BORREALIS Framework
A good way of understanding what the Laws of Nature are, if one needs a guide or theory to understand, observe, contemplate and respect that which occurs throughout the natural world here is something I’ve come up with. Firstly you should provide axiomatic descriptions of the natural world, the laws of Nature are all encompassing, non-man made & immutable, these elements or laws that affect reality are common to all natural laws. Determine what Natural Law is as follows:
Binds – There is a limit to what behaviours creatures may exhibit through conscious exertion, determined by the end result, and remain within the purview of metaphysical Natural Law, as soon as we step out we experience suffering. Free will is a part of the human conscious side which generates experience within finite mental and physical potential (destiny), these are behaviours and actions or the course that we shall take by our character, physical characteristics, passions, talents and interests. Finite mental and physical potential its important to grow our potential through actions. We are accustomed to direct ourselves with intent, that intent or our goals or purpose should be pushed along by passion. Physical laws have a hard boundary unable to be crossed, while the opposite is true of the metaphysical laws. A conscious person that controls its behaviour and surroundings makes possible for particular people to think, move away from and do in opposition to the Natural Laws which affects reality and the dynamics of unconsciousness and consciousness of creatures, and manifests itself in the consequences of behaviour due to some stringent thoughts. While binds, chains, fetters or limitation are a form pain or anguish perpetuated and engineered by control systems which cause entropy or decay in the social order that prevails. Binds are what is the reason for our suffering, they when it is left to conditioning about the nature of our existence we are but puppets on strings. To be released from binds we must overcome this by deconditioning ourselves by flatly refusing the control that certain thoughts have over us due to the weight they place on us because they are anguish or pain. Anguish or pain can be often be something that imposes a change in behaviour and reactions by forms on us in a way that stifles by avoiding, determining or impacting us with boundaries, limitations, and restrictions.
Boundaries are the things that get in the way of realizing your purpose, goals, and ambitions. They are checks on your behaviour and deed by a family, culture, religion, and society. Boundaries usually are asserted as being there to prevent over-doing something until it becomes unacceptable, but what is unacceptable to one person is what’s valuable to another. Boundaries exist merely to assert the authority of the dominating family, culture, religion, and society over the self-interest of the individual, its meant to challenge the individual and his or her priorities, sense individuality, and self-expression and that these must be subservient to some kind of authority. Authority requires labor to commit to certain workable common interests, but dictates from a higher authority should nullify people from being assigned to a position in the pecking order and individual aptitude and skill should be taken into account on assigning tasks and promotions. Evaluating people on their character always rely on testing people on how well they succeed. Boundaries sometimes assert positive over negative emotions towards others by self-denial, self-denial is wrong because negative emotions can knock down walls or build bridges if a situation requires it for mutual gain or benefit. Limitations are weakness of the mind and spirit, that is meant to subject one to disadvantageous, ill conceived of mediocrity, and passivity, that is comes from trauma and pain that has not been dealt with. Rather than using what is true to get ahead, what benefits ourselves, which can be our purpose, or sometimes its balancing rights and the social order, and balancing these two great pillars of gaining wealth and freedom and other things we see as producing survival first, and closely followed by well-being. Restrictions is the violate and refuse people to live in accordance with their intent, desire, thought, reason, beliefs, emotions, instincts, and action, also restrictions may condition one away from freedom, qualities, and personality, especially directed towards people who live outside the norms of society, like unconventional or unorthodox ideologies, traditions that break social and cultural norms, and primitive people who still have intact their natural inclinations and instincts. Restrictions are always about reinforcing the power, status, and vision of one group over others. Most previous civilisations do this to ensure that internally rules and regulations and externally their dictates/international laws are followed, we however do not accept this. We also approve civilisations that allow anyone to join a hierarchy, assuming they accept the rules and are willing to meet challenges.
Obedience have its place for a time until we gain mastery, but after that it may become an excuse to demand servitude to someone else’s purpose, at times something that is different than our personal purpose. What distinguishes a chain that anchors from a chain that binds, is an anchor keeps us ready to deal with anything that comes our way, where as a chain is merely going to drag us down, make us unable to accomplish said passion and goals because he or she is held captive and cannot perform the action he or she wishes. An anchor strengthens one by restricting diet, expenses, fitness, and focus on what matters, to enable his or her full potential through strengthening ourselves to achieve a goal.
Exploiting naivete is willingly letting go of our power to other authority figures who haven't demonstrated to be wise. Instead we borrow from people who have a overinflated opinion of themselves and conceited individuals because they happen to hold a degree. We instead believe that you should only let something affect you if you think its powerful. Changing your behaviour or actions based on what you think is powerful to you. Spirit crushing control what perturbs you, makes you apathetic or weak, what represses your affinities in your life, represses the best of what you are - your persona and tools (personality), your ability to gain greater achievements (character) and the love or respect for fellows that achieve a modicum of leadership (reverence) and what represses your culture, tradition and heritage (mass culture or design by committee). The last of these is languishing, it's the betrayal of your strength by adhering to comforting addictions, light addictions if they form a depression-dopamine cycle by consuming them throughout the day such as movies, shows, video games, comic books and television. I recommend limiting appropriately such consumption habits if you find they are sapping your will or demoralizing you. Pain is what tells you that there is something taking away your strength and leaving you with a overburdening weakness, pain is always weakness telling you you must overcome yourself. One where you rather than pursue diligently the development of your character or personality, you are entangled in webs of a conditioned control matrix, feeding on our lower nature and making one all-too-comfortable and all-too-human that which brings you ultimately out of the deepest pain or anguish, the character and personality that you may follow are things about ourselves that we may abandon, surrender or relinquish in by one's personal pain.
Order – Rules or standards related to the truths of the human condition that may be justified similarly. Consistency is good because it helps us to come to an understanding of things as it is. There are blockages of our psyche which prevents information or what is true from being readily accepted, whereas true care is disciplined effort. placing attention on right, true and correct things and absorbing it fully. Order is multifaceted willing of society and the world to embrace ordered society, embrace things like survival, growth, competition, prosperity, creativity, less fear and greater freedom. Without order there would be no accomplishment, its what has built up the west. Without order there would be only endless warfare. What is ethical and what isn't is what aids or hinders the freedom of ourselves in question, actions in the form of control exerted against the Natural Law is one that conflicts with our group's freedom or the freedom of some other group. Compulsion is action's that try to stifle, constrain or hinder the self development, growth and transformation of a individual.
Remembrance - The laws of Nature provide us with the ability to consciously and unconsciously organize collectives by remembrances (traditions), which are the actions and manifested reality that create a reflection instead of temporal time, it's of the idealized time. A path for later generations to gain greater development becomes only possible by great men, and hard times create great men. Remembrance is strengthened by voluntary decision making and desire to link collectives together and or future generations by pooling together resources such as the wisdom, intergenerational wealth and technology. Cultivating the land and toiling and thus establishing roots by undergoing hardship produces a debt to past generations that is repaid by the actions of successive generations to honor them and establish or maintain culture, tradition and heritage. Cultural appreciation, lore and initiation is often used to link generations together, initiation establish one stage of life to another.
Behaviour and roles that Natural Law accounts for in regards to Remembrance may e.g., produce homes, establishes and guard's territory, engages in rituals that maintains a distinct group identity, hero worship and ancestor cults, education of offspring, multi-generational goals or great goals, high investment parenting, fraternization, social activities and/or community, economic, political and natural group organisation which maintains procreation within and survival of the clique and for future generations, camaraderie, respect or cooperation as our integrity and to better our own lot, and that of others, fighting for the survival of our group, fighting for our mythologized state of being, fighting against oppression, weakness and stagnation.
edit- Roots - The community makes a commitment to make produce that benefits the greater community, we may honor the sacrifice of our ancestors. Our ancestors toiled to protect their people from suffering from a lack of land development and produce, our spirit of honoring them so as to keep a steady produce going. Adhering to a productive work ethic to repay our debts to our ancestors for all their toil to benefit the unborn, we then do what we can for our people to pay respects to their bold and untold sacrifices, their testing of fertile soil, domestication of plants and know-how about the world and how to survive in it has kept us alive too. Our passion and effort in our craft is a respect that should continue. Our descendants after we're gone will honor us too. Without passion, energy and brotherhood our civilization is gone. There would be bonds between their men and as they stand with mutual respect and shared experience between one another, making room for men regardless of religion, beliefs, education, class and wealth.
Entrance (Movement) - A good or natural state is one of emboldening, one where we are gaining strength to further growth and powers, to utilize them for our continued climb into higher and potent states of being. All right, good and true things converge and come back to the core or the esoteric part of any spiritual movement, that esoteric core is basically the internal, what exists pre-made within us, which through certain rituals and shadow work it enhances clarity, expands self-awareness and consciousness. We are what is us (habeas corpus - we are our body). First the mind is governed by spontaneity, responding reflexively to the images arising in consciousness i.e. the self is not fully developed. The second stage is autonomy, it is the attempt to discover some unity in the random fluctuations of phenomena, and the self looks for solutions by critical thinking and ideology i.e. the self begins to separate itself from the world. The third stage is mastery (entrance), to transcend phenomena and ideology and thus becomes "a deep center of will and power" [Julius Evola. The Creative Process]. The natural law of entrance is about refining consciousness in the order described by Evola by heeding the rituals and teachings that share that esoteric core.
Additive – In aggregate we see the collective of individual actions taking shape in the plane of effects. This may materialize as individual and collective suffering because of how we have acted upon incorrect information or because of how we have acted without the information due to its suppression or being ignorant of the diffused knowledge. What we see is merely the effects, the maxim that could be held as true is "every action has a opposite and equal reaction". A good action produces benefits, a bad action is what produces negative consequences. And thats the way it goes everytime. Humanity isn't geared towards causal factors, where change occurs. Instead where frequently focused on effects where change does not happen. The effect we most would not want to associate is pain or anguish.
Pillar one is do not encourage self-limitations and hindrances towards us. Pillar two is we should spend resources for the intelligent, talented and resourceful first and foremost. Pillar three is we want greater intricacy, organization and power. Struggle to order is important for the flourishing of humanity. Pillar four using self-defence to protect yourself from the breaking of your right to be free from aggression. Pillar five darwinian struggle is what determines empowerment, evolution and progress.
Principles that we can hold is any harm to a clique or community for our beliefs is unjustified, any harm to constituent or essential communities based on their beliefs will eventually harm all parts of the society, the organic culture of which a community holds is unique and cannot be duplicated again, there is no materialist nation that does not harm its economy or its people, freedom exists because we do what we can to gain independence, self-reliance and self-governance which is sustainable, if we didn't have freedom then our free will and passion would cease to exist because people might choose security over freedom, capital gain and private use of private enterprise should continue to exist because it doesn't relinquish ones control over ones own destiny and future, objectivism, occultism and imperialism has been moral since it seeks to be tolerant towards natives and their customs, all of our people are the most anti-peace advocates and they personally find the most success because of it, all of our people are not deterred by arbitrary authority. And in accordance with such principles do we avoid a cycle of action and reaction of continued pain or anguish. The more truth its realized the more we are free, the greater that person's freedom is, we are all free to think how we like and because we have the freedom of choice and free will as a right. Breaking natural law is self-inflicted suffering. The ability to have decision making, free thinking, paths, and pursuit of study, growth and new experiences, what we are free to is something inherently right.
We focus on personal needs and survival in order to gain self rule, and find our individual sovereignty which means that many human made forms constrain our belief in our true source, or find our individual freedom which means that no self-limitation or hindrance is useful to man's vertical climb. Sometimes discipline and self-control feels like a hindrance but it isn't, it really improves our power. Arbitrary authorities all have something in common, they are ignorant of the inability to steer the destiny of mankind with control as this is the avenue of free will choice. It is a natural law. Rights are given to man so that we overcome adversaries, trails and tribulations - with knowledge about how to achieve our ardently desired result and the determination to continue on unabated or resolute in stance (passion). Freedom of speech and the freedom to pursue happiness are natural state of being because its the best method we have available of arriving at the truth. An extra principle then is that we have been endowed with the gifts of free speech and happiness to ensure the survival of the species.
Longevity - The greater the degree of defying of natural laws the greater the consequences are over time and its visibility to creatures, which builds up to a point where it is no longer sustainable or insulateable and the creature(s) is having negative traits that change fundamentally mental characteristics, the environmental external circumstances should change when conditions for defying (opposing) are met. Negative traits can also accumulate that nature does not support the spread of very far, this is due to the fact that its linked with poor life skills, educational attainment, burdening others, sapping resources, unfit and poverty stricken so we would allocate fewer resources to this subset of people whereas the most strong are rewarded with the most resources. Likewise, when Natural Laws are heeded or respected with external circumstances sufficient for life, a creature, natural collective or organism may last by minimizing the manifested reality of long-term or short-term consequences such as criminality, poverty and disability. We seek to increase the quality of life and betterment of humanity as a whole so that the world has a place for all such people, to be better suited for all. Conversely the spread of negative traits such as apathy, feebleness, weakness, powerless, impotent (strength & will deficiency), lack of true care, deemphasizing true will, lacking emotion, metaphysical ignorance and others. When this world and all the living changes within it changes, Natural Law will still be valid for future living things in all the universe. Natural Law is universal it exists and will apply for aslong as the universe exists and any conscious deviation or catastrophe merely connects us to the effect in the process of actualizing the laws of Nature, when without deviation it is increasing quality of life or betterment. The laws of Nature are binding on the behavioral consequences or effects of behaviour.
-edit The theme of longevity accounts for the following: procreation protecting a natural collective by increasing the quantity of the members which maintains it. Like produces like through selective breeding, men and women seek out each others company thus seek out new women or sometimes men to marry into the in-group for even better health and beauty - afterall its variety that is a survival mechanic. Survival is what prevents the loss of current group members, allowing its membership to continue carrying out their role, function or vocation and the protocols that prevent them from shrinking away from the in-group. Stronger individuals able to pursue their strengths and favor their personal development, make for a stronger society able to withstand an external threat that always exists perennially. Procreation produces a pair-bonding, bringing a male and female together into a unity which increases the chances of children surviving, and better access to resources, improves the health of family members and ensures the spread of culture and tradition. Longevity also forms as productive work, it is the products i.e. crafts, literature and architecture that have permanence, sometimes long outlasting civilization itself. Thus longevity is procreation worthy, pair bonding for optimal transmission of a groups culture & tradition and other such helpfulness and survival is ensuring for a groups membership to live and thrive to prevent loss of membership and from moving away from the in-group (PPS).
Indivisible - A Natural Law cannot be broken down to any more than one principle, concept, paradigm, archetype, quality, state or instinct and its corresponding function or behaviour, as a duality e.g. which may make inner and outer, creature and environment, in-group and out-group distinctions and opposite from opposite. If expressed as a dualism it contains two opposite yet related instincts that can have differing distinctions [e.g. Carl Jung. Collected Works 20. For a list of opposites]. The Natural Order is a source of clarity and distinction whereas profane understandings limit knowledge to physical phenomena and are arbitrary. and as would be a purely metaphysical that finds physical laws as redundant.
Source – The laws of nature isn't created by humankind and belief in it isn't necessary for its effect. Metaphysical natural law may prevail in political and social organisation when conscious control of the external environment which fosters falsehoods ceases and corrected and when what goes contrary to a natural law are resolved. Natural law is discovereable and is immutable, created by the source and found in nature and is not changeable. The source that is the creator, it is cosmic will, the universal being that expands creation and is the axis of the universe. Laws of nature exist and overlap with consciousness, when we are aware of our own sovereignty and understanding the consequences that occur over manifested reality we have true care because we use courage and will to give our attention to the things that may benefit ourselves. We don't lend justification to a bureaucratic body or organisation to violate sound judgement and principles or so authority does not write away rights and act with impunity.
Controlled changes of direction from the centre’s point of truth may be ‘novelty’ or aesthetics which produce culture and beauty. Deviations from the centre that purport truth value distinctions may be subversive or ignorant – this is called involution. The aspects of truth among deviations must converge back at the centre lest they become confusing, complex, more false and therefore chaotic in time. Ugliness in cultural manifestations may arise from insanity, illness, weakness, ignorance or subversion. Falsehood, impulsive reaction to information (the feelings of impulse), desire, what contradicts will (coercion) is contradictory between thought, will and/or action, driving us towards ignorance and subversion. Purity is movement towards, inwards and within the centre, while degeneracy, inadequacy, error or falsehood moves outwards and away, which over time produces patterns called cycles, stages or yugas of history. Movement to the centre occurs by action through right goals e.g. movement towards expanding consciousness, reconnecting with our higher calling, remembrance by binding generations together continuously and to ensure longevity of all by realizing our place in the grand scheme of things & obeying the laws of nature because we find some humanity that way. This creates a foundation for which to facilitate movement higher, for an awakening and to understand fully natural laws.
"Never let people who choose the path of least resistance steer you away from your chosen path of most resistance." -David Goggins
This has nothing to do with Natural Law not even with laws of Nature.
It is an opinion about how culture should be.
The laws of nature requires us to will it. Truth exists independently. Regardless of what we think about it. Cultural religions can be following it.
You are confusing terms, and that fits your political goals, nothing new here.
1. Natural hierarchies are not to be confused with the Law of Nature (causation);
2. Natural Law (there are natural or immutable rights and duties, given either by God or found in nature) is not to be confused with Laws of Nature (imputation or to ascribe vs causation);
3. The Natural Law does not imply a well defined social hierarchy. This has been proved by Radbruch, Dworkin, Habermas or John Rawls (please read something more than your comfort zone permits). Basically, natural law relates to values and valuations (adding values to facts), and thus, politics is to be inscribed in the realm of ethics.
This does not mean that we must will the natural order of things in our social world, rather, that we, as creators, as inventors, as leaders, as true gods in this universe, we are the ones to establish the rules, the order and the values. Ofc this means there are disputes of values, and because values are strictly linked to axiology, then the political dispute can only be ethical.
We do not require to will the order, we create it. And truth exists independently of any natural order that we defy, simply because facts are not values, because we input valuation over facts, regardless what we think about it. Truth exists independently does not mean cosmos is hierarchically organized and we just need to fit in it, naturally (as Evola would write in The Revolt).
The Cultural Religion is just a nebulous concept coming from the intentional (political-ideological) confusion between Natural Law, Law of Natural and an alleged cosmos organization where men and women, race and intelligence fit it perfectly/naturally.
It is a shame you still make these moves. And you know you are sneakingly trying to validate the distinction between humans and nature, but also to justify natural actions from humans. That is basically what Evola and the SS had in common. You know this and you are trying to make these stances softly, so no one notices it.
"I do not see why man should not be as cruel as nature" would be your motto. And you perfectly know who wrote it.
You are also confusing, deliberatly, a imaginary of the superman, in tone with the ubermensch, not understanding that Nietzsche does not intend to point out a Human degree in cosmos or within humanity itself, but rather, that the concept "humanity", after Erasmus, is to be overcome, meaning, that you are in the age of the creators, and because god is dead, we are the ones to replace him, however we are still all too human.
What fascists read in this is a literal "the will to power", not, as Nietzsche pretends to, "the will to potency", i.e. the will to be creative, to climb your own mountains and be free of ideology and the sheep mentality that starts with Abrahamism. That is why he creates Zoroaster, a character, slightly based in the first monotheism, that would value creativity and freedom of thinking, all of which are way above any concept of natural law or cosmological hierarchy.
What you are doing, is nothing new. It is a common misinterpretation that have political goals. Nietzsche even stated Nationalism is as bad as any other monotheistic religion or left wing policy, simply because, these mindsets are still all too human, while he wishes to part from the limitations of Human values by creating his own. This is the basis of his teachings: be true to oneself, not to a structure defined by a third party. Again, this is not the "Super" man (a new man, a better man, the best possible man) but the "Above" man (Uber-mensch, above man, not related with human concepts any loger because humans are social animals).
Be yourself, truly, was a concept liberals and anarchist understood better than any fascist mentality can, simply because the nature of fascism is duty and obedience, even to a natural law or cosmological-natural order.
And you know why you are deliberately, as Richard Spencer before you, trying to confuse all this. It is your agenda anyways, and you are just an agent of your master's. But isn't it curious that you all need to go into a Jewish conspiracy to validate your desire for a new master? Some psychoanalysis would be of interest here.
This is also why your aesthetics are the contemplation of the center, the "immobile center" to use Evola's words. Anything far from this center is pure blasphemy. It is interesting, however, to see that liberals find in the deviant aesthetics nothing more than personal freedom, and ofc, I'm still making a reference to Nietzche because it is of vital importance here.
Believing that this center is also structural in politics is misleading, because it can only reveal a fanatical supernatural sense of what a natural order could ever be. The fact that there is History, depends on the de-location of the center (A known postmodern philosopher, Jacques Derrida, stresses this out often). There would be no history if the center was a fact. There would only be constancy, like in the medieval ages, the knight mentality and the obedient peasantry you nostalgically aspire to be.
If there was a center, there could be no morality either. This is because your alleged longevity morals have been replaced by a meta-ethics where we don't look to what is good doing, but what defines a action to be good. That answer can only be done by attending to empirical and casual observation, to the mental states that compose the action. You wished that the action would be good because it replies the absent center that only an aristocracy could ever invent.
Aristocracy binds all this nonsense together forcing history to be a perpetual movement, a perpetual remembrance. When all this is challenged (French Revolution, Iluminism, October Revolution, Antifa, Social-Democracy) they get replaced by material progress and science.
What bugs me is that you promote the new aristocracy, fully knowingly you will be just another cog with no intrinsic value, as a peasant in middle ages. It is very disturbing for me you are promoting blind obedience and superstition that combines religion with politics in what Carl Schmitt called a "Totalstate".
The first generation that started to defy the family "center" was in the late 50's and early 60's (our grandparents). And the result was a revolution in capitalism, superabundance and the end of the cold war. All that due to a little bit more freedom form the center.
Then, freedom from the "husband-wife" center. And the result was sexual liberation, and more access to the democratic process.
Then, freedom from the "racial" center. And the result was a black president. However, this center has not been totally undone. Thus BLM and so on.
I feel your concerns with this. It is the cultural power you are losing. First aristocracy lost lands to the bourgeoisie. Then religion lost power to facts and Science. Then science was mixed with the new land owner. The dislocation from these "centers", these so called "natural centers" that we must "will", provoked the end of Absolute Monarchism. How did the Aristocrats react? With Fascism.
I understand you lose power. But explain to me how there would be anything (socially speaking) if the center was not compromised all the time. Democracy is deeply linked to this de-structuralization process where the center is always defied. You don't need to defy democracy to have more "natural laws", you just need to defy the center and hope for general consensus. But you just did it and you lost. Sorry that's how the cookie crumbles. There is no natural order, but a necessarily controlled disorder. That is Democracy, the best system you can ever think of, not just for you, but for everybody. Otherwise, Aristocracy in Nazi Germany would have lasted "A thousand, thousand years".
Then, the law of nature, its study through science, defy what was the aristocratic perception of Natural law was. This is also a de-centering mechanism that opened up possibilities, not simply in how we perceive nature, but, ultimately, how we perceive humanity in the alleged cosmological order.
If there was a center, as you claim, how can this black man could ever talk about these things?
If it is all biologically rooted in the natural order of things, how could ever a so called inferior race ever achieve scientific progress as the early Islamic cultures did? Why there is no progress in Africa has nothing to do with their biology, rather with their social conditions, or even the lack of social conditions that are prominent to science.
Science and democracy comes hand to hand, and that is why aristocrats, like yourself, call for a center, or a structure regarding the natural order of things. The fact that the lion eats a zebra is a manifestation of a natural order of things, but in regards to Humans, these laws do not apply, otherwise explain me progress, socialism, well-fair state and scientific revolutions. Basically, explain to me how a center aka natural order is even compatible with History.
I say that alleviating suffering is compassionate, though it isn't defined by me. Socialism is the transvaluation of values/rights so that they are top-down, held by a elite far removed from society speaking for a collective, a society based on freedom starts with individual rights. Intellectuals try to govern society with trove of ideology (and various ideas) instead of by principle, natural law, spiritual law. The ideal is what we really want, because we aren't devoid of soul. Ideals when shortcircuited (overloaded with triviality) & people lose their soul it becomes mere convenience.
All that is cool, but you did not answer any of my questions.
You are also not understanding the materialist-idealist dichotomy. You had 4 full years to understand this, still, you are in the same place.
1. What do you mean by "soul"? This is not an argument in favor of idealism either
2. What do you understand by materialism is just "a desire for objects" and then you conclude virtue is preferable to vice.
3. Materialism vs idealism is a metaphysical dichotomy in regards what there is. Materialists say all there is, is matter, idealists say all there is, is nothing but a perception of God, or in the less radical variants, matter does not exist by itself, and it requires someone to observe it in order to exist.
4. thus, virtue does not come from the critic of materialism, not by criticizing the "desire for stuff", not even by claiming, with no scientific evidence whatsoever, that "we have a soul"
5. With your confusions you are truly reaching what you criticize: turning ideals into convenience, by trivializing concepts that have a total different meaning.
I give you a point: socialism is a transvaluation not of rights (the word is telling you this already), but of values. But there is nothing wrong in it, as you would do the same if we lived under a socialist world.
" But there is nothing wrong in it, as you would do the same if we lived under a socialist world. "
Not sure what you mean by that.
"What do you mean by "soul"? This is not an argument in favor of idealism either"
Our ideal is something that comes from the soul.
It does not seem we are talking the same language...
heads up:
1. ideal vs idea in idealism
idealism is about the Idea (eidos, forms, perceptions of objects). Reality is nothing but forms made up by our perception of it. There is no matter separated from the form or Idea we make of it. We generate factual reality.
2. ideal and the soul
What do you want to say when you say soul? Conscience? The word in philosophy extends to Mind (since De Anima, Aristotle). An ideal is something entirely different for the discussion of idealism, virtue or morality.
3. «" But there is nothing wrong in it, as you would do the same if we lived under a socialist world. "
Not sure what you mean by that.»
Precisely my point. You see the world has having immutable values, therefore it is beyond your understanding these simple hypothetical situations. Obviously if you lived in Soviet Union, with your mindset, you would be sent to Gulag, because you were trying to invert the socialist mindset. There is nothing wrong in it, it is natural to question authority.
3.1 A bit more about tranvaluation of right and of values
Socialism is NOT the inversion of rights (private, proprietary, natural) but the extension of rights outside the aristocracy. No one will take away your personal belongings, no one will take away your land (because it will be collective, not self owned any longer), no one will take away your right to express feelings or to write (ofc, the reality changes and you will not be able to compose baroque music for instance. Maybe that is a problem for you? I give you that. Values will change and therefore, there will be no more room for older values. Same happened in liberal France and Nationalistic Germany).
Socialists don't believe in natural law principles: Principles that we can hold is what goes around comes around, a person that uses violence or harms someone should expect to being personally harmed in return, what harms an individual may also affect others personally for commitment to harm by one of its members, the stress of the group will affect the stress of many individuals, our actions have an impact on our own morals and spiritual health, self-inflicted suffering and its impact can be traced back to our own actions even if we do not remember why its occured, any harm to a nation will eventually harm all groups within it. Principles we can hold true also include; what harms others through corruption will also cause suffering for the individual responsible, harm to the community will harm its constituent parts, seek to redress for a breaking of natural law, we hold that struggle is from disharmony and harm, disharmony is what we can call violence and coercion, we have been endowed with the gifts of health and happiness to ensure the survival of the species.
I agree with your "principles".
I am a Socialist
Therefore?
These points I accept have nothing to do with my relation with NATURAL LAW, nor the criticism of it via POSITIVISM.
**** man, do some homework. And btw: An eye for an eye is a Jewish construct. You are falling in the trap.
As said again and again: You are confusing what the law of nature is, then placing it in society, and then calling it natural law
The only thing I can give you is the fact that the LAW OF RETALIATION (ius talionis) is in fact NATURAL LAW. But you are miles away from this and you can't even see the confusion you make.
I personally think you don't believe in idealism because you haven't been subjected to that kind of information through logic, common sense or experience. Higher idealism is the eternal laws of nature. Soul is just inherent traits and the desire and inclination for survival imprinted upon us by nature.
The Oera Linda is a naturalistic explanation as to why we behave according to our blood, the inherent characteristics innately are part of the soul. The other books on the topic Revelations of the Eternal Laws of Nature by Jost Turner, Manu For the Man to Come by Miguel Serrano, Eternal Front by Anton Holzner, and The German Faith Movement by Jakob Wilhelm Hauer. Soul is the various levels of expression of personhood, the blood forms that great destiny into that person as the following elements: individual, family, gender, ethnic, racial and human truths. This is obvious from any cursory glance at those readings and including The Next Leap by Ironmarch. It's obvious to me that realities existence is really based on consciousness. It is a projection of a great cosmic will which creates social order. Things like the law of personality/leadership, fight or struggle, hierarchy/pecking order, territory, biological integrity, social darwinism/survival of the fittest, and motherhood.
Also we are being physically replaced by foreign invading people and religions. Firstly by overwhelming taking over communities, towns, cities, neighborhoods by foreign people and this is making us all uncomfortable and less willing to reproduce. If different groups or cliques clash with our identity then they will cause people to become more apprehensive about having children. There's less safe neighborhoods and more people that outnumber who with different religious traditions and interests, you won't feel as happy when your environment overwhelmed by foreign religion and people.
Next argument is direct competition over scarce resources or ecological niche. We find that more and more people will claim their interests are preferred and will undermine the host cultures niche or interests. So physically less money and opportunity for your own people as foreign people and religions change the government and market to suit their own people. The more opportunities are taken by foreigners then the less of resources there are allowed to be utilised by our people.
Thirdly, hybridization. We are being mixed out of existence by coupling between different racial groups. You don't get a white person or black out of a mixed coupling, but rather a mixed race person that has less qualities of both. Weakening the connection to soil, faith and folk. They usually identify with the most collectivist and aggressive culture rather than both of their lineages. So one has to lose. That usually means you get less of both races around and more of invading culture in our case. So hyrbidazation weakens the collective effort to preserve western civilisation and western ethnic culture.
Lastly predation, where through crime and vendetta physically attack our people. Which is born out in the data that human traffickers and gangs target many other ethnic, racial and law abiding peoples. These are the arguments laid out by Greg Johnson in his books, particularly his last few. Like The White Nationalist Manifesto.
There is self-evident benefits to having a core to draw from. For example the community makes a commitment to make a sacrifice that benefits the greater community, we make a sacrifice for our ancestors efforts to protect their people from suffering from a lack of land development & produce, and so as to keep a steady produce going, cultivating the land and toiling this benefited the unborn, there would be bonds between their men and as they stand with mutual respect and shared experience between one another, it made the nation stronger when it was linked together by a principle of sacrifice.
This is only valid when someone accepts your moral glasses.
Your "stong nation" is nothing but a result of your own morality. In fact, the greater nations (economically speaking now) were and are immoral to the core. Just look at capitalism. And the point is, that when you privatize everything, the nation is stronger, but stupendously assimetric.
I think the generational, genetical, traditionalistic links or corridors are a thing of nation-states. This is impossible to return to. Things were set in motion in the French Revolution that make your dreams impossible. The alternative is, ofc, if or when you decide to take up guns to start a reactionary revolution. The eggs are there for your cake already, but perhaps you are not ready for it. We are watching, as you know.
The "core" (my "center") is fundamentally incompatible with our current societies, and even the so called prussian "socialism" couldn't do a thing to stop it. The dissolution of the core is part of our lives. And either we accept it or we do not. But again, you have all the rights in the world to point the finger at this, just come with a viable project.
As a communitst, I would call for a democratic collectivization, not only of the means of production (starting with land, ofc), but also for the democratization of the work place (another center to be demolished, I hope, soon).
What is your project, if I may ask? If you have no global project, then you are forced to live in the woods (I say this politely, to live as a survivalist).
Traditionalists in America have currently failed the political game. What is left for you to do? You lost the cultural war, you failed to develop a feeling of a nation in the masses and you even tainted the land with old school bigotery, where some fanatics make the head lines of the Elitist's media.
You are broke. Who or what can reforge you at this point?
Personally, I live in a village, so some of it I understand. I know all my neighbours, they rely on me as I do know I can expect help from them. We know each other well, we are family and we share material things (food for instance). But your core does not apply here, because people are not bond by genetics or morality, but by friendship and mutual respect. And in here it is a multicultural village, and everything is just fine. They work, we work, they pay the bills, we do to, they respect the law, and we follow them, etc.
China is a very homogeneous non-diverse nation that actively stamps out "diversity" as seen by their cultural oppression & forced re-education of Uighurs, Tibetans and other diverse minorities. As shown by Robert Putnam, China's homogeneity may mean that they are more unified (I always forget to mention that), less socially distrustful, and more civically engaged. As a rival to the USA, this is worrisome because Communist China's dominance of the World and our Nation, would undoubtedly spread their culture of repression, authoritarianism, totalitarianism , and widespread oppression of women, religious groups, and ethnic/racial minorities (religious and cultural needs prevention, oppression & stifling i.e. breaking department of health suggestions here in Australia). Politically communist rather than economically communist, whatever the answer may be that isn't what I'm advocating for and this isn't ideal or what I would call structured change but more of what we've seen pre-enlightenment. I like some changes that have occured where we really seek out answers and solutions & ask questions. I wish to be a force that pushes us for a constructive change and constructive mindset, adoption of traditional values like what has occurred in the south of America (e.g. national pride and patriotism, the practice of the more “traditional” family values, practice and owning firearms, high investment parenting, hierarchy in the family and organisation even if its patriarchal e.t.c.).
Become who we are meant to be and pragmatically that could include honor (I also don't mention that much) and freedom of conscience offered by a freedom loving nation - this is some good character & I also would like to live upto to courage make personal changes happen & ''create'' while being able to take the heat I myself are ready to take and possibly family that goes with it, with action, and secondary actions within activism, johnny appleseed, sharing old scholarly works, bring quality people into a movement, and of course get stronger...
China is just an example where loads of people are flooding out of it as they don't have the land space to farm food to feed their families, reminds me of North Korea and Venezuela. In all countries the populations going one way. Increasing. The more people there are the further diversity gets, the greater the chances of conflict and it could be that oppression (as the wrong answer) is a spark that gets that going along, worsening the situation.
ROFL
China is homogeneous? And people are flooding out?
You have no idea what you talk about.
Why do you think China will overcome Amerikkka in a few decades? A lot of companies are moving there because of cheap labor. And ofc, people are moving into CHina and living there.
In fact, I know people who actually left Europe to live in China, instead of Amerikkka. And they are not peasants.
Why do you think Trump external policy was to actually attack China and turn their allies against her?
Try again. Not everything is gentrification. And NK, Venezuela... Old meme dude.
You talk about oppression in China. You have no clue. Totally brainwashed by your stupid media
Your solution is go back in time previous to Enlightenment days. reactionary to the core, you hope to have a platform and not be canceled. Good luck!
I will give you a couple of bones:
1. Your main fault, and the reason why you are losing, is because you fail to fulfill the global aspirations of the everyday Joe.
2. You failed to use your military-industrial complex to promote economical and international links. All you do with it is to wage war, sack countries, destroy their culture and create economical savagery with programs such as NAFTA. While China is single handed industrializing neighbors so they can create a new silk road.
3. Nationalism in Amerikka will actually destroy the American Empire. The more you close yourself in a globalized world, the less room you will have to stand your might, and others will take your place, as China is doing already. You are even buying all the focking raw materials, the pre manufactured structures, and recruiting the work force from China. They own your external debt. So do not be astonished to see every single of your new roads or bridges Chinese to the core.
4. Your only hope is to provoke a massive banking melt down of the monetary system, so your ideas can be put in place. It will happen, and China will eat you whole. The reason why you have so much unemployment in the inner cities is because of this melting down of your grand economic failure.
5. If this isn't enough for you, the fact that you can't have a chance against China, is because of resource allocations. Since Reagan all you do is to divide and conquer, to sabotage, pillage and burn. China is doing the very opposite and you wonder why it dominates the world, more than your Jewish conspiracies will ever will.
Change my mind now and prove me wrong
"you even tainted the land with old school bigotery"
"Traditionalists in America have currently failed the political game."
My own shorthand for this topic is that blood ties & loyalties, both past, present & future are important & loyalties should be the default & that it is endemic to the human realm (prevalent in or limited to people and ideology based on pursuing the set of interests peculiar to a particular group of people, & in similarity and in the laws that affect the animal kingdom & humanity) that any higher moral ethic or loyalty has it's natural limit, which limit is generally understood to be a person's Nation.
