The Overman High Culture
& the Future of the West
Ted Sallis
_____________________
Can the West and its peoples be saved? And what will this take—particularly if we are concerned with a long-term solution rather than a last ditch “stop gap?” Can a new High Culture of the West arise to secure the existence of the peoples of the West for an extended time frame? What characteristics should such a new culture have?
I will assume the reader is familiar with the civilizational model of Oswald Spengler, a model essentially adopted by Francis Parker Yockey in his various works on the West and its future possibilities. With a Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter of a High Culture, “Winter” is the phase of oncoming oblivion. It is clear, at least to me (and it seems that Michael O’Meara agrees with this assessment), that we are in the “Winter” of our current modern Western (i.e., “Faustian”) High Culture. And, immersed within this decay, bereft of an overriding organizing principle to provide a spiritual structure for its continued existence, the white race is dying, failing to reproduce, being displaced by aliens, and offering an inadequate level of resistance to the death of the West.
In actual physical weather/climate seasons, spring follows winter. Can the same hold true for particular peoples and their High Cultures? If civilizational (re)birth will lead to long-term racial survival, should we at least consider the possibilities? Of course, one cannot predict with full accuracy if a civilizational (re)birth will take place, much less the precise form such an event would take. Further, one cannot pre-plan and create a High Culture in the manner of a general formulating a strategy and then leading troops into battle. A High Culture must develop along its own lines, according to factors not entirely within (conscious) human control. However, one can, and should, examine the evidence, consider the possibilities, and to the extent it is possible, encourage those trends leading to a civilizational (re)birth. Further, these trends could, and should, be guided, to the extent possible, in directions that would be most fruitful and most consistent with the nature of our people.
A starting point is to consider our present High Culture, the dying remnants of which we see around us. The so-called “Western” or “Faustian” civilization has been described by Spengler and is summarized thus (emphasis added):
. . . the modern Westerners being Faustian. According to its theories, we are now living in the winter time of the Faustian civilization. His description of the Faustian civilization is one where the populace constantly strives for the unattainable—making Western Man a proud but tragic figure, for while he strives and creates he secretly knows the actual goal will never be reached.[1]
Here we see two defining characteristics of the “Faustian” civilization of the modern (i.e., post-Classical) West: first, a focus on infinity and the unknown, and second, that the striving toward that focus will always be unsuccessful; the objectives of Western Man are always “unattainable.” The second point, and its implications, will be further discussed below. For now, let us accept the Spenglerian model and also accept that we are in the Winter of the Faustian culture. Now, the Spenglerian school, steeped in “stoic acceptance” (“pessimism”) will advise us to accept, and make the most of, our circumstances. The era in which we live in is what it is, and, like a Roman soldier on guard under erupting Vesuvius, we must stand at our post until the end, until all is enveloped in inescapable decay (civilizational entropy, if you will).
But if race and culture are linked, the dissipation of the culture means the destruction of the race. Or does it? The Faustian is not the first High Culture of Europe; it was preceded by the Classical. Spengler and his follower Yockey break with previous cultural interpretations to stress the sharp discontinuity between Classical and Faustian. These are perceived as being two distinct High Cultures, as different from each other as each is to, say, the Egyptian or the Magian.
