On philosophical and religious quackery

and its dismal implications for the white race

by John Martínez


This is your best piece of writing in WDH up to now, Chechar—at least that I’m aware of. I don’t think this is the sort of article that will have much appeal to average White Nationalists, obsessed as they are with the Joooos, Niggers and other perceived threats, but until Whites grasp the deep mental roots of the their present malaise (specially as far as Christianity and its secular offshoot, Liberalism, are concerned) they will be like a man being attacked by a swarm of bees in the middle of a pitch-black night.

A couple of points.

First, you are right to be suspicious about “Philosophy”—have you ever considered how presumptuous (“love for wisdom”) the very name of this discipline is? I have my qualms about it too.

German-PhilosophyIn another post you mentioned the fact that not a single one of the supposedly greatest philosophers ever said something about the importance of race to the establishment of a great civilization like ours. That is to say, these guys have devoted millions of man-hours to discussing every single subject under the sun—except for what is perhaps the most important of them all from the point of view of our civilization: the fact that it is a White civilization and that these discussions are not taking place in Africa, Asia or what have you.

I have long thought about this glaring gap in their discussions too and it has made me conclude that by and large the field of the so called “Philosophy” is a Sahara of barren discussions—Steve Sailer apparently agrees with me—and the very fact that after thousands of years of endless discussions, unlike other hard fields like Physics of Chemistry, these guys have not reached any generally accepted conclusions at all, is a testimony to the frivolity of their activity.

It is true that fields like Literary Criticism, for example, are not “hard sciences” either, but even here, unlike the case of Philosophy, you have a number of generally accepted judgments—the centrality of Dante and Shakespeare in Western poetry and the aesthetic preeminence of Tolstoy and Proust in the Western prose fiction, for example, among many other generally accepted opinions—whereas you cannot find a single philosophic view that will be shared by all of the myriad philosophical schools and fashions that have sprouted in the past 2,500 years.

For my part, what I can say is that any occasional powerful insights I have seen coming from professional philosophers never are the results of any elaborate philosophical systems, but are instead simple products of common sense, and might very well have been uttered by any regular, intelligent people. So, why bother? You can learn much more about the human nature and the real world by reading the great classics of the Western Literature than by wading through infinitely boring volumes of pseudo “lovers of Wisdom”, as these guys pompously call themselves.

Second, what’s the point of leaving one superstition just to embrace another? Unfortunately, that’s what people normally do. Atheists normally leave Christianity just to immediately convert to Liberalism and vice versa, for example. What’s the point of looking skeptically at Western spirituality and revering its Eastern counterpart at the same time? That’s a non sequitur. I don’t buy Buddhism, Hinduism or what have you for the same reasons that I don’t take the Abrahamic doctrines seriously: for all their bombastic claims, their allegations are not empirically verifiable, period. If I am to embrace their patent absurdities in particular, why not embracing any other absurdities in general?

Third, what you said concerning the intrinsic despair and pessimism of Buddhism is also true, and again I had also noticed it. The reason why the doctrine of reincarnation is so fundamental to Buddhism is because if you were to embrace the horrifying view this religion has of life without any faith in a life after death, you would logically feel the urge to commit suicide. People who convert to Buddhism have to be convinced to stay alive by means of inculcating in them a belief in reincarnation; and in the hope of not reincarnating by means of following the eightfold path in order to reach Nirvana and not to reincarnate anymore.

Well, any non mentally deranged person can see the madness of such a set of ideas. But unfortunately, all religious systems are ultimately as crazy as Buddhism. All you have to do is to boil their pompous, self-righteous talk down to its bottom lines and you’ll see what their proponents are really talking about.

bosch_last-judgement

Christians, for example, love to say that “God has a plan for your life”. It seems all very fine, until you realize that this plan is that you worship the Jew Jesus. By doing so, you’ll be awarded the opportunity to worship him forever in an afterlife, in a place called Heaven (apparently, a supernatural version of North Korea, with the Christian God in the place of Kim Jong Il), whereas, by refusing to do it, you’ll be tortured forever, being burned in a superheated chamber called Hell. It doesn’t matter how convoluted their talk, how straight their faces while they preach their ideas, or under how many pages of supposedly profound wisdom the Christians try to bury this horrific picture. The fact of the matter is that their core beliefs are as stupid as any savage’s from the Bronze Age—and arguably more wicked at that.

In my humble opinion, Whites should flush such nonsense down the toilet and follow the example of healthier races like the Japanese, the Chinese and the kikes—pace the wickedness of the latter. Shintoism, Confucianism and Judaism are simple pseudo-religious casuistry aiming at preserving the temporal social order of their respective civilizations. To put it bluntly, the ultimate goal of these doctrines is the physical preservation and prosperity of their respective peoples, so much so that they don’t even waste time elaborating on a supposed afterlife, preferring instead to concentrate on the cult of the ancestors and on practical rules of public morality. In other words, we’re talking about racial-preservation cults here. Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, on the other hand, are universalistic ideologies that see this world as a distraction from transcendental truths around which we should build all whole lives.

I’m not suggesting that Whites should create a new religion in which they worship themselves instead of the Christian God or any other non-White deity or spiritual leader for that matter (Ben Klassen, for one, was of this persuasion). White Nationalists are an intellectual vanguard of the White race and they are simply too smart to start following a new religion. It takes idiots to found a new religion (illiterate fishermen in the case of Christianity, illiterate caravan robbers in the case of Islam) and I honestly don’t think we have enough of them in this movement—at least not in numbers big enough to reach a critical mass.

Unlike a number of “philosophers”, I do think we don’t need a supernatural worldview in order to establish and maintain a stable, healthy social order. I can envision the Chinese, the Japanese and the Jewish races living far away into the future under the auspices of down-to-earth, metaphysically unambitious doctrines such as Shintoism, Confucianism and Judaism. But can you picture racial stability for the populations leaving under universalistic creeds like Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, which only acknowledge the physical world in order to repudiate it to a bigger or lesser degree in exchange for an alleged post-mortem reward of some kind? To ask this question is to answer it.

