|
|
|
An Open Letter To Rock Legend Roger Waters From David Duke Well, not really. It was not written or approved by Dr Duke in any way, manner, shape or form; it may be construed as satire, although from my limited contact with the man he would largely approve of its sentiments. Its inspiration was the open letter Abraham Foxman sent to Roger Waters. Foxman is a man who could find anti-Semitism in an egg cup, and in fact he does find it and its causes everywhere he looks. Except of course, in his bathroom mirror. Alexander Baron ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Dear Mr Waters, I write to you both as an American and as a citizen of the world who is concerned for peace. As an American I am particularly concerned with your use of the dollar sign - $ - conflated with a Star of David in your show The Wall. As both a non-American and as a man who devotes the bulk of his working and leisure time to music, you are probably unaware of the deep sense of unease and indeed revulsion this will cause to many Americans, Jews as well as Christians. Although the Star of David is first and foremost a religious symbol, it was hijacked several decades ago by one of the most ruthless, fascistic ideologies on the face of this planet, that of International Zionism, a philosophy of racial supremacy. If I may quote from ZIONISM: its European origins, a December 1973 publication of the British & Irish Communist Organisation, page 3: “Its essence is that a ‘chosen people’, the Jews, are superior to everyone else and can and should trample on the rights of other peoples”. This quote actually first appeared in an editorial in the left wing newspaper Socialist Worker, October 20, 1973. You will see from this that the true nature of Zionism has long been recognised by most left wing and progressive people in Europe if not throughout the world. As I am sure you know, the dollar sign - $ - has come to symbolise not just our currency, but capitalism and indeed what many people worlwide interpret as American Imperialism. It is my concern that by using the dollar sign in conjunction with the Star of David, you are inadvertently conveying to the rest of the world the erroneous and dangerous belief that the people of the United States are complicit financially and in other respects with the crimes perpetrated by the Zionist entity against the Palestinian people, and more recently against the entire world in the shape of the Gaza Flotilla Massacre. You should understand that in the area of foreign policy with particular relevance to the Middle East, the actions of the American Government do not reflect the will of the American people, that the outrageously partisan behaviour of successive Administrations both Democratic and Republican is indicative not of any malice of the American people towards the Palestinians, the Arabs, Islam, or the rest of the world, but of the hegemony of Zionist Jewry over US foreign policy. There are many Zionist organisations in the United States, but two are worthy of particular mention: AIPAC and the ADL. AIPAC is an overtly Zionist organisation; among other things it peddles the myth that Israel is a strategic asset to the United States, even more so since the inception of the War On Terror, conveniently ignoring the fact that but for US support of Israel there would have been no War On Terror and no 9/11. Its website has the temerity to claim that Israel is a defender of free speech, among other things. This commitment does not of course extend to challenging the perceived wisdom of the persecution of Jewry during World War Two, a subject on which there is total freedom of speech in Iran, and none at all in “democratic” Germany due primarily to Zionist influence. Unlike AIPAC, the ADL is not on the face of it a dedicated Zionist organisation, but scratch the surface, and its real agenda shows through, for behind the mask of civil rights lies unconditional support for both repressive laws at home disguised as “protection” from “hate speech” etc, and for the continuation of Israel’s genocidal policies against the Palestinians. Last year, the ADL’s National Director Abraham Foxman applauded the mass murders in Gaza, and earlier this year both the ADL and AIPAC called on the US Government to brand the Gaza Aid Flotilla organisers terrorists, thereby spitting on the corpses of those martyrs murdered in cold blood by the IDF. As this moment, both AIPAC and the ADL are lobbying openly and even more so behind the scenes not only for even harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran but for the United States to bomb or even invade that country, a crime which would cause enormous bloodshed in the Middle East, and sow bitterness and hatred lasting for decades in addition to that which we already have. A lot of their lobbying consists simply of the recycling of long proven lies, such as the claim that Iran’s President threatened to wipe Israel off the map. In view of all of the above, I would ask that you do not associate the dollar sign - $ - with the Star of David in any of your shows. I, and the great mass of the American people, do not wish either our currency or our once great country to be associated in any way, manner, shape or form with the bigotry and hatred that is generated by the Zionist entity, its apologists, supporters and ideologues. Yours Sincerely, October 9, 2010 Comments:2
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 14:17 | # If race is a social construct then we must spare a scientific thought for the baneful products of miscegenation who, when they require a bone marrow transplant, are unable to obtain such from either parent, and instead must seek another similarly mongrelised racial unfortunate. 3
Posted by cladrastis on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 14:34 | # Ever heard of crap science Itzkoff? It’s published all the time. Leave a citation and I’ll decide for myself. 4
Posted by Itzkoff on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:18 | # How is it crap science? I don’t need to post a citation because YOU’RE the expert, so you can tell me why such a study would be wrong. The anti-semitic garbage that you spew on this site indicates to me that your mind is so far detatched from reality that you will not be able to explain to me what is wrong with it, though. 5
Posted by vo on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:50 | # I’ve decided to become pro-semitic. Most often they do the usual whine or silent treatment if you don’t pat them on the head with a nod or two to such ‘greats’ as Chaplin, Spinoza, or the Metatron. Labeling is overrated in my opinion; often the way they one presents themselves is evidence enough for character assessment. 6
Posted by ronery asian guy on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:00 | # It’s crap science because it doesn’t take into account basic empirical evidence among people of different races/population, such as skin color, hair and eye color, bone and skull structure, height, etc… Science is based on empirical evidence, not ideology. Face it, race exists. Everybody in the world knows it and no, biracials and people who are racially ambiguous don’t disprove that different people from different parts of the world belong to different races. As for the need for citations, you’re the one who posted: “Genetic clustering analysis had shown that an European is about 37% of the time more genetically similar to an East Asian than to another European when about 300 loci are examined.” You presented that argument, the burden of proof is on you. As an Asian, I take offense at your assessment that my race is non-existent. BTW, nice trolling. 4/10 - Six points for pushing aside the main discussion of the article. Minus two for bringing up anti-semitism. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:07 | # I bet Abe has no problem with this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/10/israel-jewish-oath-new-citizens
8
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:57 | #
How can there be race if this is true? It isnt. Happy to have cleared that up for you. You dont need to know anything about genetics, merely a few details about your own family tree should be enough to shoot it down. For me to share more ancestry with a random East Asian bloke (more than another random European) would mean that either he had significant Europan ancestry or that I had significant East Asian ancestry. Thing is, in no way would I pass for someone of even vaguely East Asian origin. Thats OK say you, its there in the genes, but the lottery of gene expression somehow let my Euro ancestry come out at the superficial level, sup[ressing th East Asian features. Or something. For me to have this significant (but hidden) East Asian ancestry means that one or both of my parents must have in turn some East Asian ancestry or one of them to be more than half, but you know what? Neither seem remotely E. Asian either. If not them then how about my grandparents? Nope, again no apparent asian ancestry there, no record of mysterious asian relatives, trips to the east etc. The further back we go therefore I must have either a full East asian ancestor (or more) or numerous part-asian ancestors. But they arent there. I can check photos and family history back to great-grandparents at least. By which gneration the group photos should be boasting numerous clearly Asian individuals. Furthermore I can point to almost all white people I know, and their family photos, and see the same pattern. So when did all this East Asian ancestry get into the European gene pool. Where is the historical record? 9
Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:13 | # You tell ‘em, Al Ross! I was out this weekend with my “baneful products of miscegenation” family, and once again more than a few pure, noble white people stopped to tell me how absolutely lovely my “mongrelised racial unfortunate” spawn are. I kid you not, this happens all the time. You should see how they fawn. And I’m not a particularly approachable person either. What’s with all the mixed messages, white folks? Anyways Al, thanks for helping to keep me grounded. LOL. In all fairness though, your statement does contain factual merit, as mixed-race persons do have greater difficulty locating bone marrow donors. 10
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:38 | # Randy Garver Many White females possess a sentimental streak when they meet the less fortunate and this may be manifested in the sympathetic coddling of racial hybrids. Also, a great number of Whites display tenacious inquisitiveness when faced with anthropoid curiosities and this may account for the unwarranted intrusions into your private, familial misfortunes. 11
Posted by Matt Parrott on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:21 | # Randy, Congratulations on the recent victory! http://www.theonion.com/articles/8yearold-asian-mix-wins-westminster-boy-show,18235/ 12
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:24 | # @ Randy Garver I’m glad you’ve taken the time to clarify your personal motivations towards critiquing and attacking white racialism. I knew you were a mendacious individual from the beginning, and I said so. You have no idea how predictable and transparent you lot are. But now that it has been addressed, kindly drop the charade of you being genuinely interested in white racialism and find someplace else to troll. 13
Posted by Mario on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:24 | #
If that’s true, which I find somewhat doubtful, the answer is obvious. There are FAR more than 300 variant loci in the Human Genome. For this reason even if the East Asian and the European are sometimes more related to each other looking at a tiny percentage of the genome, such as 300 loci, it doesn’t change the fact that when you look at a large enough sample of variant loci the chances of a European and East Asian being more similar to each other than the European and another European is infinitesimal. Next question. 14
Posted by Itzkoff on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:21 | # LOL, okay, okay. Asian guy was the only one here to notice. I was trolling there but for a specific reason. I even slapped on a “Jewish” (I was also considering the name ‘Kaufman’ or ‘Weinheimer’) sounding name. I’m a little cloudy on the details of race and was listening to some guy talk about it a few days ago and he mentioned this. I had no idea where he got this fact from so I figured that somebody here might know and the best way to get a response, easily, is to draw it out in a way that inflames other people. With the pseudonym like this, how could I fail? Thanks for your responses, actually. I couldn’t find the paper anywhere myself. 15
Posted by PM on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:06 | # Randy Garver— If I were you I would be suspicious of the amount of people who comment on your children. Why do you think this happens so often? People are uneasy in their presence, and are over-compensating. They fear silence may be interpreted as disapproval. They feel this because deep down they disapprove themselves. 16
Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:16 | # PM, Perhaps all parents of young children have similar experiences and I just don’t have an outside frame of reference to compare against. Given that I live in an area with a large number of non-Whites, I wouldn’t think that my family stands out in that regard. If anything, we’re quite few shades “whiter” than the average. 17
Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:20 | # Matt, Thanks! We couldn’t be more proud. A few more high-profile wins and we’ll be well on our way towards AKC recognition!
I don’t believe that your “mendacious” comment is deserved, as I’ve not attempted to deceive anyone. My criticisms here have been primarily about racialists rather than racialism. Specifically, I’ve commented that a good amount of WN opinion which is visible online appears to consist of tilting at windmills. I pointed out that mixed-race children comprise a tiny fraction of white-parented babies. If you’re white and you don’t have 3+ white children which you are raising properly (or else are working on that goal), then the real “genocider” of your race is looking at you in the mirror each morning. How is it helpful to blame others? As for my motivation, it’s not to discourage the success of ethnic Europeans, in fact it’s probably closer to being the opposite. I just don’t believe that cultivating a victimology paradigm is functionally useful. Maybe you can tell me how the jews/blacks/browns/yellows/muds/mongrels are keeping white people from making lots of white babies, feeding them home cooked meals instead of fast food, supervising their learning and holding them accountable for academic success, preparing them to compete successfully in the global economy, instilling them with sense of civic duty, and instructing them on proper morals? I happen to think that a group of people who can succeed at those tasks can thrive in any environment regardless of adverse circumstances. So how to make that a reality? I’m not certain, but I think that political activity, while perhaps useful to an extent, is vastly insufficient for the task. 18
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:03 | # Waters, like most left-wing anti-Zionists, is simply using Israel as a relatively vulnerable aspect of world Jewry to get their ya-yas out in a semi-respectable fashion. Its a coward’s way out to harp on Israel when the world’s problem isn’t walls or fences but lack thereof. The problems with Israel, and they are serious, have nothing to do with its desire to keep people out of its territory and everything to do with world Jewry tearing down needed barriers to Jewish virulence. Beating up on Israel—the closest thing we have seen to Jews actually trying to build, rather than wreck, a nation, is a very bad strategic blunder. Waters and this letter-writer are not our allies. That is not to say Israel is our ally, but it is as nothing compared to the virulence of international Jewry. Far from using Israel’s nationalist behavior to attack it based on the hypocrisy of virulent international Jews—negotiations need to proceed between Euronationalists and sincere Jewish nationalists to work out an international regime of mutual support for separate, walled, fenced and guarded, territories for nationalists of all nations near their “homelands” going back to at least neolithic times—not unlike the New World reservation system for Amerindian nations. In short, the international regime needs to oppose genocide:
19
Posted by Silver on Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:34 | # Randy, racialism, as a social movement and as a philosophy, has a great deal more to it than the petty hatreds of turkeys like Al Ross and Gudmund. Nevertheless, utterances like his are best understood as expressions of frustration rather than hostility, because frustration rather than base hatred is what most people actually feel. This can be seen in often cited (by racialists) statistics regarding residential segregation—“Whites just won’t live around niggers!” they chime. True, most won’t. But why? Is it because of some fanatical hatred of blacks or is it simply because they want to live in areas where people like themselves predominate? The majority of the time it’s the latter. What causes frustration is the knowledge that they can only run for so long, because there is constant attrition in the form of “race traitors” (like, well…). In the long run it leads to complete extinction, and they’re most upset about that—understandably, too, since the extinction process itself seems to bring so little in the way of any recompense. On the other hand, organizing around a suite of shared traits, of which is race is only one (albeit a very important one), brings with it both benefits in the present and sets society on a sustainable path for the future. That’s a lot for most people to work their way through. But at heart it’s really quite straightforward. You have a choice, Randy. What’s done is done, but you can speak up. When the average white idiot pretends to be oh gosh simply horrified that someone’s a racist you can set them straight—“Hey, come off it pal. These “racists,” you know, they’re not really bad people. Sure, some of them are. But what they want isn’t “evil” at all, and doesn’t have to hurt people. Maybe it’s time we start paying attention because a lot of what they say has the ring of truth to it.” 20
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:18 | #
Oh please…this is anecdotal mendacity found in copious amounts at your local cow pasture. The reasons whites flee these communities is because, as La Griffe statistically demonstrated many moons ago, that as a neighborhood turns black the chance of the remaining whites being victims of black crime rises to an absolute certainty. Silver calling Michael Dukakis…is there hate in your heart…LawL It is also further evidence that the action by whites, fleeing, is an adaptive response at the individual/kin level and not a group, beyond the immediate family, acting adaptively. The whites who do not bolt from the community, at the first arrival of blacks, are left to fend for themselves by themselves. 21
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 13 Oct 2010 02:25 | # Silver’s passion for unreality and his morbific effect on MR discourse is well - known. He is just another trolling bedlamite and, like many neurotics, he will always try to attract attention by professing some grotesque eccentricity of opinion. 22
Posted by Mario on Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:13 | #
There’s a lot of truth to that. Even if whites had no preference for living more with other whites, they’d still avoid blacks just because of how much blacks are into anti-white crime. But it that’s all there is, how do you explain what’s happening in Canada? In Canada there’s all these low crime Asians moving in, and whenever they get to too high a percentage of the population of a neighborhood, the whites flee! This is in spite of the fact that Chinese are less likely to commit anti-white crime that whites are. How do you explain this? 23
Posted by Randy Garver on Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:31 | # Silver, I understand your overall message and appreciate the explanation. Keep this to yourself, but I’ve actually challenged people who express uninformed views of ethnic advocacy similar to those which I previously held. You’ve cast the haters in a rather sympathetic light, and I even pity them a little. I do find it rather amusing that some whites might want to avoid my family out of a sense of xenophobia when in many ways we’re way more culturally white-traditional than the current norm. Amidst the modern milieu of ball-busting careerist feminists, DVD-parented juicebox-addled children, and tramp-stamped teen girls with names like “Brayelynne”, my household runs much like 1950’s Leave It to Beaver. Except for some almond-shaped eyes here and there, we’re just about the “whitest” folks of our generation that I know of. But hey, everyone is entitled to their preferences. A commonly expressed goal on pro-white websites is the desire to further the current and future interests of ethnic Europeans. While I don’t personally apportion my affections based on topological maps of haplogroup distributions, I do share a broad desire to see my extended relations succeed. The practical implementation of this is where I’ve challenged some of the fine folks here. When the topic of miscegenation as a significant cause of racial genocide came up, I ran some rough figures and calculated that only about 5% of white breeding-pairs are lost to race mixing. That hardly seems genocidal. However, massively falling birthrates in white countries, based purely on voluntary choices made by white people themselves, appears far more genocidal. In the 20th century, the total fertility rate in the US declined from 3.8 to 2.1 (-45%) and in Italy from 5.0 to 1.3 (-74%). Both TFRs are below the replacement rate. After considering this particular issue, it occurred to me that a common paradigm found in many of these racialist debates is that of white people predominantly blaming exogenous factors for their current social and political situations. Not enough white people? Have more kids. Too much jewish influence in your media? Turn off the TV. Obesity epidemic? Stop buying soda and freezer-section pot pies and cook your own food. Poor job market? Demand educational achievement from your children. Bad schools? Run for school board, mentor at-risk white youth, get involved in your community, home school your kids. These solutions all require hard work, but are nearly guaranteed to have a measurably positive effect, and none hinge on the success of a grand political movement which, put charitably, is currently in a nascent state of development. Maybe this prescription sounds overly harsh to some sensitive ears here, but consider this: haven’t white people been telling black people to stop blaming others and take responsibility for their own problems for some 60+ years? Are whites helping themselves by ignoring their own time-tested advice? 24
Posted by PF on Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:32 | # Randy said:
Why do foreigners love to lecture us like this? Why do they strut about in our cultural clothes and warn us about the preservation of social niceties… “not too much here, darlin’, oh, a little too much there…”. ? Ah yes, this is what it must be to belong to a largely defeated ethnic group. Every striped cat that comes through the door thinks it can tell you the time of day. 25
Posted by Randy Garver on Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:13 | # PF, I’m a 100% home grown blue-eyed white American. 26
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:51 | #
Fuck off asshole! Maybe most here are too hesitant to be so blunt as to tell you what they actually think of you but I will. You are a piece of shit! You F’ing asshat!!! 27
Posted by pug on Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:37 | #
Randy, Miscegenation influences TFR more than you think. See this and comments therein. The same is true for Europe where immigration, both of the legal and (especially) illegal varieties, is typically male-driven, and its overly vibrant impact will try to seek native females of the slight percent that have been broken by this political age. To whom are you addressing these solutions? Are you implying that ‘we,’ of this website, can just “have more kids” and tip off the scales—more than current miscegenation—and that our choices in this yet influences anything? Evidently, White people at large aren’t going to do those things on their own without a “grand political movement.” If we controlled White people, we would assuredly make us do just that, and much, much more. We don’t, and your advice amounts to trolling. 28
Posted by Silver on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:07 | # This is in spite of the fact that Chinese are less likely to commit anti-white crime that whites are. How do you explain this? Don’t bother putting any questions to Desmond. He’s a creepy, seething caker anglo-saxonist, just waiting for the opportunity to jump down your throat. You’ll get no more straight talk out of him than you will the other local tosser, Al. All of human life since the dawn of time has been conspiring to thwart his ethnic ambitions to hear him tell it. Randy, I cast these people in a sympathetic light because I’m sympathetic to their cause. Their cause, when you get down to it, is my cause—and the cause of any group who understands and appreciates itself as a group, whoever they may be, whatever they may be and wherever they may be. I’m not concerned about their spears of hatred per se. Ordinarily, they’d bounce right off me. I mean, if we do continue to all live together, rather than part ways as I prefer, I couldn’t care less about their “racism.” If anything, I find it amusing. Al Ross could be my neighbor and put up a sign with arrow painted on it pointing my way saying “I HATE THESE FUCKING DAGOS NEXT DOOR” and I’d find it hilarious. But as you’ve learned (and I have learned) there’s more to it than that. It’s not enough to turn off the TV and have kids and get a better job and so on and so forth. That’s good advice, of course, but it’s not remotely sufficient. No. Their uncompromising stance is completely justified: they need territory, racially exclusive territory. It’s because they understand that need for territory that they so often misinterpret events since at least 1945 as one long, coordinated effort to dispossess them—simply because everything but everything since that date has steadily lessened the likelihood of securing such territory. I disagree, of course. Anyone with an iota of compassion for the human condition of the little man throughout history can appreciate the efforts that have gone into teaching people to cease hating and killing each other over what seemed the trivial differences between them. But now here we are. While most of us have learned that mere differences don’t make the other guy a bad person, many of us are also now discovering that that doesn’t necessarily mean we like living around him all that much, either. And when we stop to think about it, we realize that the people we do like living around are those who are like ourselves. And if we realize that it’s those things that make life feel like it’s worth living it’s only natural to wish to preserve them and to spread the good news. As I said, preserving them, in the long run, requires racially exclusive territory, no ifs, buts or maybes. That doesn’t mean all racial others become your implacable racial foes, the way it sometimes seems the hateniks would have it. I would argue that the endorsement of the concept of a racial compact [see the online book by the same name, btw; needs more work on cultural glue but a good beginning] is sufficient to establish a racial other as at least a tentative racial ally (you’d think it ought to, anyway); at this point in time I don’t see what more one could expect from a racial other. In any case, it’s better that he understand that the door to cooperation is open than that his imagination get the better of him (which it will, if one allows shitheads like Al Ross and Fred Scrooby to define the contours). 29
Posted by uh on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:41 | # I’m a 100% home grown blue-eyed white American.
