|
 In
discussing the various aspects of history, Yockey maintains
that each High Culture has its own relationship to History which
will develop in a certain direction through the life-course
of the Culture. Through each stage of a Culture History has
a subjective and an objective aspect, each of which can be arbitrary;
the determining factor, however, is not one or the other, but
the relationship between the two. This relationship is not
arbitrary but in keeping with the Spirit of the Age.
The
High Cultures are not only differentiated from one another,
but the various Ages within the Cultures are distinguishable
in their historical sense. One certain Life-tendency dominates
any one Age.
In
all the High Cultures the religious feeling is uppermost in
the first great Life-phase; this is superseded by critical spirituality,
which gives way to the historical outlook; this again merges
into the final rebirth of religion.
Each
Age sees its predecessors under their purely historical aspect
and can only in this way feel related to them. -- The fact that
a certain Life-tendency is uppermost during a certain period
cannot destroy the organic unity of Culture-man who derives
his historical sense from the relationship between the Past
and the Present.
In
all Ages the individuals therein are separated from one another
in the varying development of their historical sense. -- A political
unit in the custody of an opportunist with no historical horizon
will pay with their wasted blood for his lack.
Just
as Western Culture has the most intensely historical soul, so
does it develop men with the greatest historical sense. It is
a Culture which always has been conscious of its history. In
any confrontation within the West, both sides have felt that
they were saddled with determining the Future, and at each turning-point
there were many who understood the significance of the moment.
Western men therefore have been under the necessity of having
a History-picture in which to think and act.
The
fact that the Culture is continually changing means that History
is continually changing. -- History is the continuous re-interpretation
of the Past. -- Thus the alternatives for History are not
true or false, but effective or ineffective. The ruling historical
outlook in each Age is the expression of the pro-
[Page 2]
per soul. -- Truth in the religio-philosophical-mathematical
sense, meaning timeless, eternally valid, disassociated from
the conditions of Life, does not pertain to History.-- History
that is true is History that is effective in the minds of significant
men.
The
History-writers of each Age have the task of setting forth the
necessary picture of the Past. This picture then becomes effective
in the thoughts and actions of the History-makers of the Age.
There
is only ONE History-picture, true for each Age; it cannot be
chosen, but is an expression of the Spirit of the Age. Ours
is an external, factual, skeptical Age. It is not moved by great
religious or critical feelings. The center of gravity is in
Politics.
Pure
historical thinking is the close relative of political thinking.
Both are realistic. Historical thinking seeks to know what was,
it does not want to prove anything. -- Political thinking has
as its first task to ascertain the facts and the possibilities
and then change them through action.
Ours
is the first Age in Western history in which an absolute submission
to facts has triumphed over all other spiritual attitudes. It
is the natural corollary of an historical Age when critical
methods have exhausted their possibilities. In the realm of
Thought, historical thinking triumph; in the realm of action,
Politics occupies the center of the stage. We follow the facts,
no matter where they lead, even to the point of giving up cherished
ideologies, pet notions or prejudices. Previous Ages in Western
history formed their History to fit their soul; we do the same,
and our ethical imperative is derived from our historical outlook,
not vice versa.
Our
History-picture is no more arbitrary than that of any other
Age of the West. It is compulsory for us. Insofar a
man is an effective representative of this age, he has this
particular historical outlook, and no other. It is not a question
whether he should or not. -- He has it -- if not in his verbal
utterances, then, to be sure, in his feelings and his unconscious
valuation of events.
E.C .
* * *
We
have often used expressions such as "the religious attitudes
of Western man."
In
order not to offend Women's libbers we are considering to change
it to "religious attitudes of Western persons," ---
but somehow it doesn't sound right!
* * *
R.I.P.
The
often used,and misused, peace symbol has been explained by many
as the sign of anti-Christ, of Satan, witches, and other strange
mystics.
To
one familiar with old Nordic traditions it seems that the original
Indo-European meaning is missing. In times of long ago there
were two equally important symbols, one where the crossbars
of the Sun-wheel were reaching upwards and one where :they went
downwards, as they do in the so-called peace symbol. The former
signified Life and the latter Death. It was even used on headstones
in cemeteries; the stone mason would engrave the sign for Life
and the date of birth, and just below that he would place the
"peace" sign and the date on which the person had
passed away.
