← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · toddbrendanfahey
Thread ID: 4886 | Posts: 45 | Started: 2003-02-09
2003-02-09 12:55 | User Profile
THE STRANGE CASE OF JOSEPH SOBRAN
by Michael A. Hoffman II February 9, 2003
Sobran's recent endorsement of Orthodox Judaism is part of an ominous pattern
...For a time Sobran seemed an alternative to Mr. Buchanan; more the scholar and hard student of the ancient Fathers, less the habitue of the carnival booths of cable TV. But something was amiss. A patriotic traditional Catholic priest (Sobran is Catholic and famed for his ardor for the Constitution), protested a weird Sobran column in which Joe wondered if the British monarchist Samuel Johnson had indeed been correct in denouncing the evil that was the American Revolution. Was this column a joke? If not, how to reconcile a supposed devotion to the Constitution with a back-handed endorsement of Johnson's attack on the revolution that made the Constitution possible?
More ominously, during the vice-presidential candidacy of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Sobran wrote a column defending Orthodox Judaism --suggesting that it was too good for the Democrat Party and the likes of Lieberman. He followed that lunacy with an extended endorsement of the theory that Abraham Lincoln was, to his dying day, a committed white supremacist. Actually, Lincoln was only playing a version of George W. Bush's cynical "Southern strategy," except that Lincoln's target constituencies were Border State whites and Congressman David Wilmot's Free Soil party. When I questioned Sobran about his Lincoln theory, he behaved like a British lord accosted by a churl and haughtily rebuffed my offer to send him documentation on Lincoln's authentic racial praxis...
[full article here]
2003-02-09 18:12 | User Profile
Say it ain't so Joe!
Joe Sobran has been/is by far the closest thing to a white nationalist among the denizens of the fourth estate. This is an indication of how truly pathetic our representation in that sphere truly is.
2003-02-09 19:30 | User Profile
Cath-O-Jews. They'll getcha, every time.
When I questioned Sobran about his Lincoln theory, he behaved like a British lord accosted by a churl and haughtily rebuffed my offer to send him documentation on Lincoln's authentic racial praxis...
What I believe to be one of two key sentences here.
It turns out the Far Right is, alas, growing full of overly-defensive, extra-touchy, me-first types who split hairs with a meat-cleaver once their hair-trigger Insult Antennae are tweaked. This frankly reads like the work of someone who - at the moment, anyway - is emotionally unstable. Sobran is 'courageous', 'electrifying',a 'wonderful writer' one moment; a moment later, terms like 'cowardice', 'insanity', and 'monumental fraud' are bandied about.
What happened?
**I devoted an entire book to this problem ("Judaism's Strange Gods") and Joe studiously ignored all three copies that were sent to him. **
Either that, or Hoffman's right, and two awkward sentences in one recent column invalidates 30 years of work.
PS: I've read, re-read, still consult, and heartily recommend Hoffman's THEY WERE WHITE AND THEY WERE SLAVES - and I also keep his website [http://www.hoffman-info.com/] bookmarked - but Hoffman, more and more, writes like he's wearing a tinfoil hat. And in fact, too many far-right and paleo works fall prey to what hurts Hoffman - an inability to keep from relentlessly editorializing on every page of their books, and an increasing blurring of the line between self-promotion and self-aggrandizement . "Dispassionate" is not a word in their vocabulary, and it hurts them by often invalidating the painstaking research that otherwise fills their pages. I haven't read JUDAISM'S STRANGE GODS but perhaps it's this constant editorializing that scares off serious-minded readers. No WN or paleo writer has the right to dilute, dismantle or distract from their larger message for the sake of a personal vendetta or their own wounded sense of self-importance: none. You save that sh*t for msg boards like this one, but realistically you're only gonna get one chance to reach the widest possible audience, and that requires your best (and least selfish) effort.
I know that one of Hoffman's most recent titles is HOFFMAN CONTRA THE KHAZARS: The Internet Debates Of Michael A Hoffman II, as nutty a premise for a book as I've heard of: putting those drearily-venemous and interminable online flame-wars that most of us cross the street to avoid between endpapers. (If that's a "book", then Polchinello has a trilogy in him!)
Hoffman's an invaluable writer, when he wants to be; as is Sobran, when he's not coasting- which he does on occasion. But these intramural paintball wars - the devoting of time and sweat and inspiration, merely to settle old scores and avenge piddling slights - these are the artifacts of the Losing Side, with not much guesswork required as to Why We Lost, either.
2003-02-11 00:34 | User Profile
To, il ragno:
Your points are good.
I'll add a couple of points that are somewhat off the original topic:
Firstly, Sobran is, compared to the usual scum who infest journalism, a saint.
An example of the usual scum being one Sean Hannity. Happened to hear
him today and about all I could do was to hope that some civilized,
urbane and nice paleoconservative would grab him by the collar and
beat the living crap out of him.
.
Sobran is intelligent, learned and has character, but.....
The "but" is that Sobran is part of a dying ideology/worldview, namely the old Catholic Church. He uses his dying ideology against the dying ideology of the American establishment......one dying ideology vs another dying ideology. .
Sobran, like many intelligent members of the Right, serves a negative function, namely he shows us who our enemies are, but does not show us a postive path.
My gripe with Sobran and the "Old Right" is that they rather consistently lose, and perhaps have a losing psychology.
Anyway, see what you think about this.
2003-02-11 01:44 | User Profile
Lane,
What make you believe that winning is possible? The "Old Right" seeks a moral course, within a jungle of animals. If winning means one must become the enemy, and use their methods, what significance would there be in victory?
We are not masochists, just realists walking a very narrow road. The point is that the righteous are not in control. Human nature is corrupt, should be no surprise the results that flow from that nature.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2003-02-11 04:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by SARTRE@Feb 10 2003, 19:44 If winning means one must become the enemy, and use their methods, what significance would there be in victory?
It would be our victory?
2003-02-11 04:35 | User Profile
Sarte:
I'll offer a few observations in regard to your post.
"What makes you think winning is possible?"
Firstly, to some extent I do live in a state where people have won and done well.
Out here in the wilds of South Dakota, people (especially white people), have taken a land thought to be barren and made a pretty good place of it. Even today, some folks think it is flat, barren and dull, but life exists out here!
Today it is about -10 below and I am sitting in a warm house with my blond haired blue-eyed young vikings. On top of that am reading an interesting internet forum-this one-and exchanging views with a published author! Cool!
