|
|
|
Awakenings A few weeks ago a suggestion was made on one of the threads that it might of value to build up a record of personal awakenings. Today one of our friends from RD offered an account of his own experience. In the hope, then, that this will spark a series of such accounts I will create a new category, Awakenings, and invite anyone who has a story to tell to mail me. Now here’s Sean’s story. For me, the two great questions of the day are: (1) how the European-derived peoples are to awake to their own ethnicity, and (2) how they come to understand that one key problem to their development and safety is posed by the Semitic peoples. This essay is about the second of the two questions and may be fairly described as how is recognition of this peril to be managed? Is it broad-based deep theory that appeals to the intellect, or some kind of simple, but shattering, event with unsuspected emotional-based, conversion-like attributes? We argue that it is the shattering event that overturns an emotional state that leads to recognition of the Semitic peoples as dangerous to our development. This is partly true because so much of the discourse around us is dominated by Semitic personalities promoting an untrue line of propaganda, but the good news is that unraveling of any thread in that propaganda may trigger an awakening. Here are brief sketches of two such awakenings. My AwakeningAs a pre-WWII baby I had many opportunities to become aware of the influence of the Semitic peoples on our cultures. I saw aged Jews like Barnard Baruch lionized with pictures on the pages of the daily paper my family subscribed to in which Baruch was described as a “park bench advisor to presidents.” I remember wondering about it from the age of perhaps 13, although it was never questioned or discussed at home or school. I remember reading bizarre weekly letters-to-the-editor published in the county weekly paper in our Minnesota rural town from a mysterious California resident, Herbert Aptheker. I remember wondering about the letters that appeared so frequently and expressed such hatred against America, although his doctrines and ideas were never questioned or discussed at home or school. As a first year college student in Biology 1A, I remember wondering why Professor Josh Cohen mentioned Christianity in almost every class he taught in 1960, only to disrespect and mock its teachings. I had no way to put this into any context at this time, and I still wonder how many fine minds and genuinely faithful people he undermined this way. But I never put the pieces together until I worked with a group to conduct a study in the early 1990s to collect all possible examples of media slander and libel against the Irish peoples. We set to work to make this collection because we noticed that local print media mocked and smeared the Irish in America. We collected over 60 examples during a three-year period. When we held a study session at the end of the study in 1995, we noticed that every example, but two, was uttered or written by names like Cohen, Goldberg, and Ruby. Only two examples were found that could be assigned to non-Semitic peoples. That was a shock of recognition that began to undo all the years of conditioning that dictated that we identify these Semitic peoples with high motives and kind hearts. Not one Semite expressed shame, repugnance, or dismay over the calumny directed at the Irish. So my awakening experience was on observing Semitic predominance in what can only be called a campaign of defamation against the Irish peoples back in 1992-1995. Earlier life experiences were then incorporated into this new understanding as have been later experiences. My Friend’s Awakening As an example of how others are shocked into awareness is my friend’s experience. She was a devoted Christian and insisted that I accompany her to an Easter weekend pageant at a church. The point of view of the drama was the point of view of Jesus’ dismayed followers upon his arrest. The staged presentation featured a lot of circular dancing, curses on the Romans, and loud gossip and rumor-mongering. Screaming, moaning, and ripping of stage clothing seemed to be the principal activities on stage. I thought it was an appalling spectacle, but did not want to be rude about it. So I kept silent, and when she suddenly asked what I thought about it, I said simply, “It looks like a bunch of hysterical Jews.” She was appalled but insisted on more information, so I shared my copy of Albert S. Lindemann’s “Esau’s Tears” which she read closely, and finally she did what I had done years earlier, reconsidered prior experiences with Semites, and concluded that they were a dangerous lot. Her deep and profound knowledge of the Old Testament helped her come to this conclusion, too, because she was able to see how the circular history of this Semitic nation had expressed itself in a timeless fashion year after year, decade after decade, and century after century. Psychological Comparison In both instances, something like a sudden conversion occurred. In my case, my belief that Jews were kind people keen to shed light in the world was turned on its head by the evidence before me, and enhanced by my review of previous encounters. In my friend’s case, it appears that her perception of the early followers of Jesus as deeply thoughtful, faithful Christians was flipped on its head by the suggestion that it was Jews acting the way Jews act, not as Christians were presumed to act, and enhanced thereafter by reading texts by Jews, contemporary and ancient. Conclusion So there you have it, how I began to uncover the hidden truths about the Semites and how I helped awaken another person about the same things. It appears that accident, as much as intentional campaigns, can awaken the slumbering, but it also appears that emotion is intimately related to this discovery. It’s an abused heart that first awakens, then the deluded mind clarifies itself. Some day there will be college courses and texts called “Deconstructing Jewish & Muslim Claims,” “Exploring The Jewish & Arab Mentality,” and “Semitic Privilege: Techniques, Tactics and Strategies.” May that day arrive soon. But for now, we have to work in a one-on-one way to understand the realities outside the cave and behind the shadows of an all-surrounding malicious and tendentious propaganda. Comments:2
