The Race That Killed Jesus

The Race That Killed Jesus

A friend of mine recently asked me who I thought killed Christ. “Was it the Jews? Was it the Romans?” I must admit that such considerations were not something I had particularly thought about much before although the question and the controversy was something I was aware of from previous encounters with other Catholics and with Rabbis. The racial question of blame seems quasi-appropriate in the present tense atmosphere with the issue of immigration in Europe and Pale-Blacki relations in America. It still begs the question however of “why does it matter?” Unsurprisingly, similar to the question of homosexuality that I addressed before, it is of little importance and of great importance simultaneously. While the superficial question is inherently low class, it can yield considerations of a higher and necessary nature. Let’s examine the major ways in which individuals deal with this issue and then I shall propose a meditation on the subject which seeks to rise above all three.

For most of the people I have observed, the question of whether or not the Jews were the ones who killed Christ is usually at the service of some ideological aim; i.e. that the question is only relevant in establishing a kind of “bloodline” of iniquity. These individuals explicitly or covertly take the admission of, “his blood be on us, and on our children,” (Matthew 27:25) as justification for the continual skepticism or suppression of what they consider “Jews”. The indictment of “Jews” and “Jewry” as scapegoats is then put to use to advance agendas meant to affect the political, social, and economic makeup of modernity. To individuals who take this path, it is a question of diagnosis on a material plane for the world’s ills. In some ways, too, it becomes a kind of fantasy. “If only we could get rid of Jewry, things would be better,” is the implication. Furthermore, I can’t help but imagine it as a kind of dualistic, Manichean fantasy as well: that the “Christian” way is opposed to the “Jewish” way.

On the other side, there are those few who blame the Romans. “They are the ones who actually crucified the Lord,” I hear many apologetic Christians says. I am sure many of them are channeling Nostra Aetate which is explicit when it states how:

What happened in [Christ’s] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God.ii

However, the shifting of the blame to the Romans seems like a rather easy “cop out” if not a serious and grave error when it is used as yet another example of the superiority of modern, whig politics over ancient monarchical systems. Again, the reduction to an ideological utilitarianism is intrinsic in that line of argument whether it panders to Jewish sensibilities or to modern anti-authoritarian sentiments.

But what does the Church herself believe? Most Catholics will be quick to toe the line and recognize that “everyone” is to blame. The Catechism is clear, after all, when it says that:

In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.” Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone…iii

This leads to the third (though not ultimate) option which many have taken as their preferred method of resolving the conflict: that it was not a question of whether it was the Jews or the Romans, but all people universally in their participation in sin. The question of “races” is translated to the question of one “race” only—the human race.

Pope Benedict XVI, furthermore, wrote in Jesus of Nazareth that he interprets the translation of “ochlos” in Matthew’s gospel as “crowd” as opposed to the entirety of the Jewish race. In fact, he goes on to say in the same book (my emphases added):

[W]e must ask: who exactly were Jesus’ accusers? Who insisted that he be condemned to death? We must take note of the different answers that the Gospels give to this question. According to John it was simply “the Jews.” But John’s use of this expression does not in any way indicate—as the modern reader might suppose—the people of Israel in general, even less is it “racist” in character. After all, John himself was ethnically a Jew, as were Jesus and all his followers. The entire early Christian community was made up of Jews […] The real group of accusers are the current Temple authorities, joined in the context of the Passover amnesty by the “crowd” of Barabbas’ supporters.

Benedict’s words are quite interesting. There were two points in particular that I found fruitful: one is that it is the failing of modernity to conceptualize such spiritual events in spiritual terms. Rather, it necessarily reduces such an event to whatever modern ideology or category (e.g. racism) that it finds appropriate for the particular passage. The focus on racism for most moderns is especially indicative of the obsession modernity has with materialism in general. Since no universal, spiritual, metaphysical, or objective reality outside of scientism is permitted in a truly modern or post-modern concept, then “blame” and “race” is taken only in the modern understanding of biological ethnicity.

Furthermore, he notes how it was the excitement of the “crowd” by the temple authorities that led to Jesus’s accusation. This connection between demagoguery and excitement of the lower strata should not be overlooked as part of the condemnation of Christ. Indeed, there is something to be said about the dangers of pandering to the masses that should be taken as a lesson against the modern, democratic mentality but would be too lengthy to discuss here.

These are the three major viewpoints that individuals I have met seem to take vis-à-vis the question of deicide: that the Jews are to blame, that the Romans are to blame, and that all are to blame. Certainly the last one seems to have the most sensible and spiritual elements as the first two specifically pander to utilitarian and modern obsessions with materialism and biology. Indeed, the first two seem to make the same mistake which, according to Benedict, accused Christ in the first place: by attempting to push a political agenda by pandering to the masses for excitement. It is the great irony that modern “anti-semitism”iv takes on the same demagogic form as the quintessential crucifixion of a Jew.

However, I’d like to propose a fourth option and one which does not simply “negate” the racial element as if it was a spectre to be avoided as too dangerous for modern audiences or not important at all. I believe that a deeper meditation can be acquired on the nature of race and deicide in this case. My answer, therefore, to the question of which race killed Christ is that no race did. In fact, I contend that the high priest and Pontius Pilate were acting with such deracinated attitudes that not only can we find Jews and Romans not guilty of the crime, but highlight the golden virtue of both in the infernal example of the false accusation.

The easier of the two to deal with is Pontius Pilate: prefect of the province of Judea and judge over Jesus’s trial. It is easy enough to sum up his various crimes in how he dealt with Christ. Perhaps the most egregious was his indifference towards the truth especially as Truth was staring him in the face. This episode was immortalised when Jesus says to Pilate, “every one that is of the truth heareth my voice,” and Pilate responds with, “quid est veritas?v implying a kind of jovial joke. The fact that he not only took the matter lightly but had no interest in judging properly is why he may be the one who is present in the vestibule of hell in Dante’s Divine Comedy as “the coward who made the great refusal.”vi Dante refuses to acknowledge him by name—a poetic choice as it was Pilate who refused to acknowledge the name of Jesus (“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”vii).

This refusal to acknowledge Truth; the cowardice in refusing to seek it out; and the abdication from the right of judgment and from administering justice is exactly what makes Pilate a traitor to the Roman gens. The Roman spirit is that of virtue and Imperium; the two being tied closely together. The manly art of virtue (even the name itself is derived from vir meaning “man”) is so profoundly documented as a necessity to the Roman individual of high (and especially political) standing that it is not necessary to include examples at the present time. Any individual can find a multitude of sources on the subject to their satisfaction. It is clear that Pilate’s refusals to administer justice is inherently un-Roman. This is especially true as Pilate is a representative of the Emperor who so often was associated with virtus.viii Indeed, Pilate traded in his Roman virtues for political expedience. He exchanged his delegated fasces of justice for material gain. No Roman gave justice that day—only a political machine shrugged its cold indifference.

While the merits of Roman virtue are clear especially as they are—at least in theory—perpetuated by young men of today who consider themselves loyal to the Church, what is less clear are the merits of “Jewishness.” Either individuals find “Jewishness” to be an interior archetype towards materialism and other serpentine vices, or, like many Catholics, they have a quaint yet detached association with it. However, the Jewish spirit should be respected.ix Indeed, a wise man once said:

The spiritual tradition of Israel being of universal significance, every particular spiritual tradition falls under the law of its origin, life and work. In other words, no spiritual tradition can live or accomplish its mission in the world without conforming to the essential conditions of the origin, life and mission of the tradition of Israel. In other words again, there are no true traditions other than those modelled on the tradition of Israel. For it is the tradition par excellence—the model, the prototype and the law of all visible spiritual traditions which have missions to accomplish.x

However, was this spiritual tradition in the mind of the High Priest and the other men of the Temple when they were condemning Jesus? Was this the Jewish tradition that they employed to condemn the Messiah? What were the motivations for their judgment? “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish,” (John 11:50) was the stated reasoning. In other words, the High Priest chose a quantitative motivation. Not only that, but he expressed little trust in the administration of God’s justice. Thus, he traded LOGOS for Logic—a betrayal of the mystical and qualitative tradition of Israel for the quantitative calculus of the world. No Jew gave judgment that day.

