Values and Perceptions
Religion is the technic of primitive man’s attempt at structuring his innermost feelings, fears, and desires into a working formula. This dynamic, in turn, creates his ‘values and perceptions’. Religion, to put it simply, is everything that man himself feels is good which, he then ‘codifies’, for the betterment of his soul, and by extension, those that make up his culture. Religion, then, is always a matter of mental attitudes and perceptions, but is always the product of the race, which has established its foundations.
In the Christian technic, Jesus was good, yet he insisted upon destroying all that the ‘good’ Pharisees had spent their lives in defending and promoting. His ‘actions’, as seen by the leaders of his day, were ‘evil’, not good. It was through his incendiary rhetoric that he turned the existing establishment upside down. This first Evangel created his own technic, his own religion; and those that followed were left with the entitlement as well as the direction of that technic. In both aspects it was, and is, attitudes and perceptions, which make up the Religion propounded by its adherents, for with time, as with attitudes, perceptions change.
If Jesus was a ‘higher-man’, then to challenge the ‘good’ of incumbent civilization is, by definition, good. Of course, this cycle is dual in nature, and does not presuppose that just because there is an incumbent civilization, or established order, that to challenge it, and thereby succeeding, is good. This is, on the other hand, a matter of common sense and of tradition. It is moral sense.
Moral sense is, seemingly, completely ignored by the modern and his society. They [the modern] have ignored those elements in any healthy society which is fundamental, namely, the ‘common folk’, those industrious and responsible individuals who have a healthy knowledge of what is good and evil in their daily lives; past on perhaps, through generations, from grandmother or grandfather, and forever back. The modern thinks them capable of nothing more that what he derisively calls ‘simple faith’, superstition, and the like. Consequently, the Modern and his associates are constantly at war with these elements: either ‘socially or politically’. The Modern, of course, is rational. One only has to look upon the modern’s modes of communication technics, his advertising strategies, or his preoccupation with ‘social policies’ to see that he leaves nothing to chance: if there is a god, it is Him. The modern may be many things, but obtuse he is not; from the maxim ‘train your young in the ways they are to go’ the modern has learned much. But the common folk, the vast majority of the gene-pool, know in which ways they should go, regardless of those occasional flirtations with novel change.
Theologians, also, of every shape and size, colour, faith and agenda, have rationalized their religions. They have destroyed its mystical sense, that sense of the all being as one, the belief that the group consciousness held in check by the ‘idea’ or ‘belief’ in something larger than themselves. The higher-man is akin to this mysticism as ‘mass-man is akin to organism’. Each is an outgrowth of time and space. Higher man strives ever for the revitalization of the individual and the collective mass. It is his duty to respond to their needs. This is, and has always been, the duality of man, of higher-man.
The Christian West, for to use less than this ‘title’ would deny more that two-thousand years of religious technic known to Europe, America, and beyond. In this ‘space’ of time however, Western Christianity has yet to agree on just what, exactly, it is. Schism upon schism has wreaked such havoc as to completely dissolve the unity and continuity of ancient Christendom (i.e. the ‘Christ kingdom’). These schisms had deep significance in a psychological sense to those recipients of the ‘word’, be that ‘word’ heretical or holy. After all, each warning schism claimed supreme authority to mark and guide their proselytes in the way of their particular salvation. From the beginning, whether it was ‘high-priest’ or today’s modern ‘bishop’, it has been those who have controlled political power of those western political technics, which are driven by the oldest trait recognized in man: Survival.
The deep, inner- soul of man is of the same desire.
