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. AS says:

    @Isaac

    Part 2 looks fine on the whole. I’m just wondering why you appear to switch randomly between the terms “immigrant”, “refugee” and “asylum seeker” throughout the article. This was especially noticeable in your three diagrams, where the new guy was called an “asylum seeker” in the first two diagrams, but in the third diagram he is suddenly a “refugee”. (Plus you use a different font for the text!)

    The diagrams themselves are excellent, though; would you mind if I used them on the Immigration page of the main site?

  2. Hashtali designed them actually, and I could imagine he would be happy for them to be used. I’m going to adjust them. I will fix the font… Probably stick with Immigrant for the label, and I have a better picture of the Parliament for the “state”.

  3. Alrighty…. adjusted the inconsistencies. It seems good though to keep “immigrants” in some contexts? Please look over what I’ve done, and let me know if it still seems to jump around too much.

  4. AS says:

    The text looks fine. However, perhaps you could reposition the diagrams to match the text. The first diagram should appear where the second one currently is, the second diagram should appear where the third one currently is, and the third one should appear between the words “positive asylum” and “Grass Roots”. See what I mean?

    By the way, I personally much prefer the old ARNM insignia in which the triangles have white borders:

    https://austnatrevolution.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/banner.jpg

    over the new one where they do not:

    https://austnatrevolution.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/cropped-header1.jpg

  5. @AS – Thanks for that. I will adjust the images ASAP. I will also rectify the insignia. At least I have managed to make the image a vector now, so I can use it for web and for banners, flags, shirts, whatever we need in the future. But yes, the white around it was better.

  6. Hashtali says:

    @AS
    “This was especially noticeable in your three diagrams, where the new guy was called an “asylum seeker” in the first two diagrams, but in the third diagram he is suddenly a “refugee”.”

    My thoughts were that if rightists were in power, they would seek asylum but would never find it. In contrast, if we were in power, they would find asylum much more easily (i.e. no longer be seeking it, hence refugees).
    As for why I went with asylum seekers for the welfare state, I’ll admit it was somewhat arbitrary, but I did consider that genuine asylum is harder to find under a welfare state, especially considering that rightist citizens upset with tax money being used to sustain refugees turn on refugees, thus not providing complete refuge.

    “The diagrams themselves are excellent, though; would you mind if I used them on the Immigration page of the main site?”

    Thank you. Seeing Isaac is fine with it, I have no problem with it either.

    @Isaac

    “Probably stick with Immigrant for the label, and I have a better picture of the Parliament for the “state”.”

    Please do change the Parliament. I would have had a hard time editing the Parliament for more accurate proportions after I had already finished it (i.e. when I had realized the proportions are off).

  7. John Johnson says:

    I thought I should post this. Merkel makes a teenage Palestinian refugee cry after she tells her she won’t help Palestinians.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8980161/angela-merkel-crying-girl

  8. AS says:

    @JJ

    Videos like this make Frater Pan feel VIRILE. That’s the most important thing these days, apparently. How dare we deny important Gentile Zionists like him the chance to feel VIRILE? Every time he sees a refugee who could have been helped but wasn’t, he feels more VIRILE than before. (Is this what Merkel meant when she said, “Politics is hard.”?)

    On a more serious note, the level of dishonesty among rightists on the issue is staggering. One of the most common talking points I hear from rightists is the bald-faced lie that only Western countries are required to take in refugees. In fact, 86% of all current refugees are taken in by non-Western countries. Lebanon alone (citizen population 4 million) has taken in over a million refugees in recent years ie. 20% of its population are refugees. Jordan (citizen population 6.5 million) has taken in more than 2.6 million refugees ie. 40% of its population are refugees.

    At least here is one positive story to counter the negativity:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/greek-island-refugee-crisis-local-people-and-tourists-rally-round-migrants

  9. Thanks. I will search and add articles in italian that deal with the same issues.
    Anyway, I’m still thinking about the structure my blog posts should have, and how to write the blog post on immigration. They probably should be less “formal” than “pages”. Maybe their structure should be something like: link to relevant news on the web —> my analysis and comments —-> relevant quotes taken from the appropriate page of my website.

  10. AS says:

    One more positive story:

    https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/why-austrians-opening-homes-refugees-132515598.html

    @MS

    Don’t worry too much about the layout structure. You can always change it later. The important thing is to get the content up first.

  11. Frater Pan says:

    @JJ

    That Palestinian refugee from your video received not only Merkel’s reasonable explanation why she cannot accept all her racial kin but also Merkel’s empathy. Merkel behaved emphatically as soon as she noticed the girl’s unstoic facial expression and her unbecoming behavior.

    “Epictetus argues in the Encheirderon that if we see a fellow crying and moaning by the side of the road, we should not just ignore him. Though as wise men we recognize his sufferings as due not to the seemingly unfortunate circumstances in which he finds himself but rather to the willful judgments he has made regarding those circumstances, we should still commiserate with him, and even, if necessary, shed tears and moan with him. However, Epictetus warns, “be careful not to moan inwardly.”

    This is precisely what Merkel did. She laudably commiserated with this grieving invader as leaders of invaded nations rarely do.

    @AS

    Why aren’t you satisfied with Merkel’s empathy? Is it because you and immigrants after all demand human rights and not empathy? If we moan with you, why isn’t it enough? You are insatiable. If immigrants and their leftist instructors are just about empathy than they’d be satisfied with our compassionate behavior … but they are not.

    Immigrants are instructed to demand human rights, not empathy. I have no problems with that provided that we substitute the conventional (moral and/or legal) nature of human rights with a more naturalistic account of rights that equates rights with sheer power. What we have the power to do we also have the right to do. The invaders have the inalienable right to invade but only if they can invade, defenders have the inalienable right to stop them, but only if they can stop them. All living beings regardless if they are rational or passionate have this inalienable right to do what they can. If Europeans want to gun down the invaders than who are we to judge such behavior? And if invaders want to rape and butcher us than who are we to blame them? I don’t hate them, I’m rational so I’d killed them in cold blood as if they were wild animals and than (if necessary) moaned after them to express my empathy while retaining my inner peace.

  12. I don’t want to overstep anyone (JJ and AS), but I find it hard to stay silent while reading of such absurdities.

    @Frater Pan
    “[...]though as wise men we recognize his sufferings as due not to the seemingly unfortunate circumstances in which he finds himself but rather to the willful judgments he has made regarding those circumstances[...]”

    Tell me, when did that Palestinian girl, with her “willful judgment”, choose that Palestine should be destroyed by Zionists?

    Also, I don’t have a deep knowledge of Epictetus, but to manifest a certain emotion outwardly while at the same time having a completely different feeling inside (“moan with him” but “be careful not to moan inwardly”) means lying and deceiving.
    You say this is empathy, on the contrary: lies and deception are the EXACT OPPOSITE of empathy. This is explained in the “Communication” article, in the “Etiquette” paragraph (http://aryanism.net/culture/aesthetics/communication/).
    Quote:
    “On the other hand, falsified displays of emotion are unacceptable, and far worse than hiding real emotions. If you do not internally feel the emotion, to externally simulate it is dishonourable towards whomever is watching. [...] In this light … to use a fake emotion from oneself to generate a real emotion in someone else is manipulation (which is unforgivable).”

