PDA

View Full Version : Ideas on The Occident



Jack
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 12:16 AM
Ok, here's another few thoughts of mine.

The Occident essentially refers to the West Aryan race, meaning the white Eurasian race whose population four hundred years ago spanned from Gibraltar to the Urals, bound together by Christianity (Christianity is to be despised obviously, yet by drawing the line like that and in that time frame we keep out the Albanian muslims, turks etc.). The Occident also refers to the traditional values and common culture of those peoples.

So what needs to be done? First, I believe well and truly that the inter-national hostilities between Europe need to be overcome - Russia/Ukraine, Poland/Germany, Germany/France, etc. If these national hostilities remain, this could be disastrous for Europe, AGAIN. And so I am an anti-nationalist, but firmly pro-European. I see absolutely nothing wrong with maintaining national culture and the biological differences between nations within Europe, but I do not wish to see another European civil war.

The Occident, in my opinion (I'm going to violate a few of Spengler's core ideas here), is made up of five distinctive characters. Greek Creativity, Roman Discipline, Western European Will to Power, American Free Development, and East European Brotherhood. These 'Spirits' need to be unified and systematized in order to ressurect the Occident, I believe. If this can be done on a cultural level (remember, only a handful of intellectuals and cultural aristocrats are required to bring about a movement, even without going into party-politics and mass movements - just remember the Enlightenment intellectuals and the French Revolution that followed), we're heading in the right direction.

On the weekend I'll get busy with my essay 'On Freedom and Power', have it posted here hopefully, and that'll stir some thoughts up pretty well and hopefully shove us in the right direction. Culture is everything, trust me.

OnionPeeler
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 08:36 AM
it will be interesting.

I think most would agree that classic nationalism would not achieve what most here hope for. Up the the mid-20th Century it generally had nothing to check raw national ambitions. Combined with remnant (or revived in Germany) imperial aims, the result was bloodbath.

On the other hand, a Unified Europe (http://www.euroknowledge.net/articles_view.phtml?title=Ten+European+Y ears&author=Tomislav+Sunic) goes too far if we wish to preserve peoples and cultures.

The question, I suppose, is can there be a new nationalism (http://www.euroknowledge.net/articles_view.phtml?title=The+Decline+an d+Splendor+of+Nationalism&author=Tomislav+Sunic) that fosters a level of cooperation or, at least, lubricates old wounds with diplomatic aloe?

What common ground can be made also sacred ground? Some of Anarch's list of five include foundational aspects for all of Europe (to varying degrees) and some are ethno-specific (at different times for different peoples).

So each in the list has its defining people and moment in history which displays the 'model.' Presumably all Europeans (or whites, or Aryans, or Indo-Europeans) possess these traits at all times to greater or lesser extent.

Bringing these 'spirits' together to form that common ground while preserving the local is a challenge indeed. Time for a new Thule Society...better than the original?

Jack
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 08:48 AM
I certainly think so. In a few minutes I'm off to keep writing my essay. The question is, a Thule Society or a Freemasons style organisation? I'm thinking a cross between GRECE, the Thule Society and a pan-European brotherhood. Could be influential.

OnionPeeler
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 09:31 AM
So to speak.

Perhaps one oriented to the English-speaking, Anglo-Keltic world. Such an organ has never been produced...probably because of the pragmatic nature of A-K polity.

There are some indications that we a becoming more continental...ie allowing a greater role for ideology. Reagan's 'supply-side' economics and Bush's 'neo-conservatism' are ideologically grounded (if misguided).

I'm aware of none representing the right, much less Third Position.

Nordgau
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 10:06 AM
The traditional hostility between Germany and France has already disappeared in the last 50 years. Even German Nationalists who don't want to have the fact concealed that the Elsaß and parts of Lothringen are ethnic-historical German countries and were only Frenchized in later modern times in the upper classes of the population, don't feel in anyway hostile for France or dream of Elsaß-Lothringen coming back to Germany. It's good and enough when the people of Elsaß-Lothringen can keep their specific character within the French state and aren't forced to change their ethnic Germanness. Today that country is more in danger of being Negrofied and Arabized. Look at the banlieus of Straßburg: It's a horror.

I don't really believe that a Thule Society or Freemasons style organisation will bring the great change. You needn't forget that we havn't got all time of the world, because our birth rates are low and the process of flooding in of dark blood gets more and more dangerous.
I have already pointed out a few times that I'm more a friend of mass party politics. There's always the danger that such a mass organisation becomes shallow in its ideas and goals. But I think when it has got the right leaders, it can indeed master the antagonism and be "popular" and "aristocratic" in one. It's also necessary that the one organisation has several sub-organisations within itself with different character. A certain inner education in the organisation of the most talented and intelligent people must of course be deeper than the enlightening of the masses on a few great truths.

It's necessary that it's only "popular" by giving the masses a simplified, but still correct and right view of the situation and of its fundamental principles. It's a simple fact that most people aren't Academicians and never will be, and that they don't read thick books about politics and history. What's important: the movement never must become "populistic" in a indifferent way that the leaders only chase for the latest sentences that could be "popular" among the masses. Here one has to make a great difference between the true necessarity of being "popular" and a false "populism".
If real intellectuals, men not of acting but of thinking, don't want to join the party and stay putside, that's okay. That's nothing new and has always been so. They still can have influence to politics by giving advices and doing their own intellectual thing.

The leaders will be of course always "aristocratic" and noble in their attitude. But it will be necessary for the future of our people that they take their swords and jump into that shallow world, that dirt of politics and society. We are still in a situation where great good-willing parts of the many ordinary people will admire and follow such heroism. even if all these little people outside there aren't such heroes themselves, they will be deep impressed if someone will come and try to cut Gordian Knot with all power. So if the inner circle of the leaders is still "aristocratic", many un-"aristocratic", ordinary people who feel the great danger our Western world is now in, will follow these leaders when they feel that now real heroic, "anti-political" politicians did arrive who mean what they say deep and serious and without compromises.

But one day it will be even to late for this. If our people are biological extinguished, nothing can help anymore.

Utgard-Loki
Friday, August 15th, 2003, 01:00 AM
it will be interesting.

I think most would agree that classic nationalism would not achieve what most here hope for. Up the the mid-20th Century it generally had nothing to check raw national ambitions. Combined with remnant (or revived in Germany) imperial aims, the result was bloodbath.

Re:
Take a look at the " I want your honest Opinion "
Tread in the Slavic Vortex, then you see the
Results...

On the other hand, a unified Euopa goes too far if we wish to preserve peoples and cultures.

Re:
Thats what i think,too.
-----------------
The question, I suppose, is can there be a new nationalism (http://www.euroknowledge.net/articles_view.phtml?title=The+Decline+an d+Splendor+of+Nationalism&author=Tomislav+Sunic) that fosters a level of cooperation or, at least, lubricates old wounds with diplomatic aloe?

Re:
The Question is rather are today`s National Goverments
representig their People or are they representing
corrupt Industrial Powers abusing the ones they should
care for ?
----------------------------
Bringing these 'spirits' together to form that common ground while preserving the local is a challenge indeed. Time for a new Thule Society...better than the original?

Re: At least this Forum shows that nothing is impossible,
People from all over Europe standing for their Culture,
Race and Tradition. And showing Acceptance for
each other.

Nothing`s lost,

Hail ! your Utgard-Loki

-----------------------

" Jeder ist seines eigenen
Glückes Schmied !"

OnionPeeler
Friday, August 15th, 2003, 05:41 AM
I suspect that Thorburnulf is right when he argues that popular modes are enough. But I think this may be limited to Europe proper. Most European parliaments allow for some form of proportional representation.

By contrast, the most extreme example of bifurcated A-K politics is America and its system. While there are hundreds of parties, there are only two effectives. When a third rises, it is gobbled up by one of the big two.

Consequently, for minor revolutions to occur, one of the big parties need be hijacked. Conservative/Christian Republicans did it through Reagan (Thatcher was the British reflex.) and moderate Republicans did it through 'neo-conservative' Bush II. The Democrats are seen for what they are...idea-less since Johnson though no one has been able to dismantle their Great Society agenda or its successor, Diversity.

(What is a moderate Republican? A Democrat with a portfolio.) :)

I don't know that there's any real hope of absconding the Republican Party, but there are certainly alienated factions: real conservatives, Christian right. Even if ideology is becoming less important in Europe (I'm not convinced that's true.), it has been fairly important in the Republican Party for thirty years.

Jack
Friday, August 15th, 2003, 07:39 AM
Evola's ideas might have sunk in a bit deep into me, but I'm well and truly convinced regular party politics = dead. Or maybe its my elitism... *shrugs* Populist street movements, local folkish nationalism, underground cultural movements, etc., basically I'm for anything OUTSIDE the current political system. The reason I suggested a Freemason style society was that it'd be good to get ideas flowing across the Occident, act as a base for any political organisations, and work as a support network.

OnionPeeler
Friday, August 15th, 2003, 07:55 AM
I am -almost- entirely in agreement with this. But I think we should always be open to opportunistic use.

Since Thule had been mentioned, I was pointing out that the American 'right' has been susceptible to ideological winds. The neo-con takeover is ideologically based. Not that George II really understands it. ;)

Jack
Saturday, August 16th, 2003, 01:30 AM
Of course, that's true, but the Neo-Con takeover was based on think tanks, i.e. intellectual groups, like the American Enterprise Institute (LOL they like to give themselves nice names, don't they?). This enforces my idea that ideals underpin politics. I'm going to go into Melbourne today to go book hunting (hopefully I can find SOMEWHERE a copy of Decline of the West, otherwise I'll have to get something about Yockey), I should have my essay 'On Freedom and Power' done soon.

Jack
Sunday, August 17th, 2003, 09:45 AM
Sounds like... it will be interesting.

It'll be up within two hours. I've done it, just have to type it.

Jack
Friday, September 5th, 2003, 01:25 PM
Some people might see some parallels with Spengler's views, others might not. But here goes:

Each Culture is essentially an expression of a race - the semetic race has the Magian, the East Aryan the Vedic, the Mongoloid Asians have the Sinic, and the West Aryan the Occident.

For the purpose of this post I'm going to focus solely on the Occident, mainly because that is what my idea fits well with :thumbup

The Occidental Culture can be divided into regions, and each region has its own spirit, which begins, rises, reaches its height, declines, and falls - and falls back into the Occidental Culture, to be integrated with the Culture, to shine through as a part of the Culture's future development. Five spirits of the Occident can be recognised - Greek Creativity, Roman Discipline, Gothic Will to Power, Russian Brotherhood and Anglo-Altantic Free Development.

Gothic Will to Power, with the individualising spirit of Greek Creativity, brought Anglo-Atlantic Free development. Gothic Will to Power and Roman Discipline became incarnate together in the Prussian military spirit. Russian Brotherhood and Gothic Will to Power combined in the Red Army of World War 2.

The Gothic Will to Power of Germany-France has faded since World War 2. Anglo-Atlantic Free Development is dying. Russian Brotherhood has faded since the fall of the USSR. Roman Discipline is long gone, and Greek Creativity has declined since its last incarnation in the Romanticist movement. The blood-base of the Occident itself is dying, threatened by the Semetic and Black flood from the Outside, engineered by the Culture-distorting Jews. Both must be destroyed. There will be no new seperate region-spirits. Five spirits make a Culture, five fingers make a fist. Individually they can be crushed and twisted and bring pain and destruction to the hand. United they are unstoppable. Time to clench the fist. EUROPEANS OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE!

:roll (Just had to say that)

Grimr
Friday, September 5th, 2003, 02:56 PM
I agree but I think there is another link in the chain you have missed out: race creates mind set and mind set creates culture, 'mind set' being the link you had missed out.

Moody
Friday, September 5th, 2003, 07:06 PM
Yes - it could be just as valid as to say that a race is essentially an expression of culture; and there's the rub. We need to be clear in our philosophy about what is and what isn't Aryan.
Once this is understood, a race can be bred up under those conditions if necessary.

Anarch says that;
"Five spirits of the Occident can be recognised -
1. Greek Creativity,
2. Roman Discipline,
3. Gothic Will to Power,
4. Russian Brotherhood and
5. Anglo-Altantic Free Development".

The first two have much in common with so-called 'East Aryan' culture, while 3, 4 and 5 have certain non-Aryan elements, which accumulate in 4 and 5 to such dysgenical/anti-cultural proportions as to make them almost un-Aryan.

What Anarch calls 'Anglo-Atlantic Free development' is based far more on the Semiticising aspects of both Christianity and Judaic materialism. It is culturally, and particularly morally, quite opposed to what we know of ancient Greece; while I see very little Aryanism in the Communist Collective of the Red Army.

It is unsurprising therefore that these hybridisations do not last long, although the basic element of Aryanism remains and should always be aimed for.
To that end we should dispense straightway with the artificial division between East Aryan and West Aryan.

Jack
Saturday, September 6th, 2003, 08:17 AM
Yes - it could be just as valid as to say that a race is essentially an expression of culture; and there's the rub. We need to be clear in our philosophy about what is and what isn't Aryan.
Once this is understood, a race can be bred up under those conditions if necessary.

Anarch says that;
"Five spirits of the Occident can be recognised -
1. Greek Creativity,
2. Roman Discipline,
3. Gothic Will to Power,
4. Russian Brotherhood and
5. Anglo-Altantic Free Development".

The first two have much in common with so-called 'East Aryan' culture, while 3, 4 and 5 have certain non-Aryan elements, which accumulate in 4 and 5 to such dysgenical/anti-cultural proportions as to make them almost un-Aryan.

What Anarch calls 'Anglo-Atlantic Free development' is based far more on the Semiticising aspects of both Christianity and Judaic materialism. It is culturally, and particularly morally, quite opposed to what we know of ancient Greece; while I see very little Aryanism in the Communist Collective of the Red Army.

It is unsurprising therefore that these hybridisations do not last long, although the basic element of Aryanism remains and should always be aimed for.
To that end we should dispense straightway with the artificial division between East Aryan and West Aryan.

It's about time you turned up, been in gaol for barratry in fief? :D

I suggested (or should have suggested) that Roman Discipline combined with the Russian instinct for brotherhood (can the Russian brotherhood spirit, if not able to be considered Occidental, be considered Aryan at all?), and the Gothic Will to Power (ingrained as a result of their experiences on the Eastern Front, quite obviously) formed the Red Army into a mass-motivated action unit, and that these impulses are Occidental in nature.

Obviously modern West (as opposed to traditional Occidental) Anglo-Atlantic "free development" spirit has degenerated much from the 'Brave New World', 'land of opportunity' and 'land of the free and home of the brave' ideal into hedonism - I'd suggest this is a result of Jewish Culture-Distortion. I don't know if you would be familiar with what I'm about to put forward, but I'd suggest the Russian Brotherhood spirit and Anglo-Atlantic free development idea has combined, successfully, into the native Australian idea of 'give everyone a fair go', 'stand up for your mates (i.e. comrades)', and so on.

I would draw parallels with the Russian Brotherhood instinct and that of the ANZAC's historically (ANZAC = Australian-New Zealand Army Corps, fought in Gallipoli and lost because Winston Churchill landed them at the wrong beach, by two miles, in the middle of the night. Australian national legend, also came back to fight world war 2 against the SS in Greece, Tobruk in Libya and then the Japanese back home). Perhaps this is a reason why I think I can relate well to Dostoyevsky's writings (admittedly I've only completed reading Notes from the Underground and The Double, but I'm currently reading The Brothers Karamazov, as well as Decline of the West - I need to finish Decline first though).

Moody, could you define the characteristics of the Aryan? I have not put my mind to that task, and I've focused mainly on Europe/Occident, rather than the Aryan Cultures and the characteristics those Cultures hold in common.

Prospero, I covered what you said pretty well in my essay, "The Metaphysics of Power" in this forum - Moody, I'd much appreciate it if you'd read it and post comments/criticism of it. What I've written here is a development of the ideas in that essay towards the particular (i.e. the Occident), rather than the general (concrete reality as a whole).

Nordgau
Sunday, September 7th, 2003, 12:58 AM
It's about time you turned up, been in gaol for barratry in fief? :D
I don't know if you would be familiar with what I'm about to put forward, but I'd suggest the Russian Brotherhood spirit and Anglo-Atlantic free development idea has combined, successfully, into the native Australian idea of 'give everyone a fair go', 'stand up for your mates (i.e. comrades)', and so on.

I don't think that such a brotherhood spirit among Australians of mainly English ancestry then would be really the Russian one. Here your five Occidental spirits system becomes problematic, because it positively points out in a sharp way special characteristics of different "zones" or "sub-forms" of the European culture area, but negatively it's of course also schematizing and can mislead when you try to fit in every subtle details in it.
Here in this special case you would see a certain folkish mental-spiritual characteristic of Anglo-Saxon Australians and connect it with a similar or analogous characteristic of the Russians. But I think a certain brotherhood among Anglo-Saxon people: "stand up for your mates" is more the certain "Germanic" or "Gothic" (if you want to stress its connection with the Gothic, Faustian will) brotherhood. Gemeinschaft, Volksgemeinschaft "Comradery" is a good catchword because it mostly arises in times of danger and is felt deepest among soldiers (Kampfgemeinschaft then) or people who fight for something and risk their life for their comrades or their people. Here again you see that this comradry as a certain "heroism" is connected with "Gothic Will of power".

"Anglo-Atlantic Free Development" is interesting if you analyse it because it seems to cover two very different things: first the Old English idea of the individual that acts free and of the free, responsible individuals that form together the good state, and then the later "ideas of 1789" which became messianic, "humanitarian" "world"-ideas in a materialistic sense.

One could call the first "freedom" (that was also the spirit of the early independant America) idea the old "Occidental freedom" and the later one the "Western freedom ideology" of today. The first of course, the old English freedom was never meant as a world ideology, but the two "freedoms" were mixed and the first one was perverted, violated and dies. And today the "freedom", the "human rights" have a nasty taste, because whenever I hear these expressions and that "human rights" have had again a little "victory" in our countries, I think that again a little part of the Occidental culture was destroyed. When "human rights" are strengthened here nowerdays they always develop themselves negative for our people (e. g. "rights" for minorities; also the "free trade" of today: the global-capitalist economy), and when they are established elsewhere, they are just something that doesn't fit into other countries or cultures, but they are established there because "freedom" became a world-ideological concept of people who destroy with everything they do our people and culture. This is not anymore the old Occidental freedom idea.

Okay, perhaps now I'm a bit schematizing in my system of the two contrary ideas of "freedom" or at least of the totally pervated and transformed freedom of the Occident, but I think it covers a certain antagonism within the great block of Anglo-Atlantic free development, and also that the one freedom spirit more and more took over and violated the second one.

Jack
Sunday, September 7th, 2003, 05:02 AM
I don't think that such a brotherhood spirit among Australians of mainly English ancestry then would be really the Russian one. Here your five Occidental spirits system becomes problematic, because it positively points out in a sharp way special characteristics of different "zones" or "sub-forms" of the European culture area, but negatively it's of course also schematizing and can mislead when you try to fit in every subtle details in it.
Here in this special case you would see a certain folkish mental-spiritual characteristic of Anglo-Saxon Australians and connect it with a similar or analogous characteristic of the Russians. But I think a certain brotherhood among Anglo-Saxon people: "stand up for your mates" is more the certain "Germanic" or "Gothic" (if you want to stress its connection with the Gothic, Faustian will) brotherhood. Gemeinschaft, Volksgemeinschaft "Comradery" is a good catchword because it mostly arises in times of danger and is felt deepest among soldiers (Kampfgemeinschaft then) or people who fight for something and risk their life for their comrades or their people. Here again you see that this comradry as a certain "heroism" is connected with "Gothic Will of power".

"Anglo-Atlantic Free Development" is interesting if you analyse it because it seems to cover two very different things: first the Old English idea of the individual that acts free and of the free, responsible individuals that form together the good state, and then the later "ideas of 1789" which became messianic, "humanitarian" "world"-ideas in a materialistic sense.

One could call the first "freedom" (that was also the spirit of the early independant America) idea the old "Occidental freedom" and the later one the "Western freedom ideology" of today. The first of course, the old English freedom was never meant as a world ideology, but the two "freedoms" were mixed and the first one was perverted, violated and dies. And today the "freedom", the "human rights" have a nasty taste, because whenever I hear these expressions and that "human rights" have had again a little "victory" in our countries, I think that again a little part of the Occidental culture was destroyed. When "human rights" are strengthened here nowerdays they always develop themselves negative for our people (e. g. "rights" for minorities; also the "free trade" of today: the global-capitalist economy), and when they are established elsewhere, they are just something that doesn't fit into other countries or cultures, but they are established there because "freedom" became a world-ideological concept of people who destroy with everything they do our people and culture. This is not anymore the old Occidental freedom idea.

Okay, perhaps now I'm a bit schematizing in my system of the two contrary ideas of "freedom" or at least of the totally pervated and transformed freedom of the Occident, but I think it covers a certain antagonism within the great block of Anglo-Atlantic free development, and also that the one freedom spirit more and more took over and violated the second one.

About the Australian 'Brotherhood' ideal - that's not merely extended to other Anglo-Irish Australians. It extends to Greeks, Italians, Germans, Russians, basically all immigrants. It worked wonders in assimilating other whites into Australian culture, but unfortunately this (like the Western freedom ideology you were talking about) was perverted by the Jews who push the 'world brotherhood' disease.

Your difference between Occidental Freedom (i.e. free development) versus Western Freedom (materialistic hedonism) is a sharp contrast and an excellent observation, and exactly what I meant by "Anglo-Atlantic Free Development".

Moody
Monday, September 8th, 2003, 05:10 PM
I would consider the Russian Brotherhood spirit Oriental Slavic, while the Red Army strikes me as being Anti-Aryan.

Essentially, I believe that the Aryan is based on the idea of hierarchy [or Rangordnung - Order of Rank].
The question of 'What is Aryan?' is the mammoth philosophical task that weighs heavy on all our shoulders - we Atlases who seek to philosophise from the Aryan perspective.
To answer that question is our life's task.
Order of Rank - aristocratism etc., is for me a definite Aryan characteristic.
Wherever it is lacking then so is the Aryan lacking.

The 'collective', the rejection of Noble individuality at the higher levels, seems to me to be generally Oriental; that such ideas have been propagated in the Occident [and have had some hold there] does not make them Occidental in origin; they are immigrant ideas from the East.
It is possible though, that Europe's pre-Aryan population have an atavistic connection to such non-Aryan ideas and have therefore been a fertile ground for them.

Semitico-Orientalism was indeed a component [but not a totality] of Christianity, particularly those forms of Christianity which emphasised the Old Testament [Protestants, Puritans etc.,], and so has been mixed into the European blood-stream for some millennia.
I see the New World movements [America, Australasia etc.,] as basically an expression of that kind of Orientalism which pursues New Jerusalems/Sions or so-called 'free developments'.
The Empire ideal of Britain was very different to the Empire Ideal of the Romans.

Jack
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 12:12 PM
I would consider the Russian Brotherhood spirit Oriental Slavic, while the Red Army strikes me as being Anti-Aryan.

Essentially, I believe that the Aryan is based on the idea of hierarchy [or Rangordnung - Order of Rank].
The question of 'What is Aryan?' is the mammoth philosophical task that weighs heavy on all our shoulders - we Atlases who seek to philosophise from the Aryan perspective.
To answer that question is our life's task.
Order of Rank - aristocratism etc., is for me a definite Aryan characteristic.
Wherever it is lacking then so is the Aryan lacking.

The 'collective', the rejection of Noble individuality at the higher levels, seems to me to be generally Oriental; that such ideas have been propagated in the Occident [and have had some hold there] does not make them Occidental in origin; they are immigrant ideas from the East.
It is possible though, that Europe's pre-Aryan population have an atavistic connection to such non-Aryan ideas and have therefore been a fertile ground for them.

Semitico-Orientalism was indeed a component [but not a totality] of Christianity, particularly those forms of Christianity which emphasised the Old Testament [Protestants, Puritans etc.,], and so has been mixed into the European blood-stream for some millennia.
I see the New World movements [America, Australasia etc.,] as basically an expression of that kind of Orientalism which pursues New Jerusalems/Sions or so-called 'free developments'.
The Empire ideal of Britain was very different to the Empire Ideal of the Romans.

Ok, I understand what you're saying (I've also started a new thread on the 'Russian Collectivist Spirit' here btw: http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=4362), but I'm wondering, still, if a synthesis between Russian collectivism and Western will to power could be synthesised. Possibly the best example of what I hope could arise out of something like that would be Hellenic Sparta - unified as a whole, hierarchy on the inside, brotherhood and aristocracy in the same system.

Siegfried
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 04:48 PM
Ok, I understand what you're saying (I've also started a new thread on the 'Russian Collectivist Spirit' here btw: http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=4362), but I'm wondering, still, if a synthesis between Russian collectivism and Western will to power could be synthesised. Possibly the best example of what I hope could arise out of something like that would be Hellenic Sparta - unified as a whole, hierarchy on the inside, brotherhood and aristocracy in the same system.

The entire idea of a collectivist yet hierarchical society with racial foundations, sounds a lot like National-Socialism, don't you think?

Jack
Monday, September 22nd, 2003, 01:25 PM
The entire idea of a collectivist yet hierarchical society with racial foundations, sounds a lot like National-Socialism, don't you think?

Something like that, though I'd rather call it Occidental Socialism because National Socialism (historically) has heavily ethnocentric baggage. Occidental Socialism would also have to be solidly traditionalist as well as futurist, in that the futurist technology passion should be subordinated to Tradition - arguably NS displayed this, but from my perspective it was just strange. Occidental Socialism would have to be more 'genuine' than NS was - I'm not sure how to say that, but it needs to take the Socialism seriously, as a community, not a national cult. Less Government intervention, less state control, more freedom (in the sense of Occidental Anglo-Atlantic Free Development, not mass hedonism), more religiosity (not sure how to get that to work, but if the Catholic and Orthodox Churches united on policy and turned hardcore Euro-Nationalist at the same time, that would do it - I don't know how that could happen though) - in short more genuine. The French New Right are heading this way, altough Alain De Benoist isn't all for ejecting racial foreigners from Mother Europe altogether - his viewpoint is in line more with National Anarchism than anything else, as far as I can tell.

