Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalSearchRegisterLog in

Share
 

 Hyperboreans

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jun 11, 2019 7:19 am

Wikipedia wrote:
In Greek mythology the Hyperboreans (Ancient Greek: Ὑπερβόρε(ι)οι, pronounced [hyperbóre(ː)ɔi̯]; Latin: Hyperborei) were a mythical race of giants who lived ‘beyond the North Wind’. The Greeks thought that Boreas, the god of the North Wind (one of the Anemoi, or ‘Winds’) lived in Thrace, and therefore Hyperborea indicates that is Thrace.
This land was supposed to be perfect, with the sun shining twenty-four hours a day, which to modern ears suggests a possible location within the Arctic Circle during the Midnight Sun-time of year. However, it is also possible that Hyperborea had no real physical location at all, for according to the classical Greek poet Pindar, neither by ship nor on foot would you find the marvellous road to the assembly of the Hyperboreans.
Pindar also described the otherworldly perfection of the Hyperboreans:
‘Never the Muse is absent from their ways: lyres clash and flutes cry and everywhere maiden choruses whirling. Neither disease nor bitter old age is mixed in their sacred blood; far from labor and battle they live.’

The north holds a spiritual significance for Indo-Europeans, because it was towards the north that they sought open frontiers, developing what Spengler called ‘Faustian’; it was in the north where they were hardened, their creativity challenged and their mind sharpened – reflected in their language; and it was from the north that they descended, during the Ice Age, to appear in history as conquerors that dominated every tribe they came in contact with.

Aryan

Wikipedia wrote:
The Aryan race is a racial grouping that emerged in the period of the late 19th century and mid-20th century to describe people of Indo-European heritage.
The concept derives from the notion that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the Caucasian race.
Aryans are further subdivided into European Aryans and Indo-Aryans (the term ‘Indo-Aryans’ was then used to describe those now called Indo-Iranians).
Etymology
The earliest epigraphically attested reference to the word ‘Aryan’ occurs in the 6th-century BC Behistun inscription, which describes itself to have been composed ‘in Aryan (arya). The ‘Aryan’ in this context means ‘Iranian’.
The term Aryan has generally been used to describe the Proto-Indo-Iranian language root *arya which was the ethnonym the Indo-Iranians adopted to describe Aryans. Its cognate in Sanskrit is the word ārya (Devanāgarī: आर्य), in origin an ethnic self-designation, in Classical Sanskrit meaning ‘honourable, respectable, noble’. The Old Persian cognate ariya- (Old Persian) is the ancestor of the modern name of Iran and ethnonym for the Iranian people.
In the 18th century, the most ancient known Indo-European languages were those of the ancient Indo-Iranians. The word Aryan was therefore adopted to refer not only to the Indo-Iranian peoples, but also to native Indo-European speakers as a whole, including the Romans, Greeks, and the Germans. It was soon recognised that Balts, Celts, and Slavs also belonged to the same group. It was argued that all of these languages originated from a common root – now known as Proto-Indo-European – spoken by an ancient people who were thought of as ancestors of the European, Iranian, and Indo-Aryan peoples




In times of miscegenation - mixed genetics diluting bloodlines to the point of covering the traces that can be followed back to a source, the meme offers us a more clear path, reconnecting to a past, when miscegenation had not proceeded to the current degree.
Combing, what Yockey called vertical race (German) and Horizontal race ((English), we can triangulate and judge what lies further into the distance.
Linguistics is at the centre of what we are presently experiencing as a form of 'madness' and/or cultural and racial suicide.
I've called it Nihilism and claimed that it is a defensive mindset (psychology and relationship with reality), rooted in emerging self-consciousness, producing a sense of vulnerability and insecurity.
Because miscegenation dilutes genetics, and requires sophisticated knowledge and technologies to trace - something inhibited in modern science - that leaves us with memetics to attempt to do the same.



Language can bring us all the way back to the beginning of history - we can say art, in general, because language is, after all, an art-form.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Evola Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jun 11, 2019 8:17 am

Evola, Julius wrote:
The real man, in addition to the biological and somatic part, is soul and spirit. Therefore, a comprehensive racial theory must consider all these three terms: body, soul and spirit. There will thus be a racism of the first degree, which addresses the strictly biological, anthropological and eugenic problems ; then, a racism of the second degree, which addresses the 'race of the soul', that is to say the form of the character and the affective reactions; finally, as a crowning-piece, the consideration of the 'race of the spirit', which addresses the highest elements of the personality which, in regard to the general vision of the world and the beyond, destiny, life, action, in short, the 'highest values', differentiate and make men unequal. The classical ideal, racially interpreted, is the harmony and the unity of these three racial aspects in a higher type.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Evola, Julius wrote:
Once detachment, viveka, is interpreted mainly in this internal sense, it appears perhaps easier to achieve it today than in more normal and traditional civilization. One who is still an ‘Aryan’ spirit in a large European or American city, with its skyscrapers and asphalt, with its politics and sport, with its crowds who dance and shout, with its exponents of secular culture and soulless science and so on – among all this he may feel himself more alone and detached and nomad than he would have done in the time of the Buddha, in conditions of physical isolation and of actual wandering. The greatest difficulty, in this respect, lies in giving the sense of internal isolation, which today may occur to many almost spontaneously, a positive, full, simple, and transparent character, with elimination of all traces of aridity, melancholy, discord, or anxiety. Solitude should not be a burden, something that is suffered, that is borne involuntarily, or in which refuge is taken by force of circumstances, but rather, a natural, simple, and free disposition.

