I’m not a traditional person. I adhere to the magical path—in the magical path there is only true and false, not right and wrong.
I have no time for a person, in the Christian register, who looks at someone who overeats and says, “Glutton, sin, bad person—you should be ashamed, you should grovel, you are repulsive.”
People eat too much because they have unexpressed anger—if they expressed their anger, they would eat less. It is connected to depression, because depression is also unexpressed anger—and people eat to deal with depression.
A similar point: while I would prefer Britain not to become a Muslim country I think it will become a Muslim country, though I will not live to see it—because the critical mass required to reorganise society on Muslim lines will not be reached until about 2050, and I will be dead by then.
I say “a Muslim country” in the sense that Islam will be the largest single religion, the predominant cultural influence, and with the youngest population segment—and, eventually, because such a situation cannot exist with a state that is nominally Christian, the actual state religion and de jure hegemonic force (but that would take perhaps a decade of fighting to resolve).
Now, there are many people, people on the right, who would prefer that not to happen—but I think it is the truth that it will happen, so that’s what I say. Otherwise, it would be rhetoric or moralisation—and, further, based on the current set up, a kind of atheistic materialist base with a Christian patina, which I think is corrupt in spiritual terms and, in fact, Satanic, Islam is the superior position.
And I don’t see any counterforce to that—any force that remotely understands the actual issues and what would be required for Britain not to become Muslim, or to achieve a homogenous British state.
A lot of people talk about “remigration” or about “paying people to go back”—realistically, if we launched a crash program now, then what would be required would be 15 years of Syria-style urban warfare, with all the horror that goes with that.
So it’s easy to livestream or talk, but that is the actuality—and I don’t think even the most hardline people have the stomach for that or have really thought about what it would involve, and the actual state doesn’t want it either, not even the military; and nobody is really seriously prepared for it—so it’s not going to happen.
In fact, what it would require is the same spiritual commitment as a man like bin Laden—and there are almost no Europeans who think that way, because even nationalists are materialists at heart and so they think “have a quiet life, complain a bit, have a protest”. That is not adequate.
And it’s not about “random acts of violence” or the glamorisation of violence—it’s about an entire attitude and way to relate to the world.
Violence is common, even political violence, but the worldview you find in a man like bin Laden is uncommon—because the world Western man has created is such that it destroys that sensibility, so that it is almost impossible for Europeans to be like that.
So truthfulness constitutes my approach to life—to everything.
I have no interest in empty moralisation—which usually disguises a secret power game or some concealed pride that you’re a “good person” whereas other people are “bad people”. I see this all the time with leftists and with Christians—and it amounts to the same thing (exoteric religion).
So far as I am concerned there is only truth—if someone has a problem then you offer them a solution to change their situation; if they don’t take the offer, and you don’t know how to make them do it, then just leave them alone.
All life is like that—just show me the truth of the situation and how to solve it, or get out of the way.
Hence I am not for traditions—I am not a conservative in the reflex sense. I am only for traditions insofar as in certain circumstances, when our knowledge is limited, the traditional answer is the best available answer—I am not for “how it is” in and of itself, how it is happens to be based on many lies and misconceptions and empty verbiage.
Show me what is wrong and how to fix it, otherwise be quiet. If someone does something wrong, show me how to make them not do it again—don’t give me an endless lecture about how they’re “evil” or a “sinner”.
If a tradition happens to also be true, it gets kept—if it’s discovered to be false, it goes.
But I have no interest in the blanket removal of tradition, unless you can demonstrate to me that what you intend to do instead is better.
This is why I am not “conservative” and why I am not exactly “on the right”, though I agree with the right more than the left (just de facto)—you could say I go straight up the middle, but I am not a centrist either.
You cannot go back—and the best way to deal with change is to move with it, like water. That is to say, as with physical evolution, “the only way to stay the same is for everything to change”—that is a paradoxical statement, but people who just “oppose”, like a marble edifice, will be washed away.
You have to accept the situation as it is, integrate it, and then continue the principle in a new form—the past will never come back, on the material plane, and only the archetype, the meta level, can be preserved; and if you hold on to the superficial form you will lose the meta level as well.
Hence in no sense do I want to “go back”—nostalgia is sentimentalism, only what is cold and vigorous can survive; and that means to deal with the current situation, perennial truths, and eternal truths—not nostalgia for yesterday.
In technical terms, I only live in the now and what is above the now—where past, present, and future meet.
As for “Tradition” with a capital “T”, that is another thing—it’s a series of steps in an initiation, the steps may be a tradition but the “the Tradition” is a means to reach a state where you know there is only truth.
There may well be traditions that help you attain “the Tradition”, the initiation, but traditions are not the same as what is a state of initiation—and is not itself reducible to “a tradition”.