Counter-Currents
3,080 words
“Never let a good crisis go to waste” — Winston S. Churchill (supposedly)
“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” — Rahm Emanuel, 2008
“Never waste a good crisis . . . Don’t waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security.” — Hillary Clinton, 2009
After my recent discussion of “manspreading,”[1] in which I deplored the knee-jerk of the man-o-sphere (“Womens be talkin’ too much!”) and contrasted the true politeness, the noblesse oblige of the Aryan Male, I have been led to some more abstract and more generally applicable reflections.
Now, the whole point of politeness is to spare the feelings of the other person. I recall, for example, hearing this tale many years ago:
According to the account, Queen Victoria was once at a diplomatic reception in London. The guest of honor was an African chieftain. All went well during the meal until, at the end, finger bowls were served. The guest of honor had never seen a British finger bowl, and no one had thought to brief him beforehand about its purpose.[2] So he took the bowl in his two hands, lifted it to his mouth, and drank its contents down!
For an instant there was breathless silence among the British privilege guests, and then they began to whisper to one another. All that stopped; however, when Queen Victoria silently took her finger bowl in her two hands, lifted it, and drank its contents! A moment later, 500 surprised British ladies and gentlemen simultaneously drank the contents of their own finger bowls.
It was the queen’s uncommon courtesy that guarded her guest from certain embarrassment. This is a very rare but very effective human trait which only true leaders can demonstrate![3]
Although entitled “A True Story,” this appears to be an urban myth; the role of the African chieftain has also been taken by South African Paul Kruger on his first visit to England in 1877, while more recently Nelson Mandela has been inserted, with Victoria, of course, updated to Elizabeth.[4] All of which only underscores its archetypal wisdom: this is how people with class act.[5]
Now, when it comes to those who do not seem to immediately or obviously fit into our social norms,[6] what has traditionally been expected in polite societies — as supposed to the stereotypical “You ain’t from around here, ain’t yah, boy?” situations[7] — is some level of, ah, “accommodation.” The word is still used in such contexts — “special accommodations” for religious holidays, etc. — but it’s become something of an anachronism, if not a sick joke.
As it said on a poster popular in the ’60s,
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.
Supposedly, this is the “Gestalt Prayer” authored by that fat, hairy, disgusting slob Fritz Perls, no doubt composed while — and useful for — seducing naïve shiksas in his hot tub. But the joke on the poster was the picture, and attribution, to Adolf Hitler.
This was more appropriate than the poster designers could know. For you see, the goal is no longer, and hasn’t been for quite a while, to simply accommodate the Other — to not insist the Jew sing along with your Christmas carols — but rather to re-cut society’s cloth to fit the Other’s shape — only government approved nondenominational holiday jingles allowed.
As Greg Johnson has observed, when told that “Merry Christmas” is “insulting” to Jews,
I thought to myself, “I would not be offended if a Jew wished me a Happy Hanukkah. That would be small-minded. So why should a Jew be offended if I wished him a Merry Christmas? What makes Jews different? Why do people cater to such small-mindedness?”
I also thought to myself, “Wouldn’t a pluralistic, liberal attitude imply many different holiday greetings, rather than one bland, characterless, homogeneous one?”[8]
Indeed, it would. The demand that all denominationally distinct greetings be banned, and replaced with a single, state-approved one, is exactly the sort of thing you’d associate with . . . Adolf Hitler.[9]
Not for the first time do we find the Jew, in power, acting rather like the mythical Hollywood Nazi. Projection, much?
Again, it’s not deemed sufficient to allow women to marry each other in peace, and go to hell in their own way;[10] no, the only “fair” thing is to force Christians to perform the ceremonies and even bake them cakes against their will.
And of course these examples can be multiplied; I’m sure every reader has his own list of outrages. The general point here is, in case after case, we have situations that could be handled, one would think sufficiently, by simple, local, personal accommodation, where instead, the demand is made to entirely restructure the whole of society, for the benefit of the aggrieved party.
