Who are we?

I was watching videos of myself when I was a teenager today. I looked constantly unhappy. I knew I’d been alienated from  my peers, and that I’d held them in contempt and was constantly wary of people. I knew I’d never shared my innermost thoughts with people because I’d known they would never be able to understand or relate to them. Today, I wondered why. Had I been mistaken as a teenager? Was all this the result of bad experiences with a few people being generalised too broadly?

This is what I thought, and then later today, some people I know were talking about a child who had been given medication for ADHD. They smiled and nodded. They talked about how ‘well he was doing’ and how much ‘his grades had improved at school.’ These people, like the majority of people on planet Earth, are nothing but ego and are incapable of introspection or self-criticism. What they did not do was consider that it is wrong to say there is something wrong with a child because the education system cannot meet his needs. The system doesn’t work, so they blame the child. The child is bored in class, so instead of making the lesson less boring they say there is something wrong with the child. The child has his own thoughts and opinions, and instead of encouraging the child to think critically and independently they say there must be something wrong with the child or he is ‘answering back’. The child is unhappy because he is being forced to learn about something he doesn’t care about or has no aptitude for, so instead of finding something the child is interested in or good at, they say there is something wrong with the child. The child doesn’t see why he should have to take orders from someone he doesn’t respect, so instead of earning the child’s respect, we say there is something wrong with the child.

At the school I went to, you could get in trouble for denying that a Catholic priest can magically turn wine and bread into the body and blood of Christ. Instead of thinking that the child has a point and this is an absurd belief, there must be something wrong with the child. The teachers simply continue to indoctrinate children into Catholicism, which in my books automatically makes them enemies of the human race. People complain about child abuse and child slavery, but medicating a child for ADHD is worse than beating them with a stick. Reaching into their mind and controlling their thoughts a more complete form of slavery than than forcing them to work in a sweat shop.

And the same people who have these disgusting opinions claim to believe in democracy, ‘human rights’ and freedom’. The modern politically correct people don’t give a damn about children. This is one of the things that make political correctness more disgusting than the way people thought hundreds of years ago, because while people in those days were racist or sexist, they were at least honest about their selfishness, but now these people who are really no better pride themselves on how ‘liberal’ and ‘compassionate’ they are. Today, the wikipedia article on Confucius says that Confucianism preaches ‘respect of elders by their children and (in traditional interpretations) of husbands by their wives’, as if it was a barbaric ideology when it was interpreted so that women had an inferior position, but that children absolutely do not matter and that as long as women are not considered inferior everything is fine.

Funnily enough, even some anti-Hitler propagandists realise that the National Socialists have a radically different attitude towards children. I remember reading a passage in ‘The Boy in the Striped Pjamas’ where the Commandant of Auschwitz’s ten year-old son confronts him, and the Commandant compliments him on his bravery and says it is a healthy thing for a child to be like that.

I let my guard down, felt ready to forgive and accept people, and then they immediately do something disgusting to let me know it was a mistake to do so. If people ever wondered why I seem depressed or hostile or unmotivated, then this sort of thing, as well as a thousand others (not just childcare issues), is the reason why.

I have always looked down on the sort of people who go around looking for a fight. If you put a group a group of people in a room at work or at school, they will eventually divide into separate tribes and start bickering with each other. They do so not because they have a genuine disagreement, but because they like conflict and look for excuses to argue with each other. One of the best examples is women gossiping with each other. But I am the opposite. I am always ready to excuse and forgive people, and I have done so many times even when they have not deserved it. I have picked at my own flaws when I should have been condemning others. The fact that despite this constant forgiveness I have become as misanthropic as I am just goes to show how evil humanity really is.

When I was 16, I ran away from home. I refused to be one of the people who just accept the way things are, who sees these disgusting things happening and does nothing. I made a stand. I’d listened to my family and my school telling me for long enough how my only hope to get a big house and a fast car was to do things their way, so I proved to them how little I cared about these things by walking away from them and rejecting their way of doing things without reservation. I have no motivation to work or compete in life, because I’m not interested in being ‘successful’, which today means having a house with an extra couple of bedrooms and an extra holiday every year (I mean, seriously, are people really motivated by this? Do they really think that a bigger house and a couple of extra weeks off is something worth working for? What the fuck is the big deal?) What I am interested in is fighting to create a world where people like Leon Eisenstein (Jew, ‘discoverer of ADHD) and Jed Rubenfeld (Jew, covered here: http://aryanism.net/culture/childcare/) or the Jews who think the Messiah will come when all children are disobedient to their parents (http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm) are lined up against a wall and shot like they deserve. I really have no motivation to waste my time getting a degree or working my ass off to get some shitty office job while I know people like this are still allowed to breathe and nothing is being done to strip them of this right.

In fact, I had some very specific plans in mind about how I would fight to build the sort of world I wanted to live in once I’d severed ties with my old life. I failed, and I still remember being brought back to my parents’ house after several days of being missing, with the asshole who lived next door saying something like ‘Someone’s been a very silly boy.’ Why? Because I refuse to just smile and nod like a zombie at the disgusting things that plague our world? These people are cowards. They have no purpose in life nor do they want one. They ask us what we have ever achieved by taking risks, and we must ask them what they have ever achieved by not taking risks. They tell us our idealism will never lead to success in life, and we must ask them what good their worldly success will be when they are rotting in a wooden box. We might have something to show for the lives we live, but they will have nothing. They are so proud of their ‘achievements’, but they have achieved nothing. The world is full of evil when they enter it, and it remains full of evil when they leave because instead of fighting the evil they waste their lives trying to gain more social status than their neighbour, and in doing so prove their mediocrity. They make a fuss about pretend enemies, like a rival football team, but do nothing about real enemies. History will forget their mediocrity and passiveness. They will make no difference to the world, and they will not try to. That is not our fate. We have declared ourselves to be at war with the world.

