How the Imposition of Firm and Impersonal Rules and Regulations is Reflected

‘The steel faithfully taught me the correspondence between the spirit and the body: thus feeble emotions, it seemed to me, corresponded to flaccid muscles, sentimentality to a sagging stomach, and overimpressionability to an oversensitive, white skin. Bulging muscles, a taut stomach, and a tough skin, I reasoned, would correspond respectively to an intrepid fighting spirit, the power of dispassionate intellectual judgement, and a robust disposition. I hasten to point out here that I do not believe ordinary people to be like this. Even my own scanty experience is enough to furnish me with innumerable examples of timid minds encased within bulging muscles. Yet, as I have already pointed out, words for me came before the flesh, so that intrepidity, dispassionateness, robustness, and all those emblems of moral character summed up by words, needed to manifest themselves in outward, bodily tokens. For that reason, I told myself, I ought to endow myself with the physical characteristics in question as a kind of educative process.’

Yukio Mishima, Sun and Steel, translated by John Bester.

 

‘In the liberal world, what one considered a “good” face was,properly speaking, the delicate face–nervous, pliant, changing, and open to the most diverse kinds of influences and impulses. By contrast, the disciplined face is resolute; it possesses clear direction, and it is single-minded, objective, and unyielding. One immediately notices by every kind of rigorous training how the imposition of firm and impersonal rules and regulations is reflected in the hardening of the face.’

Ernst Juenger, On Pain, translated by Russel A. Berman.

Advertisements

Jacobitism of the Mind

‘”The positive counterpart of the anarchist is the anarch. The latter is not the adversary of the monarch, but his antipode, untouched by him though also dangerous. He is not the opponent of the monarch but his pendant. After all, the monarch wants to rule many, nay all, people; the anarch only himself. This gives him an attitude both objective and sceptical towards the powers that be; he has their figures go past him – and he is untouched, no doubt, yet inwardly not unmoved, not without historical passion. Every born historian is more or less an anarch; if he has greatness, then on this basis he rises without partnership to the judge’s bench.”

“For me, nothing basic has changed; my character, that of an anarch, remains intact. For the historian, the yield is actually richer in that it become more vivid. The political trend is always to be observed, partly as spectacle, partly for one’s own safety. The liberal is dissatisfied with the regime; the anarch passes through their sequence – as inoffensively as possible – like a suite of rooms. This is the recipe for anyone who cares more about the substance of the world than its shadow – the philosopher, the artist, the believer.”‘

Ernst Juenger, Eumeswil.

‘In what sense can there be a Christian Conservatism? Certainly as self-enactment, in Oakeshott’s sense: a self-regarding creation of the self as Christian Conservatives imagine it. Certainly also as the hope that a dominating Christian intelligence can be reconstituted, however unlikely it will be reconstituted in England in the immediate future. Primarily, however, for the moment, most certainly in England, as dissent, a Jacobitism of the mind which can do little more than protest that the modern mind is corrupt.’

Maurice Cowling, Religion and Public Doctrine in Modern England.

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Luke 17:21.

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:36.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind…

Romans 12:2

‘When nothing in society deserves our respect, we should fashion for ourselves in solitude new silent loyalties.’

Nicolás Goméz Dávila, Notes.