We're Back, Baby!(under new management)
Welcome to /fbc/
As a wise man once said, in a roundabout way, books are tools. They exist to inspire the coming man and other revolutionaries, and to aid the process of iteration. We, therefore, would be fools not to take advantage of them.
Fascist Book Club plans to meet on a weekly to biweekly basis to share well-written insights on books chosen by /fbc/ members. The book of the week will be chosen in the thread, and after an allotted time period, anons will return to discuss their reading. Posts related to the chosen book should be high quality, and anons are expected to keep discussion civil and productive. Lastly, and most importantly, have fun with it! While the topics being discussed can be serious, there is no reason why you can't enjoy it. So, let's get started.
Our first book is:
Impeachment of Man
>Written by Savitri Devi
Discussion starts on 9/23
Archive.org link for Impeachment of Man:
Sorry to be a beggar but could you post the file here, please?
My bad, bad etiquette.
I'm wondering, if the first discussion goes well, what everyone wants to read next? I was thinking that we could do something by Nietzsche or Gottfried Feder, but suggestions are more than welcome.
Beyond Good and Evil would be a good choice. One of Spengler's lesser talked about works like Man and Technics or Prussianism and Socialism could also give some good discussion, but they're rather short.
I think Feder's pretty much already read by everyone here. I think one of his influences like Othmar Spann might be a better choice.
>Beyond Good and Evil
I've read it before, but I could probably benefit from a rereading. All the discussion I hear around Nietzsche is usually pretty good, but all I got from Beyond Good and Evil was a rootless cosmopolitan whining about post-modernism while following a philosophy steeped in it and praising the people who brought it about.
>Man and Technics or Prussianism and Socialism
> Othmar Spann
These all sound like good ideas. I've also shilled the american transcendentalist movement for a while, but that might be a little too abrahamic for /fascist/.
I suppose I'll start. This book was prophetic and way ahead of its time. Mass extinction caused by humans, problems with vaccinations, and even social causes like loggers replanting trees are all things that have only relatively recently made it into mainstream discourse. One thing I always love about national socialist literature is how it seems like it could have been written yesterday. The evils they fought against then are the same ones we fight against today. In Chapter 1 Devi discusses how ideological minorities will spring up in civilizations throughout history and set the stage for moral judgements, just as we see fellow travelers of national socialism and fascism spring up regardless of time or place, already awakened to a national socialist worldview.
I'm usually not into the ecofascist or metaphysical stuff and never would have read this if not for this thread. My only experience with Devi is The Lightning and the Sun, which I enjoyed immensely, so it was nice to experience her writing style again. She has a way with words that really pulls one in. I won't say much about the things I agree with because I don't think that fosters discussion, so I'll post some of the thoughts I had while reading that put me in opposition with Devi's vision.
Her discussion of valuing animal life as equal to or even above human life is usually based on a critique of religion (eg. Jesus died for the sins of Man, not animals), but it's also possible to take a more secular viewpoint. That man is a rising beast using his ability to reason to rise above animals and plants while still existing within his role in nature is briefly addressed by Devi, but she boils everything down to the "usefulness" of an animal species to man. She creates an all-or-nothing argument where if one values the ability to reason, then one also has to value every human life regardless of that individual's circumstances or if he can even reason at all. This is wrong because if Man is lifted above beasts by his ability to reason, then a man who cannot reason is nothing more than a beast and would be subject to similar treatment. It seems Devi may have agreed somewhat with this viewpoint as one of her main critiques of man-centered worldviews was that of hypocrisy. For example, she frequently highlights the inconsistency with people who support testing on animals, yet oppose "war crimes." Devi also claims it is not in nature to be omnivorous, and man has only picked up meat as an acquired taste, but we know of multiple species that are omnivorous in nature. This claim and her claim that domesticated dogs and cats could live on bread and milk in a meatless world might be a product of the time it was written, since these are obviously incorrect with our current knowledge of animal species and nutrition. Based on that, the argument that humans are naturally omnivorous still stands. One thing Devi does not address at all is the killing of animals to maintain fruit and vegetable farms. The number of mice, birds, and other "vermin" that are exterminated to maintain a field of fresh vegetables is no small number, so I was hoping to see how she would reconcile that in her vision of a meat free, cruelty free society.
Ultimately, one doesn't need an animal to be "useful" to value its existence nor does one need to completely abstain from consumption of meat, rather the focus should be on avoiding unnecessary harm to any living thing. One also does not need to see even the worst humans as superior to animals or having some sort of divine soul. While I can fully support the abolition of factory farms, it wouldn't do to also shut down a small time farmer or homesteader raising animals with kindness in a clean environment for the purpose of feeding their family or community.
I can't really disagree with any of your post, so I guess I'll expand on it.
Devi talks a lot about the morality of eating meat, and I agree with most of her points. Reducing and eliminating cruelty wherever possible should be a primary concern of a post-establishment Aryan society, as kindness to animals and nature is a defining trait of the Aryan psyche. The consumption of meats like veal is wrong, as it deprives the animal of a fulfilling life and a mother of her children, as well as callous exploitation of animals in slaughterhouse and factory farm conditions. Where I start to disagree with her, like (you) said, is the notion that the Aryan man can reach his full potential eating only plants. The nutrients found in offal and other meats, which have been systematically demonized and eliminated from modern diets for the express purpose of harming Aryan men and women, are essential to the proper development of Aryan children. If the fairer races are needed healthy and in their prime to establish a perfect world, as Devi says, then the consumption of meat is necessary.
She also relies too much on examples of situations involving feral cats, and this reveals the somewhat limited scope of her understanding of the love for all living creatures, unless she is using this to make the arguments she uses more appealing to the common person. Cats and dogs in most places are invasive species. When people feed them, they only cause their populations to multiply further. They cause untold havoc on local ecosystem, like in examples of the cat's colonization of islands in the Pacific. When one steps back and truly sees the situation, they realize that the most humane thing to do would to be to remove invasive cat populations in the least cruel way possible. By this, I mean that sometimes traditional kindness to all animals (feeding stray cats), although it makes us feel good, might not always be the best thing to do. The greater good is not always what would look "right" to the common man.
Also, I do not agree with Devi's praise of the concept of the universalist soul. Just because all beings are imbued with the fire of life, does not mean that they are inherently the same. They are united by one principle, not equal in power or importance (they do all have some purpose though). The idea that a man can reincarnate as an animal seems like a dangerous slipping point into ideas of equality of other kinds. The Aryan is an Aryan because his soul could be nothing else but that. To reject his purpose would be adharmic, which is why it is used as a punishment in many myths like those mentioned by Devi, and others, like the Bacchae.
Keep in mind, I do not think that Savitri Devi wrote any of this maliciously, but only that she had deficient information about nutrition and that she did not properly analyze the rule of Eternal Struggle. Most of the problems Devi has with meat consumption could be solved by relying more on dairy consumption for protein intake, and only eating livestock that are old or already dying. She also fails to acknowledge the harmful effects of modern agriculture, like the repeated harvest of fast growing plants as opposed to more permaculture related plantings, the loss of soil, and the incompatibility with unmanaged ecosystems. Still, the book was a very engaging read.
So first of all I'd like to thank you all, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today with you.
Since I am from a land where free speech is basically nonexistent today, I do not take this opportunity lightheartedly.
Thank you all.
So first of all what a book...
Even though written some 80 years ago it reads as if written yesterday, as you said >>457.
The writing style is impeccable and I would even consider this a Whitepill.
Why? Because even if written as a critique there shines a glorious light out of these sentences.
>Ultimately, one doesn't need an animal to be "useful" to value its existence nor does one need to completely abstain from consumption of meat, rather the >focus should be on avoiding unnecessary harm to any living thing.
And this positive outlook on life is what completely distinguishes her from the modern times, the modern socalled elites and even the modern ecologists I would argue.
The fighting of "climate change" is solely based on the fear of life itself.
And this does not stop at the human level, as can be seen with people arguing not to procreate for the sake of modern "ecology".
So this is actually anti-life.
Which brings me to the main thing this book provided.
Which is: Distortion. Or rather the conciousness of distortion.
It is not so, that the ecologist "masses" are all "anti-life" even if that is what is being preached.
To the contrary, most of them are actually pro life and actually hold beliefs that are absolutely aligned with Devi's, even if not so profoundly developed.
But the idea got distorted.
A true aryan idea that many if not most of us hold somewhere in our hearts got distorted in such a way as to turn it against us.
Distorting it in such a way that forces some of us us to oppose it.
Thereby effectively turning us against ourselves.
This can be seen with many things that got somehow distorted:
((( Ecology ))) = anti natural life.
((( Healthcare ))) = anti health.
((( Feminism ))) = anti feminine.
True male rolemodels = the ((( glowing ))) nigger andrew tate.
You name it.
The good thing in all this is that we can now be sure that below these distortions there always was and is something good.
The most difficult task now is achieving "perfect balance".
Because nothing less than "perfect balance" is needed.
Is needed to hold your balance between being opposed to the distortion and embracing the aryan truth.
Is needed to walk the path across the drahtseil.
To the other side.
>Even though written some 80 years ago it reads as if written yesterday
I think most authors who have a firm grasp on the truths of the universe end up writing in this way, like Hitler, for example. A lot of his writings about the political climate of Germany, and his view of the future geopolitical climate still rings true today. Once you see the general motion of history, you get where everything is going.
> Distortion. Or rather the conciousness of distortion.
This is a really interesting topic, and I'm glad you understand it so well. One of the biggest example of this "distortion" concept is the molding of the figure of Jesus to match the Germanic conception of the archetype of Baldr. With figures like Baldr already being associated with Mirth and Fidelity, and the Aryan compassion for all life, it was not much of a stretch to push the figure of christ onto the germanic people, as the Arian Christian of the Goths shows.
Andrew Tate, who is essentially PUA for the zoomer generation, accomplished the same thing by pointing out the truth of the degeneration of modern women. Most Gen Z young men are acutely aware of the state of women, but, being the most negrified and atomized generation to date, in the US at least, they either are not present enough to act on it, have no interest or desire to change the situation, or are too embarrassed to speak out. Now, having the Zoomer's attention, Tate provides a false solution. He tells the young man that it is the woman's fault for being a whore, and that he must exploit women's psychology in order to pump and dump as many of them as possible. He is providing a cheap imitation of true masculinity to kids that don't know any better. The only real way to solve the woman question would be to take personal responsibility for the actions of women and stop them from being whores.
One of the worst examples of distortion I've seen is with the "literally me" media phenomena. Hollywood has created characters, which, on the surface, appear to be in agreement with a sane viewer's ideals, but in fact are neurotic weirdos. Characters like Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver, William Foster from Falling down, Daniel Balint from The Believer, and Holden Caulfield from the book Catcher In The Rye and all characters dreamt up by jews to subvert the viewer into adopting neurotic, alienating traits, and to associate National Socialist adjacent ideas with insane people in the popular mind. I might make a more in-depth poster about this later.
>Cats and dogs in most places are invasive species. When people feed them, they only cause their populations to multiply further. They cause untold havoc on local ecosystem, like in examples of the cat's colonization of islands in the Pacific. When one steps back and truly sees the situation, they realize that the most humane thing to do would to be to remove invasive cat populations in the least cruel way possible. By this, I mean that sometimes traditional kindness to all animals (feeding stray cats), although it makes us feel good, might not always be the best thing to do. The greater good is not always what would look "right" to the common man.
I agree with you here. This and her rejection of the idea of natural omnivorousness are my main (admittedly small) critiques of this book. She also later presents an argument against spay and neuter of pets as destruction of that animal's ability to play its part in the natural order. This seems asinine to me, not only because of the aforementioned issue of overpopulation of strays, but also because of it's probably THE most humane way to eliminate suffering of the unwanted pets. It would be one thing if she objected to the keeping of pets entirely, but she insists that the general human population actively care for animals and to avoid the idea that "do no harm" is enough.
Oftentimes, "do no harm" is exactly what should occur. Any interference by man shows preference to one species or another, and Devi seems keen to reject that notion.
Has anybody here read For My Legionaries yet?
>molding of the figure of Jesus to match the Germanic conception of the archetype of Baldr
Having personally experienced jewish behaviour the concept of Jesus being one of them is just totally and utterly laughable to me. Anyway that's a most interesting subject. So if you could recommend me some books that aren't ((( distorted ))) I'd be most grateful. Maybe we could read something of the mythological sort next.
>Hollywood has created characters, which, on the surface, appear to be in agreement with a sane viewer's ideals, but in fact are neurotic weirdos.
I really liked reading your take on that "literally me" media phenomena. They really love those "weird" characters don't they. The thing is that this "weirdness" is becoming more and more blatant in newer movies. At the same time forums like the kiwifarms are getting censored, where actual "weird" real/internet personalities are being called out. Makes one wonder. But that one is an entirely new topic in itself.
Years ago, yes. Main takeaways were:
>Embrace masculinity, embrace fraternity
>Traitors are worse than enemies
>Jews can't Jew you if your society is healthy
He had a Christian take on this last one, but it's a fair point irrespective of religious affiliation.
A lot of the rest was autobiographical if I remember correctly. Let me know if I've forgotten anything - it might be worth a revisit.
Our next selections will be:
>Written by Tacitus
>Written by Unknown
With all of Savitri Devi's talk of the life affirming attributes of ancient Germanic civilizations, what better way would there be to further our discussion of this but to analyze the ancient Germanics. This week, you will read a selection of two texts, "Germania", a text written on the germanic tribes in the Roman Imperial Era by Tacitus, and "The Nibelungenlied", a germanic epic which finds it's origins near the time of the fall of the Roman Empire.
Discussion begins on 10/3
>the ability to reason, then one also has to value every human life regardless of that individual's circumstances
>Also, I do not agree with Devi's praise of the concept of the universalist soul.
This just further proves my point I made on 8chan on how Dharmists and Abrahamics are all the same and both have a universalist perspective on how everything is ultimately equal. I will never understand why NatSocs are trying to adopt Santana Dharma, especially the Gita, which are incompatible with many of the beliefs and nature of National Socialism. Himmler reading it means little to nothing and I doubt he blindly absorbed all of its contents. The true face and brains of the NSDAP was Hitler anyway. I still like Devi though, she was one of a kind and her books were all on point.
Also, this thread is for civil discussion. Refrain from insulting the people you are replying to, an keep the tone respectful. I admit I got a little aggressive in my post, and I apologize for that
If the discussion is not related to the book itself, move it to an appropriate thread.
Is there any way for you to move the last 3 posts to the aryan religion thread?
Reading through Roman literature at present.
Also third position economic works, which are diverse and at present I can't synthesize.
I would strongly recommend the Aeneid, it's very readable, thought often discounted as a poor man's oddesey and a deification of Roman elites who sponsored it's writing the book is a rare primary account of Roman values as they really were.
I suppose it's discussion time already. These were good choices to follow up Impeachment of Man. These readings covered a number of subjects and you could spend time discussing any number of them. Here are some things that caught my interest in reading.
The Nibelungenlied does a pretty good job showcasing Aryan ideals and how they can be subverted to the detriment of all. At the very beginning it is said "meet is it that the old help the young, even as they in their day were holpen" which is immediately followed by an example, Siegfried receiving land and castles from his father as his father had received from those before him. It is our duty to build up our "kingdom" (your livelihood, reputation, etc) in order to pass it on to our descendants. All too often these days we see elders hoarding what they've built up and would rather die alone in nursing homes than pass it on for the next generation to continue building on. We see brotherhood and fraternity between Siegfried and Gunther in Gunther's wooing of Brunhild. There are two main topics I'd like to touch on from this work, however, and that's the role of women and the subversion of the people.
Initially the relationship between the men and women in the story is close to the ideal. Women are strong, such as Brunhild challenging men to a test of strength against her, but they ultimately defer to the men, who are brave warriors and conduct the business of the house. They support each other, women managing the household and kingdom and while the men are away, and while the idea of the inferiority of women is somewhat present, it is presented as mere chivalry. This reminded me of Himmler's speech on homosexuality to the SS, where he briefly discusses attitudes towards women in a national socialist society. He states "The attitude about the inferiority of women is a typical Christian attitude, and we also who have been national socialists up to this day - many even who are strict heathens - have unwittingly adopted this set of ideas." It is not my intention to start a debate on Christianity vs whatever, but to illustrate that some of our forefathers in the movement realized the importance of respecting women as they seem to be respected in the Nibelungenlied. The "women question" appeared in some of the deleted posts in this thread and it's a nice coincidence that we get a chance to talk about it so soon. As Dr. Sofia Rabe said in her pamphlet on the role of women in a national socialist Germany, "the misery of women is a part of that great misery of the German Volk, and can only be solved in conjunction with it." The current miserable state of our women is merely a symptom of our corrupted society, which leads us to the next topic.
The argument between Kriemhild and Brunhild was turned into a great ordeal, destroying at least two kingdoms. Gunther and Siegfried failed to reign in their women and despite settling the issue themselves, a certain element was allowed to seep into the cracks. I'm sure this was familiar to many of you. The bold and honorable Siegfried betrayed by a cowardly schemer. I thought I may have been reading too much into it so I decided to investigate and found the same interpretation from Wagner himself! Hagen is the eternal Jew. He is portayed as a half dwarf in Wagner's opera and Högni, his norse counterpart, is a half elf. The idea of an impure racial element seems to span the continent in later versions of the story despite not being present in the original work for what seems to be obvious reasons. His scheming causes the dissolution of a moral society, with many betrayals following and Kriemhild becoming unhinged, abandoning all of her honor. Then at the very end Hagen refuses to give up the location of his stolen treasure even with death upon him and no one to inherit it. Despite being revealed in the second volume to be a powerful knight, at his core he is greedy, cowardly, and refuses to take responsibility even when caught.
As for Tacitus, Germania was interesting and reiterates some of what I've already discussed. He notes the purity of the German race and calls out the Bastarnae as an exception, saying they have a deteriorated physique due to interbreeding with Sarmatians. Women are brought to battle to shame cowards and the morals regarding women and marriage are praised by Tacitus who says "good morality is more effective there than good laws elsewhere." This goes back to my previous discussion about women and it's worth noting that these values were present even 1200 years before the Nibelungenlied was written. They are a part of us. Tacitus says "none of the German peoples live in cities" and criticizes this fact as if it is a trait of an uncivilized people. We are not a people made for cities. We are miserable in cities, as Hitler says many times in Mein Kampf. Tacitus praises city architecture with houses that are close together and "efficient," but it clashes with our sensibilities. The culture behind lebensraum is as old as our race and once again, it is part of who we are. "This people is neither cunning nor subtle." See Siegfried. That a friend could betray him never crossed his mind. We are not schemers, so it's only right that our greatest natural enemy is one.
It was pleasant to read your review anon, thank you.
On the women question: very interesting what you pointed out there. It really is distinguishing that germanic societies always had such a high degree of honor that expresses itself towards women.
Tacitus described the warring of the tribes. But also that they had some kind of unwritten rules. That they were honest. Truthfull. That even the slaves were relatively free. He ascribes that to the overall degree of freedom. He describes that they only did little chores and were otherwise not obliged. Hypothetically speaking such a society would not even push vaccination on the slaves.
The customs of the Germans as recorded in Germania serve as a great contrast to the failing values of Imperial Rome. Tacitus himself recognizes this within the text, one saying "no one there laughs about vice, nor is seducing or being seduced considered 'modern'", and commenting on the unique nuptial practices of the Germans, like they're relative lateness to marry. An increasing decadent Rome permits more and more sexual degeneracy, with wet nurses and court intrigue becoming common, while the Germans do not feign to even mention vice. It goes to show that settling into avarice and degeneracy is an ever-present threat to civilization, as the Tacitus's account of Roman degeneracy rings true in current society. It also shows us that, with or without the Jews, (although Jews were present in abundance in places like Alexandria), degeneration will come, meaning that it is the Germanic man's responsibility first and foremost to uphold the values of his civilization.
Aspects of both the Nibelungenlied and Germania show the integral nature of competition in Germanic societies. In the Nibelungenlied, fair competition, often with grave consequences for the loser, plays a big role in the development of the story. Gunther bets his life in a competition over his marriage to Kriemhild, and Siegfried's war with the Saxons is an extension of this, with it being a sort of gentleman's war. The ancient Germans treated sport and war as almost one in the same, and it helped to develop an attitude of detached violence. In Germania, Tacitus mentions the same attitude, talking about how Germans would sometimes bet their freedom in dice games, and would hold themselves to their word when they lost. Since this attribute is present in the ancient and medieval Germans, this must be a constant of the Germanic spirit.
I think the portion of your post about the role of women in a NS society, and how both texts correspond to it was very insightful. Many people adjacent to our circle see our relationship with our women as adversarial. The truth of the matter is that they are only obeying their nature, and it is our fault for letting a society that does not reflect our higher values to draw them in. White women are complimentary to white men, and they can often be our muses. How many things are more beautiful that seeing a beautiful, healthy woman with an equally heathy baby? Women in Germania are not confined to their homes, nor are they covered in concealing clothing. It is not right to treat them like animals to be muzzled, as, again, it is the man's responsibility to bring them up right and resist their urges.
Our work for the next week or two is:
Beyond Good and Evil
>Written by Friedrich Nietzsche
Moving away from more esoteric works, we now enter the world of modern German philosophy, which we will explore over the next several weeks. Our first work, Beyond Good and Evil, by Nietzsche, disagrees with the fascist worldview in many places, but also affirms it in others. It should be ripe for analysis.
Discussion starts on 10/15
Beyond Good and Evil PDF
It has been a while since I read anything by Nietzsche and I'm rather powerfully reminded that I still don't have the philosophical background to really tackle his works. Ironic since I suggested it, I guess. His references to Spinoza and others besides Kant were lost on me, but luckily he lays off the other philosophers after part 1. There are any number of topics you could pick from this to focus on, but I'm going to take a look at three: the concept of "beyond good and evil," religion in society, and slave vs master morality.
Nietzsche says the concepts of good and evil are culturally constructed rather than inherently true; different cultures develop different systems of morality in order to maintain social order. The idea of good and evil only exists to weaken the strongest members of a group. All humans have the "will to power" and systems of morality bypass this will by privileging the group over the individual. You see here the radicalized individualism of Nietzsche, but Nietzsche also goes on to say that societies are advanced by these strongest members. Plato, Alexander, and Hitler were "beyond good and evil" because they broke free from traditional moral principles. So as national socialists (or fascists) we have to ask ourselves whether we agree with Nietzsche's individualism or if we're "herd animals" following the morality of the collective. This will also go into slave vs master morality so I'll leave that for later and talk about the nature of morality. Is morality universal or cultural? We know that Nietzsche says it's culture, but that goes against Kant's categorical imperative. I believe the ultimate philosophy of national socialism is the blending of Kantian and Nietzschean philosophy, the categorical imperative being the NS idea of "natural law" concerning morality. There are some cultural aspects to morality (laws in France will be different than laws in Germany for historical and cultural reasons) but there exists a universal baseline for morality in European nations and their colonies.
In 48 Nietzsche ties religion to race. I found this very interesting, but even more fascinating was his follow up. He says that for Latin peoples, a revolt against Catholicism would be a revolt against the spirit of the race, but for Aryans it's the opposite. We have a poor talent for religion, according to Nietzsche. I tend to agree. Just look at our movement for the proof. Many of us are more concerned with using religion for it's perceived merits than an actual belief in the religion itself. This is perfectly fine so long as we don't use religion to divide ourselves. In Mein Kampf Hitler said anyone creating division in the movement over religion is doing the work of the Jew. In 61 Nietzsche goes on to discuss the merits of religion for society as an educational and disciplinary medium that ennobles a race. Then in 62 he shows how a religion becoming the end rather than the means can degenerate a society. Many people believe Nietzsche was vehemently against religion itself, but this shows that he was really against the institutions like the priesthood corrupting a pure religion. This is consistent with his views in his "Antichrist." Again, it is perfectly fine to say we don't have a "talent" for religion because it allows us to use religion as a tool to improve ourselves and refine our virtues.
In this work Nietzsche also establishes his ideas of "slave" and "master" morality. Slave morality being a moral system like Christianity (or communism) requiring submission to others for "the greater good." Master morality is individualistic; it is that which makes a man the master of his own destiny and fate. So are we slave moralists or master moralists? I could see this twisted in either direction. The master morality is Mussolini's "new man" of fascism. He has his own ideals and lives by them. A national socialist now could be seen as this "new man" but what about a national socialist among a nation of national socialists? One could also say that a collectivist working towards the betterment of the race as a whole is submitting to his community for the greater good. It seems his "Genealogy of Morals" (which I haven't read) delves deeper into this topic, so I can't say for certain where we'd stand according to Nietzsche. It is true that we work for the betterment of the nation and race, but we also value the individual. Every brilliant idea begins with an individual. Without that we wouldn't have Mussolini, Hitler, Rosenberg, Feder, or any of the other great minds of our movement. I reject Nietzsche's atomized individualism, but I also reject the slave morality of democracy and communism. Perhaps there is a third position here as well.
I'll leave you with 274. I felt personally attacked by this and some of you may have as well. Here lies the problem of those who wait. How many of us are waiting for "the chance which gives permission to take action"? Improve yourself daily. Read, exercise, whatever. Then go out and apply it. It's the hardest part of what we do and I'm certainly guilty of neglecting the real world aspect of our movement. Do not wait for the chance, but rather "take chance by the forelock"!
I have trouble with Nietzsche. In one aphorism, he recognized that the philosophy of a people is derived from their racial characteristics, while in another, he says that there was a pre-moral period of mankind. If the philosophy of a people is a codification of accepted "assumptions", as Nietzsche calls them, and with distinct races having existed since before the advent of agriculture, how could this pre-moral culture exist? The only conclusion that can be drawn from his assertion is that the European culture of his time had somehow been influenced by outside racial influences, since he himself describes German philosophy as fraternal to Vedic and Greek philosophy. This makes sense, but Nietzsche also goes on to identify Christian Philosophy with German Philosophy, like Kierkegaard. How could he say that Christian philosophy is in any way similar to that of the Vedics or Greeks? Does he not see that most German philosophy, and most medieval philosophy by extension is poisoned by Christian thought? How could could he praise the Jew's parasitic lifestyle and "artistic prowess". I understand what he is trying to say with the Jew's ability to survive, but I do not understand how he can see it as better that the more noble leanings of the Germans.
He at once points out the wretchedness of cynicism and the danger of modern culture, but at the same time praises it's progenitors. He dotes on the jews, and drools over Aristophanes, who, much like Nietzsche, criticized his cultures rotten aspects while still participating in its degenerate Dionysian aspects. He dismisses nationalism as a crutch for the weak (he has a point when referring to modern "Patriotism").
I can't help but get frustrated while reading his work.
Putting all of this aside though, he also has some powerful insights. His understanding of will is definitely an important concept for a fascist to understand, and his description of a nihilistic people and society is still very much relevant. I think what Nietzsche was missing was the "nuance" he described in Aphorism 31. For him, the spiritual world is a farce and all that is done is to further the desires of the man doing it. This may be the case, but Nietzsche fails to acknowledge that the Aryan man, through his capacity for compassion, is able to see the entire world as a part of himself. He should also be more accepting of the spiritual aspects of reality, seeing as he identifies the ignoring of observable reality as an issue.
> It's the hardest part of what we do and I'm certainly guilty of neglecting the real world aspect of our movement.
I think that this is the most important thing for people in our movement to understand. Very few people are worthy of being called National Socialists, because it is a way of life, rather than merely a political ideology. A libertarian, for example, has no pressure to implement his ideas. He theorizes and that is the end of it. But National Socialism is defined by action; his options are "struggle or die". He must exemplify his ideology and be a reflection of it's beauty.
We continue with German Philosophy with:
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
>By Friedrich Nietzsche
Discussion begins on 10/25
Thus Spoke Zarathustra PDF
I believe part of your post is in regard to aphorisms 250 and 251, correct? Although Nietzsche praises the teachings of the old testament, he also says the "slave revolt on morality" began with the jews. I think his praise of the Jews here is just a backhanded compliment. Paraphrasing, he goes on to say "Yeah sure they COULD control all of Europe, but lucky for us they don't want to!" When Nietzsche says the Jew is satisfied with a radical revaluation of values of his enemies, it seems to me that he's just saying these are not an original people. They blend in and assimilate, but use their "moral genius" to twist a nation's values. It's also important to remember the era in which he was writing, as you said. In the Victorian Era just saying Jesus was a Jew would be met with outrage. His backhanded praise for the Jew is more a criticism of the modern German than it is real praise. Alfred Baeumler said Nietzsche's praise for them was meant as a foil for the German reader in order to goad him to greatness. Nietzsche loves contradictions and oxymoronic statements. He presents multiple viewpoints and leaves it to the reader to read between the lines and come up with his own interpretation. I suggest picking up his "Antichrist" at some point if you haven't already read it. I think he makes it pretty clear there that, while he might not be a raging anti-semite, he has no love for the Jews as a whole or their religion.
Only 9 days, whew. I'm a slow reader as it is, but I'll see what I can do. This should be a good follow up to Beyond Good and Evil.
>Only 9 days, whew. I'm a slow reader as it is, but I'll see what I can do
If you don't make it, let me know in the thread and we can extend the time.
I was a little worried about not having much to say since I had to blaze through this, but it looks like I've conjured another wall of text. Reading this with no prior knowledge of Nietzsche's philosophy would have been a nightmare, so I thank you for putting Beyond Good and Evil first.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra differs from other works of Nietzsche with its literary style. Everything is presented as a metaphor and you either have to have prior knowledge of his ideas and who he is as a person or you need to have a lot of time and dedication to cut through the veil of his metaphorical style. You could, and indeed some people have, spend your life studying Nietzsche and going through each paragraph of Thus Spoke Zarathustra dissecting each line to try to get at the true meaning. I also believe this is why it's considered Nietzsche's flagship work. It didn't strike me as anything particularly special compared to his other works, but the added complexity from his unique style here allows academic types to pat themselves on the back for finding the "true" meaning of a passage after much study. Some passages refer to his personal life with references to solitude and digestive issues (nausea and entrails are mentioned throughout) while other passages refer to Darwin, Dostoevsky, Schopenhauer, and others. His philosophical musings seem to mostly focus on his idea of the Übermensch, or "overman" as the translation I read puts it, and Nietzsche ties his previous philosophical ideas to the Übermensch in this work. One interesting thing to note about his literary style is the constant repetition of "over" and "under" throughout the work, symbolizing going toward the ideal of the Übermensch or away from it. This is reminiscent of the use of "up" and "down" in Plato's Republic. I do not know if this was intentional on Nietzsche's part, but the stylistic similarities are clear.
Nietzsche speaks of the death of god. Faith in god is dead and any meaning of life found in some supernatural purpose is gone. It is up to man to give life meaning by raising himself above the animals. The idea of raising oneself above the animal kingdom goes back to our discussion on Impeachment of Man. "What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end." Man is a bridge to the Übermensch. To become more than the "all too human," man must become a creator and break with previous norms, or "revaluate all values." One starts out as the camel, a beast of burden laboring under the weight of tradition, then he becomes a defiant lion rebelling against tradition, finally becoming a child creating a new system of values. This can only be done by a man who has subjected himself to the discipline of tradition, according to Nietzsche. I think his scorn for tradition is interesting here and it also goes into his views on stoic philosophy. In Beyond Good and Evil he calls stoicism "self tyranny." He claims stoics do not actually live in accordance with nature, but rather try to dictate their ideals and morals TO nature. He goes on to say that philosophy itself is a tyrannical impulse. In Zarathustra he says "in me there is something invulnerable and unburiable, something that explodes rock: that is my will" and this is very much the ideal we see in Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. His attack on stoicism is really an attack on the idea of natural law because Nietzsche, as discussed before, believes morals are a cultural phenomenon. Nietzsche describes cheap morals and virtues as a panacea. He says these "traditional" virtues can create mediocrity and "good sleep" but then life lacks meaning. I think here an important distinction can be made between tradition and convention. Nietzsche obviously respects tradition. He has a great respect for the arts, music, and dance. He is well read and wants everyone else to know it. Some may see Nietzsche's attacks on tradition as an attack on the fascist/NS worldview, but it's really an attack on the burden of convention.
Back to the Übermensch, Nietzsche discusses three evils. These evils are sex, the lust to rule (or the will to power), and selfishness. He calls these evils because they have been twisted by Christianity, these are the evils that separate the regions of Hell in Dante after all, but Nietzsche says these are essential elements of the Übermensch. Nietzsche wants to return to the Aristotelian way of thought, with the weakness of will being one of the true great evils. In "On the Way of the Creator" Nietzsche breaks away from his typical individualistic attitude. Only the creator, the Übermensch, must break with tradition. This answers my question on slave vs master morality in my post on Beyond Good and Evil.
Nietzsche also speaks of the state. The state tells nothing but lies and has stolen all it has. The state signifies the will to death, the true evil; it is the "coldest of all cold monsters." His criticism of the state echoes his criticism of modernity. This is very similar to the discussion of the state in Mein Kampf. I do not know if Hitler had prior knowledge of Nietzsche while writing, but it seems he had an innate understanding of this truth. To Nietzsche, to go away from the state is to go toward the Übermensch. The Übermensch is someone who does not really exist, merely an ideal, but Hitler is someone who has come very near this ideal. "They crucify him who writes new values on new tablets; they sacrifice the future to themselves - they crucify all man's future." I couldn't think of anyone other than Hitler when I read this line.
We also see an interesting line on Nietzsche's idea of friendship. He was a solitary person in life, so it felt like a rare statement coming from him and showed that he truly had broken free from Schopenhauer's influence. Do not simply love thy neighbor, but rather make friends who will elevate you and strive together toward the ideal of the Übermensch. Simple and beautifully put.
The fourth part was kind of lost on me. It was published unfinished after Nietzsche had gone insane and was apparently supposed to go before part 3. I thought it was somewhat repetitive, so maybe it would have been trimmed down and refined if Nietzsche had time to finish it. Whether put at the end or elsewhere, it does carry on the theme of self overcoming with each character either representing a part of humanity or a part of Nietzsche himself.
"Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, there stands a mighty ruler, an unknown sage - whose name is self."
I find it ironic that one of the more "cryptic" works of Nietzsche has brought me to a much better understanding of him. Maybe Beyond Good and Evil was too sterile, unfeeling, but even at it's end there was an impassioned speech in favor of Dionysus. The poetry he criticized as shallow and unfocused has reached me, as he himself criticizes his musings on the overman as too poetic. There was, too, a certain genuineness that came with the mimicking of vedic and buddhist texts, and perhaps the texts of all wise men.
Zarathustra is the man deserving of the title of National Socialist. He truly internalizes the love of eternal struggle, or as he calls it: "Eternal recurrence". The good moments he takes with the bad, and he hopes for the worst suffering over mediocrity, with the whole spectrum of existence being deserving of his love. There is room in the world for "moles and dwarves", as he says. This is not to say that evil should not be rooted out and destroyed though. Loving evil is overcoming pity and conquering it.
The "Eternal recurrence", which many forsake and wish to escape from, is the privilege of the Aryan man. His people are the only ones consistently able to become conscious of the cyclicality of time, and of the privilege of his position. He is gifted with the greatest burden and the greatest honor. He is capable of being the bridge to the "overman". Zarathustra speaks of this burden repeatedly, talking of carrying the human being on his shoulders. That is what we must do, too. We, who are capable of taking responsibility, are tasked with taking up this mantle and making the world that "will be".
Another important aspect to touch upon, I feel, is Zarathustra's effort to create followers and then teachers. In the first part, he learns that he cannot appeal to the "herd", but to the individuals who would understand his message, thus he would amass disciples. But disciples follow and Zarathustra needed leaders, creators, so he left them to weather the world alone. This would weed out the weak of will and the disingenuous. In the same way, we need to filter out the maladapted and weak-willed in our movement. Dr. Pierce once made a speech on this topic, although I cannot remember what broadcast or convention it was from.
