In Defense of Evola: Geopolitics and Refuting Media Claims of Bannon Links
by Sean Jobst
30 July 2017
The media cannot be accused of a penetrating analysis of philosophy. It skirts deep issues, examines only the surface about which it exhibits only the most cursory understanding, and displays its penchant for sensationalism when it makes political connections where there are none. Such can be seen in a recent Vanity Fair article, which attempts to link White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon to the Traditionalist philosophical school of René Guénon and Julius Evola. For full disclosure, I am far more of an Evolian than a Guénonian (for a multitude of reasons). I even contributed a lengthy chapter to a volume about Evola published by the excellent Black Front Press in 2013.
However, I don't purport to be even a minor authority on Evola's philosophy, so will leave that to Alexander Morse, whose article I include at the end. I share his perspective on how its ridiculous and appallingly dishonest to ever link any person involved with Trump to Evola or Guénon. My specialties are in politics and geopolitics, and thus will I examine these in light of false attempts to link Traditionalist philosophers to various political movements. Aside from these are the frequent claims about "Fascism", so repeated by certain political and ideological figures that that term has largely lost its actual meaning based on a specific historical context.
Who is Stephen Bannon?
There can be no different contrast from Evola's philosophy than the activities and personality of Stephen Bannon. He personifies the very mammonism and profane, hedonistic materialism with its base values which Evola opposed. Whereas Evola advocated revolting against the modern world on multiple fronts (spiritually, metaphysically, culturally), Bannon revels in a modern world structured in such a way as has allowed him to profit and carve out his own sensational media niche. Under the truly revolutionary (or, more accurately, counter-revolutionary) banner of "cavalcare la tigre" (riding the tiger), Evola boldly rose above a world that had sunk to such decline and decadence. In stark contrast, Bannon is a former Goldman Sachs mergers and acquisitions banker who then profited from purveying the decadence of Hollywood via his work as an entertainment banker.
Despite the hysterical alarm certain media outlets have sounded about Bannon, he has little actual power in the White House as the cycle of the last several months has revealed time and time again, as people Bannon opposed were hired and those he liked were either forced out or marginalized. The truth is that Bannon is a naive fool who thought he could manipulate Trump as his own "blunt instrument", but ended up being duped himself by the Kushner-Cohn-Mnuchin cabal which does actually call the shots. He attempted to play the Svengali but ended up becoming the court-jester. This is the danger of ego: It can either cause you to be manipulated by anyone willing to stroke it, or you develop such a high opinion of your own chess moves that you end up being outplayed.
This is because Bannon worships the illusion of "power" for power's own sake, with no actual Traditionalist underpinning. How could he when he made an entire career out of usury and Hollywood filth?! Cognizant of the circles he previously hobnobbed in, his first interview after Trump won the election was to The Hollywood Reporter. "Darkness is good: Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan," Bannon told the tabloid. "That's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."
My contention is thus that Bannon has cited many philosophical sources as part of an illusionary mish-mash with no ideological or political consistency whatsoever. He projects his nihilistic worship of "power" onto various thinkers and figures who challenged authorities in some way. This warped motive of his will be examined later in the section about Bannon and Leninism. In any case, I'd suspect that Bannon read certain general criticisms Evola made against modern civilization but that he failed to comprehend the Italian's context. Certainly, Bannon is completely at odds with Evola in his worship of political power (so long as his friend Trump is at the helm), elevation of Mammonism, and blind support for even the worst qualities of Western "civilization" (the last stage of decline, as opposed to actual Tradition and organic culture).
Underlying the profane economic basis of his ideology, Bannon gave a speech from Los Angeles via Skype, to the conference of the Human Dignity Institute in the Vatican in July 2014. Keep in mind that Bannon identifies spiritually as a Traditionalist Catholic (perhaps why media sensationalists link him to the broader philosophy of Traditionalism, which has nothing to do with the Catholic movement), but attacks the very foundations of Catholic faith when he continues to live off and has never repudiated the profits he made from usury and Hollywood decadence. Quite the contrary, he still idolizes Mammon in his various statements and actions. He sees the generation of wealth as the central feature of the Capitalism which he extols:
"The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it’s the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East. That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we’ve come partly off-track in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism."
It's significant that Bannon conflated Western liberal capitalism with Soviet communism, as the idea of usury and a central bank certainly unites both sides of the Marxist-Capitalist dialectic. Is this the "enlightened form of capitalism" he extols? It's a superficial view that only looks at the exteriors of conflict but not the roots of conflict. Without digressing, I'll just state that anyone who wants to know the true roots of conflict needs to research the central role of international financiers. Their "power" rests on the perpetuation of debt worldwide, propping up an internally decaying system in an artificial quest for more "wealth". Profit for the few - debt for the masses. Because its for no higher purpose or social utility, this becomes an endless, futile search for more "wealth" - and perpetual debt calls inevitably for perpetual warfare.
One should not be fooled when Bannon claims to speak for either the middle-class or working-class, despite his own working-class background. He knows full well that any wealth distribution for those classes is built upon debt: they have to continuously borrow just to get by, while they're constantly inundated with consumerist advertising - a manufacture of needs - designed to perpetually prop up the system Bannon extols. He bought into a cruel nightmare of an "American dream" which has led to the social and economic problems currently wrecking havoc in our communities. In an illusionary elevation of wealth for wealth's sake, Bannon earned a minor place at the table of his Goldman Sachs bosses - being thrown enough left-over scraps to now make him bow down before Mammon.
Bannon's "traditionalist Catholicism" is a fraud, because Jesus and the Church fathers resolutely condemned usury in all its forms, and an entire tradition of social justice (not Marxist social-engineering under the guise of "social justice") exists within Catholicism. Although I come from a Catholic background, I am not now a Catholic but still deeply respect the tradition enough to expose Bannon as yet another superficial mammonite who twists and exploits religion to serve a profane economic or political agenda. Thus, I defer to the great Revisionist historian Michael A. Hoffman II, a practicing and professing Catholic who has done much work about the early Church fathers' opposition to usury and the modern efforts of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises adherents within the Church to completely overturn any vestiges of that rich tradition.
The "Judeo-Christian" Myth
In his 2014 speech, Bannon refers to "the Judeo-Christian West" as being in a "crisis." This is because of "a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief." Pointing out two distinct strands of capitalism as the "crony" and the "libertarian" variety, he then refers to his own belief in a third, "the 'enlightened capitalism' of the Judeo-Christian West." This is all in keeping with his staunch Zionism, as I documented in an article after last year's election. Perhaps Bannon thinks repetition can make even the biggest lie true, but nothing changes the fact that invoking a shared "Judeo-Christian" West/civilization/belief is a myth.
Harold Bloom, Jewish-American literary critic, said in an interview: "It is absurd to talk about a Judeo-Christian tradition. I say this in spite of the political good that this does for the State of Israel or the remnant of Jewry. Nevertheless, it is an absurd fiction. There is no Judeo-Christian tradition." (Michael Kress, "A Year-End Chat with Harold Bloom," JBooks.com, 2009)
The French-Swiss Jewish scholar and Zionist activist, Josué Jéhouda, wrote in 1958: "The current expression 'Judaeo-Christian' is an error which has altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in men's minds, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of Christianity....If the term 'Judaeo-Christian' does point to a common origin, there is no doubt that it is a most dangerous idea. It is based on a 'contradictio in abjecto' which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcilable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavoring to construct a civilization." (Josué Jéhouda, L'antisémitisme, miroir du monde, Geneva: Éditions Synthesis, 1958)
Stressing the Talmudic nature of Judaism as entirely at odds with Christianity, the Talmudic scholar Jacob Neusner writes emphatically that "...there is not now and there has never been a dialogue between the religions, Judaism and Christianity." He then firmly writes (contrary to Bannon and countless other legions of Gentile Zionists): "Theologically and historically, there is no such thing as the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a secular myth favored by people who are not really believers themselves." (Jacob Neusner, Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003)
Bannon's Connections with Zionists
Bannon has called himself an "economic nationalist". This is construed in the liberal media outlets as being a "white nationalist", further given the eternal slander words "fascist" or "neo-Nazi." They obscure the truth of the ardently pro-Jewish - not just pro-Zionist - Bannon. The dialectic is set up in such a way that if you criticize one side, it has to be on the same grounds as the other dialectic's narrative. My approach is to firmly oppose both dialectics by rejecting disinformation on both sides, in light of consistent principles. To put it bluntly, both narratives are controlled by the Zionists, who want to control the entire discourse so that the followers of each dialectic will only attack the others based on a false, controlled narrative.
Although his 2014 speech (the main focus of this article) didn't mention Israel, Bannon has really cut his teeth with his slavishly pro-Israel activism. One of his close associates was Ari Davis, the late founder and president of the American Freedom Alliance, who was a staunch Zionist with dual citizenship in Israel. As with many of these other characters, the ideological loudmouths (such as Davis) are fronting an organization with deep pockets - and those pockets were kept filled by the Zionists Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, whose Fairbrook Foundation funded American Freedom Alliance to the tune of $120,000 according to their Foundation's 2008 IRS 990 Report. The Chernicks also fund a host of Zionist and Neocon groups: the Zionist Organization of America, MEMRI, American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, JihadWatch, and Aish HaTorah. Bannon himself is merely the over-inflated sugar-baby of the powerful Mercer family, which funds Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica (CA); keep the CA in mind with some themes discussed later in this article.
In any case, I document Bannon's myriad of links with Zionist donors and even Israel, here: "Zio-media pushes false narrative about Bannon."
Bannon's Links to European Faux-Nationalists
Bannon has praised and even cultivated links with a number of faux-nationalist movements throughout Europe, most notably Nigel Farage's UKIP and Marine Le Pen's Front National. "Bannon's a political entrepreneur and a remarkable bloke," gushed Farage to Vanity Fair. "Without the supportive voice of Breitbart London, I'm not sure we would have had a Brexit." He could just as well have thanked the Mercers' Cambridge Analytica (CA), a company specializing in data mining and data analysis with strategic communication for the electoral process. CA was instrumental in the Brexit referendum.
I am not expressing an opinion one way or another about Brexit. I support an organic, regionally-strong, decentralized Europe of a hundred flags rather than a bureaucratic super-state managed by a bureaucratic elite and Globalist-Zionist financiers and political pressure groups. But I have my suspicions about the financial forces behind, and the timing for the sudden push for countries to leave the European Union. Not surprising given his connections to such anti-EU figures as Farage and Le Pen, Bannon used his influence in the White House to subvert U.S. foreign policy in favor of his faux-nationalist friends. "When he got to the White House, he also leveraged U.S. trade policy to strengthen opponents of the E.U."
Bannon has praised Marine Le Pen's niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, as "the new rising star" who is both "practically French medieval" (does Bannon even comprehend the higher values of the medieval period?) and predicted "She's the future of France". Ever the Francophile, Bannon has cited French nationalist icon Charles Maurras as a philosophical inspiration and approvingly quoted Maurras to a French diplomat. Maurras was fanatically Germanophobic and his modern-day disciple, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, denounces the "forced march towards a German federal Europe".
This is the same false narrative that is promoted by even many far-left and Marxist groups around Europe, and I'm not surprised that Le Pen would also engage in such disinformation given shared links various far-left and far-right movements in Europe have with Israel and the Kremlin. Germany itself is blamed for the crimes and machinations of the European Union. This is despite the fact that Germany is an occupied country, kept down by an imposed system of shame-guilt, milked annually by billions in "reparations" to Israel and worldwide Jewish organizations, led by traitors such as Merkel who have forced mass-immigration upon the nation despite the wishes of the majority, and whose taxpayers bear the burdens of propping up the EU.
I am descended from an area of Deutschland (Schwaben) that was frequently invaded by French imperialist forces, most recently in 1945. Our city, Stuttgart, suffered atrocities at their hands. Yet, I don't blame the common French people and I support peace. But Le Pen wants to cling to an outdated phony "nationalist" vision that's more tied to powerful financial forces than an organic France. Whose agenda is actually being served by a false narrative that puts all the blame on a humiliated and subjugated Germany, rather than the Zionist-Globalist elites that actually control the EU? I discussed this issue in a May 2015 article about the Greek financial crisis, whose political observations are outdated and I've long since repudiated but nevertheless still agree with the points about Germany.
Leninist Comrade Bannon
By now, it should be clear Bannon holds to the anti-Traditionalist and thoroughly modernist/liberal position of destruction for its own sake. Yet the media overlooks these facts and desperately seeks to link him with an Evola whose philosophy is consistently at odds with him. At a book party held in Bannon's Capitol Hill townhouse on 12 November 2013, Bannon told former Marxist-turned-Conservative Ronald Radosh that "I'm a Leninist". Taken aback, Radosh asked what he meant and Bannon replied without any hesitation: "Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today's establishment." Bannon was employing Lenin's strategy for Tea Party populist goals against the entire Republican Party establishment and the conservative press. I oppose this establishment and press, too - but likewise know that he's merely a new face to the very same agenda.
The Israeli-Russian Connection to Faux-Nationalists of Europe
The whole lot of these personalities - Bannon, Farage, Le Pen, Wilders, etc. - are faux-nationalists, because they have sold out to two foreign powers: Israel and Russia. They are pawns in a broader geopolitical game to destabilize the West in a dialectical controlled chaos where both them and their opposition are maneuvered by the same forces. Their readiness to abandon even core principles, seen for example in Marine Le Pen's recent announcement that Front National would abandon the push for leaving the Euro currency after their electoral defeat, is indicative of an occultic will for attaining power above any other principle. If the Euro is wrecking the destruction upon France which her party and her has been stating for so long, and if that is indeed their conviction, why abandon it so readily just for political expediency? At the least, this indicates playing politics and clearly attests to the dirty game that is politics, where people adopt whatever "principles" will get them elected.
Upon succeeding her father Jean-Marie as head of Front National, Marine Le Pen expelled him from the party he founded; his past statements about Jews, Israel and Holocaust Dogma were no longer "respectable" to the new links of the party. In 2014, she was bought off with a multi-million dollar loan from a Kremlin-linked Russian bank, which coincided with her involvement in a Russian-sponsored "observer" delegation sent to legitimize the very Crimean referendum (under the watchful guns of Russian tanks and soldiers) that Putin himself later admitted was window-dressing for an annexation he planned before the "green men" casus belli.
This dirty game of politics - shilling for foreign leaders, seeking money, rubber-stamping and legitimizing corrupted elections - has nothing to do with any Evolian Traditionalist understanding, despite the media's attempts to conflate them. Dialectical rigidity is so entrenched that some may assert my criticism of these faux-"nationalist" parties are anyhow endorsement of their opposites - the liberal or conservative parties of the Establishment. This is not an endorsement in any way, shape or form of, for example, Emmanuel Macron, the French President who came out of nowhere onto the political scene (à la Bilderberg) after working for the Rothschilds, and who has vowed to continue the bankers' wars through French interventionism. My contention is that the elites can just as well use openly Globalist tools as they can - and do - phony nationalists.
Not one to let her aunt have all the fun, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen made her own political pilgrimage to Russia when she took part in a forum organized by the Duma in Moscow in December 2012. She discovered in 2013 that her biological father was French journalist Roger Auque, who revealed in his autobiography posthumously in 2015 that he had been a long-active Mossad agent from his time in Lebanon in the 1980s. Another member of the broad pro-Putin coalition is Geert Wilders, another Bannon ally who also exhibits these convergences of staunch Zionism, pro-Kremlin activism, and a sudden agitation to leave the EU. The Dutch daily De Volkskrant reported that Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AVID) agents investigated him between 2009 and 2010 due to "the possibility that Geert Wilders is influenced by Israeli factors". The report was concerned after he visited Israel in 2008, meeting with "Gen. Amos Gilad in his office in the main military headquarters in Tel Aviv, and regularly attended meetings with Israel's ambassador to Holland at the time."
Bannon's Russian Connection
One of the forms of capitalism Bannon discussed in his 2014 speech is what he termed Russian state-capitalism. Although he viewed this as inferior to his own "enlightened capitalism," he was quick to call for an alliance with Putin: "We, the Judeo-Christian West, really have to look at what he's talking about as far as Traditionalism goes - particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism - and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward. You know, Putin’s been quite an interesting character. He’s also very, very, very intelligent."
One should see right through the hallowed praise of sovereignty coming from a faithful steward of Israel, just as one can see his warped sense of "Traditionalism" is not Evolian in any sense. Politics has always been filled with charlatans who pretend to speak passionately for what they despise in their heart - and by their actions. There could just as well be financial motives, such as the Mercers' company Cambridge Analytica - of which Bannon is a board member - being implicated in efforts to coordinate Russian propaganda in the United States using its micro-targeting capabilities. Bannon has praised Alexander Dugin, ideological leader of the Russian Eurasianist movement who publicly welcomed Trump's election victory. The self-proclaimed Leninist Bannon "is a believer in what is called Duginism", as noted by one analyst.
In an interview with Mother Jones, Bannon boasted that Breitbart is "the platform of the alt-right." One of the leaders of the Alt-Right is Richard Spencer, who was elated when the arch-Zionist, former Goldman Sachs and Hollywood banker Bannon was appointed to the White House. This is the same Spencer who floated the idea of an alliance with Likudist-Kahanist Zionists and whose Russian-born wife, Nina Kouprianova, is a staunch Russian propagandist who translates Dugin's books into English and appears regularly on the Kremlin-funded network, Russia Today (named after a 1967 issue of Look Magazine that celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution with the most myopic pro-Soviet propaganda). In an interview with Dugin's Katehon think-tank, Spencer defined the Alt-Right as "the fourth political theory", using Dugin's own name for Eurasianism.
Eurasianism: A (((Zionist))) Russian Imperialist Movement Against the West
A man is known by the company he keeps, and when we look into Dugin's connections, we see a host of figures spanning both the far-right and the far-left. Knowing how the elites use dialectics, we should be suspicious of a Svengali with an apparent endless source of funding and interlocking network of websites, think-tanks and NGOs who can so effortlessly united such disparate groups into a common geopolitical vision that ultimately serves the oligarchic interests behind the Kremlin. The same pattern of converging interests occurs again, no matter what angle we examine.
One of the most notable links is Avigdor Eskin, a Russian-born Israeli who is a staunch Kahanist and has cultivated his own links to far-right movements in Europe and South Africa. A close friend of Dugin whom he often consults with in Moscow, Eskin has used his links with ten U.S. congressmen and the Israeli Knesset to lobby support for Russian aims in Ukraine. Alt-Right websites publish glowing interviews of this fanatical Zionist. Eskin participated in a Cabbalistic ceremony called a "pulsa dinura," in which a "death curse" was invoked against Yitzhak Rabin. The Cabbala has been praised by Dugin, who presented it as a "traditionalist" link binding Judaism and Russian Orthodoxy. This is in keeping with Eskin's own appearance on Russian State TV, "praising both Jews and Russians as the true spiritual and messianic people - the audience responded with a standing ovation".
Dugin in His Own Words
Why have I included Dugin in this discussion? That he has been cited by Bannon as an inspiration is one thing, but a more alarming trend is the length to which he has been idolized in Traditionalist and other alternative meta-political movements. For all his talks about a multipolar world, he merely wants to replace the "unipolar world" of American power with a Russian-dominated Eurasian union with the strength and power to steamroll over all opponents. Traditionalists who speak against Western cultural or racial supremacists, should likewise be consistent and oppose this Russian supremacist who subverts and perverts true Traditionalism.
Dugin presented his vision of a Russian Manifest Destiny in his Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia (1997), approvingly quoted on a Duginist website. Its proposals have never been repudiated by Dugin or his followers, so clearly they are part and parcel of Eurasianism. The cornerstone of Dugin's ideology is a geopolitical alliance against the unipolar world of American power. He proposes his Russocentric "Eurasianism" against American "Atlanticism." But does Dugin only advocate a "multipolar world" as a strategic weapon until after the decline of America, Russia can lead a new unipolar world? What follows are direct citations from his own book....
Dugin admits that his opposition to U.S. global power is not principled, but to merely replace it with Russia. "The battle for the world rule of Russians has not ended"(213). This is because the Russians are "the bearers of a unique civilization," a messianic people who possess "universal, pan-human significance"(189). Remember his friend Eskin's words about the Jews and Russians both being special "messianic" peoples, as well as Dugin's own praise of the messianism of Cabbalism. What are his anti-liberal credentials when he proclaims his own utopian vision? Its a perverse hypocrisy when he asserts relative truth to Western audiences to justify what he terms as "our special Russian truth", while elevating the "universal, pan-human" qualities of Russians, to a Russian audience.
