Truth vs. reality – a call for integration


Truth and reality has been disconnected for a long time now.

As we know, it’s even possible to lie with facts. In fact, facts are always related to realities where the Truth is seemingly not present or where it is not perceived – so there is always something insincere about facts. To see this, it’s enough to have a look, for example, at party politics or even to simply looking around: liars mostly use facts to sell their agenda. (Of course, not all facts are lies, far from it.) We can detect levels, according to topics and sophistication. For example, there are shameless facts. These are the ones that their propagators intend to beat into facts by repetition and by the volume of their voice. This rather low level category is characterized by SJWs, antifa, an increasing proportion of the social science faculties of academia, virtue signaling managers in the corporate world, or the diligent, self-righteous “saviors of the world” in Silicon Valley and similar.

The process on this level is simple: they announce the agenda that needs to be turned into facts and the suppression begins with the binary modus operandi of “with us or against us”. There is no room for dialogue or rational debates – these would require that both parties are seeking the truth.

Some typical examples: since evolution is an “undisputable fact” and modern civilization is a technical civilization, it is evident that technology is a stage in the evolutionary process; it is thus obvious that man deploys technology in order to accelerate or support his evolution (transhumanism, etc.); since gender is merely a social construct reflecting a fluid view on identity, only creativity sets the boundaries to how many genders are possible; a five year old child is just as competent to decide what’s good for him as a 50 year old adult (including what gender they want to be) so parents should adjust and accommodate; pedophilia is natural; race doesn’t exist; although race doesn’t exist, the white race is guilty (of everything it seems); masculinity is toxic, etc.

We can see that they are diligently building and in the same time desperately trying to maintain a reality that is constantly on the verge of collapsing  – not only on these lowest levels. When we say lowest levels we don’t mean that these questions are insignificant but that these are the levels where these questions precipitate and become realities, so to speak.

The fact factories on a higher level are not restricted to shameless facts. The above examples of reality – making (individualism and a peculiar interpretation of freedom – from something) are characteristic of liberalism and with that we are in the realm of politics and political ideology which is by no means a mere abstraction.

Players on this higher level operate rather quietly, they deal with questions that are packaged  in shades of gray, not black and white and they sell their agendas with much more sophistication.

Let’s not forget that this is about a war of world-views which may be grasped as the opposition between truth and falsehoods, between the Truth and illusions. Although it is the Truth that bestows existence on reality (on a hierarchy of realities), paradoxically, at least from the side of reality, it may seem that the “domain” of reality is what dominates.

Naturally, the question is how to ensure that the truth should prevail in reality – in our own reality.

It is easy to represent reality – the situation, the “what is”; in fact, it’s impossible not to represent it, since we are all in the pickle, so to speak (as Hamvas so elegantly depicted the drama of modern life).

The situation is quite different with the Truth. Today we no longer have social structures whose purpose it is to ensure the domination of the Truth. We have structures that make this specifically impossible. These pseudo-structures and the mass originate from the same root. There is no room in organic structures for the mass and mechanical structures don’t tolerate authenticity. The mass is very real and the individual that builds it, be it a doctor, a politician, a teacher, a car mechanic, an entrepreneur, a market speculator or a manager, is always very well informed about the Situation. The individuum knows the state of affairs but the truth – depending on his temperament – either leaves him cold or he obeys an urge to argue against it from the perspective of reality. How can the truth, which is not necessarily factual, be represented? How can the connection between truth and reality be re-instated?

I don’t know. I suspect that we can only find an answer through experimentation and such experimentations should be oriented towards structures. The starting position and the goal is the truth, but the first steps must be made from the position of reality: going from “what is” to “what should be”.

Certain points are clear:

  • spiritual leaders (or teachers and guides) must expound the truth perfectly and without compromise, the defenders of the truth must follow the spiritual leaders, those predestined to create material and spiritual prosperity for the community must serve the community, mediating between the spiritual and the material domains, those who are predestined to work with matter must continue cultivating matter. The experimentation should aim at re-instating the lost harmony between these organic functions.
  • the experiments, alas, start from a disadvantageous position – on all levels. We can’t pretend that we’re not in the pickle: we must do things that should normally not be our task.

What mustn’t (and can’t) be attempted: to adjust the truth to reality – this would be irrational and it would lead to deviations. (As an example let’s think about one of the questions that divides the Catholic Church nowadays: may the doctrine be bent to accommodate the realities of post-modernity?) Obviously it is reality that must be adjusted to the truth.

One way to do this is to revive and conserve rituals: there are rituals for the spiritual leaders, for the defenders of the truth, for those ensuring prosperity for the community, for the cultivators of matter, as well as plants and animals. This revival is not possible without knowledge and structures (without organic organization and vertical integration).

We have structures even today, but almost all of these are lifeless, mechanical, artificial structures, missing the most important element: organicity, life. They don’t enable people to unfold their potentials, in other words, to become what they potentially are. There are structures and institutions that used to be organic but they have become empty shells. There are also structures that are relatively organic (consisting, for example, of warriors), but they are not subordinated to organizations of spiritual leaders/teachers: there is no ritualistic communication and cooperation between them that goes beyond mere accidentality.

Organizations gain their legitimacy from authentic people. If the rank of people in the organization decreases or if they lose their rank altogether, the organization dies; let’s note that the organization (that used to be organic) doesn’t become outdated! The most common mistake is to adjust the organization to people of lower ranks or to create new organizations specifically to accommodate people of no or minimal organic qualities. Mechanical structures, in the name of pragmatism, are always optimized to the lowest human qualities – or, as the case is nowadays, to purely mechanical, measurable qualities, that hardly qualify as qualities anymore. Rituals don’t fit into such tight, stuffy environments, thus the truth may not be present.

Ideal structures enable people to unfold their natural abilities, thus they stand in the sign of superiority. All organic organizations are elite, exclusive organizations. Also, there must be vertical integration between them – this enables the presence of superior influences in all organizations; in other words: this enables the palpable presence of the Truth in reality. We must note that without the formal organization of spiritual leaders there is no vertical integration possible (if we take a non-religious example, Evola’s Gruppo di Ur was probably such and organization).

What is the first step?

It’s almost a commonplace that everybody must start with themselves. But what does this mean? What if somebody has discovered his organic function (spiritual leader, or the defender of the truth, etc.)? Besides the thirst for knowledge – which was so far present probably as a more or less suppressed interest, perhaps as a pattern-creating force, it is obvious that the person must deal both with himself and the question of structures (organizing himself)- simultaneously. This time we only touch very briefly on these.

As for the first one, in addition to content knowledge, it is important to gain knowledge about the appropriate life style, rituals, even about proper conduct (all of these are likely present in the individual as a burning void), things that – in lack of proper traditional structures that used to conserve and transfer knowledge- everybody must acquire from spiritual leaders – if this is possible. As we mentioned: the starting position is not ideal. Spiritual leaders normally don’t have to deal directly with or the transfer of knowledge about prosperity, crafts, agriculture and similar, since such knowledge was conveyed by the structures themselves. Today they have to.

When it comes to structures (e.g. political, corporate, religious, military, etc.), the existing ones can’t be transformed, the previous ones (e.g. orders, societies, guilds) can’t be revived in one step. A transformation may be subtle, when by gradually replacing people, the structure may be “organized” (made organic) and thus changed, or it may be forceful, coup-like when one or more qualified, authentic personalities take over the leadership and make the organization organic in a controlled fashion both ideologically and through people of suitable quality.

The minority that is striving for authenticity is almost paralyzed. In terms of knowledge they may study books and listen to lectures, but how much of all that they may grasp, is questionable. Years may pass by before they may realize that they misunderstood something, if they ever do, or that they have organized their life the wrong way; and this is the better scenario, since the majority is not compelled to any kind of change after reading, horribile dictu consuming even the right works. On top of this all, the worthy minority is also alone, in relative isolation.

Perhaps eliminating this isolation may be an intermediate step between an individual practice and the longer term objective of transforming or reviving structures.

The rough outline of the idea is the following (leaving plenty of room for experimentation):

The initiator creates a circle by inviting appropriate people he knows to gather minimum once a month to reflect on doctrinal questions and what concrete changes may be done, even if just small ones, in their own views, behavior and life in light of the doctrines; to discover inconsistencies and opportunities. The meetings are oriented more on reflection, less on discussions. Everybody commits to a change; if unclear questions emerge they try to find an answer or ask for help from those qualified.

The circles are exclusive and grow through invitations, (except when somebody doesn’t know anybody suitable in his vicinity, in which case the internet may be of help to start things off) and consist of maximum 12 people. If there is an opportunity, the members help each other. If enough circles emerge, they cooperate.

Naming: City name Conservative Circle


Posted in politics, Principles, society | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment



A few words on the question of pseudo-authorities from the point of view of their followers.

Our starting position is that authorities that are followed by the majority (today) are all pseudo-authorities. What they represent is necessarily false and as such, the style of their representation is the opposite to the style of how the Truth may be represented.

In fact, what’s not true may only be represented in a distasteful style, not to mention that what’s not true is itself always repulsive. Even aesthetically. It is quite remarkable that the majority follows always and exclusively the repulsive and this is something worthwhile to dwell upon briefly.

The individual, paradoxically, follows the majority. Paradoxically, since the majority may in fact not be followed. The majority always follows something or somebody and does so passively; because of this passivity it’s correct to say that the majority is not even capable of following; it merely reacts to various influences.

Obviously, the majority is incapable of actively leading anything or anybody.

We must differentiate between the many and the majority. We may only speak about majority if it stands in opposition to the Truth.

If, for example, almost everybody stands on the side of the Truth, this is perceived and experienced as normality since normality is a qualitative and not a quantitative concept. They don’t feel being in “majority” and they don’t view abnormal manifestations as being in minority. Perhaps it’s needless to emphasize, but let’s note that what bestows legitimacy on the “normal ones” is not that there are more of them; quite the opposite. In the same token, the false always tries to achieve legitimacy through quantitative measures: among the majority – through what else? What’s normal, therefore, is not determined by the majority.

What does it mean that there is no majority on the side of the Truth? It means that under the Truth everybody follows themselves. “Know thyself!”. This is the prerequisite of unity. When identity is missing, when man can’t follow himself, the masses emerge. This also applies to cliques. For example, when viewed globally, the Silicon Valley is just a small island: it’s obvious that the majority doesn’t work there. But evidently there is a well definable majority within the Silicon Valley.

Another brief note, this time without further elaboration: the many per se is abnormal. Not only when it’s severed from the Truth but also, when it isn’t and, to go even further, even when it serves the Truth.

In the deciding moment when the many becomes majority the qualities related to the Truth recede and lose their meaning. The majority is senseless and worthless (void of values). This senselessness and worthlessness defines the masses – “satanic idiot” says Hamvas. There is no truth in the majority, no beauty or taste, no intelligence – on the other hand there is something evil in it. The majority itself and everything that aligns to it is, to some degree, evil. Not only ill-willed: downright evil.

The majority is a faceless, featureless, inert, heavy mass without qualities and without the ability to rise. What makes the mass individuals, comprising the majority, similar is a pseudo-quality which is observable on various levels.

On the level of world-views, the majority is characterized by various tonalities of naive realism. To take the most practical example, this intellectually passive world-view is actually unable to make observations, to actually view things.

The (mass) individual is capable of reacting to various stimuli (for example he can see), he doesn’t run into walls, but he’s incapable of telling the beautiful from the ugly. From another perspective, he may be able to execute complicated mathematical calculations, to write “elegant” code, to play the piano or maybe to give an entertaining lecture on a hypothetical conversation between Plato and Nietzsche on evolution or perhaps on the theory of relativity, but the concept of the Truth, for the capture of which the intellect is indispensable, leaves him cold and is convinced that it is just a question of individual opinion or, similarly to God, it’s simply somebody’s invention from a distant past or perhaps it depicts the result of a particular stage of social evolution that we long ago surpassed.

Thus, the fact that the majority, paradoxically, follows itself is possible because the mass individual is intellectually passive: he’s unable to differentiate between the true and the false, between the beautiful and the repulsive, between the essential and the frivolous.

We may also say that the majority is only capable of following itself, since in order to follow the Truth or the legitimate representatives of the Truth, it would need a particular sense and sensitivity toward it.

All the pseudo-authorities emerge from the majority itself and, naturally, align themselves to the majority. Their views, behavior, style, life style and value system, their dreams, ambitions, etc. are fully identical with those of the majority.

The stevejobs’, donaldtrumps, tonnyrobbins’, hillaryclintons, jonnydepps, billgates’, madonnas, raykurtzweils, larrypages, the zucks, etc., or on a quantitatively lower level, career managers and entrepreneurs, local stars and politicians: they all live the same way, think the same way, behave the same way and all of them are moved by the same sentiments. The  difference between them and the rest is only quantitative. We may say that they are falling somewhat faster and this is how they are ahead of their followers.

To analyze the individual representatives of the majority is almost pointless: those who see them don’t need explanation and those who belong to the majority can’t see. However, for the sake of self-correction, of refining one’s own views, thinking and style, and of deepening the consistency of one’s own behavior, it is useful to illuminate those tendencies that dominate the majority, like, for example, individualism, progressivism, evolutionism, materialism, quantitative values in general or, more concretely, scientism, technocratism, pragmatism and similar.

Karlo Z. Valois

Original Source: Mediavadasz

Posted in society | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Considerations on the relationship between a metaphysico-traditional weltanschauung and the ultradextro-conservative world view

Author: Andras Laszlo

For us ‘ultradesctro-conservatives’ with a traditional orientation, the strong and organic connection between the world view that rests on the principles of  ‘Traditionalitas Spiritualis et Metaphysica Universalis Integralisque’ and the political right, or, in a stricter sense, the extreme right and within this the ultra right-ultra conservative, imperio-monarchist extreme right, is clearly obvious.

The prerequisite of a true affirmation of ‘Traditionalitas’ is to fully and decidedly accept the right and the prerequisite of being genuinely rightist, in turn, is to resolutely affirm ‘Spiritualitas Traditionalis’. In our circles this is experienced as truth and reality and -for us- this doesn’t need to be explained further. For those, however, who are only taking the initial steps towards ‘Traditionalitas’ and for those who already consider themselves rightist and are now approaching the true, pure right (ultradextroconservative extreme right), but haven’t reached it yet, or haven’t perfectly realized it yet: this connection, while it may make sense, is not fully obvious yet; what’s more, they may even consider our maximally resolute and unshakable affirmation of this connection to be exaggerated.

For a potentially deeper and more justified discernment and acceptance of the connection between these views, we’d like to outline a few points including their most fundamental theoretical basis. To do this, we must also say a few words about something that constitutes such an integral part of the world view of ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’ in the strict sense, that without it we can not even speak about ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’.

The ‘consideratio’ of the basic principles of ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’ is not philosophy but, with indisputable certainty, hyperphilosophy. This hyperhilosophy has (and indeed must have) a ‘propaedeutica philosophica’, well definable from the point of view of world-views. The most appropriate and accurate term for this ‘propaedeutico-philosophicus’ is ‘metidealismus transscendentali-immanentalis et immanentali-transcendentalis theurgo-magico-solipsisticus absolutus’.

The ‘philosophia metaphysica’ that adequately applies this view may be considered to be the culmination of philosophy. In terms of ‘hyperphilosophia metaphysica’, the situation is somewhat different: in this case this is the only valid school possible and various “schools” may, at the most, only depict its variations. Where philosophy culminates, hyperhilosophy begins in the sense of a continuous self-transcendence, which is meant to connect philosophy with Sophia.

Those who hold a solipsistic view posit that Existence may only be Conscious Existence and no other Subject exists beside my own Conscious Subject(ness). I, Myself, am the Conscious Subject of Conscious Existence, its Subiectum and its Conscious Actionalitas, i.e. ‘Realitas Obiectiva’ (that may only be considered in a conscious sense) exists through my own Conscious Acts. Ultimately, only I exist Myself and nothing and nobody exists besides My own Self.

Freedom, Dominance, Power, Order and Hierarchy are the basic words/basic terms (with a solipsistic foundation) of ‘both Traditionalitas” and right wing policitas with a metaphysical orientation. Philosophical and hyper-philosophical solipsism belongs directly to ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’ and indirectly to ‘Ultradextroconservativitas’. Exhibiting (significantly) different opinions in this respect means that one is seriously -if not fatally- confused regarding principles; such confusion likely extends to other, significant areas of principles-ideologies-views.

Beyond direct ideological preparation, an activist of party politics of course doesn’t necessarily need to have philosophicus-hyperphilosophicus education: first and foremost they need courage, endurance and the ability to fight. Right wing leaders, however, beyond what should be and what is expected from activists, must have such complex ideological education for which the mere knowledge of ideology in the strict sense is less than insufficient. They must possess a deep knowledge and understanding of politology, history, sociology, law, military science, economics, philosophy and theology on a level that is above and beyond mere receptive knowledge, a level that presumes the activate presence of productive-creative qualities.

Correctly understood ‘politicitas’ (‘Politeia’) presupposes an also correctly understood ‘apoliticitas’ (Apoliteia’) in the background, without the latter in the slightest way weakening political activities. This, however, is only possible, if behind and above both of these there is a level from which both of these in fact originate; this level is ‘metapoliticitas’ (‘Metapoliteia’). From this level (in a sort of downward direction) it is possible to open both in the direction of ‘politicitas’ and ‘apoliticitas’. It is possible and -as we noted earlier- it is necessary to open in both directions, we just need to decide -and we must decide unequivocally- which one should be (kept) at the forefront.

There is no doubt that in exceptional cases such a high metapolitical level may appear and subsist that the thought of an opening may not even come up. Such was the case of the supra-personal personality of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. This, however, let’s repeat it, is quite exceptional and – although it could definitely be exemplary –  may hardly find a valid following.


The principle, metapolitical presence of ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’ precipitates in the political-social domain as the right. The right – this should suffice without additional clarifying attributes; it should, but, alas, it doesn’t.

It is normal nowadays that moderately decisive left-wing or contra-left wing parties that show some hardly noticeable, minuscule right wing tonality are generally denoted as “extreme right”; what’s more, even parties that follow an unequivocally left wing, liberal-democratic line are called “extreme right”, “fascist” or “nazi” by the extreme left in their crazed rampages.

Essentially, it is only the most extreme extreme right that is acceptable from a traditional point of view, but even here we need to make some distinctions. We can’t truly and without reservations accept those lines that, although defined within the realm of the most extreme extreme right, are infused by contra-left and especially extreme contra-left tendencies, adopting and maintaining leftist ideologies, methods and style elements and mixing them up with truly rightist-extreme rightist principles and objectives. (There were, there have been and unfortunately there most likely will be such lines in the ranks of the extreme right that are not only infused by extreme leftist ideologies, but are also prepared to enter into certain collaboration with any groups of the extreme left that are prepared to do the same.)

It is not only the most extreme extreme right that a traditional orientation – both in the political and social realm – claims but also a pure right/extreme right that is void of any and all contra-leftist contamination. This is what we may call ultraright – ultraconservative extreme right or ultradextro-conservative extreme right. This is not the right represented by Mussolini or Hitler or others, somewhat closely related to them. What we’re talking about is the radical adaptation of the pure and true right of Bonald, De Maistre and Metternich in the current era.

The most reliable, most significant ideologico-theoreticus of this right in the 20th Century, presenting the most comprehensive view, was Julius Evola.



The foundation of this ultradextro-conservativitas is clearly traditional and it may truly become a political world-view only based on a traditional weltanschauung.

This starting position also excludes that we, as far as we’re concerned, would clash at any time with any honest and serious -although not traditional ultradextro-conservative- line of the most extreme right, whatever nationality it may be. Quite the opposite: we’re aiming at friendly, comradely cooperation, at the deepening and extension of such cooperation. On the other hand -although we especially intend to cooperate with the ultradextro-conservative extreme right-, we don’t consider even the otherwise most respectful circles of the ‘Evolian’ wing of the traditional ultradextro-conservative extreme right to be the standard, especially an unquestionable standard, for us.

The life opus of René Guénon and -even more so- Julius Evola is absolutely indispensable for anybody who wants to see clearly in the realms of metaphysico-traditional and traditional ultradextro-conservative world views, but this is not about “following”, especially not in the current sense of the word. These personalities have provided so far the most enlightening standard for the Western world in respect of these world views and orientations and it would be nothing less than crazy not to take Them into consideration. It would be even more senseless to set Them in opposition to each other now, after their death. Alas, it seems that some don’t consider this to be such an absurd and senseless experiment and -although just quietly for now- they start to give voice to such views. What’s more, some go as far as -carefully- clashing Julius Evola the ‘philosophus’ with Julius Evola the ‘politicus-politologus’  or with Julius Evola the traditionalist in the strict sense. (Not to mention that previously, people in certain countries or even world – wide, who sympathized with ‘Traditionalism’ even to a small degree, were aiming to form the best relationship with each other, quite differently from the quarreling  devotees of other spiritual, especially pseudo-spiritual currents; in this respect, the situation is quite different today: Guenonians stand in opposition to Evolians, but they also stand in opposition to other Guenonians and the same applies to Evolians, vice versa. These are naturally artificial, exclusively personal oppositions, without principle foundations.)


Although the opposing terms left-right developed at the end of the 18th Century in France, they may be projected back or forward in time, without limitation. These are not the best terms but we use them because we’re not aware of better ones. There was a time when everything stood in the sign of the right and everybody -at least almost everybody- was rightist. People who really mattered could only stand on the right.  Both the Ghibelline / Hohenstaufen and the Guelf / Welf parties were rightist in the Middle Ages; we may only say that the right wing nature of the Ghibelline / Hohenstaufen party was more pronounced and unequivocal, more intense and more pure, but no deciding role was granted to the left in any of them. 

We may say, correctly, that the political-societal projection of the meta-political reality of ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’ is the true right; what follows from this, however, is that the political-societal projection of the contra-metapolitical reality of the ‘Antitraditionalitas’ is the left. This seems obvious and can’t be up for discussion if we stay within the realm of sanity. 

The political-societal world view of a person -as long as we’re talking about a human representative- who orientates himself (or intends to do so) according to the principles of ‘Metaphysico-Traditionalitas’, even if he decides to give preference to apoliticitas, is almost necessarily right wing to some degree; yet, it almost seems to follow from this that he’ll still stand behind anti-traditionalism (antitraditionalitas) or behind the left, the contra-left or behind the right-extreme right with a contra-left contamination.

It is certain that there are many on the right or extreme right who are not in the least close to the type of person who orientates himself traditionally. The eventual decency of these men in general, or that they may be decent workers in or even fighters for the cause of the right or extreme right, may not be questioned; what may be questioned, however, is whether they see clearly in terms of what the true right is. We think that we rightfully suspect that they don’t see clearly in this respect. 

This extreme ignorance makes it possible that extreme rightists should have an anti-traditional orientation. This is no doubt possible. What’s impossible is that people with a truly traditional orientation should be leftist. Is it possible that somebody-knowing the subject matter-, despite of all this,  would declare himself a traditionist while in the same time, declare himself to be a leftist, too? Since this could be actualized, it is possible. If this was so in actuality, which is unlikely, we would still have to doubt if such person really grasped the essence of “Tradition” and ‘Traditionalitas’ in their true depth. 

When looking at the issue from the context of certain principles, considering it from heights and depths and free from confusions, we may fully exclude the possibility that somebody who confesses a world – view based on the principles of ‘Metaphysico-Traditinality’ , fully knowing what left and right means, could be leftist; further, we may also foretell,  that such a person will sooner or later become rightist, if he hasn’t already.

There exists a popular and dilettante conception according to which a truly spiritual man is absolutely apolitical, so much so that he doesn’t formulate any kind of opinion in any kind of political question at all. Such people, because there really are such people, are not apolitical but -almost without exception- coward and “careful”; they give up on everything so they won’t even formulate an opinion silently, within themselves since this may cause trouble to them and to their family. There are others who are able to constantly change their positions based on a low, opportunistic perspective so they can gain pathetic advantages. The previous type is different: they don’t want to lie, they don’t want to change their positions; instead, they opt for no position at all and they don’t formulate even a secret opinion. From a spiritual point of view this is not any less despicable.

A state of absolute supra-position is possible but this is infinitely exceptional; this was the case of  Sri Ramana Maharshi.  Otherwise even those who, through metapolitical motivation, choose being fully apolitical may have (and should have) a metapolitical weltanschauung and a political world view; this -by a traditional orientation- can only be right wing, in all likeliness extreme right wing in the sense of ultradextro-conservativas which one experiences in such a way that one doesn’t want to actively participate in the sphere of operative politics. And this, like this, is perfectly legitimate and acceptable.

Nobody has to be an active politician forced into an extra-marginal position – this is of course not even advisable. However, everybody who doesn’t live completely outside of all direct and indirect (even on several levels indirect) political relations should develop their own political position and world-view.


The view that one must be a centrist between the left and the right is a leftist view and it has nothing to do with the center. Centrality, axiality and polarity stand in the closest relationship with traditionalis dextroconservativitas and they can’t be related to a luke-warm leftism that doesn’t even grasp these concepts anyway.  As we noted earlier, if we look back into the past, we can see the hegemony of rightism and the more we look back, the more this is so. The furthest past is almost completely purely traditional and, in this sense, that age stood in the sign and under the dominance of of the right. It was the age of King-Gods and God-Kings, the era of sacred Kings and Holy Empires.

 Traditionalis dextroconservativitas has always been thinking in terms of Monarchies and Monarchs, perhaps their equivalents – both in the past and today. The ‘Führerstaat’ as a state form may only be considered acceptable on a temporary   basis. If the reality of dynastico-successionalis monarcho-legitimitas can’t prevail for reasons that can’t be overcome or eliminated, then -temporarily (and this period may be quite long)- a Ruler or a Ruler-Governor must exercise unlimited rulership-power as head of state while keeping the monarchical state-form fully and perfectly intact. This principle should not be compromised even in the most extreme circumstances, maximum in the sense of accepting (with reservations) the short and obviously temporary phase of a restoration process.


When it comes to judging the most extreme right (but not in the sense of ultradextro-conservative extreme right) our position is rather ambivalent. On the one hand, we’d like to aim at a friendly-comradely cooperation and, beyond this, at a political-tactical cooperation, on the other hand we can’t hide our reservations that are borderline rejections when it comes to certain particularities. The reason for such reservations are the strong presence of the already mentioned contra-leftist or extreme contra leftist influences; the strength of these may vary, but their presence is never weak. Those who orientate themselves traditionally and thus approach the right are obviously not influenced by the contra-right propaganda of the left or by any argument against the right coming from the left. All such arguments should be disregarded.

We’re more concerned about whether the extreme right may be infiltrated by proletarian influences and if a proletarian mentality may prevail there. If the answer to these is a definitive yes, then we must consider restricting our initiatives that aim at widening and deepening our cooperation.

It is known – both from more and less reliable sources – that at the time of the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact friendly conversations started to develop between the communist and national socialist-Hungarist inmates in the Csillag Prison in Szeged (Hungary). The topic of conversations between these inmates, who were otherwise bitter enemies, centered around the near future, the time of possible reconciliation between them when the red color of the Hungarian flag, representing communism and the green, representing national socialism-Hungarism, would find not only peace in the white color, but an alliance against the then reigning feudal-capitalist Horthy system. Although this was not an official position of either party, it reveals a mentality that was wide-spread at the time and the residues of which we can still observe today: the pipe dream of the possibility of reconciliation between the most extreme extreme right and the most extreme extreme left.



With some exaggeration we should say that through the re-actualization of the early modern age we intend to re-instate the Middle Ages and the Antiquity after that and finally the prehistoric age. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but there is definitely truth behind it. We would like to restore everything that may actually be restored even if this actuality means only some fragments or only some partial achievement. In this respect we’d be satisfied even with the conditions of sixty-seventy years ago, although we’d be much happier if we could go back six hundred-seven hundred years not to mention six thousand-seven thousand or sixty thousand-seventy thousand years.

Traditional orientation may begin with nostalgia; in fact, it often does. The continuation, however, must gradually detach itself from the determining role of nostalgia and in a late stage even from its presence. We must be able to see all of the -mostly negative- characteristics of a given era. The approach must always be a calm critique. Both optimism and pessimism are unaryan characteristics, completely alien to a traditional orientation. We must exercise sharp critique in all cases, including the political ones without any trace of desperation or rage.


There were and there are people who think that power may only be dark and sinful (Bela Hamvas also subscribed to this view) not only in the advanced phase of the Kali-Yuga, but by principle and always. We consider this view to be fundamentally unacceptable. There is no doubt that in the Kali-Yuga, mainly in its advanced phases (especially with the 20th and 21st Centuries) power is possessed and usurped by Darkness; this is sort of obvious. But this doesn’t mean at all that Power and Dominance (Rulership) may not be based on true and real Supremacy. Theoretically they most definitely can, practically much less so, but even today this is not an impossibility. And if this is so -and we think it definitely is- , true and superior Dominance and true and rightful, legally possessed Power – void of all dark accents and infernal overtones has always been possible, in all eras; today much less so, but in exceptional cases it’s still conceivable. With time this possibility will almost completely disappear, but it is likely that it won’t be and in fact it can’t be lost completely, especially not on the level of possibilities.


Both the traditional weltanschauung and the ultradexgtro-conservative world-view is being marginalized in our World, even though the interest occasionally flames up towards them. These views, however, will never be completely eliminated and there are things we can do to sustain them and keep them alive to some degree, at least within a small circle. Precisely this is what we consider to be our task.

 Translation: PCC/LK

Source: Sacrum Imperium


Posted in politics, Principles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The path of the knights

 (presented by the Andras Laszlo as a lecture on August 1st, 1998, in the Saint Mary Monastery in Szabolcs, Hungary)

Translation: PCC/LK


THE ESSENCE of all spiritual paths is to find the Center of Existence, the Center of Consciousness, the Center of Myself; to return to where I started from and to return there through Myself. The most diverse paths of realization are known in this sense: some attempt to walk and complete this path through the pure forms of solitude, silence and contemplation – walking is obviously meant symbolically here since essentially there are no movements in such process of realization. There are also various active paths related to the highest form of activity, above activities: the act, where the role of active knowing weighs as much as the role of the activity itself – quite similarly to all other autonomous paths of realization. Spiritual paths could be incredibly diverse, including those that are fundamentally different from conventional ideas, which conceive the methods of self-realization and self-transcendence of man in terms of tranquility,  turning inwards, contemplation. There are, however, other possibilities that on the level of actionality take on extreme forms, going to the most extreme situations that present the very limits – both in the internal and external sense: fighting in battles and wars; in the sphere of such paths, the paths of the knights enjoy an eminent role.

The path of the knights is a spiritual path, a path of realization, a path of self-actualization. The path of the knights may be conceived as a path that transforms the basic combative nature of humans into heroism; in the symbolic language of alchemy: it transforms the bellicose as materia prima secundum quid into materia ultima secundum quid. This is how we may sum up the essence of the warrior path, but we haven’t exhausted its inner nature yet; it stands in the sign of fight.

