A curated set of poasts by forums user “Thomas777” on various topics relating to politics, history, culture, nationalism, and the Right wing.
Collected from various forums including:
Salo Forum – https://salo-forum.com
The Phora – https://thephora.net
My Posting Career – https://mpcdot.com
Vanguard Forum – https://vnnforum.com
... and others.
(Some edits have been made for spelling, formatting, etc.)
If you enjoyed this collection, please make a donation to the above forums.
Recently it’s become increasingly clear to me that even within the confines of the tiny ideological ghettos of “right wing” thought and discourse that there exists an unwillingness, largely couched in morality and stubborn pragmatism, to acknowledge the absolute preeminence of Liberal values as the source of the current cultural malaise and distortion that has infected not just the White, Western world but essentially every social and cultural environment that is in anyway touched and concerned by American political ambition and power activity. This contemporary worldview is so monolithic that it cannot be escaped, even by people who assign themselves the role of rallying drummers against “liberalism” or “modernity” and who hold themselves out to their would-be followers as paladins of the “right wing.” The reasons for this are myriad, and in many respects the question is too complicated for ordinary men, such as myself, to properly understand, appreciate, and ultimately extricate from their own prejudices. However, ordinary people can discern the existence of an obelisk in the proverbial desert – even if their intimate proximity to it precludes the observation of its shape, depth, and totality from a full vantage point.
The German Jewish conservative thinker, Paul Gottfried, a man in the tradition of Karl Lowith and Leo Strauss in many respects, discerned history and historical values as a process characterized essentially by strife – he went as far as to describe the origin and development of political ideas as genetic. He was not referring to “genetics” in the naturalist sense, but rather as a course of social and intellectual development that originates through dialectics and cultural (and actual) combat – by which irreconcilable passions, beliefs, ways of life, morals, commitments and ideas through the bearers of these ideas set about to destroy one another in order to guarantee the preeminence of the principles that animate them to action. The end result of this process, absent the total victory of one side over the other, being the synthesis of what was once absolute antagonisms into a permanent stasis of compromise.
For our purposes, briefly and incompletely explained, the great spiritual crisis of the modern age is remote. We only experienced the very end of the last great ideological struggle of human societies in terms of a dull awareness of a possible apocalyptic scenario between “freedom” and authoritarian socialism – which did not directly influence our development or early lives other than in a vague and penumbric way. The world we were born into and all of its social, political, and cultural institutions accepted zealously the truth of the Enlightenment perspective and its new theologies about the sovereign dominion of the idiosyncrasies of individual men, their peculiar psychological tastes and preferences, their personal aspirations; this perspective valorized hedonistic interests and supplanted higher values with personal preferences and the desire to experience pleasure in mortal life – eschewed of any metaphysical significance save for a restrictive caveat that no man’s impulses should interfere with the expression of another man’s exploration and ultimate fulfillment of his own analogous impulses.
The great Joseph De Maistre, a hero of the White, Western races, diagnosed the origin of this revolt against God, authority, and racial patriotism in his brilliant critiques of the philosophes – in the course of which he identified the source of diseased modernist thinking. Beginning with Bacon, the culture distortion of the new “philosophers” couched itself in the cloak of reason. It presented itself as benign and noble; it deceived men completely with the promise of telluric utopia and salvation on Earth, as the standard bearers of Lucifer, infected with the hubris offered by the fallen prince/enemy of God as they always are. The Devil’s minions, raising the banner of the “new theology” premised their revolutionary political ideas on the psychology of man, on contractual relationships between monadic individual men, which they purported could be developed and implemented independent of any study of society as it existed or any that had existed. Their model of human life, social and political, was thus entirely irrelevant to man – and was in fact entirely hostile to man and life. It was a miasma of ideal models, premised on a rudderless ‘morality’ – that was entirely divorced form actual human life.
Through this malevolent subversion, society – along with the concomitant belief in God – became a mere artifact of the individual, framed by his personal hubris and baser desires. This belief was most fully expressed in the Satanic terror of the Jacobin era; during which political theory and morality was dominated by the idea of a “social contract” and of “human rights” held by individual men completely independently of the government and society. No mode of authority, of habit, of tradition, of order was safe from the punitive scrutiny of the purportedly sovereign individual, who was enshrined with the God-like power to shatter the natural order if it did not suit his personal tastes and preferences. As De Maistre adroitly explained, “[The Philosophers] detest without exception every distinction they do not enjoy; they find fault in every authority; they hate everything above them... [they could agree upon only one thing] the fury of destruction.” But in their rage, they would not, and could not, conceive of how to re-establish order and dominion over the destroyed Earth that they had burned to ashes.
Natural justice accrued, of course, when the Jacobins, unwilling to accept the Fall of Man as rendering humans worthy of punishment, suffered the fruits of their Satanic revolt against the natural order in an orgy of bloodletting and rapine. Pure “reason” was proved once again to be an impossible basis for political life. Reason is not Man’s essence. As De Maistre, echoing Edmund Burke, pointed out, “Art is man’s nature” – including, but not limited too, the beautiful and antagonistic tension between hatred and love. [...]
When the dust settled in post-Jacobin France, and the corrective mechanism of total war had completed its cyclical development, the “laboratory logic,” as Francis Parker Yockey described the post-Revolutionary idea of statecraft, remained like a vestigial tumor in a body ravaged by a cancerous condition that had been extricated. The monumental idea of Jacobinism had irreparably severed the relationship between God and natural order from the conceptual basis of authority. The new basis of political order was premised on a moral claim about the mass of humans constituting a “nation.” This “new nation” was premised on a seemingly irresistibly alluring concept of an idea of “liberty” that encompassed all individuals, shorn of any distance between themselves and others – no clergy, no monarch, no nobility, no group raised above another by virtue of its essential nature or its function or its valor or its ability to act as a culture-bearing stratum of the national or racial idea. If the nation is nothing more than a categorically human mass, there can be no stratification. This concept was animated and expressed in political reality through a call to class war, democratic Revolution, natural “rights” inherent to humans, feminism, and a disdain for the polarity and tension generated by divinely authored human differences. Rationalism was the progenitor of these ideas and values, but it was also, as Spengler suggested, symptomatic of the destructive turn from “culture” to “civilization” – a process by which faith in natural mysteries of life and the belief in a complimentary and structured order between different human associations is discredited.
It was in the years following Napoleon’s meteoric ascendancy and crushing defeat that “nation” as a concept became degraded to the status of a purely political concept – in lieu of an idea that was given life by the inner experience of loyalty, honor, suprapersonal commitment to a cultural form. Historically in the White world, the foreigner was not liked, but nor was the idea of “nationality” a purely territorial or political evaluation. German warriors like Froberger and Englishmen like John Hawkwood led foreign mercenaries in the Italian wars of succession, Fredrick II was both Italian and German, culturally speaking, and found no contradiction in being allied with both nations as a matter of politics. Cromwell’s army absorbed the several tribes of Britain; bound together by an idea of culture (couched in radical Christian piety) that was indisputably animated by a White, Western, and Christian orientation towards common sources of culture and theology. Dynastic and theological politics, in other words, cut across territorial nations – just as the mass-politics of “nationalism” uprooted the basis of dynastic and theological loyalties. So pronounced was this change in the European political landscape that nationalism, as of 1815, was viewed by thoughtful men of the Right as Communism was a century later – a conduit of radical destruction of the social order. [...]
The tension between the fervent coalescence of nationalism within the European mind and the White man’s conceptually theological idea of “patriotism” or loyalty and service to a suprapersonal and extraterritorial cultural idea was most vigorously expressed in German political life in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was in these territories that, through the praxis of incessant warring in both the East and the West, the remarkably eugenic breeding habits of the bourgeoisie class – not deracinated and uprooted by personal ambition divorced from political and cultural life as was the case in England, that the ‘national idea’ could coexist with loyalty to the Western idea of culture and racial patriotism. Spengler, first among conservative European patriots, discovered a formula by which the brilliant creative energies of the middle class could be marshaled in the service of perennial European world-hegemony. In his own words, “Here one courageously draws the consequences. Let’s chance it that the nobility completely disappears from the diplomatic ranks. One lets in here only people who have put themselves to the test [of patriotism]... We will get besides the nobility [in the ranks of the national army] a class of highly intelligent bourgeois officers, people like our engineers and industrialists among whom organizational and technical ability guarantee rapid advancement... But I see also the time drawing near when other positions of great responsibility, in government, the organization of commerce, industry, transportation, colonies, will be filled not any more by privy counselors but by self made men.”
In Spengler’s prescient brilliance, we detect, without ambiguity, an esteem for the flexibility of the English in implementing prudent structural reforms to guarantee the survival of their empire and the continued dominance of its global dominions, as well as an appreciation for the grave moral shortcomings of the Anglo-Saxon mind in eschewing the patriotic idea in crafting democracy. The English government, in other words, retained a strict form but did so at the expense of the racial idea – an idea which could also be guarded and implemented by an enlightened Caesarism if and when the crisis of post-Enlightenment modernity came to collide with the new technological and economic way of high politics that was being revealed after 1815. [...]
Spengler’s belief in the rise of the absolute executive, in congress with the people as the source of his mandate, was to be viewed both as a monstrous prediction by the conservative elites in Germany, as well as a potential instrumentality of political and cultural palingenesis. Spengler’s ambiguous sentiments on the topic were expressed eloquently, if somewhat cryptically, in a letter he penned in November, 1917:
— Oswald SpenglerIf you therefore – hopefully! – after the war think of political activity, so penetrate first into the party-political situation, where, in my opinion, the organization of the moderate liberals is the most important problem, because here industry, commerce, and higher intelligence must come together. The National Liberal party is inadequate in its present form and its connections to an absolutely reliable press are weak. However, the party could with some skill on the part of new personalities become a representative of the whole of property and a large part of the upper working class and with that take a decisive position...
Spengler recognized, in essence, that the invidious tendencies of Enlightenment modernity, in terms of formal organization and the exercise of power, were inherently immutable – and thus it was futile to agitate in favor of the dismantling of the national state. What was ever-present in the German political horizon of the era however was an appreciation of the crisis afoot in the Western, White culture and how the crisis could be remedied through modern state structures subjugated to the service of the racial-cultural idea. It was this calculation, driven by a Hegelian understanding of the process of history, by which the German intelligentsia, that motivated the ‘new Conservatives’ of Germany to renounce a return to the purely monarchical order of the ancien regime. The democratization of Wilhelmine Germany was, in their estimation, a deterioration towards cultural and political decadence, however, it could be managed towards generative purposes; in no small part because the looming reforms would assuage the violent ambitions of the working classes and preclude the deracination of the commercially oriented middle class by thoroughly inculcating them with a new faith in the racial/cultural idea as well as positioning patriotic commitment as the prerequisite to entry into national life by the ‘new men’ of government. [...]
The clarion call in favor of [patriotic] Ethical Socialism was sounded, practically, amidst the traumatic disturbance of Germany’s defeat in the Great War; waged initially by the German state and the Hapsburg Empire, to defend against burgeoning Russian hegemony in Hapsburg dominions as well as to create circumstances of parity with the still great, but floundering, British Empire. The dyad of conflict was, however, fundamentally altered by the intervention of America – a massive military effort to upset the natural balance of power in Europe, motivated by a destructive and stupid belief in a future condominium of “world democracy” in opposition to European/White patriotism and the Western cultural idea.
What began as an expression of the fundamental conflict between the White/Western civilization and the largely barbarous ‘outsider’ civilization to the East became a fundamentally fratricidal “nationalist” contest between Germany and the United Kingdom, driven in large part by anxieties about the ascendancy of the German ‘nation.’
To briefly discuss the actual significance of the Great War, as opposed to the superficial evaluation of the catastrophe as a mere ‘national contest’ between belligerents; after the victory of the United Kingdom over White yeomen in the Second Boer War in 1901, and the concomitant victory of a coalition of Western powers in crushing the Boxer Rebellion, the entire planet save for a handful of territories (Siam, Japan, Turkey, Persia, Afghanistan, Liberia, Abyssinia, Mexico and Haiti), was directly ruled by the West. In China and Dar Al Islam, White peoples were exempt from local jurisdiction and were availed only to the courts and laws of their own national representatives. The conduct of the entire colored world towards the White man was deferential – there was an underlying passive acceptance of the colored world that the white world was the master of the Earth. This was exemplified most splendidly, as Lothrop Stoddard and Francis Parker Yockey both noted, in India – where a mere 100,000 man strong garrison of the British Army was able to handily manage a population of 350,000,000 natives.
With this great achievement came great responsibility and ultimately great comity between the White, Western peoples. Paul Kruger (Trekboer warrior of some folkloric distinction) for example refused to arm and field Negro troops against the English despite being disadvantaged by crippling odds. There was an understanding between White men that no matter how severe the stakes of political conflict, there must remain a condominium between the White nations to guard their supremacy over the Earth and to guarantee the posterity of our great wealth for future generations.
This amity between Western nations was shattered in 1914, as the capitalist age came to a close and great power rivalry could no longer be staved off through the provision of colonial spoils. Werner Sombart had predicted this turn of events. As England’s guiding political idea (capitalism, liberty, individual reason) became creatively exhausted and Germany’s progressive and superpersonal ethical socialism gained spiritual momentum, a crisis between the two states became largely inevitable. The Great War resulted in a draw between the UK and Germany that was upended by the senseless intervention of America, stuporously agitated by Wilsonian ‘globalism’ and anti-Hapsburg sectarian bigotry – but the consequences of the war were far graver than a mere upset of the balance of the European power condominium. Russia had cast off and murdered its authentically European ruling caste, and had implemented a doctrine of violent revolt, and ultimate overthrow of the White world. It had become, in essence, a monstrous conduit for colored revolt against the West. The sovereign power that had resided exclusively in Europe prior to the War had been steadily transferred to Russia, Japan, America. As the war had bled on, Europe itself as a civilizational form had been losing. [...]
Amidst the colored revolt, the destruction of the burgeoning racial/patriotic restructuring of the democratic state – dismantled in its infancy by the Anglo/American and French alliance; in the former case due to ideological zealousness in favor of a ‘world democracy’ devoid of patriotic impulses and authentically White/Western political modalities and in the case of the latter a cynically nationalist hostility to Germany’s ambition to consolidate its modern fortunes into a new European order amidst the looming colored revolt and fractious rumors (and after 1917 clear and present dangers) of uninhibited class war – the crisis within the White world between the noble and life-affirming instinct towards Western rebirth and the vulgar, Satanically inspired, drive for the satisfaction of the Enlightenment prospect of telluric utopia, animated by the great power of Western technics and the concomitant ability, increasingly revealed, to utilize technics to destroy the natural order and its attendant hierarchies was most intensely experienced in the fledging Weimar Republic.
In the wake of this series of catastrophes, a hero emerged in the man of Adolf Hitler – a common enlisted man, from the periphery of the Germanic world, who was able through an unrefined lens of historical intuition, absorb the grand ambition towards a democratic mode of politics, expressed as a militant socialist regime – fully extricated from Marxism and animated by racial patriotism, and implement a constructive rebirth of the European idea; an idea which had been mortally jeopardized since 1789 and which was then presently being menaced with absolute oblivion both by the tensions that were and are structurally enshrined within democracy as well as by the Communist revolt against the White world – which was gaining extraordinary momentum by the mere existence of the monumental presence of the Soviet Union. [...]
As the era of ‘absolute politics’ emerged after 1918, concomitant with the arrival of the absolute state, the modern historical fracturing of the racial/patriotic idea, the ascendancy of Jews, the traditional enemy of the European idea, and the arrival of superpowers such as the United States and the Soviet Union, there came to pass a monumental idea of politics entirely extricated from patriotism, theology, culture, and suprapersonal motivations. This tendency was easily manipulated by anti-White/Western/European elements in Russia to embolden the colored world to destroy the traces of race, of hierarchy, of social morality, of religion, of distinction in all of its manifestations in human societies for the dual purpose of annihilating patriotic White and European political orientations from the consciousness of democratic societies while simultaneously augmenting the power of the Jewish race in purely political terms through the adroit manipulation of passionate philosophies discerned as indigenous to White and European modes of life and social order. In America, an alliance between an increasingly deracinated Protestant elite, zealously committed to an extraterritorial and anti-patriotic form of “spirituality” cloaked in a contradictory synthesis of rationalism and purportedly Christian morals, and an emboldened Jewish political culture populated by men, uniquely intuitive about historical developments, who correctly viewed the then contemporary circumstance as an opportunity to once and finally destroy the race/culture that had frustrated their political ambition during the millennium since the White man had received, by Providential event, the elevated morality of Christ.
What began as another fratricidal and “nationalistic” war between two European powers; one declining (the United Kingdom) and one ascendant (Germany) soon became a catalyst for a Jewish war against the European/White/Western idea; motivated by the emergence of the new and radically racially exclusive political form of Ethical (National) Socialism in Europe. [...]
As the German-British war was fought to a standstill, in the aftermath of the German leadership affording their British enemy a permissive retreat from the battlefield at Dunkirk, congruous with the scrupulous observance of Westphalian mores, the racially patriotic Europeans rallied to order around Hitler and prepared to destroy the alien enemy to the East, and in doing so to destroy the idea of Bolshevism and guard the victory of the White/Western/Patriotic idea so that it might survive and flourish for another millennium. As these tensions ossified on the eve of total war, so did a hardness of heart develop in America towards the new White/European patriotism. For the first time, political anti-semitism had become as total as political semitism and the American war planners, inundated for ethically complex reasons with sympathy for the Jewish/alien element that had captured much of the political apparatus in the New World after 1933, became increasingly willing to entertain the idea of destroying the Western world in order to preserve the Jewish world of social and political existence and afford the true Enemy of Europe a haven in the halcyonic and rationalist “pluralistic state.” It was on these terms that, when war came to pass between the Europeans and the Bolsheviks, the United States initiated a complete breach with the Aryan doctrine of Westphalian war and peace, with the senseless notion of “unconditional surrender.”
This was an entirely perverse development as, which the great jurist Carl Schmitt observed, the Western/White/Patriotic view of military contests within the context of intra-racial and cultural hostilities, was – with a single catastrophic exception from 1618-48 – limited by ethical considerations; largely inspired by the learned wisdom of the ancient Greeks who distinguished between agon between racial fellows and unbridled hostility between Greeks and those outside of their cultural form. It is in this way that it becomes clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the American war effort, and its refusal to entertain the possibility of racial patriotism precluding its initiation with an eye for total annihilation of the European culture, was framed by the ambitions and hostilities of racial aliens against the White world. [...]
As the war against the Bolshevik enemy continued, the Europeans became hardened against their alien enemy in a personal capacity. This was not an admirable development but it can be apprehended in the context of mortal terror. The grand project of the Bolsheviks, as has already been addressed, was the eradication of the European form of life, of its theologies, its hierarchies, its world of social existence, its creative institutions, its nobility, and its racial exclusivity. It was a world-destroying ideology, buttressed by the radicalism of racial aliens who shared in substantial portion the great human and natural and military-materiel resources of a vast central Asian empire. Its world-destroying potentiality was not merely confined to the realm of monumental ideas, although the power of such things cannot be overstated in times of historical crisis, but it also was demonstrably megacidal.
The Communists were annihilating entire classes of humans who were discerned to be tainted by their European racial pedigree (nobles), their commitment to suprapersonal religiosity in Christ (clergymen and their pious flocks), peasants whom, though ignorant, were principled towards racial patriotism, and men who refused simply to capitulate entirely to the destructive and terrible monolith of Communism. Even decades before the advent of formal hostilities between the Europeans and the Communists, Patriotic elements, notables such as Max Schubner-Richter, who had been immersed in the horrors of mass-homicide in oriental theaters and witness to the early socialist revolts of the Baltic were not immune to the deep mortal terror delivered by Bolshevism. Ernst Nolte, the preeminent German historian of the Second European War, described the phenomenon thusly: “It is a notable shortcoming of the literature about National Socialism that it does not know or does not want to admit to what degree all the deeds—with the sole exception of the technical process of gassing—that the National Socialists later committed had already been described in a voluminous literature of the early 1920s: mass deportations and shootings, torture, death camps, extermination of entire groups using strictly objective selection criteria, and public demands for the annihilation of millions of guiltless people who were thought to be “enemies.”
It is probable that many of these reports were exaggerated. It is certain that the “White Terror” also committed terrible deeds, even though its program contained no analogy to the “extermination of the bourgeoisie.” Nonetheless, the following question must seem permissible, even unavoidable: Did the National Socialists or Hitler perhaps commit an “Asiatic” deed merely because they and their ilk considered themselves to be the potential victims of an “Asiatic” deed? Wasn’t the ‘Gulag Archipelago’ more original than Auschwitz? Was the Bolshevik murder of an entire class not the logical and factual prius of the “racial murder” of National Socialism? Cannot Hitler’s most secret deeds be explained by the fact that he had not forgotten the rat cage? Did Auschwitz in its root causes not originate in a past that would not pass? [...]
Nolte’s description of Bolshevik terror as Asiatic is not mere hyperbole, or Eurocentric parochialism, rather it is a historically honest accounting for the discrepancy of the ‘way of war’ within the Western civilization as compared to without. The exercise of unrestrained malice between two combatants within the Western culture was always, with one notable exception prior to 1941, was understood to be outside the proper domain of war and peace. Warfare between White/Western countries was understood to be power activity and nothing more. During and after the cessation of hostilities it was understood that combatants would not avail one another to unbridled brutality, not would the victor opt to massacre, humiliate or destroy his vanquished enemies. In these processes it is clear that the essence of racial Patriotism remained intact, even in the most vigorously tense circumstances of warfare. The English government, notably, when at war with Napoleon, notified him of a plot against his life. King Richard, though in combat with the Oriental Saracens, nonetheless afforded Saladin his friendship out of esteem for the warrior virtue exemplified by the Moslem warlord and his men. When the gentleman aristocrat Robert E. Lee surrendered the Grant, known as a brutish and ruthless warrior on the battlefield, he noted that his enemy was a magnanimous and noble victor with no personal taste for vengeance to be delivered upon the cessation of hostilities.
However, in circumstances of total enmity between countries of the Western culture and those outside of it, there has never existed a generalized and robust tradition of limited war and amity between combatants. For example, as Yockey noted, in Gothic times, the Roman Church forbade the use of the crossbow against White, Christian peoples but sanctioned its use freely against the barbarian outsider. The White men who, in waging racial war against Tecumseh’s Red Sticks, did not hesitate to summarily execute the enemy Braves. Nor did the Spanish courts martial who sat in judgment of Incan warriors and sentenced them to death believe that they should afford to the savages the same privileges that White men would extend to one another at war or in its aftermath, pursuant to the ‘honor community’ of the Western culture. [...]
As has been already noted, the presence of a sharply alien influence was clearly discernible in America’s posture of ‘total war’ and attendant demand for ‘unconditional surrender’ vis-à-vis Europe throughout the period of hostilities, and culminating in the aftermath of the defeat of Germany (and the European idea) by the alliance of America, Britain, and the Soviet Union. It was after 1945 that a truly punitive regime was implemented against a by then defenseless Europe; animated by Jewry’s hostility to a culture that had become its mortal enemy as the social tensions between friend and foe that had always been present in the White/Western world became enshrined and intensified as the age of democracy and socialism became fully revealed. This punitive regime was tailored not only to force the Europeans to suffer physically, though deprivation, humiliation, and the execution of its best remaining men, but also to restructure political horizons in accordance with a newfangled vision of political ethics that would forever supplant the racially exclusivist, authentic Patriotism that had, for a thousand years, been the defining political component of White/Western social and political life. This was achieved first and foremost by casting the War in abstractly moral terms, tailored to substantiate a conspiratorial narrative of the War as the culmination of a series of “criminal” acts against a non-Western enemy cultural form (Jewry) that was embedded within Europe was a progenitor of a total political revolt against the European form of life in the form of Bolshevism.
As the trials of the European leadership commenced, it became clear that not only was a complete breach with the conventions of the ‘community of honor’ that had characterized intra-cultural warring between White peoples being demanded by the victors but also that the Providential view of war and peace as a permanent component of political life (as identified by De Maistre) was being dismissed according to the purported calculus of rationalist morality. Soldiers who had served the European cause with distinction were arraigned for “crimes” because they had obeyed their superiors and defended the White/Western culture from internal subversion by alien enemies and the threat of conquest by Orientals from without. European racial patriotism, actual patriotism – distinguished from the arbitrary allegiance of a territorial mass of humans) was attributed to mass psychosis and mental disease. The proceedings themselves were not ordered according to any White/Western juristic mores, practices, or traditions – rather, the trier of fact and the trier of law were both exclusively military men of the victorious nations; including Soviet generals who had unceremoniously massacred Poles at Katyn and subsequently perjured themselves by assigning responsibility to the German defendants.
It could be speculated that there’s a strategic logic to Globalism that the Left tends to ignore (critics like Chomsky I mean) but that is an ever present if subtle pretext to Neo-Conservatism.
Something Curtis LeMay, Von Neumann, and some of the more zealous East Bloc military types all seemed to agree upon was that at some point, in the wake of some crisis, total nuclear war would become a reality so long as there remained a realizable objective in countervalue strikes – this of course creates exceptionally dangerous conditions that are rife for punctuated crises. And basically every decade this became a near-reality (1950, 1962, 1973, 1983).
When the Soviets unconditionally surrendered circa 1989, the utopianism of Anglo goys like Bush41 dovetailed very completely with the communistic orientation of men like Irving Kristol in the creation of conditions by which heavy interdependence between states in all meaningful economic and strategic theaters would essentially neutralize the utility of any state developing a countervalue military capability/strategy in the future as to do so would be self-defeating as it would annihilate ones’ own essential infrastructure (human and material) now scattered across the planet.
The re-introduction of truly national states – or the restructuring of a state as a racial-defensive state would in essence re-introduce power political paradigms of a 20th century sort; and would revitalize the technologies that characterized strategic competition within those paradigms.
The last thing a New World ethnostate would need to worry about is Canadians and Wetbacks, sure – but oceans can be traversed in minutes by weapons that arrive from orbit etc.
Hitler did things wrong, and he didn’t. We can’t extrapolate conditions of 1939 or 1943 to the present and avail these things to contemporary judgments.
The NS “cult” of the state seems hokey to 21st century Americans yeah – but in context it made perfect sense and was totally timely.
Speer made the point that Hitler was instructing the “old fighters” really from the first days of the Party that what lay before Germany (and the world) was Total War of the kind that hadn’t even been conceptualized even by the men who’d waged the mechanized battles of 1917-18. Nobody had any illusions about the fact that Europe was going to be left with millions dead when the confrontation with the Soviet Union ultimately arrived – mobilizing people towards such a massive, and devastating, effort requires (for lack of a better way to describe it) a “spiritual” dimension be cultivated in public life. Otherwise, a chief executive is just calling upon people to sacrifice their sons for ambiguous reasons of legality or “patriotism.” As I noted in another thread – the USSR consolidated itself by unceremoniously annihilating 10 million of its own people. You don’t fight a monster such as that by appealing to peoples’ impulse to “do their own thing.” You fight it by assuring people that their sacrifices are going to be enshrined in a historical record that will live for a thousand years beyond the date that they fell. It’s easy for people your or my age to act like Communism was a joke – some failed and rusty system that was manned by paranoid octogenarians, and by 1989 that’s exactly what it was. In 1939 it was something very different – it was something that was conquering the Earth, altering the conceptual horizon of man, and exterminating entire societies. People now ask why the Germans fought to the last man – they fought so that Europe and the planet didn’t get turned into a giant version of the DDR; and when sanity returns, that is how they will be remembered. [...]
The Axis couldn’t leave the USA alone – if they had, it simply would have become an unstoppable hegemon that could project power at will and utterly devastate any rival. Hitler apprehended as early as 1923 that “superpowers” such as the USSR and the USA were emerging, and that they would rule the planet. His entire strategic orientation was to annihilate the USSR before its power could be fully realized, appropriate its territory and resources, populate the hinterland with racial Europeans, and create a European superpower that could compete with America on terms of strategic parity.
When Hitler declared war on America, America was sustaining the Communist war effort – and really had been since even before June 22, 1941. America’s commitment to facilitating Soviet military and industrial might had begun in earnest by spring ‘41 – and it was essentially already waging an undeclared war against Germany.
Hitler declared war on the USA to 1) honor the Tripartite Pact which was, in effect, a treaty arrangement that existed to defend the Axis states against the burgeoning American hegemon, 2) to attack the source of the Communist leviathan’s material military might, 3) to prevent America from destroying Japan within months, thus rendering America the master of the seas and (in terms of absolute parity) the master of the world.
Allowing America to destroy Japan, to continue to facilitate the Soviet war effort, and to fully mobilize without negotiating direct military threats would have essentially handed America unchallenged supremacy in every major theater of war. The only chance for Axis victory was to neutralize America’s power-projection ability (if even only to delay full mobilization temporarily) by forcing America to wage war in two major land and maritime theaters. Hitler apprehended America’s capabilities and potential very well – uncannily well, frankly. This is precisely why the war declaration was issued.
It’s important to not succumb to the temptation to oversimplify the nature, historiographical significance, ideological persuasion etc. of the post-1953 USSR.
Paul Gottfried penned an outstanding editorial in recent years (later expanded into a lecture) titled, “How the Left Won the Cold War.” The short answer is: Yockey was correct. Stalinism was not “left wing” in the sense that the philosophical Left is understood and defined by Western Europeans and Americans. One could go as far to suggest that the motives of American hawks in the late Cold War (1979 onward) involved the fact that the Soviet Union was actively opposing “left wing” values and commitments.
The USSR, by the Reagan era had waged active war against Israel, refused to acknowledge and promote the narrative of the Holocaust, opposed Feminism as a social policy, considered homosexuality to be an expression of mental illness, declared Zionism to be a form of treasonous subversion, (re) affirmed that the Russian national state (and the maintenance of its basic cultural/racial integrity) was essential to the realization of Soviet strategic objectives and goals, the list goes on.
It’s telling that the only truly Right-wing White, Christian regimes to emerge since the Fall of the Berlin Wall have been in former East Bloc territories: Croatia (Tudjman declared Croatia to be the legacy government of the National Socialist NDH), Hungary (Orban), Belarus, Russia itself under Putin etc.
In some respects, the Late Cold War = Coalition of American Jewry/Zionists, Trotskyites, Gramscian cultural Marxists, aging New Dealers, radical Liberals/socialists of the “68er” variety vs. Stalinists, disguised Slavic nationalists, anti-Zionists of varying stripes.
Conspiracy theories, however foolish they may be, are usually proximately caused by the inherent confusion prompted by information overload (dramatically exacerbated by the advent of the 24 hour news cycle) and the tendency of government itself to engage in disinformation campaigns to manage opinion.
Chomsky and Lasch both made much of a few instances in 20th century history in which official information sources in government opted to omit the occurrence or non-occurrence of events in order to preserve credibility.
Lasch pointed out in The Culture of Narcissism that the War Dept. wouldn’t publicize Soviet and Jewish claims about German ethnic cleansing b/c even though it might be accurate, it simply wasn’t believable as a news item. It smacked of propaganda in other words. Now of course, Chomsky and Lasch aren’t any kind of authority on this question because they believe in the Holocaust, but that isn’t really important – what is important is what the Executive branch did during the war; they deliberately avoided discussing something during hostilities that they subsequently claimed was a primary causus belli due to concerns about the narrative in question was “credible” and “saleable.”
The second big instance of disinformation in the 20th century was the Gulf of Tonkin incident – it was testified to by Samuel Adams (a career CIA functionary who turned clandestine documents over the United States Senate) that there was a big problem in the Pentagon with how exactly to sell the Vietnam War, especially for a weak President, when the people simply weren’t smart enough or intuitive enough about history to discern why a direct challenge to the Communists was a strategic imperative in 1963-64. So it was decided to quite literally manufacture an “incident” so as to couch the war in simple terms of “defensive war” against a quasi-criminal Communist offensive of “aggressive war.”
People overtime took notice of this kind of thing and developed bizarre ideas about the nature of the power elite and its management of information, but the elite did it to themselves.
Now of course, “the truth” can be discovered about any world historical event or current event by a diligent student who enjoys research and can apprehend history – the government isn’t preventing people from acquiring information from non-elite sources; but most people aren’t inclined to do that, and as Mearsheamer pointed out in his latest book, Western leaders literally lie constantly – they in all probability lie a lot more than Arabian despot-Kings, Gook communists, private sector crooks, and any number of other villains that occupy the liberal ethical mindset. So its not really surprising that paranoiacs and ignorant people craft their own “conspiracy theories” – they’re basically doing what CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, and the White House press corps teach them to do. Elites present their own “conspiracy theories” and attempt to pass them off as fact. “Iran is anti-Semitic and wants to annihilate Jews,” “Al Qaeda wants to destroy American constitutional freedom,” “The Syrian rebellion consists of people who are liberal democrats who are resisting tyranny” etc. These “official” positions aren’t any less ludicrous than Alex Jones’ claims about “controlled demolition” or whatever.
From Wilson onward, America viewed a united Europe as the primary geostrategic threat to the burgeoning Anglo-American plan for world order.
The obvious cynicism of the Cold War is demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt by the fact that the USA armed the Soviet Union to the teeth by way of subsidies and facilitated a Soviet invasion of Europe.
One of Joseph McCarthy’s only intelligent and lucid moments was when he pointed out that men who had less than a decade previously declared that the USSR was instrumental to “democracy” did an about face and declared the Soviet state to be evil incarnate when it became clear they wouldn’t allow Berlin to become assimilated into an American client state.
Dying for ideology for its own sake is misguided... both practically, and from a value-oriented perspective. That said, embracing death at the apex of beauty and life has merit, especially if the alternative is to endure decrepitude.
And that is a healthy instinct. Honor is an enduring value, and aesthetics stand on their own on account of their evocative properties. You can be a romantic and hold honor in high esteem without suspending disbelief in arcane myths. In fact, life presents its own myths all the time, if you are attuned to that sort of thing... they just don’t involve ‘Gods,’ monsters, miracles, and things of that sort.
I don’t think the contribution of literary types and men of letters should be judged by the same metric assigned to political movements.
I believe Yukio Mishima, like D.H. Lawrence and Celine, enshrined the values of the Right in historically lyrical terms and that this is valuable. I don’t accept that literature is “faggot stuff.”
My personal opinion is that Mishima intuitively grasped the irreconcilable tension present within the minds of people who are forced to subdue their nobler instincts under pain of ostracism, ridicule, or spiritual disintegration in order to negotiate life in a culturally corrupted, largely deracinated modern state.
His greatest insight was one that was in fact extraordinarily self-critical of his own profession; he believed writers corrode human realities by reducing experience to words, and in doing so inviting an attendant scrutiny that cannot withstand rational criticism.
Ideas of this kind stand on their own. It’s not required that we judge their merits upon whether or not successful political movements were animated by them. I’d go as far to suggest that considering literature in utilitarian terms is very a very corrupt and quasi-Marxian view.
That is one component, but its also metaphysical. We all craft our own diseases in some way.
Thoughtful introverts who come to dedicate their efforts to political theory and radical intellectual opposition to the status quo are generally tortured people. They arrive at their conclusions out of a profound and deeply-felt anxiety that most normal people don’t experience. This is catastrophic in many cases to physical and mental health.
Oswald Spengler suffered from a “weak heart” that belied effective treatment. He came to avoid viewing newspapers or listening in on discussions of the deteriorating situation of the War because he believed these things would aggravate his anxiety to the point that he would die. And he ultimately did succumb to a heart ailment at a young age. Francis Parker Yockey took to keeping cyanide close at hand because he became convinced a need might arise to commit suicide if he were captured by the authorities. Yukio Mishima came to ruminate for years over the fact that his body would eventually begin to decay and regress to a frail state, thus ending his continued efforts in art and revolutionary politics. There are dozens of other examples of a similar type that don’t necessitate an exhaustive listing – what is relevant is to note that men who are moved by their inner passions to contemplate resistance to the spirit of the age suffer terribly for their efforts.
One way to discern pious people from mere tourists, actors, and narcissists who deal in affectation as their stock in trade is that the former are very afraid while the latter cultivate swaggering bravado. Heidegger made the point in the now famous Der Spiegel interview that any man who could look upon the (then new) photographs of the planet Earth taken from low orbit and not be afraid was probably an idiot – and this was very insightful. Anyone who isn’t afraid at present is probably both an idiot and extraordinarily lacking in any meaningful religious instinct, thus allowing him to enjoy a blissful kind of thoughtlessness in his everyday dealings.
In the absence of battalions, men of the Right will instead join the legions of the dead.
The lower orders always esteem pleasure as the highest good... this is largely immutable, socially-politically speaking.
Hedonism is an expression of vulgarian narcissism... that is why its a despicable tendency. I don’t think that it has broader implications than that.
Asceticism isn’t dispositive of enlightenment, IMO. I think self-denial is important as a means of expressing healthy contempt for one’s own frail nature... a man who avoids pain obviously loves himself too much.
[Y]ou can’t “steal” valor. Valor is like honor, or love, or hatred, or piety. It’s a trait that people bear that also has a powerfully emotional dimension which is both exhibited and experienced by the bearer. It’s either present or it isn’t. People pretend to be valorous because they’re emotionally stunted. People also pretend to be intelligent to procure coveted jobs, or pretend to have emotional depth to charm women’s clothes off, or pretend to be wealthy to inspire envy in their neighbors. In some respects, America is a failed society precisely because lying to bolster ones’ public image is considered normal.
This kind of fixation on “valor” is evidence in a lot of ways of America’s ethically impoverished culture. Getting mad about it is tantamount to getting mad at a man who has murdered people because he also drinks too much.
He was an otherwise middling author, but one of Ray Bradbury’s main (probably his only) insight was about childhood and the emotional and psychological states of childhood and adolescence. His youthful characters are stupefied in the moment that they realize their own mortality and arrive at knowledge of death.
This is I believe the subtext of the memories recounted on this thread of dead pets and grandparents and the like – its a moment of realization about the inevitable future of all living things, and to a child’s mind, its monumentally terrifying and deeply felt in a way that adults cannot really conceptualize.
Adults lose themselves in sex, emotional flights of fantasy, thrill-seeking, and things of this sort. They seek out emotional stimulus in often distorted ways because they are trying in vain to recapture the passion and terror that only the youthful mind can facilitate.
People, with the exception of wickedly immature and violent men, artists, odd romantics who are ill suited to adult life, etc., lose their capacity to experience all-consuming emotion because its superfluous in maturity. It falls away like the post-coital disintegration of the wings on the body of a female of an insect species whose only purpose is to produce an egg sac for a single season.
Breitbart – and Milo Y. – in particular, always struck me as Rightist Libertarians, whose philosophical/ideological guiding lights as it were are men like Rothbard and (more timely and relevant perhaps) Hans Hermann-Hoppe. The criticism levied at Milo reminds me the barbs that were directed at Justin Raimondo some years ago by WNs and PaleoCons who were concerned that the Anti-War movement was being co-opted by social liberals, moral deviants, ideologically unsound interlopers etc.
It’s improper I believe to speak of the “Alternative Right” being hijacked or appropriated simply because its not a political party or unitary social movement or ideological platform. The first time I heard the term coined was when Richard Spencer launched his blog and print zine (the former being titled “Alternative Right”) – within the pages of which Spencer ran pieces by all kinds of thinkers, from Jewish Paleocons like Paul Gottfried, to National Socialists who cut their ideological teeth within organizations like the ‘political soldier faction’ of the British National Front such as Kerry Bolton.
The only other purposefully devised, working definition of the “alt-right” that I’ve come across was in Hoppe’s seminal critique of Liberal Democracy, in which he distinguished people like himself (Nationalist/Right Libertarians) from Conservatives, Paleos, WNs, Fascists/NS acolytes and (racialists such as Sam Francis) whom he referred to as ‘Social Nationalists.’
The point is I suppose that the Alternative Right can’t be “co-opted” or subverted because by definition its not a political tendency in itself – its a term that describes an oppositional penumbra of myriad and varied ideologies of the Right that zealously oppose System/Regime power including (and perhaps especially) Conservatism. [...]
Looking over some of the comments here it bears repeating as well that its not Racialists/WNs/Nationalists/NS people who’ve a history of ‘blacklisting’ or banishing or otherwise sabotaging dissident coalitions of the Right – such that any such formations have existed – in history. First off, we’ve never had the power vested in us to establish the tenor or oppositional discourse; and secondly, its always been “moderate” elements within the dissident Right (Paleos, Libertarians, civic Nationalists, Religious elements who prioritize faith over racialist concerns etc.) who’ve set about to purge “disreputable,” “extremist” and racialist elements from the ranks.
Buckley disqualified ‘anti-Semites’ from participation on grounds that they lacked respectability, Klanner types declared that Yockey and H Keith Thompson and Otto Remer (and their allies in the NRP, James Madole et al.) were ‘communist sympathizers’ because they refused to support the Cold War. In Europe these days, people like Wilders claim that GRECE theorists like De Benoist are soft on ‘terrorism’ because they recognize that constructive engagements with Moslems is important as the latter are and remain engaged in direct combat with the traditional Enemy of our race.
Not to belabor the point – but it does come off as a bit absurd when Right Wingers of any stripe claim that Racialists are sabotaging the enterprise because we’re precluding the possibility of tactical coalition building.
Why would he? Somehow, Duke has managed to become a vector for lots of $$$ from the racialist right over the years while managing not to have a job... and when cash dried up here in the States, he (apparently) found plenty of other willing sponsors in the old East Bloc.
I don’t know how this man inspires confidence in others, but I also don’t really understand how any of these guys get by for decades without actually working or producing anything.
I remember reading an account by H. Keith Thompson sometime after the OKC bombing... some anarcho-punk type interviewer asked him how he managed to make ends meet and remain a player on the post-NS scene during the 1950s and 60s... he said something to the effect of “Well, I started a printing/publishing company for a reason... ” He’s the exception... in terms of both his intelligence and his pragmatic entrepreneurial spirit.
Most of these guys are defectives who took a page from Oral Roberts’ playbook: “Send me some frickin’ money!”
The problem with Alt.Right and the Occidental Observer is that all of these things are just online fanzines for some kind of “scene” that exists only on the internet.
White Nationalist media was never really high quality or anything, but it had a purpose in the pre-internet age that it doesn’t now. In the early 1990s for example, there was a market served by stuff like the WAR newsletter or National Vanguard or Instauration – because even though those polemical zines were often short on sourcing their claims and pandered to a certain radical element, they often had legit information about things that were going entirely unreported in mainstream media; and in those days, even if you had access to a good library, you still weren’t getting any current information from anywhere but radio, TV, and newspapers.
The internet obviated the need for those kinds of publications because at present you can read any book you want anytime you want, you can access media from anywhere on the planet, and if you’re so inclined, you can seek out people who are on the ground in any of those places and interact with them directly – nobody needs Alex Kurtagic to interpret politics for them, unless of course they’re fanboy weirdos who got into “White Nationalism” as some kind of heavy metal subculture.
Finally, WN is a dead ideology anyway. It’s something that was relevant to the whole Cold War paradigm, but that’s now a generation out of step with history. People discussing “White Nationalism” isn’t any more relevant than people talking about monarchy. This is one way that Moslem partisans were and are ahead of the curve... they recognized back in the 1960s the direction things were going. People could learn a lot from their experience IMO, as I’ve stated before.
A major dimension of the problem is that these “alternative right” type of subcultures are basically totally and completely tone deaf about American culture and its political heritage. This really jumped out at me when I noticed people like Spencer and Johnson discussing the “Third Position” as if this had any currency whatsoever in America – it doesn’t. It’s something that only made/makes contextual sense in late-Cold War Europe when neo-Fascist types like the UK National Front (inspired in part by people affiliated with GRECE etc.) began to discern that the ongoing failure of the Stalinist garrison states in the East coupled with the post-68 ascendancy of Jewish ideological paradigms to a position of absolute hegemony in American intellectual and policy corridors, was creating conditions by which Europeans would be charged with forging a truly independent political culture or they would perish severally as culturally/politically/socially sovereign entities.
In contrast, Kevin MacDonald and Matt Parrot talking about the “Third Position” in 2012 Kentucky would make about as much contextual sense as declaring solidarity with the King of England and demanding that Americans cease and desist from refusing to abide his sovereign dominion.
Mind you, Fascist and NS ideas are fundamentally important as historical phenomena – and in the proverbial battleground of ideas, it is important to rehabilitate these things so as they cease to be vilified and employed to buttress a basically theological narrative of Jewish supremacy/martyrdom cloaked in a secular moralism of “Progress” which underlies the post-Nuremberg political-ethical orientation of (what was formerly) “the West.” But this of course does not mean that these things have any immediate present-day relevancy, especially in America.
These people are hobbyists who are attracted to obscure things – they like to pose as the standard bearers of something “edgy.”
There is in fact a radically nationalist historical tendency in America and it was explicitly a racialist tendency – but its highly unique and has nothing really in common with various European ideologies, reactionary or socialistic. In fact, American racialism was and is always at basic odds in many ways with the ideas that ultimately came to ossify into European Fascism.
If and when (and its possible) that a White radical type of political movement emerges in America it will take the form of what’s uniquely precedented here in part but will likely be something that hasn’t been seen before in additional respects. One thing that is certain is that it will not entail bearded Orthodox acolytes, Fascist ideologies, or “neo-paganism” or any such thing.
[Jared] Taylor is a limited person with limited objectives in mind. In a dictionary-definition sense, Taylor is the ultimate “Paleoconservative” as he’s trying to necromance Goldwater-era conservative platforms and reintroduce them into public discourse. If you compare and contrast his editorials with the content of Buckley’s National Review from the Civil Rights era, you’ll find an almost perfect convergence.
Ultimately, Taylor is irrelevant, and his publication is something of a time capsule. Not so much from 1963, but from 1993 when “culture war” issues reached a fevered pitch in the wake of Clintonian excesses in the academy and policy planning corridors. When I come across Taylor acolytes I consider them in the same vein as I do people who cite Herrnstein and Murray as if IQ data represents holy writ. These debates have run their course as policy matters and a final (albeit tense) solution has already been decided. Affirmative action, open borders, and hiring preferences have become permanent and insoluble features of the managerial apparatus. The order of the day in the 21st Century is the development of a new brand of White politics that isn’t tethered to older System models of government. Anything else represents a nostalgia society along the same vein as those maintained by Third Reich fetishists.
My father named me Thomas, in honor of his favorite apostle.
Thomas appears in a few passages in the Gospel of John. In John 11:16, when Lazarus has just died, the disciples are resisting Jesus’ decision to return to Judea, where the Jews had previously tried to stone Jesus. Jesus is determined, but Thomas has the last word: “Let us also go, that we might die with him” (NIV).
I never really wished to take on an alternative name in cyberspace.
What regrets do you have?
I regret letting the girl that I loved leave.
I regret abandoning my best friend when the chips were down and she needed me.
I regret going to law school, and I regret screwing up my best chance for genuine success.
I regret abusing drugs and turning my body into a ticking time bomb.
I regret not being true to myself.
How do you cope with them?
Denial, Pabst Blue Ribbon, the Phora, the gym. etc.
I define myself ideologically against people who I believe lack “race"... I oppose secular humanism and other deracinated ideologies. My energies are devoted to combating these sorts of social tendencies.
Personally, my father is my enemy... this is very palpable because I look exactly like him and have many of his habits, mannerisms, strengths and weaknesses. I am essentially and equal and opposite carbon-copy of him. A woman who I care for very much is also my enemy. I only see her for fleeting moments every few years, but when we are together, she tries to destroy me, and I do her. I hate being without her, but I also fantasize a great deal about killing her. She exploits these frailties in order to hurt me... in fact, she takes extraordinary measures to do so.
Other than aged relatives, I’ve only known four people personally who died. One was a homicide, and it was devastating to everybody who knew her, but at the same time,and I’ll spare the details, its fair to say that she courted the circumstances of her fate.
Another was a suicide... she was a friend of mine who taught grade school and lived up the street from me in Evanston. She asphyxiated herself in her garage. I had had a lot of lengthy conversations with her, because the summer that I met her, I had no air conditioning and she would let me hang out in her apartment because she had one of the nicer available window units. She had commented onetime (in context) that she would favor asphyxiation if it came down to it because she was pain-averse and didn’t want to “leave a mess.” She was always immaculately put together, so I remembered wondering if she had put on a full face of makeup before she did the deed. I would be willing to bet that she did.
A friend of mine died last year about a week before we both turned 30 (he was only a few days younger than me). He was completely out of his damn mind, but not in a phony-tough, macho-pose sort of way. He was genuinely fearless. I’d sort of lost track of him in recent years, and he had moved downstate to some one-horse town for reasons unknown. I heard that he had lost his shirt somehow and was in real dire financial straits, and that his wife came home and found him dead from a gunshot wound. He didn’t leave a note or anything, but I would be willing to bet that he probably did it impulsively. He’d had a reputation when we were younger for totally whimsical recklessness, and he was basically ‘patient zero’ for anabolic steroid and painkiller abuse. If he was anything like he was when I knew him when he finally killed himself, he was probably watching TV or scoping internet porn and just decided all of a sudden to take himself out and just did it before he could talk himself out of it.
The only other guy was a kid who I grew up with, and about three years after we graduated high school, he got hit with testicular cancer and it took him down. He really fought to hang on, and it was apparent that he was slowly fading out every time I was home. At the end of his life, he looked like a disinterred corpse that somebody was making move about with marionette strings. He told me that he would try to eat all the time... Hostess Twinkies, Big Macs, Ice cream sundaes, etc. because he though that if he ate everything in sight, his body would “stop dying.” Mind you, he would throw everything up, and even the stuff he could keep down made him feel like shit, but it was obvious that he had tried to reduce the process to some sort of simple ‘food race’... where if he could eat enough, cancer would not be able to break his body down into pieces. It actually made me really, really sad to hear about that... the ‘food race’ thing really stuck with me. His case was really tragic... I don’t think that the others were. Then again, he had a lot of reasons to stay around, and the others that I mentioned really didn’t.
I don’t know if I have a point here, other than to try to flesh out some of what is on the table in this thread. I’d suppose that I largely agree with Petr... unless there is a compelling reason to stay alive beyond mere instinct, I think death becomes more scary and ominous with maturity for many people.
My best friend (since I was a kid) is Croat... his folks arrived in the states around 1972 I think. He is an environmental engineer and actually works with a couple of Serbians... and it seems somewhat tense for him. Mind you, my friend is a fair man, and he is really not bigoted, but even he acknowledges the tension. There is a small but visible Croatian community here in Skokie as well as on the south side... there are some Bosniaks milling about in Edgewater and Roger’s Park (there was actually a Bosnian refugee center there when I was in college) and the Serbs are intermixed in there too.
I am not trying to sound controversial here, but most of the aggro I see coming from Balkanoids here comes from the Serbs.
In college, I hung out with this gorgeous Serbian girl who I desperately wanted to bed down (but never did) named “Milka.” Milka’s friends (pretty much the only other Serbs on campus... six or eight of them) formed a volleyball team one summer, as there is this place off of Clybourn (don’t even know if its still there) that would have beach volleyball tournaments in the summer. Well, the Serb term called itself “Ethnic Cleansing,” and thought that this was hilarious. I actually thought it was too, but this was in the late 90s, so nobody other than myself and the Serbs thought it was funny.
[“Do-gooder types” are] people who have really internalized the secular humanist ethos.
An acquaintance of mine is an adjunct professor, and I run into him now and again. He’s a gentile, Protestant-type and a staunch anti-racist. If I wait until he has had a few drinks, and then start defending the Axis powers, he becomes livid... I mean he really takes it personally.
It’s a belief system for a lot of people, IMO.
You guys are confusing being ballsy or fearless/reckless with being “brave.” Bravery is about putting the safety and needs of other people (your family, people you love/honor) before yourself.
Let me tell you a story about my friend Ray:
Ray has a kid brother named Anthony... Anthony is sort of a sad case... really troubled guy. Battled with mental illness, drug addiction, the whole 9. He is also sort of weak and sensitive in a lot of ways, despite being rather violent.
One day, Anthony and some junkie friend of his pistol-whipped some guy for a few hundred bucks... and the victim id’ed Ray (not Anthony) as the attacker... they look quite a bit alike, especially in the darkness of night. When Ray was arrested, he knew exactly what had happened. And he knew that prison would have killed his brother (Anthony had a couple of class 4 convictions, and he would have gone down for a long time had he been convicted of this offense as well)... so Ray confessed, and Ray went to prison for three years.
I never heard Ray complain about it or act embittered. Anthony is clean now and has a family. Ray told me onetime “having a brother is not easy.”
I have never done anything brave.
Back in college. I was working as a doorman for extra cash on weekends around Clark/Division... my then girlfriend (a real hellion) was slinging cocktails for the same management company so she got me the job.
Anyway, its last call one night, and these two suits... probably about 40, both out of shape are drunk out of their minds watching the replay of the NBA finals on one of the TVs. So when the DJ calls “last call,” these clowns try to order another round... the bartender tells the server to deny them as they are over-served, so they get a bit surly. I step over and tell them both “look, you’re over-served... please leave and walk it off.” So the one guy just glares at me... real phony-tough guy shit. So I go about the business of the end of my shift, and come closing time, these two pricks are still sitting at that same table. So I go over, turn off the TV and say (real politely) “Thanks for coming in tonight, but its closing time, so you need to head towards the door.” This guy just stands up, points at the TV and says “I was watching that.” So I said “you gotta go.” I motion for the other doorman, he comes over, and we walk these guys to the door... all the while this drunk fool is talking smack... and I am just sort of laughing at him because he is not making a move or anything. We get them out the door, I turn around and start walking back towards the main floor, and I just get clocked in the back of the head... blacked out for about 5-10 seconds. This fool actually cold cocked me when I turned my back. I get up sort of stunned/in shock, and I see the other doorman (Keith was his name) laying a beating on this guy... his friend is just hanging back not doing anything... as is typical of these types. So Keith has this fat, drunk prick in a rear choke, and he says “take a shot, you deserve it.” So I wound up and slugged this guy as hard as I could in the gut. He goes down wheezing, slobbering, etc. It was a stupid situation.
In all honesty, I didn’t feel good hitting that guy... I was kind of stunned by the whole thing. Just sort of made me sick.
I always had a terrible temper... and when I was a kid, I would swing on people for no reason. I also had an arthritic hip and weighed about 140, so I would get the shit kicked out of me with alarming regularity... and I would get so angry about it, I would just look to recreate the circumstance to “prove” my manhood or avenge it.
In the suburb in which I grew up, there was this housing development where a lot of real White trash stayed... as well as a bunch of assorted Latino immigrants... mostly Guatemalan. There was this sawed off punk name of Shorty K who lived there... he was a third generation Latin King and he swaggered around like he was John Gotti. The sight of the guy just pissed me off.
I am there one time visiting my buddy and his girlfriend, and my girl is with me as well and we are all drunk as hell on orange Mad Dog... Shorty K shows up while I am outside taking a piss... I come back and he is chatting up my girl pretty hard. So I have liquid courage and I start talking shit and the dude just gives me this shit eating look and keeps talking to my girl. I put my hand on him and he just open handed slaps me, I go berserk and swing on him, and this dude just takes me apart. I mean he could fight... like Mando Ramos or Michael Antonio Barerra (so it seemed)... he kicked the shit out of me. My head hurt for a week.
I never forgot about that... I mean for years it bothered me. I would look for circumstances to prove that I wasn’t a pussy and constantly tried to strike a “tough guy” pose. It’s pretty pathetic in retrospect... I can’t believe I thought that way.
My Father is an economist, and I suppose that his views are very much in line with those of Milton Friedman. He was a Goldwater conservative back in the 1960s, and he was Cold Warrior to the core. However, his perspective is always filtered through a lens of cynical realism and market expediency.
My Mother is something of a lunatic, and she grew up very privileged in 1950s and 60s Los Angeles. Her political-social perspective tends to be a hodgepodge of equally obnoxious, yet inconsistent, ‘causes’ and platforms.
I get along with my Father, but he refers to me as “my Nazi prodigal son.” I think it is half mean-spirited, and half in jest.
Well, I became a bit insightful over the past few weeks about these things. I suppose that I am really, really afraid of decrepitude and my cavalier attitude towards death is really borne from that. I also tend towards bouts of extreme self-loathing now and again and really castigate myself for critical errors.
When my doc told me that what was discovered was cause for concern, I started thinking about times 6 or 7 years ago when I was in ‘don’t give a fuck mode’ and was abusing a lot of heavy androgens with reckless abandon... I got this sinking feeling that all of that recklessness was finally coming back to haunt me in the form of terminal cancer. The thought that I was going to rot away many years after the fact by my own hand really spun my head around... it was as if everything I did to avoid a terrible fate such as that was actually the catalyst for it. Believing that you have irreversibly devastated your body is quite a feeling... but its not one that I’d ever care to endure again.
I didn’t tell my Dad or my girl about any of this because I didn’t want them to worry, and I also knew that they would probably make the same causal inference that I did... so I sort of spilled my guts on this thread. In hindsight, that was bad form, but my nerves were so shot these past couple of weeks (and especially the last 4 or 5 days) that I sort of lost it.
That is the best summary I can provide right now. I started reading again today for the first time in a couple weeks, and I’ll start substantively posting again later 2night.
Thanx for all the good words, everybody. I mean it.
The strongest human I have ever been in close contact with was the guy who first got me into the iron game. He was in his early 40s, and had been at it for about 30 years. When we would do speed work, he could power clean 365lbs from the hang for reps, and he could crank out 4-5 solid reps on flat bench with 405lbs. He was also a real loose cannon, and onetime got 86ed from the gym for several weeks for tossing a 40lb dumbbell at a guy for no good reason.
Our gym doubled as a boxing club, and we’d mix it up now and again in the ring just to keep things interesting. My friend would pull his punches because he had about 40lbs on me, but one time I landed a few solid shots on him and he threw the ‘rage switch’ and took me down like a wrestler and put me in a sleeper-type hold. He caught himself after a few moments and let me go and apologized, but I’ve never (before or since) felt so immobilized and powerless. It was pretty clear that if he had wanted to kill me by breaking my neck or strangulation right then and there, he could have done it.
I think that women especially lose sight of this sort of thing... hence the ‘self-defense’ craze. If a man who is that strong sets upon you with deadly intent, you’re four shades of fucked.
I lived around Howard/Paulina in the late 1990s. I was single at the time, worked at a gym nearby, worked doors, and went to college. So I didn’t care about living in a nice place. I just rented the cheapest place I could find, but it had rats, so I adopted this tomcat I found and he Holocausted them.
Nigs get upset by cats for some reason. This Black broad used to bitch about my cat when I lived in the ghetto. I asked her if she liked the rats better. It seemed lost on her the cat was more productive than she was.
This may sound very bizarre, but I have had recurring bad dreams for years, in which I find myself in the throes of some sort of fugue state in which I commit incredibly violent acts (sometimes random, other times in the heat of passion) against other persons and am then pursued by the authorities and destroyed by my own anxiety about my impending fate.
I believe that this stems from a latent phobia that I endure about losing control of my conscious mind and being brought under the dominion of some oppressive, alien intelligence.
I have had these sorts of dreams for over a decade, but they have increased in frequency and intensity as of late. These sorts of anxieties seem absurd when I ponder them when I am fully awake during the day, but when they return during my sleeping state, they are palpably terrifying.
I was wondering if anybody experiences dreams involving fugue, or if anybody experiences fugue in real life.
Please understand, I don’t mean to come off like a basket-case or some navel-gazing shithead, but I am sort of interested to learn if these sorts of anxieties are common. [...]
In a genuine fugue state, a person will carry out acts with no memory of doing so and will sometimes “awaken” from such states with no recollection of their identity.
In my dreams, I find myself in circumstances where I have killed somebody close to me, opened fire on strangers, or committed some other highly destructive act yet have no memory of doing so... as I was under the influence of some sort of psychosis or in the throes of fugue. My dreams tend to involve me attempting to escape apprehension by the authorities or me trying to convince them that I lacked capacity to commit the offenses.
Cannabis/Hashish: I used to partake pretty often in my youth Alcohol: Occasionally, once again, I used pretty heavily as a teenager. PCP: Very bad trip... only once at age 17 Mushrooms: probably 7 or 8 times... last time was about 10 years ago.
Testosterone: Various blends... omnadren, propionate, cypionate, enanthate Methandrostenolone: trade name Dianabol Trenbelone Acetate: veterinary variant Winstrol V: oral and injectable variant Oxymetholone: trade name anavar.
I sort of used myself as a guinea pig... although I consider the latter category to be a different sort of thing from the former.
I am not here to “lead by example,” Carl.
In a lot of ways, I made the wrong decisions in life but I’ve resigned myself to that and I am going to see it through to its logical conclusion. I never suggested that getting married and having children was not the proper course for our people... indubitably, it is. I’m not a man who is father material... that’s not my role. I would be doing a grave disservice to all parties involved if I started a family... I am not going to get into the “whys” because that’s a bit too intimate, but you should trust my judgment on this matter.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for men like you and my brother (he has 4 gorgeous, healthy kids)... but I made some decisions that preclude that course of action in my life.
Does my station in life render me useless in the greater scheme? Maybe... but like I said, I am not here to set an example for anybody.
If I can weigh in with some personal thoughts, I have zero desire to live in a demodernized state... I feel comfortable in urban environments, and rather out of my element in wilderness environments. I wholly agree with Il Rago and Basil Fawlty on this thread... their insights are quite keen (as always).
I suppose what disturbs me in the 21st century is the OVER-civilizing influences that sort of define the bourgeoisie. Most men seemingly will do anything to avoid a fight or physical confrontation... I see this all the time when I am on the bus or the subway... I see their conditioning kicking in the moment a threat makes itself known.
Children are taught from the time that they enter school that violence is never acceptable under any circumstances... its an incessant meme... its like the Department of Education’s variant of the Ludovico Technique. The net result of these efforts is a population of men who are constitutionally incapable of defending themselves.
Without getting to much into personal anecdotes, I grew up with a ludicrously disciplinarian father and an older brother who was a genuine sadist. In hindsight, the latter would genuinely torture me, and I despised and feared him. He ended up joining the Marine Corps and putting those tendencies to appropriate use (I guess). Even though my environment was generally a negative, it offset the sorts of pacifist conditioning that I was receiving in school... I never had any delusions that people had good intentions towards one another, or that physical pain or fighting could be avoided by “talking it out” or capitulating, and I was never afraid to strike back if somebody antagonized me or threatened to harm me in any way. [...]
I suppose that I am a paranoid person, in many respects. I feel extreme compulsions to maintain a certain level of physical fitness even if it compromises other interests of mine. I don’t enjoy working out especially (sometimes I do, but not most of the time), I just develop terrible anxieties if I do not maintain my regimen every day of the week. I also tend to suspect that people are antagonizing me even if they aren’t.
I am not a large man (at least not compared to the giant Blacks and Polacks in this city), and I have always been terrified of being set upon and really badly injured by some miscreants who ambush me in a “surprise attack.” This fear came about after I witnessed a really brutal assault as a kid against a hapless stranger.
That and the longing for death. Thus was Schopenhauer’s mission to extricate the destiny of Aryans from the fetters of the Christian God. Such men came to hate the Jew not for murdering God out of rebellion, but for giving birth to him in the first place.
At risk of exposing myself to ridicule and shame with a personal recollection that haunts my day to day existence, when my Mother decided to commit suicide she did so slowly. She orchestrated her demise incrementally, like a scarified wretch might draw a hedonistic pleasure from the diligent destruction of his flesh so as to liberate himself from the confines of his essence made “form” – form becoming a prison.
Angels decay, and as the Oriental barbarians said in their epic poems, “Heaven hurts fair women for sure spite.” When my mother’s teeth fell out, her doctor provided polished dentures. They never yellowed. When her hair thinned like that of a newborn infant, I I wove blond tresses into it. When her face became that of a corpse, I’d paint her so the observers could view a facsimile of the dying form of her own beauty.
The greatest beauty any man has ever endured and witnessed haunts his dreams and his waking flights of brutalizing emotional reflection. There’s nothing else to do but return the dead (living and actually deceased) to the form that made them flesh – and allow them to die before they deteriorate into absolute monstrosity. Every man must at some point set the objective of his overwhelming desire free, lest he without compunction of compassion simply abandoned him or her to the ravages of the beast.
“The Golden Pavilion... who will set it free?”
People will make fun of me for this, but it had to be expressed. I have always been a buffoon, a ridiculous emotional man who flirted incessantly with his own demise and failed. Age provides no quarter – other than to the Saints and God’s praised sorcerers who can receive orders and implement without emotion. Without Emotion.
I’ll never be an Übermench, because I’m intellectually, physically, and emotionally inferior. I also seem unable to overcome base desires and passions that are quintessentially human and vulgar.
The saving grace for anybody who appreciates these things is that it is in fact possible to overcome fear and loathing of oblivion and death. It is also imperative to practice deprivation for its own sake, welcome pain and suffering, and (on occasion) self-torture. These endeavors are modes of self-overcoming (albeit, petty and effeminate by comparison to genuine strength and unadulterated expressions of ‘will to power’)
I have made a study of all of these things in recognition of my own crippling weaknesses.
Hence, I believe that although I will never achieve the exalted status of Übermench (or even anything closely approximating it), I embrace self-loathing and penance on account of this fact.
Anybody who purports to be an ‘Overman’ on account of simple, everyday accomplishments is confusing Nietzsche with Dr. Phil. It’s ludicrous.
Capitalism represents the transnational consolidation of private interests/capital/authority with ostensibly “public” authority while maintaining the fiction that:
a) a clear cleft exists between public and private authority b) the system of apparently contested elections produces accountability c) “freedom” is realized by removing restrictions upon labor and capital mobility
Global capitalism is a chimera because it represents the amalgamation of disparate sources of power into a single ideological scheme... a scheme which its proponents deny actually exists
James Burnham is one of the few “conservatives” worth reading, because as a political theorist and sociologist, he really had no peer with respect to the intuition he had for the workings of the modern state.
One of the fictions that is trotted out by right-wingers fairly consistently is that there is some kind of tension or conflict of interest between private capital and the government in modern states – this simply isn’t the case. Business enterprises that are able to consolidate massive productive resources and are scaled to serve global markets behave essentially identically to governments – they’re managerial bureaucracies that are fundamentally oriented towards perpetuating their own survival and increasing the scope and reach of their dominion. They will and do, axiomatically, operate to preclude, eliminate, and otherwise sabotage institutions that potentially or actually can rival their power.
Concomitant with this, business organizations in a managerial state are forced to negotiate political circumstances – because their continued productivity is contingent upon cooperation from other bureaucracies, loci of power (public and ostensibly “private”), the implementation of policies by government that guards their mutual interests, etc.
This is essentially the failure of Libertarian thought – at odds with history and human nature, they claim that private capital will voluntarily limit its strive towards monopoly and avoid rent-seeking behavior on grounds of a purported moral commitment to the maintenance of ‘free’ markets. It’s like when Jeffersonians talk about “limited government” and claim that written Constitutions guarantee this fiction – as if governments will somehow opt to voluntarily limit their own sovereignty when they are endowed with absolute authority over political affairs.
All of this however mostly just speaks to the structure(s) of power in the modern state – not the underlying ideological bias. The ethics of “capitalism” (if we can even speak of ‘capitalism’ anymore as a meaningful category of political economy) are grounded in a Liberal theory of human nature and morality. A theory that is dogmatically anti-racist, individualist, and which posits that society is nothing more than an artifact of individual desires and wishes; the only legitimate role of authority being to guarantee that the parameters of mutual self-interest and non-interference therein is preserved.
The internecine rivalries of Communists and Liberals are an interesting topic on this point: I recall Noam Chomsky during one of his lecture series from the 1980s (since published in book format) raised the ire of his ideological comrades when in response to a student’s question about the Republic of South Africa and its purported “capitalist” excesses, he responded by pointing out that the RSA wasn’t a “capitalist” state in any meaningful sense – on grounds of the fact that capitalism and liberalism are essentially synonymous, ethically, and reduce man to a discrete and isolated economic integer. The South Africans were implementing a kind of high protectionism in order to preserve their racial stock and thus sustain a concrete political order based on white law – this was extraordinarily costly, and by the logic of capitalism, cost prohibitive. A nigger coolie’s labor is as good as a white man’s, by capitalist logic, in other words. And if the nigger proves ineducable, the productive process can simply be revised and simplified – this of course was Peter Drucker’s vision of the “efficient” capitalist managerial method.
You can be a White Nationalist or you can be a capitalist – you can’t be both. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that a “God fearing” communist could exist.
I think that we may be dealing with a lack of shared premises here:
At base, a racialist state abrogates labor-capital mobility and is, hence, “anti-capitalist.” This is why when Congress began to enforce private desegregation here in America, they did so under the auspices of the Commerce Clause... this was not merely a matter of formal expediency, rather, segregation was bad for business and unreasonable interfered with interstate commerce.
“High Capitalism” as you refer to it is not Corporatist, nor is it National Socialist. High Capitalism is a condition in which private capital and non-state actors are able to effect complete control over the state apparatus and manipulate the state apparatus to facilitate maximum profits and minimize attendant costs of doing business (i.e. “overhead). By the mid-1960s, America had become infected with pure capitalism, and that is why the desegregation issue was forced by the legislature at that time.
Finally, National Socialism’s policy goals were/are (at base) traditionally geopolitical. National Socialism does not aim to forcibly create new markets which they can saturate with commercial products and access new labor pools. Instead, NS dictates that Germany should destroy their traditional enemies in the East, occupy the land, and establish direct military hegemony over central Asia. Let’s juxtapose the tactics and goals of the Third Reich with those of Great Britain from the 17th century onward... [...]
SCOTUS invoked the commerce clause to end desegregation for reasons beyond mere expediency. It’s cost prohibitive for a Producer to adjust labor policy in jurisdictions where race laws exist... undermines labor/capital mobility to unacceptable degrees.
Race mixing etc is just a small part of the drive to one worldism, which is also dictated by technological considerations.
It’s a big component of the American ideology since the capitulation of the Communists. The reasoning is that mass-miscegenation is essential for a world polity to be governable.
Chomsky is wrong in that regard, when he claims that “Capitalism” denies the significance of race; it doesn’t. It considers race to be a human trait that renders people ungovernable in a stateless world order, so the priority is to render people functionally (if not completely biologically) deracinated by eradicating their relationship to history and their natural propensity towards ethical particularism in favor of their own racial group.
In the future, it will be considered insurrectionary or at least socially offensive to refuse to race-mix unless the present system and its values are discredited by a crisis or series of crises.
That’s not really true though. There is no rigid “caste” system in America, because nobody in America really holds to any definitive historical belief and there isn’t any social grounding in perennial institutions.
Something left-wingers like Berman and Chomsky are insightful about is that America isn’t really doctrinally “racist” – not because Americans are morally averse to racialism or anything like that, but because Americans don’t see any short term profitability to it. Americans internalize this idea at a young age that they should try to enrich themselves at the expense of other people, and that they should be oriented towards status and commerce, and that social convention is an obstacle to these things. The elites drive home this idea b/c they’re only really motivated by similar impulses (with some exceptions that are outside the scope of this thread).
In other words, “racism” makes you a bad capitalist – there’s no percentage in it. Whites by and large look down on Blacks, but they look down on a lot of people for myriad reasons. And increasingly, the “White” majority is made up of immigrants who don’t contemplate Blacks one way or the other b/c they have no history with them.
This hysterical narrative around this case is mainly driven by ignorant Blacks who are sort of left behind by history and senile old people who still recall an America of the early Cold War where some vestige of a “caste society” still existed. It’s not reality.
Behind the veil of the raw calculus of trade imbalance is a concrete reality that really nobody (save for Pat Choate and Buchanan) has really addressed in my adult life: Genuine manufacturing (by this I mean actual manufacturing of complete products, not tool and dye and replacement specialty component parts for industrial equipment that comes out of Wisconsin for example) is what facilitates innovation. A genuinely national automotive or aircraft industry maintains things like research and development departments that (ideally) collect smart people in rooms together who set about designing and ultimately building things for the domestic market that actually work... things like cars that don’t auto-destruct at 75,000 miles and aircraft that are more comfortable and efficient than 40 year old models and computers that have capabilities beyond that of an abacus that don’t take up rooms the size of small high school gymnasiums.
Ultimately, the National interest can be understood (in large part) as maintaining an ability to produce these things domestically, employing Americans to design and build them, and maintaining cost efficiency by discouraging rent-seeking behavior by producers so that Americans of modest means can actually afford to purchase these things.
Call me foolish, but I always thought this was fairly self-evident.
With the exception maybe (but even this is dubious) of Vietnam and Japan (intellectually I mean), no Oriental culture could really apprehend and understand Marxist-Leninism in any meaningful sense. This was very much laid bare in North Korea and in Kampuchea – in the former case, the ‘Soviet Koreans’ often hadn’t even been educated in Marxist theory at all – they’d merely been men who had cut their combat teeth fighting the Japanese either with the Red Army or with Mao’s forces. In the case of Kampuchea, Pol Pot himself stated that Marxist-Leninism was largely “nonsense” – and that the Party should instead simply model itself on Stalin’s theories of political warfare and administration.
In the PRC, “Maoism,” as the DDR elite were often pointing out, wasn’t even an intelligible theory of class warfare, politics, historicism, or ideology – it was simply a Chinese interpretation of the great-power conflict looming between the Western alliance and the Soviet Bloc (and concomitantly, between the West and the colored world), extrapolated to an internal Chinese political situation.
This is one reason why the Chinese have remained “communist” – Chinese “communism” is whatever the ruling Han party-state decides is required to advance Chinese geostrategic interests – its not anything more than that.
Marxism really, as Sombart pointed out, only has a context within Europe and the peculiar disturbances experienced by Europe in the transition from the Medieval cultural “mind,” economy, and political/conceptual horizon to modernity and rationalism/capitalism. It doesn’t make sense as extrapolated to other cultures (including America despite America having a Western core – but this is a tangential issue) and Marx himself actually recognized this.
Chomsky made the claim during the era immediately preceding detente – when the VN war was being waged most brutally in other words – that American anti-Communism in the Third World was basically ideologically-driven racism. That’s not entirely untrue – States like North Korea, Kampuchea, non-state actors like the ANC, weren’t advancing “communism” in any meaningful sense – other than as proxies of the USSR and its vanguard allies like the DDR. The conflict in these peripheral theaters was taking on a nakedly racial character in some respects, with the Americans dropping the ball politically in really profound ways.
(re: “socialism”) What exactly do you consider feminism, “affirmative action"/positive discrimination, state enforced atheism, free trade, borderless travel zones, and Human Rights legislation to be?
There is this autistic claim forwarded by people that “socialism” doesn’t entail political values and juristic regimes, it simply involves things like nationalizing factories and public utilities.
Homosexuals are bourgeoisie hedonists. They pursue behaviors that have no communitarian yield. Certainly, it is consistent with Marxist-Leninist theory to advocate that they should not be persecuted or otherwise molested, but it is ideologically inconsistent to allege that a policy goal of “gay liberation” is an essential component of a Marxist-Leninist platform.
Cultural Marxism as the term is used by people like Pat Buchanan is a highly specious descriptive concept. The things they describe as “Marxist” aren’t actually Marxist in any meaningful sense.
Marxism itself is at base a cultural theory – orthodox Marxism I mean. The point was made by Joseph Schumpeter that Marx was a social and political thinker who reached conclusions about ethics and political values and history and subsequently aimed to craft a theory of economics around these principles – which is why Marxist “economics” is erroneous and a methodologically impoverished body of theory.
The entire Communist project in the 20th century was tailored to repair a social fabric that was destroyed beginning in the 18th century, the tensions wrought by which reached a critical zenith by the time of the Great War. It wasn’t an economic theory that was uninterested in culture, it was actually the opposite.
The things that conservatives and right wingers claim are culturally “Marxist” are actually Liberal preferences taken to their logical extreme. Feminism, “gay” liberation, racial egalitarianism, private social rights extricated from communitarian imperatives, are things inherent to the theories of men like Bentham and Thomas Paine – they’re not things that Communism promoted. In fact, they’re conceptual biases of bourgeois people in atomized, individualistic Anglo-derived societies. Marxists actively persecuted these kinds of people and in many cases executed them.
A “culturally Marxist” society looks like East Germany did – there was an excellent treatment of this in an old and little known text called East Germany: The State that Came in From the Cold. The author made the point that a “pure” kind of Marxism flourished in the DDR that was uniquely faithful to the core doctrines of its own founding theory. It was a culture that valorized labor for its own sake, put what we would consider to be an undue emphasis on the military and sporting activities, was averse to innovation that would alter labor relationships, and in which people aspired to be industrial workers, design engineers, soldiers, and social theorists and academics and that posited that the pursuits that were encouraged and facilitated by freer economies were immoral and socially corrupting.
What Gramsci and Adorno represented was a heterodox view of Communism that frankly had very little appeal to people in Communist societies and was only appealing to Western academics due to the fact that this body of theory was basically at odds with Marxism in fundamental ways. It was a revisioning of socialist ethics that was palatable to Liberals, in other words – and it wasn’t a formative influence on post-War politics.
The Proletariat are the infantry boots of any national army... in a conventional armed revolution, the class dynamics addressed by Marx-Engels translate directly into military doctrine... almost seamlessly.
Maoism represents a special tailoring of military doctrine to address exigent circumstances in East Asia... namely, the lack of an industrialized, urbanized proletariat + the issue of foreign occupation by a great power.
I think that the Soviet system was an abomination. However, I’m not a Nazi. I find it a bit odd when I hear guys who:
1) favor the extermination of undesirable racial elements 2) Support the establishment of an autocratic, totalitarian party-state 3) condone the police state apparatus of Nazi Germany
turn around and talk about Stalinists as if they are their mortal enemies. National Socialists would find themselves at home (and many did!) in a place like the USSR of the 1950s. It was a massive, fundamentally anti-Semitic, Nationalist police state. Why is such a system offensive to Nazi (or even Nationalist) sensibilities?
Stalin was a cunt.
Stalin was a heartless bastard, but he was likely the single most powerful man who has ever lived. He went from being a bank robber and small time hood to conquering a good portion of the world.
I think it understates him to dismiss him as a “cunt.” Barack Obama is a cunt. Stalin was on the order of Ghengis Khan. People like that aren’t cunts.
According to Marx the viewpoint seen through the perspective of the proletariat is the most objective because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, therefore it is the least distorted perspective possible.
The trouble here is twofold though;
First, there was no unitary Proletariat – there were disparate elements that weren’t united by any peculiar perspective or affinity for one another. If we’re going to identify a class some reasonable metrics need to be employed. Schumpeter’s notion was that a “class” is a group that self-identifies as such, that treats its own members differently than non-members, that is bound by intimate sociality such as labor in common and intermarriage, and that exists in a permanent, or at least beyond a single generation, capacity. From the mid 19th century onward, what was notable about capitalist societies was the absence of permanence – men’s fortunes evaporated as quickly as they emerged, leading to a basic volatility in political, social and economic relationships. Many workers became (comparatively) rich, many others became completely destitute. Others still became middling entrepreneurs of a type, in that they were able to assimilate machinery into what had been their trade or craft to remain viable in urban markets. We cannot discuss a Proletarian experience as we could the experience of a peasant or that of a Lord – it was too much of an ephemeral existence.
Secondly, the perception held by classes is often (perhaps always) at odds with the trajectory of economic development. It could be said that in a capitalist society, the “elites” at any given moment are the people who became wealthy in the preceding generation and who are in the process of being displaced in the present. Similarly, a worker may view his own circumstances as indicative of a deterioration in the availability and/or existence of wealth when in reality the opposite is underway. Short term interests are categorically at odds with long-term developmental schemes.
This isn’t to say I approve of capitalism – I don’t because it’s horseshit. But Marxian analysis is too flawed to be of use; its only strong suit was Marx’s observations on the sociological and psychological conditions of man as he is undergoing the brutalizing effects of mass production and the concomitant extinction of the social fabric upon which man relies for psychic survival.
Honecker met with Angela Davis and made a big deal about American racial apartheid for the same reason(s) the KGB and Stasi manufactured reports to be distributed to world news agencies claiming that GRIDS/AIDS was an American bioweapon that had been unleashed to murder racial minorities – they waged their own propaganda war for the “hearts and minds” of the Third World so that Stalinism might triumph.
In reality, the military and political elite of East Bloc states acted like Prussian overlords in the colored dominions. Stasi generals cracking the whip (figuratively and literally) on their charges in South Yemen and the like was emblematic of this.
Intellectually lazy, stupid, elderly professors at Berkeley who are keen to the fashionable nonsense of identity-politics victimology citing Das Kapital doesn’t really tell us anything.
Marxist-Leninism, as it actually existed, was masculine, authoritarian, implicitly violent, autocratic, militaristic, and overwhelmingly white. They considered people who act like American liberals to be mentally ill or criminals.
“Culturally,” Marxism looks like the culture of East Berlin did – it doesn’t look like NYC.
According to Marxian principles, a state that genuinely achieves an equitable distribution of wealth and facilitates the liberation of the proletariat from capitalist bondage is an ideal state. Nothing in Marxist theory attacks the notion of the nation-state as oppressive in and of itself... rather, it attacks the state apparatus as insidious when it acts as an instrument of oppression at the beck and call of big capital.
Marxist-Leninism is primarily concerned with appropriating means of production to facilitate an equitable distribution of wealth. It is a program for revolutionary action by the (presumably oppressed) proletariat of any given polity. M-L is essentially a progressive, revolutionary labor movement.
Trotskyite movements are inherently internationalist in their disposition and are more heavily focused on particular modes of culture that attend and facilitate bourgeoisie “oppression.” “Liberation theology,” the campus radicalism of the 1960s, secular humanism, and your own non-ideology of NeoConservatism find their roots in Trotskyite thought.
The American ideological creed, IMO, can best be understood as a perverse (almost Hegelian) amalgamation of Whiggish historicist tendencies and authoritarian liberalism (i.e. Hobbes) that has been eschewed of overt and implicit Protestant theological trappings in favor of atheist humanitarian ethics that have their roots in dialectical materialism and attendant notions of “dignity.”
What I am saying is that Marxism is quite obviously still with us, in the form of a bastardized strain that has been assimilated into the prevailing zeitgeist.
[Glenn Beck] is a splendid actor (among other things), apparently, because he has a huge audience. Conceptually, he (or his handlers) are very good propagandists. Edwards is right that his schtick makes zero sense, but that is likely the source of the appeal. The man has made a study of irrational emotional responses, that are nonetheless deeply felt by simpleminded people, observed in peculiar pastimes, lifestyle cults, ersatz religious schemes and he has syncretized these things so as to address all preferences of a broad demographic swath of White peoples who are staunchly allergic to critical thought.
Not only has this made him very wealthy and famous, but it serves a political and social function that guards the absolute pre-eminence of the values that are constantly disseminated to guard a now-entrenched status quo, and its done in such a way so as to render truly popular/conservative/“rightist” thought virtually unintelligible by removing any meaningful historical or literary or cultural reference points.
It’s tiresome for people to cite Julius Evola in our circles, but to employ one of his coinages when apropos, Beck is a propaganda grenadier at the front column of what Evola called history’s demolition squad. To speak of “conservatism” in America now means to speak of a feminized and charismatic low-church and ecumenical revivalist jubilee where people praise an imaginary past and present of racial harmony, tailored to resonate with the most emotionally and morally puerile elements of our racial stock. A demographic contingent that, alarmingly, represents a sizable minority if not a plurality of our people.
To speak of our actual historical memories and experiences, national legacy, cultural output, our actual strengths, ambitions and frailties, or our actual interests in surviving (as a people) both politically and mortally is now synonymous with invidious and criminal thoughts.
Beck is one of many heads of a monster that is rendering entire categories of thought inconceivable, unintelligible or both. He’s making it so that the history of a people never existed, and he’s doing it with purpose, calculation, and malice aforethought. Don’t convince yourself he’s a lunatic who “happened to end up on TV” or that he’s simply a weakling who shrieks like a woman when he has an audience. He’s probably a highly intelligent psychopath or at least a calculating mercenary. All traitors are. [...]
We can expect [Beck] to produce good propaganda. He is after all “White” in some nominal sense.
It’s hard to have any respect for a shabbos goy, but the least they could do is deliver the Gospel with fervor.
The narrative is that the Jewish people are a light unto nations, on grounds of a Mosaic covenant, and that the savages are drunk with atavistic malevolence and want to eradicate them from the Earth as a sacrifice to commemorate their own cruel hubris and would-be dominion.
America is fighting Nazism/Haman/Babylon and securing a place in the Earthly kingdom of the righteous in availing its arms to this great cause.
Fat little Beck sputtering about how everyone is a “Nazee” to please the Yid holding his leash is just depressing. It’s like seeing the neighbors dog hump a visitor’s leg to gooey climax. It deprives us of enemies we can hold in esteem, thus adding salt to the wound already gouged by ZOG.
As far as Fascism goes, when I was about your guys’ age, I was a typical mouth-breathing Republican moron. I realized the moral, intellectual, and cultural bankruptcy of the Beltway as I became educated and began interacting in the real world and this led me to Paleoconservatism, and ultimately to the theories of Spengler, Heidegger, Yockey, and Mosley. I realized that a strong national state that cultivates elitism, preserves tradition, and defends the racial-cultural “family” is essential. The State is an enemy of the People when it consists of alien elements replete with attendant enmity towards the Folk. After all, what is the tie that binds? Statehood can only properly be discussed in terms of organic principles.
Being jokey is OK for purposes of levity when times are good or when there is some kind of rational and serious dialog underway about the challenges of the day. The problem with Taki and other people like him is that they strike aloof poses and become glib and proudly cynical in dealing with these things, and that means they’re contributing to the problem at present.
The internet commentators in the last ten years who embraced the role of bearer of bad news in the asylum/microverse of the dissident Right that come to mind were/are Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Alex Linder, and Paul Craig Roberts. Three of those guys had their health ruined by their commitments, Sobran was relegated to the self-publishing ghetto, Alex Linder and P. Craig Roberts are probably not mentally competent anymore in any meaningful sense (although they both hit the mark with regularity on certain topics).
Maybe the lesson to be gleaned is that for writers to commit themselves to actual dissent in lieu of being pragmatic and going-along-to-get-along exacts a terrible toll, and that’s not a superfluous consideration; but at the same time, guys like Taki are older than dirt and rich. He can say whatever he wants and there isn’t much anybody can do to punish him or harm his quality of life. He probably genuinely doesn’t care because calling out elites on their treason and pointing out that Jews poisoned the well is a drag and its much more fun and ego rewarding to share sea stories about the good old days of playing blackjack in Monaco with European royals while enjoying caviar and top-notch pussy.
Like Sobran said, “conservatism” is a way of making a living. It’s a role people play on TV or in print.
Savage is the quintessential NeoCon: A marxist who had a Saul on the road to Damascus conversion to “conservatism” in the 1980s.
It is pretty well documented that Savage was a close friend of Alan Ginsburg and used to carry on homosexual affairs, indulge in recreational drug use, etc.
This explains Savage’s absolute obsession with homosexuals. I mean, I am not a fan of the queer lobby, but Savage cannot speak for 10 minutes without mentioning “faggots” or “the gays"... tells us a little bit about what’s going on in his conflicted psychology, eh?
Kristol was a Paleo-socialist/Trotskyite who defected to the Republican camp in response to what he perceived as the excesses of the counterculture... His politics reflect his former allegiances. Sympathy for the Welfare State, support of global political (as well as economic) interdependence, strong support for interventionist/nation building foreign policy initiatives, strong support for open borders/immigration, and a commitment to largely unreconstructed Keynesian fiscal policy. None of these positions can properly be called ‘Conservative’ in the traditionally understood American understanding of Conservatism as a political tendency.
In other words, a ‘NeoConservative’ is a Trotskyite-Leftist or a New Dealer who defected to the GOP... the first wave occurring during the late Johnson admin through the early Nixon administration, and the second occurring during Reagan’s first term.
The criticisms levied by the author are very much in line with those of the late Sam Francis. Francis understood and appreciated (as Ezra Pound did a generation before him) that within the White American political-social milieu, certain ideological fonts simply are not going to resonate and prompt people towards mobilized action... and in all honesty, it’s misguided for any Conservative (even “revolutionary"/romantic conservatives who take their cues from sources like Junger) to seek out reasons to attack and ultimately eschew the historical culture-forms of our people. To do so smacks of a lazy reading of Nietzsche’s later works coupled with adolescent, rebel posturing.
To paraphrase Francis, he made the point that “little shrines to Odin” in suburban backyards aren’t going to sway the uninitiated in favor of Tradition or racialist political values. He was being derisive and facetious in his critique of Heathenism, but I think that the point is well taken, at least with respect to a certain element within the New Right/Heathen community. There is a certain, ahistorical, ideological mythos that is promulgated by a number of New Right thinkers... including Alain de Benoist. Mind you, when I was young, I was very much a Yockeyite National Socialist and I put a great deal of stock in Evola, Benoist, and Michael Moynihan’s and RN Taylor’s efforts to amalgamate Heathen cultural projects with Third Position politics, but as I got older, I came to realize that much of what is presented by these types of theorists is at best a noble thought experiment that has very little bearing on the real-world pitfalls of hypermodernity and at worst is an adolescent flight of fantasy that appeals to dissidents of varying stripes in search of an esoteric ideological canon to buttress their own peculiar opinions.
I tend to be suspicious of anybody who purports to be a Conservative or a Traditionalist yet who takes pleasure in attacking and deconstructing the Classical tradition as interpreted (or perfected, depending on your faith commitments) by the great Christian thinkers. I’d actually posit that had I not been a wayward youth, I would have spent more time with Aristotle and Aquinas and Guenon and less with Hitler, Yockey, Evola, and Michael Moynihan screeds.
Ultimately, what are heathen racialists alleging? Are they claiming that the Classical tradition ended in 1000AD? Are they claiming that Danish marauders were its true bearers? It smacks of fantasy.
The point is that the men who articulate NeoConservative policy where the proverbial rubber meets the road are Liberals – they hate patriarchal, God-fearing, right-wing, nationalistic, or otherwise insular societies and want to destroy them so as to implement Liberalism. They aren’t world-weary “hard men” who think organized violence is a marvelous game or Nietzschean tragedians who want to shed blood as part of some grand staged sacrifice to redeem heroism.
They want to massacre Salafis so that a glamorous, insipid, lady President like Benazir Bhutto can be installed in the Jihadist heartland, they want to loot Russia and transform it into a giant dumping ground for toxic financial instruments governed by buffoons in lieu of nationalist strongmen, and they want to scream in hysterical outrage that any person, state, armed grouping, non-state actor, or chief executive who resists American hegemony is an irredeemably evil and unlawful enemy of humanity.
They’re demented Jacobins who define themselves by (as Burnham noted) an empty, cobbled-together ideology of anti-Fascism.
Of course, the origins of “NeoConservatism” have little to do with this – and “NeoCon” has become a floating signifier employed by both Libertarians and mentally stunted HuffPo liberals, but at the same time, its at odds with reality to suggest that American Conservatives are anything other than rabid liberals with a body count. [...]
It bears noting as well that even in the “good old days” of the late Cold War, the American conservative/Reaganite opposition to Stalinism was basically an anti-Fascist sensibility – people like Yockey and Otto Remer discerned this early in the game of course, but the American “far right” never really had any meaningful historical sensibilities and thus was content to simply define itself according to the Cold War paradigm. This was buttressed by the deterioration of race relations and the interpretation of the Cold War itself as a colored revolt of course, but the rot was far deeper than that.
John O. Kohler’s seminal book on the East German MfS (“Stasi”) is instructive vis-à-vis the conservative “Cold Warrior” perspective – its factual documentation is very good, but the commentary on history can basically be summed up as, “Stalinism was evil because it was ‘fascist.’” This wasn’t simply the view of one man – it was the view of Eisenhower, of LeMay, of William Odom, of Reagan, etc.
As Solzhenitsyn pointed out at Harvard, allying with international Communism to “rescue” Europe from itself was at best an example of total intellectual senility and at worst a truly monstrous conspiracy against the West from within.
Ernst Nolte was a student of Heidegger, and his writings were highly influential. He is often chided as a ‘rightist’ or an apologist of National Socialism, although that is not entirely an accurate characterization.
Again with respect to ‘rightist movements,’ there has not existed a dissident ‘rightist’ movement or party that has meaningfully participated in political processes since 1945, and to reiterate its problematic anyway to assign a philosophical canon to parliamentary movements, as such movements are propaganda-driven. Spengler was correct on this point.
Among other reasons, Coogan’s book on Yockey and post-War ‘Fascism’ is insightful because it accounts for the fact that the years 1945-1990 involved an ideological conflict between authoritarian vs. ‘democratic’ socialisms. There has been no meaningful ‘right wing’ in existence in the historical/definitional sense for decades.
I think that post-Kirk, a lot of Paleocon theorists that have come to be the torchbearers of the movement (Joe Sobran excluded) are essentially reactionaries who pine for the Old Right.
I recall reading Buchanan’s “Right From the Beginning” several years ago and being struck by the fact that he basically echoed the pre-War, America First platform and exhibited a strong affinity for Rothbard’s fiscal policies. He’s basically a Hamiltonian federalist that has an axe to grind with the welfare state and cosmopolitan ethics. That tells me that he doesn’t have many qualms with 1865... other than the way its historical legacy is interpreted and presented by the Establishment.
Buchanan’s waxing and waning with respect to mainstream Republicanism isn’t (IMO) merely cynical politicking on his part... I think he is just that: A Republican. Pat wants to time warp back to 1935 and hit the freeze button on Dr. Who’s pocket watch... he is not an opponent of the Modern state, and hence, is not a Traditionalist.
Ask yourself why the Paleos so zealously defend the Westphalian paradigm... most of them seem very enamored with the State. It begs the question as to whether or not the lot of them can be considered to be genuine Traditionalists.
Really what is underway in the ‘Arab Spring’ is a pious reaction against a historically illiterate and pointless mode of government. Islamic cultural mores, Islamic laws (sharia), Arab culture (largely inextricable from Islam), Arab territory (notably Palestine), have all been violently traumatized under the tutelage of ‘patriotic’ Arabists – it’s not really any condolence to Arab Moslems that their governments are committed to defending ‘Arabism’ by force of arms and smashing dissent that aims to impeach its ethical basis. An atheistic, materialistic, regime dedicated to capitalism and consumerism (albeit in a state-restricted form) also are nominally protecting the continued existence of the Arab race – its an entirely debased and senseless emphasis especially considering that it hasn’t advanced any meaningful political objective one iota in 70 years.
White Christian people can learn from this – not because our historical circumstances are similar (they aren’t – the development of the state and the concomitant development of racial consciousness was of severe necessity and significance to Europeans and European derived people on grounds of a peculiar historical role developed by them) but because biological race is only one element of the culture. It’s just as important as territory, creed, laws, mores, and historical consciousness, but it’s not a singular value unto itself.
The problem with Murray is that he’s basically the mirror image of a Marxist – he’s a vulgar materialist who things that political life is an economic evaluation and that social relationships are simply the equivalent of ‘superstructural’ things related to labor and business. In his autistic view, these things lack a meaningful psychological or instinctive dimension – he’d like to live in a Chink neighborhood b/c the shopkeepers there ‘work hard’ – and in his estimation, ‘work’ is an end in itself; just as ‘society’ is an end in itself. These clowns are the people who claim that nobody should think to much about the existence of wage labor itself, how it destroys natural bonds of association, how it alienates people from any organic and spontaneous community – they claim that nobody should take religious belief too seriously or think too much about the realities of human racial differences. What they suggest instead is that everyone should focus a whole lot on ‘working hard’ and ‘work ethic.’ Anybody with historical interests and patriotic instincts should be highly skeptical of these things – it’s not unlike when Arab strongmen tell people that the important thing is defending ‘Arabism’ from despoliation. There is nothing holistic about these kinds of ideas, in other words.
America locks men in prison where they are regularly gang-raped for doing things like transporting plants across State lines. I don’t think Uncle Sam has a lot of credibility in criticizing the penal practices and mores of other countries.
Of course we do. The actions of criminals are not the responsibility of the United States. I am pretty sure that male rape happens in plenty of prisons around the globe.
It’s barbaric and grossly offensive to accepted notions of fair play, substantial justice, and fundamental decency to subject people to penal rape, particularly when the “crime” in question involves lost volume pharmaceutical product.
States that incarcerate literally millions of people in dangerous, inhumane detention centers for committing victimless “crimes” have no standing to criticize Traditional societies for imposing corporal punishment upon an adulteress.
I’ve never seen data that is demonstrative of the claim that the death penalty is a deterrent, other than apocryphal stories about infamous criminals fearing the electric chair as they hone their bloody craft.
The claim itself presumes a rational analysis is underway in the minds of people who commit violent acts, which seems counter-intuitive.
It’s outside the scope of the thread, but its important to bear in mind that the ethical basis of the death penalty has really never been utilitarian – that’s an argument that came about really in the late 20th century.
The competing views traditionally were the view presented by De Maistre that the executioner must exist because he’s essential to sovereign power (the decision of life or death being the essence of sovereignty) and that man must implement occasioned retribution b/c God will not, and the view presented by Locke which suggests that man must me compensated in the social contract for abdicating his private right to punish people who violate his natural rights.
The kinds of people who dig Batman movies or spy novels or TV shows about the police have dumb conceptual biases.
HL Mencken wrote in one of his rants about that middle class that the middle class is obsessed with “evil” and is convinced everyone but them is “evil.” They think they themselves are the only sane and normal people, and that their neighbors might be Satanists or homos or commies or racists. The way Mencken put it is that these boobs wake up in the morning convinced someone is plotting to steal their underwear as part of some “evil” plan – when in reality, most evil acts are things these people will never have to deal with and even if they did they’d be wrong about the sources of human sin.
Criminals, save for a handful of diabolical types or total shitbirds who are simply sadists, think they’re doing what they have to in order to survive. They think that way because they’re fundamentally at odds with normals b/c they’re mentally afflicted, because they can’t socially adapt, because they’re morally deformed and lack basic components of a complete mind, or they’re simply greedy and selfish. They aren’t evil jesters plotting catastrophes for no reason that they nonetheless justify with dumb, middlebrow philosophical types of arguments.
Two good treatments of the criminal personality on film are Michael Rooker in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer as the title character and William Forsythe in American Me as the White guy who ends up a capo in the Mexican mob while at Folsom in the 1960s and 70s. Brutal guys without a real conscience who think its “me against them” – they personalize it. It’s some kind of Darwinian impulse that would have served these kinds of specimens well in their survival strategy 40,000 years ago, but because they’re out of time and place and fundamentally ineducable and devoid of empathy, they’re monstrous social mutants who need to be dealt with harshly.
This is all actually somewhat depressing, unsettling, and tragic. So its unsurprising that the preferred view of these things by ZOGfags is that evil gay clowns who are Muslims and hate freedom are out there plotting Nietzschean mischief.
The idea of Capitol punishment as deterrent is something of a recent innovation – that kind of utilitarian language didn’t really emerge in American jurisprudence until the post-war years.
The traditional view is that the ethics of human acts (both crimes and punishments) stand on their own terms – states traditionally send men to the gallows because that is the punishment and justice demands it. Whether or not it “deters” other people is somewhat incidental.
The power of state itself is supposed to represent a deterrent – and the sovereignty of a state is contingent upon its ability to render and implement life and death decisions. A state that abdicates the power to execute is, in effect declaring itself impotent.
Corporatism is a mixed system, and is not inherently anti-capitalist... rather, it is an authoritarian form of state-capitalism, which is essential to facilitate the Total State. Fascism cannot exist in a free market system or in a centrally planned economic structure. Fascism wishes to maintain Traditional sources of capital and power so long as they continue to serve the ends of the State... this is guaranteed by the corporatist structure.
Corporatism is the ultimate Protectionist system... Protectionism is monadic... it sets limits upon labor and capital mobility in order to protect domestic profits and manipulate and utilize both to facilitate political ends.
Corporatism rewards initiative and private investment by limiting the prospective liability of investors but curtails the mobility of investment capital.
Deutschland Widgets is ordered by the Minister of the Interior to manufacture x number of widgets to fortify the Western Shore. This is a huge project, and a handsome contract will be fulfilled by the State. DW places a bid along with competitor companies to procure this contract. Ultimately, Deutschland Widgets wins out, and they are rewarded with the earmarked sum. Whether DW is granted the contract or not, the company (as well as its competitors) must satisfy production quotas issued by the State to facilitate projects related to public works, military needs, general infrastructure, etc. DW is funded by private investment (in addition to healthy State subsidies), and the personal liability of those investors is limited by the corporate structure (i.e. DW goes belly up, those investors are only liable for their investment capital). The rest of DW’s production efforts (outside of their earmarked quota) will reflect the general demand within the market pursuant to the orders received from private parties.
Workers in the employ of DW will enjoy statutorily guaranteed voting rights against the owners and the control group of DW, although their individual votes are weighed less than those of larger shareholders. DW workers will also enjoy codified wage protections and be free of wage competition from abroad, eliminating the need for workers unions.
In contrast, closely held corporations will be totally privately owned and will only be limited by tariff restraints and labor restrictions.
Keep in mind that the “guild” aspect to Corporatism that you mentioned reflects the existence of quasi-legislative, civic organizations which have some nominal voting power with respect to State policy regarding various industries. Those who sit on these bodies represent labor and other stakeholders of the respective industries. Bear in mind that many economists and political theorists consider these institutions to be largely symbolic, as at the end of the day, big capital always wins out in terms of controlling influence. Hence the “military-industrial complex” of myth and lore... it actually exists, its not just a catchphrase tossed around by dipshit college professors.
Something Christopher Lasch was consistently returning to (and this was very congruous with Jeffersonian thought and agrarianism of men like Emerson and others) was that the problem with modern society was that its overdeveloped and alienating – and that its tendency towards “efficiency” was actually rendering people less productive by proletarianizing them. This view isn’t entirely correct, but its internally consistent and its rational.
Libertarians who simply call for deregulation in contrast aren’t really presenting a meaningful argument. They’re saying that bureaucracy, over-development, proletarianization, inefficiency is OK so long as its nominally profitable – a good example is the health insurance system in America. Insurance providers are massive, inefficient, clumsy, often corrupt bureaucracies that embody all the undesirable features of socialist bureaucracies, yet they are purportedly “good” because they are profitable.
People don’t understand that what did in the USSR was that the nomenklatura tried to salvage a horribly dysfunctional economic model (the command economy) while “liberalizing” a one-party state.
The Chinks took notice of this and decided they couldn’t save Communism by following such a disastrous course (nor did they want to abdicate one-party rule) – so they preserved Communism as an absolute political doctrine while availing their massive labor reserves to state capitalist. As Choate points out, people would be surprised at how many Politburo Chinks read Fredrich List and study America’s ascendancy.
So the Chinese did something that Free Traders couldn’t – best exemplified most recently by the iPod recall before the first units hit the market. Jobs demanded a new screen be affixed to the devices because the one originally manufactured couldn’t withstand pocket stress w/out scratching – so he sent out word for bids and no American firm could guarantee production on schedule. The Politburo Standing Committee took it upon itself to build a factory in literally days and empty out a couple villages to work 16 hour days for the duration, and guaranteed Jobs’ specifications ahead of schedule.
Jobs’ take on this was that America isn’t “competitive” enough to match Chinese prison labor.
So you see, in essence, the Allegheny utopia is a Chink labor farm where nobody’s “creative vision” is stifled by annoying things like actually paying your workers a hard-fought White mans’ wage or not polluting the shit out of the soil where people have to live and work.
America likes Communism – in fact, it finds it ideal in a lot of ways. It didn’t like Stalinist militarism or the manner in which Russians set about to capture countries by force and in essence confiscate markets from everybody else.
Regulation is inevitable when banking and credit on demand become the driving engine of an economic system because the people revolt against the economic system, against their own interest – this was Schumpeter’s most important insight, and its why he was the most persuasive foil to both Keynes and Marx. Schumpeter was an ardent capitalist who apprehended early that capitalism wouldn’t survive. Von Miseans sometimes misinterpret this; Schumpeter compared himself to a doctor who has the somber duty of informing a patient he will die of cancer – the doctor doesn’t relish the prospect of his dead patient, in fact he abhors it. Nonetheless, he’s obligated to diagnose properly and without emotion.
At base, people won’t tolerate the spontaneous volatility of capitalism – thus every capitalist state votes itself into socialism, at the behest in part of Bourgeois intellectuals whose livelihood is only facilitated by capitalism itself. “Class warfare” is bullshit, for reasons outside the scope of this thread – its conceptual assumptions I mean, but it is in fact true that the body politic in capitalist states works to destroy the economic order on instinctive grounds.
Pointing out that regulation is “bad” is on the order of Plato or Solon pointing out that men who aspire to politics are “bad.” It’s correct but it doesn’t tell us anything about politics. There’s an irrational preference intrinsic to man’s psychology that opposes advanced capitalism – thus the greeting that Spaniards afforded one another in the early 20th century, “let no change arrive/occur” or something on that order.
One of the ironies of the 21st century will be that states like Russia and China will preserve capitalism longer than America and Europe, simply because they’ll enforce an authoritarian punitive regime against people who agitate for its destruction as enemies of the state and opponents of the national interest.
On the one hand, controlled media is an incessant, unchecked sort of mouthpiece for big capital that sort of bends reality around its own very palpable interests. On the other hand, John Q. Public tends to believe what he is told by major media organs because he has a vested incentive in believing it. So long as people are able to procure credit on demand, and their pay stubs allow them to indulge in hedonistic pursuits, and their immediate safety is not threatened in their own community, they have a “stake” in the system. If/when a time comes that working people can no longer avoid the perils of mass immigration, the credit bubble truly does burst, and a genuine economic crisis sets in, controlled media will no longer be able to maintain its capitalist mythology. You cannot convince a man who has been evicted from his home that if he keeps on toiling away for a nominal wage, he will ultimately be rewarded with great things.
— neo-niccoloSure I do... ..the Irish and Croatians are natural allies... which is why a certain relative of mine is the biggest supplier of arms to these dissidents.
Irish and Croats are natural allies only in the mind of Niccolo. The fact that Hrvats peddle small arms to Paddies isn’t dispositive of some great affinity between them. By your reasoning, Afrikaners and Jews are natural allies because the latter was happy to help them with their nuke program.
I mean, isn’t it bad enough that every March, in cities all across America, we need to suffer a week of U2 cover bands and poser antics by middle class dumbshits who are 1/94 Irish but want to play IRA commando for a day? Do we really need Croats taking up the slack on their behalf?
If you keep this up, I’m going to start pretending to be Serbian.
England has always been a divided society, bound together socially and politically by an abiding faith in the imperial idea – the Church of England, by design, was tailored to reinforce this peculiar view of sovereignty. They did away with Papal sovereignty in favor of the sovereignty of the King and his executioners.
The pious men of England were and are the dissenters – whose only claim to the sovereign mantle reigned briefly under the tutelage of Cromwell; a holy warrior who sacrificed his King to glorify God. What remained of his warriors were swept by history to foreign shores in the New World.
The English can’t be “saved” by pietism because its alien to their continuous political heritage. They can’t resurrect the sovereignty of the Queen b/c monarchs are merely living artifacts of a formerly proud heritage.
The only thing they could have done is to accept the modern sovereignty of the people and wield that great power to revitalize their race, and utilize the modern political form to resist the savage and unforgiving assault upon history that is inextricably tethered to the collapse of sacral authority; but they selected a contradictory historical path.
God left the colored world when the White man abandoned his garrisons (eloquently documented by the great French patriot Jean Raspail. God left England when they turned against their own imperial idea. If England will be rescued from history it will be because the barbarians teach them pious violence. Providence punishes hubris, always.
What is the “Dutch culture”? Homosexual parades, Anne Frank, hashish, feminism, and Geert Wilders? Hardly seems worth preserving, except perhaps as an cautionary exhibit on the soul destroying ethical cancer of open society Liberalism. When I was in the Netherlands in 1997, I couldn’t help but feel like I was touring the village that served as the setting for your BBC’s The Prisoner. Barbarians, animated by pious cruelty, should destroy it, and they will.
Whoredom is in fact feminine, its just a feral expression of femininity. The lesson to be gleaned from the current dilemma isn’t that feminism wants “women to act like men” as these men’s rights fags like to whine about; but rather that the therapeutic managerial state, when presided over by a hostile and racially alien elite, transforms social life into the functional equivalent of a gladiatorial dome.
In the multiculturalist thunderdome, men are encouraged to destroy one another for pecuniary gain and women make sure they stay pretty and permanently sexually available so the victors keep wanting to fuck them.
Feminists were either a) Jews who were marinated in radical political ethics who went on the attack against institutions of Aryan authority as opportunity arose or b) the wives and daughters of the decaying White elite who (being blissfully insulated from the realities of social and political life) determined that the traditional social relationships weren’t essential defense mechanisms but instead were instrumentalities of domination that precluded the advent of permanent peace.
Any way you stack it, feminism is indeed feminine. It’s just a senile and/or perverted expression of the peculiar nature of women.
Women embraced feminism because it shifted the balance of power.
Yeah but that’s a deliberately vulgar view of human affairs – identifying the family as simply an arrangement of “power.”
Spengler made the point that Marxist-Leninism wasn’t destructive because it was socialistic – all kinds of robust and honorable and enduring social arrangements are premised on the pursuit of the common good (families, armies, villages, guilds, etc.). The problem was that Marxism had no interest in the common good – it was really nothing more than a means by which gangsters who envied and hated the leisured class could violently seize productive capital and thus install themselves as a leisured class. Capitalism-For-Proletarians, in other words.
Similarly, feminism is a convoluted ethical scheme by which females can imitate caddish men and pursue selfishness under the auspices of rectifying imbalances of “power.” This is ahistorical for many reasons – even Hobbes stipulated that it’s pointless to describe human affairs (of the discrete political sphere) in terms of power. It’s nonsense.
The Feminist inspiration is basically just the dull and overly-ordered and regulated world of Bourgeoise life – the incessant talk of “oppression” is a moral pose by people (rich white women) who are intensely aware of their status as an extraordinarily privileged class, and who have difficulty reconciling this status with the values and ethics of the Colored Revolt.
Communism and its waves and ripples (historically speaking) during the “short century” (1914-1991) scared the shit out of bourgeoise females – they responded by adopting a Stockholm Syndrome–esque social ethos of, “please don’t kill me, Mr. Coolie – I am oppressed too.”
Feminism is niggerish – “bossman be keepin’ me down.” Right. Stupid, fat, spoiled, overly-medicated, crude, lazy white American women would be colonizing Mars if it weren’t for guys who look like Colonel Sanders stopping them.
I’d stake a bet that virtually all other women on the planet (from Hottentots to Japanese and everything in between) outperform the white American bipedal sow in virtually every conceivable field of endeavour.
“Rape” has lost its significance as a moral-legal concept after the Sexual Revolution and the removal of regulatory mores related to sexuality and female chastity.
If sex is merely a form of physical recreation, and there is nothing sacrosanct about female chastity, a ‘rape’ is really not any different than a simple battery, morally speaking.
Feminists merely fetishize the issue in order to place men in potential penal jeopardy for perfectly benign sexual conduct.
You can blame men for developing morbid fascinations with sex and opening themselves up to mental malaise and spiritual sickness, but you really can’t assign blame to them for the production of pornography itself.
A woman expresses brutish and physiological power through sex, and wields it to obtain power over others, in the way that men utilize violence.
This is why feminists by and large endorse pornography and its function. Those that don’t are indulging in staid myths about women being inherently chaste and honorable and pornography being a means of depicting rape.
Whores aren’t interested in sex, by and large. They’re interested in primitive forms of power and demeaning others. They’re the storm-troops of the burgeoning matriarchy.
Resentment of feminism is no excuse to treat women like they are all “acting like men” either
Feminism has to do with men behaving like women, not women ‘acting like men.’ Males who whine about ‘women acting like men’ are twinks who only consider their function relative to how women behave towards them – in other words, they’re functionally worthless.
Young men, historically, were inculcated with a social orientation and national learning that developed masculine virtues – that is why men traditionally aren’t terribly interested in women outside of (fledging) circumstances of erotic passion or the (permanent) duties that attend conjugal patronage.
Women deserve to be treated how they act – women who are rude, vulgar, or without manners deserve to be treated like slatterns. Women who are feminine and civilized should be treated delicately. All of that aside, “real men” don’t take a strong interest in women and their affairs outside of what honor requires – and women aren’t competent to identify what ‘manhood’ is either.
Jews like Andrea Dworkin tried to transpose Marxian class war paradigms onto sex relations, and that never really took for a number of reasons, not the least of which that the actual working class resisted it pretty staunchly.
Contemporary feminism has more to do with the “tyranny of values” imposed by Liberalism, and the attendant emphasis on non-political and non-historical features of the human experience and its fetishistic orientation towards sex.
It owes more to Freud and Marcuse and idiosyncratic American ideas about individualism than it does anything else. It’s more complicated than that, and the question of Jewish domination of propaganda and information outlets is a game changer, but the source of it isn’t what people think it is.
A woman adopts the surname of her husband so as to denote the paternity of their children. In other words, taking on the name “Smith” establishes that “My children are the Children of Smith.” In turn, it obliges Smith to provide for the family that he has created.
A woman who refuses to adopt her husband’s surname is telling the world any number of peculiar things... she could be saying “My Children may or may not be Smith’s children,” she could be saying “I have opted to remain a Child myself and retain my Father’s name,” or she could be saying “I am not actually married to Smith.” I find it odd that Feminists seem to favor this practice because none of the things that it denotes seem very “liberated.”
Maternity is never unknown or disputed, so it doesn’t need to be expressed in a surname. Paternity does, by virtue of biological realities.
— bardamuIf women are out working, playing the part of male bread winners, keeping their original last name is perfectly logical. If this offends you take comfort in the probability that this type of women is slated for extinction. It doesn’t really make logical sense unless these women are out siring kids... and I believe that is biologically impossible.
A “career woman” who goes by “Ms. X” instead of “Mrs. Y” is simply retaining her Paternal grandfather’s surname... in other words, she is saying “I am the daughter of X.” That seems somewhat inappropriate for a married woman who is of majority. [...]
It’s not an arbitrary convention, it’s a convention that denotes paternity, and hence, parentage.
Maternity is never unknown or disputed, so it doesn’t need to be expressed in a surname. Paternity does, by virtue of biological realities.
— Hugh JorgenNay ... it is the surname of the Child, not the wife, that denotes paternity.
Customarily, its both. The implication is that if I sire a child with a woman who is not my wife, its unclear as to who the Father is if I deny that paternity is mine. The Marriage institution resolves these things by creating a familial unit within which such controversies do not arise.
I’m not very sympathetic to men who lack the fortitude to control their own household.
Ultimately, feminism says a lot about male weakness, and the fact that self-styled “male activists” are appearing substantiates my point.
You might notice something about Traditional cultures (Mexicans, Koreans, Arabs, etc.): They don’t tolerate feminism. Men who tolerate feminism and then whine about their emasculated status aren’t real men.
I’m not married, and I never have been, but I seem to fare as well with women as any other guy and I don’t tolerate Feminism. If you consistently find yourself in situations where a woman is demeaning you and refusing to defer to your wishes, the problem is with you... women are one of the spoils of the great game, they need to be won and tamed, in that order.
One thing I considered the other day about the historical illiteracy of America was in regards to this feminist website “Jezebel.com.” These people harbor an idea that Jezebel was a feminist icon. In reality, her story is an anti-feminist (to couch it in modern terms) parable.
Jezebel was an evil queen who developed perverted appetites, made herself a Godhead of sorts, and massacred people who refused to follow her state religion – which was a form of B’aal worship, which is associated with infant sacrifice among other things. She’d appear in public as a painted harlot and grind people into dust for trivial reasons. She was thrown from a palace window in the aftermath of a revolt and torn to pieces by dogs who set upon her body. She was a Bathory-esque figure, in other words. The lesson learned is that women aren’t “holy” or intrinsically moral – they’re sinners just like men are and people who refuse to accept this are dooming themselves to tyranny.
The only accurate treatment of Jezebel I’ve ever come across in pop-culture was in Dune – Alia Atriedes was a Jezebel analogy, and the tragedy of her is that she became incorrigibly evil despite noble blood. Everything else I have encountered suggests that Jezebel was some kind of ancient ‘career woman’ or a free-wheeling happy hooker. It speaks to the Anglo-American moral/historical bias in this regard.
I can think of a lot of very dangerous women in history yes – femininity itself is highly dangerous.
I don’t however accept it when guys shriek about how “tough” or “manly” or whatever some dumb, fat, middle class White woman is who complains a lot and thinks politics is a “career.”
You know, Hillary Clinton and Sandra Fluke don’t even apprehend what ‘politics’ is – they literally have no fucking clue. They’re just dumb, bored women who want a “career.” As Scheuer pointed out in one of his RT interviews, one reason why Al Qaeda and these other Sunni NSAs believe history is on their side is because literally everybody else in the world out side of America and the Eurozone thinks America is unmanly and lacks any serious ability to perpetuate its culture in the future. The public face of the US establishment simply can’t be taken seriously.
The reason why this is alarming is for the same reason its alarming to see some twat like John Boehner in high office – it’s a bizarre joke that clowns of this kind can get anywhere in life, let alone sway public opinion in their favor.
Guys who think “feminism” is some kind of historical phenomenon unto itself are clueless about what the problem is, in other words.
I have Pethes disease and arthritis and I can still hack impact cardio. There is no excuse unless you’re genuinely disabled. HIIT is the way to go if you’re crunched for time... not some aerobics class for chicks and homos with disco lights and playground equipment. If your knees are bad, buy a mountain bike. If you want to get lean for summer, diet hard and hit the weight room.
There is working out, and then there is extherthise. “Spin class” is the latter, Niccolo. Don’t ever do it again. [...]
I see Spin class in the morning because the spin studio is in view of the rest of the gym. It’s a bunch of slores, douchey business guys, and gays doing lame stuff on stationary bikes to the strains of shit like Alice DJ. That isn’t working out.
I’ve got a very wonky knee thx to tearing my ACL twice from soccer, so I gotta go as low impact as possible. I do elliptical and I swim (horribly). But for fast results, spinning is best because you get the best sweat in the least amount of time.
Sweat doesn’t mean anything... what you need to do is raise your heart rate to a level that will facilitate genuine cardiovascular fitness. I use ellipticals now and again, but I only use them to raise my metabolic rate before bedtime (when I don’t feel like walking on a treadmill)... so I only take my heart rate up to about 125-130 bpm for approx. 20 mins or so.
If your only goal is to be lean enough to look OK at the beach, or fit in your clothes, you should just shore up your diet and drop the cardio, and pick up an HIT weight training program.
People are obsessed with cardio for psychological reasons... they think if they aren’t clocking time on a bike or a treadmill and sweating a lot, they aren’t performing any work. You need to break out of that sort of thinking. I guarantee you that if you started timing your carbs, dropped your fats low, upped your protein, and started hitting the iron 3 days a week at high intensity/short duration, you’d make the progress you want, while performing little to no cardio.
Truth be told, I only do cardio because if I don’t I’m prone to hypertension and it helps my mental state. Cardio isn’t going to get you ripped.
— Sluggo892Body builders are notorious queers. What kind of man enjoys watching other men with shaved bodies, oiled up, and flexing and posing?
I don’t know why people always say things like this; its wrongheaded and unimaginative and frankly weird, in addition to being alien to our cultural orientation. It should be easily appreciated that its pleasing to look at human bodies that are fit and healthy and aesthetically appealing. It doesn’t axiomatically entail some kind of lewd interest or homosexual lust.
People who think bodybuilding, health, physicality, etc. is “fag stuff” are usually either ugly people who have sabotaged their own physical health and are so out of touch with their own body that they can only understand sensory experience in terms of some type vulgar and blunt sexual stimulus or they’re crummy Puritans of the Ashcroft variety who are simple to the point that they’ve decided that the human body is “dirty” and must be shunned and never observed outside of clinical settings.
I guess people gorging themselves into deformed morphology and hormonal imbalance in between assaulting their groin to porno movies and watching ‘Spike TV’ is “real man stuff.” Admiring human physicality and aspiring to improve upon it is “gay stuff.”
If you want to cut up, diet hard and do more cardio. Body composition is 80% diet, 20% training. Do morning cardio on an empty stomach 3-4 days a week... cut your rest time between sets on weight training days. Eat lean protein sources, moderate fats, low carbs. Get your carbohydrates from vegetable greens... and stay away from sugars except post workout and first meal of the day. [...]
If you are dead-set on getting ripped, I’d add some morning cardio sessions (before breakfast) in addition. Start out at 2-3 days a week... keep the intensity high... approx. 80% of max heart rate for 40 minutes. I stick to stationary bikes, and sometimes the elliptical training machines... I can’t deal with jogging either.
Monday (chest, delts, triceps)
-Incline dumbbell press: 4 warmup sets (15, 12, 8, 6) 1 working set (8-10 reps to total failure
-Smith machine military press:4 warmup sets (15, 12, 8) 1 working set (8-10 reps to total failure
-French Press: 3 warmup sets (15, 12, 8) 1 working set (8-10 reps to total failure
Wednesday (Back, traps, biceps)
-Deadlifts or barbell bent over rows: 4 warmup sets (15, 12, 8, 6) 1 working set (8-10 reps to total failure
-Dumbbell shrugs: 4 warmup sets (15, 12, 8, 6) 1 working set (8-10 reps to total failure
-Olympic bar curls: 3 warmup sets (15, 12, 8) 1 working set (8-10 reps to total failure
Friday: (Quads, Hamstrings, Calves)
-Squats: 4 warmup sets (15, 12, 8, 6) 1 working set (8-10 reps to total failure
-Stiff-legged deadlifts: 4 warmup sets (15, 12, 8, 6) 1 working set (8-10 reps to total failure
-Seated calf raises: 4 warmup sets (15, 12, 8, 6) 1 working set (8-10 reps to total failure
The above is my suggestion... lots of cardio, coupled with a super-clean diet will get the bf% down to single digits. Hitting basic, heavy, power movements with lots of rest time in between will slap some beef on you so that you have something to show off when the bf comes off. Keep me posted on how your physique goals are coming along... and good luck to you.
Mike Mentzer developed this style of training back in the late 1970s. Mentzer reasoned that a lot of bodybuilders and strength athletes were underperforming because they were training with:
1) too little intensity and 2) too much frequency
Mentzer reasoned that if a single working set on a compound movement (such as squats, deadlifts, etc.) were performed with MAXIMUM intensity, far greater growth could be had than if one were to train by performing multiple work sets at moderate intensity. Mentzer believed that complete exhaustion of the target muscle could be achieved this way, and that if 7-9 days were allowed for recovery before that muscle group was trained again, maximum recovery would be achieved so that the process could be repeated again.
There is also evidence that suggests that HIT type training prompts the release of growth hormone and creates an overall more anabolic environment in the body than more traditional “volume training.”
All I know is that my development reached new heights when I began employing Mentzer’s methods... so I’m a true believer these days.
I don’t know why people always say things like this; its wrongheaded and unimaginative and frankly weird, in addition to being alien to our cultural orientation. It should be easily appreciated that its pleasing to look at human bodies that are fit and healthy and aesthetically appealing. It doesn’t axiomatically entail some kind of lewd interest or homosexual lust.
People who think bodybuilding, health, physicality, etc. is “fag stuff” are usually either ugly people who have sabotaged their own physical health and are so out of touch with their own body that they can only understand sensory experience in terms of some type vulgar and blunt sexual stimulus or they’re crummy Puritans of the Ashcroft variety who are simple to the point that they’ve decided that the human body is “dirty” and must be shunned and never observed outside of clinical settings.
I guess people gorging themselves into deformed morphology and hormonal imbalance in between assaulting their groin to porno movies and watching ‘Spike TV’ is “real man stuff.” Admiring human physicality and aspiring to improve upon it is “gay stuff.”
Starving people and their longevity isn’t the polestar. The proper questions to pose are: What is balanced nutrition? How should I employ balanced nutrition to achieve a desired objective?
Eliminating macronutrient groups in order to implement crash diet weight loss is neither efficient nor sustainable. Traditionally, the only people who employ zero-carb diets are people suffering from epilepsy and physique athletes who are attempting to achieve extreme levels of conditioning before a target date, at which time they will they will exhibit their body.
Anybody who is substantially overweight when they’re in their 20s (assuming they are not sick or afflicted with a syndrome that causes them to be deconditioned) has serious problems with their lifestyle. Simply eliminating food groups rather than implementing sustainable dietary changes that will yield greater strength and health is a short term, inefficient, and ultimately lazy remedy.
The purpose of a proper diet and exercise regime is not “to not be fat.” The proper purpose is increased health or alternatively increased performance at specific activities/muscular development.
There are a bunch of young guys here and hearing their thoughts on diet and exercise sounds like a bunch of 65 year old Oprah fans discussing how to lose weight while eating 2 dozen Krispy Kremes a day. [...]
It ‘works’ in the short term because ketosis shocks the body. It’s an utterly terrible program for long term fitness and sustained weight loss.
I’ve long thought it curious that a) Atkins was credited with inventing a diet program that has been in existence for decades and b) People who weren’t afflicted with an ailment that required radical dietary therapy were willing to employ it.
There is something to be said for using a variant of a ‘targeted ketogenic diet’ in conjunction with a rigorous exercise program in order to yield a desired metabolic effect, but that is quite a bit different than the Atkins recommendations. Of course, its true that carbohydrates are the least essential macronutrients, but this Atkins nonsense represents the exact opposite of balanced nutrition.
Ultimately, any diet that aims to demonize any macronutrient group is quackery, and any program that suggests that people should avoid starches and fruits is insane. I’d advise anybody who indulges in this madness to get their blood worked up after the first cycle of ketosis and see what their HDL/LDL ratio is like. I guarantee you it will be horrifically skewed.
Good dieting strategies require three things. They require that a person know his own body and physiology and what he is responsive to, they require that a person do diligent research and understand and appreciate the science of nutrition and what his nutritional needs are, and they require that a targeted exercise regime be undertaken in conjunction with a proper diet strategy.
“Quick fixes” don’t work. It’s junk science, its potentially harmful, and its not a long term strategy for overall health.
I used to eat lots and lots of red meat, especially the ground sirloin from “Whole Foods” (which is actually quite lean). I think pork is very tasty as well, especially bacon.
I stopped eating beef originally because I wanted to keep my lipid profile in check, and after awhile, I lost my taste for it. I now find it off-putting (not for any vegetarian reason) and I don’t feel well when I eat it. Even the lean stuff is greasy and it makes me feel lethargic and almost “weighted down.” With respect to pork, its hard to find genuinely lean cuts that aren’t sodium addled or full of whatever the feedlot owners inject pigs with these days. Beyond that, and this may sound peculiar, I think the Semitic types are onto something when they allege that swine is dirty. I find eating pigs to be off-putting as well because they are filthy beasts.
I take in all of my protein from chicken, ground turkey, egg whites, and tuna for the most part. I’m seriously lactose intolerant as well, so I avoid dairy products because they make me sick.
When I made these changes, a friend of mine told me that my body would atrophy quite a bit and that my energy levels would decrease, but in fact the opposite occurred. This is all anecdotal evidence, but I hold it to be true.
Bodybuilding became perverted. To me, bodybuilding is Frank Zane or Andreas Munzer... the pursuit of aesthetic perfection. These days, competitors don’t even look human.
I stipulated that modern bodybuilding has become perverted, but its peculiar to suggest that Zane or Munzer look grotesque. I think they approximated the Classical/Grecian ideal more than anybody else in recent memory.
I suppose Mike Mentzer was the “total package” by your (and Mishima’s) criteria. He could run a 5:30 mile in his prime.
Ultimately, bodybuilding is often a form of creative destruction... it’s important not to lose sight of that.
I remember back in the ‘90s when I was working in gym sales watching a promotional vid for EAS featuring Shannon Sharpe... he was their first contract athlete. During the season, the guy maintained 4% bodyfat and he could flat bench 405lbs for reps, despite the fact that he was probably in the weight room all of once a week during the season. When I watch old MLB games or NFL “golden age” footage on ESPN classic, Pete Rose and Jim Brown look noticeably smaller than the average gym rat who trains hard, eats a lot, and juices recreationally in 2007.
The first franken-athletes were the Soviet Olympians who were fielded in the late 1950s... America didn’t really get wise to performance enhancement until the late 1960s. I’d say that Lyle Alzado was probably the first pro athlete who really knew what he was doing with his chemical arsenal... he admitted towards the end of his life that he was probably all of about 185lbs natural.
People were becoming more honest about this sort of thing in the 1980s... hence the relative mainstreaming of pro bodybuilding during that decade through the early 90s... BigPharm realized what the potential was, and they decided to take action on that, with Joe Biden as their advocate. In other words, we’ve been in the age of performance enhancement for the better part of half a century. It’s a bit late to be lamenting it.
Sports are risky, especially contact sports. Taking a snap in the NFL means you might end up like Joe Theisman. Getting reckless with your chemical regimen means you might end up like Andreas Munzer or (debatably) Lyle Alzado.
I suppose it comes down to whether or not you want a long life of backyard barbecues and playing with the grandkids, or if you want to capture some moment of pure valor. Athletes, if my experience in training them in my early 20s is reflective of anything, seem to prioritize the latter. People shouldn’t pass judgment on that... that is the very reason the masses like to watch their feats.
I spent my early to mid-20s spending my waking hours hustling in gym sales and devoting my free time to studying biochem at the medical library and injecting, swallowing, topically applying anything I could get my hands on that would potentially yield muscle gains and I certainly didn’t have the prospect getting paid huge money for risk, so I suppose I understand how great the temptation must be for professionals who do stand to gain millions of dollars.
Efforts towards self-overcoming can demand a pretty terrible toll in return. My insides might be liquifying slowly or my system might be waiting to go cancerous and I don’t even know it. My doc says that I’m healthy, and I can still train at a high level, but in the back of my mind, I know that my days are probably numbered on account of how I have altered my system.
When I got an alarming test result the other month, I was convinced that my number was up for that reason... but we all need to set that sort of fear aside and accept the consequences of our choices.
America is an autistic faggot perched on a custom chopper made out of legos with a gay nigger riding on the back destroying everything in its path while spraying body glitter, anal lube, AIDS blood, and vomit in all directions
“You see, the problem with the Republican party is that its too provincial,” former Governor Mitt Romney explained to Stephen Colbert in June, 2012. “Me, I’m international. Now I don’t mean that in some Playboy fuckwad way – you know I don’t go around sniffing panties in the Orient like some sweaty sex tourist, and I sure as shit don’t visit Prague with some dumpy twat then upload the pics to Facebook. What I mean is I asked myself, ‘how can we get a finger on the pulse of the world – as conservatives?’ So I went to Syria to get ideas from Mr. Assad.” Romney continued, “I got a grand tour of this excellent country from these Shabiha militia men. These guys are great conservatives. I mean they don’t have to do anything other than flex on people Assad doesn’t like, pump injectable dbol and Turkish growth hormone, fence DVD players and TVs, and lay entire villages to waste. It reminds me of my young Mormon days, when I went on a mission and was hosted by Idi Amin and he let me poke the eyes out of regime enemies with an authentic Zulu spear. Anyway, what I learned from the Assad people is that real conservatism is about direct action and kicking the living fuck out of people, powerlifting, assassinating commies and Salafis, stomping Jew faces, and tearing up pussy. It’s not about being a fucking lemon farmer or criticizing people who kill Jews.”
Dr. Brandt’s position is that Donald Duck should be gibbeted because he starred in a movie house reel one time where he performed the Charleston in a lewd manner, thus inspiring flappers to be plied by rapacious Negro jazz musicians bearing reefer.
I believe IR’s position is that German-America has been transformed over many decades from a population of critical thinkers with a tangible rootedness to Christendom into a gaggle of thoughtless boobs who seal clap over Jewish wars and join jagoff gun clubs and take delight in the sound byte stylings of Hannity and O’Reilly – and he’s right. If you think he’s not, visit rural Wisconsin and talk to the local squareheads. Just don’t criticize the government in their presence or they’ll try to throttle you with their sausage-like cheese stained fingers.
I think in America you’re “liberal” if you want Negroes to gangbang your daughter, and you’re “conservative” if you want one Negro to marry her and start behaving himself.
The Negroes are unique b/c like 1800 pointed out, they just use their sinecure to try to live like the Monopoly guy. They don’t work to improve the political power of Blacks generally like Chinese or even Mexicans do. Give a Black a no-work job funded by federal pork to the tune of 150k/year, and he’ll buy a Mercedes, torture waiters, pretend to be a pimp, then declare bankruptcy. Give a Chink the same job and everyone from his village is suddenly living well and he’s laundering money through a Chinatown ‘community center’
Stubby: build a time machine
Thomas777: Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed on that. He caught a Virgin airways flight to Calcutta and then he went to Cinnabon, and there he met a rickshaw driver who invented his own job by building a time machine. Friedman was so impressed that he installed the time machine on his Segway and he and the coolie had dinner with Caligula
Foreword:
Every generation is charged with the often daunting task of chronicling the lives and letters of its greatest thinkers. As I boy, I recall reading John Kennedy’s ‘Profiles in Courage,’ and being moved by the salutary reverence that the fallen President had afforded to his contemporaries, many of whom he had traded hostilities with from the opposing side of the aisle. As a grown man, when I came to serve in the cabinets of many internet warlords, mired in the serious business of internet racialism, I came to appreciate Kennedy’s sublime humility even more. Most of the readers will not have any personal recollections of Kane123123 or his sometime cyber-sex buddy Osmium14. Some might even allow their view of this historical giant to be colored by the fact that he carried on late night fap sessions with a fellow internet troll. I’d behoove those readers to understand and appreciate that great men are often inspired by their eccentricities, and to bear in mind that behind every J. Edgar Hoover, is an abidingly loyal Clyde Tolson.
Those of them who do remember the great internets wars that shaped the world we now live in, probably remember Kane as the ‘creator of stupidity watch,’ but he was far more complicated than his public image revealed. He was a Coonist who proudly and unashamedly declared his ‘support for Pol Pot’ before an enraged gallery of 3 or 4 viewers. He onetime even selflessly donated the $5 in lunch money that his mother had given him to Chaim Ben Pesach, so that the cause of 1970s Kike Karate Man Zionism would not be defeated by mayonnaise slurping net-nazis and cackling CI warlords whose anti-Semitism had been hardened by loony bin stints on the taxpayers’ dime.
Ultimately, to understand the early 21st century, we must understand the life and legacy of Kane123123. And there is no better way to know this warrior-poet, Kahanist/Coonist, Pol Pot–supporting, panoptic watcher of stupidity than to read the man’s own words, collected here for posterity.
— Jake Featherston“He’d be 93, yet we have good reason to suspect he may still be alive.”
Yeah, right. The Nazis (at least those ones old enough to have obtained medical degrees prior to 1945) are dead. Long dead, in most cases. Snidely Whiplash indeed. Don’t make light of this. The doctor in question developed a Methuselan formula during his service at Auschwitz by (in collusion with Hugo Drax) extracting fluids from the pituitary glands of Jewish virgins... the bodies of which were used to fuel a flying saucer that squirreled him (along with Hitler’s brain and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) to a lunar powered base in Antarctica. Truth be told, I wouldn’t be surprised if the surviving Nazis that currently threaten world peace have developed cybernetic limbs and ESP.
“white man sell us whiskey and take potatoes – kill potato god. white man eat da poo poo.” – Ireland
You’re a delusional moron of rare intensity who is afflicted with a particularly infantile narcissism.
People who aren’t masochists or mentally retarded don’t want to read the shitposts of an elderly LARPer on welfare who wiles away the hours by posting (hundreds of times a day) on topics dear to him such as 1) psychiatric medicines, 2) underaged girls, 3) the “laziness” of niggers, 4) being the Scottish overlord of space, 5) sophomoric “anti-Christian” tirades of the kind found written in the liner notes of old King Diamond albums.
That’s the list of particulars.
Kamandi, nobody joins ‘What Pare’ groups. The interplay between you guys (the antis) and your sworn, White Trashionalist enemies is some sort of running LARP game that you all have convinced yourselves is real. It’s positively Manichean, in all honesty... I noticed that when I watched the youtube vid of the VNN Knoxville ‘rally.’ One one side, were a bunch of Ed Gein lookalikes, ferris wheel mechanics, and bucktoothed townies with Luftwaffe caps on that they filched from their granddaddy’s closet, and across the street opposing them were a bunch of fat chicks, ex-high school band geeks with severe psoriasis, and flaming homos in clown makeup. In other words, for every Mike Mazzone, there exists and equally mentally retarded and dysgenic (yet ‘ideologically’ opposed) BenFromCanada.
It’s pretty well accepted that Canada is the most ludicrous place on planet Earth. It’s sort of like if a bunch of kindergarten teachers, after-school youth counselors, and gay rights activists were put in charge of a country.
First they came for 50 billion dollar Ponzi scammers, and I was not a sociopathic, indoor-Gypsy kleptomaniac so I said nothing; then they came for bloodthirsty warmongers who duped the world’s most powerful government into spilling blood and treasure for greater Judea and I was not a bug-eyed Likudnik so I said nothing; then finally they came for demented, Anne Frank worshipping Eurotards and there was nobody left to speak for me...
Keystone is voting for McCain because McCain is a Justice League member in good standing on grounds of his being sodomized with bamboo shoots by slanty-eyed Commies many moons ago, he is committed to a TapouT foreign policy, he supports custom choppers, and he has a running mate that reminds over the hill Yinzers of some broad in their high school that they and their teammates pulled a train on astride a ‘Space Invaders’ pinball machine at the local watering hole back in ‘78. The happy ending is that after poking the touchscreen with his increasingly arthritic digits, Keystein can then delightedly seal-clap like Sarah Palin’s retarded progeny on a ferris wheel... and what really matters is that the voters feel special and appreciated.
Reuters
Ivan Judenrauser, aged 89, a wanted war criminal who is purported to have served with the 6,000,000th Haman battalion of the SS-TV, entered the Washington DC Holocaust Museum early this afternoon and opened fire with a Luger pistol made from the femurs of Treblinka victims that had been owned by Hitler himself.
Abe Foxman commented; “This is proof that the fuckin’ Goys are still pigs after all these years! Purim 2009!” Shecky Sheckelberg, a witness to the shooting said, “I thought I left all this behind in Russia – Putin and his Gestapo took everything I had, from my Faberge egg collection to my 12 year old sex slaves! We’re not safe anywhere in the world!” An oddly dressed passerby who asked to be identified as “Joe McCarthy” (no relation to the deceased United States senator) told reporters; “This is typical myopic anti-Semitism, and its exactly the kind of terrorism that Geert is going to stamp out!”
It’s reported that all available forces of the US Army have been called upon to take Judenrauser into custody and that Homeland Security has raised the terror alert level to fuchsia.
Huff. Post, like all entertainment/news media, is a schizophrenic dialog. MSM can’t decipher its own cackling inner voices any longer.
The Israeli shitbird in the video who is thumping his chest like a Bonobo while yammering about Obamacare is saying that single payer socialized medicine is a positive good because Israel is an ideal state on Earth and America should be like Israel. The sun-baked Yenta in the IDF couture t-shirt is another Jew who is heckling his Obama support by likening Obama to Hitler. Izzy #1 is claiming that Izzy #2 is anti-Semitic for talking about Hitler, and Izzy #2 is responding by claiming he is like Hitler for objecting to her likening him to Hitler because Obama is actually like Hitler.
It’s dum-dum Talmud superstition meets Who’s on First and dum-dum Goys observing it are misreading it because they think Hitler is a Lovecraftian sea-beast that can be summoned if people utter his name. They’re not really initiated into the folk superstitions of Jewry; they’ve just gleaned some version of it through the television/educational/policy dialog that employs Hitler as polestar for “bad.”
[fill in the blank], what does your tasteful Chinese kanji tattoo that is on your shoulder that means “courage,” your nipple piercing, your retro clothing, the fact that you’re a free-thinker who is well informed because he read Rachel Maddow’s book, the fact that you had a threesome with your male friend and his girlfriend to ‘advance’ your sexuality, your herpes sore on your lower lip that always flares up around Hanukkah time, the fact that you are anxiously awaiting a new release by “Kings of Leon,” and your pouty, fiercely independent, duckface photograph style say about you – as a PERSON
OK – your posts are becoming less and less pathetically comical and more and more depressing.
This lame-ass “pussy bund” insult that your friend Frazier Glenn Miller coined – IIRC, he intended it to be some hard hitting insult aimed at people who weren’t sufficiently enthusiastic about his schoolgirl crushes on serial killers like Joseph Paul Franklin – sort of encapsulates what a clown society “White Nationalism” is.
I mean, take a look at yourself – you and Miller are both elderly losers in life who are spending your ‘golden years’:
1) sending fan mail to serial killers, a hobby befitting perhaps emotionally disturbed, jr. high school aged heavy metal fans;
2) In Miller’s case, emulating the white-nigger serial killers that fed his masturbatory fantasies for years by way of murdering old white men, white children and white women;
3) Obsessively ranting and raving about other elderly losers, whose existence is unknown outside of the fetish subculture of nominally “white” elderly mongrel males who play dress-up in Nazi Halloween costumes that wouldn’t be out of place in the homosexual nightclubs of 1970s NYC;
4) *and this is one of the most irritating habits of you old queens* Attempting to introduce German language malapropisms into the daily stream of diarrhea that flows from the hole underneath your respective snouts. You fools aren’t Germans – you’re mostly melungeon, mongrel Southern trash, you’ve nothing in common with the men of the Third Reich, you’ve no more connection to NS Germany, to Prussia, to Arminius, or anything German than the average ghetto dwelling nigger does.
In fact, one of the really positive contributions of the Third Reich – as Lothrop Stoddard grudgingly acknowledged – was their view that anti-social personalities, criminal mongrels, sociopathic cretins, and other human trash should be dealt with swiftly, terribly, and without emotion. In the Third Reich, people like you, like Miller, like Covington, would have been unceremoniously done away with – because you’re the very definition of a blight on a would-be healthy racial organism. In 1933 Germany – you’d be cooling your heels in a detention camp shouting KPD slogans, next to Miller (who’d busily be masturbating vigorously while writing love letters to Peter Kurten) and Covington – who’d likely be sucking his thumb in between babbling like a schizophrenic on grounds that advanced syphilis had eaten away most of the frontal lobe of his brain.
It’s fucking comical really – the likes of the “Melungeon Bund” (i.e. you and Miller) suggesting you have something in common with National Socialists is like some crackhead nig in Detroit dressing up like a Pharaoh and claiming that himself and his friends are “Nubian Kings of Egypt.” Then again, you’re all delusional niggers – delusional niggers come in varying shades.
Keystein’s Saturday itinerary:
7:30AM: Wake up, eat stale Lucky Charms
9:30: Spray Febreze on “One Race: The Human Race” T-shirt
11:30: Dutifully attend book club meeting in which he is token male member. Discuss enduring racism in America in the context of Richard Wright’s “Black Boy”
1:00pm: Make awkward conversation with random Black pedestrians to showcase tolerance credentials on the way to local “Hillary in 08” campaign office.
1:15 to 3:00pm: Distribute Hillary campaign buttons to passerby while saying “she gonna win!”
3:30 to 4:30 pm: Log onto The Phora and castigate Phora members with canards about skin color
5:00 pm: Experiences racist thoughts on account of the young Blacks outside of the CVS pharmacy tripping him on the way home. Proceeds to stick needles into his groin every time he thinks of the word “Nigger.”
— poitinSo basically your saying that raping a 9 year child is ok and when we speak out against it, you claim we are hysterical PTA mothers, mongoloid idiots or some kind of mutated organism
I’m pointing out that you’re an idiot – you read theology and the legends therein and instead of apprehending that these things describe saints, martyrs, divine ordination, supernatural occurrences and the like you determine that the issues presented are “child safety” and “pedophiles” and a remedial need to “speak out.”
It would be like reading about Noah and the deluge and concluding, “this goes to show ya that people need to not build cities on flood planes! We also need better public safety departments!”
It’s laughably autistic.
You’re assuming that this woman is a rational person... she’s not. She’s a disturbed ideologue.
I read the entire article over lunch today, and the “rape” description read like Harlequin romance paperbacks cum 1980s Dark Brothers porn vids. The sheer luridness of it, including but not limited to, her statement of “this was a prison rape” sounds like the stuff of a Donny The Punk fantasy.
From there she goes on to invoke Eldrige Cleaver as learned authority and engage in apologetics for his claims that raping white women is a legitimate form of political insurrection, while making sure to mention that she marched for ‘fair housing’ down Chicago ave. in Evanston during the 1970s and got her cherry popped by a Black guy.
Of course, there is the small matter of her “rapist” drawing class x liability for his conduct, but crazy ladies tend to get spiteful when guys treat them shabbily after blowing a wad. Plus, let’s face it... being a “rape victim” earned this slattern all sorts of sympathy, attention, and credibility she might otherwise not enjoy. Shit, now she can teach seminars on books like “Against Our Will” and “Intercourse” AS WELL AS seminars on anti-racism. Her entire career was built on this narrative.
There is also the fact that the events she described simply don’t make any sense... but I doubt this was broached on cross-exam, being that “Rape Shield” precluded defense counsel from exercising his client’s rights pursuant to the confrontation clause.
I respect all of you guys, but those of you who think that this woman is a lost soul who was merely “brainwashed” are kidding yourselves. Is this woman malicious? Yes. Is she a crazy lady? Yes. Does she know exactly what she is doing? Also, yes.
Andrea Dworkin self-owned when she’d claim that men were trying to rape her. That’s like saying “Negroes are trying to steal all my books and read them in their entirety”
Having a clown government is one of the ways America antagonizes the world I believe. It’s a ‘gaslighting’ maneuver. America will menace you with some kind of horrific aerial assault, and send Hillary Clinton or some other bizarre clown to “negotiate.” Normal groups of people don’t have any idea how to respond to such things, so anything they do will be “wrong” within the parameters of the rigged psychological game.
It’s like Caligula making you salute his horse who has been made a “general,” and if you don’t he’ll torture you to death or invade your territory.
I’ve been wondering when the wages of Clown Government would catch up with ZOG since Clinton fagged it up with his saxophone opposite late-nite standup acts. There was no way that the rest of the planet – especially proud and sanguinary (if often lacking in reason and cultural poise) people like Arabs, Russians, Chinese etc. – would indefinitely tolerate being availed to moral lectures, usury and the threat of unprovoked military assaults by literal clowns, pathetic white-trash celebrities, nigger frontmen propped up by personality cults that would be the envy of Brezhnev, and the rest of the circus folk.
Well, that day has arrived I believe – imagine if you’re Putin or Assad... a portion of your daily life entails being told that you must abide the whims, orders, and demands of “the indispensable nation” – a state that is helmed by women who rail against cartoon frogs, bullying, and naughty words.
I speculate that actual heads of State must believe they are being subjected to some bizarre PsyOp attack when they meet American elected officials.
— GravesRidicule is a poor substitute for thought.
Senility and cowardice are poor substitutes for integrity.
People like you are the heirs to a plot created by people Samuel Francis called beautiful losers; but you lack the style, integrity, and eloquence of your predecessors. You’re simply losers.
You know, the “liberals” you like to tip your sword at actually have contempt for you people for good reason – you’re a gaggle of clownish mockingbirds who desperately try to conform to your enemy’s moralist cants and stumble over your own feet in doing so, all the while crowing out some sickly, self-abasing facsimile of the opprobrium they cast upon you.
“Caw! Caw! I’m not a racist! Caw! Caw! I know I am indebted to the Negro race! Can I now please have a slice of humble pie?” crowed the senile old mockingbird.
Mars needs women; America needs men, Old Man Graves.
Shark Destructo (CNN correspondent, Israeli affairs expert, Yad Vashem historian, GLBT advocate, IDF veteran, and military analyst) reports from Newport, Connecticut.
December 19, 2012
I arrived in Newport by way of a private chartered flight when I heard that children had yet again been murdered by the combined forces of anti-semitism, Republican racism, white privilege, gun ownership, homophobia, and simple goyische ignorance.
Mind you, I am no stranger to violence. I served in Iraq for 7 hours as an adjutant to Paula Broadwell during a layover in Baghdad en route to Amman, Jordan. For my willingness to risk life, limb, and sanity for the American people and freedom, I was awarded 700 medals, including the Platinum Cock With Oak Leaf Testicles, the Order of Barney Frank, the Anti-Bullying Medal, and a Presidential citation for excellence in military sport recreation (I excelled at felching, which along with writing My Little Pony fan fiction and knitting has become one of the officially endorsed sporting activities of the United States military.
Arriving in Newport, I noticed with great displeasure that former Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney had already preceded me and was speaking to local media about the significance of the events. I bulled my way past these local reporters using my CNN credential pass and asked Mr. Romney for a few on-the-record comments about the events that had transpired. I also wanted him to take responsibility for the shootings, as Mr. Romney’s party is a party that (along with supporting white privilege) supports the murder of children with guns. Romney’s comments were as follows:
“Look, soy-tits, this whole fucking circus here is horseshit – having to dodge bullets and face danger is good for kids. Shit, they need it. I owe my own success to this kind of natural selection. You probably don’t know this, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints owns a number of planets – we were working on space travel and terraforming while you fuckers were busy working on helping niggers make model volcanoes out of play-doh or whatever the fuck you do. Anyway, the Mormon planet that is used for early childhood education is known as Infernus 898765454 – and its a massive desert where average temperatures reach 300 degrees Fahrenheit, and the only liquid matter present is an enormous lake of concentrated acid that is located near the northern pole. Now it would be one thing if the place wasn’t populated, but the indigenous species there are real motherfuckers. They’re self-aware robots that also have organic parts – their arms for example are electric eels, and their heads are those of silver-backed gorillas. Instead of eyeballs, they have magic 8-balls plunked in their sockets, and the only message that ever appears on the floating triangle is, ‘Pray for Death, Faggot.’ Basically, when you turn 8 years old, the Mormon Church sends you to serve the Infernians, and only 1 out of a million survive.
Most Mormon children are immediately seized by these monsters and pressed into service in the Infernus Youth Choir – but you see, the Infernian definition of “choir” is different than ours, ok? The Infernians find the sound that an eyeball makes when it is punctured by staples to be highly stimulating – so their youth choir consists of hundreds of thousands of kids having their eyeballs popped in some kind of musical unison. Those that avoid being forced into the choir are forced to toil in salt mines or offered jobs as courtesans. I lucked out because I know a lot of nigger jokes and card tricks, so I became the one in a million of the class of 1958. I’m not any barstool Barsoomian, you see, son – I’m a bona fide space lord. Heil Hitler.”
Mr. Romney’s white privileged comments might be easily dismissed as the personal opinions of an individual privileged, heteronormative, white male, but they are tragically all to common.
I don’t care if you were dancing with a half dozen Latvian hookers while downing a 1/5 of Blue Label and kicking Sumner Redstone in the dick with steel toes on... doing anything to the strains of Def Leppard is, on the gay scale, between quoting HBO original programming while sleazing on bar sluts and being on a first name basis with the towel boy at the local bathhouse.
Science, technology, White people, men, literary plots, theology/religious belief(s), the unique properties of human life and consciousness is 1) boring, 2) possibly evil, 3) subversive, 4) likely sexist, and 5) not “with the times.”
Normal people are moved by edifying and glorious things that indicate mental stability of the advocate – things like 1) Developing a social identity around sexual paraphilias involving inserting things in ones’ anus; 2) Thulsa Doom-esque personality cults dedicated to worshiping random Congoids; 3) Diabetes Type II: Electric Boogaloo; 4) Cock and ball torture; 5) Electing the first genderqueer gay nigger robot cat with Downs Syndrome President (his name is “Peaches”) so that Peaches the cat can establish the Youth Sodomy Enforcement Administration.
This isn’t anything new – its just more of a tired trope that is endlessly play-acted by ZOG’s entertainment division every decade. Some intellectual bore like Derbyshire or Lawrence Auster or Charles Murray every few years writes an op-ed or pens a paper indicating that maybe niggers are bad neighbors or that they aren’t very smart, and on cue, hysterical and caricaturish liberals start shrieking like a schoolmarm who discovers a stash of porno mags in a student’s desk.
Derb is a fucking idiot and he’s irrelevant, and his article is fucking stupid. It’s deliberately written with a precocious affectation and its pointless. It’s moronic attention seeking. It’s the equivalent of Howard Stern telling a dick joke on the air, because “people can’t handle the truth.”
Anyone who thinks that a) people aren’t actually aware of nigger social pathologies and b) that White parents sit down their kids and explain to them that they need to avoid Six Flags parks when niggers are there while also seeking out “Black friends” for careerist reasons is a complete and total weirdo or they’re entirely out of touch with reality.
You should look at this Derbyshire situation as more of the same obnoxious, faggotty, carnival-like make believe discourse that is entirely characteristic of controlled media. Derb is supposed to rail against the goshdarn libruls and whine about nigger crime, his opponents are supposed to act shocked and outraged and claim that his naughty words are outside the scope of respectability. Then, some other Jew faggot like Bill Maher will weigh in with a nasally inflection about “where do we draw the line?” and all the idiot goy viewers will decide that they’re really “cued in” to the important issues of the day.
If it weren’t for TV and movies, I wouldn’t know anything about crime. For example, I haven’t been to NYC, but I know from watching “Law and Order” that the city is under siege by blonde-haired White men in their 20s and 30s and the only thing standing between them and civilization is portly Negress judges and states attorneys and Howard Hawks femme fatale policewomen in camel-toe pants.
In all honesty, the gayest thing I have ever come across on the internet is the presence of timid, cripplingly socially retarded, aspie kids who live a bleak and neutered existence as the butt of jokes at the hands of their office superiors and all the other cruel “normal” people and who compensate with bitchy, passive aggressive yet totally off-base digs on message board forums towards their internet rivals.
Christ, its almost as gay as lying about being married and wildly successful or claiming to put up absolutely sick weights in the gym in the presence of people who’ve seen you’re “MySpace” account and took note of your, mush-faced, androgynous mug.
None of that, of course, is as gay as scrupulously cataloging what perfect strangers say on the internet over the course of years and months in a pitiable (yet geekishly impressive display) of idiot savant acumen in the vain hope that next time you are exposed as the sniveling little twat that you are in the real world, you can clumsily attempt to impeach the credibility or character of internet posters at an opportune moment and convince yourself that you’re really not just a bean counter who’s never lived as a man for a single minute of his life and that you’re actually some kind of Christian soldier.
Then again, maybe you just suffer from “heavy flow,” as your bitchy moodiness seems to emerge cyclically.
Jenkem sniffing, cannibalism, infant rape as recreation, and wearing Bart Simpson shirts and stage wigs while firing AKs at civilians with your dong hanging out “isn’t what it looks like.” I learned all of that during my time on ‘MootStormFront.’
It’s an odd thing, I remember a decade ago in college, apologists would say “this sort of thing is awful, and its a testament to the brutal legacy of colonialism.” These days, what we hear from the usual suspects is “all of this is normal... nothing to see here.” Perhaps they are trying to prepare us psychologically for America in 2050.
I have a tattoo of two leathermen on choppers getting married on an aircraft carrier that is floating on the Bering Sea, and the minister marrying them is an anthropomorphic blue crab who is holding a flaming Quran and wearing a yarmulke. In the sky behind the carrier is the ghost of Martin Luther King, depicted as St Michael, and Harvey Milk depicted as St Gabriel. The sun is making a duckface and giving a thumbs up while he makes the moon TapouT in a rear naked choke. I show it to girls sometimes and then they offer me first date bareback anal. — Michael Moore
White trash hicks have been destroyed by the Internet. They can’t cognitively handle it. It’s like when Pygmy headhunters first encountered firearms or Comanches were given whiskey
Kamandi, nobody joins ‘What Pare’ groups. The interplay between you guys (the antis) and your sworn, White Trashionalist enemies is some sort of running LARP game that you all have convinced yourselves is real. It’s positively Manichean, in all honesty... I noticed that when I watched the youtube vid of the VNN Knoxville ‘rally.’ One one side, were a bunch of Ed Gein lookalikes, ferris wheel mechanics, and bucktoothed townies with Luftwaffe caps on that they filched from their granddaddy’s closet, and across the street opposing them were a bunch of fat chicks, ex-high school band geeks with severe psoriasis, and flaming homos in clown makeup. In other words, for every Mike Mazzone, there exists and equally mentally retarded and dysgenic (yet ‘ideologically’ opposed) BenFromCanada.
I have met women like this a few times. They think they are so beautiful and desirable that they can be honest about their gold-digging aspirations and it will make no difference. One memorable time I was asked, out of the blue, in mid-conversation: ‘what car do you drive?.’ She then explained that she was here looking specifically for men who drive expensive cars. I don’t think this type of woman is unusual in posher venues.
The trouble is that everybody decides that they are going to scrupulously honor chivalry when confronted by these little animals... which is tantamount to trying to talk it over with a badly behaved dog when it shits on the rug.
The proper response to the sort of vulgarity described in the initial post is to approach the offending, feral female in question with a Max Baer-type swagger, grope her playfully, and if she objects, ask her if she’s ever had her belly slit open and her insides festooned about like so much silly string at a retarded kid’s birthday party.
If she still wants to act like a cunt after that, you should probably just dump your drink on her and punch her in the gut (aiming for those precious ovaries of course).
Hope this helps.
Nietzsche posits the “will to power” as the essential component of man’s creativity... it necessarily follows that an organism’s value must be judged according to how well that organism is able to impose its will upon other organisms and objects. An organism’s value is the sum total of its ability to express itself through dynamic action.
Nietzsche praised Zarathustra because this peculiar prophet represented a fundamentally Aryan account of the world... a world in which man was thrust amidst competing polarities and was charged with reigning in his enemies and brining the soil under his own dominion.
Nietzsche felt that Christianity was a Semitic virus that had destroyed the vitality of Rome by imposing a slave morality upon an otherwise magnificently robust and violent race and ultimately civilized Aryan man to the point of ineptitude and emasculation.
I believe that Aztec peoples represent a rather textbook example of a dynamic, violent, creative, warrior race of pure blood that was not abrogated culturally by Semitic slave compacts... religiously, economically, socially, etc.
Nietzsche wasn’t a conservative, but he was fundamentally interested with the fortunes of Europe and identified a crisis in European civilization to which he argued fervently in favor of remedial measures.
If you accept Nietzschean claims about history and culture and political behavior, it would seem that conservatism is no longer possible; so it was incumbent upon Europeans to take remedial action against cultural decadence and to eschew the traditional/precedented moral basis for action in doing so.
The distinction between active and passive nihilism seems important here, and it’s essential in order to clarify how Nietzsche conceptualized individualism. His view of it was radically incongruous with the Liberal account of it.
Right wing radicals in the interwar period especially,revolutionary conservatives, National Socialists, and various Fascist and proto-Fascist groupings, came to rely heavily on Nietzschean thought, and especially Nietzschean historiography, in part as a means of engaging Marxist dialectic.
Nihilism squares with racial nationalism for a number of reasons. Nietzche’s own claim(s) about nihilism wasn’t that nihilism was any kind of end in itself or “way of life” or solution to psychological and civilizational crises, but rather that it was an instinctive condition within man that came about on grounds of history that needed to be addressed. In Nietzsche’s own words:
— NietzscheNihilism: it is ambiguous:
A: Nihilism as a sign of increased power of the spirit; as active nihilism
B: Nihilism as decline and recession of the power of the spirit: as passive nihilism
[Nihilism] reaches its maximum of relative strength as a violent force of destruction – an active nihilism... Its opposite: the weary nihilism that no longer attacks; its most famous form, Buddhism; a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness.
“Active nihilism” is a concept of philosophy that many partisans took very seriously as Communist revolt gained momentum and as the fledging liberal state exacerbated political and social fracturing. The reason being that the older forms of order, authority, loyalty, and passion that once held fascination over the European mind and commanded willing obedience came to recede entirely from the European conceptual horizon and there was little that remained to draw upon, spiritually and intellectually, to resist the cannibalization of society by monumental ideas of revolt that held awesome destructive and transformative power.
I’m not entirely familiar with Bowden, but I do know that a point he came back to again and again was that Marxism originated in Europe due to a uniquely fertile intellectual climate in which academics, thinkers, and men who dedicated their efforts to the “life of the mind” wielded tremendous political and cultural power – they supplanted the Priestly caste in the modern era, and in Bowden’s words, they came to believe that “nothing preceded man.” Bolshevism, thusly, became capable of anything – even things that theretofore would have been utterly unthinkable in the dominion of Christendom.
It could be said that right-wing nihilism had a tactical component (adopting a savage doctrine to wage total war on the foe of European civilization), an instinctively psychological dimension (discovering and cultivating an opposition dialectic that was unburdened by the vestigial, by then staid, moral biases of Christian ethics) and a revolutionary aspect (“life affirming” creation of new values to defend, preserve, and perfect the natural order of life, politics, and science).
The Revolutionary impulse is the most important and the most enduring – as its a fundamental rejection of Progressive (socialist, democratic, and Marxist) assumptions about history. Nietzsche broke rather completely with Hegelian thought in his description of history and what it is. He acknowledged that history has human “uses” – and its narratives frame human action and render it intelligible, but he rejected the possibility that it had a linear trajectory or a discernible beginning or end. History, in other words, envelops man but it does so “unhistorically” – man’s historical narratives are created by ethical, values-oriented horizons that are not immutable or fixed.
Nietzsche specifically described three kinds of history that can serve the “life instinct.” Monumental history provides the model of great men who are animated by impulses to higher action and heroism for the aristocratic element in society. It serves as an example to be emulated by describing heroes and great events of the past. Antiquarian history which is the domain of tradition and appeals to the revering sensibility of man, inculcating him with a salutary reverence for the past. Finally, there is critical history, which avails obsolete elements of the past to punitive critique and discards these things as no longer useful to history.
So, without going to far outside the scope of this thread, Nietzsche’s assertions about history have very serious implications – and according to his theories of history, if man cannot discern the “use” of history, all sorts of calamities are guaranteed to occur. Believing in an ‘end of history’ leads man to attempt to read a basic and teleological meaning into ALL of history, thus rendering the past and future meaningless in the modern era. Revering monumental history as utterly sacrosanct leads man to believe that heroic action is always possible in every epoch and that life should be measured exclusively by great and heroic acts, when this is in fact not always possible. Privileging critical history abuses the past by treating great acts and events with contempt which renders man unable to face the future.
This is fundamentally important to men of the right – the process of history I mean – for reasons that should be obvious. If man is “nature become sentient,” and his mission is to generate values that affirm life, he must not capitulate to either theological impulses to read telos into history, nor can he afford to abide a belief that dialectic can “end” historical occurrences. He must instead recognize that all value systems are mere horizons – and that man creates these horizons. The horizons either affirm life or they are hostile to life. [...]
I believe the “right-Hegelians” were basically patriotic – and to many of them, the Prussian state was the model of the “completed” society. I don’t think its difficult to understand why some basically conservative, learned men would believe that.
Marxist-Leninism/Stalinism in contrast, essentially called for a criminal enterprise. It’s implicitly misanthropic – and you detect this in every Marxist thinker until (and including) Sartre, really. Communism was “rehabilitated” as the Soviet Union stagnated into bureaucratic formality and its standard bearers ceased to speak candidly about mass-homicide as an instrument of historical progress.
It’s a topic for another thread, but the inferences drawn by Nolte in his treatment of mass political homicide in the 20th century is fundamentally important to revisionism for this reason. Bolshevism called for the annihilation of entire subjective classes of humans as an end in itself – inherent to National Socialist thought was a belief that Oriental/Bolshevik barbarity had to be met on its own terms in total war; and annihilation was permissible in total war. The former is really monstrous beyond imagination while the latter, however ugly, is easily understood by any reasonable man.
Roy Starrs posits a very strong connection between Nietzschean ethics and National Socialist political values in his analysis of Yukio Mishima’s body of work, and the Nietzschean influence thereof. I am rather undecided on the issue, but the following selection sort of jumped out at me... please comment if you are so inclined:
— Roy StarrsNo clear or complete understanding of Mishima’s moral and political thought is possible unless we place it in the context of the wider nihilist moral/political tradition. First then, we must take a closer look at that position.
If the notions of a ‘nihilist philosophy’ and a ‘nihilist psychology’ seem paradoxical – considering nihilism’s anti-philosophical and anti-psychological bias – the idea of a ‘nihilist morality’ must seem positively oxymoronic. Nihilism would seem by definition indifferent if not actually hostile to all moral values. One recalls, for instance, Nietzsche’s notoriety as an ‘antiChrist,’ his vituperative attack on Christian humanism as a ‘slave morality.’ Whether we regard him as a moralist or an anti-moralist, though, Nietzsche still was centrally concerned with moral issues. The moral focus of his principal works is evident in their very titles: Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals, The Will to Power, and even Thus Spake Zarathustra – which, as its title suggests, aims to be a kind of quasi-religious counter-gospel of a ‘new morality.’ Nietzsche himself was well aware of the logical inconsistency of his position as a ‘nihilist moralist,’ but since, with him, the demands of life took precedence over the demands of logic, and he was quite willing to sacrifice the latter for the sake of the former. Confronted with what Johan Goudsblom calls the ‘nihilist problematic,’ which he defines as the ‘complexity of the urge for truth, the loss of truth and moral uncertainty,’ Nietzsche readily opted to ‘rid himself of the urge for truth’ and thus free himself for life – irrational, meaningless but glorious life – which, to him, was equivalent to the will to power when uninhibited by a ‘slave morality.’ Since, in Nietzsche’s view, the ‘... man who reflects more deeply knows that he is always wrong, no matter how he acts and judges... ‘, the man who wants to live an active life had better not concern himself too much with considerations of ‘good and evil.’ The ‘deed is everything.’
It was out of his struggle with the ‘nihilist problematic,’ and in an attempt to resolve the contradictions in his nihilist moral system, that Nietzsche developed his concepts of ‘active’ and ‘passive’ nihilism. To quote again from his definition of these two polarities in the notation-form of his posthumous work, “The Will to Power” (Die Wille zur Macht, 1901):
Nihilism. It is ambiguous: A. Nihilism as a sign of increased power of the spirit: as “active” Nihilism. B. Nihilism as decline and recession of the power of the spirit: as “passive” Nihilism.
Nihilism, he continues, ‘... reaches its maximum of relative strength as a violent force of destruction – as active nihilism.’ On the other hand:
Its opposite: the weary nihilism that no longer attacks; its most famous form, Buddhism; a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness.
And in another passage, Nietzsche emphasizes further the aggressive, destructive – and illogical – character of active nihilism:
Nihilism does not only contemplate the ‘in vain!’ nor is it merely the belief that everything deserves to perish: one helps to destroy. – That is, if you will, illogical; but the nihilist does not believe that one needs to be logical – It is the condition of strong spirits and wills, and these do not find it possible to stop with the No of ‘judgment’: their nature demands the No of the deed. The reduction to nothing by judgment is seconded by the reduction to nothing by hand.
Thus Nietzsche envisioned a solution to the ‘nihilist problematic’ mainly in moral – or anti-moral – terms. European civilization could escape the blight of passive nihilism which, according to him, was about to descend upon it, only by a transcendence or ‘transvaluation’ of all its traditional, instinct-inhibiting moral values:
All attempts made to escape nihilism, which do not consist in transvaluing the values that have prevailed hitherto, only make the matter worse: they complicate the problem.
... Although in the nineteenth century nihilism was thus associated mainly with extreme left-wing causes, in the twentieth century it has come to be associated more with the opposite end of the political spectrum – a fact which some have ascribed to Nietzsche’s influence. Nietzsche himself, of course, was too much of a ‘poet and dreamer’ to take much interest in practical politics, and it should be noted that he expressed great contempt for the arrogance and narrow-mindedness of the German right wing, and particularly for the anti-Semitism that was already gaining ground in the late nineteenth century. Nonetheless, he was, as Georg Brandes called him, an ‘aristocratic radical’; like Mishima, he felt an instinctive antipathy towards democracy, liberalism, socialism or any other form of ‘humanism’ which sought to elevate the masses over the elite, and he regarded such movements as one of the many contemporary ‘causes of nihilism’ (i.e., of passive nihilism):
The inferior species (‘herd,’ ‘mass,’ ‘society’) is forgetting modesty and inflates its needs into cosmic and metaphysical values. In this way, all life is vulgarized: for inasmuch as the mass of mankind rules, it tyrannizes over the exceptions, so that these lose their belief in themselves and become nihilists.
... One German scholar of the 1930a, in fact, described the recent Nazi assumption of power as the ‘revolution of nihilism,’ and explained clearly how its typically terrorist emphasis on ‘direct action’ was related to its nihilist philosophy/psychology:
Direct action is defined as ‘direct integration by means of corporativism, militarism, and myth’; this is to replace democracy and parliamentarism. But the true significance of direct action lies in its assignment of the central place in its policy to violence, which it then surrounds with a special philosophical interpretation of reality. Briefly, this philosophical system amounts to the belief that the use of violence in a supreme effort liberates moral forces in human society which lead to social and national renewal. ... Violence, says Sorel, is the basic force of life. When all other standards have been unmasked by skepticism of all doctrines, reason itself is robbed of all force. The anti-intellectual attitude of ‘dynamism’ is not mere chance but the necessary out come of an entire absence of standards. Man, it holds, is not a logical being, not a creature guided by reason and intelligence, but a creature following his instinct and impulses, like any other animal.
Another contemporary observer of the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 30s, the distinguished philosopher Bertrand Russell, in an essay on ‘The Ancestry of Fascism’ written in 1935, argues that the fascists descend from Nietzsche both in their irrationalism and in their lust for power. He compares them with religious irrationalists of the past but concludes that these’... irrationalists of our time aim, not at salvation, but at power. They thus develop an ethic which is opposed to that of Christianity and Buddhism; and through their lust of dominion they are of necessity involved in politics. What Russell has to say about the philosophical basis of fascism is worth quoting at length:
The founders of the school of thought out of which fascism has grown all have certain common characteristics. They seek out the good in ’ rather than feeling or cognition; they value power more than happiness; they prefer force to argument, war to peace, aristocracy to democracy, propaganda to scientific impartiality. They advocate a Spartan form of austerity, as opposed to the Christian form; that is to say, they view austerity as a means of obtaining mastery over others, not as a self-discipline which helps to produce virtue, and happiness only in the next world. The later ones among them are imbued with popular Darwinism, and regard the struggle for existence as the source of a higher species; but it is to be rather a struggle between races than one between individuals, such as the apostles of free competition advocated. Pleasure and knowledge, conceived as ends, appear to them unduly passive. For pleasure they substitute glory, and, for knowledge the pragmatic assertion that what they desire is true. In Fichte, Carlyle, and Mazzini, these doctrines are still enveloped in a mantle of conventional moralistic cant; in Nietzsche they first step forth naked and unashamed.
Though we might argue about the extent to which Russel’s analysis justly applies to Nietzsche, there can be no doubt that is applies with remarkable precision to Mishima, and helps to place his right-wing extremism in its proper philosophical and political perspective. [...]
— PetrBut like Bruce Lincoln puts it, Nietzsche was probably not even sincerely interested in historical accuracy anyways, for he was making his own reality, being a true predecessor of post-modernist relativism.
I think that is an accurate assessment.
I know, Petr, that you have some bad feelings about Nietzsche on account of his hostility to the Faith... and I do as well.
That said, Nietzsche was not a historian nor a real political theorist, IMO. He was an anti-Modern, elitist storyteller who painted vivid pictures for his readers with peculiar, poetic musings. I think his legacy is overstated, and I think his treatment by the Right and the Left is bizarre (esp. the veneration that the Academy seems to have for him considering his fascistic proclivities).
I personally think that Rightists who consider Nietzsche to be some sort of taproot of valuable theory are immature or just ill-informed and half educated.
I have been contemplating lately the relationship of Heidegger to Nationalism generally, as well as the influence of Heidegger and Germanic political thought on the later works (post-1955 especially) of Yukio Mishima.
I believe that Heidegger appreciated the idiosyncrasy of mind/thought between persons as something that precludes value creation, aesthetic agreement, and ultimately, communitarian order. Dasein as “Being There” appears to represent more than simply sensuous presence (as John Farrenkopf described the “Prime Symbol” of the Apollonian)... rather, it describes how apparently fractious, disconnected moments in time as perceived by individual minds relative to the objects that they sense and interact with becomes intelligible. In other words, thought is a process that aids in the revelation Being, but [thought] is, in and of itself, inadequate towards that end.