During
the thirties attempts were made in Central Europe to bring this
tradition back into use, but the general upheaval caused by
the war destroyed this modest endeavor, and has, to my knowledge
not been tried again.
To
be sure, when the bars of the symbol are turned downwards it
means peace and quiet -- the quiet you'll find in totalitarian
countries where open dissent is non-existent or punishable with
slave labour; -- or the peace you find six feet underground.
C.
* * *
"Give
us this day our daily bread," Christians have piously prayed
for centuries; of course the idea is not that a loaf of bread
should come flying down in to your lap, or that there should
rain pennies, say 32 cents, from heaven so that you might go
and buy a loaf.
It
rather meant that through your prayers you implored 'God' that
there would be rain and shine so that crops would grow and you
thus would be able to feed your family.
In
complex societies "bread" meant work i.e. earning
your buying power with which you could acquire your loaf of
bread.
But
what nobody bargained for was all the additives, chemicals and
other poisons you now get in a loaf of bread; the prayer ought
to be changed to: "Give us this day our bread without any
man-made additives" and you might as well include "and
water without poison."
[Page 3]
THE NEW AGE
This
is the Age of Biology. It has come upon us almost unaware, and
certainly unwanted for existing power structures. All bureaucracies
wherever they are established, in government, education and
economics, are doing their utmost to keep the age from realizing
itself. But it will grow, inevitable as a plant grows; it will
come as spring comes to relieve winter, and men will turn to
biology as the science of life in seeking answers to problems
of a purely human nature that they had not found where they
searched heretofore -- in the fields of economic and political
science. Both of these have dominated the thinking of Western
man for centuries. The revolutions fought -- the French, the
American, the Russian were all of the same order. -- The humanizing
label of "brotherhood" was false advertising, not
so much because of false intentions, at least where the misled
masses were concerned, but because the contents thus labeled
lacked all ingredients of the subject of life and the laws that
uphold life.
They
said Equality and had in mind only material things,
not yet having learned that nature knows no equality. But the
"just" distribution of wealth only ended in shifting
ownership from one type of hands to another. So today instead
of feudal princes we have princes of money in control of our
lives. Instead of beautiful castles gracing the countryside,
more and more towers of steel and glass are destroying human
life concentrated in cities, blocking out the sunlight and turning
people into an asphalt herd. All the while taxation and inflation
facilitate disownership of real property, elsewhere already
accomplished through Communism.
They
said Fraternity and completely ignoring or throwing
out hereditary principles in the build-up of nations, created
more tension, friction and hostility than had ever existed within
nations by destroying the private self of nationhood, crowding
together groups incompatible by nature and tradition and therefore
naturally ill disposed to or intolerant of each other. Moreover,
their fallacious doctrines of environment over heredity had
reference to man-created environments only and treated the environments
of nature as either non-existent or old-fashioned in points
of human needs. Nature instead was perverted into an economic
growth factor only in the calculation of material wealth. So
today we have more and better causes for revolutions and wars,
even to the extent of nature herself being at war with man.
They
said Liberty, believing -- granted at least where Rousseau
was concerned -- man to be innately good and that he would again
become so if only returned to his primitive natural state. They
left two things out of their bets on the future: 1. Due consideration
for the difference between bondage and discipline. 2. The fundamental
fact that man, to be a free and moral being had to have the
ability to commit evil to be able to choose either good or evil.
Thus man lives not only by natural law, as does the animal,
but by moral law, the latter being his own creation with recourse
to that part of his consciousness that binds human nature to
the nature of what is Godly. He must therefore investigate the
nature and status of both natural and moral law to be able to
create an order that strives for harmony with both as the best
means of serving man. But ignorance of his own nature and designs
built on a false premise of liberty have led men into anarchy,
allowing vices to flourish in contempt of virtue.
Returning
to our assertion that this is the Age of Biology, on what do
we base this claim and what can we foresee from its development?
There
is no question that man has conquered the material aspect of
the world. He has been outward-looking; he has absorbed
in the study of manifestations -- phenomena, its shape and appearance
and its manifold mechanical functions. Out, although philosophers
have for hundreds of years insisted that all knowledge of the
outer validity of the world does not reveal a complete and true
picture of the world as existence, only experience could teach
men with lesser insight. Gradually and by-means of a maturing
process, we are becoming more and more inward-looking.
