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.
This is powerful stuff. I identify with a lot of what you’re saying. I’ve come to be a little less fascinated with antiquity than you appear to be. I definitely accept the assertion that much greater men with much greater visions have come and gone, but I believe there’s a line between inspiration and emulation that I don’t wish to cross.
The flood of modernity can’t be simply ignored. To attempt to resurrect traditions and folkways which couldn’t survive the flood is futile. What we need is something that floats, that we can gather the best of the old and new ways onto. What we need is an ark. No?
Robert Campbell,
Another excellent contribution!
Too many people in our movement are content to recognize the scientific accomplishments of Western society while wholly ignoring the spiritual dimension of life.
And that ladies and gentlemen is how to blow people’s f’n minds. Well done, Robert.
That’s one way to attract the hippies to racialism. 🙂
Robert, I know you are well versed with Jung, you should do some posts about him and his work.
Wiki, I agree with you on the need to stay grounded and not fall into foppish emulation of ancient ways. You won’t find me gallivanting through the forest with a tunic and a sword.
The more serious issue you raise, dealing with the lack of initiatic succession, is a tremendous obstacle to reconstructing Heathenism in the modern world. I was discussing all of this with a friend quite recently: How do you resurrect the Eleusinian mysteries? They are lost. The last Hierophant did not write them down, and the chain of initiation is broken.
Evola rightly identifies initiation as an essential aspect of authentic Tradition, but he regrettably fails to provide guidance on how we are supposed to mend the broken chain.
I’m going to admit that I’ve never read Evola, but I never could buy into the idea of a “spiritual aryan.”
You won’t find me gallivanting through the forest with a tunic and a sword.
And I had you pegged as a LARPer. I’m disappointed.
Can a non-white be a “spiritual Aryan?” Like the black guy who talks and acts white?
Robert,
Perhaps it’s a symptom of my thoroughly American and material perspective, but I’ve integrated their lessons with MacDonald’s “group evolutionary strategy” concept into a synthesis wherein traditions are an evolved memeplex, the DNA of the tribal superorganism. Evola and Guenon don’t provide guidance because they both came to actually believe the customs, rituals, and systems of thought they studied on a level that precludes synthesizing or restoring them.
Email me at my alias at gmail.com when you get a chance.
Robert, do you believe in theosophy and the concept of root races?
Sam, I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying there is no necessary spiritual component to being an Aryan, or that one cannot be a “spiritual Aryan” if one is not biologically Europid?
The word Aryan itself means noble/twice-born. There is/was a biological prerequisite to belong to the Brahman or Kshatriya caste, but one born into such a station only becomes truly “born again” (Aryan) through the Rite.
During Evola’s lifetime, the vast majority of Europeans, and White Americans, were racially conscious. Evola’s views on spiritual race do not contradict our knowledge of “the race of the body,” but deepens and expands upon it. He made this abundantly clear in his essay On The Secret of Degeneration:
“We can thank the Comte de Gobineau for the best and best-known summary of this problem [Degeneration], and also for a masterly criticism of the main hypotheses about it. His solution on the basis of racial thought and racial purity also has much truth in it, but it needs to be expanded by a few observations concerning a higher order of things. For there have been many cases in which a culture has collapsed even when its race has remained pure, as is especially clear in certain groups that have suffered slow, inexorable extinction despite remaining as racially isolated as if they were islands. An example quite close at hand is the case of the Swedes and the Dutch. These people are in the same racial condition today as they were two centuries ago, but there is little to be found now of the heroic disposition and the racial awareness that they once possessed. Other great cultures seem merely to have remained standing in the condition of mummies: they have long been inwardly dead, so that it takes only the slightest push to knock them down. This was the case, for example, with ancient Peru, that giant solar empire which was annihilated by a few adventurers drawn from the worst rabble of Europe.”
Here is some interesting information about the Aryan race in India:
“The two sections of the sacerdotal class, Brahmans by descent and Brahmans by adoption, were of different physical types. In the Rgveda (VII. 33. 1) the Vasisthas, who represent the first group, are described as ‘svityam,’ ‘white,’ while Kanva (X. 31. 11), representing the second group, is ‘svava’ or ‘krsna,’ ‘dark.’ In the Gopatha Brahmana (I. 1. 223) the Brahman’s colour is white (‘sukla’). The tradition of the existence of a group of Brahmans
with white complexion and yellow hair survived down to the time of the grammarian Patanjali (about 150 B.C.) who writes in his Mahabhasya (on Panini V. 1. 115): ‘Penance, knowledge of the Veda, and birth make a Brahman. He who is without penance and knowledge of the Veda is a Brahman by birth only. White complexion, pure conduct, yellow or red hair, etc. are
also characteristics that constitute Brahmanhood.’ The Brahman with white complexion and yellow hair seems so strange a being to Kaiyata, the scholar of Patanjali, that he assigns him to a previous cycle of existence. He writes, ‘White complexion, etc., were seen in Brahmans who flourished in a previous cycle of existence and whose descendants are rarely met with even now.'”
[R. P. Chanda, “The Indo-Aryan Races: A Study of the Origin of Indo-Aryan People and Institutions, Part I.” (Rajshahi: Varendra Research Society, 1916), p. 24.]
The “Boddhisattva Asvagosha” (A Life of the Buddha), the “Mahapadana Suttanta,” and the “Lakkhana Suttanta” (Dialogues of Buddha: Sacred Books of the Buddhists), all state that Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), an Indian prince’s son, had “eyes the colour of blossoming flax”. The flowers of the flax plant are blue in colour.
[H. F. K. Gunther, (V. Bird & R. Pearson, trans.), “The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans.” (London: Clair Press, 1967), p. 32.]
Mark,
I don’t ascribe to Theosophy, but I do believe there are descendants of Hyperboreans living alongside degenerate human potentialities (we could call them Lemurians, if you wish).
It’s been years since I’ve read Blavatsky, but I recently digested an interesting book published by the Theosophical Society in 1937 called “Racial Cleavage or The Seven Ages of Man” by Isabelle Pagan.
My good friend, Michael Bell, has an essay in the most recent edition of TOQ on this subject, which is entitled “Julius Evola On Race: A Racism of Three Degrees,” and relies heavily on Evola’s “Elements of Racial Education.”
I don’t want to ramble about this stuff too much in the comments section. Perhaps I’ll make a proper post outlining my thoughts on these matters.
“The Eleusinian Mysteries are believed to have begun about 1600 BC, during the Mycenean Age. One line of thought by modern scholars has been that these Mysteries were intended “to elevate man above the human sphere into the divine and to assure his redemption by making him a god and so conferring immortality upon him.
… some scholars believe that the power and longevity of the Eleusinian Mysteries came from psychedelic agents.”
Wiki, you’ve got mail.
Liberalism is the last throw of the dice, Western civilisation (globalism) is exhausted, man has decided that there is no higher purpose for his existence,
Liberalism, taken to its logical conclusion is a world without humans.
That’s my take anyway.
Anon, indeed.
