top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Προφητεία (96)



Revilo P. Oliver: a pugnacious and readable writer, but Oliver suffers from the opposite problem to Evola—whereas Evola puts too much accent on spiritual matters, so that race and blood almost disappear from view at some points, Oliver goes in the opposite direction and claims that only race and blood, in the biological sense, matter.


Between the extremes, Oliver’s is the greater error—for he is a total atheist of the James “the Amazing” Randi variety, of the type that constantly says, “The merchants of religion always find suitable lies to retail their poison to the credulous masses.”


It is men like Oliver who have made white nationalism untenable and unbearable—they are dogmatic atheists who conceive “the Aryan” to be the aristocratic man who is not “conned” by this “mumbo-jumbo” pumped out by the Jews (always the Jews in this case, the natural condition of Europeans is atheism for men like Oliver—unless seduced by Semitic distortions).


The fault lies with Nietzsche. Oliver, as a brilliant classicist, imbibed Nietzsche like the proverbial mother’s milk—although an acute scholar, doubtless very intelligent, Oliver was no genius. So he regurgitates Nietzsche in his own pugnacious form, very reminiscent of HL Mencken and the Skeptical Inquirer—in fact, the way he thinks is typical of many men of his generation, they just parrot Nietzsche (often in a crude form—so as to reach the plebs). Men of a certain disposition born in about 1908 often joined “a herd of Nietzscheans” and are recognisable as such—ironically enough.


There’s no original thought in Oliver and, like the true scholar he is, he loves to add pedantic footnotes to subjects—yet he is leery as regards original conclusions, since he disdains instinct and intuition in favour of Aryan “rationality”, which amounts to the scientific method (plus scholarly pedantry).


It’s unfortunate, because men like Oliver had a big influence on fringe political movements—and Oliver was a talented polemicist, he could write punchy copy. If you look at him he was a thick set man, and his written documents basically punch you down—or, indeed, I could imagine him sitting on you, so as to subdue your credulous proletarian and unAryan ideas.


Oliver is useful, however, in an unintentional way—because his exposition of the Zarathustrian roots of Christianity is brilliant. For Oliver, Zarathustrianism was the ur-error, because it’s the religion of lightness and dark, of Satan and God, of saviours and saved. Hence it heralds fanaticism and intolerance, mass mobilisation against aristocrats—though it began in Aryan Iran, Oliver suggests Zarathustra and the Magi might have been Jews; but, in full academic mode, he refuses to be drawn because there’s absence of evidence either way.


When you hear Netanyahu say that the conflict with Hamas is a conflict between the people of the light and the people of the dark, you hear the echo of Zarathustra—the sentiment is Zarathustrian to the last, the dualistic struggle between redeemed and damned.


The Jews actually claim Zarathustra as their own; but Oliver notes that they tend to lie, to claim notable people who aren’t Jews for themselves—but I can tell he would like it if Zarathustrianism was an imposition on Aryan Iran.


I know Zarathustra wasn’t a Jew, though; but he was a decadent Aryan—he was broken down in the blood; and that’s why his religion had unstable aspects—it’s the first universal religion we know of, and the first person Zarathustra tried to convert was a Turan (a non-Aryan). Zarathustra started a trend whereby one could be “spiritually Aryan”—a sentiment Evola would approve of, incidentally. He separated “idea” from race—which is not possible, as Oliver reasonably points out.


The problem with Oliver is that in his detestation for messianic dualist religions that split everything into good/bad damned/saved and stir up the mob with prospective heavens he misses the reality of religion. So he explicates with his classical erudition how the Zarathustrians worship the stars, use astrology, and how the name “Zarathustra” means “star man”—but then he just pooh-poohs it all (astrology is, of course, “unscientific” for Oliver).


Unfortunately for Oliver, he’s wrong—so that his writings on Christianity and Zarathustrianism are great, great explications, if you just remove the pejorative aspects and accept the ideas like astrology that he explains so well but sneers at. Too bad for Oliver that it’s true—there was a star the Magi followed, the astral light is real.


So Oliver is great in the way he picks on how Christianity was formed—how all the different gospels were suppressed, on how the religion was formed through intolerance and persecution (and how it is related to older religions, how it is related to Buddhism and Zarathustrianism). What he doesn’t consider is that all these various gospels and religious tracts proliferate and then are suppressed not because people lie egregiously all the time (for money—Oliver thinks people are motivated by money; mostly, however, it’s vanity).


Rather, the proliferation of religious texts reflects that people speak about something real—admittedly, sometimes they are mistaken; but there are many academic texts that are mistaken (most, in fact) and there are many secular books that are mistaken—but that’s not because people “make things up for money”. However, being biased against all religion, Oliver just marks it down as “self-evident money-making nonsense” without giving it a real chance—yet nobody said all religion was true.


That’s why if forced to pick I’d choose Evola over Oliver, because there is a higher reality—there is an astral realm; and Evola gets that, and if you don’t get that you’re going nowhere (except down). However, in his crispness and narrow scientific clarity Oliver does provide a useful blood-based corrective to Evola’s spiritual ruminations. As a synthesis I say: the spiritual plane, the astral realm, is real—and it is conveyed in the blood, and to be Aryan is to realise the higher spiritual potential latent in the blood.

93 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