Man, Western man, has searched in his own fashion, for those answers belonging to Life, as he perceives it. In his primitive state, that is, before the modern, western man has responded to life in different ways but, more often than not, it has been an instinctual aggression to the forces of nature which, as the case might be, caused him to fear that which would destroy him; that which threatened his survival. He did, regardless of the modern’s position that early man was ‘devoid’ of spirituality, that is to say, that ‘he understood his presence in the world’. That Western man believed, really believed in something ‘outside’ of himself is manifest by every attempt he made to ‘record’ his presence in the ‘art’, ‘motifs’, ‘totems’ and relics which he has left, a legacy for us to partake in. Whatever the ‘belief’ was, is pure speculation on our, the children of these spirits, part. Whether this belief was seen, or performed through say, for instance, a tree, stone, river, or lake, it was and extension of what he believed. This belief was absolute. It could not be separated from him; it was all he knew. He ‘prayed’ and, if that prayer came to pass, well, it was a ‘magical’ thing; it became, in our words, mystical. He gave up his soul, willingly, to that which blessed him, and which had answered by delivering to him his ‘need’ or ‘desire’. This ‘mental’ state is the ‘healthy state’ of faith. This is belief, which denies all ‘outside’ reason. This is the ‘faith’ of a child.
This, then, is the essence of ‘all’ religion: Without faith, there can be no value. Alternatively, conversely, without value, there can be no morality, this is the purpose stated, or unstated of all of man’s religions. However, subjective reality dictates that ‘morality’ proper, as an extension of each individual or its racial components, the race-culture, are subjective by each racial experience, its history, its location/territory, and all the factors, which predispose a People to be who they are, even as we see them. So, the question is now asked, “Are there morals for some, but not for others?” If there are various degrees of morality, or at least a perception of morality, by which, precisely, is the morality, which we mark the higher-man, hence the higher-culture?
Since there are races of men and, hence, race-cultures, differing in make-up and certain outward manifestations, there is, of necessity, differences in both consciousness and its related technics. It matters not, whether environment or genetics accounts for the majority of these differences. One may, with less than unnecessary gratuity, point out that it is quite simple to distinguish between races based upon the obvious examples, or characteristics, of skin colour, morphology and the like when delineating between what we call ‘races’ and ‘race-cultures’. For example, one can well point to the Chinese or Egyptian race cultures as being fundamentally different; this is seen in their Art, politics, or empire-building natures inherent in each culture at any given point that is known historically. To add, is there not a difference between the Teutonic and Amerindian race-cultures as defined in the same way? Of course there is.
Therefore, it is as safe to say that ‘morals, ‘traditions’, ‘psychology’, and ‘history’ are way-signs to those selfsame distinctions, as it is to say that ‘environment and heredity’ are dualities that are needed to make a complete and balanced individual.
The identity of individuals as well as societies is obvious to all who have eyes to see. For the People of the West however, in our myopic understanding of the ‘macro-element’, it seems to be difficult to grasp, in its entirety, the breakdown, or categories of races and cultures. We do, of course, differentiate between ‘races’ based on colour; we also differentiate between religious technics along the same lines. We recognize, or should be unafraid to recognize, an inherent, although highly integrated alien personality in those various aspects of ‘religious’ sense that is contrary or dissimilar to our own. Yet, as we consider things from the ‘inside’ looking ‘out’ we fail, to discern the differences between our past and contemporary vision of Western culture, let alone the various and sundry cultures with which we interact. The modern, even with the landscape emblazoned before his very eyes, refuses to see the underlying consciousness of race, and its consequences in the natural setting of history and psychology.
The religion of the West,* constituting the largest majority cohort of white-Europeans in Europe at any given time, based their individual sympathy or antithesis not upon some others ‘religion’ nor, in any supra-national sense, on scriptural differences, but on ‘race-cultural’ differences – even if this included ‘intra’national’ implications. Race, pure and simple, was the line of demarcation of our ancestors. This, of course, is in perfect harmony with nature. I agree with Huxley in this regard when he states, “In whichever we look on the matter, morality is based on feeling, not on reason.”f The Scottish philosopher, Thomas Reid, also concurs when he adds, “…for that which makes men capable of living in society is that their actions are regulated by the common principles of human nature,” and as we have seen, primitive western man had a complete set of predispositions and proclivities to act and react in certain tell-tale ways. He would accept certain thoughts, and reject others. Some may say that this form of society is led and fostered by ‘race-prejudice’; yet, I am inclined to agree with yet another voice on this matter, that of W.G. Sumner, when he declares, “The great mass of any society lives a purely instinctive life.”g Hence, what man sees as evil or good is right in the only way he knows it and, with time, establishes itself with mores and traditions that may cause conflicts with any one, or numerous other parties which share a close proximity with him, either nationally or personally.
Religion is for the Individual Consciousness, which created it.
Religion, as a human dynamic is not simply an exercise in metaphysics. As we have seen pointed out earlier in this sub-chapter, ‘religion’ is simply the technics of the ‘actualized presence’ of the primitive man. It comes from his deep and pure [spiritual] sense, his feelings, his human nature, his very essence which, then, he derives his morality. He senses its vitality to him, its fundamental usefulness to him in his day-to-day activities. He needed no one to ‘teach’ or ‘indoctrinate’ his mind with this, no priest or politician, to show him this truth. Even now, today, Western man is acutely aware that these senses, his feelings, affect him at this moment.
Primitive man’s religion affected his immediate family, his tribe, and his race in the collective sense. His sympathy and concern was for them, those which made up his environment and his moral condition; it was not intended for the alien – the outsider. This ‘morality’, for that is truly what it was, made him in another sense patriotic, for he now felt a higher calling than himself, a duty, perhaps felt intrinsically, as a divine duty, to those which made up his immediate world and their institutions. Thus religion/morality included all his passions according to his inner and outer behavior and, also its accompanying prejudices and discrimination relative to his health. Of course, this would take on both the dimension of love and hate as psychological boundaries set him to task in both the creation and protection of his familial entitlement – his territorial nation. In later years, this would of course have disastrous effects on racial composite empires or states that would make war on one another in a series of internal conquests for that same territory or familial (i.e. political) hegemony. This was not to change until man appreciated the value of Nation States to promote protection of the individual, as well as the collective racial state; this made him willing to give his life for the ‘state’, which, in all reality, was himself, a hundred-million fold.
The modern example of Christian and Saracen is appropriate here.*
Both these groups shared similar roots;* both followed the same historicity as regards their rituals, laws, and similar codes of conduct. The conflict, instead of being strictly regarded as a ‘religious war’, was more properly regarded as a race-cultural war. In point of fact, it was a ‘war’ between two racial stocks: Arabic/Semitic vs. indo-European; it was, and is, a home-grown ‘judaism/islam’ vs. ‘aryanized’ semitic-Christianity of two distinct cultures vying for politico/religious power – and it will Always be this way – unless, and not before, one element is ‘completely’ victorious. Victory is not subjective, and both opposing sides will saddle themselves with ‘any’ power, foreign or domestic in their region, to accomplish this. This battle continues today, and it is, make no mistake about it, a battle for ‘world supremacy’. The present day involvement, which is generational in nature, in this selfsame region, has brought this nation no outcome, no victory, in the actualizations of these selfsame ideals and goals. One might, if asked, call this scenario an ‘endless cycle’ of violence.
All ‘religious’ [moral] considerations are based primarily on this duality of love and hate.
What man desires to love, he will preserve. What he hates, man will destroy. This is ‘human nature’ in its most basic and fundamental confluences. This is a Universal ‘life-law’. The ‘moralist’ will philosophize, the ‘preacher’ cant; yet it is this foundation to which all human emotion and spiritual balance is predicated. A stable and balanced psychology (i.e. mental outlook) is the end product, if these laws are followed. If they are not, then imbalance, conflict, and instability is its way sign. Any Religion, which does not preach this duality of human nature, is out of touch with its human proselyte, and is working for another agenda unknown to the faithful.
The moral duality of ‘love’ and ‘hate’ is our perception of good and evil. The definition of good and evil however, is based on reason derived from a long history of Western technics rather than, let us say, from Chinese or sub-Saharan cultures, yet is always inextricably woven with the experiences of humanity in the macro-element of human history. The ‘good’ is related to justice, beauty, harmony, and all things charitable. The ‘evil’ then, means ugliness, selfishness, injustice, and mean-spiritedness. In theory, at least confined to our study of the West, Christianity provides us with rules of conduct based upon what remains of Christian values. In addition, ‘who’ follows these values? The ‘mystic’ perhaps, or most certainly those who choose the lifestyle of a ‘prophet’ perhaps? Inevitably, this leaves us with – whom? Very few can live a life, which requires a man to discipline himself in any manner, let alone one that embraces ‘morality’ in a dogmatic and hypocritical sense such as that of the modern’s Christianity. The noble man, as well as those who wish to become ennobled, must first instill a self=discipline upon himself; he need not rely on any ‘outer’ technic to supply him with his morality. After all, are the technics of religion, its perceptions, and values, simply an acceptance of things unseen (?) or is it simply the actual personal interdiction into life itself?
One of the most notable of personalities, and one that by most accounts, was the most successful in the spiritual and physical interdiction of Life’s rhythmic cycles was he who died on a cross. This was his value, extending through the millennia to our present day. No one person, who claims to be a practicing Christian, can keep this claim until he ‘practices what he preaches’.
His cross has yet to be crafted.
This ‘act’, that of dying on a cross, is not a ‘faith’, but a ‘doing’ which requires a conscious perception of right and wrong; and if one cannot do a ‘right’, he will die for the continuation of those who may follow his example. Each in turn, the teacher. This is, and has always been, the mark of the Noble man.
This act did not presuppose ‘equality’ with those persons who surrounded him, this first Evangel; he was in constant struggle and conflict [nature’s eternal imperative] with those around him, those individuals which, ever and anon, sought to silence him. To the modern however, as Christian, his vision of mental, physical, and spiritual equality is ever present. In nature however, we see time after time, and time again, each [man’s] perception is unique; even intuition can belie logic when both should be in harmony for a natural balance. The ‘articles’ of the modern Christian consists of faith, but not of a doing. When the christian ‘does’ a thing, it is usually hot on the heels of some inevitable emotional response conceived by those whose agenda is in the forefront, and lacking in those noble tenets of intellectual compassion and restraint. Yes, it is in their ‘undoing’ that the modern Christian shows his lack of self-discipline; they show that lack of authority which defines a responsibility, or lack of responsibility to themselves and their own survival – that is to say, the survival of their own kind; their own race-culture.
In societies of the West, the modern has led the pack in his example which he teaches every weekend; he teaches meekness, he teaches charity; he expounds the doctrines of individual faiths to those persons (i.e. spirits) that neither comprehend, in a Western sense, nor are naturally inclined or drawn to those thoughts and feelings of the West. Certain it is that any one individual or group may emulate to the point of ‘expertise’, but never really fathom it, that is, in the conceptual way that its ‘creators’ would except, perhaps, in an abstract sense by these persons [spirits]. When there is a response, such as the rudimentary mimicry of Pavlov, the modern Christian pounds his chest with songs of platitudes and self accolades; they bless themselves and their doctrines for the ‘divine’ chance at ‘saving a new soul’. As if any group or individual can in some way create the umbilical tie between Divine Spirit and human acceptance of that divine spirit: these same moderns, who are meek to the point of cowardice; the rules of manly courage having been set aside for the possibility of ‘heaven’ and protection from their own weaknesses
As with all values and perceptions there is, for the modern, that penultimate doctrine of self – of Faith. The one value that determines the modern’s attitude toward these issues is a priori of the modern Christian – Redemption. This ambiguous reference of things to be is their overriding compulsion; it is their will-to-power. It is to the exclusion of all other aspects of Life that the modern strives ever to ‘spread the word of God’ to all and sundry who have ears hoping, in fact depending on, for their very existence, that this compulsion will assure their reward in a heavenly kingdom [for an erstwhile job well done!]. The Race, the Culture, or present day mental state of their people, their blood, means nothing compared to that great reward. To think otherwise would put the unfortunate ‘unbeliever’ in the category of infidel or heretic; this dynamic then, becomes the classic ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ man concept held in such disrepute by the liberal and his minions of ‘modern christianity’. But there is more.
It is, therefore, in the shadow of such as ‘redemption’ that this spirit, or lack of same, in their potential proselyte, even when contrary to all that is Western, is then in fulfillment of their cataclysm. Their mission on earth, for they have no other ambition on earth, is to have nothing whatsoever to do with the earth, since their life would, and will ever be, in Heaven. But is this really the Christians outstanding motive and authority?
The deep instinct for how one must live is a human element, that deep wellspring of life’s rhythm, which one must follow or die, is Eternal. To experience a ‘thing’, to enjoin oneself with a ‘feeling’, to be born again, that presence of one who is already [living in a mental state] in ‘heaven’, this ‘feeling’ of being eternal, is an act of desire – of wishing for a new ‘reality’. At the same time, that spirit which is man, his human duality, is inexorably striving to ‘become’, and is drawn downward, to its roots, to the earth itself; to Life. He then feels, somehow, withdrawn, small, incapable of reaching a higher state of being because of ‘sin’ – his mark; that which will always be with him, a slave to himself and his fears. He lives with these two realities: one natural, one artificial. He wants to embrace both, but cannot master either. He is then put adrift on an Ocean of indecision and inaction. He is afraid.
The Modern can never truly separate himself from this earth. He sees what he sees because he ‘needs’ to see a ‘reality’ which allows him to fail – and then be redeemed – to follow the same course again, and again, knowing full well that as long as ‘redemption’ awaits, he may carry on. The Modern has no relative concept of a man’s duality, that living a full life [here on earth] is simply a part of a larger balance; that there is something after death, an abyss which must, of necessity, have something to offer other than blackness. As spirit and inquiry are a natural outgrowth of our evolution, these concepts, while arising through the culture of the West are, nevertheless, alien to the Modern; concepts of an ‘after-life’, ‘cyclic’ change, and the like are intrinsic ‘racial’ beliefs/concepts which belong to those of the West only, being a part of his particular path through his racial evolution. The Modern can then, in his wild aspirations of social change, ‘equality’, and financial control [for without money he cannot control] work against his own ‘instincts’ and common sense, for an aim which baffles the common folk – but no matter – it is, after all, for their own good; who really cares, after all, if ‘mistakes’ are made along the way, as long as it works out in the end: one can be redeemed.
Redemption, as a concept, can also share and occupy the reality of an individual in his present life. As an objective, as a goal, it then becomes a ‘value of perception’, but only as a prerequisite for a ‘doing’, and must, of necessity, be tempered with the reality of the needs, feelings, and future life of the race and culture – his race-culture. If it happens that one’s instinct for one’s own survival is negated by such a perception as ‘redemption’ then, it is unhealthy, it is alien in both thought and concept, and will kill the host. If this view of ‘redemption’ or its perception however, is consonant with one’s own life, that is to say, that he understands its intrinsic meaning to himself, to free himself from the abyss of human guilt, and that his race-culture may thereby be freed with him, then it is healthy. The Redeemer, himself, knew this. He knew the difference. He chose the Cross, his cross, not to usher in redemption as only a ‘spiritual’ reality, but to show one how to live. Through his personal discipline, his personal antagonism against those that would deny his innermost morality, he gave his Life – which we might gain thereby, by his example.
This was and is the morality of the primitive – he knew by instinct his method and his destiny – he actualized that which he died for: Himself. Today, we have only His remnants. We have only the shadow of what was his will-to-express. Yet, the morality of good and evil remains a part of Western race-culture – although by only a very fine thread, and will most certainly break under the constant strain of the Modern who, by his continual ‘dissolution’ of tradition, and values belonging to a unique spirit by ‘forcing’ all comers, all those disparate race-cultures, to attempt to enjoin themselves with it, will inevitably allow this thread to break. Those of the West, those untold millions of souls who, because of their deep-seated instinct are guided by these primal feelings, those selfsame feelings of the first Evangel, are at odds with the Modern; the chasm between the two is ever widening, and no bridge of today’s making will conquer the divide. To this faith, to these feelings, the Modern declares: Blasphemy! He fears the faith of the child.
Copyright – Rise of The West