Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Else Christensen Archive

December 1974



Weltanschauung is a German word that has been adopted into the English language for lack of a translation; it literally means 'world view,' but Webster explains it as "one's philosophy or conception of the world and life." Weltanschauung, therefore, is an attitude; and an attitude is dependent upon upbringing, heredity and other circumstances; it can be courageous or cowardly, proud or submissive, free or servile.
The one proudly follows conscience, pursues of own free will and initiative what is conceived as destiny, and considers the good of the folk more important than personal gain or comfort. The other cringes before real or imagined dangers and waits docilely for orders from somebody in command.
In educating the young, our ancient ancestors urged an attitude of courage, pride and freedom; but since the advent of Christianity, humility and fear of god have been extolled as the more pleasing virtues and the previously held concepts slowly disappeared, until today it is so that a person is looked upon as insane if he stands up for his rights as a freeman.
A world outlook embraces religion, science and art; out of these original, spiritual activities spring all other intellectual action. The spiritual harmony of a folk can only exist when the intellectual expression of all three branches of transcendental activity is the same.
During the Christian centuries religion became an enforced compliance with the dogmas of Rome; science was violated in order to conform with biblical doctrines; art was almost exclusively in glorification of biblical scenes. Religion was transformed into "confession," meaning the enforced belief in a set of dogma of a certain church. Here it makes no difference whether it was the Catholic or one of the Protestant churches; although some denominations are less dogmatic than others, they all adhere to the idea that humility and fear of God are the two most important prerequisites for a religious life.
We cannot accept this.
Religion to us means the tie between man and the divine powers, expressed in nature and the universe and includes man's moral obligation to the furtherance of his folk, so closely tied in with the spiritual values we consider essential.
Religion and confession thus have become two different concepts. Each culture, each religion is as strong as the will of its adherents to defend it.

[Page 2]

Christendom has not recently demonstrated any such life-giving powers; it has become ossified and it is time for a change of wind to clean out the musty smell of fear and submission.
It is for most people a physical impossibility to fear someone as undefined as the Christian god figure who is all over and nowhere in particular. When a person finds that he cannot do as his church tells him to, he feels miserable and develops a guilt complex. He thinks that he himself is to blame for everything bad that happens to him for he has also been taught that the Christian god is a punishing god who will strike him and his family with all kinds of terrible things if he does not follow the teachings of the church here and now. And when he finally dies he will burn in purgatory for ever if he does not repent; and all the time the poor fellow does not know what he is supposed to repent, for it is against his whole being to admit to some imagined crime he does not really believe he has committed, and he is frantically searching his mind for something to confess, so that he can repent as proscribed.
This unfortunate Christian ends up with a neurosis because his instincts are not in harmony with his enforced belief in the religious dogmas he has been taught.
The church also tells him to love his neighbor; that is fine; he does that (more or less) with regard to the people at work and on the street; but when "neighbor" is stretched to include the whole world population, it becomes such a vague and impersonal concept that it is void of any meaning. It is almost impossible for an ordinary person to have any real love or concern for what happens thousands of miles away to people he never has, nor ever will have any direct contact with. Again, he feels guilty of not being able to honestly do what his religion demands of him, his neurosis grows. and he is in conflict with his instincts which are to care, first and foremost, for his immediate family, his friends and the group of people to whom he by birth belongs.
This guilt complex cripples his soul and turns him into an unhappy individual who is helplessly adrift, not knowing what is wrong but left with the gut feeling that things are not what they ought to be. He does not realize the demands on him are completely: contrary to his own natural inclinations, and detrimental to the best interest of his own personal well-being and that of his family and folk.
Our creed is not dogmatic. Everybody is "immortal in his own way." Every person is carrying the heritage of his ancestors in his genes, and should, without breaking the chain, leave this valuable inheritance intact to the next generation.
Nature gave everybody these abilities in trust and thereby each of us becomes the architect of his own fortune and that of his people. But at the same time he also is the only cause of future misfortune, if he is not following his instincts and using his talents in the interest of his folk.
The belief in the spiritual concept of honour and freedom, courage and self-respect have not been in high esteem since Christianity entered the world stage. This is now slowly changing; conversion by fear has been overcome and all over, the Christian church is abdicating to Marxism, "new morality" and pressure from within. It is this confusion within the church itself that affords an opportunity, instead of sinking down to the level of equality, drugs and guitar playing priests, again to accentuate the values our ancestors honoured so highly, and which governed their actions in the days before Christianity endowed man with salvation and guilt.
If you, instead of obeying dead dogma promoted by a church that goes against life-giving ideals, work for the preservation of your cultural and biological heritage, your soul will be in harmony with your instincts. When you follow what you consider the best for yourself, your family and your folk, you are fulfilling the religious task that is part of your destiny.
Religion is not the negation of life, but the moral obligation to live, to the best of your ability, in the service of the folk.

