The modern world is in a state of total peril because humanity has lost its way. Our movement is merely one small piece of a giant puzzle that paints a very disturbing picture as the pieces come together: the picture of an entire planet teetering on the edge of total disaster. The reason is that man has no goal; we are running around like ants in a colony, building up massive, energy-consuming cities that suck the life out of the earth yet serve no purpose beyond blindly serving the dictates of our most basic impulses.
Stumbling forward, lost in a wasteland with no map or compass, the Man Among the Ruins is seeking answers from his past in order to put his future into perspective. In the words of Edmund Burke, “He who does not look backward to his ancestors shall not look forward to his posterity.”
It is our sincere hope that in the wisdom of antiquity, we will find meaning in our lives, and from there a goal and a purpose that will collectively inspire our people to make sense of the modern world of chaos before it consumes us entirely.
Our society is comprised of unhealthy, unhappy people, blindly scurrying around in the tunnels we call our lives. We can speak with pride about the accomplishments of science, but in reality we use this knowledge solely to build more complicated colonies for ourselves. The more complicated our societies become, the more lost we feel, as greater demands are put on our time to serve the machine, while the rewards that we think will satiate us turn out to be little more than the chemical prize that the Queen feeds us to keep us working.
“This present “civilisation”… has brought to all strata of society and to all races the following “gifts”: restlessness, dissatisfaction, resentment, the need to go further and faster, and the inability to possess one’s life in simplicity, independence, and balance. Modern civilisation has pushed man onward; it has generated in him the need for an increasingly greater number of things; it has made him more and more insufficient to himself and powerless.” – Julius Evola
For all of our talk of having evolved so highly, the reality is that we are shockingly primitive and stunted in terms of both our genetic development and spiritual wisdom.
Ultimately, all of this boils down to One Question: why are we here?
Most of human discourse revolves around what actions, policies, laws, or principles will help us to build more efficient colonies; however, the One Question still stands above it all, begging to be answered. Why are we here?
Looking down at your hands, your stomach, your legs, what you see is an animal — a conscious, sentient life form essentially trapped inside a biological shell that is guaranteed to terminate soon. The flesh and bones built around you come from the earth, and will return to the earth. One day, not long from now, everyone reading this post will be food for worms. While most of us will return to the oblivion of the ancestral totem from which we sprung, there is another path available to the heroic man. Those who carve their names deep into the Eternal Stone, whose great deeds resound in the hearts and minds of their kinsmen for generations, pursue Dheva-Yana (the path of light/the gods) and shall become part of the immortal body of light that is Brahma/God/the Absolute. Any other pursuit is fleeting in comparison.
When you push the mind to its limits, there is a voice inside you that begs you to return to more conventional thought. It tells you that you need to serve the machine, that the colony is what is important, and not the vague ideas you have about why we are here and the sorrowful longing of your soul to escape the confines of its shell.
The society around us is a theatre of tragedy, and only by answering this One Question can we be free from the pain of contemporary existence. I do not claim to know the answer to that Question. However, I firmly believe that everywhere in the cosmos that life exists, that same Question burns in the minds of all who are able to ask it.
Traditionalist thinkers, and particularly the works of the Baron Julius Evola, have assisted me greatly in expanding my horizons, compelling me to go beyond mere biological positivism in my analysis of world-historical problems. It is worth noting that Evola fell into disfavour with some National Socialists and Fascists of his era, for he was arguing that the biological race of the individual is not nearly as important as the soul-type, and that although the soul-type is relative to the racial type, it goes far beyond it.
In the esoteric edicts of old are to be found the most lucid and penetrating attempts at answering the mystery of existence — answers that are strikingly consistent with what the science of astrophysics and quantum mechanics have taught us. That is why many NASA physicists — once the realm of clinical atheism — are returning to ancient spirituality.
All of the races of the world are caught in the same conundrum, on the precipice of an abyss, as the greed of our genetic makeup propels us to perpetually accumulate more wealth in preparation for the impending winter. The fact that we have conquered the elements sufficiently to satiate the survival instinct is a fact that seems to have been missed by the drones on Wall Street, who needlessly accumulate ever more resources while their children are raised by strangers in daycare and their souls are withering in materialistic vassalage.
How did the NASDAQ do today?
We can ask that question daily, but waiting in the back of our minds is the Greater Question that still demands a response.
@Andrew,
I don’t know exactly what you mean by the disaster that you believe Christianity is bringing/will bring upon the West. My guess is that you are mainly referring to the Jewish Question (I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but rather trying to understand your viewpoint).
I am reluctant to offer a summary of that prospect for which the reader has not been prepared short of a reading of much material that has been posted at “superhuman”. The encapsulating belief system that has been erected in the West has allowed few individuals to escape and then survey it from the outside and altogether. Unless one *has* escaped, one remains in the grasp of illusions that make the truth of the situation incredible and subject to summary dismissal.
I suggest a close, reflective, and repetitive reading of the whole of “superhuman” – I came to understand *Nietzsche’s* orientation only through such a process of study, given the unfamiliar and un-systematically-presented conceptual framework that he was attempting to impart to his readers, his “gentilshomme” in prospect. The JQ is but one of several fundamental aspects of our current dilemma that must be forthrightly and informedly assessed – and “superhuman” makes the attempt to engage the reader in that process without intimidating or tiring him with what would otherwise be a merely academic tome speaking with but one voice.
…an important question is, “Does Christianity help a Civilization grow and prosper?” It is noteworthy that Europe and the US have thrived as Christian states for centuries, up until the beginning of the 20th century…. All in all, it is difficult to argue that the West was not doing very well after the barbarian Europeans adopted Christianity several centuries earlier. This was of course before the process of Judaisation, which has completely transformed the West a century later.
The response to these considerations is rather complex and involves judgments as to what are “normal” and what are “pathological” developments amidst the course of civilizational/cultural evolution.
I’ve previously listed the symptoms of cultural psycho-pathology suggestive of more fundamental difficulties and troublesome prospects: Faustian Pacts with international entities having alternative agendas, Crusading, Inquisitions, Witch Trials, Investiture Controversy, Ecclesiastical Knighthood, Canossa, Reformation, Religious Wars, Regicide, Revolution, Bolshevism, Show Trials, Political Correctness.
Interestingly, Christianity, in first advancing and then retarding the cultural maturation of the West, indirectly contributed to its scientific and technological superiority by artificially prolonging the pre-imperial period of High Cultural innovation. The combination of this development with the availability of the New World (for colonization and domestic restraint of demographic concentration, and thus the realization of the benefits of Laissez-faire) fortuitously produced what you credit as the “success” of Christian civilization – though Christianity was merely inadvertently, unintentionally, and in other and deliberate respects, counter-productively involved.
In summary of the pattern of the past, the Christian West has, so far, enjoyed the drunken man’s path through the earthquake, succeeding despite itself because of a favorable geographic and demographic arrangement of the Earth’s surface combined with a timely intellectual legacy from multiple High-Cultural predecessors. When one is equipped with an understanding of the ultimate, catastrophic, consequences in prospect of having been overcome by Christian slave morality and mastery by Jewry, however, one can then maturely debate whether Martel at Tours and Otto at Lechfeld, in consequence of the Church’s contribution to their capabilities, did the West a favor in repelling Islam and avoiding whatever the Magyars might have brought along to share.
Although you would probably blame Christianity as the main factor in the disaster, it could be argued that democracy and a free society are major culprits. MacDonald has pointed out the lack of ethnocentrism in Europeans and desire for “fairness” that also played a large part.
How much does having accomplices reduce one’s culpability?
At any rate, I cannot see how you can argue that Christianity itself has some fatal flaw that inevitably brings disaster to a Christian nation. There are universalist messages in the bible, but the Old Testament is filled with racialist doctrine, talking of bloodlines, destroying foreigners, some peoples being cursed as the sons of Cain, etc. Jews are lambasted in the New Testament. This doctrine can be, and has been, used selectively in the past.
The essential fatal flaw, in Christianity, is the belief in a transcendent egalitarian dimension of moronically moralistic sin-and-salvation and Good-and-Evil — in a mundane, inegalitarian, and ethically-intractable world of actions-have-predictable-consequences. To be guided by such simplicities and misconceptions is inevitably to commit folly, and no culture has been altogether free of such elements. However, the hypertrophy of this aspect in a slave-morality-derived culture promises to rupture and erupt in violent global rebellion against its failure to deliver the promised millenarian reign of righteousness/utopia, upon which promise of eventual realization its present order is based.
I think that before you can suggest that Christianity be dismantled, you need to have a proven replacement. If you would advocate Paganism or a different religion, or atheism, you need to have strong evidence that it works….What is your suggested replacement? If you suggest Atheism, you should be able to point to a group of successful atheists that have prospered over time. The same holds true if you suggest Paganism, etc.
I’m not making suggestions in this regard – I leave the children to the amusements of their sandbox, the cattle to the stockyard, the addicts to their needles. Becoming superhuman is optional and beyond the reach of all but a select few individuals.
Andrew,
Your comments about “peace and stability” driving technological innovation are false. The greatest scientific advances have come about during times of warfare and strife. Problems create the need for solutions, and Whites have used wars and famines and plagues as their impetus for developing new technology. Every time a war or natural disaster strikes the West, we come back twice as strong.
The Vikings were impressive sailors and constructed some of the most seaworthy vessels of their time. They managed to sail all the way to the New World in their longboats. Also, It has been speculated that the Black Death that hit Europe reduced the population to such an extent that there was a labor shortage, creating the need for agricultural machinery, giving rise to the industrial age. Likewise, the constantly flooded plains of the European lowlands (Belgium & the Netherlands) gave the Europeans the drive to construct massive levees and dams. Over generations they have driven back the very sea itself! Most of today’s technological inventions are products of the period immediately following the Second World War. German scientists, who had previously been developing weapons for the Wehrmacht, were taken by the United States and used to develop our space program.
Here are some interesting examples of pre-Christian technical innovation and design:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6189320/Prehistoric-man-used-crude-sat-nav.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6191462.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebra_sky_disk
Andrew makes total sense to me. I truly desire to believe Robert Cambell’s way of looking at things but his understanding of traditional Christianity is not what I’d expect from one who otherwise seems to know so much about religion and who thinks so clearly about what he has read. If a person could covert me to Asatru/Heathenism, he’d probably be the one, but alas.
I am a traditionalist. My ancestors were protestant Christian scrappers, drinkers, fighters, pioneers, racialists, and very proud of their heritage. I try as best I can in this modern sissified world to respect them. But I can find no modern church worthy of their memory; in modern Christianity, I am in torment. Something is missing in today’s Christianity and no one I know of has identified it to my satisfaction. The draw to ancient paganism is strong in me. I suspect that we needs refresh Christianity with the ancient pagan virtues in order to restore an old understanding, but I do not know anyone today wise enough yet modern enough to do it.
Something is missing in today’s Christianity and no one I know of has identified it to my satisfaction.
“Semen in the blood” (of Christ?)?
They managed to sail all the way to the New World in their longboats.
They just sorta coast hopped their way down Canada didn’t they? It wasn’t exactly “trans-Atlantic” no?
@NeoNietzsche,
I will add the “Superhuman” to my reading list, although these types of works arent my favorite. Once again though, I would like to try to stress the concept of practicality (trying to determine if something actually works or not based on real-world evidence). If you would recommend that people adopt Nietzsche’s ideas, and follow his philosophy, you should have a large number of case studies of people who have done this and have had good outcomes. If a reasonable person was to adopt Nietzsche-ism, he would require that the Nietzschian behaviors/thought patterns brought significantly better results than Christian behaviors/thought patterns. Such evidence would, I am sure, convince large numbers of individuals to jump on your bandwagon.
Lets take a look at two case studies that come to mind, Washington (a devout Christian), and Napoleon (a realist following his Will to Power). Of the two, Napoleon was obviously much more gifted and much more capable. Napoleon was willing to abandon principles at need in order to achieve his goals. On the other hand, Washington, in the bovinid, dullardly way of a Christian, had strong, bible-based principles that he rarely deviated from. In fact, he bufoonishly held on to a belief in the Christian god, in spite of what reason should have told him. What were the results? Napoleon conquered Europe, but was not held back by any principles or strong belief. He was not shy about gathering great wealth for himself, living lavishly upon what he had taken. Following his Will to Power, he submerged the continent in constant warfare, seeking ever-greater conquests, eventually sending the cream of the French gene pool to die in far-off Russia. He was a destroyer, bringing down the European order and bringing disaster on his nation and himself. On the other hand, Washington, led by his unshakable faith, persevered through a string of defeats. He paid his own salary, and was willing to sacrifice his own well-being for the good of the nation. He ended the war at the soonest possible opportunity. He rejected the opportunity to become a monarch, to the benefit of the nation, sparing use additional years of revolution and upheaval. As president, he continued to adhere to his Christian principles. He no doubt had ample opportunity to enrich himself at the public expense, but refrained. His policies were bent on promoting the best interests of the nation as a whole, and the nation prospered. Which leader was ultimately better for his nation and his race? I think that you would have a very difficult time trying to find leaders with few moral scruples that served their people better than those who followed strong Christian-based moral principles (assuming they had comparable intelligence and talents).