Suddenly we realize that the external forms of life -- social,
cultural, political, economic -- spring from an inner source
and that while learning (from an accumulated store of experience)
is necessary and helpful in the business of living, life itself
cannot be taught.
[Page 4]
Life is as God is. To be or not to be is only
in part for us to decide. We have not chosen to be. We can only
choose not to be. We can also choose how to be. To be able to
do so we must know about life we must understand ourselves
as part of the stream of life. But while the decision to be
was made for us, it was not done haphazardly but proceeded from
a basis of laws that had bound the entire universe into an overall
order through a system of gradually unfolding laws from which
no being, including man, can escape. There is no escape
from life except through death. And all forms of illness,
personal or social, if not attended to properly and in accordance
with the laws of life, must culminate in death. --- To live,
we must respect the laws of life, we must know them, for ourselves,
for our nation, our race and our culture.
As
our soul-life is inextricably bound up with our physical being,
it is inevitable that the studies of biology, above all those
in the fields of genetics, will lead to philosophic insights
long clarified by those advanced in the knowledge of the science
of life, to a new understanding of life and ourselves as part
of it.
We
of the Odinist Faith, staunchly supporting the new findings
and keenly aware that they reveal only our deepest instincts,
take pride in the knowledge that we bear within ourselves the
germination of the new age - the Age of Biology.
Helgar
* * *
Some
of our readers may think that we are too theoretical and place
too much emphasis on the Odinist philosophy. Of course you may
have a point there, but we are of the opinion that action without
plan and purpose is, at best useless, at worst even harmful;
it tends to let people, spiritually, float back and forth with
the direction of the winds like a ship without a captain on
the bridge. We are equally aware that even the best intentions
and the finest speeches are of no consequence if they do not
lead to action.
But
make no mistakes about it; we are quite action-minded; -- in
no way are we just fuzzy-heads, sitting around discussion and
philosophizing. We are very much concerned with what can
be done, and how we can do it.
A WAY TO DIE
There
are more ways than one to commit genocide. Suicide, for instance.
But can a people, a race, commit suicide? We are certainly making
a valiant effort under the banner of Birth Control. First there
was the "pill." High pressure salesmanship sold a
motivation that could by no means be interpreted as selfish.
Oh no! The whole world was taken into consideration -- overcrowded
India, the surplus millions in China, the suppressed peasantry
in South America. In addition to the pill there is now abortion,
promoted with equal zest and persistence. Here the motive is
more personal: it serves the liberation of woman! Too long has
she been chained to demeaning household chores. She must be
freed to fulfill her self! And since machines have largely taken
over household chores, what need is there still for a woman
to stay in the home unless, of course, it were to raise a family,
since machines have not taken over the manufacture of babies.
But has woman herself not been a breeding machine long enough
and aren't there more than enough babies in the world? (Mark:
the WORLD!) Hence, only one solution for woman's liberation:
no more births. Furthermore, why raise children only to breathe
polluted city air, eat poisoned foods? There is no denying the
existence of city ills, but where else is it possible today
to earn a living? How :many couples young enough to raise children
can afford to buy a home in the suburbs? How many apartment
buildings will accommodate children?
No,
it's not a case of living at all. It's a case of dying. Dying
out. It's almost as if a conspiracy of death had gripped Western
civilization and the new merchants of death, the birth controllers
have every reason to exult over the records of new births marking
zero.
Yet
something is radically wrong. Did we not only recently hear
a clarion call sounded by a Canadian' minister for the need
of more people -- all fifty million of them -- to fill the empty
land called Canada (Canada, not the world!)? But if Canadians
continue to breed themselves out of existence, who else is to
fill these empty spaces? Immigrants from over crowded foreign
lands? And just why are they not heeding the call of birth control
since it is they themselves who are overcrowding their lands?
Leaders
of today's Germany are trying steadfastly to set a precedent.
