Details:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kim-jong-un-insulted-donald-023218364.html
Please give Marshal Kim a well-deserved round of applause. For this alone North Korea deserves to have as many nukes as it needs, and hopefully to re-acquire South Korea in the near future. (Of course, the more serious reason is that North Korea is one of the very few non-Muslim countries that does not recognize Israel, sending the important message that anti-Zionism is not just an issue for Muslims but should be an issue for all non-Jews.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93North_Korea_relations
By the way, what’s taking the Dotard’s impeachment so long?
@Gerulf:
“If anything is unfolkish, it is this tossing around of old Germanic expressions which neither fit into the present period nor represent anything definite, but can easily lead to seeing the significance of a movement in its outward vocabulary. This is a real menace which today can be observed on countless occasions.
Altogether then, and also in the period that followed, I had to warn again and again against those Deutschvolkisch wandering scholars whose positive accomplishment is always practically nil, but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. The young movement had and still has to guard itself against an influx of people whose sole recommendation for the most part lies in their declaration that they have fought for thirty and even forty years for the same idea. Anyone who fights for forty years for a so-called idea without being able to bring about even the slightest success, in fact, without having prevented the victory of the opposite, has, with forty years of activity, provided proof of his own incapacity. The danger above all lies in the fact that such natures do not want to fit into the movement as links, but keep shooting off their mouths about leading circles in which alone, on the strength of their age-old activity, they can see a suitable place for further activity. But woe betide if a young movement is surrendered to the mercies of such people. No more than a business man who in forty years of activity has steadily run a big business into the ground is fitted to be the founder of a new one, is a folkish Methuselah, who in exactly the same time has gummed up and petrified a great idea, fit for the leadership of a new, young movement!
Besides, only a fragment of all these people come into the new movement to serve it, but in most cases, under its protection or through the possibilities it offers, to warm over their old cabbage They do not want to benefit the idea of the new doctrine, they only expect it to give them a chance to make humanity miserable with their own ideas. For what kind of ideas they often are, it is hard to tell.
The characteristic thing about these people is that they rave about old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull’s horns over their bearded heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack. Posterity will have little occasion to glorify their own heroic existence in a new epic.
I came to know these people too well not to feel the profoundest disgust at their miserable playacting. But they make a ridiculous impression on the broad masses, and the Jew has every reason to spare these folkish comedians, even to prefer them to the true fighters for a coming German state. With all this, these people are boundlessly conceited; despite all the proofs of their complete incompetence, they daim to know everything better and become a real plague for all straightforward and honest fighters to whom heroism seems worth honoring, not only in the past, but who also endeavor to give posterity a similar picture by their own actions.
And often it can be distinguished only with difficulty which of these people act out of inner stupidity or incompetence and which only pretend to for certain reasons. Especially with the so-called religious reformers on an old Germanic basis, I always have the feeling that they were sent by those powers which do not want the resurrection of our people. For their whole activity leads the people away from the common struggle against the common enemy, the Jew, and instead lets them waste their strength on inner religious squabbles as senseless as they are disastrous. For these very reasons the establishment of a strong central power implying the
unconditional authority of a Kadership is necessary in the movement. By it alone can such ruinous elements be squelched. And for this reason the greatest enemies of a uniform, strictly led and conducted movement are to be found in the circles of these folkish wandering Jews. In the movement they hate the power that checks their mischief.”
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pg. 260-261 —
The year presently is 2017 and the world has changed significantly since 1933. However, wandering scholars are still wandering apparently….
>And I’m no mystic! The most important quotes from Siddhartha, Eashoa, and Mohammed are:
Then tell me: what was your previous incarnation, when did your soul enter the body, what is the purpose of your current incarnation, what have you cultivated in past lives, etc.?
>If you think they are mystical in nature, then I’ve lost the remainder of what little respect I had for you to begin with….
I think they are generally misunderstood sayings and you’re being overly sentimental about this, which shows that you’re inclined towards mysticism instead of clarity.
I think you’re the second person on here to tell me that.
>The year presently is 2017 and the world has changed significantly since 1933. However, wandering scholars are still wandering apparently….
There is no other firm foundation for the West than hylozoism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoism
NS can be demonstrated to have been in accord with this ancient worldview.
@Gerulf
Why did Hitler, in March 1933, appoint Goebbels as the “Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” if Hitler was so focused on the physical constitution of individuals?
I heard that Hitler had feelings for so called black women from various people on YouTube and social media. However, National Socialist propaganda wasn’t representative that displayed many people that would be described in looks and features as ‘white’ or ‘Nordic.
Hello fellow NS soldiers,
Haven’t posted in a while, but I also think Sikh people are a great and could even be the best ally for all National Socialists, a religion which has people who seem very folkish Nationalist and anti-racist people.
@Nordic
I think you made a previously answered question
Read this post by Hashtali
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/the-antidote-has-started-to-take-effect-but/comment-page-1/#comment-155205
@Gerulf:
“NS can be demonstrated to have been in accord with this ancient worldview.”
Schopenhauer was a student of Immanuel Kant, Kant argued against Hylozoism. Hitler was a student of Schopenhauer. My intuition tells me no, Hylozoism cannot be part of Hitlerian National Socialism.
Lastly, it is the materialism of the west which is driving the world toward destruction….
Are you just trolling now, or have you been trolling the entire time?
Have you ever served in a military Gerulf, just curious?
@DB
All matter may have life, but we should never be joyful towards such a statement if true; and, unfortunately, Gerulf has a peoblem with celebrating nature.
@GG:
Gerulf and many others seem to also have glossed over the fact that Western Civilization is literally also known as JUDEO – Greco – Christian culture. So, to support Western civilization whilst simultaneously claiming to be against Judaism and Jewry is a contradiction and hypocrisy….
>Schopenhauer was a student of Immanuel Kant, Kant argued against Hylozoism. Hitler was a student of Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer was against Kant. Also, Hitler certainly didn’t adopt pessimism from Schopenhauer.
Kalergi specifically identified Kant as a student of Jewish ethics.
Schopenhauer specifically objected to Kant’s treatment of animals and identified it as Jewish-Christian.
“To treat animals cruelly runs counter to the duty of man towards himself; because it deadens the feeling of sympathy for them in their sufferings, and thus weakens a natural tendency which is very serviceable to morality in relation to other men.” – Kant
Schopenhauer replied, “So one is only to have compassion on animals for the sake of practice, and they are as it were the pathological phantom on which to train one’s sympathy with men! In common with the whole of Asia that is not tainted by Islâm (which is tantamount to Judaism), I regard such tenets as odious and revolting. Here, once again, we see withal how entirely this philosophical morality, which is, as explained above, only a theological one in disguise, depends in reality on the biblical Ethics.”
I hardly need to further point out how thoroughly Schopenhauer has criticized Kant’s philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauer%27s_criticism_of_Kantian_philosophy
The wiki custodians have added here a little quip to make it seem as if he wanted Kant’s merits to “be appreciated” and to even have “his achievements furthered” through his criticism. Kant was a sophist, even Rosenberg was led astray by him. Kant certainly deserves no equal footing with Plato. Schopenhauer repudiated Kant for his treatment of the thing “in itself” and exposed his philosophy for the theological construction that it was.
“The great infirmity of the Kantian system at this point – early demonstrated, as I have stated – is confirmation of the beautiful Indian proverb ‘No lotus without a stem.’ The fallacious derivation of the thing in itself is the stem here, yet indeed only the mode of derivation, not the recognition of a thing in itself with respect to the given phenomenon. ”
If Schopenhauer really was a student of Kant and Hitler had culled something from Kant, then Hitler found himself in great folly. Yet, unlike Rosenberg, he only acknowledges Kant as a general example of German philosophical contribution rather than as a outstanding titan of German genius (Table Talk, May 16, 1944). Kubizek said nothing of Kant, but cited Schopenhauer and Nietzsche as Hitler’s philosophical influences.
>My intuition tells me no, Hylozoism cannot be part of Hitlerian National Socialism.
You mean your conscience, which can be misleading. Intuition would tell you that hylozoism is rational, relevant, and compatible.
>Lastly, it is the materialism of the west which is driving the world toward destruction….
“Any new movement which is really beneficial to human progress will always have to begin its constructive work at the level at which the last stones of the structure have been laid… The meaning and purpose of revolutions cannot be to tear down the whole building, but to take away what has not been well fitted into it or is unsuitable, and to fill in the gap thus caused, after which the main construction of the building will be carried on.” – Mein Kampf
>Gerulf and many others seem to also have glossed over the fact that Western Civilization is literally also known as JUDEO – Greco – Christian culture. So, to support Western civilization whilst simultaneously claiming to be against Judaism and Jewry is a contradiction and hypocrisy….
Aristotle seems to have deviated from Plato by giving the Western world a temporarily working hypothesis (which corresponded with their demand for a materialistic worldview) they could comprehend, bound to fail in the long run, which the Catholic Church had indeed appropriated for it’s own ends, but that does not necessarily make him a Jewish-Christian asset.
As a student of Plato, he would have most certainly been familiar with the higher teachings, but he could not give this out freely to people who would have misunderstood it. He finds an uncanny parallel in Democritus, who was a student of Pythagoras, but emphasized only the matter aspect with his atomic theory. Both had a similar mission: to transmit knowledge to the general public without betraying secrets.
Proclus:
“For his discussion for the most part stops at matter; and making his exposition of things that have a natural subsistence from this, he shows to us that he deserts the doctrine of his preceptor.”
It is a grave misfortune that Aristotle has represented the pre-Socratic philosophy as primitive speculation, Western man’s first attempts at thinking. Considering how much of what we know about them has come from him, that should have been an indication that he was readily familiar with what they taught. For instance, he acknowledged that Thales’ conception of the earth resting on water was the oldest theory that had been preserved. He had to explain to a primitive people without the knowledge how Thales could have arrived at his “speculations” through natural observation rather than cosmic intuition. “It was supposed to stay still because it floated like wood and other similar substances, which are so constituted as to rest upon but not upon air.”
Thales did not actually conceive of a flat earth. He and his contemporaries taught Pythagoras and Pythagoras in turn taught a spherical earth.
“If Schopenhauer really was a student of Kant and Hitler had culled something from Kant, then Hitler found himself in great folly. Yet, unlike Rosenberg, he only acknowledges Kant as a general example of German philosophical contribution rather than as a outstanding titan of German genius (Table Talk, May 16, 1944). Kubizek said nothing of Kant, but cited Schopenhauer and Nietzsche as Hitler’s philosophical influences.”
“Proceeding from the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant, Schopenhauer developed an atheistic metaphysical and ethical system that has been described as an exemplary manifestation of philosophical pessimism, rejecting the contemporaneous post-Kantian philosophies of German idealism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
I never said anything about Schopenhauer being a life long admirer of Kant, merely stating where he started, hence the word ‘student.’ Obviously Schopenhauer had to study Kant in-order to argue against him, no? I haven’t found any information in regards to Schopenhauer supporting a Hylozoist worldview either?
I’d say Hylozoism is more in-line with Eco-fascism than it is with National Socialism, and more in-line with paganism than monotheism.
I didn’t stick around here because this site promotes Hylozoism, and I may not have if it did. I cannot relate Hylozoism due to my own spiritual experiences. Furthermore, if there is a ‘world soul’ then it must be a cruel miserable bitch, and I can only pray to my God that I never end up having to spend an eternity with her!
I have no more respect for you at this point Gerulf, and I will no-longer respond to anything you have to say.
“The final notion Pickering finds in cybernetics is summarized in the term ‘hylozoism’ namely “a kind of spiritually charged wonder at the performativity and agency of matter.” The cyberneticians Stafford Beer and Gordon Pask in the 1950s and 1960s “embarked on a long search through the space of adaptive systems running from pond ecosystems to electrochemically deposited metal threads as some sort of substitute for human factor managers.” Their work failed to produce the intended result but had enormous impact on music and art during the 1970s. Pickering concluded that in comparison to the cyberneticians of previous decades, transhumanism seems to exhibit a lack of creative imagination.”
http://www.metanexus.net/essay/engaging-transhumanism-meaning-being-human
“This explicit recognition of the performative excess of the world feeds into my last topic, which I refer to by the slippery word hylozoism. Hylozoism, for me, refers to a kind of spiritually charged wonder at the performativity and agency of matter, and Stafford Beer was certainly a hylozoist under this definition. He wrote poems on the computational power of the Irish Sea as indefinitely exceeding our own. “Nature is (let it be clear that) nature is in charge,” he wrote in 1977. What interests me most, again, is that this hylozoism was not just a philosophical position, an idea of what the world is like. Again, the cyberneticians elaborated it in all sorts of practices, including engineering and the arts.” — Transhumanism and Its Critics, pg. 201
Hylozoism is more in-line with Transhumanism than it is with Eco-fascism apparently. I stand corrected. It makes sense, transhumanists seek transcendence via the material world….
Correction: Transhumanists seek transcendence from the material world via cybernetics.
So, Gerulf has allies such as the likes of the Ray Kurzweils of the world. Imagine that….
My intuition serves me well. Never trusted you, who ever you are, since you started posting on the Discord server months ago.
@DB
“I didn’t stick around here because this site promotes Hylozoism”
We do? Where do we say this?
@Hypnotix
Doesn’t this site promote naturalism but only when practically necessary to establish nobility? I mean, Rockwell promoted realism for that reason alone.
@Gallery Guy
“Doesn’t this site promote naturalism but only when practically necessary to establish nobility?”
Naturalism is valuing something based on whether or not it is observable in nature, hence we do not condone naturalism. We recognize the importance of natural selection, but not simply because – as a naturalist would – it is observable in nature. Rather, because we understand that utilizing it is the only way to ensure the victory of idealism in the long term. “In short, we are idealists who starkly recognize the pervasive, decisive finality of natural selection throughout the material world.” – http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/naturalism-vs-idealism/
The Wikipedia article on Hylozoism describes it thusly:
“Hylozoism is the philosophical point of view that matter is in some sense alive.”
We do not believe that matter itself is alive, but rather that (1a) some forms of matter (e.g. the body) act as a vessel through which the imprisonment of life in this world is made possible. We have no reason to believe that rocks, for example, or star dust are sentient or living entities – and even if we did have reason to believe it, it would not be a belief that can lead to your doing anything meaningful, since:
(1b) according to Hylozoism, all forms of matter contain life
(2) matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form
From (2) it would follow that all we are capable of doing is changing the form of matter – which, as per (1b), would be insufficient to free the life inside of it, therefore there would literally be nothing we can do to end the imprisonment of life. If, instead of (1b), however, we had (1a), then:
From (2) and (1a) it would follow that simply ensuring no matter enters those forms which can contain life (i.e. state control over reproduction) would be sufficient to ensure no life is imprisoned in the world, which is at least theoretically achievable.
@Hypnotix:
“I didn’t stick around here because this site promotes Hylozoism”
Fuck me….
@Dragon Bishop
Alright, I see now what you meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
@Hypnotix
“Naturalism is valuing something based on whether or not it is observable in nature, hence we do not condone naturalism. We recognize the importance of natural selection, but not simply because – as a naturalist would – it is observable in nature. Rather, because we understand that utilizing it is the only way to ensure the victory of idealism in the long term. “In short, we are idealists who starkly recognize the pervasive, decisive finality of natural selection throughout the material world.” –”
I meant to say ‘nature’; my apologies. But I get what you mean, thank you.
I do believe in realism when practically necessary as Rockwell did. I was at a recent Democratic Party event and there was a huge debate between doing what’s necessary to get money and support from donors or sticking up to “ideals”. It was a messy situation, especially since those “ideals” were terrible and the donors seemed more decent!
“We do not believe that matter itself is alive, but rather that (1a) some forms of matter (e.g. the body) act as a vessel through which the imprisonment of life in this world is made possible. We have no reason to believe that rocks, for example, or star dust are sentient or living entities – and even if we did have reason to believe it, it would not be a belief that can lead to your doing anything meaningful, since:
(1b) according to Hylozoism, all forms of matter contain life
(2) matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form
From (2) it would follow that all we are capable of doing is changing the form of matter – which, as per (1b), would be insufficient to free the life inside of it, therefore there would literally be nothing we can do to end the imprisonment of life. If, instead of (1b), however, we had (1a), then:
From (2) and (1a) it would follow that simply ensuring no matter enters those forms which can contain life (i.e. state control over reproduction) would be sufficient to ensure no life is imprisoned in the world, which is at least theoretically achievable.”
Rocks may or may not be living entities. We will never absolutely know for sure. We should be seeing the existence of rocks, and existence of matter overall, as something to never be enjoyed but to be to have transcended, even if such a thing is a struggle. As long as matter exists, anything may or may not happen, such as macro-evolution; and I’m sure a rock, or the physical components of a rock at the very least, could evolve into something more complicated under the right circumstances. Of course, we could try to transform matter into pure energy, but that’s not possible now.
But anyways, thanks for the interesting answers!
@Hypnotix:
“Alright, I see now what you meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding.”
The ef me was more directed at myself than you, sorry for the misunderstanding.
“Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism (Evolution), Marxism (Communism), Nietzsche-ism (Socialism). To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.” — Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Protocol Number 2, “Destructive Education”
I would be interested in hearing AS’s, GG’s, Hypnotix’s, JJ’s, or Miecz’s take on the placement of Nietzche-ism in the list above, and the use of the word Socialism in brackets. Here they differentiate between Socialism and Communism\Marxism. Yet, didn’t Marx or Lenin say that Socialism is on the way to Communism also? Just curious on someone else’s take on it, and why Nietzsche’s name appears in the Protocols.
