Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: National Socialism and National Anarchism

  1. #11
    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 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    Aloysha; "Politics deals with people. It is always personal. Say it - you want to destroy me".

    Moody; Wrong; you need to look at Schmitt; the political is the realm of the public enemy, NOT the private enemy. The latter is non-political and is all about personal hatred etc.,
    The public enemy is not hated; he is 'hostis', not 'inimicus'. You see, the Greeks and Romans made the distinction; unfortunately English doesn't, so it is often missed.
    I want this forum to recognise THE POLITICAL, which is based on the 'friend/enemy' antithesis [Yockey says this also].
    This is not hatred; also the antithesis is not necessary in Philosophy for example, where the distinctions of truth/falsehood, being/nothingness are at work.

    ALOYSHA; "I despise your Statist 'Racial Nationalism' - there you have it, typed up, on record, quote it all you want, I don't particularly care. I am all for Racialism but Statism is something I am most certainly not for. Ok? Can you accept that without calling me Jew or any other smear word? Or not?"

    Moody; Stop whining about my supposedly calling you a Jew - I never have!
    Quote it back to me if you dare!
    It is you who are constantly quoting and promoting Jews;
    Rand,
    Greenspan,
    Rothbard,
    Mises,
    Branden etc.,
    What are we supposed to do, PRETEND NOT TO NOTICE!
    All those named are ANTI-RACIST ... am I supposed not to notice that AS WELL!
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,810
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Siegfried Augustus
    But you do support neverending economic struggle, without an end in sight?
    Objectively, there is no end, that is true. Subjectively there is - one's own satisfaction. The entire system of Capitalism is propelled by the fact people want to live, people want things, people want to be satisfied.

    Endless struggle between commercial corporations? Because that's what Capitalism basically comes down to. Capitalism is in itself just as pointless/worthwile as war is in itself.
    War is violence, capitalism is trade. True, commerical businesses are competing with each other for the attention and business of consumers and every man wants to maximise his own satisfaction with the least expense.

    A Nietzschean would probably claim that the individual affirms his Will to Power through war and economic struggle, and would therefore deem both worthwile even if there's no higher purpose behind them.
    If a Nietzschean were to say that, and limit himself to economics (production, buying and selling), he would have to recognise the reason the system keeps going is not because people are doing it for the sake of doing it, but because people want something.

    And what exactly is the 'the light at the end of the tunnel' in this context?
    Whatever you want it to be - achievement of your own values and objectives. For most people this is their own satisfaction, their own happiness, the removal of discomfort. For others its producing a new generation, acquiring resources, the expansion of economic power, production on a grand scale, in short - human greatness.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Aethrei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 16th, 2005 @ 05:40 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Occupation
    Explorer
    Politics
    Caesareanism / Euronazi
    Posts
    44
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Anarcho-Capitalism

    Hello Aloysha,

    Thanks for confirming and clarifying my impression on N-A, that was kind and honest of you.

    You say you oppose the State because it is merely an outward structure that unjustly intervenes and loots. You also say you are opposed to Slavery. But aren't Anarcho-Capitalists just substituting one type of state for another? It wouldn't be too incorrect to call you, say, an Industrial Feudalist instead, right? One might say that what you see as "free association" boils down to plain subordination because the concept of Voluntarism [the choice to join some company or not, not one can force him, etc.] doesn't really take real circumstances into account, does it? I mean, in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, what does "Voluntarism" mean if the only choices of a labourer are to join some company or starve or leave the nation? The concept that a man agrees to give his labour to this or that is not a true concept of freedom, because he is compelled by circumstances to 'voluntarily' sell himself.
    The right Libertarian J. Philmore is quoted saying, "contractual slavery [is]... [an] extension of the employer-employee contract." and that "any thorough and decisive critique of voluntary slavery. . . would carry over to the employment contract... Such a critique would thus be a reductio ad absurdum." [Philmore, Op. Cit., p. 55]

    You say taxation is theft, but what is the difference between a landlord who charges a tenant because he owns the property, and the State?
    You would say the former was just and the latter was unjust because of Voluntarism; again, this is because Voluntarism does not take real and prevailing circumstances into account. Those Whites who have no property and aren't self-employed will be 'forced' to accept your rules [which you call voluntary exchange and association], or leave the nation.

    I understand the idea that you want to extend this to the Jews, but not all Anarcho-Capitalists are Racialists, and therefore its possible that your society would cause an emigration of White people to other countries. Do you see?

    Also, your idea presupposes that one already have property. If you accept that the Jews own almost everything today, its going to be an unending battle to keep pooling resources till you dominate them. In the likely event, you fail, your Anarcho-Capitalist ideology will leave you in subordination to the ones who dominate the hierarchy - this is something you have stated you despise.

    And reg. von Mises and Rothbard, the economic theory is so silly; I have only read it in passing however. But its plain to see why Chomsky would say its the worst idea ever come up with. Von Mises and Rothbard begin by observing that social and economic theory "is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience..." And things like - "no kind of experience can ever force us to discard or modify a priori theorems; they are logically prior to it and cannot be either proved by orroborative experience or disproved by experience to the contrary . . ."
    Experience "can never . . . prove or disprove any particular theorem . . . The ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem's correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience." [Human Action, p.858]

    Meaning, it refuses to take change into account, and if the outcome doesn't fit the theory, it is reality that is wrong, i.e. it is circumstance specific.

    "If a contradiction appears between a theory and experience, we must always assume that a condition pre-supposed by the theory was not present, or else there is some error in our observation. The disagreement between the theory and the facts of experience frequently forces us to think through the problems of the theory again. But so long as a rethinking of the theory uncovers no errors in our thinking, we are not entitled to doubt its truth" [Von Mises' a priorism excerpted in Ideology and Method in Economics by Homa Katouzian, pp. 39-40]

    Rothbard approves this writing "Mises indeed held not only that economic theory does not need to be 'tested' by historical fact but also that it cannot be so tested." [Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics" in The Foundation of Modern Austrian Economics, p. 32]

    Change is the fact of nature. Constructing a theory on opposing this fact is unwise in my opinion. It is anti-Natural. [This is in fact ironic considering the Rothbard/Rand/Mises school adhere to "Natural Law".]

    Anyway, I thought I should point a few things out. Mostly that anarcho-capitalism isn't a stabilizing theory to base a Nation on.


    > I won't delete any of your threads. You've promoted some interesting ideas, and like Moody, I'd like to hear more from you. Do keep posting.

    This is most kind of you to say. I'll post something on the Fed. Reserve later.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Aethrei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 16th, 2005 @ 05:40 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Occupation
    Explorer
    Politics
    Caesareanism / Euronazi
    Posts
    44
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Thanks

    > He has been championing the likes of Mises, Rothbard - even Alan Greenspan! - for the past couple of weeks or so. Essentially he is presenting a form of Jewish Capitalism as far as I am concerned.
    Therefore he is an 'enemy' in political terms.

    I think he might be mis-guided; the Austrian school of a-priori economics is inherently flawed from the little I have read. I think you were most close to checking this when you questioned Aloysha's concept of Freedom as "Freedom from Coercion". I sincerely hope that discussion continues and some good comes off it.

    > This is why I had to step back when you suggested a conciliation between Aloysha and I ...

    I was wrong to do so, sorry.

    > And I would be very interested if you COULD find a way of reconciling Aloysha's worship of the Golden Dollar with my own Hard-Nietzscheanism/N-S position![snowball in hell].

    That other Nietzschean, Herr Lowell has beat me to it, I see! All the better.

    > But please, never censor your thoughts - put them on here no matter what; I for one want to hear them.

    Very generous of you to say so, thanks. I hardly debate, and it is encouraging.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,266
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    > And I would be very interested if you COULD find a way of reconciling Aloysha's worship of the Golden Dollar with my own Hard-Nietzscheanism/N-S position![snowball in hell].

    That other Nietzschean, Herr Lowell has beat me to it, I see! All the better.
    Please do explain how you arrived to this conclusion (Is it the Dominium/Imperium thing and the Capitalism in a Racial Context thing?). As a compatriot of Mr.Lowell and fellow Pan-European Nationalist/Racialist I am very much interested in the opinion of others regarding this figure, especially in the international opinion.

    Moreover please explain how the Austrian School of Economics is flawed in order for me (or us) to look at the flaws and not accepting the theories of such a school as fact. If you want start another thread on the latter topic, I am sure Aloysha would want to debate you, and since I am interested in that school, I would be particularly interested to harvest your knowledge on the matter.

    Let me just say how surprising it is to meet someone (albeit online) with such an apparent grasp and knowledge of these matters who happens to be of the gentler (albeit some rough ones) gender. *Stops the praise for now, lol.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Aethrei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 16th, 2005 @ 05:40 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Occupation
    Explorer
    Politics
    Caesareanism / Euronazi
    Posts
    44
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Hello Edric,

    > Please do explain how you arrived to this conclusion (Is it the Dominium/Imperium thing and the Capitalism in a Racial Context thing?).

    Yes, that's right. I was referring to Moody's remark in that first post on Mr.Lowell. I myself would have cited Spengler [his remarks on the Roman spirit and will-to-capitalize purely from a spirit of preserving what one already has, thereby differentiated from the Faustian - I think its in Volume 1], and Yockey [who remarks that cultural unity must take priority over racial differences if the Imperium idea is to succeed - this suggests a separation of spheres like Lowell has done and Thiriart too if I am not mistaken.]
    If the preservation and advancement of our cultural values is recognized as our foremost aim, Capitalism could work and flourish within this bound. Also, Friedrich List [who proposed economics be subject to the Nation as a cultural and unified unit] observed that free trade would be right and fruitful were all nations equally developed, but this is not so. One could take it on from there - free trade only with the equals; this way one suppresses the harmful effects of globalization, immigration and multiculturalism - the latter are consequences of economic inequality, you don't have to remove this, instead you engage only with ones who are and who you accept are on par with you. But can we wait till some economy develops first on an equal pace with us? No. Then set a standard - say 50% or 60% as developed as us or some such.
    This is Nietzschean ethos - Interaction only among equals, one deals with the rest as one sees fit.

    > As a compatriot of Mr.Lowell and fellow Pan-European Nationalist/Racialist I am very much interested in the opinion of others regarding this figure, especially in the international opinion.

    That's nice; I heard very recently from a friend of a friend who knows him as well that he marked the cost of his 'Credo' book at 100,000,000 Euro! - the pride of a Nietzschean! It seems he does not want his book bought, good joke!
    Didn't he write up a good Masonry article by the way?
    Right now, anyone can say anyone's ideas [among our contemporaries I mean] are utopian. But it is like Mussolini said, "Before attaining this position I was asked on all sides for a programme. Alas! It is not programmes that are lacking in Italy; it is the men and the willingness to apply the programmes. All the problems of Italian life, all of them I say, have been solved on paper. What is lacking is the will to translate them into fact. Today the Government represents this form and decisive will. ...I prefer action to words." [Mussolini's first speech as PM to the Chamber of Deputies, 16th November, 1922]
    Herr Lowell's brilliant point in that second article you posted is - leave Israel alone; that's right. We must not give the Jews any chance to dominate by starting a war - that is just what they want.


    > Moreover please explain how the Austrian School of Economics[ASE] is flawed in order for me (or us) to look at the flaws and not accepting the theories of such a school as fact.

    I'll try.

    Libertarianism/ASE believes that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his labor[right to property], and thus an exclusive right to the value of those fruits. The logic of this means, the right to the fruit of one's labour implies the right to labour, and the right to labour implies the right to labour 'somewhere'. This means under ASE, one cannot waive the 'right' of any Jew or any other non-Europeans to 'own' pieces of our land, property. Anarcho-Capitalism cannot solve our multicultural problems, it will add to it.

    ASE champions the right of Individuals, therefore, while individuals like Aloysha could practice racial exclusionism with non-Euros., there is no such guarantee for the rights of a community - political _expression cannot not defended. If A does not mind selling his property to a non-Euro B, even though this action would affect the rest of the 'community', one cannot deter A from doing it. It is his individual right to do so.
    Similarly, if A decides to starve his child or not give it education, or dumps toxic chemicals or cuts down trees on his piece of property or decides to grow genetic food-crops that will alter the nature of the soil and the ecological cycle in general or sell it on the general market for consumption, or contracts with foreigners to afford his nation defense protection [think how absurd that is where A contracts with the Chinese army to guard his piece of America!] etc., he has his rights to his property and defence. You get the idea. All this is infeasible because our actions cannot just be restricted to ourselves, it affects all.

    Neither is ASE stupid enough to think all individuals are good and responsible by nature -

    "In contrast to such utopians as Marxists… libertarians do not assume that the ushering in of the purely free society of their dreams will also bring with it a new, magically transformed Libertarian Man. We do not assume that the lion will lie down with the lamb, or that no one will have criminal or fraudulent designs upon his neighbor." [Rothbard, For a New Liberty, p. 234]

    Meaning, it knows well what is in store; roughly to state -

    No more prohibitions on drug use, on pornography, on child-labour, right to pollution, to doing away with quality assurance regulators, to abortion. Rothbard is famous on the last issue -

    "What the mother is doing in abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body." [For a New Liberty, p.108]

    Pro-abortionists in my view, only encourage tolerance for irresponsible sexual conducts. Yet Rothbard considers welfare for such young women/girls as taxation-theft; he plays it both ways.

    On the last matter, taxation is not theft. You have the right to defend the fruits of your labour, yes, but, everything you use from roads to transport to telecommunication structures and such public services [not to mention the question of intellectual property rights here] was built up from society's labour as a whole. Isn't it fair to contribute? I think Lowell's idea of a flat-rate common tax for all is very neat. In any case, if this is what the whole argument is about, then one could easily well levy taxes based on expenditure as Mosley suggested instead of from our incomes. Hopefully, that solves something.

    Also, if Euro-racialist A and non-Euro B and Euro-nonracialist C decide to start their own currency, how are you going to make recogntion of value possible in the free-market? How will you fund for the very printing press that will mint your currencies - you need some sort of a government for this.

    Anyway, to the matter of pure economics, I refer you to Caplan's analysis of Mises and Rothbard [his e-mail is there, you can ask him to clarify anything about his piece]-
    http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...an/whyaust.htm

    [I have read that Nietzsche approved of the views of the English economist Walter Bagehot; if you are looking at this from a Nietzschean angle, it would be right to say then, he was anti-ASE, though you don't have to go through their economics to know that!]

    Anarcho-Capitalism/ASE would render our Nation a mafia state.

    Anarcho-Capitalists can adhere to Racialism only as an individual-ethos, it cannot be incorporated as a political ideology. This is what is problematic about it. Political expression comes with State that gives form to Nation or matter. ASE on the other hand ensures that the nation becomes more fragmented, more atomized. More this is the case[no common, higher goals], the better it becomes for non-Euros and Jews [who are well-versed at the art of sticking together; note they don't need political expression because their religion itself is race-centred and binds them - we don't have this] to buy up pieces of land and property from non-racialists and dominate, leaving propertyless Euros to either accept their terms or starve or emigrate - if these Euros accept their terms, its called 'voluntary exchange of services and free association' in the language of the ASE. This they call liberty and freedom from coercion. After all, no one indeed is coercing these Euros to sign a contract with them!

    Aloysha and a few others [women!!!] have made clear that they don't care if Whites leave their nation - this means, even free-trade or the issue of taxation is not the problem [its only the symptom]; it plainly means there is no attachment towards the Soil. Any non-Euro can own any piece of its land and dispossess us eventually and Anarcho-Capitalism would not care. Any Euro - our soil's precious asset can emigrate and be driven off anywhere, condemned to the fate of the wandering-Jew and it wouldn't mourn his loss. The 'contractual' is a mockery of our Blood-feeling.
    Never mind the state; can any Nation itself take shape based on ASE and its promotion of social atomism? Anarchism in general has come about now because our people no longer believe repatriation of immigrants and getting back our lands is possible - hence their ideologies. This has got nothing to do with merits of their politics/economics, it is just political pessimism. Have faith people! If non-violence is the issue, even Gandhi was successful with his Satyagraha. Our land is ours!

    I believe we all speak with good intentions here, and that is why it would be worthwhile for all of us to see how our ideologies work out in the long run and not just with the view of short-term benefits. Unite now, bicker later if you must.
    Even serious National-Anarchists [e.g. recently on Storm Front] say they don't know/care if their ideology will work out [that is, if it is possible for a society to be without a government], and it is only important now if they can help us all unite against the common ZOG.
    They say N-A is to be seen from the point of view of whether it is doing anything to further this united cause against the ZOG or not! That is a mature and reasonable way of looking at things, for now atleast. This is what I mean. Lets not allow ourselves to be fragmented now; instead set up a minimal set of rules/aims that needs to be done 'together' to fight the ZOG. We'll reform ourselves, our ideologies wherever needed gradually.

    > If you want start another thread on the latter topic, I am sure Aloysha would want to debate you, and since I am interested in that school, I would be particularly interested to harvest your knowledge on the matter.

    I don't mind sharing anything I know, except - I am no expert in this sphere really [I am a haphazard reader - whatever interests me at the moment], and I don't have a computer. I don't like to start a discussion and then just leave it waiting there as I have been doing it now. Trying to stop it as we speak! A better idea - I'll pass on useful links and all can consider the matter for themselves. But thanks for your interest Edric.

    > Let me just say how

    hahhaha you are very kind and mistaken. I think its the rest of the women [3? 4?] here who are wise enough to stay away. Best to leave matters where clear expression is needed to men, they are better at it!
    I am pleasantly surprised that I haven't got the Napoleon treatment yet; its good being here. Sorry for the long post.


    Heil Wotan!

  7. #17
    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 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    Superb work Edric/Aethrie; without wanting to gloat vicariously [or not too much], the fact that Aloysah has not responded to any of your critiques of his Anarcho-Capitalism SPEAKS VOLUMES!
    If only I could have put such a good case as you have, Aethrei!

    My trusty Scruton doctionary describes the ASE of Mises [who died in 1973], as "an elaborate apologetics for modern capitalism".
    That's about right.

    To quote Aethrei;
    "ASE champions the right of Individuals, therefore, while individuals like Aloysha could practice racial exclusionism with non-Euros., there is no such guarantee for the rights of a community - political _expression cannot not defended. If A does not mind selling his property to a non-Euro B, even though this action would affect the rest of the 'community', one cannot deter A from doing it. It is his individual right to do so".

    Aloysha has admitted to this basic dysgenicism and has accepted it.

    "Taxation is not theft. You have the right to defend the fruits of your labour, yes, but, everything you use from roads to transport to telecommunication structures and such public services [not to mention the question of intellectual property rights here] was built up from society's labour as a whole. Isn't it fair to contribute? I think Lowell's idea of a flat-rate common tax for all is very neat. In any case, if this is what the whole argument is about, then one could easily well levy taxes based on expenditure as Mosley suggested instead of from our incomes".
    [Aethrei. ib.,]

    Reasonable enough.

    "Also, if Euro-racialist A and non-Euro B and Euro-nonracialist C decide to start their own currency, how are you going to make recogntion of value possible in the free-market? How will you fund for the very printing press that will mint your currencies - you need some sort of a government for this".
    [ib.,]

    This highlights the absurdity Aloysha's championing of a "return to the Gold Standard".

    "Anarcho-Capitalists can adhere to Racialism only as an individual-ethos, it cannot be incorporated as a political ideology".
    [ib.,]

    Yes, and there is a correspondingly strong nihilistic apolitical thrust in the ideas of the "misarchs", as Nietzsche liked to call them.

    "Anarchism in general has come about now because our people no longer believe repatriation of immigrants and getting back our lands is possible - hence their ideologies. This has got nothing to do with merits of their politics/economics, it is just political pessimism".
    [ib.,]

    Sad but true, and brilliantly put.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  8. #18
    Member Darksphere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, January 15th, 2005 @ 07:59 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Scandinavia
    Gender
    Politics
    National-Anarchist
    Posts
    9
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Just to make one thing clear: Anarcho-Capitalism and National-Anarchism is not the same.

    Indeed both support the right of people to form their own communities based on their own preferred way of life. In so far they are definitely compatible: Both support a decentralised system with freedom to organise and live according to ones own values.

    The way that Anarcho-Capitalists and National-Anarchists would choose to live once this freedom to live the way one wanted had been would typically differ, however. National-Anarchism proposes a way of life based on the values of rootedness and personal freedom. This is not nescessarily in conflict with some form of Capitalism, I guess, but it's sure not nescessarily Capitalist either.

    Anarcho-Capitalists and National-Anarchists should support each other as far as their ideas coincide(as should all decentralists) but the two are not the same!

  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 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Let them eat cake.

    I agree, but don't they both share a basically self-negating set of contradictions?
    "Rootedness" and "personal" freedom?
    Is that not wanting your cake and eating it?
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,810
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    I agree, but don't they both share a basically self-negating set of contradictions?
    "Rootedness" and "personal" freedom?
    Is that not wanting your cake and eating it?
    No, it isn't, which is exactly what I've been trying to point out over the past few weeks. Please explain how this is a contradiction. My reasoning is as follows:

    "People join together in social groups for three reasons - 1) to ensure survival and efficient use of resources via division of labour, 2) to pass on their genes, and 3) to have some measure of psychological enjoyment, via 1) and 2), and through the extention of personal capacity to act."

    Point 1 follows from point 2, point 3 is a complex result of point 2. Genetic similarity theory in line with point 2 supports the idea that rootedness (i.e. social organisation and environment that falls in line with natural reproductive strategy) will occur naturally without need for internal regimentation of the society (a biological-psychological unity) so long as their are no external threats.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What Would You Choose? National Socialism or National Anarchism?
    By DieMenschMaschine in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 28th, 2011, 05:51 PM
  2. Introduction To National-Anarchism
    By Welf in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008, 05:11 PM
  3. What is National-Anarchism?
    By Magi in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Monday, August 18th, 2008, 06:09 PM
  4. Your Views About National Anarchism?
    By Sigurd in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Monday, August 18th, 2008, 06:01 PM
  5. Replies: 27
    Last Post: Friday, April 11th, 2008, 08:47 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
  •