Moody
Monday, September 22nd, 2003, 04:51 PM
I personally feel that the term 'socialism' used in National Socialism was something of a misnomer. It referred euphemistically to 'race-unity' [of the Germanic Race], in my opinion.

Surely what sets us apart from other ideologies is our belief that Race is a primary factor in World History.

Given that latter, then some form of governmental intervention is a necessity; the Race, Homelands and Culture must be PROTECTED - surely government is best positioned to do this.
Indeed, it is the West's present inability to protect the integrity of race, homeland and culture [culture in the widest sense, including business] that has placed us in the current predicament [so much for Anglo-Atlantic Free Development].

Technology, largely developed in the West, has led to the mobilisation of aliens who now press destructively on our racial/cultural integrity.
We need then to develop the kind of governmental shield that say, Fascism of National Socialism once provided.

Jack
Monday, September 22nd, 2003, 05:28 PM
I personally feel that the term 'socialism' used in National Socialism was something of a misnomer. It referred euphemistically to 'race-unity' [of the Germanic Race], in my opinion.

Surely what sets us apart from other ideologies is our belief that Race is a primary factor in World History.

Given that latter, then some form of governmental intervention is a necessity; the Race, Homelands and Culture must be PROTECTED - surely government is best positioned to do this.
Indeed, it is the West's present inability to protect the integrity of race, homeland and culture [culture in the widest sense, including business] that has placed us in the current predicament [so much for Anglo-Atlantic Free Development].

Technology, largely developed in the West, has led to the mobilisation of aliens who now press destructively on our racial/cultural integrity.
We need then to develop the kind of governmental shield that say, Fascism of National Socialism once provided.

And now I revert back to my old mass-mobilization ideals :(

I'd take cultural revolution over government intevention any day. We need to change the way people think, and to do that, we need to appeal to their instincts. The best example I can give that has had such a wide effect is the movie adaption of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Our People need heroes again, not Government intervention in the form of secret police. We need to subtly instill the Race instinct in them, and prepare it, so when the time comes, it takes little to trip it off and throw an entire nation (if not the entire Occident) into a state of total mobilization where everyone knows who the enemy is, where everyone has the instincts in them, the will to power, already orientated in the right direction, ready to be cut loose.

Yggdrasil's article on Himmler's Posen Speech (http://home.ddc.net/ygg/cwar/pillar4.htm) illustrates why I think we need to appeal to the collective unconscious of the Occident instead of relying on Government intervention as a permanent solution.

Moody
Monday, September 22nd, 2003, 05:51 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that a movie adaptation of a book is more important than the achieving of political power!

A philosophy must RULE, otherwise it will be consigned to the margins.

Hollywood movies do a great job of absorbing dissent and then marketing it!
Any 'cutlural revolution' [if we must use such leftist terms] needs to come to power the sooner the better.
Only on the basis of power can a culture be made in the mass sense, anyway.
To achieve political power so that our race and culture can be protected and nurtured.

Are we really meant to wait until everyone has seen Lord of the Rings and agrees with its cultural sub-text before thinking about power?
Are you happy with a multi-culturalism where Tolkien and Eminem can rub shoulders in the movie world of Jewish Hollywood?

And lastly, do you really think that any state can survive without a form of 'secret police'?

cosmocreator
Monday, September 22nd, 2003, 06:42 PM
more religiosity (not sure how to get that to work, but if the Catholic and Orthodox Churches united on policy and turned hardcore Euro-Nationalist at the same time, that would do it - I don't know how that could happen though) - in short more genuine.

But some people including myself reject Middle Eastern religions. If you want to get people on the straight and narrow, then you have to get them away from the religion of the irrational.

Moody
Friday, October 3rd, 2003, 07:03 PM
Aloysha; "The Occident essentially refers to the West Aryan race, meaning the white Eurasian race whose population four hundred years ago spanned from Gibraltar to the Urals, bound together by Christianity (Christianity is to be despised obviously, yet by drawing the line like that and in that time frame we keep out the Albanian muslims, turks etc.)".

Moody Lawless; This is [just about] one of many models of what the 'West' is. To 'draw a line', however badly, 400 years ago, and then expect that to make any sense today is grossly simplistic.
Islam is a European element that cannot be "ruled out" any more than can Christianity. Those who want to make Europe TODAY have to come to grips with Islam in Europe.

Jack
Saturday, October 4th, 2003, 04:26 AM
Aloysha; "The Occident essentially refers to the West Aryan race, meaning the white Eurasian race whose population four hundred years ago spanned from Gibraltar to the Urals, bound together by Christianity (Christianity is to be despised obviously, yet by drawing the line like that and in that time frame we keep out the Albanian muslims, turks etc.)".

Moody Lawless; This is [just about] one of many models of what the 'West' is. To 'draw a line', however badly, 400 years ago, and then expect that to make any sense today is grossly simplistic.
Islam is a European element that cannot be "ruled out" any more than can Christianity. Those who want to make Europe TODAY have to come to grips with Islam in Europe.

Islam as what? As the ideology of a colonising population? It does not need to be recognised. Christianity, on the contrary, was vital in turning Europe into a semi-unified action unit, and still (to a weaker extent in West Europe and its colonies) plays a role in society and its culture. Islam, now (I venture to say it had somewhat positive effects through the recovering of Aristotle's philosophical works, and the advancement of civilization (first the Islamic civilization, then European) through the (white Berber) Moors. Now they effectively do not exist, after the Inquisition, and Islam is nothing more than a plague as far as Europe is concerned. Europe is no more Islamic than I am Marxist for adopting some parts of its ideas for the purposes of bringing about a restoration of European power and cultural revival. It should be torn out root and branch from European soil, it has no positive effects to bestow.

Moody
Thursday, October 9th, 2003, 08:25 PM
Aloysha; "Islam as what? As the ideology of a colonising population?

Moody Lawless; Islam must also be seen as a reaction to Christendom.

Aloysha; "It does not need to be recognised".

ML; We cannot ignore the Moorish Islamic culture of Spain, as well as Islam's role in the Balkans over the centuries. Also, with respect to the present-day, Islam's struggle with the Jews/USA in the Middle East cannot be ignored.
Remember also that Islam offers a moral alternative to the sort of Western degeneracy which you condemn yourself. To that end, some White Europeans are converting to Islam as a reaction against the liberal culture of the West.

Aloysha; "Christianity was vital in turning Europe into a semi-unified action unit, and still plays a role in society and its culture".

ML; Again, Europe was first unified by the Roman Empire. Christianity took over those political/spiritual institutions created by the pagan Romans. The ensuing conversion of the non-Romanised parts of Europe to Christianity are nothing to be proud of, and led no doubt to the later Reformation. Since that latter event Christianity has ceased to be a unifying factor.

Aloysha; "Islam, now is nothing more than a plague as far as Europe is concerned".

ML; Is Islam a worse plague than the Americanism which it opposes?

Aloysha; "Europe is no more Islamic than I am Marxist for adopting some parts of its ideas for the purposes of bringing about a restoration of European power and cultural revival. It should be torn out root and branch from European soil, it has no positive effects to bestow".

ML: That's a telling comparison, considering that Marx was an apostate Jew.
Are you telling me that Islam is more of a plague than is Marxism?

Jack
Friday, October 10th, 2003, 01:39 PM
Aloysha; "Islam as what? As the ideology of a colonising population?

Moody Lawless; Islam must also be seen as a reaction to Christendom.

Mohammed was hardly reacting to Christianity, any more than the millions of Algerians and Arabs in France are reacting against the Pope. Islamic nationalism within Muslim countries - that is not particularly relevant as concerns Europe. Islam vs Israel - that to a large extent concerns Europe, particularly because the Jews have hegemoney over Europe and now Muslims are on European territory.


Aloysha; "It does not need to be recognised".

ML; We cannot ignore the Moorish Islamic culture of Spain, as well as Islam's role in the Balkans over the centuries. Also, with respect to the present-day, Islam's struggle with the Jews/USA in the Middle East cannot be ignored.
Remember also that Islam offers a moral alternative to the sort of Western degeneracy which you condemn yourself. To that end, some White Europeans are converting to Islam as a reaction against the liberal culture of the West.

I am referring to the modern situation in Europe. I agree Moorish Spain was a positive effect on European civilization, and I recognise the threat (yes - threat) of Islam in the Balkans. Croatia should be delivered to Western Europe, Serbia to the Russians, Bosnia should be left alone and the Albanians should be deported to the other side of the Black sea where they came from. Europe should withdraw itself from the Middle East altogether, nullify Jewish hegemony over Europe and remove - forcefully if nessecary - Muslims living in Europe. I realise Islam offers a moral alternative to Western degeneracy, hopefully the Second Religiousness is on the horizon and it's militaristic. Oh, by the way - I know all too well some White Europeans are converting to Islam as a reaction to the liberal West. That's how I got into White Power. Through Islam. Feel free to ask questions if you want. I read two thirds of the Qu'ran at fourteen.


Aloysha; "Christianity was vital in turning Europe into a semi-unified action unit, and still plays a role in society and its culture".

ML; Again, Europe was first unified by the Roman Empire. Christianity took over those political/spiritual institutions created by the pagan Romans. The ensuing conversion of the non-Romanised parts of Europe to Christianity are nothing to be proud of, and led no doubt to the later Reformation. Since that latter event Christianity has ceased to be a unifying factor.

I agree - partially. There can be no denial that Christianity has reinforced nationalism in the Balkans and is currently being used to crush Albanian expansionism. Christianity is going to have to become a religious war banner again as Islam rises in France and West Europe, unless another religion (by this I mean anything someone is willing to kill and die for) that works in favour of Europe rises quickly. And I hope it does... because unless the Church somehow finds a way to place Europeans as the Chosen Ones and Europe as the Holy Land, there's not a chance in hell genuine Christianity can do it. So something else needs to be done. A myth, or something similar, that operates without regard to intra-European meta-ethnicities, a cult of something transcendent, which promotes traditional values and unparelleled territorialism and racial elitism.


Aloysha; "Islam, now is nothing more than a plague as far as Europe is concerned".

ML; Is Islam a worse plague than the Americanism which it opposes?

Americanism is not providing Europe with the problem of demographic annihilation. That would be Islam, I believe.


Aloysha; "Europe is no more Islamic than I am Marxist for adopting some parts of its ideas for the purposes of bringing about a restoration of European power and cultural revival. It should be torn out root and branch from European soil, it has no positive effects to bestow".

ML: That's a telling comparison, considering that Marx was an apostate Jew.
Are you telling me that Islam is more of a plague than is Marxism?

Marx was an apostate Jew. I also take parts of my ideas from Julius Evola, Antonio Gramsci (possibly Jew), Lenin (quarter Jew by blood), Mao (Chinese) and fragments from National Socialism, as well as Yockey. You misinterpreted: you've called me a Slavic Marxist before. That's about as valid as calling Europe an Islamic power. It doesn't work. Sure, Europe has adopted parts of what the Islamic stream of thought as produced, and I've adopted parts of the Marxist stream of thought. But that does not make Europe Islamic and it does not make me a Marxist. One can adopt the tools of the enemy to fight against him. And the Enemy of Europe is Islam. Marxism as the mass-movement of the streets it was in the 1920's does not exist anymore. It is no threat. There are two threats - the people at the top (Jews and traitorous whites and everyone else) and the colonists (Muslims and blacks). Now it is perhaps clear why I say much can be learned from Mao.

Moody
Friday, October 10th, 2003, 05:34 PM
Aloysha; "Mohammed was hardly reacting to Christianity, any more than the millions of Algerians and Arabs in France are reacting against the Pope".

Moody Lawless; Wrong; Mohammed created Islam as a simplification of the Christianity that covered the Middle East during his time. If you've read the Koran you'd know that Jesus is considered a Prophet therein, thus making Islam the final stage in the Abrahamic religion.
The initial Moslem conquests of the Middle East meant that many countries previously Christian were lost to the West.
So Islam can only be seen, every step of the way, as being a reaction to Christianity/the West.

Aloysha; "Muslims are on European territory".

ML; Europeans are on Muslim territory also.

Aloysha; "The Albanians should be deported to the other side of the Black sea where they came from".

ML; If that is your idea of a serious policy, then it would need to be consistent - prepare for a huge upheraval in Europe folks, as all those peoples go back to where they came from!
Then we Atlanto Meds can enjoy Europe in peace once again!

Aloysha; "Christianity is going to have to become a religious war banner again as Islam rises in France and West Europe..."

ML; While it is true that the first Mohhamedan victories over the Eastern Empire helped to create Christendom by limiting it to the Western sphere, it is prepostorous to suggest history will repeat itself in this way in Europe.
Why? Because the message of the Church itself is INCLUSIVE, and Europe has been pluralistic and secular for too long.
Take a reality check.

Aloysha; "Unless the Church somehow finds a way to place Europeans as the Chosen Ones and Europe as the Holy Land ..."

ML; This is a European version of the Judaeo-Christian stance of Bush/Wolfawitz in the USA today. It is a disasterous policy as it centres apocalyptically on Jerusalem, and views the world in the black and white conflict model.
Surely Europeans want peace after their experiences in the 20th century.

Aloysha; "Americanism is not providing Europe with the problem of demographic annihilation..."

ML; I thought you agreed that Americanism encourages race-mixing?

Aloysha; "Marx was an apostate Jew. I also take parts of my ideas from ... Antonio Gramsci (possibly Jew), Lenin (quarter Jew by blood), Mao (Chinese) ..."

ML; Then you are alive to a mass of contradictions - you howl at the Jews and yet read their ideas with a nodding respect!

Aloysha; "You've called me a Slavic Marxist before. That's about as valid as calling Europe an Islamic power".

ML; I simply noted your unbalanced preference for the Slavic culture [a prejudice that you admit elsewhere was a bit of a pose], as well as your preference for Marixism over NS. It took my prodding to bring that out in you; for that I do not apologise.
That has no relevance to the question of Islam and Europe, so it is pointless making straw dogs on that one.

Aloysha; "The Enemy of Europe is Islam".

ML; Now you really are sounding like a European version of Bush Junior!

OnionPeeler
Friday, October 10th, 2003, 11:43 PM
I believe on a cognitive level humans tend to gloss large and small differences. A family argument with a brother-in-law takes on the same emotional load as antipathy directed at larger external threats. For this reason, I suppose, in-family violence (action to war) is not exactly uncommon.

When looking at fellow Europeans we can, and do, dwell on relatively small differences. But the extended family differences between Latin, Slav, Teuton and Briton are miniscule compared to the differences, and the threat, represented in Islam or the Orient.

It's true that local evolutions in Europe were largely isolated up to about the 18th Century. But truly pan-European, shared experience arrives with a vengeance in the 20th Century. The 20th C sees all of Europe embroiled in family feuds. The salient events are naturally WWI, WWII and Cold War restraint.

With the USSR gone and the EU rising, the corrective expression is not of our preferred European brotherhood, but of pacifism and universalism. We are, I think, beginning to see the stirrings and pan-Europeanism. By internalizing what was the external competition, alot of people are beginning to see the BIG differences and the common enemy. The EU may well be laying the groundwork for a new matured nationalism in Europe.

This said, I don't believe Europe has to come to grips with 'Islam within'. Islam and anything else that can be labelled alien is precisely the galvanizing fodder needed. Historical AND present animosities with Islam are identity-building on just the grand scale we would like to see.

But, I certainly do not cast Bush's adventurism in the role of 'clash of civilizations.' Neo-conservatism is Zionism cloaked in American motifs. And Zionism holds little interest for Europeans. Unfortunately, there's also little role for western Christianity. It a weak, possibly dying, religion. Islam, however, is no replacement, but the perfect enemy.

The glory of it is they can't help themselves. They will play into 'Holy Wars' over and over. They will continue to firebomb British pubs, take Russians hostage, deface poor little synagogues, stab the mayor of Paris, gang rape white girls, persecute Serbs, threaten Catholic clergy, and generally cooperate in fostering pan-European, neo-nationalism.

"The Enemy of Europe is Islam". Step 1. Check.

Moody
Saturday, October 11th, 2003, 05:13 PM
Onion Peeler; "The extended family differences between Latin, Slav, Teuton and Briton are miniscule compared to the differences, and the threat, represented in Islam or the Orient".

Moody Lawless; Differences, granted - but "threat"?
This is the language of the Bush administration [which really means, in THEIR CASE, not yours, 'threat to Israel'].
I do not regard other cultures as a "threat" per se.
I try to harness my paranoia!

Siegfried; "The glory of it is they can't help themselves. They will play into 'Holy Wars' over and over. They will continue to firebomb British pubs, take Russians hostage, deface poor little synagogues, stab the mayor of Paris, gang rape white girls, persecute Serbs, threaten Catholic clergy, and generally cooperate in fostering pan-European, neo-nationalism".

ML; I think that's a cynical view - the suggestion that Islamaphobia should be used to foster European identity. I do not believe that anything healthy can be founded in negativity.
Also, the instances you give are disparate, ranging from racial conflict, independence movements to downright criminality.
None of these things promote the foolish equation;"The Enemy of Europe is Islam".
When I spoke of taking a reality check, I was directly referring to Aloysha's idea of expelling the population of Albania to somewhere around the Black Sea!
Such talk may sound big, but it doesn't address the REAL problems.
So I advise you both to take a step back - and you still haven't shown that Islam [which is a religion, not a race, I might add] is the "enemy of Europe".

Jack
Saturday, October 11th, 2003, 07:00 PM
Onion Peeler; "The extended family differences between Latin, Slav, Teuton and Briton are miniscule compared to the differences, and the threat, represented in Islam or the Orient".

Moody Lawless; Differences, granted - but "threat"?
This is the language of the Bush administration [which really means, in THEIR CASE, not yours, 'threat to Israel'].
I do not regard other cultures as a "threat" per se.
I try to harness my paranoia!

Then you definetly need to check out East London or turn on the TV next time a city in your own country explodes in race riots. Hell, I counted six two years ago, I haven't been paying much attention since.


Siegfried; "The glory of it is they can't help themselves. They will play into 'Holy Wars' over and over. They will continue to firebomb British pubs, take Russians hostage, deface poor little synagogues, stab the mayor of Paris, gang rape white girls, persecute Serbs, threaten Catholic clergy, and generally cooperate in fostering pan-European, neo-nationalism".

ML; I think that's a cynical view - the suggestion that Islamaphobia should be used to foster European identity. I do not believe that anything healthy can be founded in negativity.
Also, the instances you give are disparate, ranging from racial conflict, independence movements to downright criminality.
None of these things promote the foolish equation;"The Enemy of Europe is Islam".
When I spoke of taking a reality check, I was directly referring to Aloysha's idea of expelling the population of Albania to somewhere around the Black Sea!
Such talk may sound big, but it doesn't address the REAL problems.
So I advise you both to take a step back - and you still haven't shown that Islam [which is a religion, not a race, I might add] is the "enemy of Europe".

ROFL. There are fourteen million MUSLIMS in France, they have taken over hunderds of towns and are administraing Sharia law, kickstarting riots and gang warfare in Paris, pack raping white French girls, skinheads and white gangs in Germany fight muslim Turks, I know - for a fact, from a Swiss exchange student I went to school with last year - that Bosnian muslims cause massive problems in Switzerland, the crime rate skyrockets in your own country whenever the Muslims congregate in large numbers, civil war rages in south European Russia between white Slavs and Chechen Muslims, Albanians start civil wars in Macedonia, Serbia, Greece and Kosovo, and you're telling me Muslims AREN'T the enemy of Europe? WAKE UP. Islam isn't a race, I know this - it's the ideology of multiple colonist populations, and it is a threat to EUROPE. Albanians were moved from the other side (eastern side) of the Black Sea by the Turks, at the time they were known as the Shiptars, and colonised a section of the Balkans under Turkish protection. They are not, and never will be, Europeans, racially or culturally.

Now, to respond to the earlier post:


Wrong; Mohammed created Islam as a simplification of the Christianity that covered the Middle East during his time. If you've read the Koran you'd know that Jesus is considered a Prophet therein, thus making Islam the final stage in the Abrahamic religion.
The initial Moslem conquests of the Middle East meant that many countries previously Christian were lost to the West.
So Islam can only be seen, every step of the way, as being a reaction to Christianity/the West.

Nyet. Mohammed couldn't read, and the Bible had not yet been translated into Arabic at that time. Islam is the final stage of the Abrahmaic religion, and it was flooded with will to power, and it turned on Europe. As it is current doing again. Islam did not start off as a reaction to Christianity and was hellbent on annihilating Byzantium/Europe because it was a great power. It also did the same with Iran.


Europeans are on Muslim territory also.

Might makes right. I'm not one to advocate capitulation. Besides that, I've already explained why the Russians can't afford to let the Chechens get away with it. By the way, another bomb went off in Moscow five days ago (http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/96/382/10415_terrorism.html), by Chechen terrorists. Just thought I'd let you know.


If that is your idea of a serious policy, then it would need to be consistent - prepare for a huge upheraval in Europe folks, as all those peoples go back to where they came from!
Then we Atlanto Meds can enjoy Europe in peace once again!

No, it's my idea of solving a problem that is tearing apart south east Europe, that is kickstarted and driven by Islamic and Albanian terrorist expansionism. Maybe you didn't notice how the Albanians managed to carve a chunk out of Kosovo and then pour across into Macedonia to start a campaign there a while ago. I did.


While it is true that the first Mohhamedan victories over the Eastern Empire helped to create Christendom by limiting it to the Western sphere, it is prepostorous to suggest history will repeat itself in this way in Europe.
Why? Because the message of the Church itself is INCLUSIVE, and Europe has been pluralistic and secular for too long.
Take a reality check.


The Church of the crusades was not exactly inclusive, but it is now, and there is no reason to believe it won't change back when the world economy falls even further apart and racial-religious tensions across Europe tighten up.


ML; This is a European version of the Judaeo-Christian stance of Bush/Wolfawitz in the USA today. It is a disasterous policy as it centres apocalyptically on Jerusalem, and views the world in the black and white conflict model.
Surely Europeans want peace after their experiences in the 20th century.

Please show me a map that says Jerusalem is in Europe. Oh, by the way - you seem a bit willing to compromise on the fact Islam is inside Europe, devouring it from the inside. This is a bigger threat than faced Charles Martel because they are already inside our borders, they are going to have far better weaponary than they did last time, and European Governments are being slightly accomadating towards them. Europe might want peace but it had better remember what the sounds of war drums mean if it wants to see the 22nd century.


I thought you agreed that Americanism encourages race-mixing?

Of course. Americanism is a cultural wave that dismembers morality and ethnicism (nationalism doesn't cover it quite as well, because nationalism is political) and makes it permissable. Islam is what provides the material. To draw an analogy - Americanism = freedom, Islam = power. ;)


Then you are alive to a mass of contradictions - you howl at the Jews and yet read their ideas with a nodding respect!

No, what I take from Marxism is techniques, not utopian models of society. Should I explain what I've gained from each of the Marxist writers mentioned? Gramsci - Hegemony theory and subgroup politics. Mao - National liberation warfare. Lenin - vanguard party and revolutionary consciousness as opposed to compromise politics (you really should read 'What is to be Done?'...).


That has no relevance to the question of Islam and Europe, so it is pointless making straw dogs on that one.

Hardly. What did I gain from Marxism? Technique and ideas for social analysis that work. Now, what did Europe gain from Moorish Spain? Science and some philosophy. I'd say it's highly relevant. It adapted the tools of another culture for its own purposes, exactly as I'm doing with another school of thought. Yet Europe is not Islamic and I am not Marxist.


Now you really are sounding like a European version of Bush Junior!

George Bush serves kikes and doesn't give a damn about European racial, spiritual and cultural preservation. He's a neoconservative. I happen to hate them passionately.

Jack
Monday, December 1st, 2003, 10:42 AM
Are you seriously suggesting that a movie adaptation of a book is more important than the achieving of political power!

I believe you were supposed to put a question mark at the end of that, not an exclamation mark. And I'm suggesting advances on the cultural front are more important than direct political takeover, yes, because culture unites a population far better than guns do.


A philosophy must RULE, otherwise it will be consigned to the margins.

You of all people should recognise that it always has an always will be consigned to the margins, and Nietzsche would believe that so it should always be - the 'plebianisation' of philosophy is something both he and I find undesirable.


Hollywood movies do a great job of absorbing dissent and then marketing it!

Is this an objection?


Any 'cutlural revolution' [if we must use such leftist terms] needs to come to power the sooner the better.

Cultural revolution is what's required if political revolution is to last at all. Alternatively I pose the question as to why Kryuchkov's coup d'etat against Boris Yeltsin's puppet Jew-Government failed.


Only on the basis of power can a culture be made in the mass sense, anyway.

Provide evidence.


To achieve political power so that our race and culture can be protected and nurtured.

Arm the white population and cut the rules altogether. If they don't protect themselves they don't deserve the effort.


Are we really meant to wait until everyone has seen Lord of the Rings and agrees with its cultural sub-text before thinking about power?

The unconscious pulls the strings of consciousness. First principle of psychology.


Are you happy with a multi-culturalism where Tolkien and Eminem can rub shoulders in the movie world of Jewish Hollywood?

Do I care? Eminem is a representation of the problem, not a problem himself. Indeed, I'd say he's the other side of the coin, a reflection of the massive depression in the collective unconscious of white America, and that's why his music (yeah, I'm calling it music) reaches so far and wide - because it is a reflection.


And lastly, do you really think that any state can survive without a form of 'secret police'?

That says it all, doesn't it? Can a gang of thugs really survive without employing terror to subdue its population? Here's a better question: why should I want it to?

Moody
Monday, December 1st, 2003, 07:45 PM
Aloysha; "I believe you were supposed to put a question mark at the end of that, not an exclamation mark. And I'm suggesting advances on the cultural front are more important than direct political takeover, yes, because culture unites a population far better than guns do".

