|
 Weltanschauung
is a German word that has been adopted into the English language
for lack of a translation; it literally means 'world view,'
but Webster explains it as "one's philosophy or conception
of the world and life." Weltanschauung, therefore, is an
attitude; and an attitude is dependent upon upbringing, heredity
and other circumstances; it can be courageous or cowardly, proud
or submissive, free or servile.
The
one proudly follows conscience, pursues of own free will and
initiative what is conceived as destiny, and considers the good
of the folk more important than personal gain or comfort. The
other cringes before real or imagined dangers and waits docilely
for orders from somebody in command.
In
educating the young, our ancient ancestors urged an attitude
of courage, pride and freedom; but since the advent of Christianity,
humility and fear of god have been extolled as the more pleasing
virtues and the previously held concepts slowly disappeared,
until today it is so that a person is looked upon as insane
if he stands up for his rights as a freeman.
A
world outlook embraces religion, science and art; out of these
original, spiritual activities spring all other intellectual
action. The spiritual harmony of a folk can only exist when
the intellectual expression of all three branches of transcendental
activity is the same.
During
the Christian centuries religion became an enforced compliance
with the dogmas of Rome; science was violated in order to conform
with biblical doctrines; art was almost exclusively in glorification
of biblical scenes. Religion was transformed into "confession,"
meaning the enforced belief in a set of dogma of a certain church.
Here it makes no difference whether it was the Catholic or one
of the Protestant churches; although some denominations are
less dogmatic than others, they all adhere to the idea that
humility and fear of God are the two most important prerequisites
for a religious life.
We
cannot accept this.
Religion
to us means the tie between man and the divine powers, expressed
in nature and the universe and includes man's moral obligation
to the furtherance of his folk, so closely tied in with the
spiritual values we consider essential.
Religion
and confession thus have become two different concepts. Each
culture, each religion is as strong as the will of its adherents
to defend it.
[Page 2]
Christendom has not recently demonstrated any
such life-giving powers; it has become ossified and it is time
for a change of wind to clean out the musty smell of fear and
submission.
It
is for most people a physical impossibility to fear someone
as undefined as the Christian god figure who is all over and
nowhere in particular. When a person finds that he cannot do
as his church tells him to, he feels miserable and develops
a guilt complex. He thinks that he himself is to blame for everything
bad that happens to him for he has also been taught that the
Christian god is a punishing god who will strike him and his
family with all kinds of terrible things if he does not follow
the teachings of the church here and now. And when he finally
dies he will burn in purgatory for ever if he does not repent;
and all the time the poor fellow does not know what he is supposed
to repent, for it is against his whole being to admit to some
imagined crime he does not really believe he has committed,
and he is frantically searching his mind for something to confess,
so that he can repent as proscribed.
This
unfortunate Christian ends up with a neurosis because his instincts
are not in harmony with his enforced belief in the religious
dogmas he has been taught.
The
church also tells him to love his neighbor; that is fine; he
does that (more or less) with regard to the people at work and
on the street; but when "neighbor" is stretched to
include the whole world population, it becomes such a vague
and impersonal concept that it is void of any meaning. It is
almost impossible for an ordinary person to have any real love
or concern for what happens thousands of miles away to people
he never has, nor ever will have any direct contact with. Again,
he feels guilty of not being able to honestly do what his religion
demands of him, his neurosis grows. and he is in conflict with
his instincts which are to care, first and foremost, for his
immediate family, his friends and the group of people to whom
he by birth belongs.
This
guilt complex cripples his soul and turns him into an unhappy
individual who is helplessly adrift, not knowing what is wrong
but left with the gut feeling that things are not what they
ought to be. He does not realize the demands on him are completely:
contrary to his own natural inclinations, and detrimental to
the best interest of his own personal well-being and that of
his family and folk.
Our
creed is not dogmatic. Everybody is "immortal in his own
way." Every person is carrying the heritage of his ancestors
in his genes, and should, without breaking the chain, leave
this valuable inheritance intact to the next generation.
Nature
gave everybody these abilities in trust and thereby each of
us becomes the architect of his own fortune and that of his
people. But at the same time he also is the only cause of future
misfortune, if he is not following his instincts and using his
talents in the interest of his folk.
The
belief in the spiritual concept of honour and freedom, courage
and self-respect have not been in high esteem since Christianity
entered the world stage. This is now slowly changing; conversion
by fear has been overcome and all over, the Christian church
is abdicating to Marxism, "new morality" and pressure
from within. It is this confusion within the church itself that
affords an opportunity, instead of sinking down to the level
of equality, drugs and guitar playing priests, again to accentuate
the values our ancestors honoured so highly, and which governed
their actions in the days before Christianity endowed man with
salvation and guilt.
If
you, instead of obeying dead dogma promoted by a church that
goes against life-giving ideals, work for the preservation of
your cultural and biological heritage, your soul will be in
harmony with your instincts. When you follow what you consider
the best for yourself, your family and your folk, you are fulfilling
the religious task that is part of your destiny.
Religion
is not the negation of life, but the moral obligation to live,
to the best of your ability, in the service of the folk.
A . R.
* * *
Combined subscription for 4 issues of
THE ODINIST & 8 issues of THE SUNWHEEL
----- #2.00 -----
Back issues available
Free sample copies on request
Managing Editor: E. Christensen
P.O. Box 731
Adelaide St. Stn.,
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5C 2J8 |
[Page 3]
VIKING BOATS
If
we had only the film "The Vikings" to learn from,
we would no doubt have believed that our Viking forefathers
were no more than bearded sword-swinging warriors, who found
delight in raiding unsuspecting settlements, robbing churches,
massacring monks, raping women and otherwise spend their time
drinking beer and fighting between themselves, --- a regular
bunch of roughnecks, primitive daredevils whose only code was
violence.
Of
course, the victims of the Viking attacks were scared out of
their wits, when suddenly these "strangers from the sea"
spilled over into their lands, plundering, killing and destroying.
And yet the Vikings did not come from a barbaric society. The
Scandinavian society was at least as advanced as that of many
southern countries. Norway, for example, had a code of law of
quite a comprehensive nature; about the year 900 C.E. the country
was united under a single king, the poetry of the skalds and
the high standard of craftsmanship indicated a degree of culture
by no means barbaric.
Above
all, the construction of their boats showed that the Vikings
possessed exceptional technical skill.
There
are several theories about the original vessels from which the
Viking ships evolved. Some think they were influenced by the
Eskimos' skin-covered umiaks
which seems a very reasonable guess. Others believe that
they originally were dug-outs and that little by little planks
were added along the sides so that eventually the original dug-out
was no more than the bottom plank of a clinker built boat.
We
are not in a position to take any stand one way or the other.
However, several finds, particularly in Norway, have shed some
light-on the construction of the Viking boats.
One
of the earliest boats found is from about 300 B.C.E.; it is
fifty feet long; the sides are formed by five rather thin clinker
boards, which seem to have been stitched together with hide
thongs. The boards are hewn, with cleats on the inside to which
are fastened ribs of hazel wood. The rowing benches probably
also served as thwarts; paddles were used, not oars.
This
seems to be the most primitive of the Viking boats found so
far. The second oldest was discovered in the southern part of
Jutland; in this boat the side planks ran the entire length
of the vessel and, instead of being sown together, iron rivets
were used. The clinker planks themselves as well as the ribs
were of oak. This boat was propelled by oars.
No
sign of a mast was found on either one of these two ships, but
another, later vessel had the beginning of a keel and also seems
to have been able to carry sail.
Other
ships found show further advances in shipbuilding; one, for
example, shows the use of wooden pegs, or `wood-nails' as `rowlocks'
while others, by their form and size show evidence of being
intended for coastal waters only as carriage of cargo.
Those
boats found dating from the 9th century and up are, of course,
of a much sturdier construction and far more details were added.
A proper keel was built; a large block of oak served as the
foundation for a mast; planks were added on the sides so that
these now were too high for rowlocks along the rails; instead,
little holes were cut in the side of the boat at the proper
height, through which the oars were stuck and when not in use,
small discs covered the holes, preventing the water from gushing
through.
The
biggest and best preserved of the Viking boats are the grave
ships of which the most famous are those from Oseberg, Gokstad
and Tune. They are all large ships measuring as much as seventy-six
feet in length and seventeen feet across, with a depth of six
and a half feet. Carvings richly decorate the tiller, the sides
of the stem, the bow and along the rails and show remarkable
examples of the finest craftsmanship of the Viking Age.
A
few years before the turn of the century, some time after the
Gokstad ship was discovered, an exact replica was built. It
was, of course, named "Viking" and when it was finished,
a Norwegian sea captain and crew sailed her across the Atlantic.
In
his account of the voyage the captain remarked that under good
conditions she came up to a speed of eleven knots. He also noted
that when sailing close to the wind she was as good as most
(at that time) modern two-masters. The boat's elasticity and
seaworthiness became apparent in several ways and surprised
the experienced seamen. During the trip the Viking ran into
a gale but handled herself beautifully and even in that kind
of weather was able to go as close as six degrees to the wind.
After
the crossing she was taken to an exhibition in Chicago; but
what later became of her is not known.
Bjarne
[Page 4]
ZEN
(Some
of our correspondents have mentioned or asked about Zen. Personally
I know very little about it, but one of our group is here giving
a general outline. -- Probably some of you are shaking your
heads and thinking: Are they out of their cotton-pick in', minds?
-- Is it not Eastern mysticism? And negation of life? -- The
answer is no; Zen is not mysticism the way, for example, Christians
are told to ask no questions but believe in the mysteries of
the Church; Zen is not negation of life, but on the contrary
very much involved with day-to-day living; and we are not out
of our minds; Zen originated from Aryan thought (from way back)
and we find it in order to learn as much as possible about our
very early forefathers; we can never know enough and we hope
at a later date to bring follow-up articles. Ed.)
* * *
Who
am I? What is reality? Is there an order of things? What is
my part in it?
These
are questions which have crossed the minds of most of us. If
someone is a Jew, his Talmudic scriptures tell him who and what
he is, as well I as where we stand in relation to him.
If
someone is a Christian, he too has a little book, supplied courtesy
of the Judeo Christian church, of inane catechismic replies
to the above queries, permitting him to set his limited mind
at ease, and continue in the service of his master, whoever
that may be.
But
somewhere in our vast population of complacent, decadent sycophants,
is a minute number of individuals who, being aware of their
individuality, have discovered that the stock, plastic apologetics
provided as response to those essential questions, simply will
not suffice in leading one to a satisfactory position in relation
to the basic existential issues.
It
is to these people I address the substance of my remarks, in
the hope that they will realize that they are not alone in their
rejection of contemporary "religions" and "philosophies"
prepared for mass spoon-feeding to a gullible Western public.
Nor should these individuals feel that they are suffering from
problems of personal or social mal-adjustment, for contemporary
"thought" if one can call it that, would be just as
alien to their Indo-European ancestors as it is to them now.
Throughout
history, our Indo-European peoples have distinguished themselves
as leaders in the development of that greatest of human capacities
-- thought. It was through the employment of their higher faculties
that they were able to blossom out into specific mental disciplines,
such as philosophy, science, art, and so on.
The
technical manifestations of their scientific talents and efforts
are undoubtedly the most familiar aspect of Western Man in the
eyes of other, more unproductive peoples of today.
It
would be unfortunate, however to restrict one's appreciation
of Indo-European civilization to the strictly material side
of life.
Even
more important was the perception of themselves and the universe,
which the Indo-Europeans were able to achieve. But the supreme
irony of all of this lies in the fact that although our ancestors
developed a cosmic yet unitary approach to the problems of existence
and identity, the fruits of their mental labours were taken
up by technologically inferior people, while their own descendents,
those people all around us, were physically intimidated by their
leaders into accepting a totally alien philosophy of life disguised
as a religion based upon supposedly socially desirable precepts.
And
what happened to those philosophical concepts originated by
our own people? They have been distorted by non-Indo-Europeans
that in most cases, they are manifestly abhorrent to and unrecognizable
by ourselves.
Some
of us, however, have been able to penetrate the philosophical
deceit and religious conditioning perpetrated upon our people,
solely for the furtherance of crass alien interests. We call
ourselves Odinists.
In
issues past, you have encountered such various concepts as cultural
identity, a sense of awe or wonder, the essence of genius, individuality,
and intuitive or instinctive processes as opposed to merely
intellectual ones.
What
is new, however, is not the formulation of ideas along these
thematic lines, but rather a reawakening of individuals in contemporary
Western society to an awareness of these issues, and of our
ancestors concern with them.
The
purpose of this essay is to attempt to expand the perception
of contemporary
[Page 5]
Indo-Europeans, both historically and to a
greater extent, philosophically, if that is the correct term,
in the realm of what might be referred to as traditional Indo-European
thought.
From
time immemorial, our people have pondered life. They lived close
to nature, developed with it a relationship predicated upon
harmony and respect.
The
great Nordic Myths are an example of one of the kinds of formalization
of the attitudes of our ancestors to Nature and Man's place
in it.
The
Myths also constitute a traditional embodiment of the ethical
values and cultural characteristics which marked the society
of our forefathers.
