Radical Traditionalism

infoterror

Member
Apr 17, 2005
1,191
2
38
RADICAL TRADITIONALISM
by Bill White

Radical Traditionalism is the doctrine of the occult and initiatic religious school created by the Italian Baron Julius Evola in the early and mid parts of the 20th Century. Because it is "occult" the doctrines it teaches are "hidden" (occult means hidden). To understand it requires research and study into areas of anthropology, history and religion that are concealed from the mainstream of the population, and which represent lost wisdom. Tradionalism synthesizes the major religions of culture -- the pagan faiths of Central America, Europe and Asia, as well as Stoicism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism and other major Eurasian cultural views. It is a non-Semitic religious tradition, meaning that it does not exist within the context of Judaism-Christianity-Islam, and it holds a generally negative views of those religions*.

What follows is the core "story" of Traditionalism, and its major beliefs. Because it is initiatic, the understanding of one idea in the faith is based upon the understanding of other, lesser ideas. By incrementally increasing one's understanding of this wisdom by degrees, one goes from the common understanding one has of the world to a deeper and more meaningful understand of the "hidden" underlying structure of the world. Because this knowledge is acquired by degrees, if one is exposed to the conclusions of a higher degree before one has understood the lesser ideas that support it, the idea is so divorced from the largely manufactured and artificial concepts of the modern world that it seems strange or ridiculous. Imagine being presented with the Bible stories if you had grown up in a culture without a Semitic religion as the dominant faith! However, as Evola points out, this doctrine was "normal" for all non-barbaric people of the world for millenia after millenia until just recently, where doctrines of the "dark side" -- things like progressive-"ism", liberalism, neo-conservatism, Bolshevism, globalism and the like have begun to destroy the real culture of all people, all over the world.

What follows is a distinctly normal view of the world, deeply rooted in your history and culture, whether you are Irish or Greek, Persian or Japanese, and it only seems so out of place in the context of the highly abnormal situation that has resulted from the convergence of a number of forces that have been developed over the past few centuries. I find the Traditionalist framework to be the best and most consistent context for understanding and explaining history and human social development, and the most useful in making predictive analysis of politics, culture and what makes a society prosper or fail. I don't ask anyone to convert to it, but I think it is important in judging a candidate to have a strong understanding of their underlying world view.

In the beginning, one race of man was civilized, and inhabited an area in the far North and in the Arctic. The other men of the earth were barbarians and animals, and incapable of acts of creation and reason. For reasons unknown -- likely a shift in climate -- the men oof the North were forced out of their homeland, and began to settle the rest of the Earth in two cycles. The first cycle came South through the far North of Asia in what is called the Hyperborean cycle. The second came South through a large continent that once existed in the midst of the Atlantic ocean, and is known as the Atlantean cycle.

Approximately 10 millenia before Christ -- circa 10000 BC -- the continent of Atlantis was destroyed in a natural disaster that sunk it beneath the sea. In the time between the beginning of its settlement and its destruction, the people of Atlantis had spread across the earth and had settled North and South America, parts of Europe, Northern Africa, and Southern Asia. The Egyptian civilization in particular always considered itself a colony of Atlantis, and the prehistoric inhabitants of Ireland -- the Tuatha de Danaan -- and Greece -- the Danaans -- were likely offshoot of Atlantean culture. The Incas and the Aztecs, too, considered themselves to have been given culture by a superior sea-faring nation in the far North of the Atlantic.

In competition with the people of Atlantis, were the people of the Hyperborean cycle, who spread across the Earth in waves that included the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic invasions of Europe, the Northern invasions that led to the founding of ancient Greek culture, the Aryan invasion in India, the settlement of the Middle East and Persia, and the founding of Chinese civilization.

