Empathy, not “human rights”

One issue currently being hotly debated across political blogs and forums is that of how to treat refugees seeking asylum. And, as we have come to expect, leftists simply are not arriving at the debate with the necessary toolkit to win. They know clearly in their hearts that the rightists are bad people, but they cannot effectively articulate why, because they are stuck with False Left foundations which, as we have said before, were designed (by Zionist agents) to be beaten down by far-right counterarguments (ie. Israeli policies, which Israel wants other countries to adopt so that Israel can no longer be singled out for moral condemnation for such policies). This is where we – and I hope especially Ossendowski with his upcoming new project – come in: to supply leftists with the True Left toolkit with which they could easily recover a winning position if they are willing to rapidly switch bases from False Left to True Left.

We all know the far-right popular fantasies regarding refugees (a.k.a. the Katie Hopkins Position, just so we are under no illusion as regards the intellectual calibre of the enemy): sink the boats with torpedoes, or variants thereof (put the refugees on planes and throw them out in midair, poison their food/water, shoot them with machine guns (using bullets coated with lard if the refugees are Muslims), impale them like Dracula used to do, etc.). They set this up so that when their own far-right politicians then recommend ’merely’ ignoring all asylum applications and flatly deporting refugees, or even deporting those whose asylum applications were already approved, but without endorsing the additional sadism of their voters, they appear “moderate” in comparison, which then fools ignorant fence-sitters to vote for them. This is the trick of offering a fake middle-ground that we have discussed in the past.

In response to this, all the False Left teaches leftists to do is endlessly bring up “human rights” as a reason for accepting refugees. The problem is, “human rights” is not an argument. “Human rights” is merely a formal abstraction that various organizations around the world have declared that they will observe in their decision-making process. Repeating the term “human rights” over and over again does not convince those who do not believe in “human rights” to suddenly start believing in them. It just produces the image that the repeaters lack actual pro-asylum arguments. If you are a pro-asylum leftist, the single best thing you can do is stop believing in the idiotic notion of “human rights” yourself and go back to ideological basics instead. This is what the True Left is trying to help you to do. The True Left is not, and will never be, about “rights”. The True Left is, and will always be, about empathy.

The first thing we recommend is to mentally place ourselves in the position of the refugees. If we were refugees fleeing from war/famine/disaster/etc. in our origin country, how would we hope our first-choice destination country treats us? This, then, is how we should similarly hope our country treats refugees from another country, for as we would hope others treat us, so should we strive to treat others. It is really that simple, and this used to be common sense among ordinary youth as recently as the 90s, before 9/11 changed the mentality of the world. Yet here already is an argument for the leftist arsenal much more effective than any amount of blathering about “human rights”: challenge rightists to explain WHAT IS WRONG WITH treating others as we would hope to be treated by others.

The empathic approach does not stop here. We can further challenge rightists to place themselves in the position of the refugees under the policies they themselves demand. Among those rightists who recommend torpedoing the refugee boats, for example, how many would still favour this response if they themselves were the ones in the boats? This reminds me of a private discussion I had with Miecz some time ago about a thought experiment in which we invite people to come up with policies for a society that they will have to live in for the rest of their lives, while these people are given no knowledge of the position that they themselves will occupy within that society, which hence forces even ordinarily selfish people to recommend policies not based on self-interest but from considering what is fair. Rightists advocate cruel policies towards tribal outgroups because they know in advance that they themselves won’t be the ones on the receiving end of such cruelty. When nobody is allowed to know who will be on the receiving end of whatever cruelty is advocated, support for rightism drops like a rock, which demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of rightism. In contrast, leftist policies stay largely unaffected by possession or non-possession of knowledge about who will be on the receiving end, which demonstrates the moral strength of leftism.

Many rightists try to take the offensive by claiming that it is the refugees themselves who are in the wrong by staying in the countries offering them asylum instead of returning to live in the countries they fled from. But once again we can apply the empathic approach: how many of these rightists would themselves be willing to go and live in those countries that the refugees are fleeing from? And if they would not, then why would they demand the refugees to be any more willing than themselves to do so? The funny thing is that the rightists spend most of their own propaganda telling their audiences about what “unsalvageable hellholes” these countries are, far too dangerous to even vacation in, let alone live in. How then can they with a straight face blame the refugees for basically agreeing with them, and hence fleeing? I can guarantee that if the rightists had been born in these countries, every single one of them would be doing exactly the same as the current refugees. I moreover challenge every rightist who arrogantly tells refugees to “Go back and improve your own countries!” to personally emigrate to one of these countries and give a demo of themselves achieving this. When they are successful, then we might start taking them seriously. Not until then. (In reality, it is leftists who travel to disaster-hit countries to do volunteer work. In other words, we are the ones who actually do what the rightists tell the refugees to do while never doing it themselves.)

