Posted by Lena on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 18:51 | #

“Sympathy” is not a good word for this piece of writing.  You should have used “empathy.”

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:25 | #

Their position actually makes a great deal of sense, once you adjust your own view for how they were viewing it.

Viewing it in the light of reality - rather than amidst the fantasies of Judeo-Communist propaganda such as were transmitted to Allied populations in rationale for the self-destructive policies and war-making involved.

It is not a question of sympathy/empathy but rather of fact and fiction - and action taken thereupon.  There is no essential equivalence as between the participants such as you are attempting here.

We’ve been through this before - the brief in behalf of Hitler and NS is in terms of justifiability - not sympathy:

“Germans did not themselves decimate their own capital, I think you’ll concede.”

They provoked the powers that did, to war against them! If I make fun of you ruthlessly until you hit me, who is responsible for the fact that I got hit?

Let’s see:

1) We have the testimony of the Greater Judean, Admiral Stark, as to the justifiability of a German declaration of war, based upon the provocations ordered by Jew-stooge Roosevelt, in the Atlantic theater of war.

2) We have Admiral Raeder protesting to Hitler as to “whether it is consistent with the honor of a sovereign nation to permit [these provocations] to proceed without answer?”

3) We have GJ Ambassador William Bullitt, under orders from the Stooge, urging the Poles to resist reasonable offers from Germany regarding rectification of the wrongs of Versailles.

4) We have the conspiracy of the powers surrounding Germany, even before the rise of Hitler, to compromise the Enigma machine and thus make Germany vulnerable.

5) We have Hitler’s sincere attempt, born of long-held principles, to reach accommodation with the British as would have been much to the advantage of Britain, after the fall of Poland.

6) We have knowledge of Churchill’s prostitution, and of his concealment of Hitler’s efforts to resolve the occupation of France - France having joined Britain in a hypocritical declaration against Germany, after having appropriated Poland, the bastard child of the rape of Germany, as their own territory to be defended.

7) We have the British invasion of Norway, in an attempt to strangle the Germany upon which the British had hypocritically declared war.

8) We have the “Back Door to War” in the Pacific, against Germany’s ally, as betrayed by GJ Secretary Stimpson, who wrote of the Stooge’s administration as having sought to “maneuver” the Japanese into firing the first shot [with secret threats, an ultimatum, and an overt military posture].

9) We have the Stooge’s flagrant lies to the GJ underclass as to a German blueprint for the conquest of South America and as to an Axis plan for shaking hands in Iowa.

10) And we have the egregiously mendacious propaganda piece, “Why We Fight,” to illustrate, by its falsehoods, the absence of any foundation in provocation for the decisive participation of Greater Judea in the episode.  Aside, of course, from the provocation of International Jewry.  [Thus “the power” - not “the powers,” as above.]

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:39 | #

PF,

On the whole, a well written piece to my way of thinking.  I vividly remember eating lunch one day in my undergraduate years and marveling at the fact that what I knew to be true just so happened to seem right to me.  Of course, to reflect on this point is to immediately raise [healthy] suspicion; surely, I thought, there must be something wrong with this picture for I can’t possibly have uncovered the secrets of the universe at the ripe old age of eighteen, much less the vapor that is my life.

If nothing else, perspectivism teaches us how difficult it is to render judgment.  For there can be many different perspectives and evaluative frameworks from which opposite judgments can seem eminently reasonable, and yet this cannot be the case!  My preferred reaction to this dilemma is that of humility, instead of calling down fire and brimstone on every poor soul who dares to transgress against our standard we would do well to remind ourselves of our own ignorance in the face of life’s richness and complexity.

In this sense all judgment is unfair, when viewed up close. Judgment is in some sense both a perceptual error…

Fight the temptation to drive a good point off the cliff.

Yes, judgments are difficult, and in some cases impossible, but not always.  There are some acts so wicked that no perspective can excuse them.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:59 | #

The vindication of Nazism that occurs through selective application of sympathetic perspectives - only to Third Reich Germany - is an example of a person fooling themselves ...

“Hey (scratches head) ... why is it that the people I decided to emotionally identify with always turn out to appear to have been in the right?” They must not know that this works with literally everyone, limited only by your capacity to model. Try it with WW2 British society and you will also understand why they behaved the way they did. Try it with Afghani resistance fighters - it will work. Try it with Jewish Zionists - a bit more difficult, but it will work. See how far afield you can get with your adventures in sympathy.

To sympathize is not to justify.

To be “in the right” is to be justified - and is *not* merely to be worthy of “sympathy,” as, indeed, are all under the therapeutic microscope.

One understands contemptible English behavior in WWII, as one understands the desire of the once-great not to be displaced - or as one understands the child molester’s desire for sexual release.  This “understanding” and “sympathy,” however, do not justify the contemptible and mutually-destructive action taken by the British toward Germany under Judeo-Communist influence nor the child molester’s indulgence in his own inclinations.

Posted by Drifter on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:20 | #

The topic of the article is long overdue. Under our one-size-fits-all soft totalitarian bloatware, there is an increase in the frequency of ethical errors that correlates with depth of granularity sought. This also dovetails with how micromanagement obliterates productive organization.

