What do you think?
Rate this book
The Occult War
The Occult War - The Judeo-Masonic Plan to Conquer the World. "Emmanuel Malynski spent thirty years of his life directly observing the development of the modern revolutionary movement around the world, devoting an almost visionary intelligence and clear-mindedness to this task. ... From our mutual collaboration this book has sprung, which explores the secret history of subversion, a terrifying history that has never been written before, but which is starting to come to light." - Leon de Poncins, from the Foreword "One of the great merits of this work is that it emphasises the metaphysical essence of the revolutionary movement, by showing how that which is being fought nowadays is not so much a political and social war as a religious one - a battle between two supra-national fronts more than one for the interests of individual nations, races, or parties; that what we are witnessing today, then, is a possibly decisive phase in the clash between two antagonistic worldviews, with more than simply human forces at work on both sides. Hence, this is not merely a book of rebuke and anti-Semitic or anti-Masonic polemic: rather it directly or indirectly offers the reader many cues to develop a positive, constructive, or re-constructive orientation focused on the essential rather than the accessory, and devoid of any attenuation." - Julius Evola, from the Introduction The original edition of this book was published in French in Paris in 1936. The Italian traditionalist philosopher Julius Evola translated the book into Italian, and published it 1939, adding his own Introduction and an additional chapter after an agreement with de Poncins. This translation is based on both editions, including Evola's Introduction and chapter as well. Evola also made a number of interesting alterations to the text, occasionally adding, removing, or rewriting small parts of the French original. We have noted these changes in the footnotes, as they offer an insight into the different ways in which de Poncins and Evola approached the same issues. Included in this edition is also two appendices: Evola's essay 'Considerations on the Occult War', which is a 1938 essay on this topic; and a review of the French edition of the book that was published by the first traditionalist philosopher, Rene Guenon, in 1936."
286 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1936
13 people are currently reading
233 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 15, 2016
It has been a while since I have read a book that I enjoyed as much as this one. The book is indeed of great importance and helps the reader to draw parallels to contemporary times. The subversion obviously did not stop in 1936 when this book was published. Great translation(s) and some really valuable appendixes (especially the first one by Evola).
May 27, 2016
Let me start by saying that the amount of work that went in to this translation is impressive by any standards. Translating the text twice from two different languages and including the differences as notes was very interesting and a unique touch. The text is flawless, the cover art is excellent. The people involved with this translation deserve nothing but praise for all the hard work. Unfortunately the text itself is another matter entirely.
Malynski/de Poncins basically envisions a return to feudalism and Christian fundamentalism as the ideal society. I could not disagree more!
Malynski/de Poncins makes the point that in the case of “absolute monarchs … the state represents their personal fortune, power, wealth and glory, as well as their descendants heritage.” And the “landed aristocracy … who are not nomadic … [because] the fortune of these nobles consists of a sum of elements drawn from the national territory: it is not mobile and is not based on credit, which is to say on debts that make it dependent on creditors.” “To behave dishonestly towards his own country, a nobleman – not to mention a king – must be dishonest to the point of selflessness and stupidity, something rare indeed.”p-59 To seriously claim that actions taken by “nobleman’s and kings” motivated by self interest to the detriment of “the country” is “rare indeed” is utter nonsense and can only be made by someone with no knowledge of history or want to distort history in order to promote a cause they are emotionally attached to. Emotional attachments seldom mirror objective assessments and thus the need for distortion to keep the illusion alive.
Malynski/de Poncins turns our attention to the Russian reformer Stolypin and explains that “his aim was to make the feudalism he loved a blessing for the whole nation rather than the exclusive privilege of one class, as it had been in the Middle Ages.” Stolypin assures us that “the only people who will find what we are saying paradoxical will be those who struggle to grasp the true nature of feudalism, and only see its limits and shortcomings. The detractors of the old regimes, whose job consists of distorting historical facts, have managed to confuse two completely different things: feudalism and servitude. Whereas the former reflects the relation between lords and their sovereign, or the mutual relation among lords, the latter describes the lords` relation to the peasants, their serfs. Feudalism is a specific product of the Christian Middle Ages, by virtue of which all members of the landed aristocracy, including minor country squires, exercise independent sovereignty over their own lands – just as an emperor or a king does over his territory. An emperor or a king will be the suzerain of nobleman, but not their master. They, in turn, will not be his slaves, but rather his soldiers and military cadres, and this for their own personal safety – for each of them individually could never adequately defend himself in the event of conflict with other nobles or another king. … All of Stolypin`s efforts were directed at turning each man of the people into a small, independent lord and individual sovereign within his own domain, like a baron of the Middle Ages. Like barons, these men would have become vassals and tributaries of the crown: they would have been expected to obey its laws and conform to the rules of the Christian faith. … Stolypin`s idea was to create an individualist and decentralised society founded on private property.”p-164
This system also had an inbuilt hindrance to social mobility.
“The best investment, they [country gentlemen] reckoned, was their own ancestral land, the object of their affectionate attention and legitimate pride. From father to son, they would try to improve it and make it more attractive, as kings might do with their kingdoms: for they were not birds of passage, but actually lived on the land. In other words, each landowner was indissolubly tied to his inheritance, which represented his raison d`être and would often bear his very name. Money comes and goes, but land remains”p-172
But here we have to stop and ask our selves if there really is such a profound difference in the two feudal systems as Stolypin argues or if the differences are just superficial and semantic. It is in the personal interest of the nobility and their descendants to secure their position to the detriment of the system as a whole and because there are no avenues for social movement by meritocratic means the only alternative is violence by the lower class (throughout the hierarchy) and the upper classes have to dominate all lower classes out of necessity.
The difference between aristocratic and meritocratic elitism, or hierarchy is social mobility. A system without social mobility is at best a stagnant system but inevitably will decline because of the laws of nature. By denying race or obscuring the concept (of biological race) by adding your own fantasies to it such as “spiritual race” you are ignoring the laws of heredity. Heredity is not a linear process in the individual but a dispersion of traits over a scale that is tilted towards the mean of the group, this is known as regression towards the mean. It is only in a large group or a population with a high level of biological stability that heredity starts to be somewhat linear, unless there are eugenic or dysgenic processes affecting the outcome.
Christianity and communism are very similar systems outside of rhetoric and both were stagnant and dysgenic systems with minimal social mobility. In the few instances you had elitist meritocracy in these systems there where other mechanisms that prevented it from having a eugenic effect. In Christian feudalism you had the celibacy of the clergy and the un-family friendly situation of the military and high mortality rate of the campaigns. In both systems you had an aristocracy that bread among themselves and discouraged social advancement by social and economic measures and the masses that where kept in squalor with no avenues of social mobility regardless of merit. (on the effects of heredity on society see Pendell) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
As Beddoe so honestly puts it, “it may be worth while to note again how often finely developed skulls are discovered in the graveyards of old monasteries, and how likely seems Galtons conjecture, that progress was arrested in the Middle Ages, because the celibacy of the clergy brought about the extinction of the best strains of blood.”
National Socialism on the other hand went to great lengths to ensure social mobility based on merit, and incidentally this was also one of the major things Evola saw as something negative in National Socialism. (see Notes on the Third Reich)
In order to make good decisions you have to have access to accurate information. If you base your decisions on false information the decisions you make will have unforeseen consequences. That is why people who say we should not read about race are wrong. You have to have an understanding of heredity in order to make good decisions. Race, contrary to what some like to tell you, is not an unproven concept, its biological fact.
In chapter 4 titled, 1848: The beginning of the world revolution, Malynski/de Poncins gives the impression that the Jews established them selves in Europe because of nationalism in the Westphalian sense ignoring the fact that Jews had been in Europe for centuries being well established and very “successful” at certain periods and feeling the backlash at others, but the point being the Jewish presence in Europe preceded Westphalian sovereignty.
“All the anarchic developments of later democracies enabled the Jews to acquire grater influence and power. All the armaments imposed by the exacerbation of nationalism were a source of revenue for them. The taxes that ruined nations and men enriched the Jews, who were their ultimate recipients via the state. The Jews became the universal creditors.”p-51 This conveniently overlooks the fact that Jews had been profiteering from war from time immemorial lending money to warring kings, Charlemagne for example as shown below, never mind the crusades and the fact that Jews often functioned as tax collectors in Christian societies, rising to great influence through the affluence it brought.
“We have already frequently referred to the huge service which nationalism paid to the cause of subversion by dividing the Christian front, thereby preventing it from standing united against the common enemy.”p-104 This is simply not true. The notion of a united “Christian front” is a myth in minds of religious zealots with no basis in reality regardless of subversion or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...
Malynski/de Poncins states of Metternich, “Steeped in the traditions of the Holy Roman Empire, which for centuries had been ruled by his sovereign`s forefathers, Metternich was less concerned with his own country of Austria than he was with Europe. He was certainly one of the greatest Europeans after Charlemagne. Metternich was not one of those senseless men for whom the highest diplomatic refinement lies in complacently gazing at a neighbour’s house as it catches fire.”-p32
This statement is an excellent illustration of the confused reasoning permeating the writings of Malynski/de Poncins. Charlemagne was a mass murder who killed and tortured European people in the worst possible way never mind the fact that he was also in the pocket of the Jews. For someone like Malynski and de Poncins who frequently decries supposed Jewish subversion and then views Charlemagne as “the greatest European”, should on its own be enough to question the value of their writing. http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot....
“From about 772 onward Charlemagne’s chief preoccupation became the conversion to Christianity of the Saxons” writes Robert Ferguson in The Vikings: A History, and continues “[Charlemagne’s] determination to achieve his purpose is evident from an entry in the Royal Frankish Annals for 775: … he [Charlemagne] decided to attack … and to persist in this war until they [the Saxons] were either defeated and forced to accept the Christian religion or entirely exterminated.” (Ferguson p.49-50)
In 782 Charlemagne perpetrated the massacre at Verden where he had as many as 4,500 prisoners executed after they were baptised, the Saxon population that submitted and where spared were “dispersed” among other peoples in forced relocations as were also often used by the Bolsheviks in order to uproot and separate peoples from their identity, as was the desecration and destruction of religious and cultural symbols, another tactic also favoured by Charlemagne for instance when he “destroyed Irmensul, the sacred wooden pillar or tree that was the Saxons most holy shrine, and probably their version of the “world tree” Yggdrasil of Scandinavian cosmology”.( Ferguson p.50-51)
And for those who believe Charlemagne was a great defender of Europe and saw the Muslim menace as the main enemy even “the great English historian Edward Gibbon expressed surprise at the degree of effort the emperor [Charlemagne] put into the war, reflecting on “three-and-thirty campaigns laboriously consumed in the woods and morasses of Germany” which would have brought easier and greater glory had they been directed against the Greeks in Italy, and a further reduction in Muslim power in Spain.”( Ferguson p.53) So it is evident that Charlemagne saw northern Europeans as his main enemy and concentrated the greatest effort to the destruction and subjugation of northern Europe rather than non-European Mohammedans.
Charlemagne was not the least concerned with Europe or Europeans as such, but solely with Christianity. Saying that Charlemagne was a great European just shows the confusion that arises with the implementation of a monotheistic replacement identity. The reason for this is that it unequivocally introduces a dualistic view of the world in that God represents the ultimate good and thus all that is not part of that ultimate good is the ultimate evil. So in accordance with this not only are a non-Christian not a European, a non-Christian is a non-human and thus “Heathens were defined as less than fully human so that, under contemporary Frankish canon law, no penance was payable for the killing of one.”( Ferguson p.51)
Sunic explains that “with the consolidation of the Judeo-Christian belief, the world and the world phenomena came under the sway of the fixed concepts and categories governed by the logic of “either-or”, “true or false, and “good or evil” and thus “considerably altered the Europeans … perception of the world”. (Sunic p.7) And I would add, perception of them selves.
Jonathan Bowden explains that the reason this mindset is so detrimental is because “denigration that comes from without is rain that bounces off, and can be withstood: you can put up an umbrella and get rid of it. But that which comes from inside is much more corrosive, much more deconstructive, much more disabling” and continues “the problem we have, is if you are very Christian or post-Christian in your morality – where there`s a total dualism of good and evil … you are “endwarfed” … you are semi-humiliated, from the start.”(Bowden p.96) This makes it very difficult for any form of self-assertion contrary to the current cultural paradigm because it imposes absolute standards of morality. So anyone that strays outside of this paradigm, whether it be in opinion or statement of objective truth is not opposed for being wrong but opposed for being evil.
Malynski/de Poncins tries to conceptualise and frame the phenomena of their investigation by attempting to identify and analyse the driving forces in society by directing our attention to how Metternich was criticised for saying “liberalism is nothing but a prelude to Jacobinism”-p30 and concludes that “Metternich was not as blind as many of our contemporary conservatives and nobles. While having been offered so many occasions to study these symptoms in all their apparent diversity – phenomena carefully differentiated so as to only progressively deliver small shocks – these men have failed to realise the intrinsic unity and causal relationships among things that, for over a century, have been mutually distinguished merely as a way of fooling and confounding the short-sighted with a range of different names: liberalism, humanitarianism, tolerance, free thought, modernism, constitutionalism, and parliamentarianism – idyllic preludes to Jacobinism, radicalism, Communism, the Committee of Public Safety and the Cheka. Metternich’s superiority compared to all other statesman of his century – not to mention those of later times – lies precisely in the fact that he grasped the evil of the future as a united whole and synthesis.” –p31
But Metternich nor Malynski or de Poncins grasps the relationship to their own present, or their own preconceived notions if you will. They are so comfortable in their servitude to the imposed religious superstructure that they are unable to see the connection between the “secular revolt” and its implicit theological content as the natural expression of Christianity in a new form.
As Tom Sunic straightforwardly states “seen in hindsight, Christian intolerance against heretics, Jews, and pagans may be compared to the twentieth-century Bolshevik intolerance against class opponents in Russia and Eastern Europe – with one exception: it lasted longer.” Sunic continues “Undoubtedly, early Christians must have genuinely believed that the end of history loomed large on the horizon and, with their historical optimism, as well as their violence against the “infidels”, they probably deserved the name of the Bolsheviks of antiquity.” (Sunic p.4)
Actions are always preceded by thoughts, both on a conscious and subconscious level. Ideas and thoughts formulate “operational software” in order to interpret the world around us, and depending on the outlook you tend to end up in a similar place despite seeming oppositional surface positions.
“The origins of modern totalitarianism” says de Benoist “are not difficult to trace. In a secular form, they are tied to the same radical strain of intolerance whose religious causes we have just examined. The organization of totalitarianism is patterned after the organization on the Christian church, and in a similar manner totalitarianisms exploit the themes of the “masses” – the themes inherent in contemporary mass democracy. This secularization of the system has, in fact, rendered totalitarianisms more dangerous – independently of the fact that religious intolerance often triggers, in return, an equally destructive revolutionary intolerance.” (Sunic p.27)
The point is that monotheism (Christianity) is not limited to theology and religious matters, it is not a practice it is a state of mind. It creates a mentality that permeates all aspects of life, and it is my view that it is this state of mind that is the problem, not the surface expressions of it, be it Freemasonry, Communism or Christianity.
What is presented is thus a false dichotomy, in the case of de Poncins and Malynsky Christianity vs Freemasonry/Communism and in the case of Evola and Geunon ”Traditionalism” vs Occult War.
Refrences:
Ferguson, Robert (2010) The Vikings: A history. Penguin Books
Sunic, Tom (2010) Postmortem report. (Monotheism vs. Polytheism by Alain de Benoist) The palingenesis project.
Bowden, Jonathan., Johnson, Greg (2014) Western Civilization bites Back. Counter-Currents Publishing Ltd.
Beddoe, John (2013) The anthropological history of Europe. Ostara Publications.
Evola, Julius (2013) Notes on the Third Reich. Arktos
Malynski/de Poncins basically envisions a return to feudalism and Christian fundamentalism as the ideal society. I could not disagree more!
Malynski/de Poncins makes the point that in the case of “absolute monarchs … the state represents their personal fortune, power, wealth and glory, as well as their descendants heritage.” And the “landed aristocracy … who are not nomadic … [because] the fortune of these nobles consists of a sum of elements drawn from the national territory: it is not mobile and is not based on credit, which is to say on debts that make it dependent on creditors.” “To behave dishonestly towards his own country, a nobleman – not to mention a king – must be dishonest to the point of selflessness and stupidity, something rare indeed.”p-59 To seriously claim that actions taken by “nobleman’s and kings” motivated by self interest to the detriment of “the country” is “rare indeed” is utter nonsense and can only be made by someone with no knowledge of history or want to distort history in order to promote a cause they are emotionally attached to. Emotional attachments seldom mirror objective assessments and thus the need for distortion to keep the illusion alive.
Malynski/de Poncins turns our attention to the Russian reformer Stolypin and explains that “his aim was to make the feudalism he loved a blessing for the whole nation rather than the exclusive privilege of one class, as it had been in the Middle Ages.” Stolypin assures us that “the only people who will find what we are saying paradoxical will be those who struggle to grasp the true nature of feudalism, and only see its limits and shortcomings. The detractors of the old regimes, whose job consists of distorting historical facts, have managed to confuse two completely different things: feudalism and servitude. Whereas the former reflects the relation between lords and their sovereign, or the mutual relation among lords, the latter describes the lords` relation to the peasants, their serfs. Feudalism is a specific product of the Christian Middle Ages, by virtue of which all members of the landed aristocracy, including minor country squires, exercise independent sovereignty over their own lands – just as an emperor or a king does over his territory. An emperor or a king will be the suzerain of nobleman, but not their master. They, in turn, will not be his slaves, but rather his soldiers and military cadres, and this for their own personal safety – for each of them individually could never adequately defend himself in the event of conflict with other nobles or another king. … All of Stolypin`s efforts were directed at turning each man of the people into a small, independent lord and individual sovereign within his own domain, like a baron of the Middle Ages. Like barons, these men would have become vassals and tributaries of the crown: they would have been expected to obey its laws and conform to the rules of the Christian faith. … Stolypin`s idea was to create an individualist and decentralised society founded on private property.”p-164
This system also had an inbuilt hindrance to social mobility.
“The best investment, they [country gentlemen] reckoned, was their own ancestral land, the object of their affectionate attention and legitimate pride. From father to son, they would try to improve it and make it more attractive, as kings might do with their kingdoms: for they were not birds of passage, but actually lived on the land. In other words, each landowner was indissolubly tied to his inheritance, which represented his raison d`être and would often bear his very name. Money comes and goes, but land remains”p-172
But here we have to stop and ask our selves if there really is such a profound difference in the two feudal systems as Stolypin argues or if the differences are just superficial and semantic. It is in the personal interest of the nobility and their descendants to secure their position to the detriment of the system as a whole and because there are no avenues for social movement by meritocratic means the only alternative is violence by the lower class (throughout the hierarchy) and the upper classes have to dominate all lower classes out of necessity.
The difference between aristocratic and meritocratic elitism, or hierarchy is social mobility. A system without social mobility is at best a stagnant system but inevitably will decline because of the laws of nature. By denying race or obscuring the concept (of biological race) by adding your own fantasies to it such as “spiritual race” you are ignoring the laws of heredity. Heredity is not a linear process in the individual but a dispersion of traits over a scale that is tilted towards the mean of the group, this is known as regression towards the mean. It is only in a large group or a population with a high level of biological stability that heredity starts to be somewhat linear, unless there are eugenic or dysgenic processes affecting the outcome.
Christianity and communism are very similar systems outside of rhetoric and both were stagnant and dysgenic systems with minimal social mobility. In the few instances you had elitist meritocracy in these systems there where other mechanisms that prevented it from having a eugenic effect. In Christian feudalism you had the celibacy of the clergy and the un-family friendly situation of the military and high mortality rate of the campaigns. In both systems you had an aristocracy that bread among themselves and discouraged social advancement by social and economic measures and the masses that where kept in squalor with no avenues of social mobility regardless of merit. (on the effects of heredity on society see Pendell) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
As Beddoe so honestly puts it, “it may be worth while to note again how often finely developed skulls are discovered in the graveyards of old monasteries, and how likely seems Galtons conjecture, that progress was arrested in the Middle Ages, because the celibacy of the clergy brought about the extinction of the best strains of blood.”
National Socialism on the other hand went to great lengths to ensure social mobility based on merit, and incidentally this was also one of the major things Evola saw as something negative in National Socialism. (see Notes on the Third Reich)
In order to make good decisions you have to have access to accurate information. If you base your decisions on false information the decisions you make will have unforeseen consequences. That is why people who say we should not read about race are wrong. You have to have an understanding of heredity in order to make good decisions. Race, contrary to what some like to tell you, is not an unproven concept, its biological fact.
In chapter 4 titled, 1848: The beginning of the world revolution, Malynski/de Poncins gives the impression that the Jews established them selves in Europe because of nationalism in the Westphalian sense ignoring the fact that Jews had been in Europe for centuries being well established and very “successful” at certain periods and feeling the backlash at others, but the point being the Jewish presence in Europe preceded Westphalian sovereignty.
“All the anarchic developments of later democracies enabled the Jews to acquire grater influence and power. All the armaments imposed by the exacerbation of nationalism were a source of revenue for them. The taxes that ruined nations and men enriched the Jews, who were their ultimate recipients via the state. The Jews became the universal creditors.”p-51 This conveniently overlooks the fact that Jews had been profiteering from war from time immemorial lending money to warring kings, Charlemagne for example as shown below, never mind the crusades and the fact that Jews often functioned as tax collectors in Christian societies, rising to great influence through the affluence it brought.
“We have already frequently referred to the huge service which nationalism paid to the cause of subversion by dividing the Christian front, thereby preventing it from standing united against the common enemy.”p-104 This is simply not true. The notion of a united “Christian front” is a myth in minds of religious zealots with no basis in reality regardless of subversion or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...
