top of page
  • Writer's picture738

Image and interpretation

The right wants to say “it is what it is” whereas the left has the idea “it is what we say”. It explains the formulation “the left can’t meme”—a formulation that could be reduced to “the left can’t image”. The infamous point in regard to leftist attempts to meme is that their image will contain much text. That’s because the thing doesn’t speak for itself—it has to be interpreted. The right has a thing to show you, the left would like to tag an explanatory comment onto that—so you can’t see what is before your eyes.

All leftist occupations are interpretative—journalism, law, and academia (even science, film, and comedy). Then we have groups considered to be on the left—women, gays, and Jews. The commonality? The Jews are a people steeped in interpretation and exegesis—it’s what it is to study the Torah, it’s why they make great lawyers. Women like to gossip—often about what their men are up to; another word for this gossip is “interpretation” (and gays act in a similar way). The deeper you get into interpretation, the more to the left you go—the less you let things “speak for themselves”.

What constitutes the opposite to these interpretative groups? A warrior. There’s little scope for interpretation there. You bayonet the bag—you don’t perform an interpretative dance around it with your bayonet. It’s the European way, the Europeans are warriors par excellence.

Well, it’s not all warriors: the stock market trader is not like a scientist even though they have matched intelligence; why? The trader and the scientist both deal in numbers but the trader makes fewer interpretations—it’s all instant, more or less, on the exchange, whereas the scientist has time to over-interpret and distort his figures. If you’re right on the floor, not running an interpretive numbers scheme out back, you’re insulated from interpretation.

There must be some interpretation but, for the most part, res ipsa loquitur—it’s exactly what it looks like, and if you tell me otherwise you insult my intelligence (my perceptive intellect). Yet why might we over-interpret reality? Because it is so much greater than ourselves and because we are afraid to humble ourselves before it—we either lack the strength to engage with it or lack the humility to submit to it. So we pretend we can talk it away with interpretation instead. It’s reaction formation, we keep our guard up against reality—with lies.

This is the left—it’s the Soviet propaganda poster with a long slogan, it’s the Hollywood film with a novel angle. Hollywood reflects man’s desires, his interpretation of himself, not reality—it’s inverted religion. It’s your image reflected in the camera lens, entertainment not art. Art explains itself, art is objective; explain Beethoven—you can’t, it’s just liquid architecture; it’s reality—you don’t interpret it, you absorb it.

Hence the masculine man is laconic—he speaks for himself, with actions, and actions form an image; he’s like Dirty Harry above, he’s a masculine archetype because he’s laconic (so laconic it’s comic). Silence is another word for “myth”—the mythic man is silent, just acts. If we use Buddhistic terms, he’s a mirror; he polishes the mirror through practice so as to become a clean and sharp surface that reflects reality in an instant—the ego is interpretation, it makes you self-important and can be used to garner status; better to be an image of reality.

If the mirror is polished to perfection it disappears, the man no longer reflects reality—he is reality. The universe is one vast symbol for the divine, he has reflected it so perfectly there is no division between him and it—thus he is the complete man, he has unified with reality.

Our discipline is to polish our mirrors; and that amounts to what Solzhenitsyn said, “Live not by lies.” We live in a world surrounded by interpretations and almost all these interpretations are lies; it’s why, in your heart, when you can see with a clean lens, you know what the truth always is and always was. It is only that the mirror has been obscured with much interpretative dirt—we must take out the lens cloth and polish all that away; and war is a means to polish the mirror, it punishes self-delusion with death—hence the interpretative are burned up in combat and the warrior is holy, he cleans the mirror. The easiest way not to make interpretations is not to speak, to live mythically—with a finger to your lips like Harpocrates. The man who is silent reflects the situation, acts, and carries on without a word.


Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page