|
|
|
Kant’s Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant Transitional stages to a moral order conducive to White interests Kant’s Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant By DanielS In The Sunic Journal of October 18th, on Christian Zionism, Professor Kevin MacDonald expressed frustration over Christianity’s influence on people inasmuch as it tends to be a universalizing religion, not particularly concerned for Whites as a group. As such, it leaves Whites susceptible to a demographic decline toward extinction. The vulnerability of Christianity, for its universalizing aspects, is exacerbated by whatever ties it has to Judaism and affinity it has for Zionism. It is a connection that might predictably favor Jewish designs. In contrast to Christianity’s being potentially about just anyone who might take it up, Judaism is a religion which is concerned basically for the well being of an exclusive nation, Israel, and an exclusive people, Jews. With only Jewish ethnic interests being sanctified by contrast to Christianity’s non-ethnicity, they have been able to overcome what anti-Jewish defenses that exist in the text and tradition of Christianity; they have also undertaken machinations to use the vulnerability of Christianity. In subsequent discussions, I will go on to elaborate non-religious facets to an overall quest for innocence – of which Christianity is a part – that leave Whites vulnerable as a group. However, since Professor MacDonald is searching for means to encourage Whites to adopt religious ways that will conform to reality and serve their own interests as Whites, I will begin with some of the things that brought me around. You see, I went through the infamous “phase” in my early twenties. I would like to share some of the things that brought me around to a view more concerned for Whites, in particular. While people who are earnestly attempting to practice Christianity may hate to hear talk of its sincere pursuit called a phase, a phase describes well enough that period of time when I stubbornly attempted to assert belief over and against any evidence to the contrary. To begin, I visited a few evangelical and fundamentalists churches and felt a bit foolish. Nevertheless, some things about life – such as the ominous demographic make-up and rule structure of America - were so horrible to me that I almost had to believe that Christianity was important to assert; some things about life were like some kind of torture. I needed something to transcend that, some kind of consensus with people over the things that I cared about. Things should have been better, clearly. So, I pressed on with my personal evangelizing for and of the true Christianity, making a fool of myself. I would be more embarrassed, if I did not look back in empathy and realize that I could not simply shrug-off 2,000 years of European tradition, all the sacrifice, all the devotion, as if it were nothing; and if I did not know that I was trying to do the right thing – as are you, Christian readership. In a lecture I attended, Professor Rom Harré of Oxford discussed morals with utmost sincerity. I was able to understand for myself that morals are indeed, as important as anything in the world (with the possible exception of concerns for survival, though the two concerns are probably not mutually exclusive). He added that people need “moral orders.” Moral orders - the plurality of the term was a large clue in my liberation from mere tradition, custom and habit. It meant that there were different moral systems, and one might seek one out that serves the kind of people and personal interests that one hopes to realize. Ultimately, I would begin to consider a moral order that would circumscribe and serve the interests of Whites - by that I mean persons of indigenous European descent. However, prior to that was another crucial step in liberating me from the customs and habits of traditional religion – the moral system of the Christian thinker, Immanuel Kant. It provided, in all honesty, a more clear, sensible, fair and intelligible rationale than what I had read in the Christian text; but one that did not in all ways correspond with what was in the Christian text. Since it helped me, I am hopeful that it will help others in taking a step to a moral order more conducive to their own interests as Whites (while not necessitating guilty treatment of out-groups, either). Now, do not beat me up if you are largely familiar with this or because Kant was talking in those universalistic terms. First things first: all thinkers have to take Kant into account. I have updated his system with the contemporary philosophical considerations of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant. I will move toward more specifically native European interests in subsequent discussions. Further notes of semi-interest – when not obsequiously holding the door for the late Kara Kennedy after “Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy” classes at Tufts, I took religion classes as something I might cope with, if nothing else; including a class in critical bible study which I’d taken expecting my earnestness to be reinforced, not contradicted. However, the obvious man made-ness of the Bible became apparent: for example, The Revelation had to have had at least four different authors. The contrivance of the genealogy from David to Jesus was apparent as well. There are sundry other examples of obvious human fabrication in the texts – i.e., definitely not the hand of god. One of my religion professors was not especially patient with my “phase”. He asked me flippantly, “Did you read all of the Kant?” I answered “no, only the last chapter, as you’d assigned, on ‘religious intolerance’ being the greatest ignorance.” He grunted and dismissed me in frustration. But you see, at that point I did not want to hear that my devotion could be considered ignorant, because I was well meaning indeed. Maybe with a little more patience, I’d have come back to it sooner. I cannot say that I did not try though, as some things were shining in that Kant. So, what did I do? I went to the library, looked at it again and realizing that it was something I’d need, in my rash state of mind, I attempted to steal the book. Electronic door security detectors/sensors were a new technology then and the buzzer caught me – how embarrassing! ...and ironic, as it is the one book that will tell you that you should never steal. It was not until five years later that I picked up the book again. It helped greatly to alleviate the worst of my anguish. So, if you have not read it already, I can save you some time and anguish, having put it here in updated and capsule form. Kant’s Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant It is vogue nowadays to deride Immanuel Kant as the quintessential “universalizer”, now that twentieth century science, mathematics and philosophy have sufficiently disproved what Kant considered to be “the imperative foundation of universal principles, always good for all people and all circumstances.” The disproving of Kant’s quest does not, however, eliminate the usefulness of his system as practical topoi – or framework in simpler English. Here is a practical update of his framework, using the contemporary philosophical concerns of Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant. I. Principles versus Sensibilities: Principles are guidelines and ideal rules which persons maintain to give them character and coherence. Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world; it means to make sense of things in a consistent manner. In following-up upon principles you’ve set forth, you may be Accountable, viz. able to provide explanations of your actions for responsible, defensive reasons; and you may establish Warrant, the credibility for proactive endeavor. If your actions are misunderstood or worse, false or negative accusations are made against you, then you can refer back to the principles that you are following and be sure of yourself. Kant calls this being sure of yourself, “freedom” - as such, you are freed from Arbitrariness: the confusion of natural flux; false and negative accusations; trivialities; and, of especial importance, freed from natural inclinations which may pull you in a negative direction. Finally, in that regard, as has been pointed out since Kant’s time (e.g. by Rom Harré in personal conversation), in referring back to these principles you’ve set-out, you establish your self Agency, proving that you are the causal agent of your own actions. Now, if you get carried away with principles - that’s speculation when it comes to the point where you are not dealing with sensible reality - you can always refer back to sensible evidences. However, as it is easier to attend to sensible evidence than it is to abide by principles and to restore credibility