Malynski/de Poncins states of Metternich, “Steeped in the traditions of the Holy Roman Empire, which for centuries had been ruled by his sovereign`s forefathers, Metternich was less concerned with his own country of Austria than he was with Europe. He was certainly one of the greatest Europeans after Charlemagne. Metternich was not one of those senseless men for whom the highest diplomatic refinement lies in complacently gazing at a neighbour’s house as it catches fire.”-p32
This statement is an excellent illustration of the confused reasoning permeating the writings of Malynski/de Poncins. Charlemagne was a mass murder who killed and tortured European people in the worst possible way never mind the fact that he was also in the pocket of the Jews. For someone like Malynski and de Poncins who frequently decries supposed Jewish subversion and then views Charlemagne as “the greatest European”, should on its own be enough to question the value of their writing. http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot....
“From about 772 onward Charlemagne’s chief preoccupation became the conversion to Christianity of the Saxons” writes Robert Ferguson in The Vikings: A History, and continues “[Charlemagne’s] determination to achieve his purpose is evident from an entry in the Royal Frankish Annals for 775: … he [Charlemagne] decided to attack … and to persist in this war until they [the Saxons] were either defeated and forced to accept the Christian religion or entirely exterminated.” (Ferguson p.49-50)
In 782 Charlemagne perpetrated the massacre at Verden where he had as many as 4,500 prisoners executed after they were baptised, the Saxon population that submitted and where spared were “dispersed” among other peoples in forced relocations as were also often used by the Bolsheviks in order to uproot and separate peoples from their identity, as was the desecration and destruction of religious and cultural symbols, another tactic also favoured by Charlemagne for instance when he “destroyed Irmensul, the sacred wooden pillar or tree that was the Saxons most holy shrine, and probably their version of the “world tree” Yggdrasil of Scandinavian cosmology”.( Ferguson p.50-51)
And for those who believe Charlemagne was a great defender of Europe and saw the Muslim menace as the main enemy even “the great English historian Edward Gibbon expressed surprise at the degree of effort the emperor [Charlemagne] put into the war, reflecting on “three-and-thirty campaigns laboriously consumed in the woods and morasses of Germany” which would have brought easier and greater glory had they been directed against the Greeks in Italy, and a further reduction in Muslim power in Spain.”( Ferguson p.53) So it is evident that Charlemagne saw northern Europeans as his main enemy and concentrated the greatest effort to the destruction and subjugation of northern Europe rather than non-European Mohammedans.
Charlemagne was not the least concerned with Europe or Europeans as such, but solely with Christianity. Saying that Charlemagne was a great European just shows the confusion that arises with the implementation of a monotheistic replacement identity. The reason for this is that it unequivocally introduces a dualistic view of the world in that God represents the ultimate good and thus all that is not part of that ultimate good is the ultimate evil. So in accordance with this not only are a non-Christian not a European, a non-Christian is a non-human and thus “Heathens were defined as less than fully human so that, under contemporary Frankish canon law, no penance was payable for the killing of one.”( Ferguson p.51)
Sunic explains that “with the consolidation of the Judeo-Christian belief, the world and the world phenomena came under the sway of the fixed concepts and categories governed by the logic of “either-or”, “true or false, and “good or evil” and thus “considerably altered the Europeans … perception of the world”. (Sunic p.7) And I would add, perception of them selves.
Jonathan Bowden explains that the reason this mindset is so detrimental is because “denigration that comes from without is rain that bounces off, and can be withstood: you can put up an umbrella and get rid of it. But that which comes from inside is much more corrosive, much more deconstructive, much more disabling” and continues “the problem we have, is if you are very Christian or post-Christian in your morality – where there`s a total dualism of good and evil … you are “endwarfed” … you are semi-humiliated, from the start.”(Bowden p.96) This makes it very difficult for any form of self-assertion contrary to the current cultural paradigm because it imposes absolute standards of morality. So anyone that strays outside of this paradigm, whether it be in opinion or statement of objective truth is not opposed for being wrong but opposed for being evil.
Malynski/de Poncins tries to conceptualise and frame the phenomena of their investigation by attempting to identify and analyse the driving forces in society by directing our attention to how Metternich was criticised for saying “liberalism is nothing but a prelude to Jacobinism”-p30 and concludes that “Metternich was not as blind as many of our contemporary conservatives and nobles. While having been offered so many occasions to study these symptoms in all their apparent diversity – phenomena carefully differentiated so as to only progressively deliver small shocks – these men have failed to realise the intrinsic unity and causal relationships among things that, for over a century, have been mutually distinguished merely as a way of fooling and confounding the short-sighted with a range of different names: liberalism, humanitarianism, tolerance, free thought, modernism, constitutionalism, and parliamentarianism – idyllic preludes to Jacobinism, radicalism, Communism, the Committee of Public Safety and the Cheka. Metternich’s superiority compared to all other statesman of his century – not to mention those of later times – lies precisely in the fact that he grasped the evil of the future as a united whole and synthesis.” –p31
But Metternich nor Malynski or de Poncins grasps the relationship to their own present, or their own preconceived notions if you will. They are so comfortable in their servitude to the imposed religious superstructure that they are unable to see the connection between the “secular revolt” and its implicit theological content as the natural expression of Christianity in a new form.
As Tom Sunic straightforwardly states “seen in hindsight, Christian intolerance against heretics, Jews, and pagans may be compared to the twentieth-century Bolshevik intolerance against class opponents in Russia and Eastern Europe – with one exception: it lasted longer.” Sunic continues “Undoubtedly, early Christians must have genuinely believed that the end of history loomed large on the horizon and, with their historical optimism, as well as their violence against the “infidels”, they probably deserved the name of the Bolsheviks of antiquity.” (Sunic p.4)
Actions are always preceded by thoughts, both on a conscious and subconscious level. Ideas and thoughts formulate “operational software” in order to interpret the world around us, and depending on the outlook you tend to end up in a similar place despite seeming oppositional surface positions.
“The origins of modern totalitarianism” says de Benoist “are not difficult to trace. In a secular form, they are tied to the same radical strain of intolerance whose religious causes we have just examined. The organization of totalitarianism is patterned after the organization on the Christian church, and in a similar manner totalitarianisms exploit the themes of the “masses” – the themes inherent in contemporary mass democracy. This secularization of the system has, in fact, rendered totalitarianisms more dangerous – independently of the fact that religious intolerance often triggers, in return, an equally destructive revolutionary intolerance.” (Sunic p.27)
The point is that monotheism (Christianity) is not limited to theology and religious matters, it is not a practice it is a state of mind. It creates a mentality that permeates all aspects of life, and it is my view that it is this state of mind that is the problem, not the surface expressions of it, be it Freemasonry, Communism or Christianity.
What is presented is thus a false dichotomy, in the case of de Poncins and Malynsky Christianity vs Freemasonry/Communism and in the case of Evola and Geunon ”Traditionalism” vs Occult War.
Refrences:
Ferguson, Robert (2010) The Vikings: A history. Penguin Books
Sunic, Tom (2010) Postmortem report. (Monotheism vs. Polytheism by Alain de Benoist) The palingenesis project.
Bowden, Jonathan., Johnson, Greg (2014) Western Civilization bites Back. Counter-Currents Publishing Ltd.
Beddoe, John (2013) The anthropological history of Europe. Ostara Publications.
Evola, Julius (2013) Notes on the Third Reich. Arktos
April 6, 2025
The appendix which included René Guénon’s own review conveniently conveyed some of my own thoughts coming away from this book.
I feel and can sympathize with where the authors are coming from, that the course of history and its revolutions aren’t so ‘random’ and spontaneous as we’d perhaps typically consider them.
As well, that the spirit which modernism has brought, whose attacks on the previous order and feudal Christian world has been a spiritual detriment and deviation.
What brings me to reign things back is that I feel the authors are being both short-sighted and narrow-minded.
This view of an ‘Occult War’ seems to swing to the opposite extreme, attributing history’s deviations and revolutions as all too deliberate and planned, with blame put squarely on particular groups, especially ‘the Jews’, despite things of this nature not being so simple and, in a sense, tangible.
Funnily, I think it can be argued that the authors were caught up in the rhetoric of their times (this was published in 1936), and so are themselves their own reinforcement to the more unwitting nature of people’s responsibility in history’s revolutions - which they themselves argued Lenin himself was; an unawares ‘tool’ of the various movements.
On a more understandable level the authors only claim and are concerned with this ‘Occult War’ being exclusively directed at Christianity, rather than against all orthodox traditions.
Understandable in the sense that I don’t expect everyone to have an extended view beyond their own faith, it’s typically not necessary.
However, when it comes to this subject matter, it does leave a lot to be desired in how narrow the greater picture it claims to tackle is being viewed.
Are grand, planned, deliberate conspiracies plotted by tangible, externally working and evil masterminds cooler, more fun and easier to get behind?
Yeah.
And it’s their attractiveness and over-simplicity of the world’s workings that makes conspiracies so popular with people. Perhaps it's a transfer or inverted version of the higher human inclination to see greater causes behind phenomena.
If there’s anything to place at the end of this that I think is important/relevant it’s to be more conscious and ‘active’ in your being, rather than being passive to the influences around you, be that of the world or of the flesh.
I feel and can sympathize with where the authors are coming from, that the course of history and its revolutions aren’t so ‘random’ and spontaneous as we’d perhaps typically consider them.
As well, that the spirit which modernism has brought, whose attacks on the previous order and feudal Christian world has been a spiritual detriment and deviation.
What brings me to reign things back is that I feel the authors are being both short-sighted and narrow-minded.
This view of an ‘Occult War’ seems to swing to the opposite extreme, attributing history’s deviations and revolutions as all too deliberate and planned, with blame put squarely on particular groups, especially ‘the Jews’, despite things of this nature not being so simple and, in a sense, tangible.
Funnily, I think it can be argued that the authors were caught up in the rhetoric of their times (this was published in 1936), and so are themselves their own reinforcement to the more unwitting nature of people’s responsibility in history’s revolutions - which they themselves argued Lenin himself was; an unawares ‘tool’ of the various movements.
On a more understandable level the authors only claim and are concerned with this ‘Occult War’ being exclusively directed at Christianity, rather than against all orthodox traditions.
Understandable in the sense that I don’t expect everyone to have an extended view beyond their own faith, it’s typically not necessary.
However, when it comes to this subject matter, it does leave a lot to be desired in how narrow the greater picture it claims to tackle is being viewed.
Are grand, planned, deliberate conspiracies plotted by tangible, externally working and evil masterminds cooler, more fun and easier to get behind?
Yeah.
And it’s their attractiveness and over-simplicity of the world’s workings that makes conspiracies so popular with people. Perhaps it's a transfer or inverted version of the higher human inclination to see greater causes behind phenomena.
If there’s anything to place at the end of this that I think is important/relevant it’s to be more conscious and ‘active’ in your being, rather than being passive to the influences around you, be that of the world or of the flesh.
April 30, 2025
The Occult War by Emmanuel Malynski, co-authored with Léon de Poncins, is a bold and intellectually stimulating work that attempts to uncover the hidden spiritual forces shaping modern history. With a unique blend of traditionalist thought and esoteric insight, the authors argue that major historical upheavals—particularly the French and Russian revolutions—were not merely political events but expressions of a deeper metaphysical conflict aimed at dismantling Christian civilization. The book presents a compelling narrative of a clandestine spiritual war waged by secret societies and secular ideologies seeking to impose a materialist, anti-spiritual world order. It is a valuable read for those interested in traditionalism, counter-revolutionary thought, and the intersection of politics and metaphysics.
While The Occult War earns a strong 4 out of 5, it falls just short of perfection due to its heavy emphasis on historical exposition at the expense of the metaphysical analysis promised by the title. Readers hoping for a deep exploration of occult philosophy or esoteric doctrine may find the focus on political movements and revolutions more dominant than expected. Nevertheless, the book’s clarity, conviction, and original perspective make it a standout in its genre. Its themes remain relevant for those exploring the spiritual dimension of modern crises, and its historical interpretations—controversial though they may be—offer a challenging counterpoint to mainstream narratives.
While The Occult War earns a strong 4 out of 5, it falls just short of perfection due to its heavy emphasis on historical exposition at the expense of the metaphysical analysis promised by the title. Readers hoping for a deep exploration of occult philosophy or esoteric doctrine may find the focus on political movements and revolutions more dominant than expected. Nevertheless, the book’s clarity, conviction, and original perspective make it a standout in its genre. Its themes remain relevant for those exploring the spiritual dimension of modern crises, and its historical interpretations—controversial though they may be—offer a challenging counterpoint to mainstream narratives.
July 27, 2025
Sharp and harsh observations on early 19th and 20th century events. Definitely an interesting read, although can get very tedious when he focuses too much on some historical minute details... paragraphs, even parts, can be skipped if need be.
As other reviewers have mentioned, interested readers ought to put it in the correct "metaphysical" context by reading Guénon's review of The Occult War, which I will paste below in its entirety (translated from french) :
Emmanuel Malynski and Léon de Poncins. The Occult War. (Gabriel Beauchesne, Paris). – "Here, as in the previous works of M. Léon de Poncins which we have already had the opportunity to discuss, there are, regarding the critique of the modern world, many very accurate observations. The authors, who rightly denounce common misconceptions—such as the belief that revolutions are “spontaneous movements”—belong to those who think that the modern deviation, whose stages they particularly study in the course of the 19th century, must necessarily follow a well-defined “plan,” at least consciously on the part of those directing this “occult war” against everything that bears a traditional character, intellectually or socially.
However, when it comes to identifying “responsibilities,” we must express significant reservations. The matter is, in any case, neither simple nor easy—this must be acknowledged—since, by its very nature, what is at issue does not appear outwardly, and the apparent pseudo-leaders are only more or less unconscious instruments. In any case, there is here a tendency to greatly exaggerate the role attributed to the Jews, to the point of supposing that they alone ultimately rule the world, without making certain necessary distinctions about them. How can one fail to see, for example, that those who actively participate in certain events are merely Jews completely detached from their own tradition, and who, as always happens in such cases, have retained little more than the defects of their race and the negative aspects of its particular mentality?
There are, nonetheless, passages (notably pp. 105–110) which come quite close to certain truths concerning “counter-initiation”: it is entirely accurate that what is involved here is not mere “interests,” which can serve only to motivate vulgar instruments, but a “faith” that constitutes “a metaphysical mystery unfathomable to even the elevated intelligence of ordinary man”; and it is no less true that “there is a current of Satanism in history”... But this current is not directed solely against Christianity (and perhaps it is this overly narrow way of viewing things that causes many “optical illusions”); it is directed equally and in the same way against all tradition, whether Eastern or Western, and this includes Judaism as well.
As for Freemasonry, we may perhaps surprise the authors by saying that the infiltration of modern ideas—at the expense of the initiatic spirit—has made it not one of the agents of the “conspiracy,” but rather one of its first victims; and yet, by reflecting on certain current efforts to “democratize” Catholicism itself, which have certainly not escaped their notice, they should be able, by analogy, to understand what we mean by this... And shall we dare add that a certain deliberate will to mislead inquiry, by provoking and maintaining various “obsessions” (whether concerning Freemasonry, the Jews, the Jesuits, the “Yellow Peril,” or any other), is precisely also an integral part of the very “plan” they seek to denounce, and that the real “hidden sides” of certain anti-Masonic campaigns are particularly instructive in this regard?
We know all too well that, by insisting on this, one runs a serious risk of pleasing no one, from any side whatsoever; but is that a sufficient reason not to speak the truth?"
As other reviewers have mentioned, interested readers ought to put it in the correct "metaphysical" context by reading Guénon's review of The Occult War, which I will paste below in its entirety (translated from french) :
Emmanuel Malynski and Léon de Poncins. The Occult War. (Gabriel Beauchesne, Paris). – "Here, as in the previous works of M. Léon de Poncins which we have already had the opportunity to discuss, there are, regarding the critique of the modern world, many very accurate observations. The authors, who rightly denounce common misconceptions—such as the belief that revolutions are “spontaneous movements”—belong to those who think that the modern deviation, whose stages they particularly study in the course of the 19th century, must necessarily follow a well-defined “plan,” at least consciously on the part of those directing this “occult war” against everything that bears a traditional character, intellectually or socially.
However, when it comes to identifying “responsibilities,” we must express significant reservations. The matter is, in any case, neither simple nor easy—this must be acknowledged—since, by its very nature, what is at issue does not appear outwardly, and the apparent pseudo-leaders are only more or less unconscious instruments. In any case, there is here a tendency to greatly exaggerate the role attributed to the Jews, to the point of supposing that they alone ultimately rule the world, without making certain necessary distinctions about them. How can one fail to see, for example, that those who actively participate in certain events are merely Jews completely detached from their own tradition, and who, as always happens in such cases, have retained little more than the defects of their race and the negative aspects of its particular mentality?
