top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Προφητεία (94)



National Socialism and Rousseau: there was a branch of NS anthropology that endorsed a Rousseauian account of man—viz, man once lived in small peaceful villages, as separate races, but then these races were run together by civilisation and violence ensued. This is NS in its “pacifistic” aspect—which might be hard to believe, given its war-like credentials, but is so nevertheless (it is its most “socialist” aspect—the collective rural idyll, egalitarian and racially pure, that is disturbed by the city and industry and, inter alia, the Jews).


This stance still influences white nationalist thought today—you see it in the way white nationalists think that if every race could be somehow aligned in a “pure” ethnostate that all wars would cease; and so there is an element of “racial solidarity” with the idea “if only” civilisation, industry, and the Jews could be removed then universal harmony and abundance would reign (the socialist aspect here being the idea that the city means inequality—another Rousseauian contention).


The first clue this is incorrect comes from the fact it feels sentimental, it feels sickly—like the white nationalist slogan “no more brother wars” (which just causes me to roll my eyes). As an empirical fact, the more primitive societies are not more peaceful—if anything, per the Yanomami in Brazil, they are more war-like, with the percentage of male murderers being up in the 15-25% territory. The “noble savage” is a killer.


Rousseau thought inequality and war began when the first man planted a fence and said “my territory”—this is his “Fall”. But, of course, men don’t actually fight over property—or, rather, we fight over a rather mobile and talkative form of property (women). Hence just to live in a society where property relations are non-existent or very loose will not herald “utopia”—because men are violent in order to get access to women, and states are only so organised to express this desire in a perfected form (along the way we suppress the violent quarrels for women—with marriage and so on; and you notice how the Western underclass, the most removed from those very institutions of civilisation, also falls back into “tribal raids for women”).


On the metaphysical level, the NS Rousseauians think war is negative, somehow anti-European and that we were all living in Edenic harmony, as an anthropological fact, before civilisation arrived. However, I hold to Heraclitus—“war is the king of all and makes some men slaves and other men kings” and I also hold to Burroughs “before man was, war was there—waiting for him”. I think Europeans only excel because, as with the wars between the Italian city-states, we are the consummate warrior societies—everything good in our societies comes from antagonism, strife, and the struggle for excellence.


I don’t want to live in some supposed peaceful idyll—and such things, whether racially pure or not, never existed anyway (and are inimical to excellence). For sure, mass modern warfare has become a problem—there were battles between knights, where, due to the technology involved, nobody died (so that the battle was more like a very dangerous rugby match). Now, technology has gone beyond that—but it could potentially go back to something like that in another form. What will not change is that war is a constant, that Europeans are warriors par excellence, and that our ideal leaders are initiated warrior-kings (not priests or kindly village headmen).


So this proposal, even if it wasn’t untrue at the factual anthropological level, would lead to mediocrity if implemented and is also anti-European. It’s a modernist utopia, because it comes out of Rousseau’s thought—i.e. it comes out of the Enlightenment. It’s close to William Morris’s socialism which, despite it rural orientation, was another modernist project.


People don’t realise how total modernity is and how it is based on some very tendentious assumptions—for example, men like Descartes, Hobbes, and Locke introduced radical doubt into our thought processes. Miracles went right out—even if one occurred in front of them, it had to be doubted, along with everything else, because they wanted to get down to rock bottom (which, for Descartes, was “I think, therefore I am”—the one proposition you can be sure of, even if the external world is an illusion). This was, in part, a reaction to the credulous fanaticism of the Christians—but it went too far.


It’s how you end up with “naturalistic” utopias, with the utopia of Rousseau—everything has to be doubted down to the base, so man’s supposed origins, down to the base, become exalted. It will come as a significant surprise to people when it emerges that spiritual entities (“the paranormal”) have been around us all along, simply strained out by Christian dogmatism and then by modernistic dogmatism.


What this means is that, for example, Europeans didn’t “come up” from some primitive idyll; rather, we “came down”—from Atlantis, Hyperborea, and Thule. In short, we once subsisted on a higher spiritual plane and that plane retreated for a time—and has now retreated, like the tide, to its lowest point. We, from this position, are the “savages”—we are already primitives, because we have fallen downwards, into matter, in our civilisations. A mark of our primitiveness is that we think everything evolves upwards, from the mud, rather than falling downwards—from the stars.


We are surrounded by ample evidence there is a supernatural world, but we have put such fierce blinkers on, especially since the advent of modernity, that all our intelligence has been directed in a way that screens it out. “Utopia” is always “down there”, in the mud—even Marx thinks Communism will be the primitive village at a higher iteration. Yet, really, we came down. What exists in the jungles of South America in tribal life is itself the remnants from a higher civilisation—just as the underclass remnants in a British council housing estate are the remnants of a higher civilisation.

106 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page