People here suffer from foolishness and being greedy and naive---on the federal level --and hence vote in, by narrow margins, and with the help of the Injuns, Daschle and Johnson.
Anyway, I think that the Right probably needs to become the "little engines that can". To borrow a phrase, to become the "Vanguard" rather than the rearguard. To be crude, stop smelling the farts of the left and complaining that they stink.
My own, rather limited experience with educated conservatives is that they spend way too much time telling me how bad things are and how powerful the Left is.....well, the Left got powerful by working and I see no reason why better men cannot do the same.
Sometimes, I have rather sarcastically thought that conservatives can tell me everything except how to actually do anything.
Personally spent way too much time with the Buckley/National Review/ American Spectator view of things and hence do not have answers to all your points.
I do believe however that I/we suffer from a flawed nature and am interested in changing/reforming that nature; I guess men develop a hunger for things and then start looking and hoping and start to apply reason and will to their problems. I guess a guy starts asking questions like "how can I kick a-- and take names." And "how does little old me live the good life?"
There is nothing to stop me from becoming a moral monster except trying not to be one.
My motto is "when all else fails, try winning." And, "if you fail in this world, try the next one."
See what you think.
2003-02-11 04:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by SARTRE@Feb 10 2003, 19:44 The "Old Right" seeks a moral course, within a jungle of animals.
Animals lead healthy lives - moralists are pathogenic.
2003-02-11 04:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by SARTRE@Feb 10 2003, 19:44 **Human nature is corrupt, should be no surprise the results that flow from that nature.
**
No surprise that the corrupt should wish to believe that there are none other than the corrupt.
2003-02-11 04:51 | User Profile
Conservatives often have the idea that we just need to stop the Left from doing things. Apparently, if we just keep a skeptical enough attitude, they wont be able to slip any of those crazy lefty ideas past the Powers That Be.
Hell, probably they are right. Too bad there is no way to get the necessary number of skeptics alive and kicking in this country.
2003-02-11 04:54 | User Profile
To wintermute:
You wrote, "Victory or Defeat begin in Imagination and continue in the Will, until they are manifest in Reality."
Interesting.
Ya gotta expend on that idea or point me to some authors who deal with it!
Thanks.
2003-02-11 05:32 | User Profile
NeoNietzsche:
You wrote, "No suprise that the corrupt should wish to believe that there are none other than the corrupt."
Another interesting idea, maybe people just get that idea drilled into them and it is a way to control and manipulate them.
Just looking around in my little area, I am surprised to see how few people are really corrupt. I am surprised to see that at least around here, alot of business is done by a handshake, how friendly and courteous many people are. When a guy starts to shake off this idea that everybody is corrupt, the world looks different.
A number of white people that I see seem to be ignorant, and naive; in need of a psychological boast, rather than a sermon.
I also noted your other quote, "confronting the abyss and conceiving Reality as it is."
I am curious to know what this abyss is: kinda sounds like some pretty gruesome stuff that intellectuals come up with to make other people unhappy or uncomfortable.
If you would care to expand on this abyss business, would be interested.
2003-02-11 06:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by Lane@Feb 10 2003, 23:32 **I also noted your other quote, "confronting the abyss and conceiving Reality as it is."
I am curious to know what this abyss is: kinda sounds like some pretty gruesome stuff that intellectuals come up with to make other people unhappy or uncomfortable.
If you would care to expand on this abyss business, would be interested.**
The Abyss:
God is Dead
Justice is transient
Utopia is a graveyard
The world of men is governed by lies and violence
It is left to men of violence to create and maintain order in the midst of this truth
2003-02-11 06:50 | User Profile
NeoNietzsche: The Abyss: God is Dead Justice is transient Utopia is a graveyard The world of men is governed by lies and violence It is left to men of violence to create and maintain order in the midst of this truth Geez, I ASK y'all: is it any WONDER I love this man?! He has the whole world in his brain... :lol: Or at least, he has a clear-eyed view of humans and nature...
I would add, only: Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who DON'T!!
(Sorry, Tex Diss and the rest of you Christians... but it's TRUE!)
2003-02-11 16:04 | User Profile
I agree with you, Lane: white folks, as a rule, are not really corrupt.
The ruling class, however, in their "Wil to Power," are, as Nietasche wrote," Beyond Good and Evil." It's been that way since the dawn of history--the warrior/priest caste marching off armies of lemmings, those you correctly labele "ignorant and naive"--to increasingly destructive wars.
A Bush will always rise to the occassion.
-Z-
2003-02-11 17:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 11 2003, 00:50 **Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who DON'T!!
(Sorry, Tex Diss and the rest of you Christians... but it's TRUE!)**
I'm really baffled at your evident perception of Christians as some kind of Ghandi-ish pacifist sort. Who established this country? Who went down the Mississippi with Old Hickory to fight the British? Christian farmers with Bibles in one hand and squirrel guns in the other, that's who.
2003-02-11 18:08 | User Profile
TD, your point is well taken, but recent history lacks such examples.
Now don't get me wrong, the faith is nothing to sneer at, but the institutions that are charged as guardians of that faith have become as thoroughly corrupt as any other organization in this society.
I expect the modern example would be, unfortunately, "Christian suburbanites with Bibles in one hand and a Million Mom March poster in the other."
Would that we had more of those farmers!
2003-02-11 18:22 | User Profile
This is Sobran coasting......and ducking. It's not an egregious dereliction of duty, but the sin of omission here is that we don't all know who he means by "Communists" in the bold print, and Sobran knows it, but he doesn't feel like any hate mail today.
Of course, he could spend the next year publicly renouncing every critical-of-Jews column he's ever written; beating his breast in shame, abjectly apologizing again & again and denouncing everyone who's ever given him support for the last 20 years.....and he'd be stuck in that cobwebbed file cabinet marked ANTI-SEMITE for the rest of his life anyway, never to be taken out, polished up and put back on the mantel next to Will and Buckley and Farah. Because he's dealing with a mindset that encourages a 25-year-old Jew to keep an enemies list cataloguing every slight accrued over five millenia - but condemns a 50-year-old goy who refuses to pretend the USS Liberty never happened as a hate-filled Neanderthal who needs to be monitored constantly by law-enforcement agencies until some pretext to imprison him can be hit upon.
Joe Sobran knows all this already, though. He's acknowledged this before and he'll acknowledge it again. He's just taking a breather here and running on autopilot. Which is fine: nobody should be expected to do all the heavy lifting, twice a week, every week. But get well soon, Joe.
**The School of Experience January 28, 2003 **
The states of Europe are reluctant to support an American war on Iraq. So are most European people. For this the hawkish press in this country is accusing them of ââ¬Åanti-Americanism.ââ¬Â
As the columnist Richard Cohen puts it, ââ¬ÅThese European critics need to be reminded ... that America saved Europe from the Nazis and from the Communists and asked nothing in return.ââ¬Â Nothing, it seems, except an eternally grateful subservience.
Actually, Americans werenââ¬â¢t quite so selfless. During both World War II and the Cold War, they were told that their own freedom depended on saving Europeââ¬â¢s freedom. They were strongly opposed to entering World War II until Pearl Harbor ââ¬â by which time more than 100,000 of those allegedly cowardly Frenchmen had died fighting Germany, only to be conquered. Yet to hear todayââ¬â¢s hawks tell it, the French surrendered without a struggle and welcomed Hitler to Paris; and today they are spurning their benefactors ââ¬â us Americans ââ¬â who are nobly trying to save them from todayââ¬â¢s Hitler, Iraqââ¬â¢s Saddam Hussein.
Well, the French remember the first Hitler, and they donââ¬â¢t see the analogy. They think the United States is pushing for a needless war against a regime that poses no threat to them, let alone to the United States, which, with typical Gallic effrontery and ethnocentrism, they consider to be across the Atlantic, out of reach of Iraq. They see nothing to be gained by such a war, but they see dangers for everyone; and they donââ¬â¢t want to be dragged into it. This is now ââ¬Åanti-Americanism.ââ¬Â
The Germans share these views. They too are ââ¬Åanti-American.ââ¬Â
Think of that! We save their freedom for them, and they insist on acting like free countries! Did our brave soldiers die so that they could disagree with us?
The Pope opposes this war. He must be anti-American too. And guess what? General Norman Schwarzkopf, hero of the 1991 Gulf War, is very dubious about this one. And here you thought he was a patriot.
Millions of people in this world, some of them in Europe, really are anti-American. They wish nothing but harm to this country; they curse its name. But the millions of other Europeans ââ¬â and Americans ââ¬â who want to prevent this war are chiefly driven by humane concern for everyone who is likely to suffer. They are anti-war for pro-American reasons. If you try to stop a friend from getting into a drunken brawl, you donââ¬â¢t become his enemy. When he sobers up, he will regard you as a better friend than he knew.
North Koreaââ¬â¢s bloated fanatic, Kim Jong Il, is a far more despicable tyrant than Saddam Hussein, which is saying something. He is also viciously anti-American. Itââ¬â¢s conceivable, even probable, that he would be delighted by a U.S. war on Iraq, because of its likely baneful results for America.
Itââ¬â¢s juvenile to equate critics with enemies. A critic may warn you that you are driving dangerously. An enemy would rather see you have a serious accident. A true friend will sometimes be a critic, even an angry critic. Our European friends are now exasperated with us. Instead of heeding their passionate pleas, our rulers ridicule them as ââ¬Åold Europeââ¬Â for refusing to cooperate in a dubiously conceived military adventure whose outcome nobody can know.
Two world wars ended with consequences all the belligerents failed to foresee. If anyone really won, it was, both times, the Communists. The first war enabled them to overthrow the tsars and conquer Russia; the second one enabled them to extend their empire over much of Christian Europe. Even Stalin must have been happily surprised when, after a mighty close shave, he emerged as an emperor.
Yet to this day, the optimistic illusion persists that ââ¬Åweââ¬Â won both wars. But neither time could the results be judged on the day the enemy ceremonially surrendered. History isnââ¬â¢t measured by ceremonies, which are only brief pauses in infinitely complex and continuous events.
Except for Secretary of State Colin Powell, nobody in the Bush administration seems even slightly aware that history will keep moving unpredictably, as it always does, after the United States marches triumphantly into Baghdad.
ââ¬ÅExperience keeps a dear school,ââ¬Â Benjamin Franklin said, ââ¬Åbut a fool will learn in no other.ââ¬Â The Europeans have learned bitter lessons in that school; Americans are just now enrolling.
Joseph Sobran
2003-02-11 18:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Feb 11 2003, 12:08 ** Now don't get me wrong, the faith is nothing to sneer at, but the institutions that are charged as guardians of that faith have become as thoroughly corrupt as any other organization in this society. **
I agree. That's why I'm here -- trying to establish or discover new institutions, taking what's good and shaking off the bad. Granted there aren't as many Christian patriots as the old days, but there are still more than a few.
2003-02-11 18:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Feb 11 2003, 11:29 Who established this country?ÃÂ Who went down the Mississippi with Old Hickory to fight the British?ÃÂ Christian farmers with Bibles in one hand and squirrel guns in the other, that's who.
But who were not Christians, properly speaking, but merely hypocritical sinners and naughty boys much in need of salvation, absolution, and correction.
For Nietzsche noted, long ago, that the only true Christian died on the Cross - all others are perpetually back-sliding aspirants manque', since Christianity cannot be lived in the real world and is merely productive of massive hypocrisy, folly, and the ultimate corruption of institutions founded thereupon.
The worrisome aspect of Christianity amongst responsible right-wing personnel is that of its authenticity in the Beatitudes, taken literally as did apostolic, communist Christians. Christians, so-called, are properly suspected of being handicapped by scruples designed thus to celebrate the virtues of the slavish and to denounce the way of the victor.
2003-02-11 18:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 11 2003, 12:34 For Nietzsche noted, long ago, that the only true Christian died on the Cross - all others are perpetually back-sliding aspirants manque', since Christianity cannot be lived in the real world and is merely productive of massive hypocrisy, folly, and the ultimate corruption of institutions founded thereupon.
Blah, blah, blah...yeah, whatever.
:wacko:
2003-02-11 19:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Feb 11 2003, 12:44 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 11 2003, 12:34 For Nietzsche noted, long ago, that the only true Christian died on the Cross - all others are perpetually back-sliding aspirants manque', since Christianity cannot be lived in the real world and is merely productive of massive hypocrisy, folly, and the ultimate corruption of institutions founded thereupon.**
Blah, blah, blah...yeah, whatever.
:wacko:**
One notes the awesome power of the mighty Nietzsche to reduce the deliberations of a grown and literate man to the babblings of a juvenile intellectual delinquent. :unsure:
2003-02-11 21:19 | User Profile
From Hoffman's newsletter, February 10, 2003:
Here is a representative sample of early reaction to Feb. 8's HOFFMAN WIRE column on "The Strange Case of Joe Sobran," which now appears online at [url=http://www.hoffman-info.com/sobranphrenia.html]http://www.hoffman-info.com/sobranphrenia.html[/url]
From E.H.: "I read with interest your excellent article, 'The Strange Case of Joe Sobran.' In your column you made reference to two top leaders of the John Birch Society who know the truth but refuse to voice it. The late Prof. Revilo Oliver discovered that the Birch Society was in fact a covert front for Zionists. Oliver was a founding member of the Birch Society. He was associate editor of its major periodical, "American Opinion," (later becoming The New American magazine)."
** HOFFMAN REPLIES:** I had a nodding acquaintance with Dr. Oliver. He gave a favorable review to my book, "They Were White and They Were Slaves" in the pages of "The Liberty Bell."
From P.W.: "I believe Sobran was not so much endorsing Orthodox Judaism as he was distinguishing from Zionist Jews. It calls to mind an interview by Bill Schmetzer in Jerusalem (Chicago Tribune 3-6-88) with Orthodox Rabbi Moshe Hersch whose followers believe that the Zionists are the scourge of God, betraying the Jewish people by establishing a state in the Promised Land rather than wait for the arrival of the Messiah..."
** HOFFMAN REPLIES:** Of course Mr. Sobran was endorsing Orthodox Judaism. In a previous column he declard that Orthodox Judaism was too good for the Democrats and Senator Joseph Lieberman. In his Feb. 1 column he praised Orthodox Judaism for allegedly being "rooted in the hard objectivity of Mosaic law rather than modern sentimental victimology," and termed it worthy of "respect."
As for the Trojan Horse that is Rabbi Hersch and the dissent of the Satmar and other Orthodox Judaic Hasidim from Zionism: the supposition is that if one rids the world of Zionism but maintains One World Under Judaism, all will be well. The problem, we are told, is Zionism, not Judaism. But from whence is the racism, rapacity and bloodthirst of Zionism derived, if not from the Talmud of Orthodox Judaism?
I appreciate the internecine jostling within Judaism over Zionism because it occasionally produces some embarrassing truths about Israeli state terror that would not otherwise see the light of day. The Judaic world is convulsed by internal conflict and is always teetering on the brink of civil war -- secular vs. Orthodox, Labor vs. Likud, Sephardic vs. Ashkenazi, and a dozen other flash points. It has typically been saved from fratricide and dissolution by the intervention of some violent and lawless systematic attack on Jewish civilians on the part of "Nazis" or now, in our time, "Arab terrorists." It is my contention that Hitler was under an occult spell whose provenance was ultimately Kabbalistic. Concerning contemporary Palestine, there have been several key studies, most recently by Steve Niva ("Sharon's fingerprints on latest suicide bombing" in the January 9, 2003 issue of "Counterpunch" newsletter), which substantiate covert Israeli encouragement and instigation of "Arab terrorism."
Furthermore, in my reading of Jewish publications and periodicals that are both Zionist and Orthodox Judaic, the so-called "anti-Zionist" Hasidim are recognized as part of the tribe and honored along with all the other "frum" sects within the Orthodox Judaic spectrum. Does this honor and recognition derive from the likelihood that they are playing a necessary role in a grand strategy which entails maintaining a core allegiance to Judaism among "Christian Conservatives" on the basis of "distinguishing it from Zionism"?
If we maintain a focus on the evils of Zionism alone, without considering the tremendous debt Zionism owes to the Talmudic mentality, we have fallen for this semantic sucker game and the delusionally-influenced lines of thinking that are characteristic of the American Conservative movement, including the Sobran/Buchanan wing. In the game of chess, one sacrifices a pawn or a position to preserve the king at all costs. On the rabbinic gameboard, one may appear to sacrifice Zionism to preserve the prestige and cachet of its root, Judaism, among "Conservatives" and "Christians."
The strategy is paying off. Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan, renowned for supposed "defiant opposition" to the "Jewish lobby," reserve a bedrock respect for Judaism. By this means they neutralize an entire army of Christian traditionalists and paleo-Conservatives who are seeking leadership and guidance in the life-and-death struggle against Judaic subversion and dominion. To distinguish between Zionism and Judaism represents, in the final analysis, about as much of a choice as distinguishing between milk or sugar with your Prozac.
Orthodox Judaism is a synthesis of the most barbarous superstitions of Egypt and Babylon, masquerading as the religion of Abraham and Moses, with the help of Joe and Pat and useful idiots like them. I have argued at book-length, in "Judaism's Strange Gods," against this fraud, but have not found a single Catholic, Protestant or Conservative publication willing to review it. The book nevertheless sells thousands of copies annually to an audience of maverick scholars and information buffs who remain scattered and unorganized. The dilemma is to figure out how to create an organization for such independent thinkers from scratch, with no help and indeed much suppression and even obstruction, from the publications and institutions affiliated with the Pats and the Joes.
As someone who is mainly a researcher and a writer, I have neither the time nor the resources to write a revisionist book a year and a history newsletter every other month and also create a new organizational vehicle for those eager to slay the dragon which, beneath countless modern masks and manifestations, is the same nemesis Christ encountered. For the present, I soldier on with the tools at hand, and leave to heaven the question of how to publicize radical and empowering truth for the benefit of a generation of young people starved for it.
From J.A.: Thank you for your sobering words about the grave perils of Sobranphrenia. The case of Sobran is very sad and disastrous. The worst enemy is always the internal one. I hope and pray that he repents soon, the Biblical way. Otherwise, let us shake the dust off our feet and keep him away from us. Let him be anathema (which means, literally, let him be separate from us and lifted to the judgement of God). You have my complete support, prayers, and buck. May the Lord strengthen and protect you.
** HOFFMAN REPLIES:** If I had a hundred people with the vision and dedication of J.A., I would soon be at the head of a publishing and broadcasting empire.
2003-02-12 13:59 | User Profile
Lane,
You are fortunate that you have been able to create a workable circumstance for yourself.
But is a very different situation when your solutions are applied within an urban environment.
When you consider the rate upon which the elements of ââ¬Åcollectivismââ¬Â grow and feed upon the public, it is unreasonable to conclude that mere persuasion, education or cordial interaction will result in a reversal of the inevitable.
Iââ¬â¢m a realist who seeks the moral imperative.