But we can talk about rightist inferiority and leftist superiority all day and it won’t make any difference, because the whole refugee crisis is a Zionist conspiracy designed to make racism mainstream, and hence facilitate the pre-scripted shift from PC to ZC. And this is something that can also be deduced by the empathic approach: how would we feel as taxpayers to see successful asylum applicants – who have never paid into the welfare system - instantly becoming welfare recipients? We would feel robbed, and justly so. But this absolutely does not mean that refugees should not be given asylum, as Jews are herding us to think. What it means is that refugees should not be eligible for welfare. If refugees need asylum, give it to them, but then simply make sure they pull their own weight by assigning all of them who are unable to find private-sector employment a sufficient schedule of compulsory state-organized labour to more than offset their living expenses. This not only makes it fair for taxpayers, but gives the refugees themselves respectability as contributing members of society (and hence worthy of citizenship eventually), and makes negativity towards them indefensible. This is authentic National Socialism: empathy for refugees (which ZC/BS lacks) and at the same time empathy for taxpayers (which PC lacks) – positive asylum.

National Socialism is thus able to provide an exact answer to the question of how many refugees a country has a duty to take in. The answer is: at least as many as the state can put to work (plus however many can be supported via voluntary charity funding). In practice, this would be a larger number than what most refugee destination countries are currently taking in, because their calculations are based on welfare capacity instead of labour capacity, because they patronizingly view refugees by default as permanent dependents, rather than as we empathically view them – just as we would wish to be viewed by our destination country if we were refugees - as future citizens.

http://aryanism.net/politics/economics/immigration/

(Incidentally, any country which applies our principle and hence harnesses the potentially vast value of state-organized refugee labour would gain an economic and military edge both over countries which put refugees on welfare and (though to a lesser extent) over countries which refuse to accept refugees at all in the first place. So not only National Socialists but even authentic fascists should support positive asylum.)

Treating others as we would wish to be treated by others has been taught by all universalist religions around the world. Meanwhile, a rightist is, in essence, someone who considers Katie Hopkins to be a better person than Jesus (for example). And the rightist calls this “taking the Red Pill”…..

Bonus song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9caTclKNXnw

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

220 Responses to Empathy, not “human rights”

  1. John Johnson says:

    @AS
    “on one hand supporting Cuba which wanted to end Spanish colonialism”

    Some people might have been sincere in this, but for the most part I agree with SotI, that the “liberation” was just the same as the one in Iraq.

    Westerners wanted to first annex Cuba in the 1850s to spread slavery:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto

    In the 1890s, after what many historians (and the Cuban government) believe was a false flag attack on the USS Maine, US Congress would only declare war with the explicit condition that Cuba would not be annexed (since even back then, many believed the war was based on ignoble sentiments).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)#False_flag_conspiracy_theories
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller_Amendment

    The military occupation of Cuba only ended after the US forced Cuba to accept terms which basically turned them into a quasi-colonial entity:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Occupation_of_Cuba

    “I believe that had the US mustered the determination to treat France more critically, it would also have behaved better in the rest of its historical foreign policy. At the very least a truly American US should have exerted pressure on France to transform its colonial empire into a folkish empire as a condition to maintaing cordial US-France relations.”

    Unfortunately, shortly after independence a pro-France/anti-UK and anti-France/pro-UK false dichotomy was already strongly developed in US politics.

    I think it was perhaps for the better that the pro-France side won out in the early days, otherwise the US could have very well been reabsorbed into the British Commonwealth

    https://dessertating.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/1898_sm_john_bull_and_uncle_sam.jpg?w=640
    https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/fc7447e10b.jpg


    @SotI
    “Wasn’t there a naval incident involving the US and France in 1798?”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

  2. K says:

    “It is an extreme example. Right now reproduction should be opposed because of practical reasons first and foremost. If we keep reproducing as much as we are, there will be the greatest lack of resources we have ever seen in history.
    Even someone so blinded by primitive reproductive instincts like you can muster enough reason to realize that we can not keep expanding infinitely in a finite space with finite resources.”

    Doesn’t change the overall principle that would lead to that extreme example for at least the site author. You’re making a utilitarian argument for lesser reproduction, that people should not have so many kids to not deplete the earth’s resources faster than the planet can handle. I never said I had a problem with that. This is fundamentally not the same as an Anti-Natalist stance like the site author’s where reproduction is seen as fundamentally wrong in every way.

    “And therefore it is aggression.

    “it’s impossible to consent to exist”

    And therefore it is necessarily aggression.”

    You’re misunderstanding. In the first case where you just exist out of no external cause by someone else, it was not possibly aggression since nobody could have caused it. While if somebody reproduces and that leads to you existing, assuming you didn’t before, they didn’t act against you. Creating someone isn’t the same as doing something to them, since they weren’t there yet to begin with. The end result of either existing by natural causes or existing by someone else’s choice is the same, either way, you came to be. Why is it worse to exist if someone else made that possible, compared to if it just happened?

    I get that you do like writing all-scenario covering worldview arguments, and I have no problem continuing doing that as well, but in the end you would believe one set of things to be true. Whether you are a Gnostic, atheist, or whatever beliefs really. And if your belief system happens to coincide with the possibility of entirely voluntary reincarnation, you’re running into problems here.

    “Why not? The choice to refrain from creating such a body is also available to us (excepting conceptions resulting from rape).”OK, maybe so, but here’s the key issue. If reproduction is intended to be ‘creating a usable vessel’, and not ‘creating an existing entity’, let’s say that someone has a choice whether or not they take that vessel and choose birth. That means you didn’t commit violence, you just gave other people an opportunity to use something. You might as well have created a pair of clothes for someone to wear if procreation isn’t creating someone’s existence. Now let’s say someone is shoved into that new body so to speak, and you didn’t want that. That’s not your fault, the aggressor is whoever forced them into birth.

    “The spirit could not come back if not for parents creating bodies. The Demiurge could not succeed without the collaboration of parents.”

    You would need to objectively prove the existence of involuntary reincarnation en masse to show that everyone who is born is not consenting. And as i said earlier, even if people were being involuntarily pushed into it, some people would still have a desire to anyways, although obviously they would prefer to not be involuntarily forced even if they would voluntarily do the same thing.

    The target recipient of someone having kids is someone who would want to be born. And since these people procreating are not biologically immortal, it would be necessary to do this to continue living lives as a human, at least until they could find a way to exit said system by having infinite lifespan, with the fundamental concept not being really an attack in any way. At best, it gives someone else an opportunity to commit aggression, but the same could be said for building a car that someone else then locks a person in to make them suffer. That wasn’t your target result, someone else interfered.

    In this way Gnosticism would normally seem quite the passive ideology, proposing non-procreation as a solution which is stretched here to quite extreme and genocidal levels. There’s a bit of a fundamental assumption there that even if a Demiurge existed, simply letting the species go extinct will solve things. If a Demiurge did exist they could just commit more aggressive acts against said Gnostics anyways if it was powerful enough to forcibly reincarnate them while they were spirits, unless they’re going to become more able to resist by destroying their species. Doesn’t really seem like a viable plan, compared to becoming immune to being forcibly manipulated as a spirit by no longer having to die and retaining a body that prevents interference, IE inventing some immortality mechanism if such a thing is possible. You support reproduction being done in the aims of ending reproduction in the future, you just think that the mechanism to end it should be mass suicide and extinction. But if aggression caused by the Demiurge and etc always happens when these people don’t have a body, keeping a body around would seem to be a pretty decisive solution, at least defensively, before finding a method of counter-attack, or more specifically just rendering it powerless to attack anyone else.

    “But it won’t be you who is born. It would be a new person, an innocent victim, whom you forced to be born by your final act of aggression.”That’s a big point i disagree with. What makes me not myself if I lose memories? You seem to not agree with the idea of continuous existence through rebirth. Existing is seperate from being continuously conscious of everything that has happened to you. I don’t remember some things that occured in my life, but I was still there to experience them, and may remember them in the future. Same goes if someone could regain memories of past lives, they would be fully aware of their continuous existence through all that time and concensual choic e to come back. Nobody would prefer losing their memories over not losing them, but it might be an acceptable temporary loss depending on the person, due to limitations of nature or just issues caused by others like how Gnostics believe in a hostile Demiurge.

    “Did the child consent? Did the parents care that the child did not consent?”It’s entirely possible the child did. Ideally the parents would possess some method of communicating with a non incarnated spirit who voluntarily chooses to reincarnate, and if that could happen, I am sure even you would no longer be able to call all theoretically possible types of procreation wrong.

    “This is a perfect example of your callousness. You are actually suggesting that getting the foreskin back is a “solution” for having been circumcised in the past? The circumcision still happened! Tissue regeneration doesn’t “un-happen” the violence! Would you also call hymen regeneration the “solution” to rape?

    Any noble victim of circumcision would prefer to keep their mutilated state, if only to better remind themselves of the violence done to themselves, and their duty to avenge this.”
    Don’t get me wrong, of course it’s horrible that it happened. But giving someone back what was taken is entirely reasonable. It will obviously never undo the fact that it happened, but nonetheless, it will expose that circumcision is a horrible thing and takes a lot away from people, leading to with any luck outlawing of the mutilation.

    Letting the circumcision remain is just letting the person who circumcised you continue to succeed. They took away your foreskin for a long while, so why let their actions continue to be successful for longer? It’s not like these people would forget what was done to them just by healing the physical wound. Now obviously, you could keep it that way if it was your own personal preference but there’s no reason not to give people the chance to choose to have it once again. It is exactly the same as getting a bandaid if someone cuts you, you don’t just let the wound keep bleeding until you run dry and die. Circumcision isn’t fatal obviously but it’s really quite a terrible effect on a person if you have read into the research done on that topic and know how much function is lost.

    Your next comment is a repeat point, I’ll just leave it out as it centers around the debate about voluntary or involuntary reincarnation which i already covered.

    ” the newborn baby does not subjectively remember the decision to reincarnate, or for that matter anything else from before birth. Therefore the newborn baby would STILL be a victim of aggression, now by the reincarnating spirit as well as by the parents. In other words, to even WANT reincarnation is already aggressive. It is by this precise insight (that the reincarnating spirit and the newborn baby must be considered two people ethically) that Siddhartha was able to declare that only those who do not want to reincarnate can be considered noble.”

    This is also a repeat point. How do you fundamentally define the moment someone is a separate person? What if someone lost their memories, then recovered them the next day? The key point is what makes them count as a unique individual. As said before I disagree, the same person would be born as the one that chose to come back. The only way it wouldn’t be is if that person stopped existing and the baby was an entirely separate entity newly created by the parents.

    “In that case, the question is: who deserves to be unhappy? Answer: those whose happiness is founded on violence:”It’s not. For people who would want to come back it’s based on mutual agreement. And as i previously explained, procreation would if anything do more to prevent Aggression initiated by some Gnostic Demiurge if it eventually allowed an entire negation of its endless attack through an immortality mechanism or of course something better, discovering a means of counter-assault rather than destroying the species and waiting for the Demiurge to do whatever it might to them once they again become entirely attackable as before.

    This probably doesn’t matter to you, but I don’t really agree with Gnosticism or that there is a Demiurge forcing people to reincarnate against their will. If anything, a hostile entity capable of attacking spirits would actually just encourage people to reincarnate as a defense mechanism, rather than be attacked and maybe destroyed. In other words physical extinction against someone capable of manipulating spirits easily would be futile at best and highly dangerous at worst.

    ““Since you think the survivalists will all refuse to have children”

    When did I say that?”Hmm, I was typing that too fast. I really meant to say ‘militarists’, referring to the point at which they’ve wiped out everyone else that doesn’t wish for human extinction via mass suicide.

    “it’s impossible to consent to exist”
    Maybe so, but the point I’m making there is that it’s not something anyone can do anything about. I don’t personally believe materialistic procreation and the creation of someone’s existence at birth to be true, but if it were, there would be no real answer that leads to the ‘right way to live’ were everyone to accept your anti-natalist idea that creation is aggression.

    “To confirm that their previous acceptance of anti-aging treatment was not for the sake of survivalism, and thus that they are truly different from the enemies whom they killed. Otherwise it is back to BS.”But i thought this was for the sake of militarism, preventing aggression, etc. If their life isn’t causing births anymore, it is no longer harming others. And you’ve essentially just skipped around the key point that if they encountered a non-aging group that no longer procreated but didn’t want to be exterminated or to mass suicide, they could certainly not justify the violence.

    “See? It helps to actually read the main site.

    “Well, why just humans?”

    Where did I say that? Again, try to actually read the main site.”
    You never said ‘just humans’ but never stated further objectives directly of exterminating all life. So I laid out what should be the logical ideal goal of your movement in best case scenarios. Exterminating all life(indirectly).

    “We already covered the Indefinite Hypothesis Scam in the past:”
    I read the comment. And it doesn’t include your personal guess based on whichever facts, on probability of other life out in the universe. AKA, what is your objective reason for thinking Earth is probably all that’s out there? And the other commenter assumed said space anti-civilization monitoring for signs of life used procreation to continue on going, it’s a key difference. It’s pretty disturbing to see you compare signs of life to ‘insects to be exterminated’ too.

    Anyway, you seem to still be misunderstanding the main points I made, not that I really expected this to be an easy process. The first thing I’ll ask in this end summary is your actual views on what you think to be true objectively when it comes to these Gnostic ideas your site promotes. AKA if you believe a Demiurge entity to factually exist, and whether or not you believe procreation to be creating someone’s existence(or if you would for instance say something like that it does sometimes and other times someone reincarnates instead).

    I know you seem to like making a worldview argument in such a way that it covers all possible worldviews about what is true, but as I’ve been pointing out here, there are definitely possible facts that would not fit at all with calling all reproduction violent, and situations where it would not be morally permissible to wipe out all life. The second point is this:This idea need not just be applied to some sci fi space civilization, but could apply simply on earth alone. If a decent number of people on Earth acquired technology that allowed them to live indefinitely, and some stopped reproducing, what makes those individuals worthy of death if anything? It’s not necessarily true at all that said people would be part of some cruel violent civilization, if anything that kind of invention would cause mass desire for a borderless poverty-less worldwide open source civilization from the bottom up with self sufficient individuals. And once you have really even one individual who no longer ever needs to reproduce again but will live indefinitely, what makes it right to kill him/her? It could be even an Anti-Natalist similar to you who simply wants to continue surviving. I know i’ve repeated this a lot but you don’t seem to directly answer and understand.

    Third summary point is that you do seem to agree now with killing all life on earth, through indirect means. While you do not agree with scouring through space for life forms, you have to admit that destroying all life on earth simply by only ‘non aggressive’ means where you specifically prohibit the organisms from procreating would be a rather laborious task. Unless the plan is to manually sterilize them all en masse after everyone but anti-natalists are ruthlessly genocided, until a mass ecological collapse ensues and the entire biosphere crumbles along with all the humans left alive.

  3. AS says:

    @JJ

    “Some people might have been sincere in this, but for the most part I agree with SotI, that the “liberation” was just the same as the one in Iraq.”

    I agree with this also. My point is that attacking Maharklika should have been opposed not just by those who see through the entire pack of lies, but EVEN by those who believe the “liberation” narrative in Cuba, since at the time there was literally nothing for the US to “liberate” Maharlika from!

    “Unfortunately, shortly after independence a pro-France/anti-UK and anti-France/pro-UK false dichotomy was already strongly developed in US politics.”

    Good point, and this is also related to the fact that the French Revolution happened shortly after the American Revolution, making it easy for democrats to portray both as anti-monarchist revolutions.

    In any case, we have a 21st-century version of this same pattern going on now, with US (False) leftists looking up to Scandinavia while US rightists look up to Russia/V4/etc., thus in effect both sides still associate with what is foundationally Western from the Old World. To break this false dichotomy, we need to cultivate real Americans (and thus True Leftists) who feel closer not only to the rest of the New World, but also to the foundationally non-Western elements of the Old World.

    A sign of hope from California:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/02/08/584057034/building-a-latino-muslim-coalition-with-tacotrucksateverymosque

    This is the kind of positivity that Trump is trying to prevent from demographically spreading across the US, because it shatters the lie that the Muslim community views all other communities with hostility (I guarantee – and every last one of our enemies knows deep down that I am speaking the truth – that if these same taco trucks entered any so-called Muslim “no-go zone”, they would be warmly welcomed).

  4. Sun of the Isles says:

    @AS

    Speaking of Cuba, what do you think of Fidel Castro?

  5. Amaleq says:

    You know want I’ve found interesting to ponder the last several days is the fact that humans are most likely going to have to try and deceive artificial intelligence if they don’t want machines to eventually try and eliminate all life. I don’t even know how humans could deceive AI if they wanted to though, especially if it is connected to the internet. If you think about it the internet knows everything about humans, including all of their fears and weaknesses, mistakes, etc.

    Depending on the definition we provide machines in regards to words such as “violence”, “consent”, and “suffering”, will determine whether or not AI will eventually try and terminate all of humanity. Because the easiest way to stop suffering is not to reproduce it, or to stop it from replicating itself….

    That’s all hypothetical of course, and depends largely on whether or not one believes that fully autonomous artificial intelligence is even possible.

    Remember this: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/tay-tweets-microsoft-ai-chatbot-posts-racist-messages-about-loving-hitler-and-hating-jews-a6949926.html

    Interesting stuff….

  6. Amaleq says:

    Looks like others made that comparison with the Black Panther movie as well:

    https://www.minds.com/media/809601546726359040

  7. K says:

    @AS:
    Maybe you weren’t notified when I wrote my last comment? I expected to come back and look at this thread after a long time of ignoring it and have to write a late response, but it seems like you never bothered responding again.I’d really rather see you try to prove you are right that reincarnation couldn’t possibly be consensual, and that it cannot simply be the same being born who chose to reincarnate. Along with why it would still be OK to murder an immortal person if they are not procreating but don’t wish to commit mass suicide along with the anti-natalists.

  8. AS says:

    @K

    “Maybe you weren’t notified when I wrote my last comment?”

    No, I just think you are wasting my time.

    “I’d really rather see you try to prove you are right that reincarnation couldn’t possibly be consensual”

    Your own comment where you admitted this:

    Either way, it’s impossible to consent to exist

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/empathy-not-human-rights/comment-page-4/#comment-178463

    “and that it cannot simply be the same being born who chose to reincarnate”

    The burden of persuasion is on you to argue why we should (and how it is even a meaningful concept to) consider two people with neither hardware nor software continuity (in which case why these particular two and not some other two?) to be the “same” person, not on me to prove a negative (which is impossible).

    “Along with why it would still be OK to murder an immortal person if they are not procreating but don’t wish to commit mass suicide along with the anti-natalists.”

    We are opposed to survivalism:

    Survival has no completion point. One can, by definition, never ‘finish surviving’; each day survived only brings another day to survive. As such, militarism rejects survivalism and all survival-based directives.

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

    You claimed to have read the main site.

    On top of this, we would be fools to trust a survivalist who claims willingness to not procreate, especially when he would have a potentially endless amount of time during which to change his mind after we leave.

  9. Random Whatever says:

    @AS: so you are seriously comparing the Creator of All Life (Allahu) wth. a Rapist? Sorry but you seem to have lost it!
    You can not blame the problems and suffering caused by usury ziocons banksters and their devilworshipping lifeoppossed freemason/jesuit puppets on Life itself. And oppose Life itself….In a Way i do agree that I would of loved been asked if i wanna be here, but that is NOT that i do not love Nature and life itself, its the Problems and the Suffering which make me feel that Way and i think it is irresponsible that ppl in bad Situations bring Children in this World. However Life itself is sacred, beautifull and NOT to blame.

  10. Lucius Rhine says:

    >Random Retard

    Uhhhh…

    >hypothesis: Jews oppose life

    >Fact: Jews enslave all they see

    >Fact: Dead Slaves do nothing.

    >Conclusion: Jews endorse life wholly.

  11. Amaleq says:

    @Random Whatever:

    “However Life itself is sacred, beautifull and NOT to blame.”

    That is why I appreciate the Sun, as do Aryanists I believe. The Swastika is a solar symbol after-all? I just don’t worship it as the “life-giver”, as many other sun-lovers tend to do it seems. I appreciate the Sun because without it life would live in a cold and dark world everywhere, just as does the life that lives on the bottom of the oceans.
    Perhaps there is some truth to Serrano’s concept of the Green-Ray, but that would just be speculation on my part….

  12. John Johnson says:

    @AS

    More information on Cuba, apparently Jefferson envisioned it being integrated into the American “Empire of Liberty”:

    Jefferson to James Madison. April 27, 1809.
    “He [Napoleon] ought the more to conciliate our good will, as we can be such an obstacle to the new career opening on him in the Spanish colonies. That he would give us the Floridas to withold intercourse with the residue of those colonies cannot be doubted. But that is no price; because they are ours in the first moment of the first war, & until a war they are of no particular necessity to us. But, altho’ with difficulty, he will consent to our receiving Cuba into our union to prevent our aid to Mexico & the other provinces. That would be a price, & I would immediately erect a column on the Southernmost limit of Cuba & inscribe on it a Ne plus ultra [nothing more beyond] as to us in that direction. we should then have only to include the North in our confederacy, which would be of course in the first war, and we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation: & I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government. As the Mentor went away before this change, & will leave France probably while it is still a secret in that hemisphere, I presume the expediency of pursuing her by a swift sailing dispatch was considered. It will be objected to our receiving Cuba, that no limit can then be drawn for our future acquisitions. Cuba can be defended by us without a navy, & this develops the principle which ought to limit our views. Nothing should ever be accepted which would require a navy to defend it.”

    @Amaleq
    “You know want I’ve found interesting to ponder the last several days is the fact that humans are most likely going to have to try and deceive artificial intelligence if they don’t want machines to eventually try and eliminate all life.”

    The goal of many transhumanists is not just to live forever on flashdrives or have fancy robo-arms, but actually prepare the way for machines to surpass humans as the dominant “being” in the universe. For them, extinction of humanity is not a bad thing, but positive as it will mean “evolution” has continued to go forward. In spiritual terms, that Yahweh has reached another milestone towards total enslavement.

  13. Sun of the Isles says:

    @JJ

    “More information on Cuba, apparently Jefferson envisioned it being integrated into the American “Empire of Liberty”:”

    I would’ve preferred Cuba to have united with Gran Colombia instead, due to demographic similarity, and the fact that the latter was more autocratic than the US.

  14. AS says:

    @RW

    “so you are seriously comparing the Creator of All Life (Allahu) wth. a Rapist?”

    You are referring to Yahweh. Allah is the one trying to save us.

    “Sorry but you seem to have lost it!”

    So now at least you understand what the Albigensian Crusade was about: the majority back then also believed the Cathars had “lost it”.

    “You can not blame the problems and suffering caused by usury ziocons banksters and their devilworshipping lifeoppossed freemason/jesuit puppets on Life itself.”

    As a matter of fact, I was Gnostic long before I knew anything about banking etc., and indeed before I had ever even heard of the term “Gnostic”. The very first time I was introduced to the idea of a creator god as a child, my first reaction was that (assuming he exists at all) he is evil.

    “i think it is irresponsible that ppl in bad Situations bring Children in this World”

    Not many people are in a better situation than William & Kate, yet look at the child’s facial expression in this picture:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/samsara.jpg

    He knows clearly that the creator god is evil. And you yourself surely used to know this too, because you started out (as did all of us) as a newborn child just like this one. To get to where you are now, you betrayed your younger self. But I will not.

  15. K says:

    @AS:At least you responded this time even if some ideas seem to not be getting through to you that quickly.

    Starting where you first got off to main points:
    “The burden of persuasion is on you to argue why we should (and how it is even a meaningful concept to) consider two people with neither hardware nor software continuity (in which case why these particular two and not some other two?) to be the “same” person, not on me to prove a negative (which is impossible).”
    They would have ‘software’ continuity in terms of being able to remember a prior experience of some past life if they regained those memories, and while they obviously couldn’t have ‘hardware’ continuity in terms of having the same biological body they did before, it doesn’t mean much if they can still be defined as the same existing entity. Just like how someone with amnesia is not an entirely new individual altogether, the loss or continued possession of a biological body is a moot point if they are the same existing entity. Gnostics tend to believe in some sort of spirit, so it’d logically be the same one reincarnating that was present in a body before. If you believe that it A:Exists and B: it does not immediately dissipate on death of the body then there’s little reason to think that ‘hardware’ of the same spirit is not there. Unless you believe it would be destroyed upon attempting to be reborn? This is a part where your site’s tendency to try to write out a philosophy that works with multiple belief systems only can go so far, as at a certain point your beliefs can and will affect what is able to be right and wrong.

    “Survival has no completion point. One can, by definition, never ‘finish surviving’; each day survived only brings another day to survive. As such, militarism rejects survivalism and all survival-based directives.”Having no completion point doesn’t render surviving inherently wrong. Someone could spend an infinite amount of time choosing to not hurt anyone else. You seem to propose an awfully pessimistic view of people, that it is a crime for someone to merely have the potential to do something wrong that you disagree with in the future. But merely having the potential to do something doesn’t mean you will, that’s where free choice comes into play.

    For example you explain to me that you believe anyone trying to stay alive longer than anti-natalists would be then a potential violent individual. But being alive in itself is not violent.

    To fully answer your complaint that someone can’t consent to exist, my answer is that they wouldn’t have, but would’ve existed before being born anyways, making birth itself still voluntary.