in an un-kept principle, it is better to err in the direction of principles. The most fundamental principle, “unanimity“, means to think in agreement with yourself; e.g., if you come to a conflict, you should think first of why your actions and words might be correct, not why they might be wrong. Coherence, Accountability and Agency are begun in this principle straight away. II. A) Common Morals B) Popular Philosophy C) Principled Philosophy A) Common Morals: As a matter of practical convenience, people usually start out accepting implicitly, “first principles” (e.g., don’t steal, don’t lie, be monogamous), common moral ideas that it is worthwhile to be good, fair and decent. Then myriad and pervasive influences tend to divert them from first principles. That, Kant calls - B) Popular Philosophy: It is ubiquitous. People will cite many excuses for deviating from common morals: 1. Typical of these excuses is the statement, “everybody does it;” but the mere popularity of a notion, Kant would observe, does not provide an excuse to violate first principles (consensus can be wrong). Beyond mere conformity to popular consensus, however, there are more cynical and even less accountable deviations from first principles 2. Perhaps most venal is the claim of “scientific objectivity”, which disingenuously denies accountability for the personal choices of its practitioners and their subjects; e.g., “it’s just human nature.” 3. People will cite religion, even, as in the statement, “it’s just god’s will” 4. Or, people may claim that the complex relativity of their existential situation would not allow them to act in accordance with first principles, when, in fact, they could have 5. Finally, there is the practice of didactically reversing a first principle (as in teaching through reverse psychology) under the rubric of “teaching”, exemplified in the statement, “it was really for your own good.” In any case, their arguments for breaking with common morals are of two kinds: “that’s just the [objective] way it is” or “that’s just my/their [relative] circumstances.” Inasmuch, for the brevity of their personal accountability (“that’s just”…), they are not well warranted, and typically not, in their assertions. C) Principled Philosophy: To correct the negative effects of popular consensus, Kant would proffer that we re-establish our first principles on an a-priori, i.e., transcendent universal foundation. Accordingly, we must test our principles by asking the universal question of them, “can this principle always be good for everyone?” In practice, that means treating people as ends in themselves. That would be in contrast to “treating people as the mere means through which other things pass”, as strict attendance to logics of nature, otherworldly ideas (Tillich, 1961) or technology would have it. Kant calls this, the most important principle, “good will”. Without good will, intelligence, beauty, strength, power and fortune only make a person more terrible. Despite this fine reasoning, it is true enough that Kant has been solidly refuted in seeking universal foundations. Nevertheless, as a practical outline, it is brilliant of itself and of practical use as criteria toward being Coherent, Accountable and establishing Warrant - all three necessary to establishing individuality and Agency - in the confusing flux of contemporary society. Part of what Kant tried and failed to do with his proposed a-piori realm transcendent of nature and establishing universal foundations, was an attempt to save the world from empiricism. This is still one of our major problems, as Whites. The empiricism of Kant’s predecessor, John Locke, held a prejudice against social classifications. Locke treated social classifications as fictions of the mind that should give way to empirically based sensory impressions of individuals - a notion that was canonized as Civil Individual Rights in The U.S. Constitution. This sanctified rupturing of group classification and responsibility (for prime example, prohibiting the classification, “the White race”, which I shall call the White Class) has left us susceptible to exploitation and manipulation by collectively organized groups, such as Jews. The empirical bias is to be corrected by the hermeneutic process of tacking back and forth, managing the White Class from observations more closely read (sensible), such as D.N.A. sequences, to broader historical and temporal patterns, encompassed with narrative and other (speculative) conceptualization. Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:48 | # Until about ten years ago, I prided myself in being respectful of Christians. After I abandoned the religion in my early 20s, I wanted to be different from non-believers for what I felt to be obvious and important reasons: atheists can be every bit as obnoxious and destructive as Christians. I did not like the way some of them mocked Christians. After all, at least Christians were trying to be good. And I maintain that - to merely abandon Christianity is not enough. However, I have found, in time, that other commitments can serve a transcendent function - the 14 Words works for me as a core element in both transcendent and in palpable inspiration. Of course it requires more fleshing-out, but.. Anyway, what I’d like to talk about now is how I lost my patience for Christianity. It was a stressful time not long after my father’s death - I was left to fight bitterly with my siblings over the estate. My cousins did not speak English and did not understand that I wanted to invest with them - that it was important; they were my safeguard against organized crime. In fact, perhaps because of their presence, I relaxed a bit too much. Among the locals that I spoke to for translation and because they might be competent and honest enough to cooperate with my cousins and I, was a computer technician named Roman Schneidemuhl (names are slightly changed) - he was a Christian of some fundamentalist variety; I assumed that would make him moral enough and I tried to look upon it as a cultural thing. He turned out to play the role of the “hypocrite” in the “prisoner’s dilemma.” Now, his particular version of Christianity apparently included more Old Testament aggression than I was used to coming from Christians. And Christianity was not his only problem. In fact, I cannot list a fraction of the absurdities that emanated from this man, but I will go into a few. It was from him that I learned of the foible of computer technicians: they seek to isolate a problem - and that works very well with solving computer problems, but it rapes reality in the muliti-interaction of the social world of praxis. With that he took a scientistic view that quested after purity - I came to understand exactly what Oscar Wilde meant when he said, “it is a bad man who admires innocence.” Because Roman was not classifying people as relatively good vs. relatively bad, nobody was pure and good enough. He was playing a pure objectivist game. But there were more problems with Roman: He had been effectively brainwashed by Marxist times. This made him endlessly competitive, critical and impervious - no matter how much evidence you would present to him that something was important and good, it would just wash over his rock head - after he had mouthed perfect empathy. You see, he was doing the Marxist version of the Hegelian dialectic: at one time he would express perfect empathy, then he would propose the most absurdly unrealistic problem - evoking a reaction. Then he would, of course, suggest the solution. Now, because I meant no harm to this guy and saw an eminent win-win in cooperation, I did not hold out the possibility that he could be playing games with my inheritance. It was unthinkable. He was a nationalist; ok, so was I. I had cousins there who were just as poor and Polish as anybody. These were all Christians. The situation was stressful and Roman made 100 percent guarantees of honesty regarding the people he endorsed. I still did not trust him so much as to not insist upon involving my cousins. There was another thing about Roman - he is a very ugly man: picture Heinrich Himmler with glazed, crooked, fish eyes, negroid lips and browning teeth – then you have the spitting image. How else could he transcend his ugliness but to be objectively pure, wise and a good worker? ....and soft spoken, good with computers, always talking as if he was morally concerned; how could I guess that he would place Mika on equal terms to my cousins and me with regard to prospects after my father’s death? But such was the grandiosity of his objectivism. Now then, I took his advice, there were reasons to trust him - Christianity among them. What I did not realize in that moment was that Christian memes were at work in me. They were resurfacing. They were making me feel guilty. They were invoking my sense of compassion for the ugly Roman and critically, going against my instincts when Roman advised that I do a little business with Mika’s new boyfriend – an obviously vicious sort; me thinking that I should reconcile things to make nice in the community. I had gotten very angry with Mika for telling me that I should be tolerant of blacks, this girl who knew nothing beyond TV and movies, about them. “Do you know wHaat?” She said, with the frumpy tone of moral indignation and authority through the pronounced silent H. “You should be more tolerant!” Did she ever make me mad …and frustrated.. I felt as if I could not escape PC (what did defending blacks have to do with Poland?). That Christian meme was there. My cousins were involved. They were all Christians. How bad can things get? If I break even, at least it might placate these local folks (they know I am a “racist” but I am reasonable and decent otherwise) and I can segue into business with my cousins who will surely then realize that I am sincere and taking initiative. It was all worse than that: as I had mentioned previously, former KGB (the Polish version, anyway, had taken over the local government of PIla, after the fall of communism, and infected the local culture with manicheanism) agents were orchestrating events behind the scenes: they had a keen sense of psychology, who I needed and how to turn them against me, etc. Through it all and a myriad of tricks (and I can only go into but a fraction of the sadistic games), lets just say they took the ten in the prisoner’s dilemma. Not stealing huge money, but damaging enough to an investable amount to break it up and wreck the golden opportunity of that moment: not to mention precious time, confidence and trust. Now then, I learned that Roman’s ace in the hole was to treat this all as “a lesson.” And that is how I learned to be critical of the scientistic view on that score - you can write off any miserable deed as a “testing” and a “lesson.” Guilty until proven innocent was another game that Roman played. Very unfamiliar to American experience. However, I did learn that I was too compassionate. Sometimes the obvious is easiest to ignore - this very ugly man is likely to be jealous. 3
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:50 | # Mika’s first boyfriend, Oskar, was where it started. She began to plan stealing with him. From him, I learned how alpha males operate - and why everybody rightfully hates them. But he seemed, and was, so normal at first. From a narrow purview an alpha is dead-on accurate in his understanding of relationships and motives – I took his advice to contact my family, in fact. But alphas cannot stop competing, and their view is narrow. People hate them for good reason, I would find. Nevertheless, from his furtive girlfriend, Mika, I learned how a woman void of inhibition goes about playing on your emotions; permission giving of things you should not do with delightful cheer - an encouraging voice you’ve never heard. She asked (probably on the advice of Jewish organized criminal overlords) what made me most mad? I told her - feminism in alliance with black power. She then knew how to manipulate my emotions even more - did the most mentally retarded dance you can imagine to celebrate her possession of this knowledge (kind of crouching very low to the ground with her legs apart and swaying - she was that obnoxious, yes). Oskar, the alpha male a hole, wanted me to buy a car. Mika, delightfully encouraged me: “buy it, buy it!” I bought it because I figured that it would be a way to investigate possibilities in other towns and to escape the dodgy scene in the end, if nothing else. More, it would be in my cousins’ name - that ought to garner respect, I thought. There were relatives there who cared about me here. After Oskar and his family melted down on me in drunken harangue, I had a full excuse to ditch him, but not before he brought an organized criminal, Tomasz Marcin Pacocha, into the scene. Mika then got together with Pacocha, and with her delightful voice called me while I was still traumatized from Oskar and his family’s berating, and suggested that I call Roman (I knew him, liked him and yes, trusted him); who in turn guaranteed that Pacocha was “100 percent honest.” He would pretend the good guy adversary of Oskar, who could, indeed be a threat in the community; so, to have some defense against Oskar was a good idea; as I still wanted to stay there in Pila because I thought dealing with my cousins would be best (though they still dragged their heals). I learned that when under stress, one is susceptible to 100 percent iron clad guarantees. Still, I would only do it on the condition that my cousins were involved - surely they would respect my cousins enough not to try to take advantage too much. Well, that was six months of torture at the behest of Mika - she had a great time getting these guys to destroy the money (destruction of money would bring a smile to her face, like a fake Christmas tree lighting up) that I had from my father’s house a few months after his death; though I was perfectly willing to use this money to help people, including them, to make money. But, never mind, she was equipped with American movies and the cooperators in the prisoner’s dilemma - chief among them, Pacocha and his organized criminal overlords. Mika (whose father was a policeman – in fact, she defied me to call the police) would have a baby with Pacocha upon the modest sum they would steal – no more than a couple thousand dollars. Still, I consider this a great failure – it was kind of like being cuckoled with regard to a bit of red meat from my inheritance. I had made a bid for “beta of the year” with that one. I helped some of the worst people do the worst thing at my expense, time and effort. In my defense, I did have much aligned against me, cousins whose culture was so familiar on the surface, was so alien beneath, including a highly corrupt community, where one hand washed another, patty cake patty cake, topped by former Polish secret service heads. It really could have been dangerous. And the hypocrite, Roman Schneidemuhl. Roman has been heavily influenced by Marxism: if you are not working with your hands like he does, you are a bad man. He is “not lying” with his Hegelian dialectic, he is getting at a “deeper truth.”: Roman is a scientist, he is “testing you” and “giving you lessons” to find the “true truth.” Roman is going to isolate the problem to a singular cause - which is, of course, somehow your fault: that is why you needed this “lesson.” Roman’s deep wisdom comes from the same Hymiewood, Negro promoting movies that Mika watches. I tell him that Blacks are different from Hollywood movies, they are an older people, more masculine, aggressive and violent - that’s just a fact. Roman says “White people are cancer” (I don’t think he knew who Susan Sontag was, but that is how far that culture spreads), “that’s just a fact.” I correct him, “White people being ‘cancer” is a metaphor and a very bad one, at that: a metaphor is not a fact. But does that matter with Roman? Roman is a Christian, you see, White people who are not as ugly as him are bad; and of course money is evil - at least, if it is not his money; even if it is the money from your father’s house and you care for the people and nation..even if you do have “business” there with your cousins and want to build community. His mother told him that his feelings are all. You are guilty until proven innocent in his culture. Indeed, I had residual Christian memes, which suggested to me that I ought to transcend, forgive, have compassion; make amends for bitter disagreements, even with people whom I did not like, such as Mika and Pacocha, whose values differed dramatically from mine.. With the recognition of these memes and the effect that they had in these occasions, I began to lose patience with Christianity. 4
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:25 | # Danny, Sometimes a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. That means sometimes you just have to whoop some ass. Take a lesson from my ace number one booncoon, Rayon McIntosh, if’n you ever have to get involved or cross paths with a-holes again: 5
Posted by DanielS. on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:01 | # In line with the fleshing-out of a moral order for Whites, and also in line with the previous thread - viz. Carl Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction - it appears highly relevant to mark the distinction between some approximation of the golden rule as opposed to the silver rule in application: golden rule for in-group, silver rule for out-group. Golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Silver rule: do not do unto others that which you would not want them to do unto you. Obviously, this requires pragmatic refinement.
