On Death, and How We Deal With It

thrandul2

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Adapting Christianity

Pantheon Interior Photo
Interior of Pantheon, Rome

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.

  1. 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.
  2. Figure out how to harmonize martial aristocracy and moderate kin selection with Christian ethics. I Timothy 5:8 might help solve this.
  3. 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”).
  4. 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.
  5.  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.
  6. Interpret II Corinthians 6 so that Christians and non-Christians can cooperate towards common political ends. The West will not be saved without this.
  7. 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.
  8. 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).
  9. 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 — DignitasGravitas, PietasVirtus. 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.

Sanzio 01.jpg

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.

https://medievalotaku.wordpress.com/

He provides some interesting insights regarding the importance of the body in the Christian religion which I had not considered before (link).

Also, some Anglican websites I ran across with a clearly reactionary point of view:

https://anglophilicanglican.wordpress.com/

http://www.oldjamestownchurch.com/

The Effects of Polytheism

[Previous typos have been corrected]

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.

Animate and Inanimate Beauty

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!

 

Regime Options

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

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.

Insular Nationalism

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.

Conclusion

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.

Postscript

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).

You can access the study here

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14238#s1

You can read Davidski’s take on the data here

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/02/american-midwest-home-away-from-home.html

This type of research is important because it shows where in North America new nations (or kingdoms) could arise centered around various ethnic groups.

 

 

Tolkien’s Elves and r/K Selection Theory

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.

One source of my knowledge on this subject

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 offspringThis 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.

image by kagalin

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!

— Fredrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra,  Prologue, Chapter 3 (emphasis mine)

Observe how Nietzsche describes the Superman as the meaning of the earth. He further explains this then warns us not to look for hopes beyond the physical realm:

I conjure you, my brethren, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not.

Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!

—  Fredrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra,  Prologue, Chapter 3


I go not your way, ye despisers of the body! Ye are no bridges for me to the Superman! 

Thus spake Zarathustra.

— Fredrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra,  Part One, Chapter 4 (emphasis mine)


Hearken rather, my brethren, to the voice of the healthy body; it is a more upright and pure voice.

More uprightly and purely speaketh the healthy body, perfect and square-built; and it speaketh of the meaning of the earth.—

Thus spake Zarathustra.

— Fredrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra,  Part One, Chapter 3 (emphasis mine)

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 ThranduilTherefore, 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.

image by kagalin

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:

Indictment: Carthago Delenda Est

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 Roman conservative Cato the Elder thought Socratic philosophy was highly corrosive

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 (sourcesource). 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.

Conclusion

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.