This a transcript for my the first video uploaded to the new YouTube channel, Embedded below:

Perhaps the best place to start this channel would be with an introduction to Traditionalism, and provide a somewhat crude whistle stop overview of what will be filled out in later videos comprehensively. As a precursor, I must state that Traditionalism encompasses a broad range of viewpoints, I will attempt to focus on the general premises agreed by most who espouse the position, and expand on the intricacies in later videos. My aim is to approach traditionalism and radical conservative viewpoints from a philosophical angle rather than a political one, as it seems that there is a real scarcity in that particular niche in regards to videos.

I will start with a brief historical background of what is meant by “Traditionalism”.

Though there were prior disturbances, such as the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, the Great East-West Schism of the 11th century or even the decline of the Roman Empire and the onset of Christianity, it can be said that Traditionalism proper, that is to say an organised school of thought dedicated to radical conservative perspectives, first emerged in Europe as a result of a rejection of the 17th and 18th century cultural movement known as the Enlightenment, which espoused the doctrines of moral subjectivism, democracy, liberalism, individualism, republicanism, separation of church and state, equality and empiricism and/or scientific rationalism; “Liberte, egalite, fraternite.” as the French Republic put it.

This cultural shift was a result of the philosophy of Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire and numerous others, and sought to restructure society from a collective to a mass of sovereign individuals, who exalted the “sovereignty of reason” above the sovereignty of God or the Crown. These philosophies provided the impetus for the English Civil War of 1642, the American Revolution of 1776, the French Revolution of 1789 and later the Russian Revolution, which caused the brutal murder and deposition of many of Europe’s ancient ruling dynasties.

Perhaps the most disruptive innovations of the movement were Rationalism and Empiricism. These were respectively the view that all truth comes from reason, i.e. that which can be proven by logic, and the view that truth comes from that which can be observed. These were two prevailing but separate schools of thought which dominated the intellectual landscape.

There were, however, some who opposed these new developments for reasons we will come to shortly. They were known as the Counter-Enlightenment, led by Royalists, Romanticists and Aristocrats such as Francois Chateaubriand, Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald and over in England Edmund Burke writing around the turn of the 1800s. Around the same time, you also had the Luddites who opposed the Industrial Revolution by destroying machinery in the English Midlands and Romantics such as William Blake writing poetry about the “dark satanic mills”.

Though Empiricism, truth from observation, fell out of favour after Immanuel Kant’s Critiquque of Pure Reason, rationalism, anti-monarchism and egalitarianism continued to be influential and inspired the ideology of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx from 1840 to 1890, which took Enlightenment views to their conclusion promoting a pure materialism which did away with any system which transcended man: demolishing all notions of class, gender, nationhood, and hierarchy, even portraying religion as an “opium of the masses”.

From then on philosophy was split into three primary camps:

  • the aforementioned Marxists
  • the “classical liberals”, who agreed with Marxists on opposing absolute monarchy, opposition to faith and the doctrine of equality but disagreed over the idea of individualism. Classical liberals argued for individual liberty and in favour of capitalism, whilst Marxism argued for the working class to work as one mind towards a common struggle. As a result, there was a schism between the two.
  • and finally, a particular group of successors to the counter enlightenment, now opposing classical liberalism on one side, and Marxism on the other. Writing at the turn of the 20th century, these were thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Giovanni Gentile and Oswald Spengler. The focus of this video, and my intention when I say Traditionalism, comes from a particular group of writers within this category, who came slightly later, writing in the 1920s to the 50s and are known as the Traditionalist School. The most influential of these were Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon and Julius Evola, and argued for a return to the roots of classical thought and a way out of the two aforementioned positions and an emboldened return to Religion, Race, Hierarchy and Metaphysics.

The Tenets of Traditionalism

With the historical background largely out of the way, we can discuss the principles of the Traditionalist School, and what I mean in future when I use the term Traditionalism:

  • Firstly, what makes Traditionalism so different from all other philosophical formulations and belief systems, and what makes it so difficult to understand, is it not concerned with what the modern world classifies as “proof” or “empirical evidence” because it does not draw its truth from the 5 senses, which are deceptive and subjective. Nor does not try and understand reality and devolve the meaning of life from the reason of “this world” but from Metaphysical truth, which transcends all notions of logic, reason or comprehension and come through Authority alone. Authority is the cornerstone, which comes from divine revelation and is then carried through tradition and protected and preserved by the aristocracy. This can seem quite disturbing and alien to those accustomed to the materialist, vacuous belief of our time that “seeing is believing”. My assertion is that “inheriting the truth is believing”. This is a return to pre-Enlightenment notions of the concept of truth which are eternal and global, which is a testament to their validity. A quick but important point to address the question “how do we know that what has been passed down to use is a true revelation?” and the short answer is that because the same truth is present in all world traditions therefore it is indisputable, or at the very least highly plausible. This point warrants a video proof all of its own.
  • Secondly, It is fundamentally and vehemently anti-materialist, not in the sense that it is against the world but denies the idea that the physical world of matter is “all there is”. Traditionalism asserts that the world as observed by man is merely a representation of the Absolute Reality, of which the human mind can only experience an abstraction due to its limited faculties. It derives this view from the work The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer, as well as Immanuel Kant and its interpretation of world religious texts, which brings me onto my next point.
  • Traditionalism asserts that many of the world’s religions stem from a primordial truth which existed before and exists within these traditions, known as religio perennis, or the Primordial Tradition. A religion is considered authentic if it does not contradict with the fundamental teachings of another and shares the same esoteric truth, more on exactly what this means in a later video.
  • Next is the notion of the Fallen Nature of Man. Since man is no longer ignorant due to the knowledge of good and evil, he in no longer innocent and is divided from God, in other words divided from an understanding of the nature of the Infinite. He is no longer a product of virgin nature but a product of himself. Humanity is not perfect, nor is it perfectible. Man is too volatile to be ruled by his instincts, and will always seek base pleasures, forbidden fruits and slavemasters which distract from understanding the Absolute Reality beyond the senses.
  • As such, liberalism and Marxism are insufficient because they deprive man of a hierarchy, which is required to employ a code of ethics to transcend this Fallen State and to assist man in returning to his primordial nature. The basics of this system are the same in all world religions, which Traditionalists espouse only differ by their external appearance and have the same function, being passed on unchanged through the generations. The spiritual “walking dead” amongst us must be directed upwards towards the truth by a system of ethics, guided by men who are less effected by the pull of sin, which directs us away from our true nature. This is an aristocratic ideology which is vehemently opposed to liberal notions of universal equality or “human rights”, because authority and hierarchy cannot be found independently of one another. This will also seem strange because there is no room for “subjective morality”, a truth invented by the individual for their own use. Instead, Traditionalism is aristocratic, anti-individualist and determined to raise the individual up towards regards rather than down towards the proleteriat as Marxism seeks to do.
  • The ultimate goal, therefore, is to become, so to speak, a “New Adam” through the use of the intellect or gnosis, a sixth sense if you will. It is the awareness and understanding of religious doctrine, known as mysteries. The word mystery actually comes from the Greek musterion, ultimately from Proto Indo European muo, meaning “to be closed”, meaning that only a select group could fully comprehend the depth of the allegory.

I will fill out the concepts I have discussed in this video in more detail. Please feel free to leave any questions about the subjects discuss in the comments below, and do let me know if you have any thoughts on the speed at which I have outlined these ideas.

I will end with a selection of quotes. Thank you for watching. Carpe diem!

The truths that allow us to understand the world of Tradition are not those that can be “learned” or “discussed.” They either are or are not. We can only remember them, and that happens when we are freed from the obstacles represented by various human constructions (chief among these are the results and methods of the authorized “researchers”) and have awakened the capacity to see from the nonhuman viewpoint, which is the same as the Traditional viewpoint … Traditional truths have always been held to be essentially non-human.

Good day. I hope that those who have previously followed my work as Vassal of Asgard or have otherwise taken an interest in my work are well.

As the White Wizard once said, there have been questions. Questions that needed answering. Though I could blame my absence on my time spent travelling or my new working schedule, this would simply be an excuse, and less than you readers deserve.

The Enemy, the restless, watchful eye, has many spies in his service, and it has been a trying time. Though for a long time silent, in the background I have been busying away to set in place a framework for future development and some important projects. The first of which is this new website, which I hope you find to be an improvement over the old Blogger blog.

I also haven’t been without (more than) my fair share of impediments that have hindered getting the aforementioned projects completed and published to you, dear Reader, much sooner.

On two occasions in the year just gone, I had been anonymously reported on two separate occasions to the plastic Gestapo agency known as “Prevent” which jeopardised my education, my family and had the potential to damage my employment prospects. During this time, my personal life, in addition to my writing and even my family (who were also contacted) were rigorously and unscrupulously cross-examined. I am sure many you will be familiar with the modus operandi of this government project.

The primary individual responsible for initiating these reports and investigations, which were concluded last July, knew me personally and deliberately engineered the attack at a time that they believed would do the maximum damage: during my A Level exam preparation.

Subsequently, this lead to a period of inquisition. There was simply no point in moving forward with completing any more work with one or more saboteurs in our midst. Withholding compromising details as to how, I took the necessary time to secure all of my accounts and to remove the mole who had been rooted under my nose for about twelve months. I then left the dust to settle for long enough to be sure that I was not still the victim of any espionage, and to allow the situation to dissipate and be forgotten. In the words of Cromwell

“My desire is to make what haste I can to be gone.”

The implications of the interrogation and harassment undertaken by the UK’s “counter-extremism” circus and the damage it could inflict upon my career, education, family and extended circle have been something I have had to carefully consider.

Chester Traditionalist Guild

Attempts to establish a grassroots Traditionalist movement have been slow-going, but building gradually. I am increasingly convinced that community-building events ought to be the foundation of any movement who sets out to impart any societal change. Online activities should only ever be a mere accessory to this.

Two of the primary difficulties in terms of organising events are gaining exposure, which simply takes patience and experience, and finding a compatible venue, which can be more challenging. Though the few venues I have interacted with have stated that there didn’t seem to be any issue with what we plan to use the venue for, this can all change when the usual culprits attempt to stir up trouble and contact venues. To preempt this, I felt it would be best to go back to he drawing board and evaluate how events would be organised and promoted to avoid this situation.

Due to hard work performing a detailed re-evaluation of resources, improvement of marketing and a refining of strategy which has included establishing new contacts, growing an audience and palpable community interest, plans to launch the Chester Traditionalist Guild in full are set in motion for Summer 2020.

Creative Productivity

During my interim, I have also been in the process of writing two books (my second and third) that I plan to get out this year. The second will be a book on genealogy and local history, whilst the other will be a continuation, expansion and partial revision of my first book An Essential Introduction to Metaphysics (2018).

On the subject of which, my first book is now online again as a PDF, and I am in the process of working on self-publishing it both as an Amazon eBook and in hard copy format. I have just finished the design and formatting process and have sent it off to Kindle Direct Publishing to be approved. This is likely to take about a week. eBooks are to be priced at £0.99 and hard copies at £3.50.

Link to An Essential Introduction to Metaphysics: https://arthurhathrisen.com/2018/08/17/an-essential-introduction-to-metaphysics/

I have also created a YouTube channel and Bitchute account, both under the name Arthur Hath Risen, that I will begin uploading to soon.

Link to my YouTube and Bitchute channels:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAgiioBNgpYPt3YPwONYEQQ?view_as=subscriber

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/BRXKcIsJYL2y/

A renewal of faith, and closing words

Seeing the UK’s (fairly) recent General Election result has given renewed faith that a political solution to if not all, then some, of the current crises faced by the people of this nation is well within reach. The question now is not whether the British people want a Patriotic Alternative, but whether we can deliver it to them.

headshot

Coming up against such vehement opposition, I have returned to the cause with an increased vigour and alacrity.

It is as John Tyndall once said:

Everything worth having comes through struggle. Nothing that is worth having comes easy in this world of ours.

Farewell for now. Arthur hath risen.

What do Russell Brand, J.K. Rowling and Eddie Izzard have in common? I could summon a few harsher common attributes, but I will restrain myself to mentioning the attribute of primary concern to the subject of this article: they all epitomize the Bourgeois, the quintessence of hypocrisy.

What does it mean to be bourgeois?

The term Bourgeois is a French one that has its origins in the time period just preceding the French Revolution of 1789. Prior to the catastrophic revolution that saw the rise of liberalism through Post-Enlightenment philosophy, and which also resulted in the brutal and unjust execution of King Louis XVI, France had been divided into three classes, known as “Estates”. The First Estate was the Clergy, who took direct orders from the Pope. The Second Estate consisted of the Aristocracy, those who made decisions and owned swathes of land from which they directed and guided the Third Estate: The masses. Most individuals belonged to the Third Estate, which could be colloquially deemed “ the peasantry”.

