Most academics and ideological opponents believe in a fluctuating, subjective morality which improves (changes) over time and yet somehow remains valid. Of course, their beliefs concerning right and wrong are inflexible and dogmatic in many instances. However, everything is subject to alteration and improvement by approved ‘movers and shakers.’ The moral Progressives of the 1920s looked very different to the Modern SJW when you drill down into their specific societal prescriptions.
A kind of useful relativism not only pervades the subject of morality, but also another key philosophical dilemma that is not typically discussed as much, namely the concept of beauty. How things appear and are judged based on that manifestation is actually a controversial philosophical point, with arguments for subjectivism and objectivism both deep in literary backing. Our Modern world favors the former approach. We can see this most clearly in movements like the ‘body-acceptance’ fad which is used to empower morbidly obese women into thinking they are beautiful and certainly shouldn’t alter their consumption habits to appease patriarchal men. If you don’t believe me, check out pseudo-doctor Oz organizing a fat jackal ambush on trim fitness enthusiast Roosh V.
You see, everyone is beautiful, because somebody might perceive them as beautiful, and it is true that some men do find obese women to be very pleasing to the eye, but these certainly represent outliers.
If we affirm an objective aesthetic, that in the appearance of corporeal entities and elements there exist combinations that can be counted as objectively beautiful, and others that can be counted as objectively ugly, we can expose much of the Modern World as being aesthetically deficient.
One doesn’t need to trawl through MPC’s ‘Institute for Advanced Homophobia‘ to know that many of the practices pursued by sexual deviants are abhorrent, unhygienic, and disgusting to whoever dares to think about them for even a split second. Most mentally stable individuals experience an automatic, reflexive revulsion when they think of human feces, or urine, or sex with children, or necrophilia, and the list goes on. One by one, we’re supposed to accept such things as individual sexual preferences lest we purvey hatred. We are told that such things excite others, and even if they trigger the exact opposite reaction in us, this should be suppressed, and in fact may represent some unhealthy mental condition on our part. Can we not see the beauty in transgendering a nine year old?
A similar thing can be said about abortion. There is a reason abortion is not advertised using images from the procedure or its result. Humans typically find images of other dead humans distressing, and this distress intensifies the younger the subject in question. There is a visceral response when we see harmless human beings dissected or dismembered. This is why the aesthetic aspects of abortion are concealed, because it is something that everyone bar the most hardcore leftist finds aesthetically revolting. There is an aesthetic dimension to its morality.
Just as there is an organic moral base for mankind, there is also an organic aesthetic base which at the very least extends to the broad spiritual race. On average, people from Belarus have similar concepts of beauty to the French. It is very possible for an Italian to marvel at St. Basil’s Cathedral, and a Russian to admire the Coliseum, even though both are culturally distinct architectural styles.
This isn’t to claim any drive for aesthetic purity. There are ugly things that are necessary to our lives, and ugly things we should care about, but in the aggregate, to promote and look fondly upon an objective aesthetic is a very positive thing. Note that beauty is not synonymous with salaciousness, nor vanity. Beauty is just another way that through a Traditional mode of living, we ape the Divine Realm and the wonders of eternal perfection beyond. We cannot reach such a level of course, but we try, and treasure all that falls close.
In the meantime, the Cathedral busily promotes the ugliest aspects of society’s underbelly to the masses. Disease-ridden whores are enthroned in pop culture, food is continually downgraded into a mass-produced paste, it’s ‘cool’ to behave like ghetto trash, and this is all before we delve into ‘Modern Art.’ Beneficial to our cause would be to make a point of Modernity’s aesthetic inferiority, or at least its continued descent from objective standards of beauty, whether that’s women growing blue armpit hair, or marriage being reduced from religious ceremony to a formally officiated cuckolding at the county clerk’s office. Modernity just is ugly, and there isn’t much that can be done to escape from that conclusion.
What we should articulate is that this fact does not stem from a personal preference, but from an objectively informed, inborn preference. The things that our enemy strives for are not just immoral, unstable, ill-advised, treacherous, and undesirable. They are also hideous.
Excellent. I tried to articulate a similar argument against abortion as a schoolboy in the late ’80s. Abortion as an ugly, filthy, lower-class practice.
I’d like to think one of the wonderful things about Occidental people is that we don’t have what I would consider to be rather brutal customs as things like clitorectomies and the ritual abuse of wives that does exist in other races (not saying those don’t arise for individual cultural reasons, however we just don’t seem to have it in our DNA to do such things, we are at root I think rather pacific in daily life), but in the Modern age we have no such thing to be proud of because of what is pictured above.
Modernity has turned us into one of the most morally guilty peoples on the planet, but it is because of what the Liberals promote, not because of our history and our ancestors who were far superior to the powers that be today. The Cathedral wants us to be ashamed of our past, not our present. If we are ashamed of our present, we might root out the cause of that shame and eliminate it. The past of course cannot be altered, so a perpetual and irreparable guilt is created by this narrative that whitey is responsible for all the historical ills of the world. Even though chattel slavery has been abolished by white people, we still owe ‘dem reparations! We are of course responsible for the unprovoked gassing of the six quadrillion, the colonial atrocities in the Congo, and on and on and on. Since we’re stuck on these past ills and their ripple effects like ‘white privilege’, nobody has time to look at exactly how ugly our culture has become today through nobody’s fault but the smug Liberal who believes he is morally superior, even while defending the banner image!
Moral and practical arguments can be lodged effectively for sure, but often the Liberal is already a few steps ahead, short-circuiting the basis of very basic assumptions about the world. The thing about aesthetics is they are more irrecoverably grafted onto our reflex and instinct. When faced with a moral dilemma, we might think it over and weigh up the pros and cons. When we see something ugly, though we may try to hide it, almost everyone feels that jolt in the muscles lining the esophagus. We just have to open more eyes.
>Modernity has turned us into one of the most morally guilty peoples on the planet
Not to lessen the shame, but that “one of” does include just about every other group; China had forced abortions, Islam will stone disobedient daughters, and American Blacks are abortionists biggest customers. Past civillizations often abandoned infants.
White peoples sins are usually similar to other races’, but made more efficient by our technological prowess.
Yes.. But this where one gets sucked into “equality dogma.” The reframe is to observe a perpetuating self-annihilation and how it is “we” extricate ourselves from it… Neither dog piling as self-flagellation nor equivocation as dispersal of burden helps in this regard. Ascension is the abstract manner in which to rise above degeneracy and “equality dogma” is like an albatross around one’s neck in this regard.
Very true. and it goes to show how technology can be used for both good and evil, and once exported, can be used by other peoples for both good and evil. I stress though, I think before the onset of Modernity, Occidental people were the most ethical people in the world. I don’t say that with a smug self-satisfaction, I just think the Occidental character coupled with a fairly well-controlled Christian altruism made us better people ethically, than say 13th century inhabitants of the horn of Africa. Its not to say we haven’t had moral evils in our past, but these are grossly exaggerated by whig historiography. Modernity has brought us down considerably to the point where there may be groups of people on the planet who are morally superior to us, and that is a real damn shame. The decline is so well covered up by the Cathedral. It is getting harder though. Just look at Cologne.
That cannot be blamed on us. And really, it can’t be blamed on the howling animals that have poured over Europe’s borders, who rape precisely as a bear shits in the woods. It is the fault of the sneering, oh-so-progressive left and their suicidal love for the ‘other’.
The wonderful thing is though, as the decline began, the forces for chaos (the left) started at the top, and have slowly over time began to reflect the outcomes of their own cause. They’ve become intellectually barren, unreproductive, physically handicapped, mentally handicapped (all through choice). They started with Voltaire and will end with Cenk Uygur.
We on the other hand have only to go onwards and upwards. Everything about traditionalism is a demand from the individual and the collective to do better.
The wonderful thing is though, as the decline began, the forces for chaos (the left) started at the top, and have slowly over time began to reflect the outcomes of their own cause. They’ve become intellectually barren, unreproductive, physically handicapped, mentally handicapped (all through choice). They started with Voltaire and will end with Cenk Uygur.
We on the other hand have only to go onwards and upwards. Everything about traditionalism is a demand from the individual and the collective to do better.
Great article.
Joe Carter touched on this topic years ago: “In Defense of Disgust”
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/12/in-defense-of-disgust
Thanks for linking that! I hadn’t seen it.
Good Post. I think for we’ve been barking up the wrong tree for too long, especially with regard to the “rational appeal” of things. The Cathedral doesn’t argue, it appeals to aesthetics. The way to advocate the homosexual argument is not through intelligent debate, but by “conditioning” with shows like “Glee” and “Modern Family”. The idea here is to present the homosexual lifestyle in an “aesthetically pleasing” way, thereby overcoming the natural repugnance once has to it.
BTW, the First Things Article is superb. It’s about the “law written upon the heart” thing.
But of course, the true horror of abortion is not in its aesthetic deconstruction, but rather in the mind of the “white” male who kneels before a “judge, jury and executioner” whom HE STILL CALLS his “mother.” The aesthetic horror is “mother, the unrepentant executioner of her children” and the organic whim who will not voice even the tiniest protest.
You had no right to kill me, mother… Not from the beginning, not now and not at the end.
The fact that Occidental women can actually carry out this act, a stab in the heart of motherhood (a pole of their true feminine virility), represents a real spiritual sickness that has overtaken us. It can be taken as incontrovertible evidence. If the soul of the Occidental woman has not been corrupted, this would not be feasible, for mothers to happily execute their own progeny. There are of course signs of the corruption in the soul of man as well, but this just seems so obvious, I’d be surprised if anyone missed it.
Yes, Mr. Citadel, but the pathology is MUTUAL… And the language you are using must be purged of cultural correctness (abortion is UNWOMANLY). Post-1973 conception means, in the general scheme of things, that “we” ONLY EXIST on a “mother’s” whim and those who were snuffed out due a contrary whim (our brothers and sisters) are in need of a voice that can reach the modern world. That’s “us,” the genuine white Supremacist who simply ascertains his right to existence from the beginning. And any study of the alt-rite, Neo’s reaction, NS movements and even the Reactionary and tradcon spheres and one will either observe full compliance with the idea that white man has NO RIGHT TO EXISTENCE, individually or collectively, and or a passive acceptance that this just is the way of life… There is no real “right” to existence… A “mother,” by natural law alone, is granted executioner status. This pathological mindset is taken as inherent, insurmountable and forever operative. So “we” are not just faced with a “left” which fervently executes its own (bona fide self-annihilation), but an “ally” who complies with this ideologically-induced self-annihilation (bona fide self-annihilator). And “he” so complies in a cornucopia of varying degrees for the very purpose of blotting out totally THE MUTUAL PATHOLOGY of the self-annihilators. Self-annihilators who hide beneath a mutually agreed upon socially manufactured “political spectrum” that is simply a measuring of degrees of anti-white Supremacy. This measuring fluctuates from irrevocably pathological (demanding imminent annihilation) to infection with no outward-showing symptoms (demanding all options on the table assuming further inspection).
We are, in the most reductionist of manners (the only “manner” available to a finite playing field), going out of existence because we do not believe in our right to existence. And it is the high IQ “white” male who stands MOST FERVENTLY behind this Narrative in a myriad of diabolically-scheming ways.
I ate pizza for lunch today. That lunch almost regurgitated.
Nice article. Excellent picture.
Thank you. I’m glad you appreciated it. The image was chosen by Hadley. I would have probably gone for something a little more… tame, if only for the sake of your pizza, and perhaps a sorrowful respect for that which was so cruelly violated by what I can only describe as a credentialed sadist.
This is very poor because you only choose the most extreme, the most obviously aberrant things to ‘abhor’. Almost anyone would short of ‘cute faggots’ like Frank Bruni. If you pick out fetishes, that’s all you’ve shown. It’s not much and the post is too short and very superficial. But why not? It’s your point that interests you, not what is NOT ugly about modern aesthetics.
I understand this to some degree. Most of my family has this very Christian value-system applied to art as well. One of my sisters once talked about those ‘nasty-looking costumes’ the male ballet dancers wear. She’s grown up since then, at least enough to stop talking like a hick.
‘what I would consider to be rather brutal customs as things like clitorectomies’
These are appalling, but so is male circumcision, an idiotic Jewish ritual adopted in the ‘Big West’ mostly by Americans. It’s considered ‘clean-cut’, but who needs it? We can wash ourselves. And Europeans hardly bother with it. About that they are right, even if currently stupider than almost anybody else about everything else.
As for the white race, I agree on almost all of our things being superior and threatened, but you and most NRxers must think you won’t ‘win your points’ if you don’t go after everything modern.
‘Modernity has brought us down considerably to the point where there may be groups of people on the planet who are morally superior to us, and that is a real damn shame. ‘
Who is superior to us? And modernity has done it? Modernity has, if anything, refined our superiority. People into ‘feces’ were doing that shit explicitly in the 18th c., and I’m sure it stank just as much then as now. I don’t think any of them are superior, although Europeans may be inferior if they keep sucking migrant vibrancy. That really is putrid. But nothing compares to the grotesquerie of Islam. Sorry, I’m so stuck on loathing of Islam I can’t really take anything else seriously outside local concerns.
‘The decline is so well covered up by the Cathedral.’
Oh, FUCK the ‘Cathedral’. I can’t believe this many people, even a small club like this, uses such dumb terms and consecrates them.’
“It is getting harder though. Just look at Cologne. ”
That IS serious, though. And if it continues to grow in large spectacles like Cologne, it won’t be hard at all. Try as they might, this couldn’t be hidden at all, and made possible the revelation of Stockholm as well, which is maybe even more disturbing, because it happened last Aug. and also Aug., 2014.
“This is very poor because you only choose the most extreme, the most obviously aberrant things to ‘abhor’.”
Most extreme? These things are mainstream now, and there is nothing ‘extreme’ about them. More ‘extreme’ things will become acceptable to mainstream everymen in sort order, as I point out. Entropy would appear to apply to aesthetics as well. What is already ugly, will only grow in ugliness.
“She’s grown up since then, at least enough to stop talking like a hick.”
Congratulate her for me.
“These are appalling, but so is male circumcision”
I would in fact agree that circumcision is an unnecessary practice, applied in the United States for a purpose it failed to achieve (to stop masturbation). However, comparisons of it to clitorectomies are ill-informed, as the latter is a far more dangerous and invasive procedure. Note that when I mentioned clitorectomies, I was not talking about aesthetics, but instead the harshness of the practice as I perceive it. I think they represent something uniquely brutal about the peoples of north-east Africa.
“Modernity has, if anything, refined our superiority”
If you truly believe this, then it puzzles me that you ever ended up on this side of the net. You may have taken a wrong turn at Taki mag?
“Sorry, I’m so stuck on loathing of Islam I can’t really take anything else seriously outside local concerns.”
I can sympathize, believe me, I used to be a borderline Breivik myself, but then I saw the big picture thanks to the Reactosphere and the Alt-right. Islam is ultimately small ball. There are problems more endemic, insidious, and deep-rooted than other cultures taking advantage of our weakness.
“Oh, FUCK the ‘Cathedral’. I can’t believe this many people, even a small club like this, uses such dumb terms and consecrates them.’”
I am writing here for a largely NRx audience, and so their lexicon is very useful for conveying commonly understood concepts. The term itself I believe was popularized by MM, so you’d have to take up any disagreements with him, however it is useful shorthand for what I am trying to get across, so I don’t have to list all the interconnected systems which perpetuate the occult motivator of our age.
Thanks for reading, Parisian. Sorry you didn’t find this article helpful.
That was a model of a civilized response, given that mine was not exactly polite. I do NOT see Islam as ‘small ball’, but that’s the only thing I ought to say, since we wouldn’t get anywhere discussing it. I am not going to change on that till it’s been demonstrated–because it’s every day, even if the things in Turkey and Baghdad don’t seem to matter as much as much as Cologne, CA, Paris, etc. I’ve read you elsewhere, but since I’m out of the loop, I didn’t want to undergo moderation. This, though: “What is already ugly, will only grow in ugliness.” That’s true, but just because we would agree on abortion pictures, feces fetishes, etc., doesn’t mean we’d agree (nor anybody else) on lots of other things being ugly to begin with. Sure, 9yo transgendering is revolting, but I probably just look away when old sad hags like the famous one do it–I find much worse that she got off her manslaughter charge which must have inconvenienced her makeup. But here: ‘and this is all before we delve into ‘Modern Art.’ And that’s why this was a bit ‘superficial’ and it would be an exhaustive project. That’s where we’d really disagree and can without too much distress. The music of modernity, for example, and modern dance even more easily, are definitely not ugly, or at least not nearly always. Attempts at ‘post-modern music’ are where things get bad. It’s probably more easily seen in modern dance than in high serial music, because anybody is going to see ‘Appalachian Spring’ (not to mention Copland’s marvelous score) and see that that, and much other Graham, like all the Greek myths, etc., is high in the classical sense. There were two of your people talking about it, one wanted hippy things and ‘new forms’, blah and blah and blah, the other wanted more ‘return to classical forms’, well and good when possible, but some of it has continued even in the modern era. And there’s been great pop music too (not only Bowie, but Bacharach/Warwick and tons of great jazz), it can go on and on. Just a couple of things here…I remember an old friend saying young people say they like Picasso because they’re told to. Not so. Or definitely maybe only at first. There’s nothing wrong with putting some real effort into understanding a genius like Picasso, and I DO agree with the ‘Erebus’ person that it’s distasteful that people want to ape Hindus. I ran into this shit myself and, precious as it sounds, it took years to recover.
Total agreement about women not shaving though. They do not look good with armpit hair and definitely the ones with moustaches have serious problems.
Sorry about rude remarks. No, I know clitorectomies are worse.
Would not agree that love of ‘necrophilia, coprophagy, abortion photos’ is mainstream, though. They can appear in the occasional art gallery as experiments every decade or so, but otherwise such things are on the net for the fetishists. I don’t know if necrophilia is, that’s got to be the worst, and I don’t look up things like that. You’ve got a point, though, if people want to actually watch the beheadings and see electrocutions on the net, that’s the sick part. I have never cared to watch any of these things, although did see one woman’s stoning start with the first stone hitting her head, and I couldn’t bear it. But almost as bad was that the terrible realization of what was about to happen didn’t make her defiant. I’ll have to even give that to Saddam Hussein, but then he was, in their definition, a ‘noble’.
Thanks for letting me drop by. All the best to you. I’m sort of mainstream centrist, but voting for Trump if he’s running, that ought to put it in shorthand. What he said about the Muslims, whether or not it would ever be done exactly (practically speaking, some of it’s not possible, but that wasn’t the point), is one of the greatest moments of Modernity. Everybody was stunned, thrilled and excited, including you types that want Hillary to win because you want a ‘quicker collapse’ for the U.S., and thus aren’t decent patriots. LOL
Now I remembered where it was that I could see how you looked at some of these things more, on your piece on Tarantino’s ‘Hateful Eight’. You wanted boycotting of music and movies, which might make sense if more than a handful would do it. Most won’t, and I won’t, and plenty of NRx have been going to the movies. I saw ‘The Big Short’ and it was the best film I’ve seen in about 3 years, although ‘Mad Max’ was good too. But you’d have to give 100% of your time to even make a dent, wouldn’t you? After all, there are a thousand other causes plenty of people feel strongly about, but I don’t know examples of boycotting popular products ever being successful. I really don’t care about the ‘whitey’ seen, if it says ‘Tarantino’, that’s enough to keep me away, and I saw all the early stuff that was idiotically raved over, but…The Big Short is incredibly good.
Because “modern” = anti-objective Supremacy… Anti-Supremacy… Then modern art is art rooted in anti-Supremacy. That it then is perceived as a piece of objective Supremacy ONLY TAKES a dyslexic observer. Likewise, art projecting a sense of objective Suoremacy STILL EXIST within the modern milieu of anti-Supremacy. This does not then transform this testament to artful objective Supremacy into a creation of modernism, ie., anti-Supremacy. This transformation takes a high IQ “white” self-annihilator to pull off. So the masses “see” a piece of shit and their “intellectuals” claim it “beautiful” and then the masses “see” beauty and the “intellectuals” claim it a piece of “shit. This is the machinations of Modernism in applicable form.