    “Why aren’t you satisfied with Merkel’s empathy? Is it because you and immigrants after all demand human rights and not empathy? If we moan with you, why isn’t it enough? You are insatiable”

    What kind of empathy are we talking about? Sending on one hand millions to Israel, along with submarines, weapons and other technology, while on the other hand “moaning” with the victims of Zionism is not empathy, as I tried to explain earlier. It’s deception and lies.

    “She laudably commiserated with this grieving invader as leaders of invaded nations rarely do.”

    So, when the Zionists destroy an entire country and oppress its inhabitants, if these inhabitants seek refuge in another country they are the “invaders”, not the Zionists.
    When “Western” nations exploit African countries and enslave its inhabitants – and this is not a thing of the past, it’s still going on in a different guise, mainly economic and financial slavery – if these inhabitants seek refuge in a better place they are “invaders”.
    I don’t think I need to say anything more about this.

    “If Europeans want to gun down the invaders than who are we to judge such behavior? And if invaders want to rape and butcher us than who are we to blame them?”

    I would judge both behaviours as ignoble. The fact that you can’t do that clearly shows that your moral standards are lower.

    “I don’t hate them, I’m rational so I’d killed them in cold blood as if they were wild animals and than (if necessary) moaned after them to express my empathy while retaining my inner peace.”

    Inflicting pain to others “in cold blood” while “retaining inner peace” is a clear sign of hardness of heart, not of empathy. Once again, you’re confusing empathy with deception.

  13. Andalucian Warrior says:

    ‘I have no problems with that provided that we substitute the conventional (moral and/or legal) nature of human rights with a more naturalistic account of rights that equates rights with sheer power. What we have the power to do we also have the right to do. The invaders have the inalienable right to invade but only if they can invade, defenders have the inalienable right to stop them, but only if they can stop them.’

    This attitude, why it is incorrect and its alternatives are covered here:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/anthony/on-geopolitical-lies/

    ‘That Palestinian refugee from your video received not only Merkel’s reasonable explanation why she cannot accept all her racial kin but also Merkel’s empathy.’

    If I had been the Palestinian, I would have said ‘That is indeed a reasonble explanation, but can you at least not support the people ho make the refugee camps necessary in the first place?’ I don’t think Merkel would have had a reasonable response to that.

  14. John Johnson says:

    “This is precisely what Merkel did. She laudably commiserated with this grieving invader as leaders of invaded nations rarely do.”

    This girl was born under no will of her own, her original country was destroyed under no will of her own, and she is probably in Germany under no will of her own (she’s young, so her parents probably brought her), and the most immediate cause of her grief–Germany’s poor handling of refugees–is certainly under no will of her own. If she had maintained a “stoic” facial expression, it would not have solved any of these problems; in fact, Merkel wouldn’t even have bothered to “comfort” her if she did.

    Merkel makes a half-assed attempt to comfort her as a PR move to save face, not because she had any empathy. If she had any empathy, she wouldn’t be supporting Israel in the first place, and she certainly wouldn’t have responded to the girl in such a cold manner:

    “You are an extremely nice person but you also know that there are thousands and thousands of people in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
    We couldn’t manage.”

    Obviously Germany has been managing just fine, considering this girl and her family have been living in Germany for 4 years and she speaks fluent German. (And as AS and the article I posted mention, Germany would still be fine if it took on many more refugees).

    You certainly don’t understand what empathy is, but I wouldn’t expect a racist to.

  15. Frater Pan says:

    All stoics advocated an undisturbed state of mind (apatheia/aequanimitas), the state undisturbed by experience of or exposure to emotions, pain, or other phenomena that may cause base men to lose their emotional balance. All stoics differentiated between things we cannot completely control (such as those caused by the will of others or by Nature) and things within our power to control (such as our inner peace). Reputation (opinions of others) and pain/pleasure are not completely ours to control.

    The Palestinian interloper is a base person, so we cannot really blame her for loosing her composure (the only thing which is within her power to control). She didn’t yet learned to accept whatever happens to “Palestine” and Arabs is ultimately beyond her (or Merkel’s) power. Merkel did the best she could do to influence the opinions of others by compassionate gesture but it is not completely in her power to secure her reputation. She cannot ultimately control what you think about her. The only thing she can do is to maintain her undisturbed state of mind. That’s something you cannot take away from us. You can damage our reputation among base men for not “moaning inwardly” with them but you cannot compel us to loose our undisturbed state of mind.

    “Outward things cannot touch the soul, not in the least degree; nor have they admission to the soul, nor can they turn or move the soul; but the soul turns and moves itself alone… Or is it your reputation that’s bothering you? But look at how soon we’re all forgotten. The abyss of endless time that swallows it all. The emptiness of all those applauding hands. The people who praise us — how capricious they are, how arbitrary.” -Marcus Aurelius

    “I must die. But must I die groaning? I must be imprisoned. But must I whine as well? I must suffer exile. Can any one then hinder me from going with a smile, and a good courage, and at peace? ‘Tell me secret.’ I refuse to tell, for that is in my power. ‘But I will chain you.’ What say you fellow? Chain me? My leg you will chain – yes, but my will – no, not even Zeus can conquer that. ‘I will imprison you.’ My bit of a body, you mean. ‘I will behead you.’ Why? When did I ever tell you that I was the only man in the world that could not be beheaded?” -Epictetus

  16. AS says:

    @MS

    More positive stuff for your blog:

    http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2015/07/20/racists-banned-from-parish-church_553b4b59-8950-4dd5-adf4-1ae886cb1f2c.html

    @Frater Pan

    “Merkel did the best she could do”

    This line captures the essence of Stoicism better than any Epictetus, Aurelius or other classical quote.

  17. AS says:

    Time for more uplifting news. You know how the far-right loves to argue: “Mainstream politicians who let in asylum seekers should let them inside their own homes and see how they like it then!” Well, now we can show them this:

    http://www.theweek.co.uk/64669/german-mp-invites-eritrean-asylum-seekers-to-live-with-his-family

  18. AS says:

    More good stuff from Germany:

    http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/25830/1/german-news-anchor-calls-out-racists-live-on-air

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/07/newsreader-anja-reschke-racist-speech-german-television_n_7954416.html

    Reschke’s video is now linked from this page on the main site:

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

    under point 5). Of course, words – while important – will alone almost certainly not be enough. Like I keep saying, unless the pro-refugee activists are willing to put their own lives at risk physically defending refugees in street fighting, the far-right will win. Commitment can only be defeated by greater commitment, and throughout all of history the ultimate testing ground of commitment has been the battlefield.

    Meanwhile in Turkey (which has taken in more than 2 million refugees so far):

    http://news.yahoo.com/newlyweds-skip-traditional-banquet-feed-thousands-refugees-112214234.html

  19. AS says:

    Even the smallest initiatives are better than nothing, and many small initiatives can have a cumulative effect:

    http://news.yahoo.com/why-bus-drivers-welcome-germany-speech-going-viral-195948292.html

  20. AS says:

    While the government of every other EU country is making excuses for why it is failing to protect refugees, SNP Scotland goes over and above the call of duty:

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-would-support-failed-asylum-seekers-with-cash-1-3860376

  21. AS says:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33936487

    With the way the far-right is encouraging physical attacks on refugees, though, these volunteer teachers would be well-advised to teach not only classroom subjects but also street self-defence. If none of them are qualified to do so, they should try to recruit volunteers who are. If anyone reading this lives nearby and is in a position to help out, please do so!