Indeed, both men acted not as their race had been called to act—Romans to rule the world with Justicexi and Jews to bring the Messiah—but as cowards. They abdicated not only their race but their virility. They became nobodies. Thus, it was neither race that condemned Christ. It was, in fact, the rather unique attribute to the human race: our ability to negate our own race-identity. It was our choice to deracinate and degenerate ourselves from the gloria of our ancestors that caused the Jew to act un-Jewish and the Roman to act un-Roman. It is our betrayal of our lineage that causes every act of us, who are made in the image and likeness of God, acting un-Godly to continually condemn Jesus to the cross.

i “Whiteness” is not afforded to any particular race except those who exhibit great virtue. I tend to use the term “pale” since it distinguishes the rather sad and degenerate state in which modern Europeans have put themselves in with the gloriousness of such luminaries as the Roman race in the past. Compare this to how Saruman loses his whiteness as he continues to industrialize and participate in Sauron’s plans.


iii Catechism of the Catholic Church (598).

iv I should be clear that this has no bearing on whether or not so called “anti-semitism” is even applicable to the past. While I do not deign to engage in that discussion at the present time, I mean only the present and modern use of “anti-semitism” applied to modern incidents.

v “What is truth?” John 18:38.

vi Inferno III, 57.

vii John 14:6.

viii It was said that Augustus had a golden shield inscribed with “virtus”, “iustitia”, and other virtues on it.

ix There is a legitimate question about whether or not “Jews” of today maintain the same spirit of Jewishness present in the glory of the Mystical Traditions of Israel. The question of whether or not “traditional Jews” exists is about as problematic as whether or not “traditional Europeans” or “traditional Christians” exist in the modern context. This is part of the reason why I refuse to use the term “white” to refer to those of European descent since it implies a purity which they have abdicated.

x Meditations on the Tarot, pp. 296.

xi cf. De Monarchia Chapter VII “The Roman people were ordained for Empire by nature” and Chapter VIII “The decree of God showed that Empire belonged to the Roman people”.

The Necessity of the “Butlerian Jihad”

The Necessity of the “Butlerian Jihad”

It’s not unfair to say that modern man has an obsession with machines. This fixation is many times both celebrated as the “progress” of humanity forward and sometimes lampooned as the “instagram generation.” There are plenty of individuals who praise the connectivity of social media while there are those who decry how dehumanizing and reductive it can be. Indeed, it is this new, intimate connection between “society” and “technology” that has given rise to these emergent properties as “social media” and “technocracy” just to name a few.

On the surface, one can notice that there is a kind of hesitation and wariness on the part of some people vis-à-vis these developments. The allure of technological ease has, as its spectre constantly in the background, the fear that we have entered some kind of Faustian exchange. That, perhaps, unbeknownst to most users, something of greater value was given away for this massive boost in social power. But is this true? And even if it is; is some kind of Luddite foolishness the solution?

I mentioned in my previous post that the gun is a weapon of “cunning” in the same vein as that of the cunning of the serpent. It is not a coincidence that the mass-produced gun, which is a product of man’s technological advancement, shares the same parentage with social media and computers which are also siblings in the family of “progress.” If this is true, should we not be able to see the ancestral, “spiritual” DNA of the serpent—his “cunning”—in these new forms of technology as well?

Again, as I pointed out in my previous post, the root of the “cunning” of the serpent is that he promised not that those who ate of the forbidden fruit would be gods, but that they would be like gods. In essence, that they would not be transubstantiated into the divine, but that they would be imitations of the divine. As a wise man once put it, “to be cunning is to mime wisdom, after having eliminated the essential—its light—and then to make use of it for one’s own ends.”i Is this not happening on a societal level vis-à-vis “social media”? The examples of this are legion, but let us focus on one in particular.

“Conversation” has often been identified by even modern people as a “lost art” in the burgeoning world of the “digital age.”ii But what is this “art of conversation”? In my own experience, it seems as if most modern people, when thinking of conversation, refer only to the kind of entertainment that they receive from various “points of interest” with other individuals. People talk about their “favourite” things whether it’s the latest episode of Game of Thrones or which politician of the day is “cucked.”iii In essence, the predominant modality of modern conversation is superficiality—shallowness. There is no real “depth.” People are speaking, but they are not having “conversations.” When people speak about the “art of conversation”, it’s as if they mistake the entertainment of The Avengers for the art of Kanon D-dur.


This is most obvious in the world of social media which is involved in various “causes” and “ideals.” It is a world where people can be “seen” to be idealistic (how many French-filtered Facebook profile pictures are we going to see in light of Nice now?) without ever having to undergo an interior change or achieving external action. Social media is definitely a facet of the “world of the serpent”iv where sheer mass and digital sentimentality is treated, unsurprisingly, like the fiat currency of the modern world. “It has meaning because we all believe it does.”v Again, this is the “cunning” of the serpent which deals in artificiality.

Furthermore, most of the time, neither individual in a dialogue is changed from conversations aided by technology. One can see how entrenched most individuals on forums or imageboards are in their own world Nothing new ever comes from their conversations with others. The conversations are barren and sterile. There are even times when I have had talks with individuals who merely leave ten minutes later thinking that they have achieved a “conversation.”

There is a real connection between superficiality and sterility. The arcanum of the sexual act, for example, demonstrates this reality by homology. In order to achieve conception, “depth” in physical terms, must be accomplished through the marriage of man and wife. It is only then that a new life takes hold and the human organism perpetuates. However, in the mode of modern conversation, there is a refusal to achieve any kind of spiritual or emotional depth.

Conversation, in the modern context, is only meant to satisfy what we already know—our own essence. We ejaculate our own incomplete (read: haploid) essence without achieving any depth and we do so with the aid of other individuals who merely stroke our egos. This sterility, mutual pleasuring, and lack of any new change in the person—or elevation of their consciousness—is the hallmark of modern conversations as masturbatory. It is no wonder, then, that the usage of the internet for pornography as an enabling factor for this habit is also the preferred mode by which the conversational orgy is perpetuated on social media. It is also no wonder that the modern world, which so woefully misunderstands and misuses the art of the sexual act, treats conversation with such selfish objectivisation.

This promiscuity of modern technological “connection” is also indicative of the other current of modernity which was inherited from the “world of the serpent”: the confusing of quantity for quality. The worth of endeavors and individuals is often tied with how many views a YouTube video gets, how many friends one has, how many votes one receives in an election, how much money one is paid, how many points someone scores in a football match etc. Similarly, in conversations, it is often a litany of how many “celebrities” one has encountered, or how many “interesting” people one knows. The number and weight is given priority and it is this world of quantity that the techno-economic machine is obsessed with. It is this “paradise” of bourgeois life that is so often sought after through the use of the “technological miracle.” Thus, social media—the online society—is like a real society, but it can never be one. The modern technologically miraculous bourgeois society achieves something like peace and justice, but it has neither in reality.

But is it totally the fault of the machine? Just as I mentioned in my previous post that the gun is morally neutral, so is the computer. This is why Frank Herbert—the mystical Saint John of Science Fiction—once wrote through the words of Leto II Atreides: “’the target of the Jihad was a machine-attitude as much as the machines,’ Leto said. ‘Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary serfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed.’”vii

In other words, the quest for artificial intelligence—the forbidden fruit—has, as its sin, not just the acquisition of the consciousness for the machine (playing God), but humanity’s propensity to abdicate his own “necessary serfdom” to lesser things. The sin of artificial intelligence is not that it will happen through elevating machines to our consciousness, but through creating a society and individual so mechanized and materialistic that he is indistinguishable from machine. The sin is not that we are trying to teach machines how to create art and music, but that humans do stupid and inane things such as assign notes to digits of pi and pretend it is “beautiful” to listen to. The sin is not that we are trying to teach machines emotions, but that we scroll through videos of clickbait on our feeds looking for our next emotional fix.

The Turing Test for the modern age indicates, horrifically, not how far machines have advanced, but how shallow and empty humanity is becoming. The almost Lovecraftian horror of artificial intelligence is not when we have created other beings, but that we are already in a process of lowering the bar to the level of amoral unconsciousness.

The horror deepens when one realizes that it is this process of “downward” standards that is the modus operandi of modernity. Like I had pointed out in my previous post about homosexuality, the admittance of “gay marriage” as equivalent to “traditional marriage” is often argued on the basis on how debauched, materialistic, and insecure “traditional marriage” has become. Thus, the question of artificial intelligence is another signpost; a glaring signal of the way in which the mechanized world functions by demanding that ideal forms be polluted by “realities” on the ground; it demands that a third of the stars be cast down with it.

Thankfully, Artificial Intelligence, for the contemplative man, can serve like the grotesques and gargoyles that decorate medieval churches. Artificial Intelligence is the pinnacle of “cunning” since it once again represents the “miming” of wisdom, the “elimination of the essential” humanity or the “light”, and the “use of it for one’s own ends” which reminds us of the cult of utilitarianism which is often invoked when speaking of synthetic organisms.

The creation of an artificial brain is the pinnacle of the cult of evolution. After all, isn’t one way in which artificial intelligence is thought to come about is in the way “machines can make better machines”? In other words, that “progress” and “agency” is taken from the human and given to something which can achieve these functions exponentially faster? Needless to say that wiser individuals have treated the question of evolution and the brain better than I could ever put forth hereviii, but even such Christian Hermeticists had not conceived that modernity had found a way to double down on the idolatry of “progress” by elevating the “synthetic” brain of artificial, disembodied intelligence.

So where does this leave the contemplative man? He is alienated from the world of quantity and artificiality and, at the same time, if he is born in this age—unless he becomes a hermit—he is not afforded the extreme asceticism of being detached from the world. The solution, therefore, is the same in which Moses dealt with the serpents in the desert: crucifixion.ix By crucifying the worldly (and, thus, horizontal) propensity of science with the vertical orientation of the spirit, one creates the sign of the cross.x In other words, when one adds depth (verticality) to the possibilities (horizontality) of technology, one can achieve immunity for anyone bitten by the serpent; one can be immune to the sedative properties of modern technology.

Of course, to achieve such a state is a long and difficult path, but it suffices for now to be made aware of the journey and the dangers presently. This is why the Orange Catholic Bible is adamant when it says: “thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of man’s mind”xi and why the Butlerian Jihad should be internalized as our own process of refusing to abdicate or lower ourselves to the level of machines.xii It is interesting to note that the Reverend Mother Mohiam believes that the line should have been written as “thou shalt not make a machine to counterfeit a human mind,”xiii which only further indicates Herbert’s own understanding that such a thing as artificial intelligence is of “the world of the serpent”; the world of “cunning.” We ourselves should never forget that our consciousness has a greater dimension than that of quantity, materiality, and utility—and it often requires a great interior struggle—a jihad—to realize this truth.

i Meditations on the Tarot, pp. 248.


iii God help us.

iv cf. Meditations on the Tarot, pp. 246.

v Compare this, too, with my mentioning of the “egregore” in my previous post.

vi One will notice, too, the prevalence of memes and “signaling” as a way of simply reinforcing one’s own opinions commonly shared with others.

vii God Emperor of Dune, Frank Herbert, 1981.

viii cf. Meditations on the Tarot, Letter X “Wheel of Fortune.” This section extensively, and eloquently, derives the connection between the world of evolution (the world of the serpent) and the brain as an organ of “selection” along with rather decisive and instructive exercises on how to resolve this seeming contradiction of the brain as the organ of reason and its “diabolical” origins.

ix cf. Ride the Tiger, Julius Evola, and Numbers 21:9.

x Meditations on the Tarot, pp. 219

xi Dune, Frank Herbert, 1965.

xii Compare this, too, with Evola’s mentioning of the Islamic virtue of “internal Jihad.”

xiii Dune, Frank Herbert, 1965.

Peace Between Black and White and The Gun

Peace Between Black and White and The Gun

Sometimes people are utterly surprised that I don’t express as much shock as they do when such events as the Dallas shootings or black men being killed happen around the United States. That’s not to say that I don’t have legitimate and true feelings about the loss of life and the breakdown of society, but “shocked” implies “surprised,” and, as it stands, “surprised” is something I am not.

There are many particular theories on as to why such violence is occurring. The arguments range from socio-economic conditions to denials of any impropriety whatsoever.i This is rather typical of the modern, materialistic worldview which tends to reduce most problems to economic formulae. Competing models demand application—demand an opportunity to test themselves in the arena of the democratic market. However, much like in the domain of homosexuality that I discussed in my previous post, the various “solutions” seem to miss more fundamental considerations.

The first consideration to ponder is the question of multiculturalism. Taken a step deeper, this question is really about how one resolves “differentiation.” How does one find “peace” between different peoples, cultures, etc. Often the solution is presented as “checks and balances” or “compromise.” However, in practice, this is rarely the case. For the most part, the mode of resolution taken on by modernism is that of “mixture.” It is the annihilation of individual differentiation in order to achieve unity. To better understand this, an extended analogy is necessary:

In order to illustrate the three ways of “neutralisation” of binaries, the “coloured body” of the German scientist Wilhelm Ostwald (cf. Die Farbenfibel, Leipzig, 1916) will serve us as an example. Ostwald’s coloured body is formed by two cones:


This body therefore has a “north pole”, a “south pole” and an “equator”.

The “north pole” is the white point which is the synthesis of all colours. It is this white light which is more and more differentiated as it progressively descends towards the “equator”. There the colours attain their maximum differentiation and individual intensity. […] The “equator” therefore consists of seven colours (the seven colours of the visible spectrum) at their maximum intensity.

These same colours, in continuing their descent from the “equator” towards the “south pole”, gradually lose their chromatic light and become darker. When they reach the “south pole” they lose all distinction and become equally black. […] The “white point” is the synthesis of all the colours; it is their “neutralisation above”, in the light. The “equator” is the region of maximum distinction between the colours. It is there that the transition from one colour to another can be established. It is the region where “horizontal neutralization” can be effected. The “black point”, lastly, is that of the confusion of all colours, where they are lost in darkness. It is the region of “neutralisation below”.ii

It is not so difficult to imagine that the modern world which is so obsessed with “equality” takes on the role of the black point: the point where differentiation ends as one descends and loses the light of what makes each person different. Is this not, after all, the various conclusions of individuals who seek to deny the existence of races between humans?iii Is this not the expression of a culture that wishes to deny anything higher—anything sacred and, thus, that we are all the same stardust?

Some might argue that what they are attempting to achieve is the “white point” of “synthesis.” However, the fantasy of a Utopian, progressive society replaces “synthesis” with “syntheticism.” It is the dream of an economic-technological marvel where humanity is flattened into sameness. Humanity is made to act based on a completely synthetic alternative; it is not uplifted towards the fullness of every race’s potentiality.

Even optimistic western depictions of a “united” society in popular culture adhere to the same bland aesthetics while covertly fetishizing the individuated man and segregated cultures.iv This focus on a materialist basis for homogenizing society—the bourgeois dream of providing material excess in order to assimilate cultures into a “progressive” ideology and a singular “popular culture”—is clearly the replacement of an organic, human essence with a mechanical, synthetic one. It is the abdication of the light of human individuality and passion for the cold collectivity of artificial superstructures. This is the black singularity of modern multiculturalism.

Is it also no wonder, therefore, that the gun and the bomb are the iconic modes of conflict resolution in the modern world? Even when “diplomacy” is utilized, is it not the gun and the bomb which preserve the peace through strength in any negotiation? Both these items carried by police and world police respectively betray the underlying modality of modernism to “reduce” and “flatten.” The bomb, after all, literally levels cities and indiscriminately targets children, innocents, and soldiers alike with its greatest expression in the atomic variety which not only destroys entire populations and civilizations, but also reduces the very elements by splitting them. By reducing everything to the same, defeated ash heap, it is the ultimate expression of “Death is the great equalizer.”

Guns perform this “equalizing” and deadly role in a more personal setting. The “equality” gained by guns is that of a reduction of combat and war to a mechanical and calculating consideration. There is little (though some) elan necessary in wielding a firearm, but the consideration of efficiency and effectiveness is the overriding thought in the modern world. In essence, the goal is to win—to kill. It does not matter if the shooter is superior or inferior, he “equalizes” himself with his target; their interior disposition which would determine will, grace, and passion no longer factors into their combat.

It is interesting to note that when the Tokugawa shogunate banned firearms, “the samurai did not mind.”v In fact:

While American pioneers considered their guns a symbolic “badge of honor,” the Samurai revered swords as the true symbol of knighthood. For combat, Samurai disdained guns because they allowed fighting from a distance, rather than face to face, and required the combatant to assume an undignified crouching

In other words, there was no consideration to be made of combat as art—or as a means of transcending one’s interior life through facing one’s opponent.vii “The inner jihad” as Evola would have put it. For the firearm, any peasant can kill any lord if the consideration was only death. Thus, firearm use against humans as a modern invention, is intimately tied to notions of “equality” and “equality” of the downward variety; approaching the black singularity of utilitarianism.

Is it no wonder, therefore, that there is such a fetishism for guns as it projects an external power that does not require an internal disposition to possess. This is not only true in the gangster culture as well as the NRA culture, but even in mainstream video games from Fallout: New Vegas to Halo. Unlike a sword which requires discipline of the soul, peace of the spirit, and respect of the body to master, a firearm only requires the simulation of these things in order to achieve potency. One need only mimic discipline of the soul by steadying one’s hands, one need only pretend to have peace of spirit by slowing one’s breathing, and one need only have a medical understanding of the critical points to shoot at in order to kill.

Therefore, firearms are the weapons of “cunning” since their aping of power and inner strength is the same logic behind the “cunning”viii of the serpent. The serpent promised that one would not be gods but one will be like gods.ix Similarly, the gun promises equality with others without ever inducing an interior change. The gun promises gangsters power and potency without ever making the inner man worthy of it. The gun promises authority and policing without ever giving the inner man true legitimacy to wield lethal force.

Conversely, this is also the reason why possession of a firearm is not, in itself, a danger for the man who has already mastered himself. To him it is inferior to the sword and he is not seduced by it. This completes the meditation on the gun as the “cunning” weapon since it does not represent a moral evil, but a morally neutral one in the same way that the forbidden fruit was that of the knowledge of “good and evil” rather than only “evil.”x

With such tools as bombs and gunsxi enforcing a bland and assimilative policy, it is no wonder that peace cannot be achieved in the “melting pot” of America. The demands to have every race—even the so called whitesxii—act in a certain manner (could you ever be called “American,” for example, if you believed in monarchy?) and live in close proximity is a graphic example of the descent into the “black pole.”

If this is true, then, what of the other two modes of “neutralisation”? Can peace be achieved in the equator of the colour spectrum or the white light of potentiality? As for the light of synthesis, this is a transcendent goal which would require a radical transformation of society to an end point—the LOGOS of Teilhard de Chardin, for example, who brings everything to Himself. To such a level, I have no clear view and have no legitimacy to speak. Even to the “equatorial” position, it is difficult to discern proper examples or practical considerations.

It can be intelligible as an idea to be meditated upon: a society which differentiates is the happiest. This was the ideal of the Holy Roman Empire in its de-centralized statexiii. The unity of the Empire was in its transcendent, vertical orientation of its subjects while the material, or horizontal privileges and identities such as race and individuality were preserved. This is the converse of the modern, centralized nation-state or superstate like the European Union. The last vestiges of these ideas remain somewhat viable in Switzerland which had preserved the notion of separating peoples according to creed, language, etc. The cantons of Switzerland have remained peaceful (while having the fourth largest gun ownership per capitaxiv) for decades and violence in the country has remained very low.

Unfortunately, for the United States, separation on this level—into various peaceful cantons—is no longer viable without extreme violence which threatens to kill the crop along with the weeds. Similarly, to have legitimate authority that the various nations-within-the-state could look upon as their uniting factor has never existed in American society. There is no executive power that all look upon as truly wielding the authority to take a man’s life.xv

The president and the government, after all, are more like the ghosts of a dead body rather than the soul of a living thing—they are an egregore or “a force generated by a powerful spiritual current and then nourished at regular intervals.”xvi If people are so surprised that there is such a sensible resistance to centralized power both among the “Libertarian” and the Black Lives Matter movement should be reminded that, “the confusion of the soul and the phantom is a sufficiently serious error.”xvii In other words, phantoms are animated by the corpses while souls animate bodies. With no soul animating the nation, only “the American spirit” resides in the government. Since the flow of animation is reversed, the government is helpless to fix these ills. By granting power through “leveling” means (democracy), there is no elevation of the authority structure that endows those in power with the authority to touch the sacred—the sanctity of justice.

The irony is that the same obsession with economic progress is at the root of the American malaise. If it wasn’t for the expediency and efficiency of slavery (again, another “cunning” tactic by modern economists by simulating productivity without truly enlivening the society), then there would be no question of whether or not police have the authority to shoot black people. There would be no conflict of being ruled by one who was not their local lord—or, in modern terms, “community policing.”

At the end, is one merely left with pessimism? What is left to do when one recognizes the negative orientation of the modern world’s “compromise” and solutions? Short of resurrecting the Empire or acquiring the Mandate of Heaven,xviii it starts with people of a certain type meditating on the proper residence of peace in the world which resides between the poles of white and black—in the rainbow of true diversity. It starts with rejecting the present solutions as untenable and infernal. For every loaf of bread requires yeast to raise it and it is those who act who first must learn for themselves or be informed by those who contemplate on the real and true state of their surroundings.

i I don’t want to bother citing any particular sources for these; any cursory search online will yield sufficient proof for the reader on the prevalence of these theories among pundits and researchers.

ii Meditations on the Tarot, pp. 222.

iv One can even look at Star Trek after Gene Roddenberry died where the writers found it necessary to inject more individual majesty to personalities and realpolitik into the Federation. One can look at the “utopia” of the Mass Effect franchise and recognize that, in reality, it subverts itself by accepting the differentiation between species—a classically allegorical depiction of race. It shows alien races living homogenously on their own worlds. This is the same for other depictions in popular culture such as Babylon 5.


vi Ibid.

vii Compare this, for example, with the way in which the Dallas sniper chose to perpetrate his acts.

viii Genesis III, 1.

ix Genesis III, 5.

x cf. Meditations on the Tarot, pp. 217.

xi It’s quite interesting that they found bomb materials in the home of the Dallas shooter as it seems to reinforce the same underlying mentality as the rest of the calculus-driven modes of conflict resolution.

xii The usage of the term “white” for people of European descent is about as laughable as calling the moon the sun.

xiii Not to mention the ideal of the Chrysanthemum throne which sought to have local lords and local concerns rather than centralized, universal edicts of the later Meiji (and western inspired) Revolution.


xv Is it no wonder, therefore, that the death penalty is so vehemently opposed? And rightly so—since true legitimate authority has been so long absent from the political world.

xvi La Kabbale Pratique, Robert Ambelain, pp. 175.

xvii Meditations on the Tarot, pp. 140.

xviii Compare this with the “mandates” acquired by populist politicians who do not derive their authority from something above humanity, but from the great mass of humanity; the vox populi.