Long Blog: Aryan Suicide
There is nothing abstract about history.
One of our invaluable commenters got me off of the Zoroaster kick because he was BORED by it. That is EXACTLY what I want to hear from you. If Ole Bob is going off on a tangent, tell me so.
It took me weeks to realize what I had done wrong. I had not explained WHY I went off on Zoroaster, and I had let the theoretical discussion take over. I would never have realized this if somebody had not said, “Bob, you’re BORING me.”
History is important, and people who read this Blog know it. But they also know when I’m drifting off.
What I should have done was to make it clear that Zoroaster is important because the Magi and the whole Persian religion discredits the Old Testament fanatics, the ones who worship The Holy Land and who think Jews are the Chosen and who make Israel the basis of our foreign policy.
Another thing one can learn from real history, if he gets his nose out of the Old Testament, is the suicide complex we Aryans have in us. We are all aware of the disastrously low birthrates among whites and of the white obsession with hating our own race.
This is not new.
When we think of suicide, we tend to think of Japanese seppuku, a.k.a., hara kiri. But Japanese suicide is self-sacrifice. They do not WANT to die. They give their lives as an apology or to save face.
The Japanese do not lock themselves up in convents and monasteries. Buddhists do that. And Buddhism came from India when it was Aryan, not from the Oriental races.
The Buddhist ideal is to escape from the Wheel of Life. Aryan India accepted the idea that the spirit never dies, but goes from one body to another. Transmigration of souls was not a religious concept. In exactly the same way we assume one dies and that is the end of it, it would never occur to an Aryan that the soul died with the body.
Which is why Buddha was an atheist. He believed in the transmigration of souls as a scientific reality, not as a religious concept.
Nirvana was added on later. Buddha wanted to die. He wanted oblivion because life is a burden.
As the Spaniards say, “If life were worth living, we would not need so many philosophers.”
If you read the wisdom of the old Norsemen, you will find that an astonishingly large proportion of it is devoted to reasons why one should not commit suicide.
As with so many other things, Indo-Europeans, from ancient Aryan India to Zoroaster in Iran ( which means “Aryan”) to the Norsemen to old Spain, invented an entirely new concept: ”Is life worth living.”
The question of whether life was worth living never occurred to any amoeba or any ape or any African or any Oriental. The question itself was a new invention.
Mark Twain said, “I have never met a man over fifty who would be willing to live his life again. That tells you whether life is worth it.”
Christianity has been shaped by Manichaeism. Manichaeism was the original faith of Saint Augustine and countless others. Manichaeism says all life is evil, all life is bad.
But Manichaeism came from a part of history every Old Testament freak is desperate to ignore. When Mani, founder of Manichaeism, was born in Iraq in the fourth century, there were two great religions, the Christianity which ruled the Roman Empire and Zoroastrianism which ruled the EQUALLY POWERFUL Persian Empire.
Mani reconciled the two great faiths of his day, Christianity and Zoroastrianism. Christianity was already largely Zoroastrian. If you concentrate on the Old Testament, you can ignore the fact that the Jews got their idea of salvation from the huge Persian Empire, not the other way around.
But there was a poison hidden in both Zoroastrianism and in the tradition with which Christianity became warped. Mani concluded that the one theme that the two great faiths agreed on was that life was bad, that all life was evil.
St. Paul had said as much: “It is better to marry than to burn.” But it was best of all, said St. Paul, to be completely sterile. Today we like to translate this into saying that illicit sex is bad because sex is bad outside marriage. That is NOT what Paul said. Paul made it clear that ALL procreation was evil.
Paul made the concession that marriage with children was allowable, for Jesus had blessed the Marriage at Cana, but he didn’t LIKE it.
For Paul and Augustine as with Gautama Buddha, it was not suicide if it was not violent. Rotting away in a monastery would do just fine.
But the ideal was the end of life.
And here is the big point:
This is not about SEX. This is about life itself. Paul, St. Augustine and Mani were not condemning sex outside of marriage. They were condemning life itself.
And none of this was Semitic. From India to Persia, the Aryan has concluded that life itself is a bad thing. In Spain and in Norseman philosophy, we see Aryans struggling with this question that no one else ever asked.