By the
[Page 5]
same methods, Germany, too, has achieved a
regression in population growth. There are more deaths than
births. With that achievement, the government is being called
upon to open Germany to immigration (until now, foreign labour
was granted permits for restricted residence only). There is
more than irony in the declaration that "the wives of non-German
guest workers' are more prolific" than the wives of native
Germans. With such reluctance on the part of German women to
swell the labour ranks that would fight for higher standard
of living, it is proposed that aliens are extended a greater
welcome and that instead of working papers they be given citizenship
papers.
But
what is the reaction of the prolific races themselves to the
problem of biologic over-production? Apart from India who is
making some feeble attempts to prevent births of babies that
might have to starve soon after birth, there has been no announcement
of the zero-success we have so proudly proclaimed. -- American
Negroes are responding the way a nation would respond whose
instincts are still life-directed, despite the fact that they
are being considered the most underprivileged of a rich nation.
Here is the view of Jean Noble, executive director of the National
Council of Negro Women: "To many blacks abortion is genocidal,
a method of limiting the black population. Muslim groups, for
instance, say that the role of the black woman is to produce
warriors for the revolution." (Blacks and Feminists, Time,
Mar. 26, 1973).
Could
it be that the coloured races of the world have something more
to live for than a high living standard? Could it be that despite
poverty and crime and wars, as the case may be, they still treasure
life? Could it be that THEY still dare to dream of a future?
HEDEBY
We
have earlier mentioned two important trading towns, Birka and
Kaupang, in Viking Scandinavia; a third one was, already early
in the 8th century, a thriving center for commerce and industry.
It was however not until the year 804 that it was mentioned
in writing. The town was known under several names, but the
one used by posterity is 'Hedeby' which means 'the town on the
heather.' How to get there by boat was described in detail both
by the Norwegian merchant Ottar and by an Anglo-Saxon, Wulfstan,
in accounts given to King Elfred of England.
The
town was accessible from the Baltic Sea and was located on what
then was Danish territory, on the east coast of Jutland, right
at the bottom of the peninsula, just a few miles north of the
eastern entrance to the well-known modern seaway, the Kiel Canal;
at that time Hedeby was close to the border between Denmark
and the Kingdom of the Franks.
It
is not known exactly when the town was founded; it seems that
originally there had been three small villages but, probably
for practical reasons, the two outer ones were abandoned in
preference to the one in the middle where conditions perhaps
were better for establishing a serviceable harbour; under the
combined efforts of the towns people Hedeby flourished during
the 8th century and became 'known from Iceland to Baghdad' as
the Arab Ibrahim al-Tartushi reported.
Hedeby
in many ways enjoyed a desirous position. To get to the harbour
from the Baltic Sea, you had to sail up a long, narrow fiord
to the mouth of a small river Slien (Schlei); there was thus
plenty of room for ships to anchor and the harbour itself was
well protected from storms and sudden attacks from the sea.
As
protection against unwelcome visitors from land, the citizens
had built strong earthworks, forty feet high, formed in a semicircle
and covering some sixty acres; two gateways in the walls controlled
the traffic in and out of the town.
In
the late 8th century the famous Danish King Godfred was on rather
unfriendly terms with the King of the Franks, Karl the Great;
as a protection against invasion of land troops the Danes built
strong earthworks across the peninsula at its narrowest point,
from the marches in the West over to the east coast where they
were connected up with the walls around Hedeby; the earthworks,
later given the name Danevirke, were begun by King Godfred but
went on for many years and finished by later kings.
Being
so close to the border to the Franks, Hedeby was in a position
to control much of the commerce between north and south; it
also had the advantage of being in control, to some degree,
of the
[Page 6]
trade between east and west. Hedeby, as we
have said, was located at the neck of Jutland and the distance
from east to west was only about ten miles. A small excellent
harbour, Hollongstedt, was conveniently located on the North
Sea and the road between the two towns was not bad. It was therefore
much easier to unload goods in Hedeby, transport it over land
to the other side and again load it aboard ships that could
bring the cargoes to England or the west coast of Europe, than
it was to chance the several hundred mile journey north around
Jutland, often through treacherous waters.
Hedeby
therefore not only occupied an important commercial position
but also became politically influential.
Excavations
have shown that many warehouses, shops and other buildings were
spread over the whole area within the town walls. Many finds
of pottery, soap-stone, ornaments and coins show that commerce
was carried on with far away places as well as all of Scandinavia,
England and Western Europe. Various metals, glass and other
raw materials have been found in the craftmen's area and it
seems that they might even have minted their own coins.
Hedeby
also had the doubtful honour of being the gateway through which
Christianity entered Scandinavia. In the year 823 some monks
came to Hedeby; they did not have much luck with their missionary
work, but in 826 a monk by name Ansgar came; he made some progress
in disseminating the new religion, being helped by the fact
that some of the foreign merchants already were Christians.
Ansgar therefore was able to hold services for these foreigners
and thus attract the towns people who out of curiosity would
listen to him. Just the same, he was not able to overpower beliefs
in the old gods and left after a few years. However he never
forgave Hedeby for not accepting the new god and a few years
later he came back; he was allowed to build a church although
the town council would not allow him to ring the church bell
because they were afraid that it would offend their own gods.
After the death of Ansgar, in the year 967, Christianity was
not heard of in Hedeby for almost a hundred years.
About
the turn of the millennium the town was a colourful, busy commercial
center with industry playing an important role; by that time
Christianity was tolerated and the two religions, the old and
the new, existed side by side; the political picture, however,
was not very stable. The territory was still Danish but wars
were being waged and the times were far from peaceful.
Because
of its strategic position and its trade, Hedeby was important
both to friends and foes; in 1050 the town was burned down by
the Norwegian king Harold and it was finally destroyed in 1066
by an army of Slavs.
Its
role as a center for commerce in the region was taken over,
first by the town of Schleswig and later by Hansa.
* * *
CAUSE
OR SYMPTOM
A
hardy intelligent race of people move into a new land. They
force out or subjugate the inferior people that they find there.
Soon great cities appear, fantastic advances are made in the
sciences, in the arts, in the philosophies, and a noble new
High Culture is born.
This
new great civilization continues to progress and advances to
higher and higher heights and than, something happens.The progress
continues but is joined by a new growth, a growth of moral and
spiritual decay. At first, the degeneration caused by the spiritual
decay is less than the rate of progress, but soon degeneration
growth equals, and then surpasses progress, growth. The advancement
of the still great civilization grinds to a halt, its aware
citizens fighting to at least hold the present level of achievement.
But all is to no avail, the rate of decay feeds on itself, multiplying,
destroying all the advances of the past until only a rotted-out
shell of the once great civilization remains. A shell that is
unable to defend itself against the surrounding primitives,
who pounce on the remains. Another high civilization becomes
mere history.
How
many times have we seen the above sequence happen in history?
Just look at the list of high civilizations that once were,
and are no more. Is ours, the West-
[Page 7]
ern, to be added to this list? I believe that
it is important to know what causes the disease called 'social
degeneration' and also important that we do not confuse symptoms
of the disease with the cause.
Why
does a great civilization grow sick and die? Because they interbred
with inferior races," says the pure racist; "because
it was a natural aging process, perhaps speeded up by alien
culture distorters," say the Yockey people; "the government
became too big," claim the Birchers; "the economic
system," cry the Marxists and some economists; "urbanization,"
scream the 'back to the soil'
people; "liberalism," state the Fascists, "because
responsible citizens are being smothered by lazy unproductive
bums," claim the conservative. Which, if any, of these
are the cause of the disease of social degeneration,
and which are only symptoms?
Interbreeding
with inferior races? Surely the pure racist must admit that
when a high civilization allows itself to breed on a mass scale
with inferior stock considerable degeneration must already be
present. Interbreeding with inferior races will speed up social
decay, and will be the final death blow, but it is only a symptom,
and not a cause. A natural aging process? Perhaps, but surely
if we know what causes the aging we can prevent or reverse it.
Let us not forget that the other high civilizations did not
know of their built-in aging processes. The government
becomes too big and smothers the individual? A healthy civilization
will have a healthy form of government; for the government to
be allowed to become too dominant implies degeneration already
present in its citizens. Still a symptom, not a cause. The economic
theory is in the same boat as 'big government,' another symptom
but not a cause. Urbanization killing the social spirit which
is linked to the soil? That a culture is linked to the soil
is probably true, and massive urbanization does cause culture
damage; but again, a healthy civilization is aware of this intuitively
and can take steps to rectify or prevent it. Social degeneration
must already be present to allow it to get out of hand. Also,
the soil link is not by any means the whole aspect of civilization.
