sofiechan home

Imperium

chickenyockey said in #2954 1mo ago:

Has anyone here read F.P. Yockey's Imperium? If so, do you think it is possible to overcome cultural distortion in the current state of affairs and establish a pan-Western Empire? What do you think the world would look like in such a case?

Has anyone here read

anon_vuvu said in #2959 1mo ago:

I've been meaning to for years but haven't got around to it. I go back and forth on the idea of empire. On the one hand, massive gains from scale and cooperation exist. On the other hand, the creation of super-states seems to be a huge vector of corruption and decline. Cultures are at the best when somewhat violently contesting among themselves. The conflict gives you a contact with reality and skin in the game that makes decline really obvious and a bad idea, and gives collective progress a constituency. But of course universal empires have their own glory and heights.

Have you read it OP? Can you give us an overview of what we should hope to learn from it?

referenced by: >>2967

I've been meaning to

chickenyockey said in #2967 1mo ago:

>>2959
Of course, I have read Yockey - moreover, I read Imperium first time more than 8 years ago and since then I have read everything related to his legacy - all sorts of essays, biographies, etc. Yockey begins where Spengler ends - an understanding of Spengler's Cultural Morphology is necessary for the correct perception of Yockey and his ideas.

Yockey's main idea, as is easy to guess from the title of his book, is the Imperium - a pan-Western superstate, by analogy with the Roman Empire in Classical Culture, in which the spirit of the superman will reign - unification of law, colossal architecture and infrastructure, as well as authoritarian leadership of the Caesarian type - this idea is archetypal in all the other seven High Cultures identified by Spengler. In Spengler's understanding and his morphology, passing into the stage of late Civilization, High Culture on its "last breath" gathers itself together into a universal state - nations according to Spengler gradually die, turning into a landscape with a homogeneous population - in turn, the last, most viable nation gathers their remains into a despotic Empire, to some extent creating a synthesis of everything that Culture has produced. In China, such an Imperium was the Qin Empire, created by Ying Zheng, in India - the Mauryan dynasty, in the Magic-Arab Culture the empire of the Seljuk Turks - everywhere one of the same mechanism.

Yockey believed that the role of unifying the West, which was in a decadent (Hellenistic) state, belonged to the Prussian-German nation (Spengler had already likened Prussia-Germany to the Italic peoples of the Ancient World) - the Empire "brings order", defeating decadence with brute force and authority, allowing Culture to live out its remaining 200-400 years in relative "health" and, if possible, "cement" itself in good condition.

However, according to Yockey, the natural course of development of Western history was disrupted by the so-called "cultural pathology", when cultural-parasitic populations from other cultures (in particular, Jewry) gained financial and political power over the West, "slowing down" its historical processes - hence the fact that Germany lost both world wars, and the Western world still cannot get out of the state of the 19th century, with its capitalism, parliamentary democracies, liberalism, etc.

Thus, the Imperium of Yockey acquires not only a political, but also an organic dimension - victory over all the phantoms of the 19th century is necessary not only for the triumph of the political-legal form natural for the West - the Empire, but also for the recovery of this Cultural organism, so that it does not die before its time.

The Empire that will stretch from the Ural Mountains to Oceania will be a "city on a hill" for the rest of the world - the West is not obliged to subjugate the whole world through a globalist agenda, but to preserve its identity by erecting the greatest monument of its thousand-year history - the Imperium. As I have already mentioned, the Empire will synthesize everything that Culture has created - religions, philosophies, national identities, creating an organic synthesis from this - there will be no Germans, no French, no Italians - only people of the West, just as in the time of Augustus there were no more Etruscans, no Athenians, no Spartans - but only the populus Romanus. The Imperium for the West is the triumph of its will, a real state of the superman - imagine the Roman aqueducts and colossal monumental architecture, like the Flavian Amphitheatre or the Pantheon, but add to this the power of Western technology and scientific genius - and you will see what the Imperium will be like.

Therefore, for me personally, the Imperium is not just a political fantasy, but an aesthetic ideal - a world in which everyone will know their place and in which there will be a meaning for future generations of Western people to live.

referenced by: >>2968 >>2972

Of course, I have re

chickenyockey said in #2968 1mo ago:

>>2967
An important aspect, which I have already mentioned in passing, is the disintegration of nations and national states - to a certain extent, it is this process that leads to the emergence of the Empire in all cultures. Regional, tribal, clan, etc. identities come to the fore, and the peculiarity of such identities is precisely that they are easier to unite into a state of the Imperial type, by analogy with the Holy Roman Empire.

Spengler's history is in a sense "horseshoe-shaped" The later eras of Culture repeat the early ones in many aspects - albeit not directly, but in a certain "nostalgic" form - by analogy with an old man who indulges in dreams of his long-gone youth.

Estates will re-emerge, but not in the organically young form of "estates", but in the form of castes (mandarins in China, priests in Egypt, etc.), nations will again disintegrate into tribal communities (I think that hierarchically the Empire will be divided precisely into tribal-regional formations - instead of Germany - Saxony, Bavaria, Pomerania; instead of France - Normandy, Aquitaine, Provence - these are living, organic communities, while the Western nations are relics of once living dynastic ideas that have sunk into oblivion).

Like everything else, early religious forms will re-emerge, interpreted differently - the so-called "Second Religiosity" - perhaps there will be an appeal to the forgotten Gothic myth, perhaps something else. Aesthetically, we will again return to rethought Gothic architecture, organ fugue music and something similar.

referenced by: >>2972

An important aspect,

anon_tuhu said in #2972 1mo ago:

>>2967
>>2968
That's absolutely fascinating, especially the passage casting Prussian-Germans as the tragic "destined" race which was meant to unify the West and were shattered instead, today only dregs. Actually, given the extermination and expulsion of the Ostdeutsch, I wonder the reason today's "east" Germany is the main support base for the AfD is because of that half-forgotten people. I don't think I have ever seen anybody mention them as an cohesive group after WW2.