Even when synthetic loyalties (based on single interest) or ethics, (or larger more distant & diffuse biological ones or ties), sometimes surpass this. This is why class struggle never made it, people where still as majority due to something inherent to them identify as part of a Nation.
Sorry about the tangents but I have to get them out of the way.
"This is why class struggle never made it, people where still as majority due to something inherent to them identify as part of a Nation."
You fail to recognize here what Stalin did with the union between class struggle and Nation pride, that is not your nationalism, but actual patriotism from the multiple peoples of the Soviet Union. Only like that they could resist the Barbarossa offensive.
"[...] any higher moral ethic or loyalty has it's natural limit, which limit is generally understood to be a person's Nation."
It is not. Morality is not bound to a Nation. It is bound to shared believes. Christians and Muslims have similar moralities despite their allegiance to a particular nation. It is absolutely false that morality has to do with a group, has Kant proved, it has to do with oneself doing the good for the good, not doing what a group considers good for the good of that group. Morality has to do with duty, but not the duty to follow external laws, just to follow internal laws of morality (not to kill would be an example). The fact that you are forced to be moral, is indeed, by the fact that society has created Law, Recht. But the morality you talk about is a primitive concept that has no reflection in today's world. There is nothing moral to follow a code of values of the group simply because they are my relatives. And the comparison between the animal kingdom and humans in respect to the following of practices it total BS, sorry. You have not the need to follow your siblings in the nation, otherwise there would be no politics, no debate, and no discussion.
Your natural limit to morality is nothing more than a limit to what morality can naturally be. I hope dialectics are not too busy for your closed mindset, aka, traditionalist and reactionary.
"My own shorthand for this topic is that blood ties & loyalties, both past, present & future are important & loyalties should be the default & that it is endemic to the human realm [...]."
They should not, and they must be destroyed. Those ties you talk about limits what humans can do collectively, since you only have a sense of duty that respects nobody but the actual code that was set before you. Loyalty does not free you from sin, does not free you from hypocrisy, does not free one from ignorance, does not free you at all. People are free when ties of blood are mocked, when they are reduced to a blaspheme of freedom, when a sense of natural bondage is considered a cave man ideal, when blood and soil are nothing but logical falacies that are linked in respect to a totalitarian mindset.
And because you expect loyalty to be the foundation of morality, the nation and the traditional world view you are proposing, you are, in fact a reactionary.
I don't want to get into a tangent here but I should. I'm of a love and disaprove relationship with reactionary.
It is ineffective to try and segregate or oppress hostile groups and that it gets you on the bad side of disciplinary institutions, not that it is morally wrong. That's going to happen pretty much no matter what though. If you're letting your opponents define what the acceptable positions to take are you're making the same mistake contemporary liberal conservatives do. It's going to lead you down the same path of continously watering down your message, corrupting your core values and attracting the wrong crowd of people. That strategy has already been tried and has proved not only ineffective, but straight up harmful. It's also just cowardice and weak to cave in to your enemies' or oppositions' demands, which is not just morally wrong but also a bad look.
This is the problem with being reactionary, you're reacting to what the opposition does and defining yourself by your opposition and taking a contrary stance. Rather than defining yourself through independence from the opposition and your own stances and views. Reactionaries don't create, rather they engage in criticism and make appeals to the past. While thinkers of former eras always offer great insights, reactionaries by themselves rarely do, they just cite those past thinkers. it's good for promulgating those thinkers, but it's just that. It isn't creating something original that's conservative & temporarily relevant and helpful. And the idea that civilisation has always been about oppressor/oppressed on race, gender, class, culture, is false. Civilisation was more brutal with inadequate technology and had to sustain itself.
How do you disaprove relationship with a reactionary if you defend their core values?
" That strategy has already been tried and has proved not only ineffective, but straight up harmful."
No brother, you just wished you had no opposition to freely propagate your propaganda.
"This is the problem with being reactionary, you're reacting to what the opposition does and defining yourself by your opposition and taking a contrary stance."
This is not what a reactionary is. reaction against fascism dose not make you a reactionary, all the contrary. A reactionary does not believe in science but in myths to explain the world. Does not believe in equality, but stratification. He does not believe in progress, but saving one's morality that usually ends up defining everything anyone's can think about. He does not love besides his own people, he thinks that war is the only means for survival against a world set in motion and he does not understand. He only believes in a fantastic or fantastical core of values that have no other tight but to a set of individuals who want nothing more than impose their morality and values to the global populace, because the people are stupid, because they trust no other than themselves, because they are divinely chosen.
Most of it defines yourself, in particularly, and for this you are, in fact a reactionary.
"It is ineffective to try and segregate or oppress hostile groups and that it gets you on the bad side of disciplinary institutions, not that it is morally wrong."
It is not morally wrong to fight back, I agree. And the black-lash of the "institution" is part of the game, is it not? Richard Spencer even talked about to force the enemy's arm to reach him/they so they can have a reason to fight back. Nothing new here. The unions also do this when they gather worker's power against bosses and corporations or even the Capitalist State.
"It isn't creating something original that's conservative & temporarily relevant and helpful."
There is also the case of revolutionary conservatives, such as the Nazi party. They did create, as reactionaries, a new type of politics, named Totalitarianism, named after Schmitt's Total State. The base core of it is that the individual is tight to the nation in a way that they do not matter individually, so the nation can trump individuality by growing from self-contemplation that requires nothing more than the abolition of any interest outside the nation, ie, that reduces the individual to an atom of the nation. Today's nations are a set of multiple individuals who think so differently from one another that your dreams can only be fulfilled in the family traditional circle, which is no more thanks to feminism.
You fear this, thus you are a reactionary.
The purpose of civilisation is to survive, system of gover institutions, traditions, values and hierarchy exist to sustaining, strengthen and defending it and not about the individual, it mattered more than the individual, necessary norms for sustaining a society has been devalued thus putting in jeopardy of sustaining civilisation. Politicians have no responsibility past the 4 year term to do whats best for the people, and whose goal is to secure the necessary amount of votes by any means necessary. A societal norm is usually viewed as a bad thing because they are illiberal, they restrict rights and provide a responsibility that liberals don't really want. The fact is that traditional family values & traditional gender roles are necessary to have families, and families are necessary to perpetuate civilisation. A civilization must have a birthrate of atleast 2.1, for a civilisation to survive it must have a new generation to inherit it. Thats more important than having equal amount of women in a corporate board, progressives don't have enough children to sustain civilisation, if they even choose to have children while a traditional family has the most amout of children depending on how traditional that family is.
For a civilisation to survive and perpetuate itself it must be able to defend itself, liberalism allows hostile forces to continue to perpetuate their own group while restricts its own ability to respond in any effective way (like prevention of sharia law), liberal organisations like NATO can't defend against subversive elements because those groups aren't hampered by self-imposed limitations i.e. the least liberal. While they the subsersive group can be protected due to rights and critical race theory, affirmative actione e.t.c. protects these groups to continue to collectively fight for their interests, culture, religion, tradition while being bilingual too & invade peacefully without being attacked, its much much easier to invade if you are conferred a bunch of rights and further being given access to corporate jobs without having all the credentials to receive it (Islamists for instance).
There must be an ambition for the long term, civilisational force must have something to gain from prosperity beyond a term in office, and lose something from a civilisation beyond that election. Something with 5 year and 10 year programs, and for the next 100 years. Preserving culture and heritage from one generation to the next, religion being intergenerational * higher purpose, celebratory events, rites of passage for men and women to go through to give reasons to sustain itself & it needs reasons to sustain itself. Every civilisation must see its own perpuation as the highest priority, and favor its own people above all else, upholding its own civilisation and values above all else should be more important than some liberal values. Being able to defend itself with actions against subversion.
Every culture in the modern west sees itself as being the most superior to others, I say that instead its the civilisation that is the highest priority & that its not as subjective as that. Society will fracture into loyalty to competing identities. You can't mold people into more egalitarian and enlightened people because people are too tribalistic, fight too much, which we revert to when theres too many choices & political system pulling us in multiple directions, games of conquest where the bedrock of larger europe regions, based on filial piety, ethnocentric bannermen and autocracy, authoritarian or under a monarch to preside over a region. If they weren't they would have been taken over by a more aggressive civilisation, it almost was luckily a pope decided to fight back against the islamists.
Round 1 of ignorance. heads up
They do not care for the people, that means the workers, those who create your nation. And that is because they have special interest, and this means, ofc, money and power. But you want them to actually be in place, otherwise you would not support capitalism. Traditionalists are hypocrites, just like the nazis were.
it is ******* obvious that men and women reproduce to create humans, but the "gender role" is a stupidity and even gay couple can have children now.
Stuff like this fright you, because you are a reactionary
NATO was created after WW2 because, precisely, nations could not defend themselves alone. You want to return to the nation-state, it is not going to happen. You live in fairy land.
The fact that members of NATO invade other countries is because of focking AMERIKKA. When the soviets stood still they could do ****. And traditionalists like your self sabotage the Soviet Union and their people's aspiration. Poland's Solidarność the best moment of it.
You want to go back to the nonsense of the religious tradition, not only because you hate science, or your brain can't understand it, but mostly because you want to mystify the people and especially the workers, so they stay in perpetual ignorance and so they can never understand that YOU are the actual enemy.
You don't understand basic fact, and you are opposed to anything that resembles progress, therefore you are responsible for the unbalance of power.
This makes you a reactionary
Weird that you talk about 5 or 10 years plan, because you are so fascist. This is tipically done by people like you. You talk about culture and preserving it, while you appropriate other's culture, in this case, you mimic the soviet power, when you at the same time rage against it, because you are too blind to understand it.
Because of your inability to comprehend basic things (taking that quote from Stuart Mill about people like yourself) and because you are a cultural hypocrite, you are, indeed, a reactionary
Black Pigeon Speaks has covered this topic well in his video 'Multiculturalism Has Failed: How to successfully manage diversity', when people in a area get bombarded with multiculturalism they begin to self-segregate and become more ethnocentric, they are doing what is natural because people tend to have in-group preference, tend to be with people who are similar to themselves, social trust went down, and they create their own neighbourhood and vote similiarly like the black community. Its not racist that they identify with and create their own community. If men and women are different then we're going to be judged differently, so the concept of prejudice on sex doesn't make much sense. Civilisation needed women to be mothers and needed men to defend it. Men and women naturally gravitate to these roles, women tend to be caring, and men tend to bravery, restraint & strength. We where never enlightened due to liberalism for some short period of a few decades. Progressivism is thus destined to fail because it tries to make people something other than their nature, civilisation needs a moral system that takes human nature into account and guides us to more healthy choices for themselves and the civilisation.
You can't replace a people (and their culture with it), people aren't interchangeable, a civilisation is the people, their land and their culture. You can't replace a people and have a cohesive civilisation, so in order sustain their civilisation it must be run in order to have maintainess and people need to have their in-group preferences respected and to have a understanding of their own collective interests. Conservatives then don't like it when conservatives get cultural, well we have to in order to win, its temporarily relevant and useful. And the idea that civilisation has always been about oppressor/oppressed on race, gender, class, culture, is false. Civilisation was more brutal with inadequate technology and had to sustain itself.
Round 2 of ignorant BS
Heads Up, I know you can follow it, just read it slowly
When they are multicultural, you say that they get ethnocentric. This is total BS. I live in that place and you are a ignorant, already told you why they do work with us. If the nation is homogeneous, then there would be less friction. BUT AGAIN, i give you the focking example of the soviets and they were LITERALLY 15 Republics and DOZENS of different ethnicity.
You don't understand how multiple cultures can co exist because you are afraid of it, because you are a reactionary.
Go read some books before you make a fool of yourself man.
here, a bone for you fascist pigs
Prisoncensorship.info
oh we can focking replace a people for another. We did it with reactionaries like you in Ukraine and in the Crimea. And you called that a genocide because it was targeted to you, and you call the Tutsis genocide a Negroes IQ problem, and you call the Jews that were burned by the NAZIS that you secretly support a hoax, and you say that there is a genocide against white people in southern Africa while you will never talk by the genocide in the apartheid era, and you will talk about about the nazis that were killed and bombed by the Brits, and those who were raped by the soviets, because you see them as heroes and you inspiration for your political programs.
