Japan. Japan. Japan. When will Elfnonationalist stop being such a weeb?
Well, not right now, apparently, but Japan is an interesting country to study because of its ability to preserve its monarchy, indigenous culture, and its ethnic homogeneity up to the present day, in combination with its relative prosperity and status as a first world nation. A good reactionary should be studying Japan just like a scientist would study a species that survived a mass extinction, to figure out what it did right.
First, it should be noted that the Japanese have a clear understanding of what it means to be of the Japanese ethnicity. The term ‘Japanese’ is not understood to mean simply an abstract concept or ideology, but that one is actually of Japanese descent; in fact, those who are only half Japanese descent are referred to as hafu. This is in contrast to the modern Western notion of a nation being only an ideology or culture, which allows people of different ethnicities to ‘assimilate’ and magically become just as ‘Swedish’, for instance, as the indigenous Swedes. This problem is also quite obvious in America, where the “nation” is defined by classical liberal ideology, and the term “American” is allowed to erase all authentic ethnic demonyms. This leads away from ethnic and societal integrity, and into flimsy abstractionism and ideology.
This solid Japanese identity also relies on the very ethnic nature of Japanese culture. While the Japanese have borrowed many things from neighboring Chinese culture, such as their writing system and Confucian philosophy, the Japanese still have an ethnic religion, Shinto, and an ancient ethnic monarchy (with sacred significance as being descended from gods). Part of the problem with the West, especially with the United States, is that it has been dominated by religions which are non-ethnic in nature. Ethnic Europeans throughout the Western world need religious communities which reinforce notions of ethnic identity and ethnic cohesion in order to prevent ethnic annihilation. We also need to revive the concept of sacred kingship in order to give ethnic states a transcendent spiritual quality.
Perhaps this is only a stereotype, or perhaps not, but it also appears that women are less of a problem in East Asian cultures compared to Western ones. Confucianism helps East Asia combat the corrosive nature of feminism by establishing patriarchy as a cultural norm. This is important as history and current events have shown women to be more likely to betray their in-group compared to their male counterparts. For many women, the concept of in-group simply does not compute; it’s not how they’re wired. Unfortunately, the exacerbation of the current demographic crisis which Western feminism has contributed to may be the only way of revealing to the masses the necessity of patriarchy.
It should also be noted that Japan does not possess the same sense of national guilt for its own imperialism which many Western nations do for things such as the Crusades, National Socialism, colonialism, slavery etc. Japan, like other East Asian countries, possesses a shame-honor culture rather than a guilt-innocence culture as Western countries have. A shame culture implies that one only needs to react to a wrong one has committed if society reprimands and punishes you. A guilt culture implies that one must punish one’s self for a wrong even if no one else reprimands or punishes you. Guilt culture makes it possible for Westerners to spontaneously feel guilty and punish themselves even when they are not publicly reprimanded. In contrast, a shame culture would not require this; you would not suffer any punishment unless you yourself were observed to commit a wrong. Thus Japan may feel that its recovery of a positive outward image after WWII expiated its imperialistic shame, but Germany is still wrestling with Holocaust guilt long after it has recovered its positive image to the rest of the world.
As for where guilt culture came from, most sources point to Christianity. The author Ed West, featured in The Spectator news journal, considers guilt culture to be one of the primary reasons for NW Europe’s, particularly Germany’s, openness to accepting migrants from the Middle East. He also considers this expression of guilt culture to be “the silent triumph of Christianity” (link). However, not all Christian cultures are guilt cultures, and thus Christianity alone was probably not sufficient to produce guilt culture. Rather, it was more likely the result of Christianity (collective-moralism) in combination with liberal capitalism (atomization), resulting in atomized-collective-moralism, i.e. self-inflicted punishment for having disobeyed collective morality (guilt-culture). Whether or not the West will return to a shame-honor culture is somewhat unclear, though it may be likely as ethnic Europeans across the globe become more collectivist in the face of mass immigration. A primitive shame-honor culture is already emerging in the Alt-Right with shaming words like ‘cuck’ and ‘traitor’, and terms signifying collective honor such as ‘uncucked’, ‘red-pilled’, ‘fashy’, etc. If this becomes mainstream, the West will likely return to a shame-honor culture.
Last but not least, as with all pathologies proposed on the dissident Right, there must be mention of *drumroll please* da Jooooooooooooz. Jews have had a much larger impact on Western history than East Asian history, and some will be tempted to say that Japan was saved because it had no Jews. This is an oversimplification. The thing about the Jews [the Leftist ones] is that they knew the weaknesses of Western Europeans, particularly inhabitants of the Anglosphere; the guilt culture, the reduction of “nation” to abstract ideology, the lack of ethnic religion, and the weakness of our patriarchy. In the words of Dr. Kevin MacDonald, they knew exactly “which buttons to push”. The leftist Jews were like a spark that ignited a very large and dangerous pool of gasoline. So let this be a lesson to us. Just as a human body must have a healthy immune system to prevent the spread of an infection, we must address the greater vulnerabilities in our own people to become resistant to the forces inimical to our existence.
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.
There is a tendency among us humans, especially those who are ardent humanists to overlook beauty which is living because it is not in any way a product of something uniquely ‘human’. Herein lies the difference between the so-called ‘culturists’ and ‘racists’. A ‘culturist’ appreciates the beauty of non–living things created by man — art, music, architecture, literature. He, therefore, seeks the preservation of culture, often against iconoclasm, religious decline, and degeneracy. A ‘racist’ on the other hand appreciates the beauty of the animate, living thing, not created by man, and recognizes that this beauty is a product of some amount of genetic isolation and natural selection. He, therefore, seeks to preserve the beauty of a race from influences such as miscegenation which would necessarily end its unique beauty.
Regarding the word ‘racist’, I use it in this article to denote a puerile label placed upon individuals wishing to preserve human biodiversity, not the view that all members of the same biological race are identical — which is clearly not true.
Iconoclasm is not just manifested in the destruction of the icons, statues, and stained glass windows beloved by Christian traditionalists, it is also manifest in the destruction of a racial type, or even the corruption of the natural beauty of the earth itself — something the anti-environmentalist ‘right’ needs to get a grip on.
This has caused a great rift I observe in the broader right. Those who value inanimate beauty follow suit in the tradition of various popes and Christian monarchs and those who value animate beauty — of the biosphere and living things follow National Socialist thinkers like George Lincoln Rockwell and William Luther Pierce.
I am bold enough to think that both animate and inanimate beauty is worth preserving. In no aesthetic sense am I an iconoclast. I value the preservation of a ‘civilization’ as a culture just as much as the preservation of any human race, which is in fact living and will continue to reproduce its unique beauty (and further refine its beauty) given the right conditions.
So I do not call myself a National Socialist or a ‘Western Culturist’. The error of the National Socialist is his lack of respect for organic cultural tradition (edit: this is common but not universal among NS), and the error of the culturist being his iconoclasm of animate, living beauty. I call myself a national monarchist in that I value both the beauty of inanimate human culture and animate natural race. And there are precedents to national monarchism throughout the ages –pretty much any monarchy centered around one people (as a biological concept of common descent) counts — Anglo-Saxon England, pre-Norman Ireland, Mediaeval Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, modern post-WWII Japan, and there are probably many more examples. There is no reason to assume as a culturist or traditionalist one must disregard biological race or ethne as the solid foundation of a nation, and there is no reason for a biological ethnocentrist ‘racist’ to assume that cultural tradition should be smashed to create some utopian society. Let the true right unite!
There are essentially three different ways in which modern states have kept their traditional identities intact: Islamofascism, Empire, and Insular Nationalism. The national IQ scores which I mention in this article are from this website (yes, it’s Lynn’s and Vanhanen’s data; if you have any criticisms of it, please cite an alternative source).
Islamofascism (bad idea)
Islam provides rules and virtues for people with limited intelligence to observe and daily rituals to enforce them – although this is a false promise since it achieves the opposite. – Curt Doolittle
Islamofascism is the strategy of the nations of the Middle East and Northern Africa who have an average IQ in the 80’s to retain their traditional identities in the present day. It usually involves persecution of religious minorities, polygamy, marrying women at an age most Westerners would find too young, either executing or imprisoning homosexuals (which even Christians should admit is excessive), as well as a general desire to violently conquer new territory by reason of a superstition (and then either execute, or heavily tax people who refuse to convert to the superstition).
This form of government today is favored in the West by the most unintelligent members of the extreme right and extreme left who often advise genocides of Jews, Whites, or the mass murder of gays, and so on. This is not a form of government which any intelligent person living in the present day can take seriously — there is a reason why it only exists in the present (information age) in nations with an average IQ below ~90. It is definitely not something to emulate; it is fundamentally non-Western, and though it has at times cropped up in the West (mostly in the Middle Ages), it is best left in the dustbin containing the more ugly bits of our history.
This form of government is not unique to the Middle East, however, I suspect that it likely originated there. Charlemagne seems to have emulated it when he butchered the pagan Saxons whom he conquered between 782 and 785 AD. Eventually, Charlemagne’s successors would realize that Islamofascism doesn’t work in the long run; this is where the next strategy comes into play: empire.
Empire is a very old form of government which was really first mastered by the Persians with their bureaucracy of satraps. It was later adopted by Alexander the Great of Macedon, then by the Romans. During the Middle Ages, it took shape in the Byzantine, Holy Roman and Angevin Empires. In the early modern period, there was, of course, the Hapsburg Empire, and the Spanish Empire, and in the later part of the modern era, the British Empire reached its peak. Today this form of government is roughly present in Russia and China, and perhaps to a certain degree the Trumpian United States. In all these empires, there is power granted to lower positions of authority underneath of the emperor or king who happens to manage the entire empire, thus various tribes and ethnic groups are usually allowed to have rulership from their own king or local vassal. Because of the multiethnic and multicultural nature of empire, there is a necessity for the emperor to tolerate the decisions of various kingdoms or tribes to adhere to their own religious opinions. The wisest imperial rulers understood this well, from Cyrus the Great of Persia to the Roman Emperors, and even the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who tolerated the decision of some of his dependent states to turn Lutheran. It is also understood by the Eastern Orthodox leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, who must tolerate the folk-ways of all the various tribes who inhabit their own individual republics within his large domain. Regarding the IQ of empires, in the present day, most of them fairly high such as in Russia (97) and China (105).
I have noticed that among reactionaries, it is usually the Catholics who favor empire. There is nothing wrong with this, but it must be accepted that any empire, due to its large territorial expanse, will inevitably include various religious groups who must be treated in a dignified manner. Failing to do this will place any such state closer to the realm of Islamofascism, and I sincerely think that you are all more decent people than to create an Islamofascist style state.
Another interesting note is that Nietzsche seemed to have favored a pan-European empire over nationalism. This, I think, may be due to his extensive study of the classics, and possibly a romantic idealism he possessed regarding the Roman Empire. Brett Stevens seems to have followed suit in his promotion of pan-nationalism.
The European Union is essentially a perversion of the Roman Empire. It has sought the ethnolysis of Europe. The lesson learned here: empires must have good leaders, or else they become death traps.
There are of course certain advantages to empire, it gives a way for small groups of people and kingdoms to unite for common defence, and it is a way of reconciling traditionalism and hierarchy with a multiethnic domain — that being said it can be hard to create and control — all of its members must be willing to live under one roof — something which I do not believe will ever happen in the US as long was we have a large population of angry leftists. I should also mention that it is usually, if not always, because of the conflicting interests of various ethnocultural groups that an empire falls apart; it is almost an inevitable part of the lifecycle of an empire as the ruled come to resent the rulers due to a lack of shared identity. In fact, a good analogy of an empire might be to compare it to a heavy, radioactive atomic nucleus which can fissure under the right conditions. So if one seeks a more internally stable model of government than empire, that of the insular nation state (which can be monarchical) should be examined.
