The doom of the Elves is to be immortal, to love the beauty of the world, to bring it to full flower with their gifts of delicacy and perfection, to last while it lasts … – J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion
I have never been all that comfortable thinking about death, but I do it a lot. In recent years most of my grandparents have died, and this has made me feel somewhat isolated and disconnected from my deeper heritage — perhaps my reactionary tendencies are partially a means of compensating for this.
About a month ago my grandmother died somewhat unexpectedly, and it threw me into an internal crisis. I came to the following conclusion:
There tend to be three popular ways of viewing death.
Most atheists and Jews believe that when you die, that is it. You’re dead. Your personality is nonexistent upon death. The end result of this belief is hedonism and base utilitarianism.
Most Muslims and perhaps the majority of conservative Christians believe that most people are tormented in hell forever, and only a few escape this grim fate through being part of the right religious persuasion. The end result of this belief is wasteful religious wars over who is and isn’t going to hell.
Many polytheists, Buddhists and a few Christians (link) believe that the soul is both eternal and that the there is no eternal torment. There may be chastisement in the afterlife followed by a more pleasant eternity, or, in certain religions, reincarnation into a bad life if one has committed moral wrongs, but the idea of eternal torment is alien. The end result usually depends on the IQ of the nation holding these beliefs. India, for instance, is poorer than Japan, but both have religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) which teach some form of reincarnation.
I am not saying the following to insult any religious opinion, but I wish to be honest: Options 1 and 2 are basically pessimistic. Option 2 is often made very pessimistic when it is combined with ideas like total depravity, and the belief I find common among ultra-conservative Christians, that the nature of man is not just sub-par or corruptible, but actually ‘evil’.
Option 3 is the only option which is actually either neutral or optimistic.
I admit I have often been frightened by options 1 and 2. The idea that we die and that’s it (option 1) means that if you lived an incomplete life, you will never have a chance to live a full one, and you will also never be reunited with those you love who have perished.
If option 2 is true than anyone you loved who was not part of the right religion is burning in hell forever and you better figure out which religion is the correct one and become obedient to it, or you will be joining them in eternal torment.
Being somewhat of an empiricist, I consider option 1 more likely than option 2. [Sorry, weird Youtube videos by people claiming to have been in hell don’t count as science]
Nietzsche and Heidegger would likely say that I am staring into the abyss. It takes a lot of courage to stare into the abyss, and it is certainly something I would rather not be doing. In this sense, staring into the abyss, even reaching the point of nihilism, is ascetical and can provide a kind of catharsis, but it is a horrifying catharsis that many, perhaps most people try their best to avoid and that I myself wish to exit.
My sincerest hope is that option 3 is true, although it is something of a conundrum of how to harmonize an afterlife with Nietzscheanism. In order to do this, the concept of the afterlife cannot teach that this life is to be denied in favor of the next. Rather, one would need to either assume that any life after the present one is like the life we live now (reincarnation, perhaps eternal recurrence), or that the rewards of an afterlife depend not upon looking forward to that afterlife, but engaging in this life in a highly world-accepting, life-affirming manner. One version of this is the Norse Valhalla, a reward for valiant fighting in a war, an earthly endeavor with an earthly purpose. One might also consider reincarnation itself to be life-affirming in that it encourages one to build or maintain an earthly civilization which one can both reap the fruits of in this life, and return to in a future life — the mindset here is not escapism but is indeed life-affirming, and world-accepting.
In light of the Western Christian Holy Week, I will set forth some ideas regarding how I think Christianity might be made more compatible with our current needs (I speak as an ethnocentric reactionary). It is slightly critical, but there may be solutions to some of the things I bring up. This post is not trying to argue the Christianity is true or false, or that it is good or bad; it is simply taking into account that many Westerners are Christians, and so it would be wise to have an interpretation of the faith that agrees with the cultural and ethnic preservation of the West.
Use the Septuagint instead of Hebrew texts for Old Testament scripture, besides, the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic and other extant Hebrew texts, and scholarship indicates that it is what the apostles used. This also helps disconnect Christianity from the culture and language of Talmudic Judaism.
Figure out how to harmonize martial aristocracy and moderate kin selection with Christian ethics. I Timothy 5:8 might help solve this.
Figure out how to interpret the words of Jesus in the gospels so as not to produce a leveling, Marxist, dysgenic (re)sentiment. It is this perceived sentiment from the gospels that makes critics on the right think that leftists are just “Christians without a Christ”, and it is also responsible for foolish and corrosive “liberation theology” (cf. critical theory/”Cultural Marxism”).
Interpret the meaning of the imperative ‘love not the world’ (first epistle of John) and other statements like this so as not to produce a world-rejecting (quasi-gnostic) sentiment. Ultimately one must accept the physical realm in order to be motivated to refine civilization.
Systematize a non-Zionist interpretation of Romans 11, also deal with Genesis 12 accordingly. Modern Jewry is to have no special spiritual status different from gentiles.
Interpret II Corinthians 6 so that Christians and non-Christians can cooperate towards common political ends. The West will not be saved without this.
Western churches should consider attempt reforming their view of original sin to be more in line with that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the Eastern understanding, man is viewed as inherently fallen, not guilty, by original sin (link) — this should help remove the axiological pipeline between original sin and white guilt, male guilt etc. which plagues the West today.
Divorce the concept of God from the Near Eastern tribal divinity ‘YHWH’ — the Septuagint should help with this since God is not called ‘YHWH’ in the Septuagint. A well-studied history of Israelite monotheism should also help do this (YHWH may have simply been a borrowed epithet for the uniquely monotheistic God of the Israelites).
Develop a way in which Western Christians can at least respect, and hopefully appreciate the pre-Christian culture of Europe, and acknowledge its role in the original foundation of Western Civilization through the Greeks and Romans (as well as the Celto-Germanic contribution of the manorial aristocracy). We could really use some of the Roman aristocratic virtues — Dignitas, Gravitas, Pietas, Virtus. Generally speaking, we need to keep an organic continuity with pre-Christian antiquity somehow — the renaissance might be a time to look back on for advice on approaching this matter.
Web sites I found which may be of interest to reactionary Christians
There is a very creative blog I ran across by a Catholic medievalist writing about his perspectives on anime and religion; you can follow the link I posted below to his blog.
Anthropomorphic deities in any religion often serve as a model by which humans shape their lives, and order their actions. Christians sometimes ask what would Jesus do? and such things as this. In the ancient Hellenic world, a warrior might ask what would Ares do? or a ruler might ask what would Zeus do? In a strictly, perhaps fanatically monotheistic system, because there is only one unique divinity, everyone strives to have all the same virtues, often embodied in that divinity, and all the same qualities; ethics are universalized. In the enlightenment, this manifested itself in the ethics of Kant and the destruction of aristocracy; and in more modern times it is manifested through the destruction of traditional gender roles.
In a polytheistic system, however, different gods act as a role model for certain vocations. Zeus (and similar deities such as Odin and Varuna) is a role model for judges, and people for whom wisdom and justice are necessary virtues, Ares is the role model for the warrior, Apollo for the young man, student or athlete, Rhea for the mother, and there are many others. If one takes a broader view of Indo-European religion, one will find that the various deities usually act as archetypes corresponding to the various “three estates”: the oratores, bellatores, and laboratores (priests, aristocrats, and commoners). Research Georges Dumezil’s Trifunctional Hypothesis to find out more about this. Polytheism, for our ancestors, was not just some silly idea of Zeus throwing thunderbolts at people he was angry at (you can also find many such instances of so-called ‘silliness’ coming from the monotheistic deity of the Pentateuch). For them, polytheism was a cosmic blueprint for how society was supposed to be run. Not everyone worshiped the same gods nor was everyone expected to live up to the same virtues. The hierarchy among the gods, and their various duties in keeping cosmic order was the model for a hierarchy among humans and their various roles in a complete society. The different virtues of different gods marked the virtues different virtues different people were supposed to aim for depending on who they were, whether a priest, king, warrior, or farmer. Polytheism is probably the most reliable way to avoid Kantian categorical imperative ethics because it destroys the notion that all maxims by which individuals act must become universal law. It does this through the multiplicity of archetypes, showing that there are inevitably different types of humans with different virtues to be exercised.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy kept a quasi-polytheistic tradition going through a hierarchy of saints and angels, whom devotees would look up to in iconography. A warrior might look up to St. George, a mother to St. Mary, etc. The patron deities which set the virtues for various vocations were replaced by patron saints which served the same function. However, once all vestiges of polytheism were lost through radical Protestantism, we lost our blueprint for an orderly society where each person fulfilled his or her role according to his or her inherent virtue(s); humans became ‘equivalent’ understood as interchangeable units, leading to utilitarianism, democracy, Marxism, ‘gender studies’, and globalism.
So if any religious revival is to take place in the West, polytheism, or a similar system such as the veneration of saints found in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, must be present in some form or another. We cannot build a new West on the foundations of evangelicalism, Puritanism, or any other form of radical Protestantism. We must have anthropomorphic ideals and archetypes in place to encourage mothers to be caring for their young, warriors to be courageous and fierce, rulers to be just, and so forth. Otherwise, we will just end up back where we started.
So Western civilization has been in a long, slow decay for at least a century, the uniquely European racial type is in danger of extinction, and who is to blame? Many on the Alt-Right would agree with this fellow.
I, however, realize that the problem is much greater than this. The Jews, you see, have always been some of the most talented members of the third estate, which consists of merchants, financiers, and workers of all sorts, but not usually landowners (who are really members of the second estate). So we must not excuse other members of the third estate, as they, through their power of remuneration are ultimately those who have challenged the power of the second estate, the conservatives (aristocratic/martial class). This has played itself out in history in many ways. Classical Athens, the cosmopolitan city that it was, with its policies geared towards the best possible international trade opportunities, clearly an embodiment of the third estate, and also ranked high in terms of liberalism, both in terms of immigration policy, and because it was a democracy. Athens challenged Sparta, which was an embodiment of the second estate, to war and lost. Similarly, Carthage, a city founded by Phoenician traders, which profited from its central position in the Mediterranean, was destroyed by the disciplined, not-yet-decadent Roman Republic after three punic wars.
It was not until the power of the third estate reestablished itself among the high-IQ natives of Northwestern Europe living around the North Sea, that it began to win in its battles against the second estate. After the Roman Empire fell, international trade was restarted in Northwestern Europe by the Frisians, then the Vikings, and then continued by the Hanseatic League. All of this is discussed in Michael Pye’s book The Edge of the World. By the late Mediaeval period, a large, rootless, cosmopolitan merchant class had grown in the Netherlands, Southeastern England, Northern Germany, and Scandinavia, making these areas ripe for the acceptance of both Nominalism (which would establish a metaphysical basis for the individualist axiology of liberalism) in the late Middle Ages, and later, Protestantism in its more radical and low-church varieties (which also has some roots in Nominalism). I would speculate that these phenomena which stem from the individualist axiology of capitalism are the reason why cosmopolitan values, and hence also political correctness, are so deeply entrenched in Germanic-speaking Europe, compared to the rest of it.
So, by now you should at least be thinking something like this person below. I would argue that it is ultimately the culture of capitalism and low church Protestantism, deeply rooted in Mediaeval international trade around the North Sea, which was ultimately behind the Puritan faction in the English Civil War. When the Puritans emigrated from their East Anglian homeland to North America, they brought their iconoclastic culture with them; and were ultimately the predecessors of the Whigs of the revolutionary war, and the Unionists of the American Civil War.
