"Apollonian" should drop Philosophy for Reality
by Thomas Hamilton
14 January 2005
I say this because his insistence on viewing the entire matter as a conflict of Subjectivism-Objectivism is, in short, exceedingly narrow, and more an expression of his own intereststhan anything like history or sociology. For example, he makes this sweeping statement:
Subjectivism, as of the sort of J.J. Rousseau and Immanuel Kant, is what got white folk in all the trouble they're in presently, and I think this should be obvious from history.
Before, he claimed "Pelagians" got us into trouble; now it is Rousseau and Kant. Without minimizing the damage caused by the Rousseau vogue - extensively tackled by his contemporary, Joseph de Maistre, whose 'Against Rousseau' is ten times as readable as anything by "Apollonian" - I would like to remind everyone, in case anyone here is really tempted by this narrowness, that neither the Irish monk Pelagius or the skittish Rousseau are responsible for the Jews being Jews, and for Aryans not dealing with Jews as we now know they should be dealt with, although of course the NSDAP was well aware of this. Such a notion inflates the importance of both men and, to be frank, I'm sure most people here haven't heard of Pelagius and don't know much about Rousseau, and while it may be educational to discuss how Rousseau harmed European thought, it is far more practical to focus entirely on Jews and how to get rid of them. You cannot turn back the clock; that should be enough to deal with "Apollonian", but as a man with a brain, he is determined to push his ideas, and I am equally determined to dismiss them -- without excessive malice, but as a service to the very tradition of objectivity which he praises and of which he fallspitiably short. Getting past subjectivism is not simply reminding people of how past thinkers erred; it is also, and more importantly, discovering if one views history and the world aright, beyond certain prejudices or hangups of one's own. My point is that "Apollonian" is short-sighted in precisely this way, unable to see beyond his own desire to artificially narrow a problem and its solution to confines he can accept and advance. There is merit in saying we have allowed ourselves to become too personal, too subjective; there is merit in reminding oneself that Jews are not solely responsible for this. If a weakling can read & write, and is moreover a Frenchman, all Europe and the inheritors of European thought will be damaged by his pathetic musings. That is one aspect. Another, more important aspect, which should be clear to most by now, is that Christianity weakened Europe considerably. Whatever one may say of the deepening of soul wrought by Christian morality, it was certainly the first door through which theHebrews walked into our good graces. Clemency toward Jews was pure chance before it, depending on the will of those in power, more common with the decline of the Empire; after it, the impulse to accept Jews came along with the impulse to persecute them for having murdered Jesus. The point is that before, Jews weren't even an issue, but they became so with Christianity. We shouldn't even have to discuss this thought virus spread by an Anatolian kike, yet here again "Apollonian" imposes his own standard on us as the most 'objective' of standpoints.
VNN and company just waste their time spinning their wheels with the Jew-inspired subjectivism, collectivism, altruism, moralism, and various statist delusions and pipe-dreams.
I agree with this entirely: von Hoffmeister and others do nothing but daydream and plagiarize. Pure window-dressing. But I accuse "Apollonian" of the same fault: his 'subjectivism' kick is the same kind of window-dressing -- snatching a concept or two from history and stuffing everything into it to satisfyhis vanity. Actually, I despair of discussing this patiently, because the guy is so obviously on his own little kick.
It's just things haven't degenerated enough, evidently, in the present Spenglerian Decline of the West
Here again, we see how he imposes his own terms on the problem. He never tires of reminding us that he has read Spengler. But let us consider Spengler, or at least the time in which his work was written: would anyone say it was as degenerate as the world we live in? The ills of Weimar culture aside, Gershwin and cubism aside, couldn't you still walk down the street without seeing white girls with niggers? I mean, if "Apollonian" sees fit to accuse von Hoffmeister of merely gloating over present difficulties, can I not accuse him of gloating here, as though things aren't bad enough already? does the situation really need to worsen, or is it merely pleasant for "Apollonian" to say that it isn't bad enough yet, as though he isa god who will say "when"? This is a semantic issue which cannot be discussed here; let is suffice to say that the very notion of "worsening" so that, at some mythical point, white people will just wake up en masse, is stupid and desperate, as is almost every idea from the status quo of "White Nationalism". Physiologically, the body itself cannot simply leap out of its degeneracy, especially when it is advanced; an outside force is necessary; this is the illusion of "free will". Sociologically we may not draw the same conclusion, because as a whole, society is too unwieldy to reduce to the simplicity of a body; we cannot artificially induce society, the entire mass of humanity, to "get over itself". In fact, it can only get worse precisely it has been doing, but nowhere in the words "get worse" is the implication that suddenly, one day, society as a whole, composed of bodies, will be so sick of their vices that they will all leap up together and get back on track. The notion is so absurd as to make one sick just having to refute it, but that is the stupid hope constantly relied on to bolster such asinine quasi-philosophies as "Apollonian"s. Cyclical thought, as conceived by certain historians,is a bogey which should be ruthlessly banished from our minds.
I have no objection to his insistence that the Fed must be tackled. He doesn't say how, and can't, because you can't bomb or criticize or starve the Federal Reserve out of 'existence'. But again, this is "Apollonian" taking one facet of the problem -- which he has studied and feels he should push on us as his 'solution' -- and setting it up as amain issue. I don't say the Fed is not fundamental; I say the Jew himself, as a person, as a group, is more fundamental, and must be dealt with directly, finally, without concern for anything else, from Christianity to Pelagius or Rosseau to fractional reserve banking. In this age our enemies must be tangible, for words no longer matter to the masses, and the masses matter more than ever. And our enemy is tangible, responsible enough as he is for our decline: the Jew. I shouldn't have to say, "the Jews are the first thing to be dealt with" -- everyone should take this much for granted, otherwise we all have to justify what we're doing here. I hate having to be elementary, like: if pigs are let out of the pen, and are destroying your crops, you have to first get the pigs in line, then find out who let them out, find out whyhe let them out, and deal with that.
Also, "Apollonian" lambasts others for being romantic, yet isn't he romantic in his incessant call to a renewed Christianity? I could listen to Parsifal for that. At least in the shallow writers like von Hoffmeister, the romantic object is heroic, unchristian, unquestionably Aryan. More deeply, is not his own insistence on a few romantic figures as the cause of our entire trouble a kind of negative romanticism, a reduction in a spirit of defense of no more objective validity or breadththan, say, blaming the inferiority of modern poetry on Auscwitz? I understand that "Apollonian" is concerned to impress on us a large view of the problem, not exclusive to Jewry, but he fails in his terminology; it is, I'm sorry to say, a nigger-rigged pseudo-system hatched in the vacuum of his bedroom, which he has admitted on one occasion in a hyperventilating self-defense when I first called him into question. I believe the exact words were: "I'm sorry I didn't have a good education, I had to do things myself." Apparently he was implying that I meant to discredit autodidacticism -- which is completely absurd, considering all of us are to some extent autodidacts, otherwise we'd have no idea about Jewry or anything related; which is in fact another facet of our problem: self-teaching isn't a virtue or luxury of the many, and teaching our own is close to being outlawed. But this comment clearly indicates a lack of self-confidence and, moreover, a tendency to self-pity and drama which obviously belie his pretensionto being the prophet of objectivity, along with just about everything he says on "our trouble". Not only did he not have a good education in school, he has not educated himself well. He has rather educated himself by reading a few books on the supposed "Frankenstein-like" connection of Wall Street to the man, Adolf Hitler, as though thisbayerisch crusaderwas a mud-person whipped up by financiers; on the history of Christianity, or wherever he first dug up that unknown, Pelagius, whose theoretical damage Ican't confirm or deny; the history of philosophy, and so on. I'm sure he's read a lot more than this, but my point is: he's a short-sighted goose who should not be indulged and has no right to criticize von Hoffmeister and Prozak for being romantic or lacking vision, for where they are far-sighted and blustering, he is inexcusably near-sighted and understated.
Furthermore, his contention that we can rectify a century & a half of moral and political damage by "local government" is absurd, not only because local government is merely a shadow of Federal government, and the local people a product of what they are fed by media, but for the simple reason, apparently inaccessible to certain minds, that you can't put the fucking toothpaste back in the tube. I'm tempted to think that "Apollonian" and all who hold that a "turnaround" is "possible" have not been outside or to a big city in a long time, for only by way of such isolation and absorption in texts can a man become so blind to the absolute mess Jews and technology and our own greed have made of this country and the world. I think it an injustice, an insult to the direness of the situation, to so naively claim that we can correct such an awesome defeat, by simply chirping about "local government" and making serpentine reference to "down to earth realism", as though he is the guardian of an eternal definition of "realism" or "honesty", the absolute measure of What Is To Be Done. "Apollonian" is living in his own fantasy world, where Pelagius and Rousseau and Kant are the Devil, old-time American Christianity and the Constitution are God, and "local government" is the tabula rasa battlefield on which the latter will triumph if we but make a serious, sustained effort to make this littlepuppet-show of his mind come to life. In short, he is too Amurrican, and his ideas helplessly narrow. He is to boot fiercely convinced of himself, will accept no word of advice or criticism, will not even consider that he might not be the final word on this matter, as his tone always betrays he thinks of himself.
I suggest, as I have always done and will always do, one course of action, to my mind the most obvious and only efficacious course left to us in this late period, yet not with the implication that it is a general or even local 'solution': crippling of the Jewish power-structure, symbolic or actual. I do not mean by pamphlets or essays or anything else. In the great words of a recent contributor: Think weapons. -- Be daring. Despair of your life. Stop being content. Think about the crimes of Jewry every waking minute. Think of the Reich. Never give yourself a break; go mad from it. Study Jewry to the minutest detail. Believe me: the worst thing now is to rest on the idea that we can go back to being good, constitutional Americans, that we can hide and suck our thumbs in books on "esoteric rune magik" or "riding the tiger", that we can or should continue our harmless lives as though we don't have an enemy to combat with the only weapon that matters, and in default of that, with our very lives.
STOP BEING SO COMPLACENT.
Only through desperation can we overcome modernity. What is being good and constitutional when fucking Michael Chertoff is the overlord of our "homeland security"? is "having lots of white babies" really a solution to Michael Chertoff or Abraham Foxman or anything else? What I am saying here is that most of you are too complacent, too bland to realize or accept that we are the palest generation yet, sapped of blood & drained of guts, so bored & useless that we can't even get two of us together to deal with the likes of Foxman, Wiesel, Perle, and the rest of that whole gruesome list of kikes we ALLOW to mess up our lives, by our own lack of passion and courage, by our own infighting and by the very diffusion of ideas resultant of our state of culture. We are the result of centuries of law-abiding refinement in legal and technical thought. We are a people absolutely disinclined to a simple blood-letting. In consequence, we propose so many retarded ideas in lieu of the only action which would at least wake people up a little; we are as ineffectual as our government, because we are its subjects, its products.
It will get worse, but it won't matter. We are on a horribly linear course of development; we are precisely where we should be and no phantom Buddhistic Savitri-Devi Spenglerian karma bullshit "turnaround" is coming up to save our miserable asses. Your little thought-panaceas are so much bullshit. You live like a maggot, because the evolution of our society, our world, has decreed that we should be a generation of hopeless maggots. Stop being vain. We are in no position to think about how to reorder society. We are only in a position to think of how best to fight Jewry, but the status quo instantly puts down any other idea than what complacence naturally finds suitable to itself, with all its cumbersome appurtenances and petty comforts, which is any idea other than the most selfish American faggotry. So, if everyone says, "not me - no sir, leave me out of this diabolical plot!", how in God's name do you expect to fight Jewry? 9 out of 10 aren't even really thinking about fighting Jewry, but thinking all around it, about everything else, so they don't have bestir themselves and become revolutionary. Who wants to go down that ugly path? Not me, no sir!
"The fight itself is essential & permanent, the aims of that fight are temporary & changeable. Thus there can be no question of success in a fight...the yardstick of the new code of morality, therefore, is not its content -- not 'what' but 'how'." -- Werner Best, 1930