For all of this, you are definitely a reactionary
Also, the land that you say it is yours by blood, is a fantasy, as the Bourgeoisie has proved against the reactionaries of the XVIII century. They took YOUR land and make it possible for YOUR POWER to vanish. And the fight between liberals and communists is still the same, for land and resources and means of productions. Not for Blood, for focking Jesus's sake! Go read a book and less esoteric BS.
For all of this and much more I am going to say, you are definitely a reactionary
"the soviets and they were LITERALLY 15 Republics and DOZENS of different ethnicity."
The soviets had a friendship of the people's notion (Order of Friendship of Peoples). Which was a ethno-national regional idea where they would emphasize ethnic cultural differences among regions. You could say that it was a divide and conquer strategy by the Soviet Union. There's the big nation of Russians but there was an attempt to create all these little nations in the countries. I would say that the US promotes a similar strategy in the European nations. Promoting internal multiculturalism is a fantasy really, the Soviet have had a hard time while being pro-nation pride and Soviet communist, which isn't real communism by the way because they did not have democratic ownership of the means of production. They have effectively lied to their populace to get their brand of communism culturally accepted.
Anarchs & international communists turned against the Soviet union because they refused to turn their populations into a brown undifferentiated mass through mass migration, they said that they weren't anti-racist enough to be really classified as true communists in their eyes, they turned on their comrades on a dime.
Peaceful nationalism is when the groups does not want the others land & resources. Life in our countries is somewhat better than life in their countries, our birthrates are low, theirs is high currently. An answer is to requisition land so that sweden, other places have a homogenous nation state. Homogeneity allows and makes it easier for the polity to uphold the culture of its citizens. You can't have two or more antagonist groups co-existing simulateneosly forever like we currently are. If one group has a ancestral claim on the land & the other does not then peaceful negotiation is impossible. There is also a taking for grantedness that our side is more generous, and they will say and see that we aren't tolerant enough. And that tolerance is largely ONE-WAY. If liberals give in, they will keep giving assistance (always asking more). When one side figures out that the other has agency then conflict may follow, we aren't so liberal then & things ratchet up to a certain point that the other side will have no choice but to fight. Then they will use of incentives and disincentives, prevention of sharia law courts from operating in the country and preventing them from being able to access welfare. And then they won't actually fight because they where never prepped too, its really simple and therefore I'm optimistic. I believe order is guaranteed in some sense. I believe that it could be natural law to have social cohesion, communities and neighborhoods in which the public needs in order to feel free.
The nation state is peaceful when liberals are prevented from obtaining any power, and self-segregation is allowed. The ability for people to disassociate with whomever they please into nation states, and provide and deny services to whomever they like and not to displace people from their neighborhoods by forced integration like how section 8 housing is being done in the US currently. These are former standards I'd like to be retained, instead of denying it to law abiding citizens who where reason for founding the country. The concept of “free association” has not existed in America since the 1964 civil rights act, which forced private companies to hire minorities against their will.
The foundation of the polity should be held as the absolute good. The first priority of the nation should be the wellbeing of the nation, meaning the defineable group of people that made it & must exist. This includes their culture, spirituality, social order in which they flourish, their wellbeing must come first. Upholding this is upholding their liberty.
Round 3 and I am tired of this **** and how you fail miserably to understand other's points beside your own. I would like to meet you in person, so i can see your Human face and see why you believe in all of this. Something wrong might have happen with you, not going to lie. You need therapy if you force yourself to ignore the world around you. A take from a health professional (I am responsible for the functioning of a Pharmacy, I manipulate drugs, I give injections, etc)
Back on topic....
Peaceful Nationalism is an oxymoron. Nationalism + militarism = fascism, by definition. You would never have nationalism without a fight, what are you focking thinking about, that people would simply accept your BS, that we stay and watch YOU scream JOOS WILL NOT REPALCE UZ. **** you. Every time a Nationalism rises, the left comes out to the street. We know you, we watch you so you call for "peace". Do not play games with us, not gonna happen. Figure it out why your alt right is tatters. Because you moved from memes to the streets, talking about killing people, calling Jews kikes (and you liked that didn't you? hypocrite), and actually killing people on camera so YOU can DENY it or try to GIVE A BS EXPLANATION. For your "peace" we will never give you that.
You fear us, and you try to convince people you are not the enemy to be vanquish forever. Thus, you are.... guess what? Indeed, good boy! A reactionary. here, a cookie for you.
And there you go again for natural law and law of nature. You learnt nothing or you are unable to do so. At least I read your books and your BS to understand how you think. You are so closed in your bubble that you can't get it. You missed the point of it, luckily, it has been written up their.
Do your homework, and because you can't see beyond your wold view, you are not simply conservative, but a reactionary. You are frozen in time, wake up this is not 1933 and if you die you are not going to Valhalla, you are not going to touch the gods with bravery and self sacrifice (to refer to Evola, ofc). You are going to die and you will fail to live a life without fullness, because you lost in the French Revolution already.
Now, and straight forward friendly: Move on. Don't waste your life in that bubble. Come back to the Human race. I really hope you do
I do not think you are bad, or a immoral person I feel that you are lost and you need a hug. Seriously. I would like to give you that.
Progressive liberalism has strong influence because every institution is one, the media, universities, tech and NGO's as well as the government, this is because the intelligentsia is the one who holds the real power in society. The left aren't interested in upholding the greatness of western civilisation, we don't have this yet. So is the left really pleased on this institutional hegemonic power, well it turns out that they aren't happy about the state of the world today and they don't have positive view currently. Constant echoing of leftist talking points in academia, stolen land is a something to shame us over colonisation rather than the good in imperialisation and sharing technology to bring countries upto date, its clear that this isn't a radical narrative of dissident left but its really allowed in academia, it wouldn't be allowed to teach to students if it was really radical.
They keep demanding more progress which further destroys the foundations that made the west great to begin with, the men on the right really want to preserve & sustain the foundations of the west.
Our civilisation has been tearing down alot more than its preserving lately like statues, the family, feminisation of men, guilt tripping on a oppressor narrative, the patriarchy as holding down women rather than upholding good, truth and beauty of the family and as a matriarchal family could perhaps also be, the appreciation of an historical era, the 18th and 19th century aside from the horrible things we really appreciate the good that was advanced, and by the elites up until recently like Victorian architecture instead of rubbish post modern buildings, even with all the progressive and globalist intelligentsia keeps pushing a anti-human narrative that seeks to overturn the order from what built up the west like morals like that of natural law, homogeneity, hierarchy, religion, instead to put the ethnic, racial and gender, woman and oppressed minorities 'social class' at the bottom to the very top of the food chain. The left progressives still live in homogenous white neighbourhoods. While trumpeting and claiming themselves strong women feminists still chase after strong and dominant men, the calls to end white supremacy and racism and racialism, still visit beautiful cities of historical places like in Budapest, and I appreciate what greatness the Victorian era achieved, national pride, its art and morals.
So there is still a pull and need for a conservative way of life, so I'm yet again optimistic, conservatives on average are happier than any group on the left, radical, marxian or liberal, its their negativity of systemic injustice (stark constrast to natural inequality) beliefs that make people unhappy or something like that according to them. Leftist feel the worst despite some cultural hegemonic power on their side in all the ways that count with perhaps the exception of most corporations.
You reached a conclusion that is circular because it ends in that place where you started to claim to begin with.
Conservatives are conservatives and the left wants to destroy your conservatism. Good La Palice argument.
The greatness about Western culture is no more because people like you exist. You are pretentious, you are impermeable, you know nothing about the concepts you use, you know nothing of the philosophical contexts that those concepts rise from, you ignore the historical and social contexts that leads you to your defeat, your optimism is nothing more than a shattered glass that existed long before you were born.
So your conservatism is only aimed at the BS of post modern "art". That is neat, just don't engage in higher theory.
That is also good that you equate strong man with white supremacy. You start to understand that it is not the great historical figure that makes history but the masses. I am impressed, well done, you made an argument after all.
Also, yes, the left is and always was against hegemony. Did you discover this now? And that your reactionary vision is no more because people moved on to question everything under the spectrum of liberty? So do you really understand the dichotomy between left and right is all about TODAY? I don't think you do at this point.
1. It is sensible to support a homogeneous ethno-state with the priviso that it must be achieved peacefully, the ethnic groups are going to be separate or are already separate and don't covet each others land, resources, women or further supplies that could be gotten.
2. The ethnic group(s) or the group(s) is willing to be tottally absorbed or basically replaced as you so elequently put about some reactionaries.
There the two wholly separate and plausible instances for the existence of peaceful nationalism.
Ah finally you reveal your aim with this.
1. separated ethnical groups is called segregation. It was tried in the USA and South Africa and it ended in a democratic explosion. So, therefore, you reactionary point of views are actually usefully to us. Go on and try to make your racial state and see what will come of it, sooner or later
2. That is not an argument in favor of an ethno state. It is POLITICAL repression against people like you. You did the same POLITICAL repression against us for decades, in different parts of the world.
1. Peaceful Self-segregation isn't the same thing as segregation. Self-segregation is a phenomenon while segregation is outdated.
2. The absorption of a ethnic group or any group benefits the dominant ethno group.
1. There is no peaceful self-segregation. Self-segregation is impossible. Name one historical self-segregation moment.
2. Even considering that this is true, how is this peaceful? This is not even compatible with your impossible self-segregation.
I want you to address this, if you have the courage to do so. I asked this in the Fascist moddb page. No one dared to ask. And since this has to do with most of your project I challenge you to actual engage in your POV. The section asked was what follows, in the integral and original form.
«I'm trying to understand the following in fascist ideology, so any reading you could suggest would be appreciated (I've read a bit of Evola but it is not very clear besides the mystic narrative of "eternal recurrence". Also the first chapters of Mein Kampf are meant to be for believers already, which doesn't help, In my opinion):
1. The land-race paradigm (mainly, what is "blood", specifically speaking and what is that inherently makes it self-evident that we are in front of a non casual relation with a particular soil? Why do new nations arise in history following this world view?)
1.1. What gives right to a nation to qualify itself higher in the cosmological scheme/hierarchy?
1.1.1. What gives the right for that superior nation to militarily overcome others?
1.1.2. What is the Rule of Natural Law, in opposition to Positivistic one, in Fascist mindset?
1.1.2.1. Particularly, what in Roman Law (Jus) is there that supports fascist ideology or, at least, legal ideology?
2. The Absolute Truth paradigm (everything else is "left", nothing else is true. What epistemological background is required to accept that only Fascist Truth is The only Truth?)
2.1. Where do I find justification to embrace this absolute truth, when there is already at least a religion claiming to carry it with absolute certainty, since it deposits all ideological strenght at a revelatory foundationalist step?
2.1.1 Can Fascism be qualified as a Secular Religion or a Secular Belief?
2.2. How come that Fascism is a fight for freedom, despite it promotes only a world view from the modern world caleidoscopy of world views?
2.2.1. How can also be a fight for freedom if the highest value is obedience?
3. If the revolution against Capital is the Revolution against the Jew, then clearly, he is from Mercury (merchand driven people). Where is the Superior Man from?
3.1. If Capital strives in Modernity, the revolutionary subject of Modernity is clearly the Jew. How is Fascism able to answer to Modernity whiteout qualifying itself as Conservative?
4. What is "Spirit" and why is it above "Matter"?
4.1. If History is made with real people and material "movement", why is that the Spiritual "movement" is resolved only when there are very specific people to accomplish them (historical subjects)?
4.1.1. Why is that the very last step for a complete Fascist man is to become "Aryan in Spirit"?
Thank you for any answer. Most online material is useless and do not put up with these questions, nor do they try to answer them in any way.»
Materialism is crass and not an challenge to modernity at all. Fundamentally has the same starting points that many liberals do; materialist idolatry is fundamentally rational, it only accepts the material conditions of the time and does not make any moral judgments, that there is only one substance of matter, consciousness and subjective experience is also blind material organization, it denies any meaning to this, higher power or transcendence, its a wholly immanent way of looking at the world.
Materialists by necessity denies the natural law of which we base our idealistic worldview on; natural law is related to our human inherent traits, survival and the rest of order. This is also called spirit, our entire worldview rests on believing and accepting a priori that spirit is the real guiding force and reasoning for humanities existence, our evolution is geared towards moving closer and closer to the spiritual essence of us and away from involution (barbarism and degeneracy i.e. anti-peace). The main exponent of the opposition to this is the materialist writer of Consciousness Explained a 1991 book by the American philosopher Daniel Dennett.
Idealism is the common sense view of the world and everything else is the weird "woo woo" view of the world. Idealism is the view that matter in the outside world is either illusory or depends on the existence of consciousness, that consciousness is primary rather than matter. Thus voluntary conscious decision making of exceptional individuals (free will choice or autonomy of a person who people gravitate towards for whatever reason, their strength and their will) is the driving force of history, and not crass material conditions that make "necessary historical changes" - we outright deny that has ever been the case. Marx was completely incorrect about the rate of profits decreasing overtime leading to a revolt of the proletariat, it does not create a inevitable revolt by material conditions in the first place let alone somehow guiding humanity under these materialist conditions that increases opposition and conflict (leading to freedom). Its not difficult to really pinpoint our own free will choice as being the reason for changes throughout history, that masses eventually follow and support because they found them charismatic, compassion or a compelling leader.
Materialists believe that something like qualia, they deny the existence of qualia, to say that the experience of something is identical to the neurochemical process that creates it is absurd. Its a problem in the materialist opinion. That if something doesn't have a spacio-temporally location, that it can't be given a physical location in time then it doesn't exist. Materialists frequently deny phenomena that doesn't conform to their worldview. It does away with questions so there is no room for spiritual stuff, spiritual goals which I believe many traditionalists and ordinary people believe in. Making it less believable and less appealing.
Ethnicity and race is two such natural components of reality that have evolved over a many millennia to create a homogenous, similar yet different group of peoples in a space in time, they are inequal and hold very many different abilities. Different moral understanding, physical characteristics (right down to muscle strength and brain power e.g. IQ distribution on the bellcurve), social capacity, abilities and skills. The inherent inequality of people is not a moral judgment made on them, it simply means that we have different places in the hierarchy judged by those achievements and abilities that people are capable of. Its therefore normal in our idealist view that each person is a special person individually, in gender, ethnically, racially, and humanly - and each helps paint the picture of a place in the grand scheme of things, we order reality judged by our findings in each of these areas to make the structure for which manifests the worldview of truth.
The reason I had to get into materialism is because its economic reductionist, marxists make this mistake fondly and frequently to always boil things down to a material condition when the nuance was there that explains things better in terms of politics and individuality, and the collective good as the reason for something occurring and being the driving force of history. Its really annoying to see that materialists don't wish to take things seriously and always try to make ideology shape fit into the square peg of history - its the basically same thing every time.
Fundamentally parts of the universe is mind stuff, the same mind stuff that is a part of god, the god or the absolute. Idealism and implicitly idealism is part of the Classical theist view of the world, like Buddhism, Neo-Platonist and Advaita Vedanta. Its the traditionalist view of things. The idea that materialism alone conforms to science is a fiction, we've been sold this by culture, by these science popularizes, by prejudices to do away with meaning and philosophy. Fundamentally the stuff of the world is mind stuff, and consciousness is the ultimate reality. This is why idealists cannot ever accept materialism.
Isocrates of Athens definition of a nation was the people who share the same: origin/blood, language, religion and customs. This is one of the origins of nationalism, which along with Greek cities and ancient Egypt, shows it goes back a long way. Blood and soil nationalism then is as natural as it gets, with modern examples being the Irish, Siberians and Russia, national consciousness is bound up with these agrarian societies and not merely industrialized countries (which suggests that these nationalisms are not merely examples of specific states, it exists outside of that, people confusing state, nation and ethnicity like to make them out to merely be a specific modern state). For Hegel the state, ethnicity or ethnos, the nation and cultural life of a people are one and the same, which fascists continued through Giovanni Gentile (a Hegelian).
He of course is correct in his summation that race or ethnicity merely gets in the way of people buying into and being controlled by political elites, states and economic planners, mass culture has a much harder time making people into mindless consumers if they have a backbone of ethnic tradition, religion and customs. We won't be as likely to submit to other forms of anti-meaning, filling the void of existence left, if we have some stable forms of meaning and higher truths to be happy, have kinship ties, communities, recognition and orient our lives with. Truths manifest themselves in various ways in different times and places through culture, religion and local customs and the manifestation it takes is natural law. This was the argument of a right-wing thinker Keith Woods from his video "Why Nationalism?" and "The Endurance of Nationalism".
I may not agree with you, but you will get a thumbs up for ACTUALLY read and think FOR YOURSELF. This is a message for people on the right that are stuck in propaganda.
I need time to unpack all of it, like the difference between Marx materialism and Dennett's physicalism (they imply other ways of thinking and they do not necessarily overlap). But at least I thank you for posting this view.
These are not arguments to support a "peaceful" Nationalism. no one will accept to be apart from the society they compose. You will create at least tow societies that inevitably are doomed to violence, attrition or war. Where is the peace here eloquent reactionary?
The primary guarantor of group survival is territory, therefore each group should strive to own territory.
That means that the survival of a group has nothing to do with blood, therefore each group, who has its cohesion via your alleged blood, can survive without a territory. That results that the strife for territory is inutile.
John Stuart Mill had a pretty good definition of Nation eventhough he was a liberal: A portion of mankind may be said to constitute a nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies, which does not exist between them and any other group, which make them cooperate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or exclusively a portion of themselves. This feeling of nationality may have been generated by various causes. sometimes its the effect of identity of race and descent. Community of language and community of religion greatly contribute to it. Geographic limits are one of its causes. But the strongest of all is identity of political antecedents; the possession of a national history, consequent community of recollections; collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same culturally unified events of the past.
Territory then isn't futile, its the expression of blood and cities can be recreated if the blood (or specific genetically similar people in question) continues to exist. This is good because it prevents the different alien population from subverting the national identity and interests of that host population, oppressing them or alienating them from their culture, interests and national history. Those things can really be enshrined within the state, providing necessary and difficult to override protections. Therefore cultural life, state, ethnicity and nation and therefore blood is so highly connected that its nearly always synonymous for nationalists, with or without a state. But states don't always equate to a nationalist regime.
Ironically you have both liberal notions of nationalism as well as ethno-nationalism to contend with, both ardent supporters of the nation state. Both recognise the legitimacy of identities and the inherent biological drive or imperative to create societies that cater or compel people to live by their standards of culture, interests and national history, sometimes even religion which also recognizes the nation state as legitimate and nothing that we should ever do away with. Thats a total of three massive groups to contend with. I'd sooner or later suggest that what people are talking around is blood and soil nationalism, that is the newer theory of what the nationalist cause can be boiled down into.
The whole point of Nationalism and identity has to do with the assertion that natural law is fundamental to our existence. I don't think this is true. For instance, none of our human condition and experience is natural. Technology is not natural, human language and speech is not natural, conceptualizing a car and drive is not natural. None of it is natural, and we are living proof that we can defy natural law. So, if we actually do it, why do we need this primal sense of belonging? You can still be part of a civilization without referring to any of these identity politics blocks. The notion of a nation, race, blood, soil, all of it has been debunked by multicultural reality. You do not actually need it to strife, you do not need it to perpetuate your existence. If you do not want to see your legacy buried in history the only thing you need to do is procreate and pass your genetic information to the future.
You confuse a sense of belonging based on identity, that is just an idea amongst all others, with the false necessity to perpetuate those ideals. If there was no change in ideas, there would be no history. The whole point of history is that there is clash of ideas and the less fit will perish. This happened with nationalism and the movement of history is not to go back to tribal thinking but to global cooperation.
Natural law, that implies the idea of identity, is a false concept. Every civilization created their own positive legislation, that is, humans create their own sense of right and wrong via law, they create it to regulate their own behavior. You do not need no external system of morals, no sense of identity based on nature, no links to a old structure of values that tells you who you are in the cosmos. Because we are humans, we have the power of creation. We are the only gods we know, because we create the law that reflects morality in a particular time and space. This also means we are not linked to land, tradition and blood, our identity is not there, but in the ideas that are permanently in conflict, due to the explosive, progressive and ever changing nature of contemporary democracies. This is why you will fail. You are clever enough to see how faulty a link to identity is.
Now, to say that ideas identify societies is accepting Marx materialism. Why? because where do these ideas come from but the social-economic relations that dictate the contextualization of the moral disagreement? So materialism, for communist, is not saying that all is matter (that would be naive materialism), it is the proposition that states or declares that matter rule over ideas. Thus he says the most fundamental truth of social reality when "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.". This also applies to natural law. it is a construct that we made, a primitive idea that would identify ourselves with a type of society. But it is society itself to regulates these ideas and the ultimate form of progress and freedom is the autonomy of creating your own ideals. Therefore, positivism is the only solution you have in the question of identity.
Also, it would be good if you read Habermas and John Rawls on this question (Nation, morals, identity and natural law). They are the kings of liberal thinking and their system, to put it in a reductionist form, is that societies are based on contracts, that is, social determinations. This is where concepts such as justice, identity, morals, etc arrive. For Habermas this process is done via communicative action (following Weber and parsons) for Rawls it is a explicit social contract based on the agreement of our condition, our vision of the future and our notions of right and wrong. It is not over land nor soil, but over ideas that we regulate when we create new social relations.
So the whole point is that natural law is a fiction. Links to land and blood are real in the biological sense but have nothing to do with the way social life springs. They spring from debate, discord, rationality and creativity of values. So again, materialism here means that the type of social relations you create, are based on human actions, and ideas are fundamentally dependent on these social relations that become facts, in Durkheim language. Politics is no different and any concept of idea must be, necessarily, created, not derived from a hierarchical cosmos.
Law of nature, strictly speaking, is just the law of cause and effect in physics. it is this simple. natural law, on the contrary, is not a feature of reality. it was a human creation. When you perceived this as fiction and a construct (since Comte ofc) we were able to create our own morals, laws, concepts, ideas. We are no longer forbidden to be autonomous because we do not recognize any other authority to act, speak and think, but the human family. You see how nationalism is backward and is dangerous to the actual progress we need to do as a species.
Then if we create our own morality, our own identity as a species, as you implied in your comment of Mill, territory is futile. And it is futile for the simple fact that we can still create identity without belonging to any culture. We are doing it right now. We are people from all around the world trying to make sense of the human condition, the dasein of Heidegger, this condition of been projected into the world of humanity, as a sentient being. But we also have autonomy and freedom, and that is the only true relation you can do with any human ever in any time of space. We are the creators. we do not need no reference to land nor soil or blood. What would settlers be then? Their culture and their identity would not belong to any place, they were not expanding the land and blood to other physical places. They created new realms of possibilities, and that is where capitalism and the ethics of Protestantism meet, to quote Weber again. They created new ways of living, they actually destroyed the blood-soil paradigm in the very moment they decided in their brains to take the adventure. That is what freedom and autonomy is all about. There is no natural law, otherwise they would stay in their caverns and we today would not be able to talk with this technology.
History is marching forward. There is little you can do now to stop it. And even if a minority like yourselves are lost because you do not accept this fact, then the price of progress is precisely to have people like you far behind. Embrace Science, not myth. Embrace the future, not the monotheism of race and land. The future is global cooperation. I think you can see this clearly.
Again, I thank you for your inputs and the polite tone this had taken.
"Round 3 and I am tired of this **** and how you fail miserably to understand other's points beside your own. I would like to meet you in person, so i can see your Human face and see why you believe in all of this. Something wrong might have happen with you, not going to lie. You need therapy if you force yourself to ignore the world around you. A take from a health professional (I am responsible for the functioning of a Pharmacy, I manipulate drugs, I give injections, etc)"
Not an argument.
"You would never have nationalism without a fight, what are you focking thinking about, that people would simply accept your BS, that we stay and watch YOU scream JOOS WILL NOT REPALCE UZ. **** you. Every time a Nationalism rises, the left comes out to the street. We know you, we watch you so you call for "peace". Do not play games with us, not gonna happen. Figure it out why your alt right is tatters. Because you moved from memes to the streets, talking about killing people, calling Jews kikes (and you liked that didn't you? hypocrite), and actually killing people on camera so YOU can DENY it or try to GIVE A BS EXPLANATION. For your "peace" we will never give you that."
Not an argument.
"Do your homework, and because you can't see beyond your wold view, you are not simply conservative, but a reactionary. You are frozen in time, wake up this is not 1933 and if you die you are not going to Valhalla, you are not going to touch the gods with bravery and self sacrifice (to refer to Evola, ofc). You are going to die and you will fail to live a life without fullness, because you lost in the French Revolution already."
Not an argument. Strawman.
Ah, so you do read my text, you don't engage to the arguments, only the strawman parts because you are afraid of the debunk.
You believe that a discussion is only a spectacle, therefore you want not to consider the actual arguments that I place before you.
Good tactic. But you cannot pose any actual argument. And for this, you are a reactionary too, because you engage not in argumentation.
You hide in victimization because you have not set a valid point yet and all of them are debunked.
You think that a discussion has only one goal: to trigger the other side so the arguments that are actually set before you can be ignored. Good tactic, try again parrot.
"Peaceful Nationalism is an oxymoron. Nationalism + militarism = fascism, by definition. "
'What I disagree with must equal to fascism' is not a argument.
When you can't discuss, and actually try to set an opposite point of view, you turn a discussion into mud.
I can do this too. In fact your accusation of strawman is not an argument.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” I think its self-evident thats what the discussion has now been reduced to.
A quote from this group:
"[Political correctness i.e. Cultural Marxism It's based on the marxist lie that everything good about society is all a form of oppression." and "postmodern/neo-Marxist claim that Western culture, in particular, is an oppressive structure, created by white men to dominate and exclude women." ~Jordan Peterson. Obviously the communist here is going to look down on nats, trads and other groups that still have a coherent identity. Discussion is unfruitful and at worst subversive.
The elite marxists of Germany at the time of nazi's where accused of controlling newspapers, banking, and fermenting wars, corrupting art, culture and morality of Europe. Which is all true.
Communism is a revolutionary movement dedicated to the destruction of Western civilisation, private property, private rights, and market economies, something the nazi's detested. Communists want to destroy that and including the product of personal efficiency - the individualistic competitive market economy. They eradicated usury and there where no homeless or beggars in that state.
Social Justice, feminism, post-colonialism, neo-progressivism are all under the umbrella of Cultural Marxism because they arose out of critical theory, the most despised aspects of the radical left by the right-wing currently.
Feminism came out of the Frankfurt school, its meant to create division, reduce birth rates, lowering their demography, sow discord between men and women and weaken the relationship, create resentment, destroy the institute of marriage and sanctity of the family. Through abortion and radical feminism the sexes turn against one another, that marriage is slavery, and that freedom for women can only come from the abolishing of traditional relationships and marrage. Thus able to abolish the traditional relationships they are freed from having a happy life as wives and mothers, this group has some good links pointing at the higher rates of happiness amongst these women. Women's liberation is all about creating 1. A stable twice as large tax base 2. Now we can get kids indoctrinated at an early age, so that the kids will look at the school or the state as their family, state officials, schools and academics to be viewed as their family, and thus breaking up the family 3. Applying women to the draft, which may become a reality too: Politico.com
When the state not only does not support the positive things we promote at current moment but actively opposes everything of value - you severely weaken the people. Thats what we see with the state enforcing liberalism and not the ideals of family, gender, ethnicity & race. The truth of those ideals that are part of our identity, something we are born with, are not realized. Only action can fulfill that potential and strengthen us, not just because we are stronger as a group, not just to honor our ancestors & repay the debt we owe them, for their struggles to give us what we enjoy today, but for our future people. So that they may become stronger also. To protect these intangible things of culture/wisdom/knowledge relating to the core of our being that have inherent value. If not, they end up with nothing behind them, no connections to the past, no spirit, no will to carry on a new fight. They simply accept their demise or even welcome it, living erratically, randomly moving from one artificial mainstream fad to another. Thats why we end up with even worse forms of leftism then before.
Its easier to sell sex, drugs, comfort, lies and pleasure seeking behavior then is to sell values. That may be a harsh truth but its what everyone has to hear. We are not in a revolutionary movement. We are everyday people with common concerns & interests, and see the enemies at the gate, and watch with revolt that the enemies are being voluntarily let in by elites. Its something we revolt against. Our movement, the right, is insulated from the effects of the Trump presidency so theres no point in complaining about that, its really trivial turn of events for us IMHO.
Nationalvanguard.org
Tapnewswire.com
Truth.prabhupada.org.uk
Tgsnt.tv
Theneworder.org
Savitridevi.org
In billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984) Sheldon Emry commented: "“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.” These facts do not appear in any textbooks today."
Spirit is an easy one, a spiritual world is a world based on fair labor. Where anyone that undertakes a mark's worth of work will receive products, services guaranteed to have a marks worth of value (is not devalued). "It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good."
“In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War. The vanquished are in the process of become the victors and the victors the vanquished. Whatever else might be thought about the exploits the are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.” - Winston Churchill 1935
Back to Germany economic miracle. Hundreds of thousands of new modern houses where created throughout Germany. The Germans become wealthy because they don't have to pay interest to the private run central bank, debt-money system of the Rothschilds. The nazi's stood upto to the bankers, and freed the people from the economic system of debt slavery. Literally brought their economy out of hyperinfaltion by using their own money supply.
For us / Europeans
1.) our own cultures, habits and languages are much more important factors than racial matters or ethnocentrism.
2.) In order to save white people we have to turn (1.) into its polar opposite. Which may be difficult but it isn't impossible dream that can "never under any circumstance occur for some inexplicable reason" like has been suggested.
Europeans have never really be tested (by another races) in the same ways as the present time. Multiculturalism between vastly different races. What we really seek is different points of view, a very valuable source. Time will tell will if we have found any racial identity and/or ethnocentric before it is too late (White values and ethics). I whole heartedly agree with the proposition that we must concern ourselves with the truth alone. I like to believe that most of Europeans would prefer to choose their partners among other Europeans (same stock) than with non-Europeans. But that instinct might not help much, Europeans will stay in their own countries at the very least - insulated from culture changes elsewhere. Undocumented immigrants can go home and reconnect with their identity. It doesn't matter what foreigners do or say, aslong as the host nation founding people agree on the best course of action. Dreamers can be kicked out too if its found in the best interests of the nation, thats just how it goes. Some of the power is in the people who don't vote, they can be brought in by populism and protesting.
We are positioned to help the cause by a two step process that is able to respond to historical social changes and the decline of American society by multiracial American Order inability to sustain its society any further by (1) spreading our beliefs among the broad masses of the White population; and (2) building an solid organizational structure that will be in a position to provide the necessary leadership for white people when the time comes. Cultivate principles that are of the great benefit to our people. Things innate to us. Innate differences is essential information. It should be spreading further like on right-wing sites.
European women are in a liberal paradigm, liberalism is the problem, its feminism, working, the media, hedonism, law, these are the thoughts and actions that disincentivize the white women's motherhood, marriage and birthrates.
We nats believe in culture and society. Loss of culture, loss of morality, loss of tradition (hyperindividualism or radical individualism, and consumerism) it is not justified to preserve any of this through a mainstream liberalism. Society and culture is a teamsport. Nationhood and civilisation is grander than any of that liberal belief. We need a concerted effort to push back against it, hence traditionalism and nationalism, maybe reactionaries and conservatives too. I have pride in culture and heritage because its to have ownership of it in order to have it sustained, otherwise it will be replaced by other cultures and peoples who don't have reverence and respect for it.
Nationalists have voiced some support for a big tent. Here is some of these beliefs: 1. The Alt-Right believe nations consist of a super majority of one race which founded the country - the nation must ensure that the super majority race remains as super majority both in society and in public representation. 2. The Alt-Right believe that there are no natural rights, god-given rights or human rights. It depends on where people live that rights are given their due, the states job is to protect these rights. 3. The Alt-Right is Anti-Globalist because globalism only benefits a small global elite. 4. The Alt-Right is aware that different races act different as groups & this is a basis for differential treatment. 5. The Alt-Right rejects dual citizenship. 6. It is important to be respectful to those who have earned their place in society which formally becomes civility. Political correctness however undermines the free exchange of ideas, when this suffers then citizens personal concerns cannot be aired. 7. The Alt-Right recognizes that feminism has outstepped its utility, it trends into the area of shaming men and promoting sexual practices and family advice for women that is not in their interests. 8. The Alt-Right reject the Frankfurt school and Saul Alinsky tactics of creating tensions and divisions, the Frankfurt school of philosophies since the 60's has had the goal of tearing families apart, which is exactly the goal they have achieved since then. 9. We should not be engaged in facilitating in regime change or playing as the world police for superficial, duplicitous, financial or hegemonic reasons. 10. The Alt-Right sees the rise in population of all races around the world except the white race, they view the white race in a decline in many ways but most basically in our numbers. 11. The Alt-Right is concerned with the absence of religion or any sort of agreed upon or uniform spirituality in the European countries. We support reformation of the Catholic church, promote alternative spiritual religions, and new spiritual movement. 12. In order to ensure that our race is protected from all threats in whatever form they arise, the maxim shall be adopted “the health of the people is the supreme law". What brought people into the country, incentives and disincentives, can be used in the reverse. We can use incentives and disincentives to encourage non-whites to self-deport like giving cash to do so and banning them from being able to access welfare and other services. These are white values IMO, its culture that hasn't made it into the mainstream but we would want it to be represented and make it to congress/parliament.
We must once again, like our ancestors, be proud, self-assured, strong and brave. Honour, loyalty, self-sacrifice, responsibility, discipline, courage, fanaticism and wisdom must once more be the firm and unyielding ideals that form the white men. One must strive for a meaningful life. A life of struggle for family, folk and fatherland. A society in which the people want to accomplish something meaningful and memorable – a society free from materialism. Our enemies want rootless individuals who consume, because such people are easier to control.
Read Kalergi's Practical Idealism: Tinyurl.com
30 Million Africans May Come to Europe Within Next 10 Years-EU Parliament Chief-March 29, 2017 Amren.com
'The changing face of America' - Demographic Replacement data:
Pewhispanic.org
Pewhispanic.org
Pewresearch.org
"The socialist system economy and the socialist ownership of the means and instruments of production firmly established as a result of abolition of the capitalist system of economy, the abrogation or private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, constitute the economic foundation of the USSR." As you can see from the Soviet constitution, the soviets did abolish private property rights.
"Germanys unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an own exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore." ~Winston Churchill
Germany's accomplishments include Joy Through Strength, Winter Relief of the German People, Volkswagon (people's car), providing jobs for five million unemployed Germans, ensuring workers were better paid than any others in Europe, introducing safeguards against unfair dismissals, forcing companies to conform to new health regulations at the workplace, and legalising new holiday requirements that were the most worker-friendly in the world.
The reason why America is so different from our founding, international finance which demonstrated that it was anti-white, particularly was increasingly doing so in Europe. They strove to dominant this country in this country by dominating and controlling the financial system. Those international financers where victorious 3 times and we where victorious 2 times in removing them. They then entrenched themselves in the most powerful entity in our country, in the banking system at the federal level, once those individuals are in place, anti-whites on all levels where free to harm western kind and western civilization.
We are all about applying principles of 1. We swear to put our race above all and will undertake any sacrifices necessary to further the cause and the betterment of our peoples. 2. We secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. 3. We have a pride and cherish our own history, cultures, values, morals, and accomplishments that are of own people and live by those standards set by our ancestors. 4. Striving to exemplify class, strong character, and a standard of excellence at all times so that we would never let our people down. 5. Cultivates camaraderie and fosters unity amongst our people for we will triumph together as one or we shall perish alone. 6. Always thinks before we act so that they do not bring shame, harm, or disgrace to their self or our people. 7. A member of our group shall exalt victory above futility, and will hone their mind, body and spirit to its highest degree in order to succeed in our cause against the anti-whites. 8. Respect the virtues of family and honesty, never lie to a member of the nation for that hinders spiritual growth, which with honesty in and of itself is a virtue. 9. Always pay special heed to honor and that no transgression should be allowed to go unpunished when directed at our people, cause or at their person. 10. Never surrendering. The principles are meant to make men admired again in the world community and resist unwanted change.
Music I would suggest is the most multicultural creation in the entire world, and its also second only to food which is appropriated by other cultures becoming its own multicultural thing as well. These are now superficial trappings of what people think of as culture.
To provide help with the spiritual goals, which people actually believe in.
Yes. That means to fix various social problems, social problems like the anxieties, resentment, fears, entitlements, servility, apathy, forcelessness, misery, malaise and guilt, and provide people guidance on matters of destiny which require meaning and purpose which a spiritual system necessarily includes.
The beliefs shared here which have remained unnamed for some reason is what coalesces with the Identitarian philosophy of ‘The Great Replacement’ – the conviction that the policies of global elites are intentionally replacing native European populations with non-European ethnic groups, in a ‘Genocide by Substitution’. Its about eradicating white people through forceful integration, displacement of ethnic culture, national identity, traditions, practices and shared history or past. I support the idea of using our constitutionally guaranteed rights to self-determination and right of free association - its only utilizing whats already available to the community and ethnic group to selectively associate with whomever they like.
I'm sure that nobody here is talking about Pagan gods, self-sacrifice or working with the enemy. We're all basically on the same side because we want the same thing for America. We want economically liberal/progressive and socially conservative positions/stances to win out and for the state to crumble, which is inevitable.
But first you must make a commitment to the rejection of idolatry, universalist liberalism, hedonism, feminism. Depravity or sleaziness only breeds a weak opposition. The part to realize coconcurrently with rejection of what has gone wrong is to favor and participate with destiny and order. We can believe that we are duty bound to our goals, and the character-driven goals or demands set the stage for a new order. Our goals of our duty can include to create an organic or strong political organic body politic. A society where each organ of nation does not contradict or work to the detriment of the other organs, so that each works efficaciously to be the truth, to remain strong, and to work tirelessly for it's totality. This means making a spiritual, political and economic force.
Your reply is just a prove that your country does not care for you or anyone else. The relation between believing in such high fantasies and a country that want you to complete a basic education without knowing a thing is just too obvious. The west can never go back, whites will be a minority and you can only feel disenfranchised about it. There is no ethnic replacement, there is only a replacement from high standards to conspiracy low-donkey mentality.
Don't play their game, they want to control you. Biden, the Clintons, the Trumps, the Al-e-x jones. They are all for profit at your mind expense. You will not find truth in conspiracies but in solid Science books. They want you to believe in the great replacement so they can play you like a good servile Pavlov dog. It is all bs, don't fall for it. They want you to kill and die for their own values. Neither of the sides is true, they simply try to divide you in order to conquer every aspect of your life. Democraps and Republicunts (even in their democratic socialist or alt-right versions) are the same, don't fall for none of them. They are the enemy.
I think that we are seeing the death of multiculturalism and equality in the west right now, as people wake up that Islamic immigration does not work & it goes further than that, whites are becoming a minority in various cities which erodes western European values since other races do not care about that. Islamists care about sharia law, Hispanics care about Socialism, East Asians care about Confusianism & South-East Asians care about Liberal Democracies, Authoritarian, Monarchies & Plutocracies, Russians care about Orthodoxy, Sub-Saharan Africans are turning to Christianity but there are many traditional African religions and Islamists there. Generally speaking most races fight for their values in order to utilize scarce resources differently and often at the expense of our pockets (locking down policies that will be difficult to remove/replace). While Sharia law would be the expense of our pockets even moreso because they fund it by increasing taxes on non-islamists. The greater proximity there is to those foreign belief systems the more conflict theres going to be and crime.
Essentially immigration from the third world is the problem, as well as false liberal values of egalitarianism and 'free markets' that are about globalism (eradicating cultures and promoting degeneracy) and not about wellbeing of native citizens. Nationalists seems to be simply about favoring people of the founding stock of a nation (ethnic groups) in European countries to make sure that most of the ethnic people stay the majority, to have above replacement birthrates, and so that we can govern our own countries without undue interference by foreign belief systems. I prefer to call it nationalism but theres plenty of people that will call it ethno-nationalism or identitarianism. Theres nothing immoral about that. It is in fact pragmatic, moral, and aesthetically preferable to reject genetic & cultural assimilation. I've yet to see any "liberal" bash China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and South Korea for remaining ethnically homogenous and refusing to accept third world immigrants or to give citizenship to non-natives. I expect everyone to care deeply about truth and their own society and people passionately at the very least on this group.
This problem has accelerated recently because 6 million illegal immigrants have entered the country under Joe Biden's permission. Its not a conspiracy theory that secular liberal or progressive people are below replacement level birthrates and thus will be totally out-bred by religious foreign peoples and by Christians within the next 30 years by 2050 at current levels. And NONE of the materialistic policies (throwing money at the problem) has solved the below replacement birthrates. Not maternity/paternity leave for both parents, not paid for by the state healthcare, not heavily subsidized daycare... nothing is reversing the trend. The EU birthrates is 1.53 which very much below replacement levels so their policies aren't working either, and in US the birthrates in 2020 is 1,637.5 births per 1,000 women. And whites are going to be a minority in America by 2050.
You care more about a rainbow flag then you do about your own people. Your a shill for diversity, equity, and inclusion.. even if your own people are completely replaced by foreigners destroying the civic engagement and social cohesion of the country. Which was the argument of the book "Bowling Alone". As well as make it much more difficult for non-religious secular people to gain power and influence... because they will be completely outnumbered by the religious people who on average have 6 children while secular people have birth rates of below replacement level anywhere in the world where liberal egalitarianism has taken hold. Essentially you are just as bad as the liberals and progressives you vehemently object to. You have no argument against my worldview. Just saying that its "No problem to see here". No problem with birthrates and being replaced by foreigners. YET its a global problem with all countries being affected by this except the very religious countries. So basically everywhere except India, most Middle-Eastern countries, and most of Africa, are very much below replacement birthrate levels. This is a fact that all egalitarian liberal countries are being physically replaced by foreigners from very traditional, reactionary, or religious states. This is a fact and you can see that the global birthrates is below replacement level. What is your solution? What are you going to do with all the religious people that don't cater to your belief system or refuse to adopt secular worldview and laws? Which is what most religious people think. They vehemently oppose liberalism and progressivism and their laws.
Almost everything Communists say is correct when critiquing capitalism but its irrelevant, because the ruling class aren’t capitalists. They are globalists. So seizing the means of production only makes a tangible difference if it does so for its stated mission. Which actually answers the question, seize distribution and planning key supply chains FOR WHOM!! The elites that run our society are bureaucrats, financial and "credentialed" political elite. Communism just replaces those with more of the same. Thus in effect changes nothing. So does socialism. Ancap and minarchism shrinks power of the state to almost nothing removing corruption. Nationalism, autocracy and negative rights generates wealth, power, and glory where it was in the hands of globalists for spreading democracy, with the power of nationalism it will spread that power and wealth to universal utility and social order instead. Social order is survival, prosperity, freedom, competition, growth, and creativity.
The Economic Calculation Problem that communism suffers from is that they don't know how to price products since they don't have private property rights: Mises.org
Soviets rewrote science books to fit with commie ideals. Everything that contradicted pure equality that exists in nature had to be rejected: En.wikipedia.org
Also you don't put somebody in charge or in power if you believe they will destroy your identity, culture, tradition and spread degeneracy when they enact their policy and agenda. But that's exactly what's happening with liberals, progressives and communists, the former is becoming like the latter two. You don't put somebody into power whose purpose is to be against the common interests of the people. Yet that's happening now in all liberal states.
Communists still change nothing because intellectuals and financial elite are still going to be in charge, not leaders who exemplify a warrior or warrior mystic, a elite of strong character, spirit and politically dynamic. The main step to get right is natural law to form the elite and leadership for our nation states, and create a enduring leadership and have some legacy to leave behind.
The real answer is to replace the elite with a elite that has character, spirit, and are politically dynamic. Only nationalistic, autocratic and negative rights nations/states do that who reject both communism and liberal internationalism who try to control due to materialistic outcomes, balance, servile, fairness, equality, peace, democracy, humanitarianism, and so forth which does not solve tangible problems but rather signals to other elites that they are "moral" while spending frivolously without mutual interests or gain. That is at the heart of whats going on. And I doubt any communist would be able to refute this. Basing society on virtue has benefits though, an elite that is virtuous would also help. But not from a materialist marxist socialist perspective which contradicts the stated nationalist "natural law principles" I mentioned before because of meeting global agenda of eradicating cultures, languages, traditions, and national borders and at the same time promoting degeneracy of all sorts. The only tangible difference is communists want to do that through "from each according to his ability, to each according his need" justification for redistributing (without markets) while liberals want to do it through "climate change", consumerism, mass immigration and DEI to leverage power away to unelected bureaucrats and big business (with a somewhat freemarket or sometimes with a freemarket). While shifting resources away from meeting the general prescription of nationalists. Which is self-determination, allegiance, and well-being. Which is about taking care of our own people first.
My worldview rests on the existence of starting with a beginning, middle and end, we are the connection between the past and future, that natural law exists within us as logic, common sense, and instincts. Natural law is a theory in ethics and philosophy that says that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern their reasoning and behavior. The inherent values and actions that come from the human being is what determines what is right, correct, true, and good. If you read the article I suggest what some of those principles are.
Tenets and higher ideology are both about intrinsic values that human beings possess that finely governs their reasoning and behaviour. Human beings have a philosophy derived from their desire to own and improve their body, mind, spirit, and will, perfect and raise themselves up with a freedom culture, drive towards survival and expansion, and be driven with goals and purpose and extend our will over the known universe. Natural laws exist within us as logic, common sense, and instincts.
Materialism is the belief that everything exists in material, any conception of non-material things only exists as it physically manifests itself as a material thing. Instant gratification = consumption as temporary satisfaction the culture became less important as the dominant means to get this became wealth. Cultural power was achieved through gains in material wealth, wealth became the thing to help achieve this. Wealth does not make for a happy people. The void in culture was then replaced with lifestyle, hair, clothes, shows they consume. As materialistic outlook gained steam & the west became materialistic then both left and right try to appeal to materialism, it then left destruction in its wake on western culture and things such as culture - family, spirituality and religion and nation, shared identity, values, tradition, heritage and then try to maximize consumption. Its made progressivism easier to push, since everyone is a atomized individual without seeing themselves as being part of something bigger and without awareness of their collective interests.
The right needs to stand for something greater than its GDP per capita or other economic indicators. People long for something bigger. I'd say that faith, family and nation is what we need right now to give people the reason for civilisation to stand to protect, civilisation to sustain itself must have a reason to sustain itself. This is how a civilisation justifies itself, preservation of its people, land and culture. Nationalism acted as a defence to the hostile forces to the nation state, nationalism is the organic system most accommodating to culture, religion created stronger family values & encouraged people to reproduce and strong community ties and gave them a purpose and thus society was more geared towards creating longevity.
You learn nothing... I already told you like, 5 times, what materialism is.
And again, so you do not think you are in charge, I will tell once more, because you are slow. I am also pointing you step by step, like a tutorial, because you are that slow. So this is a decomposition of your ignorance
This should be very simple for you.
1. Materialism is not a belief system. Science is based on materialism.
2. Materialism is NOT that everything that is exists in MATERIAL, it is the explanation of reality through MATTER. Fock man, are you that def?
3. Materialism IS NOT the desire to own ****. Again, I told you this so many times dude, you are really reactionary, you are impermeable. **** man.
4. Materialism IS NOT about consumption.
5. Materialism has to do with Marxism NOT because the stupidity of your ignorant retardation POV, but BECAUSE EXPLAINS SOCIAL REALITY FROM THE ACTUAL LIFE THAT IT SPRINGS FROM. **** man, I can't believe I need to say this AGAIN. You are really what Stuart Mill said about you ("Not every stupid people are conservatives, but all conservatives are stupid"). You are the hand to this glove. **** dude, for god's sake!
5. THEREFORE, everything you deduce from is is FALSE.
I give you the fact that culture under consumption societies gets lost, but you do not have to have a PhD to know it. But the desire for **** has nothing to do your progressivism, what kind of conclusion is that? You really live in a bubble. Do you think the Russian Revolution or the Chinese one was a revolution to own ****? Then you are mediocre as a rock. IT WAS TO OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION you focking ignorant.
People do look for something bigger than themselves and Religion can fulfill that role, but so can Nationalism or Class Struggle so your argument within Materialism is BS, and for the desire to own **** is stupid.
Why do you say that Nationalism is the best way to produce or defend culture when I told you many times that you appropriate other's culture when it suits you or your propaganda? You are a hypocrite.
For all these reasons you are not only a reactionary, but a special type of reactionary I have never seen before. Facts are not on your side, you read nothing I say to you and you keep pushing that agenda even when I debunk all your points. It is not a matter of who is or not right, is a matter of so closed mindset that you can't even see beyond what you believe.
For this you are a reactionary and you proved to be a solipsist too.