|
 In
many countries of the West, Halloween, the eve of November 1,
has been designated as a fun-night when children, dressed up
in all kinds of costumes. from devils and witches to angels
and toreros go from house to house, an evening when goblins
and pixies expect their 'trick or treat'.
The
earliest known celebrations of Halloween were held by the Druids
in honour of Samhain, the God of the Dead. But even earlier
than the Druids there was much superstition in connection with
the dead; in very early beliefs the spirits of the deceased
came back to earth once a year to haunt their old houses and
to cast spells on those who did not honour their memory.
In
many countries the houses on that particular day were decked
out to welcome the spirits, food and drink were placed on tables
and the families would light torches to help the souls, find
their old homes; people would dress in their Sunday best in
order to show their veneration.
Halloween
was thus an established pagan celebration long before Christianity
put it on its calendar as All Souls Day.
No
doubt the date on which Halloween was celebrated varied from
country to country but it was mostly held in the fall; the Celts
for example considered November and the beginning of winter
as their New Year, and the seasonal fading of flowers and trees
might have been taken as an appropriate time for commemoration
of the Dead.
In
much of Northern Europe the people before Christian times were
seagoing and every spring big parties went away on long voyages
and expeditions; from these they did not return home until the
Fall, and it was then they brought back the sad news about those
who had died in foreign lands.
It
was therefore natural to have a memorial service in the Fall
for whomever a proper funeral could not be held; later the celebrations
also came to include those who had died at home.
The
ceremonies took various forms and shapes but the purpose was
the same: The day was designed to honour deceased ancestors
much in the same way as we now mark Armistice Day in honour
of those who died in the two World Wars.
It
is part of a people's cultural heritage to honour past generations
who worked and toiled, fought and died to the good of their
descendants. Something is radically wrong with a people when
it 'forgets' the achievements of earlier times. A people who
is afraid to honour and respect the Past, will never create
a Future.
[Page 2]
MAN AND HIS GOD
1. modern man's search for a
new God
Man
is a creature rooted and bonded by the very laws about which
life as physical reality was able to evolve. While he is the
peak of all creation, he IS creation, neither intent nor design
are of his making. Even if unwilling to admit the existence
of a creator in any form, material or immaterial, facts compel
him to admit that his own form was created by forces beyond
his call or control, that its outlines are borderlines of limitation.
The Godhood alone can be thought of as transcending all Being.
It can be conceived as being IN all things. Man by contrast
is OF all things. God is before all beginning, beyond all cause
and effect. Man, as the final effect of the original cause,
stands at the opposite end of all beginning. Though privileged
far beyond his immediate antecedent, his intellect cannot cross
the borderline that separates the non-causal area of the Godhood
from causality within phenomenal existence. Therefore, whatever
the degree of his intellect, it can not explain God in rational
terms. What it perceives in the visible forms of. nature and
the laws by which these are committed to the order of the universe,
are not God but manifestations of God. Hence it lies beyond
the range of human reason to "prove" the existence
of God.
Yet,
men have always "known" that God exists. How?
No
doubt the road to this knowledge began with man's first dialogue
with himself. His Question, "Who am I?" uttered now
in despair and then in wonder, resounds through the ages and
all the places whence men have come and gone. It led to other
questions that could only be answered via God. But the answers
all differ. For men have "known" God, each in a way
no other man could, through a self-hood partly endowed by ancestral
kin, partly personal-development. Nor has modern man ceased
to ask. Indeed he is asking anew, with perhaps more fervour
than any man before him. For never has he possessed greater
knowledge, yet never felt so deprived. So alone. So confused.
On
the one hand, he looks down disdainfully from his mountaintop
of knowledge upon man's first attempts to find himself, to find
God, to grasp and hold the world and its meaning. And as if
analyzing a chemical substance, he dissembles the elements of
primitive man's religion fear, superstition, ignorance. The
sum total: a God that was an apology for the (as yet) unexplained.
Proudly he has at various times proclaimed: "God is dead!"
or: "Religion is opium."
On
the other hand, God's burial did not bury man's preoccupation
with God. His death today is pronounced with wooden lips, and
fear and superstition have a new heyday amidst the splendours
of an educated and supposedly enlightened mind. New religions
spring up with all the paraphernalia of the old, including witches
and satans. Men seek assurances of peace from men but cannot
find it. Jesus becomes a Superstar. All the signs modern astronomers
have read in an infinite universe, do not prevent the old zodiac
signs of astrology from once more presuming to shape the fate
of men and their events.
But
the truly modern man, the man who disclaims the superstitious
or mystical nonsense of earlier ages and persists in adhering
to directives from a fully wakened and knowledgeable mind: MUST
he become an atheist? Does it follow that. because his knowledge
of phenomena is incompatible with specialized religious interpretations
of God, that God is in fact non-existent? Is the acquisition
of factual knowledge than the supreme attainment of human intelligence?
And if so, why does it not automatically solve all human problems
as easily as it appears to solve those of a technological nature?
And why, although technological solutions appear perfectly sane
in themselves, do they provoke insanity in the human area? Why
the hysterical search for a god-substitute in drugs or alcohol
apart from the atavistic cravings for idolatry and magic?
Or
does it follow then that we must accept the existence of God
as a given fact simply because all men of ages long past or
those who have not evolved beyond them, have believed in God
or still do?
No,
at least Western man cannot and need not! Nor is the reverse
true that the progress made by the West
[Page 3]
in any field of knowledge is to blame for
the decay of Western culture because it has destroyed Christian
beliefs as the moral backbone of Western culture.
This
view completely overlooks the fast that although Christianity
was imposed upon the Western mind by multiple forces of warfare,
suppression and persecution, Western genius has never ceased
to rebel against it, insistent on using its own reasoning powers
and highly sensitive to the "God within". Of course
the testimonials bearing out this fact are part of the silent
history of the West, unrecorded in the textbooks of our schools.
No,
let us not condemn the heroic and persevering efforts of our
race whose curiosity and love of truth have unlocked the secrets
of the universe! Let us look elsewhere rather for the understanding
we seek. Turning once more to man's earliest recordings found
on the walls of caves or in handicrafts recovered from dusty
tombs, can we truly state that fear and ignorance alone have
found their expressions here? Surely, there is in these signs
a hint of something more: a recognition of beauty without and
a response from within; a reaching out for something more than
utility. Childlike and awkward though these designs are, they
reflect an upward striving, a groping towards the light, a ray
of which had touched a soul barely roused from the dark subconscious
of the animal.
And
the light grew and spread. Not equally in all souls by any means.
But certainly in those whom we call our own of long ago, men
who knew no fear, who circled an unknown globe, who built Greece
and Rome and, discovering the mind laid the foundation to Western
philosophy and science. Indeed, the history of the West is one
continuous search for light. And the death of Christianity is
due to one reason only: it can no longer withstand this the
light of truth! The laws of biology, of physics and interrelated
sciences have revealed a living universe that repudiates utterly
and forever the biblical version, simply causing it to fold.
Not
this is the tragedy that wracks the West, but that with Christianity
falls also the belief in God, because too long has this concept
been synonymous with Christian theology. Yet it is precisely
the heights attained by the intellect of the West that mark
the state of: maturity needed to dispense with the pseudo-divinity
of Christianity, inculcated and maintained through artificially
created fears in a nonexistent hell; ignorance deliberately
bred by boarding up knowledge of earlier cultures; the invention
of original sin to assure dependence on the priesthood as God's
authority on earth; cruelties imposed on inquiring minds, and
"humanistic" ideals contrary to the laws of nature.
No,
not knowledge endangers Western culture. The causes of decay
are not generated from the material-intellectual basis of our
being. They arise from our neglect to explore with equal thoroughness
and devotion the non-phenomenal reality of our existence anchored
in the sphere of God-consciousness. It is these areas that generate
the substance of human values as the material that structures
a "high culture" such as our own.
No
culture, whatever its significance, was ever created without
the most powerful impetus inciting man to super-human action:
the all-pervading surety of the existence of God. Conversely,
the death of the gods has always preceded the decline and fall
of a culture.
Modern
man is caught in a precarious dilemma. He has progressed to
a state where he cannot believe in any hypothesis not rooted
in scientific fact. At the same time, his exhaustive knowledge
also reveals that, while the exact sciences can investigate
and define the mechanical functions of organic life-forces,
their methods cannot be applied to the life-forces themselves.
The reason for this is of course that the physical sciences
represent the development of man's rational faculties which
are forever restrained from entering non-physical terrain. This
terrain is the reserve of the soul whose faculties complement
those of the mind to make total comprehension possible of a
universe that has physical AND non-physical properties which
TOGETHER comprise what we call life. In other words, for modern
man to obtain a total world-picture, the science of physics
must be complemented with the science of metaphysics.
Hence,
modern man in search of God, must investigate that term without
sacrificing the truth established through scientific methods.
He does not want to BELIEVE in God, he wants to KNOW. Thus is
he in search of a concept that is in no wise contrary to the
revelations of his scientific knowledge.
Is
it possible for modern man to "find" this his God?
A new God? And if so, how?
These
questions and others from them will be discussed in a future
issue of The Odinist.
[Page 4]
The Cultural Nationalist
by Rod
Before
we deal with our subject matter let us briefly review what a
culture is. According to Francis Parker Yockey a culture consists
of a racially similar people who have originated a civilization
that is peculiar to themselves. The key word here is 'originated';
architecture, music, religion, lifestyle and world outlook are
all original and not borrowed from any other culture.
Examples
of past High Cultures would be the ancient Egyptian, the Indian
Punjab, the Chinese, Classical Greece and Rome. All of these
cultures had their own distinctive religion, art, lifestyle
etc., each original and unique. Western Culture also is unique,
peculiar to Western man and therefore a High Culture.
Each
culture reflects the temperament of the particular people who
originated and sustained it, and this is the major reason why
a person can only find inner peace and fulfillment within his
own culture; its basic world outlook is also his basic world
outlook. And whether he is aware of it or not, it is a fact
that IF A PERSON DENIES HIS INSTINCTIVE CULTURE-SOUL, HE WILL
DEGENERATE.
We
can now explain what a cultural nationalist is. He is a person
who has an awareness of and a pride in the High Culture to which
he belongs. He therefore strives to make his fellow kinsmen
aware of their cultural heritage, past and present, and works
to insure the continuance of HIS particular culture.
Cultural
nationalists are found in all lands, amongst all people. And
while their skin color may be different, white, black or yellow,
they all have a common goal: The preservation of their particular
culture.
A
cultural nationalist is not a bigot. He does not, hate or attack
people who are not of his race-culture. He rather respects them
and feels allied with cultural nationalists of other cultures;
he can sympathize and identify with their struggles for existence.
He realizes they all have a common enemy, namely the universalists,
who seek to destroy all cultures; the universalists who espouse
the One-World Idea and want all men to earn exactly the same,
live and look exactly the same, and most important, think exactly
the same. In short, a world where all men are a standardized
product, stamped from the same production line mould, -- individual
or group differences -- being the most terrible of crimes.
Aside
from the fact that human standardization means mental sterility,
it is precisely the variation of the different cultures that
gives the human race its interesting beauty.
The
cultural nationalist is aware that his culture was, in a sense,
designed for him alone,and is the only one that suits his basic
instincts; any other would therefore be alien to his nature.
Cultural
nationalists of all race-cultures are witnessing a sudden increase
in their ranks as more and more of their kin become aware that
loss of identity means loss of self-respect and purpose; cultural
awareness, on the other hand, gives a sense of pride and belonging,
and the freedom to advance towards personal fulfillment.
And
now a call to action: Let all cultural nationalists of all race-cultures
together fight AGAINST the soul destroying universalists who
seek to enslave us in a world collectivism, where our various
race-cultures will disintegrate. Let us fight FOR the preservation
of our unique cultures which alone can give all of us a sense
of 'PLACE, PURPOSE AND DESTINY.'
THE CLANS
It
is apparent that if the Western peoples and cultures are to
survive the desperate assaults currently being launched against
them by groups and individuals who never were and never can
be considered a part of the Western organism, a unique social
vehicle must be brought into play to counter these assaults
-- a strong and unified body of Western people which, because
of its self-awareness must be fully immune to all attempts at
destroying the West from within.
It
is certain that not one person in a thousand of our people is
aware that the West has had an organized social unit peculiar
to the life-style of the various European tribes which spread
over the Continent several thousand years ago, and that this
social unit, known variously as the Clan, Sept, Gens, or Kin,
is still very much alive in parts of Europe, especially Scotland,
Ireland, and until the communist takeover, even in Hungary and
Armenia. Only in Scotland is it still re-
[Page 5]
cognized fully by law and in England and the
Republic of Ireland the importance of the Family is given official
recognizance through their procedures for "enoblement"
or the granting or confirming of Armorial Gearings -- more commonly
referred to as "coats of arms" -- to heads of Families
(or clans) or to founders of a "new stock" the basic
requirement for such distinction is that the petitioner be a
person of upright character and able to trace his ancestry to
the jurisdiction of the heraldic officer with whom the petition
is lodged. Needless to say, along with the genealogical criteria
it was -- and still is, necessary to possess the cultural and
social qualities of a Gentleman. The fact that one person in
every 45 in Scotland claims noble lineage is due to the Clan
system, or extended-family organization, within which every
true clansman is able to trace his lineage to the eponymous
ancestor, the founder of the clan, through many generations
of Chiefs, a position always held to be noble in the true sense
of the word. Nobility, it ought to be mentioned, does not now
and never did have anything to do with wealth per se.
The
"proof of nobility" usually consisted of the production
of the names, careers and arms of one's eight great-grandparents
or sixteen great-great-grandparents; the latter is the well-known
"Seize Quartiers" so highly regarded among the Continental
aristocracy. The "Feudal System", therefore, which
was based upon the clan concept, was not some brutal form of
slavery as young people have been taught in schools and colleges
but quite plainly a device for preserving the ancient aristocracy
of Europe and closing their ranks to upstarts and revolutionaries.
As
to whether it oppressed the true European peasantry,descended
from the military followers of the ancient Aryan leaders, ask
any Scottish clansman, who may be a humble farmer or tradesman
yet bear coat-armor himself, what his opinion is of his Chief.
The
same question might just as effectively be put to any Irish
historical or genealogical scholar, or to a member of one of
the senior lines of any of the great Irish families such as
O'Connor, McCarthy Mor, O'Donoghue, etc., -- whose present representatives
are referred to as Chiefs of Name.
Unfortunately,
in Ireland, the clan concept did not develop in the same manner
as in Scotland, due in large part to military intervention,
with the result that many of the ancient families are unable,
genealogically, to establish their Chiefship and the positions
are therefore dormant. Yet, pride in ancestry has cemented both
Irish and Scottish communities throughout the Western world.
And it should be noted that they are especially resistant to
the degeneracy characteristic of other ethnic groups which have
failed to maintain cultural and familial ties with the country
of their origin.
The
present supreme authority in genealogical and heraldic matters
in Scotland, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, Lyon King of Arms,
in his excellent book, Scots Heraldry, (2.ed.1956) states on
page 192: "It is the duty of the father to encourage the
estimation of the family and sense of duty; it pertains especially
to the mother to bring up the children from the earliest years
to love and honour their family and its traditions, which she
should learn to impart to them along with her own -- for each
alliance brings fresh inspiration and traditions to mingle with,
and build up, the history and traditions of the paternal house."
He
goes on to state: "The `Seize Quartiers', or 'Branches',
are simply the application of the principles and systems of
investigation which every farmer applies to his pedigree cattle,
or every racing enthusiast to his blood-stock, adapted (in inspiring,
dignified and interesting manner) to the requirements of the
human race. The Continental aristocracy, when two families are
about to intermarry, expects as a matter of course, that both
parties will inform each other by an official certificate (Birthbrief),
what sort of people the eight great-grandparents of the respective
parties have been, and activities of each line of ancestry,
to form a shrewd opinion of the prospects and desirability of
the marriage, or suitability of an applicant for promotion in
a foreign realm." Thus speaks the "Supreme Officer
of Honour" of Scotland.
All
of which brings us to the important question of why every
family which yet retain some pride and traditional values should
not preserve this priceless inheritance by the very same means
employed by the Continental nobility; this certainly would not
be a new undertaking for, as we have mentioned, the "clan
system" has been practiced throughout Europe,
in one form or another, until very recent times. Aside from
some of its early military functions, the clan implies
[Page 6]
a close-knit family unit aware of its common
origin and destiny. In discussing our European ancestors, W.
E. Hearn, LLD, in his book (now quite scarce) The Aryan
Household (London 1879) States: "The Household, not
in its rudimentary stage, but in the advanced form that I have
attempted to describe, existed in full force among them, but
it was not the sole institution they possessed. It was the unit
of a larger and more complex body. That body was the Gens, or
Kin, or Clan."
The
first essential step necessary to revitalize the organized Extended-Family
as an essentially patriarchal and aristocratic system is, fortunately,
something which most persons can do right now (immediately after
reading this article). Simply take a plain piece of paper and
write down the names of your parents, four grandparents, and
as many of your eight great-grandparents as you know or can
readily learn. Don't be dismayed if you don't know any of your
great-grand-parents (although one should be somewhat embarrassed,
at least), for few persons indeed can name all their four grandparents!
No wonder our ancient Extended-Family concept has nearly succumbed,
to be replaced by one-world humanism.
Once
this is done, and as many dates of birth, marriage, death and
places of residence as possible have been added, the information
should be transferred to a five-generation family-tree (pedigree-chart),
available from any genealogical society. This is the basic "Seize
Quartiers" referred to above. Also, your own direct male-line
should be recorded in tabular form, which will enable not only
direct ancestors to be shown but also collateral relatives who
descend from all of the brothers and sisters of each generation.
This is a bit more difficult once you trace back more than a
few generations, but a start at least must be made. For the
clan concept, by definition involves an extended family.
Once basic research has been completed and the findings recorded
on paper, copies of the lineage must be distributed to every
living member of the family; each should be informed by an accompanying
letter, or in person, of your serious interest in preserving
family ties and traditions. It will be necessary to establish
at least a rudimentary communications network and whenever possible,
periodic family gatherings ("Gathering of the Clan");
at such get-togethers, or through a simple family newsletter,
members can be instilled with the necessity to maintain their
ties and traditions in the face of "progressives"
who would dissolve the family unit. At the same time, the family's
cultural and ethnological history may be taught, especially
to younger kin. And, the immense benefits to both present generations
and to posterity by the intelligent selection of marriage partners
and the application of the science of human eugenics may be
stressed -- the latter science,unfortunately, is still retarded
by the presence of deceptive one-worlders who would have us
believe that "hybrid vigor" is the results of racial
mixing! Our youth must understand clearly that although a child
has no control over the selection of its parents, the parents
certainly had control over the selection of each other; we need
not worry whether "love is blind" or not, as long
as our standards are firmly established in advance
and maintained at a high level.
What
is being called for is the resurgence of a "neo-aristocracy",
combining the best features of the old with whatever additions
may be necessary to meet the current challenge of the West.
Therefore, one essential criterion must be a Spiritual Identity
with the West.
Our
task at the moment is nothing less than survival of our cultural
heritage. In order to prevail in our own territory we must seek
one another out, thus bringing about in our own families a resurgence
of the ancient clan spirit, and organizing our families into
revitalized "clans" with a new super-personal mission.
In
conclusion it must be stressed that no matter how widespread
such a concept might become, it would be useless without effective
means of communications; a standing committee -- or "clan
council" would be necessary to maintain lines of communications
among widely separated clans, and it would be necessary to distribute
the "family tree" and exploits of individual families
so that kin might readily be identified.
The
resurgence of the clan system would guarantee the survival,
proliferation and immunization of some of the valuable elements
of Western Civilization possessing those attributes we naturally
associate with the best our Culture has produced in all fields
of endeavor.
* * *
[Page 7]
WHAT IS RELIGION?
A
teacher of religious history once defined religion as "a
belief aimed at the conservation of that which is of value."
Byron
Campbell refers to this definition in his book 'Race and Religion'
and goes on to say that he considers this to be "profoundly
true as well as enlightening"; he further says: "Those
of us who find ourselves outside the older religious beliefs
may wish to conserve what we consider proper human values, --
beliefs having to do with these become our religion. We find
that religion understood by some men of great learning is sufficiently
broad to encompass such a view."
Our
early ancestors were concerned with just that: `to conserve
that which they considered of value' - concepts of honour, courage,
chivalry and loyalty were high on the list of their code of
conduct; the possession of these personal properties were necessary
in order to be accepted as one of the pillars of the community;
wealth in dollars and cents was not nearly as important as was
righteousness.
In
the summer issue of THE AMERICAN MERCURY John Steinbacher
published an article called "To Capture a Nation -- Change
the Religion." Mr. Steinbacher is a devout Christian and
we have the highest regard for his honesty and integrity, but
he forgets that the religion of the Indo-European peoples, a
thousand years or so ago, was changed from their noble pagan
creed to the Christian faith.
The
peoples of Europe were at that time adventurous and courageous,
and honesty and fair play were the 'Golden Rule' by which they
worked and played.
With
the advent of Christianity they were introduced to the idea
of Original Sin and the. 'need' to prepare for the here-after;
the people were injected with the 'turn-the-other-cheek' concept
and became obsessed with 'Fear of the Lord'; the result quickly
became apparent they lost their confident self-reliance and
their unconquerable spirit, thus passing slowly into the Dark
Ages.
When
Diderot (1713-1784) said that "Posterity is to the philosopher
what 'the other world' is to the religious man" he meant
exactly this to the philosopher it is important to preserve
for Posterity those values which he finds essential, -- for
a Christian the concern of 'saving' his soul for the next world
becomes the important issue and he is therefore not mindful
of the conditions in which he leaves this world to his descendants.
We
do, however, fully agree with John Steinbacher that the 'values'
-- or rather 'un-values' -- which the establishment is trying
to force down the throats of our young as The Great Ideas of
The Future, are aimed at degrading and stigmatizing everything
dear to the heart of Western man, and if continued will impair
his culture to such an extent that it may never rise again.
Unlike
Mr. Steinbacher we are not concerned with holding on to the
Christian idea of 'turning the other cheek'; we Odinists would
like a return to the old Indo-European religious attitudes held
in esteem by our forefathers a thousand years ago; then the
old values of self-respect and human dignity, care for the family
unit and loyalty to and preservation of our cultural heritage
would again be in the High Seat.
Odinist
religious philosophy aims for a society in which the individual
is not intimidated because he fears the revenge of a God, but
where he lives by his inborn 'Golden Rule' to preserve for posterity
those assets in which abides the meaning of life itself.
* * *
Throughout
our whole life we are aware of being subjected to a higher
power, the nature of which we shall never understand from
the standpoint of the exact sciences, but which at the
same time will not be ignored by anyone ,in the least
inclined to think about it. For the reflective mind there
are only two kinds of attitude from which to choose: either
fear and hostile opposition or reverence and trusting
devotion.
Max Planck
(renowned physicist) |
* * *
Combined
subscription for 4 issues of THE ODINIST & 8 issues
of THE SUNWHEEL $2.00. Please mail to P.O. Box 731, Adelaide
St. Toronto 210, Ontario, Canada. |
* * *
[Page 8]
ON GOVERNMENT
Robert
Welch says in one of his writings that "nowhere, outside
of his religious meditations, has man bestowed more of his serious
thought throughout his whole history than on the subject of
government." I believe this to be a correct observation;
from the beginning of recorded history Man has reflected on
how to obtain The Perfect Society.
And
even before that time, when Man first emerged from the dim Past,
he engaged in forming systems by which he could more successfully
combat the perils of Life. He formed loosely knit tribal systems,
in which families lived and worked together for practical purposes;
the tribes usually centered around a leader who, as a rule,
was physically strong and a clever hunter, one who had the necessary
qualities to best lead the tribe in their fight for survival,
one who had courage, ingenuity and staying power, but who probably
was not very eloquent -- you don't hunt the buffalo by making
speeches!
As
soon as the tribes grew bigger,the tribal system was often centered
-- not around a single man, but around a council of the wisest
and most courageous men of the tribe; and the tribes were still
small enough to have direct rapport between the council and
all members of the group.
At
some point in man's development, when life had become less hazardous
and not quite as cumbersome, Man changed his attitude and demanded
more from the leader than just heading the hunting party. Man
had come to value certain things which he wanted protected,
he had arrived at certain ethical values which he wanted maintained,
he had reached a technology which allowed him to plan ahead,
and he wanted leadership with vision and purpose.
As
life became more and more sophisticated and larger land areas
were populated, the original system became organized in such
a way that the head of the family elected the leaders once a
year or so and apart from attending the big tribal meetings
and festivals, the people were satisfied with letting all affairs
be run by their elected representatives. The supreme power thus
rested with the electorate, and was executed by their representatives;
this was the origin of The Republic.
But
of course, the West does not want to think that one of its most
successful forms of government stems from our "barbarian"
past. Classical Greece is considered the foundation upon which
we have built our ideas and ideals in regard to law and government.
The
Greeks are members of the Indo-European family of man, and it
is only natural that, being of the same blood and spirit as
we, their spiritual viewpoints excite and exalt us; Greek philosophy
is closely woven into the fabric of our lives. Particularly
to Odinists, their thinking is appealing, because the very foundation
for their assumptions is a strong feeling of self-awareness,
an unshakable belief that a man must be honored for his individual
worth and treated with respect as a person in his own right.
The
great statesman Pericles said "Each single one of our citizens
in all the manifold aspects of life is able to show himself
as the rightful lord and owner of his own person." A man
claimed for himself the freedom to do all of which he was capable,
to speak his mind, to go his own way, to fulfill his destiny
with only the natural limitations imposed upon him by the rights
of others to fulfill theirs. This was the Greek meaning of freedom,
sustained by a deep respect for personal honor and an unwavering
feeling of responsibility to family and country.
These
feelings matured into a philosophy which is the basis for much
of our thinking today and upon this ideology was formed a code
for government, a set of laws which are purely Indo-European
in origin and in full accord with Odinist thinking. Unfortunately
ideals are one thing, reality something else.
There
were governments of previous civilizations known to the Greeks,
but those had mainly been designed to carry out the whimsical
will of a monarch or a god. The Greeks intended their laws to
be carried out by men, entirely for the purpose of enhancing
life and protect what they considered valuable. All decisions
were made by popular consent and could not be changed by the
wish of a ruler -- only by approval of the people. The intention
of the law was to secure life and property for all members of
the society, not just for the aristocrats or priests.
"We
are free and tolerant in our private lives, but in public affairs
we keep to the law and we give obedience to
[Page 9]
those whom we have put in positions of authority,"
said one Greek statesman; and Solon, the well-known philosopher
who formulated the first rules and regulations whereby men proposed
to govern themselves put it this way: "It is a well-governed
state when the people obey the rulers and the rulers obey the
laws."
Clearly
this concept is based on the idea that the law is stronger and
above everybody and is evidence of the Greek abhorrence for
corruption and tyranny. "If anybody rise against the people
with a view to tyranny, whoever kills him shall be blameless,"
according to Greek law. Presidents and PMs of the West, thank
your Gods you are not living in Classical Greece!
Solon,
mentioned above, lived around 600 before our time reckoning
and was the first who spelled out his ideas of government: All
major decisions were arrived at by the Assembly of all citizens
who usually met three times a month. Besides The Assembly, which
was a little unwieldy, Solon formed first The Council of Four
Hundred, 100 from each of the old tribes, but this was later
expanded to 500 members, chosen by lot. -- This council met
daily and took care of all general business. Solon thus invented
the first two chamber system "on which the state rests
as on anchors."
Solon
had gained much of his wisdom from a group of traveling teachers,
the Sophists, and we hardly find any problem which troubles
us today that they did not discuss 2500 years ago.
Another
Greek philosopher who had learned from the Sophists and Solon
was Plato and you cannot discuss forms of government without
quoting Plato at length; he wrote an extensive treatise on "good
government" which he called The Republic. In it he discusses
all angles of social living: Ethics, Politics, Theology etc.,
and the problems he puts forward are as relevant today as they
were in his days.
Years
before Pericles had said: "You know as well as we do that
right, as the world goes, is only in question for equals in
power; the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what
they must" which brings up the eternal question: what is
justice?
"Justice"
says Plato,"is a relation among individuals depending on
social organization; and in consequence it can be studied better
as part of a structure of a community than as a quality of personal
conduct."
Plato
proceeds to give his opinion on how a Perfect Society should
be ruled; and he goes through all phases of political, psychological
and ethical aspects. He answers the question, What is justice
by saying there are only three things worthwhile in this world,
justice, beauty and truth; and perhaps none can be defined;
philosophers are still asking what is truth and nobody has yet
defined what is beauty. About justice however, Plato says it
is having and doing what is one's own.
What
does this definition really mean? Simply that each man shall
receive the equivalent of what he produces, and shall perform
the function for which he is best fitted. A just man is a man
in just the right place, doing his best and giving the full
equivalent of what he receives. A
society of just men would therefore be a highly harmonious and
efficient group; for every element would be in place, fulfilling
its-appropriate function like the various parts in a perfect
orchestra. Justice in a society would be like that harmony of
relationships whereby the planets are held together in their
orderly movements. A society so organized is fit for survival
and justice means effective co-ordination. Justice then is not
mere strength, but harmonious strength -- it is not the right
of the stronger but the effective harmony of the whole.
In
his treatise of The Republic Plato concerns himself to a great
extent with the fact that to him it is ridiculous that when
you are sick, you call in a physician who is properly trained
and can tell you what is the matter and how to remedy it, but
when it comes to government which Plato rightly considers much
more complex than even a major operation people are willing
to call in just about anybody without a proper training, and
he outlines in detail how such rulers should be educated; starting
at age ten, Plato would let those selected go through a rigid
training program and he believed that only when these persons
had gone through testing after testing would they at the age
of 50, be ready to govern.
Roman
Law is considered another of the cornerstones of Western ideas
about justice and government; but the Romans were clearly influenced
by the Greeks, and as Plato called his big work about government
The Republic, so the Romans estab-
[Page 10]
lished a republic as the frame in which their
laws should be administered.
The
word republic (res publica) means matters concerning the public
or the group of people comprising the society. The Romans called
their constitution "mixed" by which they meant that
the interests of all classes of Roman society were taken into
consideration; and whenever they instituted a law, they quickly
thought up checks and balances to counteract abuses of the new
law.
There
have been in the history of the West, Republics with various
types of government. The term has been defined as the state
from where The Law is supreme; whether the head of the government
is a president, a king or a small group of men does really not
matter, just as long as the ruler(s) are limited in their power
and obey the ancient laws of the land.
The
only form for government all philosophers have constantly been
opposed to, even warned consistently and vigorously against
is democracy; there is no end to all the quotes one could bring
forth against that particular form for government. And it is
thought-provoking, to say the least, to speculate why almost
all the countries of the West have ended up having democratic
governments, and those who still haven't, are well on their
way to getting one.
In
most countries of the West constitutions have been built on
traditions reaching centuries back in time. Only the United
States was a new country not hampered by customs and conventions;
the Founding Fathers were free from traditions and out of the
possible forms of government they wisely chose the republic;
the constitution they designed in such a way they thought that
the country would remain "the Land of the Free" for
ever and ever. It has turned out that even this carefully written
Law has not been able to keep the country from swerving dangerously
towards a democracy
"Its
(democracy's) basic principle is the equal right of all to hold
office and determine public policy," says Plato and he
goes on to say: "this is at first glance a delightful arrangement,
but it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly
equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest
courses. As to the people they don't have any understanding
. . . -- to get a doctrine accepted or rejected, it is only
necessary to have it praised or ridiculed in a popular play."
-- Does it sound familiar?
History,
as well as Plato and many other wise men, speak strongly against
democratic government. One very obvious reason is that people
are simply not well enough informed, so they too easily become
susceptible for all kinds of demagogy.
IF
already in the home and school children were taught to treasure
the age-old values of "truth, beauty and justice;"
-- IF they were informed about the mechanism of government so
that they later would be able wisely to partake in decision-making,
and IF they were instructed how to watch that their elected
representatives obey the laws of the land; IF (contrary to what
is taught now) this were done, we would have moved a large step
towards better government.
A
republic where the power structure is balanced in such a way
that there can be only minimal abuse of the rights and freedom
of its citizens, would, in our opinion, be the best form of
government. But even that would not work satisfactorily if the
population itself were not actively interested in making
it work; this would mean participation by at least every 4th
citizen who in the home and school would have learned about
public affairs and would be able to supply the common sense
we are so miserably missing in government today; serving on
these "councils" should be a public duty similar to
that of serving on the jury, persons to be chosen by lot to
minimize corruption and dishonesty.
IF
this could be accomplished, it would be a greater step forward
for mankind than reaching the moon.
* * *
Even
though, Charlemagne adopted Christianity and by the sword 'converted'
many people to that faith, it seems that he wasn't too sure
about the omnipotence of his new God; among the instructions
given by him for management of his great empire we find "that
for protection from lightning every gardener should have above
his home the 'Beard of Jupiter.'"
`Jupiter's
plant', the sempervirum was mentioned by the Greek naturalist
Theophrastus as early as year 372 before our time reckoning,
and was supposed to protect the house from lightning.
I
guess you can't blame the emperor for playing it safe!
|
5
at
the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781