|
|
|
Critique of Palingenesis by Potential Frolic I want to explain my struggle with the idea of Palingenesis and what it has taught me about nationalism and myself. The desire to do this flows from frequent encounters here and elsewhere with “the Palingenetic Necessity”, which I define as the conviction that no other model of political action can support white survival in our times. Understanding the problem Seeing the destructive forces working upon our peoples presently, and fearing very much for his own survival and that of his people, the (folkish) nationalist turns his eye to Palingenesis, which presents itself as the opposite to today’s politics of ethnic suicide. The goal of Palingenesis is to renew the values of a supposed heroic and glorious past, these values being assumed to be real and contingent even if the past in question is only a myth, and to venture towards heroism and glory in the present. GW has argued that advocates of Palingenesis are not necessarily good psychologists. They do not take account of the fact that the man is of the time in which he is born, decadent or otherwise, and carries only two possibilities within himself: (i) to belong to that time and have no truck with, or even knowledge of, the truth of his Self, or (ii) to seek out truth even at the cost of turning away - if someone tells him how - from time and place and artifice. There is no special third option for the rebirth of the spirit as heroism and glory, according to GW. Heroism and glory are not characteristics of the true Self but of immersion in violence. They can only appear in time and place, therefore, and cannot be different to or better than the rest of the artifice. They are a beautiful deception - in fact, a bastardization for the purpose of reifying political violence. As psychology, then, Palingenesis as it appears in fascism and revolutionary conservatism is a sham, albeit an alluring one. It answers the following two wholly utilitarian questions in the positive: 1. Is not violence done by the “heroic and glorious” to others in the world who create or support decadence and disorder a nett good? 2. Is not the violence done by forcing a one-dimensional model upon the man less harmful than decadence? After all, the violence returns to the man the capacity to make adaptive choices. Both these questions require a cost/benefit assessment, some of the cost factors in which were claimed by GW, in the context of National Socialist Germany, to include these observable facets:
I am now going to abstract some of the underlying aspects of Palingenesis in history and examine them in a non-historical context. My definition of palingenetic politics is this: a state that is ideologically committed to purifying the life and the blood of the people, and to freeing and aggrandizing them through actions predicated on zero-sum competition between in- and out-groups. This reduces to the state wielding the nation as a tool for competition in its own name. Certain recognizable patterns emerge from this practice, as certain methods of control and propaganda (realization of the nation’s purpose, in the minds of the true believer) are found to be more effective than others. These patterns are: ? Moral order restructured around the goal of successful competition with out-groups. Society takes on a new moral order. External cues related to competition with out-groups now trump the internal processes essential to self-expression of the people. The life of the nation becomes hollowed out as it is refashioned as a weapon to guarantee nothing but its continued existence. Palingenesis is thus made synonymous, by dint of a very simple reasoning process, with “survival of our people”, and this reappears in our time as the “Palingenetic Necessity”. Any action, thought, statement or feeling can therefore be evaluated in terms of its effect on such a distant, yet morally-loaded abstraction as “survival of our people”, by looking at its effects on the process/machine of palingenetic politics. To be for Palingenesis is to be for the life of our people, to be against Palingenesis is to be for the death of our people. This sharply polarizing moral divide empowers the worst part of white man, his Achilles’ heel: his tendency to submit to abstract moral imperatives. Given what weapons now exist and are coming into existence, it remains to be seen whether fanatical adherence to a zero-sum competition model would be more adaptive than fanatical adherence to the anti-racist non-zero-sum competition model of our present day. It would prevent race-replacement but could also trigger myriad catastrophes, just as this mental/moral model precipitated World War II quite directly. The last assertion isn’t to be rebuffed with the posting of allied memoranda or a relativization of the concept of responsibility in light of complex chains of cause and effect. ? Mythicization injected into the meme-stream and favored over rational thinking, especially touching matters of identity, national interest, history, and future goals. A mythically-exaggerated viewpoint touching these things is considered a moral necessity. The critique of this may be considered immoral. The nation demands protection, even against Truth. ? Centralization of narrative creating unity within society, while the moral directive drives this to excess in the form of group-think. There are denunciations of traitors, etc. It’s a similarly fractious atmosphere to some WN blog comments sections, or to Athens in the time of “professional accusors”. Weak-minded whites dogpile on top of each other trying to excel one another in the fulfillment of the moral directive with the same slavishness that they now pursue anti-racism. This slavishness in the name of serving abstract moral imperatives may be the white man’s specific particular ugliness. ? Zero-sum competition as dominant paradigm makes the relationships to out-groups and neighbors deliberately fractious. This attitude makes militarization “inevitable”. ? Extrapolation of psychological zero-sum competition model demands that arms races in every aspect of existence be seen as “inevitabilities” which must be paranoiacally pursued. The dominance of this attitude does not require much before it leads to white-on-white violence. ? Cretinization of the ‘tough-boy’ class. When it becomes socially lauded (i.e. one can get praise points) to develop an aggressive tendency within oneself, such as is demanded by successfully rigorous zero-sum competition with outgroups, the morally cowardly goody-two-shoes types begin to become ‘tough guys’. Following the logic that this toughness is good and uniquely essential, the question then becomes “How tough can you be?”. Arms races take place within palingenetic white society, favoring those who can outwardly signal the existence of these mental states more unambiguously than others. These dynamics already play out in the comments sections of our own blogs. After the first intellectual sets the stage for the moral necessity of being a ‘tough-boy’, the next memetic generation propagandically patterned after this model suffers a degradation in quality, as the caveats and fine tuning present in the original ‘prototype’ intellectual are not accurately reproducible within the tough-boy. As the first propaganda-inspired tough boy inspires others, quality begins to degrade until we have this personality module being run in excess, when cretinism is the inevitable result. A cretin is a morally-empowered idiot zealously carrying out the supposed will of the collective. ? The “palingenetic necessity” is not arguable through science, since our understanding of social and political process models can’t be said yet to have achieved the objectivity and predictive power necessary to constitute a science. It should be obvious to readers of political and social critiques or treatises, the extent to which everyone who is analyzing these extremely complex phenomena is more an artist, indeed an artiste, than a scientist. In other words, you can argue that immigration hinders EGI by using science. You can’t (yet) use science to argue that the best way to obviate race-replacement is Palingenesis. Our understanding of gene flow in populations has reached the level where it can be described as “scientific”. Even at a primitive level, our understanding of this is sufficiently free from subjective bias - since apart from certain career research scientists, no one has any great emotional stock in a certain model of gene flow winning out over another one. But the extremely personal nature of political opinions, being immediately and rather obviously tethered to one’s self-concept and self-assertion, would have to make us suspect a subjective bias in the advocacy of any political model. Therefore, political process-modelling remains pre-scientific for at least two reasons: (i) because the phenomena it attempts to understand are some of the most complex in existence (i.e. more complex than gene flow), and (ii) because it links more directly to human self-concepts and emotional self-management, thus giving to assertions pro and contra an emotional resonance which hinders objective abstract reasoning processes. In short, any assertion of “Palingenetic Necessity” rests on the authority of your own mental ability to internally model complex political and social processes. Yet a moment’s reflection will reveal how poorly humans are able to do this. A look at the image-calculation algorithm being employed by those arguing in favor of this shows the ‘cartoonish’ nature of these “understandings”: one sees goose-stepping Nazis and infers ultimate commitment and psychological sincerity in the service of a grand ideal. The loyalties of other nations, not being obscenely painted in terms which none can ignore, are presumed not to exist or presumed wanting. This is a reflection of the dullness of sensibility which requires great cinematic effects to produce any acknowledgment of something non-tangible existing. Absent the theatrics, non-tangibles are presumed nullities. In certain, not uncharacteristic instances, palingenesis advocates have such a feeling of mistrust towards fellow whites that nothing less than the alienating clarion call of Nazism will reassure them of the existence of some substratum of loyalty. However the crudest psychological masks are always the most easily donned, and the crudeness of the requisite shows of loyalty births the problem of informers. An argument could be made that the desire for Palingenetic nationalism amongst western whites is actually a reflection of their having been culturally Judaized in the post-war period. It is my belief that a palingenesis advocate is a Judaized white, seeking to throw off his yoke in the most violent manner possible, and thus rebelling in the most extreme terms, but still operating within a Judaized mental framework. The palingenesis advocate has ‘bought’ the interpretation that the West fought for tolerance against intolerance in WWII, which is a Jewish manipulation of historical interpretation; he has succumbed to pop-culture’s alienating influences, losing his traditional cultural mooring – the resulting alienation is what makes a swing towards revolutionary eschatological fantasy possible; and he has accepted the moralistic lie, that Hitler represents some uniquely potent Shaman figure, made to stand for the negative dipole of the Judaized moral universe which the young rebel is trying to invert. Hollywood will have cultivated in him a taste for great cinematic effects – and the inevitable result of this thoroughgoing process of Judaization is that, when one wants it to stop but has no external reference points, one cries out the name of its central bogeyman: Hitler! The equivalent of Milton’s fallen angle saying: “Evil, be thou my good.” ? Because arguments for Palingenesis make more assumptions about political processes and outcomes than can be supported scientifically, they cannot use the appeal to reason which is the basis of European social consensus-building. They are left with an emotional appeal, to those who have actually internalized a visceral feeling of danger at the prospect of being race-replaced. Thus, Palingenesis limits its appeal to those who are recovering from the emotional shell-shock of confronting the reality of race-replacement. People who build this feeling of violation and desire for vengeance into their personality structure believe that the strength of their feeling will be enough to inspire them to override the traditional European consensus-building process, and radically take control (presumably of the government) as a radicalized minority driven by zeal. They see themselves as achieving a post-rational domination of society based on the strength of their emotive convictions. This is how advocates of Palingenesis understand or see the future political process unfolding. One very important consequence flows from this paradigm: ? The steering of a political community based on the emotional drives of a ruling clique implies authoritarianism. This is because much of what they do will be seen as arbitrary, and suppression will be seen as the immediately available solution. In this sense, the Palingenesis advocates will come to understand why ruling cliques generally excel at “doing nothing” (i.e. maintaining the status quo while using their influence to quietly accumulate personal wealth), because they will come to learn the difficulties imposed by ever actually trying to “do something” (i.e. the resistance offered by anyone affected negatively by their actions - and there is always someone). Since Palingenesis advocates see themselves as revolutionizing society largely pro-actively through their own actions, this stirred-up resistance will be quite large. The inevitable logical implication in a mind which has acceded to “the Palingenetic Necessity”, is that these resistances must be put down with whatever force will do the job. ? In their model, this is considered a plausible outcome. I believe that the mental models of Palingenesis advocates do not include realistic evaluations of the likely reactions of non-advocates to their political plans. Palingenesis has difficulty avoiding excesses in all these areas, because as a model it acknowledges no other reality besides that of zero-sum competition. In misunderstanding how obsession with ” the Palingenetic Necessity” obscures other realities and ways of viewing politics/oneself/the nation, one habitually views white society from the zero-sum frame, and cuts oneself off from experiencing anything else. Having admitted the absolute moral imperative of zero-sum survivalism, one’s relationship to one’s nation is effectively stuck in this paradigm. Memetic uptake of palingenetic ideas debarred by emotional repulsion The motivation structures which underlie the genesis and absorption of memes are just as important as the memes themselves. This is especially true when considering philosophies of white survival which are ultimately graded in terms of effectiveness, truth value and virality. NS has a maximum putative effectiveness in theory, a minimal effectiveness in practice, and a virality index that goes far into the negative. Today that philosophy exists, outside of the prison system, primarily as a rehabilitating way-station for those shell-shocked by the realization of race-replacement. The difficulty in memetic transfer of palingenetic philosophies is related to the motivation structure driving the adoption of these philosophies. In out time, Palingenesis is essentially a racial revenge fantasy. Advocates can be seen to wallow in ego identities corresponding to one who feels robbed, wronged, and in danger - but who resolves triumphantly to squash his enemies, regardless of the cost. Thus, Palingenesis knows how to be the victim, how to be the make-believe triumphant conqueror-hero, and how to be the ruthless denizen of its own self-interestedness. The problem is that these psychological states are repulsive to all but those who think they have no other choice but to inhabit them: in other words, those who are: (a) deeply self-identified as whites, (b) viscerally perceive the imminent downfall of whites, and (c) react to this in the strongest personal terms. This is an idiosyncratic combination of identities and reactions, and one of the long-shot hopes of Palingenesis is that as we are continually inundated with non-whites, everyone will take upon themselves this psychological profile. This does, in fact, show constant signs of coming about, but perhaps not to the extent required for Palingenesis to become viral. This assumption forces passivity on those who hold it, until a putative future tipping point at which the “inevitable” logic of Palingenesis will become manifest to everyone. The difficulty, as far as meme uptake is concerned, is that these emotional states are not attractive to human beings. Once the requisite psychological state (basically, in our time, terror at race-replacement) has been induced in a white person, he or she may take up these ideas. Yet the emotive content of these ideas and the channels they are broadcast on make their uptake a net negative for any normal, balanced mainstream white person. It is the emotional ugliness of the obsessively zero-sum competition model that whites react to, not its logical consonance with observed reality.
A glyph is a mark on a piece of paper. Thinking of glyphs, for me a picture comes to mind of a metallic square with a ‘g’ or an ‘s’ protruding out from it. These things were aligned in rows to create a line of print on the page of a book. A glyph is also a word that I use to mean something represented as a simplified symbol, when the act of observation has ceased and the detection of stereotyped characteristics triggers the insertion of a representative label into one’s stream of thoughts. A glyph is the label, and the image triggered in your mind by that word or label which you abstracted from experience. We know that the glyph simplifies the reality, and even by its presence, signifies that the wonderment at that reality and the observation of it has ceased, and it has been mined, to some extent whored, for its usable thought-Gold: a glyph. Glyphs are amenable to manipulation in the service of an ego, and every day in comments sections of white survival message boards, imaginary white glyphs do imaginary battle against imaginary non-white hoards: this is what people do when they strategize. Essentially, these glyphs are pawns on a chessboard - there with the express purpose of expanding into the other half of the board while defending our own, and knocking out the opponent’s pieces. If some pawns have to die, or be sacrificed for the collective, with a ridiculous overzealousness we welcome that possibility. We think of our people as pawns, as simple units in a struggle between forces. Someone wrote once in the comments section of this blog:
This conundrum puzzled me as a young man, and I sat one day on the Aachener Weiher reading Joachim Fest’s biography of Hitler, and wondering to what extent Adolf Hitler could be said to love the German people. I was quite astounded by what I found: he barely even knew any Germans. All through his formative years and until he reached power, he hardly had any intimate friendships of any kind with anyone. When he began to have any social experience beyond the flop house and his artistic patrons, it was in the military and the political parties. When and on what basis then, was this love conceived? Was it his flop house comrades he loved (though he later had his best friend of those times killed)? His icy and distant Austrian father? How does any of that get extrapolated to the German people, honestly? There is no actual way to love an entire nation, you simply extrapolate a feeling you have towards certain specific people and acknowledge that it is shared uniqueness and shared descent which contribute to the feeling. My question, then, is: where did Hitler experience this love? My discovery was, that he didn’t. He “loved” Germans as glyphs in a cataclysmic mental war-game, where they represent the forces of good - for him connected to Wagnerian opera, architecture, “civilization”, and military success (read: marks of improved social standing), all enacted in the service of a racial/national revenge fantasy and driven by such paradigms as “the humiliation of Versailles” and “the impending Communist take-over”. There is no deep experience of the German people, unless we posit that one can get that from attending Wagner’s operas. I would like to point readers to the real difficulties which this man experienced in German society before he became the first Mega-Star of mass media entertainment: absent the stage and centrality, he by no means could bring loving relationships into being with the Germans of his time. That was very problematic for him, and he was looked on as a peculiarity until he could be turned into an apocalyptic showpiece. Hence the formulation Weltmacht oder Untergang - world dominion or downfall - which, in some form or another, constantly reappears throughout his speeches leading up to the war. Hence the willingness to sacrifice men. A man who loved would have not allowed the possibility of Untergang. Unfortunately you cannot love a glyph, and those entrapped in fantasy cannot see the world except through glyphs, while being certain that they have grasped the entire phenomenon. There is another way of experiencing your countrymen or brethren. As you remove more and more pre-conceived understandings from the experience of them, people can distend into something that has a significance beyond one’s own idées fixes. Instead of being experienced as categories, i.e. “German”, “Englishman”, people can be experienced without interspersing political meaning or any sort of meaning. Viewed in this way, people appear more as fountains of energy than as discrete role-players in this or that drama connected to your conception of self, and there emerges a shared feeling with them. Knowing people who are sprung from a common blood, you can perceive that a peculiar frequency seems to come from them. If you are sprung from a similar source, you can perceive how their energy reverberates in you consonantly and dissonantly, and that you can share in it more easily than when you were among more alien peoples. In moving amongst them and perceiving this, you can feel a way of relating to them that brings you closer to yourself. You can have experiences with them that bring you nearer to yourself, and absolve your discreteness, your particular isolation, into a shared continuity with them. And these may be some of the most meaningful experiences of your life. After that, sending them off to die for a fetish or thinking of them in terms of categories becomes impossible. Its my contention that the palingenetic dream ... the heroic and the glorious ... is an ego-game using whites as glyphs, and the philosophy that loves… is not. Comments:2
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:43 | # The problem with the analysis is that it is a retrospective view masquerading as a prospective view. It doesn’t examine what people thought in the 1930s, particularly the Germans, but takes the postwar paradigm and asserts it as pre-war.
Public Opinion, 1935-1946 Book by Hadley Cantril, Mildred Strunk; Princeton University Press, 1951 Even with the Allied boot firmly placed upon their neck and facing Allied ordered starvation the German people would not forsake NS. 3
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:17 | # Tanstaafl, Adolf Hitler was a great and a good man. He was the savior of Germany. That is why the best of the Germans were loyal to him to the end. I suppose some will accuse me of ‘Hitler-worship’, well, I couldn’t care less. As for the Englishmen who go weak in the knees at the thought of National Socialism, just watch, they’ll be running for the lifeboat marked NS when the time comes. Of course they will. 4
Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:05 | # @Captainchaos It turns out CC that you don’t need to worry about black and minority population growths in the US as Obama and the US government through Planned Parenthood are committing black genocide through abortion.
