Yesterday I completed reading Scorpion from start to finish, so here are some comments. Included in most articles is opposition to mass regimentation and mindlessness induced by money minded large states with the help of a plethora of machines. There is anxiety over the future of nature and of the Aryan race. All this insight is good and true...Clearly an Earthly Revolution is called for...
I saw a mention of the swastika's direction of spin: the spinning fire revolves anti-clockwise but in its function as exorciser this is correct. The popular death connotation of anti-clockwise is appropriate in so far as the spinning fire annihilates evil and thus redeems good.
It is incorrect to interpret the decline of Church sway and integrity as the dying of Christianity at the close of the Age of Pisces. The clash of good and evil are real, not outmoded ideas to be voted out of fashion by a maddened mob. Christ, a Galilean, inherited what he did from the Aryan tradition, including Zoroastrianism, not the Torah or the Talmud. In addressing Scorpion to a 100 flag Europe, your appeal is to the elect, willingly or not. We are destined to destroy Capitalism, its money, meaness and mechanics, but not to reach for the stars, Faustian- wise; rather to enjoy the fruits of order on Earth, for man and nature redeemed. That order includes harmony, hierachy, meaning, beauty and self-awakening, appropriate placement and expression of soul and its form.
Keep up the lucid thinking, lofty and otherwise.
Christopher Beer, 5 Chesham Place, Inez Road, Sea Point 8001 South Africa
Dear Dominic Campbell,
I notice that the editor (yourself) is loath to attack directly the (Western) scientific system and hence the scientifically "perfect" State (The Grapevine). In the review of Spengler in the same issue, Antole Petrowsky writes, "..The perfect system, free of contradictions, is the really "untruthful" and "unnatural" system. Spengler's work is not so much scientific then, as poetical". It struck me that while nature imposes checks and balances and an "ecological" attitude on any species, science allows human societies limitless freedom within the system. A scientifically organized State, could, after all, have State-run brothels, State-run gambling dens, State-financed hallucinogens, etc. This would be on the lines of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Against these sorts of "freedoms", Spengler opposed "authority, inequality and hierachy". If science imposes a single world system, it has authority over everyone, irrespective of race or religion. There are no natural checks and no religious authorities to stop its headlong advance. How about an issue of The Scorpion devoted to the horrors of the "scientifically perfect State"?
Neil McEwan, 52 Ormonde Road, Hythe, Kent England
Dominic Campbell Replies:
The debate about science in The Scorpion was effectively begun in the correspondence about Rising magazine, reexamined in the issue on ecology and taken further in the Grape Vine of Issue 15, so it is nothing new in this magazine. But we shall not produce an issue on the lines suggested. The title is too polemical for one thing and in any case we have already had an issue (15) on the State. Opposition to scientific development is basically of two kinds: opposition or distrust in principle and opposition or distrust that science will get out of control, no longer be slave but master. Religious and "green" opposition tends naturally to belong to the first, humanist/liberal opposition to the second kind. Aldous Huxley in Brave New World did a good job of exposing the doubtful delights of the scientifically perfected society of the future as envisaged by men like H.G. Wells. All societies seek to impose some limit to general awareness of scientific facts, be it the inequality of races, the possibilities of cloning or the common age of sexual maturity. Are they "right" to impose such limits or should truth be beyond cultural constraint? The science versus religion debate again: as J.B. Priestley noted, "an old favourite" and one that this magazine would not neglect for the world.
Dear Mr. Walker,
Enclosed an article on the Counties which I hope you will consider for publication. It is relevant to Mr. Wankling's review of my book (c.f. Scorpion Issue 14.), and may be of value, as many readers will perhaps doubt the importance of the subject and its suitability for your columns.
A few comments to the review: the terminology which Mr. Wankling uses for the two kinds of counties, "administrative county" and "geographical county" is unfortunate. In popular usage a "geographical county" is taken to mean a "traditional county", actually it meant an area, a "county" by analogy, for justice. A complex subject: some specialists have calculated that there were between 300 and 500 "technical counties" before 1888, but all agreed that there were only 40 "real" Counties in England. Incidentally, Mr. Wankling mentioned your comments about Welsh Counties. In fact This England magazine did not include these simply because it restricts its coverage to England, although it did wrongly include one Welsh county, Monmouthshire. Whatever the origin of the two sets of Welsh Counties, after so many centuries they had become Welsh even if they were not originally (and there is disagreement as to far they did or did not follow native areas). As I quote in my book, it is possible to be a revolutionary by attempting to return to a no longer current tradition, not that what Perfect Publications referred to as "plastic daffodil" names, are any such return.
Mr. Wankling's words regarding the This England campaign are a little ambiguous and could mean that my book was inspired by correspondence with This England. In fact that correspondence only began after nearly five years of research for the book, when I sent a questionnaire to 95 newspapers and magazines. Twenty-three responded, twenty commenting that they would only use "new county" names-a total reversal of their own pre-1974 policy-and would "correct" any correspondent who did otherwise. Three, including This England, stated that they would use "traditional" names but only in cases of confusion, as with Middlesex, Sussex and Yorkshire. An editorial assistant at This England explained it was done for the benefit of readers abroad. But some months after receiving the results of my survey This England commenced its "Save our Shires" campaign. Unfortunately the editor does not use the opportunity to make his readers see that local government change is totally irrelevant, and frequently confuses the issue by making it seem that such change is helpful, perhaps even necessary to recognition of the Counties. The campaign is not breaking new ground (there was "Roots" in Cheshire, the Yorkshire Ridings' Society and the Campaign for Pembrokshire) but it is valuable in terms of coverage and the numbers of people it has reached.
Mr. Wankling, like many others, is cynical about government intentions. As the book shows, there are indeed grounds for believing that politicians were not sorry that confusion transferred loyalty from County to administrative area. Government did and does readily agree that the Counties are unchanged, (in a statement of 1 April 1974 we were told by government that the new county boundaries were "adminstrative areas" that "will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties") but will not initiate any publicity to this effect. County loyalists must resist any government involvement with the Counties, which can only reinforce the mistaken belief that governments have power to change or even abolish them. As to Mr. Wankling's implication that bodies like the Ordnance Survey were tipped a wink to change their universal earlier policy, well, there is no evidence of this and from my experience I would hazard that they would not take kindly to such attempted interference from a rival bureaucracy. Whatever the reasons for the change in policy, the explanations given by, for example the Post Office and Ordnance Survey, are either amazingly ignorant of their own previous policy or simply dishonest. As to Mr. Wankling's criticism about references at the end of each short section, this may be off-putting, but was deliberate. Opponents always claim that County loyalists are acting on emotion rather than facts; they cannot claim this when every statement is supported by full references immediately below it.
Whether or not it was good that local government change in the 1960's and 1970's broke the link between administration and the Counties may be a matter of opinion. That most people have been so willing to believe that change meant that the Counties no longer exist, is without doubt as bad and harmful as it is unhistorical and incorrect. The Counties are more ancient than the language we speak, a thousand years old and often based on far older kingdoms and tribes, going back to the dawn of our history. As the root of that history they are the stable identity needed in a time of change; yet they have been cast aside. The sale of a Medieval map is described as "cultural vandalism" and a "tragedy for our natural heritage", but the effective destruction of thousand year old Counties is ignored. Ancient cathedrals would not be demolished because they were no longer needed for worship, but the Counties, even older, are considered no more than an "administrative convenience" to be abandoned when new areas are created. Even most of those who claim to be concerned with our heritage fail to see how important the Counties are to it. To the National Trust they do not exist, they are omitted in the Ordnance Survey maps. There are purely practical objections to using the new local government counties. A vast corpus of topographical and other literature is based on the traditional County boundaries and everything from tracing ancestors and collecting old view cards to historical research will be made harder. But the real reasons for refusing to accept the myth that the Counties have gone are far deeper.
"...it is because the past is far more than a memory that those who seek change have such a particular hatred of rooted things" (Liverpool Newsletter July-August 1986). The Royal Commission of 1960 commented that to "preserve the buildings of the past" was "not mere sentimentality...to destroy or obscure these monuments of the past would be to undermine the foundations of the present." Sadly, although it is now being appreciated that our heritage in general has deep value, this does not often extend to the Counties. After forty years of steady destruction of the human dimension, people more than ever need the security of their place in time and in space; instead they have been cut off from their past and their present has become confused. The "shattering disorientation by too much change" to which Toffler gave the name Future Shock, has come about because all the old roots, religion, nation, community, family or profession, are shaking under the hurricane impact of the accelerative thrust. There is a "feeling that we live, rootless and uncertain, among shifting dunes". People may now be at home anywhere, but increasingly they have no home.
As Douglas noted forty years ago (The Big Idea 1942, p.27), "a common factor is plans everywhere to make people forget their historical attachments." In the words of Herbert Marcuse, (One Dimensional Man p.86), "suppression of history is the supression of the society's own past". The oldest and most widespread links with the past have been reduced to no more than changeable administrative areas rooted soley in the present, dependent soley upon government; to accept this is not only to lose the past but to surrender the present. Orwell saw this very clearly when he wrote in 1984 that "he who controls the past controls the future". 1984 showed a world in which "nothing exists except an endless present", "a self-contained universe, in which two and two could make five if the Leader chose to say so."
Father F. Francis, Roots Heritage County Conservation, 48 Shalmarsh, Higher Bebington, Cheshire, England
The Strange Case of the Counties that Didn't Change is available at œ5 & œ1 p.& p. with a free sheet of This England County stamps from their "Save our Shires" Campaign; the sheets alone cost 10/- all from the above address. The address of This England is PO Box 52, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England Tel: (0242) 577775.
Dominic Campbell Replies:
I applaud Father Francis' efforts on behalf of the English Counties. This kind of campaign lies at the very heart of this magazine's notion of what it means to defend European culture. The Yorkshireman who had his telephone cut off for refusing to open bills sent to him with Humberside on the envelope (The Guardian 2.3.93) served said culture more effectively than pontificators who do not practise what they preach. As it happens, those who claim to be defending some tradition but who offer no practical resistance to the undermining or subversion of that tradition in their day-to-day lives will sooner or later either be drawn into the system they were supposed to be fighting or sink without trace. How could it be otherwise? Someone who accepts changes to his money, to the names of the places where he lives, with not a squeak of protest, who indeed shrugs the whole thing off as "unimportant" is hardly likey to play the hero in matters of life and death (the "important" issues). But most people have become acquiescent, not actively modernist, despite appearances. Few people like these changes, nearly everyone accepts them. Few people have much courage in fighting evil but few people too are much given to producing it. The majority are vessels for good and evil with precious little free will of their own. So at least it seems to me.
Father Francis warns of the danger of allowing government to be seen as having the power to change the situation. Well, morally it may be that government cannot change the Counties but effectively it can. The retreat from at least some of the most insensitive alterations made in 1974, announced as a result largely of widespread opposition, is surely not to be sniffed at just because it comes from government. Most people look up to government still as the arbiter of right and wrong. If government encourages a return to the real Counties, well and good. Most people are not so well informed as Father Francis and for them Counties such as Rutland or Middlesex do effectively cease to exist if government bodies cease referring to them and equally do exist "again" if government bodies begin to refer to them once more.
Finally, these "small issues" are the ideal recruiting ground for those who are instinctively on our side. Reason may tell someone that this magazine is "undesirable" or "dangerous" or whatever, because reason is a matter of facts and facts can be false or manipulated. Instinct is more sound. This is not for a moment to suggest of course that a campaign like Father Francis' should not be reasonable but at the end of the day instinct is a more reliable guide than reasoning.
Dear Mr. Walker,
My personal thoughts of late have led me to the realization that if Western Man is to survive and advance he must look to the earth and the organic laws from which he cannot escape. The past holds the solution to many problems we face today even though it is decried to a large extent by the intellectuals, the media and the goverment. Although I respect the legacy of self-government, political and economic freedom and self- reliant individualism which goes with being American, our roots reach much further back than just this. I wish more of my fellow Americans would seek out and affirm their European heritage. We are under assault from the forces of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism. My children are taught about Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandella, not Columbus, Washington and Lincoln. I am glad I have found The Scorpion and must compliment you on the depth and variety of the articles.
John A. Stavola, 20 Whitman Road North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902 U.S.A.
Parents everywhere are beginning to realise that public education and television (another branch of the same thing!) in the West educate young people to throw over their racial and national identity in favour of a system where the measure of value is based on the twin pillars of success in career and success with money. This is an incontrevertible fact. Responsible parents of all races should ensure that the television is kept away from their children for as long as possible. As for schools, the public education in the U.S.A. is in ruins, following the little publicised but widely known "white flight" from them. A similar "flight" has now begun in several European countries, notably Germany, England and France. We can expect what is now a stream to turn into a flood in the coming years as birth rate differences tip the scales even further in favour of immigrants. How about better-off whites discretely helping poor white parents of bright children to get their offspring out of the cesspool of the state inner-city school and into the independent sector? Muslims and Jews have already shown the way. Perhaps such a body could register as a charity? Independent schools are competing fiercely with the public sector and among themselves. They are producing advertising broschures as though they were hotels. Their Headmasters spend valuable time tramping round the world in search of new customers. "Sugar daddies" helping poor whites could be a godsend for parents, school and child.
A correction to Scorpion Number 11, page 36: former governor Richard D. Lamm, of Colorado, is not a conservative but a dyed-in-the wool race traitor. "Conservatives" like this care only about money and will betray the race and the planet to the Jews. Megatrends was actually written by a leftist Jew, Arnie Grossman, who is Lamm's political advisor and co-author of other books. I know Lamm well from law school where he was a teacher in the 1970's and can testify that he spouted out against the White middle class with every chance he got. In 1987 he was exposed in a stock swindle involving Meyer Blinder of Denver, but escaped prosecution. Lamm is now trying to cash in on the collapse of the U.S. by writing doomsday books; Doomsday is coming precisely because of people like Lamm being in power. Re: Professor Bramwell's book: I recommend L.M. Bailey's The Holy Earth (Cornell U. Agricultural School: Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 pbk ISBN 0-9605314- 6-7).
Robert E.William, Box 10714, University Park Sta., Denver, Colorado U.S.A
The attempt by David Irving and other revisionists to overthrow the accepted account of the Holocaust (Scorpion Issue 16) is certain to fail. Even if exact physical evidence of the gas chambers cannot be established, few events in the history of mankind are so well documented or as well provided with witnesses. If the Holocaust did not happen in substantially the manner accepted, then there must have been a conspiracy the like of which the world has never seen before or since! Not only are there thousands of witnesses of every European nationality, there are or were thousands of survivors, also of all nationalities, Jewish and gentile alike. In addition there are hundreds of tons of German documentation compiled at the time and with all the thoroughness of which the Germans are capable. Finally there is the much more compelling evidence of the War Crimes Trials themselves.
At innumerable War Crimes trials, both immediately after the War and at later periods, some thousands of Nazis and their collaborators were brought to trial. Very few of these attempted to deny what had happen, they denied only their responsibility for these events. The fact that these men (and sometimes women) did not resort to the obvious defence of denying the existence of the crime, especially when their lives were at stake, is the most pertinent of arguments that the Holocaust is fact and not myth; they did not do so because the evidence to the contrary was overwhelming. In this regard it is worth recalling that Rudolph H”ss, one time Kommendant at Auschwitz, did not deny the slaughter there or even his role in it. H”ss even claimed a figure for the dead greater than that now generally accpeted by historians. Similarly, Franz Stangl, successively commander at Sobibor and at Treblinka, made no attempt to deny what had happened at these camps; his line of defence was the usual one followed by nearly all these Nazis, that is, either that he was not directly responsible or if he was, that he was "only carrying out orders".
Curiously enough, nationalists have no difficulty in believing the parallel events that occured in the Soviet Union under a similar and equally appalling dictatorship. It is understandable to admire the Germans, they are an admirable people; but to deny the Holocaust occured because Germans rather than Russians stand in the dock is to carry sentiment too far. In any case, the slaughter which occured under both Communist and Nazi dictatorships reveals more about the nature of dictatorshhip than about a particular ideology as such, although in both cases the ultimate cause of almost inconceivable suffering was "a general idea in a narrow mind."
J. Harraway, Address withheld by request
This magazine has no "line" on the allegations of mass gasings made against the Hitler regime. We should be very interested to know whether other readers agree or not with the above letter and welcome intelligent responses to it.
Having read comments in your magazine about the meaning of culture, permit me to make a few observations. The Ancient Greeks praised the universal in art and looked down on the writing of history because it was particular not universal. the first Christians were also universalists. Christ had come to save all mankind. The Catholic Church was a universal church. The Enlightenment believed that the ideas of reason were of universal application. The modern liberals have taken up this concept, saying that all mankind is one. From the idea that all men are equal, we come to all men are equivalent. Is this true?
It has been argued that all peasants are alike, Medieval, Classic, Chinese peasants were alike. There are many similarities: folk festivals, the Gods of the Earth... But does that prove the thesis? How do we explain the vast differences between the three civilizations? Gustav Le Bon wrote, "When only the average representatives of each race are compared, the mental differences often appear somewhat slight. They become immense as soon as the comparison is insinuated between the most elevated elements of each race."
Let us compare three philosophers from different cultures: Confucius, Plato, St. Thomas Aquinas; very different men whose philosophies differed radically. If they had met they could not have understood each other. Since Plato was a wrestler, Confucius would have dismissed him as a barbarian. He would have thought Thomas Aquinas superstitious. The three did not even have the aesthetics of a common sexuality. All three stressed ethics, but of very different kinds. If ethics are not universal, where do they come from? Why are the philosophies of differing cultures different? Edward Wilson, writing in Socio- biology; the New Synthesis, said "the emotional control centers in the hypothalmus and limbic system of the brain, flood our consciousness with all emotions used by ethical philosophers to determine standards of good and evil. " What produced these control centers? According to Wilson, they evolved by natuaral selection. In Our Human Nature he wrote, that what he called the "minimum claims" of evolutionary theory were that the laws of biological and social sciences had to be consistent with the laws of physical sciences and "linked in chains of casual explanation. "the mind has a physical basis... The world as we know it has evolved from earlier worlds, obedient to the same laws... The visible universe today is everywhere subject to these materialist explanations."
Ethics and philosophy are not universals plucked out of the air by disembodied intelligences, but are generated by evolved brains. This means that their basis is race. The same is true of such arts as sculpture, architecture, painting, music and literature. they are the end product of a process of physcial evolution. Bird song is to birds what high culture is to a man. Biologists have experimented by isolating newly hatched birds from the song of their own species. When they heard no bird sing, they were silent. The songs of other species were played to them and they responded with akward croaks. Only when they heard the voice of their own species did they burst into song. It is the same with man. The human artists must be immersed in the culture of his own race before he can blossom. One so immersed was Ludwig Tieck. He believed the creative artist should not be apart from the people and that the people should not be alienated from culture. In 1793, he wrote of Shakespeare that "more than any other poet he was the poet of the nation, he did not write for the masses (P”bel) but for his people (Volk). As a poet of the people (Volksdichter) he let himself be guided by the tradition of his people." In this Shakespeare showed his sensibility; he raised the tradition of his people to his own high mark! Literature (or any of the other arts) are not created out of the ego of the artist, but by expressing the culture of the folk. Both have a physical basis in heredity.
To truly express his own soul, an artist must express the genius of his folk, which means he must needs live in a homogeneous society, hence the reason that French and German culture are higher than that of the U.S. A nation of immigrants must reach down to the lowest common denominator, which means comic strips, sitcoms, sex and violence. Jews own the media and control the colleges in America: they dominate our culture. One college student has told me of a Jewish professor of literature who only uses Jewish writers as examples. His students were like the young birds who never heard the song of their own species. All they could do was try and imitate an alien culture.
Finally, T.V. is not a vast waste land, not if you watch the public channels. The Story of English is top notch; The Day the World Changed is an excellent series, showing that wit and good camera work can go with the intellectual.
Robert Briggs, 730 Hazel Street, (apt 3), Panta Gorda, Florida 33950 U.S.A.
Tieck's comments on Shakespeare were mentioned in Issue 8 of The Scorpion. Mr. Briggs' own arguments seem to us to support our belief that television sets should be banished from every European home. The images, values and sounds which t.v. producers are now beaming forth are for the most part alien to the European's and he can indeed only respond like those unhappy silent birds which do not hear the voices of their own kind. Why go on watching and listening then? Something we forgot to ask in the questionnaire: how many of you own a television set? We are not convinced that any benefits outweigh the brain damage caused by having one. Certainly, nothing can justify having a telvision set when there are small children in the family. Moreover, the paying of a television licence fee means quite openly offering voluntary financial support to the existing "democratic" system. Those who have one of these contraptions should at least make an annual contribution equivalent to their licence fee to a more worthwhile cause than of Mr. Murdoch or the BBC.
Dear Mr. Walker,
I am charmed and impressed to find out about your defence of the good old money. For my own book, I am exploring the possibilities of cheque books printed using fascimiles of the old currency notes as drop-shadows behind the ruling. ...I am happy to adopt your suggestion (so simple I seem to have overlooked it!) of writing out cheques in the "old" (that is, our real) money.
With reference to "Save our Shires" campaign. The sticker for Northamptonshire is evidently designed by someone who is under the impression that Peterborough lies in Northamptonshire. Peterborough is no more really part of Northamptonshire than it is by some quack, administrative logic, part of Cambridgeshire. The Soke of Peterborough was the only Anglo-Saxon institution to survive into modern times besides the Shires and what is left of Sherrifs.It used to be the jurisdiction of the courts of the bishops of Peterborough and survived the Norman Conquest as such to become a unit of local government with Shrieval status. It survived the Peasants' Revolt, the Wars of the Roses, the Reformation, the Civil War, the Glorious Revolution and Two World Wars, only to be wiped off the face of the map by a rabble of faceless bureaucrats in the Local Government ("Reform") Act of 1972. We even had our own Assize Court, owing to some obscure technicality about our legal status as a mini-Shire. When the Death Penalty was proscribed in 1965, they found that they could not make it apply to the Soke of Peterborough. There was a back door deal whereby the "anomoly" of the Soke was to be "tolerated" for a little while yet (this, typical of the patronizing attitude of the technocrats) on condition that we did not, in practice, hang anyone. In the same way the Home Secretary interferes in the business of the Manx folk.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Mr. C.M. Chamberlain, 32, Landsdowne Walk, Woodston, Soke of Peterborough, England