Just one more observation:

Greg Johnson once noted apropos of a Michael O’Meara book he reviewed: “I look at Christian art as merely the ideological channel through which white genius was forced for a long time to flow”, and Johnson is right—as usual.

Look, philosophies and religions come and go. But the great White art, for example, like Literature that I mentioned above, is here to stay. And above all, the race that made the articulation of the three phenomena possible is what really matters.

At the end of the day, it is for the White race that one should fight for instead of religions or philosophies “A” or “B” or “Z”—especially when these philosophies and religions are not only dubious (to say the least) but were inflicted (or at least heavily influenced) upon Whites by folks who hate them and want to destroy them.

59 Replies on “On philosophical and religious quackery

  1. White Nationalists, obsessed as they are with the Joooos

    The ‘joooos’? Anytime I see that term used I automatically assume its a jew writing it, thus I distrust the rest of the article.

    1. I hate the Jews as much as anyone here.

      Having said that, the phenomenon that some reasonable White Nationalists aptly define as “Judeocentric Monocausalism” (link) is a childish one at best and a regrettable waste of time and energy at worst.

      The kikes ARE NOT responsible for all of the travails of the White race. As a Brazilian I can assure you that they had absolutely nothing to do with the decision White Brazilians have made to miscigenate en masse with Niggers and Indians since time immemorial, for example. If you think that by killing or deporting all kikes from the White lands and sending them to Israel without a penny in their pockets (a measure that I would fully support), the challenges of Whites would all be solved, as some seem to think, you’re dead wrong. Take a look at Latin America. The kikes are not responsible for this mess.

      1. Agreed. The worst type of Body-snatched whites I’ve met in my life are the white Mexicans I’ve been dealing with for decades. Their racial consciousness has been almost zero. It’s pathetic…

  2. I enjoyed this article, and would like to include a link to Natures Eternal Religion on audio book for those who would like to listen while they commute or travel. (link)

    Mein Kampf is also one that I enjoy listening to frequently, and I play it at night while I am sleeping.

    (link)

    I mention Mein Kampf because I feel it is spiritual in nature, and has awakened something inside of me.

    Also, offering my opinion as a layman, I think your average person needs some spiritual comfort to make life bearable. Belief in a spiritual connection to others, as well as to nature, is a very easy sell to people because they usually feel the same way. Unfortunately, any “spiritual churches” in today’s environment are almost always liberal to the core. However, maybe something will arise when Whitey starts to feel the heat and instinctively finds cohesion along racial lines. This will probably be the perfect time to point out the flaws in the Semitic religious trio as everything in life is about timing.

    Something is needed to bind the community together. Intellectuals may have the stuff to get by on brains alone, but Mr. Ham and Eggs doesn’t.

    Just a random comment from the peanut gallery 😉

  3. True philosophy (as opposed to modern nonsense) is about establishing patterns of cognition and intuition which allow the soul, mind, and body to unite. When traditionalists talk about one common ‘truth’ they are speaking about a noetical experience, not ‘thinking’ about metaphysics or constructing grand systems to explain reality.

    Nietzsche was right to attack some philosphers for trying to escape reality; but his (ironic and symbolic) critique of Platonism is flawed. The forms Plato was talking about are like harmonic convergences between our own inner being and the outside world; something similar to Jung’s archetypes (not exactly the same thing).

    The ancient Aryans believed in such convergence, which is why they studied geomancy, built according to sacred mathematical ratios, used a language which had occult properties (see esoteric origin of the aryan language), and practiced ritual sacrifice in accordance with occult tenants (mors triumphalis, sati, and divination of haruspex).

    The idea behind metaphysical texts and art is that latent within us is a noetical kernel of the divine which can blossom is developed in the right way through spiritual discipline and the attainment of knowledge. Deny it all you want, but everything of value in the ancient world was built and based on occult philosophy and wisdom which is only preserved in books today.

    See: The Only Tradition (William Quinn), Revolt Against the Modern World (Evola), The Crisis of the Modern World (Guenon), and
    The Golden Chain: An Anthology of Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy (Algis Uzdavinys).

    1. I would like to enhance a point I made in my text and that, judging by some comments in the previous thread a few TWDH readers apparently overlooked:

      “For my part, what I can say is that any occasional powerful insights I have seen coming from professional philosophers never are the results of any elaborate philosophical systems, but are instead simple products of common sense, and might very well have been uttered by any regular, intelligent people. So, why bother?”

      It’s obvious that you can educate yourself quite profitably by reading important thinkers like Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche and Schopenhaeur, just to mention the ones I have read with some level of seriousness. But mind you, I am convinced that the truths that you can find in the best works of these guys do not depend in the least on the creation of philosophical systems as such.

      Schopenhauer, for example, has been particularly important for my way of seeing things. But the fact of the matter is that Parerga und Paralipomena (my favorite among his works) is a collection of essays whose truthfulness and dazzling literary quality ultimately does not depend on his philosophy as such. And although The World as Will and Representation contains more wisdom than most books ever written, I am convinced that its achilles heels are exactly related to its more specifically “philosophical” aspects, strictly speaking — that is to say, when the author makes a point of writing as a philosopher, in a systamatic way. What the hell is this “Will” on which all of his philosophy hinges? I mean, what is it, concretely speaking? Much as I respect Shopenhauer the writer, I have my seconds about Shopenhauer the philosopher.

      Or take Plato, for another example. His dialogues are a cultural monument, no doubt about it. But I think they read much better as dramatic literature than as an accurate reflextion upon reality. Phaedo is perhaps the most striking example of such a phenomenon. It’s a work of art on a literary level, but let’s be honest, the arguments Socrates puts forth there in order to argue for the immortality of the soul are nothing short of pathetic and not a single one of them will stand up to much scrutiny if you think about them seriously for a moment. In other words, paradoxically, Plato’s compulsion to write “philosophically” constitute the heaviest hindrance to his real gift as a writer.

      To make a long case short: I’m not in awe of Philosophy, and I’m not floored by convoluted “philosophical” systems. It’s possible to find great stuff reading the best philosophers but as a rule, it will come in spite of the philosophical systems in wich it is entangled and not as a result of it.

      1. There’s a difference between profane philosophy which systemizes in order to organize mental structures for the sake of organizing mental structures …

        and Traditional philosophy with organizes mental structures in order to prepare one’s mind for an experience of the divine through meditation, action, or asceticism.

        Gnosticism and gnostic experience/revelation are bad words to use for many reasons, but essentially that’s what real philosophy aims at. Again, Dante was clearly an intiate and his entire comedy is a description of initiation and spiritual experience … much like Plato’s Symposium.

        Traditional philosophy presupposes common practices and symbolic forms (present in all priesthoods throughout the modern world; be it Egypt, Iran, Aryan, India, Rome, or the Germanic Goths). The universality of these forms thoroughout the ancient world is PROVEN, not speculated about, by Guenon and Evola, among other authors.

        The divine science of philosophical wisdom exists; you don’t have to be an occult master (I am not) or spiritual practitioner to recognize that these common spiritual themes and practices throughout found in all major religions are not arbitrary, but instead something divine and other-wordly.

      2. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were not Traditionalists; Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were.

        There’s a big difference; it would take too long to explain, it’s better to read about Traditional (true) philosophy for yourself. It’s worth it.

      3. MR. DEUTSCH says:

        “Traditional philosophy presupposes common practices and symbolic forms (present in all priesthoods throughout the modern world; be it Egypt, Iran, Aryan, India, Rome, or the Germanic Goths). The universality of these forms thoroughout the ancient world is PROVEN, not speculated about, by Guenon and Evola, among other authors.”

        Well, that’s what René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon et alia have convinced you of.

        I first heard of the so called Traditionalist School through Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho (himself a Traditionalist), whose webpage in English, incidentally, I linked in my above text (here).

        Appealing as their talk may be to many, the fact of the matter is that the ideas they advocate, although fitting well into the philosophical discourse, have little to do with real-life religious practice.

        From the point of view of real devout Orthodox Jews, pious Christians and serious Muslims, the tenets of the Traditionalist philosophy are nonsense at best and blasphemy at worst. Although traditionalists hold that “the metaphysical structure of all world religions is identical”, to quote Carvalho, the fact of the matter is that in the final analysis, the core messages of the 3 Abrahamic monotheisms, for example, is incompatible with one another.

        Real, practicing Muslims will tell you that Christians will go to Hell and vice versa, while Orthodox Jews will let you know that both denominations are made up of a bunch of Jewish-aping fools who do not belong to the chosen people any way.

        The problem I see with Traditionalism is that it has little to do with real, concrete religious feeling and practice. They want to see religion as a philosophical phenomenon, but they are dead wrong. Anyone who has had the experience of living among really religious people will attest that what they do has little to do with what these guys understand as religion.

      4. “the tenets of the Traditionalist philosophy are nonsense at best and blasphemy at worst.”

        I cannot argue with someone who doesn’t want to look at the evidence.

        You can dismiss Traditionalism as being bogus, but you cannot dismiss that fact that the greatest minds and historical figures of Western Civilization have studied Traditionalism extensively or been practioners of the Western occult.

        The facts are that the original founders of Greece, Rome, Aryan Egypt and India were initiates versed in the divine science of metaphysics (action and contemplation).

        You can go look this up or remain ignorant. I’m wasted my time here.

      5. Mr. Deutscher:

        You conveniently ommited the first part of the sentence you quoted from me: “From the point of view of real devout Orthodox Jews, pious Christians and serious Muslims…”

        What I pointed out in my previous comment and you refused to understand is that living, real religious feeling and practice is quite different from what Traditionalists suppose it to be.

        Not surprisingly, I have never met a single Traditionalist enthusiast who was a practicing religious person, say, a practicing Roman Catholic, a commited Protestant or a devout Muslim — they love talking about religion in sophisticated philosophical terminology, but have their beer, go partying and have sex before marriage. Why, EVEN I could be religious in such a way!

        Besides, you call me ignorant on the subject, although I’m acquainted with this guys’ works and ideas. But I wonder what sort of real life experience you have with religions. Judging from what you wrote, very little.

        Go tell a five-times-a-day praying Muslim well versed in the Qur’an and the Hadith that the metaphysical essence of Islam is the same as the one underlying Hinduism and after that come back here for us to talk more about this notion.

        In the meantime, check this (link). It will help you educate yourself a little about what REAL TRADITIONALIST CATHOLICS think of other religions. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

      6. John,

        Parerga und Paralipomena is what in English got translated as Essays and Aphorisms, so we are talking of exactly the same book.

        Much as I respect Schopenhauer the writer, I have my seconds about Schopenhauer the philosopher.

        As I said in the other thread, the Schopen that wrote his heavy treatise was an arrogant young man in his thirties that, like other megalomaniac western “metaphysicians”, believed that at such young age he had written “The Truth about Everything”. The elder Schopen we see in most the paintings was a much wiser, mature man: one who almost left behind his “metaphysical” system and started to write in clear, readable prose. That’s the Schopen who wrote Parerga und Paralipomena.

        it’s possible to find great stuff reading the best philosophers but as a rule, it will come in spite of the philosophical systems in witch it is entangled and not as a result of it.

        Ditto, and to me such trying to find gold among tons of mud proved to be such a grotesque experience that I quit and elaborated my rule that I’d only read those authors who don’t hid their tiny pieces of gold among such mountains of mud.

      7. “the tenets of the Traditionalist philosophy are nonsense at best and blasphemy at worst.”

        That statement doesn’t make any sense, that was my point. Exotericism is based on and created by that which prior; esotericism.

        In otherwords, the people who go to church or the mosque have a belief system based on scriptures which have two purposes:

        1) exoteric stories for the masses
        2) esoteric content for the initiates

        Now, I am not an initiate, nor am I an occult master, but I can testify to the consistency of the content from an anthropological and textual standpoint which shows that Judaism, Catholicism, and Hinduism were created with a dual purpose.

        So the question is, if esotericism is latent in all major religions, what are the odds that these faiths were created by the traditional believer/practioner and not an initiate?

        Do you follow me?

      8. But your sweeping generalizations are also quite misleeding. Far from all philosophers are builders of complex metaphysical systems.

        In fact some schools have avoided this way of going about philosophizing. Some have resorted to “ordinary language” philosophy, others to an anti-metaphysics program.

        So who it exactly is your criticizing is very unclear.

        And Im not to sure that the artistic creations can be seperated in any easy way from the metaphysics itself. For example Platos ideas can not be seperated from the artistic medium he employs. Reading his dialogues as “pure” art just comes across as a meaningless exercise.
        I think you have got it all wrong. The reason why Platos dialogues also are great works of art, is because they discuss profound philosophical questions. Remove the philosophy and your left with an empty shell.

        “In another post you mentioned the fact that not a single one of the supposedly greatest philosophers ever said something about the importance of race to the establishment of a great civilization like ours. ”

        In Platos Republic racial preservation on a local level is actually discussed withing the limits of the city state. And thats 2500 years ago, so both of you are obviously wrong on this point. And I did mention Kant earlier, but I suspect you are not familiar with his anthropological writing.

        “The lovers of wisdom” translation is also taken totally out of historical context. As philosophy in ancient Greece was not just confined to what we in a modern sense refer to philosophy, but encompassed quite alot of the subjects within the arts and sciences.

        “In my humble opinion, Whites should flush such nonsense down the toilet and follow the example of healthier races like the Japanese, the Chinese and the kikes—pace the wickedness of the latter.”

        I think thats a very bad strategy. The european spirit is completely alien to these traditions. No, instead europeans should build on the heathen myths and the philosophical traditions of the ancients. This is where the true roots of the aryan spirit is rooted.
        Not in some vulgar semitic clan thinking laid down in the Talmud.

      9. Mr. Deutsch says:

        “In otherwords, the people who go to church or the mosque have a belief system based on scriptures which have two purposes:

        1) exoteric stories for the masses
        2) esoteric content for the initiates”

        Yes, I’m following you, Mr. Deutsch, and I’m quite familiar with this view. It comes from René Guénon’s writings on the traditional religions of the worlds.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the Traditionalist school is not widely known in the English-speaking world — although Prince Charles is a famous adherent of it. You’re the first Anglo I debate with who has ever mentioned it. Like I said before, who put me in contact with these guys’ views on religion was Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, himself a Traditionalist. So, I know what you’re talking about.

        The problem with the view you presented above — Guénon’s, in fact, like I pointed out — is that it overgeneralizes what happens to a certain extent in some specific religions — and even so, only to a certain point.

        It is true, for exemple, that Judaism and Islam tolerate lies being told for the sake of the well-being of their followers and for the advancement of these doctrines. And it is also true that the highest political and religious circles of these faiths keep discussions with which the average member of their respective communities is totally unfamiliar with.

        But to extrapolate from these observations and to say that an esoteric/exoteric pattern is a universal phenomenon in all religions, like Guénon says, is too great a stretch.

        Besides — and what is more important here–, the core beliefs of the living traditional religions are not compatible with one another, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH TRADITIONALISTS CRAZILY DENY IT.

        And what irritates me the most in the Traditionalist talk is that they always play this we-are-too-smart-to-be-associated-with-the-average-stupid-non-philosophical-and-regular-religeous-devotee card. They really believe that there are two levels of religiosity: an intellectual one — theirs — and a stupid one — for the unwashed illiterate masses, who are not smart enough to be Traditionalists like themselves.

        Granted: there are historical and also indirect evidences that Judaism, Christianity and Islam originated as systems of lies consciously created by Semitic elites aiming at non-primarily-religious goals. But you bet this is not what Guénon means by the esoterism/exoterism duality.

        However, in the final analysis, we are talking about the size, color and shape of unicorns’ horns here. If all great religions share a level of truth, as you claim, it suffices to prove the veracity of the allegations of just one of them in order to prove the allegantions of the others and, alternatively, if you demonstrate that one of them is a sham, it follows that the others must be a sham too.

        Well, here you have Jesus final words to the apostles, according to the Gospel of Mark:

        15 And he said to them, “After you have gone into all the world, proclaim the good news to the whole creation.
        16 The person who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the person who does not believe will be condemned.
        17 And these signs will accompany the ones who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak in new tongues,
        18 they will pick up serpents, and should they drink something deadly it would in no wise hurt them; they will lay their hands on sick ones, and they will have health again.”
        19 And so the Lord after speaking to them was taken up to heaven, and sat at the right hand of God.
        20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord co-working and confirming the word by the signs accompanying.

        Jesus is quite clear here and he couldn’t be clearer than that.

        Nowadays there is something on the Internet called “Youtube”. Could you please post a video of some Christians drinking poison here on this thread for us to see? Or even better, how about some videos of sick people being cured? Like bedridden people in the final stages of Alzheimer being miraculously cured in front of the cameras, for example.

        I know, I know. For some strange reason, the Jewish, the Christian and the Muslim gods — they are not the same god, you bet — have been unusually coy ever since the invention of the video camera. But if you can’t back up your wild, bombastic claims with a single shread of palpable evidence, what are you trying to convince us of?

      10. @ John Martinez

        I don’t know where you get your information about Traditionalism.

        Traditionalists DO NOT believe that Jesus preformed those miracles in the Bible (although I’m not denying that certain saints may have been able to acquire uncommon occult powers).

        Religion (faith) has NOTHING to do with Traditionalism (knowing). Traditionalism is a spiritual science; there is nothing to ‘believe’ in.

        “the core beliefs of the living traditional religions are not compatible with one another”

        There was no historically relevant figure named Isaac, Jesus, Vishnu, Shiva, Moses, or Muhammad … these are all metaphors with highly developed narratives which tell a story involving numerology, astrology, and occult properties of divination which tell the (informed) reader a highly signficant story about how the divine-mind (atman-nous) interfaces with the human world and can be consulted.

      11. You say:

        Traditionalism is a spiritual science; there is nothing to ‘believe’ in.

        but you seem to believe that…

        although I’m not denying that certain saints may have been able to acquire uncommon occult powers

        Which of course there’s none evidence for it (though I used to believe exactly what you now believe when I was immersed in the cults). Joe Nickell’s book on miracles and other skeptical writers disabused me.

        …numerology, astrology, and occult properties of divination

        I am afraid that you haven’t subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer This magazine cured me from belief in all that stuff. (By the way, when I was a believer I published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research when it was under the watch of John Beloff.)

      12. Chechar, I’m not being clear enough:

        No Traditionalist practices “…numerology, astrology, and occult properties of divination” (see Plotinus; opinion on magic) in the vulgar sense of New Age or consulting an astrology book.

        What a waste of time.

        Divination (certainly not crystal balls) was used by all of the Aryan races before war; Plutarch, Livy, and Cicero speak of it.

        Do you deny this?

        On the other subjects, they have nothing to do with Tarot cards or reading your horoscope; I meant astrology in the symbolic sense (for instance the occult properties of alchemy are respresnted by planetary bodies) and numerology in the sense of Biblical codes which are based on mathematic ratios (of the same variet that Pythagoras used to develop his musical theory and calculus).

        Again, look at the ancient world; the Greeks and the Romans had entire cults devoted to specific planets. No, this was not astrology in the idiotic sense it is practiced today, it was a much higher form of occultism which will rack your brain

        Our Aryan ancestors must have been real idiots for having their highest religious order devoted to worshiping Saturn, Jupiter, and the Sun?

        I think not.

      13. @ Chechar

        I’m falling asleep at my computer losing energy to respond, so here’s from a book I’m reading:

        The worship of Saturn played an important part in both the mythology and calendar of Rome. His origins, which go further back than Livy’s comment might suggest, are obscure, although very early his divine powers and domain included liberation. Later he became identified with the Greek god Kronos (since Dionysus, the wilder god of liberation in the Greek pantheon, was not an option for the Forum), and was subsequently styled in myth as the deity who was ousted from the gods’ throne by Jupiter and ruled for a time over an agrarian Golden Age Italy, before Jupiter went on to occupy the Capitoline as well. His worship thus allowed the Romans to honor a simpler past even as they extended Jupiter’s iron dominion in every direction, and his connection with myths of the Golden Age provided the poets the means to explore complex attitudes towards urban society and Roman rule.

    2. Mister Deutsch ,

      “Ritual sacrifices”, you mean human sacrifices, right? I’ve written a book about that. Have you read it (search on “My writing” at the sidebar)?

      You see, this proves why I abhor the kind of pointless scholasticism in some these authors being promoted at Counter Currents. Their studies are wide off the mark insofar as few, if any of them, address the issues that have been killing us since the times of Sumer.

      If I learnt something from my adolescent philosophical stage it’s precisely what I quoted yesterday after the painting of de Chirico: a representation of the man who strives to discover the “truth” about metaphysics, and at the same time a symbol of ultimate loneliness and senselessness.

      1. No, not necessarily human sacrifice (I’m reading your entry right now).

        I’m not a supporter of pointless scholasticism; I’m in favor gaining a colorful inner landscape so that one can live one’s life with dignity and beauty, as opposed to be a pawn of the modern world.

        I assert that there is a pattern by which one can live ones life derived from Tradition, and even more, experience transformation as the result of reading specifics texts which gives one’s life depth and a narrative (which otherwise would be unavailable, especially for me, living in rootless-soulless Americana).

        Tradition is what gave the Aryan race form and structure; it is found in all of our epics and ancient tales.

      2. I Think this is a very akward way of putting it. Countless numbers of high IQ white people have been engaged in numerous activities, besides metaphysics, which are cognitively demanding or otherwise require mountains of effort. For instance various art forms, or developing space flight. Or proving various mathematical theorems. some very high IQ people have devoted their lives to totally irrelevant mathematical problems, with no utility at all.

        Are you scolding them for not directing all their energy at actions narrowly defined as “racial preservation”? Actually with these criteria in mind, sending someone to the moon must amount to the most pointless exercise ever. When considering the amount of ressources and manpower it required.

        And the spiritually healthy confucian chinese, must have been corrupted somehow since they now also plan on sending astronauts to the moon.

        What this boils down to, is that very smart people engage in tough subjects that on the surface seem pointless, but which are associated with alot of prestige. And I doubt that this will ever change, whether it be philosophy, mathematics, aeronautics or various art forms.

    1. I fixed it but the more substantial mistake in the main entry is that you said “James O’Meara” when in fact it was a book by Michael O’Meara.

      1. Thanks for correcting it. I always write this comments in a hurry and so I always make some mistakes.

    1. Jesus is a literary character with no historical reality. I did not write “the Jewish literary character know as Jesus” because I thought all readers would be smart enough to infer what I meant. I was wrong, apparently, and I apologize.

