Monthly Archives: September 2014

Age of Treason Radio

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 7

Audio 1 Comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

leo_tolstoy

The closer we look, the less superior humans are, Financial Times, 8 September 2014:

The more closely scientists look at other species, both extant and extinct, the less remarkable our own becomes. Nearly everything we once thought made us human, does not. This sobering message is reflected in Yuval Noah Harari’s bestseller Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, which provocatively challenges the concept of human uniqueness. Homo sapiens is unique only in the literal sense that every other member of the genus Homo died out.

Yockey identified the force driving such “provocative” ideas as Rationalism. He was wrong. The driving force is jews. In fact, one of their most effective tactics has been to assert their own uniqueness while challenging everyone else’s.

We return now to where we started this series, in the section of Imperium titled Cultural Vitalism, page 248:

If two individuals, widely separated geographically, and in no contact with one another, develop similar inventions, similar philosophies, chose the same subject matter for drama or lyric — this is not “influence” nor “coincidence,” but a reflection of the development of the Culture to which both belong.

Yockey is compelled to make such silly assertions by his insistance on the primacy of spirit and culture. A mechanical, material connection – i.e. biology, shared heritage, DNA – provides a far better explanation.

Consider “emancipation”. Who invented this idea? More important, who promoted it and used it to emancipate the jews, the negroes, women, etc?

The nature of the unity of the Culture is purely spiritual in its origin. The material unity that follows is the unfolding of the precedent inner, spiritual unity. Life is the actualizing of the possible; the development of a High Culture is the unfolding, over the predetermined organic life-span, of the inner possibilities contained in the Culture-soul.

Yockey asserts beliefs, not facts. It is the material, the DNA, which provides the unity for which Yockey offered no explanation. Page 251:

The intensity of the impression of the Culture on individuals is proportional to their receptivity to spiritual impressions. The individual of small soul and limited horizon lives for himself because he understands nothing else. To such a man Western music is merely an alternate up and down, loud and soft, philosophy is mere words, history is a collection of fairy-tales, even the reality of which is not inwardly felt, politics is the selfishness of the great, military conscription a burden which his lack of moral courage forces him to accept. Thus even his individualism is a mere denial of anything higher, and not an affirming of his own soul. The extraordinary man is the one who puts something else before his own life and security.

Indeed, there is a qualitative difference between an individualist and someone who sees themselves as part of a larger whole. I might even describe the difference metaphorically as spirit or soul. But I can’t help wondering… How does it work? Where does it come from? Is it heritable?

Because Yockey regarded spirit and soul as primal, he did not ask such questions. Thus also his concern was for “the Western Culture” and “the Western civilization” rather than the European people, whom he subdivided into two main classes according to spirit: the masses and a much less numerous culture-bearing stratum. Page 253:

In earlier centuries, the common man did not attend the Cultural drama. It did not interest him, and the participants were not yet under the Rationalistic spell, the “counting-mania,” as Nietzsche called it.

Counting-mania, i. e. voting, the fraud of democracy.

In earlier centuries there was no suggestion anywhere that the masses of the population had a part to play. When this idea does triumph, it turns out that the only role these masses can play is the passive one of unwieldy building material for the articulate part of the population.

There is in all Cultures a spiritual level of the entire population called the Culture-bearing stratum. It is this articulation of Culture-populations alone which makes the expression of a High Culture possible. It is the technic of living, the habitus of the Culture. The Culture-bearing stratum is the custodian of the wealth of expression-forms of the Culture. To it belong all the creators in the domains of religion, philosophy, science, music, literature,

254

the arts of form, mathematics, politics, technics, and war, as well as the non-creators who fully understand and themselves experience the developments in this higher world, the appreciators.

So, within itself the Culture-bearing stratum is articulated into creators and appreciators. It is in general the latter who transmit the great creations downward, insofar as this is possible. This process serves to recruit the higher material, wherever it appears, into the Culture-bearing stratum. The process of replenishment is continually going on, for the Culture-bearing stratum is not hereditary in any strict sense. The Culture-bearing stratum is a purely spiritual level of the populace of the Culture. It has no economic, political, social, or other hallmark.

Yockey could have placed the creators in their own “culture-creating stratum”, but that would have been an acknowledgement that spirit and culture springs from the material. His preference for “culture-bearing” better fits his spirit-first premise. Page 255:

Within this stratum there is constant struggle between Tradition and Innovation. The strong, vital part naturally represents the new, forward development, affirming the next age. It is the function of Tradition to assure continuity.

Sure, in a healthy culture. As it stands now, decades after Yockey wrote, Tradition has lost. Whites are being discontinued. Innovation describes the endless new ways in which anything associated with Whites is deconstructed, denigrated, desecrated, defiled, destroyed.