Here we have another symptom. Liberalism? Once more we have
a symptom, not a cause, for too much liberalism is only the
result of a previous break-down of responsible authority.
Unproductive parasites becoming the majority? This can only
happen in a society that already has become sick. Again only
a symptom. What then is the cause of social degeneration in
a High Culture? I believe the cause of this social illness is
both very basic and very simple.
Aside
from his abstract thinking, man is physically an animal. The
same natural laws that apply to animals apply also to man. Any
animal strain can be improved by selective breeding, or can
be degenerated by poor breeding. Observe any group of animal
life, or for that matter insect life, in their natural environment.
Be it deer, bears, bees, ants, or any selection, as long as
their natural environment does not change, neither do they.
A herd of deer that exists in a natural forest new is just as
hardy and strong as the herd that existed in that same forest
when man was building his first civilization. Why? -- Why would
the deer herd stay as strong as ever while a human society next
to the forest would collapse and degenerate even lower than
it started? The answer is simple. The genetic strain within
the deer population was kept strong; weak and inferior animals
were killed off by natural selection before they could breed
down the quality of the herd. Nature kept the herd strong through
natural selection; the strong survived, the weak did not. This
same law also applied to the men next to the forest, but only
as long as they were in their natural environment. The moment
they set up their civilization they were removed from this main
law of nature. The weak and genetic inferior survived by being
protected by the strong. They not only survived but reproduced
more of themselves, and at a faster rate than the strong responsible
citizens. The basic law of nature no longer held, and the human
'herd' down-bred itself. The penalty for breaking this law is
degeneration. This, I believe, is why all high civilizations
were so vigorous and full of vitality at their beginnings, slowed
down and ceased to progress at mid-age, and then grew weaker
and weaker until they died from conquest or simply fell apart.
Mankind
did not survive and evolve because of its physical strength,
but because of its mental strength. Human genetic inferiority
does not mean physical
[Page 7]
inferiority, but inferiority of the mental
and spiritual processes. It was man's mind, not his fists, that
defeated the fangs and claws of nature. In a natural environment,
man is kept genetically strong by nature, but living protected
in a high civilization, he must devise means of his own to keep
up his spiritual and intellectual strength.
Can
we, of the great Western civilization, defeat this challenge
of inborn social aging that has laid low every High Culture
before us? Even though we are now past the mid-age mark, and
even though we have powerful culture distorters (cancers) trying
to rush our civilization-death, I believe that with a supreme
effort we can not only regain our youthful strength, but can
go on to advance to ever higher heights. For we have one advantage
that all other High Cultures did not have: we know what causes
our 'aging.'
Rod.
Picasso:
Genius or Fraud?
When
Picasso died the press donned deep mourning. But, though eulogies
rode on waves of a long-established business build-up, they
could not stifle a note of bafflement. Swaying back and forth
between the two, one obituary, trying hard to stay with the
former, nevertheless hit the nail on the head in assessing the
worth of the late "genius." It took one sentence to
say it:
"He
was probably the world's highest paid piece-worker, and there
were many years in which he garnered more than $1-million."
Piece-worker!
Manufacturer - that Picasso was. Artist, no! Whatever talent
he may have possessed and used originally, he perverted and
sold.The high pressure salesmanship of his "art" dealers
artificially created a market for his merchandise, worth no
more than its inflated price tag. No, not quite. It served also
to infuse the meaning of art with their own perverted interpretation,
thus to be used as a powerful instrument in debasing the value
of true art in the life of Western Culture.
The
common sense man of the people, guided by his own healthy instinct,
rejected Picasso's works and those similar to his. But his chances
of counteracting money, politics and soul-forsaken intellectual
arguments, were slim. There is, however, one who has repeatedly
spoke, for him and did so again recently: Canadian artist Kenneth
Forbes. His judgment on so-called modern art does not only pack
a wallop but Authority! Twice a winner of the Thos. Proctor
Prize from the National Academy of Design and his reputation
as a distinguished artist, confirmed by famous men and museums,
he knows whereof he speaks. Appropriately, he defines the Henry
Moore statue 'The Archer' at Toronto City Hall simply as "garbage"
and modernistic art as "international swindle." Hated
and maligned by those involved in this swindle he will not be
intimidated, convinced that "the cult of the ugly must
be exposed with its hordes of charlatans, neurotics and incompetents."
He made this clear in a recent interview, when he said in part:
"I
have never known one first class artist who has taken up modernism.
Behind all the highbrow language applied to modern art you simply
find shoddy work . . .. I noticed it was the least talented
students who became the strongest advocates of the new fads.
They were quick to realize it did not require any great workmanship
. . . Cults of the ugly have dethroned beauty in painting and
sculpture today. For cash, not for art, men of little or no
talent have been selected schemers to produce and promote hideous
monstrosities which some of the public have been persuaded to
buy through the influence of the press and so-called experts.
Lurking behind these henchmen are greedy international art dealers."
Now
81, Mr. Forbes has not given up fighting the international swindle
parading as modern art, but neither has he lost faith. "There
are signs, he says, "that traditional art is coming back"
and he points to two artists around whom enthusiasm such as
his can rally for faith and hope: Andrew Wyrth, the American
painter whom all the seductive offers of Madison Avenue could
not lure from the quiet country life where he finds fulfillment,
and Duncan Macpherson, "a magnificent artist who is also
one of the finest cartoonists of all time."
Mr.
Forbes' book Great Art to the Grotesque can be obtained
by writing to him at 153 Burbank Drive, Willowdale,Ontario Canada,
and sending $1.20 which is the price it cost him to have the
book published.
Send
for it! It may serve you well in your fight to preserve
our Western Culture.
Helgar
[Page 9]
CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT
Very
recently the Federal Government of Canada passed a bill which
in effect renewed an earlier one, placing a moratorium on the
use of the death penalty except for the killing of policemen
or prison guards.This bill has been controversial, though not
a matter of partisan politics since Members of Parliament were
allowed to vote according to their consciences.
Though
the issue is settled for the time being (138 to 114), I would
like to explore the question of capital punishment a little
further. This problem like most others, has two extreme points
of view as well as every shade of opinion in between.
The
"For" people, in favour of capital punishment, make
these points:
1)
The death penalty is a stronger deterrent to crime than life
imprisonment, or more generally, the deterrent effect of a penalty
is directly related to its severity.
2)
Each individual must assume responsibility for his actions.
3)
It is just and correct to seek retribution from the criminal
for his crime.
4)
Reformation of the criminal, if practicable, is desirable but
in no way more important than retribution or deterrent.
5)
There is no moral problem in imposing the death penalty on a
criminal who has himself taken another person's life.
By
contrast the "Against" faction take these opposed
points of view:
1)
The death penalty is not necessarily a more effective deterrent
than a prison sentence; there is only a slight relationship
between the severity of punishment and its deterrent effect.
2)
Society as a whole must assume prime responsibility for the
criminal behaviour of its members.
3)
Retribution should not in any way be a deciding factor in the
imposition of criminal penalties.
4)
Reformation of a criminal is at least as important an objective
in dealing with law breakers as is deterrence. The individual
must be given every opportunity to reform.
5)
The death penalty is the taking of human life and therefore
wrong in itself.
I
suppose my own attitude may classify somewhere between these
extremes since I agree with some arguments on both sides. What
is important to me, however, is that I believe my opinions are
consistent with Odinist philosophy, although I do not expect
every Odinist, necessarily, to agree with me.
As
an Odinist and Culturist I must accept the responsibility of
society to educate and train its members in righteous conduct.
The prime deterrent to anti-social behaviour must necessarily
be the upbringing a Culture gives its members; criminal punishment
cannot be expected to substitute for it. If, in a healthy society
which is fulfilling this responsibility, an individual behaves
in an anti-social manner, society must prima facie assume responsibility
for that person's behaviour and further, should give him a reasonable
chance and guidance to reform. The seeking of retribution is
almost always at odds with the aim of reformation and has no
place in punishment of crime. However, it is likely that fear
of punishment will deter the unprincipled person from carrying
out his criminal act, in which case so much the better. -- Furthermore,
if a criminal cannot be reformed for what ever reason then society
surely has the right to protect itself from the possible future
acts of such a person.
I
have just spoken of the nature of society's responsibility for
the individual and society's failure in case of his misbehaviour.
Notice, however, I predicated this upon there being a healthy
society. Our society is hardly a healthy one. The reasons for
its ill health are complex but we, as Odinists, are acutely
aware of the decay of moral standards and values, both in the
home environment and in public education. Radical liberalism,
the linear but debauched descendent of nineteenth century laissez
faire liberalism, has only succeeded in replacing old dogmas
with new ones. Individual conscience has been replaced by "group"
mentality. The high principle of freedom accompanied by responsibility
has given way to licence. The dubious doctrine of absolute biological
equality of races has caused Western society to become the dumping
ground for opportunistic riff raff of less vital cultures who
have forsaken their own people. This growing cosmopolitanism
and its concomitant mentality together with the inflexibility
of certain Western institutions have left our people without
a sense of identity or purpose. We have become listless, alienated
and despondent. We have failed
[Page 10]
our own people, and it should be no surprise
that crime is on the rise.
We
Odinists are concerned with the the fundamental reform of Western
society, and yet that is a long-term objective and we may have
to make do in the present circumstances for a while. As a matter
of pragmatic necessity we have to do what we can to resist the
growth of crime, lest the phenomenon of crime itself undermine
the proper functions of society. In large measure we will have
to rely on the deterrent effect of punishment. There has been
a great deal of debate as to whether severe punishment can actually
deter crime. Of course it seems only common sense that the more
severe the punishment the less likely the prospective criminal
will risk it; yet common empirical evidence does not conclusively
support this. Perhaps the most important factor from the criminal's
point of view is the probability of being caught. This of course
argues for better trained and equipped police forces. Nevertheless,
we may be quite sure of one thing: the criminal, once apprehended
and subjected to the death penalty, will not commit any more
crimes. We have had a very poor record of rehabilitating our
law breakers, and there is a large portion of repeat-criminals.
Clearly, we must free ourselves of this menace somehow. Life
imprisonment is an alternative but economically a burdensome
one in view of the rapidly increasing prison population. Also,
there is the matter of frequent escapes. I am sure you can see
where this line of reasoning leads.
I
advocate the wider use of the death penalty within the concept
of a new principle of law, the penalty should suit the individual
rather than his specific offence. Each criminal would be subject
to a careful examination of his motivation, temperament and
social attitude; the method of dealing with him would be prescribed
on the basis of these findings. -- Nor would there be anything
wrong in principle with examining persons who had not yet actually
committed any crimes, but had shown criminal tendencies; (this
would of course restrict the freedom of persons with propensities
to crime); and at the same time letting off lightly the criminal
who had acted under extraordinary criminal who had acted under
extraordinary circumstances not likely to be repeated. Under
this new principle the reason for withholding the death penalty
for fear the convicted might be innocent would be less relevant.
Finally, I must dismiss of errant nonsense the sentiment that
human life, even of a sadistic murderer cannot be taken in the
interest of society.
Bill.
* * *
About
three years ago U.S. Senator Margaret Chase Smith said in the
U.S. Senate:
"It
is time that the great center of our people, those who reject
the violence and unreasonableness of both the extreme right
and the extreme left, searched their consciences, mustered their
moral and physical courage, shed their intimidated silence and
declared their consciences.
"It
is time that with dignity, firmness and friendliness, they reason
with, rather than capitulate to, the extremists on both sides
-- at all levels -- and caution that their patience ends at
the border of violence and anarchy that threatens our American
democracy."
What
Senator Smith said then is even more appropriate today and we
would have liked dearly if she also had appealed to her peers,
as well as the U.S. Congressmen and parliament members from
all other countries in the West to "with dignity and firmness
muster their moral and physical courage, shed their intimidated
silence and declare their consciences," for we refuse to
believe that all members of all governments in the West are
unable to see the writing on the wall; --we also refuse to believe
that ALL of them are part and parcel of the obvious and brazen
efforts to deliver their unsuspecting constituents to collectivism
and universalism, thus deliberately wipe out the very foundation
on which our society rests, destroying the very essence of freedom
and individuality which is the fibre of Western Culture.
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.
|
8
at
the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781