  4. Judaism, Catholicism, and Hinduism were created with a dual purpose.

    With all due respect, this is esoteric nonsense. I know, because I spent many years of my life believing that the Bible had a dual purpose, an exoteric and an esoteric. In the previous entry I linked to an autobiographical article where I recount only the tip of the iceberg of my dark night of the soul.

    1. Seeing as how Catholicism, as in the traditional Catholic Mass said in Latin, is derived from Egyptian and Mithraic ritual (which is an esoteric form of initiation), I stand by my claim.

      You cannot understand the esoteric purpose of the Bible without reading the proper authors; Gurdjieff and Mouravieff were how I got started into esotericism (I was a Traditionalist Catholic growing up).

      It’s obvious that certain texts within the Bible, the Gospel of John, obviously, were written by an initiate.

      1. “You cannot understand the esoteric purpose of the Bible without reading the proper authors”

        Again, that’s exactly what I believed when I was crazy in a cult that taught me how to understand “correctly” the Bible. And in addition to that cult, how many “proper authors” have interpreted the “occult” meaning of the Bible in mutually exclusive ways?

      2. Tradition encourages you to think for yourself, stressing knowledge and the solitary path … this is the opposite of some ‘cult’ or magical system of escapism.

        Perhaps like you, I read the nonsense of theosophy; Rudolf Steiner, Max Heindal, and H. Blavatsky throughout high school … yes we can all be swindled by stupidity and allure of occult knowledege.

        No Traditionalist believes that Jesus actually existed, nor do they believe in any of the literal content of the Bible. Unlike the cult leaders, Algis Uzdavinys, Schuon, Guenon, Evola, Coomaraswamy, and Pallis were primarily scholars of impeccable detail; they did not speculate. Their works are masterpieces in syncretism and historical analogies; the validity of the objective quality of the content cannot be denied (look at the accomplishments of most of these men in the Traditionalist ‘camp’; they are mostly genius level if you look at their biographies).

        The same is not true of magic formulas or cult followings which bank on people’s imagination or ‘faith’.

        *As to your claim about the reconstruction of Buddha being similar to Jesus Identity, there is a big difference here:

        Christian WNs reconstruct Jesus because they are afraid of their little fairy tale from childhood being deconstructed. Traditionalists who reconstruct Buddha are doing so based on their reading of comparable texts from different traditions suggesting that the Lord Gautama had revived the Vedanta-Neoplatonic tradition which had been dupicated across time throughout the West.

        My favorite metaphysician is the Western Aryan genius, Plotinus, and I see direct correlations between his works and Lord Gautama; convincing evidence that Evola is spot on.

      3. The sole fact that you refer to this guy as “Lord Gautama” makes me think that your whole approach is religious: the exact opposite of my irreverent approach. Do Evola and the other guys use also the same language?

      4. Lord Gautama is used universally; in the dialogues of the Pali Canon when speaking to his student, that is the phrase used.

        It has nothing to do with venerating the man, it’s just a title.

  5. And thats 2500 years ago, so both of you are obviously wrong on this point. And I did mention Kant earlier, but I suspect you are not familiar with his anthropological writing.

    But that’s the proverbial couple of good apples above a barrel of rotten apples, so Martínez’s positions stands such criticism. I think that I’ll try to clarify my position in still another entry in the spirit of the de Chirico painting of “The Great Metaphysician” I added yesterday.

    1. I dont think this is correct at all. Kant metaphysics has had a tremendous effect on modern philosophy of science. And while one can claim that philo. of science is littered with “failed research programmes”, this does not detract from Kants importance in the historical development of ideas. And yes, I still consider failed programmes as an advancement in knowledge. But perhaps you dont.

      And if whites do indeed become extinct, future Chinese scholars will surely mock those western “great metaphysicians” that spent their time “enthroned on pedestals made of rubbish”.

      As they will mock the high IQ individuals engaged in pure mathematics or various artforms with little practical use.
      You seem to be missing the point; why are you singling out metaphysics, or more generally philosophy?

      1. Because as Francis Bacon says (cf. my forthcoming entry) mathematics is useful in the empirical world for engineering, etc.

        Metaphysics isn’t.

        (Incidentally, the only useful work on philosophy of science I know is the one where Popper elaborates his litmus test to distinguish sciences vs., pseudosciences, but that’s another subject.)

  6. Are you scolding them for not directing all their energy at actions narrowly defined as “racial preservation”? [etc.]

    But you are completely missing the point: If since the ancient times whites had spent millions of hours thinking of racial & cultural preservation, no danger of extinction would be occurring now. And if whites do indeed become extinct, future Chinese scholars will surely mock those western “great metaphysicians” that spent their time “enthroned on pedestals made of rubbish”.

    1. And if whites do indeed become extinct, future Chinese scholars will surely mock those western “great metaphysicians” that spent their time “enthroned on pedestals made of rubbish”.

      LOL 🙂

      Jannik said (after quoting me):

      In my humble opinion, Whites should flush such nonsense down the toilet and follow the example of healthier races like the Japanese, the Chinese and the kikes—pace the wickedness of the latter.

      I think thats a very bad strategy. The european spirit is completely alien to these traditions. No, instead europeans should build on the heathen myths and the philosophical traditions of the ancients. This is where the true roots of the aryan spirit is rooted.

      Not in some vulgar semitic clan thinking laid down in the Talmud.

      First, I mentioned Judaism, Shintoism and Confucionism because these are LIVING religious traditions, as opposed to the ancient European religious, which went extinct.

      Second, the Talmud is certainly vulgar and wicked but it has laid out a plan of action for the Jewish race that has worked wonders for these folks in the past 2000 years. The indigenous European religions, on the other hand, not only did not make Whites racially aware (at least not enough to counter the successive waves of non Whites coming into Europe thrououth the ages), but it could not even sustain itself in the face of this formidable new rival that was Christianity. Like a friend of mine likes to say, “only museums live off the past”. The ancient European religions are dead and they are not coming back. Get over it.

