Friday, July 31, 2015

Fear and Loathing in VaginaLand

Feminist self loathing | Dalrock:

A far more thoughtful reflection than the occasional mind-flashes I have about feminist women fundamentally envying and resenting men and hating the vulnerability of femaleness.




'via Blog this'

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Cuckservatism vs The Alt-Right

Cuckservatism: The Alt-Right:

"So what's the alt(ernative)-right? The alt-right is the right wing stripped of any superstitious belief in human equality and any admission of the left's moral authority; it is the right in full revolt against the progressive establishment. "

Close to what I mean by "reactionary."

A very clear description of the issues here.

Which became all too clear in November 2012.


Another way to put it is that the decent conservatives still are willing to dialogue with or engage in political compromise with the Left. The Alt-Right has decided that there is no future in that, that the game is rigged for conservatives to always lose. Hence cuckservative.



'via Blog this'

Monday, July 27, 2015

Taking refuge in theology for a while

Harvesting some of the Gnostic materials I was working on in the first several years of the aughts.

Human religions can be usefully categorized as being centered in one of three traditions:

The Way of the Ancestors

This includes all the most ancient tribal forms of sacredness (and their modern revivals), as well as the polytheist paganisms of the great early civilizations, as well as Shinto and even the selfconsciously ancestor-oriented Confucianism.

The great virtue involved is reverence. The institution is the tribe (or post-tribal state). All, including the gods who emerge within it, is guided by Fate and subject to time.

The Way of the Prophets

This is a very influential but localized tradition, starting out in western Asia with Zoroaster and including the monotheisms of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Bahai, an Islamic offshoot, participates as well.

The great virtue involved is justice. The institution is the post-tribal sacred community. All is guided by personal divine will ruling over a created world. Time is linear. Human life is a one-time affair, a prelude to an eternal outcome.

The Way of the Sages

An Indic and East Asian tradition of dharma, expressed in the many varieties of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, Taoism and most recently Sikhism.

The great virtue is wisdom. The institution is the symbiosis of the specialists and the worldlings. All is ruled by impersonal karma. Time is illusory but cyclical. Life is cyclical.


These categories are pretty clear but not watertight. Judaism, being originally tribal, shows marks of the ancestor style, as well as having a secondary wisdom-literature streak. Apostolic Christianity developed a kind of ancestor-worship in the cult of the saints as well as, given its Greek philosophical milieu, a taste for the sapiential. Sikhism, which emerged in the tectonic tension between Hindus and Muslims, shows elements of both prophetic and sage styles.


It should surprise no one that when introverted-thinking type Ex Cathedra both re-wrote and re-organized* the Bible back in those years, the heart and literal center of his Gnostic scripture was composed of an elaborated creation myth set inside a frame of wisdom literature: Solomon's sayings, the Song of Songs, the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes, with elements from the Kebra Nagast, the Ethiopian saga of Sheba and her son.

Re-reading it I can see how much my thinking was dominated by the image of the reconciliation of opposites.

Not much of that now.




*A textbook example of what brilliant but impenetrable anti-Gnostic Hibernian Catholic theologian Cyril O'Regan names as the heart of Gnosticism: metalepsis, which is "the phenomenon of a complex disfiguration-refiguration of biblical narrative, or any first-order interpretation of it." Which is exactly what I instinctively did.

Is moderation or even decency possible anymore?

If your enemies are out to destroy you because you are White, how can you defend yourself unless you are self-consciously and unapologetically pro-White, that is, a "racist" White nationalist, etc?

If your enemies are out to destroy you because you are male, how can you defend yourself unless you are self-consciously and unapologetically pro-male, that is, sexist and patriarchal? And homophobic? Oh, and now transphobic?

--

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Drizzle

Indulged my theological side playing with the outlines of a post-Christian religion for the Caucasian remnant. A riff on Gnosticism, with a polymodal basis.

Took my friend B out for his 70th birthday to his favorite dive by the ocean. My ex and my current came along. Oh, and his wolf-dog. Very low brow. But that's how he likes it. He's one of those blue collar snob types. Beautiful afternoon.

Stumbled on a story about the Cahokie mound builder civilization near St Louis. Echoes of the Aztecs, in the 1200s, human sacrifice and all. Pretty amazing.

Mr B and I are planning our Eastern Sierras trip for next week. :)

---


Saturday, July 25, 2015

Quote from a Deep DarkSider

With which I find little to disagree. Why I no longer style myself  "conservative."

But to the mainstream right, giving up on these issues (immigration, race & crime, etc.) will show others that the right can gain relevance, gain popularity and show that we "care". Let me tell you why this is wrong. The left has a commitment to destroy the right. Many cuckholds think that by giving their wives up to other men, their wives will love them more. But their wives will just leave them to be physically and eventually emotionally attached to the other men. So leaving this civilization to non-whites, degenerates and assorted leftard idiots won't show that you are saving said civilization. You merely gave the go ahead for its demise. 
If your goal is just winning elections to support a small caveat of vague proposals such as "the free market", "small government" and the like while giving the left victories in everything else to show that you're "cool" to certain parts of the left's base, I am sorry to say you won't win. Like I said, the left has a commitment in destroying the right and everything any and all rightists stand for... 
So mainstream rightists, keep telling yourselves that you need the non-white and minority vote to win while they never vote for you. Keep telling yourselves that by losing the culture war, you will win in economics. Keep praising a Negro communist philanderer while telling everyone that "Democrats are the real racists, they supported slavery and Jim Crow" while blacks still call you 'racists'. Keep being under the delusion that Fascism and Nazism were "left-wing" while all the facts show the opposite and the left accuse you of being no better than the Axis. Keep supporting and cucking for Israel while Jews keep voting Democrat and the Israelis don't care about you. Keep being under the myth that by giving in to the left, they will agree with you on something. They won't and they never will.

----

The Jewish Problem: a theological interlude



Protestants are generally untalented at the visual arts

One of the most impressive pieces of Gnostic writing that we have is a second-century letter by one Ptolemy to a woman named Flora. It is a sophisticated interpretation of what the Old Testament could mean for a Gentile Christian.

Although it's easy to over-emphasize the differences between the Old Testament (written by Jews for Jews) and the New Testament (written largely by Jews for a racially mixed movement) in a cartoonish way, it's also not difficult to be struck by their differences. 

Unlike the wisely economical Muhammad, who discarded both of these texts entirely in favor of his own single composition in the Quran*, Christians --being originally a Jewish movement-- added their sacred writings to the Jewish ones they were taught to revere. Thus, the composite library we know as The Bible. 

It's always been an issue. The first Apostolic council in 50 AD was convened over squabbles about Jewish observances for Gentile Christians, especially the painful practice of circumcision and the dietary rules. Bishop Marcion, also a second-century man, was unable to see any way to harmonize Moses' Jehovah and Jesus' Abba and wanted Christians to wash their hands of the Old Testament completely**. As well as a good chunk of the New; his movement may have been the catalyst for the formal definition of the Christian scriptural canon. You can clearly see the problem still percolating in Luther's reformation, pitting Law vs Grace.

One of the salient divergences between Moses and Jesus has to do with the role of sacred law. Sacred law is at the heart of Judaism, witness the famous 613 Torah commandments which orthodox rabbis discern as the essential structure of religious Jewish life.

In the Gospels, Jesus shows a certain ambivalence about the Law of Moses, both in word and in practice. At times defending, at times re-shaping, at times discarding. The dominant Apostolic voice in the New Testament is the converted Pharisee St Paul, who made freedom from the Mosaic Law the centerpiece of his mission to bring Gentiles into the newly emerging Church.

As trolling atheists and cartoonish gays like to point out, the "Good Book" that Christians revere as the written Word of God finds it an abomination not only for men to "lay with a man as with a woman," but to eat shrimp, cross-dress or consult a fortune-teller. Blasphemy, hitting your parents and adultery are capital crimes. Slaughtering whole villages on divine command is not. 

Ptolemy resolves these issues with clarity and sophistication, using a textual theory that sounds a lot like modern Higher Criticism as well as some traditional orthodox Bible interpretation.

Here's his argument:

The Mosaic Law is actually three different sets of legislation combined into a single text, authored by

a. the God of Israel, 
b. Moses himself, and 
c. the elders of Israel. 

In the dispensation of Christ, b and c are of no intrinsic interest any more and can be ignored.

Only the laws authored by Israel's God are of interest. But for a Gnostic, the "God of Israel" is not the ultimate Godhead revealed in Jesus; he is an inferior and preliminary being, a kind of super angel who created the material world. For some Gnostics, he is an evil tyrant. Ptolemy, a Valentinian,  moderately describes him as neither truly divine nor evil, just limited, temporary and local.

Consequently, this "divine" Law is itself divided into three parts:

a. The Ten Commandments, which are indeed holy but incomplete, 
b. the mixed law --just but inferior-- which Jesus replaced with his own teachings, and 
c. the ceremonial laws, transformed into allegorical "images of the soul."

So the Jewish Problem is resolved: for this Gnostic Christian, all that actually remains of the Old Testament legal code is
Jesus' interpretation of the Ten Commandments 
and 
a treasury of spiritualized images 
(Sabbath, circumcision, festivals, Temple rites)
without any prescriptive force.

Brilliant.

The Jewish Problem is not quite so easily solved for Apostolic Christians, who have maintained that the God of Israel and the Father of Jesus were one and the same divinity. Consequently, the influence of the Old Covenant in orthodox Christianity is palpable. But the general lines of thought would not be unfamiliar to anyone who has studied classical theological attempts to work this out.

Ptolemy, unorthodox though he be, way back in the second century, was a trailblazer.


===
* But even the Koran presents problems of internal coherence. The struggling early Muhammad of Mecca is very different from the later warlord Muhammad of Medina. Muslim scholars categorize the texts into Meccan and Medinan, and where there is conflict, the earlier texts are abrogated by the later. Given that they also hold the Koran to be eternal and perfect in every respect, this is an odd way for Allah to reveal himself, don't you think?


**There is a school of thought that posits a Jewish origin to Gnosticism and explains its anti-Jewish attitude as the bitter sense of betrayal felt by some faithful Jews, disillusioned at the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. 


Zionism Is Racism!

Gee, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Knowing ExC's opinion of the deadly chimera "racism" and its noxious brood of ideological siblings ("anti-semitism" included), you might be forgiven for thinking it was a cheap headline ploy to attract new readers.

Bingo, as the Catholics say.

Whatever one may think or feel about the Jewish State or about Jews, Israel may in fact be our White (separatist/nationalist/supremacist/whateverist) future: to be an embattled but prosperous and powerful ethno-state surrounded by a sea of resentful and envious savages. Like the WhiteLiberal parts of Oakland.

We have much to learn from modern day Zion.

Although most Jews and virtually all Jewish organizations in the West are enthusiastic promoters of the Third World invasion of Gentile Christian lands, when it comes to their own people's west-Asian homeland, na-ah. We could position ourselves as advocates of "Jewish multiculturalism," just like them...everywhere else but here.

They did make a huge mistake, though, one that we can learn from. They let a significant Arab minority population remain inside their new borders. One out of five "Israelis" is an Arab. Not smart.
A homegrown petri dish for subversion.

When White Zion comes about, the EuroCaucasian Rez in North America, it would be prudent to avoid such a mistake. I myself would make an exception for the Indians who find themselves inside. This is their old turf, with no where else to go. Importantly, their numbers are tiny, so they could be both treated decently and handled effectively. Pretty well everyone else who was not Zion EurAmerican material: off ya go. Israel's policy on deporting alien "migrants" is clean, clear and eminently rational. When, like the post-WWII Jews, you know that your folks are on the fast track to extinction you don't really have the leisure to be "fair-minded" about populous strangers who have lots of other options besides parasiting off you and then accusing you of "privilege."

I'm sure a lot of the Jews who love multiculturalism for thee but not for me would be howling in righteous rage at our "racism". They do that well. But, hey, we'd say, We goyim learned this from you.


--


Eine kleine theologische Musik

Although I have not practiced Catholicism in a quarter century, its impact on me is something I feel every day. I instinctively react to attacks against it still, even if, on second thought, the attacker may have a point or two.

The issue of my homosexuality was what propelled me out of it --that was a god-awful time in my life-- but once I calmed down in my new life, I developed a more differentiated attitude toward it. I could see Holy Mother Church --as one must do with one's bio-mom*-- not as either/or but as summa this and summa that.

It became emotionally clear to me --as it had been mentally clear when I left-- that the sexual ethics of Apostolic Christianity --the Orthodox and Catholics-- was unable, even if it wanted to, to embrace same-sex sex without imploding. So I stopped being mad about it.

