PDA

View Full Version : Bearers of the Throne of Absolute



Deling
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 11:08 PM
BEARERS OF THE THRONE OF ABSOLUTE (T. SUTTER)

There would be no history, no meaningful existence, if destiny hadn't stepped in. Or rather: if the first Man wouldn't have taken destiny into his own hands.

And thus history began, when Masters willing to challenge destiny and life became the shepherds of the horde; Slaves who didn't dare to resist fate.

Early on, natural groupings (races) fought against nature, trying to survive yet another day. They settled where there was rivers and agrarable soil, often with stable climate. Those who didn't succeed in settling and resettling would become the mud of history; banished to its back-waters.

The successful races lived and prospered for thousands of years, until it came clear that there weren't Masters and Slaves WITHIN a race, but also between one and another.
From the heart of Eurasia barbarians strove towards the West, the East and the South to establish themselves as Masters above all else. Contrary to other agrarian communities, these nomads relied on blood-band and war (socially vertical), not on soil and cultivation (socially horizontal).

Eventually the barbarians was victorious and become the Aristocratic class governing the defeated folks. This synthesis of blood-agile-creativity (blood) and soil-virile-identity (soil) would come to form the world.

The story of conqueror and conquered, of Master and Slave, is the history of the Revealed. When history cease to be Revealed, it will end. Today, the Master-Slave no longer exist and the aeon of history thus appears to be over.

With the victory of Reason over Tradition; the city-merchants over blood-line aristocrats, the Slaves could break their boundaries and proclaim themselves their own Masters.
All can forget creativity, identity and the old virtues and traditions: the Slaves are Masters, the historical lineage has ended. All that's left to do in this last chapter is to turn to the page blank, note; "Never will so few do so much for so many.", and close the book of history.

Beyond history is the Unknown; the anarchy, the atomisation. Nobody knows who she is. Let this be fulfilled! May the world be drowned in blood, sweat and tears!, 'cause out of the ashes Phoenix will once again rise, and out of the pits and ruins of the Unknown the hardened Men will arrive to be the new Masters.

Ironically, the Slaves will never be Masters over anything; not themselves nor all. Not because they are so few, but because they're so many. Democracy will be thrown out in the cold.

Interrestinly, it's beyond history that the Master-Slave will become concretized forever. Through technology (oh, this wonderful progress) the Masters will be able to rule as avatar-gods with eternal life.

But then, another paradigm eventually begin, and more and more Men will become eternal, and the Slaves will (believe) themselves to be Masters again. But that's another Yuga. Next aeon.

ogenoct
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 07:27 PM
This is an excellent piece, but I disagree with its main thesis. I believe that it is not the elite ("masters") that rule the many ("slaves") but the many that rein in the few! Only with the absolute and unconditional support of the masses can the ruling class justify its own existence. The elite's supposed monopoly of power is effective only insofar as it touches the desires of the many. The aristocracy (in a meritocratic sense) therefore embodies the aspirations of the masses - it becomes a mere tool of destiny in the hands of the people. As long as direct (or totalitarian) democracy is possible, history will flow endlessly into the sea of universal possibilities. I agree with Thomas' view that man set himself apart from nature by forging his own destiny. This point of view is also echoed in Kim Il Sung's Juche-philosophy which postulates that man is the center of all things.

Constantin

Deling
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 09:58 PM
The main thesis is rather indisputable. The whole known history has been about a race conquering another, and put itself as aristocracy. The whole idea of Tradition and Aristocracy steem from this historical fact.

However, the last 200 years has put an end to this rule. Another paradigm begun. Before it, there were no such things as a people, nation nor mass; just estates. Higher and lesser classes.

Masses form nothing really, history is about conquered and conquering. A mass is just a tool, if anything. Its meaning is a parentes.
Until that paradigm shift, that is.

"I agree with Thomas' view that man set himself apart from nature by forging his own destiny."

He originally did that by surviving and beginning to striving after something. It's the Eurasian races that has formed everything worth mentioning, so I claim that the races who left Africa is the ones who developed history (progress).

But I totally decline the idea of Natural Rights, and its Social Contract Theory! Society didn't form out of a contract between equals to form a society and state.

ogenoct
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 12:31 PM
The main thesis is rather indisputable. The whole known history has been about a race conquering another, and put itself as aristocracy.
I think you might have misunderstood me. I am not denying the importance of a ruling class nor the existence of a clash between various different races for dominance in a certain area. I merely pointed out that the elite is nothing without the backing of the masses and vice versa. The one component simply cannot justify its existence without the other. This is because the elite is unable to rule in the first place if it is not backed up by the people that spawned it, and the masses are unable to guide themselves - hence they need leaders from their own midst that can guide them.

I might also add that the whole notion of races has become rather obsolete. So many so-called "White nationalists" might think differently but they are living in the past, and their melancholy nostalgia is utterly irrevelant in today's world of globalized conflict. Also, arguing that the Aryan race is superior to others defies today's reality on many levels. If this was the case, it would hardly be threatened with extinction. Might is always right! The Darwinian principle knows no mercy, and the weak (the ones unable, or unwilling - in the case of the average contemporary Aryan) will be crushed. This is why I would rather support the peoples' of the Far East since it is they who are now taking up the banner of resistance against the beast of materialism.

Talking about equality: This concept does not mean that all human beings are the same, but rather that they have the same opportunities to develop according to their inherent nature (with respect to racial differences, of course). This is why a sound meritocracy is the most advanced system of rulership.

Constantin

Deling
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 01:08 PM
Well, this turns out to be a good discussion....

"I think you might have misunderstood me. I am not denying the importance of a ruling class nor the existence of a clash between various different races for dominance in a certain area. I merely pointed out that the elite is nothing without the backing of the masses and vice versa. The one component simply cannot justify its existence without the other. This is because the elite is unable to rule in the first place if it is not backed up by the people that spawned it, and the masses are unable to guide themselves - hence they need leaders from their own midst that can guide them."

Today this is very true, not because the masses are active, but because mass media agitates it. But historically, the mass got no importance in societal life whatsoever. For 2000 years aristocrats ruled what's today Europe without help from any broader layer; only the aristocratic institutions such as the armed force, the 'senate' and so on. The aristocracy has never, ever ruled with backing of 'the masses'. These masses didn't even exist until people found out that they had a free, individual will. All societies for the past 2000 years to the paradigm shift about 200 years ago were ruled and orchestrated by small elites: even in the Hellenic city-states around 5% of the population were called citizens. Aristocracy is rule through class divisions, not masses; those didn't even exist.

"I might also add that the whole notion of races has become rather obsolete. So many so-called "White nationalists" might think differently but they are living in the past, and their melancholy nostalgia is utterly irrevelant in today's world of globalized conflict."

Well, I agree. But when I mention clashes between races, I don't mean white vs black, but Pre-IE Europeans against the Indo-Aryan nomads, the Huns against the Avars. Thus Race as clashes of different weltanschauungen.

Also, arguing that the Aryan race is superior to others defies today's reality on many levels. If this was the case, it would hardly be threatened with extinction. Might is always right!

There's no Aryan race, because I view Race as world-views, but the spiritual one could be reconstructed in a New Europe. But that's another issue...

The Darwinian principle knows no mercy, and the weak (the ones unable, or unwilling - in the case of the average contemporary Aryan) will be crushed.

I doubt the so-called Western world will be crushed. Perhaps torn apart, declining in dirt, but it will live on; in different forms. Perhaps "State Eurasia".

"This is why I would rather support the peoples' of the Far East since it is they who are now taking up the banner of resistance against the beast of materialism."

I don't have such a idealistic view on the world as you, as I'm a former Marxian and influenced by Spengler, but there's a Beast to slay, and it exist everywhere. I doubt though China, Korea, Japan a.s.o would be a vanguard against globalization, because I view globalization (by materialism, you meant globalization right?) as an overemphasized myth; created through technological advances rather than economical.

"Talking about equality: This concept does not mean that all human beings are the same, but rather that they have the same opportunities to develop according to their inherent nature (with respect to racial differences, of course). This is why a sound meritocracy is the most advanced system of rulership."

Here we agree totally. What's ironic though, is that the idea of Meritocracy is a concept of 'American' individualism and atomisation, and is destined to boost 'materialism' rather than eradicate it. I believe in a 'soft' Meritocracy, because I truly believe a dogmatic Meritocratic system will benefit intellectuals and academics rather than aesthetic and creative people. 'Soft meritocracy' to commoners, 'will-to-power' on the political stage.

ogenoct
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 01:28 PM
Again, I disagree. Even though, as you quite rightly pointed out, the masses had no inherent knowledge of their own power does not mean that the power itself did not exist. The aristocratic institutions existed because the masses tolerated them. Without even the mildest support of a broad popular base no elite can stay on top for very long. There are numerous examples of the past that underline this way of thinking: the Spartacus revolt, the followers of Muhammad against the merchants of Medina, etc. I still argue that without the masses the aristocracy cannot and will never be able to exist, even if the latter merely has the temporary opportunity to exploit the former.

Of course there is an Aryan race. This is an anthropological fact. When I said that that the notion of races has become obsolete I did not mean to imply that I am in favor of miscegenation or the blending of all races into one tan everyman race. I am strictly in favor of racial separatism. I merely wanted to point out that the once proud Aryan race has retreated into utter defeatism, and I see no way out of this hole of hopelessness. Like Celine said, "What about Aryan stupidity?" One must not hold back into criticizing one's own today. One must be ruthless to point out the sheer magnitude of forced ignorance that makes an entire people want to disappear from the face of the earth.

I also did not say that the Western world will be crushed. I meant to say that the European race will die out. Of course, Western civilization will continue to exist but its inhabitants will be anything but European. Therefore, Western civilization will continue but Western culture will die forever once the last European is gone. A New Europe will be no Europe at all without racial Europeans populating it. No amount of metaphysics can bring back to life the corpse of the Aryan body.

I am certainly less idealistic than you think I am. While I despair over the situation I find my own people in, I do find inspiration in the collective (and therefore ennobling since the masses are bound together into a single state organism) spirit of countries like North Korea. After Europe's total destruction (both spiritual and physical) in 1945, a national and socialist mind longs for cohesion and pride, foreign or not. This is sad but true.

Constantin

Deling
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 01:51 PM
"Again, I disagree. Even though, as you quite rightly pointed out, the masses had no inherent knowledge of their own power does not mean that the power itself did not exist. The aristocratic institutions existed because the masses tolerated them. Without even the mildest support of a broad popular base no elite can stay on top for very long. There are numerous examples of the past that underline this way of thinking: the Spartacus revolt, the followers of Muhammad against the merchant of Medina, etc. I still argue that without the masses the aristocracy cannot and will never be able to exist, even if the latter merely has the temporary opportunity to exploit the former."

A non-existent power can't exist. Power is influence, and those who doesn't care about influencing (even if they may) have no power.
It had little to do with tolerance, rather that IT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO LIFE. Everyone believed it, even Aristoteles and Platon couldn't image another kind of society than that existing: Aristocracy, citizens, and the rest.
And ironically, it was the Democrats in Athens that killed Socrates - because he encouraged people to think for themselves!
Out of necessity the social order was born, and there were no alternatives. Therefore the masses couldn't have any influence or even 'power', because if they utilised it, there would be crisis after crisis, and death, starvation...
BTW: Spartacus' rebellion wasn't about changing the society of Rome (i.o.w:political), but to escape with the other slaves to Balkan.

The mass is worthless. Its a tool without identity. A mass doesn't have a will nor identity, just a Rousseauic 'Common Will' interpreted by 'Masters' using this tool.

"Of course there is an Aryan race."

Perhaps there were, but recorded history is reconstruction. I don't care too much about this Aryan thing, only that Indo-Aryans conquered and settled the original races of Europe, and built societies that would last for millenias.

When I said that that the notion of races has become obsolete I did not mean to imply that I am in favor of miscegenation or the blending of all races into one tan everyman race.

No, I understand that. Neither do I, even if I don't care if an Albanian man marries a Finnish woman or whatever.

"I am strictly in favor of racial separatism."

Not me. It won't be possible, but MULTI-CULTURALISM is of course dirt to clean up. Otherwise I've no problem if some Negro meet Swedes.

"I merely wanted to point out that the once proud Aryan race has retreated into utter defeatism, and I see no way out of this hole of hopelessness."

Me neither. Cultural pessimism, ain't it wonderful? Not only the Aryan races, but also you and me, are defeatists then...?

"Like Celine said, "What about Aryan stupidity?" One must not hold back into criticizing one's own today."

Yes, criticize all. Let nothing be uncriticized. Otherwise there can be no change.

"One must be ruthless to point out the sheer magnitude of forced ignorance that makes an entire people want to disappear from the face of the earth."

Which people is that...? Europeans? Well, all over the world people are dying; Africa is becoming extinct, or move to Europe, China and India will become the main polluters of the world in future, America and Europe are cesspools of identity schizofrenia. Well yes, everything looks like shit.

But it isn't so bad...things continue to live.