Chapter Three of my book, Forging the Hero: Who Does More Is Worth More, opens with a quote from English antiquarian and author, the late H.R. Ellis-Davidson (1914-2006), from her book Gods and Myths of Northern Europe: “The mythology of a people is far more than a collection of pretty or terrifying fables to be retold in carefully bowdlerized form to our schoolchildren. It is the comment of the men of one particular age or civilization on the mysteries of human existence and the human mind, their model for social behavior, and their attempt to define, in stories of gods and demons, their perception of inner realities.” There is a lot of value in that statement, for building inherent resilience into our local community cultures, even if you are not a dirty, unwashed heathen like myself. As I went on to point out in that chapter, one of the side effects of the decadence of the Age of Affluence discussed by Glubb in The Fate of Empires was the impact of the rise of intellectualism in a society. He pointed to the parallels between the Caliphate (the first Caliphate, not the resurgent one we are currently in conflict with) and our contemporary Western civilization quite poignantly, as well as to evidence from the Biblical book Acts of the Apostles, of the same issues having arisen in Hellenic culture: “…all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.” In our own time, we’ve watched the unending debates of physically and mentally soft blowhards in the elected legislatures of the western world, the media, and our local communities. “Woe is us! Woe is us! What should we do? What can we do!? We cannot offend! We cannot harm! Violence only breeds more violence!” We see issues debated in the partisan press; incessant talking and bickering, name-calling, and insults. Meanwhile, too few have been willing to stand up—even among the most fervent on either side of a debate—and place their own social, professional, and political futures on the line, and say, “alright, so we have talked this shit to death. Nothing has changed. Now, we are going to just go ahead and do it my way, because you bastards can’t come to a conclusion. Shut the hell up and get out of my way!” When someone does—ever so rarely—decide to sacrifice himself on the altar of action, the other side quickly bemoans the “lack of bispartisanship,” and “spirit of democracy,” even if the precipitous action worked and solved the problem. If the actor was on the Right, he is quickly mocked as a fascist or Nazi, and even his erstwhile allies are quick to abandon ship, lest they be tarred with the same ridiculous brush. If the actor is on the Left, they are just as quickly mocked with equally fatuous labels of “Marxist!” or “Communist!” even when their proposals have nothing to do with Marx’s scribblings. No one, on either side, has been willing to accept being called names, even though our forebears were willing to challenge each other to duels on the floor of Congress. Regardless, this spirit of Athenian debate seems to be, like elsewhere, predicated on the destruction of the spirit of action that was necessary to the founding of empire. The rise of each empire’s Age of Intellect seems to be a good thing, at least initially. Surprising advances are made in the sciences, and in the understanding of the physical world and nature. In the ninth-century when the Christian world of Europe would require another seven centuries to grasp that, in fact, the world was not flat, and that personal hygiene prevented disease transmission, Mohammedan scientists in the commission of Caliph al-Ma’mun determined the circumference of the Earth to within 200 kilometers, and bathing was a religious precept. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “intellectualism” is defined as “the exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions.” In turn, “intellect” is defined as “the faculty of reasoning or understanding, objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters.” At first glance, either of these seems particularly nefarious. This is fortunate, since the intellect has a definite, positive role to play in life and survival, and the rise of mankind as a species. When we begin looking at it through the prism of the collective experience of human nature however, and witness the resulting expression of this intellectualism with the social and political discourse at the height of imperial power, we begin to see the deleterious effects on life and cultural survival. The most damnable result of the rise of intellectualism, is the growth within the collective psyche of a people, of the idea that the human brain can overcome nature, and solve all of the perceived problems of the world. It is the same belief that “imperialism is bad!” that drives the belief that “imperialism is good!” as subjects of political philosophical debate. The archaeological, anthropological, and historiographic record of the collective human experience pretty clearly indicates that, in order for any human cultural activity to succeed, some form of community must be engaged in the collective effort towards the achievement of the goal. In order for that to take place, the members of the community must be willing to sacrifice self to some degree, and act in a spirit of service to the community. The idealist naivete of “reason always prevails,” or that mental cleverness alone can resolve the world’s problems, without physical effort or community participation, falls flat, as soon as a foe is met who is willing to stop talking, and start chopping the heads off the intellectuals. Intellectualism is not Intelligence Before we can begin to recognize the impact that the Age of Intellect—and the reactionary anti-intellectualism, has on us, and our efforts to preserve those values, customs, and traditions, of our own local community cultures that we value, within the context of the declining empire, we must conceded that having the intelligence to understand the meanings of words, and to apply those words, accurately, is important. As soon as you give up the meaning of words, and instead to choose to accept the “general understanding” of what the establishment wants those words to mean, within the “current lexicon,” you give yourself up to being roped in and controlled by The Narrative. As I pointed out in Forging the Hero, that “prattling social activist intellectual of the worst sort,” Noam Chomsky, has admitted, “…the intellectuals are specialists in defamation, they are basically political commisars, they are the ideological administrators, the most threatened by dissidence.” Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), one of the leading voices of Marxist philosophy in the 20th century, called intellectuals, “the moral conscience of their age.” The social function of the intellectual, in Marxist philosophy, is to be the source of progressive ideals for the transformation of society, and to interpret the country’s politics for the proletariat, as well as to provide guidance and advice to the political leadership of the Party. (Now, go back, and re-read that sentence…a couple times…and think about the connections in modern society, between academia, the media, and the political caste on both sides of the false dialectic…) In Plato’s Republic, the intelligentsia forms the nucleus of the leadership caste of the ideal society. This has become our common understanding of the role of the intellectual, and this has shaped our collective distrust of—and disgust with—intellectualism. The problem with his distrust of intellect is when it results in a backlash of anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism is recognized as a hostility towards the intellect, as well as a distrust of intellectuals. It is expressed in the derision of education, philosophy, literature, and the sciences, as being impractical in the real world, and thus contemptible. This anti-intellectualism occurs on both sides of the modern Hegelian dialectic of western politics. We see the collectivists on the Left who want to tear down any markers of Western cultural ideology, including statuary and iconic landmark buildings that have long been considered architectural wonders of the world. We see them lose their minds over the “inherent racism” and “hetero-normative bias” of classical literature and art and music of the West. On the same hand however, we see the Right refuse to even consider that something new or different may have equal value, or—gods forbid—greater relevance to anyone. “Aww, shit. Them people ain’t never managed to create nothing more lasting than a brush hut! What have them sonsuvbitches got to offer?” Ignoring the fact that the “primitive” culture in question may have survived, largely unchanged, for 2000 years. The Right looks at the material products of a culture, and sees anything else as irrelevant, even as they struggle to discover a way to “maintain cultural identity!” Well-respected conservative political philosopher, Dr. Thomas Sowell—who is, by any objective metric, the definition of an intellectual—makes the case in his 2009 book, Intellectuals and Society, that the rise of anti-intellectualism in the modern world is a justifiable result of malfeasance within the educational system: “By encouraging, or even requiring, students to take stands where they have neither the knowledge nor the intellectual training to seriously examine complex issues, teachers promote the expression of unsubstantiated opinions, the venting of uninformed emotions, and the habit of acting on those opinions and emotions, while ignoring or dismissing opposing views, without having either the intellectual equipment or the personal equipment to weigh one view against another in any serious way.” It is important—absolutely critical, in fact—to point out that Dr. Sowell is critical not of the use of the intellect itself, but of the misplaced emphasis on unreasoned thought. In fact, this is a call for a more disciplined intellectual rigor, requiring both the tools of critical thinking, and the empiricism of life experience, for decision-making about where an individual stands in regard to complex issues. This is critical, because it is precisely what distinguishes intelligence from intellectualism, at a practical and practicable level. Anti-intellectualism has a well-deserved bad reputation precisely because of its prevalence within totalitarianism. Action is critical, but blind adherence to action, untempered by reason and good judgement, ends in poor results for pretty much everyone involved in the long-term. While intellectualism is not—nor should it ever be considered—the final arbiter of Truth, as it relates to human nature, there is a great deal of observableTruth to be found in the scientific method and the pursuit of intellectual rigor represented therein. In order for there to be a benefit from the study of human experience, there has to be a balance between the intellectual and the experiential learning models. The illustration of this that I used in Forging the Hero seems increasingly appropriate: “The academic who has never tasted the copper-mouthed sensation of life-or-death fear, as he watches muzzle flashes downrange, or has never watched the blood pouring out of someone that he knows and loves, lacks the requisite real-life experience to genuinely understand, at a human, visceral level, the warrior past of our collective heritage. “On the opposite side of the coin however, the warrior—no matter how well-blooded in battle—without an intellectual understanding of the human past, can never really understand the strategic and social implications of the combat in which he took part. He is forced to accept the explanations of his leaders, never completely certain if he is being fed a ration of bullshit. The balance must be sought between intellect and instinct.” A Call to Action? To What Action? What then, does all of this prattling have to do with the Ellis-Davidson quote that opened this article? “The mythology of a people is far more than a collection of pretty or terrifying fables to be retold in carefully bowdlerized form to our schoolchildren. It is the comment of the men of one particular age or civilization on the mysteries of human existence and the human mind, their model for social behavior, and their attempt to define, in stories of gods and demons, their perceptions of inner realities.” In a word, “everything.” We see people on both sides of the political extremes beginning to take violent action in support of their definitions of “American values.” I watch social media, as they call for “like-minded people” to stand up and take action in support of their action. I see people respond, blindly, to these calls for action, without ever even considering, “Do I even share these people’s beliefs?” Oxford defines “myth” as: “A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.” Mythology, in turn, is defined as: “A collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.” It is important, before we go further, to understand that nothing in those definitions refers to the “truth” or “accuracy,” or even the “reason and logic” of those tales. We have a national mythology in the United States. It is the one most of us grew up with in school, church, and bedtime stories. We also have various cultural mythologies within the population of the United States. Those mythologies that you believe in, and have internalized, are what will define—for you—what defines “Western culture.” They may or may not be the same as my definition of “Western culture.” Evidenced by a lot of the shit coming across my social media feeds, the definition of “Western culture”held by most on the Right and the Left are dramatically different from my definitions of “Western culture.” The only call to action you should be responding to—or, really, even paying attention to—are those that are in accordance with your cultural values, and the core mythologies that you believe in. If that means you need to armor up and run down to the local riot and start beating on Leftists, that’s on you. For me, that call to action includes reducing my clan’s dependence on external market supports that serve no useful purpose for my clan. These actions have—in recent months (thus explaining, in large part, my absence from any writing efforts on the MG blog) included—convincing most of the clan to start at least small backyard vegetable gardens, change their dietary habits to a more ancestral diet model, increase their physical fitness training, increase their personal protection training, and thinking—and speaking—more openly, about the obligations of frith that tie our clan together, and were recognized previously, but seldom spoken of aloud. That call to action has including no longer reading bedtime stories to my children, instead choosing to recite bedtime stories off-the-cuff. I have found that this forces me to inject the stories with more elements of belief that are specific to our cultural values. That call to action has included attempts to spend less time alone on the farm, and more time convincing the clan to come spend time at the farm, and to spend more time with them at their homes. It has included initiating MORE holiday gatherings than we already participated in, that have existed as long as the clan has existed. That call to action has included making a more concerted effort to look for solutions to needs within the commerce of the clan, rather than running to town and spending money on material goods, sending my money who knows where, to support who knows what. If I have to spend money on something, I would rather put that money in my kinsman’s pocket, where it will eventually get spent on something ELSE that supports my clan, than in the pocket of some complete stranger, whose values I not only don’t share, but don’t even know. That call to action has included dropping whatever I am engaged in at the moment, to get in my truck and drive to wherever someone in my clan has called me from, asking for help. This has ranged from helping to move a refrigerator, to towing a truck, to helping a member of the clan’s parents move house. This call to action has included spending a little more money, for the same item, in order to buy it from a small, local store, owned by a member of my community, instead of driving two hours to the city, and buying it from a big box retailer, for a lesser price, from some impersonal corporate drone. The call to action that all of us should be heeding is not the call to violence (except when necessary to the survival of the clan or community), but the call to make our communities more resilient, by strengthening the bonds of frith that tie those communities together. Continue reading...