Beyond that, I hesitate to ascribe their defeat entirely to Jews (who were the only present foreign group who could really be included in the phrase "cultural-parasitic populations), but a factor, yes. Nowadays the population of interlopers and parasites has swelled to the size of multiple, cancerous organs riddling the body, straining resources for their own aims. Indians, Chinese, various Middle Easterners, Hispanics/Cartels, even Africans, now, all of them able to be subdivided into competing ethnic irrelevancies. I agree very much that the future of the West would look much closer to what you predict without this fact, but now, I am not so sure.
I am not all that experienced with Spengler and did not know Yockey, so I am open to being very wrong in my conclusions, but what does he predict for these sorts of mongrelized states? IMO there will need to be a crisis and collapse to a more homogenous, smaller state or collection of competitors for progress to begin anew - basically, similar to what you have said in the second post (although I question the existence of tangible nations like "Aquitaine" and "Pomerania", these nations may take traits from those histories but will identify more with their nation-state than regional identity ala Rome-invoking of the middle ages).

referenced by: >>2974

That's absolutely fa

chickenyockey said in #2974 1mo ago:

>>2972
As for your first remark, you are right, the fate of the Ostdeutschen is indeed unenviable and after 1990, few people take their interests into account. Modern Germany, which emerged as part of the Hohenzollern dynastic project, is in fact simply a territory with a more or less homogeneously speaking population. As an idea, Prussia-Germany is dead (and, following Yockey and Spengler, I believe that the "Prussian" type was encountered in the 20th century throughout Europe, not only in Germany - remember Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, Georges Sorel, etc., who put the interests of a united Europe, even if built around Germany, above the interests of their "tired of life" states).

As for your remark that Germany's defeat was caused not only by Jewry - this is true, it's just that the Jewish factor was one of the largest - in its absence, even Germany's defeat in the war could have led to a revanche of the Prussian idea in the near future. If we consider WWII, then Germany's defeat was also due to a number of unsuccessful decisions by the German leadership and military command - insufficient involvement of collaborators from Eastern Europe (Yockey correctly notes that already in 1942-44 General Vlasov could have fielded an army of almost a million together with the Germans to jointly fight Bolshevism, but this idea was cautiously rejected by the German command, which expected to win on the Eastern Front by treating the local population inappropriately). Moreover, Hitler and other Nazis of the highest circle understood the pan-European task of their movement too late - Drieu la Rochelle (a French collaborationist writer) writes about this very well in his diaries, complaining that Hitler thought too pettyly, "in a petty German way". When the mistakes were understood, it was already too late. In the post-war years, Yockey placed his hopes on the direct military occupation of Europe by Russia - here it is important to note the peculiar hierarchy of non-European populations built by Yockey. Only representatives of more mature (and actually dead) cultures - fellahin - can be cultural parasites and distorters. Their parasitism is due to the discrepancy between the organic rhythms of these populations and the local cultural carriers. Since the parasite does not understand the culture of its carrier people, it unconsciously (and then consciously) seeks to destroy it - therefore, the Jews quickly took the side of all sorts of decadent movements within Western culture. At first, the Jew supported the French Revolution, then all sorts of forms of financier and parliamentary democracy, since these forms are initially aimed at destruction - Spengler himself wrote about this long before Yockey, in the chapter "Problems of Arab Culture" - if you are interested, I can even send you the page number or the excerpt itself. Spengler considered liberalism itself to be only a "light" form of Bolshevism, which constantly flow into each other. Bolshevism itself is aimed at the pure destruction of everything connected with the Culture of the "white world revolution", about which Spengler writes in "The Hours of Decision".

Returning to the topic of Russia, Yockey describes Russians as barbarians (and the word barbarian in the lexicon of Yockey and Spengler is devoid of negative connotations - a barbarian is a representative of "fresh" human populations that are on the way to creating their own high culture - they are like children). Since Russian culture is far ahead, the Russians themselves would quickly assimilate into the West, regardless of whether the West would capture Russia or Russia itself would capture the European continent (Yockey himself writes about this in detail in his work "The Enemy of Europe").

referenced by: >>2975 >>2976

As for your first re

chickenyockey said in #2975 1mo ago:

>>2974
In this context, it is appropriate to recall Spengler's remark about the Cimbrian War of the time of Gaius Marius - if the Celto-Germanic tribes of the Cimbri and Teutons had won this war, they would hardly have destroyed Rome and the Ancient Civilization, but would have been quickly assimilated by it in vain, and literally the children and grandchildren of the barbarian leaders would have become "Roman triumvirs" - moreover, such a situation would have slowed down the decadence of the ancient society itself, since it would have been infused with "healthy barbarian blood".

However, Russia in the 20th century never dared to conquer Europe, and then was itself destroyed by the forces of Jewish-Washington decadence in 1991.

Based on this, I still do not know for sure what opportunities there are in our era. As it seems to me personally, continental Europe with its “Prussian-German” ethos is already dead and represents, in the words of Drieu la Rochelle, “a collection of Greek city-states.”

Given that Western Culture is still alive (which we can judge empirically, given that we still support the achievements of technology and science, which would otherwise be impossible) - all that remains is to hope for some "near-catastrophic" event, like a military conflict or civil war, which will destroy all those structures within the modern Western world that we call "the system".

Spengler wrote that the future and, apparently, the last "nations" of the Western world that will take part in the struggle for world domination (although he thought that this would happen within Germany) will be "nations of a new type", consisting of small groups-clans of people who think in a similar way and stand out against the background of the apathetic masses of the population with their passionarity. Perhaps if the current system collapses and national states finally stop coping with the burden of their responsibilities, there will be an opportunity to "reset" the possibilities of our era and the Holy Roman Empire in its modern Western form will reappear on the horizon.

I, looking from a position similar to the accelerationists, see such opportunities in the hypothetical collapse of the administration in the USA (taking into account that even under the control of Jewry and AIPAC, America still remains the largest and most developed power in the Western world) - then the American continent will again see the spirit of the Alamo, Washington, Hamilton, the pilgrims and the frontier, which is quite identical to the Prussian one - it is quite possible that these people of the future will be able to unite the West into an Imperium.

