There was a time — not so distant in terms of world history — when converts came from world-class authors, novelists, or philosophers. I am thinking in particular of Jaris-Karl Huysmans, Charles Peguy, Leon Bloy, Jacques Maritain, G K Chesterton, or Graham Greene, not to mention Charles Maurras and Ernst Junger, all exemplars of the Catholic intellectual.<\/p>\n
In our time, that is not the case. It seems that in the Internet age, there is an abundance of converts (or just as many so-called \u201creverts\u201d) who feel compelled to write and speak publicly via blogs, youtube, and even satellite radio. Although I am sure that the angels in heaven are rejoicing over their conversions, on the human plane we might hope that they take a vow of silence instead.<\/p>\n
When they are not being progressive — demonstrating that their conversion is still incomplete — they too often become too negative, not about the worldview they had rejected, but rather about their newly adopted Tradition. It is as though the solidity and certainty they were expecting were ephemeral.<\/p>\n
The memorization of the catechism is an insufficient compared to a solid study of Tradition. These new converts can bowl you over with knowledge of dogma, but what is really needful is a solid grounding in Tradition. Hence, there is little added in terms of art, literature, and so on. That is the point of Ananda Coomaraswamy<\/strong>\u2019s observation:<\/p>\n A knowledge of modern Christianity will be of little use because the fundamental sentimentality of our times has diminished what was once an intellectual doctrine to a mere morality that can hardly be distinguished from a pragmatic humanism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n When the intellectual tradition was better known, artists and philosophers could often count on support from wealthy patrons. But as for \u201cmere morality\u201d, there are better alternatives today. A lukewarm leftism is the null hypothesis in our time, which therefore is difficult to displace. A convert has little to add to contemporary morality, other than perhaps some quaint objections to abortion, divorce, or homosexuality, but the force of those counter-cultural positions is diminishing.<\/p>\n Wealthy young patrons like the chic Larry and Toby<\/a> support secular hospitals and art. So how to make reaction chic? Instead of s\u00e9ances to mediocre historical figures, how about invocations to the saints and the Holy Guardian Angel? Then there can be meditation classes, like those described in these pages. Kabbalah is somewhat chic. But we could offer Hermetic and Tarot centres. Fundamentally, the Western Tradition is so alien to the modern mind, it could become chic again just out of sheer novelty. The goal would be to reach the TOOS and Category X status categories. That would require an elite view, something more elite than the genteel leftism that passes for elitism. So that leads to the next topic.<\/p>\n This study, The Inappropriately Excluded<\/a>, shows that those with an ultra-high IQ (UHIQ) are nearly systematically excluded from many of the professions which are normally associated with high intelligence. The sweet spot of IQ seems to be in the 120-135 range (very high IQ – VHIQ). Other than theoretical physics and advanced mathematics, all college majors can be mastered by those in that range. Mastery for the VHIQ is the ability to remember and repeat the material that has been taught. All their lives, they have been assured about their intelligence, and therefore see little need to doubt it. They don\u2019t suffer from the adjustment problems that often plague the UHIQ.<\/p>\n The UHIQ not only masters the material, but goes beyond it. In some cases, they may then pester the teachers about their mistakes. In other cases, they find the behaviour of the less intelligent so inexplicable, that they have trouble adjusting to classmates. Without getting bogged down in this topic, the point is that the UHIQ for the most part absorb leftism in the belief that is what intelligent people accept. An alternative viewpoint might be coherently proposed that could perhaps gain some traction. I\u2019m afraid that conventional conservatism is too prole and even incoherent. The alt-right is too vulgar and lacks moral imagination. Perhaps neo-reaction aspires to higher intellectual standards, but it has not gained traction.<\/p>\n In our age, the ideal of \u201crealism\u201d in art is considered edgy. The problem is that the notion of what is \u201creal\u201d is so constricted. For example, I recently caught a fragment of a TV show (I forget which one), in which a chic lesbian high school student was discussing her class text in which \u201cmasturbation\u201d was mentioned in a positive way. I assume it was not one of the Great Books, even though Thomas Aquinas did address the question from a different perspective.<\/p>\n The opposite is Symbolism, which uses symbols and imagination to reach deeper dimensions of reality. There are soft echoes of that today, although the themes are attenuated. A recent example is the return of Twin Peaks<\/em>, which is inspiring a lot of speculation about its \u201cdeeper\u201d meaning. Unfortunately, there simply is no deeper meaning, as though the dream sequences were sufficient in themselves.<\/p>\n The point is that Art is the path to Chic, and the new converts are without Art.<\/p>\n In The Romance of the Rose<\/em>, there is speculation about what would happen if animals had free will. Perhaps the hens would refuse to lay eggs, the cattle would conspire against the cowboys, and your dog would stop sniffing your ass. Of course, that is exactly what human life is like, thus proving free will.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, freedom is nauseating, so it is often denied. Men are happiest when they can attribute their behaviour to external causes, e.g., genetics, a disease, environment or circumstances.<\/p>\n A logical argument is likewise a form of compulsion. Recently, I\u2019ve heard two different \u201cexplanations\u201d from otherwise intelligent men about why they apostatised from the religion of their ancestors. One mentioned that he recognized the pagan roots of Christianity and the other, after he read some historian\u2019s claim that Christianity was reducible to the ancient Egyptian religion.<\/p>\n Quite strange, since these pages have often documented those same points. Hence, the arguments are without force, and indicate bad faith since they deny free will. A conversion is a matter of will, you will it, or you will something else.<\/p>\n The Hermetic teaching, as revealed by Valentin Tomberg is this:<\/p>\n The individuality descends consciously and of his own free will to birth, into an environment where he is wanted and awaited.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What is remarkable is that some Russian theologians like Vladimir Solovyov<\/strong> and Sergius Bulgakov<\/strong> integrated some of these teachings into their systems. In The Burning Bush<\/em>, Bulgakov discusses the problem of births. He begins with this:<\/p>\n God sends souls into bodies individually fitted with qualities \u2026 all the circumstances of birth and earthly destiny.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n However, the soul cannot be free if it is created against its own will. Hence, there is an element of self-determination in the soul when it is created. The soul is joined to its body willingly<\/em>. The obvious question is why does not the soul remember having made this choice. The answer is that it is not a temporal event in the life of the soul, but is pre-temporal.<\/p>\n The point is that the human spirit assumes a personality with individual qualities; men are born different and have different destinies. These qualities are partially determined by the individual heredity which includes family, clan, and even its generation.<\/p>\n If you observe yourself carefully, you may notice little clues that help you recall your primordial choice. Perhaps some bon mot that means little to the world, yet something special to your own life.<\/p>\n Nassim Taleb<\/strong> explains the necessity of eating one\u2019s own turtles<\/a>. More prosaically, this may be termed \u201cpractice what you preach\u201d. Yes, it is true that I drink wine, cook pasta, and read medieval philosophy while listening to Gregorian chant, or to Erik Satie when I am feeling \u201cedgy\u201d.<\/p>\n Mr. Taleb has convinced me that the personal element is relevant to the intellectual element. This is unlike previous generations of writers on Tradition who avoided any hint of the personal. However, in the course of life, I\u2019ve encountered False Seeming much too often; the initiate must learn to distinguish what is from what seems to be.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t believe that so-called white nationalists have been forthcoming with their ancestry reports. I\u2019m considering posting mine publicly, if I determine that it is a wise or worthwhile idea. Basically, it is 97% European, with 2.5% Middle Eastern. Of course, that is, or was, part of the Roman Empire which is my real identity, although there is no big market for Romanity at the moment. Nevertheless, it probably accounts for my fondness for falafel and belly dancers.<\/p>\n You don\u2019t need extravagant outward displays to be convincing as a societal rebel. In the spirit of openness, here is a fragment from my personality profile:<\/p>\n He has a good deal less than optimal concern for the standards of society and tends to be low on conventionality and group conformity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The psychologist offered to cure me of that, but I graciously declined.<\/p>\n The initiate should be very careful not to repeat things about other people which should not be told. Nevertheless, Evil Tongue is unable to be quiet. Now calumny, which is the making of false and defamatory statements, is What is not as well-known is that detraction is also immoral. In other words, truth is no defence. Detraction is the making of true and defamatory statements about someone\u2019s flaws, if they are not publicly known and the only reason for their revelation is to hurt someone. Evil Tongue simply cannot help himself.<\/p>\n When I was a young boy, I prayed this prayer daily.<\/p>\n Point 1 is obvious, since everyone else is risking his salvation.<\/p>\n The reason for Point 2 may not be. At that time, the USA was locked in a cold war with the Russians, who were promoting communism and atheism. Those went against point 1. At this point in history, there is some ambiguity since the roles of the two parties seem to be reversing.<\/p>\n Point 3 is because we had more fun than the other kids and ate much better. Once time I was invited to a friend\u2019s house for dinner. The mother must have thought she was pleasing me when she served ravioli from a can. I ran out of the house and back home when no one was looking. They must have had a panic attack, but they eventually called my mom.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In The Romance of the Rose, there is speculation about what would happen if animals had free will. Perhaps the hens would refuse to lay eggs, the cattle would conspire against the cowboys, and your dog would stop sniffing your ass. Continue reading Making Reaction Chic Again<\/h2>\n
The Futility of Intelligence<\/h2>\n
Symbolism and Realism<\/h2>\n
Free Will and Animals<\/h2>\n
Forced Conversions<\/h2>\n
Birth and Irrationality<\/h2>\n
Skin in the Game<\/h2>\n
Secret Rebel<\/h2>\n
Calumny and Detraction<\/h2>\n
commonly<\/del> acknowledged to be a moral flaw. At least it used to be before political positions became warlike.<\/p>\nA Child\u2019s Prayer<\/h2>\n
\n