|
 We
have stated previously in our rendering of Yockey's' philosophy
that a High Culture such as our Western Civilization is organic
in nature, it has, as he says individuality and soul; it is
governed by organic laws, has a life-cycle as all organisms
and, it has a certain direction.
This
quality of direction we call Destiny. Destiny is the hallmark
of everything living and the Destiny-Idea is the central motive
of organic thinking. Destiny-thinking therefore is the type
of thought which understands Life, and it is the only kind that
does.
The
other method of thought is that of Causality. This method is
used to full effect when dealing with inorganic matters of technical
or mechanical nature. The exact sciences use this kind of thinking
and could never have reached their fantastic accomplishments
with any other type of thinking. But at the same time, scientific
exactness is rather grotesque when applied in the realm of Life
for Life's happenings are uncontrollable irreversible, never-recurring.
Every living organism is something never seen before, it follows
an inner necessity, it passes -- never to re-appear.
Every
living organism has a set of possibilities within a certain
framework, laid out for it at its birth, and its life is the
process of realizing these possibilities.
The
technique of Destiny -- thinking therefore is simply to study
the organism in order to understand its life conditions and
necessities; only then is it possible to apprehend what MUST
happen.
Let
us point out here that Fate is not synonymous with Destiny,
but the opposite of it. Fate attributes necessity to external
incidents of an organism; Destiny, on the contrary, is the inner
necessity of the organism. An incident may wipe out a life and
thus accidentally terminate its life-cycle before its destiny
was fulfilled; but this event came from outside the organism
and was therefore apart from its destiny.
The
inner progression of a life is determined at its conception;
the life-cycle of an organism can either be helped or hindered
by outside incidents, it can either overcome them or succumb
to them.
The
intrinsic quality of Destiny forces the organism to express
its possibilities; outside incidents are blind to the inner
compulsion of the organism but may play an important role in
either smoothing its way or imposing great hardships.
Destiny-thinking
and Causality-think-
[Page 2]
ing are related to one another in that they
are both products of Life. Destiny is Life itself whereas Causality
is merely a thought pattern by which Culture-man attempts to
subjugate everything around him to his understanding. But there
is a rank. Destiny-thinking is prior, for all life is subject
to it, while Causality-thinking is only an expression of a part
of Life's possibilities.
Causality
stands still and can only reach satisfactory conclusions with
subject matter that also stands still. Destiny-thinking moves
along with Life, and man understands Destiny-thinking because
he is himself moved by Destiny.
* * *
ASPECTS OF HISTORY
History,
says Yockey, is the record of fulfilled destinies of Cultures,
of nations and religions, of philosophies and sciences, of art
forms and of people. Only the feeling of empathy is able to
understand these once-living souls from the bare records left.
Causality-thinking here is helpless, for at every turn of the
road a new fact is cast into the pool of Life and from its point
of impact, ever-widening circles of change spread out. All the
motivating considerations behind the events are never written
down; yet every impulse sways the course of the so-called historical
facts.
The
true understanding of any organism whether a High Culture, a
nation or a man is to seek -- behind and underneath the facts
of that existence -- the soul which is expressing itself by
means of, and often in opposition to, the external happenings.
Only then can one separate what is significant from what is
unimportant.
It
follows that "significant" means having a Destiny-quality;
"unimportant" is without relationship to Destiny.
It is thus obvious that the feeling for what is Destiny and
what is Incident has a high subjective content, and that a deeper
insight would consider as Destiny what the mere superficial
sees only as Incident.
Consequently,
men are differentiated with regard to their capacity for understanding
History. The person who understands Destiny-thinking can see
underneath the surface of events to the soul that is the determinant;
History seen through the historical sense of a human being has
this subjectivity. This is one aspect of History.
The
other, the "objective" aspect of History is equally
incapable of remaining rigid, even though at first glance it
may seem to be. The writing of purely objective history is the
aim of the so-called reference, or narrative method of presenting
history, which attempts to set forth the development with complete
impartiality. Nevertheless, it inevitably selects and orders
the facts, and in this process the act of making a choice comes
into play. If this was totally excluded, the product would not
be history-writing but an index of dates, and even that can
not be free from selection.
What
then is History? Yockey says History is the relationship between
the Past and the Present. Because the Present constantly changes,
the relationship to the Past changes accordingly, and History
changes with it. Each Age has its own History which the Spirit
of the Age creates to fit its own soul. With the passing of
the Age, never to return, that particular history picture has
passed.
An
attempt to write History "as it really happened" is
historical immaturity and the belief in objective standards
of history-presentation is self-deception, far what will come
forth is the Spirit of the Age.
The
general agreement of contemporaries with a certain outlook an
history does not make it objective, but only gives it rank,
the highest possible rank it can have -- as an accurate expression
of the Spirit of that particular Age, -- true for that time
and that soul.
A
higher degree of truth cannot be obtained.
ec
* * *
|
The
average reader has no way of knowing that he is misinformed.
He has no criteria by which he can judge the accuracy
of what he reads or hears in the general news media. Since
the mental cage in which he is trapped is invisible to
him he sees no reason for searching out other sources
of information.
Robert DePugh. |
[Page 3]
MAN AND HIS GOD
3. Does Man Need God?
NO,
answer the materialists to the question here asked. Man, they
say, has acquired all the knowledge formerly attributed to the
gods. He is an animal like all other animals and -- the New
Biologists add -- he will survive best if he studies the social
behavior of animals and applies the lessons learned to himself.
YES,
say those who look upon the social and moral ruins of our modern
societies and correlate the loss of religion with the evils
of a drug-addicted youth, the loss of human dignity in the mass-imprisonment
of both communist and capitalist societies.
WHO
IS RIGHT? From our standpoint, which includes both animal and
God in the evaluation of man -- both are right and wrong. Clearly,
a synthesis is needed proceeding from a new definition of man.
From
the materialistic or scientific point of view, it is true that
we no longer see Thor angrily throwing .his hammer when thunder
racks the skies. We no longer believe that an epidemic is God's
personal vengeance for sin but look to microbiology for the
reason. We have even come to see our own follies in regard to
nature and hope to rebuild our old relationships with her. Do
we need more?
But
were the gods not more than an explanation-crutch to approach
inexplicable natural phenomena? Were they not rather the soul
of an organic social order? And is the whole religious issue
actually not so much one of discarding gods who no longer fill
our needs, but rather one of searching for new depths, new horizons
in the religious as in every other area?
Those
who cannot dislodge Christian concepts from their minds seem
aware of this, but their attempts to revitalize Christianity
to modern standards cannot but lead to further deterioration.
Bringing discussions on God down to street level and seeking
to substitute "this" for the "other" world
will merely bury the last vestiges of Christianity, in the swamp
of materialism that engulfs us. Nor can Christianity, in the
face of new indisputable truths advanced by the sciences, be
"upgraded" to meet their challenge. Unable to withstand
the combined onslaught of science and materialism, the Church,
in a desperate struggle for survival, is actually only competing
with them.
Does
this mean. that, theocracy being dead, the New Biology will
determine the needs of man and exclude from him the need of
God? Restricted, as is any discipline, to its own territory,
it may seek to do just that, and the fate of man's identity
will continue to swing back and forth on the seesaw of the faculties
juggling their findings in the study of man.
Nor
is this unacceptable so far as the basic needs of human social
orders are concerned. For the findings of the New Biology (as
reported in the books of Robert Ardrey: African
Genesis, Territorial Imperative and Social
Contract) are a tremendous breakthrough. In one swoop they
make debris of Freudian-Marxist theories and the entire school
of environmentalist sociology bred by them that for long decades
have turned the world upside-down. With equal severity it demolishes
the illusions of the egalitarian philosophy of Christian-Masonic
origins and sets the record straight on the inequality of all
life-forms including man.
For
man is, before all else, a biological being, descended from
the animal. Facts accumulated by the New Biologists will have
a huge hand in pointing out the road to self-discovery. For
we are here dealing with seeds and roots, no less important
to man than to any other living thing.
But
there are some factors on which biologists cannot have a decisive
voice for the simple reason that man is not just "another
animal" as defined by them. There are components in his
nature nowhere existent in animal biology: a free will and a
fully developed consciousness i.e. the power of reason and,
at the zenith -- genius whose capacity for emo-
[Page 4]
tional and spiritual experience lie entirely
outside the range of animal existence While these strictly human
factors are inseparable from their biologic roots, and determine
their nature much as a seed determines the blossom, the study
of biology alone cannot divulge a complete definition of the
complexity of man. It must be complemented and integrated with
studies equally deep in the religious-philosophic departments.
These must not, however, ignore the roots otherwise they would
merely fashion new names for old falsehoods.
The
most laudable merit the New Biologists can claim is the proof
they furnish for the dominance of heredity over environment
in the analysis of animal life and behavior. It is a knock on
doors long barricaded by egalitarians. A gentle knock, to be
sure, but one bound to become louder as more force is gathered
in the knowledge on the laws of life. One day, inevitably, the
doors.will swing open to a scientific investigation of the question
of race. The time is ripe. For the age of race-consciousness
announces its coming birth pangs being observed wherever men
have embarked on the road to self-discovery. The truth will
help. And men will understand each other better when they realize
that each group, whatever its identity, is a sanctity unto itself
and must, in accordance with the laws now known, be held inviolate
by all others in the right, common to all, for survival and
fulfillment. One day it will be seen that the declaration of
the equality of all men, has not set men free but was used to
transgress against the visible and invisible boundaries that
separate the species and their sub-groups guarding against loss
of identity.
The
invisible boundaries of all human-kind extend into every phase
of cultural life. Laws uncovered in the sciences of biology
did not stop to function when the soul of man evolved its faculties.
While animal societies can indeed be seen as a prelude to nationalism,
analogies may prove false unless it is .fully acknowledged that
man emerged from natural history, not as "another animal"
but as MAN.
The
animal lives simply to survive, unaware of any need but to live
obedient to the laws that have made its survival possible. Viewed
from an altitude that overlooks all of creation, we can see
the behavior pattern of every animal society fitted into a general
order. But we can not find any evidence that the evolution of
any particular species either in appearance or behavior was
the result of a free choice. They can be seen only as expressions
of an indomitable will in nature to beauty and variety. But
man, at some time in this evolutionary process, difficult to
determine, stepped over a threshold to enter a new world -his
own! And natural history forked off in a new direction: Human
history.
Forthwith
man has lived not merely to survive. Not only in search of food
but in search of a purpose. Being of flesh and blood, he is
beset with yearnings that bind him to the earth. But he is pressed
no less by yearnings to reach beyond his human limitations and
rise to the heights of the gods. One part of his being points
in the direction whence he came, the other in the direction
whither he is going or meant to go.
For
man is a creature betwixt Beast and God. He is destined to travel
forever back and forth between these two poles. Therein lies
the source of his conflict but also the means of his triumphs
and fulfillment.
By
his reasoning power, far superseding animal intelligence and
supported by a free will, man can out-hunt any animal, inflate
his ego beyond all needs, and gorge an appetite no animal could
develop. History overflows with examples of men who have thus
managed to sink below all standards of the social-moral sense
of animal societies. In the animal, however, this moral sense
is a subconscious built-in survival feature. Man is conscripted
to no such protective survival laws. He is free to throw in
his life for adventure, design his fate in competition with
other men and manipulate his fate by accruing to himself undue
powers, building power-structures,wherewith to destroy all in
his path of progress.
We
have long accepted this to be a natural consequence of the law
that survival is for the fittest. We realize now that in our
heterogeneous industrial societies this means only one thing:
victory for the most ruthless, by abilities proving not superior
human qualities but skilled in the use of tactics based on sub-human
standards of morality.
And
we realize further that as man
[Page 5]
does not live by instincts alone, neither can
he live by reason alone. For reason without guidance from a
moral code is the most destructive weapon of the human intellect.
Man's
moral sense is not founded on reason, but derives from that
higher awareness quite detached from and by nature entirely
unrelated to reason which in another article of this series
we have described as the superconscious state of man's awareness.
