Color Guards and the Cycle of Civilization, or Priests Pt. III

Dearest friends,

Monads! Monads are a mere secularization of the idea of self. And the Phenomenology of Geist is, of course, a long discussion of what the self is, culminating in the answer that the self is Geist, and we are all Geist, as we finally shed our false consciousness of otherness, this thing which first allowed us to recognize the concept of our self vis-a-vis our life and death struggle with the other.

Unfortunately, as a haver of false consciousness, I still perceive you as an Other, and therefore I believe you do yet possess all of my thoughts on this matter. Last time, I left you with the statement that the debate of priests is the cycle of civilization. Let’s get right back into that.

What is leftism? Leftism is the process by which elites gain power by signaling certain things. But what determines the nature of these signals? It’s simple. The purpose of Leftism may be power, but the content of Leftism is the natural extension of society’s founding ideas. Thus, the descent of the West into Bioleninism is merely the natural extension of the idea of equality. If all people are truly equal, then the most worthy among us are those who have suffered the most undue harm (being equal, the only way inferiors end up behind is because of the harm inflicted on them by the universe). Therefore, we should praise most the least among us. Communism is also a child of equality. When we look at the excesses of states founded on personality cults, like the infamous Mangoes for Mao, we find that people are simply taking Mao worship to extremes. Leftism merely takes the ideas of a civilization to their logical conclusion.

It is too bad that the logical conclusion of any civilization is ruins.

But it also means that Leftists are justified in ignoring anyone outside the walls. The indifferent operate on facts alone, but FACTS are not what sets the spirit of a civilization. Spirits are ultimately creatures which exist before the world of facts. Values like equality are not facts, they are put forward as axiomatic. They are the premises upon which we build Western Civilization. And in a way, Leftists are right to despise those who reject Leftism, because they are rejecting the ROOTS, the FOUNDATION of the civilization in which they live. If they accept them, they are merely another kind of Leftist with a different idea of what the implications of societal axioms *should* be… or they are a Conservative. And in this case, a Conservative is nothing more than a lapsed Catholic. They’re a believer, but not a very strong one. They, like the lapsed Catholic, have put the needs of this world above those of the Church. A Conservative, ultimately, is not a heretic. He does not reject society’s founding principles.

How can Monsieur espouse Dissident Right ideas in the Lion’s Den? It’s simple. I just have to make Right Left. It is very easy to express these notions in a way that is derived from the West’s founding principles of equality. You just need a little verbal twisting, but verbal twisting is what elites are bred for.

Unfortunately, even if my arguments won, there is ruin in them too. Every society bears the seeds of its own ruin. Ultimately, the principles of any society are stupid when taken far enough, because principles are creatures of the ideal, not the real. And the ideal is inhuman. It does not tolerate life in its sterile perfection.

So what is to be done? Do we have to accept the death of all things? Or is there a path towards long term stability?

Well, if Leftism works by pushing forward societal principles, then the answer is simple. You just have to have a society without any principles. Enter China. China did not have great ideologies. Rather, it had a color cycle. You pass from the Era of Red to Green to Yellow to Blue, etc, etc, etc. And so, the Chinese idea was not extended over and over until it collapsed because there was no Chinese idea. There was only a Chinese system could and would re-form, time and time again. The only problem?

This is stagnation. In death, there is life. In collapse, there is rebirth. Every explication of ideas teaches us something, even if that lesson is not to do that.

Mortality cannot be overcome except in the spiritual realm.

But maybe I just think so because I’m an unhealthy bastard.

Mortified by the metaphysics of McDoubles,
Monsieur le Baron

Met a Physic for the Cancer in my Monads, or Priests Pt. II

Dearest friends,

I was reading a blog by a very smart person, and it occurred to me that if I aped his style, others would also find me to be cool, smart, and attractive.

Prodigy Prodigal: Isn’t it peculiar that priests wear those black robes? And those churches, they have bells.
Mentor The Old Jew: What are you blathering about now?
Prodigy Prodigal: Bells are like… bell curves. They’re got the same shape. That’s math.

Unfortunately, I must confess, Reader, that I am an idiot, and to my chagrin, the clothes of a wise man are ill-fitting on a fool. Like all confessions, this one is best heard by a priest. And that does set me to thinking about them. The Priestly caste is a distinct feature of Indo-European societies.

Here are some quotes from Razib Khan:
“The Western Christian priesthood and the Dharmic religious class exhibit a degree of detachment from normal society due to their celibacy.” “I think the difference seems entirely reflected in the character of their philosophies. Christianity and the Dharmic religions have had large numbers of religious-intellectual professionals detached from worries of family life as monks across their history. In contrast, Jewish rabbis, Muslim ulema, and Confucian scholars have all had to concern themselves with family life.” “But, a minority are devoted to causes. To society.”

Now, it is popular among a certain set to proclaim their determination to be childfree. On one level, it’s a statement that the world is overpopulated. But that is part of the new civic religion in which Gaia must be appeased – anti-natalism is secular celibacy. The Bobos are the priests of a modern secular religion. And the Priestly Caste was not just morality police. They were the thinkers! They were the scientists and the intellectuals! While the Kshatriya were kings in early modern India, the Brahmin were its haughty mandarins.

They are priests, but also priest-lords, priest-scientists, priest-intellectuals. The distinctiveness of this idea and its consequences can be seen by contrasting Christians with Jews. I am not a believer in Sapir-Whorf. It gets the causal chain precisely backwards. Words do not shape our thinking. Rather, when we think about and attempt to grasp a concept, we find ourselves inventing words to capture the idea. And the more prominent the idea in our way of being, the more prominent it becomes in our language. Jews did not invent a metaphysics. YHVH is the verb to be. Ehiyeh asher ehiyeh, I am that I am. There are only two tenses, the mortal tense, and the Godly tense – the future perfect. God exists in a state of timelessness, while mortals do not focus at all on their existence. Jews go to their house. But Aryans *are* going to their house. They, in the verbiage, are constantly in a conscious state of existing and existence. The language necessitates a concept of self and in turn enables an obsession with self. Because the name of God is forbidden, Jews cannot easily discuss being, which precludes this deep exploration of the self.

When we arrive at Christianity, this develops further, because the universe is then supposed to be mechanistic, ordered by God-as-Logos. The self is an orderly thing which is then conceptualized within a universe of orderly things. The self-question thus extends into the general question of the Logos question. What is the order of the universe, its Logos, which serves as the divine principle, the Arche of being? Removing God from the equation does not kill the question, it merely secularizes it. Metaphysics is thus the secular version of two interrelated questions. Who am I? And what is existence, especially in relation to me? Do I exist and does existence exist? Can I truly know that which is Other to me?

The priest, therefore, becomes a figure that knows the secrets of the world of Logos and the true order of the universe, which of course is the truth of reality. He is a liminal figure which can step between the perceived earthly world and the world which is true. But, of course, he is also a moral creature. Because God is not just Logos, he is Goodness, he is Love. He provides not only the structure of the universe, but its morality. When we engage in the rites of the Church, the priest symbolically stands in the place of God. He acts on God’s behalf. In turn, when man demands it, the priest, being one who can walk in the other realm, can intercede on behalf of man. He is man’s intercessionary. Pagans do not need intercessionaries in this sense because the spiritual world is not made distinct from the physical world. There is no truth of the Logos lying behind reality. Gods are tangible things – bigger people, Sky Daddies, the Sun.

When you remove the religion, these norms still persist. Society only has so many narratives, and people naturally fit their roles to their narratives. The workplace is the court reborn, and its politics merely the continuation of Patrimonial Bureaucracy. So too are the Bobos merely the priests of yesteryear. Why is this significant? Because it means it’s futile to discuss the truths of ideologies (secular religions) with those who are not of the Priestly Caste. Outsiders may muster up all the facts they want, but that doesn’t matter. Facts are of the physical, untrue world, and not of the spiritual world. And the spiritual world, the other world, is the true world.

Okay, so it’s just a roundabout way of saying cultists don’t consider anything outside the walls. So what? We already knew that. Sure. But it ties into my next point…

The debate of the priests is the cycle of civilizations.

But perhaps I’m just trying to get the old Jew off my back.

Makes overlong excuses for being bad at math,
Monsieur le Baron