>The fourth part was kind of lost on me.
I took the fourth part as Nietzsche describing the way his readers interpreted his work, as mirrored by how Zarathustra's teachings were interpreted. The Kings are noble and search for the Overman, but are content with not changing themselves. The Man who is conscientious in Spirit throws off the values of his society, but does not build back up new ones. Nietzsche is saying that his readers are striving towards being the overman, but that all of their approaches are flawed in some way. They are "One huge limb", as he put it.
Are you interested in continuing on with Nietzsche or moving to a different author? I feel that most of what he had to say was said in TSZ, but maybe I'm wrong.
I'm glad you mentioned the "eternal recurrence" because I completely forgot to bring it up. It's something central to our ideals and you summed it up perfectly. The message about turning followers into leaders was insightful as well. I remember the passage you're talking about, but I didn't make this connection when I read it. The NSDAP used to have meetings dedicated to that very purpose. Even with a Fuhrer, the party needs a strong leadership to back him up and potentially replace him if the worst happens. One Zarathustra is not enough.
Your interpretation of the fourth part is most likely correct.
>Are you interested in continuing on with Nietzsche or moving to a different author?
I will most likely read some more of his work on my own time, but I'm ready to move on here. This is the fascist book club, after all. While Nietzsche's ideas greatly influence fascist thinkers, he's not a fascist himself. I think these works adequately covered his ideas that influenced the fascist worldview.
No, the AntiChrist is required reading for /fascist/ so make that an addition to whatever you decide upon reading next.
Reading the Antichrist will probably be superfluous, as almost all of the books we have read so far have provided in-depth criticism of Christianity (Impeachment of Man, Beyond Good and Evil, Thus Spoke Zarathustra). I wouldn't be opposed to doing a series on Christianity, like ready the bible and other Christian texts (Maybe Gnostics) for the purpose of criticism and analysis of where they went wrong and of jewish influence.
It would also be great to have you in the book club if you were interested.
>I think these works adequately covered his ideas that influenced the fascist worldview
Ok, good. I was thinking of making the next book Sex and Character by ((( Otto Weininger ))), though I hesitate greatly to call it German Philosophy. If not that, then we will do Schopenhauer and then move on. I'll decide by tommorrow, but you are pretty much the only anon here since the german anon left, so let me know what you want to read.
I'm ok with either of these choices. I've read a few of Schopenhauer's essays and definitely want to read more of him. I haven't read any of Weininger, but I've seen him mentioned enough to be curious.
Our book this week is:
Sex and Character
>By Otto ((( Weininger )))
Fair warning, this book is written by a jew. Read with a critical eye and recognize the mark of the jewish psyche when you see it. Otherwise, enjoy the reading.
Discussion begins on 11/7
Sex and Character PDF
I had some trouble with this book. After reading most of it and disagreeing on nearly every point, I found myself agreeing with him completely in the final chapter. Otto Weininger discusses the nature of man and woman on two fronts: the physical and the psychological. I won't make much mention of his Jewish nature here because I think we can be above saying "he's a Jew and therefore wrong," but it will come up for a few topics.
His idea of the existence of manlike women and womanlike men immediately struck me as similar to the "gender as a spectrum" nonsense we see today. Weininger proposes a biological basis for this spectrum, stating "However, the answer of the anatomists is clear enough, whether it refer to the brain or to any other portion of the body; absolute sexual distinctions between all men on the one side and all women on the other do not exist." This is somewhat understandable for his time, but this has later been disproven with the advent of forensic science and the discovery of DNA. The idea of an embryo being of a neutral sex (or as some still claim to this day, that all embryos are female and "become" male) is also outdated as XX, XY, and other mutated chromosome sequences exist from conception. This fundamental error causes Weininger to treat sex itself as a spectrum which, like an early error in a math problem, causes him to be far off the mark later on. It would be unfair to hold this against him though because we have an extra 120 years of knowledge and scientific progress to work with. It's worth noting that Weininger hypothesizes the existence of male and female hormones roughly 20 years before they were actually discovered. However, he believes different concentrations in individuals are what work to create this sex spectrum. We know now that hormone levels can fluctuate and can even be corrected if out of balance.
Deriving equations for sexual attraction was amusing and love as a function of time spent together is certainly valid. His idea of compatible sexual partners producing superior offspring was also good, but I was a bit disappointed that a discussion of eugenics never happened.
He believes that homosexuality is due to female characteristics in men and male characteristics in women. The cause of homosexuality is still not understood because, other than a fruitless search for the "gay gene," scientists are not allowed to touch the subject. It remains a fact that abused children are more likely to be homosexual and Himmler posits that society's masculinization of women (agreeing with Weininger's assertion that the emancipated woman is masculine in nature) affects boys in their developing years causing homosexuality. These suggest that homosexuality is acquired to some degree at some point in development rather than having a genetic cause and I think we can rule out a hormonal cause as well. If it were a hormonal cause, or a male having more female characteristics as Weininger puts it, it could be cured simply by supplementing testosterone. Weininger's claim gives way to the "just born that way" idea that has been so detrimental to western societies. He goes on to claim that any friendship between men has some element of sexuality in it. I found this to be the moment where the jewish mindset really rears its ugly head.
He accurately predicts the modern feminist movement that sees man as its perpetual oppressor. He says "real intellectual freedom cannot be attained by an agitated mass; it must be fought for by the individual" but then goes to explain how woman has no individuality or agency at all. This suggests that intellectual freedom is not possible at all for woman, but he seems to contradict himself in the last chapter, which we will get to later. The passages on the nature of genius, talent, and memory are extremely anti-woman. Rather than recognize the nature of genius in woman as something separate from man, he judges woman by the same measures as man and finds that she comes up short. He claims woman has no talent for the arts or music and has no gift for memory, making her a compulsive liar. In addition, woman cannot reason or have independent thought and therefore she has no soul. He then talks about the nature of guilt in woman, which I agree with. Woman is not herself guilty and everything for which woman is blamed should be laid at man's door. I do not believe this is because women have no soul, as Weininger asserts, but rather due to the cooperative nature of man and woman covered in our discussion of Tacitus and the Nibelungenlied. Man's failings create a failure in woman.
The mother and prostitute chapter is probably the most accurate and relevant to the true understanding of his idea of woman (and to the nature of woman in reality). Weininger seems to change his tone in the last chapter and affirms my belief that man's failure has caused a failure in woman. He says man's purity will bring about the salvation of woman, allowing her to overcome materialism and become a "real human being." The true emancipation of woman is the emancipation from the prostitute element. Further understanding of his idea of woman can be found in Wagner's Kundry, who is idolized by Weininger. I found it interesting that she would be Weininger's standard for the "absolute female." Kundry initially follows the classic "wandering Jew" archetype and has to wait for a savior to cure her curse. Weininger merely saw in Kundry what he wished for himself, which shows that he too is subject to his idea of compatible sexual partners and that his own biases influence what he defines as masculine and feminine traits.
I imagine his discussion of Judaism would generate the most interest, but I don't have much to say about it. His statements on communism vs Aryan socialism were spot on and were reiterated by Mein Kampf and the anti-communist (and therefore anti-jewish) attitudes of the NSDAP. While I understand the concept of Judaism as a state of mind, I don't like using it. It muddies the waters and can be used to divide a movement. Disagreements on fringe topics (eg. ethnoglobe) would lead to shitflinging within the movement over who is "mentally a jew" and cause members to lose sight of the overall goal of the movement. That would be absurd.
Ultimately, we should only be concerned with the nature of woman as far as it determines her role in a national socialist society. Rudolf Jung's National Socialism allowed Weininger's prostitute element to exist somewhat, demanding the legal and political equality of women. In his view of National Socialism, the woman was just as capable as the man of holding power in a National Socialist state. Hitlerian National Socialism favored the mother element, leaving no room for the prostitute. While it may seem more conservative and restrictive, it's closest to Weininger's proposed emancipation from the prostitute element and it would have been interesting to see how the role of women would have played out 20 or 50 years down the road in Hitler's National Socialist Germany.
Although Weininger is able to grasp the dichotomy of the masculine vs. the feminine, and the aryan. vs the jew, I feel that he never really breaks away from a jewish mindset in his book. His worldview is entirely centered around man and what is useful to man, which is the opposite of an aryan view. He makes this explicit with quotes like "man is the only organism with a history". Morality and worth is determined by the nature of each creature it applies to, so separate forms (animals) should be judged on a case to case basis. We do not ask for a horse to be a good carpenter, and in the same way we do not ask women to be good men.
He also only views great men as acting in the interest of their own legacy, which reduces them to mere materialists. Claiming that memory is the only thing that never fades, he says that great men recognize this and seek to make themselves immortal, and with this assertion I completely disagree. Marcus Aurelius made the definitive statement on fame in his Meditations, being that it, like everything else physical, will decay and be forgotten. Truly great men have always acted without concern for fame. In fact, they act against it. Hitler knew that he could very well lose WW2, and acquainted the german people with this idea in speeches. He knew that if they lost, his fame, as well as that of all of Aryandom could possibly be erased from history, and yet he fought. True men, true geniuses spit in the face of immortality, for it is the wish of only the morally feminine. All will perish, so all that is left to do is act justly.
The deeds of great men do not inspire us because we remember others, but because they each touch upon the archetype of the Aryan Hero in different ways. Great actions do not echo through eternity, but echo eternity
>He goes on to claim that any friendship between men has some element of sexuality in it
It's funny. This actually mirrors what he says about women and friendship. He proves his theory of the feminine only being capable of sexual relationships (relationships based on hierarchy, not mutual respect) by demonstrating that a person on feminine morality (jewish) is only capable of perceiving relationships as sexual in nature. This, I believe, is also the origin of Freudian Psychology. It's thoroughly jewish progenitor is only capable of seeing the base aspects of psychology, without the higher values of respect and empathy.
>Disagreements on fringe topics (eg. ethnoglobe) would lead to shitflinging within the movement over who is "mentally a jew"
A jewish mentality in an aryan body is much less dangerous than a jewish mentality in a jewish body. The jewish mindset is fundamentally anchored to the jewish form and blood, if you want to get a little more spiritual about it. A jewish mentality is really just a feminine mentality in a man. And on the subject of enthoglobe, I would say that it doesn't really matter. It is not nearly as integral to the aryan mode of living like "pagan", for lack of a better word, philosophy, and the NS form of government. Whether or not enthoglobe happens, we will still face struggle. The idea that we can stop struggle forever is not only stupid, but also non-aryan. There will always be something else to overcome because it gives us purpose. We are the righters of wrong.
>A jewish mentality in an aryan body is much less dangerous than a jewish mentality in a jewish body.
False, it is much more dangerous, to be Aryan and infected with jewishness, brings out the worst of both worlds, as we have seen over the last century alone. Our race's seeming balance of the fundamental forces of creation and destruction gives us the capability of waging war and destruction like no other and of creating like no other, infecting beings such as that with the most poisonous mindset ever to exist leads nowhere save total and complete destruction. You thinking it is less dangerous than jews being jews, shows you to have an infantile understanding of the problems facing our race this is directly why Christianity is poison to our cause, and has at every fuicking turn stopped our movements dead in their tracks.
>The jewish mindset is fundamentally anchored to the jewish form and blood, if you want to get a little more spiritual about it. A jewish mentality is really just a feminine mentality in a man.
No, it's not, a jewish mentality is not a feminine mentality in a man it is a mentality against nature and life, that is not feminine in nature it is a corruption and warping of feminine nature.
>And on the subject of enthoglobe, I would say that it doesn't really matter. It is not nearly as integral to the aryan mode of living like "pagan", for lack of a better word, philosophy, and the NS form of government.
It is integral to the central thesis of survival of our race, it is the natural result of the 14 words, there is no other outcome.
>Whether or not enthoglobe happens, we will still face struggle.
Ethnoglobe is not about eliminating struggle it is about maximizing the effect of struggle, once alone we will struggle against ourselves and make ourselves ever better and no longer wasting effort on caring for or fighting lesser beings.
Our next selection is:
The Essays of Schopenhauer
>Written by Arthur Schopenhauer
This week, I have chosen for us to read a collection of short essays written by Schopenhauer because his seminal work, The World as Will and Representation, seems to be a bit of a monster. Unless anyone wants to read the work I previously mentioned, these essays will be the end of our series on Modern German Philosophy. Let me know what you all are interested in reading next.
Discussion begins on 11/15
>Essays of Schopenhauer PDF
Schopenhauer's that guy you love to hate. He writes to perform what he considers the noble service of sharing his misery with the rest of the world. However, underneath his pessimism and misanthropy there's a bit of hope as he hints that human compassion along with individual will are the means of overcoming despair. I think these hopeful undertones make his writings beautiful in a way and I can see what Nietzsche saw in his work.
A lot of these essays are just introductions to Schopenhauer as a person rather than what we've typically seen in philosophy. These are his own views and don't go much toward building a worldview, but there are still some useful ideas in here. You can see where he influenced Nietzsche on every page. "On Noise," "The Emptiness of Existence," and "Religion" are very reminiscent of Nietzsche and "Metaphysics of Love" lays the foundations that Weininger built his work on. Even though Schopenhauer came first, I think it was very appropriate to explore his work after getting our introduction to Nietzsche and Weininger.
I think "On Authorship and Style," "On Reading and Books," and "Thinking for Oneself" are the most valuable essays for our purposes and they are all connected. Schopenhauer discusses the disposable nature of media well before the age of television and the internet. I find it interesting that even in an age where paper and printing were scarce resources, garbage was still being mass produced. It really shows how some struggles have been going throughout history, but also serves as a reminder that our current struggles have been overcome before and can be overcome again. On style, Schopenhauer says "Men should use common words to say uncommon things" which is very characteristic of his own writing style and the thing I like the most about reading him. If you've ever had the misfortune of reading something related to a more modern philosopher like Heidegger you've probably seen the opposite of what Schopenhauer is saying here. You'll get an essay that's written half in English and half in a twisted mix of Latin, Greek, German, and newly created terms like "mathematics1" and "mathematics2". Schopenhauer says when you read, you're only reading someone else's thoughts and can forget how to think for yourself. Reading is something one can use as a substitute for one's own thought, which can be useful so long as you do not read too much and take time to think about what you have read. This goes to what I consider "the importance of being bored." It's important to give yourself time to think and mull things over. Don't listen to a podcast or music while you run or do some other monotonous activity; just be alone with your thoughts. As Schopenhauer says about free thinkers, nothing is valid unless you yourself authorize it. On reading books, he says you shouldn't waste your time on a book that won't serve a purpose. One should only read a book that has stood the test of time and will improve oneself in some way. Of course, I agree and that's exactly the purpose of this thread.
As for the next read, I'm still going to shill for Othmar Spann's "The True State" and Rudolf Jung's "National Socialism". Both seem like fairly dense reads so it might take a little more time to explore them thoroughly. It might also be appropriate to read Gentile or something else from Italian Fascism. I know Italian Fascism isn't very popular, but it could be worthwhile to commemorate the 100 year anniversary of the March on Rome, which passed recently with little fanfare. Of course, I'm just shilling for things on my reading list that I haven't gotten to yet so take that as you wish.
I don't feel that there is much with discussing with this selection, so I'll start by expanding on the essay "On Reading and Books". Schopenhauer talks about the value of books and the banality of most literature that is produced. He answers the question of what will be read in schools, but never what a perfect state would do for entertainment. Novels, he says, and, by extension, all entertainment media, serve only to stop the consumer from thinking original thoughts and to confuse them with nonsensical values and worldviews, so what would the entertainment of a true National Socialist state look like? I would say that schopenhauer indirectly answers this question through his description of the Novel's corrupting properties. We need to create media that ingrains National Socialist values into it's viewers, and the truth of National Socialism it makes it great literature. Its earnestness and truth is what makes it great, just like many of the unspoiled myths of ancient Aryan faiths. We must create modern myths.
The essay "On Education" brings up some points that are adjacent to those discussed earlier. He claims that a man should be taught only objective subjects until the age of 16, when he should be taught philosophy. I agree for the most part with this sentiment. It would seem that the most beneficial way to use education is to raise a child in the right way so that he can see the truth in what he has been taught. The foundation for this should be, of course, the earlier discussed National Socialist media, like german/aryan myth, tales of more modern heroism, and of newly written literature, and the objective sciences like math, as well as extensive physical fitness. Education should promote critical thinking as well as establish a moral base for students.
>I know Italian Fascism isn't very popular, but it could be worthwhile to commemorate the 100 year anniversary of the March on Rome, which passed recently with little fanfare.
Sounds interesting, but I'm worried that it'll all just be 200 pages of civic nationalism. Might as well try it out for a week and see what we get out of it though.
>We need to create media that ingrains National Socialist values into it's viewers, and the truth of National Socialism it makes it great literature. Its earnestness and truth is what makes it great, just like many of the unspoiled myths of ancient Aryan faiths. We must create modern myths.
Absolutely and this was the conclusion the Reich came to as well. Most people know the Eternal Jew propaganda films, but there were also films about Horst Wessel, Bismarck, etc. As Hitler said about the nature of propaganda, you need different material to appeal to the masses than you do to appeal to the intellectuals. Normal people aren't going to read Mein Kampf or Myth of the 20th Century. However a movie about a martyr like Horst Wessel is bound to resonate with the masses. As for other forms of entertainment, the strength through joy program is certainly worth emulating. Teaching history in an appropriate manner rather than rote memorization of dates and speeches would generate interest in the history of the nation and race and make nonfiction books a real form of entertainment for youth. As for your statements on education, I agree as well and I believe reforming our education system should be one of our biggest priorities. Ever since I read my first platonic dialogue (Protagoras) I've always wondered why he isn't read in schools. As you said, education should promote critical thinking, and introducing somewhat older students to the foundations of western thought is absolutely vital.
>Ever since I read my first platonic dialogue (Protagoras) I've always wondered why he isn't read in schools
Good point. There is a reason people say to start with the greeks, and more specifically Plato. His dialogues are structured like the internal iteration that non-lemming, for lack of a better term (the term "lemming" suggests that the large percent of the population who are wholly controlled by the decisions of the ruling group are an inherently bad thing, which they are not. They are a necessary part of society) individuals do constantly in their heads. Teaching Plato in schools would probably have the same effects that Common Core curriculum is supposed to have on blacks in america. It would teach the process of idea synthesis to students who are not adept at it naturally, much like common core is meant to teach blacks visualization techniques for math that most whites use intuitively.
Our next book is:
Origins and Doctrine of Fascism
>Written by Giovanni Gentile
Discussion begins on 11/24
Origins and Doctrine of Fascism PDF
Some of the fears about civic nationalism were warranted, but this turned out to be a worthwhile read nevertheless. One thing that struck me straight away was the willingness to define Fascism. This shouldn't be something someone here would need, but it makes this work a useful recommendation for someone who may be interested in Fascism in general. If you watch a lecture about Fascism by a modern "intellectual" like Jason Stanley or Robert Paxton, you'll notice that they never actually define Fascism, so it's good to have a clear definition to point to.
There are three points that Gentile uses in his discussion of what Fascism is. First, he states the totalitarian character of its doctrine which concerns itself with the political order and direction of the nation along with the its will, thought, and sentiment. Sacrifice from the individual is necessary to achieve his proper value to society. If needed, he must sacrifice his private comforts, interests, and even his life. Second, Gentile considers Fascism a method rather than a philosophical system. He says Fascism is "at other times making and unmaking, now moving forward and at other times returning to the beginning out of the logic of development." Third, Fascism is born as a conception of the State and that State is the center of gravity in a Fascist political system. Morality and religion must exist in a Fascist State, but they are subordinated to the laws of the State. Gentile also discusses Fascism's roots in Syndicalism. Fascism is the unification of Syndicalism with the State to create the corporatist State.
Gentile speaks of the Fascist ideal as a higher conception of life that is not limited to present fact, but must progress in order to conform to "a superior law that acts upon souls with the force of the soul's own convictions." Fascism is an anti-materialistic and essentially religious conviction based on eternal struggle. This speaks to natural law, of course. Gentile may seem to deny natural law in some later passages, but there he's referring to mindless violence. Gentile does believe that violence is necessary, however, in support of laws and ideals as a part of any revolutionary idea. He affirms his belief in natural law in his discussion of Kant's Categorical Imperative. One weakness I see here, which also goes back to his second point of Fascism, is that Gentile's Fascism is not rooted in a specific ideal; the idea that it is not limited and changes with the times. On one hand, it is natural that a worldview will have to make some changes over time, but it is important to root it in some foundation such as the NSDAP's 25 points. Leaving it somewhat ambiguous like Gentile suggests would leave the movement and the future State founded on that movement open to subversion from within.
Fascism is often accused of being an "anti intellectual" ideology and Gentile addresses this. Fascism does not reject science and philosophy, but recognizes the importance of putting theory to practice. Fascism is the unification of thought and action. To Gentile, the Fascist intellectual cannot be the Man Above Time, but rather can only be the Man in Time, rejecting the Nietzschean concept of "beyond good and evil." The true anti intellectuals are those who dedicate themselves to abstract intellectual activity, far removed from reality.
The Fascist concept of freedom is one of the most interesting and controversial subjects. If you have ever tried to introduce a friend to the Fascist worldview, you've surely been met with the "muh freedoms" argument. Gentile's Fascist State rejects the liberalism of the individualist, yet claims Fascism is more liberal than the liberal State itself. In Fascism, the will of the citizen is executed through the State. As we discussed previously, the State is a means rather than an end. Rudolf Jung explores the National Socialist idea of freedom in his National Socialism. National Socialist freedom is not only freedom from the interference of other races, but implies something greater dwelling within the people. That something is different for each Volk. For the Germanic races, he refers to Spengler's Prussianism where strict outer obligation prepares the people for inner freedom. The National Socialist has a deep faith and highly developed sense of duty. This would create freedom in political life and create a foundation which is best suited to the Volk. From here we can see where Jung and Gentile's concepts of freedom merge as this would create a state in accordance with the Volk's innermost convictions.
Finally, we have Gentile's view of the nation as a people. He says the nation is not a natural existence, but a social construct. The nation does not exist in nature, but is a product of an active will that directs itself towards its ideal. As a National Socialist, this is something I reject outright. One could argue that the nation as it exists as lines on a map is merely a social construct, but the nation as a people is rooted in race. Some cases such as the nations in South America may be more culturally focused, but for Europe and her colonies, there is an undeniable racial aspect. Our earlier discussions show race, as our nature, having a clear influence on the people even after thousands of years. I do not know the ethnic situation in Italy in Gentile's time, so it's possible that this was a concession made out of political necessity.
With Yuletide, Christmas and the new year coming up, I suggest giving about a month from mid December to mid January to read because I will not be able to access this website while I'm visiting family. This could give us a chance to read something a little longer like Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, a volume of Decline of the West, Myth of the 20th Century, or something else along those lines. We could also just pick a subject of moderate length and spend the holidays reading/doing whatever we want. I'll leave it to your discretion.
Gentile's discussion of the cultural lead-up to Mussolini's march on Rome and Fascist Italy makes clear our role in reviving the fascist spirit in white people. The Italy of the early 20th century was in completely different situation than we are now. Racial awareness and real nationalism were more of a constant, with people like Bismarck uniting waring states into united nations. What was needed was for someone to ignite this awareness and lead their people to greatness, much like Mussolini lead former war veterans and inspired youths in the march on Rome. We, however, cannot do this, especially in America. There has been no true war based on national identity since world war one, and racial awareness and slowly slipped away from the average person. We have almost no one to lead. Our task, then, is to be both Bismarck and Mussolini. A pan-ayran identity must be fostered and ignited in the same action.
