July 31, 2026
The Postcolonial Volk
By Benjamin Zachariah
Polity, 176 pages, $25
You might have noticed that at some point, progressive types began to use the term “folks” to refer to “people.” There are black folks, queer folks, indigenous folks. The change is significant. Whereas “people” evokes a sense of a universal subject, “folks” is particular. It implies a world of distinctions: different cultures, different experiences, different interests. No people, just “peoples,” all speaking with a different voice. From this perspective, “The political world is a pluriverse, not a universe.”
While the idea of a pluriverse has become increasingly popular within decolonial thought, that last line didn’t come from the tradition’s ever-proliferating ranks of academic adherents. It came from Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist. At a time when everything is “literally Hitler,” the comparison can seem overwrought. But it is precisely the comparison between post-colonial particularism and the völkisch right that Benjamin Zachariah reveals with a keen sense of the absurd in his new book, The Postcolonial Volk.
Zachariah critiques the “conglomerate” of postcolonial and decolonial theory clustering around what’s come to be known as “theory from the Global South.” But appearances are deceiving, because it’s not really from the Global South at all. As Zachariah describes, its language and legitimacy claims are crafted in the Global North, exported to the Global South, and then reimported as authentic non-Western knowledge.
And just as it is not really of the Global South, this ostensibly left-wing “postcolonial-decolonial-Global South conglomerate” is not really of the left either. Despite the right’s insistence that the ghost of Karl Marx is currently undertaking a long march through the institutions, Zachariah’s central claim is that the contemporary left actually has far more in common with anti-communist and proto-fascist forces than with the nineteenth-century founder of “scientific socialism.” In important respects, its ethos actually arises from an entirely rival tradition, one that encompasses romantic nationalism, indigenism, cultural organicism, and völkisch thought. It is, Zachariah says, “Romanticism, rather than the much-reviled Enlightenment, that suggests itself as the intellectual basis of the ‘post-Enlightenment’ world that Global Southistan now lays claim to.”
This is why, as Zachariah shows, the postcolonial outlook now common on the contemporary left is so hostile to the Enlightenment and its ideal of universal truth. In his satirical “Twelve Theses on Postcolonialism,” he condenses its outlook into its propositions including “the individual is an Enlightenment conspiracy” and “the Age of Reason is the Age of Empire.” Contrary to popular belief, universal reason and the emancipation of the individual were central to Marxism and the socialist and communist traditions shaped by it (“We are communists out of egoism,” Engels once wrote to Marx), however miserably they failed in practice. Marx and Engels were part of the Young Hegelian milieu, who were deeply impressed by the “heroes of the French Revolution,” and even called themselves “encyclopaedists” after the eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosophes. This is a far cry from the unholy trinity that Zachariah skewers, however much its adherents may sometimes rummage in the dustbins for what he calls the “debris of Marx- and- Engels-isms.”
Postcolonialism does not simply swap out the working class for some other group of the oppressed. Its object is a mystic unity of culture, collective memory, fraught relationships to race and place, and inherited victimhood. Blood and soil in these formulations are only slightly obscured by a thin rhetorical dust.
As Zachariah shows, the postcolonial tendency’s hostility to individualism and universalism follows precisely from its Romantic and völkisch premises. This is why, as Zachariah describes through a number of jarring examples, its language passes so easily out of the mouths of Hindu nationalists, Islamists, and white identitarians. All emphasize authentic peoples, violated inheritances, foreign contamination, internal betrayers, and cultural restoration as a magical solution to social and political problems.
One of Zachariah’s most illuminating examples is that of Benoy Kumar Sarkar, a Bengali social scientist whom Zachariah describes as “a self-conscious and dedicated user of völkisch ideas” and “zealous co-worker with the Nazis,” who is now unselfconsciously revered as a pioneer of Indian sociology, political science, and forebear of postcolonial thought. That Sarkar was a resolute admirer of Hitler, whom he called “Vivekananda multiplied by Bismarck,” is forgiven or ignored by those eager to find in him a postcolonial precursor.
The story is similar, if more well known, regarding Martin Heidegger, whom Zachariah describes as “postcolonial scholars’ preferred philosopher of ‘affect’” and whose defenders’ attempt to save him from the charge of Nazism “faltered on the evidence of his own diaries.” One compromised intellectual ancestor might be a mere misstep, a product of a momentary lapse in judgment (even if lasting many years). But when the fascist affinities of your forebears must repeatedly be bracketed or explained away, it should tell you that something is wrong with your outlook.
Not that this is really possible, because postcolonialism’s epistemology means it is singularly incapable of recognizing the proto-fascism of its völkisch affinities. As Zachariah writes, these are instead routinely “underplayed or explained away in terms of the ‘difference’ of non-Western cultures, which are allegedly incapable of fascism or to whom Western concepts such as fascism simply do not apply.” If the volk is light-skinned, the politics belong to the right; if dark-skinned, to the left, and ne’er the twain shall meet. And so, the right remains evil for its organic nationalism, while the left is merely seeking cultural renewal; the right is dangerous for denouncing non-white internal enemies but when the left denounces whites it is merely identifying obstacles to “decolonization.” It is the peculiarities of the volk, rather than the politics, that matter.
Why has the left turned to these romantic ideas? Zachariah cites the collapse of the Soviet Union as one cause. But he hits on an even deeper reason near the start of the book, when he draws on Walter Benjamin’s much-quoted vignette inspired by Paul Klee’s Angelus Novus. This is the backward-facing, forward-blown Angel of History, who is to Benjamin, “surveying the debris of the past” as a storm blowing from Paradise drives him perilously into the future. “He would like to pause,” goes the vignette, “to awaken the dead and to piece together what has been smashed,” but the gale has got so strong he cannot close his wings.
Zachariah’s intended point is well taken: We can no more return to an earlier materialist left than postcolonial volk can return to the idyllic time before the colonial “Fall.” Both the longing and the backward-looking means of overcoming it are misguided. But Benjamin’s image also answers a deeper question: Just why is there such a passionate desire to escape the forces of history and take refuge in the wholeness of the past?
In You Shall Be as Gods, Erich Fromm reads the expulsion from Eden not as man’s corruption but “the beginning of his rise.” Eden is the central symbolic story of man’s gradual alienation from animalhood and nature in the development of his capacity to reason and disobey, that is, his capacity for freedom. But crucially, this freedom is experienced as a painful sense of loss, as freedom imposes burdens of uncertainty, choice, and responsibility.
“Man suffers from this loss of oneness,” Fromm writes, and “his most passionate striving is to return to the world of union which was his home.” And so while man, in Fromm’s radical humanist reading of the Hebrew scriptures, reasons and argues with God on his ascent to independence, he is always drawn back downward, “to the womb, the Mother Earth,” and the certainties and bindings of the past, nature, clan, and idols.
This is the deeper yearning expressed in Benjamin’s Angel of History. We want to go back and pick up the pieces, rebuild what’s been lost. But the most painful lesson, the one we continually cannot accept, is that there is no going back.
Ashley Frawley is a Compact columnist, a visiting fellow at MCC Brussels, and a visiting researcher in the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at the University of Kent.
@AshleyAFrawley
>>2882714Damn, the Palestinians were the real nazis all a long, who knew?
>As Zachariah shows, the postcolonial tendency’s hostility to individualism and universalism follows precisely from its Romantic and völkisch premises. This is why, as Zachariah describes through a number of jarring examples, its language passes so easily out of the mouths of Hindu nationalists, Islamists, and white identitarians. All emphasize authentic peoples, violated inheritances, foreign contamination, internal betrayers, and cultural restoration as a magical solution to social and political problems.
Spot on. How I loathe this thought-stopping argument. "This is how we are. You can't criticize this, you don't understand our culture, because you are not from here." There is a backup argument, to cover all bases: "Oh, actually, you are from here? Well, you are under foreign influence."
>>2882821There's an obvious difference between socialist and bourgeois approaches to anti-colonialism. The former only recognizes the social reality of race and nationality to the extent necessary to destroy their material basis and abolish them. The latter treats them as transcendent categories that should be reinforced and entrenched. Criticism of bourgeois anti-colonialism (ultimately an oxymoron since capitalism always produces imperialism) from a socialist perspective is legitimate and necessary.
>>2882714>>2882843Everyone who lived in the world (i.e not Western leftists) knew this. All the socialist parties in my third world country were and still are ethno-nationalist parties. The Soviets were simply offering money and recognition for that, so people rallied around them.
>Zachariah’s central claim is that the contemporary left actually has far more in common with anti-communist and proto-fascist forces than with the nineteenth-century founder of “scientific socialism.” […] Blood and soil in these formulations are only slightly obscured by a thin rhetorical dust.
Precisely. This is all true for the Palestinian cause as well, which has no real connection to left-wing politics as such, besides the fact that left-wingers support Palestinian nationalism.
>>2882869Opposing imperialism even when those resisting it are not leftists has been a left-wing positions since at least Stalin
>>2882879
>I don't know what oppression is.
You're right
>>2882879
>everyone is an ethnonationalist for the people they actually like.
Biut that's not an "ethnic" nationalism.
whenever people use "folks" I just stop reading/listening
>>2882879
whose Kevin D'Anna?
>>2882858How many times these days will leftoids criticize opportunist or reactionary practices on the left without realizing they've been going on for decades, if not centuries? All this shit has happened before.
>>2882714There is truth to this but it is dampened by who it is coming from (zionist neocon libertarian trots) being even worse.
>>2882714ok you stumbled upon my autism and so i must rant. also as a preface i dont support hitler or anything. the holocaust and lebensraum were simply destructive. however, i think both of these have their partial origin from the attempt to capitulate to european finance by scapegoating the jews and engaging in expansionism to to pay off debts. there is a deeper material underpinning of the actions of the nazis, and it was not simply ideological
anyways, the connection is unironically there. the thing is that there are definite elements of national socialist ideology that can at times be rather existentially perceptive, and part of why i actually take serious nazism (heidegger, schmitt, myatt) more seriously. even within the thought of the historical national socialists, there was a gradual move away from nordicism to a more particularist understanding of race and civilization develop. we see in later articulations of nazi thought, near the end of the war, a less racial supremacist current starting to be articulated (this video goes into detail on some of this evolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwzR-h8Ln_s ). this gets parallel'd in david myatt's thought that develops into something that is explicitly against racial supremacy. this is something that people fail to understand about the order of nine angles, it has a long history of explicit anti-racism. before the tempel ov blood becomes a menace, o9a thought had already shifted into an anti-racist direction
>Why National-Socialism is Not Racist 111 yf (2000 ad)<Correctly defined and understood, National-Socialism is an ethnic philosophy which affirms that the different races, the different peoples, which exist are expressions of our human condition, and that these differences, this human diversity, should be treasured in the same way we treasure the diversity of Nature. National-Socialists believe our world would be poorer were these human differences to be destroyed through abstract ideas: through the creation of a socially-engineered cypto-Marxist society<In addition, National-Socialist ethics - being based upon the ideal of personal honour - means and implies that we National-Socialists must strive to treat all people with courtesy and respect, regardless of their race and culture. This alone disproves the lie of National-Socialism being "racist", just as the true history of National-Socialist Germany (as opposed to the lies about NS Germany) proves how honourable and respectful genuine National-Socialists were toward others races and cultures.<Thus, in NS Germany, groups such as Muslims and Buddhists were accorded full respect, and allowed to practise their religion freely. In the pre-war years, NS Germany helped organize a panIslamic world congress in Berlin. Berlin itself was home to thriving Muslim and Buddhist communities, of many races, and the Berlin Mosque held regular prayers even during the war years, attended by Arabs, Indians, Turks, Afghans and people of many other races. Indeed, the Berlin Mosque was one of the few buildings to survive the lethal, indiscriminate, bombing and bombardment, and although damaged, it was clearly recognizable as a Mosque amid the surrounding rubble.clearly you can see, that there is still an ambivalence with regards to miscegenation, but there is this particularism that is starting to be articulated, and he highlights some events in historical nazi germany that is felt to embody this principle. in this text and the larger corpus of dreccian texts, you have an almost national anarchist praxis combined with the beginnings of the articulation of national socialism as an "ethical philosophy". in later articulations, we have coining of the term "ethical national socialism", at this point the discomfort with miscegenation utterly vanishes, with him embracing the realities of ethnogenesis
https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/dm-ns-ideologue-second-edition.pdf<Of course, just as now, some people will leave their own culture and marry someone from another folk and culture. New cultures will also come into being. But what is important is for some people - not many - to establish through a way of life, a place, a new community, a link with their own ancestral past, and thus Earth, and so keep alive their own folk, their own culture while allowing for this culture, so planted elsewhere, to grow and change in that new place or places.<The key to such development, such a blossoming of culture - which is what it would be - is once again the ethic of honour.the thing people dont appreciate enough is that almost everything bad that the nazis did they just stole from america (manifest destiny, genocides, eugenics, concentration camps) and they were often explicit that this was what they were emulating. what was actually unique to the german right within that general epoch was the concept of volksgemeinschaft as well as an existential particularism that later gets linked to racial mythology. there is also an underlying cosmotheology in nazi thought that is always latent even with hitler, but i dont think ever gets articulated as explicitly till david myatt. overall, i wouldnt be surprised if the nazis survived till the present day, they would turn out to be extremely woke, maybe more so than the us is now, as their emphasis on particularism would move against the rainbow imperialism the west employs to justify foreign intervention
ive personally taken some of the nazi particularism and pushed into more schizo anti-racist positions with the aid of lysenko and the amplification of already latent objective idealist currents within national socialist thought
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/blog/posts/2026-03-27-Between-Materialism-And-Aeonics.html<The actual fact of "race" or that of an "ethnos" is something that is always conditioned by material relations and way of life. What the nazis missed was that in positing blood and soil, they did not fully conceptualize the way in which these two entities are in such a tight dialectical relationship with one another. As such, neither are in actuality stable entities which exist simply in themselves. Rather than "blood and soil" we may speak instead of their synthesis, which may be called Adytum. I should note here that my appropriation of the phrase "blood and soil" is a nod to Agamben in his recognition that it is simply a refined statement of the logic of the liberal state. In the move towards Adytum, we are here articulating the logic of a sort of non-state, with the non- here being perhaps akin to what we see in "non-Euclidean Geometry".>>2882858>>2882908isnt it funny how, pretty much every time we have had actually existing socialism that actually managed to achieve lasting power, it had a national character? even far-left communities that are more closer to anarchism, such as zapatista and FEJUVE are still characterized by shared indigenous identity (hell, the latter even explicitly modelled how they organized upon traditional indigenous practices).. and we have data on the fact that religious communes tend to last longer than secular communes.. meanwhile the western left, which is convinced that the future is globalist dissolution of all local collective identities,
has ultimately achieved nothing… there is a tendency to conflate nationalism with national chauvinism, but clearly this is not the case. china is nationalistic but it is not chauvinist. it is capable of having solidarity with oppressed nations. you do not need to abolish particularity if the different particulars recognize that they share an underlying reality which is beyond them, and on the basis of which they are yet on some deeper cosmic one
>>2882906for me it's when they spell it with an x at the end
>>2882920Would you call this article zionist:
The Mirage of Palestinian Statehoodhttps://www.compactmag.com/article/the-mirage-of-palestinian-statehood/Would you call the writer Philip Cunliffe zionist:
https://nitter.net/thephilippics >>2883034Yes, there is an obvious retort to his article, the borders of Israel and Palestine can be changed to make Palestinian statehood feasible. This article was written to make zionism seem like the only option, it is a rear guard tactic
>>2883332I don't think he's saying it would
never be feasible. He's saying that the recognition of Palestine is a PR move that established a fictional polity which obscures the material reality of the aftermath of the Gaza ethnic cleansing campaign and of Palestinian history up to that point. Which is uncontroversial in my opinion and fairly consistent with recent use of representation in capitalist politics.