Eurasianism is not a defensive posture of Russian identity within its own borders. "A repudiation of the empire-building function would signify the end of the Russian people as a historical reality, as a civilizational phenomenon. Such a repudiation would be tantamount to national suicide"(197). If not for an empire ruling over other peoples, the Russians would "disappear as a nation"(251). Eurasia should be reconstituted as a great "supra-national empire" wherein ethnic Russians would naturally occupy "a privileged position"(251-252), indeed "the central role"(253) based on the model of the Soviet Union whose loss he has repeatedly lamented.
Thus, Dugin calls for the annexation of Finland into "Murmansk oblast"(371-372), that Belarus is "part of Russia"(377), Moldova "the Russian South"(343), and Ukraine "has no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness"(377), so that "without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics"(348). His words against Ukrainians, even denying their very existence as a distinct people or culture, parallels Zionist talking-points against the Palestinians. And what about the rest of Europe in this Eurasian Empire? "The maximum task is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe"(369).
Western 'Postmodernity" as Ally of Russian "Traditionalism"?
He expanded on these geopolitical topics and even gave an apparent critique of Western liberalism, in The Fourth Political Theory (2012). But read between the lines and its very clear he defends Russia and its empire from the standpoint of "Tradition," while criticizing the West from the perspective of postmodernism and even cultural Marxism. Not surprising given one who proclaimed himself a "National Bolshevik" and has sanitized the atrocities of Stalin, even now this alleged "Traditionalist" praises Karl Marx's ideas as "tremendously useful and applicable"(50). He welcomes the attacks of postmodernists and cultural Marxists upon Western societies "from all directions, from the political (the events of 1968), to the cultural, philosophical, artistic, the very presentation of man, reason, science, and reality"(132). Keep in mind the similar context in which Bannon called himself Leninist.
Despite the idealization of a "traditionalist" Russia by European faux-"nationalists" and American Alt-Righters, Dugin's critique of liberalism is actually masking his intrinsic critique of Western history and cultures. "In order to adequately understand the essence of liberalism, we must recognize that it is not accidental, that its appearance in the political and economic ideologies is based on fundamental processes, proceeding in all Western civilization. Liberalism is not only a part of that history, but its purest and most refined expression, its result"(140). Its the West itself that carries "all the signs of intellectual racism, apartheid, and other totalitarian prejudices"(133).
These various forces - Bannon, the American Alt-Right, European phony nationalist parties, and the various Putin and Dugin cultists, from across the far-left and far-right - are being utilized by the elites to set up a new dialectic that would further entrench Globalism under the clever disguise of anti-Globalism and Traditionalism. We should always remain consistent and see beyond anything that would subordinate or claim these values are to be carried by a political party or ideology. - SJ
ADDENDUM
https://crazyradiotalk.wordpress.com/2017/07/19/does-bannon-accurately-reflect-the-views-of-guenon-and-evola/
Does Bannon accurately reflect the views of Guenon and Evola?
by Alexander Morse
July 19, 2017
.... However, having said that it’s important to note, as I have said multiple times before, that if Guenon was alive today, he would have nothing but contempt for Bannon. If Evola would slap Bannon into next week, Guenon would blast him into eternity. This article already does a satisfactory job explaining their differences. However, I do need to add something important.
Guenon in his early career believed it to be possible to bring about a “restoration” in the west. However, after he settled in Egypt, until he died in 1951, he rejected the possibility of resurrecting any “traditional” civilization, and openly denounced fascism on more than one occasion. He also adamantly rejected nationalism, civil or racial, in all of its forms, and specifically likened it, together with Capitalism, Communism, Freudianism, Theosophy, Spiritism, Religious fundamentalism, and environmental destruction as symptoms of modern decadence.
On the subject of environmental destruction, Trump’s denial of the science of global warming, his support for the keystone pipeline, and all of his other fronts in the war on life itself are at the polar opposite of what Guenon and Evola advocated, as they both saw respecting the environment as an important feature of traditional civilization. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, professor at George Washington University has written on this subject in detail and his lectures are available for public view on youtube.
In regards to Evola, I have stated before and will state again, that Evola would not support Trump or Bannon, in any way shape or form. For Trump represents the very decadence that Evola disdained, A manifestation of Capitalism and Populism, specifically the two things Guenon and Evola disdained most about American culture. Evola, contrary to Bannon, was also an ardent Islamophile, writing extensively in his magnum opus Revolt against the Modern World:
“Islam, which originated among the Semitic races also consisted of the Law and Tradition, regarded as a formative force, to which the Arab stocks of the origins provided a purer and nobler human material that was shaped by a warrior spirit. The Islamic law (shariah) is a divine law; its foundation, the Koran, is thought of as God’s very own word (kalam Allah) as well as a nonhuman work and an “uncreated book” that exists in heaven ab eterno. Although Islam considers itself the “religion of Abraham” it is nevertheless true that (a) it claimed independence from both Judaism and Christianity; (b) the Kaaba, with its symbolism of the center, is a pre-Islamic location and has even older origins that cannot be dated accurately; (c) in the esoteric Islam tradition, the main reference point is al-Khadir, a popular figure conceived as superior to an pre-dating the biblical prophets (Koran 18:59-81). In early Islam the only form of asceticism was action, that is, jihad, or “holy war”; this type of war, at least theoretically, should never be interrupted until the full consolidation of the divine Law has been achieved. Finally, Islam presents a traditional completeness, since the shariah and the sunna, that is, the exoteric law and tradition, have their complement not in vague mysticism, but in full-fledged initiatory organizations (turuq) that are categorized by an esoteric teaching (tawil) and by the metaphysical doctrine of the Supreme Identity (tawhid). In these organizations, and in general in the shia, the recurrent notions of the masum, of the double perogative of the isma (doctrinal infallibility), and of the impossibility of being stained by any sin (which is the perogative of the leaders, the visible and invisible Imams and the mujtahid), lead back to the line of an unbroken race shaped by a tradition at a higher level than both Judaism and the religious beliefs that conquered the West.”
However, more specifically, what Evola despised most about Americanism is the notion of a “Self-made man” Which Evola found to be the opposite of true traditional civilization. I think anyone can infer what Evola would say to Trump, given his following paragraph on American decadence.
“in a society which has lost all sense of tradition the notion of personal aggrandisement will extend into every aspect of human existence, reinforcing the egalitarian doctrine of pure democracy. If the basis of such ideas is accepted, then all natural diversity has to be abandoned. Each person can presume to possess the potential of everyone else and the terms ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ lose their meaning; every notion of distance and respect loses meaning; all life-styles are open to all. To all organic conceptions of life Americans oppose a mechanistic conception. In a society which has ‘started from scratch’, everything has the characteristic of being fabricated. In American society appearances are masks not faces. At the same time, proponents of the American way of life are hostile to personality.”
