The hypothesis that I am trying to develop elsewhere is that today’s “group fantasy” among many westerners is but a suicidal monster from the Id. Yes: Jewish ethnic interests may have played a major role in this thoroughgoing suicidal fantasy. But at the same time I believe that Kevin MacDonald’s model cannot explain everything.
That anti-white racism among whites, our Id monster, is widespread in most of present-day westerners is all too evident when reading a history of the original Euro-Americans. Franklin for one was such a Cassandra that he manifested serious concerns that the English character of the new America could dilute in the future because of non-Caucasian immigration. This explains his opposition to importing slaves. Franklin even asked the rhetorical question of why, having so fair an opportunity, not exclude blacks and tawnys to increase the lovely white? “I could wish their Numbers were increased.” Obviously, neither Indians nor blacks had the right to vote in Franklin’s day.
After the war that tore America apart Lincoln said that blacks were out of place in America. The Occidental Quarterly Online (TOQ)—one of the few sites which appears in my blog list—is publishing a series of articles on the need of secession, where deep motivation is paramount. It is worth noting that in the chapter about 1815-1850 of A History of the American People Paul Johnson claims that only because the peoples who moved to Utah were religiously motivated could the construction of the new nation in the West became possible. Nonetheless, it was precisely during those years when the Christian morality rebelled against slavery, just as the First Great Awakening had meant the death sentence for British colonialism. Since the Jews were involved in neither, this little piece of info gives plausibility to my view that something escapes MacDonald’s model.
On a lesser note, a passage I liked of A History of the American People is a Kendall communication to Andrew Jackson telling him that someday Anglo-Saxons will be majority in Mexico, and that this would improve that country. (Long before reading it I dared to say something very similar here in Mexico!) Another gracious vignette are General Scott’s words after the marines raised the American flag in 1847 for the first time “from the Halls of Montezuma.”
Johnson’s book is far from perfect. In his final chapter, after writing about the feminist revolution of the 1960s Johnson doesn’t seem to see the weapon of mass destruction that feminism—a typical Id monster—turned out to be for our civilization. Nor did he say a word about the need for a complete reversal of feminism if we are to escape the extinction that fell upon the Krell.
A City upon a Hill
“Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” —Richard McCulloch quoting a foeIt is incredible how I have changed since I first read Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People in 2004. At that time I was still a liberal; got dismayed that Bush was reelected, and purchased a translation of Johnson’s book to understand the United States better. Now that I am rereading it I am dismayed at how the wealthiest and, in many ways, greatest nation in history could have elected not Bush, but a black who personifies the anti-white ideology that westerners suffer. Barely on page 24 of Johnson’s book I was amazed to realize that it is as if another person was reading it after these six years. (Only that explains that in 2006-2007 I made friends with online liberals whom I am no longer on speaking terms.)
However, there is a subject about which I have not changed my mind since 2004. Johnson’s A History showed me that during an ethnic conflict, as was the encounter between Europeans and Amerindians, Jackson’s campaigns were much healthier to the preservation of our civilization than the Spaniards’ miscegenation: the basic etiology of Mestizo America’s backwardness (“Latin America” is a term that should be restricted to some neighborhoods in Chile, Uruguay and Argentina, or to the white families at the south of the U.S. border).
While it is refreshing that Johnson states in the preface that, unlike other historians, he will not abstain from advancing value judgments, he fails miserably when he claims he is beyond the politically correct. On the very first page of the section titled “A City upon a Hill (1580-1750)”, Johnson talks about the dispossession of the indigenous population and asks if the United States has atoned for its sins. Taking into account how Amerindians behaved before the European conquest (cf. my latest entry) I don’t see anything serious to atone for. So-called conservative Johnson is playing the liberal card of Western (false) guilt here.
Most important about that first section of Johnson’s book is the Anglo-Saxon myth that in the 16th century the English had replaced the Jews as the chosen nation: an important factor in American history which also helped Elizabethan England in their fight against Catholic Spain. Michael O’Meara has published powerful articles in TOQ demonstrating that what moves societies is not scientific fact, e.g. IQ studies of blacks versus whites, but myths. Only myths can galvanize the collective unconscious of a nation. Homer’s epic hypnotized the minds of the ancient Greeks, not the geometric discoveries of the Ionia scientists and philosophers.
In my very first post in the commenters section of TOQ (an O’Meara article, “The Sword”) I wrote:
O’Meara is basically right. Myth is certainly what moves the soul. That’s why, inspired in Nordic culture, J.R.R. Tolkien strove to create a myth to the point of inventing euphonically aesthetic languages. Women like Éowyn, the blond we all saw in the film The Two Towers, with Edoras the capital of Rohan in the background, is the crown of evolution. To think that the very crown is now in danger of extinction because of self-hate among whites is too intolerable a thought to contemplate. A few months ago a former U.S. president celebrated that whites will be a minority in his nation. I was extremely dismayed when learning what he said and can only thank the authors of this website, which I have discovered just today…According to Mario Bunge, whom I know personally, Hitler wanted to re-mythologize Europe. Yesterday I ordered through Amazon the revisionist book by Buchanan where he states that Americans should have left the Germans to expand toward the East. I look forward to reading it. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that Johnson informs us that for John Winthrop the previous colonies had failed because they were carnal and irreligious. Winthrop believed that only an enterprise founded on religion had a chance to thrive.
He was right. In 1630 he gathered a float that parted toward what he and his enthusiastic company perceived as an escape from Egypt for the Promised Land. For Johnson it is beyond doubt that the spirit that animated all of these men and women was not economic but an impulse of a religious order. A “City upon a Hill” watched by the world was the myth that galvanized the community. Once on American soil, and in sharp contrast to present-day Americans’ aid after the 2010 Haiti quake, Winthrop was delighted when receiving the news that North American Indians were being decimated as a result of smallpox. It was clear to them that God had accepted their right to occupy the land.
