Here is an anecdote that perfectly summarizes the inferiority of democracy, especially the Swiss version (as endorsed by Satya):
she wanted a Swiss passport herself, but was refused after locals who were consulted about her request said they were ‘fed up’ of her challenging Swiss traditions by campaigning against the use of cow bells.
The campaign against cow bells by the 42-year-old vegan and animal-rights activist has made her unpopular in the Alpine confederation.
…
And now the majority of residents from Gipf-Oberfrick in the canton of Aargau have successfully blocked her second attempt to get a Swiss passport.
The resident’s committee argued that if she does not accept Swiss traditions and the Swiss way of life, she should not be able to become an official national.
She said of her situation: ‘The sound that cow bells make is a hundred decibel. It is comparable with a pneumatic drill. We also would not want such a thing hanging close to our ears?’
She also railed against the weight of the famous cow bells.
Nancy complained: ‘The bells, which the cows have to wear when they walk to and from the pasture, are especially heavy.‘The animals carry around five kilograms around their neck. It causes friction and burns to their skin.’
The Dutchwoman, who describes herself as a freelance journalist, model and drama student, has also campaigned against a number of other Swiss traditions like hunting, pig races and the noisy church bells in town.
…
Local politician Tanja Suter agreed with the majority of the town’s citizens and said Holten had a ‘big mouth’, saying she did not deserve to get a Swiss passport ‘if she irritates us and does not respect our traditions’.
Local residents in Switzerland often have a say in citizenship applications, which are decided by the cantons and towns where the applicants live rather than federal government.
“A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority - which means the dunder-headed multitude - hate nothing so much as a superior brain. … Let the superior quality of such a leader be once recognized and the result will be that a joint front will be organized against him, particularly if that leader, though not coming from their ranks, should fall into the habit of intermingling with these illustrious nincompoops on their own level. They want to have only their own company and will quickly take a hostile attitude towards any man who might show himself obviously above and beyond them when he mingles in their ranks. Their instinct, which is so blind in other directions, is very sharp in this particular.” - Adolf Hitler
“Ninety per cent of men (and women) are both lazy and cowardly, and out of sheer moral and intellectual apathy they behave just as circumstances suggest. They follow the apparently easiest way, that is to say, the common, long-trodden path. And the common, long-trodden path is suggested, if not determined, mainly by the race to which the overwhelming majority of the people belong in a given land. … It may be — and it is, in our eyes — a hateful thing. But it is a thing one has to take into account, because of its hold upon the insignificant little man who forms the majority of mankind; because of its appeal to public consciousness, which is not a criterion of truth — far from it! — but a condition of success, a guarantee of power.” - Savitri Devi
Western civilization is when an Asynja has to get permission from the majority population just to receive a passport of a country which in mythical times she would have been sent to rule over.
handschar is one of the multiple personalities of Satya, is a troll that comes to disassociate this web with its ignorant, pseudo religious and irrational garbage, is a scoundrel and an ignorant, I hope the admins expel him from this website, I also leave this site even after so many years Following this web. Bye.
@AS
Attempting to subvert my argument using moral relativism is futile. Some things are simply unacceptable no matter how many people consent to it. What is right and what is wrong does not change depending on the number of votes or how cleverly a relativist argues. In fact, the more clever the relativist argument becomes, the more absurd it becomes.
Dignity is infinitely more valuable than consent, since consent itself is not specific, and when relativists become involved, they will use cleverness to get the vulnerable consenting to degrading things.
If someone abuses a position of authority to do the things you propose that is the definition of corruption. I will ask you: how would you respond to finding out your child was coerced into prostitution? If you had to ponder if you were going against her consent by crushing the pimps and johns, then you aren’t compassionate at all.
Of course the girl will try to protect the pimps and johns, due to the fear they have instilled into her. A young girl being used as a sexual slave is in no position to care for herself. If you just want to shrug and say ‘well, she’s not resisting and seems to consent to it, therefore it’s not my place to intervene - at least there’s no scary grandfather coming to have a go at the brothel staff’ you are part of the problem.
[quote] If you tell others “I will decide on your behalf how you should live because your own consent is worthless!”, YOU are that perpetrator who must be stopped. [end quote]
This is a straw man again. My actual statement is “I will defend your dignity against those who are humiliating you, because you are not yet strong enough to fight them yourself.”
Children and animals are often too weak to do anything except consent to the selfish desires of bad, stronger and more clever adults. This is why they need people like me to defend them. I suggest intervention only when dignity is being violated. That should be clear. Pretending it is not clear and creating a moral relativist argument against what I have said, is very suspicious.
I sense fear of justice in your words. Explain yourself.
@AS
[quote] How many children generation after generation have had their Original Nobility crushed by Stockholm Syndrome towards their parents, fear of abandonment by their parents and attachment to their parents? Yet your examples reveal that you support paternalism. [end quote]
You are describing corruption of the paternal, as a means to undermine kind parenting. I would say the number of abused children is growing due to the growing corruption of the paternal. Many parents just shrug today as their children walk the streets at night, drinking alcohol, ending up at drunken parties, and generally emulating their Western parents and parent’s friends.
If a parent has to stop a child from getting involved in drugs & alcohol then it should be obvious that care and consideration is involved when talking to the child. Non-intervention on the grounds that the child consents to having her life ruined is unacceptable.
Explain yourself.
@handschar:
“For a bear to kill her own infant and then herself in the manner in which it happened, the bear had to have been suffering enormous distress for a prolonged period of time. The animal was not acting out of free will but self-destructing in a paroxysm of despair, forced on her by humans. Literally dying of a broken heart due having to experience the constant pain and distress of her baby.”
Now that we’ve established you’re also a criminal, I would just like to add: The point is that out of the thousands of bears before her who did not end the cycle of slavery for their offspring, she did. She did the noble thing in a desperate situation. That is the entire point of Aryanism simply put. Simplification also happens to be a National Socialist ideal. A point which continues to elude you apparently? Aryanism’s ideal to bring Christianity and Islam back to its roots and simplify both doctrines is also a noble cause in my personal opinion.
*back to their roots.
@Atmajyoti
Accusing me of being criminal and the appropriating my own ideals for yourself isn’t going to work.
@Atmajyoti
Do not proceed to parrot ideals that you do not rationally comprehend nor personify. If you genuinely upheld those ideals and aims you would not be attempting to create a false dichotomy between myself and those ideals and aims.
[quote] Now that we’ve established you’re also a criminal, I would just like to add: The point is that out of the thousands of bears before her who did not end the cycle of slavery for their offspring, she did. She did the noble thing in a desperate situation. That is the entire point of Aryanism simply put. Simplification also happens to be a National Socialist ideal. A point which continues to elude you apparently? Aryanism’s ideal to bring Christianity and Islam back to its roots and simplify both doctrines is also a noble cause in my personal opinion. [end quote]
Do you not consider that the other bears were not tortured for as many years as the one bear who took her own life and the life of her baby? The 1000s of bears who failed to commit suicide were not ‘ignoble bears’. Idealizing the last remaining option has nothing to do with Aryan ethics. The noble response would be to maul the captors to death and walk off into the woods with the baby bear. That heroic response was made impossible, likely with the help of some clever shysters. Luckily there are good people who will intervene and free animals in captivity before they bash their own head’s in from psychological stress.
You are a moral imbecile if you cannot recognize moral sentiments in others.
@handschar
“Some things are simply unacceptable no matter how many people consent to it.”
A hundred people bullying one person is unacceptable even though the hundred bullies consent to it, because the one victim does not, therefore it is initiated violence. Popularity is not what makes something acceptable. Absence of initiated violence is what makes something acceptable.
“I will ask you: how would you respond to finding out your child was coerced into prostitution?”
Coercion implies violence, so I would oppose it. And I would oppose it just as much whether it is prostitution or any other occupation. It is not the particular occupation that bothers me, but the coercion.
That’s not what we are discussing. We are discussing how you would respond to someone (what’s with this “your child” bullshit anyway?) VOLUNTARILY entering into prostitution. Because it is quite obvious that what bothers you is not the coercion but the particular occupation.
“If you had to ponder if you were going against her consent by crushing the pimps and johns, then you aren’t compassionate at all.”
The moment you claim that her (and why do you only ever use females in your examples anyway?) consent doesn’t matter, she is already a victim of your initiated violence.
If you think she deserves a better job, the best thing you can do is to offer to employ her in an alternative job (in fact this is what the state should be doing), but it is still her choice whether or not to accept your offer.
“Of course the girl will try to protect the pimps and johns, due to the fear they have instilled into her.”
What if there isn’t even a pimp? What if she is self-employed, and thus can choose her own johns? Fear would not be a factor in this case. Would that be enough for you to leave her alone?
“My actual statement is “I will defend your dignity against those who are humiliating you, because you are not yet strong enough to fight them yourself.””
That’s what communist “re-educators” used to say to their gulag prisoners.
“I suggest intervention only when dignity is being violated.”
Dignity is being violated when you tell someone their own consent is worthless. YOU are the one violating it.
“Many parents just shrug today as their children walk the streets at night, drinking alcohol, ending up at drunken parties,”
These parents are not the problem. The problem is the Amy Chua type of parents who think they know better than their children and consequently tyrannize them “for their own good”.
“Non-intervention on the grounds that the child consents to having her life ruined is unacceptable.”
Or maybe I should have said the handschar type of parents…..
@AS
In regard to my opposition to prostitution, you said: [quote] “If you think she deserves a better job, the best thing you can do is to offer to employ her in an alternative job (in fact this is what the state should be doing), but it is still her choice whether or not to accept your offer.”
It should be obvious I stand for this already, even if it was not my own child, perhaps especially.
You also said: [quote] “Because it is quite obvious that what bothers you is not the coercion but the particular occupation.”
Prostitution is not only venal but the insidious exploitation of women with low self esteem, therefore coercion or voluntary involvement in it is equally unacceptable.
You have created an argument against someone who clearly opposes misuse, abuse and appropriation, whereby you associate the corruption of parenting with paternal love itself. The questions remains: why?
If compassion and duty of care was removed from society then evil, wealthy individuals will use consent laws to enable pathological criminal madness, which is currently the case in Western societies. When children consent to what abusers are doing to them it does not get reported. When you say paternal intervention is equivalent to Gulag torture, you are not doing anything for your moral credibility.
Of course the misuse of intervention is invasion, which is not the same thing. I am not bothered by children doing anything they want, as long as it is not for the sexual gratification of adults. Among other preventive measures, the-same law also introduced the castration of sex offenders.
In occupied Germany, the legalization of unrestrained permissiveness under the guise of consent laws, which leads to both debauchery and abuse, necessitates protection measures once again be put in place to safeguard genuine proponents of love and dignity. This necessitates a crackdown on the promotion of acts which shield and enable the interests of immoralists.
The prosecutions and convictions in a morally sound society are necessary for the protection against acts considered criminally immoral, and therefore justifiably regulated by a National Socialist government. In any society where such a government does not exist it is the duty of every Aryan to uphold these principles as a matter of duty of care. The NSDAP paragraph expanded to allow interests of public health, and to regulate and punish practices that are demeaning, even if they did not involve physical harm. This decree recognized punishment ex post facto as a general principle of the criminal code. Likewise it abolished the doctrine of nulla poena sine legel; for it permitted the punishment of acts offending the sound feeling of the people even though no existing law was violated.
“Mens rea” is Latin for “guilty mind”. It is the mental element of a crime. By the decrees of March 21, 1933, and December 20, 1934, the latter still in German law books, was known as Heimtueckegesetz (law against treacherous and treacherous speech and insidious discrediting the Nationalsocialist government).
Protip: Handschar thinks like this because he is a Salafist. Please stop praising Islam generally and restrict support to left-wing, gnostic-influenced sects such as the Alawites and Ismailis. Thanks.
@Andalucian Warrior
Your identity politics have no credibility with me.
‘Alawites’ as you say are also individuals welcome to cooperate given no self-interest is involved.
@AS
You said: “Or maybe I should have said the handschar type of parents…..”
Now you’re obviously being silly. I would also be parental toward you should the unfortunate happen and I had the chance to intervene to protect your dignity. But I hope nothing awful ever happens to you. You do behave like a naughty child with your arguments, which perhaps further softened my attitude toward you.
Ideology and identity are not the same thing. You now sounds like the retards who come on the site and say that this site is hypocritical because it promotes tribalism by only caring about people in the ‘Aryan tribe’.
@handschar:
“Do you not consider that the other bears were not tortured for as many years as the one bear who took her own life and the life of her baby?”
I did consider that. Regardless, what she did is extremely rare among “bile” bears. How do you explain the rarity of her act?
@handschar:
“Do not proceed to parrot ideals that you do not rationally comprehend nor personify.”
I do not believe I have parroted anything. Whether I choose to personify those ideals is irrelevant to this discussion. Furthermore, you do not know anything about me personally, why are you pretending that you do?
There was no false dichotomy that I presented you.
Would you rather take death over slavery? Simple question that the article about the “bile” bear bares out.
From your response, we know that you would rather take slavery over death. Simple really…
@Atmajyoti
From the article: “This can go on for 20 years, until the bear stops producing bile and is killed. More than 12,000 bears are caged on bile farms.”
If 11,999 bears are still trapped in torture-captivity, why are you going on about one bear being ‘noble’ because the physical and emotional pain became so unbearable that she broke her own skull against the wall? I advocate going against the consent of the captors, killing them and freeing the animals.
Because some of the bears may refuse to leave their cages, for human helpers to carry out the task of freeing the bears without injuring them, it may be necessary to tranquilize some of the animals before transporting them to a safe habitat.
Some of the bears will not consent to being saved because they rightly do not trust humans. This should not prevent you from helping them. When they wake up in a place with no humans they can move on from their traumatic past.
@AS
By your logic, hundreds of men using a young girl as a sex slave is not violence if she consents to it, but intent to intervene and free her from sexual slavery is initiated violence.
The only place your argument would hold up is in a Western court of law that mirrors your views on prostitution exactly.
I don’t mean to insert myself into the midst of someone else’s disagreement, but I feel I must respond to some of handschar’s prior comments/accusations.
Hansdchar said: “Attempting to subvert my argument using moral relativism is futile.”
Moral relativism says that there is no universal, absolute standard of morality that applies to all beings. Thus, with relativism, what is immoral for one being might not be immoral for another given a different context.
AS and aryanism.net have never promoted relativism. Aryanism is staunchly anti-relativist. Please see their FAQ: “We consider ourselves representatives of the True Left, a radical leftism which rejects moral relativism…”
The Aryanist position is that all initiated violence (violation of consent) is morally wrong, no matter who commits the initial violation, or what the cultural/situational context is. This is a universal standard that applies equally to all beings, at all times, in all places. It is NOT relativism, but strict absolutism. The fact that I, or anyone else, would even need to explain this to handschar clearly demonstrates that he has thoroughly misunderstood both 1) Aryanism and 2) moral relativism.
Handschar, AS is not “subverting” your argument using moral relativism. He is tearing it apart using true moral absolutism; you are merely failing to recognize it as such.
“What is right and what is wrong does not change depending on the number of votes…”
Handschar, you do not need to tell the same people who wrote this article: http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/this-is-why-we-oppose-democracy that right and wrong don’t change depending on the number of votes. The Aryanist conception of morality has nothing to do with people voting on good vs. bad. It has everything to do with whether or not an individual’s consent is violated.
“Dignity is infinitely more valuable than consent…”
If you believe that there is anything more valuable than consent, then you have no business saying, “I agree with everything on aryanism.net.” The Aryanist position is that there is nothing more ethically valuable than consent. This stance is the foundation of everything that they do.
Handschar, you are the one who has created a straw man by accusing AS of promoting relativism, when he is actually promoting the most uncompromising form of absolutism ever conceived.
“By your logic, hundreds of men using a young girl as a sex slave is not violence if she consents to it…”
If she consents to it, then she is not a slave.
@handschar
She’s not a slave because she consented to it. If you were in my nation and were this incompetent you would never gain citizenship.
Here’s the way that Aryanist Morality works in a nutshell. Universal subjectivism - while the objectivist says “Sex is moral/immoral,” subjectivists say “Well did both partners consent? Did they take the proper precautions to not produce a child? If not did they have permission from the State?”
In the State of affairs today, you cannot attempt suicide. It is illegal, and the authorities will attempt to lock you up for it. In my State, it would be accommodated, supplemented by interviews, counsel sessions, and finally letting the citizen do their thing. At least it’s letting the State know they are about to lose a worker, and can make the proper arrangements.
@Lucius
You said: [quote] “In the State of affairs today, you cannot attempt suicide. It is illegal, and the authorities will attempt to lock you up for it. In my State, it would be accommodated, supplemented by interviews, counsel sessions, and finally letting the citizen do their thing. At least it’s letting the State know they are about to lose a worker, and can make the proper arrangements.”
I do not disagree with this, although I wouldn’t word it in the way you did because it suggests the interests of the impersonal state supersede the dignity of the individual. By my standard there is no point having a state if dignity is not universally acknowledged as the ethical standard.
Dignity is infinitely more valuable than consent because without dignity consent is worthless. Take what the bear did for example, that was a dignified response to a set of very undignified circumstances. What it this act that ennobled the bear? No, the bear was already noble to begin with, and whether she took her own life or not, she would still be a noble creature trapped in a cage.
You said: [quote] “If you believe that there is anything more valuable than consent, then you have no business saying, “I agree with everything on aryanism.net.” The Aryanist position is that there is nothing more ethically valuable than consent. This stance is the foundation of everything that they do.
Handschar, you are the one who has created a straw man by accusing AS of promoting relativism, when he is actually promoting the most uncompromising form of absolutism ever conceived.”
Being a moral absolutist means acknowledging moral absolutes outside of oneself, not the appropriation of morally absolute language to covertly assert your own interests and desires.
Because nobility necessitates all consenual conduct be dignified, it is important to empower physically weaker people so that they are in position to consent to esteemed things and distance themselves from indignity, ideally showing them enough kindness so that they never feel like consenting to indignity ever again.
Because the moral absolutist account says dignity has higher priority over consent. Initiation of violence, especially non-physical violence, such as making defensive arguments for consensual prostitution, is something I oppose. When someone is raped the rapist consents to sex the victim does not, the crime is not so much the violation of consent but down to the indignity caused. If a woman is raped repeatedly and has her esteem shattered and with no loving protection in her life, become a prostitute. Someone who has their will broken will consent to dehumanization and actually reject help from a caregiver, whether male or not, due to a combination of low self-worth and inability to see herself as worthy of love; she feels she deserves no better.
You said: [quote] “The Aryanist position is that all initiated violence (violation of consent) is morally wrong, no matter who commits the initial violation, or what the cultural/situational context is. This is a universal standard that applies equally to all beings, at all times, in all places. It is NOT relativism, but strict absolutism. The fact that I, or anyone else, would even need to explain this to handschar clearly demonstrates that he has thoroughly misunderstood both 1) Aryanism and 2) moral relativism.”
Now be specific. Consent regarding what?
Premise: consent on its own is not noble, and without dignity consent is merely relative. Consent must operate within the absolute confines of dignity.
“Being a moral absolutist means acknowledging moral absolutes outside of oneself…”
Correct. This is not something that you need to explain to Aryanists. They are well aware of this fact already, as am I.
“…not the appropriation of morally absolute language to covertly assert your own interests and desires.”
Again, you are the only one creating straw-man arguments. Aryanism.net and AS do not oppose initiated violence out of a selfish desire to promote their own personal interests. How could it be selfish to endeavor to end all victimization permanently? This is the most selfless goal possible.
“Dignity is infinitely more valuable than consent because without dignity consent is worthless.” “Because nobility necessitates all consenual conduct be dignified…”
Consent is never worthless. If you believe this, then you cannot say you “agree with everything on Aryanism.net”. Also, you keep demanding further clarity and specificity from everyone else, but you are the one who is being vague. You repeatedly speak of dignity without offering a definition for this favorite term of yours. It is this “dignity” you constantly speak of that fails to be specific. Since you keep accusing Aryanists of doing the opposite of what they are doing, or of things that you yourself are doing, I suspect that you are probably the one who wishes to promote your own personal preferences under the guise of moral absolutism. After all, you are the one passing judgment on what is “dignified” and what is not, and proclaiming that whatever you deem to be “undignified” is worth violating someone’s consent over.
Because the moral absolutist account says dignity has higher priority over consent.”
That is just what handschar says as he asserts his own personal preferences. Loss of dignity occurs when consent is violated.
Now be specific. Consent regarding what?
Your confusion over this issue is baffling to me. Consent regarding anything, handschar. What is so difficult to understand? If an individual consents to something, then it is morally permissible for that thing to happen to that individual. If an individual does not consent to something, then it is morally objectionable for that thing to happen to that individual. The concept is very simple and doesn’t require the great struggle you seem to be experiencing over it.
“…consent on its own is not noble…”
ABIDING BY an individual’s consent is what is noble.
“…without dignity consent is merely relative…”
Translation: if handschar personally doesn’t like something that someone has freely consented to do, he will label it “undignified” (the definition of this word, and the ultimate judgment of what it applies to, are decided by him), and then he will forcefully intervene to stop the activities that he personally doesn’t like, thereby initiating violence and creating a victim in the process.
“Consent must operate within the absolute confines of dignity.”
Translation: you must do only what handschar considers to be acceptable. If you don’t, he labels you undignified and your consent becomes “worthless” to him. He is prepared to violate you ‘for your own good’.
It is so simple, handschar, and so absolute . Respect the consent of other beings UNLESS they have initiated violence. If they have not initiated violence, leave them alone to do what they want. If they have initiated violence, forcefully intervene to end the violence. In this way, dignity is upheld and victimization is combated. That is all.
If you disagree with this, then please retract your previous claim that you “agree with everything on aryanism.net”, because you actually disagree with the fundamental principle that underlies everything they do.
“When someone is raped the rapist consents to sex the victim does not, the crime is not so much the violation of consent but down to the indignity caused.”
The crime of rape IS violation of consent, which creates a victim (thus, the victim is the one who did not consent), and it is the victimization itself that creates the indignity.
“If a woman is raped repeatedly and has her esteem shattered and with no loving protection in her life, become a prostitute. Someone who has their will broken will consent to dehumanization and actually reject help from a caregiver, whether male or not, due to a combination of low self-worth and inability to see herself as worthy of love; she feels she deserves no better.”
AS was right. You really do always use females in your examples of people whose consent needs to be violated for their own good. Sounds like a potential victimizer to me.
@handschar
“Prostitution is not only venal but the insidious exploitation of women with low self esteem, therefore coercion or voluntary involvement in it is equally unacceptable.”
WNs tell me that “black” men having sex with “white” women is not only venal but the insidious exploitation of women with low self esteem, therefore coercion or voluntary involvement in it is equally unacceptable. I don’t take them seriously either.
“If compassion and duty of care was removed from society then evil, wealthy individuals will use consent laws to enable pathological criminal madness”
This is what WNs say about wealthy “black” athletes/musicians/etc. with “white” wives as a result of lynching being removed from society. I don’t take them seriously either.
“I am not bothered by children doing anything they want, as long as it is not for the sexual gratification of adults.”
WNs tell me that they are not bothered by “white” women doing anything they want, as long as it is not for the sexual gratification of “black” men. I don’t take them seriously either.
@AW
“Handschar thinks like this because he is a Salafist.”
handschar rejects the Hadith, whereas Salafists accept the Hadith.
“Please stop praising Islam generally and restrict support to left-wing, gnostic-influenced sects such as the Alawites and Ismailis.”
Most Muslims describe themselves as Sunnis. Being a Sunni means emulating Mohammed, which is what I simply refer to as Mohammedanism. Our current strategy is to convince Sunnis to simply do what they claim they do, and hence reject Koranist dogmatism, considering that Mohammed himself was an exemplar of anti-dogmatism, regularly receiving new revelations as the situation demanded.
Nevertheless, I am open to the possibility that better strategies exist. The most effective way to persuade me to change strategy is for you to apply your proposed strategy in your own activism and become far more successful in achieving objectives that I also value. Then I will surely copy your strategy.
@AS
What has ethnicity to do with noble love? Nothing.
Intraethnic and interethnic relationships can be dignified or undignified depending. Comparing a woman who loves a “black man” to a prostitute is unacceptable and so is demeaning prostitutes. Prostitution undermines the success of noble love. Condemning prostitution should be in defence of the sacred, ethnicity redundant. Moreover, the vast majority of johns in Cologne are not “black men” but white nationals.
@AS
You said [quote] handschar rejects the Hadith, whereas Salafists accept the Hadith. [end quote]
I reject fabricated hadith. Authentic hadith and sunna is fully detailed in the Qur’an. Whilst there remains some evidence of the same hadiths outside of the Qur’an it is not worth checking and comparing them with the Qur’an since the book has already been completed.
To acknowledge the word of Allah [Subhanahu wa Ta'ala] and be Muslim is to implement the instructions in the Qur’an. Muhammad [sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam] is the Messenger. To be like Muhammad [Rasoolullah sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam] is to receive the word of Allah [Subhanahu wa Ta'ala] who is without partner.
@Wayne
You said: [quote] “The crime of rape IS violation of consent, which creates a victim (thus, the victim is the one who did not consent), and it is the victimization itself that creates the indignity.”
Of course. But removing dignity from the equation when discerning what victimization is enables further victimization. The only reason clever arguments supporting undignified acts like “consensual rape” go unpunished is due to consent laws contributing to the abolition of dignity.
I reiterate. Consent on its own is not necessarily noble nor dignified. Without strict emphasis on dignity, consent is merely relative. To prevent consent being appropriated to advance the self-interest of the undignified, consent must operate within the absolute confines of dignity.
@Wayne
The all-knower who will not be schooled, for he is Wayne, all-knower. You are being schooled. Accept it or not. It’s only advice.
You said: [quote] “Translation: if handschar personally doesn’t like something that someone has freely consented to do, he will label it “undignified” (the definition of this word, and the ultimate judgment of what it applies to, are decided by him), and then he will forcefully intervene to stop the activities that he personally doesn’t like, thereby initiating violence and creating a victim in the process.”
By your logic, if I judge that you have consumed an excess of alcohol and are about to drive your car, and I intervene by offering you an alternative way home, by your logic I am victimizing you because I am stopping you from doing something you like. Do I sound like I am having a good time at your expense? I’m doing what I do because I personally dislike indignity and people bringing tragedy upon themselves and others, whilst feeding their self-interest, their desires, and their ignoble egos.
There are no rewards in my job.
@Wayne
I have been specific. You are pretending I dislike undefined and perhaps innocuous things in an attempt to create the image of an oppressor. On this page I have opposed the abuse of animals and humans and provided alternative solutions to suicide and practical ways to combat slavery. By victim-playing and pretending you are being oppressed you are undermining the plight of real victims. This is unacceptable.
@Handschar:
If 11,999 bears are still trapped in torture-captivity, why are you going on about one bear being ‘noble’ because the physical and emotional pain became so unbearable that she broke her own skull against the wall? I advocate going against the consent of the captors, killing them and freeing the animals.
“Because some of the bears may refuse to leave their cages, for human helpers to carry out the task of freeing the bears without injuring them, it may be necessary to tranquilize some of the animals before transporting them to a safe habitat.
Some of the bears will not consent to being saved because they rightly do not trust humans. This should not prevent you from helping them. When they wake up in a place with no humans they can move on from their traumatic past.”
Why are you hypothesizing on possible future events that may or may not bring the bears freedom, and on what bears do and do not feel and think?
The point is, out of the thousands of bears that came before her, she is the only one that would rather be dead than a slave. That is the point, and the only point I can take from that article really…
I’m talking about the fact that one bear out of thousands decided she would take her freedom, for her and her cub, even if it meant death. That is what happened in that article, that was my point, that is what I’m talking about!
What the fuck are you talking about exactly? Future scenarios that may or may not happen…?
@Atmajyoti
I do not think passive suicide is a viable option in any case where a dishonorable enemy is open to physical destruction. The message should be to fight to the death not because of personal hardship but because one hates the target of one’s hatred more than one loves life.
“Even if certain that you will lose, retaliate. Neither wisdom nor technique has a place in this. A real man does not think of victory or defeat. He plunges recklessly towards an irrational death. In doing this, he awakens from dreams.”
Tsunetomo Yamamoto, Hagakure: The Book of the Samurai
I know you reject Confucius. Yamamoto is right, though.
Honorable suicide is a heroic response, especially when a dishonorable enemy is taken down. I’m not disputing that. However, it’s clearly not working on a practical level to end the enslavement of animals.
@ handschar
“What has ethnicity to do with noble love? Nothing.
Intraethnic and interethnic relationships can be dignified or undignified depending. Comparing a woman who loves a “black man” to a prostitute is unacceptable and so is demeaning prostitutes. Prostitution undermines the success of noble love. Condemning prostitution should be in defence of the sacred, ethnicity redundant. Moreover, the vast majority of johns in Cologne are not “black men” but white nationals.”
I don’t think you get it. AS was illustrating the parallels between your attitude and that of WNs, in the hopes that you would then see why your attitude is unjustified.
“Consent on its own is not necessarily noble nor dignified.”
It is inherently noble; if you and I mean the same thing by that word, that is. Whether or not it is “dignified” I can’t say yet, since you’ve yet to articulate unambiguosly what you mean by that. If you can’t do this, then Wayne was right in accusing you of having an oppurtunistic, relativist morality that might aswell depend entirely on what mood you’re in at the time.
“By your logic, if I judge that you have consumed an excess of alcohol and are about to drive your car, and I intervene by offering you an alternative way home, by your logic I am victimizing you because I am stopping you from doing something you like. “”
Your example and conclusion are inacurate. You don’t need a (still ambiguos, by the way) concept of dignity to conclude that stopping a drunk driver is justified. Ahimsa achieves this perfectly well: Since no pedestrians consent to being run over, it is retaliatory violence to stop the initiatory violence of the drunk driver. Hence why doing so is justified, and also why it is not victimizing him - retaliatory violence by definition means no (or as little as possible) further victims result.
To illustrate this, let’s take a more obvious example: If someone swings an axe at a random (unconsenting) person, does stopping the attacker as per Ahimsa mean you “victimize” him? If not, why would stopping a drunk driver be any different (or any less justifiable by the same logic)?
If you took the time to precisely define what you mean by the word “dignity”, this discussion would be much easier (and more meaningful) that it currently is.
“I advocate going against the consent of the captors, killing them and freeing the animals.”
Which is what we advocate for as well. Not because what they are doing is “indignant”, but because it is initiatory violence. As per Ahimsa, their consent becomes morally irrelevant as soon as they choose to violate the consent of others.
“Some of the bears will not consent to being saved because they rightly do not trust humans. This should not prevent you from helping them.”
Indeed, which is why you should help them, simply by leaving the cages open. If they choose to leave them, they can; if not, they can stay. In any case, it is they who must decide, not you. The best you can do is give them more options - but never choose for them.
If you took the time to precisely define what you mean by the word “dignity”, this discussion would be much easier (and more meaningful) that it currently is.
“Comparing a woman who loves a “black man” to a prostitute is unacceptable…”
AS was comparing your logic and your arguments to those used by racists, thereby showing how they are similar. He was not saying that a white woman who happens to love a black man is like a prostitute. Please re-read the exchange:
Handschar: “I am not bothered by children doing anything they want, as long as it is not for the sexual gratification of adults.”
AS: “WNs [white nationalists] tell me that they are not bothered by “white” women doing anything they want, as long as it is not for the sexual gratification of “black” men. I don’t take them seriously either.”
How could you read any of that (especially the last line, which I have put in bold), and think that AS was comparing interethnic sexual activity to prostitution? He was comparing what you said about sex with children to what WNs say about sex with black people. Then he said he doesn’t take either argument seriously.
- Handschar says that he doesn’t mind giving children the freedom to do whatever they want, EXCEPT if it involves sexual activity with adults.
- White Nationalists say to AS that they don’t mind white women having the freedom to do whatever they want, EXCEPT if it involves sexual activity with black men.
In both cases, handschar and WNs are saying that they support allowing other people to make their own decisions, but then immediately demonstrating that they don’t really mean what they said. What they actually mean is that they think people should be able to make decisions only within the confines of what handschar and WNs deem to be good, “dignified”, and acceptable.
-For WNs, it is bad, undignified, and unacceptable for a black man to ever have sex with a white woman, so they would consider this type of sexual activity to be a justification for intervening with violence.
-For hansdchar, it is bad, undignified, and unacceptable for an adult to ever have sex with a child, so he would consider this type of sexual activity to be a justification for intervening with violence.
Handschar, please note the similarity. You seem to have great difficulty grasping the arguments presented by Aryanists. Is it perhaps an issue with English being a second language? (I am genuinely asking this, not attempting to be malicious.)
“What has ethnicity to do with noble love? Nothing.”
Aryanists already know this and have made equivalent statements numerous times.
“Prostitution undermines the success of noble love. Condemning prostitution should be in defence of the sacred…”
What you seem to not understand is that AS and Aryanism do not promote prostitution as a wise choice or a desirable activity. In fact, from what I have read (especially in recent blog comments), they are anti-sex; they only encourage sex for state-controlled procreation of noble offspring, and also sexual activity as an expression of romantic love, though asexual romanticism (eroticism?) is still preferred over sex. So Aryanists are not in any way fans of prostitution!
However, their position is that no non-violent sexual activity warrants forceful intervention . Thus:
- If people consent to an exchange of money for sex, forceful intervention is not warranted.
- If a black person and a white person consent to engaging in sexual activity with each other, forceful intervention is not warranted.
- If an adult and a child consent to engaging in sexual activity with each other, forceful intervention is not warranted.
Nobody here ever said that prostitution was an advisable activity.
“But removing dignity from the equation when discerning what victimization is enables further victimization.”
It is removing consent from the equation that enables victimization.
“Consent on its own is not necessarily noble nor dignified.”
Agreed. It is how we react to consent that determines nobility.
-If an individual has not initiated violence, then RESPECTING and ABIDING BY that individual’s consent is noble.
-If an individual has initiated violence, then forcefully intervening to end the violence is noble.
“removing dignity” “undignified acts” “abolition of dignity” “strict emphasis on dignity” “absolute confines of dignity”
“I have been specific.”
You have not. You continue to throw around the word “dignity”, yet have never once given a definition to specify what you are using that word to mean.
“By victim-playing and pretending you are being oppressed…”
?
I never claimed to be victimized or oppressed by you. I merely expressed a desire for you communicate with greater clarity and specificity. You can start by defining “dignity”.
“You are being schooled.”
Not in the least.
“Logic isn’t my strong point.”
That much is obvious.
“Your example and conclusion are inacurate. You don’t need a (still ambiguos, by the way) concept of dignity to conclude that stopping a drunk driver is justified. Ahimsa achieves this perfectly well: Since no pedestrians consent to being run over, it is retaliatory violence to stop the initiatory violence of the drunk driver. Hence why doing so is justified, and also why it is not victimizing him – retaliatory violence by definition means no (or as little as possible) further victims result.
To illustrate this, let’s take a more obvious example: If someone swings an axe at a random (unconsenting) person, does stopping the attacker as per Ahimsa mean you “victimize” him? If not, why would stopping a drunk driver be any different (or any less justifiable by the same logic)?”
Hypnotix gets it. Let’s look at another example. Aryanists also believe it is every citizen’s duty to own a firearm. But would an Aryan state allow its citizens to walk around randomly firing off their guns into buildings, vehicles, the air, etc? No, of course not. While the other citizens do consent to their neighbors owning firearms (as a requirement of citizenship), do not consent to having someone walk around their community shooting bullets at random. Thus (I’d hope), the police would forcefully intervene to stop the trigger-happy gunslinger. This would be retaliatory violence to end the gunman’s initiated violence of unsafely firing into the midst of a peaceful community.
Likewise, whenever we drive, we consent to sharing the road with other trained, licensed drivers. We hope that the other drivers remain alert and travel safely. We do not consent to sharing the road with inebriated people who have severely diminished motor functions and reaction time. Stopping a drunk driver is retaliatory violence against the initiated violence of intentionally driving in an impaired state that has been conclusively proven to greatly endanger others. Similarly, stopping a reckless driver or someone who is texting while driving is also retaliatory violence.
Hypothetically, though, if two drunk people were alone in a secluded field and wanted to drive motor vehicles around nobody but each other, this would be morally permissible.
@Wayne
You said: [quote] “What you seem to not understand is that AS and Aryanism do not promote prostitution as a wise choice or a desirable activity. In fact, from what I have read (especially in recent blog comments), they are anti-sex; they only encourage sex for state-controlled procreation of noble offspring, and also sexual activity as an expression of romantic love, though asexual romanticism (eroticism?) is still preferred over sex. So Aryanists are not in any way fans of prostitution!”
Appropriation of my stance, again.
You also said: [quote]
“- If people consent to an exchange of money for sex, forceful intervention is not warranted.”
Venal sex practices are never acceptable. Sex traffickers work with drug cartels to devastate the lives of girls and boys. Intervention is more than warranted.
and
“- If a black person and a white person consent to engaging in sexual activity with each other, forceful intervention is not warranted.”
Agreed, I have no objection to lovers making love with each other. Although you should prioritize romantic activities.
and
“- If an adult and a child consent to engaging in sexual activity with each other, forceful intervention is not warranted.”
You are describing the sexual assault of a child that has been groomed by an evil criminal.
An abrupt execution is warranted.
Non-physical violence succeeds by psychologically disarming the victim. An abuser may use variants of subversion so that the victim is unable to detect the subversion of her will, unaware that she is being manipulated into consenting.
@ handschar
“You said: [quote] “What you seem to not understand is that AS and Aryanism do not promote prostitution as a wise choice or a desirable activity. In fact, from what I have read (especially in recent blog comments), they are anti-sex; they only encourage sex for state-controlled procreation of noble offspring, and also sexual activity as an expression of romantic love, though asexual romanticism (eroticism?) is still preferred over sex. So Aryanists are not in any way fans of prostitution!”
Appropriation of my stance, again.”
Hardly. What he was trying to illustrate is that your accusation of Aryanism unequivocally supporting prostitution is ill founded.
“Venal sex practices are never acceptable. Sex traffickers work with drug cartels to devastate the lives of girls and boys. Intervention is more than warranted.”
Should anyone force anyone else into prostitution, that would most obviously be initiatory violence, and hence certainly mandate intervention. Should two people sincerely consent to exchanging money for sex, intervention would not be mandated.
People being forced into prostitution not by others, but by circumstances, is a valid concern, but has already been addressed in previous discussions (with you on the same topic):
“The duty of the state is to ensure the availability of public works projects so that anyone can immediately start earning a living wage and hence no one needs to resort to prostitution out of economic desperation caused by lack of alternative opportunity. But when the state already offers public works projects, those who turn down this offer in favour of prostitution should be allowed to do so.”
“Agreed, I have no objection to lovers making love with each other. “
Funny, I could’ve sworn you said something different earlier…
“‘If an adult and a child consent to engaging in sexual activity with eachother, forceful intervention is not warranted.’
You are describing the sexual assault of a child that has been groomed by an evil criminal. An abrupt execution is warranted.”
I’ve put the operative word in bold for you. Being “groomed by an evil criminal” does not qualify as consent, hence why what he said isn’t what you describe.
From now on, whenever addressing handschar, I have decided to make liberal use of his quote from a previous blog comment (“Logic is not my strong point”) to impress upon readers (and handschar himself) the silliness of what we are dealing with in this ‘debate’.
“Appropriation of my stance, again.”
“Logic is not my strong point.”
I was telling you the Aryanist stance on sexuality (and, by extension, prostitution - which is commodified sex). Aryanists and their ideology have been around since before you appeared and started commenting on their blog. How can their stance be an appropriation of yours? 1) They had it before you made yourself known to them. 2) It is not even the same stance as yours. And 3) even if it were the same stance as yours, that would not mean they appropriated it from you; it would just mean that you and Aryanists happened to come to the same concludion separately. The only situation in which you could even begin to claim that someone else appropriated your stance would be where the other person started out advocating one thing, but then, after talking to you (or hearing of your views), changed their stance and started advocating for yours instead. But even then, this would not necessarily be appropriation of your stance, as you call it. It could just be someone legitimately changing their mind after being convinced by your arguments.
If Aryanists were going to appropriate your stance, they would have to start advocating the use of violence against those who have not themselves initiated violence, and therefore have NOT earned retaliatory violence. Unless you see them (or me) do this, you cannot rightly accuse them (or me) or appropriating your stance.
You would also expect to see me babbling on and on about “dignity”, yet continually failing to define the term, if I were appropriating your stance.
Do you know what “appropriated” means? Again, sincerely, do you struggle with English?
“Venal sex practices are never acceptable.”
“Logic is not my strong point.”
This is just another case of handschar asserting his own personal preferences. He doesn’t like “venal sex practices”, so that means nobody else should be able to participate in “venal sex practices”, even if they wish to do so and aren’t violating anyone else in the process.
Aryanists also don’t like “venal sex practices”. The difference is that they would not initiate violence against people who freely chose to participate in those activities as long as they weren’t violating anyone else.
Why should we take you seriously? Let people do what they wish to do AS LONG AS they are not violating others.
Handschar: “Agreed, I have no objection to lovers making love with each other. “
Hypnotix: “Funny, I could’ve sworn you said something different earlier…”
Handschar: “You are describing the sexual assault of a child that has been groomed by an evil criminal. An abrupt execution is warranted.”
Nailed it.
I think you need to understand that the Aryanist concept of consent DOES NOT INCLUDE coerced consent, which they would NOT consider to be valid consent. For example: an attacker holds a knife to someone’s throat and says, “Don’t struggle or I’ll kill you! Say you understand.” “I understand.” “You gonna be good and hold still?” “Yes. Please don’t hurt me.” This would NOT count as valid consent. Everything you are describing when you speak of adults manipulating children into having sex with them (“groomed by an evil criminal”) is coerced consent, which is automatically invalid. Aryanists would oppose this too, and indeed, execution would be in order, just as it would be if an adult coerced another adult into non-consensual sex. The injustice is not sexual activity between people of different age groups. It is coercion, or lack of consent. THE ISSUE IS ALWAYS CONSENT.
One of your most major recurring problems is that you pre-condemn any sexual activity between an adult and a child as coercion. The idea that it could ever actually be consensual - that the adult truly loves the younger individual and the child truly loves the older individual, and both legitimately wish to engage in sexual activity - never enters your mind. This is an error on your part. Children are individual people just like you and I are, with their own legitimate preferences. Some children can, and do, possess the mental and emotional capacity to experience romantic love. And some children can, and do, feel sexual desire. Therefore you could not possibly, accurately conclude that no child could ever feel romantic love or sexual desire for an older individual (one whom society just so happens to deem ‘an adult’). You could not possibly, accurately conclude that EVERY imaginable sexual inetraction between a child and an older individual (whom society deems ‘an adult’) is rape.
The arbitrary distinction of ‘adult’ vs ‘minor’ is relative because it varies across different societies. An adult in one society might be 18+, in another society it might be 21+, in yet another society it might be 16+ etc. That is why Aryanists dismiss such arbitrary distinctions; they are absolutists; that is, there is one absolute standard for all beings, at all times, in all places - it never varies. That standard is based upon the consent of individuals. Did each INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT (regardless of age) consent to sex? If yes, then the sexual activity, whatever it may be, is morally permissible. If you are anti-relativism, please be consistent and reject the relativist distinction between ‘adults’ and ‘minors’.
Furthermore, if you actually care about the well being of children, please begin to view them as individual people who are capable of offering valid consent. To paraphrase something that AS said previously, if you are going to respect a child’s “no”, then you must also respect a child’s “yes”. (Of course, this applies to all ages and all activities, not jut sex.) If you don’t, then you are just as bad as a WN who automatically views all sex between white people and black people as coercive rape. Just let people exercise their free will as long as it doesn’t nterfere with another’s exercise of free will. And remember, children are people too.
“An abuser may use variants of subversion so that the victim is unable to detect the subversion of her will, unaware that she is being manipulated into consenting.”
“…devastate the lives of girls and boys.”
There you go again using females (and, of course, children) in your examples of people whom you believe you would likely need to dominate for their own good. I am becoming very concerned for the women and children in your life.
Just once more for good measure:
“Logic is not my strong point.”
By the way, handschar, we are still waiting for you to define “dignity”. Any time now.
“Sex traffickers work with drug cartels to devastate the lives of girls and boys. Intervention is more than warranted.”
Just as handschar only gave examples of coerced consent or outright rape (never valid consent) when talking about sexual activity between an older individual and a younger individual, he only gives examples of coerced consent or outright rape (never valid consent) when talking about prostitution. Handschar, please be aware that, just like you, Aryanists would advocate forceful intervention (retaliatory violence) to put an end to all victimization (initiatory violence), including coercion and rape. Sex trafficking would, of course, be initiatory violence - and, yes, it would warrant intervention.
“Sex trafficking is a form of modern slavery…Sex traffickers use violence, threats, lies, debt bondage, and other forms of coercion to compel adults and children to engage in commercial sex acts against their will.” https://polarisproject.org/sex-trafficking
The injustice is always violation of consent. Your mistake is equating EVERY exchange of sex for money with sex trafficking. This is another major recurring error of yours, similar to equating all sexual activity between an older individual (whom society calls ‘an adult’) and a younger individual (whom society calls ‘a minor) with rape.
(PS Please forgive any typos in the above comments. I am elderly and my eyesight is poor.)
@Handschar:
I would like to say that if you are a fellow Aryanist posting your arguments here as to solicit a response for the sake of discussion, or any other reason, I would find that highly dishonorable and offensive. Do NOT fuck with me, I will say that one time only!
“I do not think passive suicide is a viable option in any case where a dishonorable enemy is open to physical destruction. The message should be to fight to the death not because of personal hardship but because one hates the target of one’s hatred more than one loves life.”
Why do you contradict yourself so much, it makes it hard for me to take you seriously.
We are talking about a BEAR and her CUB who are trapped in an impossible situation, ARE WE NOT!? In your own words: “Some of the bears will not consent to being saved because they rightly do not trust humans. This should not prevent you from helping them. When they wake up in a place with no humans they can move on from their traumatic past.”
So which one fucking is it then, a bear revolution, or PASSIVELY waiting for humans to come and free you?
You know that looking for someone’s past can find a lot of information and make people pay for their crimes. In 1999 the police they had a suspect of the murder of a 4-year-old girl, AS, who is a well-known pedophile known for trying to flirt with prepubescent children in playgrounds and other places. According to the case the little girl was groomed by the pervert and when AS was accused of child molestation, the girl was found death in the area near AS house, in the river, AS could not be prosecuted for having contacts, or so claimed the investigation. To me this provokes anger and pain as these perverts do not pay for their crimes against childhood, but it is certain that this monster is inside a ring of child pornography (or pedophile ring) with a contact who is very fond of the german opera. This is this motive of their insistence on legalizing perversions and unjustifiable crimes. I am going to contact his current partner and his family, in addition to the police and the prosecutor, I leave this message to know the crimes of this scourge and their ring of child groomers, even AS is in fact known in pedophile activist websites as “an old friend of pedophiles”, which I hope thanks to this records, these scourges will pay for their crimes. Not a child can being a victim anymore if we can stop these perverts at time.