PDA

View Full Version : Faustian-Magian (Spengler)/ The Russian Spirit [Jack]



Rahul
Saturday, July 12th, 2003, 07:19 PM
Oswald Spengler: Decline Of The West
Following are the two excerpts from two very prominent and chapters which I took the notes off, initially I had typed in the notes as well. I hope Anarch likes these. I have typed all this text.

Chapter VIII
Problems of the Arabian Culture
THE MAGIAN SOUL

The world as spread out for the Magian waking consciousness, possesses a kind of extension that may be called cavern-like, though it is difficult for western man to pick up any word in his vocabulary that can convey anything more than a hint of the meaning of Magian “Space.” For space has essentially unlike meanings for the perceptions of the two Cultures. The world-as-cavern is just as different from the world-as-extent of the passionate far-thrusting Faustian as it is from the classical world-as-sum-of-bodily-things.

The Copernican system, in which the earth, as it were, loses itself, must necessarily seem crazy and frivolous to Arabian thought. The church of the west was perfectly right when it resisted an idea so incompatible with the world-feeling of Jesus, and the Chaldean cavern-astronomy, which was wholly natural and convincing for the Persians, jews, peoples of pseudomorphosis, and Islam became accessible to the few Greeks who knew of it at all only after a process of transvaluing it basic notions of space.

The tension between microcosm and macrocosm(which is identical with the waking-consciousness) leads, in the world-picture of every Culture, to further oppositions of symbolic importance. All a man’s sensations or understanding, faith or knowledge, receive their shape from a primary opposition which makes them not only activities of the individual, but also expressions of the totality. In the classical the oppositions that universally dominates the waking consciousness is the opposition of matter and form; in the west it isthat of force and mass. In the former the tension loses itself in the small and particular , and in the latter it discharges itself in the character of work. In the world-cavern, on the other hand, it persists in traversing and swaying to and fro in unsure strugglings, and so become that “Semitic” primary dualism which, ever the same under thousand forms, fills the Magian world. The light shines through the cavern and battles against the darkness(John i, 5). Both are Magina substances. Up and down, heaven and earth become powers that have entity and contend with one another. But these polarities in the most primary sensations mingle with those of refined and critical understanding, like good and evil, God and Satan. Detah, for the author of the John Gospel as for the strict Moslem, is not the end of life, but a something, a death force, that contends with a life force for the possession of man.
----------

Chapter IX
Problems of the Arabian Culture
PYTHAGORAS, MOHAMMED, CROMWELL

As every Magian Consensus is non-territorial and geographically unlimited, it involuntarily sees in all conflicts concerning the Faustian ideas of fatherland, mother tongue, ruling house, monarchy, constitution, a return from forms that are thoroughly alien(therefore burdensome and meaningless) to him towards forms matching with his own nature. Hence the word "international," whether it be coupled with socialism, pacifism, or capitalism, can excite him to enthusiasm, but what he hears in that word is the essence of his landless and boundless Consensus. While for the European American, democracy, constitutional struggles and revolutions mean an evolution towards the Civilized Ideal, for him they mean(as if he never consciously realizes) the breaking down of other build that is other than himself. Even when the force of consensus in him is broken and the life of his host people exercises an attraction upon himto the point of an induced patriotism, yet the party that supports is always that of which aims are most nearly comparable with the Magian essence. Hence in Germany he is a Democrat and in England an Imperialist. It is exactly the same misunderstanding, as when West Europeans regard Young Turks and Chinese Reformers as kindred spirits-that is, as, "Constitutionalists." If there is an inward relationship, a man affirms even where he destroys; if inward alienness, his effect is negative even where his desire is to be constructive. What the Western Culture has destroyed, by reform efforts of its own type where it has had power, hardly bears thinking of; and Jewry has been equally destructive where it has intervened. The sense of this inevitableness of this reciprocal misunderstanding leads to the appalling hatred that settles deep in the blood and, fastening upon visible marks like race, mode of life, profession, speech, leads both sides to waste, ruin and bloody excesses wherever these conditions occur.

This applies also , and above all, to the religiousness of the Faustian world, which feels itself to be threatened, hated and undermined by an alien metaphysics in its midst. From the reforms of Hugh of Cluny and St. bernard and Lateran Council of 1215 to Luther, Calvin and Puritanism and thence to the Age of Enlightenment, what a tide flowed through our waking-consciousness, when for the Jewish religion history had ceased altogether! Within the West European Consensus we see Joseph Qaro in his Schulehan Aruch(1565) restating the Maimonides material in another form, and this could equally well have been done in 1400 or 1800, or for that matter not at all. In the fixity of modern Islam, Byzantine Christianity since the Crusades(and, equally of the life of Late China and of Late Egypt), all is formal and rolled even, not only the food prohibitions, the prayer-runes, the phylacteries, but also the Talmudic casuistry, which is fundamentally the same asthat applied for centuries to the Vendidad of Bombay and the Koran in Cairo. The mysticism, too, of Jewry(which is pure Sufism) has remained, like that of Islam, unaltered since the crusades; and in the last centuries it has produced three more saints in the sense of Oriental Sufism-though to recognise them as such we have to see through a colour-wash of western thought-forms. Spinoza, with his thinking in substances instead of forces and his thoroughly Magian dualism, is entirely comparable with the last stragglers of Islamic philosophy such as Murtada and Shirazi. He makes use of his notions of Western Baroque armoury, living himself into mode of imagination of that milieu so thoroughly as to decieve even himself, but below the surface movements of his soul he remains the unchanged descendant of the Maimonides and Avicenna and Talmudic "more geometrico" methodology. In Baal Shem, the founder of the Hasidim Sect(born in Volhynia in about 1698), a true Messiah arose. His wanderings through the worlds of Polish Ghettos teaching and performing miracles are comparable only with the story of primitive Christianity; here was a movement that had its source in the ancient currents of the Magian, Kabbalistic mysticism, that gripped a large part of Eastern Jewry and was undoubtedly a potent fact in the religious history of the Arabian Culture; and yet, running its course as it did in the midst of an alien mankind, it passed practically unnoticed by it. The peaceful battle that Baal Shem waged for God-immanent against the Talmudic pharisees of his time, his Christlike figure, the wealth of legends that were rapidly woven about his person and the persons of his disciples-all this is of pure Magian spirit, and at bottom as alien to us of the west as Primitive Christianity itself. The thought processes of Hasidic writings are to non-Jews practically unintelligible, and so also is the ritual. In the excitement of the service some fall into convulsion and others begin to dance like the dervishes of Islam. The original teaching of Baal Shem was developed by one of the disciples in Zaddikism, and this too, which was a belief in successive divine embassies of saints(Zaddiks), whose mere proximity brought salvation, has obvious kinship with Islamic Mahdism and still more with the Shiite doctrines of imams in whom the "light of the Prophet" takes up its abode. Another disciple, Solomon Maimon-of whom a remarkable autobiography exists-stepped from Baal Shem to Kant(whose abstract kind of thought has always possessed an immense attraction for Talmudic intellects). The third is Otto Weininger, whose moral dualism is a purely Magian conception and whose death in a spiritual struggle of essentially Magian experience is one of the noblest spectacles ever presented by a late religiousness. Something of the sort Russians may be able to experience, but neither the Classical nor the Faustian soul is capable of it.

In the "Enlightenment" of the eighteenth century the western culture in turn becomes megalopolitan and intellectual, and so, suddenly accessible to the intelligentsia of the consensus1. And the latter thus dumped into the middle of an epoch corresponding, for them, to the whole remote past of a long-expired sephardic life-current, were inevitably stirred by echo-feelings, but these echoes were of the critical and negative side only, and the tragically unnatural outcome was that a cohesion already historically complete and incapable of organic progress was swept into the big movement of the host peoples, which it shooked, loosened, displaced, and vitiated to its depths. For, for the Faustian spirit, the enlightenment was a step forward along its own road-a step over debris no doubt, but still affirmative at bottom-whereas for Jewry it was destruction and nothing else, the demolition of an alien structure that it did not understand. And this is why we so often see the spectacle-paralleled by the case of the Parsees in India, of the Chinese and Japanese in a Christian milieu, and by modern Americans in China-of enlightenment, pushed to the point of cynicism and unqualified atheism, opposing an alien religion, while the fellah practices of its own folk go on wholly unaffected. there are socialists who superficially-and yet quite sincerely-combat every sort of religion, and yet in their own case follow the food-prohibitions and routine prayers and phylacteries with an anxious exactitude. More frequent actually is inward lapse from the Consensus qua creed-the spectacle that is presented to us by the Indian student who, after an English University-training in Locke and Mill, acquires the same cynical contempt for Indian and Western faiths alike and must himself be crushed under the ruins of both. Since the Napoleonic era the old -civilized consensus has mingled unwelcome with the new-civilized Western "Society" of the cities and has taken their economic and scientific methods into use with the cool superiority of age. A few generations later, the Japanese, also a very old intellect, did the same, and probably with still greater success.

To this day, the magian nation with its ghetto and its religion, itself is in danger of disappearing-not because the metaphysics of the two cultures come closer to one another(for that is impossible), but because the intellectualised upper stratum of each side is ceasing to be metaphysical at all. It has lost every kind of inward cohesion, and what remains is simply a cohesion for practical questions. the lead that this nation has enjoyed from its long habituation to thinking in business terms becomes ever less and less(namely tha American, it has already almost gone), and with the loss of it will go the last potent means of keeping up a consensus that has fallen regionally into parts. In the moment when the civilised method of European-American world-cities chall have arrived at full maturity, the destiny of jewry-at least of the jewry in our midst(that of Russia is another problem)-will be accomplished.

Islam has soil under it. It has practically absorbed the Persian, Jewish, Nestorian, and Monophysite Consensus into itself. The relic of the Byzantine nation, the modern Greeks, also occupy their own land. The relic of the Parsees in India dwells in the midst of the Stiffened forms of a yet older and more fellahized Civilisation and is thereby secure in its footing. But the West European American part of the Jewish Consensus which has drawn to itself and bound to its destiny most of the other parts of Jewry, has now fallen into the machinery of a young Civilisation. Detached from any land footing since, centuries ago, it saved its life by shutting itself in the Ghetto, it is fragmented and faced with dissolution. But that is a Destiny, not in the Faustian Culture, but of the Magian.

Jack
Saturday, September 13th, 2003, 08:11 AM
This post is mainly intended for the people who either understand what Spengler has written about the Russians, or know/understand what I mean by 'the Russian spirit of fraternal brotherhood'. Mainly it is intended for Moody, but if anyone else has something to say on the subject, I encourage them to voice their views.

The Russian brotherhood outlook ('the infinite plain') seems to me not to be an expression of a Culture, but rather the peasant outlook of the Russian that was consistently emphasised under the various names of 'soviet patriotism', 'Eurasianism', 'Holy Russia', etc. - is this a form of Culture Distortion, and is Russia spiritually an Occidental (not nessecarily Faustian, as I doubt one could refer to East European countries as Faustian, but they are certainly part of the European racial-cultural-spiritual unit) nation, or is Russia a seperate Culture altogether, as Spengler (and Yockey) believe it to be? If it is a seperate Culture, nevertheless we of the Faustian West and the Russians share white blood - conflict, given that Western Europe and Russia are close together (true, half of Europe seperates them, but that means little given modern technology), would seem to be inevitable, given the sharply contrasting Russian 'infinite plain' attitude Spengler talks of, when compared with the Faustian 'infinite space' outlook. This would seem to be a sharp and dangerous problem, if it exists. Yockey realised this and openly advocated the Russian 'plain' spirit be crushed immediately by Faustian West Europe, and that Russia as a political unit be dismembered, and that the Russian people should actively be Culturally assimilated.

Or the third option - is Russia, as America is in relation to Europe, a Culture-Colony of the Faustian West? If so, is Russia part of the core of the actual Occident (Occident as traditional European culture-racial group - the Faustian West is well described in Spengler's Decline of the West), or an auxilliarly attachment? I have a feeling this is a very important issue that needs to be discussed.

Jack
Sunday, September 14th, 2003, 11:11 AM
“The Bolshevist Revolution was more than political; it was Cultural. Power was transferred from the Westernised elements in the church, state, army, aristocracy and intelligentsia to a group basing itself on the instinctively nihilistic stratum of the Russian peasant masses. The primitive Russian Soul, unsure of itself, had been forced by the Romanovs and the powerful inroads of German culture in Russia to submit to Westernisation. Consequently, there arose in Russia a dreadful tension of polarity between two Souls, the Western and the proto-Russian. Dostoyevsky’s The Possessed depicts how it fermented nihilistically beneath the surface. It was this underground Russia that, led by the Jewish entity, broke away in 1917 from the West. By 1923, the civil wars had ended, and the Western culture was for the time banished from Russia. A community of destiny with Asia and its revolt against the West, rather than with a Europe whose form-world it had just expelled from Russian soil, more nearly answered the expectations of the new Russia.

The Russian soul is too virile ever to be strangled by something alien. Hence the Jewish entity, despite the dominant position to which it had attained with the Revolution of 1917, was incapable of maintaining its unconditional rule. The expulsion of Trotsky in 1927 marks the downward turning point for Jewry in Russia.

And yet the Bolshevist Revolution did not eliminate the polar tension within the Russian soul. So long as the Russian soul, chaotic and full of longing, animated by a strong will yet of weak resolve, exists within the sphere of influence of a Western organism that is conscious of its World-Mission, there will remain in Russia a powerful urge towards reunion with the West. The European Revolution of 1933 found an echo in Russia, and when the European armies entered Bolshevist territory in 1941, they were hailed everyplace there as “liberators”. Marshal Vlasov could have raised armies of millions and affiliated them with the European military forces, but, unfortunately, the European Command did not make use of such aid until it was too late. The possibility indeed exists that a second monstrous upheaval – with a pro-Western Cultural aim – will overthrow the Bolshevist regime. This possibility might be realised either through a renewed Western invasion or through the appearance of a new Peter the Great. It is a further Imponderable. Today Europe must reckon with Russia as part of the Outer Revolt against its World-Mission.”

- Francis Parker Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, pages 59-60, Liberty Bell Publications Internet edition, 2003

I think Yockey is on to something. I asked a few questions in Stormfront's Russia section here (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=86373) (I go by the name of Ken at SF), and the answers I recieved seem to fall into line with the idea that Russia is becoming Occidentalised. Thoughts?

Siegfried
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 07:24 AM
I don't think this problem problem exists to the degree Spengler thought. Perhaps the Marxist forces affected his judgement on Russia; I don't really get how 'the infinite plain' would suit Russia (I'd rather attach such a symbol to Jewry).

Jack
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 09:49 AM
I don't think this problem problem exists to the degree Spengler thought. Perhaps the Marxist forces affected his judgement on Russia; I don't really get how 'the infinite plain' would suit Russia (I'd rather attach such a symbol to Jewry).

I deleted another thread which I (no great loss, no one responded) is similar to what you are saying. It is a conversation with Stribog. Here goes:

Stribog: hey
Ken: hi
Ken: how are you?
Stribog: i'm good
Stribog: ive been thinking a lot about the russia issue
Ken: yeah, what do you think?
Stribog: its complicated, to say the least
Ken: yeah, it is
Stribog: im trying ot think how i want to phrase this
Ken: ok
Stribog: i think russia as a massive geopolitical entity covering 1/6 of the world's surface is not the best thing for russia or whites in general
Ken: That's one way of putting it
Stribog: i do think there is *some* truth to the brotherhood stereotype
Ken: I think so too
Stribog: i have to wonder how much of them running into the arms of the communists was the result of czarist excesses
Ken: I don't know. The Russians are strange, as far as Europeans go
Stribog: i know
Stribog: that's what i am trying to figure out....
Ken: I was talking to a Russian on stormfront, he says this has largely faded away, now that it has been over three generations since most Russians left the agricultural communes. They are similar to most Europeans, he said - individualist to the point of dyeing their hair and listening to different music, but not as materialist as Americans are
Stribog: what i wonder is, how different was the russian mindset 100 or 150 years ago
Stibog: from the average european
Ken: quite a bit different - around 90% of the Russians were serfs back then
Stribog: that's my point/question;
Ken: I don't think the Russian mindset a hundred years ago was that much greater than the European mindset 400 years ago. Maybe they are a European country, just a bit slow
Stribog: was russia holding on to feudalism so long a CAUSE or an EFFECT of a difference in mentality?
Ken: I think it was a cause
Stribog: in that case, then we shouldn't distinguish them from other europeans a priori?
Ken: or should we distinguish east Europeans from West Europeans a priori?
Stribog: racially there's not much difference between an English Hallstatt and a Russian Battle Axe
Stribog: so if there is a difference, i dont think its genetic
Stribog: the question is, are the bulk of eastern european peasants genetically different from western european working classes?
Ken: I know, there's Russians at my school who have assimilated to the point that they are psychologically identical with the Anglo-Celt Australians
Ken: I doubt it. West European industrial classes are descended from West European peasents, remember
Ken: most of my ancestors were Irish potato farmers before they migrated to Australia
Stribog: yes i chose working class vs peasant to outline a difference in economic structure, "progress" if you will
Stribog: rather than an inherent difference
Ken: Yes, I know what you're saying
Stribog: so how much of the russian backwards behavior is cultural then?
Stribog: the atrocities of the advancing Red Army?
Ken: It was the handful of Italians (and jews) who broke away from the feudal system economically and started trading products for profit, then hiring scientists, developing technology, and so on - Russia began this process later on.
Stribog: the mass rape thing is disturbing
Ken: I would say most of it is cultural, if the basics of psycholgy in a society come out of the social system. The Russians still had the peasent mindset when Stalin started industrialising the country - it was less than a generation. The mass rape is disturbing, but Russian soil was, to them, more important than anything else - the German lebensraum idea which Hitler proposed in Mein Kampf was enough to set them off. Regardless of the Russian planned invasion of Europe, the mass rape thing, I would say, was a sort of 'revenge' for violating Mother Russia. As Spengler says, to the peasant, the soil is more important than anything - it is the entire history of his family and people.
Stribog: do you think any other white or European country's army would ever commit mass rape?
Stribog: that's what i've wondered for a while
Ken: If any other European country had its armies drawn from the semi-primative peasantry, and the nation was invaded, and the invaders openly proclaimed for a decade before hand that they wanted to displace the population and/or enslave them? Yes, definetly.
Stribog: ok, seems plausible
Tribog: so you believe peasant is the key social distinction here
Ken: definetly.
Stribog: so what did yockey believe separated russia from the rest of europe?
Ken: precisely because of the peasant mentality. Yockey said that the Russian is essentially a barbarian - he is not culturalised, so to speak, similar to the relationship between the Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire
Ken: but the Russian is white - Yockey makes it quite clear that race is not merely bioligical - it is a biological-spiritual community, and Russians can, and this does happen, assimilate easily into Western societies. The issue is westernising an entire population of 140 million.
Stribog: well the germans certainly became civilised eventually, so what precludes the russians from doing the same...?
Stribog: is it just a matter of time and numbers?
Stribog: he wanted to accelerate it somehow?
Ken: Accelerate it, yes
Ken: He said, in "The Enemy of Europe" (I have it) that in the 1950's, the USSR could fall to a pro-Western coup, subtly or openly, and then through universities and so on, the key elements of Russia's population could be westernised. From there, it would've filtered down until the entire population did what the Germans did. Or - Russia could be invaded, politically neutralised, and directly Westernised by Westerners
Stribog: invasion of russia has never really been feasible, has it?
Stribog: on a sustained and semi-permanent scale, i mean
Ken: It is right now, with the exception that Russia doesn't use nuclear weapons
Stribog: well i assume they would...
Ken: Napoleon tried it, but Alexander I pulled out of Moscow and left it burning. So yes, it could have been done. Had Napoleon won, Russia would've been Westernised long ago, I think
Ken: it wouldn't surpise me if they did
Stribog: were napoleonic values necessarily a good thing?
Ken: Napoleon wanted to unite Europe into one Empire - where every European, no matter where he went, could still be within his own homeland.
Stribog: did napoleon write this down anywhere?
Ken: Certainly
Ken: Yockey quotes him several times
Stribog: so yockey views napoleon favorably?
Ken: I've read about it in my book on European history - "Europe: A History", by Norman Davies.
Ken: Yockey thought Napoleon was a genius
Ken: what Alexander the Great was to the Greek-Roman civilization, Napoleon was to the West
Ken: the key starter in the drive to unify an entire Culture-civilization.

End of Conversation (My connection died).

What do you think?

Pomor
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 06:58 PM
Very interesting discussion indeed :) I want to comment as being Russian myself. The core element which was very close to Western countries culturally, racially and spiritually always existed in Russia, well maybe not always but from the times of Peter the Great for sure. So called 'Dvoryanstvo' or nobility or higher classes. They gave the world such geniuses as Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tchaikovsky etc. 19th century was a 'Golden age' of Russian literature, music, science. But at the same time there was a huge difference between higher classes and peasantry, who were in the position of slaves until 1861. This and the infatuation of nobility or 'Intelegentsia' with the ideas of Karl Marx made the October Revolution possible. The result of that was a massive immigration of 'Intelegentsia' to Europe and US, leaving Russia with no cultural and intellegent basis. Late Tsarist Russia was very close culturally to other western European countries, and who knows if not Revolution we could probably be the leading country right now. But history went a different way, leading peasantry to power, demolishing everything that was achieved before. I would say that right now the majority of Russians, mostly middle and upper classes associate themselves with Europeans and think and act accordingly.
Now about that rape: first of all its rather difficult to say whether they were ethnic Russians or crowds of 'hachiks' from Caucasus, but there is no evidence that ethnic Russians never comitted such a crime. I would say that the majority of those were 'hachiks', just knowing their percentage in the Red Army of those days and their animal instincts. Most probably Russians from low classes did that as well. But comparing Russians with the Germanic Barbarians of the 1st century you guys went to far :)

Pomor
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 07:08 PM
BTW, the poem that Alexey posted on SF says it all. It was written by Blok in 1918, just after the revolution, it is incredible. I've been trying to find a translation, but looks like it has never been translated and I'm not gifted enough to do that myself :(

Moody
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 07:27 PM
Aloysha wrote "we of the Faustian West and the Russians share white blood"
But isn't this 'meaningless' to him, as he has already stated elsewhere that the term 'White' is meaningless?

I agree that Europe [and Russia to an extent] are composed of White Nations, and may come to a closer alliance in the future.

However, to the question "is Russia, as America is in relation to Europe, a Culture-Colony of the Faustian West?", I feel that Russia's earlier 'Western' element was swamped by Mongolisation in the Middle Ages and later by Bolshevism in the 20th century.
And so no, Russia is far LESS 'Western' [or 'Occidental'] than is America.

Jack
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 04:18 AM
Aloysha wrote "we of the Faustian West and the Russians share white blood"
But isn't this 'meaningless' to him, as he has already stated elsewhere that the term 'White' is meaningless?

Culture is what allows genetics to be socially defined. Would you say there are Iranians you would consider white, despite the massive cultural rift between Europe and Shi'ite Iran? I would not. My signature says something that defines my politics : 'Guard thy kin of thy blood and thy spirit' - I believe both are nessecary. Genes alone are not going to motivate a revolution, would you agree? A living being, in order to consider its own existance, must have both physical and psychological self identity. Russia as an ethnic-national unit thinks like Europe more than America does, and it is not stupid enough to consider mongoloids its brothers, as millions of Americans of European descent consider negroids and mesitzos do.


I agree that Europe [and Russia to an extent] are composed of White Nations, and may come to a closer alliance in the future.

'To an extent'? What sort of rubbish is this? Ethnic Russia's population has, at most, only 5% mongoloid blood. Should I find some statistics to post about the interracial mixing in Britain and America, or should we both agree that Russia is a nation EUROPEAN by blood, and leave it at that?


However, to the question "is Russia, as America is in relation to Europe, a Culture-Colony of the Faustian West?", I feel that Russia's earlier 'Western' element was swamped by Mongolisation in the Middle Ages and later by Bolshevism in the 20th century.
And so no, Russia is far LESS 'Western' [or 'Occidental'] than is America.

I strongly disagree. Russia does not accept homosexuality, mass hedonism, multiculturalism and it does not have a white 'guilt trip' syndrome. America does. I'm quite willing to say Russia is far more European culturally than America is. Britain also has millions of Asians in its country, and over a third of America is of non-white blood. France also has upwards of ten million Arabs and other non-Europeans within its borders, and the entirety of the West has been under Jewish culture distortion for the last fifty years.

Russia was hijacked in a time of internal chaos by Jews, who, using the cover of Marxism, emphasised Russia's collectivist popular soul (largely a result of an agricultural population consistantly under siege by Mongols, Tartars and other barbarians, resulting in the strong communal religiousness of the Slavic Russian, his tendency for strong leadership, and his strong tendency towards brotherhood) through the guise of Marxism in order to seperate and tear apart Russia from Europe - however, this did not result in mass propagation of homosexuality, multiracialism, guilt tripping or capitalist mass hedonism. With the decline of Soviet Socialism, the industrialisation under Stalin, and the introduction of state education, I suggest Russia's popular-collectivist soul has worn away and is now giving way quickly to cultural assimilation into Europe. I still believe Russia is more European than America as a whole is.

Moody
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 05:36 PM
Aloysha; "Culture is what allows genetics to be socially defined ..."

Moody Lawless; Since you've said that 'White' is meaningless, and therefore the fact that the West and Russia are both White is not considered 'meaningful' according to you, then we have to look at culture. The West is Faustian - Russia is NOT Faustian. They are culturally very different [note that the emphasis is on 'west', or Occidental - there is nothing 'western' about Russia, although she is now adopting American market ways].


Aloysha; "Ethnic Russia's population has, at most, only 5% mongoloid blood. Should I find some statistics to post about the interracial mixing in Britain and America, or should we both agree that Russia is a nation EUROPEAN by blood, and leave it at that?"

ML; You are talking about 'European Russia', not Russia as a whole. The percent of Russia's population as accounted for by its largest population group is 70 to 89%. Comapre this to Portugal, Italy, Poland, Denmark and Norway, for example, where the figure is 98% or more.
Don't take that hectoring tone with me please. Let's not fall out over what is really the important question of what model of 'Europe' we decide to adopt.

Aloysha; "I'm quite willing to say Russia is far more European culturally than America is. Britain also has millions of Asians in its country, and over a third of America is of non-white blood. France also has upwards of ten million Arabs and other non-Europeans within its borders, and the entirety of the West has been under Jewish culture distortion for the last fifty years".

Again, European Russia is European [although it is East European culturally, not Western], but the rest of it isn't. There are 26.7 million Muslims in Russia compared to 10.4 million Muslims in the USA.
Actually the largest ethnic group in the USA still accounts for 70 to 89% of the population - similar to Russia.
Nothing compares to Bolshevism when it comes to Jewish culture distortion.

Aloysha; " ...I suggest Russia's popular-collectivist soul has worn away and is now giving way quickly to cultural assimilation into Europe. I still believe Russia is more European than America as a whole is".

ML; I too hope that European Russia joins in a political union with Europe proper. However, I think that America received its cultural formation from Europe in total in the first place, and that very recently. Her institutions language, and customs are recognisably Western European. Russia, on the other hand, has thousands of years of Asiatic history and influence.
I am surprised that someone who champions the term 'Occidental', i.e., 'Western', should find Russia so.
Clearly your relation to Russia is more emotional than rational.

Jack
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 02:47 PM
Aloysha; "Culture is what allows genetics to be socially defined ..."

Moody Lawless; Since you've said that 'White' is meaningless, and therefore the fact that the West and Russia are both White is not considered 'meaningful' according to you, then we have to look at culture. The West is Faustian - Russia is NOT Faustian. They are culturally very different [note that the emphasis is on 'west', or Occidental - there is nothing 'western' about Russia, although she is now adopting American market ways].

I do not agree with Spengler. I do not think there is anything innately 'spiritual' about a Culture. I believe a society is determined largely by its genetics. The people with high testosterone and intelligence end up on top regardless of what political system is in place. Those with high intelligence are naturally going to try to analyse things, and they will end up becoming scientists, technicians, and inventors. Those with high intelligence and strong instincts will either end up beings heroes or articulate their own instincts into art and music. Religion and philosophy is developed out of fear. The tribe allies with its neighbours, who are of similar blood (the environment, through natural selection, naturally carves out a certain 'type' - for example, Caucasians for West Eurasia, Mongoloids for East Eurasia, and Blacks for Africa - this is heavily oversimplified though), and form clans. The clans, through trade and intermarriage, develop common languages. The collective unconscious of a nation (group of clans allied) is determined by its level of prosperity, the general mode of society (feudalism, nomadism, city-states), threat by external enemies, and level of social decay. The individuals who have the strong instincts and the intelligence to reach into the collective unconscious of their nation and articulate what is inwardly felt by many but unable to be put into words become the political genius'. 'Europe' is the entirety of those of caucasian blood who feared and fought the Turk, the Mongol, the Hun and the Arab, and lived, before the era of imperialism, between the Ural Mountains and the Atlantic, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Arctic Circle. It is not the blood in itself that matters to me, but what is produced of it. That is exactly why I do not accept those genetically similar to me who are of Iran or other non-European nations as my own kin as I do my kin of blood of Europe. Your perspective of pure biology leads me to believe you would accept a blonde-blue Iranian as your kin over a dark haired, green eyed Slav. Feel free to object.


ML; You are talking about 'European Russia', not Russia as a whole. The percent of Russia's population as accounted for by its largest population group is 70 to 89%. Comapre this to Portugal, Italy, Poland, Denmark and Norway, for example, where the figure is 98% or more.

Exactly. I am only talking about European Russia, because European Russia is all that really matters. The rest is a matter of control, not occupation, as far as Russia is concerned. Actually, America's 'white' population as listed in the US Census includes half the Hispanics, all the Arabs, all the Jews (upwards of 12 million, I believe) and all the North Africans. I venture to guess America is around 60-65% European.


Again, European Russia is European [although it is East European culturally, not Western], but the rest of it isn't.

What is 'Western', without employing Spenglerian terms? Rationalism, divorce, youth suicide, materialism, mass hedonism, national suicide, Jew service, tolerace to the point of capitulation? My usage of the word 'Occident' covers East as well as Western Europe, plus Europe's (East and West combined) colonies (America, Australia, New Zealand, what remains of white South Africa), as opposed to Asia and the Magian world. Perhaps I am using an inadequate term, feel free to pose another.


Nothing compares to Bolshevism when it comes to Jewish culture distortion.

Except the effects that the Frankfurt School has had against West Europe's cultural colonies. Bolshevism was a totalitarian system that amplified Russia's natural collectivist tendency (as I have said before, and several Russians agree with me, Russia's collectivist 'spirit' was a product of its extended time under Feudalism, combined with threats from the Turks, Mongols and Tartars) under the guise of 'socialism'. It did not do away with Russia's religiousness, as mass hedonism through capitalism has largely done to the West, it did not accelerate divorce, tear apart the national identity of Russia, or flood European Russia's population centers with non-slavic foreigners. With the mass education, industrialisation and urbanisation, Russia's collectivist spirit has largely faded. I'm more than willing to say Bolshevism was political distortion of Russia, but cultural? I don't think so. For Jewish culture distortion, nothing compares with what has occured in the West.


Aloysha; " ...I suggest Russia's popular-collectivist soul has worn away and is now giving way quickly to cultural assimilation into Europe. I still believe Russia is more European than America as a whole is".

ML; I too hope that European Russia joins in a political union with Europe proper. However, I think that America received its cultural formation from Europe in total in the first place, and that very recently. Her institutions language, and customs are recognisably Western European.

America's modern customs? Pray tell what is exactly 'European' about mass hedonism, social degeneracy, the collapse of the family, the glorification of violence and sex, the massive explosion in drugs and crime? Institutions mean nothing - the Americans drafted the Japanese constitution, does that make Japan a European country? The population of Hong Kong speaks English as well as Chinese - should we consider them Europeans? So now we've largely settled that institutions and language don't mean a great deal, and that America largely hates Europe's refusal to bow to the wishes of the Jews, and that Jewish culture distortion through capitalism is largely tearing away the morals of America's youth, then what makes you think modern America is more European then Russia?


Russia, on the other hand, has thousands of years of Asiatic history and influence.

Russia has always regarded herself as the guardian of Europe from the East. Perhaps you can tell me what exactly is 'Asiatic' about Russia, without constrasting it with the archetype of 'Aryan', because we both know Liberty, Equality and Fraternity contrast slightly with Order, Fatherland and Family, and strangely enough I believe Russia holds to those ideas more than America does.


I am surprised that someone who champions the term 'Occidental', i.e., 'Western', should find Russia so.
Clearly your relation to Russia is more emotional than rational.

Then we've been fighting over an issue of semantics. My idea of 'Occidental' refers to Europe as a whole, not only the Western half. As I said earlier in this post, feel free to offer another term.

Rahul
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 03:27 PM
Aloysha wrote "we of the Faustian West and the Russians share white blood"
But isn't this 'meaningless' to him, as he has already stated elsewhere that the term 'White' is meaningless?

I agree that Europe [and Russia to an extent] are composed of White Nations, and may come to a closer alliance in the future.

However, to the question "is Russia, as America is in relation to Europe, a Culture-Colony of the Faustian West?", I feel that Russia's earlier 'Western' element was swamped by Mongolisation in the Middle Ages and later by Bolshevism in the 20th century.
And so no, Russia is far LESS 'Western' [or 'Occidental'] than is America.
The force which Spengler uses for pointing to the Asiatic Russian spirit overwhelming its European-Western character is actually a consequence of the utterings by the sentimentalist Marxist Communist. That is an observation which we can make.

Then again, of the two Russian characters dwelling on the 'plain' there is a distinction between the nomad mongol, which is truly Asiatic and the Russian peasant.

Spengler mentions the way the sentimentalist diatribe affects the likes of peasants among other people in a Culture, and this is one of the reasons why he distinguishes this Russian spirit rather markedly, since he spoke at the time of the Russian Revolution which had subjugated its inherent European spirituality.

Spengler sees the Noble blood of the Czars which was finally assaulted by the Bolsheviks, as an assault of the Russian soul against that Russian which represented a Western-European character.

Personally I see that as an instance of thought which only confounds and creates a prejudice. After all that I have read, I still view those sections as rather mystical, which are yet to be fully understood and what I have spoken are my own opinions.

and in my opinion, a peasantry which is not all lost, respects and honours its king, not out of fear but for tradition's sake.

Moody
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 06:53 PM
Aloysha;"I do not agree with Spengler. I do not think there is anything innately 'spiritual' about a Culture".

Moody Lawless; Then why use the Spenglerian terminology above?
To say "we of the Faustian West", as you did, is pure Spengler, and describes Culture in Spiritual terms.

Aloysha; "I believe a society is determined largely by its genetics..." [...] " ...It is not the blood in itself that matters to me, but what is produced of it. That is exactly why I do not accept those genetically similar to me who are of Iran or other non-European nations as my own kin as I do my kin of blood of Europe".

Ml; You are sounding increasingly confused here as well.

Aloysha; "I am only talking about European Russia, because European Russia is all that really matters".

ML; Tell that to Putin!
Can European Russia really extricate itself from its non-European committments [see ethnic conflict in the Caucasus, as well as the war in Chechnya]?

Aloysah; "My usage of the word 'Occident' covers East as well as Western Europe, plus Europe's (East and West combined) colonies (America, Australia, New Zealand, what remains of white South Africa)".

Ha! That is a COMPLETE misuse of the term 'Western' or 'Occident'.
How can 'West' cover the 'East' as well?
You're joking, surely!
Either that, or you confused here as elsewhere.
To explain;
There has long been a basic geopolitical classification based on the notion of a 'triangle of power'.
That triangle consists of the Western powers, the Central powers and the Eastern powers.
The USA/Britain/France are among those in the first, Germany/Italy in the second, and Russia in the third.
We must look at these basic geopolitical notions before we start misusing the terms - perhaps I'll start a new thread on them to help.

Aloysha; "Bolshevism ... amplified Russia's natural collectivist tendency ... . It did not do away with Russia's religiousness, as mass hedonism through capitalism has largely done to the West ..."

ML; Actually, the Russian tendency toward collectivism and its attendant despotism is as characteristically Oriental as are her onion minarets.
Just as Russia's Orthodox religion comes via the orientalism of Byzantium, see also the Russian tendency towards 'Oriental Fatalism' as a national feature. Anything from the veneration of Ikons, the influence of Asiatic shamanism and Communism advert to the fact that Russia covers only part of Europe but the WHOLE of North Asia.
Actually, the rise of capitalism was inherent in the development of the West. The Enlightenment and the Protestant movements allowed the hold of any kind of theocracy to be eroded. Science and commerce were given ever freer rein to create what we now know of the modern world.
Yes, Russia was completely left behind in all this, and even this late tries painfully to catch up; I hear the Russian Mafia is booming though!
Your view of Russia as some kind of moral social utopia is based on Soviet 'disinformation' [check out what's happening with AIDS in Russia at the moment].

Aloysah; " ...what makes you think modern America is more European then Russia!"?

ML; Look, it is basic knowledge that very recently in world history, Western Europeans carried their Culture over to North America and made a colony and then an Independent Republic based on their own Western European Culture.
That is not the same as imposing Western Culture on non-Westerners.
America's political culture is STILL Western European - look at the natural alliance she makes with Britain.
So again, the qualification stands - America is more Western European than is Russia.

Jack
Saturday, October 4th, 2003, 11:39 AM
Aloysha;"I do not agree with Spengler. I do not think there is anything innately 'spiritual' about a Culture".

Moody Lawless; Then why use the Spenglerian terminology above?
To say "we of the Faustian West", as you did, is pure Spengler, and describes Culture in Spiritual terms.

A is A for only as long as it does not change. I changed.

That post was made two weeks ago at least, and since then I've read Spengler's Decline and I now understand his line of thought and why I disagree with him.


Aloysha; "I believe a society is determined largely by its genetics..." [...] " ...It is not the blood in itself that matters to me, but what is produced of it. That is exactly why I do not accept those genetically similar to me who are of Iran or other non-European nations as my own kin as I do my kin of blood of Europe".

Ml; You are sounding increasingly confused here as well.

I don't believe so. Perhaps you could explain, and I could clear up wherever we are in disagreement. I am not so much interested in genes as chemicals, but the people themselves. An individual is more than the sum of his genetic code. An individual's tendencies are largely determined by his genetics, then his tendencies are conditioned by his social environment. So far I am not sure as to the idea of free will or not.


Aloysha; "I am only talking about European Russia, because European Russia is all that really matters".

ML; Tell that to Putin!
Can European Russia really extricate itself from its non-European committments [see ethnic conflict in the Caucasus, as well as the war in Chechnya]?

Do you even know what Chechenya is about? A Chechen terrorist group bombed over a dozen residential and Government buildings across Russia a few years ago, killing thousands in a demand for independence. Let's say Britain owned Brittany in France, which was being flooded with Arabs, who then did the equivalent of five or six September-11 scale bombings, and demanded the whole of Brittany. Would you give in, or go kill them off? If Putin surrenders, every other ethnic group with a reason to seperate will seceed. That is fact. European Russia is all that really matters because that is where Putin's people live. Putin won't let everyone seperate because territory + resources = power. That is the first rule of geopolitics. It is generally a good thing if Russia as a semi-Eurocentric State keeps its influence and remains as the guardian of Europe from the East, as well as acting as a counterpart to Judeo-America. The Caucasus? Putin is looking after resources and the ethnic Russian population. I don't see a problem with it. Maybe if some Muslim terrorists bombed a major oil pipeline or the Trans-Siberian Railway you'd understand just why Putin is fighting the Muslims. And asking whether European Russia can extricate itself from the ethnic conflict in the Caucasus is like asking if Hitler could've looked away as the Germans outside of the Reich were persecuted. Then again, that wouldn't be too hard for you to ask of him, considering you don't care that Australia - a British country - was going to be annihilated at the hands of the Japanese. White Power indeed.


Aloysah; "My usage of the word 'Occident' covers East as well as Western Europe, plus Europe's (East and West combined) colonies (America, Australia, New Zealand, what remains of white South Africa)".

Ha! That is a COMPLETE misuse of the term 'Western' or 'Occident'.
How can 'West' cover the 'East' as well?
You're joking, surely!
Either that, or you confused here as elsewhere.

Or perhaps I've been using 'Occident' as interchangable with 'European'.


To explain;
There has long been a basic geopolitical classification based on the notion of a 'triangle of power'.
That triangle consists of the Western powers, the Central powers and the Eastern powers.
The USA/Britain/France are among those in the first, Germany/Italy in the second, and Russia in the third.
We must look at these basic geopolitical notions before we start misusing the terms - perhaps I'll start a new thread on them to help.

Sure thing.


ML; Actually, the Russian tendency toward collectivism and its attendant despotism is as characteristically Oriental as are her onion minarets.
Just as Russia's Orthodox religion comes via the orientalism of Byzantium, see also the Russian tendency towards 'Oriental Fatalism' as a national feature. Anything from the veneration of Ikons, the influence of Asiatic shamanism and Communism advert to the fact that Russia covers only part of Europe but the WHOLE of North Asia.

*Yawn*

Minarets are architecture. Apparently 'Federation Square' (http://home.no.net/edstokka/_img/fed/fed01.jpg) is also architecture, which lies in the center of Melbourne, my state capital, a very 'Western' city. I personally find minarets far more attractive than a lot of modern Western 'architecture'. You said in another thread Stonehenge and other Megaliths still gives religious inspiration to many West Europeans, and the pre-Indo-European Europeans were not, by any standard, cultured. So if an uncultured collection of rocks can give religious inspiration to modern Europeans, what makes minarets unacceptable?

Asiatic Shamanism? Where in hell did you pull that from? Russia covers only part of Europe but the WHOLE of North Asia? OK - first, ethnic Russia's population is heavily concentrated in Europe. Second, Europe controlled all of Africa a century ago, therefore Europe was African culturally, following your utterly absurd logic. And were the missionaries from Rome willing to preach in the Slavic tongues rather than Latin, Russia would be Catholic and not Orthodox.


Actually, the rise of capitalism was inherent in the development of the West. The Enlightenment and the Protestant movements allowed the hold of any kind of theocracy to be eroded. Science and commerce were given ever freer rein to create what we now know of the modern world.

Russia was well on its way to developing its industry before the 1917 Jewish coup, Russia put the first man in space and it also discovered the genetic code, which underlies most of your ideology :D


Yes, Russia was completely left behind in all this, and even this late tries painfully to catch up; I hear the Russian Mafia is booming though!

Actually, Putin is the only European President who is actively fighting against the Jews, (http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/politics/putin_jews.htm) so that's saying something if the very people you deride are the only nation in Europe which is actually doing something about it.


Your view of Russia as some kind of moral social utopia is based on Soviet 'disinformation' [check out what's happening with AIDS in Russia at the moment].

Oh, I never said it was a utopia - but I did say it was a lot better than the United States is culturally.


ML; Look, it is basic knowledge that very recently in world history, Western Europeans carried their Culture over to North America and made a colony and then an Independent Republic based on their own Western European Culture.
That is not the same as imposing Western Culture on non-Westerners.
America's political culture is STILL Western European - look at the natural alliance she makes with Britain.
So again, the qualification stands - America is more Western European than is Russia.

ROFL. Then please do explain why the Germans and the French have refused to join America's crusade for Judaism while Britain is all too eager to kiss America's ass and go fight Iraq for the kikes. Jews have hijacked and totally own the American political process, it's so thoroughly distorted Trotsky would be impressed! If I have any criticism to offer White America, it is that as a whole* they are a mass of stupid, meek, over-civilized cowards. Yankee kids dance to nigger music, American girls eagerly take courses in 'women's studies' (read: Men Hating courses), men chase skirts, women chase careers, children end up with gangs and drugs, and Joe and Jane Citizen eagerly greet the population that is about to displace them. European indeed. Russia's more European than America is.

*That applies to all of West Europe's colonies, include Australia, where I live.

Moody
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 07:41 PM
Aloysha; "I am not so much interested in genes as chemicals, but the people themselves. An individual is more than the sum of his genetic code. An individual's tendencies are largely determined by his genetics, then his tendencies are conditioned by his social environment. So far I am not sure as to the idea of free will or not".

Moody Lawless;This is another example of further confusion; we are back at the old 'nature vs nurture' hurdle, with the added hesitancy over 'free-will'. This combined with the previous confusion between 'genes' and 'blood'.
My criticism [as you asked for it] rests on a lack of clarity around the whole question of race in your ideology - surely a VITAL element.

Aloysha; "Putin won't let everyone seperate because territory + resources = power".

ML; This is why Russia is still an Eurasian imperial power and not a European racial state as you try to portray her.

Aloysha; "you don't care that Australia - a British country - was going to be annihilated at the hands of the Japanese. White Power indeed".

ML; Now, now! - Britain declared war on Germany in the first place. It was that great act of fratricidal folly that led to the Japanese and Australians being sucked into an insane global conflict.
If I were alive back then I would have sided with the Axis powers, not the Allies.
You HAD to choose ... THEN. There was no question of saying, "I side with the Whites" as both sides had their fair share of Whites.
However, the policies of the Axis in the LONG RUN would have been better for Whites than those of the Allies which PROMISED a divided Europe and multiracialism.
Hard choices have to be made.

Aloysha; "You said in another thread Stonehenge and other Megaliths still gives religious inspiration to many West Europeans, and the pre-Indo-European Europeans were not, by any standard, cultured. So if an uncultured collection of rocks can give religious inspiration to modern Europeans, what makes minarets unacceptable?".

ML; Who said "unacceptable"? - why so defensive?
I was just pointing out the fact that those Onion Minarets in Russian architecture are ORIENTAL, and therefore another example [and you asked for examples] of the non-Western nature of Russian culture.
Are you seeking to deny the fact that Russia is Eurasian?

Russia-Asia is CONTIGUOUS, and cannot be compared to overseas colonies.

This is not some 'Nazi' view, nor is it to be seen as a criticism;
"The Russian people have always been receptive to Byzantine religious elements with their more oriental flavour, elements that have come to be part of their culture". [R. Steiner, 'Central Europe Between East and West', 1916]
Add Siberian shamanism and Rasputin, and you get a 'flavour' very different to that of the Western European.

The Megalith builders of Europe still confound modern scientists. These pre-Celtic Europeans had an incredible knowledge of astronomy as well as building techniques which defy belief.
I do not regard them as 'uncultured' at all; but notice how those Megaliths speak to us still as something very 'European'. The image of Stonehenge has pervaded European culture CONTINUOUSLY for thousands of years - it is not an Asiatic add-on.
Much of the pre-Celtic culture does not survive - that does NOT mean that those cultures were 'un-cultured'. Indeed, researchers who seek to understand these 'Atlantean' foundations of Europa are making great advances as we speak.

Aloysha; "Russia .... the very people you deride..."

ML; What? Where have I derided the Russians?
Surely, to state that Russia is a EURASIAN culture - i.e., one that has elements of Europe and Asia - is not 'derision'?
Show where I have 'derided' the Russians; if you can't, then I have to conclude that you are exhibiting the hysterical strains of inferiority-complex.

Aloysha;"[Communist Russia] was a lot better than the United States is culturally.

ML; "Better" doesn't give us much to go on. As we now know, the very closed society of the USSR fed the West a completely distorted version of internal events. Not only that, the extent of the Soviet State's murder of RUSSIANS boggles the mind. Starving your OWN people while you send a Sputnik into space is not my idea of "better" [but then "better" is such a vague term].

Aloysha; "Explain why the Germans and the French have refused to join America's crusade for Judaism while Britain is all too eager to kiss America's ass and go fight Iraq for the kikes".

ML; Geopolitics, again. The current British political establishment believes that Britain and America must always follow the same international policy. This doesn't apply to France/Germany, or 'Old Europe' as the Americans like to call them [implying that there is a 'New Europe' of American influence]!
I think you have to recognise that this Judaic perspective of the USA is married to a Christian Fundamentalist one. They both see Jerusalem in apocalypic terms, although it's ironic that the Christian nut-cases there ultimately expect the Jews to recognise Christ!

Aloysha; "If I have any criticism to offer White America, it is that ... they are a mass of stupid, meek, over-civilized cowards".

ML; Tell that to the captives of Camp Delta in Cuba!

Aloysha; "Yankee kids dance to nigger music, American girls eagerly take courses in 'women's studies' (read: Men Hating courses), men chase skirts, women chase careers, children end up with gangs and drugs, and Joe and Jane Citizen eagerly greet the population that is about to displace them".

ML; The same criticism of America is made by the Muslims - they call her the Great Satan, and take an identical moral stance as yourself.

Aloysha; "European indeed. Russia's more European than America is".

ML; Europe is more European than both of them - they are both on the European periphery. However, whereas America IS The West, Russia is an Eurasian power, with one foot in Europe, the other in Asia.
Europe is the centre.
If you make being 'European' your ultimate good, then become a European.

Your criticism of America is a MORAL one, not a cultural one. Russia herself is degenerating very quickly as she takes up American pop culture and gangsterism. Her richest men [like the Jew Roman Abramovich] take their tainted wealth out of Russia and her ailing economy.

The time has past when Russia could be seen as the saviour of the White Race - Communism was found to be a lie, and those Westerners who were taken in by Soviet propaganda are now discredited.

Now we must look at a Europe which balances the East [Russia] and the West [America]; a power which is NOT founded on lies.
I do not mean to insult Russia when I say that she is Eurasian - I rather think I am speaking the honest truth.
I gladly welcome European Russia into Europe proper.

OnionPeeler
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 10:53 PM
America may be the hotbed of the new world-culture, but it is indeed a world phenomena. Russia is certainly at risk and when it sweeps over her the expression of it will be flavored by local cultures. We can see the grand, if ugly, process at work in Japan, Korea, Singapore. Any people with the capacity to build and maintain supermarkets and TV-land are penetrated. This brings up the interesting question as to whether there are groups of people incapable of sustaining the technical critical mass. Is sub-Saharan Africa closer to its intinctual expressions? What about parts of Latin America or greater Arabia?

I find Aloysha's stand on nature/nurture confusing as well, but not because his approach is flawed. The subject matter itself IS confusing. Wilson agrees that the instinctual/cultural expression varies between groups and individuals. This leaves us with the near impossible task of trying to eek out characteristics with little more than anectodal evidence. WE HAVE NOT THE TOOLS yet to attack the problem. The means to quantification doesn't exist.

Oh, the evidence is there. We know it. We feel it. But attempts to categorize evidence dissolve and reform in the cathedrals of words. All of Marx, Spengler, sociology, political 'science', psychology, economics are lies if presented as science. And they are so presented.

My point, of course, is that there is tantalizing evidence that individuals and groups possess inherent character. But it is undeniable that there is greater or lesser variability which endlessly confounds attempts illuminate that character.

That TV-land will penetrate Russia seems a given at this point. But I fear all that we can say with certainty is that the extent of penetration will match their inherent variability (which we can't quantify).

Moody
Tuesday, April 27th, 2004, 08:12 PM
If the mass media is simply a tool, then why don't WE utilise it?
We of the profound values of the Blood?
We of high culture and the Will to Power?

This is the Destiny of the World.

Eventually those toys of the internationalists will be usurped by the Aryan and the Masters of the earth shall rule as predicted by Nietzsche.

http://www.neuron.net/~navi/img/mandalas/mazatec.jpg

Taras Bulba
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 01:20 AM
http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/phi151/NOV28LEC.HTM

Dostoevsky as Philosopher

November 28, 1995; June 2, 1998
Guest Lecture by Jay Gallagher

From a filthy barracks room in Siberia, Fyodor Dostoevsky begged his brother Michael to send him what he called "absolutely necessary intellectual food... a copy of the Koran, and oh yes, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason." When no reply was forthcoming, we learn from his letters that the requests were repeated. Fyodor diplomatically suggested that Michael buy the least expensive editions available, and mail them at the cheapest possible rate. He never received an answer. We do know that he was given a copy of the Bible along the way by some charitable Russian Orthodox donor, and it deeply influenced him during his four years of imprisonment (and six of forced military service). He had been convicted of sedition. It didn't take much to be accused of plotting against the Tsar -- a printing press had been discovered in the possession of his social circle which had once touched ink to paper in the service of radical utopian ideas.

Now, Dostoevsky could have asked for food -- God knows by all accounts the prisoners badly needed it -- or tobacco, or vodka, or perhaps some medication to mitigate his increasingly severe epileptic attacks. But he said he couldn't live without books to read. As he put it, "I am weak in philosophy, but not in my love for philosophy, which is strong." But of course, isn't this exactly what "philosopher" means? Etymologically, the word points to a lover of wisdom (Philo sophia), not necessarily to one who claims already to have it.

Nicolai Berdyaev, an existentialist religious thinker (and exiled Russian) writing in the '50s, unequivocally declared Dostoevsky to be "Russia's greatest metaphysician." And Walter Kaufmann included Dostoevsky in his classic anthology of existentialist writings. He explained, "I can see no reason for calling Dostoevsky an existentialist, but I do think that Part One of Notes From Underground is the best overture for existentialism ever written." (14 Kaufmann) After reading Notes From nderground in translation 1887, Friedrich Nietzsche admitted that Dostoevsky was "the only person who has ever taught me anything about psychology." (168 Gide)

So you can see that Dostoevsky has had a profound impact upon the course of the last century of philosophical thought. Through his novels he managed to engage in a considerable amount of serious and controversial philosophical commentary. As Berdyaev put it, "he may have learnt but little from philosophy, but he taught it much." (35 Berdyaev)

This method of expressing philosophical ideas through novels is characteristically Russian. In fact, it is probably fair to say that Dostoevsky helped to create this peculiarity of Russian literature. As a modern example, let us look at Boris Pasternak's Dr. Zhivaqo. The body of this novel is saturated with religious and philosophical allusions and symbolism -- almost on every page. The title itself reminds every Russian, regardless of religious background, of the Russian Orthodox Bible. This is because "zhivago" is the Old Church Slavonic pronunciation (akin to our King James English) of the word "living." The very title "Zhivago" is a Biblical allusion, referring to the quotation "why seek ye He among the living...". This custom of working Christian and other philosophical ideas into the structure of a novel was started by a handful of Russian writers, and chief among them, and the one with the strongest philosophical ideas to communicate -- was Dostoevsky.

