|
|
|
Left vs. Right: An Easter Egg Hunt for Historical Truth by Happy Cracker Trying to summarize for myself the difference between left and right, here are some ideas I came up with. The difference between left and right is the question of the right of the struggle for existence to exist. (source: a Soren Renner speech). More precisely, it is a debate of the proper boundaries in which this struggle should be contained. Both left and right can be broken down into two camps: principled devotees and unprincipled devotees. Either side could be said to have a principle around which it is organized. The principle of the right is: life is necessarily a struggle to exist. It follows from that that no intervention is necessary to change that reality. It is the prerogative of the family to ameliorate that struggle - not of the state. The right would merely retain the struggle for existence within it’s ancient boundaries, pre-nation-state. Some exponents of rightist thought would use the state as a means to further pursue the conflicts inherent in this struggle (i.e. the ones the left is seeking to ameliorate). The principle of the left is: life is either unjustly or unnecessarily a struggle to exist. It follows from that that intervention is necessary to change that reality. The nearest available mechanism to accomplish that intervention is the modern nation state, and it is the prerogative of the state to ameliorate that struggle - not the prerogative of the family (i.e. citizens and ethny left to themselves). The left seeks to contain the struggle for existence, so that inequality and competition between groups, ethnies and families or classes is contained by the “balancing” (leveling) action of the state. The Superstate, the Welfare-state, the Command economy, are the result of this principle. Either group has principled devotees and unprincipled devotees. Principled devotees are followers who adhere to either leftist or rightist politics on the basis of a theoretical understanding of the principle in question - which demands a world-view radically different from the status quo - since the status quo was established against a historical backdrop in which these questions could only be answered ambiguously. (Our ancestors presumably were torn between the struggle-filled reality they perceived and the ameliorating world-historical vision of Christianity). One’s understanding of either principle goes from practical to theoretical when it is abstracted repeatedly from various historical experiences (readings of history) - which gives one’s understanding of the principle a force which it cannot have for those who haven’t studied it and encountered it cropping up time and again on the historical stage. Leftists reading history will encounter again and again the evils of racism, oppression, war, and inequality. They can find it everywhere, but principally in western histories. From the Crusades, to the founding of the Anglosphere nations, to the Third Reich - their narrative can conjure quite easily a picture of suffering which demands state-intervention in the name of equality. So long as they can maintain a passionate motivation in alleviating another man’s suffering, the modus operandi of their philosophy remains legitimated and reliably gives the appearance of possessing ultimate truth. Rightists reading history will encounter again and again the struggle to dominate as a decisive motor of human existence, competition and struggle for excellence as producing progress, and the victories of people who do not need help or handouts, who make it by dint of will and hard-work, requiring nothing from the benevolent/paternal State. This is why principled adherents tend to be the most radical exponents of a political philosophy. One’s desired vision of the future, thus one’s political will, changes decisively when one arrives at a deeply-felt answer to this question. The tendency to extrapolate from these understandings and press them to their extremes is also ever-present, which tends to radicalize people still further. Unprincipled adherents grasp opportunistically to these philosophies - they do not attempt to solve “the greater question” but look merely to the facts of their own lives: at some point, each of us was an unprincipled adherent of leftist or rightist thinking. Whether an unprincipled adherent - i.e. someone who has made no study of history and hasn’t considered the point philosophically on his own - tends to grope rightward or leftward typically depends on their experience of life as struggle. There are many (unprincipled) rightists whose adherence to rightist viewpoints is based entirely on their viewpoint of their life-as-struggle. No historical or philosophical considerations enter into it. The viewpoint is essentially thus:
