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.”

If you read a really good piece of historical fiction, you get the story straight and true.

If you read Mary Stewart’s best-selling series on Merlin the Magician, you will see that she has a huge introduction saying exactly where the fiction is, and at the end a long explanation and the sources.

Mary Stewart has to satisfy an infinitely harder audience than a professional historian does. She is facing millions of readers, and at least a hundred thousand of them are history fanatics. Every word she says is going to be scrutinized by people who LOVE history, who read history all the time, the more obscure the better.

And all of them use the internet, which connects them to even more fanatical history buffs. No historian has to deal with anything remotely similar to this. A few other historians read his stuff to quote it or to disagree with it.

Either way, it doesn’t matter. If someone disagrees with him in a journal, he gets a quote in a journal and he gets to reply, which also adds to his resume: Publish or perish.

Notice it doesn’t say, “Publish something worthwhile or perish.” You just cite all your publications in your resume.

Long publications resume good.

Short publications resume bad.

Ugh. Beat chest.

And that REALLY is all there is to it. Just fill up pages with publication after publication. Nobody is going to read all that crap. And nobody is going to care if you were right or wrong.

Historical fiction is a whole ‘nother thing. They READ it. They read it over and over. They are fascinated by it.

And if you get something wrong, you’ll never live it down.

That is why I think so many of the really great writers of historical fiction are female, like Colleen McColloch who reads Greek and Latin fluently, knows all about Roman Law, and founded a Department of Neurophysiology at an Australian University in her real job as a doctor.

Margaret Mitchell, Inglis Fletcher, the list of female geniuses in historical fiction is long.

By the time you get half my age, you should know that men are the romantics, women are the Practical Side of the human race.

Which is why mostly male historians can play their games, while women write the real stuff, the stuff that is called historical fiction.