This site covers a range of intertwined topics — politics, history, ecology, race, metaphysics, philosophy, etc.
The aims of this site are:
- To help people orientate themselves in our increasingly deranged world.
- To expose the origin of this chaotic nightmare; who engineered it and why.
- To help people make sense of the great conflicts of our era; national vs global, order vs chaos, tradition vs progress.
This site is geared towards presenting the truth, to the greatest degree possible. As such, you’ll find a lot of useful empirical data, statistics, studies, and citations featured throughout.
The most frequently asked question I get is “what ideology do you identify with?” The simple answer is that I don’t, but capital-T Traditionalism is the closest “ideology” to my worldview (more Evola, less Guénon), though I take a more naturalistic, biological materialist stance on issues of race and politics in general. If you don’t know what that means, my results from various political quiz things may give you an idea of where I stand in relation to other ideologies (see below). I realize that these are pretty much astrological charts for internet politics people, but they at least provide a basic representation of ideological stances.
To see how Traditionalism relates to other ideologies, read the following quotes from Evola himself:
“My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.”Julius Evola
“Liberalism, then democracy, then socialism, then radicalism, and finally Communism and Bolshevism, only appeared historically as steps taken by the same evil, as stages in which each one prepares the next in the complex unity of a process of decline. The beginning of this process is the point at which Western man shattered the fetters of tradition, rejected every superior symbol of authority and sovereignty, claimed a vain and illusory liberty for himself as an individual, and became an atom instead of a conscious part in the organic and hierarchical unity of a whole. In the end, the atom was bound to find that the mass of the other atoms, the other individuals, had turned against him, and he was dragged into the plight of the kingdom of quantity, of pure number, of masses that are given over completely to materialism and who have no other god than the sovereign economy. In this process there is no stopping halfway down the road. Without the French Revolution and liberalism, there would not have been constitutionalism and democracy; without democracy there would not have been socialism and demagogic nationalism; without the preparation of socialism there would not have been radicalism and, finally, Communism. The fact that today we see these different forms frequently together or in opposition should not prevent an eye that sees clearly from recognising that they belong together. They are linked, they condition one another in turn, and they express only the different steps of the same current, the same subversion of every normal and legitimate social ordering. The great illusion of our days is that democracy and liberalism are the antithesis of Communism […] This illusion is like saying that dusk is the antithesis of night, that an illness’s incipient stage is the antithesis of its acute and endemic stage, or that a diluted poison is the antithesis of the same poison in its pure and concentrated state.”Julius Evola, Orientations (1950/1971)
“Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the centre of which is constituted of technology, science, production, “productivity,” and “consumption.” And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential…”Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins (1953)
“The history of the West [is] not the much-spoken-of ‘evolution’, but rather an ‘involution’ – more precisely, successive falls from each of the four hierarchical degrees to the next. It is quite clear, in fact, that civilisation of the pure heroic-sacral type can only be found in a more or less prehistoric period of the Aryan tradition. It was succeeded by civilisations at the top of which was the authority no longer of spiritual leaders, but of exponents of warrior nobility – and this is the age of the historical monarchies up to the period of revolutions. With the French and American revolutions the Third Estate becomes the most important, determining the cycle of bourgeois civilisations. Marxism and Bolshevism, finally, seem to lead to the final fall, the passage of power and authority to the hands of the last of the castes of ancient Aryan hierarchy.”Julius Evola, Metaphysics of War (Assorted essays, 1930s-40s)