So, this mystery of this letter and its missing content had some people’s active imagination operating in over-drive.
However, if we opt for the reasonable and logical deduction that the simplest explanation is probably the truthful one, the situation is much less exciting than it sounds, and involves no conspiracies, no crimes, and indeed nothing which is going to be of interest to anyone but those with an interest in philosophy and Traditionalists.
So what happened? Bill sent Harold a very very very long letter on neo-platonism, which Harold didn’t have time to type in full. Given the length of the letter, its not surprising that Harold decided to edit it to parts he felt were important to his readers and I’m sure it was an innocent omission.
The juicy gossip that the stalkers are all looking for is actually something really racy: Plato and Aristotle. Due to the loonies who follow Bill around looking for ‘evidence’ of non-existent crimes, I’m finding this hilarious.
On a little side note: What Bill has hit on here is kind of verifiable – there are only three main religious genus that can be traced back through comparative religion: Abrahamic (Christian, Jewish, Islamic), Dharmic (Hindu, Pagan/Heathen) and Taoic (Asian). Because there is an eschatological differentiation between the Abrahamic and the Dharmic they actually do have different techniques and ideas of the soul. The Dharmic faith (including those of European origin) acknowledges caste – the soul has a Tellurian and a Uranic afterlife. So what Bill is saying here is actually academically verifiable, whether anyone likes it or not. He’s just explained it to people in way which is probably a bit difficult for new-comers to the topic to understand. For those Traditionalists among us, this is nothing new – Evola, Bachofen and scores of other writers have explained it.
I could explain more, but I also cannot be bothered to type and explain what Bill is saying – if this interests you I suggest visiting Traditionalist websites. Wikipedia actually explains the differences between the Abrahamic and the Dharmic (which is what I think Bill is referring to as ‘Aryan’) here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion
To save the creepy stalkers the trouble of Googling the letter here is the missing text on ancient Greek philosophy.
For the benefit of your readers, philosophy is generally divided into two perspectives- the Platonic and the Aristotelian. Platonic philosophy believes there are absolutes, and all phenomena are imperfect imitations of these absolutes. Aristotelian philosophy believes there are things, and humanity merely extrapolates absolutes from them. To illustrate:
You drop rocks off a high building; Plato says that gravity is a law that determines each rock’s fall to the earth. Aristotle says that each fall of a rock makes us believe in some “law of gravity” which has no real existence.
Applied to race, Plato says that race exists, and each individual is greater or lesser representation of the racial ideal. Aristotle says that individuals exist, and race is just something you and I extrapolate which has no real existence. Ironically, the observed phenomena of biology- the DNA haplo groups–prove Aristotle wrong.
Hoffman leaves Plato himself an open question in his writings. Hoffman’s objection is to neo-Platonism. Neo-Platonism is, essentially, a magical theory developed between the 3rd and 6th centuries BC. Neo-Platonism can be best said to systematic magical practices from several cultures, primarily the Egyptian, Akkadian-Babylonian, and Persian-Medean. It deals with manifesting the ideal through inner spiritual transformation.
Essentially, the spiritual world is arranged in hierarchies of spirits emanating from the one perfect God, and various means of contracting and embodying a higher spirit. One can say, for instance, that there is an ideal of love and kindness, and I am going to embody it. Or, one can say, there is a spirit named Qwijibo who is the elemental master of love, and I am going to become him and take on his power to fly through the air. Both ideas, roughly, can be called neo-Platonic. The first idea I would argue is essential to Aryan religion. The second is more Egyptian-Babylonian-Hebrew magical.
Neo-Platonism is really fundamental to Catholicism. Neo-Platonic ideas of heavenly hierarchies entered Catholicism in the 5th century, and are first admitted by Pope Vigilius in 533 AD. Augustine integrates them into his City of God, and Dionysius the Aeropagite makes them explicit in his On The Heavenly Hierarchy and other works. Neo-Platonism reentered the Latin-Frankish Church, after Charlemagne’s purges, in 826 AD, when Hilduin received the works of Dionysius from Michael the Stammer of Byzantine. And, the big reintroduction was in the 15th century, where the Medicis, as Babylon fell, bought and translated much neo-Platonic lore.
Now, neo-Platonism is not a religion per se. It’s a religious method. Once applied to a religion, however, it eases syncretism- the merging of multiple religions- and some groups, like Free Masons, use neo-Platonic method to do just that. Once Catholicism made YHWH the One and systematized his angels into hierarchies, and, separately, systemized Allah and his heavens, and Buddha and his bodhisattvas, it becomes easy to make one YHWH- Allah-Buddha and blend the religions all the way down.