A almost perfectly articulated summary of the Fascist view on heritage, tradition, and the love of one's fatherland is also included in the book. Gentile correctly asserts that a fascist's genius springs from the ancestral stories and native lands of his people. His speeches are created in and refined by his father's language, and his new creations a synthesis of his father's ideas. At the same time, though, he says that we must realize that we drive history, and that we must not get stuck in the past. This willingness to innovate while still keeping tradition in mind is one of the things that separates a reactionary figure from a true fascist. He does not merely seek to preserve the past, but to make a future for himself.
The fascist, and, by extension, the aryan man, is a creative force. This creative force stems from his racial soul, and therefore is not limited by the land he lives in, for he sees beauty in all nature. The story of the Aryan man has always been one of migration and movement, and for this reason I agree with Gentile's assessment of a fascist being ready to step away from portions of his traditions.
To expand on what >>971 said about Gentile's addressing of fascist anti-intellectualism, I would like to point out his description of it. He describes modern intellectualism as a suicidal striving towards the voiding of all conviction and objectivity, specifically "a state of apathy". I can't help but see how this is similar to the anti-life doctrines of modern eastern religions like buddhism. They both pursue a state of absolute nothingness: one of no objective truth, and one of no experience. They reject individual experience and beauty, calling all individual experience useless and harmful. The rejecting of individual experience, sensation, and will are poison to a functioning society.
I think we could do a more in-depth, independent reading for the next month. Either that, or a volume or two of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or The Passing of the Great Race. I'm going to start making a list of things we can read in the future from suggestions and personal preferences.
Our next selection is:
With all of the reading we have been doing lately, one of the subjects we have come across has, no doubt, caught your interest. Now is the time to pursue it! The Yuletide season is busy for many, so it seems fit to pursue a more lax pace of study. Choose a book or books to read, and come back with a summary and some interesting insight. Good luck, have fun with it, and we'll talk in the new year!
Discussion begins on 1/2
Your tying the Fascist conception of life with ancestry and connecting that to the historical context presented in the book was very insightful. I read those first few chapters and just took it as history, but you looked it at with a much more critical eye. That helped put a lot of things into perspective.
Perfect, I look forward to seeing your picks!
Happy New Year! I hope the Yuletide festivities treated you well. I was planning to read two books and post about them here, but ended up busier than expected. I did finish one of them, however, and that book is A New Nobility of Blood and Soil by Richard Walther Darré. This was only translated into English rather recently, so it was nice to get something fresh that hasn't been discussed much in English speaking National Socialist circles. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a pdf version to upload or link here, but the hard copy is sold by Antelope Hill and is reasonably priced.
Darré argues for the necessity of a nobility saying that the growth and prosperity of a people is directly related to the health of its nobility. Darré discusses the nature of the German nobility and states that the upper class can only become a nobility when it consists of families rather than individuals. It is necessary for the German nobility to ensure the hereditary nature of its proven leadership talents through an educational tradition that guides the noble youth. Nobility is the selection of gifted generations promoted into an achievement based leadership stratum, providing a continuous performance test and proof of achievement for future generations. Put simply, the nobility is simply a pool of individuals of proven stock that could potentially make up the leadership of the nation. The new nobility would need to retain the blood of proven value in a hereditary line, repel inferior blood, and retain the ability to absorb newly emerging talents from the people. The hereditary line would also provide a eugenic benefit as there can only be one heir. The head of a family with many children can choose the best to inherit his nobility. Darré does not believe that a nobility based on merit alone can lead the Reich, although a ruling class based on merit would have to create the nobility in the first place, but follows the Nietzschean ideal that blood alone ennobles the spirit. Darré then goes into the history of the German nobility, detailing how their nature was subverted by the influence of Christianity, the idea that all people are equal as the children of God, and became subservient to the Roman Empire. Although Rome recognized the inequality of man, the inequality of Rome was based on ownership of property rather than blood dynasties. Land as an asset to be bought and sold at a whim and also as a speculative asset is a major issue in our time as well and the time of this book's writing. For the Aryan, land is inherently tied to family and is a necessary link in the unity of the Aryan people. This separates National Socialism from materialistic ideologies such as Liberalism and Marxism. Darré also discusses how Germanic peoples are incompatible with city life, preferring the countryside. This echoes our previous discussion of Tacitus. That we have unknowingly come to the same conclusions as those considered foundational to National Socialism shows that we are stumbling upon some universal truths and that our discussions have been worthwhile.
As for who will make up this nobility, Darré asserts it will be composed of individuals who are not driven by egocentric goals, but rather goals superior to his own ego. A man who puts his people above himself and will set an example for others. Darré notes that Germany at the time of his writing has an abundance of potential new nobles as the brave men who fought in the World War all meet this criteria. If those bloodlines could have been preserved, they could have provided descendants who would be up to the task if called upon again. As it was pointed out earlier, we no longer have this sort of grouping of brave men to choose from. If a new nobility were to be created in our times, we would need another source.
Darré struggles with two conflicting facts. That state involvement in land ownership will erode the confidence in the inviolability and permanence of property and that a change in land organization must happen. Much like today, the Germany of Darré's time had large estates owned by a small number of elites. Darré proposes splitting the land between living relatives or friends of the elites or providing monetary compensation for the land to be reorganized. Darré also proposes the formation of a Noble Cooperative, a self governing body composed of each German noble that provides a confirmation of the inheritance of a hegehof (Darré's all encompassing term for the noble estate). Darré proposes a Peasant Cooperative to operate independently, but alongside the Noble Cooperative. This Peasant Cooperative would be functionally identical to its Noble counterpart, but would work in matters of the peasantry and their heirs. The peasant's land may or may not be as large as a hegehof, with peasants owning only as much land as is needed to feed his family. Darré goes on to describe in detail his proposed layout of various noble organizations at the local, Gau, and Reich levels. His organization seems rather convoluted with multiple organizations and sub-organizations performing what appear to be the same tasks. I question this since each organization would have to be funded and staffed somehow, but it's obvious that some organization would have to exist to allow the nobility to manage themselves and their lands for the good of the Volk.
Darré spends about 1/3 of the book discussing marriage and breeding laws. This concept should be fairly self explanatory for those already familiar with the movement, so I won't go too far into discussing it. One interesting thing Darré does here is outline how women would be divided for eugenic purposes. He forms four classes, 2 for women who are desirable and 2 for women who aren't. Class I has women who are desirable in every respect. This would be roughly the top 10% of women and any young hegehof candidate can freely choose his wife from this class. Class II consists of women whose marriage and reproduction would be considered desirable, however the hegehof candidate would need the approval of the Noble Cooperative to marry a woman from this class. This would be the largest group, containing most women. Class III is made up of those who could potentially marry, but due to some hereditary flaw could only marry if their childlessness could be guaranteed. Finally, Class IV is all those women who are fit for neither marriage nor children. These are the mentally ill, criminals, and illegitimate children of unknown origin. On the subject of illegitimate children of unknown origin, they may be moved up to Class II if they are deemed fit through their own merit. These clear divisions seem like a suitable sketch for what eugenic breeding laws should look like, but I would suggest putting men in similar classes as well if they were applied to the general population rather than just to the proposed nobility. Of course, pedigree alone is not enough to determine someone's class and Darré recognizes this. Only through consistent performance testing can an individual attain status in Class I or II. A person who fails to meet these minimum requirements, even if she were born to a young noble and a Class I woman, would be dropped to Class II or even lower.
Darré also tackles the subject of education, much as we discussed before. He separates the education of a German citizen into three stages: education of the community, vocational education to create a functional person with useful skills, and civic education to turn that functional person into a citizen of the Reich (which includes compulsory military service). Outfitting a citizen with technical skills early in life then allowing them to exercise those skills in the military or labor force while also using the time in those programs for civic education is certainly efficient. I'm interested in seeing how the Reich's education system was really set up, but information seems scarce. The outline given by Darré here reinforces our previous ideas on proper education and the importance of a reformed education system throughout the West cannot be stressed enough.
Ultimately, Darré doesn't seem to be arguing for the restoration of the monarchy, but rather the restoration of the Prussian spirit of Germany as described by Spengler. Nevertheless, this book would probably be of great interest to any monarchists you encounter in your travels and I'll be using it as a regular recommendation. As a text highly influential on the NSDAP's policy, I'd consider it a must read for National Socialists as well. Darré includes an extensive list of related works in an appendix at the end of the text, all with descriptions of their content. Sadly, most are untranslated, but maybe one day in the future we will be able to use this as a legitimate reading list.
I've been slowly reading through this archive over the last year or two and I finished the pre 1933 section in its entirety. There are a lot of good articles there that are just as relevant now as they were then. There's a lot to be learned there and it's really an invaluable resource.
Thank you, and likewise. Nothing beats the holidays. My book of choice was volume 1 of 6 of Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which covers the period of time from the peak of the Roman empire -the reign of the five good emperors- to the ascension of constantine and widespread adoption of christianity. Of the author, Gibbon, there isn't really much to say. He is opinionated for a historian, sure, but I much prefer an author capable of analyzing the subject he is working with, and most of his insight is pretty valuable.
Many people like to talk about the "glory of Rome" in circles adjacent to us, and, to a certain degree, I agree with their sentiment. The conquests of Rome saw the soft beauty of Grecian culture sharpened and refined by Roman martiality and disposition for the stoic, and then turned outwards on the rest of an uncivilized world. Their achievements are unmatched, their technology never replicated in some cases until the American Civil War, and their bridges, roads and theatres still stand today. As a white person, it is hard not to respect something like that. The problem is that when one looks through this smokescreen, he sees only a degenerate and rotting society. It had been decaying since before the destruction of the Roman Republic, and Gibbon gives a great insight into it's start.
Gibbon rightly claims that the real death of the Roman Empire was the moment the equites, a portion of the Roman nobility, stopped serving actively in the military. Here, like in every other case of the collapse of an aryan nation, the nobility grows soft and careless, neglecting the duties necessary for respect among his nation and for the fitness of his noble family. It can be assumed the same happened in Vedic India, which fell to race-mixing with lower dravidian castes, and again in Greece, where the nobility also failed to eliminate the pre-invasion element in their society and was effectively bred out of the population. The same can also be said of modern day Whites in Africa, who, although they might not be considered a traditional noble class, constituted the same social position as the Aryan Vedics did and are suffering from the same problems.
Emperors like Marcus Aurelius show the aloofness of the nobility. While he is one of the best emperors, a seemingly good man, and an extremely useful philosopher, Aurelius completely failed a raising a son fit for the throne. Instead of his son staying humble and ruling justly despite palace live and total power, he took so sport and styled himself a gladiator. I like stoicism, but I can't help but think that Aurelius's philosophy of "nothing lasts" reflects the attitudes of his time. A real aryan nobleman values both the perspective of the tangible present and of the infinite future. Both are important.
From here, the blood of the Roman Nation dilutes. It can be seen in the most popular cults in Rome, like the Cult of Isis the Cult of Mithras were both foreign. Efforts to destroy the former were made, yet both were popular. It can also be seen in the streets of Rome itself, filled almost exclusively of people from different nations. Semitics from Carthage, in which the Romans had salted in disgust, known baby sacrifices, walked Rome's streets along with every other type of people but Romans. The military became like this too, with the praetorian guard becoming the last outpost of an ethnic Roman manned military, but this position was also lost. All of this was solidified by the ruling of Caracalla, son of half roman, half carthaginian Septimius Severus, which declared all free men citizens of Rome.
The Roman Empire as a state, though, refused to die. Much like the modern United States or Moorish Spain, the Roman Empire continued to act as a sort of economic zone rather than any real state. It lived as a giant bag of blood for other nations to suck on before it collapsed. This is the optimal state of a nation for the jew. He can exist among the mixed masses, making trades and manipulating without the fear of any cohesive community doing harm to him, and he is using it as a blueprint for our current world.
Of course, none of this is to say anything of Christianity, given fertile soil by miscegenation and religious turmoil, but all of this should speak for itself. The point is, the failure of the noble class leads to the decay of a nation's racial stock and the societal collapse.
>That we have unknowingly come to the same conclusions as those considered foundational to National Socialism shows that we are stumbling upon some universal truths and that our discussions have been worthwhile
It makes me really happy to hear this, as this was my reason for starting the /fbc/. Almost everybody here has a gut understanding of what is right, but we still need to refine it.
>Darré does not believe that a nobility based on merit alone can lead the Reich, although a ruling class based on merit would have to create the nobility in the first place, but follows the Nietzschean ideal that blood alone ennobles the spirit
I like the idea of nobility, but one of the things that always bothered me about it was that people of good racial stock but of different class did not have class mobility. In is inevitable in a state practicing eugenics that new families deserving of nobility will arise from agreeable mixtures of blood. A system based on merit would resolve this.
>Darré notes that Germany at the time of his writing has an abundance of potential new nobles as the brave men who fought in the World War all meet this criteria
This reminds me of something I heard said about the SS. They were meant to be the genetic elite of the new Reich, since they were tested for health issues, chosen by height and other traits, and were able to show their loyalty and bravery in battle. They were the best test of a new German nobility, or at least a warrior caste, that we have seen.
>I like the idea of nobility, but one of the things that always bothered me about it was that people of good racial stock but of different class did not have class mobility. In is inevitable in a state practicing eugenics that new families deserving of nobility will arise from agreeable mixtures of blood. A system based on merit would resolve this.
Agreed. Darré gives some room for the nobility to be refreshed from the peasantry with his class system, but this renewal only comes from the female side. He does not give room for proven men of agreeable blood to move into the nobility. If there were a means to allow peasant landowners to become nobles, it may become a desirable system. I think we should defer to tradition as well when considering the case for a noble class. In the USA, for example, it wouldn't make much sense to have a nobility. In Germany's case, I believe Darré makes a fairly convincing argument that's worthy of consideration. I believe from reading Darré and from what was revealed in >>1322 that if a noble class were adopted, the most important thing would also be the establishment of a means for the common volk to hold the nobility accountable and prevent degeneration. If Darré's ideals were adhered to, this should be accomplished through the Noble and Peasant Cooperatives.
Again, I'm not arguing for the establishment of a nobility, but after reading Darré I do see it as a viable path that a National Socialist state could take and it can be used as common ground with sympathetic monarchists.
Our next book is:
The Passing Of The Great Race
>Written by Madison Grant
Discussion begins on 1/20
The Passing of the Great Race PDF
>the SS were meant to be the genetic elite.
I like this, but the feats of valor and honor dont translate to the modern age. Its incredibly rare to find renaissance men tempered in the forge of all day struggle like ww1.
I'd argue being drugged and sodomized by jewish trannies your entire childhood is a greater struggle than spending a few months in a trench with your buddies
Sparta and it's Law
>Written by Eduardo Velasco
Sparta and it's Law should be mandatory read for all /fascist/ here, the entire history of Sparta and it's tragedic ending will inspire higher feelings as well motivate the reader to learn from lessons of what the Spartans had succeeded in and what were their mistakes.
Yo. Anyone have the Hindu reading chart?
People in the Fascist and Third Position Book thread would probably have it. This thread is for periodic discussion of selected books, like >>1333
It is said that Madison Grant's "The Passing of the Great Race" was highly influential on Hitler's conception of the European races. While there are many similarities with Hitler's discussion of the Aryan's culture and ideals, I found many more similarities with Rosenberg's "Myth of the Twentieth Century." This was almost a perfect mirror of the first part of Rosenberg's work. I do wonder just how much Grant's work was read in Germany at the time or if his ideas were just spread through the NSDAP inner circle. Both Rosenberg and Grant discuss the successes of great civilizations such as Rome and Hellas, noting the presence of Nordic blood among their leadership, and their eventual decline due to a loss of the Nordic element (this also ties into our previous discussion of the decline of the nobility in Rome). I know Grant considers "Aryan" to be a linguistic group rather than a race, but nowadays that has fallen out of use and I'll be using "Aryan" interchangeably with "Nordic" because I think that will be more easily understood by anyone passing through and reading this.
Grant accurately predicts the extermination of a race through demographic replacement. He speaks of a lower race outbreeding a greater one by infiltrating a nation and taking on menial tasks, as is happening across the West today. In many ways he accurately predicts our current racial situation, but one of his greatest errors is his view on birth control and abortion. Grant says these things can be used to weed out weak elements and control the population of outsiders, but he completely failed to predict the "sexual liberation" of women. Grant's claims can only be realized in a society that has already achieved a higher conception of life.
"No ethnic conquest can be complete unless the natives are exterminated and the invaders bring their own women with them. If the conquerors are obliged to depend upon the women of the vanquished to carry on the race, the intrusive blood strain of the invaders in a short time becomes diluted beyond recognition." This is the answer to any "BLEACHED" shills. Grant notes that the blood of the conquistadors died with them and that Indians retain no visible trace of Aryan blood. The idea that we should just breed with latinas or whatever for a couple generations and hope to see some white great grandchildren is complete nonsense.
Grant also discusses the dysgenic effect of war and how the Nordic man is the most affected. We can relate this to WWII and the loss of the SS. As previously discussed, the SS was the new genetic elite that would have served as the blueprint for the ideal German. This loss on top of the loss of millions of other Aryan men of good stock throughout both world wars is nearly insurmountable. However, I remain whitepilled. The philosophy of eternal struggle is burned into our blood. Grant says the harsh nordic environment allowed only the strongest and most capable to survive. I believe this is the evolutionary basis for this great Aryan truth and our current times are simply one more struggle for the Aryan to overcome.
I must confess, when reading racial work from our side I worry about approaching "we wuz kangs" territory by giving the Aryan too much credit. While there is much credit to be given, and Grant gives it, Grant also rightly acknowledges the achievements of the Mediterraneans. Grant says both the Nordic and the Mediterranean are comparable intellectually, but the Mediterranean is superior in the realm of art while the Nordic is superior in literature and scientific research. I'm not going to argue about whether this is true or not or whether the Mediterranean culture of aesthetics was really due to a Nordic element, but Grant's words here do open up an interesting discussion on the nature of intelligence. We often rely too much on IQ as a judgement of intelligence and overall worth. While IQ is a valuable metric, arguably the best single metric we have to measure intelligence, there are other pieces missing of this puzzle. The jew's verbal IQ has been noted to be some amount higher than average. I'm aware of several issues with previous studies on jewish IQ, but I think the statement that they have a verbal IQ higher than average is probably correct. The Talmud is based entirely on trickery and if you have ever argued with a jew, they rely on semantics on wordplay rather than facts. These are all signs of a high verbal IQ. However, the jew is creatively bankrupt. He has never created anything and, when given control of something created by another race, he can only destroy. Meanwhile, the creative element is abundant in the Aryan and our capacity for empathy is unique. As Grant notes, only the Nordic man has the capacity for racial suicide out of empathy for the lesser races.
One lingering question I have comes from the very beginning of the book. In the preface Grant says nationalist movements are a result of the weaker race rising up against the stronger. The idea that we, as National Socialists or Fascists, oppose a Jewish system and are upset about the superiority of the Jewish people is one of the most overused shill lines. As Grant is the son of a decorated officer of the Union Army, I assumed he was speaking about the American Civil War. However, he later says the degeneration of the American south happened only after the war was over, with the best genetic lines being eliminated by the war. The best example I can think of that fits Grant's reasoning is the so-called "Russian" revolution, which hadn't happened at the time of his writing. So why would he say something so anti-national? Perhaps he was thinking of the French Revolution? I was expecting this to be addressed later in the work, but I either missed it or he really never mentioned it again.
All said, I found this to be a good subject to study despite my initial hesitation. Having some knowledge of antiquity was a great boon for understanding Grant's discussions on races and their migration through the ancient world. I probably wouldn't recommend this to someone unless I knew they were familiar with Herodotus, Thucydides, or another writer of antiquity.
To start, I've found that Grant's work, much like any other truly National Socialist work, borders on being prophetic at some points. Just as Nietzsche saw the society of the last man and the coalescing of individual kindred spirits, Devi ecological issues, and Hitler the rise of the superstate and the jewish potential to destroy all life (the atom bomb), Madison Grant saw the racial patterns of history and correctly depicted the future of America as well as other states. He correctly recognized northwest America as the most likely spot for a new nordic population to naturalize itself, and this would later manifest as the Northwest Front. His theory of lower races taking over the working class, proven in his time by the influx of slavs and Italians in factories and cities, has again been proven by the invasion of the "greasers" which he mentions in passing. The 1910's also saw the arrival of scores of Polish and German jews whom Grant recognized as deceitful, noting their willingness to change their surnames. It is also interesting that Grant notes the replacement of nordics in Austria, since a young Hitler was awakening to the plight of the Germans at the same time.
While I tended to disregard much of what Grant had to say about the "evolution", as evolution a theory presented both without tangible evidence and is consistent with a semitic conception of linear history, he did bring into perspective many of the thoughts I had about the differentiation and migration of different Nordic populations. Grant's conception of the changing of races is still consistent with the principles of mendelian inheritance, so most of his historical chronology can be accepted. It is both his and my understanding that populations of the nordic race have a limited set of traits, and that when a population migrates, the existing traits are sifted so that those left are suited for the environment. I think he is wrong, though, in thinking that new traits besides deformities appear. In this way, the physical differences between a Scandinavian and an older nordic race can be accounted for. Grant also brings up the lower states of nordic people living in hotter climates, specifically the whites of the Kentucky Appalachians, which he blames on the inability to withstand humid, tropical weather, and which others blame on the presence of the hookworm. I could see the problem being both, but I would think that the Kentucky wilderness would provide ample challenge to keep an aryan mind moving and healthy.
The ancient myths of the Greeks, Romans, and Celtic Britons correspond with Grant's conception of the nordic migrations. The Greeks and Trojans, said by Grant to be of the same migration group who split into the Achaeans and the Phrygians and who spoke similar languages, were rightly chastised for fighting their brothers over a single woman. The Romans, who claimed to be descended from a group of Trojans, were a nordic tribe, and the Britons, who claimed during the Roman invasion of their country, to be of the same blood as the Romans, also came from the same Gallic migration wave. These myths seem to be historical accounts that were mixed together, and they show the value of oral tradition.
Lastly, I want to touch upon Grant's evaluation of the Mediterranean as superior to the Nordics in the arts and in early history. What I see are stagnant cultures surrounded by megaliths and technologies of peoples past. The Egyptians knew no real advancements besides the chariot and bronze for their whole known history, the former of which can be claimed almost definitely by nordic steppe peoples, and the latter first found in Sumer, the civilization that represented their gods with blue eyes. Most megalithic structures cannot be properly dates or understood, so they cannot be claimed by the mediterraneans either. On the front of art, we see that all great art comes from some mixture of nordic blood. The study of the natural world is also the most pure science, as all art seeks to imitate the patterns and symmetry of nature. Everywhere the northman goes, invention follows. This is a constant with no other race. Despite all of this, all of Grant's insights on modern history (starting with 3000 BC) are on point.
>However, I remain whitepilled. The philosophy of eternal struggle is burned into our blood. Grant says the harsh nordic environment allowed only the strongest and most capable to survive. I believe this is the evolutionary basis for this great Aryan truth and our current times are simply one more struggle for the Aryan to overcome.
Well said. The next big population crash will make the way for a nordic resurgence.
> So why would he say something so anti-national? Perhaps he was thinking of the French Revolution?
I believe he says that a revolution can also be a more noble race rising up to stop itself from disintegrating near the other stuff about revolutions.
I forgot to talk about this when I first posted, but Grant does also make some good observations about Aryans and religion. He says that Nordics are attractive to more "free" religions, for lack of a better word. Religious schisms are often founded on the basis of race, like the more free protestants and arian christians versus the servile catholics, and burgeoning christianity against the ancestral paganism of the nordics and stoicism of the Romans. The alpine and mediterranean elements respond to the religions of the lowly, while the naturally individualist nordics are attracted to whichever religion celebrates nobility and independence.
>Lastly, I want to touch upon Grant's evaluation of the Mediterranean as superior to the Nordics in the arts and in early history.
