Archive for March 16th, 2007
Have ever been in an expensive restaurant and asked a waiter for something simple and they reply. “Sorry, sir, this is not my table.”
I embarrassed my European wife half to death on three different continents by getting up and FINDING the waiter for MY table. She finally divorced me.
My logic is that I’m the payer, I’M the customer.
Below is a piece about the third dimension. Its point is that there is no room in my world for priests who hide behind damnation. There is no room in my world for someone to make me PAY them so they can exercise whateverthehellitis they want to call “academic freedom.”
There is no room in my world for someone to tell me I have to have their degree for no reason except that I have to have their degree.
There is no room in my world for obedience to anybody who does not make MY life worth living.
In our present world you get paid for who you are. You get paid to be a philosopher, to explain why suffering is good.
I am not asking whether that is ENOUGH, I am asking whether it is ANYTHING.
If it’s NOTHING, why are you paying for it?
Ask the priest, ask the guru, ask the professor, ask the doctor whose only function is to keep you ALIVE. Ask them, “Are you giving me anything?”
The replies are:
“I am a priest, my job is to keep you from Sin, which I define,”
“I am a doctor, my job is to keep your heart beating,”
“I am a professor, my job is to provide you with an Education, which I define.”
“I am a guru, my job is to help you escape the Wheel of Life.”
If you ask anyone you PAY about making life worth living, they will laugh out loud.
That is NOT their table.
I just explained that, in my early days, Toynbee represented the “Western Progress” concept of history while multiculturalism stood for there being no such thing as “progress.”
So much for “Both Sides.”
Yockey was entirely outside of both. Buckley would have lynched him for opposing “Ianity” and Leftists would have denounced him for refusing to recognize that whatever we have comes from “all mankind.”
Remember “A small step for man, a giant step for Mankind.”
I do not think in “both sides” terms. I think in 3-D.
“Existentialist” was on Stormfront talking about how evil the white race is. I pointed out that that Existentialist was saying “that white people were CAPABLE of being guilty, whereas colored people were guilty of NOTHING, just like animals.
I concluded, “Existentialist is more of a white supremacist than I am.”
But let us return to the fact that anti-whites view non-whites as animals.
What are “both sides” today?
There are liberals who say that nonwhites and badgers are innocent. The there are conservative who represent “ianity” say they are non-racist because they feel nonwhites are guilty, too.
Let me introduce a third dimension:
First dimension: Screw guilt. Animals never question whether life is worth living. Nonwhites do not question whether life is worth living.
Second dimension: Aryan religion always questions whether life is worth living.
So much for “Both sides.”
The THIRD dimension is to take it for granted that anything above animal level, including animals on two legs, would ask whether life is worth living. We do not take the first dimension seriously.
So at the THIRD dimension we can FINALLY ask, not whether the Aryan QUESTION is right, but whether the Aryan ANSWER is right.
In the West the reason one should not commit suicide is eternal damnation. In Buddhism and Hinduism the answer is that you cannot die without True Religion. In Hinduism and Buddhism you will stay on the Wheel of Life, you will be reborn again and again and again and again, until you find a way to escape the curse of life forever.
Meanwhile I keep being asked why white people keep wanting to destroy themselves, why their mentality is so sick.
If your only alternative to life is damnation or a return to the damnation of The Wheel, may I suggest your thinking may be less than healthy? What if we cut the friggin’ mysticism and demanded that life be made WORTH living?
Discussions such as these dance around real world issues having to do with reality of racial nobility and its real and continuing role in the world.
Consider, for example, India since 1948, the racial nobility of India took great pains to hide behind political correctness.
That is why you have such extreme sensitivity to the big tourist draws in India.
The truth of these edifices dare not be openly researched because any discussion leads directly into an open recognition of the racial nobility that rules India.
Here in the West, a similar phenomenon occurred.
Since WWII, there has been nothing more heretical that coping to the notion that there exists a racial nobility among white people.
Racial quality distinctions among white people themselves dare not be mentioned, and discussions of the differentials among the various branches of the white race itself are off limits.
It is all dismissed with “we are all just to mixed up to make heads or tails out of this”.
Same argument in India.
Instead mysticism is required to cover up the bald faced truth, so archeology is banned at the tourist draws or discussions remain at very low levels of discourse involving Nazi mysticism or something.
But there is racial nobility and that racial nobility takes great pains to sustain itself, here, in India, and in many other areas of the world also.
This is a most secretive topic and it leaks out in odd ways such as in the oddity of Baywatch and its popularity.
It leaks out in the big tourist draws of India.
It leaks out in the absurd celebrity industry focusing on the British royal family.
But we are entering an era of a rebellion against the big cover-up worldwide.
It is ironic that the eventual return to open acknowledgement of white supremacy by whites themselves will lead to the discord of intra-racial differentials.
You cannot acknowledge racial difference and make it extra-race only. It is intra-race also.
A new world is being born, and perhaps a future industry in genetic manipulations waits where the issue of racial nobility will openly express itself.
Comment by Dave —
I hate to say this, but I suspect you are unconsciously confusing Spengler with Toynbee. Toynbee was a fine historian, but his metahistory was poor. Also it was Toynbee who admired Khaldoun. Professional historians, relying on summaries, often confuse the two, but Spengler and Toynbee are very different. Spengler and Khaldoun are even more different.
For example, Toynbee continues the ex oriente lux nonsense because he believes in the inevitability of ineffable Progress. This belief started with Macaulay, who developed a philosophy of history to combat Tories in Parliament who insisted that things had been going terribly down hill since the Middle Ages. Macaulay, a Whig MP, ably proved them wrong. However, like any politician, he overstated his case: many things had gone terribly wrong, and Progress is not ineffably inevitable.
This overstatement is the assumption that Toynbee worked under. He was committed to ex oriente lux because his faith in Progress produced a linear view of history with discrete origins: predictably, he found them in the Middle East.
Toynbee’s second error was in failing to understand Spengler. Or perhaps it was a resistance, since Spengler’s organic view of history begged Race. And indeed Spengler spoke about race, and race is a theme underlying and uniting his theoretical work. In particular, Spengler talks about soul in a way that defines culture as its product.
This is the principle difference between Spengler and Toynbee. Spengler uses culture as a way to delve into soul; Toynbee uses culture deterministically. For Spengler, a people produces its culture. For Toynbee, the culture controls its peoples.
Further, to Spengler, observing changes in the culture maps out the changes in an organic people’s soul. But to Toynbee, culture is transferred from people to people. This was inevitable under Toynbee’s framework of ineffable Progress, since he tracked cultural dissemination across the globe. He had to, since to him, culture was just technology, which in the tradition of Macaulay’s Whiggery made life better and better: ineffable Progress.
This is why Toynbee historians track the distribution of the plough from the Middle East. This is why Lynn White made his notorious gaffe by attributing the rise of Chivalry exclusively to the stirrup. To each of these historians, culture was not the product of people, but something that had a life of its own.
The damage this creates is that it assumes that all people are the same. According to Toynbee historians, the Chinese have become us now that they drive cars and own computers.
Spengler, however makes it quite clear that the Chinese remain Chinese, but that they have been conquered by the West. He might say that this was almost inevitable because of the West’s extending all things through perpetual activity to infinity. Because of our drive to infinity, the whole world has fallen to us. And now we reach for the stars themselves, in the infinity of space.
Spengler is the theoretical work upon which Yockey built his brilliant treatise. Yockey updates Spengler, expands his theory, applies it to the world, and most importantly rescues Spengler’s vagueness on Race.
There are perhaps four great works on Western man that seem to carry on a single tradition of prophecy(?) for us: Chamberlain’s Foundations of the 19th Century, Spengler’s Decline of the West, Rosenberg’s Mythos of the 20th Century (this was translated and published under the direction of Carto, but often I think Rosenberg’s almost hysterical anti-Christianity disqualifies it), and Yockey’s Imperium.
What is missing in this tradition is a racial taxonomy from up to date genetics, and a proper understanding of Christianity and the Old Testament. Bob seems to be the only one who points in the right direction on that issue of religion.
But comparing Spengler to Khaldoun is off the mark.
Toynbee does use Khaldoun’s descriptions of the rise and falls of dynasties. Toynbee does so since he believes that culture, like governments, is imposed on peoples and therefore peoples are unimportant. Spengler however uses culture — a people’s way of life — as a gauge on a people’s inner life.
This is because a people produces a culture and not (as Toynbee suggests) the other way around.
Comment by Pain
Actually, the wonderful thing about Yockey back then was that he was the ONLY relief we had from Ex Oriente Lux. Toynbee was the standard of CONSERVATIVE history back then, as was Marx for “modern” analysis. But both Toynbee and Marx were Ex Oriente Lux.
What the cultural relativists disliked about Toynbee was that he believed in Western progress. This was considered evil by liberals, who saw the West as evil, not progressive. So that was the only ALTERNATIVE to leftism that the Buckleys and their kind knew. It never occurred to anyone on either of the “both sides” back then that the West was not only better, it was not even a product of the Ex Oriente Lux “product of all mankind” crap that liberals and conservatives agreed on.
It was, intellectually, an age of pure poverty.
By the way, has anybody here heard of Lawrence Brown’s The Might of the West, 1963?
I am fascinated to discover I WAS wrong about Khaldoun. His dynastic analogy was still used to describe family businesses in the 1960s.
All this is FUN for me. All I have to do is say something flatly and my commenters have read way ahead of me and start their comments with a line I love, “You’re wrong.”
Intellectual life should be FUN, but professors are uniformly miserable. They cannot afford to simply say it and be WRONG. That is not an intellectual life at all. To them, the idea of a student telling them they’re wrong is like being bitten by a Killer Rabbit.
For me the whole point of a SEMINAR is that I can be WRONG. That’s what I come to you for, extensions AND corrections.
Looking at the comments today and yesterday was like Christmas for me. I opened my presents, a set of learned comments, and I wish you could understand how delighted I was. Lord, it was fun!
Look at how the antis hide when I show up. That is largely the result of fifty years of my willingness to be caught flat-footed. When you have run smack into making dumb statements for fifty years, you’re ready for battle.
Believe me, it is a hell of a lot better for me to be made to toe the line by YOU than by my enemies when you let me get away with something. I don’t think the tame students they demand are doing the liberal professors a bit of good.
But Rand and Marx and Yockey actually BELIEVE that the Freedom or Economics, or Great Culture they are groveling in front of has a LIFE of its OWN. Unlike the most ignorant illiterate South American Catholic, they honestly believe that this work of man’s hands is the be-all and end-all, that that product is the determinant of history.
Boys and girls, you CANNOT get dumber than THAT. *end*
We “CANNOT get dumber than that?”
Essentially – and I read The Muqaddimah* (Rosenthal translation) in school, and still have my copy in the attic – I’m defending Yockey on this.
Yockey understood the deeper issues – that words, manipulated as they are by the likes of Rand and Marx – and saw that none of “this” came from Nothing – there was a Source, and there is a hierarchy between us and Him.
My definition of the linkages between RACE and CULTURE are rather explicit; absent the RACE through which it can work, CULTURE remains inchoate, and useless. In this world of Form we can work with the abstract ideals – and Ideals – of our CULTURE, which ONLY our RACE can do with any degree of success.
I don’t see this as a process of human passivity at all. Simply put, the Culture-Soul proposes, and our RACE disposes. In turn, our RACE proposes, and the Culture-Soul…proposes. WE are the vehicles through which the Culture-Soul acts in world before us.
There is an old saying – “Life is God’s gift to you. What you choose to make of it is your gift to God.”
That’s why RACE is so important; the Culture-Soul CREATES the fabric from which the RACE is constructed, and we, acting collectively, form objects with that fabric, ranging from the most abstract to the most mundane.
What gives sense and meaning to all of our efforts is RACE, writ large.
This is a bit of an abstraction, and we all know plenty of “White people” who are not worth the powder to blow them to Hell. Yet, CIVILIZATION is a process that the Whute RACE, and ONLY the Wite RACE, can carry forward.
The most causal review of the Ruins of Detroit reveal a painful truth:
When the White RACE leaves, we take CIVILIZATION with us.
That unique process of creating, and sustaining, CIVILIZATION, is something that only our RACE can do; it is a reflection of the interaction between the members of our RACE who can hear the Teaching of the Culture-Soul, and transform it in their hearts, their souls, and their lives.
Every night, before I go to bed, I open my copy of Imperium and read Chapter One, “Perspective,” as a reminder that we are far more than what we see before ourselves in the mirror.
The fulfillment of that is our Responsibility to our RACE.
* From Bob: Ibn Khaldoun’s book
You’re wrong. Aryan genetics is the result of selective breeding, which is culture. Lose that culture and there soon will be no more Aryans. That’s what Yockey meant, and he was right. For proof, look around.
Mother Nature, unaided, produces insect societies. It does not produce Aryans. Everything that we Aryans are, including our genome, is the “work of man’s hands.” Leave the divine creation myths to Jews and other aboriginals. Let them believe, as all savages do, that they’re the creature of some Sky God. As it goes, they’re more or less correct. But Aryan genetics, unlike theirs, is a clearing made in the forest, wrested from nature by means of hard work both physical and spiritual, and we need to keep our axes sharp if we are not to be reclaimed by the jungle.
