Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Ethical Socialism

"Ethical-socialism is neither more nor less than the sentiment of action-at-a-distance, the moral pathos of the third dimension; and the root feeling of Care-care for those who are with us, and for those who are to follow."

OSWALD SPENGLER, THE DECLINE OF THE WEST, p.178, of the abridged edition, Helmut Werner, ( translation by C.F. Atkinson and re-prepared by Arthur Helps), The Modern Library, New York.)

"If we allow that Socialism (in the ethical, not the economic, sense) is the world-feeling which seeks to carry out its own views on behalf of all, then we are without exception, willingly or no, wittingly or no, Socialists. Even Nietzsche, that most passionate opponent of the ‘herd morale’, was perfectly incapable of limiting his zeal to himself in the Classical way. He thought only of ‘mankind’, and he attacked everyone who differed from himself. Epicurus, on the contrary, was heartily indifferent to others’ opinions and acts. But Nietzschean Zarathustra – though professedly standing beyond good and evil – breathes from end to end the pain of seeing men to be other than as he would have them be, and the deep and utterly un-Classical desire to devote a life to their reformation – his own sense of the word, naturally, being the only one. It is just this, the general transvaluation, that makes ethical monotheism and – using the word in a novel and deep sense – socialism. All world improvers are Socialists."

(OSWALD SPENGLER, pp. 176-177).

By virtue of Nietzsche’s hostility to mob values (in Nietzsche’s Vedantist terminology i.e. Chandala morality), he has been accused by some Marxoids of being a reactionary,and many degenerate laissez-faire economic-elitists, such as Ayn Rand, have hailed him as one of their own. Both of these views are completely incorrect, as will be demonstrated by reference to Nietzsche’s writings.

"For what drove me to the poorest, O Zarathustra? Was it not disgust with our richest? – disgust with those punished by riches, who glean advantage from all kinds of sweepings, with cold eyes, rank thoughts, disgust with this rabble that stinks to heaven, disgust with this guilded, debased mob whose fathers were pick-pockets or carrion-birds or ragmen with compliant, lustful forgetful wives – for they are all of them not far from whores – mob above and mob below! What are the ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ today! I unlearned this distinction – then I fled away, far away and even farther, until I came to these cows."

(FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA, Penguin Classics (translation by R.J. Hollingdale), p. 228)

" ‘Good manners?’ replied the other king indignantly and bitterly. ‘What is it we are avoiding then? Is it not good manners? Our good company? – Truly, better to live amongst hermits and goat herds than with our guilded, false, painted rabble – although it calls itself ‘nobility’. But there everything is false and rotten, most of all the blood, thanks to old evil diseases and worse quacks. – I think the finest and dearest man today is a healthy peasant, uncouth, cunning, obstinate, enduring: that is the noblest type today. – The peasant is the finest man today; and the peasantry should be master. But ours is the kingdom of the rabble – I no longer let myself be taken in. (F.NIETZSCHE, pp. 258-259).

"But whoever wants to eat with us must also lend a hand, even the kings. For with Zarathustra even a king may be a cook." (F. NIETZSCHE, p. 295).

" ‘The moon has its court, and the court has its mooncalves: to all that comes from the court, however, do the paupers and all the adroit pauper-virtues pray. ‘I serve, you serve, we serve’ – thus all adroit virtue pray to the prince: so that the merited star may at last be fastened to the narrow breast. But the moon still revolves around all that is earthly: so the prince too, still revolves around what is most earthly of all: that, however, is the shopkeepers’ gold. The God of Hosts is not the god of the golden ingots; the prince proposes, but the shopkeeper – disposes!’".

" ‘By all that is luminous and strong and good in you, O Zarathustra! Spit upon this city of shopkeepers and turn back! Here all blood flows foul and tepid and frothy through all veins: spit upon the great city that is the great rubbish pile where all the scum froths together! Spit upon the city of flattened souls and narrow breasts, of slant eyes and sticky fingers – upon the city of importunate, the shameless, the ranters in writing and speech, the overheated ambitious: where everything rotten, disreputable, lustful, gloomy, overripe, ulcerous, conspiratorial festers together – spit upon the city and turn back!’"

"But here Zarathustra interrupted the frothing fool and stopped his mouth. ‘Have done!’ (cried Zarathustra). ‘Your speech and your kind have long disgusted me! Why do you live so long in the swamp that you had to become a frog and toad yourself? Does not foul, foaming swamp-blood now flow through your own veins, so that you have learned to quack and rail like this? Why did you not go into the forest? Or plough the earth? Is the sea not full of green islands?’"

" ‘I despise your contempt; and since you warned me, why did you not warn yourself? My contempt and my bird of warning shall ascend from LOVE ALONE; not from the swamp! They call you my ape, you frothing fool: but I call you my grunting pig – by grunting you are undoing even my praise of folly. What, then, was it that started you grunting? That nobody had flattered you enough: therefore you sat beside this filth, so that you might have cause for much grunting – so that you might have cause for much revenge! For all your frothing, you vain fool, is revenge; I have divined you well!’"

" ‘But your foolish teaching is harmful to me, even when you are right! And if Zarathustra’s teaching were a hundred times justified, YOU would still – USE my teaching falsely!’ Thus spoke Zarathustra; and he looked at the great city, sighed and was long silent. At length he spoke thus: ‘This great city, and not only this fool, disgusts me. In both there is nothing to make better, nothing to make worse. Woe to this great city! And I wish I could see already the pillar of fire in which it will be consumed! For such pillars of fire must precede the great noontide. Yet this has its time and its own destiny. But I offer you in farewell this precept, you fool: where one can no longer love, one should – PASS BY.’"

(F. NIETZSCHE, pp. 195-198).

"Watch and listen, you solitaries! From the future come winds with a stealthy flapping of wings; and good tidings go out to delicate ears. You solitaries of today, you have seceded from society, you shall one day be a people: from you, who have chosen out yourselves, shall a chosen people (my note: not to be confused with the "Chosen People", chauvinistic psychology of Talmudic Zionism, as according to Nietzschean philosophy, such a psychology is incompatible with mental hygiene) spring – and from this chosen people, the superman!"

"Truly, the earth shall yet become a house of healing! And already a new odour floats about it, an odour that brings health – and a new hope!"

(F. NIETZSCHE, pp. 102-103).

As a sample of Nietzschean philosophy, the cited extracts are more than decisive in establishing that he certainly was not a reactionary. A reactionary is one who desires to return to some previous Golden Age. Nietzsche who had a natural respect for the past believed that it would serve as a measure by which the future could be anticipated - his Golden Age is the New Dawn which will follow the great noontide of our Western Judaeo–Christian civilization. Neither was Nietzsche a conservative – he believed that all which was withered and devoid of objective organic vitality, should be toppled so as to permit new nascent life to replace it.
(All of the above is a selective sampling of an article by Alec Saunders entitled Nietzsche And Ethical Socialism For The New Millennium located on the Australian Nationalist site RADNET)

Functionalism & the father of sociology -- Emile Durkheim

Main ideas in Functionalism

The starting point of all Functionalism is that all societies have certain basic needs - Functional requirements which must be met if a society is to survive.

Explaining Social Order

In explaining the basis of social order in societies the starting point for Functionalists is to look at whole societies and not the individual...

Emile Durkheim draws an analogy between the way a biological organism works and society. The various organs of a living thing work together in order to maintain a healthy whole in much the same way that various institutions in society work together to produce social order.

Central Value System

Functionalists believe that the basis of an orderly society is the existence of a central value system that imposes common values on all its members. Therefore, when Functionalists look at the ways in which the various parts of society contribute to bringing about social order they are mainly concerned with the ways in which these parts help to perpetuate and maintain this common value system.


He argued that traditional societies were 'mechanical' and were held together by the fact that everyone was more or less the same, and hence had things in common. In traditional societies, argues Durkheim, the collective consciousness entirely subsumes individual consciousness—social norms are strong and social behavior is well-regulated.

