46
I am interested in the falsification of history and possibly of geography. I think mankind is exceedingly stupid and wicked, you can’t trust a word you receive. I have no doubt your religions are true, but can you be sure some vicious faction didn’t insert itself into the hierarchy of priests some time ago, or of religious authorities, or of book printers, and insert all kinds of things that weren’t there to begin with? For example, all Old Slavonic copies of the Bible in Russia used to have heavy Gnostic interpolations. This explains the multitude of such sects that sprung up there, including those who castrated themselves, and others like the Duhobors who make a mockery of the higher and noble nudity by practicing the nudity of the deformed. In the West there were similar things: how do you think the Cathars found such currency in north Italy, in the Rhineland? It wasn’t just a new teaching, but very old practices and old formulas that found a ready home among a population long prepared to receive them. Some were pre-Christian, while others had spread along with the early Church, and preserved elements of early Christianity mixed in with Manicheanism and Magianism and other even stranger things. Why do you assume then that the main religions that survived are not in fact forgeries? Islam could very well be such a forgery: the Koran is a mishmash of nonsense, and possibly was originally a Syriac Christian devotional book that was re-edited much later. Mohammed was their name for Christ, and the faith originally was a version of Nestorianism that was spread by the Persian king, not by Arabs. The entire history of Heraclius’ crusade against Persia, as of Persia’s downfall in “battles” against Arabs may be entirely fabricated by both sides, though of course now this lie has long been forgotten. What historical or archaeological evidence is there at all for the existence of a Mohammed? But do you have any idea how speculative the conclusions drawn from archaeology are in general? Just read, for example, the kind of “evidence” they used to establish horse-riding on the great steppe before 1000 BC—a few, maybe not even five or six, bones that seemed to look like bits. Life is short; rebirth as a man is uncertain, and may happen a billion years from now: to these pitiful liars to trust your only life? Look at Thucydides, who is a great man and a genius of the ages: he seeks to outdo Herodotus, and this pattern is followed throughout all antiquity. Each great historian was setting out to outdo his predecessor as a rival. Do you think they made some things up? How much do you think then that the scholar, the scribe, the vain “monk”—the “nerd” as a type—is likely to lie? They will lie far more than you think…the nerd more than a Thucydides is possessed by infinitely greater mendacity and also vanity, jealousy, spite and pettiness. Don’t you think such people, who, for the longest time in the form of the monk were the only keepers and copiers of texts from antiquity, don’t you think they would be willing to change the text, to add, and even to make up entire books and authors? Corroborations from “third sources” would be relatively easy to manufacture as well. But anyway, Josephus uses this rivalry among the Greek writers to cast doubt on Greek histories in general, and in this he’s not entirely unreasonable. Of course where he’s wrong is in supposing that the centrally-controlled archives of the other peoples, like the Egyptians, the Babylonians, or his own, are any more reliable. Nietzsche refers to the falsification of the history of Israel that occurred at some time before Josephus—and I think he was referring to the Maccabees. There is no external record anyway of the Jews existing before the kingdom of the Maccabees—Herodotus never mentions them. But there is evidence that the falsification Nietzsche was referring to is even of a later date. Much of antiquity could have been invented by sects or orders of Christians or even Jews, to make it look like their contrived and artificial, utilitarian religions had some basis in human nature or were anticipated by wise men in the past. When, in fact, the entirety of their energy was directed toward suppressing the natural spirit of man, the innate reverence of man for the magnificence inside animals and inside things. In the end, nothing can be trusted, that you can’t see and feel yourself.
47
We don’t know if all of antiquity, or maybe if large portions of it, was entirely made up by medieval monks or by Italian humanists in the Renaissance…or if some eccentric scholar at Constantinople or a monk in Iberia added entire books and passages to Plato or to others. When Nietzsche says that Plato “studied with the Jews” in Egypt…what does he really mean? Could it be, as some have said, that the Jews are actually themselves a recent invention, a sect of the Arabs in Cordoba, and that this group made up parts of Plato or of Aristotle…or so heavily corrupted their works…perhaps working with scattered groups of monks in Europe and with the Vatican later? What is the Vatican—and if it didn’t exist before, say, the year 1200, how could you be sure…? Machiavelli mentions that St. Gregory wanted to entirely destroy and blot out all pre-Christian culture, and that these bearded men in black robes smashed temples in their hysterical rages, crushed statues, burned books. How do you really know how successful they were, or when this actually took place? How do you know that the legacy of the ancient world that Machiavelli claims they preserved only out of necessity—because they shared Latin as the same language—wasn’t almost entirely corrupted by their “transcriptions”? Every new form of life among mankind seeks to blot out the memory of its predecessors, to rewrite the history, and maybe does so literally, corrupting the texts themselves. Is there any evidence the desultory and unfortunate “doctors of the early Church” ever even existed? Augustine is almost surely a complete fiction, and there never was any such man—his pidgin “Greek” is nonsense in that area to begin with, and is rather the makeshift Greek of the medieval monk, maybe living somewhere in Burgundy. You don’t need to go that far though. I’ve heard other less strange, but still wild theories: that the New Testament was written by a Jewish woman, as a parody of Greek tragedy. It was an effort to overturn Roman life and power, “Roman privilege,” by means of the Passion story—the dead god as an inversion of Greek mystery cult surrounding Dionysos. Does this sound familiar in our own time, when monstrous historical hoaxes…including the so-called and entirely fake “Cold War,” during which the United States was funding and arming the Soviet Union the whole time? If Nietzsche believed such things, he would have never put them under his own name or said them openly—but, could it be, when he says that Plato is unGreek, that he really means precisely this? Was Plato, or at least many of the works of Plato, the invention of a Byzantine polymath, or of a Benedictine? Such speculations are the opposite of comforting, especially in a world where the consolations and certainty of religion are rare. History has somewhat taken the place that religion had, I mean to provide stability to a world that is otherwise lost in complete confusion and chaos and uncertainty. I want this chaos, because what I want to bring thrives in it. The continuity of history, if not its progress, is that last thread that secular, scientific man, unmoored in the universe on this floating rock, the play of titanic and foreign forces…it’s the last connection that he had to any sanity. I want a world of psychosis, I want the end of his sanity. What if there is no firm ground to what we receive from history, and the continuity we think we have is actually a jumbled and confused mess—that events from antiquity have been confused with events from the Middle Ages, for example? I found the suggestion of Fomenko, that the Crusades and the Trojan War were really the same event, to be so disorienting that I had to act out in a very vehement and stern way that day later. At the lounge, when the bouncer asked me if “I was on drugs” …and I pushed his forehead away from me in a gesture of majesty and power. I was soundly beaten up by his goons in the alley. The speculations of Anatoly Fomenko, as well as the so-called “phantom-time hypothesis,” which claims that three centuries have been wrongly added to our chronology…this is small stuff. It’s very small—From these doubts I was led to many others far more horrific. I’ve lived a wandering life, and at times I was confused by a strange similarity between certain street corners, the smell of this and that building that I supposed were dif
ferent, the uncanny likeness of two streets that, years later, I can’t tell anymore which was which, or if instead I dreamt it. I believe it needs to be investigated, for example, if Mexico City is not in fact the same as Bangkok, and the so-called Baja peninsula not the same as the Malay. The similarity of dishes like mole and Thai curries only lends further support to this hypothesis, as does the kwak’ing language of the Oaxacans and Chiapans…it’s the same as Laotian. I’ve heard rumors that as you go inland from Port-au-Prince you start to see the lights of Manila, and that the Caribbean islands are no different from the Philippines. Both enjoy the grilled pork, the rice with cheese, delights like spaghettis with ketchup and hot dogs or spam, and, I hear, certain other things also. The slums of Bangkok are the same as those of Mexico City, and Cambodia is the same as Guatemala (Honduras is entirely fake). Thus it is said in some corners, when Columbus came upon Cuba, it really was Cipangu, or Japan, and he really did discover Asia. The entire New World (and many other areas of the world also) is thus a fraud of the first order. Shanghai can be accessed in two hours from Manhattan by secret bullet train. And if you ask how it is that so many travel by plane, well, it’s not so hard for there to be an understanding among the relatively few active pilots to keep this a secret and use circuitous routes to make flight-time seem a lot longer. If you don’t want to go this far, remember how they can, nevertheless, keep entire continents or islands a secret—you’re not allowed, as far as I know, to approach the North or South Poles, and it’s not out of the question that a tropical refugium exists in both. There is an esteemed scholar from Bangalore who points out that the year in the Vedas has six months of daylight and six months of darkness.
48
But you think I’m promoting idea of “noble savage”? Do you understand your visions of what is “noble savage” are just a miniature over-spent China, a spiritual China on a smaller scale? I know there no such thing as noble savage: Mark Twain attacked the Red Man as a faithless liar and rogue. Well, fine. That doesn’t bother me: my idea of noble and vital power is different. But…choose whatever view of nobility you will, it doesn’t matter, you won’t find it among primitives as a rule. You idolize peasants. You look up to island savages living “at one with Nature,” I ask you to see what happened to Margaret Mead, and how the Polynesians punked her—most of the things she wrote about their views on life, about their sexual freedom, was nonsense they made up to make her look foolish. In same way the fools like Gimbutas and others who believe that mankind at some remote point lived under a benevolent matriarchy, again, “at one with Nature,” in balance with the needs of the soil and such: sheer nonsense. Everywhere historians, archaeologists find what we thought was matriarchy was really no such thing. You see this in the Odyssey where it is clear that the right of succession belongs to he who is husband of Penelope, and Odysseus’ son Telemachus isn’t assured of his inheritance of the kingdom. Local priestess of the rites of fertility, of the flowering and blooming of the seasons of the earth, who made crops assured to spring from the soil: priestess of the local earth goddess or spirits— whoever married this woman was given a certain prestige or legitimacy as king. This much is true, but it was men who decided who she married, and they decided the sovereignty of the kingdom as well. Everywhere you look to find any kind of formal matriarchy you see that in reality it was nothing of the sort, but something very much like this. When you find polyandry as among some inhabitants of the Himalayas, it is men sharing a woman for lack of resources or because of some other circumstance. By what mechanism could, after all, women rule since they are so much weaker physically, and seem unable to politically organize without men? But…but…there is way for them to rule. And so the debunkers of matriarchy are correct but don’t see far enough into social relations among primitives, and even the civilized, to realize that matriarchy of a sort is a reality. I already spoke before of one kind. But you find among the Chinese, the Sicilians, that household is run by grandmother. When many of you moderns pine for “communal living,” and talk about inter-generational households…you seem to forget that this would mean subjection to a strong-willed Dragon or Gorgon lady. The modern girl, when she pines for the community of the pre-modern extended family imagines that she gets from it the emotional and social support of her female cousins, and a crew of servants in the grandmothers, not the reality…which is utter subjection to the mother-in-law. The modern southeast Asian whose ancestors have lived in Oriental “cities” for generations is completely beholden to his wife…read any anthropological study written before 1970 to see the truth about Asian social life. In Africa, the men are utterly defeated and beholden to matriarchy in complicated ways: the women run all food production without the help of the men, who rely on them for the daily ration of bland sop mushed up from grains. At times to break this monotony they seek bushmeat, but they mostly live as farmers dependent on big-armed woman tending messy patch of roots. The entire social life in this area is managed through secret societies. The apparent political power is brittle and meaningless: interlocking secret societies, based on the manipulation of black and white magic, are the true source of all important decisions reached in the village and even in the cities. Women play a prominent role in such societies, or outright rule them: there is among them a long tradition of respect for woman as oracle, which is only natural. The Yoruba water priestess chimping out in ecstasies over the boa, receiving visions, this is not so different from the Pythia. But where the Pythia had submitted to the solar and boyish manliness of Apollo, such a conquest of the power from under the earth never took place in Africa, nor in many other places. And so here as elsewhere there is a kind of matriarchy, but it works covertly, so that both the “left” and the “right” are fooled on this point. In the end then the “left” is more correct: the worship of the titanic powers of the earth, of the Great Mother, is connected to a kind of matriarchy, but where they’re wrong is in imagining that this leads to any kind of freedom, that it represents a kind of liberation from the strictures of modern civilization, the pain of specialization, the submission to moral authority, the modern “alienation,” and every other thing they like to blame. In fact everything that you hate about modern life and that makes it into an Iron Prison—and I agree it is a prison—represents a return of the endless sallow night of matriarchy. It is a return in every way, you must understand this literally! Nietzsche says that in the modern Europe you see the reassertion of pre-Aryan modes of life, the return of socialism, of the longhouse, of feminism, and that this is happening also to us internally, where the higher instincts of the spirit are being overtaken physiologically by the retrograde and prehistoric. The life of the village and of the primitive is one of utter subjection, total domestication and total brokenness. The “matriarchy” that does exist, and that exerts enormous influence and power in the social and moral realm, is only the manifestation of this brokenness of the males. Communal solidarity absorbs and snuffs out any personal distinction or intelligence and this task is relatively easy where it concerns the majority of the parts of the village: the real problem becomes what to do with the young males. In every way they represent a threat to the established customs and the physiological torpor that benefits the old and the women. The social problem in primitive tribes as well as most civilized and unfree societies becomes this, what to do with the young males, their aggression, their sexual instincts: in every way they must be broken and subsumed for the benefit of the tribe. This is more or less easy for the majority, who lack life force in any significant quantity, harder for the remainder, and where impossible—the fate of the outcast, or, more likely, death. You fool yourself if you imagine that “young males are needed for protection from external threat.” In fact most societies of the settled, primitive and as well as civilized, are more than willing to accept the risk of submission to an alien tribe. In a given area, if many such tribes follow this same path of self-domestication the risk is hardly even that great in one’s own lifetime and a few benighted, spineless
“warrior” drones are sufficient to contend against similar neighbors. But even in cases where there is great external threat from vigorous tribes, such societies, ruled by women, the old, and the imbeciles, are willing to rather accept subjection to the alien than to allow freedom and flourishing for their young men. They are right in this calculation too: subjection to an alien force rarely means extermination at its hands, whereas allowing their own youths freedom and power would end their way of life for good. But submission to the alien just often means some sporadic taxation that used to be relatively hard to enforce: peasants are very good at hiding stores of goods, and even fields. The routine humiliations of subjection, the loss of honor, the rare but occasional rapes, the loss of sovereignty means little to such people. They are allowed to continue their communal life unchanged under the subjection of another, and even thrive under such subjection. They prefer it, anyway. This is the condition of the so-called “old civilizations” of mankind, and especially China and India. The Chinese Han faced the most dreadful external threats from the steppe, and were frequently conquered by a few scattered men on horseback that they outnumbered many times over. They didn’t care: their stolid, unchanging life as a community continued, whether it was Jurchen or Mongol or Black Yi that preyed on them. The Indians, once they reached their period of priestly rule and senescence, also degenerated to this condition: they were conquered every summer by adventurers and warlords from the Hindu Kush and beyond. Afghanistan ruled India. But subjection suited them. Slowly, with the patience that yeast enjoys because time is on its side, the Chinese would wait: “the day will come when this conqueror too will become exhausted, his blood spent; then he will join us, the people.” And they were right. This is the famous assimilation of Chinese civilization, the assimilation of the exhausted and spent. And there’s no real way to understand the Chinese other than the reduction of the human animal to mere life: they are not what you understand normally when you say “civilization,” but rather a perpetual subject population, a uniform and undifferentiated blob of serfdom that seeks subjection and undermines through it. This is the rule of matriarchy. The Indians and many others are the same. The Chinese on many occasions preferred this path to the alternative, of letting their own men assert themselves and gain the sovereignty. On the brief occasion in the 15th century when they began to have a navy, with its glimmers of freedom and empowerment for youths, they noticed the ferment and disorder that this brought to their society and immediately quashed the whole project. Such societies can’t change their condition even if they want to: the interests of mere life are too entrenched. The way of settled life is just this then: to break the youths from early age, to take the boys and caponize them physically, mentally and spiritually. This happens in the smallest tribes as well. When they become civilizations, they look much like Han China, or the sinkhole cities of the Aztecs, Babylonians, and others. You see here why people like Evola, Jung, Guenon and all their followers go the wrong way. There is only this: whether life is stunted and broken by a “tradition,” or whether it is one of the very few, the rare exception, that allows the ascent of life. As a rule, life is stunted and deformed by huemans. This is why huemans are disgusting as an animal, and must be overcome. This is the “free and primitive life” of the noble savage, this is the “matriarchy” that keeps its faith to nature in “sustainable” form. In fact the society of the grass hut is hardly sustainable: such places are rapacious of natural resources, and often vicious to animals and vicious tyrants to people. A good parody of such a society on a small scale is the movie The Beach. The rule of weakness is not good but something of incredible cruelty, even cannibalism. Cannibalism is the way of all yeast life, to which the human animal degenerates under these conditions of gynocracy. Cannibalism is the eternal way of those erased hue-mans who submit themselves to the Venus Willendorf and all “earth mammies,” because this faction of nature is a putrid evil dripping blood from its claws and seeking the dissolution of all higher life, spiritually and biologically, to the amorphous muck of the primeval swamp. If you traveled in Europe around maybe 3000 BC or so you would find wise-eyed cowlike black-haired Neolithic matrons overseeing vast villages of longhouses where lived the hueman animal, fifty or a hundred to a room, with sheep and goats, wallowing in its own shit, tilling the soil, eating those of its members deemed to be “chosen by the gods”—anyone, man or woman, distinguished by vital spirit—and she might even smack you on the head with a lingam-dildo and question your privilege as a traveler. This is the condition of most of mankind until recently, and it is the suffocating miasma to which the modern world is fast returning, inside and out.
Bronze Age Mindset Page 9