Sunday, August 01, 2010

We Were Warned

Regular readers are familiar with Anne-Kit’s excellent translations from Danish to English. As a change of pace, she has contributed an essay of her own, a meditation inpired by Jean Raspail’s novel The Camp of the Saints.


We were warned
by Anne-Kit of Perth, Australia


“In order to be, a society must defend itself against whatever and whoever might threaten its existence. The inability to defend oneself against the enemy has always been the sign of approaching death … Men can live and act together only if they are bound together by code and custom, myth and legend, sculpture and song … Where such underlying orthodoxy is lacking we find ourselves in the midst of an aggregate of ghettos, not a society.”

— Frederick Wilhelmsen, Editor of National Review, early 1960s

Imagine this scenario: The time is the near future; the setting is the South of France. It is Easter Sunday and 100 rusty, decrepit ships have just run aground off the coast of Provence, having completed a spontaneous and precarious journey half way around the world from India and bearing a cargo of 1 million destitute refugees from the subcontinent about to spill out and swarm ashore. The emaciated corpses of those who didn’t survive the journey litter the water around the ships. The squalor and the stench of unwashed bodies and excrement are indescribable.

Immigrant boatWe observe this through the eyes of M. Calguès, a retired professor of literature, ensconced in his 17th century ancestral home high in the hills of Provence and watching it all through a spyglass on his spacious terrace. Everyone else has fled and left their homes and belongings to the conquerors; he alone has decided to stay and await his destiny.

His home, a symbol of Western Civilisation, is a fortress, well-stocked with bread, cheese, ham, olives, home grown vegetables, wine, brandy and cigars. Curiously, he leaves his front door open, for “can a door protect a world that has lived too long?” He turns on his radio: Gone is the pop and jazz, the vapid talk show hosts, the experts on health and love and sex. Only Mozart is playing on every station.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Almost four decades ago, in 1973, French writer Jean Raspail published his novel The Camp of the Saints, which served as a worst-case scenario warning about the consequences of unchecked immigration into his native France and, by extension, all of the Western world. It could have been written yesterday. This is a deeply prophetic and extremely disturbing allegory of what is happening to the West today.

The novel takes place over a period of 50 days during which a flotilla of 100 unseaworthy ships filled to the brim with 1 million starving, miserable refugees from India whose only weapons are numbers and helplessness travel towards Europe with the intention of settling in the promised lands flowing with milk and honey.

No one invited them, but they were aided, abetted and encouraged by local Christian missionaries and left-wing human rights activists on the ground. When Belgium decides to terminate a Third World adoption program which had allowed for 40,000 Indian children to be adopted by Belgian families, a great throng of hungry Indians take it upon themselves to commandeer a fleet of rusty steamers in Calcutta and embark on a voyage to Europe.

We follow the events through several characters in France and observe the world reaction to the progress of the refugee fleet, with the media and intellectuals — and the church — praising and encouraging the undertaking, preparing to welcome “our guests” and continuing the guilt-ridden self-flagellation with which the West has been obsessed for the past three decades at least. A slogan is born, with disturbing modern resonances: “We are all from the Ganges now!”

A few whistleblowers see the impending catastrophe for what it is. The problem is what to do about it. Do we cave in, the result of which will be the certain death of Western Civilisation and the white race? For if the first wave succeeds, others will follow. Or do we resist? And how? Do we kill 1 million defenceless human beings, many of them women and children? If not, how else do we resist and stop the destruction of our civilisation? Or perhaps the question is, do we have the strength and even the collective will to stop it?
- - - - - - - - -
In the last days before the ships lurch through the Straits of Gibraltar and it becomes obvious that they are headed for France, the French begin to panic. At the last minute the President commands the armed forces to defend the country but it is too late. Most of the army and navy desert; the inhabitants of the south flee north, police abandon their posts, jails are opened and prisoners rampage.

When the Ganges refugees swarm ashore in the South of France, others around the world follow suit in their respective regions.

A small band of stalwarts with the will to defend their last little corner of Provence to the bitter end find their way to M. Calguès and his villa in the hills, where — reminiscent of the protagonists of Boccaccio’s Decameron awaiting the plague — they spend a few weeks talking and laughing, eating and drinking, singing and shooting anyone approaching the house. They keep a tally of enemies killed: Those from the Ganges and those they call “fellow travellers” or traitors. The end comes in the form of an aerial attack which turns the ancient homestead to rubble. The West dies with it, and an Orwellian society emerges out of the ashes into some sort of multi-racial commune.

Raspail states in his introduction to the 1985 French Edition: “For the West is empty, even if it has not yet become really aware of it. An extraordinarily inventive civilisation, surely the only one capable of meeting the challenges of the third millennium, the West has no soul left. At every level — nations, races, cultures, as well as individuals — it is always the soul that wins the decisive battles. It is only the soul that forms the weave of gold and brass from which the shields that save the strong are fashioned. I can hardly discern any soul in us.”

