P.T. O’Talryn

“When no longer in doubt, flank!” --Lyndon LaRouche’s rule in strategy[1]

When I was a child my father returned from a business trip to Saudi Arabia. He brought back with him for the family several gold puzzle rings, each composed of four distinct interlocking rings which fitted together into a single golden Arabesque. I'm told I was the only one in the family who could solve them, though I have no memory of any proficiency. Lately, since around the time of the murderous debacle in Charlottesville of 2017, and before, I have found myself confronted by a similar kind of puzzle: a daunting puzzle of worldviews, which stubborn faith, or psychological necessity, tells me must fit into a single intelligible whole. The three worldviews are, of course, Christianity, classical humanism, and nationalism—all targeted for destruction under the current system, and all bringing something of ineffable value to the present, onrushing crisis of the West we find ourselves in. Each seems incomplete alone, yet incompatible with the other two. Paradox!

The inability to resolve these three worldviews unconsciously hobbles the Western patriot in his attempts to organize an effective defense of the realm. Dismissing the one or the other robs from us the energies of our ancestors, whether Christian, humanist, or nationalist. This inability is traceable to the widespread (but remediable) ignorance of what is of true value in man. This remedied, one will be prepared to understand what the proper relationship of the three worldviews is, which, in turn, will improve one’s ability to organize and accelerate the Western defense. Thus, we must discuss the purpose, process, and nature of man, the purpose of the nation-state, and the nature of classical beauty and how it supports the Holy Grail of social regeneration, in order to answer the question of whether or not Western man ought to survive. I proceed.

The Purpose of Man

What is the purpose of human life? That is, what gives a man, or a group of men, a sufficient reason to exist?

Sheer will to live will not suffice. It is merely a brute fact that organisms will to live. If we would satisfy the requirements of an intelligible universe, of Gottfried Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason, then we must not merely accept man as an animal among other animals, but, must justify his existence. I ask, ought mankind to exist?

The universe we inhabit is a creative universe. It creates galaxies and new elements. It creates life forms and biospheres--and it creates creators. Man is the creative species capable of discovering principles by which he invents new technologies and forms of social organization in order to increase his survival power as a species. For, despite being intelligible, the universe is hostile and challenging.

The sort of universe that would mean anything to a creative species like ours would be an unperfected one. In Genesis 1:31, God says the works of His hands are “very good”—not “perfect”.

As Lyndon LaRouche wrote,

“If the universe were created by an omnipotent God—then at the point of creation were brought into being permanent, perfected universal laws—this would show, if proven or accepted, that God is also implicitly omniscient. For, given knowledge of the laws of the universe at any given point in time, every subsequent event in that universe is explicitly pre-determined by permanent perfected laws.

“Continuing the argument, a profound, ostensibly insoluble contradiction is encountered. If God were still omnipotent, then he could alter at will the sequence of events. If he can not do this, then he is no longer omnipotent, but is rather as impotent as any mere beast or even a pebble in respect to predetermined, permanent physical laws. Furthermore, he can not be omniscient, either, without being impotent.

“The point of the paradox is that if the argument is true for God, it is true for man. If the laws of the universe are permanent and perfected, then the human will is not only impotent but does not exist. Human reason, judgment, and will have no more reality than the reason and desire of a pebble on the beach.”

In keeping with LaRouche’s argument, God’s creativity would not end with the creation of the universe. A fixed, perfected universe would be useless from a creative standpoint to any beings trapped within it. Heraclitus’ universe of endless flux could only derive a sufficient reason to exist were it waiting to serve as raw material for the purposes of a truly creative species, one that could change the direction of everything, acting as a second Creator.

The universe as it has been thus far, displayed God’s continuing, evolutionary creativity, giving rise to a species that is specifically designed to do likewise, capable in principle of transforming the entire universe through his discoveries, technologies, and concerted labor, raising it up from a level of geologic and biological activity, to one of Godlike cognitively-based activity. His appointment as the hand of God is therefore his sufficient reason, that that hand will continue the process of creation forever.

