Musings on excellence, the purpose of life, and the dissident right.<\/p>\n
We shall not cease from exploration
\nAnd the end of all our exploring
\nWill be to arrive where we started
\nAnd know the place for the first time.
\n~\u00a0T.S. Eliot<\/strong>,\u00a0Four Quartets<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\nLaid up with a little agita<\/em> caused by too much Harp Lager<\/a> and corned beef<\/a>, I got a chance to catch up on some Internet links my “friends” have recommended. They turn out to be of a little interest, though probably not in the way they were intended. They are categorized as Excellence, God is Love, and something new under the sun.<\/p>\n
The underlying theme is that we already have everything we need. We don\u2019t need to explore elsewhere nor seek any modernist or post-modernist novelties.<\/p>\n
Seeking Excellence<\/h2>\n
A Swami Nirandjananda, speaking in Bulgaria<\/a>, assures us that the true purpose of life is to seek excellence, for which information, he was accorded rousing applause.<\/p>\n
Of course, we upholders of the Western tradition recognize this as a call to ar\u00eate<\/em><\/a>. Yes, we Westerners are expected to seek excellence, we have known this for quite some time, and we don\u2019t, or shouldn\u2019t, need an outsider to remind us. Guenon expresses it as the power to actualize the possibilities of the human state, a task naturally suited to the warrior caste. So now Gornahoor urges you all to seek excellence and to actualize your talents. Isn\u2019t that enough or are you secretly expecting something more spectacular?<\/p>\n
God is Love<\/h2>\n
\nAn American master of Krishna consciousness also explains the purpose of life in this online lecture<\/a>. He talks about cosmic order, or Logos. He asserts that man is a rational animal. To be human a man must be interested in purposes, or final causes as it is called in the West; otherwise he is no different from an animal. He condemns abortion and homosexuality. Finally, he assures us that God is Love. He claims he was raised as a Roman Catholic, and his talk could have been taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.<\/p>\nOf course, he no longer believes in \u201cthat\u201d God, the sky God who punishes masturbators unjustly. He fails to mention that in the Hindu scheme you may come back as a rutabaga, or worse, as a dalit. What he neglects to mention is that Catholic or Western teaching does not actually teach such a God. The theism of the Western tradition is the God of Being, both transcendent and immanent, and nothing like what was described. Western theism is based on Aquinas, Aristotle, and Plato, with roots deep into paganism. Guenon notes this, and asserts that the Western conception of God is the same as Ishwara in Hinduism<\/a>. Now we can fault, perhaps, the priests for not effectively teaching the reality of God, but a public intellectual has an obligation to know better.<\/p>\n
This applies a fortiori<\/em> to the theorists of the Nouvelle Droite, who are obsessed with monotheism and its alleged evils. Western theism is nothing like what Mr. Benoist describes, and is certainly not a Semitic notion, as it is based on Roman, Greek, and Indian notions. Apparently, his intuitions of his feelings is not interested in such facts. You can take that critique seriously at your own risk.<\/p>\n
Something New under the Sun<\/h2>\n
The third link is an interview with the alt right. Whenever I hear this, I am reminded of the Three Stooges\u2019<\/a> skit on the \u201cother right\u201d, but I will try to overcome this. Like the New Right, the alt right is based on Nietzsche somehow. About a third of the way into the interview, the question of Nietzsche\u2019s influence was posed. To my surprise, the speaker became tongue-tied and was unable to answer the question; I assume because it is impossible to extract a political program from Nietzsche\u2019s writings.<\/p>\n
Nietzsche taught the will-to-power, not the will-to-knowledge. Hence, there can only be various perspectives, so the search for truth is futile. All the expressions of these perspectives are manifestations of the will to power. It is therefore pointless to dispute their truthfulness. Rather, the approach must be psychological. That is reason that Nietzscheans always attack the motives or psychological health of holders of alternative perspectives. Or else, like New Agers<\/a>, they point out the logical consequences of holding a certain perspective. For example, the writers on the new right never ask the question of the truth of the monotheism of the Western tradition, since it is absolutely irrelevant. Rather they point out the alleged consequences of holding that opinion. For example, they claim that a belief in monotheism somehow leads to intolerance or totalitarianism, which are a priori assumed to be (dare I say?) evil.<\/p>\n
We hold that the Right can be objectively defined. The Traditional Right is based on the Ancien Regime, of which Edmund Burke <\/strong>and Joseph de Maistre<\/strong> are the exemplars from different perspectives.<\/p>\n
Some of them claim that there are some Christian writers, presumably intellectual residues of the Old Right, aligned with the alt right. That seems incredible to me, as the movements are intellectually incompatible. True to his tradition, they are unconcerned with the truth claims of his allies, and attributes psychological motives to them. Namely, they embrace those traditions only because they are dissatisfied with American Protestantism. Gornahoor, on the other hand, recalls Constantine, Charlemagne, Aquinas and Dante; hence we are quite dubious about that assertion.<\/p>\n
\n[youtube “https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=cx1klDB02bs”]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
And the end of all our exploring, Will be to arrive where we started, And know the place for the first time. Continue reading