The best solution is to allow a non-human agent, the natural world, to act as judge and executioner. Is the behaviour survival and fitness oriented or is it ultimately self-defeating? Let “god” sort ‘em out.

People in turn need only control society composition, not individual behaviour. Jack or Jill can not or will not fit in? No rehabilitation. No trial, no punishment. Just escort them to the border and on into exile.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:08 | #

PF, in the course of your capacious and often contradictory musings I think you frequently lose sight of a blindingly simple proposition: If genetic continuity for our race is our ultimate life interest, then whatever means are required to secure it are justified as all other life interests are proximate and at best secondary.  In a sentence, that is why I am a proponent of National Socialism if it comes to it.  And so are you, if you do not merely enjoy consuming bandwidth as a function of your vanity.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:14 | #

Under our one-size-fits-all soft totalitarian bloatware, there is an increase in the frequency of ethical errors that correlates with depth of granularity sought.

Under your one-size-fits-all hand-wringing moralism in the course of flogging a strawman, there is an increase in the frequency of analytical errors that correlates with the level of outrage sought. 

National Socialism is not Bolshevism.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:48 | #

GW offers us another perspective on National Socialism as contrasted with England’s erstwhile “gallant” Bolshevik allies:

You should also understand with regard to Nazism that murdering Jews, and engendering their death from typhoid - the mortalities from each are unknown - was not done on the same scale, nor was it as offensive to the European soul, as the genocide in the gulags or the Jewish-led Holodomir.

Adding:

Perspective, little fellow.

GW explains why England made the wrong alliance, with Judeo-Bolshevism and not National Socialism:

The accusation of racism itself is a Jewish invention to prevent Europeans from mobilising against the aggression of invading peoples - who, therefore, are essentially extended Jewish phenotypes).

[...]

Nazis were no more evil than Jewish Marxists, just more effective for a while. If you doubt this, ask yourself why every Western European people is under threat of race-replacement, whether or not their countries previously fought for the Axis powers.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/03/seeing-things-godwins-law-and-smiths.html

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:56 | #

I am a proponent of National Socialism if it comes to it.  And so are you, if you do not merely enjoy consuming bandwidth as a function of your vanity

.

Somehow, I doubt that the bandwidth of PF’s pride is going to be narrowed much by the affixing of SS Lightning Bolts to his collar.

But only time will tell.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:58 | #

CC,

I’ve often said that I would accept NS if no other vehicle was available.  But I say it with eyes open, knowing that the Nazis were extremely nasty political gangsters, warmongers, slavers and genocidalists ... and, of course, it’s said without ever buying into the narrative of heroic rebirth.  Jewish society-destroying stratagems like communism and revolutionary internationalism always have to be defeated.  But it’s got to get pretty bad before I would turn to that kind of solution.  And, even then, I’m not sure that NS as it was constituted in the 1920s had anything much to say about our existential crisis today, or that it represents a remotely stable strategy in the longer term.

PF is not wrong.  Your apologism and completely uncritical admiration for NS is something I hope you can work through.

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:49 | #

Stupidity is no longer an option. If any among you understand- UNDERSTAND. Thing are now going to go our way. DO NOT BE FOOLED. To those who must ask why - ‘why’, comes too late. 
Now is only for those who understand.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:03 | #

Grim,

The multiracial phase is at an end.  Thank you Thilo.  But now the political Establishments will push for the mono-racial phase, which is more deadly for us.  The focus sharpens thereby, and the cultural weapons will blunt.  The argument shifts to the benign solution of repatriation so that we may live.

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:34 | #

The gambit shifts…within the ambit of the men of power. Is the time now? Not yet.,, Let use see if they are worthy of the consideration of history. If their Fathers would vouchsafe their will…..If they will answer to the world that cries to them…

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:05 | #

Never before has history asked so blankly,,,,do you remember me?

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:13 | #

Well said, GW, in your riposte to CC. NS is dead, though some form of neo-NS (militant, proletarian based, pan-European racial collectivism) may be more likely (as well as effective) than old-fashioned nationalism.

Or not. I don’t know. Perhaps it depends on particular circumstances - the extent to which individual historic European fatherlands have been deracinated. Nationalism may be enough to preserve, say, Serbia, but perhaps the UK or France have been so ‘multiculturated’ that for patriots race is more meaningful than nation.

And yes, integrationism is far more deadly than multiculturalism. I don’t want Turks in Germany learning German, marrying Germans, and structurally assimilating into German society. I want them to remain as unintegrated as possible, pending their final removal from German soil and life.

I am not, however, at all certain that we are that much closer to the racial resurrection of Europe. I dearly hope I’m wrong, but I fear there must be many additional outrages and catastrophes before our people are sufficiently awakened to demand restoration of their historic folkish states and communities.

Recall an earlier suggestion of mine here at MR. What is needed is the appropriation and transposition of the mid-20th century rhetoric of Third World decolonisation to the European present. This is another area of future scholarly interest to me.

Posted by uh on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:36 | #

rhetoric of Third World decolonisation

The Wretched of The Earth II: White Living Space as The Colonized. Itz coming.

Posted by name on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:42 | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5W3eTQug4s
What We Owe Our Parasites
Revilo P. Oliver

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:51 | #

The Western world, including the US, is locked in what is clearly now a global demographic war for racial survival. Slowly but surely, because whites everywhere have lost their communal wills to endure as distinct peoples on this Earth, our race is going extinct. Allied to this passive extinction is the active hatred of many - blacks in Southern Africa, Latinos in the Western Hemisphere, Arabs in Europe and even Australia, native Hawaiians, etc - across the globe for whites (a hatred mainly born in jealousy for our superior civilization). Islam is increasingly becoming the main locus of this global anti-white hatred. Islam is not a great religion. Only Christianity is true. Islam is a violent pagan cult that has been unilaterally aggressing against Christians and other religions of peace for 1400 years. It is the main, the Eternal, enemy of the West. It must be resisted anywhere and everywhere. Not ONE SINGLE mosque belongs ANYWHERE on Western soil. Every mosque is a kind of enemy outpost, a breach of our psychological and even physical defenses.

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:54 | #

Reasons are whores.

Metternich

Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:29 | #

This exercise in anti-nazi sympathy could have been so much more briefly stated using the most popular and trendy terms of abuse: Revisionist! Minimizer! Skeptic! Denier! XYZ-o-phobe! Hater! In fact it could be abridged to a single word: Nazi!

The skew in popular sympathies is a consequence of the one-way nature of econo-psycho-politico-judeo jurisprudence: relativism just don’t relate to nazis. We’re all equal, but nazis are less equal. Which came first, the jew or the nazi? Your answer depends on how popular you want to be.

In short, we are free to skip the tedious arguments and get on with pathologizing the sympathizers we don’t sympathize with. (But not you, nazis.) I suspect the purpose of this essay is instead to obscure the skew, which would explain the excess verbiage.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:03 | #

The furious behaviour of an angry man is more likely to exasperate us against himself than against his enemies. As we are unacquainted with his provocation, we cannot bring his case home to ourselves, nor conceive any thing like the passions which it excites. But we plainly see what is the situation of those with whom he is angry, and to what violence they may be exposed from so enraged an adversary. We readily, therefore, sympathize with their fear or resentment, and are immediately disposed to take part against the man from whom they appear to be in so much danger.

Of Sympathy - Adam Smith, Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 1 The Theory of Moral Sentiments [1759]

There is no sympathy for the child molester until the walk to the gallows. There is no sympathy for National Socialism only a sympathy for the suffering of the German people. NN is closer. There is potential for justification for NS, just as there is potential for justification for the angry man, if his son or daughter was sexually molested. However, there will never be sympathy for the angry man’s actions only for his suffering or grief from the attack upon his children. There will be no sympathy for NS because of British malfeasance, there will only be sympathy for the victims of the Dresden fire-bombing. There will be no sympathy for NS because it addressed the Bolshevik threat only sympathy for the German women and children brutally raped by Ivan’s Asiatic Red Army.

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:58 | #

An exercise in perspectivism.

Can you make the kitty spin in both directions?

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:55 | #

Never before has history asked so blankly,,,,do you remember me?

And the people said, “Whachootawkinbout, Sucka?”

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:07 | #

I say it with eyes open, knowing that the Nazis were extremely nasty political gangsters, warmongers, slavers and genocidalists ... and, of course, it’s said without ever buying into the narrative of heroic rebirth

“...armed men who are, or are the descendants of, those of us who are inclined to a violent dominance hierarchy and so are naturally given to the formation of an army pursuing organized conquest, systematic exploitation, and societal stratification (i.e., the enforced domestication/civilization to which the cosmetics and palliatives of the priesthood are applied).”

257. EVERY elevation of the type “man,” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be—a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance—that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type “man,” the continued “self-surmounting of man,” to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type “man”): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power—they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts”).

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:14 | #

A fragment from Law, Ethics, Morality: Pretense and Illusion:

Nevertheless, the fate of polities depends vitally upon the successful management of these irresolvable problems. To fail to manage the unmanageable is to instigate class war and to inspire international war, the latter often resorted to by polities ancient and modern in order to palliate the former development. But this is all in order in Nietzsche’s broad analysis of the nature of life - for life is exploitation - the feeding of one organism upon another. The exploitation of one class by another, and the subjugation of one people by another, is all according to the organic nature of society and its will to power and cannot be rectified by resort to intrinsically defective legal/ethical/moral dictates and enforcement:

“Consequently, only with the setting up of the law is there a ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ (and not, as Dühring will have it, from the time of the injurious action). To talk of just and unjust in themselves has no sense whatsoever; it’s obvious that in themselves harming, oppressing, exploiting, destroying cannot be ‘unjust,’ inasmuch as life essentially works that way, that is, in its basic functions it harms, oppresses, exploits, and destroys, and cannot be conceived at all without this character. We have to acknowledge something even more disturbing: the fact that from the highest biological standpoint, conditions of justice must always be only exceptional conditions, partial restrictions on the basic will to live, which is set on power; they are subordinate to the total purpose of this will as individual means, that is, as means to create larger units of power. A legal system conceived of as sovereign and universal, not as a means in the struggle of power complexes, but as a means against all struggles in general, something along the lines of Dühring’s communist cliché in which each will must be considered as equal to every will, that would be a principle hostile to life, a destroyer and dissolver of human beings, an assassination attempt on the future of human beings, a sign of exhaustion, a secret path to nothingness.—” (Genealogy II 11)

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:23 | #

That innocent eyes might finally be opened:

The identification of Judeo-European slave morality (referred to as “Christianity”) with morality per se was so universal in Nietzsche’s day, that one could, to a general audience, write sensibly of its rejection only as amorality or immorality, as seemingly Nietzsche had to do despite his implicit endorsement of master morality, regarding which little could be said.

For the rules by which the masters, the nobility, live have mostly to due with honor and etiquette, personal and familial - and may be codified in a reasonably consistent and complete corpus of prescriptions and proscriptions. There tends to be little debate among such a class of people as to the dictates of honor and proper behavior in any given situation.

But the most important rules by which the common folk live, when they are torn away from tribal roots, have mostly to do with property, personal and public - and cannot be codified in a complete and consistent corpus of rules and regulations. Thus, where there is not the pretense of the existence of such a corpus, the debate is perpetual as to how to organize and govern society beyond the tribal level, since there are no answers to the ancient questions as to “who guards the guardians” or how to arrange perpetually collusion-free commerce and special-interest-free policy without so contrarily burdening commerce and society with corruptible and inefficient bureaucracy and internal security as to be societally non-competitive in international commerce and war-making capability.

For example:

The term “rightly understood interest” is used, in the discussion of the logic of political economy, to characterize an aspect of the behavior of homo oeconomicus, the hypothetical rational actor or entity engaged in commercial or “market” activity. The following illustration of its meaning will show it to be a rather obvious concept — though it nevertheless can be seen to have devastating implications:

If, for example, several individuals periodically derive a minimal level of nutrition from a “pie” created for them by one or several of their number, from materials supplied by others of the same, the “raw” interest, so-to-speak, of each of them might well be to take the whole pie for himself. As there is only one pie at a time and multiple individuals to be satisfied, the raw interest of all cannot be realized at once in this regard. If any one or few of them deprive or deceive others in regard to a share of the pie, violence may ensue with possible damage to pie creation. If the creators of the pie are not suitably rewarded, pie production may diminish or cease — likewise with the supply of materials and the persons responsible therefor. The group is confronted with a multi-dimensional challenge in trying to develop a formula (Laissez-faire?/Command economy?/Mixed economy?/Socialism?/Corporatism?/Syndicalism?/Anarchism?/Social Credit?/Marxism?/Leninism?/Stalinism?/Maoism?/Fascism?/National Socialism?/etc.) for dividing the pie to at least the minimal satisfaction of all, while deterring misbehavior and motivating pie production. If such a formula is successfully achieved and basically adhered to, it may be said to serve the “rightly understood,” as opposed to the elementary “raw” interest, of each of the participant individuals.

This is all rather commonsensical and obvious, but, again, this reality has devastating consequences, when we “scale-up” this challenge to encompass the requirements for satisfaction of millions or billions of individuals. On this scale it is literally impossible, as suggested by the multiplicity of alternatives and lack of officlal clarity as to principles, to develop a formula for attending to the rightly understood interests of this number of advanced organisms confronting inescapably scarce resources. If prevarication does not serve to pacify the victims of inevitable deficiency, violence and death will be the frequent alternatives. Thus is humankind governed, according to the Iron Law of Oligarchy - whereby the rightly understood interest of an organized minority is, rather, in exploiting a disorganized majority - by none other than lies and violence, priests and warriors, as the record of human experience so richly reveals. Utopian hopes, measures toward a “New World Order,” even durable national stability, are thus without foundation, excluded by the logic and experience of political economy, at least until Jesus brings the Second Advent to town or the day those “mysterious material forces of production” finally turn up.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:38 | #

Liberalism is thus the logical and historical prelude to anarchy or despotism, by virtue of having unleashed demands, for the satisfaction of which no new formula exists in replacement of the accommodations reached in the course of centuries of aristocratic rule. Anglo-America has avoided this fate, to this date, first, by having long exploited the politico-economic virtues of global colonialism in which Laissez-faire works nicely according to theory - until a pioneering frontier closes - and by having thereafter been sold into another Faustian Pact with the Fifth-Column international theocrats of the day (elite Jewry having replaced the Church in this capacity).

This latter-day Deal with the Devil involved being rewarded in the historic short-term with manhood-affirming, mock-heroic martial “victory,” and with long-awaited economic “recovery,” and with transitory global pre-eminence in the aftermath of the Fifth Column’s engineering of the War to Save Communism from Hitler and Tojo - plus the wide-spread off-shoring of otherwise class-warfare-producing wage-slavery and the additional extortions from global economic imperialism, as a bonus.

This comes, however, at the long-term expense of eliminating effective resistance to displacement of the native oligarchy by elite Jewry, of resistance to illegal immigration and eventual declension into Third-World decrepitude, and of preparedness for eventual attack by the irregular forces of the Asian (currently crypto-Communist Russian and Chinese Communist) revolutionary regimes, who are deceptively exploiting the ideologically-based delusions of their “objective enemy,” Greater Judea (formerly “America”) - the latter having been temporarily elevated beyond its place in the world (Hua Guofeng-wise) by the Fifth-Column-engineered WWII alliance with its Communist then-and-now mortal enemy, in a back-stabbing betrayal of its would-be natural and present ally, Germany.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:56 | #

Today’s Matrix may be thought of in terms of a trinity of essential doctrinal elements:

1) Egalitarianist propaganda and doctrine: As will be discussed in (3) below, there is a natural, intrinsic tribal distinctiveness about oligarchies first established, because implicit, informal, culture-based *unity* is their administrative strength against a much larger mass of subject peoples. The suppression of threatening *native* tribalism may be achieved through geographic homogenization (as did the Inca on a systematic basis) or through pseudo-scientific propaganda promoting ethno-cultural homogenization of the peoples subject to the oligarchic hegemony. In the modern day, the Boazian school of egalitarian cultural anthropology performs this promotion - as was done, for example, by Margaret Mead in perpetrating the “Samoan Fraud”. As always, the “nurture” side of the familiar controversy is insisted upon in public discourse and indoctrination, and heresy is silenced with professional persecution where termination of discussion with resort to the “Six Million” fails to have the desired effect.

2) Anti-racist propaganda and doctrine: As referred to above, all discussion counter to orthodoxy may be trumped, truncated, and terminated by reference to the venerated “Six Million” (an aspect of the general *Argumentum ad Hitlerum,* wherein if Hitler said it, thought it, did it, or was in any way associated with it - it is now to be execrated). So Adolf Hitler does service here as The Devil Incarnate, who presided over the installation and operation of an unprecedented Hell on Earth. The Morality Play implicit in the Hollywood History of the Second World War dramatizes the struggle between Good and Evil, the Darkness and the Light, concluding with the (show) “trial” of the minions who lit the fire under the their master’s pot, within which perished the innocent “Six Million”. The well-publicized depredations of racist morons and psychopaths in our modern context do excellent further service, where the diabolization of the historic Nazis grows somewhat tiresome, timeworn, and self-contradictory. Heresy in regard to this propaganda and doctrine is silenced with violence, prosecution, and imprisonment without cause.

3) Political pseudo-science: From the logic and history of the administration of human affairs comes recognition (in the Iron Law of Oligarchy) that ordered power in the context of large populations will necessarily rest in the hands of, at most, a few hundred influential families in time of peace, and but a few lieutenants of an autocrat in time of war. Thus oligarchy is the universal form of government experienced by populous humanity, whether masked by universal franchise democracy or paraded by autocratic tyranny. The *unity* of the oligarchs amongst themselves is synonymous with their power - thus merely formal, contractual relations do not provide sufficient bond for this purpose. Ties of strong sentiment implicit in shared ideology, theology, or ancestry are indispensable at the summit of administrative power, for no explicit formula or law of “rightly understood interest” holds merit at this level of cooperation. The oligarchs of today’s Greater Judea mediate the internal class war with pacifist, egalitarianist, environmentalist, social consciousness doctrine, which permits maintenance of the “mask” of peacetime “democracy” for their protection, but which is paid for by obliviousness and utter vulnerability to the designs and preparations of global class warriors, based securely on the Asian continent and now likewise masking themselves from public view. The doctrinal notion of “good” and “evil” *forms* of government facilitates obliviousness to the agendas behind the administrative arrangements that are appropriate for pursuing war and peace. So-called “police states” are essentially sensible arrangements for mediating and externalizing class war, and so-called “democracies” are a pretense of popular sovereignty masking the existence of a Permanent Secret Government.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:00 | #

Fundamental Realities:

1) There is no such thing as Set-it-and-Forget-it government. Constitutionalism and Libertarianism fatuously indulge in the notion that there can be a government adhering to a consistent code of law, to which code the originators, interpreters, and enforcers thereof can be held by suasion. We now understand that no such consistent code has been or can be devised, and, in the absence of such rigor, there is insufficient basis for restraining these fiduciary agencies from eventually falling prey to corruption by individual or utopian inclinations and from perpetually adjusting or violating this necessarily inconsistent and non-comprehensive code. Thus the only *good* government, Boys and Girls, is *your* government, whatever form it takes in war and peace. For *all* polities resort to dictatorship and police state in time of war, in the measure of the extant emergency, (and we do not make the mistake of believing that the mere good fortune of having experienced little in the way of emergency is also a measure of our wisdom and virtue in public administration). The autocrat, the God of War, that you will have in any case and by whatever term his function is disguised for cosmetic ideological purposes, must be yours and yours alone - otherwise he - and you - will be in the service of another people, who will make their own use of “your” government, whatever form it may take and despite *your* interest in its performance.

2) And Sin-and-Salvation, like schizophrenia, is all in your heads, Boys and Girls. For the world of rational adults is one of actions-have-consequences, according to observed patterns in the external environment, and is not one of contrite answerability to a non-existent supervisory entity devised by aliens for their own purposes. We understand that some boys and girls have been made to feel supremely naughty for their nasty inclinations and unsatisfied appetites, and that their inward restraint of these impulses may well be desirable from the standpoint of the good order of society. But we now understand that one’s answerability and responsible behavior is, rather, properly with regard to one’s fellows, when the issue is placed in its proper and realistic perspective. For to believe that one’s inward and outward misdemeanors are of cosmological import, apprehended by the imagined universal deity either directly or through the agency of a deputized confessor, is paranoiac - and clinically consistent with the witch-hunting hysteria which we observe periodically emerging to evidence the psychotropic character of this intoxicating ethical dualism, appearing among us as Good-and-Evil and Sin-and-Salvation. We understand that indulgence in this form of intoxication has seriously deleterious consequences for the exercise of good judgment in the regulation of public affairs, given the implicit tendency to sanctimoniously moralize and to irrationally crusade to no good end.

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:08 | #

NN,

China uses an authoritarian model built around exploitation so how do they factor into your thinking about political economy?

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:15 | #

NN,

Why don’t you condense your thoughts, and publish them here formally?

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:33 | #

Why don’t you condense your thoughts, and publish them here formally?

Because GW wants to kill NN, LOL!  I think the breaking point was when GW came to believe that NN’s beliefs were not motivated by the fact that NN is a homosexual midget who lives in the homeless shelter and uses the library computers.  NN is in fact none of those things, at least if we take his word for it, and I"m inclined to, at least in playing the odds.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:53 | #

Hands off NN!  He’s one of the most colorful characters (I won’t say kooks) on the Internut.  He donned the Swastika and marched in broad daylight in Matt Koehl’s Nazi Party.  That takes balls, if not brains.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:12 | #

LH,

Why don’t you condense your thoughts, and publish them here formally?

Thank you for the invitation.

In my judgment, these thoughts are as compactly expressed as is within my capability in hopes of being understood.

And I prefer their expression in the form they have taken over at SUPERHUMAN - which is somewhat Nietzsche-esque (if you will permit) - in its non-systematic and provocative arrangement.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:50 | #

NN is a homosexual midget who lives in the homeless shelter and uses the library computers.

Is it not a measure of how Jewda-ized we have become, that we automatically Freudian-ize our analysis of an outsized persona by understanding it in terms of compensatory behavior?

Surely, someone who stands out must be inflating himself in emotional compensation for his deficits - because, in the world that Jewry has created for the post-Classic world, all souls are essentially equal.  The weak are actually, truly, the strong - and the strong are only superficially so.

“God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are.” (1 Cor 1:27-28).

and:

“Pride goeth before a fall.”

What all this means, stupid goyim, is that - if you dare to stand up and be a man - at some point or another you will fall down - so do not dare to stand up.  And if you dare to take a risk - inevitably you will take a loss - so don’t be a man and take a risk.  Be a Child of God (i.e., a sheep to be shorn by His Chosen.)

So, Comrades, itz merely the Beatitudinal Christianity against which HPDN warned us.  Slave morality, itz.

Alternatively, listen to your wives and mothers in their counsel to you:

Now say your prayers, you evil racists - and hope for God’s Mercy on your souls.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:41 | #

NW,

China uses an authoritarian model built around exploitation so how do they factor into your thinking about political economy?

They factor in as merely another example of the misconstruction of political-economy in which we have long been indoctrinated.

I write, of course - and once again - of “form-of-government” as an essential element of the belief system/myth-structure in which we have been trapped.

“Political Science” is now the product of fatuous Enlightenment/Progress notions of our presumed ability to modify and “model” our governments, willy-nilly, to suit some utopian objective(s).

In fact, in history, forms of government are largely dictated by circumstances in an economically and militarily competitive world.  They are, as I preach - and despite deceptive appearances and imputations - derivative of utility rather than of morality.

Thus the Chinese political economy, as are all others, is adapted to the objectives of the oligarchic regime.

In this case, we speak of the familiar crypto-anarchist (“Communist’) resort to the use of the enemy militarist/imperialist/capitalist’s weapons against the him.

Where once the militant Radical simply sought to obtain the necessary firepower by whatever means immediately available (by gift or loan of International Jewish Banking money, for example), it has proven necessary to adopt much more of Bourgeois technigue in order to defeat him.

Thus we have the Chinese adopting something of the Soviet practice in strategic deception - with a substantial measure of success (having now been declared a mere “fascist” regime) - and with a successful program of relief of the Western world of a vital portion of industry upon which its defense ultimately relies.

Thus the Marxist eschaton of a classless, stateless, Bourgeois-free planet remains their faith, expectation, and indispensible oligarchic adhesive.  And *that* objective you may take as the “model” toward which they strive.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:48 | #

“technique”

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:36 | #

NN is a homosexual midget who lives in the homeless shelter and uses the library computers.

And another thought on this point:

Where has it been shown that persons such as the above cannot discover and communicate the truth?

How many brawny guys do you know that are fonts of wisdom?

Why must intellectual self-assertion be any less worthy for lack of physical capability.

I am prepared to listen to anyone, even those as above, for such wisdom as I can independently verify.

(As with the wisdom of Nietzsche, the invalid of the last days of his life.)

One day, if I last that long, I too will be frail - and unable to contest the Field of Honor on which GW would perish in the present day.

Does that mean that my words will correspondingly lose their potency, in that latter day?

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:00 | #

NN,

Thus the Chinese political economy, as are all others, is adapted to the objectives of the oligarchic regime.
...
Thus the Marxist eschaton of a classless, stateless, Bourgeois-free planet remains their faith, expectation, and indispensible oligarchic adhesive.  And *that* objective you may take as the “model” toward which they strive.

I’m surprised to see you (more or less) take the CCP at face value.  In your gut, do you really think that these people give one wit about the ideal of a classless society?  Do you know that it is generally recognized in mainland China that the ruling party has sacrificed its founding ideals in the name of economic development (starting with Deng Xiaoping), even their elite doesn’t deny it.

From what I can tell, the only thing the CCP truly cares about is power; how to get more of it while maintaining what it already has.  China is an authoritarian society that is ruled by an elite and for an elite.  It has a dim view of its subjects and is more than willing to sacrifice them to the tune of hundreds of millions in order to get more power.

Assuming that we can dismiss the CCP’s founding socialist ideals as being irrelevant to the current situation (and I think we can) then what other criticism do you have to offer of China’s authoritarian model?

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:14 | #

He donned the Swastika and marched in broad daylight in Matt Koehl’s Nazi Party.  That takes balls, if not brains.

But what we desperately need is the combination, in the same persons, of balls *and* brains.

Like the ancient Romans - like Julius Caesar - the last of our kind who could govern themselves.

What we have had in the aftermath is the fierce German barbarian and nobleman, whoring for the Church of the Slavish Superstitions.

(Think of “Stormin” Norman Schwartzkopf, who - despite his putative 170 IQ - could not detect the essence of his mercenary service to Zion, according to the ancient pattern that Nietzsche bemoaned.)

And we have had none but the other side of that famous coin, in the sparkling intellect of the neutered and homosexual churchmen and intelligentsia of the West, in the aftermath of the passing of the Romans.

Regrettably, even amongst ourselves, we have the feisty lower-class element (my “Tards On Parade” over at SUPERHUMAN) - who are as eager to do away with their own masters as with Jewish mastery.  And we have our Thinkers, who quail at the thought of publicly bearing the sacred symbol - or likewise of exposing their carriage of a firearm as an example, for Whites, of personal preparedness to deal with the Black belief (as has been personally expressed to me) in the universal timidity of the White un-male.

(I recall the latter expression in the context of my brief confinement in the stockade at Ft. Dix, NJ, in the early 70’s.  I was attending a class conducted by local academics for the inmates, and one of the more intelligent and articulate of the Blacks volunteered, quite sincerely and in the interest of being informative, that all the Blacks thought that all White boys were queer.  So, rascal that I am, I had to retort that all the Whites thought that all the Black boys were motherfuckers.)

And, as you might imagine, the Blacks could not believe their ears - an uppity White Boy who didn’t know his place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stunned silence.

[That’s how bad it was - even back then.]

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:06 | #

NW,

I’m surprised to see you (more or less) take the CCP at face value.  In your gut, do you really think that these people give one wit about the ideal of a classless society?  Do you know that it is generally recognized in mainland China that the ruling party has sacrificed its founding ideals in the name of economic development (starting with Deng Xiaoping), even their elite doesn’t deny it.

From what I can tell, the only thing the CCP truly cares about is power; how to get more of it while maintaining what it already has.  China is an authoritarian society that is ruled by an elite and for an elite.  It has a dim view of its subjects and is more than willing to sacrifice them to the tune of hundreds of millions in order to get more power.

Assuming that we can dismiss the CCP’s founding socialist ideals as being irrelevant to the current situation (and I think we can) then what other criticism do you have to offer of China’s authoritarian model?

I’m sorry, NW, but I have to set aside your assumption.

For, no matter what the present degree of faithfulness to Mao’s Marxist vision, it ultimately will be realized out of politico-economic necessity (as evidenced by the predictable revival of Maoism reported in the article I reproduced at SUPERHUMAN).

The regime imperils its internal cohesion by eliminating any ideological rationale therefor - and the “revival” is symptomatic of the success of (or reality behind) the creation of an appearance of having devolved into the mere innocence (for Western consumption) of antithetical plutocratic elitism.

Perhaps you are familiar with my explanation for the rise of the Greater Judean alien theocracy in displacement of the native Anglo-Saxon plutocracy: basically it is attributable to the latter’s lack of a unifying and cosmetic ideology - which essential elements the former possessed.  Or does your analysis indicate otherwise?

As the historic record of civil war, class war, inward dynastic struggle, organized criminal gang warfare and regime change via coup indicates, mere economic utilitarianism has no durability as the basis of oligarchic unity and elitism.  Thus, even if the CCP has inwardly abandoned Maoism/Marxism, it will shortly recover it, lest it perish of resumption of its past internal struggles (based, in this instance, upon the reciprocal excesses of adopting a radical inversion of Maoist strategy toward realizing the eschation).

Also, NW, note the brilliance of the Soviet strategy in allowing the excesses of reformist “Capitalism” to be laid on the naked backs of the peoples - only to have the KGB come to the rescue and oust the supposedly supreme “Oligarchs” - who proved thus to be nothing of the sort.  A perfect little Morality Play and ideological vindication of the old faith, for consumption by the suffering masses.  (And Putin is nevertheless, comfortingly for Western efforts at self-deception, a “nationalist”.)

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:27 | #

Also, NW,

[From the STFTD of 11/12/09:]

Another ludicrous aspect of the supposed disappearance of “Communism” is the putative vindication of *everyone’s* ideological position, all across the political spectrum.

The Left is off the hook for megacidal Leninism and Stalinism, now that everything has turned out all right in the end and all those omelet eggs were not broken altogether in vain. And the Right has shown that Capitalism, as they have known all along, is the best way of doing business, everywhere on the planet.

Of course, informed students of political history know that when the Right and the Left agree on an agenda and the interpretation and evaluation of an historical event (z.B., “The Good War”), Jewry’s purposes and propaganda are operative, in a magnificent deception of the public and the distortion of its consciousness.

[In her *Russia—Lost in Transition: the Yeltsin and Putin Legacies*,” by Liliia Fedorovna Shevtsova, she reports a 2006 poll showing that 71% of Russians “regretted” the dissolution of the USSR. And she characterizes the present “Russian” state as a “pseudo-democracy,” engaged in a game of “Let’s Pretend” that this autocracy is something other than it is. (Deja vu all over again!)]

Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:06 | #

NN,

Whatever else can be said about the founding socialist ideals of the CCP, they are not in force today, and I suspect that they haven’t been in force for quite some time (if they ever were).  For example, where was the socialist logic in cutting down huge swathes of subtropical rainforest so that Chinese people could smelt steel in their backyards?  Where was the socialist logic in uprooting many millions of Chinese and sending them out to work the grasslands?  There is no logic to any of this, it’s a picture of an authoritarian regime that’s flying by the seat of its pants at every flick of Mao’s wrist.

Communist authoritarian regalia aside, we finally start to see something a bit more representative of the revolutionary left in the cultural revolution, which saw various collectivizing reforms and a repudiation of tradition.  But this period only lasted ten years and many of its reforms were quickly undone just a few years after Mao’s death at the hand of Deng, whose thinking has dominated the Chinese spirit now for the last three decades.

I read the article that you referenced at SUPERHUMAN and I didn’t see any evidence for the claim that a revival of Maoism is on the horizon.  Don’t confuse appearances for reality, this is just politics as usual in China.

The regime imperils its internal cohesion by eliminating any ideological rationale therefor - and the “revival” is symptomatic of the success of (or reality behind) the creation of an appearance of having devolved into the mere innocence (for Western consumption) of antithetical plutocratic elitism.

Humanity is not uniform.  In stark contrast with European and Near Eastern societies, their counterparts in Africa and East Asia are perhaps the least ideological.  The latter are held together by the exercise of sovereign power and not myth or abstract idealism.  In other words, the ideological demands of Western regimes don’t necessarily hold for East Asia.

So I repeat my question: “Assuming that we can dismiss the CCP’s founding socialist ideals as being irrelevant to the current situation (and I think we can) then what other criticism do you have to offer of China’s authoritarian model?”

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:37 | #

NW,

Whatever else can be said about the founding socialist ideals of the CCP, they are not in force today, and I suspect that they haven’t been in force for quite some time (if they ever were).  For example, where was the socialist logic in cutting down huge swathes of subtropical rainforest so that Chinese people could smelt steel in their backyards?  Where was the socialist logic in uprooting many millions of Chinese and sending them out to work the grasslands?  There is no logic to any of this, it’s a picture of an authoritarian regime that’s flying by the seat of its pants at every flick of Mao’s wrist.

Please consult The Revolt Against Civilization, by Lothrop Stoddard.

Therein will be explained to you that the Marxist-Communist tactic, from the beginning, was to adopt a nominal “Socialism” as a cloaking device for its true anarchist agenda.  Your sense of the absence of Socialist practice in crypto-anarchist (Communist) China is thus in order and is welcome confirmation of that thesis.

I read the article that you referenced at SUPERHUMAN and I didn’t see any evidence for the claim that a revival of Maoism is on the horizon.  Don’t confuse appearances for reality, this is just politics as usual in China.

Of course the regime will not permit the appearance of having, itself, readopted Maoism as an agenda - despite perhaps inwardly pursuing the Maoist/Marxist/Communist vision of an ultimately stateless, bourgeois-less globe.  This emergence, rather, is symptomatic of the very success of the regime in strategic deception of the West, in appearing, to the nostalgic and revivalist elements of the Chinese masses -  to have lost its Communist ideological rationale for its present privilege and power.

So you are again inadvertently correct in the sense that the regime can (in fact) and will (in appearance) allow no “revival” of governmental Maoism - if it has (in fact) remained Communist all along and/or depends (in appearance) upon Western belief (reinforced by the superficial “revival”) in the dissipation of Communism within its regime and the aggravation of die-hards without.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:53 | #

THE TRUST

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:29 | #

Humanity is not uniform.  In stark contrast with European and Near Eastern societies, their counterparts in Africa and East Asia are perhaps the least ideological.  The latter are held together by the exercise of sovereign power and not myth or abstract idealism.  In other words, the ideological demands of Western regimes don’t necessarily hold for East Asia.

Ever heard of the Mandate of Heaven?  Confucianism?  Legalism?  The Chinese became ideologized even before the West.  What “sovereign power” did Mao have in leading the “Long March”?

So I repeat my question: “Assuming that we can dismiss the CCP’s founding socialist ideals as being irrelevant to the current situation (and I think we can) then what other criticism do you have to offer of China’s authoritarian model?”

As said, the CCP did not, sincerely, have “founding socialist ideals”.  And you are confusing model and agenda.

Otherwise my attitude is that the CCP is devoted to a globally internecine struggle - so what matter the details of a “model”- given the agenda?