Guillaume Faye - Archeofuturism

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (First English edition 2010, Arktos Media)

I picked up this book the other day and am not yet finished reading it. I'm really enjoying it.

I thought the themes of the book fit nicely with KTS. Thoughts, criticisms, etc. would be welcome. (When I have more of my own I'll post those as well. ) The following are some of my favorite passages so far:

"Probably only after catastrophe will have destroyed modernity, with its global myth and ideology, will an alternative view of the world assert itself by virtue of necessity. No one will have the foresight or courage to implement it before chaos breaks loose.

"It is up to us, therefore, who are living in the interregnum . . . to develop the idea of the world for the post-catastrophic age. It may be centred on Archeofuturism, but this concept must be filled with meaning.

1 - The essence of archaism. It is necessary to give the word 'archaic' its true meaning, which is a positive one, as suggested by the Greek noun archè, meaning both 'foundation' and 'beginning'--in other words, 'founding impulse'. The word also means 'what creates and is unchangeable' and refers to the central notion of 'order'. 'Archaic' does not mean 'backward-looking', for it is the historical past that has engendered the egalitarian philosophy of modernity that is now falling into ruin, and hence any form of historical regression would be absurd. Modernity already belongs to a past that is over. Is archaism a form of traditionalism? Yes and no. Traditionalism entails the transmission of values and is rightly opposed to those doctrines that wish to make a clean sweep of things. It all depends on what traditions are handed down: universalist and egalitarian traditions are not acceptable, nor are those that are diseased, demobilising and fit only for museums. Should we not draw a distinction when it comes to traditions (values transmitted) between positive and harmful ones? Our current of thought has always been torn and weakened by an artificial distinction contrasting 'traditionalists' with those 'who look towards the future'. Archeofuturism can reconcile these two families through a dialectic overcoming.

. . .

"This return to 'archaic' (and hence fundamental) questions baffles 'modern' intellectuals, who expound on homosexuals' right to get married and other such inanities. The attraction towards the insignificant and the memoralising of the past is a characteristic of dying modernity. Modernity is backward-looking, whereas archaism is futurist.

“On the other hand . . . when the historical period of the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries will have come to a close, and its egalitarian hallucinations will have been sunk by catastrophe, humanity will revert to its archaic values, which are purely biological and human (i.e., anthropological): the separation of gender roles; the transmission of ethnic and folk traditions, spirituality and priestly organization; visible and structuring social hierarchies; the worship of ancestors; rites and tests of initiation; the re-establishment of organic communities (from the family to the folk); the de-individualisation of marriage (unions must be the concern of the whole community and not merely of the married couple); an end of the confusion between eroticism and conjugality; the prestige of the warrior caste; inequality among social statuses—not implicit inequality, which is unjust and frustrating and is what we find today in egalitarian utopias, but explicit and ideologically legitimated inequality; duties that match rights, hence a rigorous justice that gives people a sense of responsibility; a definition of peoples—and of all established groups or bodies—as diachronic communities of destiny rather than synchronic masses of individual atoms.

“In brief, in the vast, oscillating movement of history which Nietzsche called ‘the eternal return of the identical’, future centuries will witness a return to these archaic values one way or another.

“The problem for us Europeans is not having these values imposed upon us, on account of our cowardliness, by Islam—as is already happening—but rather of being capable of asserting these values ourselves by drawing them from our historical memory.

. . .

“It is evident that the ideology in power today—and not for much longer—considers these above-mentioned values diabolical, just as a paranoid madman might see the psychiatrist that is curing him as the devil. Actually, these are the values of justice. Forever suited to human nature, these values reject the erroneous idea of individual emancipation promoted by the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which leads to the isolation of man and social barbarism. These archaic values are just in the ancient Greek sense of the term, for they see man for what he is, a zoon politikòn (‘social and organic animal within a communitarian city’) rather than for what he is not—an asexual and isolated atom possessing universal and enduring pseudo-rights.

“Concretely, these anti-individualist values enable the attainment of self-realisation, active solidarity and social peace, whereas the falsely emancipating individualism of egalitarian doctrines brings the law of the jungle.

2 – The essence of futurism. A constant feature of the European mindset is the rejection of what is unchangeable: a Faustian, (at)tempting character (in the sense of one who both ‘makes attempts’ and ‘makes one undergo temptations’), which embarks upon new forms of civilization. The European cultural background America has inherited is adventurous and—most importantly—voluntaristic. It aims to change the world through the creation of empires or technological science, by means of vast plans that represent the anticipated representation of a constructed future. The ‘future’, as opposed to a historical cycle that repeats itself, is that lies at the centre of the European worldview. To paraphrase Heidegger, it could be said that history is like a path that unwinds through a forest (Holzweg), or rather the course of a river along which one must always face new dangers and make new discoveries. Besides, according to the futurist view, technological and scientific inventions, just like political or geopolitical projects—regarded as challenges—are approached from an aesthetic as well as utilitarian angle. Aviation, rockets, submarines and nuclear power have sprung from rationalisted fantasies where the scientific spirit has managed to carry out the plan conceived by the aesthetic.

“The European soul is marked by a longing for the future, a sign of youthfulness. To put it shortly, it is historical and imaginal (it constantly envisages future history according to a plan).

“In art, too, European civilization has been the only one in which forms have undergone constant renovation and all cyclical return of past models has been banned. The spirit of artworks must remain unchanged (the archaic pole) but their form must always change (the futurist pole). The European soul is defined by ongoing creation and invention—the poiesis of the Greeks—while being always aware of the fact that in its direction and values it must remain faithful to tradition.

“The essence of futurism is the planning of the future (not ‘making a clean sweep of the past’); the envisaging of civilization—in this case, European civilization—as a work in motion, to paraphrase Wagner’s musical expression. Politics here are understood not merely in a narrow sense as the ‘identification of one’s enemy’ (Carl Schmitt), but as the identification of one’s friend (who is part of the folk community?) and—most importantly—as the future transformation of the folk, driven by ambition, a spirit of independence, creativity and the will to power…

“This dynamic force, however, and projection towards the future, meets many obstacles. The first is egalitarian modernity with its morality—which lays guilt upon force—and its historical fatalism. The second obstacle, or rather danger, in the social field is represented by a deviated form of futurism which may lead to utopian aberrations for the sheer taste of ‘change for the sake of change’. Thirdly, when left to itself—particularly in the realm of technological science—the futurist mentality may prove suicidal, especially because of its impact on the environment, given the risk of deifying technology as something that can ‘solve everything’.

“Hence, futurism must be tempered with archaism; or, to use a bold expression, we might say that archaism must cleanse futurism.

. . .

3 - The Archeofuturist synthesis as a philosophical alliance between the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Futurism and archaism are both related to Apollonian and Dionysian principles that have always appeared to be mutually opposed, when in fact they are complementary. The futurist pole is Apollonian in its sovereign and rational plan to shape the world, and Dionysian in its aesthetic and romantic mobilization of pure energy. Archaism is telluric in its appeal to timeless forces and conformity to the archè, but it is also Apollonian, for it is founded on wisdom and the endurance of human order.

