What can be done?

[Eleison]

When Rene Guenon wrote "The Crisis of the Modern World" nearly 100 years ago, he outlined how it might be possible for the decadence of Western civilisation to be reversed.  His idea was that an intellectual elite would be formed which would gain influence, probably through the Catholic Church, which at the time was not completely modernised.  He also said it would be necessary for this elite to be in close contact with spiritual authorities from the East, which was also not wholly modernised, in order to succeed.  He stated that if this did not occur then it would be impossible to avoid the downfall of Western civilisation.

Now let us analyse the current situation.  The Catholic Church, as well as losing all credibility by rejecting its own traditions has lost most of its influence.  In fact Christianity in general seems to be in inevitable decline due to the uncompromising individualism of most Westerners.  The Eastern world has mostly accepted modernity, and its spiritual centres are also losing their influence.  Even Islam, which seems most resistant to modernisation does not seem to possess the power to stop Islamic nations losing their traditional character.  We may see a situation where supposedly Islamic nations no longer have any relation to the principles of their religion, as is the case in most 'Christian' nations.

To me these factors seem to signal that the end of modern civlisation cannot be prevented, modern trends cannot be reversed.  What then should we do?  Is this an excuse to revert to solipsism.  I say no.  Although I might qualify this by saying that I do not believe it is constructive to try to 'fix' modern civilisation, and certainly not by participating in modern politics, which corrupts all of the ideas it touches (look what happened to corrupt.org).  It is my opinion that the best thing to do in this situation it to become active in the distribution of truth, by whatever means seems fitting, because to me it is selfish to keep knowledge to oneself.  The best thing to do is to make informatin available to people who will be able to understand, rather than leaving them stranded in the spiritual desert of the modern world.  For me www.anus.com played a key role by providing me with information without which I would have become either a useless drone or a career criminal (not sure which).

Also I have noticed recently a trend amoung many Christians to recognise the value of their spritual inheritance from the middle-ages.  It has been said by a number of traditionalists that spiritual knowledge will always be accessable to men who seek it, even to the end of this cycle of human existence.  I believe there is a possiblity that the Church could regain its traditional character and in so doing be insulated from modern society, it would probably have relatively few participants, but it would also function like an ark which would preserve knowledge until a time when it would become functional again.  I have recently decided to dedicate my life to restoring the traditional character of the Church, even if this is not possible it seems to me to be the most useful way to spend my time on this earth.

[metal on metal]

It has been said by a number of traditionalists that spiritual knowledge will always be accessable to men who seek it, even to the end of this cycle of human existence.

I'm unable to reconcile the contradiction between the force behind extreme metal with the warning Guenon gave on modern tendencies. Extreme metal can address the Principle in words, but in essence is telluric (sometimes lunar) and therefore nostalgic for the (non-telluric) times past, which is the common trait of these tendencies. It's true promethean/telluric and not lunar material should be the clay for Realization, but in the end, it's necessary to renounce this quality. Anus.com will probably be connected with extreme metal forever and at the moment it's lunar aspects appeal to me so much I think I'll never be able to fully participate in the Principle.
I think you're going in the right direction.

If you have a few spare moments, check out the biography of Mr. Hugo Ball for further clarification of my statement.

EDIT: it seems they always leave out the crucial part on purpose:

"The most direct way to self help: to renounce works and make energetic attempts to re-animate one's own life." Ball went to Berne, in those days the most spy-ridden capital of all, to work as a journalist on the Freie Zeitung of Dr. Roesemeier, and as the political adviser to the Weisse Blatter of the Alsatian poet Rene Scickele. Then he retired to Ticino to live the religious life in voluntary poverty. The paths along Tzara was leading Dada were not for him. "I have examined myself carefully, and I could never bid chaos welcome."

"Art and Anti-art", Hans Richter

[Nimbostratus]

I have recently decided to dedicate my life to restoring the traditional character of the Church, even if this is not possible it seems to me to be the most useful way to spend my time on this earth.

What do you mean by the traditional character of the Church? Medieval? Pre-second vatican council?

Otherwise, I agree that the Church is a a good platform to do something good. But it won't be easy if you hold evolutionary anti-egalitarianism (a basic of ANUS), which is both anti-modern for modern Christians (in the anti-egalitarianism part) and also anti-traditionalist (evolutionary theory).

This interesting synthesis can be included in a futuristic traditionalism, but I don't get if that's on your mind.

[Eleison]

I have recently decided to dedicate my life to restoring the traditional character of the Church, even if this is not possible it seems to me to be the most useful way to spend my time on this earth.

What do you mean by the traditional character of the Church? Medieval? Pre-second vatican council?

Otherwise, I agree that the Church is a a good platform to do something good. But it won't be easy if you hold evolutionary anti-egalitarianism (a basic of ANUS), which is both anti-modern for modern Christians (in the anti-egalitarianism part) and also anti-traditionalist (evolutionary theory).

This interesting synthesis can be included in a futuristic traditionalism, but I don't get if that's on your mind.

To the first question: medieval is the essential expression of the Christian vision, although this vision was still alive (though perhaps in a state of hibernation) in the Catholic church until quite recently.

To the second question, I don't believe in biological evolution so it won't really be a problem.  In my opinion the central problem of anus' philosophy (and as Evola has pointed out the weakest part of Nietzsche's output) is its reliance on the Darwinian theory, which is really nothing more than the scientific expression of the doctrine of progress which was popular in Darwin's day (hence why the theory became so widespread).  Having said this in order to answer your question, I think it is best to avoid discussing this subject at length, at least in this thread.

[Dead_Soul]

I have recently decided to dedicate my life to restoring the traditional character of the Church, even if this is not possible it seems to me to be the most useful way to spend my time on this earth.

What do you mean by the traditional character of the Church? Medieval? Pre-second vatican council?

Otherwise, I agree that the Church is a a good platform to do something good. But it won't be easy if you hold evolutionary anti-egalitarianism (a basic of ANUS), which is both anti-modern for modern Christians (in the anti-egalitarianism part) and also anti-traditionalist (evolutionary theory).

This interesting synthesis can be included in a futuristic traditionalism, but I don't get if that's on your mind.

To the first question: medieval is the essential expression of the Christian vision, although this vision was still alive (though perhaps in a state of hibernation) in the Catholic church until quite recently.

 In my opinion the central problem of anus' philosophy (and as Evola has pointed out the weakest part of Nietzsche's output) is its reliance on the Darwinian theory, which is really nothing more than the scientific expression of the doctrine of progress which was popular in Darwin's day (hence why the theory became so widespread).

The most glaring flaw in your argument is that evolution does NOT entail teleology; the development of life will not culminate in a "perfect" organism.

That being said, your criticism would be perfectly valid if directed towards the transhumanist movement. Did you have that sort of thing in mind when you made that comment?   

[Nimbostratus]

To the first question: medieval is the essential expression of the Christian vision, although this vision was still alive (though perhaps in a state of hibernation) in the Catholic church until quite recently.

Do you mean an aristocratic Christianity, permeated by the European vir? If that's the essence you seek, I agree. Beyond, the errors of the Church in the medieval times are to be avoided.

To the second question, I don't believe in biological evolution so it won't really be a problem.  In my opinion the central problem of anus' philosophy (and as Evola has pointed out the weakest part of Nietzsche's output) is its reliance on the Darwinian theory, which is really nothing more than the scientific expression of the doctrine of progress which was popular in Darwin's day (hence why the theory became so widespread).  Having said this in order to answer your question, I think it is best to avoid discussing this subject at length, at least in this thread.

If you are interested: http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,10670.0.html

[Tzadikim]

Guenon's conception - and likely those of most on this forum - was idealistic pap wholly divorced from any semblance of reality. The problem with it in the main is, of course, that it looks to undo the last quarter of a millinium without addressing why history has played out as it has. Eleison himself acknowledges this when he writes that

Beyond, the errors of the Church in the medieval times are to be avoided.

