Usually it is a bad idea to work out internal disagrements in the middle of a blitz against another site, but I have to make an exception on this occasion.

Original Nobility is the concept that distinguishes Aryanism from traditionalism. It is the belief that nobility is our starting spiritual condition, from which we degrade by contact with the world. Our whole struggle is a struggle to revert to what we used to be. There exist people who appear to admire nobility, but who believe nobility is ACQUIRED from without (e.g. via education), rather than ARISING from within. They are traditionalists, not Aryanists. Aryanism is strongly opposed to ‘acquired nobility’ because it has the potential to mask inner ignobility and hence lead to confusion between Aryans and imitators and ultimately sabotage the selection process.

http://swordofelysium.blogspot.com/2011/01/observations-around-society.html

Miecz said:

As the mature rank of society it is the duty of adults to determine what is best for kids and not letting the as of yet uneducated kids make their own decision.

That is a statement I’d expect to hear from traditionalists. As an Aryanist, I have the following concerns:

1) By not letting the kids make their own decisions, we are not allowing them to separate themselves by inner quality, from which we can select them.

2) The adults, being more corrupted by the very culture that Miecz is complaining about, are the last people I would trust to make any decisions on behalf of a less corrupted generation.

3) The kids, being as yet less educated by the very culture that Miecz is complaining about, are far more likely to make good decisions.

“When you offer a child the choice of a piece of meat, an apple or a cake, it’s never the meat that he chooses. There’s an ancestral instinct there. In the same way, the child would never begin to drink or smoke if it weren’t to imitate others.” - Adolf Hitler

Aryanism must be fundamentally optimistic towards children and their innate goodness, otherwise we do not really believe in Original Nobility.

If we let kids choose, soon many of them will not be able to comprehend the value of hard work and 30% will be obese

Even if this were true, as Aryanists we should allow this to happen. That 30% will be the 30% that won’t be permitted to reproduce. Whereas by short-circuiting this process through disallowing kids to choose, you pour that 30% back in, defeating the entire purpose of our distillation tower. You would also be endorsing slavery. (And this is why traditionalists do not really care about nobility, because they see no problem with using slavery to ‘achieve’ it.)

adults are not being tyrannical or despotic, they are being instructive

Your inclusion of this line suggests that you instinctively recognized the tyranny. That is a good sign, Miecz! From our other conversations, I truly believe you are an Aryanist, not a traditionalist, at heart. Hopefully I am getting through to that part of you with this post. Jews are not being ‘instructive’ when they try to fill our heads with their kosher education, they are being tyrannical. They are herding us. Similarly, adults who behave in such a way are herding children. We are not herders, we are farmers. Our crops are free to grow towards the sun or away from the sun. We then choose those which grow towards the sun for our field. It is no duty - it is abuse - to forcefully bend towards the sun those who are repelled by sunlight; our duty is to make sure we do not block the sunlight from those who seek it.

“Some children have so much vitality that they can’t sit still, and won’t and can’t concentrate their attention. It seems to me useless to try to force them. I understand, of course, that such an attitude annoys the teachers. But is it just to deprive a child of the possibilities that life offers him, simply because he’s unruly?” – Adolf Hitler

Older posts on related topics:

http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/education-issues/

http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/preparing-us-for-the-slave-whip/

32 Responses to “Focus: Original Nobility”
  1. Andrew says:

    Excellent post. We are not traditionalists. We are Aryanists. We want Folk, Purpose, Culture and an overall united nation. If we are traditionalists, then certainly we can support the traditions of Jewish criminals (such as kosher slaughter, Talmudic ideology, etc.). The children are our future. The adults do not matter. The youth will be our future workers, so we must assist those who seek revolution into our path.

    Best regards.

  2. I must admit that I made the same error as Miecz not long ago. I had a somewhat difficult and painful confrontation with Original Nobility, but I now begin to understand how sentience is adversely affected by current education, social and cultural conditioning, unfortunately it makes me more accutely aware of how much I have lost, hence causing me trepidation.

  3. Targeted says:

    interesting 12 january swedish nationalist webNewspage nationell.nu
    Did an article about Traditionalism. It brought up some parallels with islam and that it differs from nationalism, not how its different or so and not something like in this article. A comment in the article would probably reach the author also.
    Authors on this site do much work on wrighting comments and articles about chronicles that get published in the news and get some attention from there. Good paper think its the biggest one of its nature in sweden.
    http://www.nationell.nu/2011/01/12/traditionalismen-en-fara-for-nationalismen/

  4. This got me really thinking. Really enlightening criticism. Thank you.

    It made me wonder: would this make “Original Nobility” the opposite of “Original Sin,” which, no surprise, comes from the Jewish Old Testament… though I think Jews do not apply that concept to themselves, just on others.

  5. Vik says:

    “Remember when you were young, you shone like the sun.”- Pink Floyd

    We can all recall our Original Nobility.

  6. none says:

    traditionalism thinks that nobility is acquired via education but aryanism thinks that nobility arises from within
    and as a result in order to filter true aryans (get rid of immitators) we should let people choose freely

    if so, then any information censorship is wrong?!
    (censored information only enlarge number of immitators, and make it harder to select true noble ones)
    even if it contains part of jewish lies ?!
    (true noble will see the truth)

    hitler media censorship, decision to ban ideologicaly different books only increased number of immitators and would be fatal in a long run too?!
    (people should understand all sides and then choose, not to choose and then doubt)

  7. Elysium says:

    I wonder what AS thinks of this, but I always got a rather different impression of ‘original sin’ than what is perhaps the orthodox view. Going to Church as a child and listening to the famous stories and other Biblical lessons, I thought that original sin meant we were born imperfect and were meant to overcome this in emulation of Jesus.

    This seems to differ significantly from ‘original nobility’; but I think shares a similar spirit. I’d like to hear what AS thinks of this, as it is crucial to the direction of Aryanism and our rhetoric.

  8. Jason says:

    While I agree with Aryan Sanctuary and the reality of Original Nobility, I find the notion to “let the kids choose” to be obscure, and not well explained.

    How do parents practice the embrace of Original Nobility? When do parents know we are being tyrannical or herding our children? Is it wrong to deter children from going into dangers which their typically naive nature may not recognize? Are all other practical stipulations throughout life best if left to the child to experience, live through, and learn from? In many cases, I would say this is the best way to seek the Best in every family; discover the quality of Original Nobility in our children..

    “That 30% will be the 30% that won’t be permitted to reproduce.” - AS

    I approve of this. It is a true alternative to natural selection. But, to re-phrase a point I made: does that mean we let a child make the mistake of running out into traffic, or walking down a dangerous street, or spend time with friends that will mess up his life or get him killed?

  9. Anthony says:

    @Jason: The question of whether we should allow children to run into traffic links nicely to the views expressed on original nobility. We should prevent children from doing this, but their tendency to do this makes them more, rather than less, noble because it comes from being unaware of the existence of suffering and evil in the world, which is a strange thing that many throughout history have found difficult to explain. Becoming more aware of these things makes them better adapted to the circumstances they find themselves in, but also moves them further away from the untainted, idealistic vision they are born with, and closer to the degenerate who seeks to ‘just get on with life’. Of course, it does not take long to learn these things, so this only applies to very young children. As for spending time with harmful friends - I would say we certainly should let them. Adults have ‘harmful friends’ too. They allow incompetent governments and Jewish predator control their lives. It seems that they are no more capable of judging good company than children. If you say ‘oh, but Aryan adults are. It is only non-Aryan adults that allow this to happen’ then I would say that Aryan children can too. And I really have seen examples of children rejecting harmful or ignoble friends without any influence from their parents.

  10. John Johnson says:

    Earlier today, I was watching TV and a commercial reminded me of this article, and I think it is a great embodiment of the “let the children choose” examples given above.

    The commercial says, “Everybody wants more cash, well almost everybody,” the exception being a baby. The creators obviously intended it to be funny and to portray the baby as ignorant, but it definitely backfires in the eyes of a Noble viewer.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9CjeZ1Mod0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwkHF8S8Oog (In this one, the baby declares the offer of “50% more cash” as “boring” by writing it in Cheerios)

  11. Frai says:

    I just found an excellent example of original nobility.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRNNzMZgrzs

  12. Anthony says:

    @Frai - that’s really good.

  13. SS says:

    From what I’ve seen of the Traditionalist school (Guenon, Evola, Eliade, etc.), they don’t support just any form of tradition. They distinguish between two types of traditions: the solar one (pretty similar to our own ideology) and the lunar one (similar to the Jews and other materialists); they promote the former. I don’t think we’re really at odds with them; or are we talking about a different group of traditionalists?

  14. AS says:

    SS, yes we are at odds with them. We are opposed to ALL tradition, because whatever is traditional (“trans-” + “dare” meaning passed from one person to another) is not spontaneous. That kid in Frai’s video has more wisdom than Evola had after a lifetime of traditionalist studies. To subject that kid to tradition (no matter the content of such tradition) would be to corrupt him.

  15. SS says:

    AS, one’s character is often passed down from one’s parents, but that’s another matter. I’m not the most familiar with Evola - I know a guy who has read a few of his works, that’s all - but from what I’ve seen in Eliade (who was indeed a member of the the Legion of the Archangel Michael, a National Socialist movement), it has little to do with passing on tradition in the sense of social dogma. To him, traditional man - if you prefer, primordial man or man in his pristine form - is the one who can grasp the sacred in his life and the world, while modern man looks at the world and his life in simply material, hedonistic (or utilitarian) terms; in fact, modern man is much more similar with our right-wing traditionalists.

    Eliade’s traditional man is not that different from the Aryan, as they both seek the sacred. “Traditional”, to him, is an outlook on life which stretches farther back than the Renaissance, to the purer form of the past - to Arya, if you will. That’s really what it’s all about, not reactionary politics.

  16. SS says:

    In our modern world, the child is the one who best perceives the sacred in his life.

  17. Anthony says:

    I agree with SS. The Traditionalists like Evola and Guenon don’t attach the usual meaning to the word tradition. I deliberately avoided characterising them as being traditional in this sense when I wrote my essay criticising Eurasianism. It is true we should nobility is innate rather than acquired through tradition, and we should condemn the people who try to use tradition to teach nobility. However, I think some of the Traditionalists believe only that we can learn philosophical truths (ones unrelated to nobility and morality) from great men and works of literature and that we should preserve these for posterity. That is an idea I find completely acceptable.

  18. SS says:

    Anthony,
    Do you have a link to this essay? I’d like to read it.

  19. Anthony says:

    My mistake - it seems like I did characterise them like that in the essay. Or at least, I characterised one of them to be like that, which he is as far as I can tell.

  20. SS says:

    Thank you. I’ll look through it tomorrow.

  21. Anthony says:

    I think it would help to break this issue down. Here is my perspective on things:
    What is a traditionalist?
    1) Someone who believes that traditional society e.g. traditional customs, institutions, values should be preserved.
    Stance: These people are obviously our enemies.
    2) Someone who thinks that nobility is acquired rather than learned.
    Stance: Aryanism is against this and so am I. I personally think there are important things we can learn that are not related to nobility (see next point), but think that even these things have a biological component.
    3) Someone who think that all the knowledge we need to achieve our spiritual goals has already been discovered and we need only rediscover it by studying ancient religions and philosophies.
    Stance: Not sure, but I definitely think some of the knowledge developed by previous generations is useful. I do not want to start from scratch.

  22. AS says:

    “Legion of the Archangel Michael, a National Socialist movement”

    SS, I definitely agree that Codreanu was broadly on the good guys’ side in the 1930s and appreciate all the positive practical things he did, but I stop short of counting him as a National Socialist. He made a fatal error in his ideological development: he tried to distance modern-day Jews from Old Testament Israelites. This was the opposite position to that of National Socialism, which emphatically associates modern-day Jews with Old Testament Israelites. The difference is crucial, as it suggests Codreanu was not fundamentally opposed to Old Testament ideas, whereas Hitler supported complete removal of the Old Testament from Christian scripture.

    The fact that Codreanu chose to name his group after Michael is a reflection of this: Michael is the symbolic protector of the Israelites. So if he thinks Jews are not Israelites and if he thinks Michael supports his group, then this puts his group uncomfortably close to the “Jews are fake Israelites, we are the real Israelites” garbage that BS Gentiles throw at us all the time. I am not saying Codreanu himself consciously believed this, but it opens up a can of worms regardless.

    http://aryanism.net/religion/judaism/

    “Eliade’s traditional man is not that different from the Aryan, as they both seek the sacred.”

    This precisely defines what is noble:

    http://aryanism.net/philosophy/what-is-nobility/

    Did Eliade precisely define what is sacred? If so, please provide his definition as I am unfamiliar with his work. Then we can compare the two definitions and figure it out.

    ___

    “I definitely think some of the knowledge developed by previous generations is useful.”

    Anthony, so do I, but I believe that virtually all the useful knowledge (excluding the strictly technical) developed by previous generations was the knowledge that FAILED to be passed down through the generations ie. NON-traditional knowledge, by definition. I am not against the study of ancient religions and philosophies, but I expect that the highest-quality content will be that which soonest ceased to be authentically transmitted down the generations, precisely because I believe that the quality of this content is above the threshold that society is capable of transmitting without corrupting it (either intentionally or unintentionally).

    On a much more casual note, one thing I find irritating about many who identify with the traditionalist camp is their aesthetic snobbery regarding pop culture (e.g. music, drama, video games, etc.). They generally assume that it is impossible for pop culture to be of high value, which I do not agree with; I acknowledge (and allow myself to be inspired by) great art from all eras.

    ___

    Panzerfaust, I think Evola ignores historical context. Mohammed presented his teachings as a way to attack the established traditions of his own era, so the fact that part of his teachings (the part called Islam) later became a new tradition is actually contrary to the spirit of his activism. Pre-Islamic Arabia was not modern in thought, so it was not modernity that Mohammed was worrying about when he developed his teachings.

    A true Mohammedan should not be bound by formalism of any kind, but should simply act as God directly guides him moment by moment, which is how Mohammed himself lived. The kid in Frai’s video is a Mohammedan. Evola is nowhere near Mohammedan.

  23. SS says:

    AS,
    I agree that that was a fatal mistake. I made the same mistake before coming here, but my attention was always centred around the NT - more precisely, the gospels - and I have a feeling that the same applies for Codreanu. I call him a National Socialist because the spirit is definitely there, looking past any acceptance of the OT (though he does provide one article in his “For My Legionaries” which speaks negatively of YHWH, properly termed, the Jew’s god).
    As for the Archangel Michael, I think it’s more a reference to Revelation - the legion of the angel who defeats the devil.
    I’ll try to find Eliade’s precise definition.

  24. SS says:

    One last point: Codreanu was a man who spent more time reflecting than reading, so I think any views he had regarding the OT would have been different from that of the Jews; I mean to say his views would have been different from what the OT actually states.

    In any case, I agree that any future National Socialist movement in Romania should (and will) remove the OT from scripture.

  25. Frai says:

    Doesn´t any Aryanist of today stand in the tradition of Arya just like Hilter stood?
    After the definition on the site, the concept of what an Aryan is, could be seen as the establishing of a new tradition.
    Because it will be transmitted from now on. Wouldn´t it be in the interest of any Aryanist that the ideology of Aryanism is to be transmitted? So the concept of tradition could be integrated in regard to the concept of original nobility.
    So tradition in itself is not the problem, but rather the content of that tradition.

  26. Anthony says:

    ‘I believe that virtually all the useful knowledge (excluding the strictly technical) developed by previous generations was the knowledge that FAILED to be passed down through the generations ie. NON-traditional knowledge, by definition’.

    But many of the traditionalists (of the third kind I described) agree with this. This is why Evola speaks of the primordial tradition in that article and praises Islam for being closer to the primordial tradition, rejecting the Christian tradition because it is corrupted and too dissimilar to the primordial tradition. I actually doubt that there has ever been a perfect primordial tradition, but the point is that they are interested in the best teachings of the past and not just those that have been handed down to the present day.

    Frai: Arya does not need to be handed down because it concerns nobility, which does not need to be taught and is part of a person’s personality. I’m only arguing that philosophical knowledge should be handed down/ preserved, in which case I would agree that it is the content of the tradition that matters. AS is right that the best knowledge tends not to be handed down, but this could change in a society with a high quality population and some of the traditionalists (of the third kind) aren’t referring to the knowledge that has actually been handed down when they speak of ‘tradition’ anyway.

  27. Frai says:

    You are right in regarding that Original Nobility itself can not be handed down. That is not what i try to say. I mean explicitly the concept, the idea that is written in down. The writings regarding Arya. A new tradition could be the will to create the Aryan race. Then one can be a traditionalist in the sense that the idea of original nobility in the fundament for it.

  28. AS says:

    “primordial tradition”

    But that’s misuse of the word. If it’s knowledge that is independently derived each time it arises, how could it possibly be “tradition”? Why not simply use the word “truth”? I think we are going round in circles on this point.

    But more importantly, the term “tradition” subtly implies that such knowledge has intrinsic value, which is the undertone of Evola’s ideas. We must never consider any knowledge to have intrinsic value. Knowledge can have strategic value if it aids us in completing our mission, but just as we feel that our mission is a burden upon us, so we must also feel that such knowledge is part of the burden. We never wanted this mission, so we must never feel that we want any knowledge.

  29. Anthony says:

    It is a misuse of the word, but that’s what they mean when they use it.

  30. NonCompromisingTruthSeeker says:

    So after reading the Original Nobility thread, I found this quote to be very interesting.

    “When you offer a child the choice of a piece of meat, an apple or a cake, it’s never the meat that he chooses. There’s an ancestral instinct there. In the same way, the child would never begin to drink or smoke if it weren’t to imitate others.” – Adolf Hitler

    This is referring to every child, is it not? I think it is, it has to be. The child will always eat what is sweet, such as fruit, because that is what humans were programmed to do for millions of years. All children either in womb or outside of womb are humans that are at their closets stage to the original biological foundation of the evolution of a human being. It is society, and ideology that destroys the original functions of what I means to be a human. Rather, society tries to suppress our true human traits, that of a herbivorous animal.

    I believe the reason why some never make it back to the path of nobility is due to their environmental upbringing, some may be more brainwashed than others over time, or were simply neglected as children, receive not enough love, and then in turn were never able to love as they grew into adulthood.

  31.  
Leave a Reply


write my english paper