Sex and Liberation

It is no secret now that lust is also a form of addiction. My point here is that the current regime knows this and exploits this situation to its own advantage. In other words, sexual freedom is really a form of social control….The truth, the one propagated by the regime through advertising, sex education, Hollywood films, and the university system—the truth, in other words, for general consumption—is that sexual liberation is freedom. The esoteric truth, the one that informs the operations manual of the regime—in other words the people who benefit from “liberty”—is the exact opposite, namely, that sexual liberation is a form of control, a way of maintaining the regime in power by exploiting the passions of the naïve, who identify with their passions as if they were their own and identify with the regime which ostensibly enables them to gratify these passions. ~ E Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi

These began with divine ideas by way of contemplation of the heavens with the bodily eyes. Thus in their science of augury the Romans used the verb contemplari for observing the parts of the sky whence the auguries came or the auspices were taken. ~ Giambattista Vico, The New Science

Intro

During my youth, I used to study the writings of Herbert Marcuse, sometimes called the “Julius Evola of the Left.” There is some justice in that appellation since their interests overlapped — fascism, sexuality, the drug culture, hippies, etc. — and they both opposed the modern world, particularly in the dual pincers of American capitalism and Soviet communism.

In Reason and Revolution, his study of Hegel, Marcuse opposed the monopoly of rationalism by positive science. Thus philosophy or metaphysics has a claim on truth and rationality. That has stuck with me, particularly because my fields of study were maths, physics, and chemistry.

In One Dimensional Man, he documented the deleterious effects of consumer society on human fulfillment. I was especially interested in Eros and Civilization. Marcuse combined the personal and the social in a powerful way. That technique provides a lesson for the development of a historiography of the right. For example, we’ve related Plato’s political systems to the rule of men dominated by the different soul centers.

This brief essay continues that project, albeit in a sketched-out form. For the reconstruction of the prehistory of the West, I am relying on Giambattisa Vico’s New Science as well as Fustel de Coulange’s Ancient City, as well as the studies of myths by J J Bachofen, Julius Evola and Julian Jaynes.

Eros and Civilization

At that time, it was possible to be a materialist atheist using Darwin, Freud and Marx as the foundation. Life, mind, and society could be explained without recourse to anything transcendent. Marcuse combined Freud and Marx very effectively. Marx had always claimed that consciousness was formed by the material conditions of life, without explaining how. Marcuse took the major themes of Freudian psychology to show how social structures become reflected in human psychology.

Thus Freud’s major themes of sexuality and repression could be explained in the individual by the systems of production and consumption. Since Freud’s conceptions are ultimately conservative, Marcuse had to rework his ideas quite a bit.

As is common with the left, Marcuse felt that men are born good but become repressed by society. Unlike Freud who contended that the sexual instinct (eros) had to be sublimated for civilization to develop, Marcuse claimed that unleashed sexuality is liberating and constructive. For Freud, the superego, by absorbing cultural norms, was able to repress sexuality. However, for Marcuse, the superego instead absorbed unjust social structures. This “surplus repression” was beyond anything really necessary.

The Freudian system apes the traditional view of man. The ego is the self, or rational center of consciousness. The superego is what is transcendent to the ego and the id represents desires and instincts. Of course, for Freud there is no real transcendence, hence it can be explained only by material terms; that provides the opening for Marcuse.

So if the superego is merely the result of alienated consciousness, there is no reason at all to suppress the instincts. The assumption must be that they are good in themselves, which really means that Darwinian random evolution somehow produces the good.

Freud said that we go through three stages: oral, anal, genital. In maturity, our sexuality is centered on the genital phase. Marcuse regarded that as a form of repression. Hence, in his utopian vision of human centered production based on technology, the fully developed human would become polymorphous perverse, like a child. His whole body would be sexually charged, without the repression of the oral and anal stage.

That hardly seems like a manly or worthwhile goal, but there is little doubt that such an idea resonates in contemporary culture. This is evident from the porno film Deep Throat in the 1970s which mainstreamed fellatio to more recent obsession with the ass and anal sex. A recent episode of the “edgy” HBO series Girls featured a gratuitous scene of anilingus.