It
is when man experiences God as a reality in his soul that he
reaches the true stature of manhood.As the sun transforms a
barren earth into sublime beauty so inner man is transformed
by the fire that lights his awareness when transcending the
physical reality of life to know the unseen inner essence of
life -- God. This exalting experience, radiating to all hidden
spheres of the self, refines and ennobles whatever animal characteristics
are man's heritage which in their "natural" state
appear raw and ugly. Sex becomes an incidence of love and union
experienced as sacred. Excesses are banned and limitations set
where good takes command over evil. The sublime light flooding
the superconscious penetrates the hidden chambers of the subconscious
and brings to life wisdom stored by the memory of race. Now
the self develops a surety of knowledge on such subjects as
morality, beauty, justice, truth and social responsibility to
kin and kindred that cannot be dissuaded by the barkers of vulgarity
parading as defenders of man's freedom, for now man has come
to realize the ultimate meaning of freedom and found the ultimate
fulfillment.
THIS
is why we need God!
Where
man withdraws from God, in unbelief, in apathy or hostility,
he need not necessarily become evil, but he cannot realize his
full potential as man. Where he turns to his sensuous appetites
for "human" fulfillment, he may become a victim of
vice, with no ability even to realize his degradation.
Ages
gone by have known crime and vice not dissimilar from those
committed in our own times. But alongside these grew up monuments
attesting to man's intimate association with God through immortal
works of. art. Ages that will follow when ours has become history
will find no such testimony. For all the material accomplishments
of this age still do not hide the mediocrity of our so-called
life-style. The adjectives with which we are so familiar, lauding
this materialistic age -- rational, practical, pragmatic, sensible,
still render the rewards senseless and meaningless. There is,
especially among the young, a distinct awareness of lack of
purpose.
No
doubt, without an awareness of God man has indeed the option
to become what the materialists prefer to call him: an intellectual
animal.
The
use of the term God in this context is in itself of no consequence.
It need frighten no one who has dispensed with the old gods
or with false gods. The term signifies simply the meaning evolved
by the ages in our own particular culture, expanded by us to
include all knowledge of the laws of nature and in full awareness
of our biological and subconscious heritage.
All
men are capable of finding and knowing God in the sense we understand
the term. But the average man, limited in the mechanics of expression,
may find himself released from his personal restrictions and
raised to greater heights through the handiwork of God as created
by human genius. We will attempt an explanation of this phenomenon
in our next article "Genius and the Common Man."
Helgar.
* * *
KAUPANG
I
am sure you all know where Bethlehem is, but I wonder if any
of you have ever heard of Kaupang, even though it at one time
figured prominently in the history of our ancestors.
Kaupang
is not somewhere in Viet Nam, but the name of a busy Norwegian
trading town, important mainly in the ninth and tenth century;
it was located on the south coast of Norway at the entrance
to Oslo fiord.
The
name Kaupang was first mentioned by a Norwegian merchant, Ottar,
who in the 9th century, in his report to King Alfred of Wessex,
gave an account of how
[Page 6]
to get to this important Scandinavian trading
town.
The
location of the town provided an excellent protection against
intruders and was also an ideal harbour for the Norwegian trading
fleet. In our time the waters surrounding the area are rather
shallow, but a thousand years ago, the water level was at least
five to six feet higher and therefore comfortably accessible
for the. Viking ships with their shallow draught.
The
row of small islands forming the archipelago served as an insurance
against unwanted visitors, and the surrounding hills afforded
excellent vantage points from which watch could be kept over
the sea and thus give advance notice about ships entering the
harbour.
In
the nineteen fifties excavations were begun on a massive scale
and many artifacts have been unearthed. They show the usual
burial sites with potsheds, ornaments and many other objects
proving that accounts of the brisk trading at Kaupang had not
been exaggerated.
Many
fragments of various kinds of metal, mostly iron, bronze and
some gold show, that the area had a thriving metal industry.
Also textiles were produced in quantity and findings of cooking
pots indicate that these were produced on a scale larger than
just for local usage. Wine seems to have been imported, evidenced
by the findings of large pottery containers, mainly from the
Rhineland area, thought to be the equivalent of today's wine
barrels.
Most
of the burial mounds indicate that cremation was the commonly
used form for interment; in many graves costly objects showing
a high quality of workmanship, most of native, Anglo-Saxon or
Indo-European origin, were included with the remains of some
rich merchant or chieftain.
The
harbour itself has been excavated and remains of two piers have
been found they were slightly rounded out against the ocean,
narrowing towards the land, providing a second protection against
strong winds and high seas. The piers seem to have been of a
permanent structure, reinforced with stones on the land side.
The
soil of the surrounding area consists of the so-called Black
Earth which also was found around the well-known Swedish trading
town of Birka. Remains of animal and fish bones are evidence
that not only was Kaupang a central point for trading, but its
citizens also brought loads of fish to the market place, and
undoubtedly farming was carried out in the areas back of the
town.
Kaupang
enjoyed prosperity and prominence for at least two hundred years;
but as the sea level dropped from year to year, the town had
to be abandoned as it no longer was possible for larger ships
to enter the harbour. The merchants had to move to a better
location and today only archaeologists move around in the area
which at one time was a teeming trading town.
C.
* * *
FOR PARENTS-TO-BE
Because
of the great influence Christianity has had on our civilization
and the practice of naming children at the same time they are
christened i.e. taken into the Christian community, it has been
common for parents to seek out biblical names for the babies;
and many John's, Mary's, Ruth's and David's today work our fields,
produce our goods and operate our machines.
However,
as the importance of Christianity diminishes and our old ancestral
heritage comes to the fore, it seems proper to suggest that
parents-to-be explore the cultural treasures of our Western
nations when considering names for the little new additions
to the family.
This
may well be a problem as to our knowledge there never has been
compiled a list of boy's and girl's names with old Nordic or
Indo-European origins. As most names from pre-Christian times
are derived from the same sources, it does not matter much from
which of the present Western countries such name lists come
since, with only small variations, a great number of them are
common to all Northern European languages.
[Page 7]
Let
us for example take the name Albert; originally the first part
of it was Adel- meaning noble, in German it still has that meaning
and is the origin to names like Adelbert and Adalhart; this
was shortened to Al-; Albert therefore means 'of noble birth.'
Edel- has the same meaning - noble, pure, giving rise to names
like Elbert, Elmar or Elmer; Elfriede was in times past Edalfrith,
the first part of which we now recognize as 'noble' or 'pure',
the second part has in Old Anglo-Saxon the meaning of peace
or protection, but is now only used in British dialects about
a small wooden area, which probably at one time meant peace
and some form of protection. Atheling (Adeling) or Etheling
can still be found in Webster's dictionary and means a person
of noble birth; the Name Ethel derives from it.
Another
short form for 'Adel' or rather 'Edel' is Ed- as in Edward;
the last part -ward means defender, i.e. someone who is good
at warding off intruders; Edward therefore means defender, but
it is not clear whether the defender himself is of noble birth
or those he defends are of course Edgar was originally Edelguard.
Harald
(or Harold) is an old Nordic name; the first part Har- most
likely comes from 'heer' which in both German and Scandinavian
means an army; the last part -ald or -old is thought to derive
from -wald or walt which is an old Indo-European word meaning
to rule, master; Harald freely translated thus means `commander
of the army'.
Norman
of course is 'the man from the North;' Norbert -- 'born in the
North;' -- Norma seems also to derive from 'north,' although
the last part of the name is not clear.
`Rich'
in old Anglo-Saxon meant not only to own wealth but also to
be powerful and influential, so in Richard (Richguard) we again
have an old name with the proud meaning 'influential defender.'
Other
names with origins from our forgotten past are: For boys - Arne,
Bjarne, Charles, Detmar, Donald, Erik (Eric; Erich), Frank,
Frode, Karl (Carl), Otto, Thor, Waldemar, Walter, Werner; --
for girls: Astrid, Ebba, Erna, Frieda, Gertrud, Gudrun, Helga,
Ida, Ingrid, Karla, Ragna (Ragnhild), Sigrid, Thora, Wilma.
Here
as well as in many other fields, the experts do not all agree,
and some linguists may question our explanations. Nevertheless,
there are many beautiful names reaching back into antiquity,
and we are depriving ourselves of an important part of our ancestral
heritage, if we disregard this fountain of inspiration.
E.
* * *
EXISTENCE
by Rod
WHY
ARE WE HERE? This is the main question in life for all human
beings, whether they are aware of it or not; there is an instinctive
desire in all human souls to find the answer to this basic problem
even in primitive or depraved individuals who may not actively
seek an answer, but the instinctive desire to know why they
exist is still there, no matter how submerged. Man's reaction
to this rather basic life-urge takes one of three paths.
The
first path, and the least commendable, is the one I call 'animalistic.'
-- In this group are found, not primitives from lower civilizations,
but mainly people from more advanced cultures. They are the
ones who act as if they care not why they are here; they pretend
life is only to be enjoyed, gratifying every whim and every
physical pleasure. However, in the end these lost souls fail
to do even this, for the difference between man and animal is
that man is designed to think abstractly and have abstract goal
in life, such as mastering the knowledge of his environment
and himself; animal goals will not sustain a human being for
very long, no matter how "educated" or sophisticated
he may be. Out of sheer soul boredom, and an instinctive awareness
that something is wrong, he may turn to drink, dope, perversion
or any combination of these to escape the nagging feeling that
all is not well. These types are often encouraged to continue
their deplorable life style by the destroyers of the particular
culture to which these lost souls belong. Or it may happen that
they break away from their low-grade existence by stumbling
upon one of the other two routes to answering the question we
have before us.
The
second path, higher than the first but mentally speaking not
much better, is the one I call 'primitive'. In this group is
found most of the inhabitants of the lower civilizations and,
unfortunately, also many individuals from higher cul-
[Page 8]
tures. These people instinctively sense that
there is more to man than just the animal part. However, whether
they do not have the necessary insight, as with persons from
a lower culture, or, with regard to people from a higher culture,
they do not have sufficient inner motivation, in either case
they fail to use their abstract reasoning powers to solve the
fundamental question of why they exist. Instead they soothe
their unsatisfied vague impulses by accepting whatever mystic
mumbo jumbo that happens to came their way, no matter how ridiculous
or illogical the belief may be. This applies not only to the
primitive with his voodooism etc. but also to the high culture
religionist with his respectable establishment faith. The danger
here, particularly for a high culture, is that while some members
of the culture may be satisfied with this answer to our question,
the youth will not accept any religious dogmas which are not
in harmony with man's present scientific knowledge. These citizens
of the future are thus left "floating" to fend for
themselves as far as human identity is concerned. --These young
people without any proper moorings are fair game for those who
would have them regress to the first or 'animalistic' mode of
life.
Last
is the third way, which I call the 'reasoning' path. Here we
mostly, but not always find people from a higher civilization.
These are the individuals who, even with limited formal education,
try to use their abstract reasoning powers to arrive at an answer
to life's mysteries. They understand that they are both animal
and man ('man' = an organism having self-awareness and a faculty
for abstract ideas) and they realize that the man-part of them
must have a sense of identity in relation to the universe.They
are always conscious of the great human life-question: Why are
we here? Why do we exist?
The
way in which people answer these questions places them in one
of two groups. The minority, of which I am a member, believes
that man was created through evolution (hence in tune with science)
by an intelligent Supreme Being; the majority, to which many
of my fellow Odinists belong, believes that man was a creation
of the forces of nature. Both factions believe that it is man's
duty and purpose in life to advance his civilization to greater
heights, or, under the present circumstances to prevent it,
from sinking any lower. With our present knowledge I believe
both viewpoints are valid.
The
one common outlook of people who I take the 'reasoning' path
of existence is, that their civilization should be protected
and sustained and that they, to the best of their ability, should
advance it along the line of its natural temperament.
This
I believe is the main purpose of existence.
* * *
SELF - RESPECT
Many
years ago a story was told about an old man who was making himself
a desk His grandson was watching as the old man diligently polished
the back of the desk which was to go up against the wall.
"Gramps,"
said the boy, "why do you bother polishing that side? Nobody
is going to see it?"
The
old man looked at the boy. "Son," he said softly,
"even if nobody else in the whole world would see the back
of this desk, we would know about it."
This
man had something that seems to have gone out of style these
days: He had self-respect; he had pride; he had the quiet dignity
that comes when a person is willing to accept his duties and
responsibilities to himself and his family. A man of this calibre
has the inner impulsion of doing his work to the best of his
ability in utter disregard to whether he will ever get money
or praise in return; and he also accepts the importance of setting
a good example for the next generation.
We
do not intend to moralize; Odinists know that self-respect is
necessary to be at peace with oneself.
Unfortunately,
far too many people are afraid to take up their responsibilities.
Instead they bounce on some "cause"; they get busy
with social concerns, but in reality they are running away from
what they ought to be doing right in their own homes.
Many
of these people turn into professional "do-gooders"
who are so eager to have a finger in every pie, trying to boost
their importance by identifying with some great religious or
social enterprise. These "do-gooders" have forgotten
that the only way they will ever do something really good and
important, is by first fulfilling their duties to themselves
and to those closest to them.
[Page 9]
It
is far from us to say that people should not be concerned with
what is going on around them; on the contrary, we think it is
of the utmost importance to take part in the big issues of the
day.
What
we are saying, however, is that before you can be of any possible
help in the community, you must be in harmony with yourself;
if you are at ease with your own soul, then you have the spiritual
courage and balanced judgment that is necessary in dealing with
the problems facing your community, your country and Western
Civilization.
MATING
/ DATING
In
an earlier article about THE CLANS we touched lightly upon the
fact that in the old European Continental aristocracy it was
common practice that both partners in a contemplated marriage
were supplying an official certificate stating what sort of
people their eight great-grandparents were, the so-called Seize-Quartiers;
this was done for the simple purpose of forming a shrewd opinion
about the prospects and desirability of the marriage and estimate
the compatibility of the two persons concerned and whether the
union would profit both families; and here the thought was not
so much on financial gain, but more directed towards the possible
offspring who would be the future carriers of the family tree.
In
many parts of Europe, particularly in the South, it has until
recently, and. in some locations still is the rule, even amongst
ordinary people, that parents chose the future marriage partners
for their children. Often times this seems to work even better
than when the young people do their own choosing. Our divorce
statistics bear out this fact abundantly, particularly in regard
to teen age marriages where about 50% end up on the rocks.
This
way of entering into marriage was also common in Northern Europe
when the Clan System was still honoured.
The
most important reason for this practice was the fact that in
older days before our industrialized society, most people were
farmers. They were closely linked to nature and knew well her
laws. Through observation more than from knowledge about-eugenics,they
knew that wild animals only mate within their own group. They
knew equally well that if they wanted to retain certain traits
in their farm animals, they should not indulge in mixing the
breeds, but rather take good care that their valuable stock
would be kept pure.
With
all these well known facts before them, it would seem sheer
folly and callous stupidity not to be equally or even more concerned
about whom their sons and daughters were to marry; a marriage
was not thought of as just companionship and sex, but promised
the possibility of bringing children into the family, and it
was therefore of great importance who the future carriers of
the family name would be. Naturally more care would have to
be taken where the family tree was concerned than with their
cows and horses. With our present knowledge about eugenics it
seems a very logical and necessary precaution our wise ancestors
took, in carefully choosing the marriage partners for their
children.
I
can hear screams going up: Do they want to decide whom I'm going
to marry? -- They must be kidding! -- Parents don't understand
a thing! --None of my friends are good enough for Mom and Dad!
-- They haven't got the foggiest where it's at! -- and so on.
Would
the young people of today, with all the scientific knowledge
we have then not be able, wisely,to choose their marriage partners?
Looking again at the divorce statistics it does not seem so.--
I hear more screams going up and I will hasten to say that I
do not believe the youth of today is less intelligent or less
concerned about finding a good mate than previous generations.
I would suggest however, that never before have so many been
confused so much by so few. -- What today, consciously or unconsciously
is peddled off as facts about being `happy,' 'falling in love',
and 'love, sweet love' is much more dangerous to the future
of our civilization than any epidemic we so far have experienced.
And this holds true not only for the West but for all peoples.
Love
is being confused with sex, marriage with 'having fun,' and
bringing up children is compared to playing with dolls. Unfortunately,
it just ain't so! -- Many things have to be taken into consideration
before the odds for a reasonably successful marriage are acceptable.
[Page 10]
I realize that it is no longer possible and
maybe not desirable either to return to the old days when the
family council decided who should marry whom; -- I did not leave
it up to my parents either and the young people of today can
think for themselves. There are lots of scientific facts available
to them if only they would take the trouble, or maybe I should
rather say be allowed to learn about them BEFORE they enter
into a marriage contract.
All
this means that even when dating, a young person should use
his head. Of course not all dates end up in marriage, but the
purpose of dating is quite naturally the initial stages of looking
for a mate. There is an old saying that `Birds of a feather
flock together'. With all the equality propaganda we endure
these days it seems almost blasphemic to mention it. But, as
Ted Garner Armstrong says: "It is not racism to realize
there are many differences between the races. If people could
only wash their minds of feelings of racial inferiority or superiority
-- racism, and come to realize that there ARE basic strengths
and weaknesses among the races!"
Even
within each race there are many differences between the various
groups. -- I am reminded of the story about the Englishman,
the German and the Frenchman who each were to write an essay
about the elephant. The Englishman went on a safari to study
the animal in its natural habitat, the German went to the library
to read all the books he could find about the subject and the
Frenchman put on his coat and hat and went to the zoo. This
does not mean that a marriage between any two members of these
three nations would not be desirable, it only shows that even
between persons who are racially closely related there are differences.
And then think of the problems one would encounter when the
two partners are racially further removed.
But
not only racial differences are a hazard to a happy marriage
and fine and healthy children; also social and religious differences
often pose intolerable problems and put a strain upon a young
couple, accounting for many heartbreaks that could have been
avoided if only common sense had been used, and scientific facts
had been consulted before the union was a fait accompli. It
is a proven, but at present an unpopular statement, that the
odds are against the success of a marriage between partners
of two different cultures. The difference in cultural heritage,
social background and level of insight are all factors which
must be carefully considered and evaluated, and in most cases
the two persons concerned are the ones most unlikely to have
a clear understanding of the problems involved. If a marriage
is intelligently decided upon, the young people concerned will
experience the most important and also the most rewarding adventure
of their lives.
C.
* * *
|
Combined subscription
for 4 issues of
THE ODINIST & 8 issues of THE SUNWHEEL
----- $2.00 -----
Back issues available *
Free sample copies on request
PLEASE NOTE:
Canada
now has a new postal code system. Our address
is:
P.O. Box 731
Adelaide St. Stn.,
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5C 2J8
*America First Books Editor's
Note: These publications, prices, and addresses are no
longer applicable, and are reproduced on the web solely
as historic artifacts.
|
YOU
HAVE NOW read our publication and we hope you agree with the
viewpoints expressed; but, dear kinsman, don't slump further
back in your armchair and think that you activity for today
is over!
It
is so easy and harmless to write articles -- the paper is patient;
and it is effortless and safe for you to sit in your comfortable
home and read our essays; but that won't get us very far.
The
Word Is Action! I'm sure each one of us could give our activities
still another notch. When you have taken your stand, please
let your opinions be known, let your MP hear about your dissatisfaction
with the present situation; tell your House representative how
you feel about the important issues; urge your friends and neighbours
to get off their fannies and become activists.
Only
through our collective efforts will our expressed views have
enough impact; let us, in no uncertain terms, tell our present
political and spiritual leaders in which way we want our countries
governed, our cultural heritage preserved, and our Western Civilization
advanced!
E.
|
7
at
the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781