A . R.


* * *

Combined subscription for 4 issues of
----- #2.00 -----
Back issues available
Free sample copies on request
Managing Editor: E. Christensen

P.O. Box 731
Adelaide St. Stn.,
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5C 2J8


[Page 3]




If we had only the film "The Vikings" to learn from, we would no doubt have believed that our Viking forefathers were no more than bearded sword-swinging warriors, who found delight in raiding unsuspecting settlements, robbing churches, massacring monks, raping women and otherwise spend their time drinking beer and fighting between themselves, --- a regular bunch of roughnecks, primitive daredevils whose only code was violence.
Of course, the victims of the Viking attacks were scared out of their wits, when suddenly these "strangers from the sea" spilled over into their lands, plundering, killing and destroying. And yet the Vikings did not come from a barbaric society. The Scandinavian society was at least as advanced as that of many southern countries. Norway, for example, had a code of law of quite a comprehensive nature; about the year 900 C.E. the country was united under a single king, the poetry of the skalds and the high standard of craftsmanship indicated a degree of culture by no means barbaric.
Above all, the construction of their boats showed that the Vikings possessed exceptional technical skill.
There are several theories about the original vessels from which the Viking ships evolved. Some think they were influenced by the Eskimos' skin-covered umiaks which seems a very reasonable guess. Others believe that they originally were dug-outs and that little by little planks were added along the sides so that eventually the original dug-out was no more than the bottom plank of a clinker built boat.
We are not in a position to take any stand one way or the other. However, several finds, particularly in Norway, have shed some light-on the construction of the Viking boats.
One of the earliest boats found is from about 300 B.C.E.; it is fifty feet long; the sides are formed by five rather thin clinker boards, which seem to have been stitched together with hide thongs. The boards are hewn, with cleats on the inside to which are fastened ribs of hazel wood. The rowing benches probably also served as thwarts; paddles were used, not oars.
This seems to be the most primitive of the Viking boats found so far. The second oldest was discovered in the southern part of Jutland; in this boat the side planks ran the entire length of the vessel and, instead of being sown together, iron rivets were used. The clinker planks themselves as well as the ribs were of oak. This boat was propelled by oars.
No sign of a mast was found on either one of these two ships, but another, later vessel had the beginning of a keel and also seems to have been able to carry sail.
Other ships found show further advances in shipbuilding; one, for example, shows the use of wooden pegs, or `wood-nails' as `rowlocks' while others, by their form and size show evidence of being intended for coastal waters only as carriage of cargo.
Those boats found dating from the 9th century and up are, of course, of a much sturdier construction and far more details were added. A proper keel was built; a large block of oak served as the foundation for a mast; planks were added on the sides so that these now were too high for rowlocks along the rails; instead, little holes were cut in the side of the boat at the proper height, through which the oars were stuck and when not in use, small discs covered the holes, preventing the water from gushing through.
The biggest and best preserved of the Viking boats are the grave ships of which the most famous are those from Oseberg, Gokstad and Tune. They are all large ships measuring as much as seventy-six feet in length and seventeen feet across, with a depth of six and a half feet. Carvings richly decorate the tiller, the sides of the stem, the bow and along the rails and show remarkable examples of the finest craftsmanship of the Viking Age.
A few years before the turn of the century, some time after the Gokstad ship was discovered, an exact replica was built. It was, of course, named "Viking" and when it was finished, a Norwegian sea captain and crew sailed her across the Atlantic.
In his account of the voyage the captain remarked that under good conditions she came up to a speed of eleven knots. He also noted that when sailing close to the wind she was as good as most (at that time) modern two-masters. The boat's elasticity and seaworthiness became apparent in several ways and surprised the experienced seamen. During the trip the Viking ran into a gale but handled herself beautifully and even in that kind of weather was able to go as close as six degrees to the wind.
After the crossing she was taken to an exhibition in Chicago; but what later became of her is not known.