      Third: if I mentioned the three asiatic doctrines above was because they are primarily concerned with the physical continuity, the preservation and material well-being of their respective peoples, not bothering to speculate much on any supposed transcendence. I think they set a positive example for the sort of civilizational pattern Whites should try and persue — and I stand by what I said. What’s wrong with it?

      1. Well I am not advocating endless speculation on the trancendent or a return to christianity. Neither do I want a direct return to the pagan gods of Europe. But the greek/roman legacy, including hellenic philosophy, is part of the european tradition so this cannot be fully discarded.
        Instead it must be developed in a new direction. Disregarding tradition completely will only result in being trapped in a nihilist void. I dont think its possible to build something anew without looking at the historical foundations.

        Actually this age of liberal marxism has been made possible because the elites decided to discard all tradition and embrace a vision of a cosmopolitan utopia. This will offcourse fail, like all utopias do. Anti-tradition is simply not the way to go.

        On the surface there is nothing wrong with confucianism or shintoism, which in fact are very conservative religions or traditions.
        And yes they are successful because they are living religions, I wont deny that.

        But they cannot function as a blueprint for the european, since his spirit is completely different, and much more difficult to tame. This is essential, his racial psyche is simply to different from the east asian yellow man.

  7. Religion and Philosophy can be useful in racial preservation, there just can’t be an idea of a universal perfect ideal like we find in platonism. Let’s not forget that the two major ideas that are promoted today are the abrahamic systems (judaism, christianity and islam) and complete materialistic secularism (there is no creator, everything created itself). There is no reason to say that either system is correct. I for one don’t buy the one race creation story of the abrahamic religions or the one race out of africa theory as promoted by the secularists.

    At some point someone created White People. If you reproduce as a White Person you further the creator’s line and will in this Earth. A religious tenant like that is perfectly sufficient to challenge modernity and the abrahamic religions. Were it widely adapted that this was the case, the belief would destroy any potential for a new world order which relies upon the one race/one creator theory as a justification for its existence.

  8. @Chechar

    “Because as Francis Bacon says (cf. my forthcoming entry) mathematics is useful in the empirical world for engineering, etc.

    Metaphysics isn’t.

    (Incidentally, the only useful work on philosophy of science I know is the one where Popper elaborates his litmus test to distinguish sciences vs., pseudosciences, but that’s another subject.)”

    Well you are clearly not familiar with what goes on in pure mathematics. It is literarily filled up with absolutely useless theorems from various disciplines, where many of them end up having very little practical knowledge. So the “mud” argument applies here equally.
    And I would also ask you to explain to me the practical relevance of developing spaceflight? This apart from a science fiction fantasy of colonizing foreign worlds.

    Well I dont agree with your assesment of the philosophy of science at all. And metaphysics is in no way useless if it historically culminated with the invention of scientific methods. Whether you like it or not, metaphysics was a prerequisite for the development of modern science. Where modern technology would not have been possible without advancements in pure science.

    It was not the highly praised confucians that developed modern science(and yes I am not taking chinese scholar Joseph Needham seriously regarding this question), but the white europeans building on a tradition of hellenic philosophy.

  9. John,

    I would also like to ask you a further hypothetical or (philosophical) question.

    If a copy of the Talmud could work wonders for the white european, would you be willing to make a faustian deal and adopt it completely?

    Or to rephrase it, would you be willing to turn “jewish” in spirit for the sake of racial survival. And would you say nothing of value would be lost with this transition?

    1. “If a copy of the Talmud could work wonders for the white european, would you be willing to make a faustian deal and adopt it completely?”

      No, because the Talmud was written and designed to serve the needs of a parasitic, wandering race. It does not fit the biological/spiritual/geopolitical reality of Whites.

      I’ll say it again: I mentioned those 3 Asiatic doctrines as possible examples of living religious systems that exist to serve the interests of their peoples (whereas in the case of Islam and Christianity, it is the other way round) irrespectively of their intrinsic morality, but some of you guys seem to have a hard time trying to understand it.

      Some of you guys are evidently obssessed with the JOOOOS, like I said before… Don’t you get tired of it now and then?

      Everybody who reads and comments in websites like this have the same opinion about the kikes and so, why preaching to the choir?

      No personal offense intended.

      1. No personal offence taken.

        I am actually not that obsessed with the jews. Thats why I am spending my time on this site in the first place. I do not regard myself as a “monocausalist”.

        I do understand the concept of ethnoreligions, and will admit that the 3 mentioned asiatic religions are a success in their own right, since they ensured survival.

        However not without their drawbacks. The chinese did not invent modern science, and without the philosophically and scientific inclined white man, China would probably have stagnated in their “technological high equilibrium trap”.

        And the price jews must pay is being hated and despised by countless peoples of this world.

        The european roots are pagan, and this includes the hellenic tradition of metaphysics and european science. This conclusion is unavoidable, since I dont regard inventing the wheel anew as a viable alternative.

        And I regard the “throwing away the ladder” strategy regarding metaphysics as both naive and counterproductive.

        So as proposed by Chechar, I think we just have to agree to disagree.

  10. I never red any philosopher either stating something about the pollution of the ocean or the massive extinction of species on earth since the 1970 or over population, which is the world’s biggest threat . Chechar, more simply put, you are condemning our philosophers for not seeing our major concern today that did not exist when they were practising. Their problem could be ‘ the germans’ or ‘the english’ or ‘the spanish’ buit never any tribe out side of their race so why should they worry about it, as they were not visionnaries anyway.
    They could not see that the building civilsiation was something racial. This sense only started at the end of the 19th century when archeologist and linguists started to put the puzzle in place of a commun racial ancestry of all recently discovered civilisations, most of them hidden under the sand.
    However before that Luther, Voltaire, Cicero many warned us about the jews. They were race conscious enough for that.
    They never thought that any tribe but the jews could threaten white civilisation one day in its core. I admit that the advance of arab islam should have triggered a solidarity in racial awareness among white thinekrs, but it did not, as they were still overwhelmed by its onw progress and its numbers, overcrowding their homelands and shipping them to the americas.
    Racial awareness should be put in context

    1. I never red any philosopher either stating something about the pollution of the ocean or the massive extinction of species on earth since the 1970 or over population, which is the world’s biggest threat .

      Martin Heidegger and Theodore Kaczynski (“The Unabomber”) come to mind as big anti-Humanist environmentalists.

      Pentti Linkola, however, is your man if you’re looking at that stuff really in-depth. A Finnish ecofascist with no compromises.

      “What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat.”

  11. Japanese Confucianismin Modern Culture & Society Confucianism failed to inspire any great schools of art in Japan, nor did it become a religion or gain a religious following. Yet it greatly influenced social behavior. Confucian concepts are still clearly evident in modern Japanese society, but most Japanese people don’t recognize them as such, as modern Japan has dressed itself predominately in Shinto and Buddhist garb. Below are a few examples of Confucian influences in modern Japan.

  12. After reading a Jewish text—I feel stronger and fiercer to face the world than after reading a WN text (brilliant as it may be). Judaism gets you ready for ACTION and INTER-ACTION. Reading a typical WN text makes you bitter and hopeless. I resisted feeling this—but that’s the way it worked out. Action and non-stop transformation.

  13. if jews and negores are not the problem we are facing as whites, what is, ourselves? are we just being pushed into our demise by the Jew or are they systematically trying to mix us to oblivion?

  14. Reblogged this on Originism and commented:

    This blog and its author is smarter than most white nationalist males I know. His site does the work of 50 (good ones). In fact – I’ll start unsubscribing from a good few of them. Here is a small entry by Cesar to prove my point. Now this is creative European thinking. I look forward to more. Do good, old man.

  15. I quite enjoyed this article. You are wise to knock those pretentious pseudo-intellectuals called philosophers. What a big mass of nothing this field is.

    You’re wise to knock the Abrahamic desert cults. What a nasty much of jewish pettifogging that filth has been upon the Aryan mind.

    I see you have knocked Buddhism, and that is right too because deep down within Buddhism you see the utter nihilism and emptiness of the Asiatic mind.

    But for ordinary Europeans I think Hinduism, specifically the religion described in the Bhagavad Gita, is the ideal substitute for all this nonsense.

    The ethic of the BG is superior to all the Christ-tard jeebus nonsesne, and it is fully compatible with National Socialism. The BG encourages violence against enemies, it sanctions a caste system which would separate Nordics from ordinary Whites, from mongrels, from niggers, from jews. This religion is not the product of the Dravidian monkeys currently inhabiting India, but it is the product of the Indo-European Aryans of antiquity.

    This is the closest thing to an original religion we have.

    I would not knock it, and since the BG is very short I encourage you to read it.

    1. I’m not certain the caste system is an adequate preserver of the purity of Aryan blood, historically it was a failure. Look at the multi-racial mess that India is today! Like segregation, apartheid, colonialism and slavery we could leave it in the past and adopt the new method of either exterminating or expelling non-whites from territory we take over. However, I am willing to grant we could create a caste system on a world-wide level i.e. White world supremacy, with the lower races under our dominion and rule.

      Your right about the Bhagavad Gita being compatible with National Socialism though, in fact it was Himmler’s favourite work, which he referred to as his “high Aryan canto”. He saw the SS as similar to the ancient Aryan Kshatriyas of India. He also saw Hitler as similar to Lord Krishna, the Prince of Warriors who instructs the Aryan warrior Arjuna in the doctrine of Detached Violence.

      Indeed, the ethic of the Bhagavad Gita – that one should fight even if they know they will lose, because it is the fight that is important, not the winning or losing – is perfect for the Nordic ethos. The Vikings had a similar ethic and I believe the Muslims adopted their concept of Jihad from Aryan Persia. There are quotes from Hitler where he espouses the same philosophy as Krishna:-

      “He who first demands of Fate a guarantee of success thereby renounces all idea of an heroic deed.”

      “We must not ask whether it is possible, but whether it is necessary. If it is impossible, then we shall try our best and perish in the atttempt.”

      This was the ethic of the Waffen SS at the Battle of Berlin. It is the way of the hero.

    2. With the hindsight of the history of the white race (see e.g., March of the Titans) we now know that caste systems don’t work. Even in Thomas Jefferson’s house a white impregnated a black negress. Those white genes in quasi-simian bodies are now been used against whites in the US, insofar as those lighter negroes descendants from the Jefferson house identify themselves with the coloured cause.

      Pierce wrote about “extermination or expulsion” while referring to the ancients. But if the West fails to find a substitute for oil in times that petroleum has picked, later in this century we won’t even have the more “humane” option. That’s why I am using the title Extermination for the series of books I’m presently writing.

    3. Yes, you’re both right; an inter-racial caste system does not work. I agree with expelling or exterminating any non-Whites in our midst, and only using a caste system as a temporary measure.

      I should have clarified, I mean an intra-racial caste system for Whites. So we can filter the Nordics out of the White Race and push the more mongrelized Whites to the bottom, and eventually out of the race completely.

      I like your insight, Joseph, into Himmler and the Waffen SS.

      If the average person needs some form of religion to sustain themselves and our race then I think the ethic of the Bhagavad Gita should be this religion. It is leaps and bounds ahead of that impoverished Semitic nonsense of the Bible.

      The type of heroism and self-sacrifice Krishna prescribed Arjuna in the BG is the highest form of heroism I have ever read about. The SS exemplified this so well and so we must resurrect this ethic.