PhilosophyNihilism Articles Resources
CultureHeavy Metal Heroes Tribes
Mail Call, redux
We get all sorts of mail here, but we only select the best... for you. These incoming missives were like fastballs that failed and came in clean, and were thus, easy to hit out of the ballpark. In some cases, the home run is a perceptive question from an interested reader; in others, it's a moron who needs a healthy slandering. See if you can spot the different types.
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:25:57 +0200
I am of 75% swedish and 25% finnish heritage. Still, I have more of the typical slavic traits; narrow face, slightly protruding cheek bones and not very broad-shouldered so to speak - however I am blonde, blue-eyed and tall.
How could I ever associate myself with the swedish culture/history with a look pretty unsimilar to the average swedish person of nordo-germanic ancestry, even though I am more swedish than anything else? Do I have the "right" to consider myself a swede?
This might be a silly question, but since I am no expert in these kinds of questions, and since I don't know who I should ask in this tabu-jewish society, I simply turn to you. Please forward or deny it if you feel you have better things to do.
Thanks for writing, Dekker. I think you actually have better things to do than worry about this one. Yes, mixing is terrible, and we wish to avoid it. In your case, you're asking quite admirably where's an ethical place for your genetics. My advice is not to stress it too much, but if your demi-Asiatic appearance seems out of place in Sweden, go to Finland and have a blast there.
While race-mixing is destructive, some of it always goes on, and populations still survive. You may have discovered how powerfully nature recycles genetic traits, in that it brought out an Asiatic profile from 25% Finnish - a quarter Finnish that probably does not fully express those traits in every generation. You're three-quarters Swede and could opt for that life without serious consequences. Then again, the gradual Finnification of Swedes and Norwegians has changed much of their original genotype.
I guess it comes down to this: I'm not comfortable giving orders. I write about ideas. I think you've tuned into something quite powerful with your question, but really, only you can answer it. "Rights" are a bullshit concept, as they're absolutes in a situational world, and they force us into a lock-step moron march to figure out how incompatible concepts can be compatible. Follow your heart and soul; either stay a Swede and breed out those Asiatic traits, or go to Finland and be like many Finns mostly whatever Swedes were with a high degree of the Asiatic elements common to modern Finland. Either way, I think the world will keep turning.
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert R.
One of my friends has pointed out in the past, and I read recently out of curiosity, that the word 'aryan' was used by ancient Persians of the region that is now Iran to describe themselves. But I read in your most recent update on the site that the 'Aryans' were "those who chose to make a Northern pilgrimage for many generations" (Nordic?). Just wondering if you could clear that up for me.
I'd also like to ask you where you got your research on Indo-European tribes because I hope to, after I figure out my own lineage (most likely a mix between Czech/Bohemian and perhaps Irish or English), find out where it lands in Europe's extensive and amazing history.
The word "Aryan" will confuse most people in a modern time because it has multiple meanings, most of which have no counterpart in a modern time. First and foremost, it means "noble," referring to that section of the population which is hardest on itself and thus enforces the greatest evolutionary factors on itself, including of a moral-spiritual nature. The original Aryans were, as you note, Hyperboreans, or those who made a pilgrimage to ancient Finland and struggled through an ice age there, selecting themselves naturally for not only physical traits (tall, thin, blonde/blue, smart) but spiritual ones (idealism) as well.
The Aryans branched out into many areas, including Persia and Greece and Italy and Nepal and the New World. Their descendants can be found there today, such as blonde Nepalese girls or Celtic-looking Iraqi generals. In modern times, there's been a lot of confusion over the term Aryan. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway used it, as in "the Aryan ideal," to refer to predominantly Nordic-Germanic populations, as did William Faulkner. This was around the time of Adolf Hitler, and he used it in a similar way. The dictionary definition reflects this to the current time, and suggests that "Aryan" is also used to indicate societies of Aryan origin.
I think we need to return the term to its original meaning, and start living in freezing winters without technology so we can weed out the worst and produce a "noble" idealistic and highly intelligent race. At least, those traits seem to be badly in need in the world now.
Regarding your research question, there is no simple answer. I'd start with resources like Cavalli-Sforza and Coon but not limit yourself there; the ancient historians often provide better and more accurate data than the modern scientiests! You would probably do well to join some genealogical and Nordicist organizations, as many of those have members who have read the extensive documentation.
I wish you luck on your quest, and appreciate your polite and insightful questions.
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:22:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Daryl G."
1. I've not yet located adequate resources (books, articles, etc) for studying the history of human population movement. My knowledge is limited to a few short discussions in various chat forums and whatever I've picked up from research into National Socialism. Can you explain where you became educated on the subject or provide the names of a few good books that assume no prior knowledge? Also, please clarify what a Slav is. My understanding is that the Slavs are a language group based in Eastern Europe, composed of such nationalities as Poles, Russians and Czechs. This alone seems to indicate they should have a great deal geneticall in common, but what is this groups relationship to the Alpine subrace of Europeans? It is clear that the subraces cut across cultural and language boundaries, as Northern Germans seem to have more genetically in common with the English than the Southern Germans. What is the relation between culture and genetics in this situation?
2. In the recent article you reprimanded a writer who you accused of attempting instill you with feelings of guilt. Is it not possible to use Judeo Christian morality in a Machivellian sense to disarm your opponents? The undermen use this tactic constantly, but why should we have any problem with using their own weapons against them when the situation calls for it? Perhaps so long as the weakness isn't ingrained in one's psyche there should be no reserves, like safely handling a powerful weapon without maiming yourself.
3. I've spent the majority of the past summer and early fall reading fiction, attempting to focus on classic authors like Goethe, Steinbeck, Maupassant, etc. I thought this would be a good way to gain some knowledge as Dostoevsky, Dr. Pierce and a few others had been useful in the past. Lately, I've become disillusioned, even with the classics. I feel that I've stopped gaining any useful knowledge, but rather simply a useless knowledge of history that may someday allow me to impress somebody by saying "Oh, I've read that." What are your thoughts on fiction as a form? Useful merely as a propaganda tool?
4. What is the purpose of art? Obviously there are many different types, so I will simplify my question by dividing into categories: Literature, Visual and Audio. Literature (fiction) can obviously serve to help share ideas or rally the masses behind some cause. Certain music can be inspirational as well, but even the most beautiful music seems to serve no higher purpose besides entertainment. Also, I find similar problems with visual art. Unless a useful idea if conveyed, great paintings are simply a more intelligent form of entertainment, similar to a TV but without the subversive liberal effects. I have a very good idea of your likely answer: beauty is often more important than practical application. Not everything need have a function beyond its own existence. I also realize the importance of creating art in order to uplift the spirit and encourage higher thought. Please comment on my own thoughts or clarify.
Good questions. Thanks for sending them in. I'll give you some introductions to resources and ideas, but I get evasive when it comes to definitive "this is what you should think" responses because I'm not sure they're helpful, and they're less fun than figuring the rest out yourself. Further, I believe in the esoteric discipline of life, and feel that if you get a good start from my advice, it's up to you to follow it as a final way for you of making sure this is a sensible path. Politicians want followers, but I'd like to contribute some direction to autonomous knowledge agents like yourself, instead.
1. See above for some basic works on population dynamics. I like Cavalli-Sforza, although he has his faults; there are numerous works from the past you can seek as well. However, why resort to "science" - especially of a dodgy politicized nature - when there's history and historical epics to tell you the whole truth? Pick credible history texts from before 1940 and you'll do fine. What's a Slav? A Slav is someone from the Eurasian populations of Eastern Europe, and is a product of mixed heritages in many cases. There are great Slavs, and crappy Slavs. They tend to be seen as non-European, as Russian writers like Dostoyevsky affirmed, and most Western Europeans dislike them because of what happened in Russia (mass revolt) and a history of failure among the Slavic people, including but not limited to their domination by Mongols and their position as slaves (that's the derivation of the word: Slav becomes "slave") to Western nations. Clearly, for Slavs, like all other white tribes, the solution lies in creating rigorous factors of natural selection and pruning out the dipshits while promoting the heroes. Or is that too unscientific?