In modern societies, he argued, the highly complex division of labor resulted in 'organic' solidarity. Different specializations in employment and social roles created dependencies that tied people to one another, since people no longer could count on filling all of their needs by themselves. In 'mechanical' societies, for example, subsistence farmers live in communities which are self-sufficient and knit together by a common heritage and common job. In modern 'organic' societies, workers earn money, and must rely on other people who specialize in certain products (groceries, clothing, etc.) to meet their needs. The result of increasing division of labor, according to Durkheim, is that individual consciousness emerges distinct from collective consciousness—often finding itself in conflict with collective consciousness.

The rapid change in society [the industrial revolution for example] due to increasing division of labor thus produces a state of confusion with regard to norms and increasing impersonality in social life, leading eventually to relative normlessness, i.e. the breakdown of social norms regulating behavior; Durkheim labels this state anomie. From a state of anomie come all forms of deviant behavior, most notably suicide.

Émile Durkheim saw socialism as rooted in the desire simply to bring the state closer to the realm of individual activity as a response to the growing anomie of capitalist society.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The White Race - An Irreplaceable Nonrenewable Resource

It is high time that the building race of civilization be recognized as the world's most irreplaceable and nonrenewable resource. We are concerned about being on the endangered species list but the loss of such a vital resource ought to arouse the concern of everyone whether they are among the endangered or not.

Even those who are motivated by purely selfish aims and have zero loyalty to their own kind ought to see that it is in their own best interest to share such an all important concern. Once the White race is extinct, everything it created will go with it and there is no going back. Those who deny the legacy, intellectual property rights and worldy contributions of the race which made Western Civilization possible do so only at their own peril.

Even if they doubt the overwhelming evidence why would they take such an incredibly reckless risk? Do they not ask themselves "What if I am wrong?" If they are wrong and their posterity find themselves stuck in an endless series of progressively more ignorant and primitive dark ages and Zerzan's utopian vision of "Future Primitive" proves to be a dystopian nightmare as most utopian visions do in actual practice they will have lost everything; everyone will lose, and it will be too late to change their vote.

If we are wrong and what our opposition says is true [that race is nothing but skin color and were all the same and human life and progress is determined by class, wealth, environment, etc] will choosing our proposed solution [separation along racial lines -- NOT genocide which is actually what our opposition promotes] end in nearly so catastrophic long term consequences as their proposed solution would if they are in fact wrong?

No, the worst that would happen [assuming environmental determinism is right and all forms of genetic determinism or heredity wrong] would be that without our help [because we separated from them] the other races and nations would take a little longer to achieve our level of human progress or civilization and would necessarily go through more pain, more trials and tribulations than they would with the help of an already advanced culture and civilization.

Our opposition however, alarmists that they are, scream bloody murder because they refuse to accept that we say what we really mean and mean what we actually say. They insist that when we say racial separatism and self-determination we really mean race-war, hate-crime, mass-murder and genocide. Is this what they mean by establishing a sane and rational public dialog for reconciliation and establishing peace between different creeds, colors, nations, peoples?

If so then they are nothing but liars and hypocrites and anyone who would be party to that do not deserve to enjoy the protections, comforts or advantages of the civilized environment our ancestors created. They deserve to live in a world in which their own views are brought to their ultimate conclusion and they can experience first hand a world ruled not by Whites but rather one ruled by the Hobbesian reality behind Rousseau's "noble savage." They deserve to live where they insist all human life originated, the supposed cradle of human evolution; Africa. An Africa true to their own world view; zero White influence, intervention or presence of any kind. Modern debates would not exist because all of them would be absolutely meaningless in such a world.

The Future is Imperium; The Future is Now; Who Will Be Master Of This Destiny?

Insights from "Revolution from the Middle" by Samuel Francis
After The Republic

Just because it looks like a Republic and quacks like a Republic doesn't mean it's really a Republic. In ancient Rome, after Julius and Augustus Caesar got through with the civil wars, proscriptions, and purges that spelled the death of the old Roman nobility, the state still looked and quacked like the Republic it had been in the days of Cincinnatus and Cato the Elder.

But everyone knew it wasn't so, that a century of demagogues and dictators had ruptured the republican duck, that the Caesars had finally polished off the reality of republican government and set up their own sweet little autocracy. "Despotism, enthroned at Rome," wrote historian Ronald Syme in The Roman Revolution, "was arrayed in robes torn from the corpse of the Republic."

So it is today in the United States. The Constitution still exists and remains a standing topic of Fourth of July oratory. We still have elections and even the vestiges of that aristocratic balance wheel, the electoral college. We still have republican (but, even today, not really democratic) representation in the Senate.

But despite the persistence of these republican forms, the reality is quite different -- a mass democracy in which elected officials are more and more irrelevant and corrupt as their powers and duties are usurped by bureaucratic elites that cannot be removed. Despotism, masked in republican costume, is not yet enthroned, but already it whispers in the ears of those who sit in the consular chairs of the leviathan state.

Why did the American Republic die, and why can't it be restored? The generation of Americans at the time the Constitution was written was immersed in republican thought and principles, and the Framers consistantly tried to establish a republic that could avoid the anarchy, demagoguery, and tyranny to which most previous republics -- in Greece, Rome, Renaissance Italy, Holland, and England -- had succumbed. But, if the republic they established is in fact moribund, either they made a mistake or else something has happened in the last 200 years that they never anticipated.

Writing on the different schools of republican thought that permeated the United States in its infancy, historian Forrest McDonald notes that virtually all of them shared a common set of beliefs. "The vital -- that is life-giving -- principle of republics was public virtue," a term that rang rather differently from its resonance in modern ears.

Not coincidentally, public, like virtue, derives from Latin roots signifying manhood: "the public" included only independent adult males. Public virtue entailed firmness, courage, endurance, industry, frugal living, strength, and above all, unremitting devotion to the weal of the public's corporate self, the community of virtuous men. It was at once individualistic and communal: individualistic in that no member of the public could be dependent upon any other and still be reckoned a member of the public; communal in that every man gave himself totally to the good of the public as a whole. If public virtue declined, the republic declined, and if it declined too far, the republic died.


...by the end of the nineteenth century, the American Republic remained intact, as did the social independence and public virtue on which it rested. Prior to World War I, writes Robert Nisbet, main contact most Americans had with the federal government was at the Post Office, and until the bonds of industrial and technological conglomeration were forged, Americans -- or at least the middle-class core of American civilization -- retained the social, economic, cultural, and political independence that made a republic possible.

Today this is not the case. Twentieth-century technology and organization -- in Big Government, Big Business, and Big Culture -- have increased far beyond the compact scale on which republican independence is possible and much further than even the dynastic states of the ancien regime could comprehend. The American middle class today is dependent on corporations, unions, universities, and the national state itself for its income, and it is income -- not an ethic or culture such as the nineteenth century bourgeois middle class possessed -- that defines the contemporary middle class.

The mega-state and its tentacles touch and twist at every joint of our lives, and their operations are directed by permanent and largely invisible bureaucratic and managerial elites, not primarily by officeholders or independent property owners. Those who hold office spend much of their time trying to shovel federal fodder into their constituents' troughs. Mass media and mass cultural organizations in education and religion bind virtually all Americans into the same vast audience, poked and prodded by the same images, ideas, information, and misinformation to emit the same mental and emotional responses.

At the end of the twentieth century, Americans have been absorbed within and become dependent on massive organizations and techonologies that are far too large, too complex, and too distant for most of us to control or even to influence. Under that kind of dependency, the social and moral disciplines that make personal and republican self-government possible wither away.

Hence, the rise of mass organizations and the elites that run them and our own dependence on them have paralleled the explosion of social breakdowns -- crime, suicides, drug use, sexual excess and deviation, the brutalization of women and children, the collapse of families and communities, the pursuit of hedonism and immediate gratification, the glorification of the sick, the weak, and the weird.

Mass society breeds dependency; dependency breeds corruption; and corruption breeds slavery. When indpendence and public virtue decline too far, the republic dies, even though despots may robe themselves in its garments.

Once the sociology of liberty is destroyed, it cannot be restored. Once the institutions and habits of independent discipline have withered, they do not naturally blossom again. Most Americans today are content with the mega-state, the cult of consumption that bureaucratized economy encourages, and the titillations, fantasies, and diversions of the mass media. The only discontent most of us have with the mega-state is when we have to pay for somebody else to get more from it -- in welfare, services, subsidies, tax breaks -- than we get.

Democratic politics in the leviathan state is never about dismantling or reducing leviathan but always about forcing somebody else to pay for what we want from it. A mass democracy of interest groups, lobbies, ideological movements, and opinion clusters replaces the "unremitting devotion to the weal of the public's corporate self" that animated classical republicans, and the engorgement of leviathan is accelerated by the twin engines of a bureaucratic elite intent on enlarging its own power and the mass voting blocs it feeds, just as eighteenth-century demagogues fed their mobs. Unlike a republic, mass democracy doesn't restrain power; democracy unleashes power.

Except for a few right-wing eggheads, no one seriously contemplates restoring the republic; no one seriously wants to because no one has any material interest in it. Hence the republic will not be restored.

Those few who remain attached to republicanism thus find themselves in the position of republican theorists like the Roman historian Tacitus and Nicolo Machiavelli, both of whom had seen their republics gurgle down the drain-pipes of history. Both of them understood that republican liberty is not something you get by just wishing for it or believing in it, that in the absence of the public virtue on which repubilcanism is grounded, you cannot have liberty.

...Machiavelli, who was imprisoned and tortured by the gangsters who took over Florence after the fall of its republic... had a more immediate grasp of what happens when a republic is corrupt and dying.

At that point, he wrote, "it becomes necessary to resort to extraordinary measures, such as violence and arms, and above all things to make one's self the absolute master of the state, so as to be able to dispose of it at will." Machiavelli understood that this kind of authoritarian rule was not a real solution or a restoration of liberty but simply the natural consequence of corruption; "for men whose turbulence could not be controlled by the simple force of law can be controlled in a measure by an almost regal power."

The consolidation of political, economic, and cultural power on just such a regal scale has in fact largely occurred in the United States already. The question that the dying Republic yields, therefore, is not whether the Republic will be restored but rather how those Middle Americans who were the nucleus of the American Republic, who retain the vestiges of public virtue, and who now find themselves the victims of the new imperium can displace the elite that now prevails. The issue, in other words, is: Who, in the wrecked vessel of the American Republic, is to be master? [Article written by Samuel Francis first published in Chronicles magazine -- August, 1991; Republished among a collection of articles written by Samuel Francis in the book Revolution From The Middle, publisher Middle American Press, 1997]

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Tertullian's Traducianism

Tertullian held to a “traducianist” theory of the soul’s origin, believing the soul to be inherited (some have supposed this to mean the soul is material rather than spiritual), and that both the soul and the body are reproduced in the moment of conception. In this way the first parents literally set the conditions for all their progeny.

Adam’s material is passed on to all posterity (the entire race), and all that we are was previously in Adam. Augustine appreciated the work of Tertullian though he apparently saw a conflict between his belief in the immateriality of the soul and the supposedly materialistic view of Tertullian. Augustine's view that body and soul alike, both irreducible to a common material, were inheritors of sin, made him unable to reconcile himself with the traducianist thesis. I actually see no necessary conflict there.

It seems that Augustine held to a view of the sexual transmission of sin very much like Tertullian’s, while both rejecting the theoretical scaffolding Tertullian’s view was built upon, and without proposing an alternative theory of the soul’s origin.

Generationism & Traducianism

Generationism:
Theory of the soul wherein Adam was provided a
soul by God when he was created, and he -in turn- passed on soul to
his progeny (who subsequently passed it on to their progeny).

Like Traducianism, Generationism claims the soul originates through
natural propagation. Unlike Traducianism, Generationism holds that
this transmission is a spiritual process ...we acquire our soul at the
same time, but NOT in the same way, as we acquire our bodies.

Friday, February 2, 2007

INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW


LEAFLETS

These succinct, readable essays are cogent introductions to subjects of special relevance. Most of these items are also available in handy leaflet form. Copies can be ordered individually or in quantity.

A Few Facts About the IHR provides basic information about the Institute for Historical Review and its work. Apart from that essay, these items do not necessarily represent the views of the IHR.