The Wisdom of the Ancients, Part 3: Nature and Nurture; Socrates as Moral Exemplar for the Alt Right

Guillaume Durocher


Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2

The Death of Socrates

  1. Self-Improvement: Nature and Nurture

Contrary to the currently fashionable egalitarian blank-slatist hysteria, the Greeks universally believed that an individual’s qualities were the fruits of nature and nurture. Even the sophist Protagoras, a thinker of democratic leanings and an educator of the people, argued: “Teaching requires natural endowments and training; one should begin to learn when one is young.”[1] The recognition of inborn human inequality in no way implied that the well-endowed should rest on their laurels. On the contrary, all humans should constantly work to maximize their potential through training and education.

The Greeks developed techniques for individuals to cope with and live well in the harsh world they inhabited. They were remarkably cognizant of the means available: good education, constant training, healthy habits, and socialization with good individuals. Through self-discipline and piety, reason could rule over emotions, pleasures and pains. The Greeks considered a life of belly-chasing, death-fearing, and comfort-clinging to be an evil, subhuman one, no better than that of the lower beasts. Politically, moral education of the citizens was considered practically the first duty of the state, to be achieved through training, culture, public religion, and laws.

None went further than the divine Plato in imagining what superhuman perfection might resemble. His ideal republic is a state effectively led by an enlightened and pious order of warrior-monks as a cognitive and moral elite drawn from the best of the whole people. This elite then systematically educates and trains itself, and to the extent possible the people, towards the good. But Plato goes further than most philosophers and follows the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus in making genetic improvement of the population through good breeding a sacred moral imperative. This principle, while it follows quite naturally from humanity’s many successes in plant and animal breeding, is nonetheless remarkable given that Plato wrote long before the scientific facts about Darwinian evolution and genetic heredity were known. (Incidentally, I dare say that most of what science has since taught us on heredity reflects very favorably on Plato’s observations, concerns, and ideal.)

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

For too long, Western civilization has operated in contempt of the blood. Western man does seem to have a tendency to love contemplation of the divine. Yet higher consciousness, which may reasonably be deemed a supreme goal of intelligent life, is only a flicker in the dark if it ends with one’s bloodline. As even the blue-eyed Buddha in India, a contemporary of Socrates, observed: “this body . . . is what [the ascetic’s] consciousness depend on, what it is bound up with.”[2] And the body assuredly derives from the blood.

Universalist religions especially have often forgotten this, urging the most pious to become childless monks or priests. There is a case for our best minds to not be distracted by family life so that they may fully pursue philosophical truth and political activism. But I would limit that to a minuscule minority. The best of our people must know they have a duty to perpetuate their line. Humans are by nature genetic, social, and cultural creatures, our political goals naturally flow from this: the genetic, social, and cultural improvement of our people.

  1. Truth-Telling and Cultural Struggle

European Identitarians and other violators of political correctness must bear the burden of being considered heretics. This is not only painful and unglamorous, but indeed can prove financially and socially ruinous. Yet, here too, we find inspiration in the Greek tradition and find that not all is new under the sun.

Greek philosophy itself, as it comes down to us, really flourished following the eternal example of Socrates. In no other man is the contradiction between social acceptability and the pursuit of truth so apparent. Socrates was a good soldier when Athens called upon him to fight for his community. He was also a father and family man, though perhaps a somewhat neglectful one. He preferred to live in relative poverty, questioning those who claimed to be wise, and refusing to take corrupting fees for his teachings. Socrates’ self-discipline was legendary, being immune to cold, drunkenness, or sleepiness, spending hours or whole days and nights meditating.