Raspail was of course vilified as a racist when the book was published, but it is interesting to note that he conveys — through characters in the book — that “being white isn’t really a question of colour. It’s a whole mental outlook.” In other words, as with Islam, it is not a question of skin colour but rather of culture, of civilisation, mindset and outlook. It is appropriate that the character speaking these words is a well-assimilated Ceylonese (or Sri Lankan, in contemporary terminology) who joins the “resistance” fighting on the side of the West. Early on he calls in to a talk radio show which is engaged in eulogising the voyage of the refugees: “You don’t know my people. The squalor, the superstitions, the fatalistic sloth they’ve wallowed in for generations. You don’t know what you’re in for if that fleet of brutes ever lands in your lap! Everything will change in this country of yours. My country now, too. They’ll swallow you up …” and then they cut him off.

That the church in the story has sold out on Western Civilisation and, in essence, on Christianity, is a painful reminder of its real-world parallel in the UK, where the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, actively encourages the introduction of Sharia law to further social cohesion. Not to mention the ultimate Establishment figure, the Prince of Wales, who has publicly declared that when he is King he will be the “Defender of Faith”, not the “Defender of the Faith”. What a difference a word makes!

As in the novel, it takes someone from the former colonies, former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali to stand up for Western values and defend the Judeo-Christian heritage which underpins our way of life.

Raspail explains how he was inspired to write the book which “seemed to have been dictated by an otherworldly force, by an inspiration from on high I wouldn’t dare name … Where the devil would I otherwise have drawn the courage to write it? I came out of these eighteen months of work unrecognisable, judging by the photograph on the back of the jacket of the first edition: my face exhausted, older by ten years than my age today, and with the look of someone tormented by too many visions.”

Many have wondered why, in The Camp of The Saints, it is brown and black human masses coming from the far-away Ganges rather than Muslims from the shores of the Mediterranean that overwhelm the South of France. One word: Prudence. Even back in 1973 it would have been too dangerous and politically explosive to exacerbate the cultural tensions already discernible.

The book is mesmerising, terrifying. It will shake you to the core and I doubt if anyone would read it for pleasure, but it is impossible to dismiss and the feelings of revulsion and unease will stay with you for weeks. But I believe it is a crucial work that needs to be brought to the attention of people everywhere, for the problems it deals with are problems we will all be forced to deal with before long. There will be no fence sitting in this matter, and we cannot say we were not warned.

Although it is clear that the issues are of a cultural more than a racial nature I confess that I struggle with the race issue myself. I am Scandinavian: My father was Danish and my mother Norwegian, and though I now live in Australia I retain very strong feelings and connections to my native country, to the point that I have not taken Australian citizenship purely because I’d have to give up my Danish nationality, as Denmark does not recognise dual citizenship.

I do not hate other races and do not want to wipe anyone else out, but I have an affinity for my own kind, and I would be very sad if there were no longer any blue-eyed blond people on this earth. It is not that we are more beautiful than people with other colouring but we are just as beautiful and just as worthy of preservation. Doesn’t everyone want to preserve their own kind? Isn’t that just human nature? We occupy ourselves these days with the conservation of obscure species of plants and animals found to be on the brink of extinction, but if I start talking about keeping my race or bloodline pure it sounds like Nazi propaganda, even to my own ears.

Is there a way around this?

Why am I made to feel it is wrong and shameful to want to see my own kind perpetuated?

It may be futile anyway; it may be too late. How can we fight the facts? Almost 7 billion people on the earth, only 900 million of whom are white.

Raspail: “What’s to be done, since no one would wish to renounce his own human dignity by acquiescing to racism? What’s to be done since, simultaneously, all persons and all nations have the sacred right to preserve their differences and identities, in the name of their own future and their own past?”

I am sitting in my office. I have Beethoven, Mozart, Grieg and Handel playing through the speakers, celebrating these giants of Western culture and civilisation.

If Raspail’s prophecy is fulfilled, will we still be listening to them in 2100?

30 comments:

rickl said...

I've never read the book, but I could swear I saw part of a movie on TV years ago with a similar plot. I can't find it at IMDB, though, so it could have another title.

While searching for it, I found the Wiki page about Camp of the Saints. See what the Southern Poverty Law Center says about it. What a thoroughly contemptible organization.

KingM said...

Nicely written and heartbreaking. I agree with so much of the sentiment.

Rollory said...

"since no one would wish to renounce his own human dignity by acquiescing to racism"

Does not follow.

Besides which, logically, the people who DO acquiesce to racism will by definition be the only ones not engulfed in this tide, and therefore the only ones with even a chance at rebuilding something afterward. I completely agree that white skin is not at all a sufficient quality, but it seems to be a necessary first-order approximation.

Zenster said...

Outstanding, simply outstanding work, Anne-Kit!

I am definitely adding Raspail's "The Camp of the Saints" to my reading list as of right now. Your quote from Frederick D.Wilhelmsen is on the money as well. How odd that the man was teaching for so many years, literally, in my own back yard.

