Russia today, despite the collapse of the USSR and its partial dismemberment, is still the largest and most powerful Eurasian state in the world, extending as it does over eight time zones from East Europe to the Pacific Ocean. The current government under President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin appears quite stable at the moment and as democratic as circumstances permit. At the extreme left of the political spectrum, the old Communists under Gennady Zyuganov still retain a substantial following; at the extreme right a militant group, which calls itself the “New Right”, has formed around Vladimir Borisovich Avdeyev and two comrades – Anatoli Ivanov and Pavel Tulayev.
Avdeyev describes himself as a proud Russian heathen, namely, one who does not acknowledge the God of the Abrahamic faiths – Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Not a trained specialist in racial anthropology, Avdeyev, a former Russian Air Force officer, has a degree in economics and is a member of the Russian Writer’s Association. His book, now in its second edition, is the most recent title in the Library of Racial Thought Series of which Avdeyev is chairman. Previous books in the series include: Political Anthropology (Social Darwinism) by Ludwig Woltmann; Female Racial Beauty by Karl Stratz; Metaphysical Anthropology by Avdeyev; Overcoming Idealism by Ernst Krieck (editor of the journal, Volk im Werden); and Selected Works on Race Science by Hans F. K. Günther. The Series obviously borrows heavily from German National Socialist thought, especially Rassenkunde, and applies it to the Russian scene.
Avdeyev has written a book on racial anthropology, sometimes characterized by the academic left as “scientific racism,” that gives a good idea of the type of Russia he hopes to create. He describes it as a synthesis of the Third Rome, the Third Reich, and the USSR — truly strong medicine for a dying race. Avdeyev and his comrades are deeply concerned about the gradual demise of the White Race everywhere and especially in Eastern Siberia. Will China or Muslim tribes rule Siberia as the power center of the modern world shifts to the East or will Russia be able to maintain control? Together, the three men have organized a Pan-European society of like-thinkers called “Athenaeum” and the journal Atheney to share ideas and to recruit new members. Without more Whites Aleksandr Dugin’s geopolitical Eurasia, based on Mackinder’s Heartland Theory and dreams of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, will be unattainable. The priorities of the New Right are “blood before soil” and “biopolitics before geopolitics”.
Sadly, Avdeyev dismisses any chance of help from the United States:
Beautiful America — the dream of millions of European refugees and immigrants — that used to be free, White and proud, has transformed into an aggressive terrorist State, the corrupt policeman of the world, protecting … human degeneration, race-mixing and global Zionism.
Like National Socialism in Germany, the New Right in Russia has a special interest in the pre-Christian era, i.e., before Christianity, seen as a Jewish sect, distorted the natural course of Slavic racial history by imposing an alien value system on the Slavs. Like the Greeks, Romans, and Nordics, prehistoric Russians were polytheists fearing and worshipping many gods. The Athenaeum group has just recently published a handsomely illustrated book on the Slavic gods and what they represented. Likewise, Avdeyev and his group study and learn from ancient Slavic mythology, folk tales, and fairy tales, much as the Grimm brothers did in Germany.
Lest one thinks that biology has little or nothing to do with politics and government, recall Trofim Lysenko, who dominated Soviet biology and headed of the Institute of the Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences until 1965. His teaching that environmentally acquired characteristics may be inherited became national policy in that multiracial State.
A myriad of diverse peoples live on these Eurasian lands: Europeans in the West; Turkic, Iranic, and others of the Islamic world in the south; Finno-Ugrians and a multitude of Mongoloid tribes in Siberia all the way to the shores of the Pacific. According to the Russian anthropologists cited by the author, since antiquity Europeanoids have been the prime agents for introducing whatever cultural and organizational forms once existed or exist today. Even during the Communist era anthropologists supported this contention.
By re-introducing the importance of the racial capabilities and eugenics standards that existed for a hundred years before the outbreak of war in 1939, Avdeyev’s book, Rasologiya [Rasology; literally Race-ology, meaning “Race Science”] flies in the face of modern rampant internationalism, globalism, multiculturalism, and most of the other isms that have transformed the West since World War II.
Rasology, as Avdeyev defines it, is the study of the effect of race on human culture and history. Rasology attempts to evaluate the social, political, cultural, religious, sexual, and other behavior of different races through the study of their inherited group characteristics. Avdeyev estimates that roughly 80% of human behavior may be attributed to inherited characteristics and only about 20% to environment. Consequently, a specific population shares a distinctive gene pool. Any infusion of alien genes would disrupt the unity of the population and alter it.
Unlike ethnology, which is a sociological study, Rasology is an exclusively biological science dealing with humans as part of the animal world and consequently conforming to Darwinian principles of evolution. It is a qualitative rather than a quantitative evaluation of human behavior. The very term race, Avdeyev argues, derives from the Sanskrit and refers to the essence, elixir, or best part of something. It is therefore a value system. However, as in America, Russia too had strong advocates for quantitative measures and the belief that the environment is the dominant influence on behavior.
Avdeyev subscribes to the belief that in deep prehistoric times mankind consisted of three major races: Europeanoids, Mongoloids, Negroids. Subdivisions exist on all continents. In Europe, Avdeyev, like other Europeans before him, ranks Nordics as the most capable and valuable human category. Indeed, it was a Russian anthropologist, Joseph Deniker, who first introduced the concept of the “Nordic Race” to the world. The term ‘Nordic’ was soon adopted by Madison Grant, the popular American author, and by the German Hans F. K. Günther in the interwar period. Hitler, an admirer of the work of both gentlemen, soon took it up and it became part of the professional literature.
According to Avdeyev, in Russia, too, it was primarily Nordics who established the country, ruled it, set its mores and laws, and have its been its leaders in most governmental, scientific and military matters. In Tsarist times, German names shared some of these roles until they were replaced by Jewish names after the Communist Revolution.
Avdeyev rejects the use of the term “the West” or “Western” to refer to the Northern Nordic peoples of Europe. He especially faults the English, who in the past were powerful enough to assign place names to their colonies and other conquered territories; they were even able to set the prime meridian of the longitudinal system in Greenwich, England. Today, in economic and financial matters even Japan is included as part of the West. But, in the modern world Nordic England no longer exists. Avdeyev asserts that England has been Semiticized and White Nordic instincts put at the service of a Semitic value system. Indeed, throughout the Anglo-Saxon countries much of the leadership appears to have passed from Germanics to Judaics. Racially much of Europe is similar to Russia, but it has been racially infected with an alien ideology.
Investigations have shown that lack of gene flow between groups results in increased biological differences between the groups, which, in turn, will cause the cultural life to change over time. Avdeyev cites Eric-Rudolph Gensch, head of the German Psychological Society in the early 20th century: “Our present practical task now is to recover the basic national psychic type.” Here Avdeyev advocates research that would reveal the primordial European genetic type, unmixed with any subsequent contributions from other groups.
To disprove the argument of some that the Russians themselves as Eurasians are in no position to discuss the purity of races, V. E. Deryabin in a comparative anthropological study titled Contemporary East Slavic Peoples found that Russians occupy a central position among the Europeans with regard to anthropological criteria. Russians are in fact, Deryabin claims, the most typical of Europeans in that the pigmentation of their hair and eyes is even lighter than the average European type.[1]
As the English, German, and French anthropologists have done from the mid-19th Century to the mid-20th Century, Avdeyev considers the Nordic component to be the most valuable of the entire European stock. He writes:
The fundamental thesis of race theory proclaims that the racial basis of the Russian and other European peoples is unarguably the Nordic race. All Europe is indebted to the culture-creating ability of the Nordic race.[2]
The very name of the Slavic people who settled the land now called Russia derives, according to Avdeyev, either from the Indo-Aryan tribes resident there at the time, namely, ruksa, russa meaning fair or white or from the Iranic (Old Persian) rauka, ruk meaning light or white. It is undeniable that the Slavs, as a European people, had a Nordic component, as did the other European states going back to ancient Greece and perhaps earlier.
Among topics discussed by the author in Rasology are: the myth of the Melting Pot; the race problem in contemporary Russian science; anthropoaesthetics; the evolutionary stability of racial characteristics; the biological hierarchy of cultures. In the section on Soviet and Post-Soviet science in the service of race theory, Avdeyev gives many examples of how the Europeanoids, not the Mongoloids, produced whatever culture or civilization that has ever existed in Asiatic Russia. Some examples follow:
In 1972 V. V. Ginzburg and T. A. Trofimov in their work Paleoanthropology of Middle Asia reported:
In the Bronze Age the population of the Pamir was homogeneous and without a Mongoloid admixture. The Europeanoid race with only a slight Mongoloid admixture constituted the main anthropological type of the area of Tien Shan and Semirechye (Seven Rivers) in Russian Turkestan.[3]
Moreover, Ginzburg and Trofimov confirmed the basic postulate of race theory to the effect that it was the Europeanoid racial type in whom the Nordic element was the underlying factor that fulfilled the function of culture-builder throughout Eurasia (p. 105–106). Indeed, significant infusions of Mongoloid blood only entered European Russia at the time of the 13th-century Mongol-Tartar invasions. The French expression Grattez le Russe et vous Trouverez le Tartare (Scratch a Russian and you find a Tartar), attributed to Napoleon, is obviously exaggerated.
At an international symposium on ethnic problems in Central Asia in antiquity (2000 BC) held in 1977 the Soviet delegate B. G. Gaforov reported:
Data from Indic and Iranic languages, similarities in religion, culture, social and political organization, attest to their origin from a single common Aryan source.[4]
Writing in 2000, anthropologist A. T. Yablonov in his study Anthropological and Ethnographic Findings on the People of Central Asia, noted that
in the very heart of Eurasia in the era when literacy, religion, culture, technology, which are the foundations of civilization and laws were developed in the first identifiable countries were formulated, Mongoloids, Negroids, and others were not even mentioned. It was the will, the rule, and the wisdom of the white man that was responsible for all these epochal developments.[5]
Clearly, many, if not most, anthropologists had accepted Joseph Deniker’s idealization of the Nordic Race during the Classical Age of Race Studies (1850–1950).
It has also become equally manifest that people of European heritage in both the Old and New Worlds are gradually abandoning their old value system as their nations change from monoracial states to multiracial.
Avdeyev concludes his book with a little story based on old Slavic fairy tale characters: “Deathless Kashcheys” of another race have for a long time been aggressively weakening the biological body of the Russian people, diminishing its ability to expand and diminishing its evolutionary prospects. A new scenario has begun. We have only to call to life “Johnny the Little Fool” of the Russian fairytale, no longer stupidly burdened with all of mankind’s humanistic ideals and therefore free to switch on the Kashcheys’ genetic self-destruction program, so that in an instant of agony these parasites are obliterated from our time once and for all.
In Slavic mythology the Kashcheys (Kashchei Bessmertnyye) are ugly evil persons whose souls are so well hidden that they may not even exist. Johnny the Little Fool (Ivanushka Durachok) is a beloved figure in Slavic mythology, somewhat akin to The Pure Fool (der reine Tor) in Germany, who looks out for the Slavs.
Avdeyev clearly sees the decline of the Russian people as being caused by racial outsiders. Although it is not stated, he is perhaps referring to Jews, given his comments on Jewish influence on England and the long history of conflict between Jews and Russians recounted in Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together.
Rasology is clearly an attempt to resurrect ideas that were prominent early in the 20th century but were more or less eradicated following World War II and the rise of a leftist political culture in the universities and among intellectuals generally that opposed the idea that racial differences were related to cultural accomplishment and even denied the reality of race. This intellectual culture has had devastating consequences on the cultural confidence of Europeans and the ability of Europeans to defend themselves against colonization by other peoples. The fact that Rasology is a bestseller in Russia bodes well for a resurgence of the Russian people and the West in general.
[1] Vladimir Avdeyev. Rasologiya (Race Science): Nauka o nasledstvennykh kachestvakh lyudey (Science of the Human Inherited Qualities). Belyye alvy Publisher, Moscow, 2005, p. 113.
[2] Ibid., p. 114
[3] Ibid., p. 106.
[4] Ibid., p. 110.
[5] Ibid., p. 115.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Russians are not Nordics nor are most Europeans. Idealizing such people is absurd.
It is unfortunate to see that Avdeyev and his ilk show any public interest in Russia’s pagan past. The Orthodox Church has long been an excellent defender of Russian national identity, not to mention exceptionally realistic about the Jewish issue. The ROC, which has regained much of its power since the fall of the USSR, is a very respected institution in Putin’s Russia — the Prime Minister himself being a quite public believer.
While Americans have many well placed doubts about whether Christianity today is a defender of our values (generally it isn’t; same is true in most of the Protestant and Catholic world), the Orthodox world is different. In Russia the ROC is a genuine bulwark of traditional identity. Which is why the Soros-led West hates the Church so much in Russia.
Even Hitler never hated Christianity, per se, though he loathed political Catholicism and disliked Protestant disunity; his favorable comments on the Anglican Church, ie a bona fide national church (the C of E circa 1937, mind you, not the lefty, multi-culti pro-homo C of E of today), indicate his views, which were about politics, not theology.
A legitimate and popular WN-like movement in Russia will have to embrace Orthodoxy; otherwise it will be a talk-shop for a few disaffected intellectuals with no real appeal to the broad mass of Russians, who, I can attest, remain splendidly non-Western in their worldview.
Great post. It calls to mind a passage in Dostoyevsky’s classic novel “The Demons.”
“Then history will be divided into two parts: from the gorilla to the destruction of God and from the destruction of God to the gorilla.”
I don’t know about the ROC but most mainline American Christian denominations have replaced belief in Christ with a doctrine of “social justice”, thus becoming liberal political organizations. We now have a situation in which stealth Social Justice atheistic preachers fill the Christian pulpits of America – all sacrosanct in the name of religion. The alternative is largely the ignorant fundamentalist Christian Zionists.
It is kind of stupid to talk about “Slavic mythology” and the pre-Christian Slavic religion, since there are almost no reliable sources about it.
since there are almost no reliable sources about it.
That is NOT the same as saying it did not exist, that it had no value, and that it failed to provide spiritual sustenance to the native people who followed “Slavic Mythology”.
Although I would concede that what K Eggers has posted about the role of the ROC is essentially correct. Nonetheless, I still believe Christianity emasculates us and puts a psychological barrier between our souls and our roots … because by being Christian we chain ourselves to a twisted, alien belief system that belongs elsewhere, and in another age.
For some intelligent pre-Christian insights, plse read this: http://www.asatru.org/aboutasatru.php
Anglo Saxon,
This Avdeyev is trying to copy the “paganism” stuff of some Germanic nationalists. That is nonsense in a Slavic context.
Christianity is much more important in Slavic tradition than it is in Germanic tradition.
The original Slavic alphabets (Glagolitic and Cyrillic) were developed and preserved by Christian priests.
The only reason why the Old-Slavic language was preserved to this day is because it was (and in some cases still is) the liturgical language of Christian churches (Catholic and Orthodox) in Slavic countries.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic
Many of us understand the language of our ancestors thanks to Christian priests who preserved it and spread it from generation to generation.
Why would we suddenly throw away this great tradition?
Ethno … I hear you Brother. You guys have been put through hell during the course of history, so who am I to tell Slavs how to pray?
But, if you would permit me to suggest, I suspect it is the INSTITUTION that is the Orthodox Church, and not Christianity itself, that has been your collective bulwark and saviour.