This entry was posted in Anthony. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Who are we?

  1. Aryan Aim says:

    I was estranged and depressed as a teenager as well, and dealt with many woes at home, as a result I felt numb and detached. There presumptively is not an Aryanist here who was fortunate to grow up amongst fellow Aryans.

    I know what must be done and am honored to have you as a true friend and comrade. I’ve made some phone calls for price estimates that I should know more about Monday, have spent countless hours drawing out the floor plan and finding out what we’ll need, opened up an account specifically for raising the money we’ll need and it’s PayPal ready, and will be contacting the county governments soon to ensure everything will be to ‘code’ and legal.

    Not long from now the Aryanist net-community will be presented with the opportunity of becoming a real flesh and blood working community.

  2. Excellent post Anthony; I too was (and stll am to a large extent) alienated from the peer group, community and society around me. The only difference being that today, I am a lot happier to live a solitary (for the most part) life. When I see people, I see ‘problems’ immediately. Groupthink and willful ignorance is the programme most people follow, no matter how enlightened or open minded they foolishly believe themselves to be. I’ve tried to intergrate myself several times in the last decade; to mix better, and be more ‘accepting’ of people; it’s been a mistake every time. Making allowances for the immorality and ignorance of the ziobot’s is to become ignorant one’s self.

    @Aryan Aim: You’re community ideas sound very interesting :)

  3. mandrake says:

    Raw, direct and heartfelt Anthony. I find more and more people drawn to the authentic way of Adolf Hitler to be of the same kin, call it ‘blood memory’ of our common heritage that of Hyperborea, that of our real homeland. Aryans aren’t a myth, they’re real, they exist in the beating heart of our folk, despised and misunderstood and utterly misrepresented in this World which we find ourselves.

    AA and ND, you’re brothers of the same kin, the same heritage and the same will.

    Sieg Heil.

    HAIL VICTORY. HEIL HITLER.

  4. Anthony says:

    Thank you, Kameraden.

  5. AS says:

    Psychoanalysts often try to explain away the attitudes of people like ourselves by accounting them to miserable childhoods, or miserable pasts in general. This is quite an effective low-level propaganda technique, because most people do not want to admit their past misery, and especially do not want to admit to having been primarily shaped by their past misery. With such a psychoanalytical verdict out in the open, these people become aware that to subscribe to our worldview is to admit to having been shaped by their misery, therefore they would rather not join us even if they agree with us on some issues.

    In the traditional worldview, to have been primarily shaped by misery is considered “pessimistic” and “whiny”. According to this worldview, we are supposed to gradually forget past misery and “move on” with our lives. We are told that it is “strong” to be able to move on and “weak” to be perpetually haunted by past misery. We are supposed to concentrate on that which affirms that life is good and turn a blind eye to everything else. We are supposed to thank whatever our parents, traditional society and (in theist circles) our creator god have been able to give us at all, not resent the injustices that first had to be done in order for such gifts to have been possible. To feel otherwise is to be “ungrateful” or even (in one of the most total inversions of the truth ever) “selfish”. The complainer is made to feel petty by being accused of “rocking the boat”.

    To use an elementary example, if someone kills a cow and then shares the meat with us, we are supposed to appreciate the hunter’s generosity towards ourselves, not angry for what he did to the cow. That is the traditional worldview in a nutshell.

    To overcome this technique, we must emphasize that to have been shaped by our past misery is nothing to be ashamed of. In our worldview, to have experienced misery and yet to be able to cease being affected by it over time is what is truly despicable. If you “move on”, you are deserting. If you are not haunted by past misery, you have no conscience, and no loyalty to who you were. What they call “strength”, we call cowardice; what they call “weakness”, we call devotion. If you are thankful to the gifts of tradition, you are selling your soul for silver and crucifying the only personality that could ever have overthrown it. Of course we are rocking the boat, our aim is to sink it! What they call “pessimism” is, in fact, Gnosticism.

    With that said, the risk-averse zombies (as Anthony has called them), while despicable, are not too dangerous strategically, as by the same token they will not risk themselves to stand against our cause, so we need not worry about them. The greater danger comes from those who are willing to risk themselves, but for causes opposed to ours.

  6. @AS: Truly wise words. Your analogy of the cow and hunter pretty much nails the mindset of the mass population; we are expected to be grateful for the ‘fruits’ of zion’s criminal ignobility.

    “Of course we are rocking the boat, our aim is to sink it!”. I think this defines Aryanism’s attitude to planet zion more than any other maxim I have ever read.

    @Mandrake: Thank you, and Heil brother!

    Also, if possible, i’d like to stop using the username Northern Dawn from now on, in favour of using my own name; ‘Brian’. Northern Dawn has a distinct similarity to ‘golden dawn’, and i’d rather not have any confusion surrounding my allegiances in this respect.

    Is this ok with admin?

  7. mandrake says:

    Agreed ND.

    AS’s post is as usual spot on.

