After it has invaded Russia’s offices and agencies the same way it did ours, then the collapse of our Western society will begin in earnest openly and in Jewish fashion. The “last hour” of doomed Europa will strike at the latest in 100 to 150 years, since events develop more rapidly now, than they did in past centuries.[1979-2029] —Wilhelm Marr, The Victory of Judaism over Germanism: Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View, 1879
The following is a statement made by Paula Hitler in 1957, repeating her conviction expressed 12 years earlier following the death of her beloved brother. In it she addresses a new generation of German politicians and critics of the Führer, as she compares his greatness with their contemptible insignificance and unworthiness.
Gentlemen! Remember this: Your names will long be forgotten even before your bodies have rotted away in the Earth. But the name Adolf Hitler will still be a light in the darkness. You cannot murder him by drowning his memory in your vomit-buckets, and you cannot strangle him with your filthy, ink-stained fingers. His name exists forever in hundreds of thousands of souls. You are entirely too insignificant to even touch him.
He loved Germany; he lived for Germany. When he fought for honor and respect, he fought for German honor, for respect for Germany; and when there was nothing left, he gave his life for Germany.
What have you given thus far? Which one of you would give his life for Germany? The only things you care about are riches, power and never-ending luxurious living. When you think of Germany, you think of indulging your senses without responsibility, without cares.
Trust me on this: The Führer’s utter selflessness in word and deed alone guarantees his immortality. The fact that the bitter fight for Germany’s greatness was not crowned with success like, for example, Cromwell’s in Britain, has a lot to do with the mentality of the people involved. On the one hand, the Englishman¹s character is essentially unfair, ruled by jealousy, self-importance and a lack of consideration. But he never forgets that he is an Englishman, loyal to his people and to his crown. On the other hand, the German, with his need for recognition, is never first and foremost a German.
Therefore it doesn’t matter to you, you insignificant creatures, if you destroy the entire nation. The only thought that guides you will always be: Me first__ Me second__ Me third. In your worthlessness you will never think of the welfare of the nation. And with such a pitiful philosophy you wish to prevent the immortality of a giant?
What I wrote down immediately after the war has proven to be
correct. That my convictions are true is evident, even as late as 1957.
Most people, given a sedentary lifestyle, peace, accumulation of wealth, and the various studies of higher learning, will become, with time, used to such comfort, in extremis, thereby becoming sheep, corralled easily, and sheared when needed; a circumstance not very independent, or likely to achieve any lasting character which would make them stand out for emulation. We would generally call this ‘group’ cowardly indeed. In this context, as with all governments, democracy seeks that political control over its social order with which it need to lead. When this happens, the mass is afforded that much sought after panacea of democracy: each man is the same as his fellows, with no distinction made between the two; no distinction based upon ‘breed’, or ‘intellectual achievement’, or any other consideration.Y The ‘aristocracy’ of the Modern reigns supreme.
The history of ‘aristocracy’, proper, is quite different. We in the West, specifically of this northern continent, do not like any form of aristocracy – after all, was not our very birth delivered ‘caesarian’ from this very Mother? It nevertheless holds true, that for thousands of years, specifically, it has been this type of ruling body, either through some form of heredity or selection [i.e. election], which has lasted for the longest periods. Think of Venice, for instance – a thousand years – and of Egypt – three thousand!