[Page 4]



(Some of our correspondents have mentioned or asked about Zen. Personally I know very little about it, but one of our group is here giving a general outline. -- Probably some of you are shaking your heads and thinking: Are they out of their cotton-pick in', minds? -- Is it not Eastern mysticism? And negation of life? -- The answer is no; Zen is not mysticism the way, for example, Christians are told to ask no questions but believe in the mysteries of the Church; Zen is not negation of life, but on the contrary very much involved with day-to-day living; and we are not out of our minds; Zen originated from Aryan thought (from way back) and we find it in order to learn as much as possible about our very early forefathers; we can never know enough and we hope at a later date to bring follow-up articles. Ed.)


* * *


Who am I? What is reality? Is there an order of things? What is my part in it?
These are questions which have crossed the minds of most of us. If someone is a Jew, his Talmudic scriptures tell him who and what he is, as well I as where we stand in relation to him.
If someone is a Christian, he too has a little book, supplied courtesy of the Judeo Christian church, of inane catechismic replies to the above queries, permitting him to set his limited mind at ease, and continue in the service of his master, whoever that may be.
But somewhere in our vast population of complacent, decadent sycophants, is a minute number of individuals who, being aware of their individuality, have discovered that the stock, plastic apologetics provided as response to those essential questions, simply will not suffice in leading one to a satisfactory position in relation to the basic existential issues.
It is to these people I address the substance of my remarks, in the hope that they will realize that they are not alone in their rejection of contemporary "religions" and "philosophies" prepared for mass spoon-feeding to a gullible Western public. Nor should these individuals feel that they are suffering from problems of personal or social mal-adjustment, for contemporary "thought" if one can call it that, would be just as alien to their Indo-European ancestors as it is to them now.
Throughout history, our Indo-European peoples have distinguished themselves as leaders in the development of that greatest of human capacities -- thought. It was through the employment of their higher faculties that they were able to blossom out into specific mental disciplines, such as philosophy, science, art, and so on.
The technical manifestations of their scientific talents and efforts are undoubtedly the most familiar aspect of Western Man in the eyes of other, more unproductive peoples of today.
It would be unfortunate, however to restrict one's appreciation of Indo-European civilization to the strictly material side of life.
Even more important was the perception of themselves and the universe, which the Indo-Europeans were able to achieve. But the supreme irony of all of this lies in the fact that although our ancestors developed a cosmic yet unitary approach to the problems of existence and identity, the fruits of their mental labours were taken up by technologically inferior people, while their own descendents, those people all around us, were physically intimidated by their leaders into accepting a totally alien philosophy of life disguised as a religion based upon supposedly socially desirable precepts.
And what happened to those philosophical concepts originated by our own people? They have been distorted by non-Indo-Europeans that in most cases, they are manifestly abhorrent to and unrecognizable by ourselves.
Some of us, however, have been able to penetrate the philosophical deceit and religious conditioning perpetrated upon our people, solely for the furtherance of crass alien interests. We call ourselves Odinists.
In issues past, you have encountered such various concepts as cultural identity, a sense of awe or wonder, the essence of genius, individuality, and intuitive or instinctive processes as opposed to merely intellectual ones.
What is new, however, is not the formulation of ideas along these thematic lines, but rather a reawakening of individuals in contemporary Western society to an awareness of these issues, and of our ancestors concern with them.
The purpose of this essay is to attempt to expand the perception of contemporary

[Page 5]