  22. AS says:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0819/Seeking-Refuge-Migrants-trekking-to-EU-find-a-helping-hand-in-Macedonia-video

    Never believe the far-right lie that “nobody” cares about refugees. Many still do. They are just too busy actually helping to talk about it.

  23. Frater Pan says:

    Some random facts and highlights related to the recent invasion wave:

    Italian police arrested 15 migrants in Palermo under suspicion they dumped into the open see 15 Christian migrants from the same boat (immigrant empathy toward Christians).

    Syrian migrants in Macedonia attacked the police with knives and refused aid packages because they are marked with the red cross sign (muslim response to Christian/leftist empathy).

    Though media presents Syrian ‘refugees’ as women and children 90% of them are males, age 20-40 (ignoble deserters, undercover Isis?).

    In Hungary they attacked the police chanting “Alahu Ekber” (I thought they are coming here for work…)

    All in all I am optimistic. We need to suffer under these butchers for a while so that it can trigger our right-wing reactionary populism so that the action against leftist intellectuals, leftist youth and immigrants can take place. There will be no need for concentration camps or anything neat like that because they appear so conspiratorial, secretive and sinister. We have nothing to hide. The enemies of gentile tribalism will be disposed publicly, out in the streets in broad daylight by the enraged mob and chaotic right-wing militias, as is the custom in Africa and Middle East.

  24. Andalucian Warrior says:

    *sigh* Not you, again.

  25. AS says:

    @Frater Pan

    “facts”
    “Italian police arrested 15 migrants in Palermo under suspicion they dumped into the open see 15 Christian migrants from the same boat”

    Suspicion is not fact. But if evidence follows, then I support executing those particular individuals convicted, and not blaming refugees in general.

    “Syrian migrants in Macedonia attacked the police with knives”

    “In Hungary they attacked the police chanting “Alahu Ekber” (I thought they are coming here for work…)”

    Far-right gangs have also been attacking the police recently, mainly outside asylum centres. I support the police cracking down on both types of attackers and continuing to protect peaceful people (refugees as well as existing inhabitants).

    “Though media presents Syrian ‘refugees’ as women and children 90% of them are males, age 20-40 ”

    This should be good news from the perspective of any government that wishes to get refugees economically productive ASAP. I also hope these statistics are true for the reason that such refugees would be on average better able to physically defend themselves from far-right gang attacks, thereby lightening the workload of our own (already overworked) activists in providing volunteer security (e.g. Pandorastop’s Lion’s Shield project). Indeed, the only people who would consider this to be bad news would be thugs like yourself who are planning to attack refugees.

    With this said, I would prefer to wait for a proper census instead of rushing to believe statistics based on tiny sample sizes and hearsay.

    “refused aid packages because they are marked with the red cross sign”

    This is also good news, and a sign of community spirit on the part of the refugees. Now these aid packages can be re-given to those who need them more (which is what the red cross marking means – emergency relief, not generic handouts). I would be more worried about people who accept aid packages they don’t need.

    “All in all I am optimistic.”

    Of course you are. You are following the Zionist script. This is the backlash scene, also known as the Ziongasm scene. This is why we call you a useful idiot. A century ago, the communists were looking forward to “disposing” of the bourgeois with the same optimism. If you had lived a century ago, you would have been among them.

    http://aryanism.net/politics/multiethnic-society/is-race-the-new-class/

  26. Frater Pan says:

    @AS

    “I support executing those particular individuals convicted, and not blaming refugees in general.”

    Because you require unison muslim action to blame muslims as the whole. But why is unison European action not required to blame all Europeans? And how can you blame Jews for anything since not even Jews act in unison for whatever they are blamed?

    I don’t believe in perfect justice and blame the entire group whenever I perceive a significant, frequently repeating hostile pattern of behavior within that group.

    “Far-right gangs have also been attacking the police recently, mainly outside asylum centres. I support the police cracking down on both types of attackers and continuing to protect peaceful people (refugees as well as existing inhabitants).”

    You talk about singe acts against some cops, I’m talking about the angry mob storming police headquarters and even presidential residence like Maidan’s protesters did in Ukraine. The police can’t help you if the entire cities are in the state of rebellion. Eventually the cops will defect to the people while only a few will remain with aliens and politicians to the bitter end.

    “This should be good news from the perspective of any government that wishes to get refugees economically productive…”

    As productive as Detroit? I’m not a libertarian and don’t care about the economy since it’s just a tool the hands of anti-identitarian establishment. There will be no economic recovery to pacify European crowds and the left-Catholic faith is insufficient to repel the crowds.

    “With this said, I would prefer to wait for a proper census instead of rushing to believe statistics based on tiny sample sizes and hearsay.”

    You already know how Hungarians generally feel about this issue. Now muslims can get to Germany only via Croatia. According to the pool 44% of Croatians are opposed to granting the asylum to the invaders. This is not a bad percentage for the start since the real headaches haven’t even started yet and people mostly react only after they feel the consequences on their own skin and their immediate environment.

    “This is also good news, and a sign of community spirit on the part of the refugees. Now these aid packages can be re-given to those who need them more (which is what the red cross marking means – emergency relief, not generic handouts). I would be more worried about people who accept aid packages they don’t need.”

    They didn’t refused aid packages because they don’t need them emergently but because they dislike the symbol of cross on it.

    “Of course you are. You are following the Zionist script. This is the backlash scene, also known as the Ziongasm scene.”

    All of us with loyalty to some ethnic identity resemble Zionists because Jews are an ethnic identity too. In the same in the same way we could also say that we all resemble injun and negro and Mongol tribes. We all like to kill international idealists, just like Sanhedrin. That’s why the most Germans killed Jews, because they were international communists and humanist intellectuals. Only a minority of nazis were like monster Hitler who killed Jews because of lofty ideas designed assign some deeper meaning or metaphysical justification.

  27. Andalucian Warrior says:

    @Frater Pan – We’ve already dealt with similar arguments from you in the past. I’m not going to waste my energy repeating myself, as AS feels compelled to. Instead, I’m going to post this picture of Dr. Goebbels laughing at you, possibly for having sexual relations with your mother:

    http://a2.files.biography.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTE5NTU2MzE2MjMyMDU4Mzc5.jpg

  28. Mixing Bowl says:

    Unless for love (moving to be with a loved one), how is immigration or emigration a noble quality? Massive immigration is most certainly not a noble concept, to the contrary. Massive immigration hurts both nations involved, first the people that are leaving their respective homelands, are simply abandoning it for their own selfish benefits, and secondly it hurts the nation accept the massive numbers of immigrants.

    A noble person would never abandon his/her native land, instead they would stay and fight/sacrifice to make their native land a better place. I don’t care what the reason is, if it’s a bad government or whatever, a noble person would rather lose his life fighting to make his home a better place, then to flee it, simply to find a “better” life elsewhere.

    If the goal is to make a noble world, then we should be promoting that every nation can offer opportunity to its native habitats, not influence them to leave their homes.

    Also, those that support immigration are not in favor of actually improving the newcomers way of life, but simply to give them the scrap jobs.

    A small amount of immigration is acceptable, but a large amount is just beyond ignoble.

    Nations should focus on helping their weakest and poorest habitats first, before offering help to others. You claim to be national socialist, immigration is the complete opposite of that.

  29. Mixing Bowl says:

    Furthermore, how is good for a nation to lose all its habitats? If everyone jumps from ship A to ship B, then A will sink. An imbalance will occur in the world.

    Nations should also focus on reducing their respective populous numbers. A smaller, and tighter nation, can take care of each other better, than a huge nation. Huge nations are like corporations, everyone is just a number. Globalization is out control, a balanced amount is healthy for the world, but not to the point where everyone from region leaves theirs and invades another, whether it be directly or indirectly.

  30. Hashtali says:

    @Frater Pan

    “But why is unison European action not required to blame all Europeans?”

    When have we blamed all Europeans? Don’t make stuff up.

    “And how can you blame Jews for anything since not even Jews act in unison for whatever they are blamed?”

    Judaism is a tribalist religion, and Jews are a tribe. Anybody who is born Jewish but sincerely detests tribalism should leave Judaism and the tribe. If they refuse, they’re showing their true colors.
    Mohammedanism, on the other hand, is anti-tribalist. Any tribalist Muslims are tribalists DESPITE their claim to be Muslims.

    “I don’t believe in perfect justice and blame the entire group whenever I perceive a significant, frequently repeating hostile pattern of behavior within that group.”

    Does anybody take you seriously?

    “You talk about singe acts against some cops, I’m talking about the angry mob storming police headquarters and even presidential residence like Maidan’s protesters did in Ukraine.”

    First you mention single attacks against some cops (in fact, I looked it up, and it seems the police started the attack on refugees, unless you want to provide a source to the contrary). Then you claim we do that and bring up something completely unrelated. What does Maidan have to do with the topic we’re discussing?

    “The police can’t help you if the entire cities are in the state of rebellion. Eventually the cops will defect to the people while only a few will remain with aliens and politicians to the bitter end.”

    Non-refugees (and the government) should help refugees rebuild their life in the new land, and then the latter can likewise contribute to the community, all of this being based on empathy. This would immediately end all conflict. But you don’t want to end the conflict. So you’re not going to do anything to help. And then you’re going to blame refugees for issues which could have been avoided had you helped.

    “I…don’t care about the economy….”

    Another reason why we don’t take you seriously….

    “You already know how Hungarians generally feel about this issue. You already know how Hungarians generally feel about this issue. Now muslims can get to Germany only via Croatia. According to the pool 44% of Croatians are opposed to granting the asylum to the invaders. This is not a bad percentage for the start since the real headaches haven’t even started yet and people mostly react only after they feel the consequences on their own skin and their immediate environment.”

    Since when do we care about how the majority feels? I don’t recall being in favor of democracy. If the majority were willing to do something productive to help the refugees, then there wouldn’t be problems in the first place, and we would take the majority seriously. As things stand, most people aren’t doing anything, and then blaming refugees for not wanting to work.

    “They didn’t refused aid packages because they don’t need them emergently but because they dislike the symbol of cross on it.”

    http://www.ilpost.it/2015/08/25/debunking-migrants-video-red-cross-macedonia/

    “Only a minority of nazis were like monster Hitler who killed Jews because of lofty ideas designed assign some deeper meaning or metaphysical justification.”

    Well, thank you for making our job easier and showing people the difference between a barbarian (like you) and a heroic individual (like Hitler).

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/14/d2/67/14d26764304df09d68a5c5d6de415b1a.jpg

  31. Addekempe says:

    Hashtali, may you please delete my first comment when you get online it’s “awaiting moderation.” so I will just repost it and use my old email, thanks.

    @Mixing Bowl

    “Unless for love (moving to be with a loved one)”

    I tend to have this assertion that I’d move anywhere (except Israel, I don’t love Israelis) if I ever wanted to live with or be near someone I loved, I don’t think I’ll call it a noble quality (can you explain this) but rather showing that you care.

    But what about people like children, mothers, pregnant woman, then fathers, elderly people, etc, this ties back to the loved one situation, and why we have mass migration.

    “Massive immigration hurts both nations involved”

    I think it only hurts the receiving nation is a democratic society, democratic societies are susceptible to tribalism, or other forms of nations that don’t have polices against tribalism, or did not have polices that helped migrants get sustainable jobs, and having programs that rely on other peoples taxes.

    I think if that the migrant moves to nation and he hurts it, he’s not ignoble for doing that, rather the individuals running that nation and the nativist gentiles are ignoble, I think that the migrant has a noble responsibility to change his nation if he receives those problems.

    “A noble person would never abandon his/her native land, instead they would stay and fight/sacrifice to make their native land a better place. ”

    I agree, they should do that, I would do that, but some people like children and pregnant woman can’t, and there not ignoble for doing that, and this goes back to your loved one issue so for example, fathers capable of fighting would move with them, hence why you have mass-migration in the first place.

    “If the goal is to make a noble world, then we should be promoting that every nation can offer opportunity to its native habitats, not influence them to leave their homes.”

    Well that is a more tactical and ethical response, but some people who didn’t choose the nation they migrated too (i,e when they were children) should probably stay and help the nation they grew up in.

    “Also, those that support immigration are not in favor of actually improving the newcomers way of life, but simply to give them the scrap jobs.”

    And… people that don’t, want to make there lives a living hell, so where is the compromise these days?

    “A small amount of immigration is acceptable, but a large amount is just beyond ignoble.”

    Perhaps, but don’t you think migrants won’t really like the idea of moving to an authoritarian state, hence already prevents it.

    “Nations should focus on helping their weakest and poorest habitats first, before offering help to others. You claim to be national socialist, immigration is the complete opposite of that.”

    Alfred Rosenburg was a migrant, and a National Socialist, I ensure you that like I said moving to a nation and helping it is a noble action, that is what Alfred Rosenburg did.

    “Furthermore, how is good for a nation to lose all its habitats? If everyone jumps from ship A to ship B, then A will sink. An imbalance will occur in the world.”

    That is not a bad point, but I’m pretty sure not everyone would leave the nation, but if that nation was so unlivable that everyone would leave then obviously it shouldn’t exist in the first place.

    “Nations should also focus on reducing their respective populous numbers.”

    That is done through population control, but you can also debate for migration control as well: “Furthermore, any call for immigration reduction on one hand on the grounds that the country is “full up” accompanied on the other hand by a call for increase in local birth rate exposes itself as completely disingenuous. Every ecologically-based argument against immigration (some of which are indeed valid arguments) must, in order to be consistent, also oppose population increase via reproduction.” – from the immigration page

    otherwise any arguments against migration because the population numbers raise too high, but not mention reproduction, which is a worse cause to higher numbers in a nation, are not really that honest.

    @Frater Pan

    Every time you waste your time posting here, I do this expression:

    https://i.imgflip.com/9desx.jpg

  32. LuciferOverZion says:

    It’s inhabitants not habitats.

  33. AS says:

    @FP

    “Because you require unison muslim action to blame muslims as the whole.”

    When did I say anything about Muslims in my previous reply?

    “But why is unison European action not required to blame all Europeans?”

    When did I say anything about Europeans in my previous reply? (If I did blame all Europeans, my reply would look like this: “AW! It’s your fault Frater Pan is a useful idiot! Because Frater Pan beats up refugees, I’m going to beat you up in revenge, AW! This will show Frater Pan!”)

    “And how can you blame Jews for anything since not even Jews act in unison for whatever they are blamed?”

    Because Judaism is a tribalist religion. Anyone born into a tribe who does not actively reject the tribe is accountable for all evils ever committed by the tribe.

    “I don’t believe in perfect justice and blame the entire group whenever I perceive a significant, frequently repeating hostile pattern of behavior within that group.”

    If that were true, you should be blaming all of your own group because a few of them are attacking refugees. But you don’t, because the group is your own. You don’t believe in justice at all, but only in tribalism.

    “I’m talking about the angry mob storming police headquarters and even presidential residence”

    I still remember that angry mob that beat Colonel Gaddafi to death only a few years ago. I know perfectly well how angry mobs (often stirred up by Jews) have sabotaged good leaders throughout history.

    “Eventually the cops will defect to the people while only a few will remain with aliens and politicians to the bitter end.”

    Those few cops would be the heroic, aristocratic ones, loyal to their sworn duty as police officers to protect the innocent, whose inner morality makes them immune to popular opinion:

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03425/Migrants-police-of_3425550n.jpg

    “Defecting to the people” is cowardice that only a democrat would admire. Aristocratic courage is the courage to stand against the angry mob, to do what is ethical even if it is unpopular and regardless of repercussions on personal safety, to choose death over dishonour when a choice must be made between the two.

    “As productive as Detroit?”

    Detroit is not receiving large numbers of refugees. Besides, I already stated that welfare is the problem.

    “don’t care about the economy”

    Thank you for implicitly admitting that our proposed solution (ending welfare and requiring labour in exchange for living wage) would actually work if implemented. The point is you don’t want to give us a chance to implement it, because it would eliminate your excuse (that you know is an excuse and that you know we know you know is an excuse) to attack refugees. Your real fear is not that refugees won’t successfully integrate; your real fear is that they will.

    “There will be no economic recovery to pacify European crowds and the left-Catholic faith is insufficient to repel the crowds.”

    There you go with your democratic rhetoric again. Crowds are all you have. Crowds are also what, by no coincidence, Jews excel in herding.

    “44% of Croatians are opposed to granting the asylum to the invaders. This is not a bad percentage for the start”

    If you are lucky you might push it up to 80%:

    http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/20-percent.jpg

    “since the real headaches haven’t even started yet and people mostly react only after they feel the consequences on their own skin and their immediate environment.”

    Thank you for admitting that your side is motivated entirely by self-interest.

    “They didn’t refused aid packages because they don’t need them emergently but because they dislike the symbol of cross on it.”

    Next you will tell me the reason that the refugees’ inflatable dinghies are sinking is because the plug also has a cross mark on the lid which causes the refugees by to pull it out on sheer impulse.

    “All of us with loyalty to some ethnic identity resemble Zionists because Jews are an ethnic identity too.”

    Thank you for admitting it.

    “In the same in the same way we could also say that we all resemble injun and negro and Mongol tribes.”

    JJ wrote an excellent post about Thanksgiving:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/john-johnson/unity-through-nobility-something-for-atlanteans-to-really-be-thankful-for-this-thanksgiving/

    Today it is Squanto who is celebrated, not the “injun tribes”. Centuries from now, it will be the heroic cops and civilian volunteers committed to protecting refugees against far-right attacks who will be celebrated, not your “European crowds”. Your identity will mean as little to people of the future as the countless identities of bygone eras mean to people today, but the noble personalities of all eras will still be remembered.

    @Mixing Bowl

    “Massive immigration hurts both nations involved, first the people that are leaving their respective homelands, are simply abandoning it for their own selfish benefits, and secondly it hurts the nation accept the massive numbers of immigrants.”

    Either the migrant is a net contributor, in which case his migration is detrimental to the country he is leaving and beneficial to the country he is entering, or he is a net drain, in which case his migration is beneficial to the country he is leaving and detrimental to the country he is entering. The only way it could be as you describe is if the migrant was a net contributor in his old country but becomes a net drain in his new country. This is a problem caused by welfare. Without welfare, it is more likely that the migrant was a net drain in his old country (which he dislikes) but becomes a net contributor in his new country (which he likes).

    “A noble person would never abandon his/her native land, instead they would stay and fight/sacrifice to make their native land a better place.”

    I disagree that Hitler should have stayed in Austria.

    More generally, there is nothing noble about staying in a land we never chose to be born in. We should want to go to wherever we believe our talents and our work can do the greatest good. Anything else is to underuse our potential. In the same way, we should want to choose an occupation based on whatever we believe we are best at doing, which is not always joining the family business.

    “I don’t care what the reason is, if it’s a bad government or whatever, a noble person would rather lose his life fighting to make his home a better place, then to flee it, simply to find a “better” life elsewhere.”

    The cleanest, most spin-immune form of citizen feedback to a sub-standard government is emigration. A state that fears losing citizens to another state has an urgent incentive to improve its services. In contrast, a tyrannical state is one which forbids people from leaving even if they want to leave, and therefore has no incentive to improve its services. You yourself said:

    “Unless for love (moving to be with a loved one),”

    This “loved one” can be a country, or its leader. So you yourself must agree that there is nothing wrong with moving to another country because we love that country or its leader.

    “If the goal is to make a noble world, then we should be promoting that every nation can offer opportunity to its native habitats, not influence them to leave their homes.”

    Not every nation will listen. And there are so many different types of opportunity that no nation could offer them all even if it wanted to; instead, different nations will spontaneously specialize in different types of opportunity according to its location, resources, etc.. And then there will be people born in one nation who want opportunities of a type only available in another. What then?

    Migration is just common sense; it allows everyone to match themselves up with whatever they are seeking.

    “Also, those that support immigration are not in favor of actually improving the newcomers way of life, but simply to give them the scrap jobs.”

    The newcomers are not being kidnapped into their new country. They themselves must consider the deal they receive in their new country to be better than the deal they receive by staying in their previous country, or else they themselves would not have voluntarily chosen to migrate. And they are free to change their minds subsequently.

    In any case, you are referring only to private businesses that want cheap employees. We have already explained that this is a currency issue, not an immigration issue:

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

    “Nations should focus on helping their weakest and poorest habitats first, before offering help to others. You claim to be national socialist, immigration is the complete opposite of that.”

    Immigration brings in labour, which can be deployed to help the weak and poor. Monetary investment and bureaucratic agreements are illusions; only work is real. This is National Socialism. National Socialist Germany brought in hundreds of thousand of foreign workers even in the pre-war years, rising to millions after WWII began.

    “Furthermore, how is good for a nation to lose all its habitats?”

    The same way it is good for a business to lose all its customers: this will make it think about how it can improve itself in order to attract people back.

    “If everyone jumps from ship A to ship B, then A will sink.”

    What???

  34. Addekempe says:

    @Mixing Bowl @AS

    “More generally, there is nothing noble about staying in a land we never chose to be born in. We should want to go to wherever we believe our talents and our work can do the greatest good. Anything else is to underuse our potential. In the same way, we should want to choose an occupation based on whatever we believe we are best at doing, which is not always joining the family business.”

    Ah, that point got me, it’s really good, if you are reading this Mixing Bowl, take that point into consideration.

  35. Frater Pan says:

    “When did I say anything about Muslims in my previous reply?”

    We’re talking about the recent wave of immigrants who all happen to be muslims, not immigrants in generally. They all seem ardent about their religion, some of them ardent enough to cut the throats of their Christian benefactors if given the chance. I am more inclined to judge moral non-muslims who refuse to generalize than the obvious scimitar-wavers from those boats. But since (unlike Breivik) I like to keep my hands clean (because I am innocent as the Lamb), I expect the infiltrated Isis will do that job for me. They do the work, they get the blame. I condemn them for killing my moral foe, thus I (my kind) will be the most moral party involved. And woe to those who will ever doubt it. I’m not afraid of isis, they cannot get to me in the countryside, in close, tight-knit, xenophobe-gentile communities and ‘nazi’ villages. They can only kill the idealistic youth – and get the blame for it, while I gloat from the darkness like a Satanic Jew and condemn the act of violence like an Aryan Lamb. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! The victory shall be mine and you will never get rid of me. I AM SCHWARTZ ALBERICH!

  36. Frater Pan says:

    “The point is you don’t want to give us a chance to implement it, because it would eliminate your excuse (that you know is an excuse and that you know we know you know is an excuse) to attack refugees. Your real fear is not that refugees won’t successfully integrate; your real fear is that they will.”

    You are gravely mistaken. I’m a radical just like you (only for another race/genes/spirit) and seek to strike the problem in it’s root. Attacking the refugees is secondary. It’s your neolitic (swarthy, slender) race/genes and memes (axial age morality) I perceive as the fundamental problem, not the goy desert-niggers.

  37. Mixing Bowl says:

    @AS

    You: “We should want to go to wherever we believe our talents and our work can do the greatest good.”

    Me: That might be true, but only for a very small percentage of actual migrants. The majority are abandoning their countries because they want to simply go where the “grass is greener”. Hence, not because they care about doing good for their new nation, rather they are thinking, “what can “my” new nation give me”. They are in it for selfish reasons.

    You: “The cleanest, most spin-immune form of citizen feedback to a sub-standard government is emigration.”

    Me: I disagree. That is form of cowardice. A noble person stands his ground, and will fight (violent or non-violent) for what he/she believes is right, regardless of whatever the consequence. Heroes don’t worry about consequences. The reason why greedy people rule this world is because most people are too cowardly to do anything about it.

    You: “This “loved one” can be a country, or its leader. So you yourself must agree that there is nothing wrong with moving to another country because we love that country or its leader.”

    Me: Right, that’s what I said, and I agree with my original statement. However, that is only true for a select few, which is why I originally said, balance immigration is fine. But, again, the majority of people that move to another country are not for the love of the country or its leader, but because they want to go “wherever the grass is greener and richer”.

    You: “Not every nation will listen. And there are so many different types of opportunity that no nation could offer them all even if it wanted to; instead, different nations will spontaneously specialize in different types of opportunity according to its location, resources, etc.. And then there will be people born in one nation who want opportunities of a type only available in another. What then?”

    Me: Well it is up to the noble nations to force ignoble nations to become noble. The goal is not just to make one nation noble (that’s only the start), but the eventual end goal is to make the entire world noble, and then the universe. To your latter statement, you’re thinking in out of control terms, which don’t make any sense. Those that want go to another nation which specializes in something that they prefer, are always a minority, which is fine for balanced immigration. In a good world, where almost all nations are balanced, and every person is taken care of, the overwhelming majority of any nation will want to stay where they were born. And in a world of noble people, they won’t abandon their nation just go somewhere that is richer, rather they would go just to visit out of adventure or curiosity.

    You: “Migration is just common sense; it allows everyone to match themselves up with whatever they are seeking.”

    Me: Not modern migration. Majority of migrants are going to another country in search of a “better life”, rather than trying to improve their homeland, they abandon in it to get more riches elsewhere. It’s like being in a relationship with someone, and leaving them because they have more flaws than the next person. How is that noble? In fact, these human migrants are so ignoble, they leave a beautiful country (geographically speaking), just because they want more wealth. Animals, on the other hand, migrate for survival purposes, because of floods, or natural disasters. I’m all in favor of migrants who leave a naturally destroyed region; I would always be willing to open my door to someone who needs my help.

    You: “The newcomers are not being kidnapped into their new country. They themselves must consider the deal they receive in their new country to be better than the deal they receive by staying in their previous country, or else they themselves would not have voluntarily chosen to migrate. And they are free to change their minds subsequently.”

    Me: Most newcomers go to a “better” country, thinking they’re going to get a “better” deal. Once they realize that there is no room for advancement, and that they end up with disrespectful laborious jobs, they are no longer happy with their decision of migrating. The governments are evil, because they trick these migrants into thinking they’ll get a better life, when all these governments really want are more taxpayers, they don’t care about the individual, they only care about the number. The idiotic, selfish and ignoble migrant, realizes what a mistake he’s done and then wants to go back home, or starts committing crimes in his new place.

    You: “The same way it is good for a business to lose all its customers: this will make it think about how it can improve itself in order to attract people back.”

    Me: Obviously you have not thought this through to well, or all other alternatives. Leaders of governments of a failing state are like corrupt businesses that have already made all their money. Once they get all their money, they file bankruptcy and close shop. Honestly, do you think some rich warlord cares about getting his people back, or some rich CEO cares about getting his customers back after he’s made all his money and decided to close down the company anyway? He’s so rich; he doesn’t care if almost everyone leaves, because he will just flee to another nation.

  38. Addekempe says:

    @Frater Pan

    Are you pretending to be a gentile or something? Because you’re not so bad at it.

    You’re basically the opposite of an Aryanist, maybe you can make a website called “Gentilism” and have an Aryan list, and maybe you can call yourself “Gentile Sanctuary”.

  39. Hashtali says:

    @Mixing Bowl

    You’re limiting the view of the issue. Essentially you’ve claimed that either one stays in one’s native country and fight for a more noble society, or one emigrates for selfish reasons (granted, there is a minority who you agree emigrate for noble reasons). But are the selfish emigrants selfish because they emigrate, or do they emigrate because they are selfish? Obviously, the latter. And if so, what difference does it matter if they stay in their native country? Won’t they continue to be selfish there, and find ways to better their lives there through ignoble means?
    In other words, the problem isn’t selfish emigrants/immigrants, but selfishness in general, which is a problem regardless of whether it manifests in immigrants or in natives.

    Therefore we should give immigrants the benefit of the doubt, that beyond a desire to better their lives (which is completely understandable), they wish to make their nobility manifest in their new nation. If they prove otherwise, they will be dealt with in the same way as ignoble natives.

    “In fact, these human migrants are so ignoble, they leave a beautiful country (geographically speaking), just because they want more wealth. Animals, on the other hand, migrate for survival purposes, because of floods, or natural disasters. I’m all in favor of migrants who leave a naturally destroyed region; I would always be willing to open my door to someone who needs my help.”

    The problem is that human societies are not exactly the same as animal societies. An animal, in large part, gets what it needs from the wild. Human societies are more complex, and the destruction of such a society is not just done by destruction of the environment and its resources, but on the society’s infrastructure. The destruction of infrastructure is the human equivalent of the animal’s destruction of a habitat. And this is what many refugees are going through.

  40. AS says:

    @FP

    “who all happen to be muslims”

    Except the ones whom you allege were thrown into the sea. You are contradicting your own story.

    Here are some Christian refugees (note the headscarves; now you know how moronic rightists are who see any woman on the street wearing a headscarf and presume she is a Muslim):

    http://linkis.com/iuO1A

    In fact, the refugees fleeing ISIS are disproportionately Christian.

    And even if the refugees were all Muslims, none of my previous arguments depend on whether or not they are Muslims, so I still have no idea why you even bring up the point.

    “It’s your neolitic (swarthy, slender) race/genes and memes (axial age morality) I perceive as the fundamental problem, not the goy desert-niggers.”

    But many of those whom you (inaccurately and insultingly) call “desert-niggers” also believe in what you call “axial age morality” (and I’ll leave it to you to judge their “slenderness” in the link above). If Aryan bloodlines are your fundamental problem, these include the bloodlines of Ra and Enlil.

    @MB

    “The majority are abandoning their countries because they want to simply go where the “grass is greener”. Hence, not because they care about doing good for their new nation, rather they are thinking, “what can “my” new nation give me”.”

    The two are not mutually exclusive, on the contrary they go together. Again, to use your love analogy, if I love someone I am obviously to attracted to them and want to be near them, but because of this feeling I think about what I can do for them far more than about what they can give me. The same is true of migration. When you live in a country that suits you, you will automatically contribute with greater enthusiasm than if you had stayed in a country that does not suit you.

    And again we support eliminating welfare (which would automatically discourage those who migrate just for bigger handouts), a point which you keep ignoring.

    “A noble person stands his ground, and will fight (violent or non-violent) for what he/she believes is right”

    It is right that everyone can choose where they wish to live, because no one chose where they were born. Migration is fighting for this belief. Moving elsewhere and then refusing to be intimidated by far-right attacks is standing one’s ground.

    “In a good world, where almost all nations are balanced, and every person is taken care of, the overwhelming majority of any nation will want to stay where they were born.”

    This is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is: IF people want to live elsewhere than their country of birth, they should be able to.

    “It’s like being in a relationship with someone, and leaving them because they have more flaws than the next person. How is that noble?”

    Because this relationship was FORCED UPON US AT BIRTH WITHOUT OUR OWN CONSENT! Therefore to accept such a relationship is to be a slave, and nobility rejects slavery. Which part of this do you not understand?

    “they leave a beautiful country (geographically speaking)”

    If you think their birth-country is beautiful, you should move there. Similarly, they should move to countries that they consider beautiful.

    “I’m all in favor of migrants who leave a naturally destroyed region; I would always be willing to open my door to someone who needs my help.”

    I am glad to hear this, but I hope your definition of “naturally destroyed” includes destruction by war.

    http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/nato-using-depleted-uranium-in-libya.html

    https://libyanfreepress.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/nato-war-crimes-in-libya-deformities-of-newborns-because-of-depleted-uranium-bombs/

    “Once they realize that there is no room for advancement, and that they end up with disrespectful laborious jobs, they are no longer happy with their decision of migrating.”

    Then they can choose to leave, as some do, or they can stay, as others choose to do. The point is that people should be allowed to choose.

    “Obviously you have not thought this through to well, or all other alternatives. Leaders of governments of a failing state are like corrupt businesses that have already made all their money. Once they get all their money, they file bankruptcy and close shop. Honestly, do you think some rich warlord cares about getting his people back, or some rich CEO cares about getting his customers back after he’s made all his money and decided to close down the company anyway? He’s so rich; he doesn’t care if almost everyone leaves, because he will just flee to another nation.”

    Firstly, under National Socialism, the warlord’s money would be worth nothing outside of his own country. The problem you speak of is international banking, not migration.

    Secondly, even under international banking, I did not mean I expect the warlord himself to care. Once people start leaving, the warlord will realize there is no more money to be made, and close shop, as you say. This then automatically opens up a chance for new and better leaders to take over. In contrast, if the people are not allowed to leave even if they want to, the warlord can keep exploiting them and profiting from it, and have a continuing incentive to hold on to power (and the banks will support his regime for the same reason). Migration defeats banking because it removes the real economy – the workforce – from a country in a way that no financial trick by the banks can cover over.

    ____

    And now for some positivity, the Riace idea is spreading:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/26/opinions/ghost-towns-migrants-italy/

    http://news.yahoo.com/migrants-may-answer-serbian-depopulation-government-official-151146432.html

  41. Frater Pan says:

    @AS

    But many of those whom you (inaccurately and insultingly) call “desert-niggers” also believe in what you call “axial age morality” (and I’ll leave it to you to judge their “slenderness” in the link above). If Aryan bloodlines are your fundamental problem, these include the bloodlines of Ra and Enlil.

    I am not impressed by the best of Mesopotamian agriculturalists and literally not at all by the best of Africans. That’s for PC American negro nazis supported by jews and other subhumans who believe Egyptians were negro gods and Europeans savages (totally ignoring the cultured Minoans and deadly Mycenians). They even believe Dorians were negroes. That’s all your alien-elitist (aryanist, romanticist, exotic) hype. I totally disregard even those classical philosophers influenced by mystical Egyptians (Pythagoras, Plato) in favor of Ionians, naturalist philosophers. The Egyptians and other brown people have always been poisonous to our blood and spirit.

    https://youtu.be/eeacI4k4IXQ

  42. Onoda says:

    A veil is a sacred requirement for the faithful woman, who, under God, does not permit herself to be shared with anyone but her husband. I am not here to persuade any Western woman to wear a veil since it would undermine the meaning of the veil to allow women without modesty to present themselves as sacred.

  43. Frater Pan says:

    @Onoda

    What do you do when you see European woman without the wail?

  44. Frater Pan says:

    Why do you aryanists empower lewd muslim bandits to be arbiters of European female virtues and act as judge, jury and executioner? It is not a custom for a woman in Europe today to wear a wail weather she’s virtuous or not. Since it is the muslim custom to rape and stone females they regard as promiscuous.

    I am a man of honor. If muslims ever harm or disrespect my woman it will be my duty to blow my self up in the muslim kindergarten or kill some random muslim woman to trigger muslims to initiate Jihad against Europe too soon, as Breivik advised.

  45. Mixing Bowl says:

    @AS

    You: When you live in a country that suits you, you will automatically contribute with greater enthusiasm than if you had stayed in a country that does not suit you.

    Me: Correct, but the majority of today’s migrants do not have the intention of what they can offer their new country, but rather, what their new country will offer them. Majority of the people today, especially including migrants, are not of noble heritage.

    You: And again we support eliminating welfare (which would automatically discourage those who migrate just for bigger handouts), a point which you keep ignoring.

    Me: That sounds quite ignoble. Welfare is good in an honest and noble world. How do you intend on supporting people that are sick (mental/physical disability, etc.) or lose their jobs? Of course in a noble world, people would not have to worry about losing their jobs, but what are your intentions for those that are disabled or sick? Sometimes people need help from the state to take care of them.

    You: It is right that everyone can choose where they wish to live, because no one chose where they were born. Migration is fighting for this belief. Moving elsewhere and then refusing to be intimidated by far-right attacks is standing one’s ground.

    Me: You’re advocating escapism rather than liberation. I’m all in favor of people having a true nomadic lifestyle, especially it stems from a place of curiosity and adventure. What I’m not in favor of is someone abandoning their native land, just because they want to go to a richer country (which is what you’re advocating). If people are not happy about being poor, or their tyrannical dictator, then it is up to them to band together, fight him, remove him, kill him, and retake what belongs to them, and rebuild a new place. Look how noble the Germans and Japanese were after WWII. They didn’t flock to another country after losing a war, they stayed and rebuild and banded together, because they come from a much nobler culture than other cultures.

    You: This is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is: IF people want to live elsewhere than their country of birth, they should be able to.

    Me: Yes, I agree. But you’re neglecting the context. Again, why are they leaving? Is it just to attain more wealth elsewhere? Is it abandonment? Are they doing it for noble or non-noble reasons?

    You: Because this relationship was FORCED UPON US AT BIRTH WITHOUT OUR OWN CONSENT! Therefore to accept such a relationship is to be a slave, and nobility rejects slavery. Which part of this do you not understand?

    Me: We are forced into our bodies at birth. We are forced with inherent genetics at birth. All without our consent. Birth is enslavement, nobody asked for it. Do we just give up and commit suicide because of our physical flaws? Or do we stick around and fix them, rebuild them? I’d rather stick around than give up, and improve my situation at all costs. I never give up, until I die. Rather die trying. The tangible universe is all bondage, and enslavement. Our bodies are slaves to air, to food, to energy. The only true freedom is the unconscious, the non-existence, the intangible world. Slavery will always exist no matter what, even if it’s a microscopic form. In a tangible world, you cannot totally eliminate bondage or slavery. Our consciousness is a slave to our physical body. Nobility is to improve the flaws; it is to liberate ourselves and the others from the world’s flaws. I think we have different definitions of nobility. My definition is to fight and never give up, to take a terrible situation and make it good. Your definition is to reject existence and to simply give up, escape, and commit suicide.

    You: If you think their birth-country is beautiful, you should move there. Similarly, they should move to countries that they consider beautiful.

    Me: Because I was born where I was born, and I would never abandon it. I have a duty to it. I have a duty to protect it, to maintain, and to consciously improve it.

    You: I am glad to hear this, but I hope your definition of “naturally destroyed” includes destruction by war.

    Me: Again, this goes back to my earlier argument. What about nations such as Germany and Japan. They didn’t leave in droves. They stayed and rebuilt their colony. Like ants and bees, they are noble to the greater cause. They stay and rebuild and never abandon.

    I thought this site was about nobility, at least the nobility I understand and believe in, but I think we have different concepts.

  46. Onoda says:

    @Frater Pan

    In response to your question [quote] What do you do when you see European woman without the wail? [unquote]

    Whilst I am not here to provide a miracle cure for those who prescribe themselves decadence values, I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with loving authority; a husband, who is their friend in this life and the next.

  47. AS says:

    @FP

    “I am not impressed by the best of Mesopotamian agriculturalists and literally not at all by the best of Africans.”

    Yes, we already established what it takes to impress you:

    http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4322539.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Katie-Hopkins-on-This-Morning.png

    “believe Egyptians were negro gods and Europeans savages”

    I could understand if someone like AW were to complain about the “European savages” stereotype, because his own behaviour is the complete opposite of this and therefore he would be justifiably annoyed to be associated with it merely because of ethnicity. But when someone like you complains about the same thing, even as your own behaviour actively reinforces this stereotype, it’s like listening to an ISIS member complain about Islamophobia.

    “totally ignoring the cultured Minoans”

    We explicitly mentioned that Athena probably stopped briefly at Crete during her voyage from Byblos to Attica:

    http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/swastika-bottle.jpg

    However, whereas Neolithic Crete (Messara culture) dates back to 7000BC approx., Minoan civilization dates back only to 3500BC, more than enough time for Aryan ideas to have been long since corrupted by non-Aryan blood, hence, for example, our teaching of respect for cows being perverted into this:

    http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050124/bull-leaping-a.shtml

    “I am a man of honor.”

    Oh please…..

    @MB

    “the majority of today’s migrants do not have the intention of what they can offer their new country, but rather, what their new country will offer them”

    How many migrants have you spoken to in person that you can claim to know how the majority of migrants think?

    “Welfare is good in an honest and noble world.”

    Welfare (ie. handouts requiring no labour in exchange) is parasitism. Those who have to pay for welfare are being exploited.

    “How do you intend on supporting people that are sick (mental/physical disability, etc.) or lose their jobs?”

    Voluntary charity. This is all on the main site, by the way.

    “Sometimes people need help from the state to take care of them.”

    The state can organize volunteer efforts to persuade people to donate.

    “What I’m not in favor of is someone abandoning their native land, just because they want to go to a richer country”

    If you are not in favour of it, you are free to choose to stay in your native land rather than go to a richer country. By the same token, those who want to migrate should be free to choose to do so.

    “Look how noble the Germans and Japanese were after WWII.”

    Are you crazy? They turned their countries (or allowed their countries to be turned) into DEMOCRACIES!

    “Again, why are they leaving? Is it just to attain more wealth elsewhere? Is it abandonment? Are they doing it for noble or non-noble reasons?”

    The subject is whether or not people should have a choice of where to live, not their reasons for the choice the eventually make.

    So what if they want to attain wealth elsewhere, so long as they attain it by honest labour, and therefore contribute to their new country? So what if they want to abandon the country they were born in? They never chose to be born there!

    “We are forced into our bodies at birth. We are forced with inherent genetics at birth. All without our consent. Birth is enslavement, nobody asked for it.”

    Now you are starting to get it.

    “Do we just give up and commit suicide because of our physical flaws? Or do we stick around and fix them, rebuild them?”

    I never asked people to commit suicide if they were born in a country they dislike. Migrating is one way to stick around and fix the predicament.

    What you are ignoring is that not everyone likes the same things. So a country that some people dislike for some reasons, other people may like for the same reasons. If you are born in a country you dislike and you transform it into something you like, someone else will dislike what you have done with it and try to transform it back. This will keep going on and on, and everyone’s efforts are wasted pulling the country back and forth endlessly. It makes more sense for everyone to simply move to the country they like, because in so doing they will congregate with other people who like the same things. Refer to the analogy of the smoking section and non-smoking section on the Immigration page.

    “Because I was born where I was born, and I would never abandon it.”

    And I would not deprive you of your choice. But you want to deprive others of their choice.

    “I have a duty to it. I have a duty to protect it, to maintain, and to consciously improve it.”

    No, your duty is to do as much good as your ability allows you to during your lifetime. If you believe that staying in your country is the way to accomplish this, then (and only then) is your duty to stay. On the other hand, if you believe that moving elsewhere is the way to accomplish this, then your duty is to move.

    “What about nations such as Germany and Japan. They didn’t leave in droves. They stayed and rebuilt their colony.”

    Into democracies. Whereas the loyal National Socialists fled Germany after WWII and continued fighting for National Socialism in Egypt, Algeria, etc..

    _____

    The private home hospitality idea is also spreading:

    http://news.yahoo.com/italys-migrants-move-080000923.html

  48. Frater Pan says:

    Life has a goal and pleasure is that goal. It is the only good-in-itself, the Fountain of eternal youth (but not eternal life).
    Nobility (virtues, not compassion) are tools used to achieve this goal and the life of pleasure is attainable to the Noble.

    Some men shall always remain miserable. The Fountain shall always remain tainted for their lips because the taint arise in how they approach It. They have learned to dread the Fountain and perceive with disgust the Noble who know how to approach It. They cannot be helped.

  49. AS says:

    @FP

    On the main site we have a picture of your Fountain:

    http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/Freedom-11.jpg

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>