Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 6


More on Yockey’s critique of Darwinism, consciousness, evolution and life.

Yockey saw everything in terms of Grand Dichotomies, anthropomorphized forces utterly opposed. He saw Darwinism as an outgrowth of Rationalism, like Liberalism, and thus felt compelled to deconstruct Darwinism using sophmoric strawman arguments.

Imperium, page 70:

The easiest refutation is the palaeontological. Fossil deposits — found in various parts of the earth — must represent the possibilities generally. Yet they disclose


only stable specie-forms, and disclose no transitional types, which show a species “evolving” into something else. And then, in a new fossil hoard, a new species appears, in its definitive form, which remains stable. The species that we know today, and for past centuries, are all stable, and no case has ever been observed of a species “adapting” itself to change its anatomy or physiology, which “adaptation” then resulted in more “fitness” for the “struggle for existence,” and was passed on by heredity, with the result of a new species.

This is denial, not refutation. The palaeontological record is incomplete, full of holes, yet even a puzzle missing pieces can convey information.

Darwin’s theorizing was inspired by his observations of living “transitional types”, the beaks of Darwin’s finches. Science has uncovered copious evidence of speciation. For example, Population Genomics Reveal Recent Speciation and Rapid Evolutionary Adaptation in Polar Bears: Cell.

Calling Culture-man a “higher” animal still treats him as an animal. Culture-man is a different world spiritually from all animals, and is not to be understood by referring him to any artificial materialistic scheme.

Yockey rejected the reality that man is animal. What he identifies as spirit can be just as well understood as consciousness, awareness. Culture-man is conscious-animal. Culture springs from consciousness.

If this picture of the facts were correct, species ought to be fluid at the present time. They should be turning into one another. This is, of course, not so. There should actually be no species, but only a surging mass of individuals, engaged in a race to reach — man. But the “struggle,” again, is quite inconclusive. The “lower” forms, simpler — less fit? — have not died out, have not yielded to the principle of Darwinian evolution. They remain in the same form they have had for — as the Darwinians would say — millions of years. Why do they not “evolve” into something “higher”?

Yockey rejected speciation, the name and details of the theory were irrelevant. Thus the silly strawmen. Individual species appear stable, the whole is in tumult.

The utilitarian aspect of the picture is also quite subjective — i.e., English, capitalistic, parliamentarian — for the utility of an organ is relative to the use sought to be made of it.

The naive, tautological, doctrine of utility never asked “Utility for what?”

Utility for survival, of course. “Fitness”, in an evolutionary sense, is defined as objectively as possible, in terms of survival. Yockey, however, seemed determined not to see it this way.

The soul of the lion and his power go together. The hand of man and his brain go together. No one can say that the strength of the lion causes him to live the way he does, nor that the hand of man is responsible for his technical achievements. It is the soul in each case which is primary.

This primacy of the spiritual inverts the Darwinian materialism on the doctrine of utility.

Yockey asserted the “primacy of the spiritual”, placing his own mysticism over and above material reality. It’s far easier to assert the primacy of material reality, because whatever anyone has to say, it’s right there just waiting to be probed and tested – this is the rationalism we call science.

The whole grotesquerie of Darwinism, and of the materialism of the entire 19th century generally, is a product of one fundamental idea — an idea which happens also to be nonfactual to this century, even though it was a prime fact a century ago. This one idea was that Life is formed by the outer.

Evidently, Yockey also denied external agency.

And yet, in a purely factual sense, what is Life? Life is the actualizing of the possible. The possible turns into the actual in the midst of outer facts, which affect only the precise


way in which the possible becomes actual, but cannot touch the inner force which is expressing itself through, and, if necessary, in opposition to, the outer facts.

“Life is the actualizing of the possible” sounds Darwinian, e.g. adaptive radiation.

Life is the unfolding of a Soul, an individuality.

Darwinism, to Yockey, was of a kind with two jewish intellectual movements, Marxism and Freudianism.

Darwinism was the animalization of Culture-man by means of biology … Marxism, the animalization of man through economics

Page 88:

As Socialism [i.e. Spengler’s Prussianism, Aryanism, National Socialism] creates the form of the Future, Marxism slips into the Past with the other remnants of Materialism. The mission of Western man is not to become rich through class-war; it is to actualize his inner ethico-politico-Cultural imperative.

There is another view of life and evolution which embraces a rational, Darwinian understanding of reality, rather than rejecting it. In his July 2014 broadcast, William Pierce: Cosmotheism’s Hard Way, Kevin Strom quotes Don Kaiser’s Life is Evolution:

THE SOLE CHARACTERISTIC that ultimately distinguishes living from non-living matter is classical Darwinian evolution. Life is simply matter that evolves.

Evolution is the sole feature that differentiates living matter from non-living matter.

Life is evolution.

The two are inseparable. Given the fact that all life forms die, how do they persist through time and changing environments? Every environment harboring life forms must change, simply because of their existence, so evolution is the only way life forms can persist through time. Not only did Charles Darwin discover what makes life possible despite the fact that all life forms eventually die, he unwittingly discovered the sole feature that distinguishes living from non-living matter. Charles Darwin defined life.

Life is Evolution.

Strom notes:

To the Cosmotheist, Nature is God. And science, logic, observation, reason, and the deepest stirrings of our race-soul are the means of apprehending God … Mathematics, physics, and genetics are the real words of God.

Cosmotheism asserts that we are matter and energy become conscious — and, more than that, that we are the Universe become conscious, that we are Nature become conscious of itself and all that that implies. It further shows us that we have reached a radically new stage in the evolution of the Universe — as significant, perhaps, as the evolution of non-living matter into living beings — as significant as the first rise of consciousness itself – as significant as the faltering steps of the first amphibians on the surface of the Earth. This new stage has come only recently, when European man first grasped the concept of evolution, and discovered the principles of genetics and heredity. It is the stage of conscious evolution — of the ability of living beings to direct, and vastly accelerate, the future course of their own evolution.

To the extent jews have outcompeted Whites it is by being more conscious of themselves and their survival as a people. In contrast, and in large part due to the efforts of jews, Whites have been relatively unconscious. Thus we seek to awaken, to inform and educate ourselves and others. The study of previous attempts, like Yockey’s, is part of this process.

7 thoughts on “Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 6”

  1. Yes, as far as I know evolution is the supreme organizing principle in our universe, and therefore to live ‘adaptively’ – by attempting to reasonably maximize in the following generations my genes – is how best to live in harmony with nature and the most probable cosmic plan if such exists, given what I know now. I’m no biologist and I’m happy to be corrected.

    Beyondism deserves a word here: http://members.efn.org/~callen/ToC.htm

  2. Cattell offers his own critique of rationalism, How Rational Are Rationalist Values?:

    Another instance of what simple-minded “rationalism” can do to values also sprang from an alleged social science concept, namely the “authoritarian personality” writings of Adorno, et al. (1950) at the end of World War II. In this case, unlike the Freudian, where a great man saw his views, in Kipling’s phrase “twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,” it ended up by the followers being more scientific than the leaders, and eventually destroying by a weight of empirical evidence what was either deliberately or emotionally an attempt to dress up propaganda as science. (Adorno had escaped from Nazi Germany and his personal emotional reaction to the dictatorship began by confounding authority, as in science or scholarship, with authoritarian, and really with totalitarian, practices, which are very different things indeed.) The rationalization that authority is bad, in moral or any other values, gave Adorno a free ride to fame on the wave of the perennial revolt of the young against authority. It overlooked that Nazism was itself a revolt � unfortunately a temporarily successful one � of the less cultured, lower-middle-class, immature youth against the established religious authority of Christianity and political authority of liberal Weimar Germany[4].

    Freud a “great man”? “Nazism was itself a revolt � unfortunately a temporarily successful one � of the less cultured, lower-middle-class, immature youth?” No.

    Didn’t Wilmot Robertson praise and cite Cattell? Why? Did Cattell ever wise up to the jews?

  3. Cattell is significant primarily for his leading role in the psychometrics of individual and group differences, but he also originated and advocated a political system under which any group of people, including Whites or German National Socialists, should enjoy the freedom to set up their own society and test their beliefs. He explained how this was good for everyone, assuming the standard evolutionary theory is valid and people are serious when they talk about the scientific method and freedom.

    If we think Cattell is wrong about Freud or the Third Reich, that should be commented upon when it comes up, but otherwise, so what? Cattell was right about the two things he is notable for, and on those issues he is useful to us, and rightly perceived as threatening to those who stand in our way.

  4. Cattrell’s jew-blindness is so what enough. He failed to notice the biggest obstacle to the realization of his proposal.

    I read Moral Laws Within-Groups and the Fallacy of Universalization hoping he would provide some clue that he understood that there was an obstacle. Instead I found this hopeless utopianism:

    There is in Beyondism a common glory of evolutionary endeavor, toward the wonder of a spiritual understanding beyond anything we now possess. Beyondism contrasts with the universalist religions, however, in agreeing to diverge in all values but this fundamental agreement to join in evolutionary movement. It expects men to adventure and explore in distinct genetic and cultural communities. Indeed, it asks them to stake their lives and their happiness on the divergencies, i.e., to stand or fall with the success or failure of their own guess at the future.

    In imagining a “fundamental agreement to join in evolutionary movement” it seems he neglected to consider active opposition.

    The jews aren’t interested in anything like Beyondism. They’re interested in what’s best for the jews. What’s more, they don’t just politely opt out of what the Other wants to do. They compel the Other to do what’s best for the jews. Until their agency is recognized and undone nothing like Beyondism is possible.

    Beyond the jews, the general problem remains. What’s-best-for-all-of-us schemes don’t work because inevitably some subset determines that what’s best for them involves subjugating some other subset. Any system which discounts us-vs-them cannot prevail against those which do not. See, for example, “liberalism”.

  5. I agree, he was not openly antisemitic.

    I think it would be highly advantageous if softer nationalists were to say, ‘No enemies to the harder end.’ That would mean Taylor welcoming Duke back at Amren conferences, and MacDonald not being afraid to speak to Linder on a radio show, for example. Cattell’s bibliography and footnotes include the likes of Oliver, so he was doing the right thing.

    I don’t know that there’s a need for harder nationalists to say, ‘All are enemies to the softer end,’ and for Robertson not to recommend Cattell and so on.

  6. I didn’t identify Cattrell as an enemy. I merely point out the flaw in his vision. At any rate it seems fairer to characterize him as jew-blind or “philo-semitic”, rather than “not openly antisemitic”.

    The problem is not that hard-liners on the jews have any trouble discussing the ideas of the soft-liners who downplay or ignore them. It’s that the soft-liners are soft-headed and regard hard-liners as somehow worse than the jews. (E.g. Cattrell’s remarks about “Nazis”, or Taylor description of discussing race and the jews as two distinct forms of being a “crank”.)

  7. I say he was not openly antisemitic because I can’t know his feelings. The philosophy he originated could have been designed to use Jewish-hijacked memes – diversity, freedom, tolerance, non-prejudice – to subvert Jewish scripted anti-White policy on race and nation issues. I know that much. I also think it’s good science, good politics and good morality in the abstract.

Comments are closed.