Potential Population Density

Strictly speaking, then, there are no limits to economic growth. The animals and other life forms, the minerals, the cosmos entire and everything in it, all have their purpose in their utility to man, whether through their beauty, their mystery, their heuristic function, or their economic potential.

Discoveries of principle generate resources where there were none before. Iron ore, gold, and uranium are useless rock until metallurgy is discovered. So with all resources: until their properties and the methods of extracting or synthesizing them are grasped, they are not resources at all, economically speaking. They are merely potential resources: “stuff”. Ideas allow labor to change “stuff” into specific, useful commodities. Ideas turn fetid swamps into fragrant orchards and empty skies into satellite orbits. Ideas change a student into a teacher. Ideas change the ignorant into the wise.

From the sum of ideas or principles assimilated into society we derive technology, resources, and social organization. Without social principles such as the general welfare, freedom of expression, free association, private property, public credit, and of classical beauty, and without the ongoing discovery of new principles to replenish the depleting resource base, society is essentially entropic.

Together, the social and scientific knowledge of a society thereby yields its power to survive, which can be expressed in terms of the potential population density of that society per square mile. This power to survive depends on the marginal depletion of its resource base, which is only refreshed through new discoveries. Man, thus, must discover in order to survive.

The potential population density minus the actual population density yields the surplus power to survive, as a measure of negative entropy (negentropy) in the system. While population is a good thing, as the more people there are, the greater our potential to make new discoveries and thereby increase our survival power, we also want the surplus survival power to be as large as possible. Running with a very low surplus margin means we are close to die-off condition in the event of natural or man-made catastrophes. Does one habitually drive with only one quarter of a gallon of gasoline in one’s tank? That's where we are right now, as, for example, we see the collapse and failure of infrastructure planning lead to the eminently man-made disaster of the Houston hit by 2017 hurricane Harvey. This is a failure due to a lack of living principle, a lack of governmental deployment of the general welfare principle and relevant engineering and economic principles and related capital and labor. We could have saved Houston—what are we preparing not to save now?

It is the obligation of mankind, and of the individuals who comprise it, to work to increase the survival power of civilization. Generally, that means the revival and further development of classical humanist culture, which is the only proper definition of “world culture”. In this the West’s role is to act as torch bearer for classical culture, as the basis for mutually beneficial, negentropic development. We must be magnanimous Prometheus, not jealous Zeus.

For example, China has made advances into outer Space, but, its real “space program” is the development of the vast expanses of Eurasia. In the past twenty years China has built over ten thousand miles of high-speed rail. The US has built (and has) none. The Belt and Road Initiative, by one estimate costing $8 trillion[2] is intended to integrate Russia, Europe, Central Asia, India, and Southeast Asia into a single trade network referred to by Helga Zepp-LaRouche as the “New Silk Road” reviving the antique trade route used by Marco Polo. China has invited the US to participate in what is the costliest and biggest infrastructure development in the history of mankind to date. To date, the US has said no, but maverick president Trump continues to represent the greatest chance at a yes.

There is so much to do. Just as we drained swamps to build Manhattan and Houston, so there are vast “swamps” that need to be drained to make Earth more hospitable and nurturing for the people who live on it, such as the NAWAPA project, the other trillions of dollars of needed US infrastructure repair and augmentation, the coming Russia-US Lunar “gateway” space station, Lunar Helium-3 mining operations, the Russian-proposed Strategic Defence of Earth against interplanetary bodies, the Chinese-African Transaqua project, the development of fusion power, and a manned Mars mission. Who knows what else is possible?

For, infrastructure is to the economy as education is to the human mind. Without them the amount of productive activity possible, whether economic or intellectual, is stunted. What would America be without its road, canal, air, and rail transportation systems, for example? Its cities, its factory output, and its level of population simply could not exist. Infrastructure is how we “educate” nature to better nurture us, like the desert termites that build their (to-scale) mile high mound fortresses complete with fungus agriculture, hundred-foot-deep wells, and air conditioning. We do well to learn from the white ant.