Then, in the middle of the 20th century, the Anglo-Saxon capitalist nations of the USA and Britain fought a war against Germany; I will allow you to speculate whether or not this was because Germany at the time was disrupting the ambitions of a certain *ahem* group of international bankers which were well established in these Anglo-Saxon countries.
Today, according to the well-known youtube channel Black Pigeon Speaks, it is the desire for more debt slaves (to privately owned national banks) to inhabit Western countries which is the driving impetus behind lax restrictions on third-world immigration into Europe. There is also, of course, the case of the globalist George Soros, as well as corporations which propagandize leftism (such as news media), and both Jew and gentile capitalists who are desiring an influx of ethnic non-westerners into the West to utilize as cheap labor.
On Holiness Spirals
Nick B. Steves pointed out to me a while back that holiness spirals are an important factor behind leftism which need to be dealt with in some way. He advised me to see what Jim had to say about it. So I went to Jim’s blog, and it appears that Jim’s arguments are completely valid regarding holiness spirals an essential driver behind left-wing behavior. Holiness spirals can be roughly defined as voluntary behavior which one does in order to publicly appear holier than others.
The thing is, that, at least from my perspective, there appears to be a clear correlation between an excessively powerful third estate, and the presence of holiness spirals in a culture. Though it may be less obvious than other examples I will give, Classical Athens even shows evidence of them — have you ever considered that Athenian democracy may have simply been invented as a platform for holiness spirals? The case of Athens also begs the question: were Socrates and Plato in holiness spirals? (This is something to think about; Socratic philosophy, with its emphasis on epistemology — “The only good is knowledge, and the only evil is ignorance” — may be the basis of the modern holiness spiral of fanatical rational-empiricism)
As another example of the correlation between a powerful third estate and holiness spiral behavior, take for instance the Canaanites, including the Phoenicians, some of whom founded the civilization of Carthage; making ordinary sacrifices using animals was not competitive enough for them, so in competing for higher and higher degrees of holiness, even children became acceptable to sacrifice. Then, of course, there were the Jews, competitive masters of finance, many of whom were self-hating as Jim points out, who played a key role in the foundations of Bolshevism as a means of achieving personal ‘holiness’. And, of course, there were the radical Protestants along the coasts of the North Sea, entrenched in a highly commercial lifestyle, who decided to be better Christians than everyone else by abstaining from holidays and Church aesthetics not prescribed in the Bible (this is formally called the regulative principle of worship). On the other hand, from the descriptions left by Julius Caesar and Tacitus of the Celts and Germans, I know of no evidence of holiness spirals in pre-commercial, pre-Christian, Northwest Europe, and even when these people conducted human sacrifices, mere criminals and slaves were usually considered sufficient (De Bello Gallico, Liber XI, Ch. 16; De origine et situ Germanorum, Ch. XL); there is no record I know of regarding self-immolation, or immolation of one’s children among these people in an attempt to gain higher respect from a deity or to publicly appear more holy. I have also not found evidence of holiness spirals in the pages of the Rig Veda, composed by the Indo-Aryans of the Punjab region around 1300 BC; this literature, however, is largely composed of hymns to various gods, and not accounts of everyday life among the Indo-Aryans.
It is true that the Christian Bible contains injunctions against holiness spirals in some areas, but I think it is necessary to get to the root of this problem before we should try solving it. Clearly, in the West and Near East, holiness spirals coincide with commercialism. Why could this be? I once thought that this is primarily due to an overabundance of resources resulting from highly productive agricultural and industrial sectors in these societies. This hypothesis may partially be true, but after more reflection, I believe it could originally be a result of the religious application of the individualistic competition inherent to capitalism. Just as the Puritans knew that the marketplace was an arena for competition in which a hard work paid off, they understood the religious sphere of life as a marketplace of holiness open for competition. Likewise, Phoenician traders would have seen the sacrifice of various gifts to their gods, going all the way up to their most precious possessions, their own children, as a competitive marketplace for holiness.
So what is the solution then? Society needs to become moderately more collectivistic; having a religion which places emphasis on collective ritual and honor rather than individual righteousness should help keep holiness spirals down. Moreover, it would also be wise to move away from a guilt culture, and towards a shame culture to a moderate degree. Guilt culture is the established norm of modern Western societies, and it seems clear to me that this is at least partially due to the Christian concepts of sin and contrite repentance (source; source). However, many Mediterranean Catholic and Orthodox countries, as well as most East Asian countries, have shame cultures, and these are the parts of the developed world where political correctness is the weakest (source). An important characteristic of guilt culture is that it makes one’s ethical status a matter of great individual concern even if one is not punished by the tribe for ones ‘sin’; it is important to note that this is likely at least partially produced by the individualist axiology which arises from capitalism. In a guilt culture, one’s ethical status is something one is supposed to improve upon using internal guilt (checking one’s privilege, repenting etc.), whereas in a shame culture, one’s ethical status is only a concern on the level of the tribe as an enforcer of rules (source). It is easy to see how an emphasis on individual self-enforcement of value (guilt) in combination with competitive capitalistic axiology leads to holiness spirals and creates Western ethnomasochism as a not just a phenomenon, but a societal norm.
A side note on European paganism and guilt culture: European pagan religions avoided guilt culture by considering the gods to simply be powerful forces in the universe which one had to appease with proper rituals (prayers, sacrifices etc.), but not necessarily love, or feel internally guilty about offending. In my view, this may be the basis behind the Catholic and Orthodox sacrament of penance (although penance is supposed to have contrition), and this is likely one reason why some Mediterranean Catholic and Orthodox countries today have a shame culture, rather than a guilt culture.
So who should be shamed? No mainstream Republican will admit it, but it’s the capitalists, the people of the third estate: both Jew and gentile who have been unable to curb their egoistic appetites for wealth. It is the habit of placing capital ahead of nation which is placing our civilization and people in danger of extinction. Carthage, that is the supreme power of this estate, the Ring of internationalist Power if you will, must be destroyed.
So am I national socialist then? I wouldn’t say so; I would rather call myself a national monarchist; I think a strong aristocracy (second estate), whose power is immutable from wiles of the financial class, is necessary to prevent the ascendancy of a plutocratic oligarchy. Republics and pure meritocracies are simply too easy for plutocrats and their puppets to infiltrate and control (which is probably why the freemasons et al. like them so much). Internationalists, globalists and self-proclaimed cosmopolites — “citizens of the world” should play no part in politics; if they have no allegiance to their country, why should they have any say in running it? It is also true that with an of an aristocracy, you at least know exactly who is in charge, and there is a guarantee that there will be a group of people capable of stopping parasitism by force. For an aristocracy to do this, however, it is important that it carry the alleles for sufficient intelligence and in-group altruism to protect their tribe or nation from its enemies. It is not without cause that an aristocracy is also known as a nobility.
I often like to compare the third estate of classical liberals, libertarians, and capitalists to men, who in Tolkien’s world are corruptible and greedy compared to elves (whom I compare to the nationalists of the second estate). As the wise lord Elrond noted, men are weak, and it is because of men that the ring survives. Likewise, it is because of the greed and the resulting liberal cosmopolitan values of these weak men that we are in the mess that we are in today with this ring of international capitalism. But men are not useless; they help us battle the Marxist orcs (SJWs), and they serve as an entryway to our movement.