Evola, Julius wrote:
After exposing the decadence of modern woman, he must not forget that man is mostly responsible for such decadence. Just like the plebeian masses would have never been able to make their way into all the domains of social life and of civilization if real kings and real aristocrats would have been in power, likewise, in a society run by real men, woman would never have yearned for or even been capable of taking the path she is following today. The periods in which women have reached autonomy and pre-eminence almost always coincided with epochs marked by manifest decadence in ancient civilizations. Thus, the best and most authentic reaction against feminism and against every other female aberration should not be aimed at women as such, but at men instead. It should not be expected of women that they return to what they really are and thus re-establish the necessary inner and outer conditions for reintegration of a superior race, when men themselves retain only the semblance of true virility.

Evola, Julius wrote:
Following the mixing of the castes or of analogous social bodies and the coming to power of the inferior social strata and races, it was unavoidable that their spirit triumphed even in this regard; that any relationship with the supernatural would be conceived exclusively in terms of ‘religion’; that nay other higher form came under suspicion and was even stigmatized as sacrilegious and demonic. The feminization of spirituality was already foreshadowed in ancient times. Wherever it prevailed, it determined the first alteration of the primordial tradition in the races.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jun 11, 2019 8:33 am

Flaubert, Gustave wrote:
As a rule the philosopher is a kind of mongrel being a cross between scientist and poet, envious of both.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Fustel de Coulanges, Numa Denis Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jun 11, 2019 8:36 am

Fustel de Coulanges, Numa Denis wrote:
The religion of these primitive ages was exclusively domestic; so also were morals. Religion did not say to a man, showing him another man, That is thy brother. It said to him, That is a stranger; he cannot participate in the religious acts of thy hearth; he cannot approach the tomb of thy family; he has other gods than shine, and cannot unite with thee in a common prayer; thy gods reject his adoration, and regard him as their enemy; he is thy foe also. In this religion of the hearth man never supplicates the divinity in favor of other men; he invokes him only for himself and his. A Greek proverb has remained as a souvenir and a vestige of this ancient isolation of man in prayer. In Plutarch's time they still said to the egotist, ‘You sacrifice to the hearth.’   This signified, You separate yourself from other citizens; you have no friends; your fellow-men are nothing to you; you live solely for yourself and yours. This proverb pointed to a time when, all religion being around the hearth, the horizon of morals and of affection had not yet passed beyond the narrow circle of the family. It is natural that moral ideas, like religious ideas, should have their commencement and progress, and the god of the primitive generations in this race was very small; by degrees men made him larger; so morals, very narrow and incomplete at first, became insensibly enlarged, until, from stage to stage, they reached the point of proclaiming the duty of love towards all mankind. The point of departure was the family, and it was under the influence of the domestic religion that duties first appeared to the eyes of man.
Fustel de Coulanges, Numa Denis wrote:
It will, perhaps, appear strange to find love of home counted among the virtues; but it was so counted among the ancients. This sentiment had a deep and powerful hold upon their minds. Anchises, when he sees Troy in flames, is still unwilling to leave his old home. Ulysses, when countless treasures, and immortality itself, are offered him, wishes only again to see the flame of his own hearth-fire. Let us come down to Cicero's time; it is no longer a poet, but a statesman, who speaks: ‘Here is my religion, here is my race, here are the traces of my forefathers. I cannot express the charm which I find here, and which penetrates my heart and my senses.’ We must place ourselves, in thought, in the midst of these primitive generations to understand how lively and powerful were these sentiments, which were already enfeebled in Cicero's day. For us the house is merely a domicile — a shelter; we leave it, and forget it with little trouble; or, if we are attached to it, this is merely by the force of habit and of recollections; because, for us, religion is not there; our God is the God of the universe, and we find him everywhere. It was entirely different among the ancients; they found their principal divinity within the house: this was their providence, which protected them individually, which heard their prayers, and granted their wishes. Out of the house, man no longer felt the presence of a god; the god of his neighbor was a hostile god. Then a man loved his house as he now loves his church. Thus the religion of the primitive ages was not foreign to the moral development of this part of humanity. Their gods enjoined purity, and forbade the shedding of blood; the notion of justice, if it was not born of this belief, must at least have been fortified by it. These gods belonged in common to all the members of the same family; thus the family was united by a powerful tie, and all its members learned to love and respect each other. These gods lived in the interior of each house; a man loved his house, his home, fixed and durable, which he had received from his ancestors, and which he transmitted to his children as a sanctuary.

