The Dual Telos
For some reason, I thought the racism in my last post would be the most interesting thing, but at any other time or place racism is obvious and not even worth saying. Well anyway, when you think the dual telos of sex is orgasm and bragging rights, it’s only logical, and, of course, women are interested in men who do things that other men don’t like, especially when it’s things that other men can’t explain why or are next to prohibited from saying why. It’s not the best strategy. The PUAs can certainly say that they’ve “had sex with” more and hotter women.
Someone somewhere once said, we’re a bunch of brainless zombies who wish we were heartless vampires. On some level, being honest with men is more comfortable.
Here’s an argument that made sense to me five years ago. Thesis: find a life-partner of the opposite sex. Antithesis: find a life-partner who understands you by choosing same sex. Synthesis: choose your partner without choosing their gender first.
What’s wrong with it, other than being automatist? (cf. Moldbug, Reservationist Epistomology; an automatist argument is one that is designed to make the conclusion look official, instead of be correct.) When you understand that no one cares about life-partners, you will also understand why “PUA rhymes with gay” (– Moldbug). The first hint is that no one had a word for life-partner before recently.
Also, the Romans didn’t have a word for homosexual, but all kinds of words for various sex acts. Which people now, including me five years ago, want to interpret as implying nondiscrimination. It’s laughable, and it’s the kind of thing that no one who has any real familiarity with Rome, or human nature, would believe. But when you’re raised with a studiously warped view of human nature and history, well, you know.
No one cares about love or life-partners or whatever. As Jim ably points out, the dual telos of sex is reproduction and unity to preserve the family unit over the two decades it takes to raise children to adulthood.
Not that that’s saying very much. The Alabama Supreme Court just pointed out that the government doesn’t care about love with respect to marriage. I’m not here to rehash old arguments for the millionth time. Here’s something you might not have heard of:
In all of the world’s history, so far as I know, there has been just one Socialist state that did operate for the welfare of its population rather than the profit and amusement of its rulers. And I have yet to meet a Socialist who has even heard, however vaguely, of that state.
That state was located in a region which is now divided between Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. It was the product of an exceptional combination of factors that is not likely ever to recur. It is, however, the only known instance of a Socialism that could be described as humane; and, as such, should command the attention of everyone interested in Socialism as a form of social organization rather than as a means of undermining and destroying Western civilization. What is now the small province of Missiones in Argentina, together with strips of adjacent territory in Paraguay and Brazil, has fertile soil and a temperate climate. In this region, from 1638 to 1750, existed the optimum conditions for the operation of a successful Socialism, viz. a large and docile population of a physically distinct and obviously inferior race, and a small body of capable administrators of a physically distinct and obviously superior race – and what makes the combination absolutely unique, those administrators were genuinely self-sacrificing.
(1) The Guarani Indians were by no means at the bottom of the scale of human races: they were superior to the inhabitants of many “independent states” that are members of the ‘” United Nations.” They were innately lazy, shiftless, and somewhat stupid. They were savages, with no permanent family relationships and no conception of private property, other than in the bits of clothing they were wearing or the spear they held in their hand. They were completely feckless: if provided with seed and taught to cultivate the soil, they would, if left to themselves, consume the entire harvest, for their primitive minds would not think of saving seed for next year’s planting. But they seem not to have been innately vicious. They were easily domesticated and, in the hands of the Jesuits, became docile. They were brave, and, when trained and commanded by the Jesuits, 333made excellent soldiers, to the astonishment of the whole world.
(2) The Jesuit Fathers were not only members of a superior race, but belonged to a small minority within that race. As a body, they were drawn from the most intelligent part of the European population, and they had received a rigorous and thorough education. That education reflected, in large part, the Renaissance ideal of the uomo universale. ‘They were good Latinists and swordsmen; they knew the essentials of architecture and music; they were acquainted with the etiquette of polite society and military tactics; and, above all, they knew how to learn whatever they might need to know for the task to which they were assigned. And, naturally, the Jesuits who were sent, by the General of their Order, to Paraguay understood the task before them.
There was no idiotic twaddle about “equality.” As Julius Cordara, who was certainly the most learned and acute of the Jesuits of the Eighteenth Century, put it, the Guaranis were feris bestiis quam hominibus similiores. The Jesuits, however, firmly believed that those subhumans had divinely created souls, which were to be saved by religious rites and the imposition of moral conduct. That was the task to which the Jesuits sent to Paraguay were assigned, and, with remarkable efficiency and unassuming heroism, they, armed with authority from the King of Spain, proceeded to carry it out.
The Jesuits, furthermore, were disinterested men, of a kind that the world is not likely to see again. Vowed to celibacy, they could have no thought of establishing and advancing families. Vowed to absolute obedience to their General, the only personal ambition open to them was to rise in the Order, and since the General might any day send any or all of them to the other end of the earth, no one of them could think of establishing a personal power. And each firmly believed that the sacrifice of his own life, whether in a moment of martyrdom at the hands of savages or in years of humble labor for the benefit of his inferiors, was in obedience to the inscrutable decrees of God.
With amazing self-sacrifice, with courage and humility, with just the right combination of persuasion and coercion, the Jesuits settled the Guaranis in villages, set them to work cultivating fields and building churches and houses, and regulated their whole lives. They baptized them, married them to well selected mates, and told them what to do each day. The Jesuits sent their wards to work in the morning, called them in in the afternoon, set them to singing, dancing, and playing approved games, and then sent them to bed at the proper hour. The products of the fields and the workshops went to community warehouses, to be dispensed to the population as the Fathers thought best or to be exported and traded for whatever the community needed and could not yet manufacture for itself. Twice each year, the males who had reached the age of seventeen and the females who were fifteen were assembled and mated. The Jesuits permitted no other white men to enter their territory, except a few inconvenient but privileged visitors who carried letters from the King of Spain.
It is beyond question that the Jesuits gave the Guaranis a life far happier than any they had known before or were to know afterwards.
In 1750, the stupid King of Spain, as part of a treaty devised (as usual) by “experts,” gave the Jesuit territory to Portugal. The Jesuits, unwilling to see the liquidation of the little state they had established and made to function so well, resisted, and they had trained their native troops with such efficiency that it required the combined armies of Spain and Portugal to defeat them. And that victory cost so much that the pertinent part of the Treaty of 1750 was abrogated. In 1767, on orders from Madrid, the Jesuits were arrested by treachery and deported with the utmost inhumanity. (That was only a few years before the whole Order was suppressed and outlawed by the Pope.) The aborigines, of course, reverted to barbarism. Families disappeared; alcohol was imported; and a large part of the population either killed one another or drank themselves to death.
Revilo Oliver, America’s Decline, pages 333 to 335
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call the Jesuits the flower of European manhood. What did they accomplish? They stood around circlejerking over a bunch of savages. Great job guys. It’s only logical when you believe in souls, isn’t it. Caesar is said to have commented on how it might improve morale if his troops believed in souls. Would it? Or would it improve morale to know what they are and what they are doing? I mean, not to second-guess Caesar or anything.
Individuals also have a dual telos; it is possible for a man to do something for his family and race other than reproduce. The medieval priests who supported their communities, they supported their communities. Legend has it, King Arthur put up with Lancelot sleeping with Guinevere behind his back for reasons of state: that’s the way of a White man, not to act on immediate passions but to think first and endure an insult if necessary. Mendel did more for the White race than if he had sired six children or sixteen PUAs.
Well anyway. Spandrell’s latest argues that people disagree with authorities for the social signaling. I mean, it’s true, as far as it goes, but it’s not Aryan; and we academics must also coordinate our efforts to develop an Aryan NRx. Maybe the rice-niggers Spandrell hangs out will only agree or disagree based on social signaling, that’s probably how their hive mind functions, but Aryans have a deep-seated yearning for the truth, as when the All-father tore out his eye for knowledge.
Whites really do care about the truth. They really are disturbed by stories about mistreatment of women, animals, Jews, and niggers. They really do want fairness even if they need to pay for it. After the fall of the USSR, and now that everyone knows the Venezuelan experiment is a disappointment, it’s harder to get Whites to lie for communism. But they’ll still lie for the retarded milennial cult of transhumanism, and tell five year olds who don’t figure out gender fast enough that they’re super cool transpeople.
Spandrell’s latest is probably the best statement of one side of neoreaction, I call it the textbook side to dismiss it, that I suppose the best name for is neoreaction, since it lacks another name – the side in which social signaling is great and ethnic differences don’t matter except that diversity + proximity = war. You want the word neoreaction? Fine, take the word. I’m not a neoreactionary then. You don’t need to care specifically about the interests of the Aryan race to understand how important race is to history. Have fun with your activism that no one cares about based on halfway politically correct claims about the world. You think you’ve solved Seneca and Spengler’s problem with social signaling, but… race is real.
And another thing. The logical conclusion of Spandrell’s argument is burning the books and burying the scholars. That may well be what rice-niggers need. Their emperors, after all, did that sort of thing repeatedly. That’s not what Whites need. Whites consider burning books and burying scholars to be horrible crimes, that are only committed by milennialist fanatics such as Christians and Communists. What Whites need more than anything is to see through hoaxes, especially now. We need academic freedom and freedom of speech.
Spandrell is, of course, the chair of the department of East Asian studies, and he says lots of interesting things. I’m criticizing his writing because it’s good.
Some day I’d like to read a good history of Byzantium. Constantine XI Paiaologos said
But you are men, men of stout heart, and you will hold at bay these dumb brutes, thrusting your spears and swords into them, so that they will know that they are fighting not against their own kind but against the masters of animals.
which, apparently, was empty bluster. What happened? Whatever it was took longer than and so probably wasn’t the same as what happened to Rome. Did it take that long for Christianity to destroy their sense of the world?
God can tell people to copy the Bible another ten thousand times by hand and comment on the theological problem of evil or how to reconcile divine intervention in everyone’s daily life with God’s world that He ordered at the beginning of time in every detail, but, God can’t tell cannons to accept bigger loads without exploding. The West had semi-autonomous domains and almost constant warfare, so there was always a need for technological improvements.
Well, whatever happened, I don’t know if I can trust Golden Dawn to write it. They probably don’t want to talk about the mongrelization of the Greeks, or the pernicious effects of Christianity, or whatever else. They would prefer to say that the West refused to help and even sacked Constantinople, and then Mehmet came to the ancient walls of Constantinople with cannons, and everyone knows that walls can’t survive against cannons. They should want to know. They should want every Greek to know. But they’re activists, and, you know,
David Duke is one of the world’s leading activists. He says we’re not getting the whole truth. Of course not, and I suppose no enemies to the right means I shouldn’t call him disingenuous, tl;dr, and infused with a salubrious Christianity. He also says he’s not a holocaust denier. His chapter of Jewish Supremacy about the holocaust is excellent. He knows what he’s doing – his book isn’t considered anti-Semitic in Russia. I laugh every time he says ‘thus I discovered….’ ‘then I realized…’, obviously he’s using fiction to express what he thinks other people should do. The book isn’t written for me. He’s reaching lots of people with it.
Henry Dampier thinks he’s an activist too. Any day now people will flock to his blog and read about how great it’s going to be when his blog gets censored (come on man worse is better for communists). Or like, whatever, maybe his personal reflections help him in his activism and I can help by ignoring him. I wish I knew how to quit blogging, it seems to be the only way to get these thoughts out of my head so I can think about other things. So come on man. Say something of consequence. Anissimov wrote up a history of the Habsburg monarchy, which was timely and useful.
There’s a dual telos to historical and political writing as well; no matter how academic your writing is, it also functions to bolster and encourage activists. So the distiction between the Aniversity and the riffraff at DailyStormer (link is to their best analytical article ever) can’t really be that strict, but it’s still useful to make. If you’re saying interesting things, like Spandrell, then you’re an analyst. If you’re repeating yourself and saying disingenuous things, you’re an activist. Well, everyone knows about this distinction. That’s kind of what I wanted to use the word ‘neoreactionary’ to mean, but, whatever.
At the same time, if neoreaction means talking about social signaling and not race, it will motivate no activists, because it’s wrong and autistic, and pretty much everything has already been said. So neoreaction is dead.
And if you’re not saying something true or of consequence, what exactly do you think you’re doing?