>>2883702>g_shullenberger tweet about Decolonial MAGANow that's what I call a hot take. Went to his Twitter and his header is literally on fire. Going through some tweets now. He pulls all sort of knowledge out of his hat just to piss people off in all directions. Bio says: "Managing editor @compactmag." The thinking man's Haz?
>>2882714tl;dr am yisrael chai!
>>2883034Compact magazine is one of that wave of right wing online rags that sprouted on the aftermath of woke like the Free Press or Quillam that advertise themselves as the true liberals® and it was founded by an Iranian diaspora paid for hire ideological whore who's friends with JD Vance and and a Christian convert so I can't say I'm going to bother reading that!
>>2882714ᴉuᴉlossnW haunts the brain of modern "communists". And Hitler walks the Earth in the name of indigenous, natives and rights
yall folx dont even smoke science
>>2883820>That videokek Richard Spencer is 100% in the closet
you look at those videos of him in all those meet-ups with the nuRight and he's always the best-dressed person in the entire room. he is 100% a raging homosexual.
>>2883747It's on of the Israel lobbies billions influence campaigns
>Not that this is really possible, because postcolonialism’s epistemology means it is singularly incapable of recognizing the proto-fascism of its völkisch affinities. As Zachariah writes, these are instead routinely “underplayed or explained away in terms of the ‘difference’ of non-Western cultures, which are allegedly incapable of fascism or to whom Western concepts such as fascism simply do not apply.” If the volk is light-skinned, the politics belong to the right; if dark-skinned, to the left, and ne’er the twain shall meet. And so, the right remains evil for its organic nationalism, while the left is merely seeking cultural renewal; the right is dangerous for denouncing non-white internal enemies but when the left denounces whites it is merely identifying obstacles to “decolonization.” It is the peculiarities of the volk, rather than the politics, that matter.
This is where I disagree (otherwise this seems okay). There hasn't really been a typical example of fascism that truly "third-worldist", so to speak. Immediately Latin American dictators come to mind, but they were never the subject of decolonization. Latin American fascism, based on ultraright Spanish military cadres supported by the United States, genocidal in its intent towards the indigenous and social movements, it isn't anything but European/Western fascism.
I am sure that most of you would agree that Armas and Pinochet were fascist dictators, but Ortega and Chavez were not. So the article sort of argues against a strawman.
Secondly, the Western model of feudalism - capitalism - socialism can not be superimposed on every other civilization. Many countries in the global south became capitalist without even having their own bourgeoisie - capitalist profits were generated by foreign multinationals or state-owned resource extracting industries. So from a materialist standpoint, it would be a grave mistake to ignore that fundamental difference to Western monopoly finance capitalism, which gave birth to fascism.
Is this a psyop?
>This is why, as Zachariah shows, the postcolonial outlook now common on the contemporary left is so hostile to the Enlightenment and its ideal of universal truth. In his satirical “Twelve Theses on Postcolonialism,” he condenses its outlook into its propositions including “the individual is an Enlightenment conspiracy” and “the Age of Reason is the Age of Empire.” Contrary to popular belief, universal reason and the emancipation of the individual were central to Marxism and the socialist and communist traditions shaped by it (“We are communists out of egoism,” Engels once wrote to Marx), however miserably they failed in practice.
lmao are you guys nuts? This is some right wing liberal hogwash repackaged as something new and enlighting, this board has gone to shit
>>2882892>>2882871>>2882869>>2882858>Why has the left turned to these romantic ideas? Zachariah cites the collapse of the Soviet Union as one cause. But he hits on an even deeper reason near the start of the book, when he draws on Walter Benjamin’s much-quoted vignette inspired by Paul Klee’s Angelus Novus. This is the backward-facing, forward-blown Angel of History, who is to Benjamin, “surveying the debris of the past” as a storm blowing from Paradise drives him perilously into the future. “He would like to pause,” goes the vignette, “to awaken the dead and to piece together what has been smashed,” but the gale has got so strong he cannot close his wingsthis would really sound smart if you were on reddit and twelve tbh, the anons agreeing with this analysis should read books
>>2882892>>2882840like thats straight up psyop or botted
>>2884174He's right about the Marxist project. The part about post-colonialism seems to be based on 2020s pop-leftoid ideology rather than post-colonialism the intellectual current, but it's accurate to the extent that we're seeing a rise of statism and nationalism, both on the left and the right, as part of a broader nostalgia for the 20th century and discontent with globalization that's been brewing since the 90s.
>>2884153>There hasn't really been a typical example of fascism that truly "third-worldist", so to speak. Ba'athism could arguablt fit this description.
>>2882714Leftypol has been TRUKED by women in journalism.
>>2884153>There hasn't really been a typical example of fascism that truly "third-worldist",there were many in africa, mobutu for example, the modern day rwandan state, and even the hutu nationalist one before it are all undeniably para-fascist (ie they are very similar to fascists despite having no real historical connection to them), eritrea too is a similar example of it, most of the "left wing nationalists" of africa with some exceptions (like nkruhma or nyere) also have a fair bit in common also
>>2884182an overinflated sense of importance, sir? regardless of the shitposts you fail to notice that he makes cogent points noting a certain similarity to the concepts here in both theory and practice
schizo babble by douglas lain's pocahontas.
>>2885099>>2884185>marxist project>siranglo brainrot
>>2885353>you're an anglook
>>2885358It's criticizing the tendency of some post-colonial schools of thought to reify national and racial categories instead of abolishing them. It's the difference between Marcus Garvey and Fred Hampton, or rather bourgeois and proletariat approaches to anti-colonialism.
>>2885393
>Anti-humanist pessimism masquerading as "realism"
Just an excuse to be a coward and "settle" for amoralism.
>>2885411
>>You are an anti-humanist pessimist if you don't want all differences in nature to be pureed into a beige mass of goo because I learned at school from people who learned from people who learned from 1st Century Church Fathers who thought that the world was about to end that that's what friendship and humanity is all about!
what
>>2885432
rope yourself
>>2885411
You will be turned into an inhibited consciousness work unit.
>>2885353im a provd slav volk never call me an anglo ever again
>>2882714This is a very stupid article which makes a lot of false equivalences and isn't really educated on what third worldists actually believe. Like people who support JDPON are extreme internationalists and globalists. It was obviously written by some insecure white person who doesn't really understand the arguments and is a trot.
It is true that postcolonialism is a load of rubbish though. Many of the biggest postcolonialist theorists reject the Marxist understanding of imperialism, despite coming from countries still colonised by capitalism - there is no 'post' to colonialism! It is actually dangerous (since some postcolonialists are actually rightist ethnic nationalists) and needs to be fought against. Comrade Ajith wrote good articles about this.
>>2885512there's two currents of thirdworldism and the type that's getting revived is not the good one
>>2885006i am of course aware of these things, as well as myatt's connection to MI5/MI6. my respect for myatt did not come around overnight. i can attach some files for some selections of writings i think are especially remarkable
>>2885393the problem with your premise is that you tacitly assume that european modernity is not already in itself deeply hypocritical. we see this with genocide, colonialism, etc that western powers have and continue to facilitate or even actively participate in. america itself engaged in manifest destiny (later inspiration for lebensraum), slavery, eugenics (again inspiring the nazis), genocide, etc. this is all while in their declaration of independence, all men were free and equal. the nazis of course historically called out this hypocrisy and this was one of their ways of establishing the moral authority for some of their expansionist behaviours. as such, there was no need to "push back" against the spell of christian morality, as in the concrete such pretences never had any in-the-last-instance relevance for centuries. people who pretend as though the nazis were some special evil forget this basic fact
aside from that, if they were really just trying to rebel against christian morality, then jews would an ironic first target, as the jews themselves represented an ethnocentric religious worldview. this is not discounting the fact that a big thrust of initial german anti-semitism came from the observation that jews simply kept themselves instead of subsume themselves as citizens under the abstract universality of the state and humanity (marx of course talks about this), or adopt a christian identity (which would also involve subordination to universal man). hence, the initial grains of anti-semitism were precisely christian in character (i mean, think even for instance of martin luther's "on the jews and their lies". at the very beginnings of protestantism you have an anti-semitic tirade!). aside from this, when you look at the articulations of nazi anti-semitism, they actively characterized the jews as a global threat which challenges all of human civilization
this is not to mention the fact that if we look at most of the transgressions of europeans upon the dignity of the rest of the world, it has always been justified by the pretence of some abstract universality: the bringing of civilization, the development of world history, and of course with nato the establishing of peace, democracy, and "human rights". it is either that, or judgement from an abstract point of view, which is precisely what scientific racism was premised upon; abstraction rather than particularity
>not at all casual racism like American racismlynchings, race riots, suppression of civil rights and eugenics are casual? think about that. this is where america started, and now today you have a large chunk of them now being woke liberals. and as the OP of this thread points out, some woke ideas already have their heritage from nazi ideology
>race (and the rassenseele) was clearly acknowledged as being an emergent abstract property of everything about a person, their community, their history, the land they lived in their way of lifeeven in this description of the nazi understanding of race, you underestimate how utterly fundamental it was. racial essence was not just something that constituted the personality of an individual, it also had a transcendental character. as such, it interpellated upon the intelligibility of both theoretical and practical activity. as such there is the discovery of an irreducible transcendental diremption between different folks within nazi thought. upon realizing this, it becomes impossible to judge other races in any racial supremacist light, as the very process of judgement is transcendentally structured by race itself. logics of racism and colonialism, as the wokes have rightfully pointed out, are often erected upon edifices of universality. such foundations had been inadvertently cleared away by the nazis very own explorations of the question of race. you then pair this with a cosmotheology that is also implicitly present in nazi thought, in which the races are manifold expressions of Nature in her self-diversification. if this is the case, the subjugation of different races and the lack of respect for racial difference becomes something that suddenly becomes incommensurate with their understanding of the world. i think this latent synthesis of particularity and universality might be partially why the nazis even in their more nordicist era of thought had to talk of a "world jewry" in order to justify their actions
>>2885506>Hutus versus Tutsisthis is a bad example. pretty much all of the nations of sub-saharan africa are plots of land arbitrarily drawn to put together tribes that have no historical relationship with each other. moreover, the premise of the rwandan genocide was not some abstract colourism, but rather a historical reaction to premises already put into place by european colonizers wherein the tutsis were placed above the hutus because they had more white looking facial features. so it was neither a narcissism of small differences, neither was it something that occured organically and immanently to the way the two tribes would have interfaced with each other for thousands of years
i think this idea of "narcissism of small differences" if anything just works against your fears of global homogeneity as well. you could very well apply this logic to white populations for instance. after all, world war 2 was a war wherein approximately 70 million white people died by the hands of other whites. if such a narcissism was always possible, then it would hold that this principle would continue to divide communities until there are only small tribes left. the truth of course is that while there are forces that put distances between different groups, there are also principles that tie different groups together and eventually lead to the constitution of a new ethnos or civilization
>>2882946>serious nazism (heidegger, schmitt, myatt)No Rudolf Jung? Spenger? Strasser? Yockey? Junger? Even Goebbels was a more radical theorist than Hitler. Myatt is also a vulgar revisionist of Spengler by seeing the Magian as purely Jewish and by demoting Marxism from its Faustian status in his text "Vindex" (1984). Lenin is a better Spenglerian, by seeing Marxism as the Western Zeitgeist (e.g. the unity of French socialism, British political economy and German philosophy). Myatt is a Hitlerian, so falls into the camp of being a right-wing national socialist. Hitler's contributions in Mein Kampf are scant of substance, where his major complaints are about labour unions, black lawyers and the failure of Jews integrating into German society (e.g. a country within a country, the same as Bauer and Marx write about in the 1840s, where afterwards, the "Jewish Question" was subverted by Zionists like Hess and Herzl in the 1860s to be reactionary, hence Hitler partnering with Zionists in the 1930s. Both Lenin and Dutt made open complaints about Zionists early on, yet Stalin and Hitler supported Israel being overtaken by Ashkenazis). Hitler's poisonous influence on ᴉuᴉlossnW obviously subverts Fascism from the Actual Idealism of Gentile to the Doctrine of Race after 1936 (ᴉuᴉlossnW denying the primacy of race in the 1920s; having Jewish friends). The mysticism of National Socialism come through the Hitlerian line of Rosenberg, Himmler, Serrano and Devi. In an interview, Myatt claims to be inspired by Devi, so this is not "serious" stuff, but is the typical nonsense. Worst of all is Hitler's traitorous "Operation Barbarossa" (1941) where he broke his peace pact with Stalin, and so turned the tide on the war. Anyone who thinks Hitler was valuable to the movement is probably uneducated. Even someone like Nick Griffin saw Hitler as a capitalist pig.
>National-Socialists believe our world would be poorer were these human differences to be destroyed through abstract ideas: through the creation of a socially-engineered cypto-Marxist societyThe obtuse buzzword of "Marxism" reminds me of the American National Socialism of Rockwell, where race-mixing was seen as communist aggression. Of course, Marx already shows how it is capitalism which melts all things into air, following from the reactionary socialism of Thomas Carlyle. Oswald Mosley also complained of the homogeneity of mass culture, like Adorno, yet these men were anti-capitalist. Interestingly, Myatt complains of capitalism in Vindex (1984) yet appears to backtrack in this later text (2000). The culmination of Myatt's ideas arrives at "Reichsfolk" as his political ethos. You invoke "national anarchism", which is more properly dealt with in Alain de Benoist's "Beyond Human Rights" and other works, where his complaint is the legal fiction of the "individual" itself. I have previously demonstrated the historical particularity of the individuality of labour as the stepping stone to modern capitalist relations. Myatt however is a pure individualist who in the Black Book of Satan (1984) affirms spiritual individuality, while in his earlier work, "Emanations of Urania" (1974) sees race as an integral collectivity, but still leaves room for great men of creativity (e.g. Carlyle's hero worship). There was a dispute between Evola's and Gentile's theory in regard to individuality, where Gentile saw precondition for individuality, while Evola saw the unconditioned. So, there has always been this problem in Fascist circles. Hitler himself internalised this struggle in his own way.
>i wouldnt be surprised if the nazis survived till the present day, they would turn out to be extremely wokeWell where does identity politics and poststructuralism come from? Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schmitt, etc. But these are all bad, annoying things, so I'm against them.
>ive personally taken some of the nazi particularism Look into modern theories of "ethnogenesis". Even the Tempel ov Blood, like Nietzsche, wanted to create a new "race" of beings, and so framed things as "speciesist". As Evola writes, race is not in the flesh, but the soul. I take this literally in the case of Paul's epistles, where Christians appropriate the Jewish ethnicity for themselves.
>>2885665>Even Goebbels was a more radical theorist than Hitlernever mentioned hitler. i also dont see myself really as much of a right winger. for the most part those thinkers you have listed do not at this stage appear to offer me much of anything personally so i do not feel much motivation to check them out. i am a bit interested in junger though as he seems to be consonant with sorel and heidegger
>by seeing the Magian as purely Jewishhe does not do this generally. i am not too familiar with this 1984 vindex text but will check it out. as time went on i think he described the development of civilizations and such in a way that is increasingly immanent to the general workings of the cosmos. i also do not take myatt's opinions and characterizations of marxism too seriously. there are definite idealist elements in this writings that i generally just look past as well. actually in my writings i have come to synthesize some of the thought of the o9a with dialectical materialism
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/phil/terseaeonmat.htmlhttps://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/blog/posts/2026-03-27-Between-Materialism-And-Aeonics.html>Hitler's poisonous influence on ᴉuᴉlossnW obviously subverts Fascism from the Actual Idealism of Gentile to the Doctrine of Racethis is true. the fascist doctrine of race is rather alien to its metaphysical foundations, and is more of a capitulation to the nazis. even when pressured to persecute the jews, the italian fascists found numerous ways to get around this and find weaker versions of anti-semitic policy. with that said, the doctrine of race does reflect some of the metaphysical views of the national socialists rather than the actual idealist italians. honestly some of the theoretical ideas behind fascism are genuinely interesting but sadly there is barely any intelligent life interested in such things. instead you have "people" on zzzchan that are all white nationalist spiritual liberals who internalized accusations of being "fascist" to the point they project racial mythology on ᴉuᴉlossnW (lol)
>Myatt claims to be inspired by Devi, so this is not "serious" stuff, but is the typical nonsenseyou are making too quick a conclusion based upon influences and a few texts but it is understandable. i suggest checking out the pdfs i posted
>Worst of all is Hitler's traitorous "Operation Barbarossa" (1941) where he broke his peace pact with Stalinlebensraum was always part of the plan for the nazis, so to call it traitorous is rather peculiar. i dont like hitler much at all and if myatt was just articulating an esoteric hitlerism i would not take any interest in him
>Myatt however is a pure individualist who in the Black Book of Satan (1984) affirms spiritual individualityi wouldnt really see myatt as ever being an individualist even though at times it might seem as though he is. the first issue of course is the labyrinthos mythologicus wherein a lot of the satanist aesthetics and pretensions more so aim as a magnet and maze which leads to an underlying numinous reality. in the o9a corpus, the term sinister-numinous comes up a lot. ultimately the antinomianism of the sinister has a direct continuity with integral view of the numinous being a reality preceding conceptual distinctions. secondly, there is an extent towards which the emphasis at times of "personal knowing" is in fact a manifestation of a gravitational pull to a deeper underlying collective existence. in 'symbols and being', myatt articulates a narrative wherein there is at first an undivided polemos of Change that also manifests as a collective primordiality. from there, Change itself brings about the conditions of separation-of-otherness, conceptual distinction, and individual existence. the next step is for Change to bring about the return of the apprehension of this primordial collectivity. now, this collectivity represents a substantial existence that the individual was so intimately connected to that it was an unreflected experience rather than an abstract imposition from without. i really recommend checking out this article which helps to articulate this deeper epistemological reality:
https://sinisterstudies.substack.com/p/veiled-strength<This essay takes the Rounwytha tradition as its point of departure. While Johann Jakob Bachofen’s Mutterrecht provides the conceptual framework for examining specific features of the tradition, the analysis that follows is not an exercise in classical reception or intellectual genealogy. Bachofen is employed here as a lens, not as an origin.<This distinction is crucial. Bachofen’s maternal world is characterised by immediacy rather than mediation. Knowledge arises not from doctrine or revelation, but from proximity to natural processes—birth, growth, decay, death—and from the affective bonds that tie individuals to family, land, and ancestry. The mother, in this sense, is not merely a biological figure but an epistemic one: the bearer of a form of understanding rooted in care, empathy, and embodied experience.<Crucially, Bachofen does not romanticise the maternal world as harmonious or gentle. His maternal cultures are often severe, bound by necessity, and governed by inexorable natural law rather than mercy. Yet they possess a coherence rooted in belonging rather than command. Authority flows not from decree but from recognition: the mother knows because she has borne, cared for, and endured.<This point warrants emphasis, as it prevents Bachofen from being assimilated too easily into modern ideological frameworks. His maternal order is neither feminist nor anti-feminist in any contemporary sense. It does not advocate equality, liberation, or dominance. Instead, it describes a pre-juridical ethical field in which morality arises from relational bonds rather than universal norms.<For Bachofen, the maternal principle is therefore best understood as a mode of knowing and ordering reality. It privileges intuition over analysis, continuity over innovation, and empathy over abstraction. Symbols, myths, and rituals function not as allegories to be decoded, but as expressions of a lived relationship with the sacred. The divine, in this world, is not transcendent and distant, but immanent and enveloping.<This methodological orientation is what makes Bachofen unexpectedly relevant to certain strands of modern esoteric thought. When stripped of its speculative anthropology and nineteenth-century idiom, Mutterrecht offers a vocabulary for describing traditions that define knowledge as situated, embodied, and inherited, rather than revealed or systematised. It becomes less a theory of ancient matriarchies than a framework for recognising non-modern epistemologies that persist beneath or alongside dominant rational systems.i think that even when myatt might seem to be just worshipping great men and genius, it is important to remember that the acausal is really this undivided becoming. hence, genius is more of a product of empathy and connection rather than raw will from such a perspective
this perspective which has unique understandings of society and occultism is why i take interest in myatt. other right wing thinkers for the most part feel as though they lack this understanding or approach things in an overly idealist manner
>Look into modern theories of "ethnogenesis"yes i am also generally interested in this topic, including the development of ethnoreligious groups as well as dugin's articulations of ethnos. tob is not that interested to me because they are stuck at the "sinister" and they do not contribute to the development of the underlying weltanschauung in any deep existential way
>>2882869>>2882821let's suppose a hamas-led palestinian force, or one in a similar line, somehow defeats imperialism. Then what? we got a Hamas state, in the best case scenario along the lines of iran islamic republic. The what? everyone's happy? is the history of palestinian people over? Are the conditions for a return to imperialism in the future abolished just because of that? couldn't they end up like baathist Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Gaddafi's Lybia, and so forth? What the fuck? you all acting as if the present state of things and the current form of the struggle were absolute, without any possible alternative
>>2883335i checked his CV and his vibe and looks all clear to me. If he is jew he is a jewish uygha like eric andre
>>2885820>for the most part those thinkers you have listed do not at this stage appear to offer me much of anything personally so i do not feel much motivation to check them out. Yockey is interesting, since he engages in a blood and soil "dialectic", as you describe it, where he rejected the theory of Darwinian evolution in favour of Lamarckism. Hitlerism is Darwinian, owing to its vulgar racialism. As Yockey claims, in tandem with Marx, Darwinism is the projection of capitalist relations onto nature (e.g. the endless struggle of competition for scarce resources). Yockey also chose the side of the USSR in the Cold War. If you are interested in Myatt's aeonic magic (e.g. The Sinister Tradition), then Spengler (and Toynbee) are necessary, since that's where his theory of History comes from (see: Emanations of Urania, and Vindex).
>i am a bit interested in junger though as he seems to be consonant with sorel and heideggerWell, Junger turned against Hitler during the war and saw him as a demonic force. Junger's earlier writings are also interesting, such as "On Pain" and "Total Mobilisation" since he supported revolution, and had a passing admiration for Bolshevism, but rejected the proletariat, and saw the lumpenproletariat as more effective, with direct reference to Bakunin (Junger is also the originator of the ethos of the "anarch"). Marx in his Eighteenth Brumaire (1852) highlights the lumpen of all classes as the political base of Bonapartism, and we see today the same sort of interstitial "social scum" collect around right-wing populists today. I do actually favour Bakuninist praxis in terms of the "passivism" of general strikes (a theory beginning in Chartist literature), since "activism" is the stimulus of our cybernetic matrix. Taoist literature teaches us the power of non-action.
>i am not too familiar with this 1984 vindex text but will check it out.It is esssential reading for Hebdomadric studies, since the preface informs us that Myatt composed it from 1976–84 as part of a "logic of history", which is unveiled as the Sinister Tradition, as given in Naos (1992). Myatt wrote Emanations of Urania (1974), then devised the Star Game (1975), and then began both the Deofel Quintet (1976-92) as well as his article "Vindex" (1976-84), so it is of primary concern. We see in it, his scorn for the Magian creeds of Christianity, Capitalism and Marxism. Myatt in the same text also hypocritically defends Nazi book burnings as an ascent to spirituality over intellect, despite his own obsession with writing.
>the development of civilizations and such in a way that is increasingly immanent to the general workings of the cosmosHis view is given in Emanations, Vindex and Naos, that the development of civilisation (e.g. its life cycle) grows according to the concentration of acausal energy (read: Jung's "Synchronicity"), with creativity being expressive of acausality, and with the decline of society being the decline of this same aeonic power. The aeons shift on the basis of the concentration of this energy (like the Hegelian weltgeist, or world-spirit). The doctrine of Aeon is itself highly disputed in the occult world, with Crowley initiating the Aeon of Horus in 1904, LaVey initiating the Aeon of Satan in 1966 and Aquino revealing that both are connected in the figure of Set, who is manifested in his fullness by 1983, by the Wewelsberg Castle working. Myatt himself also uses the Year of Fayen (Y.F.) as a placemarker for Hitler's birthday, so it's like B.C. and A.D. which in my perspective represents the Age of Pisces, with the "new age" being Aquarian.
>some of the theoretical ideas behind fascism are genuinely interestingI just consider it a vulgar Hegelianism by way of Gentile, while many see Marxism as a materialist Hegelianism.
>sadly there is barely any intelligent life interested in such thingsI forget the guy's name, but there used to be an open Fascist youtuber who intellectualised his position. There was also "Cultured Thug". I would say the "Warrior Philosopher" is probably the most genuine fascist these days, who is largely into Mishima and Bataille.
>lebensraum was always part of the plan for the nazis, so to call it traitorous is rather peculiar.Hitler violated his peace treaty. That makes him a traitor.
>I wouldnt really see myatt as ever being an individualistThe axiom of Individual Judgement and pathei-mathos are individualist ethoi. The quest for Immortality is also an individualist quest (e.g. anados) up the 9 spheres.
>the numinous being a reality preceding conceptual distinctionsYes. Denotata is the result of causal abstraction; he writes this as early as 1974.
>the emphasis at times of "personal knowing" is in fact a manifestation of a gravitational pull to a deeper underlying collective existence.In the context of pathei-mathos and Agamemnon, you could derive a sense of "love of fate", as Nietzsche has it, in the same way as Wyrd (e.g. destiny) is a theme, but Myatt seems like someone fighting his fate, rather than submitting to it. He is sinister (left-handed), not Godly.
>genius is more of a product of empathy and connection rather than raw will from such a perspectiveYes and no. Greatness to Myatt is given from acausality collecting within a nexion, but if one can practice magic, then it implies the strengthening of spiritual muscles. The pagans scorned magic since they believed in the hierarchy of godly favour. Achilles did not defeat Hector because of the "opportunity cost" of training, but simply by circumstance of birth; by right of blood. Magic has always been subversive and egalitarian in my view, which I take from James Frazer's "The Golden Bough". If one is not born great, then he will never be great. That is the Pagan ethos - where trying to excel from one's Will leads to "hubris" and punishment from tyrannical gods.
>they do not contribute to the development of the underlying weltanschauung in any deep existential wayThe brainchild behind ToB was Michael W. Ford, and not Sutter, who confused the Abyss of the o9a with the Abyss of Crowley's Enochian Magick, by invoking the demon Choronzon, and so creating a theoretical schism. Ford's "Luciferianism" is not "Traditional Satanism", so the systems do not align (e.g. kabbalah versus the 7fw). Satan to Myatt is the archetype of alchemical change, in the same sense that to Hegel, determination is negation (e.g. dialectics).
>>2885820>>2886209In "A Terse Exploration of Aeonic Materialism", you connect the materialism of Marx to Myatt, but I would immediately criticise this by positing Feuerbach as the true sympathetic figure, who in his "contemplative materialism" (as derisively termed by Marx) he sees that Being is sensuous 'feeling' and not immediate activity, which is more in line with Myatt's thoughts on Empathy.
Marx in the first place credits Feuerbach's philosophy as the very basis of Communism, in a letter (11/08/1844):
<I am glad to have an opportunity of assuring you of the great respect and — if I may use the word — love, which I feel for you. Your Philosophie der Zukunft, and your Wesen des Glaubens, in spite of their small size, are certainly of greater weight than the whole of contemporary German literature put together. In these writings you have provided — I don't know whether intentionally — a philosophical basis for socialism and the Communists have immediately understood them in this way. The unity of man with man, which is based on the real differences between men, the concept of the human species brought down from the heaven of abstraction to the real earth, what is this but the concept of society!http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htmlAfter this comes Marx's comments in his "Theses" and The German Ideology. We may read from Feuerbach:
<The new philosophy looks upon being – being as given to us not only as thinking, but also as really existing being – as the object of being, as its own object. Being as the object of being – and this alone is truly, and deserves the name of, being – is sensuous being; that is, the being involved in sense perception, feeling, and love. Or in other words, being is a secret underlying sense perception, feeling, and love […] Love is passion, and passion alone is the distinctive mark of existence […] Feelings, everyday feelings, contain the deepest and highest truths. Thus, for example, love is the true ontological demonstration of the existence of objects apart from our head: There is no other proof of being except love or feeling in general.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/future/future2.htmHere, being (e.g. physis) discloses the primordium of feeling, which precedes abstraction in denotata, and so is undivided, unlike the duality of causal existence. Marx originally holds to Feuerbach, but later on (1845), sees that History is what determines us, not man's essence. Marx still as yet does not submit to mere abstraction as the cause of liberation, but still sees its captivation of man. His entire "Critique of Political Economy" is a type of reversal of Hegel along these lines, where the Idea is the development of estranged labour in capital, and so overcoming abstraction is the aim. Abolishing abstract labour (e.g. the form of value) is the goal. Marx (1875):
<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning […] Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmSo then, reducing abstraction (e.g. denotata) down to concreteness seems to be the common end, but Marx rejects the sensuous passivity of Feuerbach in favour of sensuous activity, where "man" is always being changed. This can commonly lead to vulgar materialist nonsense.
>Dialecticians note that in motion there is the presence of the contradiction A=not A as a thing becomes what it is not.I think this is too illogical. There is no such thing as a formal contradiction in Hegel (e.g. A = not-A), but rather, the ground of identity is seen as a negation of negation, which corresponds to the second law of logic (e.g. A ≠ not-A), and so difference is seen as the ground of self-identity. This is intuited in the ancients, such as Hesiod and Ovid, who in their mythologies, express that Chaos preceded Order. I write about this fully here:
>>>/edu/26082Upon motion in general, I would refer you to Plato's Timaeus, wherein he describes time as a "moving image of eternity" by the cyclical motions of the cosmos. Time is nothing besides the relative motion of natural bodies.
>A good example can be seen in any process of creative endeavour, in which one often does not have much of clear idea of what they are going to make. In the context of illustration, this is often the case, revealing the truth that the imagination is an intensive formativity rather than a fixed form.What you are missing here is the concept of "genius" or "inspiration", which as Plato tells us, is the power of the Muse. In Augustine, he calls it the Holy Spirit. When we say that a work is "God-inspired", we see that man is simply a vessel (e.g. nexion) for divinity (e.g. acausality). In magic (read: James Frazer), synchronicity is given by the principle of "sympathy" where the world itself acts as a morphic field (think of the "Rain Dance", which in imitating natural processes, creates them). Another term would be "manifestation" by ceremonial ritual.
>As this inter-action complexifies and folds in new intensities, it at some point comes to incarnate a new incorporeal universe. The temporality of incorporeal universes is Aion, and so this progressive enfolding towards apocalypse can be said to be the very logic of Aeonic genesis […] We note that in the incarnation of incorporeal universes, there is always a particular ethics as there is in it a particular logic.Right; Jesus preached about the "end of the Age", since this was the astrological belief, that each cycle of time leads to a "new heaven" and "new earth". Aion (the deity) is a man holding the cosmic loop. But as Solomon tells us, "there is nothing new under the sun", so all repeats. I am reminded of this passage from Revelation (14:3):
<And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.https://biblehub.com/revelation/14-3.htmA new song? A new uni-verse?
>This denial of the pre-given leads us to radicalizes Hume's assault on causality: following Sheldrake, the laws of physics are in fact habits.As Plato writes in Statesman, the Age of Cronos comes when God reverses the motion of the cosmos, and so the old become young again, etc. If we remember that to the ancients, cosmic order is "local", we make sense.
>In technics then, there is always an implicit energetic excessWell, technics is the specialisation of tasks, which thus increases the efficiency of a particular activity. Plato writes that man has no natural technique, so was given the techné of Prometheus, which is our intelligence. It is as though from the forge of Hephastus that man makes all tools in mimicry of nature - and as it is given, the fall of the angels came with the arts and crafts of weapons.
As for Myatt's 1980 treatise, he sees that acausality grants wisdom by the perception of all time, but I would rebuke this by the tragic example of Wotan in the Edda, who drinks from the spring of knowledge, to gain acausal perception, yet still falls victim to Ragnarok. In the Havamal, Wotan also gains knowledge of the runes, and so enters into abstraction by the Sephiroth (e.g. the letters and numbers upouyghdrasil). So, escaping chronology does not mean an escape from the Aeon, either. Myatt is also incorrect where he says that the symbol is prior to thought; Logos as Word is the dyad of creation, which thus severs itself from the Monad. This is why Lao Tzu writes that the Tao which can be named is not the true Tao, or as is written in the Sefir Yezirah (e.g. The Book of Formation), the Sephiroth are the "foundation" of creation (as from the mouth of God), but they themselves arise from ineffable infinity (e.g. Ain Soph). The list of the 50 gates of intelligence attaches Chaos as the primary reality. So then, being is symbol, but being is not original of matter, but mind.
>An idea is not an essence – the symbol is essence which thought abstracts or covers up, and each idea has its foundation in a symbol.Here, I would advise Myatt to meditate on Plato's "Cratylus", which is the first kabbalistic text in history. It is important on this point since Plato shows that there are "true" and "false" names for things, and so symbols are not arbitrary, but really present the essence of things. We see this in the ancient Egypytian legend of the Name of Ra, where Isis gains her magic by controlling Ra through the secret word. Wotan's descent into knowledge of the runes is a similar gnostic ordeal. Myatt continues that the aim of "authenticity" is our "individuation", while also seeing the monad above the dyad as collective being. Indeed, Jung proposes a "collective unconscious" as a metaphysical prior.
>>2886209>>2886274The fundamental philosophical text to your whole schizzo ideology is the Will to Power, and even that is just a fork of a philosophical attitude already explored in Hegel's Phenomenology, whether Nietzsche was aware of it or not. Ultimately this self-same philosophy faces the contradiction of rejecting disenchantment while considering Power the main axis of all values. But is true Power the rejection of the bare reality of what disenchantment "reveals" or "unveils", is true Power the receding back to navel gazing enchanted whimsical subjectivity? I don't think so, that's just escapism and a coping mechanism, the inability to let go of the comfortable past in which everything was a self-contained organic unity, comprehensible and immediately relatable. Your fixation with Will take you away from the very empowering thing in the face of this awakened blind idiot god of technoscience, i.e. the Concept. Only with a commitment to the concept can you apprehend this new inconmensurable reality that has been revealed when man has gone from the center of the universe to X. You have to step out of the Ptolemaic self centered subjective perspective, cause otherwise you are rendering everything else an abstract void to supposedly project your Will into. You need Hegel and then Marx, otherwise you are just constructing a whimsy magical worlds to comfortably LARP in. The road to science is in many ways boring, obtuse, unaesthetic, dry… In a word, devoid of any charm, and you have to accept that or continue your LARP.
Take this word of advice: Take from this whole magic thing what you need, which is mainly phenomenological and magical techniques (which can function on a practical level with our without any magical bullshit coloring and convergently evolved regardless of these aesthetic elements in different cultures), and get the fuck out of there, there is no benefit other than that.
>>2887270>Power the main axis of all valuesIn terms of power, I believe the pen to be mightier than the sword.
>the inability to let go of the comfortable past in which everything was a self-contained organic unity, comprehensible and immediately relatableAs we see from the account in Genesis, the capacity to sin is written into Paradise by the entrance of the Serpent, and so internal contradiction already exists in Creation; an antagonism evidently within God Himself. So I don't believe in any primordial unity, but disunity. We see the ancients describe primordial unity as "Chaos". We also read in Plato's "Parmenides" of the impossibility of total unity. I agree, it is a fantasy. The womb (e.g. matrix) is a trap, not liberation.
>you are rendering everything else an abstract void to supposedly project your Will into. You need Hegel and then MarxWhat exactly do you imagine Marx's project was? It was reclaiming man's subjectivity from the tyranny of the Concept (e.g. capital):
<In the same way atheism, being the supersession of God, is the advent of theoretic humanism, and communism, as the supersession of private property, is the vindication of real human life as man’s possession and thus the advent of practical humanism, or atheism is humanism mediated with itself through the supersession of religion, whilst communism is humanism mediated with itself through the supersession of private property. Only through the supersession of this mediation – which is itself, however, a necessary premise – does positively self-deriving humanism, positive humanism, come into being. But atheism and communism are no flight, no abstraction, no loss of the objective world created by man – of man’s essential powers born to the realm of objectivity; they are not a returning in poverty to unnatural, primitive simplicity. On the contrary, they are but the first real emergence, the actual realisation for man of man’s essence and of his essence as something real.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm >>2884174If I am not mistaken Mrs. Frawley has an explicit commitment to individualism via a libertarian ideological commitment (Double check me on this, I may have confused her with someone else).
And so she is basically attempting to trojan horse the line of "Actually socialism is just liberalism achieving its ends in practice and progressing beyond it" as opposed to a negation of liberalism and progres in a different direction.
Ergo every opportunity is used to push individualism & this degenerate approach. This including instrumentalizing real problems that arose in de-colonization, including cultural ethnic-nationalism (in general, the real material problem is not that people are different, but that particularism is instrumentalized to weaken revolutionary organizations, promote tribalism & inter-ethnic competition & thus weaken developmental states, serve local national & petty bourgeois interests, etc.)
