Man as Sense Organ of the Earth
BEFORE ANY SIGNIFICANT advance can be made in the purification and further evolution of the white race in America, the thorough confusion about religion in the minds of most intelligent Majority members must be cleared up. For, in the thinking of all too many, “morality,” “what is right,” “compassion” and “justice” are bound up with, and ultimately based on, a nebulously misunderstood “higher authority.” The implication is that this authority is higher than all earthly existence, which is conversely lower than this source of all principles. This is true even if the individual’s mind is agnostic or atheistic, as is manifest in murky internal mumblings about “tradition,” “commonly accepted values” and the like.
Virtually everyone, Communists with their “history-authorization” included, is very vague as to the actual nature of this “higher authority,” or where or how it ever came to be “higher.” Yet almost everyone, even the most untutored terrorist, is convinced, deep down, that such authority exists. Indeed, shared convictions about authority, no matter how fantastic, make social life possible. Disputes about these matters are cause for war. Infidels are always outcasts.
It thus behooves the thinking Majority member to inquire into the universal and exclusively human phenomenon known as religion. For it is a truism that religion deals with issues that all human cultures have held to be of a “higher” provenance than man’s more material concerns.
Very briefly, religion may be defined as: “the holistically integrative relationship of the total, psychophysical human being to the multidimensional entirety of all existence.” (Please note that this is a definition of religion as a universal human phenomenon, not a definition of one particular religion, e.g., Christianity.)
This brief definition is rather vague in itself and requires further elaboration.
Most of the human organism is not normally under the direct control of consciousness, as “consciousness” and its mechanisms of concentration, perception-narrowing and even of truth-suppression are generally understood in the West. But there is no question that the bodily organism as a whole and especially the central nervous system (CNS) is a “knowing” process. It is also clear that the body provides the physical and mental basis for modern human consciousness. Although it is improbable that the physical organism provides a sufficient explanation for the phenomenon of life, it is obvious even to the most obtuse that it provides a necessary one. When the CNS deteriorates, with old age or with brain damage, the consciousness it supports also deteriorates. A helpful, if inadequate, analogy might be the TV set, which is indispensably necessary to the viewing of TV programs permeating all space on electromagnetic waves. To the extent that the set is impaired, so is the reception.
A hominid race with a marginally human neocortex has an only marginally human consciousness. This is so manifest that to deny it is to reveal oneself to be in the grip of some pathological compulsion such as American Oedipalism (otherwise known as “liberalism”).
The phenomenon we know as “consciousness” is a behavioral adaptation of the most recently evolved, peripheral foliage of the brain. It is, in short, a function of the human cortex. Like leaves on a tree, the cortex is supported by the organic structures which have preceded it in growth, and which, in the mature adult, form its infrastructure both ontogenetically and phylogenetically — that is, in both the development of the individual and the development of the species. This is the biological basis of the fact that “the child is father to the man.”
But the inner spheres of the brain, being older and more directly reflective, in their structure and function, of the long evolutionary history of our species, are knowledge-transmitting and knowledge-processing systems every bit as active and efficient as similar systems in the outer brain.
Since the deep brain is the primordial part of our being, it is also the source of the feelings about the “higher authority” which gives us our command to live in the first place. The deep brain is in fact god (small “g”). Many people still receive voices and visions originating in these more archaic cerebral parts (in our own sleep, for example) and regard such experiences as coming from god(s) or devil(s) or other “supernatural” entities. It follows that these emanations from the deep brain are endowed with the quintessence of transcendence.
In mentioning “transcendence” we are not talking here about some Kantian “moral imperative” which may or may not exist in the quaint wish-dreams of some abstract philosophers or the adolescent musings of some American university professors. We are talking about the direct experience of transcendence — like the experience of a punch in the face. This is an experience which can entail or depend upon things remote from the twaddle of our minority mentors and racial cop-outs. It may involve sex and death (cf. the erotic experiences and “religious” activities of thanatologist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross), since these are primary obsessions of the limbic system of the deep brain. It may involve murder (cf. “Son of Sam” David Berkowitz, who claimed to be following the murderous instructions of otherworldly forces). In any case, the experience of transcendence (being gripped by the almightiness of the deep brain) is anything but a Sunday-morning, good-neighborly experience. In fact, American Negroes in their rock and roll churches come much closer than whites and Orientals to this experience of transcendence. Since Negroes have much thinner neocortices (and much smaller frontal lobes) and less elaborate brain microcircuitry than the more advanced races, their deep brains constitute a correspondingly larger percentage of their gray matter. Consequently, compared to whites or Orientals, it is much easier for the Negro to escape consciousness, since he has less of it to begin with. The Negro, quite simply, is closer to god.
The Psychosomatic Externals of Religion
We now come to the signs and symbols of religion, a term limited in our definition to traditional, natural religions, not the farcical, money-and power-seeking schemes that constitute so much of American Protestantism and recent American Catholicism. (The suicidist, race-mixing cult of Jim Jones was but a logical spin-off of such typically American “religious” operations.)
Religion, or the religious aspect, of all natural human cultures from Iceland to Tierra del Fuego, from the Congo to Japan, ancient or still extant, has always and everywhere manifested a small number of CNS-based symbols and symbolic rituals, plus certain emotions, all of which were and are direct projections of the physical structure, innate programs and processes of the CNS in general and the deep brain in particular.
Specifically, the chief religiously symbolic self-projections are:
Aspect of the self, 1. The Self as an integral, individuated system, ringed off from the environment; Its religious expression: The Mandala or four-part circle; swastika, rose window, etc.
Aspect of the self, 2. Egocentrism; Its religious expression: The “hero” (centerpiece of religious myths, with whom the believer identifies himself even if unconsciously).
Aspect of the self, 3. The CNS; Its religious expression: The Tree of Life, Tree of Knowledge, World Tree, Axis Mundi, Menorah, Cross, the gallows tree of the ancient Northmen, etc.
Aspect of the self, 4. The physical bisymmetry of the human organism; Its religious expression: The architectural bisymmetry of all specifically religious buildings, places and art.
Aspect of the self, 5. The contrast between the neocortical consciousness and the deep brain unconscious (i.e., between the fully human superstructure and the preamorphous, human infrastructure); Its religious expression: Complementarity contrasts in symbolisms: male as opposed to female; fixed-shape, clear, bright as opposed to fluidly indistinct, dark (Chinese yang/yin); here and now as opposed (in myths) to there and then; the horizontal dimension, the mundane, as opposed to the vertical dimension, the transcendent (symbolic) “location” of heaven and hell. Hence the “highness” of all authority, especially religious authority.
Aspect of the self, 6. The beginning and end of life; Its religious expression: Covert or overt symbolism of sex, birth and death (Christian baptism as Osiris-like death and rebirth).
Aspect of the self, 7. Serial activation of the linguistic and sensimotor circuitry of the CNS; Its religious expression: Oral-formulaic poetry, music and dance. The latter has now slowed to a solemn “procession” in many high religions.
Aspect of the self, 8. The human hunt/war drive culminating in the impulse to kill and eat, in concert with one’s whole tribe, the father-king of the tribal family; Its religious expression: The strictly religious phenomenon of the sacrifice — originally of kings, later their stand-ins. In the last few millennia the royal victim has been “transubstantiated” into totem animals, plants and even inanimate objects, which thereby “become” the tribal father-king for the purposes of sacrifice.
Aspect of the self, 9. The genetically primordial awe of one’s father as the feared/loved, emulated/envied alpha male of the tribe, who hoards all the women to himself as his own “property” for sexual purposes; Its religious expression: The sense of the “holy.” (The Icelandic phrase “to hallow to oneself” — helga ser — still means “to appropriate to oneself, prove something to be one’s own.”) This is the core of religion as the so-called mysterium tremendum et fascinosum (mystery which causes one to quake and bewitches one).
Aspect of the self, 10. The genetically implanted readiness to recognize one’s parents and to distinguish between father and mother; Its religious expression: The “gods” (small “g”) and “demons” experienced in hallucinations, visions, and internal voices, and extensively dealt with in all religions.
Aspect of the self, 10a. The father as archetype; Its religious expression: Two sides: (1) Evil personified; the Foe Transcendent: devils, demons, Satan; the stereotype of the wartime enemy — frequently projected onto a human enemy. (2) The stern and remote “high” god, personal source of all power and authority, frequently identified with the sky and weather (Tew of the Bronze-Age Germanics); Yahweh was a localized earth-and-soil god (see 2 Kings 5,17 and 1 Samuel 26, 19-20).
Aspect of the self, 10b. The mother as archetype; Its religious expression: The consort of the high god or Foe; source of all life and bounty, love, beauty and sex (often split into different goddesses); frequently identified with the earth, although the ancient Hebrews worshiped her as Astarte, the “Queen of Heaven” (see Jeremiah 44). Compare also the goddess Frye of the ancient Teutons; Fatima, Great Mother of Shiite Islam; Mary, Great Mother of Mediterranean Christianity.
