I recently decided to get my hands on Revolt Against The Modern World, by Italian Traditionalist Julius Evola. Intrigued by the title, I thought it might provide some kind of structure or game-plan that could help swing the pendulum of our culture back in a more traditional direction.
What I discovered in the book was that, and much more. Some of it I agree with, but some I found spiritually toxic. Today, I thought I’d write up a review highlighting both sides of this very interesting read.
To begin with, there are many sentiments expressed in this book with which any genuine traditionalist can agree. Evola was rabidly, staunchly opposed to many of the same things that modern right-wingers correctly identify as the causes of our society’s ills.
He wrote that any philosophy based on materialism or biology — instead of on higher spiritual principles—is bound to fail. It’s a sentiment I agree with completely, echoing my own foremost criticism of the alt-right.
For example, I take no philosophical issue with the idea of nation-states being populated primarily by the people who created them. And I apply this same standard to every group and tribe on Earth.
My issue with the alt-right arises when people argue that biological similarity, in and of itself and guided by nothing higher, is somehow sufficient for the creation and maintenance of a thriving, successful society.
Historically, this has never been the case. Each example of a society the alt right points to as proof of a “successful European society” was, in fact, a successful religious European society. No successful society—for any race—has been led by a mono-cultural mix of pagans, Christians, atheists, and satanists. Where and when multiculturalism has worked in the past, it has always been in the context of a shared faith.
While bound by the ties of a common culture and language, the members of successful nations were connected primarily by the glue of a common spirituality.
From that starting point, Evola’s premise is that there is a certain hierarchy and order to the invisible layers of nature (those parts of the spiritual realm with which most are unfamiliar). I also agree with this sentiment, as traditional Christian theology teaches that angels have various ranks or belong to various “orders” within the super-substantial realm.
This invisible hierarchy, so a bastardized version of his argument goes, should be the blueprint and foundation of the political and social order found down here on the material plane as well. The “Below,” as he described it, ought to reflect the “Above.”
This concept should make sense to most Christians. We even say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.”
Anchoring the law and state in divine and eternal principles, rather than mortal and fleeting ones, is a powerful bulwark against every form of degeneracy. The world we live in today amounts to little more than competing secular and materialist philosophies which lack even the potential to solve the problems which they seek to address.
Therefore, I agree wholeheartedly with Evola’s diagnosis that the cause of cultural malaise is spiritual disconnection. However, that is where my agreement with his philosophy ends.
Obviously, my primary criticism of Evola’s philosophy is that it’s based in paganism and not Christianity. From the fundamental understanding that material actions should be based in immaterial principles, paganism and Abrahamic religion are really the only two directions that things can go in.
Evola, in my opinion, chose the wrong one.
Like the Masonic philosopher Albert Pike, Evola was an avid student of Indo-Aryan culture and the (pre-)Zoroastrian religion upon which it was founded. Also like Pike, Evola perceived a lot of what he discovered there as the “blueprint” for future Christian beliefs.
It is certainly true that there is some overlap between Zoroastrianism and Christianity. In fact, it is a basic tenet of Orthodox theology that all religions and belief systems contain some amount of truth, even if small in measure. Since we are all created in the image of God, so the thinking goes, it is impossible for anyone to be wrong about absolutely everything.
However, the problem with the Evolian line of thinking on the topic is that, rather than recognizing certain ancient traditions as foreshadowing the coming Incarnation of Christ, men like Pike and Evola simply equated the two traditions instead. This is a very common error made by pagan thinkers, and one which they have been making since antiquity.
This is quite similar to how the Old Testament religion of Judaism (which I was raised in) simply “set the table” for the coming New Testament religion of Christianity. The feasts, festivals, and paradigms were simply laying out the signposts and markers which culminated in the events of the Incarnation and Gospel narrative.
It is my opinion that the Orthodox Christian Church, composed of Tradition and Scripture and Canon Law, is the ultimate and closest-to-perfect example of the kind of society which Tradition should create. None of it is “of the Earth,” as it contains the revealed and reflected laws of Heaven put into action in the material world.