“It is a question, for future society, of no longer thinking according to the exclusive logic of ‘or’ but according to the inclusive logic of ‘and’; of simultaneously embracing ultra-science and a return to traditional solutions that date back into the mists of time. Futurism is actually more vigorous than archaism: for reasons of sheer realism, a futurist plan can only be implemented by resorting to archaism.

“Hence the paradox of Archeofuturism, which rejects all ideas of progress, as everything pertaining to the worldview of a people must rest on unchangeable bases (although forms and expressions may vary): for over the past 50,000 years homo sapiens has changed very little, and archaic and pre-modern models of social organization have proven valid. The fallacious idea of progress must be replaced with movement.

“An astonishing degree of continuity exists between archaic values and the revolutions technological science makes possible. Why? Because the egalitarian and humanitarian mindset of modern man, for instance, does not allow him to manage the explosive possibilities behind genetic engineering or the new electromagnetic weapons (in the making). The incompatibility between modern egalitarian ideology and futurism emerges in the extraordinary limits placed upon the civil nuclear power industry in the West through the influence of manipulated public opinion, or in the pseudo-ethical obstacles raised in opposition to genetic engineering, the creation of ‘modified’ human beings, and positive eugenics.

“The more archaic futurism becomes, the more radical it will be; the more futurist archaism becomes, the more radical it will be.

“Needless to say, Archeofuturism is based on the Nietzschean idea of Umwertung—the radical overthrowing of modern values—and on a spherical view of history.

“Egalitarian modernity, founded as it is on faith in progress and boundless development, has adopted a secular version of the linear, ascendant, eschatological and soteriological (redemptive) view of history, which stretches back to the time of the religions of salvation, and which is also shared by socialist and liberal democratic thought. Traditional societies (particularly non-European ones) have developed a cyclical, repetitive and hence fatalistic view of history. The Nietzschean view of history, which Locchi described as ‘spherical’, differs from both the linear and the cyclical notions of progress.”

“So what is this view?

“Let us imagine a sphere, a billiard ball moving in disorderly fashion across a surface, or moved by the (necessarily imperfect) will of a player: after a number of spins, the same point on the surface of the ball will inevitably touch the cloth. This is the ‘eternal return of the identical, but not of the ‘same’. For the sphere is moving and even if that very ‘same’ point is touching the cloth, its position is not the same as before. This represents the return of a ‘comparable’ situation, but in a different place. The same image can be applied to the succession of the seasons and the historical outlook of Archeofuturism: the return to archaic values should not be understood as a cyclical return to the past (a past that has failed, as it has engendered the catastrophe of modernity), but rather as the re-emergence of archaic social configurations in a new context. In other terms, this means applying age-old solutions to completely new problems; it means the reappearance of a forgotten and transfigured order in a different historical context.

“Three additional points of a philosophical nature are in order. The first: Archeofuturism distinguishes itself from conventional ‘traditionalism’ because of its approach to technological science, which it does not demonise: for the essence of technological science is not connected to egalitarian modernity, but rather has its roots in the ethno-cultural heritage of Europe, and particularly ancient Greece. Let us remember that the French Revolution ‘did not need any scientists’, so much so that it guillotined several of them.

“Second point: Archeofuturism is a changing worldview. The values of the archè, projected into the future, are made newly relevant and transfigured. The future is not the negation of the tradition and historical memory of a folk, but rather their metamorphosis, by which they are ultimately reinforced and reintegrated. To use a metaphor: what does a nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine have in common with an Athenian trireme? Nothing and everything: one represents the metamorphosis of the other, but both, in different ages, have served precisely the same purpose and embody the same values (including the same aesthetic values).

“Third point: Archeofuturism is a concept of order, a concept that upsets modern minds, which are shaped by the fallacious individualist ethics of emancipation and the rejection of discipline that has let to the swindle of ‘contemporary art’ and wreaked havoc in the educational and socio-economic systems.

“According to the view of Plato that he conveyed in The Republic, order is not injustice: Every conception of order is revolutionary and every revolution is a return to authentic order. (68-75)
--

“It is necessary to reconcile Evola and Marinetti. The new concept of Archeofuturism draws upon the organic, unifying and radical thought of Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger: to imagine technological science and the immemorial community of traditional society together—never one without the other; to consider European man, as Raymond Abellio and Jean Parvulesco foresaw, the deinotatos (‘most daring’), the futurist; and to have a long memory.

“Globally, the future calls for a return to ancestral values across the entire Earth.” (89)

---

The ‘Biolithic Revolution’ and the Great Ethical Crisis of the Twenty-first century
“A conflict will inevitably break out in the Twenty-first century between the great monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism and the secular religion of human rights) and the progress of technological science in the fields of computers and biology. In his book La revolution biolitique (Albin Michel, 1998), Hervé Kempf argues that science is about to undergo a ‘transition’ comparable to the Neolithic Revolution, when homo sapiens passed from the hunter-gatherer stage to farming and agriculture, thus shaping his environment. We are now experiencing a second great change, in both biology and informatics. This revolution consists in the artificial transformation of living creatures, in the humanization of machines (the quantic and especially biotronic computers of the future), and consequently in the interactions between men and robots.

“Anthropocentrism and the unifying notion of ‘human life’ as a value in itself, which constitute the central dogmas of both monotheistic religions and the egalitarian ideologies of modernity, are entering into a sharp contrast with the possibilities offered by technological science, and particularly the ‘infernal’ alliance between informatics and biology. There will be a major conflict between researchers on the one hand and political and religious leaders on the other, who seek to censor and limit the use of new scientific discoveries—although they may not succeed…

“Things such as artificial births in incubators; intelligent, ‘quasi-sensitive’ and quasi-human biotronic robots; chimeras (crossbreeds between humans and animals, a patent for which has already been filed in the United States); genetic manipulations or ‘transgenic humans’; new artificial organs that increase the faculties tenfold; the creation of hyper-endowed and ultra resistant individuals through positive eugenics; and cloning—all risk shattering the old egalitarian and religious idea of man even more than Darwin and evolutionary theories have done. ‘Human factories’ are already being developed through the production of artificial organs, assisted procreation, function stimulation, etc. The creation of machines based on biological processes (e.g. neural computers and DNA microchips) is also not far away. The very definitions of man, living creatures and machines will have to be reformulated. Artificial humans and animal machines…

“In the Twenty-first century, man will no longer be what he used to be. This will bring ethical confusion with devastating effects. There is the risk of witnessing a mental shock, a clash with unforeseeable consequences between two worlds: the new biotronic or biolithic view on the one hand, and that of the old ideas promoted by the great world religions and the modern egalitarian philosophy of human rights on the other.

“Only a neo-archaic outlook will enable us to cope with this shock, because once—whether among the Incas, Tibetans, Greeks or Egyptians—it wasn’t man who was at the centre of the world but deities, who could take any living form they wished. The technological science of the future invites us not to dehumanize man, but to stop divinizing him. Does this mean the end of humanism? It certainly does.

