Vanguard News Network

Nietzsche is an atheist and as such not for the white culture. Christianity is the true way and the scriptures are proven with every dig of the earth as evolution is destroyed along with secular humanism.

I advise to burn your secular humanist jew books.

Well, if anyone has understood what was said above, he should be congratulated. I couldn’t make much sense out of it.
Nietzsche is not a philosopher of race consciousness, one can quote his derogatory remarks about the Germanic and Saxon race, on the other hand contradicting statements about Jews and shallow thoughts about Christianity. His suggestion to improve man without knowing or showing a way towards it, but offering only catch-phrases, is drivel to me.
His bitter hostility to other philosophers as Kant, Shopenhauer, John Stuart Mill, to name a few, seems like sour grapes, because their achievements of thought he was never able to reach.
Take Kant, who wrote 220 years ago:
“So much is probable: That the mixture of races, which extinguishes slowly the characters, is not benefiting for mankind”.
Or Jahn, who wrote 200 years ago: “The Spanish proverb, never trust a hinny and never a mulatto, is quite to the point, for the purer a nation is by race, the better, the more mixed, the more kind of of a gang.” Valid today- truth stands forever.
I believe, we can do much better without Nietzsche.

You have written some very substantial material.

A review of part one, with some suggestions:

A Revaluation of all Values

Here we stand, looking behind us, we see thousands of years of colorful, violent, creative, adventurous, and, it seems, utterly confused history. Looking ahead, what do we see? Nothing. *snip* We stupefy ourselves with the insipid fare our entertainment industry feeds us, we tranquilize ourselves with millions of dollars worth of anti-depressant drugs every year, and spend millions more on all sorts of books which promise “self-fulfillment.” But none of it makes any difference. We are not “happy.” We are not “fulfilled.” We are pretending.

The question of Western man’s dissatisfaction with liberal democracy and capitalism *snip* remains one which nobody has been able to answer conclusively. The common thread *snip* seems to be missing some kind of “higher meaning.”*snip* . But there exists not the faintest idea as to what such a higher meaning might be, or why our human nature remains unsatisfied.

For pre-modern Western man, a sense of purpose and of place in the cosmos was provided by Christianity. Temporal human existence had significance mainly insofar as it served to glorify God and provided opportunity for spiritual redemption, which would ultimately bring its reward in the form of the destruction of this sinful world, which had been ruined by human arrogance and ambition, and deliverance into the kingdom of Heaven. But Christianity, with its emphasis on the worthlessness of earthly achievement and its hatred of human creativity, has been almost entirely destructive in its effects on Western Civilization.

REPLY BEGINS:
The author confuses “Christianity” with JUDEOChristianity; remember, even at its founding, once your move past the four gospels, you are dealing with, essentially, efforts to dealing with Christianity in a Goddamn JEWISH context.

So, after the Gospels, we see how Christianity was being transformed into JUDEOChristianity – the difference is, Christ came as the fulfillment of “The Law”; in practice, he became Another Law, to the Goddamn JEWS. Internally, He became a failed Dark Sorcerer, Who, today, is in a pit of boiling human waste, where he is mocked and tortured by the demons the Adversary allowed Him to command on Earth.

A strong argument can be made that Zoroastrianism is a clear foreshadowing of Christianity; the Zoroastrian formulation allows for the world here – where the Adversary is allowed Domination, for a season – and the world to come, where Gods Will rules. In Zoroastrianism, no one ever denounced this world per se; rather, the duty of all was to ACTIVELY ACCEPT AND TRANSFORM THIS WORLD to match the model of the next world.

Indeed, if Christianity had held to its Zoroastrian foundation, we would see a very different Western Civilization before us, indeed.
END REPLY

It is no coincidence that the time in which Christian absolutism was at its peak—the Dark Ages, sandwiched in between the greatness of the Classical World and the re-emergence of Classical humanist ideals in the Renaissance—was the time in which the West was at its lowest creative ebb. The historical emergence of modern liberal democracy itself represented an epochal point in the loss of Western man’s faith in Christianity’s claim to truth, though not necessarily in its basic morality. The democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century brought Enlightenment religious skepticism into political reality, relegated Christian belief to an individual option and immensely reduced the power of the church by divorcing it from the political sphere, paving the way for further economic and scientific growth. As the Industrial Revolution gave rise to huge increases in material prosperity, the promise of eternity in heaven was replaced with the promise of immediate and potentially limitless economic accumulation here on earth.

IN REPLY:
Yet, didn’t “Christian” preachers seek to bind the Soul of Man to the Earth, as is the focus of Goddamn JUDAISM, by promising riches while you were on Earth, IF you were a good “Christian?”
END REPLY

Over the historical course of modern liberal democracy, as Christianity’s hold on the Western mind continued to wane, democratic ideals have come under attack from secular perspectives which attempted to fill the philosophical and moral void at the heart of liberal ideology by demolishing it altogether, and these attacks have come from both the Left and Right poles of the political spectrum.

IN REPLY:
This should clarify the “liberal,” as used here, has an entirely different meaning than we see in contemporary usage; in essence, “liberals” favored extending the privileges of the Aristocracy to the common man, and transforming them into “rights.”
END REPLY

The leading figure on the Left was of course Karl Marx, who produced a vast, elaborate body of criticism based on his own understanding of history and how its unfolding would reveal the fundamental flaws or contradictions within capitalism, contradictions which would eventually undermine the entire liberal democratic edifice. Marx thought that the entire human historical process had been driven by a struggle between economic classes to possess the products of human labor, and modern liberal democracy was only the latest form of government that, like others before it, permitted one class to do so to the exclusion of others. He attacked liberal democracy not because he was opposed to the democratic principles of human equality and popular sovereignty, but because he thought the democratic commitment to equality had not been fully realized due to the inequities of its economic system. The equal rights that liberal democracy granted to its citizens were largely meaningless in a system in which one economic class was allowed to exploit another. Liberal democracy did not represent the interests of the people as a whole, but only of the property-owning class that controlled the means of production, the bourgeoisie, who squeezed the working class or proletariat mercilessly in order to maximize their profits. Capitalism would eventually self-destruct and be succeeded by communism, which proposed the abolition of private property and the communal ownership of the means of production, and therefore represented a truer form of democracy than the modern liberal version, which was egalitarian in principle but not in practice.

IN REPLY:
I would rewrite this section to focus on the dynamism between the temporal, and the transcendental, and Man’s duty to remake the temporal to match the transcendental. Thus, Marx’s Goddamn JUDAISM – his grandfather was one of the great rabbis of Europe, and his father nominally “converted’ to Christianity for business purposes. Ever the eternal Goddamn JEW, Marx’s real name was not Karl Marx, and his first writing was on the Jewish Question.

Let’s try something like this:
The leading figure on the Left, Karl Marx, produced an elaborate body of criticism based on how the unfolding of history would reveal capitalism’s fundamental contradictions, which would eventually undermine liberal democratic structures. To Marx, the historical process was driven by the struggle between economic classes to possess the products of human labor. The class-based economic inequities inherent in the foundation of modern liberal democratic governance guaranteed a system of true equal rights could never be realized. Thus, “liberal democracy” was inseparably welded to “capitalism,” an economic system where class-based conflict in the economic sphere would carry over into the sphere of politics. Capitalism’s inherent incompatibility with the ideals of liberal democracy would lead to the destruction of capitalism, to be replaced with communism. Communism, an economic system that was compatible with the egalitarian promise of liberal democracies, would include the abolition of private property and the communal ownership of the means of production.
END REPLY:

The Right has never had a philosophical spokesman to match the dominant status of Marx on the Left, nor has it ever produced a philosophical system defining its objections to liberal democracy that comes close to rivaling Marx’s breadth and complexity of Marx. The thinker who has had the most powerful influence on the perspective of the Right has been Friedrich Nietzsche.

IN REPLY:
You have just stated a contradiction.

Rewrite to something like this:
Friedrich Nietzsche, the Right’s strongest philosophical spokesman to match the dominant ideas of Marx, produced a philosophical system defining the Right’s objections to liberal democracy rivaling the breadth and complexity of Marx.

COMMENT:
Was Nietzsche a “Rightist,” or was he one who was sought to restore “Tradition” as the model for human organization?

Was he, in fact, the one who restored Zoroastrianism, the religion that stands at the foundation of the Persian EMPIRE, and in direct opposition to the Babylonian cult of Goddamn JUDAISM?
END COMMENT

END REPLY

Nietzsche believed that people were highly unequal in terms of worth or dignity, and objected to the relatively equal distribution of political rights and privileges under democracy, to say nothing of the complete economic and political equality proposed by Marxism. The democratic commitment to equal human dignity and rights was but a historical secularization of the Christian principle of universal human equality in the eyes of God, an idea he accepted from his German predecessor, G.W.F. Hegel. Christian morality, in its turn, was only a “slave morality”, an expression of resentment by the weak and inferior against the strong and superior, meant to destroy their confidence in their own greater worth and right.

Nietzsche shared Marx’s hatred of bourgeois liberal society, and its emphasis on material wealth as an end in itself, but, in diametric opposition to Marxist ideology, he believed that a higher type of man, represented by his character Zarathustra, had the right, by virtue of his natural superiority, to enlist resources and lesser men in pursuit of some higher, supreme goal. This would necessarily involve a complete revaluation of Christian-democratic values, an emergence from modern notions of good and evil, and the evolution of man into a higher form of being—the Ubermensch or Superman. Nietzsche, however, could not define this higher goal. Nor could he explain exactly what human worth consisted of, and therefore what would make a certain type of man superior and give him the right to command others. Nietzsche could not perform the revaluation of values himself, something he freely admitted. He viewed his own philosophy as “a prelude to the philosophy of the future,” razing the old, decadent values to make way for the new ones which he hoped were on the horizon.

IN REPLY:
Rewrite it to something like this:
Nietzsche shared Marx’s hatred of bourgeois liberal society, and its emphasis on material wealth as an end in itself. In diametric opposition to Marx’s ideology, NIETZSCHE believed a higher type of man, represented by his character Zarathustra, had the right, by virtue of his natural superiority, to enlist resources and lesser men in pursuit of a supreme goal. This involves a complete revaluing of Christian-democratic values, modern notions of good and evil, and the evolution of man into a higher form of being—the Ubermensch or Superman. Nietzsche could not precisely define the revaluation of values, the “higher goal,” the elements of human worth, or what would make a certain type of man superior, with the right to command others. Nietzsche viewed his philosophy as “a prelude to the philosophy of the future,” razing the old, decadent values to make way for the new values which he hoped were on the horizon.
END REPLY

Today it seems that most people have left off radical criticisms of modern liberal democracy, and given up hope of conceiving a better, more satisfying ideological alternative. The twentieth century saw our current system outlast its contender on the Left—communism—and physically defeat a major challenge from the Right—fascism, a movement with which Nietzsche has not incorrectly been associated, though he may well have deplored its intellectual crudity and lack of insight.

IN REPLY:
A definition of fascism would seem in order.
END REPLY

Fascism left behind no theoretically coherent or morally justified philosophical legacy, and communism defeated itself as its flawed ideology corroded the system away from the inside out, just like Marx predicted would happen to democratic capitalism.

IN REPLY:
Are you missing the distinction between “socialism,” and “communism?”

How could “communism” – a theoretically perfect ‘end state’ – have a “flawed ideology?”

And, what WAS the ideological flaw in “communism?” One, it required a human state of perfection, with the State “withering away” as no longer necessary, or even useful. Two, it was a system formed by Goddamn JEWS, for Goddamn JEWS to rule, as the “intelligentsia.”
END REPLY

As the new millennium moves forward, liberal democracy seems, on the surface, to remain the only progressive ideology in the eyes of the developed world. While debate rages ever more intensely over how exactly democratic principles should be implemented within society, virtually no one seems to be disputing the inherent legitimacy of the principles themselves, and there exists no serious challenge to liberal democracy on the level of pure ideas. Today we seem to stand, in Francis Fukuyama’s words, “exhausted, as it were, by the pursuit of alternatives we felt had to be better than liberal democracy.” Fukuyama, resurrecting the dialectical idealism of Hegel in his modern classic The End of History and the Last Man, went on to make the famous suggestion that modern liberal democracy may signify the culmination of the entire human historical process, the point in man’s ideological evolution beyond which progress cannot be made. Although his thesis was still somewhat speculative rather than conclusive, according to him our current system quite possibly represents the highest development of human rationality, being as satisfying to human nature as any form of political and economic organization could ever hope to be. It is, in his words, “the best possible solution to the human problem.”

IN REPLY:
Fukuyama has written quite a bit since then, and might have changed his views a bit. He can be constructively ignored by reasonable people. Best to skip him, and stick with Nieztsche. For that matter, skip the paragraph altogether.
END REPLY

But it seems to me that now, at a time when serious theoretical criticism of liberal democracy and capitalism is at an all-time historical low, is the time when we need to take a deeper look at the system we live under, and raise some crucial questions about the viability of the principles on which it rests. For as our spiritual despair grows deeper, as our lives grow more mundane and empty, something else is happening to Western Civilization, something utterly unprecedented. The West as we know it, as a distinct ethnic body, with all of its cultural traditions and its legacy of creative achievement, is disappearing from existence at an exponential rate.

IN REPLY:
Rewrite this to something like this:

Now, when serious theoretical criticism of liberal democracy and capitalism is at an all-time low, we need to take a deeper look at the systems we live under, and ask some crucial questions about the viability of the principles on which it rests. Our spiritual despair deepens, our lives become empty, and, above all, something unprecedented is happening to Western Civilization. The West as we know it, as a distinct ethnic body with unique cultural traditions and a legacy of creative achievement, is disappearing.
END REPLY

I am speaking, of course, of the massive demographic and cultural shift taking place within the West today, especially here in the United States. Caucasian populations in Europe, America and elsewhere are not reproducing nearly fast enough to even maintain their current numbers, while immense numbers of third world peoples are flooding Western countries, lured by Western prosperity and assisted by lax immigration laws. On an intellectual level, a serious socio-political shift has long since taken place throughout academia, politics, media, entertainment, and society altogether. In academia, traditional humanities courses in Western history and the great historical events which characterize it are being phased out in favor of the study of less “ethnocentric” and “patriarchal” subjects: other cultures, gender issues, feminism, homosexual issues, etc. The typical student of the humanities will spend a great deal of his college career listening to a steady diatribe vilifying Western culture and history at every turn, painting the one type of individual responsible for the vast majority of human historical accomplishments—the white male—as a class of oppressors who have spent most of history victimizing everyone else. Society’s increasingly leftward political drift long ago resulted in the implementation of all sorts of entitlement programs favoring ethnic minorities, or anyone who can claim “victim” status, with the cost being laid at the feet of the white population responsible for the prosperity that everyone today seems to regard as their due. Our media and entertainment industries constantly show us images of degenerate, boorish, ignorant whites and noble, cultured, sophisticated minorities, images which stand in stark contrast to the reality that confronts us as soon as we switch off our televisions and step out our front doors. People of European descent are constantly browbeaten, at the hands of our own cultural institutions, with a sense of shame at our past, a past that has created the greatest culture the world has ever seen, a culture that, despite its supposed oppressive and exploitative nature, everyone else around the world seems to be in rush to leave their own homelands to get to.

IN REPLY:
Rewrite this slightly:
I am speaking, of course, of the massive demographic and cultural shift taking place within the West today, especially here in the United States. Caucasian populations in Europe, America and elsewhere are not reproducing nearly fast enough to even maintain their current numbers, while immense numbers of third world peoples are flooding Western countries, lured by Western prosperity and assisted by lax immigration laws. On an intellectual level, a serious socio-political shift has long since taken place throughout academia, politics, media, entertainment, and society altogether.

Further proof of this can be found in academia, as traditional humanities courses in Western history and the great events which characterize it are being phased out in favor of the study of less “ethnocentric” and “patriarchal” subjects: other cultures, gender issues, feminism, homosexual issues, etc. The typical student of the humanities will spend a great deal of his college career listening to a steady diatribe vilifying Western culture and history at every turn, painting the one type of individual responsible for the vast majority of human historical accomplishments—the white male—as a class of oppressors who have spent most of history victimizing everyone else.

COMMENT:
This is the distinction between classical liberal political philosophy, with its focus on the rights and responsibilities of the INDIVIDUAL, and Marx’s JUDEOCommunism – a system that inheres rights on the basis of “classes” – GROUPS, specifically at the expense of the individual, and individual rights, while reserving power to the State – and whoever controls the State.

The simile is drawn perfectly from Marx’s Goddamn JUDAISM; to the Goddamn JEW, all of us are merely cattle, subhumans who the Goddamn JEW may rob from, or even murder, with impunity. Isn’t this how the State, in a socialist/communist society, feels about its people?

Where do you think Marx got this from?

His Holy Book, the Talmud; this is all an outworking of Goddamn JUDAISM.
END COMMENT:

Society’s increasingly leftward political drift long ago resulted in the implementation of all manner of entitlement programs favoring ethnic minorities, or anyone who can claim “victim” status. In turn, the cost of these programs is paid by the white population responsible for the prosperity that the “protected classes” see as their due. Our media and entertainment industries constantly show us images of degenerate, boorish, ignorant whites and noble, cultured, sophisticated minorities, images which stand in stark contrast to the reality that confronts us as soon as we switch off our televisions and step out our front doors. People of European descent are constantly browbeaten, at the hands of our own cultural institutions. We are made to feel a sense of shame at our past, a past that has created the greatest culture the world has ever seen, a culture that, despite its supposed oppressive and exploitative nature, everyone in the world fights to leave their own homelands to join.
END REPLY:

This whole process—the gradual displacement of Western culture and Westerners themselves through both demographics and ideology, has come to be popularly termed “multiculturalism”, “cultural diversity”, or a more accurate term, “cultural Marxism”, and has developed its own orthodoxy of language, “political correctness.” The basic moral principle behind this movement is that of complete egalitarianism, the idea that all races and both genders are *inherently* perfectly equal in talents and abilities, and the vast disparity in historical and present-day achievement between them, insofar as it is not simply ignored, can only be due *solely* to unfortunate historical circumstances or Western evils like colonialism, racism, or sexism *section deleted*. To allow Westerners to be displaced in their own society, so the thinking goes, could not possibly harm the West, and can only, in fact, “enrich” it. Cultural Marxism has so fully ingrained itself into the Western mindset that most people are completely unaware of its existence, and unquestioningly accept it as part of the cultural landscape. We are supposed to believe that most of Western history was evil and wrong, and that contemporary Westerners can only hope to make up for the crimes of their forbears, and further the cause of good, insofar as we accept the march of equality, which essentially means submitting to the destruction of our culture and our ethnic identity.

IN REPLY
This is good – my changes are marked in asterisks. I know we are getting back to Nietzsche…
END REPLY

This “diversification” of the West has not been without its detractors, the politically incorrect, those who wonder if, in fact, all people really are equal, and if they are not, what consequences our current policies will soon lead to. The response to such political dissent is typically not rational argument and appeal to facts, but the insistence that everyone simply must be equal, that the principle of universal human equality represents an unassailable moral high ground. To question it is to have oneself branded not only as intolerant and prejudiced, but as a “hater,” or even the ultimate, all-silencing epithet, a Nazi—the personification of human evil. And indeed, the principle of human equality derives its apparent legitimacy not from logic and evidence, for it is supported by neither, but from an indistinct yet irresistible moral force, an overwhelmingly powerful hold on the human conscience, reflected in the ability of its advocates to wield a psychologically crushing sense of guilt at the least sign of politically incorrect heresy, to make people, as many do today, actually censor their own thoughts on the subject. What interests me is the fundamental reason why all this is occurring and what it bodes for the future—first and foremost the immediate future of my culture, the West, but in a larger sense the ultimate future of the human species itself. And this brings me to my central thesis.

IN REPLY:
This is good. I know you’re getting to Nietzsche…
END REPLY

The reason for the empty and unsatisfying nature of modern life, for the suicidal deterioration of the West, as well the continued existence of liberal democracy itself, all has to do with our modern confusion about moral values which so tortured Nietzsche. And when I use the term values I do not use it in the limited popular sense, as when referring to a number of today’s relatively trivial issues like pornography or drug abuse or abortion. I employ it in the widest possible sense, in reference to the confusion surrounding the human ability to make qualitative judgments about everything; that is, about what ideas, institutions, cultural traditions, and most importantly, what people really have worth in terms of the human situation. But before we even begin to speak about the content of values, we must understand, clearly and completely, what is necessary in order to establish values.

IN REPLY:
This can be tightened up a bit; something like:

The empty and unsatisfying nature of modern life, the suicidal deterioration of the West, as well as the continued existence of liberal democracy itself, all derive from our modern confusion about moral values which so tortured Nietzsche. I do not use the term “values” in the limited popular sense, as when referring to relatively trivial issues like pornography, drug abuse or abortion. I use the term “values” in the widest possible sense. The term “values” refers to the human ability to make qualitative judgments about what ideas, institutions, cultural traditions, and most importantly, what people, really have worth in terms of the human situation. Before we speak about the content of values, we must understand, clearly and completely, what is necessary in order to establish values.
END REPLY

New America

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

nietzsche is absolutely vital and has been proven amazingly prophetic in his prescient wisdom. christianity is suicidal shyte for the weaklings. anything concoted by the devious desert juden is shyte. periodo.
“religions” suitable to our race: pagan, old roman or greek, old native religions, any indo/european belief, pantheism, atheism, agnosticism, zoroastrianism, buddhism, hinduism…….

Excellent essay. In fact one of the few tomes I’ve read that in a real way provides a hint as to the meaning of our existence.

Further, I see no need for conflict of religion with racial realities. Christianity has existed in a racial context as easily as it does without. What we need, and what we have had in the past with respect to christianity and a racially progressive society is what the Fuehrer called ‘Positive Christianity’. Christianity is not inherently opposed to the ascendance of the light complexioned Aryan uebermensch, it merely needs to be placed in context. What the jews have done to our Western societies is to remove from them absolutely all racial and cultural context. In any case, a thought provoking and positive message in this essay; all whites have an interest in the minority possessing exceptional beauty and intelligence prevailing over the masses of mediocrity.

There are no “inalienable rights.” None. Ever. That is why the Founders were forced to justify the concept by an appeal to supernatural authority.

quotes from uncle adolf !

“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance.

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”

“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

Capitalist consumer values have turned the West into an insipid cultural wasteland

Bullshit. It is socialist greed that has destroyed the West. The socialists pretend to be unselfish, when in fact the whole ideology builds on selfishness. It builds on stealing from others. “Give us your votes, and in return we’ll make it legal for you to rob those who have worked and studied harder” – so says the Jew’s invention, socialism.

Capitalism simply means that you are allowed to produce and sell and buy. It has existed in all times, because anything else is insane. The socialists want control of this process in order to loot and steal.

The Right is for decent people, people who want to work for a living and don’t demand that others feed them. The Left is for the parasites who want to take from others. It is the Left that is greedy. It is the Left that is decadent. Promising money and license for every sick behavior.

The Right, which means looking at reality and living according to its rules, made the West strong. Socialism, which denies nature and forces us to pay for anti-nature policies, is destroying the West.

But of course, if you are a net taker – a parasite – then you want to hear that you’re the hero, and your victims are the bad guys.

A review of part two, with suggestions:
Designations about values, couched in whatever terms—good or evil, superior or inferior, right or wrong, reactionary or progressive—acquire significance only in relation to purpose. In the words of Herbert Spencer, “…the notion of goodness, can be framed only in relation to ends.” To use an ordinary example, say that one were assembling a football team with the goal of winning a championship. I, who am not an exceptional athlete, would not have much value when it comes to the attainment of that goal. In fact, since I am so far below the caliber of athlete that would typically play on a championship team, I would be a liability, I would have negative value in relation to that goal. On the other hand, if one were assembling a team whose purpose was to win a trivia contest about literature, I, who have always been a bookworm, would have considerably more value when it comes to that goal. Only with a definite objective in mind do values, or judgments about worth, acquire meaning when it comes to anything. The largest possible goal that exists with regard to the human situation is, of course, the ultimate purpose of human life itself. Thus, if we ever wish to establish a standard for human values that we can accept as truly absolute, that can be applied objectively to all things and all people, governing human activity as a whole, we must first arrive at a unequivocal consensus about the directionality of human existence.

IN REPLY:
Edit this for clarity, like this:
Designations about values, couched in whatever terms—good or evil, superior or inferior, right or wrong, reactionary or progressive—acquire significance only in relation to purpose. In the words of Herbert Spencer, “…the notion of goodness, can be framed only in relation to ends.” Only with a definite objective in mind do values, or judgments about worth, acquire meaning when it comes to anything. The largest possible goal that exists with regard to the human situation is, of course, the ultimate purpose of human life itself. Thus, if we ever wish to establish a standard for human values that we can accept as truly absolute, that can be applied objectively to all things and all people, governing human activity as a whole, we must first arrive at a unequivocal consensus about the directionality of human existence.
END REPLY

The relationship between human ends and human values necessarily forms the central issue of all worthwhile philosophy, and was the issue around which revolved much of the thought of the father of the Western philosophical tradition, Plato. In the Republic, Plato, through the mouthpiece of Socrates, attempts to arrive at an understanding of the idea of justice. It soon becomes evident that the idea of justice cannot be completely understood except in relation to a higher idea, which comes to be termed simply as “The Good.” Plato equates the idea of The Good with the sun; it is a supreme moral concept whose intellectual light illuminates all other ideas or “forms”, and imbues all aspects of human existence with an intelligible meaning. Plato’s idea of The Good is, in effect, just another way of talking about human purpose. The Good, or the Absolute Idea, represents the universal goal of the human species, the understanding of which makes possible all judgments about the worth of everything concerning man, judgments like good and evil when it comes to human behavior or intentions, or superior and inferior when it comes to human beings themselves, and which gives real substance to subsidiary moral ideas like justice or freedom or human rights. Establishing values first means coming to an understanding, in Nietzsche’s words, of the “why”, and “for what” of human history, realizing what truly constitutes progress, what it means to say that man is “improving.” Unfortunately, the clear articulation of this all-important idea is something that was never accomplished by Nietzsche, Plato, or any of the great thinkers of history, though Christianity’s claim to have done so was accepted in the West for millennia.

IN REPLY:
Editing to be concise:

The central issue of philosophy, the relationship between human ends and human values, was often the concern of Plato, the father of the Western philosophical tradition. In “The Republic,” Plato, through the mouthpiece of Socrates, attempts to arrive at an understanding of the idea of justice. It soon becomes evident that the idea of justice cannot be completely understood except in relation to a higher idea, referred to simply as “The Good.” Plato equates the idea of “The Good” with the sun; it is a supreme moral concept whose intellectual light illuminates all other ideas or “forms”, and imbues all aspects of human existence with an intelligible meaning. Plato’s idea of “The Good” is, effectively, a description of human purpose. “The Good,” or the Absolute Idea, represents the universal goal of the human species, the understanding of which makes possible all judgments about the worth of everything concerning man. This includes, but is not limited to, judgments as to what is good and evil when it comes to human behavior or intentions, or, alternatively, superior and inferior when it comes to human beings themselves. This gives substance to subsidiary moral ideas like justice, freedom, or human rights.

*you need some bridge between Plato’s formulation of “The Good” as the measuring rod, and Nietzsche’s definition of the ends of human history*

Establishing values requires understanding, in Nietzsche’s words, of the “why”, and “for what” of human history, defining what truly constitutes progress, what it means to say that man is “improving.” Unfortunately, the clear articulation of this all-important idea is something that was never accomplished by Nietzsche, Plato, or any of the great thinkers of history, though Christianity’s claim to have done so was accepted in the West for millennia.
END REPLY

The questions surrounding human purpose and values raise another, equally important question, for their full resolution requires an additional understanding of man himself. By this I mean understanding the essence of human nature, coming to a clear realization of the all the deepest drives and longings that lie at the foundation of man’s being, and that govern and direct his behavior. Only when we can fully comprehend what man really is, and thus what he most fundamentally wants, will we be able to say if, in fact, his nature does impel him towards some definite higher objective. An understanding of human nature enriches not only our understanding of human purpose, but also of the values necessary to the attainment of that purpose. For such an understanding allows us to see how the motive energies that comprise man’s nature allow him to level moral judgment on all things and all people in relation to his purpose.

IN REPLY:
Edited, with comments in asterisks:
The questions surrounding human purpose and values raise another, equally important question, for their full resolution requires an additional understanding of man himself. This question is understanding the essence of human nature; a clear realization of the deepest drives and longings that lie at the foundation of man’s being, and that govern and direct his behavior. Only when we can fully comprehend what man really is, and thus what he most fundamentally wants, will we be able to say if, in fact, his nature does impel him towards some definite higher objective. An understanding of human nature enriches not only our understanding of human purpose, but also of the values necessary to the attainment of that purpose. For such an understanding allows us to see how the motive energies that comprise man’s nature allow him to level moral judgment on all things and all people in relation to his *higher objective, his higher* purpose.
END REPLY

Today there is no consensus about what human nature, purpose, and values consist of, or if their existence is even possible. Prevailing academic wisdom would have us believe that there is no such thing as a substantive and enduring core of human nature, more or less common to man as man. Rather, man is infinitely malleable, morally rootless, *and* entirely a product of social conditioning and historical circumstance. Nor, it is thought, is there any such thing as a human purpose; human history does not represent any sort of objective progress towards some definite end, but only a random and meaningless sequence of events. As for human values, they seem to be merely relative; that is, they are only a matter of perspective *should this be “they are only subjective in perspective”*, having no *true (delete the word “true”)* validity beyond the limited cultural or historical context from which they happened to emerge.

Of course, as our politicians are so fond of robotically repeating, today we live under the democratic values of “freedom” and “equality” established by our founding fathers. But these are just words, just vague abstractions signifying nothing substantial, and over the career of modern democracy there has never been consistent agreement on what they really mean. There is no question that the interpretation of legal equality has changed a great deal since it was first implemented. The founders of American democracy were no less fully convinced that the principles of equal human dignity and equal rights applied only to a certain segment of the population than today’s politicians are that they apply to everyone. The United States has gone from being a white male-dominated, slave-owning society to one that is today almost wholly defined politically by its horror of even the slightest suggestion of inequality between races or sexes. Debate over the interpretation of democratic principles has been a constant feature of democratic life, though over the long run its movement has always been inexorably to the Left, towards a more thoroughgoing equalization of society and everyone in it. For example, the debate over entitlement programs involves the question of whether democratic equality means equality of economic opportunity, as it was originally conceived, or whether it means, as many think it does now, that any inequality between certain groups that are supposed to be perfectly equal must be deliberately remedied through artificial means. And disagreement over political correctness involves a disagreement over freedom, specifically freedom of speech, the very first right granted to American citizens in our Bill of Rights. Some believe that freedom of speech should apply to any and all ideas, no matter how controversial, while others seem to think that there are some ideas that simply do not deserve to be heard. Indeed, our society today has imposed a virtual lockdown on any type of politically incorrect discourse, an ideological lockdown at least as comprehensive as that existing under past totalitarian regimes. Today the internet is the only mass medium we have for the free exchange of ideas. As these examples show, debate concerning the implementation of democratic ideas seems to illustrate an inherent opposition between the ideas of freedom and equality, leading to hypocrisy. Preferential treatment for certain groups in the name of equality means less freedom for others, and the types of free speech that are being censored today are those that suggest that people may not be equal.

IN REPLY:
Edited for clarity:
Of course, as our politicians are so fond of stating, we live under the democratic values of “freedom” and “equality” established by our founding fathers. But these are only words, vague abstractions lacking in substance, or even a consistent agreement on their meaning. The legal interpretation of equality has changed substantially over time. The founders of American democracy were fully convinced the principles of equal human dignity and equal rights applied only to a certain segment of the population. Today’s politicians believe these same principles apply to everyone. The United States has gone from being a property-owning, white male-dominated, slave-owning society to a society that is almost wholly defined politically by its horror of even the slightest suggestion of inequality between races or sexes. Debate over the interpretation of democratic principles has been a constant feature of democratic life, though over the long run its movement has always been inexorably to the Left, towards a more thoroughgoing equalization of society.

For example, the debate over entitlement programs involves the question of whether democratic equality means equality of opportunity, as it was originally conceived, or that any inequality between certain groups must be deliberately remedied through artificial means, to a solution that is “politically correct.”. Any disagreement over “political correctness” involves a disagreement over a foundational freedom, freedom of speech, the first right of American citizens found in our Bill of Rights. Some believe that freedom of speech should apply to any and all ideas, no matter how controversial, while others seem to think that there are some ideas that simply do not deserve to be heard. Indeed, our society today has imposed a virtual lockdown on any type of politically incorrect discourse, an ideological lockdown at least as comprehensive as that existing under past totalitarian regimes. Today the Internet is the only mass medium for the free exchange of ideas. Debate concerning the implementation of democratic ideas seems to illustrate an inherently hyprocritical opposition between the ideas of freedom and equality. Preferential treatment for certain groups in the name of “equality” means less “equality” for others. Ironically, the types of free speech that are commonly censored today are those that suggest that people may not be equal.
END REPLY

But disagreements over the specific interpretation of democratic principles, which continue to escalate and multiply, are only disagreements taking place within the accepted confines of those principles. They are only symptomatic of the more fundamental, virtually unarticulated issue that faces us today and on which the future of Western Civilization depends, and that is the legitimacy of democratic principles themselves. What must be answered today are the questions about democratic values raised by Nietzsche. Nietzsche was skeptical as to whether the general idea of human equality itself was at all desirable as a governing moral principle, whether it represented true human progress and enlightenment as we citizens of liberal democracies have always thought it has, or whether there does not exist some higher moral perspective from which a new standard of human worth could be drawn.

IN REPLY:
Disagreements over the implementation of democratic principles continue to escalate and multiply. These are merely symptoms of the fundamental, virtually unarticulated issue on which the future of Western Civilization depends, the legitimacy of democratic principles themselves. Nietzsche’s questions about democratic values can no longer be avoided. Nietzsche was skeptical as to whether the general idea of human equality itself was at all desirable as a governing moral principle, much less whether the general idea of human equality represented true human progress and enlightenment as we citizens of liberal democracies have always assumed. Nietzsche’s greater concern was the existence of a higher moral perspective from which a new standard of human worth could be drawn.
END REPLY:

More implicitly, Nietzsche’s thought also questioned the democratic conception of freedom at its real foundation. For the idea of freedom, like equality, is inextricably tied to conceptions of values, purpose, and human nature. Amongst people living within a civil society like ours, bound together by ideas and laws, freedom can of course never mean the freedom to do anything one wants, but only to do what the powers that be define as permissible and worthwhile. Of course, we citizens of liberal democracies supposedly enjoy all sorts of freedoms, conceived in terms of liberal rights designed to prevent abuses by government and our fellow citizens—freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, due process, etc. But beyond the mere negative function of protecting people from the state and each other, there is the larger issue of what higher, positive goals, and therefore what larger and meaningful definition of freedom, an ideology offers the people who live under it. Under democratic capitalism, the greater part of human industry and enterprise is undertaken for the sake of individual economic gain, a motive which for many comes to represent the defining purpose of their lives. Our “freedom” essentially amounts to the freedom to accumulate potentially unlimited amounts of wealth. What Nietzsche effectively asked (as did Marx, though from an entirely different, and indeed, antithetical moral perspective) was whether bourgeois freedom, the freedom to acquire property, really constitutes a meaningful, worthwhile definition of freedom, or whether there does not exist a more noble definition of freedom, associated with something purer and higher, that would be more satisfying to human nature and more valuable in terms of human progress.

IN REPLY:
Nietzsche questioned the moral and conceptual foundations of the democratic conception of freedom, which, like equality, is inextricably tied to conceptions of values, purpose, and human nature. Civil societies, bound together by ideas and laws, limit personal freedoms with a negative function of protecting people from the state and each other. The usually unaddressed larger issue of what higher, positive goals are to be served by the State, and sought by the Citizenry – a positive, larger and meaningful definition of freedom – was Nietzsche’s concern.

This can not be emphasized too strongly – the liberal democrats implicitly supported the extant social order, with an emphasis on using democratic structures as tools for conflict resolution, and limiting disorder. The socialists and communist followers of Marx explicitly supported the abolition of the extant social order, replacing democratic ideals with a transnational social order of serfs, and masters – the People, and the Party. The Marxian dream of eternal revolution until the pure state of communism was achieved was simply a system of creating, and controlling, artificial, “class wars” between the various Peoples, for the good of the Party; economically, a new, feudal order was in place until “communism” magically, mysteriously, appeared.

Under democratic capitalism, the greater part of human industry and enterprise is undertaken for the sake of individual economic gain, a motive which for many comes to represent the defining purpose of their lives. Our “freedom” essentially amounts to the freedom to accumulate potentially unlimited amounts of wealth. What Nietzsche effectively asked (as did Marx, though from an entirely different, and indeed, antithetical moral perspective) was whether bourgeois freedom, the freedom to acquire property, really constitutes a meaningful, worthwhile definition of freedom, or whether there does not exist a more noble definition of freedom, associated with something purer and higher, that would be more satisfying to human nature and more valuable in terms of human progress.
END REPLY:

It seems to me that what modern liberal democracy essentially represents is uncertainty about what is really at stake when it comes to human nature, human ends, and human values. And our modern uncertainty about what has value in ourselves and our world is reinforced by our history, the history of thousands of years of failed value systems—religious ones like Christianity, which attempted to assign a higher meaning to human life, but were eventually revealed as untrue, and secular ones like Marxism, which promised human freedom, but ended up denying it. After thousands of years of ideological warfare, and over two hundred years of democratic existence, today we in the West stand almost completely discouraged with the possibility of a rational understanding of ourselves, and a rational consensus about values. We seem to have turned into Nietzsche’s dreaded “last man”, the ignoble human product of liberal democratic institutions, unconcerned about the future of humanity and preoccupied with endowing his mundane existence with as much physical security and material comfort as possible. Fukuyama describes Nietzsche’s emphasis on the human need for values, and modern man’s disillusionment with the possibility of finding them:

IN REPLY:
Modern liberal democracy is essentially uncertain about human nature, human values, and, above all, the higher ends to be achieved by Humanity. This is reinforced by our history, the history of thousands of years of failed value systems—religious value systems, like Christianity, which attempted to assign a higher meaning to human life, but were eventually revealed as flawed in its extant forms, and secular value systems, like Marxism, which promised human freedom, but ended up denying it. After millenia of ideological warfare, and over two hundred years of America’s democratic existence, we in the West lack a rational understanding of ourselves, and a rational consensus about values. We seem to have turned into Nietzsche’s dreaded “last man”, the ignoble human product of liberal democratic institutions, unconcerned about the future of humanity and preoccupied with endowing his mundane existence with as much physical security and material comfort as possible. Fukuyama describes Nietzsche’s emphasis on the human need for values, and modern man’s disillusionment with the possibility of finding them:
END REPLY:

By putting self-preservation first of all things, the last man resembles the slave in Hegel’s bloody battle that began history. But the last man’s situation is made worse as a result of the entire historical process that has ensued since that time, the complex cumulative evolution of human society toward democracy. For according to Nietzsche, a living thing cannot be healthy, strong, or productive except by living within a certain horizon, that is, a set of values and beliefs that are accepted absolutely and uncritically. “No artist will paint his picture, no general win his victory, no nation gain its freedom,” without such a horizon, without loving the work they do “infinitely more than it deserves to be loved.” But it is precisely our awareness of history that makes this love impossible. For history teaches us that there have been horizons beyond number in the past—civilizations, religions, ethical codes, “value systems.” The people who lived under them, lacking our modern awareness of history, believed that their horizon was the only one possible. Those who came late in the process, those who live in the old age of mankind, cannot be so uncritical. Modern education, that universal education that is absolutely crucial in preparing societies for the modern economic world, liberates men from their attachments to tradition and authority. They realize that their horizon is merely a horizon, not solid land but a mirage that disappears as one draws closer, giving way to yet another horizon beyond. That is why modern man is the last man: he has been jaded by the experience of history, and disabused of the possibility of direct experience of values. Modern education, in other words, stimulates a certain tendency towards relativism, that is, the doctrine that all horizons and value systems are relative to their own time and place, and that none are true but reflect the prejudices or interests of those who advance them. The doctrine that says that there is no privileged perspective dovetails very nicely with democratic man’s desire to believe that his way of life is just as good as any other. Relativism in this context does not lead to the liberation of the great or strong, but of the mediocre, who were now told they had nothing of which to be ashamed. The slave at the beginning of history declined to risk his life in the bloody battle because he was instinctively fearful. The last man at the end of history knows better than to risk his life for a cause, because he recognizes that history was full of pointless battles in which men fought over whether they should be Christian or Muslim, Protestant or Catholic, German or French. The loyalties that drove men to desperate acts of courage and sacrifice were proven by subsequent history to be silly prejudices. Men with modern educations are content to sit at home congratulating themselves on their broadmindedness and lack of fanaticism. As Nietzsche’s Zarathustra says of them, “For thus you speak: ‘Real are we entirely, and without belief or superstition.’ Thus you stick out your chests—but alas, they are hollow!”

IN REPLY:
By putting self-preservation first of all things, the last man resembles the slave in Hegel’s bloody battle that began history. (you have made no reference to Hegel, or this ‘bloody battle.” Would that belong before Marx? Yes, because Marx took Hegel’s concept of a spiritual dialectic, and, Goddamn JEW that he was, turned it to the material, creating a materialistic dialectic.) The last man’s situation is made worse as a result of the complex cumulative evolution of human society toward “democracy.”

To Nietzsche, a living thing cannot be healthy, strong, or productive except by living within a certain horizon, that is, a set of values and beliefs that are accepted absolutely and uncritically. “No artist will paint his picture, no general win his victory, no nation gain its freedom,” without such a horizon, without loving the work they do “infinitely more than it deserves to be loved.”

But it is precisely our awareness of history that makes this love impossible. For history teaches us that there have been horizons beyond number in the past—civilizations, religions, ethical codes, “value systems.” The people who lived under them, lacking our modern awareness of history, believed that their horizon was the only one possible. Those who came late in the process, those who live in the old age of mankind, cannot be so uncritical. Modern education, that universal education that is absolutely crucial in preparing societies for the modern world, separates men from tradition and authority. They realize that their horizon is merely a horizon, a mirage that disappears as one draws closer, giving way to yet another horizon beyond. That is why modern man is the last man: he has been jaded by the experience of history, and disabused of the possibility of direct experience of values.

Modern, mandated, public education supports relativism, the doctrine that all horizons and value systems are relative to their own time and place, and that none are true but reflect the prejudices or interests of those who advance them. The doctrine that says that there is no privileged perspective dovetails very nicely with democratic man’s desire to believe that his way of life is just as good as any other. Relativism in this context leads to the triumph of the mediocre, who believe they had nothing of which to be ashamed. The slave at the beginning of history declined to risk his life in the bloody battle because he was instinctively fearful. The last man at the end of history knows better than to risk his life for a cause, because he recognizes that history was full of pointless battles in which men fought over whether they should be Christian or Muslim, Protestant or Catholic, German or French. The loyalties that drove men to desperate acts of courage and sacrifice were declared by subsequent history to be silly prejudices. Men with modern educations are content to sit at home congratulating themselves on their broadmindedness and lack of fanaticism. As Nietzsche’s Zarathustra says of them, “For thus you speak: ‘Real are we entirely, and without belief or superstition.’ Thus you stick out your chests—but alas, they are hollow!”
END REPLY:

New America

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

A review of part three, with suggestions:

In spite of modern man’s spiritual paralysis and despair with the possibility of finding real truth, in spite of the fact that Western history is littered with failed belief systems, in spite of the relativism and nihilism which grips us today, there is an absolute perspective on values, because there does exist an absolute purpose to human life, which corresponds to an enduring core of human nature. Liberal democratic values only appear to be supremely rational because our rational inquiry into ourselves and our world has not proceeded far enough. We are not “last men” who have exhausted the possibility of further ideological, moral, and historical progress. We are only confused children who, up to this point in history, have lived in ignorance of what we really are and what we truly desire. We do not live at the “the end of history” or “the old age of mankind”, but only at the end of our historical adolescence. We stand today at the beginning of our adulthood, at the dawn of a new moral enlightenment that will bring us to a mature understanding of the reality of the human condition.

IN REPLY:
Editing, again:
In spite of modern man’s spiritual paralysis, despair over the possibility of finding real truth, a Western history littered with failed belief systems, and a spirit of relativism and nihilism, there is an absolute perspective on values, because there is an absolute purpose to human life, which corresponds to an enduring core of human nature. Liberal democratic values only appear to be supremely rational because our rational inquiry into ourselves and our world has not proceeded far enough. We are not “last men” who have exhausted the possibility of further ideological, moral, and historical progress. We are only confused children who, up to this point in history, have lived in ignorance of what we really are and what we truly desire. We do not live at the “the end of history” or “the old age of mankind”, but only at the end of our historical adolescence. We stand today at the beginning of our adulthood, at the dawn of a new moral enlightenment that will bring us to a mature understanding of the reality of the human condition.
END REPLY:

The moral confusion hobbling modern Western man has left him living under a democratic ideology whose values, fundamentally flawed from the beginning, are becoming increasingly corrupt, destructive, and self-contradictory. The moral and cultural situation in the West has today reached a point of absolute crisis, and the future of Western civilization, and ultimately the human species, hangs in the balance. It is time, as Nietzsche pointed out over one hundred years ago, to initiate a massive transformation of human values. It is time for us to face the fact that we must go beyond our current conceptions of good and evil; these terms in their current usage are obsolete. We must start thinking about “good” in terms of what empowers and improves man, and “bad” in terms of what diminishes him. We must ready ourselves for the hard truth that doing so will in many ways involve the complete reversal of the values we currently live under. Much of what the modern democratic consciousness thinks of as pure evil is indispensable to human improvement, and much of what it considers good is utter degeneracy. For while democratic values are an artificial, man-made creation, the values that lead to true human progress are those of nature, mandated by the essential order of the universe. And we must accept the cold reality that natural law is immutable; the definition of human purpose that the universe has laid down for us is the only one that exists, or can ever possibly exist, and can be the only rational basis for a moral system.

IN REPLY:
The moral confusion hobbling modern Western man derives from a “democratic” ideology whose values, fundamentally flawed from the beginning, are becoming increasingly corrupt, destructive, and self-contradictory. The West’s moral and cultural situation is in absolute crisis, and the future of Western civilization, and ultimately Mankind, hangs in the balance. It is time, as Nietzsche pointed out over one hundred years ago, to initiate a massive transformation of human values. It is time for us to go beyond our current conceptions of good and evil; these terms in their current usage are obsolete. We must start thinking about “good” in terms of what empowers and improves Man, and “bad” in terms of what diminishes him. We must ready ourselves for the hard truth; this involves the complete reversal of the values that rule our current thinking. Much of the modern democratic consciousness defines as “evil” is indispensable to human improvement, and much of what it considers “good” is utter degeneracy. Democratic values are merely an artificial, ephemeral, man-made creation, while the values that lead to true human progress are those of Nature, mandated by the essential order of the universe. And we must accept the cold reality that natural law is immutable; the definition of human purpose that the universe has laid down for us is the only one that exists, or can ever possibly exist, and can be the only rational basis for a moral system.
END REPLY

This is the essential purpose of this work: to define and establish the integral relationship between human purpose, human nature and human values. This will enable us, first of all, to avert the impending destruction of Western Civilization by delivering ourselves from the modern philosophical crisis which lies at the root of all our problems. And secondly, to realign ourselves along the path of genuine human progress and fulfill our destiny as a species. The new values lie in the direction in which Nietzsche pointed, towards a steeply hierarchical and aristocratic view of humanity, a recognition of the fact that people are highly unequal in inherent worth. The Left has had its day; it is the cultural Left, the grandchildren of Marx, who have spent the last half century sowing the corruption and decay that is rotting Western Civilization away from the inside out. Even as Marx’s economic ideas have found their proper place on the scrap-heap of history, his intellectual legacy and the spirit of his thought, now manifested on a cultural level and facilitated by flawed democratic principles, look to change the face of the West in a far more profound way than classic Marxism ever did. Human progress lies unequivocally in the direction of the Right. Not a religious, conservative, or in any way reactionary Right, but a new, progressive, and radical Right.

IN REPLY:
This is the essential purpose of this work: to define the integral relationship between human purpose, human nature and human values. This will enable us to avert the impending destruction of Western Civilization by delivering ourselves from the philosophical crisis at the root of all our problems, and realign ourselves along the path to fulfill our destiny. The new values lie in the direction Nietzsche defined, towards a steeply hierarchical and aristocratic view of humanity, and a recognition of the cold, hard, natural truth that people are highly unequal in inherent worth. The Left has had its day; it is the cultural Left, the grandchildren of Marx, who have spent the last half century sowing the seeds of corruption and decay that is at the rotten core of Western Civilization has become. Even as Marx’s economic ideas have found their proper place on the scrap-heap of history, his intellectual legacy and the spirit of his thought, now manifested on a cultural level and facilitated by flawed democratic principles, look to change the face of the West in a far more profound way than classic Marxism ever could have. Human progress lies unequivocally in the direction of the Right. Not a religious, conservative, or in any way reactionary Right, but a new, progressive, and radically Traditional Right.
END REPLY:

It is the revelation of man’s eternal purpose that must mark the beginning of our journey of philosophical discovery, and is the task that lies immediately ahead of us. Having accomplished this, we can then move on to an understanding of the intimately related ideas of human values and human nature. The solution to all the philosophical questions we aim to answer starts with the riddle of what human progress really means. It is a riddle that has stumped the best efforts of all philosophers so far, because none of them began at the right place, and the right place to begin is, of course, at the very beginning.

IN REPLY:
The solution to our philosophical questions begins with the correct question: What is human progress? The right place to search for an answer is, of course, at the very beginning.
END REPLY:

Evolution is the basic mechanism regulating the creation, development, and operation of all forms of life, including man. Thus, any rational attempt to define human purpose must begin from the premise that it must somehow stem from the directionality of human evolution. However, this immediately raises the question: Is human evolution itself capable of being thought of as a directional process? Is it truly teleological, following a definite, cumulative path of development towards some higher state which would allow us to interpret it objectively as progress? Or have millions of years of human evolution simply been meaningless, just a random movement towards some arbitrary biological condition? Indeed, a cursory examination of the evolutionary development of other species seems to indicate that evolution is not a directional or progressive process at all, but merely an adaptive one.

IN REPLY:
Evolution is the basic mechanism regulating the creation, development, and operation of all forms of life, including man. Thus, our attempt to define human purpose begins from the directionality of human evolution. Is human evolution a directional process? A cursory examination of the evolutionary development of other species seems to indicate that evolution is not a directional or progressive process, but merely an adaptive process.
END REPLY:

All species tend to adapt genetically in order to survive in the face of the hostile pressures represented by the particular set of environmental conditions under which they live. And because of the vast diversity in environmental conditions which exists on our earth, evolution has taken an equally vast number of strange and bewildering forms for different species. For a particular species, evolution, or an increase in “fitness,” may not necessarily mean moving toward what could be thought of as a “higher”, more sophisticated condition. Sometimes, natural circumstances may dictate that a species remain fixed at a certain state of development, or change from a complex to a more degenerate form, or disappear from existence altogether. For example, the shark and the horseshoe crab are so well suited to their particular environments that they are living fossils, remaining essentially unchanged over millions of years. Or take the fish that have moved from open water and taken up residence in submarine caves, where no light reaches, and sight is useless. The eye is one of the most sophisticated animal structures, yet theirs have degenerated into a vestigial condition because they were not needed. For some species, such as dinosaurs, the evolutionary process ended in extinction, because environmental conditions changed too quickly for them to adapt to, or because they changed into other species altogether.

IN REPLY:
All species tend to adapt genetically in order to survive in the face of the hostile pressures in their environment. For some species, environmental conditions changed too quickly for them to adapt to, or because they changed into other species, the evolutionary process ended in extinction,
END REPLY

Despite the seemingly arbitrary nature of evolutionary development, it is nevertheless capable of being interpreted in a progressive sense, especially when it comes to man. When a species adapts to the evolutionary pressures of its environment, gradually discarding unfavorable characteristics and acquiring more favorable ones as its fitter members are selected for survival and the less fit for elimination, it is becoming more successful, or increasing its viability, with respect to its environment. By evolving, or increasing in fitness, it is reducing its vulnerability to the adverse pressures it faces; it is reducing the power of its environment over itself and becoming less at the mercy of the conditions it lives under. In other words, it is effectively gaining power over its environment. The only meaningful and progressive way in which the evolution of a given species—in our case, Homo sapiens—can be construed is simply as a process of moving from a position of lesser to greater advantage with respect to the natural conditions which surround it. And though evolution has taken vastly different paths with regard to different species, we may nevertheless say with utter certainty that the species that has ensured its future survival to the utmost by increasing its advantage with respect to the widest possible spectrum of environmental conditions, and thus has increased its power over nature in general to the greatest possible degree, can be said to be the most evolved.

IN REPLY:
Despite the seemingly arbitrary nature of evolutionary development, it can be interpreted in a progressive sense, especially with man. By evolving, or increasing in fitness, and reducing the vulnerability to the adverse pressures it faces; a species reduces the power of its environment over itself. It is effectively gaining power over its environment. The only meaningful and progressive way to understand the evolution of our species is to see this as a process of moving from a position of lesser to greater advantage with respect to its environment. The species that has ensured its future survival by increasing its advantage with respect to the widest possible spectrum of environmental conditions, has increased its power over its environment to the greatest possible degree, is, by definition, the most evolved.
END REPLY

Having established how evolution may be interpreted progressively, we can begin to extend our understanding of it into a larger understanding of human purpose. For in contrast to other species, whose evolution appears to have been suspended at some point in the distant past, or who have even changed into a more degenerate state, human evolution seems indeed to have consisted of a process of change from a rudimentary to a higher, more sophisticated condition, and a progressively higher degree of power. We have presumably changed from unicellular organisms, to primitive sea-creatures, to sub-hominid beasts, to a mammalian species which has created civilization in all its many facets and all its potential for creation and destruction. We have become capable of traveling to our moon, building nuclear weapons, and writing books pondering the meaning of our existence.

IN REPLY:
We can extend our understanding of evolution into a larger understanding of human purpose. In contrast to other species, whose evolution appears to have been suspended at some point in the distant past, or who have even changed into a more degenerate state, human evolution manifests a process of change from a rudimentary to a higher, more sophisticated condition, and a progressively higher degree of power. We have created cultures, and Civilization, in all its many forms and facets.
END REPLY

Throughout most of our evolutionary history, our evolution was a process of increasing our advantage relative to the rest of nature through genetic and anatomical change, that is, through the gradual alteration of our genes, and thus our minds and bodies, by genetic mutation in combination with the selective action of evolutionary pressures. Once human evolution reached a certain point, however, we began to be able to increase our power over nature through an additional, higher means—the means of knowledge and technology. After millions of years of evolution, our minds and bodies reached a level of refinement which allowed us to begin accumulating knowledge about the workings of nature, which then enabled us to create and use tools.

IN REPLY:
Throughout most of our history, our evolution was a process of increasing our advantage relative to the rest of nature through genetic and anatomical change by genetic mutation in combination with the selective action of evolutionary pressures. Once human evolution reached a certain point, however, we began to be able to increase our power over nature through an additional, higher means—the means of knowledge and technology. We then created tools, to amplify our power over our environment.
END REPLY

An excellent illustration of this crucial point in human evolutionary history is provided by the opening sequence of Stanley Kubrick’s science fiction masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film that deals, not coincidentally, with the unfinished business of human evolution. This sequence, entitled “The Dawn of Man,” opens upon a group of man’s simian ancestors, who, starving and ravaged by predators, appear to be on the verge of extinction. After being visited by a large black monolith representing some form of extra-terrestrial intelligence, they acquire a greater awareness of the natural reality that surrounds them, a higher intelligence enabling them to comprehend the use and value of tools. Soon one of the ape-men, after pondering the skeletal remains of an animal carcass, picks up a length of bone, studies it intently and then flails around with it. Soon he comes to the realization that when used as a club it increases the force of a blow manifold, which he demonstrates by smashing an old skull lying on the ground. He quickly communicates his knowledge to the rest of his simian tribe, and they use their new weapons first to kill and eat some tapirs which share their habitat, and then to gain victory in battle with a rival tribe of ape-men, killing one of them.

IN REPLY:
Can’t improve on this paragraph – just perfect.
END REPLY

With the acquisition of the idea, of the knowledge of what the bone could be used for, it was no longer just a bone, it instantly became a tool. It became technology, no matter how primitive. Of course, the ape-man did not understand the physical principles behind his discovery. He did not understand, for instance, that the club’s added length and weight gave his blow more kinetic energy. He had no way to theoretically comprehend or explain why the use of the club had almost instantly made him a more powerful form of life. But because he understood its practical results, he and his semi-human companions were able to put it to real-life use, and that use was simply to increase their dominance, to attain a higher degree of advantage with respect to their natural surroundings. They increased their power over their immediate environment by gaining the ability to hunt a wider variety of game; and also, their power over another group, who though they were of the same species, were nevertheless inferior by virtue of being less well endowed with knowledge and technology. The opening sequence of the film ends with one of the triumphant ape-men tossing his bone-club into the air, at which point the film cuts immediately to a shot of a spacecraft orbiting the earth, occupying the exact spot on the screen where the twirling club had been a split-second before. The connection is obvious; the spacecraft, with all of the technology it contains, is also a tool, a more sophisticated descendant of the bone-club, its function and value ultimately the same—a higher degree of human power over the rest of nature.

IN REPLY:
Can’t improve on this paragraph, either – just perfect.
END REPLY

Let us now enlarge the illustration a bit, and fill in some of the chronological gap in Kubrick’s film, the gap represented by the hundreds of millennia in between the creation of the first tool and the creation of the spacecraft. While the first tool was indeed probably a crude bludgeoning weapon, over time our primitive ancestors discovered that pieces of bone, wood, and rock could be fashioned into other tools, weapons like knives and spears, but also tools for building and crafting like hammers and axes. With the discovery of fire, it was eventually found that deposits of copper ore could be melted, the pure copper extracted, then shaped into tools that were a vast improvement over his previous ones. Man had discovered metallurgy. In time, metallurgical techniques became applied, by mixing copper and tin, to the formation of bronze tools, then to ones of iron and, by mixing iron with carbon, steel. Many millennia before they were theoretically explained, many natural phenomena had been empirically discovered and exploited by practical metallurgists and other types of craftsmen. These discoveries and innovations must have required much experimentation and testing, and the men responsible were the scientists and researchers of their time, forerunners of the scientific method.

IN REPLY:
Let us now enlarge the illustration a bit, and fill in some of the chronological gap, a gap of hundreds of millennia, in Kubrick’s film. While the first tool was indeed probably a crude bludgeoning weapon, over time our primitive ancestors discovered that pieces of bone, wood, and rock could be fashioned into other tools, weapons like knives and spears, but also tools for building and crafting like hammers and axes. With the discovery of fire, it was eventually found that deposits of copper ore could be melted, the pure copper extracted, then shaped into tools that were a vast improvement over his previous ones. Man had discovered metallurgy. In time, metallurgical techniques became applied, by mixing copper and tin, to the formation of bronze tools, then to tools of iron and, by mixing iron with carbon, steel. Many millennia before they were theoretically explained, many natural phenomena had been empirically discovered and exploited by practical metallurgists and other types of craftsmen. These discoveries and innovations must have required much experimentation and testing, and the men responsible were the scientists and researchers of their time, forerunners of the scientific method. The Consciousness of Man was evolving; “hit-and-miss” would, in time, become the scientific method. In time, as this Consciousness grew, Man would go from staring at the stars, to walking among them.
END REPLY

Increases in man’s practical knowledge of how to manipulate natural materials, and consequently in his tool-making skills, gave rise to the emergence of simple machines and types of industry—pottery wheels, kilns, metal forges, animal-powered carts and plows—by use of which he began to increase the variety and volume of his cultural products. With the appearance of agriculture came food surpluses, and then permanent dwellings and civilization. Man’s incipient technological mastery of nature, by allowing the production of a surplus of food and other life-necessities, also allowed him, over the course of millennia, to devote an increasingly greater proportion of his time and energy to the accumulation of more knowledge and the creation of increasingly sophisticated and powerful tools. He began to create machines like ships and water-wheels that harnessed natural sources of energy such as wind and moving water, increasing his mobility over the earth and amplifying his own energy and muscle-power by doing his work for him. Eventually he created machines that tapped the energy latent in fossil fuels, and then, radioactive elements. Integrated into man’s technological progress has been an increasing division of human labor, both physical and intellectual. Individual specialization at certain tasks and occupations has made possible huge increases in the efficient manufacture of all the products which comprise civilization.

IN REPLY:
Can’t improve on this – just perfect.
END REPLY:

The increasing human domination of nature through knowledge and technology, beginning at some point in our distant past, can be seen as a directional extension of human evolution per se; that is, as a mere process of biological change. While over millions of years man struggled to increase his advantage relative to the rest of nature merely by changes in genetics and physiological structure, his subsequent use of scientific knowledge and technology to increase his power over nature can be seen as a higher form of evolution, a “supra-evolutionary” form of evolution, if you will. Millions of years of human genetic evolution and the subsequent development of knowledge, technology, and civilization are just different stages of an overall project by man to master the forces of nature. All of human history, from the point at which we first crawled out of the primordial ooze, to the advent of human learning and the first tool, to the modern nuclear and space age, represents nothing but one continuous struggle by man against the rest of nature, a struggle which defines and gives meaning to human existence.

IN REPLY:
Can’t improve on this, either – just perfect.
END REPLY

The differences between human genetic evolution and human technological evolution are just those of scale, method, and of man’s degree of control over his own development. The transition of man from a savage creature, largely helpless in the face of the whims of nature, to a creature possessing knowledge and technological skills, marked an epochal advancement in his progress as a species, a monumental increase in his ability to improve his advantage relative to nature, as well as revealing his future potential to master nature, a potential which is conceivably infinite in scope. The accumulation of human scientific knowledge, and the consequent development of human technological power, represents man turning the tables on nature, becoming able to increase his advantage over nature by manipulating and shaping nature instead of being genetically manipulated and shaped by her. Over the course of human genetic evolution, evolutionary pressures developed human minds and bodies to the point where we became increasingly able to use them to dominate and control the very pressures which first created them. Man’s accumulation of knowledge and technology has given him the power to wrest control of his development away from nature, and from the point at which their use began the question of man’s future has depended less and less on the hostile natural forces facing him, and more and more upon man himself.

IN REPLY:
Can’t improve on this one, either – just perfect.
END REPLY

New America

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

A lot of this stuff is over my head, but I can grasp the main concepts, it reminds me of a conversation I was having with my dad the other day, he was saying we are in the “age of Pisces” and we will be lucky to make it to the end of Pisces as the timeline predicts without mass chaos. (last time this happened, it herealded the Fall of Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages) He says it might not be as soon as the Mann predicted date but will happen way before 2600-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Aquarius#Timeframes_6
Zodiacal 30 degrees

* Heindel-Rosicrucian based interpretation: began in AD 498(year understood as marking the “first point of Aries” alignment, Aries 0º, and the subsequent entrance in Pisces) and ends in ca. AD 2654 (the Orb of influence started in ca. 222/220s BC)

Note: in this case, Aries 0º coincides with the Fall of Rome and subsequent “chaos” which gave origin to the Middle Ages (late 5th century); the Orb of influence (10th degree of Aries) coincides with the pre-Second Punic War times (218-202 BC) and the earliest period that some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, related to the Jewish-Christian tradition, were written by the Essenes (200s; within the 72 years of the 10th degree).

* Neil Mann interpretation: began in ca. AD 1 and ends in ca. AD 2150

In other words, we are f*cked, it just is a matter of time whether it happens sooner or later. If history repeats itself, and even in nature there are cycles that happen like it or not, then we will reach a “anything goes” debauched stage, followed by a more hardcore, ordered stage, which we may not live to see, but can work to speed it along.

The write an essay about liberalism without naming the Jew is a bit like ordering a hamburger without meat or pickles.

Nietzsche is forced on university students by jew atheist.

Jesus(a historical figure) said jews are the synogog of satan Rev.2:9

“Christianity is the most cunning and deadly invention of the Jews”…….umm..proof…

The Bible is the most credible ancient book on the planet.

Arminius wrote:
Well, if anyone has understood what was said above, he should be congratulated. I couldn’t make much sense out of it.
Nietzsche is not a philosopher of race consciousness, one can quote his derogatory remarks about the Germanic and Saxon race, on the other hand contradicting statements about Jews and shallow thoughts about Christianity. His suggestion to improve man without knowing or showing a way towards it, but offering only catch-phrases, is drivel to me.
His bitter hostility to other philosophers as Kant, Shopenhauer, John Stuart Mill, to name a few, seems like sour grapes, because their achievements of thought he was never able to reach.
Take Kant, who wrote 220 years ago:
“So much is probable: That the mixture of races, which extinguishes slowly the characters, is not benefiting for mankind”.
Or Jahn, who wrote 200 years ago: “The Spanish proverb, never trust a hinny and never a mulatto, is quite to the point, for the purer a nation is by race, the better, the more mixed, the more kind of of a gang.” Valid today- truth stands forever.
I believe, we can do much better without Nietzsche.

in reply:
Nietzsche is not being used as a philosopher of “race consciousness,” narrowly defined.

Nietzsche is being used as an example of the kind of philosophers we all need to become, in practice, thinking coldly, clearly, and without remorse as to the true foundations of where we came from, and, from that, where we CHOOSE to go, and why.

A major focus of the piece was to point out the inherent contradiction at the very foundation of “liberal democratic” theory – and “liberal democratic” political systems, all of which look to define Man in (1) exclusively materialistic, and (2) primarily economic terms, (3) with economic classes fulfilling the “function” in that social order, that RACE, write large, provides for all of Mankind.

Nietzsche is an example, a light upon the path, but hardly the Light, and hardly The Path.

We must be what we want the world to become; in the case of the New Traditionalists (Devi, for example), we must be a people who assume the responsibility in our lives, the world in microcosm, to be what we want the social world we will create, to become, in macrocosm.

This requires binding yourself, in total free will, to a much greater purpose than yourself, and that purpose is the fulfillment of the promise inherent in the RACE; the unique spark of the Creator seen in the Creative RACE, the RACE of Western Man, the White RACE, is at the point that it requires new Forms – new bottles, if you will – to capture the possibilities – the new wine, if you will -inherent in our choosing to consciously CREATE, however small and stumbling our steps may be, today.

It is the CHOICE we MUST make, to see clearly, and painfully, as a man Awakening from a nightmare, the importance of RACIAL thinking, and not getting trapped in the archaic models we were handed.

The example of Nietzsche is not that he had all of the answers, all of the time; it was that he saw the weaknesses inherent in the status quo, and knew that somehow, identifying with RACIAL consciousness, we could fund a way out of the errors of our ancestors.

Arminius then wrote:
Moderator,
I wonder where some the contributors- especially one- get the time, patience and place to write and post here what seem be veritable books of some sorts.

in reply:
Why?

Don’t you have anything of greater importance to think about?

Arminius wrote:
I suggest, you cut off all contributors to this forum who believe, they have hired here space for free. Do they really believe, anyone would read all that BS. they peddle here??? That would naive in the extreme.

in reply:
Did you read his essay in its entirety, much less my response?

Why not?

To criticize it, without having read it – calling that “naive in the extreme,” is folly – in the extreme.

Arminius wrote:
I propose, that all comments should kept to the minimum, short and concise, 20 lines, or 30 at most, more is not worth reading anyway, and he who is unable to control himself here, should be banned.

in reply:
When you said, “…more is not worth reading anyway,…” I can only assure you that more is CERTAINLY worth writing, to some, and equally worth reading, to others.

If reading more than thirty lines is too painful, just skip all of the words you don’t understand.

That ought to keep it short, and sweet.

As for the rest of us, who are trying to form the Living Foundations of the New Civilization, we will say what needs to be said, in as many words as it takes to say it – no more, and no less.

New America

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

jim bob wrote:
The author of the following statement should go back to school:
“Capitalism today represents a colossal waste of the material resources, human energy, and human capacity for creative invention which ought to be directed towards real science and the pure human project of conquering the universe”

jim bob then cited Uncle Adolph, and rightfully so.
*snip*
but at most has caught hold of and tried to lift one or another corner of her immense gigantic veil of eternal riddles and secrets, that in reality he invents nothing but only discovers everything, that he does not dominate Nature, but has only risen on the basis of his knowledge of various laws and secrets of Nature to be lord over those other living creatures who lack this knowledge…*snip*

in reply:
The statement of the author of the piece, and the ideas expressed by Uncle Adolph, are totally in harmony.

The author is criticizing capitalism in its current state – a system that rewards indebtedness over productivity – see the current distortion in housing prices, for example, which add not one iota to productivity, while putting trillions of dollars in the hands of banks.

And, the author is not proposing to “conquer the Universe,” and in domination; rather, the author is proposing to conquer the universe in terms of righteous dominion.

The example might be given of power generation.

One way, ours, is capital intensive (as you might expect), and looks at the negative costs as mere external costs, to be ignored; these include remarkably high rates of cancers, including leukemia, for petroleum refinery workers and those who live near petroleum refineries, where the waste is simply dumped into the environment. Another external cost, for example, are Navy fleets needed to intervene to secure control of oil fields in the Mid-East, from where we get virtually no oil.

Another way, that of Uncle Adolph, focused on (this is from “Hitler’s Table Talk), the wide use of hydroelectric power – clean, natural, virtually non-polluting, and strategically cost-effective.

The author spoke in the matter of dominion over the Universe in harmony with the creative principles of the Universe; for example, by applying the Western mindset of the scientific method, the secrets of the Universe are unveiled gradually, in an organic fashion.

The alternative, of being absolutely at the mercy of the Universe, is certainly much less preferable. Just ask farmers in the Midwest, for example, who are stranded in their homes for weeks, perhaps more than a month, without electric power, which way they would rather live.

I agree with anyone who quotes Uncle Adolph, at least, to the extent that they quote…Uncle Adolph!

New America

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

A note to the author:

You might want to submit this to Bill White, either for his magazine or as a foundational article for his proposed “Journal of Theoretical National Socialist Studies.”

New America

An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

Carpenter is incoherent, self-contradictory and annoying. Worse, he’s an enabler for the enemies of our race. He is more of a US apologist than a real WN. The “right” of today consists mostly of corporate bootlickers and kike allies – don’t think they aren’t PC, the only difference is that they favor jews over other minorities. Also, read your history book, sir: modern capitalist “right-wingers” are direct descendants of classical liberals (Smith, Ricardo, Hayek, etc). If money and greed are the only basis of a society, it really shouldn’t be called a society at all. And there has never been a “free market,” because that would imply anarchy – you see, every government in history has had control over the markets in some fashion; in fact, the market wouldn’t function properly without a working government…Your ideas are just warmed over classic-liberal platitudes. Hate to say it, but every government in history, since long before socialism, has been partly a kleptocracy. There must be some form of free enterprise, but modern corporatism is a far cry from any “freedom” (you can be a tremendous success too, with the small cost of your soul). Seriously, Carpenter, as soon as your system of thought and ideology isn’t filled with contradictions, naivete and juvenility, people might start taking you more seriously. You aren’t a WN at all, just a bitter lemming. Leave logic to those who can handle it.