The detail of Socrates’ views will remain forever unknown to us. But we know some things by his way life. Describing himself as the “gadfly” of Athens, Socrates was what we would call today an ethical “troll”: urging his fellow citizens to become aware of their ignorance and showing established authorities to not be as wise as they claimed. He praised the value of political expertise as against the assumptions of Athenian direct democracy. He said that the only genuine good, for an intelligent being, was in the good of the soul, rather than external goods or even health. For if you give a foolish man wealth and power, he would only use these foolishly, at best wasting them and perhaps even harming himself further. And indeed, is not power and wealth without purpose the very story of America and Western civilization itself over the past century? We are victims of our foolishness and apparent successes.

Socrates fell foul of the democratic authorities of his day. He was accused, like all unpopular truth-tellers, of “impiety” and of “corrupting the youth.” Do we heretics today not know these charges well? The women too lamented. But Socrates would not back down. In the face of the mob, Socrates put his words into practice, preferring death to a life in which he could not live by philosophy. The story, as magnificently told by Plato, is all the more poignant in that Socrates refused to flee his execution. Socrates was no liberal: while boldly questioning convention, he honored the right of the Athenian state to do as it saw fit in the name of public morals, and Socrates submitted, for without respect for the laws there is only anarchy. By his willingness to sacrifice himself, the philosopher shows his superior piety, his adherence to his own internal moral law, itself acquired through training and reflection. This is piety a mob cannot even conceive of, let alone have. The egalitarian executioner is shamed forever, the philosopher by his exemplary death becomes immortal in the minds of men.

Socrates’ sacrifice inspired all the Greco-Roman philosophical schools that endured until the end of antiquity. In terms of individual ethics and lifestyle, all merely elaborated upon his principles. His example lives with us still. Remember that you’ve only one life and death is inevitable, that we are all subjects of the laws of the universe whether we like it or not, that you have nothing but your soul, and that your blood begot your spirit.

The Emperor Julian, that final flowering of the Hellenic spirit, showed the way in recalling the two fundamental principles of his philosophy: “Know thyself” and “restamp the common currency.” In other words, discover your own nature and then, based on this truth, change the culture, change what people value, for what they value today is utterly worthless. And there will even be joy and that rarest of things in our nihilistic age: a life full of meaning. For as Julian also said, those who have had a taste of the truth, however small, are seized by that “sacred frenzy,” that ecstatic feeling which inspires us to order our life accordingly and to zealously fight to enlighten our kinsmen.

Emperor Julian the Apostate

The threats faced by our race today are unprecedented. Many individual European tribes have been exterminated in the past. But never before as in this century has our  entire race faced such collective decline and utter dispossession in our ancestral homelands. Yet, on a personal level, the struggle for truth remains in many ways similar to that faced by our Greek forefathers. If we dare to learn from our ancestral wisdom and to live by that wisdom, if words are met with deeds, every day, great and small, we need fear nothing.

The challenges are enormous, but certainly no greater than the travails our ancestors triumphed over century after century. In that struggle for survival, amidst the primordial force which has shaped all life, our ancestors have left timeless wisdom imprinted not just in our culture but in our very genes. And hence the European youth of today can take heart and inspiration, just as young Telemachus did upon hearing the words of Athena: “If the gods let Penelope bear such a son as you, they did not mean for your lineage to be inglorious in times to come.”[3]


[1]    Ibid., 219.

[2]    Rupert Gethin (trans.), Sayings of the Buddha: A selection of suttas from the Pali Nikayas (Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics, 2008), “The Fruits of the Ascetic Life,” p. 30.

[3]    Homer, Odyssey, p. 6.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

30 Comments to "The Wisdom of the Ancients, Part 3: Nature and Nurture; Socrates as Moral Exemplar for the Alt Right"

  1. Jez Turner's Gravatar Jez Turner
    February 13, 2017 - 1:55 am | Permalink

    “Wisdom comes through suffering” – Aeschylus.
    Let us benefit therefore from the suffering and wisdom of our ancestors.

  2. Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
    February 11, 2017 - 9:51 am | Permalink

    Time stops for no-one, not even for the perhaps more apropos next article on this site.

    Many commenters here have referred to Dresden, in context of its demonic destruction on February 13, 14, 15 and again 17, 1945: less than 3 months before Germany’s Unconditional Surrender.

    In 2004, its Mayor’s office promulgated the creation of a
    ” Historians’ Commission “, tasked to examine the Luftkrieg
    [ air-war ] in three of its functions. Foremost was the best approximation of its number of victims. Their latest conclusion: 35,000. Second was the collection of eyewitness reports, including live footage and photos. Mothers on burning pavement dragging their burning strollers behind them, or pushing them over burning asphalt, being immolated in the process. One witness was puzzled by the great number of charred, naked corpses: who had stripped their burning clothes in vain.

    The American later author Kurt Vonnegut, captured during the Battle of the Bulge, was housed in a basement slaughter house and conscripted as first responder. [ Slaughter House Five ].

    French POWs were dispatched into the basements for rescue and removal and returned, violently vomiting, because they found mere pieces of flesh and several inches deep of blood where a bomb detonated only after penetrating the ceiling.

    Irving cited British documents, stating that this attack was a warning to the SU, not to advance beyond the line agreed upon at Yalta, ca. a week earlier. As was Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Even Warsaw was given at least one chance to surrender in September ’39.

    If you are at all inclined to quietly and privately commemorate this gratuitous attack on a defenseless city, with its population doubled by refugees from the East, then goggle David Irving’s Newsletter Action Report Online under
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online, and scroll down to Dresden Memorial Event 2017.

    Be prepared to stop at 3:24 of its video, depicting a partially immolated man with a rucksack on his back. His left hand clasping the right hand of his wife. Her loving arm wrapped around his neck, showing her cultured hand with her wedding ring. Perhaps identical to their wedding night.

    Ponder what their last words to one another might have been. They were unquestionably thrown on the mass pyres on the Old Market Square. We can still give them, and through them, all others a funeral by remembering them on February 13, 2017 A.D.

    • Prester John T's Gravatar Prester John T
      February 11, 2017 - 8:02 pm | Permalink

      So many Russophiles on the Alt-Right.
      There were these guys. General Patton referred to them as sons of bitches. He described the hatreds as “terrifying”.

      • Prester John T's Gravatar Prester John T
        February 11, 2017 - 8:13 pm | Permalink

        Make sure you keep bring up stuff that hurts and divides all the white people, you guys.
        Next up, the Burning of Atlanta.

        • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
          February 12, 2017 - 4:27 pm | Permalink

          Are you sure you replied to the comment that you intended to reply to. If so nothing but multiple contradictions if one counts the video.

        • Prester John T's Gravatar Prester John T
          February 13, 2017 - 12:57 pm | Permalink

          NO offense Mr. Moderator.

          YOu once said you allowed stupid people like me to comment so you could play with us like a cat with a mouse.
          ———
          (Mod Note: “No offense, ‘T’ “, but I did NOT say that. Sometimes I leave comments here for other commenters to “play with”, and they usually do a great job of it without any help from this moderator. Nota bene: your habit of slurring other commenters with unnecessary ad hominem comments has gotten you banned before for periods of time. Are you ready to clean up your act, or is that what you want again?)
          ________

          nota bene
          for a stupid person, alot of resources are being expended from one end of the world to the other to counter said stupid person.. And breaking several laws in the meantime. You’re wasting your time. They will never figure it out – ever. We are the Master. There is nothing anyone can do.

          Vianne Sets up Shop.

        • Prester John T's Gravatar Prester John T
          February 13, 2017 - 1:31 pm | Permalink

          There are going to be some very serious issues betwixt various White ethnic tribes. Every serious.

          It’s not the job of a true white advocate in the current times to stoke it and wallow and revel in it.. That Is for others who would divide us to bring up Dresden or any of that past bad stuff.. you fucking lame brained assholes… and/or phonies.
          We have plenty to celebrate and encourage the white people in this most perilous of times for all white people everywhere.
          I view YOU Charles Frey and your buddies as an enemy. and I promise you that we can match and exceed any and all of your faux hatred and care and sorrow. Because ours is very real and it is cold. Very cold and hard.
          but if you want some trouble you will find it.

          meantime- no thanks to you and yours.
          Whites do have a future.

  3. John C.'s Gravatar John C.
    February 11, 2017 - 3:35 am | Permalink

    Plato wrote the template for all Leftist statists and is the root of the utopians that are the bane of free society. By calling Plato ‘divine’ the writer shows he has no clue what he is writing about.

    • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
      February 11, 2017 - 2:20 pm | Permalink

      Have you had any clue about Plato and what he really taught, you would have known that it was not the writer (whom you disparage) who called him ‘divine’. It was Proclus called the Successor (Πρόκλος ὁ Διάδοχος, Próklos ho Diádokhos), the ‘Neo’-Platonician philosopher who in 437 A.D. became the head of the Academy who called him “ὁ θεῖος Πλάτων ho theios Platon—the divine Plato, inspired by the Gods”.
      It is true that in order to know something about Plato (or philosophy, for that matter) one has to go through some above elementary level education.

    • m's Gravatar m
      February 12, 2017 - 7:31 am | Permalink

      @ John C: have you been reading Karl Popper? That was his theme. If so, I’d be careful of putting much stock in him, especially if you are going to accuse others of not having a clue.

      In order to start it would be helpful for you to define what you mean by “free” society, and what makes it free. You don’t want to be guilty of question begging, and in any case it’s not clear so we have to guess. If you mean a society grounded in the cult of the individual, one where standards are abandoned in favor of whatever each chooses arbitrarily, then you have a point. The idea of an individual “freedom” to do whatever one desired was not “freedom” supported by classical Greek thought. Instead, the idea was to act with the interests of the community in mind, inasmuch as the individual was understood to become perfected through the community, the goal being to achieve virtue. Of course, community for Plato was not the multicultural society we have today, but an organic nation where like interests could be expected. And, as you know from your study of Plato, it is through the community through generations that the citizen becomes sempiternal.

      Second, there was nothing “utopian” in Plato. If you are thinking of Republic then you should reconsider its intent. Plato considered it a fantasy, or a polity of speech designed to frame arguments. A not even close reading of certain sections and statements of Socrates shows this adequately. Also, one must understand the reason for some of Plato’s seemingly radical “totalitarian” statements. For instance, the “community of women and children” was not meant to be literal, but rather an expression of how the nation should recognize all citizens as “brothers,” and hold them like unto an extended family. Here, we understand that citizenship was not propositional, as today’s thinking would have it. For a more sober understanding of Plato’s actual notion of a political community, Republic should be tempered with his Laws. I’m sure you’ve read that?

      Finally, the idea of “divine” in early Greek thinking was based upon the idea that non-discursive wisdom is a gift from the gods to the poets, and manifests via the Muses. Plato was certainly an ironic figure in this regard, inasmuch as he was a champion of “philosophy” (as opposed to the divinity of the poets), but wrote, in his own way, poetically.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        February 13, 2017 - 2:40 pm | Permalink

        Your recent comments have been a profound pleasure to read. Thank you very much.

        May I add three marginal notes? (1) Of course, Popper’s book, which I first read carefully and closely some fifty years ago, construes the open society as a society without underlying principles of justice and order and without acknowledgment of, shall we say, a System beyond nature and transcending nature. Little wonder, then, that our (((intellectual and moral superiors))) deem the book invaluable. As an adherent of “closure” so defned, Plato, along with his master Socrates, unsurprisingly fails to pass muster. It’s hardly needful to add that the near-heroic stature accorded these figures by the Fathers and the Doctors of the [R.C.] Church frost Popper’s cake of hostility and contempt.

        (2) Your counsel to “reconsider [the Republic’s] intent,” however rocky the soil it falls upon, is important precisely because so doing is fundamental to a just and proper understanding of the work’s contents. To add a mere brushstroke to your own assessment, I have in the past called upon TOO readers to recall that Plato’s “polity of speech designed to frame arguments” (what a great and cogent phrase!) begins with Socrates’s sly observation to his interlocutors that they, having shown patent discomfort with the “simple” state he has just outlined, desire rather to have a luxurious state offered them in its stead. (Of course, they are even less pleased with that!) I sincerely hope that your words don’t get passed over as effectively as mine did.

        (3) Last but not least, everything you’ve written makes plain that no thoughts on Plato (or any other Greek philosopher) worth repeating can stem from the tabula rasa encounter with it that, rightly or wrongly, I see to an extent in Mr. Durocher’s articles and to virtual exclusion of all else in more comments than just those of John C. It is no less true of the Greeks than it is of Heidegger or Hegel that absence of instruction in the sources and the denotation and connotation of their trade jargon (more politely, their technical vocabulary)—which more often than not employs “terms of art,” or terms common in everyday speech that are used for matters that are anything but everyday—at best limits comprehension of their doctrines and at worst falsifies it. One of the philosophy faculty (long deceased now) at my college once said that he saw the object of inflicting philosophy courses on undergrads as “simply teaching them the meaning of a few terms.” While this is far from being an admirable level of aspiration for any teacher, it does serve to rightly underline that, absent knowledge of what those few terms mean, all the reading and coursework one may do is desultory.

        • m's Gravatar m
          February 14, 2017 - 5:34 am | Permalink

          Thank you for the kind words. I agree that when reading Plato (or anyone, really) one has to keep in mind the intent of their argument, or the intended goal. Too, we must remember how Socrates was a very ironic man, and playful.

          One must always look to the story’s frame for interpretive clues (as you indicate) when considering what is said. It is true that Republic was expounded under “friendly” coercion, whereas, to cite an alternate example, Laws was not. Much ground in the former is covered in the latter, albeit in a more “reasonable” less fantastic way.

          Finally, I’d remind folks that Plato’s “ideal” City was very small, and manageable. About 5000 people divided up into sections of 400 which, if we presume 4 to a family, would be about 100 households per district.

          My final finally has to do with your concern over “jargon” within philosophy texts. Most of us have to rely on translations, and some translations do not seem to be very good. Some philosophers themselves are not very good writers, and that makes things even worse for the reader. Some are good writers, but come at their topic as outsiders. Here, we can cite Ezra Pound’s Confucian translations, which on their face are highly questionable (based as they are upon Pound’s idiosyncratic etymological Chinese character analysis). Yet they remain quite valid in their own way, and offer an important understanding of the Doctrine. Of course, in the West, Pound is radioactive due to his politics, so it is left to Chinese academics to uncover and appreciate his insights. Perhaps they are able to do it because some of them are more traditional, not having been fed a diet of Western styled liberal “freedom,” but rather discipline and order. That will likely change. Who knows?

  4. Vehmgericht's Gravatar Vehmgericht
    February 10, 2017 - 7:53 pm | Permalink

    Great series of Essays, worthy of Evola or Devi.

    According to Rabbinical Tradition, Plato encontered the Prophet Jeremy at the ruin of the First Temple in Jerusalem, and was upbraided for his impiety.

    Though Philo of Alexandria made an admirable attempt to reconcile the Platonism of his day with the nascent Talmudic thought of the Pharisees, Judaism has continued to view the Athenian askance.

    Recently the former Chief Rabbi of England, Dr Jonathan Sacks, penned an essay “Exorcising Plato’s Ghost” chiding the Philosopher for his unworldliness.

    According to Rabbi Sachs, Plato is the archetype of all fascist fantasists, though thankfully his chilly influence is waning thanks to the ascent of a worldly morality rooted in faith and family, as exemplified by Judaism.

    This work has received great acclaim in the British press, burnishing Rabbi Sack’s aura of sagacity and erudition.