The term bourgeois was used to attempt to categorise those members of the Third Estate who were economically affluent, but were nevertheless not Clergy or Nobility. As a result, it can be said that the Bourgeois occupies a kind of “ in-between class” and as a result has in a sense an ambiguous, androgynous characteristic. The word comes from the French burgeis, meaning “walled city”, due in course to the large proportion of the bourgeois who had abandoned the rural lifestyle that in many defined and romanticized the traditional Third Estate, which can be considered the true working class. It could be said that the emergence of the Bourgeois can be attributed to the Industrial Revolution which began in the mid 18th century, which saw an influx of the peasantry into the cities and the emergence of so-called “white collar professions”.

The Bourgeois and White Collar Professions:

The attitudes embodied by the occupants of these white collar professions can be summarised as those of consumerism, hedonism, materialism, decadence and a desire for social comforts that was initially utterly alien to the rest of the nation, for the White Collar Class is a combination of the worst qualities of the 2nd estate and the 3rd estate: they possess the inferior education of the Working Class (to which I proudly belong, for we have other better qualities), but possess the attitude of superiority of the Upper Classes, but unlike the Upper Classes, have achieved nothing of value in order to have earned this attitude.

Self-styled conservatives, who cannot bring themselves to correlated free-market capitalism with our current societal decline, will find little to grasp onto in this article and may feel subsequently alienated and confused. However, it must be said that what I am about to write attacks equally, if not more so, the current swathe of “ Conservative” voters as much as it does those of a cultural Marxist inclination.

The descent of society into the throes of so-called civilization, development and secular moralism, when they are carefully observed, can be seen to emerge not from the Aristocracy, nor from the working class, who have traditionally abided loyally by the principles willed by their spiritual and intellectual superiors in the form of the Clergy and Aristocracy, but filter downwards from the bourgeois to the Working class and upwards from the bourgeois to the Aristocracy, who have in recent times adopted consumerist and colloquial attitudes, and even in some cases a feeling of shame at their superior qualities that make them, and only them, fit for a position of authority in government and the intelligencia.

Mussolini on the Bourgeois:

Benito Mussolini once described Britain as “the fattest and most bourgeois country in the world”, and it is no wonder, for the British like no other race, are a people renowned somewhat infamously the world over for our supposedly posh and snobby sensibilities which in actuality do not reflect the true spirit of the British at all, but reflect the shadow that Post-Enlightenment philosophy has encouraged us to become.

The real cultural damage impacted by the bourgeois class has very little to do with economics, but rather with the sensibilities and consumerist appetites that the lifestyle invites. The archetype of the culturally damaging bourgeois figure is often described as the “Champagne Socialist”, an advocate of excessive but pretentious moralising that emerges from a feeling of guilt and inadequacy, subconsciously generated from the realisation that the middle class to which they belong has neither the grandeur or authority of the Aristocratic class, which they attack, nor any of the humility and dignity of servitude possessed by the working class, to which they pretend to belong to or at least be in the service of.

The Bourgeois on the International Stage:

The bourgeois was at one point confined to Europe, but is no longer. At one time, subsequently after its establishment, the USA existed almost entirely as one large conglomerate of the Third Estate, populated by gold prospectors, fisherman, labourers and agricultural workers, with a small Aristocratic fringe that was confined to New England known as the “Boston Brahmin”, though they had little in the way of a true Aristocratic authority despite their title’s suggestion. The bourgeois emerged in America comparatively later than in Britain: in the early 20th century, and is now so prevalent that it applies to the vast majority of Americans, particularly those along the coasts.

The bourgeois class can be found in all societies they infest to be meddlers and modernisers, attempting to uproot the status quo due to their feeling of purposelessness. Since the bourgeois cannot feel a purpose or profound meaning in society, rather than changing themselves they attempt to change society to suit themselves, attempting to destroy the Aristocratic class and elevate the Working Class from humility into decadence.

In many ways, this behaviour mirrors that of the Diaspora Jew, the stereotype of a wandering minority that feel an urge to uproot societal norms and impose a new societal order that adequately accommodates them, encouraging through guilt an alteration of the conduct of the society, but never providing any positive contributions, only being interested in changing the society to better suit their own interests.

Bourgeois and Champagne Socialism:

Hypocrites though they may be, the Champagne Socialists never seem to see the hypocrisy of their actions or intentions; claiming to be selfless and in pursuit of the Common Good, selfishly, everything that the Champagne Socialist seeks to do is in the interests of the Middle Class and at the expense of those at either end of the economic spectrum. They seek only to fatten the Middle Class and to create a Communistic society in which the upper classes and the working classes are both eliminated.

The bourgeois, despite their facade, have no interest in preserving or enhancing the quality of the Working Class. In actuality, their fiscal egalitarianism would result in the complete elimination of Working Class society, traditions and values, and replace the class system with one large Middle Class. In actuality, the world “class” would have no relevance in a Socialist system; rather, there would only be one perennial and all-consuming Bourgeois.

There is much more to be said on this matter, and the works of the philosophers Julius Evola and René Guénon provide an excellent avenue through which to understand the concepts I have touched upon more thoroughly. I highly recommend Guénon’s The Reign of Quantity and the Sign of the Times for a more comprehensive exploration of the subject matter.

The average human being, described originally by Karl Marx in an unexpectedly anti-egalitarian fashion, is so dull, senseless and uncomprehending as to barely even constitute being classified as alive. These humans: the rabble, the canaille, or as Marx termed them the “Lumpen Proletariat”, are not concerned nor are biologically capable of being in any way concerned with socially revolutionary ideas or political dissidence.


Such dissidence would be in contradiction with their sub-rational desire to prolong their miserable lives for as long as possible, using whatever means available to do so. Unlike those of a greater existential class, characterised by the great warriors of the ancient Aryan past, any sense of existence that transcends the present time and space is hidden behind a veil of fear and inherent biological dullness, and thus they are incapable of understanding the virtue and logic of self-sacrifice which came so naturally to the noble and transcendent men of old. They are ideologically immovable in as far as a newly proposed societal construct exists outside of the mainstream collective consciousness, after which point it is readily absorbed into the permeable cell membrane of the Protozoan Slime.

Said term, originally coined by the 20th century poet T.S. Eliot, in many ways crystallizes the essence of Fallen Man, tending always towards that which is easy and that which is perceived as safe, a conglomeration of insignificant and simple organisms clinging desperately to the sustenance of the structure of their amino acids, feeling a “oneness” in the characterless, formless biological mush. The modern-day human amoeba is only capable of respiration, a small degree of movement and reproduction, though even this most basic of tasks is treated as overwhelmingly difficult by the homosexuals. In the words of Julius Evola 98% of the human race are “a violation of the Cartesian Axiom “I think, therefore I am”: they do not think, yet they are.”

It was the great reactionary conservative Joseph de Maistre who once said that “A country gets the government it deserves”. This is demonstrably true. We have moronic leaders because our leaders are elected by morons because human beings have a naturally tendency to connect to those who are of a similar nature to themselves, demonstrated by president Barack Obama, who scored a meagre 102 on his presidential IQ test and barely qualified as intellectually average. This observation produces a vast body of conversation in of itself, and provides the basis for understanding why ethnic identitarianism is the only political ideology which aligns with primordial human nature and has been discussed in other writings.

The 2% that make the difference: For the the few, not the many

To apply the aforementioned figure of 98%, it must be said that this number wasn’t randomly selected. Despite assertions in recent years that IQ is an inaccurate means of measuring intelligence, mostly coming from those who have a low IQ themselves, the figure of 2% corresponds on the Intelligence Quotient to those with a score that exceeds 130, the borderline that defines those of a highly superior intellectual predisposition. This level of intelligence has significant implications in terms of the social, cultural and political determination of a functional society. The reason for this is that 130 has been argued to be the threshold for those whose minds work not based on binary interpretations of reality, but based upon a system termed “Fuzzy Logic”.
To elaborate on this, and to explain its significance to political debate, one must have an understanding of how human psychology influences decision making and ideology. The intelligence of a human being relates to their ability to divulge information from stimuli and to interpret this information, often with what is known as “imperfect information”; this means that an individual does not have information concerning all aspects of a problem, and must make a decision with limited information. This of course, is a necessary skill for any politician, or any kind of leader at all for that matter.
Considering this, it should become apparent that the in-fighting currently occurring between the centre-left and the centre-right regarding “debating all the facts”, is a ludicrous one, because in real politics, and in all aspects of life, decisions are made based on limited available information, a reality that any true leader understands. The mainstream plethora of pseudo-intellectuals can only operate at this plebeian level of intelligence, debating and endless supply of labels, factoids and trivialities that have no connection to the heart of the principle being debated. This relates to a term in rhetoric known as “Fuzzy Logic”, referring to the idea that whilst Absolute Truth and Complete Fallacies do exist, there also exists a spectrum of truth in which there can be degrees to which a statement is true or false. Generally speaking, Fuzzy Logic is implicitly understood by those who operate at higher intellectual echelons, but is alien to the minds of the general public.
Applying this principle, it becomes obvious that the plebs in government (the super-plebs), elected in turn by the plebeian population (the sub-plebs) are ill-equipped to deal with the problems of our age, because they cannot understand the levels of the problem, whether they are of a right-wing position or a left-wing position. We are no closer to dealing with the predicaments of the modern age if our leaders do not have the intelligence to deduce the root of the problems, and insist upon attacking the symptoms of problems and not their genesis. Attacking feminism without attacking its cause, Egalitarianism, and the foundation of this cause, which is 17thcentury Enlightenment Philosophy, is doomed to failure because it does not exist as an independent principle, and is only fallacious up to a certain degree in of itself. Understanding the various levels of a problem and having a vision to produce a counter-proposal that transcends and eliminates the principles behind a problem are the components of a true leader that will never be elected in any democratic system.
Herein lies the perpetual Catch 22 for any prospective Philosopher-King: to effect any change within world, one must influence this lumpen rabble, to influence this lumpen rabble, in this day and age one must be elected democratically (for any exercise of primal force and usurpation is treated with scathing condemnation) and to participate in a democratic procedure would be to perpetuate the idea that this rabble is entitled to these democratic procedures. The great curse of the anti-egalitarian: he needs the masses more than they need him, or at the very least more than they think they need him, for the masses have no profound understanding of what is truly best for them and never will.

References & Further Reading: 

Characteristics of various IQ levels, in relation to their ability to understand problems:

Gaining an understanding of Enlightenment Philosophy and the Counter-Enlightenment:

Imperfect Information:

It may strike the reader as strange, and indeed somewhat ridiculous, to read that Óðinn, the Norse god, is in my family tree, or any family tree for that matter. This was also my initial reaction, and if taken at face value, the idea of supernatural beings mating with humans could be enough to completely discredit paganism as a serious and beneficial spiritual practice. After all, as I have already explained, the gods ought to be considered not as physical beings, but as forces of nature, such as one would consider heat, gravity and electricity among others.

A brief background regarding my ancestry:

My surname (Apap) has enigmatic origins. It was originally De Apapis, which may come from the Dia Papi (through the Father, IE through God) but I can’t be sure of this at the present time. The progenitor of my line, Leonardo De Apapis, was a Notary (essentially a lawyer) who had a son, Salvatore. Salvatore married leonara De Nasi, a member of an old Sicilian aristocratic family that also descends from the Jewish King David (Nasi means “Prince” in Hebrew). Though they undoubtedly had some Jewish ancestry, they were predominantly European.

The De Nasis had genetic ties to the De La Porte family, who were Normans who were Governors of Argos in Greece. The De La Portes descendant from Heinrich VII, King of Sicily, through his bastard son Richard, who was made the Count of Chieti in Italy. Henry VII’s ancestors on his mother’s side were Dukes of Austria, mostly named Leopold.

The first Leopold in this line married Agnes, daughter of Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire. Henry IV was descended from various Kings and nobles, most notable and historically significant of which was Rollo, first Norman King of France. Many will know of Rollo through the “Vikings” TV  show. Rollo was descended from many petty Kings of the Far North, though I will spare the details here. The pictures of my family tree will be shown below. Some of these Kings are verified historically, some are semi-mythical or unattested archaeologically, but trace back to none other than Oðinn himself.

Lengthy background aside, what does this mean?

Some wish to claim that the presence of Óðinn in such family trees is evidence that a historical Óðinn genuinely existed despite the evidence which suggests that Óðinn, at least in the sense of physical being, is allegorical. Óðinn is present in so many family trees and across such a wide geographical area (all around Scandinavia and Northern Germany) that to suggest Óðinn genuinely conceived of so many physical sons would be to claim he procured an entire harem of women and rotated between them as he traveled around Scandinavia as some kind of promiscuous gypsy.

The supernatural, metaphysical phenomenon which are symbolized by the gods should not be narrowly defined by their physical representation in our folklore and myth, but these motifs and physical ideas about the metaphysical should merely be seen as tools through which to communicate absolute truths. In the case of Óðinn, as I have explained numerous times, we find the concept of an enduring ancestral soul, or mind.

The proto Indo European term “Óð” can be loosely translated as “mind” or consciousness, a “Holy Spirit” if you will. Similar to the Hindu ritual purposes of Soma, the Norse constructed a spiritual drink known as Óðroerir, a drink that inspired great works of poetry and praise, the term being loosely translated to “stirrer of the spirit”.

Ergo, when a family line could be traced back no further, the addition of Óðinn as an ancestor should be thought of as a means of summarizing all of the unknown ancestors that came before; in a sense, they are all Óðinn because they are all of the same spirit and blood, the same Óð.

That’s all for now. Remember to Hail Oðinn!

Ancestry in detail (for those interested)

It’s in reverse order, so I’m sorry for any confusion. Topmost image are more recent ancestors.

This article will continue on from the previous two parts of this series, which you may like to read before this article, as I will build upon the information already established.

To summarise the previous articles, the term Aryan does not mean “Blond haired and blue eyed”. Though many Aryans did look like that, the Aryans were a sociocultural group that dispersed from the Ukrainian Steppes around 5000-6000BC. They dispersed their language, spiritual knowledge and technology across most of Europe and into Asia, reaching modern day Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

The Aryans are responsible for giving the West and India most of the religion and culture that we have to this day, albeit somewhat diluted from 2000 years of Christian influence which attempted to erase these traditions.

With all this said, the purpose of this article isn’t to give a potted history of the Aryan People, but rather to address a point and expand further on the little known ancient origins of the European people.

The term Aryan originates from an unknown word in the original Aryan language known as Proto Indo European. The ancient Indians who were of the higher castes referred to themselves as Arya. The god of war in greek myth is Ares, which roughly means “To strive”. Arya should be pronounced Eye-R, rhyming with “fire” and “hire”.

Some people will attempt to argue that it is wrong for us Europeans to refer to ourselves as Aryans, because “Aryan is only an Indian term that refers specifically to High Caste Indians”. This is blatantly untrue, and all ancient Europeans referred to themselves as Aryans, as I am about to prove.

The truth is always hidden in plain sight. Many of the names of nations and peoples in Europe have the word “Aryan” within them, though the meaning has been forgotten over the generations. To discard a term that should be a source of pride and heritage simply because of one instance of its abuse would be simply wrong. Here are some examples of the term being used:

Hungarians (Hunnic-Aryans)

“Hungarian” is a term used to refer to the Aryans who belonged to the Hunnic tribes that live in Eastern Europe that are descended from the Huns, a group of near Eastern nomads who invaded Eastern Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.

The Huns were intelligent and brave people who fought many wars to defend Eastern Europe from the Roman Empire.

Bulgarians (Volga-Aryans)

Bulgarians are named after the Volga river in Russia. They were originally a nomadic people living in russia but later moved West into what is now Bulgaria, which used to be known as Volgaria, land of the Volga Aryans.

Tockarians (Tucckā Aryans)

Tocharians were the Aryans that lived in the Northwest of China in ancient times. They were feared by the Chinese and Indians for being warlike and “barbaric”, though as I will explain later, being called a “Barb Aryan” isn’t a bad thing.

Tu is Sanskrit for “to move”, as the Tockarians were a nomadic tribe. They were forced to assimilate into other tribes 1500 years ago as a result of droughts in the Tarim Basin where they lived.

Technically a picture of members of the Uyghur ethnic group, but the uyghurs are descended from the Tockarians

Ireland (Arya Land)

Ireland derives its name from the goddess Eire, whose name is pronounced the same as the Sanskrit Arya. The word Ireland literally means “Lands of Eire”, land of the Aryans. Some even argue that Ireland, or somewhere submerged close to Ireland, holds the location of the lost civilization of Atlantis. I personally disagree, but that’s a topic for another post.

Iberians (Iber Aryans)

Iberians are the people who live in the peninsula encompassing what is now Portugal, Spain, Galicia Catalonia and the Basque country. They are so named after the River Ebro that runs through Spain. The river used to be known as the Iber, hence the term “Iber Aryans”.

Barbarians / Barb-Aryan (Bearded Aryan)

The term Barbarian was first used by the Italian city states to refer to anyone who lived beyond the city borders, typically in reference to the Germanic tribes that lived to the North, such as the Goths and Vandals.

Barbarian is a cognate of Latin barba, meaning “beard” and Aryan, meaning noble, as we already established. Therefore, the term Barbarian simply means a “Bearded Aryan”.

Rastafarians (Ras Tafaryan)

(Rastafarians believe blacks are the Aryan race)

The term Rastafarian comes from the Ethiopian title Ras Tafari, which means Noble Head. Ras means a head or leader, and Tafari means noble or respected, and derives from the same root as the word Arya in Sanskrit.

Without exploring the movement in detail, Rastafarians believe that black people are the Aryan race, which is of course not true because the Africans, apart from the ancient Egyptians, had no interaction with the Aryan Indo Europeans. However, this remains the origin of the name of their movement.

Iran (Aryan)

This may not seem as obvious as the others in the list, mainly because the pronunciation has shifted so much from the original. Iran was first settled by the Aryan people before it was taken over by the Arabs.

As I explained earlier, the original pronunciation of Arya, noble, is Eye-R, rhyming with “fire”. Ergo, Aryan was pronounced Eye-ran, and the American pronunciation of Iran is the correct one in terms of reflecting the original meaning of the term. The correct pronunciation is “I ran”.

Some more isolated corners of Iran are still home to the original Aryans, but they are considered to be a threatened group as the greater Arab population has sought to envelope them and to convert them to Islam from Zoroastrianism.

Conclusion:

As is hopefully demonstrably clear, the term Aryan is not a racist one, nor specific merely to India, nor is it racist to refer to oneself as an Aryan. The term “Aryan” is of utmost importance to the preservation of our heritage and our self image as a sociocultural entity, native Europeans. Don’t stop using a term simply because are upset at you using it, instead try to educate people on it and help to keep your heritage alive.

There are likely many other instances of the term used in European nomenclature and language, but this article is merely a cursory list. If you the reader know of any more such instances, please get in touch and I will expand the article.

Health and Happiness!

C.A, Author.

Foreword:

At the end of writing this, it became clear to me that many of the principles I have discussed are highly complex and may take several readings as well as external study to fully understand. I considered adapting the language to simplify concepts for the reader, but there is no simple way or simple wording that would do this nuanced and interesting topic justice.

C.A., author

Outside mirrors the Inside: Phallic and Yonic

The external appearance is always a reflection of internal nature, the reverse of the fallacious idiom that one should not judge a book by its cover. Extending from this premise, the inward nature of man and woman reflects, to put it as delicately as possible, the most noticeable distinction in physical qualities, IE the phallic and yonic nature.

The male tendency, mirroring the phallus, is to extend outwards from the origin to effect other sense objects. Its tendency is towards action, not passivity. It is unreceptive to outside influence and impenetrable.

The female tendency, conversely, is everything the male is not. Receptive, malleable, passive. It is receptive and actively welcoming of outside influence, mirroring yonic qualities.

As a result of this passive quality possessed by the feminine, women are more easily convinced by a charismatic personality or argument, rather than the quality of the argument itself. The feminine personality often finds statistics and figures inherently irrelevant and incompatible with their tendency to understand through emotion, which is by no means a negative quality. Just as men find sentimentality and emotional pandering tedious and irrelevant, women tend to find isolated statistical information repulsive.

Man gains fulfilment through enacting will. Men, as a result, excel in professions that enable their psyche to imprint itself externally and markedly. The highest of occupations for a man are as warriors, politicians, legislators, lawyers and judges, through which the male instinct to enact will is fulfilled.

Woman, on the other hand, gains fulfilment through others enacting her envisioned will. This is why women are very adept teachers, nurturers and in some religous traditions spiritual leaders, such as in the Norse tradition. Women, as a result of their natural passivity, make good listeners, but poor decision makers. Women excel in roles and professions in which they are able to invest themselves in a charismatic figure, enabling said figure to achieve their goals.

Purusha and Prakriti: The complimenting Male and Female forces

The metaphysical implication of pure femininity and pure masculinity is explored in the Hindu Vedas, Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. Purusha is conceived as the purely masculine quality, Prakriti as the purely feminine quality.

Purusha is the energy which lies beneath nature, like a coiled spring, and which provides the force that can be guided through Prakŗti to enact will. Ergo, rather than the masculine energy impelling action, masculinity is action itself. Masculinity is action, femininity is passivity which concentrates action into reason.

As a result of the binary qualities and their balance within each human being, this explains the tendency towards “careful types”, people such as chefs, artists, craftsmen, etc to seem at times feminine. Any action which requires finesse, refinement or delicateness, through the principle of Prakrti, is a feminine task by nature, for it requires action to be channeled by natural rules and controlled.

Without woman, man is a wild untamed creature, pure will and energy with nothing to attach itself to, again, like a phallus. Conversely, without man, woman is a lost puppy, longing for a source of wild will to embrace and to establish rules upon, and for this wild will to impregnate natural principles to produce action. Ergo, this process mirrors the yonic qualities and together, the phallic and the yonic qualities, the masculine and feminine qualities, combine together to produce everything that exists that we experience, otherwise known as the “sense objects”, the metaphorical offspring of masculine and feminine.

“Accordingly, in the original cycle of Aryan civilizations, both Eastern and Western, there is not the smallest trace of divine figures being so concerned with mankind as to come near to pursuing them in order to gain their adherence and to “save” them. An Aryan mind has too much respect for other people, and its sense of its own dignity is too pronounced to allow it to impose its own ideas upon others, even when it knows that its ideas are correct.”


The spiritual doctrine of Buddhism can be traced back to Nepal, circa 5th century BC, pioneered by Gautama Buddha, a man born in the Sātiya caste, an Aryan warrior aristocracy. Buddha’s ancestors were of Indo-European origin and Julius Evola briefly expounds aspects of Buddhist teachings which align the doctrine with the Aryan character. The qualities of Buddhism, apart from merely its creator’s descent, that are identified as Aryan qualities are thus:

1. Spiritual eliteism; unwillingness to convert others, rather to be sought out not to seek disciples as Christians do.

2. The 32 major physical qualities and 80 minor qualities of the Buddha that determine his eligibility for Buddhahood, demonstrating his high-born traits.

3. Appeasement to the warrior instinct. Buddha is described as a “raging bull” and with a mind of a warrior. Buddha belonged to the warrior caste of early Aryan society.

4. Anti-egalitarian, refusal to expound Siddhas (miracles) to ordinary people.

5. Essentially non-theistic; Nietzschean and meritocratic doctrine.

The Aryan-ness of the Doctrine of Awakening, Julius Evola


We have yet to say something of the “Aryan-ness” of the Buddhist doctrine. Our use of the term Aryan in connection with this doctrine is primarily justified by direct reference to the texts. The term ariya (Skt.: ārya), which in fact means “Aryan,” recurs throughout the canon. The path of awakening is called Aryan-ariya magga: the four fundamental truths are Aryan ariya-saccāni; the mode of knowledge is Aryan-ariya-naya; the teaching is called Aryan (particularly that which considers the contingency of the world’) and is, in turn, addressed to the āriyā; the doctrine is spoken of as accessible and intelligible, not to the common crowd, but only to the ariya. The term ariya has sometimes been translated as “saint.” This, however, is an incomplete translation; it is even discordant when we consider the notable divergence between what is concerned and all that “saintliness” means to a Western man. Nor is the translation of ariya as “noble” or “sublime” any more satisfactory. They are all later meanings of the word, and they do not convey the fullness of the original nor the spiritual, aristocratic, and racial significance that, nevertheless, is largely preserved in Buddhism. This is why Orientalists, such as Rhys Davids and Woodward, have maintained that it is better not to translate the term at all, and they have left ariya wherever it occurs in the texts, either as an adjective or as a noun meaning a certain class of individuals. In the texts of the canon the ariya are the Awakened Ones, those who have achieved Liberation and those who are united to them since they understand, accept, and follow the ariya Doctrine of Awakening: It is necessary, however, that we should emphasize the Aryan-ness of the Buddhist doctrine for various reasons, In the first place, we must anticipate those who will put forward the argument of Asiatic exclusiveness, saying that Buddhism is remote from “our” traditions and “our” races. We have to remember that behind the various caprices of modern historical theories, and as a more profound and primordial reality, there stands the unity of blood and spirit of the white races who created the greatest civilizations both of the East and West, the Iranian and Hindu as well as the ancient Greek and Roman and the Germanic. Buddhism has the right to call itself Aryan both because it reflects in great measure the spirit of common origins and since it has preserved important parts of a heritage that, as we have already said, Western man has little by little forgotten, not only by reason of involved processes of intermarriage, but also since he himself-to a far greater extent than the Eastern Aryans-has come under foreign influences. particularly in the religious field. As we have pointed out, Buddhist asceticism, when certain supplementary elements have been removed, is truly “classical” in its clarity, realism, precision, and firm and articulate structure; we may say it reflects the noblest style of the ancient Aryo-Mediterranean world. Furthermore, it is not only a question of form. The ascesis proclaimed by Prince Siddhattha is suffused throughout with an intimate congeniality and with an accentuation of the intellectual and Olympian element that is the mark of Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Roman Stoicism. Other points of contact are to be found where Christianity has been rectified by a transfusion of Aryan blood that had remained comparatively pure-that is to say, in what we know as German mysticism: there is Meister Eckhart’s sermon on detachment, on Abgeschiedenheit, and his theory of the “noble mind,” and we must not forget Tauter and Silesius, To insist here, as in every other field of thought, on the antithesis between East and West is pure dilettantism. The real contrast exists in the first place between concepts of a modern kind and those of a traditional kind, whether the latter are Eastern or Western; and secondly, between the real creations of the Aryan spirit and blood and those which, in East and West alike, have resulted from the admixture of non-Aryan influences. As Dahlke has justly said, “Among the principal ways of thought in ancient times, Buddhism can best claim to be of pure Aryan origin.”‘ This is true also more specifically. Although we can apply the term Aryan as a generalization to the mass of Indo-European races as regards their common origin (the original homeland of such races, the ariyānem-vaējō, according to the memory consciously preserved in the ancient Iranian tradition, was a hyperborean region or, more generally, northwestern),’ yet, later, it became a designation of caste. Ārya stood essentially for an aristocracy opposed, both in mind and body, not only to obscure, bastard, “demoniacal” races among which must be included the Kosalian and Dravidian strains found by the Hyperboreans in the Asiatic lands they conquered, but also, more generally, to that substratum that corresponds to what we would probably call today the proletarian and plebeian masses born in the normal way to serve, and that in India as in Rome were excluded from the bright cults characteristic of the higher patrician, warrior, and priestly castes. Buddhism can claim to be called Aryan in this more particular social sense also, notwithstanding the attitude, of which we shall have more to say later, that it adopted toward the castes of those times. The man who was later known as the Awakened One, that is, the Buddha, was the Prince Siddhattha. According to some, he was the son of a king; according to others, at least of the most ancient warrior nobility of the Sākiya race, proverbial for its pride: there was a saying, “Proud as a Sākiya.”5 This race claimed descent, like the most illustrious and ancient Hindu dynasties, from the so-called solar race-sūrya vamsa-and from the very ancient king Ikśvāku.6 “He, of the solar race,” one reads of the Buddha.’ He says so himself: “I am descended from the solar dynasty and I was born a Sākiya,”8 and by becoming an ascetic who has renounced the world he vindicates his royal dignity, the dignity of an Aryan king.” Tradition has it that his person appeared as “a form adorned with all the signs of beauty and surrounded by a radiant aureole.”10 To a sovereign who meets him and does not know who he is, he immediately gives the impression of an equal: “Thou hast a perfect body, thou art resplendent, well born, of noble aspect, thou hast a golden colour and white teeth, thou art strong. All the signs that thou art of noble birth are in thy form, all the marks of a superior man.”11 The most fearsome bandit, meeting him, asks himself in amazement who might be “this ascetic who comes alone with no companions, like a conqueror.” – And not only do we find in his body and hearing the characteristics of a khattiya, of a noble warrior of high lineage, but tradition has it that he was endowed with the “thirty-two attributes” that according to an ancient brahmanical doc trine were the mark of the “superior man”-mahāpurisa-lakkhana-for whom “exist only two possibilities, without a third”: either, to remain in the world and to become a cakkavatti, that is, a king of kings, a “universal sovereign,” the Aryan prototype of the “Lord of the Earth,” or else to renounce the world and to become perfectly awakened, the Sambuddha, “one who has removed the veil.'” Legend tells us that in a prophetic vision of a whirling wheel an imperial destiny was foretold for Prince Siddhattha; a destiny that, however, he rejected in favor of the other path.14 It is equally significant that, according to tradition, the Buddha directed that his funeral rite should not be that of an ascetic, but of an imperial sovereign, a cakkavatti.15 In spite of the attitude of Buddhism toward the caste problem, it was generally held that the bodhisatta, those who may one day become awakened, are never horn into a peasant or servile caste but into a warrior or Brāhman caste, that is to say, into the two purest and highest of the Aryan castes: indeed, in the conditions then prevailing, the warrior caste, the khattiya, was said to be the more favoured.’ This Aryan nobility and this warrior spirit are reflected in the Doctrine of Awakening itself. Analogies between the Buddhist ascesis and war, between the qualities of an ascetic and the virtues of a warrior and of a hero recur frequently in the canonical texts: “a struggling ascetic with fighting breast,” “an advance with a fighter’s steps,” “hero, victor of the battle,” “supreme triumph of the battle,” “favorable con ditions for the combat,” qualifies of “a warrior becoming to a king, well worthy of a king, attributes of a king,” etc.”-and in such maxims as: “to die in battle is better than to live defeated.” As for “nobility,” it is bound up here with aspiration toward superhumanly inspired liberty. “As a bull, I have broken every bond”-says Prince Siddhattha.19 “Having laid aside the burden, he has destroyed the bonds of existence”: this is a theme that continually recurs in the texts, and refers to one who follows the path they indicate. As “summits hard to climb, like solitary lions” the enlightened are described.2° The Awakened One is “a proud saint who has climbed the most sublime mountain peaks, who has penetrated the remotest forests, who has descended into profound abysses.”21 He himself said, “I serve no man, l have no need to serve any man”;22 an idea that recalls the “autonomous and immaterial race,” the race “without a king” (αβασίλεντος)-being itself kingly-a race that is also mentioned in the West 23 He is “ascetic, pure, the knower, free, sovereign.” These, which are frequent even in the oldest texts, are some of the attributes. not only of the Buddha, but also of those who travel along the same path. The natural exaggeration of some of these attributes does not alter their significance at least as symbols and indications of the nature of the path and ideal indicated by Prince Siddhattha, and of his spiritual race. The Buddha is an outstanding example of a royal ascetic; his natural counterpart in dignity is a sovereign who, like a Caesar, could claim that his race comprehended the majesty of kings as well as the sacred ness of the gods who hold even the rulers of men in their power 2 We have seen that the ancient tradition has this precise significance when it speaks of the essential nature of individuals who can only be either imperial or perfectly awakened. We are close to the summits of the Aryan spiritual world. A particular characteristic of the Aryan-ness of the original Buddhist teaching is the absence of those proselytizing manias that exist, almost without exception, in direct proportion to the plebeian and anti-aristocratic character of a belief. An Aryan mind has too much respect for other people, and its sense of its own dignity is too pronounced to allow it to impose its own ideas upon others, even when it knows that its ideas are correct. Accordingly, in the original cycle of Aryan civilizations, both Eastern and Western, there is not the smallest trace of divine figures being so con cerned with mankind as to come near to pursuing them in order to gain their adherence and to “save” them. The so-called salvationist religions-the Erlösungsreligionen, in German-make their appearance both in Europe and Asia at a later date, together with a lessening of the preceding spiritual tension, with a fall from Olympian consciousness and, not least, with influxes of inferior ethnic and social elements. That the divinities can do little for men, that man is fundamentally the artificer of his own destiny, even of his development beyond this world-this characteristic view held by original Buddhism demonstrates its difference from some later forms, especially of the Mahāyāna schools, into which infiltrated the idea of a power from on high busying itself with mankind in order to lead each individual to salvation. In point of method and teaching, in the original texts we see that the Buddha expounds the truth as he has discovered it, without imposing himself on anyone and without employing outside means to persuade or “convert.” “He who has eyes will see”-is a much repeated saying of the texts. “Let an intelligent man come to me”-we read26-“a man without a tortuous mind, without hypocrisy, an upright man: I will instruct him, I will expound the doctrine. If he follows the instruction, after a short while he himself will recognize, he himself will see, that thus indeed one liberates oneself from the bonds, the bonds, that is, of ignorance.” Here follows a simile of an infant freeing itself gradually from its early limitations; this image exactly corresponds to the Platonic simile of the expert midwife and the art of aiding births. Again: “I will not force you, as the potter his raw clay. By reproving I will instruct, and by urging you. He who is sound will endure.”27′ Besides, the original intention of Prince Siddhattha was, having once achieved his knowledge of truth, to communicate it to no one, not from ill-mindedness, but because he realized its profundity and foresaw that few would understand it. Having then recognized the existence of a few individuals of a nobler nature with clearer vision, he expounded the doctrine out of com passion, maintaining, however, his distance, his detachment, and his dignity. Whether disciples come to him or not, whether or not they follow his ascetic precepts, “always he remains the same.”28 This is his manner: “Know persuasion and know dissuasion; knowing persuasion and knowing dissuasion do not persuade and do not dissuade: expound only reality. “It is wonderful”-says another text30-“it is astonishing that no one exalts his own teaching and no one despises the teaching of another in an order where there are so many guides to show the doctrine.” This, too, is typically Aryan. It is true that the spiritual power that the Buddha possessed could not but show itself sometimes almost automatically, demanding immediate recognition. We read, for example, of the incident described as “the first footprint of the elephant,” where wise men and expert dialecticians wait for the Buddha at a ford seeking an opportunity to defeat him with their arguments, but when they see him they ask only to hear the doctrine;” or of another where, when the Buddha enters a discussion, his words destroy all opposition “like a furious elephant or a blazing fire.”32 There is the account of his former companions who, believing him to have left the road of asceticism, propose among themselves not to greet him, but who when immediately they see him go to meet him; and there is the story of the fierce bandit Angulimāla who is awed by the Buddha’s majestic figure. In any case, it is certain that the Buddha, in his Aryan superiority, always abstained from using indirect methods of persuasion and, in particular, never used any that appealed to the irrational, sentimental, or emotional element in a human being. This rule too is definite: “You must not, 0 disciples, show to laymen the miracle of the super-normal powers. He who does this is guilty of an offence of wrongdoing.” The individual is put on one side: “In truth, the noble sons declare their higher knowledge in such a manner, that they state the truth without any reference whatsoever to their own person.”’34 “Why is this?”-says the Buddha to one who has eagerly waited for a long time to see him–“He who sees the law sees me and he who sees me sees the law. In truth, by seeing the law I am seen and by seeing me the law is seen.”35 Being himself awakened. the Buddha wishes only to encourage an awakening in those who are capable of it: an awakening, in the first place, of a sense of dignity and of vocation, and in the second, of intellectual intuition. A man who is incapable of intuition, it is said, cannot approve.36 The noble miracle “conforming to the Aryan nature” (ariya-iddhi) as opposed to prodigies based on extranormal phenomena, and considered to be non-Aryan (anariya-iddhi) is concerned with this very point. The “miracle of the teaching” stirs the faculty of discernment and furnishes a new and accurate measure of all values;” the most typical of the canonical expressions for this is: ‘”There is this’-he understands-‘There is the common and there is the excellent, and there is a higher escape beyond this perception of the senses. “’38 Here is a characteristic passage describing the awakening of intuition: “His the disciple’s] heart suddenly feels pervaded with sacred enthusiasm and his whole mind is revealed pure, clear, shining as the luminous disc of the moon: and the truth appears to him in its completeness.'” This is the foundation of the only “faith,” of the only “right confidence” considered by the order of the Aryans, “an active confidence, rooted in insight, firm”; a confidence that “no penitent or priest, no god or devil, no angel nor anyone else in the world can destroy.”41’ Perhaps it is worth briefly discussing a final point. The fact that the Buddha, normally, does not appear in the Pāli texts as a supernatural being descended to earth to broadcast a “revelation,” but as a man who expounds a truth that he himself has seen and who indicates a path that he himself has trodden, as a man who, having himself crossed by his own unaided efforts” to the other bank of the river, helps others to cross over42-this fact must not lead us to make the figure of the Buddha too human. Even if we omit the Bodhisatta theory that so often suffers from infiltration of fabulous elements and that only came into being at a later period, the concept in the early texts of what is known as kolankola makes us seek in the Buddha the re-emergence of a luminous principle already kindled in preceding generations: this is an idea that agrees perfectly with what we are about to say on the historical significance of the Buddhist Doctrine of Awakening. In any ease, whatever his antecedents, it is extremely difficult to draw a line between what is human and what is not, when we are dealing with a being who has inwardly attained deathlessness (amata) and who is presented as the living incarnation of a law hound up with that which is transcendental and that can be “confined” by nothing-apariyā-panna. The question of race comes in here, too. If a being feels himself remote from metaphysical reality, then he will imagine any strength that he may acquire as a “grace,” knowledge will appear as “revelation” in its accepted meaning in the West since the time of the Hebrew prophets, and the announcer of a law may assume for him “di-vine” proportions rather than be justly regarded as one who has destroyed ignorance and who has become “awakened.” This separation from metaphysical reality masks the dignity and the spiritual level of a teaching and wraps the person of the teacher himself in an impenetrable fog. One thing is certain: ideas of “revelations” and of men-gods can only sound foreign to an Aryan spirit and to a “noble son” (kula-putta), particularly in periods when the mind of humanity had not yet entirely lost the memory of its own origins. This introduces us to the next chapter, where we shall say some-thing of the meaning and of the function of the doctrine of Prince Siddhattha in the general setting of the ancient Indo-Aryan world.