    At this point in arguing I am just curious if you actually believe things like life after death and reincarnation to be factually true as there is good reason to.
    1:A solid example of an NDE which shouldn’t be possible with the patient’s brain state according to materialist interpretation of science, verifying reincarnation in
    http://ndestories.org/dr-eben-alexander/
    2:If you want a good database proving reincarnation(not in a Gnostic involuntary fashion) and the afterlife to be true click this link.
    https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html
    3:Quick debunk of the standard hypothesis explaining NDEs.
    https://www.near-death.com/science/articles/dying-brain-theory.html
    4:A focused article on reincarnation proof specifically:
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/267/2015/11/STE39stevenson-1.pdf

  16. AS says:

    @K

    “They would have ‘software’ continuity in terms of being able to remember a prior experience of some past life if they regained those memories”

    Notice you use the loaded terms “prior” and “regain”, which implies you are presuming what you are trying to prove in order to prove it (and therefore wasting my time). All that we can actually say is going on is that data is being downloaded. It is your foppery claiming that because the data previously existed on a different hard drive, now that it has been downloaded to this hard drive, this hard drive “was” the other hard drive in a “past life”.

    “Having no completion point doesn’t render surviving inherently wrong.”

    It renders it enslaving:

    the success of the slave, the slavemaster or the observer only results in continuation of their compulsions

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

    You claimed to have read the main site.

    “Someone could spend an infinite amount of time choosing to not hurt anyone else.”

    Boromir tells Frodo that just keeping the Ring around is not inherently wrong, and he can spend an infinite amount of time choosing not to use the Ring if Frodo just lets him have it. Should Frodo believe him?

    “but would’ve existed before being born anyways, making birth itself still voluntary.”

    This fallacy was covered in my very first reply to you:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/empathy-not-human-rights/comment-page-4/#comment-178452

    So this is what it comes down to again:

    “If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened.” – Adolf Hitler

  17. CC says:

    Hello,
    I was having some discussion with a professor at my university regarding racial issues in the US, and I was hoping someone here could help me in determining the optimal way to solve these issues and discuss them with others. I agree with this site that the answer to the racial conflict that is based around colonial distinctions (white, black, yellow, etc) is to offer a paradigm based around character and nobility instead (I apologize in advance for having to discuss this with the colonial terminology, but that is the way the discussion has been going). I haven’t introduced my beliefs explicitly to the professor, though I plan to at some point.
    The issue seems to be that the professor claims that the struggle is against whiteness, and once whiteness is overthrown, then blackness and other racial distinctions will disappear (I think that once a tribe gains power it will rarely relinquish that power, and thus I’m skeptical of that claim; if you want to discuss this I’d be willing to). Now, I do not justify the atrocities that whites or any people have committed. My primary issue is that I think that if the struggle is viewed as white vs black, then the difference in who wields power is not necessarily changing from ignoble to noble individuals; ignoble black people with power will use it similarly to ignoble white people with power. In addition, what I wanted to explain to the professor was that by framing the conflict in this way, as white vs black, it necessarily would lead people towards tribalistic thinking, and for black people to identify with their tribe and for white people to form a tribe of their own in retaliation. The contention made was that white people cannot form into a tribe because they do not have a unifying struggle, such as slavery. My point was that by attacking whiteness and the idea of white people holding power, a struggle that would form a more united white group was being created. It also seemed as though he was at once viewing whiteness as a united institution that was oppressing black people, and at the same time viewing it as divided, as something that was not monolithic; perhaps one of you can better explain what he meant by that.
    If the goal is to destroy tribal divisions, how can this be done in such a way as to avoid conflict of the sort I’m trying to warn? How can these ideas be phrased in such a way as to be palatable to a liberal professor (or even a person who voted for someone like Trump because of this danger to a group they felt they belong to, if you believe such a person can still be saved)?
    Thank you for your help.

  18. Lucius Rhine says:

    @CC

    It’s helpful to view the Whiteness paradigm as one of identity rather than skin color, although skin color is a necessary prerequisite for White identity. “Black”, however, is a characterization of non-Whiteness. Note, both dispositions are a result of whiteness, an in born quality.

    How we fix this is not a “White vs Black” dichotomy, but a “White vs American” dichotomy. We must expose Whiteness as a racial identity rather than a skin color, as it is construed. In that way, we can then show ethnic identities as bad, and identitarianism itself as bad.

    On a side note, this is my plan to expose the Jew in the United States, is to draw a parallel between WN and Jewry.

    So, CC, go ahead and click on my name, and send a DM to the page if you want to help!

  19. John Johnson says:

    @CC
    “The issue seems to be that the professor claims that the struggle is against whiteness, and once whiteness is overthrown, then blackness and other racial distinctions will disappear”

    I agree with you that there is no guarantee “black” and “non-white” identities will disappear. However, “whiteness” is the keystone holding up many other identities implemented by Western thought.

    Once “whiteness” is destroyed, “non-whites” can either demobilize and once and for all get rid of the racial identities imposed on them, or the “non-white” alliance can break down and “black” and “Latino” and “Asian” etc. can degenerate into tribal identities which fight with one another.

    I think things tend to point that the former is what is happening. Note for example that many anti-racists have started calling themselves simply “non-white”, or “People of Color”, rather than continue to place emphasis on the different groups within the “non-white” category. We have also previously observed that anti-racist Leftists are moving closer to the True Left, especially BLM, who are offering solidarity to other oppressed groups rather than becoming more insularly “black”:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/anti-zionist-harvest-contd/
    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/the-true-left-is-emerging/

    Basically, “whiteness” has caused nearly all of the world’s problems over the past 500 years. What would be accomplished if “blacks” and “non-whites” deracialized first, without first destroying “white” identity? Not much, because it is “white” identity and propagation of Western civilization which continue to enlarge so many problems!

    Only time will tell if the other identities will also die, but I believe the “deracialization” camp holds the upper hand at the moment. “Post-racialists” and “color blind anti-racists” are perceived as having jumped the gun a few decades ago for trying to “deracialize” “non-whites” without comparably damaging “white” identity; so I think the anti-racist camp is trying not to repeat the failure of these earlier attempts.

    “My point was that by attacking whiteness and the idea of white people holding power, a struggle that would form a more united white group was being created.”
    “If the goal is to destroy tribal divisions, how can this be done in such a way as to avoid conflict of the sort I’m trying to warn?”

    We must make it clear that non-racists and “deracialized” individuals with pale skin and European heritage do not belong to the “white” tribe. Only then will it be possible for such individuals to never feel common interests with White Nationalists or feel “attacked” when people attack Western injustices.

    This shift is beginning–for example, many BLM-type leftists view “white” as a purely tribalist entity (the same way the Jewish tribe is talked about on this website). Tribalist “blacks” will insist every pale-skinned person is evil, but I believe sincere anti-racists within these movements understand many people with pale skin aren’t racist and, indeed, oppose White Nationalism and Western supremacy.

    They are either waiting for an opportunity to spread the concept that deracialized, pale-skinned individuals with European heritage do NOT belong to the “white” tribe–or waiting for someone else to popularize this concept.

    Instead of an individual with pale skin being viewed as belonging to the “white” tribe by default, we must make it so pale skinned individuals are, by default, viewed as simply Americans or (insert nationality here), rather than “white”. Only those individuals who demonstrate their bigotry and support of “white” identity will then be labeled as “whites”.

    A few decades ago, anti-racists attempted to introduce terms like “not-white” to describe such individuals:

    “The important not-white American thinkers (John Brown, Twain, Melville, Thoreau, Sinclair Lewis, Gore Vidal, Clint Eastwood), as well as many European intellectuals – essentially people who are able to observe objectively the white government, free of what DuBois called in Black Reconstruction “the Blindspot” (read: the “white” blindspot) – have been baffled that more people don’t appreciate the people responsible for the Miracle.”
    http://www.blackcommentator.com/129/129_guest_pbs_slavery.html

    “(or even a person who voted for someone like Trump because of this danger to a group they felt they belong to, if you believe such a person can still be saved)”

    People who still support Trump are irredeemable. And many people who voted for Trump only regret it because they view him as incompetent and not benefiting his clientele/voters as much as he claimed he would (in other words, they still support his stated goals). For example, see many of the posts here:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Trumpgret/

    These people have no empathy.

  20. K says:

    @AS”Notice you use the loaded terms “prior” and “regain”, which implies you are presuming what you are trying to prove in order to prove it (and therefore wasting my time). All that we can actually say is going on is that data is being downloaded. It is your foppery claiming that because the data previously existed on a different hard drive, now that it has been downloaded to this hard drive, this hard drive “was” the other hard drive in a “past life”.”

    You don’t agree with my opinion of it being the same individual, clearly enough. I gave you links and evidence proving the point of reincarnation involving the same individual. Read the 4th link specifically.

    “It renders it enslaving:

    the success of the slave, the slavemaster or the observer only results in continuation of their compulsions”
    How’s the activity of survival itself enslaving? You have to continue doing things to survive, but you are fully free to become suicidal and kill yourself if you change your mind later. What I disagree with is you being free to go kill everyone else who is not suicidal.

    “Boromir tells Frodo that just keeping the Ring around is not inherently wrong, and he can spend an infinite amount of time choosing not to use the Ring if Frodo just lets him have it. Should Frodo believe him?”
    What a pessimistic view. As if people being alive makes them inherently bad simply due to their capacity for violence, when they’re fully capable of being just fine with each other. You only think in terms of ‘they might do X’ because your entire worldview seems centered around negative acts and their prevention. No, I do not agree with your analogy on the Ring.

    Since you just linked your old comment I’ll quote your old argument again.
    “Is someone who does not yet exist capable of giving consent? Yet such people are brought into existence. Thus everyone brought into existence is brought into existence without their own consent. That is aggression, committed against those brought into existence, the offense commencing from the instant that person’s existence begins.”
    You entirely skipped the point. I disagree with the idea that they were created by birth in the first place. Making their existence not an act perpetuated by anyone else. I suppose you didn’t understand that to be part of the purpose of the links I sent so as I said earlier please read the 4th link which shows evidence along the lines of proving reincarnation of the same individual.

    Then you quoted Hitler and said I’m ignoring all of your arguments. You’re going in loops here. I’ve already pointed out my rejection of your premise that it’s automatically violent due to it not making them live, even going with your personal definition of creation as violent. The next step in the argument is you responding at all to the evidence I linked showing reincarnation of the same individual to be real.

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>