← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · NeoNietzsche

Thread 7342

Thread ID: 7342 | Posts: 57 | Started: 2003-06-14

Wayback Archive

NeoNietzsche [OP]

2003-06-14 15:16 | User Profile

Let's summarize what we've learned to this point, Boys and Girls:

1) There is no such thing as Set-it-and-Forget-it government. Constitutionalism and Libertarianism fatuously indulge in the notion that there can be a government adhering to a consistent code of law, to which code the originators, interpreters, and enforcers thereof can be held by suasion. We now understand that no such consistent code has been or can be devised, and, in the absence of such rigor, there is insufficient basis for restraining these fiduciary agencies from eventually falling prey to corruption by individual or utopian inclinations and from perpetually adjusting or violating this necessarily inconsistent and non-comprehensive code. Thus the only good government, Boys and Girls, is your government - whatever form it takes in war and peace. For all polities resort to dictatorship and police state in time of war, in the measure of the extant emergency, (and we do not make the mistake of believing that the mere good fortune of having experienced little in the way of emergency is also a measure of our wisdom and virtue in public administration). The autocrat, the God of War, which you will have in any case and by whatever term his function is disguised for cosmetic ideological purposes, must be yours and yours alone - otherwise he - and you - will be in the service of another people, who will make their own use of "your" government, whatever form it may take and despite your interest in its performance.

2) And Sin-and-Salvation, like schizophrenia, is all in your heads, Boys and Girls. For the world of rational adults is one of actions-have-consequences, according to observed patterns in the external environment, and not one of contrite answerability to a non-existent supervisory entity devised by aliens for their own purposes. We understand that some boys and girls have been made to feel supremely naughty for their nasty inclinations and unsatisfied appetities, and that their inward restraint of these impulses may well be desirable from the standpoint of the good order of society. But we now understand that one's answerability and responsible behavior is, rather, properly with regard to one's fellows, when the issue is placed in its proper and realistic perspective. For to believe that one's inward and outward misdemeanors are of cosmological import, apprehended by the imagined universal deity either directly or through the agency of a deputized confessor, is paranoiac - and clinically consistent with the witch-hunting hysteria which we observe periodically emerging to evidence the psychotropic character of this intoxicating ethical dualism, appearing among us as Good-and-Evil and Sin-and-Salvation. We understand that indulgence in this form of intoxication has seriously deleterious consequences for the exercise of good judgment in the regulation of public affairs, given the implicit tendency to sanctimoniously moralize and to irrationally crusade to no good end.

NeoNietzsche

2003-06-15 15:24 | User Profile

Triskelion displays his superb grasp of lesson One:

1) "Long before so called 'negative externalities' of capitalism brought about the current levels of globalism, the libertarian impulse was wreaking havoc upon Occidental traditionalism. The ascendancy of capital over traditional societal arrangements helped to foster class conflict and the gradual destruction of a sense of national identity, allowing the rise of racial aliens and class warfare in our nations. Without this societal chaos, the '"long march through the institutions' which produced cultural bolshevism could never have happened. As the forces of capital became consolidated within an ever-shrinking collection of oligopolies, the motive force of culture went from primarily an organic basis to mere fadism/universalism manufactured by often alien plutocrats, which in turn provided a means for those that control transnational capital to determine the perceptions of the electorate. Thereby allowing the absolute dominance of anti-Occidental forces over our societies. In short, a philosophy which is centered upon atomistic individualism and crass materialism is one that is wholly at odds with racial solidarity and identification, once Occidental man's natural capacity for invention makes long distance travel and communication widely available."

Kurt

2003-06-15 16:37 | User Profile

You may get most of the people here to agree with the first point, but forget about the second one, at least that's the impression I get from what I've seen on these threads ([url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showforum=14]here[/url] and [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8516]here[/url].)

(FWIW, I agree with [u]both[/u] points.)

NeoNietzsche

2003-06-15 17:49 | User Profile

Originally posted by Kurt@Jun 15 2003, 10:37 * *You may get most of the people here to agree with the first point, but forget about the second one, at least that's the impression I get from what I've seen on these threads ([url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showforum=14]here[/url] and [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8516]here[/url].)

(FWIW, I agree with [u]both[/u] points.)**

And is it not supremely ironic that the second point is by far the most obvious?

TexasAnarch

2003-06-16 20:48 | User Profile

To NeoNietzsche

I agree with so much of what you say, and its importance, it compels response, as ability permits.

I’m actually trying to dodge the charge of being just another soft-headed BS religious philosopher, migrating south with age and circumstance by bloging the deity.   All true, of course, but beside the point. Hope you find these interesting, complementary.

1. From Kant: (agreement) It is wrong to use “God” as the subject of sentences (“judgments”) purporting to assert facts about the cosmos/self/historical group, uncritically. It can even lead to self-contradiction, when that which cannot be known is said to be known. – BUT THERE IS ONE FUNCTION OF THE USE THAT IS SALLUTARY IN THIS RESPECT, AS A DISCIPLINE. Please see below.(“Critically” would mean: with rational self-awareness, in so far as this can be ascentained.)

2. Criticism of “God” as a sign-use (with alternate terms used in variant languages, but emphasizing English, as inside the quotes), begins with the observation that, while it is a term that others gladly offer to take responsibility for telling you what it means, and what you will be doing if you say, for example “I believe in God” –leaving it up to those most, most helpful others to tell you what that involves -- it is a responsibility that cannot be personally abrogated. God carries with it, as a concept (“on the textual side”), the projection of a “universe”: whatever “there is”, under a single denotative term. (It has been explained to me, stop right there: the form of unity they posit as “allah” is not gendered (no “He”, for them, who is male, “Father”, author of the universe)). I call this, inviting all correction, the concept of “completed totality” This construct is a kind of oxymoron. Each person’s world-experience (as a “Leibnizian monad”; Whiteheadian “singularity”) is a “totality” – but essentially incomplete, at any given point in time (*development of full individuality). Use of “God” functions, on the token side, to project completeness. The conception of God is of the Completed Totality. The claim that “we” are created “In His Image” is a reversal of this projection, as if the totality were given to the whatever cosmic Unity there is, as if “experienced from the other side”. That is my proposed deconstruction of what this term, migrating through the King James Version of the Bible into the McGuffey readers of colonial America, communicates. It divides “God” – as a sign used in English communication – into text and token, a dyad-content communication: text-intended external reference; token, manifested internal (subjective-enabling) background.

3. God-As Token retains a functional significance for the user, after God-As-Text has been refuted as a rational ideal.

God-as Token reproduces the Unity the user posits on the subjective side of experience, as externally completing its explanation. That cannot be known at any point, perhaps, but must be posited; otherwise, if it could be known, or even approached asymptotically along a certain internal gradient formed along lines of proper development of individuality, the process of attaining the objective state of knowing the totality as complete (vs. “knowing the complete totality”, with is self-contradictory, since it would necessarily include knowing all it knows, etc.)

1. Kant’s distinction between Transcendent vs. Transcendental Unity recognizes what later atheists would come to see, refute, and hurl back at “believers” – that the “Transcendent” God could no more be rationally conceived as existing than “the highest number”. The way the number-series is constructed, of one begins counting with “one”, “two”, “three”, etc., going over into a 10-based decimal system, say, for markers, prohibits positing any marker reached in this series as “the last”. As in the notions of “a time before time began”, or “completed time”, the notions of a “least” or a “greatest” number are empty category mistakes –simultaneously positing, and negating, a series unending-by-definition. Kant found that the classical proofs for the existence of God committed just this fallacy of treating the concept of open aggregates as closed (under that concept). Neither space, not time, he deduced, would be so treated (as completed totalities, as they supposed).