If Aryan genetics is the CAUSE of selective breeding, then what is the CAUSE of selective breeding?
Yockey is slightest less subtle than I am. He said what he MEANT. Read the very first pages of his book, not the intro, and you will see that he is talking about a Great Spririt that comes down and causes Great Civilizations. It is mysticism. It is ANTI-racial.
To us, the book is racial, because we can see what Yockey could not in terms of genetis, as one commenter pointed out yesterday. Yockey said what he said WHEN he said it, and we don’t want to become thologians trying to put words in his mouth, mistaking what he DID say for what he SHOULD have said, so we can have a Saint to quote.
So if it isn’t a mystical Great Spirit, how do explain, USING OCCAM’S RAZOR, why whites are what they are? Remember that Occam’s Razor, the basis of Western Science and the enemy of Eastern Mysticism, favors simple explanations, obvious explanations. That is why the word “simplistic” is the main weapon of social scientists.
Here is an Occam’s Razor answer to why whites are what they are:
Have you ever noticed that many animals survive by not being noticed while a skunk or a poisonous snake can be seen a mile off? Orientals have epicanthic folds on their eyes as an adaptation to extreme cold. As one writer put it rather well, “You do not survive and reproduce if you wake up in the morning with your eyes frozen.”
Blacks have enormous physical adaptations to their horrible environment, including the deadly sickle cell trait which is an adaptation to prevent diseases in the infested areas they evolved in.
Whites are white because they have no such adaptations. While blacks and Orientals were developing adaptations to the cruel environments they developed in, whites were getting PRETTIER. There is absolutely no survival value to blond hair. It is simple to make men and women prettier, more competitive in mating. That is why, in the very midst of all the worldwide bullshit about “Everybody’s Beautiful in Their Own Way,” Baywatch became the top TV show ON EARTH the minute it was aired.
A lot of people like to say whites are the PRODUCT of cold and the challenges described in The Ice Man.
But I found something in the book African Genesis that changed my thinking on this completely. Audrey was talking about Rousseau’s idea of The Noble Savage in the first few pages of that book. Rousseau pointed out that people living in isolated places tended to be gentler. The Bushmen of the Kalahari are famous for their sweetness. They even apologize to the animals they have to kill.
Then came a sentence that opened my eyes: “Maybe,” said Ardrey, “It is not that people who live on the ice fields or in that land beyond argument, Tierra del Fuego, are not gentle because they live there. It maybe that gentle people tend to live at unfashionable addresses.”
Where a human group lives is the area it can TAKE and HOLD. You do not have to adapt to Europe. You don’t need epicanthic eye folds there. You put on furs and light a fire. Whites developed things like blond hair because they had to compete with each other, not with the environment.
That, and not a series of historical accidents, is why Asian masses have repeatedly, in recorded history, run over the rest of Eurasia, but they always stopped at Vienna.
Is it the COLOR of a snake that makes it poisonous? Or is that color the result of the fact that that snake wants you to KNOW it is dangerous?
White is supremacy is obvious to everybody, anti-whites most of all.
That is NOT just culture.
Before you jump on me too hard about my criticism of Yockey, remember that my cohorts are the reason that you HAVE Yockey to read. Yockey is brilliant and is one of the major bases of the survival of our movement through the grim years. But nobdy can write a whole book without being WRONG some.
My father used to say, “A major difference between a little man and big man is that a big man makes big MISTAKES.” Everything I criticize about Yockey I would take for granted from any other author of his time.
So why did a critic like me fight for Imperium?
The Artist Formerly Known as Nobody answers that:
“Every night, before I go to bed, I open my copy of Imperium and read Chapter One, “Perspective,” as a reminder that we are far more than what we see before ourselves in the mirror.”
In a time when all we had was Rand and John Birchers, Yockey was an anchor. He STILL is. His book is beautiful, his perspective is right. His early 1940s genetics is being washed away withor without us.
Does anybody know abut the Ten Commandments? In there, God Himself issupposed to have written: “Thou shalt have no OTHER gods BEFORE me.”
Everybody now agrees that what the oniscient, omnipotent,but illiterate being MEANT to say was, “There are NO gods BUT me.”
Jesus just got rid of the whole confusionand made it two commandments that were to the point.
Maybe we should just let Yockey say what he said.