The European New Right: a better way (to attack Christianity)

Kieth Preston at Alternative Right:

The European New Right clearly has much to offer to ordinary conservatives looking for ideas of infinitely greater substance than what is typically found on talk radio, FOX News, or the subcultures of American right-wing populsim. But the philosophy of the ENR might well prove to be the bridge that also helps many disaffected leftists to eventually find their way to the alternative right. The thinkers of the ENR have developed a critique of globalization, imperialism, and Americanization every bit as thorough and radical as that offered by neo-Marxists like Immanuel Wallerstein, indeed even more so. Likewise, the ENR possesses a critique of consumerism, recognition of ecological issues, anticlericalism and critique Christianity that avoids the shrill bigotry of the “new atheists” that at times resembles but is more substantive than that offered by the Left. The ENR emphasis on the sovereignty and self-preservation of all peoples might even appeal to non-white nationalist, separatist, or autonomist movements.

Writers of the ENR have also advanced an intelligent and sincere but measured social and cultural conservatism that lacks the “homosexual-atheist-abortionist-under-every-bed” hysteria of the American right-wing. ENR thought upholds masculine and feminine identities without sinking into crass misogyny, and De Benoist has even controversially called for solidarity with Third World nationalism against US imperialism in a way that resembles a rightist version of Chomsky, and advocated a federated European “empire” of autonomous ethnic, cultural, and national identities that is reminiscient of the Holy Roman Empire (which, as Voltaire said, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire). Meanwhile, the ENR-sympathetic Telos journal has postulated a critique of the modern liberal-managerial “new class” that greatly resembles Bakunin’s early critique of Marxism.

European neo-pagan intellectuals are more thoughtful than Fox News.  I don’t doubt it, but is that really the fair comparison to make?  Is it really necessary to jettison the faith of our fathers to have something of “infinitely greater substance” than Fox News or talk radio?  Do we really need the heathen to defend traditional morality without being “misogynist” or “hysterical”?

Coincidentally, the last author to post on Alternative Right before Preston was Mark Hackard.  I would suggest to Preston that if he’s really interested in what kind of minds the religion of our civilization produces, Hackard would be an excellent place to start.  Amid the supposed intellectual wasteland of Christianity, he might also give a hearing to Jim Kalb, Laura Wood, Edward Feser, Bruce Charlton, Jerry Salyer, Allan Carlson, David Bentley Hart, and R. R. Reno.  Other names could easily be added here, even without leaving the category of internet writers.  And I would recommend conservative Christians over conservative pretend-pagans not because they’re Christians, but because their political theories are intellectually superior to Alain de Benoist’s bleatings for tolerance and irrationalist hatred of doctrine.  We Christians have shown how submission to universal goodness and truth can organically coexist with loyalty to a particular people and tradition.  The European New Right really should check us out.

Where credit is due

Right after the Breivik massacre, I and others were convinced that the Left was going to use the incident to vilify, and perhaps legally persecute, the entire Right.  I don’t know what the situation is like in Europe (perhaps some of my European readers can fill me in), but in America this seems not to have happened so far.  The Left has largely refrained from exploiting this atrocity for cheap political gain.  Perhaps they’re just waiting until after a suitable period of mourning, but even if that would betoken a decency in our enemies that should be acknowledged.

Another thing.  Justin has been doing some great analysis of the terrorist’s manifesto; he’s really putting the rest of us to shame.  In particular, he’s explained the point that had seemed most perplexing to the rest of us:  how could Brievik not see that his massacre would hurt the anti-immigration cause politically?  In fact, the manifesto explains that increasing popular support to win elections wasn’t his goal.  His goal was prompt overreactions and radicalize both sides.

An important objection to the Muslim strategy

Bonifacius has made me realize a serious danger in my Christian-Muslim alliance strategy:

Now, when certain subjects are discussed, to propose reasons is to entertain the notion that a particular idea is actually a matter of reasonable debate. Sometimes the only way to really convey the sense of censure that a particular idea merits is “bullying,” shunning, etc., as you, Bonald, have noted elsewhere on this blog (see your defense of bullying). It seems, Bonald, that you have simply, and sadly, lost the visceral repugnance that men of the West should have for the Islamic alien worldview and population entering Europe. Rehashing the arguments (like the fact that Mohammedans see Sharia as having universal applicability and therefore are extremely unlikely to respect Christian autonomous areas except when forced to do so by the sword, etc.) is probably futile at this point…

Anyone with a proper love of orthodoxy should feel a corresponding abhorrence of heresy, and of false religions all the more.  It should, as Bonifacius indicates, be an automatic, visceral response, one preceding–indeed precluding–argument.  Has my horror of irreligion caused me to lose a proper horror of false religion?  Perhaps, but if so that’s only a matter of my own soul.  More importantly, though, one could argue that my strategy would expose all Christians who partake in it to this temptation.  If Muslims become our allies, won’t we be tempted to start feeling that the divinity of Christ really isn’t such a big deal after all?  (From the Muslim point of view, it would expose them to the temptation of losing their proper horror of Christian “idolatry” and “tritheism”, but I speak as a Christian.)  Yes, I think this is a real danger.  It may be–although I’m still not sure–a necessary danger; it’s certainly not as spiritually corrosive as any Christian-Liberal alliance against Islam would surely be.  Orthodox Christians have in the past admired non-Christians without spiritual harm (think of St. Thomas and Aristotle and Ibn Sina, or Dante and Virgil) but always from a safe distance in space and time.  We must be sure that my grand anti-liberal alliance doesn’t end up sneaking in liberal “tolerance” through the back door.

Should Muslims lead European conservatism?

I think this discussion deserves its own post.

In a previous entry, I threw this out:

I’m more convinced than ever that a traditionalist movement in Europe will have to be Muslim-led.  We, the remnant of Christendom, would still have much to contribute to and much to gain from such a movement.  Imagine a movement promoting local self-government for religious communities, which would, yet, mean Sharia in Muslim parts, but also no sodomy indoctrination in Christian parts.  We can lament the fact that Muslims would be more palatable leaders and spokesmen for such a movement for the general public, but we must acknowledge it.

Two of my wisest readers disagreed.  (I should probably say four.  While Alan Roebuck and Bruce Charlton haven’t said anything about this proposal, I’m pretty sure I know what they think of it.)  Marcio Silva writes

This is a point where we disagree, by a large margin. I would like to, respectfully, address two aspects of your proposal. The first, is the question on exactly how is your proposal of joining the false (in this case, Islam) with what is true (in this case, Christianity) differs from Frank Meier’s fusionism or Tu Weiming’s “modern confucionism”? Will Muslims “tolerate” what they think to be false on Christianity and will Christian “tolerate” what they think to be false on Islam? A “Muslim-led traditionalist movement in Europe” if successful, would turn Europe in a Muslim-led society would it not? If so, I think it is fair to examine how well are the “Christian parts” of other Muslim-led societies going. How are Christians in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran? How well are Christians doing even in Kosovo? You say the Christians have “much to contribute” to this Muslim-led movement. Historically, apart from being a source for slaves, janissaries and, “raw material” to “organic fertilizer”, how exactly Christians “contribute” to Islam and “gain” from it?
The second aspect that I would like to address is the Muslim behavior in Europe. How exactly this crime-prone, violence-prone, gang-rape prone minority (the data on Muslim crime on Kafirs is abundant, as any reader of VFR, GoV or JihadWatch knows), today on a non-leadership position will, once turned in the majority or achieving leadership, behave in a proper and civilized manner? By the way, would you describe Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Pakistan as “conservative” place where you – as a Catholic – would like to live in? Allowing a troublesome ethnic-religious group to take the leadership of a country never ends well. Ask the whites in post-apartheid South Africa.

JMsmith writes

I have to agree with Marcio Silva, that Bonald is wrong in his fourth point. The word tradition denotes a form of knowledge, but without a qualifier indicates no particular content. Traditional knowledge is knowledge received on authority from the past, usually on the assumption that the people or person who originated the tradition enjoyed some sort of epistemic advantage. This is why modernity opposes all tradition. It stipulates that the present always has epistemic advantage over the past. Because modernity opposes tradition as a form of knowledge, it lumps all traditions together, regardless of content. We traditionalists are not, however, committed to tradition as a form of knowledge, but rather to the received content of our own particular tradition. So, coming to the point, European Muslims will not create a Traditional society, they will produce an Islamic society. If I had to choose between Islam and Hedonistic Nihilism, I think I’d choose Hedonistic Nihilism.