This is an inversion of true Eros which is a drive to God and the transcendent. Biological sex, then, is a mere distortion and materialization of that drive.

Fundamental Principles

Giambattista Vico identifies three customs of all nations:

  • All have some religion
  • All contract solemn marriages
  • All bury the dead

These, therefore, are the basis of the first three principles of his New Science. He points out that they are reinforced by their religious practices. The consequences of not doing so are, according to Vico:

Otherwise, the world would return to a brutish state and again become a wilderness.

Now the facts of human societies can be reformulated as principles:

  • Divine Providence
  • The moderation of passions through marriage
  • The immortality of human souls attested by burial

Just to be clear, Vico again emphasizes:

These are the boundaries of human reason and transgressing them means abandoning our humanity.

Of course, modernity in its fullness is the exact opposite:

  • Man to be fully human requires freedom from God
  • The free expression of passions, especially but not only sexuality, is human liberation
  • Live for the moment

Thus, we have another barometer to measure the decline, or progress if you prefer, of the human race. Of course, most people do not consciously think about such things and try to steer a middle, i.e., a “lukewarm”, course; but those are the positions for those who think it through.

Providence and Religion

Vico makes Providence a principle of his New Science, so he regards Providence as a historically veribiable fact. He writes:

Providence must provide a history of the orders and institutions which providence bestowed on the great polity of humankind without the knowledge or advice of humankind, and often contrary to human planning. For although by its creation our world is temporal and particular, the orders which providence establishes in it are universal and eternal.

Thus he claims that the human race could not have survived without divine providence. The actions of men are insufficient to explain all the cultural and social benefits that accrued to them.

The modernist, on the other hand, rejects Providence. For him, the human race evolved through random processes into an environment that quite fortuitously was able to support human life. Gods and religions, therefore, are social constructs used to bolster and legitimize existing social arrangements.

Rene Guenon expressed it this way:

It is not that the order of the cosmos was conceived on the model of social institutions, but, on the contrary, these institutions were founded on the basis of analogy with the cosmic order.

Marriage and Immortality

When we discuss immortality, we must grant considerable importance to the consensus of humankind, who either fear or worship the spirits of the underworld. I follow this general belief. ~ Seneca

Vico recognized a hierarchy of allegiances. First a man cared for himself, then his wife and children. This extended to his clan, nation and so on. Marriages were solemnized not least of all for the sake of the children. Without that legal bond, the children could be left to their own devices. Vico was prescient in foreseeing that the children of unwed mothers would come to depend on public or private charity, as we see today. Any exceptions just prove the rule.

Vico simply assumes that sexual relationships are genital. In the Freudian scheme, the child advances sexually in three phases: oral, anal, and genital. Hence, the psychologically healthy and rational adult regards sex as genital-to-genital contact. Its proper use is within marriage as he describes. Obviously, this is not an arbitrary command of a totalitarian church, but rather the common experience of the human race, insofar as it is civilized and guided by divine providence. Specifically, this applies also to pagan societies pace the new age neo-pagans, and Evola alludes to it in Ancient Rome:

every offense to the sacredness of aristocratic marriage and to the lineage was considered as a crime above all in the face of the genius of the lineage

On the contrary, the revolutionary goal is to return to the childlike innocence of polymorphous perversity, for whom the entire body is sexually charged. This is considered liberation although, as E Michael Jones points out, in its actual effect it is a form of social control. Rather than the result of the overthrowing of capitalism as Marcuse had hoped, sexual control becomes just another capitalist commodity. In Marcuse’s terms, sexual liberation has been “co-opted” by the capitalist system he opposed.

Historical Reconstruction

So, in his reconstruction of prehistory, VIco sees the formation of society the father, as the protector of his family. The fathers gather together for mutual support and protection. Thus, at its origin, society was a patriarchy. This is not exactly the mannerbund (with is homoerotic overtones in some circles), as Evola would have it, since it was composed strictly of fathers. Evola does recognize the “son of duty”, since that is the only way that the father’s memory would continue in the burial rites.

Now each family was considered to have a divine origin as the primal father was regarded as a god. The consequence is that each family also had its own religion with rites and legends of its own. The clan also had a divine origin and its father, not necessarily biological but certainly spiritual, was likewise considered a god. The result was a hierarchy of religions and religious practices. Daily life was regulated by the rites, taboos, and rituals of the religions.

Thus, society was at its origin patriarchal and theocratic. Vico called it the age of the gods. Clients were attracted to the patriarchy for protection. They did not have the same spiritual foundation. Hence, they followed the rites of whatever family they are attached to. They were not necessarily biologically related; over time, due to endogamous marriage, racial differences between the clients and the families become more pronounced.

They didn’t have an inner center (ego in Freud’s terms) and were driven primarily by desire, or id, in Freudian sense. They may even have been pre-Adamics. Their consciousness was formed by the families. Without a strong ego, or rational capability, they are directed by command, poetry, symbolism (see Jaynes). This inner consciousness of external commands is the Freudian superego.

Over time, the age of the gods gave way to the age of the heroes. This was the result of a schism between the priestly and noble functions. In Platonic terms, it was the movement from aristocracy to timocracy. The next phase was toward democracy or popular rule. This was the result of the desire of the clients and plebeians for more political and social control.

Natural and Conventional Relationships

Oddly enough, the revolutionary and reactionary reconstructions of history are not that different, although their evaluations certainly are. This is not totally surprising, since Marx himself relied on Vico’s works. The revolutionary sees the overturning of patriarchy and theocracy as forward progress. Each stage of decline for the reactionary is progress for the revolutionary. More and more people take part in social life.

For the reactionary, the stages move downward from the rational (in the higher sense) to the emotional to desire and sensation. The latter has three substages: normal desires, excessive desires, and unnatural desires. So the aristocrat knows the divine order of the cosmos and orders social relationships in conformance to it. The democrat lacks that understanding. Originally, aristocratic knowledge came to the democrat through poetry, symbols, and divine commands. In his consciousness, it was experienced as alien and alienating, since it did not comport with the other parts of his interiority. In order to overthrow the commands of the superego, he also had to eliminate its source in religion and patriarchy.

For the reactionary, theocracy, patriarchy and hierarchy are natural and organic structures, a reflection of the divine order. For the revolutionary, they are merely conventional and social structures. They have no origin beyond the human mind. At worst, they serve to maintain existing power structures. For Marx, they are the product of economic arrangements. In a state of wild nature, a patriarchy may have made some sense. However, as economic activity became more complex, power in the hands of the few was not justifiable.

To close the circle with Marcuse: the Old Left was failing because the prosperity in the West of the working classes tended to make them more conservative rather than revolutionary. Current arrangements suited them, so they could not be easily motivated to revolt. Hence, the New Left looked for the revolutionary consciousness not in the working class, but in other groups considered to be marginalized by social arrangements.

These thus are the choices: either the arrangements are rational and supported by divine providence or they are irrational and arbitrary. There can be no middle ground.

26 thoughts on “Sex and Liberation

  1. Super subject matter, the modern porn accessibility factor and its effect on “the quality of spiritual perception” is a powerful area of study yet to be realised .

    so many exceptional insights

    “the revolutionary sees the overturning of patriarchy and theocracy as forward progress. Each stage of decline for the reactionary is progress for the revolutionary. More and more people take part in social life.

    For the reactionary, the stages move from the rational (in the higher sense) to the emotional to desire and sensation. The latter has three substages: normal desires, excessive desires, and unnatural desires. So the aristocrat knows the divine order of the cosmos and orders social relationships in conformance to it. The democrat lacks that understanding. Originally, aristocratic knowledge came to the democrat through poetry, symbols, and divine commands. In his consciousness, it was experienced as alien and alienating, since it did not comport with the other parts of his interiority. In order to overthrow the commands of the superego, he also had to eliminate its source in religion and patriarchy.