Indo-Europeans, both historically and to a greater extent, philosophically, if that is the correct term, in the realm of what might be referred to as traditional Indo-European thought.
From time immemorial, our people have pondered life. They lived close to nature, developed with it a relationship predicated upon harmony and respect.
The great Nordic Myths are an example of one of the kinds of formalization of the attitudes of our ancestors to Nature and Man's place in it.
The Myths also constitute a traditional embodiment of the ethical values and cultural characteristics which marked the society of our forefathers.
We are informed by present day empirical data, from a number of sources, that in those early days in our racial and cultural history some of our people headed east to dominate India, as well as those others who gravitated westward, civilizing Europe.
While our people survived ethnically in Europe's Northern lands, their basic trends of thought, as evidenced in the Myths, did not. Aryan thinking was systematically purged from Mediterranean south to caucasian north by the incursions of Judeo-Christianity.
Ironically enough, our people were sold out by their very leaders, who felt that Judeo-Christianity would prove to be a valuable tool in the subjugation of the indomitable Aryan spirit.
On the other side of the geographical coin, however, our relatives who established their Aryan empire upon the power life of the Indian subcontinent carried Indo-European thought to new heights.
One of the most significant moments in the development and formalization of Indo-European existential perception occurred in a brief exiting moment, twenty five hundred years ago, during the life of the Buddha, S'Akyamuni Guatama.
Doctor Daisetz Suzuki, the greatest contemporary authority on Zen Buddhism, describes the event this way: "The Buddha's" enlightenment took place when he looked up early one morning at the morning star. He had been engaged in meditation for many years; his intellectual research had given him no spiritual satisfaction; he was intensely occupied with discovering, if possible, something which went deeper into the ground of his personality. Looking at the star made him conscious of that something in himself which he had been in search of. He then became the Buddha."
The Buddha taught the concept, or rather anti-concept, of the achievement of enlightenment through arduous process leading to the realization of the true self, while at the same time being aware of the indivisibility of the real self and the universe.
Expressed more bluntly, the duality of subjective consciousness is recognized as a false perception of existence, since what is simple is.
These concepts will be discussed in greater details at a later time. The mental preoccupation required to deal with the Indo-European approach as developed in Buddhism, and culminated in the all-consuming awareness of Zen, is phenomenal, even for persons raised in a culture where exposure to these ideas occurs practically from birth.
The finer points of the topic do not lend themselves to the brevity of treatment required by the circumstances under which this article is written.
Historically, the thought of Buddhism was taken to China six hundred years later from whence it finally reached Japan in the sixth century of Judeo-Christian reckoning.
As Aryan civilization in India met its demise through gross miscegenation in the centuries which followed, Buddhism was gradually distorted to such an extent by the indigenous, racially mixed population of the subcontinent that today's Indian life-style of vegetating in unproductive abandon while tripped out on various narcotics, and waiting impatiently for Western handouts, bears no resemblance to that sophisticated philosophical school of which it insists that it is an integral part.
In fact, today's Indian is no more a Buddhist than he is an Indo-European.
He is, rather, I like the jackals, which set upon the lifeless corpse of a once magnificent being, rendering final the utter devastation of those last traces of the greatness which really was before.
But, as Buddhism was dying in India with the people who developed it, it found renewed vigour with the Japanese, who have shown themselves to be our ethnic and cultural counterparts in the world of the Orient. The Japanese developed an amorphous concept called Zen, which they fused to the idea of Buddhism.
Japanese Zen is the highest form of development of Indo-European Buddhism. We are fortunate, indeed, that there existed an advanced race capable of preserving and refining a concept which would otherwise surely have been lost when our Eastern relatives in India ceased to exist cultural-

[Page 6]

ly and biologically.
Western man, having been estranged from the thought of his own people largely through perverted Judeo-Christian teachings, balks when presented with the light of Zen.
The words of William Bunce, the director of a detailed report used in the demoralization of the Japanese race and nation, as prepared for the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander of The Allied Powers, Tokyo, 1948, typify the response of most Westerners to Zen: "The Western mind, reared in the atmosphere of Christian or Jewish theology, will be puzzled if it approaches Buddhism with the expectation of finding in it something familiar. Pure Buddhism has practically no theology; it is basically a philosophy and must be so studied. Even as a philosophy, there is no uniformity or common pattern." -- Bunce admits the effect of the Jewish connection upon caucasian thinking.
Then, he proceeds to heap abuse on true Indo-European thought by referring to it as lacking uniformity and consistency. But what else can one expect of an apologist for the imperialist occupation. forces sent to subdue enemy forces.
Zen poses a clear threat to the predominance of Judeo-Christian thought patterns. Zen offers a path to self-realization and self--actualization, neither of which is compatible with cultural subjugation or manipulation through the imposition of superstitious religious beliefs.
After having read this much about Zen, you are probably wondering just what Zen is and why it causes such consternation among certain ruling circles.
Zen is impossible to define precisely, and almost as difficult to describe.
In paraphrasing an ancient Taoist maxim, it may be said, "The Zen that can be described is not the eternal Zen."
Zen is a way rather than an end. It is the direct immediate path to awareness.
Zen rejects mediation and abstraction, which are central to the process of intellectualism. This is not to say that the intellectual process is undesirable. Rather, intellectual thought must be recognized as being merely a method by which a certain logical result is to be obtained.
Intellectualism must always be kept within its bounds. -- Consider, for example, the nonsense to which the cogitation of Des Cartes may be reduced, if his existential premise is given the full logical treatment. His classical assertion, "Cogito, ergo sum," contains, in intellectual logic, a non sequitur.
What kind of empirically verifiable connection exists between the "I think" and the "I am"? How could Des Cartes demonstrate that his thinking was no mere illusion? Moreover, how could he prove that his very existing also was not illusory?
Cannot there be existence without consciousness? What about stones? What about trees? What about mentally defectives?
Or do they also engage in cognitive, mental processes unknown to ourselves? -- The debate becomes circular, and continues ad nauseam. No amount of intellectual circumlocution can resolve it.
Zen, however, dispels the problem intuitively. The fact that Des Cartes was aware of his existence should have settled the matter for him.
Zen, as one writer notes, is on the intuitive plane. It is, therefore, beyond discussion and the sway of opposites and comparisons by which all description and argumentation are conducted.
Thus, Zen must be understood on its own plane, or not at all, for the intellect can never understand or assimilate spiritual facts. A rose may be torn to pieces, and each particle analyzed in a laboratory, but no scientist will ever find therein the beauty of the rose.
The intellect may argue and debate; it "'I may learn and teach a vast amount of almost anything; but, it can never know.
Zen, is a matter of experience, that is immediate knowing.
In the West, the faculty of direct experience -- naked, direct experience - stripped of the mediating factors of thought, emotion, ritual, or the convenient invention which men call god, is comparatively rare.
Another writer relates the foregoing to the matter of art. The intellect, he says, can understand intellectual things. Life can understand living things. Intellect, he adds, usurp the function of poetry when it replaces the imagination and the compassion of the poet.
For the poet, being in close and constant touch with life itself, has still the gift of wonder. The intellect, for all its limitations, is essential for the daily, practical tasks of living, but must be fully developed in order to be transcended, and in this way, its limitations must be recognized.
That giant of European Philosophy, Oswald Spengler, himself once lucidly noted the inappropriateness of attempting to reduce life to the intellectual plane when he wrote: "The means whereby to identify dead forms is mathematical law."

[Page 7]

Are not many of these thoughts familiar to us Odinists? Our notions of culture, instinct, art, and civilization are also premised upon an intuitive basis. We, too, reject the social crutch of organized religion, replete with gaudy ritual, rigid dogma, and irrational superstition.
All of this we share with Zen. Odinism is largely a state of mind in being. So is Zen. Odinists are close to Nature, Life and the Universe. The same is true of Zen. Odinists know honour, loyalty to folk and culture, and the greatness of the hero. -- And the Samurai, steeped in the wisdom of Zen, were not these of importance to him?
A scholar once noted: "The difficulty the West experiences in understanding Japanese civilization is due primarily to the strange spectacle of a spiritual, aesthetic and utilitarian evolution progressing as a single nationalistic movement.
"The West still inclines to these three as independent factors of life, to be kept apart rather than united. Yet in the East, these things are seen as aspects of one whole, and this united vision is, in itself, to some extent the effect of Zen."
I submit, however, that an Odinist would have no difficulty in understanding such a unity of purpose, for Odinism is itself a philosophical balance of spiritual and physical reality.
Life moves on. It is fluid, dynamic, and ever changing.
Since Zen is sharply focused on Life, it too, is fleeting, defying trite, simplistic categorization. How similar indeed, is this to the sentiment of Emerson. "When you speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you say," he said, refusing, to let himself be distracted by words `about' the subject, when he had the direct experience.
The point is epitomized splendidly in the wise words of the ancient sage Lao Tse: "He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know."
A Master was once asked, "What is the Way, (that is, what is Zen)?" "What a fine mountain this is," he said, referring to the mountain where he had his retreat. "I am not asking you about the mountain, but about the Way," persisted the questioner. As long as you cannot go beyond the mountain," replied the Master,"you cannot find the Way."
So, we may ask ourselves again: "Who am I?" and What is reality?"
For those prepared to open their minds, and willing to explore the less familiar areas of Indo-European thought , "Zen Odinism" may show the Way.

W. N.



Toynbee said somewhere that "thinking for oneself is always arduous and sometimes painful," and he is absolutely correct; it is hard work to think for oneself, and it is outright difficult not to be influenced by the general trend of fashion, whether in the clothes you wear, the food you eat, or the way you think. The so-called public opinion stares you in the face all day long; but what "everybody does or thinks" is usually not based on sound deliberation and judgment.
The mass of people of the West does, in reality do little or no thinking for themselves; they would probably protest furiously, for most of them believe they do, -- but it just ain't so.
Of course, if we should only accept as truth what we know of our own knowledge we would not get very far -- we have to gather our information from somewhere. And first of all most of us are greatly influenced by what we have learned in school and at home, in church and at work; the people closest to us -- family, friends, teachers, colleagues -- are the most natural source of information to draw freedom. And yet, just because people we love and respect believe in certain values, is not always reason enough for us to believe the same; we still have to think matters over and judge for ourselves.
But we also form many of our opinions from books we read, TV programs we watch, from magazines and newspapers and from people we meet and talk with. And here comes some of the difficulties; for far too often the information dished up to us in the news media is not correct; the people we talk to are not properly informed; the opinions expressed are not based on natural instincts, but on emotionalism and bias, not on facts, but on propaganda or misrepresentation, not on truth but on imagery or unrealistic notions.
If a statement does not seem reasonable to you, if it does not agree with your instincts and common sense, don't believe it until you have answered two very important questions: 1) Who says so? 2) and Why?
When you have answered these questions, you will be one step further in deciding whether to believe the statement or not.
If the person who made it, is a dependable individual whom you have no reason to believe deliberately would tell anything incorrect, you may accept his statement although there still is the possibility that he may be mistaken; you should, therefore,

[Page 8]

[Editor's Note: a line of text is missing in the original] ... or behave in a certain way? Far too often answers to these questions are ignored and our folk has fallen for any smooth operator who hands them a line.
Just think for a moment on the damage Dr. Spock has caused with his theories on child rearing, particularly in view of the fact that he recently publicly admitted that he "to some degree" had been mistaken. Fine and dandy, he can now brazenly admit what he might have known all along, for all the damage he could possibly do, has before done. Or take a look at the education system. After John Dewey had bungled up the educational system in the USSR, he came back to the US and was hailed as the foremost authority on the "new" philosophy of teaching -- the only one in step with the times, and he immediately proceeded to make a shambles of the educational system in his home country.
And here it is that the second question comes in. Why does this person say as he does? Will he profit from having you believe this or that? Will any of his relatives or friends profit by it? Does he belong to any organization or group that would like you to believe certain things try to find out if he really has his facts straight.
If it, however, is an outsider who is making the statements you think are wrong, a person you do not know, one who has no relationship to your community, you certainly should be careful not too quickly to put too much trust in his opinions. He may be correct, but then, he may also quite possibly be putting you on, for since he is not a member of your community he cannot have any feelings of responsibility toward you and your group of people; on the contrary, he might have purposes and goals of his own to promote.
Both these men belonged to the community of the West; but they had adopted the Marxist socialist theories and in all they said and did they faithfully followed the Gospel of St. Marx. All their fellow believers were quick to proclaim loudly how wonderful they were and how tremendous a job they were doing. And because question no. 2 went unanswered, people believed their nonsense.
If we had said to ourselves: This goes against what we think is right, so why do these men break with tradition and established values? The answer would have been obvious. They say so because they want to promote the Marxist socialist revolution. If this had been clearly understood by people in general, some would, of course, have accepted it as the new trend. But I think that most of us, had we realized the sinister purpose of this "new" approach, would have been clearheaded enough effectively to have opposed it and examined the likely results of it a little closer.
However, it is water under the bridge now, and holding a post mortem is of no use unless we learn from our experiences; so next time somebody comes up to us with some "new and wonderful idea" we are going to ask ourselves: Who is this person? Why does he suggest these new ideas?
Not to change at all means stagnation; of course we must move with the times, take advantage of new inventions, expand our possibilities, technologically and intellectually, improve our powers of body, mind and spirit; but a change will only be to the benefit of the folk if it is in keeping with our moral obligations and in harmony with our Indo-European instincts.



* * *




When, in a political context, the year 1933 is mentioned, many of you will probably think that this was the year Adolf Hitler took power in Germany. But 1933 has another political significance, and a sinister one at that; for 1933 is also the year the US recognized the Soviet regime of the USSR.
This fact was recently brought up in a book by Antony Sutton: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.
In this connection Canadians should remember that it was "their" government that released Trotsky from internment in Halifax and thus freed him to travel to Russia with the financial support, necessary to carry on the communist revolution and thus create a regime of terror that now has lasted more than fifty years and cost the lives of unknown millions of people.
In his book, Sutton also mentions the seemingly contradictory alliance between capitalism and communism and shoots holes in the accepted conventional wisdom that there is a conflict of interest between big business and revolution.
In today's politically pinkish climate this hardly raises any eyebrows for we are conditioned to see "wealth and communism" hand in hand -- and think nothing of it -- [Editor's note: A line of text is missing in the original] ...vide the present detente which, of course, is supported by you know who.

[Page 9]



In "Decline of the West" Spengler says that "the transition from Culture to Civilization" in the West took place already in the 19th century. He also maintains that "civilization is the inevitable destiny of the culture" and that "pure civilization as a historical process consists in a progressive taking-down of forms that have become inorganic and dead."
This is a rather pessimistic outlook, because in reality it means that whatever we do, things will happen the way they are ordained and we can do nothing to change the course of events.
Yockey, who to a great extent builds his "Imperium" on Spengler's philosophy, is not quite as unpromising but says, as Spengler, that this stage of civilization has been experienced by all known High Cultures. He goes on and explains further that from the standpoint of the culture-organism this stage is a crisis. This is the period when Reason triumphs, when the ideal of the beautiful yields to the ideal of the ugly, when philosophy turns into pure social-ethics and economics ends up in money-power.
Applied to politics Reason produces democracy, the population numbers increase tremendously and instead of publicly known responsible leaders, parliaments serve the interests of anonymous groups who are the de facto rulers. (All of which rather precisely paints a picture of the West today).
By about 1900, nine tenth of the surface of the earth was controlled from Western capitals. This brought on the added circumstance that the tremendous will power of the West gradually awakened the slumbering masses of the outer world to political activity. Before the inner class wars had been overcome, the outer war of races had begun. In the 20th century, therefore, we have in the West had annihilation wars and world wars as a continuous internal strain and at the same time the rising of the outside world against the civilization.
In a matter of 50 years world power for all great questions has changed from being determined on European soil to being expended from the two capitals, Washington and Moscow.
Although America, because of the European ancestry of its population of course belongs to Europe and the West, this result was obviously obtained through an inner division of Western culture. The division was not material; material things can not divide men if their minds agree. It was a spiritual division that brought the West to its knees.
Half of Europe had already embraced the 20th century outlook with a completely different attitude towards Life, a different valuation of Life, while the other half still was steeped in the view of the 19th century.
When the spiritual division of Europe comes to an end, the extra-European powers will not be able to hold down the strong-willed population of the West.
The first step of action is thus the liquidation of the spiritual division of Europe; there is only ONE FUTURE, the organic Future.
The only changes that can be brought about in a Culture are those which its life stage necessitates. The 20th century outlook is synonymous with the Future of the West. The perpetuation of the 19th century outlook means the continuation of the domination of the West by Culture distorters and barbarians.
The idea in keeping with the new Spirit of the Age is not a catchword, but a living breathing, wordless feeling which already exists in all Westerners, articulated in few, dawning in the minds of most. This idea in its wordless grandeur, with its irresistible imperative is only experienced by the few people who matter, the Westerners who can feel the Imperative of the Future working within them.
It is necessary that their world outlook be the same in all its fundamentals, and we know in this historical age that the prevailing spirituality of an age is a function of its soul. Thus our inner imperative and outlook on Life is determined for us by the Age. A part of the outlook of any age is simply the negation of that of the previous age; each age has to assert its new spirit against its predecessors. These thoughts and values are compelling for us; they are not personal, but super-personal and compulsory for men who intend to do something with their lives. They are not liable to argument but are commands of the Spirit of the Age.



* * *


Everything decisive comes to life in spite of every obstacle.


[Page 10]




In the latest issue of The Journal of Indo-European Studies, Professor Thomas E. Lee of Lavalle University in Quebec, gives a long and interesting account of some discoveries made in the Arctic portion of the Ungava Peninsula in Northern Quebec. Prof. Lee begins this article with recounting the many bitter battles fought over the evidence that Norsemen discovered the American continent centuries before Columbus ever set foot on American soil. According to Prof. Lee there has only been one exception to this rule; the finds at L'Anse-aux Meadows in Newfoundland seem to have met with no trouble and to have been accepted by the "authorities" at face value, something Prof. Lee seems to think is rather astonishing in view of the gathered evidence. One wonders if the purpose of this acceptance might be, after some time, to "discover" that it was really not true evidence of a Viking settlement, so the Vikings were not here after all -- ("didn't we tell you Columbus was the first!!!") -- this seems to have been the case with some other discovered artifacts.
Prof. Lee then proceeds to give a captivating description of the area in which he has excavated, and the long houses and other evidence of Viking occupancy he has found, particularly along the coast of Payne Bay, where he has been working on and off since 1964, when he originally went to investigate some traces of the Dorset culture. (The Dorset culture is known to have existed as far back as 2000 B.C.E.) Prof. Lee found some strange stones that he soon realized were neither Dorset, nor Eskimo. After several years of more extensive exploration and excavation, he became convinced that these finds were Norse in origin.
Through talks with local people, Whites as well as Eskimo, Prof. Lee found that there was no Eskimo connection with these ruins; on the contrary, he was told that they were build by "white men before the Eskimo"..
The article then goes into further details of the actual long houses and other evidence found, and Prof. Lee ends up with pointing out that there is clear proof of Norse habitation in Ungava in pre-Columbian times, even if certain professional circles do not want to accept this fact.
It has been said that a people who has no past, has no future either. It seems clear, that some people go through a lot of trouble to prove that our forefathers did not have any claim on this continent and that we, therefore, are a rootless people without a past.
Prof. Lee's complaints do not surprise me in the least. I know of my own knowledge of a Viking boat that was found by a fisherman, Orrie Vail in Tobermory in Ontario. In the summer of 1955 Mr. Vail announced that he had found a Viking boat in a cove on one of the small islands north of Bruce Peninsula between Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. He arranged the wreck in a shed and invited people to view this important historical find. We went to have a look and, having seen Viking boats in Scandinavia, we recognized it as such. It had the typical shape; iron rivets had been used, made of a kind of Swedish ore that has a special sonorous sound when struck with a hard object. Also from other evidence it was obvious to us that this was a Viking boat.
However, some time later we were informed through the papers that there had been a mistake; it was not a Viking boat at all and the wreck was now believed to be that of a barque "Griffon" that had disappeared in 1679. Griffon was a sail carrying two-master, had a flat transom and also otherwise was built quite different to a Viking boat. When we the following year took some friends to Tobermory to have another look, the shed was locked, and Mr. Vail, who during the winter months apparently had had some financial luck, was too busy with his motel business to talk to us.
I am not an archaeologist, but I am an old sailor, and I believe I can recognize a Viking boat when I see one. I do not have much confidence in the authorities who decided that Mr. Vail's find was Griffon; but if it had not been this lost ship, it would have proven that Norsemen had sailed the Canadian inland waters in pre-Columbian times, and that apparently is a No-No.
As more and more discoveries are made I guess it cannot be suppressed much longer, and the "authorities" will have no accept the fact that "the Vikings were here."



* * *


Action, to be effective, must be within a spiritual framework.





Reenactment at the Centennial Pageant, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1925,
photo taken from The Promise of America

The America First Institute

Please visit our donation page
and support our cause.

Short URL for this web page:

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.