Dear unwanted reader,
Only a fool thinks that what he cannot see must be non-existent;a vain arrant knave of a fool, at that.
So,let your ephemeral shadow waft across my blog once more if you must;
You have not many lives left before you will be so wafer thin that even the eagle will not be able to see you...
...Ah,but you WILL be there, ghost - you will be there - haunting the Noble spires of my lofty thought.
Begone shade!
The Christianised world-view has become so used to accomodating other opinions that it has become an amorphous haze of decadence that seeks to clutch at any straw to survive.
Completely lacking in principle; the liberal 'anything goes' taken to the Nth degree.
Anything goes is the ultimate Nihilistic ethic.
How strange that Nietzsche,like Schopenhauer, was so RIGHT about women.
Just perhaps there is a flaw in the ideology of political correctness/feminism/equality.
Perhaps biology IS destiny,as Freud said.
She sees philosophy as a shopping substitute,where she can purchase opinions.
She who fills her head with pop trash will never make a philosopher.
I feel that the fault is with the doctrine of Liberalism.
The Western world has gradually succumbed to this sickness over the last couple of centuries, and has now reached the stage where the Liberal consensus of opinion is 'I don't care who lives here,as long as they pay their taxes'.
Such a policy is SUICIDAL in the age of Global Terrorism.
In fact Liberalism helped to CREATE Globalised terror.
The Liberal handicaps his Intelligence Services [which rely on infiltration when it comes to terrorism],as a predominantly indigenous force will stand out like a sore-thumb among the alien cells that it harbours.
Liberalism invites the strong will to power of the barbarian.
Criminals can sense the typical victim.
Only a Superfascist society built on Nietzschean Will to Power can survive in the Age of Terror.
An analogy will be the suit of armour;
In the Middle Ages it served as protection against arrow and blade - but with the development of cannon-shot it became useless; not only that,it became a hindrance.
Liberalism,multiculturalism are now impediments, more, they are deadly self-poisonings; they not only cannot defeat Terrorism, they are perfectly tailored to further it.
Perhaps that is the intention?
Liberals...make way for the Zarathustra Reich-it is COMING!
Death
From the two Indo-European roots,*BHEU [to be/to grow],and *DHEU [not to be/to die] is derived 'the question' on which Hamlet soliloquised,i.e., being and death [or as some would interpret doing and not-doing].
Reminding us again of Existentialism,Schopenhauer writes;
"For a thinking being it is a precarious position to stand upon one of those numerous planets moving freely in boundless space without knowing whence or whither,and to be only one of innumerable quickly arising and passing away in time,which has no beginning and no end;moreover,nothing permanent but matter alone and the recurrence of the same varied organised forms".
[Schopenhauer,'World as Will']
Here we can see that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche agree that the universe has no beginning or end,a position NOT rejected by modern scientists;
"The mathematical concept of imagininary time suggests that the universe may not have any beginning or end:The three space directions and imaginary time would form a space-time that was closed in on itself,without boundaries or edges.It wouldn't have any point that could be called a beginning or end,any more than the surface of the earth has a beginning or end". [S.Hawking,'My Position']
Also,in that quote from Schopenhauer, we notice the phrase 'recurrence of the same', a doctrine as central to Nietzsche as it was to Pythagoras.
The Mask
Nietzsche says that 'everything profound LOVES the mask';this is very much a paradoxical statement.
Its air of ambiguity is spoilt when you say 'must' wear a mask.
The profound spirit 'loves' the mask ... at that point our thinking begins; we begin to pause and realise that there is much to be done.
Of course the statement comes from 'Beyond Good and Evil',and those of us undertaking a study of that book have plenty of time to dwell on the concept - we start thinking now, knowing that when we reach the sections in the same, on the free spirit, we will be up and running.
Initially I think of the term 'persona',and I also think of how in the first chapter of BGE, Nietzsche regards the 'I',the 'ego', as a synthetic concept, which is a 'unity only as a word'[and we might look at Foucault's work on the self as subject as a side-note].
The Latin 'persona' means literally to 'sound' [-sona],'through' [per-].
It was the name for the masks worn in Classical Drama which had a hole through which the actor spoke.
I am a 'person',i.e.,an actor.
Nietzsche's connection with Tragedy in particular make this an important aspect;it also puts into relief the so-called truth claims of philosophers - they too speak through masks.
What keeps nagging at me here is the question, are philosophers anything other than a particular type of poet?
Zarathustra says that 'the poets lie too much',but rejoins quickly that Zarathustra is also a poet.
One of the seminal collections of 20th century poetry is Ezra Pound's 'Personae';That poet,like our philosopher, could only speak of his deeper feelings 'through' the mask.
Nietzsche certainly believes in 'per-sona-l' depths; he likes to say that our 'souls' are multiple,multiplexities [literally,'many-folded'].
He likes to compare,not the State with the body, as the common metaphor has it,but the body with the State.
Whether one is a walking Aristocracy or an Anarchy or what-not has much to do with one's Order of Rank.
But we can only speak of those depths in metaphors because;
LANGUAGE IS A MASK.
Nietzsche,as much as he talks of the 'ineducable down deep', knows that 'consciousness is a surface'.
A thin,flimsy surface that requires a prophylactic,a persona,a mask.
It speaks of the instincts as the tip of an ice-berg.
So philosophy is only a speaking through a mask-that must never be forgotten.
The self is a multiplicity.
The term 'mask' is a metaphor from ancient drama.
The profound man is able,like the actor,to give rein to his multiple personas.
In other words,the mask indicates the multifarious nature of the self,which as Nietzsche says,is 'only a unity as a word'.
As always,we must be aware of the metaphorical nature of language.
Nietzsche is not advocating that we all dress up in masks,nor is he even advocating that we all give ourselves silly pseudonyms.
He is rather suggesting that we become aware of the inner complexities of our 'souls'.
A solipsist believes only IN himself.
What you believe ABOUT yourself is something else.
A solipsistic nihilist believes in only himself,and thinks of that self as being nada, zilch, nix.
He uses 'i' instead of 'I'.
Of course,such a creature could also be a gross hypocrite!
The whole point is that the WTP is a perspective.
MODERN science [not the 'wissenschaft' of Nietzsche's time] has a more perspectival out-look.
I am my own truth.
"Improving our style means improving our ideas and nothing else". [Nietzsche,'Wanderer and his Shadow',131]
Nietzschean Doctrines Stated in the first chapter of BGE include;
Perspectivism
Multiple Soul
Will To Power
Order of Rank
Nihilism
Masks
Masters
Values
I am giving to you the starting lines, my brethren; Time for you to start running to prove yourselves; please show me that your interests go beyond yourselves and into philosophy - Nietzschean philosophy!
"The greatest thoughts are the greatest events". [Nietzsche,BGE,285]
So all in all I am loath to leave this first chapter of BGE ... YET.
The next chapter on the 'Free Spirits' DEMANDS that this amount of care and caution is taken.
In order to even have an inclin of what being a free spirit entails we must be thoroughly prepared in philosophy.
Those who follow Nietzsche's lead will be overwhelmingly rich; they will shower the book with abundant meaning.
Come,friends of Dionysos; join me...you have only to fear being torn limb from limb by my joyous Maenads .... what ,you lag behind? ...think of your fatedness in being able to partake in this event O my Fotunate Ones...
...Molten gold gobbets of wisdom are about to fall on your shoulders...
O my Richness!....
You will thank my Spirit into all of Eternity!
"The temptations to traverse forbidden paths and have a say in science as well is forgivable in the artist.Even the ablest craftsman at times finds his workshop unendurable". [Nietzsche,'Wanderer and his Shadow',123]
'Non-Philosophical' Themes in BGE include;
Science
Philology
Grammar
Instincts/Drives
Psychology
Physics
Physiology
Religion [Islam, Jesuits, Xtianity, God, gods, mystcism, etc.]
Nature
Politics [Democracy, Tyranny, Aristocracy,etc.]
Culture [Europe, India, Indo-Germans, Geeks,etc.]
-Clearly,we need to go much further to do justice to these cultural/scientific issues.
"I praise leaders and forerunners:that is to say,those who leave themselves behind and do not care in the least whether anyone is following them or not".[Nietzsche,'Daybreak',554]
Philosophers and Scientists specifically mentioned in BGE include;
Socrates
Copernicus
Boscovich
Descartes
Kant
Epicurus
Plato
Stoics
Spinoza
Darwin
Locke
Schopenhauer
Schelling
There is much to be harvested here.
Come on you philosophical labourers!
Mentors
Does no one today dare to do a philosophical apprenticeship?
All philsophers need to find a Master - only by following that Master can one LEARN to do Philosophy.
The current trend to follow 'movements' and interpretations of other interpretations means that students never come into contact with what philosophy IS.
To demonstrate this, look at Nietzsche's essay 'Schopenhauer as Educator' - this is a model example of what I am talking about.
Nietzsche expresses his utter devotion to this master.
Philosophy arises upon the shoulder's of giants-just as Plato followed Socrates and Aristotle Plato,so Nietzsche followed Schopenhauer.
It is the only way to do it.
FIND your Master,then follow him to the ends of the earth - only then will you become your own man.
The phrase that sums up the love of wisdom as a project,is;
'On the shoulders of giants'.
The philosophic journey is built upon,as philosopher follows philosopher.
Kant builds from Hume, Schopenhauer builds from Kant, Nietzsche builds from Schopenhauer and Heidegger builds from Nietzsche...and you?...and me?...
There is much in Nietzsche that can be found in Schopenhauer, in Stirner, in Heraclitus, in Emerson etc...
Ultimately it is knowledge that matters, not individuals; and the individuals only matter in the greatness [degreee of will] they can bring to knowledge.
There is no 'originality'.None of us are isolated atoms; our culture,like our D.N.A. is linked over generations, and the part cannot be without the whole.
It requires great strength of will to create distances between ourselves; that initself is a form of creating.
Nietzsche was first and foremost a philosopher of culture;it was from out of his Schopenhauerian phase that he blossomed into THE philosopher of culture;
"Only he who has attached his heart to some great man is by that act CONSECRATED TO CULTURE: Culture demands of him,not only inward experience,not only an assessment of the outward world that streams all around him,but finally and above all an act,that is to say a struggle on behalf of culture". [Nietzsche,'Schopenhauer as Educator']
There is a strong streak of neoromantic idealism that Nietzsche sought to renounce during the 'Human all too Human' period;but in truth he only toned it down and toughened it up;
"The supreme goal:the production of genius;the belief in a metaphysical significance of culture". [ib.]
Metaphysics aside,we can see in this 'production of genius' a fore-taste of the Superman.The evolutionary nature of this idea is prefigured in Schopenhauer's philosophy.
This was pointed out clearly by Spengler;
"Schopenhauer's system is ANTICIPATED DARWINISM:In Schopenhauer we find already the struggle for self-preservation in nature;the human intellect as master weapon in that struggle and ual love as unconscious selection according to biological interest.
"From Schopenhauer to G.B.Shaw,everyone has been,without being aware of it,bringing the same principle into form.Everyone is a derivation of the evolution idea". [Spengler,'Decline of the West']
The playwright Shaw talked of "Nietzsche's post-Darwin,post-Schopenhauerian philosophy". [Shaw,'Man and Superman' 1903]
He hit the nail firmly on the head when he wrote;
"In 1819 Schopenhauer published his treatise on the 'World as Will',which is the metaphysical complement to Lamarck's natural history,as it demonstrates that the driving force behind Evolution is a will to live".[Shaw,'Back to Methuselah']
Evolutionary thinking is apparent in Nietzsche's pro-Schopenhauerian epoch;
"When a species has arrived at its limits and is about to go ever into a higher species,the goal of its evolution lies in those apparently scattered and chance existences which favourable conditions have here and there produced;because it can arrive at a conscious awareness of its goal,mankind ought to seek out and create the favourable conditions under which those great redemptive men can come into existence". [Nietzsche,'Schop.Edu.']
This tension between unconscious and conscious evolution remained with Nietzsche until the end;the following passage reminds us of the arrow metaphor used in the preface of BGE;
"Nature seems bent on squandering.Nature propels the philosopher into mankind like an arrow;it takes no aim but hopes the arrow will stick somewhere,but countless times it misses". [ib.]
The desire to remove all 'chance' from such an enterprise dominates Nietzsche's philosophy from here on in;
"The proposition:'Mankind must work continually at the production of individual great men-that and nothing else is its task". [ib.]
This is a prelude to the philosophers of the future.
Spengler again;
"Nietzsche observes that the Darwinian idea of the Superman evokes the notion of breeding:the breeding of the Superman follows from the notion of 'SELECTION' ".[Spengler,ib.]
To Nietzsche the Schopenhauerian man must assemble some questions before taking up his particular tasks;
"He will have to descend into the depths of existence with a string of curious questions on his lips:
" 'Why do I live?'
" 'What lesson have I to learn from life?'
" 'How have I become what I am and why do I suffer from being what I am?'
"-To the question:'to what end do you live?', -his fellow citizens would all quickly reply with pride;'To BECOME a good citizen, or scholar,or statesman' - and yet they ARE something that can never become something else". [Nietzsche,'Schopenhauer as Educator']
Here,Nietzsche's life-long motto, discovered in Pindar, sounds out as a liet-motif;
"Become what thou art! ".
In the following we see a presage of Nietzsche's 'hammer',which seeks to stamp being on becoming;
"The enigma which man is he can resolve only in being,in being thus and not otherwise,in the imperishable. Now he starts to test how deeply he is entwined with becoming,how deeply with being - a tremendous task rises before his soul:to destroy all that is becoming,to bring light to all that is false in things.
"He too wants know everything: to take delight in the multiplicity of things;he himself is his first sacrifice to himself-his strength lies in forgetting himself". [ib.]
Armed with the questions of being and becoming he can approach his tasks.
To begin with;
"The task will be to make the 'free spirits' and those who suffer profoundly from our age acquainted with Schopenhauer,assemble them together and through them to engender a current capable of overcoming the ineptitude with which nature employs the philosopher". [ib.]
The 19th century was an ominous period for Western culture,heavy with the storm-clouds of coming self-destruction;
"From out of their own exhausted age the modern philosophers long for a culture,for a transfigured physis.But this longing also constitutes their DANGER:there is a struggle within them between the reformer of life,and the philosopher,the judge of life". [ib.]
Nietzsche places the onus firmly;
"It has been the proper task of all great thinkers to be law-givers as to the measure,stamp and weight of things". [ib.]
Here in this short essay is outlined the life-task for the coming philosophers.
That strain of Nietzschean influence which extends into the philosophy of Existentialism, also goes back to Schopenhauer;
"Systematic philosophy closes with the end of the 18th century.Kant puts its utmost possibilities in forms both grand in themselves and -as a rule-final for the Western soul.He is followed by a philosophy that was not speculative but practical which begins in the West with Schopenhauer,who is the first to make the WILL TO LIFE ['creative life force'] the centre of gravity for his thought,although obscured by his having maintained the obsolete Kantian distinctions of phenomena and 'things in themselves',and such-like".
[Spengler,'The Decline of the West']
In 'Human All Too Human', Nietzsche implored philosophers to re-engage with the 'closest things';this is behind Zarathustra's constant evocation of the 'body',and of the importance of 'remaining true to the earth'.
"G.B.Shaw observes that one may quite well accept Schopenhauer's philosophy of Will, and reject his metaphysics-therein quite accurately discriminating between that which makes him the first thinker of the new age,and that which is included because an obsolete tradition held it to be indispensable in a complete philosophy.With Nietzsche his philosophy was through and through an inner and very early experience:strict metaphysics has exhausted its possibilities". [ib.]
Of course Nietzsche extended his philosophy out in all directions,but as he says in BGE,all philosophising is an 'unconscious autobiography'.
Strength of will is paramount;
"We are responsible to ourselves for our own existence:consequently we want to be the true helmsmen of this existence,and refuse to allow our existence to resemble a mindless act of chance". [Nietzsche,'Schopenhauer as Educator']
The theme of 'authenticity',so often heard in Existentialism,is prefigured here;
"The man who does not wish to belong to the mass needs only to cease taking himself easily:let him follow his conscience,which calls to him-'Be yourself! All you are now doing,thinking,desiring,is not for yourself' ". [ib.]
The idea of the 'unconscious' is also touched upon, again derived from Schopenhauer.
This was recognised by S.Freud;
"Probably but very few people have realised the momentous significance for science and life of the recognition of unconscious mental processes.It was not psycho-analysis,let us hasten to add,which took this first step.There are renowned names among the philosophers who may be cited as its predecessors,above all the great thinker Schopenhauer,whose unconscious 'Will' is equivalent to the instincts in the mind as seen by psychoanalysis.It was this same thinker,moreover,who in words of unforgettable impressiveness admonished mankind of the importance of their ual craving". [Freud,'On the Difficulties of Psychoanalysis']
Nietzsche,following Schopenhauer says;
"The true basic material of your being is something in itself ineducable,difficult of access,bound and paralysed:your educators can only be your liberators-culture is liberation". [Nietzsche,'Schop. Edu.]