Fustel de Coulanges, Numa Denis wrote:
Here is one fact established: there were gentes at Rome and at Athens. We might cite examples relative to many other cities of Greece and Italy, and conclude from them that, in all probability, this institution was universal among these ancient nations...It is unquestionable that the Greeks and the Romans attached to the words gens and γενος the idea of a common origin. This idea might have become obscured after the gens was modified, but the word has remained to bear witness of it... Hearth, tomb, patrimony, all these, in the beginning, were indivisible. The family, consequently, was also indivisible. Time did not dismember it. This indivisible family, which developed through ages, perpetuating its worship and its name from century to century, was really the antique gens. The gens was the family, but the family having preserved the unity which its religion enjoined, and having attained all the development which ancient private law permitted it to attain.
Fustel de Coulanges, Numa Denis wrote:

When we examine the domestic religion, those gods who belonged only to one family and exercised their providence only within the walls of one house, this worship which was secret, this religion which would not be propagated, this antique morality which prescribed the isolation of families, — it is clear that beliefs of this nature could not have taken root in the minds of men, except in an age when larger societies were not yet formed. If the religious sentiment was satisfied with so narrow a conception of the divine, it was because human associations were then narrow in proportion. The time when men believed only in the domestic gods was the time when there existed only families. It is quite true that this belief might have subsisted afterwards, and even for a long time, when cities and nations existed. Man does not easily free himself from opinions that have once exercised a strong influence over him. This belief might endure, therefore, even when it was in disaccord with the social state. What is there, indeed, more contradictory than to live in civil society and to have particular gods in each family? But it is clear that this contradiction did not always exist, and that at the epoch when this belief was established in the mind, and became powerful enough to form a religion, it corresponded exactly with the social state of man. Now, the only social state that is in accord with such a belief is that in which the family lives independent and isolated. In such a state the whole Aryan race appears to have lived for a long time. The hymns of the Vedas confirm this for the branch from which the Hindus are descended, and the old beliefs and the old private laws attest it for those who finally became Greeks and Romans. If we compare the political institutions of the Aryans of the East with those of the Aryans of the West, we find hardly any analogy between them. If, on the contrary, we compare the domestic institutions of these various nations, we perceive that the family was constituted upon the same principles in Greece and in India; besides, these principles were, as we have already shown, of so singular a nature that we cannot suppose this resemblance to have been the work of chance. Finally, not only do these institutions offer an evident analogy, but even the words that designate them are often the same in the different languages, which this race has spoken from the Ganges to the Tiber. From this fact we may draw a double conclusion one is, that the origin of domestic institutions among the nations of this race is anterior to the period when its different branches separated; the other is, that the origin of political institutions is, on the contrary, later than this separation. The first were fixed from the time when the race still lived in its ancient cradle of Central Asia. The second were formed by degrees in the different countries to which its migrations conducted. We can catch a glimpse therefore of a long period, during which men knew no other form of society than the family. Then arose the domestic religion, which could not have taken root in a society otherwise constituted, and which must long have been an obstacle to social development. Then also was established ancient private law, which was found later to be in disaccord with the interests of a more extended social organization, but which was in perfect harmony with the state of society in which it arose.
Fustel de Coulanges, Numa Denis wrote:

We find this worship of the dead among the Hellenes, among the Latins, among the Sabines, among the Etruscans, we also find it among the Aryas of India. Mention is made of it in the hymns of the Reg-Veda. It is spoken of in the Laws of Manu as the most ancient worship among men. We see in this book that the idea of metempsychosis had already passed over this ancient belief, even before the religion of Brahma was established; and still beneath the worship of Brahma, beneath the doctrine of metempsychosis, the religion of the souls of ancestors still subsists, living and indestructible, and compels the author of the Laws of Manu to take it into account, and to admit its rules into the sacred book. Not the least singular thing about this strange book is, that it has preserved the rules relative to this ancient belief, whilst it was evidently prepared in an age when a belief entirely different had gained the ascendancy. This proves that much time is required to transform a human belief, and still more to modify its exterior forms, and the laws based upon it. At the present day, even, after so many ages of revolutions, the Hindus continue to make offerings to their ancestors. This belief and these rites are the oldest and the most persistent of anything pertaining to the Indo-European race. This worship was the same in India as in Greece and Italy. The Hindu had to supply the manes with the repast, which was called sraddha. ‘Let the master of the house make the sraddha with rice, milk, roots, and fruits, in order to procure for himself the good-will of the manes.’

Fustel de Coulanges, Numa Denis wrote:
In the house of every Greek and Roman was an altar; on this altar there had always to be a small quantity of ashes, and a few lighted coals. It was a sacred obligation for the master of every house to keep the fire up night and day. Woe to the house where it was extinguished. Every evening they covered the coals with ashes to prevent them from being entirely consumed. In the morning the first care was to revive this fire with a few twigs. The fire ceased to glow upon the altar only when the entire family had perished; an extinguished hearth, an extinguished family, were synonymous expressions among the ancients.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Heisman, Mitchell Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
The English word ‘virtue’ is derived from the Roman word virtus, meaning manliness or strength. Virtus derived from vir, meaning ‘man’. Virilis, an ancestor of the English word ‘virile,’ is also derived from the Roman word for man. From this Roman conception of virtue, was Jesus less than a man or more than a man? Did the spectacle of Jesus dying on a Roman cross exemplify virtus; manliness; strength; masterliness; forcefulness? Consistent with his valuation of turning the cheek, it would seem that Jesus exemplified utterly shamelessness and a total lack of the manly honor of the Romans. Yet the fame of his humiliation on the cross did, in a sense, exemplify a perverse variety of virtus, for Jesus’ feminine, compassionate ethics have mastered and conquered the old pagan virtues of the gentiles. Jesus’ spiritual penis has penetrated, disseminated, and impregnated the West with his ‘virtuous’ seed. And it is from that seed that ‘modernity’ has sprouted. Jesus combined the highest Roman virtue of dying honorably in battle with highest Jewish virtue of martyrdom and strength in persecution. This combination formed a psychic bridge between pagan and Jew, i.e., between ideal cruelty in war and ideal compassion in peace. This is one way in which Christianity became the evolutionary missing link between the more masculine ethos of the ancient pagan West and the more feminine ethos of the modern West. The original Enlightenment notion of revolution reflects a quasi-creationist view of change that makes the sudden rupture between the moral assumptions of the ancient and modern world almost inexplicable. However, if we take a more gradualistic view of social change wherein modern egalitarianism evolved from what preceded it, then the origins of modern political assumptions become more explicable. The final moral-political rupture from the ancients became possible, in part, because Christianity acted as an incubator of modern values.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
Whereas modernity arose, in part, from the model of Newtonian science, and thus a distinct emphasis on non-biological progress, a rational argument from Darwinian premises can lead to a rather incompatible notion of ‘progress’. Conventionally speaking, ‘modernity’ refers to an emphasis on economic-technological progress over biological progress. Modern Western civilization implies the ultimate subordination of biological instinct to non-biological forms of progress, at least in its tabla rasa theory.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
What, then, did the Nazis attempt to do? The Nazis attempted to invert the inverters; to radically uproot the radical uprooters; to deracinate the race that deracinates the races; to deny the value of the race that denies the value of race; to arrogate an infinite valuation of death upon their infinite valuation of life; to meet their unqualified will to live with an unqualified will to kill. It was because Jews spawned an ethic of kindness and humanity that Jews were singled out for the ultimate cruelty and inhumanity. Nazis made the highest law the killing of the highest moral law ‘Thou shall not kill’. The Nazis willed the rebirth of biological evolution through the revaluation of the value of death.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
Nietzsche believed that he had unmasked Christianity and wrought the death of God. Auschwitz was where God was formally exterminated. Auschwitz was the culmination of the Nazi revolution’s overthrow of the tyranny of God, Christ, and its secular moral mutations. It was the justice of revenge and reparations for Christianity. Just as Germans had entered history, they were subdued by Christian civilization. The Nazis realized that this Jew, Jesus, was teaching them how to be weak. Judeo-Christianity had vilified the proud and war-like nature as evil. This is what the Nazis waged war against.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
The attempt to confirm Locke’s liberal conclusions while rejecting Locke’s Biblical premises is irrational. The ‘modern’ political distinction between the religious and the secular is fundamentally untenable if the philosophy of ‘rights’ itself was deduced from Biblical premises by a God-inspired philosopher. The American North was able to discard its old Puritan pretenses in the American Civil War because Puritanism itself was ‘secularized’ into a new and improved pretense of ‘rights’. Yet because the more Filmerian contributions of the South were eclipsed after the Civil War, the more anti-Lockean aspects of the founding constitutional construction have been obscured. The contrast I have previously made between an evolutionary understanding of revolution and a ‘special creation’ view of revolution is more than an analogy. Secular arguments for liberalism evolved from the logic of Biblical premises. Contemporary secular arguments for liberalism have retained at least one element of their original theological foundation: the miracle. It is truly an amazing spectacle to witness these arguments floating on nothing more than thin air. If secularized Judeo-Christian first principles became unified with the constitution of the liberal democratic state, then the formal separation of church and state in America is superficial and misleading. Liberal democracy legalized and institutionalized a neo-Christian moral ethos. Since Biblical foundations became absorbed into the interpretation of the American scripture of constitutional principles, it was no longer necessary as a separate religion. Instead, converts to the new testament of liberalism came to rival its Christian parent for allegiance by outdoing it at its own game.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
