Apr 15, 2015

Why We Need Hillary

via Radix

When I first caught wind of that whole Benghazi business, I thought Hillary was out of the game. 

Until then, it had looked like she was being groomed for her ultimate revenge presidency after being shamed by her husband and waved aside by Obama. But surely, I thought, even she couldn’t come back from something like Benghazi.

Obviously, I was wrong. 

Recently, Time Magazine asked, “Can Anyone Stop Hillary?”

At the moment, it doesn’t look like it. Those bumbling big-business neocons in the Republican Party appear to be incapable of producing an electable candidate. Until his recent troubles, they they were actually floating the morbidly obese governor of the most universally reviled state in the Union as a front runner.

Unless an HIV-positive transsexual CEO with multiple sclerosis un-stones Excalibur, no one can compete with Hillary’s story.

Even as the current favorite, her past and her loss to Obama make her both an underdog and a comeback kid.

But, most importantly, Hillary Clinton is the next big “civil rights” story. Now that Americans have had their Black president, the media will need some big story to get excited about so that 2016 can be another “groundbreaking” and “historic” election. Progressives, after all, want to show “progress.” THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is a no-brainer. The headlines will write themselves. The fact that she is probably at least as legitimately qualified for the job than any possible contenders will barely even matter. None of the bullshit-policies-she-comes-up-with-so-she’ll-have-something-to-talk-about will matter, and neither will her various campaign promises.

The appeal of Hillary Clinton’s story will make up for the fact that almost no one actually likes her. I have a hard time believing that even hardcore Democrats really like her. Not privately. Not in their hearts. They’ll never love her the way they loved Obama. They’ll never even love her like they loved her husband.

Hillary Clinton is hard to believe even when she’s trying to be sincere. She’s perceptibly shrewd and Machiavellian—like Nixon in lady pants—but also prone to hysterical outbursts of unfiltered bitchiness captured in those haggard harpy headshots.

None of that will stop her from getting elected. Unless there are some big surprises, the media will get the big story it wants, and America will get its FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT.

That’s fine by me. In fact, I want to go on record now as saying that I, for one, look forward to the Hillary Clinton presidency.

President Hillary Clinton won’t use whatever power the President of the United States actually has to make dramatic changes to America’s downward path. She’ll probably ride the red, white and blue toboggan of doom downhill with both feet out, braking for safety—like any careful soccer mom.

Clinton will be less inclined to respond to the complaints of radical feminists than Obama—or even George W. Bush—because she won’t have to. What are they going to do, accuse Hillary Clinton of waging a “War on Women?” She’ll do far less pandering to women than Obama has done to urban Blacks, because she’s actually 100% woman, and won’t need to fake it to make it as “one of the people.”

It also seems likely that President Hillary Clinton will be far less ambitious than Obama was in her attempts to reform the government or change current policies. She’ll remain the pragmatic player she’s always been. She won’t have to navigate the kind of national psychic hangover that weighed down Obama when he failed to work the messianic miracles promised by the priests of his personality cult. No one will have those kinds of expectations for her. It will be enough for her to be THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT.

And that’s a big deal.

It’s a bigger deal than having a Black president.

It’s a bigger deal, because the differences between men and women as individuals and as groups are more significant than any differences between the races.

Men from different tribes are still men.

In many ways, Barack Obama was just some other guy.

The symbolic power of a female leader is tremendous.

Because of human nature, and the natural dynamic between men and women, putting a woman in charge of all of the men in a nation is going to have a dramatic effect on the way that men perceive themselves and their role in the country.

Before he was elected, many White nationalists supported Barack Obama’s presidential campaign because they foresaw that a Black man in the White House would show White men that White men were no longer in charge—that it was no longer “their” country.

Most men I know like to brush aside feminism. Actually, most men I know are barely aware of feminism unless they are taking a college class or dealing with a lot of politically correct women at work. Most masculine “All-American” men, don’t read The Atlantic or the New York Times or Slate. They don’t even know what Feministing or Jezebel are.

The average working class men I come in contact with don’t appreciate the scope of the changes happening in America and throughout most of the First World.
I’m not saying that men don’t perceive the new rules. They know they can’t technically expect to get married and become head of the household and king of the castle. They know that their wives or potential wives can easily leave, take the kids, and siphon a court-ordered paycheck for the better part of eternity. They know that women work, and they may have had a female boss. They know that they can be accused of sexual harassment for behaving the way men have behaved for thousands of years. They know that women aren’t allowed to be excluded from anything, anywhere, at any time. They know that women are being pushed into the trades and the military. They see that the majority of television programming and marketing is no longer aimed at them. They see everything getting rounder and “cuter” and more female-friendly. They see the female sportscasters, but they’re more focused on the sports.

Men know and see all of this, but they continue to proceed “as if.” They continue to proceed “as if” the game has simply become more difficult, but the objectives are basically the same. Average American men nurture a sense that if they play the game right, they can still live a patriarchal lifestyle, and they figure that any man who can’t is a loser, a sucker or both.

I can’t think of a better person to show average American men that it is no longer “a man’s world”—and it is no longer “their” country—than Hillary Rodham Clinton, President of the United States of America.

Other powerful nations have had female rulers. England had its Iron Lady, but the United Kingdom has also had a Queen for most of living memory. America has never had a Queen. 

Will soldiers be as enthusiastic about serving a female Commander-in-Chief, especially one who has already made it so clear that she’s happy to roll them under the tank? Surely, the Hillary Clinton Presidency will change the way American soldiers see themselves and what remains of one of the few remaining warrior brotherhoods. Fellas can chuckle all they want about female marines who can’t do three pull-ups, but some chick who probably hasn’t attempted a pull-up since the 1970s is about to become a framed reminder of “who run it” at every U.S. military base in the world.

Will the flag-waving patriots be able to muster misty eyes for the National Anthem or a Pledge of Allegiance . . . to a woman?

One nation, under mom . . .

Will the Constitution-lovers love the Constitution so much when they realize that the Constitution has delivered them the dishonor of submission to a female ruler?

The New York Times recently admitted that women in “more equal” marriages—marriages where household roles and duties are shared without regard to gender—are less likely to be sexually interested in their husbands. I’ve been having a running discussion with a few friends about how this might relate to an apparent rise in “cuckoldry” themes in pornography. Perhaps these men in “equal” marriages begin to fantasize about seeing another man dominate their wives in a way that they no longer can.

There is a parallel with what has been called “The Secret American Subculture of Putin Worshippers.” American men are no longer proud of their own leaders. Like those emasculated husbands who fantasize about watching other men pile-drive their wives, men see Putin as the kind of swaggering stud who could step forward, put a firm hand on America’s waist, and COMMAND her. Putin is the kind of thoroughly corrupt leader American men could actually be proud of (instead of the thoroughly corrupt leaders they actually have).

“Diversity” and “inclusion” advocates have long argued that groups of people feel disenfranchised when they don’t see “people like them” in leadership positions. By following Obama with Hillary, it will be difficult for White American men to imagine that the country is for “people like them.” Hillary is another mother, another schoolteacher, another human resources manager, another guidance counselor, another therapist, another bossy girlfriend, another woman telling them what to do, want, and buy. The Hillary Clinton Presidency will ensure that American men continue to withdraw from public life as they become increasingly alienated from the American Dream. 

I look forward to the continued alienation of American men, because I believe that masculinity can only thrive covertly in the United States of America as it exists today. This country must be broken into pieces for there to be any overt resurgence of masculine values or patriarchy. Because there will be no violent revolution against the Progressive Police State, America must be broken spiritually, from the inside out. To effect real change, as I have said elsewhere, American men must become increasingly disenfranchised. They must cut their emotional connection to the idea of the American State and become happy barbarians who ignore progressive American values and make their own rules and valuations. To facilitate this process, America needs the kind of leader who will reinforce the nagging suspicion of American men that the American government is “them”—not “us.”

I think Hillary Clinton is the right woman for that job.

Hillary Clinton will wake up millions more men to the fact that America’s ruling class has stopped even pretending to be interested in the interests of average American men.

President Hillary Clinton will reveal to American men that America is no longer a nation that elevates rugged cowboys and pioneers. That’s the bad, old America. The new America wants its men emasculated, weak, and completely controlled by a corporate-owned state that’s far more concerned with the wants of acquisitive career gals. Who better than Hillary Clinton to put the “nanny” in “nanny state?”

The Hillary Clinton Presidency will drive home the fact that America isn’t “our” country anymore.

We just live here.
More and more men, especially young men, are already coming to this realization on their own. The irreversible transfer of American power to corporations and a handful of elites and their bureaucratic toadies has already happened. The figureheads only matter in the abstract. The talking heads are just talking points —ways to wake up the men who are still asleep.

When I picked up the issue of Time with the “Can Anyone Stop Hillary?” headline, the cashier at Safeway asked me if Hillary Clinton was running for president again.

He was maybe 22.

I told him that I didn’t know.

“Honestly, I’m just buying it so I can write an article making fun of her.”

He nodded. “I don’t think it really matters who wins elections.”

“No, it doesn’t.”

“They’re all the same. I think all of those people get together and have dinner.”

“Yeah, they do.”

The Metaphysics of Indo-European Tripartition, Part 6: F. W. J. Schelling & Indo-European Triparition

via Counter-Currents

Friedrich Schelling, 1775–1854

1. Schelling’s Influences: The Christian Trinity and Jacob Boehme

I turn, finally, to a different Indo-European tradition, that of German Idealism of the 19th century. I include this material so as to show the perennial character of Indo-European thought. One could argue that the entire history of Western (and Indian) philosophy is a long, unconscious attempt to recollect the wisdom known “directly” by our Indo-European ancestors.

Remarkably, in the late philosophy of F. W. J. Schelling, who was an old school chum of Hoelderlin and Hegel, we find a doctrine that corresponds exactly to the ancient Aryan theory of the gunas. This is despite the fact that Schelling had, so far as we know, little knowledge of Indian philosophy. He wrote at a time when details of Indian thought were just becoming known to European intellectuals. The esoteric details of the gunas were almost certainly not known by Schelling, yet he writes as if he is translating them into the language of Idealist philosophy.

Specifically, I refer to Schelling’s Potenzlehre, or doctrine of Potencies, which he developed throughout his career, but which fully flowered only in his late, so-called “philosophy of mythology.” In order to fully understand this doctrine, one must explore its antecedents in the Western mystical tradition. First of all, Schelling, Hegel, and the German philosophers in general were fascinated by the mystery of the Christian Trinity. There is a case to be made that what we know as “the Trinity” is in large measure not an original, Near Eastern conception but actually a result of the “germanization” of Christianity, developed after our ancient heathen ancestors converted. The idea of three “persons” in one corresponds roughly to the Aryan notion of the oneness of the three gunas in Brahman. Without going into too much detail, I would suggest that the Father corresponds to the Indo-European first function, the Son to the third function, and the Holy Spirit to the second function. In this, I am influenced by Hegel, who treated the Father as the logos, or Absolute Idea, the Son as Nature, and the Holy Spirit as man, who is the unity of logos and nature, or God and animal.[1]

The immediate mystical influence on Schelling was the German Jacob Boehme, who conceived of all of reality as possessing a threefold structure. Consider the following quote from Boehme:

Now thus the eternal light, and the virtue of the light, or the heavenly paradise, moveth in the eternal darkness; and the darkness cannot comprehend the light; for they are two [separate] Principles; and the darkness longeth after the light, because the spirit beholdeth itself therein, and because the divine virtue is manifested in it. But though it hath not comprehended the divine virtue and light, yet it hath continually with great lust lifted up itself towards it, till it hath kindled the root of the fire in itself, from the beams of the light of God; and there arose the Third Principle, out of the dark matrix, by the speculating of the virtue [or potency] of God.[2]

There are thus three principles, one of light, one of darkness, and one that reconciles. Boehme conceives the three principles dwelling as one within what he calls the Ungrund: the transcendent, ungraspable ground of all being which is itself ungrounded, because there is nothing beyond it which could provide a further ground. Again, we have a correspondence to the indwelling of the gunas within Brahman. Boehme conceives of his three principles as pervading all of reality.[3] Man, he asserts, is the true actualization of the three principles. Because of the co-presence of the three principles in man, he has the potential for understanding the whole of creation.

2. The Three Potencies 

Turning now to Schelling, he writes of three Potencies, which he conceives as both principles or ideals, and as volitional agencies. Schelling has a peculiar, algebraical way of referring to the Potencies as -A or A1, +A or A2, and A3. I shall abandon this usage, and do further violence to Schelling’s terminology by referring to the first potency as the third, the second as the first, and the third as the second. This is so as to bring out the correlation to the Indo-European functions. My presentation will not, however, do violence to Schelling’s meaning.

Schelling conceives of a primordial time in which the three potencies existed by themselves, before they expressed themselves as a world of objects. He furthermore sees the potencies as aspects of the Absolute — the equivalent of Brahman in his philosophy.

The Third Potency Schelling conceives as a pure, indefinite possibility of being (das sein Koennende). It is a kind of primal “being-in-itself,” which is indefinite, unlimited, and negative. It possesses, he claims, a pure power of self-negation. It can cancel or throw off whatever it is and become anything else. It has no fixed identity. Philosophical parallels include the Heraclitan flux, and Anaximander’s apeiron. It corresponds roughly to the Chinese Yin, and is thus the feminine principle. Schelling also conceives this Potency as pure subjectivity. The Third Potency is obviously equivalent to Indian Tamas.

The First Potency is a principle of order and objectivity. It is the opposite of the Third Potency: specific, lawful, definite, distinct. It is the principle of identity, and of differentiation. The First Potency is pure being, as opposed to the pure possibility of being. Its function is to place “boundaries” around the chaos that is the Third Potency and to bring definite entities into existence. Whereas the Third Potency is das sein Koennende, “the possibly being,” the First Potency is das sein Muessende, “the must being.” The Third Potency is “being-in-itself,” but the First Potency is “being-outside-itself,” because the boundaries provided by the First Potency are outside of it, placed around another. It is thus a male principle, equivalent to Chinese Yang, and Indian Sattva. The reason for this is simple: it is the nature of the female to generate in herself, the nature of the male to generate in another (thus, “being-outside-itself”). Because the First Potency is pure objectivity and not subjectivity, it does not possess a will of its own, which is one of the facets of a subject.

These two Potencies cannot co-exist because they are total opposites. Without them, there can be no world. So something else must function to bring them together. Enter what I am calling the Second Potency, merely in order to identify it with the Indo-European second function. Again, whatever corresponds to the second function constitutes a kind of mean between the first and third functions. Thus, the Second Potency must possess objective being (like the First Potency), but with the possibility of change (like the Third Potency). To put this in a different way, the Second Potency must be something definite, but it must also be free.

The Third Potency is pure subjectivity, and the First Potency is pure objectivity, so somehow the Second Potency will unite subject and object. This fact is significant, for Schelling conceives the Absolute as the “indifference point” beyond subject and object. There is an exact correspondence here, again, to the Indian theory of the gunas. The vira is the man in whom Rajas predominates, and the personification of Rajas is Brahma. Thus, it is the vira who is in a unique position to reach Brahman itself through a transformation of his own nature. In Schelling, the Second Potency, which corresponds to Rajas, is the togetherness of subject and object, while the Absolute, which corresponds to Brahman, is the transcendence of subject and object. It is as if the Second Potency is the Absolute “turned inside out,” and vice versa. The implication seems to be that he who is identified with the Second Potency, or Rajas, can raise himself to the Absolute, or Brahman, through a kind of heroic Gestalt switch.

Whereas the First Potency is “being outside itself,” and the Third Potency is “being in itself,” the Second Potency is “being with itself.” This choice of words suggests that in the Second Potency there is a kind of wholeness, fulfillment, reconciliation, and self-sufficiency.[4] Schelling further notes that whereas the Third Potency is the Unlimited, and the First Potency is the Limiting, the Second Potency is the “purely self-limiting.” Here again, we see a metaphysical anticipation of the vira. I said earlier that the vira reaches a point where he becomes autonomous in the literal sense of giving a law unto himself. This is self-limitation in its highest form. The vira is autonomous, independent, self-sufficient, and whole, just as is the primal Second Potency. The Third Potency is “the possibly being,” the First Potency is “the must being,” and the Second Potency is das sein Sollende, “the should being.” Sollen means “should,” and thus in the Second Potency an ethical or idealistic dimension comes to presence. This is predictable, since the Second Potency manifests itself on the human level as the “spirited” man.

If we may speak of the Third Potency as matter or the material element, and the First Potency as form, then what is the Second Potency? Again, since it constitutes a kind of middle between the other two, in some sense the Second Potency must be a union of matter and form. I am reminded here of Hegel’s theory of the three types of art: symbolic, classical, and romantic. The symbolic is art that is overly formal, stylized, and constrained. He uses Egyptian art as an example. Romantic art is all about soaring emotions and heaving bosoms: art that has lost all restraint. Here, form is broken or exceeded by an excess of content; by unconstrained feeling. Classical art occupies a middle position, a perfect unity of form and material. And what does Hegel use as an example of classical art? The Greek sculptures of gods and athletes, of course. In other words, mesomorphs: second function bodies ruled by Rajas, or the Schellingian Second Potency. In whatever occupies the second function position, there is a near-perfect complement of form and matter, reason and emotion, centripetal and centrifugal forces, etc.

The Second Potency is thus the primal, perfect union of form and matter. It is the Platonic form of a god (and it bears repeating that the Greeks used the mesomorph, the perfect human union of form and matter, to represent their gods), whereas the First Potency and Second Potency are mere forces (like Empedocles’s “love” and “strife”). The Second Potency is the timeless union of the other two Potencies. When the three Potencies externalize themselves in creation, the timeless relationship between them expresses itself temporally. The world is simply the bringing together and separating of the First Potency and the Third Potency, Sattva and Tamas, extended in time. The ultimate agent of this process in the world is the vira, the second function man, who is both preserver and destroyer. Edward Allen Beach, writing of Schelling’s Potenzlehre, states that “[the Second Potency] is…the [Aristotelian] final cause or purpose toward which the whole ideal organism of the universe is striving.”[5]

3. The Anti-Potencies

Schelling calls the three Potencies taken together “the figure of being.” But the story does not end here, for Schelling says that the account so far is one of pure essences only. How, exactly, does a concrete, spatio-temporal world come into being out these Potencies? I spoke just a moment ago of the Potencies externalizing themselves in creation. But how does this take place? Schelling’s answer to this is very obscure.

He begins by noting that it seems like the natural order of things that the Third Potency should subordinate itself to the First Potency: that matter should allow itself to become informed. But this is not how it always happens. We can see this all around us. If the Third Potency, in all of its expressions, gave itself up to the First Potency continually and without resistance, then all material objects would be perfect expressions of their forms. There would be no ugliness, no defect, no deformity. But since this is not the case, the relationship between the Third Potency and the First Potency must be more complicated than we have let on.

Because the Third Potency is pure possibility of being, it can pretty much do as it pleases! Within this Potency is a duality: it is a potentiality to give birth to existence, to be fruitful, but it is also a potentiality to negate all potentialities, to say no to everything. It thus always has within it the possibility of rebelling against its role as the matrix, or mother, of all of creation. In doing so, it becomes resistant to the order, form, definiteness, reason, and rule of the First Potency. Its obscurity increases, and becomes impenetrable. Schelling calls this perverted form of the Third Potency “B.” I shall call it “the anti-Third.” Schelling’s anti-Third is exactly analogous to Jakob Boehme’s “sour”: a negating, inward-turning, egoistic power.

As a result of the transformation of the Third Potency into the anti-Third, the First Potency is made subordinate to it. This indicates the great power of the Third Potency: in simply closing itself to the First Potency or resisting it, it subverts the natural role of the First Potency and throws it into a state of disequilibrium. Recall that the Third Potency is subjectivity and the First Potency objectivity. In being rejected by the Third Potency, the First Potency is thrown back on itself, and thus develops subjectivity.[6] Whereas, like Ouranos, it had once enjoyed unconscious bliss in the arms of Gaea, it now comes to consciousness — but only when castrated. It turns inward. And when it conceives itself, it conceives itself solely as directed toward the bringing about the submission of the anti-Third.

To continue the masculine-feminine parallel, the anti-Third finds its human representative in modern, “liberated” woman (in the extreme, in the “man hater,” who may go so far as to entirely abjure the love of men, and to suppress the desire to be penetrated). What the First Potency becomes as a result of the anti-Third’s coming into being is the modern male, who is preoccupied with the physical conquest of woman, considering it the essence of manliness. He is, indeed, an entirely physical being.
A perfect illustration of this dynamic is to be found in D. H. Lawrence’s Women in Love, which charts the course of two love affairs. The first, between Ursula Brangwen and Rupert Birkin, illustrates the natural relationship between the Third Potency and the First Potency. Ursula is a “natural woman,” who longs to be possessed by Birkin. Birkin, for his part, is drawn to Ursula, but refuses to give himself to her completely, desiring an experience of something higher than carnal love. In short, he has something of the vira in him. The other couple are Gudrun Brangwen, Ursula’s sister, and Gerald Crich, Rupert’s best friend. Gudrun is the anti-Third incarnate. She yearns for something, but will not identify herself with anything. She drifts from interest to interest, place to place. She spurns Gerald’s desire, and humiliates him, saying at one point “You are so insistent, and there is so little grace in you, so little fineness. You are so crude. You break me — you only waste me — it is horrible to me.”[7] Naturally, Gerald is obsessed with her, and responds to these words by making violent love to her, and then later trying to strangle the life out of her. Gerald is the entirely physical being I spoke of; the perversion of the First Potency. He is a mine-owner who (like Clifford in Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover) totally immerses himself in the hard world of machines and production plans. He prides himself on his brutal physicality, and, unlike Rupert, is preoccupied by sex.

Now, note that the First Potency corresponds to the first function, which corresponds, in terms of human types, to the ecotomorph-cerebretonic. Thus, what is peculiar about the change produced in the First Potency by the anti-Third is that the First Potency becomes, in a way, its own opposite. In human terms, the cerebretonic, the man who “lives in his head,” comes to think that he ought to be his opposite: the physical man, the sensualist, the “stud.” What we are talking about is, in essence, a divya (or potential divya) who secretly yearns to be a pashu. But such a man, though he may think of nothing but the sexual possession of women, never succeeds in truly or totally possessing a woman, because his obsession is in fact unmasculine and, ultimately, repellent to women. It is the detached and aloof, spiritually virile male who proves most attractive. It is to him that woman wishes truly to surrender. Enter the vira, and the Second Potency.

We find the relationship between the Second Potency and the two anti-Potencies represented in the medieval Germanic Nibelungenlied. King Gunther of Burgundy sets his sights on the Amazon-like Brunhild, but to win her hand in marriage he must submit to trial by combat. If he loses, Brunhild takes his life. Brunhild represents the anti-Third, which has become actively hostile and even deadly to the First, or male, Potency. Gunther, who represents the emasculated First Potency, cannot defeat Brunhild, and so he enlists the aid of Siegfried. As a warrior hero, Siegfried represents, of course, the Second Potency. Rendering himself invisible, Siegfried secretly acts on Gunther’s behalf, and wins Brunhild’s hand for his king. Afterwards, however, Brunhild refuses to yield to Gunther in the marriage bed, and so Siegfried is called in again to pass himself off as Gunther and force her to submit. When he succeeds, she cries, “I shall no longer resist your noble love. I have discovered that you know how to master women.”[8]

One curious problem here has to do with what sex to assign to the Second Potency. If the First Potency is “male” and the Third Potency is “female,” what is the Second Potency? I have characterized it as mediating between the other two, so is it somehow androgynous? Given that I have identified the Second Potency with the Second Function, with the mesomorphic-somatotonic warrior figure, this seems an absurd suggestion — until one takes a look at Indo-European mythological representations of the warrior. There one finds abundant evidence that the warrior was regarded as having both masculine and feminine characteristics. For example, Thor appears in drag, as does Herakles. (From the sixteenth century on, artistic representations of Herakles have most often depicted him in women’s clothing.) The figure of Arjuna in the Mahabharata is also depicted as androgynous. Exactly why the warrior or vira should be seen in this way must have to do with his important metaphysical role, discussed earlier, as one who can pass between the opposites of subject and object, form and matter, masculine and feminine to achieve oneness with the Absolute or Brahman. The name Percival (or Parzival) means “pierce the valley.” He is the one who goes beyond opposites (between the “mountains”) to the One.

Unlike the First Potency and the Third Potency, according to Schelling the Second Potency does not undergo a change; it remains constant. But, Schelling contends, it cannot be fully realized unless the other two Potencies have completed their development. Thus, due to the inversion, or perversion of the First Potency and the Third Potency, the Second Potency is no longer the timeless balance of the Limited and the Unlimited. In Beach’s words, the Second Potency takes on the status of a “future condition” yet to be achieved.[9] In other words, the unity of Limited and Unlimited becomes a goal or an ideal endpoint. Schelling believes that this is the end toward which all of history is moving. But Schelling’s historical conception, like Hegel’s, is Christianized and linear. Beach notes that “Schelling sees the whole tendency of world history subsequent to the Creation as being precisely to bring the inverted first potency into submission, to change [the anti-Third] back into [the positive, Third Potency].”[10]

4. Implications of Schelling’s Theory

If we jettison Schelling’s linear view of history and replace it with a traditional Indo-European, cyclical model of historical change, what results is a conception of the anti-Third and the First Potency continually evolving toward unity, which is to say, continually giving rise to the realization of the Second Potency. After the zenith of the Second Potency is achieved, there is a period in which the other two Potencies normalize: when the anti-Third becomes the “natural” Third Potency, and the First Potency regains its status as the objective, informing agent. But then this is followed by a decline, in which the two Potencies become perverted again, and the Second Potency seemingly withdraws, only to arise again later, and so on.

From the conflict and gradual reconciliation of the First Potency and the Third Potency, a world comes into being. Schelling thinks that his account of the conflict of the anti-Potencies is not an account of abstract essences. When the Third Potency rebels against its nature as receiver of form, it becomes the material element itself, for matter is just precisely whatever has the nature of receiving and resisting form.

To put this in human terms, the world is perpetually giving birth to the vira, but the vira is born in conflict. The conditions necessary to give rise to the vira are conflict and disharmony. It is in the crucible of unrest, war, and disunity that the vira arises — and rises to the occasion. In challenging and overcoming these conditions, those who can be viras realize their vira nature, and impose order upon chaos. But this “golden age” cannot last, and disorder and disharmony eventually return — and so on, ad infinitum.
Such a view of history is pregnant with philosophical consequences. For example, the so-called “problem of evil” is solved. Evil — conflict, war, disorder, disharmony, etc. — exists simply in order to bring the vira, the embodiment of God in the world, into being.

We have also answered the question, “why is there something rather than nothing?” The nothing that is the Ground of Being is Brahman. From Brahman a world constituted by the three gunas or Potencies comes into being. The highest actuality in this world is achieved by the highest living thing in the world, which is the human vira. He is the human expression of Brahma, and as such he may, through a transformation of himself, “turn creation back on itself” and achieve oneness with Brahman, the basis of existence as such. Thus, there is no “something rather than nothing,” for the something is the nothing unconscious of itself.

General Conclusion

As I announced at the beginning of this series, my procedure in this essay has been inductive. I began by laying out the tripartite structure of Indo-European society, and then argued that other parts of the natural world exhibit an analogous structure: the human soul itself, human body types, human anatomy, the anatomy of individual organs or systems, the human embryo, the mammals, the single cell, the macroscopic world, the microscopic world of the atom, and the structure of human thought and logic. I believe that these analogies are plausible. In some cases, particularly the analogies between human types and mammal types, the analogies are very precise and striking.

Having seen the same structures repeating themselves throughout different aspects of reality, I then asked if there was a way to lay bare the nature of these structures and speak of them in the abstract – to know them “in themselves and by themselves.” Rather than striking off on my own, I looked first to Tradition, and found exactly the account I was looking for in the Indian theory of the gunas. We can see there that the Indians noticed the same repetition of tripartite structure I have spoken of. In the course of explaining the gunas, I had occasion to return to the topic of human types, and I developed some suggestions for how we might make use of them in order to work out a theory of history, and an understanding of the purpose of existence itself.

I also gave an account of Schelling’s Potenzlehre. This served two functions. First, it showed how an even more abstract account of the three principles may be given. Second, its remarkable correspondence to the Indian theory of the gunas seems to indicate that consciousness of the three principles is perennial. I mean this in connection with the Hermetic idea of the “perennial philosophy.” If an idea keeps showing up in different philosophical or mystical systems, especially if there is little or no contact between the authors of those systems, I take this as prima facie evidence of its truth.

Now, it might be objected that I have simply “read” this tripartite scheme into different things, but that one could equally well find twoness and fourness and fiveness in things as well. This objection misses the point, for, as I said at the beginning, I am not looking for sheer threeness, but rather a specific type of threeness. Secondly, the objection seems disingenuous in light of what I believe are the truly remarkable analogies I have brought to light here. Ultimately, my argument for the truth of the principles, and the reliability of the principles as guides to understanding the world, is pragmatic. I believe I have shown that seeing the world in terms of these three structures works. It opens things up to us; it allows us to better organize, categorize, and analyze things, and to see their relationships. Furthermore, it leads to truly profound reflections upon the nature of existence as a whole.


[1] Hegel did not actually say that Spirit is a unity of logos and nature, or God and animal, but this is an implication of his ideas, and corresponds exactly to the Greek philosophical view, which strongly influenced Hegel.
[2] Jacob Boehme, Concerning the Three Principles of the Divine Essence, trans. John Sparrow, 1648 (London: John M. Watkins, 1910), VII: 25; p. 100.
[3] “And no place or position can be conceived or found where the spirit of the tri-unity is not present, and in every being . . . “, Boehme, Six Theosophic Points, trans. John Rolleston Earle (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1920), I:21; pp. 18-19.
[4] A small application of this principle is to be found in the eating habits of the middle-position carnivores. Whereas the rodents subsist primarily on starches, fats, and oils, and the ungulates on cellulose, the carnivores subsist on protein; i.e., on food similar to their own bodily material. See Schad, Man and Mammals, 32.
[5] Edward Allen Beach, The Potencies of Gods (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1994), 126.
[6] This is reminiscent of the master-slave dialectic in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: subjugated by the master, the slave turns inward and gives birth to Geist.
[7] D. H. Lawrence, Women in Love (New York: Viking Press, 1969), 434.
[8] Nibelungenlied, trans. Helen M. Mustard, in Medieval Epics (New York: Modern Library, 1963), 282.
[9] Beach, 136.
[10] Ibid., 134.

Becoming a Legionnaire: The Role of Divine Services

via TradYouth

As we enter into Pascha I thought that it would be important to discuss the importance of attending Divine Services to the spiritual life of the Legionnaire. The road to becoming a Legionnaire is one that no one can complete until they take their final breath. The journey through life is one where all Orthodox believers must work through their salvation with “fear and trembling,” as Scripture tells us. The Orthodox believer must choose to live a life of humility, love, service, duty and repentance that begins inside each of us. Daily prayer and good works are the stepping stones to greater connection with God and a life more aligned with His will, not our own.

The role of attending and participating in the Liturgy and the Mysteries of the Church cannot be understated as being a crucial part of our spiritual growth. One cannot be a Legionnaire without being an active participant in the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church. From baptism and chrismation to the final funeral prayers our life, hope, health, peace and salvation begins and ends inside the walls of an Orthodox Church alongside our brothers and sisters in Christ.

There are many privileges found in life when it comes to job or society, but the greatest privilege is being able to enter into a small piece of Heaven during the Divine Liturgy. The liturgy engages all of the senses to break you out of being in the world and transports you a realm that is both in the world and outside of it. The icons, incense, the lesson from the priest, the chants, and especially the Divine Mysteries engage the believer into the realm of the supernatural.

Saint John of Kronstadt famously said that the “Church, through the temple and Divine service, acts upon the entire man, educates him wholly; acts upon his sight, hearing, smelling, feeling, taste, imagination, mind, and will, by the splendor of the icons and of the whole temple, by the ringing of bells, by the singing of the choir, by the fragrance of the incense, the kissing of the Gospel, of the cross and the holy icons, by the prosphoras, the singing, and sweet sound of the readings of the Scriptures.”


The icons of the Saints surround the believer inside the Church just as we will be surrounded in Heaven by our brothers and sisters from every nation who have run the race in their lives throughout the centuries as we worship the Almighty God together.

The icons are not just mere pictures of the Saints, they are windows into Heaven where we on Earth can see the Saints as they are in Heaven. While many of the Saints were beaten, tortured, burned or beheaded, in Heaven they are made entirely whole in both body and soul, which is shown to us in the iconography of the Church.

The Saints have gained eternal life through their humility, sacrifice and love of Almighty God, an example for the believer on how to live and the hopeful future for the believer if we truly aim to follow the lives of the Saints whose icons adorn the walls of our beautiful and holy temples.

Incense has been used in worshiping God since God Himself revealed the proper form of worship in the Old Testament, a tradition continued in the New Testament and by the Church for the past two thousand years. Exodus 30:7 gives the example that worship to God begins every day with the burning of incense as a part of liturgical prayer “Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on it; he shall burn it every morning when he trims the lamps. ‘When Aaron trims the lamps at twilight, he shall burn incense. There shall be perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations.” Incense shows our devotion to God and a respect for the temple in which we pray for the Trinity, the Theotokos, the Saints and the holy relics inside the Church.

Incense is both a demonstration of sacrifice to God and is also for the believer to be able to send up his prayers as the sweet swelling clouds of incense that rise to the Heavens. Psalm 141.2 says “May my prayer be set before you like incense” indicating that the Christian prayer be found as a sweet and fragrant offering before the throne of God. Incense also represents the unending grace that God pours into the souls of those who pray and worship just as incense pours fragrance throughout the Church building.

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea wrote to early Christians that incense was an offering that was to be “offered to God in every place.” Incense is a small demonstration of our sacrifice to God in thanks for His eternal goodness. Our Christian lives as Legionnaires should resemble incense by being lives that are sweet smelling sacrifices to God through our good works, our prayers and our devotion to helping those in need and spreading the Faith to others.

Everything we do in our lives is a reflection upon where our heart and soul are, either with God or with the world. To offer God a sacrifice of things that will decay, the things of this world grounded in pride or selfishness is not pleasing to God, but offering Him our acts of charity, compassion and chastity is pleasing to God and makes our lives a sacrifice, just like the incense we burn.

The tradition of incense being used is not simply a worldly part of prayer and praise to God, it will also be continued in Heaven. Revelations 8:3-4 says that “an angel came and stood at the altar, with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden Altar before the Throne of God; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the Saints from the hand of the angel before God.” To hold true what happens in Heaven on Earth to the best of our abilities has incense as a very important part of the life of the Church and the individual Christian in his or her prayer corner in their home.

Holy martyr Corneliu Codreanu, pray for us!
We must also remember the importance of building a home that is a reflection of our Faith. The home of every Orthodox Christian is supposed to be a little Church and should reflect the atmosphere of the Church to the best of one’s ability with both icons and incense in the home for personal prayer and reflection, the foundation of spiritual growth.

Legionnaires are called to make every place that they inhabit or work to be a garden of Christian virtue. Corneliu Codreanu said when comparing the call of the Legionnaire to that of those following the various political ideologies of the day that “Legionarism is preoccupied by something much deeper: by the soul (namely by its strengthening through the cultivation of Christian virtues and its preparation with final salvation in mind, salvation dealt with by the Christian Church in the most perfect fashion).” To prepare for our death we must live a life where in every opportunity we pray and live honorably in a Christian fashion, a process which begins and ends by being an active part of the Church and Her blessed services.

Saint John Chrysostom said “Are you a sinner? Do not become discouraged, and come to Church to put forward repentance.” The mindset of remaining faithful and coming to Church as a part of our Christian walk is important. Modern American Christianity is all about the idea of being “spiritual but not religious” with increasing numbers of supposed Christians refusing to participate in any form of liturgical or organized worship. The idea of “going it alone” is the opposite of what the Bible and the Church Fathers tell us to do.

The Books of Acts in 2:42 says that the early Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” This passage from the beginning of the Christian Church demonstrates the importance of coming together as the Body of Christ to participate both in the Mystery of Communion and praying together, the foundation of what we now know as the Divine Liturgy.

Hebrews 13:17 reinforces that there is a clear hierarchy in the Church in which the clergy are the spiritual shepherds of the Orthodox faithful, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” The idea of rejecting the Church community and the hierarchy of the Church is a purely modern invention without any basis in either Scripture or Tradition.

To be united with the Church is to be united with Christ because Scripture tells us that the Church is the bride of Christ who has become united together, just as a husband and wife and united in holy matrimony to become “one flesh.” God loves His Church as a bridegroom loves his bride and that loves is reflected in how Christ continually bestows forgiveness, love and grace upon Christians, even as we daily fall into rebellion and sin due to our addictions to the passions of the flesh.

"The Holy Spirit is on earth too. He lives in our Church. He lives in the Mysteries. He is in the Holy Scriptures. He is in the souls of the faithful. The Holy Spirit unites all things" -St. Silouan the Athonite
“The Holy Spirit is on earth too. He lives in our Church. He lives in the Mysteries. He is in the Holy Scriptures. He is in the souls of the faithful. The Holy Spirit unites all things” -St. Silouan the Athonite

To be separated from the Church is like being separated from something more important than food, water or even oxygen. The Church is the ark of salvation and one must do everything you can to be in good standing with the Church and be an active and loving participant of the Mysteries. St. Hilarion Troitsky wrote that “We know and are convinced that falling away from the Church, whether into schism, heresy, or sectarianism, is complete perdition and spiritual death. For us there is no Christianity outside of the Church. If Christ established the Church, and the Church is His Body, then to be cut of from His Body is to die.” To be united with Christ we must be members of His bride, the eternal Church.

Confession and communion are two wings of the bird of salvation, and both should be taken seriously and with reverence. To prepare for communion a Legionnaire must fast and engage in a healthy life of prayer. To be able to be freed from your sins you must truly repent of them, which means turning away from them and engaging in spiritual warfare against the demons and passions that assail you throughout your life. Saint Maximos the Confessor tells of the importance of confession in saving ones soul because “Every genuine confession humbles the soul. When it takes the form of thanksgiving, it teaches the soul that it has been delivered by the grace of God.”

Confession allows the believer to confess, repent and to work with his or her spiritual father to find ways to overcome the sinful and worldly passions. One cannot be a Legionnaire without working every single day to overcome the addictions and passions of our sinful condition. Legionnaire life is not made up of a political struggle, it is a spiritual struggle in which the transformed man and woman will reflect a change in their local communities and thus politics.

First and foremost Legionnaire life is a spiritual fellowship with fellow Orthodox Christians to help one another strive to salvation, spread the Faith and battle the demonic forces that plague our sick and sinful world. Confession is a sword and shield to fend off the attacks of the enemy and prepare yourself to take part in the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. We must take full ownership of our sins and shortcomings in order to be repentant but also to be able to truly engage in the spiritual warfare against us. Legionnaire’s must be honest with themselves, their brothers, their priest and most importantly their God in regards to their conduct.

Saint Anthony the Great told a fellow Saint that “the great work of man: always to take the blame for his own sins before God and to expect temptation to his last breath” is one we should take to heart. Spiritual warfare never ceases in the life of a Legionnaire and neither should repentance, we are called to be warriors every second of every day, without exception.

With a clear conscience, a soul washed clean from sin and a repentant heart, the Legionnaire then must partake in rigid fasting and prayer prior to attending the liturgy and participating in the Mystery of the Eucharist.

The Church fathers and mothers have preached the importance of regular confession and communion throughout the centuries, and if we truly care for our own salvation we should heed the words of Christ and the Saints when it comes to these spiritual Mysteries.

The Mysteries of the Orthodox Church are the most profound and awe inspiring part of being a participant in the Christian life. The body and blood of Christ is perhaps the most important part of becoming one with Christ and with His Church. While Protestant churches increasingly say that communion is just a “symbol” or “remembrance” Jesus Himself said in John 6:53-58 said “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” Without partaking in the body and blood of Christ, Christ does not live inside you and you will not inherit eternal life, thus is cannot be overstated how important frequent communion is the to spiritual life of the Legionnaire.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria told his flock the importance of regular participation in the Eucharist when he said “If the poison of pride is swelling up in you, turn to the Eucharist; and that Bread, Which is your God humbling and disguising Himself, will teach you humility. If the fever of selfish greed rages in you, feed on this Bread; and you will learn generosity.If you feel the itch of intemperance, nourish yourself with the Flesh and Blood of Christ, Who practiced heroic self-control during His earthly life; and you will become temperate.” Our bodies and souls are nourished by the body and blood of Christ through communion and the process of theosis grows as we make partaking in the Mysteries along with prayer, fasting and good works a regular part of our lives.

The march of the Legionnaire is not one filled with worldly glory or fame, but it is one that is dedicated to Faith, family and folk. We must work to save the souls of ourselves, our families, our racial kinsmen but also the world by spreading and living out the Faith in everything we do. This is a battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil, you are either on the side of Christ or you are serving the Devil, even if you do so without knowing it. Saint Justin Popovich said “Our world is guided by two principles and sources: God and the devil. All that is better in the world of men has its source in God, and all that is bad has the devil as its principle and source. In the final account, all good comes from God, and all evil from the devil.

To be a Legionnaire is to answer the call of serving God and the Church above all things and to answer it means to be a loyal servant in both public and private. Partake in the Mysteries, love your brothers and sisters, defend the Church and strive to climb the ladder of salvation, for salvation is the greatest gift that a man or woman could ever be given. May you all have a blessed Pascha. Christ is Risen!

Pay Discrimination Myths

via Competitive Enterprise Institute

Equal Pay Day is coming up on April 14. That means it's time for false statistics and legal claims from groups pushing for more rules and red tape governing employee pay, such as the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act.

On April 10, Linda D. Hallman, Executive Director of the American Association of University Women (AAUW), sent a mass email containing two false claims. The first alleged that "women have to work almost four months longer than men do to earn the same amount of money for doing the same job."  This is a fundamental misinterpretation of a statistic that itself is obsolete and years out of date.

It is based on a much-repeated and much-debunked statistic that women make 77 percent as much as men do. That statistic was obsolete in 2013, when former Chief Labor Department economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth noted:

The 77 percent figure is bogus because it averages all full-time women, no matter what education and profession, with all full-time men. Even with such averaging, the latest Labor Department figures show that women working full-time make 81 percent of full-time men’s wages. For men and women who work 40 hours weekly, the ratio is 88 percent.

Anther reason women earn less than men on average is that women work fewer hours on average than men even when they work full-time. As Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler observed in February 2013, government data show women work fewer hours than men, which explains much of the apparent pay gap:

[S]ince women in general work fewer hours than men in a year, the statistics [such as this one] used by the White House [to push for passage of the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act, discussed at this link] may be less reliable for examining the key focus of the legislation — wage discrimination. 

Family responsibilities also play a role. Furchtgott-Roth cites a 2005 study that found: “There is no gender gap in wages among men and women with similar family roles.” In addition to being more likely to seek part-time work, women are also more likely to have gaps in their employment history and to enter lower-paying fields, she notes, and “a 2009 report for the Labor Department, found that these factors account for most of the pay gap.” In any event,  employers don’t pay women 23 percent less for the exact same work. If they did, employers could (and some would) crush their competitors just by hiring only women, who would cost less to employ, to reap a huge cost advantage. But no major employer has ever done so.

The AAUW's second false claim dealt with the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act, which would greatly expand federal regulation of how employers set pay, including making it harder to use legitimate factors "other than" sex in setting pay, as I explain in this law journal article.

The AAUW claims this bill would just “update the Equal Pay Act of 1963, finally bringing the law in line with the nation’s other civil rights laws.” But in reality, as we have explained in the past, the bill is much more radical than that. It would mandate things that judges have never considered appropriate under federal civil-rights laws, like allowing recovery of unlimited emotional-distress and punitive damages even for unintentional violations.

The Paycheck Fairness Act also rigs the criteria for determining whether pay is discriminatory, by largely ignoring factors that might provide an innocent explanation for why a male employee is paid more than a female one—such as the dangerous and unpleasant nature of the job. Most jobs with high mortality or injury rates, like lumberjack, fisherman, cab driver, or coal miner are overwhelmingly male, while low-risk clerical jobs are performed predominantly by women. As Furchtgott-Roth  explains: “[T]he bill’s language omits experience, risk, inflexibility of work schedule, or physical strength, factors that increase men’s wages relative to women’s. The bill does not include effort, so there is little leeway to promote those who work harder.”

Dyspeptic White Male Rage and Primeval Cultural Renewal: Analyzing Season Four of 'Louie'

via The High Right

The Fx series Louie, with season four being shown on Netflix, showcases a very different protagonist that is endearing for everything that he is not.

Louis C.K., the famous comedian turned awkward TV star, is well known for his deadpan black humor which is bluntly realistic and unremittingly bleak for the bulk of it’s material, that is, save for the brief moments of absurd humor that crop up in Louie’s life.

Louie’s life is framed by the madness of routine, a life that is not imbued with any sort of spirituality or real sense of ideology. Louie is the consummate generation X grown up, the 90’s generation that accidentally made it to adulthood, woke up one day and found themselves with children and a job.

Having lived through generation X and missing it by a few years (I’m 30 years old, so most of my adolescence was in the 90’s) I none the less saw this generation but missed it myself by about 5 years. I grew up watching melrose place, Jerry springer, X files, WWF monday night raw, J and silent bob movies, and listening to Alice in Chains, Nirvana, Marliyn Manson, White Zombie and Stone temple pilots. So, even though I was 15 when the 90’s ended, this is the generation that I look back on as a kid and remember fondly, the last era before cell phones were widespread and internet usage became ubiquitous.

The generation of this era was molded by a definite sense of cynicism, that, nowadays seems poetic by comparison; because despite it’s thick, mayonnaise-like layer of irony that covered everything, there was still an analysis of things such as Jean Baudrillard’s Simulation and Simulacra, which, in the 90’s seeped out of everything in Grad Schools, academia, post-modern and post-structuralist critics who strove to not place value on anything, because it would inherently allow an object they critiqued to be valued, thus appraised, eventually sold, and by proxy playing into the aiding of a punitive capitalist system, functioning as unwitting speculators that decide the prices for the rich to exploit the poor, downtrodden artist.

Of course, all this really did was allow anything… and I do mean literally anything, to “become” art, and, as I have referenced in another article here at High Right. In any case however, this era holds sentimental value, though I sweared to myself at the time I would never, ever, no matter what, look back fondly on the 90’s; I fucking hated it at the time. And I promised myself to always hate it.

Well, I did not anticipate things getting worse… far worse.

Back then irony was a part of young people’s lives, but it was mostly in relation to things that did not matter, allowing us to carefully scrutinize the more difficult aspects of modern existence through negativity and subtle mockery. When it came to things that mattered people shirked the irony and took things more seriously. At least, this is what I remember. I could be wrong though, and could be remembering things differently than reality, but an example of this is a film like Trainspotting, which contained tons and tons of irony and cheeky humor, but when it came to subject of serious things, it punctuated that seemingly mayonnaise-thick layer of irony with brutal reality. Thus, real life was portrayed in many ways far more accurately on screen and in novels. Again, I could be just falsely remembering things the way I prefer
to, because I want to think that my era was somehow better than this one.

A Foucault inspired writer, Jameson, once stated that in the post-modern era, attempts to create something new result in a sort of schizophrenia, a sort of self-induced madness that happens due to the inability to produce something aside from pastiche, parody, and homage… because… well, everything has been done. 

A perfect attitude for the 90’s, embodying that stoic cynicism we all had. Why try to create? You’re just doing pastiche. Why try to innovate? It’s been done, man…

And the critics, deathly afraid of inadvertently aiding the capitalist system, decided to criticize art the least way possible, so as to produce dry, sterile and lac of placing any value  on a subject. Essentially, they took the Jack Kerouac route to criticism.  As Truman Capote once bluntly asserted, “That’s not writing. That’s typing.”

Bullshit cop outs, lies to tell one’s self for lack of creativity, lack of inspiration, and lack of trying and, most especially, lack of plain old, all important balls. Recent art shows us this, that new things can and are being done. But I’ll let you google that to find out for yourself.

In any case, this brings us to the curious case of Louie C.K.

Louie, a never-quite-made-it stand up comedian who specializes in bleak deadpans and awkward dark humor, is now in his mid 40’s and overweight, balding and depressive. Louie’s once youthful fuck-the-world cynicism has morphed into middle-aged-oh-my-god-it’s-not-a-joke cynicism, with a desperate edge of suicide in every pained smile and self-referencing laugh.

C.K. has an interesting background. I know little to nothing of his formative years, but supposedly he was born in Mexico to a Hungarian family and he anglicized his last name from Sezekely to C.K. for ease. I, like millions of other Americans, only heard about him several years back when his comedy series came on Television.

Instantly, many people were hooked, myself included. C.K.’s style is whirled into a cinema verite style half hour episode, where Louie encounters everything as awkwardly as possible, and then recounts his darkest and weirdest moments on stage to a howling laughter who pay to see the fool trip. Louie is aware of all this, and one wonders if he found himself in this stage of his life accidentally, and due to needing to pay the bills somehow, he keeps the sideshow going. C.K. takes everything on : racism for and against, sexuality, fatness, the double standards of men’s bodies and women’s bodies, race relations, swearing, bodily fluids, violence, intimidation, and meekness. C.K.’s charm is that he is not showcasing himself as a hero – far from it.

What makes him so endearing is his utter lack of heroism.

As a case study of a partially feminized Omega male, Louie’s more base instincts become the things that frame him, but unlike an Alpha or even a Beta who at least is attempting to be somewhat heroic or grandiose, Louie has just admitted it to the world that he is not, nor will ever be a hero of any kind.

This kind of blatant nihilism is underscored by his secularism, his obsession with sex, drinking, food and the occasional drug use, now limited to misuse of pharmaceuticals when he is ill, and his apathy towards anything resembling order and normality. He begrudgingly takes care of his daughters who you wonder if he even loves – and most of his comedy bits include him for once brazenly admitting how repugnant he really is, while in his daily life, we get to see C.K. awkwardly engaging in the things he later more brazenly admits on stage, emboldened by audience laughter.

The C.K. on the stage is almost an Alpha – the boldness of his speech, the brazen defiance of the norm – it is almost, almost Alpha. But it’s not.

It’s an act.

The real Louie is a loser. Instead of channeling that on stage bravado into his daily life, he meekly thumbs through a kind of sad parody of the pathetic and pointless nature of modern, secular, libertine, sort-of-on-a-good-day-liberal-ish behavior, where he often fails to woo girls, or reluctantly takes them out even if they are too fat for him.
The thing about this series is that it is honest. There’s no attempt to make Louie look like some good person, even though at times you feel sorry for the sweetness of his character and what it could embody, when you hear the reality of his thoughts and how reviling he really is on the inside, it shows that you shouldn’t feel sorry for these types of people. Just because they are outwardly meek doesn’t mean that inwardly they are good people. They may just be cowards that are too weak to openly, defiantly own their degeneracy.

I comparison to House, who is also a militantly atheist, curmudgeonly, drug addict heavy drinker who loves to patronize prostitutes, Louie is meek about his degeneracy. Whereas House owns who he is, Louie only does so on stage.

At the same time though, if he did own who he was in his encounters more often, he would be less mesmerizing to viewers, because part of what makes his character so enamoring is the apathetic and halfhearted nature to which he even approaches degeneracy, trying to play it safe even when he is playing dangerously.

This more than anything, summarizes the sad nature of the Generation X-er. Accidentally waking up to adulthood, these now mid 40’s and late 30 somethings are left without religion, or an authentic expression of one (save for the born agains), left without a real ethnic identity or affinity for a nation given the post-nation state situation of multiculturalism, left without a genuine love or marriage, having failed numerous times at both, and with nothing to aspire to except making ends-meet, trying to raise your children without being annoyed as much as possible, and placating one’s life with pedestrian approaches to hedonism.

The result is a sort of half hearted dyspeptic rage, perfectly embodied in season 4, episode 6, where Louie, after being rejected from a woman who was a hopeful love interest, takes  a baseball bat and bashes in a piano on it’s keys. This oddball scene, where Louie cannot even express rage properly, because he is so disconnected and confused, being unable to properly express his emotions in almost any context, half halfheartedly destroys a symbol of Traditional musical creation. This scene embodies the confused, depressed, repressed, empty-from-hedonism-only rage, that destroys Tradition because it simply cannot understand it or bear it’s beauty.  When there is nothing left to placate the hedonist, he will invariable turn to nihilism; and thus the impetus to destroy surfaces resoundingly.

The very next frame has Louie bumping into the Hungarian woman whom he presumed did not fancy him, and her endearing response to implore him to please go out to eat with her, that she will be in the country for one month, and that she very much does want to eat dinner and perhaps get involved with Louie.

Louie is ecstatic. Elated, he accepts and closes the door.

The thing about this kind of scene is that it is the weird thing that is plausible. It could happen; it’s happened to me. In this scene however, it is as if love coincides with getting in touch with his Hungarian ancestry, C.K.’s ancestry may be totally coincidental, and that is fine, but the charming, feminine girl who wants to court him is emblematic of the distant past calling to him and by embracing it, he will find true happiness.

Earlier in this same episode however, C.K. has a moment of Red Pillness. This series is stark in it’s frank portrayal of the problems of American girls and their fucked up behavior. Notably, Pamela, a woman Louie has chased for ages, jumps off what the manosphere refers to as “The cock carousel” and wants to jump on a lame provider, usually a beta male, but this time in Louie’s oddball omega. Instead of going for it, realizing that she is only now picking him because she is growing older and will need a piggy bank with legs, he lies to her and says he is dating another woman, to which he leaves and she brutally mocks him as the evil cunt she is.

In these moments it’s hard to not empathize with C.K. We forget for a bit he is really a repugnant loser who is a 3rd rate hedonist who slouches into even the bar. His pathetic nature that is only charming to women who think that his awkwardness is somehow mysterious, when it is really just a dearth of real morality and value, held together by the glue of enough wit, half baked and almost philosophical witticisms, that he almost approximates a human being.

Afterwards, the above scenes involving the far more cute and endearing Hungarian woman happen. When contrasting her with the American loudmouth female, it’s hard not to want her for C.K. She’s very much how a woman who would fit him should be, sans the degeneracy. She may be enough to straighten him out, if he can abide by her long enough so that she can inspire him to try to create a real personality that is something outside of dick jokes and gratuitous sex admissions on stage.

The Hungarian woman is graceful and charming, cute and femnine, even though she isn’t exactly stunning, the reality is that a guy like Louie would be doing well to land her.  Much like the culture of the old world, the personality of the Hungarian is distinct and vibrant, and she plays the violin for him in the hallway in a bright red blouse. Louie is stunned and mesmerized by the display of culture; he is shaken from his hedonistic coma.

Louie, secular, hedonistic, cynical and bleak, has found in the old world, the renewing sense of culture that makes us feel alive –  something the new world, i. e. America, simply cannot do for many of us. Pamela, the grouchy, Jewish American Princess, represents the ugliness of the new world, and the Hungarian represents genuine culture and soul.

Louie’s interactions with the charming, old world Hungarian women, a mother and the daughter whom he is romantically interested in, begin to inject in his life a real sense of meaning – just as connecting with our ancestral culture provides meaning in a world with only hedonism and consumerism.

Louie’s days are sometimes bleakly underscored by visits to a doctor who explains miserable conditions with  an existential flair to them, and they are often deadpan funny in a sort of bleak, gallows’s-humor style. This only serves to provide a stronger background for which the culturally rich Hungarians enter his life and inject some real meaning into it. Without Louie’s past, he’s just a superficial hedonist who can’t even dive into degeneracy full throttled. He even half asses self placation.

Part of the greatness of this series however, again, is it’s honesty. We know that Louie won’t ever be completely happy; because then show would end. Thus, in a sort of misery-porno installment, we see in real time Louie’s depressing life crumble further from time to time. We watch it in part because we either empathize with Louie’s quiet desperation and lack of heroism or grandeur, or we revel in his slothful and half hearted approach to slouching through life. There is a lot to laugh at, but when you seriously think about it, the series is intensely depressing. This is reality, and in one episode, season 7, Louie, sitting with his african-american wife who he is alienated with, gets up and screams out of the window of his marriage counseling session. It seems that C.K. here is embodying the frustrated white male being forced to live with a horrible situation. He married this person, and much like the American whites brought over the Africans for slaves, the painful legacy of this marriage is still hammering Louie into submission. And he is forced to foot the bill because of what he once did.

Louie’s desperation to try to make his marriage-partnership work is similar to the situation American whits are stuck in with Blacks.  We keep trying, but no matter what restitution we try, we keep getting hammered.  Outside, Louie’s ex wife inquires about his new-found girlfriend, and his ex wife berates him for temporarily bringing in an influence temporarily, and not sticking with her. Similar to how the white man in America flirts with cultural identity, ultimately he keeps letting it go, in part because his ex-wife, the minorities, will not approve of him asserting his cultural identity (Europe). The ex-wife is disgusted that he is not even having sexual relations with the new identity, and is genuinely infatuated at a serious level. This will not do. How dare the white man have any sort of lasting cultural identity! How dare a man
enjoy something meaningful on his terms that is not hedonistic in nature!
Just as the real threat to the ex wife’s power is a genuine love, the real threat to minorities exerting control of the white American man is his renewed love of the cultural past. Intrinsically, just as she knows thus threat is serious; he knows how deeply it is effecting him.

In episode 5 of season 4, Louie’s genteel courtship of the charming Hungarian woman comes to a head when he discovers Ivanka, her mother, collapsed in an elevator and he rushes to save her. afterwords, finally, awkwardly, they kiss, and the passion erupts into a session of lovemaking. The Hungarian, the morning after, informs Louie of something melancholic… Louie is unable to understand her, though he desperately wants to. In a touching sequence of events Louie follows her to a church, must use a translator and finally… she leaves, despite her admitting she is in love with him.

It is as if this love affair with his past, with the old country, the old culture cannot last, but informed by it, Louie now knows true love, just as we can know our true identity by embracing and loving our history, our past our Traditions. However we cannot live in the past, and we realize that time must continue, it must move on. But informed by our Traditions and our past, we can understand and know a true way of life, a true culture, true love, and with this knowledge and this connection, we can forge a new way ahead for ourselves and complete ourselves. But it is only by first embracing, loving and knowing the past that we can move on with our own lives, and the future for those of us disconnected with our ancestry will be forged from the flames of the past.

Diversity Throught White Supremacism

via Alternative Right

In his latest article at Amren, Jared Taylor has reproduced the speech he delivered at the National Policy Institute conference in Washington DC on 27th February, 2015. Called White Survival: Beyond Left and Right, it presents one of the main ideas now being used to promote White Nationalism – the idea of "protecting biodiversity." In his article, Taylor, somewhat tongue-in-cheek equates the White man with the Cuban crocodile and the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle:
"And what about conserving white people biologically? They are a small minority of the world population–7 or 8 percent–and some of them are breeding with other groups, just like the Cuban crocodile. But anyone who says maybe we should think about the long-term prospects of white people–kind of like the way we do with the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle–is no longer a conservationist. He’s a white supremacist."
If this had been a speech given to a conference of liberal ecologists, then we could score it highly on tactical brilliance. But it was not. It was given to an NPI conference, a gathering that typically attracts a hard-core audience of White nationalists and identitarians seeking inspiring insights to fuel their continuing struggle.

The arguments deployed in Taylor's speech are increasingly heard in White nationalist circles. I have heard similar tropes like, “We don’t just want nationalism for Whites, we want it for everybody” and “Each people should be free to pursue their own destiny.” Is this really how we want to talk about White survival, as something tagged onto the tail of Liberalism's diversity juggernaut?

These arguments are essentially just clever bits of sophistry to confound and confuse liberals and leftists. They are not ideas worthy to sit at the centre of any coherent ideology or set beliefs held by White nationalists. Like "freedom for freedom's sake," the diversity-über-alles idea is meaningless at its core.

In the same way that we can question freedom as freedom for what? we can also ask diversity for what? This is because both are essentially transitional values, rather than ultimate ones.

Taylor accompanies his article with pictures of ethnic diversity: New Guinean tribesmen standing around with painted faces, Oriental ladies dancing in flowing silk robes, and a Red Indian woman holding a papoose. Taylor's style and image choices almost suggest counter-contamination by the White liberals he is arguing against:
"We are sad when the last speaker of an obscure language dies out or when a distinctive way of life comes to an end. That’s why Brazil now has an official policy of leaving untouched tribes alone if that’s at all possible. People living in the stone age should have the choice of staying there if that’s what they want. Conserving these things literally does go 'beyond political conservatism.'
However, there are things you are not allowed to want to conserve. Hardly anyone will oppose you if you say that the primitive tribes of New Guinea have the right to maintain their customs and their way of life, undisturbed by outsiders. But you better not say the same thing about the French or the Swedes."
Are we really sad when the speaker of some jungle dialect dies out? I know I'm not. But the correct way to view this is as great prep for trolling liberals in discussions when they unthinkingly bring up the subject of "diversity," a word they tend to use totemically and fetishistically without understanding that what they actually mean is totalitarian liberalism + ethnic costumes and generic anti-Whiteness.

White man trying hard not to be supremacist.
But trolling is one thing, heartfelt beliefs another; and at some point White nationalists will have to unashamedly speak the truth for why White nationalism exists and why it should exist. Are we really supposed to believe that the best justification for preserving our race – the most important race to have ever lived on the earth – is because we’re just another bit of the wonderful smorgasbord of diversity, like those cave mold beetles or Amazonian tribes?

The reason any creature or community exists is because it deserves to exist, because it has in some way fought and won the right to exist. The number of extinct species and vanished peoples and civilizations is infinitely larger than the number of those that are now with us. So, rather than appealing to the pity, flawed logic, and non-existent mercies of our opponents, we should be making a more assertive and inspiring case.

The problem for Taylor and the handful of White nationalists who manage to promote our cause beyond the echo chamber of pro-White sites is that White survival is in fact an inherently supremacist idea.

In the 19th-century we Europeans were everywhere in the ascendant. Our technology and power controlled the Earth, and there was a widespread belief that the "lesser races," including the Africans – and maybe even the Asians – would eventually go the way of the Australian Aborigine and the Red Man, namely dwindling to insignificant minorities amid a sea of Whiteness.

It may have seemed a little sad, but that was "progress," after all, and liberals and leftists especially were happy to embrace it. Here is Friedrich Engels writing about the less developed races of the Austro-Hungarian Empire:
"Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life – the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary holocaust. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary. ...these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character ... [A general war will] wipe out all these Völkerabfälle (literally racial trash)"
Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849
His close associate Karl Marx naturally shared similar views:
"Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way."
Karl Marx, "Forced Emigration", New York Tribune 1853
If this is what they thought of Croats, Jews, Gypsies, and Highlanders, one can only imagine what they would make of the Aborigines and Hottentots!

White man trying hard not to be supremacist.
But these comments, made long before the Left realized that Whites had little interest in being their revolutionary cannon fodder, also reveal the supremacist nature of Whites. We are incapable of just existing. We must also dominate – by our very nature – whether in the form of a benign colonial system or a universalist totalitarian monstrosity like Communism or Western liberalism.

We are in our essence an all or nothing people – and right now, with the pendulum swinging towards "nothing" in terms of future demographics, many White nationalists see "all" as an impossibility, and instead seek a third-positionist compromise, namely niche survival on the same terms as the cave mold bug or some untouched Amazonian tribe. But they are rather forgetting who would have to guarntee that Pax Diversia.

But the justification of White survival is not that we have a few quaint ways of putting bones through our noses or have an arcane language that requires the memorization of thousands of inefficient ideograms before we can call ourselves semi-literate. Such oddities of human diversity, which have little point beyond the cultural cabinet of curiosities, may justify preserving other groups, but it does not justify preserving us.

Our justification, as Taylor hints in his article, is that we are the race that has "immensely enriched the world." Whites have created most of the store of science, art, and culture that exists, and in the great drama of history we have acted most of the main parts. In short our dominance is our justification.

Given our track record and even that of our modern, self-loathing manifestations, the idea that Whites can perpetually co-exist in egalitarian harmony with the societies and civilizations of other races is an obvious absurdity. Simply talking about White survival includes an inherent assertion of White exceptionalism and supremacy.

Taylor, of course, knows this. He has faced this problem countless times in his tireless efforts to promote our interests. He knows that the hegemonic ideology of liberalism – something else that we created, as Dr. Frankenstein created his own monster – will not accept such arguments, so, taking the hint from his own name, he "tailors" his arguments to something more acceptable to the unconverted. But this is mere passive adaptation, like that of the cave mold beetle to its dank environment.

Whites should not be seeking a shelf in the "Liberal Diversity Supermarket" – alongside the  other threatened races, cultures, and sub-tribes. But this is exactly what they are doing with the "diversity for all" creed that growing numbers of Whites nationalists cleave to in order to justify themselves before the Liberal hegemony. While tactically astute it is strategically dumb. To deny the supremacism inherent in White survival is to deny it its vital essence, and instead to beg for mere respect for its hollowed shell.

This is not a good way to inspire nationalists. Nor is it even an effective way to protect diversity and appeal to those who believe in diversity for its own sake. A better argument to make to them would be that only in a White-dominated world will people be willing and capable of preserving the various odd tribes, quaint customs, and biological diversity that leftists and liberals seem to love so much more than their own people.

Quite simply, a world dominated by non-Whites would be one in which ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity would be hunted down, raped, and sold into slavery, as recently happened to the Yazidis of Iraq. It would also be one in which biological diversity would be ruthlessly exterminated in the search for Chinese aphrodisiacs.