Yockey again emphasizes the immaterial nature of his ideas, and their connection to the thesis of Imperium, “the Idea”. Page 256:

The Culture-bearing stratum, articulated into creators and appreciators, is invisible as such. It corresponds to no economic class, no social class, no nobility, no aristocracy, no occupation. Its members are not all public figures by any means. But by its existence, this stratum actualizes a High Culture on this earth. If a process had existed by which members of the stratum could be all selected, the extra-European forces would probably have exterminated it in the attempt to destroy the West. The attempt would not have succeeded, for this stratum is produced by the Culture, and after a long period of chaos — a generation or two, depending on circumstances — this Cultural organ would have been again present, including in its numbers descendants of the invaders, who would also succumb to the Idea.

Recall how Yockey previously described the Idea. On page 64:

First is the Idea — not an ideal which can be summed up in a catchword, or one which can be explained to an alien, but a living, breathing, wordless feeling, which already exists in all Westerners, articulate in a very few, inchoate in most. This Idea, in its wordless grandeur, its irresistible imperative, must be felt, and thus only men of the West can assimilate it. The alien will understand it as little as he has always understood Western creations and Western codes.

He summed it up on page 116 as:

the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century

Returning to the nature of the culture-bearing stratum, on page 257:

The notion of mere prominence must be dissociated strongly from the idea of belonging to this stratum.

The notion of prominence is related to the idea of the Culture-bearing stratum in this way: every man who is prominent in any field, and who also has inner gifts, of vision, appreciation, or creativeness, naturally belongs to this stratum.

Page 258:

The Culture-bearing stratum has its highest importance now, rather than in previous centuries, because it is a relatively tinier minority.

The tension can be suggested in figures: there are not more than 250,000 souls in Europe who constitute by their potentialities, their imperative, their gifts, their existence, the Culture-bearing stratum of the West. Their geographical distribution has never been entirely uniform.

Yockey details the who, where and when of this nonuniform distribution, but provides no how or why. The purely spiritual requires no such explanation. It is by considering the material, and specifically the agency and activities of the Other, the parasite, the jews, that helps explain how and why Western civilization flourished and floundered at various times and places.

Yockey describes the stata below the creators and appreciators.

The articulation of the Culture has three aspects: the Idea itself, the transmitting stratum, those to whom it is transmitted.

259

The latter comprise the vast numbers of human beings who possess any refinement whatever, who maintain a certain standard of honor or morality, who take care of their property, who have self-respect and respect the rights of others, who aspire to improve themselves and their situation instead of pulling down those who have enriched their inner life and raised themselves in the world. They are the body of the Culture vis-a-vis the Culture-bearing stratum as its brain, and the Idea as its soul.

And the lowest:

But beneath all this is the stratum totally incapable of cultural attainment, even the most modest: the mob, canaille [rabble, riffraff, proletarian from Latin: canis (dog)], Pobel [pöbel: rabble, mob, riffraff], underworld, profanum vulgus [the common herd], the “common man” of the American cult. These preside at every Terror, listen wishfully to every Bolshevik agitator, secrete venom at the sight of any manifestation of Culture or superiority.

Page 260:

As soon as a creative man makes his resolve and proceeds with his work, somewhere else in a dark envious soul there rises a crooked determination to stop him, to smash the work. In his later years the Nihilist Tolstoy gave perfect expression to this basic fact with his formula that not even one stone should be on top of another. The slogan of the Bolshevik in 1918 was also illuminating: “Destroy Everything!” In our age this underworld is in the possession of the class-warriors, the rear-guard of Rationalism. It is thus working, from the larger political viewpoint, solely for the extra-European forces. Previous rebellions of this stratum were all doomed because of the unity of the Culture, the pristine vigor of the creative impulses, and the lack of external danger of such crushing proportions as exists in this age. Its history is not yet over with. Asia has use for this stratum, and plans for it.

I sought out an explanation of Yockey’s description of Tolstoy as a nihilist and found How Tolstoy Faced Down Nihilism (circa 1878):

At the age of fifty, Tolstoy achieved everything he desired from life. A famous novelist, happily married with six loving children, and the owner of a 16,500-acre estate, he should have been supremely happy.

Just before he turned fifty, Tolstoy experienced moments of perplexity and an arrest of life, when two questions began to recur oftener and oftener: What is it for? What does it lead to? At first, the questions seemed “stupid, simple, and childish,” but soon he became convinced they were the most important and profound of all life’s questions.

Unlike few of us, Tolstoy had fulfilled his every desire, and he had nothing left to wish for. He no longer could close his eyes to avoid seeing that nothing lie ahead for him but suffering and death — complete annihilation. He beheld what he believed was the fundamental truth of human existence — life is meaningless.

Life is ultimately meaningless from the point of view of an individualist, an egoist, someone absorbed in themselves and their limits, their insignificance, their mortality. This is not so for the tribalist, nationalist, racialist or even humanist – those who see something beyond and greater than themselves, something they are part of but which is less finite and potentially immortal.

Addendum: Coincidentally today is Leo Tolstoy’s 186th birthday and he is commemorated by a “Google doodle” as described by The Guardian in Leo Tolstoy: an epic Google doodle for novelist of ‘astonishing scope and vigour’. I saw no mention of his nihilism.