One big issue is how Christianity and Islam relate.  Is any alliance between the two as intellectually incoherent as Frank Meier’s fusionism or Tu Weiming’s Enlightenment-friendly Confuciansim?  I don’t think so; I would say that Christianity and Islam are rivals but not opposites.  Libertarianism and social conservatism, and Confucianism and the Enlightenment are movements in opposite directions.  There’s no coherent way one can push both at the same time.  One can advance Christianity and Islam at the same time.  Their morals and ours are mostly compatible (far more so than are Christian and liberal morals), and in a broad sense, Christians and Muslims would like to push Europe in the same direction (less public blasphemy, less pornography, less usury).  The particularities of our own traditions can be pursued at the local level, since Christians and Muslims usually live in different places, so a robust localism can serve us both.  What’s more, this is the means of coexistence endorsed by both our traditions.  Muhammad himself said that Christians should be unmolested in our own enclaves, while we Christians are obliged to promote subsidiarity when possible.  Both Christians and Muslims accommodated religious minorities through ghetto arrangements in the Middle Ages; it’s the sensible thing to do.  The liberals, by contrast, think they have a right to indoctrinate other people’s children.

Let’s also not loose sight of the contemporary reality.  A Muslim-dominated conservative Europe may not be the ideal, but at this point I think it’s by far the most viable alternative to a completely Leftist Europe.  Christianity is toxic in the public mind.  Europeans think we’re all a bunch of bigots and mass-murderers.  And let’s not forget that half of those European Christians are Roman Catholics, who in the public mind are all child molesters.  No one would ever vote for us.  On the other hand, Islam, as they’ve been told ad nausium, is the religion of peace.  Also, while the genetic differences between us and Turks or Arabs is small, they are regarded as non-white for some reason, which automatically gives them higher status in the European mind.  Finally, they are a more formidable force because of their self-confidence.  They really know that they’re right, and they don’t care what the New York Times says.  Christians conservatives, on the other hand, are use to defeat.  We’ve known nothing else for two centuries.  We’ve come to expect it.  We go into every fight demoralized, worried more about how to avoid social ostracism for what we know will turn out to be an unpopular cause than about how to make it a popular cause.  The Muslims are psychologically better equipped to fight than we are.

Most importantly, between Islam and hedonistic nihilism, I’d choose Islam hands down.

More thoughts on the Breivik fallout

  1. I’m starting to think that David and Reggie are right:  the Leftist establishment will be smart enough to know that the real extreme Right is less of a threat than the mainstream, anti-Islam Right.  The latter is more likely to attract terrorists than the former.  Also, the Left will know better than to waste the political capital they’ve just been handed attacking marginal figures like me.
  2. Larry Auster has announced that he doesn’t fear an investigation of the Right-blogosphere by the authorities.  He thinks it will quickly remove any suspicion that we’re promoting violence.  I suppose it is unlikely that the police will be coming around to take us to jail.  (I’m still a bit worried about rkirk, though.  He’s in the center of the storm.)  However, there are other and better ways to retaliate against us, should the establishment wanted to do so.  One possibility is that the press could take a more direct responsibility for punishing ideological nonconformists, just by picking several of us individually and whipping up lots of bad publicity, say by doing a hit piece on a different blogger each day.  For example, it wouldn’t be too hard for the press to discover my identity, tar me as a “homophobe”, and get me fired from my job, and indeed make me unemployable.  I guarantee that my university would not endure protests and bad publicity for my sake.  Of course, you may say that untenured faculty are in a peculiarly vulnerable position, but that’s not true.  If you work for any medium to large-sized corporation, they no doubt have an extensive diversity bureaucracy that will spring into action once the media targets you.  While they claim not to police the beliefs of their employees, they can always say your non-PC beliefs were creating a “hostile atmosphere” in which gays and Muslims can’t flourish.  But you never mentioned these beliefs at work, you say?  Doesn’t matter:  the media has made sure that all your coworkers know what you think.  Now your very presence creates a hostile atmosphere.  And losing your job is only the beginning!  Media finger pointing can be a trigger for ACT UP,  Antifa, the Black Panthers, or other militant groups to vandalize your property and physically intimidate you and your family.  Freedom of speech is still on the books, but your life has been made a living hell.  Actually, I think this is basically how things work in Europe already.
  3. Again, I don’t think the American far-Right is in danger.  The Left has bigger fish to fry.
  4. I’m more convinced than ever that a traditionalist movement in Europe will have to be Muslim-led.  We, the remnant of Christendom, would still have much to contribute to and much to gain from such a movement.  Imagine a movement promoting local self-government for religious communities, which would, yet, mean Sharia in Muslim parts, but also no sodomy indoctrination in Christian parts.  We can lament the fact that Muslims would be more palatable leaders and spokesmen for such a movement for the general public, but we must acknowledge it.

The main point: we’re all more “extremist” than he is

I wrote that last post at 1am, thinking the matter so urgent that I’d better put in my two cents right away as the Right prepares for a worldwide onslaught.  I don’t think I clearly stated my conclusion:  Breivik is what people would call a moderate conservative.  If he got in a conversation with us, he would surely accuse me of being a homophobe, Justin of being an antisemite, and Larry Auster of being a racist.  And that’s what really makes it the worst of all possible scenarios.  Any anti-terrorism investigator reading up on Breivik’s blog posts and also reading Throne And Altar, The Truth Shall Set You Free, and View from the Right would have tagged Breivik as the least dangerous, the least extremist.  So, if being a Geert-Wilders type “let’s limit Muslim immigration to protect our Jews and queers” Rightist is basically the same as being criminally insane, what will they conclude about the rest of us?

Breivik’s manifesto: what kind of a Rightist is he?

The whole thing sounded too “perfect” to be true, i.e. too in line with all the stereotypes of the Leftist Jewish media, right down to the blonde hair and blue eyes.  (Isn’t it bizarre, by the way, how much hostility they have toward blonde hair and blue eyes?  Where the hell does that come from?)  My first guess was that the guy was an intellectually isolated nut who just decided to call himself a “conservative” and a “fundamentalist” for the shock value, because those are the demon-figures in Norway’s popular culture.  (After all, orthodox/traditionalist/conservative Christians rarely call themselves “fundamentalists” anymore, that word having been successfully made toxic by the media.)  It would be rather like how the “neo-Nazis” in American prisons have no historical or intellectual connection to German National Socialism.  They’re whites who’ve banded together to form a rival gang against the black and hispanic gangs, and they’ve been told that whites banding together in an explicitly racial sense is a Nazi thing to do; hence the superficial existence of American Naziism.

It turns out that’s not what’s going on with Breivik.  Now that we have his manifesto, we know that he has put some serious thought into the relevant political and cultural questions.  What’s more, he seems to have a real intellectual connection to the anti-Muslim European Right, at least in the sense that he read some of the prominent blogs.  We see this not only by the references he drops, but even more by his concentrating on the same set of issues and talking points.  For example, most people didn’t think much when a Blair speech-writer admitted that Labour had deliberately set out to destroy Britain’s homogeneous culture by swamping it with immigrants, but for us conservatives it was a striking vindication of our worldview, and we talk about it a lot.  Sure enough, Breivik brings attention to it as well.

Kevin MacDonald has done excellent work going through the manifesto and highlighting the key parts.  Of multiculturalism, he says

Ideology of multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) is an anti-European hatideologi whose purpose is to destroy European culture, identity and Christianity in general. I equate making multiculturalism with the other hatideologiene: Nazism (anti-Jewish), communism (anti-individualism) and Islam (anti-Kafr).

This characterization of multiculturalism could have come from me (although I would quibble with his characterizations of Nazism, communism, and Islam).  His suggested strategy:

1. Have in place a cultural conservative newspaper with national distribution (which will be the only newspaper that will support the Progress Party in 4 years). For believe me, the Progress Party is going to be sabotaged and torpedoed.  Their voter base of 35% will be “scared” down to 20%.

2. Develop an alternative to the violent extreme Norwegian Marxist organizations Blitz / SOS Racism / Red Youth. This can for example be done by supporting the development of SIOE. Conservatives dare not currently air their views on the street when they know that extreme Marxists will club them down. We can not accept that Labour subsidize these violent “Stoltenberg Art” that systematically terrorize political conservatives.

3. Working to gain control of 10-15 NGOs (kulturmarxists controls currently 10-15 while we only have 2-3).

4. Initiate a partnership with the conservative forces within the Norwegian Church. I know that the liberal forces within the European anti-Jihad movement (Bruce Bawer, among others, and some other liberals) will have a problem with this but the conservative forces within the church are actually one of our best allies. Our main opponents are not the Jihadists but the facilitators—namely multiculturalists.