@Gerulf
“Schopenhauer was against Kant.”
Here are the opening words of the final edition (heavily edited from earlier editions) of Schopenhauer’s On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason:
“The divine Plato and the marvelous Kant unite their mighty voices in recommending a rule, to serve as the method of all philosophizing as well as of all other science.”
This is from his preface to the second edition of The World as Will and Representation:
“I have already explained in the preface to the first edition, that my philosophy is founded on that of Kant, and therefore presupposes a thorough knowledge of it. I repeat this here. For Kant’s teaching produces in the mind of every one who has comprehended it a fundamental change which is so great that it may be regarded as an intellectual new-birth. It alone is able to really remove the inborn realism which proceeds from the original character of the intellect which neither Berkeley nor Malebranche succeeded in doing, for they remain too much in the universal, while Kant goes into the particular, and indeed in a way that is quite unexampled both before and after him, and which has a quite peculiar, and, we might say, immediate effect upon the mind in consequence of which it undergoes a complete undeception, and forthwith looks at all things in another light. Only in this way can any one become susceptible to the more positive expositions which I have to give.”
From the preface to the first edition:
“Finally, the third demand I have to make on the reader might indeed be tacitly assumed, for it is nothing but an acquaintance with the most important phenomenon that has appeared in philosophy for two thousand years, and that lies so near to us: I mean the principal writings of Kant. It seems to me, in fact, as indeed has already been said by others, that the effect these writings produce in the mind to which they truly speak is very like that of the operation for cataract on a blind man: and if we wish to pursue the simile further, the aim of my own work may be described by saying that I have sought to put into the hands of those upon whom that operation has been successfully performed a pair of spectacles suitable to eyes that have recovered their sight–spectacles of whose use that operation is the absolutely necessary condition. Starting then, as I do to a large extent, from what has been accomplished by the great Kant, I have yet been enabled, just on account of my earnest study of his writings, to discover important errors in them. These I have been obliged to separate from the rest and prove to be false, in order that I might be able to presuppose and apply what is true and excellent in his doctrine, pure and freed from error.
…
The philosophy of Kant, then, is the only philosophy with which a thorough acquaintance is directly presupposed in what we have to say here. But if, besides this, the reader has lingered in the school of the divine Plato, he will be so much the better prepared to hear me, and susceptible to what I say.” (these are by no means the only passages in the prefaces which speak positively of Kant)
I suggest Schopenhauer’s correction of Kant is analogous to the True Left’s correction of the False Left’s errors (unless you want to argue Schopenhauer really does hate Kant and is just being super sarcastic, while for some reason he is so explicit with his hatred for Hegel).
“Kalergi specifically identified Kant as a student of Jewish ethics.”
So you’re going to trust Kalergi (apparently the National Socialists stripped him of his philosophy degree because they believed he was Jewish) over the famous ‘antisemit’ Schopenhauer?
“The meaning and purpose of revolutions cannot be to tear down the whole building, but to take away what has not been well fitted into it or is unsuitable, and to fill in the gap thus caused, after which the main construction of the building will be carried on.”
If you are trying to imply we have ever advocated for the complete obliteration of every idea and individual who has ever had any connection to Europe, you are free to show us evidence where we suggest this… Instead we advocate for precisely the same thing as Hitler expresses in this quote–remove the degenerate Western bits from European (and world) culture, and leave the non-Western bits, filling in the gaps with other noble (i.e. non-Western) bits as necessary.
@GG
I think Hypnotix makes a good argument, but let me offer some additional thoughts
“Rocks may or may not be living entities.”
One of the distinguishing features of life is replication. Rocks cannot replicate themselves (their formation is governed by external conditions, and when these conditions are not present rocks will not form). Additionally, when rocks are being formed inside the Earth, there isn’t really such a thing as an individual rock, in the way each life form (and even each self-replicating particle) is a distinct individual unit.
From a chemical standpoint, all reactions in the universe tend to increase the disorderliness (i.e. increase entropy). Life forms use what are called coupled reactions in order to become more ordered than the what would normally be expected. If our cells are unable to continue these reactions, we die, and our body becomes as lifeless as a rock. Lifeless collections of atoms do not have a metabolism (i.e. they are unable to sustain the cycles of chemical reactions necessary to sustain life).
“As long as matter exists, anything may or may not happen, such as macro-evolution; and I’m sure a rock, or the physical components of a rock at the very least, could evolve into something more complicated under the right circumstances.”
Yes, however if the atoms in the rock become arranged in such a manner that they become self-replicating particles, they have fundamentally ceased to be a rock (just as, say, the atoms in your body are certainly no longer in the form of a rock or star dust, even though they may once have been millions of years ago). Even simple particles which are unable to replicate but can spontaneously order themselves or can easily be metabolized (such as lipids forming lipid bilayers which can be used in cells, or sugars undergoing a chemical reaction) could not be said to share fundamental similarities with rocks, as rocks are not nearly as chemically reactive.
These articles have some useful passages that can help illustrate what is going on chemically at the atomic level in lifeforms and molecules which are used in chemical processes by lifeforms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_self-assembly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism
Also, some food for thought, we might have a last line of defense against Yahweh, thanks to entropy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
@DB
“Correction: Transhumanists seek transcendence from the material world via cybernetics.”
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say they seek complete abandonment of the spiritual world through deeper and deeper enslavement to the material world (via cybernetics and other tools used for immortality)? They can dress their nature worship in any sort of mysticism they’d like, but I wouldn’t say they’re transcending anything.
@JJ:
“Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say they seek complete abandonment of the spiritual world through deeper and deeper enslavement to the material world (via cybernetics and other tools used for immortality)? They can dress their nature worship in any sort of mysticism they’d like, but I wouldn’t say they’re transcending anything.”
Good point! Interestingly also from an almost metaphorical viewpoint, it could be said that they are literally attempting to insert the Jewish lie into their flesh….
Correction: Interestingly also from an almost symbolic viewpoint, it could be said that they are
literallyattempting to insert the Jewish lie into their flesh….So I’m hearing that Nordicism wasn’t important in National Socialist theory and implementation? Is that why heavy sums of NS poster propaganda showed the typical Nordic features?
@DB
“take on the placement of Nietzche-ism in the list above, and the use of the word Socialism in brackets.”
I’m not sure of the full significance really, but apparently many communists did admire Nietzsche and consider his philosophy as being compatible with false leftism. Additionally, others considered “Nietzsche-ism” as a useful controlled opposition for Communism:
“Even Franz Mehring eventually came around. Upon first encountering the philosopher’s writings in the 1890s, he’d described Nietzsche as “the philosopher of financial capitalism,”
…
By the early 1900s, Mehring had changed his tune. “The Nietzsche cult is useful to socialism,” he wrote. “No doubt, Nietzsche’s writings have their pitfalls for young people growing up within the bourgeois classes, laboring under bourgeois class-prejudices. For such people, however, Nietzsche is often a gateway to socialism.” Victor Serge adopted an opposite approach in a 1917 article, but arrived at the same conclusion about Nietzsche: “He was our enemy. So be it. But he himself said to us: Desire perfect enemies. One can fraternize with ‘perfect’ enemies; our struggle with them makes us more beautiful, more fertile.””
According to the same source as above, it seems Nietzsche was apparently one of the first people to talk of socialism as an ideology (rather than merely some theoretical sociological relationship), so perhaps the Elders are saying Nietzsche’s (negative) conception of socialism is what was becoming a “success”?
“Probably my own perspective on Nietzsche comes closest to that of Sunit Singh, who wrote about “Nietzsche’s Untimeliness” several years ago. Singh highlights the important fact that Nietzsche’s venomous diatribes against socialism were directed largely against figures who were also the object Marx’s ire….
“Developments of the last one hundred years make the relationship between Nietzsche and Marx inevitably more opaque than it was for the revolutionary Marxists of the early twentieth century. Both were harsh critics of the socialists of their day, but whereas Marx (and Engels) saw in the struggle for socialism signs of that struggle “pointing beyond itself,” toward the establishment of the classless society, Nietzsche saw only widespread resentment as the final destination of the socialist movements. This major difference, so crucial when the international socialist movement was expanding and a new era of revolutionary history was on the horizon, has receded behind the history of the twentieth century. Any attempt to reckon with our present impasse inevitably comes to ask: “What is there to recover?” It is in light of this task that Marx and Nietzsche are not flatly counterposed, but are different critics of an object that disintegrated before it fulfilled its most vital aspirations.”
Adorno summed up Singh’s view of the self-styled Antichrist rather nicely at a 1942 seminar that included luminaries like Günther Anders, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Marcuse. “What binds us to Nietzsche,” Adorno stated, is that “Nietzsche stands in relationship to August Bebel in the sense that he uses Bebel to specify things that in reality are ideology. He perceived that not only democracy, but also socialism has become an ideology… In certain critical respects, Nietzsche had progressed further than Marx, in that Nietzsche realized that the idea of socialism is tied to a concept of praxis that is not merely a reflection of society.”"
@Nordic
“Is that why heavy sums of NS poster propaganda showed the typical Nordic features?”
1. Hitler’s propaganda also showed “black” Americans being mistreated by the KKK.
2. Considering the fact that JJ, myself and others have already addresses your racial points about NS Germany, I’m honestly convinced that you may really suffer from dementia.
@ Nordic
Veronica Clark’s research proves otherwise:
Mix-Race Germans, Nordicism Discredited
https://wilkmocy.com/?p=8043
“Nordic” was a key part of NSDAP racial theory, yet not the one and only “chosen” element. They NSDAP didn’t believe in and actively combated the idea of a racial or cultural dichotomy, the more infamous of which is “Jews & Goyim.” Thus, they put together a sound, though complex, racial theory that many of today’s neo-Nazis just don’t get and fall back on the simplistic dichotomy that Hitler and the NSDAP tried to outgrow and transcend.
@JJ:
Thanks for that! I cringe whenever Adorno’s name comes up too…
The fact that Nietzsche-ism can be taken in so many different ways speaks volumes about his philosophy as a whole I reckon. Taking the quotes you provided in your last post and then adding Rosenberg’s analysis of Nietzsche on top of them really strengthens Rosenberg’s argument about Nietzsche too I reckon: “Nietzsche’s Zarathustra. I immediately tried to absorb the entire work, but something about it struck me as alien. That was, as I realized later, the overly pathetic, even theatrical element which, to me, appeared willful rather than perfect.” – Alfred Rosenberg
I actually tried to listen to an audio book of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra a couple of years ago, one of the few audio books I was ever unable to finish. He definitely makes you feel like he is an intellectual show-off of sorts, more interested in being admired for his intelligence than actually getting to an understandable and concrete point.
@Gallery Guy
”Hitler’s propaganda also showed “black” Americans being mistreated by the KKK.”
Oh did it? Well the propaganda used at that time had also shown a ‘black’ man dressed in a tuxedo with a Star of David badge on the lapel with the phrase underneath – ”Entarte Musik’ which means degenerate music.
Oh and should I also point out something that you ignorantly and hilariously fail to point out? Another propaganda poster which highlights an Aryan with a black woman with the title on the poster, Das Ergebnis which means the result, underneath says the words ”Der rassestolz schwindet” meaning The racial pride fails. So please tell me how race mixing was promoted.
If these so called black people were to follow this website and actively be engaged in Aryanism then this world would be filled with even more dark skinned people than already and Europe would become unrecognisable since the so called whites would have already mixed with ”blacks”.
Also the Aryan race cannot be extended to people (non-Jews) who simply start to believe in the Aryanism theory and hence National Socialism. A race is a group of people with a common physical characteristic that is distinct from other racial populations. Therefore only a number of people can be considered racially Aryan, why do you think people were given the title Honorary Aryan? BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T RACIALLY ARYAN!!
Even Wikipedia says – ”Bureau of Race Research, or by other NS officials, to certain individuals and groups of people who were not generally considered to be biologically part of the Aryan race, according to NS standards. The status certified them as being honorarily part of the Aryan race.”
Also why do you fail to mention about the Ahnenpass and the Ariernachweis? Is it because I have proved you wrong yet again? Those two documents in NS Deutschland was there to see who was racially Aryan ffs, look it up.
>I never said anything about Schopenhauer being a life long admirer of Kant, merely stating where he started, hence the word ‘student.’ Obviously Schopenhauer had to study Kant in-order to argue against him, no? I haven’t found any information in regards to Schopenhauer supporting a Hylozoist worldview either?
Schopenhauer had to start from somewhere. That doesn’t make Hitler a follower of Kant.
Panpsychism is close enough. http://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/#SH2c
>I’d say Hylozoism is more in-line with Eco-fascism than it is with National Socialism, and more in-line with paganism than monotheism.
Monotheism is pan-Jewish. Paganism is an exoteric function, like Stoicism.
>Hylozoism is more in-line with Transhumanism than it is with Eco-fascism apparently.
When I said ancient worldview, I obviously meant ancient hylozoism.
>Taking the quotes you provided in your last post and then adding Rosenberg’s analysis of Nietzsche on top of them…
This is actually Rosenberg’s analysis of Nietzsche:
“Nietzsche embodied the despairing cry of millions against the latter. His wild exclamations about the Superman were a violent extension of his subjected personal life which had been strangled by the material pressure of the times. Now, at least one man suddenly destroyed all values in fanatical rebellion. He raged wildly. A feeling of relief passed through the souls of all searching Europeans.
That Nietzsche became insane, is symbolic. An enormous blocked up will to creation forged a path like a storm flood. The same will, inwardly broken long before, could no longer attain shape.
An era, enslaved for generations, understood in its powerlessness only the subjective side of the great will and vital experience of Friedrich Nietzsche. It falsified the deepest struggle for personality into a cry for the unleashing of all instincts. The Red standards then joined the banner of Nietzsche, and the nomadic wandering Marxist preachers— the sort of men whose doctrine scarcely anyone else had unmasked with such derision as Nietzsche himself. In his name, racial pollution through Syrians and Blacks was sanctified, although Nietzsche, in fact, strove for selective racial breeding.”
>Just curious on someone else’s take on it, and why Nietzsche’s name appears in the Protocols.
I’ve read that it wasn’t part of the original Protocols and that it is an interpolation of an editor (probably the Christian mystic Nilus), but the provided source (The Non-Existent Manuscript: A Study of the Sages of Zion) isn’t readily available for verification.
And if we’re going to cast suspicion on Nietzsche based on a spurious entry in the Protocols, then we must also include Darwin, who Hitler specifically affirms in Memoirs of a Confidant (p.g. 40). Christa Schroeder and Otto Dietrich pretty much describe him as an adherent of Darwinism in their memoirs.
The survival of the fittest concept wasn’t the only thing he culled from Darwin. Of course, this concept does not make up the core of his philosophy, but rather it is preceded by an even greater phenomenon:
“He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a universe in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where the latter must obey or be destroyed.”
And this is where I first ascertained hylozoism in his philosophy.
Planets, moons, stars, and suns were the principal objects of worship in ancient times. They were revered for their perpetual, unchanging movement. The ancients taught that a whole must be homogeneous with its parts and they conceived of these planetary bodies as possessing superior souls. Thales conceived of soul as a motive force. The force which they exerted on the world is undeniably greater. Since even these adhere to the higher laws of the world, human beings must also follow in their footsteps.
Plotinus:
Admitting that human Souls have descended under constraint of the All-Soul, are we to think the constrained the nobler? Among Souls, what commands must be higher than what obeys.
@JJ
Interesting, the first quote of yours confirms my view on Schopenhauer. It seems he was more intelligent than Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, etc. but he wasn’t quite on the intuitive level of Goethe and Schiller.
>So you’re going to trust Kalergi (apparently the National Socialists stripped him of his philosophy degree because they believed he was Jewish) over the famous ‘antisemit’ Schopenhauer?
He was a highly influential politician who was very familiar with what Europe was and what it ought to have been, but still betrayed it for Jewry. And he also admitted that European morals/ethics were founded on Judaism, identifying Christians as Jews (as did Marx and Nietzsche!). Of course, Kalergi identifies Kant in this way.
Nationalist circles make use of his writings for their propaganda, but they have only emphasized his race mixing philosophy. He’s actually a valuable asset for distancing NS from Jewish-Christianity, for he frequently singles out Nietzsche as an opposition to his agenda and as representing the European spirit.
>If you are trying to imply we have ever advocated for the complete obliteration of every idea and individual who has ever had any connection to Europe, you are free to show us evidence where we suggest this… Instead we advocate for precisely the same thing as Hitler expresses in this quote–remove the degenerate Western bits from European (and world) culture, and leave the non-Western bits, filling in the gaps with other noble (i.e. non-Western) bits as necessary.
By non-Western, you mean Asiatic/Oriental?
As an Asiatic, I cannot accept this. First of all, Eastern concepts are badly misunderstood by Western practitioners. History furnishes us with a completely disastrous project of conveying teachings to the West through the use of Eastern terminology: Theosophy. Second, Western civilization has already been tainted by Asiatic influences. It does no good to make it even more Asiatic.
Kalergi:
In the Middle Ages, Europe was a spiritual and cultural province of Asia. It was dominated by the Asian religion of Christ. Asia was its religious culture, its mystical mood, its monarchical form of government and the dualism of popes and emperors, monks and knights.
Rosenberg:
This emphasising of the responsibility outward is the unblessed legacy for which we have to thank the form of Christianity which brought the hither Asiatic world of ideas with it to Europe.
Frederick:
It is true that all this Asiatic luxury, this refinement of good cheer, indulgence, and effeminacy, is not essential to our survival and that we could live with more simplicity and frugality than we do;
@Nordic
>underneath says the words ”Der rassestolz schwindet” meaning The racial pride fails.
Interesting, I looked that up and I learned something new about the Wehrmacht/Waffen SS uniforms. It always confused me why the SS seemed to be so strict about racial purity in their writings but the pictures put out by nationalists made it seem like they were lax about this and had a multicultural army. Now it makes sense.
Hitler, Table Talk, November 12, 1941 (Trevor-Roper):
It was the destiny of all the civilised States to be exposed to the assault of Asia at the moment when their vital strength was weakening. First of all it was the Greeks attacked by the Persians, then the Carthaginians’ expedition against Rome, the Huns in the battle of the Catalaunian Fields, the wars against Islam beginning with the battle of Poitiers, and finally the onslaught of the Mongols, from which Europe was saved by a miracle—one asks what internal difficulty held them back. And now we’re facing the worst attack of all, the attack of Asia mobilised by Bolshevism.
Hitler, January 30, 1944:
When National Socialism undertook the realization of its program eleven years ago, it managed just in time to build up a state that did not only have the strength at home but also the power abroad to fulfill the same European mission which first Greece fulfilled in antiquity by opposing the Persians, then Rome [by opposing] the Carthaginians, and the Occident in later centuries by opposing the invasions from the east.
Sprechabenddienst, Sept./Oct. 1944:
Lion Feuchtwanger writes in his novel Jewish War or Joseph:
“Haughty Rome was ripe for the older culture from the East, as it had been ripe 150 years before for the culture of Greece. It collapsed internally from the culture of the East. To contribute to that was exciting, it was a splendid occupation.” (p. 28)
@Gerulf
“By non-Western, you mean Asiatic/Oriental?”
No, I should have reworded this to make it more clear.
For us, it is not a battle of “West” vs “East” (we explicitly condemn traditional elements of “Eastern” culture such as Confucianism and the Vedic caste system, for example), but rather a worldwide battle between (noble) cultural elements arising from Aryan principles, and (ignoble) cultural elements stemming from Gentile and Turanian thinking.
“National Socialism encourages non-Western societies neither to Westernize nor to return to their respective non-Western traditions, aware that both routes will eventually lead back to Western domination. For a true alternative, it is Western (and partially Westernized) societies which need to be de-Westernized as the first step, and then all societies together which need to recall and revive their non-traditional pasts as the second step.”
http://aryanism.net/politics/foundations-of-the-true-left/western-civilization-must-die/
However, in our view, ‘Western’ culture is fundamentally ignoble. The culture and basis of civilization as it exists in Europe is, of course, predominately based on “Western” ideas and values. We wish to seperate what we call Western culture from noble, non-Western, elements (which in Europe has manifested itself in movements such as the Cathars and other Gnostic groups; philosophers such as Pythagoras, Plato, Schopenhauer, etc.; and National Socialism.) The non-Western history of Europe is outlined in Part 6 of the Aryan Diffusion series:
http://aryanism.net/culture/aryan-race/aryan-diffusion-part-6/
So, we do not necessarily seek to bring ideas from outside of the geographical confines of Europe into Europe solely for the sake of bringing in ideas from different geographical regions–but if an idea or cultural element is noble, its geographic center of origin does not have any bearing on its value. We certainly do not want to keep cultures and ideas segregated on the basis of the geographical area in which they just so happened to develop. We welcome diffusion of noble ideas across geographic, ethnic, and other arbitrary lines which have traditionally kept people divided.
Please see the two links above, they explain our conception of Western and non-Western culture, and our rationale for our position on them, more clearly fully than is possible in a blog post.
@Nordic
Before I go any further, here is everyone’s weekly reminder:
“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
“So I’m hearing that Nordicism wasn’t important in National Socialist theory and implementation?”
Yes, I’ve demonstrated this to you at least three times now. Do you want me to repost the quotes where it says National Socialists rejected Nordicism again?
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/dotard/comment-page-1/#comment-176768
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/summer-cleaning/comment-page-1/#comment-176191
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/summer-cleaning/comment-page-2/#comment-176610
“Is that why heavy sums of NS poster propaganda showed the typical Nordic features?”
“(* The term “Nordic” in physical anthropology is a misnomer, as the physical traits popularly associated with the
Trojan“Nordic” type such as long limbs, slender torso, etc. are traits adaptive toTroy a.k.a. Asgardwarm climate (absent from the latitudes of the far north) by maximizing the body’s surface-area-to-volume ratio. The truly indigenous populations of Scandinavia, such as the Sami, are not at allTrojan“Nordic” in appearance, but possess genuinely northern-latitude and hence cold-climate-adaptive traits such as shorter limbs, thicker torso, etc. that reduce the body’s surface-area-to-volume ratio.)”(This was one of the links I posted last time)
http://aryanism.net/culture/aryan-race/aryan-diffusion-roundup/
“In Europe, the Neolithic is primarily the period of the Mediterranean race, in one form or another. It was, apparently, the Mediterraneans who accomplished the change to a food-producing economy [i.e. farming] elsewhere, and who expanded into the territory of the food-gatherers.
These Mediterraneans, while surprisingly homogeneous in some respects, may be segregated locally and typologically into sub-groups on the basis of a few characters. …
Before the Neolithic, the principal branches of the Mediterranean family must have already come into existence. Some Mediterraneans were probably white skinned, and others brown; it is also possible that the differences in hair and eye color which so strongly distinguish living Mediterranean sub-varieties had already come into existence.
We cannot speak with authority about Nordics until we meet blondism in the flesh, nor make profitable surmises about them until we find it in literary references and artistic representations. We must not, therefore, let differences in pigmentation and soft parts confuse our understanding of the skeletal unity of the Mediterranean race.
It can be shown that Sumerians who lived over five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia are almost identical in skull and face form with living Englishmen, and that predynastic Egyptian skulls can be matched both in a seventeenth century London plague pit, and in Neolithic cist-graves in Switzerland. Modern dolichocephalic whites or browns are very similar in head and face measurements and form. The Nordic race in the strict sense is merely a pigment phase of the Mediterranean.[3]
[3] Popularly, the word “Nordic” is frequently applied to a blond or pigmentally intermediate conglomerate type or group of types in northern Europe, which contains other than blond Mediterranean elements.” -Carleton Coon
“During the entire Neolithic, almost all of Norway, as well as central and northern Sweden, remained in a food-gathering stage of culture, although Neolithic axes and other objects were traded to them from the south. There can be little doubt that to a large extent the northern hunters were direct descendants of Mesolithic, and hence of Late Palaeolithic, man. Many traits of their so-called Arctic culture have survived until recent times.
Without the knowledge of Neolithic movements and continuities provided by the careful work of the Scandinavian archaeologists, and without a previous study of the Neolithic racial situation in other parts of Europe, it would be difficult to interpret the human remains from the Danish and Swedish sites, since this is racially the most complex and most mixed section of the continent. The concept of Scandinavia as the home of a pure Nordic race or of any other single group during the Neolithic is a completely false one.” -Carleton Coon
[Translation: "Nordics" are a subvariety of the "Mediterranean race," which is the Neolithic root race for most of the non-Sinosphere Old World--including "brown people". "Mediterraneans" (and therefore, "Nordics") did not originate in Europe, but migrated and brought farming technology with them. This is the same story told on this page, which I linked to earlier, if you had bothered to read it.]
“Also why do you fail to mention about the Ahnenpass and the Ariernachweis? Is it because I have proved you wrong yet again?”
Why do you fail to address the points we have brought up to you like 5 times now? Is it because you are a spam bot who is incapable of comprehending our responses?
“ffs, look it up.”
ffs, read our articles that we link you, and you’d know what an Aryan is. Quite frankly, you’re just spamming now.
____
Obviously Nordic is just trying to waste our time at this point, so this post is for the reference of curious bystanders rather than him; but just think–if the post-moderny PC way of looking at “race” was never invented we wouldn’t be answering the same misconceptions that were cleared up by anthropologists 80 fucking years ago.
@JJ
As a bystander, thanks a lot for clearing up the Nordic mess!
@Nordic
Here are some Soviet propaganda posters:
http://all-that-is-interesting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/in-ussr-in-usa.jpg
https://mightymega.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/soviet_era_space_propaganda_4.jpg
http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/historical/images/Women-in-Soviet-Propaganda-01.jpg
http://all-that-is-interesting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/soviet-propaganda-posters-friend.jpg
http://www.visualnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Soviet-Space-Propaganda-3.jpg
http://russiatrek.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/soviet-space-program-propaganda-poster-17.jpg
http://russiatrek.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/soviet-space-program-propaganda-poster-3.jpg
http://russiatrek.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/soviet-space-program-propaganda-poster-23.jpg
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18ye639fv9s6ipng/ku-xlarge.png
https://multimedialearningllc.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/stalin_poster.jpg
Will you now start accusing Stalin of blond fetishism?
@Gerulf
“As an Asiatic”
Your self-classification as “Asiatic” reveals your own mental Westernization (a consequence of the Western education curriculum that has been implemented worldwide). No authentic non-Westerner would ever self-classify using a Eurocentric category (which is what “Asia” is), and such a ridiculous one at that. (This point is also covered in the Aryan Diffusion Roundup page which JJ has linked to above.)
In all fairness, it’s far from just you. Many well-meaning leftists are obliviously doing the same thing:
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2017/10/06/asians-for-black-lives-hosts-discussion-on-affirmative-action
Just another example of how normalized Eurocentrism is even among those who think they are fighting against it. This is how deep an intellectual hole most people are in, and reflects how much work will be required just to pull them out.
“Eastern concepts are badly misunderstood by Western practitioners”
To speak of “Eastern concepts” is your same habit of bad generalization acting up, which I previously pointed out here:
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/statue-removal-etc/comment-page-2/#comment-176531
Albert Speer in his memoirs – Hitler “was highly annoyed by the series of triumphs by the marvelous colored American runner, Jesse Owens. People whose antecedents came from the jungle were primitive, Hitler said with a shrug; their physiques were stronger than those of civilized whites and hence should be excluded from future games.
Again, Hitler viewed negroes as uncivilised. Yet this website claims that Hitler liked black people
@Nordic
This site also claims that Speer was a fraud who sold himself out to the allies after WW2.
@Nordic
“Albert Speer in his memoirs – Hitler “was highly annoyed by the series of triumphs by the marvelous colored American runner, Jesse Owens. People whose antecedents came from the jungle were primitive, Hitler said with a shrug; their physiques were stronger than those of civilized whites and hence should be excluded from future games.”
Hitler needed to compromise with his political companions, plus it was in 1936 when German racial policy was still growing
@Gerulf
Hitler talked about defending Europe against the attacks of other nations, not immigrants from other nations, and Hitler hoped that Islam conquered Europe rather than Bolshevism
“Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers … then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone.” – Adolf Hitler
This site claims that Hitler never cared about indigenous Germans.
That is pathetic, please tell me why Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle was made then.
Also the Sudetenland, was a place where ethnic Germans inhabited and Hitler wanted these people in Deutschland, he even annexed Sudetenland into Germany.
@Nordic
“This site claims that Hitler never cared about indigenous Germans.”
Where does it say that? He did care about them, however he did not care JUST about them as Nordicists proclaim. The likes of Hans F.K. Gunther certainly advocated Nordic dominance and supremacy, and that’s why they were pushed out of NS racial studies.
Besides, current Nordicists and neo-nazis would puke at the site of this: https://wilkmocy.com/?p=10483
Yet, Hitler was largely fine by it. His and the NSDAP’s official race view was far more complex and unconventional then what you’re claiming.
@Nordic
“This site claims that Hitler never cared about indigenous Germans”.
Regardless if this site ever made that claim about Hitler or not, I should note that this site justly claims that Hitler explicitly stated that the Chinese and Japanese are superior to the Germans in terms of history.
http://aryanism.net/culture/aryan-race/aryan-diffusion-part-2/