Who should rule?
Logging on this morning, I see that this has once again become a burning issue among the commentators. So far, I haven’t had much to say about the topic. I don’t aspire to rule over anyone. Becoming a politician isn’t a good fit with my introverted personality type. It is a task that I would prefer to leave to others. We have already had one commentator storm off the site because of a controversial turn in this discussion. It is better to discuss the matter now (in its own definitive blog entry) than to have it continue to spill over into unrelated threads.
Nietzscheans
As everyone here knows by now, NeoNietzsche is a passionate admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche and subscribes to a peculiar interpretation of his theories. He believes in a caste system (warrior, cleric, peasant) and sees himself as part of the elect few who should rule in a White Nationalist ethnostate. Following Nietzsche, NN believes everyone has an essential orientation, master or slave, dominant or submissive, and that different moral systems correspond to this primordial mammalian division. As an advocate of “master morality,” he would abolish liberal democracy and confer elite status upon the “higher types” who are naturally born to rule.
Jeffersonians
In the United States, Jeffersonians are the most numerous in White Nationalist circles. In their view, the best type of government is the one that governs least. These people don’t see anything essentially wrong with the American system. They believe in state and local government and instinctively oppose the consolidation of power in Washington. Jeffersonians like to attribute our racial decline to the corrupting influence of outside forces, namely the Jews, and argue that racial sanity would quickly return to America after the excise of this cancer. Under the Jeffersonian system, elite status would be conferred through local elections and the private accumulation of wealth in a capitalist economy.
Hamiltonians
Like the Jeffersonians, the Hamiltonians still believe in republican self government, but prefer a strong, centralized state to a weak one. Instead of free trade, they want an America First trade policy. Hamiltonians support a strong public sector and a regulated market economy to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth. They believe a few constitutional reforms will be sufficient to reverse our racial decline. In their ideal White ethnostate, elite status would also be conferred through elections and wealth accumulation in the private sphere.
Libertarians
The libertarians are a subset of the Jeffersonians who believe in a minimal state. They believe the only function of the state is to protect individual rights: military, police, courts. The libertarians would scrap the entire ediface of twentieth century progressive reforms in the name of liberty. In a libertarian White ethnostate, elite status would be conferred through participation in the market economy, as government would be hamstrung by a strict constitution.
Fascists
The fascists (this includes National Socialists and related species of fascism) want an authoritarian state headed by a dynamic leader with near absolute power. They would dispense with liberal democracy entirely and replace it with a racialized bureaucracy. This concentration of power would be used to rid the fascist ethnostate of Jews and other undesirable elements. Elite status would be conferred through rising in the party and pleasing its established leaders.
Platonists
For lack of a better word, the “Platonists” are White Nationalists who advocate rule by a Guardian caste or order. These Guardians would be chosen through breeding and merit. Exemplary Whites imbued with an unusual dedication to their race would enjoy rights and privileges that other citizens would not.
Christian Nationalists
The Christian Nationalists believe a strong, rejuvenated Christianity is a necessary component of a White ethnostate. In essence, they want an ethnostate based on Christian moral values. Some Christian Nationalists want a republic; some a monarchy; some a theocratic dictatorship. In all cases, elite status would be strongly connected to religious piety.
Monarchists
The monarchists want a king and hereditary aristocracy. Elite status would be conferred through the possession of royal blood.
Anarchists
The anarchists want to dispense with government entirely. In their proposed ethnostate, as there would be no government, politics would not exist and there would be no mechanism for selecting elites. In theory, everyone would be equal in this classless society.
Where I Stand
So, after all this, what is my answer to this question?
Politically, I stand between the Hamiltonians and Platonists. I think that government can be a force for good and that White Nationalists will need a strong central state to repel invasions by our multitude of enemies. The republican system is a proven model for ensuring continuity and the peaceful transfer of power. I think we would be unwise to dispense with it in pursuit of some of the more outré, untested ideas discussed above.