Ironically, it is now the Catholic/Orthodox resistance to genderism that strikes me as its (sole?) remaining contemporary value to a self-dismantling West. Rome especially has thrown its lot with the Third World savages (something I could see even back in the 80s) on race and economics. By atavistically refusing to ordain females to its priesthood** or evacuating the procreating male-female couple from marriage, it still holds out for some semblance of bio/archetypal truth about gender. That there are two. And that they are necessary opposites.

Much later, I realized that my attachment to Catholicism was fundamentally aesthetic and intellectual. Embarrassingly like a Reconstructionist Jew, it was to Catholicism as a civilization that I most deeply responded, especially in its intellectual and cultural achievements. As is evident from my ramblings here as Ex Cathedra, Catholic moralism always made me feel like I was suffocating.  And not just about sex; I felt the sting of the ethics of the Twice-Born long before I even knew what sex was. With its Jesus-and-Mary driven inhuman perfectionism, it was a constant source of (again, embarrassing) Luther-like self-hatred.

After a brief and regretted dalliance with Independent Catholicism, I gave a shot at being Episcopalian for a couple of years. I missed the aesthetic and intellectual world I'd left behind, the poetry and the rootedness in something ancient and vast. That ended when I found the Anglicans to be rank Protestants deep down, despite the icing. And for a group that was constantly parading their welcome to strangers, I found them personally quite icy.

On the wise advice of my therapist, I gave up trying to join groups.  As my ex used to say, quite rightly, the only reason I didn't start my own religion is because I was afraid people might join.

My next religious project was Gnosticism, the "religion of dissatisfied poet-theologians." Although I developed a loose connection with the local Gnostic church (and a friendship with its leader), it was fundamentally a solitary undertaking. Re-writing the Bible as a spiritual practice. Fascinating process.
I still find Gnosticism significant although --no surprise to this introvert-- most of its practitioners are pretty off-putting. Mostly cookie-cutter change-the-world liberals with a spiritually counter-cultural veneer, part of their adolescent oppositional-defiant pose. The last thing actual Gnostics tried to do was change the world.

As politics began to interest me, however, I found that the spiritual life took a back seat. The here and now absorbed a lot more of my energy than the Great Beyond. And this has remained the case for quite some time now. Jung's assertion that the second half of life is largely engaged in working out a balance against the first seems pretty well descriptive of my behavior.

Aside from the drain of being angry about a suicidal culture, it might be the archetypal call of biology that could draw me once again to the transcendant realm: barring accidents, I probably have only fifteen years left to live. Four fifths of my time on earth is already behind me.

Although I have always been able to imagine myself as an atheist for an hour or so, I lack the kind of certainty that atheists have and can't sustain my unbelief and fall back into theism. I know a few bright and civilized atheists; the majority of them are howling boors, the mirror image of the yahoo fundamentalists they are so obsessed with. As Mencken noted back in the 20's,"...try to imagine what the average low-browed Methodist would be if he were not a Methodist but an atheist!" Prophetic. And even less attractive than Episcopalians.

Buddhism has a wealth of psychological insight, but the Boods, as Mr B calls them, are an intolerable lot: rootless Jews and reactive Catholics playing Asian in order to avoid facing their childhoods.

So I float out here on my raft, looking up at the stars at night, enjoying the sun at morning, and being deeply fearful of what set of hungry jaws is hiding beneath the surface of the waters.

What is my current religious position? Maybe later. Time for more coffee.

---

*One of those words, like celeb, whose very existence is troubling.

** Since I have definitively ascertained that the real basis of Catholicism is not "love" or "Jesus", much less "the dignity of the human person," but the ancient threefold structure of dogma, sacraments and hierarchy, any admission of females into that hierarchy, even as lowly deacons, would be fatal. Christianity is feminized enough as it is without turning it into a vagina monologue.


Friday, July 24, 2015

Can't unsee it

I was describing to my pal Bill this morning how hard it is to find a film or TV show with a White male hero who is not directly or by proxy physically humiliated by a Phallic Female.

I never recall seeing a strong non-White male character subjected to this.*

The lack of this symbolic castration in Jurassic World, where Chris Pratt is an actual cowboy style alpha male, makes it worth seeing, just for that.

I first noticed it in Captain America and now cannot unsee it.

I was going to download Ant-Man, but the trailer proved me right and turned me off.

In real life, of course, these fantasy Phallic Females are rare indeed.

All part of the lies of the Potemkin Village we live in.

----

*Don't get me started on commercials. They are a whole nother circle of Hell.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...