Of course, all forms of Christianity should operate similarly if they were to hold true to the dogmas passed down by the Apostles and their students. However, given the tens of thousands of versions of Protestantism—and the creeping modernist influence in the post-Vatican-II Roman Catholic Church—it seems that not all Churches calling themselves “Christian” are living out the fullness of faith handed down over time.
Now certainly, there is the question of whether the Church should be in charge of the State — or whether it should simply bolster its members in relative cultural isolation in order to remain steadfast and true regardless of where the societal winds are blowing. It’s a good question, and the subject of much discussion within Christian circles.
On the one hand, I think most tradition-minded people can agree that a society established with the health of families and their members in mind (rather than the agenda of the rich and powerful) is ideal. That is certainly the situation which appears to lead to both material and spiritual prosperity.
On the other hand, an equally-strong argument can be made that traditional Christianity — as practiced in the soul and conduct of an individual — is an eternal, unchanging, robust ship which does not sink when the cultural tides get tough. In fact, you could argue that the worse the society around you gets, the better the opportunity to oppose the schemes of the devil in favor of following Christ’s example.
In the end, my own opinion is that we should focus primarily on sanctifying ourselves and our immediate families and communities. Through that, and only after that, does it make sense to go after cultural change.
After all, the state of a man’s soul does not depend on what is going on around him—it depends on his response to it. It depends on whether his internal state remains strong like an oak tree or bends in the wind.
In that sense, the “Revolt Against The Modern World“ is primarily an internal one. It is in the building of a character that refuses to bow down before the idol of modernity. It is in the sharpening of a mind which refuses to be softened by the High Priests of culture and their relentless propaganda.
My friends, the truth is this: there is more freedom to be found in the “inner world” than in the “outer” one. In a time of unprecedented falsehood and degeneracy, let us hold fast to what is true and right and good. This is the only path to liberation, and the road traveled by all whose soul seeks genuine purpose.
Read More: 9 Ideas From Julius Evola’s “Ride The Tiger” That Are Still Valid Today
40 thoughts on “The Pros And Cons Of Julius Evola’s “Revolt Against The Modern World””
Very well-written article. It was a pleasure to read it.
My critique against this books is partly more about the mish-mash of influences that his take on “Tradition” are based upon, however sharp his mind was and the partial truths and insights that may have emerged from it. The fascination of Evola partly stems from lack of adequate knowledge and critical thinking among his enthusiastic readers.
Evola’s ideas are based on a modified version of René Guénon’s regression of the caste theory, an “inverted” outlook on historical cycles taken form Giambattista Vico, Herman Wirth, and to lesser degree Joseph de Maistre. A little bit of Mircea Eliade as well. That’s pretty much the entire “Tradition”.
Revolt Against the Modern World is for most men not be taken as a serious historical or even “religious” or “political” book, although it has some significance in relationship to explaining various traditional tenets and ideas. One may find more of value within his take on various esoteric currents (if one happens to have some interest in them, for instance on an academic level or for mere curiosity), like The Docrine of Awakening or Eros and the Mysteries of Love, as well as his cultural and existential reflections and analyses in Ride the Tiger and later essays.
Arktos Media has just published a couple of translations of his essay collections like The Bow and the Club. Worth a read.
Very well-written article. It was a pleasure to read it.
My critique against this book is partly more about the mishmash of influences that his take on “Tradition” are based upon, however sharp his mind was and the partial truths and insights that may have emerged from it. The fascination of Evola partly stems from a lack of adequate knowledge and critical thinking among his enthusiastic readers.
Evola’s ideas are based on a modified version of René Guénon’s regression of the caste theory, an “inverted” outlook on historical cycles taken form Giambattista Vico, Herman Wirth, and to lesser degree Joseph de Maistre. A little bit of Mircea Eliade and his penchant for finding similarities between the world’s religions as well. That’s pretty much the entire “Tradition”.
Revolt Against the Modern World is for most men not be taken as a serious historical or even “religious” or “political” book, although it has some significance in relationship to explaining various traditional tenets and ideas. One may find more of value within his take on a plethora of esoteric currents (if one happens to have some interest in them, for instance on an academic level or for mere curiosity), like The Docrine of Awakening or Eros and the Mysteries of Love, as well as his cultural and existential reflections and analyses in Ride the Tiger and later essays.
Arktos Media has just published a couple of translations of his essay collections like The Bow and the Club. Worth a read.
I respect you and your writing William but I found this to be an empty critique.
“The fascination of Evola partly stems from a lack of adequate knowledge and critical thinking among his enthusiastic readers.”
What knowledge do you think would make Evola’s ideas obsolete? And I consider myself a critical thinker, yet I think some of Evola’s ideas are almost essential for the re-emergence of a true right wing.
And the author of this article seems to think Evola’s pagan ideals are in competition with Christianity, but this is a misunderstanding in my opinion. Without the kind of pagan and traditionalist ideals that Evola suggests we have lost (e.g., admitting the superiority of the warrior and philosopher castes over the peasantry), the Christian West would have never been able to achieve what it has.
It is not clear that Christianity would even exist today if it was not sacralized and maintained by the sword of the Roman soldier. The Papacy is not even grounded in Christian philosophy, but rather was made a legitimate institution by the structural remains of the Holy Roman Empire.
Without warrior and pagan ideals like loyalty, courage, or asceticism, Christianity will not be spared from global Muslim and Communist takeover.
You said: “Without warrior and pagan ideals like loyalty, courage, or asceticism, Christianity will not be spared from global Muslim and Communist takeover.”
I do not see any point in Christian history in which the traits of loyalty, courage, and asceticism were not valued. The Church has a long line of martyrs, whose blood has been called “the seeds of the Church.”
Further, Eastern Orthodox (and to a smaller extent, Roman Catholic) theology does place a high value on monastic asceticism. In fact, a huge amount of our theology comes from the writings and ideas of monks who completely turned their backs on the world in order to get closer to God.
You also mentioned “the superiority of the warrior and philosopher castes over the peasantry.” Christian theology maintains that every person under the sun is equal in the eyes of God, but any attempts to turn this kind of “theological equality” into “worldly equality” are misplaced in my opinion.
I don’t think anyone with a functioning brain could doubt that some people are taller, smarter, stronger, wiser, or more well-suited to certain roles than others.
Scripture itself does not deny this distinction between theological and worldly equality, as there as passages in which both masters and servants are taught that God is equally available to people in each caste–provided they serve in that particular role in a Christian and Godly way.
I have seen attempts by some, usually Protestants, to usurp the idea of theological equality and turn it into a worldly “social justice” crusade.
While I certainly believe in defending the genuinely oppressed and helping the genuinely needy, I did not mean to imply (in any way, shape, or form) that I am espousing anything Marxist in nature.
Hope that helps to clarify my position.
Because he just essentially made up an arbitrary theory and world view based on a mishmash of other writers and influences and cherry picking of historical evidence for his particular outlook. For instance, the warrior caste – even in Europe – has seldom been noble or even courageous. They stole from peasants, raped and killed in order to thrive or survive. Evola has a very romanticized view on the “castes”.
What we can learn from writers like Evola, though, is to have a strong inner character and certain ideals, and create a physical/mental synthesis of these two faculties. We can also use his texts to analyze certain sociocultural phenomena, to the extent to which they are still relevant for contemporary society. But his class analysis is largely a joke with little or no significance for people like us, in the middle.
Thank you, I will check those out.
What a fucking joke. God is dead. You can either adapt or get left behind. Christianity is not going to make a comeback, it’s over. You can continue to base your life on Christian morals but if you want to compete with the rest of us those restrictive morals will hold you back.
It’s also difficult to ignore the studies which relate ethnicity and shared culture (not only religion) with greater social trust, cohesion, and cooperation.
Aside from the exaggerated “God is Dead” tantrum, I agree. Although, I will point out that, if you grew up in the West, your life is based on Christian morals whether you like it or not.
Only without strong morals, you are not competing against each other but stabbing each other in the back!
Go buttslam a dude you preening, neck bearded basement dweller.
This guy is consistently the worst writer on this site.
Then why do you read all my articles?
I have to say I was thinking the same. He is a multi cultist who cannot see that it is mere annihilation of one group takes a disproportiante numbers of the other groups reproductive options ie women over a few generations and where the natives get outbred then crushed. Thats how it has gone many many times. The white men with Muslim or black groups then get their chances to have families cut down significantly.
Multiculturalism only works with a shared faith?? Is that even multiculturalism by modern standards? You can see across the world it screws up almost always and creates a divided society. Jews like you have seen that many times where it has created misery for both sides.
Why is the left promoting it? They are too blue-pilled to see the likely outcomes and that race is far from a social construct.
I wrote an article for this site about how the Left has already lost the 2020 Presidency because of their obsession with hating white men. If you’re going to criticize an author, it’s useful to at least read what they’ve written on a topic first.
“Then why do you read all my articles?”
Same reason you read alt-right guys you don’t like.
I love lines like this: “Well, material success is not the goal of the Christian life.”
Pretty easy goal, bro.
You misunderstand me, I’m not attacking Christianity. A traditional Christian society would be a much healthier more productive society than this degenerate one. But that way of life is not making a comeback. These guys are holding onto an inoperative ideal.
In competition only the outcome matters. Morality to garner sympathy or feign weakness in competition can be effective but if you operate in only that restricted space you are easily beaten. For women, in the workplace, job opportunities, in war, politics, etc.
Read 33 Strategies of War or 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene
Well, material success is not the goal of the Christian life. There are certainly “pastors” who preach that, but it’s a heresy that most people call the “prosperity Gospel.”
Practiced correctly, the goal of the Christian life is to become like Christ, to the greatest degree of which we are capable, in the hope of Resurrection in the age to come.
If my goal was simply material prosperity or a large harem or adoring lovers, I would certainly not be practicing forgiveness and self-denial as I am now trying my best to do.
I lived that way for about 27 years, tasted the fruits it had to offer, and ultimately decided it was hollow and meaningless. I wouldn’t trade the presence of God in my heart for any amount of material prosperity, because I’ve had both and I know which one I prefer.
Hope that makes sense.
Well said, Mr. Witcoff. Like you, I too crossed the Bosporus (20 years ago as a then 40 year old man. Antiochian EOC now). But the bitter fruit of the “Prosperity Gospel” was not my personal poison to swallow, but rather, 40 years of evangelical Protestantism, which was for me “an inch deep and a mile wide”. Perhaps we’ll see another good article from you about the sad state of mainline Protestantism today?
That is a great description of evangelical Protestantism. I went to a Wesleyan Church for about a year and a half before becoming an Orthodox catechumen, and am endlessly grateful for what I learned there. I still have friends there who I value quite highly. But ultimately, as you have pointed out, it is a bit shallow and ultimately God called me deeper into the faith than what I think Protestantism can offer.
“I wouldn’t trade the presence of God in my heart”
Ah, you have another man inside your brain, and he has magical powers letting him see and know everything. Has he given you ANY information that you didn’t get through your senses – through seeing and hearing? Any info on what will happen ten years ahead for example, or how to build a new machine. No? Because it’s funny – neither is there any such info in the bibble. None. The Jews who wrote the texts couldn’t predict a single thing, and they contradicted each other over and over even when describing the past. (For example: Did Jesus’ family move to live in Egypt after his death? Or not? Which “gospel” tells the truth and which is lying on this point?)
The bibble didn’t say the world was round, for example. It lyingly said the earth is flat. It didn’t say the world revolves around the sun, but falsely claimed the sun is attached to a dome above our heads. It didn’t give instructions in math that hadn’t been invented by the Pagan Greeks yet. It didn’t say how to build a steam engine – now THAT would have been useful. It didn’t predict that fanatic Christians would preach to the Arabs, who would then turn the monotheism into Islam. It didn’t predict that Constantinople’s religious war against Persia would deplete both empires so the Arabs could rise and take over the Middle East instead of them.
It didn’t predict that North and South America existed, or Australia, or anything else about the world. It didn’t explain evolution. In short, there was zero verifiable information in the bible that was true, and what WAS verifiable was always false. Round earth, sorry.
But tell me, to prove you have that man with magical powers talking to you inside your brain – what verifiable information has he given you about the future, so you can prove that he is really inside there? How about, say, asking him the name of China’s president’s successor? Now that would be interesting if you could tell us in advance. Then you might actually have something.
Go set ur ballz on fire you pseudo-intellectual neck brearded basement dweller.
I am not only writing about material success. I am writing about open competition, war.
A warning to those convinced of their own piety: If you come across me in the modern world, in which we all have to live and compete, I will use your moral structure against you. You are an easy mark. I will claim to be moral to get close to you then I will destroy you; I will wait until you act immoraly in the slightest (according to your own code) and I will make it known you only seek power through your morals; I will operate in the dark where you have no experience and are not able to go because your religiokn restricts you.
That’s a pretty crass and pessimistic outlook on human nature and interaction but partially spot-on, of course. The most pious, inward-looking Christians never stood a chance against the extrinsic immanent powers, until they perhaps used some of those “Machiavellian” strategies and approaches themselves in order to safeguard against external threats in the material world.
Let’s say a fairly pious town somewhere in France in the sixteenth century, brimming with good Christians – they didn’t last long against the enemy of this world whenever it encroached upon them.
I also think it’s a mistake to say that religion necessarily makes society “work”, well even for religious people in particular, unless one happens to think that a religious society is an end in itself. Work in what way and for what purpose? If you truly believe in spiritual awakening within the individual corpus/soul you can hardly think that the societies of the past were great. I see a paradox here: on one hand, the material existence doesn’t matter; on the other, people should create a great society in this world, and focus on beautiful churches, chaste behavior and whatnot which express goodness and greatness. For such a society to exist, however, a significant share of its members must be at least somewhat cunning, strong and powerful. How can people prey and meditate in God’s house if the Machiavellians do not build great armies, borders and outmaneuver the enemy?
Was all that necessary? You could have just stated you were a J3w.
The author doesn’t have the slightest idea what he’s talking about; his christian preconceptions are incapacitating him.
1. Whether you like or not, the christian beliefs are basically a judaized version of Zoroastrianism, with bits of Buddhism here and there for flavor.
2. There are zero, I repeat, ZERO point of contact between the doctrines of Pike and Evola. They are polar opposites.
3. “This is quite similar to how the Old Testament religion of Judaism (which I was raised in) (…)” So, you are a marrano? That explains your fundamental incapacity of understanding Evola’s thinking.
First the Israeli, and now a marrano here at RoK? This place sinks deeper and deeper….
Durr, muh christianity! No need for White genes!
“Each example of a society the alt right points to as proof of a “successful European society” was, in fact, a successful religious European society. ”
Typical Xtian lying – but that is what to expect. Ancient Greece was great because of tribes coming down from northern Europe through the Balkans to populate it. They didn’t need any rehashed Judaism. From the Greeks come all Western philosophy. Rome was great because it was built by the same European stock, and because of the absence of Xtianity. When it became Xtian, it died. Xtianity declares that all men are equal, that “there is neither Greek nor Jew, for we are all brothas in Christ!” This sentiment killed the Roman Empire as it gave up power to non-Romans.
Celtic and Germanic tribes had prosperous societies at the same time Rome was built, though Roman historians wouldn’t acknowledge it. The only thing keeping them back was the great difficulties for agriculture in the north, since the ground froze much earlier in the year and since it took a thousand years to clear the forests that prevented widespread agriculture. But they traded and had a great culture without Jewish monotheism.
Later kingdoms became great despite Xtianity, not because of it. It is laughable to claim that that particular religion and its particular delusions about how people never have to die, and people you don’t like will be tortured in fire forever, is necessary for building a civilization. And how funny that it only appeared in one place – if it was “da one true religion!” it should have popped up all over the world, with prophets unrelated to each other. It didn’t. Because it was tied to the Jewish tribal god Yahweh.
Despite this monotheism Europeans could build and move forward. Too bad though that Xtian “wez all brothas!” fanatics brought monotheism to the Arabs, who turned it into Islam. Meanwhile other Xtians in Constantinople attacked Persia in 20 years of religious war, depleting both empires, which gave the Arabs the chance to invade and spread. Xtian Constantinople oppressed other Xtian groups and Jews in the Levant, and these sided with the Muslims, which was crucial for their early spread. This is how Xtianity made sure Arabs could take over what is now Iraq, the Levant, north Africa, and of course spread far into Europe. Good moves, Xtians.
Xtianity held back Europe’s development for centuries. It was only when the Black Plague came that the Xtian sickness was broken. The lying priests told people that the Plague was the tribal god Yahweh’s punishment “for their sins”, i.e. for not obeying the priests enough and giving them more money. This was a blatant lie. They told people they had to gather in the priest-controlled churches and “beg for forgiveness” for the plague to go away. This was another blatant lie. It was in the churches the plague spread more than ever, with people packed in tight. Only science solved the plague, by figuring out how it spread and telling people to stay at HOME, not in the churches, and then organizing a system for safely distributing food and removing the dead.
When people in the Middle Ages saw that the priests had been full of shiht their grip on people’s minds were broken, and the Renaissance could be ushered in, with the greatest increase in prosperity and culture since Pagan Greece and Pagan Rome. Intelligent men kept improving the people’s well-being with new inventions and explorations, by ignoring Xtian lies about how the world was built. Oh, the world is round, by the way, not flat. It’s a good thing the explorers realized Xtianity lied about that little detail. Also, the moon, stars and sun are not attached to a dome over our heads and the world is not held up by seven pillars. Good thing scientists ignored that lie from Xtianity too.
Though we should’t be too harsh on Xtian lies, since much of it was a rehash from earlier religions. The god that dies and comes back to life for the people’s benefit was a widespread belief that Saolos, the founder of Xtianity, stole. Pagans north of the Balkans and westward believed in nature gods, or the son of a nature goddess, who would die for the crops to grow, and then came back to life with a good harvest. Don’t feel bad if you didn’t know – it is common for Xtians to be ignorant of religion.
Expanding on that last part, here are some of the religions that Saolos, founder of Xtianity, stole his stories from:
Egyptian Horus – Born of a virgin. Star in the east. Walked on water. Healed the sick. Restored sight. Crucified. Dead for three days. Resurrected.
Indian Mithra – Born of a virgin. Born on December 25. Star in the east. Had twelve disciples. Performed miracles. Dead for three days. Resurrected.
Indian Krishna – Born of a virgin. Star in the east. Performed miracles. Called “son of god”. Son of a carpenter. Resurrected.
Greek Dionysus – Born of a virgin. Born on December 25. Traveling teacher. Turned water into wine. Called “holy child”.
Isa, name distorted to “Jesus” to make him sound more European – All of the above.
Also, the cross? It was a common religious symbol among Celts, signifying the four directions and the four seasons, i.e. all space and time, the world. Xtians didn’t use it initially of course, and instead used INRI and the fish, but Romans were well aware of Celtic religion that they had lived close to for centuries. Including, as mentioned earlier, the nature god or son of a nature goddess who gave his life every year to grow the crops, and came back to life with the harvest. Hmm, a god sacrificing himself for people, sounds so familiar….
But I give props to Xtians for ignoring the first and most important commandment, “you shall not kill”. ISA (actual name before being Greekified to “Jesus”) was a pacifist nut who told his followers not to fight. Probably because he couldn’t. Well, this is Saolos’ story at least: Xtians probably just wanted to score points for their weakness.
Luckily later Xtians have ignored this or we wouldn’t have survived. They realized the stupidity in actually following Xtian teachings. “B-b-but you’ll be rewarded in heaven FOREVER!!! So turn the other cheek and be beaten there too! And if a man wants your coat, also give him your shirt!” Almost no one actually followed this nonsense. Instead they followed Pagan, natural teachings, that you should fight to defend your people.
The priests realized that the Bible was nonsense, which is why they kept its text secret from people. Kept it all in Latin which people couldn’t read. They must have cursed the group of celibate, cloistered monks who put togethe the Bible texts and did such a lousy job. Amost all of it had to be kept hidden just so people would survive, and so they wouldn’t worship Jews as “god’s Chosen” as the Old Testament said. (To his credit, one of the monks in the Bible group had strongly opposed including the Jew-supremacist Old Testament in the Bible, but he was voted down. The book would be too thin otherwise, it needed to be padded.) When people learned to read and the Bible was turned into living languages, it was all downhill – people started to believe that “there is neither Greek nor Jew, we are all brothers” and “you should turn the other cheek” and all the other kumbayah in the New Testament. Result: letting a foreign tribe flood into the U.S. and take over the media, for one thing. “Brothas! Jesus was also a Jew!”
It was “Thou shalt do no murder.”
>watches Zeitgest once
“and people you don’t like will be tortured in fire forever”
I was raised or atleast influenced in the belief that hell was some sort of torturous prison, punishment for sinners and bad people. Burning in hell as you say. As I started to drift from atheist to believing in a god I grew curious about hell, of the Christian kind.
I probably didn’t do enough digging from scriptures but from what I did discover, my interpretation of hell is somewhat different to what I guess most would believe. I believe it is a place where one is no more, true death, in flesh and spirit. Not torture, nor pain, just ceasing to exist. Burnt from existence, erased.
I guess this line of thinking doesn’t put fear into being seduced by evil, even encouraging a nihilistic outlook if you aren’t already atheist. What does it matter, you will meet your own selfish fulfilments and then that will be that without punishment or reckoning. Or so some believe.
Every time the government bombs a country, bans free speech, confiscates guns, wiretaps people, seizes property, tortures, and kills people then you are responsible.
Silence means consent.
You would be naive to think that the government won’t get worse or that you will never be a victim of government abuse.
Many parts of the alt-right acknowledge the fact that the lack of grounding in Christianity or healthy spirituality is cause for concern. Identity Dixie consistently promotes Christianity, often claiming that the movement will die without it. https://identitydixie.com/2017/05/26/a-righteous-cause-southern-nationalism-and-the-christian-faith/
You’re a brave man Michael. Only one thing Zionists hate more than goyim. A fellow tribesman that does not follow the herd to damnation and opposes them.
Ironically, it’s those very Zionists responsible for genuine “anti-Semitism.” If they stopped ruining other peoples’ countries, the masses of Jews would stop getting punished on account of their crimes. They are no “tribesmen” of mine simply on account of shared ethnicity, and I see the war today as very similar in nature to the (Jewish) Apostles facing off with the Synagogue of Satan 2,000 years ago.
“There is nothing new under the sun.”
“This is quite similar to how the Old Testament religion of Judaism (which I was raised in) simply “set the table” for the coming New Testament religion of Christianity. The feasts, festivals, and paradigms were simply laying out the signposts and markers which culminated in the events of the Incarnation and Gospel narrative.”
I imagine you’re not that popular with your family
!My friends, the truth is this: there is more freedom to be found in the “inner world” than in the “outer” one!
This is no doubt true in many ways – it is the freedom to choose how to respond (including in dire circumstances that would seem to pre-determine the response) to paraphrase one modern thinker. One thing I would point out though is that that point could be seen as at variance with the hermetic principle of “as above, so below”. There has always been a somewhat concealed debate in religion over whether (and on what basis) we should distinguish between the material and the spiritual world. Where is the kingdom of heaven? Does it live in the crowds or does it need bringing about somehow in the world of the below?
Claims everything progresses to Christianity
“Incarnation of Christ” i.e. mythological construct.