Blog

Simon Sheppard Interviewed by Paul Hickman

1 Comment

reverse_samson_option

See Voice of Albion: Simon Sheppard of The Heretical Press (Download), at Renegade Broadcasting. Sheppard comes at the War on Whites, nationalism, racialism and sex differences with a focus on behavior, psychology and Darwinism. It’s a stimulating two-hour discussion, well worth the listen.

The work Sheppard posted at The Heretical Press, and especially the essays of his accomplice in heresy Stephen Whittle (under the penname Luke O’Farrell), helped educate and bring me up to speed. Their arrest and persecution was a gut check, a glimpse of what the judaized justice system can do to anyone who stands, or even simply speaks, against them. I’m glad he was willing to speak to Paul, and glad to hear that he has not recanted.

Procedural Analysis: The DSoD Theory is an example of Sheppard’s original psychological theorizing, mentioned in the discussion. The image above is the “punchline” of the R. Crumb cartoon Sheppard refers to, When the Goddamn Jews Take Over America, a fantastic inversion of the Samson Option reality.

Age of Treason Radio

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 6

Audio 7 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

795px-Darwin's_finches_by_Gould

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

71

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

74

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.

Blog

Jews and “New Jews”, The Poisonous Victim Narrative

24 Comments

Jewish and Muslim leaders link arms in silent march to honour victims of shooting at Ozar Hatorah school in Toulouse

James Kirchick explains Why ‘Islamophobia’ in Europe Cannot Be Equated With Anti-Semitism, Either in Nature or Degree, at Tablet Magazine:

Much of what passes these days for “Islamophobia”—a conversation-stopping word meant to render any and all criticism of Islam as “racist”—simply cannot be equated with anti-Semitism, either in nature or degree. To express qualms about the reactionary attitudes prevalent in many Muslim communities about women, as did the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn (who was murdered for his heresy), is not racist, nor is it in any way comparable to the bigotry directed at Jews, historically or today. In the United States, FBI statistics show that, since Sept. 11, anti-Semitic attacks have far outnumbered anti-Muslim ones. In Europe, mobs do not rampage and attack Muslims or mosques following Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks, as Jews are regularly assaulted whenever tension flares in the Middle East.

None of this should obscure the fact that there are important similarities between the Muslim and Jewish experience, of both today and yesteryear. Muslims, Reed College Anthropology Professor Paul Silverstein told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2006, are “the object of a series of stereotypes, caricatures and fears which are not based in a reality and are independent of a person’s experience with Muslims.” Replace “Muslims” with “Jews” and you get a serviceable definition of anti-Semitism. In Europe today, both Muslims and Jews have been the targets of campaigns aimed at outlawing their traditional religious practices, namely, circumcision and the provision of kosher or halal food. Claiming their real motive to be concern for the “bodily integrity” of children or “animal welfare,” militant European secularists portray Muslims and Jews as barbaric peoples stuck in the past. Living in Germany two years ago at the height of the country’s anti-circumcision hysteria, I was confronted with provocative advertising campaigns that effectively likened Jews and Muslims to child molesters. French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who likes to fashion herself a friend of the Jews, has called for banning not only the headscarf but also the kippah in public.

Nothing new here – just your typical jewish double-talk and hypocritical in-your-face moralizing. Muslims are innocent victims, just like jews, only less so. Whites are the Other, the common enemy, their mutual victimizers, stereotyped as “hysterical” “militant” “provokers” whose “stereotypes, caricatures and fears are not based in a reality”.

Kirchick illustrates how the jewish narrative is extended into a more generalized victim narrative, a narrative in which “racism” and “islamophobia” are both similar and yet incomparable to “anti-semitism”. This reflects the archetypical role of the jews as the first and foremost victim-narrators. The term “new jews” makes this role explicit, designating some group as junior victim-narrators, like the jews, and implying a special status, like the jews. Thus “new jews” are righteous, but not as righteous as the real jews, who otherwise wouldn’t need to be invoked, much less get to have a say in it.

The fact is that the jewish narrative and its terms are used proactively and aggressively, not defensively. The target of their aggression, their characteristic psychopathologization and demonization, is Whites. Their anti-White narrative has been institutionalized and is now a commonplace in the judaized corporate media.

This long-term jew-led assault has put Whites collectively on the defensive, leaving us disoriented and demoralized. In reality Whites, who according to the jewish narrative control everything, have no political representation as such. Leaders who openly and unapologetically identify with and advocate White interests have been excluded or hounded out of power as “racists”. The consequences of this have been disastrous for Whites.

Just one tip of one bloody iceberg has come to light in Rotherham. Unsurprisingly, there have been efforts to mischaracterize the harm as self-inflicted or as a consequence of partisanship. It is neither. What is evident in the revelation of this long-term and wide-spread predation is not only the humiliation of being colonized and despoiled by hostile aliens, but the enervating way in which it has been directly facilitated by the jews and their poisonous narrative.