The worst aspects of republicanism can be dealt with through constitutional reforms. For one, I don’t believe in universal voting rights. In my ideal republic, the franchise would only be extended after certain conditions are met. Voters would be required to demonstrate they are intelligent, competent, and moral enough to enjoy the privilege of selecting our leaders. I also believe that the Guardian caste should have more sway than the average citizen. A real electoral college could be set up in which the Guardians could exercise a veto over bad popular selections.
Morally, Alasdair MacIntyre has been the major influence on my views. Like MacIntyre, I believe that morality is only logical within the context of established traditions. There are a number of moral traditions out there, each of them with their own history, each of them having different premisses as their starting point. It is impossible to properly reason across these incommensurate traditions.
I believe our moral discourse has been the victim of the catastrophe described by MacIntyre in the Preface of After Virtue : we only possess fragments of a coherent moral framework, terms which have lost the context which once made them plausible, and that rational people are diverted into nihilism by this disarray. There are no universal, objective moral principles analagous to the laws of science. Instead, moral philosophy is a practical science like Aristotle always claimed it was: it is a how-to guide for actualizing some given ideal. In other words, I believe that morality (at some level) is reducible to aesthetics. That’s a topic for another day.
These are only my answers. What are yours?
Fundamental Number One:
Unless and until the armed forces of Greater Judea are neutralized by the internecine and anarchic foreign intervention of other such forces, the alternatives for any political entity on the continent are to dominate or be dominated. In particular, the present leaders of those resident forces have explicitly stated and have shown, with armed might, that an ethno-state other than Israel will not be permitted where those forces can be delivered to a theater lacking comparable counter-force.
NN ~
You’re simply not the upper caste sort. Not now, not ever, old chap. Deal with it. You’re thoroughly middle-class.
The same applies to your chum uh. Both of you, I suspect, are typical fat, twinkie-inhaling Americans with no military experience.
If an elite shall emerge, it will be through the exercise of war. But, we’re not at that stage now. So stop your silly posing.
Hey doos, stick to polishing your nazi jack-boots.
I used to pity Louis Farrakhan for having a constituency of relatively low racial quality to instruct and to lead.
Little did I suspect…
I bet you put your framed Emory diploma on your wall.
You American proles amaze me. Totally middle-class.
Q: How many Nazi uniforms and jack boots do you own?
“Fundamental Number One:”
Yes, so long as a critical mass of Whites are loyal to the System any attempt at creating exclusive, sustainable living space for our people on the North American continent is foredoomed because it is fellow Whites that would be indispensable in crushing any attempt at said. Any talk of armed resistance is silly in light of a lack of political and intellectual infrastructure which is essential to giving form and purpose to a movement for White survival, not to mention gaining enough supporters.
And explicit displays of National Socialist regalia and apologetics for a general audience is self-evidently self-defeating at this time. Frankly, we don’t need to recapitulate National Socialism in whole in order to win.
Arguably, Kevin MacDonald has done more to threaten Jewish power in the West than all those that donned the Swastika in latter days. Over a period of about four months, two years ago, I looked over the content of Vdare, Amren and MacDonald’s work and my world view was transformed. That is essentially how we will swell our ranks, by explaining White people’s interests to them as we dispense the facts via viable venues which we need to create. Can you deny that NN?
And explicit displays of National Socialist regalia and apologetics for a general audience is self-evidently self-defeating at this time. Frankly, we don’t need to recapitulate National Socialism in whole in order to win.
The leading “and” suggests that this remark is directed my way.
And I again say that I am not interested in (and do not knowingly confront) “general audiences,” and I assume that this and other venues of my participation are of more specialized interest – otherwise I agree with the statement, where the defeat to be avoided is measured in terms of popularity. Nor do I envision or recommend the “recapitulation” you mention. But I will not cravenly protest that “I’m no Nazi,” or decline to bear its symbol, in the event that I am identified with that orientation.
Can you deny that[,] NN? (Cc)
In the sense that I do not anticipate much “swelling” or consider such of much consequence.
Admiral,
What are you so haughty about? Why are you so contemptuous of the middle class? Are you Ivy League or something? Or do you just try to pretend like you are?
“In the sense that I do not [think it likely that there will be] much “swelling” [in our ranks] or consider such of much consequence.”
That your own efforts met with failure, and that your (potentially wrong) conception of the sufficient conditions for racial survival may not be met, does not mean that other conceptions and proposed conditions for achieving the goal we all hold in common will be found wanting. With that said, I personally find the material displayed at your site thought provoking, and appreciate your efforts in doing what you can as you see fit.
That is essentially how we will swell our ranks, by explaining White people’s interests to them as we dispense the facts via viable venues which we need to create. Can you deny that NN?
You are projecting your experience onto the mass (“solipsism”). Simple as that. There is no evidence, anywhere, that the mass is or has ever been more interested in facts than sensational lies, even with the best means of disseminating facts. To think otherwise, to believe it can be otherwise, is unscientific.
“Talk of armed revolution” may be silly, but at least it represents a more forthright impulse than this belief in social miracles. If I had to choose to play along with either of these fantasies, I’d go with the “armed revolutionaries” over those holding their breath for “white media”, “collapse”, etc.
The underlying problem here — and in all those who come to White Nationalism — is that you can’t accept your experience as exceptional because that belies the collectivist imagery of White Nationalist ideology: to validate the exception is to vitiate the idea of a collective. That is the corrupt dialectic uniting you all at MR. You are exceptions posing as “majoritarians”. To fulfill the enfranchisement fantasy you must imagine ways to impose your exceptional experience of disenfranchisement upon the mass, precisely as the Jews have colonized the minds of the mass with the alienated psychpathology of the “Other” through handsome propaganda, while downplaying their neurotic group orthodoxy. But this you cannot do because the Jews have already done it. Once the social virus is released, it never really dies (cf. Christianity), the mass is “colonized” for all time and no competing “metanarrative” can ever really challenge it. History isn’t the story of truth unfolding itself in the life of the mass; it is the story of error.
Stronza: OK. If the only marijuana available were the old fashioned 1% THC kind, would you change your mind about jailing users & sellers?
Doing more than just tilling chernozem? LOL.
Bernard (to Admiral): What are you so haughty about?
Mayn’t it be that he’s British? They’ve always had an instinctual repugnance to Nietzsche, or “the nietzschean”. They used to sing this dumb little song about never being slaves or some shit. Anytime Aryans try to lift themselves out of historical error (to cite myself) and reach for greater, Britons are there to mock them down to their level. Guessedworker is an estimable break from type.
You must be keeping your head up your ass if you don’t think the white mass doesn’t feel disenfranchised. The problem with your abstract is it discounts race and racial feeling. You think we can’t do a jew because the jew already has? We can’t do a jew because we ain’t jews bud. How much more of this intellectual tosspottery is going to be hurled about?
We are White People. White People are different from colored people. To spiritual jews this is not obvious. To spiritual Aryans it is. Work on bringing out the true Aryan and suppressing the inner jew/colored they have been trying to goad our people to ape. Resonance. What is killing us? Not being true to ourselves. A man trying to be a woman is a disgusting thing to see, but there is a sight even more disgusting.
Isn’t it, also, extremely cynical of the Captainchaoses of this scene to come down on NeoN for discussing class and the master/slave dynamic among whites, when after all the egalitarian racial rhetoric, they too would have their “self-sacrificing” peasants? What’s worse in that scenario — let’s remember these are fantasy scenarios entirely outside the course of events — is that the latter inspires certain White Nationalists to actually romanticize a subject life in the name of “the cause”: in other words, it brings out the born slaves, and leaves the Captainchaoses, ten times as arrogant and demanding of servitude & conformity as NeoNietzsche, to pretend they have all our best interests in mind. That is the real “Nazi” mindset, which at bottom is paranoid militant bureaucratism — the gangster bully who wants conformity at any cost. The Dzerzhinskys of history didn’t create culture worth fetishizing; they’ve only ever stifled the creative spirit.
“In the sense that I [NN] do not [think it likely that there will be] much “swelling” [in our ranks] or consider such of much consequence.”
That your own efforts [may have] met with failure, and that your (potentially wrong) conception of the sufficient conditions for racial survival may not be met, does not mean that other conceptions and proposed conditions for achieving the goal we all hold in common will be found wanting.
That is an unexceptionable logical proposition, as stated, to which I cannot object – but which, by the same token – doesn’t tell us anything about past and future facts But I understand the hopeful sentiments behind it.
With that said, I personally find the material displayed at your site thought provoking, and appreciate your efforts in doing what you can as you see fit.
Very gracious of you to say so, thanks.
You must be keeping your head up your ass if you don’t think the white mass doesn’t feel disenfranchised.
You’re conflating their experience with Captainchaos’s. Different circumstances, different narrative, different result. The average feeling of disenfranchisement isn’t even close to how Captainchaos feels / thinks, mainly because the latter does think and is articulate, while the former dumbly gnashes its teeth. But, in the end, both feelings and thoughts are irrelevant.
You think we can’t do a jew because the jew already has?
Think of what the Jews have achieved as an historical model: not as an ahistorical one applicable to our own time / circumstances. The Jews gained ground in Europe and America in more innocent times. We can’t do the same today. Different world, man. It’s a trick of thought — you think because we’re here talking about it (what?), it must be possible. But not all that’s thinkable is doable or real. That should be obvious enough. Something intervenes between you and your presumed inevitable assumption into a New Reich where you will vindicated in the abstract collective: that thing is the real world.
We can’t do a jew because we ain’t jews bud.
Huh. I remember reading that somewhere. Anyone else?
How much more of this intellectual tosspottery is going to be hurled about?
Seeing as this is an intellectual form, and intellectualism is all we can manage, probably much, much more. Our refinement in intellectualism is in fact the signpost of our permanent ineffectuality. Only disenfranchised / subject populations subtilize in this way, per Nietzsche’s discussion of Jewish morality and the Christian conscience.
We are White People. White People are different from colored people. To spiritual jews this is not obvious. To spiritual Aryans it is.
No one’s arguing that basic stuff. We’re all here because we ain’t like colores and jews. Beyond that it’s the operation of the same tendency to fantasy and ideological division as anywhere else.
*forum
*coloreds
#118 was addressed to Captainchaos.
You are projecting your experience onto the mass (”solipsism”). Simple as that. There is no evidence, anywhere, that the mass is or has ever been more interested in facts than sensational lies, even with the best means of disseminating facts. To think otherwise, to believe it can be otherwise, is unscientific. (uh)
Hard truths. Sad truths. Septimius Severus.
I don’t see any creativity in the fatuity, just endless cycles of the same old vomit as the dog returns to it again and then returns it again. He goes on about the “world as it is” forgetting that you can’t see the world “as it is”. Look at a rainbow, place a stick halfway in a cup of water and look at it. He would deny the subjective element because he can’t face the abyss of himself. Ho hum. Why should I take lessons from someone who believes you can start on your way to become a “superman” if you just read the right materials. Ha, ha! He is the “last man” who has already chosen his poison for when life has become unbearable. Yes, a little poison here, a little there and at the last a large swallow. Nietzsche isn’t great but that dude fucks it up so bad he doesn’t even know he is the very definition of the “last man”, the “earth flea”.
Meanwhile uh has nothing to add but obfuscation and a probbing of the veins with the virus of skepsis. We have seen how well the jew has worked his magic by the way the virus have travelled till even love becomes a thing of skeptisism. The light-heart of a youth enraptured is lost amongst the foetid dross of skeptisism and intellectualisation. A child is cursed before he is born if he ends amongst such filth. Uh misunderstands good-faith lacking it.
You are arguing it uh. You said we couldn’t do a jew because the jews had already done it. Ergo we at some point in time or such could have done it. WE AIN’T JEWS. It is the basic stuff you brain-fart dudes miss with your historical models and all. There is essence to contend with not just existence. But that fucks up the plot doesn’t it because then what are you?
Shit scary question time. Go on look into the abyss.
Oh, and while I’m thinking about it, I’d best spell out for the mendacious knuckleheads that my growing list of OD characters *is not and was not* an assignment of class or caste of any sort – it was/is a joke:
So, our cast of characters under Hunter’s Big Tent now includes:
1) Erich von Stroheim (myself, NN, in caricature)
2) Antonius Cincinnatus
3) Oldright the Oldwhite
4) Lena the Cleana
5) Traim the Laim
6) The Adled
7) *
He goes on about the “world as it is” forgetting that [Antonius Cincinnatus] can’t see the world “as it is”.
“We can’t do a jew because we ain’t jews bud.”
Huh. I remember reading that somewhere. Anyone else? (uh)
Uh, you disappoint! You would allow allow logical consistency to get in the way of light-heartedness? You would deny our youth their rapture amidst visible declension? You Villain! What were you thinking?
Now say you’re sorry, and promise never, ever to do that again.
That’s a good boy.
NN, you argue like a semite. You post endless contemptuous rants about the white working class and claim to be of the master caste and demean other WNs then switch to morally outraged denial when called on the inevitable conclusion of your philosophy. And damn right you consider me of the slave caste and anyone who’s plowed through your endless posts knows it. When someone calls me a slave, or insinuates I’m a slave, they’re not my ally. We aren’t in the same movement, and you’ll get no help from me. If there’s ever a Nietzschean coup I’ll be part of the insurgency.
WE AIN’T JEWS. (Antonius Cincinnatus)
Rather, we are (with eyes a-sparkle and sighs of rapture) child-like Aryan peasants who fancy ourselves spiritually in touch with nature, and who thus could not be Aryan *masters* because all masters are essentially naughty, materialistic Jews.
NN, you argue like a semite. You post endless contemptuous rants about the white working class and claim to be of the master caste and demean other WNs then switch to morally outraged denial when called on the inevitable conclusion of your philosophy. And damn right you consider me of the slave caste and anyone who’s plowed through your endless posts knows it. When someone calls me a slave, or insinuates I’m a slave, they’re not my ally. We aren’t in the same movement, and you’ll get no help from me. If there’s ever a Nietzschean coup I’ll be part of the insurgency.
I’m sorry that you, as you seem to insinuate, plowed through my “endless” posts, and yet failed to be instructed as to the essential point – which is as to ethics/morality/law (as in Genealogy of Morals?) – not caste.
Caste-wise, I consider you a peasant, not a slave. In any case, you’re a liar. But I nevertheless credit your claim as to stupidly standing in opposition to the only hope for the survival of a race sorely lacking in instruction – and, in your case, lacking in educability.
He would deny the subjective element because he can’t face the abyss of himself.
Huh. While duly admitting that I’m an abyss, I’m actually trying to highlight the subjective element in White Nationalist thought. I deny that Captainchaos’s experience has anything to say about the world as it is, or the future of the world. I think that’s a fair perspective. From Captainchaos’s perspective, the world will reorder itself according to his experience. Because the White Nationalist ego is bound up with ideas of collectivity, becoming a figurative “social” ego or an ego which views itself as part of a collective, the WN misunderstands his instinctual repugnance to the notion that “all is lost” — that there is finality in the world and he is on the shit end of it — as feasible political ideology. This is the nadir of subjectivity masquerading as objectivity, pure ego dressing itself up as pure politics; hence the presence of “crypto-Jews” and “defeatists” in their midst — concretized evasion of impotence, shadows projected to spook himself and his fellow believers. To acknowledge the metacritique in the slightest way is to demolish the illusion that White Nationalism, an illusion stoked by that very name, is politically viable, promoted by our ability to openly fantasize here about what we’d like to happen in the world; this can be called pathological narcissistic anality, I suppose, but I don’t want to be gross, so I just call it solipsism. The subjective element is irrelevant, but when it dresses itself up as objective political ideology, it becomes absurd.
And there are occasions when the subjective makes accurate predictions based on very strong social currents. Nietzsche, for example, “predicted” or at least presaged world wars (“Weltkriege”) and a subsequent epistemological break whereafter his master morality would be taken up by the victor. He also saw Jews as the most “pregnant” people in Europe at the time. So we have three predictions:
– Jews will become master of Europe.
– There will be “world wars”.
– Nietzschean values will be the law of the land thereafter.
Two out of three: No one could’ve foreseen the revival of “slave morality” through the Holocaust cult. “Anti-Semites” were merely contemptible, so Nietzsche didn’t consider anti-Semitic nationalism as a potential spark to the powder-keg — but the point is the smell of gunpowder was in everyone’s nose at the time, and it wasn’t hazardous to say that there were more European (even transatlantic) wars to come. Quite a few fin-de-siecle authors predicted this.
Now, we live in a different era. It’s much more complex than Nietzsche’s world. There’s nothing about to indicate “collapse”, “revolution”, upheaval or reversal of any kind, because complexity can’t be reversed and can’t really collapse; the White Nationalist ego, then, is working with an old-fashioned and ahistorical narrative which permits itself the luxury of ignoring everything about the modern world for the sake of its political desiderata, which it only imagines will be better for it (the ego) than present circumstances allow.
An ahistorical narrative is a theological narrative, for only in theology are there eternal beings, free will, etc. Evolution means everything as it is right now; the world is as it has become. To predict what is to come means one must extrapolate such events from what already is, and that White Nationalism cannot begin to do, because we find in our era only consolidation of political and ideological strictures. All the stuff White Nationalism cares about, the world has left very much behind. But the White Nationalist is allowed to ignore the world by his de-contextualized internet ego (“persona”). It is this ignorance of the world in its smallest and grandest details that lay at the heart of White Nationalist ideology.
Why should I take lessons from someone who believes you can start on your way to become a “superman” if you just read the right materials.
I dunno. But consider that you can transcend certain limitations of thought by reading this or that book. I disagree with about 80% of NeoN’s reading list, but the remainder could bring you a fair way past mere “White Nationalism”. But, here again, one flirts with the heresy of individualism as against the enforcement of collectivism necessitated by the desiderata of White Nationalism.
Yes, a little poison here, a little there and at the last a large swallow.
That’s what she said!
with the virus of skepsis.
Opposite of skepsis?
Doxa (????) is a Greek word meaning common belief or popular opinion, from which are derived the modern terms of orthodoxy[1] and heterodoxy.[2] Used by the Greek rhetoricians as a tool for the formation of argument by using common opinions, the doxa was often manipulated by sophists to persuade the people, leading to Plato’s condemnation of Athenian democracy.
So the very theorist of rule by the aristoi was at bottom — a skeptic!
. Ergo we at some point in time or such could have done it. WE AIN’T JEWS.
Someone else has to see the irony in this. NeoNietzsche? Come on, guys.
Now, we live in a different era.
Should go without saying — but I’ll say it anyway — that though he was right about the wars and the epistemological break, the metanarrative that came after, constructed as they went by Jews, was completely opposite his desideratum: victimology, worship of the weak, crippling of the strong, and so on. White Nationalists also predict or posit an epistemological break, but with no objective political circumstances to back up or justify this belief. Instead they insist that “people are waking up” (what people?), “things are going our way” (huh? where?), that we “don’t know what is coming” — which is to say that only they know what is coming and are entitled to say; but underlying is the semantic trick of all appeals to agnosticism: by asserting we can’t know the White Nationalist implies that what he wants is likely. The void of opportunistic agnosticism is filled by false exceptation, the suggestion of wish-fulfillment (“don’t give up; you never know what’ll happen!”), the rhetoric of the pathologically hopeful — THAT is “obfuscation”.
“1) Erich von Stroheim (myself, NN, in caricature)”
LOL!! You’re such an ass, NN. You do make me laugh.
1) The Prick (NeoNietzsche of course)
“Ergo[,] we at some point in time or such could have done it. WE AIN’T JEWS.”
Someone else has to see the irony in this. NeoNietzsche? Come on, guys. (uh)
#129 is what I see in it.
Rather, we are (with eyes a-sparkle and sighs of rapture) child-like Aryan peasants who fancy ourselves spiritually in touch with nature, and who thus could not be Aryan *masters* because all masters are essentially naughty, materialistic Jews.
LOL. Now come on, the Hittites rode chariots. Why can’t we ride chariots? If the Hittites and the Nazis could do it, we can too! Life’s a journey, everything happens for a reason. You never know what’ll happen. Just wait, the one for you (~*the revolution*~) will come along.
I might’ve said CC prescribes experience for the mass, which points to the objective political teleology, but really it is projection, psychologically speaking. “What happened to me — that will happen to others more and more, until there are enough of us to ______ .” Appeal to numbers at the end of it, as always. How many millions of Chinese have been against their system for almost a century? Yet they never “rose up” or made their own “media”. Maybe because they’re a “placid yellow race”, or something.
#129 is what I see in it.
Right, but I meant the “Cryptos (II)” thread, wherein everyone but you and Soren, ironically, came down on me for saying we couldn’t rival the Jews in media, for one thing, because we aren’t Jews.
“You post endless contemptuous rants about the white working class and claim to be of the master caste and demean other WNs…”
A self-styled master caste mind you.
The point about NN and uh is that they are aristocrats in their own mind. Having failed at whatever endeavour IRL, they are compelled to act out this silly fantasy of theirs online, for the sake of self-esteem. Old enough to know better, they are desperately trying to save face, in the hope their absurd charade will produce admirers amongst the gullible WNs at OD.
Go back to polishing your jack-boots, boys.
The point about NN and uh is that they are aristocrats in their own mind.
Well, you call yourself “The Admiral”.
they are compelled to act out this silly fantasy of theirs online, for the sake of self-esteem.
Hm. Strange. That’s what I’ve been saying you all do, this whole time. I don’t suppose you’d be desperate enough to rip me off for a leg to stand on. You’re better than that.
Old enough to know better, they are desperately trying to save face
I’m 28. Is that old?
The point about NN and uh is that they are aristocrats in their own mind.
Very good!
Now – what does this tell us about our peasants, AC, OtO, Traim, and yourself?
Don’t take too long thinking about it, or your mark on this pop quiz goes down!
Hey NN, what do you call 100 peasants with AK-47s?
Not peasants, not to their face anyway, and you damn well better show them some respect.
Uh ~ What’s wrong with you? Did your wife leave you? And yes, 28 is too old for you to be playing make-believe.
NN ~ Unbutton your Nazi tunic, old chap, I think the collar is affecting your circulation.
NN:
Now – what does this tell us about our peasants, AC, OtO, Traim, and yourself?
Why look, it’s a list of slaves. I guess I read you better than you admit, comrade.
#129 is what I see in it.
Right, but I meant the “Cryptos (II)” thread, wherein everyone but you and Soren, ironically, came down on me for saying we couldn’t rival the Jews in media, for one thing, because we aren’t Jews.
And as I implied earlier, uh, you’ve got to *master* this un-Aryan inclination of yours to a demoralizing demand for logical consistency in the fantasies of your innocent interlocutors.
Or – maybe you should submit to something – I’m never sure, when Antonius shows up with Schopenhauer on his shoulder.
I’m still waiting for NeoNietzsche to explain how his military coup will suppress 150 million armed whites when the US military can’t suppress the insurgency in Iraq, a country of less than 20 million people.
I notice the faux-aristocrats avoid any argument that brings brutish, ugly facts into the discussion. Nietzsche didn’t understand technology. The AK-47 (and similar developments) makes the workers equal to the aristocrats in combat. It’s no coincidence that the aristocracies collapsed shortly after the introduction of mass produced, reliable firearms.
Hey NN, what do you call 100 peasants with AK-47s?
Mortally perforated with 5.56×45, beyond the range of 7.62×39, by, say, 6 Greater Judean mercenaries armed with the usual. It happened in Iraq, with 50 and 3, respectively, if I recall the details.
I’m still waiting for NeoNietzsche to explain how his military coup will suppress 150 million armed whites when the US military can’t suppress the insurgency in Iraq, a country of less than 20 million people.
The Greater Judean regime would not shrink from using a nuclear, or any other type of, weapon on what would be portrayed (whatever the case) as “neo-nazis” – since the propaganda premises of such an attack would not impose restraint such as was the case in Iraq (liberation/democratization/modernization). This should be obvious from the final stages of the WW to Save Judeo-Communism.
And secessionism, realized in fact, would facilitate this development.
[And you are dreaming, a’la “uh’s” analysis]
Why look, it’s a list of slaves. I guess I read you better than you admit, comrade.
What letter grade do you assign to a zero score these days?
Perhaps a note to the parents advising remedial instruction?
I notice the faux-aristocrats avoid any argument that brings brutish, ugly facts into the discussion. Nietzsche didn’t understand technology. The AK-47 (and similar developments) makes the workers equal to the aristocrats in combat. It’s no coincidence that the aristocracies collapsed shortly after the introduction of mass[-]produced, reliable firearms.
The longbow did the same, beginning at Crecy, in the 14th century. The aristocracies didn’t collapse. The armies changed tactics, still led by aristocrats.
OldRight,
Please don’t conflate Nietzsche the philosopher with NeoNietzsche the comments guy.
Nietzsche devoted the majority of his time to doing what he did best: philosophizing with a hammer. His analyses of Christianity, Judaism, anti-Semitism, Western philosophy, and modernity were devastating. He even diagnosed the ultimate problem, confirming in three infamous words where the stench was coming from.
Nietzsche deliberately refrained from describing his fabled redeemer in too great detail. The most he really did was imply that this superman would need to be capable of operating on a higher level, of possessing a genius and courage sufficient to meet the challenge. This superman would be capable of transcending even the master morality and slave morality paradigm.
Nietzsche was a philosopher, not a leader. NeoNietzsche is neither.
OldRight,
Please don’t conflate Nietzsche the philosopher with NeoNietzsche the comments guy.
That would be to impute to Nietzsche a rationalization of Nietzsche’s summary findings that Nietzsche was not good enough to supply for the information and comprehension of those not so intuitive as himself – meaning you who are thus seriously in need of instruction regarding vital considerations you do not understand.
Nietzsche devoted the majority of his time to doing what he did best: philosophizing with a hammer. His analyses of Christianity, Judaism, anti-Semitism, Western philosophy, and modernity were devastating. He even diagnosed the ultimate problem, confirming in three infamous words where the stench was coming from.
Unfortunately in so unsystematic a fashion that readers such as “Lena the Cleana” can read him and not even recognize a political philosophy therein. Thus the need for a “bulldog” such as I, to fill a bill that Wiki here is not, with his vague summations and posturings as an expert on N.
Nietzsche deliberately refrained from describing his fabled redeemer in too great detail. The most he really did was imply that this superman would need to be capable of operating on a higher level, of possessing a genius and courage sufficient to meet the challenge. This superman would be capable of transcending even the master morality and slave morality paradigm.
How useful a guide to action. What are we to make of this portrayal? Wiki does not bother to render assistance.
Nietzsche was a philosopher, not a leader. NeoNietzsche is neither.
So Wiki steps up to the plate and…whiffs.
Isn’t there a forum for these sort of long-winded discussions?
It makes me want to close my browser completely when I have to read over these pissing matches between the battling egos. Not the sort of thing that attracts people to the site.
My 2 shekels anyway.