29 June 2008

Æsthetic Nihilism

One sees a work of art and is moved by a cathartic sense of æsthetic truth. Yet presently a profane realization reemerges: art, a mere phenomenalistic beau geste; its “truthfulness” naught but a refinement of deception. Æsthetics itself a simulacrum as it necessitates the abstraction of the totality of noumenal reality (primal Oneness) for the sake of gradation. Art is thus a reflection of a shadow.

For a particular type of man the aforementioned experience instinctually precludes the æsthetic mood. He cannot help but criticize art eschatologically, or to put it elsewise: his axiology, by virtue of recognition of its own obsolescence, seeks self-annihilation. He is the begrudging manifestation of Nietzsche’s “transvaluation of all values” and an avatar of active æsthetic nihilism.

However, through the denial of alienation (abstraction, duality) in pursuit of primal Oneness, such as this man of inherent nihilism, type homines eschatos, is destined, one suffers, because the subjectivization of sense-data is perennial in man—thus he is bound, and in denying duality he denies half his own nature. Therefore, regarding beauty and the metaphysically purifying effects of art, which to others is a placebo, is to this type a nocebo. Are you this type, my brothers?

When viewing a great painting one thinks: “But is not the subject itself superior?” and upon hearing a great composition one wonder: “Is this not an attenuation of the naked breath of the world?” Thus one telltales Schopenhauer’s “genius” who can view nature æsthetically as he, to term Evola, is more fully “unified,” meaning he is closer to “being,” the superior state, than “becoming,” the inferior state. This genetically transmitted resistance to duality makes eschatological man naturally ascetic in that his instincts make reification nauseating.

So what to do, ye nauseated ones? Indeed such a faculty as has hitherto been discussed—that of the man suffering half his nature—must be overcome in order that he not just tolerate art and life, as verily he sees life itself æsthetically, but ultimately leap over and above himself such that he dose not revile his fate but loves it and rides it to ever greater overcomings unto his unification with primal Oneness. This amor fati thus becomes an axiological phoínix, burning old reified values to ashes from which a new transvaluing being can be born.

Eschatological man vis-à-vis the establishment of art: schadenfro! Revel in the demise of reification; recognize æsthetic abstraction as a cultural plaything; create art which threatens and mocks contemporaries whilst didactically kindling the impression of artistic obsolescence within dispossessed kin; and foremost should be the utilization of ones inherent qualities, a fortiori, towards the accruement of power—and find the artistry in that!


17 June 2008

The Egalitarian Myth

Egalitarians like to believe that all people are interchangeable. Considering the state of the world and its diversity, this seems to me an obvious fallacy.

Multiculturalism—the strong-arm of egalitarianism—never seems to result in anything good. Some argue it enriches a culture to be saturated in outsiders, ala the American “melting pot.” This makes diversity more readily available, they say. But what isn’t recognized is that it’s an attenuation of all cultures involved, as they must conform to a tolerable status quo to avoid conflicts in tradition. The resultant effect of this degradation is the cultureless consumer societies we see in modern techno-industrialized nations.

Biologically, we’ve developed in different environments, under different conditions, with different stresses. Concordantly, different groups have different ways of living that are right for them. Globalism completely eschews this reality and forces one form of governance, that of liberal democratic industrial consumerism, on all people. Resistant groups had better hope the land they inhabit doesn’t have any valuable resources.

To go even further: egalitarianism is cruel. It takes diverse groups of people, mixes them up, and then blames them for their natural cleavages. What? People have lived in Australia (Aborigines) since around 74,000 BCE and were doing just fine until civilization, a completely foreign and unnecessary organizational system, was brought to them. Suddenly there are problems with them and the colonizing Anglos. No! Really?

The integrality of social cohesion differs from the Rhineland to the south of Brazil, for obvious as well as subtle reasons. Civilization is required in some (few) places; in other (most) places it is not. Egalitarianism seeks to abolish the unique qualities that make a people who they are; it would do away with the most fundamental component of identity, ethno-culture (race), and leave us isolated, hollow and stuffed.

Egalitarianism is taken for granted because the converse is taboo in modern society. This taboo is on track to be the most dangerous of social practices, and practices zealously pursued pass into habits—abeunt studia in mores. This habitual way of life, the arbitrary adherence to deadly taboo, the obliteration of hundreds of thousands of years of human differentiation and development, the systematic consumption of the natural world for profit, the gaping mouth of Fenrir which blackens the sky and souls of men—this is the fish-eyed stare. Refuse, resist and revolt.