NeoNeitzche,
Maybe you should reflect back upon your roots, and admit that the Superman myth has been a miserable substitute for sound moral behavior. The line that separates the animal from the human is MORALITY. If you deny that axiom, the corruption within your nature will condemn those who seek a virtuous struggle. Neitzcheââ¬â¢s way has been tried. and it came up wanting.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2003-02-12 14:55 | User Profile
**For Nietzsche noted, long ago, that the only true Christian died on the Cross - all others are perpetually back-sliding aspirants manque', since Christianity cannot be lived in the real world and is merely productive of massive hypocrisy, folly, and the ultimate corruption of institutions founded thereupon. **
That is a pretty contradictory statement from a man who tries to set himself up as a philosopher. How can there be only one true Christian who died on the cross who lived in this world while you state that Christianity cannot be lived in the real world. Can't I also say the Humanism,and concequently the superman ,is also "productuve of the massive hypocrisy, folly, and the ultimate corruption of institutions founded thereupon"? For this reason, superman is doomed to fester in his own excretement. Yes, I am flawed and sinful, but as a Christian I place my trust in Christ and make him my Lord, and receive a new heart and spirit, who causes me to want to walk in his ways and obey his precepts. Christianity is for the real world and for real people. Those who think they are superman are under a great delusion.
2003-02-12 15:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by SARTRE@Feb 12 2003, 07:59 **NeoNeitzche,
Maybe you should reflect back upon your roots, and admit that the Superman myth has been a miserable substitute for sound moral behavior. The line that separates the animal from the human is MORALITY. If you deny that axiom, the corruption within your nature will condemn those who seek a virtuous struggle. Neitzcheââ¬â¢s way has been tried. and it came up wanting.
SARTRE :ph34r:**
1) The man that Zarathustra wants is a man of master morality, the code of all durably civilized existence. The "sound moral behavior" which you tout has been anything but.
2) Animals have their own "morality" which well suits them. You are a mere bigot in this regard.
3) I adhere to the "customs of war" among those of culture held in common. Otherwise, a "virtuous struggle" is for females resisting rape.
4) Nietzsche's way is that of healthy human civilization before the pathogenic emergence of Judaism and its heresies.
B)
2003-02-12 15:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 11 2003, 00:50 ** > NeoNietzsche: The Abyss: God is Dead Justice is transient Utopia is a graveyard The world of men is governed by lies and violence It is left to men of violence to create and maintain order in the midst of this truth Geez, I ASK y'all: is it any WONDER I love this man?! He has the whole world in his brain... :lol: Or at least, he has a clear-eyed view of humans and nature...
I would add, only: those who beat their swords into plowshare plow for those who don't. (Sorry, Tex Diss and the rest of you Christians... but it's TRUE!) **
To NeoNietzche:
How can such a creature as man who is governed by lies and violence created from within himself create and maintain order and maintain truth. In your world truth at the most is relative, so how does one know truth.
Your statements confirm what God's word says about man, that he is utterly corrupt and cannot save himself and that is why he needs a redeemer, Christ the Lord.
to Avalanche:
Your statement " those who beat their swords into plowshares plow for those who don't" is only true for those who are using their increase to not serve God for Proverbs 28:8 states that "one who increases his possessions by usury and extortion gathers it for him who will pity the poor. God will ultimately get back what is his.
2003-02-12 15:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by skemper@Feb 12 2003, 08:55 > For Nietzsche noted, long ago, that the only true Christian died on the Cross - all others are perpetually back-sliding aspirants manque', since Christianity cannot be lived in the real world and is merely productive of massive hypocrisy, folly, and the ultimate corruption of institutions founded thereupon. **
That is a pretty contradictory statement from a man who tries to set himself up as a philosopher. How can there be only one true Christian who died on the cross who lived in this world while you state that Christianity cannot be lived in the real world. Can't I also say the Humanism,and concequently the superman ,is also "productuve of the massive hypocrisy, folly, and the ultimate corruption of institutions founded thereupon"? **
That is a pretty contradictory statement from a man who tries to set himself up as a philosopher. How can there be only one true Christian who died on the cross who lived in this world while you state that Christianity cannot be lived in the real world.
Nietzsche identified Christ's gospel as the living, profoundly, in the "Kingdom of God" - of which only Jesus himself was capable. All else has been based upon misunderstanding and misdirection. Humanity cannot be sustained by persons going around performing magic tricks, spouting platitudes, and getting crucified at an early age without issue or material legacy. We note that the apostolic community quickly disappeared in accordance with this principle.
Can't I also say the Humanism, and consequently the superman, is also "productive of the massive hypocrisy, folly, and the ultimate corruption of institutions founded thereupon"?
You can certainly join me in so charging "Humanism" - but you betray a profound ignorance of Nietzsche's concept by associating it thus with its opposite in these manifestations.
For this reason, superman is doomed to fester in his own excretement. Yes, I am flawed and sinful, but as a Christian I place my trust in Christ and make him my Lord, and receive a new heart and spirit, who causes me to want to walk in his ways and obey his precepts. Christianity is for the real world and for real people. Those who think they are superman are under a great delusion.
Let me know when you've read and understood On the Genealogy of Morals, * The Antichrist, and Ecce Homo*. Otherwise you're going to sound like a case of arrested development when referring to "superman".
2003-02-12 16:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by skemper@Feb 12 2003, 09:14 **To NeoNietzche:
How can such a creature as man who is governed by lies and violence created from within himself create and maintain order and maintain truth. In your world truth at the most is relative, so how does one know truth.
Your statements confirm what God's word says about man, that he is utterly corrupt and cannot save himself and that is why he needs a redeemer, Christ the Lord.**
How can such a creature as man who is governed by lies and violence created from within himself create and maintain order and maintain truth. In your world truth at the most is relative, so how does one know truth.
The man of violence as a victorious warrior and soldier is inclined to the eventual ordered exploitation of that which he conquers, should he choose to maintain an occupation. He does not have to lie about his world in the sense of inverting its reality, as do those he has conquered and made powerless otherwise, for he can see the world for what it is with certain enhancements, since it basically suits him by virtue of his victory. This has been the genesis and course of all human high culture and civilization of which we have knowledge prior to the Jewish intrusion. In "my world" truth is not relative - values are relative. My "good-and-bad" is that of master morality, not the "good-and-evil" of slavish morality.
Your statements confirm what God's word says about man, that he is utterly corrupt and cannot save himself and that is why he needs a redeemer, Christ the Lord.