I think that what we have here with Nietzsche’s philosophy is an unproved theory. Why are you so eager to adopt unproven ideas? I think its useful to analyze Nietzsche himself a little. He was obviously a profoundly gifted individual, some people estimate his IQ at perhaps 200. What is life like for someone like that? His capabilities are far beyond anyone around him but to most of the rest of humanity, he is a freak. Although he can succeed wildly in virtually any area of endeavor that he chooses, very few individuals will ever be able to understand him or identify with him – he is going to spend his life mostly friendless, misunderstood, and persecuted by those who are jealous. I think it possible that his philosophy is an attempt to validate himself, and invalidate the hostile world around him. His idea that the purpose of life is not happiness is the mark of someone who is essentially not happy. I think he strikes at Europe’s most deeply held and cherished belief system – Christianity – in revenge. He attempts to create something new for people to follow, which he can do extremely convincingly, as he is brilliant. I am sure his philosophy has just about everything to support it: logic, reason, etc., all brilliantly articulated. That is, everything to support it except for proof. Where are his case studies? Where is his evidence that what he promotes actually works? Surely, over a century after his death, there must be a great mass of evidence we can use to come to a definitive, convincing answer on this.
“I’m not making suggestions in this regard – I leave the children to the amusements of their sandbox, the cattle to the stockyard, the addicts to their needles. Becoming superhuman is optional and beyond the reach of all but a select few individuals.” No doubt it is beyond my reach, although I think I would be happier in the sandbox anyway. Your statement above implies that you dont really give a hoot about the vast bulk of the White race (composed mainly of the average Joes), as you have no prescription for them that will help them survive, and care little whether they do or not. Your interest is in just a select few. But where would that small group of elite be without a nation behind them, without footsoldiers, construction workers and farmers? How would a relatively small group of elites fare alone against the demographic might of China, for example? Or even the hordes of bean-devouring ancestors of the mighty Aztecs that swarm across our borders?
In regard to Nietzsche’s idea that happiness is not an important goal in life, I would suggest the opposite (its not the only goal but an important one). Perhaps it is not ordained by some natural law that this should be the state of things for a person, but obviously being happy/fulfilled is closely related to satisfying our human needs and survival drives, which are built-in. In fact, if Nietzsche’s atheism was to become a dominant belief, you would see a much greater emphasis on pleasure-seeking, because if there is no God, and no real purpose in life (its up to individuals to find one), it logically follows that a person should have as much fun and enjoyment as possible (in spite of your apparent lack of desire for happiness, it is natural that people will want to pursue this). In fact, I am tempted to drearily recycle my almost used-up, old, dusty word “poisonous” once again to describe atheism/nihilism. This belief system is not going to get a person, a race or a nation anywhere. Someone gave me a link to an excellent recent article on this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100010450/a-nightmare-for-richard-dawkins-statistics-show-that-atheists-are-a-dying-breed/
I look forward to substantive, real-world evidence that your Nietzschian philosophy actually works. According to the rules of scientific epistemology, in the case of a lack thereof I will begin to conclude that your Nietzschian philosophy is not in the best interests of Whites as a whole, and that White Nationalists should look elsewhere for solutions.
@Sam,
“Your comments about “peace and stability” driving technological innovation are false. The greatest scientific advances have come about during times of warfare and strife. Problems create the need for solutions, and Whites have used wars and famines and plagues as their impetus for developing new technology.” I think you have hit the nail on the head with the idea that “necessity is the mother of invention”. And, as you have pointed out, warfare often creates a need for better weaponry or defenses, which encourages innovation (assuming there are high IQ geniuses available that have the brain power to design solutions – you wont get any from the 60-IQ aboriginals of Australia, for example). But, peace and stability do create conditions where innovation happens. This allows a society to build weath, which allows leisure and learning. When warfare is unceasing, where lands are continually being devastated, its difficult to support a university, for example. The Industrial Revolution did not occur on the war-torn continent. Rather, it occurred in England, which was spared the ravages of war. Likewise, the US was a hotbed of invention and innovation, spared the need to invest heavily in defense, as the European states did need to. Of course, I previously mentioned that the German tribes made very slow technological progress in the Ancient world, as they were busy invading and pillaging each other. How could centers of learning arise in such an environment (education being a major impetus to innovation)? Eventually, the pesky buggers overran the Western Roman Empire, and really set learning and innovation back. Note that peace and stability do not mean that war-making technology stagnates, as nations will still want to gain advantages over each other, and react to perceived threats. For example, the US Space program and defense programs have proceeded along after WW2 despite the nation being mainly at peace (there is usually some limited foreign war going on out there somewhere, but the homeland is generally safe and secure, no one is fighting in the streets or pillaging your front yard).
@Rusty,
“Something is missing in today’s Christianity and no one I know of has identified it to my satisfaction. The draw to ancient paganism is strong in me. I suspect that we needs refresh Christianity with the ancient pagan virtues in order to restore an old understanding, but I do not know anyone today wise enough yet modern enough to do it.” In my humble opinion, 95% of what is in Christianity is fine. In protestantism, “everyone is a priest”, and can interpret the scriptures for himself. You should realize that the Zionism of today is a stranger to Christianity of yesteryear. If you look at what was taught in most churches 100 years ago, you would see that it is perfectly compatible with White Nationalism. In my view, there just needs to be an emphasis on racialism re-added to Christian doctrine. Perhaps you should look into Kinism (www.kinism.net), which Wikitopian mentioned. From what I know of neo-paganism, its just not very believable or workable.
If you would recommend that people adopt Nietzsche’s ideas, and follow his philosophy, you should have a large number of case studies of people who have done this and have had good outcomes.
I do not recommend as you suggest. Only persons of power and influence are of interest. You apparently suffer from the “democratic delusion” in speaking of “large numbers” – you are not going to vote your way into power – this is not a democracy. Nietzscheanism is not personal therapy for a happy life.
I suggest that you read Genealogy of Morals, First Essay in order to provide you with an introduction to an informed basis for discussion of Nietzsche.
Which leader was ultimately better for his nation and his race?
Napoleon.
I think that you would have a very difficult time trying to find leaders with few moral scruples that served their people better than those who followed strong Christian-based moral principles (assuming they had comparable intelligence and talents).
This is because “the bovinid, dullardly way of a Christian” does not lend itself to political involvement at the highest levels and so offers no opportunity for comparisons other than the one you have pointlessly drawn for lack of control for a multitude of important factors.
I think that what we have here with Nietzsche’s philosophy is an unproved theory. Why are you so eager to adopt unproven ideas?
Your premise reflects your inattention to the subject of the discussion. Please acquaint yourself with “Nietzsche’s philosophy” before making judgments as to what is being “proved,” what constitutes “proof,” and to what degree his ideas have thus been “proven”.
I think it possible that his philosophy is an attempt to validate himself, and invalidate the hostile world around him. His idea that the purpose of life is not happiness is the mark of someone who is essentially not happy. I think he strikes at Europe’s most deeply held and cherished belief system – Christianity – in revenge.
Please – for your own sake – do not repeat this embarrassing pop-psyche analysis. It betrays a profound lack of knowledge of, and involvement in, the most crucial questions of philosophy and political-economy arising for public discussion in the past century. I credit your sincere interest in the questions you raise, but you evidently require so much instruction that I must again refer you to the other venue I’ve mentioned. Otherwise you will continue to display no grasp of Nietzsche in the context of modern philosophy and public concerns.
Your statement…implies that you don’t really give a hoot about the vast bulk of the White race (composed mainly of the average Joes), as you have no prescription for them that will help them survive, and care little whether they do or not.
Again, you involve your own statement in a false premise. I have prescribed a resort, as have others, that represents what little, if any, chance remains for the preservation of the race. Please do as I have advised for further information.
@NeoNietzsche,
I guess I have a better idea of what you believe. Basically, in your opinion, the Hoi Polloi are minions who are led by the elite, and thus of little interest when trying to save the race. The problems are complex, and are related to not only the Jewish question, but various underlying issues that are not easily explained to the uninitiated. The solution is in enlightening the few who are willing to participate in the solution and have the brainpower to understand. Once educated and organized, this elite will then be able to possibly lead the minions to a solution. The above is of course overly simplified, and I would really only be able to grasp the situation if I actually read Nietzsche, assuming that I was capable of understanding him on a deep enough level.
I suppose that the above is possible. However, its very hard to swallow, as my worldview is centered around something completely different. In my worldview, figures such as Washington and Cincinattus are the optimum. I look back to the early racialist US, and see the solution as re-establishing this as much as possible. Christianity is a big part of that, and so is old-fashioned common sense, as understood by early Americans, which is used to design practical solutions.
Assuming that you are actually serious that you think Napoleon served his nation and race better than Washington did, it seems that your worldview and thinking patterns are completely foreign to me. I would say that for most issues, if were were both presented with the same information, your output would usually be something completely different than mine, probably because we are wired differently.
Still without reading Nietzsche, if I had to guess what you are thinking, I would say that from various comments you have made during this discussion that you believe that there are various secretive groups that control world events (you wont spell out exactly what you believe so I am left guessing). These might include the Rothschilds, Masons, Illuminati, Bilderbergers, Mossad and banking groups that were responsible for creating the Federal Reserve and various other financial structures (and/or other groups I have no idea about). In this view, there are layers of control, including a layer of dupes and pawns that mistakenly believe they actually wield power (perhaps those such as George W and Ted Kennedy). In this case, it would seem that even Kevin MacDonald and many other Occidental commentators are ignorant of many aspects of the actual situation. If this is true, I would hope that there are counter-groups following Nietzschian philosophy, attempting to prevent the destruction of the race (perhaps you are a member of such an organization). This would be pretty difficult to believe though. Even were I initiated, I probably wouldn’t be of much use as one of the elite, as I am pretty much one of the Hoi Polloi myself. Furthermore, I tend to be skeptical, stubborn and hardheaded, which I got from dad, and it would be very difficult to become convinced of the value of Nihilism and so forth. But I will look into the works you recommend when I have a chance, and will hopefully at that time be better able to understand your views.
“Please – for your own sake – do not repeat this embarrassing pop-psyche analysis.” I am not repeating anything, I am perfectly capable of embarrassing myself by creatively coming up with my very own pop psychology analysis after reading Nietzsche’s bio on Wikipedia.
I suppose that the above [elite enterprise] is possible. However, its very hard to swallow, as my worldview is centered around something completely different. In my worldview, figures such as Washington and Cincinattus are the optimum. I look back to the early racialist US, and see the solution as re-establishing this as much as possible. Christianity is a big part of that, and so is old-fashioned common sense, as understood by early Americans, which is used to design practical solutions.
OK, arrange to have Mars Attack and kill off, say, 90% of the population of the continent and you can have back a little something of your rustic arcadia, for just a little while. Otherwise, you’ll just have to put up with more sophisticated administration and organization of the polity and culture, due to its natural history of progressive demographic concentration and the attendant enhancement of social conflict. I suggest that you make an effort to encounter comparative and world history in detail, informed by a study of the logic and history of political economy, as viewed from a Spenglerian perspective. It might then occur to you, and other free-range white guys, that you can no more recover the 18th Century in the terms you have in mind than you can surgically transform yourself into a pre-teen.
Assuming that you are actually serious that you think Napoleon served his nation and race better than Washington did, it seems that your worldview and thinking patterns are completely foreign to me. I would say that for most issues, if we were both presented with the same information, your output would usually be something completely different than mine, probably because we are wired differently.
Could be – but you are not controlling for the vast exposure to information and theory, now at my disposal, that is yet to be your own possession.
Still without reading Nietzsche, if I had to guess what you are thinking, I would say that from various comments you have made during this discussion that you believe that there are various secretive groups that control world events (you wont spell out exactly what you believe so I am left guessing).
Because I have no “exact belief” on the matter.
In this case, it would seem that even Kevin MacDonald and many other Occidental commentators are ignorant of many aspects of the actual situation.
As am I. The advantage I enjoy over “other commentators” is in having seriously engaged and synthesized the full range of pertinent issues, information, theory, and history that specialists have not the time or aptitude for addressing.
If this is true, I would hope that there are counter-groups following Nietzschian philosophy, attempting to prevent the destruction of the race (perhaps you are a member of such an organization).
I join you in your hope.
“According to Fairvilla’s in-house research, roughly 75 percent of interracial porn is consumed by black men
Makes sense considering they’re the one’s being catered to.
We know where porn is made in the US, not the South, mostly in California. The biggest consumers of it, any genre, are not Southern Whites, Utah being #1.