    For myself, I am not so convinced by the Rabbi’s endorsement of the Tanach, the Jewish progenitor of our Bible, as “the great anti-Platonic narrative” for our times.

    I shall set aside the slaughter and the tribalism, the ranting and the praising, and take up again the Collected Works of the Divine Plato or the Dhammapada.

    The Gates of The Academy are still open, “Sages are still assembled upon the Vultures Peak “, and the calm Dialectic of the Athenian, the clear-sighted Dhamma of the great Aryan Shramana shall be my Torah, Talmud and Kabbalah!

  5. Norman's Gravatar Norman
    February 10, 2017 - 5:00 pm | Permalink

    While Socrates had a distinct advantage — he could consult his daemon — the Greeks in general had an added difficulty: they could not look back.

    They did have a notional golden age, but that’s not the same as a legacy, comparable to the legacy the Greeks comprise for us, in modern times.

    We know too much, we carry too heavy burden. The challenges we must face will include the end of the old ways — and that includes Christianity. It doesn’t mean one should abandon one’s faith or practices. It doesn’t work like a magazine subscription, where, if all the subscribers cancel, the magazine folds. It simply means change is coming.

    Religion is its own driver. And when it dies — as they all do — it is not replaceable by ideology, by scientific theory, nor by slavish, propositional correctness. It is only replaceable by religion, albeit in an unrecognizable form. It will have to birth itself anew, and its relationship to the individual and the collective will not take a shape recognizable from history.

  6. Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
    February 10, 2017 - 4:34 pm | Permalink

    @the blue-eyed Buddha in India

    The question of the color of Buddha’s eyes was intensely debated (as the color of Jesus’s eyes) to assess Buddha’s (or Jesus’) ‘race’, with the strong suggestion that he was a ‘blue-eyed, blond Aryan’ (or to assert the ‘semitism’ of Jesus).
    The Buddhist tradition enumerates and explains 32 major and 80 minor characteristics of the ‘Great Man’.
    Among them:
    ‘Eyes deep blue’
    ‘He has curled hair’.
    Buddha describe himself as “a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life” (‘Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search’, translated from the Pali byThanissaro Bhikkhu).
    Deep sky blue color is at the ‘dark’ end of the blue spectrum.
    Curled black hair is a negroid characteristic.
    In the iconography of the Buddha, the eyes are mostly represented as ‘dark’.

    • Betty's Gravatar Betty
      February 11, 2017 - 4:25 pm | Permalink

      “curled black hair…” A hairdresser told me that there were 2 types of hair he did not like to cut: Asian and red hair. He said Asian hair being so straight it was difficult to get even cuts. He said red hair is very kinky, curly, wiry and difficult to work with. What do you think of whites who are red-haired?

      • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
        February 12, 2017 - 8:48 pm | Permalink

        “Beware of the red haired man”!
        “Those whose hair is red, of a certain peculiar shade, are unmistakably vampires.” (“Malleus Maleficarum” The Hammer of the Witches, the famous witch-hunting manual). Think of Elizabeth, the ‘virgin queen’.
        Without being that extreme, but red hair was generally thought to be a mark of a beastly sexual desire and moral degeneration.
        More generally of bad character and bad temper.
        So, the Buddha is unlikely to have been red haired. The more that he describes himself as ‘a black-haired young man’.

  7. February 10, 2017 - 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Anyone care to speculate on Socrates (philosopher, in Plato’s view a believer in God, and an afterlife; condemned to death and executed) being copied by Jews, and renamed with a Jewish name, Yeshua, being the model for a new Jew-promoted religion? The next stage, now, being to substitute all Jews in ‘Holocaustianity’.

    • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
      February 10, 2017 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

      Yes,
      Jesus is not a copy of Socrates and Christianity is not a Jew-promoted religion. You wouldn’t understand why the Jews hate Jesus and Christianity which they accuse precisely of being infested by the ‘pagan’ Hellenism.

      • February 11, 2017 - 2:26 pm | Permalink

        Russell talked about ‘the angrily closed minds of bigots’. Or something similar. I wonder why

        • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
          February 12, 2017 - 4:24 pm | Permalink

          Because he had a closed mind as well. He was a bigoted atheist, (or ‘agnostic’) firmly believing that his own fallacies are the supreme expression of truth. Maybe his mind was closed ‘humorously’ as is befitting to an English Lord.

  8. Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
    February 10, 2017 - 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Weaver, as to your last paragraph. A recent lady commenter from NY summed it up, asking rhetorically: At what Point does Decency to the Other Bring on your Own Death ?

    Your ” approach has been to reconcile Christianity with reasonable political positions “. Forcing me to reconcile, or choose, has engendered my deepest resentment towards those who force me to do just that.

    From PNAC and before to New Years Eve in Cologne. A direct line of causality, with countless, intermittent blood- splattered stops.

  9. Weaver's Gravatar Weaver
    February 10, 2017 - 10:32 am | Permalink

    There are many good points in this essay.

    It is not surprising for Plato to recommend good breeding. The Zoroastrians recommended the same. Breeding for them was not improvement upon what had been created. Breeding was the separation of good genes made by the good god, away from the bad genes made by the bad god.

    And this could well have been based on earlier Indo-European values or simply tied to the transition from hunter-gatherer to herder and planter.

    I agree with parts of this essay, but I’m wary of the statement that: “Yet higher consciousness, which may reasonably be deemed a supreme goal of intelligent life”. This sounds like an odd religious statement.

    I would say the supreme goal is the glorification of God. Any sort of change is relative as to whether it’s truly an improvement. Preserving a people’s strength in a changing environment is certainly a good.

    Regarding workaholics neglecting their family: This is an enormous problem. And these same workaholics are not by virtue of their obsession truly more intelligent and thus more valuable. They might be either more intelligent or otherwise more valuable of course, but if a society grew to possess too many or too few it could be problematic.

    Though we only have one life, I but hope to have been a useful tool to God and nation, though all mark of me becomes dust. To be useful is the highest honour. To be remembered matters not to the dead.

    Socrates probably deserved death if he was undermining the foundation of his society, as he’s accused. I’m not wanting to be rude; the usual argument is that he was in the wrong. Philosophy has no end, no purpose; so the religious foundation would then be essential to society.

    If truly Christianity cannot provide the basis for an ethnostate to preserve itself in the midst of a chaotic world; then we’d need to look to earlier authorities.

    I can’t say I like the idea of needing to reject Christianity. The Christian traditionalists are brilliant. My approach has been to reconcile Christianity with reasonable political positions. There are certainly difficulties, valuing race could be accused of being a “false idol”; but it does seem possible.

    • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
      February 10, 2017 - 8:00 pm | Permalink

      @to reconcile Christianity with reasonable political positions.

      The right way would be to reconcile political positions with Christianity.

      • Weaver's Gravatar Weaver
        February 13, 2017 - 2:47 am | Permalink

        Seraphim,

        that’s a wonderful reply.

        I should say, part of my reply was rhetorical in the sense that I was arguing for how one would seek another authority if rejecting Christ. This is an important argument even if it sounds like heresy, for it highlights the need for an authority. In rejecting not only God but all gods, modern man has declared he himself to be God. And this is the great threat.

        Nevertheless, I’ve also run into some intellectual problems with Christianity vs. the survival of Christianity.

        The true Christian position comes to be living as Amish or otherwise as a poor worker and having faith in Christ’s return, even as evil men enslave and destroy us. To competently resist would be to risk our immortal souls if not to outright make a Faustian pact with the Devil.

        Note: I am not arguing that Christianity is a “slave religion” as is popularly argued today. On that, I’ll note how easily Judaism (another “slave religion”) rules over [secular] Aryans in modern society presently.

