4,072 words
Daniel S. Forrest
Suprahumanism: European Man and the Regeneration of History
London: Arktos, 2014
Given my interests in topics covered in my Nietzsche’s Coming God book review, as well as my Overman High Culture essay, I thought it useful to take a look at Daniel Forrest’s new book, Suprahumanism.
The concept of Suprahumanism is defined by the author based on the following tenets: aristocratic conception of human individuals, the importance of honor, a heroic attitude toward the challenges of life, exalting this world and not some mystical afterlife or “world beyond,” strength and beauty and health, and the fusion of morality and aesthetics. The author notes that the European mind and soul is Faustian, it wants to know everything, is interested in everything, and wants to grasp the reality of everything. This contrasts to the Church’s “thou shalt not know,” the promotion of ignorance and weakness, the “lesson” that man was ejected from “paradise” for “eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.” Thus one contrasts Suprahumanist ethics with those of Christianity. The author’s negative view of Christianity is, in my opinion, a positive. He contrasts ethnocentric Judaism and universalist Christianity:
Judaism is a religion for survival in a multicultural society. It is a religion governing the behavior of a Jewish minority in the presence of a non-Jewish majority. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion for governing the behavior of Christians in a homogeneous society. In a multicultural society it becomes suicidal.
Perhaps, the paradigm suggested here is better explained as the attempt by Jews to construct Diaspora societal niches that they are comfortable in – multiracial, multicultural societies – that, at the same time, are destructive to White Gentiles.
The author does a good job explaining the self-sacrificial guilt complex exhibited by Whites, in that it is considered a moral good, and an alleviation of guilt, to favor alien interests over their own, while sin and guilt is exemplified by the “horror” of Whites actively pursuing White interests. The author also summarizes the Suprahumanist indictment of basic Christian doctrine: Christianity exalts weakness and abhors strength, and would advocate against the weak becoming strong: after all, the meek and weak “shall inherit the earth.” Suprahumanism, on the other hand, exalts strength and overcoming and is thus incompatible with Christianity.
There are those who insist that Christianity was not a problem for the White man until very recently, and in fact, traditional Christianity served Whites well as a foundation for Western civilization. Forrest, in contrast, argues that “traditional Christianity” was an amalgam of the original Paulian Christianity mixed with elements of paganism and infused with Germanic dynamism after the conversion of Northern Europe. This chimeric memetic construct was held together by Faith and Belief, but with the “death of God” due to Science and Rationalism, all that is left of Christianity is its secular core of egalitarianism and universalist (pathological) altruism. Thus, the West today is morally and spiritually bankrupt, the Pope promotes and celebrates the Third World invasion of the West, and Whites have no moral, memetic defenses against multiculturalism and degeneracy. Ironically, many modern trends opposed by the Church – for example, gay marriage – derive from the very egalitarianism and tolerance that forms the basis of the fundamental Christian doctrine. After all, if we are all really the same before God, then why is a male-female pair any more or less legitimate than male-male or female-female? Or we can dispense with such classifications altogether, claim that “gender is a social construct,” and celebrate ever more bizarre forms of sexual debauchery.
My view is, and has been, that those who believe that traditional Christianity can be revived and serve as a pro-White foundation need to show us that it can be done. They need to do it, they themselves. It is always curious when they assert that non-believers – secular atheists or Asatru pagans – must renounce their own beliefs to help “rebuild the faith of our forefathers.” No, my friends, if you think it is a good idea to reverse history and revive a dead Middle Eastern religion, then you, and only you, must be the ones to do it, and then demonstrate to the rest of us how so very important it all is for White survival. The rest of us have better things to do, thank you very much.
A la Krebs, the author makes a distinction between a bad “Western” civilization and a proper “European” civilization, classifying today’s degenerate multiracial globalism as the end product of the West. I’ve never particularly liked that meme, which conflates the Faustian High Culture of the West with the Judaized multiracial nightmare of today. I see those as two very different things. However, I’ve never advocated making the same error as the Christo-Racialists and demanding a return to the dead past. Acknowledging that the West has been buried under a deluge of yarmulkes (metaphorically speaking), it’s time to look to the future, the Overman High Culture, which can be viewed as being consistent with the Suprahumanist worldview. Indeed, Forrest believes that European Man is at a crossroads, the old world that began with the Neolithic Revolution and the rise of the Indo-Europeans (however defined), and lasted until Nietzsche’s proclamation of the “death of God,” is at its end. How we deal with this “new World” will decide whether we move in the direction of the Last Man or the Overman.
Forrest views Wagner and Nietzsche as the twin pillars of Suprahumanism, these two 19th-century Germans who started as friends and allies and ended as enemies. Wagner, according to Forrest, represents the artistic pillar of Suprahumanism, and, Nietzsche, the philosophical pillar of that doctrine. The current System, according to Forrest, has no inner meaning, no overarching goal, other than its own maintenance and expansion. In this he is undoubtedly correct: the System has no positive outlook, no “Faustian goal,” no “shining city on a hill” to which is strives, but instead generates chaos, filth, and degeneracy. With respect to what should be a proper goal, the author presents a synthesis of speeches by George Bernard Shaw[1] on the ascent to Godhood by humanity, promoting the organizing essence of the universe to fulfill a higher purpose, to dedicate oneself to this higher purpose in a truly disinterested fashion, independent of self-centered personal needs and objectives. This idea Shaw – and by extension the author – conceives as true religion, not worshipping a manufactured sky-god, but obeying the will of the universe, so to speak, by humans becoming gods themselves. This is consistent with William Pierce’s “cosmotheism” and is also consistent with my proposed Overman High Culture. Thus, the author defines history as:
. . . a battlefield on which groups of men confront one another and fight under the colours of an image/ideal they have themselves assumed, and to which they intend to conform – thus realising and overcoming themselves.
Another point: importantly, from my perspective, the author has a pan-European focus, which I approve of. For example, toward the beginning of the book, we read:
The one great goal toward which European foreign policy should strive is the development of a worldwide community – transcending present geographical nationalism – in which all men and women of European blood and culture will be part. The replacement of a parochial outlook with European world solidarity and a final elimination of fratricidal war, would count among the enormous benefits of such a development.
Quite right. I have discussed this issue many times in many different fora, and need not get into it again, other than say there are two types of activists who have problems with this ideal. The first are well-meaning folks who are well disposed to other Europeans, but fear that pan-European solidarity would somehow damage the narrow particularisms they value, and dilute the uniqueness of their specific ingroup, perhaps even leading to a destructive panmixia. These types can be reasoned with; they need to be reassured that the type of pan-Europeanism we advocate includes preservation of the ethnic and subracial types that make up the European family of peoples. The other type of activist, however, is one who either simply does not care about other Europeans in any way whatsoever, or is actually hostile to them. This latter type is part of the problem and not part of the solution, they are “them” and not “us,” and they are no more “on our side” than is the most deranged multiracialist. Forrest summarizes his views on this topic by writing a defense of a pan-European “higher patriotism” which proclaims:
“I am a European and therefore the heir of an ancient culture which has civilized the entire world.” Only then will a united Europe dominate the world, as is its birthright.
I also am glad to see that the author embraces technology and the role of science and technics, properly harnessed to European Man’s will, in helping us achieve Godhood. The author rejects the neoprimitive advocates, from both Right and Left, of “degrowth” – what I would call the cult of “living in the woods eating twigs and branches.” In this sense, the author is Futurist, rather than exhibiting the more traditionalist tendencies inherent in other parts of the book. The author also correctly notes that economic-obsessed capitalism and the free market will never properly invest in the sort of paradigm-shifting, cutting-edge basic research and “breakthrough technologies” required for “civilizational projects.” The free market is short-sighted, it is “structurally incapable” of making the grand decisions necessary to advance the human species. It cares for nothing except to increase the yield for the shareholders and enhance profits regardless of the cost to human progress. The author also pokes a hole in environmentalism and ecologicalism, for failing to accept that humans – as evolved animals – have as much right to interact with the environment as do “seals and penguins.” The author does note, however, that with our rights come responsibilities – we have the power to harm the environment; thus, we must protect it for our patrimony. Here, a properly harnessed technology will be a benefit; thus, in the long run, the solution to environmental problems is more, not less, technology; more, not less, human interaction with the natural ecology. We are, after all, a legitimate part of that ecology.