Of course, you cannot avoid the "errors of the Church in the medieval times", because the structure of the Church since the "medieval times" has not even remotely changed: it remains, today as ever, essentially feudalistic in structure, devoted to a decaying stratocracy based around dogma. The notion that this stratification has anything to do with 'vir' or a 'caste system' is utterly ludicrous: ascension through the ranks of Catholicism has absolutely not a whit to do with merit. Catholicism despises merit. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has far more to do with how well the various officeholders of that organization promote whatever line the reigning Pope professes than any ability to think for one's self -- Ratzinger, for example, was made Chief Inquisitor simply because he agreed with John Paul's "compassionate conservative" social policy in e.g. Africa, and was able to justify it theologically in writing a little better than the usual pedestrian bilge that comes out of that office.

This insistence by certain parties here that we 'make amends' with Christianity, in the name of a false and artificial anti-liberalism, is ahistorical. It treats liberalism as something quite other than what it actually was: a justifiable movement against the falsity of the social structure of the Dark Ages. And the enemy of my enemy is most certainly not my friend - better modernism, which at least gropes for reality and fails, than Christianity. You would have us leap from humanism to humanism in the name of a 'tradition' which is not and has never been ours. And when 'tradition' - a concept with a quite inflated stature here - begins to take precedence over cold and hard reality, your philosophy has failed.

This Manichean view of history that, sadly, many ANUSites seem to take for granted - hallowed, holy tradition against virulent modernism - is not only not supported by the historical record, it is dogmatistic hogwash. Modernity was, during its first stages, a welcome break from the era of feudalism, which in turn was a reaction against the decadent, decaying, centralist tendencies of the late Empire. Not to be too dialectical here, but most discernible historical 'epochs' try to be the antithesis of the one which came before, and most of them have at least some reason for doing it. Far better than reacting blindly to modernity's errors by charging headfirst into the 12th century would be to examine the doctrines of all centuries, see which is most useful and most approaching some harmony with reality as we know it, and incorporate it into our frame of reference. But that is scientific, evolutionary, and - gasp! shock! horror! - slightly modern, and so runs contrary to the artificial image of the misanthrope most here seem to want to project.

[Nimbostratus]

This Manichean view of history that, sadly, many ANUSites seem to take for granted - hallowed, holy tradition against virulent modernism - is not only not supported by the historical record, it is dogmatistic hogwash. Modernity was, during its first stages, a welcome break from the era of feudalism, which in turn was a reaction against the decadent, decaying, centralist tendencies of the late Empire. Not to be too dialectical here, but most discernible historical 'epochs' try to be the antithesis of the one which came before, and most of them have at least some reason for doing it. Far better than reacting blindly to modernity's errors by charging headfirst into the 12th century would be to examine the doctrines of all centuries, see which is most useful and most approaching some harmony with reality as we know it, and incorporate it into our frame of reference. But that is scientific, evolutionary, and - gasp! shock! horror! - slightly modern, and so runs contrary to the artificial image of the misanthrope most here seem to want to project.

No appeal to tradition here, please calm down. If right now we can see that egalitarianism (the main component of modernity) is wrong, we can reevaluate certain things of pre-modernity, like Plato, or like the medieval Church's Nulla potestas nisi a Deo aka you and the nobles are not equal there's something above social contract.

Going back in time is not an option:

"Modernity will not be transcended by returning to the past, but by means of certain premodern values in a decisively postmodern dimension. It is only at the price of such a radical restructuring that anomie and contemporary nihilism will be exorcised. (Benoist, Champetier; 2000)

http://www.freespeechproject.com/alain9.html

We agree: no appeal to tradition, but no appeal to novelty too.

[Tzadikim]

This Manichean view of history that, sadly, many ANUSites seem to take for granted - hallowed, holy tradition against virulent modernism - is not only not supported by the historical record, it is dogmatistic hogwash. Modernity was, during its first stages, a welcome break from the era of feudalism, which in turn was a reaction against the decadent, decaying, centralist tendencies of the late Empire. Not to be too dialectical here, but most discernible historical 'epochs' try to be the antithesis of the one which came before, and most of them have at least some reason for doing it. Far better than reacting blindly to modernity's errors by charging headfirst into the 12th century would be to examine the doctrines of all centuries, see which is most useful and most approaching some harmony with reality as we know it, and incorporate it into our frame of reference. But that is scientific, evolutionary, and - gasp! shock! horror! - slightly modern, and so runs contrary to the artificial image of the misanthrope most here seem to want to project.

No appeal to tradition here, please calm down. If right now we can see that egalitarianism (the main component of modernity) is wrong, we can reevaluate certain things of pre-modernity, like Plato, or like the medieval Church's Nulla potestas nisi a Deo aka you and the nobles are not equal there's something above social contract.

Going back in time is not an option:

"Modernity will not be transcended by returning to the past, but by means of certain premodern values in a decisively postmodern dimension. It is only at the price of such a radical restructuring that anomie and contemporary nihilism will be exorcised. (Benoist, Champetier; 2000)

http://www.freespeechproject.com/alain9.html

We agree: no appeal to tradition, but no appeal to novelty too.

Egalitarianism, in and of itself, is not the problem. If a policy or programme achieves a desired end and, in the course of it, happens to better the lives of a broad mass of people, so much the better for it. It ought not be attacked purely on the grounds that it is egalitarian. The issue comes when cultures, civilizations, polities make egalitarianism the sole cause of their existence, when they set it at the center of their social thought and try to force reality to conform to it. But the same is true of any such 'monomyth', be it the 19th century cult of reason, be it the 15th notion of sola scriptura. Culture operates best when it operates reasonably: when it recognizes that it only exists to provide a loose framework to justify the activities of individuals. When culture tries to tyrannically assert itself over the daily operations of man, reason has lost out and society with it. Both 'tradition' and 'modernism' must respect this basic fact.

The primary issue I take with most forms of hierarchical thinking is that, while they rightly criticize social contract theory as being self-refuting, they wrongly propose an equally ludicrous stratocracy to replace it. Medieval nobility was not innately better than the peasant class. Many of them were in fact illiterate - Aethelred was for instance notorious for being illiterate, and thusly relying on advisers who manipulated him. And modern capitalism is scarcely better: being able to game the system is a preciously poor indicator of true value.

[Eleison]

Guenon's conception - and likely those of most on this forum - was idealistic pap wholly divorced from any semblance of reality. The problem with it in the main is, of course, that it looks to undo the last quarter of a millinium without addressing why history has played out as it has. Eleison himself acknowledges this when he writes that

Beyond, the errors of the Church in the medieval times are to be avoided.

Of course, you cannot avoid the "errors of the Church in the medieval times", because the structure of the Church since the "medieval times" has not even remotely changed: it remains, today as ever, essentially feudalistic in structure, devoted to a decaying stratocracy based around dogma. The notion that this stratification has anything to do with 'vir' or a 'caste system' is utterly ludicrous: ascension through the ranks of Catholicism has absolutely not a whit to do with merit. Catholicism despises merit. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has far more to do with how well the various officeholders of that organization promote whatever line the reigning Pope professes than any ability to think for one's self -- Ratzinger, for example, was made Chief Inquisitor simply because he agreed with John Paul's "compassionate conservative" social policy in e.g. Africa, and was able to justify it theologically in writing a little better than the usual pedestrian bilge that comes out of that office.

This insistence by certain parties here that we 'make amends' with Christianity, in the name of a false and artificial anti-liberalism, is ahistorical. It treats liberalism as something quite other than what it actually was: a justifiable movement against the falsity of the social structure of the Dark Ages. And the enemy of my enemy is most certainly not my friend - better modernism, which at least gropes for reality and fails, than Christianity. You would have us leap from humanism to humanism in the name of a 'tradition' which is not and has never been ours. And when 'tradition' - a concept with a quite inflated stature here - begins to take precedence over cold and hard reality, your philosophy has failed.

This Manichean view of history that, sadly, many ANUSites seem to take for granted - hallowed, holy tradition against virulent modernism - is not only not supported by the historical record, it is dogmatistic hogwash. Modernity was, during its first stages, a welcome break from the era of feudalism, which in turn was a reaction against the decadent, decaying, centralist tendencies of the late Empire. Not to be too dialectical here, but most discernible historical 'epochs' try to be the antithesis of the one which came before, and most of them have at least some reason for doing it. Far better than reacting blindly to modernity's errors by charging headfirst into the 12th century would be to examine the doctrines of all centuries, see which is most useful and most approaching some harmony with reality as we know it, and incorporate it into our frame of reference. But that is scientific, evolutionary, and - gasp! shock! horror! - slightly modern, and so runs contrary to the artificial image of the misanthrope most here seem to want to project.

Your error is to assume that the cause of the problems the western world has encountered since the renaissance have their root in Christianity at all.  Christianity was in many ways a reaction against the humanist decadence of late antiquity.  What the renaissance really constitutes is a resurfacing of a decadence which had been suppressed by Christianity during the middle-ages.  The errors of the modern era are precisely a rejection of the spiritual heritage of the medieval era and therefore a rejection of Christianity.  The primary cause of confusion, from which you yourself suffer, is the fact that these errors sometimes actually take the form of Christianity itself, and this is especially the case since the Protestant reformation, which allowed all manner of humanist influences into Christianity which subsequently infiltrated Catholicism.  What my post was suggesting is that at the present moment, there is a possibility that Catholicism will return to its spiritual heritage but requires men of metaphysical insight to ensure that this takes place.

Then again, if you truly believe that the works of Guenon are 'idealistic pap wholly divorced from any semblance of reality', when his central concern was Reality itself, then I doubt anything I say will be of any use.

[Tzadikim]

Guenon's conception - and likely those of most on this forum - was idealistic pap wholly divorced from any semblance of reality. The problem with it in the main is, of course, that it looks to undo the last quarter of a millinium without addressing why history has played out as it has. Eleison himself acknowledges this when he writes that

Beyond, the errors of the Church in the medieval times are to be avoided.

Of course, you cannot avoid the "errors of the Church in the medieval times", because the structure of the Church since the "medieval times" has not even remotely changed: it remains, today as ever, essentially feudalistic in structure, devoted to a decaying stratocracy based around dogma. The notion that this stratification has anything to do with 'vir' or a 'caste system' is utterly ludicrous: ascension through the ranks of Catholicism has absolutely not a whit to do with merit. Catholicism despises merit. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has far more to do with how well the various officeholders of that organization promote whatever line the reigning Pope professes than any ability to think for one's self -- Ratzinger, for example, was made Chief Inquisitor simply because he agreed with John Paul's "compassionate conservative" social policy in e.g. Africa, and was able to justify it theologically in writing a little better than the usual pedestrian bilge that comes out of that office.

This insistence by certain parties here that we 'make amends' with Christianity, in the name of a false and artificial anti-liberalism, is ahistorical. It treats liberalism as something quite other than what it actually was: a justifiable movement against the falsity of the social structure of the Dark Ages. And the enemy of my enemy is most certainly not my friend - better modernism, which at least gropes for reality and fails, than Christianity. You would have us leap from humanism to humanism in the name of a 'tradition' which is not and has never been ours. And when 'tradition' - a concept with a quite inflated stature here - begins to take precedence over cold and hard reality, your philosophy has failed.

This Manichean view of history that, sadly, many ANUSites seem to take for granted - hallowed, holy tradition against virulent modernism - is not only not supported by the historical record, it is dogmatistic hogwash. Modernity was, during its first stages, a welcome break from the era of feudalism, which in turn was a reaction against the decadent, decaying, centralist tendencies of the late Empire. Not to be too dialectical here, but most discernible historical 'epochs' try to be the antithesis of the one which came before, and most of them have at least some reason for doing it. Far better than reacting blindly to modernity's errors by charging headfirst into the 12th century would be to examine the doctrines of all centuries, see which is most useful and most approaching some harmony with reality as we know it, and incorporate it into our frame of reference. But that is scientific, evolutionary, and - gasp! shock! horror! - slightly modern, and so runs contrary to the artificial image of the misanthrope most here seem to want to project.

Your error is to assume that the cause of the problems the western world has encountered since the renaissance have their root in Christianity at all.  Christianity was in many ways a reaction against the humanist decadence of late antiquity.  What the renaissance really constitutes is a resurfacing of a decadence which had been suppressed by Christianity during the middle-ages.  The errors of the modern era are precisely a rejection of the spiritual heritage of the medieval era and therefore a rejection of Christianity.  The primary cause of confusion, from which you yourself suffer, is the fact that these errors sometimes actually take the form of Christianity itself, and this is especially the case since the Protestant reformation, which allowed all manner of humanist influences into Christianity which subsequently infiltrated Catholicism.  What my post was suggesting is that at the present moment, there is a possibility that Catholicism will return to its spiritual heritage but requires men of metaphysical insight to ensure that this takes place.

Then again, if you truly believe that the works of Guenon are 'idealistic pap wholly divorced from any semblance of reality', when his central concern was Reality itself, then I doubt anything I say will be of any use.

You are quite wrong if you honestly believe there was anything 'humanistic' about late antiquity, or that it was less humanistic than, e.g., monasticism. When one considers the fact that what is called 'manorialism' or 'manorism' by modern historians represents the first attempt to provide the poor with permanent jobs by tying them to the serf's field, and that they began around monasteries (or also that monasteries would traditionally provide for paupers during periods of famine or plague), one sees that 'humanism', as such, became inculcated in Europe after the monastic mode of existence was fully established, and as a direct result thereof. Your attempt to link Catholicism to a European 'spiritual tradition' is likewise absurd: it is a Jewish export.

Of course, I consider 'anti-humanism' to be, in the main, a pose, and its proponents to be poseurs.

[Eleison]

You are quite wrong if you honestly believe there was anything 'humanistic' about late antiquity, or that it was less humanistic than, e.g., monasticism. When one considers the fact that what is called 'manorialism' or 'manorism' by modern historians represents the first attempt to provide the poor with permanent jobs by tying them to the serf's field, and that they began around monasteries (or also that monasteries would traditionally provide for paupers during periods of famine or plague), one sees that 'humanism', as such, became inculcated in Europe after the monastic mode of existence was fully established, and as a direct result thereof. Your attempt to link Catholicism to a European 'spiritual tradition' is likewise absurd: it is a Jewish export.

Of course, I consider 'anti-humanism' to be, in the main, a pose, and its proponents to be poseurs.

Perhaps a good start would be to define humanism.  What I mean when I use this term what I mean is the "worship of man", or an inability to understand man's proper relationship with Reality as such due to an excessive love of oneself.  This is independent of charity, especially if one considers that love of one's neighbor is an extension of the love of God, in which case everything is put in its place in the universal hierarchy.

The idea that Christianity has a racial origin is also wrong.  Christianity may have been 'incubated' by the Jewish tradition, but it was ultimately destined for Europeans, and this is evidenced by the fact that Christianity always kept Platonic teachings at its core (i.e. esoterism).   This is a similar situation to how Buddhism developed within Hinduism but had no significant place in India.  The birth of Christianity, as is the case with any religion, was an instantaneous crystallization of Truth, and this is independent of historical factors.

As far as "anti-humanism" is concerned, I only consider myself anti-humanist insofar as I am opposed to intellectual error, of which humanism is one.

[Nimbostratus]

-