Winthrop’s success resolved a mystery about which Johnson had written ten pages before. Why were the English so reluctant to establish themselves in America even a century after Columbus’ discovery while the relatively more primitive Spanish and the Portuguese had already created vast empires? The answer is patently clear: they lacked a truly galvanizing story that conferred them a definite self-image and consequent self-esteem.
Something similar could be said of the Great Awakening in America’s 1730s. An awakening is indeed what we now need, albeit one based upon a different kind of myth. TOQ is publishing printed, journal articles considering secession from today’s rotten America (see, e.g., here) plus online articles (e.g., here). But a very specific scene in the LOTR film and its music of “a City upon a Hill” in with Éowyn at the top of the capital of Rohan with a Scandinavian violin as sountrack might be enough, for the moment, to make my point.
8 comments:
Myth and religious inspiration are essential for what is to come.
Speaking of which, have you read Miguel Serrano?
No, I haven’t. Although I mentioned Bunge, who has been active in Canada for quite a long time, with the exception of Octavio Paz I don’t read Spanish-speaking thinkers. I don’t like them. In Mestizo- and Latin-America these people are only good with the plastic, architectonic and visual arts. But they are poor thinkers (again, with the single exception of Paz).
Chechar, I forgot to mention I like your new pics there of Eowyn. Very evocative of the themes you write about.
Yes: Eros is the dialectic force. It is a pity that white nationalists have not discovered the mountainous force behind their own race. To do it they would have to stop playing macho “games” and treat women (very traditional women) like the idealized video I uploaded a few posts ago based on Jane Austen.
I am not talking about sexual drive, but of the numinous experience of realizing that only the eternal feminine leads to the Absolute.
Very traditional women?
Where do these still exist in any significant number?
While I understand the idealism you are presenting a certain degree of reality has to enter in here. There are not enough very traditional women left in the entire Western world to be helpful from the perspective of creating enough of a future generation. Even in Eastern Europe it is becoming commonplace to be threatened by white slavery and prostitution rings for many women.
Traditional women will always be compromised by the need to get more and more schooling and join the workforce.
More radical solutions will be needed.
I had in mind Buyana: a beautiful and charismatic woman from Bulgaria I met in Manchester a decade ago. She was so traditional that never accepted going to pubs with the people we lived with.
Richard McCulloch’s final paragraphs in his long TOQ article linked above says:
But do we believe this is possible [secession]? Often the key to changing the world is to believe it is possible. It seems almost too simple, but when this belief is transmitted to the masses, and they believe it is possible, then the very belief in its possibility becomes self-fulfilling, and it becomes possible. It is the responsibility of the leadership—the most psychologically intense, committed, and dedicated core or cadre of a movement—to sow and nurture and reap the harvest of belief in both the necessity and the possibility of changing the world.
Chechar,
I read Modern Times a couple of years ago. The treatment of the topics on which I have deeper knowledge (for instance the Spanish Civil War) disappointed me. I have read about 50% of his History of the American people. I lack the background for it. I will have to read a lighter book first.
I also read A History of the Jews. I lost the interest on their history after the crushing of Bar Kochba by the Romans. This is understandable for a Christian, the history of Jews after the Christ (or the Synagogue of Satan, as Revelation says rather cruelly) is mostly abomination. I stop reading the book after I saw that Johnson reproduces uncritically the discredited figures of victims of the Inquisition by Llorente. This is what Catholic moral call a sin against the Holly Spirit: insisting on a refuted falsity.
I then started his History of Christianity. I have only read about 10%. If Johnson was consequent, he should have to ask a rabbi to remove his foreskin. His son has started a political magazin of this “Judeochristian” ideology, with the goym Christians serving their Jewish masters, as it is expected to be.
Kyrie Eleison.
BTW, I think that I have read the book by Buchanan that you mean:
http://layijadeneurabia.com/?s=buchanan+churchill&submit=Búsqueda
In 1986 I first became acquainted with Johnson’s A History of Christianity when I lived in California and brought back a copy of that book to Mexico. Then I discovered he had written a history of the Jews (that Taksei recommends us) that I never read. But in 2000 I did read Tiempos Modernos when the century was agonizing, as well as Intelectuales, probably his best book.
What you say of Johnson I would also say about Hans Küng. Last year I was in El Corte Inglés in Gran Canaria skipping through Küng’s voluminous book about Islam, the third of his trilogy together with his works on Christianity and Judaism. (He likes trilogies, like his Does God Exist?, On Being a Christian, and his slimmer book on the hereafter I had also brought from California to Mexico.) I have also read his voluminous study on Hegel. I took me more years to see that Küng is a charlatan that uses a dense, typical German ultra-scholarship as a smokescreen to hide that there is little substance, if any, in what he writes.
In the Index pages of his work on Islam for example there is zero mention to the scholars who have criticized Islam. Küng’s book on Islam is pure orthodoxy, neutral erudition or doubleplusgood duckspeech with no value judgments—like writing a history of the Soviet Union omitting due mention of the horrors of the Gulag. I guess this is standard doublethink in today’s scholarship. It is a pity that many people take Küng seriously.
As to Johnson, I see his books as politically correct stuff marketable for the common conservative—being the common conservative a specimen so stupid that he cannot see how PC historians are contributing to create a blind spot in the midst of our vision that impedes us seeing the Id monster that is destroying our civilization (as I say in my latest entry, also about A History of the American People).
In a nutshell, these guys sell us erudition, not wisdom.
Post a Comment