coolblue
December 8th, 2006, 01:33 PM
I post here a recent (November 2006) essay by David Myatt, which provides some insight into his own somewhat *mystical* but pro-folkish philosophy which he's called The Numinous Way (of Folk Culture). This folkish philosophy aims to provide a serious, ethical and rational pro-Aryan alternative, and its ethics are firmly based upon the concept of personal honor.
This recent essay by Myatt, and similar writings, re-affirm his commitment to his own folk, despite - or because of - his various Faustian peregrinations among the philosophies and religions of the world.
-------
Questions About Race, The Folk, and God
Q: How do you define a folk and how does it differ from race?
A: Essentially, a folk is a living-being - that is, a presencing of Nature, of the Life of the Cosmos. I quote from a previous essay of mine:
"A folk arises over time, through living in a certain area - a homeland - through shared experiences, through a common heritage, history and so on. Over time, a specific culture arises, which represents that particular folk, and the folk of this homeland develop a certain character: a certain nature, which in general serves to distinguish them from the peoples of others cultures...How do we define our folk? Is it primarily a physical definition, something which can be measured? No - our folk is primarily where we belong, where we dwell; where our being is at rest. Our folk and its homeland are numinous; that which connects us to our past - and future - in a living way. We either feel this, sense this connexion, or we do not....
A folk community cannot be created by some political ideology, nor by some law or laws, or even by a large State. It exists; it lives, already; it dwells in a particular place; it has come into being - or comes into being - over a period of time. Thus, to create a new folk community we begin with what has already come-into-being: the people of the same folk and culture who dwell in what was once their homeland. or whose ancestors came from that homeland. There is then a natural change and evolution - not a politically forced, abstract ideological change - within that community, which natural change and evolution arises over time through such things as following, upholding, the ethic of honour, through responding to the challenges which that community will face, through developing empathy via a dwelling on and working with the land, and through developing reason and understanding. What will result will be a new coming-into-being: a new folk."
Q: But that seems just a thinly veiled definition of 'race' - people growing together in one geographical location ('blood and soil', effectively) bound by a common culture (a lot in common with Nationalism here); common identity, and so on. I still fail to see the difference between what you call a folk, and a race.
A: There is a fundamental difference - because a folk is what-is, now, whereas a race is an ideal, an abstraction: that is, certain elements are decided upon and the people who live are compared to these, to this ideal abstraction, with the chosen elements being chosen according to what someone thinks or believes re-presents this "ideal", for example, blue eyes, blonde hair, certain facial features.
To be more explicit, the definition of a race depends largely upon when, in the past, there was, or was assumed to be, this ideal, in existence. That is, those living now are compared to this assumption of some past ideal. This past ideal is an abstraction - it does not live, now. It does not have a being, as a living folk has a being. Furthermore, the starting point for such an ideal, such an abstraction, is somewhat arbitrary and historical, an imposition upon what-is.
In contrast, a folk has arisen in a natural way to usually dwell somewhere. That is, it can be said to dwell in a homeland, a certain geographical area. It exists, now. A folk shares a common genetic heritage: that is, certain racial, or rather certain genetic, characteristics are shared; there is a common ancestry. Yet this alone does not define a folk, for a folk also changes, over causal time; it acquires an ethos, a culture, a unique way of living, part of which derives from the land where it dwells, where it has its being, where it exists in a symbiotic relationship with the land, and it is this combination which describes a folk, which may be said to define a folk. Thus, a folk is not static - it is changing; adapting; evolving. It can also decline, as it can also - like all living-beings - die; become extinct.
In addition, the homeland, the land of a particular folk, is not a nation as we have come to define a nation. That is, such a folk homeland is small, very small, in comparison with a modern nation, just as a genuine folk - the living-being; the living emanation of Nature which is a folk - is small, local, compared to the abstract "race" which some assume describe the genetic character of such a folk, or folks, and it is this smallness, such locality, such local dwelling, which is important, for such things give life to the folk; they are the life of the folk, the health of the folk. Such a folk homeland is, at its largest, the size of most of the old English Shires, just as such ancient Shires were home to a particular folk. That is, those folk in such Shires had developed over a certain period of causal time in a distinct way, with their own traditions, often their own way of life. They were a becoming - a type of life in evolution. The later amalgamation of such Shires into an abstraction called "England" undermined this becoming, as of course did the enforced abstraction of "Britain", which basically, from the point of view of the folk, the point of view of living-beings, of emanations of Nature, are unhealthy, and lifeless: causal as opposed to acausal manifestations.
In reality, a folk is more like a tribe; or rather, it is a clan. Indeed, as I have written before, it could be said that the clan represents the essence of The Numinous Way - that what The Numinous way is seeking to do is to establish, to re-affirm, folkish clans. For The Numinous Way understands the clan as not something belonging to some ancient past, but rather something which embodies life, which is numinous, which presences Nature - which is of the future. Thus, the way forward is to establish new tribes, new clans, based on the folks which exist, or rather, which still exist, before these living folkish-beings cease to exist as distinct entities. That is, we should strive to form a tribe based on what-is, now - on a certain folk - and seek to establish a place, a dwelling, for that tribe, for this folk. This new tribe or clan would then be a natural evolution of that folk - a move toward the development, the evolution, of that folk, and thus a coming-into-being of a new life, from the old; a continuation of the nexus which that folk represented. In this sense, The Numinous Way is quite futuristic - creating a new, balanced, future in harmony with the past.
Further, the folk is not about purity - it is about what-is; about Life, whereas purity is an unattainable, abstract, divisive ideal the striving for which causes suffering. Thus, such a striving for such an ideal is against the ethics of The Numinous Way. For The Numinous Way, what is important is an ethical and tolerant striving to maintain the various folk-beings through small groups of people gathering to live together of their own free will in a small community, and living in such a way that the culture and traditions and ethos of their particular folk are valued, and evolved in a slow, natural, way. That is, that the health, the well-being, of the folk, of their folk, of the land where that folk dwells, is of concern to them - a duty which they accept, in an ethical, tolerant, way.
Q: But surely this striving to create or maintain separate folks, and their homelands, is divisive. And surely what is important - beyond such divisions - are the values we all share, as human beings. That is, our common humanity.
A: I do not believe that recognizing difference and diversity, and striving to aid the living-beings of Nature is divisive. It is certainly not un-ethical in any way. What is un-ethical is trying to undermine or destroy the living-beings of Nature which indisputedly exist. What is also un-ethical, and therefore wrong, is trying to impose a certain abstraction upon individuals - to strive by political or social means to undermine and destroy folk and culture, and the homelands of the folk: to impose an abstract nationalism or an abstract internationalism on the diversity of folk and culture.
Rather than undermining or seeking to destroy the diversity of folk and culture, we should understand therm as an aspect of Nature - as part of our humanity - as we should be seeking to celebrate this diversity, and seeking to nurture it in an ethical way, thus aiding these living-beings of Nature.
What is un-ethical about a small group of people, of the same folk and culture, joining together of their own free will, to live together in a certain area, according to their understanding of the ethos of their ancestral culture? What is un-ethical - wrong - about these people striving to do form themselves into a modern clan, and living in an ethical way, according to the ethics of The Numinous Way? There is nothing wrong, nothing un-ethical, about this. Rather, it is a striving to return to balance - a striving to live in a natural and a futuristic way, consistent with the natural ethics of The Numinous Way. For one of the important things to understand about The Numinous Way is that it is a balance - not some simple desire to return to some idealized, romantic, past, but rather, a genuine apprehension of what is required for us to live in balance with ourselves, with Nature, in balance with the Cosmos, with such a balance representing a new mode of living derived from our appreciation of ethics, derived from our empathy, our honour, our respect for Life, for the Cosmic Being. As such, The Numinous Way is of the future: a modern expression of the truths of the Cosmos.
In respect of what is often called our common humanity, the question really is - how, and why, do we define ourselves, as individuals? What is our identity? If folks exist - and I contend that they do - do we derive, or can we derive, should we derive, our identity from such a thing? Or do we just define ourselves as human-beings, ignoring the difference and diversity which do exist. We should then ask: is folk, and diversity, important in any way? I contend that such diversity - that the folk - are important, and worth considering and worth aiding, in a tolerant, ethical way. I would also answer that, to be in balance with ourselves, with Nature and with the Cosmos, we must see ourselves in relation to the living-beings of Nature, of the Cosmos - understand ourselves as the nexion we are, a link between the past of the living-being which is or folk, and the future of that living-being. That is, we should be aware of our folk, and seek to aid our folk, and aware that our folk, our culture, provide us with a true appreciation, a true understanding of our unique identity. That we should seek to define ourselves in terms of our folk, in terms of our humanity, in terms of Nature, and in terms of the Cosmos.
This is, in reality, a genuine appreciation of our real humanity, which humanity is presenced in - represented by - the diversity which exists among us, as human beings, in terms of our individual character and our folk. To ignore this difference and diversity is to ignore an important aspect of our humanity.
But beyond this diversity, yes we human-beings do share some fundamental things because we are all human-beings. Or rather, we should share those things which distinguish us, or which can distinguish us, as human-beings - things such as compassion, reason, honour, empathy and love. Thus, The Numinous Way accepts both our shared humanity, and the diversity and difference which exists among us. This acceptance is, in truth, the human thing to do, the ethical thing to do, the natural thing to do - it is the way of balance, as the destruction of such diversity and difference is unbalanced, and un-natural, whatever the intention.
Q: But surely there can be, there will be - despite your best attempts otherwise - conflict and thus suffering, because you are talking about creating something which is founded on exclusivity, or division, and inherent in that is potential conflict, and the suffering which derives from that conflict.
A: Conflict can occur, or arise, from anything - it occurs in Islam, and Christianity, and in Buddhism. But it is how we deal with potential conflict that matters - and this is down to applying ethics. For instance, Buddhist disputes do not usually develope into hatred and violence - at least, if Buddhist ethics are applied.
If ethics are applied by someone who upholds The Numinous Way, there are no conflicts in the sense you mean and imply. If ethics are not applied, then it is not The Numinous Way, just as someone, who calls themselves a Buddhist, who creates conflict, who creates suffering, who harms life, is surely not applying Buddhist ethics to themselves.
The issue here is that we all, as individuals, have a duty, a responsibility to behave in an ethical way - to strive to do good, to strive not to cause suffering. To act in an honourable, empathic and compassionate way. To so strive - to so strive to do the right thing by using our will, to so triumph over our selfish, our animal, our barbaric desires - is the human thing to do. If we strive to follow The Numinous Way, we are striving to be human; to do what is human. We are striving to live an ethical life; to live in balance, in harmony, with ourselves, with out folk, with Nature, with other human-beings, with the Cosmos.
So, in effect, your question is a rhetorical one, or rather, an example of a fallacy, for the question assumes conflict results from a striving to aid diversity.
Q: You talk about a tribe respecting their folk, their culture - but isn't this is just old rhetoric, harking back to the days of National Socialism, and the attempt to create a white community, or some sort of White nation?
It is not rhetoric, but rather a viewpoint based upon empathy, rather than upon, for example, the faith of a religion, or upon the rhetoric, the ideology, of some political view. It is a viewpoint, a Way, based upon an empathy with Nature, upon empathy with the Cosmos, with the diversity of human beings. As such, it is a respecting of these things. It is very different from National Socialism - as I have explained in various recent writings. In addition, the concept of "Whiteness" is too general, too abstract, just as the concept of a large nation is abstract, and therefore un-numinous, as I have tried to explain many times. What matters for The Numinous Way, in this respect, what presences the numinous, is the folk, the diversity of folk - the establishment of a new tribe, of new clans, with these clans, as mentioned previously, seeking a small homeland, a place where they can dwell in harmony with Nature and the Cosmos. Thus, these clans and this homeland would be or become a connexion between the past and the future; a new beginning, rather than attempt to restore some abstract ideal belonging to some idealized past. What results from these new clans, what arises, what evolves, from these new beginnings, will be what arises, what evolves - in a natural way. We can be part of such new beginnings, such a respecting, such a new presencing, of Nature, of The Numen - or not, according to what we choose. What is important is that we strive to uphold, in our own lives, the ethics of The Numinous Way.
Furthermore, The Numinous Way is applicable to all the diverse folks which exist on this planet, however they are described, rightly or wrongly, according to certain categories such as "race". It is about people respecting their own local, tribal, culture and customs. It is about people respecting and valuing their ancestors and their ancestral homeland. It is about people respecting themselves and seeking to live in an ethical, balanced, way that allows them to develope further, that allows them to presence The Numen, to feel The Numen, to respect all Life. Thus, it is not about or for "White" people alone - it is about, and for, all the diverse peoples that make up our human species.
I restate what I said earlier - that there is nothing un-ethical about a small group of people wishing to live together in a certain way of their own free will, with these people upholding the ethics of honour, compassion and empathy and therefore being tolerant and rational, and being accepting if anyone desires to leave their folk, their clan, their small community, for whatever reason. It is worth mentioning, worth emphasizing, that this perception, this rational, empathic, ethical awareness of the folk, of Nature, of the Cosmos, as living-beings, is fairly new. It is not the awareness of the old nation-States; not the awareness of National Socialism; not even the somewhat barbaric rather primitive awareness of our ancestors. It is certainly not the awareness of Christianity, or of Buddhism, or of Islam. It is a new and ethical apprehension, and an apprehension that marks a new understanding of ourselves, of Nature, and of the Cosmos. With this new understanding we can indeed create a better more harmonious, more ethical Way of Life, and a better, more harmonious, more ethical world. With this apprehension - embodied in The Numinous Way - we can indeed evolve ourselves, and fulfil the potential of life latent within us, latent within the evolving Cosmos. That is, we can truely respect the living-beings of the Cosmos, and live in harmony with them, and ourselves.
Q: But isn't there a danger of even this Numinous Way, as you call it, becoming a dogma, developing a theology, and thus causing dissent and strife among its adherents?
A: Every Way has some potential to become an abstraction, a dogma. What stops them from doing so is the application of their basal ethics. If the ethics of the Numinous Way are lived, applied, it cannot become so. What might become dogmatic or abstract would not by definition therefore be The Numinous Way, but something else. Thus, so long as the ethics are applied, and lived, this cannot or should not occur. The Numinous Way does not claim to be divinely-inspired, as it does not set itself up as the authoritative guide to living, or as some perfect representative, as the sole representative, of what is true and right. It does not claim to have some monopoly on understanding. It is just one answer among many answers - to be considered, or not, to be accepted or not, according to the judgement, the empathy, of each individual.
Q: Are you then saying that the answers of other Ways, of religions such as Christianity, are important and relevant?
A: I repeat what I have said and written before, which is that such ethical answers, all such ethical Ways and religions, have, had, or may have their place in presencing The Numen, or presencing aspects of The Numen: in bringing some people to some understanding of ourselves, of the Cosmos, of Life. In providing some people with an ethical guide to living and so aiding the cessation of suffering and the presencing of what is good.
Yet, compared to them, The Numinous Way is quite simple - positing a simple ethical cause-and-effect, and not requiring a complicated theology, scriptures, or God. Thus, for The Numinous Way, there is no problem of evil, because there is no supreme, perfect, Being, no abstract moral dichotomy, no sin - only that simple cause-and-effect, that simple understanding of balance, of aiding, or harming, Life; of causing suffering, or ceasing to cause suffering. Of ourselves as being responsible for our actions, our thoughts, with these actions, these thoughts, affecting others, affecting Life, affecting the Cosmos, in a good (not-suffering), or a bad (causing-suffering) way, with what is good aiding that change, that evolution, which is implicit in Life, with such change, such evolution, being toward empathy, understanding, consciousness.
David Myatt
JD 2453948.767
This recent essay by Myatt, and similar writings, re-affirm his commitment to his own folk, despite - or because of - his various Faustian peregrinations among the philosophies and religions of the world.
-------
Questions About Race, The Folk, and God
Q: How do you define a folk and how does it differ from race?
A: Essentially, a folk is a living-being - that is, a presencing of Nature, of the Life of the Cosmos. I quote from a previous essay of mine:
"A folk arises over time, through living in a certain area - a homeland - through shared experiences, through a common heritage, history and so on. Over time, a specific culture arises, which represents that particular folk, and the folk of this homeland develop a certain character: a certain nature, which in general serves to distinguish them from the peoples of others cultures...How do we define our folk? Is it primarily a physical definition, something which can be measured? No - our folk is primarily where we belong, where we dwell; where our being is at rest. Our folk and its homeland are numinous; that which connects us to our past - and future - in a living way. We either feel this, sense this connexion, or we do not....
A folk community cannot be created by some political ideology, nor by some law or laws, or even by a large State. It exists; it lives, already; it dwells in a particular place; it has come into being - or comes into being - over a period of time. Thus, to create a new folk community we begin with what has already come-into-being: the people of the same folk and culture who dwell in what was once their homeland. or whose ancestors came from that homeland. There is then a natural change and evolution - not a politically forced, abstract ideological change - within that community, which natural change and evolution arises over time through such things as following, upholding, the ethic of honour, through responding to the challenges which that community will face, through developing empathy via a dwelling on and working with the land, and through developing reason and understanding. What will result will be a new coming-into-being: a new folk."
Q: But that seems just a thinly veiled definition of 'race' - people growing together in one geographical location ('blood and soil', effectively) bound by a common culture (a lot in common with Nationalism here); common identity, and so on. I still fail to see the difference between what you call a folk, and a race.
A: There is a fundamental difference - because a folk is what-is, now, whereas a race is an ideal, an abstraction: that is, certain elements are decided upon and the people who live are compared to these, to this ideal abstraction, with the chosen elements being chosen according to what someone thinks or believes re-presents this "ideal", for example, blue eyes, blonde hair, certain facial features.
To be more explicit, the definition of a race depends largely upon when, in the past, there was, or was assumed to be, this ideal, in existence. That is, those living now are compared to this assumption of some past ideal. This past ideal is an abstraction - it does not live, now. It does not have a being, as a living folk has a being. Furthermore, the starting point for such an ideal, such an abstraction, is somewhat arbitrary and historical, an imposition upon what-is.
In contrast, a folk has arisen in a natural way to usually dwell somewhere. That is, it can be said to dwell in a homeland, a certain geographical area. It exists, now. A folk shares a common genetic heritage: that is, certain racial, or rather certain genetic, characteristics are shared; there is a common ancestry. Yet this alone does not define a folk, for a folk also changes, over causal time; it acquires an ethos, a culture, a unique way of living, part of which derives from the land where it dwells, where it has its being, where it exists in a symbiotic relationship with the land, and it is this combination which describes a folk, which may be said to define a folk. Thus, a folk is not static - it is changing; adapting; evolving. It can also decline, as it can also - like all living-beings - die; become extinct.
In addition, the homeland, the land of a particular folk, is not a nation as we have come to define a nation. That is, such a folk homeland is small, very small, in comparison with a modern nation, just as a genuine folk - the living-being; the living emanation of Nature which is a folk - is small, local, compared to the abstract "race" which some assume describe the genetic character of such a folk, or folks, and it is this smallness, such locality, such local dwelling, which is important, for such things give life to the folk; they are the life of the folk, the health of the folk. Such a folk homeland is, at its largest, the size of most of the old English Shires, just as such ancient Shires were home to a particular folk. That is, those folk in such Shires had developed over a certain period of causal time in a distinct way, with their own traditions, often their own way of life. They were a becoming - a type of life in evolution. The later amalgamation of such Shires into an abstraction called "England" undermined this becoming, as of course did the enforced abstraction of "Britain", which basically, from the point of view of the folk, the point of view of living-beings, of emanations of Nature, are unhealthy, and lifeless: causal as opposed to acausal manifestations.
In reality, a folk is more like a tribe; or rather, it is a clan. Indeed, as I have written before, it could be said that the clan represents the essence of The Numinous Way - that what The Numinous way is seeking to do is to establish, to re-affirm, folkish clans. For The Numinous Way understands the clan as not something belonging to some ancient past, but rather something which embodies life, which is numinous, which presences Nature - which is of the future. Thus, the way forward is to establish new tribes, new clans, based on the folks which exist, or rather, which still exist, before these living folkish-beings cease to exist as distinct entities. That is, we should strive to form a tribe based on what-is, now - on a certain folk - and seek to establish a place, a dwelling, for that tribe, for this folk. This new tribe or clan would then be a natural evolution of that folk - a move toward the development, the evolution, of that folk, and thus a coming-into-being of a new life, from the old; a continuation of the nexus which that folk represented. In this sense, The Numinous Way is quite futuristic - creating a new, balanced, future in harmony with the past.
Further, the folk is not about purity - it is about what-is; about Life, whereas purity is an unattainable, abstract, divisive ideal the striving for which causes suffering. Thus, such a striving for such an ideal is against the ethics of The Numinous Way. For The Numinous Way, what is important is an ethical and tolerant striving to maintain the various folk-beings through small groups of people gathering to live together of their own free will in a small community, and living in such a way that the culture and traditions and ethos of their particular folk are valued, and evolved in a slow, natural, way. That is, that the health, the well-being, of the folk, of their folk, of the land where that folk dwells, is of concern to them - a duty which they accept, in an ethical, tolerant, way.
Q: But surely this striving to create or maintain separate folks, and their homelands, is divisive. And surely what is important - beyond such divisions - are the values we all share, as human beings. That is, our common humanity.
A: I do not believe that recognizing difference and diversity, and striving to aid the living-beings of Nature is divisive. It is certainly not un-ethical in any way. What is un-ethical is trying to undermine or destroy the living-beings of Nature which indisputedly exist. What is also un-ethical, and therefore wrong, is trying to impose a certain abstraction upon individuals - to strive by political or social means to undermine and destroy folk and culture, and the homelands of the folk: to impose an abstract nationalism or an abstract internationalism on the diversity of folk and culture.
Rather than undermining or seeking to destroy the diversity of folk and culture, we should understand therm as an aspect of Nature - as part of our humanity - as we should be seeking to celebrate this diversity, and seeking to nurture it in an ethical way, thus aiding these living-beings of Nature.
What is un-ethical about a small group of people, of the same folk and culture, joining together of their own free will, to live together in a certain area, according to their understanding of the ethos of their ancestral culture? What is un-ethical - wrong - about these people striving to do form themselves into a modern clan, and living in an ethical way, according to the ethics of The Numinous Way? There is nothing wrong, nothing un-ethical, about this. Rather, it is a striving to return to balance - a striving to live in a natural and a futuristic way, consistent with the natural ethics of The Numinous Way. For one of the important things to understand about The Numinous Way is that it is a balance - not some simple desire to return to some idealized, romantic, past, but rather, a genuine apprehension of what is required for us to live in balance with ourselves, with Nature, in balance with the Cosmos, with such a balance representing a new mode of living derived from our appreciation of ethics, derived from our empathy, our honour, our respect for Life, for the Cosmic Being. As such, The Numinous Way is of the future: a modern expression of the truths of the Cosmos.
In respect of what is often called our common humanity, the question really is - how, and why, do we define ourselves, as individuals? What is our identity? If folks exist - and I contend that they do - do we derive, or can we derive, should we derive, our identity from such a thing? Or do we just define ourselves as human-beings, ignoring the difference and diversity which do exist. We should then ask: is folk, and diversity, important in any way? I contend that such diversity - that the folk - are important, and worth considering and worth aiding, in a tolerant, ethical way. I would also answer that, to be in balance with ourselves, with Nature and with the Cosmos, we must see ourselves in relation to the living-beings of Nature, of the Cosmos - understand ourselves as the nexion we are, a link between the past of the living-being which is or folk, and the future of that living-being. That is, we should be aware of our folk, and seek to aid our folk, and aware that our folk, our culture, provide us with a true appreciation, a true understanding of our unique identity. That we should seek to define ourselves in terms of our folk, in terms of our humanity, in terms of Nature, and in terms of the Cosmos.
This is, in reality, a genuine appreciation of our real humanity, which humanity is presenced in - represented by - the diversity which exists among us, as human beings, in terms of our individual character and our folk. To ignore this difference and diversity is to ignore an important aspect of our humanity.
But beyond this diversity, yes we human-beings do share some fundamental things because we are all human-beings. Or rather, we should share those things which distinguish us, or which can distinguish us, as human-beings - things such as compassion, reason, honour, empathy and love. Thus, The Numinous Way accepts both our shared humanity, and the diversity and difference which exists among us. This acceptance is, in truth, the human thing to do, the ethical thing to do, the natural thing to do - it is the way of balance, as the destruction of such diversity and difference is unbalanced, and un-natural, whatever the intention.
Q: But surely there can be, there will be - despite your best attempts otherwise - conflict and thus suffering, because you are talking about creating something which is founded on exclusivity, or division, and inherent in that is potential conflict, and the suffering which derives from that conflict.
A: Conflict can occur, or arise, from anything - it occurs in Islam, and Christianity, and in Buddhism. But it is how we deal with potential conflict that matters - and this is down to applying ethics. For instance, Buddhist disputes do not usually develope into hatred and violence - at least, if Buddhist ethics are applied.
If ethics are applied by someone who upholds The Numinous Way, there are no conflicts in the sense you mean and imply. If ethics are not applied, then it is not The Numinous Way, just as someone, who calls themselves a Buddhist, who creates conflict, who creates suffering, who harms life, is surely not applying Buddhist ethics to themselves.
The issue here is that we all, as individuals, have a duty, a responsibility to behave in an ethical way - to strive to do good, to strive not to cause suffering. To act in an honourable, empathic and compassionate way. To so strive - to so strive to do the right thing by using our will, to so triumph over our selfish, our animal, our barbaric desires - is the human thing to do. If we strive to follow The Numinous Way, we are striving to be human; to do what is human. We are striving to live an ethical life; to live in balance, in harmony, with ourselves, with out folk, with Nature, with other human-beings, with the Cosmos.
So, in effect, your question is a rhetorical one, or rather, an example of a fallacy, for the question assumes conflict results from a striving to aid diversity.
Q: You talk about a tribe respecting their folk, their culture - but isn't this is just old rhetoric, harking back to the days of National Socialism, and the attempt to create a white community, or some sort of White nation?
It is not rhetoric, but rather a viewpoint based upon empathy, rather than upon, for example, the faith of a religion, or upon the rhetoric, the ideology, of some political view. It is a viewpoint, a Way, based upon an empathy with Nature, upon empathy with the Cosmos, with the diversity of human beings. As such, it is a respecting of these things. It is very different from National Socialism - as I have explained in various recent writings. In addition, the concept of "Whiteness" is too general, too abstract, just as the concept of a large nation is abstract, and therefore un-numinous, as I have tried to explain many times. What matters for The Numinous Way, in this respect, what presences the numinous, is the folk, the diversity of folk - the establishment of a new tribe, of new clans, with these clans, as mentioned previously, seeking a small homeland, a place where they can dwell in harmony with Nature and the Cosmos. Thus, these clans and this homeland would be or become a connexion between the past and the future; a new beginning, rather than attempt to restore some abstract ideal belonging to some idealized past. What results from these new clans, what arises, what evolves, from these new beginnings, will be what arises, what evolves - in a natural way. We can be part of such new beginnings, such a respecting, such a new presencing, of Nature, of The Numen - or not, according to what we choose. What is important is that we strive to uphold, in our own lives, the ethics of The Numinous Way.
Furthermore, The Numinous Way is applicable to all the diverse folks which exist on this planet, however they are described, rightly or wrongly, according to certain categories such as "race". It is about people respecting their own local, tribal, culture and customs. It is about people respecting and valuing their ancestors and their ancestral homeland. It is about people respecting themselves and seeking to live in an ethical, balanced, way that allows them to develope further, that allows them to presence The Numen, to feel The Numen, to respect all Life. Thus, it is not about or for "White" people alone - it is about, and for, all the diverse peoples that make up our human species.
I restate what I said earlier - that there is nothing un-ethical about a small group of people wishing to live together in a certain way of their own free will, with these people upholding the ethics of honour, compassion and empathy and therefore being tolerant and rational, and being accepting if anyone desires to leave their folk, their clan, their small community, for whatever reason. It is worth mentioning, worth emphasizing, that this perception, this rational, empathic, ethical awareness of the folk, of Nature, of the Cosmos, as living-beings, is fairly new. It is not the awareness of the old nation-States; not the awareness of National Socialism; not even the somewhat barbaric rather primitive awareness of our ancestors. It is certainly not the awareness of Christianity, or of Buddhism, or of Islam. It is a new and ethical apprehension, and an apprehension that marks a new understanding of ourselves, of Nature, and of the Cosmos. With this new understanding we can indeed create a better more harmonious, more ethical Way of Life, and a better, more harmonious, more ethical world. With this apprehension - embodied in The Numinous Way - we can indeed evolve ourselves, and fulfil the potential of life latent within us, latent within the evolving Cosmos. That is, we can truely respect the living-beings of the Cosmos, and live in harmony with them, and ourselves.
Q: But isn't there a danger of even this Numinous Way, as you call it, becoming a dogma, developing a theology, and thus causing dissent and strife among its adherents?
A: Every Way has some potential to become an abstraction, a dogma. What stops them from doing so is the application of their basal ethics. If the ethics of the Numinous Way are lived, applied, it cannot become so. What might become dogmatic or abstract would not by definition therefore be The Numinous Way, but something else. Thus, so long as the ethics are applied, and lived, this cannot or should not occur. The Numinous Way does not claim to be divinely-inspired, as it does not set itself up as the authoritative guide to living, or as some perfect representative, as the sole representative, of what is true and right. It does not claim to have some monopoly on understanding. It is just one answer among many answers - to be considered, or not, to be accepted or not, according to the judgement, the empathy, of each individual.
Q: Are you then saying that the answers of other Ways, of religions such as Christianity, are important and relevant?
A: I repeat what I have said and written before, which is that such ethical answers, all such ethical Ways and religions, have, had, or may have their place in presencing The Numen, or presencing aspects of The Numen: in bringing some people to some understanding of ourselves, of the Cosmos, of Life. In providing some people with an ethical guide to living and so aiding the cessation of suffering and the presencing of what is good.
Yet, compared to them, The Numinous Way is quite simple - positing a simple ethical cause-and-effect, and not requiring a complicated theology, scriptures, or God. Thus, for The Numinous Way, there is no problem of evil, because there is no supreme, perfect, Being, no abstract moral dichotomy, no sin - only that simple cause-and-effect, that simple understanding of balance, of aiding, or harming, Life; of causing suffering, or ceasing to cause suffering. Of ourselves as being responsible for our actions, our thoughts, with these actions, these thoughts, affecting others, affecting Life, affecting the Cosmos, in a good (not-suffering), or a bad (causing-suffering) way, with what is good aiding that change, that evolution, which is implicit in Life, with such change, such evolution, being toward empathy, understanding, consciousness.
David Myatt
JD 2453948.767