To understand Puritanism, one must understand Friedrich Nietzsche’s conception of a slave morality. Puritanism was a slave morality. Puritan values are not the values of Norman conquerors; they are the values of the conquered. Puritan values are not the values of the master; they are the values of the slave. This is how Biblical slave morality became modern virtue. And this is how the issue of the right and wrong of slavery compelled American Civil War.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
The secularizational link between modern physical law and modern political law is the idea that no man is above it. The assumption of the universality of God lent credence to the assumption of universal law; a single God of a single physical reality underwriting a single law which no human is superior to. At first glance, this perspective would seem to corroborate the conventional notion of God as ‘absolute’ and the notion of an ‘absolute’ God would appear to contrast most strikingly with the notion of evolution.
Conceiving humans as of absolute value in the image of God, or with inalienable right to life, translates, in Darwinian terms, into treating biology as a constant that does not change. Biological evolution by natural selection works on precisely the opposite premise: inequality in the form of genetic variation between individuals is what makes evolution possible when some variations die or reproduce less than others. However, if biology is treated as a constant or a factor that can be minimized or ignored simultaneous with a modern Newtonian emphasis on the larger physical reality and its economic-technological development, then biological evolution is minimized while economic-technological evolution is maximized. While the pagan values that the Nazi revived maximized biological evolution, Judeo-Christian values are effectively closing the door to biological evolution by valuing every life (in theory) and thus civilizing natural selection to a halt.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
American optimism and Judeo-Christian hope stress the improbable but possible. If racial generalizations entertain probable behavior for an individual belonging to a given racial group, the Anglo-Jewish emphasis on the possibilities of the individual act as an alternative to the domination of racial or group generalizations. The Lockean tabla rasa underlying liberal democracy, emphasizing the potential for changing human behavior through learning, added theoretical justification for individual possibility over biological probability.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
Freedom as understood by liberal democracies is freedom from a strict biological interpretation of human behavior, and especially the biologically-based kinship connections between individuals. The freedom of liberal democracies amounts to the assertion of freedom from the restraints of biology; of life; of survival. Individual freedom is freedom from duty or special responsibility for kin, freedom from the necessity of sociobiological foresight, and freedom from a biological-kinship interpretation of human things generally.
Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
To tolerate all cultures is possible only if one does not have a culture. Perhaps the deepest or most influential root of modern Western multiculturalism is the Norman destruction of Anglo-Saxon Kultur. Norman civilization did play some role in replacing Anglo-Saxon Kultur with a more rationalistic mode of discourse. Western political equality’s slide towards cultural equality would thus have its most influential origin in the destruction of a distinct, native, Anglo-Saxon Kultur. The bourgeois Anglo-Saxon can believe that other cultures are equal to his own because his own Kultur is degenerate or dead -The mustard plants of multiculturalism have been fertilized by the decayed remains of individualistic universalism. Whereas the universalism of Christianity helped cultivate the idea of a single human race, multiculturalism is the admission of the failure of the practical realization of the ideal of a truly universal human civilization. Multiculturalism creeps back into a seemingly pagan tolerance, but is it pagan? Greco-Roman paganism tolerance was tolerance of diverse standards for diverse humans and this meant, in the view of men such as Aristotle, that some are born to be slaves while others are born to be masters. Tolerance for caste and other forms of inequality would be the ultimate logic of a pagan multiculturalism, and this point only clarifies the influence of Christianity in promoting the idea of a single, universal human morality in the West.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
In a truly tolerant democracy, one should be free to express belief in the holiness of jihad, or an active conviction in the divine right of kings. True tolerance means that 9/11 should be tolerated on the grounds of freedom of religious expression.
Quote :

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:
The difference between polytheism and monotheism reflects a very basic difference of values. Pagan polytheistic values are generally more conducive to biologically eugenic practices. Monotheism, by contrast, belittles humans in the face of an overwhelming God and reigns in powerful instincts that may have been biologically adaptive in pre-historic times. Biblical proto-egalitarian valuation of the weak may have biologically dysgenic consequences.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jun 11, 2019 9:08 am

Hume wrote:
Let the philosopher pride himself on his precision as much as he will…I nevertheless dare defy him to make a single step in his progress without the aid of resemblance. Throw but one glance upon the metaphysical aspect of the sciences, even the least abstract of them, and then tell me whether the general inductions that are derived from particular facts, or rather the kinds themselves, the species and all abstract notions, can be formed otherwise, than by means of resemblance.
Light reveals differences; darkness conceals them.
Man is attracted to 'similarities' to construct his understanding - ergo order is what he looks for, and when he does not find it we begins constructing it.
But difference is the essence of conciousness - consciousness itself, and life, is impossible without divergence - and so chaos makes life possible, within expanding space/time possibilities.

The near-absolute - i.e., Big Bang - echoes in the human spirit as the tension between order confronting chaos - experiencing existence as need/suffering.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Jung, Carl Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jun 11, 2019 9:18 am

Jung, Carl wrote:
We cannot change anything until we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses.


Jung, Carl wrote:
Resistance to the organized mass can be effected only by the man who is as well organized in his individuality as the mass itself.

Jung, Carl wrote:
There is no coming to consciousness without pain.

Jung, Carl wrote:
In the past two thousand years Christianity has done its work and has erected barriers of repression, which protect us from the sight of our own ‘sinfulness’. The elementary notions of the libido have come to be known to us, for they are carried on in the unconscious; therefore, the belief which combats them has become hollow and empty. Let whoever does not believe that a mask covers our religion obtain an impression for himself from the appearance of our modern churches, from which style and art have long since fled.

Jung, Carl wrote:
Truth is a tree with roots. It is not words. Truth only grows in your own garden, nowhere else... Only feeble men eat the food of a stranger.

Jung, Carl wrote:
Christianity split the Germanic barbarian into an upper and a lower half, and enabled him, by repressing the dark side to domesticate the brighter half and fit it for civilization....But, the lower darker half still awaits redemption and a second spell of domestification. The Jew, on the other hand, is domesticated to a higher degree than we are, but he is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below.

Jung, Carl wrote:
Servants are your inferior functions—or inferior self...You are dealing with them as though infantile. The two Jewish fathers are Weizmann and Christ. The Jews enter our unconscious through a hole—the hole being the lack of any religion for our animal nature—our nature-forming selves. The Jews have domesticated their instincts—they are not as savage as ours are—so your inferior animal self says—you are Jewish—you have given up nature—the return to earth—the source of life.

Jung, Carl wrote:
To become conscious of it [the shadow] involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality… This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.

Jung, Carl wrote:
Soul means race viewed from within. And, vice-versa race is the externalization of the soul.

Jung, Carl wrote:
It is in my view a great mistake to suppose that the psyche of a new-born child is a tabula rasa in the sense that there is absolutely nothing in it. In so far as the child is born with a differentiated brain that is predetermined by heredity and therefore individualized, it meets sensory stimuli coming from outside not with any aptitudes, but with specific ones, and this necessarily results in a particular, individual choice and pattern of apperception. These aptitudes can be shown to be inherited instincts and preformed patterns, the latter being the a priori and formal conditions of apperception that are based on instinct. Their presence gives the world of the child and the dreamer its anthropomorphic stamp. They are the archetypes, which direct all fantasy activity into its appointed paths and in this way produce, in the fantasy-images of children's dreams as well as in the delusions of schizophrenia, astonishing mythological parallels such as can also be found, though in lesser degree, in the dreams of normal persons and neurotics. It is not, therefore, a question of inherited ideas but of inherited possibilities of ideas.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jun 11, 2019 10:44 am

Spengler, Oswald wrote:
A ‘United States of Europe,’ Actualized through Napoleon as founder of a romantic and popular military monarchy, is the twenty-first-century economic organism by a matter-of-fact Caesar, it will be the counterpart of the imperium Romanum.
These are incidentals, but they are in the picture of history.
But Napoleon’s victories and defeats (which always hide a victory of England and Civilization over Culture), his Imperial dignity, his fall, the Grand Nation, the episodic liberation of Italy (in 1796, and in 1859, essentially no more than a change of political costume for a people long since become insignificant), the destruction of the Gothic ruin of the Roman-German Empire, are mere surface phenomena, behind which is marching the great logic of genuine and invisible History, and it was in the sense of this logic that the West, having fulfilled its French-formed Culture in the ancien regime, closed it off with the English Civilization.



Yockey, Francis Parker wrote:
If Europe remains under the outer forces, they will be sending their soldiers into a graveyard, for the might of the West is not to be annulled by a mountain of propaganda, mass-armies of occupying ‘soldiers,’ nor by millions of traitors in the Michel stratum. For two centuries the streams of blood will flow, irrespective of the wish of any human being.
It is the nature of super-personal organisms to express their possibilities.
If it cannot be done in one way, it will be done in another. This idea conscripts men, and it discharges them only by their individual deaths. It has no legal hold on them, no formal allegiance, no threat of court-martial: its claim on them is total. It is a selective conscription: the higher a man’s gifts, the stronger is the bond which the Idea lays on him. What have the barbarians and distorters to oppose this?
Against their murderous Russian slaves, their savage Negroes, their hapless, go-home conscripts from North America, Europe pits its unconquerable super-personal superiority. Europe stands at the beginning of a world-historical process; the end is not in sight.
When — or even whether — complete success will come is not visible. Perhaps before it is over, the outer forces will have mobilized the swarming, pullulating masses of China and India against the body of the Western Civilization.
This kind of thing does not affect the continuation of the conflict, but only its size.
It is absolutely necessary to the continuance of the subjugation of Europe that the outsiders have large numbers — whole societies, groups, strata, remnants of dead 19th century nations — of domestic European populations available for their purposes. Against a united Europe, they could never have made their way in, and only against a divided Europe can they maintain themselves.
Split! divide! distinguish! — this is the technique of conquest.
Resurrect old ideas, old slogans, now quite dead, in the battle to turn European against European. But work always with the weak, Culture-less stratum against the strong bearers and appreciators of Culture. These must be ‘tried’ and hanged.

Bonaparte, Napoleon wrote:
I wanted to prepare the fusion of the great interests of Europe, as I had accomplished that of the parties. I concerned myself little with the passing rancor of the peoples, for I was sure that the results would lead them irresistibly back to me. Europe would in this way have become in truth a united nation, and every one would have been, no matter where he traveled, in the same Fatherland. This fusion will accomplish itself sooner or later through the pressure of the facts; the impulse has been given which, since my downfall and the disappearance of my system, will make the restoration of balance possible in Europe only by merger and fusion of the great nations.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
For some time now, our whole European culture has been moving with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade, as toward a catastrophe: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jun 11, 2019 10:50 am

Nietzsche offers a diagnosis but does not trace the disease back to its source, and stops with the variant that has infected Europe and Europeans.

Quote :
I have no doubt that an ancient Greek, also, would first of all remark the self-dwarfing in us Europeans of today - in this respect alone we should immediately be "distasteful" to him.
Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter 9, What is Noble?, Friedrich Nietzsche    

There is also still in France a pre-understanding and ready welcome for those rarer and rarely gratified men, who are too comprehensive to find satisfaction in any kind of fatherlandism, and know how to love the South when in the North and the North when in the South - the born Midlanders, the "good Europeans."
Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter 8, Peoples and Fatherlands, Friedrich Nietzsche  

The European disguises himself in morality because he has become a sick, sickly, crippled animal, who has good reasons for being "tame” because he is almost an abortion, scarce half made up, a weak and clumsy thing.
The Gay Science : Fifth Book, 352. Why we can hardly Dispense with Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche  

Finally, the growing consciousness is a danger, and whoever lives among the most conscious Europeans knows even that it is a disease.
The Gay Science : Fifth Book, 354. The Genius of the Species?, Friedrich Nietzsche  

In order for once to get a glimpse of our European morality from a distance, in order to compare it with other earlier or future moralities, one must do as the traveller who wants to know the height of the towers of a city: he leaves the city.
The Gay Science : Fifth Book, 380. "The Wanderer" Speaks, Friedrich Nietzsche  

Europe is an invalid who owes her best thanks to her incurability and the eternal transformations of her sufferings; these constant new situations, these equally constant new dangers, pains, and make-shifts, have at last generated an intellectual sensitiveness which is almost equal to genius, and is in any case the mother of all genius.
The Gay Science : First Book, 24. Diverse Dissatisfactions, Friedrich Nietzsche  

Perhaps the modern, European discontentedness is to be looked upon as caused by the fact that the world of our forefathers, the whole Middle Ages, was given to drink, owing to the influence of German tastes in Europe: the Middle Ages, that means the alcoholic poisoning of Europe.
The Gay Science : Third Book, 134. Pessimists as Victims, Friedrich Nietzsche    

What do savage tribes at present accept first of all from Europeans? Alcohol and Christianity, the European narcotics. And by what means are they most speedily ruined? By European narcotics.
The Gay Science : Third Book, 147. Question and Answer, Friedrich Nietzsche    

I simply cannot see what one proposes to do with the European worker now that one has made a question of him.

A disease does not emerge from nowhere out of nothing.
It's antithesis to the organism - the organic Superorganism - has a natural component - found to be similar to biological viruses and in the parasites that sometimes carry them, from host to hist - in a symbiotic relationship.

Christianity is a disease that has evolved when it came in contact with the European host - a sub-specie of the greater Indo-European family.
It is specific to Europe because Europe was affected and affected it - morphing it into a form that would be particular to its spirituality.

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:
The homogenizing of European man ... requires a justification: it lies in serving a higher sovereign species that stands upon the former which can raise itself to its task only by doing this. Not merely a master race whose sole task is to rule, but a race with its own sphere of life, with an excess of strength ... strong enough to have no need of the tyranny of the virtue-imperative.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jun 11, 2019 11:00 am

Hugo, Victor wrote:
There is now a European nationality, as in the time of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides was a Greek nationality

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans EmptyWed Jun 12, 2019 9:16 am

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:
Let us look one another in the face. We are Hyperboreans…’ Neither by land nor by sea shalt thou find the road to the Hyperboreans’: Pindar already knew that of us.
Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans EmptySat Jun 15, 2019 7:29 am



An interesting take on the concept of Hyperboreans.
Reminds me a bit of Dugin's Eurasia concept.

Those born of ice would worship the sun, and the light as a god.

I do believe Asians and Indo-European have Neanderthal genes, but not Negroes.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21890
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 53
Location : Flux

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans EmptyTue Jul 09, 2019 7:02 pm

Quigley, Carroll wrote:
It seems to me that Classical culture was aristocratic; it was clarid; it was urban; it was balanced; and it was mundane. One of these words will not be found in any dictionary. When I say that Classical culture was ‘clarid,’ I mean that it was lucid, clear, rational, in some ways like the Mediterranean sunlight infusing the atmosphere to an astounding clarity. Classical culture kept certain elements of its aristocratic outlook, and never, like the Hebrews, came to regard man as a helpless and cringing worm.
When we say that Classical culture was aristocratic, we mean much more than that it was the possession of an upper-class minority. We mean that this culture refused to regard either profit or power as goals of life, but rather tended to regard honor and the esteem of one’s equals as at least equally worthy goals. It was quite willing to accept a goal for and an organization of life that functioned economically on a deficit basis, that could not be made available to all men or was not comprehensible to all men, but that had to be supported by many men who could neither share in it nor understand it. This point of view had an aversion to anything practical or vocational; it regarded its goal (honor) as one whose appeal is not (like wealth or power) automatically appreciated but one that is achieved by breeding and discipline. It regarded man as by nature close to the gods but very remote from the animals; it did not accept the equality of men, but did insist on a fraternity of equals within a select group of participants. It emphasized the dignity of the individual, at first only the individual within the chosen group; but later, as democratic influences spread, it tended to grant equality and individual dignity to all, not by bringing the outlook of ordinary men into the select group, but rather by spreading the outlook of the select group outward to ordinary men. To do this it was necessary, while allowing the select group to grow constantly larger, to continue to emphasize the superiority of the members of the group over outsiders. At first the group consisted only of those of noble birth; later it was the citizens of the city-state. As this group was expanded, emphasis continued on the distinction between free men and slaves, between Greek and barbarian, between those who had the political franchise and those who lacked it. Only when Classical culture was in its decline (after the time of Christ) did it begin to accept the equality of all men. Even then it insisted that all men had human dignity, had a kind of divinity, and were worthy of respect. Thus to the very end, Classical culture kept certain elements of its aristocratic outlook, and never, like the Hebrews, came to regard man as a helpless and cringing worm. One last characteristic of an aristocratic outlook that Classical culture maintained to the end was its belief in social regression rather than social progress and its conviction that the golden age was to be found in the past rather than in the future. This gave the culture an underlying pessimism redeemed by the fact that man’s fate, however hopeless, must be borne with dignity…
In saying that Classical culture was clarid, we mean that it possessed the qualities of rationality, lucidity, and clarity. This culture sought explanations rather than sensations. These explanations were regarded as satisfactory if they led to some concept that could be grasped by man’s conscious mind…
When we say that this culture was urban, we mean that it was possessed by a city-dwelling group who knew one another personally, saw one another frequently, exchanged views by conversation or letter, rather than by media of mass communication, were remote from the productive system, either agriculture or commerce, and regarded loyalty to the state and tis gods as the chief duty and chief privilege of existence.
When we say that this culture was mundane, we mean that it was humanistic, anthropocentric, and this worldly. It regarded man as the center of everything; it interpreted everything in terms of human aims; it had no real concern with life after death or with the gods, and no real idea of eternity or of reward or punishment in the afterlife. It had no real idea of the nature of divinity until very late, and then achieved this idea as a consequence of an aristocratic pursuit of truth, a rationalistic pursuit by men with leisure and with no real regard for wealth or power. This mundane character of Classical culture meant that this culture, in extreme cases, was materialistic in its outlook; but it was able to escape the ordinary consequences of materialism because of its ideals of aristocracy and moderation.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Kvasir
Augur
Kvasir

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2612
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 34
Location : Gleichgewicht

Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans EmptySat Jan 11, 2020 6:34 pm

Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




Hyperboreans Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hyperboreans Hyperboreans Empty

Back to top Go down
 
Hyperboreans
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA :: LYCEUM-
Jump to: