Friday, 25 October 2013

McCulloch on romantic love

This post will attempt to summarize the famous Nordicist Richard McCulloch's views on romantic, monogamous love (which happen to be very similar to my own). People are different, but for the vast majority of us this is the natural and healthy form, regardless of what Judith Butler and other queer theorists may try to make us believe.

McCulloch has some interesting things to say about pre-marital sex and "sexual idealism" in his book Destiny of Angels. They are interesting because they take the question of monogamy from the religious, conformist and moralist level, to the personal level. And it is often exclusively on this level we can convince our contemporaries of the validity of traditional values.

What both McCulloch and I assert, is that the monogamous relationship is not just the best thing (for most of us) because Jehovah or Allah says so, but also the best thing from a personal perspective. A lifelong relationship becomes, at least ideally, qualitatively better all the time, while quantitatively numerous relationships become "much the same"; several short meetings that never get the time to develop qualitatively. A monogamous relationship is a potential lifelong adventure, while a promiscious lifestyle never manages to leave square one, and is also an expression of the same consumption mania that permeates the rest of modern society (the only difference is that those who have watched a bit too much Sex and the City or read a bit too much Penthouse Magazine consume partners, bodies, instead of clothes and furniture. "Gotta try them all").

McCulloch also claims that one risks to lose the ability to this qualitative development if one is too "generous" with it. The magic disappears, and what's left is a disillusioned 35-year-old single that wants to, but can't really fall in love. This is why a society with a monogamous, romantic norm produces happier people. That it also produces more stable and harmonic families, and thus more numerous and stable children, is another positive effect.

McCulloch distinguishes between "rough/coarse composite" and "finer composite" features, both aesthetically and ethically (of course with the Nordish races always being the finer composite, since he's a Nordicist). Anyway, virtue, nobleness, honour, loyalty, self-control and awareness, are characteristics that he sees as finer composite.

Sexual idealism is an interiorly developed and upheld moral codex, one of the necessary parts of honour - the inner strength of will and determinance to do what is right without consideration for what desires may want - being made possible by a highly developed degree of self-awareness and self-control.

Sexual idealism is a necessary requirement for experiencing the deepest and most complete form of romantic love. This form of love is so intense and burning, and absorbs so much emotional and spiritual energy, that it cannot be created, destroyed or recreated easily, and that is why it must be loyal and concentrated, bordering upon obsession, upon one single person, in its striving for a permanent union that will stand the tests of time.

Anyway, the way I understand the reasoning, sexual idealism is then good for two things. First, it is part of the finer composite characteristics (self-control, etc.), while promiscuity is coarse composite, and even animalistic. Second, it enables man to experience full romantic love, while promiscuity kills that ability in humans.

I suspect that the same reasoning is to be found in the Church?

Monday, 21 October 2013

The Invisible Ideology

A brilliant article by Jef Costello of Counter-Currents that I had to share. Read and rejoice.

I must make a confession: I have a strong libertarian streak. I know, you don't have to tell me. Yes, we're supposed to be fascists, right? But sometimes, to my horror I wonder if I'm not a knee-jerk anti-fascist.

The thought nags me now and then, sort of like my fear that I might actually be part Cherokee (and old family legend - without basis, I assure you). It comes upon me every time I'm putting my shoes back on after having passed through the security theater at the airport. I try to smile and think of it all as performance art, but I can't quite manage it. There's something that really irks me about being commanded to take off my shoes and belt and marched through an x-ray machine with my hands raised surrender-style. (I usually extend my middle fingers just a wee bit as a subtle message.)

You know the feeling. Though I can't ever recall being patted down or having my luggage opened, the experience still leaves me fuming. And as I slip my shoes and Thor's Hammer back on, I reflect on my indignation and think "Boy, you'd make a lousy brownshirt." (Or blackshirt.) Because, after all, didn't those guys go around demanding "Papers please!" in a haughty nasal tone? And wouldn't good party members have gladly marched through x-ray machines, without doing anything special with their middle fingers?

Or, consider my attitude about waterboarding. I was filled with moral indignation when I heard that the U.S. government was doing this to get information out of people. It really disgusted me. But then I heard, once more, that sharp, nasal voice in my head: "Ve hef vays to make you talk!" Wouldn't I want to see those who threaten my people waterboarded? Like just about everybody in Washington, for instance? And wouldn't I willingly supervise? I feel positively dizzy with moral confusion. Am I just a colossal hypocrite? The same goes for my feelings about wiretapping, surveillance, and the draft. I'm outraged! But wouldn't I institute those things, given half the chance?

Perhaps most significant of all is my attitude toward propaganda. A couple of years ago I bougth some package that gives me high-speed internet and, in addition, about a bazillion television channels. I didn't want the TV, it just came with the other thing. But I couldn't resist the temptation to watch a few programs, and was quickly reminded of why I stopped watching television years earlier. You just can't escape the constant barrage of insipid, heavy-handed P.C. propaganda. Everyone has a multi-racial cast of friends. Everyone is miscegenating. Everyone has a brilliant black doctor. All males are weak and hapless (except the black ones), all females tough and capable. Black people have to live in fear of marauding bands of whites. Mexicans are tall and handsome. Gays are just like everybody else. And thank God we stopped Hitler from taking over the entire world and making everybody listen to ABBA.

Television is like a kind of alternative ideological reality. It's a veil of maya which, if you watch enough of it, occludes your perception of reality. It envelopes you in a cloud of unknowing. Of course, you can't escape the propaganda just by switching off the TV. It's everywhere. And it repulses me and makes me seethe with anger - just as it does you. The content of it is infuriating. The ubiquity of it is positively oppressive. But here again I feel pangs of bad faith. Because if given half the opportunity, I would outdo Dr. Goebbels in getting my own message out. I'd saturate television with the Right messages. I'd ban rap and, yes, make everyone listen to ABBA. So, once more, I do some soul searching and ask myself if I'm not just a lousy hypocrite. And, to stick the knife in and twist it a bit (remember: I hate myself), I ask myself if I'm really any better than those leftists who do things like ban political parties in the name of protecting democracy.

Well, there are at least a couple of reponses to my problem. Both have validity, but the second one goes a lot deeper than the first. The first response is simply this: things like Homeland Security, waterboarding, surveillance, and propaganda are conditionally, not intrinsically bad. They are bad only depending upon whose agenda they serve. If the cause is just - and the emergency real - then searching people, surveilling them, and even waterboarding them can be justified. An example that will immediately be persuasive to my readers is simply this: suppose we really had to do all those things to save our people and our culture? Ordinarily, waterboarding would, quite rightly, strike us as barbaric. But desperate times really do sometimes call for desperate measures. "But do the ends justify the means?" the people in John Lennon glasses will peep. Well, as Greg Johnson is fond of saying, "What else would justify the means?"

What makes me indignant about Homeland Security and waterboarding and surveillance is that they're all being done to prop up a sick, decaying, morally bankrupt society. There was a time when America really did stand for individual freedom - for letting people alone to lead their lives as they chose, sort of on the Taoist principle that "He who governs best, governs least." But that era lasted about thirty seconds, and is long gone. Since then America has stood for nothing except the dollar.

Whatever America may do in the world today, it's never acting to preserve the freedom of Davy Crocketty individualists who simply want to be left alone to plow their own acre. It acts in the interests of fat cat sociopaths who see Davy and his acre as raw material to be exploited and plundered. These people never see further in time than the next financial quarter, and no further in space than the limits of the McMansion housing them and their spoiled, entitled spawn. These are the folks who didn't want to pick their own cotton, and so bequeathed us die Schwarzenfrage. They brought us the coolies as well. And now they bring us the great tide of fertile brown Nibelungen, wreathed in sickly-sweet clouds of diversity gas (courtesy of the intellectual gas chambers that are our universities).

So, the way I see it is that I empty my pockets and have my organs irradiated because Daddy Warbucks can't pay for his McMansion unless he can travel securely from coast to coast. Our fathers and grandfathers got drafted (i.e., had their liberty taken away), and fought and sometimes died to insure a good future for Mexican peasants. And Arabs and other suspicious-looking people get waterboarded to safeguard a society in which Shaneedra will always have sufficient food stamps to buy both the pickles and the grape soda, and will never have to choose between them.

In short, all these things that ruffle my libertarian feathers are bad only because they are serving the wrong system, the wrong ideology. "But," someone might object, "ideology as such is oppressive. (That's why being an ideologue is a bad thing, after all.) You're just proposing to eliminate one smothering ideology and to smother people with another."

But that's not true actually, and this is where I introduce you to the other, deeper response to the fears I expressed earlier about my apparent hypocrisy. This is where I introduce you, gentle reader, to my invisible ideology.

You see, it's not the case that people find any and all ideologies to be oppressive. The ideologies they find oppressive are the ones that somehow go against the grain of human life. The ones that require us to deny what we see with our own eyes; to engage in doublethink. The ones that require us to want things we don't want, or to deny our deepest desires. The ones that deny us things that make life worth living, and demand that we work for the meaningless and unachievable. Communism, of course, is a classic example of such an ideology. And our Brave New World synthesis of soft-Marxism and consumerism is, if anything, worse. Communism killed a lot more bodies, but our system kills souls. (At least the Communists had ideals they were willing to die for.)

The great lesson of Plato's Republic has to do precisely with the harmfulness of ideologies that go against the grain. Almost no one understands this book. It is usually taken at face value, as Socrates's (or Plato's) proposal for an ideal society. In fact, it is a critique of the very concept of an ideal society. Each of the major proposals Socrates makes somehow requires human nature to be changed, or ignored. He proposes that women should serve in the military, arguing - with transparent irony - that the difference in physical strength between men and women is an irrelevant consideration. He proposes that marriage be banned, and that children be produced through arranged one-night stands. The children will be taken from their mothers and raised by professionals. Will the mothers protest? No matter, we'll just teach them to think differently. No one will know who their children are, or who their parents are. And everyone will be happy with this, because all the stories, and songs, and art that people are exposed to will have been carefully manufactured to send the right messages.

Plato's society won't work, because there really are significant, unchangeable differences between the sexes. All people have a natural desire to find life partners and marry. They fall in love, and want to form exclusive bonds with the object of their love. Mothers have a natural desire to keep their children close - and this desire can't be eliminated through "re-education". Fathers want to know who their children are, and to help their children advance in life. And all the stories, songs, and art of Plato's city would fail to feed the soul, because they don't sing of real life, but of its ideological perversion.

The ideology you and I advocate goes with the grain, not against it. It is "invisible", because it is in conformity with life as such, and so does not "stick out" by requiring us to act against our nature. Ours is the Savile Row suit of ideologies: so beautifully tailored to the human form, it feels like you're not wearing any ideology at all.

In fact, I'm sorely tempted to not call it "ideology" at all. For it is simply the truth. What we are all about is affirming and supporting natural necessities: seeing to it that men and women achieve happiness and fulfillment as men and women; recognizing and utilizing natural inequalities of intelligence and ability; strengthening families; overcoming differences of wealth and socal status by strengthening bonds based on racial or national identity; preserving folkways and traditions, the ways each people has evolved for being in the world. We are the party of life, and of reality. Ours is the one true way, the way in accord with life and the real. All else is mere "ideology": floating systems of ideas detached from reality - every one of them a revolt against life.

To our opponents, of course, our way is very much a visible ideology - simply because it opposes their way. Their reaction to it can be likened to that of a mental patient caught up in delusions, but still capable of lucid moments. In those moments, one can confront him with the falseness of his delusions and one can see in his eyes the glimmer of recognition. But this is immediately followed by angry denial - denial that is just a bit too angry, too insistent. You see, the patient likes his delusions and is quite wedded to them. He knows, at some level, that they are false, but he does not want to wake up from them.

It's just the same with leftists. They hate us and our "ideology" so much because it is an expression of the reality they do not want to wake to. Because leftists have bodies like the rest of us, with the exact same desires and drives that the rest of us do, they know in their guts that their ideas are false. We speak the truths of life, but life is a reproach to them. Why? How can they be so perverse, so disconnected from life? It's the same old story Nietzsche told. And it all has to do, again, with the body. The mentally or physically weak, the misshapen, the dull, the talentless, the cowardly all have the capacity to respond to what life has handed them by envying and resenting those who got a better deal. And they erect ideologies to right the "wrongs" dealt by nature - moral smokescreens that hide the basest of all human motivations: revenge against life; against the healthy, the beautiful, the prosperous, and the good.

That there are such spiritually misshapen people is yet another natural necessity we must be cognizant of - and vigilant against. Because there are always going to be some human beings who will revolt against nature and spread destructive lies, our way has to involve safeguarding nature and truth. And that is going to have to involve such things as surveillance. Perhaps even having our papers checked now and then. And, yes, it may lead to waterboarding the enemies of life. Boo hoo.

What about propaganda? Well, the sort of "propaganda" we would spread is really nothing more or less than the truth. And mass therapy for the deluded: mass deprogramming of those whose minds have been warped by decades of manipulation by the anti-life party. But bad ideologies, because they are against life, aren't too hard to kill. And after a while our propaganda would simply wither away and be replaced by the emergence once more of genuine art. Not art in the service of ideology like we find today, but art that celebrates life and expresses eternal verities.

Our ideology is invisible because it is just the natural way for man, recognized as such and put into words. At least, it is invisible once it is put into place - and becomes, once more, the accepted way. When that happens, it will feel as if there could never be another way, and no reason even to concieve of one. At the moment, of course, it is quite visible to us - because it is a concept, not yet a fact. It shows up as an "ideology" because it offers itself as an alternative idea to the dominant, unnatural ideology now strangling the Western world. My readers have all grown up under that ideology and been imprinted with it - even if they now seek to reject it. Our way thus appears to them as one of a number of ideologies, the one they happen to consciously adhere to.

But is important to understand that our way is best described not as an idea but simply as the reality we have yet to wake to - as we are all of us, to one extent or another, caught in the dream world created by life-denying ideology.

Sunday, 20 October 2013

Evola on drugs

Today's post is an excerpt from Evola's apolitical work Ride the Tiger, where he gives advice on how "differentiated" human beings can live a relatively Traditional life in the modern society, in the midst of the Kali Yuga. Among other things, he discusses how a differentiated person can exploit modern phenomena in his own process of individuation, and drugs are one of these phenomena.

In the following piece Evola describes the role and nature of drug use in Traditional societies, and how it has degenerated in modern society. Throughout the whole excerpt, one can read clearly between the lines that Evola is very doubtful that positive results can be achieved with drugs in today's society, and this becomes explicit towards the end.

A disclaimer may be in order: Evola believes that there are several different human types, and psychonautics are not something suited for most of these. For most of us drug abuse is nothing more than just that, an abuse, and something that conflicts with our personal equation. It is, for us, both useless and unhonourable. But a basic traditional insight is that people are different, and the following excerpt is primarily meant to make a psychonaut or two realise that what he/she is doing has Indo-Aryan roots, but that there are significantly healthier ways of reaching the same goal. Anyway, here's Evola:

Going beyond music and dance, we are led to an even larger and more problematic realm, which embraces many other methods being increasingly used by the younger generation. The North American Beat Generation, in putting together alcohol, the sexual orgasm, and drugs as essential ingredients to give them a sense of life, radically associated techniques that in reality have a common background that I have alluded to earlier. 

I need not dwell much on this realm. Apart from what will be said of sex in another chapter, I shall adress here only a few considerations on drugs, which are the means that, among all those used in certain sectors of the contemporary world, most visibly have the goal of an ecstatic escape. 

The increasing spread of drugs among today's youth is a very significant phenomenon. A specialist, Dr. Laennec, writes: "In our lands, the most widespread category of drug addicts is represented by the neurotics and psychopaths for whom the drug is not a luxury but an essential food, the response to anguish.... Toxicomania now appears as an additional symptom of the patient's neurotic syndrome, one symptom among others, a last defense, soon becoming the one and only defense." These considerations can be generalized, or rather extended, to an even larger circle of people who are not clinically neurotic: I am speaking above all about young people who have more or less distinctly percieved the emptiness and boredom of modern existence, and are seeking an escape from it. The impulse can be contagious: drug use extends to individuals who did not have this original impetus as a point of departure, and in such people it can only be regarded as an avoidable bad habit. Once starting on drugs to fit in or be in vogue, they succumb to the seduction of the states caused by the drug, which often wrecks their already weak personality. 

With drugs we have a situation similar to that of syncopated music. Both were often transpositions onto the profane and "physical" plane of means that were originally used to open one up to the suprasensible in initiation rites or similar experiences. Just as dances to modern syncopated music derive from ecstatic [African] dance, the various drugs used today and created in laboratories correspond to drugs that were often used for "sacred" ends in primitive populations, according to ancient traditions. This is even true for tobacco; strong extracts of tobacco were used to prepare young Native Americans in their withdraval from profane life to obtain "signs" and visions. A similar claim can be made for alcohol, within certain limits; we are aware of the tradition centered on "sacred beverages", as in the use of alcohol in Dionysian and similar rituals. For example, alcoholic beverages were not prohibited in ancient Taoism: on the contrary, they were considered "life essences" inducing an intoxication that, like dance, could lead to a "magical state of grace", sought by the so-called real men. In addition, the extracts of coca, mescal, peyote, and other narcotics have been, and often still are, used in the rituals of secret societies of Central and South America. 

No one has a clear or adequate idea about all this anymore, because there is not enough emphasis on the fact that the effects of these substances are quite different according to the constitution, the specific capacity for reaction, and - in these cases of nonprofane use - the spiritual preparation and intent of the user. Lewin has even spoken of a "toxic equation" that is different in every individual, but this concept has not been given the necessary emphasis, given that the blocked existential situation of the great majority of our contemporaries considerably restricts the possible range of reactions to drugs. 

However, the "personal equation" and the specific zone on which drugs, here including alcohol, act, lead the individual toward alienation and a passive opening to states give him the illusion of a higher freedom, an intoxication and an unfamiliar intensity of sensation, but that in reality have a character of dissolution that by no means "takes him beyond". In order to expect a different result from these experiences, he would have to have at his command an exceptional degree of spiritual activity, and his attitude would be the opposite of those who seek and need drugs to escape from tensions, traumatic events, neuroses, and feelings of emptiness and absurdity. 

I have already pointed out the African polyrythmic technique: one energy is locked into continuous stasis in order to unleash an energy of a different order. In the inferior ecstatism of primitive peoples this opens the way for possession by dark powers. I have said that in our case, this different energy should be produced by the response of the "being" (the Self) to the stimulus. The situation created by the reaction to drugs and even alcohol is no different. But this kind of reaction almost never occurs; the reaction to the substance is too strong, rapid, unexpected, and external to be simply experienced, and thus the process cannot involve the "being". It is as if a powerful current penetrated the consciousness without requiring assent, leaving the person to merely notice the change of state; he is submerged in this new state, and "acted on" by it. Thus the true effect, even if not noticed, is a collapse, a lesion of the Self, for all his sense of an exalted life or of a transcendental beautitude or sensuality. 

For the process to proceed differently, it would go schematically as follows: at the point in which the drug frees energy x in an exterior way, an act of the Self, of "being", brings its own double energy, x + x, into the current and maintains it up to the end. Similarly, a wave, even if unexpected, serves a skilled swimmer with whom it collides by propelling him beyond it. Thus, there would be no collapse, the negative would be transformed into positive, no condition of passivity would be formed with respect to the drug, the experience in a certain way would be deconditioned, and, as a result, one would not undergo an ecstatic dissolution, devoid of any true opening beyond the individual and only substantiated by sensations. Instead, in certain cases there would be the possibility of coming into contact with a superior dimension of reality, which was the intention of ancient, nonprofane drug use. To a certain degree, the harmful effect of drugs would be eliminated. 

At this point it will be helpful to add some details. In general, drugs can be divided into four categories: stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, and narcotics. The first two categories do not concern us: for example the use of tobacco and alcohol is irrelevant unless it becomes a vice, ie. leads to addiction. 

The third category includes drugs that bring on states in which one experiences various visions and seemingly other worlds of the senses and spirit. On account of these effects, they have also been called "psychedelics", under the assumption that the visions project and reveal the hidden contents of the depths of one's own psyche, but are not recognized as such. As a result, physicians have even tried to use drugs like mescaline for a psychic exploration analogous to psychoanalysis. However, when all is reduced to the projection of a psychic substratum, not even experiences of this kind can interest the differentiated man. Leaving aside the the perilous contents of the sensations and their artificial paradise, these illusory phantasmagoria do not take one beyond, even if one cannot exclude the possibility that what is acting may not be merely the contents of one's own subconscious, but dark influences that, finding the door open, manifest themselves in these visions. We might even say that those influences, and not the simple substratum repressed by the individual psyche, are responsible for certain impulses that can burst out into these states, even driving some compulsively to commit criminal acts. 

An effective use of these drugs would presuppose a preliminary "catharsis", that is, the proper neutralization of the individual unconscious substratum that is activated; then the images and senses could refer to a spiritual reality of a higher order, rather than being reduced to a subjective, visionary orgy. One should emphasize that the instances of this higher use of drugs were preceeded not only by periods of preparation and purification of the subject, but also that the process was properly guided through the contemplation of certain symbols. Sometimes "consecrations" were also prescribed for protective purposes. There are accounts of certain indigenous communities in Central and South America whose members, only under the influence of peyote, hear the sculpted figures on ancient temple ruins "speak", revealing their meaning in terms of spiritual enlightenment. The importance of the individuals attitude clearly appears from the completely different effects of mescaline on two contemporary writers who have experimented with drugs, Aldous Huxley and R. H. Zaehner. And it is a fact in the case of hallucinogens like opium and in part, haschisch, this active assumption of the experience that is essential from our point of view is generally excluded. 

There remains the category of narcotics and of substances that are also used for total anaesthesia, whose normal effects is the complete suspension of consciousness. This corresponds to a detachment that would exclude all intermediate "psychedelic" forms and the insidious, ecstatic, and sensual contents, leaving a void. However, if consciousness were maintained, with the pure I at the center, it could facilitate the opening to a higher reality. But the advantages would be outweighed by the extreme difficulty of any training capable of maintaining detached consciousness. 

In general, one must keep in mind that drug use even for a spiritual end, that is, to catch glimpses of transcendence, has its price. How drugs produce certain psychic effects has not yet been determined by modern science. It is said that some, like LSD, destroy certain brain cells. One point is certain: Habitual use of drugs brings a certain psychic disorganization: one should substitute for them the power of attaining analogous states through one's own means. Therefore, when one has chosen a path based on the maximum unification of all one's psychic faculties, these drawbacks must be kept firmly in mind. 

The common reader probably finds these ideas tedious, and lacking in personal points of reference to give him bearings. But, again, it is the development of our argument that has required even this brief excursus. In fact, only by dwelling on these possibilities, as unusual as they are, can one adequately identify the necessary antithesis. This shows us the blockage that prevents any positive value in the evocation of the elemental in todays world, leaving only those purely dissolutive and regressive processes that prevail increasingly in the younger generations. 

Pages 166-170

Friday, 18 October 2013

Schuon on Indian spirituality

Along with Guénon, Evola and Nasr, Frithjof Schuon is one of the big names and original thinkers in Traditionalism. His hallmark is perhaps his strong emphasis on all major religions sharing a higher truth, and this being because God wouldn't have it any other way. In this regard, Schuon differs from e.g. Evola, who doesn't put much hope in a loving God. Anyway, it is a useful thought to keep in mind when studying religions, and Schuon himself had great use of it in his close contact with North American Indians. In the following piece Schuon, among other things, finds a counterpart to the Indo-Aryan idea of the yugas, the historical cycles, in the religion of the Cheyenne Indians.

More Schuon here:

It happened during my first visit to the Red Indians of the North American Plains, ten years ago. A spiritual encounter between His Holiness the Jagadguru and a Red Indian holy man has taken place, through the medium of a picture of His Holiness and prayer of the Red Indian. 

It came about in this way: I was a Sheridan in the state of Wyoming, with my travelling companion, during the All Indian Days. One morning while walking across an open space where the tents or tipis, of many Red Indians of different tribes were pitched we heard a voice which seemed to be calling us; we sent in that direction and approached one of the tents, asking if somebody had called us and were told that they had. An old man was there, and a younger woman with some children also were present. The old man wanted to know where we came from and who we were, and we told him everything and began to talk about spiritual matters and about the ancient American Indian religion. The old man explained that they were Cheyenna Indians; he spoke about the Sun Dance and said. "Our religion is the same as what is in the Holy Scriptures; God - the Great Spirit cannot be seen, He is pure Spirit." 

"The Sun and the Earth" he added, "are not gods, but they are like Father and Mother to us; and all the things of Nature, such as streams and rocks, are holy." 

He told us that he was a very important priest of the Cheyennes, the so-called "Keeper of the Sacred Arrows", these are the holy objects of the Cheyennes tribe. They are marvelously beautiful, the old man said, but they are always hidden in a sacred bundle, which is opened only on very few occasions. We were told that these arrows had been brought to his tribe some thousand years ago; that they had been brought by a "Spirit Man", who was transparent; and that the whole tribe witnessed the event at the remote time. The Spirit Man said: "As long as you keep these Arrows, your people will not disappear; if you lose them, the rivers and the grass will dry up". And the old priest added: "May be this would mean the end of the World". 

Then I showed to him some pictures, I had with me. One was the image of His Holiness the Jagadguru of Kanchipuram. I spoke to the old Cheyenne priest about Hinduism and explained to him who His Holiness was. He took the picture in one hand and raised the other hand towards the sky; that is the Red Indian's gesture of prayer. He prayed a long time, always looking at the picture; and after a while, he put his hand on it and then rubbed his face and his breast with the hand, in the Indian way, to impregnate himself with the Jagadguru's blessing. At last he kissed the picture with fervor; during the whole scene I also prayed inwardly with him, and so did my companion. 

A few years after this meeting, we heard that the Cheyenne holy man - Last Bull was his name - had passed away. 

One of my friends then visited His Holiness the Jagadguru and gave him a book on Red Indian religion called "The Sacred Pipe" and His Holiness, after having read it, pointed out that the rites of the Red Indians present striking analogies with certain Vedic rites. 

A few words should be said here about the ancient American religion, or more precisely that of the Plains and Woodland Indians. The most eminent manifestations of the "Great Spirit" are the Cardinal Points together with zenith and nadir, or with Heaven and Earth, and next in order are such as the Sun and the Morning Star. Although the Great Spirit is one, He comprises in Himself all those qualities the traces of which we see and the effects of which we experience in the world of appearances. The East is Light and Knowledge and also Peace; the South is Warmth and Life, therefore also Growth and Happiness; the West is fertilizing Water and also Revelation speaking in lightning and thunder, the North in Cold and Purity, or Strength. Thus it is that the Universe, at whatever level it may be considered, whether or Earth, Man or Heaven, is dependent on the four primordial determinations: Light, Heat, Water, Cold. 

A most striking feature of the North American branch of the Primordial Sanatana Dharma is the doctrine of the four years: the sacred animal of the Plains-Indians, the buffalo, symbolizes the Mahayuga, each of its legs representing a Yuga. At the beginning of this Mahayuga a buffalo was placed by the Great Spirit at the West in order to hold back the water which menace the earth. Every year this bison loses a hair, and in every Yuga it loses a foot. When it will have lost all its hair, and its feet, the water will overwhelm the earth and the Mahayuga will be finished. The analogy with the bull of Dharma in Hinduism is very remarkable; at every Yuga, this bull withdraws a foot, and spirituality loses its strength; and now we are near the end of the kali-yuga. Like the orthodox Hindus, the traditional Red Indians have this conviction, which is obviously true in spite of all the mundane optimism of the modern world; but let us add that the compensation of our very dark age is the Mercy of the Holy Name, as it is emphasized in the Maneuver Dharma Shasta and the Trimmed Bhagavata and other holy scriptures. 

Indian holy man manifests his love for a Hindu holy man; secondly, this apparently small incident reminds us of the unity of the primordial Sanatana Dharma, which is more or less hidden beneath the many forms of intrinsically orthodox tradition; and this unity is especially represented by the very function of the Jagadguru, who incarnates the Universal Truth. Thirdly, this little incident making a symbolical encounter between a Red Indian priest and a Hindu priest was in fact an act of prayer; and it shows us that in prayer all earthly differences such as space and time are transcended, and that in prayer we are all united in one state of purity, in one perfume of Deliverance.

Evola on homosexuality

Today's post will be controversial, both for the LGBT rights crowd and for homophobic puritans. It is nonetheless a necessary post in order to return to the Indo-Aryan and healthy view of things, and in order to get past the sexophobic puritanism that has dominated our culture for more than a thousand years.

The traditional view of the genders is that they are expressions of metaphysical and essential categories (Yin and Yang would be the most well-known), and that the androgynism that sweeps across the world today, where it is claimed that "gender is just a social construct", is an abomination. Most traditional civilisations have however been open to the possibility of individuals being born in the wrong body (in short, that spiritual and physical gender are not in accordance with each other) or with a less clear gender identity. In accordance with this traditional attitude, one has then tried to find a social niche for these people (where entertainment, prostitution, administration and mysticism seems to have been most common). Berdaches, hijras, or whatever one chose to call them.

It is important to emphasise that this did not mean they were allowed to spread queer ideologies of the sort that the gay lobby does, where one wants to abolish gender roles, abolish the nuclear family, and claims that everyone is really bisexual and that heterosexuality is a kind of "oppression". Evola distinguishes between natural homosexuals and those who have become homosexual due to environment, and sees it by no means as healthy when e.g. children that are heterosexual by nature become homosexual due to environmental factors.

At the same it is doubtful whether the LGBT folks of the West would have made themselves representatives of such antisocial teachings if society at large had offered them an approved niche instead of denying their existence. Anyway, enough comments. Here is the excerpt from Eros and the Mysteries of Love/Metaphysics of Sex:

Homosexuality is so widespread a practice that it cannot be overlooked in a doctrine of sex. Goethe wrote that "it is as old as mankind and therefore can be said to be a part of nature although it is contrary to nature". 


To find an explanation it is necessary to descend to a lower level and examine various empirical possibilities. Normally two forms of homosexuality are distinguished in sexology: One has an inborn, natural character, whereas the other has an acquired character and is conditioned by psychological and sociological factors influenced by a person's environment. But in the second of these forms it is necessary to give a proper value to the distinction between forms having a vicious nature and forms that presuppose a latent predisposition which is aroused under given circumstances. It is necessary to set forth this condition because, given the same situation, different types behave in different ways and may not become homosexual. It is important, however, not to consider the inborn form of homosexuality in a rigid way but to allow a certain possibility of variation. 

In natural homosexuality or in the predisposition to it, the most straightforward explanation is provided by what we said earlier about the differing levels of sexual development and about the fact that the process of sexual development in its physical and, even more so, in its psychic aspects can be incomplete. In that way, the original bisexual nature is surpassed to a lesser extent than in a "normal" human being, the characteristics of one sex not being predominant over those of the other sex to the same extent. Next we must deal with what M. Hirschfeld called the "intermediate sexual forms". In cases of this kind (for instance, when a person who is nominally a man is only 60 percent male). It is impossible that the erotic attraction based on the polarity of the sexes in heterosexuality - which is much stronger the more the man is male and the woman is female - can also be born between individuals who, according to the birth registry and as regards only the so-called primary sexual characteristics, belong to the same sex, because in actual fact they are "intermediate forms". In the case of pederasts, Ulrich said rightly that it is possible to find "the soul of a woman born in the body of a man". 

But it is necessary to take into account the possibility of constitutional mutations, a possibility that has been given little consideration by sexologists; that is, we must also bear in mind cases of regression. It may be that the governing power on which the sexual nature of a given individual depends (a nature that is truly male or truly female) may grow weak through neutralization, atrophy, or reduction of the latent state of the characteristics of the other sex, and this may lead to the activation and emergence of these recessive characteristics. And here the surroundings and the general atmosphere of society can play a not unimportant part. In a civilization where equality is the standard, where differences are not linked, where promiscuity is a favor, where the ancient idea of "being true to oneself" means nothing anymore - in such a splintered and materialistic society, it is clear that this phenomenon of regression and homosexuality should be particularly welcome, and therefore it is in no way a surprise to see the alarming increase in homosexuality and the "third sex" in the latest "democratic" period, or an increase in sex changes to an extent unparallelled to other eras. 

Pages 62-64

Evola on Islam

A central thought in Traditionalism, maybe especially in the works of Schuon, but also in those of Guénon and Evola, is that there is truth to all traditional religions, that one can reach enlightenment through all of them. A natural consequence of this is that a Traditionalist feels a certain respect for all religions, and this post will therefore present Evola's description of the positive and traditional features of Islam.

A disclaimer may however be in order. Another central thought in Traditionalism is that no religion is right for all peoples of the world, on the contrary every religion is adapted to a certain little "world" where it is right, but wrong for other "worlds". And while Islam is the right religion for the Middle East, this is not the case for Europe. There is also an ethnopolitical reason for my personal "Islamophobia", namely that in a situation of growing rivalry between ethnic Europeans and ethnic Muslims, it would be very strange to convert to the religion of "the other side" (no matter how much one can respect sides of Islam, these sides also exist in our indigenous traditions). Anyway, here is Evola's text:

Even though it began relatively recently, I will briefly refer to another tradition, Islam, which originated among the Semitic races and succeeded in overcoming those negative motifs. As in the case of priestly Judaism, the center in Islam also consisted on the Law and Tradition, regarded as a formative force, to which the Arab stocks of the origins provided a purer and nobler human material that was shaped by a warrior spirit. The Islamic Law (shariah) is a divine law; its foundation, the Koran, is thought of as God's very own word (kalam Allah) as well as a nonhuman work and an "uncreated book" that exists in heaven ab eterno. Although Islam considers itself the "religion of Abraham", even to the point of attributing to him the foundation of the Kaaba (in which we find again the theme of the "stone", or the symbol of the "center"), it is nevertheless true that (a) it claimed independence from both Judaism and Christianity; (b) the Kaaba, with its symbolism of the center, is a pre-Islamic location and has even older origins that cannot be dated accurately; (c) in the esoteric Islam tradition, the main reference point is al-Khadir, a popular figure concieved as superior to and pre-dating the biblical prophets (Koran 18:59-81). Islam rejects a theme found in Judaism and that in Christianity became the dogma and the basis of the mystery of the incantation of the Logos; it retains, sensibly attenuated, the myth of Adam's fall without building upon it the theme of "original sin". In this doctrine Islam saw a "diabolical illusion" (talbis Iblis) or the inverted theme of the fall of Satan (Iblis or Shaitan), which the Koran (18:48) attributed to his refusal, together with all his angels, to bow down before Adam. Islam also not only rejected the idea of a Redeemer or Savior, which is so central in Christianity, but also the mediation of a priestly caste. By conceiving the Divine in terms of an absolute and pure monotheism, without a "Son", a "Father", or a "Mother of God", every person as a Muslim appears to respond directly to God and to be sanctified through the Law, which permeates and organizes life in a radical unitary way in all of its juridicial, religious, and social ramifications. In early Islam the only form of asceticism was action, that is, jihad, or "holy war"; this type of war, at least theoretically, should never be interrupted until the full consolidation of the divine Law has been achieved. It is precisely through the holy war, and not through preaching or missionary endeavor, that Islam came to enjoy a sudden, prodigious expansion, originating the empire of the Caliphs as well as forging a unity typical of a race of the spirit, namely, the umma or "Islamic nation". Finally, Islam presents a traditional completeness, since the shariah and the sunna, that is, the exoteric law and tradition, have their complement not in vague mysticism, but in full-fledged initiatory organizations (turuq) that are categorized by an esoteric teaching (tawil) and by the metaphysical doctrine of the Supreme Identity (tawhid). In these organizations, and in general in the shia, the recurrent notions of the masum, of the double perogative of the isma (doctrinal infallability), and of the impossibility of being stained by any sin (which is the perogative of the leaders, the visible and invisible Imams and the mujtahid), lead back to the line of an unbroken race shaped by a tradition at a higher level than both Judaism and the religious belifes that conquered the West. 

Revolt Against the Modern World, pages 243-244

Thursday, 17 October 2013

Guénon on Royalty

As part of a "series" on the Primordial Tradition that I'm planning to run until I'm finished with this somewhat busy period in my life, today's post is a piece by the Traditionalist René Guénon where the Traditionalist view of authority and royalty is explained in a good and interesting way. In all historical civilisations before our own, above all in the Indo-Aryan cultures, the role of the monarch has been to be a bridge between the higher reality, and our world. The monarch has often been regarded as a descendant of the gods, or a god himself. In comparison to this, the European royal houses of today are unimpressive to say the least. It's a sad fact that in our times, authority has been reduced to an issue of either pure power, "folksiness" or money, while all higher traits (e.g. wisdom and honour) that used to be required for rulers to have, are conspicuous by their absence. Our rulers are nothing more than nobodies in expensive suits, and even though we don't have to turn the clock back to medieval times, it can be interesting to examine the ethos behind the medieval view of authority. And that's what Guénon does in the following excerpt from The King of the World.

The title "King of the World", taken in its highest, most complete, and at the same time most rigorous sense, applies properly to Manu, the primordial and universal legislator, whose name is found in diverse forms among a great many ancient peoples; in this regard, let us recall only Mina, or Menes, of the Egyptians, Menw of the Celts, and Minos of the Greeks. This name moreover does not designate a more or less legendary historical personage, but rather a principle, a cosmic Intelligence that reflects pure spiritual light and formulates the Law (Dharma) appropriate to the conditions of our world and of our cycle of existence; and at the same time it is the archetype of man, considered particularly insofar as he is a thinking being (in Sanskrit, manava). 

Moreover, it is important to emphasize that this principle can be manifested through a spiritual center existing in the terrestrial world by an organization charged with preserving intact the deposit of sacred tradition, which is of "non-human" origin (apaurusheya), through which primordial Wisdom is handed down across the ages to those capable of receiving it. The head of such an organization, representing in a way Manu himself, can legitimately bear his title and attributes; and what is more, the degree of knowledge he must have attained to exercise his function enables him to truly identify himself with the principle of which he is the human expression, as it were, and before which his individuality disappears. Such is indeed the case of Agarttha, if, as Saint-Yves maintains, this center has taken over the heritage of the ancient "solar dynasty" which formerly resided at Ayodhya, and which traced its origin back to Vaivasvata, the Manu of the present cycle. 


In the Middle Ages there was an expression in which these two complementary aspects of authority were joined in an interesting way. At that time frequent mention was made of a mysterious region called the "Kingdom of Prester John". Now this was at a time when what could be called the "outer covering" of the initiatic center in question was formed in large part by Nestorians and by Sabaeans.

More to come.