From the link: The central tenet of Frederick D.Wilhelmsen’s faith proved to be the linchpin of his own thought: that God became man neither losing anything of his divinity nor destroying anything of his humanity. Since God took to himself human nature, human nature was validated in its own right. This was true above all for man’s capacity to know the truth, i.e., for his reason or mind. Dr. Wilhelmsen’s supreme faith in the Incarnation undergirded his unwavering confidence in the mind’s capacity to know the real. Conversely, he found it no accident that philosophers who lacked his religious belief often lacked the conviction that reason could know the world. Philosophic realism found its truest friend in the Christian faith. [emphasis added]

I am deeply struck by the compassionate and optimistic nature of his argument in favor of man's basic nobility. His logic is both difficult to refute and resonant with all that is of worth in humankind.

Your own quote by Wilhelmsen was quite as stirring:

Men can live and act together only if they are bound together by code and custom, myth and legend, sculpture and song … Where such underlying orthodoxy is lacking we find ourselves in the midst of an aggregate of ghettos, not a society.

With typical Danish-bred sagacity, he lobs in Art (i.e. "sculpture and song"), right alongside so many other vital components of a healthy and flourishing culture.

Not since Denmark's stalwart resistance to Nazi occupation have I ever been so proud of my Danish ancestry as when the Mohammad cartoons were published by Jyllands-Posten.

This much needed thumb-in-the-eye for skinless Muslims everywhere was a shout of defiance from the tiniest of nations but one with the heart of a lion.

Again, tak så mycket!

laine said...

I own the book but haven't been able to bring myself to read it as I feel I'm reading it come to life in my daily Internet news and occasionally between the lines in the dinosaur media.

For example, a rickety boat of Tamils landed on Canada's West Coast, almost certainly Tamil Tiger terrorists or sympathizers but they were set loose after a cursory examination, with the whereabouts of many now unaccounted for. A second boat has been spotted...

NorseAlchemist said...

Great work, I may have to find this book.

You've hit on the heart of the issue, how can people of European decent defend ourselves against the coming hordes when any actions we take against them will be called racist?

The simple answer is that we must take the power away from the word racism. We will simply have to accept that we are "racist" even if we don't care about the color of a persons skin. We must not let those who stand against us take power simply because we don't want to be viewed as something considered abhorrent. We face people who act like monsters, if we are to not just survive, but succeed in preserving our cultures and ways of life, we will have to reach deep down into our own culture and tap into something powerful and ruthless. We won't have clean hands if we do it, but which is more important, a clean spirit, or the knowledge that our children and their children will live in a world where they can be proud of who they are and not be slaves to an ideology and people that would see them slaughtered to the last man or woman?

Sadly, I think the choice is clear.

Anne-Kit said...

I believe we are all racist, in the sense that we prefer our own kind over anyone else, starting with our children, other immediate family, then the rest of the "clan" including our compatriots. All races are the same, always have been, always will be, and there is nothing sinister about that in my opinion.

We are certainly never going to change it through legislation.

A recent cinematic expression of this is Clint Eastwood's wonderful "Gran Torino", where they're all at it: Calling each others yids, polacks, micks, spicks, zipperheads, coons and honkies, with varying degrees of good or ill will.

Anonymous said...

The issue is quite about race too, not just culture. And I really don't get why preserving your culture has any relevance if your people cease to exist. It's meaningless.

And the situation is more dire than us being only 900 million. Out of these, over half are past the point of having children, so if we count only us, the fertile white women, we are something along 150 million. And this population almost gets half with each generation.

I agree with Rollory on this one. And I completely agree with this too:

Men can live and act together only if they are bound together by code and custom, myth and legend, sculpture and song … Where such underlying orthodoxy is lacking we find ourselves in the midst of an aggregate of ghettos, not a society.
Men need a common mythology, not just the same race.

Anne, normally yes, we should prefer people like us, but only white people are into the insanity of not doing it. But no, races aren't the same - it's quite a lot of proof of that. Genetics do matter. Still, overall, I agree with what you wrote, I guess. :)

imnokuffar said...

A great article. The thing is that the only people in a mass political sense who are opposing the Islamisation are the BNP in Britain, the PVV in Holland and the Front National in France. There are also other parties in different parts of Europe their names elude me for the moment. Blogs such as this and the Green Arrow, Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugs, Frontpage Mag and others all do a great job. However the only real way forward is for the masses to become aware of the threat and to vote in radical nationalist parties. For a lot of people (not me) this is a hard thing to do as it would mean a hard questioning of everything they have been led to believe. The reluctance to face the reality of what is happening is partly based on the notion that to be right-wing and nationalist is akin to being a fascist. This completely ignores the fact that the real fascists are the Marxists, Liberals and Muslims who are ten times more inclined to fascist and authoritarian tendencies than any so-called right wing party. I am afraid that the conventional parties offer nothing by way of stopping the nightmare outlined in the article. In fact they seem to be doing everything they can to bring the nightmare into a reality. There is only one option for those who want to stop Europe and the west from turning into a gigantic Muslim slum and that is to support and vote for those whom would really oppose it and stop it.

Nilk said...

Anne-Kit, you're stronger than I am. I've started The Camp of the Saints several times, and I find it too painful to read.

As laine said, it's like reading your life today.

It's scary, frustrating and angering. We have a government here in Oz that is committed to getting the muslim vote, to the extent that they are working to introduce sharia compliant finance into our economy. Most of the big banks have sharia friendly programs anyway, and one (NAB) even has an islamic scholarship!

I've not asked that bank yet if they'll be setting up Christian, buddhist and Jewish scholarships yet.

Elan-tima said...

As long as people keep drinking the Kool-Aid known as Humanism than the way forward concerning how to deal with Islam will be confused and ineffectual.

All of the legs of Humanism have been disproven. Cultural or Ethnic equality, the individual as a "Blank Slate", mans base nature is good, the noble savage's inner spiritual pacifistic soul, etc.

We (the civilized west) once stepped beyond the rule of Kings by divine right (monarchial absolutism), that didn't make us evil barbarians, so we can surely step beyond the civil nihiliistic load stone of Humanism and instead of wringing our hands we can make a fist to do what must be done.

spackle said...

Norse Alchemist-

Bingo. I could not have said it better myself. Case in point? The Tea Party. The left are running the narrative because they took the bait. They are now so paranoid of being charged with racism that seem to be spending all of their time now trying to shake it off and purge members who don't think in Liberal terms when it comes to race. As soon as you give into the "How long have you been beating your wife" argument, its over.

I don't know about having to "reach deep down into our own culture and tap into something powerful and ruthless."? I don't think that would even be necessary. Honesty is really all that is needed. One hundred percent crystal clear rational honesty. Some people call it "Race Realism" or even just human nature. Racism according to the left and most of society equals Nazi thuggery. No questions asked. Racists want to murder any part of the world that is unlike them. While there is a small part of the world filled with psychopaths who would do just that. Most of us fall into the other category of rational race realists who have no desire for wholesale murder. Who see that there are genuine differences between certain races culturally and genetically. We are the ones who need to take being called a racist as seriously as being called a poopy- head.

NorseAlchemist said...

@Spackle, thank you for the support. I'll admit that with my "Reach deep..pull out something powerful and ruthless" comment comes from my being of the Asatru persuasion and reaching back to my heathen Norse/Germanic culture which embraced violence and peace in equal measure, depending on what was called for. The simple fact is we face a ruthless and powerful enemy, and to defeat it we must be just as ruthless and powerful, but retain our ability to exist outside of that state, something they cannot.

@Elan-tima, the problem doesn't lie in the West embracing Humanism. There are many benefits with Humanist philosophy. It is true that man is not a "blank-slate" but I do believe that mans base nature is Good (however I do consider what many people to be considered "the deadly sins" to be "good" and vital parts of our human soul, consider of that what you will). I would argue that almost all cultures and ethnicities are equal in and of themselves (i.e. that no single one is better than another) with the exception of Islam and perhaps Christianity (I say Christianity because as a Heathen my religion has suffered under the Christ god, but I am willing to admit a bias there). Humanism isn't nihilistic, far from it, but it has been fused with nihilism by those who embrace "leftist" ideologies that seek to use it to destroy the very culture that gave birth to Humanism and many other philosophies.

While we must move beyond the fear of racism, we must not give into racism. Arabs are people worthy of life and as Wilders has said, they need to be freed of Islam, not destroyed for being "lesser peoples" as they consider us to be.

Anonymous said...

Norse, care to elaborate on how isn't the West embracing Humanism the problem(the latter version) and while in and on itself humanism isn't nihilistic, it's result is nihilism. And non-discrimination, universalism, equality and so on, which are our current malaise.

If man's nature would be good, we wouldn't need to teach children that certain things are bad. The more you go back further in time, the closer you are to how human nature really is. Heck, remove the nurture part and analyze your impulses. I'm fairly introspective and the base impulses that I have aren't necessarily good. Besides, humanism can't really say why certain things are good or bad since it isn't a religion and if you go with reason and evolution to devise morality, you will see that humanism is immoral. And no, neither ethnicity nor cultures are equal. Compare Swedish culture and Swedish people to Somalis and tell me that they are equal. I'd like to know how you explain the differences in IQ, achievement and so on. While an ethnicity can be better or worse at something, like Swedes are at inventing and Somalis are at basketball, it depends on what you value more. You can come and say that from a moral point of view, ethnic groups are equal, but without religion, how can you say so? I'd like to know why. Since if you devise a secular morality based on reason and evolution, that's not true. The same thing applies to cultures.

And Wilders is a liberal. I would ask him why, a Dutch person, would care if in 200 years, the Moroccan people living in the Netherlands will be speaking Dutch and be liberals or if they will be Muslim and stone homosexuals. There's no reason for me to care. From my perspective, the current paradigm existing in the Netherlands is part of the problem, not the solution.

BritishActivism said...

Thanks for posting this article, it is a very good one which touches on an aspect that is often missing in these kinds of blog sites ...and that is race, and knowing there is a distinction between saving ourselves from oblivion and that of hateful irrational "racism".

Most often its the case that the racial issue is marginalised - as the writer admits, it is uncomfortable to think about and even admit to ourselves, let alone opening up the gates to be labelled and bashed for raising it.

Fjordman dared to bring it up a few years ago, and I remember the hard time he received on other similar sites as a result.

Being from Britain and living in a Northern town which is now 32% Asian/Muslim, I have to agree with "Imnokuffar" above about his views on Britain and wider Europe.

We are in a process of emotional blackmail, and the end result of it is horrific.

Nobody but complete morons feel any "hostility" or "hatred" to other people in our countries on a one to one basis. They are often decent people, just like everyone else.

However, it is unquestionable that here in the UK we are being systematically wiped out by the sheer deluge of numbers and birthrates. It is a simple matter of fact.

Our country is transforming, and in effect being taken away from us, colonised, race replaced, or however else people may wish to describe it. Islamification is just one of those "extra" bitter pills we have to swallow as a part of the process.

I certainly feel like a foreigner in my own town, and I cannot bear to see places like Blackburn any more.

The prospect of going to London or Birmingham or Leicester is even worse for me, as I will see little but what is in effect the end of my country and its indigenous people.

It is like seeing the writing on the wall of what's to come for the entire country in the future, and it makes me extremely sad.

BritishActivism said...

(Cont'd)

Naturally, I have heard of the Camp of the Saints book before - but I have never bought a copy.

From what I do read about it, it outlines exactly the kind of emotional blackmail we are subjected to today to accept this situation.

The article states:

"I do not hate other races and do not want to wipe anyone else out, but I have an affinity for my own kind, and I would be very sad if there were no longer any blue-eyed blond people on this earth.

It is not that we are more beautiful than people with other colouring but we are just as beautiful and just as worthy of preservation. Doesn’t everyone want to preserve their own kind? Isn’t that just human nature?

Why am I made to feel it is wrong and shameful to want to see my own kind perpetuated?

It may be futile anyway; it may be too late. How can we fight the facts? Almost 7 billion people on the earth, only 900 million of whom are white."

Absolutely.

Although it may be uncomfortable for some people, like 'ImnoKuffar' suggests, this has been the ethos of the British National Party for decades.

No other party here has the desire or aim to do anything about the issue raised in this article.

This is what it is all about, not "racism" for the sake of it, or out of ignorance or "supremacy". Yet we Nationalists receive such a hard time for taking this stance.

I support Geert Wilders' stances and stands against Islam, I am quite an admirer actually - but his comments about the British National Party last month show up the void between the pure anti-Islamification aspect and that of recognising the indigenous peoples of Europe are being slowly erased from their homelands and put into a situation where it is almost impossible to survive as a race/ethnicity in the future.

This is where the difference seems to lay between Wilders and Nationalists like the British National Party and its supporters.

Raspail: “What’s to be done, since no one would wish to renounce his own human dignity by acquiescing to racism? What’s to be done since, simultaneously, all persons and all nations have the sacred right to preserve their differences and identities, in the name of their own future and their own past?”

Indeed. And what a dilemma it is.

I may have to buy the book. Thanks again for a good article.

John Sobieski said...

I read Camp of the Saints. You can get it through your library's ILL (interlibrary loan) system. Usually takes a few days to a week depending on what library within your state has a copy.

It was a painful read, not because it is difficult to follow or understand but because so many of the characters and events are similar to people and events we see today. Powell, Raspail and others have sounded the alarm but the West does not listen. Our leaders have been consumed by multiculturalism and political correctness and condemned us to be absorbed and forgotten in the polyglot dystopia they have created.

NorseAlchemist said...

@rebelliousvanilla, I do so love little conversations like this.

Nihilism is not, in fact, the result of humanism. Rather, it is in part, the result of Buddhism (a non-theistic religion) into Western Europe, which contributed to what Nietzsche termed "the death of god", which resulted in nihilism. This resulted because Western Europe had foolishly tied all its morality and meaning of life to the Christian God and once Non-theistic Science had grown in power, it removed much faith people had in the existence of "God" as it has in our present era. This nihilism has evolved into what we know today thanks to the style of warfare in WWI and the Holocaust of WWII.

The discussion of man's base nature being good or bad would extend beyond what I can do in a simply comments box, but I will try. You say if man's base nature were good, we wouldn't have to teach children that certain things are bad. But what precisely do we teach our children is bad that proves man's true nature is evil? For the sake of simplicity, let us look at what Christians call the Seven Deadly Sins, as I feel they are key to our base instincts. People teach their children that they should share, because it is good and Greed is selfish and bad. But, as a Gekko once said; Greed is Good, Greed is the foundation of our capitalist system. Are you saying that capitalism is bad? Perhaps, since sharing is Good, we should move to Communism, which is all about sharing. (I do not say this as a personal attack, but rather to show that while something may be considered "Good" it leads to "Bad", and the other way around.)

What about Wrath? We are taught that anger and aggression are wrong and we shouldn't hurt/murder/kill people. But what are we doing here, if not embracing justifiable rage at seeing the destruction of our own European Kind?

I can continue forever with this, but I wish to move on. I too am highly introspective, and while I will agree that my base nature is not "Good" by Christian, Muslim, and possibly Jewish standards, I have found that it is very, very good by the standards of my own religion of Asatru, and indeed by most Pagan/Heathen religions. Our morality is different, and more in line with our natures, guided not by good or evil, but rather by honor and doing right by our kin. And my religion doesn't say that all men are equal, but rather all men must be judged by their deeds. But, each life, human or not, is of value.

Humanism, if I remember correctly, comes from Greek Paganist thought that scholars attempted to resurrect. The Equality spoken of, The Equality in the American Constitution, doesn't necessarily mean that all cultures are equal. I, being Norse, will always feel that Pre-Christian Norse culture and society was/is the best. Rather the Equality comes from the belief that each soul is inherently equal of life and value. People can change the values of their souls during their lives, but this doesn't mean that a person from Africa has less right to live than a person from Europe. Rather, in that instance it comes down to who has the most power to secure his life.

NorseAlchemist said...

RV, you say that humanism has no way to devise morality and thus is immoral. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but that seems like flawed logic. I don't think that simply because a thing doesn't dictate morality that it would be Immoral. But then, I am a polytheist, so perhaps my mind works differently. The point of Humanism wasn't to say a thing was good or bad, it wasn't meant to be a religion.

It would also seems you imply that from a secular morality based on reason and evolution that all men are not equal. I wish to know where in science it is that proves men are not equal? IQ? That test fails to account for many skills. Scandinavians might test higher than Hellens, but look at the philosophies the Greeks produced, or the technology the Romans built. Are these things not equal to the things created by the Norse in their own way?

As for your comment about Wilders, I'm not sure what to say. So he is a liberal. What does that matter? Are the only people worth allying with to be Conservative Christians? Buddhist monks? Jashinites? Where he stands politically is not as important as That He Stands. The reason a Dutch person would care about what Moroccan's do in 200 years is the same reason an American would care if in 200 years his country speaks English, Spanish, or Arabic. The same reason a Brit would want his culture to survive. It isn't because that person will be there, but rather that he is defined by his culture and in turn gains some level of immortality as long as it exists. What Wilders is doing is for me a part of the solution, because it provides another way in which to halt Islamization. Simply because you don't agree with it RV, doesn't mean it isn't right. Perhaps it is because I am a polytheist, but for me, it is better to have many paths come together and work toward common goals, rather than to dictate a single path that must be followed by everyone.

Zenster said...

NorseAlchemist: But, as a Gekko once said; Greed is Good, Greed is the foundation of our capitalist system.

Sidebar: As a favor to everyone, please consider discontinuing all further use of this injurious and patently false meme.

Greed: Noun
S: (n) greed (excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves)
S: (n) avarice, greed, covetousness, rapacity, avaritia (reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins))


Greed also, and rightfully, carries the connotation of possessing to such an extent that it not only exceeds one's own capacity to use a resource but denies others access to it.

None of this has anything to do with Capitalism. Greed automatically and correctly carries with it negative connotations. Capitalism, however, is an amoral tool. Much like a gun, it can be used to hunt food or murder in cold blood.

Greed is an attribute of corruption.

Capitalism is the only legitimate socio-economic system. All others are various shades or colors of Statism that do not functionally telescope between the individual and society nor back again. It has so often been tarred by Liberals with the false lanel of "greed" that this sufficiently and oft-repeated Big Lie has now stuck in the public's mind.

You would do well to dispense with this damaging and entirely unjust falsehood. Read Ayn Rand's book, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and it is likely that you will drop this slanderous meme like a live grenade.

On a more related topic:

NorseAlchemist: You say if man's base nature were good, we wouldn't have to teach children that certain things are bad. But what precisely do we teach our children is bad that proves man's true nature is evil?

I find that to be a damn good question and one that all too often receives an inadequate or simply false answer.

Curiously enough, my online research about Frederick D. Wilhelmsen provided some solid ammunition in this argument which I posted in my original comment.

… that God became man neither losing anything of his divinity nor destroying anything of his humanity. Since God took to himself human nature, human nature was validated in its own right. This was true above all for man’s capacity to know the truth, i.e., for his reason or mind.

Rarely have I seen such a superb argument for the perfectability of man. As always, one must keep in mind that such perfectability must be voluntary in nature or risk the traditional slaughterhouses of Social Engineering™ that are so favored by modern Liberals.

Still, Wilhelmsen's quote shows that our human vessel can functionally embody the Divine without impairing it and thereby demonstrates that mankind is capable of a benevolent perfection which endows each individual with the capacity to determine absolute truth.

Rarely have I seen such a justifiably optimistic and encouraging assessment of the Human Condition. That Wilhelmsen was, most probably, of Danish descent is just icing on the cake for me.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if I said before, but Raspail, nobody has a right to preserve their identity or culture. That's done with tanks and guns. And I don't see racism as that much against human dignity. I see betraying your own as far more damaging to it.

BritishActivism, without ethnic cleansing, we won't survive. The answer is if we are willing to do it to survive or not. If not, good riddance. At least we went extinct in the name of social justice and other crap like that.

NorseAlchemist said...

Zenster, you make a fair point, which I will acknowledge. I personally don't see Greed as a "sin" or even as a negative thing, despite how most people view it. I wish, though, to defend my statement, and I will use the definition you quoted to do so.

Greed: Noun
S: (n) greed (excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves)

Let us look at the part that says "excessive desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves."

Now I open this question to everyone: Who desires how much a man needs or deserves? Is it the man himself? The capitalist system in which he gains wealth from what he does and from the people who buys what he sells? Is it society/government?

You say I use a false meme, but I fail to see where my meme is false. A man seeks to gain as much wealth as he may, because he feels he needs or deserves it, while others might not feel he needs or deserves it. That is Greed. That is how the purest Capitalistic System works.

And Capitalism is not the only legitimate socio-economic system. Communist is a legitimate system. So is the trade-barter system that was the basis of economic before the rise of capitalism. Capitalism is simply the best and most efficient system, but certainly not the only one.

I am interested in your Wilhelmsen comment. Though I would argue not that man can be perfected, but rather that all men are already perfect, we have simply come to view it as imperfect due to religions like Islam and Christianity.

Rebelliousvanilla, I do think we have the Right to Defend our identity or culture, but then I'm a Norse-American.

Zenster said...

NorseAlchemist: Now I open this question to everyone: Who [decides] how much a man needs or deserves? Is it the man himself? The capitalist system in which he gains wealth from what he does and from the people who buys what he sells? Is it society/government?

In theory, it is both individual morality and society that decides this issue, preferrably through the time honored methods of self-restraint or censure and boycott.

If a merchant purposefully hoardes a certain product for the purpose of price gouging, customers should do their best not to patronize that person. Other practicioners could find themselves shut out of participation in a wide range of social activities from buying food to who their children end up being able to marry.

Living, as we are, in a society where abject greed has been encouraged, nay even rewarded, it's difficult for most people to perform the moral equations that demonstrate why this is such a negative form of conduct.

Mind you, as a dyed in the wool capitalist, I have no problem with a person earning all the money that they can. However, unfair or illegitimate practices do not enter into that definition of "earn".

Let's be sure of one thing, Communism is most definitely NOT a legitimate system. It relies upon force of arms to function and violates the fundamental human right of private property in order to operate. That invalidates Communism along with many forms of Socialism as well.

The trade-barter method of exchange is not so much a "socio-economic system" in the sense of a formalized or structured economy. It is more a free-form method of interpersonal transaction that may not always have useful standards of exchange without some method of enforcement, be it for contractual obligations or weights and measures.

I am interested in your Wilhelmsen comment. Though I would argue not that man can be perfected, but rather that all men are already perfect, we have simply come to view it as imperfect due to religions like Islam and Christianity.

An interesting take on the Human Condition. I certainly will profer agreement with you concerning the abomination that is Original Sin.

NorseAlchemist said...

Zenster, more good points. Let me respond.

Your point on the hording in order to price gouge is a good one. However, I would argue that in that case it more Gluttony than Greed, but I'm having trouble explaining my reasoning.

You remarked that morality would be the thing to define what is deserved as well as what is legitimate practices. Going back to price gouging and hording, let us look at Diamonds, which are in fact rather common, but which we pay large amounts of money for due to marketing and hording by the diamond industry. Now, I'm sure we could lower the price of diamonds by not buying them (though I fell sorry for any man that tries this). So in essence, we have an entire industry worth millions of dollars that employs hundreds, maybe thousands of people, based on an "immoral" practice according to your previously stated guidelines. Should we then destroy that industry for its immorality? A thing that would cost lots of money and jobs?

Morality is a tricky and often bad way to rule things. Individuals moralities are as different as people are. My own Asatru Morality is probably different from your own. Who then is right? How do we prove it?

rickl said...

Zenster:
Great points about capitalism vs. greed. I second your recommendation of Rand's book.

There is nothing "greedy" about seeking to become wealthy by earning money, by trading value for value.

I define "greed" as lusting after wealth that I haven't earned. A typical street criminal is greedier than a rich factory owner.

Likewise, socialists exhibit greed since they seek to expropriate wealth that has been earned by others. They justify their behavior by saying that they want to redistribute it to help the poor, but they always make sure to take a cut of it along the way.

Lastly, as to the quote that started this discussion: The character Gordon Gekko was from the movie "Wall Street", which was directed by Oliver Stone. He is an outspoken supporter of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Need I say more?

Paardestaart said...

Very appropriate here, I think, is the fabulous Tale of the Assehatte, by the mighty Iowahawk..:

An Archbishop of Canterbury Tale
With apologies to Geoffrey Chaucer

1 Whan in Februar, withe hise global warmynge
2 Midst unseasonabyl rain and stormynge
3 Gaia in hyr heat encourages
4 Englande folke to goon pilgrimages.

5 Frome everiches farme and shire
6 Frome London Towne and Lancanshire
7 The pilgryms toward Canterbury wended
8 Wyth fyve weke holiday leave extended
9 In hybryd Prius and Subaru
10 Off the Boughton Bypasse, east on M2.

Read the rest of Iowahawk's lament about the Englande Folke here

Elan-tima said...

Humanism's origin lies in the assertion by Socrates that "man's nature is good, it is his enviornment that corrupts him". This belief at its core is Nihilistic since its logical conclusion must be that the enviornment(culture, state, society) is "corrupt" read "evil" and must be deconstructed, or destroyed to maintain the sanctity of the good natured individual. Thus we are all witnesses to Humanisms bastard childrens attempt to use reductionist methonds whether in a collective fashion (Communism, Socialism) or indiviually (Liberalism) "freeing" the individual and his desires.
John Kekes astute example of how this is Nihilistic was expressed in his book AGAINST LIBERALISM. He noted that if the enviorment is what corrupts the individual than the individual cannot be held accountable for his/her actions thus absolving guilt because "the devil made me do it". The result is injustice prevails since noone can question the actions of another, and guilt, shame, punishment are anulled and Civility crumbles. Man's individual nature is neither good nor evil but arbitrary. It is only under the morality of law and the conjugating state that man can be free not only from the imposition of another but mans imposing himself on another.

As for equality. Nowhere in the sciences has there been demonstrated any equality. Nothing in the universe can be proven to be equal. From the greatest star down to the sub atomic partical. There is always a difference of degree. Equality is a abstract mathematical concept adopted by rationalist philosophy and imposed on society with catastrophic results.

Its all their in print if you take the time to read it. Then we who wish to continue the cause of Civility can think beyond ourselves against Islams sub(mission) human condition and not be chained in Humanisms degenerate prison.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

On the same subject (set in the UK) there is also a book by Christopher Priest, Fugue for a Darkening Island (US title Darkening Island), published in 1972.

I have only read reviews of this book as I have been unable to find a copy.

Anonymous said...

people:

love you. you are thoughtful and kind.

but, you make it too damned complicated.--

know your scout troop number. know your flag. know your faith. trust in your right to exist, and to be who you choose, and to associate with whom you choose. know and accept your right to believe as you do.

defend those things. period. it doesn't have to go any further or farther than that.

read moses in the desert, and moses at the jordan.

defend who and what you are without apology or hesitation, and man the barricades.

kapish?

it is just that simple. it is no more complicated. if it worked for g_d and moses, it ought to be good enough for you. do not loose any sleep over it.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

NorseAlchemist said...

Wintersoldier, you have a nice idea, but I fear it is more complicated than that.

To every one else who has bashed humanism, despite my defense, let me say this:

You're right.

Everyone is not equal. Maybe humanity isn't good. Maybe society/religion/culture makes us better rather than corrupting us.

So where does this leave us? Humanity is evil. We need some over arcing Divine entity to Save us from ourselves and our evil ways. And so we have religions like Islam and Christianity, which make us submit to their God in the name of purifying our sins. We get political movements like the Progressives, which seek to enforce "better, more just" living upon mankind. We say that some men are better than others, and we then engage in massive, bloody conflicts to prove who is the best, between races, nations, and people, till at last everyone is made as slaves to a few "elites" who rule with ruthless abandon because they are "Better" than everyone else. We have the return of eugenics, where "undesirables" are removed or sterilized so they don't "pollute" the gene pool.

We have all this, and much, much worse.

Say I am being extreme? I am not. Every single possibility has existed time and again. Perhaps Humanism is a lie, Perhaps it leads to Nihilism under Christian and Secular thought. But under Pagan/Heathen thought, there is the answer to that nihilism, there is a reason for life and meaning. Humanism was brought forth to End Tyranny! It is the Basis of the American Republic, traditionally one of the most Free and Individualistic Nations on Earth.

So tell me, would you rather live the lie that is Humanism and find the Truths that give meaning to life and freedom to mankind or would you rather believe the truth that Humanism is fall and be forced to live under the lies of philosophies like Islam and be Slaves?

I know which I pick.