← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · NeoNietzsche
Thread ID: 5203 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2003-02-23
2003-02-23 15:57 | User Profile
To the extent that Paleocondom continues to be disarmed by some form of Christianity, it will serve the alien oligarchs, if only by concession. "Of course Saddam is a criminal - is another Hitler - but...."
Rather than: "Hitler was right - and Saddam does as he must in order to maintain order within his dominion."
As we see, boys and girls (recalling our instruction in elementary logic), a politically aspirant Paleocondom of self-styled sinners, embracing an ancestral variant of the modern universalist fatuity, necessarily employs an ideological subset of that of our regnant Hypocracy - and is accordingly effete in a confrontation therewith on fundamentals of political ethics, as we have just illustrated.
Thus we may anticipate the eventual passing from the scene of Paleocon advocacy (of which we have hints above) - leaving the relatively consistent position of the White Nationalists as the only resistance worthy of the term.
2003-02-23 16:16 | User Profile
And the AIDS cases just need to grow up and out of the anarchist imbecility. Human Action and Man, Economy, and State do a good job of analyzing socialist utopianism, but fail to confront the logical implication of their own laissez-faire premises and prescriptions, as manifest in conspiracy in restraint of trade and class war.
2003-02-23 19:02 | User Profile
...Paleocondom...
Sheep stomachs?
(Sorry, I suck. :P)
2003-02-23 21:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 23 2003, 09:57 To the extent that Paleocondom continues to be disarmed by some form of Christianity, it will serve the alien oligarchs, if only by concession.ÃÂ "Of course Saddam is a criminal - is another Hitler - but...."
Wrong. I've never labeled Saddam a criminal, much less compared him to Hitler and my paleocondom credentials are solid.
Rather than: "Hitler was right - and Saddam does as he must in order to maintain order within his dominion."
I believe true paleocondom would say I really don't care what Hitler or Saddam do or don't do as long as they don't mess with us here in the States. You know, being isolationists and all.
As we see, boys and girls (recalling our instruction in elementary logic), a politically aspirant Paleocondom of self-styled sinners, embracing an ancestral variant of the modern universalist fatuity, necessarily employs an ideological subset of that of our regnant Hypocracy - and is accordingly effete in a confrontation therewith on fundamentals of political ethics, as we have just illustrated.
All this fancy verbiage just boils down to your basic position of anti-God. That's the bottom line.
Thus we may anticipate the eventual passing from the scene of Paleocon advocacy (of which we have hints above) - leaving the relatively consistent position of the White Nationalists as the only resistance worthy of the term.
Maybe some time down the road as America becomes as anti-God as you are, but you will not see any success in the short term. You've got to reach folks where they are and right now the great majority of Americans are still turned off by God-bashing.
2003-02-24 00:17 | User Profile
To the extent that Paleocondom continues to be disarmed by some form of Christianity, it will serve the alien oligarchs, if only by concession. "Of course Saddam is a criminal - is another Hitler - but...."<<
Wrong. I've never labeled Saddam a criminal, much less compared him to Hitler and my paleocondom credentials are solid.<
Tex, your reflexes are showing again, in that my proposition was unexceptionable by reference to a mere individual, as phrased ("To the extent..."). So I cannot be "wrong" in this regard - we would merely argue over how representative you and your Christianity are of paleocons in general. I am mildly pleased that you have, as I already knew was the case, taken the baby step of not condemning Saddam, but you remain on the ideological defensive by virtue of your allegiances, as we see with your next response:
Rather than: "Hitler was right - and Saddam does as he must in order to maintain order within his dominion."<<
I believe true paleocondom would say I really don't care what Hitler or Saddam do or don't do as long as they don't mess with us here in the States. You know, being isolationists and all.<
And so Hitler and Saddam and whatever remains of order in the world are progressively condemned and destroyed by default, no affirmative and effective ideological or material resistance thereto available from the moralistically-compromised Christians. Isolationism for universalists is rank hypocrisy, and Christians are universalists.
As we see, boys and girls (recalling our instruction in elementary logic), a politically aspirant Paleocondom of self-styled sinners, embracing an ancestral variant of the modern universalist fatuity, necessarily employs an ideological subset of that of our regnant Hypocracy - and is accordingly effete in a confrontation therewith on fundamentals of political ethics, as we have just illustrated.<<
All this fancy verbiage just boils down to your basic position of anti-God. That's the bottom line.<
You are incorrect on two counts, Tex. The paragraph doesn't reduce as you suggest - the references and logic went over your head and you simply misunderstood what was written. And I am not "anti-God" - a deity will have to show up first, before I can have a sensible disposition in that regard - just as would be the case with a rational assessment of any extra-terrestrial entity.
Thus we may anticipate the eventual passing from the scene of Paleocon advocacy (of which we have hints above) - leaving the relatively consistent position of the White Nationalists as the only resistance worthy of the term.<<
Maybe some time down the road as America becomes as anti-God as you are, but you will not see any success in the short term. You've got to reach folks where they are and right now the great majority of Americans are still turned off by God-bashing.<
And so they will remain disarmed and enthralled by an imagined messianic savior syncretized for them by Saul-aka-Paul. I do not anticipate success even in the long term, since the progeny of Morons tend to become Weenies, thus unfortunately compensating for, rather than overcoming, their ancestral allegiances.
2003-02-24 01:41 | User Profile
NeoNietzsche,
To the extent that Paleocondom continues to be disarmed by some form of Christianity, it will serve the alien oligarchs, if only by concession. "Of course Saddam is a criminal - is another Hitler - but...."
It depends on the type of Christian. Not everyone is like Falwell or Robinson. As for concession, so what if someone says Hussein is evil? It hasnt changed say, Buchanans views on the greater evil that would result in the U.S. replacing him and trying to hold that country together. If by the above you mean a person has fatally compromised his position, then I have to disagree. I`m not too fond of Hussein myself, but I still think that not only is it serving a foreign interest for the U.S. to invade, but it will require a long U.S. occupation.
In short, I couldn`t care less about him and I believe that a number of Christians think the same way as I do, knowing their first duty is to the U.S., not be the welfare worker of the world.
I write the above as someone who isnt a Christian, but who knows folks who are that dont fall into the catagory of what you write above.
**Thus we may anticipate the eventual passing from the scene of Paleocon advocacy (of which we have hints above) - leaving the relatively consistent position of the White Nationalists as the only resistance worthy of the term. **
Maybe, but I dont think so. If the position of "White Nationalists" is articulated by some of the posts that I and others have removed for their vulgarity and sheer stupidity, then were doomed.
This is about as fair a statement as the one you wrote above, my friend.
2003-02-24 03:10 | User Profile
Sertorius,
To the extent that Paleocondom continues to be disarmed by some form of Christianity, it will serve the alien oligarchs, if only by concession. "Of course Saddam is a criminal - is another Hitler - but...."<<
It depends on the type of Christian. Not everyone is like Falwell or Robinson. As for concession, so what if someone says Hussein is evil? It hasn
t changed say, Buchanans views on the greater evil that would result in the U.S. replacing him and trying to hold that country together.<
Again, to concede that Hussein is "evil" is to be further into perpetual ideological retreat and in perceived moral hypocrisy failing action against him.
If by the above you mean a person has fatally compromised his position, then I have to disagree. I`m not too fond of Hussein myself, but I still think that not only is it serving a foreign interest for the U.S. to invade, but it will require a long U.S. occupation.<
You seem to base your disagreement upon failing to distinguish between "he's evil" and "I'm not too fond of him". The former implies judgments and obligations which the latter does not.
In short, I couldn`t care less about him and I believe that a number of Christians think the same way as I do, knowing their first duty is to the U.S., not be the welfare worker of the world.<
Failing to understand the "world" in terms of fundamentals, our Moronic Majority has repeatedly been led into foreign policy fatuities, the catastrophic climax of which is yet to be upon us. [BTW, I am re-reading the copy of Deception which I purchased for you.]
Thus we may anticipate the eventual passing from the scene of Paleocon advocacy (of which we have hints above) - leaving the relatively consistent position of the White Nationalists as the only resistance worthy of the term.<<
Maybe, but I don
t think so. If the position of "White Nationalists" is articulated by some of the posts that I and others have removed for their vulgarity and sheer stupidity, then were doomed.<
If the WN position is articulated with elegance and intelligence, we're still doomed. The question is whose is the last position standing. Consistent radicals tend to displace conflicted elements with the passage of time. (See the English/French/Russian/German episodes.)
This is about as fair a statement as the one you wrote above, my friend.<
Glad you think so, my friend.
2003-02-24 03:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 24 2003, 03:10 > I believe true paleocondom would say I really don't care what Hitler or Saddam do or don't do as long as they don't mess with us here in the States. You know, being isolationists and all.**
And so Hitler and Saddam and whatever remains of order in the world are progressively condemned and destroyed by default, no affirmative and effective ideological or material resistance thereto available from the moralistically-compromised Christians. Isolationism for universalists is rank hypocrisy, and Christians are universalists.**
You're answer here points to the difference between conservatives and nihlistic nationalists. Nihlists always rejected Christianity because of its universalism.
According to nihlists then Christians can't be true nationalists. True we understand nationalism different than you do. But that doesn't make us hypocrites
We are isolationists not because we reject the possibility of a universal moral order, but cause we are skeptical about our ability as fallable human beings to implement it. EWe do not claim to be Supermen. This skepticism is the difference between Christian and utopian philosophy. Naturally of course you don't appreciate this skepticism, a common similarity you in fact share with utopianism. (Along with rejection of the existing moral order and moral relativism)
> It depends on the type of Christian. Not everyone is like Falwell or Robinson. As for concession, so what if someone says Hussein is evil? It hasn
t changed say, Buchanans views on the greater evil that would result in the U.S. replacing him and trying to hold that country together.**
Again, to concede that Hussein is "evil" is to be further into perpetual ideological retreat and in perceived moral hypocrisy failing action against him. **
I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this. But you seem to be hostile to the very concept of moral classification, if I'm not mistaken.
> If by the above you mean a person has fatally compromised his position, then I have to disagree. I`m not too fond of Hussein myself, but I still think that not only is it serving a foreign interest for the U.S. to invade, but it will require a long U.S. occupation. ** You seem to base your disagreement upon failing to distinguish between "he's evil" and "I'm not too fond of him". The former implies judgements and obligations which the latter does not.**
Again, what's wrong with judgements? From a conservative point of view the reality of moral judgement is in fact essential. This is one of the key differences between conservatism and nihlism.
Failing to understand the "world" in terms of fundamentals, our Moronic Majority has repeatedly been led into foreign policy fatuities, the catastrophic climax of which is yet to be upon us.ÃÂ [BTW, I am re-reading the copy of Deception which I purchased for you.
What are these fundamentals, BTW? Will to power?
Affirmation of a moral order is one of the key aspects to the conservative position as Kirk notes. One can point to practical foreign policy failures equally with regimes that rejected such universalistic moral orders, such as the Third Reich.
> Maybe, but I don
t think so. If the position of "White Nationalists" is articulated by some of the posts that I and others have removed for their vulgarity and sheer stupidity, then were doomed.**
If the WN position is articulated with elegance and intelligence, we're still doomed. The question is whose is the last position standing. Consistent radicals tend to displace conflicted elements with the passage of time. (See the English/French/Russian/German episodes.)**
Yes. But who came out on top of the French Revolution, Napolean, then successors. Who came out on top of the Russian Revolution in the end? Gorbachev, then Yeltsin.
Consistent radicalism has its moment, but it is never as long as one would think. For one thing, radicals are never truly consistent.
If they were, they (and we) would all be dead.
2003-02-24 04:10 | User Profile
We are isolationists not because we reject the possibility of a universal moral order, but cause we are skeptical about our ability as fallable human beings to implement it.
I am also skeptical about the ability of human beings to implement their grandiose designs. The utopian socialists and egalitarians can't seem to get it through their heads that they can't manufacture heaven on earth, yet they keep trying. They'll explain away the repeated failures of every communistic experiment they've tried, vowing that "next time, certainly, we'll get it right."
As far as a universal moral order, though, I'm equally skeptical about the possibility of that. The world is a big place, with a lot of differing cultures that have radically different ways of perceiving the fabric of reality around them. You could take someone from Cambodia and someone from Britain and ask them both if they desire things like peace, justice, and all that, and of course, at the abstract level, they'll seem to agree that these are desirable goals or "goods." But the "devil" is in the details--try getting them to apply these airy-fairy moral principles that they supposedly agree upon to a specific situation, and they'll come up with different, often irreconcilable, answers. These discrepancies give rise to conflicts. This is why there can be no "world government" on this planet, ever. It's too bad the Wilsonians of the world haven't grasped this fact.
I suppose this puts me in agreement with aspects of both Okie and Neo-Nietzsche.
2003-02-24 05:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 24 2003, 03:10 ** If the WN position is articulated with elegance and intelligence, we're still doomed. **
I try not to agree with that but I understand the mood.
WN don't have a snowball's chance in hell because white American boobs still think this is their country. As long as they're stroked by CNN and th local chain paper, they are content. They'll stay content till the hammer hits their heads because they aren't aware of anyone articulating anything.
Even the gossip rags at the supermarket are owned by Ruport Murdoch. We are doomed.