Likewise, many (unprincipled) leftists adhere to leftist viewpoints based on their disbelief in life-as-struggle. This corresponds to the fact that leftists are known to predominate in university settings and amongst the rich elites: places where enormous pecuniary and institutional “head-starts” were part of their inheritance. Since they achieve an acceptable standard of living purely on the basis of parental momentum, there is a sense in which they do not know the life-as-struggle paradigm. They tend to view the necessities of life as things gifted by higher powers, which one receives by luck of birth rather than through work. University students likewise mature in an arena of sanitized leisure where all their needs are met - in a setting where hundreds of years of western technological progress has created a haven of comfort and ease of life. The benefits of civilized life - they are also convinced - are a gift granted by higher powers. It follows from this that material advantages and the means to live a civilized life are just randomly distributed gifts - some people having been ‘luckier’ than others; the distribution of these things is viewed as unjust, hence redistribution is called for. The only power capable of redistributing is, of course, the state. It follows from this that leftists are keen on ‘giving away’ things to others - be it foreign aid, or raising adopted foreign children - both of which are famous pastimes of various pop-stars and movie-stars. They exist in a world where the only resource still to be secured is status; the shedding of various ‘baser’ material resources allows them to procure this higher commodity, by showing their big-heartedness. In a way, both groups are projecting their view of their own experience onto the world-historical reality. The leftist scheme is not self-sustaining because it is only possible in the presence of the rightist scheme: namely, in order for leftism’s benevolent expropriations to be possible, someone has to have accumulated the wealth to be expropriated. If no one has labored (struggled) to produce something of value, there is nothing to give away. Leftists can only give away civil rights because white men struggled to establish the modern, (formerly) democratic nation-state. Leftists can only give away citizenship and have it be worth something because successive generations of men labored to build the polities where life is seen as desirable. Leftists can only give away computers to poor school districts because generations of inventors have labored to make semi-conductors smaller and computers more affordable. One can define three important currents of leftist thought, looking at their origins: Life-as-a-gift-from-above leftists, typically white and rich, or Christian. Jewish leftists Non-white leftists For non-whites, the central fact of their collective existence in western polities is their conflict and competition with the white majority. Delegitimizing the white majority’s struggle to exist is therefore in their interest, and constitutes the great effort of their own struggle to exist. Non-whites’ struggle to exist could be seen as being diametrically opposed to that of whites - since we are in competition for nearly all the same resources. Thus non-whites’ support of leftism could be seen as originating not from a philosophical repudiation of struggle, which is what pure leftism avows, but simply from a repudiation of whites’ struggle to exist, and thus as an affirmation of theirs. It follows from that that for a non-white to take a leftist stance, is philosophically rightist. They are not working out of confused largesse, knee-jerk niceness and a desire for status - or a belief in the ultimate resolution of all suffering through the interventions of the state, which is the leftist’s dream in its unadulterated form. No, the non-white leftists out there who are marching under the banner next to the white idiots and early-20’s girls are the mirror image of the very patrons of this board: the only difference being that they are swarthy. They too look out for their own self-interest, they too want to make a claim, they too think of their own and are interested more in taking than giving. This has real-world ramifications for the future of leftism as we approach parity, or as near as we can get to parity, with the third-world invaders who have taken up residence in our nations. Plainly stated, giving more rights and concessions will not result in them accepting their new elevated state - as all readers here no doubt intuitively know - they will continue to agitate for new concessions, will continue to ethnically cleanse us, and in general will continue to struggle against us even when they must violate the same leftist social contract which they made use of on their way up. They will become more virulent, until leftism is no longer able to plausibly contain their ambitions. Yet there is a bigger question. Which of these principles is a correct reading of the human experience? Is life a struggle where one benefits from facing it and understanding it as such? Or is this struggle amoral and unnecessary, and continued sharing enforced by the state - of everything, including genes - will ultimately resolve all conflict and remove the need for struggle? Unfortunately there is no way to answer this question without attempting a synthesis of vast amounts of human experience (i.e. reading history), enlightened necessarily by one’s own experience of life. This philosophical quest is beyond the reach of the average person and most can only participate in it vicariously through a structured Easter-egg-hunt type intellectual game rigged by a higher mental authority. In this case the “Parent”, (Adorno, Erich Fromm, Ayn Rand, Sumner Redstone, et. al) distribute a series of Easter eggs (“realizations”) throughout various print media and television programs. The “child” (the average white person) goes on a hunt for these eggs during school, college, and in his free time as a television viewer. As he finds the eggs, he eats them (“understands them”) and puts together in his mind a visualization of what history looks like. The narrative of the last 50 years, promulgated mostly by TV but also by the leftist class of intellectuals and talking heads, looks like this: “We assume it is part of [your white] human nature to persecute foreigners and minorities. Therefore, at every signal of you attempting to enforce any standard or articulate any critique or voice any displeasure against a foreigner or minority, we will consider you guilty of the same thought patterns that Hitler used. We will imply that this will destroy (y)our civilization and render you barbarians. We will impute to you moral callousness and insensitivity and all manner of meaner motives. Every action or thought that can lead - however indirectly - to thoughts of this sort will be considered a slippery slope. Henceforward begins for you a period of self-denial and self-censorship. The state needs to be called in to reign in your racist impulses, white man.” This is a narrative of history with a leftist endpoint. The struggle for existence as a group is seen to be repudiated - it needed to be constrained first by culture, then by the state, in the name of ameliorating suffering that would otherwise be caused by group conflict. Otherwise: Adolf Hitler. I consider this one of, if not the, most epic, monumental swindle in the history of the universe. In the history of lie-telling, this is one of the most audacious lies ever to be promulgated. Comments:2
Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:32 | # This post calls itself a “Easter-egg Hunt for Historical Truth” yet there is NO historical truth in this post whatsoever. There are no quotes from a historical rightist at all. What historical truth. What this post tells us of the “right” is this post Nietzchean struggle for “the struggle to dominate”. This is so much BS. This post is a screed for neo-nazism wrapped up in Ubermenchism of Nietzche. The origin of “right/left” came about in the French Revolution! That is the HISTORICAL Truth. A rightist is a Monarchist. What is inherent in traditional European thought is ORDER not “struggle to dominate”. Hierarchy is central to rightist thought and what is part of that hierarchy is Monarchy and Aristocracy and a Priestly class that obviously Fascism (National Socialism) disregards and hates! National Socialism is NOT Rightist. Rightist means to be for the Old Order. The Old Order is King and Bishop. That is rightist. Guessed worker and many of the posters here reject the Old Order, reject Monarchy, reject aristocracy and reject clergy. None of you are rightist. Fascism is about making a “new Man” just like communism seeks the “soviet man” which are all caricatures of Christianity’s “new man in Christ”. Christendom is the Old Order. Everything else is nihilism. That the “happy Cracker” knows his ass from a hole in the ground is heavily and rightly disputed. If you want to know what is right/left and its historical origins and trajectories and meanings please read Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn’s “Liberty or Equality”. That is the real deal. 5
Posted by Genophobic Xenophile on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:10 | # Encouraging social degeneracy and a huge economic gulf among one’s enemy is a fundamental tactic of politics, which is low-intensity warfare with a smiley face. Unfortunately, it is a tactic women and foundationally conservative white males are unable to grasp.
Life-as-a-gift-from-above leftists are as foundationally conservative as Rush Limbaugh when it comes to abrogating the struggle for existence and preserving their borrowed or stolen privilege. Cracker’s statement would antagonize the foundationally conservative supporters of almost any regime - monarchist or socialist. 6
Posted by Happy Cracker on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:17 | # Xenophile raises an interesting point, that forces me to amend my thinking.
I have to concede that this makes sense, and puts a monkey wrench in the theory. My immediate reaction is to amend what I said before to say: people do not agitate for or against the struggle for existence as such. They simply wish to have it rigged in such a way as to benefit them, i.e. they want to see it fought on their terms. Ayn Rand and the various Jewish thinkers want to see economic competition without host-society nepotism in government and culture. Those are the constraints they wish to put on “the struggle”. Foundational conservatives (Rush Limbaugh, etc.) want to see it continue to be fought in the way they have grown accustomed (or even evolved) to: which would be, the maintenance of America as a viable, white nation-state with Protestant mores. The theory has eaten itself, as GX points out, because each aspect of the group’s existence which is to be kept static can be seen as repudiating the notion of struggle on that level. So while the English want to struggle to exist as English - they do, in fact, want to evade the struggle which they would experience living as a minority in their homeland - which itself would fit under the rubric of struggle, as it possesses the elements of competitive change. I think this is a superficial paradox and make an attempt at resolving it below. Perhaps one can say that white leftists want to rig ‘the struggle’ in a way conducive to their interests as individuals - what matters is that their status grows, their moral obedience is demonstrated, and their sensibilities are spared the sight of whatever suffering it was they leaped in to allay. Perhaps they could be called, rather than “desirous of abrogating the struggle for existence”, short-termist in their understanding of what constitutes such a struggle. On the other hand, consider the second part of that term “to exist”. That could also be understood as “to remain as they are” or “to preserve their essential qualities”. Human societies have a lifespan of many generations, so they need to regenerate and are brought back again and again to the vulnerable starting point of the young impressionable mind, who has to reassert some essential element of the old order, in order for us to find a continuity that A (for example, the English people) can said to still exist. In that sense “the struggle to exist” means “the struggle to preserve essential characteristics of a being”. There is some baseline agreement (presumably) about an acceptable rate of change, which sets boundaries on these requirements. For example, a Nottinghamshire boy with a punk hairstyle is not the perfect continuation of English culture - but, in our eyes, the half-Jamaican half-Nottinghamshire boy is anomic, and represents such a fast rate of change and such fundamental change (genetically, in this case), that it problematizes for us the acceptance of him as a representation of the English people’s existence (he is lacking essential characteristics of Englishdom). In this sense there is some consensus about what rate of change (and type of change) is acceptable. There is a rate of change which is inherent in all identity as a background process, and is specific to that identity (exPF discussed this with reference to CaptainChaos’s body regenerating itself after he eats a meal, yet he still remains CaptainChaos to us even though his body’s molecules have undergone turnover). Then there is a rate of change at which the identity can be said, from the observer’s point of view, to have changed. When a man passes away, and his corpse rots, one cannot refer to the decayed corpse seriously as “Mr. Jones”. This is a good caveat to the post.
Following what I wrote above, this is true only if one understood “struggle qua struggle” to be the ideal which was being aimed for by putative rightists. But that fails to recognize our caveat mentioned above relating to “the struggle to exist” or “the struggle for existence”; this point could be made more clear had I used the term “the struggle for perpetuation of self in a recognizable form”. Certain kinds of struggle make continued existence impossible while nevertheless continuing to constitute a ‘struggle’. Just to make this point clear with an example. One could hang a man over a waterfall, suspended with a rope around his belly; in order to survive, the man has to catch fish out of the waterfall - if there are any. According to the pre-caveat understanding of “struggle as struggle” being an ideal, rightists would have to view this situation as being superior to the man’s previous life, where he was a clerk in a department store. But as the man hangs there, his chances of maintaining his existence goes to zero - he will certainly die there. Thus, he loses the struggle to exist. Insofar as rightists support the struggle to exist - they also support existence, i.e. the maintenance of self. So it is not struggling for its own sake which is being lauded by the putative rightists I described. Responding to LindsayWheeler:
Actually, my post contained at least one historical truth, thus refuting your claim that it contained none. I will, upon request, provide quotes from individuals who played major roles in the establishment of these government bureaucracies, to the effect that they were in fact invented to ameliorate suffering and mollify circumstances for those doing poorly in “the struggle”. Such as David Lloyd George, an early architect of the British welfare state, who said: “Four spectres haunt the Poor — Old Age, Accident, Sickness and Unemployment. We are going to exorcise them. We are going to drive hunger from the hearth. We mean to banish the workhouse from the horizon of every workman in the land.” One necessary aspect of the struggle to exist, as far as human motivation is concerned, is that all the results of “doing poorly” at this struggle are undesirable - thus giving one a disincentive to failure. Removing these disincentives could be seen as “abrogating” the struggle, i.e. making it an easy game where everybody wins without trying. Insofar as I have shown that various leftist government schemes are sprung from and justified by this desire, my post contains at least one historical truth.
That is an archaic definition of rightist. A desire to return to the Old Order may be a characteristic of rightist thought, but there are no bounds set on what Old Order or on what epoch one has to want to return to. Many American rightists desire a return to 1950’s-era American values and social mores, this has nothing to do with Monarchy. In choosing to limit your definition of rightists to those who desire a restoration of old European monarchies, you’re ignoring the vast breadth of that which we in modern terms designate to be belonging to “The Right”. In other words, the definitions of Left and Right used in Paris in 1790 do not describe with acceptable accuracy the political landscape in 2009.
My post does not mention anything about National Socialism, although there is a reference to the Left’s use of historical bogeyman Adolf Hitler. The order you mention is synonymous with hierarchy. Hierarchy means essentially that men receive a ranking within the system - this ranking corresponds to the extent to which their wills and desires will be realized, the extent to which they are allowed to guide the affairs of the system itself. At the highest level, the King decides the partition of kingdoms, allotment of treasures, waging of wars, etc. etc. At the lowest level the peasant decides the fate of his field and his cows, directing also his wife and children. Its common knowledge that the desire to see one’s will realized in the broadest terms is something which men compete for. They compete for high status, high office, and thus for their place in the hierarchy. If we let the frozen historical picture of monarchy and hierarchy achieve the dynamism and changing character which we know it had - for example, by looking at the biographies of various kings and the historical records of the establishment of dynasties - it becomes possible to see how not only the King but also the rest of the nobility established themselves by “the struggle to dominate.” So the people at the apex of this order were not sincerely sneering at this desire - at least not if they I’m going to explain the hidden role of the “will to dominate” in the establishment of monarchies by using an analogy. Its possible to visit briefly with a young couple, and not see the undercurrents of lust which bring them together and (when directed elsewhere) pull them asunder, the disappointment and mild dislike which undergird their frail existence as a couple: we as humans have probably evolved ways of effacing our anti-social tendencies, but they nonetheless exist as driving forces. A man may hold a growing dislike for a woman, but he will never say: “Look, I can’t stand the sounds you make while we’re fucking, and the stupid way you move your legs - its disgusting to me. You sound like a god damn sea otter. Also, it makes me sick to see you eating fast food every weekend.” Likewise, a King didn’t announce “Hey everyone, I want to be King because it means everyone will respect and bow to me, and I can persecute my enemies and have many love affairs.” One has to infer some of these desires as a result of experience within contemporary human hierarchies and a knowledge of human nature. The order has its origins in “the will to dominate”. Its legitimacy is based on a crystallized picture of it which posits it as being derived from something higher than the outcome of human dominance struggles - presumably, from the act of God. Yet in the establishment of various monarchies one finds not much God (perhaps in the form of “luck” however), but very much “will to power”. What else do you attribute the establishment of these hierarchies to, for example, when european soon-to-be Kings went around murdering rival claimants and competitors? Murdering competitors strikes me as very much belonging to the “will to dominate”.
But this begs the question: why define “the Old Order” as beginning at the advent of Christianity? I think we could puzzle out some older Orders which would make this order look new by comparison. 7
Posted by White Western Man on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:01 | # “The principle of the left is: life is either unjustly or unnecessarily a struggle to exist.” Life IS “unnecessarily a struggle to exist” in many White/Western countries - we Whites no longer have to truly struggle for survival anymore, mollycoddled as we are by endless food, good housing, abundant water, more than adequate clothing, and so on. Our White/Western countries are materially hyperabundant - thus there is NO NEED to “struggle” very hard in a material sense anymore…struggling for more material stuff when we are veritably swimming in it already is a huge waste of energy and time; the main thing that should matter to us now is social, ideological, spiritual, intellectual, and ethical concerns - and at the top of this list of course, under the social/ideological heading: preserving the White race for all eternity. In most White/Western countries, for the majority of Whites, life is no longer a true struggle to exist because White/Western countries are now so advanced in a material sense that we don’t have to struggle all that much to exist/survive, i.e. there is more than enough food/water, shelter, clothing, medicine, and so forth so that our people do not have to struggle very hard in a material sense anymore - WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THIS, it is a feat to be very proud of. Some Whites in White countries might still be a bit hungry or occasionally homeless or inadequately-clothed from time to time, but they are in a tiny minority…NO ONE starves in the streets, freezes to death under a bridge, or dies from a treatable illness or injury in White countries anymore unless they do it to themselves deliberately. Mussolini understood this when he said: “We have solved the problem of production, now we have to solve the problem of distribution.” (October 6, 1934). The German National Socialists understood this as well, hence their (ethnic German-specific) form of nationalistic socialism, which they eventually intended to spread to all of Europe as a kind of Pan-White socialism. Overall, fascism is an evolution of politics and the political spectrum (it is beyond mere “left” or “right”) in that expresses a yearning for a post-materialistic/post-greed ordering of society, and thus a post-Jewish world (since Jewishness is so intimately linked with materialism, monetarism, greed, etc). We Whites will have to start materially struggling again if there is a widespread (worldwide) natural disaster, or worldwide social unrest, or another war that affects your specific area, or some other scenario like that, but nowadays we Whites are quite firm and secure in our material prosperity - thus we Whites are ready to move on to a loftier plane of human existence, as stated above, concentrating more on the social, ideological, spiritual, intellectual, etc. With the current ‘economic crisis’ Whites worldwide are expressing a desire to move beyond the mere materialistic (i.e., Jewish dominated) plane and on to higher things. The problem White/Western nations face now is non-Whites who are flooding in to our lands to leech off of us for their survival, to use our material prosperity to their advantage, eventually using our material prosperity to supplant and replace us. These people come from countries where they have not yet figured out how to provide basic life-sustaining services for all of their citizens as White countries have, and thus they flee in search of greener (actually, Whiter) pastures where they won’t have to worry so much about basic survival in a material sense. Another problem is all of these horribly misguided White ‘do-gooders’ who send endless tons of Western food/supplies, technology, and medicine to non-White countries, which then leads them to breed more and live longer - they are not naturally very forward-thinking shall we say so they then get overpopulated as a result and seek to dump off their surplus population in to (you guessed it!) White countries. We should definitely help non-White countries to become sufficient and sustainable in a material sense, but we should in no way continue to subsidize their overbreeding and overpopulation. Another problem in White/western nations is that we have let our material prosperity make us a bit too soft, yielding, and complacent - as a result of our being spoiled by such material abundance we have lost some of our toughness, the ‘edge’ which made us the most advanced race on the planet through thousands of years of natural selection. We need to regain our White/Western ‘edge,’ this lost sense of toughness and resolve, if we are to turn back the non-White tide anytime soon. We need to ditch the complacency and realize that the other racial groups on earth hunger greedily four our resources and prosperity (Mexicans and other Latin Americans flood in to the USA, as do Asiatics and Africans; Arabs & Africans flood in to Europe; etc), while the Jews are literally rotting us from within. In this sense I believe that the White nationalist movement might be smart to link up with the so-called survivalist/survivalism movement which already has a pretty strong presence in many White countries and is currently gaining a lot of interest and members because of the current bad economic times. 8
Posted by Quotes on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:12 | #
Speaking of Hitler, I think he said some stuff about lies: “From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, where as in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. Schopenhauer called the Jew “The Great Master of Lies.” Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.” (from Mein Kampf) Another prominent German, namely Martin Luther, also had a lot to say about Jews and their lies. 9
Posted by Some evidence on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:15 | # NOTE: Radical Far-Leftist Jewish professors egg on the smashing of freedom of speech on a university campus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5cIUZsl9fM&feature=related 10
Posted by Genophobic Xenophile on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:29 | # Not really a monkey-wrench, Cracker, just amplification. Whites today, both leftist and rightist, are overwhelmingly foundational conservatives. Foundational conservatism is not only short-termist in its understanding of what constitutes ‘the struggle,’ but purposely seeks to minimize such understanding. It is risk-averse. Its leftist and rightist constituents merely want the system rigged to benefit themselves as individuals, so that ... 1. Presumed/alleged (individual) sensibilities are spared. Foundational conservatism will not fight to preserve Western Man. 11
Posted by Happy Cracker on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:54 | # That’s interesting, Xenophile. In what sense are you using the adjective “foundational” to describe these conservatives? It seems like you are describing a risk-averse personality at a layer even deeper than that of Also, what do you think of the idea that the short-termism of rightist foundational conservatives might simply stem from the limits imposed by their own mental abilities - i.e. lack of imagination and lack of historical understanding - rather than from the presumed desire to resist greater change? Perhaps the people we are talking about simply cannot apprehend the arguments ‘on these higher levels’ - which would be the case for many conservative males, who may be of average intellect and not prone to thinking in theoreticals or across historical time. 12
Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:15 | # This is the most inane posts I have ever read.
“A right”. Do plants have this right? Do they not struggle for existence? How about bacteria? Viruses? Do animals struggle for existence? That is the principle of the right? Please lets have some scholarly evidence. Please Cracker show who said this and at what point in history. This is really stupid. (And Mr. Scrooby, you concur?) What “right”? If I shoot you, I end your bloody “right”. Only a government within a body of laws protects “rights”. “Right to exist”? What the ancients saw in the cosmos, Strife, is part and parcel of the Natural Law that infuses the whole cosmos. There is NO “right to exist”. If I walked up to any psuedo or faux rightist today in either the Continent or in the US, not a single one without reading this post, would say “the struggle to exist” defines my political ideology! Nature does NOT gaurantee your blood right to struggle! Half here in this forum agree with Abortion. How does Abortion and the Woman’s right to extinguish life is there this “Right to struggle for existence”? Where is this “right to struggle for existence” anywhere in Western Law, in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome? When the Romans destroyed Carthage did they respect the Carthaginians “right to struggle for existence”. How is this practiced in Law? Do not Leftists feel that they also have a “right to struggle for existence”? Do not Leftists kill Rightists for the sake to exist? Do not Leftist form purges to protect their existence? Do not Leftists organize revolutions and struggle to realize their political aspirations and their utopian dreams and have the right to put to death ethno-nationalists? Leftists struggle all the time. I see all around me the gays struggle for existence! This is so much garbage; goobleygook. May I suggest a name change to “Hilly-billy Cracker”. 13
Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:32 | # The Hill-billy Cracker says this in refutation:
The title of this post is “HISTORICAL TRUTH”. History means ‘ARCHAIC’, dimwit. History includes ARCHAIC. You can not logically use the term “HISTORICAL” and then dismiss the “archaic” meaning of the term! What kind of drugs are you smokin’, jack because I can not for the life of me figure out how one discusses Historical truth and then dismisses the archaic part. History seems to include something 100 years old or older. I’m a history buff and I have NOT heard this “right to struggle for existence” anywhere! You call history what someone made up twenty years ago? That’s history? What provenance? What time of age has approved that and been practiced by man in an actual historical situation? What are you people, First Graders? Grow the F$$@# UP! You are just as bad as Leftists making stuff up as you go. You are actually rewriting history! Redefining words aka Jacques Derrida, the Father of Deconstructionism. You have NO fidelity to History and you claim to be doing “history”? Truth, Mr. Cracker, is “The Faithful Representation of REALITY”. What part of dismissing the OLD and ORIGINAL Clear meaning of the term for your new modern definition that has NO bearing in history? The Old term was created in a REAL AND ACTUAL Historical occurence. It has a basis in REALITY. What part of a Turkish pot shop did you cook up your new definition? This is UNbelievable folks. How can you hold a conversation with anybody, when definitions are used willy-nilly and anybody can make up anything they damn well please. There is NO “right to struggle to existence”. The Natural Law is that there is Strife in the world. Don’t confuse the Natural Law with a political term. How stupid are you people? 14
Posted by Jebus on Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:20 | # by Patrick J. Buchanan On Good Friday, John Demjanjuk, 89 and gravely ill, was ordered deported to Germany to stand trial as an accessory to the murder of 29,000 Jews — at Sobibor camp in Poland. Sound familiar? It should. It is a re-enactment of the 1986 extradition of John Demjanjuk to Israel to be tried for the murder of 870,000 Jews — at Treblinka camp in Poland. ... The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago. 15
Posted by GR on Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:14 | # What are you people, First Graders? Grow the F$$@# UP! They are a wordy bunch—and essays never saved a civilization—but there’s no need for that. Post a comment:
Next entry: What, then, is The Susan Effect?
|
|
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 Tom on Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:14 | #
A perfect example of the collusion of the Left and supposed “Right”:
“What is the “macaca effect”? First of all, what is a macaca? A “macaca” is a racial pejorative to refer to someone either from or with ancestry from India or Pakistan. And the “macaca effect” is pejorative used by people in high tech to refer to East Indians driving down the wages of American and British workers. In many fields (computer programming, engineering, medicine, nursing, accounting, etc.) companies are faking labor shortages to acquire H1B visas and hire East Indians, with the net effect of driving down the wages of American and British employees. Thus, one hears disgruntled employees talking about the “macaca effect.”“
http://www.magic-city-news.com/Guest_Column_89/What_is_the_Macaca_Effect10562.shtml