I first learned about the naturalistic fallacy (an is is not an ought) in a philosophy course I took recently in which we studied David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (which should also probably be a favorite among the HBD crowd). The naturalistic fallacy is probably one of the main advantages which progressives have over conservatives, as it gives them an excuse to destabilize society by changing the demographic and cultural status quo from what is naturally desired, homogeneity, to what is more “progressive”, “diversity”. However, we must remember that the logical framework which we are working with is largely a creature of the Whig/liberal academic establishment. I would like to propose a new fallacy: A can is not a should; this is the progressive fallacy. Perhaps using more formal language it could be called the potentiality fallacy, or the fallacy of potentiality. The essence of this fallacy is the equation of potentiality with value. If anyone else has articulated this fallacy before, I would like to know, as I would be somewhat surprised if I were the first one to do so. Maybe this new fallacy will help solve the problem of the leftward ratchet and Cthulhu always swimming left.
An exemplary application: just because you can create a cosmopolitan society of atomized individuals, does not mean that you should.
Or, perhaps more controversially: just because you can genetically engineer humans (or any other organism for that matter) does not mean that you should.
On the Metaphysics of Anti-Naturalistic Thought
I highly suspect that the idea that natural desires are evil, or must be beaten down, has its origins in various ascetical, anti-naturalistic, ways of approaching life. One must admit that there was a massive increase in asceticism in the West with the introduction of Christianity. In any case, anti-naturalistic thought seems to have a basis in life-denying, world-denying religions, the most extreme of which is Gnosticism. Nietzsche countered this anti-naturalistic tendency by arguing that the Overman is one who is able to accept his natural desires and emotions and use them towards constructive ends (source). It is, therefore, interesting that the liberal secularist website Rational Wiki has a somewhat positive view of Nietzsche, and yet it is infested with SJWs who hate the natural emotional desire of Europeans and European Americans to live among their own people and form their own ethnostates. The wisdom which Nietzsche expresses here regarding natural drives is nothing new and seems to echo what I have researched regarding the chakras. This is because it implies that one must first accept and hone the ‘lower’, more ‘irrational’, corporeal drives of one’s self (rather than ignoring or suppressing them) in order to master one’s higher powers, such as the intellect, and spiritual consciousness. See this very good article on the chakras for more information (use Google translate; it’s in Spanish).
In summary: a rootless tree falls. Natural ‘irrational’ desires and emotions are not inherently bad, nor are the traditionalism and romanticism which are based in them, as these are what ultimately keep us grounded and provide a solid foundation for the more mutable aspects of our existence.
One way of portraying Nietzsche’s Overman/Superman/Ubermensch:
In this post, I am publishing a theory that I have regarding the morality of the villains presented in Tolkien’s novels. Though many villains exist throughout his corpus — dragons, orcs, ungoliants, Suaraman, balrogs, and more — I will be focusing on the main two: Melkor and Sauron. Please note that what I am publishing here is at best a theory, I am not an experienced Nietzsche scholar, though I do find his writings enlightening. It should be remembered, not only for this post but all of mine, that my theories are not usually born perfect, and are almost necessarily modified over a period of time for their improvement. This post will also contain mild criticism of Abrahamic religion in general due to its efforts to create a ‘universal tribe’.
In an attempt to end my discourse dealing with religion, I am writing this post. I have conversed with some reactosphere Christians since publishing my previous post, and I have respect for them as fellow reactionaries. I will now present the conclusion that I have currently reached on the matter of religion; it is not intended to be argumentative with anyone, but it is intended to be sincere: I have read the New Testament, and besides the doctrine of the incarnation, I have found it to have an incontrovertibly negative view of human existence in the flesh. This type of sentiment is particularly strong in but is not exclusive to the Pauline epistles. The physical manifestation of man (the flesh) is seen as something inherently defective, corrupt and bad because it has desires contrary to the law of the Christian God. In my view, this sentiment is a type of cowardice. It is effectively giving up on life, and the human species, including one’s nation/tribe/race altogether. I see improving upon our current existence in the physical realm as a higher road to take, and this is but one aspect of my religion of choice, Cosmotheism.