PDA

View Full Version : On the Low Biological Quality of Humankind



infoterror
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 04:45 AM
Low Biological Quality of Humankind

It's taboo to even mention a range of topics, because they'll make some people feel uncomfortable. Having seen how well this empire of not offending some people has steered us into an ecocidal evolutionary dead end, I'm not inclined to care: their empire failed, in a way that ancient civilization and the NSDAP could not (you'll recall that many great artists are only discovered after life has defeated them and buried them in pauper's graves; so it will be with tradition).

How did their empire come about? Impetus toward creating civilization was lost, because civilization itself got wealthy and powerful. The parasites came in, and seduced the women and compassionate men, who rapidly gave way to "new" ideas (there are no new ideas, only good ones or bad ones; originality is a separate concept, and applies to how well you describe an idea in art or discourse). These "new" ideas consisted mainly of vast profit to be made by manipulating hordes of dumber people.

Over time, because the fundamental assumption of these "new" ideas was a lack of responsibility to the unitive whole of nature and cosmos and humankind, as was provided by the religion-philosophies of ancient civilizations, these philosophies expanded scope (as all philosophies tend to do; it's a "slippery slope" argument that applies in every case) and came to include the empowerment of the general masses. This meant giving them a vote equal to that of people who were smarter, healthier and of better moral character than they.

Herein was the disaster.

At this point, you have a society which promotes dumb, ugly and destructive people over those who have more beneficial traits, simply because dumb, ugly and destructive people have a need to disunitively make profit at the expense of others. Most people who were born into a bad body/mind tend to be destructive, and if they're smarter than the absolute bottom, they become shrewd because that allows them to be remarkably intellectually effective - albeit within a narrow and meaningless space. They become experts at making money, usually through sleazy means, as did the Snopes family in Faulkner's "The Hamlet."

Soon the dumb, ugly and mean guys get the pretty girls, because no matter how disgusting you are as a person, if you have wealth, well, in a society of equals that's the most important thing, and therefore you'll be a good parent. Your kids will probably be wealthy too. Over many generations, this equates into a dying out of the better people and the promotion of the greedy, stupid, violent, etc. In short, it's counter-evolution, or a destruction of what evolution has done through greed and egoism, which as you can see are the motivating forces behind "equality."

At this point, most people are of low biological quality, as measured in the three indexes:

# Intelligence. Whether you measure it with an IQ test, or watching them in a revelatory activity, intelligence can be measured, although you usually have to be at least as intelligent as what you're measuring to get any kind of exact figure (this explains high school guidance counselors and their destructive, weird and revengeful decisions, doesn't it?). However, intelligence is an inborn property. You do not get a genius out of a turnip-picker, no matter what the popular media says. Find some genius born "magically" to two stupid parents and you'll either find an adoption or a genius grandparent.

# Health and Beauty. People who are well-formed, who are naturally healthy and who tend toward healthy decisions are usually the most physically able. They may not be great athletes in a specialized sport, but in terms of general ability to do things like get around and survive in a forest or battle, they're absolutely qualified (note that many major league players would not qualify, as the history of athletes in combat bears out). People who are well-bred tend to have health and beauty as well as intelligence and moral character.

# Moral character. This is a difficult definition, but a good starting point is this: one's natural inclinations and values are inborn, although they can be changed by post-birth treatment, especially abuse. These inborn tendencies where they touch on ethical questions form one's moral character. By moral, I do not mean the binary "don't kill, hurt or offend any person" morality of Judeo-Christianity, but the holistic morality of the ancients: doing what is right by the order of the cosmos. In some cases this means killing; in other cases, healing. There is no clear absolute rule for it, and that's why the ability of the individual to perceive it - this ability varies widely between individuals - is quite important, and complex enough that it can only be conveyed by years of positive breeding.

When I look around the average American community, there's a very clear low biological intelligence factor. People waiting in line at McDonalds for twenty minutes, wasting gasoline and paying high prices for very bad food. People who cannot drive, even though it's a simple process, mainly because their attention spans wander and they exist in a slow-motion dream of their own distraction. What about all the true idiots one encounters in offices and stores, who can be guaranteed to miss the obvious and thus take the long way around to solving any problem, wasting tons of your time?

Even further, look at what people buy. That most people will buy a $3.99 plastic widget instead of a $5.99 metal one of the same function that will last twice as long shows not only a basic ignorance of math (6/2 = 3, not 4), but a total lack of moral character, in that they prefer cheap garbage that clogs landfills to something of enduring presence. Maybe they don't trust themselves not to destroy it? And what did they spend that "saved" $2 on, anyway? Oh: beer and DVDs.

Something tells me this people will never be appreciating Beethoven, or even Emperor. They aren't going to read Conrad, or even Crichton. They're never going to see past the lies of Bill Clinton, or of George Bush. They're consumers, pure and simple, and they cannot appreciate anything subtle in life, or anything that demands knowledge of structure and not merely external form. Yet we're breeding more of these and squeezing out the smart people, because even a total fool can narrow his sights on commerce and make a lot of money in a specific area - and plenty of them do.

Bill Gates, for example, couldn't survive a night in a forest armed with only a pocketknife. Steve Jobs wouldn't last as long as Bill would. And Paris Hilton? John Kerry? Britney Spears?

We're descending in not only ideology and lifestyle, here on planet earth, but also in terms of biological quality. We're failing it on the "producing better humans" front, and because so many people are dumb as rocks and without moral character, we deconstruct and simplify and abstract anything we write, see, hear, do so that everyone in the room can get it, in the process obliterating meaning for the few who actually matter.

As our current society begins to fall apart, starting first with its higher functions and moving into all aspects of its homeostasis, it at the same time confronts some obvious truths that people have been ducking since the 1950s, namely that pollution, energy depletion, overpopulation and entertainment culture really do turn us into elaborate hamsters who are guaranteed to die of cancer in some crime-infested hole of a city. This process has inspired new impulses toward purging the world of waste.

Our best ecological experts, namely the ones who are alert to the full depth of the problem, suggest 500 million people on earth. If we're going to trim back people, when we grow up and get over our pretense, it makes sense to select the best 500 million by intelligence, health/beauty and moral character, so that humanity as a whole improves instead of staying at the same level of mediocrity with simply lower numbers. In this respect, it's fortunate that our society is falling apart, as it gives us a chance to clear out the dummies and start working toward higher biological quality again.

Interestingly, a eugenic society would require almost no internal changes. If suddenly we moved up a grade, the people who would be left would use our extant social and political systems for sensible goals, because there would no longer be hordes of morons to manipulate with demagoguery and fancy products. We wouldn't even have to change religions, as smart people interpreting Christianity would start it off on a more realistic, nature-friendly footing.

Now that we've gone so far into the void, it doesn't look like we could come back, but it's entirely possible we can, especially if our first step is to upgrade our genetics by slaughtering fools, morons, criminals and other blockheads who impede sensible living for those fortunate enough to be well-bred. I have a strange feeling that in this future society, there'd be a lot fewer taboos about discussing intelligence and biological quality of humankind.

July 20, 2005
http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/quality/

DreamWalker
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 05:42 AM
pollution, energy depletion, overpopulation and entertainment culture really do turn us into elaborate hamsters who are guaranteed to die of cancer in some crime-infested hole of a city.
Seems mankind will be better off if the people warning us that we are running out of fossil fuels are correct:coffee:

Scholar
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 05:57 AM
Very interesting infoterror. You know, your thread reminded me of Hitler, interesting... From what I understand of the topic, no matter what you do or who you kill, society always retains a finite structure. There will always be bums, there will always be the "gifted". Its and interesting thought that cleaning out the weak will solve our problems, but I'm not so sure it would work to achieve any "utopia".

Arcturus
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 10:17 AM
... if the people warning us that we are running out of fossil fuels are correct:coffee:
If they are correct? How could they not be? Oil is a limited resource that, yes; has been created in vast amounts, and no; will not last forever, and looking at the amounts we have used up in the last century, think of how much will be used in the developing countries and eg. China, where car sales are still skyrocketing. I don't know about coal, but at some point we will run out of oil, or oil prices will have risen to such heights that it effectively will serve the same purpose.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 04:24 PM
I don't think we have degenerated biologically so much yet. What is degenerate is our current environment, and getting progressively worse. Obviously everyone here is healthy in mind enough to recognize that something is very wrong... unfortunately most people don't see it or are content enough to go with the flow.

A lot of people are asleep at the wheel. When given the proper stimulus, people will awaken. Revolutions have always been led by the minority, I don't expect the majority to make much of a difference.

I rank morality as the most degenerate currently. One can see this especially with television. Sexuality expressed in television has become almost pornographic. I recall seeing a commercial for chewing gum, where the daughter takes a piece of gum and immediately starts making out with her BF in front of her parents... then the mother raises an eyebrow, takes a piece of gum, and starts making out with the father. Some may find this cute and funny. I find it disgusting.

Intelligence and health/beauty are following, which proceeds from having low morals, thus corrupting our genetic health in future generations.

While I'm not a fan of VNN's style of rhetoric, I do agree with them that Zionist Jews are the foremost threat, as they are behind all of the politics and culture destroying our people. To solve the problem you go to the source.

Constantinus
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 06:58 PM
If they are correct? How could they not be? Oil is a limited resource that, yes; has been created in vast amounts, and no; will not last forever, and looking at the amounts we have used up in the last century, think of how much will be used in the developing countries and eg. China, where car sales are still skyrocketing. I don't know about coal, but at some point we will run out of oil, or oil prices will have risen to such heights that it effectively will serve the same purpose.

Stop being so pessimistic. The stoneage didn't end because we ran out of stones either, but because we found a superior resource to use. The same will happen with fossil fules, and the oilage will end because we'll find a better fuel.

lei.talk
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 08:58 PM
...the oilage will end because we'll find a better fuel.after we have wrung every drop of petroleum
from the planetary crust,
the "oil age" need not be over:

Rudolf Diesel developed his "oil motor"
during the great age of the white man's burden
(when the responsibility of the natural elite
was guiding the disadvantaged to better lives).

the motor was designed to burn vegetable oil
from merchantile colonies (palm, peanut
from africa, corn from canada, et cetera)
and thereby improve the natives' lot in life.

of course, they would never develop industry;
they would lead much improved agrarian lives.

Diesel's "oil motor" runs much better
on vegetable oils than petroleum.
modern fuel-injection only improves his motor.

any time you tire of financing arab idiocy...

Constantinus
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 09:07 PM
after we have wrung every drop of petroleum
from the planertary crust,
the oil-age need not be over:

Rudolf Diesel developed his "oil motor"
during the great age of the white man's burden
(when the responsibility of the natural elite
was guiding the disadvantaged to better lives).

the motor was designed to burn vegetable oil
from merchantile colonies (coconut, peanut
from africa, corn from canada, et cetera)
and thereby improve the natives' lot in life.

of course, they would never develop industry;
they would lead much improved agrarian lives.

Diesel's "oil motor" runs much better
on vegetable oils than petroleum.
modern fuel-injection only improves his motor.

any time you tire of financing arab idiocy...

I put my faith in the soon to be expected breakthrough (20 to 30 years or so) in fusion power.

lei.talk
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 09:38 PM
my response to the fusion-faithful
has been the same one
that i gave to the fission-faithful:

the sun radiates this planet
with more energy than we can use
and plants enthusiatically convert it
into a wide variety of forms
that are very useful
and easily accessed.

it is more economical,
more evenly distributed
and the resultant by-products
are shorter-lived.

better does not mean more complicated.
i agree with william of ockham
that the simpler solution is more elegant.

Constantinus
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 09:57 PM
In the case of fusion it will mean cheaper though. Solar powerplants are a lot more expensive to build and maintain than nuclear plants. Also, we will need fusion power for space exploration.

lei.talk
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 10:30 PM
Solar powerplants are a lot more expensive to build and maintain than nuclear plants.if you are referring to the photo-voltaic panels,
i would agree:
there are more efficient processes
(especially when plants are the initial converters).

i do have friends that retired from the nuclear navy
and have worked at the nukie plant at san onofre
for so long that they are approaching
their second retirement.

that installation is similar to amazon.com
in that it has always operated at a loss
and if it were not for the sale of stock
(to ignorant folk that do not understand
a profit-to-earnings statement)
- it would have gone out of business long ago.

fms panzerfaust
Thursday, July 21st, 2005, 06:11 PM
"Our best ecological experts, namely the ones who are alert to the full depth of the problem, suggest 500 million people on earth. If we're going to trim back people, when we grow up and get over our pretense, it makes sense to select the best 500 million by intelligence, health/beauty and moral character, so that humanity as a whole improves instead of staying at the same level of mediocrity with simply lower numbers. In this respect, it's fortunate that our society is falling apart, as it gives us a chance to clear out the dummies and start working toward higher biological quality again."

The sad truth is that: the most intelligent people are the ones who breed the less children. Inteligence and wisdow causes isolation, because the one who think go out of the norm. And the norm is what you expose in the article: consumerist stupid society, with people that prefer nightclubs over books.

Scholar
Friday, July 22nd, 2005, 05:09 AM
"Social Darwinism" seems to be the concept being explained here...

"A concept based on the idea of "survival of the fittest."

"The application of some Darwinian ideas to society, including the evolutionary survival of the fittest, usually defined by race, in a world marked by struggle and competition."

"A social theory which states that the level a person rises to in society and wealth is determined by their genetic background."

The concept sounds like it has some legs, but in actuality never went anywhere. The fact is this idea does not always hold true. Yes, the poor do have more children but this has been a fact since the beginning of the modern age. During every generation on average, 10% of the population makes a class change, whether down or up. Weeding out the weak can only solve the problem of this "low biological quality of humankind" for one generation, not forever. America's basic philosophy dances around the truth that any man has potential to be great, no matter his situation or backgrounds. As I said before, there will always be people at opposite ends of the social structure spectrum. Just work hard and don't worry about it anyway:D

infoterror
Wednesday, July 27th, 2005, 03:48 AM
Biodiesel may require more energy than it generates, unless powered by vast fields of cheap slaves.

Fusion is a possibility. Not at the current rate.

Solar is also a possibility, but would probably required reduced usage.

Either way, the ending of the external burden is nigh :)

lei.talk
Wednesday, July 27th, 2005, 04:41 AM
Biodiesel may require more energy than it generates,
unless powered by vast fields of cheap slaves.i can picture that.

on the other hand, does it take
"vast fields of cheap slaves"
to get vegetable oil on to grocery-store shelves?

on a more realistic note,
how much energy does it take
to get a gallon of gasoline
from the ground in to a car?

all of the processes
require more energy than they provide.

the goal is to achieve concentrated energy
at the place and time
of desired application.

this is a simple physics problem.
the most energetic power-source available is the sun.
the energy-conversion process
that demands the least ancillary energy-input
is photosynthesis. number two is moving water,
which acquired that elevation
from number three - atmospheric movement
generated by solar radiation.

this system has been pretty reliable
for over a quarter of a billion years.

DreamWalker
Wednesday, July 27th, 2005, 06:54 AM
If they are correct? How could they not be? Oil is a limited resource that, yes; has been created in vast amounts, and no; will not last forever, and looking at the amounts we have used up in the last century, think of how much will be used in the developing countries and eg. China, where car sales are still skyrocketing. I don't know about coal, but at some point we will run out of oil, or oil prices will have risen to such heights that it effectively will serve the same purpose.
Good point. I should re-phrase my original comment, there are the neo-cohens who say we have enough oil for centuries, and another group who say oil availability will begin dropping in a few years. So I should say that if we are very near peak oil, humanity may be in for a forced Eugenics program soon.

lei.talk
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 12:41 AM
i woke up thinking of this:

...how much energy does it take
to get a gallon of gasoline
from the ground in to a car?a lot more than it takes
to get a gallon of alcohol in to a car (http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/fuel.html)!

my grandfather produced lots of alcohol,
with very little effort,
from corn-mash that he had encouraged to sour.

as we see, plants not only provide the original fuel
for Rudolf Diesel's (noblesse-oblige induced) "oil motor"
(more easily procured, more energetic,
and much less dirty than petroleum),
they also provide alcohol
(with all the same contrasts to gasoline).

lei.talk
Wednesday, October 12th, 2005, 07:56 PM
here is the latest expensive high-technology alternative (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/episode/0,1569,1731146,00.html#)
that big-money and big government is offering (http://www.choren.com/de/energy_for_all/sundiesel/),

instead of the two simple solutions
that i detailed above.

Heidenlord
Wednesday, October 12th, 2005, 08:17 PM
And Shell Oil company is investing in his company. No wonder -- because Wolf's "sundiesel" already functions in existing motors just like the diesel refined from petroleum. Cars that run on "sundiesel" are more fuel-efficient and produce less emissions than those running on conventional diesel.

It sounds like a step in the right direction though.

GreenHeart
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 12:38 AM
As ridiculous as it is- most people don't believe that we are running out of oil!!! :icon12:

But to the main point...

As a person of good breeding, I wholeheartedly agree with this article. I wish it were reality. I would like to see humanity improving and evolving, not devolving.

Sigel
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 09:54 AM
The parasites came in, and seduced the women and compassionate menYou must mean the “well-bred” men who ran the place before the trash arrived?

Soon the dumb, ugly and mean guys get the pretty girlsThey must be doing something right then. Looks like they’ve successfully sidelined your intellectual ‘Ubermensch’. Now how is that possible when your shining ‘Ubermensch’ is the finest there is?

our first step is to upgrade our genetics by slaughtering fools, morons, criminals and other blockheads who impede sensible living for those fortunate enough to be well-bred.Just exactly who do you think will implement this strategy? The turgid Untermensch won’t want to and your “well-bred”, yet effete and utterly overwhelmed, “good quality men” are clearly not up to the job. I rather think they let it get this bad in the first place, right?


Neo, it’s not that I disagree with all of your social observations. Many bear validity and are beyond reproof. I just don’t think you will ever create a society of Evola-style Alphas; just as in Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’. All races have high and low people, but as long as the group can maintain cohesion, it has a good chance of survival; just look at the Jewish example.

What we lack is this cohesion, because, as you correctly point out, we are a spoilt, rich and weak society - victims of our own success in many respects. I also think that a critical factor in group cohesion is a common religion/philosophy, and we completely lack this. Religion helps define a people, codify it’s beliefs, set its parameters and give it a place in the universal scheme of things. The faith of my fathers was smashed by Christians and along with it, something of ourselves was broken.

Some brave people are re-interpreting the remains, but the majority of us are cast into a spiritual void. Like the Flying Dutchman, we must wander alone and seek the truth. The truths we find for ourselves give us a ‘personal’ system by which we can live, but the spiritual and philosophical communality of the kindred is not a factor any more and, as much as it saddens me to say this, I doubt that it ever will be again.

Our one defining bond is our blood. Look inside yourself to see your own bloodline. It is in the soil of your motherland, in the wind and upon the restless waves. You are biologically part of the whole and it is part of you.

Thus, by rejecting your race, you are left with nothing.

Frostwood
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 08:41 PM
They must be doing something right then. Looks like they’ve successfully sidelined your intellectual ‘Ubermensch’. Now how is that possible when your shining ‘Ubermensch’ is the finest there is?

Every culture dies. During the last centuries European culture has laid on her deathbed, coughing and gradually weakening. Now her eyes are closed for perhaps the final time and by that, she has succumbed to the disease that was gnawing and ravaging her. She will be reborn, in another time, another form if here is momentum to turn the wheel.


......

Our one defining bond is our blood. Look inside yourself to see your own bloodline. It is in the soil of your motherland, in the wind and upon the restless waves. You are biologically part of the whole and it is part of you.

Thus, by rejecting your race, you are left with nothing.

I assume neoclassical doesn't mean that we should reject everyone of our race because of the decay it is in now. He certainly doesn't say that we should love everyone of our own tribes equally either, regardless of whether someone is in some sense inferior to the average of men. That would be tribal Marxism, to paraphrase infoterror, a more localized version of White Nationalism (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=10978), where everyone would have no other trait "officially" recognized other than that they are White, or of the same tribe. Certainly, one's own kin is the most precious one but that isn't the ultimate achievement, the top of a mountain while we just sit on the foothills, the mountain itself looming vast and mighty before us.

Climbing that mountain of the soul requires endurance, suffering and discipline. The weakest will perish on that journey towards the peak hidden in clouds, but in so doing they have given their lives to so that others might continue. Sometimes it is love that gives strength to the hand swinging a whip. We must aspire upwards, ever upwards, unless we just sigh wearily and sit down to wait for oblivion to clasp us in its gentle hold. If that is to happen, the fog will then cover the world and men are allured to sleep midst the stillness of the wheel, to rest eternally. Only the most steadfast of people will manage to turn it again and evoke the vivid rays of the glorious sun to pierce the fog.

I apologize if the above was unclear as I got carried away with my "poetic" mood, as usual. :redface:

Sigel
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 07:54 AM
tribal Marxism, to paraphrase infoterror
Am I the only one to find Infoterror's disparaging phrase to be at odds with the aim of Nordic racial preservation?

It both misrepresents and devalues what we stand for and perfectly encapsulates his attitude towards it.

lei.talk
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 09:39 PM
i think the issues have been clarified, previously (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=115982#post115982).

in fact, at one point,
neoclassical (http://www.forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=245)/infoterror (http://www.forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=1463)'s demands
were so blood-thirsty
that the thread was deleted (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=10241)
by the managment.

Are you here just to make sure
there are blue-eyed people in the world in the future

or are you here to make contacts with people
that are going to join you in vastly changing European society?
are the two different pursuits
mutually exclusive?

the northern European forum does have a specific purpose.

does this involve
producing more members of the nordic race
and instilling nordic values

or destroying members of the nordic race
because they were not taught nordic values?

[B]The first.

infoterror
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 02:51 AM
Neoclassical is a specific user; infoterror is a group account for promotional purposes (members of this organization have decided that discussion is unnecessary and counterproductive, especially where one cannot utter historical truths without being assaulted by low-caste, low-quality whites).

lei.talk
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 04:01 AM
...assaulted...:icon1:
that sounds like anus-speech.

definition:
when our pathetique demagoguery
has it's factual inaccuracies,
fallacious reasoning
and weak rhetoric
revealed.

yes, that was "counterproductive"
to your goal.

Sigel
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 09:28 AM
one cannot utter historical truths without being assaulted by low-caste, low-quality whites).
Your group clearly consists of the following two elements:

1. Predominantly non-Germanic mud-Jew-apologist-mischlings - hence no stake or interest in our racial preservation.

2. Perhaps some of Germanic blood, but cosmopolitan elitist outlook (read Asian girlfriend lol), who I would class as race-traitors.

It is your grubby secret and since you don't do discussion, I'll draw my own conclusions; as I watch you slide back into your ANUS hole again.

I would rather be, in your eyes, a "low-caste" Germanic than anything you rootless sell-out mischlings are.
What I am, what my kindred are, you shall never be, or understand.

Sean_
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 10:54 PM
Your group clearly consists of the following two elements:

1. Predominantly non-Germanic mud-Jew-apologist-mischlings - hence no stake or interest in our racial preservation.

2. Perhaps some of Germanic blood, but cosmopolitan elitist outlook (read Asian girlfriend lol), who I would class as race-traitors.
What is this? Making contentless assertions that you can't even verify is beyond ridiculous. You sound like the toadies who pollute the forums at VNN: "race-traitors"? Calling people Jews? Please. If you can't act like an adult, don't expect adults to take you seriously.

You have an obvious adversarial bent to every post which comes up that suggests something even remotely along the lines of "sacrifice for a healthier whole may be necessary", you attack the arguers without providing anything other than windy rhetoric and crowd-appeals for consensual ostracization, and then are left baffled when someone says you don't want to debate? You'r own actions, as well as lei.talk's have contributed to this outlook, as neither one of you, who are the most vocal champions of the Pussy-footed-Crusade-to-Save-All-Nordics-Everywhere-Regardless-of-Quality-As-A-Human brigade, admit discussion of the ideas themselves: you only zero in on one fact - death might have to occur - and have subsequently done everything in your power to show everyone who reads that we are nothing but soulless killers, that death cannot be a part of preservation, that "the more the better" approach is the only morally sound approach. This is nothing more than a tribe-specific Pan-Aryan methodology. Sacrifice for what you desire in the world doesn't just mean writing lamenting paeans for the destruction of your tribe on a message board - it also will involve the sacrifice of those who will bring down your tribe through their inability to see beyond themselves and make a decision which impacts them as an individual in any sort of non-comfortable fashion.

They're just ideas. Moreover, they are ideas for leaders to consider. Non-leaders are easily-defined, and have no business debating ideas they don't understand. When you react like this to words, it makes me wonder who you're trying to convince. I wouldn't be here if I didn't care about Nordic preservation, and the more you insist on alienating potential allies with your accusations, the less service you do to your tribe, for not considering all of the ideas that are available that might do them good in the long-term. You trill on and on about the superiority of the Nordic race in terms of genetic raw materials and cultural achievement; why does this belief (that there are inherent differences in evolutionary genetic code, some being inherently better than others in your estimation) not extend itself to the quality of people within that tribe? Why can you not seem to grasp that there is a scale of determination that corresponds to everything that happens in life, from the decisions we make to the worth of the human making them, or their fitness for survival in a system without pity for lesser beings?

Or, is the long-term out of your range of perception? Maybe you should go spend a few nights in the wild, and see how much morality is utilized in the decision making process of wildlife, and how much stock they put into saving "every wolf, everywhere". If you think that humanity is smarter than the laws which rule the natural world, that "education" will solve all your problems and redeem the useless dregs of your culture, than you have a great deal more education to undergo yourself before you begin telling others how to preserve the Nordic tribe.

edit: mind the language -Arc

Heidenlord
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 11:15 PM
But when the wagons are circled the captain doesn't walk around and kill or contemplate killing those who aren't good shots. All this thinning out the herd talk seems like putting the cart before horses. What population is every going to support a group who advocates killing 90% of that population once they take power?

Also I would like to know who comes up with value system that determines who is worthy of propagating and who isn't? Sure, there are some obvious choices but some of the ANUS stuff I have seen would do away with 95% of a population. But as I said, it is stupid to think about thinning our numbers before we are masters of our own societies.

Sean_
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 11:19 PM
If all you see is your own position, then of course you see wagons circled against injun marauders.

The world is bigger than the Nords. You can't deny this, and it is the height of stupidity to shut it out of discussion of what to do about the problem of preservation in a world gone mad, slowly being destroyed by junky values and human proliferation, and instead to see a situation like Nordic preservation in such a paranoiac vision.

Sean_
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 11:26 PM
Also I would like to know who comes up with value system that determines who is worthy of propagating and who isn't? Sure, there are some obvious choices but some of the ANUS stuff I have seen would do away with 95% of a population. But as I said, it is stupid to think about thinning our numbers before we are masters of our own societies.
The ol' deference to authority, eh?

Who comes up with it? A natural-born leader who doesn't care about the bleating of insignificant crowdists. Humans are not judged absolutely in linear check-lists of measurement; if you can't get this simple thought, stay out of the discussion and continue counting beans.

Maybe you misread the site (seems to be common around here) - it calls for a 95% world-population reduction. 500 million humans is a good general number to maintain environmental stability, something a leader has to think about on top of maintaining the health and evolution of his tribe, on top of hundreds of other concerns.

edit: please do not use vulgar language. B.

Arcturus
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 11:26 PM
No need to be insulting. Let's keep it civil, shall we?

Sean_
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 11:30 PM
I'd love to keep it civil if people didn't continue to insult me and my beliefs with their stupidity.

Loki
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 11:33 PM
I'd love to keep it civil if people didn't continue to insult me and my beliefs with their stupidity.

There are no "if's" here. You shall remain civil. If there is a post you find questionable, please use the "report bad post" icon to report it. Moderators will then take care of the rest.

Now you all, listen to Arcturus, the moderator of this section. Otherwise... :noose3:

Edit: This is not the Lounge, yet Arcturus is a forum leader and should be respected as such anywhere on the forum.

Arcturus
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 12:16 AM
Right, so more work for Arc. In the future, and this goes for this whole subforum, I will not tolerate insults, foul language etc. If someone can't dicuss and even argue and still keep a civil tongue, then shut up.

lei.talk
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 01:01 AM
I'd love to keep it civil
if people didn't continue to insult me
and my beliefs with their stupidity.i searched this thread
and failed to find an instance
of some one talking to you
or about you.

where is your basis for insult?

lei.talk
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 03:10 AM
Maybe you misread the site (seems to be common around here) - it calls for a 95% world-population reduction. 500 million humans is a good general number to maintain environmental stabilityit seems to me
that the environment is having no trouble
culling the extraneous members of the herd, unassisted.
that would be evolution in action.

look at africa, asia and the americas.

i am looking for an example in scandinavia...

...i am, still, looking for an example in scandinavia...

any one want to help me find an example in scandinavia?

perhaps,
there is no reason for an artificial "population reduction" of nordics.

lei.talk
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 03:58 AM
Or, is the long-term out of your range of perception?
Maybe you should go spend a few nights in the wild, and see how much morality is utilized in the decision making process of wildlife...lessons from the immediacy of an animal's life
will teach me long-range planning?

i must be mis-understanding you.

it is my strict exercise of objective morality
that has brought every one of my accomplishments.

If you think that humanity is smarter than the laws which rule the natural world...well, i am certainly "smarter"
than a mechanistic process that has no "smarts" at all.

i am capable of perceiving the traces of that process,
reasoning out the principles involved
and planning appropriate immediate and long-term actions
to fulfill my genetic potential
(with out infringing on other persons by resorting to force or fraud)
in accordance with objective reality.

do you own the land that you live on?
did you design and build the house you live in?
do you own the land that produces your food?
do you raise your food and kill it?

are you self-employed or a wage-slave?
how many employees do you supervise?

what is the longest relationship with a lover that you have sustained.
how many children have you raised.
do you consider your child-rearing successful?

there is more "education" that i need to "undergo",
before i understand how the world really works?

jcs
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 04:30 AM
I'll keep this short, the defense of ANUS's sensibility being Sean's duty in this thread (I've done this a little elsewhere; you'll forgive me if I'm lazy here :p ), and just skirmish to get some easy kills while the cavalry readies a full charge.


i searched this thread
and failed to find an instance
of some one talking to you
or about you.

where is your basis for insult?
When one mentions ANUS, one refers to a group of individuals, not just Prozak. Sean, if I am not mistaken, is affiliated with the Exponentation e-zine, an ANUS project. Thus insulting ANUS insults him, as an 'AN' and member of the 'US.'
Furthermore, all who share with ANUS ideologically have had their beliefs insulted ( if people didn't continue to insult ... my beliefs).
Lastly, these beliefs were not only insulted directly, but also 'with ... stupidity,' that is, with generalizations and misrepresentations.


it seems to me
that the environment is having no trouble
culling the extraneous members of the herd, unassisted.
that would be evolution in action.
The environment seems to be having a great deal of trouble. I cite the current world population.
Perhaps you meant something else that I failed to see, though (as the 'looking for examples' comments don't make sense following from this)?


perhaps,
there is no reason for an artificial "population reduction" of nordics.
I beg to differ:
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/wigger-15344.jpg

However, a tremendous problem I have with eugenics and such is that it is fundamentally artificial. "For nature, we must keep the population at or below 500 million!"--is there anything more unnatural? I say, destroy the machine (industrial technology) which has made us complacent and removed us from nature, thereby destroying the surplus of humanity, instead of becoming a machine (non-organic population control).


lessons from the immediacy of an animal's life
will teach me long-range planning?
He was moving on to another (related) thought, I believe.
Thought one: this moral, humane 'all people should live' mentality is short-sighted.
Thought two: this moral, humane 'all people should live' mentality does not exist within the often harsh law of nature.


it is my strict exercise of objective morality
Are you a rock? Plastic? A cog in a machine?
If not, how can you possibly be 'objective' in anything? Your morality, as with all things coming from a subject, is subjective. The World, the place of objects and things, knows no morality; there is no 'ought' implicit in existence.
Perhaps you meant 'universal' as opposed to relative?

Sigel
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 10:09 AM
I'd love to keep it civil if people didn't continue to insult me and my beliefs with their stupidity.
mmm...

Nordic genes are of the highest quality for the purposes of the Nordic people. Therefore, you not would mix those genes with a Celt who was 150% your better in genetic
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=115968&postcount=48


I have a dark friend who isn’t worth much racially, at least not from a nordish point of view, but he is really great intellectually and he’s in the process of really understanding what its all about.... rather that they are of the dark type, with possible dubious ancestry)
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=115873&postcount=30


You do know that most English are of mixed subrace to such a degree that they’re genetically predisposed to be homosexuals (same with Americans, except their genetic predisposition is to attend Jerry Springer filmings)?
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=114009&postcount=18


Jews are a white people. The Askenazim (the ‘jewish race’) is more white than many mediterraneans, who are considered to be ‘white’ by ‘white nationalists’. So if mediterraneans are white, then jews are white too.
You may argue that jews have specific physical features and a different culture. But Germanic people, Slavic people and Mediterraneans all have specific physical features and a culture different from one another. And Askenazi culture really does have a lot of similarities with Eastern-European cultures. I dare you to name one element that is present in all white races but not in the Askenazim......
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=98555&postcount=2

Just a tiny sample of many ANUSite posts I could be bothered to locate.

May help to put my previous remarks into context.

Sigel = "champion of the Pussy-footed-Crusade-to-Save-All-Nordics-Everywhere-Regardless-of-Quality-As-A-Human brigade" lol

jcs
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 11:39 AM
Nordic genes are of the highest quality for the purposes of the Nordic people. Therefore, you not would mix those genes with a Celt who was 150% your better in genetic
This illustrates a point: preservation is about preservation, not improvement. If there was a Celt who had an IQ of 240, perfect health, was 6'6", and a paragon of man in all other ways, should ANY Nordo-Germanic breed with him? No. Because preservation is about preservation, and too many racialists get stuck on looking down upon other races, as if the 'inferiority' of blacks or mediterraneanids was our reason to preserve whites and nordics.
So, what is your point in posting this?


I have a dark friend who isn’t worth much racially, at least not from a nordish point of view, but he is really great intellectually and he’s in the process of really understanding what its all about.... rather that they are of the dark type, with possible dubious ancestry)
Stig is affiliated with the AHF, not ANUS.
Anyway, here, he demonstrates that he is not some sort of absolutist. One can be a racialist and still find worth in 'dark types.'
So, your point is...?


You do know that most English are of mixed subrace to such a degree that they’re genetically predisposed to be homosexuals (same with Americans, except their genetic predisposition is to attend Jerry Springer filmings)?
The English are gay. lol.
An obvious troll.


Jews are a white people. The Askenazim (the ‘jewish race’) is more white than many mediterraneans, who are considered to be ‘white’ by ‘white nationalists’. So if mediterraneans are white, then jews are white too.
You may argue that jews have specific physical features and a different culture. But Germanic people, Slavic people and Mediterraneans all have specific physical features and a culture different from one another. And Askenazi culture really does have a lot of similarities with Eastern-European cultures. I dare you to name one element that is present in all white races but not in the Askenazim......
This could actually be interpreted positively from a 'Nordicist' perspective. He basically says that 'white' is a meaningless term, especially if extended to all Europids--because Askenazim are pretty 'white' based upon 'European' standards (whatever those are). Thus we should not unite around 'whiteness,' but around our sub-races or cultures.
The point?

