Audio

Age of Treason Radio

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 8

Audio 13 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

oliver_cromwell_adolf_hitler

Concerning European heroes and the nature of their genius.

Imperium, from the section Yockey titled “Tradition and Genius”, page 262:

From Cromwell to Joseph Chamberlain — the beginning and the end of that high political tradition which built the great British Empire, which at its highest point exerted its control over 17/20th of the surface of this earth — England was the example of the possibility of tradition in politics as well as in philosophy, music, and the arts of form. How many men of political genius appeared in the Premiership during these centuries? Only the two Pitts. Nevertheless, England emerged from all the general wars of those centuries with increased power — Thirty Years War, 1618-1648, Spanish Succession War, 1702-1713, Austrian Succession Wars 1741-1763, Napoleonic Wars, 1800-1815, Wars of German Unification, 1863-1871. Only one serious blunder was made during these centuries, the loss of America, 1775-1783. The essence of this tradition was nothing other than applying only political thinking

263

to politics. Cromwell the theologian departed from this only occasionally, and more in words and expressions of sympathy than in actions. His successors in the tradition of Empire-building were not burdened with his heavy theological equipment, which they transformed into cant, a word translatable into no other European language. The technic of cant was what enabled English diplomacy to score continued successes in the world of facts, i.e., the world of violence, of cunning, of sin, while maintaining before itself the attitude of selfless morality. To enrich the country by new possession was thus “bringing civilization” to “backward” races. And so on, through the whole gamut of political tactics.

Yockey’s description of cant combines senses 2a and 4:

1 : affected singsong or whining speech

2 a : the private language of the underworld

b obsolete : the phraseology peculiar to a religious class or sect

c : jargon 2

3 : a set or stock phrase

4 : the expression or repetition of conventional or trite opinions or sentiments; especially : the insincere use of pious words

Cant may not have an equivalent in any other European language, but what Yockey called “the technic of cant” does have an equivalent in Hebrew. Hasbara is variously explained as “explaining”, “public relations”, “diplomacy”, and “propaganda”. It is a relatively new word for one aspect of a long-standing apologetic mechanism which is perfectly characteristic of the jews.

In light of tikkun olam – the blank check jews give themselves to “repair the world” and be “a light unto the nations” – it’s no coincidence that jew-backed British politicians from Cromwell on built an empire based on the “selfless morality” of “bringing civilization” to “backward” races.

Oliver Cromwell, “Lord Protector” of Britain between 1653 and 1658:

Cromwell is one of the most controversial figures in the history of the British Isles, considered a regicidal dictator by historians such as David Hume,[3] a military dictator by Winston Churchill,[4] but a hero of liberty by Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Rawson Gardiner, and a class revolutionary by Leon Trotsky.[5] In a 2002 BBC poll in Britain, Cromwell was selected as one of the ten greatest Britons of all time.[6] However, his measures against Catholics in Scotland and Ireland have been characterised as genocidal or near-genocidal,[7] and in Ireland his record is harshly criticised.[8]

Yockey’s favorable regard for Cromwell may have to do with his favorable regard for Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher he credited with trying to explain Prussianism (proto-National Socialism) to the English.

Though Yockey was either unaware of or discounted the fact, Cromwell discredited himself by officially opening Britain to the jews, literally selling out his “political organism”, the Britons:

As Lord Protector, Cromwell was aware of the Jewish community’s involvement in the economics of the Netherlands, now England’s leading commercial rival. It was this—allied to Cromwell’s tolerance of the right to private worship of those who fell outside evangelical Puritanism—that led to his encouraging Jews to return to England in 1657, over 350 years after their banishment by Edward I, in the hope that they would help speed up the recovery of the country after the disruption of the Civil Wars.

Unofficial recolonization by the jews pre-dated Cromwell. Even sources sympathetic to the jews, such as Cromwell and the Jews and Cromwell and the ‘readmission’ of the Jews to England, 1656, provide more insight into the influence jews had, which Yockey mistakenly attributed purely to British political “genius”. Just one bit from that latter link:

Since before 1640 there had been established in London a small colony of Sephardic Jews, marranos or crypto-Jews, passing as Spanish merchants. The leader of the London group was Antonio Fernandez Carvajal whose history began with his leaving Portugal, possibly for the Canaries; trading interests brought him to London where he settled in the 1630s. By 1643 he had a position of importance, with a house and warehouse in Leadenhall Street; he traded with his own ships to the East and West Indies, Brazil, and other remote regions; his agents operated in all the mercantile centres of Europe.

See also The Murder of Mary Phagan – Part 6, where we see that by 1733, only seven or so decades after Cromwell, the colony of jews in London had grown into an international hub, moving jews and “crypto-jews” in and out of colonies elsewhere.

The “position of importance” enjoyed by jews and crypto-jews in the “British Empire” is not generally acknowleged as such, but it is not invisible either. Concerning Joseph Chamberlain:

He was best known as the leading imperialist of the day in Britain, first in the radical wing of the Liberal party then in the Liberal Unionist faction of the Conservative Party. He was the chief advocate and supervisor of the Second Boer War (1899–1902)

About the Second Boer War:

The complex origins of the war resulted from more than a century of conflict between the Boers and the British Empire, but of particular immediate importance was the question as to which white nation would control and benefit most from the very lucrative Witwatersrand gold mines.

History of the Jews in South Africa:

Jews played a prominent role in the development of the diamond and gold fields

There were Jews among the directors of the Dutch East India Company, which for 150 years administered the colony at the Cape of Good Hope.

I didn’t dig very deep into the Pitts, the father and son Yockey identified as the only political geniuses between Cromwell and Chamberlain. I suppose the oddest thing about Yockey’s favor for them is that they were exponents of the kind of national rivalry and pre-20th century thinking he so disdained.

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (the elder):

Pitt is best known as the wartime political leader of Britain in the Seven Years’ War, especially for his single-minded devotion to victory over France, a victory which ultimately solidified Britain’s dominance over world affairs. He is also known for his popular appeal, his opposition to corruption in government, his support for the colonial position in the run-up to the American War of Independence, his advocacy of British greatness, expansionism and colonialism, and his antagonism toward Britain’s chief enemies and rivals for colonial power, Spain and France.

He displayed a commanding manner, brilliant rhetoric, and sharp debating skills that cleverly utilized broad literary and historical knowledge.

William Pitt the Younger

The younger Pitt’s prime ministerial tenure, which came during the reign of George III, was dominated by major events in Europe, including the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.

Historian Charles Petrie concludes that he was one of the greatest prime ministers “if on no other ground than that he enabled the country to pass from the old order to the new without any violent upheaval”

Returning to Imperium, page 266:

The crass stupidity of Rationalism and Materialism was nowhere more perfectly in evidence than in its attempt to make the word genius into an intelligence term. Naive “tests” were even devised to detect the presence of “genius,” which could be shown by a number. In the Age of Materialism, there was no scruple about weighing and numbering the faculties of the Soul. The fact is that intelligence is the functional opposite of Genius. Intelligence is dissection, genius is creation; one is analysis, the other is synthesis; the first is directed toward the Part, the second toward the Whole. They are related as terrestrial and astral, counting and imagining.

Another example of Yockey’s Grand Dichotomizing. There is more to intelligence than a single dimensional IQ can fairly represent, but its various aspects are correlated and not as exclusive as Yockey contends. In addition to the distinction Yockey notes between dissecting analysts and creative synthesists, there is a distinction between analogizers and memorizers, or mappers and packers. Most thinkers avail themselves of some combination of these traits, though the various mixes may be more or less common.

Page 268:

What precisely are the qualities of Genius in politics, which constitute its maestria [Spanish: mastery, skill] and its inner imperative? First, vision. It sees the possibilities of the Future, and its mind is thereby freed from the trammels which hinder the average man in his thinking. To the prosaic mind, everything which is, represents the end of all development, the Future is to be a mere extension of the Past. Second, spiritual purity: the ordinary man is an eclectic; he carries in his head hundreds of contradictory ideas

269

and beliefs. Not so the creative man in politics: he thinks along one line, and one line only. This gives to his enemies the opportunity of convincing many that he is mentally ill, and they have never failed to do so, from Alexander to the Hero we have seen. But political Genius and its enemies pass into two different categories of History. His name is written in bronze letters as the symbol, meaning, apotheosis, and incarnation of the Spirit of his Age; his enemies turn out on this high plane to have been merely the material with which he hewed his deeds. Third, intensity: the voice of Genius commands; it is harsh, intolerant. It demands and impels upward. Genius is inseparable from the presence of a rushing inner chaos, the prerequisite of formative work. Under a Frederick, or a Charles XII, men will overcome tactical odds of 5-to-l, strategical odds of 30-to-l. But not under Laudon, or the Archduke Charles, or a Grant. These latter need crushing superiority to make up for their inner lack.

Fourth, the sense of a Mission. This vision, purity, and intensity are all brought into an ethical focus: the things which he sees are stamped with Necessity, and he must actualize them. This accounts for the powerfully dramatic influence of a political Genius upon the facts of History. His forceful mission compels everyone to orient himself to it. Everyone is either with him or against him. He becomes the center of the world.

Lastly, an Imponderable. Genius is Life at its highest human potential, and all Life is uncanny, irrational, mysterious. There is something about Genius that makes men rise spiritually. It is the Something that gave Napoleon victory on almost every field, that sat like an eagle on the shoulder of Moltke, as he worked quietly at his task of shaping the form of the 20th and 21st centuries. It may be merely the personality accompanying these extraordinary gifts. It may be a transcendental emanation from the higher organism — it is unknowable, but it is there.

Yockey dedicated Imperium “To the hero of the Second World War”, Adolf Hitler. Though he and his National Socialists confronted the jews and thus flushed them out, his name is not yet written in bronze letters because they prevailed. Europe’s geniuses and heroes cannot be properly judged without accounting for the jews.

Writing in 1924, some 25 years before Yockey, Hitler expressed his own thoughts on culture and race. The contrast is interesting. Hitler comes across as more in tune with reality, more enamored of his people than abstractions. Mein Kampf (Murphy translation), Volume I – A Retrospect, Chapter 11: Nation and Race, page 240:

All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its technical developments and discoveries, are the products of the creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of civilization is wholly dependent on such peoples. Should they perish, all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the grave.

However great, for example, be the influence which the soil exerts on men, this influence will always vary according to the race in which it produces its effect. Dearth of soil may stimulate one race to the most strenuous efforts and highest achievement; while, for another race, the poverty of the soil may be the cause of misery and finally of undernourishment, with all its consequences. The internal characteristics of a people are always the causes which determine the nature of the effect that outer circumstances have on them. What reduces one race to starvation trains another race to harder work.

All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the blood.

That last sentence is the thesis of Arthur de Gobineau’s The Inequality of Human Races, published in 1854.

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.

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

No New AoTR This Week

Audio 1 Comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

shut_up_and_reboot

When I sat down to record I discovered a Skype fupgrade. Support for older versions, including the one I have been using, has been dropped. I couldn’t find a workaround in the time I had set aside for recording, but hopefully I can get it worked out by next week.

To fill the gap I’ve attached the first installment of AoTR, which began a little more than two years ago as part of the White network.

Also, in answer and contrast to Yockey’s critique of Darwinism and evolution, I had intended to discuss a recent episode of American Dissident Voices, William Pierce: Cosmotheism’s Hard Way. So in the meantime I recommend you listen to that episode, and ADV generally.

Age of Treason Radio

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 5

Audio 4 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Darwin_Ape

A hallmark of Yockey’s world-view is his anthropomorphization of concepts and abstractions. He spoke of them as if they were Greek Titans, with thoughts and goals of their own, distinct and set in opposition to one another.

At the root of it all Yockey saw two titanic ideas. From Imperium, page 115:

Two ideas are opposed — not concepts or abstractions, but Ideas which were in the blood of men before they were formulated by the minds of men.

But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism.

Yockey’s Ideas are not ideas, but have agency and causality. His intangible immaterial mystical philosophizing is “organic”, while man and his rationalism is “inorganic”.

Yockey’s twisting of the meanings of words goes beyond poetic license, beyond an honest attempt to describe the indescribable. He verges into mysticism, detached from reality and facts, and in some cases to the contrary.

Nationalism and racialism are related, connected, complementary. Not opposites.

As Northside commented previously:

Yockey exalts telos (ultimate purpose or state) in his cosmology, constructing his envisioned universe such that an “organic” causal life force (existential source or basis of existence) operates unilaterally upon the mean, “inorganic” stuff of observable experience, which he debases.

Do ideas drive men, or do men drive ideas? The truth, I think, is not one or the other but both. Yockey arrogated telos (and causality, agency) to Ideas, while denying it to people. But Yockey himself was a man driven by ideas, to promote his ideas.

What constitutes organic? The organic is the inorganic plus something else. Yockey might have described this something as Ideas. I say the something is consciousness, awareness, agency. Consciousness is what distinguishes human life from inhuman, not to mention non-life, the inorganic.

Returning to Yockey’s critique of Darwinism, page 69:

The human soul itself — known as the “brain” in the 19th century — is only a tool by which a certain type of monkey advanced himself to man ahead of his fellow-monkeys. Teleology again: man became man in order that he might be man.

Yockey, like many critics of Darwinism, was apparently disturbed by the fact that man and monkey are biologically related, distant cousins. Similar like apples and oranges, the difference is consciousness – communication, coordination, history, culture.

It is understandable that Englishmen were the primary “social Darwinists”. Instrumental in deciphering the mechanics of life, of evolution, they naturally envisioned themselves as the result, the pinnacle of the process. This is more anthropic principle than anthropomorphism.

As a world view, Darwinism cannot of course be refuted, since Faith is, always has been, and always will be, stronger than facts. Nor is it important to refute it as a picture of the world, since as such it no longer influences any but day-before-yesterday thinkers. However, as a picture of the facts, it is grotesque, from its first assumptions to its last conclusions.

Yockey’s argument is even more applicable to his own faith in Ideas. Darwinism is based on science, a system farther from faith and closer to fact than any other man has yet devised.

In the first place, there is no “Struggle for existence” in nature; this old Malthusian idea merely projected Capitalism on to the animal world. Such struggles for existence as do occur

70

are the exception; the rule in Nature is abundance. There are plenty of plants for the herbivores to eat, and there are plenty of herbivores for the carnivores to eat. Between the latter there can hardly be said to be “struggle,” since only the carnivore is spiritually equipped for war.

The capitalistic mentality, engaged in a competition to get rich, quite naturally pictured the animal-world also as engaged in an intensive economic contest. Both Malthusianism and Darwinism are thus capitalistic outlooks, in that they place economics in the center of Life, and regard it as the meaning of Life.

Yockey anthropomorphized capitalism, though it is defined and driven by men. It does not have an existence or will of its own. Such things are constrained and shaped by the same forces, the same reality as the life from which it springs.

The “struggle for existence” is only a conscious struggle in man, who naturally projects his own awareness onto the unaware. Yockey does it himself when he imagines carnivores “spiritually equipped for war”.

The competition in nature is over limited resources. The rule in nature is feast and famine. The rabbits boom, then the coyotes boom, then the rabbits crash, and then the coyotes crash. Darwinism is an observation of the rules of the reality of life. Not just how the environment shapes and molds life, but also how various forms of life shape each other. This involves not only competition/predation, but also cooperation/symbiosis.

Natural selection was the name given to the process by which the “unfit” died out to give place to the “fit.”

Fitness, in evolution, is not a moral or aesthetic value judgement. It is an objective metric: survival. Life fits its environment like clothes fit a body.

I suspect that Yockey’s lame arguments against Darwinism were based on by his misunderstanding and thus revulsion toward “survival of the fittest”. He was perhaps unwilling to face the fact that the jews have out-competed Whites, rule us, and are slowly killing us. The problem, as I see it, is not with Darwinism, or rationalism, or any philosophical clash, but the simple fact that Whites, relative to jews, are not conscious.