While Weaver loved the South with a fierce passion, he avoided one of the besetting sins of the heirs of the Agrarians: a constricting sectionalism that thrives on the belief that all would have been well south of the Potomac had the Confederacy bested the Union Armies. Weaver perceived that the infirmities of modern Western civilization transcended the dichotomy between North and South.

George M. Curtis & James J. Thompson, Jr [i].

Who is Julius Evola? His career was many-sided: As a philosopher he belongs among the leading representatives of Italian Idealism … to some he might appear as an èminence grise in politics, for Mussolini apparently wanted to implement some of Evola’s ideas to create more freedom from the restrictions of National Socialism … and many of his books testify to his understanding of alchemy and magic, and it is reported that Mussolini stood in considerable awe of Evola’s ‘magical powers.’”

H.T. Hansen [ii]

When a thinker says civilization has taken the wrong road, when he says civilization is in the process of disintegrating, when his political sympathies lie with a defeated power that tried to establish a different pattern of civilization, then that thinker is a pariah. He stands outside the circle of “received wisdom.” What, then, can we learn from him? Being an outsider, he sometimes sees what the rest of us have missed. Some of his views may be repellant, or outrageous, yet he should not be ignored; for those who find themselves standing outside a civilization are not entangled in the conceits of that civilization, or engaged in the deceptive flattery that feeds it. The thinker who stands outside civilization, who suffers intellectual exile, may be civilization’s only honest critic. He may, in fact, be honest and courageous enough to pour cold water over our heads and cry “shame.” Why, indeed, would he do such a thing? There is never any money is such a career. Everyone and everything, in fact, is moving further and further from him. Whatever his failings or missteps, he has his little corner of truth. Wariness is advised in approaching him, of course. One should never approach pariahs uncritically. One approaches them to learn truths that we have exiled. One approaches them with one burning question: What have we failed to see?

Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola (1898-1974) was a pagan and enemy of the Catholic Church who eventually admitted that the Church might provide the only solution for Europe’s dying civilization. Richard Malcolm Weaver, Jr., (1910-1963) was a Professor at Chicago University, a Protestant and Southern “Agrarian” in search of philosophical answers to intractable problems. Evola has been linked to Italian Fascism while Weaver has been linked to the Confederate States of America. Evola was a philosopher and alchemist while Weaver was a teacher of rhetoric who upheld “truth, beauty and goodness” against “the fateful doctrine of nominalism.” Evola wrote of the link between mystical experience and tradition. Weaver wrote what he called “an intuition of a situation.” Whatever their differences in temperament or approach, they both believed in hierarchy. They both detested modernity’s materialism. They both railed against feminism, egalitarianism, rationalism and the intellectual slovenliness of the bourgeoisie. They both detested soulless statistics and mass politics, the feminization of men, the collapse of chivalry and aristocracy. And, finally, both writers believed that modernity would come to a bad end in the not-too-distant future.

These two thinkers were bellwethers. What is remarkable is that two writers, from very different backgrounds, arrived at remarkably similar conclusions about civilization’s ongoing disintegration. They both saw the failings of Western liberalism. They both foresaw Bolshevism’s destructive role. They both said that Western civilization had lost its center. Furthermore, their anti-liberalism was equivocal insofar as they both valued freedom. Evola was never a member of the National Fascist Party and Weaver never defended the South’s “peculiar institution” (i.e., slavery). Yet they were sympathizers of a kind, quite critical, yet sympathetic to lost causes that were anti-liberal. Weaver wrote a chapter in his book, Visions of Order, with the title “Forms and Social Cruelty.” Every age, he said, is based on “forms” which can lead to an “idolatry” that rapidly devolves into the destruction of innocent lives. Liberalism, he warned, also has its idolatries. “By the full reach of this reasoning the modern world through its machine culture has fallen into an idolatry no less grave than that of past ages which we are accustomed to censure,” Weaver noted.[iii] Both Weaver and Evola attempted to show that liberal civilization is potentially as brutal as any other. Weaver and Evola both pointed to the phenomenon of “total war” as practiced by the West. They had no illusions about peace and prosperity, progress and science. They were economic pessimists, technological pessimists, political and military pessimists. “A third world war in its social repercussions will eventually determine the triumph of the Fourth Estate,” wrote Evola;[iv] “Western people are destined not for the happiness which they have promised themselves, but for something like [Charles] Péguy’s ‘socialist poverty,’” wrote Weaver.[v] When told that modernity had the choice of using nuclear energy for peace, Evola wrote, “In an epoch of dissolution, such an idea seems completely abstract and fantastic, typical of intellectuals with no sense of reality.”[vi]

As outsiders, Evola and Weaver saw that the West was in trouble. They saw that the enemies of the West – the communists – were intellectually serious people. The materialism of the communists did not blunt communism’s readiness to work with ideas. Given this as their point of departure, Weaver and Evola had a deeper understanding of communism than other thinkers. Ideas have always ruled mankind. The communists were the people who, in modern times, were the most serious about ideas. The West, on its side, has proven to be erratic when it comes to ideas: sloppy, half-baked and shiftless. Because Evola was a European, and because he predicted Russia’s future course of action, his writings worried Moscow more than Weaver’s. It is not surprising, therefore, that the agents of the post-Soviet continuation regime took special notice of those who fell under Evola’s spell after 1991. As it happens, interest in Evola’s work has been growing in Europe. What would be more disastrous for Russia than Europe rallying under a new set of ideas? (However bizarre those ideas might be.)

Bannon, the European Right, and Moscow

In America, meanwhile, the old conservatism, with its virtues and its faults, has been sidelined by Trump’s populism. Few in America have taken notice of the implications springing from Evola or Weaver’s work; though Steve Bannon, who sometimes hangs out with the European right, commented on Evola in 2017. Bannon spoke of President Vladimir Putin’s “advisor [Aleksandr Dugin] who hearkens back to Julius Evola … who are really supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which … metastasized into Italian Fascism.” According to Bannon, the traditionalists “believe at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in the form of nationalism.” Bannon then credited Putin with being a capitalist in charge of a “kleptocracy.” Bannon said he wasn’t justifying Putin; but “I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing.”[vii]

Here we find Bannon, the leading “intellectual” of the Trump cadre, taking notice of Evola; but only because the Russians noticed Evola first. Bannon might be surprised to learn that Evola did not believe in the kind of nationalism Bannon embraces. Bannon would also be surprised to learn that Evola was not really a Fascist and did not believe in popular sovereignty as Americans do. Evola was a monarchist who believed sovereignty comes by the Grace of God through a properly “consecrated king.” Evola explained that such a king was needed more than ever, “especially in Europe in these latter times because of the involutive processes that have led both to the organization of the modern world and to the advent of Christianity….”[viii] Before and during World War II, Evola had gone along with Italian Fascism insofar as it bowed to the King of Italy. Evola was never comfortable with the Italian Social Republic of 1943-45. (For those unfamiliar with the politics of the time, Mussolini was overthrown by the Fascist Grand Council in July 1943. The Grand Council asked the King of Italy to resume his full constitutional powers, dismiss Mussolini and negotiate peace with the Allies. The Germans quickly occupied Italy to forestall this surrender. Evola was one of a handful of influential Italians who went to Hitler’s headquarters to discuss the formation of a new Italian regime. Evola argued for a monarchy under which Mussolini would serve as regent; but Hitler brushed aside these suggestions, opting to set up the Italian Social Republic instead.)[ix]

It is difficult for a distracted American like Bannon, however well-read or astute, to come to grips with Evola’s esoteric monarchism. (I cannot come to grips with it either.) It is also difficult for those who never understood communism, or the post-Soviet regime in Moscow, to realize that Evola’s monarchist views could never have a place in Putin’s regime, or with Putin’s advisors. Aleksandr Dugin is an ideological trickster and an agent of influence – not a monarchist. He may titillate Bannon, but he is no intellectual plaything. We can no more take seriously Dugin’s ideologies of misdirection than we can believe the statements of “President” Joe Biden. The post-Soviet regime under Putin is still Soviet, run by secret structures of the old Communist Party Soviet Union.[x] At the same time, the post-constitutional American regime is moving toward Sovietism, owing to secret structures of the communists and their fellow-travelers in big business, the media, and government. From one end of the world to the other, it is all of a piece.[xi]

The Americans, of course, are slow to grasp the situation and the Russians would like to keep it that way. Evola, therefore, is made to appear as an intellectual forefather of Putin’s advisor, Aleksandr Dugin. This comedy of intellectual errors, so pervasive on the American side, suggests that the center of intellectual gravity may not be in America at this point. Could Europe actually regain its sense of self through America’s intellectual abdication? Perfectly aware that Europe is trying to reawaken, Moscow has been sending one agent after another to infiltrate the European right. To properly frame Moscow’s interest in European nationalism and traditionalism, it is worth noting that the exploitation of right-wing nationalism in Europe is an old Soviet strategy, at least going back to the Hitler-Stalin partnership of August 1939. Years after that partnership ended, when Hitler’s Reich fell in May 1945, the Soviet special services controlled a significant part of the Nazi diaspora which was moving gold and elite personnel to South America. It is a long and complicated story with many missing pieces. Suffice it to say that the GRU and NKVD had successfully turned many Nazi officials into agents of Stalin, particularly after the German defeat at Stalingrad. Nazi bureaucrats with keen survival instincts understood that Germany had lost the war at Stalingrad and made their peace with Stalin on the side. Therefore, Moscow’s special services have been in the business of recruiting Nazis, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites for more than seventy years, and has been manipulating the post-war Nazi underground ever since.[xii]

Of course, maintaining control of underground Nazi and Fascist groups would never be easy (even for the KGB). In the 1950s there developed an ideological struggle between those European rightists who preferred Soviet Russia and those who preferred America. (Evola was in neither camp.) The Russian strategists calculated that a resurgent Nazism, or anti-Semitism, could prove useful during a future European crisis. Yet the most serious, prescient writer to emerge from the Axis side of the war, was Julius Evola, a man who never belonged to the KGB and was not under their control. In fact, as noted earlier, Evola never belonged to Mussolini. As a prescient thinker, Evola represented a threat in his own right. Evola understood communism and anticipated what would take place in 1989-91. The question then became, “How could Moscow appropriate Evola for themselves and thereby cover their tracks?” His association with Mussolini’s regime therefore made Evola exploitable. One merely needed to emphasize the “more useful” aspects (from Moscow’s standpoint) of Evola’s work. Thus, Evola could be rolled up into a larger red-brown project. Having died in 1974 he could not defend his work or its context. His precognitions might well be hijacked by KGB esotericists like Dugin. Evola, of course, was not the only target of this kind of game. The GRU and KGB have always sought to recruit right-wing intellectuals; especially those with psychological abnormalities, like America’s leading Nazi “theorist” – Francis Parker Yockey, author of Imperium. Not surprisingly, Yockey was a writer Evola came to criticize. Yet their writings share a few items useful to Russian projects; especially because Yockey and Evola were both interested in Aryanism, Helena Blavatsky’s notions of “root races,” and the Hindu Kali-Yuga (or Dark Age) which was expected to bring great destruction to mankind. Hitler’s geopolitical theories were also tied into these Luciferian items by way of the Thule Society. Keenly aware of these undercurrents, Aleksandr Dugin did Putin a favor by dangling a baited Eurasianist hook for the unwary to nibble on.

In Kevin Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Post-Fascist International, we find that Yockey was a Eurasianist more than half a century before the emergence of Aleksandr Dugin (who was, according to his biographer, a creature of Moscow’s special services). Evidence suggests that Yockey had come into contact with agents of the communist bloc, had disappeared into East Germany, had become enmeshed with Soviet intelligence. The leader of American Nazism in the 1960s, George Lincoln Rockwell, later characterized Yockey as a “Strasserist” (or red Nazi). It is no accident, in this context, that Dugin had a hand in forming Russia’s National Bolshevik Party in 1993, since right-wing Bolshevism was to become his special area of expertise. Here we see how the Russian work of infiltration and manipulation is prepared by talented individuals over many years (through various projects). If we examine these ideological and clandestine strands, we begin to see Moscow’s handiwork peeking out from beneath the surface. According to Coogan, one of Yockey’s closest friends in Weisbaden, Germany, was “a highly decorated ex-Luftwaffe man named Martin Becker.” According to intelligence sources, Becker was “allegedly in contact with the STRASSER group,” frequently traveling to East Germany and meeting with the Russians. Coogan wrote, “All that is known for sure is that Yockey began publicly arguing that Russia was the lesser of two evils in London sometime in 1948. Later, Yockey began asserting that Soviet Russia has not been run by Jews since 1937-38. This is as close to an endorsement of the USSR as any Nazi is likely to give. From 1955-57 Yockey disappeared from his usual haunts. Evidence emerged in 1956 that Yockey was working in East Germany. At least one well-informed source, wrote Coogan, “believed that Yockey had a close Russian connection.”[xiii]

The reason for going into such detail, is to establish that the Nazi/Moscow connection is no fantasy. Moscow constantly strives to consolidate its hold on the radical right. It is a very real part of a long-term game. Dugin has been a primary agent of influence in this game. Posing as a “philosopher,” Dugin has attempted to play off of Evola’s esoteric traditionalism, submerging Evola in a Russian-made traditionalist narrative. To show Dugin’s insincerity, Anton Shekhovtsov and Andreas Umland have written a piece, “Neo-Eurasianism and Perennial Philosophy,” in which they quote Dugan as saying, “Frankly, I hate traditionalists – no matter whether they are of domestic or Western origin. They are rabble. Good people do real work or wage wars, even if they have little chance of success.”[xiv]

Dugin’s books and presentations are all part of a grand deception. It is the same deception that portrays Putin as a defender of Western values and Christianity. This coordinated strategy has fooled many conservatives in the West. It is an offshoot of a larger strategy that was first engaged by Gorbachev in 1987-91, and afterwards by Yeltsin. In his book, Revolt Against the Modern World, Evola described this kind of strategy as basic to communist behavior. There are two truths in communism, he warned. “The first ‘esoteric’ truth has a dogmatic and immutable character; it corresponds to the basic tenets of the revolution and is formulated in the writings and in the directives of the early Bolshevik period.” Thus, the thoughts of Marx and Lenin will always remain relevant, and will always operate. The second truth of communism is what Evola called a “realistic truth … which is forged case by case, often in apparent contrast with the first truth, and characterized by eventual compromises with the ideas of the ‘bourgeois’ world….” In other words, Bolshevism is ready to change its outward appearance and adopt democracy, or capitalism, or even to feign Christianity (as Putin has done). Evola therefore predicted that the Soviet Union would pretend to evolve toward a normal state. It would adopt private property. It would take up “the Slavic myth.” Yet, warned Evola, “The varieties of this second truth [of flexible pretense] are usually set aside as soon as they have achieved their tactical objective; they are mere instruments at the service of the first truth [hardline communism]. Therefore, those who would fall into this trap and believe that Bolshevism is a thing of the past, that it has evolved and that it is going to take on normal forms of government and international relations, are indeed extremely naïve.”[xv]

Through all this, Evola characterized Lenin as a careful calculator – a “mathematician dealing with a complex calculus problem … analyzing in a detached and lucid way….”[xvi] The masses are not necessary in this project, wrote Evola. The primary strategic method was “a technique requiring the employment of specialized and well-directed teams.” Moscow’s strategy, wrote Evola, partakes of a “ruthless ideological coherence.” The Bolsheviks were “absolutely indifferent to the practical consequences and the countless calamities that derived from the application of abstract principles; to them ‘man’ as such did not exist.” According to Evola, the Bolshevik strategist couples “the fierce concentration typical of a fanatic with the exact logic, method, and focus on the most effective means typical of a technician.” Evola described communism as “foreshadowing an era in which the forces of darkness will no longer work behind the scenes but come out into the open, having found their most suitable incarnation in beings in whom demonism teams up with a lucid intellect … and a strong will to power.” Evola thought that the resulting catastrophes would bring about “the end of the cycle”; that is, the end of civilization itself.

Of equal interest, Evola understood that Marxism-Leninism is not primarily (and never was) an economic doctrine. “The primary element,” he noted, “is the disavowal of every spiritual and transcendent value; the philosophy and the sociology of historical materialism are just expressions of this disavowal and derive from it, not the other way around, and the corresponding communist praxis is but one of the many methods employed to carry it out.” It is therefore a doctrine which “disintegrates” the individual into the collective, negating the soul (which is of the individual). “In the communist world an important goal is the elimination in man of everything that has the value of autonomous personality and of all that may represent an interest unrelated to the needs of the collectivity. More specifically, [communism signifies] the mechanization, disintellectualization, and rationalization of every activity, on every plane….”[xvii]

Richard Weaver’s Insights

Richard Weaver described the communists as “an elite group of remorseless theorists who pride themselves on their freedom from sentimentality.”[xviii] Like Evola, Weaver saw communists as clear and logical. He wrote, “Nothing is more disturbing to modern men of the West than the logical clarity with which the Communists face all problems. Who shall say that this feeling is not born of a deep apprehension that here are the first true realists in hundreds of years and that no dodging about in the excluded middle will save Western liberalism?” Weaver further explained, “Hating this world they never made … the modern Communists – revolutionaries and logicians – move toward intellectual rigor.”

At the same time, Weaver saw the West’s intellectual incapacity. It is a case, he said, of “spoiled child psychology.” Weaver asked “whether the West will allow comfort to soften it to the point at which defeat is assured or whether it will accept the rule of hardness and discover means of discipline.”[xix] Weaver added that, “The Russians with habitual clarity of purpose have made their choice; there is to be discipline, and it is to be enforced by the elite controlling the state.”[xx] Discipline, after all, is necessary to victory. No discipline, no victory. But discipline, along with a belief in authority, has broken down in the West. What, then, if a real conflict occurs? “The failure of discipline in empirical societies can be traced to warfare between the productive and the consumptive faculties,” wrote Weaver. “The spoiled child is simply one who has been allowed to believe that his consumptive faculty can prescribe the order of society.”[xxi]

In the war between East and West, said Weaver, the liberal West is at a disadvantage: “For, however much the Bolsheviks have bemused themselves with other sophistries, they have never lost sight of the fact that life is a struggle. And, since they see expansion as the price of survival, they are wholly committed to dynamism.”[xxii] Thus, the “blue heaven” of the Western liberals [and conservatives] is precarious indeed. What are inalienable rights next to the strategic dynamism of the communists? Western liberalism, warned Weaver, is fundamentally incapable of thinking. “Even if we assume pacific intentions on both sides, the future would not be safe for Western liberalism. Its fundamental incapacity to think, arising from an inability to see contradictions, deprives it of the power to propagate.”[xxiii]

Weaver also warned that the West cannot compete with socialist poverty. The West thinks that money is power, that money and wealth are security; but no, says Weaver. Money and wealth are enervating. Consider the following footnote from ancient history: Greece was poor when Persia was rich, yet Greece defeated Persia. Sparta was poor while Athens was rich, yet Sparta defeated Athens. Rome was without a navy and relatively poor compared to the commercial prowess of Carthage, yet Rome defeated Carthage. When Rome was rotted by wealth, the Germanic barbarians defeated Rome. The idea that wealth always prevails in war, is a liberal capitalist conceit.

It is also a conservative conceit. One of the problems we have, on the American right, is the bizarre notion that Ronald Reagan “won the Cold War.” One might ask, facetiously, how he did that? By appointing Gorbachev as General Secretary of the Communist Party Soviet Union? No. By invading tiny Grenada? No. By building a strategic missile defense (SDI) system? No, since none was built. Did Reagan win by supplying the Muslim fighters in Afghanistan with weapons? No. And look at who is supplying the Muslim fighters now! The future is not safe for Western liberalism, said Weaver. The West has lost its ability to think. “Demagogic leaders have told the common man that he is entitled to much more than he is getting; they have not told him the more unpleasant truth that, unless there is to be expropriation – the increase must come out of greater productivity.” And so, the West turned to cheap Chinese labor. This was the great trick by which more could be produced with less. Only it caused the industrial base of America and much of Europe to be moved to China.

What would Weaver say now if he could read the Putin-friendly commentaries of Patrick Buchanan, Thomas Fleming or Paul Gottfried? What would Weaver have said, had he lived to see Nixon’s trip to communist China? Would he have believed the communist lies, as they did? Would he have accepted the fall of the Soviet Union as spontaneous and genuine? Would he really have cheered Putin like so many of today’s paleoconservatives?

I do not think so.


To read Weaver and Evola, one must accept a little discomfort. Naturally, I have no sympathy for the Confederate States of America or Mussolini’s Italy. I quote Weaver and Evola for their brilliant insights. As it turns out, insights are the thing – regardless of who has them. What we need to do, at this time, is to understand communism. We need to find insights about communism wherever we can. That also means we ought to be reading Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

Communism is taking over the world, though nobody wants to see it. A biological war began last year, initiated by the Chinese communists. As this biological war unfolds, we still remain incapable of naming our enemy, or recognizing a pattern of totalitarian encroachment from government. Is there a strategy at work here? Always, with us, the communist dupe is mistaken for the communist mastermind. The Western billionaire gets all the credit, as if competence is measured by money alone. We forget that the billionaire is not a state; he is not a bureaucracy full of intelligence agencies and think tanks. He is one person with a fat bank account. Therefore, we are overrun with conspiracy theories that add to the public’s confusion. We lack understanding at the philosophical level, and we lack historical understanding. Being lazy, then, we are ready to oversimply – to judge everything by a cliché. “Oh yes,” we say to ourselves. “The whole thing is about money.” We thus misunderstand China. We misunderstand Vladimir Putin who has intentionally cultivated a deceptive image for conservatives to swallow. He is, as Bannon said, a “kleptocrat.” Case closed.

I believe Evola and Weaver understood communism. Evola had a very special understanding. He underscored communism’s professionalism. He was exactly right when he said the communists will pretend to compromise and surrender their ideology. But then, he warned, they will return to their first principles once this compromise has achieved its purposes. Given the quality of their discernment, I do not think Weaver or Evola would have mistaken Putin for a conservative nationalist. Both would have seen through the cynicism of Putin’s Christian pose. They would have pointed to Putin’s statement that communism is like Christianity even as Lenin was cast in the likeness of a Christian saint.[xxiv]

Weaver wrote, “The truth is … that our surrender to irrationality has been in progress for a long time, and we witness today a breakdown of communication not only between nations and groups within nations but also between successive generations.”[xxv] We have lost our ability to think, to use words, to communicate; that is to say, we are no longer educated. Being like children, we believe what we want to believe.

Weaver ended his great book, Ideas Have Consequences, in the following way. He said that it was “the duty of those who can foresee the end of a saturnalia to make their counsel known.” He said we were all in this together, that none will survive “a sweep as deep and broad as the decline of a civilization.” He said, “If the thinkers of our time cannot catch the imagination of the world to the point of effecting some profound transformation, they must succumb with it.” It may be the case, added Weaver, “that the sins of the fathers are going to be visited upon the generations until the reality of evil is again brought home and there comes some passionate reaction.” It seems, at this late hour, to be all that remains. Weaver then concluded, “If such is the most we can hope for, something toward that revival may be prepared by acts of thought and volition in this waning day of the West.”[xxvi]

[i] Richard Weaver as edited by George M Curtis and James J. Thompson, Jr., The Southern Essays of Richard Weaver (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1987), p. xviii.

[ii] Julius Evola trans. Guido Stucco, Revolt from the Modern World (Rochester Vermont: Inner Traditions International, 1995), p. x.

[iii] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order: The Cultural Crisis of Our Time (USA: Louisiana State University Press, 1995), pp. 73-91.

[iv] Ibid, p. 344.

[v] Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 124-125.

[vi] Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for Aristocrats of the Soul (Kindle), 2279-2289.

[vii]This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World (buzzfeednews.com) 

[viii] Revolt from the Modern World, p. 67.

[ix] Gianfranco de Turris, Julius Evola: The Philosopher and Magician in War: 1943-1945 (Kindle). The biographer underscores the fact that Evola passionately rejected Nazism and Fascism because they were totalitarian. However, Evola dud collaborate with the SS on a bizarre project to track the Masonic lodges of Europe. The material from this project was captured by the Soviets at the end of the war. What did the KGB do with this information after 1945? Perhaps some readers have information I have not run across. The occult interests of Himmler are well known. The occult preoccupations of the Soviet secret police are not well known. The manipulation of occult groups has undoubtedly occurred to the Soviet secret police and to Moscow’s strategists. The collapse of Christianity being assumed by many in Europe, the occult became something of a fad along with orientalist religions. It has taken hold in the USA as well.

[x] Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception.

[xi] How to reverse this process? Evola said the solution was monarchy. Of course, this line of thinking could only take hold in Europe where the linkages between monarchy and Christianity formed the continent’s political heritage. In Europe it is no accident that monarchy began to lose traction even as Christianity lost traction. Europe’s new God is found in the sovereignty of the masses. The modern state, which pretends to serve the people, but has cunningly usurped all power for itself. The people have empowered the state; but now the state would rather govern without the people. The machinery of the state has become so power-hungry, so stupidly pragmatic, that it arrogates to itself the right to decide what is true and false; only the mechanism has rotted to its core as it pronounces wrong to be right and good evil. The question of proper authority in American and Europe has become hopelessly confused. To their credit, Evola and Weaver saw that this was happening. They knew where this was headed. Whatever lip service is given to divine sanction by Christian conservatives today, there is no living mechanism to assure any such thing. Politics has descended to the demagoguery and corruption of elections, of machine politics, and the buying of votes. And now we have a runaway machine ready to forcibly vaccine tens of millions of American school children with an experimental drug which the bureaucracy has not properly tested. Does sovereignty in America or Europe belong to the people? Not any longer. It has been usurped by unelected bureaucrats. These do not care about transcendentals – truth, beauty and goodness – that Richard Weaver wrote about.

[xii] Read, especially, the memoirs of SS General Walter Schellenberg and Louis Kilzer’s important work, Hitler’s Traitor: Martin Bormann and the Defeat of the Reich.

[xiii] Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International (New York: Autonomedia, 1999), pp. 182-446.

[xiv] Is Aleksandr Dugin a Traditionalist? “Neo-Eurasianism” and Perennial Philosophy on JSTOR

[xv] Revolt From the Modern World, p. 346.

[xvi] C. Malaparte, La Technique du coup d-etat (Paris, 1931), p. 13.

[xvii] Ibid, pp. 346-347.

[xviii] Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 9.

[xix] Ibid, p.123.

[xx] Ibid, p. 124.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] Putin says Communism is like Christianity and Lenin is like a saint (christiantoday.com)

[xxv] Ibid, 164.

[xxvi] Ibid, 187.


Quarterly Subscription (voluntary)



89 thoughts on “Evola and Weaver

  1. “… One of the problems we have, on the American right, is the bizarre notion that Ronald Reagan ‘won the Cold War.’ One might ask, facetiously, how he did that? By appointing Gorbachev as General Secretary of the Communist Party Soviet Union? No. By invading tiny Grenada? No. By building a strategic missile defense (SDI) system? No, since none was built. Did Reagan win by supplying the Muslim fighters in Afghanistan with weapons? No. And look at who is supplying the Muslim fighters now! The future is not safe for Western liberalism, said Weaver. The West has lost its ability to think.”

    Did you read this, Frank Gaffney? When will you stop putting your personal pride ahead of the sober realities and acknowledge – and publicly admit – that, over all those years, you’ve been dead wrong about “Reagan winning the Cold War”? He lost it; America lost it; the entire (once)-free world lost it. And here we are…

    Russian Victory Day Parade on Red Square, 2010:


    1. It seems very difficult to get through to mainstream conservatives. Even when they seem to hear the truth and seemingly agree, they quickly revert to the old formulas. Communist disinformation themes are so widely accepted it is difficult to break with them for long.

      1. Sorry about the harsh tone, but that recent Committee on the Present Danger: China webinar, in which you participated, really made me angry with regard to Mr. Gaffney’s same old, self-congratulatory remarks about the United States having brought down the USSR 30 years ago. He should rather use whatever influence he’s got to lay out the full picture, which is, sadly, World October happening right in front of our eyes (and coming down on us with full force) – as even Soviet postage stamps of the perestroika period openly stated, “Perestroika is the CONTINUATION of the October [Revolution]”!

        Also, I wanted to embed that YouTube video with the full-length Rossiya-1 live broadcast of the more-than-alarming 2010 Victory Day Parada on Red Square. It was a powerful display of all-Soviet/all-communist unity, with all “former” Soviet republics (perhaps minus the Baltics and perhaps Georgia) present, and units from these “independent”, “post-Soviet” republics marching on Red Square as a gesture of unbroken communist “peoples’ friendship”. Even U.S., British and French military (which had never happened before!) was participating in the parade, marching – as if already defeated! – to the brutal, totalitarian sounds of Soviet military music, and abandoned by their own leaders: The only “Western” leaders in attendance were Comrades Angela Merkel of Germany and Shimon Peres of Israel, surrounded by communists, communists, and nothing but communists!!!

      2. Oh yes. This parade is very remarkable. I recall what Col. Stanislav Lunev told me in 1998. He said the old Soviet military districts still remained in effect. I asked how this was possible with so many countries then independent of Moscow. He then made the astonishing statement that Russia had retained all the senior Soviet generals and admirals, and had continued to fill the old posts with promotions as they retired. But why? Lunev then explained that it takes eight weeks to train a soldier, but two years to train a division commander. The implications say it all.

      3. I might want to add that this 2010 Victory Day Parade was indeed attended also by the Presidents of Estonia and Latvia, Toomas Hendrik Ilves and Valdis Zatlers (both, since 2004, EU and NATO member states). Then-President of Ukraine, Yanukovich, was apparently not present, but Ukrainian units were taking part in the parade (Lukashenko of Belarus couldn’t be seen either). The Presidents of allegedly hostile Azerbaijan and Armenia, Aliyev and Sargsyan, were sitting almost next to each other, only separated by Tajik President Emomalii Rahmon (all of them long-time tyrants coming from the old Soviet-communist structures). Angela Merkel of Germany was seated exactly between Vladimir Putin (who was at the time, for four years, Russian Prime Minister instead of President) and Hu Jintao of China: What symbolism!

        What’s more, most of the “former” East-European satellite nations (now mostly in the EU and in NATO) were represented too, all by their respective presidents: Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Bulgaria (Hungary, Romania and Albania seemed to be missing), and all ex-Yugoslav republics. The whole “collapse of communism” was the greatest farce in human history, and here they were back as one and the same old communist bloc that they had never ceased to be! Now-“social-democratic” Mongolia (what a joke!) and communist Vietnam were present as well!

        To add insult to injury, towards the end of this monstrosity was played the European anthem (the famous Ode to Joy from Beethoven’s 9th Symphony), a clear hint at the Soviet strategic objective of a “Common European Home from the Atlantic to Vladivostok”. In other words, they are LAUGHING at the West, and also at the Germans, who have willingly allowed themselves, yet again, into a critically suicidal position vis-à-vis a “Russia” that is as Soviet as it has ever been since 1917.

        And look at the faces, of the old veterans as well as of the young men in uniform: It’s obvious they can’t wait to slay, once and for all, their hated “capitalist class enemy”; this was back in 2010…

  2. Jeff, when I read the first paragraph, it sounded like you talked about yourself, with the exception that your political sympathies don’t lie with a defeated power that tried to establish a different pattern of civilization. You are the outsider, the pariah, who sees things that others miss. Those of us who are your regular readers thank you for those insights.

    1. Yes, I am also an outsider and a pariah. My country, America, may one day become a defeated power — like Italy in WW2 or the CSA. I fear that we have adopted a pattern of civilization that is not sustainable. I look at my countrymen and see a kind of collective sickness in them. I wish I could fully understand this sickness and offer a prescription. We need to remember that history repeats itself and great powers sometimes fall into ruin. That being said, America has been unique; but now Americans appears self-indulgent. I do not believe in so-called American exceptionalism because America is subject to the same problems that have plagued European countries. If only we could remain prosperous and virtuous. Yet I suspect we have lost our virtue and now we are losing our prosperity — and may lose much more.

      1. It escalated with Americans buying cheap Chinese crap on credit, and ended with Americans acceding to wearing masks.

        Fauci’s Mein Kamp

        “These platform technologies include DNA, messenger RNA (mRNA) virus-like S particles, vector-based, and self assembling nano-particle vaccines.”


        Hearing on “Flu Season: U.S. Public Health Preparedness and Response”
        Wednesday, December 4, 2019 – 10:30am
        2123 Rayburn House Office Building
        116th Congress
        Energy and Commerce (116th Congress)
        Oversight and Investigations (116th Congress)


        Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United States to Promote National Security and Public Health
        A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 09/24/2019



      2. No modern country has a civilization that can sustain itself. The entire world is sick.

        One writer has come around to thinking the Roman Catholic Church is the answer to Europe’s problems. Knowing the path that church took leads one to wonder what the man is thinking with. The Pope signed a concordat with both Hitler and Mussolini, and the current Pope is a communist. Biblical Christianity is the answer to what ails the world, but knowing the trajectory of end times prophecy leads one to see that answer will be ignored.

        The world is sick. It is sin sick.

      3. The Pope during WW2 was working against Hitler. He saved many Jews. But the communists created a false narrative that Pope Pius was “Hitler’s Pope.” The defector, Ion Pacepa wrote about this and his role in it as a Romanian intelligence official following Moscow’s orders.

      4. What do you have against posting, Fauci’s testimony to Congress on December 4, 2019, where he informs legislators of mRNA with self assembling nanoparticles?

      5. That’s good. I suspected that Deep State was censoring you. Did Congress know what Fauci was talking about, I also wonder?

      6. I am repeating myself, but I think the disease America suffers from and that you talk about is multifaceted. One particular implying a loss of touch with reality is this infantile brain making schizophrenia of modernity as Devereux expounded upon in his diagnosis of ethnic illnesses. This America would get more upset of losing the Amazon web site than the military. This is an example of immature schizophrenia based loss of orientation. Everything is extrapolated to the localist mindset. A localist mindset is basically the basement dweller who for lack of real world experiences hallucinates and can only extrapolate without any ability of having the kind of abstractions thinking that reading a Nyquist book requires. One cannot extrapolate the loss of a job or services at Amazon with that of one in the military. Yet this is what every day liberalism does.

        Liberalism is also found in the work of Kafka. The Trial is, in my opinion, much more informative than 1984 by Orwell. In Kafka we get the very surreal description of a normal liberal world of commerce gone mad, with authorities’ only concern being to frame things as opposed to seek the truth and prove. All over America nowadays the media framing, Biden framing the Jan6/ReishtagFire protestors etc. Is all that functions. This is no accident. It is partly our fault as modern capitalist society obsessed with small accounting tends schizophrenic, but the general overall framing of the American, down to its atom, as the cause of all evil is absolute KGB/China work. A mere cursorial observation will reveal that indeed Putin and China still work together with the Obamas in framing of America wrong when it is right or at least sincerely tries to pacify a region.

        Framing is based in fantasy making, and the schizophrenic is very very receptive to this. The framer of false witness becomes very quickly a god to the schizophrenic who hates reality, refuses to see a difference between anything, be it man or woman, antifa or free speech protest or Jeff Bezos divorcing vs Bill Clinton blackmailed for sex and drug affairs. The soul deadness of the schizophrenic seen in the Eloi of Time Machine, his localist mindset seen in men obsession with meaningless partisanship in football (while their women occupy divorce courts ruled by squabbling shrews and perverted feminists), his exclusively technical orientation as seen in Republicans solely interested in accounting budget expenses, his perversions as seen in Kafkaesque FBI law enforcement which only cares about the look of the uniform and framing tactics as opposed to looking for real evils to hunt and expose; all these are basically a jackpot opportunity for another paranoiac schizophrenic in Russia and China to impress it and control it.

        Just looking at the imbecilic eyes of Bush (when he says “Putin makes sense” about Iraq and Afghanistan) and the empowerment hallucinations of Obama when he delivers speeches that frame him as a great guy and the rest of us as bad guys while he is completely divorced from the Soviet reality which ultimately frames him in that role, one can get a hint, imo, that Devereux was mostly right. The only ingredient missing was the Active Measures of the KGB to exploit these self framing minds to be baited into framing themselves and their own country as bad while framing the KGB behind its various rhetorical masks as good. Because the reality hating immature schizophrenic (immature because childish children are highly disoriented beings which however have become a sacrosanct cult in liberalism) would rather work in a framing setting than in a reality setting which reminds him too much of a real dad. Ironically Hilary Clinton was rejected as president specifically because she looked too adult even. In that sense, she would have been better than Trump (her KGB Clinton feminist crazy ties notwithstanding).

        America does not like an adult in charge, it wants a kindergarten fantasy feminine teacher in power which makes up stories and frame things nicely. In fact, the feet stomping academia based “conservative” of the like of Horowitz will go out of their way to attack anyone who speaks with authority and their books such as Red Thread by Diana West. They so much prefer framing over reality, over the symbolic authority of the Constitution even (if we go Lacanian), that even if they are framed as the criminals like in Kafka’s book, it is preferable for them than reality. Clearly the child who refuses to grow and use his adult powers and assets is miserable and ultimately implicitly suicidal that way. There is nothing worse than a child with the body of an adult, disoriented in all adult spheres, from the basics of orientation in sexuality to geopolitics. Even in the military the brass likes the good speeches that makes people look good, and not the sobering words.

      7. Our problems are multifaceted. Bad leadership is primary among them; and lack of moral courage, lack of intellectual integrity is what makes them so very very regrettable.

      8. By multifaceted disease, I also mean that there also are spiritual factors at work. Devereux almost touched on it when he said that any movement or revolution, to be successful, must exist in the unconscious. Secondly he talks about how often children are to act up the repressed unconscious of parents, with parents promptly retracting their delinquent daughters from treatment when she is improving and becomes an adult avoiding prostitution and other sexual delinquency.

        It thus surprisingly so happen that most liberals who are anti god atheists are really anti God, the One God, but that they unconsciously believe the many other gods. Push come to shove, during trials of possession in psychoanalytic settings, we see that the children of liberals or communists turn to satanism or islamist extremism, because they express the ancestry and worship of gods happening in the mind of their parents unconsciously. One can note for example that feminists and communists never invented anything. Lillith for example is supposed to be the first equal wife of Adam, as she too was made of clay like him. It only is after when she disputes for power with Adam on grounds that she is an equal that God chases her out and makes Eve out of his rib. In NYC, thus, a leading feminist magazine is called Lillith, and they try to either kill Eve and her offspring, harassing mothers, or to turn them against themselves in self hate.

        This is an interesting take because while the schizophrenia diagnosis tends to isolate and make thus the schizophrenic even more satisfied as a result of this accusation, ironically, the spiritual facet of describing the disease forces a reorientation and a removal from isolation. It makes sense, because to divide a people , it must be also dividing and isolating the individuals from each other. The spiritual talk aspect tends to encourage people to join together in fighting forces external to them, or to avoid scapegoat situations where the tribe is always ready to benefit and congratulate itself when a member does good, but of putting all its ills and the fault of one member unto himself or herself isolated.

        The spiritual angle, which ironically liberals and their ancestor do not want to see occuring, contributes to prevent the country from polarizing, but also forces out in the open spiritualities that are active and thus much more succesful unconsciously than consciously. The only reason Freud was hated by communists is because they feared intuitively that bringing out in the open the revolution, into the consciousness, would make it less effective. That image is well represented by Tolkien whose “Ring which ruled them all” was one allowing disappearance and unconscious activism. While Freud wrongly isolated patients in the method of his instructor Charcot, he had a handle the communists feared.

  3. Brilliant article, Jeff.
    An intellectual masterpiece.

    “America itself has fallen into rank error and apostasy, and as the church goes, so goes America.”
    Kelly O’Connell

  4. Jeff is indeed an outsider and leading watchman outside the gates today. I would venture most of his readers here are also outsiders. We have for many years been trying to get the attention of the comfortable fools inside the paper mache walls who have made us all vulnerable to the encroaching, infiltration of evil.

    Once again, thank you, Jeff, for manning the tower and sounding the trumpet.

  5. 16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six. Revelation 13: 16-18
    From QR codes to chip implants, we’re only a moment away.

    Jesus said to him “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” John 14:6

    1. It’s definitely a hostile act to ship hostile Arabs to the border of NATO for release. This is all part of the strategy to weaken Europe and America. Belarus is just a territory of Moscow.

      1. Poland has mostly stayed out of “migrant crisis” news for years, so to me, hearing about this was a surprise. It kind of reminds me of what Turkey was doing to Greece last year (before the pandemic) at the Evros River, the land border between the two countries–literally, and aggressively, bussing foreign migrants to that border.

      2. It looks like it’s a start of a new CALAMITY that is about to touch Poland again. We talked about that just a few months ago. PUTLER will stop at nothing to destroy Poland in the current shape as she is the greatest impediment in his strategy to control the Eastern Europe through the monopolization of energy sector as a sole supplier of energy materials. Let’s bear in our minds that the Polish President Lech Kaczynski paid a heavy price for his determination to make Poland energy independent from Russia; He, together with almost entire Polish civilian and military leadership was murdered in the plane crash near Smolensk in Belarus in 10 April 2010 on his way to Katyn to commemorate mass murder of Polish officers by the KGB in Katyn in 1940.

        P.S: My own SICKTORIA is descending very fast into her own CALAMITY very fast. Unfortunately, THE DEMON (our “premier” Daniel Andrews) is still commanding significant support among the local, almost totally brainwashed population even if the resistance is on the raise.

        I’ve recently become a member (a very active one) of a relatively new party, the United Australia Party led by senator Gregg Kelly and supported by kind of Australian Trump, a billionaire Clive Palmer.

        In terms of registered membership UAP is now the biggest party in EUNUCHALIA. However, it that will translate into any substantial electoral gain at the incoming federal election is yet to be seen.

        The fast raising popularity of UAP is giving us a little bit hope, though.

        Regards and Greetings from Aussie – Bogdan

        P.S: A small correction: Gen. Ion Micheil Pacepa.

  6. Well Jeff I guess You and me are not gonna be going on Tucker Carlson show anytime soon after what he said last week just came from the same interview that I’m supplying both articles. Tucker Carlson is aloof to say the least (But his lack of knowledge could be due to the fact that back on November 1, 2021 he had emergency back surgery and apparently got pumped up with enough fentanyl and other powerful opioid painkillers after the surgery, that apparently he end up getting higher than the balls on a two hump camel).

    ‘You Need a Little Education’: GOP Lawmaker Confronts Tucker Carlson:
    Representative Mike Turner told the Fox News host the U.S. must side with Ukraine amid a Russian military buildup because “we’re on the side of democracy.”


    Tucker Carlson Asks Why U.S. Should Side with Ukraine and Not Russia:
    The Fox News host told a Republican congressman he was “confused” about why the U.S. is not supporting Russia.


  7. America is Under Attack by Marxist Globalists – Martin Armstrong
    By Greg Hunter On November 13, 2021 In Political Analysis 246 Comments
    By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com (Saturday Night Post)


    Back in July, legendary geopolitical and financial cycle analyst Martin Armstrong boldly said, “The system has come to an end.” What are we seeing now? There is massive inflation, huge defaults of debt in China, a badly broken supply chain and a hostile government against “We the People” here in America. It sure looks like the end of this system is near. Armstrong contends it is not an accident that all this is happening now to the United States because Marxist globalists want to overthrow our Constitutional form of government. Armstrong explains, “This is getting to be really absurd. Biden is the perfect President. I warned that this election had nothing to do with Trump versus Biden. It was Trump versus a foreign entity that was trying to take over the United States. Biden is absolutely the perfect President. They got their wish. They got somebody in there that really would not be able to figure out left from right. I am not making derogatory statements against him. This isn’t even Biden’s agenda. You are lucky if he even understands what’s going on. It’s the people behind him. It you look at his polls, they are down to 33%. A politician would normally care about that. You don’t see any change because he’s not the one doing this. They know he’s just a place holder. , , , They are just moving their agenda through—period. The United States is being orchestrated from Geneva. All this ‘Build Back Better’ stuff was a slogan created at Davos. . . .The United States is under attack from a foreign entity.”

    Armstrong says his predictive Socrates computer program does not see the Marxist globalists succeeding. Armstrong says, “They think they can take over the world and create this fictional wonderland of Marxism. It’s not going to work. Our computer is showing that they have failed. In 2022, this whole thing is going to start blowing up. Bill Gates . . . actually said that the vaccines don’t work. He said we are going to have to create a new sort of R&D. There is too much evidence now that the vaccines do not prevent you from getting Covid or spreading it. Data coming out of Israel shows the majority of people vaccinated are the majority of the people that are dying. Gates is being confronted with this behind the curtain.”

    Armstrong says the Marxist globalists are trying to create a Great Depression. Why? Armstrong says, “The reason why they are trying to create a Great Depression is they are now desperate. They created, in my opinion, this virus that numerous people I know behind the curtain were told a virus was coming. I think it was planted. I think it was created by a lab in China. This is all total B.S. It’s being used mainly to prevent people from traveling.”

    Armstrong also says the Marxist globalists have a plan to default on all debt. Listen to how they are going to sell this to the public. Armstrong says, “They pretend they care about you. You won’t own anything. We are going to eliminate all mortgages, all credit card debt and you are going to be happy. Why? Because that’s the cover for them to default. They can’t default without wiping out everybody’s pension fund.”

    Armstrong says rich people are buying tangible assets to get their money off the grid, and the little guy should be doing the same thing. This is why Armstrong says things such as art, collectibles, Bitcoin and gold are going up and will continue to do so. Armstrong says be careful with crypto currencies because, eventually, governments will have their own crypto currencies and will not allow competition.

    Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with Martin Armstrong, world renowned geopolitical and economic cycle expert.

    (What is written above is only a fraction of what is in the 61 min. interview.)


  8. BREAKING: Initial Reports Coming Out of China Indicate There Was a New COVID-19 Lab Leak at University in Shanghai
    By Joe Hoft
    Published November 13, 2021 at 8:00am


    Dr. Fauci Admits Vaccines Did Not Work as Advertised and that Vaccinated Are in Great Danger Today (VIDEO):


  9. China’s latest COVID-19 outbreak spreads to 21 provinces, infecting 1,379
    Updated 20:48, 13-Nov-2021


    The latest COVID-19 outbreak in China had infected 1,379 people in 21 provincial-level regions as of Friday evening, and over 300 confirmed cases had been discharged from hospitals, Mi Feng, spokesperson for the National Health Commission (NHC), said at a press conference on Saturday.

    With the number of global COVID-19 cases surpassing 250 million, China is facing greater challenges in preventing inbound cases, said Mi.

    And with the advent of winter and lower temperatures, there is an increasing risk of the prevalence of COVID-19 and other respiratory infectious diseases like influenza at the same time, he warned.

    Overall situation stabilizing

    China’s overall COVID-19 situation is stabilizing, and the epidemic in many provinces has been effectively brought under control, Wu Liangyou, deputy director of the NHC’s disease control and prevention bureau, said at the press briefing, adding that partial flare-ups in several provinces need to be contained.

    As of Friday, over 2.37 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines had been administered in China, with more than 1.07 billion people out of its 1.4 billion population fully inoculated, data from the NHC showed.

    ‘Dynamic zero-COVID policy’

    Mi said China will stick to a “dynamic zero-COVID” policy, which means early detection, rapid response, precise management and control, and effective treatment of new cases to ensure that no large-scale epidemic rebound caused by imported or locally transmitted cases occurs.

    Over the past year or so, China has rapidly controlled dozens of sporadic and cluster infections and effectively reduced COVID-19-related deaths, with its economic performance among the top in the world, Liang Wannian, head of the expert team on COVID-19 response and disposal at the NHC, told Xinhua.

    “It fully proves that our epidemic prevention and control measures are effective,” Liang said, adding that the policy should not be relaxed for now.

    COVID-19 is still ravaging the world and the virus is still mutating quickly, he said, noting that the fatality rate has not dropped significantly. Under such circumstances, China is prioritizing people’s lives and health with its epidemic prevention and control measures, he noted.

    Real-world experience has shown that many countries that prematurely relaxed measures saw COVID-19 rebounds and an increase in severe cases and deaths, Liang said.

    China has not reached herd immunity with its vaccination drive, so an early lifting of restrictive measures will result in the country losing its hard-earned wins, he added.

    The current prevention and control strategy may impact the daily lives of those infected and their close contacts in the short term, but in the long run, rapid control of the epidemic will allow economic and social life to quickly return to normal, Liang said.

    How long China will continue with this strategy is up to multiple factors including global pandemic trends, mutations of the virus, the severity of the disease and vaccination rates, Liang said.

    “The pandemic is evolving, so are the prevention and control strategies and measures,” he said. “We will pay close attention to global pandemic trends, study the risk of the epidemic, accelerate the vaccination drive, and adjust the prevention and control strategies and measures in proper time.”

  10. Western governments and academic institutions have been mercilessly subverted for decades.
    Poland’s border crisis has some history, Poland doesn’t play ball with the EU’s diktat and having experienced communism for 50 years is somewhat inoculated from the effect of modern leftist EU propaganda and creeping power grabs (control of sovereign courts, withholding of funds) for centralised control. UK has already ditched the EU, Poland is close as is Hungary and Czechia. Germans and French are deeply unhappy with the totalitarian technocratic manoeuvres at play by a significant minority of “influencers” and law makers.
    The EU as it was 30 years ago was a powerful trading block with freedom of movement and most importantly ideas. Many of the laws introduced since then have wrecked the unity and goodwill of the people not to each other but to the institution that has run away with the power and their inherent democratic assent.
    Russia would like to see the EU wiped out and most Europeans would like to see the power of the EU institutions severely curtailed.
    The way forward may be to return this power to sovereign nations and revert to becoming a free trade zone with freedom of movement, thought and ideas.
    This may be the answer for the US also, cessation followed by informal agreements between sovereign states.
    Abolition of central banks and centralised government and the creation of a people centric de centralised system would appear to be the only sensible choice, else there is going to be a centralised technocracy and dystopia for the human spirit.
    Most people would welcome the jobs back from China, the skills are there and it would initiate economic growth. What use is inflation without growth? The 1980’s and 1990’s Neo-liberal lies about the wonders of the service economy are now laid bare for all to see.

  11. If Poland and Ukraine are still Soviet Deep State, then who cares if Russia invades? Except that it puts the United States in the position of having to honor it’s obligation to defend NATO members, and perhaps it’s treaty to defend Ukraine, or else been shown to the World as having violated those. China now threatens Australia if it defends Taiwan for Chinese invasion, as if. Again, this is all about face. Taiwan is US Territory, and China won’t invade, and Australia hosts US top secret military technology development, at Pine Gap, an Area 51 type installation. The US also just inked a deal to sell Australia nuclear armed submarines, in violation of Australia’s treaty with France and Oceania. Putin seeks a plausible reason for Europe to pay more for natural gas. He doesn’t want to occupy Poland and Ukraine. They are his human shields. They are better held ransom as long as he merely threatens the borders he needs for his own defense. Even Biden won’t jump the gun and take preemptive action.

      1. We have no formal alliance with Taiwan, but we have made it known at times that we are inclined to defend Taiwan. The U.S. does not officially recognize Taiwan as a country, but unofficially we help them, train their pilots and sell them weapons.

      2. I never said that you did write that Poland was Soviet, Jeff, but now that you mention it, what was all that you did write years ago, about Lech Walesa being a Soviet agent, and what was that you cited Anatoliy Golitsyn, testifying to Congress, about? Have you forgotten that Poland was annexed by the Soviet Union?

        After the United States, occupied Taiwan having vanquished Japan, the US never did transfer possession to any other entity.


        Taiwan is not Asian in the first place, rather it’s Polynesian. The culture and language of Formosa before China invaded, was obviously, Polynesian. The first nationals look Tahitian.


      3. To THE: What kind of game are you playing? I am going to delete all your future posts because I believe you are trolling me. You have just now made a number of very silly and annoying assertions that I must correct. Lech Walesa was Polish Prime Minister from 1990-95 and his role as a secret police informant/agent came out later (though it was previously known by many people in Fighting Solidarity). The people who rule Poland now are not Walesa’s friends. I have never cited Golitsyn testifying before Congress because there was never any such testimony. Poland was never annexed by the Soviet Union. Those parts of Poland that were considered Belarussian or Ukrainian were annexed to the Ukrainian and Belarussian Soviet Republics in 1939. At that time Hitler occupied most of Poland and put it under what was then called the General Government. Taiwan was never annexed by the United States but was taken by the Republic of China under General Chaing Ki-shek after Japanese forces surrendered the island in October 1945. As every knowledgeable student of the Pacific War knows, there was never a U.S. military invasion of Taiwan. Contrary to what you claim, the island of Taiwan is considered part of East Asia, not Polynesia. The Austronesian ancestry of the non-Chinese people there does not mean it is non-Asian. Many different races live in Asia, including caucasians and Peoples related to the Polynesians. Geography is not determined by race. French colonization of Indochina did not, for example, mean the region was no longer Asian. Taiwan was Chinese territory from 1683-1895 and was ruled by Japan from 1895-1945. I believe Japanese troops on the island surrendered directly to the Republic of China, as noted previously, in October 1945. Polynesian mythology is irrelevant. Please do not post your nonsense again.

    1. The closing statement of that article reads, “Already by the winter of 2023-2024 there is to be year-round commercial shipping on the route and goods volumes are planned to rocket to 150 million tons already by year 2030.”

      In view of the grand solar minimum, which is expected to be far stronger by 2030, what do you think is the probability that this will happen?

    2. This is interesting because out there is a myth narrative that Russia is profiting of the melting ice cap to develop gas projects in the arctic, when in fact it is a purely military settlement on the ice that has nothing to do with reaping economic benefits of global warming. Here again we see the right wingers embracing a left wing myth in its Soviet military and carbon curbing restrictions double glory messaging and framing.

      What is wrong with these people’s attractions to frames and being framed, always so insecure outside those boxes.




    before the






    JANUARY 24, 2000


    Serial No. 106-158


    Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

      1. JRNyquist.blog — Brought to you by the Letter “D” and the number Zero, with a special guest appearance by the Cookie monster, Grover, and THE.

  13. According to the witness interviewed by the reporter in the video, a customer at Vons grocery in Santa Monica, California, was confronted by store employees for him to wear a mask. He responded physically in some way, and the security guard intervened. The mask-less patron through the security guard onto a conveyor belt, then the guard got up and pulled a knife and repeatedly stabbed the customer, who arguably was merely defending his First Amendment Rights. The store and the security company will lose big in court.

    abc7 .com/stabbed-mask-security-guard-santa-monica/11215518/

    1. There is a lot more I wanted to get to, especially in terms of the much misunderstood occult angle to Nazism and communism. Please note: Alexander Dugin’s recruitment by the KGB was accomplished by offering him access to archives on occult organizations and history. This ties in with Evola’s research on Masonry for Hitler’s SS. It seems that a massive research archive, which had been compiled by other hands before the war, was taken from Italy to Vienna in 1943. The Nazis wanted to know everything that could be known about the Masonic lodges of Europe. Evola had a part in the research project, though his contribution is murky. The entire archive was captured by the Soviets in 1945 as their armies advanced into Central Europe. Many researchers who believe the Luciferians have controlled the communists since 1917, ought to consider Stalin’s superior position and will to dominance. The lodges were savagely attacked and threatened by the Nazis. After the Nazis, the KGB has been able to map the entire Masonic movement through the archives captured from the Nazis. In terms of intelligence operations, the Soviets possessed all the required information to infiltrate Masonry, assassinate uncooperative figures, coerce its networks, and make puppets of them. Just as the underground Nazi movement could be used by the KGB for false flag recruitment in the 1950s, a similar situation arose with the Masonic lodges. We do not know what Himmler’s plans were in this regard while the Reich functioned, because the Reich was defeated before its plans could reach full maturity. The Soviet strategy, however, has reached full maturity as recent events show. Their policy of infiltrating and capturing all significant organizations of the non-communist world is well documented though imperfectly understood. Of course, massive misunderstandings have arisen among conspiracy theorists. These misunderstanding are now exploited by Moscow to divert attention away from what Moscow and Beijing have done. Those who only think in terms of an occult enemy, and not in terms of a Marxist enemy, prefer to believe that Satan is putting his worshippers directly in control of world events. Yet this interpretation, however appealing to seriously religious people, is not in line with a more careful political analysis. Whatever tidbits we have about child sacrifice or the role of pedophilia in politics points rather to operations initiated by Andropov in the 1970s. In terms of the actual subversion of society, Satanism has a presence; yet the institutions that are performing almost all the work are secular, leftist, Marxist, neo-Marxist and philosophically materialist. The role of Russian and Chinese agents of influence appear to be decisive, as we see from the testimony of Whittaker Chambers and others — clear up to the present time. Luciferians do not appear to control the commanding heights in the politics of the Russian Federation and have absolutely no role at all in communist China. There is no reliable evidence that the Politburo of CCP worships Satan, or that Putin worships Satan. It is important to put the occult connections here into context, and not overstate them for the sake of aligning with conspiracy theories that may do more harm than good. Truth is what matters here, not a theory that agrees with our theological preferences.

      1. Jeff, who, among the West, do you suspect was on to this at this time or shortly after, say 5-7 years?
        And are all/most of the current Globalist dupes Communist “useful idiots?”

        It is not looking good.

      2. Your question is so vague I have no idea what you are asking. But here are a few thoughts: Few people possess the analytical ability to go through this material with an objective frame of mind. The occult has two aspects. Strange beliefs and organized groups. There are few definitive conclusions that we can draw from the evidence about these groups and their activities so far (though I will touch on one very definite conclusion everyone fails to see). All too often an assumption is preferred that everything bad that happens in this world originated with the Masons or the Illuminati or the Satanists. In terms of practical politics, this kind of thinking misses the mark.

        The only country that has mapped all these occult groups, and knows what they have been doing, is Russia (and the USSR before it). And Russia seems to be inside these groups, manipulating them. That is what the evidence suggests, Of course, I am speaking from general knowledge, and from specific research into aspects of the larger puzzle. Absolute proof is not easy in this area. One must use good judgment, and one must be careful in two regards: First, too many researchers unthinkingly assume occult groups resolve into ONE GROUP. This monism, with regards to evil, stems from the dualism inherent in Christianity. (E.g., here is God, and there is the Devil.) After this fashion, the political theorist smuggles “the Devil Theory” into a “Theory of History,” fashioning their own theocratic historicism, replete with Biblical quotations, which all rings hollow even as it is bereft of any real insight, practical knowledge, or sense, “Here,” they say, “I have quoted the Bible and therefore have proved my case.” But God has made a richer world, and demands from us a deeper understanding. The many occult societies which exist, in the Far East and in the West, do not form a single united front led by Satan. In terms of their history, they have been fighting with each other for centuries. If a Christian says a Hindu is a Satan worshiper, and if he says a Muslim is also a Satan worshiper, then he had best explain what it signifies when Satan’s kingom is divided into nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. It is, of course, but the largest example I could think of. But a very real one.

        In terms of those people who practice ritual magic: The history of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn illustrates my point once again. The Golden Dawn organization has been fragmented again and again. Who can even count the splinters? For that matter, who were the “secret chiefs” guiding the order? Demons? Human beings, or living archetypes? Paraphrasing Stalin: How many divisions do the occultists have? These people do not even have a large body of followers when compared to the Christian churches. The point is, religious cults — pagan or Christian — are always dividing and splintering. This phenomenon is suggestive of a historical law. Form a church and it will split. Form an occult group and it will split. Consider the sociology of such groups. Once you put people into direct contact with angels (whether good angels or evil angels), everything boils down to a disagreement over which is which and over what it all means. Studying occult history is like studying a series of nasty divorces. Turn from this, if you please, to the history of communism. The tendency to breakage and splintering appears in communist history as well. Only the gangsterism of communism is absolute. You join this criminal organization and death is your only ticket out. Because murder is communism’s unifying theme, consolidation rather than division is the historical tendency, Find a Marxist splinter movement and it is only a matter of time before it is either physically eliminated or recaptured by the global apparatus. Stalin killed all his rivals. Trotsky got fatally stabbed in the neck, and that was in 1940. Unity is maintained by sanguinary discipline; in turn, what you find is a relentless, seemingly unstoppable, global apparatus that swallows one country after another, one institution after another. And once a country is swallowed, even if it breaks free for a few decades, it remains half-digested, ready to be rolled back. Even if a country appears to be free of the apparatus, you find that its institutions are nonetheless beholden to the communist agenda. Look at American academia and its adherence to global climate change, or to socialism, or to critical race theory. Look at the Marxist inputs into all our law schools.

        Who did all this? As convenient as it would be to reduce modern history to one problem (i.e., a Luciferian conspiracy), there is a failure to examine the actual historical record. Communism’s success is glaring. All these occult organizations continue to fumble the ball. Why are conservative observers so dumb about this? Because they have never really studied Lenin. They have no appreciation for the way he put things into place after 1917. The guy was a genius. The real point ought to be that the West repeatedly contributes to the strengthening of Beijing and Moscow. Why? Again, we hear the refrain that the Satanists are doing it. But actually, it is the communists. When examining what happens broadly, the rule is cui bono. Again and again, Russia and China gradually occupy one position after another on the global chess board. In fact, all the positions given up by the Soviet Union in 1989-91 have been more than compensated for by positions that were gained in Africa and Latin America, as well as in London, Berlin, Paris and Washington. The communists are more Satanic in their crimes than Anton LaVey ever was; and they needed no Black Mass, no occult practices, to carry their Satanism forward. Who do I suspect was onto this? All those who really understood communism. Among those was Whittaker Chambers who said he had left the winning side to join the losing side when he defected from the Communist Party underground apparatus. Chambers did not tell us of secret rituals or human sacrifice. He told us how the communists had penetrated the White House, the State and Treasury Departments, etc. But his testimony isn’t sufficiently horrifying, because he does not describe actual demons, or child sacrifice. He described, instead, human beings who followed the example of Eve in the Garden of Eden. From these and other observations, I come to suspect that those who believe in the Luciferian explanation of today’s political and military crises are idolaters; and their idol is the Luciferian conspiracy theory. They have, in fact, turned the Devil into a politician — which he is most certainly is not. Need I remind everyone that demoting the Devil to such a rank is not merely an impertinence; in fact, it is warned against in scripture.

        I bring up Evola and his occult connections, and Dugin, to show that even here the Russians are ahead of the game. Even here, they have manipulated the narrative and masked the extent of their own widening influence. Harping on demons, who mortals cannot really know, is not useful. The idolatry that I see around me, among the Christians themselves, is disheartening. The failure to really care, to study, to think, to see and then act — is all of a piece. As a nation, Americans have shown themselves to be contemptibly weak and helpless. There are many good Christians, but they lack the understanding, they lack the intellectual tools, they lack the ability to defend. Always, it boils down to this. Why are these people unable to defend themselves or the country? Why have the Christians lost battle after battle? The answer may be found in Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, though it is a very unflattering answer.

        The globalist dupes and the communist “useful idiots,” on the one side, have been enabled by the Christians and Jews, by the Papacy and the World Council of Churches, on the other side. All are of a piece. And with so much guilt to go around, everyone is ready to point the finger at someone else. Yet, we are all guilty. We have all made this thing called “modernity,” which boils down to this crisis, this collapse, this universal unwillingness to see, think, or say the truth. But no sooner do I write the word “truth,” than the idolaters of the word itself, who have no sense of its meaning, spring up like weeds with quotations and condemnations of those who do not adopt their particular form of idolatry. So the message never carries. The essence of the thing is never grasped. The heart is never moved. I think we are too wicked, and too insincere, to find a way out of this “crisis of modernity.” If there was a settled religious orthodoxy on which political institutions could be reconstructed, we might have something. But then, idolaters would pour right into the new ruling institutions (because idolaters always gravitate toward power). And in their desire for grandiose self-affirmation, they will use those institutions to crush innocent persons, unless a system of checks and balances is placed on them. For this was the secret of America’s success, and the key to our religious tolerance. Right in this very thread I saw a Protestant attack Catholics. I really do hate this discussion thread, because so many hateful and self-destructive, and stupid things, go on here — besides the idiot who continues to post personal misinformation about me that I must repeatedly delete. Do you think it’s easy to be tolerant, patriotic, open-minded, and truthful when people thoughtlessly post what is intolerant, unpatriotic, close-minded and untruthful? It is the hardest thing in the world to sweat for some little bit of clarity, for some little corner of truth, and then receive a thoughtless, snarky, stupid response. What was it Sartre said? “Hell is other people.” And we really are good at making it so. Here is a Mormon, but you say he is Luciferian. Here is a Catholic, but you say he follows the Antichrist in Rome. Here is a Protestant, but you say he worships a book instead of the truth that book points to. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That is the long and short of it, when it comes to dogma. The Christians are no more united than the occultists, as it happens. Split, splinter, fracture, break away. Again, and again, and again. The communists, however, are always unifying, always consolidating.

        Religious Catholics will not change for Protestants, and Protestants will not change for Catholics. The state must therefore be secular, which opens the door to Marxism and to bourgeois economism; that is, man living by bread alone. That clearly doesn’t work, because man begins using the state as the means for salvation — which leads to the corruption of the left wing through its acquisition of political power, and the corruption of the right wing through a growing obsession with money. Who are the “current dupes” and Communist “useful idiots,” then? Sadly, almost everyone is duped by something or someone. Everyone says they have “the answer” when there is no such answer in terms of practical politics. Everyone wants to apply their ideological or theological formula. How many of these formulas are there? Too many. What all these folks refuse to notice is that there is a large bloc of countries, supporting an ideological movement in every country, that has captured most institutions and most groups.

        To introduce conspiracy theories about Satan into this mix, merely takes us back to the mass burning of heretics and witches. It is not a step forward. There are so many belief systems here, and so many divergent interpretations, that you will not find agreement. And where there is no agreement on basic things, there is community. And where there is no community, there is no organized resistance. Here, knowledge breaks down into the subsets of conspiracy hobbyists. Their lore is so vast, and has been around so many decades, that once you are lost in its labyrinth you will never emerge.

      3. If one views Marxism as a praxis for obtaining power, and not an economic theory, then it’s easy to see Satan (or, more precisely, the symbolism surrounding him) as just another tool to be used and readily be discarded once its use has waned.

        As always, thank you so much Mr. Nyquist for your essays.



      4. Jeff, I specifically meant who in the West was aware of the Soviet capture of the Masonry archives.
        Thank you for the reply, your knowledge and analysis are a rare and precious thing among the storm of disinformation and propaganda polluting media.
        I don’t think you have ever been in better form, it seems you continually take us to another level.
        I have to admit, this is frightening. we should not underestimate the Satanic ability to “cloak.”

      5. Evola’s biographer wrote about the Soviet capture of the archives. The book is on Amazon for those that wish to know further details. I think it has been known by a number of people involved in researching European masonry.

  14. This self-indulgence upon which you insist seems to me more like the material manifestation of the spiritual disease, not the cause. If the world does not make sense “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall be dead”.
    But how much sense can the world make? This is a matter of cosmology. I never quite understood why, when passing to modernity, we HAD TO obliterate the medieval cosmology. The medieval civilization didn’t do that to the ancient wisdom, they adapted it thoroughly instead. That atitude of respect conserved its spiritual integrity.
    Upon the shoulders of the modern man lies the duty to think the whole world out from nothing: religion, morals, science etc. That would be a curse in the view of any medieval or ancient man.
    Maybe we have forgotten that the Fourth Commandment comes with a promisse: “so that you may have long life and may prosper in the country which Yahweh your God is giving you.”

    Before we got soft and self-indulgent, we were ungrateful and proud.

    “‘The crime of your sister Sodom was pride, gluttony, calm complacency; such were hers and her daughters’ crimes. They never helped the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49)

    Pride is first on the list.

    1. In England (which the U.S. inherited), Scandinavia and parts of Germany, cosmology has gone through two changes since the medieval period.

      Medieval cosmology was based on ancient Greek philosophy with a veneer of Christianity.

      Modernism, with it modern science and technology, concept of human rights, limits on the powers of kings, came with the Reformation. The “secular” aspects of the Reformation have been widely adopted by societies remote from the Reformation itself. Especially the technology. The Reformation cosmology is based on the Bible instead of Greek philosophy.

      The prevailing cosmology today is post-modern, a rejection of modernism. Communism is part of that rejection of modernism. Many places in the world went directly from medievalism to post-modernism, skipping the modernism step.

      The above is a simplification, possibly over-simplification, of what happened.

      Jeff has written well from a historical, political viewpoint. I can only sit at the master’s feet learning from him.

      I came to this question from a STEM background. It was when I realized that certain widely taught “scientific” theories didn’t follow the scientific method unanimously taught in every textbook I could find in the university library that gave a definition, I then realized “something is rotten in Denmark”. That set me off on a journey to find the cosmological origins necessary for modern science. That led me to concepts taught by the Reformation, and nowhere else. That also led me to discovering the two changes in cosmology after the medieval period.

      The prevailing definition of “science” today differs greatly from the definition I was taught.

      Those of us who still hold to modern cosmology, are out of step with the prevailing post-modern society. We are neither right nor left, full supporters of any political party, we’re outsiders. We make up only a small percentage of the U.S. today, even a smaller percentage world-wide. We strongly support justice, true justice, for love cannot thrive in a milieu of injustice. Only hate thrives in injustice. Communism thrives in injustice.

      1. I am a little uneasy about your formulation regarding the Reformation. Medieval cosmology was largely Christian, with ancient Greek thinking tacked on. But then, you cannot easily separate Greek and Roman thought from Christian thought. They are inextricably intertwined. The Apostle Paul, for example, advanced themes found in Greek and Roman literature. For example, there are passages in St. Paul that are incredibly similar to passages found in Seneca. In Lecky’s “History of European Morals” we find the dividing line between pagan and Christian moral sentiments somewhat bridged by the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius. Here we find an unstated pessimism regarding Olympian values combined with self-mistrust. The pagan moral sentiment was heroic and action-oriented, centered on manly virtues; the Christian moral sentiment sought rather to avoid vices (i.e., moral purity). Fast-forwarding from Lecky, the moral sentiment of post-Christian modernity is collectivism. It is salvation through socialist revolutionary politics, nihilism and political correctness, and the merging of mankind into ONE HIVE. In this context, I do not think the so-called post-modernist academics are worth reading. I once attended a lecture by Jacques Derrida and left thinking he was a pompous windbag with nothing interesting to say. Perhaps whole schools of thought should simply be ignored. In terms of modernism and its origins: Max Weber’s “Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” offers more insights. You may be shocked by this, but modern capitalism and the industrial revolution would not have occurred without Protestantism. This is Weber’s thesis, and many great minds have seconded it. Of course, there are disturbing implications in all this. Richard Weaver argued that William of Ockham and Aristotle had a de-spiritualizing effect centuries ago. Regarding some of the terms you bring forward, I detest the term “post-modern” as a nonsense term. The word “modern” means present and recent times. The term “post-modern” implies we are living in the future, which is absurd. If you want to read something really interesting on the history of science, read Adam Smith’s History of Astronomy.

      2. Paul explicitly rejected Greek cosmology. Roman cosmology is the same as Greek. We see that in 1 Corinthians 1:18–28. Possibly the clearest example of how his thinking differed from Greek and Roman cosmology is Paul’s defence of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:12–22. There he references the historical event of Christ’s resurrection instead of a logical proof that is the basis of Greek and Roman cosmology. Paul didn’t reject logic itself, rather he used it in a different context than did the ancient Greeks and Romans.

        Early medieval thinking redefined Christianity according to the tenets of neo-Platonism. What I’ve read concerning Augustine is that he rejected portions of the Bible because they don’t line up with Platonic thought. Possibly the greatest expositor of neo-Platonism was The Venerable Bede. Then came Aquinas following neo-Aristotelianism. His “logical proofs of God’s existence” follow Greek and Roman cosmology, not Biblical cosmology. They had the form of Christianity, but not according to the Bible. For the farmers, merchants, princes, even country friars as described in the Canterbury Tales, those who were not great theologians, they may have taught Christianity and not Greek and Roman cosmology.

        Luther explicitly rejected both neo-Platonism and neo-Aristotelianism. Other Reformation thinkers followed him in that rejection. From my STEM background, I see the foundation of modern science in that rejection. Newton’s development of calculus is based on that rejection using Biblical cosmology instead. The scientific method I was taught is based on Biblical cosmology. Greek and Roman cosmology is based on form and logical proofs, Biblical cosmology on history and function.

        Like you, I don’t care for the term post-modernism. But that is the term used to designate the difference between modernism that had its start in the Reformation, and the present post-Christian modernity with all the evils that you mention. From my readings, I see post-modernism having its start over two centuries ago, gradually building up steam until it has largely taken over every institution. Today’s “capitalism” is not the capitalism of Adam Smith. Today’s “science” is more akin to medieval “science” than the science of Newton and his contemporaries. We can adduce more examples. If one includes all thought from the Reformation to post-Christian modernity in the term “modernism“, then “modernism” becomes an undefinable term.

        One can reference pictures from another cosmology to establish a bridge to other people without adopting the other cosmology. An example of that is the traditional Chinese characters, the oldest ones, have references to Biblical themes to which Christian missionaries have pointed in talking with Chinese. Likewise modern Christians can reference the failures of Freud and Nietzsche without agreeing with them in all aspects. Likewise Paul could reference Greek and Roman philosophers without agreeing with their cosmology.

      3. Paul rejected “Greek cosmology”? You mean the cosmology of the Olympian gods? Which Greek cosmology? You write as if there was only one. Many ideas found in the New Testament appeared in Greek writings before the New Testament was written (Philo of Alexandria, for example, was a Hellenized Jewish philosopher who might surprise you). When you write of Greek cosmology I must ask, again, “which” Greek cosmology? That of the pre-Socratic Greeks? Shall we go with Thales, who said that all matter is alive and full of gods and that water was the first substance? Or shall we say that Greek cosmology belongs to Parmenides, who said the universe was one giant unchanging thing, and that thought and being were the same? Or what about Heraclitus, who believed the universe was constantly changing? And then we have Socrates, who did not have a cosmology at all — because he admitted his ignorance. After him we have Plato. Is Platonism Greek cosmology? Or is it found in Aristotle’s metaphysics? Or what about Zeno and the Stoics, who were influenced by Parmenides? And again, what about Philo of Alexandria who wrote of the logos later mentioned in the Gospel of John? You see: There was not one Greek cosmology, as you seem to suggest. There were many. Not until you get to the enforced orthodoxy of the Christian Church do you have a singular, monolithic view given as THE cosmological doctrine of the Roman Empire — and, as it were, the final end-product of Greek cosmological thinking. Contrary to what you propose, it could be argued that Christianity subsumed all the diverse and unsettled elements of Greek thought. Was it opposed to Greek thought or was it written in Greek for a reason, and therefore part of a larger dialectic that was punctuated by the resurrection? Is Providence here Providential? I say again: there was no single monolithic enforced philosophic consensus in the Greek half of the Roman Empire until the advent of Christian Orthodoxy in its final form under Theodosius the Great. Did Christian thought undergo changes after that? By your own admission it continued to affirm, at different times and places, different Greek thinkers; underscoring Plato here, Aristotle there, etc. Nothing in this story is simple, except the idea that there is a fixed orthodoxy; but, I fear, orthodoxy is an elusive thing. And here is a curious idea: namely, that Science is based on the Bible. How so? Was the world created during one week in 4004 BC? Is the Earth at the center of the universe? But isn’t the spiritual teaching of the Bible poetic and metaphorical; that is, symbolical rather than scientific or historical. Indeed, there are historical references therein. But was the Bible intended to be a scientific text and objective history? It is not written in the style of Thucydides, or with mathematical equations from Newton. Rather, it has mysterious and magical references and clues mixed therein. It seems quite complicated and hard to generalize.

      4. I would have little to add to Nyquist’s impression. Only a few more remarks:
        – The ancient civilization was based on free trade between mediterranean countries. When the arabs occupied virtually all these shores the trade of manufactured products ceased, and the local communities were put in the situation of manufacturing everything they needed. This required a new hierarchical system, and so on; it ends up in what we call “medievalism”. The “ancient way of life” could have survived to the division and fall of the empire, even to the invasion of the barbarians, but could not survive to this radical economic and social change. Who were these people? Ancient pagans with a “veneer of christianity”, or true christians converted from the paganism? This was from the 8th century onward, if they were still pagans, they would still be to this day.
        – What Nyquist calls “moral purity”, the christian sentiment developed – perhaps even exacerbated to its ultimate limits – throughout the medieval times, is precisely the religious sentiment that inflamed the soul of Luther. Luther was a perfectly medieval man, an augustinian monk, afraid to the pathological degree of eternal damnation, meditating about the good works, concupiscence; wanting only from above, as “purely” as possible, a way out: the faith. The title of founder of a “christian renaissance” would apply with sufficient justice only to Erasmus.
        – The philosophical root of experimental science is Aristotle, this is already common sense, particularly in the STEM. But the concrete development of it, its “accidental constitution” so to speak, is a direct development of occultism (L. Thorndike: A History of Magic and Experimental Science. Vol. IV: “The Fifteenth Century”). That is to say everything went into the composition of experimental (or “modern”) science, except for the Reformation. I’m afraid your “journey to find the cosmological origins necessary for modern science” is not finished.
        -The “scientific method unanimously taught in every textbook I could find in the university library” is what the current practitioners of this activities believe it is. The subject of why you didn’t find in your library the books that tell the true history of it is analogous to the fact that Nyquist’s books are probably not there also.

      5. “Paul rejected “Greek cosmology”? You mean the cosmology of the Olympian gods? Which Greek cosmology?…”

        Jeff, you write so beautifully and you know so much, I am in awe of you.

    2. “I never quite understood why, when passing to modernity, we HAD TO obliterate the medieval cosmology.” Absent Luther, at best Europe would have had an Erasmian renovation; God gave us a gospel reformation. The medieval cosmology obliterated itself with the slaughter of the Huguenots and a Catholic Pope and Holy Roman Emperor who plunged Europe into the Thirty Years War. Christians fought to survive; Catholics instigated the war to eliminate them.

      1. Your knowledge of what Europe would be is merely hypothetical, just as your judgement of where the “gospel reformation” came from.
        I don’t see also what an event from the 16th century, a pope that always existed, and an emperor almost prior to medievalism (I assume you are talking about Charlemagne) have to do with what I was discussing. This is historical pick and choose.
        Someone who thinks that the whole medievel world was “bad”, and that some supposedly horrific event represents its cosmology, and not the natural dialectical movement of history, and that the salvation to this came in the 16th century, is by definition incapable of this discussion.

      2. Celso, I see little in his post that is hypothetical. You may disagree with his assertion that the Roman Catholic version of cosmology ended with the slaughter of the Huguenots (as I do), but it is not hypothetical. On the other hand, the slaughter of the Huguenots was not merely the “dialectical movement of history” unless you see mas murder as a necessary thing for such movement. Frankly, it would appear you don’t know the meaning of “dialectical.”

        The Pope did not always exist. We do not see anything approaching the modern idea of the Pope until Gregory the Great. The Papacy, alas, played a very large part in fomenting the 30 years war. If you would like to actually know about the war, I would suggest getting a copy of Pages’ book The Thirty Years War. In my opinion, there has never been a better book on the period.

  15. Replying to Jeff, who wrote “But isn’t the spiritual teaching of the Bible poetic and metaphorical; that is, symbolical rather than scientific or historical. Indeed, there are historical references therein. But was the Bible intended to be a scientific text and objective history?”

    The bible is historical where it claims to be historical. Every reference in the Old Testament to an ancient people, say the Hittites, or an obscure king, has been confirmed by archaeology; none has been debunked. Of course, there are metaphorical teachings such as the Song of Solomon. But the central historical fact, the golden key to understanding the bible, is the life, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. One must come in humble submission to recognize his need for the ever-living Savior. Acknowledging my sin and asking God to forgive me, not on any basis of my own worthiness, intellect, self-sacrifice, or adherence to church dogma and ritual, I am born again by faith alone, through grace alone. It is the free gift of God, not by good works, so that no man can boast (Ephesians 2:8,9). The bible will always be an impenetrable mystery to the mere curiosity of man. “Who Moved the Stone?” is an excellent book published in 1930 by a skeptic who set out to disprove the resurrection: Who Moved the Stone? – Kindle edition by Morison, Frank. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

  16. I took a course on comparative religions, a year long survey. Of course, it couldn’t cover each and every permutation of the religions, so it emphasized those religions that have philosophical impact. Religions covered included ancient Greek religions, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and eastern Asian religions. Notable by its absence was any reference to Biblical teachings that animated the Reformation. In that survey, I noticed that while the externals differed from religion to religion, the underlying dynamic that leads to those externals is the same in all those religions, with the exception of the Biblical teachings. I figured that the reason for the omission of Biblical teachings is because the professor didn’t understand them. When I think of the differences between ancient Greek religions and Biblical teachings, my point of reference is the underlying dynamic of thought rather than the externals.

    While the externals differ, the underlying dynamic that separates Plato from Aristotle, is the same one that separates Lao Tse from Confucius. It also explains Hinduism and Buddhism. What muddies the water is the widespread practice of syncretism—the mixing of religions both ancient and modern, which led one ancient wag to state “The people believe all religions are equally true, the philosophers believe all religions are equally false, and the politicians believe all religions are equally useful.” Things haven’t changed much, have they?

    A PhD dissertation discussing those differences is found at https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Thought-Compared-Greek-Thorleif/dp/0393005348/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=thorleif+boman+hebrew+thought&qid=1637175847&sr=8-1

    A customer’s comment that I think makes the ideas easier to understand https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2TU1ZFIBS2HCJ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0393005348 (I don’t think Jeff would appreciate a copy and paste of a long comment, so go there to read).

    As for the Reformation being the source for the development of modern science is discussed in the book by Peter Harrrison “The Bible, Protestantism and the Birth of Modern Science” Cambridge University Press. In it, Peter Harrison quotes early modern scientists as they rejected the teachings of Aristotle in order to develop modern science. I could also see some of the dynamic behind science already in the book above by Thorleif Boman.

    The Renaissance was just a continuation of medievalism. The Reformation opposed both. Reformation thinkers were outsiders, therefore largely ignored by philosophers, both then and now.

    The Bible has a cosmology. But in order to understand it, one must use the Biblical way of thinking. Use the Greek way of thinking leads to gibberish. To give an example, where it says that man was made in God’s image, the “image” (shadow) is a functional image, not formal. That means that man was given a measure of God-like functions—creativity, language, emotions, logic, etc.—not that man looks like God.

    In closing, the underlying ways of thinking distinguish between Greek and Roman cosmologies in all their permutations, and the teachings of the Bible. And it is the Biblical way of thinking that led to the development of modern science.

    I hope this comment is clear, without getting too long.

    1. Interesting. Nietzsche actually affirmed this idea, too. Modern Science is Christian — which is a kind of unexpected given some scientists’ hostility to religion.

      1. Interesting comment: “Modern Science is Christian.” The few I worked with at university either attended church or at least respected religion, but there may have been some who were hostile toward it.

        But I see your point. I came across and am pondering reading Bedeviled: A Shadow History of Demons in Science by Jimena Canales. It covers the strange attraction many scientists had to demons in their writing, such as Maxwell’s demon opening a trap door between two box compartments to sort out molecules of different speeds to reverse entropy. Clearly, there are daemons reading the key codes I’m typing right now into my Mac too and placing them on this page. Hope they don’t play any tricks with my input.

        For sure, the Russians are a strange bunch when it comes to Christianity. That Cathedral of the Armed Forces they built outside of Moscow about a year ago, with ironwork entry steps melted from Nazi German tanks is about as crazy as it gets.

      2. Modern science, said Nietzsche, derived from Christianity’s emphasis on truth. But truthfulness, he said, led to the discovery of things that called Christianity into question. Science would not be possible without Christianity, but ends by discrediting the cosmological claims of Christianity. Thus, said Nietzsche, God dies and we killed him.

    2. Correction to the title of Peter Harrison’s book, “The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science” Cambridge University Press, 1998. I no longer have the copy of that book that I bought.

    3. I read that Galileo and Descartes were the ones who radicalized religion in the West for the furtherance of material science. Basically Galileo is often portrayed as this persecuted victim when in fact he was the thug who put the Church on trial. The result was classical physics of Newton which promptly rejected iconoclasts like Einstein and eventually delayed the discovery and acceptance of quantum mechanics.

      Basically Descartes was an essentialist who thought that to discuss anything that cannot be positively demonstrated and observed in a mathematical formula should be simply ignored, even if it results in unconscious activity of those repressed elements. Galileo in the same vein was a dictator of science where it was either his way or the highway. Thus, whereas the church did admit its weakness in science, it still wanted a voice of opposition allowed. The church was willing to let Galileo dominate so long it allowed a dominated questioning opposition. Galileo refused this settlement and pushed the trial specifically for an absolute victory and humiliating ridiculing of the church’s views. Ironically Galileo, in his zero sum gamemanship, put himself in a position of potential martyr, while it was him who provoked the church and wanted to repress it with his own exclusive Opinion Making. He eventually prevailed, and, unlike common lore, it was not because he was right, it was because the church refrained from being provoked into destroying him.

      A same battle occurred between the Heraclitean and later cynics of Zeno vs Paramenidian dictator prior.

      So, every time you see covid so called scientists imposing a vaccine, others screaming global warming in the name of science, Louis Pasteur ironically excoriated now by the same people who mandate this vaccine, it all comes from the Paramenidian Galileo allegedly, who did not tolerate a dominated opposition questioning his opinion making. And, to a lesser extent, Descartes who hated Pascal, also was extremely kin on pushing into the unconscious questions that could not be answered. Such questions often were religious but also scientific. Thus while science is indeed Christian in the Heraclitean sense, Christianity, by becoming paramenidian-Galilean, has mostly has surrendered esoteric science of quantum mechanics and the unconscious studies to the jews – same jews who eventually get invariably persecuted, however, as that even is not tolerable even outside that neo-Christianity.

  17. There is a Pravda article out there about German Ace pilot Erich Hartmann called Enemy Number One. It happens that Hartmann was a patriot and would not kow tow to the KGB’s brainwash attempts when he was a prisoner. However it so happens that the most vicious of the SS sbirs of Hitler there turned Stalin loyalist on a dime, very quickly, harassing any german prisoner who did not comply. The Soviets called them ANTIFA!!!

    Right there is all we need to know about the so called Nazis in Egypt kicking out any remaining jew that had not left under Moses. They were all Antifas because as much as they viciously attacked jews as a Soviet terrorist cover, they certainly were enemies of a patriot like Hartmann who had returned to Germany after being exchanged with a spy.

Comments are now closed.