Yockey on Liberalism:
“Liberalism is Rationalism in politics. It rejects the State as an organism, and can only see it as the result of a contract between individuals. The purpose of Life has nothing to do with States, for they have no independent existence. Thus the “happiness” of “the individual” becomes the purpose of Life. Bentham made this as coarse as it could be made in collectivizing it into “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” If herding-animals could talk, they would use this slogan against the wolves. To most humans, who are the mere material of History, and not actors in it, “happiness” means economic well being. Reason is quantitative, not qualitative, and thus makes the average man into “Man.” “Man” is a thing of food, clothing, shelter, social and family life, and leisure. Politics sometimes demands sacrifice of life for invisible things. This is against “happiness,” and must not be. Economics, however, is not against “happiness,” but is almost co-extensive with it. Religion and Church wish to interpret the whole of Life on the basis of invisible things, and so militate against “happiness.” Social ethics, on the other hand, secure economic order, thus promote “happiness.
…Here Liberalism found its two poles of thought: economics and ethics. They correspond to individual and humanity. The ethics of course is purely social, materialistic; if older ethics is retained, its former metaphysical foundation is forgotten, and it is promulgated as a social, and not a religious, imperative. Ethics is necessary to maintain the order necessary as a framework for economic activity. Within that framework, however, “individual” must be “free.” This is the great cry of Liberalism, “freedom.” Man is only himself, and is not tied to anything except by choice. Thus “society” is the “free” association of men and groups. The State, however, is un-freedom, compulsion, violence. The Church is spiritual un-freedom.
All things in the political domain were transvalued by Liberalism. War was transformed into either competition, seen from the economic pole, or ideological difference, seen from ethical pole. Instead of the mystical rhythmical alternation of war and peace, it sees only the perpetual concurrence of competition or ideological contrast, which in no case becomes hostile or bloody. The State becomes society or humanity on the ethical side, a production and trade system on the economic side. The will to accomplish a political aim is transformed into the making of a program of “social ideals” on the ethical side, of calculation on the economic side. Power becomes propaganda, ethically speaking, and regulation, economically speaking.
The purest expression of the doctrine of Liberalism was probably that of Benjamin Constant. In 1814 he set forth his views “progress” of “man.” He looked upon the 18th century Enlightenment with its intellectualistic-humanitarian cast as merely preliminary to the true liberation, that of the 19th century. Economics, industrialism, and technics represented the means of “freedom.” Rationalism was the natural ally of this trend. Feudalism, Reaction, War, Violence, State, Politics, Authority — all were overcome by the new idea, supplanted by Reason, Economics, Freedom, Progress and Parliamentarism. War, being violent and brutal, was unreasonable, and is replaced by Trade, which is intelligent and civilized. War is condemned from every standpoint: economically it is a loss even to the victor. The new war technics — artillery — made personal heroism senseless, and thus the charm and glory of war departed with its economic usefulness. In earlier times, war-peoples had subjugated trading-peoples, but no longer. Now trading-peoples step out as the masters of the earth.
A moment’s reflection shows that Liberalism is entirely negative. It is not a formative force, but always and only a disintegrating force. It wishes to depose the twin authorities of Church and State, substituting for them economic freedom and social ethics. It happens that organic realities do not permit of more than the two alternatives: the organism can be true to itself, or it becomes sick and distorted, a prey for other organisms. Thus the natural polarity of leaders and led cannot be abolished without annihilating the organism. Liberalism was never entirely successful in its fight against the State, despite the fact that it engaged in political activity throughout the 19th century in alliance with every other type of Stated-disintegrating force. Thus there were National-Liberals, Social-Liberals, Free-Conservatives, Liberal-Catholics. They allied themselves with democracy, which is not Liberal, but irresistibly authoritarian in success. They sympathized with Anarchists when the forces of Authority sought to defend themselves against them. In the 20th century, Liberalism joined Bolshevism in Spain, and European and American Liberals sympathized with Russian Bolsheviks.
Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative — it means in fact, freedom from authority, i.e., disintegration of the organism. In its last stages it produces social atomism in which not only the authority of the State is combated, but even the authority of society and the family. Divorce takes equal rank with marriage, children with parents. This constant thinking in negatives caused political activists like Lorenz V. Stein and Ferdinand Lasalle to despair of it as a political vehicle. Its attitudes were always contradictory, it sought always a compromise. It sought always to “balance” democracy against monarchy, managers against hand-workers, State against Society, legislative against judicial. In a crisis, Liberalism as such was not to be found. Liberals found their way on to one or the other side of a revolutionary struggle, depending on the consistency of their Liberalism, and its degree of hostility to authority…
From its anthropology of the basic goodness of human nature in general, Rationalism produced 18th century Encyclopedism, Freemasonry, Democracy, and Anarchism, as well as Liberalism, each with its offshoots and variations. Each played its part history of the 19th century, and, owing to the critical distortion of the whole Western civilization entailed by the first World Wars, even in the 20th century, where Rationalism is grotesquely out of place, and slowly transformed itself into Irrationalism. The corpse of Liberalism was not even interred by the middle of the 20th century. Consequently it is necessary to diagnose even now the serious illness of the Western Civilization as Liberalism complicated with alien-poisoning.”
Robert,
In the hope that a layman can make a useful contribution to the discussion, you asked, “Ultimately, all of this boils down to One Question: why are we here?” This reminds me of a cartoon I saw somewhere. In it, we see pictures of creatures evolving (an amphibious creature moving to land, a dinosaur, an ape, etc.) Each is thinking, “Eat, Survive, Procreate” (these creatures know their purpose in life). The last frame shows a guy in a tie, wondering, “Whats it all about?”. In other words, the most highly evolved, intelligent creature cant figure out what all of the lowest level creatures instinctively know.
I may have a different perspective than you because I am surrounded by healthy families. My older brother has 5 children, all being raised happily without day-care. My youngest sister is 23 and already has 3 kids, all beautiful blond-haired, blue eyed babies (she plans to have as many kids as possible). In the town where I life in Utah, just about every girl looks forward to being married, and its common to see happy families with a gaggle of happy European-American kids in stores and restaurants.
When I see all of the happy White kids, the question “Why are we here” is answered immediately for me, at least. We are here on earth to procreate, pass on our bloodline to the next generation as part of a long chain of ancestors and descendants. Having as many children of our own race as possible and securing their future as best we can is an end in itself. I think that its possible to “over-think” things in some cases. On the other hand, I have only a vague understanding of what the Eleusinian Mysteries are, so my perspective may be of limited value.
Andrew, while your point may be an obvious one, I think it’s one that is sometimes overlooked by intellectuals who have their head in the clouds and avoid procreation. It’s a shame that the most intelligent tend to be the least fecund.
Robert, I meant that I disagree with the separation of “aryan-ness” into biological and spiritual. A dog couldn’t comprehend human thoughts and an African can’t comprehend Aryan thoughts, even if he can mock our speech. If there is a higher “spiritual” existence then biology is the key to unlocking it.
Evola used the Swedes and the Dutch as an example of a “spiritually degenerate” people. I don’t think the Swedes have lost anything over time. Our world is much different than in 900 A.D. and we don’t need to offset periodical overpopulation with massive invasions of foreign countries. (Unless you’re a non-white!) The Dutch, like many in Sweden I’m sure, are fed up with non-whites immigrating into their already crowded nation. It’s true in America and I’m sure it’s true in every white country. The majority of whites still maintain a healthy instinct for self-preservation, even if it’s not explicity racial.
Most of the time when it looks like Whites are “giving up” or “committing racial suicide” its actually being forced upon them by an internal enemy. And I’m not going to dance around who it is like David Duke did at the 2006 AMREN conference – our internal enemy is the Jew. This “assisted suicide” will probably be the topic of my next essay.
Why must everything “White” be so grave and long-winded?
Mr. Campbell: @15
Excellent presentation.
If I may add:
On the Spirituality of the once and Future West:
The Religion of the West
The last two thousand years of Western religious feelings have gone through enormous changes, evolutions, and restructuring. It has helped to forge our view of ourselves, our Family, our Politics, our way of waging War, of the values of Life and Death. What was true one-hundred years ago to the pious and devout laymen and clergy, with time, has morphed, or been re-structured to follow, not a new sense of mysticism nor, sadly, a new faith, into values and perceptions based upon necessity, on political world-views which, among other things, has brought many in the West to the realization that, perforce, their remains no absolute value upon which to base personal, familial, or State dogma and morals. This is no abstract discussion, as all faith, all belief in the unseen, all spiritual fundamentalism, has been cast into the valley of the shadow of death in this modern age; the very fabric of tradition, of continuity of spiritual and personal interests, and the knowledge that a persons soul is sound, without major conflicts to constantly derail his waking state, his day-to-day reason, upon which he is able to guide himself and his nation, seems to be what passes for the search of ‘spirituality’.
This discussion centers, not around Religion, nor its Leaders, but about values, about perceptions of what we, as men and women of the West, see of ourselves and, hence, how others see us.
The weekly mission to ‘places of worship’ is not what is meant here. Every week, believers are drawn to belief, to hope, and values, which, to most, transcend the day-to-day humdrum of their daily lives. In this regard, belief is the marginal religion of the West: Christianity. Marginal, because many in the West follow a message which is theirs by the right of tradition, of the common aspirations of their fathers and mothers, but unknown to the majority of the West as their raison d’être; their reason for being. Moreover, the reason and purpose of spirituality, of religion, for the maintenance of healthy men and women who not only reside with us, but after us, must be addressed if the West is to not only continue, but to become better.
As in the first part of this organic study of the West which, in a preliminary sense, gave a sense of what spirituality meant to our ancestors as members of the far-flung colonies of the West, this introduction into the spirituality, longings, hopes, and faith of the Future West is set down for others to ponder, and either deny or embrace.
http://www.whitenewsnow.com/forums/philosophy-ideology/1710-future-life-within-west-quest-spirituality.html
And:
http://www.whitenewsnow.com/forums/philosophy-ideology/1448-western-imperative-culture-bearers.html
It is the nanosecond evolution and development of a one off technical scientific civilisation that has enabled mankind the luxury of liberalism.
This over complex society of ours is in it’s death throes.
It’s back to the future. Hunter gathering.’
Will whites survive?
Robert – if the historical Buddha was blue eyed, why worry about the “impedance mismatch” between genotype and soul type?
Buddhists have an unbroken chain of initiation, master to student. While parts of some traditions have vague or disputed historicity, it’s clear that the chains go A Long Long Way Back, and there is no reason to suppose them to be rehashed or made up, given the long recorded history of the Buddhists.
The last hierophant didn’t write down the Mysteries, but the Brahman priests _did_ write down the Tantra.
It’s not hard. Cast about. Start a practice. Find a teacher. I did. In fact, much of what you wrote is stuff I hear often from my teacher.
Why worry about the Eleusian Mysteries? How are they related to my gene / soul type as a northern European? Why worry about “heathenism”?
The “impedance mismatch” thing is real, to be sure. I know this from experience. If you try to deal with a tradition which is not compatible with your soul type, you will suffer. If it feels wrong, it probably is. The spiritual traditions of e.g. Native American or African peoples are not good for Europeans; it takes a stubborn and stupid European to pursue them. And, surprise, not many do.
The “direct transmission” thing – initiation from teacher to student – is also key. This is something lost in modern Christianity, I’m afraid.
Within most every faith there is an esoteric core; Christianity seems sadly to have purged most of its essence when they threw out the gnostics. What’s left is beautiful – like John 1:1… but who can find a Christian who can really tell you what that passage means? Hard to find one.
Weirdly, perhaps the straightest path left for transmission of Hellenic esoteric spirituality is… well, Sufi Islam. Sufi := Sophia… if you show up at the mosque, they will take you. Just sayin’.
And if you show up at the Zendo, or the ashram, they will take you in, too.
Are you so sure these traditions are not what you’re looking for? Where is your evidence that your gene or soul type is incompatible – your references would argue just the opposite in fact. Is in simply a case of being offered strawberry, when you were expecting… um… vanilla?
You’re clearly seeking sincerely. Your post is achingly beautiful. How do you know for sure that what your looking for isn’t hiding in plain sight?
Sam,
“I don’t think the Swedes have lost anything over time. Our world is much different than in 900 A.D. and we don’t need to offset periodical overpopulation with massive invasions of foreign countries. (Unless you’re a non-white!) The Dutch, like many in Sweden I’m sure, are fed up with non-whites immigrating into their already crowded nation. It’s true in America and I’m sure it’s true in every white country. The majority of whites still maintain a healthy instinct for self-preservation, even if it’s not explicitly racial.”
The point Evola is making is that the sheer fact that the Swedes and Dutch have embraced a democratic system, that they have gone from riches to rags, that they even allow politicians who provide patronage to non-white immigrants to exist, are themselves proofs that these nations are experiencing an inner decline–a syphilis of the soul. An internal enemy could not exist if their inner constitution–their Volkgeist, or race of the spirit–was healthy and vigorous, just as a pathogen could not exist in a healthy organism.
Democracy and republicanism, which are in place in one form or another in the aforementioned countries, only materialize in a nation that’s near death. If you disagree, I suggest you consult Spengler’s Decline of the West, Yockey’s Imperium, and/or Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World.
While the possibility always exists for a spiritual rebirth among peoples, one cannot argue that the Swedes and Dutch, and virtually the rest of Europe, as well as the Whites of the U.S. and elsewhere, have lost “nothing” since the Middle Ages. We have lost, for the time being, the very thing that makes us a race in the traditional sense: our will to power. We have replaced it with democracy, decadence, materialism–the ways of the Last Man. Our warrior nobilities have been supplanted by sniveling merchants and other lower types who have exalted utilitarianism at the cost of honor, strength, and everything else that is Aryan. We have gone from civilization to virtual herd-grazing, to borrow from Yockey. Any people who can do this no longer says “yes” to Life, but to mediocrity and baseness.
I’m not saying that our race has become “degenerate,” but we certainly HAVE lost a very important component of our Being. The fact that you and I can only speak of these matters on an Internet blog and not publicly, whether it’s because of internal enemies or not, is itself the ultimate piece of evidence. One day our impulse to power will resurface, when circumstances are right, but it’s going to take a lot to make this happen. I’m not doubting that MANY Whites across the world, be they soldiers, workers, lawyers, teachers, or what-have-you, have the desire to preserve our gene pool, but our race at large, collectively, does not have this impulse any longer, I’m afraid.
How does this “instinct for self-preservation” that “isn’t explicitly racial” manifest itself, in your opinion?
Robert Campbell:
“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.”
I imagine Evola did fall in disfavor with those adherents to the National Socialists biological world view writing stuff like that. What good would the higher “soul-type” of man be if there weren’t any White folks left around to enjoy that world?
I take it “biological positivism” is strictly geared toward preservation of the Aryan gene pool in our shrinking, traditional earthbound habitats. If so it would seem to me that that bp must precede and be secured prior to pursuit of the higher soul-type of which Evola describes.
I was struck by Brooks Adams analogy in his Law of Civilization and Decay of economic man vs. spiritual man, aristocrat vs. egalitarian, masculine vs. feminine. I was looking for Dr. Pierce’s memorable ADV essay on tha, couldn’t find it but found this instead, which ties in somewhat with Evola.
Unknown author in 2005:
…I found the following Web essay by one of the most reviled figures of the modern era – Dr. William S. Pierce. For the unaware [really, you haven’t read THIS far without knowing this, certainly] Pierce was probably the most notorious neo-Nazi of the twentieth century. I came across this essay while searching for information on Brooks Adams’ Law of Civilization and Decay and I feel inclined to include a bit of his essay here.
What I found striking about Pierce’s commentary was his perception of the Timothy McVeigh hearing. I had similar feelings about the McVeigh trial. Personally, I disagreed with McVeigh’s actions. However, I felt that we should at least try to understand that from his standpoint, he was a soldier fighting a battle. We might find ourselves on the other side of the ideological fence – but when people engage in radical or violent acts, it is a disservice to ourselves to not attempt to understand why it is they did what they did. Reading Pierce’s essay made me realize that he possessed a first-rate mind: it’s too bad that he sank into the ugly realms of crass racism and anti-Semitism.
Pierce writes: “This came to mind most recently when I saw and heard the reaction to Timothy McVeigh’s statement to the court on August 14, at the time he was sentenced to die. What McVeigh said was very relevant, very pertinent. He said that the government teaches its citizens by its example. When the government breaks the law, then its citizens will not respect the law.
But the spectators almost uniformly were disappointed by this statement. They complained that they wanted to hear him say that he was sorry for what he had done, that he was sorry for the innocent victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. They weren’t even interested in hearing about the much larger issue of government lawlessness that Mr. McVeigh raised. They only wanted an apology for the suffering of individual victims. This is a feminine attitude, this focusing on personal and individual feelings rather than on the larger, impersonal context. It is a feminine attitude, despite the fact that it was expressed by grown men…
Henry’s brother, Brooks Adams, had written a book 18 years earlier, in 1895, on the subject commented on by Henry. It was The Law of Civilization and Decay, and in it Brooks made an even more general observation than that stated later by Henry. Brooks saw two types of man: the type he described as spiritual man, typified by the farmer-warrior-poet-priest; and the type he called economic man, typified by the merchant and the bureaucrat. I believe that Brooks must have known a different breed of priests than those I am familiar with. He was thinking of Martin Luther and Giordano Bruno, not Billy Graham and John Paul II.
He saw spiritual man as having the leading role in the building of a civilization, with the economic men coming out of the woodwork and assuming the dominant role after the civilization had peaked and was in the process of decay. Spiritual men are those with vision and daring and a close connection to their roots, their spiritual sources. Economic men are those who know how to calculate the odds and evaluate an opportunity, but who have cut themselves loose from their spiritual roots and become cosmopolitans, to the extent that that offers an economic advantage…
Can we properly describe this change noted by Henry Adams as the feminization of our society? Or should it be thought of as the replacement of aristocratic values by democratic values, a general vulgarization of standards and tastes? Actually, these two ways of looking at the change are related. But let me take Brooks Adams’ position now and say that the change can be attributed most fundamentally to the growing materialism in our society, to the replacement of spiritual values by economic values. What does that have to do with feminism or with democracy?
Actually, a great deal. In a very broad sense, aristocratic values are masculine values, and democratic values — egalitarian values — are feminine values. It is also true that, in a very broad sense, materialism is a feminine way of looking at the world. It is a way which puts emphasis on safety, security, and comfort, and on tangible things at the expense of intangibles.
In a similar vein, the Sicilian nobleman and esotericist Julius Evola wrote on the role of sex and society, saying:
“And wherever the woman does not become the new idol of the masses under the modern forms of the movie ‘star’ and of similar fascinating Aphrodisian apparitions, she often asserts her primacy in new ‘Amazonian’ forms. Thus we see the new masculinised sportswoman, the garconne, the woman who devotes herself to the insane development of her own body, betrays her true mission, becomes emancipated and independent to the point of being able to choose the men that she would like to have and use. And this is not all.
In Anglo-Saxon civilisation, and particularly in America, the man who exhausts his life and time in business and the search for wealth, a wealth that, to a large extent, only serves to pay for feminine luxury, caprices, vices and refinements, has conceded to the woman the privilege and even the monopoly of dealing with ‘spiritual’ things. And it is precisely in this civilisation that we see a proliferation of ‘spiritualist’, spiritistic, mystic sects, in which the predominance of the feminine element is already significant in itself (the main one, the theosophical sect, was purely and simply created and managed by women, Blavatsky, Besant and, finally, Bailey). But it is for a much more important reason that the new spiritualism appears to us as a sort of reincarnation of the ancient feminine mysteries : it is the formless escapism in confused suprasensual experiences, the promiscuity of mediumism and spiritualism, the unconscious evocation of truly ‘infernal’ influences and the stress laid on doctrines such as reincarnation, that confirm, in such pseudo-spiritualistic currents, the correspondence that we have already mentioned and prove that, in these misguided desires to go beyond ‘materialism’, the modern world has not managed to find anything that would connect it with the higher, Olympian and ‘solar’ traditions of Aryan spirituality.”
In this brief essay, I have attempted to show that societies exhibit predictable vacillations between masculine/patrist and feminine/matrist poles of existence. Since I cannot do better than the original authors, I will not attempt to, and I realize that this is not material that is easily digested, especially by those new to the subject. Any interested readers may also be interested in J.J. Bachofen’s “Myth, Religion, and Mother Right” (Julius Evola’s excellent commentary on Bachofen can be found here.) Perhaps it is inherently misogynistic to ascribe any negative traits to the female pole in any way, shape, or form. Nevertheless, societies do alternate between two general modes of being that are best understood by their sexual characteristics. It does no good to speak of one principle as “superior” to the other, since they are by nature complementary: one cannot exist without the other.
There is, as always, a bigger picture, and understanding the overarching sexual characteristics of a society gives a bit of insight as to what the future might bring.
One thing is certain: just as civilization is now dominated by the feminine principle, so will it someday return to be dominated more by the masculine principle. When this inevitable pole shift occurs, individuals who epitomize spiritual, masculine tendencies will again find themselves in possession of power.
I would implore all of those who feel out-of-step in our current era to keep this upcoming shift in mind. When this change happens, we will get the leaders we deserve: I would hope that when this shift occurs, there are a few people epitomizing “masculine” traits besides the latest version of William Pierce.
—
It’s difficult here to follow who is being quoted by this writer without formatting the quoted material, but find this excerpt in context here: http://w3.cultdeadcow.com/cms/2005/04/nazi-quantum-cr.html
” Too many people in our movement are content to recognize the scientific accomplishments of Western society while wholly ignoring the spiritual dimension of life.”
Alot of Transhumanist and extreme evolutionist types though think that Aryans may evolve towards a Higher Spiritual Plane! (I myself am kind of a ‘cafeteria Odinist’ who thinks we will probably get there after Ragnarok maybe…)
I recall one fellow who was doing a one-man political campaign (found him on google! James Hart!) who was of this mindset:
“We in the Eugenic movement are not interested in competing against Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx for some minuscule little 1,000 year reich. We are interested in competing with Jesus Christ and Buddha for the destiny of man. ”
http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/prometheus/chapI.htm
Will,
As I said, Evola’s racialism goes beyond biological racialism because it takes that position for granted. Everyone was aware of racial differences in the period in which he wrote these works.
In order to allay your concerns on this issue, I will boil it down to the point of oversimplification: not every European has the makings of an Aryan, but one must be biologically European to become Aryan.
I am not saying that “the race of the body” doesn’t matter; I’m just saying that both components (race and spirit) are necessary in our struggle, and that the term “Aryan” denotes nobility.
As you know, Will, there are few racialists more hard-line (biologically speaking) than I am, but there is more to it than just that. As I explained to you in a recent telephone call, I believe a spiritual goal *must* be at the forefront of the social consciousness if our movement is to make inroads. We need a new Synthesis. You seemed to agree.
You say that we must secure the biological race before we worry about soul-types, and I completely disagree. Our spiritual decay preceded our biological decay — in fact, I’d say it made it possible — and our spiritual edification is a necessary prerequisite for a “Ghibelline restoration” of sorts.
Some in the NS government were concerned that Evola intended to revive the aristocracy (indeed, he often railed against the “plebeian aspects” of NS, and much of his criticism is apt), but these fears were eventually mollified and the Baron went to work for the SS, proving his loyalty to the European cause. He viewed the SS as a potential vehicle through which a legitimate Knighthood could arise.
“Europe is equal to its historical task. Against the anti-spiritual, anti-heroic ‘ideals’ of America-Jewry, Europe pits its metaphysical ideas, its faith in its Destiny, its ethical principles, its heroism. Fearlessly, Europe falls in for battle, knowing it is armed with the mightiest weapon ever forged by History: the super-personal Destiny of the European organism. Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of Europe once dwelt a tribe of gods.” – F.P. Yockey, The Enemy of Europe
RC: “[N]ot every European has the makings of an Aryan, but one must be biologically European to become Aryan.”
I get it, Robert, and that biological racism was pretty much implicit with our people until the 20th century. That’s why we’re White today: because our ancestors were racial loyalists and wanted their children to look like them and like their parents before them. That’s simplification. That was the point I was making. Boney’s dumbest private would’ve understood that.
Thanks for your clarification and for that aspect of the Baron’s bio. Now I want to pick up my unread Revolt… I defer to your expertise on the subject of “Ghibelline restoration,” good sir. :o)
You say that we must secure the biological race before we worry about soul-types, and I completely disagree. Our spiritual decay preceded our biological decay
It’s at least more easily understood by the average person what race is and how and why to preserve it. When you start talking about soul types to the average person their eyes will glaze over and they don’t have a reference point. Do you bother engaging in that type of argument with most people? I’m assuming you don’t, but then you say it’s even more important than the physical race. So how do you go about this?
What about Indians? Do you consider them a miscegenated remnant of the ancient Aryan spirit forever lost?
This was an excellent post Robert — a ton of great points were raised here, and I will respond to a few of them.
I agree that large mass-industrial societies are very unstable and becoming more and more so by the day; mass-industrialism, rampant urbanism/suburbanism, and hyperconsumerism is currently spiraling out of control, and these will eventually lead to the slow-motion downfall of The West unless they are soon checked. Those processes, which quickened following the Pyrrhic victory of the ‘Allies’ post-WWII, is the main cause of the racial rot which has infected many Western nations: the sickness of aracial techno-industrial modernity is quickly metastasizing in to a terminal cancer. That is why I have attempted to bring the debate about mass-industrialism, multiracial urbanism, globalization, and environmentalism in to White Nationalist discourse ever since I started commenting on WNist websites over the last year and a half or so.
But, you see, not all humanity or the modern world is imperiled by these developments. Western countries are the most imperiled, along with a few Asian nations which have adopted certain Western patterns related to mass-industrialism, uncontrolled urbanism, hyperconsumerism, and so on. It would be better to say that Western humanity is the most imperiled, but not so much all of the others. Many places considered backwards, areas of Africa, Latin America, undeveloped Asia, and so on, people still live close to the Earth in more sustainable ways and thus if and when the global techno-industrial system continues to decline as it now is or even collapses those people will continue living in a healthy and sustainable way; their land, their nation, and their race/ethnicitiy will remain in tact because they were not too quick to abandon the ‘old ways.’ Many of us Westerners have foolishly abandoned the ‘old ways,’ our traditional racial-cultural patterns, in favor of aracial modernity, and unless we turn back the tide it will eventually destroy us.
In regards to Evola, I just bought his REVOLT AGAINST THE MODERN WORLD — this is the first book of his which I have ever bought or owned, and I hope to read it soon. For all of you Evola-ites out there, was this book a good first choice for reading and understanding him? I did some research and found out that it was considered his magnum opus, so I figured it would be a good place to start. Any other recommendations are much appreciated.
I was also puzzled to read some of this material about ‘spiritual race’ in Evola — and I am interested in learning more about it. I encountered a lot of the same thing when reading Yockey’s IMPERIUM (I assume Yockey got those ideas from Evolva, but I could be wrong). I agree with some of it, but certainly not all of it; we must realize that these men were writing and thinking before the full realities of DNA, biological race/ethnicity, and so on were uncovered by hard science. That is not to say that these ideas about ‘spiritual race’ do not hold some truth, but in my opinion we must reconcile those ideas with the realities of DNA and biological race/ethnicity. Knowledge is like a ladder, and we are ascending a new rung of knowledge about every generation or so as the overall pool of knowledge grows wider and also becomes deeper owing to new discoveries (though that is not to say that races, nations, and peoples cannot regress in many respects; as the modern age demonstrates, regression or de-evolution is a fact too).
“Liberalism is Rationalism in politics.”
This is not to say, however, that Liberalism is rational.
In fact, it irrationally persists in trying to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized and peacefully ordered in perpetuity.
It is a faith in the foreseeability of the fatuous.
Another belief system for women and children.
[Christians, note this secularization of your own impulses and the similar prospects for their satisfaction.]
There is more I want to write about these interesting topics, but I am out of town right and away from my home computer right now: I will try to answer more in-depth once I get back home.
Again though, excellent post Robert — I very much enjoy philosophical topics such as the ones you have raised here.
Ultimately, all of this boils down to One Question: why are we here?
To which there is, intrinsically, no truthful answer – since the question is faulty by virtue of an implicit premise.
Which premise is that we are here by virtue of intent, where no such intent is evident.
For, to all appearances not grounded in wishful thinking and impenetrable anomalies, we are mere happenstance.
Thus, to assuage our pain at our predicament, we must be inventive.
So why not be noble in your inventions, while you’re at it?
NeoNietzsche,
I interpret your comment above to suggest that humankind has no purpose, because we are products of evolution only, there is no higher power involved, and so our existence is just by chance. Let me explain why you do not actually believe this. First, lets assume you are correct, humans are soulless, just hominids, a little more advanced than chimpanzees perhaps, but still relatively primitive. Lets also assume for the sake of this discussion that you are right, we are products of evolution only, there is no God. In this case, with our little brains, smaller than canteloupes, we are trying to comprehend that there is no purpose to our life, there is no supernatural power, that when we die our lives end, nothing happens afterward. These things are impossible for a hominid to comprehend. You may as well try to comprehend the concept of infinity, or the size of the universe. Its just not possible using our relatively limited mental faculties, even for the most intelligent of us. Are you going to try to tell me that you can comprehend the size of the universe? Or that there is nothing after this life, no afterlife, just a complete end to your existence? Its just not possible. Of course, you can try, and you can pretend, but a relatively limited hominid is not capable of this.
In order to survive, our hominid species needed to deal with the loss of loved ones, and the possibility of death at any time. The means to do this was spirituality, a belief in the supernatural and an afterlife. This is universal, found in every culture at every time in the past. Brain researchers claim to have found a “God Part” of the brain, where spiritual sensations occur. Will you suggest that you can turn this off somehow? If any of us hominids was to find himself in grave danger, for example in an airliner spiraling down towards the ground, all of our atheistic thoughts are immediately forgotten. We instinctively revert back to our spiritual selves, praying to a higher power to save us.
In other words, you cannot truly disbelieve in the supernatural, because you are programmed genetically to believe in it. A hominid has no choice in the matter, it cannot control its subconscious thought processes, or somehow change its deep emotional needs. When I see a person suggesting there is no higher power, I see a relatively primitive hominid trying to pretend.
There is a higher power, there is a purpose in life, and there is an afterlife, because there has to be. Neither you nor I have the capacity to truly believe otherwise. But of course we can always pretend otherwise.
Andrew,
I’m on board with our not being intelligent enough to comprehend the answer to some of the questions we throw out. But you totally lost me when you declared that there IS a higher power, there IS a purpose in life, and there IS an afterlife. How would you know all this stuff so surely with your tiny brain? Aren’t you just pretending to know?
And don’t just invoke this fuzzy Masonic “higher power”. Are you speaking of a specific one or are you actually a deist?
There is a higher power, there is a purpose in life, and there is an afterlife, because there has to be.
Merely in sentiment, according to your own argument. You step outside your self-confinement (“Lets also assume for the sake of this discussion that you are right, we are products of evolution only, there is no God.”) and yet affirm your self-confinement (“These things are impossible for a hominid to comprehend.”) You contradict yourself, unless you distinguish between the reality of the former (epistemologically) and the (psychological) obstacles posed by the second, from which your conclusion, as above, does not follow in other than merely psycho-therapeutic, sentimental terms.
Neither you nor I have the capacity to truly believe otherwise. But of course we can always pretend otherwise.
“Truly believe”? It may be the case that I cannot emotionally accept a certain perspective – but I am not incapacitated thereby in expressing conclusions that follow from reason (coherence and correspondence rules) – particularly where the alternative lacks any firm and meaningful specifications. You may find it useful to realize that some few adult male humans are capable of conceiving and speaking the truth from an “outside” perspective (as you did with your preliminary assumption), despite having sentimental, instinctive, pre-programmed reservations about it as such.
Are you going to try to tell me that you can comprehend the size of the universe? Or that there is nothing after this life, no afterlife, just a complete end to your existence?
I believe that you have dissuaded me from that undertaking.
LOL.
Hello Again. When I say, “There is a higher power, there is a purpose in life, and there is an afterlife, because there has to be”, I mean that humans are not truly capable of believing otherwise. Here we are on earth, and in order to be mentally healthy, we need this to be true for our own mental well-being. For example, we humans have a need for “love”, which is a need to feel this powerful emotional attachment to other humans. A philosopher could make a good case that there is no such thing as “love”, it doesnt exist or whatnot. Nevertheless, in order for a human to be emotionally healthy, and happy, he must have love in his life. Look into the eyes of your own child and try to convince yourself that there is no such thing as love (or that your child does not have a soul, for that matter). Its impossible. For a normal human, there is a powerful, overwhelming feeling towards loved ones that has nothing to do with reason.
As NeoNietzshe says, we can look outside ourselves, and are “not incapacitated thereby in expressing conclusions that follow from reason”. Certainly we can and do use reason in all manner of situations and in thought. But there are limits to the use of reason. A schizophrenic may logically know that noone is actually watching him, through the use of reason, but on the other hand, he absolutely KNOWs that someone IS watching him. Something in his brain tells him this with ironclad certainty, and he is not really capable of believing otherwise (without his medication). A normal human is also not completely rational. NeoNietzsche says, “I am not incapacitated thereby in expressing conclusions that follow from reason (coherence and correspondence rules)”. Yes, of course you can use your gray matter to come up with and express a conclusion regarding there being no God or purpose in life. It may make perfect sense logically. I believe, though, that this is beyond any human’s ability to actually believe or accept. You may as well try to use your brain to make your heart stop beating – its not something you are capable of.
All of this goes back to NeoNietzsche’s suggestion that there is actually no real purpose in life. I would argue that he is not capable of actually believing this. Its a case of a very smart guy pretending he can. Moreover, this idea is a poisonous one. It robs us of the will to take action. It leads us on a path to despair and apathy. Its destructive and cheapens our life. Its a dud.
All of this goes back to NeoNietzsche’s suggestion that there is actually no real purpose in life. I would argue that he is not capable of actually believing this.
So what? I can say it – and it is true according to rational criteria. Whether I “believe” it in my innermost subjective being is rather irrelevant, since we know, with your introduction of the point, that “spiritual” sentiment is, in part if not in whole, the organic product of societal evolution wherein genetically-inclined acquiescence in the dictates of a “higher” power facilitates more advanced/survivable forms of human organization amidst the increasing demographic concentration of humanity.
Its a case of a very smart guy pretending he can. Moreover, this idea is a poisonous one. It robs us of the will to take action. It leads us on a path to despair and apathy. It’s destructive and cheapens our life. It’s a dud.
Sounds like your cranial god-conjurer needs a check-up. Your argument is that you really can’t believe in nihilism or in existential vacuity. So what’s the problem?
Perhaps you need someone to impose a *choice* of value systems.
Nietzsche, the philosophical legislator of values, wrote that Will to Power is the essence of the life force. And he wanted to “revive the ancient fire” of the drive for the political ascent of life, of the will for the “supreme rights of the few”. So, if you need to have a value framework for your life, Nietzsche offers an alternative.
Moreover, this idea is a poisonous one. It robs us of the will to take action. It leads us on a path to despair and apathy. It’s destructive and cheapens our life. It’s a dud.
I have a sense that this is a bourgeois problem.
Lower-class males have no problem forming gangs, arming themselves, and pursuing various aggressive activities that replicate the pre-historic behavior of mankind in small kinship groups.
Whatever superstitions arose/arise in these prehistoric minds were/are epiphenomenal, in that the motivation to exploit one’s environment was/is not dependent upon philosophical notions.
As it was then, so it is today – kill something to eat and fuck something so you can go to sleep. No need to worry about “the will to take action”.
Nietzsche had something constructive to say on the point:
[BGE] 257. EVERY elevation of the type “man,” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be–a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance–that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type “man,” the continued “self-surmounting of man,” to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type “man”): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power–they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts”).
“I have a sense that this is a bourgeois problem.” – NN
It is. The ‘man of conscience’ has replaced the ‘man of instinct’ and our vitality is now far below what it once was. With that we find ourselves in the present predicament. Forced to search for some ‘moral justification’ for our own survival, where our distant ancestors knew what to do without asking any question.
The observations of our resident Nihilists are sadly correct in many ways: if you find yourself debating the subject of morality, you have already lost that “spark from above” that provides healthy organisms with an instinctively Yea-saying affirmation of themselves.
Modern life deprives us of the natural folk-communities (it is difficult to even explain to Americans the concept of Gemeinschaft vs. Gesellschaft), and the institutions that derive from them, which are necessary to guide and shape the inner orientations of all orders of society. However, history is marked by the principle of Eternal Recurrence, and “even our present acres of death shall someday bloom again.” (Rosenberg) As Goethe commands the moth, “Stirb und Werde!”
“Sagt es niemand, nur den Weisen,
Weil die Menge gleich verhöhnet,
Das Lebend’ge will ich preisen,
Das nach Flammentod sich sehnet.
In der Liebesnächte Kühlung,
Die dich zeugte, wo du zeugtest,
Ueberfällt die fremde Fühlung
Wenn die stille Kerze leuchtet.
Nicht mehr bleibest du umfangen
In der Finsterniß Beschattung,
Und dich reißet neu Verlangen
Auf zu höherer Begattung.
Keine Ferne macht dich schwierig,
Kommst geflogen und gebannt,
Und zuletzt, des Lichts begierig,
Bist du Schmetterling verbrannt,
Und so lang du das nicht hast,
Dieses: Stirb und Werde!
Bist du nur ein trüber Gast
Auf der dunklen Erde.” – Selige Sehnsucht
Kasimir,
If you haven’t read “Voice of our Ancestors” by Sörensen, I highly recommend this little pamphlet, which is online here:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=606292
“…I know why fate ordained that these men must wear the black robes; had it not been for them, there would be far fewer heathens in the North today; without them there would be many more who would have exchanged their own image of God for an alien one and would have grown weary of their own strength and the world; and many more would have been seduced by the alien doctrine into becoming its slaves and forgetting their own blood…
They are true saints, for they have preserved their healthy inner selves, despite the priests cassocks. They fought the enemy with his own weapon. People called them “HEATHENS.” A few were so proud of this title that they incorporated it into their names, as one might don a precious jewel. For the heathen is one who remains true to himself and his kind, whose blood flows pure in his veins. This pure blood regards the world with neither the hateful sneer of Sinai nor the weak knees of Nazareth. It bears divinity, pure, clear and beautiful in its red stream, so long as the race endures…
None of these men has ever sought God, for one does not seek that which dwells in his own soul. None of these men has ever been torn with doubt about the divine. Only he who betrays the divinity in himself and offers his soul to an alien god knows such doubt. Doubt is eternal where there is the eternal alien, and thereby the eternal unknown.
The Christian is an eternal doubter. Can any man be loyal, who is disloyal to himself? Can any man be great, who is consumed with a longing to return to dust? Can any man be strong, who loves weakness? Can any man be proud, who wanders along in humility? Can any man be pure, who regards himself born in sin? Can any man be happy in this world, who despises the world? And can any man bear the Creator in his soul, who despises divine Creation? What a strange god you Christians have, who created you upright, but who commands you to crawl to him on your knees! We heathens do not beg to our Creator; it would be an insult to the divinity in our souls. Nor do we heathens come to the Creator to complain. We do not proclaim our failures to the world and least of all not to the Creator. We seek to overcome our faults and to grow. Our way is not complaining, but anger – and first of all anger against ourselves. Nor do we repent, we heathens, because we cannot be cowardly; we have the courage to stand by our deeds.
Why have you Christians made the name “Heathen” an insult? You should not peddle your pettiness in the streets, for it permits people to see that the love you are commanded to display is bound up with hate, and that the forgiveness your religion requires of you is burdened with your desire for vengeance. Only the envious stoop to insults. We see your envy and are ashamed for you, since many of you are still brothers of our blood. There was a time when it was a disgrace to be a Christian, but then you began to conquer the masses and were able to turn the tables and make virtue a disgrace. Then you labeled us the “strange” ones and called us heathens.
We have remained “strange”, despite your insults. We will never be a mass or a herd. Do you know that there are, also, many among you who are “strange” as we are? Why do you not throw away the beggar’s rags which cover the noble garments of your manhood? Are you ashamed to be “strange”? Afraid to be called heathens? When you Christians have finished burying your god in the sky – come to us; we heathens will again show you the Creator.”
Kasimir, NN,
I recommend this essay by Evola on The Active Nihilism of Friedrich Nietzsche:
http://www.juliusevola.com/archive/2009/03/21/The_Active_Nihilism_of_Friedri
I have a Nietzsche t-shirt that I used to wear somewhat frequently (I try not to dress well in urban areas, as you cannot obtain a CCW in NJ, so we’re all sitting ducks), and I was surprised at how often people commented on it while I walked around campus. Invariably, they would put forward some ridiculous Kaufmann-fueled distortion of Nietzsche and act incredibly appalled at my interpretation of Onkel Fred’s work. You must go through similar arguments frequently, NN, as the Left have certainly done their best to appropriate him.
Do you know Joe Pryce, NN? He is very passionate about this subject, having firmly convinced himself that Nietzsche is a philosemite. I’m sure you two would have much to discuss. He recently published a book of poetry, entitled “Mansions of Irkalla,” in which he says of Nietzsche, “Viking of the Psyche! Limp on, Mad moralist with cloven hoof.”
You can find that book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Mansions-Irkalla-J-D-Pryce/dp/1419688766
Pryce is best known in WN circles for his musical project “Dresden: Call of the Blood,” which the NA released years ago, and his translations of Ludwig Klages (particularly his memorable aphorisms), which readers can find here:
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Writers/Klages/Ludwig_Klages.html
Sorry, Mark, I missed comment #25 in my previous scans of this thread.
You are correct: I do not talk to the average person about my religious views. I seldom discuss my racial views in any detail while in public, either. My fiance is a fanatical racialist, and all of my close friends are NS/Traditionalist minded people, so I have plenty of opportunity for these discussions with those I trust.
In general, I am an introverted person — something of an autodidactic eremite, really.
I do not go around proselytising and converting people. If someone comes to me and askes for my assistance, I will provide it to the best of my ability, but that’s about it. I carry the torch of Tradition through this darkened world, sharing light when I can. Most people simply do not want to hear it: the luminous light of Thule scorches their eyes.
Miguel Serrano said that the end of the Kali Yuga is like a harvest: the exact number of grains have matured, and very few have done so.
If, more recently, some existentialists have been content to halt at these positions, they have been fatally left behind by Nietzsche. When he makes himself the imperious propagator of a new morality, he indicates what proceeds from a particular nature, a ‘noble nature’, projecting what he himself felt he was, or aspired to be. One is faced, therefore, with a morality of ‘pride’ (opposed, as indicated by Reininger, to one of love or fear) and of ‘distinction’ ; with a reaffirmation of the fundamental feature of which we have already spoken, that of a sovereign personality as far from the ‘flock’ as from the merely natural part of himself. What Nietzsche presents to us, again and again, is the type for whom it is natural to be resolute, self-confident, ready to assume every responsibility, straightforward, resistant to everything which is gross and “all too human”, hard, inflexible certainly (and towards himself first and foremost), but also capable in a spontaneous way of the “virtue which gives of itself”, which springs from the inward-looking attitude and the overabundance of his mind, and not from a weak sentimentalism ; one who does not seek to evade anything which can put him to the test, who remains untouched by the tragic, dark and absurd aspects of his existence, thanks to the positive and independent law which dictates to him his being.
As is superabundantly clear, Nietzsche’s post-nihilistic ethics of pure self-affirmation and fidelity to oneself lead directly or indirectly to an ideal of this sort. From the generic law of ‘being oneself’, it is this precise law which therefore differentiates itself in Nietzsche, and gives the specific imprint to his morality. It is in these terms – as noted by Reininger – that the type of the ‘positive superman’ should be understood, not taking seriously the headline-hitting references to some historical figures, or the famous “blond beast of prey”, leaving aside the exaltation of pure force and of the shapeless will-to-power (a power which would beg the question : what to do with it? – as Zarathustra asks one who aspires to break free from every bond : free, for what?), leaving aside also the baroque superman of the d’Annunzian style, the fomented results of the pomposity of a presumed Herrenvolk, factually far from any aristocratic virtue, and the foibles of a misunderstood, biologistic racism.
If we overlook the slags and waste materials of the ‘less than optimal Nietzsche’ – the one who often happens, unfortunately, to have aroused the greatest echo – it is in the above described terms that there appears the ‘positive superman’, the man who remains standing, even, and above all, in a nihilist, devastated, absurd world, without gods. The ‘superman’ appears therefore as an individual, élite ideal, not as a hypothetical, general, future ‘evolutionary’ human state, to be made almost the object of a programmed culture, as was suggested by another of the ravings of our philosopher, in a certain phase of his thought.
As the reader of his book will see, Reininger brings these contents to light by separating the essential from the accessory, throughout the twists and turns of Nietzsche’s thought, thus showing the effective positive contribution that the ‘immoralist’ Nietzsche has made to ethics. For our part, we are convinced that what Nietzsche has to offer today in this connection has been in no way discredited in the fight for a sense of existence, provided that one avoids that collapse, that ‘revolution of the void’, and that plebeian, lower, anarchism, to which, as has been mentioned, the deep crisis of the modern world has given rise in such quantity. In reality, today, given adequate discrimination and adaptation, few ethics offer as many important ideas for the student of the post-nihilist problematic, who has rejected any path to the rear, and faces the test of a new and dangerous freedom. One can even consider it as a touchstone for one’s nature, for one’s true vocation.
You must go through similar arguments frequently, NN, as the Left have certainly done their best to appropriate him.
Because he handed himself to them on a silver platter with an apple in his mouth – when he failed, early on, to distinguish between the epistemological and psychological assessment of reality, a’la mode of our anxious theologue, “Andrew”. Fortunately, he redeemed himself with his efforts in GM, and nailed it down in EH, having left his unqualified perspectivism behind.
Do you know Joe Pryce, NN? He is very passionate about this subject, having firmly convinced himself that Nietzsche is a philosemite. I’m sure you two would have much to discuss. He recently published a book of poetry, entitled “Mansions of Irkalla,” in which he says of Nietzsche, “Viking of the Psyche! Limp on, Mad moralist with cloven hoo
Do not know Joe. Sounds like an interesting fellow. I have, however, no “firm conviction” as to N.’s comprehensive feeling for Jewry. His remarks, in BGE, are rather puzzling and subject to variable interpretation.
NeoNietszhe,
In response to your post, “So what? I can say it [there is no purpose in life/supernatural being]- and it is true according to rational criteria. Whether I “believe” it in my innermost subjective being is rather irrelevant”. Certainly you can adopt any philosophy/ideas that work for you, and if you find this non-spirituality beneficial for your well-being, then I cant argue with success. But for most people, its not healthy or helpful. Humans have psychological needs. Just like we need a range of nutrients for our bodies to be healthy, we need certain things for our “innermost subjective being” or psyches to be healthy. We need companionship, for example. Yes, we can survive without it – a human can get by as a hermit – but we are built with a need for friends an loved ones, and we will be healthier and happier if this need is met.
Because spirituality is so widespread among every culture in history/pre-history, I think its safe to assume that this is indeed a psychological need, evolutionary psychologists would probably tend to agree with this. An example here might help. In our example, little Suzy’s mother has passed away, and she asks her kind uncle NeoNietszhe if she will ever see her beloved mom again (hopefully NeoNietszhe will not use the colorful language with her that he sometimes engages in). Do you think it would be best to tell her, “Im afraid there is nothing else after this life. Your mother is dead and gone to oblivion. There is no god, no divine purpose in life, nothing.” Or would it be better to say, “Suzy, your mother has gone to a glorious afterlife in heaven. She is happy there, and you will be with her again some day. There is a loving God who looks after all of us, who cares about you and guides you.” Which answer will be more spiritually fulfilling for Suzy, knowing that she has a powerful psychological need for spirituality? An apt comparison would be if Suzy was hungry (her body is in need of nutrients). Would it be better to server her a plate full of poo, which doesnt meet her need for sustenance, or some meal with protein, carbohydrates and vitamins which does? In my view, your nihilism is the equivalent of spiritual poo, which is rather unhealthy and unfulfilling for most humans to digest. Humans do not lose their needs when they reach adulthood. When a person (like Robert Campbell) asks what the purpose of life is, he is expressing a need that just about every normal human has – to understand what life is all about, which is closely connected to spirituality. Your answer, “there is none” is a generous helping of spiritual poo, in my opinion.
You also said, “Sounds like your cranial god-conjurer needs a check-up. Your argument is that you really can’t believe in nihilism or in existential vacuity. So what’s the problem?” I mean that I believe you cannot truly believe this, that a human cannot have any real deep conviction about this. But of course we can adopt all kinds of attitudes and mindsets that are not helpful for our psychological health. For example, a person could go around telling himself, “I hate myself, I would be better off dead”. He doesnt really believe this in his “innermost subjective being”. Deep in his brain, he has a primal instinct to survive, and subconsiously he must feel he is valuable at some level. So, his self-loathing is not really a true conviction. Nevertheless, the belief is a poisonous one. It will negatively impact his success in life, and do him little good in any situation he finds himself in. I would argue that your nihilism is likewise unhealthy. Whats going to happen when you are faced with the great tragedies of life? If you have a beloved child that dies, or when you near death, how are you going to deal with this with no sense of spirituality? In my experience, people trying to face this without a God-based belief system become angry, bitter and sour. Nihilism is not adaptive for humans.
There is a higher power, there is a purpose in life, and there is an afterlife, because there has to be.
Do you mean more than that we must believe this to be so?
Or do you pretend to a proof of God, as your phrasing suggests?
When a person (like Robert Campbell) asks what the purpose of life is, he is expressing a need that just about every normal human has – to understand what life is all about, which is closely connected to spirituality. Your answer, “there is none” is a generous helping of spiritual poo, in my opinion.
What nutritious fiction do you prescribe for his ingestion?