Tolkien vs Hitler

“I have in this War a burning private grudge—which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien

 One thing I have observed about the far right is that it seems to often admire both Tolkien and Hitler, two men who clearly had disagreements. So what is one to make of this paradox?

If you asked me personally what I thought of Hitler, I would say that the German people were initially supporting him for the right reasons, namely to make their country financially independent, but the ideology of Nazism itself was not the perfect banner to rally around. In my opinion, National Socialism, is, at best, an emergency ideology to prevent one’s nation from being destroyed in a time of crisis. All this said it is rather amusing to watch Hitler on Youtube waving his fists around yelling about the “roootlesch internatchional clique!”.

What Tolkien seems to be criticizing, however, has more to do with the spiritual ideology pervading German National Socialism. Hitler and (perhaps more) edit: Rosenberg and Himmler used Germanic myth as a source of philosophical themes to be mixed with the occult. The end result was that Hitler edit: Hitler’s philosophers were synthesizing a new spiritual philosophy from traditional Germanic and newer theosophical spiritual elements, not for the purpose of creating something not genuinely Germanic, but to justify a totalitarian regime. This is what Tolkien correctly saw as a perversion of Germanic cultural material.

One place one finds Tolkien and Hitler converging is in a wariness of subversive internationalist conspiracies. Tolkien incorporated this into his literary corpus through the story of the rings, forged in deceit to mind-control the kings of men, dwarves, and elves, and enslave all middle earth to the darkness of Sauron bound up in his One Ring. Hitler was a bit blunter in his condemnation the international elements who use finance to control governments and the media. Tolkien, however, was not anti-Semitic per se and seemed to believe that the nature of the globalist problem is far larger than *them*, that it also hinges on malicious spiritual forces at play, and on the plain weakness of man.

When you understand the Indo-European origins of the spiritual order of Tolkien’s novels, as well as what he is speaking against, the ugliness, greed, and kingless state of the current era, you see that he is speaking from the vantage point of a radical traditionalist. Perhaps he is not an Evola, but I would say that his traditionalism and glorification of monarchy places him farther to the right than Hitler, which something for Tolkien fans (myself included) to think about.

.

Animate and Inanimate Beauty

There is a tendency among us humans, especially those who are ardent humanists to overlook beauty which is living because it is not in any way a product of something uniquely ‘human’. Herein lies the difference between the so-called ‘culturists’ and ‘racists’. A ‘culturist’ appreciates the beauty of non–living things created by man — art, music, architecture, literature. He, therefore, seeks the preservation of culture, often against iconoclasm, religious decline, and degeneracy. A ‘racist’ on the other hand appreciates the beauty of the animate, living thing, not created by man, and recognizes that this beauty is a product of some amount of genetic isolation and natural selection. He, therefore, seeks to preserve the beauty of a race from influences such as miscegenation which would necessarily end its unique beauty.

Regarding the word ‘racist’, I use it in this article to denote a puerile label placed upon individuals wishing to preserve human biodiversity, not the view that all members of the same biological race are identical — which is clearly not true.

Iconoclasm is not just manifested in the destruction of the icons, statues, and stained glass windows beloved by Christian traditionalists, it is also manifest in the destruction of a racial type, or even the corruption of the natural beauty of the earth itself — something the anti-environmentalist ‘right’ needs to get a grip on.

This has caused a great rift I observe in the broader right. Those who value inanimate beauty follow suit in the tradition of various popes and Christian monarchs and those who value animate beauty — of the biosphere and living things follow National Socialist thinkers like George Lincoln Rockwell and William Luther Pierce.

I am bold enough to think that both animate and inanimate beauty is worth preserving. In no aesthetic sense am I an iconoclast. I value the preservation of a ‘civilization’ as a culture just as much as the preservation of any human race, which is in fact living and will continue to reproduce its unique beauty (and further refine its beauty) given the right conditions.

So I do not call myself a National Socialist or a ‘Western Culturist’. The error of the National Socialist is his lack of respect for organic cultural tradition (edit: this is common but not universal among NS), and the error of the culturist being his iconoclasm of animate, living beauty. I call myself a national monarchist in that I value both the beauty of inanimate human culture and animate natural race. And there are precedents to national monarchism throughout the ages –pretty much any monarchy centered around one people (as a biological concept of common descent) counts — Anglo-Saxon England, pre-Norman Ireland, Mediaeval Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, modern post-WWII Japan, and there are probably many more examples. There is no reason to assume as a culturist or traditionalist one must disregard biological race or ethne as the solid foundation of a nation, and there is no reason for a biological ethnocentrist ‘racist’ to assume that cultural tradition should be smashed to create some utopian society. Let the true right unite!

 

The Pitfall of Leftist National Socialism

I think that I have made it rather clear to those who read my blog that I am not a fascist, and I will also say that I am not a National Socialist, however, being a member of the non-mainstream right, I am bound to get exposed to various strange viewpoints which pop up all over the web. One such viewpoint is expressed at Aryanism.net, a leftist National Socialist website which, if you check it out, (seemingly) successfully argues that National Socialist Germany was in fact not a mono-ethnic state, but (in its own weird way) a morally, and biologically idealistic state, which was permissive of immigration of some persons of non-German ethnicity. Ethnic nationalism is condemned on this site as tribalistic “non-Aryan” behavior. I really don’t know if these people present an accurate picture of German National Socialism or not, and I don’t have time to research that. Perhaps the only thoughts I completely agree with on that website are those regarding the origin of certain modern phenotypes in early Neolithic agricultural societies, such as in China, Persia, the Mediterranean, Egypt, etc, which then spread out into many parts of the world. This view of recent genetic history is supported by a recent study by the somewhat well-known geneticist Iosif Lazaridis.

The other important points I agree with regarding this website is their aesthetic ideals regarding the human body and the importance of various distinctly evolved phenotypes, which can have implications for the purpose of nation building in specific geographic areas (see their page here). I also seem to agree with these people that “Religions based on the premise of perfection attainable through struggle” are good and necessary, however, I see this more from a Nietzschean master morality viewpoint, whereas these National Socialists see it from a Christian slave-moral viewpoint.

The aesthetic idealism I previously mentioned is important in a Nietzschean frame of mind, where an aesthetic phenomenon is seen as the justification for existence and the world, thus averting the nihilism and the existential crisis consequent from the “death of God”. You can watch the following video below to find out more about this idea.

My main criticism, however, of the ideology promoted by these National Socialists is their desire, even their thought, that human reproduction can, and should be limited to an extreme. They claim that an Aryan is one who rejects enslavement, and yet enslavement to a totalitarian governmental system is what they desire to solve all of the world’s problems. They, perhaps correctly, see tribalism as a result of competition over limited resources, and they seek to end this through a severe limit on reproduction, but living under such a regime is certainly free for no one, no matter how pleasing it might be. While it might make an aesthetic ideal achievable, it would essentially turn everyone into non-autonomous livestock under an autocratic dictator. No one is permitted under such a regime to grasp the sweet fruit of master morality, rendering such and ideology useless in a Nietzschean struggle towards the Ubermensch.

Now, I did find an interesting book synthesizing Nietzschean and Buddhist thought,  which perhaps reveals the reasons why Nietzschean Ubermensch-like behavior, as I have previously stated in other posts, can be found in the Japanese anime character of Haruka Nanase, whose conception was ultimately in a culture heavily influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism. A synthesis of Nietzsche and Buddha may ultimately be the answer to modern nihilism, and the existential crises we are bound to face in a rootless secular world.