Orthodox priests are the real deal and are men. Can’t say the same for many of the RC priests and the gay jokers pretending to be Church of England. In my book if your priests are not men, then your religion ain’t worth a prayer.
So, think yourself lucky my friend Ethno … even if you and your compatriots were bombed and shot at by that Madeline Albright Zio-bitch and that Talmudic-pitbull, Richard Holbrooke.
Anglo Saxon,
Well, I am Croatian and Roman Catholic… lol.
It is not about prayer or something like that; it is about the Old-Slavic linguistic tradition and the Glagolic scripture that were preserved by the priests and could have otherwise been lost. We have to respect that.
As for the priests; in Eastern Europe priests have always been more “tough” than those in Western Europe.
There were a lot of Catholic priests that fought in the wars against the Ottoman invaders.
Like:
- St. John of Capistrano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_da_Capistrano
- Marko Mesić, who led the uprising against the Turks in Lika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marko_Mesi%C4%87_%281640%E2%80%931713%29
- Luka Ibrišimović, who liberated Slavonia from the Turks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luka_Ibri%C5%A1imovi%C4%87
etc., etc.
There were also many Orthodox priests in Serbia and Bulgaria who organized the defense against the Ottomans.
I am saying all of this because people like Avdeyev have to understand that an anti-Christian way is not a good strategy to approach nationalists in Eastern Europe.
DM: “Avdeyev, a former Russian Air Force officer, has a degree in economics”
According to the Wikipedia, his educational background is from an engineering institute in Moscow.
“The fact that Rasology is a bestseller in Russia bodes well for a resurgence of the Russian people and the West in general.”
Is it really a bestseller? I very much doubt it. The metapedia-link in the article does not seem very convincing.
“… it was a Russian anthropologist, Joseph Deniker, who first introduced the concept of the “Nordic Race” to the world”
This is often a favorite issue among Russian nationalists: everything was invented in Russia by Russians (the West has “stolen” everything from technology and science to art and civilization from “the third Rome”). But exactly how “Russian” was Deniker? He was born in Russia, but his parents were French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Deniker
“Without more Whites Aleksandr Dugin’s geopolitical Eurasia, based on Mackinder’s Heartland Theory and dreams of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, will be unattainable. The priorities of the New Right are “blood before soil” and “biopolitics before geopolitics”.”
Well, I have never seen Dugin anywhere near a racialist position. Dugin is a classical Russian neo-imperialist. He cares a lot about geo-politics (Russian becoming the dominant superpower again in Eurasia including western Europe) but not about race or ethnicity.
“He describes it as a synthesis of the Third Rome, the Third Reich, and the USSR”
The pseudo-Messianic Third Rome-ideology is deeply rooted in Russian nationalist tradition, but it has no tradition of including race or ethnicity – or paganism for that matter. Russia as a multiethnic empire has always based its national ideology on linguistic and cultural homogeneity, tolerating ethnic/racial heterogeneity. Anything else would be imperial suicide, and Russia is very much an empire, not a nation state.
“The Athenaeum group has just recently published a handsomely illustrated book on the Slavic gods and what they represented. Likewise, Avdeyev and his group study and learn from ancient Slavic mythology, folk tales, and fairy tales, much as the Grimm brothers did in Germany.”
Considering that very little is known about Slavic pre-Christian mythology, I suspect that book must be less voluminous than the Gigantic work by the Grimm brothers…
“Racially much of Europe is similar to Russia, but it has been racially infected with an alien ideology.”
It is strange, then, that when Europe still believed in the concept of race, very few (if anyone) saw that similarity.
“To disprove the argument of some that the Russians themselves as Eurasians are in no position to discuss the purity of races, V. E. Deryabin in a comparative anthropological study titled Contemporary East Slavic Peoples found that Russians occupy a central position among the Europeans with regard to anthropological criteria. Russians are in fact, Deryabin claims, the most typical of Europeans in that the pigmentation of their hair and eyes is even lighter than the average European type.”
This is a pseudo-argument. Russians constitute a highly heterogeneous group, and even if some of them are depigmented, they are usually easily distinguishable from northwestern Europeans.
“The very name of the Slavic people who settled the land now called Russia derives, according to Avdeyev, either from the Indo-Aryan tribes resident there at the time, namely, ruksa, russa meaning fair or white or from the Iranic (Old Persian) rauka, ruk meaning light or white. It is undeniable that the Slavs, as a European people, had a Nordic component, as did the other European states going back to ancient Greece and perhaps earlier.”
This is the ultimate test wheather a Russian nationalist is “WN” or not. The whole (academic) world outside Russia agrees that the term “Russia” derives from “Rus”, “Rhos” and “Ruotsi” – the Finnish term for “Sweden” or “Scandinavians”. Diehard Russian “patriots” have been denying this simple fact of history since the mid-18th century. No serious historians outside Russia support the Russian “xenophobic” point of view.
“Indeed, significant infusions of Mongoloid blood only entered European Russia at the time of the 13th-century Mongol-Tartar invasions.”
Not quite. First, Russians have always been surrounded by (and to some extent intermingling with) Turkic peoples in southern Russian and the Ukraine. Second, many of these Mongols stayed in Russia even after the “reconquista” after 250 years of Mongol domination. This has to some extent affected the (patrilineal) gene-pool.
@ Dan Michaels …
Sir and Brother. This is a truly fascinating and EXCELLENT article. It is also a very satisfying read. I do congratulate you.
Please consider posting the contact details of Vladimir Borisovich Avdeyev and his organization, if you have them. Although please pause BEFORE doing so to ensure all safeguards are in place! Alternatively, I could e-mail TOO and request them privately.
I have been studying some related topics in recent times and all you have written above squares with my own research. Russia (the genuine version) is a truly beautiful country and the indigenous Russian people, long suffering.
Angelsachse
Ted, your “absurd” remark is exactly the kind of nastiness that we do not need.
If you have an argument, then make it, but do not dump your emotionalism on the rest of us. I suspect that you have no argument.
Then, the Nordicism argument is divisive for WN. Blue eyes apparently mark for a bit more IQ, Nordics are taller, and may be one or two points of IQ smarter, but these slight advantages are trivial. As for White promiscuous altruism, Nordics might be the worst amongst us.
The Nordic argument is interesting up to a point, but WN should not concern itself with it. Blondes are taller, but not as facially good looking as brunettes. Blue eyes are adapted for low light in the North, they also are superior to brown eyes in night vision. Is there a psychological difference in general beyond altruism? Maybe also more individualistic. This we don’t need either. We need to collectivize. If Russians feel the need to create a myth of their value, so what? What we all need to do is value our national bio-cultures as well as our race in general.
Speaking of Russians….has anybody noticed the apparent (to me at least) very lively/unforgettable Russian music? Maybe it is just Romanticism, that makes their music so striking. Was there a classic period in Russian music? A baroque period? Joe
As there seems to be a great deal of interest in the (getting on for a century old) science behind the racial views of the Nazi regime I thought you might be interested in a some quotes from an semi official Nazi ‘book of virtues’.
The Germans incorporated countries like Latvia into their new order by assessing peoples’ suitability for “Germanization”. Contrary to what you might think from reading racial literature produced during the Third Reich, families were judged not on their racial characteristics but whether they had demonstrated an ability to rise in socioeconomic status, (preferably over several generations). Now within the white race alleged sub -races or local forms are not much help in assessing people – or at least not according to the Nazis. What they did in practice sounds like an awareness of a genetic selection for socio economic success:-
This would apply to the WASPs above all .
It may be pertinent to mention KM’s article which “discusses effortful control of aggression, ethnocentrism, sexuality, reward seeking, and emotions.” Effortful Control, Explicit Processing, and the Regulation of Human Evolved Predispositions
If I recall correctly HFK Gunther characterized the East Baltic type as being prone to fantastical flights of fancy but never actually achieving his goals. I think the Russian “New Right” is really lost in dreams to be associating itself with the nationalism of Nazi Germany ( why not the nationalism of Wilhelmine Germany which was practically identical in its’ objective, ie to become a hegemonic power).
Joe Webb, blue eyes, blonde hair and white skin evolved due to sexual selection.
Russian music, much like Russian literature, flourished in the 19th century, very late in the country’s development. This was mainly due to the Tsars gradually opening the country up to western European influence. As this happened in the 1800s, most of the great Russian composers were part of the Romantic period of European music, since the classical and baroque periods happened earlier, in the 17th and 18th centuries.
For the purposes of accuracy however, we should probably stress that many great “Russians” were not actually Russian by ethnicity. Nikolai Gogol, the founder of Russian realism, composer Pyotr Tchaikovsky, and Sergei Korolyov, the head of the Sputnik program and developer of satellite communication, for example, were actually Ukrainians.
Regarding Ted’s fallacious claim that Russians are not European, the faces of the Russian people confirm that they are part of the white race:
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=traditional+russian&rlz=1B7MOZA_enUS387US387&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1280&bih=839
Russians are Slavs and the Slavs are one of the great branches of the Indo-European race that settled in Europe thousands of years ago.
Will anyone dispute the claim that these two Russian women are not white Europeans?
http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/anna-kournikova.jpg
http://tennisinfoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/maria-sharapova-tv-producer.jpg
@ Ted. I need a recipe for gefilte fish. Care to share yours? Don’t be greedy..
Very, very few people today are aware of how cultural periods influence contemporary thought.
That is to say, we are the victims of our own, often violently, anti-historical and anti-intellectual attitudes.
Few people know where the notion of a free market comes from. Though some are aware of its association with laissez-faire economics, fewer know its connection to Adam Smith and of those, even fewer know about the historical period that influenced him, The Enlightenment.
I’ve been saying for a long time, and remain convinced to this day, that it was European man demise started with The Enlightenment.
Metaphysically the Enlightenment position was the perfect adaptation of man to his environment.
A typical example of this in the was Alexander Pope’s “Whatever is, is right.” A 20th century example was “Whatever is good for General Motors is good for America.”
Well, now we know just how wrong-headed those ideas were.
But, of the few that know about the Enlightenment, even fewer know that another period followed it and is still with us today. I remain convinced that its our only hope, slim as that might be.
And that period is Romanticism.
There’s a reason Morse Peckham’s masterpiece,
Beyond the Tragic Vision, was permitted to go out of print.
