Posts Tagged ‘religion’

Why Religion — Including “Occultism” — Is Important To The Right

Wednesday, November 29th, 2017

Some thoughts describe the world, where others tell us what we must or should do. The term “must” is relative to wanting to survive, which includes both individual and group, where “should” requires that we conjecture a better way than what we know and transition to that. There is another dimension as well which is implied by the tension between “must” and “what is.”

To understand the world as it is, we must find its wisdom; it has survived aeons without us and as we frequently see, the devices of nature are superior to our own in not just efficiency but grace and elegance. Understanding its wisdom leads us to wonder what its purpose is. That purpose remains separate from “meaning,” which is a human term, and optional to the individual.

Looking into that question of how existence got here, what its internal order is, and what it attempts to achieve will in turn open up a series of other concerns. We want to know our role in this; what we should do in order to be good; and if we persist after physical death. At that point, suddenly we have arrived at full-blown religion.

It is therefore not surprising that every human society has invented a religion for itself; humans need something to answer these questions. But the bigger story is how similar all of these religions are to one another.

The similarities begin with the recognition that all religions are inventions of humankind; they are philosophies describing the world, its abstract structure, the universe, and ourselves. They begin not from material reasoning, but by looking at nature as a science of patterns, and from that study, understanding how it organizes itself and thus, why things are as they are.

Now, for some, this is heresy. They want to believe that a religion came down from a god or gods, written in perfect truth, in a way that every human can understand, a notion called “universalism.” They want to think that their religion and the world are one and the same, as if the religion were divine writing on the wall that is beyond doubt the absolute truth.

Contrasting this, the traditional European religions were an outgrowth of customs of each people, and had more in common with philosophy and calendar than they did with organized religion or “spiritualism,” the postmodern New Age way of describing oneself as spiritual but not religious which in fact means narcissistic self-expression using a polyglot of religious symbols. If we could describe paganism in a word, it might be “esoteric” or “naturalistic,” meaning that it found transcendent meaning in the order of nature but accepted that this was not equal, and so was doled out in bits to those who mastered the previous bit.

In that view, religion was not a thing in itself, but a method of discovering how the world works, and it was inherently “made of man” because it consisted of observations, not dogma. That divides the older methods from the modern forms of religion, but the older methods comprise the vast majority of the notions behind modern religion, so they can be rediscovered and brought to the surface.

When we apply those older spiritual methods to modern faiths like Christianity, we find a greater meaning in words that previously we accepted as having to be interpreted in a universalist context. When made esoteric, these notions expand from a narrow and human meaning to one that more elegantly describes our world. The patterns of life take on larger significance.

These patterns also implicate orders beyond the immediate and physical world. If each event is a cycle that returns, for example, we have reason to believe that life itself is the same way, as are our own lives. Religion describes what nothing else can because it is purely abstract, or based on similarity between patterns, yet grounded because it relates entirely to the whole of life and existence as we know it.

In addition to being invented by humans, religions are more similar than not, including the occult and pagan ones, suggesting that since the dawn of humanity, people have been observing similar patterns and drawing similar conclusions.

These patterns are not universalist, although they seem “universal,” because they do not apply to all human beings. Every religion possesses layers of nuance and detail that only emerge through study of the broader and more generalized ideas of that religion. Interpreted in this way, every religion is esoteric, and none are universal; they study the same subject, and therefore come to similar recognitions.

Conservatives come from a similar perspective in that we realize that the same world will be seen vastly differently by many people, and that only through a conscious effort to be good and preserve the good — which, by the nature of time, requires producing more of it — can we hone our perception to the point where it is more accurate than not.

At the heart of conservatism and religion both we find a preference for tradition, which means not that which repeats what was done in the past, but that which is perpetually new because it is rediscovered time and again by those who make the effort to look. This is esotericism applied to life itself.

For this reason, it does not matter to us what form religious thought takes; it may be Christian, pagan or occult, which seems to be a word for the modern continuations of those ancient esoteric faiths from the ancient Vedas and before. “Occult” means that which is hidden, and for an esotericist, truth is always hidden in plain sight.

Thus when we see attention-getting headlines, it is important to remember that we are seeing an urge toward religion, and through it, an urge toward what is eternally true:

“If you’re not ready to admit that the universe is chaos, I’m not sure how far you’re going to go,” Bracciale said to the class, describing witchcraft as a way to exercise power in a world without transcendent moral rules, a supernatural technology for taking care of yourself when no one else will. Witchcraft, Bracciale said, lets you be the “arbiter of your own justice.”

I suspect that this assumption of chaos — the sense that institutions have failed and no one is in charge — helps explain the well-documented resurgence of occultism among millennials…magic and witchcraft have a renewed cachet, one that seems related to our current climate of political and cultural breakdown.

For some time, we relied on the purely material idea of individualism to guide our civilization. Whatever individuals wanted was right, and however we had to arrange our society to support that was good, and we did not worry about a divine order to nature and the metaphysical or supernatural which could guide us.

What is described in the quotation above as “chaos” has more to do with the lack of a human order that every human can understand than a state of disorder. The chaos of the universe emerges from its cyclic nature, and what seems random to us rarely is, although our own randomness occurs because we deluded ourselves and engage in pointless actions which lead nowhere.

Although it seems that this article is arguing for a different kind of religion, a scary occult and mystical one, what it in fact shows is the breakdown of our current materialistic and universalist model, and the need for one that is pattern-based and esoteric. That approach is philosophical in nature and does not require a specific faith.

Most likely, since we have come out of the bubble of modern thought which insists on mass culture enforced through universalism so that no individual is threatened by the superior power of another, our future religion will involve our present-day faiths re-interpreted through the timeless views of the faiths of antiquity. Since both describe the same world, we will merely achieve greater clarity.

In the meantime, it is useful for us as conservatives to remember that our goal is not a specific faith, which is a means to an end, but the understanding of what it describes, which is our universe itself. Any god or gods that created this world will reside in it, hidden in plain sight like all other great truths.

Do We Really Want To Live Like This?

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

One of the worst Cuck Jobs you’ll ever hear from the pulpit happens when your contemporary Reverend Iwanna SWPLToo opens The Good Book to Acts 10:9-18. After sitting through purge-and-vomit instead fire-and-brimstone, I wanted to log into to my training program at work and see if could claim that homily as my annual diworsity brainwashing session and skip the pablum from HR.

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.

You see, Reverand Iwanna SWPLToo seems to believe we just need to take anyone into the church who claims to want in the door. That excluding them on any grounds makes you a sinner that fails to understand Christianity. Putting a high-pass filter in place would lead us straight down the broad thoroughfare of damnation that AC/DC sings about so nicely. He then informed us if we didn’t all agree with this message he would take his act back home to Arlington, Texas. I figured it was nice he favored open borders and free movement and hoped to someday soon bid him a fond farewell while the church looked for a minister who could read The New Testament and not imbue it with Progressive, New-Fangled Amorality.

So what’s wrong with the SWPL interpretation of this old tale from the scriptures? According to Der Spiegel, nothing the old East German Stasi couldn’t stitch right up. I mean once you’ve decided everyone, literally everyone, regardless of their standards of personal conduct are welcome, you get pretty much what you tolerate. It’s just plain common sense to ask if God would call sepsis clean. Maybe God would call intestinal rotifers and cancer tumors clean as well. It was pretty harsh of Old Jesus to discriminate against Legion for having an excremental résumé. He did ask Christ nicely not to render him homeless.

How would the secret police get involved in a theological discussion with Communism now consigned to corrupt, declining institutions like The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York? It gets involved once Reverend Iwanna SWPLToo’s vision completely dominates a society. You see Germany deigns to assume anything that crap and take a walk has been called clean by whatever they believe in since Nietzsche signed Gnon’s death certificate. So as the old game show trope goes, “Show ’em what they win, Dom Pardo!”

The assassin from Breitscheidplatz, Anis Amri, murdered twelve people and injured almost 100 more. Many of them are traumatized to the present day, some still in the hospital, some will remain nursing care for their whole lives. Could the attack have been prevented? In his report, former Federal Prosecutor Jost assumes at least that Amri could have been arrested in the summer or autumn of 2016 with “high probability” – if the police and the public prosecutors had done their work properly.

Pretty typical conclusion. Better police work would prevent criminals from doing crime. How does this even implicitly indict our true Cuck-Christian duty to !CELEBRATE! diversity? Umm, let’s discuss what proper police work has to entail in order to run the managerial state that can manage diversity.

The LKA observed Amri only for a few weeks. And even though the Berlin police in the meantime considered him to be the most urgent case in the capital, she observed the Islamists only sporadically during this period. Jost is sober: “All observations are limited to the weekdays Monday to Friday, even during the weeks in which Amri ranks first among the” Berliners “. On weekends and holidays, no observers take place.” The ex-federal prosecutor concludes that the findings of Amris’s Islamist activities alone would not have sufficed to put him under investigation. However, from his point of view, it would have given him a great opportunity to get him out of circulation because of drug trafficking.

So my questions are not whether the German neo-Stazis should have received better direction from Zee Merkel’s totally non-Communist politburo. My question is why do we allow elements into Western Society that require us to emulate the failures of the CCCP to avoid having them deliberately and maliciously blow us up or run us over at a Christmas Market? Who in their right mind wants to live like that? Acts 10 aside, we were told by a higher authority than Saint Luke that you can judge a tree by its fruits and that those who don’t bear the desired fruit for the Kingdom of Heaven are tossed into the fire and burned.

We have a theological duty to to read our scripture properly. The injunction is against rejecting that which God made clean. Where does Acts or any other book of the New Testament claim everything is de facto clean? It doesn’t. Reverend Iwanna SWPLToo is deliberately implying valid philosophical induction without an effective base case. Accepting Cornelius the highly decent and squared away Roman Centurian is several standard deviations away from accepting anything that walks out of Left Point with a commission as a 2LT. Peter knew it. Rev. SWPLToo and Angela Merkel know it well. Acts 10:9-18 is being used as a normative bait and switch. Buy not the used mechanical conveyance using an internal combustion engine from any preacher quoting Chapter 10 of Acts.

Why the dishonesty from people we should otherwise be able to rely upon and trust? Maybe I asked the wrong question when I asked who in their right minds would want to live in a society that requires a Stasi? The real question here is who benefits from deracinating a society and culture until it requires a Stasi. Importing fear imports the need for control. The need for control empowers the tyrant. The society that accepts literally everything can only be preserved in the end by a despotism. It can only exist under the baleful, watching glare of The Lidless Eye.


Tuesday, October 17th, 2017

Despite the acknowledged supremacy of atheism in our time, it seems as if most people have intimations that it is not quite the whole story. At least, we can reject the old man in the sky fantasies of simplistic mass religion, and also the mindless mechanistic universe at the same time, simply because neither feels right.

We are born, at least, believing that we came from another place. Scientists will waggle fingers at us and say that this is merely an artifact of the creaking of our neurons as they grew, or that we are remembering the early days in the womb. Perhaps they are right, but these beliefs more resemble memories than hallucinations, and most brain distortions dope out as those.

Another thought comes to mind when we consider the behavior of human beings. Most people seem to go through life as a series of tantrums; things are either good, at which point they are at rest, or something is off, which requires constant dramatic and violent behavior to create a disturbance until it is resolved. While many tantrums are directed at other humans, more seem to target life itself.

It is as if we are constantly negotiating with a heavenly parent. This behavior — occurring at a level lower than the formulation of argument, rationalizations and explanations in the conscious mind — suggests that we are signaling to someone rather than something, like petulant children who want to attract the attention of their parents.

Naturally, much of this is our own solipsism; we are signaling to ourselves because we cannot formulate complete thoughts without calming our personalities and focusing on the data at hand, and to do that is to remove the veil of solipsism. But it also seems to reflect something more than a belief, like an underlying or intuitive knowledge, that life is a negotiation between us and some power.

Our nature reflects our duality of origin: we seem to be monkeys which are capable of logical thought, although this is often not applied. Sometimes the logical mind wins out, but often, the monkey mind rises and takes over, at which point we go back to posturing, signaling for attention, bluffing, posing, smashing non-conformists and other monkey behaviors.

At the core of everything seems to be a great rage at life for being a vast mystery. Nothing is as it represents itself, mainly because all that we see are the effects of distant causes, many of which are invisible because of their locus away from the site of their impact, often simply through time or one of those Rube Goldberg contraptions of many things triggering in a row.

Eternal human frustration results from being unable to directly manipulate whatever causes make life into what it is. The mathematics of life defeat us: we know that too much repetition causes breakdown, that no golden moment can last forever, that what is excellent will be rare, that people will never be equal. Our fundamental tantrum is denial of these things, using other people as our personal army to do so.

That personal army eventually weaponizes into a mass cult movement like Leftism. It starts simply as the individual, angry at life for being unfair and wanting to never be the loser in any conflict or to fail in any decision, demanding that bad be made equal to good so that this individual does not lose out when he makes bad decisions. From there, the pathology snowballs.

In doing so, humans have made the tantrum permanent. They have rejected the triad of nature, logic and divinity and replaced it with a construction of human-only knowledge that reflects the biases of the individual. Ironically, because as the old saying goes, “the exception proves the rule,” this firmly suggests that all of us, especially those who deny it, realize the primacy of nature — and believe in God.

Thought, Not Emotion, Is The Path To Learning, Which Is Esoteric

Tuesday, September 26th, 2017

Once upon a time, humans seemed to have something like “free will”: the ability to creatively conceive of and redesign their circumstances. With more water of wisdom under the bridge of perception, it becomes clear that people are more like mushrooms than the “free will” creature, although the root of our individualism requires we celebrate ourselves as “free will” demigods.

As neo-mushrooms, humans mostly react to their environment, specifically their food source. When the paycheck is threatened, they start acting erratically until the food source is resumed. Most of us have no experience with domains beyond a few areas where we have knowledge, so most of how the world works is a mystery, leaving us dependent on a few methods we have internalized for getting by.

Even more, the neo-mushrooms react sluggishly if at all to any event without immediate impact. Something more than two weeks — the time between paychecks — away is as distant as the moon and remote as the Punic Wars. Humans roll through life, reacting to what they recognize, filtering out the rest, and hoping for the best.

Rarely do you see an event where a human stops, analyzes the situation, works out a hypothesis and tests it before going ahead. People rely on what others tell them, what they read or see, or pure gut instinct or emotional reaction. There is actually very little thought going on, and most of what humans call “thought” is in fact memorized call-and-response style tropes.

As is natural in a society dominated by popularity and thus appearance, there is a huge market for “reputable” evidence that defends our assumptions. Most people choose what they believe based on what they feel they need to believe in order to perceive their lives as sensible and good, and so they are constantly rationalizing, looking for reasons to believe that emotions of the self are better than the logic of the world.

One such rationalizer is Eckhart Tolle, who writes against thinking:

The stream of thinking has enormous momentum that can easily drag you along with it. Every thought pretends that it matters so much. It wants to draw your attention in completely.

Here is a new spiritual practice for you: don’t take your thoughts too seriously.

…The human mind, in its desire to know, understand, and control, mistakes its opinions and viewpoints for the truth. It says: this is how it is. You have to be larger than thought to realize that however you interpret “your life” or someone else’s life or behavior, however you judge any situation, it is no more than a viewpoint, one of many possible perspectives. It is no more than a bundle of thoughts. But reality is one unified whole, in which all things are interwoven, where nothing exists in and by itself. Thinking fragments reality — it cuts it up into conceptual bits and pieces.

Here is the deception: “Thinking fragments reality — it cuts it up into conceptual bits and pieces.”

This is an emotional argument, not a realistic one. Thinking, which he confuses with deconstruction, can also be unitive with the world. The sleight of hand here is in conflating one type of thought with the whole thing, and using that to argue for what is a concealed emotional approach to the world. In other words: turn off your brain, feel and react with your body.

In contrast to that, Bruce Charlton offers the idea of Primary Thinking, which is understanding the world through patterns by using a process not entirely different from mythic imagination which is one aspect of traditionalism (see also my essay, “The Philosophical Essence of the Northern Traditions,” in Northern Traditions). Charlton demonstrates his view, parallel to that of Plato, a pattern-based understanding of reality:

“One problem with this idea is that it threatens to destroy the re-ality (“thingishness”) of the world by making it wholly dependent on thought — a hallucination, essentially. Without something that exists independently of our own thoughts there is, it seems, no world. ”

Not quite. There is a world – a world of raw phenomena, without meaning. There really are things, and we really sense them – but without ‘concepts’ (which we provide, in thinking) nothing means anything, then nothing could or would add up to anything (our experience would be of a blooming, buzzing confusion, to quote William James).

Concepts in this case refers to that which unites disconnected thoughts and understands a cause-effect, or at least related structures, relationship between thoughts and reality. Writing within the German Idealist tradition, Charlton sees the possibility of a “universal reality” which is thought-like more than purely material, and in this, his writing reaches back to the original ideas of the Vedic sages.

In this sense, thinking is a union of creativity and perception, but it is not generative, meaning that it is driven by understanding of reality and not the manufacturing of ideas which are self-referential to the human mind alone. This offers a more complex but saner vision than Tolle, updating the “do not think” to “think only what is real.”

Realism is different than other philosophies because, unlike ideologies, it is not universalist. That is: it presents itself as an intellectual tool used to uncover other things which can make the individual more accurate or effective, but it does not proclaim itself to be an absolute morality or something that all people must obey. Rather, like true statements, it is a choice for those who want to move up a level in power over themselves:

Our primary choice is whether to opt-in to the reality of God’s creation – or not. This is a real choice – and has real consequences. In principle a person might simply decline to join creation – and to surrender self-consciousness, and all the personhood which has been given us by becoming a child of God. This is not an evil choice – it is the choice of nihilism, of non-reality – but it is not evil (it indeed bears some relation to the ideal of ‘Eastern’ religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism).

The evil choice is to decline to joining God’s work of creation; but to hold onto God’s gifts to us – to hold-onto meaning, purpose and relationship – but to impose our own personal meanings upon them. It is to try and take what is personally gratifying from creation, but not to join creation. It is to adopt a stance towards creation that sees it primarily as a thing to be exploited.

The important words there involve the concept of joining (Reality). In this view, primary thinking is a method of finding union with the order of nature — similar to the form that is the set of Platonic forms — through understand it not at a human level, but in terms of its own structure and purpose.

Charlton derives his view from the work of Rudolf Steiner, who argues for primary thinking as a root structure of reality:

I believe I have given sufficient reasons for making thinking the starting point for my study of the world. When Archimedes had discovered the lever, he thought he could lift the whole cosmos from its hinges, if only he could find a point of support for his instrument. He needed something that was supported by itself and by nothing else.

In thinking we have a principle which subsists through itself.

…There is no denying that before anything else can be understood, thinking must be understood. Whoever denies this fails to realize that man is not the first link in the chain of creation but the last. Hence, in order to explain the world by means of concepts, we cannot start from the elements of existence which came first in time, but we must begin with that element which is given to us as the nearest and most intimate.

German Idealism, and its Vedic and Greek roots before it, holds that the world is either composed of thought or thought-like. This belief system draws a distinction between accurate thought, which references the patterns of reality through comparison and so discovers which patterns can be accurate, and solipsism, which is entirely human self-referential thought, and is “generative” in the sense of creating notions which do not correspond to reality.

In a world which is composed of something like thought, then, our only task is to make our own thoughts understand the underlying informational structure of the universe. This leads us to esoteric thought, which is the opposite of universal thought. In universal thought, there is one thing that everyone must do to be right; in esoteric thought, there are only degrees of power and meaning in parallel conveyed by different types of activity.

For example, anyone can make a mud hut and live as a subsistence farmer and bushmeat gatherer, which has probably been the default state of humanity for aeons. This is distinct from organized farming, where people work together to till large fields; it means that behind his hut, a man plants trees and other flora that provide him directly with food. Bushmeat is usually trapped more than hunted, and if you can enjoy a stew of rabbits, rats and other small animals, along with a diet of roots, fruits, berries and leafy vegetables, subsistence level is just fine. It does not allow for much organization because the margins are narrow, which is to say that the subsistence farmer is barely surviving. The next step up would be to insert organization into the process and focus more on farming crops which are indirect in benefit, like grains which can be fed to livestock. The next step up is organized farming, and there may be many steps beyond that. The point here is that subsistence farming works, and there is not an inherent or innate need to rise above that state, but some may choose to in order to gain heretofore unknown benefits like civilization. The same is true of learning.

The normal human “needs” only some very basic knowledge in order to survive. Anything else on top of that is a positive benefit, but with some caveats. First, many if not most people find this inaccessible because they lack the necessary circuits in their minds. Genetically, they do not have the code to produce the biological apparatus for having understanding above a certain level. To them, anything more complex than what their minds can comprehend is bizarre and stupid, and “educating” them only enables them to be wrong in a less obvious form, fooling others. This means that each person has a limited potential for understanding beyond subsistence, and that there is no universal standard to which people can be held. As in life, in matters of philosophy and religion, there is a de facto caste system created by nature.

For those who are able to push further, the benefits are apparent, but this is not true of others. Your average person has no idea why someone would be delighted by an abstract, timeless or cosmic truth; the average person is interested in comfort, safety and enjoyment between now and the next paycheck, and not much else. Even among the talented, there are relatively few who are concerned with the consequences of their actions; for most, it is enough to rationalize these results to themselves, and to come up with a socially acceptable excuse for their behavior, instead of worrying about the actual outcome in reality. The remaining group — the talented who are also concerned about realistic results — have contributed almost all of the good done by humanity. They tend to indulge in thinking as a means of understanding reality and refining their own minds, a type of self-discipline, and so are constantly probing their knowledge of life both as a sensible act and because it brings them joy to understand the mysteries, wonders and potentialities of creation.

In contrast to thinking, what most people engage in might be referred to as solipsism or simply hubris. They know the world through their minds, and so they take that picture of reality as literal, instead of realizing that alongside perception they are also getting internal echo based on what their bodies fear and their emotions desire, and that these phantom images are like scapegoats or universal symbols a misleading path. Those phantom images come from the outer portions of humanity — body, personality, social concerns, ego — and do not reflect the inner view. This duality of body/outer-mind and inner mind is inherent to humanity, and represents the difference between reactive or generative thinking, which is external as it is mostly stimulus response, and directed and focused primary thinking, through which we can achieve direct knowledge of the world, which in that state reveals itself as a continuity between the physical and metaphysical, united in idealism or the thought-like nature of reality:

Knowledge of some-thing is — as the Old Icelandic kunnleik suggests — an intimate, detailed, knowing of and acquaintance with that ‘thing’, whereas information (enformation) is merely a statement or a collection of statements about or concerning some-thing.

Or expressed in our now familiar terms, knowledge — as we understand it — is numinous, a part of one’s life, whereas information is lifeless, causal, an outer form. For in terms of esoteric, Occult, matters, to know is both to learn from personal experience and to place what is so learnt in a particular context, that of one’s personal internal and external journey along the particular way or path that one has, by initiation, chosen to follow.

Paradoxically, in order to know the world outside of ourselves, we must go deeper into ourselves, but discipline that spectrum of notions by the principles and patterns of the outer world, bypassing instead the misleading veil of personality, ego, materialism and social influences. Just as we do not find truth in democracy, humanism, consumerism or narcissism, we cannot find it in the outer edges of our minds, but only in the part that connects us to intuition, through which we know a priori concepts, per Immanuel Kant, who saw the world as entirely discovered by intuition.

But I understand under the transcendental idealism of all appearances the doctrine according to which they are all together to be regarded as mere representations, and not as things in themselves, and accordingly that space and time are only sensible forms of our intuition, but not determinations given for themselves, or conditions of objects as things in themselves.

Schopenhauer later clarified this to state that the outside world exists independently of us, but that we know it only through our own perception, so that there may be more of it than we perceive. At this point, it becomes clear that the esoteric idea — that knowledge is cumulative, and reveals itself only when previous levels have been mastered — accurately describes the situation. Most perceive some, others perceive more, and very few come even broadly close to perceiving all.

This esoteric approach means that there is not any single truth that all humans can appreciate, and in fact that most will oppose it and attempt to dilute it with illusions, but that pursuit of knowledge of the world through thinking is our only path to realism, or those perceptions of reality which are accurate enough to be called “actual,” which is the concept which most intend when they use the word “truth”:

One of the main reasons for the existence of esoteric groups such as the Order of Nine Angles is to be a living hereditary repository of a certain type of knowledge – kunnleik – and to personally, directly, encourage some individuals to acquire the culture, the habit, of learning – practical, scholarly, esoteric – and thus enable them to move in the traditional esoteric manner toward the goal of discovering and thence acquiring wisdom; and which wisdom is a balanced personal judgement and a particular knowledge of a pagan, Occult, kind to do with livings beings, human nature, Nature and ‘the heavens’. This involves possessing/developing certain esoteric faculties/skills; acquiring an honest knowing of one’s self, one’s character; possessing an Aeonic understanding; and thus discovering Reality beyond, and sans, all causal abstractions.

Idealism bypasses the confusion of much of philosophy because it embraces monism, or the idea that there is continuity between the physical, the metaphysical, and the mental. That avoids the condition of dualism, where we suppose that the world is different than its essence in structure and thus in its patterns, which renders actuality unknowable to us, usually as a means of justifying “faith” or some form of emotion-based reasoning.

With monism, there is no distinction between soul and body, as both are manifestations of the same thing and are in parallel as a result. Where a dualist might say that we all have equal souls, but that these are vested in unequal bodies, a monist recognizes that we are all unequal, and the body carries a soul appropriate to it. Matt Briggs puts this notion in more elegant language in his description of the union of body and soul:

Now, the most evenly tempered body is the human, so that, if an intellectual substance is united to a mixed body, the latter must be of the same nature as the human body; and its form, too, would be of the same nature as the human soul, if it were an intellectual substance. Hence, there would be no specific difference between the animal so constituted and man.

In contrast to modern notions, this ancient and future idea embraces the thought that we are effects and not causes, meaning that whatever form we have fits our mental abilities, which is consistent with the esoteric idea of knowledge being not universally valuable, nor uniformly achievable, and being measured in degrees within cumulative levels accessible only to those with the biological aptitude to pursue them. Thus, there are some souls to whom the esoteric knowledge is available, and only those will find it to be relevant, while others will oppose it; this is a more advanced form of the shorthand that is “good” and “evil.”

For this reason, the thought available to us is as organic and natural as our bodies, and this means that those who can think will find themselves adapted to doing so, which in turn means that without doing so, they are doing themselves harm. While we are taught that religion is a variety of propaganda or dogma, in reality, it is an experience of the world both through the intuition and that disciplines our inner thought, improving us as it reveals answers to mysteries that most cannot even conceptualize.

With that in mind, we see the importance of religion in traditional societies: it was not a means of enforcing obedience or unity, but a positive option for people to demonstrate sanity and thus rise in the hierarchy above others who were presumed to be “common” like most of the species and thus inconsequential for higher decision-making. In this context, spirituality is better than “free will”: it is a choice to pursue something like an optional destiny to be a better version of who one is at an inner level.

Pagan Christianity

Monday, June 19th, 2017

The Right desperately needs to get right with God.

Perhaps not in the way most would think, this need arises from the confusion about the role of religion in the Right. Some want it to be the basis of the Right and to install a de facto theocracy; others see it as irrelevant; still others argue that conservatism is not based on a single method, as ideology is, and that religion is one part — perhaps not for all people — of a bundle of methods that together make a solution but are not in themselves solutions.

These seem to be prerequisites that can be accidentally made into ideologies. For example, racial and ethnic homogeneity is necessary for a thriving society, but in itself it is not a whole solution, only part of one. Similarly, deposing democracy and equality is a partial solution. Together these and other methods make up a complete society.

For that reason, it makes sense to view religion as not a solution in itself, but also something that at least many of us need. This gets us away from the theocracy that forces us all to become believers, and instead points to rule by culture, which requires strong nationalism to establish.

This takes us in turn to the question, which religion?

Varg Vikernes makes a compelling point for avoiding Christianity. It leads to Leftism, and conspired against our people in the past, not to mention creates the “personal morality” conditions which encourage virtue signaling. In his view, as in Nietzsche’s, it is entirely too pacifistic and fatalistic of a religion.

Onto this we might add one other shining elephant in the room: at least geographically — the Christianity Identity folks have some interesting input here on the origins of Biblical Jews — it is foreign, or simply put not European. The names are not in our languages, nor are the locations, or presumably many of the customs and values.

To this it is important to add that Christianity is also at least from a surface reading, which over time in the hands of large groups is what it will be streamlined to be, it is dualistic, or posits another world where the rules are more real than the rules in this one. In other words, logic is not logic; there is a different logic, more like a human logic, which is actually real.

DARG adds another failing of Christianity, which relates to the personal morality it champions:

The beginning of this is a clarification on the terms sacred and profane. Christianity has made [humans] believe that the sacred is themselves, and equivalent to “tolerance and love” (towards what they define as permissible, of course) and “feeling nice and warm”, and that the profane is everything that opposes that. How convenient. The more historical and philosophical stance, on the other hand, sees in the every-day world, and all that it holds, benign of malignant, as profane; and sees in the world of the exceptional, of man going beyond the merely human, the sacred.

The personal morality of Christianity, and its exoteric nature or tendency to behave like an ideological system more than a deep-learning skill, make it a mixed bag when it comes to religions. It is the great unifier, but that also means it simplifies the message.

Pagan faiths, on the other hand, are monistic — they believe there is no alternate set of rules for the universe, and that all that we need to know can be found in nature, science and logic — and esoteric, or formed of cumulative self-directed learning in which some are naturally gifted to go farther than others. Exotericism is inherently egalitarian; esotericism is innately hierarchical.

In fact, pagan faiths more resemble a philosophy and folkway with metaphysical implications than a religion, or organized spiritual dogma for the sake of shaping mass behavior:

This effort of combining all non-Christian religions under one umbrella was, in fact, a clever strategy by the early Christians to remove the “pagan” faiths altogether. Using the Norse traditions as an example, the Vikings of the early medieval period had no true name for their religious following. In truth, the word religion would have been an unknown, foreign term to them. The Nordic tribes preferred the word “customs” as—like the Greeks and Romans—their rituals, beliefs, and traditions were undefined and fluidly interpreted, orally passed down rather than rigidly studied. There was no all-encompassing word for the belief in the Aesir and Vanir, and the various other beings and deities the ancient Norse worshiped, and there was no written text discussing their practices until the Christian author Snorri Sturluson wrote their mythology down in the 13th century.

Now, the picture gets more complex because Christianity is mostly Pagan. It is clearly a derivative, or rather a compilation and synthesis of the indigenous faiths of lands the Jewish scribes were in contact with, featuring the Greeks whose philosophy they loved above all else. This means that there are Greek, Nordic, Hindu and other faiths retold in the Bible.

There was a reason why formerly “pagan” communities switched to Christianity, namely that it was both mostly familiar and more effective for manipulating herds of people. The exoteric nature of Christianity means that its symbols can be directly adjusted to cause people to behave one way or another. Some of this was positive, namely getting people to leave behind previous antisocial habits.

However, this displacement of the original faiths also led to cultural erasure. When a simpler and more easily understood version of a tradition comes along, especially one that is written, people simply adopt the new and forget the old, which most importantly contains the roadmap to understanding the reasons for the beliefs.

What this means however is that there is a bridge between pagan faiths and Christianity, and that for this reason, we can have faith that is not strictly entrenched in either one, only expressed through it, and that over time, this may change to the simpler and more internal, informal and naturalistic pagan ideation. Consider the Perennial nature of spirituality:

It also makes sense to have some form of metaphysical outlook, perhaps of a Perennialist nature:

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

  1. The phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness — the world of things and animals and men and even gods — is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
  2. Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
  3. Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
  4. Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

If we distill religions to their core and take the intersection, we see a basic starting point that does not necessarily need formalization and, if kept informalized, loses its “human” projection and interpretation, and starts to resemble more the pagan faiths and even older Indo-European religion that our pre-Greek ancestors adopted.

This takes us away from religion as an external constraint that we adopt in order to shape ourselves and become a mass of people acting toward some goal, and reverts it to its original form, which is an observation about the nature of reality that reveals hints of the metaphysical embedded within nature:

As that great non-church and heterodox Christian Rudolf Steiner said: to disbelieve in God is to be, in a real sense, insane; in other words, it is to disbelieve any possibility of coherence, meaning and purpose – which is to regard all of life as a delusion.

…And to deny God within us and the world is to live earthly life in a state of detachment – since we can only observe and never actually participate in reality: we can never know.

In other words, religion is rediscovered by those with clarity of mind who can observe nature; this is the essence of transcendentalism, in which joy arises from understanding the nature of the world and seeing it in logic, therefore wisdom, and therefore beauty and a positive intention toward those of us caught in it, which in turn implies a life-like force to the universe, which per German Idealism — also found in Hinduism — is thought-like, dream-like or composed of thought or information.

In this way, we can see how for the West to rediscover the divine, Christianity must converge on the less formal and more intuitive forms of religious faith, which are the folk customs and existential search of the inner self that produces our classically reflective outlook.

Already we see signs of this. The Orthosphere-style thinkers tend either to embrace Catholicism, or outward-in, religious thinking, or to go the other way and embrace transcendentalism with discipline. This leads to a more naturalistic interpretation of religion that is naturally less obsessed with personality morality and its means-over-ends analysis.

Pagan Christianity, in addition to the Perennial Philosophy traits mentioned above per Aldous Huxley, also has a different map of the cosmos and metaphysical. At its core, this represents a shift from three paths (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) to four:

  1. Information-Space
  2. Godhead
  3. God
  4. Gods

In this mythos, the natural order of a universe comprised of information comes first, and with it the notion that we each have a role to serve determined by our logical placement within this order. Natural law and logic come first, and within them there are other spaces.

Godhead is the animating force of all that we know and the most essential tendencies of the universe. This works within the information-space, shaping us toward the divine and influencing the birth of the gods.

At the top, there is an all-encompassing God which represents holiness itself and less of an active personality than a tendency, like gravity or rain, to order the universe into beauty by balancing darkness and light so that existence itself can prevail. Since the universe is relative, darkness is necessary to emphasize light, much like death gives significance to life.

Below that are the gods, or animistic forces with distinct personalities. These are manifested forces which act according to their own interest, which means that we can respect them without expecting them to judge us or treat us according to some moral standard of our own. They simply do what they do, but they reflect the spirit of godhead, and so are divine while bridging to the profane world of the mundane.

At the bottom are the creatures of Earth and beyond, including humans and plants, who exhibit spirit of their own. These are able to partake in divinity by seeking transcendence and avoiding hubris, but will never fully know what is on the other side because they are limited to a perspective of the physical and individualized.

Perhaps that is enough of a start for now. We have seen how Christianity and Paganism are not that much different, how they share a core, and how we can rediscover that core by starting from reality itself. As with all esoteric things, that represents a doorway opened, and a path upon which each of us will journey a different distance, often down different tributaries.

How Religion May Tear The Right Apart, Again

Thursday, June 15th, 2017

Over at Red Ice, Reinhard Wolff writes a great summary of how operant paradigm shifts produce new ages of history and the challenges to nationalist and traditionalist thinkers from that front:

With that in mind, it’s obvious that we need a new ideology – one that offers room for different religious inclinations.

This new mythos based on the fundamental laws of nature – hierarchy, identity, differentiation, upward evolution and struggle, to name a few. For regardless which stances one takes on metaphysical issues, the laws of nature reign supreme in this world, and civilizations that fall out of the natural order are doomed. This new ideology must support virtue and promotes excellence, strength, beauty, and honor. Most importantly, it must be able to transcend our differences.

Categories can baffle and befuddle us. More important than a particular religion, or even the choice of religion, is our desire to be good. The root of both conservatism and religion is found in a desire to be part of an order larger than the self; this requires enough maturation to stop being fascinated by desires, drama and attention.

That in turn requires a desire to be good, which in turn necessitates realism so that we know what will be good in reality by achieving good results. This forces a split from most religion and politics, which focuses on defining certain methods as good instead of focusing on whether the cumulative results of our actions produce something good and enduring.

In that sense, we do not need an ideology, but a cultural agreement that we wish to be good by doing good, and that religion may have a role in this but only where compatible. Religions will experiencing a type of editing through re-interpretation via this process, and through this, something curious will happen.

While we await the symbolism of a religion of the new age, we do not disagree on content, which is converging more on the pagan than the Christian. The pagan faiths — nature beliefs, not human ones; unwritten, not written; practiced, not theorized — are not the stories of the gods, but a general outlook that includes a belief in a natural hierarchy into which humanity fits and human individuals fit unequally.

If the Alt Right and related movements have a core, it is a rejection of the fundamental idea of The Enlightenment,™ which is that “man is the measure of all things.” Our focus instead is on reality, and how nature plus the divine is the measure of all things, including human survival. That “meta-religion” defines our future more than a specific denomination can.

Evil Hubristic Crowdists Gaslight Your Sense Of Inner Knowledge

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

What is hubris, which the Greeks identified as the great evil of humankind? It is “me first”: a tendency to put oneself above one’s rightful station in the social order. This can be men pretending to be gods, proles pretending to be kings, or people who care nothing for social order or consequences in reality and claw their way above others from some mild sociopathic impulse.

Crowdists, or those who unite individualism and collectivism into a force designed to legitimize hubris, gaslight us constantly by creating the impression that what “everyone knows” contradicts our inner knowledge, found in deep in the self in the intuition, aesthetics and moral wisdom nature has fashioned for us. These forms of knowledge are unique in that they are qualitative, or accept reality as it is but aim for the best possible versions of it, and while found in the inner self are directed toward the world which is seen as a continuity between physical reality, intuitions and any thought-like or metaphysical reality.

You can witness this gaslighting — a reference to an Alfred Hitchcock film in which a character deftly manipulates another by making events seem to be the opposite of how they were observed — whenever the Leftist-fueled media talks about what “intelligent” people know:

The researchers examined different models that had been proposed for explaining why believers are allegedly less intelligent. It selected and revised evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa’s Savanna-IQ Principle. This suggests that what we do and believe has its foundation in the environment of our ancestors.

The researchers concluded that religion is an evolved instinct, while intelligence “involves rising above our instincts.” After all, intelligence and all that comes with it does often involve controlling our instincts in order to allow our minds to reach rational conclusions.

Indeed, as Hawking told Spain’s El Mundo last year: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.”

This is the ultimate in human hubris: researchers telling us that those who see more than they do are in fact wrong, and that “intelligence” arises by denying any logical facts which require more sensitivity to perceive. In other words, dumb it down to what the herd thinks is right so we can all stop worrying about any duty to know reality or moral right. Anarchy is saved!

Intelligence cannot be made into a mass-produced, identical creation as this article implies. But what they can do is a classic egalitarian technique: reduce everyone to a level called “equal” by claiming that since all of us do not understand what the most perceptive among us are going on about, those things are simply not real and we are smarter for excluding that wisdom.

As usual, this is an inversion, or the tendency of a group (herd, crowd, mob, gang, cult, clique) to make a term mean the opposite of what it was intended to mean by eliminating the parts that do not apply equally to the group. In that sense, intelligence is reduced to ignorance, beauty to utilitarianism, and justice to treating people of unequal contribution as if they were equal.

You can see this inversion pathology at work in this herd analysis of another idea familiar to readers here, in which having the mental ability to notice differences becomes not higher ability but lower in the wisdom of the crowd:

In a scholarly journal called Social Bias: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination written by Sabrina Keene, Keene explains social bias, prejudice, and stereotyping and how it affects the lives of individuals from day to day. She explains that:

Individuals who do not fall victim to bias are often able to use such circumstances as motivating factors. Individuals are often afraid of what they do not know. The best defense against ignorance is knowledge. Education and familiarization with the object of a prejudice or stereotype allows the truth to be discovered and applied. Being educated allows an individual the ability to embrace and accept differences in other, and aids in bringing society together.

As Keene perfectly explains, a person who falls victim to stereotypes and prejudice is likely to feel defeated and have negative connotations towards others. People of color that experience color-blind racism everyday can either fall victim or use this newly found ignorance to their advantage. When people begin to familiarize themselves with racial discrimination toward people of color, even if it doesn’t apply to them personally, there are able to gain a newly found sympathy for the individual.

Once a social bias is destroyed, society gets one step closer to eliminating racial discrimination due to less people spreading the negative ideals and more people being educated on the effects of discrimination and why they can cause people of color to feel anger toward those trying to suppress them.

Read this one in inverse: the real social bias is the notion that pleases everyone, which is that we are all the same. This allows individualists to bond together into a group united on the selfish notion that we do not need standards, purpose or values in common, but we can all do whatever we want and society should foot the bill.

Diversity, or racial egalitarianism, emerged from egalitarian thought in the early days of the French Revolution. It lives on through the idea of “workers of the world unite,” which is a handy way of saying that if you discard any allegiance but to a paycheck, a crowd of great power can be formed to seize wealth and authority from those who are naturally more competent at using them.

In both of these circumstances, Leftist propagandists identify thinking that requires inner knowledge and contemplation of reality as ignorant, and replace it with their own dogma, essentially arguing against depth of knowledge in favor of having the “correct” knowledge according to egalitarianism.

Where The West Went Wrong

Wednesday, May 17th, 2017

We live among the ruins of the once-great Western Civilization.

What we think of as “our civilization” is in fact an impostor, a parasite living on the wealth and innovation of the past. It appears to be the same, but really they played the old shell game with us, and switched out the cup that had the penny under it by baffling our eyes with quick hand movements.

Instead of having a funeral, we should have a baby shower. From the ruins of the Old West, our Ersatz West was born, and from the ruins of that, we can raise up a New West which has the potential for countless years of greatness.

But people want to know where we went wrong, and there is nothing but a surplus of broken opinions that blame symptoms or details of the process and fail to see the root.

For example, the venerable Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn lunges in the wrong direction by blaming atheism:

But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God.

The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century. The first of these was World War I, and much of our present predicament can be traced back to it. It was a war (the memory of which seems to be fading) when Europe, bursting with health and abundance, fell into a rage of self-mutilation which could not but sap its strength for a century or more, and perhaps forever. The only possible explanation for this war is a mental eclipse among the leaders of Europe due to their lost awareness of a Supreme Power above them. Only a godless embitterment could have moved ostensibly Christian states to employ poison gas, a weapon so obviously beyond the limits of humanity.

Let us instead apply some realism: every effect has a cause, and so if men lost God, there was a cause for this loss, as Fred Nietzsche famously pointed out. We cannot literally kill God, but we can kill our ability to be receptive to Him. And if men have forgotten God, it was because another god took His place.

Some would argue that this nu-god is science. Others would say money. I contend that it is something far older: control. People want to feel a sense of having control over their lives, and this becomes addictive, and soon extends to how they work with others. That then forms a social standard. At that point, people no longer trust intangibles like God or doing the right thing; they want that sensation of power over others, which is different from leadership because it serves only itself, and not a goal innate to civilization like attempting to lead it.

In order to see God, and to want to be realistic, we must first want to be good. There are two directions in life: either we aspire to what is good, or we do what is convenient and rationalize it as good. This is true of all goals; we either realize them, or we fail and then rationalize our failure as someone else’s fault, the task as not worth doing, the rain as having tripped us up, and other excuses and justifications. This is the nature of humanity: we either stay honest, which is a narrow thorny path, or we allow ourselves to rationalize and so, corrupt our thinking.

From Plato we see a powerful metaphor:

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

Once society was geared toward “virtue” and the “ancient order,” meaning a type of natural order hierarchy in which balance was maintained between unequal parts. Then, having achieved money, the group no longer could share a purpose, and so they “agreed to disagree” and separated into middle class bourgeois style people who each built up their own pile of money and used civilization as a means to that end.

When civilization goes bad, the first thing that happens is that words change their meanings to reflect how they are commonly used. This usually means reversing that meaning entirely so that the original intent, which requires more than convenience from people, is not brought up in polite conversation. Through this method, society inverts its own values.

Even if we educate everyone in God, Patriotism and Working Hard, these terms will become inverted; this is exactly what we have seen happen to religion over the past centuries. Man forgot God because man forgot how to locate God, because man forgot how to appreciate God, because man forgot that the good has the greatest utility and value of all.

Discovering The Nature Of “Control”

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

Amerika has taken the lead on the Right in criticizing the unifying method of our society: control, which serves only the individualistic ego, as opposed to cooperation, which requires a purpose and therefore invokes questions like “who are we?” and “what should we be doing?” which make it unsuitable for consensus politics.

Control is a philosophy of mass motivation: break people down into individuals motivated by external material reward, create a fungible crowd, demand that it do and believe the same things, and keep it individuals in constant fear that they will “stand out” from the crowd as having violated the fundamental principle of the crowd, and simultaneously motivate them to “stand out” by demonstrating their allegiance to the idea that unites the crowd. This creates a mass of people who are fundamentally inert in their confusion but can be used as means to an end; the trap in control is that control only serves itself, and those who hope to use control find themselves being swallowed up by it. Control is at first power, and later, inversion of the will through its enslavement to the need to continue and further control.

More voices on the Right are joining a critique of the nature of control:

This system, which still dominates the present-day power structure, has some troubling aspects that help to explain the growing dysfunction and decline of our society. I want to draw attention to two in particular.

First, because power is based on control rather than on ownership, there is a constant need to justify it through appeals to the emotions of the masses. Rather than being defined by the interests of the masses, democracy is defined by what can be sold to the masses, which is definitely not the same thing. Secondly, the need to demonstrate competence outweighs the need to have actual competence.

The great irony is that these two characteristics are produced by a system dedicated to efficient control and getting results, but in effect they work against efficiency and results.

The defining attribute of control is its focus on external features and motivations. This pairs handily with equality, which insists that people are essentially the same, and that changes in behavior and motivation are regulated by their position in society, wealth, power, education, social group and other factors that are outside of their personalities.

External factors are those, in other words, outside of individuality itself: the moral and realistic choices of an individual based on what that person understands and values. The “understanding” portion of that calculus involves a good deal of genetic determinism, since intelligence and most preferences are biological in nature and thus heritable.

Control can only be opposed by cooperation, which requires a sharing of purpose and values, both of which arise from internal traits and are assessed through gut instinct and intuition including aesthetics. Cooperation unites unequal individuals in the pursuit of a shared goal, knowing that while each may benefit differently, all achieve the baseline benefit of reaching that goal.

The way to understand inner traits is to explore the nature of thinking:

We discover true hypotheses by attaining to a clear knowing, by achieving a transparency of thinking. (Such transparency must, in practice, be achieved actively – not least by rejecting false assumptions.)

Truth is then seen – but it is not imposed on us; it is possible to know and to deny (that is a consequence of human agency, or free will).

The proper conduct of science involves attaining this clear seeing – which is a question of attitude, which is dependent on motivation: on wanting, more than anything, to know.

External thinking does not focus on clear understanding of the world, but instead is inward looking toward human individuals and their impulses or reactions to stimulus. Internal thinking is more reflective, contemplative and most of all, quiet. It suppresses the cacophony of desires, whims and responses that normally fill the human mind, and sees the world as close to as it is as possible.

What this leads us to is the most interesting of hybrids: a realist approach to philosophy, anchored in the fundamental ideas of religion, namely that for those who can think, clarifying the mind, finding eternal values and pushing aside the dual social and emotional impulses of humanity to discover something approximating a moral adaptation to existence.

“Modernity Is Not An Option”

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

On Red Ice TV, philosopher Nick Land expands Neoreaction into an Alt Right critique of modernity, making for a highly interesting interview.

Land has packed every essential concept in the cluster of dissident anti-modern thought — postmodernism, aristocracy, post-democracy, religion, identitarianism and extreme libertarian anarcho-capitalist viewpoints — into a series of statements which explore the depths of each of these through their interconnections.

While this requires more time and patience than many interviews, being more of a graduate-level seminar than a pop media product, his breadth of understanding and analysis of the intersection of these different ideas makes Mr. Land’s interview an informative listen. Great to see the Red Ice crew bringing this influential thinker on-air!

Recommended Reading