The “Chaoskampf” story is so archetypal. From my perspective, it’s a reminder that if we allow ourselves to be agents of order—imitating the gods in pushing back chaos—we fulfil our calling. That’s a far cry from the Forest Gump type of modern fatalism, which often says we can’t control anything.
Kant emphasized the inability for humans to actually experience reality in itself, noumena. We are only able to observe reality as it presents itself to us, via the senses, phenomena. A good example is the visible light spectrum being a tiny fraction of the overall spectrum. Some, including myself, consider three dimensional space & time to be phenomena. As in, creations of the human mind rather than objectively existing on their own.
The occult revival in Germany (including the Folkish movement) followed the Idealists, as occult means 'hidden.' Essentially, the noumena is the realm of spirits. "Beyond the firmament," so to speak.
I find this striking as it reinforces an imminent outlook on the spiritual, existing unseen all around us, rather than separating the material world from a transcendental one like the dualist religions. It also seems similar to the traditional outlook in folklore, where spirits tend to inhabit specific places in the world even if unseen.
Another important tangent is the importance of the human mind. Many idealists considered reality to be constructed by the human mind more than anything, giving us a single perspective. Most religious practices, since the earliest days of shamans, involve achieving altered states of consciousness. Sleep deprivation, dreams, crystal gazing, psychoactive substances, meditation, frenzy, etc. I interpret this as them gaining an alternative perspective on reality, being able to experience it from multiple viewpoints & thus be closer to the truth.
I think AryaMan makes some good points -- in ascetic religions, the process of ascendance often involves the completion of one's responsibilities in this world. The making-even of karmic debt and whatnot. So it is not necessarily an act of escape or cowardice. But anyways, very good article. In the well-ordered world, most acts are microcosmic references to the divine. In this context participation in this world, correct participation, is productive but non-attached.
I was largely addressing the religions which seek to ignore the world's struggles and never take part in them. To my knowledge, our holy men never did such things, they instead had families, took part in war, politics, and all manner of worldly things. They never fell inwards on themselves, they always seemed to take a stance right at the front.
Wanting to make-even your karma is one thing. Renouncing the world to become a monk is another thing entirely. There is something to be said about the different ascetic schools though, and I am not totally turned off to them. I just do not like them all equally. A man should have a family, kill an animal, kill a man, shout and argue in the council chamber, love and whisper in the bedchamber. This is more in-line with northwestern thought, at least, and that is why I tend to focus on PIE descendants which are closer to home. Reminds me more of my own Culdean ancestors. They were ascetic monks in many ways, but they had families, fought in wars, and involved themselves in lawfare and politics. Warriors seeking an ascetic ideal. The two can be coupled in my eyes, so I agree its not always escape or cowardice which drives a man towards asceticism.
I am partially against it because I know two ex ortho-monks who realized how bizarre it is for a European man to go hide in the woods and renounce having a family and taking part in the great racial struggle. Their experiences have probably shaped my understanding of that attitude. It does seem weak to me, and I've never been impressed with eastern asceticism.
This was markedly better than the cursory covering of the sky religion, but one element I think you’re misled in is this idea that the ascetic maturation of IE religion is cowardly or somehow not virtue. Nothing about placing your money where your mouth is, totally renouncing all luxury and comfort in abject poverty and isolation is “weak”, in fact I don’t think you or any commentator about ascetic religion could manage it. People who renounce the world by and large aren’t running from anything, they recognize that conditioned existence(not just matter or denser mental states) is intrinsically unsatisfying, empty, and impermanent. This, and that conditioned existence has the capacity to endure eternally, and that freedom from this process is the only end that wisdom can allude to. Asceticism isn’t facilitated to escape anything, it’s an attempt at a complete and final victory over conditioned existence. A final expansion of spirit that has no capacity to degenerate into incomplete fragmentation. This depiction of renunciation as if its some kind of attempt at annihilation is rampant in modern IE intellectual circles, and the easiest way to dispel this type of accusation is that wakefulness or awareness cannot be applied to inert nothingness. Not only were the ascetic schools in India mostly created and fostered by warriors(Uttara Mimamsa and Buddha Dhamma), it’s also very likely that Orphic theology was the preceding groundwork for Platonism. Heroes such as Vajrapani/Heracles attend to the protection of the Buddha in Greco-Buddhist depictions, even Evola considers the ascetic saint to be a more accurate depiction of Nietzsche’s “overman”. We see in the Gita that renunciation is integral in competently managing a martial vocation, so on and so forth. I think it is the essence of virtue, considering the cultivation of ethical living is more concentrated in what we do not do, in what we sacrifice. Materially speaking this notion stretches back to sacrifices made to deities in the form of ritual, and its no coincidence that most living traditions of paganism that take themselves seriously have strong ascetic elements. There are two paths that a noble person can take, which is that of the saint or hero, and to say that the saint is weak is rather ridiculous. This suggestion that renunciation and paying ones dues to the society and culture they were raised in are incompatible with another, is only prevalent because of Samvega(Urgency) in Buddhist reforms of Brahmanical culture, where they stress ascetic renunciation before having a family or maintaining lay life. Whereas in contrast the Brahamnical Vedic religion placed this at the end of the four stages of life.
Could an infinite all powerful God get bored? More than any mortal being. Actually, He could get infinitely bored.
If God would feel lonely and need someone to love, He would made a Goddess and raise a family of little gods & goddesses. Not a family of eating, defecating, copulating, stupid, good & evil creatures. Unless… He made us, other species and the "Uni-Verse”, in order to avoid boredom and enjoy infinite ”Di-Verse” entertainment.
Those who have faith and believe in God, deserve some respect. But those who have rational and scientific knowledge of God, deserve a lot more respect. Faith & belief is totally unnecessary amid an array of infinite cosmic evidences. You do not need to believe, if you can know.
Just look deeply at your children. You may see them as an inexplicable miracle, but you know they are real and exist. That alone, should tell you unequivocally that God is real and exists.
God & Universe are one inseparable entity, the Soul & Body of God. Nothing was ever created. Creation is just a myth, because God & Universe always existed, and He is in an infinite process of constant transformation.
If the Universe is the Body of God, and you are a part or a cell of It, how can you not know Him? You should also know that the Universe has consciousness, intelligence & volition, because you also have those three attributes. Do body cells know they belong to a body? Like us, some do, some don't...
If the Universe is the Body of God, He is playing with Himself, that is, masturbating and getting godly orgasms. Collaborate and participate.
'[O]ur ancestors understood divinity as being closely related to the mundane – that the spiritual precedes the physical, essence comes before substance, the metaphysical before the physical, or the ideal being before the particular being.'
If this is indeed the 'legacy' ontology of the proto-IE peoples, then we are fortunate that our ancestry includes non-IE peoples because this conception of the world is entirely Plato-Abrahamic and antithetical to nearly all Classical thought and feeling.
No White 'pagan' or 'heathen' would prioritize the abstract over the concrete.
In the past, you have told me religion and spiritual matters are unimportant. Now you seem to have strong opinions on the subject. I also think your comment is funny in lieu of the other criticising comment.
If it's important to you, it ought to be important to get it right.
And having an opinion on matters doesn't mean I think they're 'important' in some foundational sense, only that it's better to have a more-enabling opinion than a more-disabling opinion.
I don't think 'spiritual' interests shouldn't be pursued, only that they're not fundamental to the transformation that is required by Whites in order to survive the errors of the past.
'Whites caring about Whites because they are White and no other reason' is the only 'religion' Whites need.
No 'pagan' or 'heathen' believer of the past would ever have said that the abstract and invisible was more important than the concrete and perceptable.
Instead, they would have acted as if the two were inseparable, commingled in such a way as to make 'action' in one affect 'action' in the other. Hence the role of magic among 'pagans' and 'heathens' of the past. To 'do a thing' in this world affects the 'other world'.
When I realized that the relationship between the (Roman/Etruscan) 'fas' and the 'fasces' wasn't 'rational' (in the modern sense of that word) but is, rather, the materialized foundation of its own 'rationality', the world of the ancients opened up a little bit more.
The power to model potential events (counter-factual imagination) has served Whites well. But it does not pay to invest too much in that success. In the end, we're being beaten by racial nepotism, not a failure to understand ultimate reality.
The “Chaoskampf” story is so archetypal. From my perspective, it’s a reminder that if we allow ourselves to be agents of order—imitating the gods in pushing back chaos—we fulfil our calling. That’s a far cry from the Forest Gump type of modern fatalism, which often says we can’t control anything.
Excellent article brother,Hail the folk Hail the Ancestors
Nice analysis!
Great article. Have you read into Kant & the other German Idealists? They have influenced my interpretation of the noumena/spiritual heavily.
I've read a little bit of Kant, but really nothing to be capable of speaking about it. Anything insights to share in regards to this?
Kant emphasized the inability for humans to actually experience reality in itself, noumena. We are only able to observe reality as it presents itself to us, via the senses, phenomena. A good example is the visible light spectrum being a tiny fraction of the overall spectrum. Some, including myself, consider three dimensional space & time to be phenomena. As in, creations of the human mind rather than objectively existing on their own.
The occult revival in Germany (including the Folkish movement) followed the Idealists, as occult means 'hidden.' Essentially, the noumena is the realm of spirits. "Beyond the firmament," so to speak.
I find this striking as it reinforces an imminent outlook on the spiritual, existing unseen all around us, rather than separating the material world from a transcendental one like the dualist religions. It also seems similar to the traditional outlook in folklore, where spirits tend to inhabit specific places in the world even if unseen.
Another important tangent is the importance of the human mind. Many idealists considered reality to be constructed by the human mind more than anything, giving us a single perspective. Most religious practices, since the earliest days of shamans, involve achieving altered states of consciousness. Sleep deprivation, dreams, crystal gazing, psychoactive substances, meditation, frenzy, etc. I interpret this as them gaining an alternative perspective on reality, being able to experience it from multiple viewpoints & thus be closer to the truth.
I think AryaMan makes some good points -- in ascetic religions, the process of ascendance often involves the completion of one's responsibilities in this world. The making-even of karmic debt and whatnot. So it is not necessarily an act of escape or cowardice. But anyways, very good article. In the well-ordered world, most acts are microcosmic references to the divine. In this context participation in this world, correct participation, is productive but non-attached.
I was largely addressing the religions which seek to ignore the world's struggles and never take part in them. To my knowledge, our holy men never did such things, they instead had families, took part in war, politics, and all manner of worldly things. They never fell inwards on themselves, they always seemed to take a stance right at the front.
Wanting to make-even your karma is one thing. Renouncing the world to become a monk is another thing entirely. There is something to be said about the different ascetic schools though, and I am not totally turned off to them. I just do not like them all equally. A man should have a family, kill an animal, kill a man, shout and argue in the council chamber, love and whisper in the bedchamber. This is more in-line with northwestern thought, at least, and that is why I tend to focus on PIE descendants which are closer to home. Reminds me more of my own Culdean ancestors. They were ascetic monks in many ways, but they had families, fought in wars, and involved themselves in lawfare and politics. Warriors seeking an ascetic ideal. The two can be coupled in my eyes, so I agree its not always escape or cowardice which drives a man towards asceticism.
I am partially against it because I know two ex ortho-monks who realized how bizarre it is for a European man to go hide in the woods and renounce having a family and taking part in the great racial struggle. Their experiences have probably shaped my understanding of that attitude. It does seem weak to me, and I've never been impressed with eastern asceticism.
This was markedly better than the cursory covering of the sky religion, but one element I think you’re misled in is this idea that the ascetic maturation of IE religion is cowardly or somehow not virtue. Nothing about placing your money where your mouth is, totally renouncing all luxury and comfort in abject poverty and isolation is “weak”, in fact I don’t think you or any commentator about ascetic religion could manage it. People who renounce the world by and large aren’t running from anything, they recognize that conditioned existence(not just matter or denser mental states) is intrinsically unsatisfying, empty, and impermanent. This, and that conditioned existence has the capacity to endure eternally, and that freedom from this process is the only end that wisdom can allude to. Asceticism isn’t facilitated to escape anything, it’s an attempt at a complete and final victory over conditioned existence. A final expansion of spirit that has no capacity to degenerate into incomplete fragmentation. This depiction of renunciation as if its some kind of attempt at annihilation is rampant in modern IE intellectual circles, and the easiest way to dispel this type of accusation is that wakefulness or awareness cannot be applied to inert nothingness. Not only were the ascetic schools in India mostly created and fostered by warriors(Uttara Mimamsa and Buddha Dhamma), it’s also very likely that Orphic theology was the preceding groundwork for Platonism. Heroes such as Vajrapani/Heracles attend to the protection of the Buddha in Greco-Buddhist depictions, even Evola considers the ascetic saint to be a more accurate depiction of Nietzsche’s “overman”. We see in the Gita that renunciation is integral in competently managing a martial vocation, so on and so forth. I think it is the essence of virtue, considering the cultivation of ethical living is more concentrated in what we do not do, in what we sacrifice. Materially speaking this notion stretches back to sacrifices made to deities in the form of ritual, and its no coincidence that most living traditions of paganism that take themselves seriously have strong ascetic elements. There are two paths that a noble person can take, which is that of the saint or hero, and to say that the saint is weak is rather ridiculous. This suggestion that renunciation and paying ones dues to the society and culture they were raised in are incompatible with another, is only prevalent because of Samvega(Urgency) in Buddhist reforms of Brahmanical culture, where they stress ascetic renunciation before having a family or maintaining lay life. Whereas in contrast the Brahamnical Vedic religion placed this at the end of the four stages of life.