Trump represents the very “self-made man” that Evola blasts in his paragraph. No, Evola and Guenon were not right about everything, however, there is still a lot of timeless wisdom in their works, especially for those interested in philosophy, theology, and the history of religions. However, if for nothing else for the sake of intellectual honesty, Bannon and Trump should not be seen as their byproduct.
by Sean Jobst
30 July 2017
The media cannot be accused of a penetrating analysis of philosophy. It skirts deep issues, examines only the surface about which it exhibits only the most cursory understanding, and displays its penchant for sensationalism when it makes political connections where there are none. Such can be seen in a recent Vanity Fair article, which attempts to link White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon to the Traditionalist philosophical school of René Guénon and Julius Evola. For full disclosure, I am far more of an Evolian than a Guénonian (for a multitude of reasons). I even contributed a lengthy chapter to a volume about Evola published by the excellent Black Front Press in 2013.
However, I don't purport to be even a minor authority on Evola's philosophy, so will leave that to Alexander Morse, whose article I include at the end. I share his perspective on how its ridiculous and appallingly dishonest to ever link any person involved with Trump to Evola or Guénon. My specialties are in politics and geopolitics, and thus will I examine these in light of false attempts to link Traditionalist philosophers to various political movements. Aside from these are the frequent claims about "Fascism", so repeated by certain political and ideological figures that that term has largely lost its actual meaning based on a specific historical context.
Who is Stephen Bannon?
There can be no different contrast from Evola's philosophy than the activities and personality of Stephen Bannon. He personifies the very mammonism and profane, hedonistic materialism with its base values which Evola opposed. Whereas Evola advocated revolting against the modern world on multiple fronts (spiritually, metaphysically, culturally), Bannon revels in a modern world structured in such a way as has allowed him to profit and carve out his own sensational media niche. Under the truly revolutionary (or, more accurately, counter-revolutionary) banner of "cavalcare la tigre" (riding the tiger), Evola boldly rose above a world that had sunk to such decline and decadence. In stark contrast, Bannon is a former Goldman Sachs mergers and acquisitions banker who then profited from purveying the decadence of Hollywood via his work as an entertainment banker.
Despite the hysterical alarm certain media outlets have sounded about Bannon, he has little actual power in the White House as the cycle of the last several months has revealed time and time again, as people Bannon opposed were hired and those he liked were either forced out or marginalized. The truth is that Bannon is a naive fool who thought he could manipulate Trump as his own "blunt instrument", but ended up being duped himself by the Kushner-Cohn-Mnuchin cabal which does actually call the shots. He attempted to play the Svengali but ended up becoming the court-jester. This is the danger of ego: It can either cause you to be manipulated by anyone willing to stroke it, or you develop such a high opinion of your own chess moves that you end up being outplayed.
This is because Bannon worships the illusion of "power" for power's own sake, with no actual Traditionalist underpinning. How could he when he made an entire career out of usury and Hollywood filth?! Cognizant of the circles he previously hobnobbed in, his first interview after Trump won the election was to The Hollywood Reporter. "Darkness is good: Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan," Bannon told the tabloid. "That's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."
My contention is thus that Bannon has cited many philosophical sources as part of an illusionary mish-mash with no ideological or political consistency whatsoever. He projects his nihilistic worship of "power" onto various thinkers and figures who challenged authorities in some way. This warped motive of his will be examined later in the section about Bannon and Leninism. In any case, I'd suspect that Bannon read certain general criticisms Evola made against modern civilization but that he failed to comprehend the Italian's context. Certainly, Bannon is completely at odds with Evola in his worship of political power (so long as his friend Trump is at the helm), elevation of Mammonism, and blind support for even the worst qualities of Western "civilization" (the last stage of decline, as opposed to actual Tradition and organic culture).
Bannon's Profane Capitalism
Underlying the profane economic basis of his ideology, Bannon gave a speech from Los Angeles via Skype, to the conference of the Human Dignity Institute in the Vatican in July 2014. Keep in mind that Bannon identifies spiritually as a Traditionalist Catholic (perhaps why media sensationalists link him to the broader philosophy of Traditionalism, which has nothing to do with the Catholic movement), but attacks the very foundations of Catholic faith when he continues to live off and has never repudiated the profits he made from usury and Hollywood decadence. Quite the contrary, he still idolizes Mammon in his various statements and actions. He sees the generation of wealth as the central feature of the Capitalism which he extols:
"The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it’s the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East. That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we’ve come partly off-track in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism."
It's significant that Bannon conflated Western liberal capitalism with Soviet communism, as the idea of usury and a central bank certainly unites both sides of the Marxist-Capitalist dialectic. Is this the "enlightened form of capitalism" he extols? It's a superficial view that only looks at the exteriors of conflict but not the roots of conflict. Without digressing, I'll just state that anyone who wants to know the true roots of conflict needs to research the central role of international financiers. Their "power" rests on the perpetuation of debt worldwide, propping up an internally decaying system in an artificial quest for more "wealth". Profit for the few - debt for the masses. Because its for no higher purpose or social utility, this becomes an endless, futile search for more "wealth" - and perpetual debt calls inevitably for perpetual warfare.
One should not be fooled when Bannon claims to speak for either the middle-class or working-class, despite his own working-class background. He knows full well that any wealth distribution for those classes is built upon debt: they have to continuously borrow just to get by, while they're constantly inundated with consumerist advertising - a manufacture of needs - designed to perpetually prop up the system Bannon extols. He bought into a cruel nightmare of an "American dream" which has led to the social and economic problems currently wrecking havoc in our communities. In an illusionary elevation of wealth for wealth's sake, Bannon earned a minor place at the table of his Goldman Sachs bosses - being thrown enough left-over scraps to now make him bow down before Mammon.
Bannon's "traditionalist Catholicism" is a fraud, because Jesus and the Church fathers resolutely condemned usury in all its forms, and an entire tradition of social justice (not Marxist social-engineering under the guise of "social justice") exists within Catholicism. Although I come from a Catholic background, I am not now a Catholic but still deeply respect the tradition enough to expose Bannon as yet another superficial mammonite who twists and exploits religion to serve a profane economic or political agenda. Thus, I defer to the great Revisionist historian Michael A. Hoffman II, a practicing and professing Catholic who has done much work about the early Church fathers' opposition to usury and the modern efforts of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises adherents within the Church to completely overturn any vestiges of that rich tradition.
The "Judeo-Christian" Myth
In his 2014 speech, Bannon refers to "the Judeo-Christian West" as being in a "crisis." This is because of "a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief." Pointing out two distinct strands of capitalism as the "crony" and the "libertarian" variety, he then refers to his own belief in a third, "the 'enlightened capitalism' of the Judeo-Christian West." This is all in keeping with his staunch Zionism, as I documented in an article after last year's election. Perhaps Bannon thinks repetition can make even the biggest lie true, but nothing changes the fact that invoking a shared "Judeo-Christian" West/civilization/belief is a myth.
Harold Bloom, Jewish-American literary critic, said in an interview: "It is absurd to talk about a Judeo-Christian tradition. I say this in spite of the political good that this does for the State of Israel or the remnant of Jewry. Nevertheless, it is an absurd fiction. There is no Judeo-Christian tradition." (Michael Kress, "A Year-End Chat with Harold Bloom," JBooks.com, 2009)
The French-Swiss Jewish scholar and Zionist activist, Josué Jéhouda, wrote in 1958: "The current expression 'Judaeo-Christian' is an error which has altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in men's minds, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of Christianity....If the term 'Judaeo-Christian' does point to a common origin, there is no doubt that it is a most dangerous idea. It is based on a 'contradictio in abjecto' which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcilable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavoring to construct a civilization." (Josué Jéhouda, L'antisémitisme, miroir du monde, Geneva: Éditions Synthesis, 1958)
Stressing the Talmudic nature of Judaism as entirely at odds with Christianity, the Talmudic scholar Jacob Neusner writes emphatically that "...there is not now and there has never been a dialogue between the religions, Judaism and Christianity." He then firmly writes (contrary to Bannon and countless other legions of Gentile Zionists): "Theologically and historically, there is no such thing as the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a secular myth favored by people who are not really believers themselves." (Jacob Neusner, Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003)
Bannon's Connections with Zionists
Bannon has called himself an "economic nationalist". This is construed in the liberal media outlets as being a "white nationalist", further given the eternal slander words "fascist" or "neo-Nazi." They obscure the truth of the ardently pro-Jewish - not just pro-Zionist - Bannon. The dialectic is set up in such a way that if you criticize one side, it has to be on the same grounds as the other dialectic's narrative. My approach is to firmly oppose both dialectics by rejecting disinformation on both sides, in light of consistent principles. To put it bluntly, both narratives are controlled by the Zionists, who want to control the entire discourse so that the followers of each dialectic will only attack the others based on a false, controlled narrative.
Although his 2014 speech (the main focus of this article) didn't mention Israel, Bannon has really cut his teeth with his slavishly pro-Israel activism. One of his close associates was Ari Davis, the late founder and president of the American Freedom Alliance, who was a staunch Zionist with dual citizenship in Israel. As with many of these other characters, the ideological loudmouths (such as Davis) are fronting an organization with deep pockets - and those pockets were kept filled by the Zionists Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, whose Fairbrook Foundation funded American Freedom Alliance to the tune of $120,000 according to their Foundation's 2008 IRS 990 Report. The Chernicks also fund a host of Zionist and Neocon groups: the Zionist Organization of America, MEMRI, American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, JihadWatch, and Aish HaTorah. Bannon himself is merely the over-inflated sugar-baby of the powerful Mercer family, which funds Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica (CA); keep the CA in mind with some themes discussed later in this article.
In any case, I document Bannon's myriad of links with Zionist donors and even Israel, here: "Zio-media pushes false narrative about Bannon."
Bannon's Links to European Faux-Nationalists
Bannon has praised and even cultivated links with a number of faux-nationalist movements throughout Europe, most notably Nigel Farage's UKIP and Marine Le Pen's Front National. "Bannon's a political entrepreneur and a remarkable bloke," gushed Farage to Vanity Fair. "Without the supportive voice of Breitbart London, I'm not sure we would have had a Brexit." He could just as well have thanked the Mercers' Cambridge Analytica (CA), a company specializing in data mining and data analysis with strategic communication for the electoral process. CA was instrumental in the Brexit referendum.
I am not expressing an opinion one way or another about Brexit. I support an organic, regionally-strong, decentralized Europe of a hundred flags rather than a bureaucratic super-state managed by a bureaucratic elite and Globalist-Zionist financiers and political pressure groups. But I have my suspicions about the financial forces behind, and the timing for the sudden push for countries to leave the European Union. Not surprising given his connections to such anti-EU figures as Farage and Le Pen, Bannon used his influence in the White House to subvert U.S. foreign policy in favor of his faux-nationalist friends. "When he got to the White House, he also leveraged U.S. trade policy to strengthen opponents of the E.U."
Bannon has praised Marine Le Pen's niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, as "the new rising star" who is both "practically French medieval" (does Bannon even comprehend the higher values of the medieval period?) and predicted "She's the future of France". Ever the Francophile, Bannon has cited French nationalist icon Charles Maurras as a philosophical inspiration and approvingly quoted Maurras to a French diplomat. Maurras was fanatically Germanophobic and his modern-day disciple, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, denounces the "forced march towards a German federal Europe".
This is the same false narrative that is promoted by even many far-left and Marxist groups around Europe, and I'm not surprised that Le Pen would also engage in such disinformation given shared links various far-left and far-right movements in Europe have with Israel and the Kremlin. Germany itself is blamed for the crimes and machinations of the European Union. This is despite the fact that Germany is an occupied country, kept down by an imposed system of shame-guilt, milked annually by billions in "reparations" to Israel and worldwide Jewish organizations, led by traitors such as Merkel who have forced mass-immigration upon the nation despite the wishes of the majority, and whose taxpayers bear the burdens of propping up the EU.
I am descended from an area of Deutschland (Schwaben) that was frequently invaded by French imperialist forces, most recently in 1945. Our city, Stuttgart, suffered atrocities at their hands. Yet, I don't blame the common French people and I support peace. But Le Pen wants to cling to an outdated phony "nationalist" vision that's more tied to powerful financial forces than an organic France. Whose agenda is actually being served by a false narrative that puts all the blame on a humiliated and subjugated Germany, rather than the Zionist-Globalist elites that actually control the EU? I discussed this issue in a May 2015 article about the Greek financial crisis, whose political observations are outdated and I've long since repudiated but nevertheless still agree with the points about Germany.
Leninist Comrade Bannon
By now, it should be clear Bannon holds to the anti-Traditionalist and thoroughly modernist/liberal position of destruction for its own sake. Yet the media overlooks these facts and desperately seeks to link him with an Evola whose philosophy is consistently at odds with him. At a book party held in Bannon's Capitol Hill townhouse on 12 November 2013, Bannon told former Marxist-turned-Conservative Ronald Radosh that "I'm a Leninist". Taken aback, Radosh asked what he meant and Bannon replied without any hesitation: "Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today's establishment." Bannon was employing Lenin's strategy for Tea Party populist goals against the entire Republican Party establishment and the conservative press. I oppose this establishment and press, too - but likewise know that he's merely a new face to the very same agenda.
The Israeli-Russian Connection to Faux-Nationalists of Europe
The whole lot of these personalities - Bannon, Farage, Le Pen, Wilders, etc. - are faux-nationalists, because they have sold out to two foreign powers: Israel and Russia. They are pawns in a broader geopolitical game to destabilize the West in a dialectical controlled chaos where both them and their opposition are maneuvered by the same forces. Their readiness to abandon even core principles, seen for example in Marine Le Pen's recent announcement that Front National would abandon the push for leaving the Euro currency after their electoral defeat, is indicative of an occultic will for attaining power above any other principle. If the Euro is wrecking the destruction upon France which her party and her has been stating for so long, and if that is indeed their conviction, why abandon it so readily just for political expediency? At the least, this indicates playing politics and clearly attests to the dirty game that is politics, where people adopt whatever "principles" will get them elected.
Upon succeeding her father Jean-Marie as head of Front National, Marine Le Pen expelled him from the party he founded; his past statements about Jews, Israel and Holocaust Dogma were no longer "respectable" to the new links of the party. In 2014, she was bought off with a multi-million dollar loan from a Kremlin-linked Russian bank, which coincided with her involvement in a Russian-sponsored "observer" delegation sent to legitimize the very Crimean referendum (under the watchful guns of Russian tanks and soldiers) that Putin himself later admitted was window-dressing for an annexation he planned before the "green men" casus belli.
This dirty game of politics - shilling for foreign leaders, seeking money, rubber-stamping and legitimizing corrupted elections - has nothing to do with any Evolian Traditionalist understanding, despite the media's attempts to conflate them. Dialectical rigidity is so entrenched that some may assert my criticism of these faux-"nationalist" parties are anyhow endorsement of their opposites - the liberal or conservative parties of the Establishment. This is not an endorsement in any way, shape or form of, for example, Emmanuel Macron, the French President who came out of nowhere onto the political scene (à la Bilderberg) after working for the Rothschilds, and who has vowed to continue the bankers' wars through French interventionism. My contention is that the elites can just as well use openly Globalist tools as they can - and do - phony nationalists.
 |
| Marion's Mossad agent father |
Not one to let her aunt have all the fun, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen made her own political pilgrimage to Russia when she took part in a forum organized by the Duma in Moscow in December 2012. She discovered in 2013 that her biological father was French journalist Roger Auque, who revealed in his autobiography posthumously in 2015 that he had been a long-active Mossad agent from his time in Lebanon in the 1980s. Another member of the broad pro-Putin coalition is Geert Wilders, another Bannon ally who also exhibits these convergences of staunch Zionism, pro-Kremlin activism, and a sudden agitation to leave the EU. The Dutch daily De Volkskrant reported that Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AVID) agents investigated him between 2009 and 2010 due to "the possibility that Geert Wilders is influenced by Israeli factors". The report was concerned after he visited Israel in 2008, meeting with "Gen. Amos Gilad in his office in the main military headquarters in Tel Aviv, and regularly attended meetings with Israel's ambassador to Holland at the time."
Bannon's Russian Connection
One of the forms of capitalism Bannon discussed in his 2014 speech is what he termed Russian state-capitalism. Although he viewed this as inferior to his own "enlightened capitalism," he was quick to call for an alliance with Putin: "We, the Judeo-Christian West, really have to look at what he's talking about as far as Traditionalism goes - particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism - and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward. You know, Putin’s been quite an interesting character. He’s also very, very, very intelligent."
One should see right through the hallowed praise of sovereignty coming from a faithful steward of Israel, just as one can see his warped sense of "Traditionalism" is not Evolian in any sense. Politics has always been filled with charlatans who pretend to speak passionately for what they despise in their heart - and by their actions. There could just as well be financial motives, such as the Mercers' company Cambridge Analytica - of which Bannon is a board member - being implicated in efforts to coordinate Russian propaganda in the United States using its micro-targeting capabilities. Bannon has praised Alexander Dugin, ideological leader of the Russian Eurasianist movement who publicly welcomed Trump's election victory. The self-proclaimed Leninist Bannon "is a believer in what is called Duginism", as noted by one analyst.
In an interview with Mother Jones, Bannon boasted that Breitbart is "the platform of the alt-right." One of the leaders of the Alt-Right is Richard Spencer, who was elated when the arch-Zionist, former Goldman Sachs and Hollywood banker Bannon was appointed to the White House. This is the same Spencer who floated the idea of an alliance with Likudist-Kahanist Zionists and whose Russian-born wife, Nina Kouprianova, is a staunch Russian propagandist who translates Dugin's books into English and appears regularly on the Kremlin-funded network, Russia Today (named after a 1967 issue of Look Magazine that celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution with the most myopic pro-Soviet propaganda). In an interview with Dugin's Katehon think-tank, Spencer defined the Alt-Right as "the fourth political theory", using Dugin's own name for Eurasianism.
Eurasianism: A (((Zionist))) Russian Imperialist Movement Against the West
A man is known by the company he keeps, and when we look into Dugin's connections, we see a host of figures spanning both the far-right and the far-left. Knowing how the elites use dialectics, we should be suspicious of a Svengali with an apparent endless source of funding and interlocking network of websites, think-tanks and NGOs who can so effortlessly united such disparate groups into a common geopolitical vision that ultimately serves the oligarchic interests behind the Kremlin. The same pattern of converging interests occurs again, no matter what angle we examine.
One of the most notable links is Avigdor Eskin, a Russian-born Israeli who is a staunch Kahanist and has cultivated his own links to far-right movements in Europe and South Africa. A close friend of Dugin whom he often consults with in Moscow, Eskin has used his links with ten U.S. congressmen and the Israeli Knesset to lobby support for Russian aims in Ukraine. Alt-Right websites publish glowing interviews of this fanatical Zionist. Eskin participated in a Cabbalistic ceremony called a "pulsa dinura," in which a "death curse" was invoked against Yitzhak Rabin. The Cabbala has been praised by Dugin, who presented it as a "traditionalist" link binding Judaism and Russian Orthodoxy. This is in keeping with Eskin's own appearance on Russian State TV, "praising both Jews and Russians as the true spiritual and messianic people - the audience responded with a standing ovation".
 |
| Dugin and Eskin |
Dugin in His Own Words
Why have I included Dugin in this discussion? That he has been cited by Bannon as an inspiration is one thing, but a more alarming trend is the length to which he has been idolized in Traditionalist and other alternative meta-political movements. For all his talks about a multipolar world, he merely wants to replace the "unipolar world" of American power with a Russian-dominated Eurasian union with the strength and power to steamroll over all opponents. Traditionalists who speak against Western cultural or racial supremacists, should likewise be consistent and oppose this Russian supremacist who subverts and perverts true Traditionalism.
Dugin presented his vision of a Russian Manifest Destiny in his Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia (1997), approvingly quoted on a Duginist website. Its proposals have never been repudiated by Dugin or his followers, so clearly they are part and parcel of Eurasianism. The cornerstone of Dugin's ideology is a geopolitical alliance against the unipolar world of American power. He proposes his Russocentric "Eurasianism" against American "Atlanticism." But does Dugin only advocate a "multipolar world" as a strategic weapon until after the decline of America, Russia can lead a new unipolar world? What follows are direct citations from his own book....
Dugin admits that his opposition to U.S. global power is not principled, but to merely replace it with Russia. "The battle for the world rule of Russians has not ended"(213). This is because the Russians are "the bearers of a unique civilization," a messianic people who possess "universal, pan-human significance"(189). Remember his friend Eskin's words about the Jews and Russians both being special "messianic" peoples, as well as Dugin's own praise of the messianism of Cabbalism. What are his anti-liberal credentials when he proclaims his own utopian vision? Its a perverse hypocrisy when he asserts relative truth to Western audiences to justify what he terms as "our special Russian truth", while elevating the "universal, pan-human" qualities of Russians, to a Russian audience.
Eurasianism is not a defensive posture of Russian identity within its own borders. "A repudiation of the empire-building function would signify the end of the Russian people as a historical reality, as a civilizational phenomenon. Such a repudiation would be tantamount to national suicide"(197). If not for an empire ruling over other peoples, the Russians would "disappear as a nation"(251). Eurasia should be reconstituted as a great "supra-national empire" wherein ethnic Russians would naturally occupy "a privileged position"(251-252), indeed "the central role"(253) based on the model of the Soviet Union whose loss he has repeatedly lamented.
Thus, Dugin calls for the annexation of Finland into "Murmansk oblast"(371-372), that Belarus is "part of Russia"(377), Moldova "the Russian South"(343), and Ukraine "has no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness"(377), so that "without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics"(348). His words against Ukrainians, even denying their very existence as a distinct people or culture, parallels Zionist talking-points against the Palestinians. And what about the rest of Europe in this Eurasian Empire? "The maximum task is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe"(369).
Western 'Postmodernity" as Ally of Russian "Traditionalism"?
He expanded on these geopolitical topics and even gave an apparent critique of Western liberalism, in The Fourth Political Theory (2012). But read between the lines and its very clear he defends Russia and its empire from the standpoint of "Tradition," while criticizing the West from the perspective of postmodernism and even cultural Marxism. Not surprising given one who proclaimed himself a "National Bolshevik" and has sanitized the atrocities of Stalin, even now this alleged "Traditionalist" praises Karl Marx's ideas as "tremendously useful and applicable"(50). He welcomes the attacks of postmodernists and cultural Marxists upon Western societies "from all directions, from the political (the events of 1968), to the cultural, philosophical, artistic, the very presentation of man, reason, science, and reality"(132). Keep in mind the similar context in which Bannon called himself Leninist.
Despite the idealization of a "traditionalist" Russia by European faux-"nationalists" and American Alt-Righters, Dugin's critique of liberalism is actually masking his intrinsic critique of Western history and cultures. "In order to adequately understand the essence of liberalism, we must recognize that it is not accidental, that its appearance in the political and economic ideologies is based on fundamental processes, proceeding in all Western civilization. Liberalism is not only a part of that history, but its purest and most refined expression, its result"(140). Its the West itself that carries "all the signs of intellectual racism, apartheid, and other totalitarian prejudices"(133).
These various forces - Bannon, the American Alt-Right, European phony nationalist parties, and the various Putin and Dugin cultists, from across the far-left and far-right - are being utilized by the elites to set up a new dialectic that would further entrench Globalism under the clever disguise of anti-Globalism and Traditionalism. We should always remain consistent and see beyond anything that would subordinate or claim these values are to be carried by a political party or ideology. - SJ
ADDENDUM
https://crazyradiotalk.wordpress.com/2017/07/19/does-bannon-accurately-reflect-the-views-of-guenon-and-evola/
Does Bannon accurately reflect the views of Guenon and Evola?
by Alexander Morse
July 19, 2017
.... However, having said that it’s important to note, as I have said multiple times before, that if Guenon was alive today, he would have nothing but contempt for Bannon. If Evola would slap Bannon into next week, Guenon would blast him into eternity. This article already does a satisfactory job explaining their differences. However, I do need to add something important.
Guenon in his early career believed it to be possible to bring about a “restoration” in the west. However, after he settled in Egypt, until he died in 1951, he rejected the possibility of resurrecting any “traditional” civilization, and openly denounced fascism on more than one occasion. He also adamantly rejected nationalism, civil or racial, in all of its forms, and specifically likened it, together with Capitalism, Communism, Freudianism, Theosophy, Spiritism, Religious fundamentalism, and environmental destruction as symptoms of modern decadence.
On the subject of environmental destruction, Trump’s denial of the science of global warming, his support for the keystone pipeline, and all of his other fronts in the war on life itself are at the polar opposite of what Guenon and Evola advocated, as they both saw respecting the environment as an important feature of traditional civilization. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, professor at George Washington University has written on this subject in detail and his lectures are available for public view on youtube.
In regards to Evola, I have stated before and will state again, that Evola would not support Trump or Bannon, in any way shape or form. For Trump represents the very decadence that Evola disdained, A manifestation of Capitalism and Populism, specifically the two things Guenon and Evola disdained most about American culture. Evola, contrary to Bannon, was also an ardent Islamophile, writing extensively in his magnum opus Revolt against the Modern World:
“Islam, which originated among the Semitic races also consisted of the Law and Tradition, regarded as a formative force, to which the Arab stocks of the origins provided a purer and nobler human material that was shaped by a warrior spirit. The Islamic law (shariah) is a divine law; its foundation, the Koran, is thought of as God’s very own word (kalam Allah) as well as a nonhuman work and an “uncreated book” that exists in heaven ab eterno. Although Islam considers itself the “religion of Abraham” it is nevertheless true that (a) it claimed independence from both Judaism and Christianity; (b) the Kaaba, with its symbolism of the center, is a pre-Islamic location and has even older origins that cannot be dated accurately; (c) in the esoteric Islam tradition, the main reference point is al-Khadir, a popular figure conceived as superior to an pre-dating the biblical prophets (Koran 18:59-81). In early Islam the only form of asceticism was action, that is, jihad, or “holy war”; this type of war, at least theoretically, should never be interrupted until the full consolidation of the divine Law has been achieved. Finally, Islam presents a traditional completeness, since the shariah and the sunna, that is, the exoteric law and tradition, have their complement not in vague mysticism, but in full-fledged initiatory organizations (turuq) that are categorized by an esoteric teaching (tawil) and by the metaphysical doctrine of the Supreme Identity (tawhid). In these organizations, and in general in the shia, the recurrent notions of the masum, of the double perogative of the isma (doctrinal infallibility), and of the impossibility of being stained by any sin (which is the perogative of the leaders, the visible and invisible Imams and the mujtahid), lead back to the line of an unbroken race shaped by a tradition at a higher level than both Judaism and the religious beliefs that conquered the West.”
However, more specifically, what Evola despised most about Americanism is the notion of a “Self-made man” Which Evola found to be the opposite of true traditional civilization. I think anyone can infer what Evola would say to Trump, given his following paragraph on American decadence.
“in a society which has lost all sense of tradition the notion of personal aggrandisement will extend into every aspect of human existence, reinforcing the egalitarian doctrine of pure democracy. If the basis of such ideas is accepted, then all natural diversity has to be abandoned. Each person can presume to possess the potential of everyone else and the terms ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ lose their meaning; every notion of distance and respect loses meaning; all life-styles are open to all. To all organic conceptions of life Americans oppose a mechanistic conception. In a society which has ‘started from scratch’, everything has the characteristic of being fabricated. In American society appearances are masks not faces. At the same time, proponents of the American way of life are hostile to personality.”
Trump represents the very “self-made man” that Evola blasts in his paragraph. No, Evola and Guenon were not right about everything, however, there is still a lot of timeless wisdom in their works, especially for those interested in philosophy, theology, and the history of religions. However, if for nothing else for the sake of intellectual honesty, Bannon and Trump should not be seen as their byproduct.