We
are informed by present day empirical data, from a number of
sources, that in those early days in our racial and cultural
history some of our people headed east to dominate India, as
well as those others who gravitated westward, civilizing Europe.
While
our people survived ethnically in Europe's Northern lands, their
basic trends of thought, as evidenced in the Myths, did not.
Aryan thinking was systematically purged from Mediterranean
south to caucasian north by the incursions of Judeo-Christianity.
Ironically
enough, our people were sold out by their very leaders, who
felt that Judeo-Christianity would prove to be a valuable tool
in the subjugation of the indomitable Aryan spirit.
On
the other side of the geographical coin, however, our relatives
who established their Aryan empire upon the power life of the
Indian subcontinent carried Indo-European thought to new heights.
One
of the most significant moments in the development and formalization
of Indo-European existential perception occurred in a brief
exiting moment, twenty five hundred years ago, during the life
of the Buddha, S'Akyamuni Guatama.
Doctor
Daisetz Suzuki, the greatest contemporary authority on Zen Buddhism,
describes the event this way: "The Buddha's" enlightenment
took place when he looked up early one morning at the morning
star. He had been engaged in meditation for many years; his
intellectual research had given him no spiritual satisfaction;
he was intensely occupied with discovering, if possible, something
which went deeper into the ground of his personality. Looking
at the star made him conscious of that something in himself
which he had been in search of. He then became the Buddha."
The
Buddha taught the concept, or rather anti-concept, of the achievement
of enlightenment through arduous process leading to the realization
of the true self, while at the same time being aware of the
indivisibility of the real self and the universe.
Expressed
more bluntly, the duality of subjective consciousness is recognized
as a false perception of existence, since what is simple is.
These
concepts will be discussed in greater details at a later time.
The mental preoccupation required to deal with the Indo-European
approach as developed in Buddhism, and culminated in the all-consuming
awareness of Zen, is phenomenal, even for persons raised in
a culture where exposure to these ideas occurs practically from
birth.
The
finer points of the topic do not lend themselves to the brevity
of treatment required by the circumstances under which this
article is written.
Historically,
the thought of Buddhism was taken to China six hundred years
later from whence it finally reached Japan in the sixth century
of Judeo-Christian reckoning.
As
Aryan civilization in India met its demise through gross miscegenation
in the centuries which followed, Buddhism was gradually distorted
to such an extent by the indigenous, racially mixed population
of the subcontinent that today's Indian life-style of vegetating
in unproductive abandon while tripped out on various narcotics,
and waiting impatiently for Western handouts, bears no resemblance
to that sophisticated philosophical school of which it insists
that it is an integral part.
In
fact, today's Indian is no more a Buddhist than he is an Indo-European.
He
is, rather, I like the jackals, which set upon the lifeless
corpse of a once magnificent being, rendering final the utter
devastation of those last traces of the greatness which really
was before.
But,
as Buddhism was dying in India with the people who developed
it, it found renewed vigour with the Japanese, who have shown
themselves to be our ethnic and cultural counterparts in the
world of the Orient. The Japanese developed an amorphous concept
called Zen, which they fused to the idea of Buddhism.
Japanese
Zen is the highest form of development of Indo-European Buddhism.
We are fortunate, indeed, that there existed an advanced race
capable of preserving and refining a concept which would otherwise
surely have been lost when our Eastern relatives in India ceased
to exist cultural-
[Page 6]
ly and biologically.
Western
man, having been estranged from the thought of his own people
largely through perverted Judeo-Christian teachings, balks when
presented with the light of Zen.
The
words of William Bunce, the director of a detailed report used
in the demoralization of the Japanese race and nation, as prepared
for the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander of The
Allied Powers, Tokyo, 1948, typify the response of most Westerners
to Zen: "The Western mind, reared in the atmosphere of
Christian or Jewish theology, will be puzzled if it approaches
Buddhism with the expectation of finding in it something familiar.
Pure Buddhism has practically no theology; it is basically a
philosophy and must be so studied. Even as a philosophy, there
is no uniformity or common pattern." -- Bunce admits the
effect of the Jewish connection upon caucasian thinking.
Then,
he proceeds to heap abuse on true Indo-European thought by referring
to it as lacking uniformity and consistency. But what else can
one expect of an apologist for the imperialist occupation. forces
sent to subdue enemy forces.
Zen
poses a clear threat to the predominance of Judeo-Christian
thought patterns. Zen offers a path to self-realization and
self--actualization, neither of which is compatible with cultural
subjugation or manipulation through the imposition of superstitious
religious beliefs.
