#antimodernism

[periodicresetofcivilizations]

The Call to Resistance: Rebuilding from the Ruins of Modernity

Title: The Call to Resistance: Rebuilding from the Ruins of Modernity

Tags: #Tradition #SpiritualWar #NewOrder #AntiModernism #LegionarySpirit

The End of a Cycle: We stand at the culmination of a degenerative process, where the West has dismantled all legitimate and natural human orders, celebrating materialism and mechanization as "progress." This illusion has led to moral and spiritual decay, leaving us amidst the ruins of a once-great civilization.

The Legionary Spirit: The foundation of resistance lies in the legionary spirit—an unwavering commitment to fight even when the battle seems lost. This spirit embodies loyalty, honor, and a refusal to compromise, serving as the bedrock for a new Order.

Inner Renewal: The core of the struggle is internal. Before any external reconstruction, individuals must regain inner strength, self-discipline, and moral clarity. A new type of man must emerge, guided by resolute principles and a clear vision of life.

Rejection of Modern Myths: The illusions of democracy, liberalism, socialism, and communism are stages of the same degenerative process. These systems, rooted in materialism and egalitarianism, must be rejected entirely. True order can only be restored through a return to hierarchical, spiritual values.

Anti-Bourgeois and Anti-Proletarian: The new Order transcends the false dichotomies of class struggle. It rejects both the bourgeois obsession with security and the proletarian collectivism of Marxism, aspiring instead to a lucid, virile, and structured world governed by higher principles.

The Role of the Elite: The resurgence of tradition depends on the formation of a new elite—a group of individuals united by a shared vision and unwavering loyalty to the idea. This elite must embody the spirit of resistance and serve as a model for others.

The Failure of Nationalism: The naturalistic conception of the nation and fatherland is outdated. True unity is rooted in the idea, not in shared land or language. The state must be the embodiment of higher principles, transcending narrow nationalism.

Cultural Detoxification: Modern culture, poisoned by Darwinism, psychoanalysis, and existentialism, must be purged. These ideologies degrade the human spirit and undermine the possibility of renewal. A new worldview, rooted in transcendence and hierarchy, must replace them.

Spiritual Foundation: A heroic conception of life requires a sense of transcendence. While specific religious dogmas are not essential, the certainty of a higher reality is crucial for fostering unbreakable resolve and absolute commitment.

The Silent Revolution: The true struggle is not for immediate political gains but for the silent, internal revolution that prepares the ground for a new Order. This revolution will manifest externally when the time is ripe, replacing the forces of subversion with a restored hierarchy and authority.

There is no value in indulging in wishful thinking or the illusions of optimism: we are now at the end of a cycle. For centuries, initially imperceptibly and then with the force of an avalanche, multiple processes have dismantled every legitimate and natural human order in the West, corrupting all higher conceptions of life, action, knowledge, and struggle. This descent, with its accelerating momentum and dizzying pace, has been labeled "progress." We have celebrated this so-called progress, deluding ourselves into believing that this civilization—a civilization of materialism and machines—was the pinnacle of human achievement, the ultimate destiny of history. Yet, the consequences of this process have awakened at least some to its true nature.

It is well known where and under what symbols the forces of potential resistance attempted to organize. On one side, a nation, previously mired in the mediocrity of liberalism, democracy, and constitutional monarchy, dared to adopt the symbol of Rome as the foundation for a new political vision and an ideal of virility and dignity. Similarly, in another nation, medieval traditions of imperium were revived to reaffirm the principles of authority and the primacy of values rooted in blood, race, and the deepest essence of a people. Meanwhile, in other parts of Europe, movements began to align with this direction, and in Asia, a nation of warriors—the samurai—joined the struggle, maintaining its fidelity to a martial tradition centered on the solar empire of divine right, even while adopting the external trappings of modern civilization.

It is not claimed that these movements clearly distinguished the essential from the superficial, that their ideas were embraced by individuals of true understanding, or that they fully overcame the corrupting influences of the very forces they sought to combat. The process of ideological purification would have required time, following the resolution of immediate political challenges. Nevertheless, it was evident that a gathering of forces was underway, posing a direct challenge to the "modern" civilization of democracies—heirs to the French Revolution—and to the even more degraded collectivist civilization of the Fourth Estate, the faceless mass of Communism. Tensions escalated, culminating in armed conflict. The victors were those who wielded overwhelming power, resorting to alliances and ideological manipulations to crush the emerging world that sought to assert its rightful place. Whether our leaders were equal to the task, whether mistakes were made in timing, preparation, or risk assessment, is beside the point. These details do not diminish the deeper significance of the struggle. Nor does it matter that history now turns against the victors, as the democratic powers, having allied with red subversion to pursue total war and unconditional surrender, now face a greater threat from their former allies.

What matters is this: we now stand amidst a world in ruins.

The question to ask is: do men of strength and resolve still exist among these ruins? And what must they do—what can they still do?

This issue transcends past alliances, as both victors and vanquished now stand on equal footing, with the Second World War reducing Europe to a pawn of external powers and interests. The devastation we witness is primarily moral. We live in an era of moral amnesia and profound disorientation, masked by the rhetoric of consumerism and democracy. Post-war humanity is marked by the loss of character, dignity, ideological decay, the dominance of base interests, and a day-to-day existence. Recognizing this means understanding that the core problem is internal: regaining inner strength, self-discipline, and moral order. Those who believe in purely political solutions or systems, without embodying a new human quality or a clear opposing vision, have failed to learn from recent history. A crucial principle must be clear: even the most theoretically perfect political or social system will fail if its people are morally corrupt. Conversely, a people capable of producing individuals of integrity and instinctive virtue can achieve and sustain a high level of civilization, even with an imperfect political system. We must reject false "political realism" focused solely on programs, partisan issues, and economic solutions. These are secondary. The possibility of salvation lies in the presence of individuals who serve as models, resisting mass demagogy and materialism, and reviving higher sensibilities and values. The true task is to rebuild from the ruins, cultivating a new type of man guided by a resolute spirit, a clear vision of life, and unwavering adherence to fundamental principles.

As spirit, there exists something that can serve as a foundation for the forces of resistance and revival: the legionary spirit. It is the attitude of one who chooses the most arduous path, who fights even when the battle is fundamentally lost, and who embodies the ancient saying: "Loyalty is stronger than fire." Through this spirit, the traditional idea is affirmed. It is the sense of honor and shame—not diluted by weak morals—that creates a profound, existential distinction between beings, akin to the difference between one race and another.

On the other hand, there is the realization of those for whom what was once an end now appears only as a means. They recognize the illusory nature of many myths, yet remain steadfast in their pursuit of what they hold sacred, navigating the boundary between life and death, beyond the realm of the contingent.