The Silver rule does exist in Christianity: “If you had known this, they ask for sympathy not sacrifice, you would not have punished the innocent.” However, the preponderance of text implores the Christian to be obsequious 6
Posted by Silver on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:00 | # Oh for the love of God, what in the world is wrong with GW? Is he blind? Deaf? What on earth can be the problem? Is the old coot that far gone that he can’t bring himself to revoke the front page privilege of this embarrassing, logorrheic drip daniels, thereby risking the permanent ruin of a once fine blog? Unfuckingreal. Wake up, GW. You had the gonads to run JRichards off. Can you not do the same to this twit who (by his voluminous postings if nothing else) is many times worse? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. 7
Posted by DanielS. on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:11 | # Posted by Silver on January 16, 2013, 09:00 AM | # Oh for the love of God, what in the world is wrong with GW? Is he blind? Deaf? What on earth can be the problem? Is the old coot that far gone that he can’t bring himself to revoke the front page privilege of this embarrassing, logorrheic drip daniels, thereby risking the permanent ruin of a once fine blog? Unfuckingreal. Wake up, GW. You had the gonads to run JRichards off. Can you not do the same to this twit who (by his voluminous postings if nothing else) is many times worse? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Have you not said that Hitler was basically right? That was your big revelation? And you are a Christian? People should not focus too much on Whites….they should get a grip and chill out..
For my part, I was in fact, not going to post this Kant essay - but I believe that it was necessary.
8
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:27 | # No, I agree in some part with Silver. You take up way too much literal screen space, DanielS. When I post something long, at least it’s written in multiple full paragraphs, so an argument can be followed. Just look at comment #7 - how much sheer physical room it takes up onscreen! I don’t know why you post like this, but it isn’t helpful to attracting visitors. They see way too much of your stuff, which too often is written in an overly meandering or episodic way, and then serious comments from others get lost in the background. Silver, I agree wrt GW. He’s a smart man, but he manages the organization of MR needlessly poorly. There are many problems, which I could easily rectify were I to be asked (note I never have been, and doubt I would be). He makes a huge mistake editing “lightly”. I understand his official position (privately, he’s probably busy with his own life’s affairs), to wit, that nationalists have been so often victimized by speech repression that we should let everything stand, the chips falling where they may. The problem, though, is that a site, no less than a journal or magazine, needs a guiding hand, otherwise the shit always ends up predominating over the quality. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I MAKE THIS OBVIOUS POINT? A heavier editorial hand, provided that it focused only on eliminating crap, not controversy, would attract a higher quality of discussant, which presumably is a goal of a metapolitical website. The emphasis should be on intelligence allied with relevance. Not everything should be allowed to post, but only well-conceived and executed posts actually dealing with nationalist themes. Moreover, personal hobbyhorses should be disallowed out of a decent respect for the reader as expressed in the avoidance of ‘overkill’ (this would limit Bowery’s tendentious discussions of pairwise dueling, as well as JRichards’ endless “news” stories intended to serve up his particular ‘slant’ on contemporary events). There should never be more than one new post per day (I would get radical here, and prefer “one per week”), and it should be a substantive essay. If such a one is unavailable, then the existing OP remains until a new one is properly ready. GW should ‘put out the call’ that he wishes to redesign MR so as to be a premier WN intellectual site (for a while there were some very good essays coming in, from persons like Christian Miller and David Hamilton - if I’m remembering correctly; where are they now?). Moreover, traffic should be visually channeled to the main post in a striking way, say, by having past posts appear only as HTML links off to the side, as with the existing links to other WN sites. Having OPs just appear on the Home Page one after another is confusing, and promotes conversational discontinuity. Less is more. I would note, however, that the layout and functioning of this response box is excellent, and should not be changed (although I would prefer the background coloring to be white, instead of slightly shaded). I think GW needs an editorial assistant. Lurker seems to wish to remain a simple technical factotum (very necessary, mind you!). Perhaps Dr. Lister could be recruited? I disagree with Lister on many political matters, but at least he’s intelligent, informed and constantly reading. I think he would be able to distinguish serious material with which he might personally take issue (eg, much of my commentary), from unserious, irrelevant, or sheerly boring stuff that is fit only for deletion. A site like this needs to be ‘sculpted’, in the manner of a reconstructive surgeon. Or, at the least, edited. GW, however, seems to have mostly removed himself from this role.
9
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:59 | #
Why don’t you and Haller just fuck right off and leave Guessedworker and daniels alone. It’s his house and he has been more than accommodating to both of you. 10
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:33 | # how much sheer physical room it takes up onscreen! I don’t know why you post like this, but it isn’t helpful to attracting visitors. They see way too much of your stuf
11
Posted by DanielS. on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:42 | # and then serious comments from others get lost in the background. This would be a projection as well as to the effect of yours and Thorn’s comments. 12
Posted by Silver on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:13 | #
What a pleasant surprise to see a post from you that does something other than police comments for sociobiological correctness (at least according to your limited understanding of it). Yes, GW’s been very accommodating—too accommodating. He has been warned about it for years. What do you suppose happened to earlier contributors, Jonesy? Did their views on racial matters change, or did they become fed up with the turn after turn for the worse this blog kept taking? Readership is at its lowest ebb yet, and while that can’t be laid solely at the feet of daniels, his takeover has certainly been doing its bit to run this place into the ground. (You don’t seriously expect anyone to believe you read every word of this posting of his, do you?) Enough is enough. Haller, Cutting out crap not controversy is a very apt way to put it. Calling for a complete overhaul, on the other hand, is more than bit demanding, doncha think?
13
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:48 | # /. Posted by Silver on January 17, 2013, 03:13 AM | # Why don’t you and Haller just fuck right off and leave Guessedworker and daniels alone. It’s his house and he has been more than accommodating to both of you. What a pleasant surprise to see a post from you that does something other than police comments for sociobiological correctness (at least according to your limited understanding of it). Yes, GW’s been very accommodating—too accommodating. He has been warned about it for years. What do you suppose happened to earlier contributors, Jonesy? Did their views on racial matters change, or did they become fed up with the turn after turn for the worse this blog kept taking? In time, those who stay away in reticence will come back when it is observed that topics of concern to native British and native Europeans, including German nationalists and European diaspora, are dealt with in earnest and thorough manner. What take-over? Don’t be silly. And as for my commenting too much, note that probably more than half of my comments have been devoted to defense against Thorn and Haller’s absurdities and more recently, yours. Much of it ad hominem, trying to impose Christianity and Mises; in your case, vain attempts to snob-appeal. has certainly been doing its bit to run this place into the ground. If I run that kind of stuff off, that’s fine. I’d feel bad inasmuch some of those concerned for native British interests shied away. I defer to their concerns on this site. (You don’t seriously expect anyone to believe you read every word of this posting of his, do you?) Enough is enough. And they don’t have to but if they didn’t it’s their loss.
Cutting out crap not controversy is a very apt way to put it. Calling for a complete overhaul, on the other hand, is more than bit demanding, doncha think? If we cut out the crap, there would be no posts by Thorn or Haller, and only a few half paragraphs by you, Silver. After a time in the shadows, you have made yourself clear: you do not consider yourself White. The well being of Whites is only of tangential concern for you. You are a Christian. You think Hitler was right - that was a revelation to you: I guess 55 million Europeans getting killed was a worthy price to you. You think that we should chill-out with regard to defending Whites - read books discussing what really matters, no doubt those matters which are of concern to you.
14
Posted by kelley on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:02 | #
You sound like a Jew. 15
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:24 | # /. Because I don’t want 55 million Europeans to get killed, especially not for a failed end? No, I’m not a Jew. I wish that European and Russian peoples could have cooperated to expel Jews to Madagascar or somewhere: but not before the most culpable of their plutocratic elites where tried and convicted. However, hindsight is 20/20 - and understanding that, I am not very judgmental that that is not what transpired; still, I’d prefer that we learn from WWII, not romanticize its figures. Rather, one who comes from a nasty Jewish perspective might not mind 55 million Europeans being wasted. 16
Posted by kelley on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:34 | #
Sounds like a strawman. Are you glad that Germany lost? 17
Posted by DanielS. on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:41 | # It is not a straw man. I am sorry that the war happened and that things were not pursued as I had stated in post number 15. 18
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:55 | #
His boss, Morris Dees, pays him by the word. Hence the lengthy posts. 19
Posted by DanielS. on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:38 | # // No, I agree in some part with Silver. You take up way too much literal screen space, DanielS. His boss, Morris Dees, pays him by the word. Hence the lengthy posts.
20
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:09 | # Daniels, Please don’t compare your meanderings to anything I write. It is discrediting to you. I wasn’t so much criticizing your content (on a nationalist site, you can be anti-Christian and disparaging of correct economics - and I can and will criticize that WN tendency; this has nothing to do with who is more pro-white), as the visual presentation of your comments. Your comments consume too much physical space, as though you keep hitting the “enter” button too many times, especially at the end (see again comment #7 - why is there 4 inches of blank space after the final word “harmful”?). I also sometimes can’t help wondering if English is your second language. I certainly don’t speak Polish, so kudos to you. On the other hand, if you’re asserting some kind of intellectual superiority over me, in understanding or presentation, then you are really clueless. Much of what you write - and your way of writing - would get me a “C” at best from my current professors; possibly an “F” simply on syntax. At least Silver, Thorn and I can all write plain English (though Silver ofttimes writes like a very grouchy old man). Your content is often frankly unintelligible. Plus I’m afraid your understanding of the broader history of Western philosophy is painfully inadequate. Of course, I’d say the same for most here, which is why I always prefer more straightforwardly political/strategic discussions. Why don’t you read the Catholic Copleston’s nine volume history of philosophy (if you don’t wish to read the originals), and then come back and discuss Descartes or Kant? Anyway, the quality of the readership has indeed plummeted over the past couple of years. Silver is correct. I offered some preliminary suggestions as to how to get MR back on track. I thought they were rather modest. I certainly didn’t mean to exclude other ideas for improvement. But am I right or wrong, administratively speaking?
21
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:31 | #
It’s f’ing pathetic that basically one jewish immigrant named David Schwartz could talk the Swedes into accepting the choice between committing racial suicide or being called Nazis. Of course the fools choose the former. Then subsequently hired evildoers such as Barbara Spectre to make the suicide go as painlessly and smoothly as possible. F’ing pathetic! Why didn’t the Swedes just tell Schwartz and crew to go piss up a rope? Better yet they should have tossed his behind in prison for committing sedition. The problem as I see it is not the jewish instigators (they’re just jews being jews); the problem lies within the Swedes themselves. 22
Posted by DanielS. on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:48 | # Posted by Leon Haller on January 17, 2013, 11:09 AM | # Daniels, Please don’t compare your meanderings to anything I write. It is discrediting to you There is no comparison, Leon. You have nothing to say - not to many of us, anyway
Thanks buddy.
Funny, Leon, that is how I feel about your comments - others have mentioned their length and tedious content as well. I also sometimes can’t help wondering if English is your second language. I certainly don’t speak Polish, so kudos to you. On the other hand, if you’re asserting some kind of intellectual superiority over me, I am asserting that I have heard your opinions and they do not interest me.
I don’t care about your grading system, Leon. Nor do I respect your opinions - in case you have not gathered.
You might write with proper grammar and style but the content stinks.
You would like to believe that. Of course, I’d say the same for most here, which is why I always prefer more straightforwardly political/strategic discussions. Why don’t you read the Catholic Copleston’s nine volume history of philosophy (if you don’t wish to read the originals), and then come back and discuss Descartes or Kant? Because I am not interested in the Catholic take. Start-up a site where they discuss an arcane Catholic perspective.
That is your opinion. In truth, you and Thorn help little. You have been here for a couple of years, I have not.
You were definitely wrong. However, as you are so strongly opinionated on the matter of how a site should be run and what its content priorities should be - which, of no small matter, are at stark odds with MR’s charter - the best option for you is to start up a website of your own. I wish you the best of luck with that - really, may your strategies serve White peoples very well.
23
Posted by kelley on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:26 | #
It is a strawman. It’s like saying that you and others who are anti-Hitler wanted Europe to be destroyed and Europeans to be eliminated since that is what has been happening subsequent to Hitler’s defeat. 24
Posted by DanielS. on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:47 | # Posted by kelley on January 17, 2013, 04:26 PM | # It is not a straw man. It is a strawman. It’s like saying that you and others who are anti-Hitler wanted Europe to be destroyed and Europeans to be eliminated since that is what has been happening subsequent to Hitler’s defeat.
25
Posted by kelley on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:11 | # It’s as absurd as the claim that not being anti-Hitler means being glad that 55 million Europeans died. 26
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:04 | # Your language games are terribly strange to me: some mixture of hyper-unanimity with Nazi Germany and inversion of Jewish big lie techniques. You say that I don’t agree with Hitler that I am glad that 55 million Europeans died. That’s just a giant false either/or. I find a an ironic similarity in the ways that Jews and Nazis argue: they are never wrong; all is black and white; they are always victims; everybody who might opposed them is in all ways bad. I find it as tedious and unproductive to argue with them as with the Christians. However, when not dealing with contrary perspectives, that it to say, within their own perspective, they can have some interesting conversations: If you do not already, you might find affinity with the folks here: 27
Posted by kelley on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:53 | # It’s not a language game. It’s an analogy. And I’m not a Nazi. You’re suggesting that not being anti-Hitler means being glad that 55 million Europeans died, are you not? 28
Posted by DanielS. on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:04 | # Posted by kelley on January 18, 2013, 04:53 AM | # It’s not a language game. It’s an analogy. And I’m not a Nazi. You’re suggesting that not being anti-Hitler means being glad that 55 million Europeans died, are you not? Here was what I said to Silver, who had said that “Hitler was right:”
The word “glad” does not appear. He said that he thinks Hitler was right. That suggests his basic plan was right. I draw the inference that Hitler’s plans had a significant part in leading to the death of 55 million Europeans. Silver has suggested that for their part, those that opposed Hitler, and thereby contributed to that total, should simply not have opposed Hitler. I said nothing about his being glad. I am the opposite of glad - I see it as a horrific tragedy. However, since he believes that Hitler was right, I implicated a rhetorical question, that perhaps he thinks 55 million dead Europeans was a worth while price to pay? And what I am suggesting with that, is that Silver is not sufficiently empathetic with native Europeans; that is why he could make such a sloppy inference as to say Hitler was right and that it was a revelation for him. Whereas, I do not see Hitler and his regime as guiltless in either their plans nor their materialization; and I do not blame those who defended themselves against his regime. Although I recognize that Nazi rhetoric will present the Nazis as being on the defensive - even with regard to establishing “Himmlerstadt” and initiating Barbarossa…and so on and on it will go. As it is with the Christians, so it will be with some of those who think Hitler was right. They won’t change and I am not going to agree either, but I pointed the way to a place where they do agree with that view; and where they might be interested - because I am not.
29
Posted by kelley on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:18 | #
The question is whether “55 million dead Europeans was a worth while price to pay” for German victory in WWII. It takes two to tango, so it doesn’t make sense to ascribe all 55 million dead to Germany. And even if Germany refrained from war, it’s plausible that other countries would have initiated war against Germany, either militarily or through political and economic means, resulting in deaths. Thus it’s reasonable that the “55 million figure” should be lower if we want to examine solely Germany’s role. If one is “sufficiently empathetic with native Europeans” and rational, then clearly there will be a point at which one concludes that German victory would have been better. The only difference is the point. For some that point was reached at some time in the past. For others, things will have to get worse before that point is reached. But if there is no such point, then one is either not “sufficiently empathetic with native Europeans”, or is irrational. 30
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:20 | # Daniels does not care about 55 million dead Europeans. He only cares about his beloved Slavs, whether in the homeland or the diaspora. However, he needs to cover his chauvinism by misdirection. In the diaspora he shields the parasitic nature of a foreign population living in another ethny’s homeland by attributing the malaise to Locke, the US Constitution, and Jack Johnson fucking white women. In Europe he plays Holocaustianty’s non-discrimination card when really the question is not whether 55 million but whether the Neuordnung Europas. It then becomes a question of in order to ensure the survival of an Aryan-Nordic race was it reasonable to expel or enslave most of the Slavic people remembering of course that the morality of displacement via mass migration of Slavs into Anglo-Saxon homelands is never questioned? 31
Posted by DanielS. on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:06 | # /....
I make that clear in this sentence: Silver has suggested that for their part, those that opposed Hitler, and thereby contributed to that total, should simply not have opposed Hitler.
It is totally implausible - especially after Germany had re-armed itself. More, had that been the case, Germany would have been entirely right to defend herself. But as I have said, this is where your conversation will inevitably go to no end - that Nazi Germany was merely defending itself. either militarily or through political and economic means, resulting in deaths. Thus it’s reasonable that the “55 million figure” should be lower if we want to examine solely Germany’s role. I’m talking about about 55 million, because I care about all of them - and yes, I think that Nazi Germany’s less than perfect policy was a significant contributor to that total. If one is “sufficiently empathetic with native Europeans” and rational, then clearly there will be a point at which one concludes that German victory would have been better. It is a false either/or given Nazi Germany’s designs, which were known even at the time - a sufficiently empathetic person cannot expect people to have not resisted and defended against them. The only difference is the point. For some that point was reached at some time in the past. For others, things will have to get worse before that point is reached. But if there is no such point, then one is either not “sufficiently empathetic with native Europeans”, or is irrational. You keep trying to turn this into an issue wherein the Nazis just had to have the perfect formula. That simply isn’t true. In fact, a more perfect formula would have been cooperation with other European nations and Russia to expel the Jews; while trying and convicting their most culpable elites. 32
Posted by DanielS. on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:22 | # posted by Desmond Jones on January 19, 2013, 03:20 AM | # Daniels does not care about 55 million dead Europeans.
I am half Italian too, but I do not only care about Italians and Slavs. I care about all native Europeans.
all Europeans, whether in homeland or diaspora, yes. However, he needs to cover his chauvinism by misdirection. No, that isn’t true. I care about all native European peoples and their nations. In the diaspora he shields the parasitic nature of a foreign population living in another ethny’s homeland No I don’t. I don’t believe that White people should live in other White people’s lands, not in significant numbers, anyway.
Those are a couple of weak points to nativist defenses but not the only ones that I conceive, discuss or entertain.
No I don’t.
You might be concerned for northern Europeans only, but I am concerned for Eastern and Southern Europeans also.
And the answer is obviously not. Moreover, not only are some of these people closely related of intermarriage, or from proto-European, but some percentage of them were, for example, Viking, to begin. I question this explicitly and have with regard to the UK and other western and northern European countries - I believe the European Union and its impact on native nationals is evil. With regard to The US and other countries, they remain a significant minority to date. And I disagree that they have been pejorative. I am not really interested in your tales of their impact on Canada. However, the goal now is to establish sovereign states within diaspora, so that a person like yourself may find huge territories devoted solely to Anglo-Saxons….not only in the UK, but in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. 33
Posted by Silver on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 23:08 | #
Is that supposed to be a direct quote? I’m not sure where you got that, but I have expressed such figurative thoughts before (though I’m sure I used “The Nazis” rather than “Hitler,” whom I have never expressed admiration for). That’s figurative, daniels, expressing the view that rather than believing the nazis to have been wholly wrong about everything they ever thought and did, they were in fact right about a number of things. It’s not a literal or absolute statement, in the sense that a ‘true believer’ nazi or hitler-worshiper would intend it—though I can understand why a jerk-off like you doesn’t care for the distinction. Also, if you believe that statement of mine quote-worthy then why not statements like “I’ve always hated the nazis”? Or the term “Glory Day” for VE Day (ie symbolizing more than mere victory, rather the glory of our salvation from the scum who sought to removes us from the earth)?
You really can’t be this dumb. It’s got to be some sort of Polish emotional block. My point wasn’t that the nazis shouldn’t have been resisted. My point was that had they won I believed it unlikely that their fervor would have lasted very long (probably not surviving Hitler’s death) and that some sort of turn towards liberalization would have eventually occurred, and that the demographic issues that existed in such a putative future it would have much been easier to resolve than the demographic issues Europe faces today. 34
Posted by DanielS. on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 23:44 | # ... Here was what I said to Silver, who had said that “Hitler was right:” Is that supposed to be a direct quote? I’m not sure where you got that, but I have expressed such figurative thoughts before (though I’m sure I used “The Nazis” rather than “Hitler,” whom I have never expressed admiration for). That’s figurative, daniels, expressing the view that rather than believing the nazis to have been wholly wrong about everything they ever thought and did, they were in fact right about a number of things. It’s not a literal or absolute statement, in the sense that a ‘true believer’ nazi or hitler-worshiper would intend it—though I can understand why a jerk-off like you doesn’t care for the distinction. Ok, guy, you didn’t say “Hitler” you said the Nazis, but there is little difference; and you said that it was a revelation to you that it would have been best if they had won. It is a trivia born of your uncaringness about who would have been sacrificed toward your wonderfully expedient hindsight.
I have said, long ago, that if Hitler had won that his program would not have lasted. That’s not a revelation.
Yes, you had said it was a revelation for you.
I draw the inference that Hitler’s plans had a significant part in leading to the death of 55 million Europeans. Silver has suggested that for their part, those that opposed Hitler, and thereby contributed to that total, should simply not have opposed Hitler. You really can’t be this dumb. No, silver, you can’t. And highlighting these points has been an expedient
it has been expedient at getting at the limitation of your bias regarding European interests and your sympathy for anatolia and the levant. My point wasn’t that the nazis shouldn’t have been resisted. My point was that had they won I believed it unlikely that their fervor would have lasted very long (probably not surviving Hitler’s death) As I said, I remember saying the same damn thing to a professor in 1988. I recognize this now as no great revelation and particularly unimportant now. It isn’t. 35
Posted by DanielS. on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 00:15 | # A more succinct form: I understand you, Silver - I am supposed to faithfully transcribe your Turkish and Jewish laced point of view: It wasn’t that Hitler was right it was the Nazis. If the Nazis had won we’d have all been better off because there would have been a period of liberalization whereupon your virus could have gone to work again in the wake of the millions of European dead - who, incidentally were besides the point for you - the revelation for you being, which side should have won? No, Silver, the real point is that the war should not have been fought - rather Turkish-Jews should have been deported from Europe. 36
Posted by Silver on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 01:36 | #
I don’t recall ever using the word “revelation.” Nevertheless, rather than quibble I’ll just admit straight up that, yes, I was struck by that particular realization. After a lifetime of despising and fearing that crowd it’s hardly surprising that the conclusion that they had some points in their favor would come as quite the revelation. Would that conclusion be any less sinister to you had it not also been a “revelation” to me? If not, I don’t understand why you keep repeating the word “revelation” as though it’s a mark against me of itself.
That war happened. I didn’t start it and my feelings about it today are not going to change the fact that it occurred nor that millions of unfortunates perished as a result of it (including members of my own family). Naturally, if I could wave my magic wand I would have it that no such war was ever fought, but I don’t have that luxury. As for who might have been sacrificed, lol, someone like me would surely have ranked near the top of any list of potential candidates. Normally, advocating a point of view that so severely compromises one’s personal interests is considered evidence of sincerity. In your haste to denounce me you’ve sped right past this telling point. Distinguishing Hitler from ‘the nazis’ is no mere trivia. National-socialism as a political system and body of political thought that takes racial existence seriously deserves to be distinguished from the personal opinions of one Adolf Hitler, regardless of the influential role he played in its creation.
Okay, so you’re better than me. You said it all in 1988. Bravo.
Ah, is there any creature more insufferable than the WN hardnut who presumes the right to tell others whom are they permitted to racially approve of? But that aside, look, it seems that no matter how many times I repeat that I’m not speaking as a representative of WN it comes to you as a revelation every time. Your insistence that this means I cannot possibly care at all about broader European racial interests doesn’t hold water. (Sheesh, Haller sure is right about your comments taking up screen space. I really don’t see why you can’t compact your replies some.)
37
Posted by DanielS. on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 01:49 | # /. No, it is because you are willing to look back and see the sacrifice some people similar to yourself (in theory) that you consider this a significant insight to you - that’s why I repeat that you think it is revelation (and you did use a synonym if not that word exactly).
National Socialism maybe, but Nazism does not deserve to be distinguished because it transformed into capitalist imperialism after the night of the long knives, right along with Hitler’s prerogatives.
I don’t presume to tell you who you should care about, I take a position as to who should matter in terms of Western societies - the people who create it, native Europeans. But that aside, look, it seems that no matter how many times I repeat that I’m not speaking as a representative of WN it comes to you as a revelation every time. It’s not a revelation, you’ve made that clear a while back. 38
Posted by Silver on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:13 | #
Which in your hands amounts to presuming the right to tell those Europeans who they may be permitted to have affinities for. Any racial solution obviously requires drawing racial distinctions and enforcing them, so it’s not this that I take issue with; it’s your ham-handed manner of making the case for a particular set of distinctions that rouses ire. At least you’re not alone here: Haller’s stupidity on this issue is easily among his weakest points.
Oh so I’ve now had ‘Turkish’ deftly added to my (equally non-existent) Jewish ancestry. Cool. I’ve said it before: why GW continues to allow a contributor who sinks to VNN tard corral antics without provocation front page posting privilege is completely beyond me. 39
Posted by DanielS. on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:58 | # Posted by Silver on January 19, 2013, 09:13 PM | # I don’t presume to tell you who you should care about, I take a position as to who should matter in terms of Western societies - the people who create it, native Europeans Which in your hands amounts to presuming the right to tell those Europeans who they may be permitted to have affinities for. No, I don’t presume who they may have affinities for; however, I do take a position as to who might be citizens of particular European nations. Hm. for you. At least you’re not alone here: Haller’s stupidity on this issue is easily among his weakest points. ooh, now you’re hitting below the belt. <em>Oh so I’ve now had ‘Turkish’ deftly added to my (equally non-existent) Jewish ancestry. Cool. I’ve said it before: why GW continues to allow a contributor who sinks to VNN tard corral antics without provocation front page posting privilege is completely beyond me. </em>
40
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 07:29 | #
Which issue is this again? I don’t follow you. What is my “ham-handed manner”, in your opinion? 41
Posted by kelley on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 09:43 | #
It isn’t implausible at all. The probability is certainly greater than 0. Also re-arming doesn’t prevent war by other means - political, economic means, etc.
I didn’t say it was “either/or”. If it was either/or, I would say that one would always have to conclude one way or the other. What I actually said was that if one is “sufficiently empathetic with native Europeans” and rational, then there will be a point at which one concludes that German victory would have been better. If there is no such point, then one is either not “sufficiently empathetic with native Europeans”, or is irrational. Do you disagree with this? In your mind, can things never get bad enough that a German victory would have been better? 42
Posted by DanielS. on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:12 | # Its history dear. Even if this were an exercise in honest and sound logic (which I don’t think it is), it calls for a yield to judgment: This is futile. This conversation is obviously just going to go in a circle. It is better that you take your sympathy for Nazi Germany to those who might wish to discuss it. 43
Posted by Jagdschloss on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:03 | # Turns out that, contrary to propaganda, the Polacks were treated well by the Nazis:
This evidence was discovered by chance in the trash:
Who knows how much similar evidence which goes against propaganda has been lost or trashed. 44
Posted by DanielS. on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:06 | # Posted by Jagdschloss on January 21, 2013, 02:03 AM | # Der Jagdschlopp, your comment would probably be more relevant under the Carl Schmitt post. Contrary to your propaganda, there is all too abundant evidence that the Krauts were not so righteous. 45
Posted by DanielS. on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:27 | # In my years of on line activism, I have not made one single comment regarding Polish prisoner’s of war, let alone how they were treated, badly or not. But I am so glad to be enlightened as to how well Polish prisoner’s of war were treated by the Nazis 46
Posted by Jagdschloss on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:13 | #
I know. I saw Schindler’s List, too. 47
Posted by DanielS. on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:41 | # Posted by Jagdschloss on January 21, 2013, 04:13 AM | # there is all too abundant evidence that the Krauts were not so righteous. I know. I saw Schindler’s List, too.
Actually, I would really like to be talking about strategies on behalf of European peoples and discreet territories for them under the present and projected circumstances. None of my articles is on the topic of a particular European people: because I advocate them all. Although much useful discussion could be generated toward the end of our coordination and the advancement of our mutual interests as indigenous Europeans (if not under the posts I’ve made, then under others), unfortunately, I would say that about 90% of the comments that I get fall under about four topics: Why I should believe that Hitler was totally good, Why I should believe that Jesus was totally good, Next, why I should treat Darwin with objective reverence (though the Hitler and Jesus fans are much more common). Failing my agreement with those three, the rest, and the majority of comments are ad hominem attacks on me because I am not devoted to Hitler, Jesus Christ. .. hell, not even to Darwin.
48
Posted by DanielS. on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:12 | # ...almost forgot a fifth category Why I should believe that Jews are White, benign and include them in our advocacy group. 49
Posted by kelley on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 03:39 | #
I don’t see why it should go in a circle. If one is “sufficiently empathetic with native Europeans” and rational, then there will be a point at which things get so bad that one concludes that German victory would have been better. If there is no such point, then one is either not “sufficiently empathetic with native Europeans”, or is irrational.
50
Posted by DanielS. on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:01 | # No, if Nazi Germany had not based its campaign on faulty logics, faulty friends/enemy distinction and overcompensation, then the world would not be beholden to the reverse overcompensation to which it is now subject. 51
Posted by kelley on Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:30 | # That’s a different question. Do you disagree that if one is “sufficiently empathetic with native Europeans” and rational, then there will be a point at which things get so bad that one concludes that German victory would have been better? 52
Posted by DanielS. on Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:17 | # ......... The question will mainly have the effect of flaring-up inter-European rancor; it is the kind of stuff which instigates reciprocally escalating diatribe, potentially leading to more serious conflicts. To answer your question on its proper level, it is the very thing that Europeans need least. There was no avoiding indefinite inter-European conflict with Hitler’s program unless and until it was defeated (just for one small example, the civilians whose relatives were executed were not going to forgive and forget). And the necessary effort to defeat Nazi Germany would divert and destroy our most precious people from cooperation, survival and defense against non-Europeans. It seems that you want me to answer a question, “do I find it preferable that Nazi Germany lost the war?” The answer is yes, BUT I’m not glad there was a war as such - it is not a good question: I’d absolutely rather that the war not have been fought as it was, nor with the friends/enemies distinction as they were drawn. And no, I don’t at all agree that the war as it was prosecuted was sufficiently defensive. Would Europe have been better off had Germany won? For those who were killed or who were going to be killed, the question is obviously not, and tautologically so - they would have no chance to improve conditions. But then, we are having to deal with what you would try to pass-off as logic, as you mull what life would be like if you had a time-machine. You said that I sound like a Jew. You sound to me like a half Black/half Irish woman who finds the Nazi perspective convenient. Someone who really does not care very much about Europeans - White men should fight each other so that people like Silver can seem well balanced in promoting “tolerance” of the affinity that he and the women he panders to have for swarthoids. But whatever you are, your questioning displays bad will, a wish to see Europeans fighting one another.
While the present day Nazis will lament Dresden (understandably) they will say nothing of Warsaw and the other vast destruction that they perpetrated. Rather, they will make excuses: “The Bromberg incident” being among the lamest pieces of convenient propaganda that I was forced to look at - I say forced, because the whole matter of World War II is not something that I care to belabor: I care about the conditions of Whites now. The incidents of World Wars are really too much to go into - it is impractical and unnecessary If you go back to World War One, you find examples of that particular German regime committing cruel acts of aggression and destruction (such as those in Louvain and Kalisz) that, coupled with the cataclysms of the war in its broader scope, would provide even more context as to why neighboring countries would not have been glad for Germany to win the wars. Nevertheless, in fighting these two horrific wars the western countries were absolutely weakened in their defense against liberal imposition, by Jewish and other design. If we are to learn from World War II, it is to draw the friend/enemy distinction properly this time: all Europeans (incl. Russians) friends, non-Europeans and traitors (especially elite traitors) enemies when they insist upon imposing non-Europeans into European territories (or one kind of European coming to another European territory en mass) and destroying resources. 53
Posted by DanielS. on Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:56 | # It is rather like asking me, as a half Italian man, If I would have preferred that Caesar had lost to the Gauls? Would I have preferred that the Italian regiments be defeated in Stalingrad? I would answer only reluctantly, yes, but I’d much rather that they not have undertaken the campaign, or rather not with anything like that design. 54
Posted by Kantian speech on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 04:00 | # Interesting Kantian argument by Thora, from TOO
55
Posted by Phenomenology of The Spirit on Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:01 | # Greg Johnson on Hegel and Phenomenology of The Spirit http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/02/why-read-hegel/#more-53192
Post a comment:
Next entry: US Gun Control Hysteria As Diversionary Tactic For Immigration Treason
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 03:45 | #
Originally published at The Voice of Reason Broadcast Network, January 18, 2012
I wasn’t going to do this. But I am so sick of being proselytized and of seeing White people being given a bum steer into that self-destructive, Semitic religion that I need to re-tell the story of my transition away from an earnest attempt to practice that nonsense.