Aspect of the self, 11. The genetically implanted ability to recognize health and life, and to distinguish them from unhealthiness, sickness and death; Its religious expression: The sense of the beautiful and the sense of the ugly.
For lack of space it is impossible to elaborate adequately on the eleven “aspects.” Those who are so inclined will find libraries of information detailing these elements in the history of religions, in ethnography or in psychology. In the recent literature of primatology, primitive adumbrations of these archetypal expressions can be found, and the literal performance of what in humans have become rituals can be noted among the anthropoid apes. Further, the repeated appearance of these archetypes and rituals in art, among the mentally ill, and sometimes in striking and grotesque psychosomatic manifestations in the profoundly religious is legendary.
Neither is it our purpose here to show how not only religious practices and beliefs, but all kinds of habits which “civilized” humans take “for granted” as “decent” and “proper,” are almost rectilinear prolongations (i.e., neurologically based “exaggerations” sometimes called “behavioral hypertropisms”) of early hominid genetic developments into the present. What is important for us is to understand:
(1) That all these marks of religion are direct expressions and consequences of the inherited structure (the so-called “phyletic memories”) of man’s central nervous system, which is physical, not otherworldly;
(2) That heredity accounts for the difference in the behavior patterns of different racial groups as well as their physical differences.
Even the psychological perturbations and personality disorders caused by a malevolent early environment have their present basis in strictly physical — though often environmentally engendered — malformations of the deep brain, which undergoes its maturation during early childhood. Such changes are permanent and can never be “healed,” as every reputable psychiatrist knows.
In regard to language, which our journalists and politicians pervert so naturally, we find that the aptitude for speech (not, of course, any given, specific language — for genes determine generics, not specifics) is genetically predetermined. A female gorilla, instructed in American sign language, has mastered a passive vocabulary of something over a thousand words and a somewhat smaller active vocabulary. Even so, her communicative ability is a far remove from the language of the least sapient Homo sapiens, who usually has at least twice her vocabulary and much more grammatical flexibility. Negroid speech patterns, by the way, exhibit much less “hypotaxis” (subordinate clauses); that is, they have less complexity than the speech patterns of other races. Moreover, the difference in linguistic aptitudes between males and females, in both gorillas and humans, has now been demonstrated to be due to genetically determined differences in the brain.
Humans must acquire their language early (before eight years of age) if the physical structures supporting linguistic thought are to develop properly. The lifelong retention of a “foreign accent” by one who has emigrated to a foreign land after his or her mid-teens, is due to the same physical reality.
Consequently, “culturally” conditioned behavior is conditioned by virtue of the fact that it is (isomorphically) “hardwired” into the CNS itself. Similarly for the principles by which such behavior is rationalized: There is no such thing as a mystical “inalienable right” or “equality.” There is only the hardwiring, accomplished either by environment or by heredity.
In the mass and in the long run, heredity is the vastly more powerful of the two determinants. Genetics, in other words, determines not only the elements of religion, but also such things as depression-proneness, predispositions for schizophrenia and other psychological abnormalities (including criminality), maleness/femaleness, intelligence, telepathic abilities, tastes, and many other things.
Most “recreational” pleasure and enjoyment consist purely and simply of strong, electrochemical stimulation of the deep brain. This stimulation can be effected not only by religious activities, but also either indirectly by combat-simulating sports (especially for men) and soap-operatic domestic drama (especially in women), or directly by such brain-affecting drugs as alcohol and LSD. Sexual orgasm produces particularly strong deep brain surges, and hence pleasure. All of these channels of pleasure are determined by genetics and are only slightly modified by environment, unless the environment is virtually life-threatening.
We are not saying here that heredity forces or compels the Jew to promote social change or the Celt or the Germanic type to seek order, personal neatness, beauty, and cleanliness. We are merely saying that the inherited structure of the central nervous system makes it easy for a given type to choose a given mode of life, a mode which is comfortable and desirable because of genetics. The same Japanese central nervous system, which for centuries has produced the intense order of Japanese society and the intense order of the Japanese garden, is now finding it “only natural” to design and manufacture electronic and other goods whose quality is uniformly high, because of the intense order required in their design and manufacture. The part played by “free will” is small indeed, especially so in the less intelligent, less educated, and the psychologically impaired.
(Based on an article in Instauration)