In order to truly think and approach understanding of Being, a process of creative destruction must be undertaken. We cannot understand what it is to be, and discover the fundamental unity of Being until we dismantle the conceptual structures that have been imposed upon us. As day to day existence becomes more ordered by rigid, temporality and utilitarian schemes of time and production, the ability to approach Being as revealed becomes more remote.
— HeideggerOnly to the extent that man for his part is already challenged to exploit the energies of nature can this ordering revealing happen. If man is challenged, ordered, to do this, then does not man himself belong even more originally than nature within the standing-reserve? The current talk about human resources, about the supply of patients for a clinic, gives evidence of this. The forester who, in the wood, measures the felled timber and to all appearances walks the same forest path in the same way as did his grandfather is today commanded by profit-making in the lumber industry, whether he knows it or not. He is made subordinate to the orderability of cellulose, which for its part is challenged forth by the need for paper, which is then delivered to newspapers and illustrated magazines. The latter, in their turn, set public opinion to swallowing what is printed, so that a set configuration of opinion becomes available on demand. Yet precisely because man is challenged more originally than are the energies of nature, i.e., into the process of ordering, he never is transformed into mere standing-reserve. Since man drives technology forward, he takes part in ordering as a way of revealing. But the unconcealment itself, within which ordering unfolds, is never a human handiwork, any more than is the realm through which man is already passing every time he as a subject relates an object.
We now name that challenging claim which gathers man thither to order the self-revealing as standing-reserve: “Ge-Stell” [Enframing].
Enframing as a process by which man attempts to reveal Being by temporal-physical (as well as productive potential) ordering.
This is a rather superficial treatment, but it seems that the process of ordering by Enframing interprets objects as monadic quantities that express use-potential relative to other objects through the action of man. In other words, it is objectively revealing but in a profoundly limited, and disharmonious way. [...]
The essence of value as “point of view” involves the relationship of subjects to one another, as well as to environmental objects, things, and time. I believe that value can only overcome inter-subjective idiosyncrasy when minds, overtime, are situated so as to inevitably share “points of view” and assign congruent value. This may seem self-evident, but I’m not so sure. Presumably, historical community (as “nation” and its associative precursors) through enduring linear natality (by which ontological-value is not transmitted, but is facilitated) is the only mode of association that allows for “true,” integrated, revealing of Being. Hence, the significance Nation (and the National-State).
— RolandSchmitt identifies his teacher Max Weber as he who inaugurated the 20th century “tyranny of values” in response to the problems in jurisprudence and ethics posed by a completely deterministic science:
“According to Weber, it is the individual human being who, in full and genuinely subjective freedom of decision, sets up the values. Thus, the absolute value-freedom of scientific positivism is circumvented and the values are set free from it, in the opposite direction, namely, of the subjective world outlook. The genuinely subjective freedom of value-setting leads, however, to an endless struggle of all against all...” – Tyranny of Values, 20Schmitt maintains that the introduction of values solves none of the problems inherent in a positivistic world-view. A value implies a system of rank very similar to economic value because the philosophy of values rests on premises identical to those of liberal economics. The logic of value in economics presupposes disvalue; when this logic is transposed into the realm of natural law (Dworkin) or ethics, this dialectic remains. Mere idiosyncrasy, as you say, erupts into total conflict between individuals, associations, groups and parties with rival values.
When an entity – either an individual or a state, for instance – acquires and upholds a value, it has, by definition, taken a position against a disvalue. When human life is posited as the highest objective value (as it often is), those who make that valuation immediately devalue all other values (God, heaven, nation). Schmitt is quick to point out that those who value human life as the highest value are often quite “ready to make use of the destructive means made available by modern science and technology, in order to gain acceptance for those higher values.”
Even science, touting itself as value-free, can, by declaring values to be unscientific, declare itself the highest value. Science thus monopolizes objectivity, condemning all else to subjective war.
I’m drifting away from the topic here, so I’ll stop, but I think the point remains that value-thinking is related to ordering or Enframing, which in turn is related to the problem of unity in the nation or community and the consciousness of Being.
It’s not silly, its essentially contiguous with Hobbes’ description of the political sphere and its features.
Without derailing the thread into an elaborate historical discussion, the State is, ipso facto, a territorial space in which peace has been achieved by way of consensus legitimacy – a state in which the sovereign has lost its legitimacy and that is being dismantled or re-ordered by civil war is no longer functioning in a sovereign capacity.
Schmitt was not alleging that States are permanent and unchanging instantiations of a sovereign principle – he was alleging that the State is a defensive structure that presides over a peace that has been accomplished within discrete territorial parameters.
This is why Schmitt made the point, emphatically, that dictatorship is NOT legitimate if it exists as a “commisarial” dictatorship that purports to ‘preserve’ the Constitutional order. Dictatorship is legitimate in a state of emergency as a mechanism of decision to create a new Constitutional order in which territorial peace can once again be realized.
Congruent with your account, John Farrenkopf’s biography of Spengler posits the Apollonian “Prime Symbol” as the sensuously-present individual body, juxtaposed with the Faustian counterpart of infinite space.
I think that the significance of this as per Heidegger and his peculiar relationship to the Romantic in general and National Socialism specifically should be noted. I’ll have to think on this more before I elaborate. [...]
It’s sort of a difficult question to pose and answer intelligibly. I think its fairly obvious that Romantic Nationalism generally, and to a lesser extent National Socialism, did away with the business of attempting to reconcile the inherent idiosyncrasies of Enlightenment epistemological models of Politics.
Dasein, however conceptually elusive, seems to abolish rational contradictions in favor of evocative, sensuous, experiences that are temporally contingent and fundamentally irrational. How does this relate to Nationalism as expressed in the 20th century? I’m not entirely sure. What I do believe is that presenting Romantic Nationalism as merely a reactionary font of industrial mass-politics is improper... Heidegger was, first and foremost, an Aristotelean and post-War interpretations of his oeuvre have been colored by Derrida’s ideological lens.
Mutuality of mind/aesthetic agreement seems to be made possible (not precluded) by Dasein.
— Dizzee RimbaudTo be attuned to the Earth, to dwell, and lead an authentic existence are in themselves ideals more partial to the good life (in my own opinion) than the fruitless endeavor to attempt a going-beyond man.
Striving for a going-beyond man IS being attuned to the Earth, if life is in fact Will to Power. To do anything else is essentially life-denying.
What irks me about the will-to-power, and all drives, be they technological or scientific, is that they root themselves in progress for progresses sake. Where does it end?
It doesn’t ‘end.’ It’s a cyclical and perennial struggle that is consonant with all relationships between all things.
We are already in the West turning into a collective racked with mass anxiety, and consumed by (needless) desires.
Desire, death-anxiety, egalitarianism, the mythology of ‘free will,’ commodity fetishism, and the like represent decrepitude, not overcoming... it’s an effeminate and sickly sublimation of Will to Power.
What links most Phora members? Personally I see it as a (healthy) desire to once again be rooted. For the senseless pursuit of growth and progress to come to a halt. To take stock. But in order to take stock we need to learn to think again outside of the limitations put on us by a progress which has no end in sight.
The trouble is that what passes for ‘progress’ is in fact decadence and decrepitude. It’s ugly, fruitless, fetishism... and it’s rooted in cowardice and fear of oblivion. In short, it’s life-denying...
— BoleslawIn almost every damn fucking discussion Ive read concerning Nietzsche, it’s nothing but Nietzschean Nazis who dominate the discussions.
The Nietzschean Nazis are incorrect, but they aren’t as far off the mark as the Walter Kaufman revisionists who think that Nietzsche was basically the Teutonic Dr. Phil. Most people are “taught” ressentiment in 100 level college seminars and (perversely) told that it represents Nietzschean theory. Deconstructionists and secular humanists desperately wish to claim Nietzsche... so do the Nazis. Neither one has legitimate claim to Nietzsche, but the Nazis are ‘less wrong’ than their opponents in this regard.
Phora is probably the only place where Ive met non-Nazi Nietzscheans.
That is a fair point, but Nietzsche informed National Socialism, if only in a very superficial capacity... so the issue deserves to be addressed.
My introduction to political theory and philosophy was also through Nietzsche, when I was about 19 years old. I still have my, heavily dogeared and marked, copy of “The Will to Power,” which was the first real scholarly philosophical text that I ever purchased.
I identify with your point about “mind detox.” As much as I disagree with the man, Alex Linder made the point (during one of his moments of genuine lucidity) that the Liberal-Humanitarian perspective is really the default psychological setting of modern Western man. He noted that even he himself often instinctively slides into the precepts and canards of the secular-humanist value scheme when presented with information that warrants distinction between fact and value. I suppose I haven’t experienced that process since my late teens, but then again, I attribute my ability to break that sort of conditioning at an early age not to any personal fortitude, cunning, intrepidness, or power of intellect, but rather to the fact that my experiences and environments (in terms of family, schools, jobs) was never “normal” by any common polestar.
Returning to Nietzsche, I think Nietzsche’s oeuvre is problematic these days for the uninitiated for the same reason as is Machiavelli’s (as was discussed on another thread yesterday by myself, Nic, Beria, and Roland). Nietzsche holds a lot of appeal to the humanist Left on account of his (perceived) relativism, endorsement of expressive individualism, and deconstructionist tendencies. In other words, the Academy (and the popular culture) has defanged Nietzsche and transmogrified his theoretical canon into self-help precepts and bumper sticker canards. I think I’m going to vomit on myself next time I come across a blurb online that is cut and pasted from a Women’s lifestyle rag that references (without citing) a Nietzsche axiom in the context of advising their perpetual-child, slut reader base on how to “survive” breaking up a boyfriend. Ditto for Black Metal lyrics that invoke the language of “The Antichrist” as philosophical authority to buttress their cartoonish villainy and Anton LeVay style Halloween satanism.
Forgive the long-windedness, but I suppose the issue with Nietzsche is that Nietzsche leaves the reader an “out.” The language is ambiguous and poetic enough (especially to persons who do not have a foundation in the Classics) that a youngster who has already been partially ruined by indoctrination into literary criticism can eschew the implications of Nietzsche’s account of history, historicism, culture, destiny, death, art, action, and (dare I say) race. Nietzsche is “safe” within the context of the post-Liberal university, because his context and his precedent has been removed.
I suppose this is why I favor Ludovici, Mishima, and Ernst Junger (I have Roland to thank for exposing me to Junger, BTW). Ludovici’s sociological musings are framed in (and bolstered by) unambiguously Nietzschean schema... they are also (substantively) unambiguously racialist, and defensive of Foundationalist patriarchy. Analogously, Mishima exposes readers to the implementation of active nihilism and “action” in the service of art, and its effects and consequences. In other words, no Lysenkoist academian can argue away the implications of these Nietzsche-inspired works... no matter how much literary criticism, revisionist humanist drivel, or feminist theory he launches at them. For that reason, I’d say that the uninitiated are best served by the philosophical novel or (sufficiently editorial) sociology.
I don’t wish to derail the spirited debate underway between Sean and Illusions667, but I think it’s important to consider Spengler in his own capacity, removed from the likes of Evola and Guenon.
Spengler may harbor some notions that seem peculiar in the 21st Century West, but he had an incredibly detailed understanding of economic theory and he was in many respects quite empirical in his account of the interplay between capital, production, and statecraft. Farrenkopf made the point in his biography of Spengler that Spengler was keenly aware of the significance of (apparently) insignificant features of modern markets and the broad social and cultural implications thereof.
You may disagree with Spengler, and it’s proper to note that he posited many unsubstantiated and unprovable claims, but I must consider him as head and shoulders above the esoteric ideologues with whom he is often grouped by New Right polemicists.
— HeideggerSPIEGEL: Why should we be so overpowered by technology ... ?
HEIDEGGER: I do not say overpowered. I say we have no path that corresponds to the essence of technology as of yet.
SPIEGEL: One could naïvely object: What do we have to come to terms with here? Everything functions. More and more electric power plants are being built. Production is flourishing. People in the highly technological parts of the earth are well provided for. We live in prosperity. What is really missing here?
HEIDEGGER: Everything functions. That is exactly what is uncanny. Everything functions and the functioning drives us further and further to more functioning, and technology tears people away and uproots them from the earth more and more. I don’t know if you are scared; I was certainly scared when I recently saw the photographs of the earth taken from the moon. We don’t need an atom bomb at all; the uprooting of human beings is already taking place. We only have purely technological conditions left. It is no longer an earth on which human beings live today. I recently had a long conversation with René Char in Provence – as you know, the poet and Resistance fighter. Rocket bases are being built in Provence, and the country is being devastated in an incredible way. The poet, who certainly cannot be suspected of sentimentality or a glorification of the idyllic, said to me that the uprooting of human beings which is going on now is the end if thinking and poetry do not acquire nonviolent power once again.
SPIEGEL: Now, we must say that although we prefer to be here on earth, and we probably will not have to leave it during our life-time, who knows whether it is human beings’ destiny to be on this earth? It is conceivable that human beings have no destiny at all. But at any rate a possibility for human beings could be seen in that they reach out from this earth to other planets. It will certainly not happen for a long time. But where is it written that human beings’ place is here?
HEIDEGGER: From our human experience and history, at least as far as I am informed, I know that everything essential and great has only emerged when human beings had a home and were rooted in a tradition. Today’s literature is, for instance, largely destructive. [...]
Philosophy will not be able to bring about a direct change of the present state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all merely human meditations and endeavors. Only a god can still save us. I think the only possibility of salvation left to us is to prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline; so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god.
Lust and erotic fascination is axiomatically bound up with domination in a basic capacity – penitentiaries house a category of men who tend towards an absence of impulse control and who harbor a strong compulsion towards thrills of an unsavory sort, including sex and violence.
The entire gay subculture famously embraces narcissism and recklessness, praised by people at present as a kind of liberated hedonism or flee-flowing spontaneity. The subtext is one of transgressive danger, which is what the allure is, to its practitioners and champions.
“Orientation,” once again, is a dubious claim. If you’ve ever been around these men who claim they literally have no interest in women, you’ll discern immediately how disengaged from normalcy these individuals are – its really a profound pathology in the overwhelming majority of cases. I’m certain there is some slim minority of men who are literally averse to the female sex for some intrinsic biological reason, but its hard to believe these people would be statistically significant enough to warrant an elaborate discussion.
At base, if you reject women entirely, your psychology is incomplete to the point of really removing you from anything approaching the normative human experience. This is tragic in some basic way – and its probably the result of some kind of developmental deformity or trauma, not a biological imperative.
Beneath the surface of most apparently confident homosexuals is a very fragile person. You’re really looking at a man who is alienated within his own like, so he engages in affectation and covets masculinity because he doesn’t feel connected to it. That might entail an overwrought eroticism towards other men, it might entail a strange fixation on a clichéd “hard man” image, a total rejection of women as companions, an identification with the opposite sex that is entirely displaced, or some combination of these traits.
Homosexuals are pitiable guys because they go through their mortal lives an actors – not because “society” won’t accept them, but because they can’t accept themselves. It’s just one expression of a disintegrated personality. It’s off base to reduce it to biology or suggest its an essential trait. The first thing that should jump out at you about a man who self-identifies in terms of erotic impulses is how pathologically weird and out of touch he is – he’s lacking basic insight into himself, to the point that if you were to ask him, “who are you?” he’d come up a sexually affected pose and pass it off as an insight. Nobody really seems to note anymore how strange this entire thing is. If you acted that way in any non-Western society, people would think you were from another planet – sometimes the majority actually is right.
Great writers tend to be fey Romantics who are infatuated with their own inner lives more than worldly people are. They’re sensitive and emotional personalities who ruminate over passions and impulses in ways that are obsessive and abnormal but at the same time aren’t spontaneous.
You discern in the stories of guys like DH Lawrence or Yukio Mishima that their homoeroticism stems in large part from their extreme introversion and discomfort among other people, and that it doesn’t have a whole lot to do with actual, physical lust and paraphilias. It’s an abstract kind of eroticism in other words, that often disdains sex on general premises.
I’ve never bought the “homosexuals are creative personalities” trope at all – and its actually entirely unprecedented.
Traditionally, nobody likes homosexuals because they’re brutish and violent undesirables. They’re associated with institutions like maximum security prisons, criminal societies, and mercenary armies.
Of course, effeminate men have always found a privileged place beside the throne, but that’s kind of a different phenomenon.
The fag in history hangs around waterfront bars, is half-literate, pickled by rum, and prone to non-consensual sodomy. He’s not an Ivy Leaguer who speaks 8 languages and runs an art gallery. This is another Big Lie of the late 20th century that has infected the collective subconscious.
Homosexuality in reality is simply one of many vices some humans are prone to. I’d guess that otherwise well adjusted people resist those impulses in the same way that people who are prone to abuse narcotics or alcohol will try to resist pathology and addiction. Vile, vicious, or weak people who are prone to it will give in to the impulse and brutalize themselves, others, or both.
It seems in the past that aggressive homosexuality was considered to be the domain of barbarians (the experience alluded to in “Lawrence of Arabia” comes to mind) or a habit of brigands, criminals, and unsavory elements who live outside of society; which is demonstrative of the fact that “gays” don’t actually exist. It’s some weird modern imagined identity subculture where grown men act like women by adopting exaggerated feminine mannerisms and seceding from male modes of life.
The “gay” issue that the System is singularly obsessed with is in reality just a font of a broader pattern of feminism and culture distortion.
The province of the artist is passion – it’s not peculiar that Mishima or Shakespeare or Thomas Mann would live very passionately and exhibit an unusually strong and varied emotional range. Homoeroticism and homosexuality is a component of this and thus has always featured heavily in literature – this doesn’t really surprise anyone and it doesn’t really tell us anything.
It’s contrived to suggest that Mishima or Shakespeare were “gay.” Nobody had any concept of being “gay” until late modernity. It’s an imagined social identity of deracinated people. It’s like saying Bach would have been a 49ers fan or that Da Vinci would have been really impressed by the licks of Jimmy Page.
Carl Jung, and incidentally Frank Herbert, suggested that homosexuals are basically men who are mired in arrested adolescence – and that they embody traits that, in civilized and properly directed moderation and capacity, are essential and beneficial.
In other words, fags are men who refused to leave the youthful and exclusive society of men upon which institutions like armies, policing forces, and other security-oriented “primary groups” are based.
Taken to its illogical extreme, this leads to personalities that are basically 1) violent, sadistic and masochistic, 2) anti-social and 3) hostile to capital-S “society” as it exists outside of their primary group.
The theory holds, in short, that all-male social groups constitute a committee of sorts that is charged with an evolutionary-psychological “screening function” – the male primary group, in pre-history, would man the perimeter and be the first to engage external predators. Their risk/sacrifice would allow the others (women, children, old people, men outside the primary group) to enjoy safety, to breed, to reach maturity, etc.
A component of the screening function of course would also entail the men of the primary group constantly testing one another to be sure of mettle, fortitude, willingness to kill, aggressiveness and other traits essential to carry out the mission. This is why, of course, male camaraderie takes the form of “jokes” and the like that people outside of this milieu look upon as mean, cruel, and sadistic.
Homosexuality was traditionally understood as being corrosive because it was an expression of extremely dysfunctional, but basically masculine, traits, in other words. It was really only in the last 50-70 years I believe that people began to view homos as “womanish” individuals who are more civilized, more sensitive, “softer” than their normal fellows if you will. Men of that type were traditionally considered to be effeminate males, not necessarily homosexuals.
This isn’t to say that homosexuality in its “pure” form is a good thing (it isn’t) – but my own observations indicate that the “gay” movement is really a kind of mutated feminism that some homosexuals tend to bandwagon on because there’s political currency in it. I tend to doubt the average fag wants to play house and get “married” or adopt children or hang around with dumb, spoiled, disengaged White women. He probably in his heart of hearts wants to burn the house down and rape anything that isn’t properly secured in the process.
Fag posters like the one you mentioned hold Society in disdain – they think about men in positive terms because they think anyone without a cock is a dirty cunt. This is Fag Reality, and it’s at odds with ZOG “reality” in basic ways. But this doesn’t arrive as a surprise.
The entire gay narrative is based on artificial premises, and it begins with a conclusion that isn’t precedented in the experience of human societies.
I believe that prior to the ascendancy of Marcuse as one of the guiding lights of Left-wing thought, nobody in any historical time, place, or culture ever conceptualized that a “gay” psychology existed. The notion that there is a minority of people who harbor an absolutely exclusive erotic attraction to their own sex seems highly improbable.
“Gay” at base is an imagined identity, probably cultivated on grounds of the breakdown of social relationships. People who are alienated within their own lives, unsure of their own social identity, raised by single parents, prone to anxieties and paraphilias, tend to become narcissistic as a psychic survival strategy. One form that this takes is seeking out validation through sex and attention, which is really what “gay” subculture is about. It’s really not distinguishable from the pathologies of men who are incorrigible whoremongers, save for the fact that “gays” have a more fragile sense of self, and can’t identify with their own masculinity in any spontaneous way so they come to covet it sexually – as outsiders who want to connect with remote things often do.
It’s not really possible for somebody to be “secretly gay” – people who practice sodomy but who don’t adopt an imagined identity over it are just people who are prone to vices and perversions who have little or no control over their baser appetites. They’re deviant people, but they’re actually a lot more normal than people who take on this pastiche “gay” subculture as a social identity, revolving around sexual confusion and narcissism.
It’s worth noting that even pagan societies that tolerate and encourage homosexuality don’t have any concept of “gay” identity. It’s exclusively a Western claim, premised on the notion that people are simply self-created and that their essential nature is the sum total of physical appetites and consumption habits. [...]
There’s a number of things at play in these narratives I believe.
A substantial component of it is Jewish cultural pathology, which I don’t think needs to be really elaborately enumerated here, because there are dozens of threads that are devoted to discussing that topic in more general terms. For our purposes on this thread, I think most people here would agree that Jews consider normative, White Christian cultural mores and practices to be inherently exclusionary and oriented around hostile belief structures that they find to be threatening; and sexual behavior is obviously an important component of culture and social ethics.
This isn’t the whole picture though, even though it is a substantial contributing cause to this kind of punitive ideology.
There is a strong tendency in Anglo-Saxon derived societies to aim to facilitate individual liberty to the detriment of communitarian mores; while at the same time crafting ways to manage man’s brutal and chaotic passions in the course of “liberating” him from hierarchy, authority, restrictive belief structures, and theological imperatives. This calls for a peculiar calculus to be crafted that often is at odds entirely with the totality of human instincts. It tries to liberate the “good” while mitigating the “bad” in other words – this goes back to Bacon and Hobbes, in many respects.
With respect to sex, this kind of reasoning (which flies in the face of history, instinctive psychology, and anthropology) leads to particularly bizarre outcomes. One example is the liberal view of “rape” and promiscuity. In the 19th century, rape was actually punished quite a bit more severely than at present, as its normative for all civilized societies to consider female chastity to be an important “good” and that when men violate a woman without a legitimate claim of right, they must be severely punished – both because women need to be protected from predation and because sex must be controlled and the sexual instinct channeled towards productive rather than destructive social relationships. In the 20th century, when sex became desacralized on grounds of purported liberty interests, women were no longer availed to any spontaneous and protective social controls – in some sense, liberal ideologues realized that this was a disaster, but they could not easily reconcile this disturbing reality with their abiding belief in sex as the exclusive domain of individuals and their capacity for self-interested decisions. So “rape” was redefined and re-conceptualized as a kind of criminal behavior that was to be condemned because it violated the ability of women to render non-coercive choices about their person. Of course, everything else aside, this created very anarchic social circumstances, as it caused people to view all women as potential sexual conquests, so long as a man was sufficiently charming and persuasive to convince them to consent to his designs; yet liberal ethics had become so enshrined in the popular conscience by the time that the full effect of this radical paradigm shift in sexual morality occurred that nobody really saw fit to muster any meaningful criticism of this new institution of promiscuity other than to pose questions about whether or not these unleashed passions were in fact “consensual” in every conceivable scenario.
Related, but distinguishable, is the question of homosexuality. Homosexuality is, by definition, highly anarchic. It’s a very brutal impulse in and of itself, but its exponentially moreso when expressed as sodomy. Of course, homoeroticism can hold merit – there is a unique mode of culture that is fomented by the cultivation of certain aesthetic mores and values in seclusion from women. The rough camaraderie of a barracks environment, the ‘culture of war’ that aims to perfect nature by channeling violence and studied preparations for violence into constructive enterprises, the solemn significance of blood sports that are not permitted to deteriorate into crude spectacle, and homages in the arts (as Schopenhauer discussed not infrequently) to masculine strength and physiology in recognition of these things as the source of higher forms of life and culture.
Unrestrained however by any culturally complete conceptual belief structure that assigns these impulses a creative function, homosexuality merely deteriorates into a brutalizing pathology. People who are worldly understand this reality – and if they don’t firsthand, they only need to observe casually from a safe distance the kinds of social dysfunction that develops in prisons and the like.
Liberals recognize this instinctively, no matter how much they might claim to not accept that man is fundamentally fallen and cannot manage his own instincts. So their solution is to attempt to impose order upon what is a feral and disturbing tendency. They do so with aims to “civilize” homosexuality, by claiming that homosexuals are simply a mirror image of normal people who must be availed to “marriage,” and by suggesting that human instinct is simply binary and that sexual behavior is exclusive and immutable.
They find willing clients for these social projects in the ranks of (as described earlier in the thread) people who are alienated from their own lives in the first place and who don’t even fully understand their own predilections.
I never really understood the vehemence on this issue [gay marriage] by either side, since ‘Nero’ marriages struck me as more of an effect of societal decay, not an actual cause of any future declines. [...]
The vehemence arises from the fact that the govt. has asserted that it can merely issue declarations on Natural Law that are purportedly binding on everybody within its jurisdiction – this should alarm people for a number of reasons.
Ultimately, Natural Law is all weak persons (and all people are weak before the government, in relative terms) have to appeal to when they’re saddled with authority that is acting against their interests.
Of course, you aren’t required to believe in Natural Law, or God, or any particular theology, but that begs the question as to why an atheist would tolerate a government issuing declarations on concepts (like marriage) that have no context or meaning outside of Natural Law theories.
If govt. can simply declare what morals are, no man has any recourse against government. “You weren’t tortured – the Rabbinic Court declared that enhanced interrogation isn’t torture, and the Court is the final authority.” “You have no parental ‘rights’ over your own offspring – parental rights are a discredited concept, Ms. Ginsburg explained all this.”
The big issue here of course is why “gays” and liberals and other atheists are demanding that “marriage” be redefined by government – they categorically reject religion and Natural Law; if they were intellectually honest, they wouldn’t care about marriage. They’re not honest – they’re ideologues following a Jewish revolutionary imperative. [...]
It’s worth noting that Dante considered the sins of usury and sodomy to be basically synonymous – they’re highly correlated in terms of how peoples’ ethical horizons are structured. They’re both unique among sins as well because they’re both directly adversarial to nature.
The government obsessively and incessantly promoting usury and sodomy should be something people recognize as a development that portends the return of slavery – you don’t need to be a Catholic or even particularly religious to recognize this.
Millennial idiots apparently find the world to be confusing and complicated and scary to the point that they want slavery to come back – which is a point that Moslems make a lot: Americans want to be enslaved by Jews and governments but are terrified and hateful towards theology.
People sometimes do get the government they deserve – Americans deserve to be slaves.
People aren’t actually “gay” – its a vulgar and idiotic subculture dreamed up by Freudo-Marxists and championed for ambiguous reasons by middle class losers.
In reality, people who buy into imagined identities like being “gay” are cultural Juggalos. Musto and Harvey Fierstein are on the same level as Larry the Cable Guy – it’s tawdry garbage for stupid and anti-intellectual people.
Categorically in other words, “gay subculture” is a gross and lowbrow affectation that is entirely meaningless and that didn’t exist until quite recently. Great men of art and letters who struggled with morbid and/or perverted sexual fascinations weren’t “gay” – they were paraphiliacs. “Gay” is ahistorical.
As I said, the reason why Jews, lapsed Puritans, liberals are singularly obsessed with homosexuality is ideologically grounded; a combination of a desire to distort the culture of patriarchal, traditional institutions coupled with a bizarre view of political and social life that dictates that violence between individual peoples, races, nations and the like has a psychological source relating to repressed sexuality, violent sublimation, and things like that.
It’s an outlandish and cultish pseudo-religious view of the world.
The reason why homosexuality is objectionable, at base, is because its a form of extreme covetousness that arises and becomes pathologically entrenched in social life when humans are removed from natural circumstances to the point that their instincts are irreparably dulled. People who are in despair, who are not tethered to any historical imperative that precedes and supersedes their individual life, and who are no longer capable of approaching the world with psychological “openness” (for lack of a better descriptor) are no longer capable of believing that nature and its processes of labor, birth, sex, disease, death, etc. reveals itself to humans as passive participants. Sex to these people becomes an object of aesthetic contemplation by which they “define” the self, and ceases to be something that is approached with humble reverence.
Alienated within their own lives and not capable of discerning the natural order instinctively, people resort to baseness to alleviate their overwhelming fear of oblivion and life’s end. Concomitant with this, they can no longer apprehend the significance of valued things that exist entirely outside of the self. Thus, the homosexual pursues sex to satisfy the void within himself, while simultaneously coveting and seeking to possess the mysterious and powerful erotic feminine wiles that inspire overwhelming desire in men – a desire so potent it can properly be described as oppressive.
One interesting thing about Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Rutgers in 2007, aside from the histrionic 2 Minute Hate he was availed to, was his response to the heckler who demanded to know how Iran treats “gay” people – The Iranian’s response was, “we do not have this phenomenon.”
Jew media seized on this, alleging that Ahmadinejad was claiming that homosexuality does not occur within Iranian borders – he wasn’t suggesting any such thing. He was pointing out that groups of people identifying socially and politically in terms of paraphilias, and a wider culture claiming that these kinds of things are intrinsically important to social life and ethics is almost bizarre beyond comprehension. Literally nobody in the world thinks in these terms, outside of America and European territories conquered by America and their former colonies.
The interesting thing to me, if we’re talking about the intellectual climate of the 1960s and 1970s, is how boors and mind-enslavers like Peter Drucker came to be accepted as giants in social theory – within the answer to this question is also clear information about how nonsense like “gay” identity came to become an essential element of public discourse and policy in America.
— integrityDon’t you think there’s more to it than the inalienable right to chug cock?
Remember, they started off as despised by society and they’ve continued to march onwards from there to the point that they want to marry, acquire children and be considered as equal to normal, heterosexual couples. We’re talking about more than genital stimulation here.
I don’t really know how “despised” gays have been... they’ve always been among us, and many of them seem to have managed to accumulate a great deal of wealth and power, even in less “enlightened” eras.
The entire neologism of “gay” was once a euphemism... back in the days when things of this sort weren’t openly discussed, the “gay bachelor” was the well-off, care free guy in the neighborhood who had no responsibilities to a family and hence lived a “gay” life.
Perhaps my experience in the world is unique (although I highly doubt it) but I’ve really never been subjected to a voir dire (in the course of a job interview or anywhere else) to determine whether or not I “chug cock” as you put it. I’d posit that well adjusted people don’t spend time speculating about such things.
As per “gay marriage,” I don’t really understand the issue. I always considered marriage to be feature of primordial tradition, and not a function of the state bureaucracy... in other words, I always considered it to me more similar to a baptism than say getting a driver’s license or paying property taxes.
I’ve also never noticed any sort of legal restrictions that preclude gays from associating with each other or enjoying each others’ company... so I suppose I am at a loss as to certain elements within their population harbor a deep seated need to have government employees take notice of their personal affairs.
I’m sure that somebody will weigh in to discuss Lawrence v. Texas in response to this post, but that is really a rather boring point of interest, so I’d just as soon avoid addressing it unless/until somebody else raises it.
Fags doing crazy things in public isn’t some naturally occurring phenomenon. It would be like alcoholics forming committees then hosting parade events where everybody gets shitfaced and throws punches while the local mayor cuts a ribbon and various luminaries sing the praises of being stinking drunk. It’s a wholly government manufactured subculture, and without the existence of a therapeutic managerial state that prioritizes the creation of system loyalists by providing people with pre-fabricated victim identities, you’d never hear about anything related to “gays.”
People don’t have troubles with bizarre things like “gay” exhibitionism in non-Western countries because it simply wouldn’t occur to anyone to facilitate that kind of theater. It’s simply too strange and outside the realm of normal human experience.
Homosexuals are generally undesirable, and homosexuality is a harmful vice, but there wouldn’t really be any need to ferret out and punish homosexuals if the present government didn’t consider part of its charter to destroy culture and substitute actual social and political identities with imagined ones.
Not to sing Gottfried’s praises unduly, but he wrote extensively on this in the book “After Liberalism” and made quite a convincing case.
Perverts like what is available in my opinion – and they rationalize their own pathologies in odd ways, b/c its instinctive for people to do that; even morally corrupt ones.
Everybody likes soft skin and physical vitality. If you’re a compulsive pervert, you’ll mess around with boys because, among other things, its far less risky – Liberal conceptual biases that allege the contrary notwithstanding.
I don’t actually believe “gay” people exist. I think there’s normal people (who control their sexual impulses to live in society) and perverts (the minority that doesn’t).
Fags are like compulsive whoremongers and other deviants – their targets of opportunity are just generally male and their compulsions are more deeply felt, fascinating to them.
No – [Yukio Mishima] was a Japanese author who had homosexual interests. Only debased weirdos define people by their sexual tendencies. You are brilliant at missing the point virtually a 100% of the time – the claim wasn’t that there is a “born on” date for homosexuality like there would be on a can of beer or a food item. What was pointed out was the conceptual bias that colors Western views of sex and eroticism.
“Gay” is a bizarre oppositional subculture, peculiar to liberal Western societies. Nobody else in the world thinks in these terms. Many cultures that tolerate homosexuality actually find the “gay” subculture offensive – if for no other reason than that its patently moronic.
This is what Ahmedinejad was referring to when he said, “we don’t have this [‘gay identity’] phenomenon in Iran.” It’s something that exists in the mind of oversexed, deracinated white people, by and large.
It’s an infantile view of things.
The politicized gays are really just feminized males... and they’re quintessentially lowbrow to boot. I don’t speak of politics IRL unless I’m in very safe environs, but I actually raised this issue with a friend of mine a few weeks ago and she didn’t seem to understand. The notion that “culture,” as you know, involves trivial knowledge of mass-entertainment, clothing styles, and faux gourmet cuisine is incredibly bizarre. It’s tantamount to alleging that people who follow the White Sox and guzzle microbrewed beer are somehow “cultured.” I haven’t yet ascertained why people have internalized this sort of thing, but I think it has to do with the Warhol-ization of art and the transformation of Universities into giant high schools.
Truth be told, I think that the “gay problem” is really a feminist problem... you can “opt out” of Enemy status by becoming a woman. The notion that homosexuals are, to a man, crude facsimiles of females is rather newfangled. Until recently, they were (save for the upper class types) considered to be caustic, often violent, predatory sorts of characters that were prone to criminality... perhaps properly so, but that is open to debate.
Homosexuality isn’t important, and the behaviors that homosexuals engage in hurt themselves and not other people (by and large). If people want to be self-destructive, I don’t care.
Two gays (generally speaking) aren’t going to shank you for your wallet or beat an old lady to death when they are fixing. Gays also aren’t going to form paramilitary bands and terrorize people with random violence.
Homosexuality also isn’t some progressive political tendency... its just a distasteful vice that afflicts some people that has been fetishized by secular-humanists. [...]
I would rather live next door to a law-abiding, racially-aware homosexual than I would some “normal” White liberal.
I’ve met plenty of gays who were racially aware and committed to the right sorts of principles... I wasn’t about to invite them over for beers but I don’t have a problem with people of that sort. [...]
The point is that homosexuality isn’t an important issue. The fact that it is fetishized by the Establishment is just a symptom of overall social decadence, its not a cause.
Homosexuality is a vice... like alcoholism or drug abuse. Sure, it breeds pretty negative things, and yeah, its worthy of chagrin, but its just simply not that important.
I also am not going to pan a guy and advocate that he should be punished just because he has vices. I’d much rather see Ted Kennedy put on a cattle car than Justin Raimondo. [...]
A lot of things aren’t “good"... but once again, its a symptom, not a cause.
Are you going to run out and start taking it in the ass because TV says its a good way to spend your time? Probably not. I’m not either. I really don’t care. In fact, the fetishization of this sort of thing by the ruling class tells me that they are really slipping in a major way and sort of makes me chuckle.
At the end of the day, a handful of fags adopting throwaway kids isn’t going to bring down America. Some mentally retarded Black female who pumps out a litter of 8 represents a far more destructive tendency. Some Mexican donkey-thief who shows up in America with his 18 relatives is another case in point. [...]
Of course, but it’s a more benign symptom than others.
If a patient is hemorrhaging into his brain, the doctor tending to him should not concern himself with the fact that the patient also has a broken toe.
Plus, it’s essentially a bourgeoisie neurosis... it’s posh, deracinated weirdos with dreary lives that lack meaning trying to create some grand narrative out of their glandular impulses.
Given that you are a big fan of Burnham, you appreciate (I’m sure) that the mass media apparatus indulges in artificial value structuring that in many cases does not reflect the preferences of the silent majority.
The real life “Wills and Graces” are in for a rude awakening... I’m young, strong, and pretty well-armed and I know you are as well. Can they say the same thing? The future does not look good for these types... they aren’t adapted for anything, beyond hedonism and languishing in salons.
Conservatives are opposed to sexual licentiousness and are gravely concerned with promoting chaste sexual mores in the interest of perpetuating communitarian modes of association. I think that it makes perfect sense that they would oppose homosexuality.
Personally, I don’t think that gays should be harassed by the public authorities, yet there is something that is rather offensive and narcissistic about the notion that gays are “oppressed” in the Western world.
I was watching an interview with the author of “While Europe Slept” a week or so ago. His name eludes me at the moment, but he is a homosexual activist, a successful author, and is extremely wealthy. He was casually informing the interviewer that he maintains residences in Manhattan as well as Norway and Sweden and in the same breath claiming the he left America because the “Christian Right” had become too powerful and was “oppressing” him.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when a millionaire who jet-sets between Scandinavia and NYC claims that he is being officially oppressed by a bunch of powerless, Southern pentecostals.
What really jumped out at me is that this man genuinely BELIEVES that he is being victimized.
What remains in England’s post-Aristocratic political class are radical Progressives, misanthropic atheists, reconstructed Communists. “Gay rights” is a way of punishing dissenters – it’s wrongheaded to read too much into it. It would be like saying Abe Foxman really really cares about American Negroes in some principled capacity – he’s not just some Machiavellian slob with a convenient agenda.
I recall at my old University library coming across old textbooks from the 1960s (I should try to run down a proper cite, when I have the time) that contemptuously claimed that Hitler was a rumored homosexual... see, those were the days when homosexuals were “bad” and “deviant,” so being a homosexual constituted not only a grave moral frailty, but also was incorporated into the catch-all milieu of general awfulness known as “acting like Hitler.”
Fast forward 30-40 years, and being a homosexual has become an endearing trait... so now we are treated to salacious sorts of stories about Hitler being a brown boy, a uniballer, or a pee-drinker.
Interesting how those things work. When turd munching and pee-drinking become mainstream in a few years, expect the narrative to change into “Hitler was a kiddie-toucher” or perhaps (*gasp) “Hitler secretly smoked cigarettes.”
... writes about how she came to the realization that she was meant to live life as a woman.
What does it mean when people make these kinds of claims? I’m not being facetious. How can organisms be “meant” to be other than what they are? If God is the author of the universe, than the physical and spiritual form of life is ordained by His design and cannot be fundamentally flawed or “incorrect.” If there is no God, matter is merely configured as it is configured by happenstance and selective pressures – matter cannot be configured “incorrectly.”
I don’t understand the claim of the “transgendered” fetishists. Are they weird gnostics of a sort who believe in spirits or genies and some kind of hackneyed substance dualism by which humans are disembodied spirits that are trapped in the “wrong” form?
I believe the “transgender” ideology may be the tipping point, by which System values lose ultimate credibility.
The case for homosexual acceptance is wrong IMO – but its a case that can be made logically and ethically. It simply postulates that sexual behavior is an artifact of whatever idiosyncrasies and desires will most please individual people.
In contrast, “transgenderism” is a bizarre metaphysical and religious claim at base. It suggests that somehow matter is configured “wrongly.” Or that people are animated by some sort of dualistic spirit that is deposited incorrectly in a physical body.
The very definition of “transgendered” identity in other words smacks of insanity and delusion in a way that homosexuality doesn’t.
Pornography is mass-entertainment for mouth breathing rubes. I consider it much like excessive alcohol consumption. Only inferior people who lack intellectual and social intelligence become fixated on pornography and try to transform their homely wife into some “slut” fantasy. These are the same sorts of low-order humans who miss work because they polish off a bottle of Night Train in front of the TV on a Tuesday night. [...]
People who fall into genuine promiscuity and decadence with pornography and the like are not terribly valuable people... there is no need to “show them the light” because they are fundamentally plebeian and not really worthy of concern.
Patriarchy and a legal pornography “industry” of course are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist, and not even Leftists and most mainline feminists really believe they can.
This woman is a fossil, peddling in some asinine synthesis of Victorian reverence for the fairer sex and 1960s platitudes common to especially paranoid sects of bourgeoisie feminism that alleged that women were mired in “slavery” and that pornography was a function of exploitative labor practices rather than a symptom of female sociopathy/sexual cynicism.
Patriarchy looks like what goes on under Sharia: the production of pornography leads to everybody responsible (including the girl) getting dead, to redeem wounded honor. Patriarchy isn’t a circumstance in which pimps and teenaged whores get rich and flaunt the fruits of their antics publicly.
Porno is a means by which men oppress the minds of other (weaker) men. People who don’t understand this fact aren’t in the game. This author is a faggoty lifestyle journalist, parlaying the issue into a personal masochistic fantasy: “Golly! Modern men are such a bunch of mewling cuckolds, these strong womyn who take two in the ass have emasculated us! Let’s hope they let us have our ‘manhood’ back.”
I take exception to the notion that things such as porn, gambling, etc. are “addictive.” An addiction is a chemical dependency... nobody can become chemically dependent upon “White Chicks, Black Sticks” DVDs.
People who watch a lot of porn in my experience are either oversexed, avant-garde types who think that they are defying convention by doing so, or people of low social intelligence with crude ideas about sex.
I don’t have a problem with porno if we are simply talking about depictions of people engaged in the sexual act that is filmed and presented with an eye towards creative eroticism. Unfortunately, most of the genuinely hardcore porn I have seen is really raunchy, debased, sort of disturbing stuff. It’s like WWF wrestling meets the freak-show geek pit. I think people who really obsess over that sort of entertainment had big problems before they began viewing porn... the porn “addiction” is just a symptom.
— Bronze Age PervertThis is a thread to discuss [cuckoldry], the causes of this.
The cause is a psychological syndrome, by which people come to grips with awful circumstances by fetishizing them.
A liberal is somebody who manages his anxiety about the ascendancy of hostile colored races by seeking to identify with them and by creating an ethical/historical narrative of oppression that he purports to be resisting.
A cuckold is a sad male specimen who has no control over his own life and thus can’t demand loyalty and respect from his woman – so he fetishizes her infidelities as a psychological survival mechanism.
Cucks, like liberals, are the lowest form of life on Earth – and both sow the seeds of their own destruction. Therefore, they should be encouraged.
I don’t think polygamy is a moral issue. I’ll stipulate that it creates undesirable social dynamics (domination by a coterie of disproportionately powerful patriarchs, cronyism, abrogation of genetic diversity etc.) but its tough to make the case that its “immoral” for a man to have many wives so long as he is capable of providing for them and their children. I can also envision extreme circumstances in which polygamy might be necessary to perpetuate the natality of a community (mass death of menfolk in war, etc.).
Truth be told, while I agree with the reasoning behind voiding polygamy on public policy grounds, I don’t think its a terribly dangerous tendency. It’s not as if men would be taking multiple wives en masse like a bunch of Arabian sultans if the ban were lifted tomorrow.
Il Ragno’s critique has more than a kernel of truth, and its well-written, but let’s be honest here: Congruent with the Spider’s observation that perpetual adolescence is the default setting, its become more (not less) incumbent upon thinking people to craft some sort of mythology to invigorate the dreary, banalities of life with some sort of overarching purpose. Fade/Scimitar takes the wrong tack... he is probably a narcissist in search of an audience so he gives lip service to dead-end pablum and spends countless hours aiming to substantiate it, but let’s all look in the mirror: I’m a would be ‘whiz kid’ who got to go to law school and still fucked up so I try to mythify things like hitting the weights and self-destructivist performance enhancement and Fascist romanticism. I guess other guys play ‘Halo’, nail club sluts, or pretend like the pedestrian tasks they are charged with managing at the office are actually important or weighty. I’m a bit drunk so I may not be expressing myself adequately, but we should all take a long, hard look at ourselves and our motives before we pile-on Fade because it makes us feel less dysfunctional.
— dudeThis is an assertion that the historical record shows to be untrue: “Feminism by definition is an identity-signifier of alienated people. Things like this develop in liberal societies that have endured a deterioration of the social fabric over many generations.” A person with real knowledge of modern history, especially of the non-Western world will know right away you’re out of your depth. And that’s setting aside the objection that a feminist would not describe women as ‘alienated.’ Clearly you are unfamiliar with what feminism is about. That’s ok, I guess, although you shouldn’t be pontificating about what “feminism is by definition” since you don’t know what it is by definition.
People projecting a private, personal identity onto the world (extricated from any communitarian significance) itself is evidence of alienation. It’s at odds with any cultural or religious or historical imperative. It’s a way of “personalizing” events and occurrences that is basically egocentric. It’s an imagined identity. It’s not possible for half the population of the planet to share interests, culture, religion, political ambitions, and preferences in common. It’s lowest-common-denominator kind of infantilization of discourse, was the point I was raising.
Third, your definitions are very odd: political questions as friend/enemy and feminism (I think you mean feminist) as an identity in liberal society. Political questions are not about friend/enemy. They are about power. If you wanted to convince the reader of your definitions, you’d have to make an argument for them, as they are not standard. (The latter is standard only among readers of the Phora.)
It’s not odd. Politics is a sphere of human activity – as is commerce, as is religion. The essence of politics is war and peace, as the essence of religion is ethics and contemplation and the essence of commerce is commodities and production. The primary form of each, respectively, is the State, churches, and markets. Thus, the meaningful criteria in the political sphere is “enemy” and “friend.” Politics isn’t womens’ entertainment, or election rituals, or celebrity personality cults. Whatever else can be said of him, and he’s a deplorable individual, William Kristol actually made this point some years ago and it was well taken – he suggested that American politicians (particularly in the Executive branch but not exclusively) as well as their partisan supporters are basically disengaged from the reality of politics and not particularly up to the task of managing affairs in a way befitting a world power. We can tell this because they do things like hosting endless conversations on things like pharmaceutical prescriptions for elderly people and sexual paraphilias. This would be unthinkable to the learned men of any great power of the past – and it will appear ridiculous to historians of the future. America isn’t Athens or Rome – or Prussia, for that matter. It’s some kind of convention of intellectually sedated children.
“Asian-American” is a meaningless term as it is used by the author of the op-ed. He apparently considers SubCons like Jindal, Korean immigrants, the children of Viet boat people, Jap millionaires, and Filipinos in public housing in Honolulu to all be part of the same voting demographic. It’s the same variety of Doublethink that suggests that George Zimmerman, George W. Bush, and Mark Zuckerberg are members of the same ethnic group because none of them are descended from Bantus.
The reason people don’t vote for the GOP has less to do with it positioning itself as a “white party” (interestingly, when the GOP unabashedly DID fashion itself in public discourse as such it actually won elections – Buchanan’s most recent book provides a rather fascinating treatment of this phenomenon) than it does with the fact that the GOP has no actual platform other than unconditional support for Israel and Jewish interests by way of waging aggressive wars, sustaining a parasitic/cronyist Defense industry caste that has been obsolete since the capitulation of the Soviet Union, and incoherent objections to welfare state initiatives – i.e. railing against the implementation of a bloated, state-capitalist insurance company bailout (Obamacare) that was originally conceived by their own party hacks in the 1990s (Bob Dole first among them) on grounds that it is “socialistic.”
Nobody actually gives a fuck about the victimology propaganda narrative of “gays, women, and minorities” other than reconstructed Jewish communists, a disengaged, culturally senile minority of hyper-privileged whites (yes – ‘white privilege’ does exist – overeducated, overpaid, parasitic white liberals are its beneficiaries) and ignorant and easily mislead blacks and browns who can be grievance-motivated into showing up at the polls every election cycle in a manner similar to how simpletons in a pro-wrestling or carnival geek show audience can be moved to emotional delight or fury by smoke, mirrors, flash pyrotechnics, and the absurd monologues of a traveling barker.
If ever something was/is certain, its that the Uighur immigrant working in the sight acquisition and compliance division of the ShitTech telecom firm cares about nothing less than what John Boehner and Ted Cruz are lisping about this week and how the GOP “feels about womyn and minorities.”
Egalitarians are just a mirror image of libertarians – they’re intellectually and morally stunted, so they think that arbitrary and debased criteria like “equal dignity” are fundamentally important, just like the libertarian Jew apologist values “productivity” and has no concept of virtue.
You detect this kind of cargo-cult ethical scheme in a lot of immigrants – its entirely lost on them that men like Cromwell, Washington, Adams, Hamilton weren’t “white man who make lots money” – the White world isn’t a pharisee congress or a Chink bazaar, thankfully.
The Islamic revolt against the world society is premised on a radical commitment to a theological imperative that rejects in absolute terms the moral claims of the American/Jewish world state. It’s a worldview that rejects the claim that man has no essential nature that precedes worldly existence, that all peoples should enjoy formal equality regardless of their confessional orientation, lineage, or moral integrity, that the natural polarity between the sexes and the transcendental significance of sex itself is illegitimate, that man is essentially a highly developed animal, that there is no teleological imperative to human life other than to satiate hedonistic impulses and participate in commerce, that history is a developmental cycle of progress and that conditioning society’s members for death by way of theological learning is monstrous, and that reality should only be approached instantaneously by self-interested and atomized individuals; eschewing the possibility of other dimensions of life of a contemplative nature.
The real question is why self-declared “right wingers” are Islamophobic – the objection to Islam is a liberal one, framed by a fundamentally Jewish conceptual horizon. It’s not merely a polemical quirk that the American right calls Moslem partisans “fascists” – they think in essentially Communistic terms. Resistance to their ambitions is conflated with things they have mythified as apocalyptic evils. “Islamofascists” stand in for Adolf Hitler, for Haman, for the Pharaoh. This is all very discernible.
I’m sympathetic to Moslems because they’re friends, and the people who are making war on them are enemies of not just my faith and my race but are enemies of all the cultures on the planet that have an impulse towards continued historical existence.
I would like to live in a society where I can enjoy community with my fellows... community that is congruent with (lineal) historical, cultural, and memorial experiences that allow for some sort of basic intimacy and consensus between persons. In my case, I’m an old American ‘native’ by heritage... German/Anglo-Saxon Protestant and Huguenot. I find Middle Eastern societies, by and large, to be oriental, foreign, and in many respects atavistic... but then again, I am neither a Semite nor a Persian, Kurd, or Pashtun. I think it is quite evident that there is a certain immutability to the courses and events of political-social occurrences in different cultures and countries. Certainly, these phenomena are not monadic and rigidly autochthonic, yet at the same time, its fatuous to suggest that they are malleable quantities that can be permanently altered and manipulated by policy planners in the West.
With respect to your initial objections to political-Islam, I think that the fundamental egalitarianism that is inherent in many of these tendencies combined with religio-social precepts that grant superior title to Tradition over political-economy appeals to many persons... this is understandable and the latter is actually quite laudable.
Western scholars as diverse as James Burnham, C. Wright Mills, Carl Schmitt, Edmund Burke, Joseph Schumpter, Robert Bellah, (most recently) Robert Putnam, and Samuel Huntington have consistently warned of the caustic effects of commodity-driven political cultures and the attendant social engineering of the therapeutic managerial state. I think that the alienation, lack of intimacy, absence of genuine community, and the basic commodification of private and public human affairs that comes to characterize not only business and political affairs but also social interaction between individual persons in political-capitalist states overtime eschews fundamental meaning from, and value for, human life.
Fortunately or unfortunately (depending upon ones’ ideological, moral and political preferences and sympathies) Muslim states have been failed by traditional (in the political sense of the term) solutions to these very real, fundamental exigencies. Pan-Arabism resulted in systemic corruption, oppression, and Oriental despotism of the highest order... ‘Democracy’ as imposed by rifles, tanks and helicopter gunships represents little more than managerial coercion. It should come as no surprise that the Muslims have opted to pursue genuine progress and autonomy under the rubric of clerical-ecclesiastical models of order... after all, Islam did in fact elevate the various races of the Middle East from a state of total backwardness towards enduring Imperium.
People who identify Liberalism/Political Capitalism and/or Zionism as an enemy naturally sympathize with elements that violently oppose these tendencies... I don’t think that this is mysterious. Realistically, White Nationalists, Neo-Nazis, paleo-Communists and assorted other fringe political hobbyists are indulging very juvenile intellectual vagaries when they pretend as if the great, violent, industrial age ideologies can somehow be necromanced and employed to battle the excesses of the New World Order. Obviously, that is pure fantasy. Political Islam, on the other hand, is a progressive, well-funded, well-armed insurgency movement that (apparently) enjoys global reach.
I think a more useful question would be posed to the anti-Muslim posters... specifically, why they harbor such profound enmity towards Muslim persons. WNs shouldn’t have a dog in the fight as, according to their own ideological strictures, we have been under siege by international Jewry since May, 1945 and are currently hemorrhaging blood and treasure in the Near East at the behest of Jewish capital. Conservatives should oppose Islamophobia for more nuanced reasons: on this point I defer to James Burnham and Edmund Burke. It’s pretty clear that the Liberal eschaton is rooted in something deeper than ecumenical humanism... its rooted in ahistorical claims about human nature and the meaning of culture and (ultimately) race. In other words, Liberals fervently believe that non-White, non-Western peoples can be “perfected” and made to behave themselves if their “bad” institutions and traditions are replaced by “good” ones and if some sort of doctrinaire educational scheme is made available to them. Of course, if you’re actually a conservative (meaning that you favor Burke over Kristol and Krauthammer and you actually have roots in this country that precede 1912 or so), you’ll realize that the Liberal theology of politics is as caustic to tradition and ordered liberty as Marxism is.
Then again, if you believe that Muslims are savages and that they should be conquered/destroyed/exterminated I think that is an extraordinarily difficult claim to substantiate, both ethically and historically. I often hear from people that Muslims are somehow extraordinary sanguinary, even by Third World standards and I think its a curious suggestion. Violence, you see, is a strange political quantity... the Jacobins (who coincidentally invented terrorism) liked to deify the wretched and the poor because congruent with their own childish myths about the soul of man, the masses who wallowed in a state closer “to nature” were not corrupted by the avarice and cruelty of wealth and modernity. The Jacobins however did not choose to submit to their own poetic intuition when they were perpetuating mass murder against their own countrymen. Similarly, Lincoln and his sociopathic henchmen undertook an unprecedented campaign of wanton murder, destruction, and rapine in the American south, all the while assured of their own righteousness in opposing the ‘peculiar institution’. In the twentieth century, America destroyed Japan with nuclear fire and massacred our own people on the Old Continent in the interest of “defending liberty,” as if liberties were something that the Federal regime in Washington were endowed with the authority to grant.
That brings us to the present day, Weikel... you’re calling for the mass murder of oriental tribes on the other side of the world who are already dying by the thousands every year under American bombs and before American bullets... I think the burden is on you to explain your position, not vice versa.
There’s a basic misunderstanding here relating to the fact that American political thought and theory defines itself (and always has) in opposition to European political and social values.
If you want a very, very abrogated example (that belongs to a peculiar epoch of history) read Werner Sombart on why socialism cannot exist in America.
The entire theory of National Socialism was premised on the idea(s) that 1) democracy represents a deterioration of cultural form, and that this is historically catastrophic both in political terms and in the fact that it prevents the maintenance and further production of European culture; 2) that Socialism is an inevitable corrective historical development, and that it must be properly tailored and implemented to repair (rather than further harm) the social fabric that developed during the most creative phase of European history (medieval/Gothic period) and that is being destroyed by Capitalism and its antithesis (Bolshevism); and that 3) individual lives and ambitions therein must be subjugated to the common good of the race/culture in order to be fulfilled within nature – the latter point is often cast as “Darwinist” but its actually Aristotelean, as Heidegger was keen to point out.
If people don’t recognize how this is not reconcilable with the American notion of every White man being a member of a community of individual equals whose “freedom” is contingent on his ability to pursue private profit and enrichment, than they’re really somewhat historically illiterate.
People like Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House thought the Ku Klux Klan revival was a pretty great thing – simultaneously, they thought the German/Prussian state and the Hapsburg Empire were evil and should be destroyed lest “freedom” be strangled by tyranny. This wasn’t at all inconsistent – its the American view, in a nutshell. Being a “White Nationalist” in a lot of ways puts one at odds with Nazism – then as now, hobbyist morons who dress up like Stormtroopers to shock people notwithstanding. [...]
National Socialism made perfect sense within the European (and specifically German and formerly Hapsburg) cultural milieu. It wasn’t a conspiracy of criminals or the product of the mental vagaries of madmen.
The important thing here is that America’s anti-European sentiment can’t really be overstated as a formative part of America’s core identity. Sure, there were White (in the aristocratic and Westphalian sense) elements in America that viewed themselves and the country (respectively) as part of the West in the same sense Europeans did but they were always the minority.
People either instinctively understand America or they don’t – White Nationalism or White Supremacy in America is basically a kind of American Jacobinism – its not an organic nationalism or an anti-modernist tendency that is primarily concerned with culture. [...]
If you believe that “racial survival” is some end in itself, you’re basically a Jew of the first degree.
This is what underlies a lot of “White Nationalism” – it’s materialistic envycrats who don’t care about history or religion or natural law and morals, they just don’t like other peoples who are beating them in the race to be king of Gomorrah.
I don’t want to be a Jew, sorry.
Al Qaeda had no “demands.”
Al Qaeda knew that if they attacked the US, the regime would go berserk, occupy the Middle East, embolden Israel and prompt Arab unity.
As it stands, the Bush admin has been discredited, the US is being bled in a costly and fruitless occupation, Hamas controls the Arab street, and American public opinion has turned against the Beltway’s mideast policy. 9/11 = 100% success.
Call me crazy, but I have always been of the belief that if America insists on occupying Arab lands and enforcing Jewish apartheid... then maybe, just maybe it would be a good idea to not allow unrestricted Muslim immigration into the United States.
But then again, you believe that 9/11 happened because Osama Bin Laden was in his outer space fortress one day and he heard about the Bill of Rights, went berserk, and proclaimed “I will destroy freedom!”
Muslim populations are too diverse to generalize about. Some are civilized, some are half civilized, and some are savages. Talking about the character of Muslims qua Muslims is like talking about the character of “Christians.” It’s essentially meaningless. Talking about Bosniaks as if they are the same as Somalis is like discussing Negro Baptists as if they are the same as Italian Catholics.
The problems that you and your countryman Thaumiel are forced to deal with have a lot to do with the caustic secondary effects of importing wage laborers who are neither assimilable nor educable on account of immutable characteristics... it has precious little to do with their (largely nominal and Laodicean) commitment to Islam.
Of course, Religion is merely a font of politics, and hence it has grave political implications, but as I have noted before, I am reluctant to fall into the trap of conflating base criminality and the caustic effects of immigration with politics. In other words, when you tell me that the unwashed, brown masses that are laying siege to London are acting in accordance with the precepts of Islam, you’re attributing political motivations to their conduct and in a way, you’re inadvertently dignifying it in the same way you would national political behavior by a state actor. The issue we are discussing here, however, has nothing to do with anything of the sort. What we’re talking about is the secondary effects of the perverted internal logic of Liberalism writ large, exacerbated by the collective apathy of an increasingly unwilling, cynical, and fainthearted native population that refuses to demand and/or implement remedial measures.
As you know, Revolutionary activity against a ruling Government is easily reconciled by Shia faithful because according to their teachings, any state that is not ruled by the descendants of ’Ali is, on its face, illegitimate. This account of the “right of Revolution” encompasses the “Imamite” timeframe: that being the date of the final occultation of the 12th Imam (approx. 941) to the future date of the emergence of the hidden Imam from occultation.
The case of Sunni radicalism is quite different, and it required Qutb to dig far and wide for scriptural and clerical authority to substantiate his call to arms in the service of Revolution against apostate authority. Qutb, consistent with prevailing Sunni scholarship and teaching, rejected the Imamite historical narrative in favor of a “normal” timeframe that begins with the onset of Islam and follows a linear path to the “end of days.” More significantly, Sunni Islam teaches that an existing Muslim regime is inherently legitimate as long as the ruler (Caliph) does not publicly reject Islam by repudiating its credo (known as Shahadatyn). Of course, publicly repudiating Shahadatyn seems an incredibly unlikely event for any ruler to indulge in who hopes to keep his head attached to his shoulders. Historically, even a “bad” Muslim ruler who defiles Islamic principles and flaunts his apostasy when it suits him is considered preferable to the alternative (presumably, chaos) according to Sunni thought. Hence, believers have no sanctioned right to rebel against the Caliphs.
The important issue to address with respect to Qutb’s political-historical disposition (and Al Qaeda’s, if we agree that AQ is the ideological heir to the Muslim brotherhood) does not involve a claim that “Fascism can only be Western"... the issue was/is the fact that Qutb considered ethnic-nationalism, pan-Arabism, and Statism to represent an apostate, Western model of order that artificially aligns persons based on the arbitrary criteria of linguistic competence. At base, political-Islam is fundamentally egalitarian... its ideological appeal flows in large part from the fact that it doesn’t distinguish between Muslims on grounds of immutable characteristics. This is consistent with Islamic theology, in that Islam is understood by the faithful to represent the final perfection of the Abrahamic covenant, which is available to all people who accept the grace of God. There can be few things more offensive to a truly radical, devout Muslim than a National state that discriminates against faithful Muslims from without in favor of apostate Arabs within for no other reason than that the latter are Arab by accident of birth.
The implications of this vis-à-vis Fascism are obvious: The core tenet of Fascism can be understood as the defense of the National community... the core tenet of Sunni political-Islam can be understood as the liberation of all Muslim peoples from apostate authority, regardless of race or national origin, by the implementation of Shari’a Law. Once again, political-Islam and Fascism are mutually exclusive, and fundamentally irreconcilable. [...]
Fascism exalts the blood community, but it is fundamentally Revolutionary. The glorification of the past in Fascist thought dovetails with its Romantic tendencies, especially with respect to the Fascist account of violence. I believe this is the significance of Sorel: Fascists don’t kill or die for merely pragmatic reasons... they do so for aesthetic reasons. Violence is redemptive and facilitates racial palingenesis, in other words.
It isn’t just Moslems who live their lives in this way – its historically normative in virtually every human society for men to primarily bond with other men and women to primarily bond with other women. People until recently lived in communitarian circumstances, and they remained tethered to the land (or in the case of pastoralists, the tribe) for generations. Bonds between people were very, very strong. Men and women came together for a discrete purpose, and their union was just one of many dimensions of communitarian life.
One reason Westerners are neurotic and crazy is that they have this idea that everyone should live atomized lives, but should seek out a spouse to “complete” them who will act as their friend, provide them with social support, and basically take the place of a community. This is not something that is realizable, and its not the way men and women naturally interact.
I’d say the primary dysfunctional aspect to Muslim societies is that they place undue emphasis on authority for its own sake, not that they segregate the sexes. Sex segregation is normal – the West is abnormal for doing away with it.
All Bin Laden has done with his life is give up the life of a billionaire playboy in order to fight the Red Army in Afghanistan, dedicate himself to building a revolutionary coterie of Islamists, carry out the most daring and infamous unconventional attack against a great power since Guy Fawkes foiled plot, become the most wanted man on planet Earth, and manage to evade high-tech death squads and survive in the wake of a $25 million bounty on his head.
He’s not a world-class badass like some “potent,” manly, hack White House staffer who spends his days eating cheese danishes and collecting money for nothing, and his nights molesting 17 year old interns and downing overpriced, faggoty, apple martinis in Beltway night spots.
The important issue to address with respect to Qutb’s political-historical disposition (and Al Qaeda’s, if we agree that AQ is the ideological heir to the Muslim brotherhood) does not involve a claim that “Fascism can only be Western"... the issue was/is the fact that Qutb considered ethnic-nationalism, pan-Arabism, and Statism to represent an apostate, Western model of order that artificially aligns persons based on the arbitrary criteria of linguistic competence. At base, political-Islam is fundamentally egalitarian... its ideological appeal flows in large part from the fact that it doesn’t distinguish between Muslims on grounds of immutable characteristics. This is consistent with Islamic theology, in that Islam is understood by the faithful to represent the final perfection of the Abrahamic covenant, which is available to all people who accept the grace of God. There can be few things more offensive to a truly radical, devout Muslim than a National state that discriminates against faithful Muslims from without in favor of apostate Arabs within for no other reason than that the latter are Arab by accident of birth.
The implications of this vis-à-vis Fascism are obvious: The core tenet of Fascism can be understood as the defense of the National community... the core tenet of Sunni political-Islam can be understood as the liberation of all Muslim peoples from apostate authority, regardless of race or national origin, by the implementation of Shari’a Law. Once again, political-Islam and Fascism are mutually exclusive, and fundamentally irreconcilable.
I think the Battle of Jaji speaks for itself – Salafi fighters stood and faced down the combined arms of the Soviet Army and the zenith of its power. There’s a monumental significance here – and a historical lesson.
Men animated by an impulse to Jihad are uniquely dangerous – John Keegan made that point, many years ago, about the Jacobin legions. It’s never been satisfactorily explained why they were so difficult to defeat in combat, especially when considering these men were not professional soldiers.
If you view Jihad – and any radical theological impulse – as a mental epidemic of sorts that sustains itself by its own conceptual inertia, it takes on a unique font. It’s not an ordinary political movement.
Why the US supports these elements against Russian proxies is complicated – but its also a sign of weakness. It means America is losing the ability to define the political horizons of Moslem people on the ground. But this is likely a topic for another thread.
Shiism – as a “protest” sect, as a standard bearer of the ‘Third Position’ (i.e Foucault’s description of the 1979 Revolution), the mystique of Iran to racialists and other Romantics seems to combine to form a basic sympathy for B’athism – at least as its practiced by the Assad clan.
This is somewhat misplaced for a number of reasons – both ethical and practical. The Syrian B’ath regime is slated for the same type of extinction as were the Eastern Bloc garrison states; and even if it were not, the regime itself is essentially an ideological cloak for an Alawite minority dictatorship.
Hopefully, conditions will emerge by which Takfiri extremists and murderers no longer hold sway over minds and territory, but overall, the “Sunni Awakening” and the ascendancy of Salafi armed groups in states formerly tyrannized by “socialist” dictatorships is an exciting and laudable development, and in the long term it will be a contributing factor to the final death of the criminal Jewish racial state of Israel.
Not really. Muslims in Europe are ghettoized and prohibited from observing their faith, other than in a recreational, nominal capacity. In other words, they are availed to apostate laws that not only Constitutionally preclude them from administering justice through Sharia, they are also subjected to a mass media that regularly mocks their ways, mores, traditions, and scriptural precepts by engaging in inflammatory conduct like disseminating mocking, craven, images of their prophet. Under the strain of these stressors (and others) the Muslims revolted against their hosts... hosts that claim to “tolerate” all manner of custom and diversity yet who literally imprison people for uttering or publishing heretical statements about Jewish religious myths.
Apparently, mocking Islam is fair game in “tolerant” Western societies but criticizing or mocking the strictures of Holocaust Judaism and secular Humanism is considered a dangerous heresy and is punished with incarceration
— MikeMike Wrote:After you answer that, explain to me exactly what Iran has done to us to justify going to war.
They aren’t sensitive about the Holocaust
They complained when the USA assisted Iraq in using WMD against them
They don’t adequately fund girls’ soccer teams
They don’t fund gay pride parades
They are somehow connected to turr because they’re Muslim and they fervently object to Israeli apartheid
Let’s Roll.
Nobody on Earth other than America – and America’s client states – claims that sexual deviancy is anything other than sexual deviancy. America has made an official policy of promoting sexual perversion in foreign societies as a modality of cultural aggression and psychological warfare.
Thus, I don’t take it seriously when pundits who are loyal to a culture/regime that actively encourages homosexuality and declares that men engaged in sodomy are practicing a form of “marriage” turn around and suggest that Moslems are “perverts.”
It’s a specious claim anyway, even if America were not abjectly morally bankrupt. Cultural pederasty and the like has a lot to do with Pashtunwali and really nothing to do with Islam – as does female circumcision and a host of other practices/intensification rites that are questionable at best and deplorable at worst.
Claiming that Pashtuns and others who live by tribal codes engage in pederasty because they are (in many cases) nominally Muslim is like saying that domestic violence is a problem in Mexico or that Salvadorian youth tattoo their faces and join violent gangs because they’re “Catholic’.’ [...]
Indeed he did – and this is important, but not for the reasons alleged by Islamophobes and others.
If you’re a good Sunni, you put a premium historical and theological emphasis on the Battle of the Camel and the events leading up to it, and you hold Aisha in extraordinary esteem as a pious believer. Concomitant with that, you believe that Aisha’s piety stemmed in part from her divine ordination as Mohammad’s only virgin bride – a bride whose claim of chastity was unimpeachable due to her tender age, an age that guaranteed she’d not been corrupted sexually or morally and that demonstrates a Providential design for her life as no normal child would have the precocious awareness of man’s affairs and God’s plan as she did.
People looking at the story of Aisha as involving “pedophilia” would be like somebody suggesting that the idea of immaculate conception means that Christ was a test tube baby.
— PetrThomas goes further than just acknowledging Islam to be a “scourge of God” (which indeed is not a very controversial position). He outright admires it.
It’s not clear why Islam isn’t admirable – Mohammad was really without equal as a warlord. This shouldn’t be lost on people who study history.
There is nothing good or admirable about Islam in itself. Whatever positive traits it possesses, it has clumsily stolen or plagiarized from elsewhere, mainly from Christianity.
Western Christians, with the exception of a dispossessed pious minority, are presently doing one of two things: 1) accepting Jewish rule and abandoning their duty as Church Militant; 2) Openly promoting apostasy and the implementation of oblique but highly aggressive modes of Communism, in the form of “gay marriage,” usury, feminism, miscegenation, and deracinated formlessness.
Moslems are presently killing Jews, Liberals, and Communists in accordance with Divine command.
It’s pretty clear who is worthy of condemnation here.
‘God’s Warriors’ with that Amanpour (sp?) woman is what I believe you are referring to.
I did not catch the whole program, but something that is interesting is the superficial and frankly inadequate critique that MSM volleys against Traditionalist religious tendencies. What I mean by that is Amanpour and her contemporaries never attack political-Islam or Traditional Christianity by positing the claim of “(x) is not true, and hence it is unjust and inequitable.” Instead, they allege that “Proponents of (x) wish to force others to accept the truth of (x) and thereby deny to persons the fundamental right to express their own personal, hedonistic preferences.”
In other words, MSM misstates the goals, values, principles, and world-historical origins of political-Islam specifically and faith-based militancy generally by positing that these tendencies are ‘dangerous’ because they restrict consumer choice.
The current system has done a marvelous job of siphoning off the Muslims with any brainpower and making them fanatical defenders and proponents of the system rather than leaders of the jihad to destroy it.
I believe that immigrants generally are low-quality individuals – and that’s why they essentially flee from their home and country/culture of origin. This is one reason why the “nation of immigrants” Treason Lobby/Cultural Marxist propaganda never really made any sense. With some obvious exceptions – people who fled Communist tyranny, people leaving truly failed states within which basic survival is a challenge, etc. – people who simply up and bug out of their homeland never to return are losers or anti-social elements.
If you’re a really smart and really industrious young Arab guy, in possession of natural charisma and the like you actually stand to become ‘successful’ in your country of origin, in a ‘big fish in small pond’ sort of way. I don’t buy it that the Syrian or Algerian guy who could have a couple of wives and the respect of his neighbors as some local man of relative esteem would simply decide that he wants no part of this simple (but primitively rewarding) life, and instead desperately wishes to live in a totally alien culture whose values are splendidly opposed to his own so that he can work some shit job as a waiter or at best some low-rent IT firm employee charged with fixing the 1990s computers used by the local EU bureaucracy.
IOW, there probably isn’t a population of non-fucked up, squared away, reasonably smart Moslem male immigrants who would constitute the natural leadership or officer/NCO class of a burgeoning Salafi insurgency in Europe.
What is idiotic is for Nationalists to attack Muslims at the behest of Liberals.
Those White kids and those Arab kids better keep killing each other off, otherwise, the Bruce Bawers and the Pim Fortuyns of the EU states won’t be able to sustain their luxurious, champagne and orgy, jet-set existence.
Smash Islam! Make Europe safe for the Dutch pedophile party!
— neo-niccoloThe mistake you make is in assuming that it’s done at the “behest of liberals.” That certainly isn’t the case in many places where liberals are mohammedanphilic.
Au contraire. Islamophobia is quintessentially Liberal. It’s rooted in fear and loathing of Patriarchy and Traditional conceptions of Justice. The EU is at war with their Muslim charges because the latter refuses to be deculturated.
— neo-niccoloThis is exemplary binary thinking whereby opposing one means supporting the other de facto. A pure fallacy, Thomas.
I don’t think that Nationalists should defend regimes that consider them to be the Enemy. Frankly, its a rather ludicrous proposition to suggest that they should.
— neo-niccoloFirst of all, there’s no such thing as “Islamophobia.” Second of all, open a history book to learn about attitudes towards Mohammedanism from the moment Mohammed crawled out of the desert. Speaking of irony.
Islamophobia is an irrational hatred of Muslim persons, rooted in ahistorical paranoia and Liberal intolerance. Islamophobes tend to coin asinine floating signifiers like “Islamofascism” and “Mohammedanism” in describing Islam and its adherents.
— neo-niccoloWas the Pope’s proclamation that Mohammed was the “AntiChrist” quintessentially liberal?
Please Thomas, save that nonsense for idiotic Americans.
The Pope is a political actor... I would imagine that his statement was contextually expedient and helped motivate warriors to go meet the Saracens in combat. Hardly a sound basis for Politics at this moment.
— neo-niccoloWhether or not European liberals like or dislike Mohammedanism bares no factor on Europe’s traditional antipathy towards Mohammedanism.
What traditional antipathy? The caliphs have been almost exclusively Laodicean, from the Umyyads to the Ottomans, and the Europeans have had amicable dealings with Muslims for centuries. The wars between the West and the Caliphs were anomalies, temporally speaking.
I think you should also consider the fact that those awful “Mohammedans” allied with your tribe during the Homeland War when your Serbian Christian brothers were busy trying to cleanse the Balkans of your fellows.
— neo-niccoloBut Mohammedanism has been shown throughout history to be the enemy of Christendom i.e. The West.
How? The Europeans fought one another with far more regularity (and bloodthirsty fervor) than they did the Muslim kingdoms. Are you holding a grudge over from Hattin? Perhaps the fall of Byzantium tears at your soul for some inexplicable reason? How does simple power politics (resulting in occasional military conflict) equate to permanent Enemy status in your eyes?
— neo-niccoloTo suggest that opposing Mohammedanism means one makes cause with liberalism is like suggesting that opposing rape makes one a liberal because they too oppose rape.
I accept the sectarian objection to Islam... I do not accept the Liberal objection... and it is the latter (coupled with Zionist racial hatred) which has ignited the current conflagration.
— neo-niccoloYou’re limiting your definition to the current crop following the neo-conservative model.
I’m responding to your characterizations. It’s not honorable to defame Muslims as “Mohammedans"... the only people I usually encounter who choose to do so are Zionists and their neo-Lib/NeoCon cronies. Listening to polemic that pokes mean-spirited fun at, or otherwise maligns, civilized, Traditional peoples leaves a bad taste in my mouth and grates on my sensibilities. It’s only a few clicks away from clamoring in favor of “nuking the A-rabs” because they don’t subsidize girls soccer teams.
— neo-niccoloYou’re excluding the historical antipathy to Mohammedanism by traditional Europeans (amongst others) who cannot in any way be considered “liberals.”
You’re talking about power politics. Laodicean Caliphs waging war with (nominally) Christian lords over disputed land masses doesn’t represent a grand clash of civilizations between pious warriors of God... it represents a simple economy of violence between military actors in proximity to one another. Obviously, Race and Faith have a bearing on all of this but such things are simply ubiquitous political fonts that are not unique in scope and character to Christian-Muslim relations.
If you want for me to stipulate that Islam is the Traditional Foe of Aryan civilization or something of that sort, you are only going to come to grief, as that’s ahistorical and absurd.
— neo-niccoloI suggest you brush up on your history. The wars in the Iberian peninsula was low-level but constant, as were the wars against the Ottomans.
Of course. Politics as usual between kings under the Pope’s patronage and greedy, apostate Caliphs. Hardly a “Holy War” of epic proportions. I’m reluctant to cite Toynbee as learned authority, but his account of these things was very timely and insightful... his “History of Civilization” volumes are a splendid antidote to Huntington-esque, pop-history which posits that the battles against the Ottomans involved an effort by the Turks to impose Sharia Law on the Old Continent. Perhaps you should brush up your knowledge on this matter.
— neo-niccoloThe notion of “amicability” is sheer nonsense. Moments of peace resulted only from the sides tiring themselves out and waiting for more opportune moments to continue the struggle.
No, it isn’t. The notion that Europe has been involved in a life and Death struggle with Islam for 1200 years is sheer nonsense. [...]
— lovebotWhen did “Mohammedan” become an un-PC term?
I don’t object to it because its “un-PC"... I object to it because its inaccurate. You don’t refer to Catholics as “St. Paulians” and Jews as “Mosesians,” do you?
— neo-niccoloneo-niccolo Wrote:Civilizations rest on thoughts and ideas. Islam represents a civilization that has always been in conflict with Christendom (or “The West” if you prefer).
This notion that the past 1400 years of world-history has been characterized by an unabated, bloody, “clash of civilizations” between Christendom and the Islamic world is one of the more peculiar (and counterfactual) claims presented by NeoCon revisionists.
The Muslim caliphs (as far back as Medieval antiquity) were Laodicean almost without exception, and this issue (among other things) bolstered the sectarian schism between Sunni and Shia theological-political tendencies. Of course, this trend continues today in every Islamic country other than Iran which was, of course, founded by a bloody revolution/revolt against the “normal” politics of the Middle East.
I suppose some people with a passion for nostalgia might claim that the late Ottoman Empire (in collusion with the slavering Hun) represented some sort of barbaric threat to the Western world, but the Germans and the Austro-Hungarians seemed to disagree... and frankly, that sort of rhetoric is about 90 years out of date, even if it weren’t completely fatuous to begin with.
It’s worth noting that Sayyid Qutb seemed to think that Dar Al Islam had been irreparably apostate for centuries, and in all honesty, he was correct. His ideological heirs (not Sultans, Laodicean royals, or Ottoman marmalukes) are the men who are leading the Quixotic struggle against what they perceive as Anglo-Zionist aggression.
Aside from all of that, what is Griffin trying to accomplish? He doesn’t seem to realize that signing on with “Islamofascism Awareness” equates to a policy platform of “We need to ‘free’ Muslim states by force,” not “we need to deport all of those troublesome Pakis from the United Kingdom.” As I said, a comedy of errors.
The War effort is premised on neo-lib notions of Whiggish historicism. It’s not rooted in a commitment to keeping “bad” Muslims out of Western lands. In other words, its premised on the ideological fiction that Muslims are “just like us,” they simply need to be taught about the wonderful merits of liberalism and provided with fast-food, unresponsive parliamentarianism, and porn DVDs. Griffin is basically advocating against his platform here... that being the organic, “blood and soil” concept of Nation as sacrosanct.
Edit: I’ll also add that last time I checked, Yankee public opinion doesn’t have a great deal of bearing on Downing Street’s immigration policy.
— deleteGriffin is not in the USA to do anything meaningful, except create attention in Britain to the fact that Muslims are a threat to the British way of life, and just as important, to make the Muslims understands that it is in reality is a war against Islam that they are trying to instigate.
Yes, but that is a problematic position. I cite Toynbee rather often, because I think he is a worthwhile scholar, although I disagree with his conclusions... that said, Toynbee (IMO) very much informs the NeoLib/NeoCon gospel, in that he echoes a fundamentally humanist disposition on world-history and the meaning of culture, and while he does not posit any sort of tabula rasa theory that presupposes perfect cultural-political-social malleability of the developing world, he does in fact allege that complex interdependence and basic, bilateral egalitarianism between Western states and the developing world will yield lasting peace and stability. I think that the Toynbee perspective, augmented with a distinctively Zionist-Protestant sense of historical mission and a Trotskyist (through the lens of Irving Kristol) commitment to social justice and “internationalist” equity sums up the NeoCon foreign policy platform.
In other words, claiming that Muslims as Muslims are a potential “5th Column” or that they are a threat to the Western (or specifically British) way of life by virtue of their “otherness” is fundamentally offensive/contradictory to the prevailing ideological zeitgeist that is the impetus for the “War on Terror.” Griffin is either incredibly naive or he is simply an inept political cynic.
Essentially, Walter Lacquer was correct when he noted that conflating Islam with “Fascism” (i.e. Islamofascism) has significance beyond mere cynical soundbite politics. People deliberately conflate these (apparently) unrelated tendencies because they both represent alternatively reactionary or revolutionary political-social schemes that undermine the prevailing Western zeitgeist of uninhibited individualism, hedonism, and acquisitive materialism. In other words, they represent an aggressive effort towards patriarchal justice and order.
All Bin Laden has done with his life is give up the life of a billionaire playboy in order to fight the Red Army in Afghanistan, dedicate himself to building a revolutionary coterie of Islamists, carry out the most daring and infamous unconventional attack against a great power since Guy Fawkes foiled plot, become the most wanted man on planet Earth, and manage to evade high-tech death squads and survive in the wake of a $25 million bounty on his head.
He’s not a world-class badass like some “potent,” manly, hack White House staffer who spends his days eating cheese danishes and collecting money for nothing, and his nights molesting 17 year old interns and downing overpriced, faggoty, apple martinis in Beltway night spots.
I think that the issue here is that its almost purely academic to discuss ‘reactionary’ vs. ‘revolutionary’ tendencies. I began spending a lot of time with Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss this summer (not just at the behest of our friend Roland) because it became increasingly clear to me that Nationalists, PaleoCons, ‘White Nationalists’, Revolutionary Socialists, et. al. (in other words disenfranchised dissenting elements) don’t enjoy any real-world success because really none of the thinkers that advocate these positions are willing to honestly address the global-political landscape as it is... instead, they seem to stubbornly invoke the language of long past eras and Westphalian sovereignty to substantiate their position.
All of this is very wrongheaded of course, and its a recipe for failure. Something that happened in the aftermath of 1914-45 is (as Schmitt predicted) that the West (under the tutelage of England and America) set about to literally do away with politics. The obstacle to this ideological goal was of course the Eastern Bloc under the leadership of the USSR which (after 1953) sought to do away with politics as well. In other words, the American managerial elite and their counterparts within the Soviet nomenclature eliminated caustic, enduring political conflicts within their own borders by legislative and judicial fiat... and ultimately extrapolated principles of equity (or in the case of the Soviets, principles of ‘liberation’) to foreign policy initiatives and began aggressively punishing sovereignist and secessionist tendencies worldwide.
In short, the reason(s) why a genuinely ‘Conservative’ revolution failed in America is because the managerial apparatus outlawed politics after 1945 and set about to make a bureaucratically crafted, civic identity available to literally every single person in the world in the interest of furthering that objective.
This leaves us in a position where we can no longer discuss politics in the way that we could have a generation or two ago. We cannot entertain fantasies that we can ‘recapture’ the State, because the State is the problem. In contrast, Muslims represent a threat to the political-capitalist order because their political-military schema is perfectly adapted to a stateless, globalized strategic landscape. While Rightists and Traditionalists are clinging to the fledging concept of ‘National state’ the way that a weaned child clings to a security blanket, political-Islam is welcoming its final dissolution and mobilizing its human resources to capitalize fully on total labor-capital mobility.
Do you see my point? The Muslims in Europe are defeating the ability of the (increasingly global) managerial apparatus to continue to suppress politics... which is a condition precedent for ANY political actor to achieve any mode of self-determination.
Muslims may represent an enemy at some future world-historical juncture, but as of now, the foe of all Nationalists everywhere is Leviathan... and until politics can once again be expressed, we will all remain dispossessed, Muslims and non Muslims alike. [...]
As it stands, the Enemy of all persons who value Tradition is Leviathan. It’s a ravenous monster that tears any and all expression of non-commodified value (race, communitarian intimacy, and instincts towards self-determination) to bloody, ragged pieces.
Youngsters from middle America who sign up to kill “ragheads” (just like their European counterparts who set out to bust Muslim heads in the streets) are just dutifully doing the bidding of their cosmopolitan masters... and the way their masters see it is win-win: Angry, violent White American youth die in Fallujah while killing Jihadists, and their unemployed violent European counterparts are arrested and incarcerated after attacking (and sometimes killing) equally dangerous Muslims.
In other words, those awful, Fascist boys and those awful, Muslim boys strike a balance of murder... the ruling caste wouldn’t have it any other way.
The creation of this mosque [at Ground Zero] is a form of aggressive culture distortion. It’s tantamount to how Chinese communists treat Catholics. They imprison Catholics as enemies of the state for following the Pope, and maintain a State approved “Catholic church” that is legal.
America isn’t as crudely autocratic as that, so they make believe that Muslim peoples who are being massacred by US/Israel have no legitimate political grievances while officially endorsing a non-existent State cult of authoritarian liberalism dressed up as “Islam the Religion of Peace.”
There are a lot of reasons to object to this, but one of them is not that the WTC mosque is going to be some bastion of Wahabbism and political anti-Semitism.
Bio-Horror/Body-Horror (if done right) is unfailingly gross and creepy. When I was a kid, two of my favorite pictures were The Fly and They Came From Within and both of them disturbed my sleep. Cronenberg was at his best when he was dealing with that motif (Rabid is a weak offering, but Marilyn Chambers is worth watching).
The Japanese seem to excel at the genre, even when all they have to work with is guys in foam-rubber, mucousy fungus suits. I recently watched a run of the mill Japanese horror film called “Infection” about a virulent outbreak in a hospital that liquifies the internal organs of victims and renders them slowly to nothing more than quivering puddles of goo. Once again, that premise sounds silly as hell, but the film is genuinely horrifying.
I’m speculating, but I’d suggest that these themes are a direct result of the atomic attacks on Japan. There is a passage in John Hersey’s “Hiroshima” where a traumatized man recounts trying to aid a victim of radiation poisoning who is trapped under debris, and as he tries to pull her out of the wreckage, the skin on her arms sloughs off in his hands like long, rubbery gloves. Being introduced to the atomic age by seeing your friends and neighbors reduced to dot matrix patterns on the sidewalk, or disintegrated into gooey puddles probably left a permanent mark on what Japanese filmmakers view to be truly horrible.
— RolandI’ve yet to read Mishima, but based on what you’ve posted, and based on his biography, I have no doubt that his final existential reductio – Seppuku – was preceded by reductio by judgment; something that only the individual, radical aristocrat is capable of.
I suppose one thing that is compelling to me about Imperial Japan is that the Japanese Empire seemed to exemplify an ethos of Aristocratic Radicalism more than any other State that has ever existed. At the same time, and I stipulate that my knowledge of Japanese philosophy is scarce, it seems (at least superficially) difficult to reconcile these sorts of tendencies with the enduring, rigidly communitarian character of the Japanese race and its Politics.
I do know that around the turn of the 20th Century, a relatively small but highly visible coterie of young, Japanese intellectuals had embraced an especially polarizing, radical Nietzscheanism (much to the chagrin of the “old guard” who were unconditionally loyal to the Confucian-derived, Meiji-state ideology). Starrs notes that Tsubouchi Shoyo, a prominent and widely read author of the time, went so far as to condemn Nietzschean thought as “absolute egotism” and “a bacillus of the society.”
Eurocentric theorists have, and to this day, explain away these apparent contradictions by alleging that Japan had become a properly “Western” state by the time of the 1905 victory over the Russian Empire. Even Spengler who (in his early works) was decidedly non-Eurocentric in his disposition declared in “Decline of the West” that “Modern Japan belongs to the Western Civilization no less than ‘modern’ Carthage of the third century to the Classical.”
I suppose I find this explanation to be inadequate for a number of reasons. Shintoist Japan is remarkable because it was uniquely and irrepressibly Japanese in a genuinely organic sense. I suppose I would attribute the influence of Nietzche upon Japanese Nationalist thought to an understanding by the Japanese of the distinction between ‘egoist individualism’ and ‘altruist individualism.’ The former embraces alienation while the latter remedies it... in other words, it seems to compliment Buddhist notions of ‘self-transcendence’ and the like that were so consistently praised by Schopenhauer.
Of course, being a Pagan state, Shintoist Japan did not require an elaborate dialectic for political-soldiers in order to rationalize killing in the service of Justice... the concerns of these men who brought Nietzschean aristocratic radicalism to Japanese lecture halls simply involved National and Political questions, and that, in itself, is classically ironic, IMO. [...]
I don’t know about that. Read “Runaway Horses” or “Patriotism"... I can only assume that Mishima took the “Imperial Way Faction” seriously and thought that the ill-fated 1936 Incident represented a genuine cataclysm which stripped Japan of her fortunes long before the Enola Gay ever took flight on an August day years later.
I suppose you could read “Sun and Steel” as Mishima’s suicide note, and its significant that he speaks of the function of art as striking against the “spirit of the age” as proof positive of his own apolitical narcissism and/or Nietzschean individualism, but I don’t read it that way. I read him as saying that art is simply rote and unnecessary when it doesn’t address injustice. Mishima tries to recuse himself from the “tyranny of values” and hence, recuse himself from politics in many instances, but he fails consistently and intentionally.
How was a Japanese soldier who died in Manchuria in 1935 defending Japan, exactly?
He was defending Japan because Japan was in a most precarious position in the decades leading to the war vis-à-vis virtually every other great power, and in order to assert itself and survive in a rapidly changing and dangerous strategic landscape, it had to procure land, resources, and ultimately maritime hegemony in its zone of influence.
The problem with rewriting history seems to afflict British and American historians more than other peoples. The claim presented tends to be that nobody in the world has any legitimate reason to assert geostrategic initiative or pursue war, save for Britain and America (and presently Israel).
In the case of Japan, its history in the modern era has been uniquely tragic in some respects. In the 1850s, as Japan was being subjected to gunboat diplomacy by America, it found itself powerless to influence events in Asia as Western countries asserted military/territorial and economic claims upon Asian land, maritime rights, resources, and trade. The Meiji Restoration has been understood as a remedial measure, which set in motion policy decisions and strategic priorities that were essential to reverse Japan’s burgeoning misfortune as a permanently subjugated nation.
John Mearsheamer discussed this question in his latest book, and he included citations from a number of men of varying ideological stripes on the issue of Japanese imperialism in the period spanning 1868-1945. He cites E.H. Norman in particular, who is known as a staunch critic of Japanese authoritarianism and particularly of what he perceives as the brutally inflexibility of the post-Meiji governments, who nonetheless stipulated that, “security – or rather insecurity – in relation the advance of Western powers in Asia seems, by the evidence, to have been the dominant concern in the acquisition of the component territories of the Japanese Empire.”
And of course, perhaps more incisive, was the statement made by Ishiwara Kanji under cross examination in Tokyo in 1946:
“Haven’t you heard of Perry? Don’t you know anything about your country’s history?... Tokugawa Japan believed in isolation; it didn’t want to have anything to do with other countries and had its doors locked tightly. Then along came Perry from your country in his black ships to open those doors; he aimed his big guns at Japan and warned, “If you don’t deal with us, look out for these; open your doors and negotiate with other countries too.” And when Japan did open its doors and tried dealing with other countries, it learned that these countries were a fearfully aggressive lot. And so for its own defense it took your country as its teacher and set about learning how to be aggressive. You might say we became your disciples. Why don’t you subpoena Perry from the other world and try him as a war criminal?”
Additionally, rightists, especially European rightists, have a peculiar interest in how war came to be criminalized by the allies, for obvious reasons; and Japan’s unique political heritage warrants a certain reverence that most others’ don’t. It was the last major power that preserved a monarchy with command authority and that maintained a political structure in which the Emperor and his sacral significance touched and concerned the daily lives of people and made patriotism synonymous with national life in a way that was more complete than in the regimes of European states who had been struggling with democratic processes and outcomes for the better part of a century. The condemnation of Japan and its war history is basically just liberal hostility to all other people who don’t accept/tolerate Anglo-American exceptionalism and the guiding ideas of liberalism.
Mishima’s wife struggled to keep Mishima’s gay side private because gayness is a stigma in modern Japan. Mishima didn’t really want to be married – he married to satisfy his honor obligations to his parents. He agreed to an arranged marriage on the stipulation that his wife to be would have 1) never read his work; and 2) never take an interest in his work. This makes quite a bit of sense – his “career” couldn’t really be reconciled with the demands of social respectability.
Mishima’s homoeroticism wasn’t a “secret” – he was constantly airing these ideas in public, and his detractors and rivals (including the Japanese communist student movement) regularly portrayed him as a deranged, De Sade type of figure. Nobody believed Mishima was sexually normal – his wife, as were his parents, were profoundly discomforted by the trajectory of his life, and largely tried to avoid its implications. Paul Schrader noted that Mishima’s estate objected really to the entire project of the biopic – singling out scenes that implied homosexuality as they thought it was emblematic of his “problems.” Mishima was a great man, but he was also a pathologically disturbed individual – and this wasn’t a “secret.” He got increasingly savaged by critics overtime on grounds of this, and his parents and his wife suffered for it.
Presenting the issue of Mishima being a “gay man” who had to hide a private life really misses the point by a mile; Mishima was actually a diabolical individual, and this became clear on November 25, 1970. Until then his friends, family and supporters had tried to convince the world he was a satirist or an eccentric – he wasn’t: He meant everything he said. That’s quite a bit more disconcerting than being a homosexual – if you think homosexual authors are rare or controversial, you’re a rather sheltered person.
So the point: It’s well known to historians that Japan adopted Western notions of sexuality.
No – its well known that modern Japan considered homosexuality to be a deviant behavior – and your source reflects that. They didn’t conceptualize a “gay” identity. Nobody, other than Westerners, believes that sexual behavior or lust is an immutable trait that constitutes a cultural or social identity. It’s a bizarre concept, rooted in ideology. [...]
— MontyTalent (and Japanese origin) notwithstanding, what you describe appears to be serious mental and moral defects.
Indeed – but that’s the source of high art.
Do you want to read the philosophic novel penned by “the man who was well adjusted and normal and had a restrained emotional range”?
The writers that we recognize as sublimely talented are in a genuine sense the Men Who Don’t Fit In – everybody claims they are “alienated” and its contrived, sure, but some people actually are. The ones who actually are become the artists if their emotional range and intellect facilitate it. All art is actually “outsider art” in that way. [...]
E Michael Jones did a lecture called “The War Against Art” that was relevant to this topic. I’m no Catholic, but Jones is very much correct in his discussions of these things.
— Mister BJapan is not Iran. Japan was an early adopter of “sexology” in the late 19th century and began using the term douseiai to describe same-sex relations between men, and between women. Previously relations between men were seen as normal. By the 1920s the medical establishment had labeled gay practices and gays deviant.
To understand Yukio Mishima, you need to understand the primary influences he was inspired by and in dialog with – primarily Thomas Mann, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, and Nietzsche – his body of work is very strongly grounded here, with the exception of the Sea of Fertility series; which is really a treatment of Japan’s confused and syncretic religious tendencies. His most well-known works in the West, and the ones that defined him as a major author, are really philosophic novels in the European tradition.
Why is this important?
It’s important because its essential to Mishima’s view of sex, eroticism, and transcendental beauty. There’s a tremendously misguided (and deliberately obfuscatory) effort in academia to portray Mishima as a “closeted gay man” – Roy Starrs is one of the only Western scholars who has made an effort to refute this narrative. His primary source, of course, is Mishima’s thinly-veiled autobiography, Confessions of a Mask. Confessions describes a boy who was emotionally maimed by an overbearing grandmother who prevented him from associating with other boys, who was emotionally incestuous towards her charge, who preyed upon the boy’s introversion and sensitivity, and who demanded he suppress his own willful impulses. His other parental figures were a callous, workaholic father who was cruel to the boy on grounds of his physical and emotional frailty and ill-health, and a mother who had abandoned him to the demented and selfish wiles of his grandmother. The legacy of this was that Mishima the boy became alienated from the world – to the point that his sense of self and his developing moral core fractured irreparably. The introversion he relied upon to sustain an “inner-world” which was essential to his psychic survival rendered him increasingly unable to relate to the world and its demands as a complete person. As he grew older, he was forced to don “masks” to deceive others with an appearance of superficiality and emotional normalcy. In reality, he was becoming less and less normal as his mind matured. He was literally becoming obsessed by macabre and erotic fantasies and fascinations, the expression(s) of which would, if brought into reality, make him a monstrous and criminal figure.
Mishima came to view human intimacy as basically sentimental and fatuous – he came to disdain women on grounds that coveting female beauty was a source of spiritual and moral malaise – as when lust for a woman was consummated, it simply led to the imposition of boring, pointless, and dreary obligations and expectations that robbed a man of his youthful and vital ambitions. He came to view sex itself as a cheap and shallow way in which people utilize their physical body (and that of others) to achieve a temporary catharsis and escape from the self. His seminal erotic experience was (despite the opaque language in describing it) masturbatory – he came upon (presumably on ground’s of Mann’s repeated reference to it) the iconography of Sebastian, and determined that this represented the ultimate expression of beauty – essence combined with form in the masculine body. Of course, Sebastian was a Saint – in Mann’s (and Yukio’s estimation) beauty is a masculine province, and the distilled, emblematic expression of beauty is a man exhibiting poise under torture in the flower of his youth – not encumbered by either the ravage of age and decrepitude, nor tainted by common sexuality and the impurity of lust. Sex, thus, to Mishima, was a corruption of beauty – in his own words, “those of us who never had physical health in childhood don’t lose ourselves in sex” – the mission of the aesthete, the Saint, the artist, the philosopher is to capture beauty in an upright, virginal, and manly capacity – the only way to achieve this is to become the form of beauty itself, and to prepare oneself for sacrifice (physical and spiritual).
The erotic ideal in Mishima’s canon is expressed in Patriotism and Kyoko’s House – the latter of course being the more significant. Mishima’s alter-ego in the novel is a fractured personality who pursues narcissism to mitigate his emptiness. First as an actor, then as a bodybuilder. Aimless and unsatisfied, he is rescued by a female Yakuza who wishes to enslave him – on the condition that he never purport to love her in exchange for her patronage and he agree to mutual suicide on her terms. He agrees with the stipulation of, “you mustn’t kiss me until I am dead.” She obliges, and their pact is consummated – the underlying idea being that life can only be defined by death, and that erotic love can only host meaning if it constitutes sacrifice. Mere lust, be it animalistic and free or constrained by matrimony, is a ruse – people who believe love entails “risk” in and of itself are sentimental and deluded.
The motifs here, obviously, are extremely homoerotic – that doesn’t tell us anything. Homoeroticism is a basic component of high culture and passion. Its context is basically religious, anti-rational, anti-liberal, and highly traditional if not primordial and pagan. In contrast, the “gay” identity and ideology are the opposite – Larry Kramer actually gets into this quite extensively, as does Michael Foucault. Both are/were deranged in their own right, but they’re absolutely correct in their assessment of the origin of “gay” identity. We can examine this further if you wish, but for now its best not to go that far outside the scope.
Mishima’s wife struggled to keep Mishima’s gay side private because gayness is a stigma in modern Japan.
Mishima didn’t really want to be married – he married to satisfy his honor obligations to his parents. He agreed to an arranged marriage on the stipulation that his wife to be would have 1) never read his work; and 2) never take an interest in his work. This makes quite a bit of sense – his “career” couldn’t really be reconciled with the demands of social respectability.
Mishima’s homoeroticism wasn’t a “secret” – he was constantly airing these ideas in public, and his detractors and rivals (including the Japanese communist student movement) regularly portrayed him as a deranged, De Sade type of figure. Nobody believed Mishima was sexually normal – his wife, as were his parents, were profoundly discomforted by the trajectory of his life, and largely tried to avoid its implications. Paul Schrader noted that Mishima’s estate objected really to the entire project of the biopic – singling out scenes that implied homosexuality as they thought it was emblematic of his “problems.” Mishima was a great man, but he was also a pathologically disturbed individual – and this wasn’t a “secret.” He got increasingly savaged by critics overtime on grounds of this, and his parents and his wife suffered for it.
Presenting the issue of Mishima being a “gay man” who had to hide a private life really misses the point by a mile; Mishima was actually a diabolical individual, and this became clear on November 25, 1970. Until then his friends, family and supporters had tried to convince the world he was a satirist or an eccentric – he wasn’t: He meant everything he said. That’s quite a bit more disconcerting than being a homosexual – if you think homosexual authors are rare or controversial, you’re a rather sheltered person.
So the point: It’s well known to historians that Japan adopted Western notions of sexuality.
No – it’s well known that modern Japan considered homosexuality to be a deviant behavior – and your source reflects that. They didn’t conceptualize a “gay” identity. Nobody, other than Westerners, believes that sexual behavior or lust is an immutable trait that constitutes a cultural or social identity. It’s a bizarre concept, rooted in ideology.
Koreans are at base a martial race, caught between two poles (Japan and China). There’s a parallel between them and Ulstermen in my opinion.
The Korean has an emotional range that is deeper and more volatile than other Orientals – there’s more than a touch of the diabolical Mongol in his blood, but its tempered by a basically upright manliness and deterministic view of the world (thus the substantial number of Korean Calvinists).
It’s telling that the Japanese Empire wished to leave Korea intact but “absorb” it in a way – the Japs disdained the Korean culture as an integral form of life, but wanted to retain the people and their basically militaristic traits. This is why they undertook great efforts to portray the Empire and the Korean race as “moving forward together” under Japanese superior tutelage, against the West, Bolshevism, and the Chinese mass of land and people. This is also, in all likelihood, why the Koreans are highly represented in the Yakuza – perpetual outsiders who nonetheless are grudgingly respected for their basically aggressive and violent spirit.
I dislike the Chinese because they’re generally a vulgar and crude people – a race of usurers, bureaucrats, functionaries, and merchant hustlers. They embody the worst traits of the Orient – pagan superstition, social communism, corruption as a normative way of doing business, perpetually backwards-looking, inert, etc.
Just my own feelings and impressions.
— il ragnoWhen people of white Euro ancestry “ruthlessly self-examine” themselves – and find the results wanting – they are merely doing Hymie’s work for him.
Traditional competitors or enemies of whites – Asians and Arabs – never have, and never will, attempt to convince us that we’re guilty of some monstrous crime against humanity merely for warring/competing with them; not because such sneaky Bernaysian psych-ops are beyond their intellectual capabilities, but because such Jew panther-games are largely alien to them. But convincing the white gentile European that something intrinsic in his nature (cough Christianity cough) is diseased and evil at the root has been the Golden Road to Riches and Influence (and domination) for khazar Jews for over a century now! And there is no way the dividends of that strategy could have ever been so consistently lucrative had not the white European been gifted with the innate qualities of conscience and mercy.
Jewish monotheism was steeped in a primitive and nomadic ethos related to “lawgiving” and rule by judges. Russel Kirk pointed out that Jews never created a meaningful theory of politics or political order, and this is why their kings (save for David and Solomon) were never up to the challenge of maintaining territorial domains.
Worshiping law over temporal instantiations of sovereignty is appealing in some abstract way, but its not congruous with how White civilizations developed. Our nations developed in opposite circumstances to that of the Jews.
I guess the purpose I had in mind when I began this thread was to encourage the JQers to enumerate the reason(s) why it is imperative to resist Jewish power as would be explained to the uninitiated.
The reason why Kevin MacDonald is such a valuable asset, IMO, is because he is very erudite in his explanations, his methodology is impeccable, and his conclusions are largely value-neutral. The data that he has collected is largely irrefutable.
Unfortunately, MacDonald is in sparse company. Most JQers attack Jewish power by tossing around inflammatory rhetoric or expecting their audience/readers to accept certain premises without proffering substantiating evidence.
The fact is that the strongest, most unitary faction of the American ruling class are Ashkenazi Jews. They are incredibly parochial, insular, monadic, and ethnocentric. The history of interaction between this population and European Gentiles has been characterized by near-constant mistrust, enmity, and often outright animosity. Considering these circumstances, it stands to reason that Jewish elites consider their dealings with the Gentile majority as a zero-sum, adversarial process.
This is how I would explain the situation to somebody who posed the question to me...
The short answer is that nobody considers Jewry in racial terms other than Jews themselves and modern Western peoples. E. Michael Jones deals with this a lot – and its one reason why Moslems don’t know what people are talking about when its claimed that Moslems are “anti-Semitic.” A Moslem can’t really be “anti-Semitic” – what does that mean even, that he hates Semitic people?
The repression of Jews in a total capacity such as Islamic societies achieved entails the absolute repression of the Jewish world of social existence, its guiding ideas, and any claim to equality of status. Simply viewing Jews as an alien race and segregating them and the like as Europeans did is stupid and pointless and it also doesn’t address the problem.
The Zionists cannot have it both ways... if you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty, let’s talk about this:
In Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel, this clown actually forwards the position that really nobody has a right to genuine self-determination except Israel, because the rest of us are all so morally deficient and brutish that we invariably attack and persecute Jews within our midst... hence, the Jews (as a persecuted, martyr class as well as our natural betters) must be permitted to maintain an ethnostate in the Middle East. This is unconscionable and supremacist. I will not endorse this platform under the auspices of “Nationalism for one and all” because it represents a different tendency... Zionism is not merely self determination for Jewish people... it’s an aggressive ideology that aims to discredit the rights, interests, and security concerns of other groups of people in favor of promoting Jewish supremacy and hegemony. Let’s look at it for what it is.
“Incidentally, I believe it to be hypocritical of racialists or ethnic nationalists to be against the existence of Israel... after all, isn’t that what you want for your own nation?”
It’s not hypocritical for I think two reasons:
Israel enforces apartheid against non-Jews and is an ethnic supremacist state. It doesn’t stand to reason that the self-determination of Jews should take precedence over the same sovereign rights of other peoples.
Furthermore, political Judaism posits (through organs like the Anti-Defamation league and AIPAC) that other people DON’T have legitimate rights to self-determination, but that the Jewish people DO in fact enjoy these rights because they are and have been uniquely victimized in time and history. Alan Dershowitz enunciates this position in his work The Case for Israel.
In contrast, a state like the Republic of South Africa as it existed under the tenure of the ANP denied rights to persons based on racial criteria and while it did so based upon the ideological notion that the Bantu and others were ‘uncivilized,’ the state authorities (and their political proxies in the West) did not allege that Afrikaners and Boers are somehow unique victims in history and hence are entitled to sovereign rights that other persons are not.
Mind you, this is not an endorsement of the ANP’s policies, but I think that the distinction is pretty clear. [...]
Let me also qualify my objection to the Republic of South Africa: The ethical problem IMO was not that the Boers wished to protect their racial and demographic integrity... the ethical problem was that the state was an imperialist state that was hyperexploitative of Bantu labor. South Africa sealed its own fate by not pursuing genuine autarky... in other words, a volkstaat would have been the necessary, proper, and ethical state-political structure.
Hyperbole and angry sentiment aside, I think that these sorts of memorials act to introduce notions of Jewish victimization in time and history and narratives about the immutability of large-scale homicide as a result of rejecting liberal-humanist value schemes into the public consciousness of overwhelmingly White, Christian communities.
Why on Earth would a memorial to a Dutch Jew who perished in WWII be erected in a town square in Idaho? If we eschew the ideological implications of such a thing, it makes about as much sense as a statue of Huey Long in the middle of Tokyo or one of Fredrick Douglas in downtown Istanbul.
Well, for one thing President Roosevelt facilitated Jewish ascendancy and ultimate dominance of the federal judiciary, implemented a socialist government, criminalized dissent, allied with the Soviet Union, and made war against Europe as Europe levied a grand challenge against the aggressive rise of imperial Communism and the burgeoning revolt against White world supremacy by the colored world.
It’s a nicer mythology to claim that “honor died at Bellau Wood, and after that we forgot who we were” but its fundamentally silly and smacks of a deliberate unwillingness to confront actual political problems in history. It’s the kind of thing people might tell little kids before they go to bed because its just nasty and undignified to talk about Jewish subversion facilitated by treason among our own people.
— dudeThis doesn’t make sense: “The Jewish question is a political question; the essence of political questions is an accounting of the Friend/Enemy paradigm.” From there your observations about Jews become even more obscure.
It’s not obscure – there’s no precedent in the West (ethical, juristic, philosophical, theological) to the notion that politics and political problems involve personal/private preferences and enmities. Aquinas, relying on Aristotle and Augustine, made much of this in addressing the problem of just war – the Western view was and is that the public enemy is distinguishable from the subject of private vendetta. Thus, soldiers (like state executioners) remain in the grace and favor of God. Jews, rejecting Christ and thus the legitimacy of Christendom, are the traditional enemy of the West. This is very basic history.
The problem with these contributions is that its not entirely constructive to describe Jewish behavior as fundamentally “left wing” or “right wing.” Political hostility between Jews and their hosts expresses itself in historically and circumstantially contingent ways.
Kevin MacDonald’s important point in his trilogy it seems is that Ashkenazi Jews are hostile to Christian societies, and their hosts respond to that hostility in various ways, congruous with their own mores and institutions.
“Iron Lazar” and Alan Dershowitz, for example, don’t have anything in common in terms of guiding political ideas. What they share in common is they made a career of insurrectionary activity against established power, based on a deeply held belief that the status quo “hurts Jews.”
I tend to doubt that Jews are particularly inclined towards liberalism. If you look at the state they have created in the Middle East, its a racial-socialist military state that is organized around total mobilization. It has nothing in common with open society Western countries. In fact, it’s not even comparable to any state that has ever existed, save for the Third Reich, the USSR, or the Boer Republic.
This is why people view Jewish moral particularism (such as Abe Foxman calling for the preservation of racial blood in Israel while demanding that similar regimes in the West be destroyed) with confusion. Jews aren’t presenting a Liberal case for its own sake; what they’re doing is saying “the White Christian status quo hurts me and my friends/fellows, and the way to make it stop hurting me/us is to cultivate dissent against it.” It only culminates in aggressive liberal activism in America because liberalism is the proverbial pike that is available to chip away the castle walls of the ancien régime in American society. If America were in the circumstances that Russia was in 1917, Jews would be anti-liberal and violent class warriors. If they’re in the Zionist state, they behave like National Socialists, etc.
— harjitPerhaps it does so. But still you haven’t answered my question, what is “it”? A few authors and essayists?
It’s a subtext that pervades the Western consciousness. Everything from weekly news bits and anecdotes about “Anti-Semitism” rearing its ugly head, to yarns about Holocaust survivors and their continuing plight, to victim/martyr/hero narratives about the “plight” of Israel against their antagonists, to accusations levied about chief executives “acting like Hitler,” being “worse than Hitler,” etc., to debates in my State legislature about the proper scope of “Holocaust education.” The Holocaust and the “Jewish Experience” pervade the contemporary Western zeitgeist. If you do not accept this, I don’t gain or lose anything, but I think it betrays a sort of lack of insight about the social/intellectual/political landscape in which you find yourself.
It is a part of the consciousness, to be sure. Calling it a cornerstone is a bit of a stretch methinks.
I don’t think so. Every major city has a “Holocaust Memorial"... what do memorials represent, Harjit? What purpose do they serve? What is being driven home by these sorts of monuments?
But how prevalent is it, among whom, and how does it impact us?
It is essentially a civic religion that informs and contextualizes the manner in which people address social, political, and cultural issues and frames how they understand themselves relative to these phenomena. It is promulgated by ethnocentric Jews in academia, mass media (entertainment and news), and the political apparatus as well as sympathetic Gentiles (for varying reasons). It impacts us by casting an air of suspicion, impropriety, and insidiousness upon White peoples who advocate group interests from a Nationalist position. It impacts us by infusing a hostile out-group (Zionist Jews) with a bottomless well of perceived “moral high ground” from which to advocate for their own insular, monadic, exclusivist group interests... interests which often run afoul of those of the majority.
The case in chief against Featherston rested on unspoken assumptions about political things, things that you could probably find throughout the legislative history of the California ‘hate crime’ statute. If he’d made a hostile phone call to the Japan-America society, no states’ attorney would allege that he’d traumatized the employees by invoking memories of Nagasaki. If he’d dialed the CYA and accused the Papacy of raping children, no prosecutor would allege that the local parish priest experienced terror at the prospect of violence at the hands of Nativist elements. If he’d pulled a Jerky Boys routine on the Cambodian refugee center, nobody would allege that he was trying to recreate the ‘killing fields’ in San Jose.
What he did was harass a group of people by phone who are purported to be the special victims of world-history, and who are presumed by force of law to live in constant terror of the threat of violent, Gentile sociopathy that can spontaneously occur at any moment for no reason on account of some collective moral frailty we all supposedly suffer from.
Featherston was made an example of by a malicious, paranoid, hostile elite that is so nakedly ethnocentric, they tailor laws that subject benign people to official behavior modification remedies because they have convinced themselves that if they didn’t, everybody who is different than they are would become a violent threat to their existence.
These news bits from Europe that describe people being criminally prosecuted for innocuous language indicate that the threshold of intent required to be found liable is remarkably low.
I don’t know about EU penal codes, but there seems to be a sensibility among these people that ethnic violence can somehow be recklessly initiated (in the absence of specific intent), simply by the utterance of certain phrases.
I think its two parts heavy-handed oppression (keep actual would-be dissenters cowed and afraid) and one part genuine Jewish superstition (evil words and mantras raise the inner beast of the goyische masses).
It’s clearly detectable that ‘anti-Semitism’ to them isn’t a political or historical matter, but is a matter of public safety and hygiene of the first order, tantamount to the prevention of forest fires or laws against operating motor vehicles when inebriated. When you account for their truly bizarre view of the world, I think the lack of intent required to procure convictions under these laws makes more sense.
We can expect [Glenn Beck] to produce good propaganda. He is after all “White” in some nominal sense.
It’s hard to have any respect for a shabbos goy, but the least they could do is deliver the Gospel with fervor.
The narrative is that the Jewish people are a light unto nations, on grounds of a Mosaic covenant, and that the savages are drunk with atavistic malevolence and want to eradicate them from the Earth as a sacrifice to commemorate their own cruel hubris and would-be dominion.
America is fighting Nazism/Haman/Babylon and securing a place in the Earthly kingdom of the righteous in availing its arms to this great cause.
Fat little Beck sputtering about how everyone is a “Nazee” to please the Yid holding his leash is just depressing. It’s like seeing the neighbors dog hump a visitor’s leg to gooey climax. It deprives us of enemies we can hold in esteem, thus adding salt to the wound already gouged by ZOG.
Undoubtedly, some ambitious US atty. attached to the (increasingly anachronistic) Office of Special Investigations is going to jumpstart his career by terrorizing this octogenarian.
I don’t watch television other than at the gym or at my friends’ houses, so I don’t really know what the current narratives are like on TV news (by and large), but it seems that on the internet, I can’t check my email without seeing a Nazi/Holocaust related story on yahoo. I mean literally, almost everyday its “New Anne Frank documents revealed,” “Treblinka survivor saves handicapped children from burning building,” “Swastika shaped air force base,” “Swastika shaped crop circles,” or “98 year old man who once attended NSDAP rally in Graz is being deported.”
Holocaustianity truly is the State religion of the USA.
I believe the issue is more that the Jewish mind – the Jewish world of social and intellectual existence – is intrinsically apocalyptic.
It’s not some weird accident that Bolshevism and atomic combat both emerged from the Jewish mind, nor is it because Jews are some how disproportionately “brilliant” or anything.
The Jew annihilates worlds because annihilation is what Judaism is and what Judaism does.
I don’t even think Jews are particularly “anti-white” – whites just happen to be goys of more severe and threatening means than others.
The Jew looks at you like he does a Moslem – or like he will a Chinaman in the future. You’re just something that is potentially dangerous and might need to be unceremoniously annihilated as the Jew “perfects” the world, as is his self-assigned mandate.
It sounds like I’m splitting hairs but I’m not – this is an important distinction.
Rabbinic Judaism is based entirely on “racism” – insinuated within its theology is the belief that Jews are a true master race and that this is enforced by divine mandate. It views all other peoples as potentially dangerous inferiors and in political terms its radically oriented towards warfare and the maintenance of an extraordinarily sharp Friend/Enemy paradigm.
A white Christian “racist” might disdain other people – but he’ll recognize that his beliefs/feelings are basically at odds with the basis of his society/culture/religion of origin. A white man who doesn’t apprehend this and quite literally hates other peoples categorically would be and is viewed as mentally unbalanced or evil by his fellows – in other words, the Jewish view of politics, ethnic loyalty, race, etc. is something that other peoples would discern to be sociopathic if/when its exhibited by members of their own ethnic group.
There’s a genuine darkness and pathology to Judaism that should be apparent to people who are at all literate on these topics – Jews aren’t just provincial people who follow a weird religion, and they’re not just people who are socially bigoted on grounds of historical paradigms, etc. Racism is literally an essential and defining component of their worldview and identity. Without extreme racial hatred and near-total intolerance of all other peoples, Jewry would essentially cease to exist.
The American mythology was rooted in the frontier experience and the War Between the States. When shtetl refugees came to dominate information outlets, the American mythos became “the fight against Hitler.”
Jews have an extraordinarily narrow horizon, and their view of the world is hyper-political. I believe Jews are what people were like 2000 years ago.
Jews can’t do anything other than attack, because they’re purely political and politics is the organization of violence. “Diplomacy” or peaceful coexistence doesn’t exist to them because they’re fossils.
Ernst Nolte is the seminal authority on this topic, and his most persuasive argument is that the post-bellum developments of the 20th century and the violent peace of the Cold War and its excesses, coupled with the duplicated atrocities in the several Communist states in the post-colonial era, nullify the claim that the ethnic cleansing by the Third Reich was remarkable or spontaneous or conspiratorial. The most convincing, and chilling, fact in defense of his historical thesis on modern war was of course the reality of nuclear brinksmanship; a strategic balance in which superpower states developed the capacity to annihilate entire populations of enemies in event of general war.
Simple comparisons of the USSR and the Third Reich are misplaced for this reason. Neither regime can be considered or evaluated in isolation. They emerged from the same nucleus of causes and from 1942 onward, they were acting in direct response to one another.
The NSDAP party state began annihilating Jews because it determined that Jews and the Jewish world of intellectual and social existence were the progenitors and standard bearers of Bolshevism – an ideology that had in practice set about to eradicate the European form of life by mass extermination of the culture bearing stratum of society. The distilled essence of total war was laid bare by both regimes, culminating in extermination.
I’ve always gotten a kick out of the Jewish meme of “oy! The tacky Goyim!” It’s sort of a like a Red Indian taking the White Man to task for excessive drinking.
I mean, is a race of people that regularly defiles prime real estate by building houses that look like Andy Warhol’s interpretation of Disney World’s “Tomorrowland,” have an affinity for male jewelry, and favor lycra jumpsuits actually alleging that other people are gauche, déclassé, and lack good taste?
This is insightful, and I think it’s something that the Jews and the nouveau riche immigrants never could really apprehend. When I was a kid, we’d sort of puzzle over the newcomers trying to one-up each other with material displays of wealth, as it just screamed “nigger rich.” Within our tribe, the most powerful man in the room at any given time very likely only had two suits to his name and drove a car anybody pulling down 30k could afford. The reason being: he could afford not to care.
Much of this is rooted in a kind of commodity-based thinking that sort of singularly characterizes Jewish majority opinion. Many of them have a hard time thinking outside of its confines.
I remember pretty vividly as a teenager, a Jewish friend of mine introducing me to her father for the first time. He was a South Side native in the meat business who had moved up to the North Shore and he asked me “what kind of business is your father in?” I tried to explain to him that my father wasn’t in “business” as he was describing it, and he couldn’t seem to get his mind around that. It was as if the world to him consisted of workers, salesmen, and upper-echelon finance types.
I am not so sure that crypsis prevents the public at large from perceiving the reality of the current state of affairs so much as apathy and relative luxury prevents them from mobilizing against it.
I am just a regular guy, and I grew up in a neighborhood that was approx 50% Jewish. It was always clear to me that there were very profound differences between “us” and “them.” As I became a teenager, it was obvious to me that Jews constituted a core element of the ruling class in America. I didn’t come to this conclusion by perusing learned treatises, and I didn’t mull over it greatly... it’s just sort of obvious. Unless you are an individual who lives out in a forlorn zip code and is not exposed to media or mass culture, I really don’t see how any reasonably intelligent person can not perceive the fact that Jewish power is interwoven all around him and he encounters it in his day to day life in various ways.
When I heard of PNAC and it’s lavish funding of the GOP, I did not even need to glance over a membership roster to realize that it was likely a Likudnik operation... it’s just sort of axiomatic. I think many people recognize this, but the fact that they can afford to lease a luxury-performance import, live in a big, pre-fabricated home, and have enough disposable income to take their family on Disney vacations AND maintain a mistress leads them to believe that the Inner Party is (at least nominally) “looking out” for their interests. I think it essentially begins and ends here.
Jews hate Gentiles because rabid ethnocentrism (and attendant out-group enmity) has facilitated Jewish prosperity over time. It’s utilitarian... Judaism is not really a “culture” or a “religion"... it’s a group psychosis that culminates in an enduring Jihad against the perceived enemy.
Anti-Jewish animus is not benign... it facilitates Jewish power. Hence, it is incumbant to purge this sort of sentiment from a WN platform, if in fact the proponents of such a platform wish for it to enjoy any real-world success.
Animus is also not the domain of intelligent people... intelligent people review the landscape, and develop tactics that will facilitate victory... they don’t seethe with personalized hatred of the opposition/enemy.
Human populations organize themselves into nation-states... these populations tend to consist of ancient, historical communities of kinship and linearnatality. These communities have a tendency to use force to benefit their own brethren or “in-group” and exclude other, similar communities (“out-groups”) from accessing their precious resources. Sometimes these reindeer games result in armed conflict, so it is incumbent upon these communities we call nation-states to arm for war and seek parity with out-groups. If one nation-state possesses nukes and its neighbors do not possess nukes, that one state will be able to impose its will on those neighbors with impunity. These Jews that you hold in such great esteem seem to understand this reality... they understand and acknowledge that it is pretty sensible for the Iranians to want nukes... they also understand that it is very, very bad for their own interests to allow this, so they vehemently oppose such a possibility. Honesty and realism, Potyondi... you must make a study of both.
Ultimately, Iran was faced with a circumstance where they could remain an exploited fiefdom of transnational capital and kowtow to the Zionist entity or pursue self-determination by force.
Aside from the geopolitical implications of the 1979 revolution, what Iran represents is a case study in how radicalism is cultivated in the developing world... it comes about when the People are denied democracy in any meaningful sense of the term by great powers.
For all of the pablum that is vomited out by Western elites about freedom, Uncle Sam seems to become sociopathically hostile to states where genuine democracy is actually expressed. If we wanted Iran to be a normal state that behaves itself, we should not have demanded that they genuflect before the Zionist state. It’s really that simple.
To Muslims, mocking caricatures of Mohammed is gravely offensive to their ethics and their metaphysical belief in the living God. It’s a high form of heresy. When Muslims exhibited their chagrin about these depictions of their prophet in EU newspapers, they were told that the EU is “tolerant” of those who practice, as well as those who criticize and mock various religious faiths. The Muslims were clubbed over the head with platitudes about the “open society” and the Europeans exploited the entire incident as an example of their own secularism and willingness to embrace and encourage the “free marketplace of ideas.”
At the same time, in many European states, discussion of “the Holocaust” is forbidden by law. In some EU states, people are sentenced to prison terms for questioning the official account of the event(s). Discussion of the event is considered to be a social, moral, and political faux pas. In other states, people who criticize contemporary scholarship on the matter are blacklisted and held out as pariahs by public and private authorities.
What the Iranians are doing is demonstrating that “The Holocaust” has become a secular religion of sorts. As Daniel Shays pointed out, it is utilized both as a sacred myth that is said to represent the inevitable excesses that ensue when the People reject the open/propositional society in favor of an organic/traditional society, as well as an ethnocentric narrative that is employed to give legitimacy to Jewish supremacy in the Middle East and to justify Jewish ethnocentrism within the several states populated by the Diaspora.
The Third Reich did not really distinguish between soldier and civilian with respect to Jews, “communist sympathizers,” Gypsies, and Slavs in the occupied territories... hence the deployment of the Einsatzgruppen.
That said, there is an ideology that is implicit within “the Holocaust"... hence the dramatic, official title. “The Holocaust” connotes an account of history that claims that Jews were uniquely aggrieved and victimized by the Nazi movement, that the collective suffering of the Jews absolutely dwarfs the brutality inflicted upon every other national group in WWII, that this victimization occurred because of an implicit moral deficiency in Gentile peoples, and that a massive conspiracy existed to kill every single Jewish person on Earth.
“The Holocaust” is a politicized account of history that is exploited for political expediency and ethnic aggrandizement. It is not objective scholarship... rather, it is an ideological tendency that had become almost a secular religion to many people.
— Mister BIf you don’t want Jewish people or mainstream media to call you anti-semitic, don’t denigrate Jews or spin tales of worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
Zionists and their allies don’t get to define the terms of discourse. It’s clownish to suggest otherwise “Anti-Semitism” has an actual meaning – it was a term coined by German radicals in the early 20th century (many of whom were atheists) who believed that Jews are an alien race that somehow corrupts the national organism by virtue of their “bad” DNA or tainted blood or some such thing. Literally no Catholic believes in this – and frankly, no religious people believe in this.
When a Jew claims, for example, that a Palestinian is “anti-Semitic” its a logical fallacy in addition to a clumsy propaganda canard. The claim suggests that Semitic people are racial bigots who hate themselves if they oppose Jewish apartheid. So by this logic, Arabs hate themselves and consider themselves a corrupting alien race because they oppose Jewish political hegemony. People who accept these half-baked narratives have no actual experience of the world, generally, and utterly no understanding of the challenges faced by Moslem people and their own political and theological orientation.
Finally, nobody believes in “Jewish conspiracies,” other than maybe disengaged paranoiacs who post on the internet or who give lip service to strange ideas that don’t have any meaningful significance in the study of political affairs. Identifying discreet populations that wield disproportionate political and social power is not “conspiratorial.” This is another example of shit-think – an endeavor at which you excel.
You’re literally posted reams upon reams of garbage on this forum. It’s not only stupid, it’s staggeringly at odds with reality.
— Mister BYes, critics on the left get called anti-Semites, including Jews who criticize Israel. They brush it off, or confront it head on. The label doesn’t stick and doesn’t sting because it’s false. But if you think Jews are a conspiring, essentially evil group of people set out on controlling the world, and your criticism of Israel uses such language, then your criticism of Israel is going to be seen as anti-Semitic even if it’s correct in some respects. Just like Ahmedinejad.”
Jews are “bad” people because they’re entire “culture” is a pastiche of racial and ethnic supremacism, active paranoid hostility to everybody outside of their cultural milieu, a reflexive antipathy to competing modes of social and moral authority, and an instinctive preference towards revolutionary activity as an end in itself.
People disdain Jews because Jews are on a war footing with everybody else – people don’t disdain Jews simply on grounds of ‘Zionism’ – Zionism is simply the Jewish expression of a discrete theory of statecraft, tailored to advance Jewish political objectives amidst a radical restructuring of world-political order.
Resisting Jewish power and attacking its conceptual biases isn’t “anti-Semitic” – it’s a normal response exhibited by people who are being attacked by hostiles.
In the 21st century, there is no such thing as “anti-Semitism.” There is no government at present or social grouping or ideological tendency that claims that Jews are an impure or “alien” race that must be resisted on grounds of biological inferiority. It’s a fiction promulgated by Jews and their apologists.
Jews oppress other people because Jews are maliciously racist – yes. That doesn’t equate to a conclusion that everybody else views Jews in “racial” terms.
The problem is what E. Michael Jones said it is, in other words. Jews are political hostiles who cannot be placated, simply because Judaism isn’t actually a “culture.” It’s a political doctrine of racial supremacism, buttressed by what amounts to an academic debating society that is tailored to provide ersatz theological justifications for Jewish racialism/chauvinism and political ambitions.
Jews aren’t victims of “racism” or sectarian hostility – they’re not a “race” other than in crudely biological terms of the kind nobody takes seriously any longer. Nor are they a religious sect that presents a countervailing view of ethics, philosophy, and metaphysical order and natural law. They’re people who ascribe to a nakedly political doctrine of ethnic supremacism that attempts (weakly) to justify these things under the auspices of founding mythologies that were rendered meaningless in the wake of the ascendancy of Christ and the subsequent arrival of Mohammad as the Last Prophet. [...]
Semitic people who oppose Jewish racism and political violence (Arabs – who are a Semitic ethnic group – for example) aren’t racists who hate themselves on ground of racial criteria. Categorically, they can’t be ‘anti-semitic’ no matter how much antipathy they exhibit towards Jewish oppression.
Similarly, a Catholic who claims Jews are in error for rejecting Christ (on grounds that Christ is the last prophet) aren’t claiming that Jews are an inferior race.
Nobody other than Jews themselves, culturally illiterate goyische apologists for Jewish racism, and a minority of insignificant people who ascribe to hobbyist racial politics believes “anti-Semitism” exists.
Your appeals to authority are evidence of your basic intellectual poverty. It’s a logical fallacy on the order of saying, “the Dictionary claims a criminal is somebody who breaks the law – thus Alesksander Solzhenitsyn is a criminal because he broke a law.”
Shit-think writ large. [...]
Ahmadinejad claims that Jews dominate financial banking (what people like Sombart called “finance capitalism”), and that this system is sustained by the maintenance of compound interest. This is a big problem in Dar Al Islam – as usury is there (as it was until (historically recent) times in Christendom) a grave moral evil.
Hit notion is that international monetary bureaucracies, that serve the purposes of dominating access to liquid capital, force developing states to abide political demands of powerful actors in order for them to achieve modern economic development. Additionally, Jews enjoy disproportionate influence on foreign policy – and their views on such topics are colored by discreet racial and theological preferences that are not rational but are instead premised on historical and patriotic imperatives that result in zero-sum arrangements.
Finally, Iranian hostility is grounded in the fact that America and Israel have played a remarkably brutal game of political power within Iran- from the removal of its sovereign executives by force, to the patronage of client despots such as the last Shah, to the fact that in 1980 when Iraq undertook an aggressive program of military conquest against the Islamic Republic, its security apparatus was availed to American logistics that allowed them to locate, close with, and annihilate enemy defenders, and ultimately, provided Iraq with weaponized VX gas which was deployed liberally in the wake of the Iranian counteroffensive – an effort that represents the most destructive WMD attack in world-history since Nagasaki, and that (by conservative estimates) killed between 20,000-30,000 people outright. There’s no “conspiracy theory” present here. What should Ahmadinejad claim in talking about Iran’s problems? A group of random people with no meaningful political, ethnic, or theological category are for unknown reasons trying to destroy his country?
Iran really more than any other state (save for the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed pursuant to ‘Plan D’) has sustained more Jewish violence in the modern age than any other people with perhaps the additionally exception of the Russians. Jewish power politics in this way is intrinsically demonstrably homicidal and premised in large part on a theological mandate by which Jews have a sovereign right to annihilate their enemies. Judaism, as stated, is a political doctrine of racial supremacism and annihilation.
Speaking of “anti-semitism” is a morally retarded and intellectually infantile type of apologia for power on its own terms. I would be the butt of jokes were it not so extraordinarily destructive.
Then again, Reuters academics periodically rant like histrionic children about their hatred for Iran’s government – a government that as (over the course of a thousand years) never attacked on its territorial neighbors, has issued a Fatwa against the development of nuclear arms, and that practices a progressive form of democracy.
You people are the ultimate moral buffoons. You’re the mentally retarded children of Sartre, who proposed that Soviet death camps were a positive development because they murdered children who had been “corrupted” by capitalist relations, Christianity, and patriotic mythologies. Piles of dead children are OK – so long as they aren’t Jewish and didn’t have a public relations team of Dutch children’s book authors penning screeds about the evils of fascism from the cloisters of Amsterdam attics.
There was something to what Stalmann and Goebbels said in this regard about social democrats and Jew-apologists. A Communist and a racial patriot can realize that otherwise sensible men can differ. There’s a certain respect among political soldiers that is and always has been convention. The Liberal in contrast deserves a bullet to the neck, or at least a thoroughly smashed in face. You’re a good example here – you’re a fossil whose only tolerated because normal (in present historical time) people have become convinced the way to answer you isn’t with a rifle butt to your skull.
— Mister BThe OED definition of anti-semitism features the neutral word “group” to talk about Jewish people. Race isn’t useful or accurate, period.
No – “race” is the definition of “anti-Semitism.” It’s a term coined by Wilhelm Marr (who was a Darwinian racialist) to describe Jewish/European hostility as a “racial” conflict. To be ‘anti-Semitic,’ by definition, is to harbor a hostility to the Jewish ‘race.’
As noted, the only people who view Judaism in racial terms are Jews themselves (their citizenship laws literally mirror the Nuremberg Codes) a smattering of Fascist-type fringe groups and parties who claim that Jews are an alien race who are compromising the national organism.
You’re basically arguing a political point on Jewish terms – opposing Jewry is a “racist” enterprise, etc.
It’s bullshit.
— IgnatzAn anti-Semite is someone opposed to Jews, regardless of reason. The racial definition is archaic.
It’s not archaic – you’re letting ethnic chauvinists define the terms of discourse. By this metric, Chuck Hagel is “anti-Semitic,” so is Norman Finkelstein, Gilad Atzmon, E Michael Jones, Rashid Khalidi, and a slew of other people who criticize Jewish political ambitions and cultural hostility.
Words have an actual meaning – they aren’t just what polemicists say they are.
The term “Anti-Semitism” is used as a way to slander people – that’s all that it is. Its actual, non-political, definition, as noted, means somebody who is opposed to the Jewish race on grounds that their bloodline is tainted/inferior or what have you.
WNs have a big problem with literacy – I notice this when they’re constantly yammering about “racism” and white genocide.” Polemical terms aren’t value-neutral once they have been appropriated. This can’t really be emphasized enough.
— Mister BRight. Anti-semitism is prejudice, bigotry, hatred of Jews... it’s not necessarily racial in nature.
No, that’s simply not the case. You don’t get to define political terms as a child would assign names to playthings or the plants and rocks in an English garden. “Anti-Semitism is anything Jews don’t like” isn’t even an Orwellian fallacy – it’s just laughably stupid.
Objecting to Jews and Jewish power, pointing out their intellectual and cultural poverty, holding them responsible for their cultural aggression has nothing to do with hating or opposing Semitic people. By your definition, Gulf Arabs hate themselves, because they oppose Jewish oppression, and opposing Jews means you hate and/or oppose “Semitism.” [...]
— IgnatzIn the first case, the original meaning has been lost and isn’t going to return. It’s become a general term for someone opposed to Jews. Objecting to this (eg. claiming that ‘Arabs are Semites too’) will just annoy people and derail the conversation. It will be considered pedantry.
The term was invoked by German Racialists to indicate racial lineage – “Semites” aren’t Aryan, thus they’re outside of the national community and an onerous influence. This is literally all it means. Nothing more, nothing less.
In the second, any other word chosen to replace “anti-Semite” will also receive the same negative publicity. This is really a complaint against a cultural environment which gives disproportionate weight to Jewish narratives. The Palestinians may be “anti-Semitic,” but few people would call them ‘evil’ for resisting Jewish expansion into their land. It would be like calling 19th century American-Indians “anti-Settler” or “anti-White.” If challenged about this both (Pallies/Indians) would just respond, “Yes, so what?”
Yeah, but you’re addled with kike-think that you believe a word must be coined to replace “anti-Semitism.” Jews/Jewry are an ideological culture that finds itself at war with lots of people (as in 136 AD as in 1945). This is not a peculiar case of a people being irrationally availed to violence and “racism.” Call people what they are. If an Arab man is anti-Jewish because Jews oppress him and disdain his religion, he’s “Anti-Jewish.” He’s not a man who ascribes to a thousands of years old moral frailty that causes people to spontaneously hate “Semites.”
Words you see, especially when drafted for polemical purposes, actually have meaning. Saying x is an “anti-Semite” means, “x is like Pharaoh (a Slaver), x is like Haman (a murderer), x is like Hitler (a sublime demoniac) – the implication, and the explicit reference, is that anti-Semitism is a discreet, stand-alone moral failing among non-Jews that causes them to rise against the Chosen Race in murderous rage- to “Holocaust” them, literally to appease their false gods.
You need to pick a side at some point – and decide to be a white man – or an Arab – or an Iranian – or a Phoenician, or a good Catholic, or a Bible Protestant, or a Moslem who follows his Prophet; in lieu of being a go-along-to-get-a-long fag who is driven so much by propriety he can’t muster the guts to call the Jews out on flagrant lying and the absurd haughtiness that facilitates it.
Racism is essentially Jewish. This has nothing to do with life in and of itself. It’s a cynical paranoiac tendency that culturally impoverished peoples resort to. Jews have no meaningful culture, thus they’re highly racist. Their “religion” is just an ideological subculture of opposition and political hostility. This is only viewed as admirable by Jews and racists.
Court historians (i.e. Jewry and its enablers)/flaccid academics, etc. sort of stepped on their own dick when they began assigning the “revisionist” or “negationist/denier” label to everybody they didn’t like. It had some currency when it was only assigned to cranks and UFO hobbyists like Zundel... it lost whatever real weight it had when people like Norman Davies, Ernst Nolte, Arno Mayer, Norman Finklestein, and even “structuralist” proponents like Chris Browning became singled out for this type of shaming derision.
What is a “revisionist” anymore? Any adult man who does not believe that the 20th Century and its wars were a mass conspiracy to murder Jews and who does not propose that this/these event(s) were the singular most central historical occurrence in human experience?
This Jewish necrophiliac/Purim cult is dying out rapidly and its standard bearers are becoming more and more senile.
It’s tantamount to Ayatollahs arguing over the nuances of arcane rituals that nobody actually believes in but only grudgingly tolerate for the sake of crazy and emotionally unstable old people.
It’s simply an iron-clad small mindedness that is not unlike that expressed by the NeoCon simpletons on sites like ‘stormfront.org’ – Islamophobes who are perpetually gun shy about addressing the issue of Jewish power aren’t any different than McCain voters who think that the ‘long emergency’ of their lifetime is the fact that Negroes are periodically spotted dining at the local Waffle House that they like to frequent after hearing stirring sermons on Sunday by John Hagee.
Anybody who bothers to consider the immigration issue intelligently would first and foremost ask himself why the issue is bracketed by a Jewish historical orientation and why it’s incumbent upon any public figure to ritually distance himself from Hitler the way some Lama or Dervish would ritually purge an evil spirit before approaching a lectern or facing an altar. It’s become so tethered to discourse, it’s simply second nature to White peoples to begin discussion of political questions from Jewish reference points and to scrupulously avoid breaching Jewish taboos.
We’re really talking about a liberal objection to immigration anyway – Muslims present a challenge to Anglo-liberal universalism because they’re resistant to re-education with enough stubborn fervor to expose the internal contradictions of the liberal state. Of course, the defenders of the liberal state try to frame their Islamophobia in jingoistic or ‘nationalist’ terms, but at base they’re just expressing rage at the indolence of Muslims for their refusal to be educated – they’re like Yankee carpetbaggers who came to have contempt for their Negro charges who failed to meet their expectations.
Catalog in your mind sometime the Anglo grievances with Muslims – they wish to be availed to Sharia Law in lieu of the Queen’s Bench. Anybody who has even a cursory familiarity with the origins of the Anglo-Saxon common law can perceive the irony here. Muslims refuse to ‘emancipate’ women – it seems that Muslims are demonstrating through the maintenance of their own idiosyncratic social mores that human populations cannot simply be assimilated into the Liberal fold via forcible re-education. Muslims commit crime – Mosley and Powell were wise to the consequences of ceding demographic and cultural power to aliens, why didn’t Britain listen to them?
Once again, it’s painfully obvious that loathing Darkie while remaining willfully oblivious to the pre-eminence of Jewish ethical mores in Western discourse and the intrinsically suicidal logic of Anglo-Liberalism are symptoms of an atrophied intellect and/or an inability or unwillingness to apprehend basic political questions.
I don’t accept Hamas’ account of 1942-45 ethnic cleansing, but I think that the Arabs apprehend the political character of the Jewish state in ways that Western theorists generally (save for Nolte), and American ones especially simply do not. Zionism as we know it came about in the same central European political-social pressure cooker as did National Socialism and Soviet Bolshevism... that’s why Israel is a remarkable state: It’s the legacy government of an extraordinarily brutal mode of politics that characterized the early to mid-20th century. In other words, there was (and remains) a subtextual consensus between players of these dangerous games of “absolute politics,” no matter how extreme apparent conflicts of interest may be.
Long story short: Did Zionist elements plan the ethnic cleansing of Jews? No. Did they understand politics to be a process of murderous antagonisms between natural human groupings? Absolutely. If you’re looking for direct evidence of this sort of thing, rather than ideological/philosophical precedent and the like, I’d say you should look no further than the dealings between Zionist elements and Himmler and the SD with respect to the fate of Jews in the Ostland.
Jewish power, like all political power, flows from their position in the judiciary (as is the case for all political actors in America), not merely from their ubiquitous presence in NYC and London financial districts. Alleging that “Jews prey on the work of others” is obviously simplistic, European agitprop... but alleging that Jews are not conducting Jewish politics as usual (primarily through the judiciary) in America is a fatuous claim, IMO. I’m actually rather puzzled by WNs in this regard... they talk an awful lot about Morgenthau, they transcribe (in detail more befitting a lady pensioner who keeps up with gossip columns about the royals) the demographic proximity of various power brokers to the Rothschilds, and they posit Bretton Woods as the public policy shift that signified the ascension of Jews as political actors in the New World. In reality, they should be taking note of men like Felix Frankfurter. You see, everybody gets to do business in America (even the freed slaves), but the privilege of politics is not simply bestowed as a matter of course. Thus we, know who is a political actor in America by observing the factions in whom is vested the power of judicial review.
Interestingly enough, before about 1994, it was considered heretical for the Jew Dork Crimes or any other MSM publication to malign FDR... all of that changed, of course, after the First Church of Holocaustianity was erected in DC... we now know (thanks to the diligent scholarship of the Holocaust Museum staff) that FDR was an anti-Semite because he didn’t launch a pre-emptive war in 1933.
Jews remind me very much (in terms of the ethnic/familial bond that they maintain) of Plato’s proscription for an ideal ruling caste: Interrelated by blood to very high degrees, taboos against fraternization with other orders of humanity, enduring enmity towards their charges (the lower castes). Do you see the issue here?
This is an old favorite of Jewish NeoCons – Allan Bloom was one of its early proponents/architects. “The Closing of the American Mind” is a seminal screed in this regard – Bloom alleges for several hundred pages that Continental philosophers of the Right that were/are historically esteemed by Goyische nationalists (Heidegger, Nietzsche, Fichte, etc.) were/are in fact occulted “liberals” and “communists,” and that ‘cultural relativism’ in reality was perpetuated by National Socialists, Fascists, America Firsters who were ‘tolerant’ of the amorality of non-whites and cultural and racial aliens. You see, Jewish one-worldism is actually “conservative” because it holds all men to the same (purportedly elevated) standard. We’re all a bunch of filthy, permissive, immoral ‘liberals’ for suggesting differences exist between say Whites and Africans.
Jews claiming to be persecuted is like a drunk driver claiming that trees run into him.
Jews probably aren’t the most extreme case of group-oriented behavior. It’s become something of an oft-repeated “truth” among white nationalists, Jew critical Marxists, Gentile multiculturalists of varying stripes that Jewish in-group altruism is extreme, remarkable, and in a sense Oriental. The problem with this claim is twofold, IMO. Jews are reflexively cosmopolitan in a way that other peoples aren’t. This actually harms their cohesion. Comparatively, Jews aren’t truly collectivist in a rigid and regressive way as are many other ethnic groups who remain utterly tethered to kinship bonds and insularity in their lives, values and behaviors. What Jews are is unfailingly hostile to literally everybody else... the Jewish identity is largely devoid of any meaningful orientation other than a sharply political view of the world that touches and concerns all aspects of social interaction with others.
MacDonald’s doesn’t discuss the Jewish problem as a political problem. He wants to make believe it’s a sociobiological problem that only becomes political when host societies don’t properly rely on social “science” to understand human behaviors, and assign policy priorities accordingly. He does this on purpose, discussing the Jewish question as a matter of “science” rather than as a political problem that must be remedied. [...]
You need to ask yourself what “Jewishness” is. Is it a complicated, hierarchical, elaborate cultural orientation, mythos, and set of arcane practices that binds its people to a tribal communitarianism like you’d observe among Han Chinese, or is it a vulgar kind of highly politicized parochialism that is only intelligible as a structure of opposition? At base, as I said, Jewishness is political. If you think Jews like each other or have a rich and meaningful culture or have any interest in one another other than as friends in common opposition to enemies I don’t think you have spent much time among the Tribe. Christ, Jews don’t even like themselves... much of their cultural output explores their own pathologies in this regard. [...]
MacDonald is being deliberately obfuscatory in his treatment of the Jewish problem. The problem with Jews isn’t that they’re more prone to cronyist tendencies and in-group altruism than Anglo-Saxons or other northern European peoples. Most human tribes behave that way to varying degrees, many are far more insular and in-group restrictive than Jews but their presence is innocuous if less than ideal. The problem with Jews is that they’re political hostiles and thus not only entirely unassimilable but actively hostile to existing social structures. Jews in a very real way are on a war footing with everybody else and this is really all that matters about Jewish behavior. If they weren’t hostiles, there would be no reason to care about them one way or the other. Jewish behavior was well described in historicist terms by Spengler and in accurate (if polemical) terms by Hitler. MacDonald’s theories on group psychology and evolution, in contrast, are very interesting if not entirely falsifiable, but its also very much irrelevant to the current problem.
I don’t wish to be redundant but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people attack the integrity and credibility of a scholar yet conspicuously avoid addressing the subject of their chagrin directly... in this case, MacDonald has demonstrated a willingness to answer his critics in a timely manner, so there is really no excuse for not addressing him directly.
My issue with MacDonald is that he takes a viable premise (Jewish culture is memetically unique and caustic) and stretches the premise to irrational extremes (Jewish intellectual movements represent a convergence of grand evolutionary strategy)... it’s far too reductionist and almost LaMarkian in character.
The best example of this was MacDonald’s piece entitled Stalin’s Willing Executioners. On the one hand, that piece was MacDonald planting his thumb in the eye of philo-Semitic chauvinists and court historians who eschew objectivity in their treatment of WWII and the October Revolution and for that reason it was refreshing... on the other hand, the crux of the piece was essentially more of the tired conspiracy theory of ‘Communism is Jewish’ and that is fatuous.
As I pointed out when we discussed that piece several months ago, the claim that Jews were overrepresented in the Cheka is irrebuttable (Slezkine openly acknowledges this), but this fact does not axiomatically substantiate a conclusion that Bolshevism was and is a ‘Jewish’ intellectual movement.
I object to Yockey’s treatment of the issue for the same reasons... Yockey’s account of the ‘Doctor’s Plot’ is nothing more than an ideological narrative that was crafted with an eye to augment and resurrect Strasserite National Socialism... which I consider to be somewhat laudable (considering the world-historical landscape of the early 1950s) but his exploitation of the affair was intellectually dishonest.
The real question is why White people are so easily placed on the defensive when faced with accusations of anti-semitism – It seems most of us have been conditioned to believe that we’re all saddled with some latent, primitive and monstrous instinct that we must diligently resist and account for lest we revert to a state of pre-human beasthood. Accuse a White man of ‘anti-semitism,’ and watch him hang his head and grovelingly defend his civilized credentials like a Congolese would if his Anglo-Saxon governor subjected him to an accusatory reference to cannibalism.
What is more disturbing than the total domination of discourse by Jews is the total acceptance of its parameters by Whites – Nobody seems to pause and ask the question; “Why is world history and current events unfailingly presented as a Mosaic narrative involving morally superior Jews and the morally compromised remainder of humanity?”
The silver lining of the barbarian ascendancy of 2050 will be the end of the Jewish lamprey’s ability to manipulate the public mind. Jews lose in the 21st century.
Orwell considers political communities (racial, sectarian, and/or national communities of association) to represent obstacles to progress. That is the quintessentially Liberal sentiment.
I think that Orwell’s body of work is one of the best representations of what Burnham called the “liberal dialectic,” replete with the disdain for theoretical claims of world-historical augury that Burnham felt characterized the L. dialectic and which Orwell expressed in no uncertain terms. [...]
Orwell was a stylistic author who promoted a Liberal ideology and savaged Continental political tendencies. If you agree with Orwell’s positions, you agree with Liberal strictures.
You’re uncomfortable with all of this on account of your background: You’re a Croat immigrant who has been marinated in Liberalism, culturally, socially and intellectually. Caught between two worlds, you no longer even realize that your default positions on any numbers of issues are informed by liberal canon.
Liberals are, generally, Jewish racists and wealthy (non-Jewish) white men and ladies who tend to be white supremacists. People like Harold Cruse were wise to this close to half a century ago.
If you just now figured this out, you’re not really in the game. [...]
A proper header to these kinds of hilariously deluded ideological-grievance pieces about the mainstream media would be, Gay, Jewish, Rich White and Shrewish.
Jewish billionaires, mincing fairies like Anderson Cooper who were born to astronomical inherited wealth, bizarro people with mental problems like Rachel Maddow, rich white guys who are enraged for no reason like Chris Matthews, all shrieking about “racism.”
Hyperprivileged white people, sex perverts, Jewish bigots claiming that the normals are all “privileged” and “racist,” in other words.
The total disengagement from reality on display here would be a source of fun and hilarity were it not such a disturbing and haughty example of overclass hubris.
The Bourgeois are big on ersatz morality, and they situate themselves at the center of the ethical universe. One of these, unusually insightful, atheist thinkers whose name eludes me wrote about this in a work he titled (ironically I suppose) Straw Dogs.
Moral righteousness buttressed by undulating expressions of grievance and pity is at the heart of this humanist nonsense. Clarence Thomas identified it as the post-Christian ethical code of wealthy white females – James Burnham identified it as a kind of Stockholm Syndrome by which the monied classes came to grips with the colored revolt in the aftermath of 1945.
Nietzscheans are Christians who could never break entirely with Christianity – in a similar sense, Goyische liberals are women, and effeminate males, who are terrified of a world not ordered by White Supremacy. A good litmus test in this regard is to discern how a person reacts to Islam – if it terrifies and outrages him, you’re in the company of the aforementioned type I believe.
The biggest lie of Liberalism, even more monumental than the myth of human equality, is that politics (like society) is simply an artifact of individual preferences and prejudices; thus denying that identifying the enemy could constitute anything other than an expression of personal hatred between individuals.
Liberalism, whether we are talking about the Protestant Aristotelianism of Bacon and Hobbes or the 20th century neo-Marxist variant, posits that the root causes of inequity are ignorance and oppressive social institutions as both of these things curtail (presumably boundless) human potential and equality.
The notion that Islamic cultures are deviant/backwards or “bad” because they are Patriarchal, closed societies should alarm any genuine Conservative.
You and Meltmouser are making a compelling argument, but it constitutes a bait and switch: You’re conflating the forcible deculturation of Muslims with the process of civilizing primitive savages. Even if I were to accept that account of these things (which I don’t), its still objectionable in that its nothing more than a restatement of Toynbee’s humanism... it presumes that all the world’s races are perfectly educible and that its a noble as well as proper thing to teach them the ways of civilization.
Teaching Hottentots to use forks and wear pants ultimately leads to things like freed slaves getting the vote. Conservative? Not in any meaningful sense.
What’s crazy about them too is that they’re rabidly pro-System – Boomers were and are a cancer, but frankly most of them were bandwagoneers who started agitating for radical things because it was an outlet for their youthful instincts to resist Establishment power. I can understand a basically unintelligent teenager protesting Nixon and waving an NLF flag even if it inspires contempt within me – its the age old Rebel-without-a-cause tendency of the young, virile, and foolish.
Millennials are disturbing (and frankly spiritually sick) because they are enraged at anybody who is insufficiently PRO-SYSTEM – that’s what’s fucked up about them. I am a middle aged man who has been screamed at by 19 and 20 year old boys and girls because I don’t love the government, I refuse to abide its moral directives as a man who’d made Hajj would the directives of the Prophet, and I don’t particularly like the police.
How broken are a generation of youth who become enraged at people who are insufficiently slavish in their reverence for government authority?
Liberalism itself is contradictory. The liberal state exists solely to protect individual rights. It cannot call on its citizens to die in its defence as this undermines is raison d’être – the protection of the individual. How are my rights protected by my death? So, the liberal state is incapable of fulfilling this task without contradiction. Every time it calls on its citizens to die, it has to go against its own stated principles, it enters a state of contradiction. It has no right to call on its citizenry to defend it.
I suppose I never long for childhood, because when I was a kid, I always was anxiety-ridden and never felt in control of anything. What I long for are days where I experienced something approaching what my Dad always called ‘perfect valor.’ Perfect Valor for some guys was a moment in time when they scored a winning touchdown, charged a machine gun nest, or even got their first job or bedded down a beautiful girl that they thought was out of their league. It’s different things to different men, but its the moment at which no greater glory, satisfaction, or supreme contentment and optimism can accrue.
When I was 23 years old, I had a prolonged moment of ‘Perfect Valor.’ I’ve been trying to recapture it ever since (I’ll be 31 in a week) but its futile. It’s like when junkies get all spun out and keep chasing the dragon to experience the ‘first time’ again. It just never happens. In all honesty, I wish I had never experienced anything of that sort, because it just makes everything harder... if I had always been some sort of failure or never had any prospects in life, I’d be much ‘happier’ now.
The fairer sex likes nothing more than to see blood spilled by men in the throes of desire.
It’s also pretty well understood that insulting a man in the presence of a lady companion is an invitation to violence... that is one of those things that doesn’t change.
No, contrary to popular mythology, most women aren’t Romantic... they are just uncivilized little beasts that like being the cause of carnage.
It has something to do with the fact that men (not feminized males) who place a premium on ‘traditional values’ aren’t going to pander to some shrill cunt who thinks marriage is a process by which they acquire an ATM machine that also ‘helps out around the house’ and changes diapers. Guys like this probably aren’t going to enter into a contract that allows a woman to put him out of his own home and halve his wealth upon rescission without cause.
Racialists, traditionalists, dissidents should either abstain from intimacy with the fairer sex (who are in America irreparably debauched) or they should seek out genuinely Traditional women and treat their union as a sacrament that doesn’t involve the public bureaucracy or the courts.
It took me some time (probably too much, and that speaks negatively of my character) to reconcile and understand this, but I suppose that is the process of maturity.
This notion that men who don’t play “world’s greatest dad” and drive kiddies to T-ball practice while Mom is off trying to ape the society mavens she sees on daytime TV and indulging her own vanity with a ‘career’ lack standing to weigh in on the current dilemma is, at base, a feminist argument... its “you have no right to hold an opinion about the state of things unless you change diapers.”
Fuck that.
(re: “manliness”)
It’s a matter of if you have to ask, you’re head isn’t in the game. Americans have some vague, abstract notion of what is “manly” because America is a commerce-oriented society – an “incomplete” society actually as Morris Berman suggested.
Manliness is spontaneous – it’s the expression of instinct, tempered by the prudence of reason. It’s not a “lifestyle” or some kind of contest or a status signifier such as how much money one makes or who they associate with or the kinds of things they do for recreation.
People who aren’t engaged in their own lives don’t apprehend culture or religion or sex. They just kind of observe these things from without as curiosities. Thus, they define culture as consumption habits, sex to them is some kind of affected pose or “gender role,” religion is a consumer choice or a kind of recreational activity like going to the movies.
Not to hijack the thread, but this was Heidegger’s lament – and its why he really broke with the entire European modernist tradition, including ‘right wing’ or proto-Fascist thinkers like Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. People contemplating culture or “gender” from a vantage point of alienation don’t apprehend the essence of these things. Its equivalent to Descartes’ proverbial ‘mind in a vat.’
With all due respect, you and Sandee are sort of missing Comrade Vasily’s point. He’s not alleging that women are natural sluts who will start sucking off the neighborhood if they aren’t kept in check. He’s making the point that women are natural whores in the sense that they strive for power in their relationships with others (as is common to humanity) and they will dominate a weak-willed beta male while at the same time seeking out more fit partners on account of their mate’s weakness.
This is all pretty incontrovertible... dominant, successful men enjoy fidelity more than do sheepish, effeminate, hard luck milquetoasts.
What counts as manly? Drinking a lot? Being a champion athlete? Attracting a lot of women?
It’s a matter of if you have to ask, you’re head isn’t in the game. Americans have some vague, abstract notion of what is “manly” because America is a commerce-oriented society – an “incomplete” society actually as Morris Berman suggested.
Manliness is spontaneous – its the expression of instinct, tempered by the prudence of reason. It’s not a “lifestyle” or some kind of contest or a status signifier such as how much money one makes or who they associate with or the kinds of things they do for recreation.
People who aren’t engaged in their own lives don’t apprehend culture or religion or sex. They just kind of observe these things from without as curiosities. Thus, they define culture as consumption habits, sex to them is some kind of affected pose or “gender role,” religion is a consumer choice or a kind of recreational activity like going to the movies.
Not to hijack the thread, but this was Heidegger’s lament – and its why he really broke with the entire European modernist tradition, including ‘right wing’ or proto-Fascist thinkers like Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. People contemplating culture or “gender” from a vantage point of alienation don’t apprehend the essence of these things. Its equivalent to Descartes’ proverbial ‘mind in a vat.’
Treat them like ladies in public and whores/mortal enemies behind closed doors and you’re OK... treat them like a Doberman... never let them detect weakness, and let them taste the back of your hand now and again, and you are safe.
Marriage confers rights to the spouses in one another’s bodies – VD is absolutely correct. Claiming a man has “raped” his wife is tantamount to claiming that a man whose wife is a spendthrift and who recklessly depletes marital property is guilty of larceny. As a matter of law it simply can’t be so.
At the same time, in America, precedent has been dispensed with by a (now absolutely sovereign) judiciary as controlling authority – and that same judiciary claims that two adults (of any sex) who are friends are “married” if they cohabitate and presumably masturbate together... so it would not arrive as a surprise if that same organ of government claimed that men and women having sex together within marriage is a form of “rape.”
We’ve already been availed to a penal law in many jurisdictions that has redefined what amounts to boorish or rude behavior by a man towards a promiscuous female as “rape.” [...]
In a “violent, oppressive marriage” the presumption is that a man is assaulting and or battering his wife maliciously. “Rape” has no more occurred there than the man whose wife has availed him to thousands of dollars in consumer debt that the marital budget cannot sustain has committed “burglary.” [...]
SJWs I believe (the Goyische variant I mean – Jews aren’t “SJWs” in any meaningful sense) are actually Puritan fanatics (or at least their philosophical descendants) who harbor all kinds of bizarre hangups about sex. As much as they’re singularly obsessed with homosexuality/sodomy and the like, they’re actually very much anti-sex. Goy liberalism makes more contextual/historical sense when one acknowledges that these people are deviant, sectarian cultists/fanatics of a religious sort.
These people are abjectly terrified of normal, adult sexual behavior.
These shitballs like Petraeus are the arch-enablers of feminism. For some reason, well-coiffed office pussy is as irresistible to them as shiny rims are to the average American negroid.
I mean there’s a legion of ultra highly-paid tarts in do-nothing jobs in proximity to top leadership who simply get pushed to the top of the promotional queue because some Ivy League (or equivalent) faggot can’t help himself from getting in their pants.
There’s a lesson in contrasts here, as per societies that work versus ones that don’t. In ones that work, the honcho takes a concubine when he sees quim that he likes, and he understands that she’s for fucking and maybe sometimes a walk in the garden. In societies that don’t work, the boss decides he sees a piece of ass he likes, he gives her a top job, decides she’s his “equal,” then ruins his career because he’s functioning on the level of a zit-faced 13 year old virgin.
Maybe that’s what the homos are getting at – they don’t like it that one of the main ways to get ahead in America is by giving pussy; they want to be able to poach ass in exchange for promotions too.
It’s not really possible to imagine because women don’t behave in such ways. In fact, women don’t behave politically at all. What women express is a deep and abiding fear/concern over proximate threats that stir their biological-maternal alarm system; things like parolees Polly Klass-ing their kids, pedophiles in our midst, and (to note your example) their teenaged sons being squashed by government squadratti.
The parading señoras you noticed holding Guadalupe-themed candles and weeping over their relatives weren’t making a political statement or even calling for reform of government in any meaningful sense. They were grieving in the way that women traditionally grieve and demanding some kind of comfort and consolation. You’ll notice more recently that Cindy Sheehan did the same thing – she didn’t make a spectacle of herself because she wanted people to take notice of a political crisis, she just wanted America to share a “good cry” with her because she lost a son.
What you’re hoping for is that women will begin behaving politically but will do so under the auspices of feminine persuasion and pathos. Not only will this not happen, but the women in question probably consider you, me and our fellows to be exactly the kind of “threat to the children” that motivates them to write letters and tote around photos of dead relatives in the first place.
— ErrigalBut women can be motivated by a desire to shame or scold the media for not mourning White female victims sufficiently or for failing to keep them safe from predators by withholding information on the perpetrator’s race.
I don’t know that they can because that’s a political question.
It sounds speculative, but we’re dealing with a basic matter of the difference of the psychological orientation of the sexes.
You will never see women in appreciable numbers in times of peace framing these circumstances in terms of “we are under attack by the other.” They will unfailingly resort to grieving and lamenting the existence of violence and calling upon people to end violence.
Ethnic violence and its implications is simply outside the scope of the female psychological experience in this way, save for circumstances of active crisis; and even then it probably registers more as an ever-present proximate threat than it does a political phenomenon.
I’ll never be an Übermench, because I’m intellectually, physically, and emotionally inferior. I also seem unable to overcome base desires and passions that are quintessentially human and vulgar.
The saving grace for anybody who appreciates these things is that it is in fact possible to overcome fear and loathing of oblivion and death. It is also imperative to practice deprivation for its own sake, welcome pain and suffering, and (on occasion) self-torture. These endeavors are modes of self-overcoming (albeit, petty and effeminate by comparison to genuine strength and unadulterated expressions of ‘will to power’)
I have made a study of all of these things in recognition of my own crippling weaknesses.
Hence, I believe that although I will never achieve the exalted status of Übermench (or even anything closely approximating it), I embrace self-loathing and penance on account of this fact.
Anybody who purports to be an ‘Overman’ on account of simple, everyday accomplishments is confusing Nietzsche with Dr. Phil. It’s ludicrous.
It comes down to predictable outcomes. Social liberals, secular humanists, et. al. are particularly neurotic about sex... that is why they are constantly raising it as an issue... yet they understand precious little about it and the dynamics that accompany it. The “take back the night” crowd likes to claim that “rape has nothing to do with sex” as if some one legged octogenarian with leprosy is just as likely to be raped as some gorgeous 20 year old girl. What would be a more reasoned suggestion is if they said “sex is about power and rape is the ultimate exercise of sexual aggression.”
People are a lot animal... and they retained a lot of their feral instincts and tendencies. At risk of sounding lascivious, I can tell you that the most intense physical relationships I ever had with women were a bit savage and characterized by controlled (and sometimes not so controlled) aggression. This sort of thing served a strong evolutionary purpose. Women who are worldly understand this sort of thing... a lot of women don’t and think that attention from men when they dress “skanky” is somehow the qualitative equivalent of attention from their female peers.
In short, I don’t think women “deserve” to be accosted/assaulted even if they are acting out in lewd ways... but its a pretty predictable outcome if it happens. Just like its a predictable outcome if I get jacked because I am hanging around on the corner in West Rodger’s Park flashing a Detroit roll and wearing a $5,000 watch.
That’s great, but in the real world if you put young men and women in a college environment where professors are encouraging them to ‘explore’ their own desires and abandon their faith in what is presented as the dour strictures of religion, they’re going to end up having sex.
HBD weirdos, “game” cads, and other people are emotionally stunted and don’t appreciate how normal young people interact. Young women and men want to get together with each other – its an overwhelming impulse. Young women aren’t autistic geeks doing some math or video game analysis about who is “alpha” – they just gravitate instinctively towards men they like.
Sex is a highly anarchic impulse that is tempered by moral instruction and marriage – its not this logically calculated thing. It’s rather spontaneous and animalistic, not calculated.
You can get a sense of how amazingly weird Western people have become by the way in which they discuss basic human affairs. “Female hypergamy” etc. Women are tumultuous and nutty until they actually mature (usually due to having children). Everybody knows that. Only Western spergs think its a “science” question or requires a theory.
Women aren’t funny simply because comedy is the ultimate “outsider art” and women are the consummate ‘insiders.’
It’s the same reason Tom Brady (handsome, alpha-male, prime eugenic specimen) isn’t funny but John Belushi (overweight, ugly, bizarre, prone-to-vice-and-gluttony outsider) was.
Comedy is the gallows humor of ugly, strange outsiders contemplating the world they cannot penetrate. It originates from a place that is ontologically opposite of being female.
Something that has been underway really for the last ten years – and has picked up in earnest since social media in the form of twitter and Facebook truly consolidated and became dominant – is that pop culture/mainstream culture picked up by osmosis some things from twenty and thirty years ago and the like that, in their “heyday” if we can even call it that, were artifacts of actual subcultures. I think Jim Goad has written some about this. To explain what I am talking about:
The “Dark Enlightenment” and assorted other hokey bullshit (“PUA Game,” “mens rights,” “race realism”) is what happens when people who until the advent of social media – and/or alternatively meme factory sites/forums that appeal to nerds like 4Chan – were basically exclusively plugged into television and mainstream print media and news and entertainment sources as their conduits for information and/or recreation. At some point, these demographics – lower middle class guys who work at ShitTech in Muncie Indiana, goofy bored college kids who waste their dads’ money fucking off online during class, random proles who never really spent time online until high speed internet became cheap and basically universally available, etc. – came across stuff like A. Wyatt Mann cartoons, ANSWER ME magazine rape issue scans, Boyd Rice screeds he’d read aloud with comical earnestness on Wally George, obscure 1970s futurist stuff on eugenics, and they decided it was some kind of cool and ironic brand new thing they could incorporate into their online role-playing persona. Because to these people, the internet is one part television you can talk to, one part World of Warcraft type game where during the workday you pretend to be a character and suggest and claim all kinds of (in their minds) outlandish things.
I saw this happen in real time. In 1997 you’d get on the internet because you were part of a subculture that mainstream/System loyal type people didn’t like. Maybe you were a bodybuilder who used anabolic steroids and your only source of info on drugs and drug interactions was morons at your local gym. Maybe you were a WN who was a Klanner or patched member of Metzger’s W.A.R. and you wanted to try (in vain) to take your nascent gang or “movement” national by connecting with other WNs across the country. Maybe you were into weird sex stuff and were keen to womanizing beyond the age when its semi-normal. Maybe you were devoutly religious and had a hard time finding people who’d be interested in discussing esoteric theologies with you. This was the “shell” or skeleton if you will of internet boards pre-social media and pre-internet usage boom – and its dusty bones remained and were discovered by the new type of internet user (i.e. John and Jane Q. Public).
So what happened when the new users discovered old bones? They decided to incorporate it into their roleplay. Thus, forums like “My Posting Career” and “AutoAdmit” emerged – forums where guys pretend to be bodybuilders who do tons of cocaine who hate niggers and follow Russian Orthodoxy and pine for the re-emergence of ‘"Fascism.” Or blogs like the one maintained by “Roissy” where frustrated individuals pretend to be these compulsive womanizers who are banging rich girls in the ass as part of some corny revenge fantasy couched in the language of issues of 1970s Penthouse Letters.
Of course, when people who actually are Fascists or National Socialists or historical revisionists, or people who are staunch religious zealots, or oddball drug users, sex deviants, or people who truly, sincerely due to their beliefs, class, station in life, circumstance what have you show up in these social media environs or blogs, the regulars recoil in horror because – as already stated – to them its just a role playing game.
Engage one of these guys who runs a ‘"Dark Enlightenment” blog in correspondence about the Holocaust myth, about racialism, about Islam and theology, about the naturally ordained differences between the sexes or any of their purported hobby horses and you’ll notice that he acts about as at ease as a Mormon missionary would if you took him to a brothel. It’s never supposed to become “real” you see – its a way to blow off steam at whatever ShitJob these guys hold as a cathartic release after being dressed down and embarrassed by the schoolmarm HR lady or the EEOC rep who just lectured the workplace staff on Sexual Harassment.
Of course, MSM types come across this kind of thing and feign contempt, pity, and outrage but that’s part of the whole social dynamic of life under ZOG – people pretend to believe “outrageous” things, moralists pretend to be outraged. The former play the part of naughty boys who sneak porno mags in their Trapper Keeper, the latter play the part of the disciplinarian dean. It’s all very contrived and lame.
Anymore when a White woman claims she was “raped,” its safe to assume she means, “I started fucking lots of guys when I was still rather young and psychologically undeveloped and now I am full of emotional resentment over it,” or “I seek validation through sleeping around with strangers, and this makes me pity them and myself and I rationalize it through this fantasy/erotic make believe narrative of ‘rape.’”
I only ever knew one lady who actually was raped – she wouldn’t talk about it and I only discovered it when a third party told me. You see, that’s common – people who have really awful things happen to them don’t want to air it out with strangers. It’s generally the skanks and mental cases who were doing anal in the 7th grade who want to yell from tall buildings that they were “raped” – narcissism is what they have in lieu of religion.
What’s anyone supposed to say anyway? “Gee, I’m real sorry your stepdad popped your cherry – at least he wasn’t a nigger [...]
Just about every woman under 35 or so claims she was “raped.” It’s some kind of status signifier every girl internalizes to satisfy a need for personal martyrdom and recognition from others in a highly stressful, emotionally cold, and largely anonymous social milieu.
I’ve come to treat it like barroom guys talking about war exploits when I hear any young woman mention “rape.” Odds are its total bullshit virtually 100 percent of the time.
What you say is true, and the cause of action is obviously frivolous, but the fact is that office culture in America is characterized by ridiculous and puerile social experiences, mores, and occurrences that would be more suited to a high school assembly hall. I’ve gleaned you’re a hard science guy, so you may have been able to avoid this garbage throughout your working life.
Imagine a hiring committee of nebbishes and aging ‘bro dog’ douchebags all pushing 50 who wile the hours away with lame jokes, swapping gambling tips, and speculating about when they’ll get to hire another “hot chic” so they can fantasize about pounding her to the mattress even though none of them will ever get the opportunity.
Meanwhile, some ugly broad who is actually competent or some guy who, I dunno, actually NEEDS a job b/c unlike women men actually do need gainful employment, will find themselves axed from consideration.
The antics of the office fags on the hiring committee will be tolerated mind you b/c the women on the same committee will correctly identify them as clowns who tow the EEOC line and scramble to comply with diversity fads b/c everybody knows its “every man for himself” and the way to fast track your career with any company the size of CitiBank is to be a mewling little race traitor/feminism-compliant crud.
This will make America great, you see. Never again will America land a man on the moon, conclusively win a war with another great power, build a continental railroad, or invent a revolutionary product comparable to the automobile, but that’s OK b/c more important things will be achieved like having some Rican porn chic manage the lending division at a major commercial bank or having some random African guy host Paul McCartney at the Oval Office.
— Hartmann von AueWomen have to be held responsible for their conduct, or kept out of the company of men (and boys who would do the same). Society has elected to do neither, but to find scape-goats and brand them as “pedophiles” “sex offenders” and “rapists” for acting on natural desires with the willing participation of girls who know exactly what they’re doing and who cannot be prevented from acting in that manner (there are no social or legal consequences for loose girls)
Yes, that’s true, and its one reason why America is a failed society.
At the same time you need to accept that girls (and a good percentage of grown women) aren’t going to take responsibility for themselves and their actions – the law in large measure considers women to lack full capacity, as both a customary and a pragmatic manner because most women simply can’t look after themselves in any meaningful way.
The problem is in other words that America is entirely dysfunctional – it’s not constructive however to suggest that men and women are “the same” or, alternatively, that women should be held accountable. These suggestions aren’t in line with nature and the reality of human lives.
I also don’t have a lot of sympathy for guys who have reached the age of majority who run into problems with underaged girls – I realized at a relatively young age that its imperative for your own safety, as a man, to really stay as far away as possible from women who you don’t share genuine amity with or a mutuality of romantic intention.
Guys who go through life hounding pussy everywhere they go are going to have all kinds of problems – just like guys who can’t moderate any other kind of jones all end up in bad spots in life. It’s not really something to lose any sleep over. [...]
— Hartmann von AueWhat we need is for women to be held responsible for their actions. That is, no more child support for bastards or women who commit adultery, no more scapegoating of men for the promiscuity of women.
Yeah but that’s an equalitarian argument of the kind that these “men’s rights” types are fond of. Men and women aren’t equal – and the solution to a dysfunctional cultural miasma isn’t to demand that more equality be implemented – the solution is to restore the natural, patriarchal order.
It’s like if I had a neighbor whose kids were always trampling on my lawn – the solution isn’t to hold the kids “responsible,” the solution is to see to it that the neighbor starts abiding his paternal duties by controlling his kids.
Observing the current social structure, the question I ask myself isn’t, “why aren’t women acting like responsible grown men would?"; the question that emerges is, “why aren’t grown men insisting upon order?”
I’ll say that W. was correct when he made the point that women represent the expressed will of nature... I suppose if they’re indifferent to you, it would lead you to believe that you’re insignificant. In contrast, if they bring out the worst in you and encourage you to become debauched and prompt you to do awful things, it seems like nature is facilitating your pathetic, passive demise. I’m not going to try to tame nature if I can’t live as a man while doing it, and its not a simple matter of frailty. Malice from another causes frailty in matters beyond reason... especially in the context erotic love. The malice women are capable of defies the imagination.
Manhood entails a little bit more than merely pushing plows and chopping wood.
I don’t have a dog in this fight between Julian and his opponents, but let’s not get all Alan Alda about the whole affair. A little bit of honesty is in order: I don’t respect some clown who lets his woman wear the pants and neither do you. A man who treats women as full ‘equals’ isn’t really a man, because their are no true ‘equal relationships’ between anybody. In short, such a man is dominated by his wife, and that makes him not a man at all.
The world does not reward the effeminate and servile, nor should it. [...]
When I see an ineffectual man who is cowed by his wife, I treat him like I would a woman or a child, and so do other men. If I want something from him, I’ll take it, if he makes a demand upon me, I’ll laugh, if he tries to speak with authority, I’ll ignore him. He’s essentially a cuckold. It’s rather fatuous for you to posit the question “what is wrong with being a weakling?” Nothing, I suppose, until stronger men decide they wish to challenge you in some way or take something from you.
I think what the fairer sex sort of fails to appreciate is that slatternly feminism and misogyny are both inextricably related symptoms of cultural decrepitude. Anal sex is appealing if you don’t like women very much... it’s a crude form of dominance and it’s painful. It’s a positive if married guys aren’t into it, not because its “gross,” but because you should like your wife and shouldn’t want to dominate her in brutal ways.
I have a theory that if women stopped acting like animals, most guys wouldn’t want to treat them like animals. The fairer sex represents the expressed will of nature (I think it was Weinenger said something to that effect). If you’re a man and women do awful things to you, it feels like nature has turned on you. When that happens, you can’t shoot them with a deer hunting rifle, but you can violate them in painful ways. Just my .02 [...]
I think sex is bound up with negative feelings in and of itself, unless there is real intimacy between a man and a woman. Religious types are correct on that count, although they buttress the point with lots of metaphysical nuances.
If you’re a man with a strong attraction to women, when you see a woman who appears sexually “available,” sluttish, etc. you want to do violent things to her... that’s one of the reasons why so many young guys get into trouble. It’s hard to control that kind of thing until you’re about 27-28 years old. I know this won’t score any points with most posters here, but the Muslim faithful are very interested in the suppression of sexual stimulus/public female chastity for a reason. I don’t think women should be forced to don full Burkhas, but if they were, I can tell you that I would find the day to day environment to be quite a bit less traumatic, psychologically speaking.
This is an excellent point, and I’d add that in my experience in public school, female on female antagonism was usually quite a bit more vicious and unrelenting than male bullying.
Realistically, even if a kid were really awkward, socially retarded, overweight, etc. if he stood up for himself and refused to take an ass kicking without getting his own licks in, everybody except the incorrigible jackoffs would grudgingly respect him and leave him alone. The girls on the other hand seemed bent on breaking the spirit of their hapless targets through incessant and constant harassment... literally for years on end.
The fairer sex seems unable to adopt a “live and let live” disposition towards others. I’ve seen it in the workplace as well, truth be told with people in their 30s and 40s. Women never leave the 10th grade.
Whose “authority”? The authority of the father who tried to raise morally upright sons (at least to the best of his abilities) versus the “authority” of the perpetual adolescent who bores everyone to death about him as his dipshit friends, “stopping the war, man” on grounds of buying pop-culture records by Bob Dylan and refusing to be drafted to fight the communists?
Authority is a question of natural rank and moral fortitude. People respond to it instinctively.
Being “anti-authority” in the 1968 sense means, “there is no God but me and my appetites.” It’s slavery passed off as ‘freedom’ – with the added insult of its categorical infantilism.
Communists murdered authority because it was grinding them into dust. Baby Boomers were rich kids who resented being expected to abandon the night-and-day orgy that let them spin pop-music records and toke weed indefinitely.
The last actual generation of youth of in the west were the KPD frontfighters and their Fascist enemies who took war to the streets to repair the world that the adults (in their disengaged senility) had ruined.
The reasoning isn’t that women are shameful, its that they’re shameless unless properly corralled; as the female existence is uniquely marinated in sexuality and primitive aspects of nature.
Nobody makes a serious claim that men aren’t mired in animal behavior and morbid instincts. What salvages the honor of ordinary men (who are the vast majority) is their willing submission/obedience to command and authority. That’s why nobody has any interest in men outside of how they perform various duties (nor should they). For some reason though, we’re told that women (undoubtedly the weaker sex) should be revered simply for existing, but nobody can really explain why.
Absent piety, and a willful acceptance of their conscription by nature to life functions, there really isn’t any reason to value women at all.
— KodosAs Winston Smith said in 1984 (not near an exact quote) “its almost always women who are the most bigoted followers of the party.”
As is proper. You’ll notice that party-states come about during emergency circumstances in order to defend against threats to national existence. Women in serious countries that face serious political challenges don’t think that they are being sold short if they don’t get a chance to cluck away in public and vent their ego at the ballot box in between shopping for shoes... rather, they fulfill their obligations and defer to the command authority of qualified men because the alternative is unthinkable.
Orwell, like most liberals, was deluded on this point... he seems to have chided women for behaving normally. [...]
I suppose the point is that its not the role of women to recognize and proactively correct injustice. In a socially intact society, women defer to male leadership and place their trust in it.
When you see a “bad” government, you are seeing a mode of order that is being maintained by men who are malicious or perverted... responsibility lies with them and their fellows, not with their wives and daughters.
I don’t think so. Alley cat sluts cause myriad problems for everybody... they’re the quintessential undesirable type of the fairer sex.
I think of these types of broads as being the functional equivalent of the guys we all know who are half-neanderthal, evolutionary throwbacks who spend their free time smashing hapless strangers in the face at the local pub for accidentally making eye contact with them... women lack physical power, so they can’t effectively sow chaos by throwing heavy muscle around. What they do instead is toss their pussy at everybody within striking distance and then sit back and enjoy the mayhem.
Civilized people don’t tolerate this sort of thing... its not a matter of being uptight or a “prude.”
I never understood the Fraternity thing... I suppose I attended a city University to avoid all of that shit.
You see, I understand why military guys haze each other, because they need to cultivate some sort of solidarity and get their confidence up for when they are sent to get killed overseas. I understand these tendencies in sports as well. When I was a sprat of about 21 years old and I was into competitive endeavors, my comrades and I engaged in some pre-meet rituals that would probably be considered pretty damn unseemly by most people outside of the loop. I suppose it was us trying to prove we could set ourselves apart from the rest by our willingness and ability to hack certain things.
What I don’t understand is the mystique of a club where guys get together for purpose of binge drinking, calling each other “bro” all the time, date raping sluts, and acting like wiggers. What I really don’t understand is why anybody would subject themselves to homoerotic rituals to gain membership in a “get drunk and act like a wigger” club.
I mean, can anybody clear this up for me? It all seems pretty juvenile and effeminate, in all honesty. [...]
— LionheartI wonder what kind of fucked up initiation rites Bush’s frat required.
The film “The Good Shepherd” addressed that, and its pretty degenerate. However, there is some utility to that (albeit nothing good). It’s understood that the Skull & Bones pledges are going to go on to be come the decision-makers in America. I assume that the reasoning is that a group of men who have endured group humiliation will share an intimate bond that will expedite negotiations between them later, when they find themselves heading up CIA, sitting in the Oval Office, or shining the CEO’s seat at Halliburton with their ass.
That is a bit different than guys’ pulling each others’ dicks and getting vomit dumped on their heads so that they can get invited to keggers for 4 years in college, after which time, they will go on to manage a Cingular Wireless outlet and never see their Fraternity “brothers” again, save for occasional reunions where they can reminisce about the good ol’ days of drinking each other’s tinkle over Budweisers at the local watering hole.
Women aren’t that mysterious, and they’re not magical treasure troves. It doesn’t take years to get to know them.
Croat girls are traditional and the ones with old world sensibilities want to have kids. Your wife isn’t supposed to be your best friend/pal, your fantasy lay, or your “soul mate” (I can’t believe I actually typed that phrase). She is supposed to be a marriageable woman who is willing and able to be a proper mother to your kids. You should understand all this considering your heritage.
I’m pretty out of the loop, but I do know that things began going wrong when people started hanging all kinds of weird stipulations on the courting process. [...]
When you get older, you experience passion and intensity for things unrelated to women.
What you describe can only really be experienced in youth anyway... people who are haunted by the desire for that kind of thing are just pining for their youth, and trying to experience a facsimile of what time has rendered impossible.
Truth be told, I think Yukio Mishima had incredible insight when he wrote (paraphrase) “Those of us who were robbed of good health in childhood don’t lose ourselves in sex.” Sex is a very superficial/banal means of revealing/experiencing the body... if you’re forced to take your physicality seriously, sex simply doesn’t seem very important.
There is certainly a lack of thematic subtlety that pervades the fantastical landscapes created by the fairer sex... Fantasy is just that: Fantasy. I think the sorts of creative flights of the female mind that give rise to pop fiction tend to involve utopias of a sort where everybody is a woman, in search of physical affection and the satisfaction of petty vengeance.
I’m not so sure if this type of thing is dispositive of occultic tendencies... I’d probably posit it as something that enjoys a wide audience on account of a prevailing culture that is anti-intellectual, hedonistic, and devoid of a genuine spiritual Tradition.
People are chasing their ass with their millionaire fantasies.
Nothing would change if I received a million dollars tomorrow. I’d pay off some debts, buy a nice car and spend a few grand on new suits. Then I’d sort of settle into business as usual and probably promptly self-destruct because I’d have more lavish means to do so than I do now.
Women and their fetish for money is demonstrative of the feminine nature: its one half infant, one half simple animal. They’re the intellectual equivalent of “Corky” or Jar Jar Binks, but with an incredibly appealing physicality.
Next time you take home some club slut, look beyond the French manicure, the thick mane of hair, and the gorgeous curves and realize that you’re basically fucking a retarded kid or a Lucasfilm space alien created for comic relief. [...]
There are smart schoolgirls, but they are an anomaly.
Let’s be honest here: Consumer idiot-culture is basically tailor made for young females and there is absolutely no stigma endured by young women who are complete and total morons. The average teenaged girl is essentially mentally retarded. I’m not trying to be nasty, I’m dead serious.
Men who patronize prostitutes (other than soldiers at war or unfortunate individuals who are disfigured) have something wrong with them... it means they can’t control their glandular impulses.
You remember the old movie “At Close Range” with Christopher Walken and Crispin Glover? It’s a lame picture, save for Glover’s dialogue... in one scene, he chides his best friend for compromising their criminal enterprise for the sake of a woman’s affection by asserting “All she’s got is a cunt.” I think, crude and simple as it sounds, there is much wisdom here... female bodies, in and of themselves, aren’t all that mysterious/fascinating. Mencken made this point often.
Any man who would violate the public trust, impugn his family’s honor, and risk federal indictment for a single night’s pleasure with a well-worn meat puppet is functioning on the level of slow-witted teenaged boy or a mongrel dog. It’s not a matter of prudish Yankees spoiling everybody’s fun. Personally, I get a kick out this kind of thing because I like it when the inner party are exposed as the animals that they are, but the outrage which is being directed towards [Elliott] Spitzer by his constituents is proper and well placed.
It isn’t just Moslems who live their lives in this way – its historically normative in virtually every human society for men to primarily bond with other men and women to primarily bond with other women. People until recently lived in communitarian circumstances, and they remained tethered to the land (or in the case of pastoralists, the tribe) for generations. Bonds between people were very, very strong. Men and women came together for a discrete purpose, and their union was just one of many dimensions of communitarian life.
One reason Westerners are neurotic and crazy is that they have this idea that everyone should live atomized lives, but should seek out a spouse to “complete” them who will act as their friend, provide them with social support, and basically take the place of a community. This is not something that is realizable, and its not the way men and women naturally interact.
I’d say the primary dysfunctional aspect to Muslim societies is that they place undue emphasis on authority for its own sake, not that they segregate the sexes. Sex segregation is normal – the West is abnormal for doing away with it.
Goy liberals actually have a prudish view of sex and sexuality – this dovetails with a view of women that is basically Victorian and denies that women have full capacity as per morals/morality, culpability for criminal behavior, ethical responsibility and the like while simultaneously claiming that women are entirely “equal” to men.
Many anti-porn crusaders in the “West” basically posit that a harlot who earns her money as a porn actress is being forced into prostitution by 1) inequitable circumstances/economic oppression, and 2) the machinations of predatory men who are unwilling and/or unable to keep their bestial impulses under control.
Lizzie Borden, Casey Anthony, Linda Lovelace all are iconically representative of the maudlin moral narrative.
Of course there’s also the basic reality that a lot of women are oversexed and essentially beastly and cynical – some women come to love sex and the power they wield by utilizing sex in the same way some men are enamored with violence to the point that they attack what they view as the oppressive social burdens placed upon them severally by society.
The whore is basically a crimson-souled women who is bored by life and who disdains society. She’s not a damsel in need of rescue.
Liberal doublethink writ large.
It was a question that’s indicative of womens’ lack of understanding (in the Occident) of the significance of violence in mens’ lives.
If you think men and women are fungible and that violence is simply something bad that humans experience, you don’t get it and you don’t understand why instances of racial violence are important. To you, its simply important like fire prevention is important; it’s some general “dangerous” thing that needs to be prevented.
Erotic passion is the most overwhelming aesthetic and emotional experience that man is capable of experiencing, save perhaps for the sin of wrath (and its function as a catalyst for vengeance). It can only be tempered by reason – and thus is the tragedy of Romantic love. Romantic love cannot abide the demands of reason. This was most eloquently described by Anglo-Saxons (ironically) – Emily Bronte and DH Lawrence.
The reason why Romantic love is not experienced by Americans is because they have divorced sex from passion – it’s merely an impulse towards satiation within the Liberal conceptual horizon. It’s tantamount to eating or sleeping – or its a source of transgressive delight pursued to alleviate boredom.
Actual erotic passion is extraordinarily destructive – and its exclusively the domain of youngsters who have not yet had their will softened by age and tragedy and the development of reason. People who lament the “boredom” of marriage have never actually experienced it – their lament is not that of a prodigal, its that of one who covets things he has observed from without or learned of secondhand.
I believe the greatest ascetics, in history and and present, were men who were destroyed from within by their own passion for a woman, whose sublime beauty and sensuality prompted them to forego all else to capture her as a sacrifice, and whose obsession therein only led to ruin.
Well, that’s the Marx/Darwin/Freud account of these things. You’re not stupid, so hopefully you’ll develop a better sense of value overtime.
What changes in life when you get to fuck pretty girls? To me, it seems a lot like collecting the accoutrements of material wealth. There you still are... does young snatch and an Audi keep the grim reaper away? Does it mean you’re winning? Does it stop the black-hole suction of modern life?
Ultimately, the “point of marriage” isn’t to make YOU “happy” or to guarantee that you get your rocks off regularly. The point of it is to become complete by participating in the linear chain of being that is the life process. A “good life” cannot be an individualist endeavor... and it sure as hell isn’t holiday recreation.
— Heavens to BetsyYou haven’t answered my question. You have told me why it is bad for the man to be dominated in a marriage. Why should it be any better for a woman to be in that position?
Do you really require an explanation?
“Power” in the world (at all levels) is wielded against others by strong, ruthless (and often malevolent) men. The only way to protect oneself from abuse at the hands of those that wield power (social, economic, political, et. al.) is to make it cost prohibitive for them to try to whimsically wield it against you. The way that this is achieved is by wielding power as a counterweight to that of the antagonists. Women are the spoils (not the subjects) of this enduring paradigm. Hence, a man who is a cuckold has ‘opted out’ of the process and is not considered credible. He is not somebody who can wield power as a counterweight against his antagonists. In short, he is totally impotent.
In contrast, women do not experience cuckoldry. A woman who defers to a strong man is not going to suffer any social, economic, or political detriment on account of her deference. In fact, depending on the status of the man in question, she may actually augment her relative power.
In short, the only reason why women raise these sorts of questions is because they take civilization for granted... absent 60 years of ‘enlightened’ social conditioning, a Byzantine system of laws regulating private conduct between persons, and Draconian prohibitions on sexual violence, women would essentially be chattel slaves.
If the shit hit the fan tomorrow, I’d fare pretty well. I’m young, well-armed, and a lean 215 lbs. You can’t say the same.
No. Power can be wielded by women.
Not really. Women depend upon male actors to guard and guarantee their rights and enforce their will. In short, any power that they wield is contingent upon men allowing them to wield it and acquiescing to their demands that they enforce it.
Since you have said yourself that power encompasses social, economic, political power etc., then the fact that in a match of brute strength men will generally over power women is irrelevant to the wielding of power in general.
Power begins and ends with who has a monopoly on organized force. Women who have power have power because men are willing to execute their orders for some actual or perceived benefit.
Women do not experience cuckoldry, no. But only because cuckoldry is explicitly defined as an act a women performs against a man.
Women don’t experience cuckoldry because the nature of the sexes is fundamentally different. Women cannot be stripped of power in the same way that men can be.
Women can and do experience infidelity,
A woman with a philandering husband does not become a cuckold... in contrast, a man with a whoring wife may very well end up not procreating while being saddled with providing for another man’s child. Women have very little standing to criticize male infidelity... while men have every reason and right to guarantee the fidelity of their wife.
And it’s not any better for a woman to experience it than a man.
This is incorrect. A woman who is abused by her husband is considered (rightly) to be a victim of a cruel and more powerful person. A man who is a cuckold is looked upon as an ineffectual weakling and an emasculated fool. His manhood has been taken from him. A woman who is beaten or humiliated by a man does not lose her womanhood. It’s not analogous.
So in other words I should live my life in perpetual gratitude that the men in my life do not beat and/or rape me.
In other words, you should think twice before you start espousing feminist orthodoxy. The only thing standing between you and the grubby hands of those Moroccan miscreants you told us about is strong men who are willing to prevent them from raping you.
The fact is that we do live in a world of such ‘social conditioning,’ ‘Byzantine laws’ and ‘Draconian prohibitions on sexual violence’ (goodness knows what you mean by that).
The fact is that the world is changing. Look at what occurs periodically in the Paris suburbs. Those vicious young Muslim boys don’t respect ‘womens rights’ and they don’t accept cuckoldry.
Well done, your physical superiority gives you the opportunity and the ability to physically overpower women like me. That must make you feel terribly manly.
Not especially. It just means that there is no reason to take women seriously when they attempt to wield any sort of authority over me.
The thing to consider here is that Liberalism is (to coin a Marxian descriptive signifier) quite literally defined by its internal contradictions – it’s an aggressively political doctrine that premises its own legitimacy on a claim that politics (i.e. the “friend”/“enemy” paradigm) is irrational and illegitimate. The Liberal is the metaphorical equivalent of Ray Bradbury’s fireman whose occupation is to start fires.
In the case of the military and military values, Liberalism is extraordinarily anti-military, yet it relies on military solutions to implement its objectives. The US military is an armed force that exists to punish people for engaging in military behavior – its a police department of sorts that enforces a prohibition against warfare.
The reason why a Liberal state cannot abide an all-male military force is because male armies exist to participate in actions that are considered to be criminal. The impetus for warfare, essentially, is to allow men to pursue glory through violence, and to satiate instincts that are at odds with society. There is of course also a sacrificial purpose to warfare (controlled slaughter of the male infants to cull their ranks), an evolutionary-psychological purpose (constructive application of instinct), an aesthetic and cultural dimension (creating a prime symbol of the masculine vitality of a people, the reverence of which allows them to experience vicarious edification), and a pragmatic function (murdering enemy competitors to guarantee group survival) – however, the ‘culture of war’ was sustained by obviously pre-rational and basic consideration that were neither utilitarian nor pragmatic.
An Army was axiomatically disposed to rapine and murder – and its ability to conquer and rape was its own reward. The Left raises this point often in history, and while they improperly levy it as a punitive charge, its not fundamentally incorrect. The manner in which this kind of institutionalized blood-lust was managed varied from culture to culture, race to race, but it didn’t vary radically. Some societies created an aristocracy of the sword – by which lower orders were deprived of the right to kill, and those who bore weapons were screened for proper breeding and pedigree over generations. Other societies placed authority over war in the hands of shaman and priests; further sacralizing the function and thus conditioning people to approach the process and its institutions with humble reverence and awe. The Europeans, in their cultivated brilliance, combined the priestly function and the soldier/killer function, culminating in the knightly orders of holy warriors – ascetics whose only pleasure was war.
This of course was a ‘civilizing’ process, but not in the rational and peaceful sense of civilization. The integral morality of the aristocrat/killer or the holy warrior (as per his vocation) was a type of masculine virginal purity – exemplified by what Mann stated about the martyrdom of Sebastian: Beauty is unwavering poise under torture. An ideal warrior loves death – inflicting it on others and receiving it, ultimately, in battle or under trial. Among other things, this ethos is an extreme form of sublimated eroticism coupled with an overwhelming passion for murder; only rendered “civilized” through contemplation and aesthetic perfection. This kind of thing, obviously, is entirely anathema to the guiding ideas, ethics, values, and logic of Liberalism.
A female army, presumably, will be devoid of predation. It will have no interest in death-worship, it will not seek out war as a means to glory, it will not question authority, it will not arrive as a band of conquering headhunters. It will not festoon itself with skins peeled from its victims. It will not cut out the snatches of the enemy’s wives and daughters. It will not dine on the flesh of the vanquished. It will arrive to punish men who have committed the crime of war itself. Those who look upon it will not be moved to fear – they will be forced to entertain the fiction that it has arrived for peaceful purposes to protect humans and their “rights.”
The question is why the United States has an “army” at all, not why it is populated by women. A Liberal society with an army is like a Soviet state that maintained a formal institution devoted to currency speculation, or a Theocratic state that honored atheism.
Boers I am sure know exactly what is going on – less than 20 years ago these people were availed to a Whites-only military draft due to a constant state of emergency wrought by the prospect of racial warring.
Boers basically were targeted by the entire world-governmental apparatus for destruction after the Cold War thawed – they believe the rest of the world hates them and they aren’t wrong. These guys aren’t real eager to lay out the “hard truth” to Americans they meet upon arriving on our shores. Americans are the “brainwashed” ones – not the Boers, and since America, not White South Africa, runs the world, the Boers know to keep their mouths shut.
Placing women in combat is an effort to eradicate war by diktat.
The root word of “infantry” is “infant” – its the screening process (in evolutionary terms) by which aged men sacrifice male youth, to channel their barbaric instincts constructively and spare the more ‘valuable’ members of the social group. War has a purpose that can’t be reconciled with Liberal rationalism.
Even if women were physically as strong as men, deploying them in “combat” would obviate the purpose of warfare. That is the whole point – Liberalism is premised on Kantian ethics. Within that paradigm, war and the ‘culture of war’ is at best illegitimate and foolish and at worst something monstrous.
The Canadian Forces are about as combat-ready as the Salvation Army. They have had “no problems” integrating fags, dykes, self-mutilating pervos, and teenaged girls into “combat units” because the Canadian Forces are hell-bent on never entering into combat again.
It’s not admirable for men to brutalize women as a matter of course. At the same time, a lot of Eastern peoples aren’t entirely civilized. Nobody needs to tell you that because you’ve dealt with them in their own environs.
One of the most difficult aspects of liberal values tyranny to deal with in public discourse is its ethical promiscuity. Pashtun women are “all women.” Iraqi citizens are “all citizens.” Kurds who are summarily executed without the benefit of Due Process are “all people.”
We need to be able to rely on people like military men to preserve a tenor of dispassionate realism and not pander to these things. One of the reasons we’re in deep shit is because they’ve surrendered to ideological convention and rendered us headless.
It doesn’t matter what you or I say. It matters a lot what a general with rows of ribbons on his chest says.
I think the point is that there is a discipline that attends the use of blade that does not accrue in a rifleman. Of course, its correct that Western armies never harbored an ethos of personal valor of the type expressed by Tecumseh’s “red sticks” but I think its fairly clear that there is a difference between killing a man with a sword and devastating his position from miles away with artillery pieces and cluster bombs. The less intimate and more remote the act of killing becomes, the less meaningful the act is to the killer and the less important it is to inculcate fighting men with traditional soldierly virtue. The ability to calculate is characteristically different than the ability to judge ethically and honorably, in other words. [...]
I’m more concerned with patriotism than the moral implications of killing for monetary compensation. It’s pretty clear to me that since 1861, the army of the United States has waged war at the behest of private interests and compensated its soldiers with regular pay in exchange for killing. The draft which was intermittently employed allowed policy planners to maintain the fiction that the Army was truly a national army that was oriented towards national defense, but since 1972, that particular feature of the military apparatus has been abolished. A man who volunteers for combat duty in the US Army is volunteering to kill people for monetary compensation. That makes him a mercenary, just as much as a “Blackwater” employee is... the fact that the latter is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ notwithstanding.
America’s relationship to media is strange because it developed differently than in other advanced states. Other societies always understood that media must be controlled by govt. directly – Weimar, Japan, the Third Reich, Gaullist France, the USSR, the UK, the list goes on.
Media in America became a loci of great power as the managerial state was coming into existence and before it was really consolidated. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, America since the defeat of Adams and the ushering in of the “democratic” age in the new world always ascribed to a strange and somewhat trivial civic ethos that places a great esteem on procedures, formalism, institutionalized public grievance resolution, and things of this sort.
So by the 20th century, media was operating in a peculiar way – it considered itself to be “independent” of other loci of power and it had entrenched itself as an arbiter of conflict resolution, debate, and civic culture. This often took the form of what was known then as “muckraking,” purple journalism, and irresponsible efforts to introduce volatility into public debates and current events for the sake of preserving this kind of non-sensical “independent” function.
Leap forward several decades and we have what C Wright Mills and Noam Chomsky talked about vis-à-vis media – an increasingly monistic and unitary ‘power elite,’ of which the media is a main component; for many reasons, not the least of which being that media relies entirely on public authorities for its access to information, thus becoming little more than instrument of public authority even though it is not formally structured that way. The ‘manufacture of consent’ comes about in other words because of the manner in which power develops in advanced, technological societies.
Add to this the domination of media by a hostile ethnic elite and the tenor of racial propaganda makes quite a bit of sense. Media relies upon govt. for its access to information, the government it relies upon is increasingly tailored to be at odds with civil society and enforce a ‘world society,’ media still is invested in its founding mythology as an ‘independent’ and popular source of political action and is oriented towards creating volatility; finally, the political theology of the modern American state is an ethical scheme of remedial justice and “anti-Fascism.”
There is no conspiracy here.
Visual media destroyed the way in which people evolved to negotiate the world. Even if you never watched TV again, your formative memories wouldn’t be yours. They’d be phantasms from TV. You ‘remember’ TV. You don’t remember any kind of history. Nobody does.
Since prehistory the consciousness of homo sapiens was an organic synthesis of ancestral knowledge, myths, and prejudices inherited from the tribe’s forefathers. Only since the Baby Boomer generation that grew up in the 1960s has this largely been replaced by an electric tube which functions as a surrogate parent.
In the United States at least the programming for this tube is largely written by a collection of Steinbergs, Kaufmanns, and Grossbaums.
I understand that and its an important point, but an accusation that MSM is “racist,” and hence White America is “racist” is senseless in a prima facie way.
Something Burnham and Francis were actually in agreement w/Chomsky on (and the point is irrefutable) was that commercial media constitutes elite opinion, not popular opinion; so an allegation that it is disseminating racist propaganda is an allegation that elite/Jewish opinion has a racist bent.
Pretending that things are otherwise is to lend credence to the lie that media is somehow an organ of popular opinion and not manufactured opinion. Media has nothing to do with White American cultural mores or tendencies.
At some point, you’re going to recognize that we cannot collectively end modernity by way of wishful thinking and return to some halcyonic rural existence defined by salubrious country living. I appreciate that you and B-Pep very much esteem the myth of the yeoman, but its not possible to return to that mode of existence... unless you have the means and resources to cloister yourself away from the features of urban modernity and stake out a plot of land in flyover country.
I also don’t think that I have ever come out in favor of deracinated cosmopolitanism... in fact, I think that I’ve advocated the opposite view. That said, I don’t see the only alternative as rugged, rural living.
In all honesty, most of you guys spend far too much time lamenting the social-cultural decrepitude of the Third Estate. I think there is ample precedent indicating that the masses are dysfunctional, hedonistic, and relatively uncivilized in all times, and in all places. You can either stop expending emotional energy over the state of them, or you can be Alex Linder.
I think that the urban environment that I live in is aesthetically pleasing, but it is also oppressive, bleak and lonesome. At the same time, I have traveled fairly extensively in this country and I have found rural communities to be equally bleak, and the people who live their to be just as ‘caged’ in their thoughts and behaviors as their urban counterparts, although characteristically different.
I’ve pondered the life as penal sentence notion now and again. I don’t think that running for the hills represents any sort of ‘escape’... it’s the functional equivalent of the ‘birdman of Alcatraz’ cataloguing sparrows and the like. Urban alienation vs. rural alienation... I’ll take the former.
Baby Boomers, as a demographic, actually do exhibit bizarre psychological afflictions that are unique to their cohort. Chief among them is a delusional and childlike view of popular culture and its significance.
Even the intelligent ones often resort to this – Paglia comes to mind. Boomers are the only generational cohort who believe that, for example, the bubble-gum pop songs of boy band/commercial rock acts like The Beatles represent some philosophically deep, world-transforming theology, the message of which they (the Boomers) were elected to receive.
My own Generation (Gen X) may be full of cretins and nihilistic losers, but I have yet to meet anybody my age who believes that Axl Rose was a grand Lama or philosopher or who believe that they altered the course of world history by going to Lollapalooza and smoking some herb.
Sayyid Qutb had interesting things to say about American culture in his essays that he penned during the two years he lived and studied in America.
Something he came back to again and again was the utter cognitive dissonance of America with respect to its own purported ethics, and how these fundamental contradictions led to real hypocrisy in how America approached the world.
He made particular note of the fact that in NYC, prostitution was considered entirely normal, and even normal women would flaunt their sexuality in public despite a civic narrative of Protestant morality, that America held itself out as a ‘world democracy’ despite maintaining de jure segregation, and that it purported to be trying to elevate negroes to a more civilized form while at the same time worshiping cretinous Black athletes.
The idiotic canards about women collectively deserving “respect” exist precisely because America doesn’t have any respect for women or for sex. No country that thinks pornography is a swell career path for down on their luck coeds or that females should be deployed to combat zones like camp followers of centuries past has “respect” for women. Cultures that value females don’t need to issue declarations on “respect” – they just abide the mores of civilization.
In the real world, churches are a social club/charity racket that suckles at the government tit and struggle to remain relevant because nobody actually takes religion seriously in the Western world.
You can discern when people actually believe in God, because that kind of fervent belief has very extreme implications. This is why, for example, Islamic militias kill people who in their view insult God.
You can tell me that some fat bitch who draws a paycheck from some moribund Methodist congregation in Minnesota to settle Somali refugees harbors some abiding and zealous belief in God, or that some sweaty redneck preacher truly and honestly believes in the “risen Christ,” but this is obviously bullshit. These people are hustlers making a living.
Sayyid Qutb had interesting insight into America and its problems, way back in the 1950s. He noticed that America, like the Soviet Union, had done away with religion, yet unlike the Stalinists, people pretended that religiosity still had some kind of cultural sway over day to day life and social values. Christianity was something that nobody actually believed in, in other words, but Qutb noticed that it was some kind of faux pas to actually point this out. This is a problem with the culture here – everything is premised on appearances, including politics. You should be able to discern this; as you’re always exhorting others not to accept things at face value.
Functional descendants of priests are jurists, as they wield the sovereign authority to decide matters of equity.
Your analogy is interesting but inaccurate. ‘Jocks’ and ‘nerds’ are degenerated moderns. Thucydides for example wasn’t a ‘jock’ – he was a warrior, philosopher, and man of action. A ‘jock’ is a cretin who has no inner life and who values games and material trappings of victory in superfluous games over anything else. The historical facsimile of a jock would be a dimwitted gladiator who cares for nothing other than wine, gold, the favor of women, and shouts of approval from plebes when he kills opponents in staged spectacles. A general of arms has nothing in common with such a man.
Similarly, a ‘nerd’ is a managerial technocrat who is incapable of thinking in terms of total systems as he is stubbornly oblivious to nuance and non-utilitarian measures of value. A nerd can only exist in a technological state that places a premium on specialization and quantity – Aquinas, for example, had nothing in common with the modern nerd; the ‘nerd’ is best exemplified by Robert MacNamara or Bill Gates. Nerds are enemies of philosophy, not its stewards.
Your argument is basically the same as the liberal argument in defense of public education – X might say he doesn’t want his kid to be availed to multicultural indoctrination, he doesn’t want his kid to be inundated with atheist ideas, he doesn’t want him to be subjected to propaganda that is passed off as history, he doesn’t want him to be instructed that bizarre sexual behaviors are normal, etc. So the Lib will claim, “well, just teach your kid whatever you want in your own home or church.” That’s all good and well, but people in modern societies don’t live their lives in isolation – they live their lives in public spaces.
Anybody in America who decides they’re going to “tune out” this kind of constant, incessant, senseless information or refuse to avail himself to the therapeutic institutions that are bound up with every school, every workplace, every local government, every media source, etc. is basically just reacting against something that is insurmountable. He’s just trying to strike a protest pose at that point or trying to craft a psychological survival strategy.
“White Nationalism” as understood by thinkers such as Jared Taylor, Sam Francis (RIP), et. al. is not intended to approximate organic, blood and soil nationalism. Rather, it is a platform designed to remedy certain political circumstances that are unique to America and to address the interests of various populations of people who are adversely affected by current domestic policy and contemporary (mis)interpretations of Federalism.
The Left essentially created White Nationalism, because their entire platform in the USA is premised on the notion that all “White” peoples are members of a privileged oppressor class that colludes to collectively dispossess everybody else.
I (A WASP), an Irishman, a Polish-American, a Russian, and an Italian might not have a lot in common culturally... but the Enemy’s platform dictates: You are all the same beast... you are all the Oppressor.
Considering these circumstances, would it make a lot of sense for me to not co-operate with like minded Poles, Russians, or Irishmen? It would be a little self-defeating to cast hostility upon other White communities at this juncture... don’t you think?
I have long felt that White people are also a nihilistic, self-loathing lot that collectively suffers from a real existential neurosis. It’s almost as if there is an ever-present, memetical subtext within White societies that we are all “fallen” to such a degree and so responsible for the trials and tribulations of “oppressed” peoples that rape, murder, political and social dispossession are fitting punishments that should be welcomed.
I will never forget being a high school kid and seeing Reginald Denny on national television claiming that he was responsible for the fact that a gang of Blacks attempted to beat him to death and that he loves them for showing him the errors of the White race’s collective ways. I remember the Blacks in the audience reacting with a sort of puzzled bewilderment, as they aren’t fully aware of the depth of this spiritual sickness from which White societies suffer.
The ‘White Nationalist’ reaction to the multicult is a mirror image of the multicult. It’s a sneering, powerless “oh yeah? We got that too!.” BigMedia has teenybopper girl acts, WN comes up with their own cut rate imitation. Policy planning orgs and Law Enforcement indulge in fear-mongering about vestigial ‘White Supremacism,” Dave the Duke says “oh yeah!” and pens a screed called “Jewish Supremacism.”
A country that takes the proper approach to the national question makes obsolete any racial policies by being the political expression of a single nation.
As I’m sure you’re aware, a race can contain many nations while the opposite is rare to non-existent.
Friend and Enemy are ontological categories that reflect objective circumstances. Iraqis didn’t try to kill [Chris] Kyle because they hate him personally or because he goes to church or because his wife doesn’t wear a burka or because they don’t like his haircut. They tried to kill him because he was there, he was armed, and he was their enemy.
It’s effeminate for a man to claim that relations between enemies have some personal dimension related to the subjective characteristics of the self. Coming from an obvious psychopath like this Kyle character, its especially oddly placed. It almost reminds me of a homosexual serial murderer shrieking aloud when confronted about his ghoulishness, “they hated me for who I am!” [...]
I don’t know if they’re Americans or not. The judiciary claims they are b/c a Federal army invaded American states, manumitted them by force, and subsequently a formal Amendment was ratified declaring that Blacks are and always have been “Americans.” I don’t believe people become part of a national community by judicial fiat; but that seems to be a minority position at present. Just the same, its a hard sell (historically speaking) to demonstrate that “American” simply describes physical presence within the United States, belief in some anonymous “creed” and procedures, or categorical inclusion within Constitutional privileges declared by a federal court.
It is true that Blacks aren’t African, and the fact that they have chosen to identify as such in many cases probably says something about their own historical confusion about their own identity. At the same time, they aren’t “American” by any traditional measure.
Something that is overlooked a lot today, and even otherwise smart commentators often slide into this (Buchanan comes to mind), is that the American identity until the mid-20th century had a deeply historical organic component; and it was tethered to Protestantism in profound ways as well as northern Germanic racial heritage.
Irish, Italians, Poles aren’t comparable to Blacks in the New World, but they aren’t American either in the historical understanding of the American national identity. Being White as a matter of law and a matter of fact certainly had political implications here, and European peoples (obviously) were always understood to be White, but that was not synonymous with being “American.”
IMO, racialism is primarily political. I want my people (and other peoples) to enjoy unfettered, unconditional rights to self-determination and free association... that is essentially all I care about. Matters related to human biodiversity, gaps in IQ averages between races, substantive biological differences between races is all very interesting and worthy of study, but it’s not terribly important.
These things become relevant from a rights/policy perspective when we are analyzing why certain groups succeed and certain groups fail... however, the fact that such a political dilemma exists in the first place cuts to the root of the problem.
Marine LePen is a cut above most figures of the European ‘right,’ in her intelligence, poise, and gravitas – however, that doesn’t say all that much when her EU contemporaries are Dutch fops who perform silly imitations of American neocons with an eye to agitate tabloid reporters.
Marine should worry more about French people, more about American/Jewish ideological and economic hegemony in world affairs, more about the fact that US troops still occupy Europe, more about Europe’s atheism and pathological approach to the past (and languid and nihilistic approach to the future, and less about what Moslems are doing, believing, thinking, and wearing.
As Martin Luther said, “let a Turk be a Turk.” People of the Right should have no issue at all with a Moslem being a Moslem – these people aren’t Frenchmen, they’re Orientals following an alien faith. Suggesting they should become secular republicans and stop abiding customs alien to France so that they might become “French” is the disengaged liberal notion, not the right-wing or nationalist one.
Europe is so far around the bend on grounds of modernity, Holocaustianity, soon to be eight decades of occupation by the ugly American, and the Tower of Babel world society that to be a liberal in France is considered a “right wing” or “extreme” position.
Paul Gottfried is prone to histrionics and hyperbole, but he’s nevertheless insightful. He made the point some years ago that the mainstream European “right” at present is more left-wing than the European communist parties of the 20th century. Something is wrong when Marine Le Pen is considered a hard-line nationalist in the court of public opinion.
White as a matter of law meant “free man, not a Negro or aborigine, who enjoyed full capacity.” Of course, these kinds of concepts in jurisprudence didn’t emerge in a vacuum in order simply to create a peculiar power structure (as some historians allege, Howard Zinn prominent among them) it emerged in response to complex and intractable tensions related to the realities of racial slavery and periodic instances of literal racial warring between White settlers and aboriginal tribes and confederations.
It would be difficult and overly ambitious to fully enumerate the political and legal significance of race in America, but for our purposes its probably not even entirely necessary. Circumstances, some of which were cultivated by vested authorities in America and some of which emerged spontaneously on grounds of basic enmity between discrete populations in the New World, facilitated the development of a political consensus identity that was explicitly race based. Thus, the political fortunes and cultural power of the White race in America became synonymous with the continued existence of the American polity. For an American to eschew consideration of this is basically for him to concede power to persons who want to harm his social and political interests.
You might consider this to be cavalier or cynical, but James Burnham essentially posed the question during the Civil Rights era of what exactly Whites had to gain by embracing racial integration. It certainly didn’t somehow bolster America’s social cohesion or inculcate Americans with an augmented and beneficial civic identity, it didn’t increase the perceived legitimacy of vested cultural and political institutions (it undermined them) and it didn’t increase America’s standing vis-à-vis international power politics (despite a primary impetus for these efforts being the moral challenge issued by the Communists entailing racial equality).
America will either remain a Western country or it won’t. America is a Western country because it is a polity that existed on grounds of a consensus among White peoples. When this circumstance ceases to be, America will cease to be. It’s really more simple than people wish to make it. [...]
A political community is, by definition, a community of exclusion. There really isn’t any more of a moral component present in excluding Blacks from the political franchise than there is in excluding any other discrete and insular population for any reason or no reason.
Well, that’s the problem. America is a denatured society that is premised on individualism; so people arrange their loyalties around things like personal status signifiers and group affinities that will facilitate individual achievement.
Something to learn from Japanese, Germans, Slavs, Moslems, and the like – people who have been and remain at odds in a basic way with Judeo-liberalism/modernity – is that politics (war, loyalty, ethical orientation, etc.) demands fealty to things that precede and supersede individual lives and personal interests.
That isn’t to say that white people in America should strive to become collectivists or emulate Orientals, but they’ve been shorn of any meaningful anchoring to extra-personal imperatives (theological, historical, political/racial).
In oversimplified terms, the white man in the New World was an easy mark for Jews for a reason. This is a problem that substantially more culturally rooted than a mere absence of virtuous leadership.
Confusion arises in these mediums about the currency of race as a political quantity. We end up with Americans who are in dialog with their own regime’s political values involving forced integration de jure mining for rebuttals and relying on scientific evidence and public policy data to buttress their counterclaims. That is where the “binary” fallacy Niccolo is talking about emerges here; it doesn’t have to do with Il Ragno’s polemic or statements by former US Presidents.
Race is politically important because its a basic human characteristic that is tethered to both identity and myriad inner psychological states that humans rely on in order to render judgments about who and what constitutes legitimate authority and what concepts, customs, habits, prejudices, and practices are accepted as inviolable and sacred and what ones are identified as profane and intolerable.
When we consider that the entirety of discourse related to policy, ethics, and morality in the West is oriented towards remedial measures that have been crafted and implemented to mitigate what has come to be accepted as the immoral nature of White world supremacy (which was the ordering principle of the international power structure until 65 years ago) its really not possible to extricate race from any consideration of politics. It can’t be defanged by appeals to theology or abstractions.
White criminality lacks political implications – so your point doesn’t make a lot of sense.
If Whites were committing organized violence against other people for political reasons and with the blessing of the political establishment, it would have significance of the kind you’re talking about.
Random mentally ill Whites committing “lone wolf” violence has no political relevance, and its rare to the point that its hardly worth mentioning in a discussion of American crime.
In this Zimmerman case, two grown men apparently got in a fight (one of whom was a Negro and one of whom is some brown immigrant) and one of them ended up dead. It shouldn’t raise any attention whatsoever. Foolish men get into fights all the time.
You’re a smart guy, but you buy in way too much to the John Birch Society view of history.
Spengler was an imperialist and an elitist... he also recognized that mass-politik was an inevitability that would occur in the 20th century. The only way to offset the destructive character of democracy would be to grant enduring mandate to a properly cultivated elite, rather than simply shuffling around managerial actors according to term.
Spengler took strong exception to National Socialism on account of what he perceived as its vulgarian tendencies... and he abhorred the notion of general strike. He was not a Marxist sympathizer.
There’s a myth among WNs and others that whites are some kind of pacifist race of churchgoing squares, pacifists, weaklings, and apathetic and infantile, harmless fools who are somehow terrified of violence.
It doesn’t ever seem to occur to you people that non-whites in America generally are somewhat terrified of whites and their capacity for violence and not without reason.
Yeah whites aren’t urban lumpens who go on wilding expeditions with their rappies or who pull droog home invasions with rape and ultraviolence on the brain after smoking sherm and imbibing Chevis Regal – but that actually makes them more, not less, dangerous because their violence tends to be calculated and comparatively orderly.
Would you want to be a nigger in the sights of an angry, armed and motivated white mob? I wouldn’t.
There’s a reason the white man was able to keep order when outnumbered exponentially by his colored slaves and charges, in Rhodesia, on the American frontier or in the antebellum Carolinas, on the Subcontinent in the halcyon days of Empire.
I swear some of you people come off like a sewing circle of old ladies. Yeah, the whole mythology of “lynching” and “racism” and the like that is endlessly recycled and histrionically repeated by disengaged and effeminate rich white liberals and Jews is laughable – but so is the idea that the white man is a benign pacifist. When blacks coined the metaphor of the white man being a devil made flesh as the Civil Rights project began to fail miserably amidst long hot summers of race riots decades ago it was somewhat apropos – the white man is a devil in a very true sense. He conquered the planet because he exhibited a pious and detached Aryan cruelty that generally left the other races in fearful awe. To disregard this or to understate it undermines the dignity of both the white man and those who suffered his wrath.
A Comanche chief observed once that there’s no force in nature as malevolent as the white man on the war path – he leaves none alive in his wake. You can argue that this sublime and sanguinary spiritedness is no more – but you cannot claim with honesty that the white man of history is not a killer angel.
Are you even a racist and/or anti-kike ??
It’s not that simple. The current dilemma does not begin and end with Jewish power, but I know I am not going to convince you of this fact.
I tend to eschew mass politik. That said, any sort of “movement” that is going to reverse the destructive inertia we are staring down is going to be something that has not been seen before, and its going to come from the top, not from the masses... in other words, its going to be cultivated by “valuable intellectual properties.” [...]
I think Thomas is perhaps talking about adopting Gramscian tactics to fight the Gramscians?
You have a small right wing and or reactionary intelligentsia organized with the discipline of a communist organization (and not anarchist hippie commie... old fashioned bolshevik commie) and adopting the approach of “the long march through the institutions”?
That is correct, and I have been conversing with a lot of like minds IRL. At this point, subtlety (without compromising core principles) is the order of the day. Establishment theorists/intellectuals are getting sloppy... they have lost their edge, as happens when people are unchallenged, and their presentation is laughable. Just look at the youngbloods who find their way to this board... they appreciate how absurd and anti-intellectual present trends in academia are.
I never really understood White Nationalism to be an “in group” egalitarian ideology... I always thought of it as a political strategy to guard culture from alien influences and preserve a particular, organic mode of life.
I don’t think that the average White Nationalist would look at a mentally retarded White person and say “he is elite because he is White” anymore than they would look at a Japanese quantum physicist and say “he is less valuable than a dysgenic or mentally retarded White man.”
What it comes down to is that non-White people are not assimilable into White societies... that does not mean that Whites are “elite” or that non-Whites are categorically “inferior.”
Well, you seem to think that citizenship should be contingent upon non-White peoples (freed slaves, Mexicans, Arabs, et. al.) eschewing their racial and cultural sensibilities, their folkways, and their linguistic insularity in favor of White mores, sensibilities and practices.
In other words, you are alleging that for people to become “American” they must be deculturated and acquiesce to Protestant “secularism” and White linguistic homogeneity. I can only assume that you wish for Blacks and Browns to become White because you believe that White practices are superior to non-White ones.
I think it is pretty clear that the Conservative ethos wishes to preserve and augment the status quo... .that status quo is one of White political dominance. The fundamental difference between yourself and White Nationalists is that the latter allege that the non-Whites among us are ineducable and irrepressibly hostile to White interests while you (and your ideological fellows) believe them to be perfectly educible if the proper tutelage and incentives are provided to them. Both positions are inherently White supremacist. [...]
You believe that non-Whites should adopt White mores, customs, and linguistic manners if they wish to be afforded citizenship and participation access in the domestic market... all of this is pretty clear. It should be equally clear that its possible to be a White supremacist and not be a racialist... in fact, the Republican Party is essentially a White supremacist party that rejects policy-based racialism.
I’ve noticed that you guys spend an awful lot of time discussing the fact that race means nothing to you, but you sure get defensive when the balance created by the Color Line seems to be tipping.
Mind you, I’m not trying to antagonize or bait you, and I actually do wish to address the point that you made RE: Rome at some point... but you really can’t escape the fact that you’re as much of a WS as was Toynbee or Rhodes. Softheaded White Supremacy is one of the things that got us into this mess in the first place... take heed, Sulla.
Depends on what people we’re talking about – White Nationalism on its face doesn’t really make political sense. Race certainly isn’t a trivial characteristic, and it has severe political implications, but people generally already realize that. These fools who vote for Obama and follow celebrities and the like and like to pose at being compassionate are actually highly racist – their moral posturing is part of their racism. They seek out all-white enclaves, send their kids to all-white schools, demand a security state that largely exists to punish non-whites who cannot adapt to society, they hate Moslems (who are largely non-white) and think nothing of the govt torturing and killing them, they demand open borders so that they can exploit non-white labor, and things of this type.
So if the idea of White Nationalism is to make white elites more “racist” or “racially aware,” it’s superfluous – Jews and white elites are both incredibly racist people, which is one reason for the concord between them.
In contrast, if White Nationalism is a means by which poor and working class and lower middle class white peoples can defend themselves against hostiles, that’s entirely legitimate – but these people don’t require an ideological regimen, they’re already totally conscious of the problem. This makes it superfluous unless, as Sam Francis claimed was possible, white elites or “managers” in Burnham-speak could be converted to a social nationalist/racial socialist perspective. That isn’t going to happen b/c there is no percentage in it. It started to happen under Nixon’s tenure and this is very interesting, but that’s a little outside the scope here.
The big political problem for ordinary whites born after 1945 or so is that the White Man lost interest in stewardship over the world. Now the kids are all acting up – you’ve got to understand the absurd American social landscape in these terms. White women are deranged because the Great White Father has abandoned the collective family. Niggers are in revolt because they’ve been cast out by the Master and told to simply produce money and do things they can’t do. Deranged oddballs who identify themselves by their vices and paraphilias are an avant garde of sorts because there is no cultural or theological reference points to order belief and behavior, so they’re mitigating their terror and staring into a yawning chasm by pursuing suicidal hedonism to heal their nihilistic despair.
There’s not an ideological solution to this – there’s really only a Theological one, which is why (as E Michael Jones has noted recently) the Iranians are a really remarkable people in what they have accomplished in the last few decades. I’m speaking of Theology in the way the term was traditionally defined – I don’t mean going to church and things of that sort.
The BNP is never going to enjoy any modicum of success... it’s history is inextricably bound up with Colin Jordan, the National Front, and (most damning in the court of public opinion) Combat18.
I have news for everybody... If Sir Oswald Mosley (one of the most underappreciated orators and statesmen of the 20th Century) could not overcome the British electorate’s singular aversion to any sort of absolutist, racial patriotism (even of the BUF’s exceedingly civilized interpretation) amidst the chaos of the 1930s, one Eyed Nick and his band of merry Nutzis is not going to pull it off in 2008.
White peoples are being politically and culturally displaced – part of this is due to the ascendancy of the colored world in the 20th century, part of this is on grounds of elite subversion, a major component is the psychological dislocation of radically altered circumstances – the syndrome of liberalism, described by James Burnham many decades ago.
This doesn’t however equate to a conclusion that white peoples are going to become “extinct.” Overemphasis on race in and of itself is ahistorical anyway. Race is the biological component of heritage – its not the singular essence of a people or national grouping in and of itself. A lot of White Nationalists seem to have no qualms with Western Civilization becoming essentially pointless so long as the racial integrity of it is maintained like some kind of museum piece.
Something that is overlooked a lot today, and even otherwise smart commentators often slide into this (Buchanan comes to mind), is that the American identity until the mid-20th century had a deeply historical organic component; and it was tethered to Protestantism in profound ways as well as northern Germanic racial heritage.
Irish, Italians, Poles aren’t comparable to Blacks in the New World, but they aren’t American either in the historical understanding of the American national identity. Being White as a matter of law and a matter of fact certainly had political implications here, and European peoples (obviously) were always understood to be White, but that was not synonymous with being “American.”
— PetrAlso, who gave the Nazis licence to speak on behalf of whole “Europe”?
Who gave Britain license to conquer much of the known world? Who gave a gang of Anglo-Saxon dissenters and their descendants permission to conquer the New World in its entirety and exclude strategic rivals under pain of massive military violence?
Power politics is a game of wolves and violence is king. History doesn’t describe a ‘world society’ where polite conventions are observed by players in a way befitting a ladies’ finishing school.
Well developed philosophical tendencies exhibit a synergy between ideology and aesthetics.
The trouble with American WNism is that it’s not rooted in any genuine intellectual, aesthetic, or philosophical tradition. It’s as much a non ideology as contemporary liberalism. [...]
One thing that I have noticed before about the ‘National Alliance’ is that they seem to have a real fetish for corny, Baroque-neoclassical sorts of ‘artwork’... which is a little bit peculiar to me.
Historical fascism was rooted in Futurist aesthetics... which are actually quite compelling and significant.
— GeistThe trend in the replies seems to be that gentiles are retards who attend Jewish run Universities to be indoctrinated against their own wishes. I don’t accept that for a moment.
At best we can think of gentiles as 12-steppers, and Jews as enablers. Either way this is victimhood talk, and not worthy of whatever cause we are supporting (it’s all a bit hazy. Something to do with niggers and Jews making porn).
I hear these kinds of criticisms a lot, and it sounds a lot like that old wives’ tale about bad people getting stricken with cancer. It’s a bit cold and pointless to chide people as knaves and imbeciles for being unfortunate enough to be subjected to circumstances outside of their control, but I’m sure it makes the world appear a bit more ordered to conceive of it in that way.
What goes on in academia isn’t benign and it isn’t somehow quarantined from policy corridors. It has real-world effects, and that’s why the classroom was the front line of the kulturkampf in the 1960s. You can tell us that Aryans are ‘retards’ for not refusing to send their children to Universities that have done away with classical studies in order to make room for queer studies, but I think that is a daunting prospect when we consider that virtually any job that doesn’t involve manning a service counter while sporting a name tag requires a college degree.
The ‘cause’ we’re supporting isn’t something abstract, esoteric or complicated. In fact, its not even a cause at all, its simply an expectation for dignified living and the basic features of civilization that make that possible-not the least of which are institutions of higher learning that aren’t oriented towards cultural aggression against us and punitive critique of the other institutions upon which we rely.
If you want to know how we got into this mess in the first place, its because otherwise learned men decided to take the ‘high ground’ and afforded Jews, Communists, and other hostiles coveted positions on grounds of either ‘fair play’ or a smug sense of aloof superiority. In other words, it happened because thinking men among us decided only ‘retards’ or ‘complainers’ would meet aggression with aggression. That’s a noble pose, but politics isn’t stage acting. You might watch for falling sandbags.
The Soviet Union and its allies as well as the “non-aligned” communist states were just as “kooky” (if not moreso) and compelling as the Third Reich. I can’t think of a Fascist state that was as bizarre as the PDRK, Hoxha’s Albania, or Ceausescu’s Romania. I can’t think of a Nazi eugenics theory that was as bizarre and horrific as Stalins’ suggestion that human women should be impregnated with simian genetic material so as to create beast-man hybrids for battlefield use. And I can’t think of a human experimentation program as extensive, groundbreaking and significant as that undertaken by the DDR in the service of kinesiological research and the perfection of biochemical human performance technology.
Ultimately, Nazism is synonymous with “satanism” and the like in the public consciousness on account of the dehistorization of the phenomenon that is National Socialism, and the saddling of the study of the Second World War with bizarre Jewish superstitions, prejudices and religious mores that are quite alien to Western sensibilities yet are nevertheless dutifully parroted by Gentile scholars. I think of it as misguided ecumenism.
I was noticing the other day that a glut of blogs devoted to discussing feminism and (in the argot of the authors of these blogs) “men’s rights” have popped up lately, and seem to have a wide readership among young guys. If you peruse any of this kind of content, you’ll notice that its just grievance mongering by people who seem to want to be afforded a plate at the permanent victims’ banquet that is underway in America, and the offerings are just as nauseating as that which is on the menu at Pasolini’s Salo dinner party.
David Myatt penned a piece sometime in the last decade or so about the difference in tone he detected between militant Islamic propaganda and its counterpart materials in Rightist/WN/NS circles. Whatever anyone might think of Myatt, his points were insightful; he made mention of the fact that Muslims (moderate and radical alike) speak about duties and obligations as foregone conclusions in lieu of aiming to entice the faithful to action or to convince them of the merits of a program. In other words, they argue within a consensus that emphasizes things that supersede individuals and selves. In the case of our people, you’ll notice that the tone of rhetoric is extraordinarily negative and oriented towards flattering the vanity of people who have been inculcated with malevolent narcissism.
The reasons for this are probably twofold. On the one hand, many (if not most) Whites who gravitate towards dissident information outlets probably are not terribly interested in race as a historical quantity or in altering the status quo either by individually seceding from System culture and activities, or by undertaking some kind of active resistance against hostiles that would (inevitably) result in criminality and myriad other unpleasant liabilities. On the other hand, it is probably cathartic for Whites (and other peoples, in all honesty) who feel alienated to gravitate casually towards passive activities that are considered to be diabolical. It allows people to afford themselves some kind of pleasure within the sovereign confines of their own mind to reject System values, even if its done so in a way that is harmless and utterly anonymous.
My own unsolicited opinion is that Whites needn’t and shouldn’t concern themselves with the day to day goings on of Federal government and its ubiquitous press releases, narratives, stories, and theatrically presented occurrences. It’s demoralizing and its tailored to stimulate the same kinds of instincts as is the superfluous entertainment and gluttonous recreation that is foisted upon us constantly. I believe Christopher Lasch was largely correct in his writings on this phenomenon, despite his reliance upon authorities that most of us would find to be somewhat questionable if not outright fraudulent.
One of the wiser guys here mentioned earlier that we need to focus on physical and psychological improvement and preparedness in lieu of emphasizing combative hostilities we experience day to day and other self-defeating hobbies like nursing our own prejudices into passionate rage to assuage the discomfort of pervasive social madness. He’s absolutely correct. Do extant political processes and the managerial culture and the attendant social relationships work to our benefit and improve us? No. So why should these things be discussed as pertinent concerns?
The question on the table is; “Why is the world ordered the way it is?"; and a corollary; “How do we survive, thrive and endure it from a position of strength?” [...]
Camp of the Saints is a great book because it presents an absurd and tragic denouement of Western civilization and the end of the White world (the ‘only world that matters’ in Raspail’s words) that results as the logical conclusion of the post-bellum nihilism/liberal syndrome that took root after the ruin of Europe and the triumph of the monumental economization of human life. Yes, its extraordinarily bleak, but much of the current dilemma is rooted in Western man’s loss of ‘the sense of the tragic’ as Tomislav Sunic is fond of phrasing.
Of course you’re correct that its also important for Whites to expose themselves to things that are unqualifiedly edifying and uplifting as well, but those things are easier to come by than most WNs are willing to acknowledge.
What we’re really talking about is how to overcome demoralization, and grown men should be able to draw upon inspiration to do exactly that; the reason they can’t is because they’re too tethered to System modes of thought in lieu of contemplation. They don’t need better literature, they need to think critically.
White problems supersede things like a need for more adroit political strategizing. It’s quite a daunting quagmire, really, but reluctance to accept the severity of the situation is in and of itself a capitulation.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the only reason why these parasitic whores and ethnics can vegetate and masturbate until long after midnight every night and indulge in the marvelous effects of on-tap ecstasy is because the White man is (for some inexplicable reason) willing to continue to work floor security by dying in Jewish wars en masse, policing the streets of “gentrifying” urban centers, and building and maintaining things that people actually need to survive from day to day.
If the White man goes on strike, no more party.
WN has been a cult in recent memory because Whites have enjoyed a healthy majority in the USA and a high quality of life for many generations. Pierce’s contribution was that he had a certain prescience about what the cultural revolution of the 1960s represented and what its long-term implications were.
I always had a sense from the NA that Pierce was trying to form a political action committee of intelligent Whites who would work towards common goals and what he got instead were marginal types who desperately wanted to belong to a cult. Pierce was extreme in his ideas, but his ideas were well-presented and not “cultic.”
The fact is that people who harbor WN-type of loyalties are probably quite numerable, they just don’t attend “meetings,” pass out flyers, or dress up in Weimar-era military costumes. They simply go about their business and don’t associate with undesirables or participate in the civic culture. Frankly, if you are a grown man and you have a need to attend “meetings” or identify “leaders” or join a “movement” you have serious problems. Being a WN or a NS is about ethics and commitments and what a man actually does... it has nothing to do with whether or not he attends barbecues held by weirdos who like to hoist NSDAP flags or if he listens to idiotic hatecore albums.
Ultimately, good public speaking is an inductive exercise and its narrowly focused.
One thing I will say, and I know that the forum hates attorneys, is that competent lawyers argue by stating a premise or positing a claim and then substantiating the claim with persuasive evidence. They pound away until the claim appears irrefutable and then they summarize their evidence and restate the claim even more forcefully to conclude. Good advocates achieve this so seamlessly that their audience doesn’t even realize that that is what is underway.
I’m no great advocate, but for what it is worth, there is a real problem with people on this forum, on other forums, IRL, in formal venues, in friendly confines, and everywhere else attempting to extrapolate grand narrative from an (apparently monadic) event or events and trying to cross reference the issue in question towards all sorts of other grievances and collateral (and often unrelated) matters. The result is a loosely amalgamated, rhetorical cluster-bomb that doesn’t resonate with anybody because it sounds like one-half pedantic rant and one half ill-informed raving.
Staying within the scope means exactly that: All that Alex needed do is say:
Newsom-Christian were tortured and butchered and MSM won’t give the issue national treatment.
Here is what Newsom-Christian endured
Here is how it has devastated their families
Here is how media treats anti-White violence vs. ‘Hate Crimes’
Newsom-Christian were our people and they were taken from us by rapacious miscreants. Their story must be told.
Instead, Alex decided to fall into Blues Brothers Illinois Nazi mode and tell everybody, “The Jew, is using the Black, as muscle against you!”
This is why WN is not going anywhere and the rhetoric sounds the same as it did in 1977.
Whites are not blindly navigating the world, mired hopelessly in ignorance and superstition about race and racial conflict. George Lincoln Rockwell wasn’t right about many things, but he was in fact correct when he’d claim that most Whites dislike Blacks, are suspicious of immigrants, don’t wish to be availed to forced integration, don’t share the political values of the System, etc. Whites tolerate these things because peace is preferable to war absent an active and mortal crisis and only anarchists and/or violent psychopaths pursue a course of pre-emptive violence when they aren’t immediately jeopardized.
Linder would have us believe that Whites, by and large, ascribe to some kind of Marxian-Liberal ethical hodgepodge and can only accept the light of the truth by way of some intellectual and emotional epiphany. He doesn’t seem to appreciate that the parameters of discourse today reflect the reality of stabilized battle lines, and that smart people generally adhere to them for cynical reasons (at least most of the time) because they’re expected not to breach a tense peace.
Ask yourself if most people you’ve known in your life literally believe that Martin Luther King is a “hero,” Blacks are good neighbors, there is no essential difference between the sexes, Jews aren’t zealously parochial and morally deformed, etc. I’d guess you’d find very few grown ups who fervently believe all of these things, there just wouldn’t be any benefit at this moment in time for them to issue a personal declaration of dissent from public orthodoxy.
Hitler made the point after the Night of the Long Knives to Goebbels that he should cool his aggressive anti-capitalist rhetoric; not because Goebbels was wrong in his sentiments, but because anti-capitalism had become inextricably linked to Jacobinism and Bolshevism in the public consciousness.
For better or worse, levellers, Communists, rent-seeking politicians managed to appropriate Socialism, conceptually. This is one reason, IMO, why the Right was defeated in the 20th century, but that is really a topic for another thread.
It’s worth noting that both the Falange and the “Imperial Way Faction,” as well as Codreanu’s Iron Guard, all identified Capitalism as their main adversary, in terms of values and what have you. This might seem a trivial point if this kind of thought was exclusive to peculiar conditions in discrete and isolated societies but it wasn’t.
Jewish leftist Morris Berman goes as far as to suggest that the Confederate Cause in America was at base an anti-capitalist revolt. Of course, he selectively employs data to buttress his own theories of history, but the point he raises can’t be entirely discounted.
White as a matter of law meant “free man, not a Negro or aborigine, who enjoyed full capacity.” Of course, these kinds of concepts in jurisprudence didn’t emerge in a vacuum in order simply to create a peculiar power structure (as some historians allege, Howard Zinn prominent among them) it emerged in response to complex and intractable tensions related to the realities of racial slavery and periodic instances of literal racial warring between White settlers and aboriginal tribes and confederations.
It would be difficult and overly ambitious to fully enumerate the political and legal significance of race in America, but for our purposes its probably not even entirely necessary. Circumstances, some of which were cultivated by vested authorities in America and some of which emerged spontaneously on grounds of basic enmity between discrete populations in the New World, facilitated the development of a political consensus identity that was explicitly race based. Thus, the political fortunes and cultural power of the White race in America became synonymous with the continued existence of the American polity. For an American to eschew consideration of this is basically for him to concede power to persons who want to harm his social and political interests.
You might consider this to be cavalier or cynical, but James Burnham essentially posed the question during the Civil Rights era of what exactly Whites had to gain by embracing racial integration. It certainly didn’t somehow bolster America’s social cohesion or inculcate Americans with an augmented and beneficial civic identity, it didn’t increase the perceived legitimacy of vested cultural and political institutions (it undermined them) and it didn’t increase America’s standing vis-à-vis international power politics (despite a primary impetus for these efforts being the moral challenge issued by the Communists entailing racial equality).
America will either remain a Western country or it won’t. America is a Western country because it is a polity that existed on grounds of a consensus among White peoples. When this circumstance ceases to be, America will cease to be. It’s really more simple than people wish to make it.
Sounds like you are sympathetic to Troy Southgate’s view of these things. The “New Right” has been dysfunctional since its inception... it was always a fringe cult of anachronistic reactionaries and fantasists. I think Yockey and (to a lesser degree William Pierce) had an appreciation for these things that none of their peers did but in real world politics, its not enough to simply be right.
As it stands, Europeans can throw their lot in with the Slavs and the Muslims and hope to generate some sort of meaningful, alternative political culture to counterbalance total Zionist hegemony... but they are probably too narrow and parochial in their thinking to do so.
European nationalist thought has always been anachronistic (National Socialism included). This will not change.
White Nationalism if we aim to define it concisely, is a political doctrine that emerged defensively when a massive an traumatic paradigm shift ensued in the wake of the total defeat of European societies that had for centuries dominated the planet and in doing so acted as the progenitors, stewards, and guardians of planetary sciences, artistic forms, weapons technologies, and conceptual reference points of ethics and history that touched and concerned (directly and subtly) the lives of peoples on every territory on every continent. Essentially, to discuss “world politics” or “world culture” before the Great War was to discuss White politics, White sciences, White aesthetic preferences and ideas, What really changed, to describe such a massive paradigm shift in briefly and abridged terms, was that through a weakening of Western political will, concomitant with the rise of Communism as a potentially world-destroying animating force and the emergence of mass technology that, in part, steeled people against religious belief in favor of a brutalized and “Darwinian” struggle-oriented view of life that precluded virtue as a popular social good that people could take seriously anymore in their own lives.
What we’re basically talking about in discussing Western decline is the decline of a meaningful philosophy of history and culture and ethics and the deadening of a meaningful theology of life and death and belief in God’s authorship of the universe. In short, people no longer can recognize “form” within their own lives and their own cultural milieu – whether it be the roles in which they should play in their own families, the spontaneity they should feel in affection for their children or their husbands and wives, the natural and essential polarity between the sexes and the behavioral mores demanded thereof, or their ability to constructively manipulate matter into utile or beautiful things through the application of their labor.
What these people are left with then is “matter” without “form” – they discern that there is a terrible problem afoot, but they do not have an idea of “form” within their psychological vocabulary, so they privilege matter. People who think in these terms prioritize biological race because its a human trait that is immediately discernible and is instantaneously intelligible (in racially polarized societies) as a “friend”/“enemy” signifier.
At base however, “White Nationalism” is ethically impoverished and ahistorical – its a defensive reaction to circumstances of active political hostility that are circumstantially contingent upon peculiar situations of tension. One does not craft an ideology or determine loyalty based on potential emergency circumstances or war potential. Politics not grounded in form or theology amounts to nothing more than a mutual-defense pact, to be invoked in event of mortal circumstances.
What exactly does anyone have in common with the mass of racially White people in the world? Other than maybe a shared tactical interest in resisting ingress by mutually hostile actors?
Duke is a flimflam man who managed to parlay ‘silent majority’ discontent at quotas and ‘welfare’ into a fledging series of campaign successes during a window of opportunity before the Democrats were returned to electability by Clinton. I appreciate your point, but I’m not sure how accurate it is to describe him as an NS type.
‘White Nationalism’ is a decidedly 20th century phenomenon with Depression-era roots, that ossified overtime into a Cold War minority opinion. If we’re going to assign significance to any two figures within that milieu, I think Father Coughlin and Wallace would be the only men who really enjoyed genuine popular momentum and social significance. Coughlin quite literally had a following of millions and Wallace stood in front of federal guns while a serving executive. Duke spent the ‘Summer of Love’ dressing up like Horst Wessel, went on to incorporate nauseatingly silly organizations with single-digit membership roles like the ‘National Association for the Advancement of White People,’ and reached his nadir by arguing with Phil Donahue on daytime television in between warming a seat in the state legislature of the most corrupt state in the Union.
Ultimately, in early 2009, its facile to talk about a ‘White Nationalist movement’ because no such thing actually exists, and even if it did, it would not need a ‘leader’ to be sought out because the 21st century is not 1923 and we are not being menaced by aggressive and paramilitary labor movements and reeling from industrial age future shock. It is also not 1964 and local popular revolt is not going to curtail coercive integration initiatives by managerial authorities. Nor is it 1984, and the case cannot be made to fearful Reaganites that White solidarity is essential in order to combat the machinations and designs of Communists.
Reading people like Martin and De Nuge relay propaganda copy from my dad’s era over electronic mediums sort of reminds me of those old pinball simulations that were released for Atari and Nintendo. Good luck with that fearless leader talent search.
There is a difference in discussing the “White Race” in the New World and discussing its significance in Europe. Claiming that the “White race” doesn’t actually exist because it doesn’t satisfy some Classically European definition of “race” or “nation” is sort of like alleging that the Seminole Nation never actually existed because its insufficiently homogenous, according to some arbitrary polestar.
I guess what I’m saying is that you people can allege that the “White Man” does not exist in America, because he represents nothing more than the end result of polyglot deculturation, but that simply isn’t true.
In America, being White has political significance, and this is most notably evinced by the jurisprudence of American high courts, which have (and do to this day) unabashedly acknowledge the political relationship of the White Man to his non-White charges. In contrast, being “Irish” or “French” has zero political significance in America... and to allege that it does is rather fanciful.
In other words, America is a racial State... and “White” is a very real political signifier... and in all honesty, its probably a genetic signifier by this point. I’m no expert in genetic science, but I’d guess (for example) that the lions’ share of old line (pre-1789) Whites in the Southern states are genetically distinguishable from their European cousins... would it make sense to refer to these people as “Scottish” or “Irish”? Not really.
Something to bear in mind if you’re not in the USA is that the Council of Conservative Citizens is one of the more irrelevant and starved for membership nostalgia societies that has managed to endure marginally in fossilized form in some places. It only reappeared on MSM radar during the Clinton administration, largely because some GOP luminary of the time (I think possibly Jesse Helms or Trent Lott, but my memory is fallible on this kind of trivia) attended one of their meet-and-greets in the South while on the campaign trail.
I attended an Illinois CofCC function one time, and found that they consisted of an attorney who was pals with Jim Gilchrist and from what I gleaned acted as ‘in house counsel’ of sorts for the ‘Minuteman project,’ some wealthy WASPish broad who was older than Christ’s slippers and whose claim to fame was that she had been personally acquainted with Lindbergh and the ‘America First Committee’ during the early war years, some Hungarian lunatic who liked to rant and rave about Muslims, and some bookish AmRen subscribers who seemed to believe that the ultimate truth of politics could be found in Herrnstein’s and Murray’s IQ studies. I listened to them bellyache over affirmative action while the Minuteman guy handed out some photocopy sheet that criticized (by then ancient) SCOTUS decisions like Aderand v. Pena and after 20 minutes or so I recused myself.
CofCC might have more credibility and influence in the South, although I doubt it. What Coulter is doing is courting ‘controversy’ by rehashing the policy debates of 1992... a peculiar era when Goldwater libertarians, Paleos, and assorted anti-Clintonites decided to fight the ‘culture war’ by appealing to the anti-quota sentiment that Bush41 rode on rather effectively. This whole non-event is more a testament to the fact that American conservatism lacks a platform than it is evidence of vestigial WN elements holding sway in the GOP.
I’m not a Conservative or a Conservative apologist – that said, Kirk’s claim is more nuanced than the author is allowing. Kirk’s “anti-ideology” position was/is the Thomist/Platonist claim – it owes also to De Maistre, and arguments by Americans that invoke De Maistre axiomatically fail because American Catholics have long been mired in the fruitless enterprise of trying to reconcile their Theological commitments with American Constitutionalism.
Kirk is claiming that reason is the means by which Man can apprehend, interpret, and implement Natural Law – and furthermore that Man’s rational soul separates him from the beasts that populate Creation – in no small measure – by affording him an ability to instinctively discern the Good, the just, the moral, from what is beastly, what is evil, what transgresses God’s law.
“Ideology” in contrast claims that ethics, law, politics is a form of “science” that has nothing to do with instinct, custom, preference or human aesthetic judgment.
The normal person – according to the Conservative – for example finds things like sodomy and abortion to be instinctively disgusting, abhorrent, immoral. The ideologist claims that these instincts are “irrational” and thus have no credibility in determining what is ethical, what is good, what should be tolerated, etc. In this way, the ideologue renders judgments that are totally abstracted and remote from the actual human experience – instead, he relies upon axioms that are at-base anti-human.
Kirk is saying that the Conservative is abiding the will of God – so he doesn’t require an “ideology” – K goes a step further, even... suggesting that, historically speaking, ideology itself is a revolt against God/Natural Law – the ideologue requires an ideology precisely because his enterprise is assaulting reason, morality, and common sense itself.
Let me clarify that I do not agree with Kirk and I am not a Conservative – I’m a National Socialist. However, it is important to state Kirk’s position accurately. He is probably the only worthwhile “conservative” author that America ever produced.
There’s a basic misunderstanding here relating to the fact that American political thought and theory defines itself (and always has) in opposition to European political and social values.
If you want a very, very abrogated example (that belongs to a peculiar epoch of history) read Werner Sombart on why socialism cannot exist in America.
The entire theory of National Socialism was premised on the idea(s) that 1) democracy represents a deterioration of cultural form, and that this is historically catastrophic both in political terms and in the fact that it prevents the maintenance and further production of European culture; 2) that Socialism is an inevitable corrective historical development, and that it must be properly tailored and implemented to repair (rather than further harm) the social fabric that developed during the most creative phase of European history (medieval/Gothic period) and that is being destroyed by Capitalism and its antithesis (Bolshevism); and that 3) individual lives and ambitions therein must be subjugated to the common good of the race/culture in order to be fulfilled within nature – the latter point is often cast as “Darwinist” but its actually Aristotelian, as Heidegger was keen to point out.
If people don’t recognize how this is not reconcilable with the American notion of every White man being a member of a community of individual equals whose “freedom” is contingent on his ability to pursue private profit and enrichment, than they’re really somewhat historically illiterate.
People like Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House thought the Ku Klux Klan revival was a pretty great thing – simultaneously, they thought the German/Prussian state and the Hapsburg Empire were evil and should be destroyed lest “freedom” be strangled by tyranny. This wasn’t at all inconsistent – its the American view, in a nutshell. Being a “White Nationalist” in a lot of ways puts one at odds with Nazism – then as now, hobbyist morons who dress up like Stormtroopers to shock people notwithstanding. [...]
National Socialism made perfect sense within the European (and specifically German and formerly Hapsburg) cultural milieu. It wasn’t a conspiracy of criminals or the product of the mental vagaries of madmen.
The important thing here is that America’s anti-European sentiment can’t really be overstated as a formative part of America’s core identity. Sure, there were White (in the aristocratic and Westphalian sense) elements in America that viewed themselves and the country (respectively) as part of the West in the same sense Europeans did but they were always the minority.
People either instinctively understand America or they don’t – White Nationalism or White Supremacy in America is basically a kind of American Jacobinism – its not an organic nationalism or an anti-modernist tendency that is primarily concerned with culture. [...]
If you believe that “racial survival” is some end in itself, you’re basically a Jew of the first degree.
This is what underlies a lot of “White Nationalism” – its materialistic envycrats who don’t care about history or religion or natural law and morals, they just don’t like other peoples who are beating them in the race to be king of Gomorrah.
I don’t want to be a Jew, sorry.
I’m not a Conservative or a Conservative apologist – that said, Kirk’s claim is more nuanced than the author is allowing. Kirk’s “anti-ideology” position was/is the Thomist/Platonist claim – it owes also to De Maistre, and arguments by Americans that invoke De Maistre axiomatically fail because American Catholics have long been mired in the fruitless enterprise of trying to reconcile their Theological commitments with American Constitutionalism.
Kirk is claiming that reason is the means by which Man can apprehend, interpret, and implement Natural Law – and furthermore that Man’s rational soul separates him from the beasts that populate Creation – in no small measure – by affording him an ability to instinctively discern the Good, the just, the moral, from what is beastly, what is evil, what transgresses God’s law.
“Ideology” in contrast claims that ethics, law, politics is a form of “science” that has nothing to do with instinct, custom, preference or human aesthetic judgment.
The normal person – according to the Conservative – for example finds things like sodomy and abortion to be instinctively disgusting, abhorrent, immoral. The ideologist claims that these instincts are “irrational” and thus have no credibility in determining what is ethical, what is good, what should be tolerated, etc. In this way, the ideologue renders judgments that are totally abstracted and remote from the actual human experience – instead, he relies upon axioms that are at-base anti-human.
Kirk is saying that the Conservative is abiding the will of God – so he doesn’t require an “ideology” – K goes a step further, even... suggesting that, historically speaking, ideology itself is a revolt against God/Natural Law – the ideologue requires an ideology precisely because his enterprise is assaulting reason, morality, and common sense itself.
Let me clarify that I do not agree with Kirk and I am not a Conservative – I’m a National Socialist. However, it is important to state Kirk’s position accurately. He is probably the only worthwhile “conservative” author that America ever produced. Counter Currents deserves credit for publishing things like Kerry Bolton’s essays and translating texts like Codreanu’s prison letters and diaries. It’s otherwise entirely worthless.
The New Right moniker doesn’t make any sense either. What is the “Old Right”? Is Greg Johnson organizing farmers and workers in beer cellars to the chagrin of the monarchy and the Papacy? It’s extraordinarily lame. “White Nationalism” should be destroyed, frankly. Not because it has any significance or importance in its own right, but its existence brings disrepute to the right – not because its not “respectable,” but because its historically retarded and entirely disengaged from reality. [...]
I have no idea if Johnson is a homosexual or not, and I have no interest in the subject. I do know however that Johnson is some Bay Area academic who seems to enjoy a cushy life of hedonistic distractions, concomitant with a lame and libertine attitude about every political topic except race. He comes off like a NIMBY libertarian who got frightened when he noticed that niggers hang around his neighborhood sometimes. We have to assume that he’s running a “Fascist” publishing house as a way of making a living while simultaneously appearing edgy in the eyes of his peers he undoubtedly aims to impress.
People like this are shitbirds, and they’re essentially ego-driven. Such is the biography of every “White Nationalist.” Their raison d’être is ego satisfaction. They’re the political equivalent of the high school dipshit in a leather jacket who got expelled before graduation for reaching up the teacher’s skirt.
Johnson is basically a fag regardless of his sexual proclivities. WNs are by definition fags.
Democrats and Republicans are faggots who follow celebrities in lieu of involving themselves in political problems. WNs should be bringing more to the table.
One reason Islam became huge from 1979 onward is because Moslem leaders expressed a very simple and direct, but uncompromising, tactical orientation. They told their people they didn’t have to tolerate the shit that was underway, and they demonstrated seriousness and fitness to lead by sacrificing self-interest to strike a blow against America/Jewry/Communism.
There aren’t any WNs who have demonstrated any kind of fitness in this regard – unless you count Yockey, but his situation was unusual.
Jim Giles strikes me as a run of the mill WN – he’s a guy who thinks his opinions are really important and that people should follow him for no particular reason. In other words, like most Americans, he thinks politics is some game/joke. No thanks.
I think of Traditional societies to be ones in which the national ethos is rooted in the sacredness of linear natality, communitarianism, and a commitment to approximating (for lack of a better term) certain metaphysical forms. As opposed to societies where politics are completely subjugated to economic expediency, and the national ethos is rooted in some kind of civic patriotism and “freedom” is defined in terms of superficial participation in the market and the political process which (in theory) posits all people as identical and equally entitled to participate (in short, cosmopolitan societies are anti-parochial and “national identity” is a bureaucratic construct).
This is a fundamentally flawed assumption that constitutes a core tenet of WN theories: They believe themselves to be political Gnostics (to coin a Vogelin phrase) who are privy to information about social-political tendencies that the White population at large is not aware of. Whites obviously ARE aware of burgeoning demographic changes because these sorts of things are readily identifiable features of everyday life in 21st century America... .they simply aren’t interested in asserting claims of self-determination. The fact is that White America is not some perfectly malleable quantity that merely needs to be exposed to Black on White crime statistics or treatises about the political sympathies of Jews in order for some sort of mass-reaction to be facilitated.
Let’s not unduly lionize April Gaede. All I really know of her is what I have seen in various documentaries that have featured her and her family... and what I have seen in these pieces is a woman who has some sort of cultic fixation on “pop-Nazism” and seems to think that superficial canards about ‘blood and soil,’ swastika cattle brands, and Dungeons and Dragons-style viking themed Hatecore somehow equates to genuine ‘culture.’
I suggest you check out the Spiegel interview with Sohlzenitsyn that Bardamu posted yesterday. Sohlzenitsyn makes the point that a ‘national idea’ is not something that can be ideologically cultivated by political parties and/or the public bureaucracy... nor can it be cultivated by self-styled ideologues who harbor palpable (yet amorphous and vague) resentment against the multicultural/managerial state. I think that a lot of these self-styled ‘Nationalists’ would be well served to meditate on Sohlzenitsyn’s insights... but I’m not going to hold my breath.
At the end of the day, there is basic congruence between Traditionalists, Nationalists, and PaleoCons of different faiths, different linguistic-cultural traditions, and different historical traditions... but congruence should not be conflated with perfect fungibility. The reason why it is paramount (from a theoretical perspective) to treat the ‘West’ as a Gestalt of proximate culture-forms is because the proverbial center cannot hold in a house not only divided, but under active siege by history’s demolition squad... the reason is not because we are all one big happy family of ‘White’ that are bound by our dislike of Black crime in American cities and some sort of childish affinity for Third Reich meets Heavy Metal fantasy sorts of images.
Finally, and I don’t want to preach here, but the fixation of people like Ms. Gaede about race qua race is really sort of vulgar. I think that Russel Kirk hit the mark when he observed that Tradition is something that is above ideology... its epistemologically unique and it can only be appreciated as a linear-historical phenomenon. Humans ‘need’ Tradition to be fully human, in other words. The reasons why thoughtful people tend to react with such profound emotion when their Traditions are threatened, dismantled or otherwise vilified is because on some basic, level, their humanity is being affronted. This entire conflict (and make no mistake, it is a genuine conflict) is rather cheapened when it is appropriated by middle American Proles like Ms. Gaede who think that we can appreciate the current social-political milieu in terms of niggers are after the White women, Hitler was cool, swastikas are good luck, and Jews are using the Blacks against us. Ultimately, April Gaede (and the rest of the ‘WN Movement’) never really got the memo that the culture never belonged to her ilk in the first place.