Genetics and Inegalitarianism
“One of the central theses behind the idea of ‘Archeofuturism’ is the following: paradoxically, Twenty-first century technological science is driving modernity’s back against the wall, for it ‘risks rehabilitating inegalitarian and archaic worldviews. Here is a simple example in the field of genetics: the drawing of a ‘map of the human genome’, the study of hereditary diseases, the development of genetic therapies, research into brain chemistry, AIDS and viral illnesses, etc., are already starting to concretely reveal the inequality among humans. The scientific community is caught in a vice: how to obey the censorship of political correctness, giving in to the intellectual terrorism of egalitarianism while at the same time promoting scientific truths that may be therapeutically useful? A conflict will arise here, and a serious one too. Geneticists, sexologists and virologists are already finding it harder and harder to conceal the fact that one of the canonical myths of the religion of human rights—the principle of equality among population groups and the genetic individualization of humans—is scientifically untenable.

“On the other hand, it is clear that biotechnologies (e.g., assisted procreation, biotronic implants, artificial organs, cloning, genetic therapies, and the manipulation of transmissible genomes—technologies which are genuine forms of eugenics, although few would dare use this word) will neither be available to everyone nor covered by social security; moreover, they will only be applied in the great industrial nations. What is de facto a kind of eugenics will be offered to a minority which will witness an increase in life expectancy: the height of inegalitarianism has crept like a virus into the heart of modern egalitarian civilization. Another embarrassing problem: how will anthropocentric humanists react when chimeras (man-animal hybrids) are created to be used as organ and blood banks or to engineer better semen or to test drugs? Will they seek to ban them? If so, they will fail. To face the global shock of future genetics we will have to adopt an archaic outlook.

The Notion of ‘Love’: One of the Pathologies of Civilisation
“Western civilization began to grow considerably weaker from the day it started assigning an absolute value to a pathological feeling: love. This pathology has eroded both our demographic resources and our defensive instincts. It is a secularized Christian inheritance. Does this mean that hate must be the motor of conquering and creative civilizations? No. It is ‘love’, whether personal or collective, that represents a pathological and emphatic form of solidarity leading to failure and, paradoxically, hate and massacres. Religious wars and contemporary forms of fanaticism on the part of the monotheistic religions of love and mercy are proof of this. Even totalitarian Communism was founded on the idea of ‘love of the people’.

“It is necessary to have (temporary) allies among nations, not friends. Among individuals, it is better to say ‘I am fond of you’ than ‘I love you’, and to engage with others according to the logic of alliance rather than the blind—and shifting—gratuitousness of love.

“Love is absolute, hence totalitarian. Human feelings and strategies are changeable. Both in politics and in our personal relations, instead of the verb ‘to love’ let us adopt a polytheistic range of verbs: to be fond of, admire, ally oneself with, come to terms with, protect, help, cherish, desire, etc. We should not have children as a gift we wish to bestow on the partner we love, but rather because we feel this person is worthy of breeding and perpetuating our stock. Today half of all marriages fail because they are based on an adolescent and ephemeral feeling that vanishes with the first gust of wind. Lasting marriages are based on plans.

“The same is happening with parents’ education of their children. This is also failing because it is based on the blissful adulation of one’s offspring (these by-products of love), which undermines the legitimacy and authority of parents, perceived as loving sheep. Politicians are similarly doomed to failure because their ideology and actions are marred by residues of love—good feelings, do-goodism, humanitarianism, pity, masochism, and a misdirected and hypocritical altruism—instead of resting on the decision-making will of pursuing one’s goal to the very end, whatever the cost.

“This civilization, which has long been implicitly founded on the distorted notion of love, must one day return to the allegory of Don Juan, the symbol of anti-love par excellence. Archeofuturism. (109-112)

Quote :

"Probably only after catastrophe will have destroyed modernity, with its global myth and ideology, will an alternative view of the world assert itself by virtue of necessity. No one will have the foresight or courage to implement it before chaos breaks loose.

The Problem is: chaos happens slowly. It's like with the frog in the boiler, who dies, when the temperatur is turned up slowly. (Boiled to death). Wheras if he's put directly into very hot water, he'll try to jump out.

Quote :

“The European soul is marked by a longing for the future, a sign of youthfulness. To put it shortly, it is historical and imaginal (it constantly envisages future history according to a plan).

Focussing on the future, is essentially the root of Nihilism. In this case a Utopia.

Quote :

“Needless to say, Archeofuturism is based on the Nietzschean idea of Umwertung—the radical overthrowing of modern values—and on a spherical view of history.

It's not going to happen.

Despite all the name dropping of "right wing" and "traditionalist" writers, it sounds like a socialist Utopia to me. If "socialist utopia" isn't even an tautology.

But thanks for sharing. Maybe Satyr can explain a little more, why Utopianism is essentially Nihilism.

This is an honest "right wing" traditionalist site:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Quote:

"Probably only after catastrophe will have destroyed modernity, with its global myth and ideology, will an alternative view of the world assert itself by virtue of necessity. No one will have the foresight or courage to implement it before chaos breaks loose."


The Problem is: chaos happens slowly. It's like with the frog in the boiler, who dies, when the temperatur is turned up slowly. (Boiled to death). Wheras if he's put directly into very hot water, he'll try to jump out.

I don't see how this contradicts what you quoted. It sounds like an agreement.

Quote :

Quote:

“The European soul is marked by a longing for the future, a sign of youthfulness. To put it shortly, it is historical and imaginal (it constantly envisages future history according to a plan)."


Focussing on the future, is essentially the root of Nihilism. In this case a Utopia.

I believe what he means is Faustianism, a la Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West. The Faustian (Western) soul does not see an end in sight, hence "constantly envisaging future history." It continually seeks new frontiers, knowing it will never find an end. Nihilism looks for history to end, it longs for an end to life. A utopia would be the state at which longing ceases. But the European soul longs to long. It seeks to seek.

Quote :

Quote:

“Needless to say, Archeofuturism is based on the Nietzschean idea of Umwertung—the radical overthrowing of modern values—and on a spherical view of history."


It's not going to happen.

Despite all the name dropping of "right wing" and "traditionalist" writers, it sounds like a socialist Utopia to me. If "socialist utopia" isn't even an tautology.

Dude, WHAT'S not going to happen? You're welcome to explain how in the hell you got "Utopia" out of this. I'm not gonna pretend to understand. Demonstrate how anything I quoted promotes a socialist utopia.

Quote :

This is an honest "right wing" traditionalist site:
Counter Currents Publishing

Yes, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is a wonderful resource. It also features a few articles by and about Guillaume Faye's work, and is where I first read about Archeofuturism.

This looking back is what I call “Know Thyself.”
It is how identity is built.

If we consider Heidegger’s positions and agree with him that consciousness is a “looking back” – because even the immediate requires a time period to be processed – then consciousness is always a perpetual looking back,.
By the time we become conscious of an otherness, a phenomenon, it has already changed - constant Flux…the forever towards the absolute chaos and then back.
Therefore, the more of your past you can appreciate and apply successfully the more aware of yourself you are, for you are the sum of your past.
I say “successfully” because a wrong appreciation or interpretation of your past, leads to a wrong assessment of yourself and of the world in general, resulting in mistakes…the ideal and the real never meeting.
The goal is to see the world and yourself not ideally but as close to the real as possible. This would result in a near absolute awareness of self – an agreement of mind with body, since the mind is always interpreting the physical and symbolizing and abstracting it.

Experience is this sampling of the past; knowledge, as I’ve said before, is the inherited interpretations of the past you acquire from second-hand sources.
In both cases the reliability is in question, because emotion, (fear) is always corrupting interpretations of the world.
The more attached, applicable, referencing the sensual world a mind’s interpretations of the world are, all the more lucid the mind is. This is not always a positive thing, since the world, in relation to the mind interpreting is a “negative” process – the mind and life, being an ordering and the world, nature, being a constant, disordering.
This is why courage is as important to wisdom as intelligence is.
Intelligence, corrupted by emotion, is lead astray.

To attach this meandering to the topic of Utopia, we can say that a Utopia, a Paradise, in its many manifestations and labels, is a measurement of attachment to reality; a measurement of agreement between a mind’s interpretations of the immediate sensually perceived world, which confronts it constantly, and tis projections, which take on the form of Ideas/Ideals, expectations, predictions, and when emotionally laden as hope.

If we consider the emotion of “love” carefully it is a desire, a hunger, when it is erotic (this is why copulation amongst many species) takes on the form of a feeding frenzy), and is this need to merge with otherness; to find a final agreement between personal need and the world, via an otherness.
Depending what attitude is taken this can be a masculine – desire to consume, to absorb, to order – or a feminine – a desire to be consumed, to be absorbed, to be ordered) demeanor.

I think that the act of heterosexual copulation is an outcrop of the feeding mechanism.
Even our kissing is an adaptation of a mother masticating and passing no food to her offspring.

But I digress.
Like I’ve also said before, the best way to evaluate the utopianism of a proposition, or an idea or an ideal, is to compare it to the world around you. The more it has references there the more realistic, valid, probable, it is.
It gains a spatial (possibility) substance.

The less it is so all the more fantastic and delusional and improbable it is.
Take Christian doctrine as one example:
Eternal life, in a world characterized by mortal life; absolute order, in a world characterized by disordering.
Now consider the secular form of Judaic nihilism, which we call humanism or liberalism or progressive: it comes in many flavors but in its extreme expressions it goes so far as to deny sex as being determined; it pretends to be empirical when it discredits appearances; it claims to love nature, wanting to protect it from human encroachments, yet it denounces its many forms which disagree with tis desired, preferred, outcome: war, discrimination, intolerance, sexual specialization, genetic fragmentation (race) etc.

My opinion is that all Futurism is Nihilism. (Being a recovering nihilist myself, that is. And feeling tempted myself all too often to make future predictions or find myself thinking about what might come.) Since it draws the mind away from the past. (Roots.)

Another signalword for leftism for me is revolution. Evola the fundamental thinker of the New Right, explained, why he introduced the term counter-revolution, in the beginning of his book,
Men Among the Ruins :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Quote :

Quote :

"Probably only after catastrophe will have destroyed modernity, with its global myth and ideology, will an alternative view of the world assert itself by virtue of necessity. No one will have the foresight or courage to implement it before chaos breaks loose."

The Problem is: chaos happens slowly. It's like with the frog in the boiler, who dies, when the temperatur is turned up slowly. (Boiled to death). Wheras if he's put directly into very hot water, he'll try to jump out.

I don't see how this contradicts what you quoted. It sounds like an agreement.

"Catastrophe" to me sounds more like a sudden event, than a gradual process. Just like a "Revolution".

Quote :

Quote :

Quote :

“Needless to say, Archeofuturism is based on the Nietzschean idea of Umwertung—the radical overthrowing of modern values—and on a spherical view of history."

It's not going to happen.
[...]

Dude, WHAT'S not going to happen?

What I meant by "It's not going to happen" is Nietzsches Transvaluation of all values (German: Umwertung aller Werte). But like I said, this too is a prediction, so in itself nihilistic. (Futurism) From my pov. Important to me is also, that Elitism doesn't care about Humanity as a whole.

Laconian wrote:

My opinion is that all Futurism is Nihilism. (Being a recovering nihilist myself, that is. And feeling tempted myself all too often to make future predictions or find myself thinking about what might come.) Since it draws the mind away from the past. (Roots.)

We are all struggling nihilists.
How easy is it to submit, to let go, to the flow of decay?

This is why nihilism wins out amongst the weak, and why resistance to it (masculinity) is so precious and so rare.


Another signalword for leftism for me is revolution. Evola the fundamental thinker of the New Right, explained, why he introduced the term counter-revolution, in the beginning of his book,

Laconian wrote:

Men Among the Ruins :
"Probably only after catastrophe will have destroyed modernity, with its global myth and ideology, will an alternative view of the world assert itself by virtue of necessity. No one will have the foresight or courage to implement it before chaos breaks loose."

Chaos requires no effort, whatsoever.
The path-of-least-resistance is employed more often because it is easy and comfortable and with no immediate stress.
We should emphasize the concept of “immediacy.”

Laconian wrote:

The Problem is: chaos happens slowly. It's like with the frog in the boiler, who dies, when the temperatur is turned up slowly. (Boiled to death). Wheras if he's put directly into very hot water, he'll try to jump out.

Is not endurance a part of it?
If it were about immediacy then it would come easy, even for the moron and weakling.
This is about enduring...endurance.

Laconian wrote:

What I meant by "It's not going to happen" is Nietzsches Transvaluation of all values (German: Umwertung aller Werte). But like I said, this too is a prediction, so in itself nihilistic. (Futurism) From my pov. Important to me is also, that Elitism doesn't care about Humanity as a whole.

Why would anything using the past to project forward care about apes?
When you study the behavior of sheep, do you weep, if not only ephemerally, for the plight of the poor lamb which is eaten alive?

What I admire about you is that you are a very systematic thinker. That is apollonian. That is masculine. Pure masculinity. From this point on, one just has to integrate the feminine. Keep the masculine structure (order) up. Improve it constantly. And order starts in the mind. Most bodybuilders compensate, when they do excessive workouts for lack of an order within the mind. From a structured masculine order is where one can even approach women freely, without getting feminized. Or worrying about getting feminized. If one lacks masculine order a female partner does more harm than good. Both become lesbians essentially, as you stated elsewhere. So to not be overtaken by the feminine power towards entropy, ones own order has to be very well worked out. That's why men suffer way more after a woman leaves them, than most women do, when they are dumped. It's not the loss of the woman (alone) that makes these men sad, it's the wasted time. The time that could (and most likely: would) otherwise have been used on building up a masculine structure within. The playas are constantly focussing on women and therefor losing masculine order. Females are essentially chaos. Nature. Nothing to learn or to study there. No mystique.

Lacan even said: la femme n'existe pas.

Quote :

The woman doesn't exist.

Quote :

My opinion is that all Futurism is Nihilism. (Being a recovering nihilist myself, that is. And feeling tempted myself all too often to make future predictions or find myself thinking about what might come.) Since it draws the mind away from the past. (Roots.)

All Futurism is Nihilism....So....all predictions are equally inaccurate? Obviously some predictions are accurate and some aren't. Why?

Because they either take the past into account, or they don't. If they don't, they will be inaccurate. Two reasons this could happen:

1) If one's thinking is tainted by fear and wishful thinking, rather than objective, impersonal facts. I like what Satyr said in one of his videos: "Some people think reality can only be real if it flatters us." This is the most common problem among intelligent people. They have the ability to reason, but not the courage to accept the information that comes their way. They perceive the truth, but choose to look away and make excuses. This is the most shameful path, the path of the coward. This type of person is usually the first to accuse others of prescriptive thinking, because that's the only kind of thinking they can stand. (Like when I decided I was atheist/agnostic at age 14, and people would say, "Why would you want to be an atheist?" Who the fuck said I WANTED to be an atheist?) To them, any description is also a prescription, because they define reality in terms of what comforts them. They are ignominious weaklings...but they are the majority of intelligent people.

2) If one is stupid. Then the limitations of your own mind will produce error. This is the most common problem, period. Recognize it for what it is, and life becomes easier.

(3) If one is a stupid coward.)

I believe Satyr is right: "We are all recovering nihilists." If you yourself are "tempted" to make predictions that are not based on your roots (the past), then your predictions are based on emotion rather than fact, and this is also a fact to be dealt with. But it is not a reason in itself to discredit the predictions of others.

Maybe you used the word "tempting" because Faye does. Perhaps the Faustian "tempting" and "attempting" contributed to the leftist movements, multiculturalism, liberal humanism, etc. Spengler says the Faustian soul is "socialistic"--it wants to spread its vision throughout the universe. And evolutionary psychology (Kevin MacDonald) argues that Western Europeans evolved to be more trusting toward outsiders, and to be more individualistic. This, coupled with imperialism and military might (such as the British Empire), led to the spreading of English-style democracy, common law, industry, and the raising of material living standards throughout the world.

But these did not cause leftism alone. It was Judeo-Christianity, which posits all "humans" as equal, that allowed the leftist nihilism to creep in and impose resentful limits on the striving, forward-moving action of the able-bodied and able-minded. "The meek shall inherit the earth" is the ultimate utopia, because it's the ultimate nonsense. There is absolutely no factual data to support such a statement, so it is as erroneous as a prediction could ever be. The Communist revolutions and post-colonial revolutions also had a lot of fuel from resentment and envy. (Though I believe in some cases the cause of "democratic self-determination" was honest and was appreciated and recognized as a kind of gift from Western civilization.)

Such envy is not the case with Archeofuturism. It explicitly allows for hierarchy and diversity of peoples and classes. If you see inaccuracies in these predictions then demonstrate them. As Satyr says, observe the world around you and see if it makes sense based on your observation of patterns you have perceived (the past).

If "revolution" signals "leftism" for you, this is your problem. Do the terms Agricultural Revolution, Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution, and Information Revolution connote leftism to you as well? It's quite obvious Faye means the word in this sense.

Quote :

"Catastrophe" to me sounds more like a sudden event, than a gradual process. Just like a "Revolution".

The difference between suddenness and gradualness is just a matter of perspective here. If you predict a catastrophe, then it won't be sudden to you. The simple-minded, the comfortable, the cowards who close their eyes to the truth, will perceive anything that affects them negatively as sudden and unwarranted, whether it's a cold wind or a mood-swing or an atomic explosion. But those who try to Know Themselves and seek the truth about things are likely to make more accurate predictions and be less surprised at "sudden" events.

Moreover, they are also more aware of their own ignorance and limitations...so if something "suddenly" happens they accept the fact that they were unprepared. They face the fact of their weakness and ignorance. Cowards simply lay the blame on others, or lay the blame on the world. Like the men's rights activists who are no longer "feminist" but still expect women to put logic and respect ahead of their personal comfort and desires. They can't bear to accept women's chaotic natures, so they keep trying to reason with them as if they were capable of taking on such responsibility. They maintain the liberal/humanist faith and will be disappointed over and over again until they realize their perspective needs to change.

Lastly, I have no fucking idea what you are getting at here: You say you have a problem with Elitism not caring for "Humanity" as a whole....right after saying that Archeofuturism promotes a "socialist utopia."

I understand English is not your native language but for the love of fuck, clean up your expression please. I don't want to indulge your whimsical nitpicking of terms.

[quote="Cold Weasel"]

Quote :

If "revolution" signals "leftism" for you, this is your problem. Do the terms Agricultural Revolution, Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution, and Information Revolution connote leftism to you as well? It's quite obvious Faye means the word in this sense.

Yes.

Quote :

You say you have a problem with Elitism not caring for "Humanity" as a whole....

I didn't say that. I am an elitist. Your author isn't.

Quote :

right after saying that Archeofuturism promotes a "socialist utopia."

Every utopia is socialist.

Sorry for taking over your thread to talk about nihilism and women.

Traditionalism in my opinion cannot be enforced! As in: "You have to know yourself". Or else? It's an advantage if you do. That's why only a very small group of people will engage in discovering the past. And it is only this group that can claim to make any little predictions about the future. And since Revolutions do occur, even these predictions may not be so accurate. I find Spengler to be very ambitious here. His method seems scientific to me. He predicts the rise of Caesarism for 2000-2200, after the "reign of money" (democracy) from 1800-2000. Where does Caesarism fit in with the Archeofuturism?

Here is what I think. To clarify my point. A lot of todays authors want to claim to be the followers of Evola, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Spengler and so on. All of them combined even, to gain credit with potential readers. But each of these individuals Evola, Heidegger, Nietzsche and Spengler had very specific methods to use the past to project the future. These auhors of today lack humility. They come up with big terms. They want to make a name for themselves. Traditionalism is the opposite of that. It's being humble, caring about ones own history. National, genetic and so on. And not make these generalized statements or even propose any government enforced plans for humanity as a whole. Even if they contain eugenics. Hitler did that, and Hitler too was a socialist. A national socialist. Does your author want to be part of this little "community" at KTS. I bet he would be welcomed here. From me anyway. But that is about as large as you can get. There is no expansion of concepts on larger units of people. Just look at you next door neighbours. And think of any of this Archeofuturism as you quoted it and how they would react to political ideas as these. I know of no people in my environment, who would be willing to even try to understand these concepts. People today are futurists in that they don't care about their past. They don't want to know. They want to live in the present moment. And get the new I Phone. And some may be worrying a bit about the future. And that's it. But they don't discuss it. The EU declared 2012 the year of "optimism", so let's get with the programm here. People love Egalitarianism, they hate Elitism. They love to love, they love to feel and the demographics show that we're heading for a dumbing down of Europe. So there'll be more feeling and less rationality even, in the coming years. The ideas from that book are intellectual. Where do you see ANY basis for this within the masses of people!? Have people ever learnt from catastrophies!?

For myself I am not looking for any expansion with my ideas. I throw books in the trash these days, if I recognize them as academic masturbation. I don't have time for this. Reality is too harsh for this escapism.

This Sloterdijk had me really fooled. He is a very well read intellectual. With some neat ideas. But he is a progressivist show-off also. And I am a traditionalist. I don't need all this theory. This leftist discourse about non-issues. They consider themselves as intellectual elite, and the media portraits them as such. Too me they are unbalanced, towards unnessessary mind-games. You can see that in Sloterdijks physiognomy, even in the tone of his voice. Very nasal. Meaning he only wants to deal with the nicer parts of existence, that are detached from the body. Like talking about religion and souls and such escapism.

As an author, wouldn't you be flattered to be called the next Evola?, if you identify yourself with the New Right!?
But it's not about identification with the New Right or publishing books like on counter-currents publishing. Which is okay, but it's about the traditionalist ideas by those traditional writers of the past and applying them to ones own life. We don't need another book! No new books! An essay like "The feminization of mankind" might be as large as any "new" idea can become. And I even thought that essay was too long. Why write all these pages? What's the purpose, but to try to impose ones own ideas on the masses? And that's socialism. Caesarism means leadership. Leaders rise, they are not voted for. They just appear. They grab the power. And take control. They implement their rules. That's what we're heading for. In fact that's even todays reality already, to a larger extent than most would admit, who still think we live in a Democracy and save their money in the bank.

Laconian wrote:

What I admire about you is that you are a very systematic thinker. That is apollonian. That is masculine. Pure masculinity. From this point on, one just has to integrate the feminine. Keep the masculine structure (order) up. Improve it constantly. And order starts in the mind. Most bodybuilders compensate, when they do excessive workouts for lack of an order within the mind. From a structured masculine order is where one can even approach women freely, without getting feminized. Or worrying about getting feminized. If one lacks masculine order a female partner does more harm than good. Both become lesbians essentially, as you stated elsewhere. So to not be overtaken by the feminine power towards entropy, ones own order has to be very well worked out. That's why men suffer way more after a woman leaves them, than most women do, when they are dumped. It's not the loss of the woman (alone) that makes these men sad, it's the wasted time. The time that could (and most likely: would) otherwise have been used on building up a masculine structure within. The playas are constantly focussing on women and therefor losing masculine order. Females are essentially chaos. Nature. Nothing to learn or to study there. No mystique.

Lacan even said: la femme n'existe pas.

Quote :

The woman doesn't exist.

All my ideas must harmonize in my mind.
I’ve always been like that.

When a piece of information did not fit into my world-view I had to determine why.
In my current rewrite of the essay The Feminization of Man I’m including a section Interactions and Interpretations which is a synopsis, in bullet form, of my metaphysical positions.
Nothing unique, just my own way of understanding the world.
These positions are directly linked to the current situation of feminization, which I go into in the essay.

As for the length of an idea I’ve discovered that the issues are so complex, not because they are difficult to comprehend and where one has to invent words, such as those many philosophers have in the past, to describe them, but because of the collateral effects and side matters they are connected with.
For example, when I originally wrote the essay it was in response to someone on one of these forums.
It was, at the most, about 2-3 pages long.
The reactions to it were surprising to me.
As I began defending myself against criticisms I began to build up an argument which went off into social and sexual and economic and metaphysical matters.
I rewrote the essay 3 times, until it was the length that it is now, or as it is now posted on-line.

My on-going rewriting has inflated the essay to 500+ pages….now written in aphoristic style, which suits me better; short, concise, snippets, which can be read separately but which participate in a grander world-view.

I understand the purpose of remaining laconic.
It’s a more Spartan attitude. To be measured even in words.
This also serves the purpose of leaving out in the dark all those morons who need to be spoon-fed meanings and ideas.

But the multifaceted aspects of modern living require addressing.
This is why the aphoristic style is a perfect compromise.
It retains the laconic style yet allows for more to be said on an issue.

We can say that the entire premise uniting us all, and bringing most of you here, can be encompassed in the short mottos:

Know Thyself…and...Nothing in Excess.
Apollo’s essence is contained in them.

Laconian, stop pretending to have disagreements. Like a lazy attention whore, obsessed with status rather than substance, you are doing anything BUT addressing the ideas themselves. Instead you speculate on possible ulterior motives of the author, as if anyone gives a fuck about that. It's like all those dumb-fuck college students who pretend to have a criticizing opinion on a film or a book in order to appear discerning. Within seconds their speech degenerates into gossip and ad hominem about the director's lifestyle. They love to say they "don't like" something or they "don't care" about something...because really they have nothing to say about it at all.

Nothing you have said as a refutation to this document contradicts anything it says, or anything that I have written in response.

Nowhere did the author or I ever say anything about talking to "the masses." Of course I'm not showing this book to my next-door neighbors, I'm posting it on Know Thyself, dummy.

Quote :

Why write all these pages? What's the purpose, but to try to impose ones own ideas on the masses?

Why type posts on the internet? Why talk? Why have discussions? What's the purpose, but to try to impose one's own ideas on the masses?

What the fuck are you trying to say? I'm supposed to stop reading this book and listen to you? Well if nothing else, THIS sure convinced me:

Quote :

Quote:

If "revolution" signals "leftism" for you, this is your problem. Do the terms Agricultural Revolution, Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution, and Information Revolution connote leftism to you as well? It's quite obvious Faye means the word in this sense.


Yes.

Okie dokie!

And no need to be sorry, bro! As far as I know you're welcome to write about nihilism and women. Probably the best way would be to create a thread called "Nihilism and Women," but hey, I'm not your dad.

Satyr wrote:

All my ideas must harmonize in my mind.
I’ve always been like that.

And they are bodily espressions too. Like the Spartans knew and Socrates and Plato let degenerate some. The mind-body-distinction that was later cemented by Descartes, but that didn't exist in the ancient times, before some degenerate Philosophers build their Academias. (Like todays academics...)

Quote :

When a piece of information did not fit into my world-view I had to determine why.

It's this unnecessary pain, that let's you know, when you've been wrong. Nature (women) is unforgiving.

Quote :

In my current rewrite of the essay The Feminization of Man I’m including a section Interactions and Interpretations which is a synopsis, in bullet form, of my metaphysical positions.

Like your "Encapsulation"!? So you too want to conquer the world!

Quote :

Nothing unique, just my own way of understanding the world.
These positions are directly linked to the current situation of feminization, which I go into in the essay.

As for the length of an idea I’ve discovered that the issues are so complex, not because they are difficult to comprehend and where one has to invent words, such as those many philosophers have in the past, to describe them, but because of the collateral effects and side matters they are connected with.

The "problem" is, THIS is your main thesis over all. The original Satyr meme, as far as I can see. Most people won't get it, because the essay is too long! Create a synopsis as well. Like your vids, that probably caught a lot of attention.

Quote :

I understand the purpose of remaining laconic.

That's why I chose this pseudonym: Laconian. It was only then, when I thought: Okay on KTS I won't have to waste my time on academic discourse like those other folks on PN or ILP do.

Quote :

It’s a more Spartan attitude. To be measured even in words.

I've read too many books by intellectual assholes in my life. They made me weak and decadent. And nature (women) makes me suffer for it an extra mile. 500 Page books which main thesis could (and should) be summarized in a 500 word essay. Spengler, Evola, Yockey and Heisman, may be the exceptions to this general rule.

Quote :

This also serves the purpose of leaving out in the dark all those morons who need to be spoon-fed meanings and ideas.

Yea. And want to be right all the time. I don't care if someone doesn't understand me, but am willing to explain to the best of my ability. I change my mind still a lot. That is eastern wisdom this adapting to change. Something westerners are a bit reluctant with. Life is change. Flux.

Quote :

This is why the aphoristic style is a perfect compromise.
It retains the laconic style yet allows for more to be said on an issue.

I am looking forward to reading it.

Quote :

We can say that the entire premise uniting us all, and bringing most of you here, can be encompassed in the short mottos:

Know Thyself…and...Nothing in Excess.
Apollo’s essence is contained in them.

I know the "Live lightly" is probably contained within the "Nothing in Excess". But I like it as a separate motto too.

Cold Weasel wrote:

Why type posts on the internet? Why talk? Why have discussions?

To get feedback. To check ones own world-view with the reality of others (how they perceive the world).

Quote :

What's the purpose, but to try to impose one's own ideas on the masses?

Yes. I've seen that before. It doesn't work. I tried it myself. Waste of time. Why do you want to change the masses? Don't you like them as they are? Dumb and easily exploited? I feed off the ignorance of the masses. I don't want to change any of it.

Quote :

What the fuck are you trying to say? I'm supposed to stop reading this book and listen to you?

I'll not be able to produce a 500 page book, so if you like reading. Go ahead!

Laconian wrote:

And they are bodily espressions too. Like the Spartans knew and Socrates and Plato let degenerate some. The mind-body-distinction that was later cemented by Descartes, but that didn't exist in the ancient times, before some degenerate Philosophers build their Academias. (Like todays academics...)

Academics today are about repeating knowledge without questions the underlying premises.
A teacher of philosophy does not a philosopher make; a teacher of art does not an artist make.

Laconian wrote:

Like your "Encapsulation"!? So you too want to conquer the world!

No, I want to free myself.
To create order in the chaos is an act of resistance…a detachment…a towards self.

If I wanted to conquer the world I would be telling it what it wants to believe is true.

Laconian wrote:

The "problem" is, THIS is your main thesis over all. The original Satyr meme, as far as I can see. Most people won't get it, because the essay is too long! Create a synopsis as well. Like your vids, that probably caught a lot of attention.

But I don’t care if “most people get it” or if it is too long for most to read through.

I can reduce my thesis to a few sentences, but then I would lose the details.
For me feminization is the central theme of modern living. The rest is be analyzing the collateral effects.

Some would ask me: “Why not call it “The Domestication of Man” or “The Institutionalization of Man” and I got tired of explaining myself.
So, I decided, to explain all the challenges in a position paper….simply written and as short as possible.
If you want to be understood you may have to provide a mental roadmap, for others to follow; a method to get into the logic behind your conclusions.

Laconian wrote:

I've read too many books by intellectual assholes in my life. They made me weak and decadent. And nature (women) makes me suffer for it an extra mile. 500 Page books which main thesis could (and should) be summarized in a 500 word essay. Spengler, Evola, Yockey and Heisman, may be the exceptions to this general rule.

The conclusions or the destination yes…but then you must account for your personal journey there, in case some would want to follow in your stead.

Laconian wrote:

Yea. And want to be right all the time. I don't care if someone doesn't understand me, but am willing to explain to the best of my ability. I change my mind still a lot. That is eastern wisdom this adapting to change. Something westerners are a bit reluctant with. Life is change. Flux.

And the Hellenic asceticism is a balance between this masculine rejection and this feminine acceptance.

Laconian wrote:

I am looking forward to reading it.

It’s not really meant for publication. I simply put down my thoughts or all aspects of modernity; my experiences and how I relate and understand different social phenomena.

I write to organize my thoughts.
It’s meant for my son.

But I might upload it…even if it is an ongoing work with no ending until my death.
Every time I learn something new I try to integrate it into my thesis.

Laconian wrote:

I know the "Live lightly" is probably contained within the "Nothing in Excess". But I like it as a separate motto too.

It’s a more Anglo version of Nothing in Excess.
It has the advantage of being, in English, aesthetically pleasing with its double “L’s” and its shorter phrasing.

Satyr wrote:

And the Hellenic asceticism is a balance between this masculine rejection and this feminine acceptance.

I would describe myself as more feminine. I have always been more about acceptance deep within. (Even if on the outside I engage in all kinds of masculine endeavours.) The complete opposite to Purple Dragon or Cold Weasel and probably other more from my pov "western minds" on this forum. I am not really an antipole to you however. That's why I couldn't get into any real argument with you. What would be an antipole, to how you see yourself!? Is there any? Or in which way do you tend to get unbalanced? Just towards the feminine? Towards entropy? Or do you ever recognize becoming too orderly?, too obsessed with the masculine order? Too little receptive? Not enjoying life, like you admitted on the Radio Show when it comes to dancing in a Disco.

For me Purple Dragon is a perfect example for unbalanced masculinity (as I was for unbalanced femininity, before I read some of this man-up stuff and trying to apply it).

That's why Dionysos and Apollo to me were archetyps and not real people. They were supposed to represent a specific idea, each one of them. Unlike humans, who consist of both of these archetyps to a certain -in most cases unbalanced- degree.

I see my mind as a representation of my body. (Like the Spartans did too.) I couldn't be much more masculine, even if I tried. My genetics impose certain limitations on me. That's where "Live lightly" comes into play. Not being too hard on oneself. Taking ones place in the hierarchy. Accepting it, after one has done ones best. Like in the Indian caste system. To know yourself means to know your place.

The problem with the "Feminization" to me is however, that it is unconscious. If people would know these two archetyps of Apollo and Dioynsos, they'd be better off. Looking "the devil" or the gods straight in the eye. The greek gods (as also found in Astrology) are the gods of this world! To know them is to know life. It's not about direct identification with any single one of these. But about seeing their archetyps represented in all things in life. (Thinking in analogies.)

Take Zeus. (Jupiter) (m) Powerful. But power can corrupt.

Venus. (f) Love connects. But can also be deceitful.

Apollo. (Astrologically represented by the Sun) (m) Activity is fundamental. But can make life boring. If one isn't receptive also.

Dionysos.(Astrologically respresented by the Moon) (f) Letting go. Passiveness. Partying is fun. But the circumstances for the party have to be orderly, otherwise it will end in tears.

Mars.(m) "War is the father of all things." But it also causes trouble. One shouldn't engage in war if not necessary.

Neptune.(f) Depth gives life meaning. But is also a place, one can get lost in.

Mercury.(m) (Hermes) Communication connects. But can be annoying too.

Uranus.(m) Crazyness is a vital fun factor. But can be hard to deal with for others.

Pluto.(f) Destruction of old is necessary, for new to appear. But it must also be applied correctly.

Saturn.(m) Order. Astrologically Saturn represents ordering, whereas the sun is more a pure active energy. Saturns ordering is more about restrictions really.

So you see there are more archetypes than your two or three favorites. (Sun, Moon and Saturn). If you look into the male-female difference, you have to study astrology. Each planet is either male (m) or female (f) and represents certains aspects of masculinity and femininity. Not just Sun and Moon, being the most basic ones: Activeness. Action. And Passiveness. Receptivity. (Purple Dragon lacks receptivity. Which prevents to this day real masculine ordering (Saturn). Which is an essential part of masculinity. And he appears feminine.)

The real Esotericism is pure Elitism. It means: Inner Circle. All else is considered exo-teric, whatever the masses occupy themselves with.

Laconian wrote:

I would describe myself as more feminine. I have always been more about acceptance deep within. (Even if on the outside I engage in all kinds of masculine endeavours.) The complete opposite to Purple Dragon or Cold Weasel and probably other more from my pov "western minds" on this forum. I am not really an antipole to you however. That's why I couldn't get into any real argument with you. What would be an antipole, to how you see yourself!? Is there any? Or in which way do you tend to get unbalanced? Just towards the feminine? Towards entropy? Or do you ever recognize becoming too orderly?, too obsessed with the masculine order? Too little receptive? Not enjoying life, like you admitted on the Radio Show when it comes to dancing in a Disco.

Then you have not understood.
What “imbalance” you see towards the masculine is only in response, as a rejection, to a world dominated by the feminine.
To achieve balance in an imbalance one must show preference to the opposite of what is causing the imbalance, no?

Let’s say the world was flooded.
Would your preference for dry land, for dryness, means that water, the liquid, was unnecessary, was “hated,” and was not valued?
No…you would simply show a preference, if you were a mind interested in balance, in returning the world to equilibrium.

In a feminized, feminizing, world, would not the masculine be in demand?

Laconian wrote:

For me Purple Dragon is a perfect example for unbalanced masculinity (as I was for unbalanced femininity, before I read some of this man-up stuff and trying to apply it).

Purple Dragon is a mascot; a lost boy looking for masculinity.
He has become so obsessed with it, in these days, when before he was far more feminine in his demeanour, that he’s gone overboard.
He lacks the subtle mind, necessary to appreciate nuances, and so he goes for the extremes. This is the only way he can understand things.

Consider this:
If a man lacked the palate to appreciate wine, would he not require vinegar to make his “love of wine” noticeable?

Laconian wrote:

That's why Dionysos and Apollo to me were archetyps and not real people. They were supposed to represent a specific idea, each one of them. Unlike humans, who consist of both of these archetyps to a certain -in most cases unbalanced- degree.

Have I ever said otherwise?
Words, I’ve said, are symbols, which, if taken literally and not figuratively, represent projected ideals of an absent absolute.
God and gods are such projections given anthropomorphic form, to make them more palatable and approachable.

Dionysus, and Apollo are not the only Greek Gods, but they are used by Nietzsche to symbolize the duality of human nature: the feminine and masculine.
Both are part of each and every human.
I have distinct female dispositions, yet I also have a strong masculine side, which wishes to take over, and guide these dispositions.

I must admit, I have tried to let them loose, so to speak, but, with the exception of the birth of my son, the consequences have never been positive, to me, or comfortable, to me.
For example: although I have a strong feminine intuition, mymasculine mind cannot just accept this as a given without wanting to make sense of it.
By ‘making sense of it’ I gain control over it.

Instead of saying that it is mysterious, or magical, or complex, or mystical…I know exactly what it is
By knowing I can let it happen without losing myself in it.
This is the “balance” I spoke of.
I don’t mean this to sound like I’m someone in total control
of himself, because I am not.
Everything is about ‘degrees’ and I struggle with parts of
my nature, like everyone else.
Where I claim superior control of myself in is in the area of fear.

I do not surrender to the easy answer, and am never content with
some ambiguity, which favours me. In fact when it does favour me is when I
become most sceptical.

Laconian wrote:

I see my mind as a representation of my body. (Like the Spartans did too.) I couldn't be much more masculine, even if I tried. My genetics impose certain limitations on me. That's where "Live lightly" comes into play. Not being too hard on oneself. Taking ones place in the hierarchy. Accepting it, after one has done ones best. Like in the Indian caste system. To know yourself means to know your place.

Yes.

Consider, also this:
- "Live Lightly" presupposes self-knowledge.

To Know Thyself is the first step towards this “lightly”, because weight, or lightness, is subjective, right?
What might be light for me might be heavy to you.

This is why I refrain from doling out universal advice, like many of these internet gurus.

To “live lightly” for me may not mean the same thing as it does for you.
Knowing yourself, truthfully, and honestly, with no self-flattering hyperbole, is the first step towards this “lightness” which, surprise, is always altering.
What might have been “light” for me in the past may be “heavy” in the present.

Laconian wrote:

The problem with the "Feminization" to me is however, that it is unconscious. If people would know these two archetyps of Apollo and Dioynsos, they'd be better off. Looking "the devil" or the gods straight in the eye. The greek gods (as also found in Astrology) are the gods of this world! To know them is to know life. It's not about direct identification with any single one of these. But about seeing their archetyps represented in all things in life. (Thinking in analogies.)

But, then, to be aware is masculine.
To know that you are being feminized is to be more masculine; to know that you are a slave is to already take a step towards liberty.

The feminine, being increasing chaos, is increasing ignorance, increasing unconsciousness.
To see the dichotomy, to establish a criteria, an order, is to establish a masculine rule.
See?

The feminine cannot help but to be what it is.
By making the female more conscious of herself is to add masculinity to her.
Look at the more intelligence, conscious, aware, females in history.

Laconian wrote:

So you see there are more archetypes than your two or three favorites. (Sun, Moon and Saturn). If you look into the male-female difference, you have to study astrology. Each planet is either male (m) or female (f) and represents certains aspects of masculinity and femininity. Not just Sun and Moon, being the most basic ones: Activeness. Action. And Passiveness. Receptivity. (Purple Dragon lacks receptivity. Which prevents to this day real masculine ordering (Saturn). Which is an essential part of masculinity. And he appears feminine.)

And yet, you’ve simplified them all into two categories:
masculine/feminine.
To simplify, generalize, as I said, is to be conscious.
It is what consciousness does. It must.

How do you perceive a fluidity, if you do not simplify it into a thing, a particle; if you do not abstract it?
But no two simplifications/generalizations are equal.

How much detail is included in them?
How much to they refer to a sensual world?
This is why “genius” is more timeless.

Genius is the assimilation of experience/knowledge into cohesive models (abstractions, simplifications/generalizations) which refer to a sensually perceived reality for longer periods of TIME.
Here the element of timelessness becomes evident.

If a conception is applicable for a longer period of time it is considered more valid….or more valuable….or more clear…or the product of a genius
mind.

Laconian wrote:

The real Esotericism is pure Elitism. It means: Inner Circle. All else is considered exo-teric, whatever the masses occupy themselves with.

Yes.
Consider your body…does it allow anything into it?
Does it not fight off any viruses?
Does it not discriminate between what it deems ‘harmful’ and ‘useful’ or ‘beneficial’?

Does it shed its ‘walls,’ because it is shamed as being fearful and defensive, and paranoid?
What does it allow in?
What it judges as being useful, productive, to IT.
It is elitist. It is careful and selective as to what it assimilates (knowledge, experience being something to be assimilated) and what it is to keep ‘outside’ or to excrete as faeces, as garbage, as poisonous toxins, once it has assimilated the parts it requires.
This is called DISCRIMINATION.
Now, the question is: what is the goal?

What is considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is determined by the projected, desirable, goal…the ideal….the absent absolute.
This decides what is kept ‘outside,’ as garbage, and what is allowed in, as valuable.

The ‘idea’ of all inclusion is a method of lowering your standards of evaluation…your consciousness, you discrimination…your consciousness.