Excellent strategy, a lot better than the one he actually ended up going with.  I believe the last sentence has the key to why he targetted fellow Norwegians rather than Muslims.  To him, Labour Party youth activists are not “Norwegian children”; they’re more like members of the Janissary Corps in training.  The Janissary’s in the Ottoman Empire, you’ll recall, were Christian children taken from their parents, trained and indoctrinated to be the Sultan’s elite force, a key caste in the system that oppressed their parents.  Today’s European Marxist parties, as Paul Gottfried has shown, have little to do with classical socialist/Marxist concerns about economic nationalization or workers’ advocacy.  Their core concern is mass third-world immigration, something that must be continued at all costs until the host cultures are eradicated.  Epidemics of immigrant-driven violent crime don’t bother them, because to them the white natives are legitimate prey.  Breivik was probably right to think that the teenagers he was gunning down were fanatical enemies of our civilization.  Of course, this shouldn’t detract from our sympathy for them.  They were invincibly ignorant.  They were only following what all their elders had told them was the virtuous path.

MacDonald is probably right to characterize the manifesto as coming from a Geert Wilder’s type conservative, which would make him a “pseudoconservative” by our classification scheme.  In particular, it’s been pointed out that

  1. He’s not a racialist.  He rejects white solidarity and believes anti-jihadism should operate solely at the level of culture and ideology.
  2. He’s not an antisemite.  In fact, he seems strongly Zionist.
  3. He’s not a philosophically traditionalist conservative.  Mark Richardson has pointed out that his theoretical influences are classical or modern liberals (Hobbes, Mill, Kant, Rorty).
  4. He’s not a patriarchist conservative if the following from Arthur at Oz Conservative is accurate:

“The remark by ABB that the mass media won’t mention to you: “we have to ensure
that we influence other culturally [sic] conservatives to take our anti-racist
pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought.” He also condemned the VB (Belgium)
and the English Defence League for “extremism”.

Not, of course, that any of these distinctions are going to help us at all.  Metternich is right; this is a catastrophe for the European Right; it’s going to trigger (or, rather, be an excuse for) a massive persecution.  As one commenter at Alternative Right put it

Champagne/whores/orgies tonight at SPLC/ADL headquarters!

It’s not fair, you say?  What about Muslim and Leftist violence, you say?  I say, the only thing that matters in a democracy is who controls the media.  Given that the enemy controls it, all they have to do is wait for useable events and then publicize them.  And it’s inevitable that useable events will occur.  No movement can screen its members perfectly.  (Or, rather, we’ll be able to screen perfectly when there are only a half dozen of us left.)  To me, what’s most frightening is that one is now tarred as a dangerous extremist if someone who’s once made a comment on your blog goes out and commits a terrorist act.  (So behave, you all.)  So, yes, we’re completely screwed now.  But we were screwed last week too, because we were in a situation where sooner or later something would happen to give the enemy an excuse to round us up.

Eastern Europeans horning in on Jewish victim racket, New Republic editor complains

We all know that it’s a lot easier to be an anti-semite than it used to be.  It used to be that denying the Holocaust earned you this title.  Now, it seems that even regarding the murder of a greater number of gentiles as a crime of equal magnitude is a sign of nefarious intentions.  In this article, James Kirchick reviews Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands:  Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, which sounds like a very interesting (if deeply unpleasant, due to the subject matter) book about the parallel mass-murders of Stalin and Hitler in Eastern Europe during the 30s and 40s.  By their accounting, Hitler murdered 11 million, Stalin 6-9 million (only counting noncombatants, I believe).  That’s 6 million Jews, 11-14 million gentiles.  But, Kirchick and Snyder assure us, the Jewish victims were special.  Why so?  As Snyder notes, the extermination of the Jews had special features.  No doubt.  I’m sure every mass murder is unique in its own way, but what feature makes one so much more important than others?  He suggests that it was the deliberate attempt to eliminate a whole ethnicity, as opposed to an equal number of unrelated persons, that makes the Holocaust so hienous.  I’m not sure how Snyder and Kirchick can reconcile this with the egalitarian individualism they presumably share.  The claim that decimating another ethnicity is worse than directing comparable violence against one’s own is hardly self-evident.  One could easily argue the reverse, that mass murder of one’s own co-ethnics is particularly perverse.  Myself, I say murder is murder.

What especially irritates Kirchick is Eastern European nations presenting themselves as victims just because, well, Hitler and Stalin murdered millions of them.  This is just a dodge, he tells us, to direct attention away from the collaboration of some of their number in anti-semitic massacres.  These countries have failed to “come to terms”, as the saying goes.  No doubt Kirchick would be happy to point them to some Jewish groups who would be happy to help them “come to terms” by accepting their money and groveling.

So, why are the 6 million “unique”, i.e. so much more important than the 11-14 million?  I can’t shake the impression that the real reason is that those 11-14 million were only goyim.  I hasten to point out that this is not a distinctively Jewish sentiment–in fact I’m sure that many Jews would be horrified by such a notion.  Christian Zionists and neoconservatives are often the worst offenders.  One can’t shake the feeling that they regard Jewish lives as being more valuable than gentile lives.

What really makes history

I suspect that things like marriage customs are ultimately more important in the formation of a people than the more visible things like constitutions and ideologies.  In support, here’s an intriguing claim from hbd chick, quoted by Steve Sailer:

No, being tribal is not necessarily the natural state of affairs, but it IS biologically driven. as is being non-tribal. 

Europeans used to be tribal, but that’s because they used to marry their cousins, too, just like the afghanis or iraqis or saudis or libyans of today. the church put an end to all that and then some — it also put an end to all sorts of endogamous practices like polygamy and marrying your dead brother’s wife. first- and second-cousin marriage was banned in 506 a.d., and by the 11th century the church had banned marriage up to SIXTH cousins. 

This forced exogamy resulted in, as steve describes it, “broad but shallow regional blood ties.” almost all of european (and western) history hinges on these loose genetic ties. the whole evolution of european societies from tribes to city-states (think of the venices and the hamburgs of europe) to the nationalistic movements — this was made possible because extended family ties were continually loosened over centuries of european history (from the fall of rome onwards). the broadening of political structures (tribe, city-state, national-state) mirrors the underlying broadening of the genetic ties.

Yes, I know, lots of exceptions in the Middle Ages and afterwards.  Still, the fact that something that is a rule in much of the world was an exception–albeit not a very uncommon one–in Europe is bound to leave an impression on a people.

Is individualism the essence of the West?

That’s what it looks like to non-Western traditionalists.  From Brazilian commenter Marcio Silva:

I’ve been following a debate between the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho and its Russian counterpart, Aleksandr Dugin. While both are traditionalists in a certain sense of the word – they are both Christians, and properly reject all the main tenets of the Modernity on all its fronts and forms. However, Dugin is clearly an Eastern one, with an emphasis on what he calls “Holism” (which would be what Webb calls “Virtuocracy” with a strong strain rooted on the Demoticism – In short, I would describe it as a form of Orthodox Christian National-Bolchevism). Dugin is extremely influent in Russian high spheres, being one of the most trusted advisers of Vladimir Putin (That is, unfortunately, not the case for Olavo).
What should cause Americans (and Western) conservatives pause is that he sees absolutely no distinction between the Christian West and “Materialist West”. Describing materialism and individualism as the “true traditions” of the West, he concedes that if there are any actual conservatives/traditionalists in the West (and in the US), their only role would be as “soldiers of the Eurasian project” acting as fifth columns to destroy the US and the West, submitting the whole world to the “Sacred-Eurasian (Russia and China) Empire”. He certainly concedes that the Muslim World and even Latin America are their allies of convenience in the fight against the US, but I clearly don’t see any practical reason to respect and keep the autonomy of its “zones of influence” (Dugin’s term) under the shade of a hegemonic Russian empire. While Olavo de Carvalho tried to argue to there is an epic struggle in the West between the Materialists-Utilitarianists-Globalists and the Christian (and eventually even a reduce number of Jews) Conservatives/Traditionalists, being the complete destruction of the US the main goal of the former group, Dugin argued that such thing is completely incidental to Western History.

As for the “true traditions of the West”, we have to be clear which civilization we’re talking about.  Everybody knows what “the West” means today:  democratic, secular Europe and its offshoots.  Is this the same civilization as St. Louis or Petrarch?  Is it the same civilization as Plato and Julius Caesar?  I would say no; these are three different civilizations.  There was the Hellenic civilization, defined by its polis and paganism.  This was replaced in around the 4th-5th centuries by the civilization of Christendom, defined by Christianity and its “two swords” of Church and state.  This civilization was supreme in Europe until about 1700, when the worldview of the Enlightenment that was to constitute a new civilization was born.  Over the course of the 19th century, Christendom died, and a new civilization, which we may call Western civilization, took its place.  Western civilization is more or less defined by individualism and materialism, as Dugin accuses.  He would be wrong to see it as the essence of Christendom, just as Dostoevsky was wrong to see what he objected to in the West as being rooted in the Catholic Church, and just as de Maistre and other Catholic traditionalists were wrong to see liberalism as nothing but the working-out of Protestantism.  I do not believe that either the Great Eastern Schism or the Reformation represent a civilizational rift, but rather they were intra-civilizational clashes.