As for your question about the current situation, first of all I consider national states (which are largely formed by the spirit of linguistic nationalism, which in itself is a kind of distortion, since historically the nations of Western culture were created by dynasties, not languages) to be a rudiment that must die out - which is already happening at the level of self-awareness of many Europeans. If they disappear - the population will quite naturally return to early cultural identities, such as estates, clans and "tribes", which is much more organic. But since these identities cannot exist in isolation - their vertical integration into the Empire will inevitably be required.

Spengler and Yockey (who wrote Imperium, inspired, no doubt, by "The Hour of Decision", saw the crisis of the West in two hypostases - the White and Colored world revolutions. I have already mentioned the first, the second is due to the growth of self-awareness of the fellaheen and primitive peoples, who for many centuries before the appearance of Western colonizers "slept in an ahistorical slumber", as well as in their awareness of hatred of white peoples. The manifestation of this now is uncontrolled migration, the expulsion of whites from former colonies, etc. Both of these revolutions are interconnected and therefore, obviously, the colored people and the Jews are promoting Bolshevik ideas in every possible way.

referenced by: >>2979

In this context, it

anon_zewe said in #2976 1mo ago:

>>2974
Interesting thread in general; do you have any sources for the influence of the Jewish population in France before and during the french revolution ?

When I usually think about the french revolution, I have four major reasons in my mind leading to it: financial crisis, the disinterest of power by Louis XVI, multiple bad harvests in the years leading up to the french revolution and the population in Paris which played a special role throughout the whole revolution.
Where do you see the Jews major influence along these lines and how big, would you say, was their influence?

referenced by: >>2977

Interesting thread i

chickenyockey said in #2977 1mo ago:

>>2976
Considering French Revolution and Jewry:

"Similarly, it is only the facts of the period 1775–1815, the period of the French Revolution, that were distorted. The great transition which was symbolized by this horrible event — the change of direction of the soul of the West from Culture to Civilization — could have happened in innumerable other ways.

It was the policy of the distorters to make the French public finance dependent on debts and interests, as they had long since made the English government. An absolute monarchy, however, with its centralization of power, militates against the subservience of the State to the power of Money. Therefore the idea was to introduce constitutional monarchy into France, and for this purpose, the distorters and their instrument, Necker, forced the summoning of the Estates-General. Its membership was also determined by the distorters to a large extent, and a constitutional
monarchy was instituted. Necker immediately tried to raise two large loans, without success. A solution of the financial crisis was suggested by Talleyrand in the form of confiscation of the real property of the Church. Mirabeau supported this and further suggested the issue of currency against the confiscated property.

Necker refused, since such money, non-interest bearing and unconnected with debt, would not serve the distorters. In the financial crisis, Necker was exiled, and Mirabeau became dictator. He immediately issued land-money to save the country from the panic the distorters were trying to bring about. But outside France, Necker, representing the power of Money and the distorters, then launched a continental war against France, exciting it from both within and without. The idea was that a war would necessitate large foreign purchases by France in England, Spain, and elsewhere; that the land-money, the assignats, would be refused by the Money powers outside of France, and that France would be forced to succumb to the gold-monopolists. From this war a straight line led to the Terror."

- Imperium, pp. 425-426

referenced by: >>2980

Considering French R

anon_vuvu said in #2979 1mo ago:

>>2975

I am very skeptical of accelerationist hopes where there is some kind of social-political reset or resurgence of the virtuous possibilities via metaphorical bankruptcy of "the system". I think de Gobineau's demographic hypothesis on civilization is more plausible: decline (or ascendence) is a slow and hard-to-resist process mostly driven by genetic-like changes. It's possible that caught early enough a revolutionary will could have been victorious and overcome the nascent decline with a new order, but in practice this failed for various reasons. Now it looks rather baked in as the most competent people still find their interest best served by further undermining the foundations, and the resistance to this is all from the people without the wherewithal to profit from that process or to effectively resist it. If there were a unified understanding of the interests of western civilization and its people, a true elite waiting in the wings to ride in and set a new direction, then we could overcome the decay even without any kind of catastrophe, but the whole nature of the decay is that there isn't such a thing and seemingly can't be at this point. I don't think any kind of system shock or failure would make this any better; the population is too far gone and too divided in actual interests and genetic nature anything much different from what we have. "There is no political solution" etc.

While I appreciate the expositions ITT, "Imperium" sounds like an idealization of what Hitler might done with a time machine. It's a dream from 100 years ago for 100 years ago, informed by knowledge of the future it couldn't quite have mustered at the time. There's always a temptation to become a backwards-looking reactionary movement like this: re-fighting the last war but missing the next one. This is the danger I see here. This is what almost happened with greek philosophy: they were busy trying to idealize the aristocratic polis while the new alexandrian universal-scientific civilization was coming into being. Plato's circle (and Aristotle in particular) half-consciously did the foundational work of the next order but did not succeed in reviving the old virtues. I think we need to learn from that.

The ray of hope I see is that even if short term political implementation is ruled out by the ongoing complex systems collapse of western civilization, the truth is very strong in the long run. We should be investing our time in the analog of what actually worked in the greek case: get the worldview right, focus on reality-orientation and future-orientation above all else. BAP is a bit of a clown in some ways, but at least he's not a reactionary. His vision passes this test: inspire the male youth with visions of freedom and power at the expense of the decaying nursing-home world around us. That at least is a vision of our own time. Personally I'm interested in the more "autistic" philosophical matters like extrapolating the Darwinian worldview into its full metaphysical implication. I think these things are more important than the still-politically-attached realize. Commitment to truth and existing reality and not historical counterfactuals is what's going to lay the foundations of future order.

referenced by: >>2983

I am very skeptical

anon_zewe said in #2980 1mo ago:

>>2977
>It was the policy of the distorters to make the French public finance dependent on debts and interests, as they had long since made the English government.
This would suggest that the distorters had their hand in french politics quite early, starting with the wars by Louis XIV and finishing in the american war of independence. Another explanation would be that due to several wars waged by the France state its financial troubles were rather the norm than the exception. That seems to be a way simpler explanation than the Jews trying to influence every state to wage more war to borrow more money. There for sure are incentives for money lenders to incentivize war but I guess those are not only/mainly the Jews.

>An absolute monarchy, however, with its centralization of power, militates against the subservience of the State to the power of Money.
A mere economic explanation also does not seem to take into account that the basic economic structure of the country stayed the same until after the revolution into the 1840s, when the advent of railways broke down the regionalism and increased the market size (see Roger Price; The economic modernization of France). It also begs the question why this particular financial crisis was so susceptible to the french revolution and not the earlier ones such as the one in 1770/71. The political struggle between the poor vs rich and old vs new nobles mixed with the merchant class seems to be a better explanation.

However, Necker is for sure one of the guys one has to look out for in the prerevolutionary time. Although it seems that in recent time (1970s and later) he gets a better rep. than comparative historians in the 19th century have given him:
>Necker was the minister who, in financing France's part in the American War of Independence entirely through loans, left the monarchy with a crippling burden of debt. Worse, he compounded this crime by claiming, in his Compte rendu of 1781, that the royal finances were in modest surplus.
>It has been argued that during his first ministry he introduced radical reforms in financial administration, which, had they not been abandoned by Calonne, might have given the system the strength to ride out the storms of the late 1780s.
-Origins of the French Revolution; William Doyle p. 39

referenced by: >>2984

This would suggest t

chickenyockey said in #2983 1mo ago:

>>2979
I thank you for such a detailed comment - it was interesting to read. However, with all due respect, I have a few comments. First of all, Yockey's ideas were not "reactionary" in the same sense as the ideas of Joseph de Maistre, Baron Evola, etc. Yockey was a strict political realist and his vision of the Imperium he imagined corresponded to the morphology of history - in other words, the internal development of the Culture should have led to the outcome of events that the Imperium implies, but it was distorted by the intervention of external forces. In Spengler's understanding, outside the high Cultures there is only chaos - when one Culture destroys another, this is not "Destiny", but a tragic accident. For the Mesoamerican culture, "Destiny" was not its conquest by Hernan Cortes - it had at least another 150-200 years in reserve before its final decline (and its final "decomposition" would also take a long time).

Moreover, your phrase about "truth" caught my eye - perhaps I misunderstood it and if so, then I apologize, but, again, within the framework of Yockey-Spengler's philosophy of life, there is no "truth". Cultures are born and die, creating in the process of their life all sorts of "truths", systems of morals, values ​​and ethics - when they die - in fact, nothing remains. In other words, the world is subjective - there is nothing universal in it, such as a common "truth", "true God", etc. If our Culture is really destined to die in all this farce - it is unlikely that anything good awaits the ordinary individual. I would not like to live in a world without Goethe, Shakespeare, organ music and the mysticism of Meister Eckhart - but the world will inevitably lose them if our Culture really dies. The very soul that predisposes us to understand these phenomena will go away and they will become exotic relics that future historians will laugh at, just as we laugh at jokes about Diogenes and Socrates.

I will not go into the details of your comment about Darwinism - but Yockey resolutely rejected it as a given, offering instead an understanding of the origin of man in the spirit of Driesch and de Vries - as a manifestation of spontaneous mutations.

To be fair, Yockey himself was pessimistic towards the end of his life, here is what he wrote:

"If the American ascendancy continues for fifty years, there will no longer be any possibility of Imperium. The reason is that America is civilizing the entire coloured world, introducing Western technics everywhere. But this technical superiority is our only hope. Granted, they can never have our originality. But this originality is not absolute, and when the outer world approaches a technical parity with us, numbers will come into play. The coloured world outnumbers us five to one."

So one of the reasons I created this thread was to read what other people's perspectives on these processes were - maybe someone could offer something different?

referenced by: >>2985

I thank you for such

chickenyockey said in #2984 1mo ago:

>>2980
The problem is that the French Revolution was in some way a "natural" event - purely based on the morphology of Culture, it must sooner or later pass into the stage of "Civilization". However, the problem of the West was that for us this transition was much more painful than others, which points to some pathology rooted in the process itself.

In other words, the transition of Culture into Civilization could well have been achieved with fewer victims, without finally sacrificing Culture itself. The genius of Mirabeau and Napoleon showed that the "Revolution" itself could have been directed into a constructive direction for the entire West, by rejecting Jacobin radicalism and adopting a more pragmatic approach.

However, once again, the complete destruction of the entire Ancien Régime, flowing into the Bolshevism of the 19th-20th centuries was not a "necessity" and was provoked precisely by the pathology that sought to take advantage of this "temporary weakness".

The problem is that

anon_vuvu said in #2985 1mo ago:

>>2983
I don't mean to say that Yockey is a reactionary (I haven't read him yet so can't judge), but to caution against ourselves becoming reactionaries by idealizing an alternate history. I like your quote "If the American ascendancy continues for fifty years, there will no longer be any possibility of Imperium." Well, it's been nearly 80 years of American ascendancy, "civilizing the entire colored world, introducing Western technics everywhere", etc. Lo and behold, it appears that there is no longer any possibility of Imperium.

You are right to call me out on "truth". The only absolute truth is reality-as-such which we don't have access to. We have only our own subjective systems of consistent understanding (Spengler's "Cultures"). So I mean of course "our truth", Western truth, etc that contains and appreciates the beauty of Shakespeare, Eckhart, etc.

To clarify what I mean, there is a living strength that a worldview can have which is its ongoing dialog with reality-beyond-itself, and ability to maintain itself despite the chaos reality throws at it. If it abandons this struggle, it becomes fossilized, dead, no longer able to cultivate cutting edge life and thus irrelevant. This struggle is what I mean by focus on truth: continually adapting the Worldview to reality updating its parts and policies as new expressions of its eternal spirit (which we can never grasp propositionally).

We are now in the position of a worldview having mostly lost its civilization. This is rather bleak as you point out. But even if the whole thing dies, there will be things that live on. We can keep some sort of flame alive by keeping up the struggle to maintain our own worldview in the literal sense: to see the world our way, maintaining its memory and epistemology. And then of course to not only see but *live* that way. What comes out will not be what went in, but such is the flow of life. What comes out may at least inherit from what went in if we do our work well.

That task I am actually optimistic about. We ourselves were somehow initiated into this worldview and not via any official institutional sources. I often meet sharp young men who likewise study this stuff and build on it. It is fashionable even: see the frog phenomenon. That is where the life is and therefore where the fight is: build on that, defend that, put that in dialog with reality, project that into the future.

As for Darwinism, I'm aware many people disagree, but I think they are just wrong. Life is the product of the natural optimization for life by the laws of struggle, selection, fertility, and heredity. This can be generalized to account also for the nature of intelligence, technology, capital, culture. It's the foundation of an organic view of society. Nick Land's work here is great among others (I'm also enjoying Carlos Videla's book). Darwin is the big truth nugget that still needs to be digested in its implications as a worldview, which is why I'm interested in it.

referenced by: >>2994 >>2995

I don't mean to say

anon_cowu said in #2994 1mo ago:

>>2985
> As for Darwinism, I'm aware many people disagree, but I think they are just wrong. Life is the product of the natural optimization for life by the laws of struggle, selection, fertility, and heredity. This can be generalized to account also for the nature of intelligence, technology, capital, culture. It's the foundation of an organic view of society. Nick Land's work here is great among others ...

I believe that modern evolutionary biology is correct and rejecting it is a reactionary dead-end. That doesn't mean that it is complete, especially as understood by the median academic biologist. I also have no problem with talk of spirit, etc., which I interpret as being at a different level of analysis.

referenced by: >>2995

I believe that moder

chickenyockey said in #2995 1mo ago:

>>2994
>>2985
On Darwinism:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51259dfce4b01b12552dad3e/551885f2e4b09f8615d7353a/551885f2e4b09f8615d73da7/1392147935917/darwin.html?ref=benespen.com

https://trivent-publishing.eu/img/cms/5-%20Dylan%20Pammer%20-%20PJCV%202023-1.pdf

See also "Man and Technics"

referenced by: >>2997 >>2998

On Darwinism:...

anon_vuvu said in #2997 4w ago:

>>2995
I've read Man and Technics and do not recall any arguments in it that bear on Darwin's theory of life. As for this first things article, I have skimmed it and it seems to be a basic reflection on how complexity theory (in particular nonlinear attractors and chaotic transitions between attractors) complicates a more unconstrained "high genetic detail" understanding of darwinism in favor of something almost like aristotelian forms and final causes. That's a fine thread of inquiry that I've been interested in ever since seeing pictures of the Burgess Shale creatures when I was a kid, but it's not an argument against Darwinism. Don't forget Darwin didn't even know about genes. Compressing the level of control that genotypes have over phenotypes is an argument within Darwinism about the structure of the morphological space that natural selection is navigating (via genetic code even!).

Let's have an actual Darwinism thread, though.

referenced by: >>3003

I've read Man and Te

anon_cowu said in #2998 4w ago:

>>2995
Articles that go on about some reified "Darwinism," as if that were the issue, are almost always weak. The articles you link in particular do not refute evolutionary biology. The don't even try to. Rather, they point out some ways in which "it's more complicated than" the early 20th century synthesis with genetics, along with some philosophical reflections.

As I said above, I have no problem with further development of the biology (of *course* it's more complicated than what biologists had worked out in the 1940's) or of philosophy. I myself think that an Aristotelian approach has much to recommend it. But none of that entails rejecting evolutionary biology.

>> 2297
Agree.

Articles that go on

chickenyockey said in #3003 4w ago:

>>2997
Are you suggesting to create a new thread? I don't mind.

Are you suggesting t

chickenyockey said in #3004 4w ago:

Out of boredom, I decided to draw a hypothetical map of the Imperium, using the TNO map as a basis (since the borders of German expansion are conveyed most accurately in this universe).

In pondering the boundaries of the hypothetical Imperium, the first thing that struck me was the danger of overexpansion. In other words, expansion should not be based on a universalist principle (i.e., implying the conquest of the entire world) - since this is a dialectical violation of the basic principles of politics - the division into friend and enemy. Yockey writes that:

"We have seen what the pluralistic State is. There is, however, another type of pluralism, one of fact and not of theory. There is a pluriverse in fact, which is not merely an attempt to prove one philosophy or to deride another.
The world of politics is a pluriverse. Although politics has been defined as activity in relation to power, and the inner nature, prerequisites, and invariable characteristic of politics have been set forth, nevertheless the nature of power itself remains to be shown. Power is a relation of control between two similar organisms. The degree of control is determined by the nature of the two organisms acting reciprocally on one another. Power appears, in its dim beginnings, in the animal world, where the beasts of prey exert something similar to power over their prospective victims. As something more than transitory, something constituted, however, it begins with man...

...But a display of will-power by one man calls forth opposition elsewhere. Similarly with superpersonal organisms —they do not and cannot exist alone, since, in their political aspect they are units of opposition. Each one exists as a unit-with-the-power-to-choose-and-fight-enemies. The ability to create a friend-enemy disjunction is the essence of the political." - Imperium, pp. 168-169

In addition, Yockey describes the limits of Western expansion quite clearly in his later essays. So I drew a map of two "halves" of the Western Empire - German-European and American, each of which, although having its own sphere of influence, obviously should be considered as complementary to the other.

In Imperium, Yockey wrote that America's natural colonial interests were Latin America and East Asia, so I superimposed on my vision America's territorial claims in the 19th century, as well as the most strategically significant territories. Yockey also hinted at the need for direct military control over Japan.

"Two other grand projects have less immediacy. As to which will, or can, be undertaken first, incident will decide. But both have Destiny-quality. First, the Europeanization of North Africa. To effectuate this, the conversion of the Mediterranean into two lakes: causeways at Gibraltar, and from Italy to Tunisia, dams at Dardanelles and Bosphorus, closing of Suez. Irrigation of the African continent as far inland as possible with the power resources of the Gibraltar, Tunisian, and Egyptian dams. Settlement of the new area with Europeans from the overcrowded petty-states of Europe. Total expulsion of all indegenous populations.

Second, the Europeanization of the hither Slavic lands. This includes the Balkans, Bohemia, Poland, the Baltic, White Russia, Little Russia, Muscovy, the Ukraine and the Caucasus.
To a certain extent, the two projects are substitutes for one another. If either one could be completely accomplished, it would assure Imperium of security in one direction. Viewed however from the viewpoint of the next three centuries, both projects are necessary, if Imperium is to remain forever as the great moment of the West. From the standpoint of one century, one will suffice. Either one will take fifty years to actualize." - Thoughts Personal & Superpersonal
195? circa

Yockey also believed in the need to build a dam across the English Channel and the Ulster Strait to protect Europe from the treacherous island mentality of the British. I have included them in the map as well. Moreover, Yockey was an advocate of Atlantropa.

referenced by: >>3006

Out of boredom, I de

anon_vuvu said in #3006 4w ago:

>>3004
Cool map. The point against over-expansion is an important corrective to the high modernist universalism that tries to encompass the whole world and thus lets into itself a bunch of really alien others, or fractures its internal will for lack of external opposition.

I've been thinking faustian man should re-imagine the frontier of expansion as one of divergence, not encompassing. We want to go beyond by breaking away, replicating, conquering and replacing, occasionally integrating, but mainly innovating and insisting rather than unifying and accepting. This seems the obvious implication of an organic worldview that views societies as (super-)organisms and unity as impossible (per Yockey's and other's "superpersonal organisms as units of opposition" point). Insofar as we have the material power and success to expand, we should do so by self-replication instead of by encompassing. Splitting and overrunning, not joining and unifying.

But the unification drive is clearly a powerful thing in itself. To smooth out the interior territory of an empire into a frictionless homogenous Society has been the basis of our power so far. That cannot be abandoned, but it creates the over-expansion we're currently suffering through (as our economic trade and industry engine has encompassed the whole world and our social homogenization engine is trying to do the same but in the process ingesting a fatal dose of diversity). The easy answer is that we need to balance the unification and opposition drives where appropriate, but these are hardly rational processes either. We actually can't plan this out that way.

It may just be beyond human hands. All we can do is plan out how we are going to define and diverge our own faustian-WEIRD society against the dying hulk of western universalism. Again I'm going to use the "r-word" here and ask how we might make this whole imaginative map exercise less reactionary. If we re-ran the thought process of Imperium today given our current situation and not the situation in 1948 when it was perhaps still possible to run the Patton plan, what would the result look like? That's our essential task now: what is our ambitious ideal now and not in the past?

referenced by: >>3009 >>3010

Cool map. The point

chickenyockey said in #3009 4w ago:

>>3006
Very good comment - it's a pleasure to talk to you in this thread, because you understand perfectly well the things I'm trying to explain.

First of all, I want to make a remark about universalism - my idea is controversial and I haven't fully worked it out properly, but nevertheless: I believe that "Western universalism" in its current understanding is not truly Western, just like Spengler considered linear-collinear model of history as "Western" one. In short, I believe that this is a "magian" distortion - i.e. another example of Cultural Distortion. I will give an example - Spengler naively considers the linear-collinear concept of history (which is part of the liberal-universalist myth) to be a genuine expression of the Faustian worldview (muh boundless space, the Faustian will to power), but at the same time he himself is unable to explain why he rejects this concept, having constructed the idea of ​​Cultural Morphology (considering his discovery to be similar to the Copernican one). Two conclusions can be drawn from this: 1) Spengler is not a Faustian man and belongs to another Culture, which dictated such a view of things to him; 2) Spengler's concept, rejecting universalism, is "the most" Faustian, and the others were erroneous.

The first option, of course, is a joke, so we reject it immediately - only the second remains. Spengler's view - and Yockey's later, is truly Faustian and most consistent with the archetype of "boundless space". True infinity is not linear progress, but metahistory - i.e. the perception of history "outside of it", which Spengler was able to achieve through his magnificent historical empathy. No Culture in principle was aware of the existence of the eight High Cultures - this is an amazing property of the Faustian soul.

Where did universalism come from then? It's all about Christianity and the "magical" contribution it made to the Western soul. I am not an opponent of Christianity and I do not presume to argue that it is bad and erroneous as a religion - my position is non-religious and stingy-historical.

Our Christian religion, although it has "spiritualized" the original magical myth with Western ideas, has preserved the Universalist relic, dating back to the Holy Scripture, which, alas, has remained unchanged - that is why all alien peoples are perceived by our distorted consciousness as "lost", who should be brought to the true faith in Christ - then they, as it seems, will become the same white Gothic Christians as we are. For the magian culture, such a view did not create a problem, since belonging to one or another "nation" of the magical world was determined by religious affiliation - i.e. a Roman, a Negro or a Turk who accepted Islam, Christianity or Manichaeism became the same "compatriot" as the native representatives of these religions. Racial differences were not able to undermine this Culture.

However, for us this is a problem - I think there is no need to explain why.

At first, Western (Gothic) Christianity was an "ethnic" religion of the West and belonging to it almost always coincided with belonging to the Western world, but the "creolization" of Christianity by the efforts of missionaries who naively believed that they were "converting" colored peoples to their faith, making them the same servants of God as we are, led to the fact that we lost our exceptional position in the Christian world - pay attention to the favorites in the election of the new Pope - your eyes will open to many things.

Yockey and his followers, like F.C. Weiss and Revilo P. Oliver, believed that American financial universalism under the auspices of the UN is a mean of achieving world domination for Jewry, for whom the universalist idea is quite organic and the "imperialism" of Wall Street, the war in Iraq, the promotion of trans-gay rights in Uganda serve exclusively these goals, and not the expansion of the "West".

I recommend reading the article by F.C. Weiss https://archive.org/details/WeissFrederickC.HQ10523413/page/n27/mode/2up p. 28 in document

referenced by: >>3011

Very good comment -

chickenyockey said in #3010 4w ago:

>>3006
As for your last two paragraphs - I agree with that too. The problem with the alleged "expansion" of the West under the auspices of the US is that the US does not create an Empire - financiers CANNOT create an Empire, as Yockey writes in his chapters on America in the Imperium. America, starting in the 19th century, has been spreading democracy in the countries of the colored world, instead of making colonies out of them and populating them with whites - remember the heroism of William Walker and compare it with the fact that the Americans shamefully gave Cuba independence, having just won it from Spain - this is not imperial thinking, but an absurdity that the Jewry use.

It would be logical to expand to where Western power can be built and, if possible, integrate the population into Western society/populate the territories with Westerners. Yockey considered North Africa and the Slavic East for several reasons. As for Russia, I have already said that the Russians, being "barbarians", are very prone to assimilation into the white, Western world - remember that Caesar fought in the Gallic War and the Civil War with legions recruited almost entirely from the Romanized Celto-Germanic population.

As for Africa - in the years when Yockey wrote his works, it was not as populated as it is now and the colonization of these territories by whites was perhaps not such a big problem - now everything is different and these peoples outnumber us and their conquest would probably be suicidal (as far as I understand).

As for "reactionary" - don't worry, this term doesn't scare me, especially since I understand what you mean. Yes, that's true - Yockey's view is outdated for the reason I explained in the first comments - Prussia-Germany and the ethos that was capable of making continental Western Europe an Empire are irrevocably dead. As a consequence, the sources of power will probably be located among the remaining passionate part of American society. Probably, if by some miracle of Providence, America manages to get rid of Wall Street and the oligarchy, the center of the Imperium will be precisely it, since the forces and possibilities of this nation are not so squandered (I have already spoken about what "nations" may await us in the future). Thus, the most relevant will be Imperialism in Latin America and East Asia, since this is the natural sphere of thallasocratic American Imperialism. The expansion of Europe to the east also does not make sense - today's Russia, through the efforts of the Bolsheviks, who made Russia more urbanized than Europe, the people of Russia became complimentary to the West - the work of Peter the Great, as it seems to me, is complete and perceiving Russians as "colored" is no longer relevant. Considering the centrifugal processes of Islamization taking place in Russia, if the West manages to liberate itself at least by 2050, the remaining "white" part of Russia will inevitably strive to reunite with the West in order to save itself from the Sharia of the more passionate southern primitive peoples.

All this, in fact, is just my thoughts - only you can judge how wrong I am or not - I will be glad to listen to objections and hear your idea of ​​what the Imperium might look like. Although, one way or another, I think that even if the Imperium "rises from the ashes" by some court, it will be a pale parody of what Yockey strived for - our Culture is too sick and the process of its restoration can take more than a century, given that our Civilization, according to Spengler's cycles, has about 400 years left until its complete completion (and 2200-2400 is already the actual primitivization and barbarization of forms, in the spirit of the times of Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus, with desperate attempts to preserve at least something from the Culture)

As for your last two

anon_vuvu said in #3011 4w ago:

>>3009
This speculation that the linear-universal myth is not actually natively Faustian is fascinating. I should read more Spengler to really get his idea, but If I can introspect on my own root cosmology, I would now say that the meta-organic consciousness of nature is more fundamental than the universal flat order usually called faustian. My will is not directed outward horizontally to encompass and order, but upward, to understand the God-consciousness and the inherent plan of the space of intractable struggle that is the ecology of life. It is the ecological organic consciousness that empathizes with raw brutal nature and the beauty of life that comes out of that struggle, and that places itself as a mortal temporary agent of that higher order within the competitive agon of nature, but also seeks to transcend it towards God. This is very hard to put into words, as it's about these pre-rational feelings of cosmic order.

This was not always the case with me. In past years I was very influenced by the "rationalist" stuff which was very much the millenarian universal flat order "utilitarian". I slowly worked my way out of that as my native patterns of philosophy and native love of nature and readings of more of the canon deconstructed it and led me to what I'm calling my current "meta-organic" worldview.

I find vulgarization of these things down to "the joos" etc to be tiresome, but given a bit of racial consciousness the whole thing does have an obvious ethnic character. The linear-universal-apocalyptic worldview is undeniably jewish in both tradition and in the people who argue for it. Much of it is straight out of the bible (Eden as ideal, work as punishment, kingdom of heaven being a sort of universal order in which we "study war no more", cosmic time punctuated by apocalyptic breaks of metaphysically unique character (fall, flood, chosen people, incarnation, apocalypse, singularity)). Yudkowsky is a comically obvious example, but that entire crowd and their intellectual progenitors are self-consciously jewish. Meanwhile the people who advance an alternative have a distinctly "gothic" persuasion. Most proximally to "rationality", Hanson and Land are anglos. Spengler, Nietzsche, Darwin, Emerson likewise are self consciously germanic. The Catholic franco-teuton Teilhard is an interesting attempted synthesis of the linear-universal worldview with the meta-organic. So i think you may be on to something that the linear-universal myth is an alien inclusion in the western soul.

You know what this reminds me of is Rosenberg's "Myth of the 20th Century". Given its reputation I was surprised at the actual thesis, which to translate a bit for this conversation is that the western soul is this awkward mashing together of two distinct religious worldviews by the historical Catholic church. On the one hand "etruscan superstition" and hebrew myth embodied in scriptural and institutional christianity, on the other hand the free-thinking germanic mysticism of Meister Eckhart and the broader western philosophical and mystical tradition. He basically sees the key project being the completion of certain tendencies around the protestant reformation (and implicitly the renaissance) which he sees as an aborted purification and separation of the true western soul from biblical catholicism.

I think there's something to that idea. Modernity itself is a sort of religious event in which free-thinking science and natural philosophy, and some deeper worldview underlying them, have been proven to have a great and powerful truth (or vital power if you prefer) in them. But the whole project is chronically half-finished, mashed up with other nonsense, misunderstood, lacking in rigorously articulated metaphysical foundation, etc. Our job then is to complete it, to constantly refine that gem of a worldview out of the occasional muck of our overall canon. I find this spiritual-intellectual framing of the problem to be much more productive than making it about mere ethnic politics. The war is now better fought on this "spiritual" plane.

referenced by: >>3012

This speculation tha

chickenyockey said in #3012 4w ago:

>>3011
>You know what this reminds me of is Rosenberg's "Myth of the 20th Century". Given its reputation I was surprised at the actual thesis, which to translate a bit for this conversation is that the western soul is this awkward mashing together of two distinct religious worldviews by the historical Catholic church. On the one hand "etruscan superstition" and hebrew myth embodied in scriptural and institutional christianity, on the other hand the free-thinking germanic mysticism of Meister Eckhart and the broader western philosophical and mystical tradition. He basically sees the key project being the completion of certain tendencies around the protestant reformation (and implicitly the renaissance) which he sees as an aborted purification and separation of the true western soul from biblical catholicism.

Exactly!!! (even though i don't like Rosenberg personally - he seems to be right on that issue) I should consider reading "Myth of the 20th Century", thanks.

It is precisely in this context that it is important to note that the pseudomorphosis produced by Christianity is not only magian, but also Apollonian (sic!). The fact is that the very doctrine of the a priori Divine nature of Christ is a derivative of the late classical religious idea of ​​Divus, which implied the deification of the Emperor. (In other words, the religion of late Rome was to some extent the "cult of the Emperor", expressed in the worship of the Princeps as a man). Within the framework of Eastern, magian Christianity, this problem was resolved within the framework of Arianism (which arose partly as a reaction to the pseudomorphosis), and also in a less radical and more interesting way within the framework of Nestorianism (the concept of the substantial interaction of the two natures of Christ - Divine and Human) - however, within the framework of Greek and Latin Christianity, which preserved this Apollonian relic, the problem remained the same. (The Classical pseudomorphosis of Magical Culture is a very interesting topic itself and it'd make me to write a full tome to cover it properly)

Furthermore, Spengler noted that the landscape of southern Europe (the south of Italy, Spain and France) remained "Apollonian" - i.e. it retained some phantom relics of the Apollonian soul, even though the Culture itself was already dead (The idea of ​​"spirituality" of the landscape is extremely important in the Spenglerian context). Thus, when Western Culture, whose original landscape was the broad-leaved oak and coniferous forests of Western and Central Europe, spread to Italy, Spain and France, this pseudomorphosis inevitably exerted its influence. Thus, Spengler considered Catholicism in Italy to be very different from that in Germany - the forms of religiosity practiced by the peasants of Calabria or Sicily he considered to be Apollonian (sic!) - note how much honor is paid to the saints and the Virgin Mary in Italy and how little is said about the abstract "God", the concept of which is incomprehensible to the population of these regions. Moreover, it was precisely this "influence of the landscape" that determined the fact that the magian by nature sect of the Cathars gained a foothold in the Romanic south of France (the Crusades against them were thus precisely an act of liberation of Culture from pathology). Once again, I find the remark about the Etruscan nature of Catholicism simply excellent - thanks again, I will go into th>>3011
is topic in more detail. Note how finely Nordic Catholic mysticism has solved almost all the problems of the magical religiosity inherent in the Western soul - indeed, I believe that Meister Eckhart's religion should not be considered in the wider context of universal Christianity at all (I am afraid that many will disagree with me and find this idea contradictory).

referenced by: >>3013 >>3014

Exactly!!! (even tho

anon_vuvu said in #3013 4w ago:

>>3012
I've not read Eckhart himself though he seems to come up a lot in these discussions. Do you have pointers on what the best stuff to read would be?

referenced by: >>3015

I've not read Eckhar

chickenyockey said in #3014 4w ago:

>>3012
Note that if you throw out the concept of the "triune" Catholic God from his Theology, nothing will change - Eckhart speaks of the figure of God manifested in the human soul, as well as of the breakthrough to "Gottheit", the very idea of ​​which makes the "usual" Christian Deity a mere rudiment. Spengler wrote:

"Bei jeder gelehrten Philosophie muß man die scholastische Kruste erst abkratzen, um zu sehen, was für ein Philosoph dahintersteckt; bei den[13] meisten ergibt es sich: gar keiner. Bei Eckhart z.B. ein ganz andrer, als der gelehrte Firnis vermuten läßt." - Fruhzeit der Weltgeschichte, p.16

In other words, Eckhart was actually "forced" to write his Theology in the context of scholastic Christianity - even though he himself may have believed in the correctness of orthodox Theology - perhaps his teaching can be viewed in a "purer" form, having finally cleared it of that "scholastic crust" that Spengler speaks of.

Spengler himself believed that the Nordic North is in principle capable of perceiving religion pantheistically - the concept of monotheism lives only in scientific abstractions - Judaism, from which the Christian myth grew (through the Old Testament) was actually a Henotheistic religion, where the supreme God of the Jewish pantheon as a result of historical development gradually became the "only God" of the entire Universe - given the fact that we know this, the "universality" of Christianity in principle turns out to be just a delusion.

Eckhart, being an expression of the Soul that is absolutely Faustian in its nature, teaches about the Divinity of man and the dissolution of the human soul in the infinite spaces of the universe - hence the striving for the incomprehensible "Nothing" that permeates his sermons. His idea can also be generalized within the framework of the philosophical category of the unity of the microcosm in the macrocosm, which is completely incomprehensible to other Cultures. (I apologize for the somewhat tongue-tied style of my presentation - I'm just really sleepy).

I would not like to mix history with my own wishes, but personally I would like to see the Western "Second Religiosity" within the framework of the Cult proposed in Dishonored - a pantheistic and elitist Cult based on the worship of the bottomless Cosmos and guarding public morality. In the context of personal worship, of course, I would prefer to focus on mystical forms of religiosity, instead of scholastic ones. Once again, to cleanse religion from Pseudomorphosis seems to me an important task, no matter how unrealistic it may seem.

Moreover, Spengler believed that in the Gothic North, in the personalities of Christ and Mary, people worship the same "Nordic" forces of nature, once designated by the names of pagan gods.

"Konzeptionen und Namen der Gottheiten haben verschiedene Geschichte. Überall und immer haben andre Stämme ihre Idee vom Göttlichen behalten und [ihnen] fremde Namen gegeben oder umgekehrt.[112] Die Juno Regina von Karthago ist Tanit. Die Aphroditen von Hellas sind hellenische Ideen. Unter Jesus und Maria stecken im protestantischen Norden nordische Vorstellungen." - Fruhzeit der Weltgeschichte, p. 92

Why should our religion decieve itself then, being stuck in the forms of magian Old Testament?

Note that if you thr

chickenyockey said in #3015 4w ago:

>>3013
https://german.yale.edu/sites/default/files/meister-eckhart-maurice-o-c-walshe-bernard-mcginn-the-complete-mystical-works-of-meister-eckhart-the-crossroad-publishing-company-2009.pdf

https://german.yale.

You must login to post.