2. Transcendental Unity (“of apperception” – unity of the individual sign-user “on the token side”, as “subject”, “I”) posited by “God” THROUGH ITS FORM, remains as an apriori condition of discourse. (my argument). Otherwise, it becomes ontologically impossible to distinguish HAL (from 2001) from other persons, as completing the explanation of contents of communication. Transcendental unity of individual experience includes, we have learned (no longer dependent on Kant, subject-predicate logic exclusively, or Newtonian physics): fetal (not: cradle) –to-grave continuity of consciousness, enabled “from below”, through what Freud called “the anatomical preparation”); bond of blood to particular historical group of origin (DNA); and the ambient cosmos. For, even though textually incomplete, whatever it is, we are, as thinking human beings who find themselves on this planet of sorrows. The Transcendent basis of unity may be refuted – even refute itself – but that only means that it is not “reason” in the psyche that produced the illusion of “monotheism” as metaphysical fact in the first place. The transcendental unity naively posited by dogmatic use is metaphysically grounded “from below”, in the functioning psychic totality. With “God*”, and the attributes of human personality associated with it (Creator, Providence, Father (male)), even as the unlimited in all respects of individual consciousness, the feed-backs of internally originating sign-use processing loops are set up to properly promote growth of understanding. It seems to me that positing this unity, through individual space and time (“personal token-space”), even as naively considered objectively real, as explanation of ‘mysterious’ things, is necessary as a stage, in order to complete the function which becomes aware of itself in the precess of so doing. How else could it happen?

3. From the empirically given* transcendental unity (altering nothing from Kant except scientific elaboration of the formal notions) of sign-use by individuals in communication, it is possible to deduce the functions of the attributions. And here is where this system agrees with the harshest critics of classical theology advocates who would project their moral demands on the universe, distributed through processing feed-back loops onto others, by having them pledge allegiance to the US flag using this word. And it provides grounds for special antipathy, rancor, at the point where the ideals properly promoted by correct archetypal transformation is unbalanced, in respect to sexuality. The utter contempt objectively deserved by those who would use the sexual function associated with the Father to reproduce a political system, by having its youth grammatize other’s dogma as fact. That calls for self- immolation, in the name of their God.

Above all else, that is why “God”-use related to the US constituti8on (I know you aren’t a constitutionalist, but…) cannot be allowed to creep into politics. In any way. I’ll go down for that, with any, at any time, when it gets here.

regards

triskelion

2003-06-16 21:42 | User Profile

NN has gotten a good thread going here. However, I feel the need to reaffirm a point that should be made more often with respect to matters of religion/spirituality. Name that as those things are irrational or supra-rational (depending upon one's point of view) logical attacks upon the foundationalism of Christianity will change the mind set of almost no one but doing so will shut out a very sizable portion of our kinfolk to the cause of folkish restoration. As a result, we must keep in mind that irrational or supra-rational belief systems exist because they satisfy basic human needs that very few are able to abandon save via the nillism encouraged by the propasphere.

As a result, it seems more productive to me to encourage those that adhere to belief systems that folks like NN object to find a means of making the core, folkish aspect of Eurocentrism appear compatible with Christianity. This can in part be done by encouraging a rejection of Modernity and faux Christianity or at least encouraging those that do.

In the end, the fact is inescapable that a viable, Eurocentric mass movement must not make religion, or it's rejection, a defining point of it's ideology or publi policy recommendations. Rather, politics about building coalitions (some comments of which are to be used and discarded in accordance with strategic and tactical decisions) via emphasizing commonalities when it behooves racial nationalists to do so. That means having a program that offers a genuine alternative to economic centralization (be it from the state or private sector) as well as detailing how we wish to address the needs of numerous interest groups within out race. All of which comes back to the matter of what it means to be a genuine alternative to what is popularly called "left and right".

Paleoleftist

2003-06-17 00:24 | User Profile

*Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 14 2003, 09:16 * ** Let's summarize what we've learned to this point, Boys and Girls:

1) ...the only good government, Boys and Girls, is your government... **

I would heartily agree with setting up a government that is my government. :king: :th: Even back when I was 12 years old, I think I remember myself wanting to have a government all of my own. :) However, NN, I have one question: Would this government, by any chance, also have to be your government? :ph34r: Given your opinions about Christianity, the role of the average White peasant, aka the herd, et cetera, et cetera, being also your (and Nietzsche´s) government would considerable reduce luster of having "my" government. :crybaby:

This would be like being given a wonderful new toy, but then being told you have to "share" it with the bully of the block :taz: , or, worse, an entire gang of nutsies. :D

Texas Dissident

2003-06-17 00:29 | User Profile

*Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 14 2003, 10:16 * ** Let's summarize what we've learned to this point, Boys and Girls:

2) And Sin-and-Salvation, like schizophrenia, is all in your heads, Boys and Girls. **

Dearest NN,

When did we learn this one? I must have missed that topic.

:unsure:

Ruffin

2003-06-17 00:38 | User Profile

Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 16 2003, 18:24 -->

QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 16 2003, 18:24 )

<!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 14 2003, 09:16 * ** Let's summarize what we've learned to this point, Boys and Girls: 1) ...the only good government, Boys and Girls, is your government... ** I would heartily agree with setting up a government that is my government. :king: :th: Even back when I was 12 years old, I think I remember myself wanting to have a government all of my own. :) However, NN, I have one question: Would this government, by any chance, also have to be your government? :ph34r: Given your opinions about Christianity, the role of the average White peasant, aka the herd, et cetera, et cetera, being also your (and Nietzsche´s) government would considerable reduce luster of having "my" government. :crybaby: This would be like being given a wonderful new toy, but then being told you have to "share" it with the bully of the block :taz: , or, worse, an entire gang of nutsies. :D** No! You will NOT be permitted to behead your countrymen or burn our women or feed Africans with our taxes or welcome poor poisecuted Jews back into the country! :hit: NeoNietzsche 2003-06-17 01:09 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 16 2003, 18:24 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 16 2003, 18:24 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 14 2003, 09:16 * ** Let's summarize what we've learned to this point, Boys and Girls: 1) ...the only good government, Boys and Girls, is your government... ** I would heartily agree with setting up a government that is my government. :king: :th: Even back when I was 12 years old, I think I remember myself wanting to have a government all of my own. :) However, NN, I have one question: Would this government, by any chance, also have to be your government? :ph34r: Given your opinions about Christianity, the role of the average White peasant, aka the herd, et cetera, et cetera, being also your (and Nietzsche´s) government would considerable reduce luster of having "my" government. :crybaby: This would be like being given a wonderful new toy, but then being told you have to "share" it with the bully of the block :taz: , or, worse, an entire gang of nutsies. :D** P, I will console you with the following clarification: Had I been a German citizen of the Third Reich, I would have considered Hitler's regime to be "my" government. I can forsee or imagine no arrangement of affairs in the midst of the United State of Stupidity that would likewise qualify. So fear ye not, gentle Paleoleftist - the rigors of a rightly-ordered regime will never be visited upon you. N. Paleoleftist 2003-06-17 01:15 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 15 2003, 11:49 * ** And is it not supremely ironic that the second point is by far the most obvious? ** Not obvious at all. One of the (not-quite-so-few) weaknesses of Nietzsche was that he did not fully understand Darwin. Nietzsche seemed to believe that Christianity won out against (Roman) paganism, because, the herd being supremely stupid, the more stupid thought system has to triumph over the more enlightened one. This line of thought looks pretty weak even at face value. But some water has gone down the river, and Sociobiology came into being. This brought us not only Kevin MacDonald whose certainly fascinating Culture of Critique I am just now reading. It also brought us D.S.Wilson, whose Darwin´s Cathedral you are in definite need of studying, so as to arrive in the 21st century. In Darwin´s Cathedral, Wilson describes, once and for all, precisely why Christianity did win, namely because it was the (vastly) more adaptative thought system (in the biological sense, which you seem to be interested in, but not quite understand, much like your namesake). The main reasons for the rise of Christianity were threefold: 1) Christians had more women. This is not meaning to say they were polygamous. It is meaning to say that Christians did treat women better, and shunned homosexuality, while Roman pagan culture of the era actually favoured homosexuality. 2) Christian women had more babies. Because abortion was a no-no, and so was contraception. Conversely, Roman pagan culture of the era was not interested in having kids. 3) Christians were altruistic, pagans were Nietzschean. :D Which resulted in the pagans dying. A Christian community, where no one engaged in cost-benefit analysis when helping another Christian, had a vastly better chance of survival in a turbulent era of natural catastrophes, barbarian invasions and plagues than pagans who cared more or less exclusively for themselves. Even the certainly honourable died-in-the-wool-pagan Emperor Julian had to admit that all Christians contributed to charities, while it was impossible to set up a pagan charity. He tried to, but found, to his chagrin, that his pagan subjects didn´t understand the concept. :lol: All of which resulted in an unstoppable demographic rise of Christianity, and extinction of the pagan belief. Christianity won, because it was, in an eminently practical sense, more rational. And so we get to bury Nietzsche, as a philosopher absolutely inimical to the welfare of our tribe (and any tribe imprudent enough to adopt his counsel). :rolleyes: Paleoleftist 2003-06-17 01:24 | User Profile Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 16 2003, 18:38 * ** No! You will NOT* be permitted to behead your countrymen or burn our women or feed Africans with our taxes or welcome poor poisecuted Jews back into the country! :hit: ** Huh? :ph34r: I actually don´t think you are crazy, :rolleyes: so, after a second of near-total confusion, I arrive at the hypothesis you are mixing me up with somebody else. :) For my position on things, see this thread: [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=7100&hl=]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...wtopic=7100&hl=[/url] NeoNietzsche 2003-06-17 01:30 | User Profile Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 16 2003, 15:42 * *NN has gotten a good thread going here.   However, I feel the need to reaffirm a point that should be made more often with respect to matters of religion/spirituality. Name that as those things are irrational or supra-rational (depending upon one's point of view) logical attacks upon the foundationalism of Christianity will change the mind set of almost no one but doing so will shut out a very sizable portion of our kinfolk to the cause of folkish restoration.  As a result, we must keep in mind that irrational or supra-rational belief systems exist because they satisfy basic human needs that very few are able to abandon save via the nillism encouraged by the propasphere. ** Then let me mention that one of my operating assumptions in the midst of this venue has been that Voltaire's servants are not in the room. And thus that none but gentlemen of intellect are present to have their apprehension of reality refined. Paleoleftist 2003-06-17 01:35 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 16 2003, 19:09 * ** So fear ye not, gentle Paleoleftist - the rigors of a rightly-ordered regime will never be visited upon you. N. ** I have no problem with a rightly-ordered regime. My problem arrives with your seeming belief that what "rightly-ordered" precisely entails is self-evident. Therefore, before I jump from the frying-pan into the fire, I would like to know the precise definition of what a government being "my" or "our" government actually is supposed to mean. I even give to you that we might easily come to an agreement, of sorts, as to what kind of government ours is not supposed to be. But agreeing on a number of negatives is not yet a program. And in the positives, I see trouble ahead with the cultists. :hit: Paleoleftist 2003-06-17 01:42 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 16 2003, 19:30 * ** Then let me mention that one of my operating assumptions in the midst of this venue* has been that Voltaire's servants are not in the room. And thus that none but gentlemen of intellect are present to have their apprehension of reality refined. ** :ph34r: I am a bit shocked to see you part company even with Nietzsche for the sake of extremism. I am pretty positively sure that N. did not consider Voltaire a gentleman of no intellect. Which is of course not to say I agree with Voltaire. But discounting him as not having brains is wayyyyy over the top. This is precisely what I mean by the term "cultists". :ph34r: NeoNietzsche 2003-06-17 01:42 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 16 2003, 19:15 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 16 2003, 19:15 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 15 2003, 11:49 * ** And is it not supremely ironic that the second point is by far the most obvious? ** Not obvious at all. One of the (not-quite-so-few) weaknesses of Nietzsche was that he did not fully understand Darwin. Nietzsche seemed to believe that Christianity won out against (Roman) paganism, because, the herd being supremely stupid, the more stupid thought system has to triumph over the more enlightened one. This line of thought looks pretty weak even at face value.** One of the (not-quite-so-few) weaknesses of Paleoleftist is that he does not fully understand Nietzsche. His characterization of Nietzsche's argument is simply mistaken and his further observations thus tiresomely irrelevant. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-17 01:50 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 16 2003, 19:42 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Jun 16 2003, 19:42 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 16 2003, 19:30 * ** Then let me mention that one of my operating assumptions in the midst of this venue* has been that Voltaire's servants are not in the room.  And thus that none but gentlemen of intellect are present to have their apprehension of reality refined. ** :ph34r: I am a bit shocked to see you part company even with Nietzsche for the sake of extremism. I am pretty positively sure that N. did not consider Voltaire a gentleman of no intellect. Which is of course not to say I agree with Voltaire. But discounting him as not having brains is wayyyyy over the top. This is precisely what I mean by the term "cultists". :ph34r:** Anyone care to earn extra Brownie Points for assisting our giftless Paleoleftist with an explanation of the allusion to Voltaire, Boys and Girls? Paleoleftist 2003-06-17 01:51 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 16 2003, 19:42 * ** One of the (not-quite-so-few) weaknesses of Paleoleftist is that he does not* fully understand Nietzsche. His characterization of Nietzsche's argument is simply mistaken and his further observations thus tiresomely irrelevant. ** I don´t think so (and you don´t provide a reason why I should). :rolleyes: But, to entertain you, let´s say Nietzsche had a more sophisticated explanation for why Christianity replaced paganism. Even a more sophisticated explanation would still have to be Nietzschean, and therefore wrong. Because I am sure you agree with me that Nietzsche did not say that Christianity has been supremely valuable and adaptative. Which fact essentially buries his entire argument about, uh, everything. :) NeoNietzsche 2003-06-17 02:01 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 16 2003, 19:35 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 16 2003, 19:35 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 16 2003, 19:09 * ** So fear ye not, gentle Paleoleftist - the rigors of a rightly-ordered regime will never be visited upon you. N. ** I have no problem with a rightly-ordered regime. My problem arrives with your seeming belief that what "rightly-ordered" precisely entails is self-evident. Therefore, before I jump from the frying-pan into the fire, I would like to know the precise definition of what a government being "my" or "our" government actually is supposed to mean. I even give to you that we might easily come to an agreement, of sorts, as to what kind of government ours is not supposed to be. But agreeing on a number of negatives is not yet a program. And in the positives, I see trouble ahead with the cultists. :hit:** "My" government would be precisely that regime headed by the author (and his designated successors) of the equivalent of Mein Kampf. George Lincoln Rockwell was the closest to that ideal in terms of authorship that America has produced. triskelion 2003-06-17 02:04 | User Profile [quote by Paleoleftist] 1) Christians had more women. This is not meaning to say they were polygamous. It is meaning to say that Christians did treat women better, and shunned homosexuality, while Roman pagan culture of the era actually favoured homosexuality. 2) Christian women had more babies. Because abortion was a no-no, and so was contraception. Conversely, Roman pagan culture of the era was not interested in having kids. [end quote] The notion above seems counter factual given at least as far as the paganism of the English, Germanic, Nordic and Baltic peoples are concerned. In part I say this as within the Germanic and Baltic tradition females were given rights to vote and represent families at early legislatures as well as amenable terms for divorce while early Christian rule in Northern Europa was accompanied by the wholesale disenfranchisement of women along with several centuries of witch hunts and the torture and slaughter that accompanied it. As to having more children this it seems is a dubious argument given that I aware of no comparative of fecundity and fertility of pagan and christian families from the 1st century till the 12th century C.E. It seems that a better explanation exists. Namely that pagan religious tolerance combined with a lack of interest in proselytizing combined with the willingness of those communities taken with christianity to slaughter and torture anyone deemed a heretic. The Christians did an excellent job of co-opting numerous traditions (ex the baptismal ritual and communion being taken wholly from the Mithra cult along with Christmas and Easter being largely influenced by Nordic & Germanic beliefs), they also had a theology which was more emotionally satisfying then the austere pagan traditions and they were very brutal in suppression dissent. As to the notion that "Christianity won, because it was, in an eminently practical sense, more rational." it seems that a long history of grotesque, nonsensical theocratic wars, purges of heretics and the centuries long mania of burning and torturing to death women seems less then practical, unifying and humane as you portray early Christendom to be. By contrast, I could point to pagan legal thinking and communal philosophy: [url=http://www.llangynfelyn.dabsol.co.uk/dogfennau/british_kymry.html]http://www.llangynfelyn.dabsol.co.uk/dogfe...tish_kymry.html[/url] , [url=http://www.llangynfelyn.dabsol.co.uk/dogfennau/british_kymry_druids.html]http://www.llangynfelyn.dabsol.co.uk/dogfe...mry_druids.html[/url] , [url=http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen6.html]http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen6.html[/url] as well as countless books on the matter should any be interested (some not in English) In any case, I note that my original point about working with present religious realities have been overlooked. Fighting over religion has little interest for me as I have helped organize several major conferences over the years for the sole purpose of bringing racialists of different backgrounds together to serve the common cause of Occidental restoration. The reality is that no form of religion any racialist or paleo-con would find appealing will have societal influence once the destruction of our nations progresses another generation or two so other matters then theology demand our attention. As to paleoleftist I ask that he spend a bit of time describing what his agenda is. I ask this as I very surprised to hear a leftist mention McDonald's work. I am wondering to what extent he (and whom ever he may represent) can serve as a strategic or tactical partner to positive, genuine racialists committed to an agenda of social justice and decentralization such myself. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-17 02:09 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 16 2003, 19:51 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Jun 16 2003, 19:51 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 16 2003, 19:42 * ** One of the (not-quite-so-few) weaknesses of Paleoleftist is that he does not* fully understand Nietzsche.  His characterization of Nietzsche's argument is simply mistaken and his further observations thus tiresomely irrelevant. ** I don´t think so (and you don´t provide a reason why I should). :rolleyes: But, to entertain you, let´s say Nietzsche had a more sophisticated explanation for why Christianity replaced paganism. Even a more sophisticated explanation would still have to be Nietzschean, and therefore wrong. Because I am sure you agree with me that Nietzsche did not say that Christianity has been supremely valuable and adaptative. Which fact essentially buries his entire argument about, uh, everything. :)** I'll get back to you on Nietzsche when you evidence some knowledge of the subject. Ruffin 2003-06-17 02:17 | User Profile Just a joke, Lefty. I took you for a theocrat there for a minute rather than a general Hitlerphobe. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-17 02:29 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Jun 16 2003, 18:29 --> QUOTE* (Texas Dissident @ Jun 16 2003, 18:29 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 14 2003, 10:16 * ** Let's summarize what we've learned to this point, Boys and Girls: 2) And Sin-and-Salvation, like schizophrenia, is all in your heads, Boys and Girls. ** Dearest NN, When did we learn this one? I must have missed that topic. :unsure:** It was the point of a long discussion some weeks ago about the putative implications of the "Resurrection," into which Wintermute made an over-extended and diversionary self-insertion in an attempt to expose his epistemological manhood. Paleoleftist 2003-06-17 02:30 | User Profile *Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 16 2003, 20:04 * ** The notion above seems counter factual given at least as far as the paganism of the English, Germanic, Nordic and Baltic peoples are concerned. ** Perhaps I should have made that clearer: I was exclusively talking about (Wilson´s view on) Christian-pagan competition in the Roman Empire until Christianity became the state religion. Wilson argues, correctly I believe, that Christianity was successful for demographic reasons -because it was highly adaptative!-, laying Nietzsche´s theory about Christianity being a cultural parasite to rest. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-17 02:42 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 16 2003, 20:30 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 16 2003, 20:30 ) <!--QuoteBegin-triskelion@Jun 16 2003, 20:04 * ** The notion above seems counter factual given at least as far as the paganism of the English, Germanic, Nordic and Baltic peoples are concerned. ** Perhaps I should have made that clearer: I was exclusively talking about (Wilson´s view on) Christian-pagan competition in the Roman Empire until Christianity became the state religion. Wilson argues, correctly I believe, that Christianity was successful for demographic reasons -because it was highly adaptative!-, laying Nietzsche´s theory about Christianity being a cultural parasite to rest.** Still waiting for that evidence. Actually reading Nietzsche would be a good first step to that end. Paleoleftist 2003-06-17 03:46 | User Profile *Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 16 2003, 20:04 * ** As to paleoleftist I ask that he spend a bit of time describing what his agenda is. I ask this as I very surprised to hear a leftist mention McDonald's work. I am wondering to what extent he (and whom ever he may represent) can serve as a strategic or tactical partner to positive, genuine racialists committed to an agenda of social justice and decentralization such myself. ** As to my agenda, it´s pretty much my own. :D I sense a certain surprise in you, if I may say so, that a left-winger can somehow be independent-minded. However, I do remember a time in my life when I would have been suprised about independent-minded conservatives, so I won´t hold that against you. :) Suffice it to say we possibly agree on the fact that the independent-minded are probably a minority in most walks of life and all political movements. I originally joined OD -and do not rue it!- because of the surprisingly (to me) positive comments made by many members about an article by Neil Clark, [url=http://www.antiwar.com/orig/n-clark1.html]http://www.antiwar.com/orig/n-clark1.html[/url] originally written for the American Conservative. I agree very much with Mr. Clark. One could say I disapprove of the way the political frontlines are usually drawn; the way I draw the lines there is much more in common between my definition of Leftism as being the original peasant revolt, metaphorically spoken, and the views of, say, Mr. Buchanan, than, say, the Frankfurt School, about which, until very recently, I held an opinion that was only 50% true: I pride myself on having noticed, at a glance, when I first encountered the Frankfurt School, that it was nonsense, and harmful nonsense at that. What totally escaped me at that time, I have to admit, was the method behind the nonsense. That is, I treated the Frankfurt School rather like the logician -so much trash that isn´t worth further enquiry!- :D than like the social scientist. I think I do not need to explain where I was wrong. I discovered Sociobiology only very recently, at about the same time I discovered OD. With McDonald´s ideas, I am in basic agreement. He does occasionally overplay his hand, imo, and his book would actually gain by cutting the 10% weakest arguments he makes, but that´s my only quibble, and the soundness of his general observations has recently been made quite visible by the American Neocons and by Mr.Sharon who both had the goodness to go out of their way to prove McDonald is indeed right. I am not a racialist as such, rather a left-populist/Christian/nativist, positions I do not think at all are incompatible, though they are made to seem incompatible by both the mainstream and the ideologues of some permanently fixed belief sets on both the left and right, which would include both Marxism and NS. As to alliances, I am very open-minded. Being not suicidal, I wouldn´t like to ally myself with people who intend to shoot me when they get around to -another strong argument against NS any independent-minded person should consider!- :blink: , but otherwise I will treat any case on its merits. You may also want to read this thread, where I posted some of my positions: [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=7100&hl=]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...wtopic=7100&hl=[/url] Paleoleftist 2003-06-17 03:55 | User Profile *Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 16 2003, 20:17 * ** Just a joke, Lefty. ** Thanks for clearing that up. :) For a moment I thought you were serious about your impression of me as favouring the projects you described. :1eye: Paleoleftist 2003-06-17 03:58 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 16 2003, 20:42 * ** Still waiting for that evidence. Actually reading Nietzsche would be a good first step to that end. ** You are now holding that Nietzsche didn´t view Christianity as maladaptive? Then why do you? B) triskelion 2003-06-17 04:05 | User Profile Hello PL, Off hand it seems that you may indeed belong to that terribly rare breed I call the “genuine” or “ethical” leftist. I’m a very dedicated National Socialist but I adhere to a form of that thought that predates the NSDAP by quite a bit and my influences are primarily from non German segments of that tradition. Personally, in terms of economics I started out with mildly supportive notions of mainstream libertarianism and then like so many others I gradually drifted into various Sorelian offshoots of Marxist revisionism and DeMann style NS thought before, like so many others, reaching the conclusion that real socialism is about revisited guildism, devolution, syndicalism and popular control of the economy as a means of keeping society in prominence over both state and capitol all for the purpose of encouraging the rise of folkish renewal. While I am an Eurocentric racialist I abhor imperialism and that which dilutes racial differences and self determination for any folk anywhere as to be other wise does not represent real racialism in my view. With a bit of luck we may come to some sort of understanding on what is meant by socialism and what virtues racial separatism holds. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-17 18:10 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 16 2003, 21:58 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Jun 16 2003, 21:58 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 16 2003, 20:42 * ** Still waiting for that evidence.  Actually reading Nietzsche would be a good first step to that end. ** You are now holding that Nietzsche didn´t view Christianity as maladaptive? Then why do you? B)** The "adaptiveness" of Christianity was not an issue with Nietzsche, nor is it with me. According to the account I've read of the ultimate fate of the solar system, the cockroaches are supposed to inherit the Earth some day hence. Please trouble yourself to read (and understand) Geneaology of Morals and The Antichrist so that I might entertain the illusion that you have some idea of what you're talking about in reference to Nietzsche and Christianity. Paleoleftist 2003-06-17 23:21 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 17 2003, 12:10 * ** The "adaptiveness" of Christianity was not an issue with Nietzsche, nor is it with me. According to the account I've read of the ultimate fate of the solar system, the cockroaches* are supposed to inherit the Earth some day hence. Please trouble yourself to read (and understand) Geneaology of Morals and The Antichrist so that I might entertain the illusion that you have some idea of what you're talking about in reference to Nietzsche and Christianity. ** 1) As you view yourself as being on the side of European survival, adaptivity should be an issue. In fact, if you bothered to understand Darwin, who was, and is, 100 times more relevant than Nietzsche, then you would recognize adaptivity as the issue. Without adaptivity, there is no survival. Without survival, Nietzsche becomes even more irrelevant than he is already. 2) At some point in the (very far) future, Earth will become uninhabitable for Humanoids. At that point, if we have properly focused on technology instead of bad philosophy, we will have long left the Solar System, and established ourselves throughout this Galaxy. 3) I understand N.´s views perfectly well. I just deem the majority of his believes either wrong or irrelevant or maladaptive. :) Walter Yannis 2003-06-18 06:02 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 17 2003, 23:21 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Jun 17 2003, 23:21 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 17 2003, 12:10 * ** The "adaptiveness" of Christianity was not an issue with Nietzsche, nor is it with me.  According to the account I've read of the ultimate fate of the solar system, the cockroaches* are supposed to inherit the Earth some day hence. Please trouble yourself to read (and understand) Geneaology of Morals and The Antichrist so that I might entertain the illusion that you have some idea of what you're talking about in reference to Nietzsche and Christianity. ** 1) As you view yourself as being on the side of European survival, adaptivity should be an issue. In fact, if you bothered to understand Darwin, who was, and is, 100 times more relevant than Nietzsche, then you would recognize adaptivity as the issue. Without adaptivity, there is no survival. Without survival, Nietzsche becomes even more irrelevant than he is already. 2) At some point in the (very far) future, Earth will become uninhabitable for Humanoids. At that point, if we have properly focused on technology instead of bad philosophy, we will have long left the Solar System, and established ourselves throughout this Galaxy. 3) I understand N.´s views perfectly well. I just deem the majority of his believes either wrong or irrelevant or maladaptive. :) ** You're my hero, Paleoleftist. Very well put. We need something that works. Christianity lives and indeed thrives, while Nazism and Bolshevism are defunct, dead as dinosaurs. Survival is the only thing that ultimately matter. In response to all its many historical failings the short answer is "yeah, but it kicked your ass, Nazi (or Communist, or [fill in the blank])." Mere ideology is a pitifully weak immitation of real religion. Now that real religion (Christianity and Islam especially) have crushed to dust Nazism and Bolshevism, they face each other as they did 1500 years ago. It will be a worthy fight to the death, quite unlike the (utterly fitting) ignoble end of the Nazis and the not-with-a-bang-but-a-wimper end of the Bolsheviks. Christianity is marvelously adaptive and thus makes any group that adopts it far stronger in the long run, especially in comparison to the many pitifully failed ideologies of the past. So is Islam. Leave failed ideology in the mouldering ruins of the 20th century where they belong. Darwin's the man. Survival is the name of the game. Adaptibility is the key to survival. Religion's got it, ideology doesn't. It's just that simple. NeoNietzsche: hurry, or you'll be late to your Cub Scout Pack meeting! or was that your Trekkie Convention? (Klatu Nikto JooDoo? Sheesh. One can only blush). Warmest regards, Walter NeoNietzsche 2003-06-18 12:51 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Jun 17 2003, 17:21 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Jun 17 2003, 17:21 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 17 2003, 12:10 * ** The "adaptiveness" of Christianity was not an issue with Nietzsche, nor is it with me.  According to the account I've read of the ultimate fate of the solar system, the cockroaches* are supposed to inherit the Earth some day hence. Please trouble yourself to read (and understand) Geneaology of Morals and The Antichrist so that I might entertain the illusion that you have some idea of what you're talking about in reference to Nietzsche and Christianity. ** 1) As you view yourself as being on the side of European survival, adaptivity should be an issue. In fact, if you bothered to understand Darwin, who was, and is, 100 times more relevant than Nietzsche, then you would recognize adaptivity as the issue. Without adaptivity, there is no survival. Without survival, Nietzsche becomes even more irrelevant than he is already. 2) At some point in the (very far) future, Earth will become uninhabitable for Humanoids. At that point, if we have properly focused on technology instead of bad philosophy, we will have long left the Solar System, and established ourselves throughout this Galaxy. 3) I understand N.´s views perfectly well. I just deem the majority of his believes either wrong or irrelevant or maladaptive. :)** 1) I do not endorse survival for Europeans on any terms. I consider suicide preferable to perpetual indignity, for example. I understand Darwin better than do you (as is indicated by your confusion and misinformation regarding N.'s relevance) - the merely Darwinian question in this context does not interest me, nor did it Nietzsche, as you would know had you actually read what he wrote. 2) The prospects for a Star Trek performed by your mere "survivors" are no better than those of my non-survivors, so you can forget about that one. 3) If you are justified in the claim to understand the views of someone named Nietzsche, you do not refer to the author of the works to which I have directed you for your edification. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-18 13:34 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Jun 17 2003, 20:35 * > into which Wintermute made an over-extended and diversionary self-insertion in an attempt to expose his epistemological manhood* If I have overworked my epistemological manhood, it was only because I am imprisoned against my will . . . in a bordello of lies!!! I am resting but but shall rise again. No man knows the time of my coming. Wintermute** We shall be tirelessly watchful of lacunae in upcoming arguments, for your advent amongst us in all your glory. ;) NeoNietzsche 2003-06-18 16:46 | User Profile Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 18 2003, 00:02 * NeoNietzsche:  hurry, or you'll be late to your Cub Scout Pack meeting! or was that your Trekkie Convention?  (Klatu Nikto JooDoo?  Sheesh.  One can only blush).* Brother Walter: Thanks for the encouragement with haste-making. I do hope for the earliest possible arrival at the point in your instruction when reference to the "Pack" elicits something much more sophisticated than that of which you now seem to be capable. Neo Texas Dissident 2003-06-18 18:19 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Jun 17 2003, 21:35 * ** If I have overworked my epistemological manhood, it was only because I am imprisoned against my will . . . in a bordello of lies!!!* ** Classic! :lol: Hurry back to shake your epistemological money maker, amigo! Paleoleftist 2003-06-20 00:53 | User Profile "You're my hero, Paleoleftist." Gee, thanks. :) Starting from different points of departure, we seem to have arrived, over the years, at very similar conclusions. "Mere ideology is a pitifully weak imitation of real religion." Very true. "Now that real religion (Christianity and Islam especially) have crushed to dust Nazism and Bolshevism, they face each other as they did 1500 years ago. It will be a worthy fight to the death,..." I have an intuition it will be a fight to a stalemate, just as 700years ago, and 1400 years ago, and perhaps 700 years from hence. I think Hegel may turn out to have been prophetic when he said that Islam is the only religion that is spiritually on a level with Christendom, and therefore none of the two can decisively beat the other. Of course, if Zionism -or anybody else- manages to terminally weaken Christianity from within, then, I believe, the West will go under, and Islam will rule most of the Earth (with the possible exception of East Asia that seems immune, to a certain degree, against both Western and Islamic influence). "Leave failed ideology in the mouldering ruins of the 20th century where they belong." Yes, the 20th century is a place in history that manages to be exceptionally uninspiring. :) Paleoleftist 2003-06-20 01:21 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 18 2003, 06:51 * ** ** Back to NeoNietzsche: "1) I do not endorse survival for Europeans on any terms." [color=blue] There is a faint hope for Europeans to survive even without your endorsement. [/color] "I consider suicide preferable to perpetual indignity, for example." [color=blue] Such as the indignity inflicted by the destruction of our both Christian and Enlightenment roots, had the NS movement been victorious? [/color] "I understand Darwin better than do you (as is indicated by your confusion and misinformation regarding N.'s relevance) - the merely Darwinian question in this context does not interest me, nor did it Nietzsche, as you would know had you actually read what he wrote." [color=blue] You make Nietzsche seem worse than he is. :rolleyes: I believe he would have seen the relevance of the theory of Professor Dawkins, that memes -including philosophies- survive (or not!) in a way not altgether dissimilar to the survival of species. But even if that were not so, you fail to see the simple point that the survival of Nietzscheanism depends upon the survival of possible carriers of this thought virus -err, excellent set of philosophical propositions. :P Nietzsche would have understood this totally and completely. [/color] 2) The prospects for a Star Trek performed by your mere "survivors" are no better than those of my non-survivors, so you can forget about that one.[color=blue] I don´t think so. Survival is a convincing argument for a great number of things. Again, Darwinism doesn´t end with Darwin. I especially recommend David Sloane Wilson, who debunks a great number of common misconceptions, including some "Darwinist" ones. [/color] 3) If you are justified in the claim to understand the views of someone named Nietzsche, you do not refer to the author of the works to which I have directed you for your edification. [color=blue] Your view that one cannot possibly understand Nietzsche and disagree with him, certainly makes you convincing in the role of the True Believer. :th: :rock: The unperturbability of your Belief Set gives credit to the powerful role of religion, even pseudo-religion, in the human psychological economy. You remind me of the Russian Atheist who built an altar -candles and all!- for his most-favoured atheist philosopher. :) [/color] NeoNietzsche 2003-06-20 04:57 | User Profile NN: I do not endorse survival for Europeans on any terms. PL: There is a faint hope for Europeans to survive even without your endorsement. NN: Their reliance upon my endorsement was, of course, not the issue. NN: I consider suicide preferable to perpetual indignity, for example. PL: Such as the indignity inflicted by the destruction of our both Christian and Enlightenment roots, had the NS movement been victorious? NN: Such as the indignity of the preservation of Christian and so-called "Enlightenment" fatuities in influence upon national policy and culture. NN:I understand Darwin better than do you (as is indicated by your confusion and misinformation regarding N.'s relevance) - the merely Darwinian question in this context does not interest me, nor did it Nietzsche, as you would know had you actually read what he wrote. PL: You make Nietzsche seem worse than he is. :rolleyes: I believe he would have seen the relevance of the theory of Professor Dawkins, that memes -including philosophies- survive (or not!) in a way not altgether dissimilar to the survival of species. But even if that were not so, you fail to see the simple point that the survival of Nietzscheanism depends upon the survival of possible carriers of this thought virus -err, excellent set of philosophical propositions. :P Nietzsche would have understood this totally and completely. NN: For Nietzsche, there was no "survival of Nietzscheanism" for its own sake at stake, no "excellent set of philosophical propositions/thought virus" to be carried. NN: The prospects for a Star Trek performed by your mere "survivors" are no better than those of my non-survivors, so you can forget about that one. PL: I don´t think so. Survival is a convincing argument for a great number of things. Again, Darwinism doesn´t end with Darwin. I especially recommend David Sloane Wilson, who debunks a great number of common misconceptions, including some "Darwinist" ones. NN: Survival may be a convincing argument for a great number of things, but a Star Trek is not among them. NN: If you are justified in the claim to understand the views of someone named Nietzsche, you do not refer to the author of the works to which I have directed you for your edification. PL: Your view that one cannot possibly understand Nietzsche and disagree with him, certainly makes you convincing in the role of the True Believer. :th: :rock: The unperturbability of your Belief Set gives credit to the powerful role of religion, even pseudo-religion, in the human psychological economy. You remind me of the Russian Atheist who built an altar -candles and all!- for his most-favoured atheist philosopher. :) NN: The issue has not been one of agreement with Nietzsche (which I do not, in respect of epistemology, contrary to your claim). The discussion has involved, rather, your repetitively incorrect characterization of Nietzsche's views. Since we now descend well into the ad hominem following this most recent error, I will observe that your egregious incompetence or dishonesty, in making this false attribution, adds to your championship of the "dignity" of Christian and "Enlightenment" culture their characteristic air of sanctimonious self-deception and sloppy self-indulgence. Walter Yannis 2003-06-20 07:31 | User Profile *Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Jun 20 2003, 00:53 * ** I have an intuition it will be a fight to a stalemate, just as 700years ago, and 1400 years ago, and perhaps 700 years from hence. I think Hegel may turn out to have been prophetic when he said that Islam is the only religion that is spiritually on a level with Christendom, and therefore none of the two can decisively beat the other. Of course, if Zionism -or anybody else- manages to terminally weaken Christianity from within, then, I believe, the West will go under, and Islam will rule most of the Earth (with the possible exception of East Asia that seems immune, to a certain degree, against both Western and Islamic influence). ** I fear that you may be right. This was Belloc's argument; basically that since Islam didn't suffer anything like the interal assault on its religious underpinnings as did Christendom since (at least) the Reformation that Islam was stronger and that another confrontation between the Christendom and the Muslim Umma were inevitable. He wrote that nearly 70 years ago, and I think history has proved him something of a prophet. With Shrub pushing for war in Iran, however, maybe we'll get our Clash of Civilizations with religious passions once again inflamed in the West. Maybe. I agree that it's something of a long shot, and that the odds are stacked against us. Walter Paleoleftist 2003-06-21 23:25 | User Profile NN: "The issue has not been one of agreement with Nietzsche (which I do not, in respect of epistemology, contrary to your claim)." [color=blue] I didn´t exactly "claim" that, but you are right that I was presuming you agreed with N. on the major issues, including epistemology. However, I find an admixture of Nietzsche and Positivism hardly defensible. Personally, I wouldn´t try a synthesis of these two lines of thought and expect anything better than a "D", if that, from even the most indulgent learned audience. [/color] NN: "The discussion has involved, rather, your repetitively incorrect characterization of Nietzsche's views." [color=blue] Where do you believe I seriously misunderstand N.? [/color] NeoNietzsche 2003-06-22 02:11 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Jun 21 2003, 17:25 * NN:  "The issue has not been one of agreement* with Nietzsche (which I do not, in respect of epistemology, contrary to your claim)." [color=blue] I didn´t exactly "claim" that, but you are right that I was presuming you agreed with N. on the major issues, including epistemology. However, I find an admixture of Nietzsche and Positivism hardly defensible. Personally, I wouldn´t try a synthesis of these two lines of thought and expect anything better than a "D", if that, from even the most indulgent learned audience. [/color] NN: "The discussion has involved, rather, your repetitively incorrect characterization of Nietzsche's views." [color=blue] Where do you believe I seriously misunderstand N.? [/color]** My agreement with Nietzsche, as indicated by my posts, is confined to admiration for fundamental elements and distinctive insights pertaining to his political philosophy - and I diverge from and fault some of his observations and judgments even in this regard (again, as indicated by past posts, which evidently pre-date your participation here). Nietzsche hoped for a "self-overcoming" of Christianity and tended, in my assessment, to devise his arguments, historical and epistemological, toward raising this expectation. I have been highly selective in my use of Nietzsche, in consideration of his whole corpus, such that the problem of "synthesis," to which you refer, does not arise. ~~~~~~~~~~~ You have mischaracterized Nietzsche - as I repeatedly pointed out - in regard to Nietzsche and Darwin. Exelsis_Deo 2003-06-22 03:36 | User Profile forgive my spelling, but Frederick Nietzche was a philosopher who I studied in depth, and his prognostications of a Superman a total man really are not political unless you make them. The Jews wanted to make them look racial. He was indeed a German nationalist but outside of this has absolutely no worth as a philospher. He died in Italy, while observing the death of a horse, which caused a ( I will not recognize your interpretation as truth ) fit and he died. Stop digging up this poor soul. Can you imagine if he spoke to you face to face.. NeoNietzsche 2003-06-22 13:06 | User Profile Originally posted by Exelsis_Deo@Jun 21 2003, 21:36 * forgive my spelling, but Frederick Nietzche was a philosopher who I studied in depth, and his prognostications of a Superman a total man really are not political unless you make them. The Jews wanted to make them look racial. He was indeed a German nationalist but outside of this has absolutely no worth as a philospher. He died in Italy, while observing the death of a horse, which caused a ( I will not recognize your interpretation as truth ) fit and he died. Stop digging up this poor soul. Can  you imagine if he spoke to you face to face..* Thanks for your comments, ED - in justice to Nietzsche, please give him some further study, GM and EH in particular. NeoNietzsche 2003-07-20 14:25 | User Profile Back to the point: Let&#39;s summarize what we&#39;ve learned to this point, Boys and Girls: 1) There is no such thing as Set-it-and-Forget-it government. Constitutionalism and Libertarianism fatuously indulge in the notion that there can be a government adhering to a consistent code of law, to which code the originators, interpreters, and enforcers thereof can be held by suasion. We now understand that no such consistent code has been or can be devised, and, in the absence of such rigor, there is insufficient basis for restraining these fiduciary agencies from eventually falling prey to corruption by individual or utopian inclinations and from perpetually adjusting or violating this necessarily inconsistent and non-comprehensive code. Thus the only *good* government, Boys and Girls, is *your* government - whatever form it takes in war and peace. For *all* polities resort to dictatorship and police state in time of war, in the measure of the extant emergency, (and we do not make the mistake of believing that the mere good fortune of having experienced little in the way of emergency is also a measure of our wisdom and virtue in public administration). The autocrat, the God of War, which you will have in any case and by whatever term his function is disguised for cosmetic ideological purposes, must be yours and yours alone - otherwise he - and you - will be in the service of another people, who will make their own use of "your" government, whatever form it may take and despite *your* interest in its performance. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > **[Okie:] Well not to rain on your [WM&#39;s] parade, but if "not all Christians are like that" "not all Jews are like that" either. Franco and the NA ilk will not accept that sort of reasoning. Just a grudging admission that "not all Christians are like that" establishes little. Rather, it is my contention that by any reasonable argument, the average Christian is much more anti-Jewish than the average NA member, and that goes for leaders as well. The problem comes in the definition of the "Jewish problem". [To] most NA[&#39;]ers, "anti-[S]emitism" simply equals "anti-[Z]ionism", and crucial ph*losophical/cultural issues are overlooked. In fact the basic NA[&#39;]er is really little different from a Stalin/Breznhev[-]type [C]ommunist if you scratch the surface. "National Socialism" is really just a[n] intellect[u]ally backward branch of "National Bolshevism" in this regard - Bolshevism being basically cultural Judaism at home and diplomatic/military anti-[S]emitism abroad. Christians are attacked because they tend to some extent to support Israel more than non-Christians, even though they have opposed cultural Judaism at home more than any other group, including the NA types. The NA/pagan attack on them is in other words a typical [C]ommunist[-]type attack, and [C]ommunism as we all [k]now is irredeemably anti-religious.** Brother Okie, in company with Brother Walter in Christian misconception of reality, here introduces a variation on the form-of-government error, amidst making hash of characterizations of "culture". Please avoid these multiple mistakes, Boys and Girls, and politely practice correct spelling and punctuation in your own intellectually forward correspondence. --- ### NeoNietzsche *2003-07-21 23:11* | [User Profile](/od/user/204) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This month&#39;s *NeoNietzschean Official Certificate of Mental Merit* goes to: ***********AntiYuppie************ for the following pertinent contribution: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The other observation is that the NS economy proves that it isn&#39;t bureaucratization, centralization, or even state ownership per se that renders "socialist" economic policies elsewhere (such as the Soviet Union) ineffective. The key difference seems to be that the Nazis appointed their most capable individuals as managers while the Soviets appointed their most incompetent people as managers (after having killed off the cream of their society). In The Managerial Revolution, Burnham noted that all classical economic theories predicted a collapse of the German economy and the Deutschmark within the first years of Hitler&#39;s regime. It never happened, proving that the inviolable "economic laws" of "free markets" are simply artifacts of particular institutions rather than hard laws of how economies must be run. This in turn suggests that there are alternative economic systems that can be as productive and efficient as the present one without suffering many of the pitfalls. Implicitly, many world leaders have recognized that this is the case, indeed, many free market purists have argued that the Japanese economy since the MacArthur regency (at least until the 1990&#39;s) has had more in common with the NS "corporate state" than with laissez-faire models. I will also add the caveat that one need not accept NS social policy in its entirety to give their economic system (and its precursors in 19th or even 18th century Germany) a fair hearing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Congratulations and Thanks to AY for displaying an outstanding grasp of politico-economic reality&#33; --- ### weisbrot *2003-07-22 00:49* | [User Profile](/od/user/151) Keep on ridin&#39;, ya existentialist cowpoke... ***Tumbling Tumbleweeds** I&#39;m a roaming cowboy, riding all day long Tumbleweeds around me sing their lonely song Nights underneath a prairie moon I ride alone and sing a tune See them tumbling down Pledging their love to the ground Lonely but free I&#39;ll be found Drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds Cares of the past are behind Nowhere to go but I&#39;ll find Just where the trail will wind Drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds I know when night has gone that a new world&#39;s born at dawn I&#39;ll keep rolling along Deep in my heart is a song Here on the range I belong Drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds* > **Please avoid these multiple mistakes, Boys and Girls, and politely practice correct spelling and punctuation in your own intellectually forward correspondence.** Perchance they are befuddled by your use of the obscure and mysterious term "fudiciary": > **...there is insufficient basis for restraining these fudiciary agencies...** --- ### weisbrot *2003-07-22 01:20* | [User Profile](/od/user/151) > **Would you like to know what it means?** I would prefer you save that morsel for the next Superman Scrabble Series. > **[Oh, and I would also enjoy your recitation of *El Paso*, if you don&#39;t mind]** [url=http://www.smickandsmodoo.com/aaa/lyrics/elpaso.htm]Enjoy&#33;[/url] (But on second thought, I think this ballad might be more appropriate for you and your proclivities): [url=http://home.allgaeu.org/brosa/gallo.htm]Gallo del Cielo[/url] Note:* Above post in response to an earlier post- since mysteriously deleted- asserting the correct spelling and usage of the term "fudiciary".* --- ### NeoNietzsche *2003-07-22 02:54* | [User Profile](/od/user/204) > *Originally posted by weisbrot@Jul 21 2003, 19:20 * **> **Would you like to know what it means?** I would prefer you save that morsel for the next Superman Scrabble Series. > **[Oh, and I would also enjoy your recitation of *El Paso*, if you don&#39;t mind]** [url=http://www.smickandsmodoo.com/aaa/lyrics/elpaso.htm]Enjoy&#33;[/url] (But on second thought, I think this ballad might be more appropriate for you and your proclivities): [url=http://home.allgaeu.org/brosa/gallo.htm]Gallo del Cielo[/url] Note:* Above post in response to an earlier post- since mysteriously deleted- asserting the correct spelling and usage of the term "fudiciary".*** [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=fudiciary&btnG=Google+Search]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-...G=Google+Search[/url] Thank you, Brother Weisbrot, for prompting the rectification of my own product. Have you any other such notice to contribute? Also, have you further ballads with which you might serenade me in pursuit of your own proclivities? --- ### NeoNietzsche *2003-07-22 04:54* | [User Profile](/od/user/204) [The following reproduced in hopes of inspiring Brother Weisbrot on to the earliest possible recovery:] Original Trinity Hymnal, #633 Jesus loves me, this I know, For the Bible tells me so; Little ones to him belong, They are weak but he is strong. Yes, Jesus loves me&#33; The Bible tells me so. Jesus loves me, he who died Heaven&#39;s gate to open wide; He will wash away my sin, Let his little child come in. Jesus loves me, loves me still, Though I&#39;m very weak and ill; From his shining throne on high Comes to watch me where I lie. Jesus loves me, he will stay Close beside me all the way: If I love him, when I die He will take me home on high. --- ### NeoNietzsche *2003-07-22 14:09* | [User Profile](/od/user/204) From our ministrations to our importunate Brother, Weisbrot, we turn again to the point of the Thread: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let&#39;s summarize what we&#39;ve learned to this point, Boys and Girls: 1) There is no such thing as Set-it-and-Forget-it government. Constitutionalism and Libertarianism fatuously indulge in the notion that there can be a government adhering to a consistent code of law, to which code the originators, interpreters, and enforcers thereof can be held by suasion. We now understand that no such consistent code has been or can be devised, and, in the absence of such rigor, there is insufficient basis for restraining these fiduciary agencies from eventually falling prey to corruption by individual or utopian inclinations and from perpetually adjusting or violating this necessarily inconsistent and non-comprehensive code. Thus the only *good* government, Boys and Girls, is *your* government - whatever form it takes in war and peace. For *all* polities resort to dictatorship and police state in time of war, in the measure of the extant emergency, (and we do not make the mistake of believing that the mere good fortune of having experienced little in the way of emergency is also a measure of our wisdom and virtue in public administration). The autocrat, the God of War, which you will have in any case and by whatever term his function is disguised for cosmetic ideological purposes, must be yours and yours alone - otherwise he - and you - will be in the service of another people, who will make their own use of "your" government, whatever form it may take and despite *your* interest in its performance. 2) And Sin-and-Salvation, like schizophrenia, is all in your heads, Boys and Girls. For the world of rational adults is one of actions-have-consequences, according to observed patterns in the external environment, and not one of contrite answerability to a non-existent supervisory entity devised by aliens for their own purposes. We understand that some boys and girls have been made to feel supremely naughty for their nasty inclinations and unsatisfied appetities, and that their inward restraint of these impulses may well be desirable from the standpoint of the good order of society. But we now understand that one&#39;s answerability and responsible behavior is, rather, properly with regard to one&#39;s fellows, when the issue is placed in its proper and realistic perspective. For to believe that one&#39;s inward and outward misdemeanors are of cosmological import, apprehended by the imagined universal deity either directly or through the agency of a deputized confessor, is paranoiac - and clinically consistent with the witch-hunting hysteria which we observe periodically emerging to evidence the psychotropic character of this intoxicating ethical dualism, appearing among us as Good-and-Evil and Sin-and-Salvation. We understand that indulgence in this form of intoxication has seriously deleterious consequences for the exercise of good judgment in the regulation of public affairs, given the implicit tendency to sanctimoniously moralize and to irrationally crusade to no good end. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > **[Okie:] Firstly universalism and egalitarianism are not the same. There are many different kinds of universalism in a metaphysical sense. A Christian would indeed assert that all mankind is universally related in a spiritual sense. We are all created by God, and uniquely marred universally by the [F]all and sin. This spiritual kinship on a spiritual plane of course does not in any sense equate to equality/equivalence on a temporal/profane plane of course. The spiritual relationship in the end simply will transcend these differences, they ce[r]tainly will not abolish them on the temporal plane, as the secular egalitarian attempts to do.** This is an interesting combination of the two fundamental errors. Implicit in the (merely mental) notion of "sin" with which the Brethren are obviously troubled, as above, is the naive notion of *perfection*. Brother Okie thus speaks of us as "marred" - as if there were some rational/consistent standard of polish in human aspect with which comparisons could be made. This is the equivalent, in failure to apprehend the intrinsic countervailing considerations in establishing standards, of the familiar form-of-government moralizing stupidity. [Also note, Boys and Girls, that the week&#39;s *Most Improved Speller* award cheerfully goes to Okiereddust, for his latest efforts on our behalf.] --- ### NeoNietzsche *2003-07-24 01:22* | [User Profile](/od/user/204) > *Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jul 23 2003, 14:49 * **Thanks NeoNietzsche. Now where do I go to get my prize (and what is it)?** AY, Please "go" to your printer and reproduce, as yours to proudly display, my post announcing that you were the recipient of our "Official Certificate". Congratulations again - yours is a gift, and a boon to us, which deserves recognition. Neo, Fellow Reactionary Modernist --- ### NeoNietzsche *2003-07-24 01:35* | [User Profile](/od/user/204) > *Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jul 23 2003, 14:49 * **By the way, I&#39;d be interested in your commentary and feedback on the subject, as well as that of Triskelion&nbsp; [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9533]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...?showtopic=9533[/url]** The fact is, AY, that your contribution to the thread was so superb that there was nothing to add or to qualify, hence the resort to awarding you recognition for a peerless performance. You&#39;ve raised the bar for scholarly performance around here. I&#39;m astounded that someone your age has gotten as far into this as have you at this level. --- ### NeoNietzsche *2003-07-25 13:04* | [User Profile](/od/user/204) AY continues to shine forth on the first of our most vital issues: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The reason I believe that this [Trifkovic&#39;s] piece muddies the waters is the same reason that most libertarian (and many paleoconservative) accounts of neoism confuse the issues. Namely, they confuse ideology with the methods used to implement it. Thus, they lump neoconservatism and Nazism into the same category because both are "imperialist" and favor "big government," regardless of the fact that the imperialism and "big government" aspects are simply the means these ideologies employ to achieve their opposite ends. Neoconservatism does have much in common with Marxism, not only in methodology but at its ideological core, but here the important parallels are not the "big government" aspects but rather the internationalism and materialism that lies at the heart of both worldviews. Also, any account of neoconservatism that ignores the fact that Zionism forms the core of their beliefs (with almost everything else ad hoc) completely misses the point. The author hints at the Zionist and Jewish tribalist aspects of neoism in his piece with references to parasitism, but he makes this peripheral to talk about "statism" and "imperialism." And even putting aside the Jewish aspect of neoism, there are many aspects of the neocon agenda (i.e. being a political mouthpiece for Wall Street and International Finance) that are much more central than what Trifkovic discusses here. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-03 17:35 | User Profile AntiYuppie steps up to the plate and knocks another FWI spitball out of the park: Originally posted by AntiYuppie+Aug 3 2003, 10:49 --> QUOTE (AntiYuppie @ Aug 3 2003, 10:49 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Frederick William I@Aug 2 2003, 23:30 * *As to Hitler's economic policies, I think they are a dead horse.  The best thing you can say about them is they managed to alienate just about everybody, right and left.  Socialists hate his sell[-]out to the Krupps and Th[y]ss[e]ns. [A]nd [C]apitalists corr[e]ctly note the great economic failures of the Third Reich, whose policies the SPD tried to retain, but which Erhard succes[s]fully cast off and [so] started the post-war German economic miracle. ** As to the issue of the NS economy, I believe that you're simply echoing the libertarian line as you tend to do with Smoot-Hawley. It is an indisputable fact that the employment rate and standard of living went up significantly in the 1930's, and whatever economic hardships occur[r]ed later were due not to any failures of the NS economic system but to the fact that most resources were diverted to the war effort. I will further add that the Post[-]WW2 "economic miracles" (again contra libertarian rhetoric) were not due to "free markets" at all, but to highly[-]centralized economic systems which were by all accounts bureaucratized and "managerial" [rather] than [in accord] with the daydreams of Bastiat. The Japanese economy in particular, which grew non-stop from the late 40's well into the late 80's and early 90's, has been disparagin[g]ly referred to by the WSJ as "having more in common with Nazi Germany than with free market capitalism."** NeoNietzsche 2003-08-06 04:27 | User Profile Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Aug 5 2003, 15:38 * *I believe that economics is a practical affair, and the nature of the national economy should be determined by pragmatic rather than ideological considerations. The economy should serve the people and the nation, not vice-versa. Hence, Jamestown's remark that most successful modern economies are "mixed" should serve as a model for any viable rightwing movement's platform. Just as a Marxist economy robbed of a private sector has proved non-operational, history has shown that experiments in laissez-faire during the 20th century have been abysmal failures, subject to wild boom and bust fluctuations and the creation of a huge, disenfranchised underclass. The absymal failure of laissez-faire experiments in Latin America and Eastern Europe is as much a testament to the dangers of ideological thinking in practical matters as experiments in collectivization. What this means is that an economy should preserve private property and individual enterprise, while excluding the hegemony of international finance through various regulatory measures.** NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 00:37 | User Profile Originally posted by Okiereddust@Aug 7 2003, 10:34 * *(Note - I'm sure you will detect a slight note of ingratiation toward establishment positions, but overall the message is clear as to the direction of this country's "conservative establishment") - Okiereddust NeoCons - Or Vichy Cons? John Zmirak writes: ...On reflection, I think what makes Ponnuru’s assertion [“We reject the idea that conservatism should form a kind of identity politics for white people.”] interesting is the double standard it betrays. Neoconservatives take for granted that every other ethnic group in the world—especially American minorities— develop “identity politics.” From the Congressional Black Caucus to the Israeli Likud Party, neocons accept as normal group-based politics based on a sense of ethnic kinship. The only groups to whom they’d deny this form of micro-patriotism are the (vanishing) majority groups in Europe and America—as if white people should somehow be “above” that sort of thing.** How many foolish White people who are above that sort of thing do you know, Boys and Girls?