Mankind is not the same as a ‘brotherhood of man’. Even a ‘brotherhood of man’ implies brotherly relations between males, and makes no reference to females, who could only be described in terms of a ‘sisterhood of woman’, or something to that effect.
But, of course, there could be no possibility of a ‘brotherhood of man’, a physical term which I prefer, as a self–professed Social Theocrat, to reinterpret in relation to metaphysics and thus to a ‘brotherhood of superman’, so to speak, if there did not also exist a ‘sisterhood of woman’ or, less chemically and more pseudo-metachemically, a ‘pseudo-sisterhood of pseudo-superwoman’, as it were, who would correspond to the proverbial neutralized dragon under the saintly heel, not to mention the neutralized lion and/or wolf under the lamb of godliness or, more specific to metaphysics, heavenliness, since metaphysics is an elemental context with a fulcrum in soul rather than ego, or the nearest equivalent to ego in this context, namely superego or, better (since I do not wish to confound brain stem with spinal cord) superconscious mind.
Such superconsciousness, while it might be godly, is merely the halo-like circumference germane to the inner feeling of the soul’s being, and has absolutely no independent existence whatsoever, any more than candlelight could possibly exist without candle-flame – a metaphor dear to the heart of the Catholic Church.
So a ‘brotherhood of superman’ requires, as subordinate gender corollary, a ‘pseudo-sisterhood of pseudo-superwoman’, if a structure favouring the former is to result and continue as the necessary structural mean, if not necessarily basis, for a context analogous, in its metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical differentiation, to ‘Kingdom Come’, one characterized not by humanist values, as with the proverbial ‘brotherhood of man’, but by superhuman ones, and thereby by that which is both heavenly and godly in the freely psychic male and, by gender contrast, pseudo-devilish and pseudo-hellish in the pseudo-unfreely somatic pseudo-female – a gender representative contrast, in relation to their opposite fulcra, between the free soul of metaphysics and the bound or, rather, pseudo-bound will of pseudo-metachemistry, thus equating, in overall terms, with a saint/neutralized dragon-like paradigm, to name but one of our paradigmatic options.
Now as for mankind, nothing, as I believe I have written before (see, for instance, ‘Occupational Species’ from A Visit to Hell, a collection of short prose going back to the late ’70s) nothing, I say, could be further from the truth than to equate this term with some kind of ‘brotherhood’, since, quite apart from gender, one has to allow for the many other differences which put mankind on a par with the animal kind or the bird kind or even the insect kind, not to mention the fish kind (if there is such a term) and reptiles of one sort or another; that is, as a kind of life riven by predator and prey dichotomies, whether on the basis of class or of occupation or even of race and ethnicity, quite apart from the gender division alluded to above which I believe to be more fundamental to the perpetual friction and constant warring of mankind upon itself, as, no doubt, of the animal and other kinds upon themselves, and even of one kind upon another, as in the case of birds upon fish or of insects upon animals or, hardly less significant, of men upon everything else.
So, quite apart from their own frictional clashes, mankind also finds the time and inclination to war upon other kinds and to use them to their own advantage, whatever that may be. Because if you don’t, in some sense, war upon them, they will as sure-as-hell war upon you, and sometimes with terrifying not to say catastrophic results, as in the case of those micro-organisms that decimate men and animals alike in their thirst for life and hunger for blood.
But is there a dichotomy in mankind, over and above the normal predator/prey distinctions, between those who war the most and those who find themselves most warred upon – a dichotomy, in other words, that to some extent transcends gender, occupation, and class, since stemming more insidiously from race, from a certain ethnic disposition (when ethnicity can be identified with a given racial strain, viz. caucasian, rather than religiously applied to peoples whose racial origins or characteristics might be of quite varied provenance).
I think there is, and in the twentieth century this proclivity towards war and aggression ‘came out’ most virulently in the form of the Nazis, with its ‘blond beast’ association of what was most Germanic and Nordic with blue-eyed, blond-haired Aryans. It may be that the Aryan is not always blue-eyed and blond-haired, but those whom Hitler (himself no archetype model) most esteemed certainly were. This ‘coming out’ of the Aryan or, more specifically, white race had already been in motion, as it were, for some time, even before the twentieth century, and it seems to me that where most imperial aggression and interference in other cultures has taken place, it has been the product, by and large, of white nations, or of white peoples seeking nationhood, as in the case of European settlers in and emigrants to America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and other such places formerly occupied exclusively by coloureds.
Does it not seem, then, that a dichotomy opened up – nurtured during the emergence of Empires to world dominion – between white and coloured peoples, the latter of whom should not be confined to negroid or mongoloid racial types but also embrace the various Indian tribes and peoples, not to mention Arabs, who deserve better than to be regarded as a darker species of caucasoid, akin to the French or Latins. Yet, whatever their racial origins or geographical locations, it can be said that coloured people have this much in common; not only are they more the victims of imperial aggression and exploitation than the perpetrators of it in recent centuries but, in contrast to white people, they all look approximately alike, that is, they have some degree of brown skin, dark hair, dark brown if not black eyes, thereby contrasting with the greater heterogeneity of the white race, who can have as many different hair and eye colours as you care to name, not just the aforementioned blue-eyed and blond-haired characteristics of the archetype Nordic.
Therefore if there is indeed a dichotomy between white and coloured, as based on the evidence of recent history, surely it is one between polychrome and monochrome, that is, between alpha and omega, sensuality and sensibility, divergence and convergence, centrifugal and centripetal, expression and impression, devolution and evolution, as between will and soul on the ethereal planes of space and time, and spirit and ego on the corporeal planes of volume and mass.
It would appear that the polychromatic disposition of white peoples connotes with an alpha-stemming if not, in some instances (for instance, Jews) alpha-oriented disposition which not only puts them at loggerheads with the generality of coloured peoples, but gives them an aggressive tendency, rooted in a vacuum, which leads to imperialism and thus to ‘world domination’ and to the correlative subjugation, as so many slaves or cheap labourers or menial servants, of the coloured peoples upon whom they prey.
And yet the inner disposition of the majority of these preyed-upon coloured peoples is to remain, in unapologetic self-fidelity, true to the ideals of culture and civility and to carry on, as best they can, with the cultivation of art and personal not to say universal standards that most whites would be at pains to comprehend, let alone pursue themselves.
I believe that we do not understand history until we get to the bottom of what drives it and has led to today’s world which, despite its horrors, is not without hope for the consolidation and development of ends that require monochrome preconditions and could not exist, much less flourish, without a racial predisposition towards being.