    For the reactionary, theocracy, patriarchy and hierarchy are natural and organic structures, a reflection of the divine order. For the revolutionary, they are merely conventional and social structures. They have no origin beyond the human mind. At worst, they serve to maintain existing power structures. For Marx, they are the product of economic arrangements. In a state of wild nature, a patriarchy may have made some sense. However, as economic activity became more complex, power in the hands of the few was not justifiable”

  2. Hence, the New Left looked for the revolutionary consciousness not in the working class, but in other groups considered to be marginalized by social arrangements.

    Great Cologero,this is exaclty what is happening here in Brazil,the socialism that is beeng implanted here,is the worst kind,all kinds of”minorities”if and without quotation marks,are beeing supported,blacks,gays,cripples and so on.Is worst then in Cuba,since there they does not admit homossexuals for example!

  3. In his consciousness, it was experienced as alien and alienating, since it did not comport with the other parts of his interiority.

    This din’t happen before the fall?

    In order to overthrow the commands of the superego, he also had to eliminate its source in religion and patriarchy.

    Who wanted to overthrow the commands of the super ego and why?

  4. On the contrary, the revolutionary goal is to return to the childlike innocence of polymorphous perversity, for whom the entire body is sexually charged.

    You must take care with this affirmation,since this can turn into a matriarchal pandemic society!

    Thus, at its origin, society was a patriarchy. This is not exactly the mannerbund (with is homoerotic overtones in some circles), as Evola would have it, since it was composed strictly of fathers.

    I din’t get it,can you please explain to me?

    They didn’t have an inner center (ego in Freud’s terms) and were driven primarily by desire, or id, in Freudian sense. They may even have been pre-Adamics.

    Again an dubious affirmation,the id is what Evola called the subrational,so to be simultanouesly ruled by the id and superego is simple not possible!

    Their consciousness was formed by the families. Without a strong ego, or rational capability, they are directed by command, poetry, symbolism (see Jaynes). “This inner consciousness of external commands is the Freudian superego.”

    This was brilliant!

  5. Your fundamental principles could be compared what is said in the Meditations on the tarot’s letter on the arcanum of force:

    “The following are the essential conditions to which every viable spiritual tradition must adhere: it must be founded from above; it must observe the ten commandments and be inspired by the ideal of virginity; and its aim must be implied in the will which founded it, with every human ‘programme’ withdrawn from it.”

  6. August on 2015-01-24 at 19:36 said:
    “The key point, from my reading, is that the true being departs this human state at the moment of death. So the funereal question chiefly affects the physical and psychic residues that remain after the true being has moved on. [etc] ”
    ____________________________________________________________

    That’s a very interesting take on it, August. The first paragraph corresponds exactly to my understanding as well. I read somewhere – might have been in some writing of Serrano, oddly enough – that while most Hindus are cremated at death, great masters or Yogis are occasionally buried in whole, so to speak. This would apparently (but I’m not one to confirm this claim beyond doubt) have had to do with the fact that such masters are expected to “resurrect” – obviously in a more subtle sense than what is commonly believed by some Christians. What immediately comes to mind as far as I’m concerned, is the belief often present in traditions ranging from Christianity (the Christ Himself being the most obvious example) to Buddhism (etc) that the dead body of a Holy Man will sometimes disappear at death, actually having been “absorbed”, or however one should describe it, by the higher being. The idea seems to be that the essence of the psycho-physical being of the diseased master literally transcends physical death and is taken up by a higher form. Might this be what the ritualized burning of the physical body originally was inspired by and tried to achieve symbolically – instead of letting the body rot in the soil, seeking to transform it and bring its essence upwards, naturally said to happen by itself to some masters? (Though I personally have never witnessed such a thing, so I only go by certain traditional accounts when mentioning this.) A tradition which seems to be radically distinguished from this, would be the ancient Egyptian practice of mummifying the body, seeking to preserve it from the natural processes in its dead physical state. If my memory serves me right, Julius Evola was critical of this practice and almost saw it as a form of “black magic”, attempting to bind the “Ka” (the psychic soul?) to the mummified body. This is apparently suggested by ancient artworks showing the Ka descend to visit its formed mummified body.

    ____________________________________________________________
    “There might be a slight confusion there, I don’t recall mentioning those words.”
    ____________________________________________________________

    Yes, the confusion was mine. I thought for a moment that I was talking to Cologero, and recalled one of his anecdotes from the article “Scientific and Political Myths”.

  7. Olavsson:

    “But I find it an interesting question to ask and discuss nonetheless, from a perspective of metaphysical insight.”

    The key point, from my reading, is that the true being departs this human state at the moment of death. So the funereal question chiefly affects the physical and psychic residues that remain after the true being has moved on.

    What effect that can have on the destiny of the being in its new state is difficult to say. For instance, departing at death the state conditioned by time, and entering a new state forthwith, how could any subsequent actions by others in the former state affect it?

    On the other hand, when we consider that ‘salvation’ has been defined as a preservation of the being in extensions of the human state, in that context the funereal question takes on greater importance, along the lines of all other rites, the purpose of which is to integrate the disparate elements included in the human complex, in order to stabilise it and direct it upward toward its real centre and God.

    “We do not need the theatrical scenes of the cartoonish ‘Marvel superhero Jesus’ you mentioned in your other article.”

    There might be a slight confusion there, I don’t recall mentioning those words.

  8. August on 2015-01-24 at 06:20 said:
    My opinion on the simplest way to get over questions about how to live is to adopt an orthodox tradition, generally a religion, and follow the established rules sincerely and to the best of one’s ability. Develop further according to circumstance and capacity within that framework.
    __________________________________________________________

    That is the conclusion I’ve reached as well, helped along by the thinkers of the “Traditional school”. But I find the choice of tradition to be difficult. If I had been born into an authentic tradition I would never have had this dilemma. But such is fate. (Though on the positive side, I am no older than -22, so I will have a head-start compared to most of my fellow moderns who die without having gone through any serious and devoted spiritual practice/discipline – ever… sadly.) I am a bit divided between “West” and “East”, so to speak, on an intellectual level. I know others, spiritually akin to me, who have the same dilemma. I have largely managed to leave the modern materialist mindset completely behind, and not a shadow of a doubt remains in my mind about the falseness and illusory nature of the former. And although there is a lot I can do to spiritually improve myself in my present tradition-less state, I feel that to reach the next level I have to decide to dedicate myself thoroughly and unconditionally to an authentic, living tradition. What is holding me back is the internal division I feel as to which tradition to follow, but also my strong individuality which finds it somewhat difficult to devote itself exclusively to one outer form and hence has a tendency to go all for detached esotericism. In any case, I have no doubt that I will eventually reach clarity about this. I am considering Eastern Orthodoxy.

    ___________________________________________________________
    “Why worry about whether cremation or burial is better, how each influences the soul, what is permissible sexual behaviour, etc.? These questions are not to be answered absolutely, universally. If you have a tradition, follow the rules and there is your peace.”
    ___________________________________________________________

    I agree that there is no point in worrying about that if one follows one’s tradition. But I find it an interesting question to ask and discuss nonetheless, from a perspective of metaphysical insight. If any particular traditional burial practice affects the diseased more favourably is not a question I feel I am authorized to answer, however.

    ____________________________________________________________
    “Given the limits of human horizons, such a path entails placing oneself at the mercy of powers that we cannot grasp […]”
    ____________________________________________________________

    I’ve often thought how tragic it is that most people lack higher spiritual guidance and authority in our time. Modernity not only affects the world on the obvious, external level. It threatens the very destiny of souls en masse. Many people who would have done well in another time and place end up going to “hell”, in whatever sense, due to this collective lack of higher guidance. We forget who we are and why we are here and fall into deeper and deeper sleep. I have no words for how thankful I am that Providence sent me the signs needed to remember what life is really about and where I am going. Given a little different circumstances I could have been destroyed by the dark currents dominating the world today, but however unlikely it is, a beam of light managed to shine through the thick fog of planetary anti-spiritual pollution and ignite the beginning of an internal flame of awakening. We do not need the theatrical scenes of the cartoonish “Marvel superhero Jesus” you mentioned in your other article. What I mentioned is in itself a miracle.

    ___________________________________________________________
    Cologero on 2015-01-24 at 09:58 said:
    “Vico’s point is the same whether or not burial or cremation was part of the death rites; he was addressing ancient Europe specifically. And Olavsson, your perspective is sound as I was not trying to define any hard boundaries.” [Etc]
    ____________________________________________________________

    Thanks for clearing up that, Cologero.

    ____________________________________________________________
    “Who, on any of the various “rights”, will propose blasphemy as a capital crime?”
    _____________________________________________________________

    Most wouldn’t, but I personally would support it.

    _____________________________________________________________
    “And how can Evola prefer pre-1789 Europe while rejecting its spiritual source?”
    _____________________________________________________________

    As we know he moderated his views on that somewhat over the years, but never embraced Catholicism fully. Might it perhaps be because he didn’t see the old civilization of Christendom as entirely monolithic? While he was very positive to that civilizational form by and large, he differentiated between different elements and currents within that superimposed, overarching form, and some he could fully justify starting from his first-principles – other elements not so much. One might disagree with some of Evola’s views on this, but to me he seems internally coherent and consistent.

    ______________________________________________________________
    “Although Evola regarded Guenon as the “master of the 20th century”, who among the Evola readers bother with Guenon? I only know of one, but please let me know of others.”
    _______________________________________________________________

    I’m a big Evola reader and I appreciate Guenon equally much. In some regards, I even think that Guenon’s approach is superior. It was Evola who introduced me to the world of Tradition, in a higher sense, though. Discovering Evola came as a flash of lightning, one of my most powerful and inspiring – even transforming – reading experiences ever. So I will always be indebted to Evola for that communication through time, and he has been very important to my intellectual formation. Despite of that, I am not afraid of transcending Evola and admitting where he might have been wrong, if I see something shining more brightly with the power of truth. I have still only read a few of Guenon’s books, but am planning to plough through every single one of them.

    _______________________________________________________________
    “That is what I’ve been trying to do and even if it has been done poorly, nevertheless, in Chesterton’s phrase, it is still worth doing.”
    _______________________________________________________________

    Your writings have been exceedingly enlightening for me in many ways. Yours is the singly website that I’ve come to value more highly than any other. So never forget that you’ve helped many people with your work at Gornahoor. And this matters. If you can help only one individual realizing the truth and becoming who he was meant to be, then that is a noble deed.

  9. One aspect of the modern mindset I’ve noticed on Gornahoor…..Cologero, do you notice how the mention of political topics even as just an aside gathers much commenting whereas spiritual topics are less commented ? The modern man, as per Marx, is seeking to change the world when he should be changing himself. ..

  10. Thanks, August, for saving me the trouble. Vico’s point is the same whether or not burial or cremation was part of the death rites; he was addressing ancient Europe specifically. And Olavsson, your perspective is sound as I was not trying to define any hard boundaries. The comments just sounded like a series of “gotcha” attempts while ignoring the main point. Getting a fact wrong here or there is not the issue.

    As for the other question, no, I don’t think Evola was a hypocrite. Evola, unlike Guenon, chose to engage with the modern world. He was involved politically, culturally, artistically, philosophically and so on. That is why he is more accessible to people today looking for Tradition. On the other hand, the temptation is to assume that familiarity with Evola’s writings makes one “traditional” in some sense. Evola made a conscious choice not to follow an exoteric tradition. This in many ways has distorted things and worst of all it has encouraged others to do the same. Yet he considered the Revolution of 1789 to be the end of civilization, while the rest of contemporary Europe regards it as the beginning of civilization. Who, on any of the various “rights”, will propose blasphemy as a capital crime? And how can Evola prefer pre-1789 Europe while rejecting its spiritual source?

    Although Evola regarded Guenon as the “master of the 20th century”, who among the Evola readers bother with Guenon? I only know of one, but please let me know of others. Now Guenon regarded the entire modern world as based on an illusion so he seldom bothered with it. Perhaps occasional book reviews and so on, but nothing sustained in a positive sense. I’d rather see a discussion on this point:

    “If our contemporaries as a whole could see what it is that is guiding them and where they are really going, the modern world would at once cease to exist as such”

    That is what I’ve been trying to do and even if it has been done poorly, nevertheless, in Chesterton’s phrase, it is still worth doing.

  11. My opinion on the simplest way to get over questions about how to live is to adopt an orthodox tradition, generally a religion, and follow the established rules sincerely and to the best of one’s ability. Develop further according to circumstance and capacity within that framework.

    Why worry about whether cremation or burial is better, how each influences the soul, what is permissible sexual behaviour, etc.? These questions are not to be answered absolutely, universally. If you have a tradition, follow the rules and there is your peace.

    But many are those who will not, in today’s world. If they decide to live outside of a functioning tradition, the only way to ultimately appraise their actions is by the consequences. Given the limits of human horizons, such a path entails placing oneself at the mercy of powers that we cannot grasp, the same powers that know and deliver all men according to some justice, all men naturally including those who performed rites, and those who did not.

  12. I need to make a correction here,after the anal fase,cames the phalic fase,which is when the boy only knows the existence of the male sex organ,and further he enters the genital phase,were both organs are perceived.Now,other very important thing to mention,is that other wonderfull fruits of modern world is this increase in homossexuality,male homossexuality as a rule and female homossexuality as a reflex of the former.And this is because of the infantilism of modern men,were he got stuck in those first phases of sexual development,with the help of course of modern social structure!

  13. Cologero: poor phrasing on my part maybe, I didn’t intend to imply that. I was noting that “you need to get laid” is known to be resorted to as a response to political angst.

  14. Excellent article, as always.

    But regarding the discussion about burial practices… Cremation seems to have been quite a widespread practice in various Indo-European cultures, and still is in Hinduism. So even though cremation is unorthodox seen in light of the European Christian tradition, and might have been untraditional in some European ‘pagan’ cultures as well, I can’t see how it would be untraditional in a wider sense. Maybe there is something I have not understood properly, but ancient cremation practices have always seemed to me as manifestations of a rather high religious spirit. To me it represents purification of lower residues by fire – by light; liberation of the spirit from ties slowing its ascension; the impermanence of the body and the ego; and so on. I find its symbolism to be quite beautiful, and have long thought that I will have my own body cremated once I am dead. But I might change my mind if I become convinced that this is actually less favourable than I thought in principle.

    Marriage and heir: While Evola wasn’t married and didn’t reproduce, the same can be said of quite a few historical sages, ascetics, and other great men who weren’t really untraditional by any stretch of the imagination. But Evola, though a genius he was, cannot be entirely compared to such figures of course. And to his disadvantage might be pointed out that he probably wasn’t celibate either. Evola surely wasn’t a perfect man; but I don’t think the fact that he chose cremation should be held against him or rejected as untraditional in principle, even if that is true for the particular Catholic tradition he was born into.

  15. Cologero, do you believe Evola was a hypocrite, was not truly traditional, or was simply mistaken on several points ?

  16. White Rabbit, who said sex in itself is a form of mind control? Sex is necessary for the propagation of the race and bonds families and peoples together with a common inheritance. The point made was that alleged “sexual freedom” leads to the bondage of addiction, and a partner is not necessary for that. I can’t comment on your friends.

  17. Cremation was not practiced in Rome until late into the Republic. Fustel de Coulanges describes the most ancient practices:

    From this primitive belief came the necssity of burial. In order that the soul might be confined to this subterranean abode, which was suited to its second life, it was necessary that the body to which it remained attached should be covered with earth. The soul that had no tomb had not dwelling place. It was a wandering spirit.

    Re Evola, riddle me this, Tom:

  18. With regard to the burial of the dead as the hallmark of a civilized people, what would you make of the tradition of cremating the dead, which appeared in many ancient civilizations and especially in Rome, where the nobles and the military heroes in particular were typically cremated as opposed to buried? (Julius Evola’s rather polemic view is that burial is “telluric” and represents a returning to the Earth, whereas cremation indicates an ascent to the heavens.)

  19. Max, I’ll give you Vico’s explantion [512]:

    Venus was also regarded as a goddess of solemn marriages. Called pronuba, bridesmaid, she covered her private parts with her famed girdle, which lascivious poets later embroidered with all sorts of aphrodisiac charms. At that point, the severe historical truth of the auspices had been corrupted, and people believed that Venus lay with men, as Jupiter lay with women. Hence, Aeneas, who was conceived under Venus’ auspices, was said to be Venus’ son by Anchises.

    So being “conceived under Venus’ auspices” is different from what you suggest. The poets represent a corruption.

  20. Cologero, you mention clients ruled by desire and contrast them to the patriarchal families. How are we to understand that the Roman families traced their ancestry to Aeneas who decended from Venus (the word related to the sanskrit “vanas”, desire, and to the scandinavian Vanir who were the mythological ancestors of the Yngling dynasty of Swedish kings). Perhaps as a conscious memory of primordiality and virginal nature since the world is apart from desire more significantly perpetuated by love.

    Here there is relevance to your quote of Guenon about the highest reflected in the lowest as both the patricians and plebeians are apparently “descended” from desire, but understood in different ways. The lower kind is in truth just a substitute, a realization which opens a possibility to overcome the denial. This suggests that the common man may recover his nobility through a purification of desire and earn the royal privilege to claim descent from Our Lady and the Heavenly Father.

  21. The word was chosen as an allusion to Guenon’s usage.
    In French: « Satan est le singe de Dieu »

    Rene Guenon Le Regne de la Quantite et les Signes des Temps

  22. @Colgero : Then I am sorry to have misunderstood your purpose. I must say that the word ”apes” was unknown to me, so I tried to understand the sentence without it, which led me to be believe it had to do with ”copying”; hence my answer asking why you linked Tradition to the Freudian project. Thank you for the answer.

  23. In the same sense that ‘Satan is the ape of God.’ See Guenon’s Reign of Quantity:

    by virtue of the law of analogy, the lowest point is the obscure reflection or the inverted image of the highest point, from which follows the consequence, paradoxical only in appearance, that the most complete absence of all principle implies a sort of counterfeit of the principle itself, something that has been expressed in a theological form in the words ‘Satan is the ape of God’.

    A proper appreciation of this fact can help greatly toward the understanding of some of the darkest enigmas of the modern world, enigmas which that world itself denies because, though it carries them in itself, it is incapable of perceiving them, and because this denial is an indispensable conditions for the maintenance of the special mentality whereby it exists.

    If our contemporaries as a whole could see what it is that is guiding them and where they are really going, the modern world would at once cease to exist as such, for the rectification could not fail to come about through that very circumstance.

    That is central to our project.

  24. Interesting articles with differents things to think upon, especially the study of ancient family regarding rites.

    But I have one question : how does the ”Freudian system apes the traditional view of man”? It is my impression that the Freudian system is a reversal and misunderstanding of the traditional view of man since for Freud, the conscious (let alone any thought of supra-conscious or supra-individual !) actions are dictated by the drive of the subconscious and its energy. If I do action X, it is because I have that amount of energy which made my reprensentation X bypass my ”screen”. There is no really conscious choice or action for Freud that seems possible if not for the creation of said ”screens” of the pulsion and passion from a ”super-ego” which in the end is no more than a construction and by no mean a Self in the higher sense. At the same time, I am not a student of Freud, and I would therefore ask for more guidance on this.

  25. Good article.

    Actually the result of sexual liberation is the dissolution of true sexuality, everything which rejects being will finally fall into absolute non-being. The more sexuality is liberated, the less polarity exists between sexes, the less true sexuality there is.

  26. Sex as a form of mind control? I don’t know. I’ve considered it, but when I talk about it my friends tell me I need to get laid.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2013 Gornahoor Press — All Rights Reserved    WordPress theme: Gornahoor