It is the single greatest document about European man, ever.
Please, if anyone has read it and understood it (its a pleasure to read by the way, extremely engaging and you can’t put it down) and come across anything better, please let me know.
The principles of the Enlightenment are narrowed down to one word – Submit. It leads to, well, what it has lead to, nihilism, apathy, indifference and decadence.
Romanticism’s position is the opposite.
It recognizes the fact that we are NOT perfectly adaptive to our environment, a point that should be obvious to everyone by now.
It encourages what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of all values. the Will to power, by which he did NOT mean State power, or the power of a tyrant, but the spiritual power to transcend onself. The power of an individual to dedicate himself to spiritial growth based on daily renewal.
This would enhance any collective, as in, a collective of individuals!
That is the ONLY alternative to the Masses.
Masses function like all masses do, so many atoms moving toward a center that does not exist. It falls apart, as the USA lead by so many Mass Men did.
National Socialism is also decadent, because its regressive.
The only reality-based position we have is Romanticism.
Happily there is no shortage of examples and documents.
Rather interesting…Too bad so many seem to be trashing the Russian New Right in these comments. I wish them well.
Dedalus, what do you mean by national socialism being “regressive”?
Also it was Wordsworth who sung the praises of the French Revolution. And others. Of course, German Romanticism contained enough volk romance to lead to AH putting a wreath on Holderlin’s grave, as I recall.
Romanticism as a cure-all is pretty vague. German Idealism was also part of the American Abolitionists mind-set. Nothing more romantic than Racial Equality. Can there be a romance in WN? I suppose, but if so, it is grounded in biology and evolutionary psychology. This could bring up the question, Is Science romantic? Probably it is not. But a Myth based in science and REality, could qualify as romantic, assuming it stirs passions of Faustian reach for our people. We need emotion, and lots of it, but always tethered to objective reality. Presumably, that is what emotions are for, to recognize reality and react accordingly. For example, don’t use a weapon if you and your politics will be defeated by it, even if your emotions of the moment tell you to pull a trigger. Emotions and REason.
Some of us have trouble recognizing Reality, per the thread on violence. Joe
“Wordsworth who sung the praises of the French Revolution” until he experienced it first hand during a sojourn there. The “Daffodils” became far more attractive after that …
@ Anglo Saxon: I find Asatru very interesting, and it certainly speaks to a part of my Germanic roots and heritage. However, I find it difficult to see how neo-paganism can speak to any but a tiny minority; it certainly has no resonance with the masses of Whites Americans, no matter how (rightly) disaffected they are. Christianity defeated paganism in Europe a millennium ago; you may think that’s bad, but is simply is, rather was.
I am forced to conclude that Western Christianity has failed to protect, or even celebrate, our own culture and history; church in America is now one of the easiest places to encounter lefty, multi-culti (and feminist) propaganda.
The Orthodox world is simply different for a whole host of historical and theological reasons; it’s difficult to see how any Orthodox bishop could long openly attack his own national traditions, since the Orthodox world is based on national churches, not to mention that Orthodoxy inculcates a deep (assumed, unspoken) cultural conservatism that is almost absent in the West today. For all their faults, Orthodox national churches are one of the few places where White heritage is defended and celebrated. Applying this to America is, of course, difficult, unless you happen to be by background Russian, Serbian, Greek, etc.
But the weakness, indeed surrender, of Western Christianity to post-modernity is very recent, and has little to do with Christianity’s DNA. As James Russell showed persuasively in his writings, Christianity became a different religion, in essence, when it converted the Germanic people; it had no choice. And that Europeanized (indeed Germanized) Christianity went out to conquer the world, brimming with self-confidence and cultural pride, even arrogance.
The problem isn’t Christianity, it’s post-modernity. We can take back our ancestral faith, if we really want to. What we must avoid is divisive in-fighting about religion. If we are White, the last thing we need is polemics about is whose God(s) are bigger.
I strongly recommend that White activists lay off the open neo-paganism in public, it alienates average Whites, who remain in most cases at least nominally Christian, and respectful of it as the once-proud faith of their ancestors.
You make a convincing argument K Eggers, and our future unity is indeed important. So, I will limit my response out of respect.
Just please consider that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all PAGAN religions. Each and every one of them. This can easily be demonstrated too. All you need do is look at the symbols that represent each.
Judaism — the Menorah // Seal of Solomon.
Christianity — the Cross
Islam — the Moon’s Crescent
Each of these symbols are remnants of religious activities and forms of worship that existed long before Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (respectively) came into being. Asatru is simply an upfront and honest contemporary reminder of how things were before the great Jewish hoax entered the lands of Europe, to seduce the Merovingian dynasty.
Food for serious thought I would say!
Avdeev is currently persecuted by Russian authorities for Raciology. FSB (the heir of KGB) tries to incriminate him the “incitement of racial hatred” and “extremism”.
Truely a variety of enriching comments. All arguments are different, equaly valid and fascinating to read. A great group here, and all seem to write with respect. This makes it a pleasure to learn from all of you. Thanks to everyone!