The Substantial Issue

Plato’s famous allegory of the cave describes accurately the existential condition of man. Although some have misleadingly interpreted it, usefully or not, the true explanation of it is that it refers to man’s doom of being trapped inside his naive sense impressions, which, acting according to the unseen principled realm of substantive reality, distorts that reality as through a glass darkly to give man a false impression, akin to flickering shadows on a cave wall which merge and blend without clear rhyme nor reason. Encountering his sense impressions naively, man develops a belief in “self-existent matter” and a “fixed order of nature” and dwells, a peon or a slave, uncreatively in his mental cave. (The political relevance of this should be obvious.)

The prompting of a student to discover an intelligible principle—one that resolves a paradox in his ontological understanding—represents liberation from the cave of materialism into a realization that ideas have physical substance. “Physical” here does not indicate matter but the causes that lead to effects efficiently and concretely reflected into matter. Efficient cause is substance, substance is efficient cause, and these causes are therefore physical in their nature and their effects.

Discover a principle, say, of polyphonic harmony, or reciprocating motion, or of universal gravitation, and see that this allows you to do something—or many somethings—you couldn’t do before in the material world, in a manner that increases society’s power to survive, whether through improved technical practice or improved social practice--such as the improving of men’s minds through apprehension of the beautiful. The commonality between all these discoveries is the self-developing substance of human reason itself.

This substance, by which we say man is made in the image of God, is man’s nature as a “spiritual” being, and anything whatever that contributes to its development is a “spiritual” exercise. Wilful human reason, as a physical, efficient cause of material change, and so all increases in social survival power, is therefore the highest value in the universe. In terms of the successful survival of the human species, rather than mere momentary survival, creative reason is the source of all good things.

To see this more clearly, more profoundly, consider Number. Number as a category is not a number, but, rather, subsumes all possible numbers. Similarly, the Cartesian “I think” is not a thought (except in a banal sense), but subsumes all thought. If the highest form of thought is principled thought, this means that all principled discoveries are subsumed under the “I think” of the human mind, which stands apart from those discoveries. What follows from this will be shocking to some but must be said.

It must be emphasized that in terms of what the early Christians, borrowing from Greece, called the Logos, the universe and humanity itself are both defined by that Logos[3], or the principle or archetype that renders all things intelligible.[4] This is what separates the atheist from the Christian, in that the atheist posits no source of intelligibility and instead, Einstein-like, at best marvels that the universe is comprehensible at all.

The sticking point between atheists and Christians on this count is whether or not the universe derived from mindless forces, as if “born” to a headless “cosmic mother” in a quasi-biological fashion. The Christian conception is the opposite: the universe was constructed, evolutionarily, by an intelligent source, one that takes an interest in man, indeed making the universe expressly for man’s dominion.

The science on this is clear: man, were he a mere species of subhuman ape, would have a maximum world population of no more than approximately ten million individuals. Beyond this he would risk population “die off” as the “balance of nature” reasserted itself. Yet, the grandest imaginable scientific experiment, namely the economy itself, which subsumes all other scientific and related experiments into itself, has generated and sustains a human population in excess of 700-fold that primeval limit—with no principled limit in sight. Man is therefore indisputably capable of mastering the universe, through the discovery of “light” as he leaves his “cave”.

Now, Christian doctrine holds the figure of Jesus Christ to be identical to the Logos. The relevance of this belief is reflected by two thousand years of Christian civilization and science, culminating to date with the triumphant Apollo 11 mission, carrying with it the correct belief that the universe is intelligible, and that man is capable of emulating Christ in the Holy Spirit, in other words emulating the Logos, the power source of the universe in the spirit of agape or divine love, for the sake of improving society and helping one’s fellow man—a creature made wretched by original sin, ignorance, want, and freely willed evil, but nevertheless noble born, made in the image of the first Creator.

It’s this substance of creative reason that makes mankind not merely an incidental traveller in the void, like a hapless flea on a dog, but the most physically primary of any entity in existence. The stars are as nothing compared to man! The panoply of the material extension of the universe is immensely impressive, and beautiful, but is a secondary, flickering shadowy effect, coming from the invisible, intelligible higher realm of substantial physical principles (cause) which in turn become predicates of the primary substance, human self-developing reason.

In other words, the principle governing human mentation and the principle governing the universe (natural law), are in alignment. The laws of the mind are the laws of the universe. Thus, Plato is right that all knowledge is within us.



In that light, then, we can read Psalm 8:5-8 (HCSB), as scientifically true:



You made him little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him lord over the works of Your hands; You put everything under his feet: all the sheep and oxen, as well as the animals in the wild, the birds of the sky, and the fish of the sea that pass through the currents of the seas.

Nationalism as Psychic Home

The three capital concerns of man are economy, security, and identity. Without economy he starves. Without security he trembles. And without identity he despairs. The nation-state exists to facilitate the supplying of all three.

The nation-state is a dyad comprising a distinct cultural entity and a government. The general welfare principle embedded in the US constitutional preamble implicitly indicates that the state exists for the benefit of the people, not vice versa, defying the Providential human order. Without the general welfare, we are cattle. Without nationalism, we are an imperial satrapy.

Distinct cultural entities we call nations. A nation is a confluence of high and low culture. High culture pertains to the entire world in terms of the self-developing substance. It requires a highly literate population educated in classical art and science. Its fruits nourish the world. Low culture pertains to the reflective needs of the national population: one takes comfort in common race, ethnicity, history, traditions, the family, nursery rhymes, popular music, cinema, history, territory, etc. Just as man’s body needs sustenance, exercise, clothing, and shelter, so does his mind need the tailored tranquility, stimulation, love, beauty, and a sense of belonging that low culture provides.

We might view the nation-states of the world as living cells, with complex internal structures necessarily contained by cellular membranes separating them from other cells. Communication of nutrients and chemical signals through osmosis is possible, but each cell remains sovereign, uncontrolled by the other cells. The leftist-globalists wish to burst the cell membranes, leaving chaos, and chaos is not a good home for man. They know this, anticipating a desperate rush into the arms of global totalitarianism.

Economically, nationalism means man can think in terms of principle because he is able to speak freely to others who understand his words. By those principles his labor is magnified and directed into fruitfulness. Nationalism, to the degree it embraces the high cultural discoveries of valid, universal physical principles, including of entrepreneurship, science driver missions, the general welfare, and public credit, puts food on the table. Rip out nationalism and one defaults to leftist-globalism.

Security of man’s future, of nation-states’ futures, of individuals’ futures all in the highest sense merge. My highest self interest is not merely for myself at this minute, but for myself tomorrow, or a year, ten years, forty years in the future, and even beyond the span of my mortal life. As Stephen Hawking described the “light cone” in his book A Brief History of Time, so all men’s futures describe an expanding cone that eventually overlap with each other such that my self-interest eventually merges with the self-interest of all other men, my nation’s with all other nations’, to the point where the ultimate self-interest of any man is the entire human species. Secure that and fear vanishes. Rip out nationalism and one hands one’s destiny to an animalistic world government.

Identity means more than just ethnicity or race. It means being able to talk to people in a clear and satisfying language. It means interacting courteously with a healthy and comely community of fellowship and trade. And, it means seeing oneself reflected in art and institutions. Such is hope. Rip out nationalism and one becomes, what’s the modern term? An NPC.

Without nationalism, our economy, security, and identity are hollowed out and left open to being filled with the aspartamic globalist culture and postmodern neomarxism, which destroys all cultural charm of place and replaces it with resentment, arrogance, and deceit. In short, without the nation-state the situation gets ugly; which implies the question . . .

What is the (Classically) Beautiful? Friedrich Schiller wrote in his second letter on the aesthetic education of man, “to arrive at a solution even in the political problem, the road of aesthetics must be pursued, because it is through beauty that we arrive at freedom.” But, is not beauty hopelessly in the “eye of the beholder”?

No. Can a blind man correctly deny the existence of color? Can a deaf man sound? Can an illiterate word or an innumerate number? Beauty is an experience that wounds us, and this wound cannot be denied correctly, only denied ignorantly. The spear of destiny that pierces our heart when we encounter the profoundly beautiful, such that we weep, is truthfulness about higher human nature. Seeing one’s child master a principle of architecture using blocks, hearing Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony, attending a joyous wedding, exploring the natural wilderness, witnessing birth, and living the well-lived life partake of truthfulness about human nature, such that we see Keats in his “Ode on a Grecian Urn” was right: beauty is truth, truth beauty. Even bitter tears at a tragic turn recognise that which is truly human as being worthy of lament. Those who do not weep have either already done their weeping, or else are in that instance emotionally blind.

Delving further, with Schiller as our guide, we should understand that beauty is absolutely independent of concepts or intuitions. The theoretical reason, which tests whether a given object or representation can be combined with an already existing representation, is concerned with concepts or mediated representations on the one hand, and on the other with intuitions or immediate representations of objects given through the senses. In neither of these concerns is found beauty, as rather the theoretical reason judges concepts according to the form of reason as logical, and intuitions according to the form of reason as teleological or in Schiller’s words “places a purpose in the given object . . . and decides whether it conducts itself conformably to this purpose.” As logic and teleology are not aesthetic categories, we must look elsewhere for beauty.

Schiller associated beauty with one part of what he termed the practical reason, which combines representations of things in the world with the will to action. Those free actions so derived are actions through reason, for reason is the only true free thing. A free action is “that which through itself is” or a free action is that which is declared by reason to be so through the pure will, and practical reason and the pure will are one. On the one hand, the practical reason judges free effects (moral actions) which accord to the form of the pure will, as moral. On the other hand, the practical reason judges not-free effects (effects of nature) which accord to the form of the pure will as aesthetical.

Seize upon that last sentence. An effect of nature, which is “not-free,” not autonomously determined but rather heteronomously determined, determined from the outside, is, in a relevant given instance, in accord with the form of pure will or the practical reason (the reason itself), and thus is an analogy of an appearance with the form of the pure will, or reason, or freedom. That is, the not-free effect, accords with reason and yet cannot be free itself, but is analogously free because it conforms to the true, autonomous freedom of the reason.

Here Schiller makes a master's remark: “Beauty therefore is nothing other than freedom in the appearance.” Not a mere display of chaos, which is really broken order, or a whim of what symbolizes freedom to oneself, but that which accords with reason itself and therefore fits the only rational definition of beauty.

Truthfulness about higher human nature, then, is the reason itself seeing the freedom in the appearances in the world, and giving rise to emotional pleasure, and sometimes pain. With nature, we see the freedom of the Creator in generating those appearances, as it relates to our reason. With man, we see him generating new appearances derived from his self-developing reason itself.

Because of this, we know that all men's minds are created in the image of the potency that created the universe. And, in a man's creative and loving moments his face is illuminated as from within[5]. His face has become analogously free.

The Holy Grail

In a previous essay I introduced the metaphor of the alkahest, the universal solvent of the alchemists, which today is successfully dissolving all low and high culture in the West. The alkahest is exuded by the femiblob, comprising individuals who partake of the “bourgeois catechism” of political correctness. This femiblob emerges from what Mencius Moldbug dubbed the Cathedral, namely the entertainment industry, the education system, the civil service, and the legacy press.

What is missing from this Cthulhoid nightmare is us. The West has symbols, flags, and scads of culture, we have distinct societies, but nothing unites us. We wash away like oil under soap.

Here is a possibility: the holy grail. We’ve all heard of something being “the holy grail of cosmology” or “the holy grail of economics” and the like. It’s a common metaphor. The metaphor is Western, dating back through the Knights Templar and the Knights of Arthur to the legend of Joseph of Arimathea, the rich man who used a bowl or cup to catch the blood and water from Christ’s pierced side.

This blood, of the Logos incarnate, would be the most precious of all material things. It would be the wine of agape, fit for the feast of the saints. In his last supper Jesus himself spoke of the ritual consumption of his blood and flesh to his Apostles. But, what does it mean to us?

It means nothing less than the self-developing substance of creative reason. This substance, which we imbibe from Christ’s wounds, from the cup of Joseph, works in us, becomes us and we become it.

This is the quiddity of the Catholic assertion of nulla salis extra ecclesiam, or “no salvation outside the Church”: there is no salvation for man outside of his participation in the bloody Logos.

What vessel could possibly transfer this substance from Logos to man? What is it that leads men to unchain their hearts, that they might shed tears of joy? Beauty, of course!

The grail is beauty itself. Answering the pain of the ugliness of the Holocaust which, like a cauldron, indestructibly holds the alkahest, the grail holds the blood. This blood is the blood of all men who knew, and acted on their knowledge of, the Logos. Their experience of the beauty of the world, leads to Keat’s "Ode on a Grecian Urn," of truth is beauty, beauty truth, such that men know what ugliness is and find within themselves the urge to fight it.

Where the alkahest is the water of dissolution, the blood is the water of regeneration. In the new age upon us, Aquarius pours out both waters.

Thus: the grail of restoration. It symbolizes society as a well-ordered polity versus the alkahest that subverts and chews up everything. It has Christian connotations (obviously!) but it is inclusively universal that it admits pagan and atheist. What it cannot admit is the denial of human exceptionalism, and, once that is accepted, the (economically) correct definition of man is clear.

The grail represents kicking out of our heads that which prevents us from surviving. It is the cup of wisdom that the servants of the Cathedral have dashed from our hands. Is it any wonder that Christianity is under as much attack as the white race or the masculine sex? In defending it we participate in a universal science of Christian economy under which all nation-states find their right to exist.

Economic Correctness

economic correctness, noun, 1, anything contributing to, or preventing the corrosion of, a durable culture of physically correct human identity, whether individual, familial, communital, national, or global, in such a way as to promote the principled economic progress of mankind. 2, that which defends the holy grail.



The economically correct individual can take the high ground against the politically correct individual. Without it the former, no matter how defiant, flounders by saying he is merely “not politically correct”.

It’s “economic” and not merely “national,” "communital," "familial," etc., because the economy is the biggest experiment of all, subsuming all conceivable experiments into itself, and is universal in scope. Nation states and families are a part of it, not vice versa.

“Economic” outflanks “national,” for example, by opening a dialogue about all mankind, through which the nations are justified. Whereas, talking about a “national correctness,” while very close in meaning, emphasises low culture over high, and race over species.

For, as a weapon of metapolitical struggle, political correctness tears down the standard of beauty and spills the blood of the Logos into pits for dogs to drink.

Economically incorrect! Attacking beauty is a direct attack on human survival power. So is attacking the nation-state, classical education, the heterosexual pair-bond, and the principle of sufficient reason. All of the lies of the left: the intellectual equivalency of all religions, the psychological equality of the sexes, the theory of patriarchal oppression, the racial parity of crime, the use of pure racism to explain the disparity in racial IQ, the fungibility of cultures, the infinite desirability of diversity, the tolerance of totalitarian groupthink, and the disposability of God, work tirelessly against the interests of mankind, under the plausible auspices of fulfilling Christ’s command to Peter to “feed my sheep”. All are economically incorrect.

Challenge every use of the words “political correct” by reframing the argument in terms of economic correctness. Explain the true interests of man, which demand beauty, truth, and the nation-state.

What would the politically correct man’s counter be? He’s not used to anyone having a legitimate alternative to his catechism. Yet his faith must end. Defending the grail in this way also avoids the risk of economic martyrdom that comes with stock nationalist approaches. It is a metapolitical tactic that does not merely negate the negation.

Right: I was backing my truck up but the car was in my blindspot . . . Wrong: Excuse me, using the word “blindspot” is offensive to the visually impaired. Right: You’re being economically incorrect. Stop it. Wrong: I’m what? Right: You’re being economically incorrect. Using “blindspot” is common sense, it’s traditional, and you’re weakening the language and the culture by being such a moral busybody. Wrong: What? What are you doing right now? You’re a busybody! Right: I’m preventing you from turning people in this country into emotional wrecks by safeguarding their emotions from healthy, traditional language. Wrong: Are you going to defend the N-word too? Right: What word is that? Wrong: You know . . . the N-word. Right: Which is? Negotiate? Nifty? Noontide? Wrong: You’re an asshole. Right: No, I’m economically correct. Wrong: What the hell is economically correct, exactly? Right: The economy is the king of the sciences. Without it we die. But, without a culture of principle the economy dies because people aren’t thinking straight. Calling me out for using a common sense word is an example of not thinking straight. It’s the thin edge of the wedge. We need to think on a higher level than just you being a self- appointed guardian of blind people’s feelings. Wrong: So . . . we have to use “blindspot” to save the economy? Right: Not being willing to have an expansive vocabulary gives us a blindspot, culturally. We lose sight of the past because the past can always be seen to be offensive. It cuts us off of our culture and creates Year Zero thinking. Wrong: Year Zero? Right: That’s what the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia called it when they achieved their Marxist revolution in 1975. They declared all previous history irrelevant and killed millions of their own people. Their ideal agrarian society started at Year Zero. You’re doing the same thing, in principle, by taking away “blindspot”. It’s just a little thing, but it’s like the death of a thousand cuts. I refuse to let you cut me and everyone else. Wrong: You don’t think visually impaired people want to be treated fairly? Right: If I were blind I would want the language to remain as rich as possible. Diverse, even. I’m not censuring you for using “visually impaired”—that’s an accurate way of describing a range of people with a certain type of disability. Wrong: How is “blind” accurate? Right: To me in my truck? Perfectly. I can’t see in that zone at all. To a visually impaired person, they may be legally blind, effectively blind, blind is shorthand for “probably can see around him as well as I can see in the blindspot of my truck.” Wrong: You’re presuming their gender! Right: Denying the heterosexual paradigm is also economically incorrect. Wrong: You Nazi! Right: They were economically incorrect, too. Wrong: !!!

In What Way is Any Ethnos Beautiful?

Is it more beautiful for an ethnic group or ethnos to be merged with humanity, on the level of the creative human mind as the only important thing? Or, does an ethnos have a particular beauty that merits efforts at its preservation? Can the West exist without its founding ethnoi defining it?

We might say an ethnos not necessary because it in itself is not beautiful, except in a low-cultural sense of “personal taste”. Because we have (probably) been surrounded by people and art reflecting our racial selves our entire lives, we easily conflate the low-cultural value of that ethnos with a high-cultural value. But, this is a mistake. We must be cuttingly honest here. In terms of high culture, any ethnos as an animal expression of evolution is not necessary. It’s nice, but it’s not necessary.

One may object, plaintively, indignantly: what about a racial soul? Take the sum of an ethnos’s low cultural expressions and any inherent psychological and physical traits it may have. Does that not have something unique to contribute, that makes it valuable? Yes, it does, if a certain qualifying condition is met. For, a man himself is of autonomous beauty, whereas an ethnos is a heteronomous entity. It contains no freedom in of itself, and therefore is not beautiful, except . . .

If an ethnos takes upon itself the mission orientation of high culture—if it grasps the grail—then it has become analogously free according to Schiller’s practical reason. High culture thus ennobles that ethnos, renders it cosmically beautiful, and justifies its discrete existence to the universe[6], escaping the condemnation and inexorable mortality of mere individual “will to power”. And, from this all the low-cultural aspects of an ethnos, including its particular physical beauty, are gathered together like a spider gathering her eggs into an egg sac. Such a condition is not arbitrary; rather it accords with the pure will or pure form of reason itself. Beauty is economically correct; the economically correct becomes beautiful.

An ethnos means nothing to the universe if this mission is forsaken. In turn, Providence, which keeps nothing in vain around forever, will forsake it, just as it forsook all ethnoi and their societies throughout history, no matter how refined or ambitious, earnest or powerful, pretty or pious, that violated the divine economic law of acting in terms of man as bearing the divine stamp, by perpetually discovering and assimilating new principles in order to “be fruitful and multiply”.

Every ethnicity has a positive part to play in this story, despite what for Western patriots feels like an unstoppable alkahestic tide. For, we are not just fighting for our national “zoos,” we are fighting for our very souls as human beings—without which we are nothing. If the world is willing to disappear the West, such a world will be willing to collapse principled education, scientific progress, and the nation-state system itself into either a species of totalitarian international socialism or a general breakdown crisis which, now that we have squandered virtually all the easily-accessible planetary resources, might last for hundreds or even thousands of miserable years.

Economic correctness (defense of the grail) outflanks the historical crimes of the West—the Holocaust, slavery, forced conversion, religious wars, segregation, ecological despoliation, disenfranchisement, colonialism, and the contemporary dehydration of heterosexuality and general fitness to survive—which weigh us down with the economically incorrect, but powerful, taboos against Western pride and survival.

Some advocate the virtues of ethnostates, but, while such a state is not intrinsically immoral (viz. Japan, Poland, Israel) this is neither necessary nor achievable through force or coercion--which would contradict the Western essence. Rather, a principled society of human rights, economic megaprojects and cultivated capitalism will be the tide that lifts all boats and allows everyone in the West, and throughout the world to thrive and flourish.

To allow the nations of the West to have their cell membranes burst, their cultures mocked and forgotten, is a crime against beauty and is economically incorrect. In terms of repercussions for humanity as a whole it is a crime against humanity. Thus, no matter one’s confession, or nationality, or race, one ought to take up the grail. The burden is now on the world to save the West, and therefore the world. That way the good faces you see in your life, and in the mirror, will become “a little less than God”.[7]

[1] “In politics, as in military science, the alternative to doom, is a sudden change in the pre-set rules, which often brings victory to the side which has the good sense to see a reality which exists outside the world as it is seen according to the generally accepted notions of existing rules. The easily recognizable name for such successes in breaking the assumed rules of the game, is called "flanking" the problem. The famous von Schlieffen documented the way in which Frederick the Great of Prussia flanked and whomped, twice in the same day, a superior, highly professional Austrian army, which latter thus suffered the misfortune of playing by a set of pre-fixed "blackboard" rules of the game, at Leuthen.” Launch A Sudden Recovery, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., April 22, 2001

[2] How Big Is China’s Belt and Road? https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-big-chinas-belt-and-road

[3] Greek for word, reason, or idea; translated into Latin as ratio from which we get rational and reason.

[4] This is the metaphysical reason why the religion of Islam contains in its core a mistake, while Christianity does not. The former defines God as essentially Will whereas the latter defines Him as essentially Logos. Again: the principle of sufficient reason.

[5] Consider the 1980 David Lynch film The Elephant Man. John Hurt as the horribly disfigured John Merrick is reciting passages from Romeo and Juliet with Mrs. Kendal played by Anne Bancroft. Merrick displays sensitivity and intelligence in his brief performance. She kisses him on the cheek and says,

Mrs. Kendal: Oh, Mr. Merrick, you're not an elephant man at all. John Merrick: Oh, no? Mrs. Kendal: No. You're Romeo.

Here, we see the pith of humanness: the loving teacher aiding a timid student's discovery of a universal principle–that, the mask can bring out the man; even as his mask’s features change without moving, to become a metaphor for his loving of humanity, his lovableness. Thus, beauty, truth, goodness: indivisible.

[6] So with community, family, individual, and global concerns.

[7] Friedrich Schiller, “Hope” translated by William F. Wertz

All people discuss it and dream on end Of better days that are coming, After a golden and prosperous end They are seen chasing and running The world grows old and grows young in turn, Yet doth man for betterment hope eterne.

’Tis hope delivers him into life, Round the frolicsome boy doth it flutter, The youth is lured by its magic rife, It won’t be interred with the elder; Though he ends in the coffin his weary lope, Yet upon that coffin he plants—his hope.

It is no empty, fawning deceit, Begot in the brain of a jester, Proclaimed aloud in the heart it is: We are born for that which is better! And what the innermost voice conveys, The hoping spirit ne’er that betrays.