Semites never asked the question.
All this is relevant right now. Threatening people with eternal damnation if they commit suicide was a good terror tactic, but it won’t work any more.
The simple fact is that the whole world today thinks in Aryan terms. Nobody wears Oriental clothes anymore. No African lives like an African. Not a single Eskimo lives the old Esquimo/Inuit way.
Everybody is desperately quoting books by dead men to show that the third world is about to take over. If you know anything about statistical trends, and if you get your nose out of that dead man’s world, you will realize that the third world birth rate is headed for a bust that beggars the imagination.
The threat to the white world is not third-world multiplication, it is white world interbreeding, the program of genocide.
Telling whites it is their duty to have children will not do the job. Traditional Values with the threat of damnation behind it will no longer do.
Aryans ask, “Is life worth living?”
You can rail at hem for being “spoiled” or “being without a sense of Duty,” but Aryans will not be cowed by that. The day of the Puritan and the priest is over.
The day of the nice guy, who would settle for whatever society chooses to give him, is over.
Only I seem to see that this: Aryan thought rules absolutely. What we call Western Culture is Aryan thought. The Aryan question is:
“Is life worth living?”
If you want life to prevail, forget the old maxims and Get Tough nonsense.
If you want life to prevail, the question is, “Is life worth living?
If you want life to prevail, you must make the answer:
“YES.”
#1 by H.S. on 06/21/2005 - 5:30 pm
It’s all such poppy-cock, historical falsehood, here would never be the place to answer.
Amazing.
#2 by Bob on 06/21/2005 - 10:19 pm
Falsehood is a lie. I am often wrong, but I NEVER lie.
My job is not to present Revealed Truth. My job is to make you think.
I would be willing to bet that reading all this stuff has made you think about the things you know and have learned in a productive way, even if it makes you mad.
If your mind doesn’t get challenged it gets stale.
You are probably surrounded by people who agree with you and the standard mindless libs and neocons who are predictable. What could be more tasteless an intellectual meal than that?
I do not make people angry just to make them angry. That’s silly. But I do say things you can chew on, even if you would prefer to chew me out.
#3 by Antonio Fini on 06/21/2005 - 11:45 pm
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Yggdrasil, the White Nationalist essayist who maintains and extensive website of the same name.
He made the observation that it is a distinctly Aryan trait to focus oneself on unworldly or anti-worldly abstraction just when external crisis most urgently demands our attention. I think this psycological quirk marks all the upheavals of our civilization, whether downward or upward.
The Crusades after all were started by a Christian hermit, formally living in a hollowed out tree stump, where he no doubt found much time for abstract thought. I doubt there’s much we can do about it. That pause for abstract reflection and bizarre metaphysical questions before decisive action, which would never occur to a Chinaman or a red Indian is the necessary calm before the storm.
#4 by Peter on 06/22/2005 - 1:45 pm
Paul never says that all procreation is wrong. What he said was that excessive sensuality can lead to a hyper attention on the material world, at the expense of spiritual growth. It also leads to suffering (you can imagine why). Paul preached balance, not sterility.
When you complain about the excesses of Manichaeism, you are complaining about Gnostic heresies, not about Christianity nor Zoroastrianism. I write “heresies” because Christianity rejected the spiritual pessimism which characterized hyper idealism (“idealism” as in the world outside Plato’s cave). This hyper idealism is another extreme. It forgets that we are living in this world, not the next, and goodness requires we make the best of it.
Paul was also aware of gnosticism and its pitfalls, and he addressed the extremes of both materialism and of idealism in his epistles. It is a narrow road between them.
In all fairness to gnosticism, not all of it was always heresy. Much of early orthodox Christianity was gnostic. It offered an alternative or an enhancement to faith. It offered knowledge of spirituality, by taking the practitioner to the other side through technology of long forgotten entheogens and meditation. Now some of us moderns have had dreams (unassisted by technology) at night where we have made a similar journey. I can tell you that it is hard to come back to this mirky world. Partial memory of the Other makes this life more beautiful, but a full memory can make it impossible.
Who wants to leave a world of perfect joy and come fight in this war-world? It takes a brave volunteer.
Exclusive focus on a beautiful, and yes, more real, spiritual world distracts from the difficult business here. This is the gnostic trap. They are so overtaken with the evils of this world, that they forget that it holds as much beauty. That’s the trap: they started by minding only things spiritual, and ended by minding only how evil this world is. They even went so far as to say that the Devil created the earth in the first place. Soon, these rarified spiritualists become evil-doers themselves; they cause suffering by denying people legitimate material rewards or through self-flagellation.
The devil can get you either way, through excessive sensuality or through misguided spirituality.
If this world as is CS Lewis said “enemy occupied territory” I remind myself that God is the Creator. God made the good stuff, and the Devil makes it bad. I am sent here to be a soldier for God in the war to take creation back. It isn’t always fun, and I seldom understand what is going on, but then there’s faith. I won’t leave the war until my term is up.
By the way, “if race is a creation, then racism is worship of God.”
#5 by Peter on 06/22/2005 - 6:24 pm
By the way, I think your article here may be the most inspiring yet.
#6 by Elizabeth on 06/22/2005 - 10:15 pm
Monasticism has a strong military tradition, partly because it was a creation of the upper and middle classes who, as the English semi-myth has it, designated the oldest son as the heir, the second son to the military, and the third to the Church. The monastic habit remains a uniform, and monks and nuns in the traditional orders follow a rigid schedule, such as a soldier would follow in training. Catholic tradition teaches that the battle against Evil is constant.
The monk and the nun fight with prayer, and some fight also by instructing the faithful. (The only monastic communities with no trouble attracting candidates are those who keep such traditions as community life, the habit, and their distinctive tradition (charism).)
We can’t all find marriage partners. (God knows, I’ve been trying for nearly 30 years!) Life as a single woman — I can’t speak for single men — can be nasty, lonely, and purposeless. Single women who don’t do casual sex are shunned by family and by society, unless they are wealthy. (I’m here in the South. I don’t know how it is in other parts of the U.S.)
#7 by H.S. on 06/23/2005 - 2:18 am
No, Bob, it didn’t make me mad, as we’ve all been on the blog for awhile and you’ve said things like this, usually in an extremely angry and bitter manner. This just made me very, very, very tired. Sometimes laugh out loud and always one other thing. There are many things in this world that are NOT worth thinking about. There are some that maturity leaves behind, rightly. Many are unnecessary when the truth has already been made plain, and those things still obsessed over are far worse than a total waste of precious time, a commodity that you will never get back.
As far as members of other races not thinking these things, they did and do.
I could have no idea where you derive all your “facts.” If you were the observing or calculating or quoting originator then you could tell us within your perspective. Much was your analysis from your chosen theological positions which are in conflict. Lie? That never crossed my mind. People pass falsehoods all the time. They don’t know they are. You have written about historians yourself recently. Every person has a perspective and will lay out and explain facts through that perspective. It’s interesting how thousands and thousands of copies of Bible books are poured over exhaustively and used and cross-referenced for accuracy and authenticity to question every last detail and argument, but a few copies of what some Greek guys wrote suffices and no one questions or thinks much about their differences. Who cares? No one. No one really cares about what they philosophized except that they were a drag and negative influence over the dregs of their day – others overcame despite them. Or the Koran, or the Zoroaster’s or the whoevers. Other than for historical evidence of people movement and growth, and family history in space and time, it’s of interest to few and demonstrates again God’s continuity and truth all the more.
Fortunately, it’s not really “all about Bob.” It IS simply and entirely “all about God” as He Himself wrote and revealed and now resides in and is available to man. Failure to apprehend and live that is the greatest given reason for the desperation of man, joylessness, purposelessness, lovelessness, restlessness, worthlessness, and utter self absorption, ad infinitum. God is their antithesis.
Thank you, Peter. But inspired?
Did you say you were attending college? Why?
Do you not believe Bob that you will say some day that you “wasted four years of your life.” ?
#8 by Peter on 06/23/2005 - 2:03 pm
*H.S.: “Do you not believe Bob that you will say some day that you ‘wasted four years of your life.’ ?”
No. Some of my old professors have been on TV in educational series and spots, and the architecture at the school is sublimely beautiful (yes, beauty is high on my list of valuable things). I certainly am grateful for what I learned there, although the system doesn’t work well at all. Was I lied to? Yes, but I got out of college what I put into it. Was college fun? NO, it was a love-hate relationship that didn’t have to be that way.
*As for Bob and his lack of citations:
Most all of what he says is right on the money, according to what I have read and concluded. Since he writes what I have thought, I don’t need the citation. When I think he is wrong, and if it makes a big difference, I say so (such as in the “poison” of Christianity and Z.). Looking up sources from so diverse subject areas could take a couple of days for each short essay. The informality of a blog allows him to forego searching for citations.
Maybe it’s a luxury, too, and by us calling him on it on occasion, we keep the old master, Bob, on his toes. Of course, on his official articles’ pages, he is a bit more careful to allude obliquely to a source.
Actually, this is one of the things I study Bob’s writing for: how he can get away with making a statement without citation. This is what I need for ordinary conversation, since there is no time to squirrel around for a book I read a year and a half ago, and since most people really don’t want to hear me cite some book or article or whatever. Besides, in drawing original conclusions, one isn’t simply repeating another’s writing, and it would make the discussion very long and boring to explain one’s reasoning.
So what I like in Bob’s blog is how he gets away with it, although he often doesn’t.
Besides, compare Bob’s lively and pithy writing with that of one erudite writer on Chronicles. I admire this man’s learning, but frankly I think his writing is dry, dull, repetitive, circuitous, second-hand, pedantic, pompous, introverted, only vaguely relevant to real issues, and it takes him seven pages to say what Bob can with daring do in one.
*As for inspiration:
You are right in that I probably disagree with most of Bob’s factual piers in this last article. But I like what he is saying overall, and being the ENFP that I am I tend to overlook others’ shortcomings for a long while.
Besides his overall message, I like his mystical conclusion:
The day of the nice guy, who would settle for whatever society chooses to give him, is over.
Only I seem to see that this: Aryan thought rules absolutely. What we call Western Culture is Aryan thought. The Aryan question is:
“Is life worth living?”
If you want life to prevail, forget the old maxims and Get Tough nonsense.
If you want life to prevail, the question is, “Is life worth living?
If you want life to prevail, you must make the answer:
“YES.”
#9 by Bob on 06/23/2005 - 6:13 pm
HS, you wrote:
“Fortunately, it’s not really “all about Bob.” It IS simply and entirely “all about God” as He Himself wrote and revealed and now resides in and is available to man.”
If you would insert, IN MY OPINION in there where it belongs, it might make you a little more humble about representing God.
IN MY OPINION, Christ and His Father and The Holy Spirit is God and Jesus’s idea of the Father is alien to the Old Testament Jehovah.
Jesus wrote nothing that we know of.
IN MY OPINION Jesus used the Aramaic language because that was the language used where He came to earth. IN MY OPINION Jesus spoke in Old Testament terms because those were the terms people around Him understood.
Then He said to go out into the world and preach the Gospel.
IN MY OPINION when Jesus said the Gospel He meant the Gospel, not the opinions of the prophet Micah.
IN MY OPINION He meant the Gospel that would be understood to all men, not the book that only Jews were versed in.
I speak of OPINION, I do not claim to speak for God.
YOUR OPINION is, of itself, no better than mine. But you keep insisting that you represent God and I don’t.
IN YOUR OPINION, Jehovah is the Father Jesus refers to, and IN YOUR OPINION Jehovah wrote the Old Testament and ONLY the Old Testment.
IN MY OPINION, none of that is true.
Stick those three words in there some.
They’re important.
#10 by Peter on 06/23/2005 - 10:44 pm
The more I think about H.S.’s comments in #7, the more right I realize they are.
#11 by Bob on 06/24/2005 - 12:32 am
HS, when I put IN MY OPINION there, you know I was hammering a point I think is critical.
What you say IS your opinion, of course, but I think those three words are a very useful exercise. It is also a GRAT weapon. If the priests of PC had to say IN MY OPINION in every case, they would be exposed as teh fools they are.
Can you imagine if they had to say, “The solution to this is, IN MY OPINION, is education.”?
“The solution to this is what, IN MY OPINION, is rehabilitation.”
“What you are saying, IN MY OPINION, is racism.”