“I HATE THESE FUCKING GOYIM NEXT DOOR” 30
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:09 | # If you were my next door neighbour, Silver, here’s how a specimen dialogue might play out : AR : “Well, Silver, I must admit that, after all, you are a better man than me”. Silver : “Of course but how came you to to this realisation?” AR : You don’t have a greasy goddam Dago living next door to you”. 31
Posted by PF on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:37 | # SSSKKKKKKKKWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:57 | #
Institutional discrimination. How does the mendaciously sanctimonious Silver explain such hatred by the yellow hordes? After all it’s only cakers who are haters? (This should be good). LOL. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/those_nice_compliant_asian_immigrants/
Geez even as as lying Jackal he sucks! I luv ya brah, especially when it serves my self-interest. My own people are so alien. LOL. 33
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:17 | # Here’s another example of why whites don’t live with that other Asian group.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f8f53e5e-8755-4f50-983b-8d787426c495 Can you imagine Saxonists being allowed such an indiscretion?
LOL. 34
Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:28 | # Dasein:
Dasein and Pug, These are reasonable points, and I’d offer the same response to both. Yes, I mean “you”, the people on this website need to have more children, etc etc. Observe people who are successful leaders and you will see that they personally live their values. If one hopes to influence others then it’s doubly incumbent to do so, as it demonstrates congruency to those around you. I would say that this concept applies whether the situation is the present day Dysgenistan or in some future ethnically-pure Eurotopia. A common premise oft stated on these WN sites is that tribes of people cannot reach their full potential if stuck in a multi-ethnic nation state. Even if one completely embraces this belief (and ignores the counterexamples of polyglot Singapore and Hong Kong which appear to tick along nicely while monoracial Japan continues to be a poster child of moral, economic, and demographic malaise), that doesn’t absolve or diminish anyone’s personal responsibility for their current troubles. Imagine taking a time machine back to the Jamestown colony in the early 1600 and trying to explain to the settlers there how hard you have it. Do you think they’d be sympathetic to the claim that whites have a collective inability to improve their lot under the present circumstances, or do you think they’d laugh uproariously at these soft, underworked and overfed housecats that they see making entreaties before them? Maybe you do have a point that a more optimal society is achievable where tribal self-sovereignty is allowed to flourish. Maybe it is ultimately worthwhile to work towards such a goal. Even so, does that get anyone off the hook for not maximizing their present circumstances? Whatever happened to the bedrock belief in the Protestant work ethic? 35
Posted by uh on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:32 | # Randy, I’d like to quote a friend, who was quoting a friend quoting a German, possibly a Nazi. It’s a very short quote and one you will have no trouble understanding, though you will doubtless have trouble checking your malicious impulse to twist words, facts, and generally poo-poo on our very plain, healthy political ideals. Here it is. Please let it sink in. “What we want ... is a national community.” What we want, then, is a nation in which all that effort and enterprise you glibly uphold is validated by community, a community of us, not feral blacks, Chinese chatterboxes, lesbians, suspicious Pakistani 7-11 clerks, anyone whose name ends in -ov, people who eat at Olive Garden, or “100% blue-eyed blond American"s who have sold out. Our beliefs vary greatly over this baseline. Most WNs would have me shot, for example, or maybe have me branded with a big marinara-red “D”, and were the reins in my hands I’d extend not a few of them similar courtesies. All things considered, though, we just want to wake up one day and not feel that strange existential dread of having been displaced in our ancestral lands. Some of us are old enough to know the feeling; others have never, or only by fleeting impressions in other lands where a few square miles - or mere blocks - still stand to remind us how it used to be. Working in and for a system whose masters are not us, are inimical to us—that is slavery. You advocate slavery. And you would see more contented white slaves on the global reservation before whites breaking the yoke and working for themselves. Simple as that. I’m sure the other guys will delve into the particulars of the little pile of mendacity you left. 37
Posted by uh on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:04 | # I’m sorry, but I have to add that when Randy proposed “Have more kids!” as a solution to white decline, it reminded me of something from my life. I’m notoriously broke, so whenever I complain of something, let’s say a toothache, people will reply: Well go to the dentist! As though I can just waltz into a dentist’s office and ask that the silver filling hastily welded into my mouth in rural Guatemala be replaced with not a farthing to show for it. In fact there’s more monetary worth in my mouth than my pockets. Not enough white kids? Randy has the answer! HAVE MORE KIDS. Go grab yourself a wife, one of the MILLIONS sympathetic to white nationalism or tribal identity, you know, and start turning them out like any Lupita Maricruz Consuelo Gonzalez and Jose, the hard, hard-working leaf-blower. Let ‘em run loose with the dysgenic swine; it’s your fault if they take on traits foreign to their race, you didn’t have the money to keep them apart. Always this obligation laid on whites to work harder, have more money, to swindle from life the basic things still taken for granted in non-white lands. GO COUNSEL WHITE YOUTH. MONEY MONEY MONEY. SUCCESS. HARD WORK. Mammon and almond-eyes uber alles, AMEN! 38
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:28 | # Gentlemen, Questions: How many children need the Jews in order to govern us - as they do? How many cattle does it take to run a ranch?
NN 39
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:50 | #
Unfortunately, Brother uh, the pattern of history seems to be that, in order to be secure in your own homeland, you’d better be busy trying to relieve someone else of his - and even then… For there is and can be no stasis - no achievable equilibrium - in global affairs. Dominate or be dominated. 40
Posted by uh on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:08 | # Yes, but sometimes - in the morning - that is all I, and I suspect others, want from existence. One is not accustomed to waking up with the thought: How can I displace someone today? but rather with a sigh: How can I avoid grief at being displaced today? Hard mottoes have little meaning day to day. This day for example I had to walk through a white ghetto to reach the nearest post office: it was clear from this, as from every other brief sojourn in dystopia, that we are the dominated. So, as I have no way to be dominant, it would seem your syllogism is practically false and anyway temporally bound; it would be true if there were any mechanism of dominance open to me, or “us”, or any of those conditions that are not met. “Adapt, migrate, or die”—grand, closer to home; but what this minute? There’s too much domesticity and peace to justify these simplistic slogans, too much complexity. Too much poverty! 41
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:19 | #
“...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).” Are you one of these - or are “we” of such spirit? 42
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:39 | # (If we are not - as appears to be the case - your wakeful wishfulness has all the prospects of those of a naked and nubile female in a male prison dormitory or of a steer in the chute to the abattoir.) Poor FN thought we might “become who we are” - Romans in spirit - warriors in fact - dangerous men. A bit much to expect of becomingly humble Peasants and Burghers, eh? 44
Posted by uh on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:01 | # ” To walk in money through the night crowd, protected by money, lulled by money, dulled by money, the crowd itself a money, the breath money, no least single object anywhere that is not money. Money, money everywhere and still not enough! And then no money, or a little money, or less money, or more money but money, always money. And if you have money, or you don’t have money, it is the money that counts, and money makes money, but what makes money make money? ” 45
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:29 | # He also wrote: “I have no money, no resources, no hopes, I am the happiest man alive.” Feel better now? 46
Posted by PF on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:11 | # http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR1hI_Ikuv8&p=C67E9F93F10EE58E&playnext=1&index=75 this sketch has so many concentric levels of meaning! 47
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49 | # this sketch has so many concentric levels of meaning! Disassemble the cone for us, ring by ring - starting with the topmost and smallest, please. 48
Posted by Randy Garver on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:01 | # uh:
LOL! Any passel of wisdom, whether sagely or otherwise, can be made to appear rather banal and trite if cast sarcastically as the tag line to a “Successories” poster. Be that as it may, the inescapable reality of the world is that if you want to improve things, then you’re going to have to work for it. I know that some folks on these boards do just that, though overall they seem to be a relative minority. If, as alleged, white people are living under unprecedentedly genocidic circumstances, then just when do you think would be a better time to contribute to the welfare of your fellow Europeans? Or maybe you love the idea of a strong white community, but not enough to actually DO anything about it?
That sounds like a dodge to avoid accountability. Maybe it’s not your fault if your kids like hip-hop, but it is ultimately your fault if they’re fat, sedentary, or uneducated. You control the TV, you control the food you buy at the store, you control how much time you spend with your kids monitoring their schooling, and you control how involved you get in their school system.
Yes, exactly. How else do you propose to create more white babies? 49
Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:18 | # Randy, You may be a great guy but your kids don’t belong to the same nation as mine. For the moment they do share a common American citizenship, but I wouldn’t expect that to last for too much longer. And then what? 50
Posted by uh on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 02:35 | # Any passel of wisdom, whether sagely or otherwise, can be made to appear rather banal and trite if cast sarcastically as the tag line to a “Successories” poster. And yet some are inherently banal, and fit as tag-lines better than other jumbles of words. How else do you propose to create more white babies? Mating with a white, and not Asian, woman. Banal, right? 51
Posted by Randy Garver on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:05 | #
Notus, I’m not exactly sure what you mean. Considering that you, Mrs. Wind, and the little breezes don’t currently come over for Sunday pot roast, I’m not sure that much would change. Since you seem to be a nice fellow, I’d probably just wish you the best. 52
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:08 | # Randy, I take it that underlying your passive-aggressive caviling is a desire on your part to at least preserve the White American majority as such in a context of constitutionalism and meritocracy as this would tend to suit your interests as you see them better than a majority negro/mestizo America. Am I wrong? If so, I can’t necessarily fault you as this is about the best that could be expected from a miscegenator in looking after his EGI. 53
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:38 | # CC is right. This “caviling” is something that we have observed many times. Always, the “cavilers” fear that their mixed-race children will be excluded from the genetic community of White America or English England or whatever. The hard reality, though, is that Randy and his like made their choices of sexual partner, and choices have consequences. In this case, they put themselves on the wrong side of the line of European genetic preservation. They need to understand that their personal interest in inclusion does not measure beside the interest of an entire race in its own genetic continuity. One of the consequences of crossing the line is that they left the community of interests of their own people. They need to come to terms with that, and not seek to undermine the very idea of our genetic continuity. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:16 | #
England and its extended phenotype or whatever. Perhaps the “whatever” is the unstated desire to see Kraut-Amerikwans forgo their filthy “particularism”, become “Anglo” Americans, and not serve their Father country but, um, the Mother Country. Therein lies the path to moral purification. 55
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:38 | # CC, you are being silly again. Time to pause and reflect. 56
Posted by Randy Garver on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:31 | # Captainchaos:
You are reasonably correct, though my motivations lack your apparently-observed cynicism. I do actually care about my country and countrymen. I realize that genetic purity is held in top esteem in these parts, and I won’t argue against it, but even the most dedicated racialist must surely acknowledge that genetics aren’t the only measure of health of a population (even if they do believe it’s the most important one). A stool doesn’t balance on a single leg. A main difference between our perspectives can perhaps be characterized by genetic vs. operational imperatives. At the risk of sounding overly glib, I’d offer the following comparison - Genetic (racialist) imperative: “You’re pretty much doomed under present circumstances because all of these blacks, browns, jews, and yellows in your traditionally white lands have their own interests at heart and are leaving you in the dust and polluting your ethnic heritage. Your only hope is to a start a racial revolution.” Operational imperative: “We need to get off our collective arses and better ourselves the way our grandparents instructed us to, as quaint as such advice might sound today. Our forebears faced greater adversity than we face, and they succeeded by dint of brow-sweat.” Perhaps the latter advice, in the absence of the former, and over millennial time frames, could potentially lead to genetic disunity. I’d concede that to a point. However, the racialist narrative appears to do little to address the immediate critical concerns of putting food on tables, roofs over heads, and knowledge into young minds. From what I’ve observed, it’s rather fatalistic and disempowering. The reality is that despite the perceived racial dystopia in the present time, almost everyone who gets a good education and works hard can acquire wealth and security. Furthermore, I’d suggest that deficits in the operational sphere can create deficits in the genetic sphere. For example, my wife wouldn’t even be in the western hemisphere polluting your gene pool if not for a critical shortage of skilled workers in her field.
GW:
That is not a fear of mine. In much of the west, persons of asian descent don’t have a particularly hard go of things, and I’ve no reason to suspect my children will either. GW:
I don’t think that I’m attempting to undermine the very idea of genetic unity, rather I’m discovering that it seems insufficient by itself to save your (our) people. Or maybe the difference is that your concerns are more focused on “a people” in the abstract tribal sense, and mine are focused on “persons” in the specific and tangible sense. 57
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:44 | # Randy, the sum of your advice to us is something to the effect of in the meantime, before the revolution comes, we should remember to brush our teeth lest they rot out. Well, I for one appreciate your concern, but really, I am forced to say, “No shit.”
You spic English, Randy? Good, listen up. America will have been turned into an insufferable third world shithole and banana republic well before the last racially pure White has been mongrelized the way of the dodo on the North American continent.
This “restructuring” of the economy per globalism that significantly acts as a magnet for non-Whites to come to Western countries is not a blind act of nature but the sum of intentional acts by cognizant men who act with blithe disregard for their own people. It would be unthinkable and undoable were true nationalism to reign. Keep whistling past the grave yard, but don’t expect to fool anyone. 58
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:40 | # The question is, Randy, would you support a white ethnostate in America from which your children were excluded? 59
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:51 | #
You’re probably as close to the truth as anybody. A century ago, the Capt’n would be whistling the same tune but the players, the Klan and dagos, would differ.
It’s apparent that by 1910 the genetic interests, of the 1790 Stock, at least relative to their percentage of the whole population, declined significantly and this was very upsetting for many, many people.
Now of course, we are told by the ‘white nationalist’ that the displacement of a century ago means nothing, ‘cause we’re all white brothers of a different white mother. There was no ethnic nepotism then, and neither is there any now. And if the modern racialist continues to ignore the issue of kindividualism the outcome will be no different than it was a century ago. 60
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 04:36 | #
The “lack of skilled workers” argument is mendacious tripe of the sort we’ve become used to from Mr. Garver, easily refuted by observation that the corporate world practices a sort of pro-Asian affirmative action and by the fact that America has never had a shortage of homegrown skilled workers. But forget that. I find his insinuation that capitalism, with its free flows of “human capital” (Gods I fucking hate that term), should take precedence over the life of our people pretty damn galling and obtuse myself. Randy Garver is no fool so it’s not as if he isn’t aware there are alternatives to this system - but for a race mixer the current system offers him the best deal in town. Whatever he thinks, though, the current Western system is founded on extremely short term thinking and his kind will fare no better in the end than any of us in the Dark Age to come. 61
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 05:12 | # I posted the following comment on Buchanan’s blog, it has yet to clear moderation:
62
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:58 | # Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 18, 2010, 08:50 PM | # All things considered, though, we just want to wake up one day and not feel that strange existential dread of having been displaced in our ancestral lands. Unfortunately, Brother uh, the pattern of history seems to be that, in order to be secure in your own homeland, you’d better be busy trying to relieve someone else of his - and even then… For there is and can be no stasis - no achievable equilibrium - in global affairs. Dominate or be dominated.
The problem with imperialist expansion, however, is that it invariably contains not only the seeds of its own eventual political destruction, but also those of the destruction of its founding ethnic core. Whether and in what proportions these “seeds” are ideational or sociological, imperial expansion ends up bringing race (not to mention cultural and ideological) pollution. Perhaps we can learn from Japan. They have embraced modernity, with all its (at least alleged) benefits, but have so far successfully striven to avoid race pollution. Japan appears to be what “uh” wants - a true national community. 63
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:07 | # One problem that regulars at MR keep avoiding (there are several others) is : what if most whites, by virtue of their particular genetic constitutions as they interact with the current state of culture and ideas, simply do not care about white racial preservation? What then? What are our moral rights, and duties? 64
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:32 | # The Larger Question, danced around but insufficiently honed: What is it exactly that “you people” want, and why? National (proletarian) Collectivism, Aryan Aristocracy, a recrudesced national past (and which one), maintenance of existing social and political forms and structures sans non-whites, etc? I affiliate with white nationalism for three reasons. First, and more idealistically, I wish to preserve Western Civilization, which I find in the High Culture as well as superior moral values of the historic European ethnocultures/nations. I further recognize that biology undergirds social and cultural evolution, and I believe, as a function of historical study as well as personal (and vicarious) observation, that only genetic (racial) continuity will ensure cultural continuity (‘culture’ in both senses of the word: mental (intellectual and artistic) production, and folkways). Only whites will preserve Western culture in perpetuity. I am, in other words, nothing more than a true conservative. There are other true conservatives sprinkled throughout the West today, but most are cowards when it comes to acknowledging the ineradicable relation between conservatism and racial preservation, understood both genetically (blood purity) and demographically (numerical preponderance). Second, it is in my long-term personal interest as a white man to fight against my racial dispossession and disempowerment. The presence of non-whites directly harms me in numerous ways, from fear of criminal victimization, to wealth transfers (both in taxes and professional setbacks due to “positive” discrimination), to non-white seduction and (for me) ruination of white females, to anxiety about all these negative effects of racial diversification intensifying in the future. ‘Diversity’ brings no benefit to me, but many harms. Finally, I am a man of moral integrity, as well as personal honor (a Christian, if somewhat lackadaisical and heterodox, and a Roman), and thus find unendingly nauseating, and personally infuriating, the lies and behaviors associated with the Cult of Diversity, both the unearned swagger of arrogant and abrasive minorities, and the pathetic pusillanimity of whites in the face of it. The Christian in me morally rebels against the untruths of the Cult, while the Roman in me wants to confront and destroy it. I’d enjoy hearing why others identify with WN, and what they understand by it (I have an ulterior reason for posting this, having to do with what I take to be many philosophical and strategic errors swirling about the WN blogsphere, including here). 65
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:58 | # LH,
The problem with life, however, is that it invariably ends in death. Human society, composed of humans, is (surprise) an organic phenomenon. The study of modeled political economies (however racilally pure the constituents of an assumed variety thereof), from the merely mechanistic standpoint of a detailed, logical examination of its potential for an end-state that is other than dissolution/anarchy/incorporation by another entity (i.e., the analog of death and consumption as carrion), brings the scholar (myself) to the conclusion that Nietzsche, somehow, arrived at the same point in grasping the thoroughly organic nature of human society, as below: 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) 66
Posted by Randy Garver on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:06 | #
If you expanded the location scope to North America, then I would indeed support your plan. Let me offer the following suggestion: Canada. There are a number of unique advantages to a Canadian solution: - Lots of land, low population density. If you wanted, you could even call yourselves “Second Nations” (or similar) and piggyback upon an existing ethnic sovereignty movement that already enjoys broad political and cultural acceptance. 67
Posted by uh on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:10 | # Our forebears faced greater adversity than we face, and they succeeded by dint of brow-sweat. Brow-sweat is nothing in an ocean of Mexicans or Pakistanis. You need to learn this, Garver. You have internalized the old American “make it” ethos like everyone else, but the paradigm in which that made sense, in which it was justified, is gone. There is no more “making it” for whites, unless each of our lives is to be spent thrashing about wildly to keep head above the ferocious brown waters to satisfy some foolish capitalist ideal. Like you I used to come on with individualist rhetoric because I was frustrated by all the romantic collectivist stuff; and today I would say the same, that each is responsible for himself and his own, “own” extending exactly as far as one’s family. Nonetheless, as GW says you have crossed the divide and everything you say arises from the need to justify this breach, or what isn’t simply obtuse americanism. No one is insulting you for this breach, no one calling your kids mongrels or anything, I’m sure they are lovely household animals, but do not come preaching the gospel of hard work and fragmentation in an age that levels guns at whites for speaking publicly of themselves as a group with interests to be defended. This locates you on the side of the hired guns. No one is trying to “cop out” of some “hard work” and we know you are clever and can wriggle out of any counter-argument with some deft remarks; I, assuming the royal “we” for a second, can only repeat that the worth of Aryan existence goes beyond late American capitalist modeling of whites as hard-working economic units. Well, that may be the unavoidable reality, but we don’t feel that way, so your sales pitch is worthless to us. To further your thought experiment a little, after going back in time to be laughed at by Jamestonians, let’s drag them forward and set them down in modern Williamsburg, typical hotbed of dysgenics and hypercapitalist vulgarity, just a few streets over; I doubt they’d have much to laugh at then. 68
Posted by uh on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:12 | # Please, Canada’s second only to Germany in draconian laws against white nationalism. GREAT place to live IF one never breathes word of these matters online or makes too much of them off. 69
Posted by Frank on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:20 | # Leon Haller, I recall Burnham mentioning this as you say, but I think Machiavelli best addressed it. Machiavelli probably had a strong impact on the Catholic Burnham’s view here too:
The nationalist, according to Machiavelli, is then opposed to empire and expansion, though also doomed to grow effeminate and divided. Burnham it should be noted didn’t mean only territorial expansion when he said a civilisation is either expanding or contracting. There are other pursuits aside from territory a people may go after without losing spirit. - It’s not about who’ll destroy whom first but about balance and harmony. Unlike in times past, we have plenty of food and water in the US and Europe. Nationalists should desire diversity of nations else their own cease to have such value. And wars often lead to amalgamation. What we all should oppose is empire and those who would strive to make us into easily manipulated hollow men, devoid of the ethnicity and culture which would allow us to think for ourselves rather than be readily manipulated by emotional cues from the mass media and other managerial forces. 70
Posted by Frank on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:31 | # Regarding Nietzsche, he praised the will to the extent of saying the spirited often triumph over the strong, and yet he didn’t offer a religion or other source of will. “total purpose of this will ... as means to create larger units of power” - that’s the great source of will, power? We can endure and remain strong by preserving the sources of our religious and ethnic wills. A nation built on a solid national and religious foundation can likely overpower and, if the power balances temporarily changes, certainly outlast a whimsical social structure that lacks such a foundation. 71
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:37 | # LH,
I hope that it is becoming apparent that no one preserves any culture in perpetuity - not even the Jews. Thus the question is whether, in whatever culture one finds oneself, one is dominant or dominated. And you and I find ourselves to be the dominated, do we not. And so will we be, in perpetuity - if all we seek is a little Vilcabamba in which to wake up to a racially-pure morning, each day of our little lives. This is in consequence of the fact that the Jews are an arrogant and prideful master people - and we have a becomingly humble slave mentality, a’la the prescription of our guru, GW. Of course, we Cattle find that being pushed and prodded and driven to slaughter by the Humans among us rather irritating - and we wish that they would just go away. Oh what a surprise, then, that we find ourselves in this predicament. So, LH, store up your Treasures in Heaven, and then hope that you can locate them in the Hereafter. For I’m sure that you and many another of us would much prefer to be the isolated underclass of the present regime rather than having to associate with the racial aliens in our midst as their masters. 72
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:59 | #
This is but one example of the “Catch-22” of all considerations as to the administration of societal affairs. This is what I am talking about.
But in all of history, only Switzerland has been sufficiently fortunate in having that which only natural geography can provide - and provided only, it would seem, in this singular instance. Thus there *is* no generally-applicable formula for “a republic which shall long endure”. 73
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:19 | # Frank,
Yes - however, as with the energy of youth, this primordial will of the “more complete” men/beasts fades with the societal evolution towards decay.
The institutionalization of illusion does serve to extend the order created by the men of violence - but the lies are eventually exposed or transformed and so they decay along with the strength of arms that once founded the society. You cannot will a will, as needs to be done. Rather, you merely prescribe the attempt to preserve lies, illusions, and nonsense, such as are already transparently so to the sophisticated. Thus the decay proceeds, heedless of your exhortations. 74
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:41 | # LH,
As I see it, to be a (White) man is to be a warrior is to tell the truth - as to actions having consequences. What the Platonists among us wish to imagine as their “rights” and “duties” in some transcendent realm I leave to the cartoonists. 75
Posted by pug on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:30 | #
You are implying that most Whites control the state of affairs. Most Whites did not want “diversity” when it was brought upon by jews and helpers, and most Whites, through social engineering, may now indeed feel they want the “diversity” they have “learned” to “celebrate.” Too bad. Most Whites then were not relevant. Most Whites now are not relevant. The power elites are. I recognise no “moral” right of theirs to do what they do to me by virtue of destroying my race, and all who know what we are on this Earth for ought to know that our duty is to not let the suicidals—indeed, one should think of them as a pack of suicide bombers receiving no brownie points for their deeds—drive off our EGIs off the cliff by killing themselves, and us. Stupid questions, in my opinion. 76
Posted by Frank on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:34 | # NeoNietzsche,
Machiavelli gave the example of Sparta.
Serving a faith can indirectly lead to material consequences. It’s often the faith that grants the strength of arms and the order for society to grow strong upon. Your atheist path is one of an eunuch - it will never flower. When a man rids himself of his fear of death for example, he usually needs to embrace some sort of faith. This is what Buddhism was often used for in the East. Warriors don’t fight to serve their will to dominate. They might fight for vanity or greed, lust, desire to protection an attachment, etc. But will to dominate (which would fall under vanity) is merely one among many motivators. Out of fear, one might will to dominate before being dominated, certainly. And certainly a social structure needs to remain struggling towards improvement, towards power, to defend itself from others pursuing the same thing. However, this doesn’t necessitate inevitable domination. There can also be a balance of power pursued which allows for peace and security, something Machiavelli also recommended as an ideal though not quite in the same sense (it works well enough here). - As for men seeing through faith, there is always doubt but faith isn’t something one reasons in and out of. Rather it’s something one falls back on or builds upon. Serving faith may allow one to pursue power. 77
Posted by Frank on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:40 | # Western man lives in a time where faith is unpopular because it’s been associated with anti-European Muslims, as well as anti-European Christians who want to bring in the Muslims… There’s always a circle of faith and doubt. We’re merely in a period where we’re programmed by our environment (the mass media nowadays) to doubt. Western man having no substance or will himself, he’s entirely at the programming’s mercy. 78
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:45 | #
Sparta did not meet all of his criteria - particularly for fortification. Also: In the second case he might give his republic a constitution like that of Venice or Sparta; but since extension is the ruin of such republics, the legislator would have to provide in every possible way against the State which he had founded making any additions to its territories. For these, when superimposed upon a feeble republic, are sure to be fatal to it: as we see to have been the case with Sparta and Venice, the former of which, after subjugating nearly all Greece, on sustaining a trifling reverse, betrayed the insufficiency of her foundations, for when, after the revolt of Thebes under Pelopidas, other cities also rebelled, the Spartan kingdom was utterly overthrown. Venice in like manner, after gaining possession of a great portion of Italy (most of it not by her arms but by her wealth and subtlety), when her strength was put to the proof, lost all in one pitched battle.
Like Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch-Trials, and Faustian Pacts.
Indeed - that faith of the early Romans in innocent superstitions that included none of the psychopathology of the post-Classic period of narcotic consolations.
Of course it will not - have you not noticed that it is the winter of the West?
You have your cultural phases confused. Review your Spengler.
Such innocence. Faith in having one’s cake and eating it, too. (And you believe the present regime, on its way to the slaughterhouse of all human history, is working well enough?) 79
Posted by Eman on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:17 | # NN:“Sparta did not meet all of his criteria - particularly for fortification.” The Spartans, ancient Greeks, ancient Romans, and all other Western civilizations have all made the same fundamental mistake: they’ve imported too large of a non-Western/non-White menial laboring class and over time that non-White prole class ended up gradually replacing and miscegenating with the natives. This has occurred in all nearly all civilizations that The West has produced, and it is of course happening right now at a far larger scale than in times past. 80
Posted by PW on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:19 | # NN:“This is in consequence of the fact that the Jews are an arrogant and prideful master people” Only in the insanely degenerate modern age, this Winter of The West or as some say the ‘Kali Yuga,’ are Jews a “master people.” The vaguely anti-Semitic Jew Otto Weininger wrote: “The spirit of the modern age is Jewish wherever it is found.” In reality Jews are nothing more than upstart proles, former ghetto bums who can speak well and are deviously intelligent; they were mistakenly liberated from their ghetto-cages by well meaning Western idealists (Napoleon, etc) and after that anarchy slowly spread over The West. Even Nietzsche, a philo-Semite, wrote that Jews were ‘tschandalas’ who invented and spread the anti-Western pity religion of Christianity:
Jews and their underlings are also masters of the economy in many nations along with worldwide banking and the money networks, promoters of piggish mass-materialism and hyper-consumerism. Spengler wrote that it is a sure sign of decadence when the economy and money wins the upper hand in a culture; thus Jewish liberation = gradual economic domination = promotion of mass-materialism = steady Western decline. 81
Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:22 | #
It’s part of a common thread which runs through many of the great works of German lebensphilosophie, also seen in Klages for example, where old Indo-European/Aryan caste concepts are recreated. In essence it’s an attempt to reclaim the heritage lost thanks to the embrace of Christianity. Not unlike Spengler’s idea of “second religiousness.” That said, are Jews really untouchables? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a large fan of theirs, but they are not an unintelligent or unskilled people and they seem to have a penchant for dominance quite unlike the lowly orders to which ‘Chandala’ refer. The history of the 20th century teaches us that the Jewish elite of the new America/Greater Judaea is a dangerous and cunning foe. But, can we truly blame them for the pathologies within our own civilization which impel us to submit to slavish ethical fatuities like Holocaustianity and Suicidal Humanism? 82
Posted by Matt Parrott on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:05 | # The notion that Jews are from a lower caste or even outcasts plays well to the bleachers and has a nice cathartic feel to it. But it’s indefensible. They’re indisputably a managerial/priestly caste, grain surplus administrators from a bygone civilization. Anti-Semitic vitriol is all fun and games until somebody gets misinformed. 83
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:07 | #
And the ancestors of powdered noblemen are stinking barbarians. 84
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:47 | #
Nietzsche exaggerates for effect. Christianity grew, not out of the Judaism of the Pharisees or Saducees (i.e., the faith as generally understood - that is, orthodox (small “o”) Judaism) or even that of the radical Zealots - but rather out of the small and exceptional community of which the Essenes were an example. Christianity followed the obscure model of their “Teacher of Righteousness,” rather than that of the rebellious Zealots and Bar Kochba - who generated a wide following and an actual rebellion amongst the Jews. Even then, the expectations of the Jewish Christians were hijacked by Sau/lPaul and carried off to the Greeks, who recognized their own saviors in Paul’s version, and smacked their lips at the prospect of an apocalyptic Advent of their Salvation, when Paul sugar-coated the native mystery religion with alien messianic expectations of shortly “meeting Yeshua in the air”. Nevertheless, it is the case that Christianity was, broadly speaking, a product of Judea under stress and amid apocalyptic expectations - but this was not Judaism as known in the sweep of history, and Israel did put up an heroic and unified fight against overwhelming force, when its pride would no longer tolerate Roman hegemony. So, give your enemy his due, Gentlemen - lest you underestimate him - again. 85
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:09 | #
No. Because we believe in heeding the wisdom of Pride goeth before a Fall and associated notions as to the virtues of humility and unity with nature. Thus we are, with GW, of the lower class, at heart. And we believe that we require no masters, in a world where the demography thereof makes mastery inevitable until most of humanity is exterminated and the globe returned to prehistoric conditions. So - no - we cannot blame the Jew for the peasant, the serf, the slave, in our modest little souls. Souls that confine us to childish conceptualizations of the administration of human affairs, which the Jew long ago learned to exploit to his advantage. 86
Posted by Frank on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:01 | # NN, I’d say some of us are of an aristocratic spirit, desiring to serve that which we are attached to, beauty ruling strength and strength ruling beauty. We serve something greater than our mere selves and mere desire to dominate. Power ought to be pursued with a reason behind it not for its mere sake. Sparta endured for 800 years. It wasn’t designed for expansion was the problem. My quote might have been misleading, but the point was a society may choose to either expand like Rome or preserve itself like Sparta. Sparta was well designed for the latter but not the former.:
I’m very much opposed to democracy. I find aristocracy, rule by the best for the benefit of the state, or perhaps a somewhat mixed form of government as well to prevent domination. - A [failed] attempt to renew a wintering Sparta is mentioned as well:
87
Posted by Frank on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:32 | # Foxes trick lions. Lions smash foxes. It’s part of life. We’re better at fighting for our blood, soil, and spirit - we’re lions; but we’re easily tricked and manipulated too. You strike me as possibly atomistic and thus dangerous to Europeans. I don’t understand what compels you. Preaching domination it seems would lead to Europeans acting vainly rather than in service to their nation when such is needed most. Someone acting as your teacher recommends it seems would go bourgeois even though he rejected such. Dress nicely, get a good job, don’t say anything of substance: attract all sorts of girls and enjoy them, err “dominate” them. Have children and teach them to worship you or whatever. Climb up the corporate ladder by adhering to good managerial / bourgeois standards. Proclaim yourself a “master” when you reach it. To cause people to worship you, do as Bill Gates and give lots to some acceptable charity that won’t really accomplish anything worthwhile. Nothing much will actually be done by this, but you’ll appear wonderful to the dim mob and deluded family. Die with a lot of money and power having slept with lots of women and produced children who admire you. Your nation dies, but you’ve enjoyed being a master. My apologies if I’m mistaken… It might be you intend to humbly serve your people like an aristocrat. 88
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:10 | #
89
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:40 | #
But Sparta no more preserved itself than did Rome. The imaginative Machiavellian “republic that shall long endure” required fortification [for which there was no historic precedent then and only one such since that time] in order that the conservative constitutions of Sparta and Venice not sacrifice them to being overwhelmed by polities unrestrained in their growth or number. But Sparta *was* so overwhelmed, for lack of that fortification - having been forced to expand and lacking an adequate constitutional foundation therefor. So, again, conservative Sparta did not “preserve itself” or “endure” in time any more than did expansionist Rome. It merely adopted one of two ways to eventually perish - for lack of all of the specified criteria for ‘long endurance”. The lesson in all this is as follows:
90
Posted by Frank on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:15 | # It’s worth fighting for even if all returns to dust. Plato dreamed of the eternal state, and I do as well. If it’s impossible, then traditions ought to be established that protect it during vulnerable periods to give the nation the best chance possible for enduring even longer. When the West returns to dust, from those ashes a new society will arise. Western man ought to work to see that Western man arises from the ashes, reinvigorated like the phoenix. The state exists to provide its people with the good life. Nations provide belonging and guidance. Faith tells us why we’re here and what we ought to pursue - where our energies of life ought to be directed. Our particularities develop attachment and give substance. It’s all worth fighting for. And what I speak of is not slave morality. A hierarchical structure is just and best for all. There’s no need for a leach class. A state’s guardians ought to be rewarded with honours, not gold. 92
Posted by Frank on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:11 | # According to Aristotle: societies cycle from aristocracy, monarchy, [democracy] and their bad forms. 6 forms that switch out. Mixed forms are possible too. - The ruling elite won’t be envied if it’s not wealthy. It should pursue personal virtue and to win societal honours. - Correction on my previous comment on Plato: I intended to say he mentioned the Uroboros (the eternal, self-sufficient worm), which I like to apply to the eternal state idea. From his philosophy I gather that he would like such a thing, and that view slipped out in my rushed comment. A state must be designed to go to war though. Plato taught this. If it’s not ready to fight, then it won’t be able to fight when such is necessary for its defence. 93
Posted by Frank on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:30 | # I think there’s merit to Pareto’s 80-20 rule, but oligarchy isn’t inevitable. Historically it’s only one form of government among 6. We should strive for an aristocratic class of Guardians who keep little personal wealth. Sparta is a good starter to gather ideas from. The distributists and their ideas of preventing extreme wealth inequality is also worthwhile to prevent envy. However the wealth shouldn’t be allowed to corrupt them (the goal is not a Porsche in every garage - resources could be put to better use), and a hierarchy of power is vital and necessary. - Aristocracies do tend to develop into oligarchies according to Aristotle (Other forms tend to develop into other things.) So, laws simply need to be drawn up to prevent this. Nepotism is of course an major threat. An aristocracy rules for the benefit of the state which for us exists to serve the nation*. An oligarchy rules for itself as a leach. - *I’d add that it serves God too, but folks would complain… 94
Posted by Frank on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:56 | # I’m not familiar with Robert Michels, but wiki says he was a socialist turned fascist. He moved to Italy it says, and I think the Nordic character (due to culture as well as genetics) is slightly different from the Italian. With us I think there’s better chance at virtue. A deluded socialist (Orwell) begins to awaken to the true reality of socialism:
But I think that’s merely the first step. If he’d continued awakening he’d have realised there are alternatives though very different from socialism and its BS promise of equality. I’m a huge fan of Orwell btw, but I don’t like what appears to be his ultimate conclusion, though maybe that was just there as part of the story and not his final conclusion. Nationalism, religion, particular ties, a check and balance of different competing powers (Machiavelli’s idea - powers tend to act for their benefit alone if allowed due to man’s fallen nature), and tradition encourage men to act for the greater good. Nietzsche might see such things as the chains of slavery, but that’s just BS. What if the ruling elite are happier under such “chains”? A mild eugenics can be performed within such a state. The dysgenic rot and soulless hedonism of our current society can be removed without some new superman leach class. There are additional alternatives. 95
Posted by Frank on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:19 | # The European tradition seems to emphasise doing good. Man should fight for what’s “right”. This might be Christian only, or it might be pagan as well. I suspect both. The Chinese Confucian though seems much less voluntary. Peer pressure and the law as the judge of what’s “right” seem used more there. I prefer the European, not because it’s European but because it appears more fulfilling and, ah, “good”. Of course, I could be mistaken… I haven’t gone through and carefully studied these things. - From wikipedia on Strauss, I find this interesting:
Strauss has always impressed me more than Nietzsche. I obviously don’t like either, but Strauss is a terrible (awesome) enemy. 96
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:21 | # One problem that regulars at MR keep avoiding (there are several others) is : what if most whites, by virtue of their particular genetic constitutions as they interact with the current state of culture and ideas, simply do not care about white racial preservation? What then? What are our moral rights, and duties?—Leon Haller You are implying that most Whites control the state of affairs. Most Whites did not want “diversity” when it was brought upon by jews and helpers, and most Whites, through social engineering, may now indeed feel they want the “diversity” they have “learned” to “celebrate.” Too bad. Most Whites then were not relevant. Most Whites now are not relevant. The power elites are. I recognise no “moral” right of theirs to do what they do to me by virtue of destroying my race, and all who know what we are on this Earth for ought to know that our duty is to not let the suicidals—indeed, one should think of them as a pack of suicide bombers receiving no brownie points for their deeds—drive off our EGIs off the cliff by killing themselves, and us. Stupid questions, in my opinion. (pug) _______________
97
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:30 | # As I see it, to be a (White) man is to be a warrior is to tell the truth - as to actions having consequences. (NeoNietzsche)
No value can exist apart from God. The most rational course for an atheist is not WN, but total selfish amorality, in the manner of Hitler, Stalin, or the truest (if proto-) Nietzschean, the Marquis de Sade. Thus, the WN atheist can be wholly racist as he wishes. But why sacrifice for our race? Who cares about truth in a purely material world, “red in tooth and claw”? Just fleece the suckers as opportunities present themselves. 98
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:22 | # So, LH, store up your Treasures in Heaven, and then hope that you can locate them in the Hereafter. For I’m sure that you and many another of us would much prefer to be the isolated underclass of the present regime rather than having to associate with the racial aliens in our midst as their masters. (NeoNietzsche)
Of course, in a diverse society, I want my own race to rule. I’m no fool. 99
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:34 | #
Lol!!!! Oh dear, that probably includes me. 100
Posted by uh on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:34 | # What is your moral theory justifying imposing your (ideological) minority will on the majority, forcing them to accept your preference for non-white removals? I’ve raised this problem myself, though in the form of an assertion - “WNs would impose their (ult. incoherent) minority will on the majority” - to bring forward both the hidden will-to-power of white nationalism and the sheer impossibility of realizing its aim, which, if one is of mind to pathologize, leads to a most unkind diagnosis. I suppose pug or perhaps Wandrin will say that oppression by WNs is better for the majority than that by Jews & the “tide-ghost” (figure that out!). Insofar as the former would lead them through the centuries in a much easier fashion, not posing any permanent existential threat, they would be right. But as the ideological subset at MR has as much chance of capturing the masses as the subset governing Stormfront, the problem necessarily narrows back to the individual WN’s frustrated desire to rule. As you, with your smooth romanesque wording, would chain us to your desire under cover of “God”—a kindly if antiquated solution. 101
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:36 | #
[Read and be instructed:] It was Nietzsche’s hope to educationally cultivate a new master-class of “Gentilshomme,” following the disastrous passing of the historic noble masters after two millennia of Jewish-inspired promotion of subversive (Christian and proto-Communist) slave morality, in the contest that Nietzsche styled as “Rome versus Judea”: “Let’s bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values ‘good and bad,’ ‘good and evil’ have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. And if it’s true that the second value has for a long time had the upper hand, even now there’s still no lack of places where the battle goes on without a final decision. We could even say that in the intervening time the battle has been constantly drawn to greater heights and in the process to constantly greater depths and has become constantly more spiritual, so that nowadays there is perhaps no more decisive mark of a ‘higher nature,’ a more spiritual nature, than that it is split in that sense and is truly still a battleground for those opposites. The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called ‘Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome.’ To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered ‘guilty of hatred against the entire human race.’ And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience. (Incidentally, we must not underestimate the deep consistency of the Christian instinct, when it ascribed this very book of hate to the name of the disciple of love, the same man to whom it attributed that enthusiastic amorous gospel —: there is some truth to this, no matter how much literary counterfeiting may have been necessary for this purpose). The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality. Just compare people with related talents — say, the Chinese or the Germans — with the Jews, in order to understand what is ranked first and what is ranked fifth. Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there’s not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is people bow down to today in Rome itself as the personification of all the highest values — and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame — in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. It is true that in the Renaissance there was an incredibly brilliant reawakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who had woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called “the church.” But Judea immediately triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of ressentiment, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a result, the re-establishment of the church — as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquillity of classical Rome. In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense than that, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which there was in Europe, in seventeenth and eighteenth century France, broke apart under the instincts of popular ressentiment — never on earth has there been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It’s true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanity — and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old mendacious slogan of ressentiment, ‘supreme rights of the majority,’ in opposition to the will for a low condition, for abasement, for equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind — in opposition to all that rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan ‘supreme rights of the few’! Like a last signpost to a different road, Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh — we should consider well what a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman. . . . ” — Did that end it? Was that greatest of all opposition of ideals thus set aside for all time? Or was it merely postponed, postponed indefinitely? . . . Some day, after a much longer preparation, will an even more fearful blaze from the ancient fire not have to take place? More than that: wouldn’t this be exactly what we should hope for with all our strength? Even will it? Even demand it? Anyone who, like my readers, begins to reflect on these points, to think further, will have difficulty coming to a quick conclusion — reason enough for me to come to a conclusion myself, provided that it has been sufficiently clear for a long time what I want, precisely what I want with that dangerous slogan which is written on the body of my last book: ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ . . . At least this does not mean ‘Beyond Good and Bad.’ —” (Genealogy I 16,17) His “readers,” his “Gentlemen,” his “Free Spirits,” his “good Europeans,” were to be the men who would “become who they are,” who would “revive the ancient fire,” and who were to be the paladins of a class of talented tyrants to eventually emerge from the European political scene, as the mass of the population became further debased by democratic modernity: “Whether that which now distinguishes the European be called ‘civilization’ or ‘humanization’ or ‘progress’; whether one calls it simply, without implying any praise or blame, the democratic movement in Europe: behind all the moral and political foregrounds indicated by such formulas a great physiological process is taking place and gathering greater and ever greater impetus — the process of the assimilation of all Europeans, their growing detachment from the conditions under which races dependent on climate and class originate, their increasing independence of any definite milieu which, through making the same demands for centuries, would like to inscribe itself on soul and body — that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially supra-national and nomadic type of man which, physiologically speaking, possesses as its typical distinction a maximum of the art and power of adaptation. This process of the becoming European, the tempo of which can be retarded by great relapses but which will perhaps precisely through them gain in vehemence and depth — the still-raging storm and stress of ‘national feeling’ belongs here, likewise the anarchism now emerging —: this process will probably lead to results which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the apostles of ‘modern ideas,’ would be least inclined to anticipate. The same novel conditions which will on average create a leveling and mediocritizing of man — a useful, industrious, highly serviceable and able herd-animal man — are adapted in the highest degree to giving rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and enticing quality. For while that power of adaptation which continually tries out changing conditions and begins a new labor with every new generation, almost with every new decade, cannot make possible the powerfulness of the type; while the total impression produced by such future Europeans will probably be that of multifarious, garrulous, weak-willed and highly employable workers who need a master, a commander, as they need their daily bread; while, therefore, the democratization of Europe will lead to the production of a type prepared for slavery in the subtlest sense: in individual and exceptional cases the strong man will be found to turn out stronger and richer than has perhaps ever happened before — thanks to the unprejudiced nature of his schooling, thanks to the tremendous multiplicity of practice, art and mask. What I mean to say is that the democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the breeding of tyrants — in every sense of that word, including the most spiritual. “I hear with pleasure that our sun is moving rapidly in the direction of the constellation of Hercules: and I hope that men on the earth will in this matter emulate the sun. And we at their head, we good Europeans! —” (BGE, “Peoples and Fatherlands,” 242-3) These were to be the so-regarded “evil” men - rising above the contemptible, sanctimonious, inverted, liberationist perspectives of lesser persons - the men whom Nietzsche’s fictional Zarathustra would want for the rectification of the historic Zarathustra’s error in introducing the delusional moral dualism of slave morality: “Good and Evil”: “I have not been asked, as I should have been asked, what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth, the mouth of the first immoralist: for what constitutes the tremendous historical uniqueness of that Persian is just the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to consider the fight of good and evil the very wheel in the machinery of things, — the transposition of morality into the metaphysical, as a force, cause, and end in itself, is his work. But this question itself is at bottom its own answer. Zarathustra created this most calamitous error, morality; consequently, he must also be the first to recognize it. Not only has he more experience in this matter, for a longer time, than any other thinker — after all, the whole of history is the refutation by experiment of the principle of the so-called ‘moral world order’ —: what is more important is that Zarathustra is more truthful than any other thinker. His doctrine and his alone posits truthfulness as the highest virtue — this means the opposite of the cowardice of ‘idealists’ who flee from reality, Zarathustra has more intestinal fortitude than all other thinkers taken together. To speak the truth and to shoot well with arrows, that is Persian virtue. — Am I understood? ... The self-overcoming of morality out of truthfulness, the self-overcoming of the moralist into his opposite — into me — that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth.” (Ecce Homo, “Why I Am a Destiny,” 3) Nietzsche’s “Superman” was thus neither the cartoon character that stupid and ignorant Greater Judean goyim would imagine nor the proposed product of Darwinian eugenic measures. Superhumanity was to be the re-attainment of a manhood that had virtually disappeared with the passing of ancient Classical culture, wherein many men still combined the virtues of unsentimental, clear-eyed, ideology-free intellect with regard to politics and the courage and appetite for personally taking up arms for (moralistically) unrationalized imperial conquest, as was the resort and destiny of all healthy High Cultures. As Nietzsche presciently saw the prospects: “[The strength to will is strongest] of all and most astonishing in that huge empire-in-between, where Europe as it were flows back into Asia, in Russia. There the strength to will has for long been stored up and kept in reserve, there the will is waiting menacingly — uncertain whether it is a will to deny or a will to affirm — in readiness to discharge itself, to borrow one of the physicists’ favorite words. It may need not only wars in India and Asian involvements to relieve Europe of the greatest danger facing it, but also internal eruptions, the explosion of the empire into small fragments, and above all the introduction of the parliamentary imbecility, including the obligation upon everyone to read his newspaper at breakfast. I do not say this, because I desire it: the reverse would be more after my heart I mean such an increase in the Russian threat that Europe would have to resolve to become equally threatening, namely to acquire a single will by means of a new caste dominating all Europe, a protracted terrible will of its own which could set its objectives thousands of years ahead — so that the long-drawn-out comedy of its petty states and the divided will of its dynasties and democracies should finally come to an end. The time for petty politics is past: the very next century will bring with it the struggle for mastery over the whole earth — the compulsion to grand politics.” BGE, “We Scholars,” 208) 102
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:08 | #
Scriptural, apostolic Christianity is beyond egalitarian in its Beatitudinal inversions. Of course, latter-day accommodations to the failure of the Second Advent to eventuate meant that Roman Catholic rationalizations and revisions had to be introduced, upon which you now conveniently, antithetically, rely in recalling the Whore of Babvlon’s association with the Throne.
Saul/Paul didn’t condemn it because he was trying to keep his rebellious flock from being cut down before they could “meet Jesus in the air”. You indulge in the typical Christian failure to understand what was written as to its context. His prescriptions were not ones for the ages, but rather for the immediate circumstance of his associates in danger and in expectation.
Even if that means having hispanic “house niggers” in white homes? If so, good for you. Then you’re a step ahead of the Vilcabambans hereabouts. 103
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:37 | #
This is incorrect. Your remarks merely reflect your own underclass palliation of the modern underclass existential dilemma. You suffer from uncompensated civilizational “incompleteness” and exclusion from “healthy” aristocratic pursuits: 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”). 104
Posted by Frank on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:08 | # NN, I recommend you read Bushido. It can be found in the philosophy section of any major bookstore, and it takes half a day to read. There’s nothing Christian in it, though the author praises Christianity a bit and (respectfully) quotes Nietzsche. It’s about Japanese chivalry which arose within a natural religion, as opposed to a revealed religion like ours. Though they’re not white, I was immensely impressed with the code. It’s somewhat similar to how Americans used to think under the planter class. Yes, slavery was a mistake, but there was much to admire within that class’s behaviour. Also, the US was not white territory at first - many Amerindians were here early on. One piece that the Japanese seem to have learned is that rulers have an easier time if popular as opposed to being tyrants. And I think life is more fulfilling if one actually serves the good. Yes deceit can serve good, but such should be seen as murder and usury: of last resort. Seeing through the myths of our society… that’s not so difficult. One learns to have faith and to find beauty to serve. If most men of the past have been evil, we simply need to design a society around this, one that encourages men to become good. Above all, there needs to be no leach class. The work isn’t complete until there’s no longer such a class. - You seem obsessed with the idea of being a master. I don’t find that of value myself though. Serving the good serves me better than does making myself into some sort of master. The warrior who dies defending his family dies well even if death means the end of whatever power he held. You’re also convinced that we’re all peasants in spirit. I agree such is strong here, but there is a warrior ethos among many of us that isn’t as strong in you. And you also seem to see humanity as composed of individuals who live under artificial nations rather than within real nations. I’m not an individual, and I pity those who are. 105
Posted by Frank on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:22 | # “Deceit” as I mentioned is with reference to serious lies. And I’m well aware that historically deceit was very much a part of warfare. Warring is often about maneuvering into some advantage. At the same time, partaking in a delusion oneself doesn’t seem dishonourable. If one proclaims it wrong to steal and then upholds such a value, then such is not wrong. However, declaring thievery wrong while secretly thieving from one’s own people with the goal merely of personal profit is clearly wrong. Individuals should pursue honour and simultaneously seek to become the best at whatever occupation. With so many paths to take, many can strive to become the “top 10” this or that. - The ancients worked all this out though. All we’ve to do is to read the Greeks and Romans and gather the bits from their works, as well as from the few traces that remain of the Nordics and Celts… An honourable society we could all love isn’t so difficult to conceive of and develop in the mind. It’s merely the difficult to bring such a paradise into reality and to foresee all the future troubles it might have. - If such is futile, then I’ll enjoy my meaningless service towards that impossible end. The process then and not the end becomes the reward. I don’t find anything but dust in what you espouse. 106
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:26 | # Frank,
And that is the case during certain phases of High Cultural evolution. However, and for example, Late Imperial regimes have found it necessary to emphasize reverence for the Throne at the sacrifice of popularity, in order to forestall disorder within the palace, wherein the greater danger lies.
“The good” lacks definition other than the personally subjective. Thus virtually everyone serves “the good” by his own lights.
I think we will need a full account of your listing of our societal myths in order to acquiesce in that assessment.
Please direct me to the summary of politico-economic principle that affirms the realizability and desirability of your proposal (aside from the question of its meaningfulness such that its fulfillment could be recognized.)
That is a misimpression in consequence of Nietzsche’s emphases.
In my book, the warrior dies even better amidst ennobling his family/nation/race by acquisition of power.
So it will appear to the ranks, in the modern day, when surveying the officers. And perhaps my warrior ethos has been besmirched by having devoted my intellect to the highly complex challenge of discovering measures for surviving well - as opposed to thoughtlessly contemplating the simple procedure involved in dying well. 107
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:51 | #
I gather from your remarks that you are thus alluding to my own regarding “lies and violence”. In writing of “lies” I refer, rather, to the means of priestcraft: theology and ideology.
Thank you for that affirmation.
You seem to be well-equipped to hold forth on the subject of personal virtue.
That is very reassuring.
I hope, nevertheless, that you will work all this out for us.
Then hold high your lance despite all, noble Knight!
Well, when you’ve had a chance to sleep it off, things might appear different in the morning. Post a comment:
Next entry: The last of the bandwagons plays on
|
|
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) |
Posted by Itzkoff on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:58 | #
Unrelated but just reading this site I can say it is filled with pseudoscientific crap! Genetic clustering analysis had shown that an European is about 37% of the time more genetically similar to an East Asian than to another European when about 300 loci are examined. How can there be race if this is true? Yeah sorry, there isn’t. Race is a social construct, not a biological one.