GOD
Could an infinite all powerful God get bored? More than any mortal being. Actually, He could get infinitely bored.
If God would feel lonely and need someone to love, He would made a Goddess and raise a family of little gods & goddesses. Not a family of eating, defecating, copulating, stupid, good & evil creatures. Unless… He made us, other species and the "Uni-Verse”, in order to avoid boredom and enjoy infinite ”Di-Verse” entertainment.
Those who have faith and believe in God, deserve some respect. But those who have rational and scientific knowledge of God, deserve a lot more respect. Faith & belief is totally unnecessary amid an array of infinite cosmic evidences. You do not need to believe, if you can know.
Just look deeply at your children. You may see them as an inexplicable miracle, but you know they are real and exist. That alone, should tell you unequivocally that God is real and exists.
God & Universe are one inseparable entity, the Soul & Body of God. Nothing was ever created. Creation is just a myth, because God & Universe always existed, and He is in an infinite process of constant transformation.
If the Universe is the Body of God, and you are a part or a cell of It, how can you not know Him? You should also know that the Universe has consciousness, intelligence & volition, because you also have those three attributes. Do body cells know they belong to a body? Like us, some do, some don't...
If the Universe is the Body of God, He is playing with Himself, that is, masturbating and getting godly orgasms. Collaborate and participate.
'[O]ur ancestors understood divinity as being closely related to the mundane – that the spiritual precedes the physical, essence comes before substance, the metaphysical before the physical, or the ideal being before the particular being.'
If this is indeed the 'legacy' ontology of the proto-IE peoples, then we are fortunate that our ancestry includes non-IE peoples because this conception of the world is entirely Plato-Abrahamic and antithetical to nearly all Classical thought and feeling.
No White 'pagan' or 'heathen' would prioritize the abstract over the concrete.
In the past, you have told me religion and spiritual matters are unimportant. Now you seem to have strong opinions on the subject. I also think your comment is funny in lieu of the other criticising comment.
If it's important to you, it ought to be important to get it right.
And having an opinion on matters doesn't mean I think they're 'important' in some foundational sense, only that it's better to have a more-enabling opinion than a more-disabling opinion.
I don't think 'spiritual' interests shouldn't be pursued, only that they're not fundamental to the transformation that is required by Whites in order to survive the errors of the past.
'Whites caring about Whites because they are White and no other reason' is the only 'religion' Whites need.
No 'pagan' or 'heathen' believer of the past would ever have said that the abstract and invisible was more important than the concrete and perceptable.
Instead, they would have acted as if the two were inseparable, commingled in such a way as to make 'action' in one affect 'action' in the other. Hence the role of magic among 'pagans' and 'heathens' of the past. To 'do a thing' in this world affects the 'other world'.
When I realized that the relationship between the (Roman/Etruscan) 'fas' and the 'fasces' wasn't 'rational' (in the modern sense of that word) but is, rather, the materialized foundation of its own 'rationality', the world of the ancients opened up a little bit more.
The power to model potential events (counter-factual imagination) has served Whites well. But it does not pay to invest too much in that success. In the end, we're being beaten by racial nepotism, not a failure to understand ultimate reality.
Plato-Abrahamism???