Here is the root of Nietzsche's project to translate man back into nature;
"Where does the animal cease,where does man begin?".[ib.]
WILL
Let us look now at the 'Will' itself.
"This WILL,as 'thing-in-itself',is known to us only in and through the act of VOLITION". [Schopenhauer,'Parerga']
Schopenhauer's identification of the 'will' with the Kantian 'thing-in-itself' may be looked upon as a happy misunderstanding of Kant's metaphysics on Schopenhauer's part,leading as it did to the Nietzschean Will to Power on the one hand and the Freudian 'unconscious' on the other.
Spengler says that "the actual and effective philosophy of the 19th century has as its one genuine theme the Will to Power". [Spengler.'The Decline of the West']
Of course the 'will' has been so far accepted with out question;in the first chapter of 'Beyond Good and Evil' Nietzsche makes a critique of the very notion this Schopenhaureian 'Will',which helps us to see the transition from the latter's 'will to life' towards the Nietzschean 'will to power'.
The root of the word 'will' can be traced to the Indo-European,where a flood of words spring from the stem *'wel-',with the general sense of 'move around'.
'Will' is cognate with 'well'....will is 'wellness' as becoming,e-volv-ing;'Evolve'-'volute' etc.,from roll;i.e.,'rota',wheel.
The Wheel of Becoming;and 'wheel','will','well',brings us back to the fundamental sense;to move-that is what it is to be well,and to will.
We have lost the sense of 'becoming';it only glimmers in 'word like wend',to 'wind';
A glance at Old English cognates throws up 'wax',i.e.,to grow;'weorthan',to become [cf. 'wierd' ];'weorth',worth;...and 'wer',i.e.,'man' [cf. the Latin root of 'virile'].
And the word 'well' is used from Old English in the sense to 'well up',to surge [OE 'weallen',surge].
Words as condensed poems which try to represent thoughts,ideas; which ARE those thoughts and ideas.
Among the complex of 'over-wills' and 'under-wills', Nietzsche describes;
1)Sensations;
A plurality including muscular habits,and suggesting variations on the drive/aversion model.
2)Thinking;
There is a 'ruling thought' in every willing.
3)Emotion;
The duality of commanding/obeying is included here.
Nietzsche thinks that;
"Schopenhauer's basic misunderstanding of the will is to think that craving,instinct,drive were the ESSENCE of will ".[Nietzsche,WM 84]
But to Nietzsche;
" It is the will itself which precisely treats cravings as their master and appoints to them their way and measure ". [ib.]
"Among civilised nations we find throughout two different kinds of metaphysics which are distinguished by the fact that one has its evidence IN ITSELF,the other OUTSIDE ITSELF.Since the metaphysical systems of the first kind require reflection,culture and leisure for the recognition of their evidence,they can be accessible only to a very small number of men;and,moreover,they can only arise and maintain their existence in the case of advanced civilisation.
"On the other hand,the systems of the second kind exclusively are for the great majority of men who are not capable of thinking,but only of believing,and who are not accessible to reason,but only to authority.These systems may therefore be called metaphysics of the people.These systems,however,are known under the name of religions,and are found among all nations,not excepting the most savage". [Schopenhauer,'World as Will']
It was from this sort of vantage point that Nietzsche called Christianity,'Platonism for the people' in the Preface of BGE, and referred to his own uncompleted 'The Will To Power' as a book for 'thinking and nothing else'.
And thinking, like willing is something 'complicated';
"There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are 'immediate certainties';for instance,'I think',or as the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it,'I will';as though cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as 'the thing in itself',without any falsification taking place either in the part of the subject or the object". [Nietzsche BGE 16]
Nietzsche is to pursue more rigorously not only thinking about willing,but thinking about thinking;
"Supposing that nothing else is 'given' as real but our world of desires and passions,that we cannot sink or rise to any other 'reality' but just that of our impulses;I do not mean as an illusion,a 'semblance',a 'representation' [in the Berkeleyan and Schopenhauerian sense],but as possessing the same degree of reality as our emotions themselves".[ib. 36]
To Nietzsche thinking must be accounted among the instinctive activities,and is therefore part of that complex 'will';
"The question is ultimately whether we really recognise the will as OPERATING,whether we believe in the causality of the will: Granted,finally,that we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one fundamental form of will-namely, the will to power, as MY thesis puts it; to define ALL active force unequivocally as will to power. The world seen from within, the world defined and designated according to its 'intelligible character' - it would simply be will to power,and nothing else". [ib.]
It is worth noting that Schopenhauer thought he was a Kantian at first just as Nietzsche thought he was a Schopenhauerian at first.
Neither of them really understood their mentors,because as Nietzsche said, all Philosophy is unconscious autobiography.
Schopenhauer thought that his Will was the same as Kant's 'thing in itself'; That is a misunderstanding... some misunderstandings are HAPPY ones.
"In the Great Hall of the Linz Library are the busts of Kant,Schopenhauer and Nietzsche,the greatest of our thinkers,in comparison with whom the British,the French and the Americans have nothing to offer.It is on the foundation of Kant's theory of knowledge that Schopenhauer built the edifice of his philosophy,and it is Schopenhauer who annihilated the pragmatism of Hegel.I carried Schopenhauer's works with me throughout the whole of the first war.From him I learned a great deal although Schopenhauer's pessimism has been far surpassed by Nietzsche".[Hitler,Table Talk,May 1944]
Nietzsche achieved the paradox of a non-transcendent metaphysics.
How to give meaning to a seemingly meaningless world [i.e.,a world without God]?
Schopenhauer,like all Nihilists chose will denial;
Nietzsche willed the Will to Power.
The Superman stamps his will on the whole of existence;he faces up to the tragic reality of the eternal return,he even glories in it.
Dionysian philosophy, tragic philosophy;
It is how one RESPONDS to the impossibility of an other-worldly metaphysics.
Life IS Will to Power.
The WTP is a 'lie'?..
...well then;
"what is truth?,said jesting Pilate,and wouldn't stay for an answer".
You've washed your hands of this one!
And your infinite regression is non-transcendental? - so God is dead for you too!
So,allow me to turn the tables,and say that your infinite regression IS the WTP.... well,it is certainly not God - God is nothing if not transcendent.
A rose by any other name.
Blood
I think there was a Blood link between Nietzsche and Aristotle.
Noble Blood will always out.
Caste in Sanskrit is 'Varna';the word literally means 'colour'.
"VARNA:The brightness of the light of truth is the 'arya varna',the hue of these Aryans who are 'jyotiragrah';
The darkness of the night of their ignorance is the hue of Panis ['destroyers'],the 'dasa varna'.
In this way 'varna' would come to mean almost the nature or else all those of that particular nature;and that this idea was a current notion among the ancient Aryans seems to me to be shown by the later use of different colours to distinguish the four castes [in descending order]-
White,Red,Yellow and Black".
[Sri Aurobindo,'Keys to Vedic Symbolism',1967]
GOD
God denies that He is a conjecture, the Will to Power doesn't.
When Nietzsche stated the WTP he quickly said,'and you will say that that too is only an interpretation - so much the better!
Of course the WTP is 'merely' a conjecture; we gladly admit it! - would that the God-lovers were so honest!
But let us weigh the two doctrines;
On the one hand, God is your creator, your master and your final judger. On the other, in the WTP one creates yourself, one masters oneself and others, one judges oneself according to the law ONESELF HAS WILLED FOR ONESELF!
God is a doctrine that accords with ... shall we say,'certain' natures, certain genes .. Slavish types.
The WTP is for Masters,warriors..all in all for Superior natures...superior genes.
The JudaeoChristian God is a Patriarch, whereas our pagan gods and godessess range from the most masculine to the most feminine,with all shades in between.
Let's see...Nietzsche's general area of origin was Saxony...Ah yes,the 8th century; Charlemagne massacres thousands of Saxons for refusing to convert to Christianity...He cuts down the Irminsul..
EVERYWHERE FORCED CONVERSIONS!
No, Christianity is not in the Saxon blood.
As Jung wrote,the God of the Germans is not Jehovah,it is that god of frenzy,Woutan....
Nietzsche was a product of generation after generation of religious men who strained against the alien religion...
The bow string was pulled ever tighter until...Nietzsche's arrow was unleashed...
Aryan man returned to his nature!
"Write with the blood my brothers,and you will find that blood itself is Spirit!"
[Nietzsche,TSZ]
There is no objective thing in itself that is the will to power.
To think so is to fall in to the trap of language.
God is a convention of language.
This is one reason why the WTP cannot be identified with 'God'.
television
The television viewer is put into a trance so that his critical faculty goes and his mind retains a jumbled assortment of misinformation!
Avoid television [and the movies] like the plague my brethren.
New Germania
It was Nietzsche's beloved sister Elisabeth,who with her husband Bernard Forster,set up a colony in South America called 'New Germany',which was to be built on Saxon farming families.
Forster was quite fore-sighted in seeing that the Jewish influence in Germany would lead to disaster, however his solution was far too ambitious, and fell into financial dificulties. Forster commited suicide, and Elisabeth eventually returned to old Germany to nurse her sick brother and set up the Nietzsche Archive.
In Nietzsche's own writings though [Thus Spake Zarathustra for example], there is the imploration for free spirits to seek out virgin lands and set up colonies.
Apparently,'New Germany' can still be recognised in South America,with a small community of blond Prostestant farmers.
Blood will out!
The fasces were axes bound with scourging sticks carried by the Lictors in ancient Rome.
They symbolised the power of the State to punish and execute.
The symbol was adopted by Mussolini.
Nietzsche use the words 'breeding' and 'willing'
Nietzsche (being a philologist) used words VERY carefully.
He also spoke of the 'world historical' significance of the 'Masters of the Earth', for example.
He constantly mentions Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Cesar Borgia, as types of the Superman.A ll of them men of deeds.
Why are they so afraid of the world historical side of Nietzsche?
Blond Beast
Nietzsche was well aware of the importance of race, saying that, "the profound,icy mistrust which the German provokes as soon as he arrives at power - even at the present time-is always still an aftermath of that inextinguishable horror with which for whole centuries Europe has regarded the wrath of the blond Teuton beast".
Those 'interpreters' who claim that Nietzsche coined the term 'blond beast' only figuratively, are liars who hope that the spoon-fed politically correct liberal morons they indoctrinate will not actually READ Nietzsche's works in their enterity.
To put the argument beyond doubt, let me quote the following from Nietzsche;
"The only Nobility is that of birth and blood [I do not refer here to the prefix 'Lord' and 'Burke's Peerage'- a parenthesis for donkeys]. Wherever people speak of the 'aristocracy of the intellect', reasons are generally not lacking for concealing something; it is known to be a pass-word among ambitious Jews. Intellect alone does not ennoble - on the contrary, something is always neede to ENNOBLE INTELLECT - What then is needed?-Blood ". [Nietzsche,WM 942]
Cultural drift over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution in PRE-HISTORY (and Nietzsche thought that much of what we call our 'nature'was established THEN) has created the spiritual,intellectual differences that are obvious between the main races of mankind.
Liberals think these differences can easily be wiped out,just as they think that the differences between the genders can be easily wiped out.
Naive fools.
Evolution has spoken;it will take a similarly vast epoch to make such changes again.
BUT...can technology and Breeding,and Discipline be used to create a Master race?
This is the question mankind must apply itself to.
How I love the screechings of the politically correct!
No doubt they would describe the work of scientists like Lorenz, Eysenck, Darwin and Galton as mere opinion, and books like 'The Bell Jar', as 'preference'.
In that they would be quite Nietzschean, as all human wisdom is 'perspective'- even that wonderfully unscientific Xtianity !
Even science is influenced by the political prejudices of the day!
It is no coincidence that the 'out of Africa' hypothesis of human origins, for example, is given far more emphasis today than other equally valid hypotheses,which point to scattered parallel evolution.
'Racism'is a meaningless term invented by liberals to stifle debate and research.
The Jews are properly Semites, and therefore not White. However,many different races have converted to Judaism over the years (White Jews are descendents of the Caucasian Khazars who converted to Judaism in the 8th century).
Nietzsche put the case very well for what Semitic values are in contradistinction to Aryan values.
It's actually a matter of DIFFERENCE. Or as Nietzsche preferred,distance.
Jews were actually the FIRST to popularise Nietzsche's work;
For example;G.Brandes,O.Levy,H.Zimmern and even Kaufmann!
Freud made many complimentary remarks about Nietzsche also.
So,as always,it is the liberals who are obsessed with this figment of their imaginations which they call 'racism'.
Liberal=mediocre.
If?....
...You dare aproach me with an ..'if'?
Amor Fati
My Sister and I
This book has no original manuscript source, has no connection with Elisabeth,and has been shown to be a fairly obvious forgery.
The edition by Amok [U.S.A.] publications contains in the introduction material from those who claim the book is genuine, and those who claim it is a fake [Kaufman is in the latter camp]. This edition also includes some of the later 'insane' letters of Nietzsche in its appendix, as well as photos of Nietzsche in the asylum and of his death-mask. It is straight forward exploitation stuff. Any Nietzschean looking at this book will need to wash themselves afterwards.
As in all these things the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the book reads nothing like Nietzsche, sounding more like a deliberate impersonation by someone who had admittedly immersed himself in Nietzsche's works [in English translation]. Unfortunately it betrays idioms peculiar to the Anglophone,as well as a few Hollywood style anachronisms.
Metaphysics
The term 'Metaphysics' refers purely to a form of Library classification,where the book of Aristotle's filed after his 'Physics' was known as the book 'after [meta] the Physics'.
Henceforth,out of pure [happy?] accident,it became known as the 'metaphysics',and many [wrongly] suppose it deals with things somehow 'beyond' [beyond is another possible translation of 'meta'] the physical.
In fact Aristotle called the book now known confusingly as 'The Metaphysics',his 'First Philosophy'.
In other words it looks at the most basic questions.
To show that this isn't any bizarre interpretation of mine,to quote from the 'Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy';
"When Andronicus of Rhodes [1st century B.C.] edited Aristotle's works,the 14 books dealing with 'The First Philosophy' were placed AFTER the books on PHYSICS ['meta ta physika'] and were accordingly called metaphysics.They deal with the most fundamental concepts: reality, existence, substance, causality,etc."....and further;"...rejection of TRANSCENDENT metaphysics does not rule out philosophical inquiry into the concepts of reality,existence,substance,etc."
The higher dimensions you postulate are speculative;they are also a transcendental supposition.
Evidence for them is subjective,so it follows that their supposed 'connection' with human emotions,such as faith is nothing other than subjective.
Indeed,they are a matter of faith.
Nietzsche deliberately eschewed technical terminology, to make us pay close attention to his CONTEXT in order to find out if he is talking about absolute or perspectival ideas.
2622
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday 28 February 2007
Tuesday 27 February 2007
Castes and Monarchy
It is thought in some quarters that the ancient Germans had no priestly caste. This view is in no small part due to this ancient source which compares the Celts with the Germans;
"Throughout Gaul there are two classes of persons of definite account and dignity. The common people are treated almost as slaves and are neither heard nor listened to in councils ...
Of the two notable classes, one consists of druids and the other of knights. The first concern themselves with divine affairs, managing public and private sacrifices and interpreting matters of religion ...
The Germans differ much from this manner of living. They have no druids to regulate divine worship, no zeal for sacrifices. They reckon among the gods those only whom they see and by whose offices they are openly assisted, such as the sun, the fire-god and the moon. Of the rest they have not even heard.
[Julius Caesar, The Gallic War Book VI]
As to which Caste should rule - whether Priests, Warriors of Farmers [taking the old Aryan triad], I personally favour either military rulers, or else leaders drawn from the warrior caste, as I think that "the military school of life" is the most effective at inculcating the virtues of discipline, comradeship, respect, self-sacrifice, order of rank, cleanliness, commanding and obedience; all of which are essential to rulership.
To me, it is the only real form of education.
I believe that all our greatest rulers and leaders had proven themselves as warriors to some degree, and I still think this is a necessary tradition.
Essentially I see life as Struggle; therefore the warrior is the human incarnation of this philosophic principle.
There is a distinction between philosopher and priest.
The latter is an institutional functionary, while the former is a thinker.
Many of our great warriors were also no mean philosophers.
This is because that 'military school of life' is also the best natural instructor in philosophy.
Think of Plato's system; Plato - whose very name referred to his wrestler-fighter's build [not only that, his ideal republic is clearly based on Sparta, the classic warrior society].
Of course, the three Caste preferences suggest different political leanings; warrior rule implies dictatorship, monarchy, aristocracy; priestly rule naturally suggests theocracy, while farmer rule implies a folkish socialism.
In a way, the basic triadic caste blueprint is the foundation for all our later viable political structures.
So whether one prefers military rule, theocracy, democracy, or even mobocracy, indicates our sincerely held, if more modern, political leanings
__________________
Monarchy
Otherwise, I hold with Monarchy, it being derived from warrior rule, of course.
"Republican Rome continued to use not merely the functions and powers of the old kings, but for ceremonial purposes even used the very name".
['A History of Rome', Myres]
"Divisions of power" within a kingdom refers to non-kingly elements taking power away from the king.
Dual kingship is not therefore, a division of power, anymore than a king sharing the throne with his queen is!
When the king commands the military, his ministers, the aristocracy, and the priests etc., this is not a 'division of power'!
Likewise, 'checks and balances' refers to any non-kingly elements having power OVER the king; this is against the whole concept of monarchy. This is not the same as the king having advisors, for example, as such are BENEATH the king's power.
Nor is Shakespeare putting words of self-doubt into a Medieval king's mouth in a work of fiction, an example of any such division of power: even the gods have doubts, according to poets.
The basic ethos of Mon-Archy is that one man rules when he is in the position of being king/emperor/fuhrer etc.,
This has been mankind's main political system for the greater part of world history.
It is only in the recent centuries in the Christian West where we have had kings overthrown, beginning in Europe with the Christian Cromwell, and the imposition of an anti-monarchical polity [Republican Rome retained its kings as did Athens, see the above quote].
Monarchy is a pagan system and so I support a paganistic monarchy as it is essentially monarchic.
Clearly, I object to a non-kingly power such as that of the Catholic Pope during the Christian period, which challenges the kingly power.
I am against non-kingly interests such as the financiers challenging the kingly power also.
I am also against an ideology which pretends that there is a mythical "kingdom of heaven", and therefore thumbs its nose at the real earthly kingdoms.
The Greeks were aware that their pagan pantheon was largely symbolic and metaphorical - a kind of Sabianism.
Euhmerism itself was a Greek doctrine [i.e., that gods were really just exceptional heroes from history who had been deified]
The philosopher Xenophanes knew that religion was anthropomorphic and therefore man-made.
"God" is just a way of referring to those aspects of life that are beyond our comprehension. For me 'god' is the force of Nature throughout the Universe - the Will to Power etc.,
All the personifications are just that.
Likewise, as Schopenhauer says, kingship is NATURAL.
So while history shows the reality of kingship on Earth, there is NO EVIDENCE of kingship in Heaven.
So if there is no 'kingdom of heaven', or if Christ was king of nothing, then what do we want with a 'Christian monarchy'? - which is a contradiction in terms because to Christians, CHRIST is their king, not Caesar.
Xenophanes
The Divine Right of Kings puts this in the most intense form. In the following, the stress on God actually places the King closer to God than the priest;
"The state of Monarchy is the most supreme thing upon this earth, for Kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God Himself are called gods ...
In the Scriptures, Kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation is to be compared to Divine Power.
Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a King is truly 'Parens patriae', the 'politique' father of his people ...
Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner of resemblance of Divine Power on earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King".
[King James I of Great Britain]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I support the all-encompassing ideal of Divine Right, where the Monarch is Lord of his god-given land, his legions [Folk] and his laws, according to the Will of the Creator.
He embodies a mythos which devolves from Heaven.
This mythos marries the Monarch, the people and the land in one Holy Unity.
The British mythos involves Brutus that refugee from the Trojan War [see Geoffrey of Monmouth]. It seems that the mythographers knew about cultural connections [passed down via myths] that were proven MUCH LATER by linguistics and archeology.
People like Geoffrey of Monmouth and Snorri Sturluson [Poetic Edda], writing in the Medieval period, dealt with these connections via mythology.
It was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that such mythologies recieved a scientific basis.
Look at the story of Troy, for example, long thought to be the pure invention of the Homer poet until the discoveries of Schliemann!
Now the Iliad is recognised to be based on historical fact.
That our occidental languages/ mythologies are of recent Indo-European derivation is beyond dispute: we are the western BRANCH of the Aryan tree.
Myths need to drive their roots deep.
At any rate, every healthy culture needs a mythos - the British mythos I have referred to above is a wide and wonderful one, taking in the whole Arthurian epos.
For the Empery of the Germanic people, perhaps our genealogists should find the closest to the line of Charlemagne?
I believe that the Blood-line itself, and the Role of kingship itself, are far more important than the particular individuals involved [providing they be of the Blood of course]. The institutions themselves are able to survive weak kings, just as they positively thrive under strong kings.
It MUST be heriditary in basis to be worthy of the name Royal.
I am not for a Christian Monarchy as such; the kingly line of Europe goes back far beyond the introduction of Christianity; indeed, I believe that the Royal culture merely assimilated the Christian and is redolent far more of paganism in its essence.
To me Monarchy is about an unbroken chain of inheritance and heritage going back into the mists of time. The English Royal line may properly go back to Woden, but then Woden, as Snorri said, was one of the Aesir and so from Asia as the name suggests.
To me, ultimately the Line goes back to the original Aryas - it was their gift to us.
I deplore the American renegades and their traitorship toward the Crown [and they are paying for that].
As far as Britain is concerned though, I think that we may have to go back to the Tudor line as the present 'Windsors' [actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha] have presided over race-treason in the Realm.
"Throughout Gaul there are two classes of persons of definite account and dignity. The common people are treated almost as slaves and are neither heard nor listened to in councils ...
Of the two notable classes, one consists of druids and the other of knights. The first concern themselves with divine affairs, managing public and private sacrifices and interpreting matters of religion ...
The Germans differ much from this manner of living. They have no druids to regulate divine worship, no zeal for sacrifices. They reckon among the gods those only whom they see and by whose offices they are openly assisted, such as the sun, the fire-god and the moon. Of the rest they have not even heard.
[Julius Caesar, The Gallic War Book VI]
As to which Caste should rule - whether Priests, Warriors of Farmers [taking the old Aryan triad], I personally favour either military rulers, or else leaders drawn from the warrior caste, as I think that "the military school of life" is the most effective at inculcating the virtues of discipline, comradeship, respect, self-sacrifice, order of rank, cleanliness, commanding and obedience; all of which are essential to rulership.
To me, it is the only real form of education.
I believe that all our greatest rulers and leaders had proven themselves as warriors to some degree, and I still think this is a necessary tradition.
Essentially I see life as Struggle; therefore the warrior is the human incarnation of this philosophic principle.
There is a distinction between philosopher and priest.
The latter is an institutional functionary, while the former is a thinker.
Many of our great warriors were also no mean philosophers.
This is because that 'military school of life' is also the best natural instructor in philosophy.
Think of Plato's system; Plato - whose very name referred to his wrestler-fighter's build [not only that, his ideal republic is clearly based on Sparta, the classic warrior society].
Of course, the three Caste preferences suggest different political leanings; warrior rule implies dictatorship, monarchy, aristocracy; priestly rule naturally suggests theocracy, while farmer rule implies a folkish socialism.
In a way, the basic triadic caste blueprint is the foundation for all our later viable political structures.
So whether one prefers military rule, theocracy, democracy, or even mobocracy, indicates our sincerely held, if more modern, political leanings
__________________
Monarchy
Otherwise, I hold with Monarchy, it being derived from warrior rule, of course.
Mon- = One, -arch = Rule.
True monarchy believes in ONE RULER - no intercessors, no division of powers, no Pope, no King of Kings, no 'checks and balances'.
One Ruler, who by his very POSITION is superhuman.
"Monarchy represents the belief in one man who is utterly Superior, a Leader, a Saviour".
[Nietzsche, Will to Power 752]
This man's Will IS Law.
All the rest is democratic and liberal tinkering.
Monarchy is coterminous with Aryan civilisation; for thousands upon thousands of years monarchical rule was the rule.
THEN, with the introduction of the Christian religion, within a few centuries, the monarchical principle is weakened [by those who claim that they recognise only Christ as the 'king of kings'] and eventually done away with, leading to today's world hyper-power, the USA, a state created in rebellion against monarchical rule!
A Judaized, anti-monarchical masonic state!
The USA, its policy aimed at unseating monarchs of all kinds in the name of its banker's "freedom"
No, messers democrats, the king is not one man "among many"!
To say so is an insult to the king [still an offence in many Arab kingdoms today - 'sabb that al-malikiya'].
As Frazer tells us;
"In Sparta, all state sacrifices were offered by the Kings as descendants of the god".
[The Golden Bough]
You insult a god when you insult a king.
You will suffer the fate of Christian martyrs like James Intercisus who dared to insult the Persian king Bahram by refusing the Aryan fire sacrifice!
That Christian was slowly sliced to pieces for his insult to kings!
True monarchy believes in ONE RULER - no intercessors, no division of powers, no Pope, no King of Kings, no 'checks and balances'.
One Ruler, who by his very POSITION is superhuman.
"Monarchy represents the belief in one man who is utterly Superior, a Leader, a Saviour".
[Nietzsche, Will to Power 752]
This man's Will IS Law.
All the rest is democratic and liberal tinkering.
Monarchy is coterminous with Aryan civilisation; for thousands upon thousands of years monarchical rule was the rule.
THEN, with the introduction of the Christian religion, within a few centuries, the monarchical principle is weakened [by those who claim that they recognise only Christ as the 'king of kings'] and eventually done away with, leading to today's world hyper-power, the USA, a state created in rebellion against monarchical rule!
A Judaized, anti-monarchical masonic state!
The USA, its policy aimed at unseating monarchs of all kinds in the name of its banker's "freedom"
No, messers democrats, the king is not one man "among many"!
To say so is an insult to the king [still an offence in many Arab kingdoms today - 'sabb that al-malikiya'].
As Frazer tells us;
"In Sparta, all state sacrifices were offered by the Kings as descendants of the god".
[The Golden Bough]
You insult a god when you insult a king.
You will suffer the fate of Christian martyrs like James Intercisus who dared to insult the Persian king Bahram by refusing the Aryan fire sacrifice!
That Christian was slowly sliced to pieces for his insult to kings!
__________________
"Monarchy is the most natural form of government for man".
[Schopenhauer]
[Schopenhauer]
The Roman Republic and Greek democracy retained their kings [the latter being defeated by kingly Sparta and then in turn by Alexander the Great, while Rome saw sense and went over to Imperial rule].
Europe's foul history of king-killers did not begin with the French but with the Britisher Cromwell, a most devout Christian. Indeed, Cromwell and his cut-throats [and Jewish moneyers] used the Biblical notions of Jesus being the only king ['king of kings' indeed!] as justification for their rank treason.
And Cromwell is not so far away from the Skull and Bones President of the USA who uses Christian rhetoric to up-hold his masonic design of Judaized world government, which includes the toppling of all ethnic kings and Leaders.
The USA has bred a mob of monarchy-haters!
They have no king in their Souls!
They have no Souls!
There has never been a more anti-kingly era than this one - thanks to the Jewish virus hidden in 'Christendom'!
"We may hope that one day even Europe will be purified of all Jewish mythology".
[Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena II]
There are a multitude of examples of rebels who have met their rightful deaths for insulting kings [even the merest slight could seal such a Fate] from ancient times up to the present day.
Ultimately kingship is pagan and symbolic;
KING:The masculine principle;
Sovereignty;
Temporal power;
Supreme achievement in the temporal world;
The supreme ruler, equated with the Creator God and the Sun, whose delegate he is on earth.
In many traditions it was held that the vitality of the king reflected, or was responsible for, the vitality of his people and the fertility of the land, hence the sacrifice of the king, or, late, his scapegoat, when his vitality waned.
The king and queen together represent perfect union, the two halves of the perfect whole, completeness, the androgyne;
They are also symbolised by, and symbolise, the Sun and Moon, heaven and earth, gold and silver, day and night, and, in Alchemy, sulphur and quicksilver.
Attributes of the king are the sun, crown, sceptre, orb, sword, arrows, the throne.
[Cooper, Encyclopedia of Symbols]
The Sun is the Swastika.
There are Kings ONLY upon Earth - there is no "kingdom of heaven"!
Christ was NEVER a king - he was mocked by the Noble Romans who derided him as "king of the Jews"!
He had no kingdom then, he has no kingdom NOW!
Europe's foul history of king-killers did not begin with the French but with the Britisher Cromwell, a most devout Christian. Indeed, Cromwell and his cut-throats [and Jewish moneyers] used the Biblical notions of Jesus being the only king ['king of kings' indeed!] as justification for their rank treason.
And Cromwell is not so far away from the Skull and Bones President of the USA who uses Christian rhetoric to up-hold his masonic design of Judaized world government, which includes the toppling of all ethnic kings and Leaders.
The USA has bred a mob of monarchy-haters!
They have no king in their Souls!
They have no Souls!
There has never been a more anti-kingly era than this one - thanks to the Jewish virus hidden in 'Christendom'!
"We may hope that one day even Europe will be purified of all Jewish mythology".
[Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena II]
There are a multitude of examples of rebels who have met their rightful deaths for insulting kings [even the merest slight could seal such a Fate] from ancient times up to the present day.
Ultimately kingship is pagan and symbolic;
KING:The masculine principle;
Sovereignty;
Temporal power;
Supreme achievement in the temporal world;
The supreme ruler, equated with the Creator God and the Sun, whose delegate he is on earth.
In many traditions it was held that the vitality of the king reflected, or was responsible for, the vitality of his people and the fertility of the land, hence the sacrifice of the king, or, late, his scapegoat, when his vitality waned.
The king and queen together represent perfect union, the two halves of the perfect whole, completeness, the androgyne;
They are also symbolised by, and symbolise, the Sun and Moon, heaven and earth, gold and silver, day and night, and, in Alchemy, sulphur and quicksilver.
Attributes of the king are the sun, crown, sceptre, orb, sword, arrows, the throne.
[Cooper, Encyclopedia of Symbols]
The Sun is the Swastika.
There are Kings ONLY upon Earth - there is no "kingdom of heaven"!
Christ was NEVER a king - he was mocked by the Noble Romans who derided him as "king of the Jews"!
He had no kingdom then, he has no kingdom NOW!
"Republican Rome continued to use not merely the functions and powers of the old kings, but for ceremonial purposes even used the very name".
['A History of Rome', Myres]
"Divisions of power" within a kingdom refers to non-kingly elements taking power away from the king.
Dual kingship is not therefore, a division of power, anymore than a king sharing the throne with his queen is!
When the king commands the military, his ministers, the aristocracy, and the priests etc., this is not a 'division of power'!
Likewise, 'checks and balances' refers to any non-kingly elements having power OVER the king; this is against the whole concept of monarchy. This is not the same as the king having advisors, for example, as such are BENEATH the king's power.
Nor is Shakespeare putting words of self-doubt into a Medieval king's mouth in a work of fiction, an example of any such division of power: even the gods have doubts, according to poets.
The basic ethos of Mon-Archy is that one man rules when he is in the position of being king/emperor/fuhrer etc.,
This has been mankind's main political system for the greater part of world history.
It is only in the recent centuries in the Christian West where we have had kings overthrown, beginning in Europe with the Christian Cromwell, and the imposition of an anti-monarchical polity [Republican Rome retained its kings as did Athens, see the above quote].
Monarchy is a pagan system and so I support a paganistic monarchy as it is essentially monarchic.
Clearly, I object to a non-kingly power such as that of the Catholic Pope during the Christian period, which challenges the kingly power.
I am against non-kingly interests such as the financiers challenging the kingly power also.
I am also against an ideology which pretends that there is a mythical "kingdom of heaven", and therefore thumbs its nose at the real earthly kingdoms.
The Greeks were aware that their pagan pantheon was largely symbolic and metaphorical - a kind of Sabianism.
Euhmerism itself was a Greek doctrine [i.e., that gods were really just exceptional heroes from history who had been deified]
The philosopher Xenophanes knew that religion was anthropomorphic and therefore man-made.
"God" is just a way of referring to those aspects of life that are beyond our comprehension. For me 'god' is the force of Nature throughout the Universe - the Will to Power etc.,
All the personifications are just that.
Likewise, as Schopenhauer says, kingship is NATURAL.
So while history shows the reality of kingship on Earth, there is NO EVIDENCE of kingship in Heaven.
So if there is no 'kingdom of heaven', or if Christ was king of nothing, then what do we want with a 'Christian monarchy'? - which is a contradiction in terms because to Christians, CHRIST is their king, not Caesar.
Xenophanes
The Divine Right of Kings puts this in the most intense form. In the following, the stress on God actually places the King closer to God than the priest;
"The state of Monarchy is the most supreme thing upon this earth, for Kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God Himself are called gods ...
In the Scriptures, Kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation is to be compared to Divine Power.
Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a King is truly 'Parens patriae', the 'politique' father of his people ...
Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner of resemblance of Divine Power on earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King".
[King James I of Great Britain]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I support the all-encompassing ideal of Divine Right, where the Monarch is Lord of his god-given land, his legions [Folk] and his laws, according to the Will of the Creator.
He embodies a mythos which devolves from Heaven.
This mythos marries the Monarch, the people and the land in one Holy Unity.
The British mythos involves Brutus that refugee from the Trojan War [see Geoffrey of Monmouth]. It seems that the mythographers knew about cultural connections [passed down via myths] that were proven MUCH LATER by linguistics and archeology.
People like Geoffrey of Monmouth and Snorri Sturluson [Poetic Edda], writing in the Medieval period, dealt with these connections via mythology.
It was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that such mythologies recieved a scientific basis.
Look at the story of Troy, for example, long thought to be the pure invention of the Homer poet until the discoveries of Schliemann!
Now the Iliad is recognised to be based on historical fact.
That our occidental languages/ mythologies are of recent Indo-European derivation is beyond dispute: we are the western BRANCH of the Aryan tree.
Myths need to drive their roots deep.
At any rate, every healthy culture needs a mythos - the British mythos I have referred to above is a wide and wonderful one, taking in the whole Arthurian epos.
For the Empery of the Germanic people, perhaps our genealogists should find the closest to the line of Charlemagne?
I believe that the Blood-line itself, and the Role of kingship itself, are far more important than the particular individuals involved [providing they be of the Blood of course]. The institutions themselves are able to survive weak kings, just as they positively thrive under strong kings.
It MUST be heriditary in basis to be worthy of the name Royal.
I am not for a Christian Monarchy as such; the kingly line of Europe goes back far beyond the introduction of Christianity; indeed, I believe that the Royal culture merely assimilated the Christian and is redolent far more of paganism in its essence.
To me Monarchy is about an unbroken chain of inheritance and heritage going back into the mists of time. The English Royal line may properly go back to Woden, but then Woden, as Snorri said, was one of the Aesir and so from Asia as the name suggests.
To me, ultimately the Line goes back to the original Aryas - it was their gift to us.
I deplore the American renegades and their traitorship toward the Crown [and they are paying for that].
As far as Britain is concerned though, I think that we may have to go back to the Tudor line as the present 'Windsors' [actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha] have presided over race-treason in the Realm.
As to the importance of Woden for the English;
"The East Saxon royal genealogy is unique of all Anglo-Saxon royal pedigrees because the Kings of Essex claimed descent from the god Seaxnet and not WODEN AS IS MORE USUAL".
[See this link for full article;]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A923474
There is a lineal descent from Woden to the present Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.
It is Snorri who gives us details of the Aesir and the Vanir which we do not have from any other source. He deliberately links the Aesir with Asia which is not far-fetched as we now know about the self-explanatory Eurasian connections of Indo-European culture. Also, the Aryan homeland is thought by most analysts to have been in the East.
The similarities between the Vedic gods and the Norse gods is just another example.
I take the Vanir to represent the pre-Aryan Old Europeans who merged with the invading Aryans [from the East], or Aesir.
The Tudors were of Welsh descent, but they were thoroughly British as their lineage shows. Henry was the father of our greatest Queen, of course;
The Tudor system is the closest to a desired British national polity from the kingly past.
Charlemagne is an example of a pan-European Emperor whose death was followed by the break-up of that entity; by repairing his line we could re-constitute that Imperium.
In actual fact, the divinity of kings as an out-look began to wane in the Christian period towards the parlous state it is in today.
In his mammoth and epochal book, 'The Golden Bough', Frazer dwells at length on the conception of kingship amongst the ancients;
"The divinity which hedges a king has its roots deep down in human history ..."
[Ib., chapter XVI]
Talking of the "kings in the classical period of Greek and Latin antiquity" he says;
"The stories of their lineage, titles, and pretensions suffice to prove that they too claimed to rule by DIVINE RIGHT and to exercise by superhuman powers".
[ib., my emphasis]
There is a wealth of material in Frazer's book covering many cultures to prove the point. Therefore we can say that the Christian period is marked by the diminishment of the divine right principle in its true sense.
Talking of the antiquity of European paganism in general, Frazer says;
"In those days the divinity that hedges a king was no empty form of speech, but the expression of a sober belief. Kings were revered, in many cases not merely as priests, that is, as intercessors between man and god, but as themselves gods ..."
[ib.,]
So we see that in the Christian period the Church and State are split and are often at war with each other, leading eventually to the reduction in power of both.
To get the pure Aryan view on this, we must go to the Laws of Manu;
"The Lord [god] emitted a king in order to guard his entire realm".
[Manu 7:3]
Of the divinity of kings;
"Because a king is made from the particles of these lords of the gods, therefore he surpasses all living beings in brilliant energy, and like the Sun, he burns eyes and hearts, and no one on earth is able even to look at him".
[ib., 7:5,6]
This reminds us of the taboo against looking the king in the eye.
That kingship actually DEVOLVES from the divine is made clear here;
"Even a boy king should not be treated with disrespect, with the thought, 'He is just a human being'; for this is a great deity standing there in the form of a man".
[ib., 7:8]
The coronation ceremony is thought to derive from the Celts.
One Folk
One Empire, and
One Leader.
All the rest is silence.
When we talk of 'democracy' and 'republicanism' generally we are referring to the forms of government we know of today which utilise a universal suffrage quite unknown to the ancient world.
So when we mean the latter [Greece and Rome] we qualify them by saying 'Athenian Greece' or 'Republican Rome'. Both [as I have said] retained monarchical functions of the kind found in what I call 'true monarchies'.
My conception of monarchy rests on the notion of true kingship; Evola illustrates this power of true true kingship when he says;" ... just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".
Just as National Socialism says that the Will of the Leader IS Law, or Louis XIV says that "the state is I" [L'Etat, c'est moi!]
__________________
Aryan Invasions Pattern
The Swastika as a symbol of a European Monarchy.
The Swastika is only found in areas of ancient Aryan expansion and settlement [it is not found in Africa for example]; therefore it was chosen as a pan-Aryan symbol, rightly so.
As the symbol of the the sun, the swastika may be universal, but it means one thing to a nord [who welcomes it], and something very different to an African who is tormented by its heat.
KING CNVTE
"The East Saxon royal genealogy is unique of all Anglo-Saxon royal pedigrees because the Kings of Essex claimed descent from the god Seaxnet and not WODEN AS IS MORE USUAL".
[See this link for full article;]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A923474
There is a lineal descent from Woden to the present Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.
It is Snorri who gives us details of the Aesir and the Vanir which we do not have from any other source. He deliberately links the Aesir with Asia which is not far-fetched as we now know about the self-explanatory Eurasian connections of Indo-European culture. Also, the Aryan homeland is thought by most analysts to have been in the East.
The similarities between the Vedic gods and the Norse gods is just another example.
I take the Vanir to represent the pre-Aryan Old Europeans who merged with the invading Aryans [from the East], or Aesir.
The Tudors were of Welsh descent, but they were thoroughly British as their lineage shows. Henry was the father of our greatest Queen, of course;
The Tudor system is the closest to a desired British national polity from the kingly past.
Charlemagne is an example of a pan-European Emperor whose death was followed by the break-up of that entity; by repairing his line we could re-constitute that Imperium.
_______________
In a polytheistic system, such as that of the Heathen Anglo-Saxons, it is not surprising that various tribes had different deities - but they were all from the same pantheon, so to speak.
The Saxons were a tribal confederation, some looked to Saxnot, but the majority looked to Woden. In England the Saxons divided themselves up into the East Saxons [present-day Essex], West Saxons [Wessex], South Saxons [Sussex] and Middle Saxons [Middlesex].
The Saxon flag as flown by the last true Saxon king, Harold, at the Battle of Hastings, was a red winged dragon with a green and yellow tail.
http://flagspot.net/flags/fr_bayxt.html
The Angles [Anglia] are thought to have come from Angeln, the name referring to a 'Hook' of land [cf., the sport using the fishing hook, angling, as you refer to in your list of flags].
'Ing' occurs in the Anglo-Saxon rune-row and is described as a hero from over the seas.
Ing Rune
The Jutes are really a mystery, and are usually associated with Jutland for convenience.
However, as I said, with a polytheistic system various Folk can devote themselves to a particular deity from the pantheon [as Hindus still do in India], but there tends to be a henotheistic over-lord, in this case Woden.
Properly speaking, 'British' royalty is Keltic and therefore related to the Druidic system. Waddell in his books manages to link the Keltic and Teutonic kingdoms.
The Saxons were a tribal confederation, some looked to Saxnot, but the majority looked to Woden. In England the Saxons divided themselves up into the East Saxons [present-day Essex], West Saxons [Wessex], South Saxons [Sussex] and Middle Saxons [Middlesex].
The Saxon flag as flown by the last true Saxon king, Harold, at the Battle of Hastings, was a red winged dragon with a green and yellow tail.
http://flagspot.net/flags/fr_bayxt.html
The Angles [Anglia] are thought to have come from Angeln, the name referring to a 'Hook' of land [cf., the sport using the fishing hook, angling, as you refer to in your list of flags].
'Ing' occurs in the Anglo-Saxon rune-row and is described as a hero from over the seas.
Ing Rune
The Jutes are really a mystery, and are usually associated with Jutland for convenience.
However, as I said, with a polytheistic system various Folk can devote themselves to a particular deity from the pantheon [as Hindus still do in India], but there tends to be a henotheistic over-lord, in this case Woden.
Properly speaking, 'British' royalty is Keltic and therefore related to the Druidic system. Waddell in his books manages to link the Keltic and Teutonic kingdoms.
I conceive of Royalty being ultimately Pan-Aryan.
Etymologists are certain that Wotan/Woden/Odin derives from an Indo-European word, *Wut- meaning a 'frenzy'. This is shown by the now obsolete word 'wod' in English, meaning to go crazy. Shakespeare utilises it in a pun when he says to "wood in a wood" - i.e., go mad in a forest.
As I said above, many Saxon kings traced their lineage back to Woden as he was a favourite god of many of the nordic pagan tribes in this pre-Christian era. He seems to have usurped Tiw and therefore combined the notions of inspiration and war-frenzy.
I doubt that we can disentangle such ancient tribal groupings as Jutish and Angle, which are historically problematical anyway. I think we should work on the principle of precedence, and look at the qualities of past royal lineages. The Tudors give us the example of a strong racial state [Jews were still banned until the usurper Cromwell committed his crimes] which allowed the highest culture [e.g., Shakespeare] to flourish.
Therefore the Tudors get my nod.
As I said above, many Saxon kings traced their lineage back to Woden as he was a favourite god of many of the nordic pagan tribes in this pre-Christian era. He seems to have usurped Tiw and therefore combined the notions of inspiration and war-frenzy.
I doubt that we can disentangle such ancient tribal groupings as Jutish and Angle, which are historically problematical anyway. I think we should work on the principle of precedence, and look at the qualities of past royal lineages. The Tudors give us the example of a strong racial state [Jews were still banned until the usurper Cromwell committed his crimes] which allowed the highest culture [e.g., Shakespeare] to flourish.
Therefore the Tudors get my nod.
The Cross as an Aryan symbol pre-dates Christianity of course; the crucifix form being known as the 'staff of apollo'.
The Aryan influences on Christian symbolism are mentioned here;
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com
I choose the Tudors as the most legitimate royal house for Britain - we have to work with the historical/ mythical material that has come down to us.
The Aryan influences on Christian symbolism are mentioned here;
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com
I choose the Tudors as the most legitimate royal house for Britain - we have to work with the historical/ mythical material that has come down to us.
As well as a royal house for each European nation. we also need to look at the possibility of a pan-European monarchy.
Is 'Divine Right' a typically Christian outlook? I would be cautious of finding anything 'typically' Christian!
In actual fact, the divinity of kings as an out-look began to wane in the Christian period towards the parlous state it is in today.
In his mammoth and epochal book, 'The Golden Bough', Frazer dwells at length on the conception of kingship amongst the ancients;
"The divinity which hedges a king has its roots deep down in human history ..."
[Ib., chapter XVI]
Talking of the "kings in the classical period of Greek and Latin antiquity" he says;
"The stories of their lineage, titles, and pretensions suffice to prove that they too claimed to rule by DIVINE RIGHT and to exercise by superhuman powers".
[ib., my emphasis]
There is a wealth of material in Frazer's book covering many cultures to prove the point. Therefore we can say that the Christian period is marked by the diminishment of the divine right principle in its true sense.
Talking of the antiquity of European paganism in general, Frazer says;
"In those days the divinity that hedges a king was no empty form of speech, but the expression of a sober belief. Kings were revered, in many cases not merely as priests, that is, as intercessors between man and god, but as themselves gods ..."
[ib.,]
So we see that in the Christian period the Church and State are split and are often at war with each other, leading eventually to the reduction in power of both.
To get the pure Aryan view on this, we must go to the Laws of Manu;
"The Lord [god] emitted a king in order to guard his entire realm".
[Manu 7:3]
Of the divinity of kings;
"Because a king is made from the particles of these lords of the gods, therefore he surpasses all living beings in brilliant energy, and like the Sun, he burns eyes and hearts, and no one on earth is able even to look at him".
[ib., 7:5,6]
This reminds us of the taboo against looking the king in the eye.
That kingship actually DEVOLVES from the divine is made clear here;
"Even a boy king should not be treated with disrespect, with the thought, 'He is just a human being'; for this is a great deity standing there in the form of a man".
[ib., 7:8]
The coronation ceremony is thought to derive from the Celts.
Indeed, the Christian stance is actually ultimately corrosive to true Absolute Kingship; the Christian calling of a King "one among many" would actually be treasonable in a total monarchy.
The conflict between Church and State goes back to the medieval period with the Pope(s) and Emperors vying for supremacy - a split brought about by Christian ideology. With a division between Church and State neither one can be absolute. Emperor and Pope must be combined in the divine person of the King!
The King is not just a "man" as the Laws of Manu make clear; to suggest so would be treasonable in an absolute monarchy.
The conflict between Church and State goes back to the medieval period with the Pope(s) and Emperors vying for supremacy - a split brought about by Christian ideology. With a division between Church and State neither one can be absolute. Emperor and Pope must be combined in the divine person of the King!
The King is not just a "man" as the Laws of Manu make clear; to suggest so would be treasonable in an absolute monarchy.
Ccorruption in power in the Christian period is largely due to;
1) The split between Church and State - endemic conflict breeding corruption, and,
2) The diminishing of the divine status of the monarch - leading to rebellion and to a rampant egoism.
And who 'checks' the supreme power?
The Church in all its corruption?
Or the bankers in all their deracinated greed?
And, under this theory of the necessity of such 'checks', - who checks the checkers?
No!
Bring in occam's razor; all we need is;
1) The split between Church and State - endemic conflict breeding corruption, and,
2) The diminishing of the divine status of the monarch - leading to rebellion and to a rampant egoism.
And who 'checks' the supreme power?
The Church in all its corruption?
Or the bankers in all their deracinated greed?
And, under this theory of the necessity of such 'checks', - who checks the checkers?
No!
Bring in occam's razor; all we need is;
One Folk
One Empire, and
One Leader.
All the rest is silence.
As to corruption in the monarchical system; I note that monarchies across Eurasia have produced vibrant leadership and high culture century upon century from time immemorial, whereas secular rule has produced corruption and degenration within just a few decades.
Why? - because secular rule has no conception of Duty, Loyalty, and yes ... no conception of Tradition.
Let there always be a caste bred to rule, a caste conditioned from birth that its sole reason in life is to rule according to divine right.
Let this caste be imbued with the accumulated wealth of the nation so as to be above corruption!
This system works because ultimately that wealth of the nation belongs to the nation and is only held in stewardship by the royal caste. It is their duty to hold onto it and not to sell-it-out as the secular politicians have done.
Why? - because secular rule has no conception of Duty, Loyalty, and yes ... no conception of Tradition.
Let there always be a caste bred to rule, a caste conditioned from birth that its sole reason in life is to rule according to divine right.
Let this caste be imbued with the accumulated wealth of the nation so as to be above corruption!
This system works because ultimately that wealth of the nation belongs to the nation and is only held in stewardship by the royal caste. It is their duty to hold onto it and not to sell-it-out as the secular politicians have done.
Such single Rulers include kings, queens, emperors, caesars, kaisers, tsars, dictators, fuhrers, Leaders etc., etc.,
Evola says, in his 'Men Amongst Ruins', for example, that;
"The ancient Roman notion of IMPERIUM essentially belonged to the domain of the sacred".
So the religious and the political MUST be united in the Monarch by my conception - hence I reject the separation between the holy monarch [the Pope] and the king, found in Christian history.
Conflicts between Church and State have included the war between the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for example. Of course such a conflict exists within the soul of every Christian who perversely calls Jesus Christ [a carpenter's son who was crucified like a common criminal] a "king". King of what isn't certain, but it apparently also means that Jesus is the "king of kings"!
Such impudence! Christians even think of their heaven as being a "kingdom"!
Amazingly, some Christians have taken this literally and have opposed the true kingly power which is only on Earth. Cromwell was such a Christian literalist fanatic who saw fit to murder a king.
Of course, Cromwell tried to make himself into a Monarch; he failed because his heir [his son as in the kingly fashion] was not up to it. The monarchy was restored and Cromwell's body dug up, beheaded and hung on traitor's gate. Such should be the ultimate fate of all king-killers.
As for Rome, the rejection of the Etruscan kings led to the establishment of the mon-archical offices of dictator and Emperor;
DICTATOR - 'dictator rei gerendae causa' - held "absolute military and civil power in the State".
Examples include;
Camillus - five terms
Cincinnatus - 5th century BC
The following are all 4th century BC;
Corvus - two terms
Rufinus
Cursor
Rullianus
3rd century BC;
Caecus - two terms
Caiatinus
Cunctator
Maximus
1st century BC;
Sulla [made himself dictator without limit]
Julius Caesar, 'dictator for life'.
The Emperor Augustus ruled as an AUTOCRAT for more than 40 years;
"An AUTOCRAT is generally speaking any ruler with absolute power, the term is now usually used in a negative sense (cf., despot and tyrant). The term is derived from the Greek word 'autocrat' (literally 'self-ruler' or 'ruler-of-one's-self')".
[ib.,]
More generally we have the concept of dictatorship;
"DICTATORSHIP; a government headed by a Dictator or more generally any authoritarian or totalitarian government".
"TOTALITARIANISM is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all respects of day-to-day life".
[ib.,]
We can think of many examples of these throughout world/history.
Often a Dictator creates a "FAMILY DICTATORSHIP which operates much like an absolute monarchy".
[ib.,]
Thinking of Cromwell, Napoleon and others we note this form of monarchy;
"A SELF-PROCLAIMED MONARCHY is a monarchy that is proclaimed into existence, often by a single individual, rather than occurring as part of a longstanding tradition. It is at least initially the opposite of most hereditary monarchies, although if a self-proclaimed monarchy is successful, it will evolve into a hereditary one".
[ib.,]
My own [and Evola's] starting point is this;
"An ABSOLUTE MONARCHY is an idealised form of government, a monarchy where the ruler has the power to rule their country and citizens freely with no laws or legally-organised direct opposition telling the monarchy what to do ....
Basically an absolute monarch has total power over its people and land - including the aristocracy ...".
[ib.,]
Examples from history are multitudinous; we can probably begin with the Pharaohs.
Note that Savitri Devi illustrates her thesis with three mon-archical characters; the Pharaoh Akhenaton [a true mono-archist], Genghis Khan [means 'Universal Ruler'] and Adolf Hitler [single Leader of the Third German Empire].
"Thus it was rightly said: 'princeps a legibus solutus' - namely, the law does not apply to the one who acts as Leader, just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".
[Evola, Men Among Ruins]
It is this concept which is central, as I said before: - the king IS the Law!
On Hitler's view of Monarchy.
While it's true that Hitler was very critical of monarchism's degenerate aspects - the tendency for servility to become endemic, for example - it must be pointed out that he supported monarchism in principle according to his Mein Kampf.
In that book, after making criticisms of monarchism, he then asserts that monarchy has "unquestionable assets", which he goes on to describe;
"The stability of the entire state leadership, brought about by the monarchic form of state and
The removal of the highest state posts from the welter of speculation by ambitious politicians.
Furthermore, the dignity of the institution of monarchy as such and
The authority which this alone created:
Likewise the raising of the civil service and particularly the army above the level of party obligations.
One more advantage was the personal embodiment of the State's summit in the monarch as a person, and the example of responsibility which is bound to be stronger in a monarch than in the accidental rabble of a parliamentary majority ...
Finally, the cultural value of the monarchy for the German people was high and could very well compensate for other drawbacks ...
What the German princes did for art and science, particularly in the 19th century, was examplary. The present period [i.e., 1925] cannot be compared with it ..."
[Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler. Bk I:10]
So we see that Hitler was a monarchist at heart and modelled his own Fuhrerprinzip on an idealised monarchism.
Hitler greets the Duke of Windsor, England's future king.
Evola says, in his 'Men Amongst Ruins', for example, that;
"The ancient Roman notion of IMPERIUM essentially belonged to the domain of the sacred".
So the religious and the political MUST be united in the Monarch by my conception - hence I reject the separation between the holy monarch [the Pope] and the king, found in Christian history.
Conflicts between Church and State have included the war between the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for example. Of course such a conflict exists within the soul of every Christian who perversely calls Jesus Christ [a carpenter's son who was crucified like a common criminal] a "king". King of what isn't certain, but it apparently also means that Jesus is the "king of kings"!
Such impudence! Christians even think of their heaven as being a "kingdom"!
Amazingly, some Christians have taken this literally and have opposed the true kingly power which is only on Earth. Cromwell was such a Christian literalist fanatic who saw fit to murder a king.
Of course, Cromwell tried to make himself into a Monarch; he failed because his heir [his son as in the kingly fashion] was not up to it. The monarchy was restored and Cromwell's body dug up, beheaded and hung on traitor's gate. Such should be the ultimate fate of all king-killers.
As for Rome, the rejection of the Etruscan kings led to the establishment of the mon-archical offices of dictator and Emperor;
DICTATOR - 'dictator rei gerendae causa' - held "absolute military and civil power in the State".
Examples include;
Camillus - five terms
Cincinnatus - 5th century BC
The following are all 4th century BC;
Corvus - two terms
Rufinus
Cursor
Rullianus
3rd century BC;
Caecus - two terms
Caiatinus
Cunctator
Maximus
1st century BC;
Sulla [made himself dictator without limit]
Julius Caesar, 'dictator for life'.
The Emperor Augustus ruled as an AUTOCRAT for more than 40 years;
"An AUTOCRAT is generally speaking any ruler with absolute power, the term is now usually used in a negative sense (cf., despot and tyrant). The term is derived from the Greek word 'autocrat' (literally 'self-ruler' or 'ruler-of-one's-self')".
[ib.,]
More generally we have the concept of dictatorship;
"DICTATORSHIP; a government headed by a Dictator or more generally any authoritarian or totalitarian government".
"TOTALITARIANISM is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all respects of day-to-day life".
[ib.,]
We can think of many examples of these throughout world/history.
Often a Dictator creates a "FAMILY DICTATORSHIP which operates much like an absolute monarchy".
[ib.,]
Thinking of Cromwell, Napoleon and others we note this form of monarchy;
"A SELF-PROCLAIMED MONARCHY is a monarchy that is proclaimed into existence, often by a single individual, rather than occurring as part of a longstanding tradition. It is at least initially the opposite of most hereditary monarchies, although if a self-proclaimed monarchy is successful, it will evolve into a hereditary one".
[ib.,]
My own [and Evola's] starting point is this;
"An ABSOLUTE MONARCHY is an idealised form of government, a monarchy where the ruler has the power to rule their country and citizens freely with no laws or legally-organised direct opposition telling the monarchy what to do ....
Basically an absolute monarch has total power over its people and land - including the aristocracy ...".
[ib.,]
Examples from history are multitudinous; we can probably begin with the Pharaohs.
Note that Savitri Devi illustrates her thesis with three mon-archical characters; the Pharaoh Akhenaton [a true mono-archist], Genghis Khan [means 'Universal Ruler'] and Adolf Hitler [single Leader of the Third German Empire].
"Thus it was rightly said: 'princeps a legibus solutus' - namely, the law does not apply to the one who acts as Leader, just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".
[Evola, Men Among Ruins]
It is this concept which is central, as I said before: - the king IS the Law!
On Hitler's view of Monarchy.
While it's true that Hitler was very critical of monarchism's degenerate aspects - the tendency for servility to become endemic, for example - it must be pointed out that he supported monarchism in principle according to his Mein Kampf.
In that book, after making criticisms of monarchism, he then asserts that monarchy has "unquestionable assets", which he goes on to describe;
"The stability of the entire state leadership, brought about by the monarchic form of state and
The removal of the highest state posts from the welter of speculation by ambitious politicians.
Furthermore, the dignity of the institution of monarchy as such and
The authority which this alone created:
Likewise the raising of the civil service and particularly the army above the level of party obligations.
One more advantage was the personal embodiment of the State's summit in the monarch as a person, and the example of responsibility which is bound to be stronger in a monarch than in the accidental rabble of a parliamentary majority ...
Finally, the cultural value of the monarchy for the German people was high and could very well compensate for other drawbacks ...
What the German princes did for art and science, particularly in the 19th century, was examplary. The present period [i.e., 1925] cannot be compared with it ..."
[Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler. Bk I:10]
So we see that Hitler was a monarchist at heart and modelled his own Fuhrerprinzip on an idealised monarchism.
Hitler greets the Duke of Windsor, England's future king.
A Monarchy is a kind of state, but the monarch should not be called a statesman - he is more exalted than that.
He is above the state - but he IS the state.
Obviously, democracies and republics etc., are not true monarchies; they give some power to the 'demos' or to the 'public'.
In a true monarchy power rests solely with the monarch.
All other political aspects of the state have to go to the monarch before they can act; they need the monarch's 'seal of approval'.
He is above the state - but he IS the state.
Obviously, democracies and republics etc., are not true monarchies; they give some power to the 'demos' or to the 'public'.
In a true monarchy power rests solely with the monarch.
All other political aspects of the state have to go to the monarch before they can act; they need the monarch's 'seal of approval'.
Clearly, what we call 'democracy' or 'republicanism' bears little relation to the what was called Democracy in Greece or Republicanism in Rome.
Athens was first ruled by kings, as was Rome, which passed through a republican phase - [which retained kingly functions - even then it had the office of Dictator] - before being ruled by Emperors.
I have already listed the Dictators such as Sulla and Caesar; we can add well known figures such as Alexander the Great as well, and also the monarchs of ancient Egypt, Persia etc., etc.,
A Dictator is a mon-arch in all but name [just as, in a reversed instance, the current Queen of England is a mon-arch in name only].
Alexander, Sulla, Hitler etc., were DE FACTO mon-archs [while Louis XIV is an example of a monarch who calls himself one and IS one]; while Queen Elizabeth the Second is merely a figurehead who is called a 'mon-arch', but isn't one, going by the definition of a mon-arch as a single ruler.
Monarchs can be tyrannical, and therefore can be called tyrants [just as some monarchs can be called 'enlightened despots' etc.,].
I have already listed the Dictators such as Sulla and Caesar; we can add well known figures such as Alexander the Great as well, and also the monarchs of ancient Egypt, Persia etc., etc.,
A Dictator is a mon-arch in all but name [just as, in a reversed instance, the current Queen of England is a mon-arch in name only].
Alexander, Sulla, Hitler etc., were DE FACTO mon-archs [while Louis XIV is an example of a monarch who calls himself one and IS one]; while Queen Elizabeth the Second is merely a figurehead who is called a 'mon-arch', but isn't one, going by the definition of a mon-arch as a single ruler.
Monarchs can be tyrannical, and therefore can be called tyrants [just as some monarchs can be called 'enlightened despots' etc.,].
__________________
When we talk of 'democracy' and 'republicanism' generally we are referring to the forms of government we know of today which utilise a universal suffrage quite unknown to the ancient world.
So when we mean the latter [Greece and Rome] we qualify them by saying 'Athenian Greece' or 'Republican Rome'. Both [as I have said] retained monarchical functions of the kind found in what I call 'true monarchies'.
My conception of monarchy rests on the notion of true kingship; Evola illustrates this power of true true kingship when he says;" ... just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".
Just as National Socialism says that the Will of the Leader IS Law, or Louis XIV says that "the state is I" [L'Etat, c'est moi!]
__________________
_______________
Aryan Invasions Pattern
__________________
The Swastika as a symbol of a European Monarchy.
The Swastika is only found in areas of ancient Aryan expansion and settlement [it is not found in Africa for example]; therefore it was chosen as a pan-Aryan symbol, rightly so.
As the symbol of the the sun, the swastika may be universal, but it means one thing to a nord [who welcomes it], and something very different to an African who is tormented by its heat.
KING CNVTE
The Emperor of Europa
Logically speaking, if we are talking of a European Empire, then we are implying the possibility of a European Emperor.
Of course, such issues are in the realm of the hypothetical at present.
There are many models form history, the most common being a series of kindred petty kingdoms with one of them being mutually recognised as over-lord.
We have plenty of evidence of the ancient Roman's reaction to north European culture. They found many parallels between the Celtic/Teutonic pantheons and that of the Roman/Greek, for example. They assumed that those who worshipped Wotan, say, were merely worshipping Mercury by another name.
Of course, such issues are in the realm of the hypothetical at present.
There are many models form history, the most common being a series of kindred petty kingdoms with one of them being mutually recognised as over-lord.
We have plenty of evidence of the ancient Roman's reaction to north European culture. They found many parallels between the Celtic/Teutonic pantheons and that of the Roman/Greek, for example. They assumed that those who worshipped Wotan, say, were merely worshipping Mercury by another name.
__________________
Religion
When Europeans colonised and conquered the Americas they took a very different view of the native religions. They regarded them either as perversions of Christianity or else as Devil-worship.
They then set about CONVERTING them. See also the work of Christian Missionaries.
This is very different to the way that the pagan Romans dealt with the religions of other pagan peoples. In this case they merely added them on to their own pantheon as I have described. This worked because the Indo-European religions are all closely related [and this also explains why the pagan Romans persecuted the monotheistic religion of the Jews/Christians].
The same cannot be said for the Semitic and Aryan religions; when these meet, religious conflict ensued.
Those of related cultures are compatible, while those of unrelated ones are not.
So in this sense we are NOT "all human", but we ARE Aryans, [or Semites, Mongolians etc.,] and "never the twain shall meet".
There is not, as far as I know, any evidence that all the world's languages are connected, although there IS evidence that language groups are connected.
They then set about CONVERTING them. See also the work of Christian Missionaries.
This is very different to the way that the pagan Romans dealt with the religions of other pagan peoples. In this case they merely added them on to their own pantheon as I have described. This worked because the Indo-European religions are all closely related [and this also explains why the pagan Romans persecuted the monotheistic religion of the Jews/Christians].
The same cannot be said for the Semitic and Aryan religions; when these meet, religious conflict ensued.
Those of related cultures are compatible, while those of unrelated ones are not.
So in this sense we are NOT "all human", but we ARE Aryans, [or Semites, Mongolians etc.,] and "never the twain shall meet".
There is not, as far as I know, any evidence that all the world's languages are connected, although there IS evidence that language groups are connected.
________________
The Aryans
The Aryans moved around - from north to south and vice versa; from east to west and vice versa. The invasions that left their imprint on history are only the most recent; many invasions have suffered the fate of Atlantis and have become submerged.
I personally believe that the Aryans migrated east to the Americas long before the mongolians did, for example ['White Gods'].
Also we know that climates have changed drastically within the historical period let alone the pre-historical.
Similarity is one thing, but direct descent is another; we see lines of direct descent in the Indo-Europeans;
I personally believe that the Aryans migrated east to the Americas long before the mongolians did, for example ['White Gods'].
Also we know that climates have changed drastically within the historical period let alone the pre-historical.
Similarity is one thing, but direct descent is another; we see lines of direct descent in the Indo-Europeans;
Monday 26 February 2007
On Being Nietzschean, III
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HAMMER SPEAKS
"Why so hard?" the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. "After all, are we not close kin?'
Why so soft? O, my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers?
Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in your eyes?
And if you do not want to be destinies and inexorable ones, how can you one day triumph with me?
And if your hardness does not wish to flash and cut and cut through, how can you one day create with me?
For all creators are hard. And it must seem blessedness to you to impress your hand on millennia as on bronze-harder than bronze, nobler than bronze. Only the noblest is altogether hard.
This new tablet, O my bothers, I place over you: become hard!
Zarathustra
The best book for Nietzsche's ideas on morality is his;
'The Genealogy of Morality'[GM] - this was intended to expand on certain ideas contained in 'Beyond Good and Evil'[BGE], and has become a classic in its own right.
The books by Nietzsche that I would recommend from an Aryan perspective are then;
GM,
Thus Spake Zarathustra,
The Antichrist,
Twilight of the Idols,
Daybreak,
The Will to Power.
The last-named book is an interesting collection of notebooks published posthumously.
I personally favour the pre-First World War English translations of Nietzsche's works. Later translations try to make Nietzsche into a liberal/existentialist thinker, and therefore distort his work [incidentally it is the early translation of Zarathustra by T.Common that has 'Thus Spake'; the latter ones have 'Thus Spoke' - I prefer T.Common's of course].
This brings us to the question of interpretation; there are many books ABOUT Nietzsche - most of them are worthless. I would particularly avoid Kaufman's books on Nietzsche (and his translations of Nietsche's works), as he is the main culprit for that 'Nietzsche as a liberal humanist' distortion.
There are few modern Aryan thinkers who have got to grips with Nietzsche, and I can only think of the latest edition of Michael Walker's magazine 'The Scorpion', which contains some interesting material.
As a basic introduction to Nietzsche interpretation I would recommend;
Mencken's 'The Philosophy of F.W.Nietzsche', which is from about 1908, I think.
As a testimony from someone who actually knew Nietzsche, I would recommend;
Lou von Salome's 'Nietzsche' [sometimes called 'Nietzsche Through his Works']; this is from the late 19th century.
The best of all is the following;
Martin Heidegger's 'Nietzsche' (2 vols). this is from lectures given by Heidegger in the 1930s as a member of the NSDAP.
Nietzsche's main doctrines are;
The Superhuman [this can be related to the attempt to create a Higher race].
The Eternal Recurrence of the Same [this is a Cosmological Total Outlook].
Amor Fati [- this means 'love as one's fate'; it relates to the courage to face adversity in total].
The Blond Beast [this is the first civilising Race of Aryans].
Master Morality vs. Slave Morality [this is the basic moral dichotomy in human culture, relating to a Racial dichotomy].
The Will to Power [this is Nietzsche's view of the very ground of being - or rather of Becoming].
Nietzsche is not an ideological thinker, nor is he a systematic thinker. Therefore there is much in his work which may seem contradictory; but this is superficial - Nietzsche is a deep thinker who always thinks both sides of every question.
Nietzsche's influence suddenly erupted in the last years of the 19th century, and by the early 1900s Nietzsche appealed to a wide range of intellectual cultural movements.
Not just in the West, but in Japan also.
Those on the 'anarchist left' took him up for his iconoclasm; those in the Eugenics movement saw him as a philosophical champion, while 'right wing' racial nationalists and Imperialists embraced his notions of the Uebermensch (Superhumans, Lords of the Earth), and Rangordnung (Order of Rank).
Mussolini was a Nietzschean who united the anarchistic trends of Futurism with rightist nationalism; and of course, the German National Socialists saw Nietzsche as one of the spiritual founders of their movement.
The defeat of the Axis powers meant that the pre-1945 reception of Nietzsche was virtually expunged from memory.
Jews like Kaufmann worked hard to serve up a 'humanist', and 'existentialist', Nietzsche.
The only mention of the pre-1945 popularity of Nietzsche amongst radical circles was along the lines of - "the Nazis" supposed 'distortion' of Nietzsche.
We now realize that the Eugenicist, Fascist, and National Socialist take on Nietzsche was the real one, and that the version of Nietzsche in today's intellectual establishments is the distorted one.
__________________
"The maintenance of the military state is the last means of all of acquiring or maintaining the great tradition with regard to the supreme type of man, the strong type. And all concepts that perpetuate enmity and difference of rank between states - for example nationalism, protective tariffs - may be sanctioned in that light".
[Nietzsche, Thw Will To Power, 729]
Nihilism
While Nietzsche studied Nihilism, and recognised that this Nihilism was a condition of late European culture and therefore infects us all [and he did not exempt himself from that, calling himself at one time - with that relish of irony he knew so well - a 'perfect nihilist'], his whole philosophy was engaged with OVERCOMING Nihilism.
__________________
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
1) General Philosophical Context:
Modern philosophy begins with Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am'.
This means that 'I' can be sure of my Self, as subject, but I cannot be sure of the existence of the objective world.
From this position is derived Absolute Idealism, which holds that the world itself is a product of my Self - therefore there is no objective world.
This philosophy is very influential on German Romanticism.
Kant seeks to overcome this solipsistic idealism by trying to prove the existence of an objective world, or 'thing in itself'.
2) Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer's reading of Kant makes the 'Will to life' that 'thing in itself'. To Schopenhauer, 'The World' is both 'Will' to life, and my 'Idea'.
This Will is the source of all suffering, however; and here Schopenhauer takes a Buddhistic turn and claims that only by renouncing that Will can man achieve happiness.
Schopenhauer also thought that the clearest impression that man can have of this Will is in music; on this basis he developed an aesthetics which was very influential on Wagner.
It was a mutual interest in Schopenhauer's philosophy that brought a young Nietzsche and an ageing Wagner together.
3) Nietzsche
In his first books [most notably 'The Birth of Tragedy'] Nietzsche was very much a Wagnerian/Schopenhauerian. However, with his 'Human All Too Human', Nietzsche broke with both men.
4) Nietzsche's modification of Schopenhauer.
To Nietzsche, the Will was 'The Will to Power'; whereas Schopenhauer taught renunciation, Nietzsche extolled the opposite: i.e., affirmation.
To Nietzsche the higher man, the Superhuman, must embrace life in its totality and affirm it, even in destruction.
Even as the Will to Power churns on endlessy in flux, the Strong Man must impose the Hammer of Being on all this Becoming.
That is heroism.
5) Dionysian
That latter quality is Nietzsche's mature Dionysianism.
It must be noted that the Apollonian/Dionysian dualism was a feature of his early period [e.g., 'The Birth of Tragedy'].
By his magnum opus 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' he had subsumed Apollo in Dionysos, and only now talks of Dionysos which is a synthesis of the two.
He saw that all dualities were rather different poles of the same thing [see 'Beyond Good and Evil', first chapter].
__________________
Spengler makes the point, in his 'Decline of the West', that Schopenhauer's work was commensurate with the surge in Evolutionist thinking in the 19th century.
Schopenhauer's terrifying 'Will to Life' grinds on with the weak going to the wall, while the strong and cunning have their moments of survival and procreation.
Similar ideas are to be found in Herbert Spencer, Henri Bergson and G.B. Shaw. This can also be related to Nietzsche's Will to Power, of course, as well as to Hitler's Social Darwinist view of Racial Development.
Another important influence of Schopenhauer is in the field of Psychology. It was after reading Schopenhauer that S.Freud crystalised his idea of the 'Unconscious', remembering that Schopenhauer's 'Will' is a blind, remorseless, and largely unknown Force.
Schopenhauer also brought the sexual urge into the concept of Will; this drive to procreate surely links the Freudians to the Darwinians.
Nationalist philosophers will probably feel more at home with Jung's psychology than with Freud's, and we can see therefore the roots of such concepts as the 'Collective Unconscious' and the 'Race Soul' in Schopenhauer.
The great American mythographer J.Campbell was also influenced by Schopenhauer, and again, we can see how this all fits in with the above; the Will is that fundamental irrational force which we glimpse in art, dreams and mythology.
Schopenhauer was also one of the first to 'popularise' [of course, he was never 'popular' as such] the Indian Vedanta scriptures in Europe.
He held that these had the best moral system, and he poured scorn on the Jewish, Christian and Moslem religions.
It is due to Schopenhauer and others, such as Max Mueller, that we are now aware of the rich vein of Aryan culture flowing back to the Rig Vedas.
Schopenhauer was very Anti-Semitic [and aren't all great men?], and also 'racialist', by today's standards. It may be for this reason that I have yet to get hold of a complete collection of all Schopenhauer's essays.
He worked on those essays his whole long life, after completing his main philosophical treatise at the age of 28-30!
This was called 'the World as Will and Idea', and there is only one complete English translation of it in two volumes in print that I know of.
Everyman have recently brought out a useful one-volume abridgement of it.
Here he takes his main idea, as described in the title, in every direction, piling example upon example; - they don't make philosophers like that anymore!
Interestingly, the important philsosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein claims that he read little philosophy in his formative years, other than Schopenhauer.
This is significant, because it is said by some that Wittgenstein succeeded in over-coming Descartes' dilemma I referred to in the above post.
Wittgenstein was, like Freud, a Jew.
Schopenhauer was a great Anglo-phile and a thorough intellectual elitist.
He bemoaned the fact that Latin was no longer the sole language of philosophy/science in Europe, seeing this lack as a terrible dumbing down - what would he think today!
He was an irascible, lonely figure who none the less lived well on private means, going to the theatre, playing the flute and reading the London Times [in English] most days in an unchanging routine of bloodymindedness.
Hitler carried Schopenhauer's works with him throughout WWI.
__________________
The Will To Power
Nietzsche had been compiling notes for over five years towards a massive volume he intended to call 'The Will to Power.
Due to his growing illness, he was not able to finish this book and set it aside, having to write shorter works [such as The Antichrist] before his final mental collapse at the age of 44.
His sister, as the executor of all his work sought to put all of his writing out into the public domain ['complete works' etc.,].
As Nietzsche had left detailed plans of the Will to Power, she was able [with the help of Peter Gast, Nietzsche's confidente/pupil, and one of the few who could read Nietzsche's bad hand-writing] to put the book out; she never pretended it was anything else.
It was published in 1901 - some time before the formation of the National-Socialist Party!
There is no suggestion that she "twisted her brother's work towards N-S" here, so I wonder why people keep repeating this cliche without checking it out for themselves.
As always - with the holocaust and anything else - I ask for evidence.
Nietzsche's view of the Greeks turned around accepted 19th century ideas on the subject in a way that's hard to appreciate today.
He admired the Greeks, Romans and the Italians of the Renaissance far more than he did any other culture.
He longed for a synthesis of the Northern and Southern European cultures and so championed the muisc of Bizet over Wagner, for example.
He called himself a 'Good European' ...
His conception of the Dionysian included its subsuming of the Apollonian; this is the position of the Persian prophet Zarathustra in his work.
He liked the Mediterranean so much that he went to live in Italy!
__________________
The Eternal Recurrence? You have to think 'pre-Christian' to get there.
This is because the pre-Christian out-look of pagan Europe tended to think in terms of eternal recurrence on the cosmological level.
__________________
Islam
I think we have to see Nietzsche's comparison between Islam and Christianity [as quoted from The Antichrist, in the first post], as primarily an historical observation.
The first mention of Islam in The Antichrist is long before the one quoted, and we need to look at in in order to put the other one in context.
Nietzsche writes;
"In Christianity all the instincts of the subjugated & oppressed come to the fore: it is the lowest classes who seek their salvation in this religion ...
Here the body is despised, hygiene is repudiated as sensual; the Church repudiates even cleanliness - the first Christian measure after the banishment of the Moors was the closing of the public baths, of which Cordova alone possessed 270 ..."
[Nietzsche, A 21]
Now this is broadly true historically; the Muslim Moors ruled Spain from AD 711 to AD 1492, and scholars reckon that their university at Cordova was a great centre of learning.
As to cleanliness, [Christian] Europeans hadn't [during this period] connected a lack of hygiene with disease, and so cared little for it.
Indeed, certain Christian attitudes [anti-vanity etc.,] militated against it, whereas the Koran itself stresses cleanliness [Koran 74.4], and frequent ablutions [Koran 5.6].
Now hygiene was very important for Nietzsche, hence his attitude towards Christianity in relation to Islam here.
Lest we think this peculiar to Nietzsche, we see that Hitler felt similarly;
"I do wash my hands very frequently".
[Hitler, Table Talk, 12 Aug 1942]
Indeed, Hitler agrees with Nietzsche mainly on this general theme;
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity".
[ib., 9 April 1942]
__________________
"If Islam despises Christianity, it is justified a thousand times over; for Islam presupposes men".
[Nietzsche, A 59]
There is a sense in Nietzsche that Christianity had 'unmanned' and effeminised Germans in a way that Islam never would have.
One thinks again of Hitler's views on the subject;
"It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German ... one is flabbergasted to think that German human beings could have let themselves be brought to such a pass by Jewish filth & priestly twaddle ...
It angers one to think that, while in other parts of the globe religious teaching like that of Confucius, Buddha & Mohammed offers an undeniably broad basis for the religious-minded, Germans should have been duped by a theological exposition devoid of all honest depth ..."
[Hitler, TT 5 June 1942, my emphasis]
In the very act of accepting Christianity, Germans had made themselves suspect;
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure".
[ib., 10 Oct 1941]
Clearly, National-Socialism, like Nietzscheanism, was an attempt to rectify these failings.
However, I am not for creating religious wars within the Folk over the matter, and prefer Hitler's gradualist approach to the cleansing of religious feeling.
Hitler lays out the basic steps to the future thus;
"1) First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights.
2) The National-Socialist State is sheltered from the danger of competing with religion.
3) Religions must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters.
4) From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the National-Socialist State ...
5) We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread teachings in conflict with the interests of that State.
6) We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National-Socialism & the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth ..."
[ib., 14 Oct 1941, adapted]
This is excerpted from a very important speech on the issue.
__________________
"What an affirmative Aryan religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: The Law Book of Manu ...
"What an affirmative Semitic religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: The Law Book of Mohammed ..."
[Nietzsche, WP 145 (1884-8)]
So this actually agrees with your point; there cannot be more than one ruling idea within a single State; however, there should be a mutual respect, as you allow, between ruling ideas within a World-Order.
Aryanism and Islam should rule their respective parts of the world in a peace-ful co-existence. The reason that the West is in conflict with Islam today is because the West has been thoroughly Judaised.
The Nietzschean point is simply that Aryans [and Hitlerism is a Germanic version of Aryanism] should respect Islam as it is the product of a ruling class, like Aryanism.
But let Nietzsche continue;
"What a negative Semitic religion, the product of an oppressed class, looks like: the New Testament ...
"What a negative Aryan religion looks like, grown up among the ruling orders: Buddhism ..."
[ib.,]
Note that Nietzsche is specific; it is the New Testament to which he objects.
And note too that he does not include the concept of an Aryan oppressed class amongst his comparisons, because, as you quote him above, there can be no Aryan oppressed class, it is a contradiction in terms.
Therefore Christianity is objectionable because it was the invention of the oppressed classes.
Again, this is historically true.
The Aryan must always be above the ravings of the oppressed classes, which are beneath him;
"Let us be the only people who are immunised against the disease of Christianity".
[Hitler, Table Talk 13 Dec 1941]
Hitler did admire the Muslim methods at times;
"The rapidity with which Mustapha Kemal Ataturk rid himself of his Christian parsons makes one of the most remarkable chapters in history. He hanged thirty-nine of them out-of-hand, the rest he flung out, & St. Sophia in Constantinople is now a museum!"
[Hitler, Table Talk 1 Aug 1942]
However, I think he knew too that these were not Aryan methods.
And as Christianity was originally the product of an oppressed class, it is just a matter of relegating it to the realm of private spirituality.
While so doing, any Aryan elements which have become entangled with it historically can be rehabilitated.
These elements may rise to the top and inform the Aryan spirituality which resides in the ruling idea of what I call Aryanosophy.
Meanwhile, Christianity will slowly become Aryanised.
This is an Aryan solution.
I can think of no better guide on these difficult questions than Hitler.
__________________
Nietzsche and Hitler shared a very similar vision when it came to the Aryan attitude towards historical Islam, and of the historical comparison of Islam to Christianity from an Aryan perspective.
However, it must be stressed that this is an historical position. It does not mean that we should view the Islam or the Chrisitianity of today in the same light.
Going back to Nietzsche, we have;
"Christianity destroyed the harvest we might have reaped from the culture of antiquity, later it also destroyed our harvest of the culture of Islam.
The wonderful Moorish world of Spanish culture, which in its essence is more closely related to us ..." "... was trampled to death ... Later on the Crusaders waged war upon something before which it would have been more seemly in them to grovel in the dust ..."
[Nietzsche A 60]
This must be compared with Hitler;
"In the Spanish people there is a mixture of Gothic, Frankish & Moorish blood ... The Arabian epoch ... was the most cultured, the most intellectual & in every way best & happiest in Spanish history. It was followed by the period of the persecutions with its unceasing atrocities".
[Hitler, TT 1 Aug 1942]
This is straightforward agreement between the two men, and when Nietzsche calls ;
"Christianity & alcohol - the two great means of corruption".
[Nietzsche ib.,]
We see that Hitler agrees with him again, having already called Christianity "unhealthy", Hitler says of alcohol that he has given it up;
"When I became a vegetarian, a mouthful of water from time to time was enough".
[Hitler TT 22 Jan 1942]
And when Nietzsche writes;
" 'War with Rome to the knife! Peace & friendship with Islam': this is what that great free-spirit, that genius among German emperors, - Frederick the second, not only felt but also did".
[Nietzsche ib.,]
We find Hitler saying something very similar;
"The Church was ... at fault in its assessment of the Sicilian Frederick, who, as an Emperor at the age of twenty-one, conquered the German Reich ..."
[Hitler TT 23 April 1942]
Should we today take the Frederickian view?;
'War to the knife against the Christian Church, and friendship with Islam'.
However, the Christian Church is in a very different position today compared to a century or so ago, as is Islam.
We need to present a modified view of these things which apply to today [just as Hitler did in his day].
We must weigh up the actual threat presented to an Aryan revival by both Christianity and Islam in today's Europe, and compare them to other anti-Aryan forces, before taking up a philosophic position which may differ from both Nietzsche and Hitler's.
So I might ask, is the Christian Church the same kind of threat today as it was 500 years or so ago?
Is it even the same kind of threat as it was 70 years ago?
Is not the Christian Faith in Germanic regions fading away today?
And is it not rather the residue of that historical faith that needs to be attacked?
__________________
The question of the Human is far wider.
Now I certainly believe that the Human must be overthrown.
I admit that the phrase "Aryanise Christianity" is something of an euphemism. It really means the gradual, but eventually the complete, eradication of Christianity from Europe, and its transmogrification into a purely Aryan spirituality.
This is to be achieved over time [i.e., it will not be a 'revolution', but rather a 'transvaluation'], and will be furthered by the increasing 'rediscovery' [and re-invention] of European pagan forms.
There are Christians who are of the type who want to see an Aryan revival!
I have no issue with those Christians at all!
Now mainstream Christians, who are anti-Aryan and pro-multiculturalist/multiracialist, - of course we should do battle with them.
But there are none here!
Therefore I will not follow the tangent which suggests a whole-scale war against Christianity.
This is not because I don't want to get into a fight: it is simply that I want to fight the right people.
I regard the lack of racial belief to be far more of a threat today than anything else, as it implicitly denies every and any order-of-rank.
[And we might reflect that in Nietzsche's time and before, belief in race was commonplace, even amongst Christians].
Concerning Islam in Europe, we see that historically, Nietzsche regarded the Islamic rule of Spain which covered around 800 years (!) to be superior to the Christian rule in that country.
Indeed, Nietzsche thought that Islam was generally closer to Aryan values than Christianity simply because the former was the product of a ruling class.
This has already been said, and I have shown that Hitler in his private talks was in full agreement with this. [Incidentally, the concord between Hitler's words and Nietzsche's must surely disprove those who constantly say that Hitler didn't read Nietzsche - but now I am going off at a tangent myself].
But there is an important note of disagreement between Nietzsche and Hitler which mustn't be papered-over.
It is this - Nietzsche thought that the Germans had always been at fault, historically, for preserving Christianity. He blamed the Germanic element for the Crusades, and for the Reformation, for example. When Pagan values stood a chance of re-surfacing, Nietzsche finds the Germans ready to charge in and reaffirm the Bible.
Now this is a thesis not shared by Hitler [and was surely disproved by him]! And it is not one that will run very far on this Forum committed as it is to Germanic values.
It is not a thesis that I would want to argue either [here or anywhere else] as I think that it is peculiar to Nietzsche, and it is unsound. I take it to be an exaggeration based on his lack of appreciation in his home country, Germany.
And anyway, Nietzsche himself says that 'Germans can't be Christians'!
So what do I get from all this?
I believe in the pagan essence of Germanism and the wider possibility of an Aryan revival.
That racialism is essential and the most important aspect today.
That the war against Islam is largely a Judeaocratic affair, and we shouldn't be sucked into the 'Islamophobia' promoted by the Jewspapers.
I also believe that Christianity is dying a slow death and that only a spirituality based on Race will suffice for the future.
And yes, that Racial spirituality will lead to a rejection of the Human altogether; in favour of the Overhuman [or Master Race].
__________________
"Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Islamic civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (--I do not say by what sort of feet--) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin--because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! . . . The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust--a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile."--What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich. . . . Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the "Swiss guard" of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church--but well paid. . . Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious. . . Christianity, alcohol--the two great means of corruption. . . . Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Hebrew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not. . . . "War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!": this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can't make out how a German could ever feel Christian...." [Nietzche, Antichrist 60.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Evola and the Ubermensch
Evola is only apollinian, and rejects the dyonisian. The solar over the lunar. Rosenberg also rejects the 'lunar', in his 'Myth of the 20th Century'.
However, do Evola [or Rosenberg] actually deal with Nietzsche's very profound and philosophical notion that the Dionysian is the sub-stratum upon which the Apollonian necessarily doth arise?
I think it folly to try and disown the Dionysian, especially when so much in the Wotan archetype is similarly 'lunar'.
I am not decided myself whether or not the Dionysian is completely Aryan, but ...
Evola claimed that Nietzsche did not go 'beyond good & evil', but rather invented his own 'good & evil', as if this suggests a self-contradiction on the part of Nietzsche.
And yet, surely Evola is aware that Nietzsche separated the system of 'good & evil' from the system of 'good & bad' [the two basic forms of morality as he saw it]!
The latter system of 'good & bad' he called Master Morality and clearly held it in high esteem.]
Whereas the former system of 'good & evil' was to him the antithesis of 'good & bad', and caused by "the slave revolt in morals".
So Nietzsche always called for a return to 'good & bad', and said [in his Genealogy, I think] that " 'beyond good & evil' did not mean, 'beyond good & bad'!"
Therefore Nietzsche was not only pulling down (a particular) morality [slave-morality], he was also openly putting up another kind of morality, Master Morality, in its place.
Nietzsche's way of getting out from under Nihilism was his promulgation of the ancient [and traditonal!] doctrine of the Eternal Return.
Of course, some argue that there is a contradiction between the 'eternal return [of the same]' and the Superman doctrine, as the latter must already have come been and gone 'ad infinitum' if everything has returned [and will return] eternally.
The so-called 'anti-Nazis' like to make much of Nietzsche's sister's publishing of 'The Will to Power', and pretend she distorted this work.
This just isn't true; the 'The Will to Power' was compiled from plans, notes, and passages in Nietzsche's own hand, much of the copyist work being done by Nietzsche's closest friend and trusted amenuensis, the musician Peter Gast; and Gast was one of the few who could actually read Nietzsche's handwriting [as well as knowing his philosophy intimately].
I certainly believe that Hitler was close to a Nietzschean Superman - indeed, Nietzsche's sister told Hitler that her brother would've thought so too!
It is worth noting that the very perceptive CG Jung felt that despite Nietzsche's use of Zarathustra and Dionysus, in fact his conception was quintessentially Germanic!
In other words, try as he might, Nietzsche couldn't fool the world that his Ubermensch was as Germanic as was Goethe's Faust!
And I think that is the truth of the matter.
The Ubermensch strikes me as something that only a German could really come up!
Do not Germans sing Germany "Uber" all?
And why not?
I do not condemn such pride, and I wish that Europe as a whole was more 'German' in many respects.
And can you really imagine a French, English, Spanish, or Italian philosopher [pre-Zarathustra] coming up with the Uber-mensch?
My point is that Nietzsche, for all his avowed criticism of things Germanic, was a Teutonicist despite himself.
This is why I think that the notion that Nietzsche himself distanced the Ubermensch concept from Germanicism is not such a good one unless one takes into account this repressed Teutonicism in Nietzsche's work.
As Jung said, Nietzsche may as well have called his 'Zarathustra' Wotan, as that would have been closer to its flavour.
But then Nietzsche's break with Wagner meant that he sublimated his Germanicism to an extent.
From here, I take the position that the Ubermensch is a starkly Germanic concept.
Of course, it can be applied to some non-Germans, but even then we might say that such figures have Germanic traits and aspire to Germanicism.
Of course, the "Übermensch" is ultimately about exceeding and going beyond the 'Human'.
However, this is primarily a Germanic [Faustian] concept, and it is no accident that Nietzsche played on the various nuances of the pre-fix which cannot be satisfactorily translated into English [that alone should suggest that the concept is more German than it is English].
Nietzsche said that, 'had Jesus lived longer, he might have become Noble'. This is not tantamount to describing Jesus as an Ubermensch. Indeed, Nietzsche said that if you wanted to get a truer picture of the Ubermensch, then look at someone like Cesar Borgia!
England is not wholly Germanic in my view, and has immersed itself for too long in the sentimental and hypocritical morality which it derived from Christianity. This is why the nearest the English come to an Ubermensch is in a moralistic monster like Oliver Cromwell.
Ultimately, the Ubermensch must be able to encompass and personify Master Morality.
So I don't disagree that a non-Germanic can be an Ubermensch - it would be silly to say otherwise.
However, I do not think that this implies that the concept is not, therefore, a Germanic one; on the contrary, it most certainly is.
__________________
THE HAMMER SPEAKS
"Why so hard?" the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. "After all, are we not close kin?'
Why so soft? O, my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers?
Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in your eyes?
And if you do not want to be destinies and inexorable ones, how can you one day triumph with me?
And if your hardness does not wish to flash and cut and cut through, how can you one day create with me?
For all creators are hard. And it must seem blessedness to you to impress your hand on millennia as on bronze-harder than bronze, nobler than bronze. Only the noblest is altogether hard.
This new tablet, O my bothers, I place over you: become hard!
Zarathustra
The best book for Nietzsche's ideas on morality is his;
'The Genealogy of Morality'[GM] - this was intended to expand on certain ideas contained in 'Beyond Good and Evil'[BGE], and has become a classic in its own right.
The books by Nietzsche that I would recommend from an Aryan perspective are then;
GM,
Thus Spake Zarathustra,
The Antichrist,
Twilight of the Idols,
Daybreak,
The Will to Power.
The last-named book is an interesting collection of notebooks published posthumously.
I personally favour the pre-First World War English translations of Nietzsche's works. Later translations try to make Nietzsche into a liberal/existentialist thinker, and therefore distort his work [incidentally it is the early translation of Zarathustra by T.Common that has 'Thus Spake'; the latter ones have 'Thus Spoke' - I prefer T.Common's of course].
This brings us to the question of interpretation; there are many books ABOUT Nietzsche - most of them are worthless. I would particularly avoid Kaufman's books on Nietzsche (and his translations of Nietsche's works), as he is the main culprit for that 'Nietzsche as a liberal humanist' distortion.
There are few modern Aryan thinkers who have got to grips with Nietzsche, and I can only think of the latest edition of Michael Walker's magazine 'The Scorpion', which contains some interesting material.
As a basic introduction to Nietzsche interpretation I would recommend;
Mencken's 'The Philosophy of F.W.Nietzsche', which is from about 1908, I think.
As a testimony from someone who actually knew Nietzsche, I would recommend;
Lou von Salome's 'Nietzsche' [sometimes called 'Nietzsche Through his Works']; this is from the late 19th century.
The best of all is the following;
Martin Heidegger's 'Nietzsche' (2 vols). this is from lectures given by Heidegger in the 1930s as a member of the NSDAP.
Nietzsche's main doctrines are;
The Superhuman [this can be related to the attempt to create a Higher race].
The Eternal Recurrence of the Same [this is a Cosmological Total Outlook].
Amor Fati [- this means 'love as one's fate'; it relates to the courage to face adversity in total].
The Blond Beast [this is the first civilising Race of Aryans].
Master Morality vs. Slave Morality [this is the basic moral dichotomy in human culture, relating to a Racial dichotomy].
The Will to Power [this is Nietzsche's view of the very ground of being - or rather of Becoming].
Nietzsche is not an ideological thinker, nor is he a systematic thinker. Therefore there is much in his work which may seem contradictory; but this is superficial - Nietzsche is a deep thinker who always thinks both sides of every question.
Nietzsche's influence suddenly erupted in the last years of the 19th century, and by the early 1900s Nietzsche appealed to a wide range of intellectual cultural movements.
Not just in the West, but in Japan also.
Those on the 'anarchist left' took him up for his iconoclasm; those in the Eugenics movement saw him as a philosophical champion, while 'right wing' racial nationalists and Imperialists embraced his notions of the Uebermensch (Superhumans, Lords of the Earth), and Rangordnung (Order of Rank).
Mussolini was a Nietzschean who united the anarchistic trends of Futurism with rightist nationalism; and of course, the German National Socialists saw Nietzsche as one of the spiritual founders of their movement.
The defeat of the Axis powers meant that the pre-1945 reception of Nietzsche was virtually expunged from memory.
Jews like Kaufmann worked hard to serve up a 'humanist', and 'existentialist', Nietzsche.
The only mention of the pre-1945 popularity of Nietzsche amongst radical circles was along the lines of - "the Nazis" supposed 'distortion' of Nietzsche.
We now realize that the Eugenicist, Fascist, and National Socialist take on Nietzsche was the real one, and that the version of Nietzsche in today's intellectual establishments is the distorted one.
__________________
"The maintenance of the military state is the last means of all of acquiring or maintaining the great tradition with regard to the supreme type of man, the strong type. And all concepts that perpetuate enmity and difference of rank between states - for example nationalism, protective tariffs - may be sanctioned in that light".
[Nietzsche, Thw Will To Power, 729]
Nihilism
While Nietzsche studied Nihilism, and recognised that this Nihilism was a condition of late European culture and therefore infects us all [and he did not exempt himself from that, calling himself at one time - with that relish of irony he knew so well - a 'perfect nihilist'], his whole philosophy was engaged with OVERCOMING Nihilism.
__________________
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
1) General Philosophical Context:
Modern philosophy begins with Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am'.
This means that 'I' can be sure of my Self, as subject, but I cannot be sure of the existence of the objective world.
From this position is derived Absolute Idealism, which holds that the world itself is a product of my Self - therefore there is no objective world.
This philosophy is very influential on German Romanticism.
Kant seeks to overcome this solipsistic idealism by trying to prove the existence of an objective world, or 'thing in itself'.
2) Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer's reading of Kant makes the 'Will to life' that 'thing in itself'. To Schopenhauer, 'The World' is both 'Will' to life, and my 'Idea'.
This Will is the source of all suffering, however; and here Schopenhauer takes a Buddhistic turn and claims that only by renouncing that Will can man achieve happiness.
Schopenhauer also thought that the clearest impression that man can have of this Will is in music; on this basis he developed an aesthetics which was very influential on Wagner.
It was a mutual interest in Schopenhauer's philosophy that brought a young Nietzsche and an ageing Wagner together.
3) Nietzsche
In his first books [most notably 'The Birth of Tragedy'] Nietzsche was very much a Wagnerian/Schopenhauerian. However, with his 'Human All Too Human', Nietzsche broke with both men.
4) Nietzsche's modification of Schopenhauer.
To Nietzsche, the Will was 'The Will to Power'; whereas Schopenhauer taught renunciation, Nietzsche extolled the opposite: i.e., affirmation.
To Nietzsche the higher man, the Superhuman, must embrace life in its totality and affirm it, even in destruction.
Even as the Will to Power churns on endlessy in flux, the Strong Man must impose the Hammer of Being on all this Becoming.
That is heroism.
5) Dionysian
That latter quality is Nietzsche's mature Dionysianism.
It must be noted that the Apollonian/Dionysian dualism was a feature of his early period [e.g., 'The Birth of Tragedy'].
By his magnum opus 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' he had subsumed Apollo in Dionysos, and only now talks of Dionysos which is a synthesis of the two.
He saw that all dualities were rather different poles of the same thing [see 'Beyond Good and Evil', first chapter].
__________________
Spengler makes the point, in his 'Decline of the West', that Schopenhauer's work was commensurate with the surge in Evolutionist thinking in the 19th century.
Schopenhauer's terrifying 'Will to Life' grinds on with the weak going to the wall, while the strong and cunning have their moments of survival and procreation.
Similar ideas are to be found in Herbert Spencer, Henri Bergson and G.B. Shaw. This can also be related to Nietzsche's Will to Power, of course, as well as to Hitler's Social Darwinist view of Racial Development.
Another important influence of Schopenhauer is in the field of Psychology. It was after reading Schopenhauer that S.Freud crystalised his idea of the 'Unconscious', remembering that Schopenhauer's 'Will' is a blind, remorseless, and largely unknown Force.
Schopenhauer also brought the sexual urge into the concept of Will; this drive to procreate surely links the Freudians to the Darwinians.
Nationalist philosophers will probably feel more at home with Jung's psychology than with Freud's, and we can see therefore the roots of such concepts as the 'Collective Unconscious' and the 'Race Soul' in Schopenhauer.
The great American mythographer J.Campbell was also influenced by Schopenhauer, and again, we can see how this all fits in with the above; the Will is that fundamental irrational force which we glimpse in art, dreams and mythology.
Schopenhauer was also one of the first to 'popularise' [of course, he was never 'popular' as such] the Indian Vedanta scriptures in Europe.
He held that these had the best moral system, and he poured scorn on the Jewish, Christian and Moslem religions.
It is due to Schopenhauer and others, such as Max Mueller, that we are now aware of the rich vein of Aryan culture flowing back to the Rig Vedas.
Schopenhauer was very Anti-Semitic [and aren't all great men?], and also 'racialist', by today's standards. It may be for this reason that I have yet to get hold of a complete collection of all Schopenhauer's essays.
He worked on those essays his whole long life, after completing his main philosophical treatise at the age of 28-30!
This was called 'the World as Will and Idea', and there is only one complete English translation of it in two volumes in print that I know of.
Everyman have recently brought out a useful one-volume abridgement of it.
Here he takes his main idea, as described in the title, in every direction, piling example upon example; - they don't make philosophers like that anymore!
Interestingly, the important philsosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein claims that he read little philosophy in his formative years, other than Schopenhauer.
This is significant, because it is said by some that Wittgenstein succeeded in over-coming Descartes' dilemma I referred to in the above post.
Wittgenstein was, like Freud, a Jew.
Schopenhauer was a great Anglo-phile and a thorough intellectual elitist.
He bemoaned the fact that Latin was no longer the sole language of philosophy/science in Europe, seeing this lack as a terrible dumbing down - what would he think today!
He was an irascible, lonely figure who none the less lived well on private means, going to the theatre, playing the flute and reading the London Times [in English] most days in an unchanging routine of bloodymindedness.
Hitler carried Schopenhauer's works with him throughout WWI.
__________________
The Will To Power
Nietzsche had been compiling notes for over five years towards a massive volume he intended to call 'The Will to Power.
Due to his growing illness, he was not able to finish this book and set it aside, having to write shorter works [such as The Antichrist] before his final mental collapse at the age of 44.
His sister, as the executor of all his work sought to put all of his writing out into the public domain ['complete works' etc.,].
As Nietzsche had left detailed plans of the Will to Power, she was able [with the help of Peter Gast, Nietzsche's confidente/pupil, and one of the few who could read Nietzsche's bad hand-writing] to put the book out; she never pretended it was anything else.
It was published in 1901 - some time before the formation of the National-Socialist Party!
There is no suggestion that she "twisted her brother's work towards N-S" here, so I wonder why people keep repeating this cliche without checking it out for themselves.
As always - with the holocaust and anything else - I ask for evidence.
Nietzsche's view of the Greeks turned around accepted 19th century ideas on the subject in a way that's hard to appreciate today.
He admired the Greeks, Romans and the Italians of the Renaissance far more than he did any other culture.
He longed for a synthesis of the Northern and Southern European cultures and so championed the muisc of Bizet over Wagner, for example.
He called himself a 'Good European' ...
His conception of the Dionysian included its subsuming of the Apollonian; this is the position of the Persian prophet Zarathustra in his work.
He liked the Mediterranean so much that he went to live in Italy!
__________________
The Eternal Recurrence? You have to think 'pre-Christian' to get there.
This is because the pre-Christian out-look of pagan Europe tended to think in terms of eternal recurrence on the cosmological level.
__________________
Islam
I think we have to see Nietzsche's comparison between Islam and Christianity [as quoted from The Antichrist, in the first post], as primarily an historical observation.
The first mention of Islam in The Antichrist is long before the one quoted, and we need to look at in in order to put the other one in context.
Nietzsche writes;
"In Christianity all the instincts of the subjugated & oppressed come to the fore: it is the lowest classes who seek their salvation in this religion ...
Here the body is despised, hygiene is repudiated as sensual; the Church repudiates even cleanliness - the first Christian measure after the banishment of the Moors was the closing of the public baths, of which Cordova alone possessed 270 ..."
[Nietzsche, A 21]
Now this is broadly true historically; the Muslim Moors ruled Spain from AD 711 to AD 1492, and scholars reckon that their university at Cordova was a great centre of learning.
As to cleanliness, [Christian] Europeans hadn't [during this period] connected a lack of hygiene with disease, and so cared little for it.
Indeed, certain Christian attitudes [anti-vanity etc.,] militated against it, whereas the Koran itself stresses cleanliness [Koran 74.4], and frequent ablutions [Koran 5.6].
Now hygiene was very important for Nietzsche, hence his attitude towards Christianity in relation to Islam here.
Lest we think this peculiar to Nietzsche, we see that Hitler felt similarly;
"I do wash my hands very frequently".
[Hitler, Table Talk, 12 Aug 1942]
Indeed, Hitler agrees with Nietzsche mainly on this general theme;
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity".
[ib., 9 April 1942]
__________________
"If Islam despises Christianity, it is justified a thousand times over; for Islam presupposes men".
[Nietzsche, A 59]
There is a sense in Nietzsche that Christianity had 'unmanned' and effeminised Germans in a way that Islam never would have.
One thinks again of Hitler's views on the subject;
"It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German ... one is flabbergasted to think that German human beings could have let themselves be brought to such a pass by Jewish filth & priestly twaddle ...
It angers one to think that, while in other parts of the globe religious teaching like that of Confucius, Buddha & Mohammed offers an undeniably broad basis for the religious-minded, Germans should have been duped by a theological exposition devoid of all honest depth ..."
[Hitler, TT 5 June 1942, my emphasis]
In the very act of accepting Christianity, Germans had made themselves suspect;
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure".
[ib., 10 Oct 1941]
Clearly, National-Socialism, like Nietzscheanism, was an attempt to rectify these failings.
However, I am not for creating religious wars within the Folk over the matter, and prefer Hitler's gradualist approach to the cleansing of religious feeling.
Hitler lays out the basic steps to the future thus;
"1) First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights.
2) The National-Socialist State is sheltered from the danger of competing with religion.
3) Religions must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters.
4) From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the National-Socialist State ...
5) We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread teachings in conflict with the interests of that State.
6) We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National-Socialism & the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth ..."
[ib., 14 Oct 1941, adapted]
This is excerpted from a very important speech on the issue.
__________________
"What an affirmative Aryan religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: The Law Book of Manu ...
"What an affirmative Semitic religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: The Law Book of Mohammed ..."
[Nietzsche, WP 145 (1884-8)]
So this actually agrees with your point; there cannot be more than one ruling idea within a single State; however, there should be a mutual respect, as you allow, between ruling ideas within a World-Order.
Aryanism and Islam should rule their respective parts of the world in a peace-ful co-existence. The reason that the West is in conflict with Islam today is because the West has been thoroughly Judaised.
The Nietzschean point is simply that Aryans [and Hitlerism is a Germanic version of Aryanism] should respect Islam as it is the product of a ruling class, like Aryanism.
But let Nietzsche continue;
"What a negative Semitic religion, the product of an oppressed class, looks like: the New Testament ...
"What a negative Aryan religion looks like, grown up among the ruling orders: Buddhism ..."
[ib.,]
Note that Nietzsche is specific; it is the New Testament to which he objects.
And note too that he does not include the concept of an Aryan oppressed class amongst his comparisons, because, as you quote him above, there can be no Aryan oppressed class, it is a contradiction in terms.
Therefore Christianity is objectionable because it was the invention of the oppressed classes.
Again, this is historically true.
The Aryan must always be above the ravings of the oppressed classes, which are beneath him;
"Let us be the only people who are immunised against the disease of Christianity".
[Hitler, Table Talk 13 Dec 1941]
Hitler did admire the Muslim methods at times;
"The rapidity with which Mustapha Kemal Ataturk rid himself of his Christian parsons makes one of the most remarkable chapters in history. He hanged thirty-nine of them out-of-hand, the rest he flung out, & St. Sophia in Constantinople is now a museum!"
[Hitler, Table Talk 1 Aug 1942]
However, I think he knew too that these were not Aryan methods.
And as Christianity was originally the product of an oppressed class, it is just a matter of relegating it to the realm of private spirituality.
While so doing, any Aryan elements which have become entangled with it historically can be rehabilitated.
These elements may rise to the top and inform the Aryan spirituality which resides in the ruling idea of what I call Aryanosophy.
Meanwhile, Christianity will slowly become Aryanised.
This is an Aryan solution.
I can think of no better guide on these difficult questions than Hitler.
__________________
Nietzsche and Hitler shared a very similar vision when it came to the Aryan attitude towards historical Islam, and of the historical comparison of Islam to Christianity from an Aryan perspective.
However, it must be stressed that this is an historical position. It does not mean that we should view the Islam or the Chrisitianity of today in the same light.
Going back to Nietzsche, we have;
"Christianity destroyed the harvest we might have reaped from the culture of antiquity, later it also destroyed our harvest of the culture of Islam.
The wonderful Moorish world of Spanish culture, which in its essence is more closely related to us ..." "... was trampled to death ... Later on the Crusaders waged war upon something before which it would have been more seemly in them to grovel in the dust ..."
[Nietzsche A 60]
This must be compared with Hitler;
"In the Spanish people there is a mixture of Gothic, Frankish & Moorish blood ... The Arabian epoch ... was the most cultured, the most intellectual & in every way best & happiest in Spanish history. It was followed by the period of the persecutions with its unceasing atrocities".
[Hitler, TT 1 Aug 1942]
This is straightforward agreement between the two men, and when Nietzsche calls ;
"Christianity & alcohol - the two great means of corruption".
[Nietzsche ib.,]
We see that Hitler agrees with him again, having already called Christianity "unhealthy", Hitler says of alcohol that he has given it up;
"When I became a vegetarian, a mouthful of water from time to time was enough".
[Hitler TT 22 Jan 1942]
And when Nietzsche writes;
" 'War with Rome to the knife! Peace & friendship with Islam': this is what that great free-spirit, that genius among German emperors, - Frederick the second, not only felt but also did".
[Nietzsche ib.,]
We find Hitler saying something very similar;
"The Church was ... at fault in its assessment of the Sicilian Frederick, who, as an Emperor at the age of twenty-one, conquered the German Reich ..."
[Hitler TT 23 April 1942]
Should we today take the Frederickian view?;
'War to the knife against the Christian Church, and friendship with Islam'.
However, the Christian Church is in a very different position today compared to a century or so ago, as is Islam.
We need to present a modified view of these things which apply to today [just as Hitler did in his day].
We must weigh up the actual threat presented to an Aryan revival by both Christianity and Islam in today's Europe, and compare them to other anti-Aryan forces, before taking up a philosophic position which may differ from both Nietzsche and Hitler's.
So I might ask, is the Christian Church the same kind of threat today as it was 500 years or so ago?
Is it even the same kind of threat as it was 70 years ago?
Is not the Christian Faith in Germanic regions fading away today?
And is it not rather the residue of that historical faith that needs to be attacked?
__________________
The question of the Human is far wider.
Now I certainly believe that the Human must be overthrown.
I admit that the phrase "Aryanise Christianity" is something of an euphemism. It really means the gradual, but eventually the complete, eradication of Christianity from Europe, and its transmogrification into a purely Aryan spirituality.
This is to be achieved over time [i.e., it will not be a 'revolution', but rather a 'transvaluation'], and will be furthered by the increasing 'rediscovery' [and re-invention] of European pagan forms.
There are Christians who are of the type who want to see an Aryan revival!
I have no issue with those Christians at all!
Now mainstream Christians, who are anti-Aryan and pro-multiculturalist/multiracialist, - of course we should do battle with them.
But there are none here!
Therefore I will not follow the tangent which suggests a whole-scale war against Christianity.
This is not because I don't want to get into a fight: it is simply that I want to fight the right people.
I regard the lack of racial belief to be far more of a threat today than anything else, as it implicitly denies every and any order-of-rank.
[And we might reflect that in Nietzsche's time and before, belief in race was commonplace, even amongst Christians].
Concerning Islam in Europe, we see that historically, Nietzsche regarded the Islamic rule of Spain which covered around 800 years (!) to be superior to the Christian rule in that country.
Indeed, Nietzsche thought that Islam was generally closer to Aryan values than Christianity simply because the former was the product of a ruling class.
This has already been said, and I have shown that Hitler in his private talks was in full agreement with this. [Incidentally, the concord between Hitler's words and Nietzsche's must surely disprove those who constantly say that Hitler didn't read Nietzsche - but now I am going off at a tangent myself].
But there is an important note of disagreement between Nietzsche and Hitler which mustn't be papered-over.
It is this - Nietzsche thought that the Germans had always been at fault, historically, for preserving Christianity. He blamed the Germanic element for the Crusades, and for the Reformation, for example. When Pagan values stood a chance of re-surfacing, Nietzsche finds the Germans ready to charge in and reaffirm the Bible.
Now this is a thesis not shared by Hitler [and was surely disproved by him]! And it is not one that will run very far on this Forum committed as it is to Germanic values.
It is not a thesis that I would want to argue either [here or anywhere else] as I think that it is peculiar to Nietzsche, and it is unsound. I take it to be an exaggeration based on his lack of appreciation in his home country, Germany.
And anyway, Nietzsche himself says that 'Germans can't be Christians'!
So what do I get from all this?
I believe in the pagan essence of Germanism and the wider possibility of an Aryan revival.
That racialism is essential and the most important aspect today.
That the war against Islam is largely a Judeaocratic affair, and we shouldn't be sucked into the 'Islamophobia' promoted by the Jewspapers.
I also believe that Christianity is dying a slow death and that only a spirituality based on Race will suffice for the future.
And yes, that Racial spirituality will lead to a rejection of the Human altogether; in favour of the Overhuman [or Master Race].
__________________
"Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Islamic civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (--I do not say by what sort of feet--) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin--because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! . . . The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust--a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile."--What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich. . . . Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the "Swiss guard" of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church--but well paid. . . Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious. . . Christianity, alcohol--the two great means of corruption. . . . Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Hebrew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not. . . . "War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!": this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can't make out how a German could ever feel Christian...." [Nietzche, Antichrist 60.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Evola and the Ubermensch
Evola is only apollinian, and rejects the dyonisian. The solar over the lunar. Rosenberg also rejects the 'lunar', in his 'Myth of the 20th Century'.
However, do Evola [or Rosenberg] actually deal with Nietzsche's very profound and philosophical notion that the Dionysian is the sub-stratum upon which the Apollonian necessarily doth arise?
I think it folly to try and disown the Dionysian, especially when so much in the Wotan archetype is similarly 'lunar'.
I am not decided myself whether or not the Dionysian is completely Aryan, but ...
Evola claimed that Nietzsche did not go 'beyond good & evil', but rather invented his own 'good & evil', as if this suggests a self-contradiction on the part of Nietzsche.
And yet, surely Evola is aware that Nietzsche separated the system of 'good & evil' from the system of 'good & bad' [the two basic forms of morality as he saw it]!
The latter system of 'good & bad' he called Master Morality and clearly held it in high esteem.]
Whereas the former system of 'good & evil' was to him the antithesis of 'good & bad', and caused by "the slave revolt in morals".
So Nietzsche always called for a return to 'good & bad', and said [in his Genealogy, I think] that " 'beyond good & evil' did not mean, 'beyond good & bad'!"
Therefore Nietzsche was not only pulling down (a particular) morality [slave-morality], he was also openly putting up another kind of morality, Master Morality, in its place.
Nietzsche's way of getting out from under Nihilism was his promulgation of the ancient [and traditonal!] doctrine of the Eternal Return.
Of course, some argue that there is a contradiction between the 'eternal return [of the same]' and the Superman doctrine, as the latter must already have come been and gone 'ad infinitum' if everything has returned [and will return] eternally.
The so-called 'anti-Nazis' like to make much of Nietzsche's sister's publishing of 'The Will to Power', and pretend she distorted this work.
This just isn't true; the 'The Will to Power' was compiled from plans, notes, and passages in Nietzsche's own hand, much of the copyist work being done by Nietzsche's closest friend and trusted amenuensis, the musician Peter Gast; and Gast was one of the few who could actually read Nietzsche's handwriting [as well as knowing his philosophy intimately].
I certainly believe that Hitler was close to a Nietzschean Superman - indeed, Nietzsche's sister told Hitler that her brother would've thought so too!
It is worth noting that the very perceptive CG Jung felt that despite Nietzsche's use of Zarathustra and Dionysus, in fact his conception was quintessentially Germanic!
In other words, try as he might, Nietzsche couldn't fool the world that his Ubermensch was as Germanic as was Goethe's Faust!
And I think that is the truth of the matter.
The Ubermensch strikes me as something that only a German could really come up!
Do not Germans sing Germany "Uber" all?
And why not?
I do not condemn such pride, and I wish that Europe as a whole was more 'German' in many respects.
And can you really imagine a French, English, Spanish, or Italian philosopher [pre-Zarathustra] coming up with the Uber-mensch?
My point is that Nietzsche, for all his avowed criticism of things Germanic, was a Teutonicist despite himself.
This is why I think that the notion that Nietzsche himself distanced the Ubermensch concept from Germanicism is not such a good one unless one takes into account this repressed Teutonicism in Nietzsche's work.
As Jung said, Nietzsche may as well have called his 'Zarathustra' Wotan, as that would have been closer to its flavour.
But then Nietzsche's break with Wagner meant that he sublimated his Germanicism to an extent.
From here, I take the position that the Ubermensch is a starkly Germanic concept.
Of course, it can be applied to some non-Germans, but even then we might say that such figures have Germanic traits and aspire to Germanicism.
Of course, the "Übermensch" is ultimately about exceeding and going beyond the 'Human'.
However, this is primarily a Germanic [Faustian] concept, and it is no accident that Nietzsche played on the various nuances of the pre-fix which cannot be satisfactorily translated into English [that alone should suggest that the concept is more German than it is English].
Nietzsche said that, 'had Jesus lived longer, he might have become Noble'. This is not tantamount to describing Jesus as an Ubermensch. Indeed, Nietzsche said that if you wanted to get a truer picture of the Ubermensch, then look at someone like Cesar Borgia!
England is not wholly Germanic in my view, and has immersed itself for too long in the sentimental and hypocritical morality which it derived from Christianity. This is why the nearest the English come to an Ubermensch is in a moralistic monster like Oliver Cromwell.
Ultimately, the Ubermensch must be able to encompass and personify Master Morality.
So I don't disagree that a non-Germanic can be an Ubermensch - it would be silly to say otherwise.
However, I do not think that this implies that the concept is not, therefore, a Germanic one; on the contrary, it most certainly is.
__________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)