The Sheer Modernism of Perennialism

“The Perennialists claim to be saving religion from the onslaught of modernity, but by adopting a pluralist epistemology, and especially one that is applied to the truths at the core of a given religion, they are sacrificing its most essential element: sacrality; for if religion is deprived of its exclusive claim to absolute truth, then it is deprived of its sacrality and sacrosanctity and can no longer claim to be sacred. This, of course, is precisely the loss that the Perennialists claim to be avoiding. Ultimately, the whole movement is a modernist reaction which is supposedly against modernity. Again, you can’t make this stuff up!”

Arash Najaf-Zadeh (The European New Right – A Shi’a Response: A Radical Critique of Alexander Dugin, E. Michael Jones, and Alain de Benoist, pg. 131)

Arguments for Ethnonationalism: Some Observations – Part – I

A few days ago, as I was going through my Telegram feed, I saw an essay on the wall of Imperium Press. It was titled, In Defence of Ethnonationalism, which was written by Victor Van Brandt.

It begins with an etymological description of the word ‘nation’ and how a people precede a state not vice versa, and, therefore, “one cannot define the nation by reference to the state”, which is a valid point.

It then lists four arguments in support of ethnonationalism.

They are:

The argument from particularism

The pragmatic argument

The argument from fairness

The argument from diversity

Let us analyze each one separately.

“Argument from Particularism”

In the “argument from particularism”, the author describes nation as an “extended kinship group”. And since we prioritize our family and its interests over others, the same can be said in the context of a nation.

The subtext is “evolutionary” that sees Man as a descendent of ape-like ancestors whose behavior should be studied within the parameters of empirical sciences.

To quote from the essay:

One sees that in nature, animals keep to their own kind. They move together in groups based on their shared characteristics and look after their own group. Humans are in physical terms really just a very intelligent species of primate, and the same basic principles and laws apply to them as to every other animal.

Now, here is a problem.

Whereas it can be said that animals “do move together in groups based on their shared characteristics and look after their own group”, they do not do this under some order of morality and ethics.

Besides, intra-group infanticide and killings are regular occurrences within the animal kingdom.

The exigencies of leading a pack often result in ruthless massacres of potential rivals irrespective of their age and stature.

A lion does not think twice before attacking a little cub.

Would a particular human ethnic group benefit if it adopts such savage in-group competition where heads of families clash violently among themselves? They would extinct themselves with their own hands.

It is the moral and ethical framework that governs the parameters of human relationships.

Why should a son/daughter listen to his/her father/mother?

Why should he/she respect his/her elders?

Why should a man look after his children?

Why should a mother take care of her newborn?

Why should she not abandon her offspring?

Why should she not have the right to kill them?

Why should I show kindness to those younger than me?

Why should I be gentle towards my co-ethnics?

&,

Why should I be respectful towards other ethnicities/races?

In essence, a moral argument for ethnonationalism can only be raised on moral and ethical foundations, which I do not think the “evolutionary” perspective can provide.

(To be continued)

Christianity and Paganism(s) & Their Structural Weaknesses

Following is the comment I posted on Counter-Currents under the title Christianity is a Vast Reservoir of Potential White Allies:

Both Christianity and Paganism(s) have serious structural deficiencies. They can’t challenge let alone overturn the totalitarian marketization of the society.

They do not have a comprehensive way of life. They are made to adjust themselves to the prevailing or developing value system.

The erroneous splitting of the social existence into “secular” and “godly” sectors leaves the latter part at the mercy of the former.

It happened to Pagan traditions when they came into contact with Christianity. The erstwhile pagan royalty and nobility switched towards the new system and overcame the pagan masses and their traditions by granting Christianity a privileged status in society.

This favored status persisted as long as the “secular” world was suffering from administrative weaknesses.

However, once the “secular” domain regained its strength, it outmuscled Christianity socially as well as ideologically.

Now, the “secular” bureaucratic state machinery negotiates from the position of strength. It behaves condescendingly.

Liberal ontology is abominable but formidable.

P.S.: Today, Hinduism too is suffering the same fate Christianity suffered in Europe. The “Hindu revival” (Hindutva) under the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the market regimentalization of the Hindu portion of the society, which is a corporate-driven effort to decimate the rural strongholds (a potential threat to the liberal urban value system) and force the rural man to migrate towards the big commercial centers in search of “jobs”. His ancestral land will be used to “industrialize” India.

Revelation (Waḥy) and Philosophy

Philosophy is the quicksilver that revelation was sent down from on high to preclude humanity from having to touch, for touch it enough and we will surely become “as mad as a hatter”.

“A coherent philosophical footing” is an oxymoron that is bested only by the term “philosophical faith”. Philosophy is for those who have failed to attain the certainty of faith. And so the solution is to recognize the need for a stability whose only basis can be revealed knowledge concerning the world beyond the ken of human perception.

Arash Najaf-Zadeh (The European New Right – A Shi’a Response: A Radical Critique of Alexander Dugin, E. Michael Jones, and Alain de Benoist, pgs. 60-1)

When The Cyanide Pill Was Finally Bitten Down

The United Kingdom carelessly refused any serious understanding with Wilhelmine Germany. The Teutophobia of the political class was deplorable. It had been building up since the German unification. The Monarchy should have intervened and restrained the out of control anti-German clique.

Europe was humiliated at Versailles by Europeans, and a generation later it was all over.

Germany did surrender but it took with it the British and French empires.

The Flip Side of Being The Most Spoken Language

Has the globalization of the English language been intellectually beneficial for the native White English speakers [Britishers, Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders] and other non-English speaking Occidentals?

Or

Has it rendered them susceptible to greater political manipulation?

They understand the world in the English language.

Is this understanding superfluous or deep?

Is it primary or secondary?

Look at it this way.

Many of us do not need a translator or a Routledge/Oxford/Cambridge/Penguin/Palgrave Macmillan handbook to know what is taking place in the Occident.

Familiarity with English [as far as West Asia and South Asia are concerned] and in other cases French and German outside academia is quite common.

Unlike in the West where the academia acts as a kind of suspicious intermediary, we know politics in the West like the back of our hands.

Therefore, here, political elites find it tremendously difficult to sell ‘meaningful engagement with the West’ and other related nonsense.

People are generally aware (((who))) holds the bridle of the West and who, eventually, would gain from this ‘engagement’.

Now, put the Occident in the aforementioned context.

How many in the Occident know Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Turkish etc. outside the academia?

When they read the news, how do they know that a certain anti-western leader’s words have been translated correctly?

Or that a certain country’s internal political dynamics, history, society etc. are being portrayed accurately?

The correct answers to these inquiries will reveal why it has been so easy for Western political elites to gain enthusiasts and addicts for their ‘Judeo-Christian/Rome Jerusalem/Western Civilization is superior’ fantasies.