K Eggers, interesting post. As someone raised without religion, my ignorance is vast. I read Russell’s book and essay in TOQ a while back. I do not know how Christianity was changed by Germany. I only recall Russell talking about rituals (liturgies ?). Is there any doctrine that was changed to challenge Catholicism’s Universalism? That would seem to be the key, to allow for national and/or racial Difference , as I understand the Eastern Church allows with its various national Churches.
When I remarked somewhere that I thought Christianity fit the White genome, I had in mind particularly the altruism of Whites. Promiscuous Altruism of Whites is our singular problem. Christianity seems to embody it. It served us well when we were alone, but now it is a suicide pact.
Then whites have another problem, perhaps more-so than other races and that is our tendency to come up with Thinking Rationales about Everything. Whites invented, besides everything, the left-right discourse. No other race has done so. Other races have simply operated on the basis of in-group/out-group, power relations, and self and ethnic group interest. Religion was there but with nothing like White concern for “fairness.” ( Indeed, religion’s purpose is to justify unfairness, one might say. I recall as a young man my personal revulsion to “unto those who have, it shall be given.”) Well , I suppose most religions have said the same, a concession to biology.
Only Whites have indulged in heavy-duty secular thinking. Of course, other races have developed religious discourses that can be considered altruistic in some sense, but none of them have come up with the Equality argument like Christianity and, of course, Western secular thought (read LIberalism).
Christianity can be seen as a “good” for helping Whites in Europe restrain themselves (war, conquest, etc.) It can also be seen as an aid in helping Whites attain peacetime mutuality in governance. Catholicism historically, led to rational governance, more or less by consent. The Church today remains a guide to a reconstitution of political governance….a kind of constitutional Monarchy, wherein the King is not above the law, and is elected by a college of secular cardinals, and the various estates have their representatives, etc.
K Eggers is absolutely correct, the problem is not Christianity, it is post-modernity (and modernity if you agree that the great Equality Passion was modern). Arguably, post-modernism also does away with the Equality/Inequality discourse, and claims that Difference simply solves the problems of “thinking about society”. In the discourse of the Deconstructors, power is the only arbiter, there is nothing that is legitimate ( think Derrida) and any claim to truth is an act of a schemer with a selfish agenda. Of course, this position, coming from a Jew, is quite wonderful. Derrida’s default position was his Jewish Identity. By implication, Jews can do anything they want, and so can anybody else, there is no basis for criticism of anybody.
Unfortunately some WNist folks like this kind of stuff as it opens the way for WNism’s claims. One claim is as good another. This is genuine leveling and unleashes the war of all against all.
No normal White person , spared an education at Paris or New York, would ever accept such a rationale for WN or the saving of the West. The West is worth saving, not because it is White, but because it is the best and the rest of the world is more or less savage.
Btw, the left-liberal beligerance toward biological and conservative thinking is at least partly due to its po-mo intellectual swamp. They do not believe in objectively ascertainable truth. Therefore, can I say it?, it is just narcissistic Will to Power. Whether Nietzsche has anything to do with it….dunno. But the morass of post-modernity is vast, having seeped into our colleges by the 60s generation of jews, commies, liberals, etc. These folks have adopted the Maoist line: power comes out of the barrel of a gun. It is also the emotionalism of the mob, who will use Equality to advance their ego-driven lust for power. Grand Inquisitor (Dostoyevsky, Brothers Karamazov): “men are slaves of course but rebellious by nature.”
I also liked the Inquisitor’s “Miracle, Mystery, and Authority.” The Revolution being the Miracle (Transcendance of biological life), Dialectical Materialism as the Mystery (of Historical Development), and the vanguard leninist party as Authority.
Joe
Briefly– Initially there were something akin to ‘national churches’ in the West as well. The seeds of a Celtic Church were sown, and there were separate rites (types of masses) in France and in Spain. Moreover, there were even patriarchs in Aquileia (Venice) and Carthage. However, ironically the newly converted Germans seemed to have enforced Roman uniformity throughout Western Europe.
I more or less agree with ‘ethnonationalism’ that the emphasis on local languages preserved the national character of the people who became Orthodox rather than Catholic. Incidentally, many of the of Catholic Eastern Europeans initially followed Eastern Christianity–the Lithuanians, the Hungarians, and the Croats. They hadn’t fully become Orthodox but they all succumbed either to German force or diplomatic pressure and put themselves under the Bishop of Rome.
Obviously, both the Eastern and the Western Churches see themselves as “catholic” (universal) entities, but but the Eastern Church sees itself in a more conciliar manner, and so in practice is more of a federation of national churches. On the other hand, the Roman Church is ruled solely by the See of St. Peter.
Anything that gets Whites to start thinking and acting as Whites is the best thing in existence.
It would be great if someone could translate the interview with Vladimir Avdeyev into English:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOeW6_DlG3w
If Christians insist on tagging white survival with their religion we will certainly lose. Too many whites have progressed beyond the Jew based religion, indeed beyond any religion to a best-evidence position, and the Christian position of damning everyone else makes them very offensive. Even in the face of all the Jewish malice and control today many Christians dare not even entertain a thought against them because of Biblical injunctions. If we are to survive they MUST learn to keep their religion in their own head, where it belongs.
Right pal, because who has more power, Evangelicals who fetishize Jews or white atheist liberals who let Jews run roughshod through Wall Street and the Ivy League?
Why do you think Jews put so much effort into breaking down the Catholic, Orthodox, and orthodox/nicene Protestants?
Repeatedly attacking these churches (which are not the same as dispensationalist evangelicals who love Israel) is doing the Jews’ work for them.
Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson’s greatest criticism of Christianity was that it is just Platonism in disguise.
We often don’t seem to learn much from experience. While it obviously can’t compare with the tyranny of Communism, the history of Christianity when it ran the white world is nevertheless a horror story. I’ve read the minutes of the first Baptist church in southern Mississippi in the early 1800′s. No one today would want to live under such dictatorial conditions.
Christianity evolved in a time when people were incredibly ignorant and were constantly being told, and believed, all sorts of magical nonsense.
Religion claims to have the final answer and allows for no learning of better ways. In science all truths are temporary. For me that means agnosticism about such things as primal causes; I’m not at all sure we’ll ever have any real answer.
What at least some of us can be very sure of however, is that we do not want to trade one master for another, especially one we’ve all ready had.
I might add that all the technology we like in our modern world depends on science; you can’t even light a candle with the precepts of religion, much less a lightbulb.
You’re looking at this the wrong way. This isn’t the place to debate the veracity of metaphysics. Perhaps looking at extreme sola scriptura Protestants this isn’t obvious, but the fact is that Christianity, for most white Americans/Europeans is the living institution in which most of their culture resides. This is obvious for groups like Lutherans and Anglicans, and even more so for Catholics and Orthodox.
Science is very important…but I am skeptical of the claim that science and religion are incompatible on a practical level (once again, whether a scientific outlook demands absolute materialism is irrelevant here…the majority of scientists throughout history have not held this view…certainly not before the 20th c.).
You seem to be objecting to religion as a source of ethics. There too I think there is another way to look at it. If you don’t believe that Christianity derives ethics from God, then it derives them from the communities in which it developed. Consider how different Jewish and Christian ethics are.
Certainly I will agree that white culture is based around Christianity. But as both Christians and Jews so often remind us they share a common base. Growing up as a Methodist we were often told how Rome fell because of it’s un-christian ways. But my reading of Roman history gives me a quite different view. As Christianity came up, Rome went down. I see that as a very similar process to the rise of Communism in this country in our time. Therefore I see the adoption of Christianity as a horrible mistake which must be corrected if we are to save ourselves; there’s no gain in continuing to rely on something which has clearly failed.
Something of religion may be compatible with science but only from the agnostic viewpoint. The axioms of science are and must be based on solid empirical evidence. To the extent to which it claims final knowledge, religion is irrelevant, counterproductive, a stumbling block to real knowledge.
Well, we could debate as to whether all knowledge is ultimately materialistic in origin. I would go back to the old standby that science gives us positive information and religion gives us normative information. For example, someone could agree with everything Prof. MacDonald says and also think that Jews SHOULD rule Europe and the USA and that all their instrumentalities are justified. At the same time, most of us would agree that Prof. MacDonald’s methods are better than saying that Jews are alien reptiles.
I would disagree with your analysis of Rome. The Eastern Empire lasted for 1000 years after the fall of the West, and is the longest lived state in history. Christianity was no small part of this. Gibbon was a man of his time and full of its prejudices.
Europe became great as a thoroughly Christian society… medieval Europeans defined themselves in terms of Christianity.
We’ve lost the point of what I first said, I’m afraid. Does it serve our struggle to survive as a race to make religion such a large part of it, or is that an unnecessary handicap? I have no problem with people freely believing what they will. But a dictatorship of religion, which is what many Christians would like, is no more acceptable than a Communist dictatorship.
It does serve, because it contains so much of our culture. I don’t think any Christians want to restrict freedom of conscience, but any society has to have rules of behavior.
The Orthodox Church started as a imperial institution and served well the Empire. As an orthodox is difficult for me to honour Constantine the Great – a ruthless killer and nations destroyer and not even a proper christian. Also, the Orthodox Church was a great instrument for desnationalisation (along with the Chatolic Church) – a mere instrument in the hands of the Emperor, greek or russian or whatever.
Yet, when the empire fell it started to separate into autonomous national churches. Even the process took about 400 years the separation took place on national bases. The orthodox priests understood that in order to preserve Christianity you have to become national and that your job as a priest is to take care about your people and less about others. It seems that Chatolic and protestant priests never understood that; they seem to rely on the masonic of “universal brotherhood of man”.
The Russians imperialists can try to use anything from paganism to Christianity, from internationalism to panslavism or panorthodoxism. Everytime with the same result. Furthering the Russian imperial agenda. Why they wouldn’t use in the same fashion the white nationalism ideea?
Even a communist poet as Majakowski had a certain ideea of racial superiotity entitling the russian pesant to rape Europe to bring new savage blood in the world.
Who uses a certain ideea and for what purpose is a key question.
What really means the “ability of Russian people to expand”? Expand in number or in territory? On whose expence?
A legitimate question for swedes, finns, latvians, poles, romanians or ukrainians and many more others.
Is a good prospect a Russian Empire streching from Pacific to the gates of Wien? Does this ideea create enough maneuvering room for proffesional manipulators to instigate for a new fratricidal war? It did it in the past.
The Russians are not led by Soljenitins – unfortunately.