Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Philosophical Discussion of David Lane's Precepts

  1. #11
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Dagna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Friday, July 31st, 2020 @ 02:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Northern German, Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Politics
    Classic Liberalism
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Posts
    2,097
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    24
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    157
    Thanked in
    114 Posts
    Lane's first problem is that he thinks in white, instead of Germanic terms. I do not care about the "Aryan race", I care about my own kin and that which is not alien to it. So if anyone wanted to ammend the 88 precepts, the first move should be removing all the white/Aryan references and inserting Germanic instead, to appeal to our own kin and attempt to place them within the wider framework of Germanic preservation.

    I believe criticizing the 88 precepts would lead to a long discussions about some topics that have already been discussed. For instance:

    35. Homosexuality is a crime against Nature. All Nature declares the purpose of the instinct for sexual union is reproduction and thus, preservation of the species. The overpowering male sex drive must be channeled toward possession of females of the same race, as well as elements such as territory and power, which are necessary to keep them.
    Homosexuality is no "crime against nature", as homosexuality is natural and present among many animal species, including our humans.

    47. The simplest way to describe a democracy is this: Three people form a government, each having one vote. Then two of them vote to steal the wealth of the third.

    48. The latter stages of a democracy are filled with foreign wars, because the bankrupt system attempts to preserve itself by plundering other nations.

    49. In a democracy that which is legal is seldom moral, and that which is moral is often illegal.
    The form of government we live under today is not truly democracy. It is a degenerate corruption.

    I believe ther noble nine virtues are a better example of ethics and morals, which should be sticked on a Germanic forum instead.
    Last edited by Moody; Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 at 04:26 PM. Reason: removed ad hominems/ off-topic irrelevancies


    Die Sonne scheint noch.

  2. #12
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 11th, 2016 @ 12:27 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    CM-Atlantidish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Location
    Mamvcivm
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    British
    Posts
    3,589
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    67
    Thanked in
    67 Posts
    Can I remind people that discussion of homosexuality is not really on topic here, and has several threads dedicated to it elsewhere on the forum - easy enough to find if you care to. Lane's personal character is also only a side aspect of what the thread should be about.

    Can discussion please focus on the ethical system outlined in the first post? As our Philosophy Mod said above:
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    Let those who reject these Precepts put up their own alternatives or amendments to them on this thread rather than dwell on the Silent Brotherhood etc.,

    EDIT: I'll let you off, Dagna, you were obviously writing at the same time I was! Homosexuality theme posts moved here:

    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=94238

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Renwein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, December 28th, 2018 @ 07:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Posts
    632
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    I agree with this;
    Quote Originally Posted by Loddfafner View Post
    The puritanical dogma scattered throughout directly contradicts the bits about harmony with nature and openness to truth.
    the list is so seeped with american 'wn'-ism that it makes it offputting even though some parts are 'good' so to say. I think the list on the 88th point is a good example;

    "1) mixing and destruction of the founding race
    2) destruction of the family units
    3) oppressive taxation
    4) corruption of the Law
    5) terror and suppression against those who warn of the Nation's error
    6) immorality: drugs, drunkenness, etc.
    7) infanticide (now called abortion)
    8) destruction of the currency (inflation or usury)
    9) aliens in the land, alien culture
    10) materialism
    11) foreign wars
    12) guardians (leaders) who pursue wealth or glory
    13) homosexuality
    14) religion not based on Natural Law"

    I'm sure many of these 'signs of destruction of the race' were present in many 'healty' nations throughout time. The list could only have been written by an reactionary, 20th c. american WN (despite it being passed off as some kind of eternal truth!). eg. #2 may be true, but different family units are not destructive per se and may actually be more constructive if ordered correctly. This point could only be made by a reactionary WN and betrays christian influence. #6 will be present in all nations, and also I think some kind of 'shamanic' drug ritual could theoretically feature as part of a healthy national ceremony. #13 is another christian/reactionary one, don't forget the 'glories' of western culture were built on two cultures who had a rather different approach to sexuality... #12 again, always has been the case. #11, another 'american' sentiment, all nations have 'foregin wars' in their past and most will have been formed by them in the first place, and many will have been made stronger by them at some point. How did Mr. Lane's US of A come into being in the first place after all? somehow i think 'civil war' would be more indicitive of a 'sick' nation...

    I don't like the '14 words' either, trite and boring, uninspired, and intuitively obvious to anyone besides. (plus use the dreaded tearm 'white'). I do appreciate that some 'rallying texts' are needed but surely someone can do better...

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dagna View Post
    Lane's first problem is that he thinks in white, instead of Germanic terms. I do not care about the "Aryan race", I care about my own kin and that which is not alien to it. So if anyone wanted to ammend the 88 precepts, the first move should be removing all the white/Aryan references and inserting Germanic instead, to appeal to our own kin and attempt to place them within the wider framework of Germanic preservation... [...]
    ... I believe ther noble nine virtues are a better example of ethics and morals, which should be sticked on a Germanic forum instead.
    The term 'Aryan' is used variously - sometimes as a synonym for 'Nordic', other times to mean merely Caucasian. It also adverts to the view that the Germanic, Latin, Slavic cultures atc., all share an Indo-European basis.
    Therefore, it would be easy to substitute 'Germanic' for 'Aryan' wherever you want, and would be the beginning of a critique of the 88 Precepts.
    Just to add, Lane only uses the term "Aryan" twice in the eighty-eight precepts!

    It might be philosophically interesting to compare the 88 Precepts with the 9 Noble Virtues, as you indicate.

    The obvious difference is that there are 79 more Precepts!

    Life is complex, so maybe even 88 precepts is not enough, and perhaps 9 virtues too, is not quite enough to guide one's life.

    The Nine Noble Virtues are vague and not specific. Nor do they refer to Germanicism in any way:

    9 NV:
    courage,
    truth,
    honor,
    fidelity,
    discipline,
    hospitality,
    industriousness,
    self reliance,
    perseverance.

    They do not state whether one should tell the truth at all times or whether we should tell the truth only to our fellows. Nor do they tell us whether we should be hospitable to all and sundry or only to our fellows etc., etc.

    There is no mention of the psychological, sexual, or religious life either [the gods are not even mentioned]. Nor is there anything to do with politics or metaphysics etc.,
    Neither is there any guide on legal matters.
    They are not Germano specific, not only because they do not mention Germanics, but also because every culture on earth will lay claim to these virtues. There is also no mention in them of Preservation - an important ethical concept in my view.

    In all, they are inadequate as a guide to life in any meaningful philosophical sense as they are unclear on what will happen to someone who is uncouragous, untruthful, dishonourable, infidelitous, indisciplined, inhospitable, unindustrious, unself-reliant, and unpersevering.

    McNallen's Nine just say that one thing is "better" than they other;

    1. Strength is better than weakness

    2. Courage is better than cowardice

    3. Joy is better than guilt

    4. Honour is better than dishonour

    5. Freedom is better than slavery

    6. Kinship is better than alienation

    7. Realism is better than dogmatism

    8. Vigour is better than lifelessness

    9. Ancestry is better than universalism


    So where is the imperative to live in a certain way? Can we tell a lie and say, 'I know it would have been "better" to tell the truth, but you know, I couldn't get it right that day'?
    And aren't there times when it is "better" not to tell the truth? - I've just noticed, McNallen doesn't even include truth as a virtue!


    Obviously, the 88 Precepts are an attempt to give something far more useful on an ethical and moral basis - something to chew on, which is sorely lacking in the 9NV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loddfafner View Post
    The puritanical dogma scattered throughout directly contradicts the bits about harmony with nature and openness to truth.
    I think we need to understand what Lane means by Nature in his view. According to him:
    30. The instincts for racial and specie preservation are ordained by Nature.

    He therefore approaches all questions from this perspective, which is very different from the Puritanical objections to sex [and sexual mores are part of morality and ethics].
    He is actually very un-puritanical:
    34. The instinct for sexual union is part of Nature’s perfect mechanism for specie preservation. It begins early in life and often continues until late in life. It must not be repressed; its purpose, reproduction, must not be thwarted either.


    Quote Originally Posted by rainman View Post
    Basically he says that any race which doesn't fight for its survival will die. Well true, but race is a relative concept. Most people really don't care....
    ... He also bases his philosophy on hate which is not a sustainable way of life.
    The Precepts agree that most people don't care, and condemn them for it; however he rejects race-hate [and therefore the Precepts are not illegal]:
    27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one’s own race.

    Indeed, it is the very relative nature of race which makes the need for separation! The Precepts take a very relativistic [and fluxious] metaphysic:
    81. Nothing in Nature is static; either the life force grows and expands or it decays and dies.
    This shows the influence of Heraclitus and Nietzsche.
    Therefore he does not commit the fallacy you believe he does.

    One example I read David Lane's Wotanist book.
    What book is that?

    It had nothing about religion in it.
    Right at the start of the Precepts he gives his views on religion - they are quite clear and relate to his Heraclitean outlook:
    3...Religion is the creation of mortals, therefore predestined to fallibility. Religion may preserve or destroy a People, depending on the structure given by its progenitors, the motives of its agents and the vagaries of historical circumstances

    ... when you poke and prod and start to think about what he says- there simply is no substance.
    I actually disagree; I think you have yet to get beneath the surface here.
    For instance, the Precepts re-evoke the teachings of Plato's Republic [where the Guardians (philosopher-rulers) are to lead]:
    50 ... He must be a guardian in his heart. He must be one who has shown that his only purpose in life is the preservation of the folk. His ultimate aim must be to restore the rule of Law based on the perfect Laws of Nature.

