PDA

View Full Version : Diversity/ Racism and Aristocracy



Trevor
Monday, December 9th, 2002, 02:44 AM
Just a thought: This could be a reason why diversity is bad. This could also answer a very important question. Perhaps if a nation is of one unity it could achieve true happiness. What is true happiness? Aristotle once said "...happiness is the highest good, being a realization and perfect practice of virtue, which some can attain, while others have little or none of it..." Maybe everyone living in a diversity free nation would be happy, for that would be greatness, which could be achieved.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Diversity is variety, Charles Darwin saw in the diversity of species the principles of evolution that operated to generate the species: variation, competition and selection. Some people look upon diversity as appearances alone, truly diversity is not only appearances but feelings, actions, comprehension, intelligence and social abilities. To better understand diversity I will attempt to explain and examine the truths, exaggerations and views of diversity.

Throughout history diversity has played a role in the development of human kind. Diversity has been the cause of wars, suffering, genocide, crime and the crusades. For these reasons I have lingered upon the thought that diversity is bad and should be made avoidable. You may be asking how could it be made avoidable, well I will explain that in the later part of the manuscript. To eradicate diversity would make a utopian type society, never before achieved throughout all of history.

As oppose to popular belief the genocide of the Jewish people was not because of the supposed insanity of Adolf Hitler, it was because of diversity. Throughout history the Jews have been persecuted because of their Anti-Christ ideals. They’ve been persecuted by the Egyptians, the Romans, and in the 20th century by the Germans. Many Christians viewed the Jews as an “infection” to society because they do not believe in Jesus Christ. In the bible it clearly states that if you do not believe in the Lord you will go to hell, therefore many Christians believe that the Jews should be persecuted for their beliefs. The whole religion of Judaism contradicts itself, how so you ask? Well the Jews believe that the Messiah has not yet come, but Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and he prophesized that there would never be a second coming if there are disbelievers. Jesus Christ was the Messiah and given that the Jews do not believe in him there will never be a return of the Messiah. Since the Jews do not believe in Jesus Christ they expect a Messiah who will never come. The Jew practices foreign ideals which Christians do not agree with and this makes the Jew a target because of their differences. Difference is a deadly word if used in Fascism, the whole ideologies of Fascism lay among unity or working as a whole to the advantage of the nation. It’s difficult for people to work together if diversity rest among them for this is why some groups and religions were targeted in Germany during the 3rd Reich. Fascism puts the Government and Nation above the person which was one of the reasons for its temporary success through the 30’s and early 40’s. An example of diversity affecting the Fascist Ideology would be World War I, the Jewish people did not want a war and were opposed to it which in returned affected the unity of Germany and later lead to the defeat of Germany. When Germany lost the war the allies imposed the Treaty of Versailles which limited Germany greatly and caused much frustration and anger towards the Jews. This was the beginning of the rise of Adolf Hitler. In my beliefs much of what the Nazis did in World War II was wrong but if you examine their beliefs and understand what they believed in and why, then you will better comprehend them.

Along with Diversity comes Racism, which has been seen all through history and is a way of human life. In the dictionary Racism is referred to as “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” In another account Racism was referred to as “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.” In this definition discrimination is used in the manor of a deliberate attack on someone, something or on someone’s race. Discrimination varies depending on who is being discriminated against and it to is part of the human race. What would be the best way of eliminate discrimination you ask? The best way to eliminate discrimination is to vanquish the source which is diversity. If you crush diversity then you crush discrimination and thus one would be yet another step closer to creating a humane and blissful society where no one gets discriminated against and prejudice does not exists.

In every society you have the intellects, infidels, self-made, capitalists, hardworking, and the indolent. Many believe that diversity lies amongst race alone, well truly diversity has many forms and one of which are the types of people that make up a race, such as listed above. This type of diversity is silent and difficult to eliminate, but not impossible. Intellects are the elite of a society and looked upon as the masters of their fields of study. Infidels are the total opposite of the intellects; they are the sub-level individuals who commit crimes to get ahead in life and in most cases are very unintelligent. They most certainly must be rooted out and be made examples of. The self-made individuals, like intellects are considered high in society for working hard to get ahead in life and achieving at most of their goals no matter how unpromising their lives have been or how impossible their goals seem. Capitalists are the greed and evil of society and like the infidels must be rooted out. The hardworking are the most valuable to a society for their regard, integrity, effort, and priorities. The indolent are the froth of a society, they lack ambition and independence, the indolent are worthless to a society and must be rooted out like the Capitalists and Infidels. This type of diversity is different in many aspects mostly because in every race there are people that fall in these categories. If you can root out the froth of the society then you can attempt to change them for the better in hopes of uniting to a cause.

Many may see my ideas of eliminating diversity as insane or inhumane but if you crush diversity then you end wars, quarrels, discrimination, racism, cruelty, and inhumanity all together. Diversity is evil, not the individuals who tried to defeat it. There are two ways of defeating diversity, you can eliminate the persons diversified from Christianity, unison, and cooperation, or you can expel them and form a country free of diversity and it would truly be a utopia. I for one do not believe in genocide for the reasons that the lord condones it and it is not civilized. Perhaps the Jewish question could be solved with a simple isolation in their modern day nation, Israel.

Ederico
Monday, December 9th, 2002, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Trevor
Just a thought: This could be a reason why diversity is bad. This could also answer a very important question. Perhaps if a nation is of one unity it could achieve true happiness. What is true happiness? Aristotle once said "...happiness is the highest good, being a realization and perfect practice of virtue, which some can attain, while others have little or none of it..." Maybe everyone living in a diversity free nation would be happy, for that would be greatness, which could be achieved.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Though I believe that a more Homogenous Collective is of a greater desirability to achieve a stable and cohesive Society, I do not believe that the elimination of diversity is a prerequisite of happiness. I am opposed to Racial diversity in a given Society because Racialistic Ideals and Policies are the basis of the survival of any Race which interacts with other Races, that is, a Race which is not isolated, which in modern days is practically non-existant.



Diversity is variety, Charles Darwin saw in the diversity of species the principles of evolution that operated to generate the species: variation, competition and selection.


I need to read some of Darwin's works, you do not happen to know a link to some of his books available to read online?



Some people look upon diversity as appearances alone, truly diversity is not only appearances but feelings, actions, comprehension, intelligence and social abilities.

I perfectly agree, a good observation. All categories of Diversities cannot be eradicated unfortunately, there will always be a degree of diversity within a Society, the importance for the survival of the Race and/or Ethnicity involved in that Society is that there is no Racial Diversity, otherwise, there is Racial Weakness within that Society.