2003-02-24 06:08 | User Profile
**According to nihlists then Christians can't be true nationalists.ÃÂ True we understand nationalism different than you do.ÃÂ But that doesn't make us hypocrites.
We are isolationists not because we reject the possibility of a universal moral order, but cause we are skeptical about our ability as fallible human beings to implement it.ÃÂ We do not claim to be Supermen. This skepticism is the difference between Christian and utopian philosophy. Naturally of course you don't appreciate this skepticism, a common similarity you in fact share with utopianism. (Along with rejection of the existing moral order and moral relativism.**
Having been raised in and having seen so much Christian philosophy and scripture contrary to this putative intrinsic skepticism about the realizability of a universal moral order, I must account it a self-deceptive contrivance toward bringing doctrine into line with what we agree are practical considerations.
For I am a vociferous advocate of the skepticism of which you deny me the appreciation, and I am not a moral relativist in other than a highly qualified sense. I am amused at the mention of some mysterious "existing moral order". But for the fact that you obviously do not, I would assume that you jest.
> Again, to concede that Hussein is "evil" is to be further into perpetual ideological retreat and in perceived moral hypocrisy failing action against him.**
I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this. But you seem to be hostile to the very concept of moral classification, if I'm not mistaken.**
I am hostile to the slavish inversion of morality implicit in the classification of administrative measures as "evil".
Again, what's wrong with judgments?ÃÂ From a conservative point of view the reality of moral judgment is in fact essential. This is one of the key differences between conservatism and nihilism.
Nothing wrong with judgments - mis-judgments implicit in the slavish inversion of morality, characteristic of Beatitudinal, apostolic, authentic Christianity, are the problem. Nihilism recovers the traditional, aristocratic moral order of stratified society.
> Failing to understand the "world" in terms of fundamentals, our Moronic Majority has repeatedly been led into foreign policy fatuities, the catastrophic climax of which is yet to be upon us.**
What are these fundamentals, BTW? Will to power?**
Men living in stratified societies are governed by oligarchs and autocrats employing lies and violence as ultimate, if not immediate, resorts. One's interest is in who governs society rather what form that government takes. There are natural limits to the geographic expansion of administrative units such that global conquest and sustained occupation by a unified power or coordinated powers is not possible.
Affirmation of a moral order is one of the key aspects to the conservative position as Kirk notes.ÃÂ One can point to practical foreign policy failures equally with regimes that rejected such universalistic moral orders, such as the Third Reich.
Negative. The Roosevelt regime was permitted to subsidize a mortal enemy and stab would-be allies in the back. This is a "failure," a perversion, of foreign policy ranking far above the mere inability of the Germans to make the Jew-manipulated Western Powers see reason. The National Socialists failed nowhere to understand their own interests and the identity of the enemy. Their moral universe was very much in order by comparison with that of the American Morons.
2003-02-24 13:23 | User Profile
NN,
** Again, to concede that Hussein is "evil" is to be further into perpetual ideological retreat and in perceived moral hypocrisy failing action against him.
**
Nope, I disagree. I wrote above a worse evil would result from meddling in this. I havent retreated from this view for one minute nor do I consider it to be hypocrisy. As for the "preceived" aspect of this I couldnt care less what those people think. Guilt trips don`t work with me. particularly when I consider the people who are trying to pull such a stunt.
**If the WN position is articulated with elegance and intelligence, we're still doomed. [u]The question is whose is the last position standing.[/u] Consistent radicals tend to displace conflicted elements with the passage of time. (See the English/French/Russian/German episodes.) **
If we`re doomed, then this is rather a moot point for the reason that history will be re-written in regard to all of this.
2003-02-24 14:14 | User Profile
Sertorius,
> Again, to concede that Hussein is "evil" is to be further into perpetual ideological retreat and in perceived moral hypocrisy failing action against him.**
Nope, I disagree. I wrote above a worse evil would result from meddling in this. I havent retreated from this view for one minute nor do I consider it to be hypocrisy. As for the "preceived" aspect of this I couldnt care less what those people think. Guilt trips don`t work with me. particularly when I consider the people who are trying to pull such a stunt.**
Justifying inaction does not qualify the ideological retreat. You may be justified in inaction on the lesser-of-evils account, but the condemnation therein of Saddam, an authentic source of order, is nevertheless a concession to the ideology of ultimate global anarchy posing as a Jew World Order.
2003-02-24 16:33 | User Profile
NN,
Are you saying I should support Hussein because otherwise, Im supporting the NWO? Lets cut to the chase here.
To me, I can have little use for Hussein and for the NWO gang as well. Then again, as I wrote above, I really dont care about Hussein one way or the other. If anything, I am alot more concerned with the activities of the people here who are pushing this. I dont see any retreat on my part.
2003-02-24 19:13 | User Profile
Sertorius,
Originally posted by Sertorius@Feb 24 2003, 10:33 **NN,
Are you saying I should support Hussein because otherwise, Im supporting the NWO? Lets cut to the chase here.
To me, I can have little use for Hussein and for the NWO gang as well. Then again, as I wrote above, I really dont care about Hussein one way or the other. If anything, I am alot more concerned with the activities of the people here who are pushing this. I dont see any retreat on my part.**
You are failing to offer a counter-argument to the insistence that there is something fundamentally wrong with Saddam such that he should be removed. The adherents of order have a common interest in so arguing in resistance to the Fabian progress of NWO anarchism. The threat posed by the NWO, despite its pretensions, is that of global disorder rather than that of world-wide tyranny. The Jews are going to bring down the temple on all of us, in this, yet another of their rebellions against reality.
Thus, Saddam should be affirmed as a autocrat maintaining unity and order under extraordinary circumstances (as once he was before the present inversion). The fact that he wishes to stand as a counterpoise to "Israel" on behalf of the Arab world is the fault of American Morons in permitting the establishment of Lesser Judea.
2003-02-24 20:07 | User Profile
NN,
I thought that was where you were going with this.
The reason I havent offered a counter argument is because I dont think that what he does justifies removing him. As I noted above, I dont care about him period. **If anything, those who wish for his removal havent made their case with me, not the other way around.** I have also written above that it would be a mistake for us to go in there, primarily as you pointed out, because of the instability that would result from his removal. On News Max I have made the same argument that (a) he doesn`t threaten us, (b) removing him would cause the various groups within the country to fight one another with us in the middle. No, leave him be, the only ones who want this are the Neo-cons and Israel.
Saying that I don`t care for someone and calling for his head are two different things. Let those who desire his removal join the I.D.F. and leave the rest of us out of this tribalism.
2003-02-26 01:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by Sertorius@Feb 24 2003, 14:07 * The reason I haven
t offered a counter argument is because I dont think that what he does justifies removing him.*
Not knowing what your own philosophy is, Sert, I do not assume that you could not offer a counter-argument were you so inclined. The point of the discussion, however, has been the handicap faced by Christians in this regard, and I would have your judgment on that point, beyond "it depends," if you don't mind.
2003-02-26 08:22 | User Profile
NN,
I understand that you dont have any use for this religion and to me it sounds to me like you wish for me to take this as an all or nothing situation. I wont.
If you expect me to condemn all Christians for the acts of the Falwells of the world and other assorted "christianzioNuts I won`t do that either.
I don`t see Christianity as the problem as much as I see secular humanism as the problem.
In short, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.
2003-02-27 00:38 | User Profile
To the extent that NN shoots his mouth off with anti-Christian rants, he is bore and not to be taken seriously -- the tool of Zionist-Leftists who want no effective politically movement on the Right.
2003-02-27 01:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Feb 26 2003, 18:38 To the extent that NN shoots his mouth off with anti-Christian rants, he is bore and not to be taken seriously -- the tool of Zionist-Leftists who want no effective politically movement on the Right.
To the extent that Darkeddy speaks his mind with testimonials as to his Christian faith, he enthralls us and must be granted the gravest consideration -- as the emissary of that bizarrely triune Deity who want(s) unwarrantedly to be praised and worshipped.
2003-03-05 23:48 | User Profile
I agree that christianity needs to go but Hitler was not right. He was a German supremecist who believed that slavs were "mongoloids" who needed to be exterminated. Most white nationalists today are not modelling our approach on Hitler and the ones that are are going nowhere in terms of real political power.
2003-03-06 04:45 | User Profile
Context, W.R.I.T.O.S, context.
Let me know when 'most white nationalists today' have gained control of a continent.
2003-03-06 15:49 | User Profile
Its not so much that "Christianity" disarms paleoconservatives (how could that be? since they wouldn't exist, American variety, without the colonial's understanding of, and desire of the way of being enought to get away from those who could never attain it)
....as it is, that paleochristianconservatives don't wear their guns in their mouth, but down there, more discretely, in their pants, where it is not pulled out until time of use...
...hard concept to grasp for the immature and callow of spirit, I know, but one I've actually come to admire. A lot. bangee wangeee