    I’ve never been in contact with so many people who I think are the ‘same’ as me in their outlook. Truly the Aryanist cause is a movement that is brimming with people of the highest caliber.

  8. Anthony says:

    @ND Yes, that’s fine. SS changed his name too, after all.

  9. Brian says:

    Thanks Anthony :)

    Sieg!

    88.

  10. NonCompromisingTruthSeeker says:

    Caution, if my intentions seem hostile they are not, it could be my poor communication skills.

    @Admin in Anthony (author): “Why? Because I refuse to just smile and nod like a zombie at the disgusting things that plague our world? These people are cowards.”

    No, WE are the cowards! We use aliases rather than our REAL names. Now I’m sure I will be met with the arguments of, “well we use aliases to avoid being persecuted/arrested/or tracked by the authorities of the government.” It doesn’t matter though, the whole point is we FEAR using our real identities, and that FEAR is what MAKES us cowards.

    I have no shame in saying I’m a coward. The question is not if I’ll stop being a coward someday, but when.

    —————-

    With regards to my own path. I once loved the world – believed in everything I was told. I then hated the world – I questioned everything, and retaught myself. Today, I no longer love or hate the world, I’ve grown indifferent to it.

  11. mandrake says:

    When you’re in opposition of the World’s primary crime syndicate who will use any means of conventional and cyber warfare to defame and even murder opponents, I’d say it was wise using an alias.

  12. Anthony says:

    ‘We use aliases rather than our REAL names.’
    Anthony is my real name. It doesn’t matter anyway – they could find us if they wanted to. I mean, come on – I joined the facebook page! I suspect they presently don’t see us as enough of a threat to take any action. The reason other people don’t show fear is because they have nothing to fear because they aren’t doing anything.

    ‘I’ve grown indifferent to it.’
    Your recent statements would suggest otherwise.

  13. NonCompromisingTruthSeeker says:

    “Your recent statements would suggest otherwise.”

    You’re right. However, I’ve felt indifferent to it for the past 2 weeks or so, but I could also just be lying to myself – who knows? The more I live, the more I feel I’m losing myself.

    I’ll be honest though. I’ve had this nagging thought forever, that I’l finally break out of my shell once I reach a position of power within in society. But what if that day never comes? Why do I feel that I need to attain a certain “power” status before I can finally come out and publicly speak? Maybe I FEAR rejection too much, or have too much or too little pride in myself? I feel that if I have “power” that there will be less rejection.

    I truly don’t know, just don’t know.

  14. Phoenix says:

    Stay focused. Stay hungry. Go beyond any obstacles set before you. These words do not lose meaning for me, I repeat them to myself often. It isn’t hope that drives me to want to change the way I live and touch the lives of other’s by setting an example, it is because I have the will to do so.

    A sculpture is ruthless in their mission to find the truly beautiful, the perfection within the shapeless stone. As an artist myself, I do not do what I do because it makes me happy. No, that isn’t the point, that was never the point.

    I do what I do because I am searching tirelessly to improve upon my improvements, search for perfection and fine tune indefinitely, knowing that I draw closer to carving out the most beautiful shapes and drawing better and better lines, purer and more vibrant colors. To search for the beauty and envision a future that is better than today.

    That commitment alone is what has driven me to reflect and see the world from the puny view I have to it. I really think that is who I am. That is who WE ARE. Sculptures of a better future. Our individual struggles will pave the way for our future generations. There is no alternative.

  15. Anthony says:

    NCTS: ‘Why do I feel that I need to attain a certain “power” status before I can finally come out and publicly speak?’

    I’m quite surprised by this, I thought you had a more confrontational personality type (no negative connotations there.)

    Phoenix: ‘As an artist myself, I do not do what I do because it makes me happy. No, that isn’t the point, that was never the point.’

    That’s the spirit!

  16. mandrake says:

    Compulsion to do something, not because it’s rewarding or fame begetting is the spirit of Aryanism.

  17. Decebal says:

    Mandrake, I have one correction: for future purposes, we shouldn’t speak of “rewards” as a bad thing, because that doesn’t motivate people to follow passionately, but to think “Well, I have to do X, even if it’s really hard.” Instead, we must do away with the purely materialistic conception we have of rewards – money, prestige, etc. – and promote the actions as so desirable that just being able to carry out one’s duty and practice virtue is rewarding in itself – the victory of the Tragic over the Comic, as Ramon Bau would have it.

  18. AS says:

    Decebal, mandrake is correct.

    “promote the actions as so desirable that just being able to carry out one’s duty and practice virtue is rewarding in itself”

    No, this would imply that we would want our duties to continue perpetually, at which point they cease to be duties and become hedonism, and we become survivalists. We want our duties to end ASAP. We do not want to stay here a moment longer than is necessary.

    http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/survivalism-vs-militarism/

    Should a doctor desire to practice medicine so much that he hopes people will keep falling ill? Should a firefighter desire to fight fires so much that he hopes buildings will keep catching fire? No, the Aryan doctor’s ideal is to be able to cease practicing medicine, and the Aryan firefighter’s ideal is to be able to cease firefighting, and the same is true of all action. We what we do because we look forward to the day when we can STOP doing it ever after, the sooner the better. Anything else is non-militaristic and thus ignoble.

    This is why “virtue” is not in our vocabulary, as the concept leads to exactly the kind of non-militaristic thought process that you have described.

  19. Decebal says:

    AS, I agree with what you say. I was not promoting the accomplishment of duties by creating problems for eternity: this I would call un-Aryan, because the goal is no longer the duty in itself, but the ecstasy felt when completing that duty. What I meant to say is that duty is approached and done with a joyful spirit, because the correct action, regardless of how big or small its impact, brings us one step closer to the final destination. We shouldn’t face our challenges with a sorrowful face – “Woe is me! Had not the gods called me to take this action, how much easier and more pleasurable would my life had been!” It is completely understandable that we should feel this way sometimes: we are human too. Once our humanness is transcended, however, the thought that through our sacrifice we have participated in the completion of the mission should be more joyful than the thought of not having done anything and enjoying a comfortable life. In conclusion, what I (and Aryans should) desire is not completing duties for eternity – if the goal cannot be reached, then how could we possibly speak of duty and not silliness? – but to be able to help in any way possible if necessary.

  20. Aryan Aim says:

    @AS.

    “We do not want to stay here a moment longer than is necessary.”

    This comes across as nihilistic to me. Isn’t the point to Aryanize the world population completely… then what, everyone simultaneously stops procreating and dies or kills themselves?

    I fight and will die in battle (preferably) for a new Golden Age and all that this implies, NOT a future of perpetual nothingness.

  21. Aryan Aim says:

    On joy or happiness, is there anything wrong with this emotion when it arises from a place of dutiful fulfillment, spiritual wellness, freedom from materialistic impulse, and good health? I don’t think so. As long as the point of attaining the goal isn’t to acquire happiness. The subsequent fulfillment that coincides with attaining ones tasks should not be considered a weakness by Aryan standards, no more than expressions of excitement and high spirits when taking on a task be thought of as ignoble. As long as it is destroying the foe and thereafter (for future Aryan generations) creating a beautiful world – that motivates one’s actions rather than personal reward, I see no issues with subsequent feelings of joy and in fact encourage life-affirmation if that life is promotive of universalism and nobility.

  22. AS says:

    “This comes across as nihilistic to me.”

    “Nihilist” is a term from the survivalist worldview, but with that in mind, yes it is, though I myself prefer the term “militarist”. Accusation of nihilism is in fact the most common attack used by traditionalists against Gnostics through the ages, while Gnostics in return attack traditionalists by accusing them of hedonism. This is a very old conflict between the two sides. You will have to do your own soul-searching and figure out which side you are on. We have advertized the Aryanist movement as a Gnostic-sympathetic movement from the beginning, so I don’t believe we have been inconsistent or misleading.

    Again I recommend this article which lays out the history of the whole topic:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p335_Whisker.html

    “Isn’t the point to Aryanize the world population completely… then what, everyone simultaneously stops procreating and dies or kills themselves?”

    Yes, ultimately I expect everyone to voluntarily stop procreating. We have stated explicitly and repeatedly that birth is violence towards the child being born who never chose to be born, and a genuinely Aryanized world would be horrified at the very prospect of enslaving even one more child by forcing him into existence. Any world that feels no horror at such a prospect is not yet Aryanized, and those within it who do feel such horror would have to continue the struggle to get rid of those who do not.

    http://aryanism.net/philosophy/violence/

    http://aryanism.net/politics/population-and-demographics/

    “I fight and will die in battle (preferably) for a new Golden Age and all that this implies, NOT a future of perpetual nothingness.”

    I do not doubt your battle-readiness, but suppose we succeed in bringing forth a new Golden Age. What would be its purpose for existing? At what point would this be purpose fulfilled, and the Golden Age can thereafter safely end? Because remember, any so-called “purpose” which cannot be fulfilled is not a purpose at all.

    Our worldview is that the only things whose existence can be justified are things which have a purpose for existing. A purpose must be fulfillable. Therefore the only things whose existence can be justified are things which should cease to exist after their purpose has been fulfilled. (By the way, this is just a straightforward rewording of the explanation on the Survivalism vs Militarism page, where “mission” is used instead of “purpose” and “completion” is used instead of “fulfillment”, but the logic is identical.) I invite you now to apply this view to the Golden Age world and see where it leads you.

    (mandrake understands this idea easily because he is familiar with the Bodhisattva Vows, which is what I’m guessing he was thinking about when he wrote his comment.)

    “As long as it is destroying the foe and thereafter (for future Aryan generations) creating a beautiful world”

    Again, what would be the purpose of this beautiful world, and at what point would this purpose be fulfilled?

  23. Aryan Aim says:

    With nonexistence there’s no point to anything. Nothingness is void of purpose as well; if there’s no purpose than what’s the purpose of reaching this point of no purpose? Material transcendence is one thing, for many the aim is achieving freedom outside the physical realm into the nonphysical realm, where exploitation doesn’t exist – this would be a future actually more REAL than present physical existence.

  24. AS says:

    “Nothingness is void of purpose as well; if there’s no purpose than what’s the purpose of reaching this point of no purpose?”

    Only that which exists needs to be justified by a purpose for existing; nonexistence requires no justification. We don’t ask for the purpose of microwave ovens with flapping wings not existing; we ask for a purpose to justify bringing microwave ovens with flapping wings into existence. If you ask me to lend you $100, it would make sense for me ask what you need the $100 for. But if you don’t ask me to lend you any money in the first place, it wouldn’t make sense for me to suddenly come up to you and ask what you need the $0 for. You seem to be arguing that, because the $0 isn’t for anything worthwhile, therefore I might as well lend you $100 even if the $100 isn’t for anything worthwhile either!