This paragraph helped fill a few gaps I had on the subject. I wanted to connect Grant's discussion of the Nordic race compared to other races with Hitler's three categories of races (builders of culture, stewards of culture, and destroyers of culture) and your analysis supports Hitler's conclusion that only the Aryan can be classified as a builder. One could extend this further into Nietzsche's evolution of the Übermensch, with the final stage of the child, or the creator, and how it's the culmination of a purely Aryan concept over thousands of years.
Our next selection is:
Timaeus and Critias
>Written by Plato
We've been working with more tangible texts for the past few months, so I figure it is time to take a break with some hard philosophy. The dialogue Timaeus covers the creation of the world and it's metaphysics as told by Plato. At the very least, it should help the reader consider the structure of metaphysics in a Fascist and National Socialist worldview or show the influence of eastern and pythagorean sensibilities in corrupting Aryan philosophy. Critias is an account of the legendary Atlantis myth, which is mirrored in myths like that of the flight of the Trojans either because of the patterns of history or through it's influence as a founding myth.
Discussion starts on 1/31
Timaeus and Critias PDF
Meant to reply to your post by saying that we should do your recommended book next along with Xenophon's writings on the Spartan and Athenian constitutions.
Really meant to respond here sooner. Excellent read, downright prescient at times, as others have said. It's interesting to see, even a century ago, the roots of race denialism, race-mixing, globohomo, fake news, censorship, pathological altruism, herd morality, and rule by mediocrity. Sadly, I believe his pronouncement of Finis Americæ is the fate of my country, and I don't see any recourse, except to build anew from the ruins, preferably in the Northwest -- as Grant points out, among the other qualities I've promoted, it has the right climate for Aryans.
>but one of his greatest errors is his view on birth control and abortion. Grant says these things can be used to weed out weak elements and control the population of outsiders, but he completely failed to predict the "sexual liberation" of women. Grant's claims can only be realized in a society that has already achieved a higher conception of life.
This is a fair criticism, although it's a forgivable mistake. He considered these tools from a eugenics perspective (which was current at the time of writing), without taking into account hedonism, Jewish blood sacrifice, and disruption of human relations. Things can be used for good or evil, and Grant hadn't considered the potential for evil in this case.
as I've said, it's a useful metric, but it's limited in scope and doesn't tell the whole story.
>The idea that we, as National Socialists or Fascists, oppose a Jewish system and are upset about the superiority of the Jewish people is one of the most overused shill lines.
This is like saying a virus or parasite is a superior life-form because it can infect and kill you. Granted, it's very well adapted to its role, and has fitness as a predator. But it's a mindless creature than can only live off of more complex life; unlike its hosts, it can't create or build anything on its own.
I think the Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans are all worthwhile in their way. However, it's likely that Nordic/Aryan admixture is required to bring out the potential of other types. This is consistent with the historical examples given, such as the Varangian conquest of Russia, or the Normans being descended from Vikings.
I couldn't help wondering, as I read, about myself. I have blond hair (darkened with maturity), my skull isn't round, I have a roman nose and full lips, and dark brown eyes (a disharmonic combination according to Grant), also 5'10". I'm definitely Nordic/Aryan to an extent, but I seem to have some admixture from Mediterranean. Maybe Alpine too, despite not having the skull shape? I'm anglo-saxon, irish, german, & northern italian, and I'm Catholic, so maybe I'm a mix of all three. I guess it doesn't matter, this is an irrelevant detail, but it caught my interest.
>Critias is an account of the legendary Atlantis myth
Plato said Solon learned of Atlantis from an Egyptian priest. The notion that Plato himself did not believe in the actual existence of Atlantis is false.
Timaeus and Critias are rather unique for Plato. Rather than taking the form of a dialogue, both are presented as a narrative based on the society Plato developed in Republic based on natural law. Hermocrates was promised his turn to speak as well, but no dialogue for him was ever written and Critias remains either incomplete or lost. Shame. Since the Pythagoreans were mentioned, I read these with them in mind and referenced a book on the early Greek philosophers I read last year. This gives us a few interesting things to think about. Are all attempts to describe nature through mathematics Pythagorean in nature? Was Plato a Pythagorean or merely influenced by them?
Timaeus asks if the universe always is and has no becoming or if it is that which becomes but never is. Was the universe created from the void by a divine being or has it always existed? Timaeus says our universe is eternal. Of course, this is a well reasoned conclusion based on Aryan wisdom. The alternative, the creation of the universe from nothing, is anti-Aryan in nature. The Aryan Indian and Germanic creation myths work on the idea of a cosmos arising from an ordering principle working against chaos. It does not recognize the idea of nothingness or void, a nihilistic concept arising from semitic materialism. The demiurge of Timaeus brings the universe from disorder to order. The soul of the universe is divided up in connected geometrical proportions, then applied to the universe as it was known at the time. The proportions here are harmonic rather than esoteric. They were chosen because of a known relation to each other known as Pythagorean tuning. This may appear like the influence of infamous Pythagorean numerical mysticism, but Plato keeps things rooted in reality. Rather than extend the harmonic series to infinity or to 10 (the number of heavenly bodies hypothesized by the Pythagoreans because 10 was seen as the "perfect" number), Plato stops at 7 which is what had been observed at the time.
Once the soul is divided among the heavenly bodies and the fixed stars, it is then divided among living things. This leads to the concept of the universal soul we discussed before. Those who live a virtuous life as a man ascend to heaven among the fixed stars while those souls who live a wicked life are reincarnated as lesser beings until they are purified. This was also the belief of Pythagoras and it is said that, like the Hindus, Pythagoras abstained from meat for this reason. While this gives us a connection to the eternal recurrence and the Aryan ideal of eternal struggle, it has the same pitfalls as the universal soul in Hinduism.
Timaeus, building on the ideas of earlier philosophers like Thales and Heraclitus, goes on to describe how fire, water, earth, and air were taken from their natural condition (disorder) and given their distinctive shapes using forms and numbers. The elements that make up these forces take the form of right triangles, as every shape can divided distinctly into triangles and each triangle can be divided further into right triangles. The use of right triangles as the building blocks of the cosmos could be misconstrued as a Pythagorean influence due to the Pythagorean Theorem, but the theorem actually predates Pythagoras by about 1500 years, going back to Aryan Mesopotamian civilizations. Unlike the Pythagoreans, who claim numbers are the substance of all things (including the truth), Timaeus declares that geometry is the substance of all things. This may seem like a trivial distinction, but geometry implies a form while numbers do not. A number without form is simply void. Plato utilizes reason rather than relying on number mysticism existing outside logic in his composition of the universe. So was Plato a Pythagorean? I say the answer is definitely "no," but the influence of the Pythagoreans on his natural philosophy cannot be denied.
Plato also ties pain and pleasure to unnatural vs natural states. When an unnatural state is brought on gradually, the pain is not noticed. However, the recovery is even more intense. He speaks of two diseases of the soul: madness and ignorance, which are brought about by excessive pleasures and pains. We have seen this realized throughout history with the slow degeneration of a society and the fall of a people into hedonism. Plato tells us that a person with a diseased soul will be thought of as willfully evil by others and that a man becomes evil as a result of corrupt conditions of his body and an uneducated upbringing. Plato is only considering this from an Aryan view of honor. In his dialogue with Gorgias, we learn his belief that it is worse to commit injustice than to suffer injustice. His reasoning can only be applied to a people that has honor, but not to those completely devoid of honor or shame. Additionally, Plato states that the introduction of a foreign element into a body causes disease and degeneration, while the introduction of elements similar to the body allow it to remain healthy. Surely Plato was writing based on his own experiences after the Peloponnesian War and the decline of both Athens and Sparta.
There isn't much to say about Critias. Critias is telling the story about Atlantis waging war against ancient Athenians based on the society hypothesized in Republic. Critias heard the story of Atlantis from Solon, a real Athenian statesman from history. If Solon did indeed hear this story from an Egyptian priest, it's likely he also saw any writings associated with it. It's a shame those writings would have been stored in the great library at Alexandria and did not survive the mongrel hordes. Aside from apocryphal sources, Plato is the only primary source remaining for the tale of Atlantis and it was only written to illustrate the supposed superiority of his Republic. Plato only gives us part of the founding myth of Atlantis and ancient Athens, but does not get into the conflict between them. While unfinished, there were a few notable parts. The symbolism of the Atlanteans being the descendants of gods while the ancient Athenians were like beasts who sprouted from nature shouldn't be missed. Critias says Atlantis' quarry produced black, white, and red rock, colors that are the symbol of the Aryan. As discussed in Timaeus, the Atlanteans became greedy and monstrous when they lost their divine purity, showing how the introduction of foreign elements will always lead to the degeneration of society.
I chose the Dialogues Timaeus and Critias because I thought that they would help me as well as others chip away at the creation of a comprehensive system of Aryan Meta-Physics, but it seems that I have bitten off more than I can chew. It could be that I do not have the foreknowledge and philosophical experience to really understand what Plato meant by many of the concepts he puts forth in these two dialogues (it most likely is), but much of Timaeus does not make sense to me. Concepts like the creation of time (perhaps the measurement of time) the origin of the creator, and the chaos vs. order dichotomy, I think, do not fit within an Aryan worldview. I had understood time as one of the few constants of universal law. It ensures that both creative forces and entropy can work upon the world, and these things are necessary to the function of a cyclical conception of time. If the demiurge exists outside of time, then he cannot then exist in the physical (non-meta-physical) realm. By this logic Plato conception of the Demiurge does not make sense. Similarly, if the universe was already in existence and therefore governed by the universal laws, how could the state of the unformed earth be called chaos? It is not the physical world we know, but it is still a part of the process of forming the tangible physical world.
Plato's conception of the beginning of the tangible universe also raises some serious questions of what the end of a Yugic Cycle means for the world. If a new world is one of unformed chaos, does that not mean that the old must be destroyed? That instead of an ever spinning wheel of true golden ages and depths of filth, the world ends with a slow decline, a great, virtuous rise, and then death? I would certainly seem so. I say a final rise because the continued existence of the universe and the Aryan spirit would require the defeat of the jewish entropic spirit that infests the modern day, and what could defeat that but a force that matches it's vileness with equal virtue. It would make sense, too, that this end would be the ultimate sacrifice and testament to the Aryan spirit, which itself is a reflection of Plato's "ultimate good". The Aryan man is one who stands up in the face of death, knowing that fame and pleasure will fade, and that all that matters is the morality of his actions and therefore the preservation of his race. None of this would discount the current struggle of the Aryan man of true.
Critias corroborates the historical narrative of the deluge through the description of Atlantean Athens and the wearing away of its land through heavy rains and floods. Besides this, I think that everything that can be said about Critias has been said in other posts.
>Critias says Atlantis' quarry produced black, white, and red rock
Is this how the the NS swastika came to be?
>If the demiurge exists outside of time, then he cannot then exist in the physical (non-meta-physical) realm. By this logic Plato conception of the Demiurge does not make sense.
I took Plato's Demiurge to be more of a concept than a being itself. More like the personification of Platonic virtue or wisdom. It is just a principle or idea that brings order to chaos. While Plato believes in the eternal nature of the universe, he doesn't seem to believe in a cyclical universe, at least not in these dialogues. He acknowledges some aspects of history repeating, like the floods, but he doesn't seem to believe in cycles. I don't think there's much to be gained trying to make his proposed theology fit with other more established and fleshed out theologies like Hinduism.
>Is this how the the NS swastika came to be?
Not directly, of course, but I think there's something that exists on an instinctual level that draws certain ethnic groups to these colors. The NSDAP's flag colors were based on the Imperial German flag, which was based on the old Prussian and Brandenburg flags. If you go back even further you'll notice other similarities like the Spartans wearing red cloaks with black and white crests or the Macedonians adorning their artworks with an ancient sun symbol. Maybe I'm just being selective, but I thought Critias brought up an interesting "coincidence" nonetheless.
Our next readings are:
Sparta and It's Law
>By Eduardo Velasco
The Constitution of the Lacedaemonians
Discussion starts on 2/15
>Sparta and It's Law PDF
>Constitution of the Lacedaemonians PDF
Files were giving me issues with posting