Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: The Spiritual Nature of Family and Property

  1. #1
    Senior Member paraplethon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 04:55 AM
    Australia Australia
    Tasmania Tasmania
    Green Right
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    The Spiritual Nature of Family and Property

    This was written by Kerry Bolton in 1995 and was later included in his collection of essays "From the Right; a Conservative Broadside against Free Trade, Liberalism, American Subversion" published in 2000 by Renaissance Press.
    It remains pertinent today.

    How one regards property is a reflection of one's aesthetic and sense of who one is. Property is a cultural expression. A stereo for e.g. may be a necessity for the sub-human mentality that requires a constant loud noise without which it feels uneasy. Alternatively, it will be valued by another type of individual for the opportunity it gives to intoxicate oneself with the compositions of Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven et al. That piece of technology, like property generally, is neutral, until imbued with the aesthetic of its owner. And it is culture that makes us human, and it is at the individual level where it is expressed creatively as an inheritance of one's collective cultural heritage spanning millenia.

    A plot of land, even a small backyard, to one type of individual will be at most a convenient site upon which to dump a discarded car around which the grass and weeds can grow at will. To another type a small plot of land will be a means by which he can connect at least on some level with something organic amidst an otherwise urban existence; to tend a vegetable garden or a flower bed, or plant a tree. At this the sophisticated urbanised, caffeine addicted, frenetically paced careerist (and increasing number of youth of all classes) in this Winter phase of our Western Civilisation can but sneer. However, such are the only means by which many still possessing soul can grasp at something which is alive.

    Oswald Spengler, one of the most relevant Thinkers for our time, said it particularly well in "The Hour of Decision":

    There is one other thing that belongs of necessity to a ripe Culture. That is PROPERTY. Property, that is, in the original sense; old and permanent possessions, inherited from forefathers or acquired over long years by the heavy and devoted work of the owner and cherished and increased for his sons and grandsons... It is not a question of HOW MUCH one has but of WHAT one has and the way in which one has it. Mere quantity as an end in itself is vulgar.

    I am speaking of property-owning in so far as it implies the tradition of a Culture. It signifies inward superiority: it marks a distinction from whole classes of people. Not much is needed: a small well-preseved homestead, a worthy craft reputedly practiced, a tiny garden bearing evidence of cultivation by loving hands, a miner's spotless home, a few books or reproductions of classical art. The point is that these objects should be transformed into a PERSONAL world, should bear the stamp of the owner's personality. True possessions are soul, and only through that soul Culture. To estimate them by their money value is, however you look at it, either incomprehension or a desecration. To divide them after the owner's death is a sort of murder...

    But who realises this? Who today has eyes and feeling for the inward, almost metaphysical difference between property and money? True estates are those with which one is inwardly bound up, as is a warrior with the arms which he takes to the grave with him as his property, a farmer with the farm on which his forefathers worked, a merchant of the old type with his firm which bears the family name, a true craftsman with his workshop and his calling: something, in a work, whose value cannot be expressed in words but only in a close tie, the breaking of which means death...
    Ethical Socialism

    This conception of property is what Spengler means when he refers to Socialism. It is what the neo-Spenglerian philosopher Francis Parker Yockey calls ethical socialism. Conservatism is not necessarily the antitheis of 'socialism'; it is the antitheis of Marxism and most other forms of socialism which place property on a purely material level. As we have seen above, the Conservative sees property as having a spiritual quality, as being impressed with the soul of the owner.

    This is why it is that Conservatism can champion private property, while refering to its own kind of socialism - ethical socialism. As Spengler states in "The Decline of the West" when describing how the power of the banks dominates in the late phase of Civilisations, there generally arises a reaction against the power of money:

    If we call these money-powers "Capitalism", then we may designate as Socialsim the will to call into life a mighty politico-economic order that transcends all class interests...
    It is this ethical socialism or "duty sense" that subordinates economics again to the service of politics and not vice versa. Thus, money is no longer the master of the Nation, but the servant; once again resuming its proper function as a means of exchanging goods and services, and siezing to be a commodity in itself. For as Spengler points out and as we are witness to with the Free Trade doctrine under both Labour and National Governments, "the private powers of the economy want free paths for their acquisition of great resources. No legislation must stand in their way. They want to make the laws themselves, in their interests..."

    Spengler points out that the Socialism of the Marxists is itself "capitalistic", as the object of the Marxist and social democratic movements, including the trade unions, is "not to overcome the money-values, but to possess them."

    Hence as Spengler first pointed out, and as various Conservative historians have continued to point out ever since, this materialistic socialism, having arisen as the morror image of Free Trade during the 19th Century is, "nothing but the trusty henchman of big Capital, which knows perfectly well how to make use of it."

    Elsewhere in the same volume Spengler states:

    "There is no prolertatian, not even a communist, movement that is not operated in the interest of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money - and that, without the idealist amongst its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact."
    Just how prophetic Spengler tuned out to be we can now see from the fact of the colossal debt the Cummunist bloc incurred from the global banks, and the manner in which the whole Communist edifice came crumbling down once plutocracy had finished with it.


    It is the family that gives and eternal organic dimension to one's property, to the will not only to possess but also to bequeath. The family is the most fundamental, elementary unit of a People and the People is in turn the collective, cultural expression of bonded families. It is the individual's most intimate, personal symbol of Blood - continuity. The family is the symbol of the Eternal made meaningful in the most personal way to the individual, without which everything else is mere abstraction. It is what gives the individual rootedness, without which there is alienation. It is one's anchorage without which one is lost in the nebulousness of ideological abstractions such as 'humanity' and 'world brotherhood', which can never command any meaningful loyalty.

    Property and Family as the two primary expressions of organic bonding are therefore the principal targets of those who seek to create a new serfdom, whether it be called industrial capitalism or Marxism - both ultimately expressions of the same materialistic attack against the Western soul.

    Marx smugly pointed out that industrial capitalism, having uprooted the peasantry from the soil and made of it an urban, rootless prolertariat, would have an increasingly negative impact on both family and property, thus paving the way for his Communist utopia. Spengler was a better prophet: it wasn't capitalism that paved the way for Communism, but Marxism that helped pave the way for plutocracy, while Marxism lies dead and buried. At least Marx's diagnosis of capitalism was correct, for the family has become a victim of materialism and consumerism. Substitutes for the traditional male/female pair bonded family are lauded, even the homosexual 'couple'. Again a symptom of our time is revealed in a recent survey of British fathers which found that for MOST play with their children doesn't even rate as a past time; it doesn't even compete with television watching or some inane sport.

    The breakdown of family life is coupled with declining fertility rates in the Western world, as a symptom of the life-weariness of our Civilisation. At this stage of senility a Civilisation enters "upon a stage which lasts for centuries, of appalling depopulation". Referring to the example of Classical Civilisation, Spengler writes: "The population dwindled, quickly and wholesale. The desperate marriage and children laws of Augustus, the wholesale adoptions, the incessant plantation of barbarian soldiers to fill the depleted countryside, the immense food charities for the children of poor parents - nothing availed to check the process."

    Under the impress of libertarianism, which has been more subversive of traditional values than anything acheived by Communism, both the family and the concept of property have been undermined. The libertarian decries the number of solo-parents, not because of the decline of the traditional family, but because of the burden on State tax revenue. Their answer is to put the solo-parent out to work and leave the rest to childcare agencies.

    So too has the rural basis of New Zealand been eroded by a two-way process of both the depopulation of the countryside and the simultaneous urbanisation of the green belt. Under the burden of bankers' debt (payment of interest on bank loans is the single largest item of farm expenditure) the farmer is sought out by estate agents to sell his farm for the purposes of housing subdivision. The countryside is being systematically despoiled.

    While the Left has largely taken over the ecological cause under the impetus of "Green" politics, the defence of rural communities was historically the preserve of Conservatism, representing the yeoman and gentry against the encroachments and lure of the city and of industrial capitalism, while Marx's answer was to refer in "The Communist Manifesto" to the "idiocy of rural life"(sic).

    We must find our way back to what is organic, to natural bonds, restore New Zealand as a rural Nation, where the farmer is honoured not only as the sustainer of our economic life, but as the focus of spiritual and cultural renewal. Let new ballads sing the praises of rural life and art reflect the health of the rural community rather than the nihilistic formlessness of urban neurosis. Let our children be taught, even in city schools, how to work not only a computer but also a spade and hoe.
    Last edited by paraplethon; Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 04:04 PM. Reason: A correction...

Similar Threads

  1. Natural Pantheism: a Spiritual Approach to Nature and the Cosmos
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Friday, November 30th, 2007, 12:09 PM
  2. Jewish Family Steals Berlin Property
    By Theudanaz in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 02:25 AM
  3. World War 2 - Pictures from my family´s property
    By Zyklop in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Friday, September 10th, 2004, 05:12 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts