← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Exelsis_Deo
Thread ID: 5343 | Posts: 27 | Started: 2003-03-04
2003-03-04 20:24 | User Profile
I want you all to discuss the New America. The fact is that we are a Dictatorship. Our President can and will do anything he chooses. How does it feel to live under a dictator ? He can wage war at will, remove the last vestiges of our freedom at will, and change the world as we know it.
2003-03-05 00:44 | User Profile
If only it were that simple....being ruled by a savage tyrant. It's not.
The truth is that what is most depressing and aggravating are the callers to talk-radio, not the Ziohawk hosts. The readers' mail section of the daily newspaper, not the op-eds. The glassy-eyed viewing audience for Jerry Springer & Bill O'Reilly, not Springer himself.
The nation that doesn't read anything but newspapers, that wouldn't pick up a book to read for pleasure * if you held them at gunpoint, has begun to pay rich 'dividends'. The people who bray moronically about freedom are all such willing slaves and sycophants that they no longer even require genuinely inspiring and charismatic figures to follow. They still hiss at Hitler yet they still worship Churchill. They all hate Stalin and hardly any of them even know who the hell he was; and they hate Saddam more and they couldn't even tell you where on a map he is*. They hate Clinton's "immorality" but they form a size-places line behind Bush. And they all holler "Jee-zus!" - and then do, act, feel and think what Jews tell them to.
If this is a dictatorship, it's the first one that doesn't even require a dictator.
2003-03-05 01:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Mar 5 2003, 00:44 **If only it were that simple....being ruled by a savage tyrant. It's not....
If this is a dictatorship, it's the first one that doesn't even require a dictator.**
Actually there have been many dictatorships that didn't require a dictator, being just "rule of the mob". The French Revolution comes to mind as being one of the first in modern in history, but certainly not the last.
2003-03-05 14:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Mar 4 2003, 23:22 ** > ** How does it feel to live under a dictator ?**
Well, speaking only for myself, it sucks.
Next question.
Wintermute **
I agree with Wintermute that it sucks.
In fact, it sucks large donkey appendages. And hard.
Walter
2003-03-05 18:54 | User Profile
Walter Yannis, You have accepted a special privilege from the Dictatorship: a license to practice law.You are less than honest in your claims of opposition to it,if you accept honors from it.
2003-03-05 22:20 | User Profile
**I agree with Wintermute that it sucks.
In fact, it sucks large donkey appendages. And hard.
Walter **
Well. While I agree that there has been an inexorable slide toward socialism in this country, and that the imperial Federal Government has usurped power, by extortion of monies stolen from citizens, which constitutionally belongs to the states and their peoples.
A large donkey appendage is kinda strong.
It would still be pretty tough to find anywhere else in the world I would rather live.
Al Gore, Minister Louis Farrakhan, and Hillary notwithstanding. With a little edukashun the people may yet seek to recover their culture, pride, and country. :P
2003-03-06 04:29 | User Profile
Happy, well fed slaves are the most satisfied. Americans have been the mercenary engine that has abolished nationhood and self government worldwide. Whatever freedoms we have left are by permission only, and may not be taken away all at once, depending on what final touches are deemed necessary to the completion of our work.
I believe this is why Joe Sobran has recently expressed a preference for anarchy.
2003-03-06 05:34 | User Profile
large donkey appendages. And hard.
Um, would those be the LEGS?! :rolleyes: :D And the hard part is the hooves, right?
2003-03-06 09:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mr.Wilson@Mar 5 2003, 18:54 ** Walter Yannis, You have accepted a special privilege from the Dictatorship: a license to practice law.You are less than honest in your claims of opposition to it,if you accept honors from it. **
Quite to the contrary.
We need to have as many WN's as "high and inside" the Empire as we possibly can.
We need to work to control the Bar, the police and fire departments, the medical professions, the military, the intelligence services, school boards, and corporate board rooms.
Our enemies didn't dispossess us by copping some holier-than-thou adolescent pose and retiring to guiltless subsistence agriculture. No indeed, they did not do that. Rather, they stuck together and infiltrated every mechanism of the machine and made it their own.
We need to do the same.
Every WN needs to rise in the world as far as his or her talents and luck will take them, and to render every reasonable assitance to other WN's to do the same.
I'm reminded of the old saw that a socialist is a man with nothing but who is nevertheless hell-bent on sharing it with everyone.
We need to gain social position before we can assist others in doing the same.
Walter
2003-03-06 15:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by jeffersonian@Mar 5 2003, 18:20 It would still be pretty tough to find anywhere else in the world I would rather live.
It's not a good sign when the best thing one can say about one's country is "at least we're not as bad as [fill-in-regime/country-name here]."
And this is a virtual dictatorship. It's not as openly based on blatant fear and scare tactics by government agents--yet. For now, they still tend to move rather slowly and quietly, but abuses are mounting. They don't play it up on the nightly news, but bad things do happen to dissidents. For example, I caught a report about a guy who was simply wearing a "Give Peace a Chance" t-shirt in a mall--this wasn't a protest, he was just shopping while wearing that shirt--and he was arrested for not taking it off when approached by some cops.
2003-03-06 17:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Mar 6 2003, 02:12 **Quite to the contrary.
We need to have as many WN's as "high and inside" the Empire as we possibly can.
We need to work to control the Bar, the police and fire departments, the medical professions, the military, the intelligence services, school boards, and corporate board rooms.
Our enemies didn't dispossess us by copping some holier-than-thou adolescent pose and retiring to guiltless subsistence agriculture. No indeed, they did not do that. Rather, they stuck together and infiltrated every mechanism of the machine and made it their own.
We need to do the same.
Every WN needs to rise in the world as far as his or her talents and luck will take them, and to render every reasonable assitance to other WN's to do the same.
I'm reminded of the old saw that a socialist is a man with nothing but who is nevertheless hell-bent on sharing it with everyone.
We need to gain social position before we can assist others in doing the same.
Walter**
I think you are right that no change is possible without affecting the environment, that is permeating new ideas and attittudes throughout the populace on all levels of power and positions. Many debate who sold out and whether they did. One thing which is not considered is how one goes without what many will consider selling out in an environment where one builds personal relationships but where your views are constantly under attack and are ideologically impossible. Either one leaves the environment after telling like it is, or one continues to work in the system, carefully picking battles.
A related topic is whether there have to be heroes, or a war of attrition and long-term calculation. Heroes are good to have, but numbers and trends trump them. No heroism is required, and everything becomes much easier, when there is a critical mass and formerly "forbidden" views become the mainstream. This is the way how the communism died in the Soviet Union, for example. This is also the mechanism for America's decay: it reqiured more than one generation of subversion and steering the trends to get where we are now. But what's reassuring is that numbers are on our side, yet. It's much harder to drive someone to a voluntary suicide, than to restore sanity.
2003-03-06 17:53 | User Profile
il ragno, quote "If this is a dictatorship, it's the first one that doesn't even require a dictator."
This reminds me of a statement atributed to Baron Rothschild, the head shylock in England. "Permit me to issue and control a nations money, and I care not who makes the laws."
It is a testimony to the effectivness of the moneylenders influence in the media and education fields that we now witness these smalltime wannabe politricksters doing the bidding of their masters.
2003-03-06 18:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Mar 6 2003, 03:12 Our enemies didn't dispossess us by copping some holier-than-thou adolescent pose and retiring to guiltless subsistence agriculture. No indeed, they did not do that. Rather, they stuck together and infiltrated every mechanism of the machine and made it their own.
The True Gospel.
[AIDS cases take note]
Amen.
2003-03-06 20:31 | User Profile
It can't be done as long as the money power belongs to a more cohesive and manipulative tribe. As unlikely as raising a physical army is at this stage, it's at least natural to us. Out-jewing natural born Jews is not. IMO.
2003-03-06 20:52 | User Profile
Since we started using analogies, here's one from statistical physics. The probability for a particle to have an energy above some threshold decays exponentially with the threshold value, but the exponential coefficient is inversely proportional to the absolute temperature. So either reduce the bias (energy threshold to overcome) in the society, or raise society's temperature.
2003-03-06 21:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Mar 6 2003, 14:52 Since we started using analogies, here's one from statistical physics. The probability for a particle to have an energy above some threshold decays exponentially with the threshold value, but the exponential coefficient is inversely proportional to the absolute temperature. So either reduce the bias (energy threshold to overcome) in the society, or raise society's temperature.
Dang! You beat me to it, MR. I was just about to bring up that same analogy.
:unsure:
2003-03-06 23:07 | User Profile
Moving to a compound doesn't appeal to me, but it probably wouldn't hurt to know a little about subsistence agriculture. Walter Yannis is right about how a like-minded group goes about taking over a society, though the cohesion of our enemy will not be matched by Whites tomorrow, and might not ever be. Too much White diversity. Nor will all Whites ever "be on board," so to speak. But neither may be required for victory. I wonder what the result would be if we simply matched them, number for number? There are about 30 of us for every one of them. Adjusted for racial consciousness, the ratio tilts in their favor. That's part of the reason they control America and we sit back and watch.
25,000 Normans controlled 4 million Saxons --- mostly because they came on strong and set up an administrative apparatus. The comparison isn't perfect (both are historically White groups), but what if there were one racially conscious White person for every one of them? And they did get "high and inside," as Walter put it? Shutting the borders would be a matter of a majority of 535 people saying, "Shut the borders." De-funding Israel would happen as easily. Maybe those scenarios are fantastic, but I do tend to think that while getting power is murder, holding it and using it are easier than slicing warm butter.
Maybe the institutions are too corroded for this kind of change. Democracy, for instance: Our enemies have done irreversible (without violence) damage here by flooding the nation with non-Whites, none of whom will volunteer to leave and all of whom have a vote. But perhaps the more permanent damage has been done to the White brain. That, however, might be fixed with heapin' helpins o' antidote.
2003-03-06 23:42 | User Profile
As long as they have the money it cannot be one on one, because they will employ our own people in numbers we cannot match, barring some HUGE missteps on their part.
2003-03-07 00:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by Hugh Lincoln@Mar 6 2003, 17:07 But perhaps the more permanent damage has been done to the White brain. That, however, might be fixed with heapin' helpins o' antidote.
Nietzsche prescribes a bracing dose of reality conceived as it is, designed to gradually relieve one's goyische chunk-headedness and to provide eventual prophylaxis against the ideological and theological fatuities to which one is naturally inclined.
2003-03-07 00:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Mar 6 2003, 18:03 ** Nietzsche prescribes a bracing dose of reality conceived as it is... **
I agree with this. Of course one can agree or disagree with Nietzsche's prescriptions, but as far his assessments go, when reading him I always feel as though I am getting a bird's eye view of the big picture.
2003-03-07 00:47 | User Profile
"To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one's will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organisation). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the fundamental principle of society, it would immediately disclose what it really is--namely, a Will to the denial of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;--but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped? Even the organisation within which, as was previously supposed, the individuals treat each other as equal--it takes place in every healthy aristocracy--must itself, if it be a living and not a dying organisation, do all that towards other bodies, which the individuals within it refrain from doing to each other: it will have to be the incarnated Will to Power, it will endeavour to grow, to gain ground, attract to itself and acquire ascendency--not owing to any morality or immorality, but because it lives, and because life is precisely Will to Power. On no point, however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more unwilling to be corrected than on this matter; people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming conditions of society in which "the exploiting character" is to be absent:-- that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions. "Exploitation" does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life.--Granting that as a theory this is a novelty--as a reality it is the fundamental fact of all history: let us be so far honest towards ourselves!"
2003-03-07 01:14 | User Profile
When individuals (each one individually) are essentially and passionately related to an idea and together are essentially related to the same idea, the relation is optimal and normative.
In a worldly and temporal sense, it will be said by the man of bustle, sociability, and amicableness, "how unreasonable that only one attains the goal; for it is far more likely that many, by the strength of united effort, should attain the goal and when we are many success is more certain and it is easier for each man severally." True enough, it is far more likely; and it is true also with respect to all earthly and material goods. If it is allowed to have its way, this becomes the only true point of view, for it does away with God and eternity and with man's kinship with deity. It does away with it or transforms it into a fable, and puts in its place the modern (or, we might rather say, the old pagan) notion that to be a man is to belong to a race endowed with reason, to belong to it as a specimen, so that the race or species is higher than the individual, which is to say that there are no more individuals but only specimens. But eternity...and God in heaven...knows each solitary individual by nameââ¬âHe, the great Examiner, says that only one attains the goal. That means, everyone can and every one should be this oneââ¬âbut only one attains the goal.
But the category of 'the individual' is and remains the fixed point which is able to resist the pantheistic confusion, it is and remains the weight which turns the scale.... All doubt (which, be it observed parenthetically, is just simply disobedience to Godââ¬âwhen it is ethically considered and not made a fuss about with an air of scientific superiority)ââ¬âall doubt has ultimately its stronghold in the illusion of temporal existence that we are a lot of us, pretty much the whole of humanity, which in the end can jolly well overawe God and be itself the Christ. And pantheism is an acoustic illusion which confounds vox populi with vox dei, an optical illusion, a cloud-picture formed out of the mists of temporal existence, a mirage formed by reflection from temporal existence and regarded as the eternal.
Quite simplyââ¬âI want honesty. I am not, as one man with the best of intentions has desired to represent me, I am not Christian severity contrasted with Christian leniency. Not at all. I am neither severity nor leniencyââ¬âI am...mere human honesty. I want honesty. If that is what this race and this generation want, if it will uprightly, honestly, frankly, openly, directly rebel against Christianity and say to God, "We can, but we will not be subject to this authority"ââ¬âbut observe that it must be done uprightly, honestly, frankly, openly, directlyââ¬âwell then, strange as it may seem, I am for it; for honesty is what I want. And wherever there is honesty I can take part. An honest rebellion against Christianity can only be made when one honestly admits what Christianity is and how one is related to it.
2003-03-07 03:07 | User Profile
During times of war this country has always been a dictatorship. In fact, I don't care if it is a dictatorship, just so long as it is a white gentile dictatorship. The problem is we have been disinherited. That is too nice a word. We have been dispossessed of our own culture and country by the the Jews who swarmed here during the last century, and now they have invited in the non-White hordes to bolster their position. This kind of theft demands war all the time and consequently a permanent dictatorship to keep all the agitating cultures in line. Pray for a depression.
2003-03-07 03:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Mar 5 2003, 23:34 ** > large donkey appendages. And hard.
Um, would those be the LEGS?! :rolleyes: :D And the hard part is the hooves, right? **
B)
2003-03-07 03:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Mar 6 2003, 18:03 ** Nietzsche prescribes a bracing dose of reality conceived as it is, designed to gradually relieve one's goyische chunk-headedness and to provide eventual prophylaxis against the ideological and theological fatuities to which one is naturally inclined. **
Wasn't Nietzsche this humongous philo-semite who thought the Prussian elite should breed with the German-jewish elite?
2003-03-07 04:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Bardamu@Mar 6 2003, 21:28 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Mar 6 2003, 18:03 ** Nietzsche prescribes a bracing dose of reality conceived as it is, designed to gradually relieve one's goyische chunk-headedness and to provide eventual prophylaxis against the ideological and theological fatuities to which one is naturally inclined. **
Wasn't Nietzsche this humongous philo-semite who thought the Prussian elite should breed with the German-jewish elite?**
The same. Seemed like a good idea at the time. :(
2003-03-07 06:29 | User Profile
I do hate to sound like such a latter day Carthagenian, but it's all marketing.
Yes, it's all marketing.
Years ago I had occasion to delve into the bottled water business. Here the truth of your statement is made manifest. I mean, they're selling you water, for Pete's sake. It's all branding - the product itself is a matter of little consequence.
In fact, I've seen two separate brands of bottled water that were literally poured from the same spout, but then marketed to utterly different market segments (one "upscale" and expensive, the other "youth" and inexpensive). Of course, there are delivery costs (second only to advertising), but you get the picture.
I remember sitting through a dreary PowerPoint presentation on this, and the marketing guy was talking about the press and working with "friendly journalists" and how planting stories as news is really the best advertising since "the great majority of people actually believe that they're reading objective reporting," which excited warm chuckles from the jackels around the table. Including yours truly.
Most people don't understand that there are meetings in every corporate board room where guys with MBA's in marketing (the study of mass psychology, it's actualy fascinating) sneer at them.
Anyway, the point is that it works.
Jews have a nearly instinctive mastery of the concept that when speaking of the mass mind, "perception is reality" and that you can induce people to pay $5 for a bottle of water worth only a few pennies if you convince them that it's the cool thing to do, and that the one who holds the power to convince them of this in fact rules the world.
This is an essential question for us, because our enemies have succeeded in creating a mass perception of WN as a very low status, disreputable thing. It's associated in the public mind with guys named Booger living with his first cousin in a trailer. That is not the reality, of course, and that's why handsome and urbane guys like Jared Taylor are such great marketing for us. We need to change that image.
As is often said among us, our first job is to wrest from the IP their media monopoly. We're doing that bit by bit through the Internet and our small publications. We need to support that with everything we have.
Like you said, it's all marketing.
Walter