    Why do you believe so strongly in the preservation of the white race? This is something that should take a normal racialist a lot of soul searching and can't be answered quickly. I know I used to feel a lot more racial as I saw the race as a preservation of myself, but I now realize most whites are nothing like me.
    Preservation is to be preferred to destruction in all areas where that with which we are concerned to preserve is not harmful.
    Are the White or Germanic Races harmful?
    I say not; therefore they should be preserved.
    If like the Precepts you believe that things are always in flux, then you have to take measures to preserve those things that you hold dear.

    Or think David Lane believes "might makes right".
    The Precepts do not say that at all - the phrase is not in there.
    On a metaphysical level he thinks that Force is the motive behind the Universe and Nature [and so agrees with Nietzsche here]:
    2. Whatever People’s perception of God, or Gods, or the motive Force of the Universe might be, they can hardly deny that Nature’s Law are the work of, and therefore the intent of, that Force.


    ... the price we pay for being civilized is we have to respect the law and respect other people.
    The Precepts reject race-hate as already quoted. While the law must be respected, we are allowed to criticise current laws and lobby for their change. Consider the current economic recession, and then this Precept:
    78. The simplest way to describe a usury-based central banking system is this: The bankers demand the property of the Nation as collateral for their loans. At interest, more money is owed them that they created with the loans. So, eventually, the bankers foreclose on the Nation.

    This underlies Lane's rejection on an ethical basis of usury.




    But take this:
    41. The folk, namely the members of the Race, are the Nation. Racial loyalties must always supersede geographical and national boundaries. If this is taught and understood, it will end fratricidal wars. Wars must not be fought for the benefit of another race.

    This carries the assumption that God layed down three or four distinct races of man and all that must be done is to keep them from mixing with each other and they will be preserved. It is a false view.
    As I quoted above, Lane takes a relativist view of religion and the Universe. If he believed that racial purity was ordained by God [which is not said in the Precepts at all] then why would we need to take measures to preserve it?
    The Precepts suggest that the trend is towards the mixing of races which will end the racial distinctiveness that Lane treasures. That is a rational view, rather than a religious one:
    33. Inter-specie compassion is contrary to the Laws of Nature and is, therefore, suicidal.

    That is based on an evolutionary reading of nature, not a Biblical one. Likewise:
    26. Nature has put a certain antipathy between races and species to preserve the individuality and existence of each. Violation of the territorial imperative necessary to preserve that antipathy leads to either conflict or mongrelization.

    Another evolutionist view out of Ardrey.

    White people are for the most part who are responsible for the destruction of the white race.
    You agree with the Precepts then:
    27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one’s own race. One must, however, hate with a pure and perfect hatred those of one’s own race who commit treason against one’s own kind and against the nations of one’s own kind. One must hate with perfect hatred all those People or practices which destroy one’s People, one’s culture, or the racial exclusiveness of one’s territorial imperative.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  5. #15
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 17th, 2021 @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,253
    Thanked in
    739 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    Preservation is to be preferred to destruction in all areas where that with which we are concerned to preserve is not harmful.
    Are the White or Germanic Races harmful?
    I say not; therefore they should be preserved.
    I say it depends, harmful to whom/what? To the Germans for instance, the Slavic races are/have been harmful. From Prussia and the originally German Eastern territories they occupied, to the rape of Berlin and enslavement/humiliation of the German race, we could say the history of Germans and Slavs are in opposition. The same could be said about the Greeks and Turks, in my opinion, or just pick another example of opposition. Thus, I am not equally interested in preserving the German and Slavic races and I resent having an "=" sign put between Germanic and white. Maybe in Lane's America Germans and Slavs could unite in brotherhood, but not in Europe, I don't think so.

    27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one’s own race. One must, however, hate with a pure and perfect hatred those of one’s own race who commit treason against one’s own kind and against the nations of one’s own kind. One must hate with perfect hatred all those People or practices which destroy one’s People, one’s culture, or the racial exclusiveness of one’s territorial imperative.
    Why is it alright to hate your own, but not alright to hate the foreign? I hate both those of my kind who commit treason and those of other races or even those of mixed races who hurt my kind.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hauke Haien View Post
    I despise WN and David Lane and anyone who tries to define a folk by purely biological components, which are often so distinct on a spiritual, cultural and, indeed, even biological level that they can only be glued together in a liberal-individualist system like the one we are approaching now and that has been in place in the United States for some time already, but if I wanted to keep hearing about Stormfront, I would probably visit Stormfront, which I don't. It would pay off to find out what this place really is first and 4 year old threads from another era, and perhaps another board that has been merged into this, are not exactly the way to do it, in my opinion.
    In the Philosophy section we are at liberty to discuss ideas as ideas. Therefore if someone presents a purely biological ethic, we discuss it; just as we discuss a purely spiritual ethic. Skadi has a rich and varied heritage from over the years which gives it a depth lacking in other places. I find it philosophically satisfying to come back to issues after a gap of some years and build on what was created before.
    As I have said already, my interest is not in Lane the man but in the ideas he put forward in his Precepts. They need to be debated from many perspectives, including the Skadi perspective.
    Debating does not mean condoning.
    An is is not an ought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    I say it depends, harmful to whom/what? To the Germans for instance, the Slavic races are/have been harmful. From Prussia and the originally German Eastern territories they occupied, to the rape of Berlin and enslavement/humiliation of the German race, we could say the history of Germans and Slavs are in opposition. The same could be said about the Greeks and Turks, in my opinion, or just pick another example of opposition. Thus, I am not equally interested in preserving the German and Slavic races and I resent having an "=" sign put between Germanic and white. Maybe in Lane's America Germans and Slavs could unite in brotherhood, but not in Europe, I don't think so.
    Why is it alright to hate your own, but not alright to hate the foreign? I hate both those of my kind who commit treason and those of other races or even those of mixed races who hurt my kind.
    There is a line of thought that says that one day very soon, Germanics, Slavs, Celts etc., will have to unite in order to fight off a general anti-White crusade agianst us. In such cases, we put aside our differences and do the job. After that. we go back to our own villages as before.


    To further elaborate on the question of preservation: we want to preserve that which we value, that is agreed.
    We would not want to preserve something that could complete destroy us - that would be suicidal, as Lane says.

    But we want might to preserve our enemies [especially if they are not able to completely wipe us out], as they keep us in good shape by their constant opposition.

    Indeed, in Britain, there is the conflict between Celt and Saxon that almost has a familial quality to it. And if anyone form outside should interfere we would both turn on them together!

    To keep this in the realm of Philosophical ethics, Nietzsche says, famously, 'what does not kill me makes me stronger'.

    Particular groups [such as the Germanics] have needed their enemies in the past in order to define what they are themselves.

    In ancient times German tribe fought against German tribe.

    However, Lane's dictum still stands:
    You should not hate your enemy as you should only have enemies who you respect.
    You can tell the quality of a people by the quality of their enemies.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  7. #17
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 17th, 2021 @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,253
    Thanked in
    739 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    There is a line of thought that says that one day very soon, Germanics, Slavs, Celts etc., will have to unite in order to fight off a general anti-White crusade agianst us. In such cases, we put aside our differences and do the job. After that. we go back to our own villages as before.
    I don't subscribe to that line of thought. When our preservational policy was threatened by the Jews and other foreign races, the Slavs united with them against us. Repeatedly. And they will do it again at every opportunity.

    To further elaborate on the question of preservation: we want to preserve that which we value, that is agreed.
    We would not want to preserve something that could complete destroy us - that would be suicidal, as Lane says.

    But we want might to preserve our enemies [especially if they are not able to completely wipe us out], as they keep us in good shape by their constant opposition.
    In ancient times German tribe fought against German tribe.
    Sure, but we are truly "brothers". You can't choose your family, but you can choose your friends and allies.

    However, Lane's dictum still stands:
    You should not hate your enemy as you should only have enemies who you respect.
    You can tell the quality of a people by the quality of their enemies.
    But then why should I hate my kin who betrays me? I don't respect them either.
    Last edited by Moody; Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 at 04:12 PM. Reason: removed continuous irrelevant anti-Slav rants

  8. #18
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ulf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 12th, 2010 @ 07:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Deitsch
    Gender
    Posts
    774
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    There is a line of thought that says that one day very soon, Germanics, Slavs, Celts etc., will have to unite in order to fight off a general anti-White crusade agianst us. In such cases, we put aside our differences and do the job. After that. we go back to our own villages as before.
    Reminds me of how Arminius rallied the Germanic tribes to fight off the Romans and then subsequently went back to battling one another afterwards.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulf View Post
    Reminds me of how Arminius rallied the Germanic tribes to fight off the Romans and then subsequently went back to battling one another afterwards.
    Yes, I agree most certainly, and his speech is recorded in Tacitus.

    It is a good ethical principle to 'unite your friends and divide your enemies'.

    A clever enemy will always seek to divide his enemy and leave them alone and friendless.

    In ancient times German tribe was divided against German tribe - so there has been some progress here if Germanics are becoming truly united.

    This is, I believe, behind the Precepts' references to the "White Race" and "Aryans", because as Lane sees it, the game is about survival.

    Therefore the Precepts [with some revisions] are a good code for survival.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. David Lane: Odinism is the Best Representation of Higher Power
    By Nachtengel in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, June 20th, 2016, 10:17 PM
  2. Good read from Wodensson (David Lane)
    By DreamWalker in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, December 9th, 2004, 01:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •