“You, on the other hand, are a creature placed in charge, and a particle of God himself; there is a bit of God within you.
When you eat, bear in mind who it is exactly you are feeding. When you have sex, reflect who you are during the act. In conversation, exercise, discourse – do you remember that it is God you are feeding? God you are exercising? You carry God around with you, and don’t know it, poor fool!
– – –
What are we anxious about when we graduate a young man from school and out into the real world? That he will make mistakes, eat poorly, have sexual affairs, humiliate himself and go around in rags, or else affect the latest fashions. And why? Because he is ignorant of his personal god and does not realize who goes with him when he leaves school and his former friends. Yet we indulge him when he writes to us to say: ‘I wish you were here with me!’ You have God there with you – Who else do you need?
Epictetus, Discourses, ca 130AD
“Arguing that you can’t have racist views since you appreciate other cultures, or even have a partner or friend of a different ethnicity is about as valid as saying you can’t be sexist because you like women and are married to one. It just doesn’t work like that. And exoticism is a thing too, not seldom used to mask or justify racist attitudes.”
In these conflicted times with a hodgepodge of various authoritarian ideologies ranging from far left to far right, there is a little noticed growing of interest in reactionary conservative philosophy that borders on fascism and which also has a distinct overlap with it, with fascists and reactionaries mingling and debating their ideas on fora, reading the same literature with works by e.g. Spengler, Schmitt, Burke and Evola, but also modern fascists like Donovan. All of it commonly masked under a cover of admiration for beauty, history and culture.
Getting a grasp of these very radical ideas takes a bit of work, but is very important as we need to recognize that it is just not some quaint grumpy old man’s desires, and all of it would have very far reaching although conflicting and conflicted implications, both for society, but also for the individuals, for you, in your home, at your work even at leisure activities, with fundamental and extreme changes, and removal of hard earned rights and freedoms that people have struggled over and died for, for centuries, and which have been debated for millennias in e.g. Greek, Roman and medieval philosophy, by e,g. Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca and in the Kitab Sirr al-Asrar, even parts of both the Bible and the Quran.
Some of those fundamental changes which reactionary conservatism commonly seek at national, municipal, even at small organisational level in companies and even “clubs”, and in your home, are the following.
- A society should only change when it needs to do so in order to defend its institutions. All other changes are unnecessary or a threat to its stability.
Society has already failed and the Western Civilization is deep into a decline that will end it. We must, in the words of Evola “ride the tiger”, and wait for the complete and inevitable breakdown and prepare ourselves in various ways so we remain standing strong in the ruins, ready to restore proper, “natural”, conservative civilization (GNON).
- An honour and duty based society needs to replace the proclaimed “self-focused” one, rooted in spirituality, religion, mysticism and tradition, to the degree that honour, and in particular male honour, should be defended with the threat or use of violence.
- Elitist rule and removal of the right to vote for everyone, especially those of low education, those of little understanding of society, and those of low intelligence. In this, reactionary conservatism is fundamentally undemocratic.
- Meritocracy. No one is born with any value or deserves any respect for simply existing (except for King and aristocracy). Your value comes from your achievements and contributions to your society and group only. And those merits are the only consideration for your functions and rights in society and in your group. Your opinions have no value whatsoever without such proven merits.
- A return of the aristocracy and the elite as noble ideals for the masses to aspire to.
- A logic- and knowledge based management of society, with no room for emotional or compassion driven decisions.
- Nationalism as foundation for the nation, preserving and enforcing tradition and culture, with far less room for norm-breaking and sub cultures.
- A national normative morality that is distinctly less allowing towards individual freedom of choice.
- A separation of ethnicities and cultures into different nations, believing mixing them inevitably leads to conflict.
- A reversal of migration, with the returning of all immigrants and their families to their birth countries.
- Beauty and spirituality over science, function and financial consideration, applied to e.g. architecture and city planning, but also for the support of art and culture.
- A society where the individual is deeply bound by duty to their employer, city and nation, with more restrictions on individual choice and decision.
- Clear, binary gender roles with separate duties.
- The father as leader of the family, the business leader as a father to his employees, the mayor as a father to his city, and the king as a father to his nation.
- A virile masculine manhood with a preparedness and readiness for violence, to defend his honour, his family, his city and his nation, even tested through ritual violence and rites of passage.
- A feminine womanhood, returning to the primary role of mother and supplier and the associated traditional tasks of raising children, supporting the husband, even wearing of dresses and no male clothing, like pants.
Funny. Reading one of the most renowned reactionary bloggers talking about how things used to be so much better, how we used to feel safe (when we were kids) but now worry about our own walking to school (Yes, it is different being a parent and not a child…), and how all men used to be proper virile men, I come to think of the contemporary protests in the press when they built the Grand Theatre in Gothenburg, in the late 1850s. It was the first official building outside of the city moat, and the press protested fiercely as by going there it would expose the fine folks to all sorts of dangers, and with the harsh elements threatening their health and clothing. It was thus doomed to fail as people would just not want to go.
This theater, which the brave, fine people would not dare to visit in the late 19th cent was built a 100 meters outside of the city moat. Time for all of us modern snowflakes to man up.