Further thoughts on Being Oneself

“Being oneself” is often held nowadays as some vague moralism, a la “being oneself” equals honesty, but this often betrays rather a deal of falseness in place of honesty due to, as I have previously addressed, the nature of the self in today’s world. The self is not so much one’s true nature, one’s “I,” but an amalgamation of social habits and quirks which have been picked-up from one’s cultural-political environment. Thus, “being oneself” in today’s climate simply equals “conformity to that which envelopes one’s ego.” Again, the falsehood of Kali’s Kingdom, like a palace of mirrors, is exposed.

Plato's Featherless Biped
“Behold! I’ve brought you a man.”

What am I? A featherless biped (with broad, flat nails according to some). But this merely describes my outward characteristics; the vessel for my mind and soul. One could further flesh-out this definition by adding “nineteen years of age,” “of Anglo-Saxon blood,” et cetera, but would these things truly constitute my person in its completeness? No, for we may have touched upon my mind and soul with mention of blood (at least if we understand “blood” in its traditional meaning beyond its mere genetic aspect), but such a thing is only a passing reference; we require more defining.

I am a person; one being amid many. What differentiates myself from others is the physical, mental and spiritual dimensions of my being in relation to those of others. My mentality has been formed in accordance to external factors throughout my brief life thus far, the reactions to things, my thoughts, habits, sentiments, and so forth, have all been formed in relation to that which is external. Had I been born in India to Brahmin parents, not only would all these things be different, but would I truly be “me”? No, I would be someone else. Therefore, the “me” can only be established relatively. Had the “me” existed elsewhere, it would not be “me,” but someone else. Thus I am distinguished from the perspective of my mortal self. Moving beyond such dimensions, however, we encounter something different.

The spiritual dimension of man is free from any and all external faculties. Only the ways in which it is understood differ person for person, race for race, caste for caste. The spiritual is “that which is in the likeness of God,” meaning the pure soul unobscured by language, temperament or time, and though it may be observed from differing vantages, it does not and cannot change. This is because God is unchanging, unmoving; He is Being, not Becoming, to use the terms of perennial philosophy. The soul of all men, the essence of their very being, rests in metaphysics which only differ in their realisation from a cultural-religious point of view. Metaphysics is One, “Like the refracted sides of a cerulean gem it casts many different slants afoot. All of these shimmer and break against a dark glass.”

Therefore can we not establish that indeed man is two? One half fixed and immovable (soul), the other relative and freeflowing (mind and body)? Indeed we can. Only half of my being is truly “me”; the other half belongs to, or is a reflection of, God. The spiritual path is that which leads beyond the mind and body to the soul. When people speak of “being themselves,” they speak merely of the lower portion of their mortality, forgetting entirely its higher dimensions such as caste and blood.

Blood equals the trajectory of thede; blood traditionally meant the expression of a specific destiny carried forth through rite and ceremony, hence, for example, the Roman Emperors were not totally of the same lineage. For if one was to be admitted into the sacral line, it was to be ritualised and one underwent a “second birth” in order to become a part of that process of regality.

There are two elements within the traditions of those civilisations or of those castes characterised by a Uranian chrism. The first element is a materialistic and naturalistic one; it consists of the transmission of something related to blood and race, namely, a vital force that originates in the subterranean world together with the elementary, collective, and ancestral influences. The second element is “from above,” and it is conditioned by the transmission and by the uninterrupted performance of rites that contain the secret of a certain transformation and domination realized within the abovementioned vital substratum. The latter element is the higher legacy that confirms and develops the quality the “divine forefather” has either established ex novo or attracted from another world. The quality originates the royal stock, the state, the city or the temple, and the caste, the gens or the patrician family according to the supernatural dimension that acts as a “form” shaping chaos. This is why the rites could appear to be “manifestations of the heavenly law,” according to a Chinese saying. ~ Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, ch. 5, “The Mystery of the Rite”

A people, just as a person, cannot be established or sharply-defined purely upon the basis of their material qualities. Hence when Nick B. Steves listed my article “The Problem of Race” in “This Week in Reaction (2016/04/17)” and said, “Race alone does not make a people, and is therefore a poor basis for forming group loyalty. I’d argue its very nearly as useless as shared species. ‘My people’ share much more than race, or they are simply not ‘my people.'” he touched upon something vital. A people, as well as a person, is more than sacks of meat to be moved around for metapolitical means — a point lacking in much of the standard Alternative Right rhetoric, for instance. When we consider the human being, if our analysis fails to grasp him in his totality we will surely miss something vital. The Evolian racial synthesis remedies potential problems, as I have said, but such framework is differentiated from standard rhetoric because it indeed goes beyond the politicking of the here and now, and establishes an understanding of man which is essentially eternal and unwavering. Another point I have made before is that the understanding of race, politics and their interplay most of our contemporaries have is based solely upon the here-and-now in a sort of fashion resembling Realpolitik; the issue, though, is that if one scenario is prepared for, what about others? Or, further still, what of morality? Principle? Are there no ways Occidental man can both refind himself individually and collectively which do not coincide with goals temporally and spiritually? I believe so; I just do not think that enough people even consider such questions. The modern mind which wrestles with the existential crisis European man finds himself in can also wrestle with modern strategies which are rendered obsolete when proper questions are asked.

To be oneself is to uncover firstly one’s true nature in the proper sense, beyond the shackles of the grey capitalist framework which seek to entrap the person beneath a flurry of nonsense; and secondly to see the light between the clouds and begin to comprehend the nature of the divine. But we are not equally capable of such feats, of course; and never will we be, thus the blanket racialism which permeates the online Right falls short and, as is unsurprising, gives not only the collective no concise direction — nor could it ever become a tradition in the proper sense — but it also fails to address the individual in his totality. If the basis of one’s entire worldview rests upon dialectical racialism then so be it, but the finer things will be inevitably missed.

NOTE: It is quite interesting how I have merged two currents, as it were; one beginning with “On Rootedness” about race, and the other with “The Myth of Freedom” about individualism. This has happened totally organically, but of course speaks of an underlying motivation: to explore, to some small measure, the idea of man and his definition. More words are clearly needed on the subject, but it is nice to see the threads come together.


One thought on “Further thoughts on Being Oneself

  1. It’s easy to fall into the trap of pure materialism, like the racial determinists, and rigid dualism. With my obvious biases, I agree with Aquinas and Aristotle. Man includes both soul and body as integral parts. After all, it is only through the body that the soul is capable of acting and experiencing. You can be you as a soul alone, theoretically, but you only have the potential to fully be yourself with both body and soul.

    Ultimately, however, “you” can only realize “yourself” by embracing and trusting in Providence; therefore, it is God who defines what you are, not you yourself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s