    “for many the aim is achieving freedom outside the physical realm into the nonphysical realm”

    I personally believe in a spiritual realm outside the material realm. But this is the kind of thing I prefer not to discuss in public, because discussing it makes it sound like our ideology is contingent on certain metaphysical beliefs, which it is not. I prefer to keep it purely about ATTITUDES, not beliefs. In other words, even if we were to assume that the material realm is the only realm there is, even if we possessed certain knowledge that there is no other realm to move to, STILL we should not want to stay here any longer than is necessary. This is the militarist attitude that we want. Whatever beliefs individual Aryanists wish to privately use to supplement this attitude is entirely their own choice. But on principle I will never make metaphysical claims as part of Aryanist ideology. On the main site, transcending material existence is mentioned several times, but not once do we officially claim that there is anything beyond material existence. This is done deliberately; whether or not there is anything beyond material existence should make no difference to us.

  25. Aryan Aim says:

    “…whether or not there is anything beyond material existence should make no difference to us.”

    If the point is freedom then I disagree and believe it makes all the difference. It’s universally accepted by Aryanists that spiritual transcendence of the material world is the only way to freedom, thus if there’s nothing beyond the physical realm then there is no freedom and no point to anything. Whether the consciousness stays intact beyond death doesn’t concern me, however whether we can evolve into pure energy beings (free beings) through Aryanization – does. If this isn’t a goal what then is our point to action – simply to destroy the foe, then destroy ourselves and maybe even the earth too? If this is the end goal, I don’t mean to sound impudent, but why not allow Time to take its course to the same end! And if we plan to just take ourselves out and leave the Earth healthy, would not Nature cyclically resume where it left off and start the whole mess of natural selection over again?

    I agree that it’s about attitude – that’s why I’m against the pessimist premise of fighting for nothing and not caring whether there is something beyond materialism when materialism is exactly what we strive to succeed.

  26. Anthony says:

    I don’t know why AS didn’t just say much earlier that he thinks we should aim for nothingness only if it is impossible to move into a spiritual realm so we could have avoided all the arguments we have had. Of course I would prefer to not exist if there is nothing outside of the material world. (Not existing may be impossible too, but I’m not going to get into because it’s too complicated and talking about it would be a waste of time.)

    I think one of the main errors that led to the conclusion that we should aim for nothingness is that if God created everything (I don’t know whether one god created everything or whether things needed to be created at all, but I’ll continue this line of argument anyway) then we are somehow being hypocrites if we reject the good things he created as well a the bad i.e. if we accept the good things then it is immoral not to show gratitude or our anger towards god is insincere. But actually this sort of attitude comes from the Jews. It is ‘debt morality’. The correct attitude is that someone doing something good for you does not give them the licence to do something bad, and we are entitled to be just as angry a we would have been if they’d only done the bad thing. The young man in this film has the right attitude. (Yes I know it was directed by a Jew – the point still stands):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbv41abhC3c

  27. Aryan Aim says:

    Extending on this topic, one of the duelist views I disagree with on this network is “Nietzsche vs Schopenhauer = Fascism vs National Socialism”. Nietzsche was on to something by succeeding Schopenhauer’s (as well as his own former) nihilism and pessimism – with the Ubermensch doctrine in Zarathustra. If Hitler truly opposed this, which I doubt really can be said for sure since Hitler’s outspoken opinions varied somewhat depending on who he was talking to, then such an attitude would allude to his “more Sun than Lightning” fallacy I think. It’s obvious from reading SD that she was inspired by Nietzsche’s doctrine and she was closer to being equally Lightning and Sun. Also, the quote on this site by Rosenberg that derides Zarathustra comes from a Nordicist! Alfred Rosenberg was a Nordic supremacist, agreeable as many of his points are, this is irrefutable. He spoke badly of Nietzsche’s NON-racist conception of higher man. This in itself – criticisms of Nietzsche aside – doesn’t bode well to me; and that’s putting it lightly.

  28. Anthony says:

    Aryan_Aim: I thought we’d discussed the problems with Nietzsche in great detail ages ago. What part did you not agree with? Nietzsche believed in slavery and in accumulating power for its own sake. I share his contempt for slavishness and that’s it. In just about everything else I disagree with him.

    And why is the ‘more Sun than lightning’ idea a fallacy?

  29. Aryan Aim says:

    Good video clip, Anthony.

  30. Anthony says:

    I’ve actually just read the NS and Fascism page again. One thing I do disagree with is the recently adding statement that authentic Fascists are non-racist. If the aim of Fascism is to maximise the power of a given tribe, I do not see how racists cannot be authentic Fascists. It doesn’t really make sense. That article used to be really good but now it is just confusing. It also says that the reason present far-right groups are not Fascist is because they aim to divide society. I agree they are not Fascist, but the reason they are not Fascist is because most of them see ‘non-whites’ as a threat to the ‘Western way of life’ i.e. democracy, capitalism, freedom of speech etc., all of which are completely incompatible with Fascism.

  31. Aryan Aim says:

    Not in itself; for Hitler more Lightning than what he had was needed to accomplish what was necessary. He was not “the one”. That’s what I meant.

    Nietzsche’s conception of higher man was one who had the gull required to acquire power and make man anew. Schopenhauer inspires introversive contemplation and extroversive examination, Nietzsche’s latter writings inspire action with a tangible goal – succeeding man and doing so by way of whatever means necessary. He left morality undefined because he wanted to inspire revaluation of all modern values – a new ethics. I feel his greatest work is an invaluable addition to Aryan literature for these reasons.

  32. Aryan Aim says:

    “Not in itself” was directed toward your ‘more Sun than Lightning’ question, btw.

  33. AS says:

    @AryanAim

    “If the point is freedom then I disagree and believe it makes all the difference. It’s universally accepted by Aryanists that spiritual transcendence of the material world is the only way to freedom, thus if there’s nothing beyond the physical realm then there is no freedom and no point to anything.”

    Freedom in our worldview is not an effect produced by certain conditions, but an internal attitude, specifically an attitude of defiance.

    http://aryanism.net/philosophy/what-is-freedom/

    If you can be affected by metaphysical conditions (e.g. whether or not there exists something beyond the physical realm), your so-called “freedom” is DEPENDENT UPON a certain metaphysical model being true, therefore it is not freedom at all. We are only genuinely free when there is no metaphysical possibility that can affect our outlook.

    If you merely want to transcend the material world because you believe there is a better world outside, or even because you know for certain that there is a better world outside, you are not free. You are free only when you want to transcend the material world REGARDLESS OF whether or not there is a better world outside. I did not choose to be born in this world; this is sufficient reason for me as a free spirit to aim to transcend this world, even if there is nothing to look forward to afterwards. The point is purely to defy my enslavement, not necessarily to seek anything better.

    Imagine three people being locked inside a prison cell all their lives who know nothing of what lies outside the walls. The first person spends his time listening to the faint sounds through the walls and trying to figure out what the outside is like before he makes his decision whether or not it is worth trying to escape. The second person convinces himself that the world outside the walls is extremely pleasant, frequently imagines the hypothetical pleasure in his mind, and based on these imaginings is determined to escape. The third person merely looks at the walls themselves, which he knows someone built to keep him inside without his own consent, and on this basis alone is determined to escape. Which person best captures the essence of freedom?

    “Whether the consciousness stays intact beyond death doesn’t concern me, however whether we can evolve into pure energy beings (free beings) through Aryanization – does.”

    OK then, suppose you were presented with 100% certain knowledge that it is impossible for us to ever evolve into pure energy beings. What then? Would your anger towards the material world disappear as a consequence of learning a cold fact? Or would you still feel the anger? If the latter, then I suggest you have the essence of freedom within you.

    “If this isn’t a goal what then is our point to action – simply to destroy the foe, then destroy ourselves and maybe even the earth too? If this is the end goal, I don’t mean to sound impudent, but why not allow Time to take its course to the same end!”

    Because by passively allowing time to take its course even if to the same end, we fail to manifest defiance in the present moment! It’s like the difference between a rape victim who fights back and a rape victim who merely lets the rape take its course. Time will ensure the rape is over sooner or later, but the attitude of the rape victim during the rape makes all the difference. Even if the rapist is much stronger, even if by fighting back the rape ends up prolonged or more painful or more dangerous, or whatever else, I will ALWAYS recommend the rape victim to fight back as hard as he can. Only by doing so does the rape victim stay free.

    By being born without our own consent, we are constant rape victims through the entire duration of our existence. We can fight back or we can passively wait for it to end. Your call.

    Besides, in the case of something as vast as existence, we don’t even know that it will end by itself, as you yourself note in your next point.

    “And if we plan to just take ourselves out and leave the Earth healthy, would not Nature cyclically resume where it left off and start the whole mess of natural selection over again?”

    You have just identified the bulk of the work which will have to be done following Aryanization but prior to departure.

    Regarding Nietzsche, he justifies the existence of man by saying that his purpose is to evolve into the Overman, but what is the purpose of the Overman? By similar logic, to evolve into the Overoverman? And then what? The Overoveroverman? The Overoveroveroverman? This is an accumulationist evasion of the very real problem of purpose, a problem which Nietzsche never seriously tackles, which leaves Nietzsche only able to be interpreted as a hedonist who is merely arguing that the pleasure derived from increasing in power should be considered more satisfying than other genres of pleasure.

    @Anthony

    “The correct attitude is that someone doing something good for you does not give them the licence to do something bad, and we are entitled to be just as angry a we would have been if they’d only done the bad thing.”

    I agree.

    “One thing I do disagree with is the recently adding statement that authentic Fascists are non-racist. If the aim of Fascism is to maximise the power of a given tribe, I do not see how racists cannot be authentic Fascists.”

    The aim of fascism is to maximize the power of a STATE. This I take as definitive of fascism, as per Mussolini: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” A fascist is compelled by principle to include within society whatever strengthens the state. A racist is compelled by principle to exclude people of the ‘wrong’ ethnic backgrounds from society irrespective of whether those people strengthen or weaken the state. Therefore on all occasions when the inclusion of people of the ‘wrong’ ethnic backgrounds would strengthen the state, racists and fascists would be in conflict. Therefore racists cannot be authentic fascists.

    For example, many Stormfront-type idiots openly declare that they would rather reproduce with a 100 IQ “white” person than with a 130 IQ “non-white” person. If they were fascists who believed a higher IQ population leads to a stronger state, they would go for the higher IQ person regardless of ethnicity. But they don’t. So they aren’t.

    “It also says that the reason present far-right groups are not Fascist is because they aim to divide society.”

