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.

5 thoughts on “Peace Between Black and White and The Gun

  1. This is a very thoughtful piece on a truly ghastly business. I have but a few observations to make.

    I live in a country where the police carry neither guns nor bombs, and shootings of any sort are happily rare. The American obsession with guns is hard to understand. So too is the racial tension which exists in the US. I understand the history of it, with slavery and segregation. And I think you make a good point that equality through the ever greater possession of material goods – material equality – is doomed. Man does not live by bread, or bread and circuses, alone.

    May I, at risk of seeming like the typical patronising European, share my thoughts on American culture and how it differs from European culture. This, I accept, is based on a very partial acquaintance with the US, gained during two years of study there.

    America, it seemed to me, was a bit like a young man who had left university with a good degree, got a good job, had an attractive girlfriend and an expensive car. The sort of person who has swagger, and a good deal of external confidence, based on doing quite well in the world, but is fundamentally a bit immature and actually quite unsure of himself. He hides his insecurity with his swagger. In the US I was often told that ‘Europe may have culture, but it is dying’. This rather odd attitude seemed to be based on that very insecurity.

    Europe, on the other hand, seemed to be a bit like the old granny in the back bedroom. She has seen it all. She is experienced, but maybe rather cynical. Thus she laughs at the young man, which only makes him swagger all the more.

    I was taken to a baseball match, which I enjoyed very much (though I did not really understand what was going on). It seemed to epitomise the best of that ‘young man’ of America, with people there to have fun. Beer was served at our seats, inconceivable at a European sporting event. During a break in the play, hot dogs were fired into the stands. All tremendous fun. None of the tension one might get over here.

    What I am saying is that this American attitude has both good and bad points. On the positive side Americans have an openness and confidence, a ‘can do’ attitude, which is refreshing. They lack our European cynicism. But on the negative side it seems to result in treating everything (including geopolitics, with often disastrous results) as a big game of cops and robbers, or cowboys and indians.

    Maybe this is why disputes so often end with Americans reaching for guns. Which does not end them, of course.

    I do not mean this to criticise the United States. It has many good qualities. Nor am I suggesting that Europe is necessarily superior. And I have not said anything about the origins of the American way in English Whiggery.

    You seem to suggest a neo-feudalism as the ideal. It is an ideal. But it is an ideal which can often be abused (as all structures of authority can be). But I veer between romantic medievalism and High Toryism, and a contempt for all authority, so I probably cannot be trusted.


  2. This reminded me of the analogies used by Boethius regarding the unity of Christ’s natures. Unity is like gems affixed to a gold crown — the elements remain distinct, in harmony; unlike the case of mixing honey and water, as both are ruined to create a third substance.

    Of course, the modern push for “unity” is mostly a charade with “benevolent” pretenses. I don’t see it as much more than cutting down all the tall poppies. The masses are easier to control when you knock everyone to the same level and mechanize everything.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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