“The so-called 'Left-Hand Path' - that of Kaulas, Siddhas and Viras - combines the... Tantric worldview with a doctrine of the Übermensch which would put Nietzsche to shame... The Vira - which is to say: the 'heroic' man of Tantrism - seeks to sever all bonds, to overcome all duality between good and evil, honor and shame, virtue and guilt. Tantrism is the supreme path of the absolute absence of law - of shvecchacarī, a word meaning 'he whose law is his own will'." ― Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar.

“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measures…. Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga.

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who died at his post during the eruption of Vesuvius because someone forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one that can not be taken from a man.” ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Your world is dying and it deserves to die.

In response to a partially confrontational but not entirely ignorant email questioning the shift in orientation toward Tradition, I will say this; anyone who has followed my previous writing, in public and private venues, will note that I have never expressed anything but contempt toward “Enlightenment” ideals of “equality” or pure, narrow rationalism. Even when subscribing to a species of “humanism” I usually qualified it as more akin to Renaissance humanism rather than that of the Enlightenment – basically a “humanism” that was Faustian in orientation, while being absolutely anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic in the extreme.  I acknowledge a shift in position to something I would describe as “upstream” in relation to human devolution. I no longer subscribe to even a qualified Renaissance-style humanism, ultimately at its nucleus the root of everything repellant about Enlightenment-style humanism, which is the root of everything repugnant about the liberalism, egalitarianism, democracy, and narrow rationalistic reductive materialism of our current (non/anti) “culture.” It should be clear that writings of Guénon and Evola were instrumental in this shift from a radical-aristocratic anti-egalitarian idealization of the “Renaissance” or “Faustian” man (which however stratified remains horizontal in essence and correspondingly flawed and vulnerable to “leveling” erosion), to a vertically oriented perspective that is only more deeply anti-reductive/rationalist/materialist, anti-egalitarian, and anti-humanist – the perspective of Tradition. The question implied a reversal of position where in reality the position is only shifted deeper into the original direction, liberated from false assumptions.

The assumed dichotomy of Immanent vs. Transcendent is a fallacy. “Consensus” is essentially a species of pernicious cognitive democracy, one that implies your inner experiences are not “real” unless capable of being understood and shared (“reproduced”) to the letter by your fellow humans, who are only assumed to be peers based on a dogma of common human equality, a dogma more far-fetched and absurd than any dogma ever imagined to be held by any “religion.” Criteria of “objectivity” in matters of an internal nature are ultimately constructs of the human mind itself, ultimately every bit as “subjective” as the matter under scrutiny, only restricting “truth” status to that which can be reduced to the lowest common denominator. Truth is not for everyone and never will be.

The philosophical orientation is expanded to include higher principles of reference. The political position is solidified and rendered only more extreme, as a vantage point from which there are no “good guys” or “winners” in the present scenario – only an ongoing descriptive narrative of the pathologies of decay and destruction. Your world is dying and it deserves to die.

I throw this in the pond because it continues to amaze and amuse me that anyone cares what I think about anything.

More later…



Anonymous said...

Anyone who's been following you in the past few years should not be surprised. Thank you for sharing the development of your thoughts, it serves as a solid guideline for others who have an innate hatred for all things egalitarian. Just waiting for the other shoe to drop, would like to know if you're ready to shed your materialistic Semitic Satanic/LaVey connections.

JDS said...

The "other shoe" doesn't exist.

Personal loyalty, as in people I know in person, is something I value more than ideological common-ground with anonymous nonentities on the internet, especially considering the number and quality of people who nominally share some of my positions who I do not want on my side.

I'm not inclined to provide the undeserved vicarious gratification to low-grade axe-grinders.