All of the major civilizations of world -- the Central American (Mayan), Northern European (Norse-Slavic-Celtic), Southern European (Greco-Roman), North African (Egyptian-Carthaginian), Middle Eastern (Babylonian-Assyrian-Persian), Indian, and Chinese -- thus have their root in one common civilization. That civilization is the civilization of Tradition. When men possessed Tradition, they lived in a state of bliss and perfect harmony with the universe and natural law. As they lost their homeland, and interbred with the lesser people that inhabited the Earth, their culture became diluted and they began to enter into cyclical decline.

Key to the structure of a Traditional civilization is the idea of caste. Caste is not a limiting factor, but it is a system of social organization that is designed to let each man best find a method of expressing who they are. There are four castes in every traditional culture, from the Irish-Celtic-Druidic to the Hindu Brahmans. There is the emperor-king, who is a servant of the divine, and who sits above all caste, and there is a religious caste that serves him. There is a warrior caste that enforces social order. There is a merchant caste that tends to material needs. And there is a worker caste that performs physical labor. These castes each have symbolic representations -- gold for the highest, followed by silver, copper/bronze, and iron/lead/stone.

Similarly, the two races of men -- those within Tradition and those without -- have symbolic representations in other fundamental dichotomies: male/female, light/dark, white/black, good/evil, North/South, sun/moon, sky/earth, and the like. In Hermeticism and alchemy, for instance, this relationship becomes mercury/sulfur, and the "gold" that the Philosopher's Stone is supposed to reveal is the Lost Emperor and Secret King of the Golden People.

Society is declining in cycles of the castes. In the beginning, the golden caste -- the religious caste -- ruled. It's rule was followed by that of the warrior caste. Currently, we are living in a time of the rule of the merchant caste. In time, society will degenerate to the rule of the worker caste, and then society will self-destruct, being consumed in fire in a final battle between the forces of Tradition and the forces of "progress" and anti-Tradition. When the final "progressive" society is destroyed by fire (my guess is nuclear fire, but that's just my guess), from the ashes will arise the Secret King -- the true Emperor that once ruled over the regions of the Arctic -- and he will restore the Earth to the Golden Age. Those familiar with Norse myth can think Ragna Rokkr, Baldur, and the release of spirits from Valhalla.

Each cycle of the caste is characterized by its particular vice. Without an Emperor-King, the religious caste loses its center, and cannot function. Without a religious caste to control it, the warrior caste collapsed society into feudalism and war. The merchant caste used this as an excuse to turn them out, and then plunged civilization into an age of greed. The worker states that emerge will be characterized by an age of slavery.

Given that decline is inevitable, there is no question of reversing history. However, one cannot abandon society to "progress", either. One has to stand up among the ruins of civilization and conduct one's self according to the codes of honor that have been lost, and one must constantly fight against the suicidal destuction that society is hurling itself toward. By standing up and conducting one's self properly according to one's caste, one transcends one's current material form and becomes a spiritual entity that will be reincarnated in the final confrontation and destroyed to restore to the world its original form. By transcending material reality one becomes eternal and immortal. The body becomes an avatar of the universal spirit and the soul becomes unified with the eternal soul. It's a very good state of affairs to be in, becase material discomforts -- pain, fear, unhappiness and the like -- cease to exist as a state like Nirvana, Zen, or "Oneness with the Tao" replaces normal existence.

http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/radical.html
 
how ironic, considering that early Taoism from which Confucious borrowed is similar to Christianity, how your article claims it holds a "negative" view of. further, the article appears to present this "Radical Traditionalism" as the religion of science. to know the "hidden underlying structure of the world" as the author puts it.

the third paragraph is a wonderfully cute series of opinions and nothing more.

gotta love the 4th, 5th, and 6th paragraphs. Atlantis. :lol:. not to mention the laughably re-written history as if by a 3rd grade child.

the 7th paragraph makes sense until the end. those civilizations did not die out because of dillution, they died out because of natural catastrophes, political power struggles within, power struggles with rival civilizations, or some combination of the above. surely you will not argue that "Atlantis" :lol: was destroyed because its culture was "dilluted" from its "perfect harmony".

8th & 9th paragraphs: more asinine arguments. are these parallels? good/evil, men/women, sky/earth etc? without women, man would be extinct. i'm certain you will not argue such an absurd notion. traditions and castes have been present in Eurasia for a very, very long time. they served to degenerate progress and enslave the people. if an inept fool is born into a ruling class, the country suffers needlessly. if a brilliant mind is born into a working class, his genius is wasted. not to mention that traditions are not all wonderful cheery rays of sunshine. in europe for example, it was traditional customary medicine to "bleed" patients when they were ill. this led directly to countless unneccesary deaths in the name of "tradition".

now you argue that from the ruins of our current society some mythical figure will rise to herald a new beginning. sounds like a bastardized version of Christianity, without the moral values and logic to support it. you say that progress is the enemy. would you then condemn treatments for Cancer, X rays, and medicine that saves countless lives daily? would you condemn electricity, and all that serves and protects you every single day of your breathing life?

i am no science worshipper, but i am wise enough to acknowledge that it is a useful tool not to be discarded for empty rhetoric. further, tradition without purpose is foolhardy, as is progress without goal, direction, and need. good tradition must not be forgotten, good progress must be made, there is no logical extreme position that any being can support rationally. bad tradition must be thrown down, along side the opposition of baseless progress.
 
infoterror said:
Given that decline is inevitable, there is no question of reversing history. However, one cannot abandon society to "progress", either. One has to stand up among the ruins of civilization and conduct one's self according to the codes of honor that have been lost, and one must constantly fight against the suicidal destuction that society is hurling itself toward. By standing up and conducting one's self properly according to one's caste, one transcends one's current material form and becomes a spiritual entity that will be reincarnated in the final confrontation and destroyed to restore to the world its original form. By transcending material reality one becomes eternal and immortal. The body becomes an avatar of the universal spirit and the soul becomes unified with the eternal soul. It's a very good state of affairs to be in, becase material discomforts -- pain, fear, unhappiness and the like -- cease to exist as a state like Nirvana, Zen, or "Oneness with the Tao" replaces normal existence.
that which is bolded i completely agree with. that following is utter nonsense.
 
I read Revolt Against the Modern World a few months ago. Other than the Hyperborean nonsense--which was quite popular in the early 20th century, the book is highly interesting. If anyone is interested, they should read Oswald Spenglers Decline of the West, which is a far superior and once influential book. Even Evola borrowed ideas from it.

Id say the most important thing about the book is his view of the benefits of the strict orthodoxy of tradition where everyone has a place, and everyones life has a respected and higher meaning--even the loweliest peasant in Evola's opinion has a place and a soul. Still, his defense of feudalism and tradition is quite untenable in todays world where money has replaced everything as the highest goal.


I also very much enjoy his views on the differences amongst the sexes. Im sure I have mentioned it before, but I brought up a variety of his ideas to a group of liberal women in my university, and they actually somewhat agreed with Evola, without knowing who he was.
 
Mormagil said:
I think it's clear in the article that the stuff about Atlantis isn't meant to be taken literally.
literally or figuratively, the message it delivers doesn't make sense even if it wasn't referred to as "Atlantis" which only makes it even more discreditable.

the article is a staunch enforcer of tradition. i think this current society needs to bring back some of that tradition and replace haphazard progress with it. however, i do not support a fully traditional state, as that can only lead to stagnation and thus a slow demise, in the same manner that full-on progress will eventually lead to the breaking point of societal structure.

both tradition and progress are ideals that should be in balance for a society to truly be successful and at harmony. that is what harmony is, is it not? the balance of all things and being as one with nature. nature maintains tradition through the passing down of DNA and history & ideals from parent to offspring. nature also maintains progress through mutation and evolution, and new ideas that improve the state of existance for all current and future generations. progress and tradition are maintained in check. were progress to run rampant, mutation would destroy the identity of a species: no two would exist similarly and their traits would be lost. were tradition to be upheld to the utmost: no adaptation could occur, and any change in environmental conditions would bring swift death to the species.

thus, i find fault in this article's wholehearted support for tradition without balance. i find progress to be an integral part of survival.
 
the article says: As they lost their homeland, and interbred with the lesser people that inhabited the Earth, their culture became diluted and they began to enter into cyclical decline.

this is easily contradicted by evidence. as one can see, the US is a diluted land of intermixing, and the US has only risen to greater heights. traditionalism is the shackles of humanity, keeping us in the dark ages. progress, which humanity ultimately must take in order to attain the next level of evolution, can only come about by abandoning such primitive notions as racial purity and tradition.
 
i would almost agree, except that as i stated in my last post, both progress and tradition are necessesary for survival.

though the US has progressed greatly and is seen as a world leader, the direction they are leading the world, and the manner (and culture) that they conduct such leadership with, are degrading to humanity. the US society is a prime example of what is wrong with unchecked progress, while certain regimes in Eastern Europe are prime examples of what is wrong with uncompromising "radical" traditionalism.
 
the alumnus said:
the article says: As they lost their homeland, and interbred with the lesser people that inhabited the Earth, their culture became diluted and they began to enter into cyclical decline.

this is easily contradicted by evidence. as one can see, the US is a diluted land of intermixing, and the US has only risen to greater heights. traditionalism is the shackles of humanity, keeping us in the dark ages. progress, which humanity ultimately must take in order to attain the next level of evolution, can only come about by abandoning such primitive notions as racial purity and tradition.

Consumer society qualifies as great heights? I'm not sure what you're concerned that "traditionalism"(quoted because it's elaborated on over the course of 300-some pages in this one book amongst others; I doubt your understanding is thorough) will keep you from. I guess it would be a terrible loss if you were precluded from the following:

A) Rampant miscegenation and the dissolution of cultural diversity. Crudely, if we all fuck each other, we'll lose our defining physical characteristics. More importantly, we'll become culturally muddled. See, if you're part nigerian, part irish, part italian, part israeli, part chinese, part indian, part iraqi, etc. you have no culture. Without some concept of purity, this is your path -- homogeneity, the loss of the differences between humans that helps to make our lives wonderful and gives us our identities. That's not to mention strictly cultural problems(see the influence of our consumer culture upon nations in which the problem is certainly not that there are too many US immigrants).

B) Buying heaps of shit that you don't need to compensate for the complete lack of meaning in your life. Get a bigger TV whenever one's available. Maybe if you surround yourself with enough sources of distraction, you'll be pacified.

C) Your right to free speech that doesn't exist. Espousing an unpopular viewpoint will have social ramifications that you can't deal with. Granted, an offender won't be sent to a gulag, but he'll lose his job and become a pariah. These infractions need not be terribly severe, either.

There are more, but I want to get on to other things.

Spengler's work is very good. It's different from Evola's, though. I found the in-depth historical analysis to be enlightening.

while certain regimes in Eastern Europe are prime examples of what is wrong with uncompromising "radical" traditionalism.

You should probably read the book. Evola is not a political theorist advocating a totalitarian regime. He's more concerned with addressing the West's spiritual vacancy. He also discusses "progress" thoroughly. Evola does favor a hierarchal structure, but I suspect you'll find him different than you'd expected.

Traditionalism is defnitely not "the religion of science" as you'd quickly realize after reading the book.

As for technology, it's scary how quickly one can go from dominating technology to being dominated by it.
 
I think you hit the nail on the head Demiurge when you said, "You should probably read the book. Evola is not a political theorist advocating a totalitarian regime. He's more concerned with addressing the West's spiritual vacancy. He also discusses "progress" thoroughly. Evola does favor a hierarchal structure, but I suspect you'll find him different than you'd expected." In fact, Evola has alot in common with the new Pope Benedict the sixteenth who is a catholic traditionalist that believes in the absolute importance of catholic ritual and symbolism.

Anyway, Evola is an interesting guy but I do find his views to be a bit to extreme for myself. Im not all that interested in ritual and symbolism, nor bowing before an established hierarchy. His views on progress are what makes him a fine read.

Demiurge, I suggest you read Jacob Burckhardt's Age of Constantine the Great. He has a few excellent chapters of discussion on the rituals and decline of paganism and the syncretism of the various forms of paganism, Vedic religion, and Christianity. Plus one understands how feudalism was except for the Celts, essentially a Oriental idea (Not as Evola thought) instituted under the reign of Diocletian. Diocletian's very ambitious almost communistic economic programs to support the huge dying empire forced the already poor farmers etc, to submit themselves to richer landowners, who themselves were being squeezed for every penny by the Roman government.
This economic structure which was found in Asia with the Persians etc, ended up lasting for a thousand years in Europe. SO, as an economist, I see the whole idea of feudalism as resulting from the harsh economic problems of the late Roman Empire, not some return to Evola's religious based hierarchy etc. I know Spengler agree with me on this one as well.
 
Demiurge said:
Consumer society qualifies as great heights?
compare the standard of living in the US to any other previous time, and there is no comparison. the US has a standard of living that is equal with its western europe counterparts, and better than it has ever been in the past.

I'm not sure what you're concerned that "traditionalism"(quoted because it's elaborated on over the course of 300-some pages in this one book amongst others; I doubt your understanding is thorough) will keep you from. I guess it would be a terrible loss if you were precluded from the following:

A) Rampant miscegenation and the dissolution of cultural diversity. Crudely, if we all fuck each other, we'll lose our defining physical characteristics. More importantly, we'll become culturally muddled. See, if you're part nigerian, part irish, part italian, part israeli, part chinese, part indian, part iraqi, etc. you have no culture. Without some concept of purity, this is your path -- homogeneity, the loss of the differences between humans that helps to make our lives wonderful and gives us our identities. That's not to mention strictly cultural problems(see the influence of our consumer culture upon nations in which the problem is certainly not that there are too many US immigrants).
i fail to see how miscegenation will destroy culture. culture is not genetic, it is environmental. so the culture you aquire will be dependent on geography. therefore i see no muddling, or no need for purity.
B) Buying heaps of shit that you don't need to compensate for the complete lack of meaning in your life. Get a bigger TV whenever one's available. Maybe if you surround yourself with enough sources of distraction, you'll be pacified.
the postmodern consumerism is the result of the success of the commercial era, but there is no reason to think it will last more than a generation. its most likely to fade once the baby boomers (that most selfish and spoiled generation) are dead and gone.

C) Your right to free speech that doesn't exist. Espousing an unpopular viewpoint will have social ramifications that you can't deal with. Granted, an offender won't be sent to a gulag, but he'll lose his job and become a pariah. These infractions need not be terribly severe, either.

i don't see where this came from, or any evidence that its true either.

There are more, but I want to get on to other things.

Spengler's work is very good. It's different from Evola's, though. I found the in-depth historical analysis to be enlightening.



You should probably read the book. Evola is not a political theorist advocating a totalitarian regime. He's more concerned with addressing the West's spiritual vacancy. He also discusses "progress" thoroughly. Evola does favor a hierarchal structure, but I suspect you'll find him different than you'd expected.

Traditionalism is defnitely not "the religion of science" as you'd quickly realize after reading the book.

As for technology, it's scary how quickly one can go from dominating technology to being dominated by it.

i find that science has proved the best value on which to base an internal schema. it is based on rationality and the cold hard truth of empirical evidence, one should only believe what they can see. the west's spiritual vacancy is a problem of organized religion, not social structures.
 
1) "Quality of living" is an argument I will not agree with. It is relevant to only the bare essentials of life(food, water, shelter, etc.). This is an argument we've all heard a thousand times and which is widely accepted, but when pondered, it has an insidious nature. However, if breathing is enough for you, it will do.

2) Culture is lost through globalization and miscegenation. Culture doesn't need to be hereditary for it to be disrupted by these things. It's important to realize that culture is not geographical, either. There is nothing to protect cultural diversity if not an ideal of ethnic purity.

3) We live in a world in which you can say anything you want, as long as what you say isn't unpopular enough. See, the government doesn't necessarily need to imprison you for "free speech" to be infringed on. The threat of being ostracized will do just fine. We're allowed to criticize George Bush, for instance, but if criticism cuts deeper than that(criticism of liberal democracy and egalitarian ideals, for example) then you're treading on dangerous ground.

4) You cannot isolate the social condition from religious beliefs.

It would be false to claim that social conditions have no bearing upon science.
 
THis is a very interesting comment:
"i find that science has proved the best value on which to base an internal schema. it is based on rationality and the cold hard truth of empirical evidence, one should only believe what they can see. the west's spiritual vacancy is a problem of organized religion, not social structures."

In many ways I agree with you; the spiritual vacancy of the west is the result of antiquated organized religions--traditions that no longer have any relevancy in todays world. Yet what is to replace these traditions? Science? Empiricism?

The last one hundred years have born the fruit of this misguided idea. Science and Empiricism have yet to understand human beings; Science has made mankind nothing more than robotic slaves. In a sense, we have returned to the primordial ooze; man is now, and will forever be nothing more than an organic machine. Our souls have been betrayed to science; psychologists were the last straw. God knows what these men of science will bring us in the future with the increased knowledge of genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and robotics. Will we even be individuals anymore? Will we be total slaves? These aformentioned issues make up my fears, and my philosophical and intellectual devotions.
 
speed said:
Science has made mankind nothing more than robotic slaves. In a sense, we have returned to the primordial ooze; man is now, and will forever be nothing more than an organic machine. Our souls have been betrayed to science; psychologists were the last straw. God knows what these men of science will bring us in the future with the increased knowledge of genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and robotics. Will we even be individuals anymore? Will we be total slaves? These aformentioned issues make up my fears, and my philosophical and intellectual devotions.

This comments reaks of a hate for science. Science Is nothing more than a tool. A tool created by man. Any negatives you see emanating from science are, in fact, manufactured by mankind.

We haven't returned to the primordial ooze...we simply never left it. Our natures haven't changed, nor has the part of our minds which we refer to as 'soul'.
Our perspective has, however.

Now, to be clear, please understand that I do feel that our advances in technology are removing us from an appreciation of nature which is, generally, instrinsic in mankind. Millions of years of living more 'closely' (for lack of better term) with the natural world are not easily forgotten.
 
SoundMaster said:
This comments reaks of a hate for science. Science Is nothing more than a tool. A tool created by man. Any negatives you see emanating from science are, in fact, manufactured by mankind.

We haven't returned to the primordial ooze...we simply never left it. Our natures haven't changed, nor has the part of our minds which we refer to as 'soul'.
Our perspective has, however.

Now, to be clear, please understand that I do feel that our advances in technology are removing us from an appreciation of nature which is, generally, instrinsic in mankind. Millions of years of living more 'closely' (for lack of better term) with the natural world are not easily forgotten.

Yes I hate science, especially modern science. It isnt hard to figure out. Really does science need to go any further? Most of us can now live a comfortable 75-80 years, and a well fed 75-80 years. Isnt that all we really need?

And we never left the primordial ooze? Nonsense, absolute nonsense! What is religion, philosophy, history but the formation by mankind of a higher spiritual plane? A nonexistant matterless spiritual plane! Only man could so deify himself. Only man could seperate himself from nature, and find a higher meaning. Man used to think his life had meaning; now our lives are empty, and with the advance of science who knows what will happen?
 
speed said:
Id say the most important thing about the book is his view of the benefits of the strict orthodoxy of tradition where everyone has a place, and everyones life has a respected and higher meaning--even the loweliest peasant in Evola's opinion has a place and a soul. Still, his defense of feudalism and tradition is quite untenable in todays world where money has replaced everything as the highest goal.

Since today's world is failing, maybe the time for tradition is coming again soon.