Sigel
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 01:57 PM
This illustrates a point: preservation is about preservation, not improvement. If there was a Celt who had an IQ of 240, perfect health, was 6’6”, and a paragon of man in all other ways, should ANY Nordo-Germanic breed with him? No.
So, are you in favour of preservation or improvement?

too many racialists get stuck on looking down upon other races, as if the ‘inferiority’ of blacks or mediterraneanids was our reason to preserve whites and nordics.
I agree - It’s silly.

So, what is your point in posting this?
What is HIS point in posting this?

Stig is affiliated with the AHF, not ANUS.
Anyway, here, he demonstrates that he is not some sort of absolutist. One can be a racialist and still find worth in ‘dark types.’
So, your point is...?
Yawn... okay so Norwegians are of no more value than ‘dark types’. I agree, everyone who meets your ill-defined criteria can be an Ubermensch. My application form is not in the post btw.

The English are gay. lol.
An obvious troll.
Really? From the same multi-headed Hydra that claims “German has been a biological category for many years.” (infoterror on Blut und Boden).

This could actually be interpreted positively from a ‘Nordicist’ perspective. He basically says that ‘white’ is a meaningless term, especially if extended to all Europids--because Askenazim are pretty ‘white’ based upon ‘European’ standards (whatever those are). Thus we should not unite around ‘whiteness,’ but around our sub-races or cultures.
Well, if you say so.

The point?
The point is that ANUS dump their factually perverse “nuggets of wisdom” here and elsewhere, then run away and refuse to debate.
They all hide behind a smoke screen and use apologists, like yourself, to do their dirty work. They skulk in the shadows and try to dodge the fact that they do not have ANY affinity for any race.

The Ubermensch is a philosophical creation of individuals who, themselves, would love to posit racial superiority but whose racial ‘mix’ does not permit them to do so.

They make, thereby, two errors. The first is to assume that tNP is a Nordic supremacist site.

People have the idea that we are trying to preserve the Nordic race, because we believe it is superior to others. This is simply not true.
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=125191&postcount=10
The second is to assume that this ‘supremacist’ mentality can then be tapped for their own use and channelled into the vision of their Ubermensch.

Such thoughts can only come from individuals who are sundered from all roots in the soul of a folk. You have also confessed that you feel no affinity for your racial compatriots in the USA.

Thus, purging 95% of ANY race is not a problem for one who is not part of a race. At a time when we are beset with problems of the magnitude we have never previously experienced, when my people are slowly dying; the last thing I shall accept is a cull.

ANUS calls me a “tribal Marxist” and a “low-quality, low-caste” white. Fortunately tNP is the one place I never have to apologise for my Germanic blood; the bond is implicit.

As the darkness gathers around my folk and our fire burns low. ANUS is just one voice beckoning from the darkness, beyond the circle of light.

jcs
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005, 03:14 AM
So, are you in favour of preservation or improvement?
The concepts are not mutually exclusive and in fact compliment one another quite well. But I would like to improve my race, improving my offspring by choosing a mate of good character of my race, rather than forsaking preservation for the sake of some narrow-minded view of 'improvement' (such as mating with a paragon of some other race).
Similarly, preservation should not forsake improvement.


What is HIS point in posting this?
To demonstrate the 'silliness' of preserving one race because others are inferior or such. Believe it or not, there are a few 'niggers are stupid and worthless' threads here, as with all racialist sites, and if allowed to digress uninterrupted a group seems to adopt a preservationist ideology which they support only with 'dumb nigger' notions. The point of his post: we do not preserve our race because we're better--even if someone is one's better, one should stick with one's own kind.


okay so Norwegians are of no more value than ‘dark types’.
(I'll edit my own vulgarity)
Who the [explitive deleted] said or implied this? Because I see only misrepresentation.


The point is that ANUS dump their factually perverse “nuggets of wisdom” here and elsewhere, then run away and refuse to debate.
Infoterror refused to debate you. I have not, but if you continue to misrepresent my views, placing ill-founded conclusions and words in my mouth, I'll cease discussing this as well.


They all hide behind a smoke screen and use apologists, like yourself, to do their dirty work.
Who is this 'they' you speak of? Who is ANUS?
http://www.rn-consult.de/transfer/spartacus.jpg
I'm ANUS.


The Ubermensch is a philosophical creation of individuals who, themselves, would love to posit racial superiority but whose racial ‘mix’ does not permit them to do so.
The Ubermensch is a philosophical creation of Nietzsche, and I don't see anyone but you throwing around the term.
And stop with the goddamn ad hominem. "...whose racial 'mix' does not permit them to do so."--right... everyone who is not 'pure' can say nothing intelligent (rofl).
I'm fully Germanic, of Swedish and Germanic extraction, and predominantly Nordic. I happen to agree with much of the ANUS world-view. So, maybe now you can get past this racial 'mix' issue--which I'm pretty sure you've invented to discredit ANUS--and give a decent criticism of the ideas?
One last thing about this comment: who's posited 'racial superiority'? The ANUS view is preservationist, not supremacist (superiority-icist), as explicitly spelled out in a number of articles. If anything, I'd say ANUS is too concerned with some sort of quasi-nationalist-utopianism and bio-diversity; 'they're' certainly not a bunch of mixed people pretending to be Uber-Nords, or whatever you're misrepresenting 'them' as.


Such thoughts can only come from individuals who are sundered from all roots in the soul of a folk. You have also confessed that you feel no affinity for your racial compatriots in the USA.
I'd like to see what context that view is in.


Thus, purging 95% of ANY race is not a problem for one who is not part of a race.
You're too caught up in logistics, moralism, and such, and too dismissive of necessity.


At a time when we are beset with problems of the magnitude we have never previously experienced, when my people are slowly dying; the last thing I shall accept is a cull.
The racial situation is certainly poor, but this comment sounds like veiled imparativism, which sets up some great, imagined (there's a problem, but not of the oh-so-terrible magnitude you imply) crisis so as to avoid facing the reality of the whole situation. Overpopulation and racial degeneration from within are greater crises than external threats. Verily, there would be no external threat if we had not already degenerated--


Fortunately tNP is the one place I never have to apologise for my Germanic blood; the bond is implicit.
Yeah, before "Death to the Undermen," the ANUS motto was "Germany sucks. Germans should be ashamed and apologise." :rolleyes:


As the darkness gathers around my folk and our fire burns low. ANUS is just one voice beckoning from the darkness, beyond the circle of light.
At some point, one should gather the courage to leave the fire and face the reality of darkness.
(darkness being fear of the unknown and the 'evils' of reality, not darker races in my hijacking of your metaphor)

lei.talk
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005, 09:58 AM
I'll keep this short...and just skirmish to get some easy kills
while the cavalry readies a full charge.such a preface suggests that debate,
rather than discussion, is your goal.

"I've always found the former to be essentially useless
(and usually degenerating into flame-wars),
while the latter is almost always fruitful."
...all who share with ANUS ideologically have had their beliefs insulted.
Lastly, these beliefs were not only insulted directly,
but also 'with ... stupidity,'
that is, with generalizations and misrepresentations.it is neither insulting nor stupidity
to point out demagoguery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy)
that contains factual inaccuracies,
fallacious reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy)
and weak rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric).

those specificities were not generalisations or mis-representations.
The environment seems to be having a great deal of trouble.
I cite the current world population.you cite the world-population...what?
there are too many people because there are too many people?

successful communication requires more than a recitation
of an article of faith
from your catechism.
Perhaps you meant something else that I failed to see, though
(as the 'looking for examples' comments don't make sense following from this)?the examples of natural exterminations on other continents
were contrasted to scandinavia.
I beg to differ:
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/wigger-15344.jpg
the image of an apparently ignorant and foolish youth
is neither a factual nor reasoned substantiation
for involuntary euthanasia (http://www.eugenics-watch.com/).

implicit is the pre-scientific philosophical error
that change (improvement) is not possible.
Thought one:
this moral, humane 'all people should live' mentality is short-sighted.
Thought two:
this moral, humane 'all people should live' mentality does not exist
within the often harsh law of nature.you are attempting to palm-off
a transparent rhetorical device
("straw-man (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html)").
at no point did i say or imply
that all persons should live.
Are you a rock? Plastic? A cog in a machine?
If not, how can you possibly be 'objective' in anything?
Your morality, as with all things coming from a subject, is subjective.'a persistent obtuseness
regarding the simple meaning of words like "objective (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/objective)" and "subjective (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subjective)"
only lends credence to accusations of trollishness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll).
The World, the place of objects and things, knows no morality; on the contrary,
"the world" is the strictest arbiter of morality.
it is not influenced by rhetoric.
subjectivists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28philosophy%29#Epistemic_subje ctivity) (platonic idealists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism))
have an exaggeratedly negative psychological reaction
to that which they can not manipulate with words.
there is no 'ought' implicit in existence.there is an "ought" implicit in every "is".

the obvious example:
what an acorn "is" determines that it "ought" to be an oak.

inadequate external cues
will prevent that potential from realisation.
Perhaps you meant 'universal' as opposed to relative?i do not know what this question refers to.
i did not use either word.

Sigel
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005, 12:06 PM
The concepts are not mutually exclusive and in fact compliment one another quite well. But I would like to improve my race, improving my offspring by choosing a mate of good character of my race, rather than forsaking preservation for the sake of some narrow-minded view of ‘improvement’ (such as mating with a paragon of some other race).
Similarly, preservation should not forsake improvement.
Fair enough.

To demonstrate the ‘silliness’ of preserving one race because others are inferior or such. Believe it or not, there are a few ‘niggers are stupid and worthless’ threads here, as with all racialist sites, and if allowed to digress uninterrupted a group seems to adopt a preservationist ideology which they support only with ‘dumb nigger’ notions. The point of his post: we do not preserve our race because we’re better--even if someone is one’s better, one should stick with one’s own kind.
True. You’ll search in vain for any post of mine which espouses such “niggers are stupid and worthless” sentiments. I agree, one should stick with one’s own kind.


(I’ll edit my own vulgarity)
Don’t mind me.


Infoterror refused to debate you. I have not, but if you continue to misrepresent my views, placing ill-founded conclusions and words in my mouth, I’ll cease discussing this as well.
Please yourself.


Who is this ‘they’ you speak of? Who is ANUS?
http://www.rn-consult.de/transfer/spartacus.jpg
I’m ANUS.
Cute lol. Who is ANUS? You know better than I, but I have my opinions - better not go there unless I upset you again though.


The Ubermensch is a philosophical creation of Nietzsche, and I don’t see anyone but you throwing around the term.
mmm... I heartily recommend a site by a bunch of chaps who call themselves ANUS. You’ll find a fair bit about it there. In fact I’d hardly ever encountered the term until I read their stuff. I have a hunch you’d like it.


And stop with the goddamn ad hominem. “...whose racial ‘mix’ does not permit them to do so.”--right... everyone who is not ‘pure’ can say nothing intelligent (rofl).
The bottom line is, I’m not against any race and I have respect for anyone who is intelligent and worthy. I don’t care if you are pure-blood Nordic or not. Either way, you were born that way and there’s not a lot you can do about it. That wasn’t the point I was trying to make.


I’m fully Germanic, of Swedish and Germanic extraction, and predominantly Nordic.
Okay.


I happen to agree with much of the ANUS world-view. So, maybe now you can get past this racial ‘mix’ issue--which I’m pretty sure you’ve invented to discredit ANUS--and give a decent criticism of the ideas?
I wouldn’t dream of “discrediting” ANUS; I'd rather leave them to do it. I am merely struggling to understand how a person can come to so despise his own race that he would have no qualms about slaying a great quantity of them. My experience has shown me time and time again that those who call for such things have no stake in our preservation; swarths and race-traitors. It’s hardly an insult. It is a logical conclusion. How could it be otherwise?


One last thing about this comment: who’s posited ‘racial superiority’? The ANUS view is preservationist, not supremacist (superiority-icist), as explicitly spelled out in a number of articles.
That all depends how you choose to define (superiority-icist). I have the feeling that much of ANUS’s philosophy is a reaction to the US WP movement. You see images of drunken, pot-bellied, red-neck skinheads who can barely read or write pulling Hitler salutes. Not a pretty sight I agree. Your conclusion is, therefore to distance yourselves from this unsavoury mass with a different philosophy. Your take on superiority is not racial (like the WP thugs), it is mental, philosophical and at times almost metaphysical. You have explained that all is fixed at birth and that fate is inexorable. Your solution is the elite Ubermensch (come on, don’t be coy - you know what I mean).
Just how such a Mensch comes to be, or what constitutes his makeup is rather unclear. “He’ll know who he is!” “He’s born to lead”. etc. etc. We know what he isn’t; that’s an Underman (and we all know what’s going to happen to them don’t we?)
Personally, I don’t give a fig for WP skinheads, or your Ubermensch. They are both in some stupid utopian world and can stay there as far as I’m concerned, because...


The racial situation is certainly poor, but this comment sounds like veiled imparativism, which sets up some great, imagined (there’s a problem, but not of the oh-so-terrible magnitude you imply) crisis so as to avoid facing the reality of the whole situation. Overpopulation and racial degeneration from within are greater crises than external threats. Verily, there would be no external threat if we had not already degenerated--
There is a problem. Slaying our own, or sticking the boot in, will not solve it.


Yeah, before “Death to the Undermen,” the ANUS motto was “Germany sucks. Germans should be ashamed and apologise.” :rolleyes:
The fact you take my remark out of context says more about you than anything I need to add.


At some point, one should gather the courage to leave the fire and face the reality of darkness.
(darkness being fear of the unknown and the ‘evils’ of reality, not darker races in my hijacking of your metaphor)
We are staring into it mate. People like you are staring back.

jcs
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005, 08:24 PM
what an acorn "is" determines that it "ought" to be an oak.
I disagree. An acorn ought to become food for a squirrel and never become an oak. If every acorn became an oak, there would be an over-abundance of oaks.
A problem with the world now is that there are no squirrels to prevent most humans from becoming oaks, so to speak.

I'm done with these stupid threads. As lei.talk pointed out, I'm just debating here (the other thread began with the intent of provoking debate, and this thread had become a debate-thread before I erred by stating my views), and a when I anticipate likely responses to any replies I could give to the above comments, I can see only more debate, followed by more debate, followed by...

Just one thing:

you are attempting to palm-off
a transparent rhetorical device
("straw-man (http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Elilyth/strawman.html)").
at no point did i say or imply
that all persons should live.
The quoted passage you responded thusly to was an explaination of your misunderstanding of Sean's comments. You like to list fallacies when, upon re-reading, you might realize that there is no room for fallacy--because I wasn't making any argument (save that Sean meant such-and-such).

Death to the Undermen!

lei.talk
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005, 08:50 PM
I am merely struggling to understand how
a person can come to so despise his own race
that he would have no qualms about slaying a great quantity of them.
it is an isolated variation
of the transference of self-hatred,
which was engendered
by a feeling of one's inadequacy
(an incorrect self-evaluation)
to manipulate the objects in reality
and thereby attain self-satisfaction
(some times complicated by a child's discomfort
at abandoning a fulfilling relationship with a provider).

hence, the reliance on the psychologically-retarded device
of agency: the utilisation of words
to manipulate adults
in to fulfilling one's physical and emotional needs, wants and desires.

the initiating sense-of-angst
usually dissipates
after the student departs the university-milieu
and experiences some success in the real world
and develops psychologically mature relationships
with efficacious adults.

as is the case with drug-addicts
(and others that rely on psychological crutches),
that necessary emotional growth will not occur
during continued association
with others of the same
(mutually re-enforcing) emotional dis-function.

obviously, i have spent some time
with frightened pseudo-intellectual collegians.
this behavior becomes more egregious as graduation looms.
lacking a "scholarship to life",
many students desperately search for some way to stay in school.
they start missing classes, flunking tests, become drug-dependent
- it can be tragic.

lei.talk
Wednesday, October 19th, 2005, 10:29 AM
I disagree.
An acorn ought to become food for a squirrel and never become an oak.more basic science needed:
oaks do not produce acorns to feed the squirrels
(acorns are for reproduction).

how ever, if we follow your path:
the acorns are all eaten by squirrels,
the oaks eventually die
and we are one step closer
to the annihilation that you advocate.

wait a minute,
you said there is no "ought" in an earlier post (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=125469#post125469).
well, we can skip over the internal inconsistencies
(there is so much else to discuss).
If every acorn became an oak,
there would be an over-abundance of oaks.more of your simplistic
"i insist that you choose one extreme or the other" rhetoric.

how many persons succumb to that tactic?
you might realize that there is no room for fallacy--
because I wasn't making any argumenti have heard that criticism
of emissaries from anus
- they do not present facts or ratiocination (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ratiocination).

they declare an article of faith
from their catechism
on some one else's band-width (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)
and run away.
a group account for promotional purposes(in other words - free advertising)

lei.talk
Wednesday, October 19th, 2005, 11:06 AM
Your whole argument is rife with some implicit hypothetical:
what would the world be like if things were other than they are?
The world is as it is, and cannot be otherwise.there has been some thought in the past twenty-five hundred years
since parmenides (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm1.htm) generated those declarations
and, thankfully,
most of this new thought is based on scientific observations.

obviously, the world can be "otherwise" than it "is"
and it will be different with each new moment.

the concept of "time" is utile in resolving your false alternative.
The statement of yours I responded to contained within itself an implicit universal quantifier. as i am operating from an objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_objectivism) epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology),
i do not ulitise "universal quantifiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantifier)" (implicit or not)
- that is a self-imposed burden that platonic idealists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism) must struggle under.

i understand that you were handicapped in your comprehension
by your pre-scientific ontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology).

The 'straw man' that you accuse me of attacking is constructed by your own statement. once again, your feigned obtuseness
(the concepts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concepts) involved are not abstruse):
you presented a false alternative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_alternative)
between absolute determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) of genes
and absolute "lack of responsibility" due to environmental affect.

that was the "straw-man (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html)" of your construction
- to avoid answering a direct question.
So you at least admit that there are some 'internal cues'?
--perhaps some genetic basis for certain characteristics?
Well, now, that would mean
that there are some Nordics that are worth more than others--
and I hold that there are some who are completely worthless. first, i admit....wait a minute,
i am the one that mentioned the intrinsic necessity
of "internal cues" for organic development,
earlier in this discussion (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=125692#post125692). now, you would have me admitting to them?
that is weak and desperate.

secondly, how do you get from "genetic basis for certain characteristics"
to "some Nordics that are worth more than others"
and then "there are some who are completely worthless"?

if you are going to strive for the appearance of a syllogism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism),
you need to supply some linking facts or reasoning
- because those three declarations do not overlap, when diagramed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram).
No being ever changes, save in outward behavior. your sweeping generalisations are obviously false.

when i had my wisdom-teeth removed,
i changed in some way other than my "outward behavior".
Why do you object to the deaths of the worthless? apparently, some persons have more imagination than you
- regarding the worth of others (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=116528&highlight=security+deposit#post116528).

you would seem to be the victim
of a modern "liberal arts" education.

if you had the benefits of a classical educational schema:
which began with grammar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar), rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric), and logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic)
to prepare you for arithmetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic), geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry), music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music), and astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy)
as a foundation of the study of philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) and theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology)
(where you are now floundering
because you lack the pre-requisites)
you would not be so confused.

you will find my attachment helpful.

http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=5989&stc=1&d=1129714877 (http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html)

Frostwood
Wednesday, October 19th, 2005, 09:46 PM
obviously, the world can be "otherwise" than it "is"
and it will be different with each new moment.

How can the world be otherwise from what it is and will be? We create ideas based on the world, not vice versa. The world is but an everflowing, ever changing stream but the ideas man thinks are eternal but which are in fact incompatible with the world's workings, will not change the torrent as they are merely washed away.


secondly, how do you get from "genetic basis for certain characteristics"
to "some Nordics that are worth more than others"
and then "there are some who are completely worthless"?

if you are going to strive for the appearance of a syllogism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism),
you need to supply some linking facts or reasoning
- because those three declarations do not overlap, when diagramed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram).

The above-mentioned statements do not overlap, yes, unless provided with a scale to determine worth.

To measure someone's worthiness we must have a scale to measure with. Let's use intelligence as the sole factor. For example, a task requires X intelligence, but of persons A and B, only A is fit for the duty whereas Mr. B is worthless in terms of that specific task and can be duly shot as far as that task is concerned.


apparently, some persons have more imagination than you
- regarding the worth of others (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=116528&highlight=security+deposit#post116528).

It's great if people learn and they can give their utmost, provided that results are worth the effort. Although, a retard is a retard however well he can play football and thus shouldn't be taught to play football if that means he can rise up in social ladder / better the chance of finding a superior mate. I believe this is what jcs meant by "No being ever changes, save in outward behavior." What will be the outcome if the low-caste are taught the ways and values of the high-caste? Will they become high-caste themselves?