I guess if April bakes enough Swastika cakes on Uncle Adolf’s b-day, passes out enough Prussian Blue cds, and plasters enough ‘Hitler was Right!” bumper stickers on lampposts, then demographic collapse and cultural decrepitude will no longer be in the cards.
The Phora is a forum where dissident Catholics find common ground with dispossessed White Protestants who are unwelcome in the majority civic “culture.” This kind of social coalition had distinctive implications for historiography, and in particular the manner in which the Second World War is presented by System media and academia.
James Burnham and Buchanan had a notion that “White politics” were essential to prevent a complete collapse of still-intact loci of White, Christian power post-68, thus the Wallace/Nixon/Reagan coalition. Nixon’s “silent majority,” Reagan’s “new majority” was a political compromise by which Jeffersonian White Protestants could find common cause with Northern White ethnics, the backbone of whose political culture was organized labor. There’s obviously a heavy component of White Nationalism present in this milieu – I don’t read it as a fundamentally theological view of politics; its a coalition of necessity. The big sea-change in this whole historical process is the fact that White voters presently consider Mitt Romney (a mormon banker) and Rick Santorum (Catholic moral majoritarian) to be “their people” in some basic sense. That would have been unthinkable in out father’s era. I recall my dad in my youth railing against Ted Kennedy’s ill-fated 1980 Presidential bid. My dad was not particularly prejudiced, but his view was that some Catholic political gangster who relied upon a political and labor machine to float his career was basically as bad for America as some firebrand nigger preacher or a Communist sympathizer on the order of FDR – nobody of his generation on the Right considered the Kennedy’s to be “White men advancing a common interest in Western culture and Christendom amidst an onslaught of counterculture subversion.” People Dad’s age basically viewed the Kennedy’s in the way we view Obama – a bleached-out nigger coveting high office to shamelessly advance ethnic interests against the moribund “WASP” elite. Wallace deserves credit for behooving dispossessed white voters to vote as White Men – not as union men or shanty Irish with an axe to grind. He was channeling the Jacksonian impulse towards organic democracy in other words. Something to consider.
James Burnham is one of the few “conservatives” worth reading, because as a political theorist and sociologist, he really had no peer with respect to the intuition he had for the workings of the modern state.
One of the fictions that is trotted out by right-wingers fairly consistently is that there is some kind of tension or conflict of interest between private capital and the government in modern states – this simply isn’t the case. Business enterprises that are able to consolidate massive productive resources and are scaled to serve global markets behave essentially identically to governments – they’re managerial bureaucracies that are fundamentally oriented towards perpetuating their own survival and increasing the scope and reach of their dominion. They will and do, axiomatically, operate to preclude, eliminate, and otherwise sabotage institutions that potentially or actually can rival their power.
Concomitant with this, business organizations in a managerial state are forced to negotiate political circumstances – because their continued productivity is contingent upon cooperation from other bureaucracies, loci of power (public and ostensibly “private”), the implementation of policies by government that guards their mutual interests, etc.
This is essentially the failure of Libertarian thought – at odds with history and human nature, they claim that private capital will voluntarily limit its strive towards monopoly and avoid rent-seeking behavior on grounds of a purported moral commitment to the maintenance of ‘free’ markets. It’s like when Jeffersonians talk about “limited government” and claim that written Constitutions guarantee this fiction – as if governments will somehow opt to voluntarily limit their own sovereignty when they are endowed with absolute authority over political affairs.
All of this however mostly just speaks to the structure(s) of power in the modern state – not the underlying ideological bias. The ethics of “capitalism” (if we can even speak of ‘capitalism’ anymore as a meaningful category of political economy) are grounded in a Liberal theory of human nature and morality. A theory that is dogmatically anti-racist, individualist, and which posits that society is nothing more than an artifact of individual desires and wishes; the only legitimate role of authority being to guarantee that the parameters of mutual self-interest and non-interference therein is preserved.
The internecine rivalries of Communists and Liberals are an interesting topic on this point: I recall Noam Chomsky during one of his lecture series from the 1980s (since published in book format) raised the ire of his ideological comrades when in response to a student’s question about the Republic of South Africa and its purported “capitalist” excesses, he responded by pointing out that the RSA wasn’t a “capitalist” state in any meaningful sense – on grounds of the fact that capitalism and liberalism are essentially synonymous, ethically, and reduce man to a discrete and isolated economic integer. The South Africans were implementing a kind of high protectionism in order to preserve their racial stock and thus sustain a concrete political order based on white law – this was extraordinarily costly, and by the logic of capitalism, cost prohibitive. A nigger coolie’s labor is as good as a white man’s, by capitalist logic, in other words. And if the nigger proves ineducable, the productive process can simply be revised and simplified – this of course was Peter Drucker’s vision of the “efficient” capitalist managerial method.
You can be a White Nationalist or you can be a capitalist – you can’t be both. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that a “God fearing” communist could exist.
Taylor is playing a role, similar to the one (as Alain De Benoist pointed out) that Le Pen played in France.
White peoples have a cultural problem, a theological problem, and a political problem – and only addressing one of these things to the exclusion of the other(s) isn’t really constructive.
Establishment media claims that its a moral imperative to homogenize all peoples into a world society in which nobody is bound by organic or spontaneous or customary social arrangements, nobody is particularly religious, and nobody considers their own fortunes in life or in history in any terms other than as an individual worker/consumer with discrete personal interests. It essentially calls upon everybody to adopt the perspective of an impressionable child or a labor camp denizen or (at best) a relatively well-off cosmopolitan tourist. Taylor’s response is essentially just a binary kind of perfunctory opposition that nonetheless scrupulously avoids addressing problems like belief structures, religious commitment, the violence that capitalism does to cultures, and Jewish power in Western societies. He just calls for open-ended and ambiguous solidarity among White peoples because the alternative is worse.
Taylor’s view is essentially pointless. It’s superficially appealing because realistic discussion of race is taboo in mainstream media, but superficially appealing things aren’t necessarily “good” things. Big Macs are good to hungry people. Hookers look good under cover of darkness to people who’ve been in the barracks for a long time. There’s no particular reason why a pointless, cosmopolitan, atheistic society of White people is better than the same kind of equally pointless but multiracial society that is promoted by the ruling class. It only appears to be some kind of authentic dissent because controlled media is so total that any breach with its moral dogmas seems comparatively correct.
Taylor is a limited person with limited objectives in mind. In a dictionary-definition sense, Taylor is the ultimate “Paleoconservative” as he’s trying to necromance Goldwater-era conservative platforms and reintroduce them into public discourse. If you compare and contrast his editorials with the content of Buckley’s National Review from the Civil Rights era, you’ll find an almost perfect convergence.
Ultimately, Taylor is irrelevant, and his publication is something of a time capsule. Not so much from 1963, but from 1993 when “culture war” issues reached a fevered pitch in the wake of Clintonian excesses in the academy and policy planning corridors. When I come across Taylor acolytes I consider them in the same vein as I do people who cite Herrnstein and Murray as if IQ data represents holy writ. These debates have run their course as policy matters and a final (albeit tense) solution has already been decided. Affirmative action, open borders, and hiring preferences have become permanent and insoluble features of the managerial apparatus. The order of the day in the 21st Century is the development of a new brand of White politics that isn’t tethered to older System models of government. Anything else represents a nostalgia society along the same vein as those maintained by Third Reich fetishists.
‘White Power’ movements are a dead end because, as I indicated, they represent a simple reaction to policy-based antagonisms... but the overwhelming majority of ‘Whites’ don’t perceive any interest at stake that is so threatened as to warrant some sort of violent revolt.
If we can accept the premise that ‘White Nationalists’ are (at base) Persons severally prejudiced by equal protection jurisprudence, I think its fairly clear that “they” (or “we,” depending on where you fall on the issue) are also Persons who have been identified by opposing antagonists as Foes. Despite what Fade, Glenn Miller, or even Jared Taylor may allege, the American notion of ‘White’ was really never anything more than a legal-status signifier that denoted full citizenship in certain jurisdictions... after 1964, it was appropriated by Progressive elements as an opposition signifier, i.e. “the Whites are a monolithic, oppressor class that engages in political behavior that prejudices everybody outside of the class.”
In short, ‘White’ was a legislatively crafted, judicially enshrined political signifier that lost its utility to Conservatives post-Brown v. Board, yet became an indispensable political-ideological polestar for the Left. Much of the hostility towards ‘White’ qua ‘White’ that was/is expressed by the the Abe Foxmans, the Susan Sontags, and even the Earl Warrens has very little to do with actual communities of people or identifiable political-social actors. [...]
Despite my frequent Romantic flights of fantasy and the like, I think of myself as something of a pragmatist as per politics. I don’t identify with ‘Whiteness’ as some sort of ideologically significant quanta, and I don’t think that it has any world-historical relevance.
At the same time, ‘Whiteness’ has become more real than it was in the 300 some-odd years before the 1954 shakeup for the reasons that I enumerated. I may not see any real political-historical (of even social) congruence between my interests and those of a bunch of West Side Poles, but opposition actors (The judiciary, BigCapital by virtue of the tort liability structure, various grievance-driven interest groups, political-Judaism, etc.) have determined to treat all of “us” as a (relatively) monolithic social-political element.
I suppose my issue with ‘White Nationalism’ is that its not merely a pragmatic (if banal) reaction to public policy exigencies... rather, it presents a bizarre political-mythos that is not historically grounded and its a vulgar form of mass-politik in search of a constituency. However, I do stipulate that there is at least a modicum of merit in diverse populations (‘Whites’) identifying common interests. [... ] Presumably, ‘White Power’ would involve defensive structures designed to maintain perpetual demographic integrity, or at least to guarantee freedom of association. If I can dumb things down a little bit, when I made the claim that the Regime has set out to do away with politics, the most compelling evidence towards substantiating the truth of that claim is the fact that since 1965, the public policy apparatus in America has set about to facilitate (rather than prevent) demographic collapse... now, this has not come about because the Jews have pulled the wool over our collective eyes, it has not occurred because Earl Warren, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton et. al. are and were ‘Enemies of the White Race’ or any such thing... it has happened because the Regime wished to outlaw politics.
You are correct when you posit that Whites are in fact powerful and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future, but ultimately, that power is not sustainable in the absence of enduring, defensive structures. As it stands, ‘White Power’ is something that is subject to strict scrutiny... in a commerce driven world in which Politics have been formally abolished, how can a White overclass justify its continued existence? The answer is that it simply can’t. [...]
I deny it because its an ideological construct and not a world-historical phenomenon. It’s tantamount to a Japanese claiming that himself and a Khmer are similarly situated politically by virtue of (relatively) similar anatomical morphology.
Mind you, I understand and appreciate your points about the (contextual-linear) world-historical significance of Whiteness, but I (respectfully) must respond that it is an insufficient and historically inadequate basis for Nation.
Whiteness (originally) became a relevant political-social signifier for the same ideological reasons that the 1965 Act was passed... the common White identity was supposed to supplant class-based and ethno-sectarian conflicts between populations. This sort of thinking ultimately culminated in Lincoln’s war (as I know you are aware). It’s ahistorical and egalitarian and its not reflective of things that actually exist. Mind you, Lincoln’s Imperium was built with blood and iron, and not newfangled, unprecedented principles of equity, but the latter justified the former, and I’m not going to endorse that sort of thing. [...]
Traditionally, the State (and its precursors) grants citizenship, privileges, immunities, to Persons based on parentage. I think of it as The Principle of Linear Natality. Of course, this easily complies with commonly accepted principles of equitable justice, and I believe that the sacrosanct character of the principle subtlety pervades Grotius... as it has been historically considered rather inviolable, save for notable exceptions. Transforming the American National character from Anglo-Saxon to White was and is an affront to the Principle of Linear Natality writ large. It essentially destroys the Nation as a historical phenomenon in favor of a marginally restrictive, yet almost purely propositional understanding of it. It is a short distance from All White Persons to All Persons.
Ultimately, “Imperium” is a rough amalgamation of theoretical tendencies (Hegel, Schmitt, Spengler) condensed into a thick narrative format for European audiences in occupied Europe. It never gained any political currency in America because its an anti-American tome, and the American right (with a few notable exceptions) in the decade and a half following the Day of Defeat were Jeffersonian reactionaries who harbored a tepid affinity for Europe (at best) or an active disdain (at worst).
I think Yockey’s legacy is found in De Benoist’s efforts through GRECE and Alexander Dugin’s post-Soviet geopolitik.
Well, that’s the problem. America is a denatured society that is premised on individualism; so people arrange their loyalties around things like personal status signifiers and group affinities that will facilitate individual achievement.
Something to learn from Japanese, Germans, Slavs, Moslems, and the like – people who have been and remain at odds in a basic way with Judeo-liberalism/modernity – is that politics (war, loyalty, ethical orientation, etc.) demands fealty to things that precede and supersede individual lives and personal interests.
That isn’t to say that white people in America should strive to become collectivists or emulate Orientals, but they’ve been shorn of any meaningful anchoring to extra-personal imperatives (theological, historical, political/racial).
In oversimplified terms, the white man in the New World was an easy mark for Jews for a reason. This is a problem that substantially more culturally rooted than a mere absence of virtuous leadership.
It’s not so much “altruism” as it is an innate individualism and a concomitant ‘live and let live’ ethos that is deeply ingrained in the White cultural mind and is probably a feature of deep evolutionary-psychological development that was wrought by development in a (basically) sparsely populated arctic climate in which social life was centered on a nuclear family unit and politics developed along the lines of loose confederations. Kevin MacDonald penned some interesting material on this in “The Culture of Critique.”
The problem with Whites isn’t that they’re “nigger lovers” or pathological altruists (although some are, the majority are not). The problem is that the White man assumes that Blacks, Browns, Orientals, etc. think like he does. He doesn’t realize that non-Whites (with the exception of some highly developed races like the Japanese) have no meaningful concept of the individual, are entirely primitive in their awareness of self and conceptual horizon (particularly of social relationships) and that they will always follow a zero-sum and collectivist trajectory vis-à-vis race relations/politics even when its totally self-defeating to do so.
For people of my generation, the OJ Simpson verdict was I believe somewhat instructive – it was bizarre to the uninitiated to see Negroes behaving as if the trial was a football game and the primitive tribalism that took hold of their simple minds. Mind you, I didn’t begrudge them for not caring about the victims (a race traitor prostitute and a Jew) but it was incredible how childlike their sensibility was about the whole thing.
Whites – even stupid ones – simply don’t think that way. It’s the way people think who are a millennium behind on the evolutionary ladder as it were.
I recommend Nicholas Wade’s latest book on this very topic.
“White Nationalism” as understood by thinkers such as Jared Taylor, Sam Francis (RIP), et. al. is not intended to approximate organic, blood and soil nationalism. Rather, it is a platform designed to remedy certain political circumstances that are unique to America and to address the interests of various populations of people who are adversely affected by current domestic policy and contemporary (mis)interpretations of Federalism.
The Left essentially created White Nationalism, because their entire platform in the USA is premised on the notion that all “White” peoples are members of a privileged oppressor class that colludes to collectively dispossess everybody else.
I (A WASP), an Irishman, a Polish-American, a Russian, and an Italian might not have a lot in common culturally... but the Enemy’s platform dictates: You are all the same beast... you are all the Oppressor.
Considering these circumstances, would it make a lot of sense for me to not co-operate with like minded Poles, Russians, or Irishmen? It would be a little self-defeating to cast hostility upon other White communities at this juncture... don’t you think?
You are missing the point. As I have discussed many times in the past, White Nationalism was essentially created by the Gramscian Left. The grievance-driven politics of the last few decades contains a narrative... that narrative dictates that “Whites” are a unitary, insular, and monolithic group of people who all collude to collectively dispossess everybody else.
When Charlie Rangel, Teddy Kennedy, or Hillary Clinton shrieks about “White Privilege,” they are calling for transfer payments to and augmented entitlements for people who are simply “not-White.” They are also alleging in no uncertain terms that “White” = the enemy... whether the “White” in question is some WASP like me, some Italian catholic, a Rooskie cab driver, or some South Side Mick.
THEY have spoken, and what they have said to us is “YOU are our collective enemy.”
It’s not intentional in a ‘pro-White’ sense that we think of it; but sci-fi is, as a genre, traditionally a domain of White Protestants with progressivist ideals, so its protagonists tend to be noble-minded Whites helping the ‘community of humanity’ overcome alien enemies of ‘humanity’ or working to implement a ‘just’ order.
Even ‘right-wing’ sci-fi has this motif. The heroes in ‘Starship Troopers’ are two White men leading the multicultural coalition of Earth against the brutalistic ‘bugs’; in ‘Ender’s Game,’ the introspective, brilliant, WASPish Ender Wiggins is rivaled by a hot-blooded Latin type who allows his ‘Spanish honor’ to cloud his reasoning during a Battle School game, thus resulting in his death, etc. The examples are numerous.
Ultimately, the White Liberal perspective is fundamentally ‘supremacist.’ They don’t deny the superior carrying capacity and moral compass of White societies – they just believe that we have a duty to improve humanity with our efforts. In other words, ‘Star Trek’ is ‘pro-White’ in the same sense that Liberalism is ‘pro-White’ – its a hamfisted fable about Anglo-Saxons perfecting the universe by killing off fascists and commies in outer space while flying starships staffed by every race and nation in the galaxy.
White as a matter of law meant “free man, not a Negro or aborigine, who enjoyed full capacity.” Of course, these kinds of concepts in jurisprudence didn’t emerge in a vacuum in order simply to create a peculiar power structure (as some historians allege, Howard Zinn prominent among them) it emerged in response to complex and intractable tensions related to the realities of racial slavery and periodic instances of literal racial warring between White settlers and aboriginal tribes and confederations.
It would be difficult and overly ambitious to fully enumerate the political and legal significance of race in America, but for our purposes its probably not even entirely necessary. Circumstances, some of which were cultivated by vested authorities in America and some of which emerged spontaneously on grounds of basic enmity between discrete populations in the New World, facilitated the development of a political consensus identity that was explicitly race based. Thus, the political fortunes and cultural power of the White race in America became synonymous with the continued existence of the American polity. For an American to eschew consideration of this is basically for him to concede power to persons who want to harm his social and political interests.
You might consider this to be cavalier or cynical, but James Burnham essentially posed the question during the Civil Rights era of what exactly Whites had to gain by embracing racial integration. It certainly didn’t somehow bolster America’s social cohesion or inculcate Americans with an augmented and beneficial civic identity, it didn’t increase the perceived legitimacy of vested cultural and political institutions (it undermined them) and it didn’t increase America’s standing vis-à-vis international power politics (despite a primary impetus for these efforts being the moral challenge issued by the Communists entailing racial equality).
America will either remain a Western country or it won’t. America is a Western country because it is a polity that existed on grounds of a consensus among White peoples. When this circumstance ceases to be, America will cease to be. It’s really more simple than people wish to make it. [...]
A political community is, by definition, a community of exclusion. There really isn’t any more of a moral component present in excluding Blacks from the political franchise than there is in excluding any other discrete and insular population for any reason or no reason.
Moral questions and problems touch and concern politics only in a very oblique capacity – this is something that Americans, like the English, always had difficulty reconciling, and its one of the sources of the present dilemma.
A lot of time is wasted by White Nationalists in discussing morality – WNs reflexively have internalized System values in this regard in no small measure.
One of the important contributions of modern German thinkers was to do away with this dichotomy/dilemma entirely. Politics is a sphere of human activity (conceptual and corporeal) that is discrete and insular unto itself. Politics is not a “science,” nor is it a manner of determining what is moral or immoral, virtuous or corrupt, nor is it a way of achieving ‘progress.’ Politics is in fact power activity and the directed implementation of violence and the threat of violence therein, invoked to defend the way of life of the proponent. It’s an instrumentality, in other words, not an end in itself.
Schmitt drew the analogy that the State is to politics what a church is to a religion – its purposes, limitations, and realizable objectives can only be discussed meaningfully within these limited parameters.
In other words, to talk about ‘political morality’ or to raise the question of “morals” are deterministic of politics is at odds with reality. Nobody actually believes otherwise – other than intellectually stunted persons who are incapable of apprehending politics and religious zealots who consider all spheres of man’s activity to be governed by a penumbra of Godly morals.
I think, and its admittedly merely my opinion; but nonetheless one that is substantiated by historical data, that the problem in these discussions of genocide, annihilation, racial warfare, etc. isn’t that they encourage people towards immorality or, alternatively, that it inspires revulsion among otherwise sympathetic men, but rather that framing political questions in such ways essentially validates and legitimizes the ethical parameters of Liberal discourse. War and peace questions aren’t moral questions, “genocide” isn’t a meaningful political concept, and personal animosities or affinities have no bearing on the essential nature of political activity – the essence being the friend/enemy paradigm and the struggles contained therein.
It would be a more productive endeavor to discuss the historical basis of Aryan/Jewish enmity and the irreconcilability of this enmity within the modern state – rather than to initiate discussion of this issue on the basis of annihilation and the various rationalist, moralist, liberal objections to it.
Modern political systems are intrinsically homicidal – all political theorists and political leaders (actual political leaders I mean, not mere elected officials) recognize this. It’s simply the logical expression of power activity within the modern state. To discuss the process in isolation smacks of personal animosity or fetishism. There is a reason, of course, why Lenin never penned treatises on the moral implications of exterminating the counter-revolutionary classes – and it wasn’t due to squeamishness or a preference for euphemism.
The ‘White Nationalist’ reaction to the multicult is a mirror image of the multicult. It’s a sneering, powerless “oh yeah? We got that too!.” BigMedia has teenybopper girl acts, WN comes up with their own cut rate imitation. Policy planning orgs and Law Enforcement indulge in fear-mongering about vestigial ‘White supremacism,” Dave the Duke says “oh yeah!” and pens a screed called “Jewish supremacism.”
I do not endorse or support National Socialism, but the fact remains that it is a complicated and nuanced ideological system... much more so than Marxist-Leninism (although the academy claims the opposite).
Leftist polemicists caricature any and all racialist positions by associating them under the big tent of “Nazism.”
The Marxist worldview hinges upon the myth of “White oppression,” and posits all White peoples as part of a unitary, monolithic group that colludes to collectively oppress everybody else.
As I have often noted, the Left created “White Nationalism” by attacking diverse elements under the rubric of combating “White Supremacy.”
In other words, the American variant of White Nationalism is the Frankenstein’s monster of the Left.
A genuinely Traditionalist-Conservative movement would be aiming to encourage people to secede from popular-cultural influences. It wouldn’t be endorsing the format of Establishment media outlets while bait-and-switching the content. The format of mass-media is one of the main reasons it is so caustic... its not simply a matter of Pavlovian content. [...]
Culture is a linear-historical phenomenon that is rooted in parentage and memorial experience overtime. It isn’t defined by target market demographics (i.e. you’re the “White people” and this is what you like to watch/eat/buy), and it isn’t a matter of group-anatomy. [...]
The point is that the reason why America is mired in a degenerate political-social milieu isn’t because people are insatiably consuming popular culture that (implicitly) exhibits content-based cosmopolitanism, and hence the remedy isn’t to try to get Americans to “turn on” popular culture that (explicitly) exhibits racialist or “Neo-Nazi” content. The “problem” here is that Americans take their cultural, social, and behavioral cues from these sorts of mediums, in lieu of an actual culture-bearing leadership caste. This is a world-historical issue... its not a grass-roots politics issue or an economic/consumer preference issue.
What is the “Dutch culture”? Homosexual parades, Anne Frank, hashish, feminism, and Geert Wilders? Hardly seems worth preserving, except perhaps as an cautionary exhibit on the soul destroying ethical cancer of open society Liberalism. When I was in the Netherlands in 1997, I couldn’t help but feel like I was touring the village that served as the setting for your BBC’s The Prisoner. Barbarians, animated by pious cruelty, should destroy it, and they will.
That statement is logically and historically impossible, and even if it weren’t, “immigrant” is a legal status, not a political signifier. Saying “America is a nation of immigrants” is tantamount to saying “America is a nation of licensed drivers” or “America is a nation of persons most of whom are not tax-exempt.” [...]
It isn’t true, though. Huntington took this up by analyzing a catalog of census and demographic data in his final book. His research demonstrated that as of the mid-1990s, approximately half of Americans were descended from a founder population that settled the New World before 1790.
What did these people immigrate to? Were they greeted by a bureaucrat with a tomahawk and facepaint who asked them to fill out residency papers? Or did they conquer a territory that was outside of the world political and legal order and found a new country? [...]
Indians presumably became the pre-eminent population of N. America through a process of land appropriation and annihilation of their rivals.
The ethical basis of Anglo and Spaniard (and later White) land appropriation was a consensus among Europeans that a fundamental distinction existed between civilized men and savages, and that savages weren’t capable of exercising sovereignty or the rule of law over territories that they occupied.
The problem in accepting the countervailing Liberal claim about immigrants is that it denies that political order is always premised upon extra-legal appropriation, conquest, and later formal ordering of telluric spaces. It denies that founding political acts precede legality.
Americans annihilated hostiles and appropriated the land to implement civilization. We can’t lose sight of that and entertain the fiction of “human” community or cooperation in the historical record.
If this woman who made the speech was actually a person of race and not some dumbfuck whining coolie, she’d stop demanding that the White man afford her and her friends some ephemeral legal status and stop begging the elites to continue to allow her co-ethnics to mop their floors for a pittance.
Instead, she’d probably be trying to do something about her own peoples’ self-determination and trying to remedy their apparently permanent nigger status.
Indians can gripe all that they want and it doesn’t really get my blood up. Perhaps though they would be better served by trying to build a capital base that does not involve sanctioned vice and maybe getting off of the Government’s tit... rather than dressing up like Crazy Horse on Thanksgiving day and moaning “White man raped our land.”
Why do you people think that political order being established by land appropriation is a unique and insidious phenomenon? Europeans have written volumes on this subject for seven centuries and your daily lives in Europe (on grounds of relative land-space scarcity) are steeped in enduring precedent related to this kind of causal structuring even more than those of people in the New World.
You like to affect the pose a policeman or Checkpoint Charlie border guard out of some hokey old movie and demand papers and credentials from people who criticize your failing strategy. Glenn Miller writes angry letters to his local alderman and signs his John Hancock to them when he’s not throwing hate-them-niggers zines onto peoples’ lawns, right? So he’s overflowing with cred. The rest of us are just anonymous pussies for not giving you a driver’s license number and home address when we point out that your subculture/movement isn’t even remotely effective.
You see, I’m not part of your “WN Movement,” and I don’t claim to be a political revolutionary – so I’m not trying to woo you into some pissing contest as to who is a bigger martyr for the “cause” or the White race. What I did say was that there are people in the world who put their ass on the line, their reputation, their livelihood, their physical safety, to pursue resistance against an enemy regime – and something that gives me hope is that the nightly news is full of them because they can no longer be ignored and are thus regularly the preferred subjects of ritualized hate by controlled media.
I suppose the point is that you might look to real-world examples of active resistance in contemplating the current dilemma and analyzing what kinds of political action is effective, what kinds of circumstances facilitate it, and what kind of tactical orientation stands a chance of success. You might spend more time thinking historically and less time seeking out “heroes” in this non-existent, rudderless, and headless “movement” and its bizarre ‘personalities’ all and sundry.
RAHOWA is a fantasy maintained by troubled internet denizens and uneducated malcontents in forlorn zip codes who collect mimeographed pamphlets with pictures of vikings and swastikas on them.
“Nationalism” describes a willingness to kill and/or die for the Nation. It has severe implications, in other words. I don’t doubt that you are Patriotic, in a sense, but if you are willing to forego committing yourself to violence and death (including your own) in favor of vodka tonics, free and easy club sluts, physician approved exercise programs, and other sorts of sensuous distractions, you are not a Nationalist in any meaningful sense.
I recently became honest about these sorts of things, so I decided to make some sacrifices. Mind you, I’m not yet at a point where I can genuinely express these principles, so I can’t pass judgement on you. I hope that this is clear.
“Nationalism” is a communitarian ethos by which the individual life is considered to be fulfilled by and within the ambitions of the group – and considered to be expendable to guarantee the security and historical ambitions of the group. It’s the opposite of Liberal democracy, in other words.
Pussy lickers like Rachel Maddow shrieking that “nationalism” is alive and well (and dangerous) because 20 elderly morons congregate outside city hall in some dogpatch holding signs that say “Obama iz Hitler!” doesn’t change reality. The fact that medicated, suburban white ladies find a concept scary doesn’t make it real.
Depends on what people we’re talking about – White Nationalism on its face doesn’t really make political sense. Race certainly isn’t a trivial characteristic, and it has severe political implications, but people generally already realize that. These fools who vote for Obama and follow celebrities and the like and like to pose at being compassionate are actually highly racist – their moral posturing is part of their racism. They seek out all-white enclaves, send their kids to all-white schools, demand a security state that largely exists to punish non-whites who cannot adapt to society, they hate Moslems (who are largely non-white) and think nothing of the govt torturing and killing them, they demand open borders so that they can exploit non-white labor, and things of this type.
So if the idea of White Nationalism is to make white elites more “racist” or “racially aware,” its superfluous – Jews and white elites are both incredibly racist people, which is one reason for the concord between them.
In contrast, if White Nationalism is a means by which poor and working class and lower middle class white peoples can defend themselves against hostiles, that’s entirely legitimate – but these people don’t require an ideological regimen, they’re already totally conscious of the problem. This makes it superfluous unless, as Sam Francis claimed was possible, white elites or “managers” in Burnham-speak could be converted to a social nationalist/racial socialist perspective. That isn’t going to happen b/c there is no percentage in it. It started to happen under Nixon’s tenure and this is very interesting, but that’s a little outside the scope here.
The big political problem for ordinary whites born after 1945 or so is that the White Man lost interest in stewardship over the world. Now the kids are all acting up – you’ve got to understand the absurd American social landscape in these terms. White women are deranged because the Great White Father has abandoned the collective family. Niggers are in revolt because they’ve been cast out by the Master and told to simply produce money and do things they can’t do. Deranged oddballs who identify themselves by their vices and paraphilias are an avant garde of sorts because there is no cultural or theological reference points to order belief and behavior, so they’re mitigating their terror and staring into a yawning chasm by pursuing suicidal hedonism to heal their nihilistic despair.
There’s not an ideological solution to this – there’s really only a Theological one, which is why (as E. Michael Jones has noted recently) the Iranians are a really remarkable people in what they have accomplished in the last few decades. I’m speaking of Theology in the way the term was traditionally defined – I don’t mean going to church and things of that sort.
You guys are addressing the issue the wrong way: Nationalism isn’t rooted in the same sorts of dialectic as is Marxist-Leninism or Classical Liberalism... in other words, it does not need to facilitate global-systemic order or recreate the Dominant International Relations Paradigm in its own image. Nationalism begins with the premise, “WE are a nation,” and it comes into being when that nation asserts self-determination rights, politically or militarily. These things are expressed in different ways, depending upon the circumstances present.
You are missing the point. As I have discussed many times in the past, White Nationalism was essentially created by the Gramscian Left. The grievance-driven politics of the last few decades contains a narrative... that narrative dictates that “Whites” are a unitary, insular, and monolithic group of people who all collude to collectively dispossess everybody else.
When Charlie Rangel, Teddy Kennedy, or Hillary Clinton shrieks about “White Privilege,” they are calling for transfer payments to and augmented entitlements for people who are simply “not-White.” They are also alleging in no uncertain terms that “White” = the enemy... whether the “White” in question is some WASP like me, some Italian Catholic, a Rooskie cab driver, or some South Side Mick.
THEY have spoken, and what they have said to us is “YOU are our collective enemy.”
The Liberal solution that was proposed, initially, to resolve the perennial crisis of civil war was the creation of the Absolute mandate, vested in a single man, who could through his power of decision command fealty from all men within his dominion and punish dissenters with equal swiftness. The Enlightenment project of course, was to supplant the mandate of Leviathan the man and replace it with Leviathan the incorporated government. This caused a crisis in European culture in the 19th century, which culminated quite tragically in 1914. An animating principle of state government being absent, the state aimed to assimilate people into a power apparatus that would allow them to see their private and cultural aspirations reflected within a sublimely powerful, but morally empty and neutral, state apparatus. The result being that what began as a clarion call for the preservation of culture by men like Herder became an imperative of governmental officialdom, so as to guarantee the ability to mobilize the people and facilitate a strong and concurrent identity between private lives and public rule. Thus “nationalism” was emergent as the only legitimate basis of national learning and political unity.
Yukio Mishima once said when debating a group of Communist students who had occupied their campus something to the effect of; “we both want to make Japan better, and we both deal from the same deck. But I hold the Joker; because I say the name of the Emperor.” In other words, national life relies upon the existence of prime symbols and an inherent, almost reflexive. legitimacy being afforded to executive decision on political questions and crises. Absent a meaningful nexus of culture, aesthetic agreement, and a deeply held belief among the people in a myth of historical destiny and timelessness, the State is merely a corporation bound by a procedural charter that has declared a monopoly on force within a territory of peace. There is really no reason why it wouldn’t or couldn’t be challenged effectively by other corporate actors who control arms and capital if a conflict of interest were to arise.
— BoleslawI guess long story short: Patriotism deals with actual kinship communities; while “Nationalism"(think Bismarck as one example) & Racialism largely deals with abstract concepts.
I don’t think that Nationalism is any more abstract than Patriotism. Nationalism is a political order rooted in the same kinship communities as is Patriotism... its just that in a consolidated, National state the kinship bond between citizens will be somewhat more remote than it will in a small, Parochial community. However, a National state is a state in which people are still bound by language, faith, heritage, linear natality, historical memory, and timeless associations. Nationalism is the Patriotism of the 20th century... it comes about on account of urbanization and the consolidation of political administration.
Of course this is merely a product of a greater issue that Patriotism is based upon more Traditional concepts while “Nationalism” and Racialism are largely based upon Modernist thinking – especially Social Darwinism(well Racialism at least).
It depends on what sort of Nationalism and racialism you are talking about. The National Socialist view of race was not the same as the American view of race (as was best represented by Lothrop Stoddard). Neither of these conceptions was identical to the Japanese Empire’s view of race.
Patriotism is more spiritual at heart; while Racialism especially is largely materialistic. Nationalism tries to be spiritual, but its attempts are relatively shallow.
I think that racialism and nationalism are different things... they dovetail within the context of policy analysis, but they do not represent identical tendencies. “Race” is interstitially bound up with Patriotism because (by your own admission) Patriotism is rooted in kinship and linear natality. For example, a Nigerian cannot simply move to Moscow and learn Russian and then become a patriotic Muscovite. His ties to the community that lives there will remain superficial.
It doesn’t judge “spirituality” on its actual truth, but rather on how suitable it is to the “nation” or “race.” Hence why they’re often so determined to revive paganism, merely because it’s more “national” or “racial.”
I agree to an extent... but I am not a Nationalist because I am a racialist. I am both a Nationalist and a racialist but for different reasons.
A Patriot knows that one can be a devout Christian and still love his kin community, there’s no conflict at all. To the “Nationalist” and Racialist, however, this simply is not possible. As they often say (citing Hitler) “One cannot worship two masters” – one must choose between Christianity (a “Jewish” faith as they often say) or your race. In essence, to the latter’s perspective race is elevated to almost divine status. It acts as a substitute religion. As Belloc once said, it’s a religion that involves constantly admiring yourself in the mirror.
This is a complicated issue. I will read the Belloc material that you have been referencing and then proffer a rebuttal later.
A Patriot knows the difference between loving one’s nation and worshipping it. The Nationalist doesn’t; to them one must worship the nation in order to truly love it. The Racialist just worships genes as the be all end all of everything.
Once again, not all racialism is the same. To me, a racialist is merely a person who believes that 1) race is a biologically meaningful concept that is; 2) relevant to public policy.
Race mixing isn’t an equal opportunity enterprise, and because the relations between the sexes (at the macro level) are immutably and axiomatically patriarchal, men mixing with non-White women has very different (and less caustic) implications than vice versa.
A White man taking a Japanese wife might be less than ideal, but its qualitatively different than women offering themselves up as spoils to racial outsiders. I think all of this is pretty clear. Then again, I’m not much of a doctrinaire WN.
Frank Borzelleri is a fucking geek, in addition to being a Pauly Shore doppelgänger and a Kosher Konservative fool. [...]
Borzelerri is a mamaluke who wouldn’t look out of place in a contemporary rendition of “Arabian Nights,” he’s a career schoolboard bureaucrat who accuses people of being “Hitler” when they hurt his feelings, he hangs out socially with the ACLU, Alan Colmes, and nigger cops, and in his spare time he writes vampire soap opera fan fiction.
THIS IS WHAT AMREN ACTUALLY BELIEVES
— MontyStop blaming the victim, Tom. He’s a guy who said true things, was hounded for it, was forced to live under an alias, then was discovered and had his career and reputation destroyed.
He’s a guy who wants a System career – if that’s the case, he’s got to play ball and pretend to believe in System lies.
There’s this anecdote in John Koehler’s Stasi book where this secret police colonel from the old DDR who defected to the CIA at the 11th hour in 1989 talks about all his “martyred” friends in the MfS who ended up executed or rendered ‘unpersons’ when they criticized the regime that cut their paychecks. It came off as extraordinarily lame.
What’s the “truth” being spit by Borzelleri anyway? Blacks are dumb and they’re performing badly so we need to use the stick more than the carrot in properly educating our black and brown little brothers? That’s Liberal (capital “L”) horseshit.
A “good white man” doesn’t give a fuck one way or the other about Negroes – he’s got neither ill will nor a paternal concern for them. He also doesn’t pine for a System career, salary, or credibility. He realizes he’s behind enemy lines.
This ought to be obvious.
One reason why the Jewish ascendancy has been possible in America is because political consciousness among Whites has been deteriorating as natural modes of authority have been dismantled. Spengler posited that the “death cycle” of Rome was detectable by the emergence of pacifism and as a civic virtue, the end of fecundity among Roman racial stock, and the elimination of the family as the primary basis of association between people. This is mirrored in America, overdone as analogies to Rome may be, and its coming about under more complicated historical circumstances. As political and economic life becomes increasingly unintelligible to s men by way of the scaled complexity of high finance, the elimination of labor, the diminution of reliance upon multiple power hierarchies that derive their legitimacy from a belief in transcendent order, people become increasingly unable to discern what in fact their interests are (political or otherwise) and their connection to their own race and culture in an everyday sense becomes increasingly remote. Additionally, old stock common people (Protestants) in America recognize their own marginalization I believe but they have difficulty extricating their own racial interests from the comforting continued existence of formal institutions that were created by their forebears.
The interesting thing about the “white privilege” ideology is that it basically reflects the narcissism and classism of white Liberals.
White Liberals have a need to feel important – and elite. An obsessive need, really. They want to entertain the delusion that they are some kind of “privileged” caste (even if its nominally presented as undeserved, symptomatic of Fascistoid oppression, unjust, etc.) They would balk and become nauseous at the (accurate) suggestion that they themselves are downwardly mobile and generally lower middle class.
If they were interested in things other than themselves and their social position, they wouldn’t make themselves the center of the ethical universe. A sociological paradigm, for example, that would make sense vis-à-vis American race relations would be to discuss/conceptualize “black disadvantage” relative to other groups – I’m not saying that such a thing exists (it could be argued either way), but it would be logical.
Nobody in Japan for example claims that Burakumin have social problems because every non-Burakumin is “privileged.”
Reading between the lines of Liberalism and its doublespeak one realizes that its essentially – in its current incarnation – a kind of pornographic flattery of classless, tasteless, self-obsessed goys by highly manipulative, but not particularly creative, Jewish cultural/academic commissars.
— Opus131This is perhaps why nobody takes Americans seriously, or why their brand of white nationalism is among the least successful.
Nobody “takes Americans seriously” on questions of race and nationalism for a number of reasons. First and foremost, America is a totally dysfunctional society and culture and its experiment with cultivating a melting pot civic identity has been an abject failure. Secondly, America’s view of race and its concomitant values (and policies) relating to theories of racialism never made any sense to anybody else – and for good reason.
Since you raised the issue, its worth comparing and contrasting the two major racialist theories that actually were aggressively implemented politically and socially in the preceding one hundred years – in historical memory in other words. Those would be America’s eugenic/racialist policies that reached peak respectability in approximately 1924-25, and (in contrast) the laws implemented by the folkish Third Reich and some of its allies and admirers in states like the NDH, Hungary, Romania, et. al between 1933 and 1944.
In the case of the former, race was really always viewed in ahistorical terms – the origin of American racialism was and is of course bound up with the Protestant Ascendency and the conceptual horizon that came with it and resulted in things like the manumission of white slaves, prohibitions on racial mixing de jure, and things of this sort after 1688-90, but by the 20th century, these happenings were quite distant casual variables compared to decidedly liberal/modernist views regarding social hygiene, civic assimilability, what types of people were “civilized” etc.
Thus, a circumstance in America had developed by the 20th century in which a view shared both by the majority of the body politic as well as American elites was that all people who were not black, were not members of the aboriginal Indian nations, and were not part of an ethnic group that was excluded from citizenship on grounds of some kind of traits that rendered them strikingly and obviously foreign in both morphological features and language (such as Chinese people), were all members of a potentially assimilable and basically educable and civilized white race – and that the white race was a grouping that, according to men like Lothrop Stoddard who actually wrote a book contrasting American and European conceptions of race incidentally), could be relied upon to negotiate the disruptive effects of industrialization, urban living, increasing complexity in commercial and social and political affairs, the emergence of new technologies, and all the accompanying benefits, hazards, and temptations of modernity without succumbing to criminality or destructive social behaviors or slothful indolence or any number of other evils that could sabotage the burgeoning mass-society.
In contrast, men like Adolf Hitler, Gottfried Feder, Werner Sombart, Houston Chamberlain, and others didn’t harbor any notion that all Europeans constituted some kind of monolithic “race” that by virtue of its natural endowments would be comparatively productive and moral. The European view – which was strongly reflected in National Socialist thought and policy was never that eugenics was some kind of end in itself, but that eugenic practices could be utilized to isolate, perfect, and perpetuate the best of European racial stock (presumably, vestigial Aryan elements) so that in the distant future, a new man would emerge who was psychologically and physically suited to preside over world economic, political, and cultured affairs from a position of advantaged dominance.
The model for this of course was the Classical ideal – a congruity of physical beauty, virtuous but capably ferocious character, and cunning intelligence. The ultimate objective being the isolate and identify the source of European high culture and the attendant capability to bear and perpetuate culture in blood heritability and to perfect these things; to ennoble and entire race – create a new race out of the elements scattered to the four winds (according to Hitler, presumably relying on Goethe – by the Thirty Years War) with the “nordic” element becoming naturally dominant through deliberate cultivation.
Whatever you can say of the latter, it was entirely precedented and congruous with the historical aims and challenges of Germany and German people in the modern age – most especially in the early-mid 20th century when Bolshevism was quite literally defining the political cultures of the entire civilized world and demanded, on grounds of the emergent crisis therein, to be answered by people who believed correctly that the European way of life would simply be eradicated if Communist internationalism were permitted to conquer both the parliamentary and academic cloisters but also the streets and factory floors.
In contrast, the mainstream racialist American view was (and is) a failed experiment whose proponents at present are mostly just deracinated liberal capitalists and Jews who view man as primarily an economic integer and view “races” merely in terms of how much or how little their relative intellectual plasticity allows them to adapt to capitalism and succeed in a money-driven society. Within such a paradigm, blacks are “bad actors” because they’re not good at being productive in post-industrial conditions. Jews are some kind of jewel of the “white race” because they’re commerce oriented and have high IQs. Orientals are desirable immigrants because they tend not to peddle drugs, engage in pimping, or mug people in city parks. Borzellieri is a champion of this viewpoint – as is Charles Murray and as was Murray Rothbard in no small measure. The latter two authors of course are and were quite a bit more high profile and accomplished and intelligent than these American Renaissance people but the point is that there exists a basic agreement between them on political theory.
I mean this should be obvious to any man who spends some of his time reading about racialist perspectives and who is familiar with these debates, historical and contemporary. One thing that jumps out is the meaninglessness of referring to somebody as a “racialist” or a “race realist” or as “pro-white.” It doesn’t really describe anything. It’s like saying somebody is “religious.” People might call a man who watches lowbrow entertainment like Joel Osteen “religious” and also say that a man who joins Jihad in Syria is “religious.” Similarly for example, deracinated liberals who disdain black low achievement are called “racialists” or “racists” as are radical Ustase types in the Balkans said to have a “racialist” perspective.
It falls a little flat when the Left claims to be concerned with the rights of Moslems – Moslem blood is cheap to the American left, and the destruction of Islamic societies was and remains a cause célèbre for liberals.
It’s not clear what Salon’s point is – they want the security apparatus to start brutalizing insignificant white malcontents with the same fervor that it brutalizes Moslems? [...]
There’s a provincial and myopic tenor to the article as well – this idea that Islamic non-state actors are somehow comparable to irrelevant racialist cranks or “militia movement” types.
That isn’t to suggest that FoxNews/NeoCon propaganda about the danger of Islamic NSAs isn’t overstated – but the Sunni Awakening so to speak (from 1979-present) has made a massive impact on both the security situation in the Islamic world as well as Moslem perceptions of their own role in political affairs. Scheuer cites the fact quite often that in polls conducted on the Arabian peninsula, somewhere in the ballpark of 70% of persons respond that they believe Osama Bin Laden was a heroic and pious individual who was an admirable standard bearer of Islam in the world.
Comparing men of the stature of Bin Laden (and in a lesser capacity Zarqawi and Zawahiri and others) to nobodies like Timothy McVeigh or Buford Furrow is actually an example of a “privileged” perspective – its rich, disengaged, hubristic white people (like Tim Wise and Salon reporters) suggesting that brown people (like peninsular Arabs) cannot possibly represent a meaningful political force in the world.
Salon Mag: “Let’s hope the Boston bomber is a white man – and not one of those unfortunate, backwards, inferior brown people. We need to do a better job of shouldering the White Man’s Burden.” [...]
— MontyPut it this way: Don’t you think the Salon/Slate/New Republic crowd would be thrilled to learn that someone like Alex Linder was raped in prison? To these people, white racists are the worst people on earth.
Yes – I realize that. I suppose the point is that Jews and deracinated white liberals are massively racist – their entire worldview is premised on white supremacy.
It’s sort of comically absurd when people at Salon or Rachel Maddow or Tim Wise or Chris Matthews start shrieking about “white privilege.” “White privilege” is rich white people brutalizing other people with impunity – it’s basically the distilled essence of liberalism, in other words.
I can’t take it too seriously or get too upset when bigoted white millionaires complain about racism. It comes off as similar to Walter Ulbricht arriving at a failing and obsolete factory in his Mercedes while flanked by MfS goons and declaring himself to be a “worker” to the assembled employees.
This Scalzi creature is pathetic; but it should also be noted that “white genocide” is poor phraseology that smacks of lazy propaganda.
“Genocide” is a conceptual legalism that is the progeny of Nuremberg and the ethical/legal/ideological regime that was imposed therein.
It’s best to avoid that sort of jargon.
Hispanic crime rates are only relevant to liberals who claim that immigration is an unassailable social good that can only be obliquely critiqued on grounds of material cost prohibitions; such as the relative criminal propensities of various immigrant populations.
It doesn’t bear on real questions about immigration policy relating to political and cultural power or the social good/trust that is facilitated by homogeneity (see Robert Putnam).
It isn’t important if Hispanics commit crimes or not. If “crime” is the metric of social good, everybody should relocate to Chinese and Jewish communities and be content.
Biological racialism is a fundamentally atheist disposition, IMO... Nationalism, in contrast, is fundamentally sectarian. I actually have never met any ‘Odinists’ IRL, and I didn’t know of their existence until I began seeing their screeds on the internet.
I collected plenty of runic/Nordic tattoos in my wayward Nazi days, but the impetus was that it was cryptic to the uninitiated but allowed Friends to recognize each other... it didn’t have any “Odinist” or pagan significance.
— Sulla the DictatorPeoples must culturally assimilate into the United States.
That is a White supremacist position.
— Sulla the DictatorNot even remotely.
Well, you seem to think that citizenship should be contingent upon non-White peoples (freed slaves, Mexicans, Arabs, et. al.) eschewing their racial and cultural sensibilities, their folkways, and their linguistic insularity in favor of White mores, sensibilities and practices.
In other words, you are alleging that for people to become “American” they must be deculturated and acquiesce to Protestant “secularism” and White linguistic homogeneity. I can only assume that you wish for Blacks and Browns to become White because you believe that White practices are superior to non-White ones.
I think it is pretty clear that the Conservative ethos wishes to preserve and augment the status quo... that status quo is one of White political dominance. The fundamental difference between yourself and White Nationalists is that the latter allege that the non-Whites among us are ineducable and irrepressibly hostile to White interests while you (and your ideological fellows) believe them to be perfectly educible if the proper tutelage and incentives are provided to them. Both positions are inherently White supremacist.
— Sulla the DictatorI recognize that French, British, and German culture are what they are because of their proximity to Rome, not because they’re white. This proposition is interesting and deserves discussion, but its pretty irrelevant to this thread.
You believe that non-Whites should adopt White mores, customs, and linguistic manners if they wish to be afforded citizenship and participation access in the domestic market... all of this is pretty clear. It should be equally clear that its possible to be a White Supremacist and not be a racialist... in fact, the Republican Party is essentially a White Supremacist party that rejects policy-based racialism.
I’ve noticed that you guys spend an awful lot of time discussing the fact that race means nothing to you, but you sure get defensive when the balance created by the Color Line seems to be tipping.
Mind you, I’m not trying to antagonize or bait you, and I actually do wish to address the point that you made RE: Rome at some point... but you really can’t escape the fact that you’re as much of a WS as was Toynbee or Rhodes. Softheaded White Supremacy is one of the things that got us into this mess in the first place... take heed, Sulla. [...]
— Sulla the DictatorWhat I said isn’t an issue of politics.
Claiming that all persons of all races and all national origins can simply put aside their differences and work towards a “common good” that all of humanity shares in kind is tantamount to claiming that Politics no longer exists.
— Helios PanoptesAs far as I can tell, there aren’t any who are politically dangerous, though a few might be violent. Hakluyt’s point is well-taken. When a person is conversing with someone whom’s beliefs he vehemently disagrees with, he can with time come to find those beliefs and that person quaint after he gets over the initial shock. He can afford to do this because nothing will become of them. If racialists, fascists, eugenicists, theocrats, Stalinists, or whatever were in position to implement their theories in real politics, then the liberal, individualist, egalitarian ‘antis’ who find it all very amusing wouldn’t think it was quite so funny anymore.
This is true to a point. Obviously, the NSDAP is not going to be necromanced and proceed to conquer the United States not matter how much eccentric internet posters might hope it to be... nor are Blackshirted legions going to march on Washington DC and overthrow the status quo. I also doubt that cadres of Central Asian Bolsheviks are going to effect a Marxist-Leninist revolution in Cedar Rapids, Iowa no matter how many Revolutionary slogans Spark posts in the shoutbox.
At the same time, the anti-racist Left is profoundly concerned about a shift in majoritarian (i.e. White) political values against the liberal-humanitarian zeitgeist. If this were not so, people like David Irving, or Dr. Watson, or even Patrick Buchanan would simply be ignored by the upper strata of the media, the Academy, and the policy-planning community, rather than being aggressively assailed in the court of public opinion.
Macrobius made the point yesterday (in debating Niccolo) that no matter what happens, White people are not going to “forget that they are White” for a very long time... regardless of their fortunes and those of the country in the future. I think his point is well taken. If race-consciousness among White peoples was not a matter of grave concern to the ruling class, revisionists, racialists, and Nationalists of varying stripes wouldn’t be treated any differently than New Age eccentrics or UFO hobbyists. [...]
— DeathThere is also no doubt in my mind that the ‘elites’ in this country fear white males. They fear a certain class of White male. Dumpy, beer bellied sports fans who work in middle management and ogle jailbait and sports cars aren’t much of a threat to anybody. Neither are the professional types who have a vested stake remaining in the good graces of their employers.
Who they fear are the tough, violent, youngsters who hail from forlorn zip codes, dead factory towns, and decaying urban centers, but the ruling class is in luck: these kids are happy to joined the armed forces and kill off their Arab counterparts. Whether they will behave themselves for the next 30 years upon returning stateside remains to be seen... if they don’t, Uncle Sam could always replace them with Mestizo janissaries.
— Sulla the DictatorThere is undoubtedly a left wing bias in media, being corrected BY market forces in the form of the financially successful FOX news. Which you should be delighted to learn has defended The Dog.
That sort of augments my point. “Dog” is a shitheel who should be operating a ferris wheel somewhere a few klicks (as the crow flies) from Glenn Miller’s double-wide... instead, a bunch of drooling, red state ‘Pubbies keep his program on the air by tuning in week after week to watch him in between reruns of “Growing up Gotti” and the latest reality program involving a bunch of fags and fat chicks competing to bake the perfect cake.
See what the problem is here, Sulla, is that when when some carnie says “nigger,” it becomes a focus of the 24 hour media cycle... I would imagine that the defenders of the “Dog” are probably casting their defense in terms of “What Dog has done is, on the depraved evil scale, somewhere between kidnapping and murdering the Lindbergh baby and skinning fuzzy little puppies alive, but we must show some Christian decency and forgive him for his most horrible of sins and allow him to keep his shitbot television show... because after all, he is such a great role model to White Trash methheads and crack-smoking Samoans in the outlying territories of the Empire when he isn’t saying that awful ‘N’ word.”
I’m objecting to the Orwellian, overtly political, character of these manufactured racial controversies... I’m not wringing my hands over the plight of some carnie Gravitron operator who became famous by bouncing junkies and wynos back into pre-trial detention who were too wasted to make it to court on any given day, ok?
— Sulla the DictatorIt was a one day story.
I’ve been seeing it run everyday on MSN, Yahoo, and Drudge. I don’t have a TV, and I don’t watch “Dog.” I only know about this story because I can’t seem to escape from it.
— Sulla the DictatorAh. So the left are Stalinist censors for telling on Dog, and the right are retarded jokes for defending him.
No. We live in a divided society in which the media apparatus maintains a running narrative that posits that vestigial White Supremacy/racism is the dispositive variable that is responsible for enduring enmity between the races and acts as the singular obstacle to full racial integration. This narrative arc is presented day after day, week after week, by manufactured controversies involving recognizable personalities that the viewing public will respond to (Dog, Imus) as anecdotal evidence/exhibits in favor of the truth of what is being asserted. This sort of thing is aired in between regular features hosted by brain-dead fuck tarts like Paula Zahn with titles like “THE NOOSE: AMERICAN NIGHTMARE!,” which posit that armies of the night consisting of wild-eyed, White racists are strategically placing hangman’s nooses in proximity to Black people for the purpose of terrorizing them into submission and maintaining an evil, oppressive, White supremist social order in 21st century America. I don’t have a stake in all of this political theatre, so I am just sort of observing you guys from the sidelines with increasing disbelief.
— Sulla the DictatorInteresting. Well you get to sneer at both sides, yet again, while you defend/attack the guy.
Pretty much. My cab driver on Saturday night made an offhand comment about “fuckin spics.” My head didn’t explode or anything, and I didn’t think much of it. I can’t feign shock, nausea, horror, or any of those other Pavlovian responses to this sort of thing. Maybe I should watch more television or get a more regular job where I can benefit from ‘sensitivity training’ so that the proper response will be forthcoming in the future when I hear naughty words.
— Sulla the DictatorActually the FOX line is, “Why is Dog being attacked while Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have never apologized for their remarks?”
That doesn’t surprise me either. It’s like the kindergartner in the Principal’s office accounting for his bad language by saying “Aw shucks, little Billy uses naughty words too! How come I’m getting a spanking and he’s not?”
— Sulla the DictatorInteresting. So you think that it is completely implausible for people to find it distasteful for a media personality to call black people ‘niggers,’ and the incident is fabricated?
I think its completely dystopian that national dialogues are underway about television carnies saying naughty words.
— Sulla the DictatorLet me ask you a question. Let’s identify the root of this ‘problem.’ Is it a story? I mean, did the National Enquirer make a good call in running the story? Did it sell papers? Did it generate sales and advertising revenue?
The question is why these sorts of stories are considered “juicy” and strong selling points in the first place. I think I’ve already shared my thoughts on that, and I don’t wish to be redundant.
It’s more dark amusement that people are bawling over vandalism by Libyan delinquents on foreign symbols and icons who have just had their nation subverted and their chief gruesomely slain by those very foreign powers who’s monuments these guys have just vandalized.
They would be exemplary in their discipline if they didn’t unleash some kind of retribution or rage. Assuming you accept the scenario at face value, which I don’t really.
People also no longer appreciate for some reason that chivalry and honor were Aryan characteristics that thrived within the culture of origin for a period of history that is no longer extant really even in memorial terms.
Ernst Junger wrote a great fantasy story about an ex-cavalryman living in a dystopian future characterized by brutal technology and an inhumane absence of deep feeling, patriotism, amicability, and passion. In one of his episodic flashbacks, the hapless cavalryman recalls that while fighting in one of many imperial wars, he and his men came across a town that had been ransacked by the enemy – and in which corpses had been disinterred and displayed to greet them. Junger’s protagonist experiences a terrible foreboding upon seeing this, despite being battle hardened and generally callous.
The Junger story is a thinly-veiled reference to what the Bolsheviks did in Spain during the war – they’d disinter clergymen and women and display them in grotesque poses and destroy relics. They did this to attack an idea of the world that they hated, and to convey in very sharp and uncompromising terms that they would no longer allow people who believed in God, patriotism, any sort of elevated morality, etc. to abide these things any longer. It’s a way of assailing civilization through brutal and senseless nihilism. It is however common to the colored world, as has been noted already – these people have no concept of personal or cultural honor, despite being transfixed by the works, ways, and power of superior races of men. To expect them to behave in any other way is facile.
White civilization reigns where the White man is willing and able to defend it. Bedouins destroying graves of European soldiers should no longer shock anybody other than naive liberals or old women.
Dobbs seems to ‘have a clue’ in the sense that he openly acknowledges that policy in America has been fully subsumed by politics and that the White majority are being prejudiced by this state of affairs. Lou Dobbs is also a guy who makes a lot of money hosting a BigMedia program that airs after Wolf Blitzer’s commentary slot. In other words, Dobbs seems to be benefitting from the status quo immeasurably, and that undermines his credibility IMO.
As for any sort of “shakeup” in the current Presidential bid, I can only assume that people are satisfied with granting their allegiance to Beltway candidates... as the frontrunners seem to be polling healthy numbers and their paymasters aren’t getting cold feet and cutting off the cash flow. Joe SixPack is employed, enjoys purchasing power beyond his means, there is no draft that is going to yank his son out of college and plunk him down in the desert, and there are plenty of new suburbs cropping up to flee to in avoidance of diversity (for the time being). In other words, if popular sentiment against USGov were as fervent as Mr. Dobbs alleges, people would be seceding/revolting en masse, rather than consuming and participating. In other words, the People consent to this mess, and that is why we’re in it.
Our friend Niccolo is confused. When he’s not acting as an apologist for Jasenovac, he’s waxing philosophic about the plight of Blacks and the beauty of Nigerian girls. When he’s not doing that, he’s pretending its the 18th Century and that the King of England is terrorizing his brethren by proxy. When he’s not in those sorts of moods, he’s claiming that internet White Nationalism is a threat to world peace.
In other words, he’s a Canadian who has been deeply marinated in the cosmopolitan culture of “human rights,” yet occasionally gets misty-eyed when his old man talks about the “good old days” of savage, Nationalist glory back in the olde country. [...]
I don’t like USGov either, and I don’t like the “new majority.” However, your critiques degenerate into silliness. An example is the way in which you conflate Canadian White Trash who sit around listening to Dio and smoking shitty weed with “WASPs.” [...]
— neo-niccoloIncorrect. I don’t just mean White Trash, but all WASPs regardless of economic standing.
Yes, but that doesn’t make any sense. On the one hand, you allege that WASPs are cold, deracinated, powerful manipulators who (consumed with avarice) create mighty empires that oppress Balkanoids. On the other hand, you claim that White Trash in Canadian public housing who lived across the tracks from you growing up are representative of “WASPs.”
Part of this is an issue of you employing “niccolo-speak” that the rest of us don’t use, and part of it is a way of you venting generalized hostility against PC-approved targets. [...]
— neo-niccoloI’m entitled to my opinion. No offense.
The trouble is that your opinion smacks of the sort of effete, middlebrow, condescension that is typical of cosmopolitan types who think hostility to the “ugly American” of myth and lore shores up their cultural credentials.
There is a lot to criticize about America, but I really don’t understand your personal axe to grind... Uncle Sam was very eager and willing to train, arm, equip, and offer logistical support to your guys back in 1995 and your brethren seemed happy to accept the help.
Frankly, your “Yankee hating” is a lot more Canadian than it is Croatian. [...]
All I can tell you is that America is my only home, and my ancestors have a long history of getting stomped on by USGov... long before Leviathan began setting its sights on Traditional civilizations abroad. In other words, I understand and appreciate the implications of what this country became after 1865.
That said, I don’t think that having concern and affection for my kith and kin is somehow abominable just because we live under a corrupt and violent regime. To me, “America” is not the public apparatus and the arms of the court and the King. America is my my family, my ancestors, and my home. I’m not about to impugn the honor of those things on account of ephemeral political circumstances, wrought by the machinations of hostile, occupation elites.
I believe Speer was basically honest. Speer didn’t really have anything to gain by lying about his impressions, sympathies, propensities, and loyalties, as by the time he was released from Spandau (a prison-fortress the very existence of which remains quite surreal, and which brings to mind both fairy tales and dystopian fiction more than it does thoughts of modern era politics of war and peace), he was an old man who was viewed by all among the occupation authorities, save for the Soviets, as somebody who was unduly sanctioned for his wartime activities.
Speer’s Spandau Diaries are more evocative of the man’s character than Inside the Third Reich I believe. Speer is actually highly critical of the way in which Hitler and the Reich were and are portrayed by both the war crimes tribunals and popular history. Speer’s major points were that Hitler was not a maniacally autocratic Prussian sort who was prone to caricatured and capricious displays of authority. He was actually the opposite in some ways – common man whose only military experience was as an NCO, disdained conventional life, fancied himself an artist, and resented aristocratic formalities. Speer recalled vividly that he would be uncomfortable when among Hitler and the generals of the OKW as the tension was always palpable; but not an ordinary tension. Speer described Hitler as being impassioned, strange, animated and brilliant to the point that he seemed like he was from another world. The generals simply didn’t know what to make of him, regime loyalists like Jodl included.
Speer also objected vociferously to the claim presented at Nuremberg, and in subsequent historical treatments such as those written by Joachim Fest, that the control group of the Reich were simply “criminals” who were somehow catapulted into power. Speer says (paraphrase), “criminals and their accomplices are always present [in any government] – this doesn’t tell us anything.” In essence, Speer claimed that the Third Reich was exactly what it purported to be – an emblematic regime of racial survival, Aryan rebirth, European palingenesis, and aesthetic splendor. This, of course, also leads one to conclude that the regime was intrinsically homicidal and Speer claimed to feel guilty about this, which is probably true. Speer was not a doctrinaire National Socialist or a brutalized frontfighter or an impassioned ideological warrior: he was a young man of remarkable talent who came of age in a failed state, and who was befriended by an older man who went on to become one of the most powerful warlords in history.
The capsule summary I suppose of Speer’s writings (his major books and his essays) is that Hitler was a diabolical figure who nonetheless truly believed in his own ideas and visionary theory of history and sacramental (and sacrificial) bloodshed, and that Speer himself was a stand-in of sorts for European (and specifically) German man in the interwar years – a Faust-like individual whose reflexive belief in loyalty and apocalyptic view of world-history put him at odds with the Anglo/American/Jewish rationalist ethical order in ways that can’t be reconciled with what became the prevailing conceptual horizon of history (post-1945).
National Socialism came about because guys like Hitler, Speer, Goebbels and Himmler came together and decided that traditional politics could not resolve the pressing issues of the day... so they crafted a party-state of the sort that had never been seen before.
If an analogous tendency took hold in America, it would not look like Nazism... it would probably involve large chunks of the White population becoming radicalized and effecting some sort of secession from the dominion of the federal government and excluding peoples from the confines of their newly-established “sovereign polity” that they considered to be undesirable. Such a movement would probably look to beef up/restore the primacy of regional bases of power instead of trying to seize control of the Federal government and create some sort of total state from sea to shining sea. Finally, such a movement would probably be asserted by working poor people and middle class or “petit bourgeois” types who lost their shirt and were mired in desperate circumstances... it wouldn’t consist of military men, displaced civil servants, and farmers. [...]
Yes and no. I think such a movement would probably retain a lot of the accoutrements of traditional Americana (Protestantism, hostility to the Labor movement, local autonomy, preservation of 2nd Amendment rights, etc.) while adopting a protectionist economic disposition. It would probably put a lot of stock in the value of citizen’s councils and the like... the peace would probably be kept by armed citizens who were considered to be men of “good standing” in the community. It’s important to consider that the NSDAP and a lot of Fascist movements borrowed a lot from Sorel’s theory of “general strike” and corporatist/pro-Labor sorts of tendencies. This type of politics lent itself to European theaters, as “street politics” and the general strike were tried and tested tools for change in Europe on account of its unique political history, the legacy of feudalism, the proximity of people to one another, recent industrialization, and a slew of other things. America’s political culture is a totally different animal than Europe’s.
He masterfully navigated the chaos of late Weimar and had a genius for political organization. He learned powerful lessons from his disastrous and youthful, vainglorious efforts which culminated in the disastrous 1923 uprising. However, he elasticized core doctrines of Fascism and allowed his prejudices and eccentricities to become systematically featured. His command mandate was over-broad, and his strategic decision-making was tainted by his ideological proclivities. Germany would have fared far better with a man like Albert Speer at the helm of the regime.
Hitler made the observation that the English and the Americans are basically Jewish – you’re a good example. “Hey, get with the program and act like a Jew or get fucked.”
“White Supremacy” is an American doctrine. It proposes that:
A) All European derived peoples share a common heritage and society; and B) All European derived peoples are biologically and culturally superior to all non-European derived peoples.
National Socialism posits that Germans and Germanic populations (Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians, Austrians, et. al) constitute a superior strain of humanity... and it suggests that Slavs and assorted other groups indigenous to Europe are subhuman, backwards, atavistic, and inferior.
Himmler suggested that Russians and Poles should be enslaved and forbidden to learn to read, write, or participate in the economy beyond the status of slaves.
This position is not “White Supremacist"... it is National Socialist.
Goering lived a good life, but he became ridiculous. By 1943, he was having his doctor deliver him cases of morphine, having his personal tailor show up every day, he’d greet guests dressed in 19th century princely outfits, run around fucked up on dope wielding a diamond encrusted sceptre, and have hunting parties on his property in the middle of a total war. You shouldn’t live like Tony Montana when a total war is underway.
Doing dope all day and shooting guns in your yard while dressed like Fredrich II and waving around sceptres might have its charms, but its a bad practice if you’re the de facto second to the chief of state.
Goebbels is uniquely loathed by apparently everybody – from the usual anti-fascist court historians, to Strasser apologists who suggest he betrayed “socialism” to ingratiate himself to Bourgeois industrialists and Prussian warmongers, to fence sitters who single out the man for contempt on grounds of his purported weakness of character and constitution.
This isn’t really fair – for a number of reasons.
Goebbels’ position was always precarious, despite his status as an altekampfer – and he took the lessons of June, 1934 seriously. Not having the benefit of the loyalty of a praetorian guard (like Himmler) nor the admiration or respect of the armed forces (such as Goring enjoyed – at least until Sea Lion became nothing more than a propaganda fantasy)... and not harboring any peculiar genius upon which both armaments manufacture and cultural production relied (such as that possessed in droves by Speer), Goebbels realized early that the key to not only preserving his mandate within the strange power structure of the Reich (a case in point of ‘agonistic pluralism writ large) but also keeping his head from being unceremoniously separated from his neck was to court the direct favor of the Führer himself so as to become ‘indispensable.’
One man’s “toady” is another’s survival expert. It’s worth noting that Goebbels, being surrounded by Party men whose common bond was combat experience in the Great War, was ever cognizant of the fact that his lack of a soldiering background and his overall weak constitution would render him forever an outsider who would be forced to prove his mettle.
Speer emphasized that whatever one could say of Goebbels (and Speer in many respects hated the man) it was misplaced when he was accused of a cowardly disposition – when Allied strategic bombing became truly constant and murderous on grounds of burgeoning (and ultimately total) air superiority, Goebbels was known to tour bomb wreckage in the midst of attacks in order to reassure ordinary Berliners and to try to shore up morale – the reasoning being that even top party men were facing the same mortal risks as ordinary people.
The case of Goebbels as it were is one of his contemporary “enemies” vilifying him rather cynically by invoking the character attacks that were levied against him by his contemporaneous enemies – despite the fact that the opinions of the latter are considered to be entirely unreliable in any other meaningful context by court history.
Hitler isn’t the only heroic figure to be vilified or cast aside altogether by the self-appointed myrmidons of history; they just dig up his bones more regularly than they do the corpse of some others because of his peculiar significance to the Tribe.
Any man who thinks about history seriously (whether he be a man of action or a quiet introvert) inevitably makes a friend of Hitler. To deny Hitler’s heroic qualities is to do away with history and render a drab mosaic of the world and mens’ affairs within it.
A smart guy who posted on these boards of ours a long time ago and who was prone to poetic introspection and reflection on history (sometimes to a fault) used to suggest that a silver lining of the rise of coloured races to positions of power is that some of them will tell the truth about history and will exhibit a robust immunity to the more diabolical lies about the past. I think that is true, and knowledge of this likely scenario is one of the reasons why the anti-Hitler myth continues to be proselytized in such fervent earnest.
Third Reich Pros:
Technologically and socially progressive
Subjugated finance capital to the national interest
abrogated Bolshevik tendencies and legally pre-empted enemies of the People from co-opting political advantage
Did away with degenerate art
Reconciled competing class interests by codifying labor rights as well as facilitating upward mobility within the party-state
Embraced organic traditions and anointed the State as the guardian of such traditions.
Cons:
A factionalized party-state apparatus
-the fuehrerprinzip
-German chauvinism/doctrinal racism prevented progress towards a Mosleyite-type vision of “Europe a nation”
-Poor leadership in key positions (Himmler and Goering come to mind)
-Anti-intellectual tendencies (especially post-1943)
-Needless brutality (after Jews were stripped of political rights, there was no good reason to subject civilians to violence)
-Too committed to mass-politik
-Doctrinal ideology that undermined genuine, organic tendencies
Heroism as most people understand it describes a virtuous trait of character that probably can only be appreciated as something abstract and belonging to the metapolitical dimension of activity. And even then only in the course of truly terminal historical events.
I’ve gleaned that this is lost on most racialists. I’d guess that JoeMcCarthy and his fellows (Linder comes to mind here as well) would claim that Henry Ford was a greater hero than Jesus Christ was, by virtue of the formers ability to produce automobiles in a more efficient and superior capacity to any other man then living; while the latter simply “got killed by his enemies.” This is curious at first glance, but we can assume, I’d guess, that its just an inevitable expression of Yankee/Protestant modes of thought, which seem to posit that utility and quantifiable improvement of worldly circumstances is the ultimate metric of value.
I’m not resorting to hyperbole when I say that people who on the one hand embrace Enlightenment values but on the other hand qualify their infatuation with racialist commitments make me quite nauseous. It’s simply a gross and cynical way to think about the affairs of men. Praising “ordered liberty” and worshipping Constitutionalism and its rights-based corollaries relating to labor and private property while at the same time railing against the presence of hostiles and their ability to participate within that social and political milieu and calling for their physical destruction is blatantly sociopathic. If it isn’t just a bad boy pose adopted by Conservatives left out in the cold after the eclipse of Sovietism, its simply an expression of confused hostility that is every bit as obscene and morally repugnant as the Communistic banality these characters purport to oppose.
If modernity itself is the wellspring of historically destructive ideas, that has implications for politics and racial survival that simply supersede events such as medieval siege contests and purges overseen by learned churchmen. If you accept that ideas have monumental power to destroy essential things, when implemented amidst total cultural upheaval, the “heroes” are the ones who refused to capitulate and resisted, even if that which they raised the sword against was so terribly momentous and brutally powerful as to be immutable.
In other words, Hitler is a greater hero than the other men listed because he remained at his post when he could have abandoned it. To suggest he was “un-heroic” because his post was overrun is to deliberately misconstrue the concept of heroism. [...]
As I’ve said before I think Carlyle’s parallel between Cromwell and Mohammad is compelling and very important, even if its not easily demonstrated with hard and fast evidence.
The point about Hitler is equally important, as the historical disturbances Hitler was navigating weren’t ordinary in any sense. They were entirely unprecedented. Streseman’s faction demanded: “Submit.” The Bolsheviks’ stock in trade was annihilation. Hitler resisted both strains of ideological modernism and mounted a grand challenge to world order, so as to implement a new order and destroy the cancerous progress of what Nolte called (for peculiar reasons known only to himself) practical transcendence.
Was Hitler less heroic than Mohammad and Cromwell? Less successful? You’re welcome to peruse your historical library and provide evidence of Cromwell’s and Mohammad’s enduring success. You might have a difficult time of it I think.
It’s incredible that this kind of garbage propaganda is simply accepted as being true.
We’re expected to believe that some kind of Rockwell-style “American Nazi Party” was active in 1930s California and was attracting the sympathy and support of wealthy Hollywood moguls no less and that Mein Kampf (which had not even been translated into English at the time) was being sold “like hotcakes” at newsstands.
The Roosevelt Administration suspended Habeas Corpus, charged people with treason based on mere rumor and hearsay, incarcerated Japanese, German, and Italian civilians without trial but we’re supposed to believe that thousands or millions of Americans were openly declaring their support for National Socialism (in Hollywood) and eagerly buying up German-language political screeds.
It brings to mind what Baudrillard said about “simulacra” – and the discrete phenomenon (especially pronounced in America) of people simply accepting imaginary political narratives that are conveyed through television and film as “true.” The historical reference points of Americans are quite literally false, imaginary, and never occurred – but people are convinced that only did these things occur but that they somehow personally experienced them on grounds that they viewed movies and TV shows and read Philip Roth paperbacks about conspiratorial intrigues.
— HakluytTargeting an ethnic group for annihilation is qualitatively different from targeting a political or religious group, however ‘Enemy’ is defined.
That doesn’t stand to reason; as ethnic groups by definition are ‘political groups.’
I’ll say nothing to belittle the solidarity felt within political or religious groups that have been put to the sword throughout history, but to attack an ethnic group qua an ethnic group is to attack a whole world of social existence. It is thus more brutal.
Modern war is more brutal than pre-modern war. National Socialists annihilated Jews for essentially the exact reason that you just stated – the destruction of an entire world of social existence; a world that was in the view of Hitler and his fellows a corporeal instantiation of a monstrous idea or collection of ideas that was threatening the existence of German life.
You can accept or reject Nolte’s account of the psychological causes of NS extermination, but what he suggests can’t simply be dismissed as elaborate apologetics. His two anecdotes that stand out are the letters of Max Scheubner-Richter, who wrote an account of what he witnessed while in Turkey during the annihilation of the Armenian minority, and Hitler’s statements about the fate that would inevitably await Paulus as his army was surrounded at Stalingrad: in the former case, Richter expressed horror and revulsion at what was occurring and was so shaken by the events he chose to document their occurrence. In the latter case, Hitler spoke to his staff almost obsessively about Paulus’ being subjected to the ‘rat cage’ torture if the 6th Army could not break out. This ‘rat cage’ anxiety seemed to be something that weighed heavily on Hitler’s mind throughout the war, and its indicative of a singular almost obsessive preoccupation with the scope and character of Communistic brutality and willingness to employ cruelty of the sort that shocks the conscience as a matter of course.
Further, though it should barely need saying and only makes me look more pedantic to even engage the idea, it’s also qualitatively different to target a group that threatens to disrupt sovereignty or displace your own ethnic group (‘civil war’) than it is to target a small ethnic group within your own state who at worst pose the threat of economic competition with your bourgeois classes.
The first modern instance of annihilation took place after the 1789 Revolution. The same strategy was implemented in earnest in Russia in the form of the “Red Terror” and the Yezhovshchina in broader scope and severity. It denies the psychological element of the post-1919 European political milieu to suggest that Jews were viewed simply as a mercantile class that competed with the bourgeoisie for profits.
Again, whether what Hitler and the NSDAP perceived to be true was actually true or nor is immaterial. They viewed European Jewry as the bearers of an apocalyptic idea or set of ideas that would lead to the eradication of the German (specifically) and European (generally) form of life in favor of a permanent and oppressive alteration of human affairs, as had been implemented in Russia. Within the parameters of that perception, exterminating Jewry physically was a pre-emptive measure to not only eradicate the burgeoning “Jewish”/modern socialist order but also to meet a mortal threat (class annihilation) with an overwhelming response (total genocide).
The SS never purported to be an aristocracy, nor did it claim the be the heir of Hellenic values or thought or modes of life and fighting.
Nor was the SS simply an aestheticized variant of the NKVD or a police department with an imperial mandate.
Himmler himself consistently irritated the officer corps of the Heer with his public and prideful declarations that he was of peasant stock, and his Napoleonic, quasi-Jacobin, commitment to merit-based commissions within the Waffen SS. Dietrich, Pieper, Kurt Meyer, Michael Wittman stood out because they were men who would have been, or in Dietrich’s case actually were, overlooked by the Reichswehr under the Imperial regime as lacking the taste, breeding, pedigree, and intellect required of combat officers. What the SS substituted for these qualities was a radical commitment to duty, absolute fealty to the race and the leader principle, and a demonstrable willingness to sacrifice their own well-being (physical, material, and spiritual) in the service of a grand struggle against the burgeoning world order.
The sources of the SS ideological vision are found in peasant Romanticism, expressed by scribes like Hermann Lons, a reverence for the feudal heritage of the German lands that was steeped in pious violence, culminating in the 30 Years War, and a belief in personal piety and selfless commitment to the blood community that was deeply felt in both the Pietist north as well as among the ancient and clannish Catholic agrarian lands of the south.
The “Classical” trappings and aesthetics of the NS state, its physical structures and pageants, and its cult of physicality and martial exercise and readiness had to do with the fact that these things were immediately resonant within the European mind and had a simple but profound appeal to people who are habituated to mobilization and national warring. This is not unique to Germans, nor is it evidence of a belief in Hellenism or an attempt to recreate the actual political forms of Greece.
Nazism was essentially racialist bolshevism... and its irreconcilable with Christianity.
I always found the CI types to be completely insufferable (from a philosophical standpoint) for this reason... you cannot simultaneously harbor unconditional faith in the Christ and the Führer.
Judaism and National Socialism are mirror images of one another. Originally Posted by Bregowald Exactly. I have been saying that for a long time now. When Hitler was creating his version of National Socialism, he simply refashioned the ideas of Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, into something he thought more befitting of his own kind, the Germans. Theodor Herzl was a National Socialist (Jewish nationalist and socialist). Zionism is literally Jewish Nazism.
Essentially that is correct. This is why Judaism is constitutionally dependent upon “anti-Semitism"... Definitionally, it cannot exist without it, anymore than National Socialism could define itself without the presence of the Jew.
Judaism is a group psychosis masquerading as a culture... I mean, there is no Jewish “culture.” [...]
National Socialism and Judaism are both vulgar and simplistic... Judaism is not some nuanced, primordial, rich cultural tradition... its a tribe of miscegenated gypsies collectively wallowing in their own myopia and defining their entire worldview in terms of “the goyim is trying to destroy us.”
National Socialism is a knee-jerk, simpleton’s reaction to modernity that posits the Jew as the source of all evils [...]
National Socialism was quintessentially vulgarian... its success stemmed from the fact that it gave chicken farmers and lathe operators a stake in the franchise and nominated an Austrian corporal as the supreme commander. Is that what you consider to be a movement with aristocratic tendencies?
Mike Jahn Wrote:This linking of “West” and “moral” in relation to a human atrocities/war crimes standard was entirely invented by the Jews after World War II to make the Holocaust seem extra special to impose White guilt on the Goyim suckers.
That is certainly part of it, but the sole proximate cause of ‘Holocaust’ exceptionalism can’t simply be reduced to Jewish superstition and propagandistic chauvinism.
Anglo-Saxon historiography is singularly focused on the concept of linear progress and the ability to quantify and identify progress in the historical record. People who intrinsically believe or have been habituated to believe that the democratization not only of production and political processes but also lifestyles, luxury, and individual liberties since the 18th century represents a progressive change from traditional parochial relationships, patterns of association, and social structures and the conflicts and hardships that are purported to be caused by such things can’t account for the occurrence in recent decades of racial conflict, industrialized warring, and annihilation therapy.
In order to maintain a consistent and cognizable ethical framework, it is required that they interpret the data revealed by the study of the European Civil War to represent a grave anomaly or an occurrence of atavistic behavior incident to a mass psychosis that is both uncharacteristic of modernity and preventable through remedial political education and therapeutic learning.
JDS Wrote:Google the distinction between “intentionalist” and “instrumentalist” debates among “kosher” holocaust historians. This is fundamentally important indeed, and it bears repeating that David Irving presented the instrumentalist case most effectively. It is curious however that Irving became so singularly focused on the non-existence of a Führer order. Irving’s interest in Hitler himself seems an example of the tendency of British historians to favor ‘great man’ historical theories.
A more important question is whether or not instrumentalities of ethnic cleansing were an inevitable and logical conclusion of National Socialism, and whether that kind of warfare is historically remarkable.
I think this is a bit dishonest. The Soviet Union and its allies as well as the “non-aligned” communist states were just as “kooky” (if not moreso) and compelling as the Third Reich. I can’t think of a Fascist state that was as bizarre as the PDRK, Hoxha’s Albania, or Ceausescu’s Romania. I can’t think of a Nazi eugenics theory that was as bizarre and horrific as Stalins’ suggestion that human women should be impregnated with simian genetic material so as to create beast-man hybrids for battlefield use. And I can’t think of a human experimentation program as extensive, groundbreaking and significant as that undertaken by the DDR in the service of kinesiological research and the perfection of biochemical human performance technology.
Ultimately, Nazism is synonymous with “satanism” and the like in the public consciousness on account of the dehistorization of the phenomenon that is National Socialism, and the saddling of the study of the Second World War with bizarre Jewish superstitions, prejudices and religious mores that are quite alien to Western sensibilities yet are nevertheless dutifully parroted by Gentile scholars. I think of it as misguided ecumenism.
I tend to be suspicious of people (“old school” or not) who harbor a belief that National Socialism is somehow revivable in the 21st century.
NS is fundamentally important as a historical point of interest (and how we contextualize the 20th Century), but its totally irrelevant to contemporary electoral politics in the USA and Western Europe.
It was rather eye opening to me when a few years ago when I saw VNNers and assorted other self-proclaimed “racialists” celebrating the untimely death of Sam Francis... Marinesko’s former comrades are a bunch of oddballs with a fetish for historical anachronism. They’re simply not relevant to politics in any way and I’m frankly surprised as of late that we are having 10 and 12 page debates over the merits of David Lane, GLR, etc. It seems weird at face value, but nationalist tendencies in Germany since the war seem to have gravitated towards the political left.
The “Left”/“Right” divide in Germany was always peculiar vis-à-vis the rest of Europe anyway.
Even many hardline German reactionaries in the interwar years, Spengler and Junger among them, were staunchly “socialist” in their outlook.
If Sarrazin and men like him can steer left-leaning discourse away from post-1968, Marcuse-influenced social values, that seems like a positive thing for Germans. [...]
— harjitMaybe they’re finally getting over attributing everything to that?
Doubtful. They’re probably reluctant to acknowledge that anti-Nazism has had unintended and harmful consequences for parliamentary democracy.
Burnham’s point was that doctrinal anti-Nazism precludes the legitimacy of any and all Conservative tendencies. He was probably right, but don’t expect German media and policy planning organizations to stipulate that any time soon.
The Third Reich was a dysfunctional government and Hitler was a lousy executive IMO. He also had contempt for human life and was malicious.
Other than Albert Speer and Karl Donitz, I cannot think of any high officials in the Reich that were ‘good’ men.
German policy in the East and its callousness towards subjugated Slavic populations was capricious and ugly, sure – but that isn’t really the crux of the issue. England escalated what was a European, Westphalian (i.e. limited) war into a total war – this was a profound breach with precedent, reason, strategic logic, and ethically sound politics. Again, you don’t make total war on your own civilization. The course pursued by Churchill would have been tantamount to a Greek polity making common cause with Persia to annihilate another Greek polity. It flies in the face of what was the dominant conceptual ethical paradigm of Europe and, for that matter, all high cultures that have ever existed in the past. It’s a question of patriotism, really. This isn’t difficult to grasp.
Europe was in a profound crisis at the close of the 19th century. I’m no Nietzschean and the man is unduly praised these days by Romantics and others, but I do believe his great insight was not related to cultural criticism or anything of that sort but was in fact geopolitical. Europeans had to begin thinking as Europeans in order to preserve their form of life. Petit nationalism, cabinet warring, and all of those pathologies belonged to a bygone era. The war was Europe against the burgeoning Russian hegemon and the grossraum superpower that the United States had become.
Finally: disgusting ‘warcrimes’ (I don’t believe such a concept exists, but will use the phrase for the sake of the argument) don’t become more or less disgusting simply because of the relationship between the countries involved. If you believe in the concept of Hell, you’ll agree with me that Churchill (together with Hitler) is burning in it, and would have burnt just as bad if he had firebombed Moscow instead. 200.000 dead is 200.000 dead.
Churchill recognized his own folly, in his defense. That doesn’t excuse British hubris but the Iron Curtain speech was in essence an apology. Goring actually became rather ecstatic during the course of his own trial when news reports trickled in of the tenor and content of the speech. It really did violence to the already tenuous ethical foundation of the Nuremberg trials. England waged a pointless war that led to half of Europe being consigned to 50 years of Stalinist captivity, England losing its already fledging Empire, and the remainder of Europe being reduced to a military manpower reserve for the United States.
— PetrI meant, why should we consider the Westphalian paradigm as some superlatively superior system we should automatically show deference to?
You should consider it superior because an unfettered European Civil War was entirely disastrous for European civilization. Again, I don’t see why it needs to be elaborately fleshed out or pedantically explained as to why it was a grave ethical error for England to opt to wage total war on its own civilization. Schmitt drew the distinction between enemy and foe, relying on Classical authority that developed a conceptual vision of power politics and the scope of enmity within civilizations juxtaposed to that which accrues against a foe from without.
Europe’s development and survival depended upon the maintenance of the peace achieved in 1648. Do you require me to explain why in further detail? I’d be happy to if you do, but it doesn’t seem that it should be necessary.
— KamandiHow would a Nazi victory have benefited your national interests, Basil?
Emancipation from British subjugation, assimilation into a Continent-wide European market, perpetual demographic integrity, prestige and security attendant to Imperium Europa, all the usual reasons.
Among other superstitious nonsense, many National Socialists posited the Nordic phenotype as the Aryan Ideal. That said, many Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, et al fought valiantly with the Waffen SS, and I don’t believe that they were looked down upon by the rank and file of the NSDAP.
Sure, the Third Reich considered Germanic people to be “superior” in many senses to other Europeans and many policies within the ranks reflected this, but I believe that most Nazis considered Fascist Italy, Spain, and Portugal to be fine additions to the New Order that needn’t be “Germanized.”
I have no love for Nazism, but it was quite a bit more nuanced than many people believe.
Personally, I do not endorse the worldview of either the Nazis or of Arthur Kemp... but for the record, the former is substantially more well thought out than the latter. [...]
Hitler did not consider the Japanese to be an “underclass.”
National Socialism does not = 21st Century White Nationalism. The NS worldview is not: “All non-White people are inferior and must be done away with"... its quite nuanced.
The Nazi state was not some unique and unparalleled evil in the annals of human history. It was a brutal, authoritarian regime like many other brutal, authoritarian regimes that dotted the landscape of the 20th century. What makes it unique is that it antagonized Jews as a matter of policy... hence, it’s special status as “the greatest evil ever known to man.” [...]
— Sulla the DictatorWhat’s weird though is that the only Soviet gains in Eastern or Southern Europe before the Germans invaded them were done in treaty with Germany.
Geopolitics. Hitler was elected on a platform of defeating Bolshevism... before this goal could be implemented, Europe had to be brought into Imperium... France and England resisted this initiative and Hitler was presented with an exigent circumstance. In order to resolve it, he made temporary concessions to the USSR... hence the “10 year non-aggression pact.” The Sovs and the Nazis were not under any illusions that they would avoid war with one another.
Donitz had universal credibility within the Third Reich... he was not a doctrinal National Socialist, but he also was not resistant to its precepts. The kreigsmarine also was not situated as the heer was with respect to institutional enmity between itself and the Party apparatus.
RE: Heydrich
There is no evidence that Heydrich was part-Jewish. Joachim Fest addressed this matter in The Face of the Third Reich. Heydrich was feared and reviled by many within the Party on account of his status with respect to the internal security/policing mechanism. It is reasoned that many rumors about his heritage were deliberately cultivated by his enemies. Apparently, this had a profound effect on Heydrich himself, both on account of his dogmatic Nazism as well as concern for his own credibility within the Party-state.
That said, I am not aware of any evidence that has any tendency to substantiate the claim that Heydrich was Jewish. [...]
Yes and no... if the Third Reich had been victorious, they would have been charged with securing a massive frontier (that frontier being the corridor into Asia).
To me, National Socialism hinges upon a continuing state of mobilization... warfare not only is a catalyst for order, but also one for innovation and enduring dynamism. I believe it is clear that Hitler considered these things to be paramount.
This is not to say that constant, total warfare would have characterized the Third Reich after Final Victory... yet at the same time, conflict of moderate intensity would have endured into perpetuity for the frontier to remain viable.
Be that as it may, “racism” as a matter of law (in the form of racially exclusive slavery or segregation or apartheid) or as an instrument of class oppression doesn’t assign races outside of the concrete national community any kind of enemy status. Plantation lords don’t consider their slave chattels to be their “enemy” – nor does a coal miner who employs coolies to work in his mine believe that he is “at war” with his workers. Similarly, a republic such as America pre-1954 didn’t think Negroes were its “enemy” – in fact, it was wealthy white Progressives who were the ones (as Christopher Lasch notes in his essays on education) who demanded Blacks be sent to publicly funded schools in the first place. The fact that their schools were substandard was a social problem or maybe due to indifference on the part of White elites – it wasn’t part of an effort to make “war” on Negroes.
So, no – the Third Reich wasn’t engaged in a campaign of “racism” against Jews, it was waging total war on them. You could argue that doing so was illogical or immoral, but its a dumb canard when people pretend that Munich in 1934 was South Carolina in 1960 with the Jews playing the Blacks and the SS acting like Bull Connor.
Germany attacked Jews because they were the enemy, in other words – not because Germans simply didn’t like Jews. Outside of zealots like Streicher, or some of the pointlessly cruel men that are unfortunately always found in police or military organizations in disproportionate numbers, the higher ranking NSDAP elite didn’t seem to bear a personal animosity to Jews. This was apparently construed by Hannah Arendt as evidence of the monstrous evil of National Socialism – that it facilitated “evil” w/out conscience. In reality, she should have interpreted this absence of passionate hatred as evidence of a war circumstance.
Normal Germans didn’t personally hate Jews – anymore than American bomber crews personally despised the Japanese they were massacring from the air. Friend/Enemy in the political sphere is discrete and exclusive to that sphere – your personal friend in private life might become your mortal enemy, or vice versa.
What characterizes the Nazi regime (it best and worst points) is the SS. On the one hand, the SS fielded a magnificent, pan-European army that approximated the Orders of the Crusades... on the other hand, the SS was a terroristic “state within a state” led by a demented chicken farmer who tried to talk to severed heads while playing King Arthur in Wewelsberg castle.
In all seriousness, if you look at the relationship between “private” industry and the SS, it really is the perfect textbook example of a well oiled, incredibly effective military-industrial complex. National Socialism is an incredibly intricate racket... its really something. At the end of the day, you people need to keep in mind that outside of the “true believers” in the Nazi elite (who were few in number), these men were a bunch of highly effective imperialists... they were just more heavy-handed in their tactics than were the British.
I have long felt that Albert Speer (not Der Führer, not Heydrich, not Himmler) WAS the Third Reich... in every sense really. What people think of when they think of “Nazism” is the window dressing that got the feebs on board.
Tawantinsuyu did not orchestrate a detailed ideology for the creation of a Total State with specific purposes, goals, and exigencies to remedy. The NSDAP in contrast, came into existence in order to offset specific, hostile, foreign elements and to create a New Order in Europe so as to alter world-historical phenomena in Germany’s favor for the following millennium. This is a very detailed program... this program failed on all counts. I think that we are dealing with a lack of shared premises here. The fact that any given nation “lost” does not axiomatically equate to a judgment of that nation’s success or failure. However, National Socialism must be considered first and foremost as a remedial ideology... a remedial ideology which fails to remedy is a failure.
Governments are not ends in themselves. A party state is not crafted to effect the end of: now this party-state exists. Rather, a party-state is crafted so as to address general and specific threats and exigencies that reflect the economic and geopolitical landscape of the nation. In order to craft proper states, it falls upon the Elite to generate institutions and modes of applying power that will defend against identified and (as yet) unidentified threats as well as remedying the circumstances and exigencies that abrogate national power and prosperity. A successful party state is able to:
1) guarantee the survival of the nation 2) neutralize present threats and actively deter unrealized, potential threats 3) facilitate continued prosperity or at least prevent systemic integrity from being further compromised
An unsuccessful party state fails on one or all of these counts. A total failure would constitute simple failure to effect count 1). the National Socialist party state failed on all three counts as of the Day of Defeat.
The difference is that actual Stalinist fanatics (who reigned in states like the DDR, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia up until the Wall was literally crumbling) fervently believed that Communism was “true.” They literally had no doubt in their minds. One reason they were dangerous is because they were zealots – they weren’t simply power mad cynics on the order of Orwell’s brutish apparatchiks in his dystopian fiction. The film “The Lives of Others” does a fantastic job of exploring this phenomenon – the MfS professor explains to his charges at the ‘Stasi College’ that its permissible to destroy people who are enemies of Socialism because Socialism is the only moral political order that is conceivable.
This isn’t comparable to “Political Correctness.’ PC is an effort to manage social tensions that develop as human populations experience the inevitable psychological strains placed on them by massively scaled, socially unstable, hyper-competitive globalized markets and workplaces. Nobody actually believes in PC – its an effort at damage control dreamed up by lawyers, as a kind of formalized set of rules by which everybody is afforded a type of grievance remedy mechanism.
I don’t think its a question of ‘strength in numbers,’ b/c the rubes don’t have the top slots. The top slots are occupied by guys who think the PC regime is a big joke. It’s probably tantamount to Soviet nomenklatura in 1988. Do you think ranking CPUSSR guys would sit around and talk about class war with earnest severity?
Nobody actually mouths PC in private, other than delusional retards, females, or apple polishing fuckwads.
I think most people are “racists.” I had lunch w/two guys today who work for a big insurance concern as adjustors. Given, they’re friends of mine, so maybe lips are looser, but the one guy says; “management is telling us we need a diversity hire. But at least my manager told us there is no way we’re hiring another nigger, so it’ll be some Chink whiz kid or a girl.”
Blue humour is the most quintessentially PC activity anybody can engage in... it’s devoid of meaningful content.
That is why guys like Dershowitz and Kunstler made it a point in the 1970s to refine 1st Amendment rights as the right to look at beaver shots and talk about it afterwards in public. Pretty nice bait-and-switch.
I think Lind’s (and Buchanan’s) theory of “cultural Marxism” is a bit lame. It’s a gross oversimplification of history with a dash of conspiracy theory added in to tie up loose ends.
Pundits shouldn’t try to demonstrate the causal nexus of the current dilemma... it’s not something that is appropriate for popular journalism and op-eds, and it’s not something that most readers have the attention span to digest and understand.
Something that a lot of culture conservatives these days seem to have in common with Jews, NeoCons, and Commies is that they all seem to think that American history began around 1910 and ended around 1992.
“Political Correctness” (a silly signifier) has a lot to do with 1789, much to do with 1945, and it was buttressed by the peculiar political nuances of Cold War internationalism. Of course, the ascent of mass media features in this equation as well. It’s not an issue that can simply be explained away by the Frankfurt School. [...]
By the 20th century, the thing had already been decided, Dan. Being that you are a very well-read Limey with an attendant longview of history, I’m surprised you ascribe to the Buchanan/Lind theory [re: Frankfurt School].
If we are going to talk about the roots of Liberalism/Jacobinism/Marxism, we need to begin by talking about the Reformation, the traumatic disturbances wrought by the Enlightenment (culminating in 1789), and what Nolte termed the “Critical” (or qualified) Liberalism of Bacon, Comte, Hobbes and later Burke.
America had been irreparably harmed by its own disruptions of 1688-90, 1776-83, and 1861-65, many many decades before obscure literary and cultural critics landed on American soil. In other words, the question to ask is “where do anti-Traditional tendencies derive their enduring inertia?”
Puritanism is a dutiful handmaiden of Liberalism... Hobbes’ endorsement of “commodious living” is really just a secular variant of this uniquely Anglo, pathology. It’s a fundamentally effeminate and death-denying ethos... it promotes fear and loathing of baser instincts and aims to vilify their expression at all times, in all places so as to make the world “safe.” Traditional vices should not be stamped out by legislative diktat... such efforts are only a stones’ throw away from initiatives that aim to “perfect” American man with prohibitions upon “racism” and “sexism” and the like.
Metapolitics is the process by which phenomenological things shape and cause political happenings. In order to accept that a “metapolitical dimension” exists and is discoverable in the historical record, you’d have to believe that some ideas develop such monumental force that they are capable of pervading every aspect of society and permanently altering human affairs.
Nolte seemed to suggest that this dimension was an unrevealed dimension that accompanies historical disturbances; along side an identifiably political dimension (within which temporal power is ordered), and a sociological dimension (involving values and ethics).
Presumably, the metapolitical refers to the dominant “spirit of the age” that is felt and experienced by all people and that ultimately frames political and social behavior. It can’t be quantified like other sources of causation.
Moral questions and problems touch and concern politics only in a very oblique capacity – this is something that Americans, like the English, always had difficulty reconciling, and its one of the sources of the present dilemma.
A lot of time is wasted by White Nationalists in discussing morality – WNs reflexively have internalized System values in this regard in no small measure.
One of the important contributions of modern German thinkers was to do away with this dichotomy/dilemma entirely. Politics is a sphere of human activity (conceptual and corporeal) that is discrete and insular unto itself. Politics is not a “science,” nor is it a manner of determining what is moral or immoral, virtuous or corrupt, nor is it a way of achieving ‘progress.’ Politics is in fact power activity and the directed implementation of violence and the threat of violence therein, invoked to defend the way of life of the proponent. It’s an instrumentality, in other words, not an end in itself.
Schmitt drew the analogy that the State is to politics what a church is to a religion – its purposes, limitations, and realizable objectives can only be discussed meaningfully within these limited parameters.
In other words, to talk about ‘political morality’ or to raise the question of “morals” are deterministic of politics is at odds with reality. Nobody actually believes otherwise – other than intellectually stunted persons who are incapable of apprehending politics and religious zealots who consider all spheres of man’s activity to be governed by a penumbra of Godly morals.
I think, and its admittedly merely my opinion; but nonetheless one that is substantiated by historical data, that the problem in these discussions of genocide, annihilation, racial warfare, etc. isn’t that they encourage people towards immorality or, alternatively, that it inspires revulsion among otherwise sympathetic men, but rather that framing political questions in such ways essentially validates and legitimizes the ethical parameters of Liberal discourse. War and peace questions aren’t moral questions, “genocide” isn’t a meaningful political concept, and personal animosities or affinities have no bearing on the essential nature of political activity – the essence being the friend/enemy paradigm and the struggles contained therein.
It would be a more productive endeavor to discuss the historical basis of Aryan/Jewish enmity and the irreconcilability of this enmity within the modern state – rather than to initiate discussion of this issue on the basis of annihilation and the various rationalist, moralist, liberal objections to it.
Modern political systems are intrinsically homicidal – all political theorists and political leaders (actual political leaders I mean, not mere elected officials) recognize this. It’s simply the logical expression of power activity within the modern state. To discuss the process in isolation smacks of personal animosity or fetishism. There is a reason, of course, why Lenin never penned treatises on the moral implications of exterminating the counter-revolutionary classes – and it wasn’t due to squeamishness or a preference for euphemism.
I define a political controversy as a zero-sum, irreconcilable conflict of interest between similarly situated (yet adversely interested) organized social-political factions who are competing for power within a single polity.
A political controversy is not “can Bob marry Bruce?,” “are we winning the war on turr?,” or “is Social Security salvageable?”
The state is a defensive structure, within the parameters of which peace reigns. We can only really conceptualize states in relation to one another, as they represent stabilized lines of conflict.
What Smith and Marx share in common is that they aimed to conflate politics and political behavior with economics. That’s an interesting account of things, but it doesn’t have anything to do with history.
In contemporary vernacular, Politics is a term used to describe any number of processes... electoral, legislative, administrative, and public policy functions of Government incident to general police-power and the like.
Mind you, this account of politics and political things is rather ahistorical. I reference Carl Schmitt quite often, as I find his description of Politics to be very concise and accurate. Schmitt described Politics as conflicts of interest between actors that carry the potential to result in killing. In other words, Politics describes the state of affairs/interaction between Friends and Enemies/Foes.
The Dominant International Relations Paradigm (the Westphalian system) and its precursor in the Early Modern era represented an acknowledgment of political order as the interplay between structures of opposition. What I mean by that is States are inherently exclusionary... they determine who is part of the National community, who enjoys rights of citizenship and who the Enemy is that must be excluded from the franchise.
After 1945, the Victors set about to recreate/refine the State system and do away with States as defensive structures.
Secular Humanism dovetails with liberalism, and Critical Theory is the binding agent.
The [Frankfurt School] was not a ‘gigantic irrelevancy’... it represented a contributory variable towards the corruption the social science departments of eminent American universities into Lysenkoist echo chambers. However, these tendencies did not begin and end with Critical Theorists and their acolytes.
The experience of WWII, the defeat of the Axis powers, fear of a resurgence of aggressive nationalism (and especially National Socialism), the triumph of capitalism in Europe (and attendant deracination) all ushered in the current dilemma... what the FS represents is the convergence of deconstructionist Continental intellectual tendencies with Yankee anarcho-liberalism. While it is dishonest to suggest that culture-distortion begins and ends with Critical Theory, it is equally dishonest to suggest that Critical Theory was and is a ‘gigantic irrelevancy.’ In fact, its preposterous beyond belief.
The government basically behaves in a Constitutional manner, because the President has since 1954 allowed the judiciary to impose substantive laws, purportedly in accordance with justice, fair play, orderly democracy, etc. If he were to stop doing that, then a Constitutional question would emerge about who has sovereign power and who is acting legally.
A Constitution (formal or customary) only functions within the parameters of some kind of shared national/ethnic consensus that is premised on basic moral assumptions that everyone takes for granted. In a divided society, a Constitution just becomes a procedure code by which hostiles all agree to allow political content to be introduced into national life so long as everyone abides by judicial decisionism and agrees to not resort to violence.
We’re dealing with a political hostility problem here that hurts Whites (and some others). We’re not dealing with a government overreach problem or a legality problem.
You’re talking about the destruction of culture and the total proletarianization (in cultural terms – to coin Christopher Lasch’s description of the relationship of liberal capitalism and the state to discrete cultures) of unique nationalities and ethnic groups, for the purpose of creating a ‘world society’ of laws, constitutionalism, commerce, formal equality, and technology. This is by design, and its a crisis, but it isn’t “genocide.”
Genocide is a floating signifier in common parlance and polemical usage, and its a legal concept in the post-Nuremberg paradigm of war and peace – so its a loaded word and we can stipulate that while at the same time acknowledging that it has a contextual meaning.
Total war in the 20th century took on apocalyptic dimensions – and all combatants resorted to what Ernst Nolte called “annihilation therapy.” The categorical, physical destruction of human groups based on subjective criteria. How this came to pass is as important and how and why – and its a huge topic that warrants scrutiny and attention, but its entirely misplaced to discuss it outside of circumstances of war or the imminent potentiality of war. Otherwise its simply a clumsy propaganda point.
...
I take exception to this account for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that an ‘advanced,’ consolidated, state apparatus is really a prerequisite for a true ‘genocide’ to occur... a ‘genocide’ is not the same phenomenon as brutal tribal warring amidst Third World populations.
Genocides do not occur in a vacuum, and they are premised on notions of who is properly a member of the National community, and in turn, who properly is entitled to full rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits of citizenship.
In other words, Genocides happen when out-groups are excluded from the National community by force of law and subsequently assigned the status of ‘enemy of the state,’ with the state being the legal apparatus that guards the safety and security of the National community... only ‘advanced’ states are truly organized on the basis of such principles. This is evinced by the fact that Nazi legal theorists posited that the exclusion of the Jews was an integral element of ideological statecraft.
Hutu tribal elders attacking their Tutsi enemies within the officially assigned borders of Rwanda is not the same thing.
The relentless persecution of Demjanjuk tells us something about the conceptual horizon of America and its ethical paradigm with respect to the legality of not just political killing but of political loyalty itself.
The claim, everything else aside, that a private person is criminally liable for act of state carried out by a his government at war is entirely unprecedented until 1945 – unless we consider things like the Jacobin noyades (the historical precursor to the Gulag, in many respects) to be controlling precedent. It means that any man on the losing side of a creedal war is a criminal partisan, at odds with a (purportedly united) humanity. Thus any war against Jewish power has been redefined as a global “civil war” – which precludes affording the enemy any presumption of moral equivalence in addition to any avenue of atonement or rehabilitation. Criminal enemies of humanity can never be pardoned because they have attacked the “world society” itself. There is no privilege that can be invoked to mitigate the penal culpability triggered by their conduct of war.
This is entirely calculated, and its why Mujahideen are now criminally charged – in lieu of being afforded POW status or that of “enemy combatant” detainees. Despite liberal objections to summary detention and courts martial of partisan fighters, availing them to common criminal courts has sharply altered the fortunes of ZOG’s enemies detrimentally. It removes any consideration of the enemy as a political actor who is motivated and animated to action by defensive imperatives or territorial obligations or creedal loyalty.
People think these things because the present political order (American hegemony, pursuant to a narrative that emphasizes a fictitious ‘world society’ consisting of a ‘community’ of nations that spans the planet) is premised on a moral theory established at Nuremberg.
The notion is that war itself is a crime and that America (and Israel) hold exclusive rights to military “defense” in most circumstances, and that the enforcement of American/Jewish interests in the world is a moral imperative that has the (purported) effect of maintaining the ban on “illegal” aggression by others.
An important component of this, speaking in terms of jurisprudence – and jurisprudence is essential in this paradigm, is the nullification of superior orders as an affirmative defense.
Thus, when some common infantryman like William Calley or a slow-witted enlisted person like Lyndie England carries out a massacre or tortures people under orders, the Executive can claim that these people are criminals who spontaneously conspired to carry out criminal acts – tantamount to a policeman purposefully and willfully violating the rights of a detainee or suspect.
The reason why policy debates in America regarding war and peace and military force make no sense whatsoever is because America premises its legitimacy on a claim that warfare is “illegal” and that persons (states, non-state actors, alliances of states or non-state actors, etc.) who resist America’s hegemony are committing “crimes.” This isn’t something that can be rationally assimilated into a theory of power politics that actually reflects the reality of the strategic landscape and relations between political actors.
This is also why there is no meaningful anti-war element in American government, in media, in the academy, in the judiciary and other loci of power in the managerial state – the prevailing ethical-theoretical paradigm won’t abide it.
Thus, the only “anti-war” sentiment in Washington involves narratives that make no sense: i.e. the President “lied,” America targeted a state or a group of persons for annihilation without probable cause, etc.
At the ground level (figuratively and literally) it leads to equally bizarre conclusions – speculation that typical soldiers are conflicted about acting “illegally” and the like.
Spengler is important here I believe – his thoughts on what future wars and armies would be like; as described in The Hour of Decision. It’s staggeringly prescient, but this is likely outside the scope of the topic.
tl;dr The “world empire” of the Jewish/American imperial peace was facilitated by the destruction of its competitors by the Bolsheviks and the concomitant eradication of history through mass homicide. To avail Communism to a punitive critique would discredit the post-Nuremberg “law” of the Earth.
The trouble with your word choice is that “Fascism” refers to a specific mode of political order that is historically contingent upon the anti-Communist struggle and the disruption of the inter-war years in Europe. It is also doctrinally rooted in European Romantic-Nationalist traditions, post-modern “ethics,” and the national-syndicalist movement, especially as envisioned by Georges Sorel.
Essentially, Fascism is a set of political values and doctrines that aims to elevate the National community to a Master status over competitor nations and races... it aims to achieve this through the politicization of every level of society so as to effect a truly total State. The guiding ethos of such efforts lies in a belief in the sacrosanct character of the “blood and soil” community and the threats posed to the integrity of that community by both finance capitalism and Bolshevism.
Ultimately, a successful Fascist state will guard the National community against racial blood poisoning, exploitation (economic and otherwise) by other great powers, and social atomization and anomie that attends urbanization and the elimination of agrarian communitarianism while at the same time facilitating boundless technological progress... in large part through enduring warfare and conquest.
Fascism is a progressive, revolutionary movement that aims to reconcile class conflict by protecting wages and the integrity of domestic labor markets from subterfuge by free-market profiteers while marshalling the resources of the national organism to cultivate cultural, military, and scientific excellence and create harmony within the national organism.
In contrast, the proper Fascist economic scheme, IMO, would be Sorel’s heterodox syndicalism.
Ideal system:
political system: Hamiltonian Republic, no written Constitution, absolute sovereignty vested in the Executive. Voting exclusive to White men over 35 years of age who have served in the national army, completed their mandatory service as executioners*, or who have been afforded a dispensation to vote by the President based on extraordinary service to the race and the State.
demographic makeup: White Protestant, skewed in favor of German, English, Scottish, Scandinavian, French, Dutch and other easily assimilable peoples. Population limited to under 50 million. Non-White persons of high moral character (Jews excluded) would be free to live and work in America but would be denied any and all political rights and would be precluded from attaining citizenship.
economics: National Socialist
location: North America
geographic size: Present continental American borders.
anything else you’d like to add:
The executive branch will be supreme on all questions of policy, from national security to the defense of the racial, legal, and cultural constitution of the Republic and all conceivable challenges arising thereof. There will be no executive term limits. There will be no judicial review of any kind, but for permissive direct and collateral appeals on judgments rendered by local and state courts. Any Federal appeal must be appealed to the President, and relief may only be granted by Executive order or formal pardon. Congress would exist as a unicameral house of 50 jurists who act in an advisory capacity to the President and who are responsible for expediting the laws of the Republic in a timely and learned manner. These men would be selected from the judges in the several states who are nominated by sitting members of the several Bar associations to serve as Senators. Corruption will have only one penalty, which is death.
Every male citizen upon reaching his 18th birthday must avail himself to the military draft – the territorial army of the United States will be charged with all policing and national security and defense functions within the continental United States. From these ranks will be drawn an elite core of 50,000 men whose demonstrable acumen for martial life and fighting will afford them and opportunity to serve as part of the Presidential guard, a force responsible for Executive protection, ceremonial duties, as well as the spearpoint of armed forces in the event war becomes necessary to defend American borders from hostile ingress.
Male citizens who do not wish to be drafted can volunteer to serve as state executioners. Executioners will serve for two years upon reaching their 25th birthday and they will be responsible for carrying out the sentences of those persons convicted of infamous capital crimes, as well as carrying out the elaborate ceremonial duties (including execution of the condemned) that are required by the Senatorial Lottery. The Senatorial Lottery requires that every year on the first of the year, all Senators will have their names submitted to a lottery system in which one will be drawn, and the man who is drawn will be sentenced to death. This practice will function in a number of ways – it will habituate common people to the truly awesome and unknowable power the state and its sovereign dominion over life and death; it will enforce a spiritual equality among White people by demonstrating to them that any man, pauper or senator, can fall under the executioner’s sword without regard to his station of birth or achievement, and finally, it will enforce the exclusion of power seekers who pursue senatorial office to advance their own personal wealth and power. To pursue office in the Republic is to risk a death sentence.
In all honesty, I never perceived homosexual nuances to the Teletubbies. What I DID perceive was a disturbing meme about conformity and adherence to official authority.
I was in England in 1997, and I woke up one morning in Cheltenham with the world’s worst hangover, and after vomiting violently for a good ten minutes, I turned on the TV and crawled back into bed. When I awoke again, I was introduced to the ‘Teletubbies’ (Mind you, the program had not yet been broadcast in the USA at this point).
What I gleaned from the show was that there are four, asexual, mannequin-faced, goblins who live in a BioDome-esque sort of environment and their every activity is dictated to them by a series of microphones that sprout from the ground and order them to take a bath, work in the yard, vacuum the premises, wake up, go to sleep, dance, etc. It was all very Orwellian, to me.
I think the message of the program is “everybody is happy when everybody does exactly what they are told.”
I remember thinking at the time that it would be a disturbing prospect if “Teletubbies” was representative of BBC kids’ programs.
I’m sort of at a loss as to why people enjoy “The Sopranos.” It’s just idiotic fantasy for suburban-dwelling, would-be badasses of the sort that like to play ‘made guy’ on the weekends in between tooling around on their custom choppers. Even aside from the obnoxious Jewiness of the production, the presence of Stephen Van Zandt on the show should be a deal killer in and of itself. It’s depressing to me that people find a sitcom about some obese, asshole guido who runs around bullying people and getting hummers from strippers when he’s not going to his therapist and pandering to his shitball, spoiled kids to be awesome.
RE: Indiana Jones, I always thought “Temple of Doom” was cool, but the others might as well have been titled “The Man in the Yellow Hat Stops the Holocaust.”
[The Good Shepherd] was a very good one for Hollywitz.
It’s not a perfect treatment of the topic, as the character modeled on James Jesus Angleton in the film is a true WASP (Angleton wasn’t), but the theme of the film vis-à-vis the WASP perspective seems highly accurate.
The quote about WASP dominion was couched between two scenes that buttress the idea that Angleton’s view is historically contingent and presently anachronistic. Early on, a character who is supposed to be Bill Donovan explains to the protagonist that he is forming a permanent intelligence wing of the govt. to resist Communist world revolution and that its imperative to exclude Catholics, Jews, and Negroes from its sensitive operations as its patriotic function cannot be compromised.
Later, the Angleton character has his own son’s fiancee murdered on grounds that she’s an African communist and stands to penetrate America’s intelligence elite through her association with his naive son. It’s actually one of the better treatments of why White society had to remain a closed society within the broader multiracial/multiethnic pastiche of the country so as to guarantee the continued existence of American institutions.
The lesson being, of course, that WASP hegemony after the Second World War was contingent upon the need to combat the colored revolt, facilitated by the Soviet challenge to America and Europe.
WASPs lost their ability to dominate essential institutions in the wake of the collapse of White world pre-eminence when there was no longer a polarizing Communist menace that rendered Jewish and non-White (in America’s case non-WASP) political aspirations inherently suspect.
If you want a real-world example of how this developed and WASP naïveté about their own irrelevance after the capitulation of the Warsaw Pact, view some footage of the debate fiasco between George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in the run-up to the 1992 election. Bush seemed both puzzled and outraged that he was being forced to challenge against a vulgar idiot/media showman like Clinton whose stock in trade was pandering to the lowest common denominator. Bush’s intimates allege that he confided that he shouldn’t have had to aggressively campaign, as the defeat of Communism spoke for itself and the People shouldered a debt of gratitude towards him and his forebears.
The lesson to be gleaned is that WASP theology leads to unrealistic conclusions, conclusions that are held dear by them as essential to their peculiar philosophical optimism.
“Answer Me!” was genuinely edgy stuff back in the early 90s, and it was riotously funny. In the dark, pre-internet days the stuff that guys like Jim Goad and Boyd Rice put to print was worth weight in gold... at least I thought so.
The trouble with Jim Goad isn’t that he overdoes the fag humour (which he does), or that his jailbird, tough-guy schtick is tired (it is), or even that he cut out on his old lady when chips were down and then churned out navel-gazing, woe-is-me screeds after she took a dirt nap. The trouble with Goad (as has been the trouble with Chuck Palahniuk for about 12 years now) is that you can’t play the role of “chic nihilist/Gen-X burnout/Pacific Northwest outlaw” when you’re well into middle age.
Goad recycles everything he wrote from 1993 because he doesn’t have anything else in him... getting old is a bitch and it turns you into an irritating jerkoff who can no longer create contextual satire.
Case in point: Doonesbury. Goad may suck at this point, but at least he’s not cracking Watergate jokes.
re: Michael Moore
The trouble is that he’s an intellectual midget and an insipid, trend wrangling capitalist. Contrast Michael Moore’s MTV friendly tripe with say Ralph Nader’s work product: Whether you love or hate the Lebanese gadfly, “Unsafe at any Speed” was a cogent critique of BigCapital’s negligent (and malicious) manufacturing practices that literate people might actually take an interest in. Contrast that with Moore’s catalogue: “Mean, stupid White men start wars and stuff!” and “Mean White men make missiles and bombs and that causes little tykes to go Rambo during study hall!”
It’s the commentariat equivalent of “Harry Potter” stories. [...]
Well, that is sort of the point, Kamandi: Michael Moore is pulling down seven figures a year while spewing vitriol at the “stupid White men” who do things like run hardware stores in Flint Michigan for chump change, all the while holding himself out as a Hero of the Proletariat.
Moore should thank his lucky stars that he was born in late 20th Century America and was able to collect lots of Federal bank notes with which to buy White Castle sliders to plug down his gullet... had he lived in a truly failed state where Proletarian general strike was imminent, he likely would have found his Stupid White Guts splattered all over the floor before a couple of dead-eyed commissars.
Slayer could never make up their mind as to whether they were a more “extreme” version of Venom, whether they were a hardcore-crossover act, or whether they were an 80s thrash/speedmetal band.
I will say that “Divine Intervention,” for what it is, is a solid offering, although Slayer fans consider that to be a poor album. It’s hardcore/thrash that actually works... sort of like what Roger Miret’s godawful metal projects in the 80s were trying to pull off but couldn’t.
I suppose I have to give Slayer a modicum of respect as well for hanging on to Dave Lombardo for as long as they did... that guy stands out among any percussionists of his era (not just hack heavy metal drummers).
Hell yeah. John Milius is a great inspiration to me.
When I was a kid (and still today) I loved Conan the Barbarian.
One of my fond memories of my Dad also was when he took me to see “Red Dawn” when I was just a sprat.
Milius actually directed an episode of “Miami Vice” under the alias of “Walter Kurtz” (cool, huh?) called “Viking Bikers From Hell.” It starred Reb Brown as a Nietzsche-quoting, Nazi-esque, bodybuilder/ex-con who was hell bent on killing Don Johnson.
Milius was basically the only genuine rightist in Hollywood... he has actually self-identified as a fascist in the course of interviews.
[Bobby] Fischer was certainly eccentric by any measuring stick, but savants all seem to be. I tend to be suspicious of claims that otherwise extraordinarily accomplished men are “insane” or “deranged.” A show of hands in condemnation of the character, statements, and opinions of a man simply isn’t sufficient to make him a lunatic.
I’d like to think that I am as “sane” as any other man, but I don’t know how I would react if I was subjected to nakedly Political antagonism by Official authorities in response to me engaging in my Profession/vocation with peers in a non-Political capacity, and I’m certainly not an extraordinary intellect. I think any man (and especially an inspired genius) would probably respond with extreme fear, loathing, and hostility if he were declared an Enemy by his Government for arbitrary and capricious reasons.
Is a man a lunatic for hating and fearing his antagonists? I don’t think so. Will being the subject of that sort of abuse corrupt that same man’s view of the World? How could it not?
Let’s not be so quick to judge Fischer.
— KeystoneThe latter are important people who’ve given us electricity and cars and inside plumbing and great books to read, but chess champions? Who cares? It’s a very nice diversion for those who like chess. It’s culture but we’ve got roads to build and debt to pay... today.
If I’m reading this exchange right, Keystone is critiquing Fischer’s legacy on grounds that Fischer was no Jesse Jackson Jr. or Carol Mosley Braun.
Why stop at Bobby Fischer, Keystein? What about that Stephen Hawking guy? I mean he’s never driven a garbage truck in my neighborhood. [...]
Sports and chess are both laboratories for human performance.
People with a critical eye recognize these things. The Keystone faction claims that chess is a waste of time, but they are also the same guys that allege that when athletes use HGH to recover from potentially career ending injuries, they are “cheating.”
Chess is no more about two men playing a board game than Baseball is about good sportsmanship and hitting home runs for its own sake... but don’t expect Boobus Americanus to look at it that way.
— Jake FeatherstonKevin DuBrow was pretty much the most obnoxious popular musician of the early-to-mid 1980s.
True. However, there was/is a peculiar novelty to DuBrow. You see, every other cock-rock frontman looked the part. Don Dokken, Brett Michaels, etc. all looked like high dollar rent boys. DuBrow, on the other hand, was some out of shape, bug-eyed, balding dork with the scattered remnants of a Jew-fro framing his misshapen, diminutive head. The guy looked like a hack Jewish attorney you might see in municipal court on any day of the week.
The second most irritating thing about QR was that Randy Rhodes played on their early demos... and Rhodes is the absolute most overrated guitarist who ever existed yet he remains an icon to mulleted, NASCAR watching, Whiskey Tango types to this day.
I think that outside of strip clubs and shitty towns like Terre Haute, IN, and Rolling Meadows, IL (think Mike Mazzone country) cock-rock was never played with any real enthusiasm. [...]
When I was a lad, my brother (who is a few years older than me) would play a lot of God-awful shit like “Rush,” but never hair metal.
I think the guys of your generation who lived in cities and listened to shitty music would rock out to “Foghat” and the like in Keystone’s basement (and maybe later some “Dire Straits”)... in other words, that particular brand of Madison Avenue gayness passed you by both demographically and geographically.
I dunno. I am sort of partial to late Elvis. Any genuine talent can rock out and look good doing it. Not a lot of people can embrace a lifestyle of morbid obesity, wearing rhinestone capes, self-administering liquid cocaine and dilaudid, and daily breakfasts consisting of pounds of bacon and dozens of deep fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches.
Dissection is proper black metal, IMO.
They are a lesser known band, and their productivity was interrupted by the long term incarceration (and then suicide) of their founder/vocalist, but I find their catalogue (especially the later stuff) to be very intense and powerful.
Other than Dissection, the only black metal I spin these days is Immortal.
Regarding NS bands, the only one I can think of off the top of my head that is worth its salt is Arghoslent... but they are a bit too brutal for casual listening.
Fleming wasn’t any sort of literary giant, but he’s well worth reading. I read most of his books when I was a kid, along with the Robert E. Howard books, and the (less worthwhile) “Executioner” series.
I think that “Moonraker” was the first novel that can properly be called a “techno-thriller” and its significant for that reason. The film is an atrocious, disco-space opera turkey, but the novel was rather intriguing, at least to my 12 year old mind.
These things need to be kept in perspective... compared to Stephen King, Tom Clancy, or that “Harry Potter” tripe (that adults these days apparently read) Fleming is almost Shakespearean. Adventure fiction is supposed to be fanciful stuff about guys killing people en masse, hopping around exotic locales, and bedding pretty girls. Fleming always delivered, and did it with stylistic flair. [...]
I was always partial to Timothy Dalton’s Bond, although it seems nobody else is. Even though the scripts were splendidly awful, Dalton sort of captured the essence of the fact that a guy who killed people for the Govt. for a living would be somewhat sociopathic.
I suppose the Bond series sort of lost me when the producers starting casting Irish metrosexuals in the title role and using the films as a vehicle for tacky product placement.
People who were big opponents of visual media used to point out that starting in the 50s and 60s, lunatics would claim TV was telling them to do things or TV was antagonizing them. They reasoned that psychologically frail people were being confused and pushed over the edge by the disconnected and overstimulating aspects of (then new) television technology. They weren’t entirely wrong. The internet has become TV that people can interact with more directly. So funny farm fuckos are devastated by it. They become porn addicted shut ins who confuse their internet cloister for reality and decide that they are mired in a world where all kinds of grand things are happening to them and because of them. Eventually, they lose their grip on reality entirely, and decide that the senseless information they take in all day everyday is “real” and they lose any and all ability to sequence real world events in a meaningful way.
Go ahead and flame me but I’m going to defend Rocky IV – sure, there’s retardo Guido stuff in it b/c Stallone wrote the script, the self-aware robot in 1985 is lame, and its entirely predictable, but the “message” is actually a good one, and its in many ways at odds with “The Karate Kid.”
In short:
Ivan Drago is the perfect Soviet – he’s a Red Army captain who has been (presumably) bred to be a superior athlete, and the martial autocracy that was the Brezhnev-era USSR has oriented the entirety of the scientific apparatus of state to developing Drago’s abilities and skills. He is, at base, the physical superior of any man who has ever lived.
Rocky Balboa realizes this – so he knows that the way to fight Drago is not to try to match his training regimen or to overpower him with brute force. The only way to defeat Drago is to be willing to die to win – Rocky is willing to die because his life and career have peaked and Drago killed his best friend. He has nothing to lose. Drago on the other hand isn’t going to die for the Soviet system – because nobody actually believes in Sovietism. Drago himself only fights because he’s essentially a cog in a prison society, and his entire life and destiny has been decided for him.
Thus, when Drago begins losing his match with Balboa, and the Standing Committee apparatchik slaps him and calls him an “idiot” and demands he win, Drago finally breaks with the empty ideology that nourished him by declaring, “I fight for me! For me!.” But by that time its too late – Drago has realized that he, and his country, are paper tigers. Thus, Rocky pulls of an impossible victory.
In short, the Karate Kid is a woggy faggot who learned karate to teach his natural betters a lesson and despite being a no-account loser/dipshit, he mastered Karate in two weeks. Rocky Balboa, in contrast, put his faith in God and conquered his fear of the terrible Soviet State so that he could muster to courage to die if necessary to slay Drago, and in doing so expose the moral void that was Stalinism. [...]
It’s a dumb movie and it’s propaganda, sure – its resonant however because in boxing especially and in any other endeavor generally, heart and gameness matters more than any deliberate effort. People either have these traits or they don’t – the lame Amerikwan myth is that everyone is the same and can be “educated” to perform, not that having a hard heart is an innate and immutable trait.
People who breed fighting dogs aim to breed “gameness” into them above all other coveted traits – this is sensible. An animal, or a man, cannot be coached or conditioned or trained to win if he lacks this basic trait.
A genuinely Traditionalist-Conservative movement would be aiming to encourage people to secede from popular-cultural influences. It wouldn’t be endorsing the format of Establishment media outlets while bait-and-switching the content. The format of mass-media is one of the main reasons it is so caustic... it’s not simply a matter of Pavlovian content. [...]
Culture is a linear-historical phenomenon that is rooted in parentage and memorial experience over time. It isn’t defined by target market demographics (i.e. you’re the “White people” and this is what you like to watch/eat/buy), and it isn’t a matter of group-anatomy. [...]
The point is that the reason why America is mired in a degenerate political-social milieu isn’t because people are insatiably consuming popular culture that (implicitly) exhibits content-based cosmopolitanism, and hence the remedy isn’t to try to get Americans to “turn on” popular culture that (explicitly) exhibits racialist or “Neo-Nazi” content. The “problem” here is that Americans take their cultural, social, and behavioral cues from these sorts of mediums, in lieu of an actual culture-bearing leadership caste. This is a world-historical issue... it’s not a grass-roots politics issue or an economic/consumer preference issue.
I don’t think the issue is Vince McMahon’s work ethic... I would imagine that McMahon is probably monomaniacally obsessed with commercial success.
The issue is that America’s wealthiest men in 2007 are not scholars, inventors, philosophers, and inspired geniuses (like Ben Franklin), they aren’t giants of industry who are bringing that which was once “impossible” in to the grasp of possibility (like Howard Hughes), and they aren’t visionaries who work towards social-technological models of genuine progress (like Walt Disney).
Instead, we have a class of billionaires who are intellectually caged managerial technocrats (like Bill Gates), glorified sideshow men (like Vince McMahon), and middlebrow big-media hacks (like Jerry Bruckheimer).
I’m sure that you can see the difference here.
“Culture” has become a mass produced commodity aimed at drawing the fleeting interest of zero-attention span rubes in hopes that they will drop their meager salary on dilettante pursuits. There is no culture bearing class in the Capitalist West, there is a Managerial Class (as envisioned by AJP Taylor, Sorel, and Burnham).
My family is Anglo-Saxon/German on my Mother’s side and Huguenot on my Father’s side. My only post-revolutionary ancestor that I know if is my maternal Grandmother who was the daughter of Protestant, German immigrants. I personally think that open immigration should have been permitted to America from England and Scotland, and that severely curtailed immigration should have been permitted from the European several states. My thinking on this is essentially in line with the 1924 Immigration Act. I am rather protective of America because it is my only home and I consider myself to be a descendant of its core culture.
That said, I think its in order to acknowledge that there is a commonality between European races/cultures... this is an abstract notion, but civilization is a real concept. Overtime, nations in proximity to one another develop under the influence of common sources, and ultimately calcify and reach the point that intracontinental politik is a secondary consideration. Oswald Spengler dealt with this concept extensively, and it dispositively informed Oswald Mosley’s theories on the future of Europe (i.e. Europe a Nation).
In short, while I agree with some of what you are suggesting, let us not pretend that European peoples have nothing more in common with each other than any two, randomly selected denizens of far flung corners of the globe. In other words, an Irishman has more in common with a German than either one does with a Bantu.
Confusion arises in these mediums about the currency of race as a political quantity. We end up with Americans who are in dialog with their own regime’s political values involving forced integration de jure mining for rebuttals and relying on scientific evidence and public policy data to buttress their counterclaims.
Race is politically important because its a basic human characteristic that is tethered to both identity and myriad inner psychological states that humans rely on in order to render judgments about who and what constitutes legitimate authority and what concepts, customs, habits, prejudices, and practices are accepted as inviolable and sacred and what ones are identified as profane and intolerable.
When we consider that the entirety of discourse related to policy, ethics, and morality in the West is oriented towards remedial measures that have been crafted and implemented to mitigate what has come to be accepted as the immoral nature of White world supremacy (which was the ordering principle of the international power structure until 65 years ago) its really not possible to extricate race from any consideration of politics. It can’t be defanged by appeals to theology or abstractions.
Only Liberals think that humans are simply “DNA.” Bill Clinton and other fools made much of this in the 1990s in the course of fundraising stump speeches and the like – all humans share basically similar DNA, thus it is claimed that culture, loyalty, religion, identity, war/conflict is incorrect and superfluous. It’s moronic to think in these terms.
Black crime is overstated in any right-wing environ (online or IRL).
That said, your notion that hypermodern societies and anti-social lumpenprole behavior are somehow opposing tendencies doesn’t really bear out – in fact, they go hand in hand. This was the lament of Anthony Burgess, and its actually true – it wasn’t/isn’t just a satirical literary device.
The Liberal conceit is “meritocracy” – the idea that every man can simply become wealthy and comfortable if he “tries hard” enough. It’s on the order of 19th century white men deciding that Comanche would simply become Protestant farmers if they were forcibly availed to law and order.
I don’t blame the lumpens entirely, niggers or any other race, for trying to burn society down in petit ways. It’s terrifying and unintelligible to them – and men who are totally alienated prefer the fertility of destruction to the perceived sterility of creation.
Thus always to droogs.
There isn’t any formulaic way to steel yourself for potential future ChimpouTs in which you yourself are the target. Generally, as we discussed here before, the only way to prepare for such things is to be physically strong, be willing to strike first, and be fleet footed if you need to cut and run.
Something that does bear repeating (and is actually true, not just some oft repeated anecdote) is that these Negrotic lumpenprole types are constantly sizing everybody up – I’ve noticed that even when they are trying to put on benign airs, they still can’t refrain from expressing it. It’s always something to the effect of “nice coat” or “you lost?” or “You a pretty big guy” or “why you got a limp? You hurt?” – what they’re doing is mentally taking a quick accounting of the traits of whoever they’re talking to. Their world is a bestiary where bigger, tougher animals devour smaller, weaker animals.
People who are afraid of them feed their predatory instincts, as do people who express cowardice by being friendly. Unless you’re a woman or a Twinkus Americanus specimen who has migrated to the urban Savannah, chances are you aren’t going to get randomly chimped – Of course, all bets are off if you’re outnumbered, they’re emboldened under intoxication, or if you have something they want and they’re convinced you’re a soft target.
In a comparative sense, Blacks aren’t “poor.” I’d guess that the poorest people in America are in places like Appalachia or wallowing on Indian reservations.
Blacks gangbang and carry on in violent ways for psychological reasons. They do it for glory or for power or for reasons of instinct that can’t be rationally explained.
I’ve read that Blacks in Rhodesia and other places did well under the tutelage of White officers when they were organized into colonial military corps. Institutions of that sort is what makes White rule possible and productive, as precedent seems to demonstrate. America’s “Negro problem” has more to do with the fact that govt. has decided that Blacks will either become middle class wage earners or they will be punished for their sloth and recklessness.
Most races of humans aren’t suited to working as insurance salesmen or IT managers. This is something that social planners in the Western world refuse to account for in their calculations. Most of the world’s people need ordinary labor, military regimentation/combat, and clear and concrete rules and systems of order if they are going to be productive and not deteriorate into various pathological ways of living. Most people are not low-key, overcivilized, Anglo-Protestant suburbanites.
You know, its not an accident that the “first Black presidential nominee” isn’t “Black” according to American precedent. He’s an African mulatto from Hawaii who took his SATs in private school. In other words, he has no connection (other than his professional activist better half) to the community of freed slaves that is a thorn in the side to every political faction. Blacks don’t get to sit in the White House, and everybody knows that... its not a feasible thing to allow, even to the Stockholm-afflicted psychotics who fill the ranks of the Liberal upper echelon.
If you accept the Liberal rapture, everybody (with some exceptions, including feed slaves) is educible to the point of assimilability. Obama enjoys the support that he does from Whites because he’s a deracinated managerial hack. He enjoys Black support because Blacks vote the way that White and Jewish elites tell them to.
Either way, he’s really just a prime symbol of Liberal rapture... he’s not supposed to get elected... he’s supposed to appeal to the collective ego of the Democratic base... an ego that is incredibly responsive to pathos. Nothing to see here.
Over time I have come to the conclusion that Morpheus is what you would call a racist, although I find that term misleading. I mean that he stands by his own people when it comes to the crunch.
He doesn’t really care about his own people though. He’s just some alienated Uncle Tom who wants to be catered to by the White establishment. This is why Blacks are a permanent underclass – they’re incapable of self-rule and they have no interest in social or political self-determination.
For purposes of contrast, consider the unfortunate situation of your own countrymen in the late 20th century in the north of Ireland – radical Republicans didn’t respond to ethnic conflict by demanding that the Crown cater to them with entitlements and political theater, they started demanding secession from the United Kingdom and wanted an end to Protestant interference in what they perceived as their own affairs. Politically conscious people unfailingly think in these terms when they are interested in changing their historical fortunes.
The reason why its impossible to take Blacks seriously is because they literally never present any indication that they wish to manage their own affairs or to secede from White cultural and political dominance – they simply panhandle and express cultivated pathologies in hopes of procuring various kinds of rewards for their anti-social behavior from the White establishment.
Blacks objectively should want as little to do with Whites and White dominated institutions as possible – and if Blacks were mobilizing for more power over their own affairs, demanding that their communities be policed by themselves instead of White police officers, disengaging from majority dominated social spaces, no reasonable man would object to their efforts. Instead, they do the opposite. They want more White interference in their lives pursuant to a claim of entitlement. They’re basically just badly behaving coolies. Nobody who cares about his own people would be happy with this state of affairs.
Morpheus is just some aggrieved loser. He’s not a racial patriot in any conceivable sense.
There is an unintentional hilarity about these “scary noose” appearances that is rather childlike, and provides a glimpse into the psychology of these people.
Every time I hear of some Negro academic “discovering” a noose on their doorknob, I think of those old “Three Stooges” skits where the Step-N-Fetch-It type, dimwitted Negro butler sees one of the stooges shrouded in a picnic table cloth/bedsheet, mistakes them for a ghost and proceeds to become bug-eyed and flee the scene in terror.
I mean, at least the Hebrew hoaxers are drawing upon the lurid Kristalnacht scenes from Hollywood movies when they scrawl swastikas on walls and break windows... the Noose hoaxes by Negroes simply = self ownage of epic proportions.
Blacks are responding to American social and moral pathology – they are being inundated with culturally and historically nonsensical mixed messages.
Blacks for the first three centuries after the settling of the New World were instructed that they were entitled to White patronage, in exchange for servile obedience and upright behavior. Quite suddenly, they were ripped out of this paradigm and told they were “equal” to the White man and forced to compete with the White man as free labor.
Of course, this circumstance was untenable, and it resulted in mass-incarceration of blacks and other dysfunctional social conditions.
The problem is that Whites pretend to hold Blacks in high esteem and carry on this affected pose of “equality” – Blacks discern this and it both confuses them and provokes them to rage.
An interesting comparative juxtaposition is how the Japanese traditionally look at Burakumin – Japanese don’t pretend to like the Burakumin, and don’t feign any belief that they are “equals.” However, the Burakumin were and are free to pursue their own endeavors, and some actually become and became quite wealthy. However, it would not have occurred to anybody to make-believe that these people are viewed as anything other than ritually unclean and basically inferior.
For all the Karl Popper-esque horseshit about traditional societies being “closed” and thereby oppressing the emotional and intellectual lives of people, its actually Anglo-derived societies that elevate lying to a moral imperative. This has very serious social and political consequences.
North Korea is a problem... for South Korea, Japan and China. It’s not an American problem.
It also defies credibility that Arab radicals (who are lavishly funded, enjoy state sponsorship and incredible access to technology) are chomping at the bit to acquire North Korean “technology.”
All of this is neither here nor there anyway... the sad fact is that backwards people eventually learn to manufacture the White Man’s big, bad, atomic bomb... just like Comanches somehow managed to learn to operate the White Man’s rifle with great effectiveness.
Maybe the solution to these “problems” is not to subject half the world to arial bombardment and subsequent invasion while simultaneously inviting the entire population of targeted countries to immigrate to the United States.
I don’t condone or endorse vigilantism or extrajudicial violence, but as I stated before, the solution would be for Christian’s and Newsom’s friends and relatives to select a number of Black men from the neighboring community (10 or 20, as in 5 or 10 for each victim) that housed the miscreants and execute them. Decimation, in other words.
It really doesn’t tell us anything if Blacks are subjected to search and seizure with greater frequency than Whites are... just as it doesn’t tell us anything that men are more often subjected to search and seizure by police than women.
What we can infer is that, unless the police are engaging in bad faith searches and seizures, Blacks disproportionately are engaged in conduct that gives rise to reasonable suspicion/probable cause.
Even if we accept your premise as true (that premise being that Whites are deliberately not subjected to search and seizure by police when probable cause is present), that doesn’t really bear on the issue of Black criminality. One issue has nothing to do with the other, as probable cause is probable cause.
Righteous indignation is justified and cathartic in these sorts of cases, but I would prefer if White people would just simply acknowledge that elements of the Black underclass have adopted a war-footing against any and all civilized populations and act accordingly without strong emotion.
I am not somebody who indulges in pop-psychological speculation, but it has become increasingly clear to me (as I have noted before) that bourgeoisie elements adopt ‘White guilt’ and egalitarianism as a sort of edificatory defense mechanism: In other words, it is too unpleasant for many people to conceive of the fact that their (otherwise) comfortable existence can be marred by violent, enduring dynamics of racial enmity.
The case in point of Reginald Denny blubbering and professing ‘love’ for men who bashed his head repeatedly with bricks and bats is not borne of some sort of Christ-like commitment to unconditional love for the fallen (yet indomitable) human ‘spirit,’ rather, it is borne of a visceral and childlike fear of violence and war that attends overcivilization.
I don’t have any illusions about how incredibly dangerous many of the denizens of this country are... what I do on account of these facts is maintain a vigilant (though not paranoid) disposition... and remain physically and psychologically armed. [... ] Yockey very eloquently pointed out that emotionalist ‘racism’ is counterproductive... (sorry to be repetitive) as ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’ merely reflect objective valuations of present circumstances. In essence, the Black underclass is the Enemy... hating Blacks won’t augment White defensive standing, it just obfuscates the issue. That is the point that I was making.
When these issues come up IRL, I point out to people that civilization is preferable to savagery and that embracing oblivion at the hands of slave descendants is ludicrous... whether I find Blacks and their ‘culture’ to be distasteful is neither here nor there. People need to acclimate themselves to the notion that racial aggression must be dealt with with extreme severity and prejudice... they need to eschew moral valuations altogether, just as combatants at war needn’t waste time fearing, loathing, and hating the enemy.
It’s a coolie mentality to become emotionally invested in what other people think – it comes off like children hating their parents and endlessly ruminating on the perceived wrongs committed by them.
White people, racist ones or not, with the exception of some dysfunctional types don’t ever really think about what Blacks or Mexicans are thinking – they contemplate even less what Subcons like yourself or Orientals are thinking.
I can tell you that I think about Jews a lot b/c I am around them all of the time, a lot of them are highly intelligent in a rather base and cunning way, and their cultural pathologies are important to understanding the present regime of social and political values. Other than that, I literally never ask myself if Blacks are prejudiced or why or what they think about day to day. It’s entirely uninteresting and I have absolutely no stake in it.
Actually Privileged Classes/Demographic Groups in America:
1) Jews (of both sexes). Ethnicity in common with the ruling caste/class always benefits ordinary citizens, to greater or lesser degrees. In the case of Jews, it is probably especially punctuated, for reasons that are somewhat outside the scope of this post.
2) White Females*. In any culture, men are expendable and women are not (in biological-evolutionary terms as well as in terms of psychological orientation/preference of the body politik and what they are willing to endorse/tolerate and equally what they shall unfailingly condemn). For various reasons – some obvious in their simplicity, some complicated, any political program in a Managerial State is going to be tailored to fit and substantially reflect feminine preferences.
3) Non-White Immigrants (and their immediate descendants) of Reasonable Means (Barack Obama is a good example). People in this coterie are able to tout a simpleton’s narrative of being a “minority” who has overcome social adversity and discrimination while acquitting White supporters of any inference of reactionary social or political prejudice – thus allowing the latter to wash their hands of responsibility for slave-descended, non-white lumpenproletariat elements.
4) “Gay” Persons. Not people who merely engage in homosexual behavior – people who publicly embrace and tout the “gay” social identity are declaring their allegiance to the Ideology of State and concomitantly proselytizing in defense of atomizing behaviors and the purported justness and moral guardianship of the State.
5) Policemen and Security State Actors/Employees. These people enjoy a monopoly on the ‘legitimate’ use of violence within the Sovereign dominion of the State (which is a major privilege in itself). They are entirely insulated from redundancy, as their entire “job” involves responding to imaginary/illusory threats and there is no meaningful performance metric available for rating their competence and efficiency (as per market signals/data or otherwise). Furthermore, despite bizarre civic myths to the contrary, they are lavishly compensated compared to American workers (who actually perform labor) of comparable education, experience and intellect.
Actually Disadvantaged Classes/Demographic Groups in America:
1) Blacks (descendants of ante-bellum slaves). The “whys” of Black dysfunction aren’t particularly important for the purposes of this thread – what is significant is that this racial group has proven unable to function in America in any meaningful capacity and how the Managerial State and those loyal to it have engaged in an elaborate obfuscatory effort to explain this away and absolve themselves of ‘moral’ obligation therein.
2) Poor Whites (*This is the Exemption to White Female Privilege). I am speaking here of native, Protestant, rural (and largely but not exclusively Southern) peoples.
3) Moslems and Devoutly Religious Persons Generally (both Sexes).
I never noticed a pervasive culture of color-blindness in college, and I attended a Jesuit university in the heart of urban Yankeedom. I’d also add that these notions of deep south racialism are usually sort of off-base: Our Confederate friends were the ones who had Blacks living in their houses, caring for their kids, and tilling their fields for hundreds of years before Lincoln’s war... they obviously don’t have any kind of aversion to deep racial integration.
Notwithstanding the fact that Southerners have all convinced themselves that they’re empire loyalists/Republicans for the last 40 years, its ahistorical to suggest that the North has always been a beacon of racial integration and the former CSA is somehow a hotbed of historical racialism.
One thing I have noticed in talking to Southerners (and I’m not anti-Southern in the least) is that they are taken aback by the fact that I’m indifferent to the interests of Blacks... I don’t view their destiny as being inextricably bound up with that of the White man in the New World. Southerners simply don’t think that way... there tends to be some sort of paternalistic (and sometimes amicable), almost feudal sensibility about the Black race in the Southern mind.
Something odd about America is that its full of Blacks and immigrants who speak our language, worship in our churches, demand access to our institutions, and claim our history is theirs while knowing nothing of their own.
“You Whites have no culture” said the monolingual English speaking Black who attends a Baptist church and fetishizes technological cargo to the White man who speaks the language of his ancestors and inherited their religious faith.
The issue goes beyond mere genetic signifiers.
American Blacks are a group that is differently situated than other Blacks in the world... they have a unique history and have unique interests. Similarly, Whites are an extremely varied group and their interests converge in many ways but diverge in others.
The trouble is that people tend to think in terms of big-tent identification... this has been cultivated because those tendencies lend themselves to bloc-voting... as an anti-racist, you should oppose this sort of thing. It doesn’t reflect reality.
I don’t think Barack Obama is any more or less intelligent than any other Beltway lackey. That said, I fail to see how he represents your interests anymore than the sitting President represents mine.
It’s important to appreciate the fact when addressing American politics and its attendant peculiarities that the elites are just a managerial class that acts to exploit tensions to facilitate their own ends. When Black people enthusiastically endorse Obama, its more than a little bit naive. It’s like when NASCAR fans in forlorn zip codes who are victims of globalism act like Bush is somehow on their team.
Blacks have their head up their ass. They have some infantile notion that if people like themselves end up in symbolic positions, they will gain immeasurably. I can attest to the fact that when WASPs get elected POTUS I don’t get a fat check in the mail, a job promotion, and birthday presents sent to me from the White House. Sadly, it will be the same for Blackie.
An Obama victory would mean more unqualified, middle class Blacks like Michelle Obama would get no-work jobs, and more MLK lessons would show up in public school curriculums. The net benefit derived by the average dysfunctional Black would amount to a grand total of zero.
I’ve always felt King’s association with Communists to be a feature of MLK’s own naïveté and lack of real understanding of ideology as opposed to something more sinister. Paul Johnson strongly eluded to this in his “History of the American People” and it seems persuasive. I don’t really think we can chalk up MLK’s affiliation with deep-pocketed, anti-War elements that were affiliated with Communists to anything more than opportunism.
As for what we do know about MLK, he marched in the former CSA to protest a Northern institution (segregation) in the service of the Government that had imposed it (USA). I’d posit that a man who marches in defense of a Government that has (purportedly) denied him Due Process and Equal Protection of the law and encourages his kinsmen to place their faith in the same State that has prejudiced their interests rather than resisting the maintenance of their 2nd class status is at best rather weak-hearted and at worst is a 5th Columnist.
It’s pretty telling that White people have such a sappy, emotional attachment to this Negro preacher who has been dead for 40 years... I suppose it’s because MLK was a champion of White interests in the wake of a violent general strike by Blacks against the Government.
The difference between a “non-violent” resistor like Ghandi, and a cipher like MLK is that the former managed to defeat his Enemy politically and forced them to abandon the enterprise. MLK’s efforts resulted in drawing Blacks into centralized, official patronage to degrees undreamed of. 40 years on, Blacks can dine at any lunch counter they want to, but a million of them (give or take) are incarcerated, and their Politics consists of begging Federal authorities for more set-asides and transfer payments during election years.
Then again, freed slaves never really fare well unless they are forced to fend for themselves and lead by proper tutors. As you indicated, Malcolm X was a man who was probably fit for the challenge
Typical White supremacist liberal behavior.
Some dumb cunt with too much time and $$$ on her hands decides that niggers exist to entertain her and dick her down when she wants, and when they get sick of her and give her a well-deserved smack, she decides her dusky paramours are beasts who must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and we’re all supposed to sympathize with the damsel in distress.
There is a lesson here I think... Black on White “rape” is more often an issue of mutual culpability than we’d like to admit.
I’d like to buy this jig a carton of Kools and $100.00 in lotto tickets for his efforts. Jolly good show.
model Wrote:I bet she’s an Obama supporter, despite all of this. What do you mean “despite all of this.” The liberal mind dictates that Negroes are here to make them feel good and entertain them and the rest of us just need to deal with the collateral damage. Obama is an empty suit and a pussy and he makes people feel good... if he stops making people feel good, he’ll be properly reigned in and punished just like the nigs who hand out parking tickets who help themselves to $$$ from the public coffers or the ones who slap crusty “cougars.”
Slavery is ‘normal,’ world-historically speaking. I think we are sort of projecting 21st century social phenomena onto the past here.
Something that Macrobius has consistently raised is that the South considered Slavery to be natural, and race to be a largely political-social construct.
Trying to assign blame for the slave trade makes very little sense... and it has little bearing on the circumstances of the White races in America in 2007.
— neo-niccoloWhether or not it was “normal” is irrelevant.
No, its not irrelevant at all. The African slave trade, and the presence of Blacks in America is presented by contemporary scholarship as a unique and remarkably barbaric institution that had to be remedied. In reality, slavery is not unique, nor is it remarkable, nor is it especially barbaric.
What slavery did was turn the slaves into Americans. That’s the point.
You have a limited understanding of history. The notion of a civic identity, or accident of territorial birth denoting “citizenship,” and the notion of race as conveying rights, privileges and immunities is a modernist phenomenon that was crafted and imposed by Northern jurists. The people who engaged in chattel slavery and who owned slaves didn’t have any notion of Whiteness equating to full rights of citizenship or Slaves being prejudiced by their lack of citizen status.
Were the Europeans forced to buy them?
You are once again projecting contemporary mores onto antiquity. Slavery (of various sorts) was a universal feature of Traditional societies... European slavers were not faced with dilemmas of modern statecraft when they purchased human chattels.
Spanish slavers, for example, were not clairvoyant and they did not ask themselves “Should we abandon the practice of slave trading because the advent of the modern state will have negative demographic implications in the New World as well as cast our vocation into disrepute?” [...]
In actuality, it’s fatuous to talk about modern American citizenship before 1865, because such a thing didn’t exist. [...]
What exactly is your point, Niccolo? Is your point that Blacks who are the descendants of slaves are United States citizens? That was established by Amendment XIV, and is uncontroversial. Are you alleging that Blacks are part of the same nation as White peoples who settled America before 1790? That is fatuous.
I’m German, Anglo, and Huguenot. So according to your reasoning, a Black man whose ancestors hailed from Nigeria is part of the same ethnic community as I am?
Also, for clarification: You are not Canadian despite being a Canadian citizen and living for your entire life in Canada?
You’re an American: you’re not German nor English, nor French.
Yes, I know I’m an American. Old-stock, White Americans are a unique and identifiable population... linguistically, culturally, and probably genetically at this point.
Tyrone Jefferson is American: he’s not Yoruba from Nigeria and Ghanian.
“Tyrone Jefferson” is part of a unique and insular community of persons descended from Slaves in America. This is why it makes very little sense for Blacks to rally behind people like Barack Obama... it would be tantamount to me singing the praises of Srdja Trifkovic as if we are part of the same community.
All of that aside, enduring and intractable divisions exist between White and Black Americans... divisions that (since 1865) a largely Socialist, Federal apparatus has tried to forcibly remedy with a combination of Amendment XIV jurisprudence, legislation, and Executive overreach. In other words, USGov, like yourself, has been yammering at us for about 140 years that my people and Blacks are all part of the same nation... except I guess we just don’t “get the picture” and that is why we were forcibly integrated at the point of a bayonet.
Correct. However, if I have children here and stay here and they don’t learn Croatian, my children will be Canadian.
Nice arbitrary distinction. You sound like a Titoist... linguistic competence = cultural competence, eh? Not very Ustashe of you.
I never used the word “mongrel.” The American nation is multiracial whether you accept it or not.
The modern American state is the legacy of 1865... I don’t identify my heritage and my race with a bloated Federal bureaucracy. That might seem curious to you, considering that your parents left one bloated, oppressive socialist bureaucracy (Yugoslavia) and settled in another (Canada), but Traditionally, one’s race, heritage, and parentage isn’t something that is determined by Federal employees. I guess I’m just old-fashioned.
Had the blacks been deported upon being freed, it’d be a different situation. But too much time has passed since then.
I don’t really think that the issue is what would have happened if Blacks had been given one-way tickets to Liberia. It wouldn’t have made much difference, over the long term.
Those who “don’t get the picture” are a tiny minority in the USA. Were you a majority in all racial communities, you’d be voting in segregation, balkanization, and partition of the USA along racial lines.
This is a curious notion. White people seem to segregate themselves as much as possible while still complying with the law. Since 1972, the GOP has basically been a party of “White interests"... the New GOP was practically built on Wallace’s platform against bussing and affirmative action. The overwhelming majority of Whites vacated US cities in the 1970s in order to avoid integrated schools and neighborhoods, and White homogeneity has come to define suburban demographics. It seems that Whites have no interest in voluntary integration.
I don’t understand what you’re implying here.
You’re conflating heritage with the State bureaucracy and its jurisdiction over persons.
Nor do they have an interest in the expulsion of blacks or in partitioning the USA.
Yes, but that isn’t in controversy. The fact that White America doesn’t want to forcibly cleanse the Continent of Blacks doesn’t change the fact that Whites, post-Brown v. Board, seem to have adopted a position of “leave us alone"... in other words, there was a mass revolt of the White electorate (Nixon’s “silent majority”) in 1972 that settled the issue. Essentially, America is not Brazil because White America demanded that America not become the multiracial polyglot that you claim it is. The Left harps on this issue incessantly, and in all honesty, they are correct in their assessment of the situation... it’s their ideological conclusions that are objectionable.
If you don’t speak the language, you aren’t of that nationality even if your blood is. My kids will either be Croatian or half-Croatian by blood (depending on whom I marry) but if they don’t speak Croatian, they’ll be Canadians (if I continue to live here) by nationality.
That sounds like Wilson or Tito, in all honesty... “The language is the culture/nation.” By your reasoning, the Serbs and the Croats are one people. [...]
With respect to co-existence, Blacks and Whites have been segregated for 142 years and running. When Blacks and Whites were in fact integrated, enduring social mores precluded genuine cultural and racial amalgamation between them. With respect to the second point, Blacks and Whites don’t share a culture... and anybody who alleges that they do, either doesn’t have any real knowledge of American history or doesn’t understand “culture” in terms of the commonly accepted definition. With respect to language, that is debatable. Black English (of various pidgin dialects) is largely unintelligible to outsiders. [...]
You don’t understand America. A Black person who is raised in a Black community is not going to share the same mores, practices, values, outlook, and experiences as a White person who is raised in a White community. In other words, they’re culturally different.
If you have been paying attention to America during the course of your life, you’ll recognize that this very issue has been at the forefront of domestic policy since 1865. [...]
Aw come on. Some Hmong immigrant and I both watched Desert Storm on TV and heard Nickelback on the radio a few years ago. We’re the same. [...]
Well, Neo-Libs and Bolsheviks think in those sorts of vulgar terms, but I think of these things in historical terms. The fact that a Black and a White root for the same sports teams, drink the same shitty beer, and rent the same porno DVDs doesn’t equate to a shared racial identity.
You’re showing your true colors by conflating racial issues with class and consumption habits. You’re the son of people raised under Bolshevism, and you yourself came of age in a cosmopolitan, socialist State. You can’t break out of your materialist thought cage. [...]
I think that the fact that America remains segregated is a testament to the fact that Blacks haven’t merged with the American mainstream project in the sense that it is being spoken of on this thread. Or, perhaps the American mainstream project is a segregationist enterprise.
I’d also add that the American judiciary treats races differently, and an indispensable feature of Equal Protection and Due Process jurisprudence is an acknowledgment that races are differently situated.
Whether that is good, bad, or neutral is the question here... the existence of these things is irrefutable. I’d refer you to Macrobius’ thread on Whiteness if you wish to read a more detailed treatment of that issue.
I’m not trying to be churlish in this discussion, but I’m not sure how effectively people from abroad can address the issue of race in America. [...]
I think race as we are discussing it is a Judicial concept and hence, a strictly political concept, and a modern one at that. [...]
Haven’t merged or haven’t been really included? My understanding is that a real national political division centres on which way you state the problem.
If you’re asking for my opinion, my opinion is that post-Bellum race jurisprudence and legislation had more to do with power politics than it did including Blacks in the franchise as full participants.
Possibly, but then it is a contradiction for it professes to be a state formed on the values of the Enlightenment which are set forth as universal.
Enlightenment ethics were rooted in political principles, not social, scientific, or historical realities. The Enlightenment provided a humanist canon to modernist statecraft that is difficult to defend against philosophically. I don’t wish to derail the thread, but I’ve made the point before that Schmitt believed Machiavelli to be responding to these tendencies aggressively, and I agree with that assessment... although the Straussians patently reject that account of things.
The fact that there is a black middle class who are every much part of the program tells against segregationism in the sense you introduced above and also indicates the future possibilities of further integration.
Blacks are free to do business in America and are encouraged to do so. At some point, however, it falls short to conflate doing business and accumulating wealth with political power. Blacks are politically insignificant, in the sense that we are talking about... Blacks are politically significant in a rather brutal capacity. They are something of a political football... if footballs were made of cast iron, had sharp spikes, and shredded people who were on the receiving end of lateral passes.
Neither am I, which is why I usually preface my contributions to these kinds of discussion with some sort of caveat to the effect that these are distant observations. However, I think there is a perspective that can be brought into play for a distance – my observation about the way the largely middle class black Americans we meet here who come across as unmistakably American. By that I mean they have internalized the American project and its values have become their values etc.
I understand, and I certainly don’t accept the White Nationalist platform as it stands today. I will say however, regardless of how distasteful Europeans and other outsiders may feel about this, I am a White man in America and that has political and social significance... and a White race does in fact exist in America, although it does not in Europe. There are implications to being White that cannot be ignored by any responsible person who holds his own interests and that of his community in any esteem.
Well, if you go back to Locke you find the beginnings of talk about the rights of man (to own and dispose of property). It’s clear from his writings that he includes all men in this in that he holds it possible for all men to partake of civil society as he conceives it. Thus we see one of the beginnings of the universalism of the Enlightenment. Or to put it another way – my money is as good as yours.
I’d go back further to Hobbes. Leviathan is where we find the beginnings of talk about men as monadic actors who are not born to a community or a Polis. Hobbesian decisionism is premised on the erroneous assumption that politics simply represent an effort by cunning and ruthless dominators to abrogate the natural rights of men and hence, must be done away with.
As I suggested above, I see Enlightenment universalism as rooted in the needs and exigencies of capitalism in which money is just money. Money is the principle of universal convertibility.
Of course, but Blacks weren’t integrated after 1865. They were used as proxies by occupation authorities to dispossess the Southern warrior caste and were pressed into labor in the North but denied full rights of Constitutional citizenship. Apparently, the Union was not interested in guaranteeing the full enfranchisement of Negroes.
So, is this football one that is used by one faction of the ruling elite to wrongfoot the other?
That is part of it. As I said, the New GOP was built on a grass-roots revolt by Whites against judicial overreach generally and forced integration specifically. Blacks and their fortunes are inextricably bound up with American political controversies... it’s one example of how policy has given way to politics in this country since 1865. [...]
It’s part and parcel of cynical anti-Americanism, most often, when people act revolted by White majority hostility to non-Whites. Niccolo is not alone in this, and I don’t think he’s “trolling” in the manner most people seem to think he is here.
Political hostility is signified by all manner of discrete human traits, contingent upon place and time. Ethnic, sectarian, racial, etc. Race isn’t any more or any less legitimate than any other criteria that frames social and political divisions. People who think its exceptional and/or morally offensive are mired in conventional liberal thought, or they’re simply hostile to Whites as a matter of course for idiosyncratic reasons. [...]
7/10ths of what is said about Blacks on this site doesn’t address the core of the problem between them and us here. It’s just neurotic sentiment about Black inability or unwillingness to abandon anti-social behavior. So an endless debate ensues as to whether or not Blacks are civilized or if they’re savages, all of which is very interesting to some people I guess, but its not particularly relevant.
I apologize in advance if I overuse the analogy, but people who hold that perspective shouldn’t object to Jewish over-representation in coveted positions, if the criteria for friend/enemy in political terms is simply to what degree any given population abstains from or indulges in petty criminality.
The popular consensus of school shootings being a White pathology isn’t entirely inaccurate – if we read between the lines of how media, law enforcement, psychologists, and governmental actors discern differences in sociological motives across racial lines.
The State has, at least since the 1970s, acknowledged that Black society is marred by a kind of violent tribalism that is dangerous to social order. Black violence, in public venues or private cloisters, is assigned a social cause related to deprived circumstances, low average intelligence, an absence of cultural learning that reinforces disciplined conformity, vestigial “racism” perpetuated by the majority, absence of self-esteem, nihilistic despair, and a slew of other causes; some persuasive some apparently facile.
Whether or not anybody accepts any of the explanations proffered by experts, social planners, governmental personnel, or academic scholars, it is clear to even a casual observer that violence – both exclusively private and semi-organized – is normative in Black communities. Thus, a Black youth who commits a violent act against another Black youth in a public school is essentially transplanting what is normal Black violence from a private cloister to a public forum. There is nothing really remarkable about his motive within this context, anymore than a man who murders somebody in a house rather than on a public street warrants any peculiar scrutiny as a “house shooter” as opposed to an ordinary miscreant.
White society, in particular bourgeois White society, is largely bereft of mortal violence outside of circumstances of civil unrest, national warring, punctuated crises, and other exceptional occurrences. That is not to say that Whites do not commit violent criminal acts, they do with predictable regularity, but violence however is not normative in their social environments. White middle class youths who commit school shootings, therefore, are not transposing normative violence that is common to their social environment to a public venue – they are breaking with behavioral precedent and acting with specific intent to attack a public venue that they identify as an antagonistic agent.
The interesting variable in all of this is how the state addresses the question and what it proposes as remedies. It is unwilling, for obvious reasons, to explore the possibility that therapeutic institutions themselves are instrumental in promoting psychopathy – this, more than anything, is the impetus for the recent moral panic over “bullying.” “Bullying” is private conduct that is purported to harm other private persons – the causes of nihilism, malaise, alienation, and psychopathy are never laid at the doorstep of managerial institutions such as public schools; institutions that practice social violence and intellectual brutality against their charges as a matter of course.
In some respects, the “school shooter” is carrying out an insurrectionary act.
The “Jewish problem” is a political problem – politics isn’t a question of personal preferences, affections, passions, hatreds, loves, etc. It’s a sphere of human activity in which friend and enemy distinctions coalesce around the struggles of discrete social groupings (races, ethnicities, religious communities) to survive (socially and physically) and advance/preserve their respective way(s) of life. Every Jewish person in the world, hypothetically, might be a saintly figure who is gracious, benevolent, and unfailingly honest and this would have absolutely no bearing on the political relations between Jews and their enemies.
It’s a liberal conceit/lie to claim that politics doesn’t actually represent a distinct, concrete, and real sphere of human life and activity; but that politics is simply an expression of “prejudice” or “hatreds” or an expression of conspiratorial thinking.
The “conspiracy theory” of history is actually the narrative presented by the current ruling elite: Slavery came about on grounds of “racism,” white men consciously determined to devise a social ordering of life that subjected everybody else to oppression, the Second World War occurred on grounds of a criminal enterprise hatched by a coterie of German generals to murder every single Jew on Earth; and assorted other absurd narratives. In contrast, acknowledging political enmity between races and cultures and the formative effect upon history of these phenomena is a basic mode of rational analysis – its the opposite of conspiracy theorizing.
As to the substantive matter itself, I think one should also draw a distinction between racism (which I understand to incorporate notions of a biologically determined racial hierarchy) and racialism (which I understand to be a recognition of difference which may or may not have racist implications) although I must confess I am still not entirely clear as to what the precise difference is. I suppose its perfectly possible for someone to be a racialist without being a racist.
I think that a working definition of a “racist” is a person who harbors personal animosity towards other groups of people on account of immutable characteristics. In contrast, a “racialist” is a person who believes that a) race is an important and relevant human characteristic; and b) this characteristic and its implications should inform public policy when appropriate.
I appreciate that your interests are in preserving and protecting the Irish nation, but racial issues will become more important to you and your fellows if Ireland is subjected to mass immigration and all of the social ills, political quagmires, and group enmity that attends such policies.
Talking about “white male perspectives” doesn’t really have a context if we’re talking about European clergymen of diverse backgrounds. It’s on the order of when sub-par and banal academics talk about “black Egypt,” the inference being that some Angolan derived slave-descendant living in Detroit is part of the same “race” as an Ethiopian emperor of Classical antiquity.
What we’re really dealing with here is a “rich white woman” conceptual bias – extrapolating peculiar features of flyover America (a semi-homogenous “white” demographic, shaped by historical events such as the Protestant ascendancy) to the rest of the world and applying these discreet features to historical phenomenon.
You can’t talk about “white males” anymore than you can talk about “brown people,” in historical terms.
Hey, Tecumseh and Ho Chi Minh must have had the same narrow perspective – they’re part of that “brown people” demographic.
American whites in general think non-whites (Jews exempted, obviously, but this is a complicated issue – i.e. the white American view of Jews) are basically inferior.
Whites don’t think much about non-whites other than as a prop in a moral/theological narrative.
Athenian citizens didn’t “hate” slaves – they lived among tens of thousands of them. I am not comparing American goy slobs to Athenians by any stretch, but the manner in which they view Latin American mestizos and the like is historically comparable. People don’t work up a lather of emotional hostility or hatred towards their social inferiors – they don’t really think about them one way or the other, ethically speaking.
America actually is highly “racist” – just not in the terms the disengaged bourgeois Left claims it is. [...]
Addressing the bolded part: “Maybe but other groups think the same thing. That’s not unique.”
True, but whites conquered the planet.
There’s a difference between a white man thinking non-whites are inferior to him and some half-literate Chinese immigrant thinking non-Chinese are “dirty.” The former is a case of conqueror’s hubris, the latter is just some folk-prejudice born of insularity.
What is wrong with sleeping with a Columbian woman with an IQ of 120 in a social Darwinist context?
Nothing, but that is not the racialist viewpoint. The racialist view has two components:
1) It is progressive/eugenic. Racialists suggest that some populations are smarter/more capable than others (generally speaking). Hence, it improves humanity for those ‘higher populations’ to not miscegenate with the ‘lower populations.’
2) It posits that intimate bonds of association between people create the most desirable sorts of societies. Racialism suggests that ancient, primordial bonds of culture, language, genetic kinship and history are the most legitimate bases of order around which a nation-state should be organized. The reasoning is that in such circumstances, in-group/out-group conflicts are largely nonexistent allowing near total political consensus to be facilitated and hence, an “ideal state” to be maintained.
Racialism is dependent upon both of these propositions if it is to maintain internal consistency... one cannot be separated from the other.
— MontyPut it this way: Don’t you think the Salon/Slate/New Republic crowd would be thrilled to learn that someone like Alex Linder was raped in prison? To these people, white racists are the worst people on earth.
Yes – I realize that. I suppose the point is that Jews and deracinated white liberals are massively racist – their entire worldview is premised on white supremacy.
It’s sort of comically absurd when people at Salon or Rachel Maddow or Tim Wise or Chris Matthews start shrieking about “white privilege.” “White privilege” is rich white people brutalizing other people with impunity – it’s basically the distilled essence of liberalism, in other words.
I can’t take it too seriously or get too upset when bigoted white millionaires complain about racism. It comes off as similar to Walter Ulbricht arriving at a failing and obsolete factory in his Mercedes while flanked by MfS goons and declaring himself to be a “worker” to the assembled employees.
Muslim populations are too diverse to generalize about. Some are civilized, some are half civilized, and some are savages. Talking about the character of Muslims qua Muslims is like talking about the character of “Christians.” It’s essentially meaningless. Talking about Bosniaks as if they are the same as Somalis is like discussing Negro Baptists as if they are the same as Italian Catholics.
The problems that you and your countryman Thaumiel are forced to deal with have a lot to do with the caustic secondary effects of importing wage laborers who are neither assimilable nor educible on account of immutable characteristics... it has precious little to do with their (largely nominal and Laodicean) commitment to Islam.
Of course, Religion is merely a font of politics, and hence it has grave political implications, but as I have noted before, I am reluctant to fall into the trap of conflating base criminality and the caustic effects of immigration with politics. In other words, when you tell me that the unwashed, brown masses that are laying siege to London are acting in accordance with the precepts of Islam, you’re attributing political motivations to their conduct and in a way, you’re inadvertently dignifying it in the same way you would national political behavior by a state actor. The issue we are discussing here, however, has nothing to do with anything of the sort. What we’re talking about is the secondary effects of the perverted internal logic of Liberalism writ large, exacerbated by the collective apathy of an increasingly unwilling, cynical, and fainthearted native population that refuses to demand and/or implement remedial measures.
The Mayans, as Spengler discussed, achieved civilization as the culmination of a complete “life cycle” of cultural development – our understanding of their way of life is fragmentary, as by the time the White man encountered them, all that remained were traces of a virtually dead civilization.
The North American Indians were essentially just war bands – with the exception of some of the civilized tribes who practiced subsistence agriculture. I suppose its admirable in some basic way that tribes like the Apache or Comanche would never submit to thralldom, but these people were basically just headhunters – they weren’t culture-bearing people, they were, in a word, “savages.”
We should take care not to lionize savages, even if their instinctive violence and the natural “liberty” of wildmen has an aesthetic allure all its own.
There’s a reason why top bounties were paid for Apache scalps in the border territories – and it wasn’t “racism.” These people were dangerous in the way wild animals are. [...]
Coming face to face with savagery was the price of the White Man’s Burden – the Indian ‘way of war’ was an instinctive form of organized murder, and the slaughter of the children or the cunts of the women, the heads or scalps of the men, the (literal) skins of the enemy were/are all legitimate spoils of combat to savages.
The subtext of thoughtful novelists who address the collision of the White world with savage nature (Joseph Conrad, Cormac McCarthy, and Jean Raspail I believe are good examples) is that the White man became morally compromised by fighting savages in his effort to tame the continental wilderness of the planet.
Sand Creek and Wounded Knee happened because White men became barbarians in the course of fighting barbarians. Battles in the New World, on the Dark Continent, in the Orient made us atavistic. And this is still underway. My Lai 4 was well-precedented in this regard, IMO. People consider it in the same terms they do other 20th century “war crimes,” and/or they consider it in isolation from history. Probably in some sense the dominant ethical paradigm in America precludes a meaningful analysis of racial warring and the realities of barbarism thereof. [...]
It’s apocryphal I suppose, but it’s said that when Cortez and his men breached the inner sanctum of the Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlan, they were overwhelmed by the stench of blood and rotted flesh and were greeted by Aztec priests whose long and luxuriant hair was literally matted to their scalp by the blood of sacrificial victims. It’s speculated that when the Aztecs looked upon iconography of the Christ, they took note of the fact that he was cloaked in blood – and they determined this to mean that Christ was a powerful terror God and magician who shrouded himself with blood to absorb its divinating properties that conferred vitality, pleasure, and hardness of heart upon murderers.
The point isn’t that the White man was uncorrupted prior to his contact with savages or that he wasn’t stained by original sin – this would be a ridiculous suggestion. The point is that the White man regressed upon leaving civilization and immersing himself in savagery for the purpose of taming it. This is the basic moral and spiritual risk that is faced by all conqueror races, and its something that people no longer take seriously as a historical or theological phenomenon.
Religion is about the meaning of death, not the meaning of life
Hell exists... living hell that is, it’s just not an outer-spacey netherworld that looks like some cheese-dick, Iron Maiden record cover art that you gent sent to for not chomping on a cracker in an ornate building on Sunday.
Good Catholics shouldn’t attend bastardized, English language services that are conducted by Nigerian witch doctors in Priest costumes. All of that sort of thing is about as spiritually uplifting as listening to a deranged man in a chicken suit recite the dictionary.
I have spent a lot of time with this as of late (albeit indirectly). I have been and remain disposed to Nietzschean-Ludovician models of political-social order and ‘value’... at the same time, why was/is it necessary for proponents of those peculiar schools of thought to devote so much time to rebutting the notion of the Christ, despite alleging that the post-modern West has refuted and eviscerated its own theological-philosophical precepts completely?
The answer is that none of us can escape from the shadow (or the light depending upon your perspective) cast by Christ, in addressing the moral-philosophical-existential crises of the West... and my own unsubstantiated, unprovable, speculative explanation for that supersedes any notion about the enduring power of archetypes and social-moral conditioning. On some level, we all intuitively perceive the majesty of Christ and its implications. I suppose that the apostate Protestant in me (when I am not actively laboring to reject Christ on account of some philosophical quagmire that I am attempting to resolve or indulging in baser instincts and wallowing in the attendant moral conflicts wrought by them) believes that such things are the result of inherent intuition brought about by divine inspiration towards faith in the living God.
I don’t have a better answer right now... I’ll do my best to proffer a more complete (and coherent) explanation after I spend more time with this issue.
All life represents the divine spark of the Creator and the loving touch of His hand. The reproductive process is God’s gift to man which endows him with the ability to perpetuate the web of life as drawn by the Creator. Sterilizing humans who are deemed “unfit” or “inferior” claims dominion over that which properly and exclusively belongs to the Divine.
True. “We” have our own splendid, gutter religion. It has something to do with Freud, Darwin, and Marx, prissy, deranged parliamentarians endlessly discussing men having sex with one another, court philosophers alleging that trade and commerce represent the highest good, and nihilistic hedonism as the national pastime.
You people are overstating the significance of the Fundies... they’re superstitious, snake-handling hicks... they’re not the new NSDAP and they’re not conquering the country.
Last time I checked, the Beltway is dominated by a little group of sectarians who actually have the power to influence policy, and they ain’t “Jesus Campers"... considering who rules us, its funny to hear people get worried about Waffle House jockeys who think that if they wear WWJD bracelets that God is going to intervene on behalf of their favorite football team or bless them with a .75 cent raise at their job stocking shelves at Walmart.
Don’t let Jesus Camp disturb your sleep, in other words.
I’ve walked among these people, Petr... they’re not just curiosities I’ve seen on TV. [...]
You know, I have great respect for men of Traditional faiths, be them Muslim, Christian (Traditional Catholic or Orthodox) and even Orthodox Jew... I have nothing but contempt for pop-culture peasant cults.
You should be affronted more than I am at the sight of some ignorant woman railing against television programs and bestseller list novels under the auspices of “Christianity,” but (considering your obvious intelligence) I’ve increasingly come to the conclusion that you’re simply a cynic who favors crude politics over genuine theology.
— KeystonePerun likes talking about Catholicism but won’t go to Mass or Confession regularly. Shame!
His decision probably has a lot to do with the Vatican’s heresy. Good Catholics shouldn’t attend bastardized, English language services that are conducted by Nigerian witch doctors in Priest costumes. All of that sort of thing is about as spiritually uplifting as listening to a deranged man in a chicken suit recite the dictionary.
— neo-niccoloThe US Catholic Bishops Conference needs to be taught what it’s like to feel a good lead pipe to the head and torso.
I have some bad news, Nic. Catholic Politics are forbidden in the New World... this occurred around the time that our fathers were in high school, and The Commonweal began running screeds in defense of Heretical theories so as to assure Kennedy’s (potential) non-Papist voting base that Yankee Catholics had in fact become reconstructed Liberals.
I suggest you build yourself a time machine pronto and try to remedy this matter.
[Evangelical theology is] a tawdry belief system. Basically if you’re an Evangelical, you believe you can huff jenkem all day and let niggers bang your wife while you eat Little Debbie oatmeal cakes and beat off in the corner or cruise glory holes or do tons of skag but so long as you ask Jesus to save you, you’re OK. It’s some cartoonish cargo-nigger pagan view of theology that is entirely self serving.
[S]ocieties can never face final judgment – so soldiers and executioners always had a mandate to commit homicide. It was understood that war and ethnic cleansing arrived like the seasons. Everybody believed this, from white men to the most primitive Bantus and Comanches.
Nuremberg established the New Religion – societies are now culpable/availed to Judgment Day; only the constituent elements can save it by abiding the inner witness.
This is “anti-racism.”
The model of Calvin’s view on labor and ethics was Calvin’s stewardship of Geneva – the “living laboratory” if you will of Protestant government.
My own view is that Weber was incorrect in his theory, positing that Protestantism “caused” the development of Capitalism and an attendant sea-change (purportedly) in popular (and elite) views of labor. He misconstrues cause and effect – Protestant social ethics were reacting to punctuated developments in the world relating to the collapse of the medieval social and economic order and the advent of productive technologies, they weren’t “causing” these things in any spontaneous capacity.
Back to Geneva – Calvin found himself charged with governing a “city-state” of sorts that was mired in public and private corruption, that was menaced by the revolutionary fervor of libertines, that was menaced by the penumbra of counter-reformation aggression by the Vatican and its forces, and that could not provide for the basic needs of its people.
Calvin’s solution was to welcome poor people who had embraced the Biblical faith to come to Geneva with a guarantee of work by which every man would be able to provide for himself and his family – and until this type of equity was achieved, Calvin himself (out of his own pockets and the public coffers) provided for these people so they could have basic necessities of life until the nascent industries of the ‘new Geneva’ became profitable. Concomitant with this, Calvin dictated that people should learn to forego luxury items and services – as these things were no longer particularly viable as craftsmen were being supplanted by the early application of industry to productive processes, and because he viewed it as Godly for men to use their wealth to invest in new and better capital that would allow more people to benefit from labor and production and thus alleviate poverty. Luxury, thus, to good Protestants was viewed as a decadent and superfluous interest that didn’t benefit anybody in any appreciable way.
This idea has been hijacked in America – especially in the wake of the War Between the States. The secular, capitalist/Deist perspective was and is that “work” is some kind of end in itself – it isn’t and that’s not the Biblical or the Calvinist perspective. “Work” also was, until the 20th century, considered to be activity that was productive and that provided essential things for people to live moral lives – or that provided services that people absolutely needed that they couldn’t perform for themselves (advice on matters of law, medical treatment, soldiery for common defense, etc.)
The Christian view of “capitalism” thus is properly, “how is the working man best provided for such that he can reap the most of which he is entitled to of his labor?” The view isn’t that the production of money is the purpose of “labor” or that simply performing work is an end in itself.
I’ve come to believe that non-Protestants of any stripe don’t really understand the ‘Protestant work ethic’ – it’s something people cannot seem to apprehend from without for whatever reason.
...
When I speak of Calvinism I am speaking of the statement of the Christian Faith as explicated through Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. It’s a theological and metaphysical orientation, I believe, that touches and concerns science, ethics, jurisprudence, and philosophy in a penumbric capacity. Its intellectual lineage can be discerned, primarily but not exclusively, through Aristotle and Augustine.
With respect to your poll, I find Calvinism to be essentially philosophically correct – I feel it to be true in large part, which of course is not rational but this speaks to the idea of the Inner Witness. There is a similar truth in Sunni Islam I believe – although this appears superficially alien to us on grounds of discreet cultural orientations and preferences between Westerners and Orientals.
I fear God because I struggle to not be placed in bondage by evil passions – as all men do, and overtime I have come to believe I may be damned. It is necessary and proper – axiomatic even – that any actually “religious” individual will fear damnation.
The Church is actually endorsing the oppression of these people, and the concomitant destruction of the value of labor by greedy Capitalists who, by design, aim to destroy obstacles to their own supremacy. The status of poor people isn’t improved by demanding that they be availed to continuing exploitation. People in Mexico suffered very much by the implementation of NAFTA – as local economies were destroyed by market integration with American agricultural firms. Churchmen who were concerned with the fortunes of these people should busy themselves by demanding the Mexican government honor its obligations to its people, they wouldn’t be demanding that America find ways to continue to profit from what amounts to a refugee crisis that America created.
How many Holy Rollers are on the US Supreme Court? How many of them own major media outlets? What percentage of Goldman-Sachs executives are dispensationalist Bible thumpers?
The fact that poor, white trash in poverty-line zipcodes are keen to low-church nonsense or that suburbanite chamber of commerce types go to church once a week to wheel and deal and network is apropos of nothing, politically speaking.
One of the favorite boogeymen of liberals is this notion that there’s some kind of powerful, radical Christian element waiting in the wings in America that might someday conquer the corridors of power and impose a mideaval regime on the country. It’s one of those narratives that is so disengaged from reality its tragically hilarious.
I’m not a big fan of Kevin MacDonald, but one of his keener insights into the American political system was his observation that the Federal Judiciary is basically the core of sovereign government power – and you might notice that nary a Protestant, fundamentalist or otherwise, sits on the Supreme Court, and their absence in the district courts is notable as well. It’s rather telling that in fact, the judiciary is dominated by Jewish extremists, and a large percentage of Jesuit-educated, basically atheistic Goys who ascribe to an entirely debased theory of law and legal ethics.
Actual, religious-oriented societies look like Iran – people who believe that law and order is divinely ordained hold a very radical view of politics. That’s the kind of political culture that develops within races, nations, etc. that are animated by deeply felt religious beliefs.
Moronic superstition, social hobbysim, and platitudinal moralizing common to poor people in places like rural Kentucky isn’t comparable to this phenomenon – and even if it were, these people are powerless anyway. They’re the most irrelevant demographic in America in many respects.
You people are overstating the significance of the Fundies... they’re superstitious, snake-handling hicks... they’re not the new NSDAP and they’re not conquering the country.
Last time I checked, the Beltway is dominated by a little group of secterians who actually have the power to influence policy, and they ain’t “Jesus Campers"... considering who rules us, its funny to hear people get worried about Waffle House jockeys who think that if they wear WWJD bracelets that God is going to intervene on behalf of their favorite football team or bless them with a .75 cent raise at their job stocking shelves at WalMart.
Don’t let Jesus Camp disturb your sleep, in other words.
Individual men seeking out martyrdom for purposes of fame or catharsis or to present themselves as self-righteous in the eyes of observers are committing a grave sin. If Christendom is to be saved, God is going to will that it be saved, and people who follow Christ will defend the Faith with violence. When these circumstances are not underway, historically, a Christian killer or partisan is merely engaged in a heretical kind of self-deification – like the people who were condemned by the Papacy for trying to infect themselves with Plague so as to expedite their own salvation. Of course all Christians are at fault for the present dilemma – all Christians are sinners and are at base depraved. Any man who claims that he is morally superior to his fellows or who claims to be “heroic” in the face of historical challenges when others are not is at best callow and at worst some kind of extreme heretic who worships himself.
One reason to believe that Moslems are in fact acting in accordance with divine will is that they almost uniformally responded to the call to arms when it was issued – this was not an isolated or sporadic occurrence, nor did their co-religionists view their behavior as errant or insane or idolatrous. The reasons for this are complicated, but the theological interpretation would be in line with what De Maistre posited about the Jacobin revolution and its atrocities – it was both a crime and a punishment. [...]
People believe or they don’t. They don’t opt to “care” about Christianity as if it were an object of aesthetic contemplation or a beloved story or novel. This isn’t intended to be insulting, but the fact that you consider these things in terms of personal cares, ambitions, and the like means you don’t particularly put any meaningful stock in theology and theological interpretations of history. If Christianity is eradicated on Earth and its believers delivered by the enemies of God, it must be because God ordains it – what you, or I, care about has no relevance.
Religious belief is a founding idea of a culture-form, its a font of politics (which is why sectarianism emerges on cultural and racial fault lines), and its an aesthetic and ethical mode of thought, among other things. Western civilization, like all civilizations, is conceptually theological in how it views itself, the wider world and its relationship to that world. If you’re a White man who is even dimly self aware of your own situation in history, you’re thinking in Christian terms – or at least terms that are in dialog with Christian ideas. I don’t think I or anyone else needs to engage in elaborate Christian apologetics to defend the faith. It’s part of what we are. It doesn’t warrant rational scrutiny, punitive or otherwise. It’s not an empirical postulate or a political strategy. It’s part of how we experience the world. [...]
Some egalitarianism and populism is well placed. Perhaps its my Calvinist prejudice, but I believe Carlyle was correct in assigning Cromwell status as a heroic figure on the same order as Mohammad. Pious killer whose followers were animated by a belief that their commander was in congress with the Divine. Historical anecdotes aside, none of these faggot Vatican II Catholics or megachurch Satanists can ever point me to precedent within Biblical scholarship that substantiates claims about non-violence, communism, race mixing, feminism, or any other Leftist hobbyhorse. I’m a Bible Protestant and I read scripture a lot, in addition to leaving the reservation to read the Roman church fathers, and I can only conclude, as I said earlier, that Christianity is both traditionalist and tragic. The Elect follow God and the rest (spiritually) perish. Following God means abiding and revering the natural order. Doesn’t really get more “right wing” than that, if we want to consider these things in modernist political terms. [...]
I don’t really accept the crisis mode view of religion and its development, if for no other reason than that the manner in which human societies organize themselves is conceptually theological, from Congolese cannibals to highly advanced managerial states. Mircea Eliade wrote extensively on this topic and he argued, persuasively, that not only do humans overcome alienation from relationships to other people and things that are almost exclusively contingent and often ephemeral by sacral observations of events and practices that duplicate events of perennial significance, but that the very manner in which humans conceptualize physical space and authority within the parameters in which they live is informed by a theological consideration of order. In other words, its something that touches and concerns the life and labor of everyday – its simply presumed and taken for granted. The reason why people obsess over “religion” in America isn’t on grounds of the long emergency underway, its because America is ruled by a managerial class that is wholly at odds with natural patterns of social behavior and belief and traditional modes of thought. People in normal societies don’t avail themselves to endless debates on the moral consensus and aim to dismantle the prevailing theology for the purpose of replacing it with something purported to be more equitable. A key function of the therapeutic managerial state, be it here, in the EU countries, decades ago in the USSR has been this practice.
“Secular” is really a meaningless signifier because the only non-secularists in the West are anti-modernists and non-conformists (Orthodox Jews and Christians, sedevacantists, Muslims, and small and insignificant but notable sects of Menonite and Amish types). In other words, Protestant politics in practiced under the rubric of “secular humanism” and the like... the modernist expression of Jewish politics is Zionism. In the former case, open-ended Deism and the prospect of universal salvation has given way to notions of “equal dignity” being a sacrosanct right that must be afforded to conformists without regard to immutable characteristics. In the case of the latter, Judaic parochialism and Mosaic exceptionalism were resacralized in terms of radically defensive statecraft. You can tell me, for example, that the ethnic cleansing of palestine was a “secular” initiative, but that goes without saying. Describing 20th century politics and contrasting them with pre-modern politics is all very interesting, but it doesn’t change the fact that politics, by definition, begins where amicable conflict resolution ends.
— ArahatIn my humble opinion, Julius Evola stays the main authority for the Imperial idea nowadays, and the political and religious movement which realised most of Evola’s ideals, in his own words, was the Legion of the Archangel Michael in Romania.
Absolutely true.
The problem however is that only a tiny minority of people in the White world are convinced of the merit of this worldview. Codreanu was a hero in a very real sense, but he and his men belonged to a peculiar era; when politics in Europe were profoundly shaped by religiosity.
The convergence of radical pietism/religiosity with sharp and uncompromising political committments seems to only be something that has currency in the Orient in the present day; and it has momentum there because certain theological principles have everyday relevance to people in those countries.
Europe, in contrast, would seem to be dogmatically atheistic to a degree that is insurmountable. That isn’t to say that Lowell isn’t correct or that his work product doesn’t have a positive influence on a small number of people, but this kind of thought isn’t ever going to have an effect on the prevailing political culture in Western states.
Evola was a Roman reactionary – in Men Among the Ruins he identifies De Maistre as an essential European theorist of sovereignty and posits that the Teutonic Knights exemplified the mannerbund through fealty to the sovereign idea – not encumbered by democratic impulse or territorial “nationalism.”
Evola’s “paganism” was similar to that of Rene Guenon – he believed political order was only legitimate if it was scrupulously bound by the pathos of distance and fealty to a transcendent idea. He was calling for a return to Imperium Romanum; because he thought it was the highest expression of Aryan cultural instinct towards transcendence. He wasn’t positing that Viking-age Danish and Saxon wildmen bringing death to Europe’s coastal settlements and stripping peoples’ lungs outside their bodies to appease some horrible war god of the skies or the forest was an example of spiritual vigor – he was suggesting the opposite.
Christianity to Evola was part and parcel of sophia perennis, and his lavish praise of Corneliu Codreanu and his followers is a testament to this.
I spoke to a self-described “sociobiologist” one on occasion, and when the Eugenics issue came up, he began ranting and railing about Phrenology and pseudoscience.
This is tantamount to you explaining properties of organic chemistry to me and me responding by stating “This is alchemy! It’s all been discredited!” [...]
Eugenics, by definition, advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. How does a social theory that aims to improve humanity and eliminate maladaptive and dysfunctional heritable traits constitute “quackery”?
What is “quackery” is to suggest that African countries are not burdened with low average IQs. The underlying reason(s) why African countries reflect such poor intelligence averages is debatable, but the fact that such averages exist is not. [...]
One is tempted to ask the question: “Who are the secret overlords of Africa?,” because according to the “scholars” in the cited article, a mass conspiracy is afoot by evil ‘eugenicists’ to convince the world that Africans (as a group) are a non-culture bearing population that suffers from low intelligence.
Because eugenics used absurd measures for what were ‘maladaptive and dysfunctional heritable traits’ and failed to understand the nature, complexity, and circumstances behind ‘positive’ traits.
You are engaging in deliberate mischaracterization. Acknowledging that intelligence and social behavior is largely heritable is not the same as claiming that the curvature of human skulls predisposes people to criminality.
That’s quackery. It’s quackery to suggest that the shape of one’s ear indicates a predisposition towards criminality. It;s quackery to suggest that beliefs in social, economic, or historical theories are part of a racial characteristic. That was utter rubbish.
It’s not ‘rubbish’ to allege that certain traits are selected over other traits within insular populations overtime due to environmental considerations. In fact, it’s absurd to suggest otherwise.
Poor nations usually are.
That is correct... which begs the question: Why are these nations poor?
Racists are fortunate that modern IQ tests were not available to measure European populations in particularly difficult periods of Western history. I suspect that the IQ of medieval German peasants might make Ethiopia look like a MENSA fraternity.
I doubt it. When Europeans arrived in Sub-Saharan Africa, the wheel had not yet been invented.
The Flynn Effect renders a lot of these studies somewhat superfluous. The IQ of discreet breeding populations varies dramatically overtime. It’s neither here nor there anyway – IQ tests determine the ability for persons to discern patters in data and assimilate these things into meaningful structures. It doesn’t really tell us anything, other than that people with extremely low IQs tend encounter terrible difficulties in adapting to modern society.
I am certain that Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, or a Chinese grad student at MIT has en exponentially higher IQ than did Metternich, Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, Beethoven or Da Vinci, or Mohammad.
I am equally certain the no man would lay down his life for Bill Gates or that Mark Zuckerberg will write a brilliant symphony or that a Chinese engineering student will build the Parthenon anytime soon.
“IQ” is essentially what rationalist, commerce-driven cultures have crafted to replace virtue.
That is an erudite critique, Fade... but we don’t even need to go that far to refute [Jared] Diamond’s position [in Guns, Germs, and Steel].
Diamond’s Geographical Determinism does not take into account the effect that environmental variables have upon insular human populations overtime... in other words, he does not account for evolutionary “feedback loops” that ultimately shape the intelligence and behavioral phenotypes of populations.
Suppose I accept Diamond’s thesis... that thesis being: Europe was endowed with rich resources and herding animals... Africa was devoid of these resources. Hence, the Europeans were able to develop and master technologies that were unavailable to the Black Africans. My answer to this thesis is: That may be the case... but the existence of the former gave rise to inventions/technologies which created complex, well-ordered societies... societies in which only relatively intelligent, skilled, robust individuals possessing great foresight could survive and thrive. The status of the latter caused stagnation, which in turn favored brute instincts within the dwelling population.
I was noticing the other day that a glut of blogs devoted to discussing feminism and (in the argot of the authors of these blogs) “men’s rights” have popped up lately, and seem to have a wide readership among young guys. If you peruse any of this kind of content, you’ll notice that its just grievance mongering by people who seem to want to be afforded a plate at the permanent victims’ banquet that is underway in America, and the offerings are just as nauseating as that which is on the menu at Passolini’s Salo dinner party.
David Myatt penned a piece sometime in the last decade or so about the difference in tone he detected between militant Islamic propaganda and its counterpart materials in Rightist/WN/NS circles. Whatever anyone might think of Myatt, his points were insightful; he made mention of the fact that Muslims (moderate and radical alike) speak about duties and obligations as foregone conclusions in lieu of aiming to entice the faithful to action or to convince them of the merits of a program. In other words, they argue within a consensus that emphasizes things that supersede individuals and selves. In the case of our people, you’ll notice that the tone of rhetoric is extraordinarily negative and oriented towards flattering the vanity of people who have been inculcated with malevolent narcissism.
The reasons for this are probably twofold. On the one hand, many (if not most) Whites who gravitate towards dissident information outlets probably are not terribly interested in race as a historical quantity or in altering the status quo either by individually seceding from System culture and activities, or by undertaking some kind of active resistance against hostiles that would (inevitably) result in criminality and myriad other unpleasant liabilities. On the other hand, it is probably cathartic for Whites (and other peoples, in all honesty) who feel alienated to gravitate casually towards passive activities that are considered to be diabolical. It allows people to afford themselves some kind of pleasure within the sovereign confines of their own mind to reject System values, even if its done so in a way that is harmless and utterly anonymous.
My own unsolicited opinion is that Whites needn’t and shouldn’t concern themselves with the day to day goings on of Federal government and its ubiquitous press releases, narratives, stories, and theatrically presented occurrences. It’s demoralizing and its tailored to stimulate the same kinds of instincts as is the superfluous entertainment and gluttonous recreation that is foisted upon us constantly. I believe Christopher Lasch was largely correct in his writings on this phenomenon, despite his reliance upon authorities that most of us would find to be somewhat questionable if not outright fraudulent.
One of the wiser guys here mentioned earlier in the SB that we need to focus on physical and psychological improvement and preparedness in lieu of emphasizing combative hostilities we experience day to day and other self-defeating hobbies like nursing our own prejudices into passionate rage to assuage the discomfort of pervasive social madness. He’s absolutely correct. Do extant political processes and the managerial culture and the attendant social relationships work to our benefit and improve us? No. So why should these things be discussed as pertinent concerns?
The question on the table is; “Why is the world ordered the way it is?"; and a corollary; “How do we survive, thrive and endure it from a position of strength?” [...]
Camp of the Saints is a great book because it presents an absurd and tragic denouement of Western civilization and the end of the White world (the ‘only world that matters’ in Raspail’s words) that results as the logical conclusion of the post-bellum nihilism/liberal syndrome that took root after the ruin of Europe and the triumph of the monumental economization of human life. Yes, its extraordinarily bleak, but much of the current dilemma is rooted in Western man’s loss of ‘the sense of the tragic’ as Tomislav Sunic is fond of phrasing.
Of course you’re correct that its also important for Whites to expose themselves to things that are unqualifiedly edifying and uplifting as well, but those things are easier to come by than most WNs are willing to acknowledge.
What we’re really talking about is how to overcome demoralization, and grown men should be able to draw upon inspiration to do exactly that; the reason they can’t is because they’re too tethered to System modes of thought in lieu of contemplation. They don’t need better literature, they need to think critically.
White problems supersede things like a need for more adroit political strategizing. It’s quite a daunting quagmire, really, but reluctance to accept the severity of the situation is in and of itself a capitulation. [...]
I’m not sympathetic to men who think they’re being personally targeted for capricious antagonism because they aren’t pounding young quim to the mattress with what they perceive as sufficient frequency, believe they aren’t appreciated enough in their cubicle maze, and who think that the solution to their personal problems is some kind of declaratory judgment by govt. authorities that “women hit men too.” It’s just effeminate and myopic grievance mongering by System loyalists who feel entitled to hedonistic distractions and superfluous social praise that they have determined they are being denied. People like that make life unpleasant and they are dedicated to the status quo. There isn’t any reason to dwell on hostility towards them, but they’re not important, other than as a diagnostic artifact of clear and present social anarchy, general torpor, etc.
What is to be done is to subvert the System political cartel through the dissemination of ideas that expose its fallacies, weaknesses, and oppressive instrumentalities.
Genuine Fascism/NS and genuine M-L has been dismantled by transnational capitalism... so our battlefields are not public thoroughfares but the halls of the academy and the pages of treatises that enjoy broad dissemination. Greet the enemy with a handshake and a well tailored suit. Seek out intellectuals with whom tactics can be cultivated... seek out potential comrades in the learned professions. Forget about mass-politik.
If the far right is to “win,” it won’t be by a putsch or a march on Washington, but by infiltrating America’s elite institutions in the same way that the Frankfurt School “New Left” hijacked this nation.
This is absolutely right. Right thinking people need to follow the enemy’s example and become:
Attorneys/Judges
Academics
Doctors
Engineers
We need to BECOME the elites... not try to wage street battles against the current ones.
It does matter. It matters more than anything. Be a man and tell the truth. Stand up for your own people without apology or obfuscatory weasel-words.
Don’t be a huckster or a pimp and say, “I’m a victim of ‘racism’ too, so give me a seat at the victim’s banquet,” and don’t pin your hopes and passions on losers like Breivik just because they sometimes happen to hit worthwhile targets.
Want to know why the Right always loses? This is a good case in point. It’s a minority of people screaming that they want their victim rights too, who otherwise have zero political consciousness whatsoever.
You’re not Christians, you’re not National Socialists, you’re not back to the land agrarians, you’re just blase cosmopolitans who don’t like Moslems. That’s a historically irrelevant perspective writ large.
Vikernes and Bard Faust were the black metallers who really stood out as thoughtful people, and its not accidental or owing to a mere superficial charisma that young people in Europe and America developed a lot of genuine respect for them.
Burning down the stave churches is difficult to justify IMO, but it was a very powerful gesture in terms of cultural propaganda. Varg’s point was that the blase, passively nihilistic, pointless ethical culture of Norway and most Western countries could be attributed to the continued existence of a denatured, vestigial Christianity that had been shorn of its tragic and sanguinary features and reduced to a dull and pragmatic egalitarianism that nobody actually believed in. Varg made the point when he was awaiting trial for murder that Norway lacked the will to punish people for criminality because its at base a nihilistic society, and this was very insightful.
So Vikerners and Burzum became iconic because Vikernes was very cued in to the ‘spirit of the age’ – and his art and ‘propaganda by deed’ gave form to things that were on a lot of young peoples’ minds already. This is why Varg remains culturally relevant and stands as an enigmatic figure who continues to intrigue people.
Breivik on the other hand, as has been pointed out before, has the psychological profile of a workplace killer or a school shooter. He was a failed businessman who spent the last few years playing video games and ruminating over grudges while cloistered in his mother’s house. When he finally snapped, he decided to incorporate an irrelevant propaganda narrative, gleaned from American Zionist news editorialists, into his murder campaign as a purported justification for the carnage. Breivik’s views don’t make any sense, nor do they have any resonance with anybody, other than some Nationalists who are simply happy to see liberals and communists being punished.
The very fact that he relied so much on American media and video games to craft his “ideology” is a testament to how totally alienated he was from his own culture and the on the ground situation in his own country.
Pierce recognized the importance of drawing warriors to his cause as well as thinkers. American WNs fall into a trap of aping the Establishment’s conceited (and perfidious) disdain for violence. Political movements need soldiers as well as thinkers.
Yukio Mishima alluded often to the fact that Yakuza were the only Samurai left in the post-War years. The rank and file of any movement of the Right worth its salt isn’t going to consist of professors and country club denizens.
‘Hobbyist’ as Pierce employed the term quite clearly describes a personality that is common, not just to dissident circles.
People who identify with dissident thought, enjoy reading books, and achieve some kind of catharsis by seeking out associations with like-minded people yet are averse to sacrifice or action are engaging in a benign hobby. This is to be juxtaposed with actual political dissent, which is (by definition) deadly serious and not a hobby or a kind of social recreation.
Pierce wanted cells of highly motivated, resourceful, radicalized people to organize and ultimately implement political violence when the time came for it. In other words, Pierce wanted an NS version of Hamas to develop in America. He didn’t want to help organize a beer swilling redneck gun club that allowed guys to escape from their wives on the weekends and he didn’t want to maintain some Trekkie book club for historical re-enactors to discuss fantasies and counterfactuals.
A ‘hobbyist’ is a man who has hobbies. A political soldier is a dissident radical who is prepared to take violent action to implement an objective. The difference is clear.
Buchanan was pandering to people in their 50s and 60s who lost the culture war of 1968.
The ‘tea party’ can go fuck itself. It’s full of chickenhawks and women who take lots of medications.
The hard right should be tailoring its message to young guys who had an awakening after being sent to Iraq, or guys who lost faith in the process after finding their work outsourced and being rendered quasi-destitute, and smart kids with great technical acumen who are barely getting paid a living wage upon whom the system absolutely depends (and whom it would like to render obsolete by way of H1B coolies and outsourcing).
That’s one of the (admittedly scant) lessons of Hitler and the NSDAP that is applicable to contemporary America. Counter-revolution requires violent young Turks who have been brutalized by liberal democracy and/or their forebears’ institutions of authority.
It doesn’t require senile old people or system-loyal curmudgeons who simply tolerate the presence of hostiles in the corridors of power because they already got their ‘piece of the pie.’
It doesn’t make any sense to suggest that German engineering firms are not performing adequately unless certain racial groups are represented in upper management. The “fuss” is that its another example of caustic ideological strictures undermining economic activity and national life.
I’ve always been of the belief that a sort of general strike by the White man would resolve these issues most expeditiously... when some hack politico ascends to the helm of a large company like Siemens and demands compliance with Communist doctrines from his charges, the “White, German, male” employees should simply refuse to produce for him. I’d like to see the German state struggle to fill the void with half-educated mocha-colored tokens and girls... high comedy.
Are Liberals aware of how exceptionally unfunny their insults/digs attempts at satire are? What is even the context of “shit lord”? It reminds me of the sorts of things 4th graders (who’ve not yet acquired a strong command of language – yet wish to emulate the ‘rough talk’ they’ve gleaned eavesdropping on their fathers, uncles – nor learned how to properly curse) say to one another on the playground during contentions kickball matches.
The whole point of trash-talk is that it parodies actual traits of the target. Why “Shit Lord”? It’s a random amalgamation, like “Cunt Duke” or “Fuck President.”
‘Epic Fail,’ as the youngsters would say.
Jared Taylor is playing a role, similar to the one (as Alain De Benoist pointed out) that Le Pen played in France.
White peoples have a cultural problem, a theological problem, and a political problem – and only addressing one of these things to the exclusion of the other(s) isn’t really constructive.
Establishment media claims that its a moral imperative to homogenize all peoples into a world society in which nobody is bound by organic or spontaneous or customary social arrangements, nobody is particularly religious, and nobody considers their own fortunes in life or in history in any terms other than as an individual worker/consumer with discrete personal interests. It essentially calls upon everybody to adopt the perspective of an impressionable child or a labor camp denizen or (at best) a relatively well-off cosmopolitan tourist. Taylor’s response is essentially just a binary kind of perfunctory opposition that nonetheless scrupulously avoids addressing problems like belief structures, religious commitment, the violence that capitalism does to cultures, and Jewish power in Western societies. He just calls for open-ended and ambiguous solidarity among White peoples because the alternative is worse.
Taylor’s view is essentially pointless. It’s superficially appealing because realistic discussion of race is taboo in mainstream media, but superficially appealing things aren’t necessarily “good” things. Big Macs are good to hungry people. Hookers look good under cover of darkness to people who’ve been in the barracks for a long time. There’s no particular reason why a pointless, cosmopolitan, atheistic society of White people is better than the same kind of equally pointless but multiracial society that is promoted by the ruling class. It only appears to be some kind of authentic dissent because controlled media is so total that any breach with its moral dogmas seems comparatively correct.
Liberalism presides over the end of history because the people are convinced that its not violent; and to ordinary people (proles and overworked outer-party strivers) it isn’t. It provides hedonistic incentives however, and people come to need such things to facilitate their own psychic survival in the absence of God and/or historically situated purpose.
The only way to kill Liberalism/ZOG is to force it to drop its mask and be violent; thus laying bare its contradictions and its anti-human orientation. Moslems are attempting to achieve this at present, and the US State Dept. is responding in bizarre ways to manage the problem (as Michael Scheuer documents regularly).
The next 20-30 years will be interesting, nonetheless.
The real “lefty powers” are the people who conquered the academy and the learned professions in the 60s and 70s. The Frankfurt School faithful waged an ideological war on all fronts... they did not dance around in clothes bought with Dad’s credit card at “Hot Topic,” show off their nutsac for media cameras, and play Halloween dress up. In really matters not that hundreds or thousands of people turn out for these stupid rallies, as there is not ideological foundation for their antics other than libertinism and a desire to “be seen” and strike a rebel pose.
When I was in Law School, I used to converse with a lot of hardline Marxist types and Black Nationalist types who were my classmates... these guys were “the enemy” in my estimation, but we would play chess or have drinks together because we both recognized common enemies. I don’t know what most of these guys went on to do with their lives, but I think that some of them probably went on to relatively presitigous positions in l aw or academia... THAT is a genuine insurrgency... and that is what I am talking about. I am not talking about 55 year olds flashing their titties and gutterpunks shreiking about “the racist war, man.” We need to cultivate a tactical union with other elements that oppose the Globalist political cartel... not by “marching” and other histrionics, but by introducing memes, learned treatises, ideological discourse etc. that reflects a desire to cultivate a popular front of both Left and Right against the current regime. Fuck the m(asses)... we want the intellectuals.
I agree in part with your diagnosis, but all anybody can do is tailor their own conduct. Let’s be honest here... the weenies, the “stay at home Dads,” and the perpetual adolescents aren’t going to inherit the Earth... in fact, they’re basically sowing the seeds of their own demise. I think it’s incumbant to secede as much as is feasible from the prevailing culture and do what must be done to perpetuate Tradition and associate with other like-minded people.
It doesn’t matter what the herd is doing... I only think about them when I feel like contemplating a real-time atrocity exhibit. Long term, they lose. Who wins is what is up for grabs, and they aren’t in the running for victory.
Glenn Miller was and is an utterly insignificant guy – as was/is Von Brunn and all the others like him who are held out as examples of “right wing terrorists.”
Discussing him as a political actor in any context validates (however unintentionally) System propaganda narratives and discourse hegemony.
System media suggests that when criminals, psychopaths, insane people etc. commit crimes, they are “right wing terrorists” who are involved in some sort of violent resistance against the govt, a movement that purportedly represents the distilled essence of pro white or right wing or racialist thought/political orientation.
Examined factually, it would be like claiming that alien creatures are trying to unseat the government and must be actively combatted by executive response on grounds that John Hinckley suggested that aliens communicate with him and he thusly was motivated in part to attempt to murder the President.
The way to combat System narratives is to reject these parameters as illegitimate – both because that is how propaganda is effectively resisted in tactical terms and because the enforced parameters of discourse are in fact prima facie illegitimate.
Ideology must be fluid while still retaining its core principles. I think that a Europe under the Imperium of the Third Reich, a BUF ruled UK, a mighty Japanese Empire, and Charles Lindbergh as President of the USA in the 1940s would have been grand. However, this is all counterfactual sort of indulgence.
The world of the 21st century is different than the world of 1939... as much as I recognize that Fascism was the remedy to the decrepitude wrought by destiny, the clock cannot be turned back, and it is foolhardy to try to emulate the past. That is merely historical anachronism/re-enactment... it’s not politics.
What I am getting at is that the reason why the rank and file labor types don’t respond to Marxism because “Communist Manifesto” is arcane. Analagously, when I am discussing race with bourgeoise types I don’t cite Yockey, I appeal to 21st century sensibilities.
You guys will enjoy greater success if you tailor your program according to Marxist-Leninist tenets while at the same time addressing the contemporary landscape in contemporary language.
I didn’t say the South was backward, I said it was ILLITERATE.
They go hand in hand. Illiteracy becomes normative when the natural elite are killed off, subjugated or otherwise removed.
Southern culture became degraded after they were subjugated. You might also notice a dearth of meaningful cultural output (hard sciences and cinema excluded) after the Bolsheviks decided to decapitate Russian society by exterminating everybody of high breeding and pedigree.
I’m not any kind of expert but I am a student of history. Southern culture wasn’t known for “high art” prior to the War, but neither was it hobbled by a reputation for illiteracy and ignorance.
If anything, a lot of Northern progressive types claimed that the South was led a gang of unreconstructed Tories who were inimical to the ‘new America’ on grounds of their elitist values.
Lee is overrated by autistic war-fan idiots in pop history (Jackson carried the war effort as did men like NB Forrest and guerrillas like Quantrill and Mosby) but he’s a significant figure, as juxtaposed with Grant. The South was led by Anglican aristocrats. The North was commanded by alcoholic quartermasters. Draw your own conclusions. I stand by the observation that, “the South is dumb” is a conceptual bias.
Don’t be so sure. The Anglo-Saxon elite, unlike the majority of their mouthbreathing charges, don’t operate under delusions about politics... they understand and appreciate that Jews are a unique and insular population that harbors political aspirations. However, there is a certain subtle hubris that is characteristic of Anglo-Prots that only those of us within that tradition can really apprehend. Our leadership caste really does believe that they have a historical mission to immanentize the eschaton in the form of a terrestrial utopia... and they think that Jewish politicking (however aggressive or caustic) is just a crude and atavistic character trait of the lower orders that can be remedied overtime. They also think themselves indispensible, and believe that they will never be forced to surrender the reigns of power, despite the fact that their dominance is becoming utterly vestigial relative to other factions.
I think Anglo-Saxons cannot imagine a world without their tutelage and guidance... I believe it rather unthinkable to them that the Others would ever willfully and wantonly aim to deprive them of their sovereign authority. It would be like a badly behaved yet precocious child murdering his father.
Lee was a disengaged aristocrat and Jefferson Davis was intellectually limited. Thus, the “Southern Cause” was never satisfactorily articulated, according to Northerners.
At the same time, it didn’t need to be.
I remember some years ago when Iraq was mired in open civil war, al-Sadr made some statement to the effect that the Salafists were “dumb.” Yeah, maybe – but it was Zarqawi and his men who were terrorizing ZOG to death. Sometimes learned men of intellectual pedigree aren’t what is required to advance political objectives.
The case for the South I would suppose in the case made by Walker Percy. Presumably, the South is the blood and soil culture of the white man in the New World.
I have reservations about that viewpoint, but its not entirely incorrect. What the South has going for it is historical lineage and cultural stewardship. It doesn’t purport to be “accomplished” in mercantile or scientific endeavors. At the same time, its not clear how the South would have developed were it not conquered. People of better stock might have become pre-eminent as it developed into a modern state.
There were Federalists who believed that America was corrupted from its inception by poor founding stock. That’s probably true. America would have been better off had it been conquered by Prussians rather than Puritans and Cavaliers and exiled Ulstermen.
SJWs aren’t literal Puritans of the New Model Army, they’re degenerate moderns who are the vestigial descendants of a peculiar breed of Dissenters who colonized New England.
I didn’t think this was controversial. The people who sided with the Red savages during King Phillips War, who waged a “moral” crusade against Confederate slavery, who demanded female suffrage, who were outraged by the Darlan Affair as in their view the New Dealers didn’t go far enough in their anti-Fascism, who now claim that Sodomy is ‘marriage,’ etc. came from somewhere. They didn’t just spawn out of nothing one day after 1968. [...]
In the sense that they ascribe to a radical Theology that considers all who oppose it to be irredeemable Enemies of morality, right and a Providentially ordained “progress” of historical development, yes they are.
Is the nuance of political thought, the process by which human ideologies/conceptual horizons develop sort of lost on you guys?
When Sam Francis suggested that William Kristol owed an intellectual debt to Trotsky, did it register with you that F. was taking notice of a peculiar tendency within Jewish thought that believed in a kind of historical augury and the inevitability of globalist humanism/socialism, or did you vociferously disagree because you believed Francis was claiming Kristol had a drab uniform with a Red Star on it in his closet that he planned to don in leading a military assault on Warsaw?
Amendment I and II didn’t prevent Sam Francis from getting fired blacklisted or Randy Weaver from having his family massacred. If elite power (government or private actor) determines you’re a ‘racist,’ you’ll be destroyed promptly – America is a more politically complicated culture than East Germany was or the PRC is today; it destroys people without merely resorting to brute lawlessness and/or locking people in jail for political reasons (although it does do that too – ask Matt Hale or a Guantanamo detainee if their Due Process rights have been scrupulously honored by their antagonists – that is if they are allowed to receive mail at all).
I don’t know about that. Space is somewhat terrifying for other reasons than just the mortal risk or rocket travel. Mere “risk” doesn’t make something ballsy. It’s risky to bang a gram of dope at one time or to run around on a busy street with your eyes closed. I don’t think those are “ballsy” things though.
What’s scary about space is two prospects. The first being ending up marooned in space in some rocket-pod sarcophagus where your dead corpse will end up floating in equally dead space or orbiting some alien planetoid for millions of years – as almost befell the Apollo 13 astronauts. The second being that space is basically a giant void that is huge and devoid of sensory and psychological reference points to such a degree that spending too much time there is likely mind-destroying. The Ride lady wasn’t at risk of either of these things, because they weren’t real possibilities by 1984 and shuttle missions weren’t planetary shots like the Apollo program and its (cancelled) progeny.
Basically, Uncle Sam started sending pussy-munching science ladies and Phd nerds into space when space travel became “safe” – when it was truly experimental, it required fighter pilots and pioneers and glory hounds and some genuinely crazy people.
There’s no reason to unduly shit on Sally Ride, but it gets tiresome after awhile to hear about these kinds of narratives. [...]
Armstrong and the other early astronauts were selected by an exhaustive process that was almost literally impossible for aspirants to pass muster for. It was, like many other aspects of the Cold War space program in its original incarnation, reflective in basic ways of the program’s origins in the Third Reich.
The iconic book/film The Right Stuff is so named because it was posited that virtually no man had “the right stuff” to be selected. The reasoning behind this was pragmatic: can these men (or any men) survive space travel and its presumed rigors; and symbolic: these men (White, Christian, superb physical specimens, remarkably high IQs, impeccable social morals, family men who also exhibited professional excellence in ultra-elite endeavors) were considered the genetic elite of American manhood – prepared, ultimately, for space-based combat against Communism.
Make no mistake – the selection process of the “Mercury Seven” was framed entirely by unapologetically heroic and eugenic criteria.
America isn’t really comparable to other New World societies (Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, etc.)
America historically was viewed as a place that very much exploited immigrants and didn’t really utilize them for any grand purpose other than to feed the insatiable demand for cheap labor to build and sustain infrastructure – Upton Sinclair was a commie, but he wasn’t really off-base in observing that nobody at the turn of the century was interested in making immigrants into “Americans.” Sure, there was a lot of Tammany Hall-style rhetoric about “making Americans” but this didn’t bear out; unless you count the creation of political machines that were crafted to manage the labor spoils system as part of a Progressive plan of societal development.
One reason the 1924 Act passed pretty easily wasn’t simply because of “Nativism” – that was part of it certainly, but there also simply wasn’t any utility to continuing to allow immigration. In quantitative terms, it was costing the government money and there weren’t jobs for these people. It wasn’t making anybody wealthy.
America in some ways was the most “racist” society that existed in the modern age – that might be an ethically poor or foolish or unsustainable model of a state, but it was in fact a very deeply held belief until very recently.
I can’t speak about Canada, but in America’s case, the impetus for post-1965 immigration overhauling was political, and it remains political. America was fashioning itself as the leader of the post-Nuremberg ‘world society.’ We don’t allow mass immmigration b/c we need more ditchdiggers or because it makes the government rich to import poor people. This is very bad, however its politically rational. In contrast, it doesn’t make any sense for states like England or Canada or France to be trying to emulate this process. What these second-rate powers do lacks real political importance, which raises a lot of questions about their political cultures.
Yes, that’s absolutely true – but the point is that its a political project.
America isn’t getting “richer” by importing millions of poor people, nor is America somehow unable to meet its labor demands with its domestic population of 300 million people.
Immigration is only really profitable if a country requires a hyper-exploitable labor force due to its tertiary economy (such as countries that rely heavily on mining or what have you and don’t have diversified markets), if a country requires cheap(er) labor for huge infrastructural projects (like America did in the 19th century), or if a country is genuinely underpopulated (very rare in the 21st century).
So I believe we’re in agreement – 20th century American immigration has always been a political imperative, not an economic one or a conspiracy of ‘big business.’
— The LibertineI truly hate to sound like the PC immigration apologists who begin their opposition to reasonable immigration standards by saying, “But we’re a nation of immigrants... ,” BUT, we really are a nation of immigrants. It was great when most of the immigrants were from Europe.
This is ahistorical. Even Sam Huntington (a guy your team really, really, likes) acknowledged that regularly. People founding and conquering a wilderness aren’t “immigrants.” To call them that renders the term “immigrant” meaningless. It’s like saying Prussians were “immigrants” because they conquered Prussia and ethnically cleansed aborigines or saying that Japan is “a nation of immigrants” because the dominant population of Japan is something other than Ainu.
— The LibertineOK, fine, they were “whatever fucking word we want to use for average people who moved away from where they were born and raised to take their chances in a place that was entirely new to them.” Care to split that hair any finer?
I’m not splitting hairs. You’re telling me that people who conquer a wilderness and create new ecologies are the same as some guy who takes a boat to a prosperous country he bears no relationship to in order to conduct business are the same thing. That doesn’t make any sense.
I mean, Alexander Hamilton and Meyer Lansky are the same right? They’re just guys who came from other places.
Tea Party candidacies and the like seem to be a media manufactured “controversy” more than anything. From the talking points of both Fox News and their controlled media counterparts on outlets like MSNBC, there does not even seem to be a discernible platform or organization that can be identified as a “Tea Party” movement, save for a general malaise about the current Executive that is being loosely capitalized upon by a slew of public relations personnel who manage congressional campaigns; and the typical bellyaching common to senior citizen voters about the scope and liquidity of entitlements. It’s a leaner mixture than the Wallace phenomenon of 1968, in other words, and its even more languid than the tepid hostility towards the “new” mode of Federalism expressed by Goldwater supporters in the election cycle previous to Wallace’s rabble rousing.
We’ve already discussed the Glenn Beck phenomenon to death, so there is no reason to re-hash it; but its part and parcel of a general trend towards infantilization, absurdism, and blatant opinion management and manufacture by the managerial elite and their System allies in controlled media. This kind of nonsense became commonplace it seems during interim elections during Clinton’s tenure, when the public was treated to color commentary by pimpish clowns like James Carville and Dick Morris on the electoral process – men whose purported dash and flair was accompanied by an open admission that the election cycle was in fact nothing more than an entertainment venture aimed at detecting and then cultivating the electability of candidates (apparently randomly) drafted for political campaigns on grounds of no other criteria than their ability to interface with media in a way that allowed them to flatter the vanity of and emotionally agitate certain narrow electoral demographics sufficiently to incentivize voting and to present a bundle of unappealing and largely unintelligible policy initiatives in such a way that nominal consent could be produced in the course of “contested” elections. The manner in which this process came to be discussed, in other words, was tantamount to the way in which a film critic might discuss the ability of a producer to create an emotionally immersive experience for an average and unassuming viewer or the way in which a marketing consultant might dispassionately describe the manner in which a psychological “work” might stir some ambiguous desire or insecurity in potential consumers to a sufficient degree that they might be inclined to part with their money.
This probably represents the culmination of the “anti-political” project initiated by liberal ideologues in the 19th century, realized in earnest after the Second World War; with the final obstacle to such a re-conditioning of voter thought about identity and policy implications thereof (Stalinism) being relegated to the ashbin of history. In short, the preclusion of great power military conflict that would call for mass sacrifice through conscription by historical developments.
What this means at this juncture for Whites, and what Samuel Francis for all of his insight failed to realize, is that a “middle American revolt” wouldn’t really be conceivable at present because it lacks a context, there is an attendant absence of any elites who would benefit by seeking out the clientage of White dissenters for any political purpose, and (most importantly) the fact that despite now-permanent circumstances of low-intensity systemic crisis in America, Whites are neither desperate nor despondent enough to resort to self-help en masse through violent means. It would simply be Phyrric at this time and place for Whites to begin waging civil war on hostiles, be them other insular groups with whom they share territory or the government under which they severally reside.
One thing William Pierce was correct about is that the only way in which circumstances would change to suit the aspirations of both reactionary Conservatives (whatever remains of their ranks that is) and dissident White Nationalists would be the initiation of open war/revolutionary violence against the several apparatus that maintain and enforce multiracial socialism/authoritarian federalism. Pierce stipulated that in his lifetime, the national mood would likely not reach such sanguinary proportions, and he was right, but he was right for the wrong reasons. He didn’t anticipate the degree to which Whites could be and would be conditioned to think in ahistorical and non-political terms, by way of “educational” and media saturation with monumental ethical and moral ideological precepts that would come to literally shape and alter the manner in which they conceptualized their own world of social existence.
Ask the average White, even an intelligent one, to describe political reality or what his basic concerns are about the state of government in his own words and he’ll refer to media concepts and moral precepts as his starting points and parameters. He’s literally been deformed psychologically by propaganda and (increasingly) senseless information that is tailored to preclude the formation of meaningful political ideas. It can almost be thought of in terms of asking a child to do math problems who has only been taught letters and never been allowed to use a calculator of even view an arithmetic textbook.
It’s notable if for no other reason than that every other Presidential candidate in the history of the country has been scrutinized relentlessly for familial foibles and oddities by the media establishment and the partisan commentariat.
Reagan was taken to task for (supposedly) associating with actor friends of loose morals, and much was made of his son’s association with radicals and organized crime affiliated thugs. Rockefeller was accused (rightly or wrongly) of stepping out on his wife and being a callous cad toward the fairer sex. Clinton was painted as a careerist who “dodged the draft.”
In reality, none of these men listed had odd family arrangements or habits, with the exception of Clinton who actually was a cad, – yet they were portrayed as having skeletons in their closet.
Obama on the other hand is some weirdo immigrant/perpetual grad student/“community organizer” who is the son of a philandering bum and a disturbed teenaged girl who was tended to in infancy by emotionally disturbed people who harbored delusions about their own sex. Yet there’s a curious silence afoot.
This is remarkable, whether you acknowledge it or not. Obama’s father being a Red functionary in a battleground Cold War theater alone is remarkable. I think that’s a little more significant than Bill Clinton telling the draft board to fuck off while he was a student at Oxford or Ronnie Reagan going to cocktail parties in his youth where astrologers or dopeheads were present.
— REDAll sell outs should be hung.
Probably, but Americans (despite all the talk about the proud heritage of armed yeomanry and robust popular hostility to government) have an abiding faith in authority and are uniquely reluctant to transgress against it.
— REDName an American other than Shays who ever aimed to overthrow his government.
Americans assign more, not less, moral authority to their government than other peoples; even though pop-history alleges the opposite. Somebody, maybe it was Linder, claimed this is rooted in ethnic (Germanic) tendencies common to White America. It’s an unprovable assertion, essentially polemical, but its more than superficially persuasive.
Don’t place any bets in favor of angry men marching their Congressmen to the gallows in this country.
Americans seem to deliberately confuse homogeneity with rigid conformity. It’s detectable in historical treatments of seminal events, especially wars. There is an unimaginative claim that pervades discussions of the 20th century in history books published in this country that assign a kind of primitive collectivism to hierarchical and honor bound societies like antebellum Germany and Japan, in purported contrast to Anglo-American individualism.
This is misguided, for a number of reasons; some of which are deeply rooted in long historical trends in both countries, some of which are bound up with then-contemporary circumstances.
Simply stated, authoritarian and homogeneous societies tend to revere and enforce, as you acknowledged, a kind of subdued formalism in social life. This both tends to confer a pre-eminence on inner mental states and it raises expectations that men of a peculiar station and status will act decisively and even dramatically when called upon to render a decision.
There is something inherently individualistic, as well as nihilistic, about groups of men determining that they have a duty to craft dynamic solutions to national problems and exhibiting contempt for caution in doing so. There is something, in contrast, remarkably staid and collectivist about men maintaining fictions about the basic equality of all members of the polity and holding plebiscites and seemingly endless discussions over the challenges of the day.
In other words, democrats claiming that traditional peoples eschew individualism is an unreasonable contradiction. There is nothing more rigidly conformist than a society of people who identify the ordering principle of social and political life as an abstract egalitarian creed and who scrupulously avoid deviating from its precepts so as not to mark themselves in the eyes of their fellows as anarchists, fantasists, miscreants, bigots, or impractical romantics.
America in the 21st century is probably the most conformist society that has existed in the modern era.
— KeystoneSo Paul needs to stand on principle and be dull, while his ideas could be brought to wider appeal by someone else? If you believe all people who don’t share your views are morons, you wouldn’t make it as a Paul campaign manager... .wait, you might.
I know this might come as a shock to you, but electoral politics isn’t CSI: Miami, its not celebrity entertainment, and its not professional wrestling. Its purpose is not to be entertaining and exciting rather than “dull.” Its purpose is to select the best men for leadership positions. Other than in times of war, administrative politics is usually “dull” to most people.
Edmund Burke was a “dull” man in his private life and he was known to antagonize parliamentarians with his trivial knowledge of law and procedure. Serious people understand that men of government aren’t always dynamic, such is the nature of political genius.
It’s too bad Red Foxx has shuffled off this mortal coil, otherwise you and your friends might get a chance to vote him into high office and clap like a special ed class while doing so to send those dull, mean, White men a message about having fun.
You people are basically (with a handful of exceptions) extremely Liberal sorts who occasionally bellyache about niggers to achieve cathartic release. Truth be told, Zubenelgenubi is one of the more illiberal posters on this forum and she is a Jewish female... I think that tells us something about where most of the people here fall on the political spectrum.
Ultimately, people who value traditional life don’t think that men and women are the same, they don’t think that perennial social relationships are somehow erroneous and in need of correction, and they don’t think that public offices exist to provide therapeutic relief to unintelligent female voters or ego-driven special interest groups.
POTUS, more than other heads of state, for better or worse is a prime symbol of national sovereignty... the Constitution reflects this in the expressed powers allocated to the office. People who miss the Old Republic hold the office of the President in a great deal of esteem... it was once an office to be revered that was in antiquity held by warriors poets and killer angels, inventors and philosophers, inspired visionaries and committed servants of the people. It’s utterly profane to genuine Conservatives to see the office exploited in the service of callow female vanity.
Then again, you’re a White man over 50... and like your candidate McKane123123, you probably prioritize things like having pussy to stare at in the office rather than guarding your childrens’ heritage and taking life seriously.
The absurd party apparatus to which you have offered unconditional fealty is essentially nothing more than a brand label defined by callow machismo, posturing, jingoism, and thoughtless rhetoric in lieu of disciplined thought and responsible executive decision-making yet you’re affronted by all of these things, eh? You must shoulder a heavy burden of self-loathing... like that experienced by an otherwise pious man who awakens in the morning next to a painted harlot of the Palin variety.
This will probably be lost on you, but the reason why many Americans began identifying as “Conservative” after the trauma of the cultural revolution of the 1960s (and the attendant destruction of the White way of life in the New World) is because they demanded an alternative to the banality, vulgarity, predation, and unadulterated social anarchy that was foisted upon them by the ersatz religion of ‘equality.’ They demanded that the political process once again acknowledge the American community and offer an unconditional commitment to defend essential traditions from unrelenting attack by an emerging and emboldened hostile elite. The most essential being, obviously, pater familias.
Your depravity becomes fully apparent when you glibly dismiss objections to the presence of women in public life. What you are telling us is that it is proper for national elections and public policy forums to function as some sort of therapeutic apparatus for deracinated, atomized persons who can only cultivate attention for public interest if they can achieve some kind of catharsis by way of personal identification with a “glamour” candidate. In short, you’re telling grown men to accept the fairer sex as “leaders” and hoping that such potential “leaders” will inspire sufficient lewdness in otherwise apathetic and disinterested voters to visit booths in November.
Your “conservative” party is a Jewish military-industrial cadre with a PR department that specializes in therapeutic television and you have the balls to accuse your opponents on this forum of being a gaggle of rubes who are especially vulnerable to salacious marketing? I’m don’t wish to be personally insulting, but when exhibited by a man of your age, that sort of profound lack of seriousness is quite an unflattering characteristic. [...]
As is typical. These ambitious broads who ultimately get appointed as gasharatchiks have cookie-cutter preferences. Somewhere between the time that they get too old for beauty contests and the time that they perfect their fellatio-for-job-promotion bartering skills they come up with chic brand labels for their progeny like “Tiger,” “Chance,” or “Michael” as a girl’s name.
— KamandiIf you’re advocating in ‘08 for a return to the gold standard, you’re a fringe player.
I don’t get involved in electoral politics. However, I do stipulate Paul is eccentric, and his campaign is Quixotic, but I understand his point about the Gold standard.
I suppose what I objected to was Keystone’s claim that the Bush/Clinton factions are guiding the Union in a reasoned capacity, in contrast to people like Paul who are “nuts.”
I will say that the character of these policy debates is informed by the status quo... and Americans are averse to change. They’ve been cautious to a fault since FDR’s administration.
You probably remember better than I do (and I’m not comparing Reagan to Ron Paul), but during the 1980 campaign primary eason, Bush 41 alleged that Reagan’s supply-side sensibilities were unprecedented in the post-War era and “nuts.” I tend to be rather suspicious when Beltway insiders and career company men allege that fiscal policy shifts are unworkable or crazy... they tend to have a stake in the current enterprise that precludes good judgement on these things.
What exactly did Reagan do during his tenure? He put America on a mobilization/war footing not seen since the Eisenhower admin. (but without the nastiness of an actual war) and played the President on TV with the thematic trappings of 1950s Americana. I think there was in fact a popular backlash (albeit a largely insignificant and superficial one) against the corrosion of the culture that was expressed in the prevailing Neoconservatism of the era that was no longer palatable by the 1990s.
I made the point that the early 90s were an odd time for race relations... I think the reason why is because the political lines were unclear for a brief period. No Reagan + No “Red Menace” = White American confusion.
This of course was quickly remedied by Clinton’s Hobbesian liberalism, which was buttressed by a friendly 24 hour news cycle that convinced Keystone (and everybody else) that we were busily perfecting the Open Society with minority set asides/transfer payments, the erosion of Amendment II, military humanism overseas, and opportunities for wimmin.
George W. Bush tried to revive the Reagan ‘80s (as has the entire RNC) because its the tried and true product... but they’ve failed, haven’t they?
The 21st century isn’t the 80s Redux... its a logical progression, but its different. [...]
— KeystoneThe Clinton presidency was a good thing.
Compared to what? Clinton nostalgia was always a curious thing to me, as the Clinton admin. was qualitatively indistinguishable from that of either Bush... save for bubble prosperity that proved to be fledging.
The “first Black president” incarcerated a record number of Black offenders, his “peacemaking” involved bombing Iraq an average of once a week and devastating the city of Belgrade and practically sparking a shooting war with Ivan over a worthless peninsula in central Europe, and his “progressive” ideas on federal law enforcement involved deploying tanks and Federal troops with “shoot first” clearance to lay siege to a community of religious eccentrics.
Does the fact that he had a good PR staff and the Wide Stancers don’t make you feel better about the world? [...]
— neo-niccoloThe 90s stick out for me as the pinnacle of western triumphalism since the Wall fell only months before this decade started... ..a time when Fukuyama’s thesis about “The End of History and the Last Man” seemed like a sure bet.
It was pure hubris. Hacks like Fukuyama and Huntington made the best seller list by recycling and dumbing down Continental theory (Spengler, Kojève, et. al.) and putting a cowardly optimistic, Whiggish-historicist spin on it to the delight of subscribers to “Foreign Affairs” and middlebrow types who devour pop history like cotton candy.
I think there is a difference between feudal Junkers and officers in contemporary armed forces. A traditional army grooms nobles for leadership... a contemporary military force is an equal opportunity employer with shoot to kill clearance.
I remember getting drunk with my brother after he returned from many years of being cloistered in the Marine Corps... it was like talking to some jerkoff with an MBA who has been brain damaged by power-point presentations but who has also been trained to kill large numbers of people.
Your hero John McCain isn’t a gentleman officer or a lord of the manor... he’s a guy who dropped high explosives on people at high speeds and later ended up being tortured by little insect people who had been programmed with some broken-English facsimile of Bolshevism.
Most traditionalists feel that way. I’ve read the defenders of the ancien regime (I think Murras (sp?) first among them) described as “social pacifists yet national militarists.” It’s one thing to be moved by the “beautiful crossfire of hatred and love” that attends warring and to revere the vitality that it inculcate within culture... its another thing to cheer on paramilitary “police actions” that are initiated under the auspices of legalism, “human rights,” or “justice” and which lead to moral and material bankruptcy without elevating the national culture or the people one iota. All we have these days is the latter.
I come from a military family, and I never desired to serve in the armed forces (even after I was no longer a cripple) because I had no desire to be a policeman. There are no soldiers in this desert we call a country, there are only policeman and mercenaries.
It’s not a nuance of inflection that you’re unaccustomed to... that clip actually is creepy.
“Conservative” radio these days is sort of like porno... the market is way over-saturated with it, and the consumer requires more and more extreme content in order to come away feeling like he got an adequate fix. Reagan, Michael Savage and the rest of them are competing to stand out by showcasing they’re “tough” cred... whether its the former doing a Beria-in-a-yarmulke imitation and calling for the liquidation of anti-Zionists or the latter frothing at the mouth about homos and bathhouses.
About 15 years ago, there really was no “conservative” radio... so Limbaugh and Liddy really had a niche and would make news when they made outrageous statements... the difference being that Liddy was actually funny now and again and interesting to tune into. I remember when he made some waves after the Ruby Ridge incident by suggesting that people stockpile armour piercing rounds so as to guarantee and even match against the ATF if they ever show up to serve a warrant.
I suppose what people lose sight of is that the goys who back Neoconservatism are ideologically and intellectually bankrupt... all they’ve got is phony tough guy posturing and military fetishism. I think on some level the Zionists probably find them to be somewhat embarrassing to the cause... but hey, they’re nothing if not useful, right?
That’s one of the more grating things about election season. The water cooler banter of image-conscious upwardly mobile types about which porno politico they “support” is bad enough... but the immigrant creeps, the shtetl refugees and the hyphenated “Americans” arguing over “American values” and lambasting the (presumably) slovenly racial mores of the Republic is too much.
Then again, if you’re a WASP, and you’re not wealthy, election season is sort of like being a kid with a demented millionaire uncle who offers your bicycle to both the Negro kid and the retarded kid on the block for shits and kicks and chuckles while they fight over who has superior title.
Obama’s blackness seems pretty well encrypted to me. It’s pretty clear that the deciders would never permit a freed slave to stake a claim to the White House, so they draft foreigners who qualify under the One Drop Rule. Americans become enraptured by Obama because a) they appreciate the significance of this in no small way and b) they believe in the One Drop Rule.
America is a White supremacist state, but not in the sense that the author wishes to believe that it is. Anglos have a notion that the other races are highly educable children, and can inherit the mantle of civilization (with some attendant, but manageable turmoil) if they are properly taught about Protestant ethics and granted access to appropriate institutions. The exceptions to this Progressive disposition (in America) are Black slave descendants and Red Indians, but the reasons for that are primarily Political rather than dogmatically Racialist in character.
I tend to be suspicious of pundits who critique the treatment of freed Slaves in America by appealing to purported excesses by diverse and varied White regimes in history, from Ferdinand to Hitler... its simply ahistorical and rather outside the scope of the controversy. Germans killing Russians and Jews, Spaniards executing rebellious sectarians, and Danish marauders killing off Angles, Saxons, and Jutes doesn’t tell us anything about race and rights-based jurisprudence in America... unless of course you’re possessed of a staggeringly undisciplined intellect, and I know that you’re not.
I think its pretty clear that Anglo efforts towards civilizing colonial populations (and America’s own Colonial initiatives) was/is both inherently Utopian and born of uniquely Protestant notions related to Salvation and the human condition. Attempting to do away with Politics and forcibly educate subject populations about judicial-remedial structures wouldn’t seem to be ideas that stem from the minds of dark-hearted cynics who fear that the Others are just as bloodthirsty and bestial as they themselves are... it seems rather to be the product of a race of people that is absolutely assured of its unassailably impeccable moral character and convinced of its Messianic status.
Men who harbor a mortal terror of the “savages” set about to kill them all... they don’t invite them to the City on the Hill, teach them to speak English and have them march around in uniforms.
I think that post-Kirk, a lot of Paleocon theorists that have come to be the torchbearers of the movement (Joe Sobran excluded) are essentially reactionaries who pine for the Old Right.
I recall reading Buchanan’s “Right From the Beginning” several years ago and being struck by the fact that he basically echoed the pre-War, America First platform and exhibited a strong affinity for Rothbard’s fiscal policies. He’s basically a Hamiltonian federalist that has an axe to grind with the welfare state and cosmopolitan ethics. That tells me that he doesn’t have many qualms with 1865... other than the way its historical legacy is interpreted and presented by the Establishment.
Buchanan’s waxing and waning with respect to mainstream Republicanism isn’t (IMO) merely cynical politicking on his part... I think he is just that: A Republican. Pat wants to time warp back to 1935 and hit the freeze button on Dr. Who’s pocketwatch... he is not an opponent of the Modern state, and hence, is not a Traditionalist.
Ask yourself why the Paleos so zealously defend the Westphalian paradigm... most of them seem very enamored with the State. It begs the question as to whether or not the lot of them can be considered to be genuine Traditionalists.
— KeystoneRon Paul doesn’t have a shot. He never did.
That is correct, and I’m not a Ron Paul acolyte, but I think you are misreading his significance and his strategy.
Ron Paul’s function is analogous to that of George Wallace. Wallace didn’t believe that he was going to be elected president in 1972... but he knew that he could force the GOP to take on the issue of forced integration by mobilizing the Dixiecrat refugees (political boat-people since 1964, really) into a swing-voting bloc.
Nixon’s policy of “minimal compliance” with Warren court injunctions, his anti-Affirmative Action stance, and his judicial appointees were the indirect legacy of George Wallace’s campaign efforts.
Now of course, Paul is no George Wallace, and Presidential politics have changed markedly in the last 35-odd years, but Ron Paul is a man who poses verboten policy questions while on stage with GOP front-runners and compromises their credibility, regardless of his ineptitude as an inquisitor... that is going to have some sort of effect, even if a small one.
Paul can’t really be called “Leftist” by any measuring stick. He seems to think he is the heir to the Goldwater mantle, and while I disagree with is own self-assessment, he’s certainly not a Left-wing pundit. Paul is a libertarian who broke with the Rand cult and decided to try to shore up credibility with the shattered remnants of what was the Paleoconservative constituency of the 1990s.
As per the question presented by the thread, Paul isn’t running to get elected... he’s attempting to do what Wallace did in ‘68 and ‘72 and what Perot and Buchanan (respectively) tried to pull of in ‘92. That being forcing the GOP to adopt a friendly disposition on a core issue (or set of related issues) so as to capitalize on a swing-vote demographic that might prove dispositive to general election success. Of course, Wallace succeeded in compelling the GOP to become the anti-Bussing (and later) anti-affirmative action party, hence solidifying into perpetuity the former CSA as Republican country. Perot and Pat were hoping to effect an intra-party revolt against Bush 41 (as per NAFTA) but it simply wasn’t in the cards.
This begs the question as to what is Paul’s “wedge issue” that he hopes to force the GOP to incorporate into the platform? Is it Iraq? If so, it’ll never happen. Is it Big Government generally? If so, too broad and the thing has been decided. Is it gun rights? That territory is already staked out and accounted for. In my non-expert opinion (and I’m not somebody who follows the media stage play that passes for politics in America) Paul is wasting his time.
— Sulla the DictatorI have always said that there are superior and inferior cultures. You’re confusing my view with that of race. There are no superior or inferior races.
Of course not... such a claim would run contrary to the sublime wisdom of Franz Boas, FDR, John Dewey, and other “Conservative” luminaries that inform your peculiar ideology.
However, you DO harbor some peculiar fixation with homosexuals... and apparently, that is sufficient for charter membership in the “Konservative Klub” in 2007.
Crony capitalism, Zionism, and a commitment to the endless expansion of the Welfare State bureaucracy is A-OK with you, so long as the proponents “ain’t no fags.”
NeoConservatism seems to have degenerated from an ideological tendency of Trotskyite internationalists and Zionists into a chest-thumping, high-school locker room exercise for rootless cosmopolitans. I’d guess that to the lion’s share of Wide Stance Party voters, it’s a social pose that is tantamount to watching “MMA” events or being a fanboy of Frank Miller, comic-book nerd Machismo flicks.
I think I’ll remain a slavering “Fascist with a history of poor management,” thanx.
‘Conservatives” in America have no actual platform. I don’t think they have since the death of Robert Taft, frankly, and by the time he shuffled off this mortal coil, the Old Right coalition of Hamiltonian isolationists, agrarian Romantics, and Jeffersonian nativists had been essentially defanged by the relentless assault of FDR, Frankfurter and cronies. Really, as Murray Rothbard pointed out, the GOP is simply a party of military capitalism and is devoid of a political bent – the exception being Nixon’s effort to give real political legs to the post-1964 new coalition of White voters but we all know how the Jews and their shabbos goy fellow travelers responded to that effort.
So in essence America has a party that is a defense industry cipher, recently animated by Zionist ideologues, that claims it is interested in public morals because it trots out shrill church ladies like Bachmann who finger wag over things like bad language and sexual hygiene and faux Catholics like Santorum who speak incessantly of “family values” – which in reality translates to a cloying lifestyle preference for a lesser stage of alienation (nuclear family in isolation) in lieu of a greater stage of alienation (unfettered expressive individualism and state promoted sodomy).
A party that is committed to guarding public morals looks like the NSDAP or Hezbollah – pious men under arms enforcing the natural order. There really isn’t a middle ground in the modern state on these kinds of questions.
— Sulla the DictatorWhat is the precident you “white nationalists” cite for your movement? In terms of the SCALE of your goals and the methods you use, what historical ‘political’ movement/group do you feel is closest to yours?
This doesn’t necessarily need to be a group with the same objectives or ideology.
Originally, America’s political and civic culture was underscored by an understanding of America as an Anglo-Saxon, Protestant republic. Later, the American community was opened to European, Christian immigrants of varying denominations (with some substantial friction). When human populations became more mobile in the 20th century, the Traditional American community lobbied to guarantee the maintenance of their unique way of life and such efforts were largely successful (the 1924 Immigration act comes to mind).
The precedent that I invoke is the Traditional understanding of America and its community... as understood by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and essentially every American executive who served in the White House before LBJ.
I think that most reasonable White people agree with me. John Q. Public does not like the fact that there is a burgeoning slum developing in his neighborhood on account of unrestricted, illegal immigration. He does not like it that his kids are subjected to daily assaults upon their heritage and folkways in public schools. He does not like it that luminaries like the Clintons, Teddy Kennedy, Chucky Schumer, and Dick Durbin gleefully announce that he will soon be a minority and get his just deserts. John Q. Public does not like any of this because its an attack upon him, his traditions, his heritage, and his way of life. I believe that I am just another John Q. Public who is really sick of this shit... and this situation is fast approaching critical mass. Mind you, it is not going to culminate in some cataclysmic event or violent revolt, for obvious reasons... but the battle lines are being drawn and the direction in which things are moving cannot be abated. White people are essentially seceding from urban life, and they are identifying less and less with the status quo.
That statement is logically and historically impossible, and even if it weren’t, “immigrant” is a legal status, not a political signifier. Saying “America is a nation of immigrants” is tantamount to saying “America is a nation of licensed drivers” or “America is a nation of persons most of whom are not tax-exempt.” [...]
It isn’t true, though. Huntington took this up by analyzing a catalog of census and demographic data in his final book. His research demonstrated that as of the mid-1990s, approximately half of Americans were descended from a founder population that settled the New World before 1790.
What did these people immigrate to? Were they greeted by a bureaucrat with a tomahawk and facepaint who asked them to fill out residency papers? Or did they conquer a territory that was outside of the world political and legal order and found a new country? [...]
Indians presumably became the pre-eminent population of N. America through a process of land appropriation and annihilation of their rivals.
The ethical basis of Anglo and Spaniard (and later White) land appropriation was a consensus among Europeans that a fundamental distinction existed between civilized men and savages, and that savages weren’t capable of exercising sovereignty or the rule of law over territories that they occupied.
The problem in accepting the countervailing Liberal claim about immigrants is that it denies that political order is always premised upon extra-legal appropriation, conquest, and later formal ordering of telluric spaces. It denies that founding political acts precede legality.
Americans annihilated hostiles and appropriated the land to implement civilization. We can’t lose sight of that and entertain the fiction of “human” community or cooperation in the historical record.
If this woman who made the speech was actually a person of race and not some dumbfuck whining coolie, she’d stop demanding that the White man afford her and her friends some ephemeral legal status and stop begging the elites to continue to allow her co-ethnics to mop their floors for a pittance.
Instead, she’d probably be trying to do something about her own peoples’ self-determination and trying to remedy their apparently permanent nigger status.
Depends on how you define sophisticated. 21st Century America is a bunch of Plebes who on the one hand loathe genuine Aristocracy but on the other hand are scrambling to acquire what they think are the accoutrements of ‘class’ and good breeding.
Sophistication is more than dining out at fusion-cuisine Sushi restaurants, keeping a few volumes of Shakespeare in plain view of guests, and speaking with an acquired, Mid-Atlantic sort of accent.
Genuine class is an expression of high breeding and cultivated intellect and decorum, which is increasingly scarce. Aside from all of that, genuine congress with the fairer sex requires a metaphysical sort of congruence... of the sort that simply can’t be had between people of radically different origins.
In short, race isn’t simply kinky vs. straight hair and whether or not you need to apply sunblock at the beach.
America lacks “parties,” but what it has is competing coalition governmental visions. It’s not really a system comprised of two majority parties as the UK was a hundred years ago, its a system in which various factions of government itself aim to acheive spoils for their peculiar coalition. Guys like Ross Perot don’t get anywhere because they’re wealthy men who aren’t affiliated with government and they don’t hold stakes in these competing coalitions of government that Americans are deluded into believing are “parties” organized by people for political and social reasons. Independently wealthy men who have no fealty to the managerial state, don’t participate in it, and aren’t involved in any meaningful way with its intra-structural coalition intrigues are going to be treated as hostiles and ultimately sabotaged in myriad ways.
— Hartmann von AueSocial stratification, marital instability and the rise of bastardy, the increase of “dual income” households, the exorbitant expense of housing and higher property taxes in many parts of the country, the influx of non-white foreigners, the decline of good career opportunities, the stagnation (really the decline, using honest statistics that pretend that electronic devices are a substitute for a sound family and community life) of men’s wages, etc, are all problems that have gotten worse.
This is correct and it’s something system loyalists in media scrupulously avoid discussing – it’s the Potemkin village of Jewish rule. “Quality of life” is quantified exclusively in terms of purchasing power and the availability of hedonism.
You might live in Gomorrah but its ok because everybody is “rich.” [...]
Things in 1960 weren’t radically different than the present in material terms – despite Johnson taking credit for eradicating abject poverty, it was actually under Eisenhower that people were able to stop living in truly Third World conditions in the rural South.
If you were a man with a middle class job in 1960, you were just as “well off” as today b/c you could afford whatever luxuries (within reason) were available. It’s historically contingent, in other words.
A middle class man in 1960 wasn’t “worse off” than his counterpart in 2012 because he couldn’t avail himself to luxuries that didn’t exist yet.
— Hartmann von AueThe socio-economic status of median wage earners has clearly declined.
That’s probably true – although I’ve read conflicting data on this. You need to wade through a lot of polemic and specious claims to discern anything other than very sharp and flagrant trends.
The argument is essentially moot anyway – its not really important. As Buchanan was always saying in the 1990s, “a country isn’t an economy.”
This is just another example of how ideological strictures couch any discussion of anything related to policy in America. People are supposed to not take notice of the fact that they’re being political dispossesed by design b/c they aren’t poor.
At base its just an inversion of commie-think – the only criteria that should concern anyone is “poverty” vs. material wealth. Anybody who thinks exclusively in these terms has a fucking brain worm or they’re a sad Stockholm Syndrome case who thinks if he parrots lies enough maybe he can be Jewish too.
— AlleghenyMartial instability and the rise of bastardy are moral, not economic, issues.
This is obfuscatory horseshit.
Relentless pressure on normative social relationships by government through institutionalizing grievances by judicial fiat, the development of a vocal (and very public) academic culture dedicated entirely to punitive critique of White, Christian social mores and behaviors, a concomitant development of a business culture that was and is aggressively antagonistic to normal, moral behavior (Lasch described it as the death of Horatio Alger as the patron saint of American capitalism in favor of the “Happy Hooker”) that catered to hedonistic and narcissistic vices as a matter of course, the relentless agitation by NGOs such as the Ford Foundation and the myriad Rockefeller charities to “empower” women by forcing employers through massive propaganda pressure (and ultimately by lobbying successfully for quotas) to employ women in equal numbers to men, etc. The list goes on and on.
Basically the kind of unrelenting social violence ZOG is perpetuating against hapless people in places like the Near East and the former Sov. Bloc through the use of weaponized soft power was first utilized against the White working and middle class – with entirely disastrous results.
Show me a survey where a sample of profoundly stupid fucks say they’re “happier” than they’re square dads b/c they’ve got internet porno and no real responsibilities and – hey, maybe soon even their fag roommate can get “married"! And I’ll show you a culture that is a sick joke to anybody even remotely civilized.
— AlleghenyThen, again, bring back slut shaming, slash aid to single mothers, etc. My point is that you don’t solve these problems by taxing the 1% or bringing back unions or enacting tariffs, etc.
I’m talking about the real world, not “game” blog talking points and Tucker Carlson soundbites. “Sluts,” “darn unions” etc. What the fuck is that?
Nobody even mentioned tariff protectionism, but if you want to talk about that it’s important to deal in historical accuracies. During an era of high protectionism, from 1789 until approximately Eisenhower’s second term, America outproduced every other country in the world by a large margin and conquered a good portion of the planet. Apparently, protectionism works.
I think Lind’s (and Buchanan’s) theory of “cultural Marxism” is a bit lame. It’s a gross oversimplification of history with a dash of conspiracy theory added in to tie up loose ends.
Pundits shouldn’t try to demonstrate the causal nexus of the current dilemma... it’s not something that is appropriate for popular journalism and op-eds, and its not something that most readers have the attention span to digest and understand.
Something that a lot of culture conservatives these days seem to have in common with Jews, NeoCons, and Commies is that they all seem to think that American history began around 1910 and ended around 1992.
“Political Correctness” (a silly signifier) has a lot to do with 1789, much to do with 1945, and it was buttressed by the peculiar political nuances of Cold War internationalism. Of course, the ascent of mass media features in this equation as well. It’s not an issue that can simply be explained away by the Frankfurt School.
There is a misunderstanding of the nature of envy and class hostility at present – this stems from two apparently competing theories of modern life that are actually in basic agreement.
America lacks actually discrete classes in the sense that is understood by history. Men aren’t born to a station in life in which their vocation, their labor, the manner in which they interface with production (physically and socially) is determined by their geographic situation, their heritage, the capital possessed by an actual community in which they live in, or their birthright inheritance. They are instead posited in circumstances where time and place are largely superfluous, production is dominated by leviathan bureaucracies that are often removed from sight and daily experience, and “wealth” is abstract and fluid.
Adding to the confusion of these ahistorical circumstances are peculiar features of American life that have always been present – first among them, the atomization of individual people from perennial communities (Americans themselves were pioneers who fled Feudal arrangements that were subduing their personal salvation and destiny), the widened conceptual horizon that accrued in the minds of the pioneers (America was an “undiscovered” continent that was spatially vast and contained enormous potential for riches), and an absence of clear and discernible loci of social authority and power.
These circumstances are apparently chaotic, when considered in isolation, but a clear moral order was maintained by White people in the New World by a deeply felt commitment to Bible Protestantism and its severe precepts. De Tocqueville noted that America after Jefferson’s ascendancy tended towards a mediocre and boring society with a flattened social hierarchy – additionally, he described that a veneer of lawfulness somehow remained even in the backwoods and on the wild frontier due to an extraordinary prevalence of faith in a transcendent order, ordained by Providence.
This kind of social order was grounded in a belief by early Americans that their fortunes, good and bad, were determined by elect status or the absence thereof – it was appreciated by them that labor, wealth, diligence, and an ethical reliance on ones’ own labor power was evidence of the (arbitrary) favor of God and also a reprieve from the inner struggle man endures between the impulse to piety and the impulse to avarice and sin.
This view of the world and of “being” was and is fundamentally irreconcilable with both rationalist and egalitarian tendencies – despite the the fact that the Calvinist tradition in history is in part the progenitor of both rationalism and the ‘ethics of equality.’ As man became more and more debased on the new continent, and as his genuine belief in God eroded, he came to reject the severity, uncertainty, and macabre cruelty of the entire notion of original sin, unconditional election, and the apparent randomness of horror in life.
The heresies that took the place of Calvinism deified man – a ‘gospel of prosperity’ supplanted a belief in authentic transcendence. The prevailing civic religion in America became something infantile and disgusting. People came to believe that they were entirely self-created and that they were Gods unto themselves. They coined canards such as “the American dream” and eschewed the belief that wealth on Earth is secondary evidence of Salvation, and instead resorted to a vile egoism that purports that salvation can simply be willed by “hard work” and a kind of self-referential inner monologue of ‘prayer.’ Thus it was concluded by people blessed by good fortune that they themselves had willed prosperity through their own righteousness and correct thinking – and that people who did not enjoy similar bounties were addled with grave moral deformities and a lack of spiritual integrity.
This of course became even more barbaric as the last vestigial traces of belief in a God, separate and apart from man, dissolved in the modern mind. What remained was a culture of people who had abandoned any historical or perennial connection to their families, to their race, to the soil, to their faith, and had become mired in a total nihilistic despair – a despair that was only tempered by appealing to love-objects contained exclusively within the self. Man’s circumstances were leveled in America. He no longer had a clearly defined function within a communitarian hierarchy. He no longer struggled against his own sin and avarice because, in the absence of God and history, he could only orient himself towards pleasure to continue enduring the struggle of mortal life. His raison d’etre ceased to involve honor, or duties, or piety to a transcendent principle of order. Consequently, he could no longer function in the world without loving himself – and to love himself he had to craft means by which he could distinguish himself from his fellows, as they, like himself, had been shorn of a meaningful personality.
The ultimate expression of these circumstances at present is a mortal terror of narcissists that they are not in fact remarkable – they must assure themselves and every other person in proximity that their labor confers value upon them ‘as a person’ – they believe history has ended and life is an endless debutauntes’ ball in which they cannot abide the cruel reality of their essentially trivial lives. They compulsively seek out subordinates to reinforce a counterfeit social hierarchy, premised on their own self-righteousness. The banalities of social violence are their stock in trade.
“The banker and the waitress” plays itself out a hundred million times a day. And it will continue until the actual men remaining, few in number, fewer in love, decide the hour is nigh to begin implementing punishment. I meditate on this annually on April 20 [Hitler’s birthday] in the spring season. Hopefully we’ll all be privileged to witness the reckoning in our lifetime.
I was driving a few weeks ago on West Addison st. and I saw two union guys “working” as flagmen underneath a viaduct that was being dug up for no apparent reason. Obviously, the second flagman (or arguably, even the first) isn’t performing any labor in any accepted sense of the word. What he is doing is being paid money to not actually work, pursuant to an extensive system of patronage that exists in the city to benefit union labor.
It’s similar to the Blacks that are hired by the city to “direct traffic” in the South Loop at traffic lights. Mind you, the traffic lights direct traffic just fine and the traffic personnell just stand there. Are they performing “work”? I don’t think so.
As per Weikel’s point about the private sector, I have personally seen “support staff” in law offices who literally do nothing other than talk on the phone to friends and family and lounge around the office for 7-9 hours a day. They aren’t simply performing “bad work"... what they are doing is acting as a magnet for capital in exchange for labor power that isn’t forthcoming or simply doesn’t exist. It would be tantamount to me paying you to paint my house and you going to a ballgame instead of painting.
Realistically, outside of the low level service sector, “at will employment” is an arcane doctrine. You’ll notice that people in the white collar jobs are never “fired” unless they engage in aggregious conduct in the workplace... its become cost-prohibitive to terminate employees, due in large part to the growth industry that is the law of labor grievances including, but not limited to, wrongful termination... which sound in quasi-contract.
We give Weikel a lot of shit for his sweeping pronouncements about various populations, but I’ll stipulate that some of his complaints about plaintiff’s attorneys are actually well founded.
— Helios PanoptesHow can it be that these useless workers stay employed?
A Byzantine labor code, elaborately crafted and cost-prohibitive causes of action being available to aggrieved workers, collective bargaining arrangements being incorporated into official management, all the usual reasons. Look around at the country that you and I live in... this isn’t an abstract proposition, useless workers stay employed at alarming rates.
As per the other issues raised RE: welfare, you people aren’t accounting for AFDC, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, disability, Social Security and the secondary effects of disproportionate social services being utilized by untaxed populations. It’s quite a bit more complicated than a simple accounting of $500 per month being allocated to perpetually unemployed persons.
Version 0