        Politics is necessarily dirty, especially our current polity. We mayn’t competently compete in the political arena, because we’re so severely handicapped. A fool like Ron Paul might preach his ideas while retaining his soul, but he’s embraced a ridiculous ideology which is simple enough for an electorate to believe in. To preach reality would be too shocking for voters to hear, yet we’re trapped in a democracy. You might say then that lying is justified, but that’s a slippery slope. How far down do we go?

        We then justify necessary evils to work within an inherently evil politically system, thereby becoming tainted ourselves, as a sort of noble sacrifice of our individual soul for the greater good. Similarly, to embrace great political or financial power is to risk one’s soul, which is presumably why the wealthy have such trouble getting into heaven.

        Perhaps it would be possible to establish a sort of pious, wealth-limited caste of priests (as might have existed before Jews took up the pagan system of monarchy) who are able to wield great power (as well as a balanced system checking that power) while bypassing the nepotism problem the Catholic Church circumvented with its ban on priests having children. But we don’t live in such a utopia currently. Man is depraved, and depraved man has the vote.

        Continuing: Nor should we embrace technology for fear of corruption. The Amish were probably right to remove themselves from technology. With each advance we seem to trade a bit more of our soul in exchange for power and idleness. However, there’s more to this: If we decline to pursue technological power while others do pursue it, we then become at risk of conquest. I’ll mention biotech further down.

        The pagans (Hesiod and Ovid), I should mention, believed in an historical Golden Age (similar to Garden of Eden), which presumably ended because of population growth (my interpretation) after perhaps people gathered around a religious settlement like Göbekli Tepe to share knowledge. Society has become ever darker as a result of population growth and technological advance. Today we’re said to live in the Iron Age, but I’d say really it’s the Plastic Age, soon to be the Biotech Age. I use these terms to signify that we’ve fallen lower.

        Continuing: Nor may we take up a radical nationalist position to create a counter ideology that could resist international socialism for fear of serving a false idol. A nation cares for its people due to common genetic ties and origins. A nation allows for rise of a “good elite”, one that would actually care for the people it rules over, rather than viewing them as expendable cattle, human resources. And such an elite would have its power balanced, to prevent, for example, excessive pursuit of greed and centralisation. And if in time of war, a polity needs to adjust itself to fight the war, a nation would be more likely to return to peace-time organisation, which is less risky.

        Yet, a nationalist who declares he wishes for such a positive society is declared a heretic. All have an immortal soul, therefore it’s argued our ethnically mixed societies today must remain mixed, which essentially prevents creation of a Christian-nationalist system, which I think would be the ideal polity, at least for some peoples (the situation they find themselves in).

        Biotech: Biotech is an immense threat to not only nationalism but also to most religions, Christianity included. If we’re no longer descended from Adam and Eve, if we’re no longer the work of God, then what place is there for Christ? The faith would lose its meaning. And if nature isn’t the product of Creation but rather of Man, then it too loses its appeal. And God’s glory is lessened. Some counter this, claiming that God still created all, that we’ll simply have altered things, but I can’t see how most religions would make sense in a post-biotech world. Buddhism might persevere with its empty rejection of life. Buddhism seems to have arisen in a time when tribes were being stamped out in India. And it was supported by merchants who tend to be an immoral caste in society. So, I have little appreciation for it though it supported mighty warriors in Japan.

        Christianity though does offer much wisdom. Whether a person believes in Christ or not, it can’t be denied how much of European heritage exists today within the Christian tradition, which is to say the wisdom we’ve learned after repeatedly putting our hands in and out of the fire are recorded within our laws and customs. I am not arguing that the faith itself was shaped by our nature nor by anything other than truth.


Comment Policy
Comments that include personal insults, epithets, or profanity may be censored. Comments that promote or suggest illegal activities will be censored.


Comment Formatting
<b>BOLD</b>
<u>UNDERLINE</u>
<i>ITALIC</i>
<a href="http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net">HYPERLINK</a>

<blockquote> BLOCKQUOTE </blockquote>

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.

Also, you may subscribe without commenting here.