There are two ways that this marriage of philosophy to the novel is accomplished; one direct, and the other indirect. In a section of The Brothers Karamazov called "The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor," and again in Notes From Underground, long monologues which contain explicit metaphysical, ethical, and sociopolitical ideas come out of the mouths of Dostoevsky's characters. We will turn to these explicit statements later.

But in Dostoevsky's work the communication of philosophical ideas is also done in an indirect manner through unfolding the destinies of his characters. Each character is shown acting upon certain beliefs; what we could call the "karmic consequences" (please pardon the fantastic leap in religious frameworks here) of a given philosophical stance show up in the end when we see what happens to the character. Raskolnikov of Crime and Punishment, for instance, starts out to test his belief in a type of Nietzschean "Superman." He "seizes the moment" and commits an act of murder just to see if he has the courage to break the rules. (We could say he is playing a game of "chicken" with himself). Raskolnikov ends up tortured with guilt, ultimately repenting of the act and going gladly to prison in Siberia.

Of course, that was Dostoevsky's idea of the real psychological consequences of committing a senseless murder. But we are left to wonder if Dostoevsky is right. Nietzsche, for instance, would probably not agree that a freely chosen act, even a murder, would necessarily plunge a person into an abyss of guilt. Speaking of Christian morality, Nietzsche once wrote, "This queer and sick world into which the Gospels introduce us -- a world out of a Russian novel in which the scum of society, nervous diseases, and 'childlike' idiocy seem to give each other a rendezvous." (291 Kaufmann from Der Antichrist). There is considerable latitude for speculation over just what the karmic consequences of our actions are.

Each of Dostoevsky's characters, like characters we encounter in real life, is a mystery to fathom. Berdyaev notes that each character is a puzzle to solve; he also observes that the least interesting puzzles are the morally "better" characters (e.g. Myshkin of The Idiot or Alyosha Karamazov). The ones with the most interesting twists and turns are the ones whose integrity is flawed, who contradict themselves, who wonder themselves why they do what they do.

The reader is invited to guess what the underlying principles are that pull together such apparently contradictory actions; what childhood traumas, what crucial life decisions, what current circumstances have contributed to this or that character acting in such and such a way. Just as each real individual we meet is a moral mystery, so Dostoevsky's characters force us to wonder about them as if they were real. only an artificial construction -- a stereotype -- can be completely fathomed. It was Dostoevsky's belief that real people are not such neat constructions.

We have moral encounters with Dostoevsky's characters. Like real moral encounters, they leave us questioning our own values. This is why Tolstoy could not bear to call Dostoevsky a "real" artist. Tolstoy felt that a true artist gives his readers answers to the deeper questions of life. Dostoevsky gave only questions.

And it is true that Dostoevsky's characters are questionmarks. The element of mystery -- of unfathomableness -- is essential. I once was assigned a certain translation of Crime and Punishment for a class where the translator left out one 'innocuous Russian particle in the first sentence (talk about the cheapest possible editions!). I'm sure that the translator, Jesse Coulson, felt that the small particle "kak bui" (meaning "as if") as inessential and could be safely omitted. In the first sentence of this novel, Dostoevsky had written that Raskolnikov turned "as if" in hesitation on a bridge. Coulson translated it simply as "turned irresolutely." I blew up! I almost refused to buy the text for the class, and eventually wrote a whole cranky paper about it, and sent it off like a crank to a journal (and, like a crank, got the article turned down).

Imagine! A Dostoevsky character without mystery! Kak bui was important. The point of using "as if" is to stimulate the reader's imagination -- to get him or her to begin to speculate on Raskolnikov's motives from the very first sentence. Why is he turning? Is he really hesitating about something? If so, what? Later we will work ourselves up to a crescendo of speculation, asking ourselves: "why did he really kill the old moneylender? did he prove anything to himself? does he feel guilty? if so, why?". To remove the element of pondering over the motives of Dostoevsky's characters -- and thus of asking ourselves: "what are their principles? what should be their principles? and ultimately, what should ours be?" -- ruins his entire literary, and moral, enterprise.

Now, as I have suggested, not everyone answers Dostoevsky's questions the same way. While Nietzsche appreciated Dostoevsky's grasp of human psychology, he would not necessarily assume that Raskolnikov would be racked with guilt, nor could Nietzsche stomach such characters as Alyosha or Prince Myshkin. In the same vein, Karl Marx would never have acknowledged that there was a grain of truth to the disastrous portraits of a circle of fanatical revolutionaries in The Possessed.

However, although Dostoevsky stands in sharp contrast to Marx and Nietzsche, he is not out of step with them. The nineteenth century saw a leap out of the Enlightenment into what might be called the "psychological era," which looked back on the safe and sane ideas of a Chain of Being and a rational universe as so much naiveté. Dostoevsky was definitely one of the architects of this change of consciousness. After Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, Schopenhauer and others, something was "discovered" (or perhaps invented) we could call the "unconscious." Contradictory and unacknowledged motives came to be seen as influencing the destinies of men and nations (and even occasionally of women). And Dostoevsky was one of those who helped to "raise" this 19th and 20th century consciousness.

But the fact that all of the other "movers and shakers" of the 19th century would have to completely reject some of his strongest philosophical statements puts him in an odd position. We can say that Dostoevsky stands as an heroic counterpoint to the greatest ideas of the modern world.

He criticizes all of his contemporaries with a sharpness that has still not been surpassed. In fact, over time, many of his criticisms may be said to be prophetic. Before Marx, he castigated violent revolutionaries, before Nietzsche he warned humankind of the poison of inflating the human soul with dreams of becoming a superman. He unleashed a flood of sarcasm against every school of "progress" designed to improve and rationalize the society of his time, whether it came from the liberal camp, such as JS Mill; the scientific camp, such as the Darwinists; the socialist camp, such as Bielinsky; or conservative theocrats, such as the Catholic Church. I would say that his criticism of the "sciences of man" -- psychology, anthropology, sociology and such, is as scathing as Foucault's.

In order to see how he got into this position we ought to take a look at his life; certain events influenced him so deeply that he could not bring himself to accept optimistic scenarios, or plans to rationalize society in order to free humanity of its chains in one fell swoop. From what Dostoevsky saw of life, most of humanity's chains were moral ones. And moral chains can be removed only by spiritual rebirth, not by social reorganization. This is why many called him a reactionary. But his hatred of theocracy and oppression of all kinds was as deep as any revolutionary's; thus, he didn't fit among traditionalists (such as the Slavophiles) either. After reading The Brothers Karamazov, the elders or staretzi of Optina monastery couldn't quite pronounce him to be "one of them." They weren't sure whether he was on the side of the Evil One or not.

In 1839, when Dostoevsky was eighteen, the serfs on his father's plantation rose up and murdered the tryannical old patriarch. This probably accounts for the young man's preoccupation with sin and expiation. He wrote two novels after this time, Poor Folk and The Double, both published in 1846. He began to hang around proto-socialist circles, and although he had never heard of Marx, socialistic and communistic ideas were discussed. He was arrested by the Tsarist government, and sentenced to Siberia at twenty eight years of age. There his epilepsy got worse under apalling prison conditions, but he acquired something which helped him immensely. This gift helped him so much that it probably accounts for his lack of bitterness upon his return to St. Petersburg.

He had broken through the almost insurmountable class barriers of Russian society. He was thrown in with the very lowest social strata; in prison, high and low born were forced to speak to each other on a day-to-day basis. While most of the prisoners from a background of serfdom still regarded him and all other "gentlemen" with suspicion, there was enough interaction between Dostoevsky and those of the "masses" that he acquired a sense of serfs, peasants and other representatives of the lower classes as real multi-dimensional human beings. His work is refreshingly free of romantic stereotypes or, on the other hand, of bigoted and mean-spirited caricatures of "the vulgar masses."

Romanticization of "the people" was almost a sickness with the Russian intelligentsia of Dostoevsky's time. Not being able to communicate freely with either those lower or higher than themselves in the social scale, Russian writers tended to romanticize either the aristocracy (e.g. Lermontov) or the masses (e.g. Tolstoy) in order to ally themselves with some part of the social hierarchy. This lack of truthfulness considerably weakened their attempts to work with the masses in any real attempt to increase literacy among the peasants and guide them in any constructive political direction. Their frequent crusades to enlighten the peasantry often absurdly misfired. The peasantry often had contempt for the intelligentsia, and worse, the intelligentsia often had contempt for themselves. Russia's intellectual elite was paralyzed by what today would be called "liberal guilt."

Humility of the soul is a distinctively Russian virtue. But without real communication between the "lowly" and those higher up, all attempts by the intellectual classes to pay homage to this virtue resulted only in a flood of romantic drivel. Siberia swept all this away for Dostoevsky. He came out of prison with a sense that common unbathed illiterate Russians were full human beings who carried the same complex moral burdens as anyone else. He was able to employ a traditional Christian ethical value system without the false romanticism born of ignorance -- without bias either for or against "the lowly". He was able to preach true Russian humility in his work in a way which had a ring of truth. He had shared the bedbugs and watery cabbage soup and frozen nights in Siberia with convicts and sons of peasants, and felt them there with him when he wrote about them. Andre Gide once wrote of Dostoevsky's work that "no one with pride of intellect could ever properly understand him." (50 Gide)

After he returned from Siberia his first two novels directly reflected his experience of this world of the underprivileged" -- The Insulted and Injured was serialized in '61 and '62 in a journal he opened with his brother. Written entirely in the form of letters supposedly written by the main character, it reminds one of the modern The Color Purple -- or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Alice Walker very likely learned that literary technique from him. Memoirs From the House of the Dead uses a diary-like format, and contains many vivid recollections of prison life. It came out in 1862. Then about every two years after that he produced one major novel after another, each depicting a soul's journey from crisis to resolution; always involving a desperate search for spiritual values. The successful characters find faith in Christianity, others illustrate the consequences of "bad karma."

It seemed obvious to Dostoevsky that we need to love one another as Jesus directed. But it was equally obvious to him that we don't. What is to be done? He works out a variation on an answer to this momentous question in each of his novels. He died while writing the Karamazov saga. The Brothers Karamazov that came out in 1880 -- the one we know -- was supposed to be the first part of a trilogy. Dostoevsky died at age sixty in 1881.

Russian Orthodox Christianity was for Dostoevsky the answer to the problem of nihilism he saw growing around him. This problem was succinctly summarized by him through the famous words of Ivan Karamazov: "If God is dead, all is permitted." Like Nietzsche, Dostoevsky clearly saw that the security of the Medieval world view had crumbled, and with it went the philosophical foundations for Christian ethics. Dostoevsky, like Nietzsche, accepted this development and did not shy away from exploring its ramifications. He knew it was too late to turn back to the world view of a pre-scientific era. He knew the human race "couldn't go home again."

But unlike Nietzsche, Dostoevsky believed that leaving the reader on his or her own to be a god to himself was an invitation to disaster. Russians have always been extremists; nihilistic or apocalyptic visions seem to captivate Russian thinkers, and in Dostoevsky's time ordinary tea rooms and vodka parlors were full of earnest discussions of how to build a scientific -- even atheistic -- new world, or alternatively, how God would punish those who tried. Ronald Reagan's ill-conceived remark that "the Russians don't even have a word for freedom" couldn't be more wrong!

The trouble with the Russians is not that they don't know what svoboda, or freedom is, but that they want it all! They want complete freedom. I don't think it is an accident that the one musical instrument without any keys or mouthpiece at all -- the Theremin -- was invented by a person born in Russia. The Theremin is a perfect illustration of freedom from all forms of restraint.

Americans may be wincing at this point; such cultural characterizations come dangerously close to cultural stereotypes forbidden by today's canons of political correctness. But I am very certain that Dostoevsky himself, politically correct or not, would agree completely. The trouble with the Russian soul is not that it does not know freedom, but that it won't tolerate just a little freedom. It wants absolute freedom in all respects in all things -- and then flies apart.

Dostoevsky's novels are full of characters flying apart, testing the limits of freedom -- searching for a satisfactory solution to the problem of nihilism.

Some of you cross cultural studies majors may note a similarity with Hinduism here. Hinduism teaches that if you take each desire to its limit you will find that the limited goal you end up with cannot satisfy your infinite thirst. Only merging with the Infinite can satisfy your desires, which are infinite. Buddhism was created as a means of aiding the soul to accomplish this spiritual submergence.

The resemblance is not coincidental. We should remember that Russia is not a Western European country, and the Asian message of renunciation of egotistical desires has had strong appeal there. Dostoevsky had much in common with Asian thinkers; like Gautama Buddha, he spent his life searching for an answer to the question, "how can we escape from the cycle of human suffering?". And like the Buddha, he came to religious philosophy only after rigorous psychological analysis of the human condition. His answer had much in common with the Buddha's: you cannot find peace until you renounce your selfish desires. Maybe God is dead, maybe all is permitted. But the law of dharma will assert itself: you must live with the consequences of your actions. Experience itself will teach you that you have to get in step with the moral law, and that egotism is a vicious illusion and a snare for the soul. If you want peace, you must renounce the "I".

Here Dostoevsky agrees with Gautama Buddha, and I think to this extent we can class him with a long line of traditional Hindu and Buddhist metaphysicians.

But you will notice an important difference at this point. Read Notes From Underground, and you'll see the most spirited defense of desire ever written. Here he parts company from pacific Asian philosophies and rejoins the Christian West. Some desire is good -- the desire that compels us to love our neighbor, and the desire that motivates us to create something entirely new in the world.

Creativity is a virtue for Dostoevsky, even if it causes suffering. Here he is back in the existentialist camp with the "rugged individualists" Freud, Marx and Nietzsche, as well as with other towering figures of the 19th and 20th centuries such as Jean Paul Sartre and Kierkegaard.

But what does it mean to be 'in the existentialist camp'? And why is creativity suddenly a virtue? Here a deeper examination of cataclysmic events in the history of ideas is necessary. No greater volcanic eruption has happened in the history of thought than this: the collision of Medieval Christianity, and its other-worldly philosophy of renunciation, with the discovery that well-being in this world, through scientific advancement, may be entirely possible.

Ethically, values from these competing paradigms clash radically: this world or the next? renunciation or satisfaction of one's desires? Ontologically, it is not even decided what the ultimate reality might be: matter in motion or the Tripartite Personhood of God? Epistemologically, there is a crisis of authority: whom do we trust? the evidence of our senses or revelation? To this day, some holdouts are still battling the Satanic forces of scientific humanism.

Here is where existentialism comes in. The clash of values was so far-reaching that it prompted some to break with classical philosophy entirely -- rejecting the Greek dictum "essence before existence,' which had held the field for 2000 years. Those who call themselves existentialists believe it is the other way around. 'Essences" are just concepts abstracted from the living flow of our experiences. Our individual existences come first -- essences are always posited later. But this puts a great burden of responsibility upon us, for we, in effect, create essences. Thus creativity enters the picture as an inevitable part of a universe we are making as we go along. If we are actually creating ontological categories, ethical values, and so on, rather than discovering them, creativity becomes a crucially important value, even a sacred one.

But it wasn't only a small circle of philosophers who labeled themselves 'existentialists" who were affected by this collision (Dostoevsky himself never used the word). The whole face of Western culture changed forever as hopes of fulfillment in this world (as opposed to the next) began to be kindled. The adjustments that all thinkers had to make in their thinking are fascinating. Here is a passage from Dr. Zhivago, for instance. Notice the blend of peculiarly modern doctrines such as Communism, historicism, Freudianism and cultural relativism with traditional Christianity.

As I was saying, one must be true to Christ. I'll explain. What you don't understand is that it is possible to be an atheist, it is possible not to know whether God exists, or why, and yet believe that man does not live in a state of nature but in history, and that history as we know it began with Christ, and that Christ's Gospel is its foundation. Now what is history? It is the centuries of systematic explorations of the riddle of death, with a view to overcoming death. That's why people discover mathematical infinity and electromagnetic waves, that's why they write symphonies. Now, you can't advance in this direction without a certain faith. You can't make such discoveries without spiritual equipment. And the basic elements of this equipment are in the Gospels. What are they? To begin with, love of one's neighbor, which is the supreme form of vital energy. Once it fills the heart of man it has to overflow and spend itself. And then the two basic ideals of modern man -- without them he is unthinkable -- the idea of free personality and the idea of life as sacrifice. Mind you, all this is still extraordinarily new. There was no history in this sense among the ancients. They had blood and beastliness and cruelty and pockmarked Caligulas who do not suspect how untalented every enslaver is. They had the boastful dead eternity of bronze monuments and marble columns. It was not until after the coming of Christ that time and man could breathe freely. It was not until after Him that men began to live toward the future. Man does not die in a ditch like a dog -- but at home in history, while the work toward the conquest of death is in full swing; he dies sharing in his work. Ouf! I got quite worked up, didn't I? But I might as well be talking to a blank wall.
We can see a cluster of concepts emerging during this period that completely transformed Western culture, especially ethics and political philosophy. One way we can approach this cluster of ideas is through Foucault's description: "it was a period when desire erupted into discourse." The Medieval period had defined the desires of ordinary people as lusts or sins, that is, as potential violations of taboos. Suddenly, with the unlocking of the secrets of nature and the spread of technology, the small hope was created that desires could be fulfilled in this world, during a regular human lifetime. Human desires came to be seen as "rightful needs" -- and lo and behold, society came to be seen as a vehicle for fulfilling them. Berdyaev called the clash of ethical values that resulted from this shift of paradigms the "Great Problem of Bread." No other issue cuts so deeply to the heart of ethics: feeding the masses began to seem as though it were an ethical imperative, and citizens of states began to seem to have "rights" to the fulfillment of their material needs.

Certain important Medieval values had to be dethroned to make room for this new value system. The "transvaluation of values" that Nietzsche spoke about actually took place, albeit without a race of Supermen. Here is a list of some of the more noticeable points of strain:

1. people came to be seen as having inalienable or built-in "rights," against which authorities could not assert their prerogatives, and remaking society to protect those rights seemed like a logical next step

2. blind obedience ceased to be a virtue, and instead came to be seen as an undesirable sign of slavishness

3.scientific investigation of the world was a good thing to do, since the material world was no longer seen as the province of the devil

4. sexual desire became a good thing to have, especially after Freud. No longer was sexuality seen in the context of sin and disruption of the social order, but was linked with mental health and creative energy

5. originality, creativity, individual brain-power were seen as powerful and effective, no longer overshadowed by the creativity at the beginning of time accomplished by God ex nihilo

6. self esteem came to be considered a positive, no longer labeled the sin of pride

7. the world's various religions and philosophies came to be studied anthropologically, which put them all on a par. Each was "true in its own way," paving the way for ethical and theological relativism. Atheism came to be seen as just another possible answer to the riddle of the universe

Materialism, anti-authoritarianism, human rights, the idea of the individual, "the emergence of the body." All of these burst on the scene almost all of a piece. The Great Chain of Being would never be the same again.

And when you think about it, no matter how nostalgic we might be for a world of stable "family values," no one really wants to give up human rights or scientific control over the environment. No one really wants to give up well being in this world as a desirable goal, or to give up confidence in one's own ability to create something entirely new and significant in the world.

But look what a stretch these new beliefs are for traditional theology! What happens to the belief that God created the world in all its completeness if it is admitted that our creativity brings something new into the universe? (Berdyaev had to bend Christian doctrine considerably here: he claimed our creativity constitutes an "Eighth Day of Creation," but this happy solution demands some theological juggling, as we will see.) What happens to God the Father as the authority underpinning the Ten Commandments? Do the Commandments become the Ten Suggestions?

Those thinkers, like Dostoevsky, who chose to salvage some aspects of Christianity had to struggle not to appear to be anachronisms or hypocrites. After his pioneering efforts, we can see a long line of Russian writers, including Zamyatin, Berdyaev and Pasternak. follwing in his footsteps. Without Dostoevsky, there might not have been that particular flowering of Russian literature, a flowering which served as a brilliant counterweight to Marxist dogma.

But why didn't Dostoevsky take the easy way out? Why didn't he simply side with the secular humanists in the face of the Great Intractable Problem of Bread? After all, one honest answer to the question: where is God now that scientific knowledge, not myth, rules our thinking, is "He is dead." Why not chuck out all of the old doctrines at once? That is what the "Great Atheists" of the turn of the century did: I am speaking of Nietzsche, Marx and Freud. Only children are captivated by imaginary mythological figures who hold threats of punishment over their heads for breaking rules. Maybe it is time for the human race to grow up; maybe it is time to throw off father figures, heavenly or otherwise, and build a better world along more rational and equitable lines.

It is not at all clear what is wrong with this, but not at all clear what a better world would be. One's conception of a better world has a lot to do with one's basic philosophical framework; if one believes that Nature is essentially a Kindly Mother, then one might recommend that the human race simply get "in step" with her. If, on the other hand, one has a conception of the universe as a threatening place, one might insist that only a social system which puts our "lower" Impulses in check, and maximizes our "higher" ones, is desirable. As William James noted, some religions (he called them the "healthy minded") prompt us to take the first position, while the "sick" ones load us down with a sense of sin and urge us to transcend "this world." I have noticed that possible positions to take on the issues of whether nature is our friend or foe, and whether or not it is desirable to transcend this world or transform it, can be arranged in a circle.

Here is a diagram depicting various positions; we could actually call these various positions responses to the problem of nihilism. Notice Dostoevsky's place in the spectrum: he sides with the Great Atheists when it comes to existential values; he agrees that the individual is the center of all value, but he stops short of condoning a view of the universe as rational, or even rationalizable (as Freud would have it). He is the one thinker on this circle that I think has a great deal in common with the figure directly opposite him (Walt Whitman), but the anguished confessions coming out of the mouths of many of his characters borrow heavily from Augustine's Confessions.

To continue with our quest . .. why, I am asking, is it that Dostoevsky walks halfway down the road with "The Great Atheists"of the nineteenth century, yet abruptly turns back? How does he end up differing from his European contemporaries so radically?

For an answer, let us return to the rise of the new world view we have just mentioned. We have said that antiauthoritarianism became a good thing. Perhaps it had become time for men and women to learn to make their own rules -- that is, to govern themselves. That's fine, but what if the rule under consideration is "thou shalt not murder"? Are we still being childish to hesitate to break that one?

Here is where Dostoevsky's thought recapitulates Gautama Buddha's: a clear-eyed scrutiny of the psychological consequences of such actions teaches us that the moral law will catch up to those who think they are above it. But his Christian and modern Western background pulls him away from a thoroughly Asian analysis: the individual soul, with all of its desires, is the most important thing on earth. Renouncing false pride, but not individuality or all striving, is Dostoevsky's idea of Right Conduct.

But just as Dostoevsky is not an Asian thinker, so he is not a Greek one, either. And here is where he differs so considerably from his contemporaries. Other thinkers have defended the "unconscious" or remarked upon the "absurdity" of the human condition, but they subtilely shift the scales back to rationality with the promise that we are capable of rationalizing the absurd, if only we are courageous enough, intelligent enough or psychoanalyzed enough to do so.

Dostoevsky, however, rejects a value system which idealizes reason. He does not hold rationality to be the governing faculty within our psyches, nor does he think it necessarily should be. In sharp contrast to the Greeks, his conception of ultimate reality is not Logos-based. Notes From Underground is the strong- est argument ever written against-a logocentric ontology. I find it very convincing. Look at humanity, he says. Does man look like a rational animal to you?

The sheer wealth of the schools of thought which come under Dostoevsky's knife in Notes From Underground is astounding. He scathingly dissects every contemporary scheme for social improvement, from liberal attempts to help us fulfill our rational self- interest to socialistic utopias. There we can find disparaging comments about the Darwinists, behavioral scientists, Westernizing artists (such as the cult of "the Good and the Beautiful" around Schiller), would-be Marxists, capitalists, in short, all Progressives. And we find not just mild comments suggesting that there is more to life than these visionaries realize, but truly vulgar comments involving harsh vocabulary and even harsher gestures with the middle finger. His satirical image of a respectable scientist whose desires can be predicted according to a railroad timetable, even down to how he, er, "cocks his head when he sticks out his tongue," is unforgettable (the Russian refers to another gesture).

I am convinced that he had to make his main character out to be a so-called "neurotic." The main character is painted as "perverse" precisely because he could not get by with saying what he does straight out. An era of social improvement on the upswing has no tolerance for criticism of its basic values. Dostoevsky was criticizing all of the major schools of though in his time before most of them were fully formed. only a "perverse" character that the reader expects to say awful and contradictory things would be tolerated by Dostoevsky's readers; after all, they were bound to agree with at least one of the doctrines he is attacking. Since he is assaulting the belief systems of his readers he has to use some pretty tricky literary mechanisms to defuse their resistance. one mechanism he uses is humor.

Andrew MacAndrew's translation is particularly humorous, and I think, faithful to at least one of Dostoevsky's intentions in this work. As Arthur Koestler tells us, laughter releases emotional energy that seconds before existed as some sort of aggressive tension. The greater the explosion of aggressive energy, the funnier the joke. Well, Dostoevsky is hitting his readers where they live here. The release of the psychic residue of shocked sensibilities in laughter is a wonderful device to insure that his readers do not simply "see red" and slam the book down in fury.

Some examples:

"I will admit that reason is a good thing. No argument about that. But reason is only reason, and it only satisfies man's rational requirements. Desire, on the other hand, is the manifestation of life itself -- of all of life -- and it encompasses everything from reason down to scratching oneself."

"I would even say that the best definition of man is: ungrateful biped."

"Man is somehow averse to the idea of being unable to desire unless this desire happens to figure on his timetable at that moment.

"swearing is man's prerogative, setting him apart from the other animals--"

"There's no need for free will to find that twice two makes four. That's not what I call free will!"

"And personally, I even feel that it's shameful to like just well-being by itself. Right or wrong, it's very pleasant to break something from time to time."

"Disregard what I said before about rejecting the crystal palace because I wouldn't be allowed to stick my tongue out at it. I said that not because I love sticking out my tongue, but because I've yet to see a building of yours at which one could refrain from sticking out one's tongue."

Now, all of these pointed remarks have one basic principle at the root: he is refusing to concede that society can be rationalized for our benefit. Society is no more rational than we are. At the heart of every person is a mystery, and we encounter that mystery through a kind of feeling, such as the feeling we might have in moments of self transcendence.

He insists on the sacredness of the individual, and bitterly hates any institution which oppresses individuals, but he defends the individual in the name of a sacred mystery shared between the individual and God, not in the name of man's "higher rational faculties." Ayn Rand would be simply appalled.

And if it is not our essence to be rational, then we cannot be counted upon to be good, either. If wo/man is an irrational animal whose desire to create a big effect in the world is typically a stronger motive than good sense, then any sort of good or evil is potentially lurking in us. We can see these good and evil schemes hatched in the minds of a broad range of Dostoevsky's characters.

Nicolai Berdyaev realized the theological implications of this insight, and claimed that God could not be responsible for the mystery at the heart of human beings. Ultimately, both God and humanity draw entirely new things out of the void, conceived of along the lines of the mystic Jacob Boehme's Ungrund. The universe, even before God burst onto the scene, consists of irrational darkness.

With marvelous excessive Russian willfulness, Underground Man literally tells Western logocentric man where to get off. And as far as I can see, Underground Man wins the debate. History has shown us that human irrationality doesn't go away, that plans for improvement often backfire. As Walt Whitman wrote: "every struggle makes a greater struggle necessary." Score one for the Underground Man.

This profound animus against all schemes to rationalize society for humanity's benefit stemmed from Dostoevsky's conviction that any such attempt to force humanity onto the Procrustean Bed of some "system" amounts to tyranny. This includes schemes that actually work -- those that enable men and women to increase their standard of living (or their "well-being"). But how could any sane person possibly take a stand against well-being?

We find the two parts of his answer in Notes From Underground and "The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor".The key point to remember, he believed, is that the desire for freedom and the desire for well-being are not identical. Unlike John Stuart Mill, who claimed that the desire for freedom was one (extremely important) component of our desire for happiness, Dostoevsky believed that the desire for freedom was often opposed to the desire for well-being. For instance, people can be bribed into renunciation of their ideals with promises of material benefits.

"The.Legend of the Grand Inquisitor" poses this dilemma: what if it were possible to make people happy by enslaving them? should we do it? What about the possibility of a perfect theocracy?

Since Dostoevsky hated tyranny in all its forms, he declared a perfect theocracy to be perfect tyranny. He depicts the Grand Inquisitor confiding to Alyosha that benevolent dictators (and the Inquisitor is one) are really working for "The other." With a transcendent Christian framework as dualistic as any from the Middle Ages, Dostoevsky is insisting that human beings must choose: freedom OR bread, freedom OR power and influence, freedom OR security. The good things of this life are more often than not glittering temptations for humanity, not cure-alls. You can see how profoundly he differs from the Marxists here; and of course, he is also casting a jaded eye on the comfortable ideals of Capitalist societies.

But Dostoevsky's own desires to remake society along the lines of Christian brotherhood, with the State as a guardian of true Christian ethics, comes disconcertingly close to a theocracy. He draws a very unsatisfying distinction between the (bad) Roman Catholic Church (to whom the Inquisition belongs) and the (good) Russian Orthodox Church which is not borne out by historical experience.

Here Dostoevsky's position as a writer, an artist, a non-philosopher, lets him off the hook. We don't need to get answers from him. And this is definitely a time when he leaves us with an open question.

He also could be accused of knowing nothing about Marxism, although I suspect it wouldn't change the diatribes of the Underground Man against socialized apartments one bit.

Another blind spot of his might be that he felt that Russia's mission was unique. He would have been surprised to read American authors and philosophers like Mark Twain, Emerson and Thorsborne -- to see how similar the mind set of Americans was to his own. Walt Whitman would have pleasantly surprised him, I believe. He didn't realize that another country felt the burden of the Great Problem of Bread as deeply as his native Russia. Americans have the same puzzling dualism as Russians; in one sense we have inherited a burden of Protestant guilt -- we really do feel it is our mission to remake the world into (as we put it) "a better place." But at the same time we are as profane and materialistic a nation as ever existed. No nation has taken pure well-being as an ideal more seriously than we have.

Like Russians, we exhibit the same readiness to embrace both a plethora of sects and blatant atheism. Mrs. Trollope, the mother of the famous author, toured this country during the last century and wrote a horrible description of us (The Domestic Manners of the Americans) which still reads exceedingly well. Mark Twain loved it. One of her comments fits Dostoevsky's Russia as well as it fits us: "a country full of religious extremism. Yet atheism is flourishing."

But Dostoevsky had only Europe for comparison with Mother Russia. In a world where millions cried for bread and land, and where the Christian religion was increasingly forced to acknowledge that the masses did deserve food, medicine and freedom from tyranny -- Dostoevsky insisted that bread and land can tempt people away from what is really important: our freedom to express our individual quirks, our desires, our whims ... the freedom to make our own mistakes ... to create something entirely new. He was a strong convincing voice against the philosophy of the desirability of the human ant-hill. Long before Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin or Hirohito, he cried "basta!" He insisted that the dictatorial schools of thought were wrong because their ethical philosophy was wrong. Material happiness (or "positive reinforcement") is NOT the highest ethical value. And their ethical philosophy was wrong because their ontology was wrong. Man is not a rational animal.

Moody
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 05:49 PM
While no-one would argue against Dostoevsky's greatness, - and the philosophical nature of his writing - , one could be permitted to ask; what of Russian Philosophy per se?
Where is the tradition of philosophy in Russia to compare with that of Greece, Germany, France or with that of the Anglo-Saxon world [let alone with that of India or China]?

I ask this question in the nature of one wanting to be enlightened - I add these links, but see that they all posit this question in one way or another;

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/russian.htm

http://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/phil_c_e.htm

http://www.slavweb.com/eng/Russia/philosophy-e0.html