To better understand diversity I will attempt to explain and examine the truths, exaggerations and views of diversity.

That is not an easy task, I'll read on.



Throughout history diversity has played a role in the development of human kind. Diversity has been the cause of wars, suffering, genocide, crime and the crusades. For these reasons I have lingered upon the thought that diversity is bad and should be made avoidable. You may be asking how could it be made avoidable, well I will explain that in the later part of the manuscript. To eradicate diversity would make a utopian type society, never before achieved throughout all of history.


Actually Diversity is essential in certain aspects, and a Utopian Society is not essentially Diversity-free. A Society must be Organised and Structured to create an Ordered Process of Advancement. Such a Society must have a clearly defined Hierarchy in all Societal Activities, and Hierarchy necessitates Diversity, otherwise how would a Society distribute its Individuals within the Hierarchy, given that no Diversity exists?



In my beliefs much of what the Nazis did in World War II was wrong but if you examine their beliefs and understand what they believed in and why, then you will better comprehend them.


National Socialism laid the basis for an Aryan Racialist Movement that safeguards the existance, survival, reproduction, and progress of the Aryan Race. All Aryans have something to thank for the National Socialists of the Third Reich. In my eyes National Socialism, albeit its errors, was the start of the resurgence of the Aryan Folks.



The best way to eliminate discrimination is to vanquish the source which is diversity. If you crush diversity then you crush discrimination and thus one would be yet another step closer to creating a humane and blissful society where no one gets discriminated against and prejudice does not exists.


This is a correct observation in my opinion. The problem is that a Society necessitates a Hierarchy and the assignment of tasks in that Society are assigned through Discrimination. A Society without Diversity and the subsequent Discrimination related to Diversity, is a Universally-Egalitarian Society which does not function most probably.



In every society you have the intellects, infidels, self-made, capitalists, hardworking, and the indolent.

Every Society most probably involves much greater categories of Individuals grouped in a single Collective, than you have mentioned. Also why list Capitalists? What about Communists?



Many believe that diversity lies amongst race alone, well truly diversity has many forms and one of which are the types of people that make up a race, such as listed above. This type of diversity is silent and difficult to eliminate, but not impossible.


Are you suggesting the elimination of all Diversity? Do you propose a Universally-Egalitarian Society?



Many may see my ideas of eliminating diversity as insane or inhumane but if you crush diversity then you end wars, quarrels, discrimination, racism, cruelty, and inhumanity all together.


If you eliminate Diversity, and thus no Discrimination exists, how would the various tasks in Society be assigned?



Diversity is evil, not the individuals who tried to defeat it. There are two ways of defeating diversity, you can eliminate the persons diversified from Christianity, unison, and cooperation, or you can expel them and form a country free of diversity and it would truly be a utopia.


An Organised and Structured Society which Progresses requires a Hierarchy. How would this Hierarchy be Organised in a Universally-Egalitarian Society, that is, a Society which is Diversity and Discrimination free.

Moody
Friday, February 7th, 2003, 08:06 PM
NAZZ: Though I believe that a more Homogenous Collective is of a greater desirability to achieve a stable and cohesive Society, I do not believe that the elimination of diversity is a prerequisite of happiness. I am opposed to Racial diversity in a given Society because Racialistic Ideals and Policies are the basis of the survival of any Race which interacts with other Races, that is, a Race which is not isolated, which in modern days is practically non-existant.

MOODY: This problem is answered by my thesis of dynamic subgroup [sometimes misleadingly called 'subrace'] diversity WITHIN a Race.
This Race is homogeneous and separated from other Races by genetic distance, and also by insurmountable Cultural difference.
However, within its own impregnable borders it allows the free-flow of creativity, particularly as regards subgroupings.

NAZZ:All categories of Diversities cannot be eradicated unfortunately, there will always be a degree of diversity within a Society, the importance for the survival of the Race and/or Ethnicity involved in that Society is that there is no Racial Diversity, otherwise, there is Racial Weakness within that Society.

MOODY: As I have argued elsewhere, subgroup diversity is NOT 'Racial' diversity. The latter is rejected, while the former is a fact of Aryan Nature.
Obviously man needs to have the polarities of heterogenity and homogeneity within the totality.
To try to extirpate one or the other is un-natural and self-defeating.
By adopting an Order of Rank we have the homogeneous Race at the top, which is served by the inner flux of subgroupings within.

This is how the Race CREATES - as Race.

NAZZ: Actually Diversity is essential in certain aspects, and a Utopian Society is not essentially Diversity-free. A Society must be Organised and Structured to create an Ordered Process of Advancement. Such a Society must have a clearly defined Hierarchy in all Societal Activities, and Hierarchy necessitates Diversity, otherwise how would a Society distribute its Individuals within the Hierarchy, given that no Diversity exists?

MOODY: Of course, here we agree; hierarchy is NECESSARY. This is satisfied in the Racial Nation by SUBGROUPINGS.

NAZZ: National Socialism laid the basis for an Aryan Racialist Movement that safeguards the existance, survival, reproduction, and progress of the Aryan Race. All Aryans have something to thank for the National Socialists of the Third Reich. In my eyes National Socialism, albeit its errors, was the start of the resurgence of the Aryan Folks.

MOODY: WE agree again; and notice how National Socialism began to be aware of a Unified Europa (and its interior subgroupings) as the war against Internationalism progressed.

NAZZ: The problem is that a Society necessitates a Hierarchy and the assignment of tasks in that Society are assigned through Discrimination. A Society without Diversity and the subsequent Discrimination related to Diversity, is a Universally-Egalitarian Society which does not function most probably.

MOODY: Precisely; but I see this as no 'problem', but as a desideratum.
It is Nietzsche's Order of Rank where elements within the broad Race play the part of differing strata within the Whole.
Anything else is Communism/Liberalism.

In the latter two we see an un-natural imbalance.
Communism seeks to destroy all diversity, and create the Ultimate Homogeneity, while Liberalism attempts to eradicate all fellow-feeling and a have a disruptivism of diverse, individualist atoms.

National Socialism balances the two; subgroup diversity within, and homogeneous Race without.

Grimr
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003, 07:07 PM
I am a little confused as to what people on this board actually believe or to what extent they believe it.

I personally believe that the white race is a source of much human productivity upon this earth spanning from art, literature and science, infact inventing those three subjects without us humanity would just be a bunch of nomads warring and wandering aimlessly upon the face of the earth.

Anyhow we have now placed ourselves in a position where we have given the other races so much that they are lashing out at us, from the deepest pits of their souls they want to be degenerate nomads but because of us they must live in a state of civility thus like spoiled children they wish to destroy us.

I know some people will speak of the Jews as some kind of satanic entity but it isn't really the Jews who cause most of the problems any longer, indeed they where the first of the parasitic invaders but now that the Orientals, the general peoples of dark hew and the certainly the Islamic Arab, they are all causing the white race problems, holding us back and slowly, Eugenically killing us through vast medias, control of general public opinion and when all else fails violence.

I also believe that if we are to forge a solution to this problem then we must first begin analysing the problem, that is the point of this thread.

Moody
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 07:11 PM
[QUOTE=Grimr; "I know some people will speak of the Jews as some kind of satanic entity but it isn't really the Jews who cause most of the problems any longer, indeed they where the first of the parasitic invaders but now that the Orientals, the general peoples of dark hew and the certainly the Islamic Arab, they are all causing the white race problems, holding us back and slowly, Eugenically killing us through vast medias, control of general public opinion and when all else fails violence".

Moody Lawless replies; I would argue that the current conflict between Islamists and the West is due to American-led support for Israel.

The lack of sufficient immigration controls in the post-war period has been largely due to Jewish pressure which always like to evoke the 'holocaust' when such controls and 'White-Only' programmes are mooted.

This is not to say that the Jews are 'satanic', or that they are to blame for 'everything'.
Rather to say that the Jewish outlook, particularly as it developed during the period of the Roman Empire, was always antagonistic and antithetical to the Aryan/Western European one.

This conflict reached its peak in the mid 20th century, where the Jewish outlook was victorious thanks to the help of the British Empire, the USA and Communist Russia in 1939-45.
Multiculturalism is the child of those Allied Empires of the West, and is the source of much unhappiness in the West AND in the Middle East today.

Jewish and Jew-friendly control of the Media is as much a reality today as it was in the past. It skews our whole culture with its hypocritical values and slave-morality; only a frankly Aryan, pan-European, and pan-White Nationalism - both cultural and political - can hope to have the qualities necessary to defeat this JudaISED world outlook.

Abby Normal
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 08:49 AM
There is often a "pecking order" among racial/ ethnic groups that are generally viewed as inferior. For instance, Negroes are of the belief that the lighter- skinned members of their own race are superior to the darker ones, and likewise, Argentines and Venezuelans see themselves as superior to other Latins. (As in, 'They're better than me, but at least I'm better than you!')

Perhaps these are smaller examples of the situation with humanity as a whole. In this case, the superior group would be the aristocracy (in general, with numbers and title systems varying with each country. This is assuming we are talking about real, power- holding aristocracy, not the dilapidated version we generally see today. I'd love to talk about the decline of the aristocracy in recent years, but that's a different subject). The inferior group would be everyone else, or the commons. Among the commons, the main status indicator would be race. There are other status indicators among commons, such as wealth, or occupation, that the aristocracy usually scoffs at. (Wealth can also be important to the aristocracy).

Have you ever considered that all commons, regardless of race or status (to other commons), are deemed inferior by the aristocracy, much as you view lighter and darker Negroes as equally inferior?

If this is true, then this division among the commons must be detrimental to them. The commons are clearly not a unified force, and their strengths lie only in numbers, as centuries of failed peasant revolts and 'workers' riots' have proven. In the rare occasion that commons have usurped power (such as the French Revolution), the result has been mass chaos, followed by a return of aristocratic/ monarchistic rule.

I personally think aristocrats (power- holding aristocrats, that is) are that way for a reason. Their families have centuries of rule behind them, so they will have more duty to uphold, therefore making better rulers. They are also educated from the start to rule (obviously, more well- trained that your average politician). Of course, a 'black sheep' will pop up from time to time (particularly in the older ruling houses). This can easily be solved by control being ceded to more intelligent ministers (aristocrats themselves), especially in the case of a national leader.

It is my hope that the commons never discover this idea (assuming it has even the smallest bit of truth to it), and thus fail to ever establish a unified group. (Commoners control most nations today, but they have as of yet failed to completely overthrow the aristocracy. They have, however, weakened it. On the other hand, overthrowing the romantic notion of aristocracy from the minds of the people is an almost impossible task for the commons).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Well, I hope you like my idea, and if there are any errors, keep in mind that it was written in a very quick, slapdash manner at about 4:00 in the morning...

Jack
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 08:31 AM
There is often a "pecking order" among racial/ ethnic groups that are generally viewed as inferior. For instance, Negroes are of the belief that the lighter- skinned members of their own race are superior to the darker ones, and likewise, Argentines and Venezuelans see themselves as superior to other Latins. (As in, 'They're better than me, but at least I'm better than you!')

Perhaps these are smaller examples of the situation with humanity as a whole. In this case, the superior group would be the aristocracy (in general, with numbers and title systems varying with each country. This is assuming we are talking about real, power- holding aristocracy, not the dilapidated version we generally see today. I'd love to talk about the decline of the aristocracy in recent years, but that's a different subject). The inferior group would be everyone else, or the commons. Among the commons, the main status indicator would be race. There are other status indicators among commons, such as wealth, or occupation, that the aristocracy usually scoffs at. (Wealth can also be important to the aristocracy).

Have you ever considered that all commons, regardless of race or status (to other commons), are deemed inferior by the aristocracy, much as you view lighter and darker Negroes as equally inferior?

If this is true, then this division among the commons must be detrimental to them. The commons are clearly not a unified force, and their strengths lie only in numbers, as centuries of failed peasant revolts and 'workers' riots' have proven. In the rare occasion that commons have usurped power (such as the French Revolution), the result has been mass chaos, followed by a return of aristocratic/ monarchistic rule.

I personally think aristocrats (power- holding aristocrats, that is) are that way for a reason. Their families have centuries of rule behind them, so they will have more duty to uphold, therefore making better rulers. They are also educated from the start to rule (obviously, more well- trained that your average politician). Of course, a 'black sheep' will pop up from time to time (particularly in the older ruling houses). This can easily be solved by control being ceded to more intelligent ministers (aristocrats themselves), especially in the case of a national leader.

It is my hope that the commons never discover this idea (assuming it has even the smallest bit of truth to it), and thus fail to ever establish a unified group. (Commoners control most nations today, but they have as of yet failed to completely overthrow the aristocracy. They have, however, weakened it. On the other hand, overthrowing the romantic notion of aristocracy from the minds of the people is an almost impossible task for the commons).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Well, I hope you like my idea, and if there are any errors, keep in mind that it was written in a very quick, slapdash manner at about 4:00 in the morning...

Nice - except outside of a handful of European countries, there is no aristocracy :| That's a small problem with your idea, but I agree with parts of it.

I think what you're trying to get across is illustrated brilliantly by the movie called 'Gangs of New York' (I have it on DVD - it's great) which shows the struggles of Irish immigrant gangs against native American (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) gangs.

I think it might be worth pointing out that native Americans (Anglo-Saxon Americans) in the 1800's viewed the Irish on par with blacks, as Stribog has pointed out (the recent movie 'Gangs of New York' highlights this pretty well) and Hitler's early views of the Slavs puts them on par with blacks.

I think there's two sides of racism, (excuse me for borrowing Marxist terms but the reasons for doing so should become apparent) proletarian racism and bourgeois racism. Proletarian racism is what those on the bottom levels of the social hierarchy (e.g. Irish and German immigrants in the 1960's New York) feel towards other races on the same level or perhaps against those of another race who reign above them (blacks against whites). Proletarian racism is hate in the proper sense - no respect given and an inner drive to annihilate one's enemy.

Bourgeois racism is effectively systematic discrimination against racial foreigners with a feeling of moral superiority accompanying. In Gangs of New York the best example of this is Bill the Butcher, the leader of the strongest native gang, who said "On the seventh day, the Lord squatted over England, and what came out of him was Ireland" (by the way, I'm over three quarters Irish so don't assume I agree with him - I just think he's a good illustration of 'bourgeois racism').

In contrast to both of these types of racism, which I think are unhealthy, I put foward racialism as an alternative. Racialism is racism in which respect for one's enemy is a factor. An enemy may be aesthetically appealing, economically useful, morally impeccable - but if his cause crosses with mine, he is my enemy. Hate has nothing to do with it, nor does despise, only a line which seperates friend from enemy. The relationship between Priest Vallon and Bill the Butcher (Priest Vallon was the early leader of the Dead Rabbits, the Irish gang) is an example I'd put foward of racialism. Whether a racial enemy is worth the attitude of proletarian racism, bourgeois racism or racialism will have to be determined by the judgement of the individual - not all enemies are of equal worth.

Ederico
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 01:14 PM
Very interesting thoughts put forward. I have ambiguous feelings regarding this "Aristocracy for the Common" being compared to Racism as I do not see Racism to be only in a Negative Way Aristocratic in the sense that there are feelings of superiority by a Race towards another one with subsequent discrimination to arise from this feeling which could be well grounded in reality as well mind you.

I agree with Jack's statements in this thread regarding Racialism and what he terms "Proletarian Racism" (quite a low form of envy and primitive hate) and "Bourgeois Racism" (this leads forward to Racialism in my opinion and is probably the Racism I feel even though I am from a Working Class Family).

Racialism is the way forward. This involves the categorisation between Racial In-Group and Racial Out-Group, subsequent policies to preserve the In-Group and stengthen it, and the exclusion of the Out-Group from the Racialist Society by acceptable means forward. Racialist Society must like every Ordered Society be Hierarchical according to a Meritocratic System and this is where the concept of Aristocracy could be held into account.

Awar
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 04:21 PM
Jack is totally right about the unhealthy effect proletarian and burgeois racism have.

Abby Normal
Saturday, March 13th, 2004, 03:00 PM
Nice - except outside of a handful of European countries, there is no aristocracy :| That's a small problem with your idea, but I agree with parts of it.
So the aristocracy is from these European countries, and the rest of the world is common. ;)

Seriously, though, there is no aristocracy in many countries, but, in America for instance, there is a "plutocracy" made up of the extremely wealthy. They're very similar in many ways, with one exception: (I heard this quote somewhere: ) "The brilliant thing about the American atistorcacy is that they have managed to convince everyone else that they don't exist."


I think what you're trying to get across is illustrated brilliantly by the movie called 'Gangs of New York' (I have it on DVD - it's great) which shows the struggles of Irish immigrant gangs against native American (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) gangs.

I think it might be worth pointing out that native Americans (Anglo-Saxon Americans) in the 1800's viewed the Irish on par with blacks, as Stribog has pointed out (the recent movie 'Gangs of New York' highlights this pretty well) and Hitler's early views of the Slavs puts them on par with blacks.

I think there's two sides of racism, (excuse me for borrowing Marxist terms but the reasons for doing so should become apparent) proletarian racism and bourgeois racism. Proletarian racism is what those on the bottom levels of the social hierarchy (e.g. Irish and German immigrants in the 1960's New York) feel towards other races on the same level or perhaps against those of another race who reign above them (blacks against whites). Proletarian racism is hate in the proper sense - no respect given and an inner drive to annihilate one's enemy.

Bourgeois racism is effectively systematic discrimination against racial foreigners with a feeling of moral superiority accompanying. In Gangs of New York the best example of this is Bill the Butcher, the leader of the strongest native gang, who said "On the seventh day, the Lord squatted over England, and what came out of him was Ireland" (by the way, I'm over three quarters Irish so don't assume I agree with him - I just think he's a good illustration of 'bourgeois racism').

In contrast to both of these types of racism, which I think are unhealthy, I put foward racialism as an alternative. Racialism is racism in which respect for one's enemy is a factor. An enemy may be aesthetically appealing, economically useful, morally impeccable - but if his cause crosses with mine, he is my enemy. Hate has nothing to do with it, nor does despise, only a line which seperates friend from enemy. The relationship between Priest Vallon and Bill the Butcher (Priest Vallon was the early leader of the Dead Rabbits, the Irish gang) is an example I'd put foward of racialism. Whether a racial enemy is worth the attitude of proletarian racism, bourgeois racism or racialism will have to be determined by the judgement of the individual - not all enemies are of equal worth.
I agree! :)

In America, racism is used synonymously with "hatred," because the two terms have been used in context with each other for so long. Americans only view racism in terms of "proletarian racism," (which they feel contempt for; they are also contemptuous of aristocracy as well.)

If I feel any racism at all, it is of the more sophisticated, bourgeois kind (though I am of aristocratic origin, so technically I should not feel any racism at all- just classism. ;) )

Taras Bulba
Saturday, March 13th, 2004, 08:11 PM
Hmmmmmn.......I don't know. I'm too much of a populist to go along with much of this. And sadly I've also inheritated the anti-elitism thats typical among Ukrainians.

Like Herder and Tolstoy(among others), I believe the heart and soul of the nation lies within the common folk. I adhere to the Slavophile view of idealizing the old Muscovite ways where the aristocracy and the commoners shared much in common and were often on intimate relations. The job of any aristocracy/elite is to serve the interests and needs of the common people. It was only untill the Westernization of Russia under Peter, which included the nobles adopting French mannerism(sorry Adélaïde, but true) that the gulf between rich and poor grew extremely wide.

And many Russian nationalist, especially the Slavophiles, saw this as a national tragedy and believed that lessening the gap between the two(in accordance with traditional Russia) was the best hope for national salvation. Indeed even many Czars, especially the last one Nicholas II believed so.


"Like Stolypin, Nicholas realized that a dangerous gap had opened between the mass of the population and the institutions of the empire. But his ideas about bridging it were entirely different from Stolypin's. His upbringing at court and in the Guards, under the guidance of the Orthodox Church, led him to believe that the direct link between monarch and people could restored by reviving the customs of pre-Petrine times. He called his long-awaited heir Alexei, after the greatest tsar of the 17th century, and he endeavored throughout his reign to use ceremony, and particularly religious ceremony, to recreate a sense of unity with his people. Wheras Alexander II had wanted to be a monarch in touch with the zemlia, with local elites, Nicholas aimed at direct contact with the narod, the people themselves."
--Geoffrey Hosking "Russia and the Russians: a History" page 379

The pro-Monarchy Union of Russian People(aka Black Hundreds) was a largely a populist movement made up of the peasentry and working class, something the revolutionaries could only envy. Indeed it was the only major political movement to have strong working class support.

The Moscow police chief Sergei Zubatov also was a populist Monarchist and was active in creating many pro-Monarchy labor unions among the workers.

And also in the 20's and 30's, many Russian emigres theorized a "Popular" or "Social" Monarchy. That is a restoration of the Monarchy, but on a more populist modernist basis. Indeed even the French Monarchist Charles Mauras believed in this.

Well its just my take on it. I believe in monarchism, but of the Slavic populist nature not the typical Western elitist nature.

Moody
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 06:00 PM
And yet the pre-Christian Slavs followed two differing pagan religious systems; that of the Upper Class, and that of the peasants, which suggests that the two groups were of differing racial origins.

While the upper class converted to Christianity, the Slavic peasants retained the pagan ways under a thin veneer of Christianity.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 06:10 PM
And yet the pre-Christian Slavs followed two differing pagan religious systems; that of the Upper Class, and that of the peasants, which suggests that the two groups were of differing racial origins.

Well according to the Normanist theory, the Christian nobility was of Viking/Germanic ancestry while the peasents were Slavic.



While the upper class converted to Christianity, the Slavic peasants retained the pagan ways under a thin veneer of Christianity.

More like pagan ways and rituals were incorporated into the Christian faith. Unlike the common impression that you pagans have about Christians, we are not cultural philistines. We know beauty and truth when we see it. The Christians could look at pagan rituals/beliefs/etc and see the beauty and truth in them and seek to incorporate them into the Christian religion.

And once again you demonstrated a severe view of Russian history, for it was among the peasentry that the Christian church drew it strength and this was especially true with the ultra-conservative Old Believers. Indeed the Blood and soil nationalism of the Old Believers could rival that of any paganism.

Awar
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 06:21 PM
And yet the pre-Christian Slavs followed two differing pagan religious systems; that of the Upper Class, and that of the peasants, which suggests that the two groups were of differing racial origins.

While the upper class converted to Christianity, the Slavic peasants retained the pagan ways under a thin veneer of Christianity.

I propose you change your username from Moody Lawless to Random Conclusions :D

In fact, the difference between upper-class and lower-class belief systems is more of a rule than an exception. The peasants throughout the world were of course worshipping deities which influenced their world of agriculture, birth, life and death. The Upper classes were clearly not so interested in soil fertility as they were in war, conquest and frequently mysticism that was designed to be out of reach for the commons.

If you would grab a history book about Slavs before you make such conclusions, much more would be clear. The deities of the Slavic pantheon were all Indo-European, and only a few have been identified to be foreign, namely the Sun-God Khors which was Iranian in origin ( close neighbourhood and relatives of Slavs were the Iranians of the steppes of southern Russia ).

Also, you'd have to explain which different racial origin are you speaking about. The Slavs were never a group that belonged to a single sub-racial type, and neither were any other Indo-European people. So, what would the difference of the race be?

History only records the Bulgars to be of a different origin altogether than their Slavic subjects. There were approximately 15.000 Bulgars ruling over 2.000.000 Slavs of the area. The Bulgars quickly became christianized and Slavicized.

Not very well researched is the origin of Serbs and Croats who appear to be Iranian in their early origin, but who obviously both became fully Slavicized and christianized.

Anyway, whichever people you take as an example, the upper class will always become more oriented to 'higher' goals, while the lower classes will be interested in what they do for survival. The Celtic rulers of post-Roman Britain were partially Roman themselves, yet they worshipped Morrigan and other Celticwrrior deities, while the peasants worshipped Medb, and all of this was under a thin veneer of Christianity.

sciath
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 09:08 PM
I believe in monarchism, but of the Slavic populist nature not the typical Western elitist nature.

Pushkin, despite your bad manners against West Europeans :D , I must admit that I agree entirely with you.
I'd just add that French monarchy was very populist by nature till Henri IV. Southern despotic influences (not kidding here) led to absolute monarchy and ultra centralism

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 09:14 PM
Pushkin, despite your bad manners against West Europeans :D , I must admit that I agree entirely with you.


And why not? Charles Maurras was a populist Monarchists and indeed much of his theories I admire and seem to be quite similar to the views shared by the Black Hundreds. :D

Abby Normal
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 09:14 PM
Pushkin, despite your bad manners against West Europeans :D , I must admit that I agree entirely with you.
I'd just add that French monarchy was very populist by nature till Henri IV. Southern despotic influences (not kidding here) led to absolute monarchy and ultra centralism
I agree (though not completely with the populism.) I dislike ultra-centralization, and I would rather have power more spread out among the local aristocracy than a centralized absolute monarchy. This explains why I support states' rights (if you want to get into American politics. ;) )

I also strongly agree that Pushkin has some very bad manners against Western Europeans! :P ;)

sciath
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 09:21 PM
I agree (though not completely with the populism.) I dislike ultra-centralization, and I would rather have power more spread out among the local aristocracy than a centralized absolute monarchy. This explains why I support states' rights (if you want to get into American politics. ;) )

I also strongly agree that Pushkin has some very bad manners against Western Europeans! :P ;)

Do you agree that the state of 'being an aristocrat' gives more duties than privileges and that this state can be lost or won ?
In other words don't you think that most of today's aristocratic families have lost their right to be called "aristocrat" because of the denying of their specific duties ? Aristocracy isn't just good manners if you see what I mean ;)

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 09:28 PM
I agree (though not completely with the populism.) I dislike ultra-centralization, and I would rather have power more spread out among the local aristocracy than a centralized absolute monarchy. This explains why I support states' rights (if you want to get into American politics. ;) )

Even though de-centralization will require an even more populist bent to politics than more centralized politics?



I also strongly agree that Pushkin has some very bad manners against Western Europeans! :P ;)

Of course, I'm an Ukrainian! Ukrainians have always been more crude than West European. We're like our Russian cousins! :D ;)

sciath
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 09:40 PM
And why not? Charles Maurras was a populist Monarchists and indeed much of his theories I admire and seem to be quite similar to the views shared by the Black Hundreds. :D

Actually apart from Charles Maurras and many other Westerns , I've been influenced by russian NTS and solidarists (located in Paris), without mentioning Herzen and Kropotkin ;)

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 09:42 PM
Actually apart from Charles Maurras and many other Westerns , I've been influenced by russian NTS and solidarists (located in Paris), without mentioning Herzen and Kropotkin ;)

Yes, Solidarism is an ideology I very much admire and adhere to.

sciath
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 09:55 PM
Yes, Solidarism is an ideology I very much admire and adhere to.
Sobornost' forever ! ;)

Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 12:28 AM
Do you agree that the state of 'being an aristocrat' gives more duties than privileges and that this state can be lost or won ?
In other words don't you think that most of today's aristocratic families have lost their right to be called "aristocrat" because of the denying of their specific duties ? Aristocracy isn't just good manners if you see what I mean ;)

Aristocracy as attitude and nature of the soul in common Italian speech is comprehended as avere di razza ("to have/contain race"). It relates to high-ranking virtues by which one is defined as a supreme being that autonomic and detached, in total disregard to the outcome of his deeds(failure, success) and even if he pertains to some lower social class, he fulfills his Fate as a ruler, not as a slave.
This notion of race is non-naturalistic, of course, it makes notion of a soul that in a given perfect condition radiates as the rays of the sun through mind and body, moulding and designing form by which this soul best on a more earthly level of existence is expressed, and touches the mental qualities as well the whole physiognomy of the face and the bodily structures.

sciath
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 10:10 AM
Aristocracy as attitude and nature of the soul in common Italian speech is comprehended as avere di razza ("to have/contain race"). It relates to high-ranking virtues by which one is defined as a supreme being that autonomic and detached, in total disregard to the outcome of his deeds(failure, success) and even if he pertains to some lower social class, he fulfills his Fate as a ruler, not as a slave.
This notion of race is non-naturalistic, of course, it makes notion of a soul that in a given perfect condition radiates as the rays of the sun through mind and body, moulding and designing form by which this soul best on a more earthly level of existence is expressed, and touches the mental qualities as well the whole physiognomy of the face and the bodily structures.

This sounds like an evolian conception of aristocracy (from "Elements for a racial aristocracy") or am I wrong ? ;)

Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 10:18 AM
This sounds like an evolian conception of aristocracy (from "Elements for a racial aristocracy") or am I wrong ? ;)

Indeed, my viewpoints are strongly influenced by Evola, it started with Imperialismo Pagano, easyly captivating my imagination by combining conservative ideas with an eclectic bag of concepts harking back to Stirner, Michelstaedter and Weininger.

Moody
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 06:49 PM
AWAR; "I propose you change your username from Moody Lawless to Random Conclusions: In fact, the difference between upper-class and lower-class belief systems is more of a rule than an exception. The peasants throughout the world were of course worshipping deities which influenced their world of agriculture, birth, life and death. The Upper classes were clearly not so interested in soil fertility as they were in war, conquest and frequently mysticism that was designed to be out of reach for the commons.
If you would grab a history book about Slavs before you make such conclusions, much more would be clear". etc., etc.,

Moody Lawless replies; That Aryan society was racially/subracially stratified is hardly a "random conclusion" (do you know what 'random' means?), so I shall remain "Moody Lawless", although you can call me "Sir".

I did indeed "grab" a book, a considerable authority, where I found this;

"Certain Russian scholars are even inclined to distinguish two mythologies - and almost two religions - among the pagan Slavs: one which was common to the great masses composed of peasants ... and a second which was the mythology of the upper classes".
[Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology]

That's from the chapter entitled 'Slavonic Mythology'.

It goes on to discuss that very late conversion of the Slavs to Orthodox Christianity, which still continues to perplex Pushkin;

"When in 988AD Prince Vladimir of Kiev decided to become converted to Byzantine Orthodoxy, he ordered all his soldiers to be baptised.
Pyerun's (a pagan thunder god) idol was torn down and thrown into the Dnieper, and history has retained not so much as a hint of any kind of effort on the part of Pyerun's worshippers to defend their god.
This can have only one explanation: the divinity and his cult formed no part of popular belief, but only that of the dominant military group. When this group renounced the faith there was no one left to defend it".
[ib.,]

Abby Normal
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 10:30 PM
Even though de-centralization will require an even more populist bent to politics than more centralized politics?
I disagree! Populism goes along with liberalism, because in order for populism to work the people must be given more individual choice, and I fundamentaly disagree with classical liberalism's assumption that people are inherently good. De-centralization does not require populism - in fact, to use American politics as an example, those who support states' rights are usually the most strongly anti-populist.


Of course, I'm an Ukrainian! Ukrainians have always been more crude than West European. We're like our Russian cousins! :D ;)
Yes, you're crude, barbaric- yet I still love you! :inlove

Taras Bulba
Thursday, March 25th, 2004, 01:10 PM
I disagree! Populism goes along with liberalism, because in order for populism to work the people must be given more individual choice, and I fundamentaly disagree with classical liberalism's assumption that people are inherently good. De-centralization does not require populism - in fact, to use American politics as an example, those who support states' rights are usually the most strongly anti-populist.

What? Populism can exist on the left or the right, but the left had become so elitist in the last 19th century that populism almost purely became domain of the right(or what is commonly refered to as the right). This still remains today; Leftists are populists only in name not in substance, they're the biggest elitists of all time!

Populism is based on the people, as is nationalism. I agree with John Lukacs that an aristocratic nationalism is an oxymoron; for nationalism and populism go hand in hand.

I maybe a Monarchist of sorts, but my Monarchism is that of the Black Hundreds; who were populists and was the only major polititcal to enjoy strong support from the working class and peasents(something the Bolsheviks could never achieve and could only envy).

But yet once if we look at many of the European monarchies, de-centralization often resorted in populist policies of sorts. Wheras in a centralized state, officials are appointed from above and the people have to live with it. In a de-centralized state, the official maybe picked by the people of his district(or whatever) and must actually win their support by engaging in populist policies. This certainly happened in Russia with the Grand Princes before Ivan III centralized the state, but yet even Ivan IV(the Terrible) introduced populist reforms in order to win support from the people against the corrupt Boyars.



Yes, you're crude, barbaric- yet I still love you! :inlove

Well it seems Loki is trying to win your heart now, but yet he seems to fall with everybody. :P

Moody
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 06:25 PM
Aryanism IS 'aristocratic nationalism'.

So I strongly disagree that 'aristocratic nationalism' is an 'oxymoron'.

Clearly, if an aristocracy is dedicated to the nation, and shares blood and culture with that nation, then an aristocratic nationalism is perfectly viable.

The aristocracy are only the expression of the nation's highest types in the political strata. They will tend to come from the warrior class, and so reflect the kind of politics where men of action rule.
This to me is the best kind of nationalism.

A nation should try to breed not only horizontally [and so spread out geographically], but also vertically [and so produce elites].

By producing elites in the various arts, martial and cultural, so does a nation excell itself in the eyes of the world - this is Aryan.

http://www.applelinks.com/reviews/gifs/warriorkings1.jpg

Taras Bulba
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 06:32 PM
By producing elites in the various arts, martial and cultural, so does a nation excell itself in the eyes of the world - this is Aryan.

More like Germanic. Slavic nationalists have never had the strong love for hierachies that Germanic nationalists do. Slavic nationalism has always had very much a strong anti-elitist element to it. This is especially true for Ukrainians(the nation I belong to) since our aristocracy was wiped out and replaced by Poles and Russians. Hence the soul and the fight for our nation always came from below. All of Ukraine's famous nationalist figures, especially the great poet Taras Shevchenko or the historian and later president Mykhailo Hrushevsky were staunch populists and were against the aristocracies and other elites. Shevchenko himself expressed his views in this poem:

http://www.infoukes.com/shevchenkomuseum/poetry/dont_envy/

Don't Envy

Don't envy, friend, a wealthy man:
A rich man's life is spent
Without a friend or faithful love --
Those things he has to rent.
Don't envy, friend, a man of rank,
His power's based on force.
Don't envy, too, a famous man:
The man of note well knows
The crowd's acclaim is not for him,
But for that thorny fame
He wrought with labour and with tears
So they'd be entertained.
But then, when young folk gather 'round,
So fine they are and fair
You'd think it's heaven, -- ah, but look:
See evil stirring there ...

Don't envy anyone my friend,
For if you look you'll find
That there's no heaven on the earth,
No more than in the sky.

Mirhorod, October 4th, 1845.

Translated by John Weir
Toronto

So once again Moody, stop passing off Germanic beliefs as somehow universal to all European peoples!

Moody
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 07:19 PM
The poem against 'envy' belongs on the ethics forum, it is not relevant to the discussion of aristocratic nationalism [unless you assume that elites are to blame for the envy shown by Leftists!].

I countered the assertion made in your post that aristocratic nationalism is somehow 'oxymoronic' [i.e., a kind of contradiction in terms].
It seems that you now concede, and say that aristocratic nationalism is purely 'Germanic' [whatever you mean by that], and not wider.

I also disagree with the last part - it is wider:
Aristocratic nationalism is ORGANIC, not just 'Germanic'.

It is natural for every Aryan national organism to seek to produce ITS OWN aristocracy.
Unless a nation does that it is only worthy of slavery.

http://www.somerset.gov.uk/museums/alfred/2.jpg
KING ALFRED OF WESSEX

Taras Bulba
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 08:57 PM
I countered the assertion made in your post that aristocratic nationalism is somehow 'oxymoronic' [i.e., a kind of contradiction in terms].
It seems that you now concede,

I didnt concede.

Aristocratic nationalism is an oxymoron. All you proved was that the aristocracy could uphold nationalist values, which is not what I argued. Nationalism involves the entire nation, the vast majority of whom consists of the common folk. So by its very nature nationalism must be populist rather than aristocratic(restricted to the aristocracy/elites). Thats what I argued Moody.



and say that aristocratic nationalism is purely 'Germanic' [whatever you mean by that], and not wider.

Moody to deny the heavy Germanic influence in your thinking is undeniable. Nothing wrong per se with that, except if you try imposing those values on other nations which do not share those values.
This is especially true with Nietzsche, whose philosophy is largely Germanic and an expression of the Germanic soul. But Nietzsche has little relevance nor support among my people the Slavs, because his value system is foreign to us. Trying to impose Germanic values(like those expressed by Nietzsche) on non-Germanic people makes as little sense as trying to impose Slavic values(as expressed by Orthodox Christianity) on non-Slavs.
Yet you do this all the time Moody. First with your arrogant boast "I bring you Nietzsche's superman" and still with your shameless remark about icons being Semitic. Of course I provided facts proving the importance of icons to the Russian national identity, to which you could only counter that one of the authors was Jewish(which still does not counter my argument moody).





I also disagree with the last part - it is wider:
Aristocratic nationalism is ORGANIC,

If its organic, its not aristocratic. Aristocratic means restricted to the aristocracy.



not just 'Germanic'.

The obsession with elites and the hierarchal system is largely an element in Germanic thinking. Yet as I have continously say that the Slavic mindset knows of no obsession.



It is natural for every Aryan national organism to seek to produce ITS OWN aristocracy.

Where did I ever say we did not need aristocracies? Indeed I even argued one time that while Im anti-elitist, Im not anti-hierarchal. Of course to which you only claimed that by being anti-elitist I'm also anti-hierarchal. Excuse me Moody, but just because I reject the notion that somehow the elites are above the people and that a society should focus on their interests and tastes does not mean I deny the necessity of hierarchies. I believe that whatever hierarchies we have have a responsibility to be close to the people and geniunely be in touch with their issues. I'm in favor of a hierarchy with a populist agenda, not one that serves its own elitist one.

This was the vision of the Slavophile thinkers, and was the way the Slavic people have always operated. This especially was the vision of Ivan the Terrible when he set out rebuilding Russia into a strong power, he crushed the traditional nobility(the Boyars) and replaced their positions with men of common origins who proved themselves worthy through public service to the nation and the to Czar. One of these was Boris Gudonov, who later helped keep Russia together on the verge of the Time of Troubles. So Im very much adhereing to the traditions of my ancestors. With you, its Nietzsche's way or nothing.



Unless a nation does that it is only worthy of slavery.

And once again we see another of Moody carefully disguised insults against my peoples way. Oh well the British are famous for that I guess, they try to disguise any insult as an intellectual discussion. Well we Slavs are more honest in the way we insult others. We Slavs have endured much hardship, but we've only grown stronger in the end. Yes Moody, lets just see you powerful Nietzscheans cross the border again and try to enslave us!


"The Germans have for long propounded the theory that the Russian people is feminine and psychic in contrast to the masculine and spiritual German people. The masculine spirit of the German people ought to subdue the feminine soul of the Russian people. This theory has been linked to a practice with corresponds to it. The whole theory is constructed for the justification of German imperialism and the German will to power. In actual fact the Russian people has always been capable of displaying great masculinity and it is proving this to the Germans."
--Nikolai Berdyaev "the Russian Idea" 1946

symmakhos
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 02:18 AM
The European aristocracy has traditionally been miscegenous, caring little for national and racial boundries when marrying. Until recently, they have taken partners from within Europe/with European origins, but no longer: Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra of Denmark is of partly Chinese origin, born in Hong Kong:

http://www.student.lu.se/~liv99psa/alexandra.jpg

Abby Normal
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 01:25 PM
The European aristocracy has traditionally been miscegenous, caring little for national and racial boundries when marrying. Until recently, they have taken partners from within Europe/with European origins, but no longer: Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra of Denmark is of partly Chinese origin, born in Hong Kong:

http://www.student.lu.se/~liv99psa/alexandra.jpg
Indeed; I have already discussed Princess Alexandra and her Chinese ancestry in another thread. Also, Queen Charlotte of England was part African (through the Portugese de Sousa family). Interesting specimens, though I rather hope they do not start a trend.

Gee, I need some more time to respond in length to some of these long posts. Perhaps this afternoon, Pushkin.

Moody
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 05:45 PM
Pushkin; "Aristocratic nationalism is an oxymoron. All you proved was that the aristocracy could uphold nationalist values".

Moody; That sounds like a concession to me! Although I proved far more than just that.

Pushkin; "Nationalism involves the entire nation, the vast majority of whom consists of the common folk".

Moody; 'Vast majority'? - And who are the non-national minority?
Are you suggesting that an aristocracy like that of the Anglo-Saxons before the Norman Conquest were a non-national minority?
Are you talking class and not race?
Certainly, the Saxon Kings and their aristocracy traced their lineage back to Woden and were of the Saxon blood par excellence.

Pushkin; "So by its very nature nationalism must be populist rather than aristocratic (restricted to the aristocracy/elites)".

Moody; Not "must"; an aristocracy which is of the same blood as the Folk is just as possible and just as nationalistic.

Pushkin; "Nietzsche has little relevance nor support among my people the Slavs, because his value system is foreign to us".

Moody; Strange then that Nietzsche took himself for a Pole and admired Dostoyevsky and talked of the splendid qualities of the Russians at length [advice - don't use Nietzsche if you know nothing of his writing].

Pushkin; "If its organic, its not aristocratic. Aristocratic means restricted to the aristocracy".

Moody; As Napoleon recognised, if you try to destroy an aristocracy another one will re-assert itself. Queen Nature herself is the most aristocratic of 'institutions'!
Aristocracy means 'rule of the best'.

Pushkin; "Where did I ever say we did not need aristocracies? Indeed I even argued one time that while Im anti-elitist, Im not anti-hierarchal...
I'm in favor of a hierarchy with a populist agenda, not one that serves its own elitist one".

Moody; That sounds like a disguised egalitarianism. Every healthy people produces, for example, a popular art and a high art. The latter is that of the elite and the former is that of the people; they can both be good in their own right and are connected.
Wagner's operas were high art, but the stories collected by the Brothers Grimm were popular art - and yet both were interconnected.
That is a healthy Folk Culture.
Of course in a hier-archy one strata wil be high-er than another making for inevitable elites!
If you want oxymorons, try your own 'populist hierarchy' ...

Pushkin; "And once again [in the use of the word 'slavery']we see another of Moody carefully disguised insults against my peoples way".

Moody; Oh come on, I was using the word slave in the general sense - now I know you are far too sensitive here!
All I have done is show that aristocratic nationalism is a fact of life, and is not particulary 'Germanic'! It is certainly not an 'oxymoron', and you have failed to prove otherwise!

http://www.royalty-postcards.com/Images/Hovedside/Russian_tsar_family.jpg
RIP

Abby Normal
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 10:01 PM
What? Populism can exist on the left or the right, but the left had become so elitist in the last 19th century that populism almost purely became domain of the right(or what is commonly refered to as the right). This still remains today; Leftists are populists only in name not in substance, they're the biggest elitists of all time!Could you clarify this a bit? From my experience, the 'right' usually dupes the ignorant masses into thinking it is populist, while the 'left' actually is populist. Take American politics for example: W. was elected because he acts like a regular 'ol guy down on the ranch, and Republicans love to drum up rumors about how many SUVs Kerry owns, how much money his wife has, how he could be compared to 'a fine wine' (when their candidate drinks domestic beer), but in reality these 'Neocons' are out for the elite "Ameristorcacy."



But yet once if we look at many of the European monarchies, de-centralization often resorted in populist policies of sorts. Wheras in a centralized state, officials are appointed from above and the people have to live with it. In a de-centralized state, the official maybe picked by the people of his district(or whatever) and must actually win their support by engaging in populist policies. This certainly happened in Russia with the Grand Princes before Ivan III centralized the state, but yet even Ivan IV(the Terrible) introduced populist reforms in order to win support from the people against the corrupt Boyars. Not in America! The 'right' has always stood for states' rights and decentralization as well as elitism.

If I had lived in the USA during the nineteenth century I would have been a strong supporter of the conservative Democratic party rather than the liberal/radical Republican party. However, since then the parties have switched sides, but in doing so the Republicans have failed to capture the ideals the Democrats once stood for. Thus I am going to register as an Independent (which can be hard in my city, where politics is the designated sport).

Anyway, back to Monarchy: De-centralization in monarchies often resulted in more power for the aristocracy, not the commoners.


Well it seems Loki is trying to win your heart now, but yet he seems to fall with everybody. :PNot anymore.:)

Moody
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 05:13 PM
Monarchy represents the soul of a people; we still feel that in Britain, even though our Monarchy has been severely diluted and then usurped by the Judaocracy.

This thread deals mainly with notions of aristocracy though; for Monarchism see;

www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=8121