What is a living creature’s most fundamental motivation in life?
On the deepest level, what differentiates a healthy creature from a sick creature?
My most basic premises: Earthly creatures are mortal. A healthy creature wishes, above all, to defeat Death: And in so doing, he or she is willing to risk life, and even to sacrifice it.
I am possessed of a fundamentally reproductive Weltanschauung. My morality, my politics, my philosophy of history, my views on race and culture—all things rise in some way from, or are deeply entwined with, my views of life, death, continuation beyond death, and the Will to Immortality.
In various ways, many have posited that the fundamental motive is a Will to Survive. Such a will obviously exists; but it provides for unsatisfactory philosophical explanations. No matter how the philosophers (and philosophasters) may twist and turn about, they cannot explain away the equally obvious fact that healthy creatures may, and often do sacrifice their own survival. Worst of all, as usual, are the utilitarian rationalizations.
Nietzsche posited a Will to Power: The will of a healthy organism to expend its superabundant energy, and thus, the need of that will for resistance to overcome. This is also correct—much more subtly, less obviously; and Nietzsche thereby repudiated the longstanding, widespread error of assuming that creatures try to conserve their energies. Sloth is not an indulgence in pleasure, but a sickness. Only a sick creature could find pleasure in lassitude, enervation, listlessness, and langour—for Dr. Nietzsche’s philological pleasure, I will use the use of language to show how nice are all the philosophasters and Christian moralists who, being themselves sick and weak, could fancy that a healthy creature would try to avoid the expenditure of energy. However, the explanation is still unsatisfactory.
I say thus:
Every healthy creature desires to be immortal: To conquer Death, or to cheat it—one way or another, to live forever.
To this end, Nature gives to each creature a capacity for reproduction. If a creature creates another in its own image, then passes away, then it has not truly died. Observe that healthy animals will oftentimes risk life and limb for a mere chance to produce offspring.
To so say is retrospectively obvious: Everyone knows it, but no one puts it exactly that way—much less considers the implications. If followed to its logical end, this line of thought produces moral and cultural conclusions about race, family, society, and the individual. Some National Socialists and similar thinkers have expressed similar ideas; but to my knowledge, none have approached or expressed this idea in the same way as I have.
Although I usually abhor any form of human exceptionalism, here, man has indubitably gained an advantage over every other creature: Memory. Achilles has passed into myth: Is he not immortal as a god? According to his myth, it was said that either he would live a long life, then be forgotten—or die young, and be remembered in glory forever. Do I hereby state an original thesis, or am I merely seeing through the eyes of Homeric heroes?
All non-degenerate peoples of higher races keep sacred the memories of their ancestors, who are thus remembered spiritually as they are remembered bodily. Cf. the parallel between Roman ancestor-worship and Chinese ancestor-worship, as drawn by William S. Haas in The Destiny of the Mind: East and West (MacMillan, New York, 1956), pp. 72f. The Jews have elaborate traditions rituals for remembering their beloved dead, even if they do not apotheoize them as the Romans and the Chinese did. Only very low races and Christians forget their ancestors.
A great man may reproduce himself on a grand scale memetically, instead of—or, one would hope, in addition to his genetic continuation. Most men, and almost all women, cannot achieve the historic stature of immortal glory. They must content themselves with the same reproductive immortality available to all living creatures—and hope on a more modest level to be remembered by their families.
The death of the individual is inevitable, for all mortals. It pales in comparison to a much deeper, more horrifying type of death.
Failure to obtain a continuation on this Earth beyond death causes extinction—existential death.
Suicide is not necessarily wrong; and it is often right: “Nihil melius aeterna lex fecit…” It pales in comparison to a much deeper, more horrifying type of suicide.
An animal that becomes depressed will sometimes stop eating, thus forfeiting its own survival. This is not infrequently observed with wild animals who are confined to a menagerie; cf. Nietzsche’s observations about “The ‘Improvers’ of Mankind” in Twilight of the Idols.
How sick must an animal be to desire not only death, but the total and ultimate annihilation of extinction! That is a wish not for an exit from life, but for nonexistence.
How sick must a race be, if, by the majority thereof, it collectively desires nonexistence! Cf. Liberty Bell, May 1992, pp. 14f., where, after pages of summarizing much evidence of Aryan racial inferiority with the objectivity of a truly Aryan scholar, Professor Oliver says:
Throughout the world, Aryans are showing unmistakable symptoms of either imbecility or a latent death-wish. The cause is not certain. One can speculate about the consequences of more than two centuries of dysgenic breeding and legislation. If the Jewish biologist, Dr. Alfred Nossig, is right, much may be attributed to Yiddish poisoning of Aryan blood-lines. One could adapt Robert Ardrey’s hypothesis about the mountain gorillas, that species have a collective subconscious that governs their conduct and becomes aware when a species has become biologically obsolete. The most likely primary cause, in my opinion, is Christianity, a religion that is the negation of life, and is a kind of racial “AIDS,” which, over two millennia, progressively sapped and finally destroyed our race’s immune system, i.e., its consciousness of its racial identity.
As I draw an analogy between suicide and the racial failure to reproduce, so, too, do I declare that miscegenation is a racial form of self-mutilation. People whose minds are wired to self-hatred sometimes cut or burn themselves—or if they are Christians, they may self-flagellate themselves bloody, or mortify their flesh by wearing spiked chains that cause open sores. How much worse is it for a creature to desire to reproduce not in its own image—first, and literally, not in its image. Every healthy creature desires, at the least, to produce offspring that look like itself.
To illustrate with an infamous example: When Heidi Klum, who made her career literally from her hereditary image, desired and bore offspring that look totally alien to her, she did to herself—and to her ancestors—and to her descendants, forever—a mutilation tantamount to cutting off her nose to spite her face—but with effects lasting far beyond herself, far beyond her mortal lifetime as an individual.
Your Heaven is here on Earth—or your Hell is here on Earth—or else, you meet the extirpation of your soul with your loss of Earthly Immortality. Your continuation in living bodies and living memories must be unto you the most sacred achievement that you can attain—towards which all other achievements are directed.
For this reason, the most selfish of all individuals faces a paradox: The ultimate selfishness requires altruism, for to command through others one’s own continuing immortality in generations yet unborn. The individual alone shall die: Through others, the individual may become as the gods.
In that sense, I am radically selfish.
The foregoing note abstracts in a short, aphoristic format the thesis of an unpublished essay that I wrote some years ago—with the addition of Nietzsche and Oliver, to support and to refine ideas that I had developed independently—plus the reference to Haas, whose book I found via the review reprinted in America’s Decline. I call Dr. Oliver my professor, for studying his work and following the leads he gives can provide quite an education.
The essay is on a backup disk somewhere, and is not accessible to me at this time. If I can obtain the text that I wrote before, perhaps I may polish and publish it; or I may write a better philosophical essay from scratch—or perhaps I may simply learn to do this aphoristically, in bits and pieces, as Nietzsche did. It worked for him—and it is convenient for the so-called “blog” format.
To Achilles, and to my trinity of philological warriors: Dr. Nietzsche, Dr. Goebbels, and Dr. Oliver. Eternal is your immortal glory. —And to myself, as is all of my work. May I be immortalized as the prophet of the Will to Immortality: The same Will which manifests in both my creative energies, and my reproductive instincts. ®