Posted by Englander on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:40 | # Yes, I too would like to know more about this study into the defamation of the Irish. I can’t say I’ve ever really noticed anything of that sort, but then again I am not in the US. 3
Posted by ES on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:07 | # I saw aged Jews like Barnard Baruch lionized with pictures on the pages of the daily paper my family subscribed to in which Baruch was described as a “park bench advisor to presidents.” Baruch was a leader of “Judah” in a role perhaps similar to a COO from approximately 1910 to 1945 (and perhaps a bit further). I won’t recount the political and financial exploits attributed to him to avoid accusations of sensationalism. Nevertheless, the transition of WASP America to Jewish-ruled Amerikwa sometime between 1900 to 2007 is indisputable. It was during Baruch’s prime that the US government became permanently compromised—even captured, and, perhaps the fate of WASP America sealed. 4
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:53 | # There was a great TV show that I watched in the 70’s called the Archie Bunker Show. It was written and produced by Jews. It was about the WASPs in America. It was extremely funny when I watched as a kid, but now that I think of it was a way for the Jews to slander the WASP culture of America and thus undermining it! I will never watch the show along with South Park, the Simpsons, and all those other shows. 5
Posted by who on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:23 | # W. LindsayWheeler, The name of the show was “All in the Family.” It was hardly a run-down of WASP culture in that Archie was a lower-class character. And, it was based on an English show. 6
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:35 | # Jews seems to be important element in these conversations. We Finns are practical people and want theories, that produce results. I cannot in limited time comprehensively explain what I write, but I suggest the following strategy: This is nothing but a small part of the whole; Strategy - To a basis, you need an ethnic genetic group. In America it means European Americans and it promotes their interests. It is exclusively for them and and e.g. jews are excluded. Genetic tests are needed. With this method you eliminate from most of the jews the possibility to influence your internal policy from inside. But what about possible self-hating White infiltrators and and rare jews who might pass the test? - Formulate the boundaries of policies that can be promoted in your group. Constitution that cannot be changed by anyone. It states the basic policies that must definitively be So now if there is a mole in your organization, he cannot promote harmful policies or he will be excluded. That leaves the possible spies. - Do two things. Watch for spies and try to exclude them. Make your organization resistant to spying. How is it made resistant to e.g. jewish spies? Jews are interested in mostly how the organization acts towards jews. The inside policy of the organization towards the jews is
- Those inside your group are your absolute friends and you are loyal and honest to them. They must be like dear relatives to you. You should buy together apartment buildings, so that you can live in the same houses, if possible. - Those outside your group, excluding your normal relatives, are proportional friends or proportional opponents, depending on who they are, what kind of policies they promote - Then start to befriend ordinary jews (especially ordinary, because they are less indoctrinated), influential jews and jewish organizations, who have at least some same interests than you (conservative jews, white nationalist jews and so on). You accept, that they have jewish interests to promote, and you always regard it as natural. Little by little promote amongst them public critique against those jewish or more or less jewish organizations, individuals etc. that are most destructive to White interests. Let jews have those interests that are crucial to them, so they can critique those organizations safely. - Frame the critique always so that it has the maximum benefit to jews. - Suggest and tell about alternative as good as or better ways and organizations to promote same jewish interests, and which at the same time have less adverse effects to jews. In the side sentence you might mention it is better and pleasing to you also. - Incorporate the promoting of critique inseparably to other things. The other things must be something that is good to the jews. - Use psychological methods the enhance your persuasion. - Promote amongst jews indirect policies or critique that weaken those jewish organizations or individuals, who are destructive to us. E.g. policies that lessen the donations or promoting political pressure that weakens the harmful organizations or individuals. - If you can, use incentives among jews to promote your policies, like donations or some kind of co-operation (all your groups’ votes in some tight election etc.), that does not risk your vital interests. - Those people who come from tough ethnic competition areas and who have inclination towards lying to those outside their ingroups, are prone to “Lie becomes the truth” -effect. - Harmonize all your policies. - Be creative and select the most effective policies after thorough and long testing. Your outside policy must have evolutionary quality. The Strongest policies and those policies And so on. What is our policy towards jews in the deepest of the deep then. It is: We don’t critizice jewish money, jewish power, Israel, Hollywood, jewish organizations, jewish individuals Always ask yourselves when doing something; Is it good to your ethnic genetic group and European Americans. Start from the smaller and advance to bigger things 7
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:22 | # All in the Family was based on this British show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf_Garnett A white British character is shown to be patriotic, monarchist and therefore anti-semitic, hypocritical etc Who - I think WASP means just what it says in this context, not upperclass. 8
Posted by Daniel J on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:57 | # My awakening was a consequence of my earlier liberal views. I realized the state of Israel was a huge problem from all of the bleeding hearts commenting on the Palestine issue. This lead me to research Jews in general. This lead me to hatred for all their wrongdoing. 9
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:31 | # So, Daniel J, what if all the people, who talk about the jews here, suggested practical policies to deal with the issue. Then you could pick up a collection of methods you could use in practice. Theories are plentiful, practical policies rare or non existent. Having watched Americans theorizing about it for years, it might be time to move on to practical policies. 10
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 06:47 | # a Finn wrote: You accept, that they have jewish interests to promote, and you always regard it as natural. You should specify what distinctively Jewish interests are compatible with our interests. The list will be short. That’s why we have a Jewish Problem. On the most important issue - our desire to preserve our own nations - there appears to be an irreconcilable conflict. Most Jews don’t believe we should have our own nations. 11
Posted by Daniel J on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:52 | # Theories are plentiful, practical policies rare or non existent. Having watched Americans theorizing about it for years, it might be time to move on to practical policies. Posted by a Finn on Saturday, February 24, 2007 at 01:31 AM Ne’er a truer word spoken. I started following Jared Samuel Taylorwitz’ Amren and realized how in trouble we are when people that supposedly care about the white race are bitching about the wrong issue, and the people that bitch about the right issue are doing merely that. I think the first step is Gentile controlled media, with Gentile controlled content that advance Gentile determined interests 12
Posted by Tommy G on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:20 | # “I started following Jared Samuel Taylorwitz’ Amren and realized how in trouble we are when people that supposedly care about the white race are bitching about the wrong issue, and the people that bitch about the right issue are doing merely that. “—Daniel J LOL I think their moderators are required to take a course at the Simon Wiesenthal center before they are allowed to screen comments. They refuse comments that even hint at the complicity Jews have in our dispossession. AmRen is a PC WN web-site. A discussion about the problems whites face that excludes the JQ, is like discussing wine-making without talking about grapes. 13
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:35 | # Thanks for the post Lurker on Alf Garnett. Archie Bunker just like Alf Garnett were Jewish caricatures of Wasps in order to denigrate their values and their culture and promote tolerance and multi-culti nonsense. These two shows are smooth propaganda. This has always been in Roman Catholicism. It is Protestant countries that allowed the Jew to roam free. It was Cromwell that brought the Jew back into England. Here is a post, that I recently found on Maurice Pinay about the connection between Judiasm and Masonary Masonry, Noachida, Britsh Israel, Orange Occupation. Protestantism is a Judiazing religion. It has been nurtured along by Jews. A return to Roman Catholicism and a backbone within same if we are going to get a handle on this situation. The Jew must be denied the levers of political and cultural control. I don’t mind him living here but they must understand a Semitic mind is not a European mind. 14
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:41 | # Rnl: “You should specify what distinctively Jewish interests are compatible with our interests. The list will be short. That’s why we have a Jewish Problem.” - Rnl, loan from the cultural marxists. Deconstruct jewish interests and give them new meanings. Meanings that don’t have harmful elements to whites. That is the product we should sell to the jews and the public in general. Even if small part of the jews and the public takes it, it will start the necessary change processes for us. Daniel J: “I think the first step is Gentile controlled media, with Gentile controlled content that advance Gentile determined interests.” - You are right and a little bit of wrong. We need Gentile controlled media. The seeds are here already, e.g. these pages. As I said, the strategy I wrote is a small part of the whole. We need many things at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive. Media in itself becomes problematic, if people start to think it is cure for everything and that it will change the world for the most of us just by sitting in the sofa. We need to get our hands full of work. Acquiring the most powerful medias don’t happen by falling to our hands from the sky. We need interconnected and coordinated economy between us, coordinated economic and investing strategies, interest free loans between us to crucial projects, political power (local first, national later), lawyers, who can get advantageous precedent decisions from courts, everlasting ingroup with unchangeable policies, definitive trust between us, lobbying among different groups, useful information gathering networks everywhere, our own buildings and areas (many of them), our own private schools, daily contacts between us, our own mini society etc. etc. Then after a some time we have enough money and power to change the world to a better place and e.g. to acquire powerful medias. It is not a childs play and serious, intelligent men are needed. Start from the small scale and advance to bigger scale. W. LindsayWheeler: “..... This has always been in Roman Catholicism. It is Protestant countries that allowed the Jew to roam free. It was Cromwell that brought the Jew back into England.” - It is not so simple. France’s (Roman Catholic) revolution emancipated jews to give them socialism and communism, Roman Catholic Austria had the most usurious jews in the world (Sometimes the annual interest was as high as 160%, twice as high as the highest jewish interest on other European countries) and also otherwise so obnoxious to produce Hitler, Poland (Roman Catholic) became a monopoly to jews to extort Poles in every way etc. etc. It was usual to protestant countries to institute restrictions to jewish exploitation, but it would require too much time to explain what went wrong. From Catholic countries e.g. Italy handled the jews fairly well. By the way, as consequence, also the jews enjoyed Italy and were safe and respected even in the time of Mussolini. 15
Posted by Daniel J on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:26 | # Daniel J: “I think the first step is Gentile controlled media, with Gentile controlled content that advance Gentile determined interests.” Mr Finn…. I think I stated the first step and you elaborated the second/third quite nicely 16
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:00 | # Thanks for the feedback. Life is War. All of nature is full of dichotomies. One can’t have light without darkness, cold without heat. Reality is composed of Strife. It is the test of life. The Spartans did not get rid of their indigineous people but lived above them, in order that their people remained sharp and on the lookout. The other peoples provided the contrast. I wouldn’t get rid of the Jews, they provide contrast and a test. Can European man stay above? What has been shown that European Man has grown weak and lax. Life is War. I wouldn’t get rid of the opposition; the opposition provides a test of accomplishment. All things, as Aristotle says, are in either authority or subordination. If one is not in authority, then one is in subjection. The ability of authority resides in the winner, the better. If one can not subordinate, then one loses. Right now, in America, the Jew is in authority and European man is in subjection. If you can not subordinate, then you don’t get leadership. That is why you don’t get rid of the Jew, he provides the strife. If European man is not up to the challenge—-then he deserves to lose. 17
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:39 | # Daniel J: “Mr Finn…. I think I stated the first step and you elaborated the second/third quite nicely.” - Ok. I just emphasized the importance of doing all the steps at same time so that they are mutually reinforcing. It saves also time, which we don’t have abundantly. W. Lindsay Wheeler: “What has been shown that European Man has grown weak and lax.” .... “If European man is not up to the challenge—-then he deserves to lose.” - Allow me to differ slightly. What is important to our continuance as a group and it’s success is our ability to ethnicly compete. In that field we have not grown weak and lax. We have always been weak and lax in that field. Even the most of the best intellects of the White nationalists don’t comprehend it. It is because we are the products of the evolution of areas, where there has not been much ethnic competition and it’s strategies and methods (in everyday life, especially), contrary to the e.g. middle-east. It’s time to climb up on the evolutionary ladder and learn. Instead of arranging our group’s funeral, we should study what was it, that we did wrong and how we can improve. There is no reason to give up as long as there is living and breathing White men and women. - I elaborate some points further: * European-Americans have an edge over the most of the other Whites, because they have been subject to more complex, stronger, longer and more multiethnic ethnic competition environment than the most of the other Whites. You should have in your in understanding more readily usable building blocks to ethnic competition ability than the most of the other Whites. On the other end of the scale are probably the Swedes, who are naive supreme concerning multiethnic ethnic competition. You have the possibility to become a light unto the White nations. Your example would make other Whites’ adoption of ethnic genetic ingroups and ethnic competition methods much more easy. * In general, Whites’ weakness as ethnic competitors is displayed by our naive belief, that we could solve our problems and succeed simply by democracy or if that will fail completely, violence as a last resort (2 methods). Democracy is useful sideaid, and that’s all. We should of course participate in it, but core and main methods should be others. Ethnic genetic ingroup and ethnic competition methods can never be given from government, parliament etc. They can only arise from the ethnic ingroups common will, and from each of the individual members. Each member will follow ethnic ingroups rules from within himself, even if he would be separated the rest of his life from the other ingroups members, whatever the circumstances. This is necessary for the ingroups function and success. * In democracy you need majorities and hopelessly attenuated policies to “succeed”. In ethnic ingroups’ ethnic competition much smaller group (small minority) is needed to real success, as can be seen from the jews success in United States. Ethnic ingroups policies can and should be without any weakenings inside the group. Ethnic groups’ outside policies can be adjusted according to the situation, e.g. milder policy to democratic election, stronger policies when acquiring precedent decisions from courts and still stronger policies when recruiting new members to the group. Ethnic ingroups always has numerous and in their power varied policies. * For your knowledge: European Americans, our compassion is with you. When you succeed, it is like we ourselves would have succeeded. Same goes for other Europeans. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:20 | #
Well put. Euros who “don’t comprehend it” include Fjordman, Scruton, Windshuttle, and another person who was just on the tip of my tongue but I suddenly can’t think of. They “don’t comprehend” either the notion of, or the sense one has of, one’s identity as part of a race or the way in which one has every right to see that sense respected, or in general the esthetics of the different kinds of physical and behavioral qualities seen in individuals as a function of race/genetic ethnicity, or the necessary race-ethnoculture nexus in the sense so obvious to most of us that, for example, Chinamen in their aggregate will never produce Europe, or Europeans, in their aggregate, China, regardless of how any individual Euro or Chinaman may seem to “fit in” the other’s culture on an individual level. In other words, these men don’t “get” race; are apparently unable to perceive it. Pack them off to Soweto fifteen years or so and maybe they’ll start getting it. Or maybe not.
Another excellent point by Finn. In fact, every point Finn makes in his comment is excellent. 19
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:33 | # Fred Scrooby: “They “don’t comprehend” either the notion of, or the sense one has of, one’s identity as part of a race or the way in which one has every right to see that sense respected, or in general the esthetics of the different kinds of physical and behavioral qualities seen in individuals as a function of race/genetic ethnicity, or the necessary race-ethnoculture nexus in the sense so obvious to most of us that, for example, Chinamen in their aggregate will never produce Europe, or Europeans, in their aggregate, China, regardless of how any individual Euro or Chinaman may seem to “fit - Exactly. I elaborate some points further. Some aspects (and not all) about forming ethnic genetic ingroups and their functions. * Many White nationalists acquire own apartments during their lifetime. So what if, let’s say 100-300 White nationalists in a town pool their money. Like in normal construction Special rules are in force, and they are enforced by suitable legal contracts (where things about ingroup are not mentioned) and members of the group. One can live in the If possible the area should be fairly large and fenced. Other buildings could maybe constructed with group’s own work, like auditorium, small school, gym, workshop, barbeque area, saunas (Finnish specialty Every man should own a gun/guns, just in case. Then resources are pooled in all those functions of the group where there are advantages to be gain for the group. Ethnic competition methods are discussed, planned, invented and used regularly/continuously. Social bonding is increased by As many of these areas are founded as possible. Policies etc. between areas are discussed regularly and the policies, resources and functions are coordinated/pooled. Areas’ basic rules and ethnic genetic ingroup rules should be harmonized, if it is possible. Useful Information is gathered by everybody and used to ingroup’s advantage. It can be anything from small to bigger things: Small; e.g. everybody in the ethnic ingroup, who plays lotto, uses always the same numbers, because it doubles the possibility of a main win compared to changing the numbers in every round: bigger; e.g. useful investment Representatives of other ethnicities can be used freely as an extension of the group and it’s functions, if they are trustworthy and if it is necessary. But other ethnicities can not Ethnic ingroup favours it’s own members in buying, contracts and selling in condition that price is reasonable and quality good. Members sell to each other cheaper than to anybody else and makes sure the quality is the best available. Goods and services produced by the ingroup members are sold as widely as possible, but members must make sure that they are not dependant on other ethnicities’ money (loans, sales, investments). These precautions must be taken, so that outsiders don’t gain leverages inside the ingroup. Also in a drop of a hat ingroup members must be able to drop money flows from representatives of other ethnicities if necessary. Whites who are outside the ingroup, are incorporated as best as possible to help ingroup and Whites in general. Liberal Whites functions (e.g. when buying services from them) Donations and charity to ingroup and Whites in general is encouraged and praised. 20
Posted by alex zeka on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:49 | # wouldn’t get rid of the Jews, they provide contrast and a test. Can European man stay above? What has been shown that European Man has grown weak and lax. Life is War. I wouldn’t get rid of the opposition; the opposition provides a test of accomplishment. All things, as Aristotle says, are in either authority or subordination. If one is not in authority, then one is in subjection. The ability of authority resides in the winner, the better. If one can not subordinate, then one loses. Right now, in America, the Jew is in authority and European man is in subjection. If you can not subordinate, then you don’t get leadership. That is why you don’t get rid of the Jew, he provides the strife. If European man is not up to the challenge—-then he deserves to lose. To paraphrase Ludovici, if it is legitimate and a part of natural competition for Jews to dispossess Whites through duplicity and lies, then it is equally legitimate for Whites to see through this manipulation and to use our greater numbers and physical strength to expel all Jews from our homelands. The only way to argue against that is either: a. to claim that cultural warfare is more moral than physical warfare, even though the desired result is the same or b. to claim that only invaders have the right to use force, those invaded must submit to right of conquest and not use force to fight back. Which is it gonna be? 21
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:05 | # If that was the case Alex, America would not have the Atom bomb. “To expel” is an easy strategy But to contain and control takes energy, intelligence and forte. As Aristotle says, “All persons all alike doesn’t constitute a state”. In other words, “ethnically pure countries” are not states at all. Who wants to live in a monochrome world? There is a place for a China town, Greek town, and the Jewish ghetto. I don’t know, I am a Doric Greek the Archtype European and so my philosophy is based on the Golden Mean. Good and Truth are found in the Golden Mean and NOT in extremes. So, I don’t favor the extreme position of expulsion. 22
Posted by PF on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:59 | #
Have you not yet heard of the Golden Extreme? There are two of them, so you get more options than with the Golden Mean. If you order in the next ten minutes, we’ll include a Philosopher’s Travel Pack so that you can take your Golden Mean and Extremes with you wherever you go. Order now and get the Golden Mean Platinum, good for 100,000 shitty compromises. :-9 23
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:22 | # W.LindsayWheeler wrote: As Aristotle says, “All persons all alike doesn’t constitute a state”. In other words, “ethnically pure countries” are not states at all. Nonsense. The subject Aristotle is addressing is whether a good man and a good citizen possess the same virtues. In the course of this discussion, which Lindsay misquotes, he makes the elementary observation that any body of citizens contains a variety of different people with different abilities and different tasks. “It is impossible,” he says, “for all the citizens to be alike.” The state is composed of “unlike parts,” and “the virtue of all the citizens cannot therefore be _one_.” He does not intend this as a brilliant observation but merely as a statement of fact. He certainly isn’t advocating racial diversity. The Greek city-states Aristotle was discussing were, of course, ethnically homogenous, and in his _Politics_ he assumes that continuity of population over time will be the norm. Jowett’s translation of the passage: Again, the state, as composed of unlikes, may be compared to the living being: as the first elements into which a living being is resolved are soul and body, as soul is made up of rational principle and appetite, the family of husband and wife, property of master and slave, so of all these, as well as other dissimilar elements, the state is composed; and, therefore, the virtue of all the citizens cannot possibly be the same, any more than the excellence of the leader of a chorus is the same as that of the performer who stands by his side. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html I am a Doric Greek the Archtype European ... At least you’ve now concluded that Greeks are Europeans. 24
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:50 | # Continuation: Why there should be ethnic genetic group combined with culture and not mere culture alone? (Condensed, short version) 1. Two basic qualities of a culture is to provide a people with methods of survival and success. Because situatuations and times change, culture improves or degenerates, composition of people change and outside influences vary, culture does not remain the same, nor it automatically should. Optimally, good basic qualities of a culture should be kept the same. Anyways, normal inevitable change makes cultures inherently unstable. Because politics derives much of it’s contents from the atmosphere of the current and constantly changing culture, people with only culture (like Whites) cannot maintain the general direction of their politics. They become the victims of any ill will of the outsiders or degeneration. Even Whites’ former ethnic or race systems did not fix the problems, because they were given from the above, from detached, often distant authority. They were not from within every individual, his surrounding group, fused inseparably to every function of the inviduals and their group. Our core politics have been like weather vane, changing according to the winds. Consequences can be seen at the present time in e.g. liberalism negative effects, massive immigration, losing the healthy normal outlook on race and ethnicity, subduing to alien agendas etc. The cancer has been spreading vigorously in recent times, but the seeds of the current situation have always been in our groups. Let’s compare two groups, ethnic competitors A and B. A:s basic core policies remains always the same, they are tenaciously ethnocentric, and their surface politics change rapidly if it is necessary and useful to the group. Basic politics emanates from individuals and core group. It’s agenda is to preserve it’s core group and it’s politics eternally, increase it’s wealth and power, and weaken the group B. Group B is altruistic towards outsiders, they think about and understand mainly money in politics, they accept outsiders to their group if they follow “our customs”, their culture and politics often change direction, they want to please the group B, their policies are given to the individuals from the government and county etc. Natural outcome is that sooner or later group A subverts group B. It doesn’t weaken group A:s political direction and group’s unity if it spreads thin and wide, if there is war that destroys authorities and governments, if there is devastating change in the culture or if there is massive outside pressure. Group B changes comprehensively by much smaller changes. If this is simplified: A and B may want to get from place X to place Y. B’s course changes so much that is highly likely that it never reaches point Y. A goes to the Y along a straight path. If B accidentally reaches place Y, A occupies it already. Success of the jews can be seen in this regard. Many of their policies basic elements are over 5000 years old, coming from Moses. Their ethnonationalistic policies were made permanent by Esra about 2500 years ago, and all their core group’s policies were finalized by the Babylonian talmud about 1500 years ago. Ever since their core group’s policies has remained the same. Parallel development to this was started by islam’s core tribes in seventh century. Despite superficial universal message, in islam’s core have always been unmixed arab tribes. This policy was followed also by it’s founder. It all boils down to this: We need permanent group that is separate from others and which has permanent, devastation proof and direction preserving policies. This can only be reached by fusing the policies of the group inseparably to ethnicity, it’s separatedness from others, it’s genes. When all the policies circles around preserving the group’s genetic separatedness, it’s unity and it’s success, the direction of it’s policies cannot change, whatever happens. 2. Everything that is good in Whites’ genes, is preserved. 3. When all the group’s members are a tight extended family, people will sacrifice their lives for it, they trust each other more and they are prepared to work persistently for it. There is lot’s of cohesion and coordination is easily arranged. People understand each other better. People are determined. 4. Genetic selection of members eliminates most of the outside people who have automatically (based on their ethnicity and family ties) unwanted agendas to the group. This unwanted gamut goes from everyday normal agendas to subversive, destructive and/or spying agendas. Also emotional ties to outside groups is eliminated/reduced. 5. The groups wealth, resources and crucial information does not go outside the group. 6. Ethnic genetic group is the only way to preserve permanently the good qualities in people’s culture. 7. In large scale genetic-cultural diversity is preserved. Interaction between different ethnic groups and cultures improves cultures, increases the probalilities and number of inventions, is refreshing to minds when traveling, studying etc. It is also healthy counterweight to those who are working towards the new world order’s world government. Some additional observations: - People of course gravitate to their normal ethnic group. This means that Whites’ have many ethnic groups, like European Americans, different nationalities in Europe, Australians etc. In the future, after our groups have grown and developed sufficiently, if it is planned carefully, practical large scale co-operation and coordination between White ethnic groups can be reached. We have to develop realistic borders inside which politics between us can fluctuate in different situations. This have to be done with the help of lawdesigners and game theorists, who use our special situation and politics as a starting point. Like in individual ethnic genetic groups, rules have to be designed so as to make subversion or weakening of the co-operation rules impossible. Also the rules have to prevent intentionally or unintentionally caused ineffiency, quarrels and waste. These kinds of complex structures and their functioning needs constant monitoring. With rules like these our diversity and versatility becomes our strentgh. We should not pursue “empire”, “super-state” etc. - European-American ethnic group comprises of so many individual ethnic groups and their mixes, that they have to make sure the groups culture and rules welds them together inseparably after the group is formed. It can be done. But European-Americans are on the natural limit of inclusiviness. They must not accept any more diversity. It is not a question of if a group can be formed. It is a question of if a tight, coordinated and efficient ethnic genetic group can be formed. - Ethnic genetic group must be excluding on the level of individuals, not just groups. There are many intelligent east asians, who could as individuals adjust to the group and contribute to it. However, if they are accepted, they will in small ways act like a sand in the motor, grinding it slowly to pieces, incohesion and iffeciency. This holds true just the same whether they have no ill will towards the group or have it. Also the accepting principle in itself will change the composition of the group and ruin it. In practice, to make separatedness of the group function, people have to say: “Not a single east asian.”, and follow that rule forever. - When gene technology improves enough and it is safe, we should use it among other things to make us more different from others. 25
Posted by alex zeka on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:17 | # Ah, well done, Rnl. I have to admit I had not the slightest idea what WLW meant with his Aristotle quote. I’ve looked it up now, and he is clearly referring to diversity of ability, which leads to the division of labour. I’m surprised a Greek with a whole website devoted to expalining how ancient philosophy might impact the modern world should fail to realise that Aristotle could hardly have required ethnic diversity for something to be a state, as that would leave the world he knew almost entirely without states. As to the Golden Mean, that’s a difficult concept if applied consistently. After all, if we must have moderation in everything, mustn’t we also only follow the Golden Mean only to a moderate extent. I’m not a fanatic for anything, but a man of reason, and so prefer to pursue moderation only to a moderate extent. 26
Posted by Roberto Masioni on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:50 | # Finn, your strategy is very good, I hope more people see it, understand it, and put it into action. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:07 | # Finn is showing himself to be a first-rate thinker and contributor of ideas for defending our side and advancing the interests of The Cause. His comments are always much appreciated. And I second Alex’s “well done” to Rnl, another first-rate thinker and stalwart of The Cause: I too was impressed with the way he immediately clarified Wheeler’s big misunderstanding of that particular detail excerpted from Aristotle. It’s been said by many that this site attracts a quality commentariat and not only is that so obviously true, but the quality seems to just keep getting better and better! At this site we get two for the price of one: first-rate log entries and first-rate comments threads. You come here to browse and you walk away doubly rewarded. Congrats for all of that go to GW who sets the tone that makes it all happen. 28
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:18 | # The Aristotle quote is Politics, Bk II i 4; 1261a 20; pp 71-73. The Family is also called a “Politiea” it is composed of different things. A Male and a Female. A family is the Golden Mean, where Aristotle states that the Golden Mean is where the Extremes meet. The Spartan State, the Doric Greek state, who Plato calls the most perfect Greek state and the example of his and Socrates ideal state was composed of different ethnicities. The Doric Greeks were the “Master Race”. The perioci were of a different racial group as were the Helots!!! Just like the Family is composed of different individuals, the State was composed of different groups. They didn’t intermarry but the ethnicities were kept seperate but worked together. Just like I have a kidney, and a stomach and a Heart. All different yet do different things. The Human body is a microcosm of the State. Aristotle writes: “And does not a city consist of a multitude of human beings, it consists of human beings differing in kind. A collection of persons all alike does NOT constitute a State”. There is to be One major dominant ethnicity in any state. Any others are to have their station and restricted to their own kind. The Spartans had the most highly advanced and most European state yet it was composed of differing nationalities. The Doric Greeks maintained their ethnicity with laws proscribing miscegenation and restricting population movements. 29
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:26 | # Thank you for your comments. It might be, considering everything, propitious to publish my thoughts in English first. This is natural, because many White countries are ahead of Finland in destructive multiethnicity. Finns are right now gradually learning things, that many other Whites have known long time. When one country’s Whites establish an ethnic genetic ingroup, it will be an example to the other Whites, including Finns. It is much easier to set up an ethnic ingroup, when there is practical example to which to refer. It will be like The man on the moon -mission to us, but with much more profound consequences. Our existence as a group, our future, our success and even our lives might depend on it. Who will be the first? What I wrote was a small part of the whole (ethnic ingroups and competition) and as I said before, I have to gather some additional information to make it complete. Given also the other tasks it takes many months before I have finished the job. But. Dear reader, what I gave you was starter thoughts. It seems there are only few people who have knowledge about them. If, what I wrote made sense to you, start asking your sensible White nationalist friends: Here is such and such an idea. (Explain the idea as profoundly as you can, with it’s possibilities of practical action) What if we established our own community, our own ethnic ingroup? They don’t have to answer “Yes” right away. It is essential first that you plant the idea for them to ponder. If you want, you can also write your own version of my texts in your own language. You can work up the text, just make sure every piece of information of the original is meticulously preserved. Then tell us about the progress. This might be the best way to advance in this matter right now. Later I will write more information to you concerning this matter. Of course I will comment now and then otherwise also As a sidenote, how do you like the following text? Writer supports different politics than I and he mistakes e.g. when evaluating Americans, but he has useful insights. This text was translated to Finnish and it has been used in democratic political discussions here: 30
Posted by Rnl on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:21 | # W.LindsayWheeler wrote: The Spartan State, the Doric Greek state, who Plato calls the most perfect Greek state and the example of his and Socrates ideal state was composed of different ethnicities. The Doric Greeks were the “Master Race”. The perioci were of a different racial group as were the Helots!!! Just like the Family is composed of different individuals, the State was composed of different groups. You were concerned that Alex was too tough-minded. It now turns out that your golden-mean model of “multiracial diversity” includes “a master race” and a brutally subjugated helot class. Your idea of racial harmony is strikingly bizarre. The most independent and talented of the Helots were periodically culled (i.e. killed) to preserve Helot passivity. a different racial group Not in the modern sense of the term “race.” The Helots may even have been Hellenes. They certainly were Europeans. The Helots were not citizens of the Spartan state. For Aristotle a citizen is a “sharer” in the state. Helots were not sharers in the Spartan state, any more than livestock and blocks of stone were sharers in the state. his and Socrates ideal state [i.e. Sparta] was composed of different ethnicities. You’re making another serious error. Sparta was not highly regarded _because_ it was composed of different ethnicities. Plato liked Sparta because he disliked democracy. Many Athenian aristocrats admired Sparta for the same reason. They did not admire Sparta because they valued racial diversity. They were smart, not dumb. Aristotle writes: “And does not a city consist of a multitude of human beings, it consists of human beings differing in kind. A collection of persons all alike does NOT constitute a State”. You misunderstand the issues, as I explained in my previous post, which you apparently didn’t read. “Differing in kind” does not mean differing in race or ethnicity. “Diversity” in this context is “diversity of function.” Aristotle is not talking about race or ethnicity. Anyone who sees _kind_ here as “race” or “ethnic group” has not the slightest inkling of what Aristotle is talking about. A state is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men; for similars do not constitute a state. (trans. Jowett) That a state will be composed of “unlikes” is not a recipe for a good state. It is, for Aristotle, a simple statement of fact, a description of an obvious political and social reality. There are many different kinds of people within a city-state. Shoemakers are different from carpenters. Farmers are different from artisans. Men are different from women. Children are different from parents. Therefore, as matter of fact, a state “consists of human beings differing in kind.” It is filled with many “unlikes.” That’s good, but it’s also unavoidable. Aristotle makes these pedestrian observations as part of a critique of Plato, who feared division within the state so much that in his _Republic_ he famously argued that wives should be held in common. The unity that Plato proposed is impossible, Aristotle argues at length, because, in alia, a state includes different kinds of people. A single person on a desert island could be a unity but he could not be a city-state; a city-state will be a plurality not only of persons but also of different kinds of persons doing different tasks. So, Aristotle says, you cannot make a state out of individual persons who are all alike. Put very simply, race has nothing whatever to do with the passages you are quoting. Aristotle was very smart. Therefore he did not advocate racial diversity, nor (we can be certain) did the thought that he should advocate racial diversity ever once cross his mind. 31
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:08 | # Sparta was highly regarded because it was an Ordered State. Amongst the citizens, the Spartiates, there was homousia, likemindedness. The Helots were most probably European but they were probably not Hellenic. The Doric Greeks conquered the Mycenean Greeks who conquered the indigeneous people of the area. The indigenous people became the Helots, the Myceneans the perioci and the Doric Greeks maintained their supremacy upon the land. Socrates and Plato both admired the Spartan government and held them to be examples of good government. Order is the principle of all life. The different functionings of the state, in the Spartan Republic, was that different ethnicities accomplished those tasks and was extremely successful. Sparta is the State in reality—a real working State. It was NOT Purity that organized it. You are attempting to make “purity” a principle of the State—-it will never work. Doesn’t even Human intestines work with foreign bacteria in order for the whole organism to live? Do not termites have foreign bacteria to do their work? Without these foreign bacteria in either the Human or termite, both would die! And that is exactly your prescription RNL. The Spartan State was the Golden Mean and also exhibited the Indo-European character of Trifunctionality. The same goes for India where the Aryans subjugated the indigeneous people and created the caste system of DIFFERENT ETHNICITIES. 32
Posted by Scott Roberts' awakening on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:37 | # Scott Roberts talks about his awakening to the J.Q. ...some typical illusions and absurd denial about WWII, but otherwise a helpful, concise outlook. 33
Posted by Tanstaafl's awakening on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 06:42 | # Tanstaafl’s awakening: http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-128766/TS-1034956.mp3 Now if he’d just awaken completely: he says, “I haven’t read Mein Kempf completely, but I can’t see anything that Hitler was wrong about.” Also recommended to revisit, say, the part of Table Talk that Carolyn was reading just before he parted ways with her…...and after which he continued to say, contradictory to his contention of her at that point, that he had no problem with Hitler’s perspective. 34
Posted by Tell it to Joe Sobran on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 10:53 | # “There is no need to educate Ukrainians beyond the sixth grade.” Tell it to Joe Sobran Post a comment:
Next entry: Majority Report For 20070224
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by anon on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:37 | #
We collected over 60 examples during a three-year period. When we held a study session at the end of the study in 1995, we noticed that every example, but two, was uttered or written by names like Cohen, Goldberg, and Ruby. Only two examples were found that could be assigned to non-Semitic peoples.
Could you provide a link to this information or report?