RT interview with Rev. Dr. Clenard H. Childress Jr. founder of http://www.blackgenocide.org.
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-02-03/us-abortion-african-american.html Don’t have it on there YouTube channel yet. 5
Posted by PF on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:45 | # CC
That is just a compound word, and it frames the argument as a personality accusation against you. As in, CaptainChaos isn’t cool for this and this reason. That personalizes things in a way that need not be. The larger picture is, this philosophy is bankrupt - for the reasons cited above.
How can you be so sure about what the future holds for any of us? Did God tell you what was going to happen? Are you successful at modeling what happens in your day-to-day social interactions? Why wouldnt larger scale modeling be more problematic? And what about NS do you imagine frightens GW or me? The marching? The screaming at boot camp? Hiding behind a rationalization about the necessity of something won’t save you from experiencing visceral fear in the moment of actually having to perform an action. And terrified compulsion of the necessity of something being brought about “or all else is lost”, most definitely is not courage. This insistence on ‘willingness to go all the way’ as teleology is nuts. Its you congratulating yourself for being better than me because your model of an imagined future and your imagined role in it is more cataclysmic than mine. Supposedly this is a deep commentary about our quality as men - yet what must you think when you realize that I’ve been an adherent of Palingenesis up until recently, for most of my young life: does that win me “fringe cred” with you? What I’m trying to point out above is that, regardless of this personality struggle of proving manliness by demonstrating ‘willingness to go all the way’, with things as they are today, you could very well ‘go all the way’ and fall flat on your face, as your direct predecessor did. 6
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:00 | # PF[,]
I refuse to accept the suggestion that is “just,” or merely, a compound word, after all, I did type it.
It’s all about me.
And of course the accusation of ‘Nazism’ or ‘Hitler-worship’ has no power to shame anyone, ever, at any time, away from racialism. Therefore, it is superfluous to address just that phenomenon and its effect on an individual.
Maybe I’ll address that later, and it won’t be hard.
I’m pretty good at reading people, so there’s that.
No: slavery, genocide, gangsterism, puritanism! Funny thing, the ‘liberal’ democracies behaved in ways towards Germany more egregious than Germany behaved towards them. Crack goes the cosmic egg.
I recall you saying that someone would have to kill you before you would accept NS, were you being intentionally melodramatic, or was that unintentional.
That’s right, no such thing as desensitization to engaging in a fearful activity by training in preparation to face it, you know, like in boot camp. Keep casting those pearls before us swine. 7
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:13 | # According to the polls the Germans who felt NS was a good idea, the majority held that belief not because of any of the above reasons, but simply because it put bread on the table.
And even when it came to post-war recovery, NS was not a big factor.
8
Posted by danielj on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:49 | # There is something wrong with the tags on the front page. Everything is in italics. 9
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:57 | # Sure, the cattle graze where the grass is. But the guys we need to make it happen require a romantic, idealistic vision. Telling them that they are nothing more than a sack of guts with a mind whose only purpose is to deliver the payload of genetic information, I’m afraid, won’t go very far with most. And, for those disposed towards ‘philosophy’, whose very world view proposes the ultimate interest as passing along said genetic information of the group, if they will not go with NS, assuming it is the only way to effect the very ultimate interest they subscribe to, out of ‘moral’ quibbles (‘morality’ being by their own standards being a lesser interest than genetic continuity), they are then guilty of intellectual inconsistency, if not outright hypocrisy. 10
Posted by PF on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:05 | # CC You are already showing the traits of cretinism which I said corrupt the tough-boy class. Your belief that the life of the people depends on your own kick-assness, lets you override
In some sense you are a zombified echo of the Third Reich. Intellectually at least. Tough assness is a pose. You are mired in militarist teleological thinking, especially evident in your assertion that desensitization in boot camp will allow one not to experience fear in combat. There are ways to get around it but only if one wants to. My critique posted above trumps your entire worldview. 11
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:07 | #
And you have even before now been showing the traits of an alleged ‘intellectual’ blinded from what is needed to respond to the real exigencies of life as manifested by statements of alleged unassailable ‘truth’ and dime-store psychologizing.
Nay, I contest the ‘truth’ value of statements. What, I’m not allowed to do that when the guy doing the saying is you? Whose the “tough-boy” now? Wait, that’s is not quite accurate, what you are doing is adopting a tone of detached superiority.
I think that’s overstating the matter, but unfortunately quite often a tad of rhetorical flourish is required.
Another statement, no doubt, that I cannot and should not possibly contest.
I point out what I think will work, and what will not work, if what you mean to say is that I do not think engaging in philosophy is an end unto itself, you are perfectly correct.
That is truly precious.
Sometimes so, sometimes not, apply as needed. An onion has many layers.
Why do you feel the need mischaracterize my statement of what is obviously a part of military training, that is a relative, not absolute, desensitization to fear of performing in combat? Part of that vaunted search for ‘truth’, no doubt.
Grandiosity befitting a palingentic Kraut. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:28 | # CC, You are telling us that only National Socialist Man has the metal to act against the forces opposing us. But did the Russians at Stalingrad and the British in Bomber Command need a supercharged romantic vision to “make it happen”? How about the merchant seaman of all manner of nations who manned the Atlantic convoys?) Well, let’s assume that your answer will be that the difference between the NS boys in Germany and the Russiand and Brits was that the NS boys had no compunction about dealing decisively with “the Jewish Question”. What exactly, in terms of treatment of Jews, is it that the NS boys could do because of their glorious heroism that the Russians and Brits couldn’t? 13
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:57 | # @Captainchaos I see you didn’t respond to the black abortion genocide links I posted. I guess that census report you posted over at VOR is nil and void now. No serious threat to white America. 14
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:09 | # GW, I think it is obvious that there was a willingness to take the initiative and corresponding level of preparedness consistent with a vision of what the people were expected to achieve that served Germans in accomplishing feats proportionately greater than their opponents. Further, I think it is obvious that our people are quite idealistic and will not be gotten to act en masse commensurate with the scope of our peril unless that idealism is channelled, is utilized. It is not the same as the men of yore responding with professional soldiering to the call of their traditional patriotism as the very conceptions of those nations have been subverted. What is called for is an act of revisionism, and on a grand scale. We will envision what we want to achieve, and we will struggle, and we will do it, uplifted by the understanding that we are not so much defending something as seeking after something. A better future, for our people. Our idealism is a part of what we are, and a philosophy that is to explain what we are to us ought not neglect that. Our idealism is a weapon too powerful to be conceded to the enemy. I do not insist on the selfsame implementation of NS but a willingness to utilize its methods as needed. A call not to be so rigid of mind as to neglect what we may well prosper by in employing. And of course experimentation to find the optimal balance will be required. I am not hostile to the attempt at building a true philosophy of life, and in fact hope for its fulfillment, with the push for it to be pursued in a way that acknowledges the above. 15
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:12 | # JUK, you fail to consider the high fertility of immigrants to America, and the continuing policy of allowing them into America. The portrait you paint is a truncated one, not the whole picture, I have kindly expatiated it for you. 16
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:44 | # JUK, I have to agree with the good Capn. Black abortion represents the casualties in the first wave of landing craft hitting the beaches. But there is a vast army abroad waiting to fill their shoes. Often better educated, better behaved Africans make a better advert for multiculturalism than the more intractable black American population. They all fill the same function but the latter are perhaps a bit more manageable, not to worry, the evidence seems to be that their offspring soon assimilate to black American norms. 17
Posted by Guest Lurker on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:20 | #
America was 90% white in 1965 and is today probably not even 60% White. No serious threat? Considering you didn’t even bother reading or understand CC’s post as evidenced by your question on VOR about what percentage of the population in the U.S. was still White, you are in no position to declare it nil and void, comrade sophist. Your posts reek of disengenuousness. 18
Posted by MGLS on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:33 | #
This is the sort of trash promoted by people like Alex Jones, who rants about “the New World Order,” “the Illuminati,” “Anglo-American bankers,” “Germanic death cults,” and “racist white eugenicists” who run the world. Alex Jones says these “racist eugenicists” who control the world are seeking to commit genocide against blacks. Apparently it never occurs to this moron that the black population in Africa and the rest of the world continues to rise and rise, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the world’s population. Here is data from the United States Census Bureau refuting jamesUK’s nonsense about “black genocide.”
19
Posted by MGLS on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:34 | #
jamesUK is incredibly disingenuous. The United States went from about 90% white in 1965 to under 65% white today, and whites are projected to a be a minority in the United States within about thirty years, but jamesUK acts as though it is inconceivable that whites might ever become a minority in European countries. Also, with his egregious spelling, grammar, and syntax errors, jamesUK seems to be barely literate. 20
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:39 | # @Captainchaos
You are dismissing population control methods that reduce black and Hispanic birth rates like drug distribution, abortion, living standards, poverty, recruitment into army for foreign service and gang violence. And 1st generation immigration birth rate are not same as normal 2nd and 3rd. Unlike in Russia the US is not saddled with a native white population collapse due to factors like health care, drugs, alcoholism, etc. @Guest Lurker
Until the 2010 census comes with hard data is compiled speculation does not mean dick. I can’t find CC post on VOR so please enlighten me to the passage with would indicate the white population of the US.
Obviously that is lie. From the 2001 census: 75.1% of respondents said they were White or Caucasian and no other race; 21
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:03 | #
Serve their own interests.
22
Posted by MGLS on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:13 | #
Obviously you are unfamiliar with the racial and ethnic classification in the census. Some Hispanics are included in the “white” category. Also, the census was in 2000, not 2001. 69.1% of the population was white alone and not Hispanic. Table - Race, Combinations of Two Races, and Not Hispanic or Latino: 2000
23
Posted by Guest Lurker on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:53 | #
You really are a smarmy one, comrade master of the logical fallacy. I had no problem finding it. Here it is: http://reasonradionetwork.com/?p=5324 And here’s CC’s link: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/013733.html “The nation’s overall minority population on July 1, 2008, was 104.6 million, or 34 percent of the total population.” And it was brought to your attention that if you further subtract the considerable jewish population, of which 1.8% considers itself “orthodox”, and further subtract north african, middle eastern, and caucasic caucasoids, the European American population is probably already below 60%.
I’m the liar? This was already brought to your attention on VOR, but you opted to play dumb and ignore it and post black abortion statistics. I suppose you’ll do something similar again, sophist. 24
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:14 | # This official Census estimate from a couple years back placed Whites at about 65% of the population. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_B03002&-redoLog=true&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en&-SubjectID=15233308 Also, the Census dramatically under counts the number of illegals. They’re still sticking with the “8 to 12 million” number they coughed up about a decade ago. The real numbers are likely 30 to 40 million. So the population of America is closer to 340 million (opposed to the official 308 million). Officially there are 198 million non-hispanic whites. If you subtract those of middle eastern and north African heritage the number drops to about 183 -185 million. So out of 340 million, roughly 184 million are White. Or 54% of the population. But even within that there are some mystery-meat types out there who define themselves as white when they aren’t. Bottom line, it would be safe to conclude that Whites are around 52 to 54% of America’s population. Down over 30% from just 40 years ago.
.
Well, Hitler was Germanic. His “deep experience of the German people” came from the fact that he was of the German people.
A. You shouldn’t base your views on a single biography written by someone who (apparently) had an ax to grind. Of course you’re not going to find an unbiased biography of him, still… b. Again, Hitler was of the Germanic race. Had he been kept isolated from them his entire life he would have still have loved them and known more about them than an Englishman who lived his whole life among them.
It’s a bit difficult to experience your brethren if they’ve been destroyed.
May a thousand curses fall upon the heads of missionaries!!! Our entire civilization was founded by men who had a profound and unquenchable thirst for the heroic and the glorious! From the Iliad to the Nibelungenlied, the pursuit of glory and the heroic was the definitive attribute of Western Man’s ideal. The absence of the heroic and the glorious leaves a vacuum into which Jesus and Yahweh step. Now Western Man seeks to “experience his brethren” through heavenly glory and honor which they seek in the slums of third world ghettos and by adopting mystery meat critters from Haiti and elsewhere. Valhalla and Elysium were for warriors. And no, I’m not advocating for a new religion of Ramboism. Obviously we’re not all cut out to be warriors (far too many can hardly bend over and tie their shoes thanks to TV and Big Macs). But to hold the view that the pursuit of the heroic and glorious is the ultimate goal will engender a spirit in the community more conducive to self preservation. We need to toss out the images of a dead semite dangling on a stick and put in its place images of Thor cracking giant’s skulls.
The Germans went to war for the greater good of Germany. The British went to war for *ahem* the greater good of Czechoslovakia. Ya know….
The Germans knew why they were fighting. For Germany! The British had no idea why they were fighting. Some, no doubt, thought it would be an adventure. Others were driven by the hatred of the German people that seems to have been engendered in the UK since before WWI. Germany was essentially alone in its struggle. The Allies were numerically superior. The battle hymn of the Germans was, ‘All for the Fatherland’. The battle hymn of the Allies was, ‘We are the world’. Britain is in the shape it’s in today precisely because of the values and vision which motivated it to attack Germany in WWII. Ditto America. ... 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:56 | #
Those twenty words, edited a bit, from a comment of Desmond’s, could replace whole libraries purporting to explain what WW II was about. The German soldiers had been told the truth by their government and were fighting for the truth. They were fighting for race. The Allied soldiers had been lied to by their governments. They didn’t know it but they were fighting for their own race-replacement, the wheels for the forced implementation of which began turning before the war had even ended, only speeding up afterward. 26
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:59 | # @Narrator Good info but what states are the minority populations centred in. 27
Posted by Heavy Heath on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:07 | #
No it is not! A few decades earlier many Russian Nationalists held onto the ideals of Palingenesis as they witnessed the crumbling of that Leftist Hegemon, the Soviet Union. Now many of these same individuals hold lofty and influential positions in contemporary nationalist Russia, take Alexandr Dugin for example! If there is a collapse in the U.S.A., we can palingenesis-ate back from it relatively bloodlessly like the Russian Nationalists did in the early ‘90s! All this National Socialist stuff is just a straw-man thrown out from people who have not studied how to battle Leftist-Hegemons… and won! (Read Dugin and Evola!) The collapse of Communism is to be our model, as we can see liberal Democracy, its evil twin sister, collapsing around us now!!!
No, one who has already taken ahold of these assumptions then gets off their duffs and prepares for what is coming! Also the logic of Palingenesis doesn’t need to become manifest to everyone, jeez another strawman you have erected… only a revolutionary minority (as Louis Beam would term it) needs to become convinced and get to work at the right time!! And that time is approaching! RIDE THE TIGER!— Baron Julius Evola. 28
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:28 | #
Whites are officially a minority in Texas, Hawaii, California and New Mexico. And the District of Columbia. States where Whites are on the brink (between 50% and 60%) are Nevada, Arizona, Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi and most likely Louisiana. States where Whites are still (for the moment) 90%+ are Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia and (just barely) Iowa. Basically, the South has the highest percentage on non-Whites. source; http://www.census.gov/ Here is a graphic from the New York Times showing the percentage of minority students by state. They are now a majority in most southern states. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/07/us/07south-graphic.html Looking at that map keep in mind that immigration rates (both legal and illegal) are projected to continue, most likely increasing throughout the coming decades. With low White birth rates and the numbers of elderly Whites comprising a sizable chunk of the population (similar to the situation in Europe) the next twenty or so years will see a dramatic and SHARP change, unprecedented in history. As the percentages of minorities rise, so too does poverty and illiteracy. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/us/07south.html?ref=us http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/10/how_immigration_1.php Having said that, the numbers of Whites are projected to grow slightly over the next few decades but due to the sheer volume of immigrants/refugees flooding in and the high birthrates of non-Whites, Whites will continue to shrink in percentage. Plus (and again) the official definition of “white” is generous to say the least. Here is an illustration from numbersusa.com showing the projected population growth, http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/about/question-where-does-census-bureau-say-we.html
29
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:55 | #
New York State is also, officially, 60% “white”. And New Jersey is 61% “white”. Something that always shocks Americans is Connecticut. Most people imagine it as a New England bastion of traditional White Anglo-Saxon America. It’s officially 73% “white”. But what gets them is Hartford, Connecticut’s capital. It is 17% White. Hispanics are more than 40% with blacks being 38%. ... 30
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:01 | #
That’s always been the German Disease, an inability to keep a sense of proportion. NS should be be viewed as the death-rattle of continental-style absolutism, and good riddance to it. 31
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:19 | # The English have long served the “others” interest. Yet another example of the evil empire destroying ethno nationalism is the Balkans. Gladstone and most of Europe, in particular the Russians, who share EGI with their slavic Bulgarian Christian brothers, were outraged by the slaughter of 30,000 Bulgarian Christians by the Islamic Turks. KMac asserts,in his ‘Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism’, it was not in the interest of European Jewry to allow Russians to smash the Ottoman Empire, in a holy war of retribution.
Thus Disraeli dispatched the Royal Navy to the Dardanelles to protect ‘British’ interests in the region. Again, the attack on NS is just another effort to bolster English moral supremacy by framing the German as debased.
32
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:25 | # MGLS:
LOL! So nearly perfect as to soar to the level of the Platonic. Analysis based upon 2000 census data from Amren:
33
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:37 | #
Here’s a bit of the Limey Disease:
The words of the Fuhrer:
It’s contagious. 34
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:18 | # Imperial gunboat diplomacy and National Socialism are equally anachronistic and neither offers any form of template for a way forward. It’s rather surprising that otherwise intelligent folk should still imagine they would. 35
Posted by borgo on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:36 | # We all need to lay down our weapons, that is to say our fingers, and remember we’re on the internet. Still. And will be for a long time. PF is an expert at putting some of White Nationalism’s sacredest cows to rest in a gentle, uncontroversial manner. Guys like CaptainChaos .... who needs ‘em. 36
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:41 | # Wtf, Dare? Just who is it that can stand against us if we stand up for ourselves? The era of European rivalry unto war is dead, pan-European brotherhood is there if we but seize it (this does not entail intra-racial amalgamation). And after that, self-evidently, all the world at our feet. We need to give the lemmings something that will draw them in, engender enthusiasm, excitement, a sense of a better future there for the taking. And it is, all of it, there for the taking. So the truth then, and not a lie. 37
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:41 | # Serving the others’ interest:
38
Posted by PF on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:47 | # Just some quotes here…a proverbial sampler pack of the quality of the response to this post…
I don’t see how what the German people thought, as revealed through polls, can constitute any objection to the issues raised in the above critique. The psychological dynamics inherent in this system of governance, and its repulsion to most all contemporary whites, are for example to factors independent of German public opinion in the 30s.
We will have to discuss teleology and militarism in a follow up post.
Right. Needn’t be manifest to everyone… you and your friends will seize power… when the time is right… etc. etc.
I think we’re hitting on some really heavily mythologized conceptual content here, for statements of this kind to be made.
I suppose the falseness of this statement is overriden by the fact that you have an encompassing understanding of the spiritual state of Anglo/western man and are competent to fashion his self-understanding into a battle hymn.
An alleged intellectual? What that means in your binary world of (1) heroic Hitlerites and (0) loser parasites, I can only guess.
From someone who previously has offered this by way of reply:
and in lieu of a discussion of the difficulty of modeling political processes, and thus the bounds within which we should constrain the certainty of our assertions about “what will work” “what must happen”... we have the assertion:
Beyond that we’re into purely rhetorical rejoinders:
Its interesting that no one cares what the Germans think about this guy, but presume to pontificate on him as if they had lived the history themselves. The german view is much, much more nuanced and interesting.
I read biographies (plural). Also the important speeches in the original german. I’ve also read most of his personal statements and some of his correspondence in the original german, as well as selections from Mein Kampf in the original german. This includes things like diary entries, letters to his mother, his pleading to be let off military service in the Austrian army, etc. The speeches and Mein Kampf were really what formed for me my picture of the man’s thinking. That and comparing what he did in certain scenarios; certain decisions give clues about a person’s character. His thought process is not difficult to understand, its approximately as crude and binary as what we have going on in this thread. Things are constantly refashioned into “for us” or “against us”, “friend” or “foe”, “Weltmacht” or “Untergang”. Anyway, there you have it. 39
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:58 | # Uh, I think this is the point at which “borgo” balls up his little fists and attempts to smash everything yet dents nothing, again. Borgo smash! But were it so. 40
Posted by Q on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:32 | #
The rapid progression of race-replacement in the USA is obvious. All you have to do is look at the growing percentage of non-white newborns. Add to that the massive non-white immigration and the low birthrate of whites and you can’t avoid the reality that whites, 65 years old and younger, are destined to become a racial minority within ten years. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/013733.html 41
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:37 | #
Binary assertions and rhetorical slights all his own, and then the all too predictable retreat into the well-worn shell of affected detached superiority. Yawn. Here is something I have no doubt will never be addressed directly by the allegedly intellectually gifted and therefore nuanced (as, conveniently, that would be “binary,” not nuanced, and therefore beneath the ‘dignity’ of some to addressing directly): If our genetic continuity is an absolute necessity and the only way to secure it is with NS or something similar, is not then utilizing NS (or something similar) as a tool to effect that end also a necessity? 42
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:50 | #
Where’s the evidence? For if you believe this; “All responsibility for the health of the European mind has been handed to Jews and their extended phenotypes” it becomes simply pathological political science “the science of things that aren’t so”. In other words its a lie based on modern day faith in the church of the Masters of Discourse. Here’s an example;
http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2444718.ece Yes, let’s not call it a lie, it’s too harsh. “A persistent fiction” is a much better description. 43
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:11 | # A pussy implicitly advocating a societal order that would tend to maximize his reproductive fitness and protect his EGI with a myth that vests in his ethny moral superiority and to hell with what may well be required to secure the existence of the race which entails all that he is instinctively trying to protect. LOL! That’s what is behind the curtain, the rest is a sad little (verbosely rationalized) minstrel show. 44
Posted by D Allen on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:12 | #
This is clearly a logical truth. But both of the postulates are highly debatable. 45
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:20 | # The earlier British verbal commitment which resulted in the Balfour letter (which Desmond helpfully quotes) provided the green light for the Americans’ entry into World War One. The Balfour Declaration was a sine qua non of the Jew - promoted, American intervention which ended the suicidally insane (and hitherto stalemated) conflict. 46
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:22 | # OK, well let’s think about this. The function of philosophy is to penetrate with the use of reason to the meaning of life in general and human life in particular, via the media of cause, being and existence, metaphysics, psychology, language, value, etc. What, eventually, comes out of it and goes towards life will be an attempt to harness whatever truth has been found in the enquiry, and it will be put in a form that maintains its intellectual integrity. The test for philosophy is not, therefore, “Will it work” but “Is it true”, and the presumption will be that what is not true cannot work - at least, not in the medium to long term. Palingenesis is not true. Psychologically, it draws us, as mere men, away from the wholeness of what we really are and impels us towards a hyper-masculinised, militarised Self as intangible as the Virgin, and as artifical as the unfettered will. Being inherently violent, the process abbreviates the man and, not to be too blunt about it, creates violence out of him. This is what it is really for in the first place, and nobody who lauds glory and heroism as ends in themselves should be allowed to get away without answering the question: Do you desire violence? For violence you will certainly get. But what if the job in hand cannot be accomplished without violence? Well, we come back to the heroism of the defenders of Stalingrad, of the aircrew of Bomber Command - which took the heaviest losses of Allied forces - and of the Merchant Marine. All three differ from the heroism of the soldier for National Socialism. Their heroism came naturally from within, while his was mediated, we must believe, by rebirth myth. And yet can anyone seriously claim that the heroism of the National Socialist was superior. I don’t think so. At the heart of the argument for Palingenesis is ... religion. Its claimed efficacy cannot be falsified. It is just an article of faith. Perhaps there is an argument that the heirs of those who, centuries ago, put away their Bible for Hobbes and Locke need something to focus on, some object of adoration. But is one that comes out of violence and goes towards violence really the best we can do? 47
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:23 | # This is a straw-man. We must believe (there’s a non-falsifiable statement if one ever existed) that the heroism of the French Charlemagne SS, the last defenders of Hitler’s Führerbunker, arose not from within, but because of a “rebirth myth”. We must believe that the 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland, carrying the widest range of nationalities found in any single division, Danish, Hungarian, Dutch, Norwegian, Finnish, French, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Swiss, British volunteers and Estonian conscripts, were motivated not from within, like the morally superior foes in Bomber Command, heroically defending against the Menace of the Under Man, was motivated by a false God. Where’s the evidence? There is none. It’s simply that we must believe.
48
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:29 | # Why are you addressing that to me, Desmond? It is CC who is telling us that Germany under Hitler became a land of heroic values, out of which the heroism of its arms would obviously flow. If that’s not the case, and the heroism of everyone involved flowed from the same patriotic spring, then what’s the point of Palingenesis? Bomber Command higher losses than the Soviet Army? As a percentage of the force, I believe that only the U-Boat fleet suffered greater losses than Bomber Command. You might be right about the Red Army, but there were millions of Asiatics whipped into it after Stalingrad, so that might alter things. 49
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:03 | #
This is an easy one, as a nation has fallen from its former self to the status of an insufferable shit hole in which the continued existence of its founding people is even at risk the process engaged in to rectify that is palingenetic is character. Palingeneticism is not merely an optional tack that may be employed but inherently descriptive of the process itself. Call it whatever you like, it is palingeneticism by any other name (I think I’ve said this before). 50
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:34 | # From the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenesis Hmm, that’s interesting.
I take it this is an acknowledgement that palingeneticism produces actual, substantial, observable changes in behavior, to wit: hyper-masculinized militarization. If so, by your own logic and admission, doesn’t palingeneticism engender more of the ‘heroic’ in men? If yes, then you have already conceded my point, GW. 51
Posted by jamesUK on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:32 | # @the Narrator Wow that is really bad. Why are Fred, CC, etc bitching about the fate of western mankind and Europe which is nowhere near as bad as what is happening in the US. But as I highlighted before the US is in the situation it is in today due to the sins of your father or rather grandfather supporting the overthrow for years then the Bolshevik revolution in Russia with the millions of exiled Jewish Marxist groups in New York You are doing the exact thing today in Russia that they did with the Bolsheviks supporting these international genocidal terrorists who what to destroy Russia and use it as a to launch Islamic revolution abroad as long as it achieves western geo-political objectives which is clearly stated in the 1998 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Intelligence Information Report (IIR) of foreign terrorists networks in Russia and the Crimea and central Asia from Afghanistan and Pakistan through Turkey and Azerbaijan with the stated objective lead by Khattab to control all of Russia through massacres and ethnic cleansing with use of biological and nuclear weapons. http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/102/dia.pdf
@Captainchaos Do you really think NS are applicable now in the US? Due to US immigration policy which you can’t even view under some US privacy law and the liberal democracy that you so cherish and export to the rest of the world decrying “authoritarian” governments the US is beyond the point where any strong white nationalist and equate strong national leader = Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, etc. In fact most of the Cold war anti-Stalinist communists were Trotskyite who worked for the CIA/MI6 like Orwell, Pollock and the Neocons. Good article which covers the history of this. http://www.idc-europe.org/showerInformation.asp?Identificateur=29 52
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 07:51 | # Der Kapitän hat gesagt:
Jawohl mein Kapitän! Ganz bestimmt!
Couldn’t agree more. But then ….
Something like this, perchance? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMyiqjMhVzw Or perhaps this? I have a sneaking suspicion which of the two will resonate with the contemporary Zeitgeist and which of the two will provide a way forward.
My own view is that the EU provides a ready-made platform for what it is we want to accomplish. We just need to figure out how to capture the political heights. The success of the NSDAP might provide a useful exemplar in that respect. We could do worse than to closely analyse how it was they came to power and to draw the appropriate lessons. 53
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:00 | #
- JUK Thats sounds like neo-con talk to me, I hardly think you can lay that kind of thinking at the Capt’s door. 54
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:20 | #
Not saying you don’t know, but in case you don’t know,
As far as militarism, all politics is the use of force. No point in calling, say, conquest “peace keeping”... .
What gave it away? It wasn’t when I wrote the following in that same post was it?
.
Not saying you don’t know, but in case you don’t know, The Allied Nations consisted of various nations and people from around the globe. From Russia to Mexico, from France to China and many others from all four corners of the globe. It was, however, primarily led by bankers and corporations. And they make no bones about their battle hymn. Of course Germany was allied with various countries as well, yet they made no pretense about their aspirations. In fact they were the only European country to honestly state their ambition. America was “fighting for democracy”. Britain, apparently, was fighting for the noble cause known as, Czechoslovakia. That’s right up there with fighting for the greater glory of outer Mongolia or Venice Beach.
The defenders of Stalingrad were motivated by the fact that if they didn’t fight the Germans their own officers would shoot them down. I suppose we might say that what our mythic literature demonstrates is that any heroism that isn’t motivated by a vulgar pursuit of self-glory is dangerous. Otherwise you will see things like what is happening in Haiti right now.
I’m not sure that’s the best example considering how many men have fought, died and/or conquered on behalf of the Virgin or her immediate family.
.
Some of us are (for the time being) afforded a cozy perch from which ask such questions Guessedworker. But a great many of our people are already living a life in which they must (every day) out maneuver violence. To a kid going to a school that is 90% black or hispanic or a single mother living in gang infested neighborhood your question is like that of a tree falling in the woods making a sound or not. And violence is not just (directly) physical. Every policy instituted in The West to advance or advocate Non-Whites IS an act of violence against us. Politics is force. Politics is violence.
The birth rate in Europe is worse than in America. As an example, based on what statistics I could find, England appears to be about 80% British. Which means 20% are not. And I believe Muhammad is now the number one name for newborns there. England, like America, will go through a SHARP and dramatic shift in the next 20+ years. As will the Netherlands (which appears to be 25% foreign), Germany (which is about the same) and France. America has an advantage in that, 1. There are more Whites here than in Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland put together. 2. We all speak the same language. 3. We all have the same general culture. 4. We all share the same nationality. 55
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:13 | #
This is the tack taken for the examination of palingenesis throughout much of the essay and thereby renders much of the analysis invalid as it is by the author’s own admission abstracted from the real, the context that palingenesis was employed in the past. A Kantian slight-of-hand in which we are led to believe morality can be arrived at by pure reason and not in reference to the actual experienced consequences.
Notice Potential Frolic (he never does quite get around to, you know, frolicking, now does he? but the potential is there, no hopelessly stodgy introvert incapable of eliciting human warmth is he, at least we can hope) does not say palingenesis employed at the level of the political does not strive to maximize EGI for the people being directed by it, in fact, his very definition pretty well states just that. And yet it is ‘bad’, very ‘bad’, or at least he thinks so, why? We shall see.
A transparent attempt to shame into submission expressions of White masculinity manifested at the group level - the level at which, you know, group competition takes place - which the author concedes himself is necessary to engage in effective group competition in the statement quoted above. Except, the man who takes on this duty with gusto is according to him a coward in addition to being a “goody-two-shoes,” whilst the man who goes all shy and delicate out of some alleged inner strength and superior moral conviction also is more the ‘rebel’, pretty well the opposite of a “goody-two-shoes.” So then, the author gets rationalizes away his own personal physical cowardice as he casts himself in the romantic role of the in fact more masculine (at least psychologically, according to him) ‘rebel’. What can one do but: LOL! And let it be stated that PF started in at me attempting to parse (ham-fistedly) a comment not even addressed to him. He said I was making the issue personal, that was projection, it was he that wanted to make it personal. PF, you wanted to get inside my head, now I’m inside yours, how does it feel? I could go on at length, want more? 56
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:46 | #
Well, I could do without your previous recommendation of the free movement of people and labor throughout the EU as this militates against the genetic continuity of Nordic peoples. That I am opposed to it gives the lie to the contention that I hate the English, as PF once claimed (I’ll finish feeding the rest of his feeble self-serving rationalizations to the meat grinder later on, if only he asks it of me - hint: I’ll have fun especially with his accusation of palingeneticists being judaized), as I am more passionate about securing your genetic continuity than are even you.
Great minds think alike. Hey Dare, warum bin ich immer recht? 57
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:54 | # CC, This is an easy one, as a nation has fallen from its former self to the status of an insufferable shit hole in which the continued existence of its founding people is even at risk the process engaged in to rectify that is palingenetic is character. No, it isn’t. The process is only palingenetic if it posits a heroic rebirth of a mythicised past. So, for example, White America would not be palingenetic in returning or rediscovering the values of the 1950s. It would be expressive of its Self. But it certainly would if it set itself on pursuing a supposed heroism of the Old West. These are two quite separate ideas, and you cannot claim the realm of one for the other. I take it this is an acknowledgement that palingeneticism produces actual, substantial, observable changes in behavior, to wit: hyper-masculinized militarization. I’m in the too, too metaphysical habit of separating what is acquired - what is in the human personality - from what is essential, and ascribing to the former characteristics such as transience, absence, mechanicity, suggestibility, plasticity, separation and self-estrangement. It is in this context that behavioural changes will occur, and the New Hero will emerge. The two questions which apply to this wrought-iron Man (who in his inner submissiveness to authority is unEuropean and a real girl, by the way) are: 1. What violence is he designed to do? 2. How long will his results be stable? Narrator, The defenders of Stalingrad were motivated by the fact that if they didn’t fight the Germans their own officers would shoot them down. I think a little more context and a little less propaganda might help there. From Wiki:
I suppose we might say that what our mythic literature demonstrates is that any heroism that isn’t motivated by a vulgar pursuit of self-glory is dangerous. War will exaggerates everything. But one must be cautious with the use of the word “myth”, as I’ve argued in the past. The young men who applied in their millions to join the RAF after the Battle of Britain were not answering a mythicised call to heroism. But the story of The Few, as lauded in the press, was inevitably romanticised and incredibly alluring. But it still spoke of things that were real enough in the national character: doggedness, daring, a blank refusal to give in, and so forth. None of these are vulgar in the sense that you imply, and I think that observation is fair. 58
Posted by danielj on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:01 | # It was, however, primarily led by bankers and corporations. Now we are getting at the heart of the matter. 59
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:37 | #
Giving it even further context, The Soviet Union was an empire residing on two different continents. There were a hundred or more nationalities and ethnic groups within it. Given the mass killings, ethnic cleanings, show trials, purges, gulags etc, etc, what really would be the motivation of, say, a Ukrainian farm boy, recently arrived from the artificial famine that wiped out a large chunk of his people twenty years earlier, for fighting on behalf of ‘Mother Russia’ to defend the namesake city of the ethnic Georgian tyrant responsible for the living hell that would have been his day-to-day life? .
Something must appeal to those things to stir them up though. The absence of that something is why England is in the shape it’s in today. What stirs Western Man today is the call to be tolerant and embrace their own destruction. . The same is true for peoples, individuals, political parties, religions and so on. History will not abide stasis. Those who don’t wake up in the morning with a conquering spirit don’t even bother to get out of bed. Western Man has most certainly been hitting snooze for quite a while now. ... 60
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:27 | #
Yet given the way peoples’ minds actually work I fail to see how the very process of righting the ship could not be palingenetic in character. A mythicized conception of what the past was, in that is was better than it actually was, and correspondingly, a conception of the future that is better than it actually will be post-victory. If not so, then why the psychological appeal of cultural/national heroes and the more mundane advertisement of products in the course of capitalist commerce?
America in the 50s did not have sufficient sufficient defenses to protect the race otherwise we wouldn’t be here now. Maybe some palingenesis is needed, then?
Or that of the Ku Klux Klan, which was itself a failure, otherwise we wouldn’t be here now. Moreover, I see no reason to be constrained by looking for heroic pasts to resuscitate only in the American past. Could be, potentially, from any period in the history of the race, such as NS Germany.
On paper, sure, but in the real world I ask, how else will it happen?
After a certain point people’s personalities are pretty well set, so in the absence of the ability to turn back the clock (your philosophy doesn’t have that power, at least as of yet, does it?) those personalities must be set in the right direction by the means at our disposal now - the direction of acting for the interests of the group at a collective level.
You mean by effecting the acquired aspect of the individual, and thereby the collective behavior of the group, by forming the personalities of individuals guided by your philosophy via socialization. But first, you will need power, just how do you intend to get it? The cart does not pull the horse.
Well now, the National Socialists did conceive of the masses as feminine. In National Socialism the man most adept at commanding consistent with his yielding results can expect to rise up in the ranks. Are you telling me that process is one in which the feminine will chiefly succeed, or were the guys who flew the Lancs only never little bitches when they bombed whatever the hell target it was they felt like?
In this context and for our purposes here, to remove by force obstacles which stand in the way on the group pursuing its EGI.
As long as there is the will vested with sufficient power to protect the gains gotten by the former. 61
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:15 | # It’s often forgotten that the NSDAP owed its electoral success to the effete middle-class. And women. The brawny, muscular proletariat, forged in the hearths of Krupp, largely voted KPD. 62
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:16 | #
So not quite the barbarians PF (for his own reasons, which need not be stated again by me at this point) and the rest of you English make them out to be, then. Keep swinging that lumber, I’ve got the buzz-saw. 63
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:22 | # This is no doubt one of the “binary” statements I made earlier in this thread to which our exalted teacher and better was referring:
He would never in a million years have ignored said in order to frame the issue in such a way as to facilitate his (ham-fisted) rhetorical slights, because that would be cretinous! Buzz-saw. 64
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:58 | # Narrator, Something must appeal to those things to stir them up though. I have no objection to people being stirred to action. We all want that. I do not wish it to come from a place in us which is a product of violence and girlish stupidity. What stirs Western Man today is the call to be tolerant and embrace their own destruction. I don’t believe in that stuff. Nobody I have ever met personally believes in that stuff. Only 5 to 10% of the English are leftists, and even they only believe it because they are the most suggestible and eager to conform. The greater appeal to ordinary people today is a life of consumption. De Tocqueville noted “the American form of materialism does not corrupt the soul but softens it up and extends all its substance.” 65
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:17 | # CC, Yet given the way peoples’ minds actually work I fail to see how the very process of righting the ship could not be palingenetic in character. People’s minds don’t work the way you want them to. You are interpolating, that’s all. A great number of German-descended American WNs do the same. In some cases, it’s their particularism, and the reason a lot of them are in white nationalism in the first place. The truth is that for centuries - and, most probably, millenia - the minds of northern Europeans needed no stenazalol nationalism, no puerile dreams of glory to remain in the orbit of genetic interest. Romantic nationalism, revolutionary conservatism and the fascisms were not natural outcrops of the European imagination. They were force-grown reactions to the cult of the individual ... desperate manoeuvres that, in an age of political religion, could find no better response than another religion. Enough. We will do better. America in the 50s did not have sufficient defenses to protect the race otherwise we wouldn’t be here now. What has happened is that a people living at peace after two conflicts that shook it to the core, were attacked by, among others, its own political class. The attack was never suspected, and still has not been accurately sighted by the majority. You have to read Alex’s material at MR to know where, exactly, the American-authored part of it came from. The attack has been not merely sustained but very heavily augmented, and has driven the people back, certainly. Are you telling me that process is one in which the feminine will chiefly succeed</i> There are two pretty obvious senses in which NS required the generalisation of the female principle. One was submission to authority - not a northern European characteristic. The other was the attempt to decorate personality with “glory” and “heroism”. I know that continentals are supposed to be extra-keen on the yearning. But I am English, and while I can see that sensible ambitions are adaptive, Palingenetic dreams just look puerile and ridiculous to me. In fact, I would bet that all but 5 to 10% of the German male population thought exactly the same, but allowed the zeitgeist to possess them. For the highly suggestible minority, however ... that’s another thing. <i>or were the guys who flew the Lancs only never little bitches when they bombed whatever the hell target it was they felt like? Bomber Command had vastly superior bomb delivery systems to the Lutwaffe. In all other respects they were equal. 66
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:08 | #
Once again, and to clarify, I’ll re-post what I wrote far above,
Again, I am talking about the ideal, which motivates the function. Striving because of doggedness, daring, a blank refusal to give in, and so forth is abstract. It requires no motivation. It rewards nothing. It promises nothing. The entire body of Western literature and art mythologizes (if not outright idolizes) the Hero who defeats the bad guy, saves the kingdom and wins the girl. Why do you think there is such a fascination with figures such as saint George and King Arthur. Why do you think there are statues of Vercingetorix in France or Arminius in Germany? Why do we play cowboys and Indians when we’re kids? Or Vikings, or Pirates or Soldiers or what have you?
Because they symbolize our IDEALIZED notion of heroism and glory. And that extends into adulthood. I’d dare to say there was more literature written (and read) on Bill the Kid and Jesse James than on George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. We even romanticize tyrants like Caesar and Napoleon because of their insatiable lust for glory, power, honor and conquest. The problem today is that what motivates Western Man towards the heroic is re-action to an event. Such as the degenerates rushing to Haiti today to “help out”. The selfishness in the pursuit of “glory” then is motivated at the outset, not as the end goal. What is needed is more of the motivation towards self-glorifying heroism found as the end goal and not as a re-action. Those going to Haiti find their glory when they leave as “aid workers”. Traditionally, Western Man found their glory when they returned as conquerors. Too many today have mythologized Gandhi and Mother Teressa. Their motivation is still a selfish one, seeking personal glory. The problem is in the Ideal of what best represents that pursuit.
Then England Is FAARRR better off than America. I’d say around 50% of White Americans are solidly leftist. And I’d venture that a further 25% are philosophically disposed to general leftist ideology. They can be swayed back, but they can also hold to their current notions.
If I may(?),
Looking at Norther Europe today (Britain included) that poses the question, What is the dividing line between submission to authority and apathy to resistance? 67
Posted by danielj on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:34 | #
What about the East? The Mongolian Hordes? Mohammad? The Crusades? The Black Plague? 68
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:06 | #
Hence the use of the qualifier SUSTAINED. Never the less, the Mongolian Hordes weren’t much of a threat to Scandinavia, Northern Germany or the British Isles. Ditto Muslims. Might have been in time, but they never were. The Crusades? Granted the Crusades into the Baltic region were a threat to those peoples. In the end those peoples lost though. They did organize to fight back. The Black Death…..I’m not sure how that would rally nationalism. A counter example would of course be England, which found its national identity as a result of their conflicts with the Vikings. Or perhaps Charlemagne’s war with the Saxons. 69
Posted by danielj on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:31 | # Hence the use of the qualifier SUSTAINED. I’ll have to find the references but I’m fairly certain the fear of the explosive Eastern demographic and the population pressure they exerted was a fairly constant theme. I could be wrong. Regardless, I don’t have a dog in the fight. No need to scream at me either. 70
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:37 | # GW,
To repeat, in the realm of advertising and marketing appealing imagery is associated with a product or service to increase sales. Are you telling me this does not happen, that this is not effective in part, otherwise why waste the time and money to do it? That is what Jews do to glamorize niggers to get English women to fuck them, when if niggers were properly stigmatized (calling them what they in fact are would be a start: ‘niggers’) I’m willing to bet there would be a lower incidence of genocide through mongrelization in Merry Olde.
Krauts to the back of the bus, Hail Britannia! At least the mills of EGI haven’t ceased to grind away in your head, which is more than I can say for many other Brits. But how do we change that, that is the question. The philosophical approach didn’t seem to go over so well with Oxy because…he’s a suggestible, weak-minded lemming who seems neurologically incapable of thinking with any rigor, and he’s not even a palingenetic Kraut.
Taking it down to earth from the level of abstraction, to just what degree did the palingenetic nazikrauts actually behave as psychologically limp-wristed fantasy-mongers (yeah, I know PF, those are compound words) blessed with brawn? I seem to recall the desire of Hitler to gain swift, decisive victories with the aim of minimizing to the degree possible German casualties - which at the beginning he was quite successful in doing. Where is the suicidal, girlish crush on glory there? Feel free to answer that question too, PF.
I’m open to the possibility, and to personally thinking about how it could be done. You seem to be unwilling to consider the potential utility of palingeneticism though. 71
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:11 | #
Brits vs. Krauts, whose group evolutionary strategy will win out and give them the upper hand in the EGI battle for the Nordosphere? Will it be the Brits’ with their practical cynicism cum self asserted moral superiority and higher level of individualism or the Krauts with their romantic idealism and higher level of collectivism? Same shit, different day. 72
Posted by danielj on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:35 | # Analytical versus continental forever… Perhaps a synthesis is order? 74
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:43 | # Where does this notion of a distinctive German ‘collectivism’ come from? As a state it’s even younger than Italy (or the USA for that matter) and most Germans still consider themselves to be Berliners, Bavarians, Saxons, Schwabians or Rhinelanders first and Großdeutscher a far distant second. The legacy of the HRE is still today more resonant for Germans than that of the Third Reich. You’re peddling a false dichotomy there Cap’n. I would actually claim that the English, when sufficiently aroused to bother about it, are at least as likely to participate to collective endeavours as are Germans, perhaps even more so. 75
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:50 | #
That’s up to the Brits, as their stubbornness on this point is of palingenetic proportions.
When the minds of faithists don’t work as desired the interpolation is made that their genetic capacity for faith should be stripped from them to suit oneself. Hilarious. 76
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:21 | #
Germans are I contend more inherently collectivist as a behavioral baseline than the English. For evidence: look at the way those respective peoples actually behave, look at the arc of their intellectual and political development.
But they are Germans genetically, with all that implies, as I contend. Within those subdivisions of Germany, I would expect their baseline behavior to be more collectivist than in England. Moreover, I think Northwestern Europeans are more individualistic than other branches of the race, it is only that within the Northwestern branch there is also a spectrum of individualism/collectivism. And, from the perspective of civilization building capacity and ability to compete for resources collectively I would argue that Northwestern Europeans are (sub)racially superior to other Whites. Northwestern Europeans are essentially the same people, as GW has stated in the past (put me in any country in Northwestern Europe, providing I had mastery of the local language and accent, and I"m confident no-one could tell me apart from the natives), but there are also differences. It is simply insane and nihilistic that England has historically not allied itself with other Nordic nations in permanent fashion. 77
Posted by danielj on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:40 | # Northwestern Europeans are essentially the same people, as GW has stated in the past (put me in any country in Northwestern Europe, providing I had mastery of the local language and accent, and I"m confident no-one could tell me apart from the natives), but there are also differences. Only because phenotype can easily be mistaken for genotype in this particular case. Also because of cable t.v. 78
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:58 | #
This is verging on the ahistorical Cap’n. Until around oh, say, 1890 Prussia (then the Second Reich) had been England’s staunchest ally on the Continent since at least the time of the Thirty Years War. It was only when that twerp Wilhelm II dropped the Pilot and careened off on his mad pursuit of a ‘Place in the Sun’ that Anglo-German emnity arose. 79
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:50 | #
Whereas Bismarck embraced ‘JudaEngland’, Der Kaiser despised it, according to British historian John C. G. Rohl. http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archives/texts/t050404/will.html Conspiracy theory is a straw man erected by the masters of discourse, a “persistent fiction” easily repeated time and again by their extended phenotype. Why is it a conspiracy? It was done out in the open and was not illegal. English exceptionalism, (and that of its diaspora) is an evolved trait. The same contempt the British soldiers felt for Chinese collectivism, repel the invading pathogen at any cost, no doubt echoes in the British voter. Non-kinship based reciprocity is an extended phenotype of the English evolutionary experience. The conundrum is that English exceptualism, at least initially adaptive, appears in the modern world to be maladaptive.
The Japanese government proposed forming a group of Japanese comfort women, to service the invading foreigner, and ultimately to keep the race pure. The over investment in ethnocentrism by the Japanese appears to be paying dividends. 81
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:39 | # Very interesting source, Desmond. I had no idea that Wilhelm II was so virulently anti-semitic. It must have made his dealings with his personal financial advisors particularly agonising. When added to the humiliations that he suffered at the hands of his English cousins ( chap’s ‘not clubbable’) and Oma Vicki (the Spithead Review fiasco) it’s no wonder he had serious personality disorders. Let’s not even mention the abdication and the scuttling of the Imperial Grand Fleet. How wounding that must have been. 82
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:11 | # Reading that I was amazed to find the Kaiser was a childhood friend of Ben Elton’s great grandfather. 83
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:47 | # The article heading this long line of comments is juvenile brainsturbation . I protest the coupling of words such as ‘teleology’ and ‘palingenesis’ with concepts derived from comic books. I call for comic book writers to remember the public is continually impressed in how all dialogue and thought can actually fit into little word balloons not detracting from the big picture. The author puts a commendable amount of work into shaping the argument that sweaty, ontologically coherent nazi’s are a trainwreck….while weasely new-age, bisexual knowledge workers, who know nothing about anything in particular….and were raised like cabbages to be that way….they are the airline stewardesses holding the door on the gangways of the 747’s to the future…..not the ‘tough boys’, who need to wash their hair and ‘getw’it’. I decided I would not bother to protest the gloved one. His essays are too long and trivial. What matters is that he strives. In time he will probably become an insensible nazi….efforts should be now to teach him to edit himself. @GuessedWorker The truth is that for centuries - and, most probably, millenia - the minds of northern Europeans needed no stenazalol nationalism, no puerile dreams of glory to remain in the orbit of genetic interest. —————————————————— This is completely false. While puerile dreams of glory did inadvertently damage genetic interests as well as promote them. What you mean by ‘nationalism’, really ‘Racialism’ or ‘tribalism’ - Palingenesis or ancestor worship….. has always been the rudder by which civilizations have steered themselves. This is also completely false. “Force grown reactions to the cult of the individual’? What has happened is that a people living at peace after two conflicts that shook it to the core, were attacked by, among others, its own political class. The attack was never suspected, and still has not been accurately sighted by the majority. Are you out of your mind? The attack was seen clearly and shouted from rooftops in both England and America by some of the most prominent men in society. Nor was it attacked by it’s political class, but by it’s political institution. There are two pretty obvious senses in which NS required the generalisation of the female principle. One was submission to authority - not a northern European characteristic. ———————————————- ————————————————— But I am English, and while I can see that sensible ambitions are adaptive, Palingenetic dreams just look puerile and ridiculous to me. ——————————————————- So they should to an Englishman on a English blog called ‘Majority Rights’ in a country awash in manifestations of the Palingenetic principal, from the crown to every palace and common, to every single artifice of Englishness that is what I have been led to believe you wish to save. Are these efforts not emblems of Palingenesis? They are. It is amazing to me how, on some vital points, some of the best of the English are so deluded it is almost as if they are sleep walking. 84
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:11 | #
This assertion is strange, considering Master Dare’s suggestion that NS was simply the last vestige of continental absolutism. What was absolutism but simply a submission to a power only answerable to God? Justified by Roman law, the Reformation re-asserted the principle of the divine right of kings. Cromwell re-established Anglo-Saxon common law in England. Interestingly, Hitler, as part of his twenty-five points, pronounced:
85
Posted by Alaric on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:25 | #
Woah. Reading this ‘critique’ was like I just read the text-form of a regurgitated meal. The Internet is, indeed, full of whackos. Can you British fuckwits finally just acknowledge that Hitler was right, National Socialism is right, and petty bourgeois-nationalism is in the past if we are to live on as a race? Constant ‘critique’ of National Socialism on ‘our’ sites is very tiring. You might as well just suck the jew’s dick right off. Let’s face it, you Anglos have been taking a proverbial corn-sprinkled shit on the Aryan people, starting in the 1800’s if not earlier. You are the crux of the problem, not the Jews, as satanic as they are. 86
Posted by Odoacer on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:30 | # That’s all true, but so is what PF said. “How can one love an entire people?”—Nietzsche 88
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:56 | #
It wasn’t only the British fuckwits who concluded that Hitler was barking mad, it was also the French, Polish, Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Norwegian, Czech, American and other fuckwits as well. Nobody has ever managed to produce a plausible explanation why Hitler was unable to rally other white people to his cause. Well, I suppose there were the Italians, a liability though they turned out to be and, worse yet, very dilatory on the JQ. And the Nips of course. Didn’t der Chef declare them to be honorary Aryans for the duration? Oh wait though, there’s always the ... 89
Posted by Odoacer on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:22 | # Because one is an entire people. Or, one conflates oneself with that homogenized entirety, from political motive. Due critique of Hitler won’t keep us any further from the fulfillment of our political desires than we already are and will be for a long time. So there’s really no need to act like PF is “sucking the Jew’s dick” by being level-headed. I know it irritates you Germanomaniacs, but there it is: the voice of reason. Post a comment:
Next entry: A Wild Surmise About Stonehenge and the Technology of Ancient Brits
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:38 | #
I feel robbed, wronged, and in danger. Maybe I haven’t resolved to triumphantly squash my enemies because I’m not a palingeneticist. I strongly suspect we very well could prevail over our enemies if we ever were to focus our efforts as we do when we build skyscrapers, send aircraft carriers to patrol the skies on the other side of the world, or launch men into space. What’s preventing that focus is of course the very strenuous efforts of those enemies.
An uncomfortable but suitable metaphor for what’s happening is rape. Our dilemma is similar. We cannot squash our enemies because they are squashing us. Facing this reality we can suffer a long and unpleasant torment, followed very likely by outright murder. Or we can resist, however futilely, and if only for the small dignity in doing so.
Thus I resist.