Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Why We Must Return to the Land [Myatt]

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 12:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Why We Must Return to the Land

    http://www.geocities.com/davidmyatt/wayoftheland.html

    Why We Must Return to the Land




    We must return to the land, to a less materialistic, more rural, way of living, because only such a way of living with its close and intimate contact with Nature and with its often hard manual work enables us to live in an authentic and human way.

    The modern way of living - in vast urban sprawls with their commerce, their industry, their easy travel - is an inauthentic and inhuman way of living which has also encouraged, and indeed made possible, the development of a real tyrannical State whose very vastness and laws are a contradiction of everything that is human.

    Humanity resides in reason, in the slow accumulation of knowledge and wisdom from direct personal experience, and in the direct and reasoned (that is: hospitable, honourable and well-mannered) contact with fellow human beings. Judgement of others is thus a judgement based on personal knowledge of them. In particular, humanity means a judgement that arises from slowly reflecting upon things that we ourselves have experienced at first hand.


    The way of the modern world is the superficial, fast, way of abstract ideas (such as "the economy" with its "economic growth" or the policies of some "political party"), of commerce, of the individual as a consumer and the subject of some State. The perspective of the majority of the individuals of such an abstract State is that of their own lives, their own comforts, their own needs, or at best that of their immediate family.

    The denizens of such a modern State get their food from shops, or worse, "supermarkets", just as their work usually involves office work, or social work, or commercial work, or business work: that is, work connected to the State, or its commerce, its industry, its business. There is therefore little or no contact with the land, with Nature, and certainly little in the way of hard manual toil, just as the daily and yearly rhythm of such a modern living is the abstract, fast, rhythm imposed upon the individual by their modern work. In addition, the denizens of such a modern State view the world, and other human beings, mostly through the abstract "learning" or abstract "knowledge" they acquire in Schools or Colleges, or on one or more of the many "courses of training" which now proliferate in such profusion.

    So it is that these denizens come to use abstract ideas as their measure of judgement, just as their knowledge, their learning, is for the most part not the result of their own experience, their own reflection on that experience. And so it is that we now have, in every single modern nation-State, a considerable number of people using and abusing "drugs", a considerable number of people stealing, cheating, robbing and doing very cowardly deeds, and a considerable number of people (in fact the majority) who are ill-mannered and unconcerned with how their materialistic, exploitative, way of life, and their own nation-State, are destroying the land and Nature herself.


    In contrast, the way of the land - of a real rural living - is the way where the perspective is that of Nature: of the land itself. It is the way where the individual lives in the slower-paced world of Nature, and whose daily rhythm is shaped by Nature and by the changing seasons.



    A Return to Authenticity:

    We must return to the land even if it means that we have to forgo many of the attractions, comforts and conveniences of our modern world. For it is our very desire for such attractions, comforts and conveniences which have created and helped shape the inauthentic modern world.


    The stark truth of the matter is that our modern way of living is inhuman: in fact, it is sub-human. It encourages and condones sub-human behaviour, despite all the meaningless abstract political rhetoric spewed forth by politicians and others.

    The result of such sub-human behaviour is evident for all to see in the vast urban sprawls: drunken, ill-mannered, louts (both male and female) indulging themselves; gangs of youths roaming urban (and even rural) housing estates, terrorizing people; gangs and individuals robbing, raping and mugging at will; armed gangs carrying guns, and using them, in some "turf war" over drugs; ill-mannered, careless, angry drivers of motor vehicles; selfish, ill-mannered, vainly preening "business-executive" types acting superior because they have money..... And so on, and so on.

    The modern world has become less and less human: less and less reasonable, less and less free. What is Prison but an inhuman Institution? What are most modern laws but a means to enforce State-control? What are the enormous powers of the Police but a sign of a tyrannical government? What are the vast animal slaughterhouses but monuments to our own insatiable sub-human desires? For we do not need to breed and slaughter animals in the way the modern world breeds and slaughters them because we do not need the vast quantities of animal flesh the majority of us insist on eating, just as we do not need most if not all of the luxuries of this modern world: TV, cars, fridges, mobile telephones..... To produce such things, we rapaciously cover the Earth in factories, in industries, in urban and rural sprawl, just as we rapaciously consume the raw materials of the Earth itself, and just as the owners of such factories and industries exploit the people who work for them and just as the Banks, through their inhuman usury, exploit both the owners and the workers.

    We should know and act upon the truth that every act of bad-manners by us toward another human being is an act of exploitation.

    We human beings - and particularly those in the developed Western world - have become like a plague sweeping over the face of this planet, leaving devastation and destruction in our wake. Our treatment of our fellow human beings is appalling: at every level, people are exploited, seen as some sort of commodity, or as some sort of enemy or threat. Where is decency? Where are manners? Where is the slow, quiet, reflection that marks the real rural way of living?

    Our treatment of the other life-forms with whom we share this planet is equally appalling, if not more so. We ruthlessly exploit them, as we ruthlessly slaughter them, considering them just another commodity, to be priced and traded and consumed.



    We do not have to live as we now live, and as most of us want to live. We do not have to exploit other human beings, and other life-forms, and the Earth itself. We can control ourselves; we can exercise restraint; we can choose to restrain our greed, our emotions, our desire for material goods and luxuries. We can behave in a reasoned and well-mannered way toward other human beings.


    Such self-control, such restraint, such well-mannered behaviour, is the human thing to do. Thus, we can choose to live in a simple rural way, toiling in harmony and in rhythm with Nature in order to produce what food we need for ourselves and our family, just as others can work in honest trades supplying the essential things we need (such as clothes) which we ourselves cannot make or produce. And all this without the evil of usury or the exploitation caused by factories and industries. Everything that we really need can be made by hand in a natural way in a natural community in a small area. Everything that we do not need requires industry, commerce, business, factories and exploitation.


    We all have a choice, as we all have the capacity to change ourselves for the better by using our will: by restraining our desires, our emotions, our needs. We all have the capacity to behave in a rational, civilized, way toward our fellow human beings, and toward the other life-forms which share this planet which is our home.

    The real question is: will we do this? Will we strive to become human and so restrain ourselves? Or will we just carry on as we are, exploiting other human beings, other life-forms, and the Earth itself?


    David Myatt
    JD2452043.173

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 12:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Why We Must Return to the Land

    Good but in my opinion somewhat simplistic on the topic of urban vs. rural. But yet many of my views on this topic have been shaped by two biases. First, is that I never truely lived in a purely urban or rural setting but yet got experiences of both. Hard as it maybe to believe, but where I live there are both rural and urban areas in my city or nearby. Second, is my Slavic background.

    My view is that there should be a balance between city and country; for both are needed for a truely developed society. Without cities and urbanization, many of the great achievements of our people would never have happened.

    I agree that our urban lifestyle has been corrupted and has turned to sh-t, but I don't blame urbanism itself. I also agree that the balance between city and country is tipped too heavily towards the city.

    But I do believe that authenticity and true folkishness can be preserved in the urban setting and history has proven this. It's often mistaken that urbanization and industrialization did much to hurt old folk traditions and the expression of folkishness. Certainly urbanization and industrialization presented many challenges to folkishness, but it also presented many new oppurtunities for the expression of folkishness. Need we forget, it wasn't untill the Industrial revolution and massive urbanization did folkish nationalism become a true political force. Before that, folkish nationalism remained lagrely in the cultural arena.

    Being Slavic, I know that true folkishness can be preserved in an urban industrial setting; for the Slavs among others have done this. Many Western visitors to Russia are often suprised to see how much Russians living in the cities retain many of the old rural peasents traits and traditions. Same is true with Slavic communities here in America as I have experianced. I've seen as much expression and devotion to our folkways among Slavic communities in urban settings as I have seen in any rural setting. Urbanism and Folkishness are compatible.

    Many try to claim that a strong sense of community cannot be maintained in an urban setting as in a rural setting. To an extent this is true, but that is not to say that a strong sense of community cannot exist in an urban setting; just not necessarily like the one you would see in a rural setting. Going through many Polish neighborhoods in major cities, I've noticed a strong sense of community and devotion to one another as kinsmen that could rival that in any rural community. I often see banks designed for the Polish communities, Polish credit unions, trade unions to represent the interests of Polish workers, etc. You see this alot in many Ethnic neighborhoods in urban settings; such of which could never exist in a rural setting. That is not to say the urban sense of community is better than the rural sense, I'm just saying that each are about as authentic and true to folkishness as the other.

    So basically my main point is that urbanism is not the problem. Folkishness can be preserved and even expanded in an urban setting. Whats the problem is the massive commericalization and cosmopolitanism that is forced upon in the urban setting. In many ethnic enclaves or entire cities with more ethnic homogeization; one can see that true folkishness exists and even is expanded upon.

    I'm not arguing that the urban is better than the rural, I'm all for preserving the rural. In fact I agree with Myatt and others that more and more people should move back to the rural country. I am firmly against the Modernist myth that the future and all oppurutinities exist in the cities, they exist in the countryside as well. This Modernist myth of over-glorification of the urban is what has caused this inbalance and caused much social chaos. But over-glorification of the rural is not the answer in my opinion.

    For without the rural the cities will starve and plus much of our bedrock folk culture would disappear. But without the cities, the much of the scientific and high cultural achievements of our people would dry up as well. We need to find a balance between the two and reconize that both contribute immeasurably to our distinct Folk and folkishness; and certainly both can learn much from each other.
    Last edited by Moody; Friday, May 7th, 2004 at 04:37 PM. Reason: unnessary expletive

  3. #3
    Senior Member rhadley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 30th, 2005 @ 05:46 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Posts
    174
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Why We Must Return to the Land

    Quote Originally Posted by Pushkin
    Good but in my opinion somewhat simplistic on the topic of urban vs. rural...

    My view is that there should be a balance between city and country; for both are needed for a truely developed society.

    AFAIK, Myatt believes National Socialism is this balance between urban and rural. This, from a recent essay:

    "Why do I admire - why have I steadfastly admired, for thirty-five years - National-Socialist Germany? Because I found, and find, in it an intimation of beauty - a desire to bring beauty, joy, back into the lives of ordinary people; a desire to raise them up from the ugly. And what was wonderful, inspiring, remarkable was that this was done within the confines, within the constraints, of a modern nation with its cities, towns, industries: and that it involved all of the people, not a minority, not an elite. National-Socialism was a means whereby the beautiful could be felt and known - a means whereby beauty was once again presenced in the lives of ordinary people. A means whereby a connexion was made to those things which can and do elevate and evolve us, and which thus create an inner beauty. This is the simple, profound, beautiful message of National-Socialism." (One Insight: Honour and Beauty)

    See also such writings of his as the following:

    Question: Since you also write of NS as being a philosophy of BALANCE - reattuning the individual and the folkish community to Nature - how can such a balance be maintained in the pursuit of a Galactic Empire which would obviously require a far more technological and scientific orientated society than at present?


    Answer: National-Socialism is harmonious, and thus a philosophy of balance, because it seeks to create a society, or a way of living, where the two things necessary for both health and advancement exist together, without conflict. Indeed, National-Socialism is so special, and so important for us, because it alone expresses how this can be done. To be fully healthy, as individuals, we need a harmonious, beautiful, environment, a sense of belonging and a sense of purpose. These things mean Blood and Soil - an awareness of our heritage, our place 'in the scheme of things'; an awareness of our duties and responsibilities toward our folk-community and our race. Blood and Soil also mean a sense of belonging: a homeland; somewhere special for us, where we belong.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 12:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Why We Must Return to the Land

    Quote Originally Posted by rhadley
    AFAIK, Myatt believes National Socialism is this balance between urban and rural. This, from a recent essay:

    "Why do I admire - why have I steadfastly admired, for thirty-five years - National-Socialist Germany? Because I found, and find, in it an intimation of beauty - a desire to bring beauty, joy, back into the lives of ordinary people; a desire to raise them up from the ugly. And what was wonderful, inspiring, remarkable was that this was done within the confines, within the constraints, of a modern nation with its cities, towns, industries: and that it involved all of the people, not a minority, not an elite. National-Socialism was a means whereby the beautiful could be felt and known - a means whereby beauty was once again presenced in the lives of ordinary people. A means whereby a connexion was made to those things which can and do elevate and evolve us, and which thus create an inner beauty. This is the simple, profound, beautiful message of National-Socialism." (One Insight: Honour and Beauty)

    See also such writings of his as the following:

    Question: Since you also write of NS as being a philosophy of BALANCE - reattuning the individual and the folkish community to Nature - how can such a balance be maintained in the pursuit of a Galactic Empire which would obviously require a far more technological and scientific orientated society than at present?


    Answer: National-Socialism is harmonious, and thus a philosophy of balance, because it seeks to create a society, or a way of living, where the two things necessary for both health and advancement exist together, without conflict. Indeed, National-Socialism is so special, and so important for us, because it alone expresses how this can be done. To be fully healthy, as individuals, we need a harmonious, beautiful, environment, a sense of belonging and a sense of purpose. These things mean Blood and Soil - an awareness of our heritage, our place 'in the scheme of things'; an awareness of our duties and responsibilities toward our folk-community and our race. Blood and Soil also mean a sense of belonging: a homeland; somewhere special for us, where we belong.
    Thank for this information. Like I said, I neither biased either way towards country or city. Both contribute in its own ways to the development of folkishness. However, I do hate urban sprawl and suburbanism; the mainstay of the soulless Yuppie consumerist culture. I love it how many yuppies in my area try to act like they want to preserve the small town feel in their suburbs, yet their overly consumerist lifestyle and their ridiculious spaced out expensive homes destroy any and all small town countryness.

    I just hate how now urbanization has become so commercialized and cosmopolitan. Also I believe much has been done to destroy any sense of community and kinship within the cities. This has been noted by many sociologists and theres even a good article from VNN that talks about the decline of Detroit; but yet how before Blacks took over there was a true sense of community among the Whites. I agree with the author that cities themselves are not the problem; its how its run and who inhabits them.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 11th, 2004 @ 10:23 AM
    Location
    The Land of Cowboys
    Gender
    Politics
    Right side up
    Posts
    166
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Why We Must Return to the Land

    Urbanizaton is indeed 'the problem' so long as we understand the phases in its evolution. I have little doubt that East European Slavic cities are still quite nice places to live. The sense of identity has not been completely washed away by the megalopolitan stage.

    Western cities, by contrast, are more advanced (in their decay). Multiculturalism is not necessarily required to bring about this stage though it surely worsens the condition. What is attendant is nihilism, the destruction of 'old fashioned' morality, laziness, hedonism, individualism.

    The urban-rural split is as old as neolithic society. There have been oscillations of relative power between the two with urban predominance recorded as "civilization" and "rural" predominance called 'dark age', 'barbarian' and a number of other choice insults.

    It is generally true that country inhabitants are more cloistered and less cosmopolitan than their urban neighbors. During a robust stage of growth, the city dwellers respect the farmer and the rural folk admire urban 'sophistication.' As the needs of the city grow exponentially, the need to 'control' the countryside (from whence the urbanite originally came) becomes pronounced. At this stage, the ruralite is lampooned as a bumpkin and the smug urbanite as morally superior. Controlling the countryside has hitherto been relatively easy due to the very nature of 'country-folk'. Their ability to organize and unite to cause is restrained by local concern, conservativism and slow-burn tempers.

    Historically, it has often been outsider martial pastoralists who delivered the blow to cities (as with the Vedic Aryans). But sometimes by galvanizing cause ("Marxist" agrarians) or by region (the Confederacy) the ruralites initiate action.

    The last stage of the pre-eminent megalopolis is the denuding of people from the countryside and an inability to refresh the city/nation state military. For Rome it was a matter of finding soldiers. For the modern nation-state it is a reliance on a technologically leveraged army.

    For the West the pendulum it swinging back to the countryside. Unless externally supplied, a modern army cannot hold the field for more than a year in a divided country without resorting to the just the basic arms of the time. If America were partitioned between factions, there would no production of M1A2's or F-16's and existing stocks would be consumed.

    Finally, the idea that urban areas are 'required' for technology today is just not true any more. If fact, the megalopolis has nothing to offer in art, technology or leadership. They spew effeminate ideologies in the desparate hope that the virile countryside will not organize and test their weakened military. But they require everything. Food, water, power, transport and a docile rural population.

    As for the enigmatic Myatt's philosophy, if he would step back for just ten minutes to review his philosophy in a larger context, he would recognize that the Aryan/folkish/agrarian milieu is not "National Socialist" at all. If what he advances is a "philosphy" then we'd have to declare the Rig Vedic Aryans to be "National Socialist" - a chronologically ridiculous assertion.

    That said, I agree with him that WN/Aryans should deliberately and consciously orient themselves back to the country and back to a more natural life. It's right culturally, socially and strategically. A coherent IDENTITY must accompany so that local cloistering is not debilitating (modern communications changes things!). It is a decades long strategy, but it doesn't presuppose 'political' solutions (or compromises).

  6. #6
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 06:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Why We Must Return to the Land

    I completely agree with Pushkin. I have left the "city" for good. I'll never go back to that rat-race. Since doing so my health has greatly improved (not that it was bad before but here it is better). Fresh clean air and water can work wonders.

    In America, we have another related problem. Here the food is verrrrrrrrrrry bad by European standards. Cows are given bovine growth hormones as are cattle which are eaten. Chickens are raised in holding pens on a bad diet. Beer is preserved with things which would never be sold in Europe. Nothing is fresh, everything is stockpiled on the supermarket shelves until the "expiration date". Fruits and vegetables are not grown in nutritious soil and they are picked before maturity.

    It seems we need cities for things like universities and libraries and this may be the reason for talk of "balance". Why do we do this? These can be moved or replicated in the countryside.

    All that cities provide, at least here in America, are places to practice capitalism at the expense of all else. They are economic opportunities and for that reason draw people from the countryside. Malthus had it right.

    Decentralization and population return to the country should be a goal. People, living and working the land constitute the core population of any country (neo-Haushoffer therum?).

    Fortuately for Pushkin, Russia has so much land to the east in Siberia. It seems that every Russian who wants his own farm or to live free in the countryside has that opportunity.

  7. #7
    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 Re: Why We Must Return to the Land

    England was the first country to suffer Industrialisation which had the effect of sucking Folk out of the rural villages and into the cities.

    This is surely a bad thing as all kinds of Folkways are disrupted and the long traditions of Blood and Soil are uprooted.

    The particular names, linguistic accents, dialects and racial types once associated with particular rural areas are watered down and even destroyed.

    In England this has led to cities being a polyglot mish-mash, and opened the doors to Multiculturalism.
    Also, as we know, the City is the perfect mileu for the Cosmopolitan Jew.

    Also a type of speech is prevailing, known as 'Estuary English' [from the Thames estuary area] which is taking over all other accents.
    The rural accent which is closest to Old English is now denigrated by the Metropolitan elites as sounding 'stupid'.

    What is happening now is that White city dwellers are migrating out to the rural areas to escape crime in the cities [Crime being another gift of urbanisation].
    However, these townies know nothing of rural life and are helping to destroy what is left of the countryside.
    It is from these whelps that the hue and cry against fox-hunting is going up - and how long before non-Whites start to migrate out to the country and demand poltically correct anti-White discrimination?

    As it is, the Jew-ruled government want to build over the rural areas to house more unwanted immigrants.

    England will eventually be one long urban area from Land's End to John O'Groats!

    So once this path is taken, then the destruction of Folk Culture is inevitable if nothing is done to stop it.

    This is why the rural culture must be placed higher than all others.
    Also, only the rooted ruralist will stand steadfast against any kind of invasion - beating ploughshares into swords and all that.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 12:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Why We Must Return to the Land

    As I said before, I'm completelt against urban sprawl. I hate how urban yuppies go out and carve out their filthy suburbs on once ancient farmland and think they're creating a geniune small town. What folly!

    I see potential good in both urban and rural societies, and both are necessary for the survival of our folks. I do believe in a more managable form of urbanization, thats more enivormentally friendly.

    And I believe I addressed many of OnionPeelers points. Yes our cities have turned to sh-t and have little culture, but simply saying urbanization itself is the problem is simplistic and ignores many important points. As I said before, Whats the problem is the massive commericalization and cosmopolitanism that is forced upon in the urban setting. In many ethnic enclaves or entire cities with more ethnic homogeization; one can see that true folkishness exists and even is expanded upon.
    Last edited by Moody; Friday, May 7th, 2004 at 04:38 PM. Reason: unnecessary expletive

  9. #9
    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 Re: Why We Must Return to the Land

    What good has urbanisation done, really?

    Are not all the forces that militate against our philosophy BORN in the Cities?

    Should not the King's court be the the only non-rural entity? - are not Cities horrible caricatures of the Royal court?

    Let's have villages and villages only each with their own cathedral, with the sole exception being a single magnificent palatial Royal residence; and that of a Monarch committed to the welfare of his Folk!

    Let the Jews have their parasitical centres of commerce in other nations!

    Again, I ask, what GOOD has the City ever done for the Folk?
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, November 8th, 2018 @ 04:17 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Other Other
    Gender
    Occupation
    student
    Politics
    Irish Nationalist
    Posts
    1,754
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Why We Must Return to the Land

    I'm not sure why anyone would really want to live in the city permanently. One only ever hears praise of the city because of its proximity to shops selling more material goods than one could ever need. What type of life is that? Give me mountains, fields and sky anyday.
    I aim to move into the countryside asap......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. White Farmers Return to Zimbabwe Land
    By Nachtengel in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, December 24th, 2010, 10:59 AM
  2. Germany won't ask Belgium to Return German Land
    By Gefjon in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, January 14th, 2008, 08:03 PM
  3. What Is Noble? - Nietzsche vs. Myatt
    By Aethrei in forum Modern
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Friday, December 1st, 2006, 06:34 PM
  4. Honour Creates Beauty [Myatt]
    By rhadley in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Friday, December 26th, 2003, 01:10 PM

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
  •