Therefore, from the same article on Spengler’s work, we read (emphasis added):
Spengler borrows frequently from mathematical philosophy. He holds that the mathematics and art of a civilization reveal its world-view. He notes that in Greek classical mathematics that there are only integers and no real concepts of limits or infinity. Therefore, without a concept of the infinite, all events of the distant past were viewed as equally distant, thus Alexander the Great had no problem declaring himself a descendant of a god. On the other hand, the western world—which has concepts of the zero, the infinite, and the limit—has a historical world-view which places a high amount of importance on exact dates.[2]
Similarly, Revilo Oliver writes (emphasis added):
Spengler identifies as two entirely separate and discrete civilizations the Classical (“Apollonian”), c. 1100 B.C.–A.D. 300, and the Western (“Faustian”), c. A.D. 900–2200. These are the two for which we have the fullest information, and between them Spengler establishes some of his most brilliant synchronisms (e.g., Alexander the Great corresponds to Napoleon). Even a century ago, this dichotomy would have seemed almost mad, for everyone knew and took for granted that whatever might be true of alien cultures, our own was a continuation, or, at least, revival of the Classical. Spengler’s denial of that continuity was the most radical and startling aspect of his historical synthesis, but so great has been his overshadowing influence that it has been accepted by a majority of the many subsequent writers on the philosophy of history, of whom we may mention here only Toynbee, Raven, Bagby, and Brown. The Classical, we are told, was a civilization like the Egyptian, now dead and gone and with no organic connection with our own. . . . Spengler (whom Brown especially follows in this respect) supports his drastic dichotomy by impressively contrasting Graeco-Roman mathematics and technology with our own; from that contrast he deduces differences in the perception of space and time, exhibited particularly in music, and reaches the conclusion that the Classical Weltanschauung was essentially static, desiring and recognizing only a strictly delimited and familiar world, whereas ours is dynamic and exhibits a passionate yearning for the infinite and the unknown. One can advance various objections to the generalizations I have so curtly and inadequately summarized (e.g., is the difference in outlook really greater than that between the “classical” literature of Eighteenth-Century Europe and the Romanticism of the following era?), but the crucial point is whether the differences, which belong to the order that we must call spiritual for want of a better term, are fundamental or epiphenomenal.[3]
I have tended toward the “epiphenomenal” explanation—but in any case, one can agree with Oliver’s overarching conclusion in his various works: either the Classical and Faustian are different yet connected phases of the same Civilization, or, even if completely distinct, Western Man is capable of producing multiple High Cultures. Either way, one can conclude two things: (1) a successor to the Faustian High Culture is possible and has a precedent, and (2) this successor will be intimately connected in important ways to its predecessor(s) (even if Spengler and Yockey would deny this could be possible).
Therefore, either the Classical and Faustian are indeed linked (by a generalized common gene pool, “racial soul,” and Western outlook) or, if they are indeed distinct, they are not completely unconnected, as they derive from a common wellspring or foundation (again, the generalized gene pool, “racial soul,” and Western mindset of greater individualism and empiricism compared to other peoples and cultures).
Not only are the Classical and the Faustian in some sense linked but, contrary to Spengler and Yockey—and, indeed, a heresy of the Spenglerian school that rejects a linear history—there is a sense of progression, in that the worldview of the Faustian is broader than that of the Classical; indeed, this greater breadth of vision is a defining characteristic of the Faustian. This breadth being manifested in such phenomena as high level technics, and a mass knowledge base of science, history, philosophy and morality-ethics, the foundation is therefore laid for a new High Culture of a vision even broader than that of the Faustian.
A Spenglerian would argue that any new High Culture of the West, even if possible (and they may deny this possibility), would be completely disconnected to the “Faustian” aspects of the former, (i.e., present) Western Faustian High Culture. However, I argue that, having being awakened to the universe at large, it is unlikely that the white man would create a new High Culture that would be insular, rejecting the infinite.
To the (albeit limited) extent we can predict, or even influence, the development of a new High Culture, a potential direction is one that is not purely “Faustian”—in the sense of striving for the unattainable. Instead, one can project a future High Culture that is based upon the ultimate and successful (eventual) achievement of what was previously considered to be “unattainable.”
I would argue that the Christian foundation of the Faustian High Culture is responsible for the fact that the ultimate goals that Western man strives toward end up being “unattainable”—and secretly known by him to be “unattainable.” The Christian mindset places inherent limits within the mind of Western man, so he is doomed to ultimately fail even if full success is theoretically possible (eventually). After all, the focus of Christianity is God and not Man, it is “salvation” and not overcoming, and it is a focus on “the next world” and not this, our real world. For man to achieve godhood—or to even have that as a goal—is a form of “blasphemy,” it is something that cannot be countenanced. Therefore, ultimate failure must occur, for attainment of the “Faustian” goal (attainment itself would then make the event no longer be truly “Faustian”) is simply not possible in a High Culture based upon Christianity.