If this form of ‘technics’ has lasted long therefore, is it not thereby entirely justified if one infers from the evidence that this form of technic has maintained the confidence and loyalty of the race-culture? Conversely, history has shown that Aristocracies have failed, and given place, finally, to democracies. However, what exactly does this say? What ‘rule of thumb’ can be measured in this constant? Does this not mean, like anything else, [including democracy], that this or that system was worn out; that its technics were fixed, thereby resting in a state of ‘static control’? That this or that system was decadent? Is this incidental, or simply the ‘way-sign- of senility? It most certainly does not prove, one way or the other, that any one system is better or worse than the other: only its effects are judged good or bad. It does not prove in any way that an ‘aristocracy’ vs. ‘democracy’ is better than its opposite. The ruling body of any race-culture is elite, no matter what system employed to keep those who rule in power. It is, and will remain, no matter what system is employed, the intelligent, vigorous, and most gifted of the ‘organic strata’ [i.e. those of its blood] of persons who make up a Folk, that will form the core of any system of its race-culture. The race-culture naturally leans in this direction when it is healthy – no matter what the race-culture. It relies upon itself, and to those that are an organic part of itself. It is this strata that has ‘de jure ‘ right to lead, but is not always that strata that does lead. Let us expand on this subject risking, perhaps, the valued attention to this premise so far:
Dualistically, nature has always considered systems and forms to be ‘one’ or the ‘other’. There is ‘white/black’, there is ‘sun/moon’, there is ‘sky/earth’; there is ‘male/female’ and ‘sunrise/sunset’ terms which, until recently, held distinctions, which the Modern, seemingly, is unable to grasp. He thinks in terms of grey, of the multiplicity of ‘possibilities’, the ‘minutiae’ of reasoning become absurd. Aristocracy, as a ‘form’, admits a ‘duality’, insofar as one can see a ‘top and bottom’, leaders and followers.
If it be honestly admitted, elites of one type or another, like cream, rise to the top; in the ancient past of our Western culture, this point is self-evident. But here one must put aside the ‘better known’ aspect of what is the common usage of ‘elite’, or ‘aristocratic’, especially if one limits himself to a ‘standard’ definition, and delve a little deeper.
In the ancient West, it was not material wealth, its martial skill, or even its priestly castes, which made, or rather, created a sense of elitism. Our pursuit here is at once deeper, and metaphysical. At once psychic, those of our ancient past, regardless of the level or caste in which one was born, was the sacred ability to ‘initiate’, to be initiated, to ‘ritually initiate’ that person or persons into a particular caste. It was the ‘rite of passage’ proper, placing emphasis on the religious implications and metaphysical forms in which an individual now ‘sensed’ that this initiation had claimed him forever; that his service was now blessed according to his role in life. Practiced for so long, it became ‘institutional’, and was at the very heart and fabric of the West. In the world of Tradition, nothing was more sacred than the spiritual influences that the ‘rite’ could influence through its ‘action’ [i.e. through the ‘ritual’ itself]. The Brahmans of India, for instance, even though scattered throughout its country could, nevertheless, command such respect, almost reverence, enjoying a ‘prestige’ greater than any tyrant or ruler, because they had attained that ‘interconnection’ with the spiritual that the masses had not.
In Greece, China, and Rome the ‘patrician’ class, the nobility, the ‘aristocrats’, were characterized by possession of knowledge and practice of initiatory rites that were connected to the ‘divine’ power emanating from the founder of a particular Family. This, in turn, was passed down through, and into, the progeny of future generations. It is this ‘supernatural’ element, which, essentially, became the foundation of the ‘idea’ of aristocracy, as well as legitimate royalty. What constituted legitimate ‘aristocracy’ was not merely biological, not only blood or racial selection, but also ‘sacred traditions’. In Germanic and Northern races, as well as the Far East in the ancient classical world, the feeling was the same. Blood was a part, but the main part perhaps, was the ‘second birth’, that element of mystical significance, which separated a ‘divine’ from a ‘non-divine’, hence it was that the plebeians of Rome would never attain the status of the patrician not because of blood, but because the plebes were denied the ‘rite of passage’ in a ‘ritualized sense’. This may not strike the casual student of history as important, but if one were to compare its ‘universal’ brother, the ‘church’, then one can readily understand the mystical importance of ‘baptism’, which at once ‘transforms’ the individual, and ‘secures’ a relationship with God himself. One may trivialize this ‘rite’, as not all are Christians, but they would do so at their peril, since it ‘lives’ in the hearts and minds of millions. It is in the above context that one must look to the origin of the ‘aristocracy’ of the past. Like the plebeians of Rome, it was their ‘lack’ of cult which separated them from the patrician nobility; the same can be said of the ‘christian cult’ vis a vis, the non-christian by way of baptism.
In the Teutonic nations we find this ‘metaphysical’ tradition, insofar as the ‘chief’ was, at the same time, both ‘priest and king’. Not only this, but a claim of ‘divine’ parentage was the coup de grace amongst his people. This set him apart from all other ‘families’ since he was gifted with ‘divine’ characteristics. Even when compared to a military leader, who was always looked to with admiration, loyalty, and reverence because of his selfless sacrifice in battle for folk and tribe, it was the ‘class’ of priest/kings which held ultimate sway, going so far as to ‘initiate’ themselves if need be. This process was hardly for the weak however, and included isolation, trials of life and death; outside of this, a ‘person’ was considered [as] a member of the ‘women and children’ until, and not before, he had passed through his initiation. This included the king himself. Aristocracy came from the ‘rite’ of ‘male passage’ from one level into the next, without it, he was of the herd.
In our modern time, aristocracy, like royalty, has merely taken on the more ‘secular’ and ‘political’ manifestations of the mystical. The origins of Aristocracy and Royalty were based on ‘character’, ‘race’, ‘honour’, ‘valor’, and ‘faithfulness’ [noblesse’ d’ epee, and on, noblesse de coeur]. Much later, these criterions were discarded, as was the privileges of ‘blood and tradition’. Whether or not this quality is lacking in our modern age is, at this moment, not the point, what is the point is the ‘structure’ and ‘form’ of the aristocrat; how, and for what reason the aristocrat existed at all.
It was not the ‘intellectuality’ of peers, but of its spirituality, which made this class so predominant. It was never a matter of ‘knowing the law’, or how technical a class of men could be, but rather the ‘spiritual’ trust and direction ‘within’. In an attenuated form, the Knightly Orders of Nobility continued ‘tradition’ proper through its initiations and rituals, one but considers the Teutonic Knights, Knights Templar, the Order of St. John, just to name a few, and created warriors who were both ‘priest and king’, and served as judicial, martial, and ecclesiastical leaders: in short, this was an ‘aristocracy’ based on the ancient laws of the West. Tradition, Honour, valor, and sacrifice were all part of a ‘great’ tradition which, when entered, made them ‘just that much more mighty’ than the common man. These men, indeed, were uncommon.
The aristocracy of the past, that is, the ‘elites’ who the people looked to for leadership, were special; they were special as a class; and they were special because of the seriousness required as part of an ‘overall’ duty to those who were entrusted, in a ‘sacred’ sense, to their care. In modern times, when the West was coerced into disassociating the temporal authority from the spiritual authority, and instead replaced it ‘solely’ with the electoral, thereby allowing the sacred ‘institutions’ to be open to ‘inferior’ types, and the lower social strata, it opened the door to the modern ‘impure’ aristocracy of money. As time progressed, oligarchies, royal hangers-on, and the like turned more to the whims of the modern demos, the mass; no longer was the natural ‘aristocrat’ a trusted and competent leader. Greece, Rome, and now in our modern technics do we see the effects of these descending phases of senility.
Aristocracies are a natural phenomenon. All cultures, in their own way, host both the leaders and followers of the recurring generations. The point herein espoused is that equality is an illusion, and that ‘all’ societies have their elite. In our ‘modern’ aristocracies, we look to the ‘kings’ of Industry, Oil, and commerce instead of Blood and Spirit. The ‘aristocracy’ of wealth may do good things, may provide jobs and the like, but they lack ‘spirit’, and most will agree that these men are in ‘business’ and would laugh if they were asked to conceive of ‘business’ as sacred or spiritual. Wealth is not what concerns us here, but the areas in which this sense, not of ‘duty’ or ‘sense of honour’, or even ‘obliges’ is not the purview of the merchant class, therefore, to consider as a ‘class’, the monied classes as more that mere purveyors of ‘exchange’, then we must look to others as our ‘sacred leaders’ in some other class. Utilitarian democracy lacks the ‘warrior’ sense of ‘faithfulness and honour’; it is replaced with a material and economic character which implies directly that personal convenience and material interest belongs to the merchant and not to the ‘aristocratic’. Aristocracy has given way to the plutocrat; the banker has become larger in life, than the warrior. How we view the relationships between our leaders and ourselves is what will mark the once and future West.
Y There is some merit to the allegations by some, that modern democracy has become the ‘new’ communism of the present age. The ‘egalitarianism’ of Karl Marx, for instance, or Lenin’s political dictums concerning ‘aristocracy’ and ‘monarchy’ included the ‘democratic’ ideal of the ‘masses’ which, taken to the extreme, ushered in the enslavement of the very mass the communists claimed to speak for. Laws of an extremely excessive nature ‘forced’ the mass to accept the ‘leveling’ of their society in the name of ‘progress’. No Hereditary or Traditional institutions were allowed to remain, since it was ‘through these selfsame institutions’ that the ‘people’ had been denied ‘choices’ of their own; to be sure, the decadence of the existing leadership was obvious, and cannot be discounted as reasons for such wide-spread discontent, but to replace the old with democracies of the mob, is to say that the only prescription necessary for an ailment is poison.
The Dialectics of Hegel [George Wilhelm Frederich Hegel, born 1770, Germany] was essentially in opposition to the ‘marxist/lenninist’ doctrine but, nevertheless, was studied by the revolutionist of both the Menshevik party and the Bolsheviks in Russia were not the logical dynamics of ‘negation’ and ‘knowledge’. Hegel was fascinated by the works of Spinoza, Rousseau, Kant, and Goethe and by the revolution of France. Modern philosophy, culture, and society seemed to Hegel fraught with contradictions and tensions [the ‘struggle’ in ‘natural law’], such as those between the ‘subject’ and ‘object’ of knowledge, mind and nature, ‘self’ and ‘other’ [inner and outer man], freedom and authority, knowledge and faith, the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Hegel’s main philosophical project was to take these contradictions and tensions and interpret them as part of a comprehensive, evolving, rational unity that, in different contexts, he called “the absolute idea” or “absolute knowledge”.
According to Hegel, the main characteristic of this unity was that it evolved through and manifested itself in contradiction and negation. Contradiction and negation have a dynamic quality that at every point in each domain of reality – consciousness, history, philosophy, art, nature, society – leads to further development until a rational unity is reached that preserves the contradictions as phases and sub-parts of a larger, evolutionary whole. This whole is mental because it is the mind, which is able to comprehend all of these phases and sub-parts as steps in its own process of comprehension. It is rational because the same, underlying, logical, developmental order underlies every domain of reality and is ultimately the order of self-conscious rational thought, although only in the later stages of development does it come to full self-consciousness. The rational, self-conscious whole is not a thing or being that lies outside of other existing things or minds. Rather, it comes to completion only in the philosophical comprehension of individual existing human minds who, through their own understanding, bring this developmental process to an understanding of itself.
Korner is one of the poets of whom modern Germany is justly proud. His was not the mere theoretic heroism which contents itself with celebrating the deeds of others. His own conduct embodied the most noble conceptions of his imagination, and his life and death exhibited a splendid example of the patriotism which breathed throughout his verse. He was born at Dresden in 1791. His education was of the most careful kind. He was not only instructed in various branches of learning, but the elegant accomplishments of the fine arts were added, and the exercises of the body were not less attended to than those of the mind. Called upon to choose some occupation, he determined to apply himself to mining, and took up his residence at Vienna, where he enjoyed the advantage of a familiar intercourse with William Von Humboldt, the Prussian ambassador, Frederic Schlegel, and other eminent literary and scientific men. Here, within the short space of fifteen months, he produced a rapid succession of dramas, operas, and farces, as well as several small poems. The success of his works obtained him the appointment of poet to the court. He was now in the enjoyment of all that could render life happy—competence, distinction, esteem, friendship and love; but he resolved to sacrifice them all “for that greatest mortal blessing, his country’s freedom.”
“Could I,” says he, in a letter to his father, “could I, think you, stand aloof, contented to celebrate with weak inspiration the success of my conquering brethren? I am aware that you will suffer much anxiety,—My mother too will weep—may God be her comfort!—I cannot spare you this trial. That I simply offer my life is of little import; but that I offer it, crowned as it is with all the flowery wreaths of love, of friendship, and of joy,—that I cast away the sweet sensations which lived in the conviction that I have caused you no inquietude, no anguish,—this indeed is a sacrifice which can only be opposed to such a prize!”
He left Vienna in March 1813, and joined the free corps which Major Von Lutzow was then forming. This was a voluntary association, and the corps was remarkable throughout the war for its valour and enterprise. In the midst of the most active campaigns, Korner continued to pour forth his verses. Other poets have written of battles in the retirement of the closet, but he sang his song of war on the tented field, and amid the din of conflict. Nor was this all: he collected too the strains of other poets, and adapted them to appropriate airs, to animate the ardour of his companions in arms. We cannot follow him through his career, brief as it was; but the subjoined incident is too striking to be omitted, and is especially adapted to our purpose, as it affords an opportunity of giving a passage of his unpremeditated verse in a moment of pain and danger.
On the 28th of May, Major Von Lutzow had determined on setting out on an expedition towards Thuringia, with four squadrons of his cavalry, and fifty cossacks. Korner earnestly entreated permission to accompany him, and his desire was fulfilled by his being appointed adjutant by Major Von Lutzow, who highly esteemed him, and wished to have him near his person.
The expedition passed in ten days through Halberstadt, Eisleben, Buttstadt, and Schlaitz, to Plauen, though not without encountering great danger from the enemy, who were dispersed throughout these districts, but, also, not without effecting some important results. Intelligence and information were procured, ammunition was captured and seized, and couriers on missions of importance were taken prisoners. The gallant troop acquired considerable renown, and harassed the enemy much, especially by cutting off his communications. A plan was in consequence laid by the French emperor for the extirpation of the corps, that, as a deterring example, no man should be left alive. The armistice, concluded at this moment, afforded an opportunity for putting it in practice. (The Duke of Padua, it is observable, particularly profited by this armistice; for being shut up in Leipzig by Generals Woronzow and Czernichef, with the co-operation of two battalions of the Lutzow infantry, he was only saved by this cessation of hostilities.)
Major Von Lutzow had received official information of the armistice at Plauen. Without expecting to meet with any opposition, he chose the shortest route to rejoin the infantry of his corps, having received the most confidential assurances of safety from the enemy’s commanding officers, and proceeded along the high road, without interruption, to Kitzen, a village in the neighbourhood of Leipzig; but here he found himself surrounded and menaced by a very superior force. Theodore Korner was despatched to demand an explanation; but, instead of replying, the commander of the enemy struck at him with his sword; and it being now twilight, a general attack was made on the three squadrons of the Lutzow cavalry before they had drawn a sabre. Several were wounded and taken, and others dispersed in the surrounding country; but Major Von Lutzow himself was saved by the assistance of a squadron of Uhlans, who being in advance with the Cossacks, formed the van-guard, and consequently were not assailed at the same moment. He reached, with a considerable body of his troops, the right bank of the Elbe, where the infantry of his corps, and a squadron of its cavalry, were already collected.
Korner received the first blow, which he was not prepared to parry, as he approached close to the enemy’s commanding officer to deliver his message without drawing his sabre, and was thus severely wounded in the head: the second blow only inflicted a slight injury. He fell back, but speedily recovered himself, and his spirited steed bore him in safety to a neighbouring wood. He was here occupied, at the first moment, with the assistance of a comrade, in binding up his wounds, when he perceived a troop of the enemy, who were in pursuit, riding towards him. His presence of mind did not forsake him, but turning towards the wood, he called with a loud voice, “Fourth squadron,—Advance!”—His stratagem succeeded—the enemy were appalled, drew back, and thus afforded him time to conceal himself deeper in the wood. It had now become dark, and he found a place in the thicket where he could remain undiscovered.
The pain of the deeper wound became very severe, his strength was exhausted, and his last hope was gone. It was in this extremity that he composed the beautiful sonnet, of which the following is a translation:—
FAREWELL TO LIFE.
[Written in the night of the 17th and 18th of June, as I lay, severely wounded and helpless in a wood, expecting to die.]
“My deep wound burns;—my pale lips quake in death,—
I feel my fainting heart resign its strife,
And reaching now the limit of my life,
Lord, to thy will I yield my parting breath!
Yet many a dream hath charm’d my youthful eye;
And must life’s fairy visions all depart;
Oh surely no! for all that fired my heart
To rapture here, shall live with me on high.
And that fair form that won my earliest vow,
That my young spirit prized all else above,
And now adored as freedom, now as love,
Stands in seraphic guise, before me now.
And as my fading senses fade away,
It beckons me, on high, to realms of endless day!”
During the night he heard the enemy searching the wood near him, but afterwards fell asleep, and was saved in the morning by two peasants. He was conveyed secretly into Leipsic, which was then under the French yoke, and where the concealment of any of the Lutzow free corps was prohibited, under severe punishment. He subsequently travelled in safety to Berlin, and having recovered from his wound, rejoined the corps of Lutzow on the right bank of the Elbe. Hostilities recommenced on the 17th of August; and on the 28th an engagement took place near Rosenberg, in which Korner fell. He was in pursuit of a body of the enemy, when the riflemen, who had found a rallying-place in some under-wood, sent forth a shower of balls upon their pursuers. By one of these Korner was wounded in the abdomen, the liver and spine were injured, and he was immediately deprived of speech and consciousness. He was carried to a neighbouring wood, but all medical aid was vain. He was buried under an oak in the village of Wobbelin, about a mile from Ludwigslust. A tomb has since been placed over his remains, and enclosed by a wall. He died at the early age of twenty-two.
From a Critical Notice of The Life of Korner, New Monthly Mag.
Cannot he that wisely declines walking upon the ice for fear of falling, though possibly it might carry him sooner to his journey’s end, as wisely forbear drinking more wine than is necessary, for fear of being drunk and the ill-consequences thereof?—Lord Clarendon.
“Well, unless you’re the opposite of me — a hip-hop artist or a rapper — you won’t sell in America anymore. There’s no rock magazines anymore. The black culture has really… The black culture has taken hip hop to white… The white culture and all the kids act like that; they wear their pants down. I think it’s… I’m not 100 percent sure, but I when they go to school and they listen to hard rock, it’s called ‘pussy music.’ [They are told] ‘You need to listen to gangster rap.’ I think that’s what it is.”
Back in 2011, a Russian website called Heabanger.ru published this interview with Holmes:
– In your opinion, can you reach big success with your new band like you had in the 80s with W.A.S.P.?
“No. Music’s changed. I don’t know about here, but in the States it’s all black rap, all white kids are listening to black stuff. Gangsta rap – white kids are into that, too.”
– Yes, I know, but I don’t like this music.
“Yeah, it sucks! It’s so called nigger music. I’ll say that word, I don’t care if niggers are in the room or not to get my opinion, that’s the way it is. Rap is just starting to hit Europe, and it kind of makes me sick, because I don’t like it when kids act like niggers. Is the word “nigger” bad to say here? When you say it in the States, everybody is pissed off.”
From another interview:
“About two years ago I pulled into a 7-11, and this kid got out of his car. He wasn’t listening to rock. When I was his age, that’s all I listened to. That made me realize the kind of music I do just doesn’t work here anymore.”
What was he listening to?
“Hip-hop. And I just don’t play that kind of music. I was talking to one of my friend’s kids—he’s in high school, and I asked him, “Why don’t you listen to rock, like Deep Purple or something?” And he said, “Man, that’s pussy music.” This is a white kid.”
In Search of Dracula – original title Vem Var Dracula? – is a 1975 documentary film produced and directed by Calvin Floyd (The Sleep of Death; Terror of Frankenstein) based on a script written by Yvonne Floyd. Much of the footage came from a 1971 documentary – made for Swedish TV – that predates the best-selling 1972 book of the same name by Raymond T. McNally and Radu Florescu. The longer 81-minute version was released to cinemas on 16 June 1975.
The film is narrated by Tor Isedal and Christopher Lee who appears as himself, historical Wallachian ruler Vlad Tepes and Count Dracula in this excellent documentary, exploring the legends of vampires, using books, paintings and early films on the subject.
After the German defeat in Stalingrad, Joseph Goebbels proclaimed the Total War on February 18, 1943. Goebbels’ speech in the Berlin Sportpalast culminated in this quote by the poet Theodor Körner (1791-1813), who died in the Wars of Liberation against Napoleon. For the struggle for freedom against Bolshevism and the desired final victory, according to the will of the NS leadership, every comrade now had to contribute with full strength, personal commitment and a sense of duty, as this motif expresses, that the unity of the nation symbolises the unity of front and home. The industrial silhouette in the background should symbolise unbroken labour power and sustained armaments production, for which women in particular should now be responsible.
“But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere scepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.”
“Innumerable men had passed by, across this Universe, with a dumb vague wonder, such as the very animals may feel; or with a painful, fruitlessly inquiring wonder, such as men only feel;—till the great Thinker came, the original man, the Seer; whose shaped spoken Thought awakes the slumbering capability of all into Thought. It is ever the way with the Thinker, the spiritual Hero. What he says, all men were not far from saying, were longing to say. The Thoughts of all start up, as from painful enchanted sleep, round his Thought; answering to it, Yes, even so! Joyful to men as the dawning of day from night;—is it not, indeed, the awakening for them from no-being into being, from death into life? We still honor such a man; call him Poet, Genius, and so forth: but to these wild men he was a very magician, a worker of miraculous unexpected blessing for them; a Prophet, a God!”
“Transport yourselves into the early childhood of nations; the first beautiful morning-light of our Europe, when all yet lay in fresh young radiance as of a great sunrise, and our Europe was first beginning to think, to be! Wonder, hope; infinite radiance of hope and wonder, as of a young child’s thoughts, in the hearts of these strong men! Strong sons of Nature; and here was not only a wild Captain and Fighter; discerning with his wild flashing eyes what to do, with his wild lion-heart daring and doing it; but a Poet too, all that we mean by a Poet, Prophet, great devout Thinker and Inventor,—as the truly Great Man ever is. A Hero is a Hero at all points; in the soul and thought of him first of all. This Odin, in his rude semi-articulate way, had a word to speak. A great heart laid open to take in this great Universe, and man’s Life here, and utter a great word about it. A Hero, as I say, in his own rude manner; a wise, gifted, noble-hearted man. And now, if we still admire such a man beyond all others, what must these wild Norse souls, first awakened into thinking, have made of him!”
“They understood in their heart that it was indispensable to be brave; that Odin would have no favor for them, but despise and thrust them out, if they were not brave. Consider too whether there is not something in this! It is an everlasting duty, valid in our day as in that, the duty of being brave. Valor is still value. The first duty for a man is still that of subduing Fear. We must get rid of Fear; we cannot act at all till then.”
“It is a greatness not of mere body and gigantic bulk, but a rude greatness of soul. There is a sublime uncomplaining melancholy traceable in these old hearts. A great free glance into the very deeps of thought. They seem to have seen, these brave old Northmen, what Meditation has taught all men in all ages, That this world is after all but a show,—a phenomenon or appearance, no real thing. All deep souls see into that,—the Hindoo Mythologist, the German Philosopher,—the Shakspeare, the earnest Thinker, wherever he may be.”
Thomas Carlyle – On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History (lecture: The Hero as Divinity. Odin. Paganism: Scandinavian Mythology)
“Του ρασοφόρου σύντριψεν ο πέλεκυς κι η αξίνα τα μεγαλόχαρα είδωλα στα βάθη των ναών· των συντριμμένων η ψυχή δε χάθηκε μ’ εκείνα, φωτοπλανήτης έγινε στα χάη των ουρανών, όσο που νέα ζωντάνεψεν αγαλματένια κρίνα στου διαλεχτού το λογισμό, στους κήπους των σοφών. Του ρασοφόρου ο πέλεκυς δε σύντριψε κι η αξίνα τα μεγαλόχαρα είδωλα στα βάθη των ναών.”
Κωστής Παλαμάς – Στοχασμοί της Χαραυγής
* * * * *
The axe and hammer of the priest black-robed Struck down the holy idols of the temples; And yet the soul of the ruins perished not! It climbed the heaven’s spaces as a star Until new sculptured lilies came to life In master minds, the gardens of the wise. Thus axe and hammer of the priest black-robed Broke not the holy idols of the temples!
“Holy shadows of the dead, I am not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions.”
Curtius Rufus, Historia (Battle of Chaeronia 338 B.C.) – Alexander the Great wept after the battle of Chaeronea where Greek met Greek on the battlefield for hegemony over Greece.