Moody Lawless; No, it was meant to be an exclamation, not a question.
Emphasised because I don't regard Jewish Hollywood as 'culture' at all!

Aloysha; "You of all people should recognise that philosophy always has and always will be consigned to the margins, and Nietzsche would believe that so it should always be - the 'plebianisation' of philosophy is something both he and I find undesirable".

Moody; I was actually referring to Nietzsche there; a philosophy should rule, because a ruling philosophy will express the Aristocratic idea.
It is the plebeians who are to be ruled. The act of ruling does not 'plebeianise' those that rule [if it does, then they are not a real ruling caste].
Indeed, all political forms reflect an underlying philosophy, so philosophy is NOT something to be "consigned to the margins".
Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Vico, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel, Nietzsche etc., all had their ideas expressed in politics - they even wrote explicitly OF politics - this was no 'plebeianisation'!

Returning to the original point; as I've said, Hollywood does not represent a High Culture, or an Aryan culture, anyway. It does, though, represent that 'plebeianism' you speak of; and that Judaism as well.
It is the perfect medium for those who adhere to International Finance: it is 'Big Business Art'.

The Folk Art of great peoples begins by telling of the deeds of great warriors and great kings/kingdoms etc.,

Aloysha; "The unconscious pulls the strings of consciousness. First principle of psychology".

Moody; Whither the 'unconscious'? If it is really 'unconscious', then how can we know anything about it?
I know that it's hard to answer my question;"can any state survive without a secret police?"
Of course, such a state without a secret police force would be at an extreme disadvantage and would be easily toppled.
This brings in the question of the whole utopianism of anarchism etc,.

Jack
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2003, 02:07 AM
Aloysha; "I believe you were supposed to put a question mark at the end of that, not an exclamation mark. And I'm suggesting advances on the cultural front are more important than direct political takeover, yes, because culture unites a population far better than guns do".

Moody Lawless; No, it was meant to be an exclamation, not a question.
Emphasised because I don't regard Jewish Hollywood as 'culture' at all!

Define culture...


Aloysha; "You of all people should recognise that philosophy always has and always will be consigned to the margins, and Nietzsche would believe that so it should always be - the 'plebianisation' of philosophy is something both he and I find undesirable".

Moody; I was actually referring to Nietzsche there; a philosophy should rule, because a ruling philosophy will express the Aristocratic idea.
It is the plebeians who are to be ruled.

Are these plebians whites who hold jobs and want to work to buy stuff they want, raise families and live normally? You want them to be ruled, to be lorded over by parasites who produce nothing of value whatsoever and thieve and murder in order to keep themselves where they are?


The act of ruling does not 'plebeianise' those that rule [if it does, then they are not a real ruling caste].

My mistake. I seemt to have confused the idea of a 'philosophy ruling' with the idea that such a philosophy should be disseminated amongst the population. Of course, we know what Nietzsche thought about that idea, don't we? Quantity tends to degenerate quality.


Indeed, all political forms reflect an underlying philosophy, so philosophy is NOT something to be "consigned to the margins".

Not every man is or should be a philosopher, if he does not lean towards it, but he should be free to try to learn what he can. Or not?


Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Vico, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel, Nietzsche etc., all had their ideas expressed in politics - they even wrote explicitly OF politics - this was no 'plebeianisation'!

This is not exactly what I am talking about.


Returning to the original point; as I've said, Hollywood does not represent a High Culture, or an Aryan culture, anyway. It does, though, represent that 'plebeianism' you speak of; and that Judaism as well.

Amongst other things, yes. The people seem to like it, and what are you going to do? Shove a gun in their face and wait for an alternative to show up? But what is culture, and what is high culture?


It is the perfect medium for those who adhere to International Finance: it is 'Big Business Art'.

The irony is that with the expansion of wealth there is more and more art, both good art and bad art.

"...It seems lost on the artistic critics of the market that commercial and artistic culture can and always have existed side by side. Truly, capitalism does make low art more accessible, just as it makes everything more accessible to the masses, including high art. Thanks only to the market are recordings of two millennia of great musical compositions available to anyone through online ordering. Thanks to the market, the literature of the world's most brilliant writers is available in books, online editions, and audio versions, at prices that range from high to zero. Thanks to the market there are more millionaires in a position to fund art and performance that would otherwise find no commercial market..."
- Economics Lost in Translation (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1381), Matthew Hisrich.


The Folk Art of great peoples begins by telling of the deeds of great warriors and great kings/kingdoms etc.,

And?


Moody; Whither the 'unconscious'? If it is really 'unconscious', then how can we know anything about it?

Inner certainty, wants, desires, fears, the emotions - the sources of drive and motivation and behaviour. That is the unconscious. And it really isn't hard to reach into it and understand it.


I know that it's hard to answer my question;"can any state survive without a secret police?"
Of course, such a state without a secret police force would be at an extreme disadvantage and would be easily toppled.

Great, because I don't want a State that has to resort to terror against its population in order to keep them in line.


This brings in the question of the whole utopianism of anarchism etc,.

Anarchism is by no means 'utopian'. It is the idea that the individual is sovereign and he ought to have final decision over his own life and all aspects of it - economic and political.

Moody
Saturday, December 6th, 2003, 06:39 PM
Aloysha; "Define culture..."

Moody Lawless; It's meaning should be obvious to anyone following this thread.
You suggest that 'culture' is that which "unites a population", and you had given a Hollywood movie as an example of this.
Of course, this 'uniting' in your case, is of a diverse 'multicultural' population - a population of atomised individuals.
I reject this view of culture, as I see culture as the direct expression of a certain Race and Nation.
Now, Beowulf [the book] is for me an example of my idea of culture; it speaks directly to those who have the Anglo-Saxon Race Soul.
Now, Tolkien took that material and popularised it; he made it for a world that was beginning to be multiculturalised.
Likewise, Hollywood has taken that a step further.
Hollywood is the great DEculturating force as it makes possible the multicultral world of individualistic libertarians and their worship of the greedy dollar.
*Note that Tolkien was always against a film being made of his books.

Aloysha; "Are these plebians whites who hold jobs and want to work to buy stuff they want, raise families and live normally? You want them to be ruled, to be lorded over by parasites who produce nothing of value whatsoever and thieve and murder in order to keep themselves where they are"?

Moody; That's rich coming from a self-avowed Capitalist!
You used the term 'plebeian' in connexion with what you called the 'plebeianisation of philosophy'; how that relates to "whites" who "live normally" is beyond me - why use a term yourself in the first-place, if you have to ask me every time afterwards what you meant by it?

Aloysha; "My mistake. I seemt to have confused the idea of a 'philosophy ruling' with the idea that such a philosophy should be disseminated amongst the population. Of course, we know what Nietzsche thought about that idea, don't we? Quantity tends to degenerate quality".

Moody; Nietzsche called his Zarathustra a book for 'everyone and none'.
He knew that all great philosophies end up as the Zeitgeist.
Today, everyone has heard of 'superman' - that doesn't mean that everyone understands what Nietzsche meant by that; still only a few [or none] do.
So a great philosophy exists on a number of levels.

Aloysha; "Not every man is or should be a philosopher, if he does not lean towards it, but he should be free to try to learn what he can. Or not?"

Moody; You can take a whore to culture, but you cannot make her think.

Aloysha; "But what is culture, and what is high culture?"

Moody; I was contrasting the sort of plebeian 'culture' of Hollywood; call it pop culture, mass culture etc., etc., with High Culture.
The former is usually escapist, low-brow, multicultural and based on capitalist marketing.
The latter is profound, elitist, a provenance of a particular race and nation and based on aristocratic principles. It is Aryan, in short.

Aloysha; "The irony is that with the expansion of wealth there is more and more art, both good art and bad art".

Moody; What do you mean by "expansion of wealth"?
I am talking about the ultimate concerns and values held by a society.
A society based on the 'mighty dollar', and the espousal of Internationalist Capitalism and MULTICULTURALISM is detrimental to High Culture.
There is more PRODUCT, more bad art; but very little, if any, good art [Aloysha's next reply:'define good art']
The only 'good art' is the High Art of the past; such art is only produced in monocultural/monoracial, aristocratic, theocratic and generally absolutist, Heroic Ages.
The modern Capitalistic West has no contemporary art which can be called High Art.


Aloysha; The 'unconscious' is: Inner certainty, wants, desires, fears, the emotions - the sources of drive and motivation and behaviour. And it really isn't hard to reach into it and understand it.

Moody Lawless; Probably 'subconscious' would be a better term for what you describe.

Aloysha; "Great, because I don't want a State that has to resort to terror against its population in order to keep them in line".

Moody; Who said 'terror against its own population'?
You have to face the reality that a 'secret police force' [the term used] is necessary if you are going to have any kind of security.
Any political groups without such will fail fairly immediately.

Aloysha; "Anarchism is by no means 'utopian'. It is the idea that the individual is sovereign and he ought to have final decision over his own life and all aspects of it - economic and political".

Moody; Anarchism does not have the last word on individualism. It is fairly utopian to believe that people do not need, do not want, do not DESIRE, leadership. It is utopian to take individualism so far, just as it is naive to trust everyone so implicitly that you will not need a secret service of some kind.
No wonder anarchism has never taken of!

Jack
Tuesday, December 9th, 2003, 02:14 AM
Aloysha; "Define culture..."

Moody Lawless; It's meaning should be obvious to anyone following this thread.

Let's suppose it isn't.


You suggest that 'culture' is that which "unites a population", and you had given a Hollywood movie as an example of this.

Lord of the Rings is part of culture, yes.


Of course, this 'uniting' in your case, is of a diverse 'multicultural' population - a population of atomised individuals.

Doesn't follow. There are different degrees to which each ethnic/race section of the US population can relate to a type of culture/subculture. Individuals do not relate to different parts of culture equally.


I reject this view of culture, as I see culture as the direct expression of a certain Race and Nation.

Races and Nations don't produce things, their leading elements do.


Now, Beowulf [the book] is for me an example of my idea of culture; it speaks directly to those who have the Anglo-Saxon Race Soul.

Fantastic, but entire aggregates of individuals don't have single souls.


Now, Tolkien took that material and popularised it; he made it for a world that was beginning to be multiculturalised.
Likewise, Hollywood has taken that a step further.

Ok.


Hollywood is the great DEculturating force

No, it isn't - individuals in Hollywood work together and manufacture whatever will appeal to the masses on whatever level they can understand. People are still free to buy copies of Beowulf or CD's of classical music and women can still buy corsets and men can still buy top hats.


as it makes possible the multicultral world of individualistic libertarians and their worship of the greedy dollar.

Bits of paper don't have minds. Nor do individuals 'worship' the dollar - the dollar is a symbol of value which those who view it contain. If you do not believe money to be of any importance whatsoever it will not have any value for you. The dollar is a tool, Moody. I'm surpised you made such a strange statement as '... worship of the greedy dollar' as that's the same sort of statement people make when they say 'worship of firearms' or some other inanimate intrinsically valueless object.


*Note that Tolkien was always against a film being made of his books.

Fantastic. If he had've put that in his will it might not have happened.


Aloysha; "Are these plebians whites who hold jobs and want to work to buy stuff they want, raise families and live normally? You want them to be ruled, to be lorded over by parasites who produce nothing of value whatsoever and thieve and murder in order to keep themselves where they are"?

Moody; That's rich coming from a self-avowed Capitalist!

'Rich' is not a term I would apply, but yes, I am a self-avowed Anarcho-Capitalist.


You used the term 'plebeian' in connexion with what you called the 'plebeianisation of philosophy';

Sure I did. I willingly recognise that most people don't think or want to think about philosophy or other more 'academic' subjects, and I don't want to ram it down their throats if they don't want to hear it, and that they would much rather watch play football or listen to the Rolling Stones.


how that relates to "whites" who "live normally" is beyond me

It isn't beyond me. You want to use a philosophy to justify a class of unproductive terrorist (you think people pay their taxes voluntarily?) parasites (do they produce anything? No. but they do loot and thieve, under the guise of taxation) who live off those who are interested in supporting themselves and their families.


- why use a term yourself in the first-place, if you have to ask me every time afterwards what you meant by it?

Correction: I ask you what you mean by words. I know exactly what I mean by them.


Aloysha; "My mistake. I seemt to have confused the idea of a 'philosophy ruling' with the idea that such a philosophy should be disseminated amongst the population. Of course, we know what Nietzsche thought about that idea, don't we? Quantity tends to degenerate quality".

Moody; Nietzsche called his Zarathustra a book for 'everyone and none'.
He knew that all great philosophies end up as the Zeitgeist.
Today, everyone has heard of 'superman' - that doesn't mean that everyone understands what Nietzsche meant by that; still only a few [or none] do.
So a great philosophy exists on a number of levels.

I am referring to the outright indoctrination that occured amongst the Russian population after the Bolsheviks siezed power. Everyone has heard 'God is dead' but few understand it. I am not interested in forcing people to understand it.


Aloysha; "Not every man is or should be a philosopher, if he does not lean towards it, but he should be free to try to learn what he can. Or not?"

Moody; You can take a whore to culture, but you cannot make her think.

Your point in that statement?


Aloysha; "But what is culture, and what is high culture?"

Moody; I was contrasting the sort of plebeian 'culture' of Hollywood; call it pop culture, mass culture etc., etc., with High Culture.

That's a matter of perspective. Some people will listen to Eminem and scoff at Wagner.


The former is usually escapist, low-brow, multicultural and based on capitalist marketing.

Your classical composers didn't produce their music for free, Moody.


The latter is profound, elitist, a provenance of a particular race and nation and based on aristocratic principles. It is Aryan, in short.

Music, art, etc. is not consciously based on aristocratic principles. Also, you have yet to refute the fact that Capitalism brings more art, both good and bad, and widens the ability of those not amongst a political elite to acquire this art.


Aloysha; "The irony is that with the expansion of wealth there is more and more art, both good art and bad art".

Moody; What do you mean by "expansion of wealth"?

Currency, when used properly, can be used to buy up resources, hire labour, designers, and technicians, manufacture products, sell those products, make profit, pay higher wages to skilled workers, who can then buy products and afford to have more free time to listen to music, view art, etc. The expansion of wealth is the expansion in productive capacity, rising education, acquisition of resources, and rising standards of living.


I am talking about the ultimate concerns and values held by a society.

The ultimate concerns and values held by individuals who associate together, produce, trade, buy and sell, and live? How are you going to change those values, Moody? Force a dictatorship on them and force them to pay for its maintainence?


A society based on the 'mighty dollar', and the espousal of Internationalist Capitalism and MULTICULTURALISM is detrimental to High Culture.

We do not have Capitalism presently, and multiculturalism is a symptom of Jewish culture distortion via the State, and you have provided no grounds other than personal opinion to distinguish 'High Culture' from 'mass culture'. Your 'mighty dollar', 'greedy dollar' rubbish I have refuted earlier in this post.


There is more PRODUCT, more bad art; but very little, if any, good art

Then go out and get a high paying job and comission an artist to make some good art for you. No one's stopping you.


[Aloysha's next reply:'define good art']
The only 'good art'...

In your opinion.


...is the High Art...

Undefined concept.


of the past;

Give a date before which supposed "High Art" reigned above "mass art", please.


such art is only produced in monocultural/monoracial, aristocratic, theocratic and generally absolutist, Heroic Ages.

i.e. when those with the wealth would like it produced.


The modern Capitalistic West has no contemporary art which can be called High Art.

The West is not Capitalist, and furthermore, could it be that what you have called 'High Art' (whatever that is - please do define it) is no longer wanted and somewhat different tastes have emerge amongst the population? How do you propose to remedy this situation? Loot everyone with more than subsistence wages and force artists to produce whatever it is you determine to be 'High Art'?


Aloysha; The 'unconscious' is: Inner certainty, wants, desires, fears, the emotions - the sources of drive and motivation and behaviour. And it really isn't hard to reach into it and understand it.

Moody Lawless; Probably 'subconscious' would be a better term for what you describe.

Unconscious serves my purposes fine.


Aloysha; "Great, because I don't want a State that has to resort to terror against its population in order to keep them in line".

Moody; Who said 'terror against its own population'?

What is it that you think a 'secret police force' is?


You have to face the reality that a 'secret police force' [the term used] is necessary if you are going to have any kind of security.

Sure I am. I'll have a gun in my own home and sign up with the local militia which guards the property of those who sign contracts with it and pay it to.


Any political groups without such will fail fairly immediately.

That's obvious - there won't be any more State. Struggles are going to be waged on the cultural ground - the hearts and minds of the populace - not on the property and blood of the populace.


Aloysha; "Anarchism is by no means 'utopian'. It is the idea that the individual is sovereign and he ought to have final decision over his own life and all aspects of it - economic and political".

Moody; Anarchism does not have the last word on individualism.

Ah, yes it does.


It is fairly utopian to believe that people do not need, do not want, do not DESIRE, leadership.

And you want to tell me what I do and do not want? The Bolsheviks thought they knew what was best for the Russian population - and you're using the same excuse.


It is utopian to take individualism so far, just as it is naive to trust everyone so implicitly that you will not need a secret service of some kind.

Sure, it's naive to trust everyone so implicitly to GIVE MY TRUST TO A BUNCH OF THUGS. No thanks ;) I'll pay for my own security out of my own pocket of my own free will and have it arranged myself, thanks. No need to be so altruistic ;)


No wonder anarchism has never taken of!

Anarchism has never taken off because States refuse to let it happen and hold their populations under their own control by brute force.

Moody
Tuesday, December 9th, 2003, 08:04 PM
Aloysha; "Music, art, etc. is not consciously based on aristocratic principles. Also, you have yet to refute the fact that Capitalism brings more art, both good and bad, and widens the ability of those not amongst a political elite to acquire this art".

Moody Lawless; High Art is that art which can be defined as being based on aristocratic values.
I have not denied that Capitalism brings quantity, but it does so at the expense of quality.
Art which has to appeal to the widest possible base such as you describe Capitalism as making possible, is not the best art - it is by definition popular art.
Therefore, aristocratic nations tend to produce High Art, while Capitalism brings forth pop art.
Capitalism favours 'democracy', and as we see, the 'democratisation' of society pushed by Capital tends to favour and patronise pop art/modern art [our current leaders are all fans of pop culture for example].
This is all observable.

Jack
Monday, December 22nd, 2003, 03:31 AM
I have not denied that Capitalism brings quantity, but it does so at the expense of quality.

People are stupid and they don't look for quality anymore. Capitalism offers people what they want.


Art which has to appeal to the widest possible base such as you describe Capitalism as making possible, is not the best art - it is by definition popular art.

If a man with $700 million or more (for example) in his bank account wants a Neo-Gothic cathedral complete with stained glass and sculpture, he'll get it - because out there will be someone who will specialise in it, and that person would most probably would like to have a lot of money in his pocket.


Therefore, aristocratic nations tend to produce High Art, while Capitalism brings forth pop art.

Doesn't follow - keep Jewish culture distortion away, deport racial foreigners and encourage positive eugenics and art and culture will become all the more aristocratic.


Capitalism favours 'democracy',

Capitalism favours minimalist Government if not the absence of Government, the masses and the Jews favour democracy.


and as we see, the 'democratisation' of society pushed by Capital tends to favour and patronise pop art/modern art [our current leaders are all fans of pop culture for example].

Victorian era Britain and the United States was closer to Capitalism than it is now - and where was the pop art/modern art?

Moody
Monday, December 22nd, 2003, 06:03 PM
Aloysha; "People are stupid and they don't look for quality anymore. Capitalism offers people what they want".

Moody; Capitalism looks for profits; that's where the phrase 'bottom line' comes from.

Aloysha; "If a man with $700 million or more (for example) in his bank account wants a Neo-Gothic cathedral complete with stained glass and sculpture, he'll get it - because out there will be someone who will specialise in it, and that person would most probably would like to have a lot of money in his pocket".

Moody; Gothic cathredrals were built in the era when Gothick meant something other than Marilyn Manson. When the great Faustian urge was present in European culture, then Gothick cathedrals were built to symbolise this urge as it reached upwards towards the Heavens.
The buildings took decades to complete, cost complete privation, and were a wonder for all to behold.
There is no comparison with today's fat cat with a big bank account, I'm afraid - just look at functional modern architecture.

Aloysha; "Keep Jewish culture distortion away, deport racial foreigners and encourage positive eugenics and art and culture will become all the more aristocratic".

Moody; I'm amazed that someone who has promoted the Jews Ayn Rand, Mises, Greenspan, Rothbard etc., can talk of 'Jewish culture-distortion' [a phrase of Yockey's - see my signature]!
You need an Aryan aristocracy to make an aristocratic culture.

Aloysha; "Capitalism favours minimalist Government if not the absence of Government, the masses and the Jews favour democracy".

Moody; For 'minimal', read 'weak'. Democracy is the great con-trick of capitalism - make the people believe they are 'free'!

Aloysha; "Victorian era Britain and the United States was closer to Capitalism than it is now - and where was the pop art/modern art?"

Moody; Victorian Britain was an Imperial power; at that time the USA still had slavery. Hardly examples of minimal government!
Pop culture was amongst the negro slaves [now they call it rock and roll].
Any more questions?

Jack
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2003, 02:19 AM
Aloysha; "People are stupid and they don't look for quality anymore. Capitalism offers people what they want".

Moody; Capitalism looks for profits; that's where the phrase 'bottom line' comes from.

How do you get profits? Producing what people want and selling it to them.


Aloysha; "If a man with $700 million or more (for example) in his bank account wants a Neo-Gothic cathedral complete with stained glass and sculpture, he'll get it - because out there will be someone who will specialise in it, and that person would most probably would like to have a lot of money in his pocket".

Moody; Gothic cathredrals were built in the era when Gothick meant something other than Marilyn Manson.

Most real goths despise Manson as pop music, from everything I've gathered, and your 'point' is pretty much irrelevant.


When the great Faustian urge was present in European culture, then Gothick cathedrals were built to symbolise this urge as it reached upwards towards the Heavens.
The buildings took decades to complete, cost complete privation, and were a wonder for all to behold.
There is no comparison with today's fat cat with a big bank account, I'm afraid - just look at functional modern architecture.

Don't blame me if they've got bad taste. If you earned that much money you could build your own. I'm sure modern technology would significantly shorten the building time.


Aloysha; "Keep Jewish culture distortion away, deport racial foreigners and encourage positive eugenics and art and culture will become all the more aristocratic".

Moody; I'm amazed that someone who has promoted the Jews Ayn Rand, Mises, Greenspan, Rothbard etc., can talk of 'Jewish culture-distortion' [a phrase of Yockey's - see my signature]!

I know it's a phrase of Yockey's, I'm the one that started employing it on this forum after reading Imperium. Mises, Rand, and Rothbard are theorists. All of them continued theoretical traditions which were thought and made by whites. Greenspan's advocacy of the Gold Standard was argued for by whites long before he came along, and culture-distortion is psychological and political. Aside from Greenspan's practical efforts at the Federal Reserve, they are merely advocating a historically white theoretical tradition.


You need an Aryan aristocracy to make an aristocratic culture.

Call me philistine, but Hindu art doesn't particularly appeal to me anyway.


Aloysha; "Capitalism favours minimalist Government if not the absence of Government, the masses and the Jews favour democracy".

Moody; For 'minimal', read 'weak'. Democracy is the great con-trick of capitalism - make the people believe they are 'free'!

Do show how Capitalism (as I define it) needs democracy. And by your definition of capitalism, Augusto Pinochet, a dictator, lorded over a capitalist country. You were saying?


Aloysha; "Victorian era Britain and the United States was closer to Capitalism than it is now - and where was the pop art/modern art?"

Moody; Victorian Britain was an Imperial power; at that time the USA still had slavery. Hardly examples of minimal government!

The Victorian Era ran from 1839 to 1901. For more than half of this time slavery was outlawed in the United States. Let's see what I said again: Victorian era Britain and the United States was closer to Capitalism than it is now... - Britain ruled the waves, true. I have no issue there. Did I say Britain had minimal Government? No, I didn't - did I say Britain was a lot closer to Capitalism than it is now? Yes I did.


Pop culture was amongst the negro slaves [now they call it rock and roll].

Metal, 'Goth', bluegrass and jazz were in fact invented by whites, nor has there been a single good modern 'rock and roll band',

Moody
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2003, 06:29 PM
Jack; "How do you get profits? Producing what people want and selling it to them.

Moody; You admit, then, that profits are the main concern of Capitalism.
Your favourite phrase, "What people want" is by implication Multiculturalist.

Jack; "Most real goths despise Manson as pop music, from everything I've gathered, and your 'point' is pretty much irrelevant".

Moody; "Real goths" - ha ha! My 'point' may only be irrelevant to those who take the likes of Manson and today's goths seriously; the point is that from the Middle Ages up to the the Romantics of the 19th century, Gothick meant something very different to what is counted as Gothic today; that comparison points out the whole contrast - so it is HIGHLY relevant.
Have a look at the work of John Ruskin on Gothick Art and Architecture [you referred to the latter, originally] - yes, that same Ruskin who was traduced by your favourite Jew, Mises.

Jack; "I know it's a phrase of Yockey's , I'm the one that started employing it on this forum after reading Imperium".

Moody; I was the first to seriously discuss Yockey here when it was Aryan Dawn. Typically you have misunderstood the phrase - how else could you start to promote the ideas of Jewish culture distorters like Rand, Greenspan, Mises and Rothbard at the same time!

Jack; "Mises, Rand, and Rothbard are theorists. All of them continued theoretical traditions which were thought and made by whites. Greenspan's advocacy of the Gold Standard was argued for by whites long before he came along, and culture-distortion is psychological and political. Aside from Greenspan's practical efforts at the Federal Reserve, they are merely advocating a historically white theoretical tradition".

Moody; Not so; Jews were traditionally employed in the [despised] role of money-lender in European civilisation.

Jack; "Hindu art doesn't particularly appeal to me anyway".

Moody; Why am I not surprised!

Jack; "Do show how Capitalism (as I define it) needs democracy. And by your definition of capitalism, Augusto Pinochet, a dictator, lorded over a capitalist country".

Moody; The present self-defined Capitalist order talks endlessly about bringing 'freedom' and 'liberty' to the world. The Capitalists claim that this is best done, ultimately, by their form of democracy.
Of course, being without Honour, Capitalists will use any means to achieve their ends. That's why they will even make allies with ostensibly anti-Capitalist movements like Communism [see WWII], or else military dictators like Pinochet.

Jack; "The Victorian Era ran from 1839 to 1901. For more than half of this time slavery was outlawed in the United States. Let's see what I said [i]again: Victorian era Britain and the United States was closer to Capitalism than it is now... - Britain ruled the waves, true. I have no issue there. Did I say Britain had minimal Government? No, I didn't - did I say Britain was a lot closer to Capitalism than it is now? Yes I did".

Moody; Contradiction; you claim that Capitalism by your definition MUST have minimal government; as you admit, the world-wide British Empire could not have had minimal government. Like wise, the USA had slavery, and Segregation for the whole of this period; indeed, Segregation continued well after the Victorian period.
Once again, you fall into incoherence, just as when you claimed that the tribal kingdoms of pre-Christian Ireland were the nearest to pure Capitalism.

Jack; "Metal, 'Goth', bluegrass and jazz were in fact invented by whites, nor has there been a single good modern 'rock and roll band'".

Moody; Unfortunately for you, the facts are that, invented or not, it was the noise made by Negro slaves in the USA that inspired what came to be known as Blues, R/B, rock and roll, and then just Rock.
Proof of this is in the Field Recordings made on the plantations, and the early discs of Leadbelly, Robert Johnson etc.,
While this music was at first segregated [known as 'Race recordings'], when it crossed over [due to Capitalism, no doubt] and was performed by the likes of Presley, it became the basis of today's Rock.
So all Rockers have some Negroes in their musical heritage.

Jack
Monday, December 29th, 2003, 05:12 AM
Jack; "How do you get profits? Producing what people want and selling it to them.

Moody; You admit, then, that profits are the main concern of Capitalism.
Your favourite phrase, "What people want" is by implication Multiculturalist.

'What people want' is what people want. If people want sushi for dinner or prefer vodka over wine (as I do), then they will be able to buy it.


Jack; "Most real goths despise Manson as pop music, from everything I've gathered, and your 'point' is pretty much irrelevant".

Moody; "Real goths" - ha ha! My 'point' may only be irrelevant to those who take the likes of Manson and today's goths seriously;

Your point is totally irrelvant to the subject. I was talking about Neo-Gothic architecture which became popular (if such a term is applicable) in the late Victorian era.


the point is that from the Middle Ages up to the the Romantics of the 19th century, Gothick meant something very different to what is counted as Gothic today; that comparison points out the whole contrast - so it is HIGHLY relevant.

The goth subculture is (in short) built around vampire myth, werewolves, dark paganism and HP Lovecraft. If you had read Spengler you would see where modern goth subculture links up with middle-ages Germanic Christianity and you would recognise Marilyn Manson is a vulgarisation and populisation of goth subculture so it can be sold to masses of try-hard teenagers who want to look different without the effort of being different.


Have a look at the work of John Ruskin on Gothick Art and Architecture [you referred to the latter, originally] - yes, that same Ruskin who was traduced by your favourite Jew, Mises.

I don't have a favourite Jew. And if people want 'High Art', Capitalism will not stop them from having it produced.


Jack; "I know it's a phrase of Yockey's , I'm the one that started employing it on this forum after reading Imperium".

Moody; I was the first to seriously discuss Yockey here when it was Aryan Dawn.

The archives are here, search and back up your claim. First person to mention 'Yockey' and 'culture distortion' was me.


Typically you have misunderstood the phrase - how else could you start to promote the ideas of Jewish culture distorters like Rand, Greenspan, Mises and Rothbard at the same time!

Rand, Mises and Rothbard have continued economic/political traditions built up by whites. Greenspan's advocacy of the gold standard is nothing new. Greenspan's actions as head of the Federal Reserve is most certainly culture distortion.


Jack; "Mises, Rand, and Rothbard are theorists. All of them continued theoretical traditions which were thought and made by whites. Greenspan's advocacy of the Gold Standard was argued for by whites long before he came along, and culture-distortion is psychological and political. Aside from Greenspan's practical efforts at the Federal Reserve, they are merely advocating a historically white theoretical tradition".

Moody; Not so; Jews were traditionally employed in the [despised] role of money-lender in European civilisation.

Nietzsche praised the Jews as preservers of European civilization in the times of extreme superstition and oriental despotism.


Jack; "Hindu art doesn't particularly appeal to me anyway".

Moody; Why am I not surprised!

I'm not sure - perhaps because I'm a colonial European, not a Hindu?


Jack; "Do show how Capitalism (as I define it) needs democracy. And by your definition of capitalism, Augusto Pinochet, a dictator, lorded over a capitalist country".

Moody; The present self-defined Capitalist order talks endlessly about bringing 'freedom' and 'liberty' to the world. The Capitalists claim that this is best done, ultimately, by their form of democracy.

The 'self defined capitalist order' is not Capitalist, it is mixed economy. Shall I assume you're unable to answer the request?


Of course, being without Honour, Capitalists will use any means to achieve their ends. That's why they will even make allies with ostensibly anti-Capitalist movements like Communism [see WWII], or else military dictators like Pinochet.

If Capitalism (as you suggest) seeks to make profits, then it has no business allying with anti-Capitalist movements ["see WWII"]. Of course, you know as well as I do this is a laughable simplification of the issue, and that Jewish pressure groups persuaded the United States to use its citizens (stolen) tax money for the lend-lease program to the USSR so Germany would be smashed. Capitalism in this situation is irrelevant. According to your logic it is - so why did Henry Ford sponsor the NSDAP, being a white American industrialist?


Jack; "The Victorian Era ran from 1839 to 1901. For more than half of this time slavery was outlawed in the United States. Let's see what I said [i]again: Victorian era Britain and the United States was closer to Capitalism than it is now... - Britain ruled the waves, true. I have no issue there. Did I say Britain had minimal Government? No, I didn't - did I say Britain was a lot closer to Capitalism than it is now? Yes I did".

Moody; Contradiction; you claim that Capitalism by your definition MUST have minimal government; as you admit, the world-wide British Empire could not have had minimal government. Like wise, the USA had slavery, and Segregation for the whole of this period; indeed, Segregation continued well after the Victorian period.

No contradiction. "Victorian era Britain and the United States was closer to Capitalism than it is now".


Once again, you fall into incoherence, just as when you claimed that the tribal kingdoms of pre-Christian Ireland were the nearest to pure Capitalism.

I admit that was a mistake, but I have not 'once again' fallen into 'incoherance'.


Jack; "Metal, 'Goth', bluegrass and jazz were in fact invented by whites, nor has there been a single good modern 'rock and roll band'".

Moody; Unfortunately for you, the facts are that, invented or not, it was the noise made by Negro slaves in the USA that inspired what came to be known as Blues, R/B, rock and roll, and then just Rock.

http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=6026

I want proof you can link Slipknot (do you even know who Slipknot are?), Rammstein, AC/DC and Dimmu Borgir to black music.


While this music was at first segregated [known as 'Race recordings'], when it crossed over [due to Capitalism, no doubt] and was performed by the likes of Presley, it became the basis of today's Rock.

Show me a good, modern, Black 'rock and roll' band.


So all Rockers have some Negroes in their musical heritage.

Metal and goth have no black 'roots'. Hav you heard of grunge? Where's the black ancestry in that? Btw, a German band called Falco did the first rap song in 1985.

Moody
Monday, December 29th, 2003, 05:00 PM
Jack; "The archives are here, search and back up your claim. First person to mention 'Yockey' and 'culture distortion' was me".

Moody; That's YOUR claim, not mine. Some posts got deleted after Aryan Dawn, anyway.
I can recall talking of Yockey's 'Imperium' back then [he actually wrote it under the name of Varange] and finding NO ONE here at the time who had read it.
Try a search under 'Varange'.
Also, as you have continued to promote Jewish writers it is clear that you had no real understanding of what he meant by 'Jewish culture distortion'.

Jack; "Why did Henry Ford sponsor the NSDAP, being a white American industrialist?"

Moody; He was anti-Semitic.

Jack; "I want proof you can link Slipknot (do you even know who Slipknot are?), Rammstein, AC/DC and Dimmu Borgir to black music".

Moody; Ask the musicians in those bands if they have been influenced by Blues etc., Ask them if they admire Howlin' Wolf, Robert Johnson, B.B King, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddly or Jimi Hendrix.
I would lay serious bets that the musicians in those bands that you name would all speak of being influenced by/approving of those Negroes I have mentioned.
The fact that the Negroes I mentioned are all prior to your own examples suggests that the roots of Rock are very Black.

Jack; "Show me a good, modern, Black 'rock and roll' band".

Moody; Jimi Hendrix Experience [taking modern to mean the Modern Era; even if you mean merely contemporary, Hendrix material is still being released today - see a recent out-takes of Axis Bold as love]. I doubt if any 'modern rock and roll' band would be so foolish as to claim to be better than Hendrix.

Jack; "Metal and goth have no black 'roots'. Have you heard of grunge? Where's the black ancestry in that? Btw, a German band called Falco did the first rap song in 1985".

Moody; The Lost Poets [Negroes] were rapping with Hendrix long before.
All the various marketing sub-genres of Rock ['grunge', 'metal', 'goth' etc.,] use the basic musical language of Blues. This consists of the three chord trick and the pentatonic 'blues scale', and the call-and-response' structure.
This musical vocabulary was used extensively by Slaves in the USA before it was adopted by Rock.

Jack
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 02:39 AM
Jack; "The archives are here, search and back up your claim. First person to mention 'Yockey' and 'culture distortion' was me".

Moody; That's YOUR claim, not mine.

Moody; "I was the first to seriously discuss Yockey here when it was Aryan Dawn."

You mentioned Varange, yes. We are discussing culture distortion.


Some posts got deleted after Aryan Dawn, anyway.

Some posts get deleted all the time. Your point?


I can recall talking of Yockey's 'Imperium' back then [he actually wrote it under the name of Varange]

I know that.


and finding NO ONE here at the time who had read it.
Try a search under 'Varange'.

And I find one mention of his name under a 'religion' topic, which I did not respond in until towards the end of that thread and so didn't read you're arguments against Thorburn. After that you'd mentioned Yockey around the 9th of January this year, I read Imperium in December last year. You did not mention culture distortion, which I first discussed here on Skadi/Pantheon Europa/Aryan Dawn, and which is what we are discussing now.


Also, as you have continued to promote Jewish writers it is clear that you had no real understanding of what he meant by 'Jewish culture distortion'.

Or maybe you don't.


Jack; "Why did Henry Ford sponsor the NSDAP, being a white American industrialist?"

Moody; He was anti-Semitic.

But he was a Capitalist Industrialist - surely he's only interested in getting money, right? He'd have to be an evil, hedonistic selfish entrepreuer to be a Capitalist, right?


Jack; "I want proof you can link Slipknot (do you even know who Slipknot are?), Rammstein, AC/DC and Dimmu Borgir to black music".

Moody; Ask the musicians in those bands if they have been influenced by Blues etc., Ask them if they admire Howlin' Wolf, Robert Johnson, B.B King, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddly or Jimi Hendrix.
I would lay serious bets that the musicians in those bands that you name would all speak of being influenced by/approving of those Negroes I have mentioned.
The fact that the Negroes I mentioned are all prior to your own examples suggests that the roots of Rock are very Black.

None except AC/DC are 'Rock' bands.


Jack; "Show me a good, modern, Black 'rock and roll' band".

Moody; Jimi Hendrix Experience [taking modern to mean the Modern Era; even if you mean merely contemporary, Hendrix material is still being released today - see a recent out-takes of Axis Bold as love]. I doubt if any 'modern rock and roll' band would be so foolish as to claim to be better than Hendrix.

Hendrix is dead, and he was the only decent black rock musician. Show me a decent modern (less than 10 years old) black 'rock and roll band'.


Jack; "Metal and goth have no black 'roots'. Have you heard of grunge? Where's the black ancestry in that? Btw, a German band called Falco did the first rap song in 1985".

Moody; The Lost Poets [Negroes] were rapping with Hendrix long before.
All the various marketing sub-genres of Rock ['grunge', 'metal', 'goth' etc.,] use the basic musical language of Blues.

Grunge, metal and goth are hardly subgenres of rock.


This consists of the three chord trick and the pentatonic 'blues scale', and the call-and-response' structure.

Blues might, but grunge, metal, goth and industrial do not.


This musical vocabulary was used extensively by Slaves in the USA before it was adopted by Rock.

'Rock is dead' - Marilyn Manson.

Moody
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 05:11 PM
Jack; "I read Imperium in December last year".

Moody; I joined this forum [or rather Aryan Dawn] a month BEFORE that; I had already read Imperium twice prior to my joining. It was natural for me to mention Yockey/Varange straightway - i.e., before you had even started to read him. As I said, I was surprised to find that nobody else had read him.
Mentioning Yockey immediately implies a knowledge of the 'Jewish culture distortion' theory.
My attitude towards the Jews has been consistently negative, showing a true influence from Yockey; YOUR attistude toward the 'Chosen' is ambiguous, to say the least. It is I who is the Yockeyian here, not you. Yockey would read your pro-Jewish posts and spit - Odin rest his Soul.

Jack; "But Henry Ford was a Capitalist Industrialist - surely he's only interested in getting money, right? He'd have to be an evil, hedonistic selfish entrepreuer to be a Capitalist, right?"

Moody; No, he realised that Blood is more important than Gold [unlike you who have had a signature which displayed a revolting Gold Dollar sign as a kind of fetisch]. Ford was instrumental in getting the Protocols widely known in the USA and was given High Honour by the Third Reich.
Blood over Gold.

Jack; "None except AC/DC are 'Rock' bands.
Hendrix is dead, and he was the only decent black rock musician. Show me a decent modern (less than 10 years old) black 'rock and roll band'".

Moody; I find this pop obsession with the 'latest' incredibly decadent. To say that Hendrix was only 'decent' runs against the opinion of Rock musicians who regard him as one of the few 'genii' in Rock.
Rock is unthinkable without Hendrix [later examples - Living Colour, Prince etc.,]
Why was Hendrix so far ahead of all other Rock musicians of his time and beyond [and Rock music is far below the standard it was in Hendrix's era]?
Simple; he was Negro [mixed with Red Indian] - he UNDERSTOOD those Black rhythms and melodies in the way that White boys couldn't [and why should they?].
Another sign of pop decadence is the obsession with labels; you are dealing with a musical form which is fairly limited, and the attempt to impute technical labels to what is much of muchness is laughable. In musical terms, bands like Slipknot and AC/DC are too similar to worry about the niceties of labelling. As I said before, the labels are all about Marketing, NOT musical substance.

Jack; "Grunge, metal and goth are hardly subgenres of rock.
Blues might use pentatonics, three-chord trick, call and response structure, but grunge, metal, goth and industrial do not".

Moody; I have a degree in Classical music, and have played in bands in the past; in terms of musical analysis [i.e., in terms of melody and rhythm] grunge, metal and goth use EXACTLY the same Rock vocabularly.
To make a comparison, listen to the music of Bartok and Stravinsky, and then go back to the grunge/metal/goth bands. You will find that the latter are using a very narrow musical vocab which is BASED on the Blues.
If you can read music, I will point you to some notational sources to prove my point [i.e., on paper, Muddy Waters will look similar to Nirvana].

Jack;'Rock is dead' - Marilyn Manson.

Moody; Jim Morrison had a song called that long before. At least Morrison knew what he was doing; having read Nietzsche, he took 'God is dead' to make 'Rock is dead'.
Of course, now Rock just recycles what was done by the early Negro artists and the few originals like Morrison.

Jack
Thursday, January 1st, 2004, 12:40 PM
Jack; "I read Imperium in December last year".

Moody; I joined this forum [or rather Aryan Dawn] a month BEFORE that;

And? I've been a member since June 2002. Your point?


I had already read Imperium twice prior to my joining. It was natural for me to mention Yockey/Varange straightway - i.e., before you had even started to read him. As I said, I was surprised to find that nobody else had read him.

Clap clap for you - what's your point, other than self-aggrandisement? I read the book as soon as I came across it.


Mentioning Yockey immediately implies a knowledge of the 'Jewish culture distortion' theory.

And what exactly is his 'culture distortion theory', Moody? I want your explanation of it.


My attitude towards the Jews has been consistently negative, showing a true influence from Yockey;

Why was Yockey arrested in the home of a JEWISH FRIEND?


YOUR attistude toward the 'Chosen' is ambiguous, to say the least.

My attitude towards the Jews is quite clear. You just don't seem to comprehend it.


It is I who is the Yockeyian here, not you. Yockey would read your pro-Jewish posts and spit - Odin rest his Soul.

You have serious problems. You think reading the enemy's battle manual which outlines tactics he has applied to eject you from your fort to occupy it - those tactics can be used to retake the fort, but you claim they are only valid for him, and not you - is the same as fighting for him.


Jack; "But Henry Ford was a Capitalist Industrialist - surely he's only interested in getting money, right? He'd have to be an evil, hedonistic selfish entrepreuer to be a Capitalist, right?"

Moody; No, he realised that Blood is more important than Gold [unlike you who have had a signature which displayed a revolting Gold Dollar sign as a kind of fetisch].

The golden dollar sign is a symbol of man free from savages, it has nothing to do with some 'fetish' which you wish to transpose upon me.


Ford was instrumental in getting the Protocols widely known in the USA and was given High Honour by the Third Reich.

Yes he was.


Blood over Gold.

Blood over Soil.


Jack; "None except AC/DC are 'Rock' bands.
Hendrix is dead, and he was the only decent black rock musician. Show me a decent modern (less than 10 years old) black 'rock and roll band'".

Moody; I find this pop obsession with the 'latest' incredibly decadent. To say that Hendrix was only 'decent' runs against the opinion of Rock musicians who regard him as one of the few 'genii' in Rock.

I never said he was trash.


Rock is unthinkable without Hendrix [later examples - Living Colour, Prince etc.,]

Prince, however, is trash, and pop music. I do not live in the past, I am quite aware that what's considered modern pop music is not 'Rock', though you quite plainly are not.


Why was Hendrix so far ahead of all other Rock musicians of his time and beyond [and Rock music is far below the standard it was in Hendrix's era]?

That is your personal judgement.


Simple; he was Negro [mixed with Red Indian] - he UNDERSTOOD those Black rhythms and melodies in the way that White boys couldn't [and why should they?].

Do I care? How could a white man regard Jimmy Hendrix as a genius given that you claim they cannot understand black rhythms and melodies?


Another sign of pop decadence is the obsession with labels; you are dealing with a musical form which is fairly limited, and the attempt to impute technical labels to what is much of muchness is laughable. In musical terms, bands like Slipknot and AC/DC are too similar to worry about the niceties of labelling. As I said before, the labels are all about Marketing, NOT musical substance.

Never would I predict myself to witness such a vulgar display of ignorance. Slipknot and AC/DC are as different as red wine and vodka. Both contain alcohol, both will get you intoxicated if you drink enough, but their taste varies significantly.


Jack; "Grunge, metal and goth are hardly subgenres of rock.
Blues might use pentatonics, three-chord trick, call and response structure, but grunge, metal, goth and industrial do not".

Moody; I have a degree in Classical music, and have played in bands in the past; in terms of musical analysis [i.e., in terms of melody and rhythm] grunge, metal and goth use EXACTLY the same Rock vocabularly.

The Blacks of America speak English.


To make a comparison, listen to the music of Bartok and Stravinsky, and then go back to the grunge/metal/goth bands. You will find that the latter are using a very narrow musical vocab which is BASED on the Blues.
If you can read music, I will point you to some notational sources to prove my point [i.e., on paper, Muddy Waters will look similar to Nirvana].

Suppose I concede your point that they are based on the same notation, the conclusion I come to is that modern Metal, Goth and Industrial is about as 'black' as pre-Vatican II Catholicism is Jewish.


Jack;'Rock is dead' - Marilyn Manson.

Moody; Jim Morrison had a song called that long before. At least Morrison knew what he was doing; having read Nietzsche, he took 'God is dead' to make 'Rock is dead'.

Manson has read Nietzsche.


Of course, now Rock just recycles what was done by the early Negro artists and the few originals like Morrison.

Rock is still dead.

Moody
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 05:33 PM
Jack; "And? I've been a member since June 2002. Your point?"

Moody; You obviously have a problem with chronology. You say you first read Imperium in December - I joined a month BEFORE then and was talking of Imperium; NO ONE here at the time had read it [let's face it, knowing your alacrity to respond, you would have jumped on my first mentions of Imperium if you HAD read it at that time].

Jack; "The conclusion I come to is that modern Metal, Goth and Industrial is about as 'black' as pre-Vatican II Catholicism is Jewish".

Moody; That is a fair analogy; just as Christians cannot deny the Jewishness inherent in their doctrine [mixed as it is with non-Semitic and even Aryan elements], so too do pop/rock fans have to admit the impact of Negroes on their music.
To take the analogy further, Christians should be contrasted with Pagans [particularly of the Norse culture], and pop/rock lovers with Classical music afficianados; pagans and classicallers have no fear of Semites and Negroes [respectively] having any decisive impact on their cultures.
So true Europeans should be pagans and classical lovers, not Christians and pop/rock lovers.
So you have agreed with me.

Jack; "Manson has read Nietzsche".

Moody; Point is, Morrison read him first, and at a time when pop/rock stars did not read such things [if they read at all!].
Morrison was the real mcoy and lived the Dionysian; Manson seems manufactured to me. The fact that he seems to have done everything second-hand [I'm amazed he has the cheek to write 'Rock is Dead' after Morrison had done so before] just compounds my suspicion.

Jack
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 08:18 AM
Jack; "And? I've been a member since June 2002. Your point?"

Moody; You obviously have a problem with chronology. You say you first read Imperium in December - I joined a month BEFORE then and was talking of Imperium; NO ONE here at the time had read it

I will not say you were or were not talking of Imperium in December because I can find no evidence in favour of your statement. It may have been deleted - threads do get deleted occasionally.


[let's face it, knowing your alacrity to respond, you would have jumped on my first mentions of Imperium if you HAD read it at that time].

Quite probably.


Jack; "The conclusion I come to is that modern Metal, Goth and Industrial is about as 'black' as pre-Vatican II Catholicism is Jewish".

Moody; That is a fair analogy; just as Christians cannot deny the Jewishness inherent in their doctrine [mixed as it is with non-Semitic and even Aryan elements], so too do pop/rock fans have to admit the impact of Negroes on their music.
To take the analogy further, Christians should be contrasted with Pagans [particularly of the Norse culture], and pop/rock lovers with Classical music afficianados; pagans and classicallers have no fear of Semites and Negroes [respectively] having any decisive impact on their cultures.

Pre-Vatican II Christianity was anti-Jewish. Metal, goth, industrial etc. are dominated by whites, and like it or not, the vast majority of those who listen to it are whites. I would say (and do say) that despite notation whatever black 'roots' these genres have, they have been thoroughly de-negrified.


So true Europeans should be pagans and classical lovers, not Christians and pop/rock lovers.
So you have agreed with me.

I see it as highly irrelevant. Now we've come to a conclusion about popular culture, you've taken the entire topic off on a tangent. Now let's get back to the original point. The two quotes I'm putting here were not directly related but mine answers yours.

Moody: Therefore, aristocratic nations tend to produce High Art, while Capitalism brings forth pop art.

Jack: Victorian era Britain and the United States was closer to Capitalism than it is now - and where was the pop art/modern art?

The British Empire and the United States Government intervened far less in their economies than they do now, and there was no trash pop music. Your equation that pop = rock is easily refuted if you watched the 'World Idol' competition on television recently - it is all trash (in my opinion) and bears nothing in common with Jimmy Hendrix or modern metal (e.g. Cradle of Filth), goth (e.g. VNV Nation) or industrial (e.g. Nine Inch Nails) (forget the notation - I'm talking about how it sounds), but manufactured trash. Roosevelt's New Deal gave the State an iron grip over the economy and since then what is regarded as popular music has become more and more degenerate. Your statement that Capitalism fosters trash culture is thus refuted.


Jack; "Manson has read Nietzsche".

Moody; Point is, Morrison read him first, and at a time when pop/rock stars did not read such things [if they read at all!].

Manson is slightly younger than Morrison, Moody. And Manson is alternative, not pop (yes, there is a difference).


Morrison was the real mcoy and lived the Dionysian; Manson seems manufactured to me.

You obviously know nothing of Marilyn Manson's life.


The fact that he seems to have done everything second-hand [I'm amazed he has the cheek to write 'Rock is Dead' after Morrison had done so before] just compounds my suspicion.

Wow.

Moody
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 06:29 PM
Jack; "Your statement that Capitalism fosters trash culture is thus refuted".

Moody; Not so; you have merely redefined 'capitalism' to suit your own argument.
Higher Culture arose during Absolutist eras - slave owning Greece and Rome, kingly Medieval/Renaissance and Imperialist pre-Modernism.
The Modern Capitalist era has presided over cultural decay [you just don't call it 'capitalist' for obscure reasons].
Question?
Name your favourite;
Music,
Drama,
Poetry,
Writing,
Philosophy.

Jack
Tuesday, January 6th, 2004, 03:49 AM
Jack; "Your statement that Capitalism fosters trash culture is thus refuted".

Moody; Not so; you have merely redefined 'capitalism' to suit your own argument.

Capitalism is laissez-faire Capitalism. I have successfully argued that the British Empire and the United States were closer to Capitalism in the Victorian era than they are now, and during that time we did not have 'trash culture', but we do now, and that trash culture correlates with increased state intervention. The American economy satisfies all ten points of the Communist Manifesto: http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=7033 - so how is it 'capitalist' again?


Higher Culture arose during Absolutist eras - slave owning Greece and Rome, kingly Medieval/Renaissance and Imperialist pre-Modernism.

The most you've done is disconnected culture from economy, not proven that Capitalism (which we do not have) fosters trash culture. One wonders why you exhalt Rome as high culture when the proles regarded slave women being raped by bulls in the colosseum as 'entertainment'.


The Modern Capitalist era has presided over cultural decay [you just don't call it 'capitalist' for obscure reasons].

The welfare state, Government-controlled education and massive taxes are hardly 'obscure reasons' to not call it Capitalist. The State with its legions of post-modern University professors, it's feminist legislation and anti-white laws are responsible for the present state of our cultural decay, not businessmen who simply try to sell people what they're stupid enough to want.


Question?

Sure.

Name your favourite;
Music, - Nine Inch Nails, London After Midnight, Skinny Puppy
Drama, - Fight Club or Gangs of New York (excluding LOTR ). Those are movies, btw.
Poetry, - None. I'd rather read prose than poetry, personally.
Writing, - Chuck Palahniuk.
Philosophy. - I haven't really found my 'favourite philosophy' because they all seem to fall short in one way or another. But for the interim, Max Stirner.

Moody
Wednesday, January 7th, 2004, 07:32 PM
Jack; "Capitalism is laissez-faire Capitalism. I have successfully argued that the British Empire and the United States were closer to Capitalism in the Victorian era than they are now, and during that time we did not have 'trash culture', but we do now, and that trash culture correlates with increased state intervention. The American economy satisfies all ten points of the Communist Manifesto: - so how is it 'capitalist' again?"

Moody; So you are now saying that the West is now Communist, having been Capitalist only in the Victorian era [oh, and you also said that Ireland was Capitalism pre-Christianity]!
So Victorian Capitalism leads to modern Western Communism!
I would say that Western cultural decline was noticeable during the Victorian era, so that my case stands even if we use your bizarre defintions of what is or isn't Capitalism.
Culture was healthiest under absolute rule, prior to the Victorian era [which was not absolute according to you because it was Capitalist].
Capitalism then brings cultural decline and even opens the doors to Communism!

Jack; "The most you've done is disconnected culture from economy, not proven that Capitalism (which we do not have) fosters trash culture. One wonders why you exhalt Rome as high culture when the proles regarded slave women being raped by bulls in the colosseum as 'entertainment' ".

Moody; The 'proles' of Rome had their version of 'pop culture' as do the proles of all civilisations. The difference being that the culture of the elite [not that of the proles] in Rome was the dominant culture and therefore of a high standard [see Virgil's Aeneid and its relation to the Emperor Augustus].
Today's Capitalist/Communist Western culture, which began its decline in the Victorian era has finally placed the prole's culture on top and made it the dominant trash aesthetic.
So my argument remains in tact, even using your own strange definitions etc.,

Jack; "The welfare state, Government-controlled education and massive taxes are hardly 'obscure reasons' to not call it Capitalist. The State with its legions of post-modern University professors, it's feminist legislation and anti-white laws are responsible for the present state of our cultural decay, not businessmen who simply try to sell people what they're stupid enough to want".

Moody; Those are the Communist aspects you point to, obviously. They sit alongside the free market and big business which some foolish people refer to as 'Capitalist' [the know-nothings!].
So let's say that this mixed Communist/Capitalist culture has given us this trash aesthetic which is no better than the prole's love of rape and violence for its own sake - Bread and Circuses!

Jack; "My favourite;Music, - Nine Inch Nails, London After Midnight, Skinny Puppy. Drama, - Fight Club or Gangs of New York (excluding LOTR ). Those are movies, btw. Poetry, - None. I'd rather read prose than poetry, personally.
Writing, - Chuck Palahniuk. Philosophy. - I haven't really found my 'favourite philosophy' because they all seem to fall short in one way or another".

Moody; THAT is the modern equivalent of the prole's taste. You are completely immersed in the modern trash aesthetic of the Western Multiculturalist Communist/Capitalist culture.

Jack
Thursday, January 8th, 2004, 09:49 AM
Jack; "Capitalism is laissez-faire Capitalism. I have successfully argued that the British Empire and the United States were closer to Capitalism in the Victorian era than they are now, and during that time we did not have 'trash culture', but we do now, and that trash culture correlates with increased state intervention. The American economy satisfies all ten points of the Communist Manifesto: - so how is it 'capitalist' again?"

Moody; So you are now saying that the West is now Communist, having been Capitalist only in the Victorian era [oh, and you also said that Ireland was Capitalism pre-Christianity]!

The statement on Ireland I later withdrew. The West satisfies all 10 points of the Communist manifesto, yes. I said the West was closest to Capitalism during the Victorian era, I did not say it was Capitalist. Furthermore the State does not manage businesses, it regulates them. Control largely remains in private hands. Therefore it is a mixed economy.


So Victorian Capitalism leads to modern Western Communism!

Non sequitur. Victorian-era Western civilization was not Capitalist.


I would say that Western cultural decline was noticeable during the Victorian era, so that my case stands even if we use your bizarre defintions of what is or isn't Capitalism.

I've used the definitions of those who have defended capitalism. Whether you choose to regard them as 'bizarre' or not is your choice.


Culture was healthiest under absolute rule, prior to the Victorian era [which was not absolute according to you because it was Capitalist].

I did not say Victorian-era Western civilization was Capitalist.


Capitalism then brings cultural decline and even opens the doors to Communism!

You consistently neglect the Jewish factor.


Jack; "The most you've done is disconnected culture from economy, not proven that Capitalism (which we do not have) fosters trash culture. One wonders why you exhalt Rome as high culture when the proles regarded slave women being raped by bulls in the colosseum as 'entertainment' ".

Moody; The 'proles' of Rome had their version of 'pop culture' as do the proles of all civilisations. The difference being that the culture of the elite [not that of the proles] in Rome was the dominant culture and therefore of a high standard [see Virgil's Aeneid and its relation to the Emperor Augustus].

'Dominant culture'? I'm sure Caligula's example coincides with your statement.


Today's Capitalist/Communist Western culture,

Capitalism and Communism are opposite by anyone's outlook. We have a mixed economy. The Western economies satisfy all ten planks of the Communist program but management remains within private hands though restricted by state power.


which began its decline in the Victorian era has finally placed the prole's culture on top and made it the dominant trash aesthetic.

The Jews pushed trash culture.


So my argument remains in tact, even using your own strange definitions etc.,

Hardly.


Jack; "The welfare state, Government-controlled education and massive taxes are hardly 'obscure reasons' to not call it Capitalist. The State with its legions of post-modern University professors, it's feminist legislation and anti-white laws are responsible for the present state of our cultural decay, not businessmen who simply try to sell people what they're stupid enough to want".

Moody; Those are the Communist aspects you point to, obviously.

You advocate them.


They sit alongside the free market and big business which some foolish people refer to as 'Capitalist' [the know-nothings!].

It is not a 'free market'. The economy remains within private hands restricted by state power. The Western economies are mixed economies.


So let's say that this mixed Communist/Capitalist culture has given us this trash aesthetic which is no better than the prole's love of rape and violence for its own sake - Bread and Circuses!

The mixed economy under the control of the Jews has given us trash culture, correct.


Jack; "My favourite;Music, - Nine Inch Nails, London After Midnight, Skinny Puppy. Drama, - Fight Club or Gangs of New York (excluding LOTR ). Those are movies, btw. Poetry, - None. I'd rather read prose than poetry, personally.
Writing, - Chuck Palahniuk. Philosophy. - I haven't really found my 'favourite philosophy' because they all seem to fall short in one way or another".

Moody; THAT is the modern equivalent of the prole's taste. You are completely immersed in the modern trash aesthetic of the Western Multiculturalist Communist/Capitalist culture.

Quite plainly you have no idea what you are talking about. Chuck Palahniuk is a brilliant (white) writer, NIN, LAM and Skinny Puppy are white bands and certainly not pop (ever heard of Britney Spears? That's pop), I simply do not prefer poetry over prose, and yes, I do not have a favourite philosophy because those I've read fall short of what I'm looking for. Fight Club and Gangs of New York are excellent movies. Nothing amongst my short 'favourites' list is 'multiculturalist', Communism and Capitalism are opposites, and whether you view my taste as 'trash' or not is up to you. Your opinion counts for nothing.

Moody
Friday, January 9th, 2004, 05:45 PM
'What is the difference between Capitalism and Communism?
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man; Communism is the reverse'.
[Polish joke]

Jack; "I said the West was closest to Capitalism during the Victorian era, I did not say it was Capitalist. Furthermore the State does not manage businesses, it regulates them. Control largely remains in private hands. Therefore it is a mixed economy".

Moody; Mixed, you keep saying, but you never want to state what the INGREDIENTS of this "mix" are.
By implication, Capitalism is part of the mix in the 'mixed econmy' you keep talking of.
It may not be 'pure' Capitalism, but then what system in the real world IS 'pure'.
You are sounding like the Commies who say that Communism in practice was never "real" Communism.
That's a cop-out.
You said yourself above that the West was "closer to Capitalism" in the 19th century "than now"; this maintains that there was a certain proximity to Capitalism in both cases.

Jack; "Victorian-era Western civilization was not Capitalist".

Moody; Victorian intellectuals at the time disagree with you. To qoute one;
'The civilised nation consists broadly of mob, money-collecting machine, and Capitalist; and when the mob wishes to spend money for any purpose, it sets its money-collecting machine to borrow the money it needs from the Capitalist, who lends it on condition of taxing the mob generation after generation'.
[Ruskin]
The fact is, you are ASHAMED to call a spade a spade and hide behind the weasel words of "mixed economy" - what are the components of the mixture?
I think Ruskin put his finger on them well over a century ago.

Jack; "I've used the definitions of those who have defended capitalism. Whether you choose to regard them as 'bizarre' or not is your choice".

Moody; Such as your heroine, the Jew Ayn Rand. She says here;
'No politico-economic system in history has ever proved its value so eloquently or has benefited mankind so greatly as Capitalism'.
[A. Rand]
Why does she talk in the past tense?
Why does she say 'proved'?
She thinks that capitalism has been in existence; indeed, she actually thought that the America that she ran away to was Captalist at the time of writing;
'Businessmen are the one group that distinguishes Capitalism and the American way of life'.
[Rand]
So why is it this writer who you have continually held up, believes that America is Capitalist?
I'll tell you why; Rand was at least HONEST, and did not hide behind euphemisms, such as 'mixed economy' etc.,

Jack; "I did not say Victorian-era Western civilization was Capitalist.
You consistently neglect the Jewish factor".

Moody; It is I who had to tell you that your Capitalist mentors Rand, Mises, Rothbard et al., WERE JEWS!
The joke is, you were arrogating to yourself the title of "White Power Philosopher" (ha!), while at the same time promoting Ayn Rand - a Jew!
It is I who has pointed to the historical and contemporary connection between Jews and Capitalism!
It is YOU who have tried to dance around the subject by pedantic re-defining of terms!
YOU have promoted the ideas of Jewish Capitalists! Rand, Mises and Rothbard!

Jack; "'Dominant culture'? I'm sure Caligula's example coincides with your statement".

Moody; My statement referred to the patronage of Virgil by the Emperor Augustus, who ruled Absolutely when Roman culture flourished at its Highest;
Virgil, Horace, Livy, Strabo, Ovid - all of them Augustans!
High culture, not the noise, blood and stinking sweat of the mixed mob!
Your vague mention of Caligula is a poor response!
Caligula only reigned for four years!
And even then, the great Seneca was his contemporary.
You belong in the mosh-pit of the colosseum.

Jack; "Capitalism and Communism are opposite by anyone's outlook. We have a mixed economy. The Western economies satisfy all ten planks of the Communist program but management remains within private hands though restricted by state power".

Moody; "Anyone's outlook"? I don't think so. Many analysts [e.g., AK Chesterton] have pointed to the connections between Capitalism/Communism: Both have in common a materialist outlook, and they found it easy to unite as Allies in WWII to fight a 'common enemy'.
'We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism'.
[Kruschchev]
And they won't even notice the difference!
'Capitalism and Communism: Two Paths to Slavery'.
[Orwell]

Jack; "You advocate [the welfare state, Government controlled education and massive taxes, feminist legislation, anti-white laws]".

Moody; That is a lie of the most loathsome kind. I advocate state control/leadership on racial nationalist principles, yes. I do not advocate state control based on Capitalist/Communist principles as is the status quo.
Welfare given to fellows of our own kin [and strictly ONLY] who are sick or elderly is just and noble. Education which teaches the proud aspects of the Race and nation's culture must be sponsored by the state; only then can the revolting propaganda of feminism and anti-white racism be eliminated.
Of course, the state will legislate towards a pro-white and pro-traditional agenda, and Jews will be expelled, even your favourite "brilliant" Jews as you call them.
The state is an instrument; it is solely down to whose hands the instrument is in. A bad workman blames his tools, methinks.

Jack; "The mixed economy under the control of the Jews has given us trash culture, correct.
Chuck Palahniuk is a brilliant (white) writer".

Moody; I searched out an interview with this Palahniuk, master of the trash-aesthetic - I found him full of praise for Hollywood Jews, particularly for Spielberg and his brood. And of course, Fight Club was made by the Jew-loving multiculturalist Rupert Murdoch's Fox studios, with this Palahniuk's full approval!

Jack; "NIN, LAM and Skinny Puppy are white bands and certainly not pop (ever heard of Britney Spears? That's pop),"

Moody; Within the broad category of music per se, everything from Sinatra to the Sex Pistols is pop music. Just as everything from Schutz to Stockhausen is classical music.
Of course, WITHIN the categories, JS Bach is not 'classical', but Baroque' [whereas Beethoven IS Classical] etc., etc.,
So yes, within pop, NIN are Industrial or Goth and Spears is pop. However, NIN have MUSICALLY more in common with Spears than they do with Palestrina or Elgar. They are basically LOW CULTURE - the culture of the MOB.

Jack; "I simply do not prefer poetry over prose, and yes, I do not have a favourite philosophy because those I've read fall short of what I'm looking for. Fight Club and Gangs of New York are excellent movies. Nothing amongst my short 'favourites' list is 'multiculturalist'".

Moody; They are all products of the multicultural era; rock with its mixed-race roots and Jewish management, and Hollywood which is totally Jewish as you admit; Palahniuk has no objectitions to serving the Jewish multicultural system.
Your rejection of Poetry is a give-away;
Basically, you have NO HIGH ARYAN CULTURE.

Jack
Saturday, January 10th, 2004, 08:55 AM
'What is the difference between Capitalism and Communism?
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man; Communism is the reverse'.
[Polish joke]

[quote]Jack; "I said the West was closest to Capitalism during the Victorian era, I did not say it was Capitalist. Furthermore the State does not manage businesses, it regulates them. Control largely remains in private hands. Therefore it is a mixed economy".

Moody; Mixed, you keep saying, but you never want to state what the INGREDIENTS of this "mix" are.
By implication, Capitalism is part of the mix in the 'mixed econmy' you keep talking of.

Mix water with dirt - do you get water or dirt? Neither - you get mud.


It may not be 'pure' Capitalism, but then what system in the real world IS 'pure'.

The Hutterites had pure Communism going successfully.


You are sounding like the Commies who say that Communism in practice was never "real" Communism.

It wasn't, it was state socialism.


That's a cop-out.

No, it isn't.


You said yourself above that the West was "closer to Capitalism" in the 19th century "than now"; this maintains that there was a certain proximity to Capitalism in both cases.

There was. Victorian-era United States and the British Empire had less intervention in the economy than they do now.


Jack; "Victorian-era Western civilization was not Capitalist".

Moody; Victorian intellectuals at the time disagree with you. To qoute one;
'The civilised nation consists broadly of mob, money-collecting machine, and Capitalist; and when the mob wishes to spend money for any purpose, it sets its money-collecting machine to borrow the money it needs from the Capitalist, who lends it on condition of taxing the mob generation after generation'.
[Ruskin]

Tax is theft, what you Ruskin's described is trade.


The fact is, you are ASHAMED to call a spade a spade and hide behind the weasel words of "mixed economy" - what are the components of the mixture?

State intervention and expenditure (sponsored by tax), and private enterprise regulated by the State.


I think Ruskin put his finger on them well over a century ago.

I think he was slightly off the mark.


Jack; "I've used the definitions of those who have defended capitalism. Whether you choose to regard them as 'bizarre' or not is your choice".

Moody; Such as your heroine, the Jew Ayn Rand. She says here;
'No politico-economic system in history has ever proved its value so eloquently or has benefited mankind so greatly as Capitalism'.
[A. Rand]
Why does she talk in the past tense?

Because Capitalism did not exist in her time. Capitalism existed in the western United States during its expansion, where Government power was weak. She believed Capitalism existed in the United States prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve.


Why does she say 'proved'?

Because private enterprise was what propelled the advancement of West European civilization out of the middle ages.


She thinks that capitalism has been in existence; indeed, she actually thought that the America that she ran away to was Captalist at the time of writing;
'Businessmen are the one group that distinguishes Capitalism and the American way of life'.
[Rand]

The 'American way of life' is an ideal. If you knew anything about her, her works or her life you'd know she strongly opposed the Federal Reserve and Roosevelt's New Deal. Perhaps you should read Atlas Shrugged.


So why is it this writer who you have continually held up, believes that America is Capitalist?

She did not believe America was capitalist during the time in which she was alive and living in the United States.


I'll tell you why; Rand was at least HONEST, and did not hide behind euphemisms, such as 'mixed economy' etc.,

Ayn Rand repeatedly used the term 'mixed economy' in her Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.


Jack; "I did not say Victorian-era Western civilization was Capitalist.
You consistently neglect the Jewish factor".

Moody; It is I who had to tell you that your Capitalist mentors Rand, Mises, Rothbard et al., WERE JEWS!

I already knew they were Jews. Roosevelt and his entire crew were Jews too, and it was they who made the mixed economy - it was not the Jews you have mentioned (Rand, Mises, Rothbard) or their followers who put into place Roosevelt's New Deal.


The joke is, you were arrogating to yourself the title of "White Power Philosopher" (ha!), while at the same time promoting Ayn Rand - a Jew!

Where did I say I was a "white power philosopher"? Ayn Rand was an atheist, an individualist, and she rejected Jewish culture as mysticism.


It is I who has pointed to the historical and contemporary connection between Jews and Capitalism!

I've pointed out the historical and contemporary connection between the Jews and the advancement of the State against the free market.


It is YOU who have tried to dance around the subject by pedantic re-defining of terms!

I object to your definitions of the terms, yes.


YOU have promoted the ideas of Jewish Capitalists! Rand, Mises and Rothbard!

I have indeed put foward the ideas of Rand, Mises and Rothbard.


Jack; "'Dominant culture'? I'm sure Caligula's example coincides with your statement".

Moody; My statement referred to the patronage of Virgil by the Emperor Augustus, who ruled Absolutely when Roman culture flourished at its Highest;
Virgil, Horace, Livy, Strabo, Ovid - all of them Augustans!
High culture, not the noise, blood and stinking sweat of the mixed mob!
Your vague mention of Caligula is a poor response!
Caligula only reigned for four years!
And even then, the great Seneca was his contemporary.

Edward Gibbon called the Romans a 'race of pygmies'. There are generally two cultures in any given society/civilization - the culture of the upper class, and the culture of the lower class. The culture of the Roman lower classes was chaotic and, in my opinion, repulsive (female slaves being raped by pulls is something I find repulsive, but you could rationalise it in terms of 'will to power') and the Roman elites sponsored them. What does that say, Moody?


You belong in the mosh-pit of the colosseum.

You belong in a museum.


Jack; "Capitalism and Communism are opposite by anyone's outlook. We have a mixed economy. The Western economies satisfy all ten planks of the Communist program but management remains within private hands though restricted by state power".

Moody; "Anyone's outlook"? I don't think so. Many analysts [e.g., AK Chesterton] have pointed to the connections between Capitalism/Communism: Both have in common a materialist outlook, and they found it easy to unite as Allies in WWII to fight a 'common enemy'.

Amusing. Roosevelt's New Deal (engineered by Jews) formed the mixed economy by having the State granted massive powers of intervention in the economy. Roosevelt's New Deal was implemented in 1933, hence prior to World War Two, and so Capitalism did not ally with Communism against National Socialist Germany, but rather Roosevelt's mixed economy did. Communism was going to fight National Socialism from the beginning, and vice versa.


'We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism'.
[Kruschchev]

I perfectly agree that this is what is occuring.


And they won't even notice the difference!
'Capitalism and Communism: Two Paths to Slavery'.
[Orwell]

Orwell was a democratic socialist. He despised Lenin's usage of the word 'Communist' to seperate the Bolsheviks from the reformists, and being a democratic socialist he did not agree with Capitalism.


Jack; "You advocate [the welfare state, Government controlled education and massive taxes, feminist legislation, anti-white laws]".

Moody; That is a lie of the most loathsome kind. I advocate state control/leadership on racial nationalist principles, yes. I do not advocate state control based on Capitalist/Communist principles as is the status quo.

Show me which of the 10 points of the Communist Manifesto you disagree with.


Welfare given to fellows of our own kin [and strictly ONLY] who are sick or elderly is just and noble.

This is Communist, like it or not - 'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs'. You've got to take from someone before you can give it to the elderly and the sick - ever heard of private superannuation? Saving up? Private charity? What's wrong with that as a replacement of state welfare? Why is state welfare necessary in the first place? Do you honestly think whites don't care for the sick and elderly of their own kind? Why should the State take over pensions and charity when it can be handled by other means?


Education which teaches the proud aspects of the Race and nation's culture must be sponsored by the state; only then can the revolting propaganda of feminism and anti-white racism be eliminated.

Feminism and anti-white racism can be eliminated if the State's intervention in education is cut off, and families are free to send their children to whatever schools they decide - businesses won't fund universities which promote feminism because it provides absolutely nothing of any use whatsoever (private marriage contracts would kill the effects of feminism quickly enough), and anti-white racism would end because it's simply unproductive, and costs the economy millions in currency (if not more) a year. Furthermore I've already explained why businesses who sponsor newspapers (the same argument applies to universities as well) won't permit their money to be used to slander whites if they know what we know. I'm not sure about you, but I'm quite well aquainted first hand with what non-whites do as far as crime goes.


Of course, the state will legislate towards a pro-white and pro-traditional agenda, and Jews will be expelled, even your favourite "brilliant" Jews as you call them.

Of course you'd expel them, I'm perfectly aware of that.


The state is an instrument; it is solely down to whose hands the instrument is in. A bad workman blames his tools, methinks.

There was life before the State.


Jack; "The mixed economy under the control of the Jews has given us trash culture, correct.
Chuck Palahniuk is a brilliant (white) writer".

[quote]Moody; I searched out an interview with this Palahniuk, master of the trash-aesthetic - I found him full of praise for Hollywood Jews, particularly for Spielberg and his brood. And of course, Fight Club was made by the Jew-loving multiculturalist Rupert Murdoch's Fox studios, with this Palahniuk's full approval!

Rupert Murdoch hated Fight Club movie, actually, and the director was fired.


Jack; "NIN, LAM and Skinny Puppy are white bands and certainly not pop (ever heard of Britney Spears? That's pop),"

Moody; Within the broad category of music per se, everything from Sinatra to the Sex Pistols is pop music. Just as everything from Schutz to Stockhausen is classical music.

Nice dualism.


Of course, WITHIN the categories, JS Bach is not 'classical', but Baroque' [whereas Beethoven IS Classical] etc., etc.,
So yes, within pop, NIN are Industrial or Goth and Spears is pop. However, NIN have MUSICALLY more in common with Spears than they do with Palestrina or Elgar. They are basically LOW CULTURE - the culture of the MOB.

Thanks.


Jack; "I simply do not prefer poetry over prose, and yes, I do not have a favourite philosophy because those I've read fall short of what I'm looking for. Fight Club and Gangs of New York are excellent movies. Nothing amongst my short 'favourites' list is 'multiculturalist'".

Moody; They are all products of the multicultural era; rock with its mixed-race roots and Jewish management, and Hollywood which is totally Jewish as you admit; Palahniuk has no objectitions to serving the Jewish multicultural system.

I'm not looking at whether he approves of the Jew system or not, I said he's an excellent writer.


Your rejection of Poetry is a give-away;

There's nothing particularly wrong with it, it just (in general) doesn't appeal to me. Some poetry possibly would - I've yet to come across any that do, and my own judgements based on what I've come across make that unlikely.


Basically, you have NO HIGH ARYAN CULTURE.

That's ok. I don't live in the past. I live right here, right now. Oh - and I also listen to Rammstein, System of a Down, Cradle of Filth, Superheist, Tristania, Slipknot, Drowning Pool, Incubus, Machine Head, occasionally Limp Bizkit's earlier stuff, and Orgy. I think Rand wrote some good fiction, Camus' The Outsider was great, Poul Anderson wrote some good Science Fiction, Arthur C. Clark was great, and Dostoyevsky was pretty good. I read the Qu'ran at fourteen after I rejected Christianity, and nearly converted. I am now a Luciferian, for your information, and have been so for the past two years.

Moody
Monday, January 12th, 2004, 05:19 PM
'History suggests that Capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.
[Einstein]

You're in Jew company there, Jack!

'Businessmen are the one group that distinguishes Capitalism and the American Way of life from the Totalitarian system that is swallowing the rest of the world'.
[Ayn Rand]

Jack; "The 'American way of life' is an ideal. If you knew anything about her, her works or her life you'd know she strongly opposed the Federal Reserve and Roosevelt's New Deal".

Moody; You are not reading her properly; she differentiates the 'American Way', of the time of her writing, from other systems of the time which she calls 'totalitarian'!
She is clearly referring to an existent Capitalism in America!
She states that the presence of 'Businessmen' establishes Capitalism!
Let's call it a Capitalist System, as it includes various elements with that of Big Business dominating.

Jack; "Where did I say I was a "white power philosopher"? Ayn Rand was an atheist, an individualist, and she rejected Jewish culture as mysticism".

Moody; She also rejected RACISM - she was an anti-Racist!
I have already quoted from her famous essay on the subject elsewhere!
How can you promote an anti-Racist Jew as 'White Power'!
You called yourself a "white power philosopher" on your stormfront biog., you also said on the same form that Rand was one of your favourite philosophers!
Huge Contradiction or what!

Jack; "Edward Gibbon called the Romans a 'race of pygmies'".

Moody; Where? - give sources for such claims so that we contextualise them if necessary. Julius Caesar was hardly a 'pygmy'!

Jack; "The culture of the Roman lower classes was chaotic and, in my opinion, repulsive (female slaves being raped by bulls is something I find repulsive, but you could rationalise it in terms of 'will to power') and the Roman elites sponsored them. What does that say, Moody"?

Moody; There are many parallels between the mixed-race slave mobs of the Roman Emopire and today's trash-aesthetic mass-culture.
Film goers are just the contemporary version of the colosseum mob.
Pop culture is 'bread and circuses', and is DESTRUCTIVE to Racial Idealism.
If you eat and drink with the enemy, then it is no surprise that the bad habits of the enemy rub off on you.

Jack; "Why is state welfare necessary in the first place?"

Moody; Do some research into history; see how wretched the white masses were before the advent of welfare schemes [Bismarck's Germany pioneered them]. See how disease and malnutrition were rife; see how resentment grew and grew; see how the general level of racial quality was debased.
The race is as an extended family and the state is its political expression; therefore the state administers welfare to those most vulnerable members of the race just as a father helps his children, or just as adults help their elderly parents.
Targeted welfare schemes helped to raise the general level of the race. Of course, these schemes must not be extended to the un-needy in the race, and must not be given to any aliens.
In the Racial Nation, race-welfare is a just safety-net which has the general benefit of ridding the State of disease, malnourishment and political resentment.

Jack; "Businesses won't fund universities which promote feminism because it provides absolutely nothing of any use whatsoever".

Moody; Nonsense; the present Capitalist System promotes feminism because women are cheaper labour; they are also more pliable to employers.

Jack; "Anti-white racism would end because it's simply unproductive, and costs the economy millions in currency (if not more) a year".

Moody; Tell that to the Jew lawyers, whose businesses make millions out of anti-white, anti-racism legislation!

Jack; "I'm quite well aquainted first hand with what non-whites do as far as crime goes".

Moody; Private security is Big Business; crime is good for the Capitalist System!

Jack; "I am now a Luciferian, for your information, and have been so for the past two years".

Moody; You fall for every Jew-trap!

Jack
Tuesday, January 13th, 2004, 11:13 AM
'History suggests that Capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.
[Einstein]

You're in Jew company there, Jack!

Einstein was a Communist.


'Businessmen are the one group that distinguishes Capitalism and the American Way of life from the Totalitarian system that is swallowing the rest of the world'.
[Ayn Rand]

Jack; "The 'American way of life' is an ideal. If you knew anything about her, her works or her life you'd know she strongly opposed the Federal Reserve and Roosevelt's New Deal".

Moody; You are not reading her properly; she differentiates the 'American Way', of the time of her writing, from other systems of the time which she calls 'totalitarian'!
She is clearly referring to an existent Capitalism in America!
She states that the presence of 'Businessmen' establishes Capitalism!
Let's call it a Capitalist System, as it includes various elements with that of Big Business dominating.

Ayn Rand did not call called America a Capitalist system, given Roosevelt's New Deal gave the State the power to choke the entire system with a few executive orders. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that under 'totalitarianism' she put Fascism and National Socialism, yet these systems had 'businessmen'. Given that I have read almost all of her works, I'd say I'm reading her a lot clearly than you are.


Jack; "Where did I say I was a "white power philosopher"? Ayn Rand was an atheist, an individualist, and she rejected Jewish culture as mysticism".

Moody; She also rejected RACISM - she was an anti-Racist!

She opposed racism instituted through the State, that's right. On a personal level, she left it to the decision of the individual.


I have already quoted from her famous essay on the subject elsewhere!

I'd say her essay The Objectivist Ethics is more well known.


How can you promote an anti-Racist Jew as 'White Power'!

I did not say Ayn Rand was a believer in 'white power'. I have put forward her ideas because I think they are useful given the State, under Jewish control, is choking whites right now, and while she personally disapproved of racism, she left it open for the individual to discriminate as to those he dealt with in any way he chose?


You called yourself a "white power philosopher" on your stormfront biog., you also said on the same form that Rand was one of your favourite philosophers!

I haven't changed my profile details at Stormfront in over a year. She had some interesting ideas, yes. Her ethical system is pretty good, and I've yet to find anything more solid in that field. Her mix of virtue ethics and rule ethics is fairly good.


Huge Contradiction or what!

What do you care for contradictions?


Jack; "Edward Gibbon called the Romans a 'race of pygmies'".

Moody; Where? - give sources for such claims so that we contextualise them if necessary. Julius Caesar was hardly a 'pygmy'!

"This diminutive stature of mankind, if we pursue the metaphor, was daily sinking below the old standard, and the Roman world was indeed peopled by a race of pygmies; when the fierce giants of the north broke in, and mended the puny breed. They restored a manly spirit of freedom; and after the revolution of ten centuries, freedom became the happy parent of taste and science."


Jack; "The culture of the Roman lower classes was chaotic and, in my opinion, repulsive (female slaves being raped by bulls is something I find repulsive, but you could rationalise it in terms of 'will to power') and the Roman elites sponsored them. What does that say, Moody"?

Moody; There are many parallels between the mixed-race slave mobs of the Roman Emopire and today's trash-aesthetic mass-culture.

The vast majority of Rome's slaves were Celts and Germans, there were a tiny minority of black slaves. And the masses of the West don't celebrate women being raped by bulls.


Film goers are just the contemporary version of the colosseum mob.

The difference between the modern world and Rome is that if you don't want to see a film, you simply don't go, and you don't have to pay. Under the Roman Empire, you had to pay out of your taxes, whether you wanted to go or not, and the State coordinated this degeneracy.


Pop culture is 'bread and circuses', and is DESTRUCTIVE to Racial Idealism.

I'm a materialist.


If you eat and drink with the enemy, then it is no surprise that the bad habits of the enemy rub off on you.

85+% of the white population is my enemy?


Jack; "Why is state welfare necessary in the first place?"

Moody; Do some research into history; see how wretched the white masses were before the advent of welfare schemes [Bismarck's Germany pioneered them]. See how disease and malnutrition were rife; see how resentment grew and grew; see how the general level of racial quality was debased.

See how much private enterprised raised the standards of living and cut down heavily on the horrific infant mortality rates, disease, etc. through production, alleviation of taxes, breaking up the monopoly of the State on education, etc.


The race is as an extended family and the state is its political expression; therefore the state administers welfare to those most vulnerable members of the race just as a father helps his children, or just as adults help their elderly parents.

There's a massive difference. The state would steal from me to feed some parasite family on the other side of the country, while I would at least know and choose to feed my children. Moody, here's where you attempt to justify theft by 'family values': You see, if I left home right now, got a job and got married, and my brother stayed at home and became a drug addict and my father demanded I help my brother, I could choose not to. My father would have no right whatsoever to demand I help my brother, who would have become a drug addict of his own free will. If he went ahead and tried I would not call that 'family values', I'd call that theft and cannibalism. Stealing from my life, to feed someone who won't help themselves by their own effort. Now the State produces NOTHING whatsoever. In your example, the father has a job and he works, does not violate the lives, liberty or property of others, and he helps his own child. State welfare is charity funded by a gang of thieves.


Targeted welfare schemes helped to raise the general level of the race.

By stealing from the productive? Why can't these parasites be helped my their friends and family? Why should I accept having a gun pressed against my head to fork out money that the State claims it will give to a syphilis-riddled prostitute so she can 'help herself' which I would much rather save up to pay for the university education of my future son? Would that not be better for the race, given that my son would gain valuable skills, perhaps start up his own business and hire the poor?


Of course, these schemes must not be extended to the un-needy in the race, and must not be given to any aliens.

'Un-needy'? And who decides who's needy and who isn't? The State? The State's going to say as many as possible are 'needy' because that gives it an excuse to expand itself, introduce more laws and more taxes.


In the Racial Nation, race-welfare is a just safety-net which has the general benefit of ridding the State of disease, malnourishment and political resentment.

Political resentment? Give the individual as much power over his own life as possible and he has no excuse to resent anyone but himself. Malnourishment? If the State cut down heavily on taxes, businesses would have more money to invest and hire more workers, and these workers would be paid, and they could feed themselves. Disease? Nationalised health care is a farce.


Jack; "Businesses won't fund universities which promote feminism because it provides absolutely nothing of any use whatsoever".

Moody; Nonsense; the present Capitalist System promotes feminism because women are cheaper labour; they are also more pliable to employers.

Women are forced to work because the Man, traditionally head of the household, is taxed so hard by the State that the woman has to work, given she wants a good life for her children.


Jack; "Anti-white racism would end because it's simply unproductive, and costs the economy millions in currency (if not more) a year".

Moody; Tell that to the Jew lawyers, whose businesses make millions out of anti-white, anti-racism legislation!

This legislation is put in place through the State.


Jack; "I'm quite well aquainted first hand with what non-whites do as far as crime goes".

Moody; Private security is Big Business; crime is good for the Capitalist System!

Poverty and crime are good for the State - more laws, more taxes, more self perpetuating bureaucracies.


Jack; "I am now a Luciferian, for your information, and have been so for the past two years".

Moody; You fall for every Jew-trap!

Amusing, considering Luciferianism (my version of it) is a total inversion of Christianity. You still believe you are your brother's keeper.

Moody
Tuesday, January 13th, 2004, 05:02 PM
Jack; "Einstein was a Communist".

Moody; And that's why he fled Hitler's Germany and went to the ... West?

Jack; "Ayn Rand did not call called America a Capitalist system".

Moody; Then why did she say that 'the Businessman is the one who distinguishes Capitalism and the American Way'?
Don't tell me - she was 'wrong', right?

Jack; "Under 'totalitarianism' she put Fascism and National Socialism, yet these systems had 'businessmen'."

Moody; Of course; difference being that in fascism the businessman is subordinate to, and is OF the Folk, the Race.
THAT is what she 'objected' to in those systems [Nazism was also anti-Semitic, and she was a Jew after all].
Rand regarded THE VERY CONCEPT OF RACE AS A PIECE OF WICKED COLLECTIVISM!
I take is that you REALLY agree with her there, but you can't admit it on this forum.

Jack; "The State, under Jewish control, is choking whites right now".

Moody; So what do you 'object' to; the Jewish control, or the State as State [whether under Jewish control or not?].
To make the question clearer, what do you prefer; the State under Aryan control or the State under Jewish control?
Or doesn't it matter to you?

Jack; "What do you care for contradictions?"

Moody; Contradiction is the stuff of life [see my thread here called 'Contradiction's Quest' where I utterly destroy your pathetic arguments!].
I enjoy pointing out your own contradictions because you are obtuse enough to deny the legitimacy of Contradiction.

Jack; Quotes Gibbon;"This diminutive stature of mankind, if we pursue the metaphor, was daily sinking below the old standard, and the Roman world was indeed peopled by a race of pygmies; when the fierce giants of the north broke in, and mended the puny breed. They restored a manly spirit of freedom; and after the revolution of ten centuries, freedom became the happy parent of taste and science." [no source given]

Moody; Clearly, he is using the word 'metaphor', and is referring to Rome in its decline, NOT the Rome of Julius Caesar!

Jack; "See how much private enterprised raised the standards of living and cut down heavily on the horrific infant mortality rates, disease, etc. through production, alleviation of taxes, breaking up the monopoly of the State on education, etc".

Moody; Nonsense; you have claimed HERE, that Victorian Britain was closer to Capitalism than today.
It was in Victorian Britain that disease was rampant, while filth and unbelievable poverty was rife; children were forced to work up chimneys, factory workers did intolerably long hours and education for the masses was neglible.
The Businessmen of that era opposed social reform as they thought/knew that it would be bad for business!
Are you really going to promote Victorian Britain [the nearest to Capitalism according to you] as being a shining example of social welfare?

Jack; "My father would have no right whatsoever to demand I help my brother".

Moody; Then you have no concept of Kin, Blood and of the Duty that those realities entail.
That is why I believe that you are less than human, and am not surprised that you think man is only an animal; you are speaking for yourself.
You have no Racial ethic, only a purely individualistic, egotistic one.
Only such a one could regard helping others as a form of 'theft'.

Jack; "'Un-needy'? And who decides who's needy and who isn't? The State? The State's going to say as many as possible are 'needy' because that gives it an excuse to expand itself, introduce more laws and more taxes".

Moody; That may be true of the State under the Capitalist/Communist System, but not so of the Folk Community system. By placing the moral obligation to the Race as foremost, such questions are easily answered by the criterion of Blood.
The most VALUABLE, and yet the most vulnerable members of the Race are the infants and the elderly; it is to the advantage of the Racial Nation as a whole that such kin are helped, nutured and respected; the young for their potential and the old for their accumulated wisdom.
That is a moral outlook based on Race.

Jack; "Women are forced to work because the Man, traditionally head of the household, is taxed so hard by the State that the woman has to work, given she wants a good life for her children".

Moody; Wages have been driven down by the Capitalist/Communist System's policy of importing cheap labour, CREATING cheap labour [women in the work-force] and EXPORTING JOBS OUT TO CHEAP-LABOUR AREAS SUCH AS THE FAR-EAST!
Lower wages means higher profits for the Capitalist!
Cheap and pliable labour may be good for Business profits but it is detrimental to the Race; a Racial Nationalist government would never allow such abuses.
Women have been brainwashed by the Capitalist/Communist Media to think that they NEED to become wage-slaves in order to be 'fulfilled'.
The best chance a woman can give her children IS BY BRINGING THEM UP AT HOME HERSELF!

Jack; "Poverty and crime are good for the State - more laws, more taxes, more self perpetuating bureaucracies".

Moody; Good for the present Multiculturalist Capitalist/Communist State, yes, which operates on the divide and rule stretegy; good also for the INCREASING private sector in law enforcement, as well as for the lawyers [ever noticed how many democratic politicians are trained lawyers?].
To the State of the Racial Nation, crime is bad because it destroys the social fabric - to the present system that is actually desired as the Capitalists just want hoardes of inter-changeable atomised Consumers with NO TIES TO RACE OR NATION!

Jack; "Amusing, considering Luciferianism (my version of it) is a total inversion of Christianity. You still believe you are your brother's keeper".

Moody; Any such inversion RETAINS Christianity, it just turns the Cross upside down; a Jew on his head is still a Jew.
I am very much my Racial Brother's keeper, and I certainly wouldn't leave him in the lurch out of sheer selfishness.

Jack
Wednesday, January 14th, 2004, 05:25 AM
Jack; "Einstein was a Communist".

Moody; And that's why he fled Hitler's Germany and went to the ... West?

The West wasn't about to have him thrown in a prison camp, was it? The NKVD and the SS signed pacts to deal with the Jewish problem. Not to mention Einstein knew the USSR was a slaughterhouse.


Jack; "Ayn Rand did not call called America a Capitalist system".

Moody; Then why did she say that 'the Businessman is the one who distinguishes Capitalism and the American Way'?
Don't tell me - she was 'wrong', right?

Your interpretation is wrong. The 'American Way' is an ideal, it did not exist as reality during her lifetime, she recognised this. She was wrong in other areas though.


Jack; "Under 'totalitarianism' she put Fascism and National Socialism, yet these systems had 'businessmen'."

Moody; Of course; difference being that in fascism the businessman is subordinate to, and is OF the Folk, the Race.

Being of a People is one thing, being subordinated is another.


THAT is what she 'objected' to in those systems [Nazism was also anti-Semitic, and she was a Jew after all].

She rejected Jewish culture as mysticism. She did rejected collectivism because she viewed it as the first step to slavery.


Rand regarded THE VERY CONCEPT OF RACE AS A PIECE OF WICKED COLLECTIVISM!

She objected to the idea that man should be a slave to his fellows, yes.


I take is that you REALLY agree with her there, but you can't admit it on this forum.

I've made my position quite clear on this forum. Even Aethrei understands it. It seems you don't.


Jack; "The State, under Jewish control, is choking whites right now".

Moody; So what do you 'object' to; the Jewish control, or the State as State [whether under Jewish control or not?].

"He who puts his hands on me to rule over me is my enemy."


To make the question clearer, what do you prefer; the State under Aryan control or the State under Jewish control?

The State will remain a State no matter who is controlling it.


Or doesn't it matter to you?

'That government is best that governs not at all' - Henry David Thorsborne


Jack; "What do you care for contradictions?"

Moody; Contradiction is the stuff of life [see my thread here called 'Contradiction's Quest' where I utterly destroy your pathetic arguments!].

For your information, I have not posted in that thread for a while because I believe it's entirely worthless, and you have done nothing to destroy my 'pathetic arguments', you cannot prove your case or disprove mine.


I enjoy pointing out your own contradictions because you are obtuse enough to deny the legitimacy of Contradiction.

That's exactly right. I deny the legitimacy of contradiction. Tell me, because you believe contradictions are 'legitimate', do you think it's possible to call for white power during the day, and during the night, have sex with females of native African descent, and to take one's self seriously, without having a motivation or explanation behind these actions by which they would be comprehensible?


Jack; Quotes Gibbon;"This diminutive stature of mankind, if we pursue the metaphor, was daily sinking below the old standard, and the Roman world was indeed peopled by a race of pygmies; when the fierce giants of the north broke in, and mended the puny breed. They restored a manly spirit of freedom; and after the revolution of ten centuries, freedom became the happy parent of taste and science." [no source given]

Moody; Clearly, he is using the word 'metaphor', and is referring to Rome in its decline, NOT the Rome of Julius Caesar!

I find little to admire about Julius Caesar in any case. If I were to admire a Roman I would admire Agricola.


Jack; "See how much private enterprised raised the standards of living and cut down heavily on the horrific infant mortality rates, disease, etc. through production, alleviation of taxes, breaking up the monopoly of the State on education, etc".

Moody; Nonsense; you have claimed HERE, that Victorian Britain was closer to Capitalism than today.

Sure did.


It was in Victorian Britain that disease was rampant, while filth and unbelievable poverty was rife; children were forced to work up chimneys, factory workers did intolerably long hours and education for the masses was neglible.

Children didn't have to do a damn thing. 'Those who do not work shall not eat'. Poverty was widespread during the middle ages. More developed technology meant people could work less and still produce the same.


The Businessmen of that era opposed social reform as they thought/knew that it would be bad for business!

The advancement of private enterprise meant increased competition, higher productivity, better technology, more investment, better education, and better health care. Doctors earn money, you know. They don't do it for free.


Are you really going to promote Victorian Britain [the nearest to Capitalism according to you] as being a shining example of social welfare?

Who said I was going to? Social welfare is a catchword waved in the face of the populace by political candidates and Government officials as a prelude to increased taxes and more laws.


Jack; "My father would have no right whatsoever to demand I help my brother".

Moody; Then you have no concept of Kin, Blood and of the Duty that those realities entail.

That's right, I have no concept of duty, if I do things, I do things because I want to, not because someone tells me to and threatens to throw me in prison if I don't. I have a perfectly fine concept of kin and blood. Being my brother in a material sense does not equate one with being my brother in a psychological sense.


That is why I believe that you are less than human, and am not surprised that you think man is only an animal; you are speaking for yourself.

Man is indeed an animal.


You have no Racial ethic, only a purely individualistic, egotistic one.

Attacking the man instead of defeating his argument won't win the argument. I serve my interests, that's right.


Only such a one could regard helping others as a form of 'theft'.

If you want to help the poor, I won't stop you. But I'd hurt you severely if you tried to take my money and do it, and show how 'unselfish' you were, because you held the poor to be one of your interests, and you served your interests by violating the rights of others, namely, me. You see, you're worse than I am. Because at least I have the 'no-theft' principle. If I wanted to help the poor, I wouldn't steal from you to do it, I'd work and help them with my own money and effort, not that of others. That makes me more honourable than you.


Jack; "'Un-needy'? And who decides who's needy and who isn't? The State? The State's going to say as many as possible are 'needy' because that gives it an excuse to expand itself, introduce more laws and more taxes".

Moody; That may be true of the State under the Capitalist/Communist System,

Capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive.


but not so of the Folk Community system.

Show me which of the 10 points of the Communist platform as outlined in Marx's Communist Manifesto you disagree with.


By placing the moral obligation to the Race as foremost, such questions are easily answered by the criterion of Blood.

So a crack addict who happens to be of European descent has the privelige of being on the recieving end of my stolen property?


The most VALUABLE, and yet the most vulnerable members of the Race are the infants and the elderly;

There's plenty of senile old folks, and babies infants crippled with various diseases and disabilities. By what standard do you consider them valuable? Why should I pay for them?


it is to the advantage of the Racial Nation as a whole that such kin are helped, nutured and respected;

Sure. If I was going to give money to charity, I'd give it to an old folk's home or a white orphanage, no problems at all. But I won't let you steal from me to do it.


the young for their potential and the old for their accumulated wisdom.

I'm not going to pay for your mother/grandmother to live happily into old age, she can have her friends help her our or her family including her descendents. She's not my responsibility, and I certainly won't force you to pay for my parents well-being.


That is a moral outlook based on Race.

lol.


Jack; "Women are forced to work because the Man, traditionally head of the household, is taxed so hard by the State that the woman has to work, given she wants a good life for her children".

Moody; Wages have been driven down by the Capitalist/Communist System's policy of importing cheap labour, CREATING cheap labour [women in the work-force] and EXPORTING JOBS OUT TO CHEAP-LABOUR AREAS SUCH AS THE FAR-EAST!

Because of the high taxes caused by the welfare State.


Lower wages means higher profits for the Capitalist!

Not necessarily. You see, lower wages for the masses is all well and good. But if you want profits, you've got to keep your prices down so the masses can buy it, otherwise they all starve and wages would rise because of supply and demand. It balances out.


Cheap and pliable labour may be good for Business profits but it is detrimental to the Race; a Racial Nationalist government would never allow such abuses.

GOOD. THEN STOP WITH THE WELFARE STATE RUBBISH AND ADVOCATE THAT TAXES BE BUTCHERED, AND THAT THE INCOMPETENT ARE NOT FED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PRODUCTIVE.


Women have been brainwashed by the Capitalist/Communist Media to think that they NEED to become wage-slaves in order to be 'fulfilled'.
The best chance a woman can give her children IS BY BRINGING THEM UP AT HOME HERSELF!

How can she do this given that the Man, traditionally the breadwinner, is taxed so that the couple cannot afford to have four or more children?


Jack; "Poverty and crime are good for the State - more laws, more taxes, more self perpetuating bureaucracies".

Moody; Good for the present Multiculturalist Capitalist/Communist State, yes, which operates on the divide and rule stretegy;

Good for any State. The State is a self-perpetuating system.


good also for the INCREASING private sector in law enforcement,

Actually the State doesn't like private security, because it shows they're doing a rather incompetent job.


as well as for the lawyers

So long as man has the right to his own legal defense, lawyers will exist.


[ever noticed how many democratic politicians are trained lawyers?].

Carl Schmitt was a lawyer too, he wasn't a democrat. Irrelevant.


To the State of the Racial Nation, crime is bad because it destroys the social fabric -

How incredibly naive and utopian you are.


to the present system that is actually desired as the Capitalists just want hoardes of inter-changeable atomised Consumers with NO TIES TO RACE OR NATION!

The Jews do, yes. However, we do not live under a Capitalist system, we live under a mixed economy, also known as interventionism. The United States during the Victorian era was far closer to Capitalism than it is now, and such an 'atomised' society did not exist.


Jack; "Amusing, considering Luciferianism (my version of it) is a total inversion of Christianity. You still believe you are your brother's keeper".

Moody; Any such inversion RETAINS Christianity, it just turns the Cross upside down; a Jew on his head is still a Jew.

That's assuming the Jew and the Cross still existed. Were that so, it would not be a total inversion.


I am very much my Racial Brother's keeper, and I certainly wouldn't leave him in the lurch out of sheer selfishness.

You do not understand what selfishness is.

Moody
Wednesday, January 14th, 2004, 07:30 PM
Jack, by that reply - probably more than any other of yours - you have blatantly exposed the glaring contradictions in your stance.

It is a stance that can no longer be occluded by a changing of names, or the acquisition of some off-the-peg ideologies.It is a self-contradiction that you are blind to, because it is rooted in your own inherent dishonesty.

I actually believe that you are being dishonest with yourself as much as you are with us; you are kidding yourself into thinking that you coherent when you are are clearly NOT.
This is sheer Bad Faith, and it is the reason why you are so sensitive at any mention of 'contradiction'.

UNCONSCIOUSLY you KNOW that your stance is hypocritical and contradictory, but your CONSCIOUS mind will not admit it.

And yet, as Nietzsche said, when you lie you reveal yourself by the very mouth you make; I can see your mouth - and it is twisted.

1) As you reveal here in the most naked form, you are OPPOSED TO ANY KIND OF STATE ORGANISATION.

2) As you expose here, your philosophical position is that of COMPLETE EGOISM, so much so, that it regards the claims of anyone - EVEN THAT OF YOUR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD! - as being illegitimate.

That is why you name Max Stirner's book 'The Ego and His Own' as your only favourite philosophical book.
I have read Stirner's book, and it is completely incompatible with a Racial out-look. To Stirner it is ONLY the Self that counts, all else is an imposition - even the concept of Race; such things are, to use his word, 'Spooks'.

Combine Stirner with Rand [as you do], - the Jew Rand who rejects Race as a Collectivism -, then we can only conclude that you are an Egoistical, Nihilistic, Anarchist, who has NOTHING in common with ANY KIND of Racialism.

Yet you tack on, now and again, a few bland racial epithets which convince no-one, and are totally incongruous with your ACTUAL PHILOSOPHY.

This is the contradiction SO OBVIOUS, and yet you refuse to see it.

I have spent too long studying various philosophies not to know a dishonest philosophic stand-point when I come across one.

I KNOW that you are fundamentally an Egoist/Nihilist/Anarchist - THAT is where your HEART is.

The interlinear replies that you have provided in this thread have steadily gone downhill in quality, and are now in the realm of cheap-shots with no philosophic content.
I will not dignify such inadequacies with a similar reply since they are supefluous anyway.
I have given a firm judgement on those 'ideas of yours'; a judgement that condemns your duplicity, and laughs it to scorn.

After all, as regards selfishness, we have a saying;
'I'm alright Jack'.

Jack
Friday, January 23rd, 2004, 01:11 AM
Jack, by that reply - probably more than any other of yours - you have blatantly exposed the glaring contradictions in your stance.

It is a stance that can no longer be occluded by a changing of names, or the acquisition of some off-the-peg ideologies.It is a self-contradiction that you are blind to, because it is rooted in your own inherent dishonesty.

I actually believe that you are being dishonest with yourself as much as you are with us; you are kidding yourself into thinking that you coherent when you are are clearly NOT.
This is sheer Bad Faith, and it is the reason why you are so sensitive at any mention of 'contradiction'.

UNCONSCIOUSLY you KNOW that your stance is hypocritical and contradictory, but your CONSCIOUS mind will not admit it.

And yet, as Nietzsche said, when you lie you reveal yourself by the very mouth you make; I can see your mouth - and it is twisted.

1) As you reveal here in the most naked form, you are OPPOSED TO ANY KIND OF STATE ORGANISATION.

2) As you expose here, your philosophical position is that of COMPLETE EGOISM, so much so, that it regards the claims of anyone - EVEN THAT OF YOUR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD! - as being illegitimate.

That is why you name Max Stirner's book 'The Ego and His Own' as your only favourite philosophical book.
I have read Stirner's book, and it is completely incompatible with a Racial out-look. To Stirner it is ONLY the Self that counts, all else is an imposition - even the concept of Race; such things are, to use his word, 'Spooks'.

Combine Stirner with Rand [as you do], - the Jew Rand who rejects Race as a Collectivism -, then we can only conclude that you are an Egoistical, Nihilistic, Anarchist, who has NOTHING in common with ANY KIND of Racialism.

Yet you tack on, now and again, a few bland racial epithets which convince no-one, and are totally incongruous with your ACTUAL PHILOSOPHY.

This is the contradiction SO OBVIOUS, and yet you refuse to see it.

I have spent too long studying various philosophies not to know a dishonest philosophic stand-point when I come across one.

I KNOW that you are fundamentally an Egoist/Nihilist/Anarchist - THAT is where your HEART is.

The interlinear replies that you have provided in this thread have steadily gone downhill in quality, and are now in the realm of cheap-shots with no philosophic content.
I will not dignify such inadequacies with a similar reply since they are supefluous anyway.
I have given a firm judgement on those 'ideas of yours'; a judgement that condemns your duplicity, and laughs it to scorn.

After all, as regards selfishness, we have a saying;
'I'm alright Jack'.

'Every man knows who you appear to be, very few know who you really are' - Niccolo Machievelli.

If I'm going to be accurate I'll say Vanessa is one of the only people (if not the only one) on this site who has a clear idea of who I actually am.

Ok, here's the deal. I am a nihilist, yes. I am an Anarchist, yes. 'Egoist', I suppose so. How does that work? I've already explained it - check the first post in this thread (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=3227), the section 'A viewpoint for European nationalism'. I serve my own interests. I'll willingly help those of my race who meet my own values, I won't help out ANYONE I don't want to if I'm being forced. Guns or not, I make my own decisions. I look after MY interests, and no one else's, unless they overlap. I refuse to follow the WCOTC's 'what is good for the white race is the ultimate good...' rubbish because I don't care for morality. If I was black I'd tell the white race and all its philanthropists who want to help me to piss off, I would've voted for Malcolm X, I'd give a third of my pay after taxes (which, if I were black, I wouldn't mind so much given a disproportionate amount heads to my own people anyway) to the Nation of Islam. I'm not in this for some utopian 'white race', I'm in this for my own being, for who I am. The white race is just a concept Moody - it's a concept we've constructed to describe those who are part of our 'in group' to seperate them from our 'out group'. I don't have an ideology because they are almost always wrong in some way, I have an outlook, and I'm always adding more to it, reforming it, and look for examples of how it's right or wrong, and modifying if it is wrong. I'm not holding the white race as an absolute good because I know it isn't. I'm opposing all notions of 'absolute goods' and 'absolute moralities' and 'universal hierarchies' because they are nothing more than our own views on the world as it is. If I have an enemy it is Plato. If all the blacks suddenly tried to surrender their own interests, say, hand over their property and commit suicide, leaving all of Africa to us, deliberately for the advantage of our race, I'd regard them as mentally deranged. And if I was going to appreciate it at all (I'd much rather they fought us and we won the 'hard' way) for the sole reason that I am white. That's why I don't bitch about the Israeli's fighting the Palestinians or vice versa, my one concern is that we're involved in it (even if as a money supply that constantly hands over cash to Israel), and I say that from MY OWN PERSPECTIVE, rooted in MY OWN INTERESTS.

You say you have a saying about selfishness - 'I'm alright Jack'? Well, I have one too. 'There's no such thing as a free lunch'.

Moody
Friday, January 23rd, 2004, 05:11 PM
Jack; "If I'm going to be accurate I'll say Vanessa is one of the only people (if not the only one) on this site who has a clear idea of who I actually am".

Moody; I am still waiting for her to back up her initial assertions on my "Philosophy of 'the Human?'" thread. She shows scant understanding as far as I have seen - let's face it, she paid you a compliment on-line; big deal.
It is a sure sign of megalomania to believe that any one who praises you thereby "understands" you.

Jack; "I am a nihilist ... I am an Anarchist ... 'Egoist', I suppose so ...
I serve my own interests ...
I won't help out ANYONE I don't want to if I'm being forced ...
I look after MY interests, and no one else's, unless they overlap".

Moody; Looks like I had you pretty well summed-up!
That's straightforward selfish egotism; the caveat that you would help those who meet your own standards/values etc., if you felt like it, is non-committal and typical of egoists who make everything conditional.

Jack; "I refuse to follow the WCOTC's 'what is good for the white race is the ultimate good...' rubbish because I don't care for morality".

Moody; You don't care for THAT morality; everyone has a Morality, whether they realise it or not; Egoism is a Morality.
So you are opposed to a Race-based Morality which places the White Race as the Highest Good.
A long-winded way of saying that you are not a Racialist - and how could you be, you are a Nihilist/Anarchist/Egoist.

Jack; "If I was black I'd tell the white race and all its philanthropists who want to help me to piss off, I would've voted for Malcolm X, I'd give a third of my pay after taxes (which, if I were black, I wouldn't mind so much given a disproportionate amount heads to my own people anyway) to the Nation of Islam".

Moody; So you reject the White Race,but would support the Black Race if only you were Black [how many liberals have uttered those words - 'I wish I were Black'!][/quote]

You'd accept the Black Islamic morality, you'd pay Black Islamic taxes [although regarding White Aryan taxes as theft] ...
That is an Anti-White stance.

Jack; "I'm not in this for some utopian 'white race', I'm in this for my own being, for who I am".

Moody; The White Race EXISTS, so it cannot be 'utopian'.

Again, you reiterate your anti-White Selfish Egoism.

Jack; "The white race is just a concept Moody - it's a concept we've constructed to describe those who are part of our 'in group' to seperate them from our 'out group' ".

Moody; "Just"? - Then why do others [non-Whites] have the same 'concept'?

Have they taken it from us, or is Race rather PRIOR to recent notions of 'concepts' and 'constructs'?
I think it is.
A typical liberal approach is to try to 'define away' realities; give them a label, and then try to diminish them by saying that they are 'just' that label.
No. that's a feeble approach.

Jack; "I don't have an ideology because they are almost always wrong in some way, I have an outlook, and I'm always adding more to it, reforming it, and look for examples of how it's right or wrong, and modifying if it is wrong".

Moody; Your Egoism is an ideology which says that everything other than your own Ego is 'wrong'. This is 'Right Man' egoism.

Jack; "I'm not holding the white race as an absolute good because I know it isn't. I'm opposing all notions of 'absolute goods' and 'absolute moralities' and 'universal hierarchies' because they are nothing more than our own views on the world as it is".

Moody; And isn't your egoism your own view!?!
Indeed, even more so, for you will take counsel from none but your own precious Self!
I'll listen to what others have to say, and if it makes good sense, fine, until I find a problem with it. Why exactly should I place blind faith in others
What could be a more ABSOLUTE morality than Egoism!
What makes you think that your own singular egoistic view is less 'wrong' than the hierarchical view, than the Racial view?
History is understandable when viewed from the perspective of Racial struggle, but much less so from the perspective of a singular Ego.
No man is an island - man is a political being.

Jack; "If I have an enemy it is Plato".

Moody; I'm sure he speaks well of you too.

Jack
Wednesday, January 28th, 2004, 02:33 AM
Jack; "If I'm going to be accurate I'll say Vanessa is one of the only people (if not the only one) on this site who has a clear idea of who I actually am".

Moody; I am still waiting for her to back up her initial assertions on my "Philosophy of 'the Human?'" thread. She shows scant understanding as far as I have seen - let's face it, she paid you a compliment on-line; big deal.
It is a sure sign of megalomania to believe that any one who praises you thereby "understands" you.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.


Jack; "I am a nihilist ... I am an Anarchist ... 'Egoist', I suppose so ...
I serve my own interests ...
I won't help out ANYONE I don't want to if I'm being forced ...
I look after MY interests, and no one else's, unless they overlap".

Moody; Looks like I had you pretty well summed-up!

You did a good job of butchering my paragraph too, congratulations.


That's straightforward selfish egotism;

It certainly is.


the caveat that you would help those who meet your own standards/values etc., if you felt like it, is non-committal and typical of egoists who make everything conditional.

I hold to it with few exceptions.


Jack; "I refuse to follow the WCOTC's 'what is good for the white race is the ultimate good...' rubbish because I don't care for morality".

Moody; You don't care for THAT morality; everyone has a Morality, whether they realise it or not; Egoism is a Morality.

Egoism is motivation, not morality.


So you are opposed to a Race-based Morality which places the White Race as the Highest Good.
A long-winded way of saying that you are not a Racialist

Well, what is a racialist?


- and how could you be, you are a Nihilist/Anarchist/Egoist.

I've already explained how.


Jack; "If I was black I'd tell the white race and all its philanthropists who want to help me to piss off, I would've voted for Malcolm X, I'd give a third of my pay after taxes (which, if I were black, I wouldn't mind so much given a disproportionate amount heads to my own people anyway) to the Nation of Islam".

Moody; So you reject the White Race,

I do not believe the white race is absolutely special independent of the fact I am a part of it.


but would support the Black Race if only you were Black [how many liberals have uttered those words - 'I wish I were Black'!]

I would indeed support the black race if I was black. There are possibly many liberals who have uttered those words, but I do not wish I were black.


You'd accept the Black Islamic morality, you'd pay Black Islamic taxes

Black Islamic charity, not taxes.


[although regarding White Aryan taxes as theft] ...

Tax is theft no matter who's doing the taxing.


That is an Anti-White stance.

The State is not my friends, my family, my own People, my own metaethnicity, or my race.


Jack; "I'm not in this for some utopian 'white race', I'm in this for my own being, for who I am".

Moody; The White Race EXISTS, so it cannot be 'utopian'.

Saying what is good for the white race is the ultimate good is a claim to some transcendental ideal. Transcendental ideals are utopian.


Again, you reiterate your anti-White Selfish Egoism.

I serve my own interests.


Jack; "The white race is just a concept Moody - it's a concept we've constructed to describe those who are part of our 'in group' to seperate them from our 'out group' ".

Moody; "Just"? - Then why do others [non-Whites] have the same 'concept'?

Because A) we've always appeared unified to them (Arabs call Europeans/Westerners Franks even if they're from Norway), B) generalisations work.


Have they taken it from us, or is Race rather PRIOR to recent notions of 'concepts' and 'constructs'?

They've adopted it as a useful tool to seperate their percieved enemies from themselves. Biology precedes concepts and constructs, that's right, and concepts/constructs arise out of recognised social interactions between humans, which are animals, which are biological organisms.


I think it is.

You really need to define exactly what you mean by Race.


A typical liberal approach is to try to 'define away' realities; give them a label, and then try to diminish them by saying that they are 'just' that label.
No. that's a feeble approach.

Why is it a feeble approach?


Jack; "I don't have an ideology because they are almost always wrong in some way, I have an outlook, and I'm always adding more to it, reforming it, and look for examples of how it's right or wrong, and modifying if it is wrong".

Moody; Your Egoism is an ideology which says that everything other than your own Ego is 'wrong'. This is 'Right Man' egoism.

Are you sure you're right there? I'm not.


Jack; "I'm not holding the white race as an absolute good because I know it isn't. I'm opposing all notions of 'absolute goods' and 'absolute moralities' and 'universal hierarchies' because they are nothing more than our own views on the world as it is".

Moody; And isn't your egoism your own view!?!

Yes.


Indeed, even more so, for you will take counsel from none but your own precious Self!

I'll listen to what others have to say, and if it makes good sense, fine, until I find a problem with it. Why exactly should I place blind faith in others


What could be a more ABSOLUTE morality than Egoism!

It's more along the lines of motivations, not morality.


What makes you think that your own singular egoistic view is less 'wrong' than the hierarchical view, than the Racial view?

Because it explains more.


History is understandable when viewed from the perspective of Racial struggle, but much less so from the perspective of a singular Ego.

I disagree.


No man is an island - man is a political being.

And?


Jack; "If I have an enemy it is Plato".

Moody; I'm sure he speaks well of you too.

I'd be sad if he praised me.

Moody
Wednesday, January 28th, 2004, 06:08 PM
Jack; "Egoism is motivation, not morality".

Moody; More semantics - morality can be a 'motivation' too.
Egoism is the placing of one's self or ego FIRST in all things, as you yourself have described.
There is, therefore, an egoistic morality - or an ethical egoism.

Jack; "Well, what is a racialist?"

Moody; In relation to the above, the Racialist places his Race FIRST in all things [i.e., he will place his Race before his Ego in importance].

Jack; "Black Islamic charity, not taxes".

Moody; Islamic tax is called for by the Koran [8:41].
It is called 'Khums' and amounts to one fifth of income [20%].
Compare this to the tithes of the Christian Church.
That's all tax by whatever name you call it.

Jack; "Transcendental ideals are utopian".

Moody; That is a subjective opinion on your part.
Ideals [whether transcendental or not] are, to use your word, MOTIVATIONAL.
Egoism is a motivational Ideal [go back to the difficulty of nailing the Cartesian Self to see that the 'Ego' is not such an obvious 'given'].
Ideals often justify moral/ethical positions.

Jack; "Why is [the offering of definitions as refutations] a feeble approach?"

Moody; Simply because attaching a label to something does NOT refute it!
You constantly respond in this feeble way as we have seen above.
I made the point that morality is unavoidable in human discourse [and this because our language is loaded with judgements], you then defined Egoism as 'motivation', as if by doing that you had refuted my specific point that Egoism itself has its own Morality.
Leftists continually use this vacuous tactic; they say - 'ah, race is a construct' - as if this 'definition' [really just an inaccurate label] somehow refutes the validity of race!
Definitions can ONLY be refutations when they are used to counter a false definition; they cannot be used to counter arguments derived from commonly accepted definitions.
We both know what Egoism is; my point is that it entails a moral stance - your labelling of Egoism as a 'motivation' does not refute my point.
The Egoist's 'Good' is his Ego - THAT is Moral.

Jack
Thursday, January 29th, 2004, 05:07 AM
Jack; "Egoism is motivation, not morality".

Moody; More semantics - morality can be a 'motivation' too.
Egoism is the placing of one's self or ego FIRST in all things, as you yourself have described.
There is, therefore, an egoistic morality - or an ethical egoism.

I'll accept ethical egoism because I draw a line betwee morality and ethics. The judge is not the executioner, morality is not motivation.


Jack; "Well, what is a racialist?"

Moody; In relation to the above, the Racialist places his Race FIRST in all things [i.e., he will place his Race before his Ego in importance].

The very fact that his mind - part of his self - places his race as supreme importance crushes the supposed conflict between the ego and race.


Jack; "Black Islamic charity, not taxes".

Moody; Islamic tax is called for by the Koran [8:41].
It is called 'Khums' and amounts to one fifth of income [20%].
Compare this to the tithes of the Christian Church.
That's all tax by whatever name you call it.

God is not the State. Let's see the actual passage.

"Know that one-fifth of your spoils shall belong to God, the Apostle [i.e. the Prophet Muhammed, PBUH)], the Apostles kinfolk [meaning his extended family, whose last member was killed by the Sunnis, which is the reason the Sunnis and Shi'ites aren't best friends], the orphans, the destitute, and the traveller in need..."
- The Qu'ran, NJ Dawood translation.

Now the Apostle and his kinsfolk do not exist anymore, the orphans, destitute, traveller in need does not require the State to do make it happen. To those who don't, Allah will have them roasted them in Hell for eternity, so there's no reason for the State to step in (Allah wields monopoly over infinite justice). Being a Muslim is voluntary, so the very act of becoming a Muslim means that all it entails was voluntarily accepted - and the rules of the Qu'ran do not apply to non-Muslims.


Jack; "Transcendental ideals are utopian".

Moody; That is a subjective opinion on your part.
Ideals [whether transcendental or not] are, to use your word, MOTIVATIONAL.

As Carl Schmitt said, ideals do not actualise themselves. Two things are needed to actualise ideals, and that is instincts and situational conditions, ideals are the clothing of the will, and clothing does restrict movement, do a degree.


Egoism is a motivational Ideal [go back to the difficulty of nailing the Cartesian Self to see that the 'Ego' is not such an obvious 'given'].

Ok, I'm not saying my ego is my mind, my ego is my own self - my instincts, my will, my mind, my body, my genes. Just to make that clear.


Ideals often justify moral/ethical positions.

The man carries the flag, the flag doesn't carry the man. And the man is ultimately driven by his will, his instincts, his biology, and the connection between that and the external observed phenomena.


Jack; "Why is [the offering of definitions as refutations] a feeble approach?"

Moody; Simply because attaching a label to something does NOT refute it!
You constantly respond in this feeble way as we have seen above.
I made the point that morality is unavoidable in human discourse [and this because our language is loaded with judgements], you then defined Egoism as 'motivation', as if by doing that you had refuted my specific point that Egoism itself has its own Morality.

I want to know, irrespective of this present discussion, what your idea of morality is, so I can then effectively deal with it, or reject it. Until then, I'm working from mine. The definition I'm operating with is that Morality as an absolute standard of evaluation that exists seperate from one's own perspective. The relationship between ethics and morality in my own outlook is the relationship between the Geneva Convention and a tactical battle manual. One provides absolute standards of right and wrong, the other describes what can be done in a situation. And so I have motivation (ego), ethics (tactics), but not morality (absolute rules). My disagreement that egoism is a morality is because egoism is a motivation, it is my one reason I have for doing anything and everything, and that it does not tell me what is good or evil, because I simply work for what is to my advantage, in one way or another, in every situation, and I am utterly incapable of doing otherwise.


Leftists continually use this vacuous tactic; they say - 'ah, race is a construct' - as if this 'definition' [really just an inaccurate label] somehow refutes the validity of race!
Definitions can ONLY be refutations when they are used to counter a false definition; they cannot be used to counter arguments derived from commonly accepted definitions.
We both know what Egoism is; my point is that it entails a moral stance - your labelling of Egoism as a 'motivation' does not refute my point.
The Egoist's 'Good' is his Ego - THAT is Moral.

Definitions are concepts we use to describe phenomena. I disagree, based on my definition, which you may or may not agree with, that motivation = morality.

Moody
Thursday, January 29th, 2004, 06:21 PM
Jack; "[In Islam]God is not the State".

Moody; You should know that Islam is theocratic [i.e., there is no difference between the State and Islam].
The Islamic government requires four taxes;
1) Khums; tax of 20% levied on untaxed superfluous annual income.
2) Zakat; tax on nine items when over certain limit.
3) Jizyah; NON-MUSLIM TAX.
4) Khiraj; The income from letting a particular category of land.

www.shirazi.org.uk

As for your claim that being a Muslim is "voluntary" - see what penalties are levied against those Muslims who decide to try and VOLUNTEER OUT!

Jack; "I want to know, irrespective of this present discussion, what your idea of morality is, so I can then effectively deal with it, or reject it".

Moody; Are you able to have a discussion without constantly trying to redefine terms? We call that trying to move the goalposts to suit your own argument.
I work with the usual definitions unless I specify otherwise.
The basic definition of Morality is the following (again);
"MORAL; This word and its cognates refer to what is good or bad, right or wrong, in human character or conduct ..."
[Mautner, Dictionary of Philosophy]

Jack; "My disagreement that egoism is a morality is because egoism is a motivation, it is my one reason I have for doing anything and everything, and that it does not tell me what is good or evil, because I simply work for what is to my advantage, in one way or another, in every situation, and I am utterly incapable of doing otherwise".

Moody; Confused - can't you see that you are describing your OWN GOOD?!?
Put it this way; why do you prefer Egoism to Altruism?
Why is Egoism 'good' to you, and Altrusim 'bad' to you?
That is a Moral choice on your part.

Nihilist
Friday, January 30th, 2004, 02:08 PM
Moody; That is a Moral choice on your part.

Nihilist; I think the point hes trying to make is that he didn't choose it as a morality. It chose him in so far that he sees it as his irrevocable motive, instinct, will ect. I'd agree that his morality is egoism, but that does not necessarily mean he had a choice in the matter.

Moody
Friday, January 30th, 2004, 05:07 PM
Ignorance of the law is no defence.

The Egoist chooses [or is drawn towards] Egoism because he regards it as a Good, and he prefers it to its opposite, Altruism.

His preference is towards the Ego rather than towards SELF-ABNEGATION.

Now the Egoist actually believes in Free Will [he has to as he talks endlessly about 'choice'], although even if he didn't, it wouldn't make much difference to my point that Egoism is a Morality as much as Altruism is [and as polar opposites, if the one can be a Morality, then so can the other].

Now, being Egoistic, he may eschew Morality [believing only that altruism is 'moral'], but he is mistaken.
He is operating under his own Morality.

Now the Egoist calls Egoism a MOTIVATION. Therefore we can surmise that Egoism AFFECTS BEHAVIOUR as that's what motivators do.
Therefore the Egoist BEHAVES according to his conviction that Egoism is Good; i.e., he is Moral in every sense of the word.

Not only that, the Egoist PREACHES Egoism!

Read Max Stirner's 'The Ego and His Own' [Bible for Egoists]; dear old Max goes on endlessly preaching the same idea over hundreds of pages - to wit, only MY [HIS?] EGO MATTERS.

So, whether one is ignorant of this Moral aspect or not does not vitiate the point made.

Nietzsche in his 'Genealogy' shows that aristocratic Master Morality calls 'Good' what the Slave Morality [altruism] calls 'Evil'.

If we look at the way Achilles behaves in The Iliad - particularly with the way he treats the dead Hector, we would hardly think him 'Moral' if by 'moral' we mean only one type of morality, that of altruism.
However, Achilles acts according to a different Code that is MORAL nonetheless.

Viz., when we call someone 'amoral' or 'immoral', we usually mean that they do not obey OUR Morality.

So, the Egoist is a Moralist like any other.

Jack
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 10:33 AM
Jack; "[In Islam]God is not the State".

Moody; You should know that Islam is theocratic [i.e., there is no difference between the State and Islam].
The Islamic government requires four taxes;
1) Khums; tax of 20% levied on untaxed superfluous annual income.
2) Zakat; tax on nine items when over certain limit.
3) Jizyah; NON-MUSLIM TAX.
4) Khiraj; The income from letting a particular category of land.

www.shirazi.org.uk

As for your claim that being a Muslim is "voluntary" - see what penalties are levied against those Muslims who decide to try and VOLUNTEER OUT!

No one forces you to become a Muslim, take responsibility for your choices.


Jack; "I want to know, irrespective of this present discussion, what your idea of morality is, so I can then effectively deal with it, or reject it".

Moody; Are you able to have a discussion without constantly trying to redefine terms? We call that trying to move the goalposts to suit your own argument.
I work with the usual definitions unless I specify otherwise.
The basic definition of Morality is the following (again);
"MORAL; This word and its cognates refer to what is good or bad, right or wrong, in human character or conduct ..."
[Mautner, Dictionary of Philosophy]

Good or bad - for what? Against whose standards?


Jack; "My disagreement that egoism is a morality is because egoism is a motivation, it is my one reason I have for doing anything and everything, and that it does not tell me what is good or evil, because I simply work for what is to my advantage, in one way or another, in every situation, and I am utterly incapable of doing otherwise".

Moody; Confused - can't you see that you are describing your OWN GOOD?!?
Put it this way; why do you prefer Egoism to Altruism?

I am incapable of serving anything but what I have interest in, and placing a gun against my head and finding a way to make me do what you have an interest in will not change that.


Why is Egoism 'good' to you, and Altrusim 'bad' to you?

Altruism is simply impossible.


That is a Moral choice on your part.

Since when do you believe in choice, decision, free will etc?

Moody
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 05:13 PM
Jack; "No one forces you to become a Muslim, take responsibility for your choices".

Moody; Irrelevant - you said that you would not object to paying Muslim taxes, but otherwise object to taxes as being theft.
Straightforward contradiction on your part [and it is you, not I, who rejects the possibility of contradiction].

Jack; "Good or bad - for what? Against whose standards?"

Moody; Always look at the context - basic rule.

Jack; "I am incapable of serving anything but what I have interest in, and placing a gun against my head and finding a way to make me do what you have an interest in will not change that".

Moody; Simplistic bragging; I suspect that you, like must people, would poop your pants and beg for your life if anyone 'put a gun against your head' as you keep repeating here.

Jack; "Altruism is simply impossible".

Moody; Impossible for an Egoist, possible for an Altruist.

Jack; "Since when do you believe in choice, decision, free will etc?"

Moody; I believe in all those things, except I regard 'free will' as more properly to be called 'strong will'; indeed, all three things that you name are types of Strong Will.
The decisive man is the man of Strong Will - he Wills his Choice.

Jack
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 09:41 PM
Jack; "No one forces you to become a Muslim, take responsibility for your choices".

Moody; Irrelevant - you said that you would not object to paying Muslim taxes, but otherwise object to taxes as being theft.
Straightforward contradiction on your part [and it is you, not I, who rejects the possibility of contradiction].

So they wouldn't be taxes for me, because those 'taxes' are a side effect of something I would have chosen, and I would be aware of those if I decided to become a Muslim. No contradiction.


Jack; "Good or bad - for what? Against whose standards?"

Moody; Always look at the context - basic rule.

Does the context include the person acting, his standards, his objectives?


Jack; "I am incapable of serving anything but what I have interest in, and placing a gun against my head and finding a way to make me do what you have an interest in will not change that".

Moody; Simplistic bragging; I suspect that you, like must people, would poop your pants and beg for your life if anyone 'put a gun against your head' as you keep repeating here.

That is possible. Even so, begging for my life would be an egoistic act. I certainly wouldn't be doing it to save your soul, but for my own interests.


Jack; "Altruism is simply impossible".

Moody; Impossible for an Egoist, possible for an Altruist.

Impossible for both. An 'Altruist' is an individual who holds the well-being of others as his own interests. By serving his own interests he is an egoist.

Moody
Wednesday, February 11th, 2004, 08:12 PM
Jack; "So they wouldn't be taxes for me, because those 'taxes' are a side effect of something I would have chosen, and I would be aware of those if I decided to become a Muslim. No contradiction".

Moody; So taxes are not taxes when you pay them!
T= non-T; T=T
Straightforward contradiction.

Jack; "Does the context include the person acting, his standards, his objectives?"

Moody; And also the same of others involved within the context, as well as the accepted norms which inform the beliefs and actions of all those concerned.

Jack; "Begging for my life would be an egoistic act. I certainly wouldn't be doing it to save your soul, but for my own interests".

Moody; No, you would be serving MY interests FIRST, as you would have to OBEY me in order to save your own life. Your only option would be to die - would that serve your interests?

Jack; "Altruism is impossible for both Altruists and Egoists. An 'Altruist' is an individual who holds the well-being of others as his own interests. By serving his own interests he is an egoist".

Moody; An Altruist is he who negates his own self-interest/life in order to serve the interests of others. As the previous hypothesis shews, such Altruism is possible, very possible.

Jack
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 04:02 AM
Moody; So taxes are not taxes when you pay them!
T= non-T; T=T
Straightforward contradiction.

'Taxes' are not taxes when I choose to pay them under the condition that I will not be looted, harmed or killed if I refuse to. So if I become a Muslim of my own free will, all the so-called 'taxes' etc. involved aren't taxes, but voluntary charity. I could have chosen to refuse the package altogether. I don't decide what country I'm born in. I don't get to decide, in the absence of force, whether I'll pay Government or not. If I don't, I get thrown in prison. Little different from the extortion rackets of the Mafia families in Chicago in the early 1900's.


Moody; No, you would be serving MY interests FIRST, as you would have to OBEY me in order to save your own life. Your only option would be to die - would that serve your interests?

I'd be serving mine. If my life wasn't threatened I wouldn't give a damn what you did. If I didn't value my life I'd laugh at you and tell you to go ahead and pull the trigger.


Moody; An Altruist is he who negates his own self-interest/life in order to serve the interests of others. As the previous hypothesis shews, such Altruism is possible, very possible.

No, it isn't.

Moody
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 07:10 AM
Jack; "'Taxes' are not taxes when I choose to pay them under the condition that I will not be looted, harmed or killed if I refuse to. So if I become a Muslim of my own free will, all the so-called 'taxes' etc. involved aren't taxes, but voluntary charity. I could have chosen to refuse the package altogether. I don't decide what country I'm born in. I don't get to decide, in the absence of force, whether I'll pay Government or not. If I don't, I get thrown in prison. Little different from the extortion rackets of the Mafia families in Chicago in the early 1900's".

Moody; Taxes ARE compulsory, that's why they're called taxes and not called charity. You have already stated that you are willing to pay Muslim taxes, despite saying at the same time that you are against paying taxes per se!

Jack; "If my life wasn't threatened I wouldn't give a damn what you did. If I didn't value my life I'd laugh at you and tell you to go ahead and pull the trigger".

Moody; If you didn't value your life you'd have no interest to serve!
If you did value your life, then you'd have to serve the man with the gun.
"No it isn't" is not an argument.

Jack
Monday, February 16th, 2004, 04:59 AM
Jack; "'Taxes' are not taxes when I choose to pay them under the condition that I will not be looted, harmed or killed if I refuse to. So if I become a Muslim of my own free will, all the so-called 'taxes' etc. involved aren't taxes, but voluntary charity. I could have chosen to refuse the package altogether. I don't decide what country I'm born in. I don't get to decide, in the absence of force, whether I'll pay Government or not. If I don't, I get thrown in prison. Little different from the extortion rackets of the Mafia families in Chicago in the early 1900's".

Moody; Taxes ARE compulsory, that's why they're called taxes and not called charity. You have already stated that you are willing to pay Muslim taxes, despite saying at the same time that you are against paying taxes per se!

If I chose to become a Muslim, I'd have chosen the obligations that come with it - that's part of the package. Thus it is not tax unless I'm not a Muslim and I'm forced to pay zakat, which I do object to.


Jack; "If my life wasn't threatened I wouldn't give a damn what you did. If I didn't value my life I'd laugh at you and tell you to go ahead and pull the trigger".

Moody; If you didn't value your life you'd have no interest to serve!

Exactly, and if I did what you wanted me to, be looking after my interests first and foremost.


If you did value your life, then you'd have to serve the man with the gun.

Correct. But I'd be serving my interests by following your decisions.


"No it isn't" is not an argument.

Altruism is not possible. That's my argument. I am incapable of it. No matter how many people I help out, no matter how much money I donate to charity, no matter how many orphans I put through school, I will be serving my interests because it's my decision.

Moody
Monday, February 16th, 2004, 06:23 PM
Moody Lawless; "You have now reached the point of complete sophistry and rationalisation. So that even if you are in the objective/behaviourial situation of being a slave or being a tax-payer, that just by pretending to yourself that all that is your "choice", then you are not a tax-paying slave!

Jack; "If I chose to become a Muslim, I'd have chosen the obligations that come with it - that's part of the package".

Moody; 'Islam' MEANS submission!

Jack; "But I'd be serving my interests by following your decisions".

Moody; You would be SERVING first and formost!

Jack; "Altruism is not possible. That's my argument. I am incapable of it. No matter how many people I help out, no matter how much money I donate to charity, no matter how many orphans I put through school, I will be serving my interests because it's my decision".

Moody; Classic example of self-denial!
Altruism is the bahaviour which puts the interests of others above oneself - however, you rationalise it!

Jack
Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, 06:36 AM
Moody; 'Islam' MEANS submission!

Submission to God of one's own free will.


Moody; You would be SERVING first and formost!

If you removed all threat of force against me, I would cease to serve you unless I held your interests as my own.


Moody; Classic example of self-denial!

Or self affirmation.


Altruism is the bahaviour which puts the interests of others above oneself - however, you rationalise it!

Altruism is impossible. I would be serving the interests of others which I would have taken to be my own interests.

Moody
Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, 07:24 PM
Jack; "Submission to God of one's own free will".

Moody; That is still submission!

Jack; "Altruism is impossible. I would be serving the interests of others which [i]I would have taken to be my own interests".

Moody; No matter how you choose to think about them, you would still be serving the interests of others.
Just as a man being held in prison can pretend to himself that he is a King in a Palace, the objective fact remains that he is in prison.
Your rejection of submission and altruism here is nothing other than self-deception - and therefore bad philosophy.

rhadley
Friday, March 26th, 2004, 11:54 AM
The Problems of the West

Introduction: Understanding the West

We who are part of Western culture - and especially we who are concerned about our people, our Western identity and our culture - must take a critical look at ourselves, our history, and our culture in order to better understand and appreciate that history and culture.

There is a general belief, especially among the proponents of a Western resurgence and nationalism, that Western culture is more civilized and indeed superior to other cultures with this belief more often than not causing us to be uncritical about our history and achievements, or what are regarded as our achievements.

Worse, this belief about the superiority of Western culture - which leads to a belief about the superiority of those of European descent - leads many to accept as part of Western culture many, many things which are not part of our culture and heritage, just as it leads us to glorify certain historical events which, in truth, were far from glorious because contrary to the norms of civilized behaviour.

This glorifying approach is especially evident in the almost uncritical acceptance of Western imperialism, with many nationalists in Western nations lamenting the passing of this imperialism, and uncritically supporting what is regarded as their own national achievements: military, economic, cultural and technological.

By "the West" is meant the world-outlook, the culture, the heritage, of those of European racial descent. The recorded history of the West begins with Ancient Greece and Rome, and the roots of the West - culturally, intellectually and historically - are there. Western history continues with the establishment and development of the modern nations of Europe, and, more recently, with the establishment and development of the United States and Canada, which originally were Western outposts in what was then called the New World.

The West, in the present article and in terms of Western culture itself, does not mean the current governments of Europe and the United States, for these modern governments, and their social, economic and political policies, are in many ways a contradiction of the true ethos, the true culture, of the West.


What is Western Culture?
The primary and distinguishing features of genuine Western culture are the ideal of honour, the free giving of allegiance, the concept of duty to the folk and to Nature, and the quest for excellence, reason and discovery.

These features are evident, for example, in the ethos of Ancient Greece, especially in works such as Homer's Odyssey:


Odysseus embodied everything that the ancient Greeks, from the time of Homer to the time of Sophocles and beyond, admired and saught to emulate. Fundamentally, Odysseus was the archetypal or ideal Greek man - proud, strong ( both physically and in character), forthright, independent, war-loving, skilled in combat, cunning, inventive and capable of being, if necessary, ruthless with his enemies. This man had an instinctive and healthy respect for the gods and Fate. He was a warrior who considered it natural and necessary to carry a weapon, and who also considered it was his responsibility, and his alone, to defend himself, his family and his kin. It was such individuals who created, and maintained over many centuries, the Greek civilization - a civilization which, until recently, has remained the inspiration for generation after generation of Europeans. (Introduction to Homer's Odyssey, translated by D. Myatt.)

True Western culture - like Greek culture itself - was and is a balance between our questing honourable warrior nature and our desire to know and understand things and the world through reason. When we are true to our heritage and ethos, we are, as Sophocles said, thinking warriors.

For the sake of clarity, and especially to distinguish between genuine Western culture and the materialistic consumer "culture" which now dominates the West, genuine Western culture will henceforth be referred to as Aryan culture, and those indigenous peoples of the West will be referred to as Aryans.


The Problems of the West:

The West has several problems to understand and solve:

1) The problem of loss of Aryan identity among Aryan peoples, partly caused by the spread of the consumer-capitalist ethos and ethic which is anathema to true Western culture; 2) The problem of the continued immigration of other, non-Western, peoples; 3) The problem of the exploitation of Nature caused by the continuing economic development of Western nations; 4) The problem of the dishonourable, inhuman, tyranny created by and maintained by the large modern States which dominate the Western world.


The Problem of Aryan Identity:

This has arisen from a decline in true Western culture and its replacement with the ethos and the ethic of consumer-capitalism with its egotistical materialism.

The so-called culture that now dominates the West is a commercialized, mass culture promoted by vested commercial and political interests with their own commercial and political agendas and abstract ideas, all of which are contrary to the Aryan ethos of honour, of the free giving of allegiance, duty to the folk and to Nature, and the quest for excellence, reason and discovery.

The solution to this problem is for Aryans to discover their own ethos, their own culture, their Aryan identity.


The Problem of Immigration:

The West itself is responsible for this for three reasons. First, the affluence and rampant materialism of the West attracts those who live in poverty with little or no prospects in their own lands. Second, the West, during its colonial centuries, rapaciously plundered and exploited other nations and other countries in order to maintain its materialistic way of life.

Third, and perhaps the most important reason, the West has lost the will to enforce border controls and no longer wishes to deal with the problem in an honest and rational way.

The West has brought this problem of mass immigration upon itself, through the greed, the egotism of its own peoples, and through these people accepting and indeed voting for governments which uphold political and social ideas contrary to the Aryan ethos: contrary to the culture, the heritage of the peoples of the West. In brief, the West has become decadent, mostly because of the soft, egotistical, materialistic life-style of most Aryans.

The solution is not simply more and tougher border controls and the deportation of non-Aryans: rather, it is a change in the life-style of Aryans themselves. It is a return to: (1) the way of the warrior, where duty is considered more important than indulgence, and where the Spartan, self-disciplined, warrior ethic dominates society; and (2) the way of rural living, with people preferring to work on the land, or in trades and occupations connected with the land.

Immigration will not only continue but increase while the society we live in, and our way of life, is decadent and materialistic, urban, and is attractive to others. Only when our society is spartan, war-like, outward-looking, with most people living on the land in rural communities will this change.


Why the West is Barbaric:

All the problems that now face the West are the result of its dishonourable, barbaric, nature.

Despite the rhetoric of modern Western governments and despite the belief among those Aryans who support nationalism, the West is essentially barbaric, having failed to build societies based upon the civilized ideals and principles of honour, reason, duty to Nature, respect for other human beings and other life, and having failed to allow for individuals to change by those individuals using their will.

In essence, the West has committed, and is committing, what the ancient Greeks called hubris. This is arrogant insolence, an overstepping of the mark, a going beyond the due, the honourable, bounds. And, as the Greeks so well understood, hubris is the mother of tyranny. It is easy to understand the problems of the West (as the Ancient Greeks would) as consequence of this hubris: as a retribution from the gods.

Despite hundreds of years of scientific and technological advances, despite over a century of State education, despite the apparent freedoms most Western people enjoy, and despite the outward material prosperity of all Western nations, the West is barbaric in many areas. For instance:

1) In the exploitation of and disrespect for Nature, especially through industry and continued development.

2) In the exploitation of and disrespect for life, evident in the continued demand for animal food and animal products and the use of animals in "scientific" experiments (See, for example, Practical Consequences of Cosmic Ethics ).

3) In the continued use of an abstract concept of law - and a punitive notion of punishment - which is medieval and tyrannical and which denies the human ideal of honour and the principle of a person being able to change themselves through self-discipline.

4) In the continued use and wholehearted acceptance of the modern dishonourable concept of war - and the demonizing of enemies through propaganda - evident especially during the First World War, where technological devices are used to slaughter and maim the opposing army (and often civilians) from a distance.

Consider the notion of law and punishment which exists in the West. As I have explained elsewhere (in Liberty and the Right of Rebellion ) this is uncivilized because contrary to the ideal of honour and the principle of genuine liberty which honour entails.

All modern Western States are, in greater of lesser degree, tyrannical because the individual is powerless before the might of The State. The authority of The State is supreme and in modern nation like Britain there are no individual rights which the State cannot take away. For instance, consider the recent outbreak, among livestock, of what is called "Foot and Mouth Disease". The government of the day decided that the best policy was the wholesale slaughter of animals they and their advisers considered "at risk". They enforced this policy regardless. Thus government agents and servants went onto farms and slaughtered animals whether or not the farmers who owned those animals wanted them to or not. That is, the farmers had no rights which the government could not take away. The farmers may have believed they owned their land, and their livestock, and that this gave them the right to decide who could be allowed on their land and what could be done to their animals, but the reality was and is that it was and is The State which, through its governments and their agents and servants, owned all rights, and simply chose in this instance to fully exercise its rights

Thus, there were scenes of government slaugherman being accompanied by Police with these Police in some causes searching farms and seizing shotguns. And, of course, anyone who resisted this invasion of their land was "breaking the law" and could be arrested, and charged with some criminal offence.

In truth, the peoples of Britain, like all other Western nations, have less genuine freedom today than the citizens of the folk-communities of Ancient Greece; and less freedom that the free men and women of Viking Scandinavia and Iceland.

The reason for this loss of freedom is that the abstract idea of an abstract law has replaced the noble law of personal honour. As I have explained in Liberty and the Right of Rebellion and Aryan Law true freedom and true justice mean and imply the ideal of personal honour and the free giving of personal allegiance. All modern States are in effect benevolent (or not so benevolent) tyrannical oligarchies whose rule is enforced through an impersonal Police force and an inhuman, dishonourable, system of law Courts which make the individual powerless before the might of The State.

In addition, all of the governments of modern Western nations - echoing the sentiments and beliefs of the majority of Western peoples - still adhere to barbaric notions of punishment, with many of these nations (for example America) still upholding capital punishment. For all these Western nations still accept and still enthusiastically support imprisonment in penal institutions, with hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people being imprisoned for years upon end. This is dishonourable, uncivilized, as explained elsewhere (see, for example, Why Prisons are Barbaric ).


The History of the West:

The demise of true Western culture - Aryan culture - began with the acceptance, among Western peoples, of Christianity.

It is true to say that Christianity changed our ethos: our noble warrior ideals were replaced by the abstract ideas of this religion, and all medieval and later Western societies were basically societies created by despots, bullies, tyrants (such as Henry VIII of England) who used Christianity either hypocritically or otherwise to maintain their rule over their subjects (the divine right of monarchs). The modern abstract State, with its tyrannical dishonourable concept of abstract law, is the direct result of these medieval societies, all of which destroyed and made illegal our Aryan concept of law.

The history of Western imperialism - contrary to the many myths peddled by modern nationalists swayed by anti-Aryan sentiments - was, for the last two hundred years or so, the history of greed, exploitation and dishonour. Once the Industrial Revolution changed our societies, and once our nations expanded and became a modern-type State ruled by a remote, impersonal Government whose officials did not know, on a personal basis, their own people, then hubris became rampant, with the resources of Western nations - including the people themselves - sacrificed in the name of commercial, personal, government and capitalist greed. For example, consider the original British Empire. As I have written elsewhere:



The original British Empire... was an even greater achievement than the Roman Empire. It brought reason, justice, order and education to millions upon millions of people world-wide, greatly improving their way of life through building the infrastructure a civilization needs: an uncorrupt administration; roads; bridges; safe trade routes. For instance, the British Navy managed to control the piracy which was rampant in certain areas of the world (in South East Asia for example), as in India the British administrators ended the bribery and corruption of officials which was endemic. For a time, and from about the middle of the 1700's, the British Navy was the most enlightened and civilized institution in the world: a fine example of a civilized, warrior, ethos. Throughout the whole British Empire, the civilized ideal was followed, and literally hundreds of thousands of British people struggle and died in the lands of the Empire over the centuries in their quest to do what was right, noble and just. Millions upon millions of people could live in relative safety and peace, in an ordered and just way, thanks to this Empire.

Aspects of the old, civilized, honourable, Imperial attitude remained, and inspired individuals and some Institutions but they were largely without power and influence, often mere show, and more often than not manipulated by the financial cabal and their capitalist lackeys. [A fine illustration of the difference between the old and new British Empires is given by certain British characters in E. M. Forster's A Passage to India with Cyril Fielding representing the virtues of the older Empire.] By the time of the Boer War, British Foreign Policy had became purely a means of maintaining and extending capitalist markets, of obtaining raw materials with little or no regard for the native people. This was particularly evident in, for example, places like Iran, where until just after the Second World War War the British Government supported a despotic, unpopular and repressive ruling minority, while capitalist companies leeched away the natural resources of the country, with little respect shown for either Iranian culture or the way of life of Islam. The decadent life-style of wealthy often immoral Europeans was held up as some sort of "ideal" for the "natives" to follow. In addition, many Europeans acted in a dishonourable, uncivilized, way toward others peoples, as did many of the soldiers of their armies.


With the collapse of the original British Empire, and the triumph of world capitalism, the ideal of civilization had been replaced by the ignoble idea of a global capitalism where multi-national capitalist companies became rich by plundering the world, by committing hubris, with American military might - mostly involving arrogant, dishonourable troops - used to maintain this plunder of the world by capitalism and its uncivilized consumer ethos. There was because of this, as there still is, an arrogance toward other people and the Earth itself: the ignoble arrogance of Marxism and capitalism which really are just two sides of the same uncivilized way of life, since both reject the warrior values of honour, loyalty, duty to the folk, and place in their stead materialism and hedonism. In addition, capitalism - just as Marxism did during the Second World War - often appealed to a dishonourable irrational kind "patriotism" to further its ignoble goals. (The New Civilization of Folk Culture: First Step Toward the Stars)


Following the imposition of Christianity, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, presented us with glimpses of our own Aryan culture: thus, for example, the brief return to the ideals, the examples, the reason, of Ancient Greece and Rome. But our own Aryan values - our own ethics, based upon honour - never became widespread because all our societies during those and later times were still governed by barbaric rulers and barbaric privileged elites who had no love for their own folk, no notion of duty to their own folk, and certainly no genuine desire to improve their own folk and create a genuine folk-community based upon honour and excellence where the worth of an individual was judged by honour, by excellence, alone and not by wealth, or privilege, or occupation.

Only in the latter part of the last century - and the early part of this present century - were opportunities presented to change the status quo, to return to our values, to create a new type of society where our values could be expressed and where duty to the folk was seen as the highest ideal. We had many, many opportunities, in Europe, in America, to begin anew, to harness our understanding of life, our technology, in the service of our folk. There were some experiments, a few new Aryan societies born out of struggle and idealism, but they did not last, and the promise remained only that: a promise.

We, as a people, as separate nations, struggled for century after century for understanding, for wisdom, for freedom, for honour, until by the beginning of the present century we had all the tools we required to build new, free, honourable and Aryan societies where we could live as free, honourable, Aryans fully knowledgeable about our culture, our heritage, our Destiny, our purpose in life, and so fully able to live in a civilized way and continue with our own human evolution.

But so far, we have failed. There is more tyranny now than before; more dishonour among our people; less understanding about our own culture, our own values. There is now no Destiny, and no notion of duty to Nature, to our folk, to the Cosmos: no desire to naturally and honourably continue with our evolution. Instead of living among our own kind in free, honourable societies dedicated to numinous, evolutionary, Destiny-giving goals such as Space Exploration and the colonization of other worlds, we are condemned to exist in multi-racial societies dedicated to hedonism and materialism where drugs, crime, dishonourable behaviour and selfish-indulgence are rife and where our own Aryan behaviour - based upon honour - is forbidden.


Today, if Odysseus returned and acted honourably as he did to avenge his dishonour, he would be arrested, tried and convicted for "murder" and dishonourably confined in some prison by many cowardly bullies. And, moreover, he would be hauled before some Court and charged and convicted of having committed "war crimes" during the Trojan war.

We have become more barbaric, not less. More dishonourable, just as our liberty and honour have been taken away. Would would a man like Odysseus do today, faced with arrest by some "government officials" (Police) trying to enforce an impersonal, dishonourable, so-called "law"? Would he fight? Of course he would, and to the death if necessary. And what would most of us - the heirs of Odysseus - do? Meekly go along and accept all and everything our dishonourable, tyrannical governments do.


What We Must Understand:

The crucial thing we must understand and act upon is to know our own culture, our own values, our own ideals. For century after century - for well over a millennia - our culture, our values, our ideals have not been fully understand. We have allowed ourselves to be poisoned by, distracted by, anti-evolutionary, irrational ideas such as Christianity, and by our own weakness, our own fondness for pleasure, for comfort, for privilege. No one fundamentally is to blame but us: what is now came to be as it came to be and its ending was foretold, as Aeschylus once said and I often repeat. What is, came to be through the working of life, of Nature.

In essence, we have failed to grow up; failed to learn the lessons which the few wise people among us (Homer, Sophocles and others come to mind) saught to teach us. We have failed to seize the many, many opportunities we have had over the past thousand or more years. We have failed to learn from our own experience, our own suffering, and from the suffering we have inflicted upon others. Instead, we have preferred to have the perspective of children and to continue playing our selfish, often dishonourable, childish games, enwrapped, as children often are, in our own concerns, failing to see, to appreciate, to understand, the wider world beyond, the very Cosmos beyond, of how we are but part of Nature; but a living nexus between the past of our folk and its future.

We must stop dreaming of some non-existent idyllic past; stop romanticizing this past, dishonourable as if often was (and that includes Ancient Greece and our own recent colonialism). We must accept what this past teaches us, what it reveals about our own Aryan nature, about the very purpose of our lives. And then, having learnt and accepted this, we must move forward, upward: striving to create an entirely new type of society founded on what is noble, civilized.

It is time for us to grow up, to learn self-discipline: to act upon the wisdom that our culture, our heritage, teaches us. The essence of this wisdom is the truth concerning honour and the truth concerning our duty to our folk because our folk is a manifestation of Nature, with Nature being but one presencing of life in a vast and as yet unknown and unexplored Cosmos.


What the West Must Do to become Civilized:

1) Understand, accept, and strive to live by our own Aryan Ethics, based as these are upon personal honour.

2) Understand, accept and strive to act upon the knowledge that we as individuals are a living nexus .

3) Understand, accept and strive to add to our own Aryan culture. We can add to our culture by seeking to honourably quest after new adventures, new horizons, new worlds: that is, by seeking to explore and colonize the final frontier of Outer Space. Such an exploration and such a colonization are the honourable means whereby we can live according to our own noble values and consciously continue with our evolution as human beings. In effect, such an exploration and such a colonization is our unique Destiny.

4) Strive to create Aryan societies, based upon Aryan law, with these societies being not much larger than, for example, the present Republic of San Marino, for anything larger is inhuman and breeds the dishonourable tyranny of the abstract, modern-type State.


David Myatt
JD2452070.992
(Revised 115yf)

Ederico
Sunday, March 28th, 2004, 10:43 PM
A good essay, I agree with most of it althought not all.