The author also notes that Europeans have traditionally struck a proper balance between an individualism that allows creativity to flourish and avoids Oriental “ant-heap societies” while, at the same time, avoiding the atomization of hyper-individualism, which destroys societies, and which does not allow the full flowering of human expression possible through economies of scale and group cooperation. However, under the current System, we have the worst of both aspects – a sort of atomized conformist collectivism, in which people are “free” to indulge in any (conformist, popular, mass culture) perversion or other destructive vice, but are not free to pursue objectives — particularly racial group objectives — outside of System-approved agendas, agendas all bound together by a mercantilist economic focus. Likewise, the author contrasts the concepts of Imperium and Empire – the former, of Roman derivation, fuses imperial rule with the maintenance of ethnic particularisms and is consistent with the maintenance of aristocratic values (as Forrest suggests, true Imperium was most evident in the Roman Republic as opposed to the Empire), and the latter, more characteristic of globalist and universalist imperial societies that tend to erase important divisions that separate humans along horizontal and vertical axes of distinctiveness. The author also takes the opportunity to contrast the Roman style to the authoritarian technical dystopia of the USSR, which he equates to Egypt under the Pharaohs, and suggests a similarity between a mercantilist America and ancient Carthage. All sounds about right.
The subject of art is touched upon, including a picture of this painting (which I’m sure all the “dark enlightenment” “game” crowd will just love) representative of negative current trends in “Western” art, and, perhaps, representative of negative current trends in “Western” female phenotypes.
Lucien Freud, Benefits Supervisor Sleeping
On a more positive note, the author presents Christopher Conte’s Chronos Version 2, which I have a high opinion of.
I suspect that this, like Bowden’s art, will be better appreciated by those with a Futurist temperament, as opposed to the more Traditionalist school, who would more likely admire Classical/Gothic/Renaissance art forms. Nevertheless, I advocate looking forward, not backwards, and Conte’s art represents that in its artistic essence. I’m not suggesting that my opinion that the Chronos image represents a positive human future be taken literally in the sense that we should become skull-faced cyborgs. By essence, I mean that the image represents a Futurist humanity, fully embracing Science and Technics, leaving behind childish invented gods, and becoming the godlike center of their own universal experience, for both “good” and “evil.”
A far as the author’s artistic discourse on “melodic” vs. “harmonic” music – that’s beyond my expertise or understanding.” The author repeatedly asserts the grand importance of Richard Wagner in the scheme of Suprahumanism; I admit to not being very familiar with the full totality of Wagner’s work, so maybe I’m missing something here. The author, echoing the thoughts of Giorgio Locchi, argues that Wagner’s The Ring of the Nibeling, together with Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, ushered in a new phase in European history, representing a “discontinuity” to the past historical tendency that led us through the Christian era. Building on Wagner/Nietzsche, the author contrasts irrationality with irrationalism. Critics of Suprahumanism accuse it of irrationality, of rejecting rationality and reason. However, Suprahumanism does not reject the instrumental use of rationality and reason to achieve objectives[2]; after all, the author embraces Science and Technics. The point is that rationality and reason, by themselves, cannot offer the objectives to follow, and cannot serve as the foundation for goals. For that, a degree of irrationalism, “myth”-making, is required. After all, what is rational? Is Yockey’s Imperium idea purely rational? If rationality is king, maybe we should all embrace the System, become investment bankers, and reject racial nationalism (although there is the matter of genetic interest to consider). Thus, Nietzsche’s “existentialist” viewpoint does not derive historical outcomes deterministically from rationality and reason, but, rather, via irrationalism and myth, determined and actualized by human agency. And the choices that lie before humanity, to be determined by human choice, are the Overman or the Last Man, between the soul of the Master morality and that of the Slave morality.
The author then focuses on the meaning of Wagner’s Ring, the “music of the eternal recurrence” and here, I will admit, he sort of loses me; I understand the general meaning here, but it doesn’t have the same impact, for me, as does Nietzsche’s philosophy. That may be a specific issue for me – a person interested in books and ideas, not particularly interested in music, opera, etc. I’m sure others, with a more refined aesthetic taste, would find the author’s arguments in regard to Wagner more compelling. The author then ties together Wagner and Nietzsche, attempting to explain Nietzsche’s apostasy toward Wagner, and, even more to the point, dissecting the ways that Wagner and Nietzsche’s worldviews are similar, and the ways – important but perhaps not decisive – that they differ. Wagner was in the end perhaps not ready for the final break with Christianity and the old ways, believing they were salvageable if de-Judaized and re-Germanized. In contrast, Nietzsche traced the rot back to Christianity itself and not merely to a more recent Judaization of Christianity; importantly, Nietzsche believed that the current European civilization, based as it is (ultimately) on a slave morality, was beyond salvage. It must go down in ruins, we must help it go down in ruins, so that the new order can be built on the ruins of the old, the phoenix of the Overman rising from the ashes of the West. This latter idea is consistent with the views discussed in my Overman High Culture essay; the old High Culture of the West may have run out its course. In the Winter of the West, we need to look forward to the Spring of the Overman.
The author does not dwell too much on what some of us may consider the failed attempts to institute a Suprahumanist regime by the various fascist movements of the first half of the 20th century. Forrest asserts that fascism was a “precise and concluded historical phenomenon” that was a “premature and immature” attempt to actualize the Suprahumanist ethos. The author suggests that “anti-fascism” has become a core of the egalitarian post-WWII System, so much so that hysterical “anti-fascism” is one major source of legitimacy for the System, a form of “negative legitimacy” – fascism playing a role for the System as anti-matter does for matter. The System’s obsession with fascism and the ethos of Suprahumanism creates a situation in which Suprahumanism is continuously “reborn” as “potentiality” – it is a “ghost” haunting the System, which realizes that Suprahumanism is the only real alternative to the egalitarian multiracialist nightmare.
One criticism of this book that may have as much to do with my worldview as it does about the book itself, is that Suprahumanism, is too much into “traditionalism” – although the author may not himself classify it in that manner – and makes too many assertions without a solid empirical foundation. The metaphysical rambling in the “Chronospheres” section did not particularly impress me. The author did not, in my opinion, effectively explain the “three-dimensionality” of historical time and human perception, which is a key point of the book – or, to put it more accurately, he did not explain it in a manner readily digestible and understandable for those with a more directly empiricist mindset. And that is not an isolated instance; in other parts of the book, there are entire pages where I really don’t grasp what the author is trying to say, or, if the point is clear, it seems that paragraphs or pages are spent explaining ideas that could be more effectively summarized in several sentences. This is a familiar problem; when I tried to read some of Evola’s works, I just couldn’t get past one or two chapters. Opinion masquerading as fact, wild subjectivity, a lack of grounding in any materialist and empirical foundation whatsoever – I’m convinced that the gnostic-spiritual-traditionalist crowd is neurologically hard-wired differently from empiricist, scientific types, and, perhaps, traditionalists and futurists also have incompatible mentalities. While reading the book, I got the sense that Forrest was more of a “them” than an “us” with respect to these distinctive and disjunctive ways of looking at the world. Therefore, the world of racial nationalist activism can be divided up into separate mental modules, including the “traditionalist-spiritual-existentialist-gnostic-golden age to kali yuga” module (patron saint, e.g., Julius Evola) and the “empiricist-materialist-scientific-(sometimes futurist)” model (patron saint, e.g., Frank Salter). Communication between these two modules is difficult and fraught with misunderstandings. Yockey was definitely in the “spiritual-Evola” camp, but since he was essentially a man of action, a political activist with a defined ultimate objective (Western Imperium) rather than a vague “return to tradition,” Yockey has been able to appeal to the materialist camp to the extent some in that camp ignore Yockey’s pathetic ramblings on science and similar topics. As a member of the Salterian module, I am perhaps not the best judge of the value of this book, but nevertheless I did find value in it. It is possible that I have done a disservice to this book (and to Taha’s) based on this mental incompatibility; on the other hand, one can argue that the fundamental utility of a work can be judged by its broad applicability to all relevant situations, and so a top-level traditionalist work should be accessible to the materialists (and vice versa).
Another more specific problem is that as a (in my opinion) traditionalist type, the author doesn’t have an up-to-date grasp on science and population genetics. While the overall thrust of the “History and Genes” section of the book is sound, and the statements about the overall genetic homogeneity of Europeans essentially accurate, NRY haplotypes really have nothing to do with it, and the idea that 90% of Europeans are, essentially, directly derived (unmixed) from Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherers is inaccurate. Just like I am not the best person to evaluate the work of, say, Evola, traditionalist types sometimes have the tendency to muck up the science, or, at least, be 10 years behind the times. The author’s invocation of the China-worshipping HBDer Richard Lynn is also not viewed favorably at this blog, there are others who can speak better in favor of eugenics. Also disappointing was no mention of Salter’s work, which is essential. The author does productively quote Will Durant, in that the three major biological lessons of history are: competition, selection, and the requirement for breeding (i.e., fertility) – today’s European world seems bereft of all three. And while the author dwells to an extreme degree on Nietzsche and, especially, Richard Wagner, Francis Parker Yockey is only mentioned in passing, a regrettable omission for a book with a focus on the future of European Man. The author does however have some favorable words to say about Norman Lowell’s Imperium ideas.
I would now like to take this opportunity to promote some of my own ideas on down-to-earth strategy. I very strongly argue that the future we want will never be actualized with the “movement” as it exists, and that something radically different is required. I have outlined the fundamental principles of what I believe a new Movement should exhibit. This is of course mostly directly at elites. Eventually, the masses need to be brought on board, to the extent that they are capable of understanding (or to the extent that they care). Presently, the masses may need to go through stages of enlightenment: race realism, ethnonationalism, traditional Christianity. But, even so, we need to absolutely insist that the race realism be based on genetic kinship, and not a Jew/Asian friendly HBD-Asperger obsession with IQ; the ethnonationalism needs to be defensive in nature and open to collaboration with other Euro-ethnonationalisms, and the “traditional” Christianity needs to be, at minimum, race-neutral, if not in fact actually race-aware. In the long run, however, the fundamentals listed in the link must be lived by the elites and preached to the masses. The old days have been tried and have failed, repeatedly, for decades. It’s time for a change. Suprahumanism will not be possible otherwise. After all, let us not forget Revilo Oliver, a member of the Old Movement, recognized its record of unremitting failure, speaking about 50 years of failure in a speech given nearly 50 years ago!
Getting close to the end of this review, I would like to cite a José Ortega y Gasset quote reproduced in this book:
Europeans do not know how to live unless they are engaged in some great enterprise. When this is lacking, they grow petty and feeble and their souls disintegrate.
Indeed. Look around you.
In summary, yes, one can find some faults in this work, just as one can in the writings of Salter and Yockey. It’s more important, however, to look at the big picture, to have a “large canvas” view of the issue. In this light, this book is vitally important, and is one of the first significant steps along the path to the Overman High Culture. We need more works such as this, and less obsessive nitpicking over gene frequencies, cephalic indices, and dueling interpretations of racial history. This work walks along the path to the Overman from the aesthetic-artistic-philosophical perspective; in addition to more such works, we also need the Overman pathway to be illuminated by works focused on the scientific-empiricist-political perspective as well.
We have to move forward, if we attempt to “stop and rest” or, worse, move backward, we’re finished. It’s time to grow up as a people (and a “movement”) and face the future. Better yet: make the future.
It is at this point appropriate to end this review by quoting Forrest’s end of his book:
Nietzsche prophesied that the Earth will eventually belong to either the last man or the superman. There will be no other alternatives.
Magna Europa est Patria Nostra.
Notes:
1. Of course, Shaw was a nitwit about certain thing; e.g., see this.
2. For another take on issue, see the sixth paragraph here.
Source: http://westdest.blogspot.com/2014/11/suprahumanism-book-review.html
11 Comments
Admit it Ted. You like Steam Punk art. I am with you there.
The distinction between Europe and the West or the Occident in the thought of the European New Right is probably something that deserves an article at Counter-Currents. It is treated rather briefly in the works published by Arktos (e.g., Michael O’Meara’s New Culture, New Right, Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight, and Pierre Krebs’ Combat for the Essential), and has generated some controversy and criticism (e.g., Ricardo Duchesne’s article on the topic), but it hasn’t been addressed in great detail in English.
The major works in this context would probably be Guillaume Faye’s Le Système à tuer les peuples and L’Occident comme déclin, to which some of the works of the Russian dissident Alexandre Zinoviev could be added, such as L’Occidentisme and La suprasociété globale. (Incidentally, Zinoviev was a genuine Russian dissident, not one of the obnoxious zhidy clamoring to emigrate to Israel.)
I’m under the impression that revolutionary nationalist critiques of the West were made by Jean Thiriart in the 1960s — this is indicated in Pierre-André Taguieff’s Sur la Nouvelle Droite — and even earlier by the National Bolsheviks in Weimar Germany. (It is interesting that Le Système à tuer les peuples includes references to Ernst Niekisch and its cover features an illustration by A. Paul Weber from Niekisch’s periodical, Widerstand, although it should be noted that Niekisch’s influence on Faye’s thinking seems to be fairly limited.)
I prefer the term Aryo-Western. It encompasses the symbolism of the ‘West’ and also those extra-European elements who are of similar race and culture.
Shining City of the Hill? That phrase is from Christianity. As were the Cathedrals – a very promethean style of architecture. And Orthodox Christian Theology does speak about becoming gods (not God) in exactly so many words. But in spite of these missteps, I agree with the review fundamentally. Christianity never fully expressed or integrated its Promethean tendencies even at its height. And now it has become unspeakable, its supernatural virtues become ideology used to work against healthy instincts and values.
Aquinas said the purpose of grace was not annihilate nature but to perfect it. If only that idea had been developed fully by himself and others. It did fit with the old system in its fullness however. Faith, Hope, and Charity were supernatural virtues. And once received, they would infuse the cardinal virtues which hopefully had already been attained by training and self discipline. The result at the higher levels could be either the Christian Soldier or the Saint – or both in one individual. The modern clerics reject the soldier and only want Saints who engage in social activism. I heard a priest recently advocate becoming brides of Christ to his parishioners. This is a specialized form of mysticism that should not be taught or endorsed. And then they wonder why men stay away….
Yes, the worst of all possible worlds! It’s said that in the Old East Germany, there was no freedom of speech, but you wouldn’t starve under a bridge. And that in the Old West Germany, you might starve under a bridge, but there was freedom of speech. But in the new Unified Germany, there is little freedom of speech, but you are certainly free to starve under a bridge.
Thanks very much for the detailed and sympathetic review.
Since I am in general agreement with the ‘Basic Fundamentals of a New Movement’ published by Ted Sallis on his web-site ‘Western Destiny’, the following remarks are intended as a friendly reply by the autor to the criticicisms expressed by the reviewer and as further clarification on some other points which, I think, have been misunderstood.
The desire behind the book was to provide White or European Nationalism with a philosophically sound worldview – to offer response to those existential questions of Identity and Purpose which should be well defined previously to any effective political activity.
For the Faustian man of 21st century, present day descendant of those men who conquered and civilized the whole planet Earth and who managed to put a man on the moon barely 45 years ago, the life purpose can be no other than to prepare the next step in human evolution (Suprahumanism). For that to happen, the battle of ideas needs to be taken now to the global stage. The Decline of the West (aka ‘Globalization’) needs to find a commensurate response: ‘Imperium Europa’, a new world order which will have the explicit goal of producing higher truth, beauty and consciousness.
Reality can be grasped through Religion (Myth), Philosophy, Art and Science. I agree with Ted Sallis on the importance of a scientific world-conception: empiricist, positivist and marked by the application of logical analysis. However, Reason as a tool has usually a deeper impact when accompanied by Will and Imagination, which are stimulated by Myth, Philosophy and Art.
Valid but essentially vague concepts such as ‘genetic kinship’ or ‘ethnostate’ will never be enough, and could even become detractive. Race (genes) must be activated by History (Myth) and Art (aesthetic selection); an ethnostate must be capable of exercising sovereignty (Freedom= Power) in the context of 21st century geopolitics. Ethnostates which were no longer capable of being sovereign in the 15th Century (ex.: Catalonia, Scotland) would be nowadays just a further step down the slippery slope of White disposession and atomisation.
The supremacy of Homo Sapiens over other anthropoids is based, not only on a higher IQ, but fundamentally on the ability to create and transmit to a big number of strangers an imaginary story – a ‘myth’ – which can glue together millions of individuals and project them into the future. Contrary to the relatively small bands of apes or Neanderthal clans, our species was capable of forging immense cooperation nets on a big scale: tribes, churches, cities, empires, nations, supranational institutions or global corporations. But none of this would have been possible if Homo Sapiens would have transmitted, similarly to other species, only information about the observable facts of real life. The key resided in the ability to invent, and transmit on a mass scale, imaginary stories about entities which exist only in our feverish creative mind.
And that is, in a more pedestrian prose, what I meant by the ‘three-dimensionality of time’: an intuition of historical time that is not linear (egalitarian) or cyclical (traditionalist). History is not predetermined but always open. A ‘myth’, in this case, may be also described as an image a people has of its own past according to the future chosen as destiny. For us, post-modern Europeans, it necessarily involves a choice of traditions: of Indo-European tradition versus Jewish-Christian tradition.
In this sense, I prefer the label of ‘archeofuturist’, ‘conservative-revolutionary’ or just simply ‘suprahumanist’ rather than ‘Traditionalist’, and I am certainly not into gnosticism, esoterism or spiritualisms of any kind. The ‘metaphysical ramblings’ are just a clumsy attempt at Heideggerian philosophy.
One last thing: the ‘Atlantic modal haplotype’ that I mentioned in my book is an interesting example, in my opinion, of how the Indo-European Revolution was, at least for Europeans, a cultural and not a genetic revolution. I believed that the conclusions reached by Nicholas Wade and Bryan Sykes were still valid: that the people who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), should more properly be called Cro-Magnon (genetically speaking); that in continental Europe, this same Cro-Magnon genetic legacy gave rise to the Basques, but that since ‘Basque’ and ‘Celt’ are cultural designations, not genetic ones, most of the genetic contribution to the British Isles of those we think of as Celtic came from western continental Europe, i.e. the Atlantic seaboard. I am no expert on population genetics, and if Ted Sallis has more recent data on this question, I will gracefully stand corrected.
I thank Mr. Forrest for his input on my article and for his understanding that, despite whatever minor criticisms I made, I consider his book an excellent work and an important contribution to forging the path to the Overman.
A brief comment on the genetics. I’m not as well versed in the current theories as are others (e.g., Dienekes), and, truthfully, I’m more interested these days in political high strategy than in population genetics. That said, my understanding is that the current view of European genetics (always subject to change, of course) is that (minor exotic admixtures aside), there are three major components to Europeans – 1) Hunter Gatherers, 2) Neolithic farmers, and 3) “North Eurasians” (Indo-Europeans? “Aryans?”). Northern Europeans tend to be a mix of all three groups, while Southern Europeans tend to be a mix of 2 and 3.
From a biopolitical standpoint, however, what’s more important are the genetic similarities and differences that exist today and those that will exist in the future, based on what happens today. Not so much the past.
“From a biopolitical standpoint, however, what’s more important are the genetic similarities and differences that exist today and those that will exist in the future, based on what happens today. Not so much the past.”
Certainly – from a ‘biopolitical’ standpoint. And yet, from a ‘biocultural’ point of view, the past should be important as inspirational idea or ‘image’. Or better said, a certain ‘past’ which is consciously chosen among various possibilities.
From a political perspective, an inclusive approach is preferable: all Europeans of good will both in the mother continent and overseas are to be considered members of the future European ‘polis’, independently of past ‘admixtures’ or present unprepossessing genetic traits. However, the method of the good gardener is the good one culturally: the tree needs to be pruned and sculpted. The sorrow state of genetic decay characterizing Western societies nowadays must be reversed and the guiding posts to pursue are to be found in ‘our past’ – the Indo-European past, that is, not the Jewish-Christian one – as standard to re-attain and then improve: Greek sculpture, Renaissance portrait, the Spanish cavalier, the English gentleman, the Prussian officer…Heinlein’s Starship troopers.
If I may finish on a light note: “More Don Quixotes and fewer Sancho Panzas!”.
This comment by the author is reasonable and I essentially agree. Especially with the “light note” which is, in truth, very important. I believe we are “on the same page” here, perhaps just reading it slightly differently.
I enjoyed this book review, and appreciate the author’s attempt to remain objective and impartial. I get the impression of a book that combines standard WN themes with esoteric and complex philosophical, metaphysical and scientific concepts, which I would probably not be able to understand very well on my own.
I think that Mr. Sallis is probably right that scientific and traditionalist types are wired differently in important ways. As one of the latter, for example, I have difficulty appreciating art such as the cyborg sculpture, preferring realistic depictions of humans and nature. Nevertheless, I am on board with Mr. Sallis for the most part, and share his goal of a healthy European society with an elite European gene pool, reaching for great achievements. The main issue I have with the author is in regard to Christianity: “those who believe that traditional Christianity can be revived and serve as a pro-White foundation need to show us that it can be done. They need to do it, they themselves. ”
Christianity has been proven to be fully capable of being racialist and functional, sustaining the colonies/U.S. through many centuries (including the slave-holding South). While there is no lack of multicultural insanity to be found in certain congregations (which are still mainly highly segregated), are atheists doing any better resisting multiculturalism? One could challenge Mr. Sallis to demonstrate that atheism (or a manufactured religion) can serve as pro-White foundation that is viable (meeting spiritual needs, legitimizing unions, promoting fertility, etc.)
Most evolutionary psychologists will agree that humans have psychological needs (these are must-haves for the health of most humans), and among these is a need for spirituality, a universal feature found in all known human societies. Christianity is an ancient European tradition that provides for this need. Christians are healthier than atheists in important ways – for example, they are happier on average. More importantly, they have much lower divorce rates and higher fertility. As an anecdotal example, look at the Duggar family (of reality fame). They are true believers, with 19 European children, and all who have entered young adulthood so far are marrying other European true believers and having children. They are eschewing popular culture for the most part, and in a few generations, the 2 original Duggars will have yielded a vast new crop of Europeans for our future. There are many millions of other European families with similar beliefs who are doing likewise. Are there any atheists or cosmotheists, etc. out there doing this?
The problem with trying to eradicate Christianity is that when a human need is unfulfilled, humans look elsewhere to satiate it. This may take the form of some alternate new-wave religion, Islam, an addiction or becoming an angry, spiritually unfulfilled tattooed freak. Christianity has many forms, and most of those currently practiced are unfortunately flawed. In the case of the Catholic church, it may be beyond salvage. But, this is a spiritual system that has for the most part a great track record and performs its job of strengthening families and producing children spectacularly. Nietsche, who proclaimed the death of Christianity, produced no children and lived unhappily from all accounts. He certainly did not provide any viable alternative, nor to may knowledge have any atheists or the founders of manufactured religions (which probably don’t meet human spiritual needs very well from their lack of growth).
At any rate, the fertile will inherit the earth, and we can expect that child-bearing Christianity will out-compete barren atheism in the fullness of time. Mr. Sallis is correct in that the task for traditionalists is to re-infuse this religion with racialism and perfect it as a platform for White Nationalism.
Reply:
http://westdest.blogspot.com/2014/11/comments-on-religion-and-suprahumanism.html
Well I do like the idea that we should go forward with new myths though I’m not sure Wagner really cuts it. If anything, the original Star Trek or Star Wars were closer to what we need — and it’s no surprise the tribe has clamped down on the myth-making industry right now.
Ultimately though, it seems the great barrier we face is the “fear of death”. Whatever issues there were with Christianity or Paganism, those men knew (or at least felt) that they were immortal spirits and life was about impressing the “Gods”. But what now, in the Age of Scientific Rationalism/Materialism? Who’s going to be the first one to step in front of the cannons?
My hope is that a new wave of “Scientists” will show us (or try to show) that we truly are immortal. Without that paradigm shift, it’s like we are all handicapped in some Deus-Faustian sense.