We Are Disobeying Our Inner Commands
When we’ve lost the ability to obey our inner commands, someone else will command us. Such is the natural scheme of things.
by Harry Stottle
THERE EXISTS in the genetic subconscious of the civilized White an unfathomably pure ethic, which is most openly revealed in the permanent and unchanging ideas found in his art. This ethic is both unattainable by and unimaginable to other races. The lack of a specific line of demarcation between reason and emotion, which is the key to the separate destinies of the non-White and White populations of the world, precludes harmonious cooperation.
We must remember that Nature directs everything according to her own very special laws. Since we vary greatly in faculties, it is not surprising that we vary greatly in values. The war between us and them is one of objective existence on their part and subjective freedom on ours. The situation is similar to that of the thief in the old Persian parable. When caught stealing fruit, he affirmed the egalitarian proposition that God intended that all men should have an equal share in the goods of the earth — a response which prompted the owner of the orchard to react to the thief with unexpected severity. The thief’s mistaken logic led to his being tied to a tree and whipped. It wasn’t until his tormentor explained to him that he was the servant of God thrashing the back of another servant of God, that the whip was God’s, and that he was nothing more than a slave and an instrument of God’s command that the thief begged forgiveness and proclaimed he was no longer a predestinarian.
Other races do not view right and wrong in the same manner as we do. Matthew Arnold once observed, “the mixture of persons of different race in the same commonwealth, unless one race had a complete ascendancy, tended to confuse all the relations of human life, and all men’s notions of right and wrong ….”
Though to some extent our laws have protected our goods and health, spiritual as well as physical, from fraud and aggression, they have not protected us from ourselves. But once upon a time, our laws did protect us from the hegemony of the pseudo-humanistic judge and psychologist who have currently managed to corrupt our ethos to the point where we no longer comprehend the distinction between the cultural beauty of the world we’ve surrendered and the degrading world foisted upon us. Our urbanity has become a hypocritical stance behind which lurks, atavistically, that generic archetype, the lesser man, known to one and all by the mythological sobriquet The Noble Savage.
The low standards we see around us are the result of the democratic consensus of peoples whose standards have always been low. High standards in all areas of Western endeavor are the result of a culture — the European — which, for all practical purposes, is disappearing. The acceptance of other races into equal partnership with us merely accelerates the “corruption” that Gibbon considered “The most infallible symptom of constitutional liberty.” They are using our freedom to destroy our own freedom. And they are winning, while we quibble over absurdities.
Those who are wise and understand First Principles are capable of expounding them to others. Those who do not are misled and will mislead others. Goethe once wrote, “The man to whom the Universe does not reveal directly its relationship to both him and others, and whose heart does not tell him what he owes to himself and others, cannot be taught successfully.” Left to himself, the noble European understands and obeys the laws of Nature. As a result, he doesn’t seek to evade duties simply because they are perplexing. He knows that all depends on the disposition — good and evil — of his will to develop and control his own faculties.
Honor is not the voice of conscience. Whenever men hold out the promise of an absolute good, even when they lack both the means and the interest to deliver on their promise, they have little or no difficulty appealing to the credulous masses, to those who seek quick, easy — and wrong — solutions to their problems. This is what keeps the charlatans of this world in business. Philosophy should be a science of morality, and sociology and psychology should be sciences of convenience. Today it’s just the reverse, simply because of the support received from the limitless credulity of the masses who pretend to act according to a conscience which is certainly an unfit companion for honor.
Acting upon such dubious hypotheses as the Rights of Man, sociology and psychology have prevented the future development of whatever truth they might once have possessed. Out of this fusion of half-truth and half-lie has sprung the neologisms that have taken over modern thought. Their acceptance is proved by a cursory look at the flood of “pop science,” cheap sentiment, and obscenity. Humanitarianism’s emphasis on the survival of the unfittest has been noted and approved by the new, all-powerful god whose name is Group Pressure.
The political and scientific trends of a nation never lag far behind the artistic trends. Art and science are, when fully disciplined, autocratic — controlled by the few who have the knowledge and the will to make the requisite sacrifices for artistic and scientific development. A racially mixed and malicious society over which no one exerts any positive control must of necessity be at best hedonistic; at worst, vicious. Only the most clever and cunning profit from such a system.
Solon was right when he said that we should not take up what we did not lay down. His is a formula we might understand if we had more character and more moral sensibility. The loss of moral control is high tragedy. The first thought is to escape! But where? Where is the escape from self-betrayal?
Today our best brains pronounce on subjects ignorantly, even with the benefit of ages of experience and scores of instructive examples. Those among us who possess the most reason are often the least skillful in interpreting our motivations. Whenever we deal with others, the moral lessons of excess and deficiency are always present to complicate matters. Should we be so generous? If so, just how far does the obligation to err on the part of generosity require us to go? Moreover, when does our obligation signify weakness and when does it signify strength? All forms of virtue contain varying amounts of strength — and all forms of vice contain varying amounts of weakness. We must not overlook the necessity for sternness, another strength, no matter how often it is decried as “offensive” by the weak and characterless.
Having examined the results of our neglect, we still refuse to answer the call to duty — a rather startling condition when we consider how much lip service we give to moral precepts. The comfort, softness and satiety of our materialistic environment seem to have turned us to stone.
When we’ve lost the ability to obey our inner commands, someone else will command us. Such is the natural scheme of things.
An intelligent man said almost 2,000 years ago, the shape of everyone’s existence depends on the use to which we put our ruling faculty. He then went on to say that everything else, whether in the power of the will or not, was only lifeless ashes and smoke. This is true, but not entirely true. As Carlyle has stated, The end of a man is an action, and not a thought, though it were the noblest.
(Based on an article in Instauration)
Read more at Jamie Kelso’s online Instauration archive