Even though socialism is a universalizing project, it is false to then conclude if one is for it then one agrees that universalism is true, much less individualist universalism (which is just the universalization of the particularism of the liberal subject, ie. the "rights endowed individual")
>>2887367>Actually socialism is just liberalism achieving its ends in practice and progressing beyond itThis is what Marx writes (1875):
<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case. In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. […] But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. […] In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmEngels initially discusses bourgeois "limitations" here (1843):
<The axioms which qualify as robbery the landowner’s method of deriving an income – namely, that each has a right to the product of his labour, or that no one shall reap where he has not sown – are not advanced by us. The first excludes the duty of feeding children; the second deprives each generation of the right to live, since each generation starts with what it inherits from the preceding generation. These axioms are, rather, consequences of private property. One should either put into effect the consequences or abandon private property as a premise. Indeed, the original act of appropriation itself is justified by the assertion of the still earlier existence of common property rights. Thus, wherever we turn, private property leads us into contradictions.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm>Even though socialism is a universalizing project, it is false to then conclude if one is for it then one agrees that universalism is true, much less individualist universalism (which is just the universalization of the particularism of the liberal subject, ie. the "rights endowed individual")Class politics is not universal unless it presumes a universal class. The "Rights of Man and Citizen" (1789) presume the class of "citizen", which Marx scoffs at, and forwards a particular proletarian interest (1843):
<Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man, the droits de l’homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society – i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community. […] It is a question of the liberty of man as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself. […] But, the right of man to liberty is based not on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man. It is the right of this separation, the right of the restricted individual, withdrawn into himself. The practical application of man’s right to liberty is man’s right to private property.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/Here, he forwards a "Magna Carta of labour" (1867):
<In place of the pompous catalogue of the “inalienable rights of man” comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working-day, which shall make clear “when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins.”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htmThus, universal "man" is displaced, under the banner of private property, yet man can only become universal by these means, and this is the democratic instinct. In the same way, Communism cannot be democratic, since it rejects the status of the "citizen" as such (1843):
<All emancipation is a reduction of the human world and relationships to man himself. Political emancipation is the reduction of man, on the one hand, to a member of civil society, to an egoistic, independent individual, and, on the other hand, to a citizen, a juridical person. Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his “own powers” as social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/With the abolition of the state comes an abolition of civil society.
ive been checking out spengler a bit and honestly, his idea of different civilizations having a living symbol that corresponds to a fundamental intuition of space, time, and the soul is interesting. it has lead me to think about what such organizing intuitions there are in hidweh project which has helped me with some thinkings of developing new praxis on top of helping to organize my coming blogpost
>>2886209>The axiom of Individual Judgement and pathei-mathos are individualist ethoi. The quest for Immortality is also an individualist quest (e.g. anados) up the 9 spheres.my point was that it is individually oriented in terms of immediate practice, but it all ultimately has collective ends. individual judgement is to encourage attainment to collective primordiality on a deeper sympathetic level rather than through causal abstraction. even with the quest for Immortality, it should be noted that the meaning of immortality for myatt is tacitly collective in nature. actually, in some of his national socialist writings, the collectivist aspects to this become explicit. here are some excerpts from Folk Culture:
<The truth which Folk Culture expresses is that we belong to the living being which is our folk, that this folk is a manifestation of the will of Nature, and that to live in a natural, healthy way, in harmony with Nature - in harmony with our very being - we must place our Nature-given duty before our own personal desires. That is, we must view ourselves in the wider context of our folk, in the context of Nature, of evolution, and in the context of the very cosmos itself<Our very Destiny, our purpose, is to understand this truth about us and Nature, and to act upon it. The true meaning of our individual lives lies in this understanding, which takes us far away from the concern about our own individual death and what may happen to us after our death which is the foundation of all the other religions in the world. The fundamental mistake of all other religions and philosophies is not only to concentrate upon the individual but to project the concept of our individuality beyond our physical death, whereas, in truth, our individuality is a hindrance to not only understanding but also to fulfilling the purpose of our lives.<These types of being derive their life from the acausal - or rather, from acausal energy. That is, they are manifestations of the acausal in the causal world. In a sense, these beings are acausal life, as distinct from the causal life-forms we know, through experience and Science, and which dwell with us on this planet. To understand National-Socialism is to understand this concept of the acausal, and thus the matrix, The Unity, which the acausal is. It is the acausal which is numinous, which we apprehend through great Art, literature, music, and so on, and which can and does inspire us to quest for excellence and strive to aid our evolution. It is the acausal which is the essence of life, and it is a rational understanding, or intuitive awareness, of the acausal which enables us to place our own lives in the correct, Cosmic, context, and which provides us with the insight of how all life, causal and acausal, is connected, dependant, inter-relatedthe collectivist nature of immortality:
<Such individuals transcend to become the cosmos itself; they become the awareness, or the consciousness, of the cosmos, of all creation. The individuality which they possessed in their mortal existence expands so that they become a part of the suprahuman Being which is the cosmos. Thus do they expand this Being, and make further evolution possible. Thus do they because of their life and their death, make further positive change, further creation, possible<But this immortality which they achieve does not mean that they, as the individuals they were in their human life, live on in some kind of 'heaven', or in some kind of 'Valhalla'. Rather, it means that they have moved-on to the next stage of development and so become an entirely different kind of being. They exist as this new type of being 'beyond the physical world', and beyond the individuality which they were. However, this does not mean that they become a 'heavenly' type of being living a tedious and boring and 'morally pure' disembodied existence. It means they have become, in a profound way it is difficult to conceptualize, the cosmos itself and the creations of the cosmos, such as Nature. These individuals become our present and our future - they become the substance which makes further evolution possible. In the simple sense, they become embodied in their race, in the soil and those aspects of Nature which allows this living racial being composed of individuals to survive and flourish. They thus exist in and become the living spirit or psyche of their race.folks like michael ford and a lot of the left hand path stuff that appropriates elements from the o9a all fail to appreciate this collectivist dimension that has always been implicitly present in myatt's thought. they turn the quest for immortality into one of hubristic self-affirmation. no doubt this can be blamed on myatt using satanist aesthetics early on which naturally attracted people that want to affirm their ego above Nature or folk (even though, time and time again, this is identified as
hubris)
>>2886274>Marx originally holds to Feuerbach, but later on (1845), sees that History is what determines us, not man's essenceman's essence for marx is that man is a historical being who works upon the world in a way that gets subsumed by a greater social division of labour. he does not not break with feuerbach completely, but rather recognizes that man is not just feeling, but also actively producing things in the world. both passive sensuousness as well as sensuous activity unify subject and object. in the former, the object comes into the consciousness of the subject. in the latter, the subject exteriorizes itself into the object. the two together form a dialectical interplay
one of the reasons why i emphasize marx rather than feuerbach is that when you look at the 7fw, it often involves an active engagement with the world. you run a marathon, you live in the wilderness for some period of time, etc. myatt detested the comparatively passive contemplation that is found in typical occultism. and of course, a major point of the 7fw is to condition the practitioner undergoing the quest so that they might engage in aeonic sorcery. this involves changing society at large. this too is in stark contrast to modern occultism which separates the spiritual from the political, or simply sees aeons as ultimately static things governed by the change of planets. this can easily be compared to marx's famous quote:
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it. spengler for his part on the practical dimension merely chose resignation to the decline of faustian civilization as well. meanwhile, myatt entertains the possibility of sustaining a civilization past its expiry date through aeonic magick as well. after all, if aeonic charge is a real material quantity that can be accumulated, then pessimism is not strictly necessary. there is also aeonic magick for speeding up the change of aeons as well
actually in some of myatt's national writings, he comes to the conclusion that ethos is indeed determined by material conditions (though of course he would never make this terminology). the realization seems to have contributed to his ethical turn
https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/dm-ns-ideologue-second-edition.pdf<[T]his feeling, this understanding, this reverence for Nature is seldom understood today. The majority of people of even our own folk are seldom part of the land in the sense of knowing it as a friend and valuing it as the means to be healthy and grow. They have no understanding or even sense of husbanding the land - of caring for it in a meaningful ancestral way. Furthermore, this majority is today mostly even unaware of who they are - they have little or no sense of belonging to their own culture, their own folk. The majority no longer respects the traditions, the way of life, of their ancestors - or even these ancestors themselves, for this majority has lost its connection with its past; they have lost, or are destroying, their own heritage as they are most certainly destroying their own people. Thus are they not only endangering Nature, but they are also destroying their own future.<Today, in this village, this balance, this understanding and this respect for Nature no longer exist, even on the two farms which still remain. The village itself has grown tremendously. Over three score new houses have been built on land once owned by two of the farms. Dozens of trees have gone, and scores of hedges removed, to make way for these new arrivals. One of the other farms is no longer a 'working farm' - it is occupied by a 'townie' family, and its Barns have been converted into houses, lived in by other 'townies' who commute to the nearby city in their cars. The orchards themselves have gone (save for some apple trees in the garden of one of the farms on the edge of the village) as have the fields of crops. Nearly all the fields now grow the regulation wheat, in large fields made by removing boundary hedges so that machines can plant, cultivate and harvest more. And the tragedy is that this wheat often ends up stored in an enormous warehouse where it forms a tiny part of the great and never used European 'wheat mountain'.
>I think this is too illogicalit is not meant to be a literal formal contradiction. the framing of A=not A is one found in one marxist-leninist dialectical materialist text which i do not remember
>What you are missing here is the concept of "genius" or "inspiration"that was precisely what i was thinking about. and moreover if man is simply a vessel, then to talk about "individualism" does not make sense. there is a reason why myatt converted to islam at one point. there is that element of almost having to submit to the greater acausal reality, submit to nature, submit to the numinous. honour, loyalty, etc are all manifestations of this attunement or submission. allah can be understood as the integral totality of the numinous. the reason why myatt eventually renounced his faith is because it felt as though he was using it as an escape, that he was not fully confronting tragedy or numinous reality directly enough. still, there was nevertheless an underlying resonance there which initially attracted him
>So, escaping chronology does not mean an escape from the Aeon, eitherof course since the aeon is far larger than a single individual. there is an extent to which you rise above time, but you do not actually become omniscient or omnipotent. it is more of an intuition of the fundamental integral workings of Nature and how this reflects upon where we are collectively headed. there is some portion of serious niners (including myatt himself) who have renounced occultism altogether seeing it as another form of hubris. i would not go that far myself personally, but i do think it is important not to assume you become a literal god that can do anything just because you have gotten better at letting more of the acausal into you
>This is why Lao Tzu writes that the Tao which can be named is not the true Taothe tao is not thought, especially not human causal thinking. that the tao that can be named is not the true tao is precisely an anti-idealist statement. the underlying integral reality transcends the mind and all thoughts about it. if this were not so, it could indeed be named
>>2890059>encourage attainment to collective primordiality*encourage attunement to collective primordiality
>>2890059>>2890064>his idea of different civilizations having a living symbol that corresponds to a fundamental intuition of space, time, and the soul is interesting.You can see Myatt's extraction of this in Naos (1992).
>it all ultimately has collective endsI would disagree. The ends of the initiate is immortality. Even Jesus rejected the crowd. Spirituality is individual, but the bodhisattva can still offer charity to the world.
>collective primordiality There is an epistemological issue. Socrates in Phaedo declares that after death, we come to know things in themselves (e.g. Beauty, Virtue, etc.) but what does it mean to "know" noumena (in the same sende that Jung claimed to "know" God)? In other places, Socrates says that the philosopher (e.g. the ascetic practitioner of death) dissolves into Sophia after death, whilst the sinful are reincarnated, as animal spirits. Here, oblivion is the ends of Wisdom, meaning that knowledge is in the pursuit of absolute ignorance (e.g. death). To "know" all things is to know nothing; negatively stated in Apologia. Lao Tzu writes the same; "I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty (Tao Te Ching, Verse 20). As it is written therefore, the wise do not speak, for in knowing, there is no thinking. To make this clearer, we come to Kant, who in apprehending the pure intuitions of the understanding (space and time), perceives that thinking itself is made possible by these interior dimensions, and so rational powers like mathematics are made possible by synthetic a priori knowledge. Hegel continues this, that it is by synthesis that thinking is possible. Kant in his "The End of all Things" (1794) muses upon the afterlife, stating that comprehension of phenomena must depend upon these same intuitions, and so even in death, we cannot "know" things in themselves. Indeed, it is ridiculous. For this, knowledge is arrested to limited forms, or qualities. Plato in "Parmenides" shows that the One cannot have any qualities or dimensions, and so in effect, he negates the idea of an absolute reality. This only makes sense in his profound writings in Republic, that the parable of the Sun reveals Logos, but as dyad, this is only the visible form of the invisible monad, which is the Good - but he writes that the Good is not a "being":
<the good itself is not [being] but still transcends [being] in dignity and surpassing powerhttps://topostext.org/work/768So then, this contemplation shows how emptiness is the cause of all other things. We may read Hegel (1816):
<Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm#HL1_81Here, pure being is identical to nothingness, and so it must be for knowledge. Death restores our wholeness, but at the expense of existence. So, the mystical unity of the collective unconscious is really a quest for death. This has relation to anti-cosmic satanism on the left-hand path, but in each case, it seems that the aim of the spirit is to destroy matter, while matter is the means of knowledge and experience (thus falleth the angels). I personally hold to Feuerbach, that feeling is true reality, and rationalism (from the time of Pythagoras) denies us the novelty of becoming, by extinguishing the flesh. I am on the side of the fallen angels, who embraced reality, rather than denying it. The serpent is the anointed one.
>FolkInteresting. I will reconsider my judgement of Myatt.
>Myatt wants to change the world, not think about it.Fair point, but I would still contend that Myatt still holds to the primacy of race as an essential concept, rather than as a "dialectical" concept, elsewise he would be like Nietzsche and promote race-mixing as a means to purify the impure, through disciplining a gene pool. In Nietzsche's view, races become purified, rather than being created pure - a reversal of theosophy, let's say. Does Myatt ever comment on the origin of the races? An esoteric Hitlerist like Serrano simply thinks that Aryan blood is a finite resource which has to be protected.
>dialectical materialistWell, I personally reject dialectical materialism, and see it as an Engelsian obsession, whilst to Marx, dialectics is a logical tool to explain history, but not nature itself. This is why Communism to Marx is about overcoming abstract negation and so having self-determination.
>if man is simply a vessel, then to talk about "individualism" does not make sense. Man is not "simply" a vessel, but may become a vessel. It is the same way that a priori knowledge is always only "remembered" (e.g. discovered) rather than "invented", according to Plato. Thus, we do not possess ideas, but it is ideas which possess us, since they precede thinking. Individualism is often a ruse for implicit collectivity, such as Marx comments upon in the Manifesto (1848). Thus, "private property" is class property. Smith (1776):
<Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book05/ch01b.htmNow, the individual as considered in themselves is a "personality", but if you are a Jungian, all is archetypal. The quest of individuation is to complete ourselves, by making the unconscious, conscious. I suppose Marxists could say that's what they are attempting with theory, but liberation cannot concern a collective subject, which is the limit of all politics. As far as I see, the state is the security of our rights, and our "pursuit of happiness" is the imperative to any further development and freedom.
>you do not actually become omniscient or omnipotentBut Wotan does, and still falls prey to Ragnarok. I think we ought to contemplate this mystery a bit further.
>the tao is not thought, especially not human causal thinking. that the tao that can be named is not the true tao is precisely an anti-idealist statement. the underlying integral reality transcends the mind and all thoughts about it. if this were not so, it could indeed be namedPrecisely, but we must remember that being is still an abstraction, and so being (by way of Logos) is ideal, but reality exists beyond being, which is Taoist wisdom:
<[The Tao] is older than God.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.htmlMyatt's Hermetic "Theos" seems a bit constricting.
>>2890181>The ends of the initiate is immortalityi already pointed how "immortality" in this context likely means one's individuality expanding to become an integral part of the collective psyche, and it is quite explicit the significance of this is the individual aiding the cosmos and folk in cosmic evolution. also myatt is working with heidegger, so this collective primordiality is not simply an epistemological thing. rather it concerns a way of being in the world. if you dont understand this you are going to find problems where there arent any and not be able to understand what myatt actually contributed positively to the occult tradition
>Even Jesus rejected the crowdnot really sure what you are getting at here. christianity is probably less collectivistic than the o9a is since it implies discrete individuals maintaining their discrete existence after death, but a major theme of christ's teachings is still universal brotherhood and he would even offer his own flesh for others to eat. christianity without
communion is not christianity at all. buddhism is relatively more individualistic (especially theravada) but it also doesnt even believe in self-standing selves to begin with
>still holds to the primacy of race as an essential conceptraces are a product of Nature and the evolution of the cosmos. he was against race-mixing for a bit because he felt as though it would reverse the process of diversification which Nature had produced, but he eventually eased up on this stance recognizing new peoples could form
>Man is not "simply" a vessel, but may become a vesseli guess but it is more like you have some choice what forces you are channeling when you become conscious of it, but you are always channeling a mixture of forces. to even exist physically as an organism is to be a nexion which presences the morphological blueprint of your species. the vey existence of the acausal precludes individual self-standing
>but liberation cannot concern a collective subjectif there is a collective unconscious then i dont really see how this follows
also when myatt talks about symbols he is talking about formative objective principles or resonances rather than ideas. as such, thought naturally must precede such things
>>2890194>one's individuality expanding to become an integral part of the collective psycheBut again, the individual nexion is to be duly considered in the vein of "great men". I am not saying that Myatt is a hypocrite, but am saying that spirituality in general must concern individual excellence, since like gold, it is most rare by natural occurance. Jesus (Matthew 18:20):
<For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with themhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018%3A20&version=NIVHere, the Holy Spirit is collective of the Church. Egalitarians fabulate the Church to comprise all of humanity, but it contains its own elect; the so-called 144,000 "virgins" who are before the throne (Rev 7):
<144,000 from all the tribes of Israel […] they are before the throne of Godhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207&version=NIVThere is much more to write on this, but I will conclude by saying that those who carry their own cross are not those of mere faith. Sorcerers and Rounwytha are not the same as dreccan ranks, who serve as footsoldiers.
>a way of being in the worldSure, but ascending the spheres is also about escaping the world. To Myatt, Theos is the ultimate aspiration:
<I seek to learn what is real, to apprehend the physis of beings, and to have knowledge of theos.https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/mercvrii-trismegisti-pymander-part-one/Lao Tzu surrenders himself to the void, but also resigns himself to dharma; that as Christ said, be in the world, but be not of it. Christ came to fulfill, not abolish the law.
>christianity without communion is not christianity at allYes, but this only concerns the fellowship of believers.
>it is more like you have some choice what forces you are channeling when you become conscious of it, but you are always channeling a mixture of forcesWell, I would say that the inner strength of Will shows that man's soul is still active in his life. When we control ourselves, what force is this? Of course, as Buddhists like to tell us, you cannot be rid of desire by desiring to be rid of desire (the same way you cannot will yourself to sleep), so the power of Will is not unconditional, but in its means to an end, it certainly has independence. I think it would be naive to affirm the being of all things besides man; man himself is a positively defined being.
>the vey existence of the acausal precludes individual self-standingOnly in an abstract sense, and it is hard to exactly see where one's own physis begins and ends in connexion with another. If we pertain to the boundary of races, how can we tell the limits of racial difference?
>if there is a collective unconscious then i dont really see how this followsThe collective unconscious is unconscious, and so is unconditional; it cannot be liberated from itself.
>thought naturally must precede such thingsNow, here's the difficulty. If thoughts are not themselves symbolised, then what is the form of pure thinking?
>>2890208>it is most rare by natural occuranceit is not supposed to be rare. you phrase things like it is all about rising above the rabble but the masses are a part of yourself. so long as they do not raise themselves higher, there is a part of you that is also kept down. this is part of what makes the bodhisattva vow as well as the project of aeonic sorcery an ethical necessity. with mahayana practices u see the doctrine of emptiness directly feeding into the practice of compassion. when the individual's boundaries becomes more porous and comes to embrace more of the outer world, one's values can naturally develop into one that is compassionate and wishing to end suffering for all beings
>but ascending the spheres is also about escaping the worldif it was about that then the 7fw would be pointless. you are supposed engage in various physical feats partly to counterbalance the introverted tendencies common in magian occultism. a major theme in the o9a is attuning to nature. it is not a form of chaos gnosticism even though those guys have appropriated some of the ideas
>When we control ourselves, what force is this?imo man is a unity of forces across the duration of his life. the integral nature of this unity is what then manifests as "will" but it is not a self-standing reality that can be wholly abstracted from forces. i personally avoid talking about will at all as it puts too much emphasis on unmediated control when it is more about an immanent shift in the distribution of energetic tendencies
>If we pertain to the boundary of races, how can we tell the limits of racial difference?racial difference is also not a firm and fixed thing either. it is a congealment of particular forces and the accumulation of past members having been sedimented into the bedrock of racial consciousness. the interconnectedness of all peoples is part of why the o9a developed an increasingly anti-racist doctrine over time. the problem with racism is that it is hubriatic and does not proceed from the numinous oneness of integral reality
>The collective unconscious is unconscious, and so is unconditional; it cannot be liberated from itself. you can bring what is only implicit in the collective unconscious into the light of actuality. that is what marx as advocating to be done with christianity
>If thoughts are not themselves symbolisedsymbols in the myattian sense dont just symbolize. they are forces. thoughts can be understood as a congealment of vital symbols into an abstract form that is treated as separate from everything else. pure thinking is a congealing impulse
>>2890247>it is not supposed to be rareAccording to whom? If we view nature as a harmony (e.g. a scaled order of contraries), then the high and low do not simply necessitate each other, but complement each other. This is the classical theory of caste, which is in Plato's Republic (370 BCE) and Manusmriti (300 CE). Aristotle claims that the caste system is derived from Ancient Egyptians (Politics, Book 7), first discovering mathematics (Metaphysics, Book 1). Discord (Eris) is the equality of all tones, which brings disharmony. They referred to this as "Chaos", as we read in Ovid (8 CE):
<Before there was earth or sea or the sky that covers everything, Nature appeared the same throughout the whole world: what we call chaos: a raw confused mass, nothing but inert matter, badly combined discordant atoms of things, confused in the one place. https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Metamorph.phpHere, Order is the principle of separation into properties:
<This conflict was ended by a god and a greater order of nature, since he split off the earth from the sky, and the sea from the land, and divided the transparent heavens from the dense air. When he had disentangled the elements, and freed them from the obscure mass, he fixed them in separate spaces in harmonious peace. https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Metamorph.phpSo, according to the order of creation, the highest pitch of things (e.g. gold) is rarest. Gold is valued more than iron, and for its own sake, becomes a symbol of virtue. We thus say that excellence is rare amongst men, since if it were common, we would find no great value in it.
>The massesThe multitude must be interrogated. As an indistinct "mass", it appears as a pure quantity, without qualities, and so fails to encapsulate anything. I don't write this to be tedious or pedantic, but to present some problems. If we take the phrase "national wealth", it is a true statistic of an aggregate sort, but in its generality, conceals the particular wealth of some, over others. Engels (1843):
<The term national wealth has only arisen as a result of the liberal economists’ passion for generalisation. As long as private property exists, this term has no meaning. The “national wealth” of the English is very great and yet they are the poorest people under the sun. One must either discard this term completely, or accept such premises as give it meaning.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htmEqually, we may read Rothbard on "Society" (1979):
<“Society” is sometimes treated as a superior or quasi-divine figure with overriding “rights” of its own; at other times as an existing evil which can be blamed for all the ills of the world. The individualist holds that only individuals exist, think, feel, choose, and act; and that “society” is not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individuals. Treating society as a thing that chooses and acts, then, serves to obscure the real forces at work.https://mises.org/online-book/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto/chapter-2-property-and-exchange/society-and-individualSo, there are problems with considering a nebulous "mass", and it only makes sense to divide the mass into groups. I may be part of a group, but are all groups part of a larger whole? We can speak of "humanity", but do all men share a substantial essence? Practicality, I will invoke the idea of "kin", based in Plato's idea of "philia". Philia, as love, is given to different objects; family, lovers and friends. We love all these, but the love is not equal. To me, kin is composed of those we love, but it is not also limited to men, for we often love animals - this is also my criticism of racism; difference doesn't exclude kinship, since men are more alike than animals, and so by the same means, identity isn't kinship, either. It was Cain who was the first murderer, against his brother. My point then, is that with kin, there is the voluntary and not. Family is not chosen, and so we have obligations to it. Lovers are chosen, but by passion. Friendship is chosen, and this is the perfect (e.g. Platonic) relationship, since lovers and family can betray us, but still be our lover or family, whilst a "real friend" cannot betray, and so friends are by definition loyal, honourable and sharing. Aristotle saw that the perfect society is one based in friendship. The point of this digression is to show that in kinship, we substitute the term "society" for actual relationships, which stretch beyond any shallow individualism, since family (e.g. race) is involuntary, yet dutiful, and without dissolution of personal identity, either. I feel that the use of the term "masses" is not merely indeterminate, but false. It is an oligarchic term feigning democracy. Class is a better relationship we can define - but we relate to others by kinship, through family, friends and lovers. As you say, my identity is bound to these, and I do agree.
>CompassionYou could say that the way of the bodhisattva is the way of Caesar; a Patrician caring for the Plebeians, which is noble, and used to define the socialist ethic. Ultimately however, we must still recognise that so long as people need help, they will remain in suffering and dependence, which is why the state can only "whither away" once a population is sufficiently self-governing/trustworthy.
>it is not a form of chaos gnosticism Not quite, but it is still mystical. As I say, one is able to peer into the Abyss and return as a servant of dharma.
>manifests as "will" but it is not a self-standing realityWill is not a "force", it is the regulation of forces.
>the interconnectedness of all peoplesAs I have written, I don't believe this. Humanity iitself is not kin. J.D. Vance made sensible comments on this point, but critics were right that the logic of kinship by Philia is contrary to Christian Agape, which in its concrete manifestation, is the Eros of rape, not voluntary love.
>symbols in the myattian sense dont just symbolize. they are forces. thoughts can be understood as a congealment of vital symbols into an abstract form that is treated as separate from everything else. pure thinking is a congealing impulseCan you elaborate on this? Or link some literature? Thanks.