Fight in the conventional sense may not be considered a spiritual path; in its common, vulgar form it is not a path of self-realization, but simply another way of stirring up the murky waters of existence gushing out from the vortex of becoming. What is it that turns fight into a possibility for the self-transcendence of man as the carrier of Subject? Let’s have a look at what kind of basic natures, basic forms fight as such exhibits. The outcome of the fight is always decided between “darkness” and “light”. When the ruling presence of spiritual light manifests itself in the enemy, he is a noble opponent; when the enemy is dominated by the powers of darkness, he is an ignoble enemy. The fight may only be fought against darkness from the position of light; this means that I am not attacking the powers of light in the enemy, only the powers of darkness present in him; the powers of light always mean allegiance for those who can actually follow the light. So the knight may face a noble enemy, but he’ll be looking for the darkness in him, and he expects the noble enemy to do the same. It is known that the Order of the Knights Templar regularly met with knights from Muslim Ismailite-Sufi orders and maintained intimate friendships with them knowing that the next day they’d meet in battle and the possibilities of death will open up and both sides will fight mercilessly; but they also knew what was the fight against; friendship is when the light meets the light, battle means to seek out the darkness behind the dominant light and fight against that. This is the meaning of the fight, just like this is what the essence of peace is related to. There are two types of peace: ‘peace after the victory of light’ (pax post victoriam lucis) and ‘peace after the victory of darkness’ (pax post victoriam tenebrarum) the latter of which may never be accepted from a spiritual point of view. This is why all pacifism is fundamentally flawed, sinful, deviant and regretful and works toward the corruption of the world. Only the victory of the powers of the light means peace and nothing else is acceptable. Thoughts like “peace no matter what”, “no more war”, “no more bloodshed” in such sentimental forms inevitably express the deification of the vortex of existence, the state of becoming; these are merely samsaric view points. The aspect of heaven, of the divine, of Nirvana are completely different: the single, fundamental aspect here is to reinstate the superior, the even more and more superior and not those that are related to circumstances and consequences that stem from changes in the various states of existence and becoming; in comparison to the previous ones, these factors are insignificant. When we determine that the warrior path is a method of transforming the bellicose nature of man into heroism and we identify the types of possible fights including our attitude toward them, we must repeatedly draw into consideration that even if the enemy is ignoble (i.e. he represents darkness, he is the representative of the dominance of darkness) I am launching my attack only against the darkness and not against the light, however minimally it may be present in him. I only attack that which represents a downward orientation, a tendency of leveling, the corruption of states of existence – these are the factors that stand in the sign of darkness and with which no solidarity whatsoever may be taken. The paths of the knights have always most thoroughly considered this and brought it to the forefront at each and every occasion.

Volumes may be written on the history of knighthood. Here we must mention that knighthood has always existed since pre-historic times or since times within pre-historical states. “Horse” in such cases doesn’t simply mean the animal which we call a “horse”; it means carrier, the ruled, dominated carrier and this is the meaning that was later related to the animal that most often played the role of the carrier. But in the Sanskrit language, in the Hindu tradition, for example, the carrier of the ‘knight’ – asvin – is the hamsa ‘swan’  let’s remember the Lohengrin saga in this respect. The “carrier“: this is what horse itself used to mean and I refer mostly to the Indo-German languages, although this was in a sense valid everywhere. For example we could find a knights’ order also in the Aztec culture: the Knights Order of the Jaguar; no matter how far we go back, with appropriate research and information we should be able to find this everywhere – at least in places with the kind of ethnic groups that were capable of representing the spiritual-metaphysical tradition. We find this in Chinese tradition just as much as in the Japanese one, where in certain sense it is still alive, where the ‘path of war’, budo, or the path of the ‘warrior knight’, busi-do originally represented a high spiritual rank and it was as one of the paths of spiritual realization. By going through the fight and facing death, the warrior-knight path opens up possibilities for contact with states that are superior to death both ontologically and by orders of magnitude. The Japanese always knew this and this was also known in Europe when the idealism of knighthood was still vivid, functioning and powerful, and it still played a significant role in life. We may go as far as saying that spiritual paths of the highest level were always related somehow to various warrior paths even if this relation was not that pronounced. A relatively recent example is the Cistercian Order within the monastic orders of the Catholic Church, which was the contemplative equivalent of the Order of the Knights Templar. Contemplative orders often appeared in parallel with the paths of the knights; there was a bridge between these both in terms of practice and cooperation. Not directly, but based on some parallelism there has always been a fundamental and deeply organic relationship between inner paths of contemplation and other forms.

It is customary to separate knowledge and action and this separation is, to some degree, justified. René Guénon, one of the most significant figures of metaphysical tradition, said that action means modifications on a horizontal level, meaning it always remains on the same ontological level, while knowledge may be conceived along a symbolical vertical axis and as something that entails changes of corresponding magnitude. This is indeed so from many aspects, but what this personality -whom we hold in the highest regard- leaves out of consideration is the act. We must differentiate between the act and mere activities; the act is an activity in which deep and strong -gnostic- powers of knowledge are at work exerting their influence from the heights to the depths; when the activity is gnostically empowered, it is an act. The knowledge element is unconditionally present in the act, similarly to how in true knowledge and knowing there is a strong element of actionality. It is absolutely possible that a connection is formed between these, which means that not all forms of action are tied to horizontality and that there exist also vertical forms of action in which gnostical powers manifest themselves – and these in turn are manifestations related to actual acts.

To act is a spiritual path. The sequence of acts correspond to the gradual unfolding of spiritual paths. Not only are the spiritual path and the path of acts not in opposition to each other, they are connected in the tightest possible way. We know that the interest of the knights’ orders, besides fighting and transforming bellicosity into heroism, had a very strong gnostic orientation. In regards gnostic principles, the orders always exhibited the most intense interest and attention and made it a point to connect with these on an operative level, in fact these belonged to their very goals. The knights of the antiquity in the Western world had also reached such high levels since among the Romans, they stood on the second level of the patrician rank: starting from the top, the rank of the senator was followed directly by the eques, the ‘knight’. The senator was part of the ruling class, while the eques represented the class that was capable of actively maintaining, conserving, defending, extending and completing the empire. Even in later Centuries we find deeply spiritual orders: it’s enough to think of the Order of the Knights of the Holy Grail; the Order of the Grail was a fully spiritual order that drew on and sustained a pre-Christian spirituality and which was led by the King of the Grail who was in the same time the top ruler of the country that was ruled by this order. While he sustained a worldly dominance, by his essence he represented a spirituality in his domain that drew on innate metaphysical powers and also served as a path of realization, religion and culture, permeating the world.

There always were so called secret orders. “Secret” means that the only thing known about them was that they existed and almost nothing more. A later version of the Grail was Rosicrucianism which strongly carried Hermetism, a tradition of Egyptian origin synthesizing Greek, Arab, Germanic, Celtic, Cabalistic and other forms. Hermetism later reemerged as so called later stage Hermetism or alchemical Hermetism, represented, sustained and carried by true Rosicruicianism. (Even today there are “rosicruician” formations but these are all imitations that just usurp the name). Rosicrucianism was a knights’ path, a gnostic path and a magical path simultaneously, bringing heroic knighthood, Gnosis and magic into perfect unity.

The heyday of chivalric orders in the strict sense was the XI–XII–XIII–XIV. Centuries. These were connected to the Crusades, the objective of which was for Christianity to reconquer the Holy Land, Jerusalem and the surrounding land, most of all the Holy Sepulchre. The purpose of the Crusades was mainly to reconquer the Holy Sepulchre, but these were accompanied by pilgrimages and the crusades themselves did not always reflect a knightly character.

The Order of the Knights Templar was brutally destroyed by Philip the Fair in 1314. (There were many attempts to revive Order of the Knights Templar, but none of these have been serious. Let’s note here, that -however sympathetic their ideology would be- the revived Order of Saint George is also not serious;  in the times of King Sigismund, during and after his reign, there were two chivalric orders in close relationship with and with close similarity to each other: one of them was the Order of Saint George, the other was the Order of the Dragon, both representing a very similar orientation.)


A few words on the destruction of the Order of the Knights Templar. It is generally believed Philip (the Fair) IV., the pope and chancellor Nogaret were after the treasures of the Templars; this is true, but this was absolutely not the main objective. There was a spiritual power present in the Order of the Knights Templar that transcended the general currents of power within Christianity. They were aiming for something more, something that had an initiatory character; in this context they focused on a gigantic spiritual figure called Baphometous which was probably the name of a divinity of initiation: I am saying this based on the “bap” root (baptismos, baptisma and baphometous); this figure was center-stage. The Order also had a strongly gnostic and magical orientation and it is likely that they had as an objective the unification of the pope, the emperor and the grand master of the order (or a main leader above the grand master) in one single person: the emperor should have also been the pope and the head of the order, as well and he should have come from the Ghibelline-dynasty. This dynasty was actually the Hohenstaufen-dynasty which, after the name of their central castle, Waiblingen, was called, with bad Arabic, Ghibelline. In opposition to them stood the Welf dynasty, which was also called Guelf. The Guelfs recognized the unconditional superiority of the pope above the emperor; according to their views, the pope could also be emperor, but even if he’s not, he stands above the emperor and they acknowledged the pope as emperor. The Ghibellines’ view was that the emperor’s rank was superior to that of the pope and thus he could take over the papal function and even if he doesn’t do so, he stands higher than the pope. This was absolutely not impossible since the emperor carried the title Vicarius Christi while the pope only carried the title Vicarius Petri; this situation later changed. Chivalric tendencies, but especially the Order of the Templars were tightly connected to the aims of the Hohenstaufen-Ghibellines to the extent that the imperial nature of the chivalric Middle Ages was decidedly determined by the Ghibelline ideology in close relations with the Teuton Order, but even more so with the Order of the Templars as long as the latter one existed, after which the whole Ghibelline world collapsed with the last Ghibelline that claimed the throne beheaded; this was especially painful since the Hohenstaufen-dynasty was Europe’s most superior dynasty.

When looking at the inner nature of the warrior path we must mention the most crucial factor that captures the very essence of the issue: the relationship between the fight and heroicity with death. In battle, the knight was always striving toward victory while constantly facing death, constantly accepting the challenge of death in a way that he aimed at defeating not only the enemy, the opponent, but to also triumph over death itself. When the knight fell in battle and his fall was truly worthy of a knight because in his death he managed to transform himself into a heros, this death was called mors triumphalis (‘triumphant death’); this meant that he experienced death as a transcendental act; the highest possibility was to experience resurrection, even metaphysical Awakening, Nirvana, to reach the ultimate goal, but at the very minimum the goal was to die in a way that transcends the  very summits of the general states of existence, to ensure that in death there wouldn’t be a decline towards a mere deflammation (extinguishing) of life but, again, toward transcendence, possibly resurrection, ascension to heaven for which the basis was provided by the very experience of death, an exteremely conscious experience with unrestrained intensity. The knight was seeking death so he could, in the high intensity tension this created, overcome the very forces aimed at extinguishing his consciousness and thereby to reach a state much superior to those he could have otherwise experienced.

The significance of the relation to death is fundamental. The North American Indians for example, among which the warrior spirit enjoyed a central significance, generally would go to battle knowing that there was a chance of dying, but there were always volunteers who, after experiencing special inspiration of an initiatory nature, went to battle specifically in order to die: these wore different feathers and signs and they were called “those who never return”. For them, dying no matter what, was a spiritual act of initiation, in fact, it was an act superior to the general levels of initiation. It was an act, that was in the same time knowledge (gnosis), as well as magic that aimed at their Auton-being; to objective was to provoke death with such intensity that while death prevailed on the surface, internally, in the sense of a transcendent internality and in the sense of an inner existence that transcends man and his personality, they should eventually achieve victory (mors triumphalis). This was always eminently important for all warrior paths.


As a matter of curiosity, I’d like to mention that in the Second World War, there were high ranking Tibetan monks in Germany, some of which returned to Tibet, but others stayed until the last hour; they created a special force called Volunteers of Death who fought in SS officers’ uniforms without rank and died when defending Berlin; all of them died and this was their objective.

We can always find “Volunteers of death” on the warrior paths; an adequate research would probably reveal much more about the rites and the selection which were normally kept secret, so such research would be rather difficult. According to traditional views, the quality of the post-mortem state depends to a significant degree on the entirety of life, on its terminal period and on the moments right near death (circummortalis) in context of consciousness and its intensity. The quality of spiritual-conscious powers that prevail throughout life are absolutely not irrelevant since these determine the terminal stage, the terminal stage determines the moments around death and the quality of the moments around death determines what kind of possibilities present themselves after death. So post-existence, the possibilities after death in terms of keeping up the powers of awareness depend to a large degree on the forces that determine the whole life or, even more so, the final period of life and the quality of the moments near death. Everybody who’s open spiritually at least to some degree gives attention to this, especially if somebody specifically turns their attention to this. Anybody who followed the warrior path was highly aware of these facts, of these circumstances. A knight wanted more than just life, more than a high intensity life: he wanted first and foremost the domain above life, to transcend life; he wanted life from the vantage point above life, from beyond life and death. Deterioration is not sacrifice. People say that somebody died for this or that, that somebody “sacrificed their life” for something – in actuality they didn’t sacrifice anything. To sacrifice life means to sacrifice it in the sign of this supra-life principle, since sacrifice means to create the bridge of transcendence from the general states of existence of the world to transcendent states, i.e. to the states that are rooted in Myself and that are connected to the innermost Subject of Myself. If sacrificing life is not taking place in this transcendent sense, it is not a sacrifice, it is simply the termination of life; only for something superior is it possible and desirable to sacrifice anything. Operations that point to a degradation are not sacrifices but belong to the grossest forms of denial of spirituality.

It could be and should be the goal of everybody to stand at the peak when he dies; if this happens when he’s 30, he should be at the zenith at that time, if this happens when he’s 120, he should be at the peak of his capabilities when he’s 120. To achieve this with conventional means is extremely difficult, in fact that’s how it’s really difficult, but it was not easy on the warrior path either. However, the focus of the warrior’s life was to die in battle by all means, in the moment of victory, possibly in the moment of inner victory and to be right at the top when this happens. It is not possible to transcend life and death from the position of spiritual collapse; to transcend life and death in the moment of death, a spiritual zenith position is necessary. The goal, when it comes to transmuting fight and bellicosity into heroism through an adequate fight -which is a fight against “darkness” not only in the enemy, but much more so against darkness in myself, in first case singular, the projection of which I face as the darkness manifest in my opponent-, was identified by the warriors as the final self-realization through the fight against their inner darkness. In Islam they differentiate between al-jihad al-asghart and al-jihad al-akbar. The former refers to the war in the outside world, the ‘small holy war’. The Prophet Muhammad said that after the ‘small holy war’ comes al-jihad al-akbar, the ‘great holy war’, the war against the powers of darkness in the inner world. The war in the outside world that is taking place within large extensions of space is still ‘small’, since it happens in the world of phenomena in consciousness, while the ‘great holy war’ happens in the world of powers of consciousness that create the phenomena, as well as shape consciousness itself. The warrior fought on all levels: not only against noble and ignoble enemies in the outside world, not only against the darkness these represented against the powers of light, but on all occult levels, even on higher, supra-occult levels. He conducted war against powers that emanated from himself and got somewhat, but not fully separated from himself, then turned against him and ultimately aimed at preventing the realization of a re-integrative Unity.  In the view I represent, the most fundamental tenet is that I, Myself am everything, everything is Auton. Even things that are not I, Myself, i.e. heteron (something else) are Auton: unrecognized Auton; the unrecognized Auton functions, among other things, in the form of dark-powers in conscious existence. In conscious existence there is no fundamental difference between the external and the internal world and I must perform operations with these; in terms of approaches, one of the categories these operations fall under is martial operations; the paths that aim at fight, knighthood and heroicity capture the relation with heteron-powers with this symbology. There are other ways to conceive this relationship, for example, as merely a way of knowledge, as the sum of processes, etc.: the dimension of fight or war is one of many. It’s not about the superiority or inferiority of the method, because verification becomes evident only in the results. There could be operations aimed at knowledge that produce the same results as the paths that may be grasped by the symbolism of fight; the end result decides. These, and their combinations are all legitimate.

The metaphysical path in an Auton-Heteron context is the warrior path: facing death, facing the other, the relationship of Myself with Myself, the relation of Myself with the Absolutum – these are the starting positions and not only for knowledge but as something which I need to establish a high tension relationship with. Transcending these tension-hubs depicts the various stages of the warrior path which may appear in external fights, in external struggle in general, in the concrete acts of the external fight, since true fighting operations have always been of initiatory character; but these may also appear in the sphere of spiritual powers and anti-spiritual powers in the internal space of the soul, among many other, additional forms.

The warrior path is a spiritual path; a path of self-transcendence. If we don’t think in terms of paths, we may also say act: an act of self-realization, spiritual act, metaphysical act. All approaches are similes so instead of saying “walking a path”, we may say anything. The approaches that are stuck struggling with questions like whether or not this may be called a path are all rather ridiculous; we may conceive it as a “path”, we may conceive it differently, using different terms: there are many approaches and they all may be valid in parallel to each other.

I emphasize that the warrior path is one of the highest ranking paths, an actual path and the validity of knighthood prevailed almost until today. This doesn’t mean that knighthood today is absolutely insignificant. The current knights’ orders, in many respects, in various forms and in many ways have declined, especially after 1945. The powers that represent the dominance of darkness triumphed in 1945 and these powers have spread across the whole Earth and have also corrupted the specific forms of realities that are connected to the ideology and spirituality of chivalry; thus we notice a general and pervasive decline and this we may observe at each order. Current orders restrict their activities mostly to charity work, which we may appreciate, but this is not the true domain of knighthood in a strict sense; anybody can hand out humanitarian aid packages if they can acquire these and can control the logistics to distribute them – this doesn’t require a warrior predisposition or capabilities. In the same token today the warrior capabilities no longer mean to go to battle on horseback with full armor, but rather to seek out the “dragon” in a much more subtle form.

The “dragon”, the “dragon of waters” plays a significant role in the ideology of knighthood (in Far-Eastern symbolism there was a “dragon of the sky” which had a positive meaning; the “dragon of waters” of the West represents darkness, thus it is negative); to seek out and face the “dragon of darkness”, fight it and defeat it. This, in the current age means a fight against mostly internal but sometimes external powers and forces that are, if not abstract, rather subtle.  This is the equivalent of the fight against the dragon of past eras, but this latter also happened on a spiritual level, it didn’t mean defeating a dragon-like animal and even more importantly, the possibilities of the fight weren’t exhausted in such an act. The fight took place against the dragon-powers (powers of darkness) on various ontological levels; today this must happen in a different way.

The warrior mentality and attitude is still valid. The probability of its appearance, however, has become almost zero; almost. The currently functioning orders, even the residual ones, still represent and sustain something, although very little; to go to a meeting and then go home and continue a torpid life does not represent a spiritual rank, it is not a spiritual, warrior life. Nothing is more important than the spiritual order. Nobody may say that his life doesn’t allow him to live accordingly; if that appears to be the case, one must change his life. One must subordinate everything to this (in a spiritual sense of course). It’s unconceivable to say that “I’d do it but I won’t because I don’t have the opportunity”; again, one must change his life. If one lives with somebody who blocks his spirituality, one must turn away from such a person; if one’s lifestyle, work, activity doesn’t allow this, then one must change his field of activities. We can’t subordinate the superior to life, to samsara, becasue the current corruption of the world originates precisely from this; the main reason for the corruption of the world is that the superior is subordinated to the inferior. The inferior must be subordinated to the superior in all areas of life, in any context. This is what used to define the warrior path, just like any other paths of realization; to subordinate the inferior to the superior and to avoid that the superior is subordinated to the inferior even for a minute, in any area of life; this must not be allowed even in the most extreme circumstances under the biggest pressure; and again: if somebody experiences life like this, one must urgently change things. We don’t address people who lack recognition; it’s arguable if somebody like this may be called human at all -I don’t mean that such a person may not qualify as a superior man, but that he may not even qualify to be human. Nobody may think it seriously that he’s not interested in what happens to him after his death; if somebody still says that he’s absolutely not interested, all he did was that he proved that he doesn’t understand anything of any of this. Such a thing can’t be stated with seriousness; these things are not indifferent and if they are not indifferent, they require that one internally faces them.

Similarly to other true paths of realization, the warrior path didn’t ever make concessions in this respect; and this was not even the prerequisite for an advanced stage, this was condicio sine qua non right at the very beginning. A life that defines itself as having higher goals and religious orientation, as seeking life above life is unconceivable if the lifestyle contradicts all this both in an internal and external sense. The circumstances are unfavorable? They must be changed.

The warrior path as a path of transcendence never allowed concessions. True paths or realizations, like true Yoga, true Zen in a Japanese context, true Taoism in China and the others never allowed compromises. There are people who run the course of decline in their life and end up labeling their youthful orientation for something higher as childish, because according to them a “serious thing” is founding a company, for example;  attempting to rise above the vortex of becoming is “not serious” – these are the attitudes that develop during a life of decline; this is being subhuman; a subhuman being does exactly the same thing with the exception that it lacks human qualifications (speech, conceptual thinking, bipedal, upright walking, etc.); this is not a human form of existence, this is subhuman.

A true path of realization, including the warrior path, dynamically and radically positions itself against all mediocre conditioning in life. These mediocre conditions are more dangerous than even the darkest conditions, because when facing those, some kind of resistance may awaken, but when facing mediocre conditions and conditioning this typically doesn’t happen; thus these depict the most basic opposition on all paths of realization.

If we think about the warrior path – what it used to mean- based on what I’ve covered today about fight, the types of fights, about seeking out situations at extreme limits, about facing the death forces of darkness, about conquering death, and awaken in ourselves what relates to knighthood, then in this context we may count on  the possibility of a certain progress.


Posted in Principles, society | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Tradition and the current age

Author: Andras Laszlo

Translation: PCC/LK


The terms Tradition and Traditionality convey an ancient, primordial spiritual knowledge about the Origin, the Beginning and the Non-beginning since the very beginning of the manifest existence of the world; Tradition sustains this timeless knowledge in time as a permanent, incorruptible spirituality. When we use the terms Tradition and Traditionality, this is what we mean and not what is typically meant by them in a conventional sense.

The other term we need to address is the present age in a broader sense and its relation to traditionality; here I need to refer to certain doctrines that deal with cycles and cyclicity. As we know, Hesoid speaks about Golden Age, Silver Age, a third one that’s called Bronze Age or sometimes Ore or Copper age and finally about Iron age that some authors, like Scaligero, call Lead Age.

This corresponds with a process of involution. When we treat certain doctrines, we often emphasize that in the manifest world we mostly don’t encounter evolution but, in many respects, a process of decline; actual superiority doesn’t correspond with a world defined by technocratism. Superiority means that we are, or rather that I am closer to my Origin, to my Beginning, to my Non-beginning, to the Spirit and to God and ultimately to Myself. In this sense we’re dealing with primordial factors (to use this word again) and these  refer to essentially more superior levels of existence which, in terms of epochs, often point to antiquity, even to archaic times.

In order to truly grasp this, we must posit the possibility of involution and regression – an admittedly unconventional position today; in other words, we must allow the possibility that, in the process of its unfolding, the world in many respects severs its ties with its divine and spiritual origin; it doesn’t get fully disconnected, but it’s shifting further and farther away from it while it manifests the very tendencies that drive it away from the essential, from the state of the Self, from the Divine, from God. Again: these factors, these powers and forces manifest themselves in the world and they do so with increasing strength and intensity. The stronger they connect to space and time, to consistency, to matter, the stronger and more intensely this shifting away from the origin takes place.

The world of tradition sustains sophia perennis, an eternal wisdom and knowledge on all levels of existence. Sometimes it becomes lackluster or gets out of sight but essentially it always subsists. When we talk about the world of tradition what we mean is a world where to a great extent traditional-spiritual principles prevailed. In the world of modernity the prevalence of these principles becomes minimal and it seems that life is unaffected by them; destructive, dissolving tendencies, powers and forces manifest themselves in existence, distracting man even more from the fundamentals and from superiority, from absolute supremacy, from the hierarchical structure of existence, from eternal values, exposing his mind, soul and spirituality to fully temporal contingencies.

When it comes to relating modernity to specific eras, we have ample opportunities at our disposal. We may date the moment of drifting away from the Spiritual to the 7th, 6th and 5th Centuries BC., and it is likely that in times before this it would have been impossible for materialistic and atheistic views to emerge. All spheres of life were permeated by spiritual powers, which were impossible not to notice and which thus focused attention on where the manifest world descended from, on unconditioned, pure Existence, on the Absolute. Obviously, the world of 2500 years ago still can’t be called modern, but something had already happened then and with the progression of time, if we look at the period of the latest millennium, we can notice a definitive shake-up in terms of spirituality in the 1200’s and 1300’s. This was a period when strong influences had surfaced which diverted attention and views, as well as the powers these manifested away from the Principle of principles. This diversion of attention appeared to a large extent in Reformation where it’s impossible not to notice a contra-spiritual tendency; it also appeared in the “renaissance”, where the powers of death were much more prevalent than the powers of re-birth; it appeared in the phenomenon of darkening, which the anti-traditional mentality calls “enlightenment”, since this “enlightenment” is a pronouncedly darkening process from a spiritual point of view. The view that turned from God to Earth was called light. In our terminology this is a darkening process. We must recognize these preparatory tendencies in what we call modernity – and modernity is one of the synonyms of anti-traditioanlity and anti-spirituality. In fact, these tendencies were more than just preparatory in nature, since they had also carried that which was to a large degree directly related to darkness.

By modernity we don’t mean the technical nature of the current world, although it is related to it; we focus on something else. Modernity means a world without tradition, a world against tradition, a world without spirituality and against spirituality; it means forgetting Myself – to put it in first case singular- to forget my connection to the Spiritual, to the Essential, to the Unconditional, to the Absolute.

The modern world depicts a distance. From whatever point of view we may consider the modern world to be more developed than the world of previous eras, it never means a superiority based on essential factors. Rather, we must consider what human consciousness shifted away from, what we drifted away from and what I have distanced myself from; then it will become evident that I have distanced myself from the Essential. Whatever may I have gained in this age, is insignificant in comparison to the loss the world has experienced. The world has entered into an anti-spiritual age; it is not fully void of the spirit, but it is tendentially preparing for anti-spirituality. When did this happen? In many respects centuries ago, in many respects in the 20th Century, in many respects in the 21st Century. Consider the French Revolution which carried very dark tendencies, or the revolutions of the 19th century or consider the current Century. It would be correct to say that we entered this state in during WWI, perhaps at its conclusion, or that it happened during the time of the Bolshevik revolution or perhaps at the beginning of WWII or when it ended.  All these are adequate considerations.

Fact is that this process began long time ago and gradually, in the last century with increasing speed, has reached the state of existence that in the strictest sense determines our days;  the current age means the last 100-150 years since the characteristics that manifested themselves after the Second World War had already been present in a germinal state much earlier. Someone who is sufficiently alert to really give attention to the spiritual processes, can identify distinct stages in the darkening process every 5 years or so. The 1950’s for example were, in a lot of respects, much more terrible then the years afterward, but people still had a mentality that was hoping for change, hoping that the previous value system may be reinstated [translators note: this refers to the special situation in Hungary in the 1950’s.] It is precisely this mentality that becomes weak and that eventually ceases to exist in this world. As specific generations leave the sphere of human existence, we can identify, even within the world of darkness, a very specific darkening process. Hope won’t die in the current age or in the future, but its perspectives are increasingly marginalized to eschatological levels only: hope may only have eschatalogical perspectives. It seems that the well known principle of Omnia vincit veritas may only be true in eschatological perspectives, that this unconditional truth could not prevail in the sphere of strictly earthly events. However, truth has a supra-temporal, eschatological validity and this always subsists, incorruptibly. Hope in the strictly temporal, historical sphere, on the other hand, is becoming weaker and dimmer and with good reason:  precisely because the truth is not prevalent.

The goals of a spiritually oriented man can’t be defined within earthly, worldly  pespectives; goals that are projected to earthly existence may only be transitory. If the objective is to reach the summit of a mountain – the summit being an analogy to the ultimate, super-human, transcendent goal -, earthly goals may only represent intermediary summits from which I must continue my journey. Even such worldly goals, which, although never equaled the ultimate goal, but were at least oriented towards it, have become hopeless in the age of darkness; when at least some values were still manifest, an adequate, hierarchical structure prevailed and people were in their proper place, performing the role they were born to do, irrespective of whether or not it was comfortable or pleasant. When  dark, let’s say satanic influences came to dominate the world, this meant first and foremost upsetting the fundamental order: confusing the order of hierarchical structures so that it was no longer possible to know what and who is superior, what are the functions of people, what must be done in order for earthly life to reflect a spiritual order.

Earth may only represent heaven to some degree, it can’t replace it; this representation is what disappears in the modern world or in the current age in a broader sense. This disappearance is a process, it has been happening for a long time and it will continue to do so, probably for a considerably long time. Whatever its outcome may be, true hope that points beyond the human world, toward transcendence, may only be rooted in me: in the fact that I am connected to transcendence, that my spiritual soul belongs to transcendence.

Whatever is possible, must be of course done in order to create order, knowing that this is not the ultimate goal and knowing also that in the Iron Age of Hesiod or in the Dark Age not only are all such hopes dim and constrained in general, but even the specific hope of realizing these general hopes to some degree, are more or less lost.

It is adequate to maintain hope for a better world, but the validity of such faith is conditional; the unconditional validity that never disappoints can’t be realized in Earthly conditions. The modern world tends to forget this and it can’t give attention either to Alfa or to Omega; it can’t orientate itself to the Origin, to the Beginning or to the Non-beginning; in fact, it is part of its nature that it’s not oriented to these. Some people may be oriented to these in some exceptional cases, but this is so extremely rare, that we can’t deal with them within the scope of general tendencies, be they prevalent or failing. It is likely that these cases have always been rather rare, but in the present age, although they still exist, they are extremely rare. I repeat: it is justified that one orientates himself and strives toward a better world. But only those things have incorruptible validity that are connected to the transcendence of earthly-human existence.

Not only was in the world of tradition such a transcendent orientation within the frame of earthly-human existence legitimate, everything was organized accordingly. By its natural dynamism, by providence and by conscious effort, the world was structured in such a way that it maintained, helped, strengthened and supported this spirituality, surrounding it with protective bastions, so to speak, and keeping it alive so that it could, even if not perfectly, significantly eliminate destructive tendencies. The world of anti-tradition, which is the world of modernity in a broader sense, stands in opposition to all of this. It inhibits, blocks, and limits true spiritual initiatives, while it fosters and supports the manifestation and prevalence of demonic, satanic powers, subordinates itself and others, as well as the world and the general structure of life to these. Yet, we must not forget that we live in this world, where observable (not in the sense of proof, but in the sense of manifestation) tendencies that accelerate decline, dominate. We may consider other worlds with more ideal structures, but we must stay pragmatic and can’t forget that we live in this one. With the dominance of destructive tendencies we must stand our ground in the earthly domain and find ways and possibilities for maintaining an orientation that doesn’t lose sight of the ultimate goal.

In this age, in the current age of anti-traditional modernity, in the domain of activities aimed at dissolution and destruction, in the general process of darkening, we may experience an undeniable challenge; we may. Since the greater the darkness, the bigger the challenge (and this is valid all the way to an extreme stage, beyond which not even this is valid anymore), the challenge we’re facing is stronger than it has ever been in history. In certain individuals, the greater the darkness, the bigger the need for the spirit. “Blessed are the poor in spirit” means that they recognize the world devoid of the spirit and a yearning for the spirit is burning in their soul.  They are poor in some respect and they want to eliminate this. What this means is an opening of the dimension of possibilities in the Dark-age. Facing the void and the challenge on the one hand, and a world filled with the power of darkness on the other. We must see this and face this and perceive this as a challenge: no matter how strong the powers of illusion, distraction and degradation are, I am going to face them. The stronger they are, the stronger my opposition will be since I am aware that if I don’t do this, I set myself up for a fall.

It’s not enough to realize that following an age filled with light we are now in a darker age, but we also need to see that we really are in this one and the paradigms of a bright past, although indispensable, are not enough for determining a future; for this we need to find possibilities in the current age even if everything seems to be against this, keeping in mind that there is always a way out even from the greatest or nearly greatest darkness: precisely when what we perceive, we perceive it in the sense of a challenge. Thus, in this sense, in this spiritual view, we must evaluate the relationship between tradition and modernity in a special way, recognizing that this relationship is atypical; however, the recognition of this must not result in tear-filled nostalgia for the past (however justified a nostalgia by itself may be) but it must awaken an inner mental and spiritual activity. The past may have pragmatic validity for the future and the present situation appears in the sign of the sharpest and most extreme challenge – as long as we’re able to perceive it with utmost awareness.

Source: tradicio

Posted in Principles | Tagged , | Leave a comment