PDA

View Full Version : Philosophical Discussion of David Lane's Precepts



IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, April 15th, 2004, 04:52 PM
David Lane's 88 Precepts;

http://www.solargeneral.com/library/88Precepts.pdf

The 88 PRECEPTS

1. Any religion or teaching which denies the Natural Laws of the Universe is false.

2. Whatever People's perception of God, or the Gods, or the motive Force of the Universe might be, they can hardly deny that Nature's Laws are the work of, and therefore the intent of, that Force.

3. God and religion are distinct, separate and often conflicting concepts. Nature evidences the divine plan, for the natural world is the work of the force or the intelligence men call God. Religion is the creation of mortals, therefore predestined to fallibility. Religion may preserve or destroy a People, depending on the structure given by its progenitors, the motives of its agents and the vagaries of historical circumstances.

4. The truest form of prayer is communion with Nature. It is not vocal. Go to a lonely spot, if possible a mountain top, on a clear, star-lit night, ponder the majesty and order of the infinite macrocosm. Then consider the intricacies of the equally infinite microcosm.
Understand that you are on the one hand inconsequential beyond comprehension in the size of things, and on the other hand, you are
potentially valuable beyond comprehension as a link in destiny's chain. There you begin to understand how pride and self can co-exist with respect and reverence. There we find harmony with Nature and with harmony comes strength, peace and certainty.

5. Secular power systems protect and promote religions, which concentrate on an afterlife. Thus, people are taught to abandon defenses against the predators of this life.

6. History, both secular and religious, is a fable conceived in self-serving deceit and promulgated by those who perceive benefits.

7. Religion in its most beneficial form is the symbology of a People and their culture. A multi-racial religion destroys the senses of uniqueness, exclusivity and value necessary to the survival of a race.

8. What men call the "super natural" is actually the "natural" not yet understood or revealed.

9. A proliferation of laws with the resultant loss of freedom is a sign of, and directly proportional to, spiritual sickness in a Nation.

10. If a Nation is devoid of spiritual health and moral character, then government and unprincipled men will fill the vacancy. Therefore, freedom prospers in moral values and tyranny thrives in moral decay.

11. Truth requires little explanation. Therefore, beware of verbose doctrines. The great principles are revealed in brevity.

12. Truth does not fear investigation.

13. Unfounded belief is a pitfall. A People who do not check the validity and effect of their beliefs with reason will suffer or perish.

14. In accord with Nature's Laws, nothing is more right than the preservation of one's own race.

15. No greater motivating force exists than the certain conviction that one is right.

16. Discernment is a sign of a healthy People. In a sick or dying nation, civilization, culture or race, substance is abandoned in favor of appearance.

17. Discernment includes the ability to recognize the difference between belief and demonstrable reality.

18. There exists no such thing as rights or privileges under the Laws of Nature. The deer being stalked by a hungry lion has no right to life. However, he may purchase life by obedience to nature-ordained instincts for vigilance and flight. Similarly, men have no rights to life, liberty or happiness. These circumstances may be purchased by oneself, by one's family, by one's tribe or by one's ancestors, but they are nonetheless purchases and not rights. Furthermore, the value of these purchases can only be maintained through vigilance and obedience to Natural Law.

19. A people who are not convinced of their uniqueness and value will perish.

20.The White race has suffered invasions and brutality from Africa and Asia for thousands of years. For example, Attila and the Asiatic Huns who invaded Europe in the 5th century, raping, plundering and killing from the Alps to the Baltic and Caspian
Seas. This scenario was repeated by the Mongols of Genghis Khan 800 years later. ( Note here that the American Indians are not "Native Americans," but are racially Mongolians.) In the 8th century, hundreds of years before Negroes were brought to America, the North African Moors of mixed racial background invaded and conquered Portugal, Spain and part of France. So, the attempted guilt-trip placed on the White race by civilization's executioners is invalid under both historical circumstance and the Natural Law which denies inter-species compassion. The fact is, all races have benefited immeasurably from the creative genius of the Aryan People.

21. People who allow others not of their race to live among them will perish, because the inevitable result of a racial integration is racial inter-breeding which destroys the characteristics and existence of a race. Forced integration is deliberate and malicious genocide, particularly for a People like the White race, who are now a small minority in the world.

22. In the final analysis, a race or species is not judged superior or inferior by its accomplishments, but by its will and ability to survive.

23. Political, economic, and religious systems may be destroyed and resurrected by men, but the death of a race is eternal.

24. No race of People can indefinitely continue their existence without territorial imperatives in which to propagate, protect, and promote their own kind.

25. A People without a culture exclusively their own will perish.

26. Nature has put a certain antipathy between races and species to preserve the individuality and existence of each. Violation of the
territorial imperative necessary to preserve that antipathy leads to either conflict or mongrelization.

27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one's own race. One must, however, hate with a pure and perfect hatred those of one's own race who commit treason against one's own kind and against the nations of one's own kind. One must hate with a perfect hatred all those People or practices which destroy one's People, one's culture, or the racial exclusiveness of one's territorial imperative.

28. The concept of a multi-racial society violates every Natural Law for species preservation.

29. The concept of "equality" is declared a lie by every evidence of Nature. It is a search for the lowest common denominator, and its pursuit will destroy every superior race, nation or culture. In order for a plow horse to run as fast as a race horse you would first have to cripple the race horse; conversely, in order for a race horse to pull as much as a plow horse, you would first have to cripple the plow horse. In either case, the pursuit of equality is the destruction of excellence.

30. The instincts for racial and species preservation are ordained by Nature.

31. Instincts are Nature's perfect mechanism for the survival of each race and species. The human weakness of rationalizing situations for self-gratification must not be permitted to interfere with these instincts.

32. Miscegenation, that is race-mixing, is and has always been, the greatest threat to the survival of the Aryan race.

33. Inter-species compassion is contrary to the Laws of Nature and is, therefore, suicidal. If a wolf were to intercede to save a lamb from a lion, he would be killed. Today, we see the White man taxed so heavily that he cannot afford children. The taxes raised are then used to support the breeding of tens of millions of non-whites, many of whom then demand the last White females for breeding partners. As you can see, man is subject to all the Laws of Nature. This has nothing to do with morality, hatred, good or evil. Nature does not recognize the concepts of good and evil in inter-species relationships. If the lion eats the lamb, it is good for the lion and evil for the lamb. If the lamb escapes and the lion starves, it is good for the lamb and evil for the lion. So, we see the same incident is
labelled both good and evil. This cannot be, for there are no contradictions within Nature's Laws.

34. The instinct for sexual union is part of Nature's perfect mechanism for species preservation. It begins early in life and often continues until late in life. It must not be repressed; its purpose, reproduction, must not be thwarted either. Understand that for thousands of years our females bore children at an early age. Now, in an attempt to conform to and compete in an alien culture, they deny their Nature-ordained instincts and duties. Teach responsibility, but, also, have understanding. The life of a race springs from the wombs of its women. He who would judge must first understand the difference between what is good and what is right.

35. Homosexuality is a crime against Nature. All Nature declares the purpose of the instinct for sexual union is reproduction and thus, preservation of the species. The overpowering male sex drive must be channeled toward possession of females of the same race, as well as elements such as territory and power, which are necessary to keep them.

36. Sexual pornography degrades the Nature of all who are involved. A beautiful nude woman is art; a camera between her knees to explore her private parts is pornography.

37. That race whose males will not fight to the death to keep and mate with their females will perish. Any White man with healthy instincts feels disgust and revulsion when he sees a woman of his race with a man of another race. Those, who today control the media and affairs of the Western World, teach that this is wrong and shameful. They label it "racism." As any "ism," for instance the word "nationalism," means to promote one's own nation; "racism" merely means to promote and protect the life of one's own
race. It is, perhaps, the proudest word in existence. Any man who disobeys these instincts is anti-Nature.

38. In a sick and dying nation, culture, race or civilization, political dissent and traditional values will be labeled and persecuted as heinous crimes by inquisitors clothing themselves in jingoistic patriotism.

39. A People who are ignorant of their past will defile the present and destroy the future.

40. A race must honor above all earthly things, those who have given their lives or freedom for the preservation of the folk.

41. The folk, namely the members of the Race, are the Nation. Racial loyalties must always supersede geographical and national boundaries. If this is taught and understood, it will end fratricidal wars. Wars must not be fought for the benefit of another race.

42. The Nations' leaders are not rulers, they are servants and guardians. They are not to serve for personal gain. Choose only a guardian who has no interest in the accumulation of material things.

43. Choose and judge your leaders, also called guardians, thus: Those who seek always to limit the power of government are of good heart and conscience. Those who seek to expand the power of government are base tyrants.

44. No government can give anything to anybody without first taking it from another. Government is, by its very nature, legalized taking. A limited amount of government is a necessary burden for national defense and internal order. Anything more is counter-productive to freedom and liberty.

45. The organic founding Law, namely the Constitution of a Nation, must not be amendable by any method other than unanimous consent of all parties thereto and with all parties present. Otherwise, the doors are opened for the advent of that most dangerous and deadly form of government, democracy.

46. In a democracy those who control the media, and thus the minds of the electorate, have power undreamed by kings or dictators.

47. The simplest way to describe a democracy is this: Three people form a government, each having one vote. Then two of them vote to steal the wealth of the third.

48. The latter stages of a democracy are filled with foreign wars, because the bankrupt system attempts to preserve itself by plundering other nations.

49. In a democracy that which is legal is seldom moral, and that which is moral is often illegal.

50. A democracy is always followed by a strongman... some call him a dictator. It is the only way to restore order out of the chaos caused by a democracy. Pick your strongman wisely! He must be a guardian in his heart. He must be one who has shown that his only purpose in life is the preservation of the folk. His ultimate aim must be to restore the rule of Law based on the perfect Laws of Nature. Do not choose him by his words. Choose one who has sacrificed all in the face of tyranny; choose one who has endured and persevered. This is the only reliable evidence of his worthiness and motives.

51. A power system will do anything, no matter how corrupt or brutal, to preserve itself.

52. Tyrannies cannot be ended without use of force.

53. Those who commit treason disguise their deeds in proclamations of patriotism.

54. Propaganda is a major component in all power systems, both secular and religious; false propaganda is a major component of unprincipled power systems. All power systems endeavor to convince their subjects that the system is good, just, beneficent and noble, as well as worthy of perpetuation and defense. The more jingoistic propaganda issued, the more suspicious one should be of its truth.

55. Political power, in the final analysis, is created and maintained by force.

56. A power system, secular or religious, which employs extensive calls to patriotism or requires verbosity and rhetoric for its preservation, is masking tyranny.

57. Propaganda is a legitimate and necessary weapon in any struggle. The elements of successful propaganda are: simplicity, emotion, repetition, and brevity. Also, since men believe what they want to believe, and since they want to believe that which they perceive as beneficial to themselves, then successful propaganda must appeal to the perceived self-interest of those to whom it is disseminated.

58. Tyrannies teach what to think; free men learn how to think.

59. Beware of men who increase their wealth by the use of words. Particularly beware of the lawyers or priests who deny Natural Law.

60. The patriot, being led to the inquisition's dungeons or the executioner's axe will be condemned the loudest by his former friends and allies; for thus they seek to escape the same fate.

61. The sweet Goddess of Peace lives only under the protective arm of the ready God of War.

62. The organic founding Law of a Nation must state with unmistakable and irrevocable specificity the identity of the homogeneous racial, cultural group for whose welfare it was formed, and that the continued existence of the Nation is singularly for all time for the welfare of that specific group only.

63. That race or culture which lets others influence or control any of the following will perish:
1) organs of information
2) educational institutions
3) religious institutions
4) political offices
5) creation of their money
6) judicial institutions
7) cultural institutions
8) economic life

64. Just Laws require little explanation. Their meaning is irrevocable in simplicity and specificity.

65. Men's emotions are stirred far more effectively by the spoken word than by the written word. This is why a ruling tyranny will react more violently to gatherings of dissenters than to books or pamphlets.

66. The organic founding Law of the Nation, or any law, is exactly as pertinent as the will and power to enforce it.

67. An unarmed or non-militant People will be enslaved.

68. Some say the pen is more powerful than the sword. Perhaps so. Yet, the word without the sword has no authority.

69. Tyrannies are usually built step by step and disguised by noble rhetoric.

70. The difference between a terrorist and a patriot is control of the press.

71. The judgments of the guardians, the leaders, must be true to Natural Law and tempered by reason.

72. Materialism is base and destructive. The guardians of a Nation must constantly warn against and combat a materialistic spirit in the Nation. Acquisition of wealth and property, as is needed for the well-being of one's family and obtained by honorable means, is right and proper. Exploitation, particularly through usury, is destructive to the nation.

73. Materialism leads men to seek artificial status through wealth or property. True social status comes from service to Family, Race and Nation.

74. Materialism ultimately leads to conspicuous, unnecessary consumption, which in turn leads to the rape of Nature and destruction of the environment. It is unnatural. The true guardians of the Nations must be wholly untainted by materialism.

75. The function of a merchant or salesman is to provide a method of exchange. A merchant who promotes unnecessary consumption and materialism must not be tolerated.

76. The only lawful functions of money are as a medium of exchange and a store of value. All other uses including social engineering, speculation, inflation and especially usury are unlawful. Usury (interest) at any percentage is a high crime which cannot be tolerated.

77. A nation with an aristocracy of money, lawyers or merchants will become a tyranny.

78. The simplest way to describe a usury-based central banking system is this: The bankers demand the property of the Nation as collateral for their loans. At interest, more money is owed them than they created with the loans. So, eventually, the bankers foreclose on the Nation.

79. Usury (interest), inflation, and oppressive taxation are theft by deception and destroy the moral fabric of the Nation.

80. Wealth gained without sacrifices or honest labor will usually be misused.

81. Nothing in Nature is static; either the life force grows and expands or it decays and dies.

82. Respect must be earned; it cannot be demanded or assumed.

83. Avoid a vexatious man, for his venom will poison your own nature.

84. Self discipline is a mark of a higher man.

85. One measure of a man is cheerfulness in adversity.

86. A fool judges others by their words. A wise man judges others by their actions and accomplishments.

87. In our relationships or interactions, as in all of Nature's Laws, to each action there is a reaction. That which we plant will be harvested, if not by ourselves, then by another.

88. These are sure signs of a sick or dying Nation. If you see any of them, your guardians are committing treason:

1) mixing and destruction of the founding race
2) destruction of the family units
3) oppressive taxation
4) corruption of the Law
5) terror and suppression against those who warn of the Nation's error
6) immorality: drugs, drunkenness, etc.
7) infanticide (now called abortion)
8) destruction of the currency (inflation or usury)
9) aliens in the land, alien culture
10) materialism
11) foreign wars
12) guardians (leaders) who pursue wealth or glory
13) homosexuality
14) religion not based on Natural Law

Death and the Sun
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 06:41 PM
I am not an American-style White Nationalist, or even a huge admirer of Mr. Lane, but his 88 Precepts do contain a lot of distilled wisdom. My favourites are numbers 8, 12 and 58.

Loddfafner
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 08:22 PM
The puritanical dogma scattered throughout directly contradicts the bits about harmony with nature and openness to truth.

IlluSionSxxx
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 11:08 AM
The puritanical dogma scattered throughout directly contradicts the bits about harmony with nature and openness to truth.

Please elaborate on this. I don't see any contradictions here personally, but I'm really interested in understanding your perspective.

rainman
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 12:32 AM
He, like most white supremacists do more to destroy the white race than to preserve it.

I'm typing quickly so this isn't as eloquent as I could make it and thus maybe not as neat a package as Lane's argument but just to tough the fallacies of this thinking (I used to think this way but I grew out of it, but I see that %99 of racialists online are stuck with this way of thinking):

Firstly most of what he says is just the recycled words of Hitler. Secondly it is based on many primitive assumptions that aren't true. Basically he says that any race which doesn't fight for its survival will die. Well true, but race is a relative concept. Most people really don't care. He has the same fallacies of most white supremacists. They believe that everybody should think like them.

He also bases his philosophy on hate which is not a sustainable way of life.

One example I read David Lane's Wotanist book. It had nothing about religion in it. A few parts of it sounded really inspiring because he mostly just memorizes the words of Hitler and then repeats them, but the book really didn't speak of religion hardly at all. It just kept repeating "we need to save the white race... the white race is in danger... fight for the white race" the whole sum of everything he says and all his writings boil down to that. There is no other substance to them whatsoever. He can spin it into something intelligent sounding on the surface but when you poke and prod and start to think about what he says- there simply is no substance.

Of course if you feel a need to save the white race or whatever you may get inspired or worked up by his words, but hatred and criminal actions is not the answer in life.

Quoting Lane himself:

13. Unfounded belief is a pitfall. A People who do not check the validity and effect of their beliefs with reason will suffer or perish.

Why do you believe so strongly in the preservation of the white race? This is something that should take a normal racialist a lot of soul searching and can't be answered quickly. I know I used to feel a lot more racial as I saw the race as a preservation of myself, but I now realize most whites are nothing like me.

Or think David Lane believes "might makes right". The fact that he is a failure in life would indicate that he is wrong.

Check the effects of Lanes' belief: killing people, theft, terrorism, and a failed life.

14. In accord with Nature's Laws, nothing is more right than the preservation of one's own race.

Why? Race is a relative concept to begin with. The folk define the folk. You see some random white guy on the street as "your race" and want to protect that race. He does not consider his race in the same terms.

Why do you want to thusly "preserve him"? Lane and most racists don't. They have learned to get smart and hide the hate but in reality they are selfish people.
In fact everyone gets on everyone elses nerves at some time. But the price we pay for being civilized is we have to respect the law and respect other people.

There is no law preventing you from creating a white community. Or a white social club.

I have tried repeatedly to get people together to form a community. They don't want to do it. They will scream at others, threaten them, hate other people, want to take over the government and force everybody to live the way they want them to live or if someone isn't pleasing to look at they may want to shoot them in the face but come on!

Admittedly a lot of what he says rings true. It is well written. But you sell a lie by mixing it with truth and wrapping it up in a good package.

But take this:


41. The folk, namely the members of the Race, are the Nation. Racial loyalties must always supersede geographical and national boundaries. If this is taught and understood, it will end fratricidal wars. Wars must not be fought for the benefit of another race.

This carries the assumption that God layed down three or four distinct races of man and all that must be done is to keep them from mixing with each other and they will be preserved. It is a false view. I'm a folkist, I'm not a multicultural propagandist Jew out to destroy the white race. It's just true. I would have to brief you in basic genetics, but if you think about it you can realize it yourself. For one even pure bred whites are not the same as their ancestors beause of genetic drift. Races evolved and were not created which makes purity relative. I don't deny race exists but it is in the eye of the beholder. Human communities define themselves. If you believe so and so is your race that is fine, but again why force this on other people that don't feel the same way you do? Why is what everyone else is doing so important to you that you can't live your own life?

Chlodovech
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 02:30 AM
I'm not gonna stand up for David Lane, and I agree with your idea of the sensible and non-violent approach, whenever possible, Rainman.

However, I think the entire race issue is well beyond emotionalism and basic moralism, it's also politics, about a stabile society, for instance. It's not like we had/have a say in the migration matter in the first place. Thus I can't see our obligation to form small communities (on the fringe of society), not even from an ethical perspective, which is, not a new start, but a dead end, the way things are going. Why hand over politics to the cultural Marxists, the multicultists, globalists, opportunists and banksters? Why should I go for their 'notion of race' - or else go live in a small closed community, which is a practical impossibility in Europe.

Multicultural life is indeed being pressed upon us, and not in the most democratic manner by less than 'democratic' institutions, and a revolution (not terrorism) to overthrow these utterly corrupt, demonic powerstructures of the West would be in my eyes justified - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's a growing notion in America too, that there should be a second revolution.

It seems a mistake to think that anybody can retreat into a community, whether being done out of misplaced sentiment or practical necessity. That's a freightful underestemation of the state and its current doctrines.
If communities like that would somehow be succesful, the forces of Leviathan would muster at it ports and put an end to it - whatever the laws of your nation might be. In that light should the attachment of a US army brigade to Homeland security raise a red flag, it's also highly unconstitutional.

What respect is coming from the globalist forces? Is it the respect from AFA thugs, more often than not officially funded by the government, trying to make a nationalist's life miserable? If the law is respected at times, it is also because the law is being rewritten to suit an elitist agenda.

I know of no medium in my country that is not a bulwark of the progressive bourgeosie - yet I don't think I should stop reading papers or television, and move to a place where modernity can't touch me.

Instead, the truly 'democratic' and moral thing to do, is to oppose the machine before the machine consumes us.

Racialism is also politics, or it can be just that. Hate, love, I don't care for anyone's motives, what's important is the outcome of day to day politics.

rainman
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 03:17 AM
You read me wrong. I don't speak of retreating and isolating oneself (only if you wish).

The majority of people don't think like you do or even I do. It's a reality you have to live with. While you'd like to change the whole nation or world toward your views, the majority don't see it that way. It isn't that we need to "wake up" a bunch of whites, they simply don't care. You want to "save" a race that doesn't exist. As a white racialist you are the minority. That isn't giving the country over to others, it's just a reality you have to deal with.

Jews organize themselves into groups and organizations. They dominate society. There's no reason you couldn't have a similar organizational structure if it was made up of capable men and women. Most wealthy white people are benefitting from multiculturalism in reality and that's why they support it. .

I'm saying the main focus should be to uplift yourself rather than to tear down others. A philosophy that focuses on destroying others will never be successful, never has. I'm not non-violent. Defend yourself when you have to. Attack when its necessary. But don't have a philosophy that centers around violence. You destroy yourself with such.

I used to buy into the whole "the devil made me do it" arguments. I don't buy it anymore. White people are for the most part who are responsible for the destruction of the white race. Really I don't think the white race is dying but rather being transformed; going through a bottleneck. Most of them are mixing with other races. Most of the upper class is become very Jewish.

Build communities of people like you. The average white (lemming) next door is not your brother. For better or worse they don't agree with you that preserving their race is important. So why try to force your ways on them? It only weakens your cause. You have to have a community to save. You want to save a race that isn't even there anymore. In a couple hundred years the majority of people will be mixed race. They don't see that as a bad thing. They aren't on your team or your people. They are just people trying to live their lives who could care less if their grandchildren are a little browner.

People hate because they are powerless. Because they are weak and scared. Do you think the %2 minority of Jews who control a disproportinate amount of wealth and media in the U.S. "hate" the other races? No. They are making a profit off of them. Do you think that the wealthy white people "hate" these races? No. Same thing.

Instead of blaming others in life blame yourself and you will be a lot more successful.

Private communities are all over the place. Most of them are based on wealth.

I understand the social issues at hand. As far as race, we can't go back into the middle ages. We live in a modern world around other people. Travel is common, migration etc. It isn't practical to have a giant nation that is of one race. I can understand maybe the idea of a small white only nation (like an Aryan version of Israel- white nationalism). Or an "invisidble nation" with large communities under its control. Anyway there will always be people different from you in the next village over or across the street or in a public area. That's life. You can create private communities, clubs, events etc. so that you can avoid that if you need to.

You aren't oppressed in anyway. Society isn't poor.


I know its a problem. The nations are going downhill.

Hauke Haien
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 03:35 AM
I despise WN and David Lane and anyone who tries to define a folk by purely biological components, which are often so distinct on a spiritual, cultural and, indeed, even biological level that they can only be glued together in a liberal-individualist system like the one we are approaching now and that has been in place in the United States for some time already, but if I wanted to keep hearing about Stormfront, I would probably visit Stormfront, which I don't. It would pay off to find out what this place really is first and 4 year old threads from another era, and perhaps another board that has been merged into this, are not exactly the way to do it, in my opinion.

I agree that political systems should not be designed to suit the needs of failures or even purely personal needs and I also agree that there are people who are nevertheless motivated by their failure to adapt to the liberal-capitalist system. My interest in those people ends there, however, and I am much more fascinated by the question where this system produces a favorable outcome and where it does not. For example, I see it as a major deficiency that personal success generally results in fewer children (which is less of a problem if that person does not belong to my ethnic group) combined with personal wealth that rewards this. This problem can not be solved by becoming as rich, successful and childless, it is systemic and it is warranted to think about the great scheme of things instead of clinging to some absurd notion that everyone just has to pursue his own happiness within the US constitution or the Grundgesetz or whatever people may call the piece of paper that defines the basic order structure of their political system.

This board is not a WN board, but there are many views expressed here within the framework of Germanic ethnic, spiritual and cultural preservation and my anti-liberal (in the Hobbesian sense) views are just one variety. There are tribalists, primitivists, folkish spiritualists, conservatives, libertarians, traditionalists, national communists, social democrats, nationalists, nationalsocialists, pan-Germanists etc. It is a bit off-putting to recognize that a sequence of posts is written under the general assumption that we are some kind of Stormfront clone. Please reconsider.

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 04:09 PM
He, like most white supremacists do more to destroy the white race than to preserve it.

Out of pure curiosity; how so?



I know I used to feel a lot more racial as I saw the race as a preservation of myself, but I now realize most whites are nothing like me.

It seems you are nothing like me, but yet here we are on a preservationist board.

Why is that?


I won't bore you with my experiences, but there is a wealth of disgruntled 'whitemen' out there who will more than likely define themselves as white first and English second. Being Germanic and preserving it would not be high up on there knowledge.


Why do you want to thusly "preserve him"? Lane and most racists don't.

? Contradiction. Please explain.


Most wealthy white people are benefitting from multiculturalism in reality and that's why they support it. It isn't hurting them and they don't identify themselves much with failures in life.

Stick them in amongst a black community, or a Muslim enclave.

Will they benefit then? Or will they fight and struggle to keep their head over the water mark, too?


You aren't oppressed in anyway. Society isn't poor.

'Wealthy' whites are usually middle class and over. Middle class occupations are not over run by a horde of immigrants all vying for the jobs which this economy struggles to provide.

You want the whites to do as you say, then get the jobs for us.

You got a job? Give us a job, go on! Give us a job. I could do that! Give us a job!

Moody
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 04:27 PM
David Lane's Precepts were stickied in this section as an example of a set of Moral/Ethical guidelines.

They were not presented as the Ten Commandments.

As this is a philosophy section I think they should be critiqued purely on those grounds rather than using the thread to make ad hominem attacks against David Lane and "'WN's".

For me the Precepts are an interesting attempt to lay down a detailed moral framework - we need more such attempts.

Let those who reject these Precepts put up their own alternatives or amendments to them on this thread rather than dwell on the Silent Brotherhood etc.,

Dagna
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 05:13 PM
Lane's first problem is that he thinks in white, instead of Germanic terms. I do not care about the "Aryan race", I care about my own kin and that which is not alien to it. So if anyone wanted to ammend the 88 precepts, the first move should be removing all the white/Aryan references and inserting Germanic instead, to appeal to our own kin and attempt to place them within the wider framework of Germanic preservation.

I believe criticizing the 88 precepts would lead to a long discussions about some topics that have already been discussed. For instance:


35. Homosexuality is a crime against Nature. All Nature declares the purpose of the instinct for sexual union is reproduction and thus, preservation of the species. The overpowering male sex drive must be channeled toward possession of females of the same race, as well as elements such as territory and power, which are necessary to keep them.
Homosexuality is no "crime against nature", as homosexuality is natural and present among many animal species, including our humans.


47. The simplest way to describe a democracy is this: Three people form a government, each having one vote. Then two of them vote to steal the wealth of the third.

48. The latter stages of a democracy are filled with foreign wars, because the bankrupt system attempts to preserve itself by plundering other nations.

49. In a democracy that which is legal is seldom moral, and that which is moral is often illegal.
The form of government we live under today is not truly democracy. It is a degenerate corruption.

I believe ther noble nine virtues are a better example of ethics and morals, which should be sticked on a Germanic forum instead.

Oswiu
Monday, October 6th, 2008, 03:37 PM
Can I remind people that discussion of homosexuality is not really on topic here, and has several threads dedicated to it elsewhere on the forum - easy enough to find if you care to. Lane's personal character is also only a side aspect of what the thread should be about.

Can discussion please focus on the ethical system outlined in the first post? As our Philosophy Mod said above:

Let those who reject these Precepts put up their own alternatives or amendments to them on this thread rather than dwell on the Silent Brotherhood etc.,


EDIT: I'll let you off, Dagna, you were obviously writing at the same time I was! Homosexuality theme posts moved here:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=94238

Renwein
Monday, October 6th, 2008, 04:07 PM
I agree with this;

The puritanical dogma scattered throughout directly contradicts the bits about harmony with nature and openness to truth.

the list is so seeped with american 'wn'-ism that it makes it offputting even though some parts are 'good' so to say. I think the list on the 88th point is a good example;

"1) mixing and destruction of the founding race
2) destruction of the family units
3) oppressive taxation
4) corruption of the Law
5) terror and suppression against those who warn of the Nation's error
6) immorality: drugs, drunkenness, etc.
7) infanticide (now called abortion)
8) destruction of the currency (inflation or usury)
9) aliens in the land, alien culture
10) materialism
11) foreign wars
12) guardians (leaders) who pursue wealth or glory
13) homosexuality
14) religion not based on Natural Law"

I'm sure many of these 'signs of destruction of the race' were present in many 'healty' nations throughout time. The list could only have been written by an reactionary, 20th c. american WN (despite it being passed off as some kind of eternal truth!). eg. #2 may be true, but different family units are not destructive per se and may actually be more constructive if ordered correctly. This point could only be made by a reactionary WN and betrays christian influence. #6 will be present in all nations, and also I think some kind of 'shamanic' drug ritual could theoretically feature as part of a healthy national ceremony. #13 is another christian/reactionary one, don't forget the 'glories' of western culture were built on two cultures who had a rather different approach to sexuality... #12 again, always has been the case. #11, another 'american' sentiment, all nations have 'foregin wars' in their past and most will have been formed by them in the first place, and many will have been made stronger by them at some point. How did Mr. Lane's US of A come into being in the first place after all? somehow i think 'civil war' would be more indicitive of a 'sick' nation...

I don't like the '14 words' either, trite and boring, uninspired, and intuitively obvious to anyone besides. (plus use the dreaded tearm 'white'). I do appreciate that some 'rallying texts' are needed but surely someone can do better...

Moody
Tuesday, October 7th, 2008, 03:40 PM
Lane's first problem is that he thinks in white, instead of Germanic terms. I do not care about the "Aryan race", I care about my own kin and that which is not alien to it. So if anyone wanted to ammend the 88 precepts, the first move should be removing all the white/Aryan references and inserting Germanic instead, to appeal to our own kin and attempt to place them within the wider framework of Germanic preservation... [...]
... I believe ther noble nine virtues are a better example of ethics and morals, which should be sticked on a Germanic forum instead.

The term 'Aryan' is used variously - sometimes as a synonym for 'Nordic', other times to mean merely Caucasian. It also adverts to the view that the Germanic, Latin, Slavic cultures atc., all share an Indo-European basis.
Therefore, it would be easy to substitute 'Germanic' for 'Aryan' wherever you want, and would be the beginning of a critique of the 88 Precepts.
Just to add, Lane only uses the term "Aryan" twice in the eighty-eight precepts!

It might be philosophically interesting to compare the 88 Precepts with the 9 Noble Virtues, as you indicate.

The obvious difference is that there are 79 more Precepts!

Life is complex, so maybe even 88 precepts is not enough, and perhaps 9 virtues too, is not quite enough to guide one's life.

The Nine Noble Virtues are vague and not specific. Nor do they refer to Germanicism in any way:

9 NV:
courage,
truth,
honor,
fidelity,
discipline,
hospitality,
industriousness,
self reliance,
perseverance.

They do not state whether one should tell the truth at all times or whether we should tell the truth only to our fellows. Nor do they tell us whether we should be hospitable to all and sundry or only to our fellows etc., etc.

There is no mention of the psychological, sexual, or religious life either [the gods are not even mentioned]. Nor is there anything to do with politics or metaphysics etc.,
Neither is there any guide on legal matters.
They are not Germano specific, not only because they do not mention Germanics, but also because every culture on earth will lay claim to these virtues. There is also no mention in them of Preservation - an important ethical concept in my view.

In all, they are inadequate as a guide to life in any meaningful philosophical sense as they are unclear on what will happen to someone who is uncouragous, untruthful, dishonourable, infidelitous, indisciplined, inhospitable, unindustrious, unself-reliant, and unpersevering.

McNallen's Nine just say that one thing is "better" than they other;

1. Strength is better than weakness

2. Courage is better than cowardice

3. Joy is better than guilt

4. Honour is better than dishonour

5. Freedom is better than slavery

6. Kinship is better than alienation

7. Realism is better than dogmatism

8. Vigour is better than lifelessness

9. Ancestry is better than universalism

So where is the imperative to live in a certain way? Can we tell a lie and say, 'I know it would have been "better" to tell the truth, but you know, I couldn't get it right that day'?
And aren't there times when it is "better" not to tell the truth? - I've just noticed, McNallen doesn't even include truth as a virtue!


Obviously, the 88 Precepts are an attempt to give something far more useful on an ethical and moral basis - something to chew on, which is sorely lacking in the 9NV.


The puritanical dogma scattered throughout directly contradicts the bits about harmony with nature and openness to truth.

I think we need to understand what Lane means by Nature in his view. According to him:
30. The instincts for racial and specie preservation are ordained by Nature.

He therefore approaches all questions from this perspective, which is very different from the Puritanical objections to sex [and sexual mores are part of morality and ethics].
He is actually very un-puritanical:
34. The instinct for sexual union is part of Nature’s perfect mechanism for specie preservation. It begins early in life and often continues until late in life. It must not be repressed; its purpose, reproduction, must not be thwarted either.



Basically he says that any race which doesn't fight for its survival will die. Well true, but race is a relative concept. Most people really don't care....
... He also bases his philosophy on hate which is not a sustainable way of life.

The Precepts agree that most people don't care, and condemn them for it; however he rejects race-hate [and therefore the Precepts are not illegal]:
27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one’s own race.

Indeed, it is the very relative nature of race which makes the need for separation! The Precepts take a very relativistic [and fluxious] metaphysic:
81. Nothing in Nature is static; either the life force grows and expands or it decays and dies.
This shows the influence of Heraclitus and Nietzsche.
Therefore he does not commit the fallacy you believe he does.


One example I read David Lane's Wotanist book.

What book is that?


It had nothing about religion in it.

Right at the start of the Precepts he gives his views on religion - they are quite clear and relate to his Heraclitean outlook:
3...Religion is the creation of mortals, therefore predestined to fallibility. Religion may preserve or destroy a People, depending on the structure given by its progenitors, the motives of its agents and the vagaries of historical circumstances


... when you poke and prod and start to think about what he says- there simply is no substance.

I actually disagree; I think you have yet to get beneath the surface here.
For instance, the Precepts re-evoke the teachings of Plato's Republic [where the Guardians (philosopher-rulers) are to lead]:
50 ... He must be a guardian in his heart. He must be one who has shown that his only purpose in life is the preservation of the folk. His ultimate aim must be to restore the rule of Law based on the perfect Laws of Nature.


Why do you believe so strongly in the preservation of the white race? This is something that should take a normal racialist a lot of soul searching and can't be answered quickly. I know I used to feel a lot more racial as I saw the race as a preservation of myself, but I now realize most whites are nothing like me.

Preservation is to be preferred to destruction in all areas where that with which we are concerned to preserve is not harmful.
Are the White or Germanic Races harmful?
I say not; therefore they should be preserved.
If like the Precepts you believe that things are always in flux, then you have to take measures to preserve those things that you hold dear.


Or think David Lane believes "might makes right".

The Precepts do not say that at all - the phrase is not in there.
On a metaphysical level he thinks that Force is the motive behind the Universe and Nature [and so agrees with Nietzsche here]:
2. Whatever People’s perception of God, or Gods, or the motive Force of the Universe might be, they can hardly deny that Nature’s Law are the work of, and therefore the intent of, that Force.



... the price we pay for being civilized is we have to respect the law and respect other people.

The Precepts reject race-hate as already quoted. While the law must be respected, we are allowed to criticise current laws and lobby for their change. Consider the current economic recession, and then this Precept:
78. The simplest way to describe a usury-based central banking system is this: The bankers demand the property of the Nation as collateral for their loans. At interest, more money is owed them that they created with the loans. So, eventually, the bankers foreclose on the Nation.

This underlies Lane's rejection on an ethical basis of usury.





But take this:
41. The folk, namely the members of the Race, are the Nation. Racial loyalties must always supersede geographical and national boundaries. If this is taught and understood, it will end fratricidal wars. Wars must not be fought for the benefit of another race.

This carries the assumption that God layed down three or four distinct races of man and all that must be done is to keep them from mixing with each other and they will be preserved. It is a false view.

As I quoted above, Lane takes a relativist view of religion and the Universe. If he believed that racial purity was ordained by God [which is not said in the Precepts at all] then why would we need to take measures to preserve it?
The Precepts suggest that the trend is towards the mixing of races which will end the racial distinctiveness that Lane treasures. That is a rational view, rather than a religious one:
33. Inter-specie compassion is contrary to the Laws of Nature and is, therefore, suicidal.

That is based on an evolutionary reading of nature, not a Biblical one. Likewise:
26. Nature has put a certain antipathy between races and species to preserve the individuality and existence of each. Violation of the territorial imperative necessary to preserve that antipathy leads to either conflict or mongrelization.

Another evolutionist view out of Ardrey.


White people are for the most part who are responsible for the destruction of the white race.

You agree with the Precepts then:
27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one’s own race. One must, however, hate with a pure and perfect hatred those of one’s own race who commit treason against one’s own kind and against the nations of one’s own kind. One must hate with perfect hatred all those People or practices which destroy one’s People, one’s culture, or the racial exclusiveness of one’s territorial imperative.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 03:25 PM
Preservation is to be preferred to destruction in all areas where that with which we are concerned to preserve is not harmful.
Are the White or Germanic Races harmful?
I say not; therefore they should be preserved.
I say it depends, harmful to whom/what? To the Germans for instance, the Slavic races are/have been harmful. From Prussia and the originally German Eastern territories they occupied, to the rape of Berlin and enslavement/humiliation of the German race, we could say the history of Germans and Slavs are in opposition. The same could be said about the Greeks and Turks, in my opinion, or just pick another example of opposition. Thus, I am not equally interested in preserving the German and Slavic races and I resent having an "=" sign put between Germanic and white. Maybe in Lane's America Germans and Slavs could unite in brotherhood, but not in Europe, I don't think so.


27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one’s own race. One must, however, hate with a pure and perfect hatred those of one’s own race who commit treason against one’s own kind and against the nations of one’s own kind. One must hate with perfect hatred all those People or practices which destroy one’s People, one’s culture, or the racial exclusiveness of one’s territorial imperative.
Why is it alright to hate your own, but not alright to hate the foreign? I hate both those of my kind who commit treason and those of other races or even those of mixed races who hurt my kind.

Moody
Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 03:40 PM
I despise WN and David Lane and anyone who tries to define a folk by purely biological components, which are often so distinct on a spiritual, cultural and, indeed, even biological level that they can only be glued together in a liberal-individualist system like the one we are approaching now and that has been in place in the United States for some time already, but if I wanted to keep hearing about Stormfront, I would probably visit Stormfront, which I don't. It would pay off to find out what this place really is first and 4 year old threads from another era, and perhaps another board that has been merged into this, are not exactly the way to do it, in my opinion.

In the Philosophy section we are at liberty to discuss ideas as ideas. Therefore if someone presents a purely biological ethic, we discuss it; just as we discuss a purely spiritual ethic. Skadi has a rich and varied heritage from over the years which gives it a depth lacking in other places. I find it philosophically satisfying to come back to issues after a gap of some years and build on what was created before.
As I have said already, my interest is not in Lane the man but in the ideas he put forward in his Precepts. They need to be debated from many perspectives, including the Skadi perspective.
Debating does not mean condoning.
An is is not an ought.


I say it depends, harmful to whom/what? To the Germans for instance, the Slavic races are/have been harmful. From Prussia and the originally German Eastern territories they occupied, to the rape of Berlin and enslavement/humiliation of the German race, we could say the history of Germans and Slavs are in opposition. The same could be said about the Greeks and Turks, in my opinion, or just pick another example of opposition. Thus, I am not equally interested in preserving the German and Slavic races and I resent having an "=" sign put between Germanic and white. Maybe in Lane's America Germans and Slavs could unite in brotherhood, but not in Europe, I don't think so.
Why is it alright to hate your own, but not alright to hate the foreign? I hate both those of my kind who commit treason and those of other races or even those of mixed races who hurt my kind.

There is a line of thought that says that one day very soon, Germanics, Slavs, Celts etc., will have to unite in order to fight off a general anti-White crusade agianst us. In such cases, we put aside our differences and do the job. After that. we go back to our own villages as before.


To further elaborate on the question of preservation: we want to preserve that which we value, that is agreed.
We would not want to preserve something that could complete destroy us - that would be suicidal, as Lane says.

But we want might to preserve our enemies [especially if they are not able to completely wipe us out], as they keep us in good shape by their constant opposition.

Indeed, in Britain, there is the conflict between Celt and Saxon that almost has a familial quality to it. And if anyone form outside should interfere we would both turn on them together!

To keep this in the realm of Philosophical ethics, Nietzsche says, famously, 'what does not kill me makes me stronger'.

Particular groups [such as the Germanics] have needed their enemies in the past in order to define what they are themselves.

In ancient times German tribe fought against German tribe.

However, Lane's dictum still stands:
You should not hate your enemy as you should only have enemies who you respect.
You can tell the quality of a people by the quality of their enemies.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 03:53 PM
There is a line of thought that says that one day very soon, Germanics, Slavs, Celts etc., will have to unite in order to fight off a general anti-White crusade agianst us. In such cases, we put aside our differences and do the job. After that. we go back to our own villages as before.
I don't subscribe to that line of thought. When our preservational policy was threatened by the Jews and other foreign races, the Slavs united with them against us. Repeatedly. And they will do it again at every opportunity.


To further elaborate on the question of preservation: we want to preserve that which we value, that is agreed.
We would not want to preserve something that could complete destroy us - that would be suicidal, as Lane says.

But we want might to preserve our enemies [especially if they are not able to completely wipe us out], as they keep us in good shape by their constant opposition.
In ancient times German tribe fought against German tribe.

Sure, but we are truly "brothers". You can't choose your family, but you can choose your friends and allies.


However, Lane's dictum still stands:
You should not hate your enemy as you should only have enemies who you respect.
You can tell the quality of a people by the quality of their enemies.
But then why should I hate my kin who betrays me? I don't respect them either.

Ulf
Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 04:27 PM
There is a line of thought that says that one day very soon, Germanics, Slavs, Celts etc., will have to unite in order to fight off a general anti-White crusade agianst us. In such cases, we put aside our differences and do the job. After that. we go back to our own villages as before.

Reminds me of how Arminius rallied the Germanic tribes to fight off the Romans and then subsequently went back to battling one another afterwards.

Moody
Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 04:36 PM
Reminds me of how Arminius rallied the Germanic tribes to fight off the Romans and then subsequently went back to battling one another afterwards.

Yes, I agree most certainly, and his speech is recorded in Tacitus.

It is a good ethical principle to 'unite your friends and divide your enemies'.

A clever enemy will always seek to divide his enemy and leave them alone and friendless.

In ancient times German tribe was divided against German tribe - so there has been some progress here if Germanics are becoming truly united.

This is, I believe, behind the Precepts' references to the "White Race" and "Aryans", because as Lane sees it, the game is about survival.

Therefore the Precepts [with some revisions] are a good code for survival.