Aryan Skynet

Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch

The Razers of Cain Part One: Yahweh-Monopolism

Sean Connery in Zardoz

Sean Connery in Zardoz

Was Cain, in addition to inventing murder, the progenitor of civilization and of nationalism as well? If so, his vilification in Judeo-derived traditions should come as no surprise, nationalism being forever the bane of supremacist Jewry in its historical inter- and anti-national enterprise. French New Right intellectual Alain de Benoist, in his metaphysical study On Being a Pagan, indeed makes the case for Cain as humanity’s Faustian benefactor and the world’s ur-nationalist.

Cain can be argued to have an affinity with the pagan worldview through his close relationship with the earth. A principal difference between pagan and monotheistic man, Benoist explains, is the attitude toward the land he occupies.

Eretz-Israel was a gift land, attributed and promised by Yahweh. Pagan man feels the place of his birth through its relation to his ancestral lineage. He has a “mother-country.” In biblical monotheism, to the contrary, there is no native land; there is only a final land, the land of destination that does not derive from any founding myth but clearly from a finality. Singularly enough this finality is more temporal than spatial, as its appropriation constitutes a prerequisite for the advent of Messianic Times. [. . .] The people of Israel are not children of a land; they are the sons of Yahweh, in a filial relationship [. . .] It is not on the land of Israel, by birth and heritage, that this people was formed, but in Egypt and in the desert, through a moral and religious act. Eretz-Israel is a fiancée, a wife, but she cannot become a mother – one of those earth mothers worshiped by the “idolatrous.”1

The nationalist notion of an indissoluble bond between blood and soil, then, viewed through the lens of this Judaic mindset, is pagan and “idolatrous”.

So just what is idolatry? It is the fact of rendering unto someone else, man or god, the worship that should be exclusively given to Yahweh. In other words, it is taking for an absolute what the Bible declares is only relative, or vice versa – which amounts to saying that the preeminent form of idolatry for man consists of declaring himself the sole bestower of meaning, free to construct himself, autonomous with respect to everything that is other than him. Hence the incessant denunciations of human “vanities,” the anathema against human “pride” – and the appeals for “humility” that Christianity will propagate. Man should occupy the whole of his place, but nothing but his place. He is forbidden to go beyond himself. Under these conditions idolatry is everywhere; the “idols” are legion.2

Cain Slaying Abel by Peter Paul Rubens

Cain Slaying Abel by Peter Paul Rubens

In what, precisely, did Cain’s crime consist? The killing of Abel, after all, predates the prohibition of murder (“Thou shalt not kill”) as publicized in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13). The seemingly spiteful retribution comes after Yahweh accepts Abel’s offering of “the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof” (Genesis 4:4) but rejects Cain’s parallel offering of “the fruit of the ground” (Genesis 4:3).

The initially obscure reasons for Yahweh’s choice of Abel are clarified when the offerings from each brother are examined. Abel’s [allegorical] murder of Cain in fact involves two different lifestyles. Abel is a nomadic shepherd, whereas Cain is a farmer (Genesis 4:2). The first extends into the new society, born of the Neolithic revolution, a typically pre-Neolithic lifestyle. In continued loyalty to desert tradition, he has formed no attachment to any particular land. The second, Cain, is the man of the Neolithic revolution, the revolution that allows man to more clearly assert his mastery over the world, to subjugate the world more fully as an object. As a farmer, he is by that very status rooted, attached to the soil that Yahweh has cursed because of Adam (Genesis 3:17). To borrow an expression I used earlier, he is displaying an “incestuous” attachment toward the earth. He has chosen [. . .] the “pagan” conquest of space against the Hebrew possession of time as eternity. For this attachment to a given soil, rootedness, bears within itself the warning signs of everything the Bible stigmatizes as idolatry. These include the distinct cities, patriotism, the state and reasons of state, the frontier that distinguishes citizen from foreigner, the vocation of soldier, politics, and so forth. Whereas by his sacrifice, Abel shows he keeps his spirit totally open for Yahweh, Cain’s sacrifice asks God to sanctify the kind of existence that has earned God’s disapproval because it is a manifestation of the increased autonomy man is seeking. Just like Adam, Cain reveals his pride, and this is why he is condemned. In fact the principal cause of Cain’s condemnation is not Abel’s murder, but Cain’s refusal to humble himself by repenting.3

John Boorman's Zardoz (1974) asks if eternal life is worth the price of unending monotony. "Into a world of eternal life, he brought the gift of death."

John Boorman’s Zardoz (1974) asks if eternal life is worth the price of unending monotony. “Into a world of eternal life, he brought the gift of death.”

Benoist continues, elaborating on the profundity of the ramifications of Cain’s revolt:

Cain is in fact the preeminent civilizing hero. If we are the “children of Cain” – a rather exaggerated term, as Adam and Eve also engendered Seth – it is as people of culture and civilization. After his condemnation Cain in fact founded the first city, which he named after his son Enoch (Genesis 4:17). By this same act, he doubled his transgression; first because by all evidence he was seeking to make a name for himself, next, because biblical tradition condemns “vanity,” by virtue of which he named a city after a person. This name Enoch is significant itself, as it is built on a root that means “inauguration, beginning,” as well as “man.” In other words, Cain was seeking to substitute a specifically human beginning for the absolute beginning represented by the Creation. He set up his own beginning in opposition to Yahweh’s and thereby profaned the notion. Cain did not restrict himself to engendering urban civilization, the one where history is made, but he also forms the first link in a long chain of inventors of civilization. One of his descendants, Yubal, was the first musician. Another, Tubal-Cain is the ancestor of smiths, and it is to him we owe the discovery of metallurgy. In this respect he is considered to be the first specialist in the art of war, a fact that of course earns him God’s personal disapproval.4

“In Genesis,” Benoist continues, “one of Cain’s characteristic features was his desire for boundaries.”

He wished to materialize his ownership. According to one midrash, if Cain killed Abel, it was because the latter did not want to respect a division of property that the two had agreed upon. Under the terms of this division, Cain had obtained this world and Abel the “future world.” But Abel then argued that he had rights over this world too, because, strictly speaking, as the world had only one creator, it could not truly be divided. (In my opinion this makes Cain’s wrath quite understandable!) Condemned to exile and having settled in the “land of Nod” (Genesis 4:16), Cain then makes the distinctively “pagan” choice of intensity versus duration, space versus time-eternity. By constructing a city, as we have seen, he was visibly seeking to lay the foundations of a kingdom or an empire – and this is where his “pride” resided.5

From this perspective, Cain slew Abel in self-defense so as to prevent the establishment of a crushing and stultifying unipolar world order. This is of course not to suggest that any person reading this ought to be open to committing political murders, but merely to redeem Cain’s name and reputation from the slander of rabbinical propagandists and restore him in myth as mankind’s Promethean benefactor, the civilizational founding figure who lives beyond good and evil.

Rainer Chlodwig von Kook

[Read Part Two of this essay here.]

Endnotes

  1. Benoist, Alain de. On Being a Pagan. Atlanta, GA: Ultra, 2004, p. 82.
  2. Ibid., p. 107.
  3. Ibid., p. 50.
  4. Ibid., p. 51.
  5. Ibid., pp. 82-83.
Advertisements

About icareviews

Propaganda Minister of #AryanSkynet

11 comments on “The Razers of Cain Part One: Yahweh-Monopolism

  1. icareviews
    February 8, 2015

    Reblogged this on icareviews.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Hipster Racist
    February 9, 2015

    Reblogged this on Hipster Racist and commented:

    Hmm, some high-brow esoterica from icareview…

    Like

    • icareviews
      February 9, 2015

      Believe it or not, this essay eventually does touch on matters more conventionally relevant to Aryan Skynet’s customary range of topics. It was getting to be so long, though, that I decided to break it up and turn it into a two-parter. I get into some trash talk in Part Two.

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        February 10, 2015

        It’s cool. You and Cly write more “formal essays” while MW and I write more “color commentary” I would think. I love the movie reviews, but I haven’t actually seen any of them.

        I see AryanSkynet as sort of middle-brow. We’re not Incogman or DailyStormer, but neither are we The Occidental Observer or Counter Currents.

        Considering Gregory Hood and the rest at Radix have been writing about things like 4chan and /pol/ lately, thus not being particularly highbrow, I sort of see them as our eventual competition.

        As for Cain, I figure it’s an anti-vegetarian story. You know, the meat eater that raises animals is favored, and the farmer that doesn’t slaughter animals winds up being morally worse by slaughtering a man.

        I always thought Adam and Eve were the origin of virtually every sex joke. Man and woman eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, get caught naked and swear they didn’t do anything, then the father figure throws them out of paradise. Eve gives birth in pain, while Adam has to work his ass off to take care of her and the kid. I mean it seems pretty obvious right? It’s a story to keep teenager from having sex.

        Like

      • icareviews
        February 11, 2015

        The Adam and Eve myth is about a lot more than sex, and Benoist’s dissection of that and other Old Testament content is great. Unfortunately, he engages in some anti-racist pandering later in the book, and his treatment of the Jewish Question is embarrassingly weak.

        Like

  3. Emblematic
    February 9, 2015

    ‘On being a Pagan’ sounds like an interesting read, but available copies are expensive.
    What’s your opinion of the book? Worth getting?

    Like

    • icareviews
      February 9, 2015

      I didn’t pay for it, and it’s probably not something I’ll read ever again, so I wouldn’t invest in owning a copy unless you’re someone with a special interest in philosophy. It’s a difficult read and a long one even at a mere 200 pages. It really has nothing to say about race, and next to nothing about specific pagan myths, deities, or rituals. More of the book is devoted to monotheistic philosophical underpinnings and how these differ from the human and earth-centered pagan paradigm. At times, Benoist even seems to have written the book for liberals, as he makes appeals for polytheism based on its relativism and tolerance for the Other. He even suggests that a monotheistic worldview is to blame for totalitarian intolerance – although he doesn’t mention Nazis or persecution of Jews specifically. Some of On Being a Pagan is interesting and some of it is boring, but I’ve learned a lot from it and don’t consider it to have been a waste of my time.

      Like

  4. Pingback: The Razers of Cain Part Two: Cain Slain by Brett Stevens and Resurrected by Rainer Chlodwig von Cuck | Aryan Skynet

  5. weeedwacker
    February 14, 2015

    I remember I had a major disagreement with my grandfather once when I told him I thought Cain got a raw deal when God rejected his offering. Didn’t seem fair to me. Of course my grandfather took God’s side.
    He always did, even when he was wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply - Your Comment WILL be Moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on February 8, 2015 by .
%d bloggers like this: