Traditionalism After 2016
- Post by: Levan Vasadze
- March 31, 2019
Good morning! What a pleasure to be here! I feel very much at home every time I come to Italy. In Soviet days, Georgia was referred to as the Italy of the Soviet Union, thanks to its wine, food, beaches and mountains, musical culture, and southern climate. I, as a Georgian patriot who loves Italy, would of course reciprocate the compliment and say that it is actually the other way around: Italy is Europe’s Georgia, and this is the best compliment I can render to our generous hosts.
Having hosted this Congress three years ago in Tbilisi, let me share some experiences of how the Congress has affected our country in its aftermath. Many traditionalists in Georgia (I’m not a big fan of the term “conservatism,” as I believe living the eternal tradition is more important than conserving an outdated one) state that it was actually World Congress of Families X that changed the course of events in our country. The flank of traditionalist NGOs, bloggers, and activists has grown dramatically. Although we still have a long way to go to the happy day of a complete victory over the Soros-funded demons, the fact of a large international forum like this one was obviously very reassuring to my compatriot traditionalists, who (a) found out that they are not alone and (b) have discovered through the international guests of the Congress that not all Americans and western Europeans are cynical perverts. I believe this Congress will have a similar impact on Italy’s pro-life culture and family movement, and I’m here to congratulate our Italian friends and organizers on this remarkable achievement.
The Congress of Tbilisi in 2016 also coincided with remarkable changes on a global scale. Later that year, Donald Trump managed to score a historic victory against the entire U.S. mass media and mainstream political establishment, marking a turning point in the march of global liberalism. His announced policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, although still fiercely opposed by the globalists nested in the State Department, is already yielding results. We, the habitants of the colonial provinces of the U.S. empire, are already feeling a less sodomizing pressure in our respective countries. Make no mistake, the dragon is not dead and his death will last long and the agony will prove bloody, but the trend is evident.
At the same time the rise of a generation of new European traditionalist leaders, including Matteo Salvini and many others across the continent, became an evident tendency. We do not believe these are accidental outliers; all of the data suggest that opposition to the monopolar liberal world is here to stay.
If so, than the key question is, what lies ahead? Many modern thinkers believe our world, during the first half of our lifetime, was essentially bipolar. Now, through a time of monopolarity, the world is becoming multipolar.
The 21st century is marking the rise or the resurrection of several opposing civilizational poles. If the apocalypse is still to be postponed, it is obvious that the planet’s global domination by one ideological center can only be reverted if those re-emerging alternative civilizations can develop something more important than just a greater degree of sovereignty from the dollar system. By this I mean the alternative civilizational ideologies. If the African, Asian, Latin American, or any other alternative is to become a reality, we need to see that these centers have something else to say than more GDP per capita.
I have been speaking about the utter necessity for such innovation by the traditionalists for some time now. Last year in Chisinau, Moldova, and the year before that in Budapest, Hungary, at World Congress of Families XII and XI, respectively, I presented my views on the contours of an alternative, post-liberal ideology. In those speeches I said that in this post-liberal ideology we must replace the obsession with so-called human rights, which are at large an invention of French revolutionaries who murdered 200,000 people in the genocide of the Vendée, with something much more traditional and acceptable to all human societies irrespective of their ethnicities and religious traditions. I said that instead of the rights of the Cartesian “individual,” we should concern ourselves with the writing of the world’s first constitution based on the rights of a human family and on the obligations of a human being and society towards this family.
In my view, this is a revolution in the thought process, the consequences of which are difficult to grasp. In the aftermath of last year’s Congress in Moldova, during one of our working sessions, we discussed why we should concern ourselves with the writing of such a thing in the absence of a country where it can be implemented in reality. I said there that actually it is the other way around: First, we develop an affirmative narrative of a post-liberal ideology, and then the course of history will guide us toward the country that accepts it. Hence, as much as I would like this to be first implemented in Georgia and then in the entire Caucasus region, I have to submit to the basic logic of the above sequence.
Therefore, I hereby invite all of you into this exciting and creative line of work: the writing of the world’s first constitution based not on human rights, but on the rights of the family and on the human obligations toward the family. This work, which has consumed a great deal of my recent past, would benefit immensely from the participation of the great thinkers, lawyers, politicians, and social activists present here.
Organizationally, for those enthusiasts who want to join us, it is easy to get involved; you can always obtain my personal contact information from Brian Brown and his wonderful team.
Last but not least importantly, allow me to conclude with some innovative guidelines, which in my view must be the basic characteristics of this post-liberal ideology/constitution, which for the time being, for the lack of a better term, must be called a traditionalist ideology:
Theocentricism instead of anthropocentricism—If we are to succeed we must revert Friedrich Nietzsche’s paradigm of the “death of God,” and instead bring God back to life and place Him at the epicenter of such societies. This does not mean theocracy, but neither does it mean democracy in divine and moral issues, either.
No universalism—Unlike liberalism, Marxism, and fascism, traditionalism must not aspire to being universal. Each civilization must read the constitution in its own, unique way, and thus enrich the renaissance of the world’s traditionalist movement
No globalism—all three of the aforementioned modern political theories have shared the ambition of world domination. Ours should not. Those societies that are deeply entrenched in liberalism or in fascism or in communism, and want to stay in these systems, should not be subject to any interference from our side. We believe in the collective intellect and character of individual nations as well as in the purely unique pace of their individual historical events. What is good for Georgians today may be bad or even lethal for Italians at the same time. Hence, whatever the nation freely chooses should be that nation’s business and no one else’s. That said, knowing all too well the oppressive nature of liberalism, we do understand that the free expression of such nations may be significantly hindered by propaganda. Nonetheless, in order to avoid any globalist actions, the international society of traditionalists should abstain from any interference in the lives of each society.
No usury—I believe this is a highly desirable and achievable goal for the post-liberal traditional society. It is in full agreement with the philosophy and tradition of all three Abrahamic religions and was practiced for centuries by all of them. Unfortunately, only parts of Islamic banking have retained it, while the rest of us have lost it. We need to restore it.
A revisitation of Montesquieu’s three branches of power—without much detail, let me state here that, while I remain a very strong advocate of the people’s direct rule (I don’t like the Greek word “democracy,” since liberals have done everything to taint its meaning) in practical affairs, I believe the above dogmatic division may prove less necessary under the new ideology and constitution.
Finally, let me say that unless we step up and put forward an affirmative narrative of tradition, we as fruitless dissidents of liberalism are risking dying with it. And although many of us present here would gladly give our lives in exchange for saving our families and societies from continued perversion and degradation, let us do more, let us stay alive and build jointly the post-liberal world in those parts of human civilization that want to remain alive, God-fearing, and thus human.
Levan Vasadze is a Georgian businessman and served as organizer of World Congress of Families X in Tbilisi, Georgia.