The full development of Western man has been restrained by an alien religion that has placed shackles on his mind and his soul. Nietzsche well recognized the constraints imposed by (Judeo-) Christianity; in his The Antichrist we find (emphasis added):
—Has anyone ever clearly understood the celebrated story at the beginning of the Bible—of God’s mortal terror of science? . . . No one, in fact, has understood it. This priest-book par excellence opens, as is fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: he faces only one great danger; ergo, “God” faces only one great danger.—
The old God, wholly “spirit,” wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He creates man—man is entertaining. . . But then he notices that man is also bored. God’s pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises knows no bounds: so he forthwith creates other animals. God’s first mistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining—he sought dominion over them; he did not want to be an “animal” himself.—So God created woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end—and also many other things! Woman was the second mistake of God.—”Woman, at bottom, is a serpent, Heva”—every priest knows that; “from woman comes every evil in the world”—every priest knows that, too. Ergo, she is also to blame for science. . . It was through woman that man learned to taste of the tree of knowledge.—What happened? The old God was seized by mortal terror. Man himself had been his greatest blunder; he had created a rival to himself; science makes men godlike—it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific!—Moral: science is the forbidden per se; it alone is forbidden. Science is the first of sins, the germ of all sins, the original sin. This is all there is of morality.—“Thou shalt not know”—the rest follows from that.—God’s mortal terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one to protect one’s self against science? For a long while this was the capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure, foster thought—and all thoughts are bad thoughts!—Man must not think.—And so the priest invents distress, death, the mortal dangers of childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all, sickness—nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles of man don’t allow him to think. . . Nevertheless—how terrible!—, the edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing the gods—what is to be done?—The old God invents war; he separates the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (—the priests have always had need of war. . . .). War—among other things, a great disturber of science !—Incredible! Knowledge, deliverance from the priests, prospers in spite of war.—So the old God comes to his final resolution: “Man has become scientific—there is no help for it: he must be drowned!”. . . . [4]
Indeed. If “the meek shall inherit the Earth” there is no place for any human striving for the infinite that is successful, and which places Man on the same plane as God. If meekness, humility, the “humble lamb of God” is the foundational archetype of a culture, then of course infinity and the unknown will always be unattainable. “Thou shalt not know”: it is amazing how much we have achieved despite that, and these remarkable Western achievements have occurred—not by coincidence—primarily during the Autumn and Winter periods of the Faustian High Culture. Only when the constraints imposed by the Christian-defined culture have to a large extent dissipated has the a priori acceptance of failure been weakened.
The problem is that with a decaying, dying High Culture, this (partial) emancipation from the cult of humility will go for naught. Only a new High Culture built upon the fundamental concept of human transcendence, and on the attainment of infinity/the unknown, will allow Western Man to fulfill his density. The crumbling ruins of the previous High Culture can serve as building blocks for the future, certainly; they can provide inspiration, certainly; and be a source of pride, certainly. But we need to look toward the Future, and not stand guard over a dying, or dead, Past, analogous to Spengler’s Roman soldier.
While I mean no disrespect to anyone’s beliefs, be they Christian or Pagan, I do not see a revival of ancient pagan gods as a forward-thinking improvement over the decay of Faustianism. Replacing Jesus with Thor, in my mind, simply replaces one fantasy-crutch with another. White men should no longer require any exogenous gods, whether new or old; we instead should strive toward godhood for our race. It is time for the white man to grow up and put away the fantasies of childhood, fantasies of gods and external intelligent forces controlling a destiny that should be ours, and ours alone, to mold.
