the natural order of things. Real historical changes, which show that this society can be superseded, are reduced to the status of novelties, processed for mere consumption. The revolt of youth against an imposed and “given” way of life is the first sign of a total subversion. It is the prelude to a period of revolt — the revolt of those who can no longer live in our society. Faced with a danger, ideology and its daily machinery perform the usual inversion of reality. A historical process becomes a pseudo-category of some socio-natural science: the Idea of Youth. Youth is in revolt, but this is only the eternal revolt of youth; every generation espouses ”good causes,” only to forget them when ”the young man begins the serious business of production and is given concrete and real social aims.” After the social scientists come the journalists with their verbal inflation. The revolt is contained by overexposure: we are given it to contemplate so that we shall forget to participate. In the spectacle, a revolution becomes a social aberration– in other words a social safety valve–which has its part to play in the smooth working of the system . . . In reality, if there is a problem of youth in modern capitalism it is part of the total crisis of that society. It is just that youth feels the crisis most acutely.

Répétons-le : le mythe de l’évolution n’est rien d’autre que la profession de foi du parvenu. Dans sa dernière époque, l’Occident a préféré comme vérité non l’origine d’en haut mais l’origine d’en bas, non la noblesse des temps primordiaux mais l’idée que la civilisation naît à partir de la barbarie, que la religion pousse sur la superstition, que l’homme dérive de la bête (Darwin), la pensée de la matière, que toute forme spirituelle provient de la « sublimation » ou transposition de la matière originelle de l’instinct, de la libido, des complexes de l’« inconscient collectif » (Freud, Jung), et ainsi de suite. Mais tout cela n’est pas tant le résultat d’une recherche déviée que, et précisément, un alibi, quelque chose que devait nécessairement croire et vouloir vraie une civilisation fondée par des êtres venant du bas, par la révolution des serfs et des parias contre l’ancienne société aristocratique. Il n’y a pas de domaine où, sous une forme ou sous une autre, le mythe évolutionniste ne se voit insinué de façon destructrice, au point de renverser toute valeur, de prémunir contre tout pressentiment de la vérité, d’élaborer et de renforcer dans toutes ses parties une espèce de cercle magique sans issue, l’organisation d’un monde humain désacralisé et prévaricateur. De concert avec l’historicisme, l’« Idéalisme » post­ hégélien en arriva à voir l’être de l’« Esprit Absolu » dans son « auto-production », dans son « autoctise ». Ce n’est plus l’Être qui est, qui domine, qui se possède lui-même : c’est le self-made man comme modèle métaphysique.

For in 66 CE Judea rose up against the masters of the ancient world in a rebellion known as the Great Revolt.

In the world of Tradition the most important foundation of the authority and the right (ius) of kings and chiefs, and the reason they why they were obeyed, feared, and venerated, was essentially their transcendent and nonhuman quality. This quality was not artificial, but a powerful reality to be feared. The more people acknowledged the ontological rank of what was prior and superior to the visible and temporal dimension, the more such beings were invested with a natural and absolute sovereign power. Traditional civilizations, unlike those of decadent and later times, completely ignored the merely political dimension of supreme authority as well as the idea that the roots of authority law in mere strength, violence, or natural and secular qualities such as intelligence, wisdom, physical courage, and a minute concern for the collective material well-being. The roots of authority, on the contrary, always had a metaphysical character. Likewise, the idea that the power to govern is conferred on the chief by those whom he rules and that his authority is and expression of the community and therefore subject to its decrees, was foreign to tradition.

Eventually, the spark that ignited the Great Syrian Revolt was a deep-seated sense of grievance among the Druze at the usurpation of their traditional systems of rule and administration by the French. With the establishment of the state of Jabal al-Druze, there was an expectation that some degree of autonomy would be implemented. Instead, traditional rule was bypassed, and direct French government resulted in a series of reforms and modernization that proved to be deeply unpopular. On August 23, 1925, the Druze Sultan Pasha al-Atrash announced a revolution, calling on the dispersed tribes of Syria to rise against the French. The call was incredibly successful, and tribal leaders across the mandated region responded. While the response was not universal, it was certainly widespread and focused mainly on a traditional leadership suffering marginalization by the French. In an initial series of battles, the French, who were taken utterly by surprise, suffered defeats and lost cities, including Damascus, but it did not take long for massive French reinforcements, drawn mainly from Lebanon, Morocco and Senegal, to turn the tide. The French army was well equipped and well trained, and it was always likely to defeat a hastily  mounted rebellion. Most of the captured cities were retaken, and the rebels were pushed back into the countryside, from where resistance ebbed and flared for another two years.  Sultan al-Atrash and various other national leaders were captured and sentenced, while others scattered, taking refuge outside the borders of the Mandate.

Lenin said that religion is the opium of the people. This profound remark will readily explain the sleepy submission, the supine placidity, the dull and drowsy obedience of the Irish people; as compared with the wild revolutionary frenzy, the incessant insurrection and revolt, the bloody riots and endless street- battles of the English people. Nobody ... can doubt that ... the Irish populace is passionately religious. It therefore follows, by the strict logic of Lenin, that the Irish populace has always been particularly patient and subservient and contented. Nobody who has lived in England all his life, as I have, can doubt that modern England, with its many manly and generous virtues, has become largely indifferent to religion. It follows therefore, by the strict logic of Lenin, that the English are the best Bolshevists in the world. To suppose anything else would be to indulge in the audacity, nay the blasphemy, of supposing that there is something wrong in the logic of Lenin.... The inference is that it is only by believing in God that we could possibly believe in the Government. But the truth is that it is only by believing in God that we can ever criticise the Government. Once abolish the God, and the Government becomes the God. That fact is written all across human history; but it is written most plainly across that recent history of Russia; which was created by Lenin. There the Government is the God, and all the more the God, because it proclaims aloud in accents of thunder, like every other God worth worshipping, the one essential commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods but Me.” Lenin only fell into a slight error; he only got it the wrong way round. The truth is that Irreligion is the opium of the people. Wherever the people do not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world. But, above all, they will worship the strongest thing in the world. And, by the very nature of the Bolshevist and many other modern systems, as well as by the practical working of almost any system, the State will be the strongest thing in the world. The whole tendency of men is to treat the solitary State as the solitary standard. That men may protest against law, it is necessary that they should believe in justice; that they may believe in a justice beyond law, it is necessary that they should believe in a justice beyond the land of living men. You can impose the rule of the Bolshevist as you can impose the rule of the Bourbons; but it is equally an imposition. You can even make its subjects contented, as opium would make them contented. But if you are to have anything like divine discontent, then it must really be divine. Anything that really comes from below must really come from above. - from "Christendom in Dublin", Chapter 3, "Very Christian Democracy