Posted by mancinblack on Fri, 11 Jan 2019 19:34 | #

Strange that they always seem to imagine themselves to be at or near the top of this “natural” hierarchy based on little more than pigmentation. The author, “Chad” quotes Nietzsche to justify his position and Nietzsche did indeed subscribe to the idea. This is what he had to say about it in “Beyond Good and Evil” (okay, I realize that MR readers will already know this)

“The Jews, however, are beyond doubt the strongest and purest race at present living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions (better even than under favourable ones) by means of virtues, which one would like to stamp as vices—thanks above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before “modern ideas”  “.
And
“That the Jews would, if they wanted or if they were compelled, quite literally rule over Europe, is certain…” Alright, enough already. You can see how this would appeal to the “Dissident Right” though, no?

“Chad” also quotes Mosley. OM’s view of equality was that equality of opportunity was the only equality worth talking about. Equality of opportunity is something you don’t get in a strictly hierarchical society. You don’t get it in a liberal society either, social mobility (unless it is in a downward trajectory) ended in Britain decades ago. The Right will often hail Mosley as “a great man” as they rail against “The Left”, proving ignorance is bliss, I suppose. The “Wild Man of the Left” as Mosley was dubbed by Snowden and others included the following in a letter to The Times (26-4 1968)..

“I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics”. Quite…but if you must insist on wearing a black uniform and shiny riding boots..

Finally, Arno “size matters”  Breker’s sculpture sucks. I use the word “sucks” in considered fashion as suitable for the type of establishment I feel is fitting for its display.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 03:41 | #

*yawn*

But no two individuals that have ever existed were precisely equal to each other.  Inequality is therefore objective fact.  In order to uphold the perception of “equality” you spergs will be forced to resort to the coercion of allegedly “noble” lies.  Good luck with that!

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 06:53 | #

Captainchaos.

You are an idiot.

I have NEVER argued for equality or that it is a reality. EVER. ANYWHERE.

I call you an idiot because you fall directly into the chliches, misrepresentations and vast distortions of “the left’ that I have shown in abundance that the YKW have set up to get Whites to argue against our own organizational interests.

I have argued that getting Whites to argue against equality is a clever trick played on Whites in reaction, typical of how the YKW set up the terms, to make Whites look bad, turn people off and get Whites to argue against concepts that would be socially organizing for us.

Framing equality/Inequality as the pivotal issue instigates rigidity and conflict with narcissistic, vain, quantitative comparisons disrespectful of deeper, qualitative niche differences. As such, I have written articles that commensurability and incommensurability is the relevant issue, the far more useful distinction - the paradigmatic difference that makes a difference.

...are people performing an appropriate, patterned function in relation to each other, complementing and helping to coordinate one another’s niche integrity or not?

If not, they belong in an entirely different paradigm, recognized as performing in accordance with its requirements.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:33 | #

Equality, in the radical form in which it is now argued, is not really or primarily an organisational schematic but a totalistic vision of human being as a prior and perfect existentiel unmarked by Nature, singular, autogenous, androgenous.  It is capable of historical motility and agency but always subject to arrest by regressive forces (ie, everything that comes from white people, basically).  Thus it functions both as a foundational quality and a teleological ideal.  It borrows from Christianity’s struggle against regression and for a spiritual return to source.

This really is the radically refined and irreducible core of human existence (importantly, not essence) which is being proposed mostly but not exclusively from the left of systemic liberalism, and it is, of course, a weapon; to be precise, a racial wrecking ball.  It goes without saying that it does not “exist”.  It is not real.  But the guiding ideology has no care for truth, only for winning.  Accordingly, sociopolitical events can be forced along as though it were real; and the terror of it is that there is no intellectual defence within the liberal philosophical system.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 20:23 | #

GW: It goes without saying that it (equality) does not “exist”.  It is not real.  But the guiding ideology has no care for truth, only for winning.

DanielS: Well then, we come to the question of who is guiding this ideology and only cares about winning?

And that comes down to YKW acting in their relative interests and complicit, disingenuous right-wing sellouts who seek to get behind the current strong horse of de-racinating “objectivity”, or liberals, who are simply a more popular expression of the same objectivist basis operating against our unionizing bounds; though they would disingenuously be called “THE LEFT” BY YKW, right-wing elitists and those casual liberals who seek to divert from such unionized-like accountability.