Besides Catholicism, there are really two religions in Europe that were systematized in this way. As I describe in that essay you have “Precursors to Christ”–and in my book Tradition of the Mother, there were several ancient paganisms in Europe which were systemized, first in Macedonia, then in late Rome, into a single occult faith.
Isis-Osiris-Horapollo, Cybele-Dionysius-Attis, and Cybele-Dionysius-Apollo all describe this, with the focus being on a “Great Mother,” her ecstatic resurrected consort, and her emasculated, also resurrected, light-god son.
Eventually, Dionysius and Attis were collapsed by the Romans into a composite being, which the Church identified with Christ. The origins and manifestations of this religion cannot be compress into one paragraph, but the Orphic rites, the Eleusinian mysteries, and even Druidism are expressions of this religion.
Along with Dionysian occultism, there was what became Kabbalisitc Judaism. In my essay you published, “A Light Unto Nations.” I outline the absorption of paganism into Judaism. I believe Judaism originated as a synthesis of paganism in Egypt. During the Babylonian captivity, it absorbed Zoroastrian magical thoughts, which were the beginning of the oral law.
During and after the Macedonian Empire, Judaism absorbed Hindu ideas, which were brought West in the 7th century AD by the migration of Makhir of Babylon to the Narbonne. These syntheses produced Kabbala.
I have not been able to read the neo-Platonists because I cannot receive books here. It is likely Egyptian; Greek and Babylonian magical beliefs entered the Church with neo-Platonism at the beginning. They certainly fortified the Dionysian element within Christianity from per-Catholic times. But, I do not believe that neo-Platonism per se is the taint that Hoffman has identified. I believe Dionysian “Great Mother” paganism and Kabbalistic Judaism are the problems, and that neo-Platonism merely informs them.
In simple terms, this is what is at issue: is all Traditionalism, along the lines of Julius Evola, and National Socialism “Aryan” Kabbalah, as Hoffman contends, or is Kabbalah a Jewish inversion of Aryan Tradition? (Kabbalah, BTW, means, “Tradition”). If all neo-Platonic and occult method originates in Judaism, then Hoffman is right. If it all originates in anti-human Dionysianism, Hoffman is right. But, I do not believe it does.
Looking at Evola’s life, he certainly began his career in Masonic-magical circles, like those around Reghini, and continued in them through his involvement in the 1920s UR Group. But, he broke with this philosophy at the time the UR Group dissolved because Evola discovered a hidden philosophy other than Masonic-Kabbalism. So, Evola appears to have been aware of two occult tendencies, and chosen to reject the destructive one for the constructive.
One rabbinical idea Hoffman attacks is the Kabbalistic idea of the differentiated soul. In Judaism, the Rabbis have the nefesh soul, which is higher, and the “little Jews” have kelipot souls, which are lower. The nefesh soul gives the Rabbi shaman-like powers. The first is tikkunolam, the process by which the Rabbi “repairs” God’s imperfections by reshaping God’s laws with the power of his mind. The second goes by a variety of names–mitzvah ha-ba’ah ba-averah– to fulfill a commandment by breaking a commandment; “averah li-slimah,” to commit a sin for a good purpose: or yeridah letzorckh aliyah, to ascend by descending. Hoffman agrees with me that this is essentially Tantra-with shekina being the Tantric shakti.
Lastly, the rabbi-shaman can hamtakat ha-dinim, or sweeten God’s judgment.
The concept of the differentiated soul is Aryan, and not Christian. The four-fold caste hierarchy existed in the Vedas and certainly predates and is alien to Judaism, which sees only two castes-priests and kelipot. As this idea seems to originate in Kabbalism, I’d say it originates in Hinduism, and entered Judaism via Persia and Babylon along with Shaivism and Tantra. So, Judaism really is here imitating a corrupted imitation of an Aryan notion.
Is the Christian notion of a uniform soul superior to the Aryan notion of a differentiated soul? There is no question that the fact I am prisoner at this moment has no impact on the quality of my soul. But, do I possess a soul of the quality as the aging drunk two rooms down or the negro conman elsewhere on this prison block? No. Given the same circumstances, I produce works of philosophy and they produce nothing. Could this be a quality of mind? No, because they do not attempt to produce philosophy–or anything of value. Open these doors, and they burden healthy society; I seek to restore society to health. Do we all have an equal salvation? That may phrase the question wrong. Are all of our souls equal after death? Jesus taught the first. I’m not so sure he taught the latter. In fact, the Catholic idea of a multi-layered heaven-originating in neo-Platonism in the 5th and 6th centuries, and expressed, not least, in Dante’s Paradise, suggests otherwise.
Now, that said, some things do speak in Hoffman’s favor, particularly in the time period where he is focused- the 15th and 16th centuries AD. I do not yet have the knowledge to collect all of the dots, but there is a strong correlation between the early slave trade, the early explorers, secret societies and Judaizing elements within the Catholic Church. Henry the Navigator, King of Portugal, who discovered colonized much of Africa, was Grandmaster of the Knights of Christ, which was a successor to the Knights Templar, a vehicle by which occultism had spread in Europe.
Nicholas V, the Pope who authorized Portuguese African slavery in 1452 AD, certainly had a staff of hedonistic occultists. Charles I of Spain (V of Holy Rome), who authorized the conquest of Mexico and Peru, had an illegitimate child with a Bomberg, whose family translated and published the first Talmud in print, and I suspect broader ties between the Hapsburg and occultists in general. There are certainly a lot of links and ties between the institution of African slavery and “racism,” Jewish Kabbalism, and initiatic orders.
Ironically, a number of other figures within the same movement-or apparently so, and the whole point of occultism is that appearances are deceiving-also lay the first seeds of multiculturalism. The same Popes and rulers who established African slavery also established African priests and bishops.
I doubt that slavery was an inherently European institution. I have only studied in depth to about the 10th century AD. While it existed throughout both Rome and post-Roman Europe, it was always dominated by Jews and generally disdained by the German monarchs. The trade seems to have primarily been into Islamic countries before 1452, and, then, primarily into the New World, along with Islamic countries. Frankly, I think it’s fair to say that slavery was a uniquely Near Eastern institution which German Europe was corrupted into adopting. And, I disagree with any defense of slavery within the United States, as it brought alien racial elements into this country. I almost think that Lincoln’s idea- to end slavery and repatriate the blacks-may have been the best one.
However, admitting that black slavery was a Jewish institution that functioned to break down barriers between the races by bringing blacks into white society, and that “racism” was, in part, conjured up to justify this institution, does not imply that racial differences do not exist, or that racially-based nations are undesirable. The idea, of, say, Northwest independence is to expel the Zionist occupiers and establish a white nation- not to place blacks in a position of slavery. Nor is any particular exploitation of black nations planned. All of the hate and violence is directed against the current, illegitimate and corrupt, order, and towards the correction of a state of being which it has brought about and maintained with hate and violence, not towards creating a new, re-stratified society. I can find nothing Kabbalistic in the creation of a racially homogenous society; Kabbalah urges a multi-racial society in which Jews rule.
So, the idea of a true nation–a racial nation–does not originate in Judaism, though Judaism has, at times, fostered “racist” attitudes which support it- for the purpose of creating a multi-racial nation. And, Judaism is in some ways, a poor reflection of Aryan philosophy. Neither of these objections condemns National Socialism or Tradition. This leaves us with Hoffman’s final criticism- that, as a practical matter, the refusal to accept Jews who convert to Christianity empowers Zionism by giving Jews of good character no place to go but into rabbinical arms.
I have no idea if Hoffman supports the idea of a multi-racial society united by faith or not. However, I would posit that all true religion must be reflective of a Volksgeist- and that requires a Volk. The idea of a multi-racial world united under the Catholic Church became the defining characteristic of that faith under its occult elements in the 11th century, and is really a development from Judaizing heresy, as the book I am working on, Serpent’s Blood, exposes. But, I would go even further, and suggest that respect for members of another culture does not imply integration with that culture. If Catholics want to respect Jews who sincerely convert, they should–but the primary mission of these Jewish converts should be to convert their people and transform their society. It’s a lonely job, and a White society might harbor such people, as Germany harbored Lenin, but it would not integrate such people.
Lastly, there is the question of loving one’s enemies. This is a Christian value which finds a peculiar reflection in Traditional doctrine.
Many take the Glenn Beck approach, which interprets this to mean that white people should not engage in an armed uprising against illegitimate authority, or seek to clear a white territory within the United States.
However, Savitri Devi makes an interesting point- if to love one’s enemy is to deprive them of pain (she phrases this in terms of God’s Order), than the greatest act of love is to terminate degenerate existences–in so far as possible, without suffering, cruelty, or pain. Love is to preserve healthy life and destroy unhealthy life, to improve the quality of life for all.
Compare this with the preserve Christian tradition, which wishes to preserve all life in pain. America’s Supermax prisons reflect this worldview–holding men alive, preserving their lives at all costs, while destroying all possible quality of life. Much of America is built on this false presumption of “love”–human beings are preserved forever, encouraged in a self-destructive, degenerate “freedom,” as contributors to an ever increasing sum of suffering. Why? Could it be that the Jews and their dark gods feed on human pain? Could anything be less Christian and more occult?