Where Hence, Art?

We have many good reactionary theories of politics, but we need to start thinking about art in a slightly more sophisticated way than “old equals good”. It is true, old does equal good and you will find many eternal truths of staggering beauty in ancient works of art. However it is equally true that while beauty may be objective and timeless, the particular spirit that resulted in ancient works of art and literature is particular to a specific time, place, and stage of cultural development. Beowulf and the Iliad are two very different epic poems. Beowulf is a Christian tale about the struggle against esoteric evil and entropy, wherein a civilization rises and falls in the course of the hero’s lifetime. It is a tale about the necessity of spiritual salvation to escape the cyclical and mechanical nature of pagan fatalism. The Iliad is about male honor, the barbaric versus the civilized, the cruel whims of the gods and the social structures implemented by man to combat reckless emotion. (The funeral games of Patroklos are some of, if not the most, important chapters)

Homer could not have produced Beowulf and its own anonymous author could not have produced the Iliad. In just the same manner, we, today, cannot replicate ancient art. I could write a poem imitating Milton, but I will never achieve the equal of Paradise Lost by copying Milton. Whereas Eliot’s The Waste Land is at least an equal accomplishment to Paradise Lost, and a natural successor to it in the Western literary canon, though in a style and form proper to post-WWI Europe and not to Milton’s milieu.

Milton was living in a morally and religiously pure world that had begun to slip into evil and rebellion, and thus he portrays the fall of Man, original sin, and the war between the republic of Hell and the kingdom of Heaven. Eliot was living in a wholly evil and fallen world, and thus his epic poem portrays the internal search for spiritual truth and redemption.

Oswald Spengler, who you should just go fucking read already, proposes that the entirety of a Culture and all of its technological, philosophical, political, and artistic output centers around a single symbol that defines the relation between Man and the World, and between Man and Truth. He has convinced me on that front and offers a staggering quantity and quality of evidence so I will not guide you through his arguments for him. You should never swallow him hook line and sinker, but this central thesis of his is rock-solid. To Spengler, the central premise of the West is infinity, with two components: infinite space and directional energy. So in Milton, we have a sin that lasts for eternity, of infinite depth and breadth that extends itself eternally into time, until it is countered by an opposing act of infinite salvation. In Milton we see a Culture which still has perfect confidence in its central idea. In Eliot we see a Culture that is beginning to die, that has lost its certitude and directional energy. The “narrative” of The Waste Land both is and describes the spiritual poverty of his time. No longer do we have a single truth that extends eternally; rather the narrator wanders from piece to piece of lost culture, attempting to stitch together atomized fragments into a singular whole, for Eliot feels the deep necessity of a singular truth.

It was this inversion, described, decried, and in part perpetrated by modernism, from external infinity to internal infinity that marks a turning point in the cultural life-cycle of the West. Victorian Romanticism was September nostalgia, senescent reminiscence. Modernism is Alzheimers, and a brutal deathbed attempt at repentance and self-honesty. Postmodernism really does not exist as a separate movement per se. It is simply Modernism without the learning, intellectual and philosophical fantasy without an honest attempt at truth.

So the West is dying, but it is dying of old age rather than murder, or illness, or parasitism. Of course, sicknesses and injuries that the body would have healed easily when healthy and young now take a grievous toll and hasten its demise. And there are plenty of parasites waiting to feast on its corpse. The role of an Augustus, in the darkest and most black-pilled assessment, is merely to fight off some of the sicknesses that afflict an aged body, to prolong life in old age through a comfortable senescence empty of accomplishment.

The white pill behind the black, of course, is that new cultures succeed the old, even using the same racial stock and in the same locale. We may, we must, have a new West, as different from and yet similar to the old as the Holy Roman Empire was from the actual Roman Empire.

It is not for us to try and force the new Culture into being, or decide its nature and central symbology; there is no act, no pretense more emblematic of “dying civilization” than the attempt to mechanically and intellectually force a new Culture, a new Art, a new Weltanschauung, into existence. It would be the height of Gnosticism, the deadliest and most horrible sin of our race, to attempt to do so. The attempt to force a new world-historical feeling into being has been tried before by our people. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Revolution; demonic bloodbaths all, titanic orgies of senseless horror over which Satan laughs and strokes his erect cock.

And yet we cannot turn the clock back. We can only go forward. Forward does not mean progress. It means inevitable death and most likely perdition. I am friends with no necromancers, who can resurrect Aryan charioteer-conquerors, or the beautiful and fragile Greek polis, the Saxon war-band, the Viking berserk, raging against the dying of paganism, the Crusader-kings, the great Baroque of the imperial-absolutist palace cultures. The good of these things cannot be excised with scissors; a little of this, some of that, graft them together, wait for lightning to strike and bring your undead monstrosity to life. Cultures are not assembled like robots. They are born, and grow, like children. Read old books. Apprehend the eternal truths of your forefathers and let them sit pregnantly in your mind, let them inspire your soul, their failings and evils too. Maybe you, even you, will birth a new Culture. The Son of the West.

Only a fool seeks for the fountain of youth when he should be having children. Perhaps the next culture has already been born, or it sits somewhere embryonic, obscure, ignored, colossus-potential within it. If it does, we should seek it out. But beware. To you, my over-civilized reader, it will seem frightfully crass and barbaric. A Mongol to the Han, a Pict to the Roman. Born in mud and blood it will grow, in time, into high art and supreme accomplishments. It will colonize Mars and extend its rule beyond the reach of our sun’s gravity. It will have its own central symbol, its own mortal sin that will eventually fester within it and bring it down. You are not a part of this Culture, not yet and maybe not ever.

I am asking you to pledge your allegiance to something that has not been born. Something your children may see only the faintest stirrings of, which in a hundred years may not have yet come into its full might and glory.

And a fledgling culture can often be smothered in the cradle by its dying parent. The West in its old age has become exceedingly cruel and malicious. The Cathedral, Harvard, Leftism, call it what you will. From here on out I will simply call it the Enemy, delenda est. Call me an accelerationist if you will. I am not. I do not want to floor the throttle on collapse until our parachute is strapped on and double checked. Once it is, put a brick on the gas and bail.

But this is beside the point. I am here to talk about art. Western art has played itself out. It can only imitate the past, and a healthy and vital culture does not imitate the past, even when it thinks it is doing so. The Renaissance thought it was imitating the past, but it was not. Romanticism thought it was imitating the past, but it was not. Otherwise, “contemporary” or “postmodern” literature is all pure garbage. In fragmented, atomized, stream-of-consciousness style it accurately portrays our contemporary world, but not a word of it is great art because it is founded on the Enemy and thus founded on lies.

Postmodern literature could be truly great art, but it gets pwned by the Enemy when it assumes that culture and reality have become more nuanced and complicated over time. In fact the complexity of the modern world is all incidental rather than material, and in fact our culture has become a great deal simpler than it used to be. Below all the noise and showmanship, the Enemy is a two-horned demon: Power and Appetite, concealed beneath the cleanest and most appealing humanitarian Gnosticism possible.

Our art has only one great task before it: denuding the Beast. You think you’ve seen nihilism? You think we’re the embodiment of nihilism, dear naive reader? When this is accomplished, and the Western Canon is truly closed shut, and European Man loses faith in even the lie, even Gnosticism…

Then we will enter the Kali Yuga in truth. And I’m kind of excited for it, tbh fam, but then again lust and wrath are my two great sins and enduring temptations. The horrors that will be perpetrated when the Right wins the culture war (yes, there are many Christian believers among the right but even those who think they are trying to convert heretics are in actuality and effect trying to make them disbelieve the Enemy. This is not a bad thing, it is world-history taking its course. Sincere belief will come later) will not be the horrors of trying to manufacture a better world, oh no. They will be the blind death throes of the West, the greatest and most powerful human civilization in history raging against the dying of the light. I will leave the political actions to be taken against this fact to another post.

Back to art. How to denude the Enemy? It is garbed in lies, so you use the Truth. Its cloak of lies is well-adapted to deflect the eternal and spiritual truths. But it is not equipped to bear scrutiny on its own nature. It will not be destroyed with hymns to Christ but with weapons of ugly, brutal honesty that reveal its own ugliness and brutality. Delicious Tacos is of the Enemy, but he is honest. He wounds the tiger he rides. The novels he writes contribute to the closing of the Western Canon; an ugly honest art for an ugly lying time. For those spiritually and artistically inclined, Tacos can do what a thousand vicious Twitter trolls, each effective in their own way and on different types of men, fail at: making those who are the body of the Enemy stop believing.

In related news, I have a based and redpilled friend who will soon be throwing his hat into the ring and publishing. Keep an eye out.

17 thoughts on “Where Hence, Art?

  1. ”Perhaps the next culture has already been born, or it sits somewhere embryonic, obscure, ignored, colossus-potential within it. If it does, we should seek it out. But beware. To you, my over-civilized reader, it will seem frightfully crass and barbaric.”

    I admire the vigor and virility of those barbarians. But I do not admire their cruelty. Honorable in battle but quick to shed innocent blood.

    If they are just then I have almost no qualms.


  2. I don’t know, I tend to approach art from a very different angle. Art, *ars*, was originally simply craft. Making pragmatic things. A statue had similar uses as a photo. The first level is just to make it realistic. The second level is to add imagination, like a Greek statue of a god used for religious rituals, but even that mostly meant dressing up a model like Zeus and copying it realistically, this is why Plato had little regard for artists, considering them just photocopiers. Then you add more and more imagination into it, make stuff you cannot copy from a model at all. More self-expression. Trying to make a statue of a more abstract idea, like anger or love. And all this is high status, because it is hard to do and interesting to enjoy. So artists compete for status. The old art was something you could understand. It would depict a person or an idea in a way that is fairly easy to get. Realistically. Or psychologically easy to get, a statue of anger would convey the emotion easily, music would be actually pleasant to listen to and often danceable and so on.

    But as artists compete more and more, what we call modern art went in a more elitist direction. I would be hard to get, hence the audience itself could also claim status for being able to get it, being intelligent or sophisticated enough. So now they can take a shit in the middle of a canvas and the audience pretends to get a very deep meaning out of it and thus claim status for being super intelligent.

    Art was elitist in the older era as well, in the sense of paid for by aristocrats, but they did not play this game. They had no need to signal this status. When the good Kaiser Franz Josef first encountered modern art, he asked the painter “Why are you painting grass blue, instead of green?” “Well, your Majesty, because that is how I see it!” “Well in that case something is wrong with your eyes, so it was a bad idea to pursue a career in painting.” He really had no need to signal people that he is super smart by being able to see some deep meaning in wrongly colored grass.

    Parts of this started earlier, really in the reactionary age already. I agree with the sailor who in the movie Master and Commander said “Why can’t these gentlemen play music you could dance to?” I think this sophistication-signalling already began with old classical music you could not dance to. But I have pretty much peasant tastes. Nevertheless, even with peasant tastes you could “get” most paintings, sculpture, poetry etc. up to the modern age, music is a kind of an exception. A painting of a battle was very much like a modern comics book. Realistic. Comics are now paintings for all those who do not engage in this kind of signalling.

    So I think we don’t really need to get it very complicated. We just need to ridicule the signalling f***ott audience and we have classical art again. The point I am trying to make is that the peasant and the aristocrat do have the same basic human instincts, just the aristocrat has more intellectual, spiritual etc. dimensions on top of it, on top of it, but not instead of it. So if the artist wanted to address the aristocrat on all levels, he would both play to normal human instincts and also to these higher dimensions. Thus he made something that was also consumable to the peasant, just the peasant consumed, interpreted it on a narrower level. So looking at a painting of a battle the peasant would get it on his level and say “Wow, what a badass cavalry charge!” and the aristocrat would say “Yes, but also heroism and sacrifice for King and Country.”

    So if we just laugh out the signalling f***otts artists naturally return to address aristocrats on all levels, which means it is also consumable for peasants on the shared, normal human instinctual level, and that is what old art was used to be.


  3. The fall of the West will be because the internet passes off knowledge as wisdom. There is no context in a Tweet to make a person feel the need to be civil so as Nietzsche said “God is dead” and as we scurry trying to find one only those old enough to know GOD still have one and all the rest have reverted to tribalism. Anarchy is the new God and most people serve it through the internet of things. Why is it they did not say the internet of people? People are becoming irrelevant as things grow in importance


    1. Nietzsche wrote that God was dead long before the internet, and he was right, though only half right because Man did not begin to believe in nothing but rather began to believe in an evil religion.

      If you want to convert a Satanist, you can’t convince him to jump from the worship of Satan to the worship of God, you must first convince him that the Devil is evil and his works lead to death. Thus you convert him to atheism and then to Christianity.

      As I wrote, there will most likely be a transitional but necessary phase of actual nihilism between devil-worship and belief that will be so awful it will make living in our modern Carthage seem tame and desirable in comparison.


  4. I’m glad to see that someone on the right is aware of the inherent mortality of all cultures, Western included. When one is trying to conserve a culture whose main theme is infinite expansion, it is only natural that one will lose sight of this and aim at eternal youth instead. After some point, attempts at restoration are futile and the best course of action is to attempt to pass on as much of our heritage as possible to the successor cultures that emerge after the next dark age.

    That said, here’s a very interesting three-part exploration (drawing heavily on Spengler) of the shape two probable successor cultures to the west, based in Russia and North America.


    Liked by 1 person

  5. We need to restore and recreate lost social technologies. But when we do so, we will be reviving the past as Renaissance did. We need to look to the past as the renaissance did.

    And inevitably, when we do so, when we rebuild Chesterton’s fence, we will make those social technologies our own, not merely a copy, as renaissance did.


    1. I agree, which is why I’m writing a blog and making moves irl and not sitting poolside with a girl on my lap waiting for the wheel of history to turn

      The new Culture will necessarily be Gnon-compliant or die out, which means learning from the past and not trying to reinvent the wheel. A young Culture borrows wholesale from old successful ones and makes its forms its own, which is why Charlemagne claimed to be continuing the Roman empire instead of being autistic about creating something authentically Frankish.


  6. Chesterton said that we should not dismantle that fence, because we don’t understand why the fence exist or what it does.

    The fences were taken down anyway, and when we rebuild them, we will have to understand why the fence existed, and what it did.


    1. You, one thing that used to bother me for a long time is the rather explicit anti-intellectualism of much of conservatism, mostly the Edmund Burke – Michael Oakeshott axis. The attitude that unconscious, habitual tradition is good, conscious, rationalistic design is bad. While it is true that much of that habitual tradition was good and modern conscious, rationalistic social engineering is bad, one really should not stop there because we have brains for a reason and ultimately with more and better effort better conscious, rationalistic engineering could be possible. It is true that people can evolve functional traditions in a trial and error way but they probably aren’t that complex that we could not understand them.

      I think the root problem with this very skeptical attitude of this aspect of conservatism was the acceptance of liberal philosophy or theory. Once you accept it as “the” theory, while knowing it sucks, you really have no other choice but to be anti-intellectual. Then you have to say things like “well things are different in theory and practice” or “let’s not brainstorm, just do things the way we used to do” and so on.

      Let me focus on Oakeshott as he is far less know in these circles than Burke. His summary of John Locke was that Locke took the Anglo political tradition and extracted from those elements that could be codified as a set of simple rules. While ignored all those elements that are less definable, that are more like customs and manners. And it is a good point. But suppose someone has patience enough to write not a few simple rules but 25 books. Is it, then, possible to figure out what all that stuff was and how it worked so that it does not need to be a mere unconscious habit? Given that that habit is lost long ago, of course.

      Another of Oakeshott’s ideas was the famous metaphor that no one learned to cook from reading a cookbook. One learns to cook by cooking. Like, apprenticing under a cook. Or trial and error. Or trial and error following a cookbook. But it has to be the activity itself. Only those who can cook well can just read a recipe from a cookbook and implement it without much difficulties.

      Again it is a very good point. But the idea behind it that modern cookbooks like liberal or communist ideologies are bad, so let’s just simply cook the old habitual way. The fallacy is that not all cookbooks are bad. One needs both experience and good cookbooks.

      So mean this anti-intellectual, anti-ideological attitudes in many strains of conservatism that says modern ideologies are bad therfore all ideologies or similar things are bad.

      But I cannot blame them. To explicitly reject modern ideology at its root, at its philosophy, and not just its latest fruits, is to attack what your great-grandpa believed. And that is not an easy decision to make. It is easier to do what great-grandpa did: accepted the ideology, but did not really want to put it into practice because the old ways were just better.


  7. I’m so glad I found this blog.

    You’re right – there’s no point giving our lives to resucitate someone else’s dying dreams. We don’t need to go back to the Founding Fathers, we need to become the new Founding Fathers. We don’t need to try and restore faith and hope in a dying nation – we need to start new ones. We can only truly and sincerely believe in something that is our own. Ownership is the only true investment, and we invest most in those things we build with our own hands.


  8. Your post made me think about whether I am aware of any modern art that is not garbage. Tough. On reflection, maybe the situation is not as bad as you present it.

    Alex Kurtagic’s “Mister” is a good book that adresses the problems of our times and compares well to anything written in previous centuries.

    Painting – the best I can think of is the kind you find on the cover of a fantasy novel; dragons and warriors painted skillfully.

    Music – I give up. We really have lost it


  9. Aidan! What a piece!

    I have written a reply, here: darksamovar.wordpress.com/2019/02/23/reaching-beyond-the-postmodern/

    I feel like there is a ton of good art, what does not exist is good art, that is prestigious. Art has to be creative to communicate what it has to communicate, it must not be banal. It was difficult to be good and sophisticated at the same time during the 20. century.

    But the wave has broken, I am quite confident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUcdDfmjoTQ
    Pageau is one man to watch.

    Have a nice song, too: https://vimeo.com/152087676


  10. Lots of good points here, but understanding of art and art theory is not one of them. To talk pessimistically about art when videogames like Metal Gear Rising and Planetary Annihilation exist (which are exactly what the next culture will be like), is so off the mark it’s basically Leftist. So first off, understand art theory. And the way to do this is to read the below links. There is no other way.


    Second off, nothing comes from nothing, and neither will the next culture. The next culture will come from this:


    Happy reading.


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