Show Notes
“When a cycle of civilization is reaching its end, it is difficult to achieve anything by resisting it and by directly opposing the forces in motion. The current is too strong; one would be overwhelmed. The essential thing is to not let oneself be impressed by the omnipotence and apparent triumph of the forces of the epoch. These forces, devoid of connection with any higher principle, are in fact, on a short chain. One should not become fixated on the present, and on things at hand, but keep in view the conditions that may come about in the future. Thus the principle to follow could be that of letting the forces and processes of this epoch take their own course, while keeping oneself firm and ready to intervene when ‘the tiger, which cannot leap of the person riding it, is tired of running.’” —Julius Evola
“We are only against people who are harmful. And we don’t hate them. There’s no need of hating them. We don’t hate bugs. We fight them. We don’t hate lice. We fight them. They’re harmful. They bite us... they infect us with disease. Mosquitoes: the same thing... You have to do something to make them go away, at least to get rid of them. It’s the same thing with races that do harm to ours. We defend ourselves, and that’s all... But in this Yuga, this Dark Age nearing its end, you get more and more power in the hands of those people. That’s natural. And there will be a racial struggle somewhere. I can see it coming. I can see it coming in the USA. I wouldn’t be at all astonished if one day, not tomorrow, perhaps not in fifty years, but perhaps later on, the USA had a National Socialist government, made of Americans, after a terrific fight with the other races... I think America will precede Europe in that way, not for any other reason but because in America the pressure of the dark races is much more powerful.” —Savitri Devi
“What we are against will unite us, while what we are for divides us. Therefore, we should emphasize what we oppose. The common enemy unites us, while the positive values each of us are defending actually divides us. Therefore, we must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ or, in other terms, Kali-Yuga.” —Aleksandr Dugin
These quotes are key to understanding a very particular strain of thought that has been discussed a few times on History Impossible; first, on the episode we did on Savitri Devi, “The Hitler Avatar and His Masochistic Priestess”, and then again on the first episodes we did with Kristaps Andrejsons of the Eastern Border podcast, where we discussed Aleksandr Dugin, Putin’s so-called “brain.” This strain of thought is Traditionalism, a perennial philosophical school, often attributed to a number of European thinkers of the 19th century. Very few people can be called experts in this field, though I’ve been lucky enough to get to know one of them: Benjamin Teitelbaum, the author of the book War for Eternity: The Return of Traditionalism and the Rise of the Populist Right from 2020, as well as contributor to many different august publications including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Atlantic (he’s also a professor of ethnographic and international studies!).
As many listeners know, War for Eternity has come up a lot on History Impossible, so it seemed fitting to sit down with Ben and discuss the central aspects of his work, which included conversations with Aleksandr Dugin and the late Brazilian populist and Bolsonaroist firebrand Olavho de Carvalho, and, of course, the many hours spent speaking with the most famous American populist, Steve Bannon.
The key to understanding a philosophy as dark and twisted as Traditionalism—one might be tempted to call it unwittingly nihilistic—is to take it seriously, which Ben absolutely does. It’s a thick subject, and being pressed for time, we were no
More from History Impossible
Hey everyone. No preamble here. Just a nice bonus as a thank you for your continued support. As the title suggests, this is an audio adaptation of an essay I wrote about the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and how it led me to reflect on my generation, that is millennials, seems to believe about itself regarding trauma, adversity, and the future.
We often hear about how the Second World War was more morally nuanced and complex than we have been led to believe. This is, to a certain extent, very true. The Axis powers meted out a level of genocidal destruction and suffering upon tens of millions of people across the world, decimating generations in places as far flung as Poland and the Philippines, and Croatia and China. To call their actions existential by their very nature is to arguably undersell the threat they posed. The Allies realized these were the stakes and were eventually faced with a very real question: what would it take to stop such a threat? It required what many have come to believe was the unthinkable: meeting destruction with destruction. And in meeting the Axis violence with more violence did indeed bring the war to its ultimate end.
In this newest episode of History Impossible we’re joined a second time by Richard Lim, host of the This American President podcast, who last appeared on this program a couple years ago to discuss the insane, contentious election of 1876. He is also the author of a new book, Refusing a Crown: How George Washington Changed the World, which releases on October 13, 2026, and covers the most significant aspect of America’s first president: his restraint from seizing power that almost certainly would have remained his.
“Because remember: Russia is a religious experience.” Those are the oft-repeated and well-said words by the host of The Eastern Border podcast, my good friend Kristaps Andrejsons. They are well-said because there are very few alternatives for explaining Russian actions, rhetoric, and political culture over the past near half-decade in its World War I-style conflict with Ukraine. The Russian religious experience, made emblematic by Kristaps’ and my favorite shared punching bag Aleksandr Dugin, is a phenomenon best understood as a more formalized and colossal version of what ISIS was ten years ago, and it helps explain why Kristaps believes the spiral of the Russian state as we currently know it is beginning in 2026.
Antizionism, as it has become, has been having a bit of a moment for going on three years. It is a tough nut to crack, given its various claims of varying legitimacy and, as we have covered more than once on History Impossible, its increasing tendency to veer into outright antisemitism, especially by those looking for a supposedly intellectual and moral veneer for their racial and geopolitical fixations. Part of the reason for this confusion is the complex intellectual history of the position, which, after 1948, became more complicated than the relatively straightforward debate over Jewish statehood before, during, and after the Holocaust.