These spiritual forms can serve as the foundation for a new unity. The essential task is to grasp, apply, and extend them from wartime to peacetime—especially this peace, which is merely a fleeting respite and a poorly managed disorder—until new distinctions and groupings emerge. This must occur in terms far more fundamental than a mere "party," which is only a temporary tool for political struggles, or even a "movement," if by "movement" we mean a mass phenomenon driven more by quantity than quality, by emotion rather than a rigorous adherence to an idea. What we seek is a silent revolution, unfolding in the depths, where the premises of a new Order are first established internally within individuals. This Order will eventually manifest externally, replacing the forms and forces of a subverted world at the opportune moment. The "style" that must prevail is one of unwavering loyalty to oneself and to an idea, marked by intense focus, rejection of compromise, and total commitment—not only in political struggle but in every aspect of existence: factories, laboratories, universities, the streets, and even personal relationships. We must reach a point where the type of individual we envision, the core of our group, is unmistakable and distinct. Only then can we say, "He is one who embodies the spirit of the movement."

This was the mission of those who envisioned a new Order for Europe, though it was often thwarted by various factors. Today, this mission must be revived. The conditions are now more favorable, as the situation has become clearer. We need only look around, from public squares to Parliament, to see that our calling is being tested and that we are confronted with a clear measure of what we must reject. In a world of mediocrity, where principles like "You have no choice," "Morals can wait until we’ve taken care of our stomachs and our skin," or "These are not times for character" prevail, we must respond firmly: "For us, there is no other way. This is our life, our essence." Any meaningful achievements will not come from the tactics of agitators or political operatives but from the natural prestige and recognition of individuals, both from the past and, more importantly, from the new generation, who embody their ideals with unwavering resolve.

A new essence must gradually emerge, transcending the confines, structures, and social roles of the past. A new archetype must stand before us, serving as a measure of our strength and vocation. It is crucial—indeed, fundamental—to understand that this archetype is unrelated to economic classes or the conflicts they generate. It can manifest in the form of the rich or the poor, the worker or the aristocrat, the businessman or the explorer, the technician, theologian, farmer, or even the politician in the strictest sense. Yet, this new essence will undergo an internal differentiation, reaching its fullness when there is no ambiguity about the vocations and functions to follow or to lead; when a restored symbol of unwavering authority reigns at the heart of new hierarchical orders.

This vision is inherently anti-bourgeois and anti-proletarian, free from democratic distortions and 'social' frivolities, as it aspires to a world that is lucid, virile, and structured, governed by men and their guides. It rejects the bourgeois obsession with 'security' and the trivial, standardized, conformist, and domesticated existence. It scorns the lifeless constraints of collectivist and mechanistic systems, as well as ideologies that prioritize vague 'social' values over the heroic and spiritual principles that define the true man, the absolute individual. A pivotal achievement will be the revival of an ethos of active impersonality, where the work itself matters, not the individual. Through this, we learn to see ourselves as secondary, for what truly matters is the function, the responsibility, the task undertaken, and the goal pursued. Where this spirit prevails, many challenges—including those of an economic and social nature—will be resolved, as they remain unsolvable without a corresponding shift in spiritual orientation and the eradication of ideological corruptions that obstruct any return to normality. Indeed, they obscure even the recognition of what normality truly entails.

It is crucial, both for doctrinal clarity and practical action, that the members of the new order clearly recognize the chain of causes and effects, as well as the essential continuity of the current that has shaped the various political forms now clashing in the chaos of modern ideologies. Liberalism, democracy, socialism, radicalism, and ultimately Communism and Bolshevism, are not isolated phenomena but sequential stages of the same degenerative process. This decline began when Western man broke free from tradition, rejected higher symbols of authority and sovereignty, and embraced a false sense of individual liberty, reducing himself to an atomized entity rather than a conscious part of an organic, hierarchical whole. This atomization inevitably led to the tyranny of the masses, where materialism and economic idolatry reign supreme.

This process is irreversible and interconnected. Without the French Revolution and liberalism, constitutionalism and democracy would not have emerged; without democracy, socialism and demagogic nationalism would not have arisen; and without socialism, radicalism and Communism would not have followed. These forms, though often seen in opposition, are fundamentally linked, each paving the way for the next in the same downward spiral. The illusion that democracy and liberalism are antithetical to Communism is as absurd as claiming that dusk is the opposite of night or that a diluted poison is fundamentally different from its concentrated form. The so-called "liberated" governments, particularly in Italy, remain blind to these truths, clinging to outdated political concepts and engaging in a futile dance of parliamentary decadence.

Our stance must be one of radical intransigence, a firm rejection of all forms of political decay, whether from the Left or the so-called Right. There can be no compromise with subversion; any concession today ensures total defeat tomorrow. We must uphold the purity of our ideals and be prepared to act decisively when the time comes.

This also requires rejecting the ideological distortions that have infected even some of our youth, who mistakenly believe that the destruction wrought by modernity serves some greater "progress." They chase after a vague future rather than defending the timeless truths that have always underpinned legitimate social and political order. We must dismiss the notion of "History" as a progressive force; it is men, not abstract historical forces, who shape the world. The label of "reactionary" is meaningless—our position is rooted in positive, original values that do not rely on the false promises of a utopian future.

The supposed antithesis between the "red East" and the "democratic West" is irrelevant to our radical perspective. A potential conflict between these blocs is equally inconsequential. While the immediate threat of Communist victory might seem more dire, both America and Russia represent the same destructive force, albeit in different forms. Americanism, with its cult of materialism, consumerism, and economic growth, is as dangerous as Communism, if not more so, because it operates subtly, eroding tradition and quality through cultural and societal shifts rather than overt coercion. Europe, by embracing Americanism under the guise of democracy, is already on the path to total abdication, a process that may culminate without the need for military conflict. Americanism, whether intentionally or not, paves the way for collectivism, and there is no halting this decline once it has begun.

Our dedication to a radical reconstruction is crucial here, as it rejects not only all forms of Marxist and socialist ideologies but also the pervasive obsession with economics, which we view as a form of collective delusion or possession. The belief that economic factors dominate both individual and collective life, and that the focus on production and material wealth is normal or even desirable, is a grave error. Both capitalism and Marxism are ensnared in this narrow, materialistic worldview. To transcend this, we must reject the notion that human progress is tied to economic systems or the distribution of wealth. Instead, we must affirm that economic concerns, which merely address physical needs, should always remain subordinate in a healthy society. Beyond this, we must uphold a higher order of values—political, spiritual, and heroic—that transcends the categories of "proletarian" or "capitalist." It is within this higher order that true meaning, hierarchy, and dignity are established, culminating in a superior command, an Imperium.

We must also confront and eliminate the misguided ideas that have infiltrated even our own ranks, such as the glorification of a "state of labor," "national socialism," or the "humanism of work." These concepts, along with attempts to reduce politics to economics, reflect a dangerous regression. Similarly, the obsession with "socialization" and the elevation of the "social idea" as a panacea for civilization are misguided. These notions often stem from a degraded political environment and a misunderstanding of the true nature of the "social question." Marxism did not emerge in response to a genuine social issue; rather, the social issue is often artificially created by Marxist agitators. As Lenin himself acknowledged, revolutionary movements are rarely spontaneous but are instead driven by external manipulation.

To move forward, we must focus on ideological deproletarianization, purging the socialist influence from those still untainted. Only then can meaningful reforms be pursued without risk. In this context, the corporative idea can serve as a foundation for reconstruction—not as a bureaucratic system that perpetuates class conflict, but as a means to restore unity and solidarity within businesses. This requires transforming businesses into cohesive, almost military-like entities, led by individuals of responsibility, energy, and competence, who inspire loyalty and collaboration among their workers. The goal is the organic reconstruction of business, free from the demagoguery of unions and the false promises of "social justice." We must revive the dignity, solidarity, and impersonality of ancient guilds, ensuring that each individual finds fulfillment in their rightful role, recognizing their limits and potential for excellence. A craftsman who excels in his craft is superior to a king who fails to uphold his dignity.

Furthermore, we can replace the partisan parliamentary system with a structure based on technical expertise and corporative representation. However, these technical hierarchies must remain subordinate to the higher, integral hierarchy that encompasses the political and spiritual dimensions of the state. The "state of labor" or production is a reductionist concept, akin to reducing a human being to mere physical functions. Our standard must be the integral hierarchical idea, which stands as the true antithesis to both the "East" and the "West." In this, there can be no compromise.

If the ideal of a virile and organic political unity was a cornerstone of the world that was ultimately overwhelmed—and through it, the Roman symbol was revived in Italy—we must also acknowledge instances where this ideal strayed and nearly succumbed to the errors of 'totalitarianism.' This distinction must be clearly understood to avoid conflating the two and to prevent providing ammunition to those who seek to obscure the truth. Hierarchy is not hierarchism; the latter is a recurring malady that must be resisted. The organic conception of society is fundamentally opposed to state-worshiping rigidity and leveling centralization. True unity transcends both individualism and collectivism, emerging only when individuals stand before one another in their natural diversity and dignity. This unity must be spiritual and centrally orienting, adapting its expression to different realms while opposing the rigid, extrinsic relations characteristic of 'totalitarianism.' Within this framework, the dignity and liberty of the human person—misconceived by liberalism in individualistic, egalitarian, and privatized terms—can be fully realized. It is in this spirit that the structures of a new political and social order must be designed, with clarity and solidity.

Such structures require a central, supreme point of reference—a new symbol of sovereignty and authority. This commitment must be unequivocal, free from ideological wavering. The focus here is not primarily on institutional forms but on cultivating a specific climate, a fluidity that animates relationships of loyalty, dedication, and service, devoid of individualistic ambition. This is necessary to transcend the gray, mechanical, and devious nature of the current political and social order. Today’s situation is at an impasse, as those at the top lack the asceticism required for the pure idea. The correct direction is obscured for many, whether due to unfortunate precedents in national traditions or the tragic events of the past. The inadequacy of the monarchical solution is evident, as its remnants are defended only in a hollow, castrated form, such as constitutional parliamentary monarchy. Equally, we must reject the republican idea, as modern republics are products of Jacobinism and the anti-traditional, anti-hierarchical subversion of the 19th century. A nation transitioning from monarchy to republic can only be seen as degraded. In Italy, loyalty to the Salò Republic’s Fascism must not lead us down the false path of republicanism, as this would betray the core ideology of the Fascist Twenty Years—its doctrine of the state as authority, power, and imperium.

This doctrine must be upheld without compromise, refusing to descend to lower levels or align with any faction. The specific form of the symbol can remain undecided for now. The immediate task is to prepare, in silence, the spiritual environment necessary for the resurgence of a superior, untouchable authority. This authority cannot be embodied by a republican president subject to removal, nor by a tribune or populist leader whose power is formless, devoid of higher legitimacy, and reliant on mass appeal. Such figures represent not the antithesis of democracy but its logical conclusion—a manifestation of Spengler’s 'decline of the West.' This serves as a new touchstone for our side: a sensitivity to these distinctions. Carlyle’s 'Valet-World,' governed by the 'Sham-Hero,' must be rejected in favor of a true, transcendent authority.

We must address another point in a similar vein, focusing on the stance to take regarding nationalism and the concept of the fatherland. This discussion is particularly relevant today, as many, in an attempt to salvage what remains, advocate for a sentimental and naturalistic view of the nation. This perspective is alien to the highest European political tradition and conflicts with the idea of the state we have previously discussed. Even setting aside the fact that the notion of the fatherland is invoked by vastly different groups, including those aligned with red subversion, this conception is increasingly outdated. On one hand, we see the emergence of large supranational blocs, while on the other, the need for a unifying European reference point becomes more apparent—one that transcends the narrow particularism inherent in the naturalistic idea of the nation and nationalism.

The principle at stake is paramount. The political level represents superior unities compared to those defined in naturalistic terms, such as nation, fatherland, or people. At this higher level, what unites or divides is the idea—an idea carried by a distinct elite and embodied in the state. Fascist doctrine, faithful to the best European political tradition, prioritized the idea and the state over the nation and the people, recognizing that the latter only gain significance and form within the framework of the state. In times of crisis, like today, it is crucial to adhere firmly to this doctrine. Our true fatherland lies in the idea, not in shared land or language, but in shared principles. This is the foundation.

Against the collectivistic unity of the nation—des enfants de la patrie—which has dominated since the Jacobin revolution, we must uphold an Order: men loyal to principles, embodying a higher authority and legitimacy rooted in the idea. For practical goals, achieving new national solidarity is possible, but not through compromise. The essential precondition is the formation of a group defined by a shared political idea and vision of life. There is no alternative, especially now. Amidst the ruins, we must initiate a process of renewal, where elites and symbols of sovereignty and authority elevate a people to the status of a traditional great state, rising from chaos. Failing to grasp this realism of the idea means remaining in a sub-political realm of naturalism and sentimentalism, if not outright chauvinism.

We must also be cautious when national traditions are invoked to support our idea, as there exists a Masonic and anti-traditional interpretation of history that distorts the Italian national character, emphasizing its most problematic aspects, such as the communal revolts and Guelphism. This tendentious portrayal of an "Italian character" is one we reject, leaving it to those who celebrated the so-called "second Risorgimento" through the partisan movement.

Idea, order, elite, state, men of the Order—these must define our battle lines for as long as possible.

A few words must be said about the problem of culture, though not too many. We do not overvalue culture. What we term a "worldview" is not rooted in books but is an internal form that may be clearer in an uncultured individual than in an "intellectual" or writer. The harmful effects of a "free culture," accessible to all, lie in leaving individuals exposed to myriad influences, even when they lack the capacity to engage with them critically or discern properly.

This is not the place to delve deeply into this issue, except to note that today's youth must internally defend themselves against specific currents. We have previously discussed a style of uprightness and self-mastery, which presupposes a proper understanding. Young people, in particular, must recognize the poison fed to an entire generation through distorted and false visions of life that have weakened their inner strength. These poisons persist in culture, science, sociology, and literature, acting as infectious agents that must be identified and countered. Beyond historical materialism and economism, which we have already addressed, the most significant of these are Darwinism, psychoanalysis, and existentialism.

Against Darwinism, we must reaffirm the fundamental dignity of the human person, recognizing its true place not as a mere animal species differentiated by "natural selection" and tied to primitive origins, but as a being capable of transcending the biological plane. Though Darwinism is less discussed today, its essence endures. The biologistic myth of Darwinism, in various forms, functions as a dogma upheld by the materialism of both Marxist and American civilizations. Modern man has grown accustomed to this degraded view, accepting it as natural.

Against psychoanalysis, we must uphold the ideal of an ego that refuses to abdicate, remaining conscious, autonomous, and sovereign in the face of the subconscious and the chaotic forces of sexuality. This ego is neither "repressed" nor torn apart but achieves a harmonious balance of faculties aligned with a higher purpose. Psychoanalysis has shifted authority from the conscious principle to the subconscious, the irrational, and the "collective unconscious," mirroring the broader societal crisis where the lower undermines the higher. This tendency operates on both individual and societal levels, reinforcing each other.

As for existentialism, even if we distinguish it as a confused philosophy relevant only to narrow circles, it reflects a systematized spiritual crisis. It embodies the fragmented, contradictory human type that experiences freedom as anguish, tragedy, and absurdity, feeling condemned in a valueless world. Yet, Nietzsche pointed the way to reclaiming meaning and establishing an unshakable law and value, even in the face of nihilism, under the banner of a "noble nature."

These lines of overcoming must not remain intellectual abstractions but must be lived and realized in their direct significance for inner life and conduct. True clarity, uprightness, and strength can only be attained by freeing oneself from the influence of these distorted and false ways of thinking.

Let us briefly address a final point: the relationship with the dominant religion. For us, the secular state, in any form, belongs to the past. We particularly reject the so-called "ethical state," a product of a shallow and hollow "Idealist" philosophy that attached itself to Fascism but could just as easily support anti-Fascism through a dialectical sleight of hand. However, while we oppose such ideologies and the secular state, we also find a clerical or clericalizing state equally unacceptable.

A religious dimension is essential as a foundation for a truly heroic conception of life, which is crucial for our group. It is necessary to feel within ourselves the certainty of a higher life beyond this earthly existence, as only those who possess this conviction have an unbreakable and indomitable strength. Such individuals are capable of absolute commitment. Without this sense of transcendence, confronting death and disregarding one's life can only occur in fleeting moments of exaltation or irrational outbursts, lacking the discipline that derives from a higher, autonomous purpose. However, this spirituality, which should animate our people, does not require the rigid dogmas of any specific religious confession. The lifestyle we advocate is not one of Catholic moralism, which seeks merely to domesticate humanity through virtue. Politically, this spirituality fosters skepticism toward elements central to the Christian worldview, such as humanitarianism, equality, love, and forgiveness, prioritizing instead honor and justice.

Certainly, if Catholicism could embrace a capacity for high asceticism and, on that basis, transform faith into the soul of a militant force—akin to the spirit of the Crusades or a new Templar order, resolute against chaos, surrender, subversion, and modern materialism—we would support it without hesitation. Even if it merely adhered to the positions of the Syllabus, it would suffice. However, given the current state of confessional religions, which have largely succumbed to mediocrity, bourgeois values, and modernism, and given the post-conciliar Church's shift toward the Left, a mere reference to the spiritual suffices for us. This spirituality serves as evidence of a transcendent reality, infusing our struggle with a higher purpose and attracting an invisible consecration for a new world of leaders and men.

Here are the essential guidelines for the struggle we must undertake, particularly aimed at the younger generation, so they may carry forward the torch and commitment from those who have not faltered. They must learn from past mistakes, discern clearly, and revise what has been—and continues to be—shaped by contingent circumstances. It is crucial not to stoop to the level of our adversaries, avoid relying on simplistic slogans, and refrain from overemphasizing the past, which, though worthy of remembrance, lacks the contemporary and impersonal force of the guiding idea. Equally important is resisting the allure of false political realism, a weakness inherent in every partisan approach. While our forces must engage in the immediate political struggle to carve out space and counter the unchecked advance of the Left, the true priority lies in forming an elite capable of defining an idea with intellectual rigor and unwavering intensity. This idea must unite us, embodied in the figure of the new man—the man of resistance, who stands firm amidst the ruins. If we emerge from this era of crisis and illusory order, the future will belong to this man alone. The modern world is now overwhelmed by the destiny it has forged. Even if this tide cannot be halted, adhering to these principles will preserve our inner resolve. Whatever unfolds, we will do what must be done, and we will remain part of a fatherland no enemy can ever occupy or destroy.

[riza-the-fool-for-christ]

Why Do You Fear Death?

"Do not fear death, for it is but the gateway to true life. He who has prepared his soul through repentance, prayer, and faith in Christ will not tremble before it. To the righteous, death is not an end, but a breaking of chains, a liberation from the burdens of this world. Do you not see the saints, how they faced death with joy and not sorrow? They knew that beyond this life, the eternal Kingdom awaited them, free from suffering and corruption. The world teaches men to flee from death, to fear it, to avoid all thoughts of it. But the Christian knows that life here is only a preparation for eternity. He does not cling desperately to the dust of this earth but lifts his eyes toward the heavenly homeland.

Death is not our enemy—sin is. Fear not death, but rather the unrepented sin that leads to eternal death. The martyrs, confessors, and ascetics of old feared neither sword nor fire, nor the torments of the wicked. They understood that to die for Christ is to live forever with Him. They counted the world and all its pleasures as nothing in comparison to the glory that awaited them in the life to come. Behold the martyrs, how they joyfully walked to their deaths, knowing that in a moment, they would be with Christ.

The foolish man labors endlessly for this life, striving for wealth, power, and comfort, only to be stripped of everything when death arrives. But the wise man prepares for the life to come, storing up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal. To such a man, death is not loss, but gain. ‘For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain’ (Philippians 1:21), says the Apostle Paul. When a Christian has lived in faith and repentance, he will not meet death with terror, but with peace, for he knows that his true home is not in this world, but in the Kingdom of Heaven.

The world and its wisdom cannot understand this. It clings to life, fearing the unknown, rejecting the hope of the resurrection. But the Christian, instructed by the Holy Church and guided by the words of Christ, knows that death has been conquered. Christ trampled down death by His death, and to those in the tombs, He granted life. What, then, is left to fear? The righteous man who has purified his soul does not dread death, for it is but the doorway to the eternal joy prepared for him. Therefore, strive to live in a way that when your time comes, you will greet death not with trembling, but with hope. Repent, pray, and keep your eyes fixed on Christ, so that when He calls you from this world, you may depart in peace."

— St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov), The Arena

The world teaches you to fear death, to run from it at all costs. But is this wisdom? Or is it deception? The saints did not fear death, nor did they cling desperately to the dust of this world. What do you think? Has modernity lost the courage of the saints? Why do we fear what they welcomed?

[riza-the-fool-for-christ]

Are you okay? Why did you write this? What made you distort something as holy as Baptism into a scene of abuse? This is not just offensive—it’s outright blasphemy. Orthodox Baptism is a sacrament of light, bringing people into the Kingdom of Christ, not a tool for cruelty. If you hate Christianity, at least be honest about it, instead of twisting sacred things into horror for shock value.

St. John Chrysostom said, ‘No one is more miserable than the blasphemer, because while he offends God, he harms his own soul most of all.’ This kind of writing doesn’t just offend—it harms you. It separates you from truth and brings spiritual decay.

St. Basil the Great said, ‘Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the gravest of sins, for it denies the work of God.’ Do you understand what you are doing? If you think this is just fiction, understand that what is spoken and written against the truth does not disappear—it stays as a witness against the soul.

What other fanfiction like this have you written? If this is the kind of content you put out, I urge you to reconsider. I won’t just rebuke you—so will the saints and Christ Himself on the Last Day. But repentance is always open to you. Choose your next words wisely.

Tender // Ch. 3

MASTERLIST

word count: 1600+

CHAPTER WARNINGS: descriptions of child abuse; religious violence; language; anxiety; jealousy; arguing; brief suicidal/homicidal ideations; undiagnosed unspecified mental illness

When newborn babies are baptized, the process typically involves the priest or minister sprinkling or pouring the blessed water over the infant, while announcing the baptism ‘in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’ In Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic traditions, the child is fully immersed in water, which seems dangerous, but recorded events of injury or death during the ritual are rare, to say the least. It’s generally safe for the child, barring any complications or underlying issues. But when the young boy’s mother mentioned baptism, her intentions were much more sinister.

He'd heard the water running as the bathtub was filled. He was told not to be afraid, that fear was the Devil’s work. He was ordered to behave, and do as he was told, and he would be cured. He wasn’t sick, he wanted to argue, but he knew better. Talking back would only worsen his punishments; he rubbed a sore spot on his jaw and waited for his mother to call him.

The bathroom was humid, the air thick, and the mirror fogged up. Wisps of white steam could be seen rising from the water’s surface. He wanted to be obedient. Maybe they’d love him, then. But still, he hesitated, provoking Mother’s anger. She grabbed him, her too-long fingernails leaving marks on his arms, and dragged him to the edge of the tub. She lifted him, far from gently, and plunged him into the hot water. The boy screamed as it scalded his bare skin. He instinctively fought in an attempt to be released, every nerve in his body protesting against the pain. He was only a child though, and he was no match for the grown woman that held his small frame against the bottom of the basin. And he wasn’t able to stop her from forcing his head under, nor was he able to prevent the burning in his chest as his lungs begged for air.

~

I knew that dating, and falling for, a famous rock star would come with its fair share of difficulties. When they went on tour last time, our relationship was still new and I was still in the process of finding my footing, so it was easier. I expected all the attention that he would be showered with anytime we were out in public. Whenever he posted a new picture on social media, the comments section would blow up, countless women publicly expressing their desire to get Josh in their bed. Those are easier to brush off and not take too seriously, but it irked me regardless.

Today has been especially annoying. This is the third person who has approached him for a photo. I know I’m glaring at this dumb, starry-eyed girl who’s interrupting our day together, fawning over him like a lovesick puppy. It’s disgusting. And what makes it worse is that Josh dishes it right back. He’s all excited smiles, more than happy to meet a fan. He throws his arm around her shoulder and poses as her friend snaps the picture, then plants a kiss on her cheek. I think the girl might cry, and I’m silently hoping she trips and eats shit on the concrete.

I don’t say another word until we get to the car. I start it and grip the steering wheel before Josh rests his hand on my thigh.

“Hey, what’s wrong?”

He’s so clueless and it only makes me angrier. “Nothing’s wrong.”

“Liar.” Yeah, that’s all I am, isn’t it? “Tell me.”

I clench my jaw and pull out onto the road. If I say what’s on my mind it likely will only make things worse, so I keep my mouth shut, hoping he’ll drop it. But he continues to pester me until I can’t ignore him. “If you want to talk so bad, why don’t you hit up your new girlfriend?”

After a moment, he does something I don’t expect and laughs. Why can’t he ever take anything seriously? “Are you joking? You’re pissed off because you’re jealous of a fan?”

“I’m not jealous.” I most definitely am. “You kissed her.”

“On the cheek! I kiss a bunch of my fans on the cheek!”

“Is that supposed to make me feel better?”

He laughs again, but this time it’s out of exasperation as he crosses his arms and turns to look out the passenger side window. “That’s fucking stupid,” he mutters.

“Okay, yeah, I’m sorry that I don’t want to watch my boyfriend flirt with everything on two legs,” I bite back.

“Oh my God, could you be anymore dramatic? I’m not flirting with anyone, so stop acting like an asshole.”

Here we go. I’m the asshole. Make me out to be the bad guy. Am I being a bit unreasonable and possessive? Probably. But it makes my blood boil when strangers think they have the right to touch him. He doesn’t belong to them. He doesn’t see the issue, like it’s all just a big joke to him. I consider that he doesn’t give a shit about me, and my grip on the steering wheel tightens so much my hand is beginning to ache.

I see a box truck in the opposite lane of traffic, and for a split second, I wonder how much damage it would do if I turned the wheel, just enough. But I shake it off and push it away. That would be outrageous. I don’t really want to hurt him.

I don’t trust myself to speak again, so I keep my focus on the road. The silent treatment only pisses him off more, which I expected. Josh is a fighter; he always has to have the last word, and he hates being ignored. I do just that, though, and he’s fuming by the time we get back to his house. I think it’s best if we give each other some space, so I don’t go inside with him. I drop him off and keep driving, mostly to calm myself down, partially to evaluate why I’m angry and if it’s even worth it.

It’s not. Josh is right, and it’s a stupid thing for me to be upset about. Still, I’m unable to shut off the voice in my head that says he’ll never truly be mine. I know he won’t change, and I know if I want to keep him, I need to bite my tongue and swallow these raging insecurities. I think about walking away, letting him off the hook so he can be fully free, but the thought makes me want to vomit.

As much as I try to reel it in, my mind keeps going back to that girl, and the two before her. I create scenarios in my head about Josh while he’s on tour, crawling into bed with any person who bats an eyelash in his direction. I’m imagining him letting other men touch him, kiss him, fuck him. And the deeper I dive into my own fears, the worse it gets. Then the guilt sets in. I’m beating myself up over how I’ve treated him. I’m ashamed of myself for not being able to trust him; he’s never given me any reason not to. If I’m being honest with myself, I’m fully aware that my personal issues and inability to trust people is not Josh’s fault, and there’s no reason to take it out on him. My internalized precarity, and maybe a trace of narcissism, makes it difficult for me to admit when I’m wrong. I refuse to take the blame where I probably should. But I know if I have any chance of saving what I have with Josh, I need to suck it up and apologize, even if it’s all pretend.

~

I give him time to cool off and give myself time to get my thoughts in order. I need to have a plan. Later in the evening, I text and ask if I can swing by to talk. He answers immediately. ‘Of course,’ like he thinks it’s a dumb question, like he’s not even mad anymore.

I’m wrong about that. When he lets me inside, he stands in the living room with his arms crossed, watching me expectantly. Oh. He’s waiting for an apology. I should have known he wouldn’t be the first to cave. He doesn’t think he should have to apologize. I don’t really think I should either, but I swallow my pride.

“I’m sorry, Josh. I acted like a jerk.” I’m intentionally trying to look remorseful, even though I don’t feel it.

 “Yeah, you did.”

I’m tempted to bite back and start another fight, because fighting is easier than whatever this is. But again, I push down the urge. “I was jealous, and I know it was stupid. I won’t happen again.” It feels like an empty promise, because I know I can’t really guarantee it, but I can try.

“Thank you.” He’s thanking me for the apology itself, but I’m not sure it’s something he should be grateful for. He drops his arms and closes the distance between us. I grab his waist and pull him against me as soon as I have the opportunity. He doesn’t resist. “I can’t help it, ya know. Physical touch is my love language, and I love getting to meet people. But I’d never purposefully do anything to hurt you, Finn. I love your stupid face too much. And no matter how many fans I get to interact with, you’re the one I’m coming home to.”

I don’t know what I expected but it isn’t that. Even when he’s irritated with me, he’s so loving. His words help to reassure me, and my own anger seems to melt away. I’m not entirely sure what it means that he can diffuse that bomb so effortlessly. Maybe one day I’ll figure it out, and all the strangeness will start to make sense.

I place a gentle hand on his cheek and kiss him softly. “I love you, too.”

///

TAGLIST (let me know if you want to be added!)

@hollyco @fleetingjake @musicislove3389 @hailthegodsong @josh-iamyour-mama

[nunc2020]

Les antimodernes

[hazardous-waste-containment]

[B]ecause basic ideas about human action in a divinely ordered world had long been conceptualized in terms of Judaism, revolutions and counterrevolutions in those ideas could be (and often were) fought through figures of “Judaism” descended from those that had sustained the earlier political and theological order. This is not to say that the centuries of conflict and change that produced European Enlightenment and counter-Enlightenment, modernity and antimodernism, should be understood principally in terms of “Judaism.” It is only to say that neither Enlightenment nor modernity overthrew the Christian theologies of Judaism described in earlier chapters. Instead they translated them into new terms, embedding them into the philosophies and sciences with which they claimed to make a new and more critical sense of the cosmos. In the process, they simultaneously altered the work these figures of Judaism did in the world, and the possibilities of life in that world for real Jews.

“‘Israel’ at the Foundations of Christian Politics: 1545–1677,” Anti-Judaism by David Nirenberg

[parrhesiac]

There's a bit of quite recent history that conservative Catholics would like you not to remember.

It's that the whole bit from Vatican I, roughly, to Vatican II was not in any way historically normal.

Let's remember first that Vatican I was the tricentennial of the Council of Trent, which was the Roman Catholic reaction to the Reformation. And while the counter-reformation did kick off a flourishing of widely varied and reinvigorated forms of Catholic piety, in response to the Reformation creating such a flourishing outside of its auspices, the administrative institutional response of the curia was ... not that.

And when it comes to the 1860-70s, as opposed to the 1560s-70s, we're looking at the start of the Vatican as what it is today: not in any way a politically relevant powerhouse, merely an anachronistic relic of religious rather than real societal and political importance. We're looking at a Roman Catholicism left behind by literally every feature of the shape of the world—and feeling some kind of way about that.

This is the period in which Germany and Italy came to exist. This is the period in which democracy and socialism as forces of serious and dominant weight began to feed back into Europe and reshape it. This is the period when science, once something the church did and sponsored in its various academic institutions, could not be restricted from saying things with which church leaders as political nobility disagreed.

This is consequently the period in which antimodernism became the overriding, controlling dogma of Roman Catholicism, used to weed its own patch of anyone who might subversively be in any way favorable to the shape the world had long since begun to take.

This is the period in which the often genuinely progressive theologies of the later Medieval period, now that their creators were solidly dead, became the foundation of neoscholasticism as the reactionary codification system for antimodernism, and the ranks of Thomistic theology were likewise thinned by culling anyone willing to be creative and Modern in any even vaguely sympathetic way with the legacy of Aquinas, much less the Patristics.

The 1860s to the 1960s. Pascendi Dominici gregis, the Syllabus errorum, papal infallibility, the creation of new forms of counterintuitive and even counterfactual Marian piety, and the persecution of anyone who dissented or differed in any way by the Holy Office, formerly known as the Inquisition. Ended by the rebellion of the church as a body against the violence of its head, in the Second Vatican Council, but living on as the form into which a century of Catholicism had been forced violently. American Catholicism never stopped being that. And it is the underlying basis for everyone who hates Pope Francis.

This is the foundation of all of that Catholic culture, which is not truly in any way ancient, but only a way of selectively reading history for what best suits an out-of-power-and-angry-about-it political minority that is also a global missionary-colonial force.

And its perfect echo can be seen in the revanchist politics of American Evangelicalism. Antimodern and out of power in ways that can only be "made right" by violently seizing control of everything, and destroying all that will not conform.

the current state of political discourse in the Catholic sphere is such offensive slop from every angle

[aurevoirmonty]

“La France qu’ils détestent, cette France soi-disant moisie, antimoderne, muséifiée, c’est la même qu’ils vendent via les agences de voyage à tous ces gogos de touristes que l’on voit dans Paris, grâce à qui la France est le premier pays visité au monde.”

[sharpened--edges]

[M]odernity as a concept (or, in Raymond Williams’s sense, as a structure of feeling) has never attained complete security. Indeed, the contemporary cultural landscape is littered with antimodern protests and in particular with instances of ideological resistance to natural science and to the politics of 1789. Consider, on one educational level, the persistent campaigns against evolutionary biology in the public school curriculum, or, on a somewhat different educational level, the journalistic acclaim often granted to any treatment of the French Revolution that recycles neo-Burkean platitudes (for example, Simon Schama’s Citizens [1989]). Such attacks are generally made from the political right, as these examples suggest, though more complex variations on the antimodern thesis have sometimes been attempted from the left (by far the most powerful such attempt being Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment [1947], which identifies Auschwitz as the culminating and paradigmatic project of enlightened modernity). There would seem, then, to be something in the very nature of modernity with which the modern world is never completely comfortable, and which can hardly be satisfactorily explained as mere regressive nostalgia (as though the actual restoration of a Catholic feudal past were an even apparently viable option).

Carl Freedman, Critical Theory and Science Fiction (Wesleyan University Press, 2000), p. 7.

[philoursmars]

Marseille, le MuCEM et sa nouvelle collection permanente (à mes yeux, bien plus intéressante et mieux présentée que la précédente…)

Suite (et fin ?)

statue de sorcier ou de guérisseur...aux pieds fourchus !, sans doute utilisée pour des rituels de désenvoûtement - Nivernais, 1900-50

"L'Homme- Eléphant du cirque Landri" - France, fin XIXe s.

vase - Calabre, avant 1970

Sainte Marguerite sortant indemne du Dragon - Pornichet, "Bretagne", XVIIe s.

culot - Poitou-Charentes, XIIe s.

bascule, Molla Nasreddin the Antimodern - Pologne, 2012 ; automate femme-chat - Belgique, 1890; sujet de manège, Sirène - Neustadt en der Orla, Allemagne, 1900

voir 1

[periodicresetofcivilizations]

Christianity: The Decadence of the West #Traditionalism #SpiritualDecline #AryanCritique #AntiModern

Christianity is degenerate Dionysianism—faith for the weak, replacing heroic transcendence with slave morality, egalitarian poison, and chthonic regression, corrupting the Aryan-Roman spirit with Judaized passivity.

[riza-the-fool-for-christ]

Hieromartyr Sadoc (Sadoth), Bishop of Persia, and 128 Martyrs with him

Commemorated on October 19

Troparion & Kontakion

Hieromartyr Sadoc was the hierarch of a Persian district. When the Persian emperor Sapor learned that Sadoc was preaching faith in Christ, he gave orders to arrest and imprison him together with 128 Christian believers. For several months they attempted to persuade the righteous martyrs to repudiate the holy Faith, but unable to accomplish this, they executed them.

he PriestMartyr Sadok, Bishop of Persia, and with 128 Martyrs – suffered in Persia under the emperor Sapor II. Saint Sadok was successor of the PriestMartyr Simeon (Comm. 17 April). One time he had a dream, in which Saint Simeon foretold him of his own impending martyr's death. Standing in great glory atop a ladder reaching up to Heaven, Saint Simeon said: "Ascend up to me, Sadok, and be not afraid – I yesterday ascended, and thou today wilt ascend". Soon the emperor Sapor, renewing the persecution against Christians, gave orders to arrest Saint Sadok, together with his clergy and flock. In all there were 128 arrested, including 9 virgins. They were thrown into prison, where over a duration of five months they were cruelly tortured, amidst demands that they renounce the Christian faith and instead worship the sun and fire. The holy martyrs bravely answered: "We are Christians and give worship to the One God". They were sentenced to beheading by the sword.

Troparion — Tone 4

Your holy martyrs O Lord, / through their sufferings have received incorruptible crowns from You, our God. / For having Your strength, they laid low their adversaries, / and shattered the powerless boldness of demons. / Through their intercessions, save our souls!

[naipan]

Es entsetzt uns, dass Teile der radikalen und feministischen Linken nicht in der Lage sein wollen, Islamismus als das zu begreifen, was er ist: eine faschistische, antimoderne, patriarchale und imperialistische Ideologie, die jeder emanzipatorischen Kritik grundlegend gegenübersteht. Ihn zu relativieren oder gar zu verherrlichen heißt, sich mit Juden_Jüdinnen zu entsolidarisieren und ist zugleich eine Absage an die Solidarität mit jenen, die dieser Ideologie ausgesetzt sind: Kurd*innen, Jesid*innen, Afghan*innen, Iraner*innen und allen Muslim*innen, die sich nicht rigiden islamistischen Wertevorstellungen unterwerfen wollen.

We are horrified that parts of the radical and feminist left do not want to be able to understand Islamism for what it is: a fascist, anti-modern, patriarchal and imperialist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to any emancipatory criticism. To relativize or even glorify it means to lose solidarity with Jews and is at the same time a rejection of solidarity with those who are exposed to this ideology: Kurds, Yazidis, Afghans, Iranians and all Muslims who do not want to submit to rigid Islamist values.

[philippesollers]

Le divin Philippe Sollers

Par Alexandre Folman (La Revue des Deux Mondes)

MAI 18, 2023

Avec la disparition de Philippe Sollers survenue le 5 mai 2023, c’est une certaine idée de la littérature qui s’en va. Philippe Sollers y voyait une affaire  à prendre très au sérieux, même la plus importante qui soit.

Il tenait la littérature pour la plus secrète matrice de notre monde, celle qui transcende les contingences du présent et éclaire les mystérieuses ruelles escarpées et zigzagantes de l’esprit humain, forcément vénitiennes pour cet amoureux de la Sérénissime et du Tintoret. Sollers considérait que « l’existence est une illusion d’optique : la littérature est là pour la renverser. »Il avait compris mieux qu’un autre la valeur heuristique du roman. Elle l’habitait. Il y a consacré sa vie.

C’est-à-dire qu’il considérait vraiment la littérature comme le lieu de la vérité de l’être, au sens le plus heideggérien du terme qui soit, absolu, sans voile, tel qu’à lui-même. En ce sens, Sollers était donc déjà d’une certaine façon à lui tout seul un personnage de roman, parlant depuis et avec les livres.

En y repensant, c’est d’ailleurs l’impression fascinante qu’il pouvait donner parfois par son style extrêmement libre, d’une virtuosité constante dans son usage du langage. L’air madré et exégète, il semblait en permanence être détenteur d’ésotérismes jubilatoires ou d’apocryphes précieux. Il paraissait appartenir à un infra monde et arpenter ses lignes de force en voyageur du temps.

Joueur et rieur, il aimait les masques

Sollers naquit Joyaux, ça ne s’invente pas.Il incarna cinquante ans durant, en tant qu’écrivain et éditeur, la figure radicalement solaire de l’homme de lettres germanopratin, érudit en diable et à l’élan vital débordant. Deux traits de caractère foncièrement imbriqués pour celui qui s’était choisi pour pseudonyme quasi homophonique « tout entier art » en latin. Cela annon��ait donc la couleur : chatoyante et intelligente, celle d’Éros et d’Hermès, des Lumières étincelantes du XVIIIe sa seconde patrie. Sollers ou le perpétuel hymne à la joie, donc Mozart. Sollers ou le gai savoir, donc Nietzsche. Et tant d’autres : Dante, Voltaire, Casanova. Joueur et rieur, il aimait les masques et être où on ne l’attendait pas.

Cela avait démarré avec ses deux improbables parrains à tout juste 20 ans, et pas des moindres, Mauriac et Aragon, pour Une curieuse solitude, premier roman qui marqua son entrée en littérature. L’Église et le Parti. Sollers d’emblée Janus, tout à tour maoïste puis ultramontain. Brouiller les pistes, toujours. L’art de la dissimulation, de l’esquive, du clair-obscur était chez ce lecteur averti des Jésuites, une seconde nature. Sa profession de foi. La guerre de Sollers, celle du goût comme il l’avait nommée, se voulait souterraine et subversive, à la fois patiente à travers l’édition dont il fut le condottiere au Seuil puis à « la Banque centrale » Gallimard, soudainement éclatante et gentiment machiavélique à travers les médias dont il fut l’enfant chéri (Apostrophes, Le Monde des Livres).

Mais une guerre qui était aussi et surtout exigeante. Sollers a été un véritable stakhanoviste. Et pour cette raison, son œuvre restera. Il a publié et fait publier plusieurs centaines de livres. Il y eut bien sûr aussi les revues, fondamentales. D’abord Tel Quel avec Jean-Edern Hallier au Seuil. Haut lieu expérimental de rencontre entre l’avant-garde et les classiques qui fédéra notamment Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Francis Ponge. L’époque qui s’y reflétait était au maoïsme, à la psychanalyse et au structuralisme. Puis vint L’Infini chez Gallimard avec ce même souci d’exploration esthétique, frondeur et précurseur au risque de fréquenter les infréquentable. La moraline ce n’était pas le genre de Sollers. Il eut le courage de regarder en face certains astres noirs de la littérature, qu’il s’agisse de Céline, de Sade, d’Artaud, de Bataille et d’autres antimodernes. Certainement pour mieux voir le monde ? Pari réussi.

Sollers fut à lui seul le centre de gravité de la vie littéraire et des idées des cinquante dernières années. Ce n’est pas rien et ce n’est pas si fréquent. Vite, la Pléiade pour le divin Sollers !

[shape]

Wenn man eine Antimoderne mit modernen Mitteln erwirken will, dann ist man bei der Hamas, sagt Leon Kahane Foto: Piotr Pietrus

>> [...] Das Problem fängt dann an, wenn die Widersprüche der Welt, in die wir auch alle selbst verstrickt sind, simplizistisch gelöst und externalisiert werden. Das ist ein typischer Moment, wo der Antisemitismus sich bis zur Gewalt richtig entfesselt, denn Antisemitismus ist eine Kulturtechnik. Auf dem Banner von Taring Padi war dann der Jude der Urheber alles Bösen. Er steht noch hinter dem Teufel und manipuliert ihn.

Wie verbreitet ist dieses Weltbild in der Kunst?

Wir sehen einen enormen Zuwachs an essentialistischer, identitärer Kunst. Oft wird das Indigene zum Gegenstand von Projektionen. Das geht einher mit der Überhöhung einer Idee von Ursprünglichkeit und Authentizität. Sehr viel wird über die Kategorie des „Volks“ verhandelt. Anstelle des Individuums tritt das Kollektiv: Wir sind, was wir sind, und das ist ungebrochen und unhinterfragbar. Ich glaube, das ist das, was gerade Deutsche attraktiv finden am Postkolonialismus, weil sie sozusagen ein Verantwortungsverhältnis nach außen verschieben.

Gerade im Kulturbetrieb kam es aber auch zu einer vermehrten Aufarbeitung der Kolonialgeschichte, der Hinterfragung der Provenienz von Ausstellungsstücken.

Ja, richtig so! Aber warum leitet sich daraus die Idee, die Überzeugung ab, man müsse den Holocaust in die Gewalttradition des Kolonialismus stellen?

Was meint das?

Dass Deutschland mit der Aufarbeitung des Holocaust einen zu eingeschränkten, „provinziellen“ Blick habe. Nun: Deutschland muss in der Aufarbeitung seiner Kolonialverbrechen einiges nachholen. Aber es gibt darüber hinaus die Forderung, den Holocaust nicht mehr als präzedenzloses Menschheitsverbrechen zu sehen, sondern als einen Genozid von vielen. So wie Antisemitismus dann auch zu einer Spielart des Rassismus erklärt wird. Da steht Auschwitz dann neben empörend falscher Migrationspolitik und neben dem Krieg in Gaza. In dieser Logik wird Geschichte umgeschrieben. Wie sich das auf die Gegenwart und sie Zukunft auswirkt, können wir gerade live miterleben. <<

[ambrosethepoet]

Herzlich willkommen auf meinem Lyrik-Blog! Mein Name ist Ambrose und ich bin ein Poet der alten Schule.

Meine Liebe gehört vollkommen meiner Vorstellung von Schönheit · die ich im hemmungslosen Schreiben und Lesen und der ebenso bedingungslosen Hingabe an das Werk G. B. Bowman's (aka Lady Aislinn) auslebe. hier

Zweckgebundenheit · zumal in der Literatur · ist mir zuwider. Bücher genieße ich genauso gerne · wie Anblick und Duft von Orchideen · das sanfte Arom meines Schnupftabaks und Bier aus der bayerischen Heimat.

Ich schreibe oft im Geiste von Stefan George (1868-1933) · der bei mir den ersten Platz unter den Dichtern einnimmt · bediene mich seiner besonderen Zeichensetzung und Orthografie (Konsequente Kleinschreibung · Mittelpunkte anstatt Kommas etc.) und gehe der Gegenwart in meinen Versen aus dem Wege · ja · sie sind sogar fast immer polemisch «antimodern».

Vielleicht kann ich in dem Publikum kein Leuchtfeuer entzünden · wie angeblich einst von Aristophanes gefordert · aber wer meine Gedichte liest · liest meine Gefühle. Und das ist mir genug . .

the Poet

[aurevoirmonty]

"Je me considère comme un eurasiste, mais j'ai été davantage influencé par les critiques de l'Occident parmi les traditionalistes: René Guénon, Julius Evola, Martin Heidegger, Oswald Spengler. Ce sont des auteurs occidentaux antilibéraux et antimodernes."

Alexandre Douguine, Geopolitika.ru (2023)