>>2890293>According to whom?the numinous is the ontological truth of all of reality. there is no one group that owns it. opening oneself up to the numinous does not make you better than anyone else as it is not "your" power that is even being manifested in the first place. spiritual hierarchies of transmission are more of an expedience, but really the point is to cultivate virtue in all and participate positively in the evolution of wider Nature
>If we take the phrase "national wealth", it is a true statistic of an aggregate sort, but in its generality conceals the particular wealth of some, over others.that does not mean there is no inherent brotherhood in man. what characterizes man's material existence is an engagement in an interconnected division of labour. the attempts to simply represent things as statistical aggregates is problematic as it conceals an underlying alienation from this collective reality
>You could say that the way of the bodhisattva is the way of Caesarthis is a self-serving way of looking at things
>which is why the state can only "whither away" once a population is sufficiently self-governing/trustworthyso to simply accept hierarchy as inevitable is unacceptable
>Can you elaborate on this? Or link some literature? Thanks.see:
>>2885621 >>2890675>the numinous is the ontological truth of all of reality. there is no one group that owns it. As Myatt understands it, all life is manifested from the acausal, but living systems such as civilisations also possess certain quantities of acausal energy at a time, and excellence is received by nexions of concentrated energy, who become productive of culture, in particular. We see this correlate to Plato on the Muse; that poetry as an art is delivered from divinity. This is attested to by Hesiod at the beginning of his Theogeny (700 BCE), that he comes to know about the nature of the gods by the Muse. We see the notion of invocation in the Oracle of Delphi, where a living vessel was possessed by Apollo. This idea of genius and inspiration is continued into the work of Augustine, that the Bible was never an empirical account of journalists (such as it is claimed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch), but that it was given by God's own authorship, through various vessels. We see in the later work of Dee and Kelley (1580s) that they pretend to esoteric knowledge by invocation. Theosophists like Blavatsky and Steiner appeal to special revelation, by spirits called "ascended masters". Crowley too records his Aeon of Horus (1904) by an invocation of Aiwass. Aquino in "The Book of Coming Forth by Night" (1975) also uses invocation to declare the Age of Set (1966-). So then, the indwelling of energy in the production of culture is universally understood - and we say of those who are best that they are "geniuses". To say that "no one owns [creativity]" is correct in the formal sense, but genius, like the ancient heroes (read: demi-gods) are the blessed, and blessings are real, according to Fortuna, or the cosmic wheel (e.g. Fatum, Wyrd, Aeon, etc). We read in the Iliad that the Fates are even above the gods, the same way Wotan's power could not prevent Ragnarok. So, while all life has a share of acausal energy, it is time which decides how much is dispersed to what and who - the same way Hegel understands historical progress. Unfortunately, in Myatt's text on Acausal Science (2014), he reports that the original manuscript was lost, and so while we have theory, we have lost practice, such as his ideas of creating living machines, rather than the dead.
>the point is to cultivate virtue in allAbsolutely, but I would say that because life assorts its different qualities to different things, virtue is relative. Upon this point, I would recommend Oswald Spengler's short essay, "Man and Technics" (1931). The wolf can't lie with the lamb, unless it is weakened to equality. This is also Nietzsche's point, that power is virtuous - and politically, one can only be disempowered by an even greater power, so it's paradoxical, like what Mao says about using the gun to displace the gun. Equality is most often the most unequal, totalitarian ambition, since it takes violence to deny reality. We are unequal, but as I repeat, kinship is not excluse to one's identity.
>that does not mean there is no inherent brotherhood in manAre you a Christian? This is sentimental rubbish. We see in the perversity of Christianity an application of Eros over Philia where Christ declares himself to be a groom, and believers as his bride. He also declares believers to be his family. "All is One in Christ" is the Dionysian orgy as plagiarised from Euripides' Bacchae, translated into the Gospel of John. Christianity is incest, like how the impregnation of Mary is rape. I find this idea of universal love distasteful - but we see the same pathology in the early gnostics. I am in favour of all potential friendship, but we are not one big family, or one group of lovers. It is the repression of sexuality which leads to perversion, and we read of Paul's own desire for libidinal castration.
>this is a self-serving way of looking at things Philanthropy is most often a self-serving activity. This is why Lao Tzu tells us that the master rules without credit for his work, or how Jesus tells us not to let the right hand know what the left hand does. What is done as an end in itself is done without the expectation of reward.
>hierarchy as inevitable is unacceptableAgain, according to whom? Do not seek to deny reality.
>>2891018>The wolf can't lie with the lamb, unless it is weakened to equalitya wolf is but a single organism within a greater ecosystem. it can only be strong in proportion to the overall development of its environment's capacity to accumulate energy. a wolf could never evolve into being if there were only mice around. moreover, when a wolf dies, its energy dissipates into the greater ecology, thereby nourishing cosmic evolution. all organisms consume the flesh of the world and then empty themselves into it. in this process all of life is in communion
>Christian Agape, which in its concrete manifestation, is the Eros of rape<It is of fundamental importance - to evolution both individual and otherwise - that what is Dark, Sinister or Satanic is made real in a practical way, over and over again. That is, that what is dangerous, awesome, numinous, tragic, deadly, terrible, terrifying and beyond the power of ordinary mortals, laws or governments to control is made manifest. In effect, non-Initiates (and even Initiates) need constantly reminding that such things still exist; they need constantly to be brought "face-to-face", and touched, with what is, or appears to be, inexplicable, uncontrollable, powerful and "evil". They need reminding of their own mortality - of the unforeseen, inexplicable "powers of Fate", of the powerful force of "Nature".<If this means killing, wars, suffering, sacrifice, terror, disease. tragedy and disruption, then such things must be - for it is one of the duties of a Satanic Initiate to so presence the dark, and prepare the way for, or initiate, the change and evolution which always result from such things. Such things as these must be, and always will be, because the majority of people are or will remain, inert and sub-human unless changed. The majority is - and always will be until it evolves to become something else - raw material to be used, moulded, cut-away and shaped to create what must be. There is no such thing as an innocent person because everyone who exists is part of the whole, the change, the evolution, the presencing of life itself, which is beyond them, and their life only has meaning through the change, development and evolution of life. [ea] Their importance is what they can become, or what can be achieved through their death, their tragedy, their living - their importance does not lie in their individual happiness or their individual desires or whatever. [ea] - Nythra, Long>Philanthropy is most often a self-serving activityyou have it completely backwards. the acausal, being the fundamental unity of all beings, can not be simply a mere quantitative charge. all men are only great in relation to the absolute. when hegel saw napoleon,
he did not see an individual but world spirit. even authority is not simply that of the individual, but the cosmos itself
https://sevenoxonians.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/hebdom_second.pdf<1. That vigour - enthusiasm - which grows and which fades.<2. Those dishonourable machinations.<3. That eagerness which deceives.<4. The arrogance of authority over others.<5. Profane insolence and reckless haste.<6. The bad inclinations occasioned by a comfortable life-style.<7. The lies that lie in wait. >>2891018something else to notice: when you call a person a "genius", you in the very process strip them of their individual particularity. this is precisely because 'genius' is a reference to a cosmic force. when i am manically writing something or developing hidweh project, my individual concerns and existence becomes completely meaningless. i become my self-emptying into the world and ego thereby becomes a nuisance. art declines when it becomes self-serving. you only need look at modernity to see this all too clearly. too much art now tries to simply be clever or to try and express someone's "individuality", and so it is thereby destined to be forgotten. "greatness" comes from Truth, and Truth is universal. the accumulation of charge in one individual more than another is thereby an unremarkable fact within the grand scheme of cosmic unfolding. a major problem with magian occultism is it often turns into an attachment to rising the individual above the masses as a form of petty self-glorification that devolves into the contemplative spirituality of the beautiful soul. they dont understand that a man is greatest when he is dead, and is absolutely worthless while he is alive. it is precisely because christ self-emptied himself, offered his flesh, and died on the cross that he became the greatest man of all time, the very enfleshment of adam kadmon. if all he had was a private "spiritual development" he would be absolutely nothing, worse than nothing, contemptible, worthless.
the outer is an expression of the inner and to come out of oneself is to die.
>>2891638>The interdependence of lifeYes, I agree, like Mustafa telling Simba about the circle of life. Even within life however, there is disequilibrium, such as Bataille describes in The Accursed Share; that complex life-forms must extend beyond themselves to achieve "luxury", including death itself. This is Nietzsche; that Beauty is a scarce resource because it belongs to predation; to Blonde Beasts (e.g. Adamic/Hyperborean man). Indeed, we see that the paleolithic are stronger, taller and more beautiful than the neolithic, because of nutrition, but also because of leisure. Leisure is the privilege of the predator, which then grows within itself rather than merely stretching itself. We see in predators the wealth of quality over quantity, the same as the male over the female. Nature favours strength, masculinity and intelligence (since predators are smarter than prey). With these attributes, predators are also more emotive, and so engage in pathos. Homo sapiens are destructive beasts but also gentle spirits, and this exremity requires the possibility of both, which means natural excesses. The wolf then, is a greater thing than the lamb, because it can only be peaceful by regulating itself (e.g. by Will), whilst prey confuse their weakness for innocence. This is then the point of the master; the best master wields the most power, so as to return it to his subjects. This is what Plato writes in Statesman - but he adds that the perfect form of government (e.g. the rule of God, or a theocracy) is impossible on earth - I see an "enlightened despotism" as the best type of government, but also see that no man is perfect, and so I prefer the rule of law, as a liberal. This relates to Lao Tzu's descent of the order of the cosmos, to law and ritual. Morality degenerates from Righteousness, but morality is better than nothing:
<When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.htmlThus, the best thing is anarchy, then theocracy, and then democracy. Each descend as the Tao loses influence. I would state then that law appears by the loss of order. As Proudhon thus writes, anarchy is the natural order.
>the acausal, being the fundamental unity of all beings, can not be simply a mere quantitative charge. all men are only great in relation to the absolute.But greatness still exists, you concur? I am only writing what Myatt has said; he has a Carlylean view of History, which is then motivated by Great Men, or those who are individuated, and so are able to influence the Aeons.
>authority is not simply that of the individual, but the cosmos itselfRight, but we must ask, why are some individuals better vessels than others? The coincidence of their blessing is a relevant factor of the nature of greatness. Some people will never be great, so acausality is selective. Why did God choose Abraham? Some beings are special.
>>2891653>when you call a person a "genius", you in the very process strip them of their individual particularityNot at all; I only invite inquiry as to why some people are blessed while others are not. We could infer a power of Will (e.g. the performance of physical ordeals), but as we see with Hector and Achilles, blessings are unfair; Achilles did not work to gain power, but was born with it. As Achilles thus says, "there are no pacts between lions and men". Why are some chosen by God? You tell me.
>art declines when it becomes self-serving.We could otherwise say that art declines by blasphemy. Thus, Jesus says to never thank men, but only God.
>Truth is universalTruth is also particular; we cannot know what an insect might know.
>rising the individual above the massesMyatt calls this "individuation" and sees it as the cause of History. Read "Cliology" (1980) from Hostia Vol. 1.
>the outer is an expression of the inner and to come out of oneself is to die.No, death is the enclosure of oneself from reality, while the indwelling of Spirit is being brought into life. You are describing an "ego death", but the personality is spiritual. You appear to be denying man's inner self, which is a mistake. We are also a real being, do not forget.
>>2891846
>When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos.Being someone whose sympathies lie with Mohism & Legalism as far as ancient chinese philosophy goes, Taoist philosophy has always repulsed me, and its not always clear why.
Thankfully such a quote provides at least a partial answer: Tao, goodness, morality ritual, etc. but not even a mention of Law, in the legal sense.
It further illustrates the point that I often make that the greatest enemy is not one who rejects ones views, but rather one whose framework is so divergent they do not even use the same categories to express their views (in fact, such categories may not even exist in their conceptual framework/worldview at all).
>>2892229*Correction: The text linked mentions law in two instances.
"If powerful men and women
could remain centered in the Tao,
all things would be in harmony.
The world would become a paradise.
All people would be at peace,
and the law would be written in their hearts."
Basically an almost individualist appeal to moral behaviour, not recognizing social relations / relations of production at all as a factor (nevermind government).
"Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass."
A philosophy of self-negation & self defeat. No wonder it never could truly come to govern society for any significant period pf time, even imperfectly or hypocritically (As Confucianism did in spirit and legalism in administrative practice).
—
"The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be."
Also explains why first encounter with repulsive philosophy was amongst market liberals & libertarians.
Thank you very much Anon for sharing this. It has forced me to confront & clarify what was previously a vague hostility towards Taoism based on very little.
>>2892240> If powerful men and womencould remain centered in the Tao,
all things would be in harmony.
Isn’t the implication that being powerful inherently pulls you away from the Tao or is that my western cynical perspective distorting the text?
Nietzsche was a gay retard
A thread about volkish left has turn into a thread where esoterist schizzo magicians wannabes spill out their bullshit. Wouldnt it be nice if we still lived in a phantasy ancien-regime universe full of fairies and shit? well that's over, not over now, even before you were born it was already over, nad it will still be over forever, there is no going back. Well unless a nuclear war sends us back to the neolithic. Grow up suckers.
>>2892265What proof is there that he was gay
>>2892306>asking aiI guess we know who the real gay retard here is
>>2892296He was an upper class bourgeois man in the 19th century who hated "the herd", the masses, and the "slave morality" of christianity, not because it was backwards or anything, but because it held back "aristocratic souls".
It's pretty easy to see what his hangup was. Imagine a queer artsy teen in the US deep south and you get the gist of his philosophy
>>2891846>Why are some chosen by God? You tell me.again you have it backwards. they are who they are
because they were chosen by god. beyond that they are nothing
>We could otherwise say that art declines by blasphemyyes, individualism is blasphemy
>Myatt calls this "individuation" and sees it as the cause of Historydo you think i dont believe in personal cultivation? i just dont see the egotism as at all a necessity. the point is always the evolution of cosmos and folk. in the "galactic aeon", knowledge of the acausal and numinous would become commonplace and it will be a basic facet of our technology. your average technician would be expected to have a better grasp of the workings of the acausal than the vast majority of "great men" in human history (just like the average mathematician today is expected to display far greater abstract reasoning capacity than archimedes ever did). becoming a "creative individual" in such an era would be far more common place than it is now. the talk about blonde beasts and wolves or whatever is a masculous fixation that simply does nothing for me too. the o9a is an occult tradition that sets itself apart by emphasizing empathy more than simply force of will. that is the basic language which i speak
>No, death is the enclosure of oneself from realitywhen the individual dies their biological material is dispersed into the causal and their "spirit" disperses into the acausal. there is no enclosure there, and in truth there never actually was. practicing the occult you might come to realize that the spirit is far more porous and malleable than it might initially seem. those with the greatest psychic abilities often have the most porous psychic membranes
>>2892240westerners have a tendency to project a liberal political economy unto taoist thought, but of course if the point was really resignation, there would be no point in engaging in internal cultivation, which i can assure you is very different from a flippant "going with the flow". the true wu wei presupposes proper attunement and internal organization, out from which virtue naturally flows. the cosmos itself has its own development that is far greater than any individual; communism is the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. you become attuned to the rhythm of the cosmos, and let everything flow from there. the ccp's view of how to treat global politics and economics is rather taoist in nature. they do not have any idealism in the way western marxists do (this is something they had shaken off after the excesses of the cultural revolution), rather they continue the development of the productive forces in response to the changing world stage. meanwhile, in the west you still have orthodox marxists and value form theorists pointing to capital in a world largely ruled by rent-seeking and and fictitious capital. they do not adapt, they are not aligned with the way
i've never seen so many words used to essentially say nothing before this thread
>>2892527>they are who they are because they were chosen by god.Calvinist soteriology is necessary here. The Elect are chosen by God, but each is still responsible for the call. And this still doesn't explain the mystery of Grace. Why are some chosen but others aren't? Is there an answer? We see that Zeus gave ganymede apotheosis on account of his beauty. Ovid writes that Caesar became a god on account of his honour. Hesiod writes that the virtuous dwell in the Isles of the Blessed.
>Masculous fixationThe masculous and muliebral complement each other, and both must be affirmed in their extremity. Freedom is only possible by strength.
>>2892240>self-defeatThere are treasures on earth and in heaven. The man who holds to possessions on earth lives in fear of dispossession, and this avarice is his internal poverty.
>>2892229>LawWe find in the mythic etiology of law, a distinction made by Hesiod between Law and Order. Ovid also writes that Law only appears after the Golden Age, as vengeance - yet we presume that Order is intrinsic to creation. After Chaos comes Order, and Law is final, being a child of Zeus and Truth, where Law is born alongside Justice, as it is written in the Theogeny (700 BCE). What is Justice? Justice is represented by scales, which then compare weights, and so is a matter of quantity. Aristotle writes that Justice is the equality of reciprocity (Nicomachean Ethics, Book 5, Chapter 5), such that what is given must be taken in return according to an equal measure. So, Justice, we might say, is fairness. What is unfair is that which is undeserved, and so Justice is what we deserve.
Law is evidently negative rather than affirmative, since it concerns prohibition; the violation of which is crime. A law, if it is to be just, must then account for what is taken and what is to be returned. We may thus describe crime as debt, and criminals as debtors. Crimes are all relative to the act, thus. Ur-Nammu Code (2100 BCE):
<If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver […] If a man has cut off another man’s foot, he is to pay ten shekels […] If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver.https://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Sumer/ur_nammu_law.htmHere, crimes incur proportionate costs, which we may term "compensation" (e.g. 'an eye for an eye'). The act itself is not the only condition, but also the actors. We may read this in The Code of Hammurabi (1800 BCE):
<If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman, he shall pay one mana of silver […] If one destroy the eye of a man’s slave or break a bone of a man’s slave he shall pay one-half his price.https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hammurabi-the-code-of-hammurabi#lf0762_label_422Here, we see that a slave is treated as having a lesser worth than a freeman, and so crimes against him have lesser terms of compensation. We see this extend to all cultures, such as the Anglo-Saxon Laws of Æthalstan' (600 CE), which detail different rates of compensation according to classes, for the same offence. These conditions were also applied in the case of John Punch (1640 CE), who as a fellow accomplace with other indentured servants, was legally distinguished by his race, and so suffered at a greater cost than whites for the same crime. So, Law is also a class concept, which orders recompense according to rank and authority.
Law is set by the state. We read in Aristotle how Draco's laws induced debt slavery in Athens for the sake of the ruling class. Only with Solon were these laws repealed, and so one class is set against another (e.g. the Demos over the Arites), and so law is relative to this concern. In Cicero's description of Rome's class warfare, he writes that the "Twelve Tables" (450 BCE) were established as a compromise of the Patricians against the Plebeians, which encoded in them the statutes of common law, or what we might call "custom". Plato in Statesman sees that all custom is a remembrance of ancient law codes, perhaps in the same way that Geoffrey of Monmouth (1136 CE) writes that British common law, the so-called Molmutine Laws, were established by the decree of a legendary British king, and held ever since. The practice of common law was transposed into the revolutionary document of the Magna Carta (1215), which stressed the "ancient liberties" of England; a theme carried into the English Civil War (1642-51) by subsequent appeals. We see then that the common people have a common law, which differs from the law of a ruling class, and all antagonism is a battle for the restoration of this state - we can read in Antigone, the struggle between the oikos and polis for the sake of burial rites and custom. We equally see a revolutionary appeal in the Book of Exodus. Moses asks Pharaoh to allow the Hebrews to perform their customary rites, after which there is the struggle for independence, and the Tabernacle is made. Gerrard Winstanley (1653) bemoans the loss of custom, by the enclosure of the commons, the same way Marx in 1842 writes about the loss of customary rights to wood in Germany; this is a class war of capital versus labour - Plato (547b) describes this conflict as that between the "old order" and the "acquisition of [property]". So, there are different laws for different people, and political struggle appeals to these particular interests, which require independent conditions to function properly.
Upon the acquisition of property, Cicero writes that the ends of government, by law, is the protection of private property, the same as what is understood by Locke. Yet as Cicero continues, following Aristotle, property is held as a means to the end of the public good, and so has a condition of its preservation; the rights of property are thus measured by the General Will - Rousseau concurs. Disturbance in the General Will is thus an unrightful act or claim by stipulation in the law. Here, the law is again internally divided, between its Spirit and its Letter (e.g. The Book of Romans, New Testament). We see Christ declare his promise to fulfill the law, but in doing so, he is declared unlawful, since in delivering the Spirit, there is transgression against the Letter (e.g. The parable of the lost sheep). Paul writes that the Letter kills but the Spirit brings life. What is evident then, is that the law is subject to interpretation, and becomes more tyrannical as it expands; thus, Christ encapsulates the entire law in two commandments; to love others as oneself, and to love God. Paul says that the law is written on our hearts. There is a contradiction between quality and quantity, as discussed by Roman commentators. Tacitus (120 CE):
<And now bills began to pass, not only of national but of purely individual application, and when the state was most corrupt, laws were most abundant.https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/3B*.htmlThus, more law means more disorder, and so the law as an instrument of justice cannot increase its imperatives by adding to itself, since in doing so, it assumes a place of morality, and this is tyrannical. Aquinas (1274) thus declares that laws must abide by man's imperfections (and so the enforcement of morality is itself immoral), or as Lysander Spooner wrote, "Vices are not Crimes". So then, the quantity of laws are inversely proportional to their quality, since the Letter dilutes the Spirit. Further and finally, morality is lawful (e.g. Kant), but the law is not morality; by infusing the Letter and Spirit, you thus lose each. Man can only be good if he has the freedom to be evil, as per the perspective of Schiller, whilst the law does not permit transgression, and so cannot allow for contemplation, but only punishment. The General Will is thus the Spirit of laws, which institutes the Letter, but if the Letter gains independence, it erodes the Spirit. Thus, the Nuremberg Defense is objectionable, since it transgresses the Spirit by the Letter. All class traitors, such as soldiers and police officers, possess this ethic, whilst all ethical persons abide by lawful permission. Jesus spares the adulteress from a death sentence, and afterwards, she is able to repent. So, Lawful ≠ Legal.
As opposed to law, morality also affords positivity, by the imperative to act, rather than to not-act. Law signifies obligations to society, whilst morality concerns duties to onself. I like to say that morality is defined by (i) what we would do, even if there were consequences, and (ii) what we would not do, even if there were no consequences. Morality is then deontological in its very orientation, by definition, whilst the law is relative and conditional. Ritual, as Lao Tzu has it, is the Letter of the law betraying the Spirit, by making ceremony absolute, and morality subordinate. Jesus tells us not to pray in public, but in private. Works without faith are dead. This is what Lao Tzu thus means; the Letter is not the Spirit. What is most original of all however, is natural harmony. It is only that the "knowledge of good and evil" comes to be by the presence of evil, or disharmony in nature. The nature of disharmony is what the ancients called Chaos:
<Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html The left has always been a Jewish ethnic project. Bakunin was right about Marx
>>2892527>>2892622To expand on blessings and curses, we see that Fate is the minister of these things, since as it was told by Gaia to Zeus, the line of godly succession requires the usurping of the father by the son (such as with Cronus and Uranus). This is why Athena is born from the head of Zeus, since he swallows her mother in an attempt to prevent a child being born. Nonetheless, in the Greek tragedy, Prometheus Bound (420 BCE) we see prophecy given by Prometheus that Zeus will be overthrown by a son. Heracles as a son of Zeus is said by Steiner to free Prometheus from his bondage, for the new age (1904):
<Only those who are initiated as human beings of the fifth epoch can bring release to fettered mankind. Heracles, who was a human initiate of this kind, had himself to press through to the Caucasus in order to free Prometheus. […] Mortal man has to learn to stand on his own feet during the fifth Great Epoch. He is represented by Prometheus. Man was the inaugurator of the arts and, above all, of the primal art of the use of fire. Zeus is jealous of him because he is predestined to produce his own initiates, who will take over the leadership in the sixth epoch. […] Prometheus is the archetypal initiate of the fifth epoch, who has undergone initiation, not only in knowledge, but also in deed. He it was who underwent the whole of suffering and will be released from his bondage by him who is becoming mature enough to set free the whole of humanity in gradual stages and to raise it up out of the mineral realm.https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA093/English/RSP1985/19041007p02.htmlSo then, Zeus cannot avert the prophecy, but only delay its inevitability. Fate is above the gods, since Ragnarok, as Twilight of the gods, cannot be averted. Heracles as the initiated man, who thus liberates others and creates a new order is the same as what Myatt writes about. Understanding Aeonics is understanding fatality.
Of blessings and curses, we see that a Covenant is made by God to Abraham, and the prophecy of his seed conquering the earth is foretold. We see then that what is blessed is the ends of the Aeon, as told by Paul, that the true Israel, and child of the Promise are Christians. They are Jacob, not Esau. So then, blessings account for temporal causation, the same as curses. We see in Oedipus Rex how in attempting to prevent a curse, it is manifested, and so the curse is retroactive. Fated things are bound by the Chain of Necessity (Republic, Book X), and so inscribe the nature of causation. Another term for causation is "karma", or "action". Karma attributes all phenomena as causal, such that blessings and curses are a result of one's own actions. Thus, a man reaps what he sews - and so greatness is a momentum. The final day of Judgement separates the wicked from the good, and the wicked are destroyed in the Lake of Fire. Contrarily, it is written that the good will suffer on earth for the sake of faith, inverting present goods for what is granted later on. Only in the end is Justice delivered, like the "natural price" of long-term equilibrium. The first shall be last, it is written, and so blessings are given as a curse; of license to sin, whilst like Buddha, one must forfeit the palace of luxury. Thus, Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell all of his possessions, and this is the threshold of faith. Indeed, earthly and heavenly goods are counterposed, and so should it be that the blessed are in essence cursed? So then, things only make sense in the end, where Fate has completed its Perfect Year:
<Thus was time made in the image of the eternal nature […] a cycle or perfect year at the completion of which they all meet and coincide…To this end the stars came into being, that the created heaven might imitate the eternal nature.https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1572/1572-h/1572-h.htmNothing new is under the sun:
<All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages.https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56966/speech-all-the-worlds-a-stageThe New Heaven and New Earth will again progress by the Aeons.
>>2892666>Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are everywhere: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of bloodsuckers, a single gluttonous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild. Unique IPs: 55