2. Are you asking me to pass moral judgment on passing moral judgment? One can use anything in a Machiavellian way, but the tool affects the user, and in the case you mention, my suggestion was that the correspondent had become paradoxical in his expectations of others versus his own behavior.
3. This is somewhat similar to question #4, so instead, I'll address your disillusionment: read whatever is relevant. It's very helpful to have a backing in the classics, but there is no requirement you read the whole pantheon at once so you can say you did. Find the books that speak to you. For some of us, that's philosophy; for others, history; for others, literature; for many, a combination of the above. What if the only authors that motivate me are Joseph Conrad and Walt Whitman? Well, then, read that, and see where it leads. Life is many moments, and it seems like here, you're trying to plan all of them at once.
4. The purpose of art is to praise triumph over adversity in life, because to those who study life, it becomes clear that both positive and negative are needed to create a "meta-positive," otherwise known as the state of ongoing existence. Like campfire songs, art communicates knowledge, a certain outlook, and shared values, but mostly describes the process of finding triumph (or total death) in experience, and thus symbolically affirms a philosophy of idealism. At least, that's the case in Indo-European societies. Art helps us live by making our lives better, and giving us cause to see the transcendent ideals shining above the torments and tediums of everyday life.
Hope those answers make some sense and give you more areas to explore. Life is, after all, one giant process of discovery, and that's part of the reason we keep surviving.
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 08:12:17 +0000
From: David K.
Subject: "Learning to fly" - associated readings
I found your 'learning to fly' article profoundly interesting in the way it (to my limited knowledge) scratches the surface of Idealism & its associated Transcendence. -Could you please recommend some books/readings to me on the subjects? -And, in your opinion, must one be acquanted in detail with Kant's thinking to fully appreciate such topics?
Thanks for sending in such an interesting question. I'll answer them in reverse order. First, the philosophical system has many entry points, and all of its questions reference the same core issues, so you can discover this one without having read Kant at all. In fact, you can discover all of the idealism in the ancient Greeks, or the ancient Indians, or even in Nietzsche; you have to find a path of thought and develop it until you reach all logical extremes. This is the nature of philosophy as an esoteric science; I can explain the beginnings of idealism, but it's up to you to make sure you understand them. Reading by itself conveys some understanding, but to really grok the concept, you read and then contemplate (or "meditate" if you prefer), and test yourself against the concept to make sure you understand it. Unlike sodomy or using Apple computers, philosophy requires more than memorization; it's a fusion of your creative and analytical powers that makes sure you have incorporated knowledge of these ideas into your basic lexicon. Still, it never hurts to read certain works and certain others and some odds and ends of Kant.
In the tradition of finding a few, shorter, more focused works instead of sending you out to dig up the entirety of a philosophical tradition, let me suggest some Schopenhauer and a smidgen of Aurelius and a Christian mystic and a Sicillian writing about Zen masters. You can find more information in ancient texts from India or ancient Rome. Further, you can find these motifs through all of Western and Buddhist literature.
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 21:56:57 -0500
From: Jason S.
Subject: You are an asshole.
Oh god, I can't believe that I am writing this email to you. But wait a minute. I already did. And now you are reading it?
You are an asshole. You are full of shit, and bring it out through your mouth.
I hate you and people like you. You'll commit suicide and we, the rest of the world, will not even notice it.
I'm an asshole to those who are misinformed, and thus are offended by things that contradict the bases of their cognitive dissonance. But whether or not I, or you, commit suicide has nothing to do with the validity or accuracy of our viewpoints.
November 7, 2005