I would they say that they confirm that I have an intellectual maturity which you have yet to acquire.
2003-02-12 16:04 | User Profile
skemper: to Avalanche: Your statement " those who beat their swords into plowshares plow for those who don't" is only true for those who are using their increase to not serve God for Proverbs 28:8 states that "one who increases his possessions by usury and extortion gathers it for him who will pity the poor. God will ultimately get back what is his. My statement, my MOTTO for life in this world, is pretty d@mned accurate! :D I'm suggesting that if you get all peace-love-dove, as Christianity would ask of you, that you WILL be conquered by those who do NOT, and you WILL be enslaved to create THEIR "increase." (And does that serve your god?!)
Define for me, if you can "those who are using their increase to not serve God" -- how does one 'serve god? By giving "my increase" to priests? By burning flesh to create a pleasing stench for god's nostrils? By lowering my weapons to accept the yoke -- which is reined by jews or by 'sinful' men-priests who are selected and indoctrinated by OTHER 'sinful' men-priests (and why is MY view of sin and not-sin worse than theirs?). (Oh, right, the book THEY wrote and translated and modified to suit THEIR needs...)
(Tell me, if you are one of the "inerrant word of God" types -- was the hand of God with the guys WRITING the books of the bible, or the guys at the conference who voted "in or out" for the different books.... are the books that were dropped STILL the word of God, or did that conference of votin' men-priests remove "God's" authorship? (And are they allowed to do that? Isn't that against copyright law?! ;) ) How can it be inerrant if some guys voted to make parts of it "not-Bible?")
Can't buy it. WON'T do it!
If you are cool with "my reward is in heaven" (as is my deluded sister!), then more power to yah! I don't want to live in hell until such time as I get "my reward" -- (and this differs HOW from 70 virgins from Allah?!) The Hindus, isn't it (rban? fact check!), suggest that lower caste folks need to bear their burdens here and pray they are reincarnated into a higher caste -- "Do as I say, little caste-ling, and YOU TOO may store up treasure in heaven, which you can bring back to earth next time." How 'bout weird Buddhists and their Pure Land?
Neo has it 100% right -- the world is governed by lies and violence. And it has only been white America's much-vaunted military and technological superiority that has allowed us such fatuous stupidities as to think the uncivilized will (or CAN) 'play nice' -- even as they kill, rape, and steal us blind! America HAS bent its neck to the yoke, and justifies it as "god's will."
NOT MY GOD!!! :angry:
2003-02-12 17:01 | User Profile
Satre:
You noted: "You are fortunate that you have been able to create a
workable circumstance for yourself.
But is a very different situation when your solutions are applied within
an urban environment."
I'll give ya a few comments: Firstly, a couple of comments on rural areas (or at least mine). lThis area is not populated (alas) by fierce white nationalists. The reason it is mainly white and fairly good is probably because of the weather, which is thought to be quite cold and because their are not alot of jobs, especially in the real small towns. Our largest city, Sioux Falls is getting more of the lovely Mexicans to work the beef plants and some are invovled in large milking farms. I fear alas, when the NWO turns its attention to us, that there is not being to be much resistance.
My main quarrel with your views is your statement, "I'm a realist who seeks the moral imperative."
I'm not trying to merely "flame" you but I gotta wonder what that moral imperative is: to be nice to some foul jew? To watch the local JC Penney store in Sioux Falls fill up with Mexicans who don't give a crap about my land?
I sometimes wish that members of the"old right" would stop discussing what Edmund Burke said way back when and go to the gym and lift weights and maybe go fight in the streets. Maybe study military and political strategy and learn the art of dirty and mean fighting.
Again, not to merely flame you, but if Robert E. Lee was a fine Christian
gentleman.......well, that is not going to put bacon on the table.
I like the South and have no time for the Yankees, but they turned Lee
everywhere but loose.
Methinks you need to look at this "vision thing" and look into exercising reason and will.
I would also add that there is nothing in my book of rules that says urban areas have to be nasty jungles......but I think you have some self-limiting rules.....rules where you always get to shoot yourself in the foot.
And BTW, I read your articles and they are good....but I'm athinkin' that your idea of a moral imperative is to go into a fight and proceed to tie your hands behind your back.
Anyway see what you think about this.
2003-02-12 18:34 | User Profile
NeoNietzsche:
I have been reading your posts and pondering on them.
I almost feel that I should offer you an apology. To say something like this:
"I'm sorry I haven't been a ravaging beast today.
I'm sorry that I have not plundered any cities or
raped any women.
I'm sorry that I haven't been a Viking and slaughtered
and enslaved any of my own people.
I had my puppy on my lap and to be frank, I kinda love the
little fella. Sorry for engaging in weak emotions!
I'll try and do better (or worse) tomorrow! I'll try and be
more of beast."
The part of your postings that caught my attention, in a postive way, was when you remarked on "...the pathogenic emergence of Judaism and its heresies."
I'm thinking along those lines too. I'm thinking that when us white folks get involved with the Semities, the white folks lose. We end up in bloody wars, endless disputes, rituals and getting our you-know-whats snipped.
I'm looking into guys like Plato, Plotius and others. Maybe true religion was kicked out by the victory of St. Paul.
I have no objection to a "higher power", or immortality, (if I can find it).
Maybe Nietzsche is good in that he sorta clears out a guys head and prepares a guy for better things, like searching for cosmic meaning and powers.
Maybe the "Semitic yoke" has blinded "us" to true religion.
And....it is of course, easy to go on the internet and use a lot of maybe this and maybe that.
I guess I stand before the cosmos with awe and wonder and am not much for dogmatic denials of God.
Anyway, see what you think.
2003-02-12 19:46 | User Profile
Lane,
Our rural area is not as remote as yours, but it maintains the character of good breeding. You are preaching to the choir on rejecting the example you used. I would certainly claim NeoNietzscheââ¬â¢s kind description of being a bigot where it is deserved.
The moral imperative is not the same for every man, but it does require a self admission that one needs to humble oneself to the authority of the divine. Since it seems that NeoNietzsche would not be inclined to swap Christmas cards, we will defend the need to reject hubris, as our seasons greeting message.
My basic point is not to abandon a fight, quite the contrary. But lets be mature enough that the prospects for victory are more remote than your location.
Those who propose political solutions are deluding themselves. The moral imperative is that our duty lies in the fight, even in the face of extinction. However, the strategy of using force to defeat an overwhelming technocrat regime is doomed to fail. This is a war for the hearts and minds of honest citizens. Whores that seek advancement or adoration are just a tainted version of the Superman.
It would be easy to slur NeoNietzsche as a false Existentialist, but I find enough value in the original Nietzsche to appreciate the nature of confronting the struggle of our faults, while rejecting manââ¬â¢s ability to perfect himself. Often we can learn from false conclusion, especially when many of the correct questions are asked.
This Forum has the courage to deal with the forbidden subject. Thatââ¬â¢s part of our moral imperative. What exactly do you conclude is possible? The bacon you seek is a meat that is not part of the diet on the ââ¬Åofficial menuââ¬Â! What is your method to purify the beast? Feeding a healthy intake or bring to market before the animal is fully matured?
I advocate separation as the only practical and sound approach that is realistic. The ultimate resolution belongs to God, not a flawed version of a Superman.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2003-02-12 21:01 | User Profile
Lane Posted on Feb 12 2003, 18:01
**I sometimes wish that members of the"old right" would stop discussing what Edmund Burke said way back when and go to the gym and lift weights and maybe go fight in the streets. Maybe study military and political strategy and learn the art of dirty and mean fighting. **
Reading Edmund Burke gives some erudition as he is generally regarded the greatest English speaker of all time. Yet toward the end of his political life when he started to speak, the Commons would empty.
In the gym I go to young white savages play heavy metal and rap music as loud as they can. Most times I have said something or turned it down. Yet I have had a few physical altercations where I have prevailed. Your suggestion of learning the art of dirty fighting is a good one. The time will come when logic and rectitude will matter little.
2003-02-13 02:23 | User Profile
Sartre:
Interesting post.
You asked, "what exactly do you conclude is possible."
I was huffing and puffing (probably correctly) on the faults of the "old right" and was mad at Lee for losing the war and he have to ask me what I would actually do. Unfair!
Sometimes I get angry at conservatives and White Nationalists. I see men and women more learned than I. Men better versed in history and philosophy.
Then when youcome along and ask what I would do, I want to crudely burst out and say; "What would I do? I don't f------ know, I thought you did."
Sorry for the outburst.
I suppose I always figured that somebody else, like the Republicans, or somebody would solve the various problems.
It is embrassing not to be able to give you much of an answer, other than I think we should start winning. Though I think that's a good starting point.
I'll think this other and see if I can come up with some answers.
2003-02-13 04:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by Lane@Feb 12 2003, 12:34 **NeoNietzsche:
I have been reading your posts and pondering on them.
I almost feel that I should offer you an apology.ÃÂ To say something like this:
ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ "I'm sorry I haven't been a ravaging beast today. ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ I'm sorry that I have not plundered any cities or ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ raped any women. ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ I'm sorry that I haven't been a Viking and slaughtered ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ and enslaved any of my own people. ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ I had my puppy on my lap andÃÂ to be frank, I kinda love the ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ little fella.ÃÂ Sorry for engaging in weak emotions! ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ I'll try and do better (or worse) tomorrow!ÃÂ I'll try and be ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ more of beast." **
Make sure you do, punk!
Any more slacking off on the beastliness and the puppy gets one in the back of the neck, see!
:angry:
2003-02-13 13:09 | User Profile
Lane,
We are reading off the same page. I'm one Yankee that would have been at Lee's side.
And I don't disagree with Ed:
**Your suggestion of learning the art of dirty fighting is a good one. The time will come when logic and rectitude will matter little. **
Many know that I had a CO status during Viet Nam. I argued under the selected war theory. Completely accept the right for individual self defense, and for a society to engage in a civil war or a revolution.
With that said, I am consistent with a Pacifism stand and a neutrality foreign policy, but would recognize a true defense of our soil within an America First tradition.
My frustration is that the battle is really domestic and that most citizens don't have a clue who is the enemy.
Doubt we would differ on goals or objectives. I seldom offer any political SOLUTIONS since I worked for several politicians during my 20's. That game is a dead end. (the SARTRE Bio has details)
Anwsers can be give with the realm of the "should" but are very rare in the real world of American decline.
Trust me when I say that Western NY would leave NYS is a NYC second if it was possible. We are all in prison and until the jail keepers figure out they are stooges for their own masters, the charade will continue.
Thanks to all for your fine insights on this topic. Todd hit a home run on this post.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2003-02-13 15:16 | User Profile
**Lane: Sometimes I get angry at conservatives and White Nationalists. I see men and women more learned than I. Men better versed in history and philosophy. Then when you come along and ask what I would do, I want to crudely burst out and say; "What would I do? I don't f------ know, I thought you did." ** YAY! The start of wisdom!!! The recognition that we canNOT rely on 'our leaders' to figure out a way out of here. Really well done Lane -- now, go forth and convert eight more people! :D sigh. And then figure on losing some friends too, who are just too brainwashed to wake up!
That's the WORST part of learning all this -- the sheer DESPAIR that results from the realization of the odds. And the baffling hole in the place where 'what we can do' should be...
Once you've taken the red pill, how can you go back to sleep?! Once you've awakened, how can you ever feel good again?!
2003-02-13 15:30 | User Profile
**Lane: I'll try and do better (or worse) tomorrow! I'll try and be more of beast."
Neo: Make sure you do, punk! Any more slacking off on the beastliness and the puppy gets one in the back of the neck, see!**
Neo SHOCKED my family when they first met, because in our "gettin' to know you" discussions, he led the discussion to the really thought-provoking question:
Would you rather commit an atrocity or suffer one?
THAT'S a hard question... My liberal family immediately answered, oh, we could NEVER commit one!" Which, of course, is answered by, "so you'd prefer to let one happen to your family members? Better YOUR 4-yr-old son is raped and broken, than someone elseââ¬â¢s?"
Which is followed by an emotional (and hostile) short-circuit -- "that's a made-up question. That's not a realistic scenario. That wouldn't happen!"
Isn't it actually happening? We're letting into this country ANYONE who wants to come, and if their "culture" includes raping women not in chadors, slicing up little girls' genitals with a shard of glass, sex with boys because women arenââ¬â¢t available (check it out, apparently some Muslims have interesting ideas about how to ââ¬Ëmanageââ¬â¢ unmarried male libido...)... well anyway.
Itââ¬â¢s a really important question to consider: Would you rather commit an atrocity or suffer one?
The world will NOT allow you a third option! You can let YOUR children suffer and starve, or you can let someone elseââ¬â¢s! Be a wolf or a sheep!
N.B Forrest: ââ¬Å it's far better to be a wolf with bloody jaws than a sheep with its throat ripped out.ââ¬Â (Good one N.B.!!)
2003-02-13 16:45 | User Profile
NeoNietzche:
"Make sure you do, punk!
"Any more slacking off on the beastliness and the puppy gets one in the back of the neck, see!"
It is weak of me to say this, but I kinda like you.
You might cure me of my tendency to try and be fairly polite and to eat lots of jello. Damn Methodist stuff!
You got me thinking about the overman. I was kinda thinking that maybe I'd get tougher and meaner . I was figuring that maybe someday I would sneak up on you and conquer you. And then:
"Ye shall serve me!
Ye shall walk my puppy! Ye shall coo over him and
scratcheth his belly till he is delighted!
And ye shall sit at my feet. Ye will not in engage in
philosophical reasoning after the fashion of the Greeks!
Nay! Mine ears shall not hear of reasoning! Nay! I shall
hear nothing of mercy nor of common sense! Nay! Nay!
Ye shall sit before me and make assertions and ye
shall fill my ears with aphorisms, till I am well
satisfied!"
2003-02-13 16:50 | User Profile
Avalanche:
It's time to switch to Sanka, babe.
2003-02-13 23:53 | User Profile
Avalanche - as Goethe put it, "It's better to be the hammer than the anvil." But I do feel that the question: "Would you rather suffer an atrocity than commit one" is sort of a put-on question. I suppose kill-or-be-killed is a common enough situation, but "atrocity"? I would kill the would-be rapist and breaker of a four-year-old rather than see him complete his crime; but that would not be an atrocity. In what possible situation would I be given the choice between seeing my four-year-old raped and broken, and having to rape a four-year-old myself?
2003-02-14 00:27 | User Profile
**Hereward: In what possible situation would I be given the choice between seeing my four-year-old raped and broken, and having to rape a four-year-old myself? **
I suppose that's a 'metaphoric' exaggeration in a way -- would you support the complete withdrawal of any money and support of any kind to all of Africa? Let them all starve; wall them in (and return the ones we've already allowed here?) Let them fight and starve until the carrying capability of the population and continent balance? How about keeping OUT the Chinese or whoever else will try to move in to ââ¬Ësave the babies.ââ¬â¢ (Granted, thatââ¬â¢s NOT why the Chinese are going in!!)
All those painful pictures of starving babies? The Hutu's cutting off children's hands (or was it the Tutsi's) (or does it matter?!) How about the women in Saudi Arabia who were kidnapped as children in (American) custody cases? Leave 'em? How 'bout the Afghani women being shot in the head for their ankles showing on the streets? Tough luck? How ââ¬Ëbout Saddam gassing ââ¬Åhisââ¬Â people?
Closer to home: how 'bout letting all those ghetto babies BE starved and tortured and beaten to death by their ââ¬Åloving parents,ââ¬Â because otherwise they grow up and rob you, or attack YOUR four-yr-old child?! Can you leave a druggie/alkie lying beside the road and let him starve or freeze to death?
How about medical care for the indigent? Can you cut it off? (The INSANITY of spending several hundred thousand dollars of SOMEONE ELSE'S money on an eighty-yr-old woman to keep her alive -- unconscious but alive -- for another two months?!) How about a preemie -- esp. a preemie with serious birth defects? Worth the money? What about a stroke victim? Alzheimerââ¬â¢s patients?
See, itââ¬â¢s a continuum ââ¬â and itââ¬â¢s really hard to decide where atrocity starts and harsh realism ends. And you may find, as most do, that the fulcrum MOVES depending on who the person in question IS!
But you HAVE to place a fulcrum, and you HAVE to be willing to say, ââ¬Åyes this is an ââ¬Åatrocityââ¬Â I sanction.ââ¬Â And from the position of your fulcrum, many of your future decisions depend. How will you vote on Medicaid? Depends on who you think should be allowed (which) medical care they canNOT afford.
And oh, yeah. Where you place your fulcrum is ALSO where you place your "obedience" to your version of god. If you place your fulcrum at: "no babies must suffer or die, it's immoral," then you are ALSO saying, "I would rather suffer the future damage that WILL come to MY family from the choice to save all these hopeless and dangerous babies, which means I will PREFER that MY family suffer that consequence than letting this nameless unrelated child suffer." (And no, sorry, "god" will NOT swoop down and save all the babies!)
But YOU choose the fulcrum placement -- either by commission or omission. Either you consciously decide it, or you let your gods/priests/religion decide it FOR you, on whatever basis that rests on, and thus YOU choose the results!
Hammer away! ;)
2003-02-14 00:35 | User Profile
**Lane: You got me thinking about the overman. I was kinda thinking that maybe I'd get tougher and meaner. I was figuring that maybe someday I would sneak up on you and conquer you. And then: ** Tougher is good, but I expect Neo would say MEANER is useless. You must get "beyond good and evil" :lol: which means you're not mean. "Mean" is the description by the lamb of the big bad wolf! "Nice dinner" is the description the other way. (And the wolf is tough!) There is no need for meaness, or "cruelty" (again, the emotional and judgemental description by the non-aristocrat.) Mean is the (shrug: unimportant) perception of the lesser being.
One should be realistic, and only as harsh as is necessary (regardless of the judgement of the lessers). (Was it mean or cruel when the Civil War doctor used a handsaw to amputate a leg? Was the doctor not doing what was needful? Did the patient not suffer terribly? Was the doctor not REQUIRED to be tough?) Tough is good.
"Ye shall serve me! Ye shall walk my puppy! Ye shall coo over him and scratcheth his belly till he is delighted! Shall I tattle on Neo and describe him scratching the belly of the goldie lab next door? We're more cat people than dog people, mainly because we're gone all day, and it's unfair to pack animals to leave them alone all day.)
**You might cure me of my tendency to try and be fairly polite **
Oh, and Neo says, quite rightly, that an ARMED society is a polite society! He is extremely polite -- a real Southern gentleman. An aristocrat doesn't NEED to be rude; that's a 'version' of hostility (and Nietzsche's resentimente) left for slaves... Gentility for gentlemen!
2003-02-14 02:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 13 2003, 13:38 From minimal cues given here by NeoNietzche, you've intuitively reconstructed the original Nietzche's life, thought, and death.
And recovered all the lost texts from the ancient Alexandrian library fire, to boot. :huh: