Oct 16, 2015

Death to America, Not Americans: Identitarianism vs. “America”

via TradYouth

The $PLC has sunk its teeth into the new Identity Vanguard project, crowing in its characteristically hysterical and accusatory manner that, “American Racists Work to Spread ‘Identitarian’ Ideology.” Identity Vanguard is a promising new American project which seeks to borrow and adapt Bloc Identitaire‘s ideas and strategies for the American context.

While we here at TradYouth consider ourselves the first and most handsome attempt to construct a youth-oriented vanguard which borrows ideas from identitarian, New Right, and Eurasianist projects abroad, we consider both National Youth Front and Identity Vanguard allies in a common struggle. Both projects are led by intelligent and dedicated White Advocates who we personally know and respect in real life. While the SPLC and the rest of the anti-Whites would love nothing more than for all of our groups to engage in a bitter fight over the donorship, membership, and support pie, our different and distinct groups are setting an example to emulate by investing our energy in baking more pies.

Before the rollout, I warned the Identity Vanguard folks that the Generation Identitaire leadership would eventually turn on and disavow them, but they assured me that they had assurances and understandings.
One group, or perhaps simply an individual, recently started a website called Generation Identity US that claimed to be an American chapter of the European movement. […] But it was forced to change its name when Generation Identitaire insisted that the situation in America was different and therefore it would not recognize the group as a U.S. chapter. Today, the site is only one page explaining the name change to Identity Vanguard.
It’s not simply an individual. Identity Vanguard is an actual group with a small but rapidly growing roster of supporters. While the SPLC has every right to be suspicious of flashy and slick websites which promise big political changes while delivering nothing, IV is a substantial project with resources, sharp action-oriented leaders, and a coherent plan. Those currently dismissing or ignoring the group will learn that in due time.

TradYouth, as our name implies, places a stronger emphasis on Radical Traditionalism and religious faith than our cohorts. We most certainly belong to the overarching “identitarian” movement, but what separates us in our theory is the proposition that tribe and tradition are inseparable. What separates us in strategy is our affinity toward our Eurasianist and Golden Dawn allies abroad. If you see religion and tradition as firmly secondary to identity, then you may find the alternatives to our organization more amenable.

While Generation Identitaire is doing plenty of great stuff that we shamelessly steal and adapt to our context, we don’t believe identitarianism alone can save our identity. We believe that the Organized Jewish community is at least as threatening to our tribes and traditions as “global capitalism” and “Americanism.” We believe that denigrating Islam in the neocon “Clash of Civilizations” manner is counter-traditional and geopolitically counter-productive. We believe that egregiously pitting generations against one another is a Modern affectation.

Don’t get me wrong, we agree with GI that the Baby Boomers have indeed caused incalculable damage as a demographic cohort, but they’ve done so as useful idiots of Organized Jewish machinations and global capitalist influences. The root cause lies in Modernity’s twin evils of Jewish hostility to the Christian West and capitalist hostility to any and all expressions of identity–like borders, morals, and rootedness–which interfere with the free flow of capital. It doesn’t lie in “America,” or the “Baby Boomers,” or “Islamofascism,” or “Cultural Marxism,” or whatever word comes next on the euphemism treadmill.

Generation Identitaire categorically cannot establish an official chapter in America for two reasons, one noble and one ignoble. The noble reason is that GI largely takes identity for granted. To be French or German or Polish is an organic and intuitively obvious thing, whereas being an “American” is an especially complicated thing. Being of Anglo-Celtic pioneer stock from the homogeneously White Lower Midwest, the “American” identity has always been just about as organic and intuitively obvious to me as being “French,” but even within the White Nationalist community there’s a perennial debate over what an “American” actually is.

A case could have perhaps been made before 1965 that “American” is a specific identity with two big asterisks accounting for the Black American and Indigenous American exceptions, but at this point the sheer number of non-Whites, Jews, and people who are racially White but not assimilated into the “White American” identity will soon outnumber the Unexceptional Americans like myself. We can’t take “identity” as a given the way the Europeans can, and neither can most other peoples in the post-colonial European Diaspora.

The ignoble reason why a proper and direct identitarianism can’t be simply transferred from Europe is because they rely heavily on us as scapegoats. Just as the “Russian” identity became interminably entangled with Jewish Bolshevism and its abuses in the 20th Century, the “American” identity has taken on the villainous role of the world’s foremost champion of Jewish Imperialism, neo-colonial capitalism, degeneracy, and multiculturalism. The European identitarian dialectic is essentially the fascist dialectic with a search-and-replace done from “Jewish” and “Masonic” to “American.”

They make no distinction between “Death to America” and “Death to Americans,” since the general understanding in Europe is that to be an American is to embody all that is threatening the European identity. Since the Americans who pretty much validate that stereotype are the ones who are most traveled, most visible, and most powerful, one can hardly blame the typical European for failing to realize what Americans failed to realize about Russia a generation before.

Behind the wall of propaganda and power projection is a brotherly nation of fellow Europeans who are being cuckolded and controlled by incredibly powerful forces. Just as the Russians have proven that the traditional Russian identity remained alive despite the sinister global spectre of the New Soviet Man, we will one day prove that the traditional “American” identity remains alive and well. We’ll redeem our reputation by playing a central and leading role in advancing the cause of global tribalism and traditionalism in the years to come.

Our answer–unpopular as it may be with the sentimental paleocons and milksop mainstreamers who don’t grasp the centrality or necessity of affirmatively resolving the identitarian problem in America–is to meet the Europeans halfway by handing over the “American” identity to the capitalists and invaders. Let’s agree with them that “America” is a neo-colonial enemy of identity and tradition. We lack the strength to reclaim the word, we lack the demographic case for reclaiming the word, and we even lack a general understanding among ourselves of how we would define the word if we were to reclaim it. Let’s join both the mullahs and the European New Right in crying out, “Death to America!”

The League of the South is setting an example to emulate in this regard with its rejection of the American Dream in favor of the Southern Cause. While the Confederacy is the first and most obvious example of White Americans rebelling against this disastrous American Experiment, a panorama of regional secessionist, religious communalist, Pioneer Little Europe, Northwest Imperative, and other projects could prove fruitful. For me and my family, we favor an Avalonian identity rooted in Western Orthodoxy and Medieval European values and virtues. There’s really only one wrong answer to the American Question; “American.”

We won’t all agree on the best path forward, and there’s no need to agree. What we all do need to agree on, though, is that we can’t take the path backwards to the historic American identity. The “American” brand is so tarnished at this point that not even the world’s foremost branding wizard, Donald Trump himself, could restore it back to being a vehicle for our security and survival. God bless him for trying, but it’s all too little, too late. One must never allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but any effort which doesn’t even account for our basic rights of sovereignty and survival is unworthy of the identitarian’s investment.

I consider Generation Identitaire allies in the global struggle for tribal sovereignty and identity, but they’re necessarily arms-length allies on account of their strategic direction. They and other kosher nationalists are inclined to insult American identitarians as racial supremacists and broadly dismiss us all as “ugly Americans.” I wish they wouldn’t do that, but we prefer fighting enemies over fighting rivals. They lack our First Amendment advantage of being able to actually name the groups accountable for their plight, and it’s tactically sensible for them to target us in the manner they’ve become accustomed to.

We can expect global Anti-Americanism to only increase as America becomes more diverse and degenerate while the rest of the world loses patience with this federal government’s ham-fisted geopolitical meddling. The success of our cause, of securing some kind of sovereignty and security for our future generations of our people, hinges on whether we as a broad movement can jettison our habitual and sentimental attachment to “America” and accept that to be an “American” now means to be a neo-colonial global capitalist who militantly and even militarily opposes all identities and traditions the world over except for the Jewish one.

The Futility of Endless Wars for Israel

via traditionalRIGHT

The United States is bombing in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, most recently a hospital in the latter. Russia is bombing in Syria. Saudi Arabia is bombing in Yemen. What do all these have in common? Futility.

Bombing is now what a state does when it wants to appear to be doing something, but would really rather not. It is governments’ easy out. A faction at court is whispering that our interests are being slighted in Karjackistan? The opposition in parliament is saying we are a “do-nothing” government? But, good sirs, we are doing something. We’re bombing!

Does this mean the people killed and maimed by the bombs, and the airmen who put themselves at risk, are doing so for nothing? Not at all. They are giving their lives to protect politicians’ backsides. What cause could be more noble?

There is a test to determine whether a government is serious or is just playing at war. Is the bombing integrated with actions of a capable ground force? In Iraq and Afghanistan, the answer is obvious.

An aside: The U.S. Army, which has patches for everything, including digging latrines, designed a patch for the troops now back in Iraq. Regrettably, just before it was issued, some spoilsport noticed it was a virtual duplicate of the symbol for the Muslim Brotherhood. May I suggest an alternative? How about an American soldier desperately trying to rally a mob of fleeing Iraqi or Afghan troops?

In some parts of northern Syria, our bombing, at least some of it, has been in support of an effective army, the Kurds. But the Kurds’ reach is geographically limited, and the Turks are now bombing them. Were we serious, we would tell the Turks to stop, or if necessary give the Kurds some air cover.

The Saudis and their Gulf State allies have put ground forces into Yemen, but they haven’t attempt much, probably because the Houthis can kick their butt. The main effect of their bombing has been the usual one, i.e., make all the locals come together against them. When people are bombed by aircraft immune to any response, they get motivated to strike back in other ways.

That brings us to the Russians in Syria. Diplomatically, Russia’s bombing campaign has given her a seat at the table. The fighters she has deployed are a warning to the Turks and others not to bomb Assad’s forces. But Moscow, unlike Washington, is run by realists. Realists know bombs alone do little to attain any serious objective. That suggests Russia will also send in ground troops the aircraft can support.

As she appears to be doing. At first, the Marines, airborne, and Spetznaz the Russians sent into Syria seemed to be for airfield defense. That is certainly part of their mission. But reports suggest they are now entering into the ground fight. Moscow also announced Russian “volunteers” would be heading for Syria. The word “volunteer” has never had quite the same meaning in Russia as it does elsewhere.

Not surprisingly, Moscow’s realism is beating Washington’s drole de guerre. Iran and Iraq (yes, the Iraq 5000 Americans died to create; thank you George W.) just signed an alliance with Moscow, leaving us out in the cold. Why? Because when Moscow says it will help, the help starts arriving next week. It does not come with absurd “human rights” conditions attached telling the Iraqi government not to employ its most effective forces, the Shiite militias. Russain weapons are simple enough for the locals to use and maintain. Maybe Russians can even provide trainers whose trainees fight instead of running. The Army’s National Training Center discovered long ago that Russian tactics are easier to teach and learn, and more effective, than American tactics.

The story in Washington and in European capitals is the same in everything: rule by an incompetent and disinterested elite that lives in Disneyland, can’t make things work, and isn’t serious about anything but remaining the elite. At some point, drole de guerre will yield to a bottom-up feu do joie.

For Your Viewing Pleasure

via Radix

Life at the End of History is boring. And the more boring the times, the more lucrative monetizing boredom becomes. In attempts to escape your boredom, you can give your money to sleezy advertisers watching porn, or you could give it to violent blacks by watching sports. Most of us find some way of giving it to White-dispossess-er extraordinaire Bill Gates.

For those of us who haven’t managed to completely seclude ourselves, here’s some free advice: the next time you are on Netflix, try and passively consume something a step above the Wet Hot American Summer prequels.

Che



Yes, Communism was awful, but the film depicts the life of a revolutionary. Che endures extreme poverty, starvation, isolation, in-fighting within his cadré, and unbeatable odds—all in the name of his ideas and his people. He does not surrender, sell-out, or apologize. A true model for all revolutionists.

Bronson



A celebration of masculinity, strength, and violence. The story of a proud barbarian in a society far too developed for his liking, and blessedly, it is completely devoid of any pop-psychology or syrupy social justice.

Valhalla Rising



A silent Norse warrior, a band of wanna-be crusaders, and a lost ship. Much like Bronson (which shares a director), it celebrates the male—but on top of that, you have Christian vs. Pagan tensions and a Faustian drive into the unknown.

Birth of a Nation



And finally, Hulu always has Birth of a Nation (which is actually in the public domain and can be found all over the place, at varying levels of quality).

A better ode to the south than Gone With the Wind, and a landmark in cinema history, to boot. The final word, however, has to be given to Andrew Hamilton:
Contemporary violence, rapes, murders, and black governance in the US, Africa, and elsewhere makes Birth a rather tame reflection of reality. (I said reality, not media-induced mesmerism.)
Happy viewing.

One Advantage of Ethnonationalism: Ingroup Is Not a Matter of Debate

via EGI Notes

Readers of this blog know that I am highly critical of ethnonationalism serving as the core of nationalist activism. In contrast, I support a primary emphasis on pan-European racial nationalism (or "White nationalism"), with ethnonationalism serving as a secondary, lower-level emphasis within that broader racial nationalism.

However, I do admit that ethnonationalism has one distinct advantage over racial nationalism as it is practiced by the pathetic, dysfunctional "movement" - ethnonationalists have the advantage of a "ready made" and well defined ingroup, one that is not a matter of debate and endless nitpicking analysis. Thus, ethnonationalism side-steps all the sterile "debates" that typify the "movement" (e.g., "who is White?") and more rapidly achieves pragmatic political objectives.

Thus, to a Hungarian ethnonationalist, it is clear that the ingroup is ethnic Hungarians. It does not matter whether these are dolichocephalic or brachycephalic, whether they be Nordic or Alpine or Mediterranean or Dinaric, whether or not a given Hungarian has an "admixture" percentage of 2.1345784562% East Asian or not, or what are the eye and hair colors of Hungarians, etc. They are Hungarians, part of the historic Hungarian nation, and that is sufficient. Certainly, cultural and other issues influence things as well as ethnic identification: a Muslim Hungarian may be rejected as well as one who has married, say, a Negro.  But that is part of the grand definition: a person who is ethnically and culturally Hungarian is considered a member of the Hungarian nation - and that's it.

Racial nationalists - at least those who claim to be pan-European - could in theory do the same thing. They can side-step all the nitpicking that bedevils the "movement" and proclaim their ingroup to be those who are ethnically and culturally European, which is - or should be to any reasonable person - as obvious as saying that someone is ethnically and culturally Hungarian. Just as a Hungarian ethnonationalist would (or should) reject intrusive elements like Jews, Gypsies, and Turks, so could (and should) the European nationalist.

Thus, the advantage of the ethnonationalist is merely a relative one, due to the deficiencies of racial nationalists. These deficiencies could be corrected, given the will to do so, which means recreating a real Movement on the ashes of the failed "movement."

I won't expect that to happen any time soon, however.

Teeth from China Reveal an Early Human Trek out of Africa

via American Renaissance

Teeth from a cave in south China show that Homo sapiens reached China around 100,000 years agoa time at which most researchers had assumed that our species had not trekked far beyond Africa.

“This is stunning, it’s major league,” says Michael Petraglia, an archaeologist at the University of Oxford, UK who was not involved in the research. “It’s one of the most important finds coming out of Asia in the last decade.”

Limestone caves pockmark Daoxian County in Hunan Province, China. Recent excavations of a cave system there extending over 3 square kilometres discovered 47 human teeth, as well as the remains of hyenas, extinct giant pandas and dozens of other animal species.

{snip}

The teeth are unquestionably those of H. sapiens, says María Martinón-Torres, a palaeoanthropologist at University College London who co-led the study with colleagues Wu Liu and Xie-jie Wu at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing.

{snip}

Determining the age of the teeth proved tricky. They contained no radioactive carbon (which has almost vanished after 50,000 years). So the team dated various calcite deposits in the cave and used the assortment of animal remains to deduce that the human teeth were probably between 80,000 and 120,000 years old.

Early trekkers

Those ages buck the conventional wisdom that H. sapiens from Africa began colonizing the world only around 50,000–60,000 years ago, says Martinón-Torres. Older traces of modern humans have been seen outside Africa, such as the roughly 100,000-year-old remains from the Skhul and Qafzeh Caves in Israel. But many researchers had argued that those remains were only evidence of unsuccessful efforts at wider migration.

“This demonstrates it was not a failed dispersal,” says Petraglia, who has long argued for an early expansion of modern humans through Asia on a southerly route.

{snip}

Without DNA from the teeth, it is impossible to determine the relationship between the Daoxian people and other humans, including present-day Asians.

{snip}

It is also not clear why modern humans would have reached East Asia so long before they reached Europe, where the earliest remains are about 45,000 years old. Martinón-Torres suggests that humans could not gain a foothold in Europe until Neanderthals there were teetering on extinction. The frigid climate of Ice Age Europe may have erected another barrier to people adapted to Africa, says Petraglia. . . .

Israeli Minister Latest in a Long Line of Prominent Jews Asserting the Inferiority of Non-Jews

via The Occidental Observer

Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister,
Eli Ben-Dahan
At TOO we have felt something of a duty to document instances where prominent, mainstream Jewish figures have publicly expressed the traditional Jewish view of a qualitative superiority of Jews to non-Jews. Previous examples include the late Lubavitcher leader, Menachem Schneerson of New York who was honored by President Reagan in 1983 (“The Gentile does not want anything. He waits to be told what the Jew wants!”; we have a case of . . . a totally different species. . . . The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world).

Another well-known example is Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s statement that “Goyim were born only to serve us.” As the previous link shows, such statements are pervasive on the ethno-religious right in Israel, often by very prominent mainstream figures.

Mondoweiss provides another example, this time from Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister Eli Ben-Dahan. Dahan, who has nine children and has lived in a West Bank settlement, recently stated that “Palestinians have to understand they won’t have a state & Israel will rule over them.”

So much for the farce of peace negotiations. But not too long ago, Dahan showed he is entirely on board with Schneerson, Yosef, et al.:
Ben-Dahan referred to Palestinians as animals in 2013, according to the Times of Israel:
“To me, they are like animals, they aren’t human.”
Ben Dahan told Maariv that homosexual Jews were superior [to]gentiles — gay or straight.
“A Jew always has a much higher soul than a gentile, even if he is a homosexual,” he said.
 For Jews, ethnic interests are the ultimate value, trumping trivial issues like sexual orientation. Homosexual Jews still have ethnic interests as Jews, and the ethnonationalist right seems to appreciate that fact — while sensibly not advocating a public culture of homosexuality.

It goes without saying at a US government official stating the superiority of his group would be out of a job the next day. But Dahan’s statement will not be covered in the US media, so it will not affect support for Israel among the less than human non-Jewish American public.

Germans Demanding Border Be Reinstated

via BNP News

Globalizing sellout, Angela Merkel
It seems Angela Merkel is starting to lose control of the German people, after threats of banning Facebook and even taking away children from those who campaign against her suicidal tendencies.

Threats of removing children and bans from social media have not stopped a growing majority of Germans who now speak out against mass Islamic immigration to their nation.

Results from a survey in Germany, has shown that four-fifths of respondents told pollsters that they were in favour of border controls again.

The poll, conducted by Initiative Markt- und Sozialforschung (Initiative for Market and Social Research) shows a big turnaround in opinion on the migrant crisis in recent weeks.

Well over half – 59 percent – of respondents thought Chancellor Angela Merkel had been wrong to allow Syrian refugees to travel unhindered to Germany from Hungary.

That was a big turnaround from the last poll on the subject, in which 66 percent of people asked said it had been the right decision to let the Syrians in.

Constant rioting in camps along with rapes and petty crime has proven too much even for the average German, still fed on a diet of war guilt that keeps them under control and fear of speaking out.

Whilst many oppose Merkel's suicidal plan, the first cracks are starting to appear in the party she leads, with some German MP's voicing concern.

Other Germans, all be it a minority have taken to a physical struggle, with some 500 designated properties identified for asylum seekers, torched or smashed up.

Could it be that the anger is spreading - something the German authorities have been able to keep a lid on for many decades on issues.

Now it seems that growing numbers of Germans are no longer willing to be contained within the old war guilt programme that has silenced German peoples voices for far too long and are voicing their anger and fears at Merkel's suicidal tendencies of opening Germany up to the Middle East.

The WASP Tragicomedy

via Radix

Is there anything more debased than a dying aristocracy? In last night’s Democratic debate we saw the decline of the late American WASP as represented in one man, Lincoln Chafee. Scion of one of Rhode Island’s first families, and Ivy League educated, Chafee boasts the pedigree of America’s dying rulers.

In him we see the worst traits of the former Anglo-American elite in full force. An identification with "The Other" that goes from praising Hugo Chavez to a strange proposal to switching to the metric system as a "symbolic" gesture to the world. Chafee's obsession with "fair play" goes to the point of masochism, as we saw in his pathetic attempt to explain his voting record and his constant crowing about his "high ethical standards." While the old WASP virtues of "fair play," "tolerance," and "open mindedness" are fine in moderation (and in an homogenous, high-trust society), they are a mere epitaph in the America the WASPs helped give away.

Chafee seems to have taken every advantage in his life and squandered it. As a young man, he turned his back on his privilege to become a horse farrier in Canada. As a governor, he chose not to run for reelection at the first signs he was growing unpopular. Like his class as a whole, Chafee took the family silver and exchanged it for fool’s gold.

“I think that was a bit rough,” was Mr. Chafee’s attempted defense of some past vote. What those words really are is the last gasp of a dying breed, which goes out not in tragedy but in farce.

America’s dying ruling class is becoming who they decided to be, and that is Lincoln Davenport Chafee, a punch line writ large.

“Living Constitution” Means Rule by Fuhrer

via BUGS

When Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, it was actually a technical problem for International Law that until that date, Germany was, OFFICIALLY and TECHNICALLY, a free and democratic society.

Unlike Communist countries, the Nazis publically and officially denounced any pretense of democracy.

So how were they still an official democratic republic?

I enjoy the humor of it, though it was a serious problem at the time.

The Third Reich was still operating under the Weimar Constitution.

And not just “technically.”

The Weimar Constitution had a “state of emergency” clause.
And the state of emergency had no time limit.

So Hitler took power under these constitutional emergency powers and was still operating under them when his government collapsed.

Hitler was Germany’s “Living Constitution.”

REALLY!      If you read the Federalist Papers, you will find that the Founding Fathers never considered that the Judiciary would be allowed to do what we take for granted.

The judiciary will always be inferior to the other branches – “…the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power…as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone…” Federalist 78.

But in our day we take it for granted that the current nine lawyers wearing black dresses IS “The Constitution of the United States of America.”

They are our Living Constitution, Our Fuhrers.

Because they say so.

As President I will immediately announce that they are NOT!

Interim Note on Being One with Everything

via Gornahoor

Gornahoor Editor's Note: This post is intended as notes for the online discussion of Evola’s review of Cogni’s book on 15 Oct 2015. The complete essay is The Metaphysics of Sex and the One.

*****

Pantheism does not admit the existence of individual beings.

Pantheism offers only the perspective of letting oneself be lulled by the undulation of the ocean of deified nature.
~ Valentin Tomberg

There is a photo of Giulio Cogni in Julius Evola’s Sintesi di dottrina della razza with the following caption:
An Italian Nordic-Aryan type of the body with an Amazonian race of the spirit. Actually, it is a matter of a person, in whose theories an external energetic and almost Promethean aspect is mixed with a Demetrian-Lunar pantheistic vision of the world with a special recognition given to the feminine element.
Giulio Cogni was a philosopher, music critic (a specialist on Wagner), and an author of books on Eastern spirituality. After the German-Italian alliance in the 1930s, there was a scramble among Italian intellectuals to outline a Fascist understanding of race, in opposition to the German’s. The consensus was a more spiritual understanding of race. Thus Julius Evola published several works on the topic. His young friend, Massimo Scaligero, published a book on race based on some ideas from Anthroposophy. Giulio Cogni, who was a follower of the philosopher Giovanni Gentile, tried to reconcile Alfred Rosenberg with the situation in Italy. From the snippets I’ve found, Cogni denied the notion of racial superiority and, not unlike Evola, claimed that “Aryan” referred to a spiritual quality rather than a biological quality.

After the defeat of WWII, Evola more or less abandoned the topic. Scaligero and Cogni, on the other hand, managed to rebrand themselves: Scaligero as an Anthroposophist and Cogni as a Vedantist. As an indication of their success, some of their articles have been republished in the American Yoga Journal, with no mention of their Fascist past.

After the war, Evola’s and Cogni’s life paths diverged. I did find a rather long review by Evola of Cogni’s book “Io sono te: sesso e oblazione” (“You and I: sex and offering”), which highlights the differences between the two thinkers and would explain Evola’s evaluation of Cogni.

In that book Cogni proposes a pantheistic worldview based, as he claims, on the Vedanta: “we are all one”. That logically leads to an undifferentiated view of the human situation, which includes promiscuous sex, self-sacrifice, and androgyny.

Since Cogni articulates in an intelligent and sophisticated way many of the commonly held views in the modern world, the review is an apt essay for discussion. Nevertheless, due to the rather controversial nature of Evola’s objections, I have decided to make this essay private. Those who have been participating in previous meetings will be give the password to unlock the text. If you are interested in reading the review please send me a private email in the next few days.

Being

Cogni bases his ideas on the notion of the Vedantic One, as he understands it to indicate the overcoming of all distinctions. Quoting Hegel, Evola describes this view as “the night in which all the cows are black”. I noticed this years ago when I participated in a Nisargadatta discussion group. The consensus view in that group was that, as an enlightened being, he more or less disappeared into the “One”. Nevertheless, as I pointed out, he spoke, responded to his name, etc., but that had little impact on the discussion.

In that view, there is only undifferentiated Being, so the beings we experience are illusions. “Whose” illusions they are, or why those “illusions” take such a specific form, or why do different people experience a similar world, was never made clear if only the One exists.

Jacques Maritain, in The Degrees of Knowledge provides a more satisfying answer. When I know Peter, I judge him to be a man, but even more fundamentally, I have an intuition of Peter as a being. This intuition is found everywhere, it “saturates all things”. Maritain explains our experience of Being.
Being is a primordial and general conceptual object which is at once and from the beginning essentially diverse in the diverse subjects in which the mind discovers it. What is primarily known, and in which every object of thought is resolved for the intellect, is being. But nothing can be added to it extrinsically to differentiate it, for all its differentiations issue from its own depths.
In other words, Being is known through beings. Pace Cogni, Being is already highly differentiated. In the Western tradition, this is expressed as the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Logos with Being. Evola expresses the same notion in a slightly different way:
The One dominates a well-articulated order of differences (a cosmos, in the Hellenic sense).
So, “Illusion” has a much different connotation. For Cogni, the illusion is the separateness and distinction of beings, which are ultimately part of Brahman. However, illusion is actually much more subtle, and hence, more difficult to eradicate. The illusion arises from our failure to grasp the meaning of the Whole and how the parts are interconnected. This is due to the weakness of the intellect and erratic emotional reactions.

Descending and Ascending Movements

Evola claims that Cogni fails to distinguish between the subconscious and the superconscious, with the following consequence:
Cogni has no sense of the fact that just as an “integrative ascending self-transcendence” exists, so a divisive descending self-transcendence also exists for the true personality. That is, there are possible openings of the I both toward the higher as well as toward the lower, which also means toward “nature”, toward the unconscious, toward the vital formless bottom.
In an early essay, The Holy Spirit & the Sophia, Tomberg describes that downward movement in these steps.

First the Logos descends to the conscious I. If the I is oriented to the Logos above, it is ascendant. This supersensory “Temple of Wisdom” or “House of Sophia” is the knowledge of the Whole (but not of every individual fact).

However, that movement can continue downward in these stages, each with its own type of intelligence:
  • Hunger. The stream of the Logos is brought down to the level of digestive activity. This leads to a logic in which the stomach and its interests determine logic and conclusions. This is the level of Marx.
  • Sex. The stream is brought down to the instinctive life. This is the level of Freud and psychoanalysis.
  • Nature. The stream descends to the subterranean spheres. This logic may seem quite convincing. At its lowest point, the individual no longer thinks independently, but thoughts arise through him.

Pantheism

Tomberg distinguished between theism, pantheism, and naturalism, which are valid on different planes:
  • Naturalism: only what is experienced through the senses is real
  • Pantheism: thought alone can grasp the world. Existence is illusory, only the Absolute, One, Brahman, or God is real
  • Theism: Transcends rational thought. Existence not strictly logical, i.e., cannot be derived from thought.
Evola offers something similar in this comment:
So Cogni denies that that polarity is an essential requirement of eros, which he believes concerns only the naturalistic plane, like electrical and similar phenomena. That means that for him all the documentation that we have gathered, in an entire chapter, from the most varied cultural areas, regarding the “metaphysical dyad”, might as well not exist because it contradicts his promiscuous pantheism.
Thus, on the naturalistic plane, any sexual experience is worthwhile in its own right if it is observed in natures. Neither electricity nor eros depends on a anything higher. For pantheism, the male-female polarity is just a form of thought with no ultimate reality. It is no more than one particular expression of sexuality.

Not to forget that the young Evola’s first book was a translation and commentary of the Tao Te Ching, he understands that, on the metaphysical level, the Yin-Yang, male-female, dyad is fundamental. Hence, sexual expression on the physical plane needs to mirror that.

Postscript on Sexual Intelligence

The flip side of Evola’s critique is that Cogni has empirical experience and contemporary mores on his side. As we saw above, the sex instinct has its own logic and intelligence. Those who have “transcended” the self in the descending direction will be baffled by appeals to sexual restraint based on higher principles.
The occultist Alice Bailey seemed to have had an intuition of this, making predictions that have largely come to pass. In Esoteric Healing, she wrote:
Inter-marriage between nations and races, the fusion of bloods for hundreds of years—due to migration, travel, education and mental unity—has led to there being no really pure racial types today. This is far more certainly the case than the most enlightened think, if the long, long history of mankind is considered.
The European wars of last century, not to mention more recent turmoil, have certainly exacerbated those four factors. Eros, or the sexual drive, is potent, even to the point of overcoming barriers:
Sexual intercourse knows no impenetrable barriers … The urge to mate becomes peculiarly strong when men are removed from their familiar settings and experience the novelty of complete loneliness, when the normal inhibitions and customs imposed by family relationships and national standards are removed, when danger of death is constantly faced and the larger value submerges the lesser values and the usual conventional attitudes

Appendix on the 120 Days of Sodom

Curiously, Evola accuses Cogni of tending towards the sexual excesses of the Marquis de Sade. This may not be so far-fetched, given the tendency of some on social media to associate the “right” with bondage, domination, and so on. They are not to be taken seriously.

Nevertheless, the Italian communist film director Pier Paulo Pasolini created a work based on de Sade’s book, but situated it in the Salo Republic. Perhaps he derived that association from Cogni, but certainly not from Evola who rejected such practices. Paradoxically, it was Pasolini himself who advocated sexual experimentation. He was murdered by an underage hitchhiker who objected to Pasolini’s proposition to sodomize him with a broomstick.

Nietzsche's Olympian Synthesis

via Alternative Right

Lucidity's task: to attain a correct despair, an Olympian ferocity. -Emil Cioran

Understanding the role Tradition could or should play in the modern era is a central topic in the study of philosophy. Today, in a world where God is almost, but not quite dead, how can we translate traditional beliefs into an appropriate form suitable for the people of the present age? To answer this question we must examine the nature of spiritual experience itself and look at different approaches to the divine in antiquity. Surprisingly one of the best starting points for developing a rapport with Tradition suitable to the modern West emerges not from Traditional texts themselves, but from Nietzsche. Despite Nietzsche’s overt denunciation of Christianity and the often proclaimed consequence of the ‘Death of God,’ Nietzsche’s work penetrates very deeply into the core of religious philosophy and this area of his thought is usually misrepresented. A substantial amount of Nietzsche’s writing can be seen not as wishing to break Tradition, but instead wishing to reinvigorate it by introducing elements of what he believed was a stronger model for religious belief — a vital form of spiritual thought that would prevent cultural decay.

Much of the misinterpretation of Nietzsche arises from confusing his rejection of the Christian Tradition with a rejection of Tradition itself, which was not the case. Other more obscure references suggest that Nietzsche himself did not believe that society was ready to embrace the ‘Death of God,’ and this is cited in one of his most famous pieces of writing, the Parable of the Madman.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -- for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here, the ‘Death of God’ is not seen as a victory, but as a mistake. Humanity is not portrayed as Nietzsche’s higher type (Ubermensch) who were to become Gods incarnate themselves, but instead as killers whose hands are stained with the blood of Nietzsche’s own literary crime. God is dead, but the people are not mentally or spiritually strong enough to be capable of living without the idea of God. With God ‘dead’ humanity is lost; the premature death of God becomes a murder, transformed into a criminal act against humanity, rather than its salvation. The ‘Death of God’ morphs from Nietzsche’s original premise of creating the Ubermensch into an act of cruelty, not towards God, but to humanity itself. This is the root of the cultural crisis of the European world.

Nietzsche’s theories on Tradition, however, are far more complex than this, and influenced far more by his love of the Hellenic Tradition than they are by his antipathy towards Christianity, and it is only in this context that they can be understood. Nietzsche’s ideas were not formed in a vacuum – indeed many of his concepts evolved from earlier sources, which were very much in vogue within academic circles of his era. One of these was the rise to prominence in the nineteenth century of what can only be referred to as Germanic Philhellenism – a type of cultural revival where the Germans of this time looked back to Ancient Greece for sources of inspiration to restore their own culture. Vassilis Lambropoulos claims in The Eurocentrism that these new “educated Germans saw themselves as the modern Greeks, the inheritors of ancient culture.”[2] It was quite common in Germany at this time to draw upon Ancient Greek motifs and view them as the apex of European civilization – thus in scholastic circles many theories began to emerge which were not inherently religious, but did draw strong parallels between Hellenic Tradition and the nature of civilization.

This new German movement begins with the Grechenbild and the works of J. J. Winckelmann, who claimed that the path to Germanic greatness lay in “imitating the ancients […] the Greeks in particular, and the generation of German thinkers reconstitutes its image of German identity and its possibilities.”[3] Unlike Nietzsche, Winckelmann’s new Germanic ‘Greece’ was based on very much a sedate, peaceful, and classical society. For a while this view held dominance in intellectual circles and was not challenged until Friedrich Creuzer’s Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Volker, besonders der Greichen (Symbolism and Mythology of the Ancients, Especially the Greeks) was released, which portrayed a very different depiction of Ancient Greece, that uncovered a buried, nocturnal Greece of bloody sacrifices, intoxicating orgies, primitive hunting rites and other liturgies that burst asunder Wickleman’s dreams.[4] Challenging Wincklemann, Creuzer created an opposition in Hellenic Tradition between the later ‘Olympian’ gods of Homer and earlier primordial ‘Chthonic’ deities concerned with the dark powers of the earth and the underworld.[5] In contrast to Wincklemann’s Apollo, the dark god Dionysus was born into Germanic philosophy, becoming ‘the Weltseele, the Demiurge who was the creation of the material world and became intertwined with its suffering.’[6] This would in turn influence the scholar J.J. Bachofen in works such as Versuch uber die Grabersymbolik der Alten (Essay on the Symbolism of Ancient Tombs), Das Mutterrecht (The Mother Right), and Die Sage von Tanaquil (The Saga of Tanaquil), which establish an opposition between earth-based, feminine forces (Telluric) and masculine, sky-based forces (Uranic) in an obvious parallel to Creuzer’s original paradigm between the Chthonic and Olympian deities.[7] In the world of Tradition, this would later be developed by Evola as an extension of both Nietzsche and Bachofen's thought. Nietzsche remains today as the most well-known representative of this lineage of German philhellenism, however, for as Max Baeumer remarks:

"The tradition of Dionysus and the Dionysian in German literature from Hamann and Herder to Nietzsche — as it has been set forth for the first time from aesthetic manifestoes, from literary works, and from what today are obscure works of natural philosophy and mythology — bears eloquent witness to the natural-mystical and ecstatic stance of German Romanticists which reached its final culmination in the works of Friedrich Nietzsche."[8]
It is Nietzsche who fully establishes the tension and dialectic between Dionysus Zagreus of the ‘wild dithyrambos […] full of labyrinths’ and ‘the god of light Phoebus Apollo, the disciplined, well-ordered paean.’[9] In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche directs his critique against philhellenic classicism and ‘Winckelmann’s dream of Apollonian purity’ by excavating a different Greece, one that is archaic, rather than classical.[10] This form of deconstructive archaeology of the ‘classical’ would serve as a determining cultural force in Germany and a ‘discovery of the archaic,’ a force whose repercussions would sound in the work of classics (Walter F. Otto), literature (the George Circle), philosophy (Heidegger), politics (Alfred Baeumler), Wiemar Republic thinkers and artists,[11] and eventually on Traditionalism via Julius Evola. Before further examining how Nietzsche’s Apollonian/Dionysian polarity impacts on the nature of Tradition and modernity, however, it is first necessary to look at the work of Schopenhauer, who, next to Heraclitus, is the philosopher with whom Nietzsche has the greatest affinity. It is only by examining Schopenhauer that the intricate nature of Nietzsche’s Will to Power and the Dionysian impulse can be fully understood.

To Schopenhauer dealing with death is the first, and most essential, function of any authentic Tradition.[12] It is in this sense, by failing to provide a solution to the problem of death, that Schopenhauer regarded Judaism and Graeco-Roman ‘paganism’ as failed religions since they lack a properly developed doctrine of immortality.[13] To Nietzsche’s mind of course, Graeco-Roman Tradition did provide such a doctrine, for Dionysus, like Christ, is a ‘dying god’ – he dies to be reborn through sacrifice, and in the Greek myths of Dionysus comparisons are drawn between the concepts of earthly life (Bios) and eternal life (Zoë) found in the Dionysian Mystery Traditions of Ancient Greece. The Dionysian aesthetic presented in Nietzsche’s work is therefore also to be interpreted as an answer to the problem of redemption (a response to the Schopenhauerian philosophy of redemption), and to the problem of how man can justify his own individual existence in the face of the ‘terrifying’ and ‘absurd’ abyss of life.[14]


Schopenhauer’s The World As Will and Representation had an enormous influence on Nietzsche and this idea is fused with his archaic image of Dionysus. There is a passage where Schopenhauer (usually known for his pessimism) celebrates the oneness of the Will and thus the ultimate oneness and unity of all being.[15] It is this element that Nietzsche explores – that the Will is positive. The Schopenhauerian structure remains, but its meaning is reversed; instead of deploring the Will, we should celebrate and proclaim its message.[16] In Schopenhauer’s terms, the former is the World as Will, as the creative energy of the universe, and in Nietzsche’s understanding, it is the Dionysian, with the latter being, in Schopenhauer’s terms, the world as Representation, in Nietzsche’s terms the Apollonian, the world as contemplation, observation, and judgment of what the Will has created and creates.[17] Dionysus is both Will and Representation in one, conforming precisely to Schopenhauer’s notion of the Will, forever active in its representations and the individuated phenomena of what appears to us as the world, which, through and in the Will, is an interconnected whole.[18] This new interpretation, where Dionysus symbolizes the unconscious and the Will to Power, manifests as a dynamic energy, in eternal flux and change, the Heraclitean panta rei.[19] It is not something to be commiserated, but a source of vital primordial power. Thus life owes its being to the ecstatic Dionysian pleasure of the Will as incessant creator.[20]

These ideas would eventually develop further in Nietzsche’s work, and are the pinnacle of the archaic or primordial aspect in the school of German philhellenism. The feature of this for which Nietzsche is renowned is his famous Dionysius/Apollo dichotomy in The Birth of Tragedy – which is in truth far more philosophical than mythological, despite drawing its impetus from the Hellenic Tradition. Usually these two Gods are examined in their relation to the art world – but their opposition echoes back to another world; that of Tradition and the nature of one's relation to the numinous. Apollo communicates to his brethren through the sedate art of dream; Dionysus whispers the words of madness to one’s ear – the state of mind though which Dionysus communicates is via intoxication,[21] whether this is in the form of theatre, music, altered states of consciousness or any other medium; what lies behind the Dionysian element is the expression of pathos or tragic sentiment. Greek rationality (geist) is a sublimation of the driving force of the Dionysian melting with nature; the Greeks had cast their emotions into the form of the tragedy, which would become the highest refinement of the condition humana.[22] As Nietzsche himself says;
"In order to grasp these two tendencies, let us first conceive of them as the separate art-worlds of dreams and drunkenness. These physiological phenomena present a contrast analogous to that existing between the Apollonian and the Dionysian."[23]
In the Apollonian Nietzsche saw the rational clarity that comes from the sphere of the dream — together with ecstasy (rausch) as the basic condition of true art. “Apollo, as the God of all creational powers, is at the same time the divinizing God […] He, with his root meaning ‘the shining one,’ the god of light, also rules over the beautiful appearance of the world of fantasy.”[24]. The Dionysian is virtually the opposite:
"Dionysian art […] is based on the play with intoxication/ecstasy [rausch], with rapture [verzückung]. There are two powers in particular that trigger the self-forgotten ecstasy [rausch] of the naïve man of nature — the drive of spring and the narcotic drink. Their impacts are symbolized by the figure of Dionysus. The principium individuationis in both states is broken; the subjective disappears entirely against the force of the general-human, even the general-natural that is breaking forth."[25]
The representations of Dionysus appear irrational or subconscious, those of Apollo rational and conscious. Furthermore, Apollo is a god of boundary drawing – both ethical and conceptual – he is the god of the principium individuationis.[26] Apollo, therefore represents a sense of unity but also of restriction. Dionysus, by way of contrast, expands his horizons by transcending boundaries – hence for the Dionysian religious type ‘intoxication’ is the transcendence of the mundane and of all imposed limits.[27] Being essentially a dyad, the two function as the different ends of the same planar polarity; in truth neither can exist without the other – Apollo and Dionysus represent what Nicholas Cusanus termed as the coincidenta oppositorum, the co-existence of opposite qualities and attributes.[28] There is in truth no clear boundary between the Apollonian nature and the Dionysian nature; there is always within one an element of the other, for as Nietzsche says “There is no Dionysian appearance (schein) without an Apollonian reflection (wierderschein).” It is from this fluctuating tension between the two poles that most contradictions in Nietzsche’s philosophy arise, such as his elitism and pro-aristocratic bias as an Apollonian element radically contradicting the orgiastic oneness of the Dionysian.[29] As Nietzsche’s philosophy develops, the figure of Apollo disappears and seemingly fades; but this disappearance is illusory. As his theories mature, Nietzsche merged the figure of Apollo into his rendition of Dionysus. Thus Nietzsche’s conception of Dionysus becomes singular at a higher level of understanding, where the two forces work in harmony and are no longer divided at the conceptual level – Dionysus and Apollo merge as one, and this composite force Nietzsche now refers to solely as ‘Dionysus’. Seen in this light, the Apollonian individual is only apparently the opposite of the Dionysian whole, but is in actuality only the temporary result of the Dionysian activity.[30]

The Will to Power, when made manifest, is the union of both the conscious Apollo and the subconscious Dionysus. In this composite Nietzschean deity, Apollo, it is true, loses his name to the other God, but by no means loses the power of his artistic creativeness, forever articulating the Dionysian chaos in distinct shapes, sounds and images, which are Dionysian only because they are still aglow with the heat of the primeval fire.[31] It is a union also known to the Hellenic Tradition via the tragic figure of Orpheus, who was related to both Gods, for as Walter Strauss notes: “For Orpheus is truly a reconciler of opposites: he is the fusion of the radiant solar enlightenment of Apollo and the somber subterranean knowledge of Dionysus.”[32] Like Orpheus, the final form of Nietzsche’s Dionysus is a composite synthesis of the two Gods. The apparent opposites are, in the Hegelian sense of the word, aufgehoben, repealed as two phases of the all-inclusive whole of being.[33] This is a line of dialectical thought that Nietzsche inherited from Hegel, but minus Hegel’s teleological basis, which Nietzsche scorned.[34]

There is another level to the dichotomy, with writers often allocating a form of sexual metaphysics which is then overlaid atop Dionysus and Apollo, with Dionysus usually being considered to be the ‘feminine’ representation. This idea is introduced via the chthonic and archaic connections found earlier in Bachofen and Creuzer, being continued later by Nietzsche, and then revised again by Evola. Bachofen associates Dionysus with potent male sexuality inseparable from the earth, and thus with the first (tellurian) and the second (which he designates matriarchal) stages of existence, because written and iconographical evidence links the God to women: “The phallic god [Dionysus] cannot be thought of separately from feminine materiality.”[35] The mythological information on these associations is quite complex and it is our intention not to dwell on the mythological narrative but instead on Nietzsche’s philosophy which is a reinvention of it. It is erroneous to regard Nietzsche’s Dionysus as a mythological figure – it is a philosophical concept based on the Hellenic god, not the deity himself. To study this, one must be well-versed both in German philosophy and in Ancient Greek myth. Suffice to say that both gods are male and have a presence of sexual ambiguity to them – Dionysus via his occasional depiction as a hermaphrodite and Apollo via a high proportion of homosexual relationships. This complicates the proposed clear demarcations of sexuality of both Gods, as was implied by Bachofen and Evola. Moreover, there is nothing feminine in Nietzsche’s depictions of the Will to Power or Dionysus, which if anything, are in fact ‘hyper-masculine’.

These past attempts to apply mortal sexuality/physiology to Gods, are however, no more absurd than some of the dualistic notions that have been advocated in modern discussions of ‘gender.’ The word itself, ‘gender,’ is firstly, by way of explanation, an artificial construct. These ideas of gender duality first begun to spread their ideological roots in modernity when Ortner first wrote the words “Is female to nature what male is to culture?” The context of this work was based on an assumption that the category female is metaphorically connected to nature while that of male is connected to culture.[36] The logic of this notion rests on the basis that women as reproducers remain bound to nature, while men, who cannot reproduce, produce and are therefore bound to culture.[37] This is an obvious progression on Bachofen which interestingly enough forms another dyad – the opposition between anatomical sex and the new terminology of ‘gender.’ For many theorists in this area, sex is seen to be real (nature) and gender is artificial (culture).[38] In terms of relating sex and/or gender back to the original Apollo/Dionysus dichotomy, this duality is easily compared. Gender, as an artificial and hence cultural construct, could be linked back to the supra-rational Apollonian sphere. Sex, as the more natural category of definition would lie in the realm of the natural Dionysian influence. It is also worth noting at this point that Nietzsche himself, at the beginning of The Birth of Tragedy compares the contrast of the Apollonian and the Dionysian elements to that of the sexes: “the continuous development of art is bound up with the Apollonian and Dionysian reality: just as procreation depends on the duality of the sexes, involving perpetual strife with only periodically intervening reconciliations.”[39] The fact that even at this early stage in his philosophy, Nietzsche is aware enough of the similarities between the two rival deities and the relationship between the sexes, and that he chooses to employ this metaphor is clearly another reference to the influence of Bachofen.

Nietzsche’s heroic ideal of human life is ultimately a Traditional one. It is a kind of imitatio Dei, the imitation or rather the incarnation in the human individual of the Dionysian divinity, as which the Will appears. Nietzsche’s project for man is the latter’s ever closer approximation to full embodiment of that divine energy that is the Will.[40] Because of this aspect to the Apollo/Dionysus coupling it is possible to juxtapose them with another philosophical pair found in the works of Soren Kierkegaard. Though it seems incongruous to compare Nietzsche’s philosophy of religion to Kierkegaard, this makes a more feasible model for the examination of Tradition in regards to the problem of modernity than is currently expressed via previous Traditionalist authors themselves.

In modernity three distinct spheres of culture are referred to; respectively these are known as the culture spheres of science, morality, and art – the basis of which is derived from the works of Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Judgment).[41] The three existence spheres formulated by Kierkegaard, the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious, seem to have been composed in a similar spirit to the three culture spheres of Kant. What is of great significance in the work of Kierkegaard is that he identified two separate strands of religious thought: Religiousness Type A and Religiousness Type B. These two diametrically opposed forms of Tradition can be defined in the following way: Religiousness Type A can be understood to embody the fourth cultural sphere that has been glossed over by the makers of modernity; while Religiousness Type B provides a critical principle and transcending perspective on the culture-spheres as culture-spheres, including religion as a culture-sphere along with those of science, morality and art.[42] To further clarify the distinction between the two types, Religiousness A could be best described as an externalized mode (exoteric), in which rituals and the regulations of social roles play a part. By contrast, in Religiousness B the stress is not so great on that of the communal role (or principle of communitas as it was called by anthropologist Victor Tuner), but is instead more reliant on the role of the individual (esoteric). What matters in Religiousness Type B is the principle of being religious itself, and not the adherence to any particular doctrines and practices formulated as in Religiousness Type A. What is being expressed by these two polarities is a pattern of religious thinking which is quite similar to the contrasting roles of Apollo and Dionysus that formed the basis of Nietzsche’s work, The Birth of Tragedy. This pattern occurs because firstly, they both are gods of aesthetics, and secondly they also provide different paths to the divine. Both occupy similar roles – but one (Apollo) is the god of Sculpture, of art with form. Dionysus, by contrast presides over music – his influence is unseen; it is only heard or felt. What he represents cannot be captured in form, for even in his role as the God of the Theatre, he is always masked. The face of Dionysus is never seen. Apollo is approached via the rational arts of prophecy and dreams; Dionysus through altered and ecstatic states of consciousness. If we were to describe them in terms of Religiousness Type A and Religiousness Type B, the polarity would be clear, with the Apollonian nature of man at one end and the Dionysian at the other. To a certain extent they can also be seen to embody the opposition of science and religion, which occurs frequently in modernist/post-modernist thought – Apollo can be seen to portray the scientific, rational mind and Dionysus the raw, subliminal creative power that can only be evoked through direct experience.

To complete the pattern and the associations mentioned here, we need to return to Nietzsche’s theories on religion. His famous grand proclamation, “God is dead,” is of course well known; what is lesser known, however, is the complex chain of references that connect this statement to other key points within his philosophy. One of these is found within the poem Ariadne’s Lament, in which the poem hints at another concept of Nietzsche’s known as the ‘the ladder of religious cruelty’.[43] The three rungs of this ladder represent three stages in the development of the sacrifice: in times of archaic religion people sacrificed humans to their gods; in times of moral belief people sacrificed their strongest drives and instincts to their gods; in a time yet to come people will sacrifice god himself (representative of any belief in consolation and salvation) as a final act of cruelty against themselves.[44] This three step model of the evolution of Tradition is important as it ties in with the earlier cited Parable of the Madman. The ‘death’ of God is an act of cruelty performed by man, against man – it is a crime against humanity, and not against God. These three together, are the stages of cruelty in religious thought, culminating in the present stage of modern error.

The more one examines the philosophy of Nietzsche and his personal beliefs on Tradition, the more it becomes clear that he favors a synthesis of the Apollonian pole and the Dionysian one. Furthermore, his rejection of Christianity in preference of a highly individualized conception of the Dionysian Mystery Tradition paints a very clear picture of Nietzsche’s own religious essence – in the terminology of Kierkegaard what Nietzsche is expressing is a strong emanation of Religiousness Type B. Moreover, not only can Religiousness Type B be connected with Nietzsche’s own beliefs, they can be directly tied to the relationship between Apollo and Dionysus themselves. The essence that emanates from the Apollonian current is an external mode of worship: his formal rites could be seen and were accessible to all, and as the god of sculpture/form his aesthetics could be experienced by all. Those of the Dionysian current, by contrast, are not seen. They can only be ‘felt’, either through music or via the Dionysian mode of worship, which involved induced states of ecstasy. As this could only be experienced on an individual basis, it was not accessible to all. Thus it can be seen that the Dionysian evokes an internal form of esoteric Tradition and aesthetics, whilst the Apollonian invokes an exoteric form of Tradition and aesthetics. In terms of both art and religion this is the primary difference between the two deities. By employing the comparison between Apollo and the masculine element, and Dionysus as the feminine element,[45] Religiousness Type A then becomes associated with the masculine exoteric and Religiousness Type B with the feminine esoteric.

With the ever increasing decline of interest in exoteric Tradition, the Occident is also experiencing a current rise of interest in esoteric Tradition – it would therefore appear that in the modern world, Religiousness Type B is currently dominant over Type A. And if the pattern holds true it will be the individual, esoteric Traditions of Religious Type B and the primordial current of Dionysus that are destined to be the victor in defining the civilization of the future, not the classical Traditions of Apollo who cannot transgress their restraints to revolt against the modern world. The way forward lies, like it did for the Germans, in embracing ideas from the ancient past but not repeating them, instead translating them into new systems and values. The Re-evaluation of Values of which Nietzsche speaks of as the great reshaping of civilization can only be born of the revolutionary Dionysian and Promethean spirit – which in truth is the combination of the Dionysian Will to Power and the rational control of Apollo in perfect synthesis. To save Tradition, Tradition must now transgress its own self-imposed boundaries or perish forever at the hands of the murderers of God in the Götzen-Dämmerung.

Publications by Gwendolyn Taunton
www.primordialtraditions.com

Notes:
[1]Nietzsche, F., The Gay Science, ed. W. Kaufmann (New York: Vintage, 1974), .181-82
[2]Bambach, C., The Idea of the Archaic in German Thought; Creuzer, Bachofen – Nietzsche – Heidegger in The Archaic: The Past in the Present, ed. Bishop, P. (New York: Routledge), 2012, 149
[3]Ibid., 148
[4]Ibid., 150
[5]Ibid., 150
[6]Ibid., 151
[7]Ibid., 151
[8]von Stuckrad, K., Utopian Landscapes and Ecstatic Journeys: Friedrich Nietzsche, Hermann Hesse, and Mircea Eliade on the Terror of Modernity in Numen 57 (Brill: 2010), 80
[9]Bambach, C., The Idea of the Archaic in German Thought; Creuzer, Bachofen – Nietzsche – Heidegger in The Archaic: The Past in the Present, 151
[10]Ibid., 149
[11]Ibid., 149
[12]Young, J., Nietzsche's Philosophy of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 12
[13]Ibid.,12
[14]Sadler, T., Nietzsche: Truth and Redemption: Critique of the Postmodernist Nietzsche (London: The Athlone Press, 1995), 129
[15]Sokel, W., On the Dionysian in Nietzsche: Monism and its Consequence (The Nietzsche Circle, 2006), 2
[16]Ibid., 4
[17]Ibid., 20
[18]Ibid., 3
[19]Ibid., 5
[20]Ibid., 12
[21]Porter, J. I., The Invention of Dionysus: An Essay on the Birth of Tragedy (California: Stanford University Press, 2000), 36
[22]von Stuckrad, K., Utopian Landscapes and Ecstatic Journeys: Friedrich Nietzsche, Hermann Hesse, and Mircea Eliade on the Terror of Modernity in Numen 57, 83
[23]Nietzsche, F., trans. Fadiman, C. P., The Birth of Tragedy (New York: Dover Publications, 1995), 1
[24]von Stuckrad, K., Utopian Landscapes and Ecstatic Journeys: Friedrich Nietzsche, Hermann Hesse, and Mircea Eliade on the Terror of Modernity in Numen 57, 83
[25]Ibid., 82
[26]Young, J., Nietzsche and the Philosophy of Religion, 21
[27]Ibid., 21
[28]Sokel, W., On the Dionysian in Nietzsche: Monism and its Consequence, 21
[29]Ibid., 24
[30]Ibid., 21
[31]von Stuckrad, K., Utopian Landscapes and Ecstatic Journeys: Friedrich Nietzsche, Hermann Hesse, and Mircea Eliade on the Terror of Modernity in Numen 57, 83
[32]Ibid., 81
[33]Sokel, W., On the Dionysian in Nietzsche: Monism and its Consequence, 22
[34]Ibid., 23
[35]Oppel, F. N., Nietzsche on Gender: Beyond Man and Woman (Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2005), 41
[36] Juschka, D., The Category of Gender in the Study of Religion in Method & Theory in the Study of Religion (vol.11-1, 1999), 78
[37]Ibid., 79
[38] Ibid., 92
[39] Nietzsche, F., The Birth of Tragedy, 1
[40]Sokel, W., On the Dionysian in Nietzsche: Monism and its Consequence, 10
[41]Schrag, C. O., The Kierkegaard-Effect in the Shaping of the Contours of Modernity in Kierkegaard in Post/Modernity, ed. Matsuda, M.Y. (Indiana University Press, 1975), 3
[42]Ibid., 7
[43]Theisen, B., Rhythms of Oblivion in Nietzsche and the Feminine, ed. Burgard, P. J. (Virginia: University of Virginia, 1994), 92
[44] Ibid., 92
[45] As these are both Gods and therefore not limited to mortal forms, it is not appropriate to ascribe a human anatomical sex to them, particularly in the instance of Dionysus who is often ‘formless’. Therefore the terms male and female are ascribed in a metaphorical sense only.

Immigrant Nation: What Does that Even Mean?

via Amerika

You’ve heard it before: “America is an immigrant nation.” Meaning, of course, that, since the founders of the American nation moved to this land, or their ancestors did, it is therefore unjustifiable to put up any kind of resistance to any kind of immigration now. Typical of modern critique-oriented thinking, where a single factor or dimension found in common between two different things is used to equate those things in order to levy false accusations of hypocrisy, this propaganda line intended as a trump card to neutralize thoughts in opposition to mass immigration implicitly rests on several shaky assumptions.

Assumption #1: Place of origin is irrelevant. Somehow the immigration fanatics want us to believe that people from Germany or England differ in no significant way from those from China, Somalia, or Afghanistan. Partly this is due to a mental defect that views recognition of human differences as necessarily implying a linear metric of worth: a Somali can only differ from a German if either the Somali is “better” than the German, or the reverse. But it’s also due to simple ignorance and naivete. They’re so uninformed about the world that they seem to truly believe that people all around the world are generally the same, apart from a few neat little quirks and culinary styles. Multicultural societies, everywhere they have been tried, have shown us what a farce this is. Without even asking the distracting question of who’s superior, we can see that diverse peoples don’t get along well, that diverse societies don’t work.

Assumption #2: Time of migration is irrelevant. Curiously enough, though leftists have an obsession with possibly the most abstract concept conceivable, change, and fling the word around so vigorously while campaigning that all context and meaning is thoroughly shaken off, they are happy to ignore real historical concrete change. Those Europeans who first migrated here didn’t come to a new nation, they built one. They didn’t encounter a welfare system they could exploit, or even pre-existing infrastructure from with they could symbiotically benefit. If they wanted a house, they needed to build one themselves. If they wanted a nation, they had to found it themselves–and that’s what they did. This is not the case for immigrants today, but again, somehow we are expected to believe there is no significant difference.

Assumption #3: Type of migrant is irrelevant. Since we can find some examples of immigrants who had a beneficial effect on the nation (either by founding it or by contributing some other way), and further, some examples of immigrants who generally weren’t a clear detriment, it must be that all immigration will fit somewhere in a range between those two, or so the thinking goes. This leads to an open borders system with no selection for individual quality, where dishonest, cruel, stupid, thoughtless, and careless people enter, and somehow a belief that they have good intentions will make it alright for them to be our neighbours.

There is a strong pattern here. The support for mass immigration — mass replacement, really — embodied by this slogan stems from ignorance, willful or otherwise. When we recognize these not-so-subtle nuances in the history of migration to America, we can see how misleading and inaccurate the slogan is, and we can substitute it for one that’s more honest and accurate: America is a settler nation.