Leonard Zeskind, Paul Gottfried, White Nationalism

Evan McLaren has drawn my attention to a new article by Leonard Zeskind, chronicler of White Nationalism, in The Huffington Post. In his latest commentary, Zeskind warns Mark Lilla to reconsider his triumphalist narrative about the demise of the conservatism. He gives Paul Gottfried a backhanded compliment as a conservative intellectual whom the Left should take seriously. Gottfried has written a number of neglected books about conservatism (including one about Carl Schmitt) that have fallen on fertile soil outside the intellectual desert that is the mainstream American Right. These are the waters that Zeskind much prefers to traverse. Hence, his learned admonition of Lilla.

Zeskind briefly flirts with the notion that Gottfried’s admiration of Carl Schmitt links him to Nazism, but doesn’t seem to be able to swallow the idea. Schmitt’s work has become fashionable in recent years and a number of books have been written about him: to name a few, David Dyzenhaus (ed.) Law as Politics: Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism, John P. McCormick’s Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism: Against Politics as Technology, Jan-Werner Muller’s A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought, Ellen Kennedy’s Constitutional Failure: Carl Schmitt in Weimar, and many more. I read through all of these when I was in college. Several further volumes on Carl Schmitt’s thought have been published since then by critics and admirers. As the most significant anti-liberal legal theorist of the twentieth century, it is only natural that Schmitt has generated so much attention; that Gottfried would write about him doesn’t prove anything.

A more plausible case could be made that the roots of the postmodern intellectual Left trace back to fascism. Richard Wolin made this argument about Heidegger’s admirers in The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism. Personally, I don’t have the patience for this type of Reductio ad Hitlerum. When I read Nietzsche, Schmitt or Heidegger, their links to the NSDAP happens to be of little interest. I care only about the validity of their insights.

Paul Gottfried’s stated position on White Nationalism isn’t hard to track down. Within the past year, he has written about White Nationalism on a number of occasions. Each time it created a tempest in a teapot across our network of websites. He is willing to engage us in debate, treat us with respect, criticize our position, agree with us on some issues, but he is plainly not one of us. As a self-professed expert on White Nationalism, Zeskind has to know this.

It is true that Paleoconservatism and White Nationalism intersect on many points of mutual concern. The two movements overlap in many areas like Socialism and Liberalism on the Left, but they diverge on others, which is always a cause of heated debate between the two factions. This type of nuance on the Right will undoubtedly be lost on the Left Progressives who constitute the majority of Huffington Post readers.

Leonard Zeskind, our professional monitor, should know better.

About Hunter Wallace 12367 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

31 Comments

  1. Dear Lena,

    *”We can begin our discussion when the forum is up with this question, “is Nietzsche a political philosopher.” I would challenge you to provide his systematic political theory?”*

    No problem in presentation. I would suggest, rather, the less ridiculous formulation of the enterprise as “Nietzsche’s Political Philosophy explained in brief”. Otherwise I object to potential involvement in a pointless argument over whether, as is commonly recognized, Nietzsche had what is properly called a “political philosophy” or whether it is “systematic.” We will deal with what he wrote and what he meant by it, rather than pedantically characterizing it.

    *”Of co[ur]se it cannot be provided because there is not one, and it certainly does [not] exist with sadomasochism or slavery as you are perversely suggesting here!”*

    Remarks like this dissuade me from bothering with you. And I’m really holding off with the sarcasm.

    *”Really, you do not need to be embarrassed for me. I have read Nietzsche and I have not at arrived at the conclusion that he is [a] sadist or a political theorist.”*

    Please list and summarize your readings of Nietzsche.

    NN

  2. ‘to “overcome” himself and to “become who you are”’

    Schopenhauer’s permanence of character, which reveals itself through interaction with the phenomenal world. Ho, hum.

    Nietzsche’s acceptence of the old testament values is a point. Not a mis-representation. And we ain’t jews. Schopenhauer scores a BIG plus on being what we are. Not some semite fantasy even Nietzsche himself couldn’t live with.

    Your ipso facto ‘superiority’ is crass, un-nuianced and something Nietzsche himself would have rejected as much as his Zarathustra then becomes nothing more than a slave. But don’t let me stop you from continuing on with your setting of new standards for vacuity; revaluation of all values, if you prefer.

  3. Dear Anthony,

    *”Well, I suppose what you think is besides the point as you only seem to be vomiting the same inane crap every other rubbish can does. Garbage in, garbage out.”*

    I look forward to your placing me in contact with other such rubbish cans. You are going to do that for me aren’t you – out of compassion and in confirmation of your claim – which otherwise is rubbish itself?

    *”No bizarre representation. I have something over and above you having deeply read both philosophers. Consider that when Nietzche uses terms like “Understanding” he is speaking of it in the Schopenhauerian sense. Unless you understand Shopenhauer’s definitions you miss a lot in Nietzsche. You also miss how much Nietzsche was in debt to Schopenhauer and how also he misunderstood him.”*

    And you are finally going to explain the specific relevance of all this to what has been discussed of substance when? Otherwise you are merely engaged in transparent filibustering in an attempt to appear responsive.

    *”It maybe an historical-irony that the slavish tend to congregate around Nietzsche, but maybe not since Nietzsche to a large extent was nothing more than a reaction to Schopenhauer, a foot-note if you will.”*

    A snide insinuation on a death march again, now dragging the corpse of an argument behind it.

    *”When one reads Nietzsche writing how he had just ‘discovered’ Spinoza after he had already written a library’s worth of plagarism what can one do but roll one’s eyes?”*

    Our question then: is what Nietzsche allegedly plagiarized relevant to our concerns and is it correct? Your concerns amidst your “deep” reading evidently are otherwise.

    NN

  4. NN-

    I am sure it gives you the rush of a master with a whip to insult my intelligence, but
    I have read just about everything Nietzsche has written, and I have yet to find his “political philosophy.” That does not mean that I do not find beauty in Nietzsche.

    That you “object to potential involvement in a pointless argument over whether, as is commonly recognized,” if “Nietzsche had what is properly called a “political philosophy” or whether it is “systematic.” – only proves my point. But I am still happy to engage you on what he wrote and what is meant by it specifically. We surely will discover it is not, nor can be a political philosophy, certainly not a practical living philosophy even.

    By the way, it was Schopenhauer’s compassion that Nietzsche referred to as pessimism and never quite denied or escaped.

  5. When it comes to cyclic history I have to take issue with Spengler’s crediting to himself his new thoughts on cultures ect… He got some of it from Nietzsche but Nietzsche without doubt, because of his speciality and surroundings got it from Vico. Always go to the source.

    “I TEACH YOU THE SUPERMAN. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?

    “All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man?

    “What is the ape to man? A laughing–stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing–stock, a thing of shame.

    “Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes.

    “Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants?

    “Lo, I teach you the Superman!”

    Forgetting for a moment that without Schopenhauer Nietzsche would never have had this thought, the thought itself is in error.

    What is ape to a man? The ape within us is a tool to be used. It cannot be gotten rid of, neither it nor the worm, only acknowledged and built upon. So to that which is human within us. It is a foundation upon which to build, not something to be battled, which would be an empty struggle. But to do that require clearness of thought, acceptence of what man is.

    So often the formula of “become what we are” becomes a recipe for attempting to be what one is not. Schopenhauer clarifies and gives tools to know and accept, improve and understand what one is.

    Nietzsche was but a clumsy artisan of such tools.

  6. Dear Anthony,

    to “overcome” himself and to “become who you are”’

    *”Schopenhauer’s permanence of character, which reveals itself through interaction with the phenomenal world. Ho, hum.”*

    I see that its significance in *Nietzsche’s* thought has escaped someone’s deep reading.

    *”Nietzsche’s accept[a]nce of the old testament values is a point.”*

    Not without some specificity – without which your blanket statement *is* a misrepresentation.

    *”And we ain’t jews.”*

    And the Jews are not altogether OT Hebrews.

    *”Schopenhauer scores a BIG plus on being what we are. Not some semite fantasy even Nietzsche himself couldn’t live with.”*

    Nietzsche’s exemplars from the past were various and listed in *GM*, 1st Essay – Hebrews/Jews were not mentioned.

    *”Your ipso facto ’superiority’ is crass, un-nu[]anced and something Nietzsche himself would have rejected..”*

    To the contrary – he remarked upon the alternative as “the superiority (rank) of the salon”.

    *”…as much as his Zarathustra then becomes nothing more than a slave.”*

    Who, as a fictional character, nevertheless proclaims the truth for our benefit, rectifying the error of the historic Z.

    *”But don’t let me stop you from continuing on with your setting of new standards for vacuity; revaluation of all values, if you prefer.”*

    Well, I think you have dissuaded me from continuing to implore you to respond substantively to points that you have merely pretended to cover, speaking of setting new standards.

    NN

  7. Now, I should point out that the difference in view points, the one which seeks submission from the world and the one that strives to incorporate it in holistic fashion is precisely the difference between the Aryan and the Jew.

    Is it little wonder that NS and Hitler went with Schopenhauer rather than Nietzsche. Think about it. Are you listening to me aright my little neo-phyte?

  8. Dear Lena,

    *”I am sure it gives you the rush of a master with a whip to insult my intelligence,…”*

    [Sarcasm deleted]

    *”…but I have read just about everything Nietzsche has written, and I have yet to find his “political philosophy.” That does not mean that I do not find beauty in Nietzsche.”*

    [More sarcasm deleted]

    *”That you “object to potential involvement in a pointless argument over whether, as is commonly recognized,” if “Nietzsche had what is properly called a “political philosophy” or whether it is “systematic.” – only proves my point.”*

    Non sequitur.

    *”But I am still happy to engage you on what he wrote and what is meant by it specifically.”*

    Yes, let’s do that. What is your substantive response, here or elsewhere, to the first three posts on my blog – or to my remarks here at OD?

    NN

  9. It is the primary difference between fantasists and those who want to deal with the world the way it is. As Hitler pointed out, the end result of Jewish conduct is the death of the world. Why, because it must submit to their fantasy and to hell with reality. The tikkun olam rubbish is no less annoying than the Nietzschean neo-phytes who want reality to submit to their wishes of superman.

    You might have guessed neo-phyte that I’m not really reading your posts as I don’t need to. I’m clairvoyant! No, not really. I’ve just come across such garbage for so long I’m tired of looking at the trash. It would be a nice fantasy world except it distracts from what is needful now. You can pontificate on slaves and masters, this and that while ignoring historical fact, you can see into the future with Spengler by your side and not notice that the world has changed in another direction, or if you do try and shore up the hole with some Faustian bandaid that won’t really do. Or you can take a look around you, drop the Nietzsche glasses and see things for what they are.

    Your choice. Your necessity in any case.

  10. Dear Anthony,

    *”Now, I should point out that the difference in view points, the one which seeks submission from the world and the one that strives to incorporate it in holistic fashion is precisely the difference between the Aryan and the Jew.”*

    One might “define” the difference thus and/or find some empirical support for a Platonic argument as to the “essence” involved.

    *”Is it little wonder that NS and Hitler went with Schopenhauer rather than Nietzsche.”*

    I have read that school children of the period were exhorted with selected passages from Nietzsche. Yours would thus seem to be a half-truth. The Nazis also had issues with Spengler, despite the latter’s qualified endorsement of the regime and the evident pertinence of his ideas about a coming Imperium.

    *”Think about it. Are you listening to me aright my little neo-phyte?”*

    With, unfortunately, diminishing regard for your conduct.

    NN

  11. Dear Anthony,

    *”It is the primary difference between fantasists and those who want to deal with the world the way it is. As Hitler pointed out, the end result of Jewish conduct is the death of the world. Why, because it must submit to their fantasy and to hell with reality. The tikkun olam rubbish is no less annoying than the Nietzschean neo-phytes who want reality to submit to their wishes of superman.”*

    More presumption and insinuation – when do you plan to start behaving like an “Aryan”?

    *”You might have guessed neo-phyte that I’m not really reading your posts as I don’t need to. I’m clairvoyant! No, not really. I’ve just come across such garbage for so long I’m tired of looking at the trash.”*

    And we’ve dealt with this point previously. Your failure to illustrate, as requested, the redundancy of my presentation identifies the source of the rubbish that is actually littering the venue.

    *”It would be a nice fantasy world except it distracts from what is needful now. You can pontificate on slaves and masters, this and that while ignoring historical fact,…”*

    The record shows that, to this point, it is I who have had to correct you on points of history.

    *”…you can see into the future with Spengler by your side and not notice that the world has changed in another direction, or if you do try and shore up the hole with some Faustian bandaid that won’t really do. Or you can take a look around you, drop the Nietzsche glasses and see things for what they are.”*

    Again, merit, credentials, and substance are absent from your suggestion.

    NN

  12. NN

    I have responded to your posts here, you just willfully ignore them. I questioned if Nietzsche can even be considered a political philosopher and you ignore my point. As far as your blog goes, I like he way it is laid out with the two contrasting red and black sides but as your profile confirms with The Story of “O” as one of your favorite films, I can say with all certainty you are a perv. This is real kook stuff. At first I just thought you were kooky, but I just discovered you are kinky – human all to human…….

  13. Sorry neo-phyte, but you miss everything and now it appears that your political philosophy arises from your sexual perversion. My, my… as if I am surprised.

    Why don’t you tell the truth and call yourself NeoDeSade. Honestly this movement is full of weirdos who need to be flushed out, and Nietzsche is a good instrument in this regard at least. It IS an irony that being the type of man Nietzsche was, he should attact so many sexually frustrated perverts.

    Master and slave. We know why you like that idea now don’t we. We know know why you forget historical reality and imagine yourself with a whip dominating others’ bodies. Whew! Fantasy time in a big disgusting way…

  14. Dear Lena,

    *”I have responded to your posts here, you just willfully ignore them.”*

    Please identify such and I will quickly rectify that oversight.

    *”I questioned if Nietzsche can even be considered a political philosopher and you ignore my point.”*

    No, I deny the value of pursuing it as a merely nominal matter.

    *”As far as your blog goes, I like [t]he way it is laid out with the two contrasting red and black sides..”*

    I do, too.

    *”…but as your profile confirms with The Story of “O” as one of your favorite films, I can say with all certainty you are a perv. This is real kook stuff. At first I just thought you were kooky, but I just discovered you are kinky – human all to[o] human…….”*

    Does this mean, by contrast in personal virtue, that you’ve never had a guy (or your choice of genders) go down on you in a (perv-erted) act of oral sex? Poor girl!

    NN

  15. Dear Anthony

    *”Sorry neo-phyte, but you miss everything and now it appears that your political philosophy arises from your sexual perversion. My, my… as if I am surprised.

    Why don’t you tell the truth and call yourself NeoDeSade. Honestly this movement is full of weirdos who need to be flushed out, and Nietzsche is a good instrument in this regard at least. It IS an irony that being the type of man Nietzsche was, he should att[r]act so many sexually frustrated perverts.

    Master and slave. We know why you like that idea now don’t we. We know know why you forget historical reality and imagine yourself with a whip dominating others’ bodies. Whew! Fantasy time in a big disgusting way…”*

    I guess that your presumed plans to eventually start acting like an Aryan are on hold for a while.

    Meanwhile, your conduct is (sadly) instructive as to the distribution of one of our two major class/cultural elements along the political spectrum.

    NN

  16. I have no interest in engaging in sex chat or sharing anything in regards to personal or intimate details about myself so you can have a wank. I am not a perverted exhibitionist. Grow up.

  17. Dear Lena,

    *”I have no interest in engaging in sex chat or sharing anything in regards to personal or intimate details about myself so you can have a wank. I am not a perverted exhibitionist. Grow up.”*

    And, of course, I had no such intention – but was turning an “argument” (ad hominem) back on yourself, to the effect, perhaps, of *tu quoque*.

    NN

  18. Meanwhile you presumed plans of acting like a jew are going full-steam ahead.

    As Schopenhauer pointed out, the Intellect is a tool of the Will, not as most suppose the other way around. Your motivations are becoming clear for all your ipso facto, ad hominim bull pucky. Thank you once again Schopenhauer, you prove your point once again.

    “tu quoque”, read, a pervert looking for a woman to beat. The proper Aryan reaction: disgust.

  19. Dear Anthony,

    *”Meanwhile you[r] presumed plans of acting like a jew are going full-steam ahead.”*

    We seem to have come full circle – now you are amusing me again – with an argument drawn from the PeeWee Herman School of So-Are-You. Let’s elevate things a bit.

    *”As Schopenhauer pointed out, the Intellect is a tool of the Will, not as most suppose the other way around.”*

    I grant that you well-illustrate this principle with your own example.

    *”Your motivations are becoming clear for all your ipso facto, ad hominim bull pucky.”*

    In which case one grasps how inadequate are some person’s standards as to “clarity” .

    *”Thank you once again [,] Schopenhauer, you prove your point once again.”*

    The irony of that remark, of course, escapes you.

    *” “tu quoque”, read, a pervert looking for a woman to beat. The proper Aryan reaction: disgust.”*

    I think that my ‘tard detector has pegged at this point, making further ad hominem exchanges unpromising. So, in conclusion, I thank Anthony and Lena for a stimulating evening of distracting discussion, and wish them much progress toward intellectual and interlocutory maturity.

    NN

  20. There is no irony retard.
    1. I demolished your original retard bullshit about the Romans and how they conducted themselves. My propaganda came from a Roman of the Equestrian order. So much for that huey.
    2. I pointed out that your whipping Romans are just a fantasy in line with your sexual proclivities.
    3. I pointed out Nietzsche’s adherence to the virtues of the manly ‘jews’ and the more Aryan virtues of Schopenhauer whom the NS took as the leading light.
    4. I pointed out Spengler’s deficency in that what he forsaw is not occuring.
    5. Lena pointed out that Nietzsche was not a political philosopher which you hummed and harred about but didn’t really address except with an offer to muddy the waters further.

    Your agument against ‘rights’ is Schopenhauer. Big deal. Your whipping Roman is a sexual fantasy. Telling the truth and then trying to sneak in a lie, ho hum. The ‘ad hominum’ when I at least was discussing character and it’s importance nullifies it, and proves my point. The irony I suppose is that I don’t accept your perversion and therefore am denying your reality when I accept you are a pervert and think your perversity should be dealt with. That’s why the NS had concentration camps you know. You can be rehabilitated.

  21. Gentilhommes,

    Indeed, the irony of a Schopenhauerian purporting to (credibly/rationally) “prove” a point has been lost on our “lamb,” Anthony:

    “Arthur Schopenhauer’s pessimism comes from his elevating of Will above reason as the mainspring of human thought and behavior. Schopenhauer pointed to motivators such as hunger, sexuality, the need to care for children, and the need for shelter and personal security as the real sources of human motivation. Reason, compared to these factors, is mere window-dressing for human thoughts; it is the clothes our naked hungers put on when they go out in public. Schopenhauer sees reason as weak and insignificant compared to Will; in one metaphor, Schopenhauer compares the human intellect to a lame man who can see, but who rides on the shoulder of the blind giant of Will.”

    Since Schopenhauer/Anthony’s Will merely masquerades as his Intellect, per the above, his epistemology neutralizes anything he might write of substance (even should he manage to avoid the errors of the ludicrous listing of putative “facts,” as further above). His contentions are, as he more or less explicitly affirms. merely as he *desires* the facts to be. QED.

    *”The irony I suppose is that I don’t accept your perversion and therefore am denying your reality when I accept you are a pervert and think your perversity should be dealt with. That’s why the NS had concentration camps you know. You can be rehabilitated.”*

    I guess that it comes as news to the peasants (“lambs” in Nietzschean terms), named Anthony and Lena, that warrior society is intrinsically sado-masochistic. Thus we illustrate my point about *class* analysis in grasping the quality and dimensions of the politico-economic challenges faced by Whites, who are divided by class, amongst themselves, as well as being separated, collectively, from other races. For example, faced with such as Anthony and Lena, one can sympathize with the inclination of the long-gone WASP oligarchs to surrender the herd of *Goyische kop-fen* to governance by filthy and effeminate unctuous manipulation (of which the Jew is a seasoned practitioner).

    In this regard, the importance of having a warrior aristocracy for the origination and maintenance of the civilization that sustains millions/billions of lives and exclusively permits “the elevation of the type, ‘man”” is emphasized by Nietzsche. The mark of the ‘tarded peasant, in my experience with such, is his/her ineducability in this (and many another) fundamental principle and its corollaries. Unfortutunately, then, we must grant to Schopenhauer that, indeed, the wounded pride of the declasse peasant will not permit Reason To transcend Will.

    NN

  22. So you like to whip women and order them around, and that makes you some sort of superior being. Have you ever considered that your perversion is coloring your views? You know homosexual and pedophiles also use Nietzsche in the same way? Do I have to become a sexual pervert in order to show I have some how elevated myself? Or are you just a product of the perverted jewish control? Aren’t you rather more ape than man for all you pretensions to some sort of refinement?

    The honest yoeman on his own acre of land is the backbone of the nation said the NS. I’d rather be a Cincinnatus than a civil pervert.

  23. Dear Anthony,

    *”So you like to whip women and order them around, and that makes you some sort of superior being.”*

    It is symptomatic of such in some persons (Yockey, for example) – but in and of itself it does not, of course.

    *”Have you ever considered that your perversion is coloring your views?”*

    Yes – and I have discarded that thesis in view of the fact that I began my dedication to the study of political economy, and other vital matters, as a Libertarian/Objectivist, and came to my present views by following the logic therein to its conclusion. I would say that Libertarianism is (or at least I found it to be) without sexual affiliations.

    *”You know homosexual and pedophiles also use Nietzsche in the same way?”*

    Again, you fail to illustrate this claim as to my redundancy. But let us grant it for the sake of argument. Oh! – I forgot – you are incapable of rational argument, in principle, so the nonsensical suggestion that common use of Nietzsche is to be evaluated on the basis of the sexual orientation of some of its advocates must be left to others to debate.

    *”Do I have to become a sexual pervert in order to show I have some how elevated myself?”*

    No. Mature, gentlemanly behavior in this venue would be start, however.

    *”Or are you just a product of the perverted jewish control?”*

    In the sense that I am a reaction to it – as are all others here, I presume.

    *”Aren’t you rather more ape than man for all you[r] pretensions to some sort of refinement?”*

    An amusing speculation that is the opposite of the case. In fact, despite my size (73 inches, 220 lbs) my extremities (hands, feet, ears, nose) are of refined, feminine proportions. A homosexual acquaintance recently commented on the beauty of my hands. As to intellectual refinement, I was touted, in recommendations to graduate schools, as the most outstanding student my professors had ever instructed (the otherwise confidential recommendations came into my hands by accident). Perhaps you had some other criteria in mind?

    *”The honest y[eo]man on his own acre of land is the backbone of the nation[,] said the NS. I’d rather be a Cincinnatus than a civil pervert.”*

    Carry on, Yeoman Anthony.

    NN

  24. 73 inches is that your dick size or the size of your nose? There was a serial killer who would cut off his victims’ heads and sit there conversing with them. One day he asked himself, “Am I insane?” but he allayed his concerns by remembering warriors of old who collected the heads of their enemies.

    You prove my point pervert, over and over again. You think you are something rare unique, when you are just the same scum that in good times always ended up at the end of a rope. Prehaps you should join your fellow super bros in the state pen on the downlow.

  25. Dear Anthony,

    *”73 inches [,] is that your dick size or the size of your nose?”*

    Neither. It’s how far my comb is above the floor when I run it through my lovely head of hair.

    *”There was a serial killer who would cut off his victims’ heads and sit there conversing with them. One day he asked himself, “Am I insane?” but he allayed his concerns by remembering warriors of old who collected the heads of their enemies.”*

    And my own thoughts always turn to such consolation after a good day spent liberating skulls.

    *”You prove my point[,] pervert, over and over again.”*

    Enjoying the ride on the shoulder of the blind giant, I see.

    *”You think you are something rare[,] unique, when you are just the same scum that in good times always ended up at the end of a rope.”*

    When my time comes, it’ll be one round of .45 Corbon DPX to the brain, self-administered. In the meantime, your effort to dissuade me from the belief you impute to me is spinning out of control.

    *”P[er]haps you should join your fellow super bros in the state pen on the downlow.”*

    Haven’t got the time – your advertisement of my proclivities has the girls getting in touch for some action!

    Later, bro.

    NN

  26. Dear Yeoman Anthony,

    Let us deal, finally, with what seems to be, upon reflection, the essence and residue of your objections:

    *”The irony I suppose is that I don’t accept your perversion and therefore am denying your reality when I accept [that] you are a pervert and think your perversity should be dealt with.”*

    Yes, the honorable sentiments of a sturdy peasant.

    But let’s look at it from my refined and noble point of view:

    SM is affiliated in “barbarian” warriors/noblemen/aristocrats with the inclination to cooperation in a Dominance Hierarchy. This is the cultural origin of the collectivity and organization of the pre-historic conquering armies that subdued peasant agriculturalists such as yourself and thus formed the societal stratification that is proto-civilizational (and primitively “patriarchal”).

    Indeed, even earlier, SM/DH probably distinguished Cro-Magnon man from Neanderthal, inclining the former to war-band tactics as opposed to the sturdy individualism of the latter – to the latter’s detriment and ultimate extermination as a disgusting troll. (I am aware, however, of the recent academic effort to multi-cult pre-history by restoring the monsters to a harmonious co-existence with grassile modern man.)

    Of course, with the devolution of the species into agriculturalists such as yourself, the old behavior patterns are being lost – or “perverted” (because of the change in context) into the abuse of subordinates (wife-beating, torturing little animals, etc.) – but its proper celebration in enhanced mutual sexual satisfaction and a sense of propriety in social relations amongst persons of noble spirit survives in many places (such as The Scene that girls are discovering in major metropolitan areas). And we could talk about Nietzscheanly “evil” vampires as an archetypical predatory aristocracy, a’ la the popular *Underworld* series with luscious leather-lady, Kate Beckinsale.

    But this is quite enough of delicious new thinkings for bigoted bumpkins, wouldn’t you say? I guess we’ll hear from you next on the subject of “parasites” – for which I will be prepared to instruct you further.

    NN

  27. You’re just part of the judengestank. That’s about an end of it. jew Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan crap, same shit, same stink.

    Want a little personal history? When I was very, very young I use to get picked on at school, you know bullied. Maybe it was the kids dominance thing. Anyhoo, my mother, God bless her soul (though I admit to not believing in any God, yet am not an atheist), always admonished me to turn the other cheek so I indured the pain, overcame it, even inviting the boys to come jump on my stomach while I tranced out (ruptured my spleen that way). Around thirteen or so my father told me just to punch the biggest in the head and after that any bully who looked at me strange just got a punch in the head. They then left me alone. I tried protecting the other bullies’ victims as well, but found the victims held bad feelings towards me (even to the point of trying to bully me), so I just left it all alone and everyone left me alone.

    Unfortunately I took on a Nietzschean cast of struggle which led to street-fighting and believe me I’ve seen my fair share of bodies lying in blood and have also wiped my own blood out of my eyes on a few occasions. But I grew up. Now I have a wonderful wife and children whom I love very dearly.

    You are not any bridge to superman. In GofM, though I disagree with his interpretation of history, his Schopenhauerean Malice, or pleasure in seeing others pain, he attributes to the ape left in us. You haven’t overcome or absorbed anything. You are just one of those sorry sad children I left on that playground with an adult’s libido. Slave morality, master morality = judengestank.

    PS Kate Beckensale is a mix-breed and your reliance on jewish movie themes and memes to defend your childish libido preferences speaks volumes.

  28. Dear Yeoman Anthony,

    *”You’re just part of the judengestank. That’s about an end of it.”*

    Yes, in the end, and under Schopenhauer’s epistemological influence, that’s all you have – and to which you have been reduced – i.e., a childish/effeminate expression of your feelings.

    *”Want a little personal history?”*

    I note your remarks but find little that is relevant. More filibustering until the next comment ad hominem.

    And it is yet to be evident why your opinion is of any value other than zoological. It occurred to me last night that I persist with these otherwise disgraceful and time-wasting exchanges with such as yourself because it holds the interest of a visit to the zoo, wherein I can go to the monkey house and actually talk with the inhabitants!

    But, after I while, I get tired of having feces thrown at me, and I desist.

    NN

  29. BTW in my opinion you don’t even rise to the level of a nigger gang-banger, let alone any Nietzschean overman. Must be the jewish memes making you think you are some sort of anything, when frankly you’re not even a man yet, just some sort of freak who is indulged at the expense of decency for the sake of jewish degeneracy. Perhaps you can overcome it, you know actually live a life of some benefit to your people. Doubt it, but maybe in the future when order is established we can help you become some kind of man.

Comments are closed.