I’m sure folks here have mixed feelings about Alternative Right, and about The Occidental Quarterly; but this article has been published at both and very much ought to be read by kinists: Julius Evola & Radical Traditionalism.

Specifically I wish kinists to read this:

Evola also disagreed with Aristotle’s idea that the state developed from the family. The state was created from Männerbünde, disciplined groups entered through initiation by men who were to become warriors and priests. The Männerbund, not the family, is the original basis of true political life.

Kinism seems to be in need of churches. I’m personally inclined to High Church Presbyterianism, though I also admire the apparent true faith of groups like the Amish. I’m certainly not a closet Catholic though, not that of course a Catholic couldn’t be kinist. The Catechism actually seems to favour kinism somewhat, though perhaps I’ve misunderstood…

On a related note: Did Religion Beget Civilisation?

The site isn’t just old, it redefines old: the temple was built 11,500 years ago—a staggering 7,000 years before the Great Pyramid, and more than 6,000 years before Stonehenge first took shape. The ruins are so early that they predate villages, pottery, domesticated animals, and even agriculture—the first embers of civilization. In fact, Schmidt thinks the temple itself, built after the end of the last Ice Age by hunter-gatherers, became that ember—the spark that launched mankind toward farming, urban life, and all that followed.

That’s not to say Europeans are in need of “religion”, but there does appear to be a natural yearning, the Holy Spirit at work. So, it wasn’t man who created religion for civilisation, but religion that created civilisation.

I sent the second article to some others via email and got this reply (paraphrased): this reveals the world view of a Catholic as opposed to an atheist Marxist (not that there’s another sort of Marxist). Marxists seem to argue religion is merely a social structure (along with nationalism) used by elites to exploit the rest of society.

To be clear: according to Marxists society arose on its own without religion and without tribalism, and religion and nationalism followed later as a leach used by elites to exploit the rest of society.

-

My addition: Marxism promises a world without nationalism and religion, where Marxism is the faith (ultimately the state itself is supposed to melt away into a free utopia). So, it’s understandable it would preach such a view.

I still think Marxism’s true enemy is religion and nationalism and that class warfare is merely the exoteric distraction. “Scholars” say I’m wrong, but scholars are also prone to be too wimpy to think outside the box on other topics.

That’s not to say Europeans are in need of “religion”, but there does appear to be a natural yearning, the Holy Spirit at work.

I still think Marxism’s true enemy is religion and nationalism and that class warfare is merely the exoteric distraction.

Very interesting. Your observations are some of those conclusions reached in the review of Tex Sample’s White Soul: Country Music, the Church, and Working People over at the Caucasian Literary Review.

The Trad-Occult views of Evola are such they have to be received and processed with great caution. There is much that Kinism can synthesize from Evola, and as with Guenon, much that must be rejected. Nevertheless, I recommend his Revolt Against the Modern World for a very profound, though flawed analysis of the mental virus of modernity.

Frank, Ken Ham is at this very moment organizing a lynch mob against you, since the earth itself is 6,000-odd years old.

Are you of the Meredith Kline framework view then John?

Theistic evolution?

I hold the framework view of creation but I do believe Adam to be around 11,000 B.C. according to my interpretation of the Scriptural calendar.

This website is a tentative attempt to reconcile Guenon and Evola, as well as to dialogue with Christianity and Christendom. I am interested to see what anyone else thinks/makes of it.
http://www.gornahoor.net/

It seems to me that contraries in the immediate term may have elective affinities which run silent and deep, a fact that could be useful in the “immediate term” or near future. I know CWNY is highly critical of the pagans (and not without cause - JMarshall is a good sounding board for such conflicts), but if Materiality or deep physical reality loops back into spirituality, than one has to consider the possibility that Evola and others may be a backhanded gift from God.

DanielJ - 21 April 2010 04:43 AM

Are you of the Meredith Kline framework view then John?

Theistic evolution?

I hold the framework view of creation but I do believe Adam to be around 11,000 B.C. according to my interpretation of the Scriptural calendar.

Hi Daniel,

Good to see you here.

I accept the biblical account of Genesis (creation ex nihilo by the verbal fiat of a personal God), but the standard rendering of the chronology is problematic for me since so much dating and stratigraphy evidence has to be rejected without a plausible rival explanation. It reaches the absurd when hearing Young Earther’s (a term I do not use pejoratively, though many of them can be downright hostile to alternative views of creation) speak of the age of the universe and the purely speculative methods employed in critiquing the apparent age based on redshift, etc.

My view of paleontology is simply that none of our supposed precursors are “man” in the biblical sense, but various kinds of non-human hominidae or great apes. Man was the final act according to the biblical chronology. What God created before him? We can look to the fossil record for those of which we can’t find living example. But much of paleontology is highly speculative. Of Australopithecus, we have only teeth and jaw fragments. All that is claimed to be “homo-x” is actually not simply a different branch but an entirely different tree altogether.

How many different species of extinct apes have we not yet found? To me, the living fossils are a real problem for evolutionists. They simply cannot plausibly explain why some species are unchanged.

I’m going to split off the evolution discussion from the Evola/Guenon discussion and move the former to its own thread.