There are, nonetheless, passages (notably pp. 105–110) which come quite close to certain truths concerning “counter-initiation”: it is entirely accurate that what is involved here is not mere “interests,” which can serve only to motivate vulgar instruments, but a “faith” that constitutes “a metaphysical mystery unfathomable to even the elevated intelligence of ordinary man”; and it is no less true that “there is a current of Satanism in history”... But this current is not directed solely against Christianity (and perhaps it is this overly narrow way of viewing things that causes many “optical illusions”); it is directed equally and in the same way against all tradition, whether Eastern or Western, and this includes Judaism as well.
As for Freemasonry, we may perhaps surprise the authors by saying that the infiltration of modern ideas—at the expense of the initiatic spirit—has made it not one of the agents of the “conspiracy,” but rather one of its first victims; and yet, by reflecting on certain current efforts to “democratize” Catholicism itself, which have certainly not escaped their notice, they should be able, by analogy, to understand what we mean by this... And shall we dare add that a certain deliberate will to mislead inquiry, by provoking and maintaining various “obsessions” (whether concerning Freemasonry, the Jews, the Jesuits, the “Yellow Peril,” or any other), is precisely also an integral part of the very “plan” they seek to denounce, and that the real “hidden sides” of certain anti-Masonic campaigns are particularly instructive in this regard?
We know all too well that, by insisting on this, one runs a serious risk of pleasing no one, from any side whatsoever; but is that a sufficient reason not to speak the truth?"
October 12, 2024
Vi har avnjutit Emmanuel Malynski och Léon de Poncins The Occult War (utgiven för första gången 1936 men vi har läst nyutgåvan från 2015 från det utmärka Svenska förlaget Logik). Istället för att anamma det felaktiga antagandet att revolutioner och subversiva aktiviteter uppstår spontant hävdar författarna att dessa händelser följer en plan. Denna plan drivs på av det anti-traditionella krafterna som verkar för kaos. På den andra sidan av detta ockulta krig står krafterna som verkar för tradition, hierarki och ordning. Detta krig är alltså ett krig mellan kosmos och kaos eller gott och ont om ni så vill. Det är främst ett ”osynligt” krig där de mänskliga agenterna för dessa två krafter oftast är omedvetna om sin roll och de långtgående konsekvenserna av deras agerande. Det är för oss föga förvånande att en viss etno-religiös grupp är otroligt överrepresenterade när det kommer till att vara agenter för kaos. Möjligtvis finns en del av förklaringen till detta att finna i vad E. Michael Jones kallar ”The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” i boken med samma namn.
Julius Evola, vars essä om detta ockulta krig utgör en av två appendix (det andra är en recension av boken av Traditionalisten Réne Guénon), beskriver det ockulta kriget så här:
”The occult war is that war waged by the forces of global subversion from behind the scenes, utilising means which are almost invariably invisible to ordinary methods of investigation. The notion of occult war belongs, so to speak, to a three-dimensional view of history, whereby history is considered no superficially, according to the two dimensions of apparent causes, events, and driving forces, but rather according to its third dimension, that of depth: an underground current of decisive forces and influences often irreducible to the simple human element, be it individual or collective.”
s. 253
Författarna behandlar tiden mellan 1815 och 1917 på ett kompetent och spännande sätt som öppnar upp en ny historisk dimension med ett högt förklaringsvärde. Vi anser att det skulle vara mycket intressant att läsa en bok som utgår ifrån samma premisser och behandlar de följande 100 åren men tyvärr har vi inte hittat en sådan bok.
En annan av bokens behållningar är att den innehåller en hel del noter som behandlar skillnaden mellan författarnas originalupplaga och Julius Evolas relevanta omformuleringar från hans översättning av detta verk till Italienska 1939.
Vi anser att denna bok utgör en väldokumenterad, intressant och läsvärd redogörelse för en spännande alternativ syn på historien som manar till eftertanke.
Julius Evola, vars essä om detta ockulta krig utgör en av två appendix (det andra är en recension av boken av Traditionalisten Réne Guénon), beskriver det ockulta kriget så här:
”The occult war is that war waged by the forces of global subversion from behind the scenes, utilising means which are almost invariably invisible to ordinary methods of investigation. The notion of occult war belongs, so to speak, to a three-dimensional view of history, whereby history is considered no superficially, according to the two dimensions of apparent causes, events, and driving forces, but rather according to its third dimension, that of depth: an underground current of decisive forces and influences often irreducible to the simple human element, be it individual or collective.”
s. 253
Författarna behandlar tiden mellan 1815 och 1917 på ett kompetent och spännande sätt som öppnar upp en ny historisk dimension med ett högt förklaringsvärde. Vi anser att det skulle vara mycket intressant att läsa en bok som utgår ifrån samma premisser och behandlar de följande 100 åren men tyvärr har vi inte hittat en sådan bok.
En annan av bokens behållningar är att den innehåller en hel del noter som behandlar skillnaden mellan författarnas originalupplaga och Julius Evolas relevanta omformuleringar från hans översättning av detta verk till Italienska 1939.
Vi anser att denna bok utgör en väldokumenterad, intressant och läsvärd redogörelse för en spännande alternativ syn på historien som manar till eftertanke.
March 9, 2025
revolutionary
March 24, 2021
What is the message of this title? A friend mentioned that all programs on Netflix and Prime Video depict Christianity is the most horrid way while elevating Islam and the Joos.. It feels like there is an agenda to destroy Christianity. In Occult War the author mentions the way the French Revolution targeted the Church and indeed killed the nuns and priests but left the rich and the banks alone. The authors start their book around that time. They then map out a pattern.
Anyway, the book is a masterpiece. Lenin on the cover is hugely symbolic.
Anyway, the book is a masterpiece. Lenin on the cover is hugely symbolic.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews