Is there really Academic Nationalism?
Word Count 4,630
One of the reasons which prompted this essay, is the tremendous energy and division by, and through, our modern intellectuals.
There is a myriad of burgeoning intellectuals on the modern scene; both Left and Right. There is a cacophony of voices residing within the confines of the electronic media, and one may get their daily dose of rhetorical masturbation, as well as some very bright, lucid and engaging personalities.
I enjoy deep conversation, broad-reaching and comprehensive analysis of the present state of world-affairs, as well as the discussions concerning our Future. Moreover, it is important, if not intrinsic to our feelings of socialization, and spiritual exchange, to be exposed to those sincere, intelligent, and natural orators – like Jung, the essence of the Story, becomes the means by which the population-at-large learns, and learns most quickly. Once the narrative becomes infused with primary source material, alien in its prime cause, it is no wonder that the common man and woman become alienated as well.
Once inserted, an alien thought process is immediately at odds with the reality of a distinct race-soul, in this case, the West.
The Rise of the West is always precipitated by a foreign organism being inserted into the host body. This insertion, and the accompanying acceptance, weaken the will of a people, and is the symptom of death and racial instinct. This will, inevitably, lead to the deterioration of all public life and social intercourse on the level of spiritual consciousness. The once high levels of race-conscious leaders and intellectuals abdicate, in favor of the Modern.
As ‘private men’, they retain the semblance of national power. Everything, then, remains the same – it stagnates. No new ideas, no creation, no effort! The necessities of life are placed in juxtaposition with pleasure, the age-old pattern of pan et circenes of all decadent empires. This, then, produces the voluntary abandonment of the race-cultural creation that, over ten to twenty generations, and countless millions of souls that have given their ultimate sacrifice – their lives – in building this very race-culture from the deep abyss of history, and have then cast aside their sacrifice, and that of their ancestors, for bread and pleasure. This leads, inevitably, to the hatred of whoever or whatever practices and encourages the mass to entertain regimens of sternness, creation, and a sense of the future. With all this, through its many machinations, the absorption of the cultural or racial alien is secured.
In large enough numbers, or equally quantitative in relation to position[s] of power, a change becomes manifest; it may appear small or incidental in relation to the vast majority of a particular race-culture, specifically, a Western one in this discussion. It may appear innocuous in the local community or larger city. The local religious ‘center’ gives way to a new element, demonstrably different from the traditional western religious technics. Insignificant, it exists beside those institutions that have been a part of the cultural presence of the West for thousands of years. Soon, more begin to follow; soon there is a merging of the alien element, becoming larger politically and race-culturally. No longer, may one of the original race-culture respond to ancient beliefs – pluralism overshadows the ‘restrictive’ duties of a particular religious technic. This merging appears on all levels of society; like an octopus, its tentacles wrap around every idea, every greater idea, and strangles it. It does not kill; worse, it does not let it live.
Over the horizon, those of the West see the last great ideal of the Modern: Mediocrity.
Mediocrity1, as any rudimentary analysis will show and, by which all common aspirations are gauged, is the renunciation of all greater ideals, of effort; to all values relating to worth, worth of any kind whatsoever. It is a great leveling value, that massive ‘common denominator’, which leads only in a circuitous route to the original source, stagnation. To the race-culture, it strikes the heart; the leveling of the individual racial components, its genetic foundation, is manifest. The ancient and steady watch placed upon blood, upon breed, is now open to all comers. The dilution of generations of race-soul will be seen within a few generations; there is no race in particular, only the even, dull, and the mediocre. This is seen, all too frequently, on any street in a major city. (The reader need not look any farther than the center of his own town of any significant size; even the small and furtive ‘farm town’ is not to be forgotten in this equation – and this the most telling, since it is in the small rural settings that the youth of the West are the most capable of receiving the instructions of their peers and parents.) All this, of course, leads to a ‘democratic liberalism’ complex, making everyone equal: women are men, men are women. The human element of difference and uniqueness fades away into the will-o-the-wisp of the Modern.
This ‘complex’ originates with the Intelligentsia. It is, and has ever been the bolshevism of the 20th century. It is the so-called ‘cultural elite’, the denizens of money and the overstuffed pomposity of those who ‘claim’ to be educated, who are those who surrender and show any sympathy whatsoever to the enemies of the West, cloaking their effeminate natures behind the podium of academia, or the titles of paper nobility afforded to them. It is liberalism in a truly ‘liberal sense’, which would teach, as a common imperative, to treat others than yourself as you would be treated – Western evolution is replete with these various experiments which demanded that individuals be cognizant of nature and her human counterparts by which all would then live in relative peace and harmony, confined in each and similar political technics.
This was the golden-rule of our ancestors; a practice which has worked, and worked well, amongst those of the West. This, like all Western values, has become a liberal reality, but has been twisted, and is now based on Revolution and Institution. Intellectuals always played a pivotal part in this evolution.
They look to their own for instruction; and if there is a will, a will which comes not from the halls of invidiousness but, rather, from the well of the common folk, a paradox occurs – instead of taping and sharing the common experience* of their kinsmen, they would insulate themselves away from those persons who require their expertise the most! The liberal knows, or should know, the elements of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, those elements so necessary to the struggling character of any people, and that, which can be manipulated and controlled by persons more astute than his fellows. This, the reason for liberal philosophy – to protect those who have been wronged, this is true liberalism – it is only his excess, which puts him in danger. As the demise of the intelligentsia draws ever near, the weight of burden placed, artificially I might add, upon the liberal becomes even more fraught with excess. More ‘statutes’ must be introduced which, by its very nature, becomes restrictive to the populace as a whole – the battle for liberty and freedom becomes the tool by which the Modern seeks ever to enslave. The new-speak of the Modern: the more the protection [restriction] the more the freedom [slavery]. Look to the examples of the French Revolution and the Petrine Nobility of Russia for a ready-made example of what has happened over the past several generations. Neither of these examples, from the top down, knew of their decadence.
All of this, at first blush would, seemingly, be devoid of any true nationalism, at least seen by today’s standards.
Looking back into antiquity, and this is precisely what makes identity so manifest, is that we in the West can, and must, rely upon those who came before, those voices, even in their own day, were individual commentaries on the organic whole; it is observable that our ancestors did, in fact, see with a clearer vision, perhaps, that to identify psychologically with their surroundings was tantamount to being in the present, that rational understanding of who they were, exactly, as part of a larger and systemic reality.
Take Aristotle, for instance, would Alexander have had the larger world-view, as an individual, if he had not been mentored by a member of his Folk-community who, it must be noted, was an academic? Plato? These men did have a unique view of what comprised the West at that time. The term ‘nation states’ may seem primitive by today’s standards, yet it propelled the idea of nation at every turn.
Not so much in modern Academia.
In my observation, Dr. Jordan Peterson is the first academic, fully inducted in the present University system, to make a case, albeit designed in the formulaic construct of a more insidious discipline of modern Psychology2 and, as of yet, has not been completely vilified. This will come, however, if he continues his present defense of Western culture. Indeed, the attacks will come from the very peers he so dutifully respects.
Dr. Kevin MacDonald3, assiduously promoting a discipline of rational observation (evolutionary psychology in the areas Culture and Psychology has, like many before him in American academia, paid a heavy price professionally and personally. Dr. MacDonald’s seminal works are not to be discounted, and I encourage everyone to read them. Anti-semitism, has been the favored charge against this honourable man, since his inquiry into ‘culture’ has focused on some of the minds responsible for so much of our academic reasoning in the field of Psychology, and those ‘standards’ more commonly associated with the ‘values’ of the West.
The nationalism of members of Academia, at least in the West, has been pronounced. It remains to be seen, if we are able to reinsert this positive aspect of race-cultural identity in the future, with any telling force. It is my belief that we are well on our way to this conclusion. Moreover, the lack of a telling victory will, most assuredly, be that of our Torch of liberty and race-cultural imperatives, to be passed onto others, more vital and young, both in physiological terms, as well as a more youthful vision of what ‘could be’, such as Russia is starting to present the world. I am not, necessarily averse to this propisition, but do see the loss of the Westernesse of a more Continental experience, to be a great loss.
Therefore, I and others, will still fight the good fight, to maintain the nationalism of our past and future, constantly in our thoughts and actions.
If men like Dr.’s MacDonald and Peterson are to exist, even if at variant poles, then the realization of the natural organic body of the Nation, proper, that is, the Race and its encumbant Identity, must be maintained – at this, specifically, is our West – against all odds.
What is the ‘rational principle’, that governs and develops the universe? This is Logos. Ever a Western principle, to develop a principle! Philosophers still ponder this; as well, Psychologists. But what is a principle, which cannot be used in the hear and now? Government, religion, each in turn, have tried to provide a principle by which we may attain a certain unanimity, a certain humanity, one to the other. The West, of all the race-cultures on the planet have, in my mind, come the closest to providing all with these blessings. Have there been excesses, to be sure. The cultural-Marxist would point this out in extremis, and expect all in opposition to dwell on these excesses at the expense of all other considerations, as if this is the sum-total of the entirety of Westernesse.
We offer this consideration:
There is some merit to the allegations by some, that modern democracy has become the ‘new’ communism of the present age. The ‘egalitarianism’ of Karl Marx, for instance, or Lenin’s political dictums concerning ‘aristocracy’ and ‘monarchy’ included the ‘democratic’ ideal of the ‘masses’ which, taken to the extreme, ushered in the enslavement of the very mass the communists claimed to speak for. Laws of an extremely excessive nature ‘forced’ the mass to accept the ‘leveling’ of their society in the name of ‘progress’. No Hereditary or Traditional institutions were allowed to remain, since it was ‘through these selfsame institutions’ that the ‘people’ had been denied ‘choices’ of their own; to be sure, the decadence of the existing leadership was obvious, and cannot be discounted as reasons for such wide-spread discontent, but to replace the old with democracies of the mob, is to say that the only prescription necessary for an ailment is poison.
The Dialectics of Hegel [George Wilhelm Frederich Hegel, born 1770, Germany] was essentially in opposition to the ‘marxist/lenninist’ doctrine but, nevertheless, was studied by the revolutionist of both the Menshevik party and the Bolsheviks in Russia were not the logical dynamics of ‘negation’ and ‘knowledge’. Hegel was fascinated by the works of Spinoza, Rousseau, Kant, and Goethe and by the revolution of France. Modern philosophy, culture, and society seemed to Hegel fraught with contradictions and tensions [the ‘struggle’ in ‘natural law’], such as those between the ‘subject’ and ‘object’ of knowledge, mind and nature, ‘self’ and ‘other’ [inner and outer man], freedom and authority, knowledge and faith, the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Hegel’s main philosophical project was to take these contradictions and tensions and interpret them as part of a comprehensive, evolving, rational unity that, in different contexts, he called “the absolute idea” or “absolute knowledge”.
The modern claims that ‘freedom’ is the higher value. But this simply is Idea. It stands alone as Idea.
But what of Honour? Is it not a ‘higher’ ideal? Is it not higher, because without it, there would be no freedom?! The idea of freedom is inconceivable without honour, and so likewise. The soul is capable of good in and of itself. No dalliance with the almighty will assure honour or freedom. That comes from within; it comes from the soul marked with Honour, and which begets Freedom.
The renaissance, then, was the transvaluation of those values inherited from that Levantine thought of Byzantium, through the last vestiges of the Roman empire (so-called ‘holy’); yet, that empire had truly died with Marcus Aurelius. It had become a reassertion of Western thought. The ‘stoic’ philosophy of a dying Rome added just the right amount of poison to a senile ‘civilization’, which ultimately led to the Renaissance itself. But to what purpose? To what scheme of things?
In the ‘scheme of things’, to the student of causality, what is the purpose, what is the meaning of such radical change, of such transvaluation? The cause, or ‘scheme of things’, will ever be that sense of real culture-purpose which, will ever and anon, be the ‘purpose’, of and by itself, which wills itself to show the world its inner most purpose. So, it was, that this renaissance showed to the entire world that it was race, and by definition, its culture, which was to be seen [visually], and which was to rule [demonstrably].
It was into this age, this modern age of Western man that a re-awakening showed itself in a unique ‘culture-purpose’ for the world to see. Not since Alexander had such a cultural-becoming been seen: The purpose of culture was finally realized. It was to the ennobling of the individual, to which culture owed its very heartbeat and, hence, to the organic body; that is, the Race-culture.
Erasmus, Bacon, Cervantes to name a few, defined this process; each in turn, seeing a part of the growing consciousness. Yet, it was much more, this renaissance, than simply the extension of the Liberal Arts. It was, and always is the convolution of a new birth: But it was more – it was the interplay of amity and enmity. It was ‘man within’ and ‘man without’. It was the inner feeling, that spiritual guide, which was to speak for the race-culture saying: ‘…all things foreign must be kept out…all things foreign existing must be cut out…’ which was crying out to be heard. It was to the very survival of that inner core of culture-bearers, which must survive at all costs; for it is, precisely, these ‘culture-bearers’, like the individual, who are the healthiest, for they live only for the continuation and benefit of the whole. This growing consciousness would transmit itself time and again to future generations, sometimes clearly and sometimes with unintended dimness. In a word, the Renaissance was the ‘Unconscious’ expression of the race-culture; that very sense of survival, which ever and anon, seeks its own survival, at the expense of the whatever lies ‘outside’ itself. It is the Race Memory seeking to extend itself by reissuing the experiences of the ancestors as empirical proof of its own self worth. This feeling ultimately led to a re-ordering of their society: The Reformation.
It is well true, that in some cases this transvaluation, this experience, is oft times the violent reactions of a people that has resented a foreign presence as not being a natural part of itself4; sensing a change in direction unfamiliar with sound historical reason; or changes in specific or general [public] thought processes of the race-culture. It is reaction. In addition, while a true ‘reactionary’ is limited by the emotional elixir of the moment, it is nevertheless the impetus, which should show the way to his more rational, yet nonetheless courageous, cousin. This process is seen clearly in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment respectively. In more benign clothing perhaps, we see another birthing, a growing sense of aspiration and purpose, although just as revolutionary in the battleground of the Arts.
Thoughts and ideas are continually at odds. Expression of these thoughts and ideas are constantly being promoted. The Modern loves the conflagration, the confusion, and the obfuscation of what ‘art’ has always represented: The simple display of beauty, courage, love, devotion, form, and vitality of the human spirit is downplayed, even discouraged, by the modern, for he knows that deeply ingrained in the common man and nobility alike, there is a resonance, which truly transcends class. Art was that medium, which was truly democratic: if every worth was equal, then the art of the day would trace that equality. Spirit in man may designate equality, but truly, the visual arts decree the superior and inferior. Let the Modern paint this, as he will. He will be judged by what he portrays on his canvass.
As the Egyptian hieroglyphs were to the ancients, in their unique balance of line and angle so, also, in the Western period of 1500-1700* [a.d.]; for even the Greeks and Romans had not actualized the becoming of its race-culture as did these, for their respective time periods. This is simply the will to express oneself. It is this constant searching to express oneself, for expression, which has marked the West. Was it not, after all, from the canvasses of Rubens, Pousin, Botticelli, Titian, Da Vinci, David, and Caravaggio that the essence of the West finally began to awaken? *
If one were to carefully analyze the tangible and intangible elements of each higher-culture, one would most likely see that the manifestation of purpose was seen in the visual and written arts of that particular culture and, more importantly, is inextricably bound with it. As stated above, the Egyptian hieroglyphs were line and angle, and beautiful no doubt when viewed by their creators. But from our point of view, this art was ‘flat’, and not representative of what we see in the environment that surrounds us. Their reality was not ours. Thus the duality of consciousness.
Art, as a perspective, brings out the ‘psychic’ picture of each and every artist. To bring such a ‘perspective’ to the eye of the observer is a mystical one. It was this mysticism, regardless of the medium employed, which brought about the ennobling of the individuals or people who shared in this perspective.
Western art, deeply held that mysticism was part and parcel to the examination of the ‘body and spirit’, which enabled the individual to express himself in ways and means that heretofore had been seen only on the rarest of occasions. The Renaissance brought out much that was unseen, at least within the boundaries expressed by this movement, by allowing the artist to burst out, so to speak, with colours, draftsmanship (all true sciences), and a realistic ‘perspective’ (allowing three dimensional viewing) specifically on the ‘canvasses’ of the modern artists. This full colour was, and can be seen with all art, an expression of the inner mind (i.e. the individual outlook on personality, rage, courage, love, war, etc.) both from the artist himself and the viewer who is contemplating the specific work. In contemplating this very same art, it was possible, unlike the Grecian art of ages past; one could ‘see’ the story behind the art (in its minute form). Art had become a medium to explore the greater elements of nature and Life; of spirituality, and leadership; of manliness, and poetry.
The mysticism of Allegory, of Fable, of Myth, that epoch-creating motif of a people was brought to bear by such men as Rubens, Titian, David, Girodet, and Pousin told of the original mystical spirit of the West. To be sure, these artists were schooled in the ‘styles’ and ‘traditions’ of Greek classical art. But more than typical ‘classicism’ in art was their teacher. The ‘total’ history of their past, our past, included the common history of the Nordic, Roman/Celt, East European race-cultures. The total panorama of their art was of a ‘family of men’, the men of the West. This ‘art’ described the complete breaking away from the art of the past, and described in lucid and compelling pictures of the race-culture; it was the ‘story of the ages’ for all to see and share. It was the storytelling motif of the history of our ancestors, of its very antecedents. It broke the confines of Orthodox Church dogma.
Once the floodgates were open, there was no turning back.
Architecture, for instance, brought to bear by Archimedes, was utilized in its own artistic fashion to ‘house’ this very art: the Gothic cathedrals of Milan, Tours, Notre Dame, Mt. St. Michael and others (who were often targeted for destruction by the armies of the allies in the second fratricidal war in the last century) and others which were the epitome of the Western soul in actualizing, in the ‘outward form’, the total essence of its spirit, while the canvass art showed the deep, rich, ‘inner spirit’. The tangible and intangible made manifest.
These great and beautiful cathedrals were designed on a four-square pattern; balance and symmetry being understood to best represent the balance of Heaven, Earth, body, and soul. A curiously ‘pre-christian’ belief. From every angle, one’s eye is drawn simultaneously to its entrance as well as its ‘spires’ pointing, as it were, to a higher power, antennae, perhaps, to assemble those unseen frequencies in the mind of the attendant. Each doorway and façade reduces in size, bringing one’s mind into sharp relief, as if concentrating on focusing the thought process.
Conversely, the spires rising straight up pierce the sky, a pathway to the greater God himself. As one enters the main entrance, a porthole to that deep, somber inner space, one is shunted down further and further into deepest consciousness. As the columned, arched ceiling stood above you, creating that ‘womb-like’ feeling of protection, surrounding you. Traveling deeper into this majestic cavern, it is the various forms of art, particularly that of the canvass art, which draw one, on an unbroken travel into that inner space of the psychic, of the mystical. One’s eye follows each frame, is moved by each distinct contour of colour, centering one’s mind on the theme of each. Each picture essentially providing the context of the very place and time of its telling; the mystical connection between the inner and outer man.
In this spiritual, mystical repose, one begins to wander, and once again the very structure of the inner sanctum compels the individual to look up into those majestically vaulted ceilings, feeling insignificant, knowing that the power of God must, indeed, be immense. The atmosphere is dark, and mystical, corners and pockets illuminated or dense, creating a feeling of aloneness, shared only by the paintings themselves.
The mind is an amazing mechanism, and will fill in the vacancies, even if on a primordial level; the presence which one feels will overwhelm him, will consume him. His spirit then, will begin to soar. Perhaps, if he listens closely he, truly, will hear that ‘still small voice’ so often described by mystics and prophets. This edifice, truly, is the place made by man, that is the closest to the cathedral of Nature herself.
All of this, of course, began long before the ‘modern’ cathedrals of the Renaissance. To be sure, the complex structures, engineering, and ‘typology’ was an evolutionary one. The Chinese, even before the 13th century, was complex. In fact, the ‘lineal-line’ of history of the modern, even though not thoroughly mean spirited, does not even trace their ‘cultural-civilization’ as they would of the West. Any student of the West will, if he is honest, seek to understand the interrelatedness of all cultures: some to a lesser or greater extent. How much of Western technology relating to the physical sciences of architecture were borrowed or copied? Perhaps quite a lot. Chinese technology was considerably more developed then that of the early medieval West, and after the middle of the 13th century there was a fair amount of knowledge available concerning China It seems likely today, that the ‘unity-of-mankind’ Modern will overreach in the matter by overstating the influence of Chinese ‘priority’, which is undoubted, to Chinese causual influence as the hidden author of Western mechanics. But this is not necessarily on target. Consider this: The epoch we are discussing was supra-natural, and the five-hundred years, which we are over-seeing was but an extraordinary spark which shines the brighterfor our attention. There were no Chinese blueprints nor Chinese engineers available to teach the West. At most, there were scattered whisperings of this or that invention, or building, or science. It was, and is, the Faustian logic of our Western people: we were willing to try and emulate, from anyone, a good Idea. The kingdoms of the Levant, Africa, or India were not the same; yet, they had much greater influence, and were influenced by the Chinese civilization. The point here is that as a ‘presence’, or a state of mind, it was the West who stands out. Yes, the ‘vision’ of a people may be seen in many sciences, but Art defines the embryonic, and rising spirit.
Does all this not come from the Mind?
Psychology, and its related sciences, must needs be the conduit, but not necessarily the final arbiter, of the values, indeed, the moral implications of the desires and predilections of an individual or a collective, for this latter is what is causing so much of commotion today. Identity politics, if that can be a true description, is about the individual a million-fold. It is these similarities, this natural glue, so to speak, that is the topic of this Age, and what the mind can envision, it can achieve.
It is a powerful time, a time not just for reflection and learning, but one of sacrifice for the greater good. It is not a time for self-doubt. A man and woman can do great things, impossible things, for what they truly Love.
In my mind, Love is the greatest of these principles.
Yes, this is all Logos. I think of this as a combination of principles, this logos. This, truly, is Enlightenment.
There is so much more to add, but that is for another time.
* Here now we speak of a common denominator, a common Race, and common racial experience, [i.e. as was the United States up to the Second War of Fratricide].
2 Modern “thinkers”, many of whom are, themselves, a unique ethno-centric group, have abounded throughout the past century, contributing thoughts and ideas that are new, but not necessarily healthy to our Western body-politic, and continue to the present day. Men like Dr. Peterson will, at some point, have to reexamine the intentions, if not the science of some of these individuals. Example:
PHILOSOPHERS: Mortimer Adler, Hannah Arendt, Morris Cohen, Erwin Edmanm Sidney Hook, Abraham Kaplan, Herbert Marcuse, Robert Nozic, Murray Rothbard, Paul Weiss.
POLITICAL SCIENTISTS: Stanley Hoffman, Hans Kohn, Walter Laquur, Hans Morganthau, Saul Padover, Adam Ulam.
SOCIALISTS: Daniel Bell, Peter Drucker, Amitai Etzioni, Nathan Glazer, Philip Hauser, Paul Lazarsfield, Seymour Lipset, Robert Merton, Davis Reisman, Lewis S. Feuer, Arnold R. Ross.
PSYCHOLOGISTS: Franz Alexander, Eric Berne, Bruno Bettleheim, Erik Erikson, Victor Frankl, Erich Rromm, Bairn Ginott, Robert Lifton, Abraham Laslow, Thomas Szasz.
The above List should be viewed with the understanding that it is not simply the ‘singular’ individuals represented, but the Institutions and, perhaps more importantly, the ‘students’ and acolytes (as many of these specific individuals reigned a half-century ago) which then take these misaligned messages, and in some cases, perversions of the empirical sciences, then pass on these race-based agendas to the majority populace as truth and acknowledged social progression. FLS
4Note: It is this expression, this realization, which psychologists and academics must come to grips with, as they ineluctably try and balance this natural biological and spiritual manifestation, with what to them, is a more ‘reasoned’ approach. How then, may I ask, is this always possible, indeed, is this always correct, to hold oneself back from a righteous sense of indignation and sense of betrayal, and not react with righteousness? Balance, of course, is fundamental to Western thought, evidence being the prime cause of our natural ethos. You, the reader, will be the judge of this. FLS
*Here we speak of the juxtaposition of values. The fact that we as a Western stock, today, see no ‘value’ artistically in the two-dimensional value of Egyptian art is not to demean it; rather, let the fact that even as the Greeks beheld the beauty of the human body, its form, the three-dimensional quality of their perception, that the advance of the Egyptian in ‘becoming’ more than their ancestors was mind boggling, so also the West, through the eyes of Da Vinci, and those of his generation and beyond, than their previous ancestors.
*If one were to carefully analyze the tangible and intangible elements of each higher-culture, one would most likely see that the manifestation of purpose was seen in the visual and written arts of that particular culture. Let me here anticipate the Modern. He, of course, will exclaim that this, precisely, is the ultimate beauty of our modern order; that it is the inclination of every artist to follow his or her inner most being – regardless of what that inclination may be. Hardly. Using Elephant dung, urine, or whatever putrid element deemed worthy to make a ‘point’ is exactly why we condemn it. It is the agenda, the thought process, which we condemn; the visual depiction speaks for itself. Yes, artists have a right to expression, even an unlimited right, but we do not have to view it; and certainly, the State must, if it chooses to buttress the one must, absolutely, buttress the other mental process: That of the romantic, the racialist, the lovers of beauty as seen by artists, which ascribe to concepts such as man and woman as partners and lovers; in the deeper context of Nationhood as extension of Blood and Soil; of the many realists who would paint in the Prime symbols of the past, of the shared values of our tribal existence, in short, artists who see the life around them as extensions of the past, which, if shared with their contemporaries, would promote that racial memory and vitality so necessary for the survival of the race itself. FLS