After
having read this much about Zen, you are probably wondering
just what Zen is and why it causes such consternation among
certain ruling circles.
Zen
is impossible to define precisely, and almost as difficult to
describe.
In
paraphrasing an ancient Taoist maxim, it may be said, "The
Zen that can be described is not the eternal Zen."
Zen
is a way rather than an end. It is the direct immediate path
to awareness.
Zen
rejects mediation and abstraction, which are central to the
process of intellectualism. This is not to say that the intellectual
process is undesirable. Rather, intellectual thought must be
recognized as being merely a method by which a certain logical
result is to be obtained.
Intellectualism
must always be kept within its bounds. -- Consider, for example,
the nonsense to which the cogitation of Des Cartes may be reduced,
if his existential premise is given the full logical treatment.
His classical assertion, "Cogito, ergo sum," contains,
in intellectual logic, a non sequitur.
What
kind of empirically verifiable connection exists between the
"I think" and the "I am"? How could Des
Cartes demonstrate that his thinking was no mere illusion? Moreover,
how could he prove that his very existing also was not illusory?
Cannot
there be existence without consciousness? What about stones?
What about trees? What about mentally defectives?
Or
do they also engage in cognitive, mental processes unknown to
ourselves? -- The debate becomes circular, and continues ad
nauseam. No amount of intellectual circumlocution can resolve
it.
Zen,
however, dispels the problem intuitively. The fact that Des
Cartes was aware of his existence should have settled the matter
for him.
Zen,
as one writer notes, is on the intuitive plane. It is, therefore,
beyond discussion and the sway of opposites and comparisons
by which all description and argumentation are conducted.
Thus,
Zen must be understood on its own plane, or not at all, for
the intellect can never understand or assimilate spiritual facts.
A rose may be torn to pieces, and each particle analyzed in
a laboratory, but no scientist will ever find therein the beauty
of the rose.
The
intellect may argue and debate; it "'I may learn and teach
a vast amount of almost anything; but, it can never know.
Zen,
is a matter of experience, that is immediate knowing.
In
the West, the faculty of direct experience -- naked, direct
experience - stripped of the mediating factors of thought, emotion,
ritual, or the convenient invention which men call god, is comparatively
rare.
Another
writer relates the foregoing to the matter of art. The intellect,
he says, can understand intellectual things. Life can understand
living things. Intellect, he adds, usurp the function of poetry
when it replaces the imagination and the compassion of the poet.
For
the poet, being in close and constant touch with life itself,
has still the gift of wonder. The intellect, for all its limitations,
is essential for the daily, practical tasks of living, but must
be fully developed in order to be transcended, and in this way,
its limitations must be recognized.
That
giant of European Philosophy, Oswald Spengler, himself once
lucidly noted the inappropriateness of attempting to reduce
life to the intellectual plane when he wrote: "The means
whereby to identify dead forms is mathematical law."
[Page 7]
Are
not many of these thoughts familiar to us Odinists? Our notions
of culture, instinct, art, and civilization are also premised
upon an intuitive basis. We, too, reject the social crutch of
organized religion, replete with gaudy ritual, rigid dogma,
and irrational superstition.
All
of this we share with Zen. Odinism is largely a state of mind
in being. So is Zen. Odinists are close to Nature, Life and
the Universe. The same is true of Zen. Odinists know honour,
loyalty to folk and culture, and the greatness of the hero.
-- And the Samurai, steeped in the wisdom of Zen, were not these
of importance to him?
A
scholar once noted: "The difficulty the West experiences
in understanding Japanese civilization is due primarily to the
strange spectacle of a spiritual, aesthetic and utilitarian
evolution progressing as a single nationalistic movement.
"The
West still inclines to these three as independent factors of
life, to be kept apart rather than united. Yet in the East,
these things are seen as aspects of one whole, and this united
vision is, in itself, to some extent the effect of Zen."
I
submit, however, that an Odinist would have no difficulty in
understanding such a unity of purpose, for Odinism is itself
a philosophical balance of spiritual and physical reality.
Life
moves on. It is fluid, dynamic, and ever changing.
Since
Zen is sharply focused on Life, it too, is fleeting, defying
trite, simplistic categorization. How similar indeed, is this
to the sentiment of Emerson. "When you speak so loudly,
I cannot hear what you say," he said, refusing, to let
himself be distracted by words `about' the subject, when he
had the direct experience.
The
point is epitomized splendidly in the wise words of the ancient
sage Lao Tse: "He who knows does not speak. He who speaks
does not know."
A
Master was once asked, "What is the Way, (that is, what
is Zen)?" "What a fine mountain this is," he
said, referring to the mountain where he had his retreat. "I
am not asking you about the mountain, but about the Way,"
persisted the questioner. As long as you cannot go beyond the
mountain," replied the Master,"you cannot find the
Way."
So,
we may ask ourselves again: "Who am I?" and What is
reality?"
For
those prepared to open their minds, and willing to explore the
less familiar areas of Indo-European thought , "Zen Odinism"
may show the Way.
W. N.
Thinking
Toynbee
said somewhere that "thinking for oneself is always arduous
and sometimes painful," and he is absolutely correct; it
is hard work to think for oneself, and it is outright difficult
not to be influenced by the general trend of fashion, whether
in the clothes you wear, the food you eat, or the way you think.
The so-called public opinion stares you in the face all day
long; but what "everybody does or thinks" is usually
not based on sound deliberation and judgment.
The
mass of people of the West does, in reality do little or no
thinking for themselves; they would probably protest furiously,
for most of them believe they do, -- but it just ain't so.
Of
course, if we should only accept as truth what we know of our
own knowledge we would not get very far -- we have to gather
our information from somewhere. And first of all most of us
are greatly influenced by what we have learned in school and
at home, in church and at work; the people closest to us --
family, friends, teachers, colleagues -- are the most natural
source of information to draw freedom. And yet, just because
people we love and respect believe in certain values, is not
always reason enough for us to believe the same; we still have
to think matters over and judge for ourselves.
But
we also form many of our opinions from books we read, TV programs
we watch, from magazines and newspapers and from people we meet
and talk with. And here comes some of the difficulties; for
far too often the information dished up to us in the news media
is not correct; the people we talk to are not properly informed;
the opinions expressed are not based on natural instincts, but
on emotionalism and bias, not on facts, but on propaganda or
misrepresentation, not on truth but on imagery or unrealistic
notions.
If
a statement does not seem reasonable to you, if it does not
agree with your instincts and common sense, don't believe it
until you have answered two very important questions: 1) Who
says so? 2) and Why?
When
you have answered these questions, you will be one step further
in deciding whether to believe the statement or not.
If
the person who made it, is a dependable individual whom you
have no reason to believe deliberately would tell anything incorrect,
you may accept his statement although there still is the possibility
that he may be mistaken; you should, therefore,
[Page 8]
[Editor's Note: a line of text is missing in
the original] ... or behave in a certain way? Far too often
answers to these questions are ignored and our folk has fallen
for any smooth operator who hands them a line.
Just
think for a moment on the damage Dr. Spock has caused with his
theories on child rearing, particularly in view of the fact
that he recently publicly admitted that he "to some degree"
had been mistaken. Fine and dandy, he can now brazenly admit
what he might have known all along, for all the damage he could
possibly do, has before done. Or take a look at the education
system. After John Dewey had bungled up the educational system
in the USSR, he came back to the US and was hailed as the foremost
authority on the "new" philosophy of teaching -- the
only one in step with the times, and he immediately proceeded
to make a shambles of the educational system in his home country.
And
here it is that the second question comes in. Why does this
person say as he does? Will he profit from having you believe
this or that? Will any of his relatives or friends profit by
it? Does he belong to any organization or group that would like
you to believe certain things try to find out if he really has
his facts straight.
If
it, however, is an outsider who is making the statements you
think are wrong, a person you do not know, one who has no relationship
to your community, you certainly should be careful not too quickly
to put too much trust in his opinions. He may be correct, but
then, he may also quite possibly be putting you on, for since
he is not a member of your community he cannot have any feelings
of responsibility toward you and your group of people; on the
contrary, he might have purposes and goals of his own to promote.
Both
these men belonged to the community of the West; but they had
adopted the Marxist socialist theories and in all they said
and did they faithfully followed the Gospel of St. Marx. All
their fellow believers were quick to proclaim loudly how wonderful
they were and how tremendous a job they were doing. And because
question no. 2 went unanswered, people believed their nonsense.
If
we had said to ourselves: This goes against what we think is
right, so why do these men break with tradition and established
values? The answer would have been obvious. They say so because
they want to promote the Marxist socialist revolution. If this
had been clearly understood by people in general, some would,
of course, have accepted it as the new trend. But I think that
most of us, had we realized the sinister purpose of this "new"
approach, would have been clearheaded enough effectively to
have opposed it and examined the likely results of it a little
closer.
However,
it is water under the bridge now, and holding a post mortem
is of no use unless we learn from our experiences; so next time
somebody comes up to us with some "new and wonderful idea"
we are going to ask ourselves: Who is this person? Why does
he suggest these new ideas?
Not
to change at all means stagnation; of course we must move with
the times, take advantage of new inventions, expand our possibilities,
technologically and intellectually, improve our powers of body,
mind and spirit; but a change will only be to the benefit of
the folk if it is in keeping with our moral obligations and
in harmony with our Indo-European instincts.
C.
* * *
1933
When,
in a political context, the year 1933 is mentioned, many of
you will probably think that this was the year Adolf Hitler
took power in Germany. But 1933 has another political significance,
and a sinister one at that; for 1933 is also the year the US
recognized the Soviet regime of the USSR.
This
fact was recently brought up in a book by Antony Sutton: Wall
Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.
In
this connection Canadians should remember that it was "their"
government that released Trotsky from internment in Halifax
and thus freed him to travel to Russia with the financial support,
necessary to carry on the communist revolution and thus create
a regime of terror that now has lasted more than fifty years
and cost the lives of unknown millions of people.
In
his book, Sutton also mentions the seemingly contradictory alliance
between capitalism and communism and shoots holes in the accepted
conventional wisdom that there is a conflict of interest between
big business and revolution.
In
today's politically pinkish climate this hardly raises any eyebrows
for we are conditioned to see "wealth and communism"
hand in hand -- and think nothing of it -- [Editor's note: A
line of text is missing in the original] ...vide the present
detente which, of course, is supported by you know who.
[Page 9]
YOCKEY
In
"Decline of the West" Spengler says that "the
transition from Culture to Civilization" in the West took
place already in the 19th century. He also maintains that "civilization
is the inevitable destiny of the culture" and that "pure
civilization as a historical process consists in a progressive
taking-down of forms that have become inorganic and dead."
This
is a rather pessimistic outlook, because in reality it means
that whatever we do, things will happen the way they are ordained
and we can do nothing to change the course of events.
Yockey,
who to a great extent builds his "Imperium" on Spengler's
philosophy, is not quite as unpromising but says, as Spengler,
that this stage of civilization has been experienced by all
known High Cultures. He goes on and explains further that from
the standpoint of the culture-organism this stage is a crisis.
This is the period when Reason triumphs, when the ideal of the
beautiful yields to the ideal of the ugly, when philosophy turns
into pure social-ethics and economics ends up in money-power.
Applied
to politics Reason produces democracy, the population numbers
increase tremendously and instead of publicly known responsible
leaders, parliaments serve the interests of anonymous groups
who are the de facto rulers. (All of which rather precisely
paints a picture of the West today).
By
about 1900, nine tenth of the surface of the earth was controlled
from Western capitals. This brought on the added circumstance
that the tremendous will power of the West gradually awakened
the slumbering masses of the outer world to political activity.
Before the inner class wars had been overcome, the outer war
of races had begun. In the 20th century, therefore, we have
in the West had annihilation wars and world wars as a continuous
internal strain and at the same time the rising of the outside
world against the civilization.
In
a matter of 50 years world power for all great questions has
changed from being determined on European soil to being expended
from the two capitals, Washington and Moscow.
Although
America, because of the European ancestry of its population
of course belongs to Europe and the West, this result was obviously
obtained through an inner division of Western culture. The division
was not material; material things can not divide men if their
minds agree. It was a spiritual division that brought the West
to its knees.
Half
of Europe had already embraced the 20th century outlook with
a completely different attitude towards Life, a different valuation
of Life, while the other half still was steeped in the view
of the 19th century.
When
the spiritual division of Europe comes to an end, the extra-European
powers will not be able to hold down the strong-willed population
of the West.
The
first step of action is thus the liquidation of the spiritual
division of Europe; there is only ONE FUTURE, the organic Future.
The
only changes that can be brought about in a Culture are those
which its life stage necessitates. The 20th century outlook
is synonymous with the Future of the West. The perpetuation
of the 19th century outlook means the continuation of the domination
of the West by Culture distorters and barbarians.
The
idea in keeping with the new Spirit of the Age is not a catchword,
but a living breathing, wordless feeling which already exists
in all Westerners, articulated in few, dawning in the minds
of most. This idea in its wordless grandeur, with its irresistible
imperative is only experienced by the few people who matter,
the Westerners who can feel the Imperative of the Future working
within them.
It
is necessary that their world outlook be the same in all its
fundamentals, and we know in this historical age that the prevailing
spirituality of an age is a function of its soul. Thus our inner
imperative and outlook on Life is determined for us by the Age.
A part of the outlook of any age is simply the negation of that
of the previous age; each age has to assert its new spirit against
its predecessors. These thoughts and values are compelling for
us; they are not personal, but super-personal and compulsory
for men who intend to do something with their lives. They are
not liable to argument but are commands of the Spirit of the
Age.
E.
* * *
|
Everything decisive comes to life in spite of every obstacle.
Nietzsche |
[Page 10]
ARTIFACTS
In
the latest issue of The Journal of Indo-European Studies,
Professor Thomas E. Lee of Lavalle University in Quebec, gives
a long and interesting account of some discoveries made in the
Arctic portion of the Ungava Peninsula in Northern Quebec. Prof.
Lee begins this article with recounting the many bitter battles
fought over the evidence that Norsemen discovered the American
continent centuries before Columbus ever set foot on American
soil. According to Prof. Lee there has only been one exception
to this rule; the finds at L'Anse-aux Meadows in Newfoundland
seem to have met with no trouble and to have been accepted by
the "authorities" at face value, something Prof. Lee
seems to think is rather astonishing in view of the gathered
evidence. One wonders if the purpose of this acceptance might
be, after some time, to "discover" that it was really
not true evidence of a Viking settlement, so the Vikings were
not here after all -- ("didn't we tell you Columbus was
the first!!!") -- this seems to have been the case with
some other discovered artifacts.
Prof.
Lee then proceeds to give a captivating description of the area
in which he has excavated, and the long houses and other evidence
of Viking occupancy he has found, particularly along the coast
of Payne Bay, where he has been working on and off since 1964,
when he originally went to investigate some traces of the Dorset
culture. (The Dorset culture is known to have existed as far
back as 2000 B.C.E.) Prof. Lee found some strange stones that
he soon realized were neither Dorset, nor Eskimo. After several
years of more extensive exploration and excavation, he became
convinced that these finds were Norse in origin.
Through
talks with local people, Whites as well as Eskimo, Prof. Lee
found that there was no Eskimo connection with these ruins;
on the contrary, he was told that they were build by "white
men before the Eskimo"..
The
article then goes into further details of the actual long houses
and other evidence found, and Prof. Lee ends up with pointing
out that there is clear proof of Norse habitation in Ungava
in pre-Columbian times, even if certain professional circles
do not want to accept this fact.
It
has been said that a people who has no past, has no future either.
It seems clear, that some people go through a lot of trouble
to prove that our forefathers did not have any claim on this
continent and that we, therefore, are a rootless people without
a past.
Prof.
Lee's complaints do not surprise me in the least. I know of
my own knowledge of a Viking boat that was found by a fisherman,
Orrie Vail in Tobermory in Ontario. In the summer of 1955 Mr.
Vail announced that he had found a Viking boat in a cove on
one of the small islands north of Bruce Peninsula between Georgian
Bay and Lake Huron. He arranged the wreck in a shed and invited
people to view this important historical find. We went to have
a look and, having seen Viking boats in Scandinavia, we recognized
it as such. It had the typical shape; iron rivets had been used,
made of a kind of Swedish ore that has a special sonorous sound
when struck with a hard object. Also from other evidence it
was obvious to us that this was a Viking boat.
However,
some time later we were informed through the papers that there
had been a mistake; it was not a Viking boat at all and the
wreck was now believed to be that of a barque "Griffon"
that had disappeared in 1679. Griffon was a sail carrying two-master,
had a flat transom and also otherwise was built quite different
to a Viking boat. When we the following year took some friends
to Tobermory to have another look, the shed was locked, and
Mr. Vail, who during the winter months apparently had had some
financial luck, was too busy with his motel business to talk
to us.
I
am not an archaeologist, but I am an old sailor, and I believe
I can recognize a Viking boat when I see one. I do not have
much confidence in the authorities who decided that Mr. Vail's
find was Griffon; but if it had not been this lost ship, it
would have proven that Norsemen had sailed the Canadian inland
waters in pre-Columbian times, and that apparently is a No-No.
As
more and more discoveries are made I guess it cannot be suppressed
much longer, and the "authorities" will have no accept
the fact that "the Vikings were here."
C.
* * *
|
Action, to be effective, must be within a spiritual framework.
Yockey |
|
14
at
the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781