What’s interesting in all these cases is that the proposed remedy goes far beyond anything that might simply address the supposed problem.
We have completely reversed the wisdom of the old Hindu tale, of the king who wanted to slaughter tens of thousands of cows, to produce enough leather to cover the roads, until a sage suggested that he just give his subjects shoes.
One can’t help but think, will such a disproportion between the goal and the means, that the goal is really only an excuse. Thus, “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Jack Donovan once did a few quick calculations about those directly affected by “gay marriage” and concluded that “all of this is about what might be good for 400,000 people out of 300 million.”[11] And yet this has been the #1 issue of the entire decade. Why?
How did the simple idea of freeing homosexuals from archaic restrictions and allowing them to fully participate in society again become the demand for the redefinition of marriage, unlimited adoption, and free sexual reassignment surgery? I defy anyone to find, in public or private documents, a single closeted homosexual demanding any of that before, say, 1990; and yet these are presented as “our basic rights.”
How did the simple, eminently Western idea of hey, let’s not burn Moslems at the stake but let them go about their business in peace, become “Let’s ban all mention of pigs or alcohol lest we offend them”?[12]
When, one wonders, will “Go ahead, let them buy and sell their kosher foods among themselves” become “All supermarkets and restaurants — and homes? — must be kosher-approved lest we offend one of God’s Lambs”?
There is an agenda, but it might not be as simple as you imagine. Oh, if only it were . . .
Here’s the Vigilant Citizen reflecting on the newest outrage, the Jenner Kerfluffle.[13] He starts with the Aryan live and let live:
Before I go further (and because some people like to put words in my mouth), I need to emphasize that I do not think that all transgenders are “evil” nor that they are part of a sinister Agenda. If one feels more comfortable and happier living as the opposite sex, well that’s their business and not mine. As a staunch proponent of true freedom, I will never judge a person who took a personal decision to live a better life.
But, as he goes on:
Bruce Jenner’s sex change, however, was everything but personal. It was an orchestrated media event, blown-up to proportions so large that it has been turned into a grand ritual, a staged ceremony meant to push an agenda.
And what might that be? The Citizen is quick to take us away from the lower depths of the media — the videodrome — and rises to the heights of metaphysics:
In occult secret societies, the highest stage of illumination is achieved through the internalization of duality and the equilibrium between opposing forces — good and evil, active and passive, male and female. This concept is symbolically represented by the horned, hermaphrodite god Baphomet. It is also represented in alchemical symbolism such as the Alchemical Androgyne:
The . . . hermaphroditic figure [symbolizes] the accomplishment of the magnum opus. The active and passive principles of Nature were often depicted by male and female figures, and when these two principle, were harmoniously conjoined in any one nature or body it was customary to symbolize this state of perfect equilibrium by the composite figure above shown. (quoting Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages).
As “Cologero” elucidates at the Gornahoor site:
The fall of the True Man from the Primordial State is the result of a decentering, a change in consciousness to exteriority from interiority. Now the Primordial State is the Androgyne of the Alchemists, that is, the perfect balance of the male and female principles. From the center, he is the unmoved mover, and his actions are wei wu wei, or non-acting activity.
We, of course, have frequently made use of the Traditional doctrines of the True Man, the unmoved but all moving Chakravartin, the Tree at the Center the Garden. But what possible use are these doctrines to the man in the street? The answer is, none, or rather, only the negative effect of turbulence and confusion — the result of throwing pearls before swine; as Cologero says:
We see that the shift from the ordinary state to the Primordial State represents, spiritually, a transition from a passive, yin, or feminine state of existence to a more active, yang, or masculine state. This is the opposite of the “macho” man, obsessed with frenetic activity for its own sake and focused solely on material life. Yet, when esoteric teachings enter into the popular domain, they are completely misunderstood by those at the hylic and psychic level. When such types hear of the Androgyne, they can only envision a feminization of man, that is, a[n] exterior type of man taking on more effeminate characteristics. Thus the epicene man of today, common in the West, regards himself ipso facto as an advanced spiritual being. Unfortunately, this occludes the true spiritual nature of man and discourages many more masculine men from developing themselves in that direction.[14]
And that is the use these doctrines have for the media-powered elite: to sow confusion among the masses, while also vulgarizing and debasing spiritual symbols.
On the latter point, we can see the effect on the lumpenright and the man-o-sphere — the negro brute will continue to be the only safe ideal. They will be completely dumbfounded and given to clueless mockery as Evola extolls the Androgyne (in The Hermetic Tradition[15]), where the goal is not to emasculate the male, still less to create some crude physical amalgam of the sexes (another example of materialistic science aping metaphysical principles) but for the male to submit to the female and then, and in order to, overcome the female and reaffirm the male in turn at a higher level[16]: the so-called “alchemical resurrection” or “philosophical incest.”
In another place — the essay “Serpentine Wisdom” (i.e., Taoism) reprinted in Introduction to Magic[17] — after describing the Man of Tao who “‘acts without acting” as Cologero says, Evola already dismisses these Men of Game with some preemptive mockery of his own:
How disheartening to those who uphold the myth of manhood based on muscles and metallic strength: this [the Androgyne] alone is the TRUE man, the ABSOLUTE man. He absorbs within himself the ambiguous virtue of the female. . . .’The Way that is the Way is not the ordinary way’ indeed. . . .
But all this is not a proper activity for the masses; as Evola says when discussing Nietzsche in the first part of Ride the Tiger,[18] one must be worthy of such freedom, else one destroys oneself in futility, as the masses do with their endless pursuit of pleasures and distractions. Nor is it even the media-elite’s intention that the masses should try to become free individuals; far from it.[19]
As the Citizen says:
Of course, the concepts above are meant to be interpreted in an esoteric and spiritual context where the human soul transcends its physical shell. However, today’s elite is bent on twisting and corrupting occult concepts, using its inherent powers for sinister purposes. Therefore the concept of equilibrium has turned into a[n] unhealthy obsession on transgendered media pawns. . . .[20]
The Caitlyn Jenner story was orchestrated to bring specific concepts to the forefront, notably the complete reversal of gender roles. Although the elite’s occult teaching are about complete equilibrium, they want the masses to be completely out of balance. That’s how you keep them confused and malleable.[21]
Now, you don’t have to go all the way with the Vigilant Citizen’s idea of an “occult war” being fought against society through media indoctrination,[22] to see that something is going on here. Non-conspiratorially, it may simply be that the liberal mind has a vector to “social” causes and “social” solutions — hence, for example, the refusal to consider genetics to explain black pathology, preferring to fall back on the search for increasingly subtle and attenuated forms of racism such as “white privilege” or “structural racism.”[23] A truly degenerating research project,[24] but when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Notes
[1] “Mad Manspreading,” here and to appear in my imminently published new book, The End of an Era: Mad Men and the Ordeal of Civility (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015).
[2] “As with most formal customs of etiquette, there are considered to be right and wrong ways to present and use a finger bowl, and these can differ. The acceptability of floating lemon or of using the finger bowl to wet the mouth, for example, are disputed. Unfamiliarity with this custom has led to many common faux pas, including drinking the water, eating the flower, or failing to move the doily with the bowl when shifting it off of the dessert plate.” Wikipedia, here.
[3] From WonderfulInfo.com, here.
[4] “Legends of Mandela #2: Rugby legend revived,” by Arthur Goldstruck, 22 October 2007, here.
[5] The scene is recreated in Scarface (Brian de Palma, 1983) when Tony and Omar visit the Columbian drug lord Sosa. Tony is momentarily nonplussed but decides to eat the lemon. Omar pays no attention and uses it properly; I’m not sure if there was a point to this, but we already know Omar is a jerkass, and we are not surprised when he is soon hanging by his neck from Sosa’s helicopter.
[6] “Your uncle Billy Costigan — you named after him? — got busted selling machine guns to federal officers. Among many other departures from, ah, ‘normative behavior.’” — Sgt. Dignam, The Departed (Martin Scorsese, 2006).
[7] Such as rural Wisconsin: “It’s a geode. It’s not from around here.” Crow: Let’s beat it up! — MST3k, Episode 810 — The Giant Spider Invasion (Bill Rebane, 1975).
[8] “Merry Christmas, Infidels,” here and reprinted in Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2010).
[9] For the story of how dozens of time-honored, traditional regional were suppressed by the Party and replaced by the compulsory stiff-armed “Heil Hitler” see The Hitler Salute: On the Meaning of a Gesture by Tilman Allert (trans. by Jefferson Chase; New York: Picador, 2009).
[10] “I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way.” — Robert Frost. “Enough money for you to be able to go to Hell in your own way.” — The Rebel Set (Gene Fowler, Jr., 1959)
[11] “Gay Marriage: ‘What-The-Fuck-Ever,’” by Jack Donovan (April 9, 2013), here.
[12] “Oxford University Press has warned its writers not to mention pigs, sausages, or pork-related words in children’s books, in an apparent bid to avoid offending Jews and Muslims. The existence of the publisher’s guidelines emerged after a radio discussion on free speech in the wake of the Paris attacks.” The Telegraph, 9 June 2015, here.
[13] “The Agenda Behind Bruce Jenner’s Transformation,” by VC (June 5, 2015), here.
[14] “The True Man,” posted on 2010-09-21 by Cologero, here.
[15] Julius Evola, The Hermetic Tradition: Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 1995).
[16] As we have also frequently emphasized, the true metaphysical principle is the spiral, not the circle; the turn of the screw.
[17] Julius Evola and the UR Group, Introduction to Magic: Rituals and Practical Techniques for the Magus (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2001).
[18] Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2003).
[19] It is interesting to compare what might be called the Family Values quotient represented by Jenner and, say, Baron Evola. Jenner, having married and fathered children, would seem to have fulfilled his duties to society, like any ancient Greek or Roman, and as with them any personal hobbies of his would not be any concern of the state. Evola, on the other hand, never married or, as far as we know, fathered any children. In fact, in his later works he heaps an elitist scorn on the whole idea (or “obsession,” he would say, thinking of Mussolini’s population policies) that a large and rising population is essential to, or a sign of, a rising and dynamic state; the examples of 19th century Britain and India should be enough to make his point. Jenner can also be seen to fit with the transition from the Householder stage to a — as we’ve said somewhat misunderstood and dangerously misapplied — version of the Forest-dweller stage of the Hindu tradition, where those who have married and raised children are allowed to abandon them and pursue ascetic disciplines (as opposed to the vulgar post-war American Dream — now inoperative anyway — of endless rounds of golf or whittling on the porch.
[20] For example, “Liberals Worship Caitlyn Jenner as Transgender ‘Goddess;’ Cult-like adulation is downright creepy,” by Paul Joseph Watson (June 2, 2015), here.
[21] Ibid.
[22] “The battle for the mind of North America will be fought in the video arena — the videodrome.” –Brian O’Blivion, Videodrome (David Cronenberg, 1983)
[23] “Why is the Stretch from Baltimore to Newark called “The Corridor of Pain,” Mr. Charlie LeDuff? The Same Reason Detroit Collapsed: Blacks” by Paul Kersey, June 7, 2015, here. A commenter adds: Charlie LeDuff, you douche, examine the negro genome and find the epic fail. . . . THERE’S your story! Lower IQ, lower impulse control, poor future time orientation, lower threshold for violent behavior = inability to assimilate into a First World society!! Enough fist bumping with the soul brothers- study some science . . . hipster doofus!”
[24] See my review of Nicholas Kollerstrom’s Breaking the Spell, here.
6 comments
An excellent article. It is oftentimes not clear, even with a will to uncover the reason for the implementation of another newest urgency in NWO politics, what the reasons might be. All-too-often it seems just crazy and demented, but the planners of destruction are neither crazy in the normal sense, nor are they demented in the sense of feeblemindedness. They plan carefully what they want to happen and set the wheels in motion, such as the campaigns which put on center stage sexual deviations and perversions, concerning only tiny minorities of whom not even many might be interested in normalizing the abnormal. How many homosexuals really did or are desiring, marriage? I don’t know, but I think they also understand in general that marriage is more than an equality certificate to be trifled with by hysterical feminists, overwrought homosexuality activists or politicians who don’t deserve any respectful designation for the level they have sunk themselves to. Another latest topic is the abolition of cash. Why the sudden craze?
Thank you for this article which is like a short compendium for code breaking in the realm of mass manipulation and sheep herding.
Excellent as usual James. I agree about all the esoteric/magical/alchemical stuff. What really pisses me off though, is the sinister utilitarian use of people’s misery for personal gain. This is not just the doing of chosen tribe either.
Obviously, even our movement has its own ‘political correctness’ of sort; particular stances on certain issues which are ‘assumed’, and people adopt rather dogmatically. It’s not that people won’t give you logically sound arguments for their stance when pressed for it, but in essence these arguments are post facto rationalizations rather than the actual basis of their views. Rejection (or worse) of homosexuality, transgender etc. are examples of such PC-rules of our own movement at large, I’m convinced.
Personally I’m against any kind of official negative sanctioning, let alone punishment, of homosexuality and transgenderism. It really boils down to a personal preference more than anything, so I won’t even expand into arguments (no dog in the fight myself of course). Also, I do acknowledge that many of the arguments for rejection (the link to hedonism etc.) are reasonable, though overblown and somewhat forced.
I really have nothing against Caitlin Jenner, for instance, and would certainly feel bad for her/him, and possibly stick up for her/him if I ever saw her/him being personally slandered or humiliated on the street. It really pains whenever I see individuals being humiliated, hurt, ashamed, or not at ease; also non-White individuals by the way. But obviously sometimes, certainly in light of our cause, one must simply put his empathetic sensibilities aside for a greater good.
I think the kindest thing to do for would-be transsexuals is to say, “As a member of our body politic, you have a right to physical and mental health care. You suffer from a mental illness, which we will help you to overcome or manage. But we will not allow you, or doctors, to mutilate your body in a grotesque attempt to turn you into a simulacrum of the opposite sex.”
Fair enough. As long as it’s is coming from a place of actual care and willingness to help, and not intended to ridicule or bully the person, I’m down with that. In fact, that’d be my ideal policy (see how commenting crystallizes your thoughts by forcing you to formulate them).
Related to transgender-ism, and although I’m convinced that in most cases it concerns an inborn tendency, I wonder how much of a trigger in that tendency coming to a forefront is within an individual is the fact that it is presented as an actual, legitimate possibility/choice. Imagine if such a thing as transgender-ism wasn’t even a part of the public consciousness, as something completely beyond the realm of reality. I suspect that in that case this tendency wouldn’t ever actualize itself within individuals who were born with it, and that they’d never even become conscious of it. Most of them would probably lead a ‘normal’ and genuinely happy life, never even being aware of that ‘seed’ within them.
Once again leave it up to puritans, with the help of our echoey overlords of course, to turn simple perversions into moral crusades.
So some dudes like to put on women’s stockings and have a wank? No! They want to be women! Bunch of dudes want to have a standard fuck party? No! What they really want is to get married and adopt a Ugandan.
Jenner is not a woman. He’s not even a trans. He’s a cross dresser. There is a strong psycho sexual/narcissistic component to men like Jenner, that does not fit the strangely sex averse, finicky disposition of today’s sjw’s. Jenner, aside from a panty fetish, never showed any signs of desiring to be a woman. No nurturing tendencies, no female centered hobbies, or dispositions. Quite the opposite, a highly competitive man who is into toy helicopters. However, east coast liberals are just a bunch of puritans without the belt buckle shoes and cannot accept perversion for its own sake, it must always be a symptom of a “higher cause.”
I can’t believe I took Greg Johnson’s advice to have a bunch of kids. I need to move to Russia!!
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.