    Yes. A divided society is a weak society – the opposite of what fascists should want. I have pointed out to a few American far-rightists in the past that Dugin (who explicitly wants to weaken the US) instructs his followers to encourage the growth of far-right movements in the US, which is sufficient to indicate that Dugin sees (quite accurately) the far-right as a weapon against the US, and not something beneficial to the US. The American far-rightists respond that this is not their problem. Therefore they are not fascists.

    “I agree they are not Fascist, but the reason they are not Fascist is because most of them see ‘non-whites’ as a threat to the ‘Western way of life’ i.e. democracy, capitalism, freedom of speech etc., all of which are completely incompatible with Fascism.”

    But the point is that even the self-proclaimed “Fascist” types who hate democracy, capitalism, etc. are not really fascists either. If they were fascists they would go with whatever makes the state strong. But they don’t.

    Does this clear things up?

  34. Anthony says:

    >>The correct attitude is that someone doing something good for you does not give them the licence to do something bad, and we are entitled to be just as angry a we would have been if they’d only done the bad thing.’

    >I agree.

    I once said that we should not leave the material world until we are sure we will transcend it. You disagreed on the grounds that the only way to show defiance is to die out even if we will just be returned to the material world in another incarnation. Can you not see that this attitude is incompatible with agreeing with the above statement? If you think god created everything for example, the above statement says that it is not necessary to reject the good things he created in order to defy him. More importantly (since I don’t think any worldly things are worth having – I am interested only in attaining otherworldly things), it is not necessary to follow a strategy to show defiance if that strategy is likely to fail. You talk about military commanders (e.g. in explaining the importance of having a definite objective), but what military commander would order his troops to run towards the enemy unarmed just to show that they don’t fear the enemy, particularly if there’s a chance that the enemy will just capture them instead of killing them? You say that we should try to leave the material world even if we think there is nothing outside, but we do not even know whether the strategy you propose (the extinction of life) will achieve this objective, because we just don’t have enough knowledge. A new material world could be made, or be already waiting for us. This is not ‘defiance’, it is just irrational. You say you believe in the demiurge, but what if this is what the demiurge expects us to do eventually? How will we be defying him then? What he definitely wouldn’t want/ expect is for people to completely disregard their emotions, whether it be fear or anger, and coldly plot a way to permanently move outside of the realm of his control using logic and reason.

    ‘If they were fascists who believed a higher IQ population leads to a stronger state, they would go for the higher IQ person regardless of ethnicity.’

    Yes, but many of them still people that whites should be bred to have higher IQs. Many Fascists identify the ‘purpose’ of the state as the preservation of an ethnic group. I don’t think it is reasonable to not call someone who believes in this a Fascist.

  35. mandrake says:

    I believe Fascism would be beneficial. I’m not a Stormfronter or indulge in any other tribalist nonsense.

    @AS Yes, I posted my comment from the standpoint of the Bodhisattva Vows, since I took them many years ago and still adhere to them as much as I possibly can, I’m human after all.

    Voidness, needs to be explained from the Buddhist perspective. I’ve long struggled with the concept of ??nyat?, but some time ago I discovered what I felt was It’s meaning. I debated monastics and priests of the Dharma and not many could understand it yet teach what It was. I found It’s secret in old texts.

  36. AS says:

    “Can you not see that this attitude is incompatible with agreeing with the above statement? If you think god created everything for example, the above statement says that it is not necessary to reject the good things he created in order to defy him.”

    No, the exact opposite is true. The above statement – someone doing something good for you does not give them the license to do something bad, and we are entitled to be just as angry a we would have been if they’d only done the bad thing – implies that if god created everything, good and bad, we should be angry at the bad thing and conclude that no quantity of good things can compensate for it, and therefore in effect reject the good things, at least in as far as their weight in persuading us to stay here.

    “You talk about military commanders (e.g. in explaining the importance of having a definite objective), but what military commander would order his troops to run towards the enemy unarmed just to show that they don’t fear the enemy, particularly if there’s a chance that the enemy will just capture them instead of killing them?”

    I have not given such an order. The emphasis I was trying to develop on that page is that we as militarists should think about what is the best way to kill the enemy, as opposed to what is the best way to preserve ourselves. The order you suggest is not an effective way to kill the enemy, therefore I would not endorse it.

    “You say that we should try to leave the material world even if we think there is nothing outside, but we do not even know whether the strategy you propose (the extinction of life) will achieve this objective, because we just don’t have enough knowledge. A new material world could be made, or be already waiting for us. This is not ‘defiance’, it is just irrational. You say you believe in the demiurge, but what if this is what the demiurge expects us to do eventually? How will we be defying him then? What he definitely wouldn’t want/ expect is for people to completely disregard their emotions, whether it be fear or anger, and coldly plot a way to permanently move outside of the realm of his control using logic and reason.”

    I agree we should coldly plot a way to permanently move outside his realm using logic and reason, I am just emphasizing that at no point in this cold plotting should we include any calculation of what things will be like for ourselves afterwards. That is the defiance I am talking about.

    As for the “What if the demiurge expects us to do this?” argument (which we have discussed before), this argument could apply to every approach we come up with, including yours. On what grounds can you say that he _definitely_ does not expect people to disregard their emotions? I think neither you or I or anyone else can be sure of what the demiurge does or does not expect. (I personally believe the demiurge is reading this comments section right now (perhaps even using your eyes to do so), so even if he didn’t expect your approach before, now he does! Seriously, I believe the demiurge has access to every thought in the universe as it arises.) I strategize on the basis that the demiurge cannot be outwitted because I personally believe the demiurge is not a static entity but a dynamic superconsciousness at least as fluid as our own, and probably more. Whatever winning strategy we come up with must be one that he cannot counter even if he expects our strategy.

    Defiance is key to this, because it attacks the fundamental tool that the demiurge uses to control us, namely the self. The demiurge can expect this approach from us, but how can he respond? He would have nothing left to tempt us with.

    “A new material world could be made, or be already waiting for us.”

    I think this is a fallacy. If we were able to leave this material world, we would by definition be simultaneously (as part of that single operation) leaving all possible material worlds. Otherwise we couldn’t even say we are leaving this one, but would merely be moving from one part of it to another part.

    “Yes, but many of them still people that whites should be bred to have higher IQs.”

    But only as long as such breeding does not make them less “white”. They would reject the infusion of high IQ genes if these genes come from the ‘wrong’ sources. Therefore their idol is identity, not strength. They may pragmatically want statal strength as a means to protect their identity, but that is no different than capitalists pragmatically wanting statal strength as a means to protect their money (or National Socialists pragmatically wanting statal strength as a means to protect our nobility), and we don’t call capitalists (or National Socialists) fascists, so why should we call identitarians fascists?

    “Many Fascists identify the ‘purpose’ of the state as the preservation of an ethnic group. I don’t think it is reasonable to not call someone who believes in this a Fascist.”

    A classical fascist would reject ethnopreservation on all occasions where the alternative leads to an increase in strength. If you claim we should call ethnopreservationists fascists, then what do we call those whom I just described? We can’t call both types fascists because they are not aiming for the same thing.

  37. Aryan Aim says:

    “This is an accumulationist evasion of the very real problem of purpose, a problem which Nietzsche never seriously tackles, which leaves Nietzsche only able to be interpreted as a hedonist who is merely arguing that the pleasure derived from increasing in power should be considered more satisfying than other genres of pleasure.”

    Here Nietzsche’s Zarathustra detests the modern’s desire for power:

    “Just look at these superfluous people! They steal for themselves the works of inventors and the treasures of the wise: they call their theft culture – and they turn everything to sickness and calamity.
    Just look at these superfluous people! They are always ill, they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper…
    They acquire wealth and make themselves poorer with it. They desire power and especially the lever of power, plenty of money – these impotent people!”

  38. Aryan Aim says:

    @AS.

    As for material enslavement, since action itself plays into our enslavement (e.g. we must act to live) – given the imprisonment parable – it’s my belief that it wouldn’t matter to a truly free man what physical conditions are presented, his freedom comes from within, from the quiet relinquishment of all things, and in this quiet of his mind there is freedom, and any serious action taken is done so consciously and as a means to establish universal order on earth; what little contribution he’s able – even if it’s only to provide a solitary example of what it means to be free so others may follow in his footsteps.

  39. AS says:

    “Just look at these superfluous people! They steal for themselves the works of inventors and the treasures of the wise: they call their theft culture – and they turn everything to sickness and calamity.
    Just look at these superfluous people! They are always ill, they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper…
    They acquire wealth and make themselves poorer with it. They desire power and especially the lever of power, plenty of money – these impotent people!”

    Here he seems to be mainly pointing out things that provide the illusion of power but which are not really power. When I was referring to Nietzsche, I was thinking mainly of this statement he made in ‘The Antichrist’:

    “What is good?— Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
    What is evil?— Whatever springs from weakness.
    What is happiness?— The feeling that power increases— that resistance is overcome.
    Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid).”

    The first line suggests to me that Nietzsche does not see the need to explain why power is valuable, therefore that Nietzsche considers power as an end, not as a means. Whereas to us, power is purely a means.

    The third line’s “resistance is overcome” further suggests that he sees himself as the protagonist and his opposition as resistance. Whereas in our antagonistic worldview, WE ARE the resistance!

    The fourth line’s “Not contentment, but more power” reinforces my suspicion that he does not want the process of increasing in power to ever end. Whereas we aim to reach the end of our mission as quickly as possible.

    Also, I find it consistent that Nietzsche (in ‘The Will to Power’) places Wagner and Schopenhauer in the same category, and disliked both:

    “The unworthy attempt has been made to see Wagner and Schopenhauer as types of mental illness: one would gain an incomparably more essential insight by making more precise scientifically the type of decadence both represent.”

    Hitler, of course, was a fan of both Wagner and Schopenhauer (as were Eckart, Hess, etc.). This increases my confidence in classifying Nietzsche within fascism, and Wagner and Schopenhauer within National Socialism. I believe Nietzsche himself would not want to be classified in the same camp as Wagner and Schopenhauer, so I don’t think I’m being unfair to him!

  40. Aryan Aim says:

    Thanks for clarifying. After reading what you’ve said and some contemplation, I think you’re right in classifying FN apart from AS and RW, and also correct on the other topic concerning the gnostic attitude. I realize the only gripe I REALLY had was difference in opinion on best semantical approach.

    My admiration for Nietzsche stems from his fervor and Lightning qualities, and more pragmatically – because I believe these qualities and a vehement Will-to-Power are required to accomplish what must be done.

  41. You need to chill the fuck out, Anthony. It’s not that serious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>