This whole idea of porn being made or any television/movies being made because “that’s what the public wants” is total bullshit. They have a social agenda, a grudge against White males. No surprise that the industry was created and is dominated by Jews.
And if you thought white males like porn, look at the Asians, they are out of control, especially South Korea, freaks!
http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics-pg2.html
I am disappointed that the comments here degenerated rather quickly into arguments over Christianity. I decided not to post a reply again until that stuff slowed down.
I reject Christianity, and I often note that modern “religion” was unknown in the world of Tradition. The ancient Solar concept of the Numen (sheer power that was directly experienced) was replaced long ago by the concept of the Deus (anthropomorphic bogeyman): effulgent knowledge was supplanted by blind faith.
Despite that fact, I try to find common ground with good Christians. I can understand the appeal of the Catholic church to men of a Radical Traditionalist demeanour. A man of tradition is a man of tradition, and they are very rare. Men are not moved by mere facts and arguments; they are moved by spirit! That is why music is so important, because it is an expression of the soul. I think we are best served by welcoming traditionalist oriented Christians and allowing them a voice in the new Synthesis that is necessary for our resuscitation as a folk. I am reminded of Evola’s words:
“There is a superior unity in all those who despite all, fight in different parts of the world the same battle, lead the same revolt, and are bearers of the same intangible Tradition. These forces appear to be scattered and isolated in the world, and yet are inexorably connected by a common essence that is meant to preserve the absolute ideal of the Imperium and work for its return.”
My advice to those WN activists who sneer with hubris at the very mention of transcendence: continue to do the very thing that you are doing. Time will show you the contradictions of your position; you cannot be satisfied as long as you believe that the material world is the source of your sustenance. I am aware that this argument appears ethereal and illusory, but I believe that the wisdom of antiquity is on my side.
I used to use the term “racial soul” to refer to some nebulous connection I felt to my heritage. However, I have discovered through meditation and ancestral pathworking that the racial soul does indeed exist. “Communion with your ancestors” is a common thread in primitive cultures: shamanism and ancestral worship is a primal understanding of the metaphysical connection a folk has to its racial memory. Once you “feel” it, you know it exists. Your ancestors are living inside of you, and not just figuratively; you are a living embodiment of the chain of life.
If you try to explain the concept of a “racial soul” to a soulless materialist, they will mock you, because unless they “feel” it, no amount of intellectual debate will make it real to them. Lacking a fundamental understanding of the Doctrine of Two Natures, they are trapped in the spiritual materialism that Evola describes in the first chapter of Revolt Against the Modern World. That is to say, they refuse to understand the world as consisting of anything beyond physical bodies in Time and Space. If they are led to any religious/spiritual views, they are led to these view through mere intellectual speculation rather than direct experience.
Although everyone has a “racial soul,” it must be developed to be appreciated. To develop it, you must truly desire to understand it. Your “racial soul” will not just force itself to be known to you. It is esoteric and elusive, and minds far brighter than mine have declared it non-existent; however, it does exist. The concept of God is no different. As long as one has a man-centred view of the spiritual realm, human arrogance will prevent him from understanding the concept of God and what it means to his existence. Carl Jung speaks of the presence of the racial soul in his writings, but he also asserts a belief in the “God-self:” the fragment of God that indwells the individual and makes him conscious.
The major obstacle to discussions such as this one, as I have already noted, is that direct experience (Gnosis) cannot be reduced to discursive analysis. How can you verbalise that which is ineffable?
Computers respond to data, whereas people generally don’t. People have to “know, feel, and experience” something for it to be “real” to them. If you attempt to take something that has entered into your realm of experience and give it to someone else verbally (or worse yet, through text), you just can’t do it. It is impossible.
We must lead European man back to his roots, back to his soul, in order to eliminate the power of money and greed that is destroying the world. Man is not sustained by material gain, but neither is he sustained by arguments, facts, statistics, or clever turns-of-phrase. There is only one thing that sustains him, and he has to see the lack of value in everything else before he will recognise this fact.
“However, it is not enough merely to rediscover things of the past; it must also be our goal to establish links with the ancient past in order to revive a cultural heritage going back thousands of years and to pass it on, invested with meaning, to our descendants…” – Walter Franzius
Mark,
I forgot to mention in my response to your question on Theosophy that I highly recommend this book by Guenon:
http://www.amazon.com/Theosophy-History-Pseudo-Religion-Guenon-Works/dp/0900588799/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263943250&sr=8-1