The motto of the Classical World was “Know Thyself,” while that of the Faustian Age was a combination of “Thou Shalt Not Know” with “Thou Shalt Try to Know and Thou Shalt Fail.” I propose that the new High Culture of the West have the motto: “Thou Shalt Know and Thou Shalt Overcome.” This will usher in an era in which Western Man unlocks his potential by unlocking the shackles imposed by an assumed inferiority to imaginary gods.
The following quote from Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe summarizes the palingenetic objective that we could, if we so wished, strive for:
Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of
In other words, no imaginary gods. It is Man that will become “God.” In the book The Portable Nietzsche, editor Walter Kaufmann interprets Nietzsche’s “overman” thus: “what is called for is not a super-brute but a human being who has created for himself that unique position in the cosmos that the Bible considered his birthright.”[6] That was going well until that last part—about “the Bible.” No, Mr. Kaufman, the Bible does not consider the Overman to be the ultimate birthright of humanity but instead the “last man” as the “prize” instead. It is we who must choose what our “birthright” is, not the wild fantasies of “the Bible.”
However, that being so, the rest of the description is sound, if we consider that it is to be applied to the race as a whole and not only to selected individuals within the race. No more “proud, tragic” failure in “striving for the unattainable” in the “Faustian” culture—instead the Overman Culture will be characterized by the proud successful attainment of the infinite. That is what a hopeful individual can project as the new High Culture of the West, with links to the Classical and the Faustian, but surpassing both in the aim and objective of the human spirit. That is what Western Destiny can and should be.
What can we do to get things on the right track?
Although the Jewish author Isaac Asimov may not be popular among many white racial nationalists, his Foundation series can provide a useful analogy here. “The Foundation” was meant to jumpstart a new civilization after the collapse of the “Galactic Empire,” so that the post-collapse “era of barbarism” would be a mere thousand years, instead of 30,000. Facing as we do the collapse of the West through the Winter of the Faustian age, it may be prudent to lay the seeds of a new emergent white, Western civilization for the long term, as we also fight the more short-term and medium-term battles to preserve the white race and save as much of Western Faustian civilization as possible. Without these shorter range objectives, the long term civilizational (re)birth will not be possible. Conversely, without a civilizational (re)birth, long-term white preservationism would be questionable.
So, there are two things that need to be going on here. First is the ongoing struggle for white racial preservationism and to save as much of the Faustian culture as possible, to serve as a knowledge base and building blocks for the new High Culture of the West. Second, an effort must be initiated to begin the process of laying the groundwork for this new High Culture.
As indicated above, of course a High Culture is an organic phenomenon that cannot be created in a pre-planned form and artificially imposed on a people. However, it is possible to plant the seeds and to have some choice as to which seeds are planted. And then, we can nurture the seedling as it grows, and as it develops according to its own inherent character. This we can do and this we must do.
This is a serious matter requiring forward-thinking strategy of an extreme visionary character, not something that can be productively “discussed” on “blog threads” or other (typically inane) public forums. It is not something that can occur overnight. This is a long-term, multi-generational project that needs to be undertaken by dedicated individuals who wish to lay the foundation of something great and noble for posterity. This will not be not any “quick fix” whose results may be seen in a decade or two; instead, this is a project that has the potential to influence the course of human history, and it must be conducted on that higher level.
Therefore, this essay is simply a call for action and an initial and cursory consideration of the possibilities. If such a project is ever initiated, it should not, and must not, devolve into the mundane “movement” minutiae that many obsess over, nor can it be linked to the more serious, yet short-term, necessary “stop-gap” activism required to save our people and culture today. This is another matter, on another level, entirely.
Many are called; few are chosen. The Future Awaits.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
[3] Revilo P. Oliver, The Enemy of Our Enemies (Reedy, W.V.: Liberty Bell Publications, 1981), 16–17.
[4] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, trans. H. L. Mencken (1895) (Torrance, Cal.: The Noontide Press, 1980), § 48.
[5] Francis Parker Yockey, The Enemy of
[6] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Viking Penguin, 1954), 115–16.