Nationalism, contrary to what some would claim, did not originate with Hussites and is not an inherently left-wing form of government. In fact, the concept of an insular nation state is probably the first concept of a nation-state in the West, beginning with the Greek polis, and the early Roman state. It was for the sake of the independent nation, and against subjugation under an empire, that king Leonidas and the 300 Spartans bravely fought the Persians at Thermopylae. It is, in more modern times, what inspired Irish nationalists to break away from the British Empire and create a nation centered around their own culture and religion. The fundamental feature of this type of government is that it maintains the identity one ethnic group with a single culture, and usually rules only the territory in which this ethnic group lives. The culture and ethnic group of the state’s inhabitants are preserved through very strict immigration laws — cucking is rare compared to in the modern ‘West’.
Among reactionaries, I have observed that the insular nationalist approach is taken by Orthodox Christians and Protestants, as well as polytheists, Cosmotheists, and irreligious individuals. I think that the desire for an independent nation-state that was likely one of the main reasons behind the split of Eastern Europe away from the Catholic church in 1054, as well as the decision of many Northern-European countries to break with Rome during the reformation. These nations perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) the Catholic Church to be too internationalist; that it violated their national sovereignty, so they created their own national churches, which were usually in communion with each other through either an Eastern Orthodox communion or a Protestant communion of Anglican and/or Lutheran churches.
In the present day, there are some notable well-developed nations which follow the model of insular nationalism to keep their traditional ethnic and cultural identities afloat, and they are also nations with some of the highest average IQ’s in the world: Iceland (101), Japan (105), South Korea (106), and Hong Kong (108). Consequently, I am not inclined to believe that ethnocentric nationalism is simply an ideology of “stupid rednecks”. As the description insular nationalism implies, most of these nations are islands; some of them are areas of continental land close to the sea. This was also true of early insular nationalist states such as various Greek city-states, and the early Roman state.
Generally speaking, these states are quite technologically advanced. Their insular, mono-ethnic, monocultural status creates a sense of ethnocultural safety and stability which allows individuals to focus on the advancement of science and technology (which also increases IQ via the Flynn effect). In other words, people can pursue science because they aren’t spending all their time and energy desperately trying to keep their identity intact through culture wars; the state keeps the identity of the people intact for them through strict immigration laws, and sometimes a traditional national religion. There is an advantage over empire here indeed; there is a sense of unified identity, of power, of making one’s own rules as a people; this leads to a stronger sense of pride in one’s nation than an empire can probably ever have as a whole.
Individuals who wish to revive the West must do so in a sincerely Western manner. Islamofascism, an ideology of certain low-IQ non-Westerners will not due. Thus a decision needs to be made in various instances between the formation of a multi-national empire and an insular nation state. Different strategies will work for different people and will have different results. When considering realistic political objectives, I would rather live in an insular ethnic nation state than an empire, but I am also aware that some sort of pan-national empire may be necessary for defense purposes. In a romanticist mindset, I am also aware that empire may provide an important opportunity to politically reunite European-Americans living in the US and Latin America with their homelands in Europe, something I would be in favor of, but Europe has to get fixed though before this can happen.
Davidski, the author of the Eurogenes blog has recently brought up an interesting genetic study regarding the ancestral origins of non-native Americans (non-Amerindian peoples living in North America).
Update 6/21/17: It may be incorrect to apply r/K selection theory directly to political attitudes, but much (if not most) of what is said in this article is still valid.
It has been a habit of mine to mention the elves of Tolkien’s literary corpus as an aristocratic nobility of the second estate. One might ask, however, why would I choose such androgynous looking beings to be an embodiment of the clearly masculine warrior/aristocratic class. For starters, elves are wicked at fighting, and Tolkien clearly drew inspiration for his elves from the mythic aristocracies of super-humans such as the Celtic Tuatha Dé Danann and Norse alfar (source). The elves are also more resistant than men are to the dark powers of the ring.
The elf ultimately represents a higher type of humanoid being, being naturally immortal, aesthetically beautiful, not prone to disease, and possessing great keenness of the senses and wisdom. As I have stated in earlier posts, the higher type of man, the Overman, is ultimately the product of an aristocratic society; as Nietzsche puts it “EVERY elevation of the type “man,” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be …” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 257). The mechanism by which this occurs is something which I will explain at the end of this essay, but first, let us review r/K selection theory in order to understand the evolution of the higher man — the elf.
r/K selection theory is something which many in the dissident right are aware of. r-selection occurs in an environment where resources are plentiful, but survival is not guaranteed due to the unpredictable forces of nature and predators; this is characteristic of tropical, and often subtropical environments such as coral reefs, rain forests, and warm floodplains and swamps. There is no advantage given to in-group cooperation, or high investment parenting in these environments, because offspring may easily die young, and no group cooperation is needed to secure resources to survive. Consequently, an r-selected species takes an evolutionary strategy of reproducing at a young age, and producing many, many offspring with little energy investment; this maximizes quantity over quality in the offspring. This strategy is suitable for organisms with a very short lifespan; it requires early sexualization of the young, and high promiscuity. This is the strategy of lower, simpler life forms –frogs, fish, most invertebrate animals, and protozoans. I would also add that this is the type of selection which would have been favored in Neolithic agricultural human populations living around river valleys. While these areas provided abundant food for humans, massive floods and droughts periodically wiped out vast numbers of people, thus r-selection was favored here because while many offspring could easily be supported, many could easily die off due to uncontrollable events.
Contrarily, K-selection occurs where resources are limited but the environment is stable, such as a dry or cold grassland or boreal forest, or perhaps a desert; this is where high investment parenting pays off, and discipline and in-group cooperation are necessary to secure resources and survive. A K-selected organism will begin reproducing at a later age, and produce fewer offspring; this maximizes quality over quantity. This is the strategy of organisms with a longer lifespan; it requires late sexualization of the young, and the reproduction tends towards monogamy and high energy investment in offspring; thus favoring quality over quantity in the offspring. This is the strategy of higher, more complex life forms; elephants, humans, great apes, and carnivorous mammals. In human populations, this type of selection would have occurred in upland hunter-gatherer societies where food was limited and required group cooperation to secure, but natural disasters such as floods were rare. So while fewer offspring could be supported in these hunter-gatherer societies, they were more likely to survive, and thus quality could be prioritized over quantity in reproductive terms, hence supporting K-selection.
In an older article I wrote on the biological origins of higher civilizations, I concluded that higher civilizations originate where evolutionary strategies from both Neolithic farmers and Paleolithic hunter-gatherers occur, such as (in the present day) Northwestern Europe and Japan; this is because of the convergence of r (Neolithic) and K (Paleolithic) evolutionary strategies which give society both willful assertive leaders and pacified obedient followers. This generally fits the Nietzschean theory on the origin of higher civilizations, which states that these civilizations originate from the phenomena of barbarians, with an unbroken will (K-selected; paleolithic strategy), dominating more peaceful human populations (r-selected, Neolithic strategy). I explore all this in more depth in the article I link to above.
Now back to the main point of this discussion: what characteristics of the elves identify them as being K-selected organisms? Well, I ran across a rather amusing article regarding What Tolkien Officially Said About Elf Sex. According to this website, Tolkien’s elves have a long pregnancy term compared to humans, 12 months, and this is clearly a high energy investment in individual offspring, biologically speaking. Elves also weren’t prone to have large numbers of children because their sex drive declined after procreation. Elves had extremely long lifespans; they were, of course naturally immortal. The elves also were highly monogamous; any kind of sex was a de facto marriage rite, and the elves never committed adultery. Elves did not complete their childhood and adolescence until they were 50 years old, which is much older than the human age of ~15-20 years old, at which point they were fully sexualized and began to look for a mate. The elves also possess the K-selected trait of being highly altruistic towards their own in-group (often a clan such as the Noldor and Teleri); this is an important trait for an aristocrat charged with protecting his domain from parasites. Elves also retained the physical form of their youth their entire lives and were thus neotenous. Neoteny is a characteristic of more highly evolved hominids; it is what grants humans the smaller maxilla and mandible in comparison to the rest of the cranium (it’s one reason we don’t look like our ape ancestors). Certain human races (collective phenotypes) are also more neotenous than others, but elaborating on this in the context of what I have just said would be equivalent to sparking a powder keg! My point here regarding the elven trait of neoteny is that it shows their more highly evolved biological state than ordinary humans. So, in summary, Tolkien, in his elves, described for us a highly K-selected, more highly evolved type of man; a biological aristocrat, and as we shall see in the paragraphs below, an Ubermensch or Superman, similar to what Fredrich Nietzsche speaks of in Thus Spake Zarathustra.
There are more than K-selected traits of the elves which show their status of the as superhuman creatures. The spiritual characteristics of the elves also bear resemblance to those of Nietzsche’s Ubermensch or Superman. Now let’s see Nietzsche explicitly introduce his concept of the Superman in both evolutionary and spiritual terms.
And Zarathustra spake thus unto the people:
I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?
All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man?
What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.
Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes.
Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants?
Lo, I teach you the Superman!
The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth!
In the above passages, you can see Nietzsche’s emphasis on the body, that it is not to be despised, and in order to arrive at the Superman or Ubermensch, it is necessary to be accepting of the body, and of life, because the Superman, as we saw before, is the meaning of the earth, the physical realm. This also agrees with the concept of the Tolkienian elf being a type of Superman, as an elf who dies do not go to some unknown spiritual plane, as the souls of men, but their soul (fëar) is bound to Arda (earth) (source). If an elven soul so chooses it may go to the halls of Mandos, located on the continent of Aman, and may be reincarnated into a body (hröar) identical to the old one. So the elf, like the Superman of Nietzsche is an earthbound creature. Of equal importance, the perfect and healthy body, represented in Tolkien’s elves (who are not prone to disease, physical flaws, and aging as men are) preaches of the meaning of the earth, just as the Superman described by Nietzsche’s character Zarathustra. There are other characteristics which the elves share with Nietzsche’s Overman, particularly their role as creators of values, which I discuss in my article The Ubermensch as an Archetype; this aspect of elven personality is particularly pronounced in the examples of Fingolfin, Feanor, and Thranduil. Therefore, in summary, the elf is essentially an icon of the Superman (I borrowed this use of the word “icon” from the commenter pseudo-Chrysostom). As an image of higher man, the elf encourages the striving of man towards higher man, just as an icon of a saint encourages a theosis towards sainthood for the devoted Orthodox Christian.
Now, the passages I have presented from Thus Spake Zarathustra bring up the issue of the immortality of the soul. Nietzsche did not believe in the immortality of the soul, but, as we have seen, Tolkien is able to synthesize the concept of the earth-bound Superman and the immortal soul in the elf. This is what many early religions (Indo-European polytheism, the Israelite religion etc.) did before Christianity and Islam with their concepts of heaven came about. In these earlier religions, the soul was simply assumed to be bound to the physical realm, and went to Sheol or Hades after death; in some religions, the soul might reincarnate into a new earthly body, just as certain elves are able to do in Tolkien’s universe.
So, as we have seen, the disparity between Tolkien and Nietzsche is smaller than many would think. I believe this is because we all internally know, you, me, Nietzsche and Tolkien, what the characteristics of higher man are; we know deep inside, what we are to evolve into, and it is necessary that we have an intuitive drive to evolve into higher life forms in order for the Cosmos itself to evolve (this is the basis of the panentheistic religion of Cosmotheism). This drive towards the Ubermensch seems almost like something placed within us by a divinity, and it is stronger in some individuals than others. I could claim that those with more of this drive are the elect of the divine presence permeating the universe (perhaps I am inclined to believe in an esoteric Calvinism as a nod to my puritan ancestors, even though their iconoclastic values screwed up the United States). This election is different from an Abrahamic covenant in that it does not involve a conversion or affirmation of faith; it is something deeper and more naturally present in the individual which he or she may not even consciously realize is there.Thus the answer to the following question should be clear: if I seek to be a Nietzschean creator of values, an Ubermensch, then why do I require the metaphysical system of Cosmotheism to justify my values? The answer is that I do not require a metaphysical system to justify my values — I already valued the beauty and intricate complexity of life and the Universe before learning about Cosmotheism. Cosmotheism articulated these values so clearly and completely that I choose to describe myself as a Cosmotheist.
Cosmotheism was also agreeable to me because it carries no necessary conflict with polytheism; the various forces and gods which one might believe to inhabit the Cosmos are ultimately just parts of the Cosmos just as we are, but only the Cosmos, the Whole is the original Creator. It is a religion in which one’s ethics are centred around completing the great sacrament we call life for the sake of the evolution of the Cosmos; from eating, to exercising, to choosing a mate, and having sex, to becoming a teacher and mentor for the young when one is old and experienced at life. As a codified religion, it is, in my opinion, perhaps the most practical solution to nihilism for those who are unable to become creators of values themselves.
Now returning to the drive towards an Ubermensch which is ultimately part of the will of the Creator towards cosmic evolution, The Anonymous Conservative seems to have a similar realization that I do which he describes in Chapter Twenty Six — What is K? — of The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics:
In the end, K is something programmed into the computer code of the universe — a fundamental fore integral to the world, and designed to arise spontaneously, due to the designed nature of it. Once arisen, it guides the evolution of every self sufficient organism’s form and function. K may even be the fundamental force really driving the universe’s organizaiton, if not the underlying purpose of thhe entire Creation. In its most basic form, K is about the fostering of a specific quality within the Universe’s organization. The quality can be loosely be described as “greatness,” – encompassing such variables as complexity, ability, resiliency, sophistication, creativity, adaptability, etc.
If one examines the world around them, they will quickly come to the realization that, over the long haul, it favors K innately, and that this is likely an engineered design. God does not want to crack the hood on His Creation, only to look out upon a Universe of a worlds that all look like the world in the movie Idiocracy, filled with imbeciles denigrating the lone eloquent smart person. Indeed, were the universe designed to favor r, evolution would never have even made it that far. All God would see in a perpetually r-universe would be ever more rapidly expanding blobs of goo, each unit of goo competing fiercely with the others, to see which can expend less energy on greatness and complexity, to focus on repoducing more of an ever less-evolved goo.
— The Anonymous Conservative, Chapter Twenty Six — What is K? — , The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics
So now when we speak of a “eugenic” goal, if we are to have one, we see that is its the goal that the Cosmos already has; there is no need to wander in the dark, or to simply pick a single man-made quantitative parameter such as IQ (which eventually results in Ashkenazi Jewish supremacism), because K-selection is essentially what drives the evolution of the Cosmos into something more complex and beautiful.
How is K-selection accomplished in the present day? We already have the resource limitation provided by overpopulation, but we also need to create stable environments where an evolutionary strategy to produce fewer offspring of higher quality is successful in the long-term due to a lack of predators (so-to-speak). This requires the creation of what we call civilization, which must include a wise and noble aristocracy for its preservation against invaders and deceitful parasites. The Hestia Society is in a sense correct in saying “The only morality is civilization”. Civilization creates an environment where, when fewer offspring are produced, but of higher quality and complexity, they will ultimately survive, reproduce, and pass on their highly evolved phenotypes to the next generation. Where the civilization is ethnocentric this evolutionary process is able to occur without corruption and uncontrolled genetic dilution. And is not the refinement of civilization what the true right is aiming for? Yes, it is, and now you see that our purpose which we will is ultimately the purpose of the Cosmos which drives the higher evolution of the Cosmos. We are the elect of the Cosmos. Those who attempt to destroy us and our purpose are reprobate.
But what happens when the Cosmos destroys itself, and these highly evolved life forms with it, when the sun dies, the earth perishes, and our galaxy and many others are swallowed up in a black hole? Well, now you see the dionysian side of the Creator which complements the apollonian side. There is beauty in impermanence. This is understood well in Buddhism and the derived Japanese aesthetic of Wabi-Sabi. It is also expressed in Nietzsche’s idea of an aesthetic justification of life which is embodied in Greek tragedy. As a destroyer of value, Time is dead — we have killed him.
Postscript: why the consequential low birthrates of K-selection are not necessarily bad: