PDA

View Full Version : Blood or Culture - What's Worth More?



Blutwölfin
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 12:52 PM
Which is more important when thinking of "friend or foe": Blood or Culture?

If you have blond hair, blue eyes and Germanic features you are still not of Germanic if you dont accept the culture (see the wiggers: white people who want to be black, they dress black, talk black, and listen to rap and hip hop. They may look like Germanic Folk but they are not because they have no love for their own culture).

Is a foreigner, e.g. an Iranian, born in Sweden by Iranian parents, who is completely adapting Swedish culture, language and lifestyle and "denying" the Iranian culture of his forefathers "worth more" than a wigger?

Please share your opinions!

Gagnraad
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 02:09 PM
An Iranian who is born in Sweden by Iranian parents can never be a Swede. And if he is better than a wigger? I don't know, but I do believe I like him more than I like the wigger.

Lusitano
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 02:43 PM
I would say blood is more important than culture for the fact that if the blood is corrupted, that means through blood mixing, then the culture is doomded, since it will be the result of the mixture of different bloods and consequently of cultures.

You are right when you say that german and also portuguese, french, english, whatsoever wiggers have no love for their cultures. However, we may hope and expect that they would change their looks, their views and become proud of their heritage and identity again. On the other way, if an iranian, a pakistani or a nigerian completely adapted to our european culture, languages and lifestyle and "denying the culture of his forefathers could represent a danger for our culture because they will inevitably mix with our folk and both of our cultures would disappear through cultural ethnocide.

Galaico
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 02:48 PM
Although I don't agree with Basque separatism, I think these words of Sabino Arana are an excellent answer for that question:

"I much prefer a Spanish speaking pure Basque, than a Basque speaking Maketo (Non-Basque Spanish immigrant), as the language can be learnt, but once you lose your race, it is forever."

Zyklop
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 02:56 PM
Blood creates culture but abandoning culture destroys the blood (as can be seen in our multicultural societies). It´s a cycle, so both has to be protected but in the end it´s only the blood that matters. Culture is just a means to an end.

Theudiskaz
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 02:59 PM
Whiggers are far more valuable than "converts". Even if we cannot succeed in making our whiggers act white, we can hope that their children will be white and can be enculturated. So if wiggers can not be "native" in both blood and lifestyle, there is the potential that the next generation can. On the other hand, a racially alien "convert" to Germanic culture can never be made "native" in both lifestyle and blood. They and their children will not be Germanic!

Patrioten
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 03:01 PM
I would say blood is more important than culture for the fact that if the blood is corrupted, that means through blood mixing, then the culture is doomded, since it will be the result of the mixture of different bloods and consequently of cultures.

You are right when you say that german and also portuguese, french, english, whatsoever wiggers have no love for their cultures. However, we may hope and expect that they would change their looks, their views and become proud of their heritage and identity again. On the other way, if an iranian, a pakistani or a nigerian completely adapted to our european culture, languages and lifestyle and "denying the culture of his forefathers could represent a danger for our culture because they will inevitably mix with our folk and both of our cultures would disappear through cultural ethnocide.And the wigger's children doesn't necessarily have to grow up being wiggers. There is a possibility they might revive their own heritage and culture. As long as there is no race mixing, the culture can be saved as well as the blood. The culture needs the blood to survive, the blood needs the culture to survive. It's a cycle as Zyklop well put it.

Ewergrin
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 04:45 PM
I'd say they are equally important.

Siegfried
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 06:03 PM
Blood creates culture but abandoning culture destroys the blood (as can be seen in our multicultural societies). It´s a cycle, so both has to be protected

I agree with that, but not with the following:


but in the end it´s only the blood that matters. Culture is just a means to an end.

The value of blood is judged by the culture it can produce. Ultimately, what matters is the culture. That doesn't mean a German speaking black man is more valuable than a Swahili speaking Nordid, though, as the latter normally has greater innate potential for culture.

Zyklop
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 06:17 PM
The value of blood is judged by the culture it can produce. Ultimately, what matters is the culture. Judging the value of culture always is subjected to human interpretation. I prefer a more biological view on the world where nature is the only judge.

Sigrid
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 06:53 PM
I only accept people as worth anything if they are decent no matter where they come from or who they are or what culture they are. Race is important to me but it may not be so to others, culture and religion may be more important. For me race is very important but that would be only if they were also culturally like me. I couldn't relate to a devout Muslim Anglo-Saxon. I don't relate at all to Afro-Heathens or to people who have married way out of their race boundary. I couldn't do that, I'd lack a vital reference from this person.

Huzar
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 08:39 PM
There's a undeniable and deep correlation between the Cultural and Biological factors : amalgamated each other, they shape an ethnicity. Without one of these two factors doesn't exist any ethnicity, but only a single individual : americans in these last 60 years have propagandated their lethal "ideology of the single" (pure liberal-individualism), which, under a sparkling image of freedom and high wealth, covers a secret attempt of destruction toward the values of ethnicity. Because "ethnicity" means much more than a single human being : means a deep kinship between many human beings, and means deep tie between human beings and their ancestral land.

Americans know very well that such concept (etnicity) can be very dangerous for their global interest in the world (especially in Europe because that's the only continent capable to rivalize with them). They fear european (especially German) nationalism, by the moment they know it could constitute a severe obstacle to their supremacy, on the long distance.

U.S. government (i say government, not the people. People it's another thing) has the HIGHEST PREFERENCE and INTEREST, to keep Europe (particularly its strongest nations) in a state of internal division, absolutely without any trace of ethnic awarness, racial sensitivity, sense of honour, Tradition, conservative spirit, and many other things. They want as "typical european" a man without any strong identity, ready to accept all liberal capitalistic system purposes, from interracial schools to gay marriages, plus rampant feminism and so on. In few words, a perfect asshole not capable to be dangerous for anyone.

J.B. Basset
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 11:10 PM
Although I don't agree with Basque separatism, I think these words of Sabino Arana are an excellent answer for that question:

"I much prefer a Spanish speaking pure Basque, than a Basque speaking Maketo (Non-Basque Spanish immigrant), as the language can be learnt, but once you lose your race, it is forever."

:) Those are not Sabino Arana´s words in fact they have a completely different meaning:

Si nos dieran a elegir entre una Bizkaya poblada de maketos que sólo hablasen Euzkera y una Bizkaya poblada de bizkainos que sólo hablasen el castellano, escogeríamos sin dubitar esta segunda, porque es preferible la sustancia bizkaina con accidentes exóticos que pudieran eliminarse y sustituirse por los naturales, a una sustancia exótica con propiedades bizkainas que nunca podrán cambiarla,»
«Tanto están obligados los bizkainos a hablar su lengua nacional, como a no enseñársela a los maketos o españoles. No el hablar éste o el otro idioma, sino la diferencia del lenguaje es el gran medio de preservarnos del contacto con los españoles y evitar así el cruzamiento de las dos razas.»

If we had to choose between a Biskaya inhabitated by Spaniards who spoke Basque language and a Biskaya crowded with basque people who only spoke Spanish we would choose the second one with no doubt because it is much desiderable the basque substance with some toxic elements which could be prevented to a toxic substance with some basque properties which will never be changed.

Basque people have to learn their national language but it musn´t be taught to spaniards because language is another way to prevent the contact with Spanish and avoid mixing races.

Galaico
Sunday, July 2nd, 2006, 11:40 PM
Si nos dieran a elegir entre una Bizkaya poblada de maketos que solo hablasen el Euskera y una Bizkaya poblada de bizkainos que solo hablasen el castellano, escogeríamos sin dubitar esta segunda, porque es preferible la sustancia bizkaina con accidentes exóticos que pueden eliminarse y sustituirse por los naturales, a una sustancia exótica con propiedades bizkainas que nunca podrían cambiarla.


If we had to choose between a Biskaya inhabitated by Spaniards who spoke Basque language and a Biskaya crowded with basque people who only spoke Spanish we would choose the second one with no doubt because it is much desiderable the basque substance with some toxic elements which could be prevented to a toxic substance with some basque properties which will never be changed.



Different words, same meaning. I just quoted it by heart.

Gorm the Old
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 01:51 AM
Culture. A person may be of noble blood, but if he does not ACT noble, then he may as well be the son of a peasant. Good upbringing can work wonders with unpromising genetic material. Bad upbringing can waste whatever advantage a good blood-line might impart. Mongrels have achieved greatness and some of the scions of the great have been disappointing at best and evil at worst. Why else does a noble family produce great men, nonentities, and scoundrels ?...Attempts to keep the blood-line of a ruling family as pure as possible by intermarriage have, far more often than not, proved disastrous. The king lists of ancient Egypt show that none of the numerous dynasties, about 26 in all, lasted more than a few generatioins. The blood line was kept pure by brother-sister marriages. Degeneration set in rapidly and soon, there was no one left in the dynasty fit to rule....It is only outbreeding , the introduction of fresh blood to the ruling bloodline which permits it to remain vigorous and healthy. Blood provides the raw material, culture makes the person.

Weg
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 02:03 AM
Blood may have a higher meaning as culture is the product of blood. If your people don't protect his blood, he will lose his culture. We have here, in my country, a bunch of old men ("Académie Française") who care more about the culture we produced than those who created it, wondering if "éléphant" should be written with a "ph" or a "f"... in the meanwhile, we have production line halfbreeds who will produce nothing but spread chaos.
We won't be able to preserve our respective cultures by means of Iranians, and vice versa, what are wiggers if not rootless Europeans? So blood or culture? Equally important, probably yes.

Red Beard
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 05:36 AM
In my opinion and in the simplest of terms blood is worth more than culture for the mere fact that once a culture is lost it can be revived but once blood is gone it is lost forever

Vita
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 06:18 AM
Blood is ancient and primal feeling of kinship between the relatives.
Tribes depend upon blood, and they are therefore only small units-very weak for preservation.
Nation and race are ideas formed and refined by the culture.
So culture can override blood because distinctiveness of nation and race
(needed for preservation) are only possible through culture.
as culture is something universal, it is always possible to choose good and bad. Culture can serve as a tool for national or racial awareness, but also can allow you to declare yourself as a penguin- due to growing liberalism.
Those who are smart, appreciate the overall importance of culture, but restrict themselves from bad influences, which are not only f.e. non Europian
cultural influences, but also the corruption of valuable character traits,
which is higly dangerous.

Alkman
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 11:28 AM
I got this message in one of my mail lists 3 days ago and i think it is related to the topic above:



"Xairete Hellenes kai philoi! The very fact that I even
use this greeting in the Hellenic language brings me
to the subject of a point I wish to make and feel
strongly about as an American HELLEN! And that is
indeed what I idenify myself as, a HELLEN! Not just in
belief and practice religiously, BUT also culturally!
Why? Because when I first fell in love with the Greek
Gods and Hellenismos I also fell in love with
everything "Greek!" The people who first worshipped
these Theoi or Gods, their language, culture and way
of life. Not only did I want to worship the Hellenic
Pantheon, but I also wanted to become a Greek, a
HELLEN in every sense as much as I could or can! And
that feeling of adopting Hellas, its people and
culture as my own remains with me today! I even
legally changed my name to an ancient Hellenic name to
reflect this holistic view. I eat Greek food and
listen to Greek music whenever I can, and when I say
my daily prayers to the Theoi I pray in Greek. I don't
know IF I'm the only American Hellen who feels this
way, and I already know that there are those who feel
it isn't necessary to adopt Greek culture in order to
practice Hellenismos! And this is my VERY point which
I see in many ways as wrong and a contradiction so to
speak! On some of the other Hellenic lists I noticed
amongst many who outright state that they want to
worship the Hellenic Gods, but don't want to be GREEK
in any form or fashion. And some have even gone to the
extent of condemning ancient Hellenic culture and act
like they are horrified that anyone today would even
want to revive it! And so these people want to
separate the Greek or Hellenic religion and its ethnic
Gods from the Greek people and Greekness and practice
a ethnicless form of Hellenismos devoid of any
cultural form or heritage to suit some American or
non-Greek idea of what they want to practice! To me
this is not "traditional" Hellenismos in any sense,
but smacks of Neo-Pagan eclecticism and "do whatever
you want" , or "anything goes " ideas!
I love the Hellenic Gods
and I love the land and people who worship Them,
Hellas! And if I had my way, I would choose to become
a Greek National and live in Hellas, the true homeland
of my Gods! I think that Isocrates put it best at what
definds a HELLEN! It is not race or previous origin,
but spiritual AND CULTURALLY! If you adopt Hellenic
ways, worship Hellenic Gods and speak Hellenic, then
obvisiouly you ARE a HELLEN! Anyway, I hope my point
is understood on this list and that hopefully some
here will agree with me!:) If I posted this on some of
the other so-called Hellenic lists I would absolutely
be condemned and probabely start some flame war, which
is NOT my intent! I just wanted to voice "my" view as
how I see myself as a HELLEN who loves and worships
the Dodekatheon or Olympioi!

Errwsthe! Apollodwros.


P.S. I am proud and glad to see and know
that there are many on this list who support and
admire the work the wonderful people in YSEE in Hellas
are doing for the cause of Hellenismos over there! In
my opinion they represent the cause of traditional
Hellenic belief and practice compaired to the other
groups trying to restore our religion in the homeland"




I may not agree with his definition of "Hellene" but I certainly feel more affinity to this guy than any fundamental ethnically Greek neo-byzantine scum like this:


http://www.Photo-Host.org/img/448127lyssa.jpg

Sigrid
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 01:38 PM
What happened to Hellenic Greece is a tragedy no one even considers while they wander around the ruins and drink up all they find "enriching" about ancient cultures and civilizations. They forget the real Greeks in the same way they forget the real Heathens and Celts and others who lost everything and gained a tourist industry. :mad:

Allenson
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 02:01 PM
Ideally, they go hand in hand--or are both preserved, celebrated and nurtured equally and intertwined.....

However, given a choice of one or the other and not both, I would have to choose blood. I will always maintain that the foundation of culture lies firmly on the blood and without the folk, there is no culture. This isn't really a "which came first, the chicken of the egg?" type of situation where one begets the other. There had to be a folk before any of the extraneous and more superficial (but not trivial!!) entities became so--language, art, style, science, etc.

Also, I find that bloodlines are more fragile and easily damaged--and once altered for the worse, generations are required to dilute anything foreign. Certainly culture is similarly fragile but I believe it to be more plastic in nature and something that can be more quickly repaired or relearn.

I suppose that a breakdown in culture could/can/does lead to a breakdown in bloodlines as we are now seeing in the glorification of negro culture amongst European and Colonial whites and the startling rise in the acceptance of miscegenation with said negroes. That being said, I think that I'd rather see a white person listen to rap and marry a suitable and compatible white, giving rise to another generation of this ilk than I would to see a white listen to Bach and study Proto Indo-European all the while being married to a negro and giving rise to a brood of mulattos.... ;)

Weg
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 02:41 PM
I may not agree with his definition of "Hellene"

I find it a bit dangerous.



If you adopt Hellenic ways, worship Hellenic Gods and speak Hellenic, then obvisiouly you ARE a HELLEN!


It's about time they learn Greek... :D

http://www.unt.edu/northtexan/images/sm04greek.jpg

Allenson
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 03:21 PM
Here is what I wrote at Blut und Boden:

Ideally, they go hand in hand--or are both preserved, celebrated and nurtured equally and intertwined.....

However, given a choice of one or the other and not both, I would have to choose blood. I will always maintain that the foundation of culture lies firmly on the blood and without the folk, there is no culture. This isn't really a "which came first, the chicken of the egg?" type of situation where one begets the other. There had to be a folk before any of the extraneous and more superficial (but not trivial!!) entities became so--language, art, style, science, etc.

Also, I find that bloodlines are more fragile and easily damaged--and once altered for the worse, generations are required to dilute anything foreign. Certainly culture is similarly fragile but I believe it to be more plastic in nature and something that can be more quickly repaired or relearn.

I suppose that a breakdown in culture could/can/does lead to a breakdown in bloodlines as we are now seeing in the glorification of negro culture amongst European and Colonial whites and the startling rise in the acceptance of miscegenation with said negroes. That being said, I think that I'd rather see a white person listen to rap and marry a suitable and compatible white, giving rise to another generation of this ilk than I would to see a white listen to Bach and study Proto Indo-European all the while being married to a negro and giving rise to a brood of mulattos.... http://www.blutundboden.com/forum/images/smilies/wink0001.gif

Blood_Axis
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 03:27 PM
Both. One is useless without the other, although blood has slightly more value since it has the potential of generating culture, while the other way around is impossible.

Without "blood having more value" meaning that there is necessarily inherent value in, let's say (considering whites), being "white". Take a look at all that white trash out there. That is why I say that they are both equally important, and in the end, it is a very, very small elite that combines both elements in a constructive and fruitful way for the group (and as far as all racial groups concerned, not white alone).

Spjabork
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 04:06 PM
Which is more important when thinking of "friend or foe": Blood or Culture?
My personal opinion: one third biological heritage; one third cultural heritage; one third self control/self training/self will.

I.e. not the standard dichotomy: Darwinism vs. behaviourism,

rather a trichotomy: 1. gift before birth 2. gift after birth 3. own earning

If you have blond hair, blue eyes and Germanic features you are still not of Germanic if you dont accept the culture (see the wiggers: white people who want to be black, they dress black, talk black, and listen to rap and hip hop. They may look like Germanic Folk but they are not because they have no love for their own culture).
Thank you so much Blutwölfin! Actually, I'd already given up any hope that anybody some day would say something like that here in this forum. :|
There is really all too much racialism, and with the stress on racial theory, here.

All those White Power Fanatics completely forget how many East Indians (Hindus & Bengalis etc.) fought in the British, Blacks in the British and US Armies, for one or two centuries. (The US Americans have used the Navajo language as military code in WWII.)

The worldwide reputation and influence of the French policy, economy and culture rests to a great extent on the francophone Black Africans.

The Gurkhas - those admirable Nepalese warriors - are still, in this very moment, changing guards in front of Buckingham Palace. And I have no doubt they will risk their lives to protect the Queen, if God should have taken a nap. ;)


Is a foreigner, e.g. an Iranian, born in Sweden by Iranian parents, who is completely adapting Swedish culture, language and lifestyle and "denying" the Iranian culture of his forefathers "worth more" than a wigger?
Here in this forum, in the German section, we have discussed this Problem quite extensively:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=56818

(Sorry, I can't translate the whole thread. :~( ;))

I never underestimate the influence of culure in any respect, but even on race in a purely biological sense. For the preservation of one's own race as such also requires - can't be achieved without - a certain effort of the will. And this will-strength of course is partly inherited (to which "percentage" is debatable), but partly is a question of education, i.e. culture.

There cant' be the slightest doubt about that!

Why we talk so much about race mixing, is that all about aliens raping white women? Certainly not. It's not 100% rape. It's not even 20% rape.
It's the lost confidence of the white women in their race. Which is caused by a lack or lapse of cultural training.

Enibas
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 04:45 PM
For me it is of course blood, because culture is a results of people and without that people there are no culture. Maybe somebody act like a wigger or is ridiculous in this way or in an other way. I know this is a pity but if there is the origin blood, it is possible that the children of this person are upright to their own heritage and there is still a future.

Eurovox
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 05:57 PM
Originally Posted by Julian
Quote:
If you adopt Hellenic ways, worship Hellenic Gods and speak Hellenic, then obvisiouly you ARE a HELLEN!

This is an incredible sentence, or I should say the death sentence of whatever ethnic or cultural entity.

The fact that in Angola they seat on a chair to eat on a table, they speak portuguese, they adopted the christian faith the portuguese teached them, does it makes them portuguese? I dont think so!

Sigrid
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 06:33 PM
You could say by the same token, that adopting Judaeo-Christianity and its beliefs and ways did not make Europeans Jews. It just made them think they were the children of the Jewish God and adopt the Jewish homeland as their own, placing its holy city in the centre of the Holy Roman Universe. The British had it so bad they even have a national song called "Jerusalem" in which they imagine rebuilding this city in their own country, believing that Jesus the Jew walked "upon England's mountains green". Amazingly, there are still people who insist that this is British cultural heritage and take their laws and ethics from a Jewish heretical sect instead of from their roots in European and Indo-European culture and specifically in Celtic and Germanic culture. They were willing to fight and kill each other over this anomaly. How do we then differ from the hapless Angolans or anyone indoctrinated and forced into this servitude of another's will?

Others will disagree. Just my view.

Mathieu
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 06:48 PM
Blood may have a higher meaning as culture is the product of blood. If your people don't protect his blood, he will lose his culture.

I think you have said everything. The alienated european (the wigger by example) is lost at this moment, but as long as his blood is intact there is a hope for a cultural rebirth. The stranger, who loves our culture, can give his worthy contribution, which must not be rejected, but his behaviour and way of thinking are not natural for him, and nothing tell us that his children will have the same affinities to our culture.

Eurovox
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 06:48 PM
If I understand you correctly you say no more than I. Adopting an alien language, a alien religion, or alien costums and manners, that doesn't make one equal and that doesn't mean those who adopt such elements share the same culture but a resembling culture, since the original is impossible to imitate. The english just like all europeans may have a alien religion, that religion from the desert, but It doesn't turn us europeans in to jews. It only regretably weekned our cultural essence and perhaps forever.

If a dog born in a stable it doesn't make him a horse!

Lusitano
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 07:05 PM
Originally Posted by Spajork

Thank you so much Blutwölfin! Actually, I'd already given up any hope that anybody some day would say something like that here in this forum. :|

There is really all too much racialism, and with the stress on racial theory, here.

All those White Power Fanatics completely forget how many East Indians (Hindus & Bengalis etc.) fought in the British, Blacks in the British and US Armies, for one or two centuries. (The US Americans have used the Navajo language as military code in WWII.)

The worldwide reputation and influence of the French policy, economy and culture rests to a great extent on the francophone Black Africans.

The Gurkhas - those admirable Nepalese warriors - are still, in this very moment, changing guards in front of Buckingham Palace. And I have no doubt they will risk their lives to protect the Queen, if God should have taken a nap. ;)

Why we talk so much about race mixing, is that all about aliens raping white women? Certainly not. It's not 100% rape. It's not even 20% rape.
It's the lost confidence of the white women in their race. Which is caused by a lack or lapse of cultural training.


I'm not blutwolfin but, well, let's say I am a white power fanatic, that reconize the help some non european people gave to us in several historical ocasions. I am a white power fanatic who says that besides my admiration for the Samurai warriors, the Nuba warriors, the Gurkha warriors, the Zulu warriors, or even for the Islamic scumbags who blow themselves apart, that doesn't prevent me of saying Race Mixing is a global ethnocide.

Portugal had in the past thousands of negro fighteres in their army ranks during the war in the portuguese colonies. Thousands of them are now living in Portugal, they are honoured each year and the most condecorated living military in Portugal is a negro one. So what! I tell you so what, I tell you that their sons are the new barbarians, I tell you their sons have nothing in common with us, portuguese and europeans, i tell you that they may speek portuguese, but they dont feel themselves as portuguese, in fact they have a strong resentment feeling, it's normal to ear them saying we are going to pay the 500 years of colonization in Africa. OH, I'm sure of that, we are already paying!

You say there is too much racialism here, oh man, and I say that it's too few, it's far from being the racialism european youth need.

Stop that spiritualist and mataphisical crap. Put your feet on the ground and why dont you visit some social security services, some baby registration centers, some maternities, and then, then you will tell me if you still believe here we talk too much about race theories, then you will tell me if blood isnt the most precious thing we have, then you will tell me if we are or not loosing the war, the births war, then you will tell me what Europe future you have seen in those places.

Spjabork
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 07:44 PM
I'm not blutwolfin but, well, let's say I am a white power fanatic, Nice to meet you. :) I am National Socialist. ;)

that reconize the help some non european people gave to us in several historical ocasions.For instance Eusebio during the Football World Cup of 1966 in England. ;) He alone kicked out the team of North Korea, scoring 4 of the 5 Portuguese goals, to a 5 : 3.

The tragical thing is that: I have seen a TV-doc about the North Koreans who played then. The coach stated - almost 40 years later -, that it had been a "fight for decolonization". The North Koreans were told by their government, that they represented "all coloured people of the earth". And of all the players a Black from Portuguese Africa had to kill their dream.

So, Eusebio was a traitor in this perspective. Isn't it weird?

I am a white power fanatic who says that besides my admiration for the Samurai warriors, the Nuba warriors, the Gurkha warriors, the Zulu warriors, or even for the Islamic scumbags who blow themselves apart, that doesn't prevent me of saying Race Mixing is a global ethnocide.
Well, to support a culture and to interbreed with a different race are two quite distinct things. There is no logical nexus between them.

Stop that spiritualist and mataphisical crap. Put your feet on the ground and why dont you visit some social security services, some baby registration centers, some maternities, and then, then you will tell me if you still believe here we talk too much about race theories, then you will tell me if blood isnt the most precious thing we have, then you will tell me if we are or not loosing the war, the births war, then you will tell me what Europe future you have seen in those places.
This is all true what you say, but you didn't discuss with one word what I stated in the second half of my posting, namely, that it is - to a great extent - a question of ourselves' weekness, lack or lost of will-power.

And this has two sides: the girls have no racial pride whatsoever, and the boys have no "escrima" to protect & guard the girls against all those coloured...

Alkman
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 09:32 PM
I find it a bit dangerous.



It's about time they learn Greek... :D

http://www.unt.edu/northtexan/images/sm04greek.jpg
That's what i meant.

There are geographic boundaries for re-hellenization (and i'm not implying enforcement) related to the core of the hellenic spread amongst the centuries.

Magna Graecia,the Balkans, Ionia, Caucasus and Black sea region or North-East Mediterranean in a few words- if i have to specify the area I mean.

Lusitano
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 11:04 PM
Originally Posted by Spjabork
Nice to meet you. :) I am National Socialist.

Nice to meet you too, I am a NS too.;)


So, Eusebio was a traitor in this perspective. Isn't it weird?

Well mate, besides his football skils, Eusebio was a puppet in the hands of portuguese regimen of the time, he was useded for the portuguese propaganda, namely to show the world Portugal was a multicultural country and that our colonies were a legitimate part of our nation.

In the perspective of the North koreans, yes, he a traitor, in my opinion he is not portuguese, even if served the portuguese colours. To be portuguese, to be german, to be french, you have to have portuguese, german, french blood.


Well, to support a culture and to interbreed with a different race are two quite distinct things. There is no logical nexus between them.


First off, I do not support other people/ethnic cultures than the European ones. I may admire some aspects of their culture, but, as a Eurocentric, I dont give a damn about other racial/ethnic groups. Right or wrong my people!


but you didn't discuss with one word what I stated in the second half of my posting, namely, that it is - to a great extent - a question of ourselves' weekness, lack or lost of will-power.

And this has two sides: the girls have no racial pride whatsoever, and the boys have no "escrima" to protect & guard the girls against all those coloured...

I did not mention your second half of your post because I agreed with it, because it is true, we have a lack of will-power, but it is our duty to awaken it, to open our people eyes, since they are now mind poisened.

Desvirilization is one of the worst things our civilization suffer of, and we should do everything we can to awake the ancient courage among our people.

Arrian
Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 07:35 PM
This is so difficult, like having to choose between a brother (same blood but different alien culture) and a friend (similar culture but somewhat different blood).

If we value our Blood (and we should ), culture being an out-come of this, also has the power to reach-out to discipline and awaken someone gone astray.

In the longer run, its too crucial to recognize and acknowledge when this straying happens, and take necessary steps.

An enemy must be called an enemy even if he be our Brother lost to the ways; I regard such a self-honesty most important.

And I think, its for this reason, somewhere in Mein Kampf, Hitler remarks, bringing White Australia under the Japanese is more just and more beneficial for White Blood as a whole, than losing them to the White liberal-semitic allied forces.

When Blood is revived, Culture is revived.
And under a strong kin Culture, slackened kin Blood can be made straight.

Whoever hurts that Blood is enemy. I would not shy away from this.

Northerner
Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 08:06 PM
Blood may have a higher meaning as culture is the product of blood. If your people don't protect his blood, he will lose his culture. We have here, in my country, a bunch of old men ("Académie Française") who care more about the culture we produced than those who created it, wondering if "éléphant" should be written with a "ph" or a "f"... in the meanwhile, we have production line halfbreeds who will produce nothing but spread chaos.
We won't be able to preserve our respective cultures by means of Iranians, and vice versa, what are wiggers if not rootless Europeans? So blood or culture? Equally important, probably yes.

Yes, I agree. I would even go as far as to say that they are not only equally important, but intertwined and inseparable also. If you damage one, you usually damage the other.

I have to admit that it sometimes appears that we have many in my country that have as equal a disdain for the culture that made it strong, as they do for those that produced it (and the amenities that most enjoy here). While it has been years since I have heard the derogatory "dead white males" (I last heard it in an English Lit course at VPI & SU over 10 years ago), it is hard to escape the fact that there is a culture war being waged and that it has underlying racial implications.

Valdi
Monday, July 10th, 2006, 08:41 PM
Which is more important when thinking of "friend or foe": Blood or Culture?

If you have blond hair, blue eyes and Germanic features you are still not of Germanic if you dont accept the culture (see the wiggers: white people who want to be black, they dress black, talk black, and listen to rap and hip hop. They may look like Germanic Folk but they are not because they have no love for their own culture).

Is a foreigner, e.g. an Iranian, born in Sweden by Iranian parents, who is completely adapting Swedish culture, language and lifestyle and "denying" the Iranian culture of his forefathers "worth more" than a wigger?

Please share your opinions!


For culture, there will be always a cure.

Everythings start form somewhere..let's take for example a german guy that is acting like a black man (same dressing, same speech, same attitudes etc), that's not his fault and you should not focus on him because the root of the evil is 'his country he lives in" " family" "friends" .

Taras Bulba
Monday, July 10th, 2006, 09:50 PM
Ive given some commentaries on this issue. It depends on nation to nation. Germanic nationalism tended to emphasize bloood; while French and Spanish nationalism emphasized culture. French nationalists in particular noted that France as a nation was not the creation of one race but of several races: the Gallic, Latin, and Frankish races and cultures all merged into one and became France. Similar logic governed much Spanish nationalist thinking.

More on this later if I feel up to it. Lately I have not been feeling too well. :(

oneeyeisbetter
Monday, July 10th, 2006, 10:08 PM
Blood is far more important. Culture can be changed. I know its been said in more complicated ways but there is a simple answer. ;) I`ve seen it happen! :thumbup

Osmaegen
Thursday, August 24th, 2006, 09:56 PM
Blood is important in that all Germanics are all descendants of Mannus. However, culture cannot be underestimated. A Germanic that has adopted the ways of the non-Germanic has broken the spiritual ties with their ancestors, severed themselves from our Gods, and negated any benefits of tribal ancestry. Their children will be non-Germanic, and unlikely to reconnect to their hertiage. Indeed, someone of non-Germanic descent that has adopted our ways is worth more. So while blood separates us from other peoples, culture makes those differences even greater.

TacticalMastery
Thursday, August 24th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Let me ask this..

I "supposedly" have a cherokee ancestor quite far back.. if its even true, i'd be 1/32. Would you consider me "unworthy" or not good enough?

Osmaegen
Thursday, August 24th, 2006, 10:16 PM
I have Cherokee blood myself, and I do not think it makes one bit of difference. Purity of blood I do not think is important. What is important is who one's ancestors are and which culture, they embrace. One can be three quarters Cherokee in my opinion, and as long as they have Germanic blood they are still a descendant of Mannus.

Siegfried
Thursday, August 24th, 2006, 10:40 PM
Let me ask this..

I "supposedly" have a cherokee ancestor quite far back.. if its even true, i'd be 1/32. Would you consider me "unworthy" or not good enough?

As a rule of the thumb, 1/32 of pretty much anything is negligible, in my humble opinion.

Nordgau
Friday, August 25th, 2006, 11:19 PM
One can be three quarters Cherokee in my opinion, and as long as they have Germanic blood they are still a descendant of Mannus.

Sounds like a blank check for race mixing. So the Negroes in the U.S.A.--who are generally actually Mulattos with a minor white component--are respectable "descendants of Mannus"? Well, of course one could "solve" the immigration problem in the Germanic countries through kneading all the coloured blood together with that of the autochthonous Germanic peoples. I, however, do not see good reason to embrace German-Turkish, German-Arab, German-Negrid offsprings because of their partial German parentage as national compatriots. I do not endorse the Brazilianisation of my folk.

Bridie
Saturday, August 26th, 2006, 07:20 AM
Blood. :)

Waldeule
Sunday, August 27th, 2006, 02:51 PM
Blood and culture are equally important.

What is it worth to be of the blood of a certain nation but do not knowing anything about it? Culture contains not to behave "cultivated" like visiting the theatre or something. Culture is language, is ancestral research, tradition, knowledge about nation and fatherland (history, politics, etc.) and folklore things. Here in Germany there are people owning the German blood, but they don't want to know anything about the German culture. They even don't know in what federal state they live, or who won the 1st World War...the list is endless. Even they don't want to be Germans from the cultural point of view. If I look at all the juvenils who listen to this hip-hop-music and behaving like they would spring from the jungle, then I think that it is not the behaviour which caters and fits to the nation they belong too.

But blood is also deciding. There is a Turkish politician who says that we should be more patriotic and all this. But he is not able to understand our point of patriotism because he does not belong to our nation. People must be proud of the nation they belong to and not patriotic of the land in which they are just living. There is a parable of this fact: If a mouse gives birth in a cookies' box its children won't be cookies but mice.

Odhinnskriger
Sunday, August 27th, 2006, 05:05 PM
Personally, I can't see one without the other. Blood can be a good thing but in a case of a wigger, I doubt it can change anything. The cultural element is primordial. If this wigger has a child, the child will be raised in a wigger environment and ,therefore, augmenting his chances of being a wigger. This is actually a loophole. The "wigger movement" alone demonstrates us the power that culture can have over blood.

Drake
Monday, August 28th, 2006, 09:37 AM
I don't believe that one is more important than the other in terms of value. Culture is dependent on blood, though blood is valuated, or should be valuated, primarily based on culture. The height that a race's culture attains determines the value of the race. This is the idea that Hitler based his belief in Indo-European superiority to other races due to its incredibly advanced culture, what he styled "the culture founding Aryan." Without the culture, the meaning of race tends to be diminished to some degree, without taking into account "racial aesthetics." And I don't think this can be applied to any great degree along subtypical or national lines, but applied to broad racial categories, it holds true. The only truly deleterious aspect of cultural genocide is the resultant racial genocide; when people no longer recognize the inherent worth of their culture and abandon it, they will not hesitate to abandon their race by mixing.

Waldeule
Monday, August 28th, 2006, 11:36 AM
@Drake: In most parts this is true.
I just want to take a note due to this AH-ideology. There is a grand lack: Hitler thought slavs would be inferior to the aryans. But he did not realize that the slavs belong to the indo-germanic/aryan race itself. Slavics were obviously a subrace of the indo-germanic tribes. Also it must be realised that the belief slavs would not belong to the aryan race springs from the belief in a strong difference between slavs and germanics/teutons which is not as strong as it was maintained in pangermanism and panslavism.

But you are right by writing that a race that forgets its culture is easier to infiltrate.

Zyklop
Monday, August 28th, 2006, 02:02 PM
@Drake: In most parts this is true.
I just want to take a note due to this AH-ideology. There is a grand lack: Hitler thought slavs would be inferior to the aryans.
Can you provide a source where Hitler differentiated between Slavs and Aryans?

Drake
Monday, August 28th, 2006, 09:26 PM
@Drake: In most parts this is true.
I just want to take a note due to this AH-ideology. There is a grand lack: Hitler thought slavs would be inferior to the aryans. But he did not realize that the slavs belong to the indo-germanic/aryan race itself. Slavics were obviously a subrace of the indo-germanic tribes. Also it must be realised that the belief slavs would not belong to the aryan race springs from the belief in a strong difference between slavs and germanics/teutons which is not as strong as it was maintained in pangermanism and panslavism.

But you are right by writing that a race that forgets its culture is easier to infiltrate.


I acknowledge that Hitler and the NSDAP considered Germans to be the archetypal "Aryans", while the word Aryan, in common usage and by V. Gordon Childe, is just another word for Indo-European, which of course would include Slavs. But, at the same time, he also acknowledged that other IE cultures had exceeded Germanic culture in antiquity, such as the Greeks and Romans, which is why he chastised Himmler for doing his archeological research of the ancient Germanics. I believe I read this in Speer's book. I also read in that book that toward the end of his life, Hitler said that he thought the Caucasian peoples were superior to the Germans because they were able to survive the harsh weather of the steppe. But, that is where our race was born. I'm sure the war in Russia and elsewhere had influenced his thoughts.

Neophyte
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 05:12 PM
Without a doubt, blood.

Culture is—in my humble opinion—pretty much a function of race rather than the other way around. Sociobiological studies seem to indicate that between 50 to 75 per cent of the variation in any particular trait is hereditary while the rest can be attributed to the individual environment.

When individual behaviours and dispositions are aggregated to the level of culture, the individual environments—again in my humble opinion—are nothing more than idiosyncratic variation and tend to cancel out. What remains is the race, and therefore I say that culture is merely the application of race to a specific situation.

That is why racial purity and eugenics are so important. Culture as a purely social construction is just another Jewish invention.

Aupmanyav
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 06:00 AM
In India you have many strains of blood but it is Indian-ness, Hinduism are more important. I think culture is more important.

Spjabork
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 07:10 AM
Culture is—in my humble opinion—pretty much a function of race rather than the other way around. No. The whole history of Germanics is one single counterproof. The Germanics lost essential parts of their Culture (due to nonchalance, which may be attributed to an inherent weakness of hteir blood) and because of that they now are in danger of loosing their pure blood, or what is left, too.

What remains is the race, Maybe you and others here on the forum hope so, but it isn't so. Culture can suppress blood, culture can wipe out blood.

and therefore I say that culture is merely the application of race to a specific situation.In the case of Germanics, this "situation" must have been very specific. It was the adaptation to an irresistible pressure, i.e. the cultural pressure was stronger than the blood.

Culture as a purely social construction is just another Jewish invention.The Jews did not "invent" culture, but they were the first to realize the importance of culture. They were the first people in the world who introduced Laws against race mixing - of course only for themselves -, which means they were the first people in the world (beside the Hindus maybe) who consciously used Culture to protect blood. They, it is true, "constructed" racial hygiene.

In India you have many strains of blood but it is Indian-ness, Hinduism are more important. I think culture is more important.
Same goes for China. Instead of Hinduism, they cherish a complex "Sinoism", which is composed of several ingredients. And race is even less important there, for there is no caste tradition or anything like that. The Mongols, Manchus etc. simply were absorbed by the "Han".

Taras Bulba
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 07:26 PM
Well to add onto my commentary earlier in this thread, it depends on how one defines each term. It ties into another issues I've been discussing for some now, namely the issue of comparing race with nation. Although I've previosuly tried to formulate this concept more on my own, for better clarity I'll rely on Jacques Maritain's analysis of this issue found within his treatise Man and the State.

Basically he contrasts "race" in the biological sense with "nation" in what he terms the "ethico-social" sense. The two concepts are not the same, although on the surface one can(and have) mistaken the two. Primarily because both are largely built on the concept of descent. But the nature of that descent and what it implies is very different.

Biological descent means you largely inherit the genes and many physical attributes of your ancestors. "Ethico-social" descent, while not denying genetic descent per se, nevertheless is based more upon the concept of inheriting the particular traditions and culture of your ancestors and of that community.

So if we use Maritain's logic, we can actually say that the issue here now becomes which form of descent do we wish to place more emphasis on. "Biological" descent or "ethico-social" descent("culture" as termed in this thread).

I place my lot with "culture" defined in the ethico-social sense.

Klegutati
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 07:33 PM
I totally agree with Waldeule!;) It makes sense.. I always felt I was something else besides Canadian. I was always proud to be who I am, which makes me happy. When people put me down because of it, I'm not happy. I think more people need to know their roots, and to have honour in it.. It will make people happier.:thumbup

Thalia
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 07:40 PM
Bloodmixing*destroys the culture and cultural carelessness destroys the blood. Both must be protected. From my point of view none of them can't survive without the other one. Both are worth the same.

*especially with non-europeans, of course

Taras Bulba
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 07:47 PM
Bloodmixing destroys the culture and cultural carelessness destroys the blood.

Depends on what nation you're talking about. French nationalists, for example, stressed the fact that their nation was the result of the mixture of several races and cultures(Gauls, Romans, Franks, etc.). Spanish nationalists held a similar view.

German nationalism tended to stressed racial purity more strongly than other European nationalisms(with the partial exception of Slavs) on the account that ethnic Germans were surronded by various other national groups. They wanted to prevent the assimilation of ethnic Germans into foreign populations(particularly Slavs like Czechs and Bohemians).

So yes, as I stated, nationalism comes in a variety of ways, reflecting the different national cultures.

Teutonic
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 08:38 PM
this is my perspective; Nothing means so much as blood. its what shapes the features of our face to our height to our skin. you can look at it this way; as an american i have seen many times if the usa is at war or odds with a country like iraq then the americans go after the iraqi americans and single them out, its the same thing americans did to my people the German americans during ww1,ww2,. we were americans untill america was at war against Germany then we were not americans anymore we were seen as Germans, it did not matter how much we assimilated into american society, some German-americans going as far as to change their last name, so they would be evan less visibale.blood is our kulture no matter what any of you say. as long as our blood is pure we can continue on. my family has been in america for almost 100 years, but i look and feal and think like a teuton,my grand mother calls me the kraut with the anglos tongue.i think a lot of you need to quit being so damn judgemental on our brohters and sister that live in america and australia and newzealand our blood is as German,French,dutch,english as any of you that live in motherland europe. Most of those i talk to in the fatherland open that conuntry up to me with open arms as they know my blood and my face are all the keys i need to enter the Fatherland. i did not mean any offense in this message as i am kind of rambling but maybe some of it i did. all in all we need to quit bickering wiht eachother and unit like only whites know how.

germanic
Thursday, September 21st, 2006, 08:43 PM
Blood is more important then culture because culture can be learned and rescued whereas once blood as been poluted it is gone forever.

Wiggers can unlearn all there wigger ways and become white again but an half cast will always be a half cast no matter what culture he follows

Culture is very very very important but blood is the survival of our race.

Zvukk
Thursday, September 21st, 2006, 11:01 PM
Blood is more important then culture because culture can be learned and rescued whereas once blood as been poluted it is gone forever.

Wiggers can unlearn all there wigger ways and become white again but an half cast will always be a half cast no matter what culture he follows

Culture is very very very important but blood is the survival of our race.

i agree. blood is MUCH more important than culture, which is also important

fms panzerfaust
Thursday, September 21st, 2006, 11:51 PM
Blood comes first. There is just one race, and this is the white race.

Culture and religion comes as second. There are various ethnies, religions and modes of thought, yet in one same race - the white race. But if your religion is a religion of blood, then I can say that the three - blood, culture and religion, will be united in the first concern.

Nation, state, family, society, comes as third, or second, if the view above should be taken. Nation and state are constructs from the french revolution, not creations of nature, but of the "enlightment". Family was to be one second concern, but unfortunately, today, with the manipulation by the media, even our own families can be against us, and this maybe is a proof that family should be a third concern, because is influenced by blood (or blood betrayal), culture (or manipulation by the media) or religion (or pseudo-spirituality). Society, well, what I should say about society? There is no health society without blood and culture, thus I cant see it being of first or second concern.

germanic
Sunday, September 24th, 2006, 09:33 PM
Blood comes first. There is just one race, and this is the white race.

Culture and religion comes as second. There are various ethnies, religions and modes of thought, yet in one same race - the white race.

EXACTLY ---:highfive STAND UP AND SPEAK UP MY BROTHER

æþeling
Saturday, September 30th, 2006, 05:32 PM
I don’t really separate them myself. You might as well ask is it better to have a brain or a heart.

Culture i.e. the values, world view, the psychological aspects of a people are born of that people, trinkets are just trinkets. I could speak Japanese, dress Japanese, and live in a Japanese house, but I would not think like Japanese, or see things as they see them, although I might believe that I do.

Race is central to our world view, to our cultural expressions, but so is ethnicity. I might be the same race as a German, or an Irishman, but again we are separate peoples with a different attitude to life, although being closely related we can see the commonalities.

NatRev
Saturday, October 21st, 2006, 10:53 AM
I tend to think of Whiggers as Lost Children. :(

We all know that Nature abhors a vacuum and because White culture is being perpetually denied to us and especially our youngsters, they adopt a more evident and 'cooler' alternative. Black culture is constantly being bombarded onto our TV screens. We have satelite TV and I'd say there's about 12 or so music channels, at least 8 of them are black centred, MTV Bass etc.

With this constant brain washing and being told all the time about White guilt, is it any wonder our kids want to dress like a hardened black gand member? :doh

I find it all sickening frankly, especially when one finds out that the people who are behind promoting this filth aren't even blacks themselves. I'm sure you all know whom I'm refering to, Shalom! :jew

Blood and Culture are like two sides of an equation. One simply can NOT have one without the other. Both evolve and alter according to their environment but they are fundamentally one and the SAME.

It';s like saying:

'If you had to cut yourself in half, which side would you like the most, left or right?'

:O

You can't have one without the other.

Well that's my opinion anyway. :D

Gefjon
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 04:12 PM
If you were forced to choose between the two, what would you choose? i.e. if you could only marry either a black citizen of your country who spoke your language perfectly and followed your culture by the letter or a person of the same ethnicity as you but who was a whigger, ignorant of his/her country's history and traditions? :P

Kurtz
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 04:27 PM
If you were forced to choose between the two, what would you choose? i.e. if you could only marry either a black citizen of your country who spoke your language perfectly and followed your culture by the letter or a person of the same ethnicity as you but who was a whigger, ignorant of his/her country's history and traditions? :P

Blood. It can't be changed, can't evolve or get corrected as culture can.


"My great religion is a belief in the blood, as the flesh being wiser than the intellect. We can go wrong in our minds but what our blood feels and believes and says, is always true."D.H. Lawrence

Allenson
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 04:31 PM
I can only echo Kurtz. Blood by far as it can not be changed, altered or learned as can culture.

This isn't a chicken or the egg kind of situation. It should plainly evident which entity came first.

Kadu
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 04:51 PM
Both IMO, but i must say that when i say blood i'm referring to the roots of an individual not the phenotype because, f.e. there are British, Spaniards, French, Italians, etc... with the same phenotype but what separates them from each other is Culture.

Thusnelda
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 06:17 PM
All important is already said! :D

"Blood. It can't be changed, can't evolve or get corrected as culture can."
"I can only echo Kurtz. Blood by far as it can not be changed, altered or learned as can culture."
Blood. The whigger can grow out of his habits and learn about his country's history, traditions etc. He would basically be returning to his origins which aren't foreign to him."

---

I go with Blood, too. :)

Hohenheim
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 06:36 PM
Both!

But if I had to choose... then I'd take culture.

What is blood without an identity? For me nothing.

Mrs. Lyfing
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 06:36 PM
Wow what a choice,I think everyone here would vote blood because thats what we are about.

I would not want to marry either but yes I would go with the wigger because if I chose the black man I'd be dead & 6 feet under because my dad would kill me!!!:D

Gefjon
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 06:57 PM
Wow what a choice,I think everyone here would vote blood because thats what we are about.
That's what the first impression is, the answer should be rather obvious but folks do have different opinions even on a forum for racial preservation. :D

So Hohenheim, you'd consider a black lady of your culture more suitable for yourself than a whiggeress if you only had this choice? :confused:

OneEnglishNorman
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 07:02 PM
If you were forced to choose between the two, what would you choose? i.e. if you could only marry either a black citizen of your country who spoke your language perfectly and followed your culture by the letter or a person of the same ethnicity as you but who was a whigger, ignorant of his/her country's history and traditions? :p

Lol no one here will admit to "I'd marry the black" :D

Blood I suppose. Recent African history proves that the political culture given to them cannot be continued and maintained by them, hence our ways of life as Europeans are products of our ethnicity in large part.

Better question might be, "would you rather live next door to a loud noisy whigger or a reserved, polite black".

Gefjon
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 07:07 PM
Better question might be, "would you rather live next door to a loud noisy whigger or a reserved, polite black".
Nah, that's a different thing, you can just ignore the reserved, polite black person but when it comes to your race, your blood heritage the choice reflects much more on you. ;)

Deary
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 07:10 PM
An ignorant person of the same heritage will always be worth more than a partner who could pollute my family line. Children follows marriage, and if it dosen't, I don't find being wed to someone of blood too foreign acceptable. See here (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=33385&postcount=11) for my other views regarding blood vs. culture.

Geribeetus
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 07:50 PM
I definately choose the whigger. While I'd be unhappy with her as a wife, I'm sure I could manage to raise the kids to have more sense than their mother. Besides if I chose culture, this leaves the children with two choices. They could marry White, and their kids could marry White, and we'd eventually have a crypto-Negro. They could also marry outside their race like their father and the family tree would be re-Negrified. So the family line will be carried on by someone I'd really rather not. It's bad enough that our slaves kept the family name after they were freed.

mischak
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 07:59 PM
If you were forced to choose between the two, what would you choose? i.e. if you could only marry either a black citizen of your country who spoke your language perfectly and followed your culture by the letter or a person of the same ethnicity as you but who was a whigger, ignorant of his/her country's history and traditions? :P


I wouldn't marry.

Matamoros
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 08:04 PM
I chose blood, because that is something that can never be changed.

Thusnelda
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 08:11 PM
..but yes I would go with the wigger because if I chose the black man I'd be dead & 6 feet under because my dad would kill me!!!:D
I think my father would do the same (more regarding Arabs and Muslims as "husbands"), but if I ever would get so brainwashed and stupid to do that (what never will happen), my father would be right if he kills me! :D (Just kidding to some extend ;) )

Reid
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 08:48 PM
A false dichotomy as presented here. Only through culture is blood given any significance. Blood has no essential value divorced from a collective purpose.


Blood. It can't be changed, can't evolve or get corrected as culture can.

D.H. Lawrence
You may have some esoteric meaning I'm overlooking here, but we're actually evolving faster than ever.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/uou-ahe120607.php (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eure kalert.org%2Fpub_releases%2F2007-12%2Fuou-ahe120607.php)

Kurtz
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 09:14 PM
A false dichotomy as presented here. Only through culture is blood given any significance. Blood has no essential value divorced from a collective purpose.


You may have some esoteric meaning I'm overlooking here, but we're actually evolving faster than ever.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/uou-ahe120607.php (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eure kalert.org%2Fpub_releases%2F2007-12%2Fuou-ahe120607.php)

As much as there is some esoteric meaning to my comment, it also meant that our DNA cannot be changed in a life-time. It can evolve through breeding, and miscgenation (it does evolve, rather), but an individual does not have any influence upon his genetic heritage. It is there, simply. Lineages evolve (if not, we would not be there), but blood at an individual level does not.

As for your first comment, I would like to ask if you agree that never have humans had a collective purpose entirely dissociated from blood or ethnicity? The only mixed societies the world knew (Egypt, and Alexandria in particular comes to my mind, as well as Classical India) had their foundations based on ethnic identities and segregation.

I do think a shared blood heritage and a suited environment creates, de facto, a culture. The collective purpose exists even if we are not fully aware of it.

Freydis
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 09:18 PM
Agreeing with mischak, I wouldn't marry either presented with such a choice. I'd rather have both blood and culture.

Next World
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 10:45 PM
I wouldn't marry.

Agreeing with mischak, I wouldn't marry either presented with such a choice. I'd rather have both blood and culture.
I'm going to have to agree with these ladies. It won't come to me choosing between a black and a wigger, both who have genetics I wouldn't be interested in, as far as I am concerned.

You are asking us to choose between the physicality of a people and the spirit of a people. A person is not a person without the non-physical aspect, nor without the physical aspect. Both are required. The same is applied to a people, and the same is applied to our people.

Soldier of Wodann
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 10:55 PM
Blood all the way. The strength of the Blood leads to the strength of Culture, directly. Even if one has an originally degenerate Culture and the strength of Blood without foriegn influence, the Blood will create an ascendant Culture, whereas the Culture will not create an ascendant Blood. A negro can be schooled again and again in White culture, but the great majority of the time he will never truly understand it, as any American can see.

ChaosLord
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 11:13 PM
Blood. Culture can change over the years, but the blood of your ancestors is eternal.

Hermelin
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 11:16 PM
Definitely blood, as it is an unalterable factor. Culture on the other hand can be influenced and evolve. In relation to this poll, a whigger has the potential to be "fixed", while the black - no matter how cultural compliant - can't ever be.

Loddfafner
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 11:38 PM
If I take the question narrowly as one about suitability of partners for procreation, then it is blood, of course. But in the broader sense, I have to go with culture, as it is culture that protects bloodlines or breaks them up.

æþeling
Friday, January 4th, 2008, 11:56 PM
The question, I feel, isn't valid.

Culture, for me, is determined by race. A black can learn Queen’s English and dress as a Beef Eater but that doesn’t make him English, anyone can adopt trinkets but real culture is a mind set and a world view that has grown from within a people and a race is determined by genetics.

Reid
Saturday, January 5th, 2008, 01:03 AM
As much as there is some esoteric meaning to my comment, it also meant that our DNA cannot be changed in a life-time. It can evolve through breeding, and miscgenation (it does evolve, rather), but an individual does not have any influence upon his genetic heritage. It is there, simply. Lineages evolve (if not, we would not be there), but blood at an individual level does not.
I take your point. What I meant to emphasise is that on the group level, our blood continues to change, and our racial composition is not static. Given that we won't be the same genetically in one thousand years, the question is what continues to bind us, what perpetuates the 'us'? The same was question can be asked of the individual: what makes a person the same person if all his cells will be replaced several times over the course of his life? The answer is memory, which on the group level is known as culture.

Elysium
Saturday, January 5th, 2008, 01:13 AM
To me, they both complement each other, and if you do not have one you might as well not have either. Without either, there is nothing. :)

Loyalist
Saturday, January 5th, 2008, 01:19 AM
Individuals can be conditioned and changed, but blood is unalterable.

stormlord
Saturday, January 5th, 2008, 01:55 AM
blood.


On another note, I can't stand people who can't seem to answer a hypothetical question according to the original criteria. The question says pick one or the either, blood or culture; "neither" or "both" are not valid answers.

It's like people who are asked "if your wife and your daughter were drowning and you could only save one, which would it be?" and reply with "I'm a really good swimmer, so first I'd save my wife, and then I'd go back and save my daughter, so I wouldn't have to choose" Seriously, it's basic logic,

ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED!!! :oanieyes

Next World
Saturday, January 5th, 2008, 04:01 AM
On another note, I can't stand people who can't seem to answer a hypothetical question according to the original criteria. The question says pick one or the either, blood or culture; "neither" or "both" are not valid answers.

ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED!!! :oanieyesI believe that after a certain point, if one denies their culture, they do have bad blood. So the hypothetical situation presented (choosing a black or a wigger) disqualifies the question in general, for me. I am not choosing between bad blood and good culture or good blood and bad culture. I am choosing between bad blood and bad culture or bad blood and bad culture.

I am not rendered a choice, so why should I select from the two answers that are really the same to me?

European culture is not right for a black. Black culture or ghetto culture is not right for a white. If either pursues, I take it to mean that they are defected.

It'd be more like asking someone if their enemies' twin sons were drowning, which they would save. Why not let them both drown?

æþeling
Saturday, January 5th, 2008, 11:59 AM
Originally Posted by rivalin
ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED!!!

If a question isn't valid it isn't valid, in my opinion it isn't a valid question. I see no difference between blood and culture that would allow them to be easily seperated. You don't get one without the other. Of course you can disagree and answer the questions as you see fit, as I'll answer it as I see fit.;)

stormlord
Saturday, January 5th, 2008, 01:16 PM
It'd be more like asking someone if their enemies' twin sons were drowning, which they would save. Why not let them both drown?

An analogy to the orginal question would be if your enemies' twin sons were drowning AND YOU HAD TO SAVE ONE which would you choose?

The question was not "what would you do in real life" it was "what would you do within the parameters of the hypothetical situation posed"

apparently some of you guys would be a lot of fun to play chess with;

me; "knight to c4"

you; //slam down fist on my pieces and shout// "nuclear missile to B2!!!!! I win!!!!!"

me, "don't be ridiculous that's against the rules of the game"

you "I'll interpret the rules of the game as I see fit, and you can do the same"

It's a hypothetical question, it can't be valid or invalid, it's hypothetical, if someone asks you "if you could have the power to fly or be invisible which would you choose?" you can't answer that it's an invalid question because both are impossible.

Within the parameters of the question, the answer is a matter of opinion, if you answer outside of the parameters of the original question THEN YOU AREN'T ANSWERING THE QUESTION!

I guess an education in informal logic isn't commonly taught these days, but seriously the Socratic dialogues are your friend :D

Next World
Saturday, January 5th, 2008, 04:09 PM
YOU AREN'T ANSWERING THE QUESTION!Fine. I will marry the wigger and kill him in his sleep. Is that better?

If it's a hypothetical situation, then your answer doesn't really mean much. I don't see why people get hyped about "invalid" answers on threads like this when there are other invalidities on the forum that are much more problematic, IMO.

It typically bothers me when people say, "Neither" to these hypothetical questions, but there cannot even be a "neither" when your choice is actually A or A. It's more of a "no".

mischak
Saturday, January 5th, 2008, 05:05 PM
Within the parameters of the question, the answer is a matter of opinion, if you answer outside of the parameters of the original question THEN YOU AREN'T ANSWERING THE QUESTION!

I guess an education in informal logic isn't commonly taught these days, but seriously the Socratic dialogues are your friend :D

Calm down, it's just the internet.

Janus
Saturday, January 5th, 2008, 05:37 PM
I'd marry the negro but won't have children. I'm not intending to have children anyways and a negro without children is something nice,too ;)

Because of that fact, the negress would be the better choice since she's aculturated, educated, nice etc.

Schmetterling
Tuesday, January 8th, 2008, 03:47 PM
In this extreme scenario you have described, I would choose the whigger. However, in everyday life, I prefer someone who has both the blood and the culture needed to further my heritage. Someone who is uncultured is hard to get along with. I have no regards for people who disrespect their heritage by choosing to act like something they aren't.

Beornulf
Saturday, February 2nd, 2008, 02:14 AM
Neither is the only realistic answer I can give. Both sound like mentally and spiritually weak people who I would not want to relate to or know.

Both are rejecting their heritage and neither would carry the genes I would want if I were to have children one day. Plus I have a hard time tolerating people as it is.

Julien
Friday, March 28th, 2008, 02:46 AM
I've come to realize that despite my predominately German ancestry, I still feel more of a kinship to the English. I'm certain this is because of the heavy English influence on this region.

This makes me wonder how the rest of you feel on this matter. Who do you find you have more in common with? Obviously, this question is aimed towards those who are living in areas in which they are the ethnic minority.

I apologize if this topic would fit better in another location.

Loyalist
Friday, March 28th, 2008, 02:55 AM
I feel a greater connection to those who are biologically similar to me. For example, I find I have a closer rapport with individuals of English or continental German origin, or even a native of those lands, than a Canadian national of non-Germanic origin. Although, certain cultural aspects tend to be entwined with ethnic origin. Religion plays a large part in this, as well as political sentiment, and that is why I, ironically, do not connect well with Celts, and certainly no one outside of the Celtogermanic fold.

Eccardus Teutonicus
Friday, March 28th, 2008, 07:39 AM
I think the question here truly is "Can ethnicity be learned?" The answer is obvious: no. The fact that a negro could appear a better German than a native German is a poor reflection on the German in question, no doubt, but it does not make that negro any more of a German. Culture is not learned, it is not worn like an article of clothing, it is inherent and organic to nationhood. Anyone can get a tattoo, but only some have birthmarks- anyone can pretend to be Germanic and do a fine job with it, but only we whose ancestors, whose family has the Germanic mark can claim with validity to be Germanic.

Stygian Cellarius
Tuesday, May 26th, 2009, 03:12 AM
[Note: thread split from here (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=120641).]



If in some centuries Germany is comprised of brownies in a folk costumes speaking dialects then it will be pointless because we will have lost the battle.



Also incorrect. It is a balance between the two. A future where Germany is full of Germans, but which are no longer in touch with their ancestral culture is no more preferable than a Germany with no ethnic Germans still in touch with German traditional culture.

Japan is the most homogenous developed nation (well over 99% ethnically pure), but many have fallen out of touch with their traditional culture, in some cities it is only the mentality that remains, the rest is but a mere shroud of history.

The point is: It needs a balance, or an importance placed upon both. Cultural and Ethnic Preservation are both very important, yet either is absolutely useless without at least some importance placed upon the other.

I beg to differ. There is nothing incorrect about Todesengle's comment. The situation she describes absolutely is pointless. Existence of Culture/Tradition, but non-existence of Race is a non-desirable situation. Existence of Race, but non-existence of Culture/Tradition is also non-desirable. Race and Culture/Tradition (not synonymous, but both relevant to this) are both very important as you say and there is truth in your words, but they are not equally important. Race is paramount over all, Culture/Tradition is of secondary importance. Besides, the whole point of Culture/Tradition's existence is to assist and preserve the life from which it came. To give equal value to both would be like giving equal value to software (including anti-virus) and the computer.

Culture and Tradition are absolutely important to preserve, but the source of them is Race. Culture and Tradition come from Race, Race does not come from Culture/Tradition. So logically, it follows that if a choice had to be made between the two, it would make sense to preserve the source over of the product. The creator over of the creation.

If we were somehow separated from our Traditional Culture, say we all woke up on an island one day and had no memories. We would simply create new Culture/Tradition. It would be equally Germanic because its source would be the Germanic mind.

Once Culture/Tradition is non-existent, we can recreate it, once Race is non-existent, we cannot.

Sigurd
Tuesday, May 26th, 2009, 04:07 PM
Besides, the whole point of Culture/Tradition's existence is to assist and preserve the life from which it came. To give equal value to both would be like giving equal value to software (including anti-virus) and the computer.

I will add a second analogy: Assume you have a box of chocolate - Race is the box, Culture is that which fills it.

Without the box, the chocolates usually contained (culture) would not be bound to certain boundaries, flying around stray. However, without the chocolate, it would merely be an empty box. Both can technically exist without the other, but either is absolutely impracticable and not preferable. Of course you could re-fill the box with potato wedges, but well... wouldn't be quite a box of chocolates then, would it?

Even with your own analogy - a computer without any software is useless to the user. It is true that the software cannot exist without the hardware, but it's the software which gives it its distinctive soul, its character, which sets the computer in question apart from another computer; the software makes the difference as to whether it

In short, your computer analogy only minds me to place more importance on culture - as long as the race is still a constant contributor, it is the culture which refines this. Without culture, we would all be just "White", there'd be nothing to set the Germanic apart from the Slav, the Balt, the Celt, the Romanic, the Hellene, you name it...


So logically, it follows that if a choice had to be made between the two, it would make sense to preserve the source over of the product.

Should we have to make a choice between the two, though? Of course, you cannot have milk without a cow --- but what use is a cow which does no longer give milk?

You're left with the source, but when the source cannot render a product, it is just like an empty box, or like a computer without software - useless.

If you take our culture away, our race is essentially like comatose patients on life-support: Alive, but essentially unable to contribute anything productive, because essentially, we would not function.


If we were somehow separated from our Traditional Culture, say we all woke up on an island one day and had no memories.

We are however not separated from our traditional culture, and not on a lonely island. The flame of our traditional culture is still flickering - we must seek to rekindle that flame instead of just resigning ourselves to the fact: "Ah well, it's flickering anyway --- let's just have it go out, we can always light a different candle; light is light".

That is defeatism. Essentially it is like saying - "Who cares if we're all Islamic - we'll still be of the same race.

Have you ever noticed that they're first trying to destroy our culture before they try to destroy our race, knowing that it's even easier to destroy an empty box than one which still has contents enshrined therein?


We would simply create new Culture/Tradition. It would be equally Germanic because its source would be the Germanic mind.

For that, first, Germanic would have to be a racial integer. Even when you take it down to the sub-racial, this is however not the case. Germanic is largely a cultural distinction, which sets us apart from others of "Europid" or even "Nordish" race (there are no racial or sub-racial phenotypes exclusive to Germanics).

It is culture, not race, which sets us apart from other Indo-Europeans, as such with culture gone, we would simply no longer be Germanic. In fact, with culture gone we'd make ourselves susceptible to adopting our neighbouring cultures --- and if we adopted Slavic culture with all Germanic culture eradicated: would we still be as Germanic as we are?


Once Culture/Tradition is non-existent, we can recreate it, once Race is non-existent, we cannot.

With all memory gone, it can never be recreated in the same way. Different decisions at different points would lead to a different culture.

Stygian Cellarius
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009, 03:03 AM
I will add a second analogy: Assume you have a box of chocolate - Race is the box, Culture is that which fills it.

Without the box, the chocolates usually contained (culture) would not be bound to certain boundaries, flying around stray. However, without the chocolate, it would merely be an empty box. Both can technically exist without the other, but either is absolutely impracticable and not preferable. Of course you could re-fill the box with potato wedges, but well... wouldn't be quite a box of chocolates then, would it?

That would be a good analogy if we imagine the box generating the chocolate, which is the fundamental relationship between race and culture. Filling the box with potato wedges would be equivalent to a race that produces bad culture. That is symptomatic of a degenerated race. So here the focus is still on Race. Preserving Race so we do not end up with potato wedges.

And yes, preserving race and culture is most ideal and preferable.


Even with your own analogy - a computer without any software is useless to the user. It is true that the software cannot exist without the hardware, but it's the software which gives it its distinctive soul, its character, which sets the computer in question apart from another computer; the software makes the difference as to whether it

By saying a computer is useless without software we end up with a paradox. The computer was used to create the software, but if the computer is useless without software than how can it ever make software? Software cannot come before (or at the same time as) the computer.

Lets strengthen the analogy. If we say a computer is composed of 3 parts; The hardware, the operating system and the software. Hardware would be the body of the Race, Operating System the mind and Software the Culture. That is actually the model I had in mind.

It is the Operating System that we ultimately want to preserve. It is useless without the medium of the computer, so that by default must be preserved as well. The software however, can be replicated so long as the integrity of the OS is uncorrupted.

Anyways...

It is not the culture which gives us our distinctive soul, it is our mind. Culture just being our minds manifest in the material world. Our culture is a symptom of our minds, an extension. The racial mind is ultimately what we want to preserve. Our culture just a by-product. Your mind is more important than the invention you made, culture is our wonderful invention.


In short, your computer analogy only minds me to place more importance on culture - as long as the race is still a constant contributor, it is the culture which refines this. Without culture, we would all be just "White", there'd be nothing to set the Germanic apart from the Slav, the Balt, the Celt, the Romanic, the Hellene, you name it...

That is true, without our particular culture we would just be "white", which is not such a bad thing in itself. Still preferable to being non-white with Germanic culture. Thus giving credence to the priority of Race.


Should we have to make a choice between the two, though? Of course, you cannot have milk without a cow --- but what use is a cow which does no longer give milk?

We should not have to make a choice, my words were for illustrative purposes only. To assist in understanding how one is more important. I wouldn't confuse that with a proposition to chose one or the other.

A cow which does not produce milk is a false analogy for my position. Again, that would be equivalent to a Race that does not produce culture, which is symptomatic of a degenerated Race. The antithesis of my position.

A true analogy would be; shall we preserve the milk which the cow already produced or the cow itself? The cow, because it can produce more milk.


You're left with the source, but when the source cannot render a product, it is just like an empty box, or like a computer without software - useless.

The ephemeral non-existence of the product is not equivalent to a source that cannot render a product. You're confusing the ability with the product itself. As if, when the product is non-existent than the ability is as well. That is not the case in my position. Again, it is the antithesis of it.


If you take our culture away, our race is essentially like comatose patients on life-support: Alive, but essentially unable to contribute anything productive, because essentially, we would not function.

Culture does not produce our potential, our potential produces the culture.


We are however not separated from our traditional culture, and not on a lonely island. The flame of our traditional culture is still flickering - we must seek to rekindle that flame instead of just resigning ourselves to the fact: "Ah well, it's flickering anyway --- let's just have it go out, we can always light a different candle; light is light".

That is defeatism. Essentially it is like saying - "Who cares if we're all Islamic - we'll still be of the same race.

Absolutely, my example was for illustrative purposes only [pulls hair out]. Obviously I am not proposing we jettison our culture and never have. It is the most important thing in the world next to preserving our minds/race.


Have you ever noticed that they're first trying to destroy our culture before they try to destroy our race, knowing that it's even easier to destroy an empty box than one which still has contents enshrined therein?

Yes, that is because culture is our blueprint for adaptation and contains our collective immune system. A blueprint for survival that is non-compatible with theirs. It makes sense to destroy an organisms immune system to destroy the host. But that in no way suggests that the creation is of equal value to the Creator. Although, it is very important. It in no way suggests that the immune system is of equal value to the organism itself.


that, first, Germanic would have to be a racial integer. Even when you take it down to the sub-racial, this is however not the case. Germanic is largely a cultural distinction, which sets us apart from others of "Europid" or even "Nordish" race (there are no racial or sub-racial phenotypes exclusive to Germanics).

Then you contradict yourself when you first replied to this thread. Your words being the following: "Anything that sprang from the mind of a fellow Germanic and was applied on a large scale can by definition not be un-Germanic".

But anyways, what I said does not make it an imperative that Germanic be a racial integer. You're right, Germanic is a culture. It is called Germanic because the people who created it were called Germans. Whatever they created in the past and create thereafter, that is exclusive to themselves, would also be called Germanic and rightly so. Therefore my comment would be true. If by definition, only the things created in the past could be called Germanic, then we again end up with a paradox because before it was created it would be something that will exist in the future, therefore negating its classification as Germanic.


It is culture, not race, which sets us apart from other Indo-Europeans, as such with culture gone, we would simply no longer be Germanic. In fact, with culture gone we'd make ourselves susceptible to adopting our neighbouring cultures --- and if we adopted Slavic culture with all Germanic culture eradicated: would we still be as Germanic as we are?

Yes, for all practical concerns for the purposes of this conversation, it is culture that sets us apart from other Indo-Europeans.

I guess if we adopted their culture and decided not to call ourselves Germanic than we wouldn't be. I suppose we wouldn't go by that name anymore.


With all memory gone, it can never be recreated in the same way. Different decisions at different points would lead to a different culture.

That's right, it would be created differently.

Sigurd, I believe you are playing semantic and logical tricks on yourself. Perhaps you are thinking something along the lines of this: If the Creator is special because of the creation, then it follows that the creation is what is special. I think that something along that line of thinking is ultimately what is giving you trouble. This is a fallacy. The premise contains an assumption that supports the conclusion. The Creator is special not because of what he created, but because he can create. Although, the creation may have much value in itself, but that is not being disputed.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009, 05:40 AM
You couldn't be more wrong Sigurd.
1. Culture is an emanation of race, it is a result of the creative force of race. Culture did not create race. Language and clothing didn't exist before people, but viceversa. First there were people, and they created language and clothing, out of necessity.
2. Culture is fluid, it always undergoes changes. Folk costumes are slowly becoming museum stuff. The Proto-Germanic spoken ages ago isn't spoken anymore. Yet you want to stop the natural course of things and 'preserve' the culture of the 2000s or 1900s? Realistically, it's never going to happen. Preservation of culture is for historians and museums. For the people, culture is fluid, everchanging, and should we ever lose it completely, our race is intelligent enough to create it anew. We created it once, out of necessity, and we will each time we will have the need to communicate, dress ourselves, protect ourselves against the cold and heat, and so on. A computer without software is not useless, because software was created by use of a computer. Someone ingenious enough created software once that and could do it again. But if you have software alone, you will never be able to create a computer out of it. That's why race will always be of more value than culture.

Sigurd
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009, 02:11 PM
That would be a good analogy if we imagine the box generating the chocolate, which is the fundamental relationship between race and culture. Filling the box with potato wedges would be equivalent to a race that produces bad culture.

What if the box no longer generates the chocolate? Could not someone else come and fill this box with the excess potato wedges that their box creates?

This is essentially what we are seeing. I do not deny that race generates culture, but a race whose culture is dwindling away as we speak is susceptible towards another race just taking that box struggling to generate chocolates and filling it with the overflow of their potato wedges.

Our aim cannot be to presume that the box would generate whatever is currently in it, our aim must be to preserve this box to generate chocolates instead of waiting for someone to fill it with potato wedges and then seeking to have the box generate anything, be it a mixture of chocolates and potato wedges, or just potato wedges.

We must preserve the chocolate character of culture being generated to even preclude the possibility of potato wedges or even potato wedge generation within our box.


That is symptomatic of a degenerated race. So here the focus is still on Race. Preserving Race so we do not end up with potato wedges.

Merely preserving the box does not do that. Preserving its ability to generate chocolates should be our aim. Preserving the function, not the machine. The link between race and culture, so to speak.


Lets strengthen the analogy. If we say a computer is composed of 3 parts; The hardware, the operating system and the software. Hardware would be the body of the Race, Operating System the mind and Software the Culture. That is actually the model I had in mind. It is the Operating System that we ultimately want to preserve

I see where you are coming from, but have to qualify this: This is why, devoid of our folk memories on a desolate island, we could not produce Germanic culture. We would essentially have a different Operating System, or would even need to create one, to be that link between race and culture.

But let's see: Why format the hard-drive and re-install the OS immediately? Should we not seek to mend faulty software first, before we even consider taking such a drastic step?


It is not the culture which gives us our distinctive soul, it is our mind. Culture just being our minds manifest in the material world. Our culture is a symptom of our minds, an extension.

Its value however is measured by the operability and the compatibility between the generated culture and the operating system. If we allow alien notions to infest in our operating system, chances are that they won't run smoothly.

Preserving the software we have to run with our operating system and our computer allows for another comparison: Does Windows software always work with MacOS? Does it even always work on later version or earlier versions of the Windows?

If I wish to utilise an old programme which only worked to Windows 98 - if 98 is no longer applicable, I must find a way to make this programme compatible with newer editions if it is dear to me.

As such, to preserve regional traditions and folk customes that may seem out of time, but are essentially something close to our hearts, as it transports our history and memory as a folk into our time, we should seek to find a mechanism to make them compatible with a progressing, updated operating system.

I agree that they will become anachronisms if we don't seek to establish this compatibility in a progressive way in which it will run smoothly, however discarding this altogether cannot be a favourable option. A mixture between nostalgia/old values and progress/new values should essentially IMO be achieved, we should not unroot ourselves.


That is true, without our particular culture we would just be "white", which is not such a bad thing in itself. Still preferable to being non-white with Germanic culture. Thus giving credence to the priority of Race.

Not quite as bad, but perhaps almost as bad. A virus in the software can become an issue with the operating system, and eventually an issue with the hardware. Focussing on preserving the computer, without taking care of the operating system, or its software will not maintain the same character.

As such, we must place equal importance on the manifestations of our mind (culture) as to the mind itself or the origin of either (race).


As if, when the product is non-existent than the ability is as well. That is not the case in my position. Again, it is the antithesis of it.

If the product is withdrawn, its source or the process of its generation is kind of useless. It would be like filling a barrel with wine if it has a hole at the bottom. The prostitute would be rich if it wasn't for the pimp withdrawing the money.

We must thus ensure to find ways in which to safeguard not only the source and the process of generation, but also its output. Otherwise, we are draining the potential of the source and the generation process, for a matter futile.


Culture does not produce our potential, our potential produces the culture.

But should we let the manifestations of this potential go to waste?


It makes sense to destroy an organisms immune system to destroy the host. But that in no way suggests that the creation is of equal value to the Creator. Although, it is very important. It in no way suggests that the immune system is of equal value to the organism itself.

Assume that the immune system is befallen with an ailment for which there is no cure, such as HIV/AIDS, and which will eat up the immune system. Essentially, once it's corrupted and destroyed the immune system, it will destroy the organism itself, and it is doomed.

Our approach should thus be to preclude our immune system from being befallen in the first place, or to attempt to mend the immune system if possible, to ensure that it cannot in further consequence eat away the organism itself.

Preserving race before preserving culture, even if the latter is a result of the former, will lead to the granite to be preserved, rather than the building. Even if we allow the building to be destroyed but manage to safeguard the knowledge as to its construction, we are left with having to reconstruct it. That is usually a greater effort than just safeguarding the building itself.


For the people, culture is fluid, everchanging, and should we ever lose it completely, our race is intelligent enough to create it anew. We created it once, out of necessity, and we will each time we will have the need to communicate, dress ourselves, protect ourselves against the cold and heat, and so on.

I agree that there must be a sense of progress, but I disbelieve that this should come at the cost of discarding that which is already there. Every organic progress comes from roots, as such we must preserve the roots as well. This is actually also why we should preserve BOTH race and culture.

Our motto should be along the lines of "Hearts in the past, Minds on the present, Eyes on the future". Discarding any of the three --- the roots and character of the past, the importance of applicability in the present, or the perspective for the future --- will essentially be to our detriment. Leaving our roots behind altogether unroots us as a people, denying progress is to anachronise ourselves. It must be a middle way that accomodates characteristics of both.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009, 03:04 PM
I agree that there must be a sense of progress, but I disbelieve that this should come at the cost of discarding that which is already there. Every organic progress comes from roots, as such we must preserve the roots as well. This is actually also why we should preserve BOTH race and culture.

Our motto should be along the lines of "Hearts in the past, Minds on the present, Eyes on the future". Discarding any of the three --- the roots and character of the past, the importance of applicability in the present, or the perspective for the future --- will essentially be to our detriment. Leaving our roots behind altogether unroots us as a people, denying progress is to anachronise ourselves. It must be a middle way that accomodates characteristics of both.
We don't know what the future holds and for all we know, we might have to make a choice, because time is running out. Yes ideally both race and culture should be there, but if that can't be, then race alone is preferable to nil. One more time, the roots of culture are in race, nowhere else.

And there is no such thing as cultural preservation. Culture is not like race. It flows, like a river. Race should ideally remain unchanged, but we can't do that with culture because then it would be against the laws of natural progress, like wearing ancient of medieval clothes in the 21st century. ;)

Sigurd
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009, 04:10 PM
One more time, the roots of culture are in race, nowhere else.

If they were rooted solely in race (and logically following, subrace), why are the Irish culturally different to the English; why are the Finns different from the Russians; why are the Albanians different than the Serbs; why are the Greeks different from the Bulgarians, even though their (sub-)racial characteristics.

So obviously it takes different folk memories as well as race. If you put two groups of sub-racially equivalent Germans on two equivalent lonely islands, you end up with two divergent cultures.

By that example, thus the character of the culture cannot come from race alone; it would at the very least also need to contain certain folk memories, and certain driving forces and creative forces within that culture to make it different from phenotypically similar cultures.


it would be against the laws of natural progress, like wearing ancient of medieval clothes in the 21st century. ;)If this is another example of your "war on folk costumes" then please at least inform yourself fully first about the background thereof.

First of all, some 80 years there was no such thing as a standardised "Upper Inn Valley" or "North Black Forest" folk custome (it was the everyday working garb of the countryside population). There were tendencies to include certain characteristics, but often two neighbouring villages would still differ. This was remedied by the National Socialists who standardised them for a given area. Their function as "tools of regional identification" are thus a rather recent phenomenon.

Secondly, folk customes have already undergone a change, and have already naturally moved with time: Some 30-40 years ago they were the everyday working clothes of the countryside population, their use was considered more "shabby". With the countryside quickly catching up and quickly adapting their culture to match that of the cities, they are now almost considered more of a festive garb in many areas.

This change is easier to observe in more progressive areas with a better infrastructure and less stubbornness; some valleys in Tyrol and Upper Austria however still wear the folk customes as an everyday working garb, it is essentially what he will wear Monday to Friday.

Progress must be organically prompted, not artificially induced. What may have worked for the cities and the immediate near-city countryside, does not at the same time work for the "real" countryside as it were.

velvet
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009, 06:15 PM
Progress must be organically prompted, not artificially induced. What may have worked for the cities and the immediate near-city countryside, does not at the same time work for the "real" countryside as it were.

Exactly!

Another thought is, that the replacement of traditional clothing (it's not carneval, isnt it, therefore no costumes) is one of many jigsaw puzzle pieces in the question 'how to disconnect a folk from its roots'. Putting people in beige-brown uniforms certainly is effective on this...

In general I would agree with you, for our folk to survive we need all parts, the race and at minimum the folk memories, the more original culture could be preserved the better. To rebuild that from scratch is, with an eye on the surrounding reality, impossible and a concentration on race would only delay the inevitably for some years (at best). Disconnecting from our roots, our history, our traditions, our culture will destroy us as a people even without a racial destruction, we will just vanish due to a lack of identity.

After all, we are in that trouble because our identity gets destroyed and largely is already destroyed. If we would have a strong cultural identity (including our politicians), there would be no room for all the destroying policies. If we wouldnt all look the same, wearing cheap chinese-made 'modern' cloth-uniforms, all the alien elements would be apparent and obvious. But who notices today a hijab or a burka, likewise printed with the modern flower motives?

I would think the question cannot be race or culture, but both must be likewise preserved. And right now also our culture must be preserved, because there is almost nothing left (walk the Pott, no culture at all, walk the Bergisch Land, culture reduced to nice old-towns with slate timber frame houses, Berlin culture reduced to garden plots grillparties). Where should the identity, that is essential to make people aware of our dying, come from? From race? Certainly not, in itself it is as hollow as the chocolate box (any abstract concept for that matter)

Stygian Cellarius
Thursday, May 28th, 2009, 04:33 AM
What if the box no longer generates the chocolate? Could not someone else come and fill this box with the excess potato wedges that their box creates?

I think there needs to be a distinction between "is no longer generating chocolate" and "can no longer generate chocolate". Theoretically, if they are just no longer generating chocolate than someone could influence them to generate potato wedges, but it is not inevitable in any given scenario. They could always reverse the situation and start regenerating chocolate. An option not available if Race is compromised.

If your position were true than we would already be doomed. We are already producing potato wedges. If Race and Culture were of equal importance than we should be able to swap race to the position our culture is in now and our situation should be no worse off, but that is not the case. If we swapped out race with culture than we would have a degenerated race, a situation from which there is no recovery. Do you believe there is also no recovery for our culture? I know you do not.

The situation now:

Culture is degenerated, Race is not.

If your position were true we should be able to do this with the same results as above:

Race is degenerated, Culture is not. (tho an impossibility because when a Race degenerates it always follows that the culture will as well)

If they were of equal value and a God made you choose having either culture or race degenerated. Then you could just toss a quarter because the results would be the same right? But we are experiencing one of those situations now, but all is not lost. To you, it would be just the same if Race was a little degenerated instead of Culture?


This is essentially what we are seeing. I do not deny that race generates culture, but a race whose culture is dwindling away as we speak is susceptible towards another race just taking that box struggling to generate chocolates and filling it with the overflow of their potato wedges.

Yes that is true. It is definitely undesirable.


Our aim cannot be to presume that the box would generate whatever is currently in it, our aim must be to preserve this box to generate chocolates instead of waiting for someone to fill it with potato wedges and then seeking to have the box generate anything, be it a mixture of chocolates and potato wedges, or just potato wedges.

I was never suggesting an aim, my words were hypothetical and for illustration purposes only.

I agree, we must do that.


We must preserve the chocolate character of culture being generated to even preclude the possibility of potato wedges or even potato wedge generation within our box.

I do not want to preserve any Chocolate character of culture ;)


Merely preserving the box does not do that. Preserving its ability to generate chocolates should be our aim. Preserving the function, not the machine. The link between race and culture, so to speak.

I suppose not producing quality culture is not inevitably symptomatic of a degenerated race, but it is usually associated with it, so it is still symptomatic, but not in any absolute sense. I suppose we could naturally have dry spells without racial degeneration.

Absolutely, we should preserve our ability to produce high culture, that is the Holy Grail of our Race. That is why I chose race over culture, but only from a purely logical point of view. To preserve the function we need to preserve our mind, which has the machine as interface with reality so by default that must be preserved as well. Culture is not the function, the mind is.


I see where you are coming from, but have to qualify this: This is why, devoid of our folk memories on a desolate island, we could not produce Germanic culture. We would essentially have a different Operating System, or would even need to create one, to be that link between race and culture.

The Operating System is our minds, we still have that. What we don't have in that example is our cultural knowledge. Why would we need to create a new mind when we still have it? We would need to create a new culture. It would not be the sum of ancestral wisdom (tradition), but we could still tap into our potential to create new culture that serves its purpose; to circumvent negative environmental pressures. That's all culture is. Now Tradition is the sum of past cultural wisdom, the selection of positive cultural elements passed down so we do not have to begin from scratch. That, we would not have, but in time we would create our own and we can call it whatever we want. We can call it Germanic if we like, or we can give it a new name. It makes no difference, they are just words. The point is that we would be alive and the reservoir of ingenuity would be uncorrupted (so long as someone with high culture creating potential woke up on the island in the first place, not all of us have that).

I guess you are equating Operating System with Cultural knowledge? Say we do that, and say we do not even forget ancestral culture. What Germanic culture would be so essential, that is just as important as your racial constitution, that you would reproduce on a desolate island anyway? It would hardly be produced even if we had knowledge of it, but would you swap its mitigated existence with a mitigated racial constitution? You would not, therefore Race trumps all.


But let's see: Why format the hard-drive and re-install the OS immediately? Should we not seek to mend faulty software first, before we even consider taking such a drastic step?

Who's suggesting we re-install the Operating System? That would be analogous to erasing the mind and starting anew. If you mean: why erase cultural knowledge and start anew? Well I don't think anyone suggested either, I know I did not. That would be absurd and yes, we should seek to mend faulty software.


Its value however is measured by the operability and the compatibility between the generated culture and the operating system. If we allow alien notions to infest in our operating system, chances are that they won't run smoothly.

That is true.


Preserving the software we have to run with our operating system and our computer allows for another comparison: Does Windows software always work with MacOS? Does it even always work on later version or earlier versions of the Windows?

No it does not. This is one of the reasons I tell people why Negroes fail within the context of Western Culture. Our culture being an extension of our minds, a product of our psychology, therefore the people who would most successfully navigate it would naturally be the mind from which it came. It is a reflection of our mind, so naturally we are hard-wired for it. They however, are not hardwired for it and consequently cannot successfully navigate within its context.

Also, If you take IQ into account:

The quality of a country is the sum of the quality of its people. The average is what maintains the civilization and the above average manage and enrich it. However, we all must navigate it. So naturally, our civilization will stabilize to accommodate our average; in this case, an IQ of 100. Our civilization must be stabilized at that level in order for it to be maintained efficiently by our people. If our civilization were set in concert with an IQ of 130 than it would be too much for our average to navigate and maintain. It would start to fall apart.

We know Negroes have an average score of 85, "Hispanics" 90, Whites 100. What happens when 80's try to navigate in a world designed for 100's? They fail. And that's exactly what we observe in reality. We do just fine in our world, "Hispanics" don't do so well, but better than Negroes. A perfect correlation.

Not only are they less successful, but when they try to maintain our culture you see tell tale signs of degeneration. I don't know about how it is were you live, but 7-11's used to be very clean and orderly. As soon as Turd Worlders took them over there was an obvious decline in quality; cleanliness decreased, shelves were not stocked as perfectly, food was left out under the heat lamp longer than it's supposed to be, little marketing strategies like rearranging the store (so it feels new every once in awhile to regular customers), no longer happened. All the things we do to keep health, assist efficient movement and ensure success no longer happen. The quality declined and stabilized to meet their level. This is what awaits our lands on a much larger scale.


As such, to preserve regional traditions and folk customes that may seem out of time, but are essentially something close to our hearts, as it transports our history and memory as a folk into our time, we should seek to find a mechanism to make them compatible with a progressing, updated operating system.

I would like that very much. I am an American though and we have been divorced from that for a very long time. We have our own Traditions and Folk Culture, but I must say that I am partial to a futuristic culture. Although, I am very nostalgic myself and wish at times I were born in ancient times. If I had it my way we would all be wearing Star Trek Uniforms and colonizing Mars. ;)


I agree that they will become anachronisms if we don't seek to establish this compatibility in a progressive way in which it will run smoothly, however discarding this altogether cannot be a favourable option. A mixture between nostalgia/old values and progress/new values should essentially IMO be achieved, we should not unroot ourselves.

I am for whatever is most successful in preserving and expanding the Race. If our culture does not have a outward, traditional folk appearance then it matters little to me. As long as our main concern is our people. However that is achieved best, that is what I want. If folk nostalgia achieves that kind of racial sentiment then I want that.


Not quite as bad, but perhaps almost as bad. A virus in the software can become an issue with the operating system, and eventually an issue with the hardware. Focussing on preserving the computer, without taking care of the operating system, or its software will not maintain the same character.

That's right and that is why we should work very hard to preserve our culture.


As such, we must place equal importance on the manifestations of our mind (culture) as to the mind itself or the origin of either (race).

I agree, placing equal importance in the minds of our people would be most desirable, so long as that importance is viewed as very great. Maximum importance; as in, as much importance a mind is capable of conjuring, is most ideal. If there was an importance index from 1 to 10. The most ideal condition would be for our people to place them both at 10. That would produce the most favorable results. I wouldn't want to confound them with philosophical inquiries such as the relationship between Race vs. Culture.


If the product is withdrawn, its source or the process of its generation is kind of useless. It would be like filling a barrel with wine if it has a hole at the bottom. The prostitute would be rich if it wasn't for the pimp withdrawing the money.

Yep, that is undesirable. However, if that analogy were true than we would be useless now because that is what is happening. But there is hope yes?


We must thus ensure to find ways in which to safeguard not only the source and the process of generation, but also its output. Otherwise, we are draining the potential of the source and the generation process, for a matter futile.

Agreed, we must safeguard the Race (potential), generation (expressing potential), and Culture (manifest potential).


But should we let the manifestations of this potential go to waste?

Certainly not.


Assume that the immune system is befallen with an ailment for which there is no cure, such as HIV/AIDS, and which will eat up the immune system. Essentially, once it's corrupted and destroyed the immune system, it will destroy the organism itself, and it is doomed.

That is true. At that point survival is improbable, but not impossible. Fortunately we are not at that point yet. Or lets hope not. In South Africa we are just laying down to die. The rest of our lands have received the same dose of AIDS as they have. I hope that is not a sign that we are past the point of no return, but just don't know it yet.

We have very hard times ahead of us. Many of us will be lost, but I cannot give up hope. I believe that a good amount of us will survive and we will restart a new civilization somewhere. Many of our Lands will have to be abandon. Our future will be at a greater pivotal point than it was during WW2. The world has arrived at a time which two outcomes are possible; either we will slowly descend into a Global 3rd world or parts of Europe (and America) will descend, but other parts will collect white people who have woken up and want to preserve themselves. I think this time so important compared to the past because this time we will know for certain what the cause of our plight was and will take great measures to ensure it does not happen again. That is the crucial difference I believe. Political borders are likely to re-arrange themselves in the not to distant future.


Our approach should thus be to preclude our immune system from being befallen in the first place, or to attempt to mend the immune system if possible, to ensure that it cannot in further consequence eat away the organism itself.

Agreed


Preserving race before preserving culture, even if the latter is a result of the former, will lead to the granite to be preserved, rather than the building. Even if we allow the building to be destroyed but manage to safeguard the knowledge as to its construction, we are left with having to reconstruct it. That is usually a greater effort than just safeguarding the building itself.

Of course, it would make sense to preserve the buildings structural integrity if it is in use. But if I had a choice between:

A fish, or how to fish. I would choose the latter.


If they were rooted solely in race (and logically following, subrace), why are the Irish culturally different to the English; why are the Finns different from the Russians; why are the Albanians different than the Serbs; why are the Greeks different from the Bulgarians, even though their (sub-)racial characteristics.

If for the sake of this conversation we assume all sub-races are genetically indifferent. Then each sub-race is culturally different because their outward cultural appearance manifests differently. Each Sub-Race's culture is transplantable to one another because the psychology that created each is the same. America is a good example of this; many sub-races under one Flag and sharing one meta-culture. It worked well when it was just Europeans, but fails under Global-multiculturalism.
The dressing is different for each sub-race because of chance and different historical experience. If you pretend you are God and cloned a bunch of people and set them off in different regions. Their culture would end up not looking exactly like one anothers. This is similar to the argument multiculturalist use for all the peoples in the world, but it's false because those of a different race do not have the same psychology as Europeans.


So obviously it takes different folk memories as well as race. If you put two groups of sub-racially equivalent Germans on two equivalent lonely islands, you end up with two divergent cultures.

By that example, thus the character of the culture cannot come from race alone; it would at the very least also need to contain certain folk memories, and certain driving forces and creative forces within that culture to make it different from phenotypically similar cultures.

That is true, you could then consider environment a contributing factor as well, but these things are superficial and only affect the outward appearance. The soul of the culture is the same. That is why Switzerland is a successful country. All sub-races work to the same tune. They share a similar racial soul.


Progress must be organically prompted, not artificially induced. What may have worked for the cities and the immediate near-city countryside, does not at the same time work for the "real" countryside as it were.

That is true to some extent. Since Culture is a tool for environmental adaption, it follows that the environment will prompt different manifestations of culture. Each cultural element working to circumvent a specific environmental obstacle.

However, it is hard to determine what is artificial. There is no evident environmental stimulus to effect Space exploration, but Space exploration is legitimate European Culture.

With that said. There is a very important environmental pressure to circumvent that requires Space Exploration. Although it is not a threat in the immediate future, it is a very dramatic threat. The Sun will destroy the Earth in 1 Billion years as a result of the natural evolution of a Stars Red Giant phase. Europeans are the only Race capable of creating the culture required to leave the Planet. Actually, all life on Earth is dependent upon our survival sooner or later.

It's funny how we were working towards that even before we discovered the Sun would devour Earth. But I guess that is just a point of proof as to how superior our culture truly is. We must reach the stars! Our racial soul even sings that tune.

Anyways, when we leave Earth we will most certainly take life with us. Cats and Dogs are going for sure, so are oranges and apples. Those will be at the top of the list, but we will take as much with us as possible. Perhaps all the destruction we have cause our Planet, in the name of "progress" and "technology" which were all stepping stones to this, was just a necessary consequence. Well, it was. And because of it we can preserve life. It's ironic, but it seems to be the case. Perhaps that is our destiny; to preserve life itself. [shruggs]

Now, someone can always say that maybe another intelligent life form will evolve in that time which could also achieve this, but it is not a guarantee that a species will just happen across the environmental pressures required to mold adaptation to a level like ours ever again.

Nachtengel
Thursday, May 28th, 2009, 10:20 AM
If they were rooted solely in race (and logically following, subrace), why are the Irish culturally different to the English; why are the Finns different from the Russians; why are the Albanians different than the Serbs; why are the Greeks different from the Bulgarians, even though their (sub-)racial characteristics.
Because the environment contributes as well. Do you think if the Greeks and Romans lived in the North, they'd be wearing sandals? Nonetheless European culture and language as a whole stemmed from a common source.


So obviously it takes different folk memories as well as race. If you put two groups of sub-racially equivalent Germans on two equivalent lonely islands, you end up with two divergent cultures.

By that example, thus the character of the culture cannot come from race alone; it would at the very least also need to contain certain folk memories, and certain driving forces and creative forces within that culture to make it different from phenotypically similar cultures.
True. But their cultures will be much more similar than if you put a German and a Negro on two equivalent lonely islands. The quality of culture depends on IQ among others, that's why African civilization is so backwards compared to European civilization. An African could have never invented what Europeans did.


If this is another example of your "war on folk costumes" then please at least inform yourself fully first about the background thereof.

First of all, some 80 years there was no such thing as a standardised "Upper Inn Valley" or "North Black Forest" folk custome (it was the everyday working garb of the countryside population). There were tendencies to include certain characteristics, but often two neighbouring villages would still differ. This was remedied by the National Socialists who standardised them for a given area. Their function as "tools of regional identification" are thus a rather recent phenomenon.

Secondly, folk customes have already undergone a change, and have already naturally moved with time: Some 30-40 years ago they were the everyday working clothes of the countryside population, their use was considered more "shabby". With the countryside quickly catching up and quickly adapting their culture to match that of the cities, they are now almost considered more of a festive garb in many areas.

This change is easier to observe in more progressive areas with a better infrastructure and less stubbornness; some valleys in Tyrol and Upper Austria however still wear the folk customes as an everyday working garb, it is essentially what he will wear Monday to Friday.

Progress must be organically prompted, not artificially induced. What may have worked for the cities and the immediate near-city countryside, does not at the same time work for the "real" countryside as it were.
And where did I say progress must be artificially induced? If anything is artificial, then it's preservation of culture, instead of letting it naturally flow. Of course 'preservationists' have an issue with this because it would mean accepting the fact that some parts of the culture they cling to will modify or die out and be replaced with something else.

Siebenbürgerin
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009, 09:58 AM
Hmm, in a situation like this I'd prefer not to marry. :|

But to this question:

"Who do you find you have more in common with? Obviously, this question is aimed towards those who are living in areas in which they are the ethnic minority."

The other Transylvanian Germans. Despite speaking Romanian as one of the mother tongues, I couldn't say I feel more akin to the Romanians than to the Germans.

In my view culture can't replace the blood.

Sigurd
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009, 10:53 AM
Blood or culture? Whichever got the bigger brea--- oh wait, this is not an old man's pub. Alas, that's however the answer you're going to get if you ask that question on the road: "Who cares, 's long as she's hawt" (= pretty, intelligent and funny*). ;)

* Must be noted that on the basis of this, most men would exclude Black women anyhow, as there is no such thing as a pretty, intelligent and funny Black woman, you'd be hard pressed to find one which possesses either of these traits. Thus in the given circumstance, they'd opt for the whiggeress anyhow. :P

On a more serious note, my opinion on the topic has already been said one hundred times. It would be preferable to marry a person who is both in touch with their culture and is of our blood, but in the case of a choice, it must be the blood which we choose.

This doesn't mean that the blood is inherently more important than the culture, but essentially as long as one of you two know the culture part, it is preserved as you can always teach the other person to return to their natural cultural birthright if they are of your blood.

Vice-versa however, the blood can only be preserved if two people are of that blood; it cannot be taught, so if one is not of that blood, he can never be.

Hrodnand
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009, 12:08 PM
Hmm, in a situation like this I'd prefer not to marry. :|

But to this question:

"Who do you find you have more in common with? Obviously, this question is aimed towards those who are living in areas in which they are the ethnic minority."

The other Transylvanian Germans. Despite speaking Romanian as one of the mother tongues, I couldn't say I feel more akin to the Romanians than to the Germans.

In my view culture can't replace the blood.


Exactly. I've been living my whole life near seklers (hungarians) and wlachs (romanians), I had friends from both ethnicities and I can tell I managed to know both cultures quite well from the in- and outside but I didn't feel more akin to any of them ever - always Saxons on the first place or Sathmarschwaben.

So yes, blood is the basis of culture, while there can be a cultural exchange, you can not do the same with your blood.

triedandtru
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009, 12:54 PM
If you were forced to choose between the two, what would you choose? i.e. if you could only marry either a black citizen of your country who spoke your language perfectly and followed your culture by the letter or a person of the same ethnicity as you but who was a whigger, ignorant of his/her country's history and traditions? :P

Wow. That is a really tough call. I couldn't stand a whigger, and cannot say I have ever been really attracted to an African American before, regardless of their conduct or cultural practices. I suppose it would depend upon whether there was some sort of hope our children could be raised with my culture and kept from the "whigger" way of being.

Víðálfr
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009, 01:12 PM
Hmm, in a situation like this I'd prefer not to marry. :|

But to this question:

"Who do you find you have more in common with? Obviously, this question is aimed towards those who are living in areas in which they are the ethnic minority."

The other Transylvanian Germans. Despite speaking Romanian as one of the mother tongues, I couldn't say I feel more akin to the Romanians than to the Germans.

In my view culture can't replace the blood.

Hehe, I'd prefer not to marry too, but I voted for Blood. I think the reasons are obvious.

Well, in my case things are a bit different and also complicated. I have both Germanic and Dacian (oficially: Romanian) ancestry, but I always have been closer to my Germanic relatives. And I am more like them, genetically speaking.

I can also say that there's a specific 'culture', or way of life from the part of my Germanic relatives. I mostly identify myself with them, and this clearly makes a difference between me and people with a different background. So I can speak of a mix of both blood and culture.

Theoretically, one can say that if you have a German great-grandfather you may have only 1/8 German blood, but things are, in any case, not so simple. My father looks almost the same like my great-grandfather, and I look very similar to him and to my grandmother. When I was a child I used to go with her in the park and everyone believed she was my mom. And about my mom, people who know her and who see me always tell her that I don't look like her.

I can't say exactly which amount of my blood is German, and which not, but I certainly feel a stronger connection for the Germanic part. I have to admit that I did as much as I could for the Daco-Romanian culture, too, as it is an interesting one, but maybe it was enough. If I have the chance, I will go to a Germanic country, as I really don't feel like my place could be or is here, where I live by the moment.

So, I would allow the Germanic part of my blood to make the choice if I have to marry, and of course I wish to marry a man who has at least as much of Germanic blood as I have. Where I live and where I have lived for almost all my life untill now, I was surrounded almost by Romanians, and less Magyars or Hungarians... I've rarely meet Germans, or persons with Germanic descendance...

exit
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009, 01:58 PM
What good is the blood if not directed by the spirit? Entire peoples are exterminating themselves in the name of marxism...

Horagalles
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009, 02:44 PM
It's a bit like the nurture versus nature debate. And one must realize that this question is a bit of a false dilema or category mistake. Nature is what we are and Nurture would be what we experience or have taken over from authority figures (our teachers). The critical point is that nature will be there from the beginning and everything we experience will be interpreted via our senses which have been created by our nature via our blood.

Blood creates culture but abandoning culture destroys the blood (as can be seen in our multicultural societies). It´s a cycle, so both has to be protected but in the end it´s only the blood that matters. Culture is just a means to an end.How we think and how we feel about things is in our blood and that makes us interpret culture. Of course one can manipulate people by cultural means (hegemony) - But if it is not in harmony with what is in the blood it is looking for trouble.

Agrippa
Saturday, June 6th, 2009, 02:20 AM
To say it blunt:
Culture is a tool for our social and cultural species to survive and to have a better life individually and collectively. If its something different, it failed.

Humans are social and learning beings, they have to be educated, raised by the parents and the group. To overcome our natural limitations and to fully use our potential, we need to build up and start from the achievements our ancestors or simply other humans made for us. Thats the human "success story" (so far).

If we look at the smaller units inside of our species, namely groups of related and/or similar people, ethnicities are again just a tool, a work in progress and race in itself a process.

You dont stop at one point and dont go on, if you do, you are most likely dead or close to being dead already, unless a people reached the maximum human developmental state, from which no progress or greater adaptiveness seems to be viable, but from that even the best groups and individuals of the species are far, far away as we all should know...

Now what I made out of that for myself is:
There are priorities, the higher hierarchy always comes before the lower, which means:
Life - Species - Race - Ethnicity - Kin - Individual. If the higher order being endangered, you have to care for that first, because if Life on this planet being ruined, there are no humans. If the species being ruined, there are no Europids/Caucasoids and so on...

Secondly culture as a tool should enhance our potential, making our group more effective and adaptive, our life easier and guide us through life in a meaningful way.

Cultural traditions can be distinguished and put into three categories:
Positive - Neutral - Negative

The same is true for genetic traits in the kingroup, ethnicity, race, species etc.

As a general rule, if something is positive, it should be preserved and further spread, if something is neutral, it should be kept if the people want it, since it might in one way or another help people to guide them as group members, even if there is no significant effect of this cultural trait and it could be replaced.

If something is negative, drops the adaptive potential of a group and its individuals, makes life for the people on an irrational base harder etc., then get rid of it as soon as possible, no matter how old it is, no matter how accepted it is, its something which to eliminate is your duty.

If culture doesnt fit for the primary goals: Longer term survival of the group and offspring, making life easier for the people and guide them successfully through life, its a degeneration. Like a biological degeneration, a genetic defect, its a case for purification with reasonable and human methods.

Obviously this also answers the question of race vs. culture, with race I mean related people with similar racial, adaptive qualities in this case.

A culture without its biological base is worthless and would be only good if giving mankind a great advantage. But if a culture didnt even managed to preserve good genetic and racial material, a people which were well adapted to their habitat and let them replace by foreign elements, on average with a lower level and not as well adapted to the region, what value can such a culture have if it didnt even saved the people, race and bloodlines who made it?

Then it was an aberration, a degeneration, a failure in itself which couldnt achieve what every ape culture usually achieves, namely the survival and well being of the living subjects who keep that tradition up, "invented it" and carried it on from one generation to the next. Worthless, unsuccessful, a failure of humans and nature, nothing but a suicide program - and for what? For giving a small corrupted elite of plutocratic oligarchs their army of mongrelized and individualised minions which lack any sort of collective will and therefore resistance?

Its that what will be left of the Occidental culture in the USA and Europe, get over it, its not just worthless but actually harmful.

And what should those slaves in the totalitarian plutocratic oligarchy do? Mulattoes being proud of their "Viking heritage" or of making "German sausages", jumping around and being nice to view if the new rulers visit the "working class quarters" in their colonies?

Whether you have an independent collective which is sustainable or not. If not, we have to think about which alternatives we have, another collective or making our group's structure more effective and sustainable again. There is no other way in between for anyone with a clear mind and idealistic spirit.

Germans and Swedes today are not what Germanics were 2000 years ago, they werent even the same 1500 years from now!

The real important question can't be repeated often enough:
On the long run
- Survival, biological success
- Better Life, good structures

Everything else has just to fit and whats fitting best right now must be evaluated by a good leadership from one day to the next, because to carry on cultural elements and structures which make us weaker and are just ballast, endanger an element in the mentioned natural hierarchy, is not just irrational, its also irresponsible.

Culture is always the help and guide for the people, the living subjects, never the other way around. If a religion or culture leads to the demise of a people as a collective and for the majority of their individuals and bloodlines, it just failed, I can't stress that enough.

Genes - Memes
Population/Race - Tradition/Culture (Ethnicity in between)

Biological and cultural evolution in the species:
More progressive and effective biological and cultural traits make a group fitter for survival under more circumstances, highly adaptive and usually living on a higher level than comparable groups. Thats superiority.

A higher level could have been reached if we would have used the occidental/European achievements more effectively, for the strength of our people and race, an effective population policy and rational political and economic system. Unfortunately such approaches didnt succeed and now we go down the drain. And surely its not about some picturesque cultural elements, but the best way out of that mess for our collective, group(s), to save the biological base of our people and giving mankind a better chance for further higher development.

And be sure thats a fight for the political power, because there is no retreat nor save haven for the weak who have lost, they can be hunted down everywhere. Whether we get our rights and lands back into the hands of our people and build up a rational as well as effective political organisation, or we will be lost in the course of history, with some strange and deranged cultural rests being played for tourists and in small isolated areas of retreat which will be swallowed sooner or later, or die with the rest of deteriorated mankind...

Culture is the house you live in, but without people living in it, we just deal with some dead stones, always think about those which have to live in it and how to construct a good shelter for them. The house itself is not what its really about. Some Westerners today are like old greedy people, always talking about their wealth and property, but what its value without someone to pass on? For what did they save if not for their offspring and kin? For what do we have a "great culture" if there is no next generation...

All life will be gone from this planet and this planet itself we die, but thats a long time and lets see how far humans can go. If they go on like they do now and under such corrupted leaders, they most likely won't make the next thousand years, without or without a great "natural" catastrophy and I consider that situation being rather unsatisfactory.


Once Culture/Tradition is non-existent, we can recreate it, once Race is non-existent, we cannot.

Well, actually we could, probably, but only with rather artificial means and while having the political power. But if we dont make it now, why should some rests here and there make it in 200 years? Its just highly unlikely, as it is unlikely, that the rulers who preferred to destroy our homogeneous groups and racial base would do anything to recreate it.

So its only a theoretical, yet no practical option. One can change a culture and still survive, live on successfully. The end of the bloodlines and kin being the end of the story...

Stygian Cellarius
Saturday, June 6th, 2009, 03:47 AM
Agrippa, I agree with all of your comments except the following:



Now what I made out of that for myself is:
There are priorities, the higher hierarchy always comes before the lower, which means:
Life - Species - Race - Ethnicity - Kin - Individual. If the higher order being endangered, you have to care for that first, because if Life on this planet being ruined, there are no humans. If the species being ruined, there are no Europids/Caucasoids and so on...

Although I understand the source of this perspective, I think it is somewhat misleading. The priorities are to be reversed and this is why:

The priority of any species is determined by genetic distance. A consequence of this is that preservation of the lowest order secures the existence of all higher orders; if the lowest order exists - the individual, then the highest order exists as well - Life. The reverse situation does not offer that advantage. The preservation of higher orders does not guarantee the existence of the lower.

So the order of priority would thus be; Individual, Immediate Family, Extended Family, Ethnicity, Race, Species,..........Life.

That is the general order of priority. Although, the system is much more complex, but the general order is sufficient for all practical concerns regarding this conversation.

Therefore, if the higher order is endangered, the best way to secure its existence is to care for the lowest order first. If you reverse priorities, you cheat yourself out of having it all.



Well, actually we could, probably, but only with rather artificial means and while having the political power.

There would be no "we" in existence to recreate the race, by any means, artificial or not, if the race is non-existent.

Agrippa
Saturday, June 6th, 2009, 10:31 AM
As I put my ideological stance with some basic principles:
I would define myself as a Progressive Collectivist.
Maybe I have some affinities to Fascistoid groups, at least they are what is the nearest thing to my conception.

The Collective is something defined in structures hierachically:

F.e. Family/relatives, Tribe, Folk or Subrace (F.e. German/Nordish), Ethnic great group/Race (F.e. Europeans or Indoeuropeans/European Europids), progressive mankind/races (F.e. all Europids, East Asians, some Amerindian Races many mixed forms), Mankind (all of those + the rest), Ecosystem (all life on this planet).

-Just what is good for the preservation and progression of collective, species and ecosystem should be morally acceptable.

-From an utilitaristic point of view as many people as possible should live good on the highest standard as possible, everytime thinking on the first rule.

-Individuals got their worth on its own but the collective is usually more important because it is made up by many individuals and it survives individuals.

-Capitalism is better than planned economy, at least so far, but just a controlled Capitalism is good for what I said above.

-I'm Pro-Eugenic and for the preservation of my Race(s).
Progression of mankind on the long run isnt just something happening in technology and culture, it must be something biological too.

-All good Traditions of Europe and of my folk which are NOT AGAINST the other rules should be preserved.

-If it is possible (by all useful means which doesnt threat the whole Species or Ecosystem) the European races should be preserved in their SUBSTANCE.

-Moral and the political system should depend on the needs for the other rules.

Maybe I forgot some things, but the basic conception should be clear.

So whats the priority depends on the situation. What I meant is a rather dramatic situation in which your decision are critical and would indeed endanger the higher order:
F.e. individual and family interest = corruption = this action would mean damage to your group
The primitive or immoral individual, one being caught in a primitive clan system, will be corrupted - I dont even say corruption is always that evil, but if the decision which comes out of it harms the group, thats a great crime.

Similar, if the shorter and middle term well being of your group, would lead to the deterioration of your race, or that of your race of the species etc., its non-acceptable.

So as long as the higher hierarchy being not endangered, the lower comes always first (individual - family - tribe - nation etc.), but as soon as the higher order being at stake, even self-sacrification is the choice of the higher being.


There would be no "we" in existence to recreate the race, by any means, artificial or not, if the race is non-existent.

What I mean is a people with a specific set of traits which are the same to Europeans now. I dont think that Europeans will ever completely vanish in the next generations, the unmixed will just go down to rather very low numbers, somewhat comparable to Indians in America...

Blod og Jord
Saturday, June 6th, 2009, 12:01 PM
I'm agree with Agrippa that:
"Culture is a tool for our social and cultural species to survive and to have a better life individually and collectively. If its something different, it failed."

Some people only view culture as folk costumes, language and so.
But it's more than that.
It's the entire world view.
Let me ask you something, why do you think our race is now in decline?
Because our culture is in decline.
We have a modern culture which is more open to the foreign,
than our older cultures.
We changed our culture to tolerance.
But it's not real tolerance for everything, it's only tolerance for foreign,
and intolerance for our own.
We changed our culture to superficiality. It can be seen in the modern music,
the modern way of dressing,
even the modern religion.

Race can't be without culture, and culture can't be without race. Culture is like the oxygen of the race.
Take it away, and it won't survive for long.

velvet
Saturday, June 6th, 2009, 12:13 PM
I'm curious about some details


-From an utilitaristic point of view as many people as possible should live good on the highest standard as possible, everytime thinking on the first rule.

What do you mean exactly by 'as many people as possible'? Does it mean unlimited reproduction or would you limit the population somehow? I mean, mankind consists right now of about 6,8bio people, can 'living good' be archieved for so many individuals?


-Capitalism is better than planned economy, at least so far, but just a controlled Capitalism is good for what I said above.

Capitalism is part of the reasons why we are in that situation, due to the capitalists needs we continually need more working forces (NOT individuals). So how would you control / limit this, that it becomes a positive?


-I'm Pro-Eugenic and for the preservation of my Race(s).
Progression of mankind on the long run isnt just something happening in technology and culture, it must be something biological too.

Agreed, but it is really the question of 'mankind' or do you see this as our duty to 'enlighten' mankind?


-All good Traditions of Europe and of my folk which are NOT AGAINST the other rules should be preserved.

Agreed.


So as long as the higher hierarchy being not endangered, the lower comes always first (individual - family - tribe - nation etc.), but as soon as the higher order being at stake, even self-sacrification is the choice of the higher being.

Would you mind to explain that with more details?
I can only imagine a situation of self-sacrification for the 'greater good' by people who are able to see the greater good (in this case, race/nation). But wouldnt this mean that exactly those individuals, who would be the most beneficial to the further survival of both, race and culture/nation, 'sacrifice' themselves? Wouldnt this lead to a paradox and ultimately, in the long run, to the exact opposite, ie degeneration of both, race and culture?

Resist
Saturday, June 6th, 2009, 12:27 PM
Although both are preferable, to me there's no question culture without race is worse than race without culture. I'll give you an example from my own country. Not all Canadians are of English or French descent, some are of German, Scandinavian or Dutch descent, but they speak the same language as us and practice the same habits. I don't consider them a tragedy, although they essentially lost their culture and their descendants will at some point become no different from Anglo- or French-Canadians.

Agrippa
Saturday, June 6th, 2009, 08:03 PM
I'm curious about some details

Ok, lets go :)


What do you mean exactly by 'as many people as possible'? Does it mean unlimited reproduction or would you limit the population somehow? I mean, mankind consists right now of about 6,8bio people, can 'living good' be archieved for so many individuals?

I mean existing people with developed personalities. Obviously to achieve a better life has to mean for many people, some more than others, to have a strict population policy. F.e. if someone has rather negative genetic traits or even a whole group, I would make a certain way of support and personal option dependent on their willingness to actively and passively participate in whats necessary for the well being of the collective.

As I said elsewhere, I would let people which dont want to live in that society and system I propose live in their areas and regions and as long as they dont threaten my society and group, the higher hierarchy, they can do whatever they want, but will only get help if they act accordingly.

So my approach is to give everybody more than one chance and to do something for everybody having a good life, but in return all participants have to do whats necessary for the greater plan and this might include to get less or no children in some cases and more in others.


Capitalism is part of the reasons why we are in that situation, due to the capitalists needs we continually need more working forces (NOT individuals). So how would you control / limit this, that it becomes a positive?

Well, thats a huge problem and question, but to begin with, the financial system and the rule of the plutocratic oligarchy must be broken into pieces. As long as the collective, the leadership and state as well as all individuals have to go into the debt of private bankers with partly absolutely unjustified interest rates and as long as corporations being controlled by such "brute capitalist" forces which rely on huge returns for the Capital owners and without a public health and retirement care, things won't change to the better, but only the worse.

As I said, a huge issue and worth an own thread or various books and many things to consider, but just to highlight some aspects, like I wrote in another forum:

Alex Jones video, probably his best about the Obama deception:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756

Actually its one of the best movies Jones ever made, I'm not that comfortable with this guy, he doesnt get everything straight me thinks, but in this case he made a very good job :thumb001:

Now watch this movie about the "Money Masters" and Russo's "From Freedom to Fascism" and you get a very good impression of whats all the crap happening in our Europ-countries on both sides of the Atlantic is finally about, namely the cold grip of the plutocratic Oligarchy which wants to extend its power and control over the people. Keep that in mind if reading a Newspaper or watching TV, reading News on the internet, the manipulation of the common people, not just if its about racial and ethnic issues, but also in social, economic and political, yes, even civil rights topics, is tremendous.

Watch the documantary from above and watch these two too:
Money Masters:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

From Freedom to Fascism:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

Just dont think of the American Constitution being all and everything or even worse, like Russo proposed, think of a Gold standard. The Gold standard was used and abused by the plutocratic oligarchy more than once and since they control the price and volume of the gold, their grip won't get off by changing from Fiat money to a gold standard, probably even on the contrary. Not talking about theoretical and practical objections of a gold standard in general.

Its about getting back the control of money creation from the corrupted Central Banks in private hands, thats crucial.

Obama is just one more puppet, nothing else...

and

Well, the plutocratic leadership of Western societies was build up constantly over centuries. You must look at the background of this people and their connection in the USA. Plutocratic oligarchs like the Rockefellers and Morgans always had connection to the European groups and they build up a worldwide network.

The USA in itself is just a tool and nothing else, its truly just the mercenary for them or thats what it seems to become. The US power is just there to keep others down as long as there could be a serious uprising, revolt or political challenge anywhere else. A huge military machine. Thats one of the prime reasons why they keep it up even if they have costs and problems with it.

I sometimes have to think about a Golem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

In any case, the plutocratic story to success began most likely in Italy, but the most important developments took place when their methods jumped from the Netherlands to England and foundet the Bank of England. That was a pretty good base for some of the most powerful families of that time, with the city of London and largely the same families being still active.

But then the British Empire became weaker, partly probably even because of the same banking and interest system they developed, but not just because of that. The rising stars were Germany and the USA and in both nations they tried to get in, but mostly in the English speaking USA.

Their first trials to establish a Central Bank like the Bank of England in the USA were unsuccessful and we can prove historically that the family Rothschild was involved in that. But they learned at the same time they helped some ruthless family clans in the USA to reach a new level. Almost all of them were criminals and had no consciousness, tried to establish huge monopolies, "Trusts" in various economic sectors and eliminated, partly with very harsh methods, all competitors.
For being able to do so, they already corrupted the whole political system of the USA, but mostly individuals - with the founding of the Federal Reserve however, things changed because with that coup they largely bribed or even bought the whole state.

From 1913 on the USA were largely just a puppet already and everything which happened later was more or less just a logical consequence of this final takeover.

With the ability to create money and control its amount, with the government being in their dept, like some plutocratic oligarchs were in that of the Rothschilds and other European bankers, they controlled the state.

By helping the USA to become the dominant world power and financial superpower, they got their grip on the world. Now the economic power of the USA might go down the drain, but the military power is immense and financial system still works, so its a good tool - still.

They need it for the last steps with which they want to make Europe a soulless slave like most of America is today and develop total surveillance state, influence and control, especially financial control, over the rest of the world.

If you have doubts, you can control it by yourself, because one can call it "conspiration theory", but the facts speak for itself, the problem is just that most people dont know the facts or just dont care and are therefore just ignorant slaves in the end and well, thats how exactly how the plutocratic oligarchy looks at the masses, ignorant masses of stupid slaves which believe every damn lie you told them through their corrupted politicians, instituations and the mass media.

Many aspects of the plutocratic influence on the political sphere are "official", its not just about unknown lobbies, but well known instituations:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

Needless to say that the Rockefellers, Rothschilds or some of their minions being always present.

Gold backed money is no solution, Fiat Money a great idea, the problem comes with the creation of money through debt and the whole system being privately controlled by selected group of people which dont act for the people and out of reach for the public will and control - without a huge political reform or even revolution.

I'd say look at the history of various plutocratic families in the USA, how they "made their fortune", how influential they were and are and how criminal they acted, what kind of people they were. The funniest thing about the "social system" in the USA is, that "philanthropic" organisations are oftentimes financed by individuals which made 30 billions by spilling blood and then donate one billiion to an organisation which they largely control, which controls the institution it finances and people which need it. So with that "philanthropy" they often mock the people and manipulate them, while having the image of a benevolent angel in the public media.


Thats really "funny" if you think about it, as is the direct manipulation of the policy. In fact, its laughable how stupid the people are and thats exactly what those which are adept have to think too.

In the past they often concealed their true goals much more completely then they do now, this shows us that this "world elite" thinks they are relatively secure and close to the goal, so that they dont hide themselves any more.

Its like it was with some ancient leader who always said he acted in the will of god and for an oracle, but suddenly, when feeling sure, just telling the others that they just have to follow his will, no matter what.


David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting
in June of 1991

In fact, they said much worse things and Greenspan "is a great guy", sometimes talked the truth even while being the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The people just lack the knowledge and view on the big picture to put things into context!

There are already institutions which could transformed into something like the Bank of England or Federal Reserve worldwide:
- International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- World Bank
- Bank for International Settlements (BIS)

With those institutions, which being controlled by the plutocratic oligarchy, they constantly blackmailed whole nations, forced them into further dept, totally detrimental and unsocial "reforms" and actually raped the people with money they created out of nothing and for which they get interest, exactly like in the USA.

Its no entrepreneurs controlling anything, not even the managers, its about the owners who use the money just as a tool of control, because they own so much money, its no goal for themselves any more and even if, it gets more and more by itself, through their interest rates and investments, they just need to secure that exploitative system for the next generations, if possible forever...

Think about the political parties, Hollywood, mass media - the great food producer control of corporations like Monsanto etc., everything else you might dislike or criticise being financed, or has to protected from a buy out, but who has enough money to secure or to ruin everybody? Obviously the bankers, those who control the cashflow worldwide.

If its about the consequences of such a corrupt economic system and its various forms of degeneration, Erwin Wagenhofer made a good movie about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E6M3Wsyhro

This perversions are possible, because to prevent them from happening, would mean to control the financial system in a way, which would also cripple the plutocratic oligarchy. Because no mainstream politician would survive such a demand, nothing happens and the people being brainwashed with "Neoliberal" ideas.

As soon as the takeover would be complete, I dont know, but they would control it "better" than now, so that only the privileged can still exploit and make frauds, while the others live in a totalitarian and corrupt surveillance state without rights.

To get through with that, if they feel it might be "helpful" to create even more debt and control, but also later economic growth under their rule, they will even start the next World War, thats for sure, because if you look at how many of their families made their money, you know that war was their greatest business and they never had scruples...

Even at the time of the Napoleonic Wars you can observe their manipulation, but the good thing then was, most things were personal and there was a press more free than now and people more honest and brave than now, who always reported what happened. Today many things are, or at least were, especially before the World Wide Web, must better concealed and kept secret.

Most things which happened since 9-11 were just good for one group of people, namely this privileged caste, since they got away with manipulations and decisions which would have never got through otherwise. In the end, its all about the results and how much of freedom being left, how much options for a change, for getting rid of the plutocratic exploitation. If you see that potential shrinking, you know for which people it was done and about what it was about. Even the fight for the Oil being related to the back up of the inflated Dollar, so that they are able to play the game on. That was why Iraq was invaded, he could have accepted other currencies (Euro in particular) for its ressources - inacceptable. If Iran wouldnt have agreed on the compromise, they would have been bombed too. But thats not for the American people on the long run, because it just secures the plutocratic rule over them, no change in sight.

That system is sick and it must be changed!

Some facts most people, including myself, dont believe at first sight, but you have to deal with it, investigate for yourself and you will see how it works out...

Just think about what house building, job and health programs could have been financed with all that money. But they gave it to the banks, even without any real conditions or securities. The home owners and those which tried to get some "real values", like many small investors where caught in this fraud, are left with nothing, many even homeless now, but "the system works" - yet the bank sector is not even stabilised yet and the economic base of the USA is still shrinking and the social downfall of the middle class to the lower classes and the lower classes into the slums - including Euro-Americans - goes on.

Great job. If anybody still had doubts about the true nature of the US-system, he should see it now or stay blind and politically immature.

I mentioned the candidates and institutions for a new "Federal World Bank" - well, I forgot to mention about that, that just recently and of course "because of the crisis" the IMF got the right to issuing bonds and the rules for this way to raise money on this own right being pushed through with massive pressure on other nations.

IMF will sell bonds to raise money for loans (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30407614/)


This possible bond issue was examined recently by Bloomberg.com. The Bloomberg article points to what I think is the most significant aspect that an IMF bond issue would present. I'm concerned that IMF bonds would directly compete with U.S. Treasury bonds. That possibility is fodder for a great deal of speculation.


By putting pressure on the status quo in the form of leverage sloughing via zero responsibility bonds, the IMF can gain significant sway over world development. The best part for the IMF is that their members would be footing the bill. Remember, the IMF is truly responsible for nothing.


It's no wonder that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is pressuring the Obama administration to seek approval from Congress to contribute up to $100 billion to the IMF. Obviously, Mr. Geithner would prefer that our U.S. Treasuries continue to dominate the world bond market. An IMF-instigated bond issue could change the balance of world economic power in the blink of an eye.They've been telling you for decades that the U.S. government could never go bankrupt.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/04/27/imf-bond-sale-would-that-be-a-good-thing/

More and more deficit spending with high interest rates for the bankers, while the social and health policy being further cut down and the jobs melt away.

That the US citizens can still buy their goods as usual is largely the result of the this fraud, simple put, without it the USA would need a restart, so they are somewhat caught and I think many politicians know that very well. Its not just the corruption, but also the fact that they are seriously afraid of any real alternative, even if they would be able to get it through. Because is must mean to the US people a dramatic change in their way of life and thinking, which is so deeply corrupted that small reforms won't correct enough at all...

The future lies in a "Federal World Bank" fraud with a worldwide financial and therefore political control of the people with the big "Bulldog" still in the background, namely the US military and propaganda machine, which being kept alive even if the economy goes down the drain and society deteriorates with growing prison camps all over the country, riots here and there, no middle class alive and the military and transnational corporations in the hands of the plutocratic oligarchy being the only job and food producer in many regions.

At the end of the day the US and most of the world will be so deep in debt in the bank system and therefore plutocratic oligarchy, that it was never and can never be whether the states and people can pay it back in a "normal way" - going after the current standards. It was always about leaving this faulty kind of Central Banking System behind for a more sustainable and fair alternative system.

So a major problem for all changes to the better is currently the plutocratic oligarchy with its centres in the USA and GB. Unless their rule being destroyed, the people cannot be free and better social and economic system is not viable.



Agreed, but it is really the question of 'mankind' or do you see this as our duty to 'enlighten' mankind?

We are all part of mankind and race as well as culture is a just a process, I think that some races and cultures have a greater potential than others for bringing the whole species forward and yes, that we have to enlighten and help other groups of the same human species as long as it doesnt harm our own group.

Mankind in the way I mean it is the biological species and greater unity of all humans. It doesnt mean however that a more adaptive and progressive kind of people has to consider the well-being of another group if it would be detrimental to them.

Would you mind to explain that with more details?
I can only imagine a situation of self-sacrification for the 'greater good' by people who are able to see the greater good (in this case, race/nation). But wouldnt this mean that exactly those individuals, who would be the most beneficial to the further survival of both, race and culture/nation, 'sacrifice' themselves? Wouldnt this lead to a paradox and ultimately, in the long run, to the exact opposite, ie degeneration of both, race and culture?


I can only imagine a situation of self-sacrification for the 'greater good' by people who are able to see the greater good (in this case, race/nation). But wouldnt this mean that exactly those individuals, who would be the most beneficial to the further survival of both, race and culture/nation, 'sacrifice' themselves? Wouldnt this lead to a paradox and ultimately, in the long run, to the exact opposite, ie degeneration of both, race and culture?

Yes, but thats an Eugenic problem and a question of organisation. We are dealing with such negative effects of biological and sociocultural contraselection since civilisation exists and under various circumstances even primitive tribal groups had a rather one sided and degenerative development.

The progressive and harmonious development of the physique and psyche is the way for further Hominisation and higher development, there are many possible factors, without actually organising a population policy, which might destroy that potential and development.

All mass wars f.e. are highly contraselective, they always were, even among greater tribes.

Wars were also responsible for some of the best developments, but only under the circumstances under which those who sacrificed themselves helped with their sacrific people with the same or at least similar biological and cultural traits.

F.e. today an idealistic, schizothymic Nordoid woman with all positive traits cares for the children of degenerated and criminal morons in a social institution while having no family and children on her own. Obviously that doesnt work out on the long run, thats one of the main reasons, beside obvious defects and highly adaptive new genetic traits, why we desperately need a humane, controlled Eugenic and population policy.

By these Eugenic and Euphenic measures we increase the percentage of idealistic, intelligent, attractive etc. individuals. So what we would make is a selective regime which end product is a more group oriented, decent, capable, versatile and valuable human being.

What we get out of mass wars and negative selection are degenerated subjects which are unable or unwilling to do something for the group, in many cases for genetic reasons already. Stupid, egoistic or both.

The best selective regime was at work in the late Neolithic and Metal Age times in Europe. Actually the individuals of those clans would be much more suitable and capable for whats being needed now than the average of the current European population, yet not talking about non-European groups.

Biologically everything has to pay off and what we need for a better society and human species is good traits to pay off by reproductive success and bad traits being bred out. Today the exact opposite is true either on the intrapopulational and interpopulational level. So f.e. both inside of the German people the worse elements have more offspring and other, on average less positive ethnic groups have more offspring too. The same is true for most nations now, just less extreme in some, so intrapopulational contraselection being now a problem of mankind, because of the Western sociocultural pattern, which is degenerative in itself.

If an intelligent-idealistic Nordid would sacrifice himself for a Nordid who is a stupid egoist, it won't work neither, because its about the specific traits, either sociocultural (individual experiences, family, region, moral etc.) and biological. In the end there would be a stupid and egoistic Nordid population, with the good genes which made the type valuable in the past being bred out in the most extreme scenario.

Self sacrifice doesnt have to mean that one needs to blow oneself up in most cases, it just have to mean that your short term oriented personal interests must stay behind for the greater good in specific situations and that you have "a feeling" for higher values, greater goods and collective moral approaches.

The ideal I call "higher Idealism", which means the combination of an idealistic will with a rational mind. "Lower" or "primitive" Idealism might be as or even more fanatic, but lacks the ratio, might be driven by simple prejudices, religious superstition and the inability to adapt ones world view to changing conditions and challenges, to consider new and more facts, staying flexible and reasonable while being at the same time hard and fanatic if necessary, once you know whats needed for reaching the goal. Individuals must be always ready to sacrifice themselves in desperate situations for the collective.

Such people or personalities with the ability to develop such traits being by far much more common among progressive racial forms.

The greatest problem comes from misled idealism, like the soldier fighting a bad war for the plutocrats or a female academic dont getting own children and caring for those of degeneranted subjects.

So if the head being corrupted of a such a group, the whole body might still work like an effective machine, but no longer for the people which keep it still up. Thats exactly the situation we face in most Euro-nations worldwide and the USA and Germany in particular. The body still works, but no longer for the own group and people, not even for mankind, but just the small corrupted elite which betrayed all.

Compare if its about contraselection with these threads:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=38300

Intelligent and dedicated males are much more likely to die in a mass war, because they being more often among the young officer ranks and tend to be more active on the battlefield f.e., new studies prove that.

Birth rates:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=60647

Eugenics and future of humanity:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=418

"Nordicism and progressive Eugenics":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=40375

Stygian Cellarius
Sunday, June 7th, 2009, 09:19 AM
Some people only view culture as folk costumes, language and so.
But it's more than that.


Jael, I think it's very important you mention this. Although there are some individuals in here that are well aware of this, some people are not. Whenever I talk about culture to people I cannot stress it enough that it is not just those things. To make it easy for them I tell them that culture is anything limited to humans (other than specific physiological attributes). There are two categorical manifestations; material and immaterial.

Examples of its material manifestations would include; a pencil, clothing, Rocket ship, boat, fire, machine gun, nuclear power, food in any condition other than its natural state, a dam, crops, radar, sewing machine, domesticated animals, traffic signals, tanks, chain mail, electricity, sewer systems, cell phones, a crown, curtains, prosthetic limb, cutlery, carpet. In short, any rearrangement of matter to serve our interests. Mind projected into the material domain. External.

Examples of immaterial manifestations would include; language, philosophy, song, politics, mathematics, theories, law, economic system, knowledge, folkways, mores, taboos. In short, structural information systems to serve our interests. Internal.

The ultimate goal - survival.

Also, one thing essential to my world-view is viewing everything from an information perspective. Viewing things from the perspective of: what is happening to information in this situation? I like to imagine I could see information and observe its movements. With culture, information being first reconfigured in the mind. Regarding the immaterial manifestation it remains in the mind or is transferred to other minds. Regarding material manifestations, the psychological information structure becomes projected into an environmental information structure and reconfigures it.

Another thing worth noting is the difference between culture and tradition. Tradition just being a specific subset of culture. Cultural elements viewed as essential for survival. Positive cultural elements selected and passed down generation to generation. Since there are those 3 divisions of culture that Agrippa mentioned, how do we isolate the positive cultural elements and share this knowledge with future generations? With a body of thought that acts as a reservoir for that information - tradition. It is the body of positive cultural selection.



Let me ask you something, why do you think our race is now in decline?
Because our culture is in decline.
We have a modern culture which is more open to the foreign,
than our older cultures.
We changed our culture to tolerance.
But it's not real tolerance for everything, it's only tolerance for foreign,
and intolerance for our own.
We changed our culture to superficiality. It can be seen in the modern music,
the modern way of dressing,
even the modern religion.

Race can't be without culture, and culture can't be without race. Culture is like the oxygen of the race.
Take it away, and it won't survive for long.

I hope you don't mind me responding to this.

For the most part, our culture is intact and not under attack. It is the specific subset of our culture that is under attack - our tradition. The body of knowledge that guides us in such a way that we make advantageous survival based decisions; of what to do and how to do it. That is what's under attack. I don't mean short term survival strategies either, the individual in the here and now can exist, it is the long term trans-generational strategy that has dissolved.

The material manifestations of culture are not degenerated, indeed they are still evolving. It is the immaterial manifestations that have degenerated and are degenerating. This does not mean it cannot translate to material culture, it can, but its source is immaterial. The example you mentioned of modern dress is a good example. Racy clothing is a symptom of degenerated folkways.

This attack on western tradition is largely a result of Jews ----> Marxism -----> Frankfurt school, it's sympathizers, descendants and those acting in accordance with its methods (whether they know what they are really doing or not). In short, Liberalism. Originally, a deliberate removal and perversion of our value system; mores and folkways erased or perverted and taboos dissolved. Its a recipe for our destruction. However, there is a large non-deliberate mass of our population that has been indoctrinated and recruited to further these ends. They are unaware of what they are truly doing and do not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

Some tactics include:
• Relentless criticism of our traditional institutions.
• The dissolution of racial identity and collectivism through universal egalitarianism, social theories that deny biological differences, etc.
It's most extreme manifestation being not only the dissolution of racial identity to the neutral, but driving it into the negative through unyielding criticism of our race. The promotion of individuality, the glorification of non-European races and their achievements, but attributing our achievements to humanity as a whole, etc.
• The dissolution of the family through the women "liberation" movement, relentless criticism of our traditional family structure, suggestion to children that the knowledge and advice of grandparents and parents is "out of date", "not with the times", "close minded", or "oh they were just taught that way, they don't know any better, the times have changed". Which undermines the authority of elders and severs the link of traditional information flow.

These are just a few although their are many, many others.

Agrippa
Sunday, June 7th, 2009, 01:15 PM
The problem with the Western culture is that the clan structures being eliminated and the blood rule being eliminated, both by the Christian church and dogmas.

The common peasants and citizens were all made to clan-free subjects without the consciousness of the blood on the longer run. The only group in Western Europe which, as a whole, was not as much individualised and ripped from its tradition of blood was the aristocracy. The aristocratic way of life kept much longer the more natural approach to things like marriage, children etc., like it was common in most Indoeuropeans before Christianity.

Now the good thing about this clan-free and socially disciplined citizens is, that they can be formed into a greater community, a nation, with less corruption, more flexibility and law abiding. In fact, these Western people are rather helpless individually if being compared to clan based societies, like they themselves were before Christianity and the Feudal economy.

So without a good leadership and a state working for them, they are just an individualised mess, easier to manipulate and harder to find their way to resistance, to alternative structures.
Even worse if in their society of helpless individuals come immigrants which are still clan based. The newcomers can profit from their stronger family ties and "the knowledge of blood", while the average Western citizen being just the law-abiding jerk which keeps up the structures.

If you look at organised crime, its often quite similar to clan wars. If you look at the plutocratic oligarchy, they act like aristocrats, if you look at street gangs and the small shop owners of mostly Asian background, they being backed up by their families and its in all that cases much more natural to give birth to more children, to at least get one or better more heirs.

So the Liberal and individualist approach to family and life is probably in a way the end product of the Western family structures development, from the clan based society to extended family, to nuclear family, to single mothers and children in private and state owned institutions...

The problem is the leadership, those individualised subjects, even if they think of themselves as "free and independent", live in an illusion, because the working woman f.e. is neither more free nor more able self-realise herself if looking at the big picture, if looking at the end result. Because the greatest self-realisation is to have surviving offspring, which keeps up the bloodline.

But thats something Western Europeans lost long time ago, Christianity in itself had no natural and good approach to this.

I dont want to bring the people and society back to the tribal or clan based organisation, thats detrimental for civilisation and higher cultural development, it makes humans vulnerable and isnt necessary at all.

We just need to correct inside of the modern civilisation and state structures those elements which went wrong, which dont work, which are not sustainable on the long run.

Dont think it all came just with Cultural Marxism and modern Neoliberalism, yes, that are its worst outcomes so far, but it began earlier, it was a "Western weakness" and some people saw that long time ago. They tried to correct it, probably not always in the best way, probably not always in the most humane way, but that there must be a collective approach and healing of the Western disease was clear for them and it must be clear to us.

As for the Western family structures and social development from medieval times on:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=40331

velvet
Sunday, June 7th, 2009, 02:09 PM
Agrippa, thanks for the extensive respond!
The main points concerning the criminal financial system and the approach for the new world order/one world government I knew already, and no, I dont think it's an 'empty conspiracy theory', but many of the details (specially the inner American ones) I didnt know so far and the links and movies will keep me busy for hours to come, so it will take a while until I answer ;)

And I have to go voting later for the EU election, although I dont think it will make much of a difference. But for now it is one of the very few cards we have and I intend to play it, maybe it will slow the process of EU at least a bit down...

Stygian Cellarius
Sunday, June 7th, 2009, 05:20 PM
Dont think it all came just with Cultural Marxism and modern Neoliberalism, yes, that are its worst outcomes so far, but it began earlier, it was a "Western weakness" and some people saw that long time ago. They tried to correct it, probably not always in the best way, probably not always in the most humane way, but that there must be a collective approach and healing of the Western disease was clear for them and it must be clear to us.

Agreed, it did not begin with Marxism and Modern Liberalism (as oppose to past liberalism which was something quite different). Those are just the active negative elements. The passive element began much sooner, when we ourselves gave the active elements the opportunity to disintegrate our tradition. It began when we crossed a stage in civilization development in which receptivity to these negative influences were at its peak. The epoch when our people are at their weakest. That time being the first generation born into the world fully isolated from negative environmental pressures and the following generations. The generations that experiences no real struggle and survival is a given. These generations take much for granted. The traditional system becomes nothing more than an abstraction, only words that have no grounding in reality and no evident practical advantage to follow. Their importance is no longer understood; considered meaningless ritual. This begins civilization decline, the active negative elements only accelerate it.

It is amazing though, how civilization decline never seems to be able to avoid the destruction of the original creative race, almost as if it were a natural law. Not that it is, simply because it's possible to avoid it, but it is definitely a consistent pattern. The reasons being obvious of course; naturally the civilization will be a beacon of light unto the world, attracting less successful peoples. A survival strategy in itself for them.

Agrippa
Sunday, June 7th, 2009, 05:52 PM
Agreed, it did not begin with Marxism and Modern Liberalism (as oppose to past liberalism which was something quite different). Those are just the active negative elements. The passive element began much sooner, when we ourselves gave the active elements the opportunity to disintegrate our tradition. It began when we crossed a stage in civilization development in which receptivity to these negative influences is at its peak. The epoch when our people are at their weakest. That time being the first generation born into the world fully isolated from negative environmental pressures and the following generations. The generations that experiences no real struggle and survival is a given. These generations take much for granted. The traditional system becomes nothing more than an abstraction, only words that have no grounding in reality and no evident practical advantage to follow. Their importance is no longer understood; considered meaningless ritual. This begins civilization decline, the active negative elements only accelerate it.

It is amazing though, how it civilization decline never seems to be able to avoid the destruction of the original creative race, almost as if it were a natural law. Not that it is, simply because it's possible to avoid it, but it is definitely a consistent pattern. The reasons being obvious of course; naturally the civilization will be a beacon of light unto the world, attracting less successful peoples. A survival strategy in itself for them.

The traditions we had were no sufficient to deal with the challenges of the modern society. Thats why new ideologies came up, of which some had a radical egalitarian (Marxism) or differentiated (early Christian-Social movement, Nationalism, Racism, Fascism, National Socialism etc.) collective approach.

Liberalism in itself was a disease and later combined with the worst parts of Marxism, namely the Western born Cultural Marxist ideology, which now being fully integrated in what we can call Neoliberalism and "political correctness".

The Europeans reached a point of development from which we could have made a further step towards a better and higher evolved human form and society.

We missed that opportunity and decided to fall back to the most primitive and disintegrated motivation for the lust, greed, indifference and weakness.

It was time to come up with a great new approach, but because of the ressources available, the worst alternative won, Liberalcapitalism.
We would make a great mistake to think that things can't changed to the better, a group can't successfully "re-invent" itself to be reborn even stronger.

That was done or tried more than once, and especially now with all the knowledge we have it would be easier and more probable to be successful, if just the will would be there.

But this will must be present in the leadership and the leadership in this system is the plutocratic oligarchy, which goals and deeds I already described.

If f.e. just locally in the USA some "traditions" of Christian Conservatism, patriotism or classic Liberalism would be revived, it would just help the leadership to exploit those region and people even better, because they work harder and being more effective, but they dont understand anything, dont change anything significantly and would finally be manipulated dolls.

It failed once, it would fail again, the solution must be more radical and consequent, targeting the present weaknesses and eliminating them. We shouldnt recourse on anything which is not the most effective option.

Additionally, any kind of "revived tradition" is not the same as it was, because you can't go back in time, you always take out and see something through the eyes of the present times. And believe me, I dont know the exact percentage, but practically no one here would really appreciate the tradition we had some hundred years ago.

The times passed were not perfect neither and if they produced what we have now, they must have had their weaknesses for sure.

Sometimes its the "conservative" approach which ruins everything, because they dont move actively but being just pushed slowly by greater forces, without building up the energy for reform or action needed to overcome the present challenges for the good of the people and group. More than once this was the case in history. Its not about tradition vs. modern or eager vs. saturated, its about right vs. wrong, rational decisions for the better vs. irrational or corrupted decisions for the worse.

At least thats how I see things.

Stygian Cellarius
Sunday, June 7th, 2009, 06:19 PM
Sometimes its the "conservative" approach which ruins everything, because they don't move actively but being just pushed slowly by greater forces, without building up the energy for reform or action needed to overcome the present challenges for the good of the people and group.

I think it interesting you say these words. I recently posted a response elsewhere (not this forum) about this.

"I believe it [Conservatism] is a highly flawed philosophy and is destined to fail. I believe it will fail because it is a stagnant philosophy by nature and humans [our Race] are a species that constantly needs to move forward. The only thing conservatism really does is slow down the movement of civilization in the Liberal direction. It has no momentum in itself. No matter how strong it is, any counter to it will move it. Its strength only determines how slow or fast that movement takes place, but it will inevitably take place. I like to imagine Conservatism as a rock and Liberalism as something pulling on it. The Rock itself is not pulling in the opposite direction, its weight is just keeping its place."

:)

velvet
Friday, June 12th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Again, thanks for that extensive response, I guess these facts cant be repeated often enough ;)
And sorry for my late reply, I'm still not through with all the links and movies, and my head explodes on information overload :D



Its about getting back the control of money creation from the corrupted Central Banks in private hands, thats crucial.

Well, the banks ARE private, that was the problem from the very start, that governments allowed to have their financies controlled by private banks, and meanwhile, let the banks also make the policy.
But I know (I think) what you mean with this.


They need it for the last steps with which they want to make Europe a soulless slave like most of America is today and develop total surveillance state, influence and control, especially financial control, over the rest of the world.

If you have doubts, you can control it by yourself, because one can call it "conspiration theory", but the facts speak for itself, the problem is just that most people dont know the facts or just dont care and are therefore just ignorant slaves in the end and well, thats how exactly how the plutocratic oligarchy looks at the masses, ignorant masses of stupid slaves which believe every damn lie you told them through their corrupted politicians, instituations and the mass media.

Many aspects of the plutocratic influence on the political sphere are "official", its not just about unknown lobbies, but well known instituations:

I think this is exactly why people tend to rather believe that it is a conspiracy than the truth, because there is nothing really hidden. Another reason is the question 'why should they do that' and in the end also how, it is above most people's thinking how a small group of people can just take over the world.



In the past they often concealed their true goals much more completely then they do now, this shows us that this "world elite" thinks they are relatively secure and close to the goal, so that they dont hide themselves any more.

This obviously means two things. Right now is our very last chance to change something, because they are so close that it might take just a few years more.
Returning to the 'Great Ages' I tend to think that the next three years (until the end of 2012) are crucial and will decide over our survival or demise.



Most things which happened since 9-11 were just good for one group of people, namely this privileged caste, since they got away with manipulations and decisions which would have never got through otherwise. In the end, its all about the results and how much of freedom being left, how much options for a change, for getting rid of the plutocratic exploitation. If you see that potential shrinking, you know for which people it was done and about what it was about. Even the fight for the Oil being related to the back up of the inflated Dollar, so that they are able to play the game on. That was why Iraq was invaded, he could have accepted other currencies (Euro in particular) for its ressources - inacceptable. If Iran wouldnt have agreed on the compromise, they would have been bombed too. But thats not for the American people on the long run, because it just secures the plutocratic rule over them, no change in sight.

That system is sick and it must be changed!

I dont think that we can change the system. The system must crash completely, that even the very last human on earth understands which consequencies it has. Otherwise only the people in the public will change, like in the last 200 years, while the system runs untouched.

9/11 was an inside job, it wasnt a good opportunity for them, they created it with the help of Bush and CIA to get the anti-terror laws through and to make it a crime to know the constitution.


Some facts most people, including myself, dont believe at first sight, but you have to deal with it, investigate for yourself and you will see how it works out...

Just think about what house building, job and health programs could have been financed with all that money. But they gave it to the banks, even without any real conditions or securities. The home owners and those which tried to get some "real values", like many small investors where caught in this fraud, are left with nothing, many even homeless now, but "the system works" - yet the bank sector is not even stabilised yet and the economic base of the USA is still shrinking and the social downfall of the middle class to the lower classes and the lower classes into the slums - including Euro-Americans - goes on.

Great job. If anybody still had doubts about the true nature of the US-system, he should see it now or stay blind and politically immature.

It's not only US, it is the same in Europe. We have a tv show here about a 'goldenrod' who helps people to get rid off their debts. Usually there are people who screwed their lifes themselves with extensive shopping or something. Lately was a family who bought a small farm some years ago, but never had problems to pay the interests and deferred payments. Now the bank cancelled the contract, means they have to pay immediately the rest or their farm gets forced-saled by the bank. I consider this a dispossession, which actually is verboten by our Grundgesetz (basic law; we dont have a constitution), but the banks obviously exist outside the law.

Same happens to small businesses with just a few employees, they get crushed. Our middle class get the same way destroyed like in America, but unlike in America it is much harder to restart here once you've crushed a business. Unless you're a manager, they can row-destroy even large businesses and get a new job immediately to crush the next.


At the end of the day the US and most of the world will be so deep in debt in the bank system and therefore plutocratic oligarchy, that it was never and can never be whether the states and people can pay it back in a "normal way" - going after the current standards. It was always about leaving this faulty kind of Central Banking System behind for a more sustainable and fair alternative system.

It was never intended that these debts can be paid back. And it is not possible by design of the system.
You loan 1000 Dollar with an interest rate of 5%. The amount of available money is only 1000 Dollar, whatever you will try the fife per cent interest can never be paid back. That is the very trick of the system.
Unless you unsubscribe from the system, just leaving it including your remaining debt*, there is no way out.

*I think our conception of honour, that debts are a question of honour to be paid back is the problem. It would actually be so easy to get rid off the system and the debts, if we just reject the debts / the monetary system. After all, they are imposed with criminal acts onto us, the debts actually do not exist. So why try to pay them back?



We are all part of mankind and race as well as culture is a just a process, I think that some races and cultures have a greater potential than others for bringing the whole species forward and yes, that we have to enlighten and help other groups of the same human species as long as it doesnt harm our own group.

Mankind in the way I mean it is the biological species and greater unity of all humans. It doesnt mean however that a more adaptive and progressive kind of people has to consider the well-being of another group if it would be detrimental to them.

Independend of races I consider mankind itself detrimental to its survival right now. Again, this planet bursts with 6.8bio people (6.875.000.000), each thriving for its own well-being. China, India, the west-Asian regions (Turkey etc) and Africa are breeding like hell, the collapse actually was 20 years ago, but we feed them with donations and whatever and keep them alive. Every rat has more survival instinct than humanity, rats dont breed more offspring than they can feed, no animal does.

Nature tries to correct the mistaken humanity from time to time, inventing a desease like colera, Aids, the aggressive flu sorts, Tsunamies. Humanity is so stupid to save every sick pile of rotten genes.


Yes, but thats an Eugenic problem and a question of organisation. We are dealing with such negative effects of biological and sociocultural contraselection since civilisation exists and under various circumstances even primitive tribal groups had a rather one sided and degenerative development.

The progressive and harmonious development of the physique and psyche is the way for further Hominisation and higher development, there are many possible factors, without actually organising a population policy, which might destroy that potential and development.

All mass wars f.e. are highly contraselective, they always were, even among greater tribes.

Wars were also responsible for some of the best developments, but only under the circumstances under which those who sacrificed themselves helped with their sacrific people with the same or at least similar biological and cultural traits.

I dont think that wars were only contraselective. After every great war in history societies prospered, inventions increased, medicine were developed. Even if it might be, from an 'eugenic' standpoint, a downgrade in genetic material, the result was more better offspring, and this offspring had more resources available, which I consider more important or likewise important. Although mankind might be a herd animal, the herd size should be limited, and must be limited. I always said that societies stop working from a certain size, the size itself is detrimental to its health, and an unhealthy society is not a good place to breed quality offspring.



By these Eugenic and Euphenic measures we increase the percentage of idealistic, intelligent, attractive etc. individuals. So what we would make is a selective regime which end product is a more group oriented, decent, capable, versatile and valuable human being.

That was tried already, didnt work.


What we get out of mass wars and negative selection are degenerated subjects which are unable or unwilling to do something for the group, in many cases for genetic reasons already. Stupid, egoistic or both.

The best selective regime was at work in the late Neolithic and Metal Age times in Europe. Actually the individuals of those clans would be much more suitable and capable for whats being needed now than the average of the current European population, yet not talking about non-European groups.

Of course they were more suitable, but you oversee the obvious. The clans and tribes consisted of a handful people, not thousands or worse, millions. They were only few, a size where their survival instinct was intact, they stayed among themself and cared for their offspring while at the same time ensuring that the community was intact and worked for the common well-being of the clan or tribe.

This consciousness though vanishs when the size of the society reachs a critical point, a point when single individuals do not matter anymore for the stability.

When this happens to some, it might bring forth art and other products of a stable culture. When this happens to large portions of the tribe/folk it is the beginning of degeneration. People who dont have to do anything for their well-being are not idealistic, they take their well-being for granted, ensured by the, then already abstract, society.



Biologically everything has to pay off and what we need for a better society and human species is good traits to pay off by reproductive success and bad traits being bred out. Today the exact opposite is true either on the intrapopulational and interpopulational level. So f.e. both inside of the German people the worse elements have more offspring and other, on average less positive ethnic groups have more offspring too. The same is true for most nations now, just less extreme in some, so intrapopulational contraselection being now a problem of mankind, because of the Western sociocultural pattern, which is degenerative in itself.

Well, I dont believe that this 'western sociocultural pattern' is truely ours, but I agree it is there right now and it is sick. Returning to the counterselection, how would mass war be not beneficial in the current situation? It cant get worse.


If an intelligent-idealistic Nordid would sacrifice himself for a Nordid who is a stupid egoist, it won't work neither, because its about the specific traits, either sociocultural (individual experiences, family, region, moral etc.) and biological. In the end there would be a stupid and egoistic Nordid population, with the good genes which made the type valuable in the past being bred out in the most extreme scenario.

Self sacrifice doesnt have to mean that one needs to blow oneself up in most cases, it just have to mean that your short term oriented personal interests must stay behind for the greater good in specific situations and that you have "a feeling" for higher values, greater goods and collective moral approaches.

I dont see where this idealism should come from, if people dont suffer on anything.


The ideal I call "higher Idealism", which means the combination of an idealistic will with a rational mind. "Lower" or "primitive" Idealism might be as or even more fanatic, but lacks the ratio, might be driven by simple prejudices, religious superstition and the inability to adapt ones world view to changing conditions and challenges, to consider new and more facts, staying flexible and reasonable while being at the same time hard and fanatic if necessary, once you know whats needed for reaching the goal. Individuals must be always ready to sacrifice themselves in desperate situations for the collective.

Such people or personalities with the ability to develop such traits being by far much more common among progressive racial forms.

The greatest problem comes from misled idealism, like the soldier fighting a bad war for the plutocrats or a female academic dont getting own children and caring for those of degeneranted subjects.

To the latter I agree it is absurd. But to have the 'common academemic women' always accused of not breeding enough is ignoring one fact, that I mentioned above already. These intelligent people (men alike) do not get own children because they feel the world is populated enough already. They limit themselves (if you want sacrifice their own bloodline) for the well-being (that is not to consume the last resources away for an egoistic child wish) of their folk. We cant breed like hell and expect our folk to prosper. That just doesnt work.

These nice demographic panic movies say our birthrates are below reproduction level. True in a statistical sense, not true when viewed with the absolute numbers.

Today more human beings populate (not to say pollute) the earth than have ever lived in human history together. At the same time, consuming resources; with so many humans living at the same time it is not possible anymore to plan the use of resources. We must reduce. Drastically.

Although it is wrong from the race preservation standpoint, these academics do exactly the right thing, they stop breeding, because their surroundings are polluted with millions of rats, eh sorry, humans, that must somehow be fed.

Somewhere in them a sort of instinct works, that was a good thing before the 'western sociocultural pattern' was installed. For a society to prosper there need to be a, admitted fragile, balance of struggle and well-being. Too much struggle will destroy the culture the same way like too much well-being, when we assume that too much well-being (or lazyness) is the reason for degenerated idealism, or turning idealism into decadence. Even if not solely the reason, it certainly plays a role.


To return to the thread topic, kinda, I have to disagree with you on the fundaments on which our (possible future) society will be build.

I believe that cult and culture are the same, or are the reflections of this what you might call 'tradition' (belief), all this is the same or stems from the same source. But our culture is heathen, while our belief/tradition is replaced by christianity. Our folk is not healthy, we are cutted into halfs and one half was replaced with something else. Our cult, our roots are cutted off, but a folk is not a Mendel'sche pea plant which you can colour however you want. Insofar I strongly disagree with you that christianity will be of any help to the survival of our folk. It cant give us our roots, and our roots we need to grow again.

Although not solely responsible christianity has done a large part with destroying our folk and later our national identities. Christianity was the force behind interbreeding of the royal houses, creating artificially new nations and power structures. And with this creating the ground on which the liberal's message could grow, that it is okay to interbreed and all that.

The immune system we need and lack right now was never a problem in old times. Beside the fact that simply the distancies kept us from interbreeding, there also was a natural immune system, created by the strong relation between cult, culture and society/social interacting.

Since all pagan cults/cultures are race based, it obviously was a built-in function, our gods were our ancestors and to care for the ancestral line to live forth the best way available was just natural. Now we have a 'god of all people', where should that racial consciousness, if not immune system, come from? Yes, you have it, but I have to admit that I wondered already how you came from your christian standpoint to the point of this racial consciousness. I consider you an exception. ;)
However, an intact cult(ure) wouldnt need an induced eugenic program, it would be built-in. And a built-in mechanism would be in the long run much more likely to succeed than an artificially induced program.

And maybe that would be one of the unbloody sacrifices christians have to do, to raise their children in heathen tradition. Our entire society could be changed within only one generation, create a healthy cult/culture and a strong immune mechanism for our future preservation. It would be a closed circle, interbreeding with other races wouldnt be a problem, because it wouldnt occur. We would make ourselves incompatible with other cultures, just like all cultures around us do by their natural stance on it.
Interracial marriage always requires from the white to convert to whatever religion/culture the partner has. The white converts to judaism, islamism whatever. People today just dont care anymore about what and who they are, they are willing to abandon their culture and switch their belief, because they just dont have a root.
Christianity doesnt offer this root, only our own cult/culture/tradition/society offers this root and identity.

I dont want to start another discussion about christianity, but this is just what I believe is right. The most of this sick sociopsychological patterns of today's world can be traced back to errors in that religion, and this errors must be corrected, if we want to survive.

The Captain
Friday, June 12th, 2009, 09:51 PM
Embracing Germanic culture alone does not make one Germanic, but, at the same rate, blood alone does not make one Germanic if one does not accept the culture.

Both a non-Germanic and a Germanic can have Germanic culture, but only the biological Germanic can have the blood.

For this reason, I voted "blood."

Stygian Cellarius
Saturday, June 13th, 2009, 03:36 AM
In the past they often concealed their true goals much more completely then they do now, this shows us that this "world elite" thinks they are relatively secure and close to the goal, so that they dont hide themselves any more.


This obviously means two things. Right now is our very last chance to change something, because they are so close that it might take just a few years more.
Returning to the 'Great Ages' I tend to think that the next three years (until the end of 2012) are crucial and will decide over our survival or demise.
Historically speaking, just before their change in fortune, they have always become more arrogant and even boastful of their activities; taking fewer cautions to conceal their mischief. The pattern of their behavior has been no other way and always a bad move. They seem to do this when the host has already noticed something wrong with their civilization. This in itself increases the sensitivity level of the people, in order to identify the causes, in an attempt to remediate its condition. As any organic system does. Resulting in their expulsion or else.


I dont think that we can change the system. The system must crash completely, that even the very last human on earth understands which consequencies it has. Otherwise only the people in the public will change, like in the last 200 years, while the system runs untouched.

Absolutely, we cannot change the system. It must totally crash. Momentum towards destruction is too great as it is. There are far to many people to turn around. Its just not feasible. This is why sometimes I think it may be best for the liberals to take full power and have unrestricted ability to implement their policies. It's the fastest way to the bottom and the faster we get there, the sooner we can rebuilt. Also, the more abrupt the change, the more likely people wake up. If we take the conservative route, we will slowly drift to the bottom. This is the worst case scenario because gradual change can result in total destruction. People are more likely to adapt to the situation and not raise a fuss. The slow process is the most thorough in submerging our gene pool non-white population. The possibility of Europe and America becoming a Third world is at its greatest under the "slow process".

You're right, the only way for everyone to change is for everyone to be placed in a direct survival context. No one can be left in an indirect survival context, i.e. a job that produces money to buy food etc. In the later context, the human can isolate themself from the real world. The situation needs to come to their front door. People must be stripped from their isolated existence. As long as people have a job that puts food on the table; a situation where basic survival requisites are met, nothing will change. Because in the end, that's all people really care about. Look at all the major revolutions throughout history, everyone of them was proceeded by massive unemployment. When the people with a strong will lose their jobs, and those are usually the last to lose them, that's when things start happening. Basically, the middle class needs to become unemployed before any major movement takes place.


It was never intended that these debts can be paid back. And it is not possible by design of the system.
You loan 1000 Dollar with an interest rate of 5%. The amount of available money is only 1000 Dollar, whatever you will try the fife per cent interest can never be paid back. That is the very trick of the system.
Unless you unsubscribe from the system, just leaving it including your remaining debt*, there is no way out.

I've been thinking alot about our modern capitalistic system and its innate defects. I was equating a nations economic system to biological systems. Energy intake/energy expenditure vs. capital received/work produced. Both system require a 1:1 ratio for sustainability. Our capitalistic system does not meet that requirement - unsustainable. Too many systems have developed in which people think they can cheat their way out of working for an equivalent monetary return. There have been too many paper shuffling games created that circumvents this natural law.

The banking system and credit cards are a good example. They endeavor to multiply their capital by writing on a piece of paper. The method of writing on paper to multiply your capital does not meet the 1:1 ratio. In order for this 1:1 ratio to be met someone, somewhere within the organic system must compensate. In this case, it happens to be the one borrowing money, but naturally there is a level that cannot meet compensation. An economy cannot be dependent on this kind of glass house.

I believe mutual funds and many other types of investments that involve magic monetary multiplication, without expending an equivalent amount of energy, fall in this category as well. It involves, at some level or another, the type of capitalistic parasitism that, in itself, does not meet the 1:1 requirement.

Subsidized lifestying is another that does not meet the 1:1 ratio. Tax revenue should only be used in a reciprocating manner. It should in some form or another come back to the people who it was taken from. To have a large non-reciprocating void is not only unjust, but its unsustainable. The people from which the revenue was received must compensate to met the 1:1 ratio. Again, this has its limits or the system will implode.

In the next civilization, If I exist, I will push hard for a fundamental law of exclusive reciprocity. No single group can receive tax money, all tax revenue allocation must be collective in nature. There will be no such thing as a lawyer making a case to receive government funding for a particular cause. This happens so frequent its unbelievable. Our money is being divided among special interest groups that have nothing whatsoever to do with us or the betterment of the nation as a whole. If the lawyer is clever enough, any exclusive group can receive our money. There are Mexican cultural groups that receive government funding, fringe religious groups, pop-sickle stick cabin builders association, you name it. All exclusive groups that have nothing to do with the people from whom the money was taken.

Also, I think our future cultural tradition should have inbuilt defenses against these types of capitalistic parasitism. In a way that, as a natural process of upbringing children, they are automatically warned against this kind of exploitation, indeed sensitive to it (that is if it is a capitalistic system, if its another, then there should be equivalent warnings of the dangers of that system, surely all systems will have their weak links that cannibals can take advantage of). Also, we need a tradition that raises red flags to that kind of cannibalistic, parasitic character and shames them. In our society today, they are rewarded. If Jews exist in this society, they will cry and wail about this for sure. Hopefully, the next time they are purged, we will not let them in. It's going to be very difficult to do this though, they blend in so well and will have many gentile friends testify their benevolence and our compassionate nature will eventually heed to their requests. Their determination to live amongst us has always been stronger than our determination to banish them.


*I think our conception of honour, that debts are a question of honour to be paid back is the problem. It would actually be so easy to get rid off the system and the debts, if we just reject the debts / the monetary system. After all, they are imposed with criminal acts onto us, the debts actually do not exist. So why try to pay them back?

In a way you are right. Although, on a small scale and within certain boundaries I believe it honorable to pay the money back, but yea, you're right, it has been imposed on us in a "criminal" manner. The deception and trickery used as tactics to lure the maximum amount of people into a debt trap is deserving of punishment.


Independend of races I consider mankind itself detrimental to its survival right now. Again, this planet bursts with 6.8bio people (6.875.000.000), each thriving for its own well-being. China, India, the west-Asian regions (Turkey etc) and Africa are breeding like hell, the collapse actually was 20 years ago, but we feed them with donations and whatever and keep them alive. Every rat has more survival instinct than humanity, rats dont breed more offspring than they can feed, no animal does.

Nature tries to correct the mistaken humanity from time to time, inventing a desease like colera, Aids, the aggressive flu sorts, Tsunamies. Humanity is so stupid to save every sick pile of rotten genes.

Concerning those humans we artificially sustain, as soon as our civilization implodes, which is soon, natural homeostasis will meet these people once again. When Western nations no longer have the means to sustain these people, there will be Global famine and death on a scale never before seen. Earths population will probably be reduces to half, if not less, than what it is now. The interesting times are just around the corner ;)


Although mankind might be a herd animal, the herd size should be limited, and must be limited. I always said that societies stop working from a certain size, the size itself is detrimental to its health, and an unhealthy society is not a good place to breed quality offspring.

It is true that beyond a certain population social interconnectedness breaks down. When a population exceeds a certain number it provides a situation where individual isolation becomes more viable. One can get lost and become invisible in the multitudes. A situation very different in small communities. Collectivity is in its optimum state within a small population. Also, the consequences of shame and outcasting are more effective. If one breaks social rules in a small community, they have little option to ignore the communities existence. In a sea of people it's much easier to engage in shady business and not directly experience the consequences.


That was tried already, didnt work.

It was already tried, but I see no reason to think it cannot come to being through a different manifestation. The only reason it didn't work was because the system that housed it's practice never had a chance to fully exist. It's not like it failed because it, in itself, failed.


The best selective regime was at work in the late Neolithic and Metal Age times in Europe. Actually the individuals of those clans would be much more suitable and capable for whats being needed now than the average of the current European population, yet not talking about non-European groups.

Of course they were more suitable, but you oversee the obvious. The clans and tribes consisted of a handful people, not thousands or worse, millions. They were only few, a size where their survival instinct was intact, they stayed among themself and cared for their offspring while at the same time ensuring that the community was intact and worked for the common well-being of the clan or tribe.

This consciousness though vanishs when the size of the society reachs a critical point, a point when single individuals do not matter anymore for the stability.

When this happens to some, it might bring forth art and other products of a stable culture. When this happens to large portions of the tribe/folk it is the beginning of degeneration. People who dont have to do anything for their well-being are not idealistic, they take their well-being for granted, ensured by the, then already abstract, society.

I don't think Agrippa suggested overlooking anything. He was just merely stating a truth; that those people would be more well-equipped, in the modern context, then we are now. But yea, I believe the reason you state is correct and society becoming an abstract in the minds of people, is an excellent way to describe it. Their interconnected, shared struggle does not exist.

You know, it's funny how I talk all these things, but am one of those most isolated, individualistic people on Earth. ;) I do not live by example that's for sure, but in a sense, I think it makes my ideas more credible, being that I'm obviously not trying to promote a situation aligned with my disposition. I believe it validates the objectivity of my thoughts. Perhaps. [shruggs] I am a very non herd-like person, but I do know it's best for the population. I'd like to imagine I would be more collective in nature if the world were the way I imagine it should be. A lot of introverted or intellectual people want to mold the world more aligned to their disposition, but they fail to consider that most people are not like them. They fail to realize that humans are herd like by nature and need a system that works best for them, a system to guides them down the best path. Besides, they are your potential family, they are the gene pool in which your progeny will select its mate and your progeny might become one of those herd-like people. Chances are, they will, so it's best to have a system installed for their safe navigation.


To the latter I agree it is absurd. But to have the 'common academemic women' always accused of not breeding enough is ignoring one fact, that I mentioned above already. These intelligent people (men alike) do not get own children because they feel the world is populated enough already. They limit themselves (if you want sacrifice their own bloodline) for the well-being (that is not to consume the last resources away for an egoistic child wish) of their folk. We cant breed like hell and expect our folk to prosper. That just doesnt work.

It's always hard to sell that one to women; that a major cause of our plight being their academic and occupational endeavors, but its a fact. This shift in traditional man-woman responsibilities was deliberately designed to undermine Western civilization. The designers knew its consequences and whether women like it or not, it has caused great damage. No women wants to be told that her ambition is destroying our civilization, I wouldn't want to believe that either, but IT IS.
The hidden poison lay in the concept that the activities men traditionally engaged in were superior to those the women engaged in. That is all that the antagonists of the feminist movement had to instill, if they could convince women of that then legions of them would do the rest for them. However, this concept is not true, a woman's domestic responsibilities are and were just as important than the mans, if not more important. If this delusion cannot be remediated, then hope is looking very grim indeed. In our next civilization, if there cannot be someone to raise the children, take an interest in their development and be there every step of the way, then all might just be for nothing because I cant see a civilization surviving the absence of a mother. Not to mention being able to sustain our population by sacrificing selfish ambitions of materialistic gain and prestige to produce children. This is a vital component of our whole existence. We do not know the meaning of life, but there is one pattern that nature has shown us it wants. The only absolute and the reason for every thing we do, every thought we have and every attribute of our anatomy, our entire being revolves around this one thing - reproduction. If this is consciously mitigated in any way, then we got big problems.

The humans population should never be considered when thinking about having children. This is a certain recipe for the decline of the most conscious and rise of the least. A reversal of evolutions laws to be rewarded by extinction. If the population is of concern and to be fixed, the only thought should be of how to reduce anothers and not our own by not having children. To deny oneself of the opportunity, the internal nature, because of external considerations is an obvious sign of psychological disorder, in my opinion. Just because it's a symptom of the greater population does not means it's not a disorder. For us to sacrifice having a child to secure resources, would only leave resources for another race instead. You're positive sacrifice situation would only be legitimate if the world was only populated by our own, and even then probably not. If that were the case, it might be best to have sub-racial competition for resources. Your goal on Earth is to always consider the advancement of your DNA at the expense of anothers DNA. You don't sacrifice child to secure resources for another, you reduce the population of another to secure resources for your child. That's my opinion anyways. :)


Today more human beings populate (not to say pollute) the earth than have ever lived in human history together. At the same time, consuming resources; with so many humans living at the same time it is not possible anymore to plan the use of resources. We must reduce. Drastically.

Absolutely, but that time will come as soon as we stop artificially sustaining 3rd world populations. This will open up a great deal of resources for our advancement and populations.


Although it is wrong from the race preservation standpoint, these academics do exactly the right thing, they stop breeding, because their surroundings are polluted with millions of rats, eh sorry, humans, that must somehow be fed.

They are not right, our ancestors had it much worse during times like the Black Plague, but if they gave up because of that then we wouldn't be here. The situation is likely to change and those who didn't have children will be the ones missing out on life. Besides, your DNA is not just yours to make decisions of being, or not being. I like to equate it to a relay race in which your DNA is the baton, you may be holding it in the present, but someone once struggled to pass it on to you and you must do the same, or else all the struggle your ancestors experienced was all in vain. You cannot make the decision to erase thousands, millions of years of struggle just because you felt it wasn't a world in which you want to bring a child into, or to increase your personal material prosperity - the ultimate act of selfishness. You have a much greater responsibility than that. It's the greatest responsibility there is and greatest respect you can pay to your ancestors.
This is one of the symptoms of our traditional trans-generational bridge being severed in modern times. Our relationship with all points in time, other than the present, dissolved. The past, present and future all equally exist and must be considered as a seamless whole. If it was perceived this way then the understanding of ancestral responsibility would not be overlooked.


Somewhere in them a sort of instinct works, that was a good thing before the 'western sociocultural pattern' was installed. For a society to prosper there need to be a, admitted fragile, balance of struggle and well-being. Too much struggle will destroy the culture the same way like too much well-being, when we assume that too much well-being (or lazyness) is the reason for degenerated idealism, or turning idealism into decadence. Even if not solely the reason, it certainly plays a role.

I agree with that. The historical pattern of total isolation from negative pressures has only produced degeneration. Struggle is the simplest solution to this problem and the best way to maintain collectivity. The best way to keep motives radiating in the external direction als the internal direction (selfish pursuits). Isolation from negative pressures also nurtures an environment where those of cowardly character thrive.

There is an essay written on the topic by the name of In Praise of War written by David Myatt, which is very possible you have read, I do know it used to be frequently posted in WN websites awhile back, not sure if it still is.

Vindefense
Saturday, June 13th, 2009, 07:13 AM
Individuals create culture, race is the abstract creation made manifest in the collective whole. Apart from individuals preserving race it would cease to exist. It only serves as a restraint, and in so it reflects the group and the culture that the individuals create. The cells make up the tissue, tissue makes up the organ, the organs make up the vital systems, so on. With out the cells the succeeding growth is not possible. Without the individual there is no culture.

Culture creates race. Race has no definition unless defined in a cultural context. Germans are Germans because the individuals who live in the land mass called Germany became aware of their uniqueness, recognized their cultural identity and created more Germans. They defined their race as a boundary, that served to ensure that Germany's culture would be created by compatible individuals.

And so ultimately, individuals are the columns which support the group, which in turn strengthens the nation. Bound to service to the group through love and understanding yet aware of their vital role. Since in reality there is no group with out the individual. The group can only be as strong as the individuals who comprise it.

Rudyard Kypling
Now this is the Law of the Jungle -- as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back --
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack

The collective groups that are successful all demonstrate this truth.

velvet
Saturday, June 13th, 2009, 05:19 PM
In a way you are right. Although, on a small scale and within certain boundaries I believe it honorable to pay the money back, but yea, you're right, it has been imposed on us in a "criminal" manner. The deception and trickery used as tactics to lure the maximum amount of people into a debt trap is deserving of punishment.


This is I believe why this trick works at all. Of course it is positive and honourable to pay your woodcarver for the cupboard he made or for other 1:1 real values. This is built in into our mind (see the nine noble virtues) and it is one of the foundations our very culture and society is built on. An absolute positive, as long as everyone thinks the same way.
Now someone comes and creates a system, which looks more or less identical and pretends to hold the same 1:1 value, which it doesnt really have. Our minds do not change, we still think we should pay back the debts, even if they excede the value from 1:1 to 1:20.
What you said above about that our money/taxes go to people who are not part of our society; when you imagine the society as a body, we get bleeded out, tricked 'voluntary' into this out-bleeding with our conception of the virtues and our unquestioned transfer to all people, even if they are not formed by the same virtues.
Maybe it is this naivity, that we expect everyone to act on this virtues, that we can be tricked that way. We just cant imagine, obviously, that someone acts against them to trick us out.



You know, it's funny how I talk all these things, but am one of those most isolated, individualistic people on Earth ;). I do not live by example that's for sure, but in a sense, I think it makes my ideas more credible, being that I'm obviously not trying to promote a situation aligned with my disposition. I believe it validates the objectivity of my thoughts. Perhaps. [shruggs] I am a very non herd-like person, but I do know it's best for the population. I'd like to imagine I would be more collective in nature if the world were the way I imagine it should be.

You know, I actually share this view ;). I'm in a way a misanthrope, not a hater of individuals, but a hater, or maybe more someone who is deeply disgusted by masses, maybe because the mass is far away from my picture of how it should be, indeed.
And I wondered if this makes my points more valid, or less valid because I do not live them myself. From the 'objectivity standpoint' I dare to say it makes them more valid, because they dont reflect my personal disposition.


They are not right, our ancestors had it much worse during times like the Black Plague, but if they gave up because of that then we wouldn't be here. The situation is likely to change and those who didn't have children will be the ones missing out on life. Besides, your DNA is not just yours to make decisions of being, or not being. I like to equate it to a relay race in which your DNA is the baton, you may be holding it in the present, but someone once struggled to pass it on to you and you must do the same, or else all the struggle your ancestors experienced was all in vain. You cannot make the decision to erase thousands, millions of years of struggle just because you felt it wasn't a world in which you want to bring a child into. You have a much greater responsibility than that. It's the greatest responsibility there is and greatest respect you can pay to your ancestors.

I agree with that, what I was saying or trying to say was that this was a good instinct in bad times, people maybe already had four, fife children, times became hard and they stopped breeding to make sure that the already existing children do not starve.
This I consider in itself a good trait, not only to think for your own but also the rest of your community. Well, we're talking about a village or tribe of maybe 1000-2000 people, amongst themselves and not disturbed by outside influences.

Of course I agree that it is detrimental in today's world, where outside influences determine our entire life. That is a whole different situation.

But this ability to think and care not only for yourself but also for the larger construct of your tribe or village is that what formed our society with the fragile balance between struggle and well-being. We created means by which we were able to live without having armies of children to do the work, like it is in the most other societies, where their survival is directly dependend on the mass of children (not least because half of them die before they become mature). Our abilty to shift this dependence is the very foundation of our prosperity, we are able to allocate more resources to our offspring for their better well-being.

In itself, this instinct is a good thing, it turned into a perversion when the outside influences determined that this instinct starts to work before you have even one child.

This is one of the reasons why I react a little allergic to the word 'greater good'. Most people use that as an absolute and exclude completely the individual, creating an ill, altruistic person. This overstretched, altruistic view is the ill greater good. The counter-balancing (egoistic) individual is wiped off. On this level you can get people who sacrifice altruistic their own, indeed thousand years of struggle old DNA for the 'greater good'.

In times of famine certainly a good idea to have only two, three children to feed instead of risking all ten famished to death. Bad idea to sacrifice the entire bloodline in favour of hostile strangers.

Did you notice the pattern? Our own superior abilities, our noble virtues, are twisted and used against us, money, limiting our offspring, and certainly a whole bunch more attributes twisted and misused against us.




Culture creates race. Race has no definition unless defined in a cultural context.

It is not that easy. Before the individuals there was race, race is the foundation of the very basic living. Two specimen of a race meet and create offspring, and they can do so because their genes are compatible, and they can do so because their instinct tells them that the other is of the same race and it is possible to create offspring.
If the latter wouldnt apply these two individuals would fight each other. Or depending on the species, just ignore each other. It cant be eaten, it is not dangerous, so it is ignored.

That is the fundament of race, this applies to every creature on this earth. Their racial instinct cares for that they produce offspring and keep the species alive, independend of whether they are herd animals or not. Their instinct brings them together, and race is the determining factor whether to fight the other or to create offspring.


Now humans are herd animals and rot themselves together, forming a culture. But that is a complicated construct, because on this level the speciality of humans to recognise and create abstract concepts comes in.
Every herd animal creates a culture though. Wales and wolves and bees create a language to communicate, the first step of abstraction, ants even form a caste system with soldiers, queens, workers, collectors, farmers, childkeepers etc.

Do they recognise this pattern in a conscious way, like we do? We dont know, but we can see that this is most likely fully instinct based. Now our ability to complex abstract thinking, and even our ability to form real things out of abstract thinking (this is the important part, rather than working only on an inside level, we can watch at it from the outside) makes this construct that complicated and complex.

Culture creates race? Certainly not. This is a destroying liberal lie.

Where I agree is on a later level, that the conscious meaning of nation (an extension of culture) only comes into real play when confronted with another. This is the moment where we define ourselves in the mirror of the other by finding out the differencies and creating artificial boundaries for our own race in a contract with the other who accepts the borders. But it is important to understand that this happens not solely on the abstract level (culture on a far grown abstraction level, twisted by the liberal's message that all human species are equal and race is only a cultural construct), but also on your instinct level. If you were grown up far from other human species, your instinct would tell you to stay away from them and to be careful when forced to interact with them. Your instinct would even tell you to be careful when the other is of the very same human race like you are. This is your instinct that makes sure that you survive, the other could be hostile to you.

The liberal's lie denies your instinct and wants you to think only on the abstract level, telling you that xenophoby is unnatural or illminded or whatever. It is not. Your race instinct, your actual survival instinct is at work here.

But the lie was somehow implanted successfully into our minds, and now we let hostile races (maybe even species) into our culture (our, not anyone else's, abstract thoughts), and this lie tells us our instinct reaction to them would be false. And beware, the lie is implanted by exactly this hostile races.

Race creates culture, without race, culture doesnt come to existence. Only a homogenous group of the same race can form a culture. From a certain point the abstraction allows to shift the dependence a bit, but it shouldnt allow the destruction of the very foundation of it. And this is exactly what this lie is aimed to, the destruction of our very cultural foundation, and that is our race.

Agrippa
Saturday, June 13th, 2009, 07:27 PM
I dont think that wars were only contraselective. After every great war in history societies prospered, inventions increased, medicine were developed. Even if it might be, from an 'eugenic' standpoint, a downgrade in genetic material, the result was more better offspring, and this offspring had more resources available, which I consider more important or likewise important.

From a biological point of view, you have to look at the genpool like a pool of fresh water. Every time you have a mass war in civilisation, you lose fresh water and pump dirty one in. Other factors deliver the same effect. Yet this can be done for quite some time and the pool looks still nice, then not as nice, but still "ok", but you can't do that forever without seriously deteriorating the pool.

Humans are now more attractive, intelligent, effective etc. because their ancestors were selected for that traits. Contraselection makes negative traits biologically advantageous, this means it produces a minus-race so to say, no matter from which point you start, thats the end result if nothing being done.


That was tried already, didnt work.

With relatively primitive methods, you could have never achieved what we can achieve now and would have needed for good results a much longer time and more invasions in the life of people. That can't be compared, even though one thing is a for sure, by sterilising negative individuals, you dont solve everything, nor might it be always that humane, yet it eliminates minus-bloodlines and that works for sure.

I'm suggesting something different by the methods used, like explained, but in the end its about getting rid of minus genes and social patterns and spreading plus genes and soical patterns so to say. Anyone saying we can make a better society and solve various problems otherwise is just naive, because you have to deal with the causes rather than just playing around with the systems.
If you eliminate the genetic cause for an uncontrolled aggressive-destructive and moronic individual, you eliminate such phenotypes, while if you just wait until the individual is 6 years old and the dance begins, until he killed someone with 17 and is still a problem case even in a prison, you can invest, you can try, you might be able to slow it down or even control it with a disproportionate efforts, but thats no solution on the long run, even less so if more and more negative and less and less positive individual characteristics being spread in the genpool.


Of course they were more suitable, but you oversee the obvious. The clans and tribes consisted of a handful people, not thousands or worse, millions. They were only few, a size where their survival instinct was intact, they stayed among themself and cared for their offspring while at the same time ensuring that the community was intact and worked for the common well-being of the clan or tribe.

This consciousness though vanishs when the size of the society reachs a critical point, a point when single individuals do not matter anymore for the stability.

When this happens to some, it might bring forth art and other products of a stable culture. When this happens to large portions of the tribe/folk it is the beginning of degeneration. People who dont have to do anything for their well-being are not idealistic, they take their well-being for granted, ensured by the, then already abstract, society.

Well, lets put it that way:
- Some individuals and personality traits are generally more suitable
- And still are

This means: By changing the society towards a more collective orientation, by taking from the basic human group structure in higher evolved clans what can be transported into modernity with positive effects, we can change by political and ideological means the whole structure of modern societies. Yet some people will be more likely to be effective in such a system and more likely to accept and even fight for it, while others are less likely. Those which are effective and more likely to develop a collective spirit are the same variatns we can observe in the groups 3000 years ago.

If you would put many of the less positive individuals in a time machine and sending them back, they would be made slaves, killed or driven in the worst areas for which nobody else has any interest. That was happening then too, the more favourable an area was, the more intensive the competition for it, the more effective a group of people had to be with a specific social system and biological characteristics.

More progressive humans are even more instinctive insecurity and need more of a cultural program that actually works, but if they have it, they are by far much more effective. Thats what we have to do, to write such a cultural program for our social structures and eliminate the bad aspects of our current cultural tradition and society.


Well, I dont believe that this 'western sociocultural pattern' is truely ours, but I agree it is there right now and it is sick. Returning to the counterselection, how would mass war be not beneficial in the current situation? It cant get worse.

A mass war could only be positive on the long run, if while the war is going on, a system like I described would come up - but for that, you (hopefully) dont need a war. The war in itself would always be contraselective, because the most effective and dedicated soldiers are, as a rule, above average for the population and they will suffer the most casualties.

If the whole civilisation would be destroyed and we would fall back to Barbarism, it would be a restart in a highly destroyed and most likely contaminated environment, not a good thing.


I dont see where this idealism should come from, if people dont suffer on anything.

Actually its rather about people saying whats wrong and they feeling it, because there were many people which truly suffered and were incapable either, because they lacked a way out and people showing it to them.

So this is really a task for the truth seekers which are capable to develop higher idealism. And yes, people suffer now, some just dont know exactly how and why, but they have a huge hole in their heart and want more, what a healthy community can give them, not talking about the suppression, lies and manipulation, exploitation and deteriorating living conditions and social environments.


To the latter I agree it is absurd. But to have the 'common academemic women' always accused of not breeding enough is ignoring one fact, that I mentioned above already. These intelligent people (men alike) do not get own children because they feel the world is populated enough already.

That might be the case for about 5 percent of them, most likely even less. All the others are caught in their individual life plans and dont have any understanding of family, bloodline, biological future, positive tradition etc. Their main criteria for a successful life are defined by the current sociocultural system which makes them consumer oriented and misled "idealistic" or career oriented individuals without too much other considerations.



We cant breed like hell and expect our folk to prosper. That just doesnt work.

Actually it would have worked and would have worked much better than what happens now. Our whole weakness wouldnt have grown so fast and far, rather than getting immigrants, we would have get colonies and dont forget, Eugenic programs are inevitable and if the high and middle class biological variants dont get enough children, thats always just a loss for us Europeans and mankind from an objective point of view. It was the lack of a deeper understanding of the way of the blood and its value in life which caused their defect, as well as deconstructed and newly constructed liberal-capitalist environment we live in now.


Today more human beings populate (not to say pollute) the earth than have ever lived in human history together. At the same time, consuming resources; with so many humans living at the same time it is not possible anymore to plan the use of resources. We must reduce. Drastically.

Its an option but not necessary, at least not now. And even more important, for being able to develop on and keeping or even heightening our current standard, probably for all mankind, we need more innovations and capable people, also a healthier system. Population policy will surely result in population control and Eugenic measures if being made a reasonable tool for what I described above, a better life of a better mankind. However, there are no absolute numbers and who cares for somewhere in XY, its biologically totally irrational to sacrifice the own group with a higher standard for a group with a lower ability to learn and evolve somewhere else without even changing anything for their well-being significantly.

But thats what they do. No, its not reasonable and the argument you used is for most academic women in particular, male dont mean it anyway, at best a bad and stupid excuse, but never the real cause.


Although it is wrong from the race preservation standpoint, these academics do exactly the right thing, they stop breeding, because their surroundings are polluted with millions of rats, eh sorry, humans, that must somehow be fed.

A negative view of mankind, "the white race" and males being a common place in most Cultural Marxist mantras. Thats part of the indoctrination, a negative and sick view on reality as it is. Something which makes only those people weak and misled, which believe in it without thinking twice.


Too much struggle will destroy the culture the same way like too much well-being, when we assume that too much well-being (or lazyness) is the reason for degenerated idealism, or turning idealism into decadence. Even if not solely the reason, it certainly plays a role.

Yes, it plays a role and it is a factor. But the current system does everything to keep effective measures against it down, because we are no helpless, its no principle against nothing can't be done. Especially now, in our techno-civilisation we have all the means, its just the political will of the establishments which would be needed, which isnt there, because such a healthy structural change would threat their own rule.


You know, it's funny how I talk all these things, but am one of those most isolated, individualistic people on Earth.

Introverted schizothymes are more likely to develop idealism and higher idealism even more so, fanatism too and the latter even more so if being social outsiders. That are mechanisms which work in our social reality by the way.


I do not live by example that's for sure, but in a sense, I think it makes my ideas more credible, being that I'm obviously not trying to promote a situation aligned with my disposition. I believe it validates the objectivity of my thoughts.

This is something everyone of our kind believes, it doesnt qualify nor disqualifies any thought or concept, yet it must be properly understood psychologically for having the self-reflection needed to reach higher Idealism on a meaningful level.

For having a deeper understanding of how things work and being at the same time dedicated and (relatively) rational, one has to look at things others might see very emotional on a lower level, from a more abstract and higher level.


Perhaps. [shruggs] I am a very non herd-like person, but I do know it's best for the population.

You can't compare "different kinds of herds", what we have now is an environment for which active social people with a deep emotional involvement in daily life are more likely to "act social". Yet most of the time human societies were much more formed by rules and principles, rather "objective" and "factual" things, not personal orientation. You were born into group X with the belief-system Y, status Z and so on...in this structure you could grasp the relations on a more rational, structured and hierarchic base.

For the typical schizothymic the group is a concept, for a typical zyklothymic the group are individuals. The difference being great especially in an urban environment. The schizothymes are more likely to use structures for their social life much more intensive or becoming rather solitary.

The typical schizothymic with the other necessary demands just needs the right concept and he works, the typical zyklothymic works in his own way regardless of the concepts he's getting. So in a rather chaotic social environment he is less likely to fail individually but being less effective collectively or in structures he has to cope with.

Complex topic about which I wrote in other threads already anyway ;)


I agree with that. The historical pattern of total isolation from negative pressures has only produced degeneration. Struggle is the simplest solution to this problem and the best way to maintain collectivity.

For the next steps of cultural and biological evolutions, we should learn that the struggle is for our personal, bloodlines and group future, a better life and higher mankind. Most individuals might be only activated by primitive stimuli, some of them might be able to sublimate that, others not - those which are not able to sublimate a primitive stimuli are rather phase-out models on the long run.


Culture creates race?

Biologically it does, but probably in another way some think of it, namely by changing selective trends and pressures with their own dynamism.

F.e. a highly progressive group of people forms a society for their well being, very successfully, but the small number of less progressive variants and genes spread inside their own population from the point they reach a higher cultural level, form a civilisation with all its social niches.

A group might also adopt a certain beauty ideal, which influences the sexual selection and therefore might change how this population looks like, just because they culturally agreed on a certain beauty standard. Thats happening under the condition that there is "positive selection" insofar as that sexually selected individuals have more offspring, which is not really true in a contraselective environment of course...

There are many more examples of how culture influences selective trends and therefore race.

Stygian Cellarius
Saturday, June 13th, 2009, 10:20 PM
This is something everyone of our kind believes, it doesnt qualify nor disqualifies any thought or concept, yet it must be properly understood psychologically for having the self-reflection needed to reach higher Idealism on a meaningful level.

For having a deeper understanding of how things work and being at the same time dedicated and (relatively) rational, one has to look at things others might see very emotional on a lower level, from a more abstract and higher level.

You really think that this is something everyone of our kind believes? I would think it improbable that it would even enter consideration, but they would agree with it if it were presented to them.

Certainly it does not have any true bearing on its truth content, but during the critical analysis of a man's beliefs, it is certainly in favor of a more fully developed system of consideration, which makes the acquisition of truth more probable, thus increasing credibility (not = to truth).
Conversely, granted that biased opinion maybe less credible, it in itself, does not exclude the position from being correct, it just makes it less probable. A man raised with Greyhounds as pets, who has a natural bias for, and continually boasts of their performance, does not in any way reduce the fact that these dogs truly are superior athletes.

I'm not suggesting you did not know this (which always annoys me, even if that person couldn't possibly know what I know, it's annoying regardless), I just felt like talking about it. ;)




You can't compare "different kinds of herds", what we have now is an environment for which active social people with a deep emotional involvement in daily life are more likely to "act social". Yet most of the time human societies were much more formed by rules and principles, rather "objective" and "factual" things, not personal orientation. You were born into group X with the belief-system Y, status Z and so on...in this structure you could grasp the relations on a more rational, structured and hierarchic base.


What do you mean by the bold letters exactly? In what regard is this connected to my disposition of being "non herd-like"? I'd like to understand your meaning.

Agrippa
Saturday, June 13th, 2009, 11:24 PM
What do you mean by the bold letters exactly? In what regard is this connected to my disposition of being "non herd-like"? I'd like to understand your meaning.

What I meant is that there is not just one form of social organisation, network, "herd" if you want to call it that way.

Some forms of group formations are better for this type of personality, others for that type of personality. If you live in an environment and society in which you dont have the option of coming and belonging to "a tribe" which would fit your needs, you might become solitary, while in another environment this wouldnt be the case and you would integrate easily.

Its also about timing, because certain developments caused by environmental influences can't be reserved and of course there are personality variants which would always have a difficult time to integrate into a larger social group - even more so with a collective spirit.

In most cases you could make, at least with enough knowledge, a list of personality traits and requirements - comparing them with each other and you will find out that there are requirements for which this or that trait is better.
Its part of the current culture to mix up individualisation with a mass culture and environment, thats for some people more problematic than others obviously.

Probably this thread might be of interest for the topic, with a special consideration of psychological variants:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=8778
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=53225

Did you make the MBTI? Could be interesting: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=9853
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=90158

Blod og Jord
Friday, October 16th, 2009, 08:17 PM
Blood is less flexible than culture.
We are born with it.
Lost culture can be regained within a generation,
lost blood is harder to obtain back,
takes many more generations.

Bleyer
Saturday, October 31st, 2009, 07:39 PM
Both are important. Many people underestimate the importance of culture. Both a bloodless person and a cultureless person are foreign. The main difference is the cultureless person becomes foreign, and unlike the bloodless person, he has a chance to change that. There are two categories of cultureless persons: one category is those who were educated that way and a second category is those who chose to abandon their culture on purpose. The second category is the worst of all. Abandoning your heritage on purpose is condemnable. Both a Germanic whigger or an Iranian who integrates in the Swedish culture and starts calling himself Swedish are undesirable.

Resist
Saturday, October 31st, 2009, 08:27 PM
Good point. This topic reminds me somewhat of the topic about dating former race mixers. I'm skeptical when it comes to people who abandoned their culture on purpose, as Bleyer said, just like I am skeptical of people who once dated alien races. I can't say for sure what the matter with them is, but I recall Valkyrie said something about lacking an inner, biological barrier. If everyone were so susceptible to media influence, we would all abandon our culture and heritage. But not everyone does that.

Thus, I would equally reject a whigger and a Negro. There are some things I can't compromise on, and one of them is selecting a fully compatible partner. My wife is a suitable partner for me and a good mother.

Norman Pride
Thursday, February 16th, 2017, 01:23 AM
The question is similar to ideology vs. folk. Can one substitute the other? Not really, but there is always a lesser evil and a more positive, amenable choice.

An Iranian, born in Sweden by Iranian parents, who is completely adapting Swedish culture, language and lifestyle and "denying" the Iranian culture of his forefathers will never be a Swede.

A wigger who is Swedish by blood can never become an African. He doesn't have the genetics. But he can become a true Swede by renouncing wiggerish trends. So culture is something that can be influenced and changed. While blood can never be changed.

Catterick
Thursday, February 16th, 2017, 01:40 AM
Except in cases of adoption the two are inseparable. They evolve together. Culture as evolutionary strategy.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, February 16th, 2017, 01:43 AM
There is a somewhat popular saying that "politics is downstream from culture (http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2011/08/22/politics-really-is-downstream-from-culture/)," meaning that different cultures create different political systems, and, so thought the cultural marxist social engineers, if you can change the culture you can change politics too. What they actually did was wreck the culture and degrade the political system, which requires the culture of honor traditionally a part of Europe and her child-nations in order to work properly.

Likewise, culture is downstream from blood. We, as families, tribes, and nations, have developed a commonality of thought and action which became our cultures. Those cultures are unique to us. They could be imitated, as many East Asians have attempted to do, but without our blood, our souls, our collective memories, any culture trying to mimic ours would be utterly false. Trying to "integrate" alien peoples into our culture not only deprives them of their own collective souls, but poisons our own culture with foreign thoughts and deeds. The more multicultural a country is, the less one tends to trust his neighbors, even when they are of the same tribe.

North Vinlander
Thursday, February 16th, 2017, 05:02 AM
Blood is less flexible than culture.
We are born with it.
Lost culture can be regained within a generation,
lost blood is harder to obtain back,
takes many more generations.

I completely agree. I also think we'd have an easier time agreeing on who's racially Germanic, European, "White," etc. than on who is culturally.