Anthropomorphic deities in any religion often serve as a model by which humans shape their lives, and order their actions. Christians sometimes ask what would Jesus do? and such things as this. In the ancient Hellenic world, a warrior might ask what would Ares do? or a ruler might ask what would Zeus do? In a strictly, perhaps fanatically monotheistic system, because there is only one unique divinity, everyone strives to have all the same virtues, often embodied in that divinity, and all the same qualities; ethics are universalized. In the enlightenment, this manifested itself in the ethics of Kant and the destruction of aristocracy; and in more modern times it is manifested through the destruction of traditional gender roles.
In a polytheistic system, however, different gods act as a role model for certain vocations. Zeus (and similar deities such as Odin and Varuna) is a role model for judges, and people for whom wisdom and justice are necessary virtues, Ares is the role model for the warrior, Apollo for the young man, student or athlete, Rhea for the mother, and there are many others. If one takes a broader view of Indo-European religion, one will find that the various deities usually act as archetypes corresponding to the various “three estates”: the oratores, bellatores, and laboratores (priests, aristocrats, and commoners). Research Georges Dumezil’s Trifunctional Hypothesis to find out more about this. Polytheism, for our ancestors, was not just some silly idea of Zeus throwing thunderbolts at people he was angry at (you can also find many such instances of so-called ‘silliness’ coming from the monotheistic deity of the Pentateuch). For them, polytheism was a cosmic blueprint for how society was supposed to be run. Not everyone worshiped the same gods nor was everyone expected to live up to the same virtues. The hierarchy among the gods, and their various duties in keeping cosmic order was the model for a hierarchy among humans and their various roles in a complete society. The different virtues of different gods marked the virtues different virtues different people were supposed to aim for depending on who they were, whether a priest, king, warrior, or farmer. Polytheism is probably the most reliable way to avoid Kantian categorical imperative ethics because it destroys the notion that all maxims by which individuals act must become universal law. It does this through the multiplicity of archetypes, showing that there are inevitably different types of humans with different virtues to be exercised.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy kept a quasi-polytheistic tradition going through a hierarchy of saints and angels, whom devotees would look up to in iconography. A warrior might look up to St. George, a mother to St. Mary, etc. The patron deities which set the virtues for various vocations were replaced by patron saints which served the same function. However, once all vestiges of polytheism were lost through radical Protestantism, we lost our blueprint for an orderly society where each person fulfilled his or her role according to his or her inherent virtue(s); humans became ‘equivalent’ understood as interchangeable units, leading to utilitarianism, democracy, Marxism, ‘gender studies’, and globalism.
So if any religious revival is to take place in the West, polytheism, or a similar system such as the veneration of saints found in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, must be present in some form or another. We cannot build a new West on the foundations of evangelicalism, Puritanism, or any other form of radical Protestantism. We must have anthropomorphic ideals and archetypes in place to encourage mothers to be caring for their young, warriors to be courageous and fierce, rulers to be just, and so forth. Otherwise, we will just end up back where we started.
So Western civilization has been in a long, slow decay for at least a century, the uniquely European racial type is in danger of extinction, and who is to blame? Many on the Alt-Right would agree with this fellow.
I, however, realize that the problem is much greater than this. The Jews, you see, have always been some of the most talented members of the third estate, which consists of merchants, financiers, and workers of all sorts, but not usually landowners (who are really members of the second estate). So we must not excuse other members of the third estate, as they, through their power of remuneration are ultimately those who have challenged the power of the second estate, the conservatives (aristocratic/martial class). This has played itself out in history in many ways. Classical Athens, the cosmopolitan city that it was, with its policies geared towards the best possible international trade opportunities, clearly an embodiment of the third estate, and also ranked high in terms of liberalism, both in terms of immigration policy, and because it was a democracy. Athens challenged Sparta, which was an embodiment of the second estate, to war and lost. Similarly, Carthage, a city founded by Phoenician traders, which profited from its central position in the Mediterranean, was destroyed by the disciplined, not-yet-decadent Roman Republic after three punic wars.
It was not until the power of the third estate reestablished itself among the high-IQ natives of Northwestern Europe living around the North Sea, that it began to win in its battles against the second estate. After the Roman Empire fell, international trade was restarted in Northwestern Europe by the Frisians, then the Vikings, and then continued by the Hanseatic League. All of this is discussed in Michael Pye’s book The Edge of the World. By the late Mediaeval period, a large, rootless, cosmopolitan merchant class had grown in the Netherlands, Southeastern England, Northern Germany, and Scandinavia, making these areas ripe for the acceptance of both Nominalism (which would establish a metaphysical basis for the individualist axiology of liberalism) in the late Middle Ages, and later, Protestantism in its more radical and low-church varieties (which also has some roots in Nominalism). I would speculate that these phenomena which stem from the individualist axiology of capitalism are the reason why cosmopolitan values, and hence also political correctness, are so deeply entrenched in Germanic-speaking Europe, compared to the rest of it.
So, by now you should at least be thinking something like this person below. I would argue that it is ultimately the culture of capitalism and low church Protestantism, deeply rooted in Mediaeval international trade around the North Sea, which was ultimately behind the Puritan faction in the English Civil War. When the Puritans emigrated from their East Anglian homeland to North America, they brought their iconoclastic culture with them; and were ultimately the predecessors of the Whigs of the revolutionary war, and the Unionists of the American Civil War.
Then, in the middle of the 20th century, the Anglo-Saxon capitalist nations of the USA and Britain fought a war against Germany; I will allow you to speculate whether or not this was because Germany at the time was disrupting the ambitions of a certain *ahem* group of international bankers which were well established in these Anglo-Saxon countries.
Today, according to the well-known youtube channel Black Pigeon Speaks, it is the desire for more debt slaves (to privately owned national banks) to inhabit Western countries which is the driving impetus behind lax restrictions on third-world immigration into Europe. There is also, of course, the case of the globalist George Soros, as well as corporations which propagandize leftism (such as news media), and both Jew and gentile capitalists who are desiring an influx of ethnic non-westerners into the West to utilize as cheap labor.
On Holiness Spirals
Nick B. Steves pointed out to me a while back that holiness spirals are an important factor behind leftism which need to be dealt with in some way. He advised me to see what Jim had to say about it. So I went to Jim’s blog, and it appears that Jim’s arguments are completely valid regarding holiness spirals an essential driver behind left-wing behavior. Holiness spirals can be roughly defined as voluntary behavior which one does in order to publicly appear holier than others.
The thing is, that, at least from my perspective, there appears to be a clear correlation between an excessively powerful third estate, and the presence of holiness spirals in a culture. Though it may be less obvious than other examples I will give, Classical Athens even shows evidence of them — have you ever considered that Athenian democracy may have simply been invented as a platform for holiness spirals? The case of Athens also begs the question: were Socrates and Plato in holiness spirals? (This is something to think about; Socratic philosophy, with its emphasis on epistemology — “The only good is knowledge, and the only evil is ignorance” — may be the basis of the modern holiness spiral of fanatical rational-empiricism)
As another example of the correlation between a powerful third estate and holiness spiral behavior, take for instance the Canaanites, including the Phoenicians, some of whom founded the civilization of Carthage; making ordinary sacrifices using animals was not competitive enough for them, so in competing for higher and higher degrees of holiness, even children became acceptable to sacrifice. Then, of course, there were the Jews, competitive masters of finance, many of whom were self-hating as Jim points out, who played a key role in the foundations of Bolshevism as a means of achieving personal ‘holiness’. And, of course, there were the radical Protestants along the coasts of the North Sea, entrenched in a highly commercial lifestyle, who decided to be better Christians than everyone else by abstaining from holidays and Church aesthetics not prescribed in the Bible (this is formally called the regulative principle of worship). On the other hand, from the descriptions left by Julius Caesar and Tacitus of the Celts and Germans, I know of no evidence of holiness spirals in pre-commercial, pre-Christian, Northwest Europe, and even when these people conducted human sacrifices, mere criminals and slaves were usually considered sufficient (De Bello Gallico, Liber XI, Ch. 16; De origine et situ Germanorum, Ch. XL); there is no record I know of regarding self-immolation, or immolation of one’s children among these people in an attempt to gain higher respect from a deity or to publicly appear more holy. I have also not found evidence of holiness spirals in the pages of the Rig Veda, composed by the Indo-Aryans of the Punjab region around 1300 BC; this literature, however, is largely composed of hymns to various gods, and not accounts of everyday life among the Indo-Aryans.
It is true that the Christian Bible contains injunctions against holiness spirals in some areas, but I think it is necessary to get to the root of this problem before we should try solving it. Clearly, in the West and Near East, holiness spirals coincide with commercialism. Why could this be? I once thought that this is primarily due to an overabundance of resources resulting from highly productive agricultural and industrial sectors in these societies. This hypothesis may partially be true, but after more reflection, I believe it could originally be a result of the religious application of the individualistic competition inherent to capitalism. Just as the Puritans knew that the marketplace was an arena for competition in which a hard work paid off, they understood the religious sphere of life as a marketplace of holiness open for competition. Likewise, Phoenician traders would have seen the sacrifice of various gifts to their gods, going all the way up to their most precious possessions, their own children, as a competitive marketplace for holiness.
So what is the solution then? Society needs to become moderately more collectivistic; having a religion which places emphasis on collective ritual and honor rather than individual righteousness should help keep holiness spirals down. Moreover, it would also be wise to move away from a guilt culture, and towards a shame culture to a moderate degree. Guilt culture is the established norm of modern Western societies, and it seems clear to me that this is at least partially due to the Christian concepts of sin and contrite repentance (source; source). However, many Mediterranean Catholic and Orthodox countries, as well as most East Asian countries, have shame cultures, and these are the parts of the developed world where political correctness is the weakest (source). An important characteristic of guilt culture is that it makes one’s ethical status a matter of great individual concern even if one is not punished by the tribe for ones ‘sin’; it is important to note that this is likely at least partially produced by the individualist axiology which arises from capitalism. In a guilt culture, one’s ethical status is something one is supposed to improve upon using internal guilt (checking one’s privilege, repenting etc.), whereas in a shame culture, one’s ethical status is only a concern on the level of the tribe as an enforcer of rules (source). It is easy to see how an emphasis on individual self-enforcement of value (guilt) in combination with competitive capitalistic axiology leads to holiness spirals and creates Western ethnomasochism as a not just a phenomenon, but a societal norm.
A side note on European paganism and guilt culture: European pagan religions avoided guilt culture by considering the gods to simply be powerful forces in the universe which one had to appease with proper rituals (prayers, sacrifices etc.), but not necessarily love, or feel internally guilty about offending. In my view, this may be the basis behind the Catholic and Orthodox sacrament of penance (although penance is supposed to have contrition), and this is likely one reason why some Mediterranean Catholic and Orthodox countries today have a shame culture, rather than a guilt culture.
So who should be shamed? No mainstream Republican will admit it, but it’s the capitalists, the people of the third estate: both Jew and gentile who have been unable to curb their egoistic appetites for wealth. It is the habit of placing capital ahead of nation which is placing our civilization and people in danger of extinction. Carthage, that is the supreme power of this estate, the Ring of internationalist Power if you will, must be destroyed.
So am I national socialist then? I wouldn’t say so; I would rather call myself a national monarchist; I think a strong aristocracy (second estate), whose power is immutable from wiles of the financial class, is necessary to prevent the ascendancy of a plutocratic oligarchy. Republics and pure meritocracies are simply too easy for plutocrats and their puppets to infiltrate and control (which is probably why the freemasons et al. like them so much). Internationalists, globalists and self-proclaimed cosmopolites — “citizens of the world” should play no part in politics; if they have no allegiance to their country, why should they have any say in running it? It is also true that with an of an aristocracy, you at least know exactly who is in charge, and there is a guarantee that there will be a group of people capable of stopping parasitism by force. For an aristocracy to do this, however, it is important that it carry the alleles for sufficient intelligence and in-group altruism to protect their tribe or nation from its enemies. It is not without cause that an aristocracy is also known as a nobility.
I often like to compare the third estate of classical liberals, libertarians, and capitalists to men, who in Tolkien’s world are corruptible and greedy compared to elves (whom I compare to the nationalists of the second estate). As the wise lord Elrond noted, men are weak, and it is because of men that the ring survives. Likewise, it is because of the greed and the resulting liberal cosmopolitan values of these weak men that we are in the mess that we are in today with this ring of international capitalism. But men are not useless; they help us battle the Marxist orcs (SJWs), and they serve as an entryway to our movement.
Nick B. Steves on Social Matter pointed out that I had presented a “cardboard cut out” of Christianity, and since I have admiration for certain Christians, and certain elements of traditionalist Christianity, I have decided to write a blog post on this topic. I experienced Christianity first as the Methodism of my parents. During adolescenthood I became a very serious evangelical for three years. Then, for about a year I experimented with traditional, conservative Anglicanism, after which I decided to leave Christianity alone. I have also researched plenty of information about Catholic and Orthodox denominations of Christianity, including the various ecumenical councils. Although I may not have experienced all forms of Christianity, I may not be as ignorant as I outwardly seem.
The majority of this article will be about human biodiversity, however first let’s start with some quotes by Fredrich Nietzsche in order to get acquainted with the idea I am about to argue regarding how great civilizations come into being.
“Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power–they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts”).” –Fredrich Nietzsche from Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter IX, paragraph 257 (emphasis mine)
“There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,–I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition–even in the same man, within one soul. The distinctions of moral values have either originated in a ruling caste, pleasantly conscious of being different from the ruled–or among the ruled class, the slaves and dependents of all sorts.” –Fredrich Nietzsche from Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter IX, paragraph 260 (emphasis mine)
Now obviously there is an IQ requirement in a population for any civilization to develop out of it, however, even in parts of the world where the average IQ is relatively high, such as Europe, and East Asia, we observe that higher, more innovative civilizations, which value both the individual and the collective, develop only under specific genetic conditions, namely a combination of humans who have evolved in a settled agricultural lifestyle over millennia, being genetically pacified, with little or no disposition towards competitive, highly independent, domineering behavior, and a different, aristocratic group, exercising “master-morality”, usually recently descended from hunter-gatherers, who act as the domesticators of other humans; these are Nietzsche’s “barbarians” from the quote above. I will set forth two examples: Northwestern Europe and Japan. This should hopefully clear up why, for instance, Japan has been more open to an individualistic, free-market economy, whereas China exists as a quasi-communist state with totalitarian rules on how many children one can have etc. It should also show why it was countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and Scandinavian countries which have both become very wealthy and made the most scientific and technological advancements in the modern era, whereas much of Southern and Eastern Europe lagged behind. To put it in visual terms, I attempt to put forth ideas regarding why the following two maps are different:
As a side note, one leftist National Socialist website (aryanism.net) which I have previously criticized, prizes the agricultural, genetically pacified phenotypes as “Aryan”, arguing that this is the phenotype necessary for civilizations to develop while condemning the paleolithic phenotypes. This, however, is an incomplete view of the entire picture, for, as I have started to argue, and will continue in arguing, a combination of neolithic and paleolithic phenotypes is ultimately what has produced the greatest civilizations of mankind.
It has been fairly well established by geneticist Iosif Lazaridis that Europeans owe a great portion of their ancestry to early farmers who wandered in from Anatolia around 7000 BC during the Neolithic (here). However, in the present day, North-Western Europeans only owe about half (probably less, actually) of their ancestry to these farmers, the rest coming from various hunter-gatherer groups, and their descendants, such as Indo-European pastoralists from the Pontic Steppe (here). The net effect is that Europeans occupying a broad belt from Ireland to Western Russia possess large quantities of ancestry both from early agriculturalists and from hunter-gatherers who only started using agriculture more recently, during the late Neolithic and Bronze Age. If one goes too far north, the genetics of the hunter-gatherers predominate, and as one goes to the south of this central region, into the Mediterranean basin, the genetic admixture from Neolithic Anatolian Farmers becomes dominant.
It is my opinion that the most successful civilized nations of Europe, namely, Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Germany, (and to a lesser degree, Northern Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, and Russia) have been so successful, not necessarily due to early adoption of manorialism, but rather due to this balance of genetic input from both genetically pacified farmers, who were accustomed to a settled, relatively peaceful existence, as well as the more mobile, “barbaric” in Nietzschean terms, Indo-Europeans who were descended primarily from hunters and fishers who had recently adopted a highly competitive pastoralist lifestyle on the Pontic steppe (see David W. Anthony’s The Horse the Wheel and the Language). The aristocracies of early Greece and Rome would have also possessed this ideal mix of genetically inherited traits, being descended from Indo-European invaders who married local Neolithic farmers, introducing the early Greek and Italic languages into the Mediterranean basin. This aristocracy is practically gone now, however, through an overwhelming genetic absorption into the conquered Neolithic farmer populace, who were ultimately descended primarily from early Near-Eastern agriculturalists.
The end result of the ideal genetic admixture which I have described is a people which are both civilized and politically organized, and also are also willing to innovate, take risks (like exploring the New World), and challenge old notions of thought, as was done in the scientific revolution.
The Japanese, compared to some other East Asian populations, such as the Han, possess large amounts of ancestry from a group of hunter-gatherers who did not partake in early rice farming during the Neolithic (these hunter-gatherers were known as the Jomon people). This is assessed quantitatively in the following study, which you can read here. An excerpt from the abstract reads: “Our results showed that the genetic contributions of Jomon, the Paleolithic contingent in Japanese, are 54.3∼62.3% in Ryukyuans and 23.1∼39.5% in mainland Japanese, respectively. Utilizing inferred allele frequencies of the Jomon population, we further showed the Paleolithic contingent in Japanese had a Northeast Asia origin.”
The Jomon people had long inhabited Japan since the Palaeolithic, whereas another population, the Yayoi, who brought intensive rice farming to Japan, were effectively newcomers from the Asian mainland, and perhaps the descendants of the original domesticators of rice themselves. Thus, like many Europeans, the Japanese owe their ancestry to both a population genetically pacified through evolution in a relatively peaceful, settled, agricultural society and another population primarily descended from paleolithic hunter-gatherers, who ultimately would have organized into tribes and needed to compete over animals as a food source.
It is also interesting to note that the Japanese Emperor (whose lineage, according to legend, is around 2700 years old, predating the Yayoi period by almost 400 years) possesses Y-chromosomal haplogroup D (see source), which is found to a high degree in Japan, and almost universally among the Ainu (who are mostly descended from the Jomon), but is also much less frequent in Korea and Eastern China where the Yayoi agriculturalists migrated from. Perhaps this is evidence that part of the Japanese aristocracy, as on might think from Nietzsche, was originally descended from the Jomon “barbarians”, and not the more civilized Yayoi from the East Asian continent.
If you want to see a full explanation of the genetic history of Japan and its relationship to the rest of East Asia, which I have abbreviated here, you can visit this website. In summary, the combination of the Jomon and Yayoi people in Japan of the has produced a highly orderly, but also innovative, culture which is more individualistic than its mainland neighbors of China and Korea. Just look at where Japan is on the world values chart below compared to other East Asian countries:
So, In addition to IQ, other factors clearly need to be addressed in understanding the success of a civilization.
If the people are too genetically pacified through evolution over millennia of non-competitive, settled agriculture, a civilization runs the risk of stagnation where innovation is minimal, and the individual’s wishes are grossly disrespected by the collective. This, for instance, is likely what contributed to the formation of communist China and fascist Italy. This is also likely why the historically-speaking, intellectually repressive Catholic Church has remained religiously dominant in the Western Mediterranean while being rejected by the less genetically pacified peoples of Northern Europe during the reformation.
On the other hand, if people have only been agriculturalized for a brief period of time, being descended largely from hunter-gatherers and having evolved for a tribal, often violent existence, civilization cannot develop easily due to a predominance of aggressive, often internecine warlike behavior, which does not allow for enough cooperation to develop an orderly society. The Vikings and early Germanic tribes perhaps come to mind the most here, but (throughout history) the Sottish highlands, the Baltic states, and Northern Russia, have also fallen within this description. Within East Asia, the Ainu are perhaps the best example of this type of a group descended primarily from hunter-gatherers, being a culturally independent people which has never had the organizational capacity to become politically dominant over the Japanese archipelago, but did, in fact, engage in repeated battles with the Japanese and Chinese during the late medieval period (according to Wikipedia).
So it is ultimately genetic balance (a golden mean as Aristotle might say) which must be achieved for an advanced civilization to continue. This usually occurs through the combination of a “barbarian” ruling class descended recently from hunter-gatherers, on top of a large, evolutionarily pacified agricultural class. Usually, these two classes mix to a degree resulting in individuals with the ideal balance of both traits, allowing for an organized, yet independent and innovative civilization. We might look to the future wondering of this ideal balance will continue to survive massive amounts of immigration. An ethnostate is one solution to preserve this genetic ideal, as the Japanese pretty much already have. Northwestern Europeans, on the other hand, including many European-Americans do not possess this yet.
I really recommend watching this recent video by Stefan Molyneux on why civilizations rise and fall if you found my article interesting.