/fascist/ - Surf The Kali Yuga

National Socialist and Third Position Discussion

New Reply
Files Max 5 files32MB total
[New Reply]

Sieg Heil!

[Hide] (194.9KB, 960x913) Reverse
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.
Replies: >>719 >>812
[Hide] (9.4KB, 197x255) Reverse
Our first book is:

Impeachment of Man
>Written by Savitri Devi

Discussion starts on 9/23
Replies: >>983
Archive.org link for Impeachment of Man:
Replies: >>391
Sorry to be a beggar but could you post the file here, please?
Replies: >>393
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.
Replies: >>453
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.
Replies: >>455
>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/.
[Hide] (90.4KB, 1135x196) Reverse
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.
[Hide] (94.7KB, 694x423) Reverse
[Hide] (100.6KB, 545x197) Reverse
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.
Replies: >>468 >>505
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.
Replies: >>465
>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.
Replies: >>471
>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?
Replies: >>472
>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.
[Hide] (696.6KB, 709x1071) Reverse
[Hide] (194.5KB, 662x1069) Reverse
Our next selections will be:

>Written by Tacitus

The Nibelungenlied
>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
Replies: >>478 >>479
Nibelungenlied PDF
>Germania 0MB
>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.
Replies: >>522
Is there any way for you to move the last 3 posts to the aryan religion thread?
/lit/ here.
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.
Replies: >>603 >>605
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.
[Hide] (708.4KB, 750x1099) Reverse
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
Replies: >>608
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.
Replies: >>721
[Hide] (152.1KB, 356x538) Reverse
>>376 (OP) 
We continue with German Philosophy with:

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
>By Friedrich Nietzsche 

Discussion begins on 10/25
Replies: >>720 >>721
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.
Replies: >>723
>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."
Replies: >>742
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.
Replies: >>743
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.
Replies: >>744 >>745
No, the AntiChrist is required reading for /fascist/ so make that an addition to whatever you decide upon reading next.
Replies: >>745
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.
Replies: >>746
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
Replies: >>749
[Hide] (166.6KB, 452x672) Reverse
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.
Replies: >>806
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.
Replies: >>807
>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.
[Hide] (398KB, 750x946) Reverse
>>376 (OP) 
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
Replies: >>813
>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.
Replies: >>888
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.
Replies: >>890
>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.
Replies: >>915
>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.
[Hide] (352.1KB, 716x1040) Reverse
Our next book is: 

Origins and Doctrine of Fascism
>Written by Giovanni Gentile

Discussion begins on 11/24
Replies: >>917
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.
Replies: >>976 >>1742
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.
Replies: >>984
[Hide] (295.1KB, 750x548) Reverse
Our next selection is:

Independent Study

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
Replies: >>984
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!
[Hide] (41KB, 342x500) Reverse
Replies: >>1320 >>1813
[Hide] (31.1KB, 324x500) Reverse
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.
Replies: >>1322 >>1323
[Hide] (2.6KB, 182x276) Reverse
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.
Replies: >>1332
>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.
Replies: >>1332
>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.
[Hide] (35.6KB, 480x767) Reverse
Our next book is:

The Passing Of The Great Race
>Written by Madison Grant

Discussion begins on 1/20
Replies: >>1334 >>1425 >>1491
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.
Replies: >>1350
[Hide] (2MB, 2048x1284) Reverse
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
[Hide] (897.5KB, 584x794) Reverse
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.
Replies: >>1444 >>1445
Yo. Anyone have the Hindu reading chart?
Replies: >>1425
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.
Replies: >>1440 >>1491
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.
Replies: >>1442 >>1443 >>1491
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.
[Hide] (26.5KB, 183x275) Reverse
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
Replies: >>1445 >>1492
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.
Replies: >>1502
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.
Replies: >>1505
>Critias says Atlantis' quarry produced black, white, and red rock
Is this how the the NS swastika came to be?
Replies: >>1505
>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.
[Hide] (7.1KB, 174x290) Reverse
[Hide] (19.8KB, 184x250) Reverse
Our next readings are:

Sparta and It's Law
>By Eduardo Velasco
The Constitution of the Lacedaemonians
>By Xenophon

Discussion starts on 2/15
Replies: >>1511
>Sparta and It's Law PDF
>Constitution of the Lacedaemonians PDF
Replies: >>1512
Files were giving me issues with posting
One more point on the previous reading, The Passing of the Great Race:
>Vox populi, so far from being Vox Dei, thus becomes an unending wail for rights and never a chant of duty.
This, along with Finis Americæ at the end of the intro, is my favorite line from the book.
Also, who are the White men on the cover? I recognize a conquistador and a viking, but I'm not sure about the middle. a priest/scholar?
Replies: >>1565
[Hide] (24KB, 194x260) Reverse
>Also, who are the White men on the cover? I recognize a conquistador and a viking, but I'm not sure about the middle. a priest/scholar?
Judging from the style of beard and the hat, I would guess that it is Persian priest or king
Replies: >>1567
[Hide] (201.1KB, 1200x740) Reverse
That makes sense, thanks. The Persians definitely have Aryan admixture, moreso in antiquity. It seems to represent a Zoroastrian priest before Islam/Abrahamism, pic related (the hat is a bit taller, but that's a detail).
There isn't much to say about Xenophon's "Constitution of the Lacedaemonians" that isn't already in "Sparta and its Law." "Sparta and its Law" does our job for us by portraying Spartan society through a Fascist worldview. 

One thing that caught my eye in Xenophon that wasn't brought up in "Sparta and its Law" was in X 6-8. Lycurgus believes that crimes such as fraud and robbery injure only their victims and declares that wicked men and cowards are traitors to the nation. This stands in stark contrast to the Athenian view we see in Plato where a man who commits injustice is hurting his soul more than he is hurting others. While Plato still has enough sense to say an unjust man must cleanse his soul through just punishment, his view opens the path for the absurd "rehabilitative justice" that we see today. The negative foreign influence on Athens makes itself clear here, compared to Sparta which was able to maintain ethnic unity and therefore a more Aryan worldview for longer. Xenophon also share the Spartan view of citizenship, which can be compared to National Socialist Germany. A man was not a citizen until he began his military service and his citizenship was not guaranteed forever after. He had to maintain good standing with his nation and race in order to maintain citizenship. Traitors and cowards should not be considered racial comrades.

On Sparta itself, I don't see it as a society to emulate completely, but "Sparta and its Law" shows where it stands out and gives us numerous admirable qualities. The Spartan notion of honor was second to none and is probably their best trait. If you read Xenophon's Agesilaus, you'll see examples of an honorable king despite being in a period of overall decline in Hellas. However, I can't stand by using racial inferiors as a slave class that permanently lives among the people. In such a situation mixing is inevitable, even otherwise honorable men will be tempted by lust, and degradation of the race occurs. We've seen this numerous times throughout history with the most recent and most destructive example being the use of African slaves. Eventually Helots were able to mix with the Dorian Spartans and their bastard children served as Spartiate warriors and later statesmen, just as Africans are doing throughout the West today.

Contributing to this mixing of races was the Spartan view of war. War was seen as a glorious thing that sharpened men and honor was gained on the field of battle. While this is true, our previous discussion of war as a dysgenic element is also true at the same time. Spartans kept balancing on this razor's edge for hundreds of years, an impressive feat to be sure, but eventually fell off. The need to refill the ranks caused those of non-Spartan blood to be allowed in higher Laconian society. Xenophon's own children are examples of foreigners being allowed to serve and Xenophon himself mentions the attitudes of Spartans toward foreign peoples changing over the years.

Spartan society gives us a good sketch of how to develop a potential SS-like warrior caste. "Sparta and its Law" gives us a suitable view of Spartan Society as a Fascist one, but the book could use an update. I noticed a few inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies during my read (for example, they attribute the "fight in the shade" line to Leonidas, but it was really a Spartan named Dieneces). A person interested in Greek history who may be open to Fascism could dismiss this book entirely based on a few minor errors, but the overall message showing Spartan society as an Aryan one should ring true to any reader willing to stick through it.
Replies: >>1644 >>1646 >>1654
Starting off, I find issue with the almost blind reverence the author of 'Sparta and Its Law" expresses towards the Spartans. While I enjoy the fact that the text feels as if it is written by a nationalistic Spartan, and understand the need to push back hard against modern culture's vilification of the Spartans' eugenics and the like, making excuses for the more oriental aspects of Spartan culture can only hurt National Socialists. I feel that many people in our circles our circles fall into a false dichotomy wherein they feel the need to defend every decision an Aryan society makes, even when they are clearly a detriment to that society. We do not need to choose between swearing off a culture or adopting its values in full. In many ways, Sparta represents the peak of Aryan society. The resolve they often showed in the face of death, their mastery and proper channeling of their carnal emotions, and their willingness to sacrifice all that they could for their people are matched by a handful of civilizations at most. I do not see why we cannot foster these attributes while rejecting those that could be harmful to a future Aryan nation. We are in a unique position in history which, after setting things right, allows us to create a society which fosters both the barbaric spirit and mercy of the Aryan, while throwing away the more aimless violence and weakness that came with those things in the past.

I also question if the excess cruelty and squalid conditions pressed on young Spartans only brought positive outcomes. Did the nutrient deficient diet used in Spartan training really benefit the student? The book mentions the average height of a group of excavated Spartans being 5'9", which, while taller than the average Greek, falls short of the true Nordic average height of roughly 5'11". This could very well be because of slight admixture with other populations, considering the still excellent physique and mental fortitude of Spartan warriors, but I would think it very possible that a subpar diet and sleep contributed to stunting some of them. The beatings given to young Spartans and their barbaric torture rituals, said by the text to promote a hardness of the mind and soul, I think, are also harmful. I remember Hitler spoke of adding boxing to school curriculum as a way to toughen kids to pain in the same spirit as the Spartans did, but Hitler's Germany created strong, moral soldiers without whipping children's backs raw. It seems to me that many Spartan customs had good purposes, but were taken to unnecessary extremes.

On Xenophon's writings, the art of the Spartans, and ancient authors in general, I would like to speak to the a value forgotten by many modern authors. The simultaneous brevity and complexity found in many ancient works is not often found in modern works (maybe as a result of Jews in media's tendency to replace beauty with meaningless complexity); the ancients did not mince words. The Spartans saw the value of music and poetry, but never lost sight of the beauty of simplicity. Good art inspires, but nothing can inspire a man more than witnessing a great deed firsthand. The Spartans also, like Plato, knew the true purpose of music.
Replies: >>1654
>The negative foreign influence on Athens makes itself clear here, compared to Sparta which was able to maintain ethnic unity and therefore a more Aryan worldview for longer.
Touching on our earlier reading of Germania, the Spartans similarly allowed for their children to choose their husband/wife, while the Athenians made politically and monetarily motivated matches. The purer nation retained the Germanic practices of marriage, while the mixed one fell to orientalism.
Replies: >>1654
[Hide] (414KB, 689x991) Reverse
Our next book is:

National Socialism
>By Rudolph Jung

Discussion begins on 3/8

You had mentioned Othmar Spann's writings a while back, but I haven't been able to find a pdf of an english translation of The True State anywhere. It looks like the translations are recent and not freely available, so if you have it, let me know. Besides that, I'm running out of ideas of what to read, so I think it would be a good idea to start putting together a list of books to read in the future. I feel like I would just keep recommending ancient primary sources and philosophy without someone else's input, since I know more about those than political and economic theory.
Replies: >>1647 >>1663
>National Socialism PDF
>Spartan society gives us a good sketch of how to develop a potential SS-like warrior caste.
Indeed. There's value to be gained from the Laws of Lycurgus, but as you said,
>Spartans kept balancing on this razor's edge for hundreds of years, an impressive feat to be sure, but eventually fell off.
In the very long run, their triumph was not sustainable. I think we can borrow some ideas and apply them judiciously without duplicating the entirety. Going on a tangent, I think there are also ideas that can be borrowed from Liberalism, especially from the US Bill of Rights, while discarding the larger whole as a failed experiment. Don't mean to equate the two either; Sparta, for all its mortality, was much more stable than the Liberal West of the past few centuries.

>I also question if the excess cruelty and squalid conditions pressed on young Spartans only brought positive outcomes. ... It seems to me that many Spartan customs had good purposes, but were taken to unnecessary extremes.
It's possible that these customs were at first more proportionate and reasonable, and tilted into an excess of asceticism as part of their gradual degeneration. I recall that some Eastern religions made the same mistake.

>The simultaneous brevity and complexity found in many ancient works is not often found in modern works (maybe as a result of Jews in media's tendency to replace beauty with meaningless complexity); the ancients did not mince words.
The Jews are known for high verbal IQ, and are experts at hair-splitting, gaslighting, lying by omission, and general sophistry. This is related to their ancient strategy of attaining power through control of media, with plagiarized Scriptures being ancient media. But that's another tangent.

The book mentioned the parallels between Germanic & Spartan customs, with their emphasis on healthy living and combination of freedom and discipline. Their strict laws coincided with greater personal liberty, while the supposedly free and democratic Athens fostered dependency, bondage, and various forms of perversion & degeneracy (even moreso true of Persia).
Replies: >>1663
I didn't realize there was no pdf available for The True State. I've had a hard copy sitting in my stack for a while, so I never checked for a digital one. The only Othmar Spann work I could find was his "Types of Economic Theory," which might be interesting, but probably not good for our purposes. I think Carl Schmitt's "Concept of the Political" and anything by Spengler would be worthwhile. There are some big name titles we could read as well like Codreanu's and Mosley's works or Goebbles' "Struggle for Berlin." Hell, I'd even be down to read something like Imperium or White Power, but length might be an issue for those.

>ancient primary sources and philosophy
I'm ok with these as well. Aristotle's Politics or Plato's Laws would probably be useful. Historical and philosophical works are definitely worth reading, but I think the focus should be Fascist and "Fascist adjacent" authors so we can not only see what's worth reading when we recommend these books to others, but also form a more comprehensive idea of the ideal Fascist government for our respective nations.

>I think there are also ideas that can be borrowed from Liberalism
Agreed, especially for a nation with a history of Liberalism like the US. Going back to the previous of topic of books to read, something outside of our circles that may have some useful ideas like the Federalist Papers or Antifederalist Papers could be good reads. Something completely against our ideas like the Communist Manifesto could also be worth reading if only to critique it and better argue against it when speaking outside of our circles. I wouldn't recommend FBC jumping into topics outside our circles just yet, but these are things we could consider for the future.
Replies: >>1673 >>1743
yes indeed. We should stay focused on core /fascist/ texts for now, but branching out is a possibility.

As for Sparta, they reached a lofty ideal of militarism, like a pure, hard diamond. And yet, they were martians (in the archaic sense, not sci-fi). All their creative energy and will to power went towards molding themselves into super-soldiers, with little left over for other human pursuits. Living off the helots led to bondage and dehumanization, eg the crypteia/secret police terrorizing the population, and like any other system of bondage, it decayed into race/caste mixing which eventually brought them down.
Athens, on the other hand, has much to offer in arts, philosophy, economy, and so on, yet they tended towards decadence and degeneracy, and they too eventually paid the price.

My point is, we're not stuck choosing between Athens and Sparta, that's a false dichotomy. A healthy society should have masculine and feminine attributes in proper proportion and balance; by no means is this an even 50/50 split, but it shouldn't be all or nothing either.
Jung gives us a look at the more moderate pre-Hitler National Socialism that originally attracted the likes of Feder, Goebbles, and Gregor Strasser. While Jung doesn't really cover anything new to someone familiar with the writings of Hitler, Feder, and Darré, this was still a worthwhile read just for the rarity of early National Socialism and the fact that it gives us real world applications of National Socialism to discuss. Because of this, I think the translator's choice of the 2nd edition was the most wise. The appendix showing the party programs of ten different National Socialist parties through the early 20th century was also most valuable. There are many varying opinions of what "true" National Socialism is, but Jung shows us that any of them can be correct when applied to the right Volk.

Jung states the goal of National Socialism is to reform life itself; it is the fight against everything which arises out of foreign thinking. So how would this apply to a non-Germanic nation or to a colonial nation like the US or Australia? For a non-Germanic nation I think it's as simple as tailoring the party program for the specific people in mind. Things get more complicated for the colonial nations, however. In this case it could be based on the blood of the founders of the nation, but that could also cause issues due to immigration from various nations, even if the nations in question are of the same race.

Land reform makes up a significant part of Jung's National Socialism and comes from the belief that only land reform will allow housing reform and implementation of homesteads on a large scale. Jung's discussion of ground rent is rather interesting. It's based on the old Germanic outlook that land is not independently owned, but communal property. Citizens were allotted land for personal usage only and only as much land as was needed to feed a family. Jung wishes to return to this method of land management. He would allow private ownership of property, but any rent would be confiscated and ground rent would be controlled by the state. There is some merit in having a ground rent over a property tax, and perhaps in Germany this return to Germanic law makes more sense, but I can also see a rejection of both on the basis of true land ownership. If an individual were to truly be the owner of his property, a running property or land tax could not exist. Since Jung wanted ground rent to be the primary means of taxation, a one time tax added at the time of purchase could also work and would bypass enslaving the people to a lifetime tax on land while also maintaining state control of land ownership, but I'll admit I'm not economically savvy enough to know which would be better. I do not know what the Reich actually ended up doing with this idea.

Like Darré, Jung recognizes large estates leading to a poor housing situation, which in turn leads to the physical and moral decay of the Volk. This is a problem that persists to this day throughout the western world. Darré discusses this in much more detail, so I won't cover it here. In his discussion of land reform, Jung also calls back to the working schedule of the medieval German peasant. The peasant had fewer "working days" (it's worth noting that this figure never includes the undoubtedly significant amount of time the German peasant spent working his own land), but he also had higher purchasing power. While the modern left likes to use this information to moan about work hours, Jung highlights the higher purchasing power and higher standard of living of the peasant due to the abolition of usury. He also notes that medieval land that was not built on within a year was forfeit, demonstrating the significance of state ownership of land for the benefit of the Volk. Goodson's "History of Central Banking" covers the effect of usury on the peasant's life in much more detail.

Shifting to National Socialism as a cultural idea, Jung tackles the effects of the Industrial Revolution on German labor. The laborer no longer feels the joy of the craftsman or creator. While technological innovations are important, ultimately they are nothing more than civilization and are multi-ethnic in nature. Culture and morality are distinct entities from technological progress and they are inherently national and unique to a race. Following this, much like today, we see the effects of Jews infiltrating academia, law, medicine, media, and politics. Hitler points out their increasing influence during the war due to Germans leaving for the front, but Jung makes this even more clear by giving us actual numbers, showing just how drastic and deliberate this change in demographics was. The shift to democracy encouraged politicians to place the needs of the party above the needs of the Volk. Jung notes that democracy requires a "politically mature" state in order to succeed; civic education is the greatest necessity. This brings up an interesting point. It can be reasonably argued that nearly any political system could succeed if the Volk had a higher conception of life. I believe it was Feder who said eventually the NSDAP would no longer be necessary once National Socialism became the natural mindset of the Volk and argued in favor of a constitution once that point were reached. Jung was in favor of maintaining parliament. Darré wanted to restore the monarchy in some form. Many wanted to maintain the leadership of the Führer. This shows us that National Socialism is not necessarily beholden to a specific political system, but comes from a higher conception of life shared by the Volk. To elaborate on Jung's parliamentarianism a bit, he suggests creating a second chamber of parliament for economic representatives pulled from various occupations. This occupational chamber may seem like a pseudo-corporatist half measure without taking what I previously said into consideration.

Jung initially rejects the idea of class struggle, but then is convinced to accept class struggle in the DNSAP. He claims that class struggle in a National Socialist movement would mean the confrontation between productive labor and unearned income. I don't like the idea of redefining terms, but I can see the use in doing it to attract people from certain groups. In any case, I'm glad the NSDAP did away with it. One social measure that's often associated with that of class struggle is profit sharing. Profit sharing was a part of every National Socialist platform. Jung justly points out that proposed measures of profit sharing do not account for losses, which puts an unreasonable pressure on the owner of the company in question, an owner who is one of the Volk in a National Socialist state. I don't have an answer for this. If there is profit sharing, should there also be loss sharing? It's easy to discuss profit sharing for a company that always succeeds and grows, but reality is not so kind. Perhaps one answer lies in nationalization of the economy, as some early National Socialists suggested, but I think the benefits of privatization under the NSDAP can't be ignored. Some claim that privatization itself was a half measure taken out of necessity due to the times, but the fact remains that not only did it raise money for a broken Germany, but it returned the economy to the Volk and fostered a competitive market. Profit sharing was the 14th point of the NSDAP's 25 point program, but I don't know how it was carried out under them. Resources on how the National Socialist economy was actually run are scarce.

I was going to mention Jung's concept of freedom, but then realized most of what I had to say was already discussed in >>971 in relation to Giovanni Gentile's work. In addition, Jung says National Socialist freedom is freedom to act without influence from other races, the freedom and will to exercise self defense, an obligation to the Volk which fosters internal growth, the rejection of materialism, and the virtue of selflessness. Inner freedom, the freedom of conscience, is the most important and allows for outward duty.

Jung leaves us with a whitepill, showing that the materialist Marxist-jewish spirit has not yet devastated the spirit of the Volk. We still see this today where the good spirit of our people is occasionally able to shine through the darkness. The spirit of our Volk is not destroyed, merely softened.
Replies: >>1746
[Hide] (34.9KB, 434x625) Reverse
I would be down for comparing the influence of Jung's National Socialism on Mein Kampf, maybe even True State with it's concept of Ganzheit as well with the possible influence on the modern-day fascist mythos (including Next Leap).
>I didn't realize there was no pdf available for The True State. I've had a hard copy sitting in my stack for a while, so I never checked for a digital one.
Fortunately, there is an PDF available on the Internet Archive. it is German only however, if that is a problem for other anons.
Replies: >>1744
>it is German only however, if that is a problem for other anons.
I considered making it one of our books, but I can't read German.
It looks like the anon in >>1742 covered most of what there is to talk about, but I'll see what I can do.

There question that is not asked enough among fascists: What is to be done after the first generation of NS leaders die and there is no longer a Hitler figure to rely on? Jung answers this in his description of the Aryan "collective" form of government as opposed to the Jewish individual and political party power. This "collective power" shows that an Aryan state can be flexible in the way it represents it's people's interest. The Roman Republic and it's rulers, avoiding the pitfalls of the later Roman empire and the "Roman law" Jung condemns, saw that a certain flexibility was needed to keep the nation stable in times when the use of a senatorial system was appropriate, and when a singular, strong leader was available and needed. The office of dictator could be used to carry out the will of the nation when the consul was not sufficient. Now, this is far from a perfect description of the Roman Republic, but it helps get the idea across that a National Socialist government has the ability to evolve alongside the problems it faces. Consequently, I think that voting for representatives for a government might not be as much of an evil as Jung makes it out to be, but a established semi-nobility who chooses representatives might be a better move. I realize now that I basically repeated another anon's point, but hopefully this adds to it in some way.

I was also surprised to see christianity confronted in such a direct way, with Jung calling for the rejection of the Jewish god Yahweh and his calling out of the Jewish nature of large portions of the Bible. Still, though, it is still "Positive Christianity", keyword "Christianity". I assume this is only outward policy, considering how Hitler handled Christianity, but much of what he said about promoting a new faith rings true. There is no re-creating what has died. We can resurrect faiths no easier than we can resurrect the dead. What must be done is to take aspects old paganism but fit them in with the attributes of the new, more complete Aryan state (as Jung points out with his son of Odin and son of Baldur). We need both mercy and frenzy. And, while on the subject of Baldur, Jung makes a connection between the figure of Jesus and the archetype of Baldur that I agree with. Christianity was able to take hold because his better aspects spoke to the Aryan spirit, and this unfortunately carried with it the jewish spirit and a non-white idol.

>Profit sharing was the 14th point of the NSDAP's 25 point program, but I don't know how it was carried out under them. Resources on how the National Socialist economy was actually run are scarce.
Since Jung talked about the corrupting power of money, I assumed that the profit would be distributed through public amenities and luxuries that eased the cost of living. This would make it so wages were able to go further, while also avoiding the problem of squabbling over who gets how much money. Free Hitler Youth membership, free vacations sponsored through the state, and better schooling systems worked on this principle under Hitler, I think.
Here is a working list of potential /fbc/ books. It's obviously very bare, so feel free to add to it as much as you feel is appropriate. I'm not what you would call a "classically educated fascist", so you all probably know more fascist authors than I do.

- Decline of the West
- Man and Technics
- Prussianism and Socialism
George Lincoln Rockwell
- This Time the World
Carl Schmitt
- Concept of the Political
- Constitutional Theory
- State, Movement, People
Henry Ford
- The International Jew (Retreading ground)
Joseph Goebbels
- Struggle for Berlin 
Oswald Mosley
- Fascism: 100 Questions
- Greater Britain 
- Tomorrow we Live
Julius Evola
- (I have no idea what order people recommend reading his works in)   
Gottfried Feder
- (Whatever people haven't read yet)
Replies: >>1814 >>2427 >>2721
[Hide] (18.9KB, 180x280) Reverse
Our next book is:

Struggle For Berlin
>Written by Joseph Goebbels

Discussion starts on 3/26
Replies: >>1755
>Struggle for Berlin PDF
A very inspirational book. It's similar to the 2nd volume of Mein Kampf, but goes into further detail about the trials of the SA and also provides a timeline of how opposition will respond to the formation of a genuine movement. The translation is a little lacking, which limits the impact of Goebbels' writing style (for examples his style, there are a number of Der Angriff articles translated in >>1277), but it still carries the passion that went into the SA struggle. "Kampf um Berlin" reaches into our present day and shuts down the biggest critics of a movement-based takeover.

We come across the party as it was when Goebbels first arrived in Berlin. A few hundred National Socialists who had each formed his own opinion of what National Socialism really was. Nothing more than armchair ideologists. There was some infighting, but the party was so insignificant that even the press ignored it. The movement was too small to be met with any resistance from the outside. This was beneficial to Goebbels, who was allowed time to rebuild the Berlin branch from the ground up. In some cases, we come across a discussion of whether to reform a large party or to reform/found a smaller party. Goebbels shows us the benefits of the latter by reforming the Berlin NSDAP while remaining unmolested by the communists and social democratic jewish press. If one were to reform a larger, already established party, he would be fighting a war on two fronts both from within the party itself and from outside forces. 

The party did not only focus on mass and number, but set out to shape the people itself through the belief that only through the state does the mass become Volk and Volk become nation. The "mass" in the mass movement is important, but it's more important to have a strong foundational backbone supporting the movement. When the party increased in size, it was finally noticed by the jewish press and communist "antifascist" agitators. Goebbels tells us tales of the heroism of the SA and the herculean effort that went into protecting party comrades at mass meetings and the cowardly street attacks they fell under by communists and jews. There were attacks on National Socialists in the press and physical attacks in the streets. It wasn't uncommon for a National Socialist to be hospitalized with a serious injury or even killed.  Things have not changed. Opponents of gaining power through a political movement in the modern day will always say something like "Things were different in Hitler's day than they are now!", but Goebbels shows that they are exactly the same. We see the same weaknesses of the so-called "free press" almost 100 years later. The press would run a bogus story to sway public opinion and that story would then get picked up by smaller press organs. This is how the Associated Press operates today. Goebbels describes how the press would lie, get out of consequences in court, and then finally quietly issue a correction. Sound familiar? I think this is something everyone in our movement knows about our modern day, but I don't think most know just how similar life was for the early NSDAP. It seems too soon to throw in the towel on a political movement just because it appears to be "too hard."

When it comes to the formation of a propaganda organ, I think this is one thing modern National Socialists do well. Goebbels and Hitler both describe how propaganda should be developed for the masses rather than just the intellectuals. In this respect, our various infographics, podcasts, memes, writings, etc are effective in delivering a message. They may not have much reach, but Goebbels' "Der Angriff" also didn't see much initial success, even being criticized within the party for being too aggressive, and was in constant financial struggle. 

Goebbels gives us four stages in the lifecycle of a developing movement. First, the anonymous individual from whom the idea of the movement is formed. Then, the small unknown group which is, at worst, merely mocked by the opposition. This is how Goebbels found the Berlin NSDAP (and how even the most successful "third positionist" movement is today). Third is defamation and persecution. This is the great filter of political movements. "Kampf um Berlin" gives us a suitable roadmap for how to navigate this stage for those brave enough to dare. It seems none are willing to take the risk at this time. The few groups with numbers that have reached into the triple digits are still hiding away, only giving speeches in barns to mere dozens of vetted supporters rather than taking their movement to the next stage. If one were to take this road and survive, the final stage of development awaits. The enemy becomes demoralized over their repeated failed attempts to silence you, some of them even being won over to your side, and those sitting on the fence see your efforts and are either inspired or at least curious to hear what you have to say. Growth and glory await.

The slogan "despite ban, not dead" survives in spirit to this day and I'd like for it to see a revival. In Goebbels' time the party was banned in Berlin, but they persevered and conquered. What ideology is silenced more in our times than National Socialism? For us, it's nearly a worldwide ban rather than just Berlin! Yet here we are, despite it all.
Replies: >>1822
[Hide] (3.4MB, 5000x3827) Reverse
I forgot to touch on this earlier. These are all solid picks and just this list could probably cover us for the rest of the year. I have only a few comments.

>The International Jew
Very long and I'm not sure if it would be worthwhile. The version I have has tiny print and is still 500 pages. I've always kind of avoided the books focused solely on the jewish question because I don't think I need 500 pages to figure out that jews are evil. 
Pic related is one suggested order that I've found. While I haven't read Evola, I think "Fascism Viewed from the Right," "Notes on the Third Reich," and "A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism" would be best for our purposes. The others may be a bit too esoteric, but I'm willing to explore them if you think it will be beneficial.
I've read all of his works and they're definitely worth reading, but I think we've already explored his ideas through other works. A deep dive into the 25 points may be fruitful, but I think we've already covered a lot of that with our discussion of Jung. I can't say I have the economic know-how to really go into his Manifesto, so I can only take it at face value.

Ultimately, I'll leave it to your judgment since everything we've read so far has lead to good discussion even if I had some initial hesitation.
Replies: >>1822
In reading Joseph Goebbels' Struggle for Berlin, I found that much of Goebbels' experiences apply no only to modern day NS movements, but also, and more specifically, to /fascist/ as it stands today. As much as I find discussion on this forum useful and cathartic, I don't see /fascist/ as having enough influence or active users to effectively spread propaganda. As it stands, we probably have roughly 20 active posters, many of which disagree on some topics, although decent measures are taken to succinctly define what /fascist/ stands for. I can't help but feel like I am like one of those unemployed Germans, trapped in the cigarette smoke of the "Opium Den". I'm sure that many of the anons here, or from 8chan or Anoncafe or 16chan, have taken action in one way or another irl, but I have not yet met a person of good character that understood or seemed to be coming toward the National Socialist worldview. I can take heart, though, in Goebbels' description of the beginning of the NSDAP. He saw that only a few isolated actors could create a movement, if only they acted genuinely and with absolute certainty in their chances of victory.

With this in mind, it is important that we keep in mind what Goebbels correctly says about the nature of every-man oriented propaganda. The nature of the "masses" does not change, so public gathering and speeches still remain the most effective means of convincing the average person of the validity of our cause. Physical, observable action backed by truthful ideology is really the only way foreword. The proven effectiveness of physical propaganda thus proves the ineffectiveness of lone wolf tactics. How can someone who only acts through lone wolf tactics expect to turn around after destroying a nation's power grid and have the average person fall into his arms? To be trusted, a NS organization needs real rapport with a community, or else they will crumble in the face of their ZOG's retaliation. Those masses make up the backbone of your movement, just as the SA made up the backbone of the early NSDAP.

Goebbels' also paints an inspiring picture of the men in the SA. In one portion of the text, he describes the SA man almost exactly like a Spartan warrior. If you will recall our reading of Sparta and It's Law, you will remember that a Spartan man provided for his dining band, and that if he failed in this duty or failed to preform deeds that lived up to his name of his band, he was released from it. In the same way, the SA man was defined by his deeds. The more active and more brave man was most often promoted and respected. The SA man knew what he fought for, and most of his life was bound to the NSDAP whether by wealth or comradery, and so went to fight with the same spirit as the Spartan. In an earlier chapter, he also speaks of the humble, yet important jobs many of the old SA men took in later years. They worked effectively as middle management for the affairs of the party. In this, they took pride and worked hard, and why shouldn't they? Goebbels was right in his assessment of the SA men knowing that their names would be forgotten, but that their achievements would always be a part of the memory of the German Reich. I would even take this a step further, saying that they recognized that as long as their work contributes to preserving the youth and beauty of future aryandom, their work has meaning. This is a way of thinking that a future NS movement should carry with it: Wherever you end up, your contribution matters.

>Things have not changed.
Really, there are only one major difference: almost all North and South American cities have been overrun by non-whites, with European cities fairing better but not far behind. New York City is only 26% white with hispanics and jews removed from the statistic. Is this even enough to work with? I see suburbs, small towns and rural communities as holding the majority of spirited whites, so influence would have to build outward from them until cities could be reclaimed.

>I can't say I have the economic know-how to really go into his Manifesto, so I can only take it at face value
That's really why I wanted to take a look at Feder, because don't really understand the nitty-gritty of economics. Maybe reading Sowell or something would be useful?

Also, it bothers me that I can't find a resource on more proto-fascist literature like The New Nobility of Blood and Soil you read for the independent study period. For example, in Jung's National Socialism, he brings up the names of many obscure economists and early NS and Fascist thinkers. I feel like I remember a book that was written on the history of ethno-nationalism in America by one of the people involved with the Northwest Imperative.
Replies: >>1832
[Hide] (29.1KB, 179x281) Reverse
Or next book is:

Man and Technics
>Written by Oswald Spengler 

Discussion begins on 4/4
Replies: >>1831
>Man and Technics PDF
>I can't help but feel like I am like one of those unemployed Germans, trapped in the cigarette smoke of the "Opium Den".
Agreed, and there's nothing inherently shameful in that. While Goebbels' description of those times was less than glamorous, as you pointed out it's a necessary first step for the formation of a movement.

>almost all North and South American cities have been overrun by non-whites
It's true, while the social system and overall structure of the jewish press and antifascist agitators remains the same, the demographic crisis can't be ignored. Whether concessions should be made to focus on national values without a blatantly racialist (but still anti-jewish) program or if National Socialism should take its true form from the start is a real question a serious movement will have to answer. If one were to seize power through the electoral process, the former may be preferred for gaining votes, but some of our principles will be lost in the process. What would make us different from any other political party at that point? I think there are roundabout ways to institute a racialist policy, but even that would probably bother some of our most genuine and passionate National Socialists. Certainly a tricky situation, but I believe it can still be overcome by smart and well executed action.

>Maybe reading Sowell or something would be useful?
Funny enough, I read his "Basic Economics" after I read Feder's Manifesto. Sowell is a good writer despite his background, but he mostly sticks to attacking central planning and stays within the boundaries set by laissez faire economics. He provides some good real world examples to counter marxist talking points, so I recommend reading him, but when it comes to something "out of the box" like abolishing the stock market or abolishing interest, he doesn't address these directly and he doesn't give a comprehensive enough view of the economy as a whole to give you the ability to determine the effects of these policies on the greater economy. One reason I was shilling for Othmar Spann is because I'm hoping he has some answers written on a level that the layman can understand and written from a "Fascist adjacent" perspective.

>Also, it bothers me that I can't find a resource on more proto-fascist literature
It doesn't seem like there's anything centralized. I have the "Zundel's Bunker" library downloaded, but it's hard to sort through the massive amount of titles it contains to find what might be considered essential. The drawback of the list in Blood and Soil is that it was written by Darré himself and most of the titles have never been translated. Of the five or so I thought would be interesting reads, none were translated. Similarly, Otto Dickel's work mentioned by Jung also remains untranslated except for a short excerpt that was translated for an anthology of Fascist works. I think one benefit of this thread will be the ability to construct such a list ourselves for future use, although it will be difficult without the ability to speak German.
Man and Technics is a short read, but there's a lot of information in it. It's somewhat of a survey course for Spengler's "Decline of the West." While its length might make it tempting for someone looking for an entry level work by Spengler, one should have a sufficient background in Nietzschean philosophy before tackling it. Nietzsche's views of tragedy, eternal recurrence, and master/slave morality are very influential throughout.

Technics is described as the tactics of living. It does not refer to a tool itself, but the inner form of the process utilized in man's eternal struggle. Spengler sees the progression of technics as a "war on nature," the eternal drive by man to create and improve. He views art as a counterbalance to nature and every technical process of man is an art. Man is in an endless cycle of feeling the joy of the creator followed by the emptiness felt once the task is complete. Man and technics are one and the same. There is no cause or effect; both came into being at the same time. Technics is also the means to determine the brilliant minds of an age, with genius as nothing more or less than creative power. The passion of the inventor has nothing to do with the consequences of his creation, but the joy that comes in his triumph over a difficult task regardless of whether the outcome is beneficial. I don't agree with Spengler's idea that progress is inherently a war on nature. While it can certainly be seen that way, technology and knowledge can also be used to facilitate our life alongside nature. One must recognize that Spengler was writing at the peak of Weimar's collapse which likely influenced his views on technology and the exploitation of nature.

Spengler puts his own spin on the concept of master and slave morality with his beast of prey and the herbivore. He tells us there are carnivore and herbivore ethics. The beast of prey has a Will to Power, putting his eyes forward on an objective and taking action toward it. It may seem strange that Spengler dwelled on the eyes of the predator for a few pages here, but he always had a fascination with the development of eyesight in predators and even wrote his dissertation on it. The beast of prey becomes sick, both physically and spiritually, in captivity. The herbivore feels comfortable living among the herd and gives up nothing in being domesticated. I prefer Spengler's separation of carnivore and herbivore to Nietzsche's master and slave. The master morality is atomized and purely individualistic. While the beast of prey progresses society through a Will to Power, the herbivore, the masses, is still a necessary component of life. The carnivore is the man who is able to command and the herbivore obeys. 

Spengler has a cyclical view of civilization. He sees western civilization (Faustian civilization, as he calls it) as a tragedy, doomed from birth. History is a natural event and takes no notice of our expectations. Originally speech was the "thought of the hand," its sole objective was the completion of the task. There was no need for theoretical discussion. As civilization progressed, we saw the thinking man emerge in the form of the priest and scholar.  

The nobility and the priesthood are the two orders that make up basic society and Spengler sees the "priest of the machine" as the post Industrial Revolution priesthood. This is not to say that there's a "religion of science" as some claim, but rather that the educated/creator class has shifted to the engineer, entrepreneur, and scientist. The mechanization of the world has had negative effects such as deforestation and extinction of animal species. Civilization itself has become a machine that does everything in a mechanical fashion. When looking at the world, modern man sees nothing but resources to be exploited. Workers see themselves as exploited (and in some ways they certainly are) and view work as a curse. The leader and the led no longer understand each other. The cooperative spirit has vanished and a spiritual barrenness has set in, allowing for bitterness against the creators. Modern man fails to see that the leaders' work is the harder work and that their lives depend on its success. They see the joy of the creator and hate him for it. This is the very attitude behind the jewish Marxist spirit we've seen for the last 100 years. I find it strange that Spengler got this far and still rejected the racialism of the NSDAP and failed to acknowledge the effects of the degenerative jewish spirit on a nation and race. We've seen in our previous readings that the NSDAP also recognized this and took efforts to reverse this trend. We will have to do the same.

Spengler sees us on the edge of the abyss and accurately predicts the catastrophic conditions of today. He predicts the BRICS coalition that formed almost 90 years after his death with startling accuracy and describes the poor nonwhite countries replacing White ones through cheap labor. When civilization has fallen into nonwhite hands, progress will stop. Machine technology ends with us and will lie forgotten. Just as bronze age Egypt lived among the ruins of a once superior civilization, our descendants will live among our ruins. In some ways I see us as already living among the ruins of a superior people. Land is a resource to be traded and exploited and beautiful architecture is replaced with featureless rectangles to maximize "useful" space. The techniques that built the great cathedrals no longer exist.

The question for any man reading this is whether to take an active role is Spengler's "tragedy" of western civilization or to passively wait for our superior culture to run its course. The Fascist answer should be obvious.
Replies: >>1875
For how often Spengler is recommended by National Socialists and similar ideologues, I was surprised at how reactionary Spengler's ideas felt. In some parts, he makes specific references to the Nordic race and it's nigh-monopoly on the Faustian Spirit, and to the non-white races' majority understandings of technics as a tool of destruction and temporary gain, with in others he pins the downfall of all civilizations on "culture", although this could come down to a confusion of terms on my part. If by "culture" he means the formation of cosmopolitan/jewish attitudes on race, we would agree. Really, though, I think what bothers me is the general tone of "Man and Technics" is its sardonic tone. Everything is a "tragedy", and the relinquishing of freedom and "Creatures of prey against the herd". It is exhausting and not at all the frame a National Socialist should be looking at the world through. When reading Nietzsche, or at least Beyond Good and Evil, I encountered the same issue. Such works make one pictures the jewish media created image of the stereotypical "Nietzschean", who is really no different from the Machiavellian.  We are not here to hopelessly stand at the gates of Pompeii, even though our situation seems at times hopeless, ready for a solemn death; we are here to win, because failing to preserve the Aryan means total entropy, the death of every living thing, forever and ever, and that we cannot let happen. Let it be a beginning rather than an end.

The only other thing of I haven't seen talked about is Spengler's idea of The Viking of the Mind and The Viking of the Blood, so I'll dive into that. Spengler sees the two modes of Aryan being, or two stages of Aryan history as either the viking of the blood, the conqueror, or the viking of the mind, the inventor. The Blood is the virile civilization of conquerors who impose their will on the world through looting and colonization, and the Mind is the will of the inventor and innovator. This, I think, is much the same concept as Devi's Lighting and Sun, and like the Lighting and the Sun, the Aryan must keep both virtues in turn. National Socialist Germany has shown this to be possible. I've talked about this theme in roughly half of my book discussions, though, so I'll pivot to something I found the Viking Mind applicable to. There seems to be a fascination in the modern west with the asking of questions, rather than finding the answers. Big jewish "thinkers" and their lackeys ask questions like "Why are we here?" and "Does consciousness exist?" and then never really search for answers. They've formed this cult around a state of constant, meandering searching and bastardized "spirituality" that prevents any questions from being answered because it's core virtue is the act of questioning. It is a limbo between Spengler's Blood and Mind. "Agnostic" is probably be best fitting word, but it isn't perfect.

>Man is in an endless cycle of feeling the joy of the creator followed by the emptiness felt once the task is complete. Man and technics are one and the same. There is no cause or effect; both came into being at the same time.
The vedic, and, by extention, the Aryan worldview is one of cyclicality: Cyclical architypes and cyclical cause and effect. One of the biggest problems with christian metaphysics is that they shirk cause and effect by using "a priori", making it false because it fails to fill in the chain of cause and effect. I don't think we'll do it anytime soon, but I think it would be really useful to jump into some church father writings to deconstruct them.

>While it can certainly be seen that way, technology and knowledge can also be used to facilitate our life alongside nature.
I don't know how most /fascist/s feel about antediluvian (I mean this in the least jewish sense of the word) technology and civilization theories, but ideas like separate technology "trees" present interesting ideas on how technology could develop in tandem with nature in the future. Even if that stuff wasn't true, the implications of NS Germany's advances in science and development speed after throwing of the yoke of jewish science also make it clear how much different a future where technology is designed to work in tandem with nature could be.
Replies: >>1876
>I think what bothers me is the general tone of "Man and Technics" is its sardonic tone.
I was a bit put off by this as well. While I wouldn't go so far as to call him nihilistic, in fact I'd say he's quite the opposite, he seems to be more "blackpilled" than our other writers. Even Nietzsche, despite his tone, celebrated life. Spengler's view of the lifecycle of civilization makes the eventual collapse a foregone conclusion, but it will be followed by an eventual rebirth and a new age.

>Big jewish "thinkers" and their lackeys ask questions like "Why are we here?" and "Does consciousness exist?" and then never really search for answers.
Asking questions with no answers seems to be the trend in our age. Not just in the realm of the philosophical or spiritual, but in the scientific as well. Some may disagree, but I believe the scientific method as it's intended, is a perfectly valid means to test a hypothesis. Yet in modern science, we fail to get real repeatable results. We continue to ask questions and come up with no results besides jewish media articles that start with phrases like "study suggests" or "experts say." The jewish intellectuals are not interested in answers. They ask questions as nothing more than a distraction to agitate the masses.

>Cyclical architypes and cyclical cause and effect. One of the biggest problems with christian metaphysics is that they shirk cause and effect by using "a priori", making it false because it fails to fill in the chain of cause and effect.
I've been reading Hume's "Treatise of Human Nature" in my spare time and found Spengler's view on cause and effect to be an interesting contrast. It sounds like Aryan metaphysics may provide for Hume's "necessary connection" that fills the gap between cause and effect. This isn't an area I've studied before, so it may be useful to explore it in the future as you suggest.
[Hide] (19.4KB, 180x279) Reverse
Our next reading is:

Prussianism and Socialism
>By Oswald Spengler

Now that we've started with Spengler, we might as well see him through. Prussianism and Socialism is an essay Spengler wrote with notes he intended to use in the second volume of The Decline of the West. We'll read this in order to wade into Spengler's philosophy, rather than jumping straight in and realizing that it is not worth reading. If all goes well, we'll continue by going through the Decline of the West volume by volume, with different works read in between volumes if needed. 

Discussion begins on 4/19
Replies: >>1881
>Prussianism and Socialism PDF
There is a shadowy group among us. They have infiltrated our highest institutions with their alien thought and twisted morality. They see profit and wealth as an end rather than a means to an end. Who could it be? Of course, it's the English!

In all seriousness, I did enjoy Prussianism and Socialism more than Man and Technics. It seems Spengler got blackpilled as he got older, but this predates Man and Technics by 13 years and we get a fresher view of Spengler's philosophy of history. Like Man and Technics, this seems to be an abbreviated form of the concepts laid out in his Decline of the West, but this focuses on Spengler's ideas of "Prussianism" and "Socialism" as well as a critique of Marxism and international socialism.

Spengler defines Prussianism as the embodiment of spiritual and intellectual traits. These are the classical Aryan concepts of realism, discipline, energy, and esprit de corps. He says the viking spirit gave rise to two antithetical imperatives: personal independence and supra personal community spirit. Put more simply, individualism and German socialism. This manifests itself in the National Socialist concept of freedom, outlined by Rudolf Jung, of inward freedom and outward duty. Spengler believes a people who can simultaneously serve and be free deserves to take upon itself a great destiny. On the other hand, beliefs like cosmopolitanism, international friendship, and humanitarianism stem from "gothic vestiges mixed with bits and shreds of English ideas." Yet with these "English" ideas, there is also the belief that every man is for himself as opposed to the Prussian ideal of every man for every other man. These same antithetical viking ideas made their way to the English, but became twisted. We see these same "English" ideas of humanitarianism and international friendship  today while, seemingly paradoxically, people are more isolated and individualist than ever. Spengler also addresses Liberalism in this discussion, saying it is "the state for itself and every man for himself." Liberalism stands for mental sterility and ignorance of historical necessity. That is, an inability to cooperate and make sacrifices. 

The spirit of old Prussia and the socialist attitude are one and the same. The elements that make up Spengler's philosophy of history are blood, race, and thought which coordinates the energies of body and mind. Spengler saw WWI as the beginning of the struggle of socialism against capitalism, the last great struggle of the Faustian soul. Spengler defines socialism in his time as the Faustian will to power and the infinite. All must submit to the Western man's social or economic ideals or perish. This may seem extreme to those among us who "just want to be left alone" but the history of Europe and her colonies (and even just the existence of our colonies) support Spengler's ideas. I do not think an endlessly expanding international empire suits National Socialism, but even Hitler envied the undeniable benefits of colonial powers in Mein Kampf.

Spengler ends this short work with a critique of Marxism, which I found to be the most relevant subject to our modern day. According to Spengler, ideologies are a thing of the 19th century. The people no longer want ideas and principles, but action. He says this in relation to Marxism, but we must consider it for ourselves as well. While I'd argue that ideology is certainly important, it's something an incredibly fringe minority will entertain for any length of time. This is a problem with conservatism both in Spengler's day and ours. Conservatives who shrink back and mumble something about state's rights when the left takes action against them will never win over the masses. The masses are a simple people and they only respond to passionate words backed by meaningful action. The impotence of the "German" revolution was not truly backed by ideology, but rather was carried out to enrich certain jewish Marxists. Spengler contrasts this with ancient revolutions as defensive actions. The goal of these ancient revolutions was strictly to improve quality of life rather than solely to replace the government with a new system. A people can choose the outer form of government, but not the essential thing. What gets written into a constitution is never essential. What is important is how the will of the people interprets it. I believe this is the argument to be made any time a Fascist is accused of being a "traitor" against his people in our times.

Spengler says Marx's thought was primarily English. This seemed laughable at first glance and I even poked fun at it in this very post, but through my reading of Hume alongside this I can't help but at least partially agree and Spengler even addressed Marx's jewish nature later. For the Prussian, the distinguishing feature of class is rank rather than wealth. In writings on the German idea of Socialism, such as Mein Kampf, we see the term "bourgeois" used to describe a person who has obtained a certain rank without any real work. To the Englishman and American, work is merely a path to wealth. We live in a materialistic culture where work is just seen as something you do so you can retire later rather than a duty to nation and race. Marx transformed our instinctual divisions along racial lines into a material dichotomy between classes. He assigned Prussian Socialism to his proletariat and "English" capitalism to the bourgeois. With class as an economic concept, agriculture and labor are sacrificed for big business. All is for the almighty GDP. Marx's jewish instinct gave him a contempt for work, which he passed along to his proletariat. In Marxism and capitalism, work is viewed as a commodity rather than an obligation. Strikes were used as a means of withholding the commodity of work from the buyer. Here we see the projection of the modern left when they call Fascism "capitalism in decline" since it's clear that it is really the opposite. Marxism arises from capitalism and finishes its work of impoverishing and destroying the Volk. Fascists wish to transcend capital; Marxists merely want to reappropriate it. 

Marxists only show strength when tearing down ideas and society. They cannot think or act positively and Marx's "proletariat" is a purely literary concept that does not exist in the real world. Ultimately, Marxism is a series of vapid slogans. For all their virtue signaling there is no real progress under them and they can only believe in nothingness. A great man understands the spirit of his time and how to fulfill it, the antithesis of Marxism. The National Socialist is the embodiment of this man against Marxism and modernity. Spengler sums up the importance of the struggle against Marxism on page 44. "This being the case, war will be waged until one side gains final victory. Is world economy to be worldwide exploitation, or worldwide organization? Are the Caesars of the coming empire to be billionaires or universal administrators? Shall the population of the earth, so long as this empire of Faustian civilization holds together, be subjected to cartels and trusts, or to men such as those envisioned in the closing pages of Goethe’s Faust, Part II? Truly, the destiny of the world is at stake."

Spengler believes a day will come that people will look back on "international socialism" with amusement. Given the worldwide destruction it has since caused, I don't believe that to be the case, but perhaps one day we will be able to laugh at the concept of international socialism and wonder how anyone ever believed in something so ridiculous. 

So far, I have found Spengler's works to be worth reading and I think going into Decline of the West would be worthwhile. I am just a little biased, however, because I bought both volumes a while ago and it would be a good excuse to clear them from my stack. Spengler was not a National Socialist or even a Fascist, so it's expected to have some disagreements, but I don't think his influence on the movement can be ignored.
Replies: >>1911 >>1914
As a preface to my post, I'd like to say that I agree with >>1908 sentiment that we should continue on to The Decline Of The West. Spengler forms the bedrock of modern third-positionist literature, and it could only hurt us to not have a full knowledge of what we are talking about in discourse involving it. My opinion on Spengler has not changed since my reading of Man and Technics, however. I found many ideas presented by Spengler, like that of the "English" and "Prussian" dichotomy to cause more trouble than they are worth. I can't help but feel that Spengler's conception of the English and French, although true in many aspects, is upstream of the modern trend of trashing the two countries endlessly as a safe target, while avoiding the real culprits behind their societal decay. Maybe this is a result of a lack of understanding of racial dynamics, as in the nordic theory of Grant. The problem of phrasing, which many of my problems with Spengler boil down to, came up in the last discussion, too. Really, it Spengler would have only had to change a few words out to have been right on the dot with his analysis of the Faustian European.

I found Spengler description of the "Fourth estate" to be compelling. The fourth estate, he says, was a result of the reckless industrialization of cities in the nineteenth century, are a roaming, rootless class of people who are left without a place in modern society. The unseen cruelty of the ever pervasive blank slate fallacy leaves these people helpless because it tells each and every man that they are interchangeable, when in reality certain men are fit for certain roles. By destroying the agricultural class, Spengler says, European capitalists drove those men into the arms of the jewish marxist. What else were they supposed to do? In forgetting their duty to the common man, the European nobility allowed communism to fester. We see this today with the devaluing of college degrees and the shrinking of the skilled working class. Young men are pushed into college degrees that end up meaning nothing, and end up falling for the marxist trap rather than seeing the greater picture if the issue. 

Spengler also brings up the dress habits of the British, Prussians, and French, which got me thinking about the modern state of dress standards. He says that the British dress according to financial class standing, the Prussians by rank, and the French focus on feminine dress. As amusing as the last description may sound, I think the Prussian method of dress deserves serious analysis. The Prussian man dressed in uniform as a show of nobility, and I think that the Brownshirt's wearing of their uniform in daily life is not much different. Both showed outwardly that they were one in the same as their duty, and that that duty did not end when they left the battlefield or a party meeting. Now, compare this with the modern state of dress. Formal clothing is only seen briefly, at work or formal events, and quickly exchanged for casual wear in any other circumstance. Women clothing has become more and more like men's clothing, and men's clothing is little different than children's clothing save for size. Casual clothing has become more and more sloppy in recent decades, with sweatpants and t-shirts being the articles of clothing of choice for most younger people. Outward action influences inward thought, so how are the citizens of a nation supposed to fit their roles when their appearances contrast them. Men should be men, women should be women, children should be children, and National Socialists should be National Socialists. 

Despite my dislike of Spengler thus far, I can see his usefulness as an author capable of clearing the name of "Socialism". I'm sure many of us have run into the issue of people seeing Communism and National Socialism as the same because "Socialism and Communism are the same thing". This is largely because of the jewish tainting of the memory of National Socialist Germany, and Spengler work sidesteps this hurdle by analyzing Prussia, which most conservatives would have a much easier time relating to. 

>The elements that make up Spengler's philosophy of history are blood, race, and thought which coordinates the energies of body and mind
I can't shake the feeling that Spengler sees "race" as more spiritual than genetic. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't understand why he would have given National Socialist Germany such a hard time otherwise.
Replies: >>1912 >>1917
>Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't understand why he would have given National Socialist Germany such a hard time otherwise.
Spengler has Jewish ancestry.

Replies: >>2308 >>2427
[Hide] (33.1KB, 315x475) Reverse
Our next (very long) book is: 

The Decline of the West
>By Oswald Spengler

I had no idea that The decline of the West was roughly 450 pages per volume, but we did Thus Spoke Zarathustra and that was only a hundred pages less, so I'm sure we'll be fine. The book will be read volume by volume, and the pdf will contain both.

Discussion of Vol. 1 begins on 5/9
Discussion of Vol. 2 begins on 5/27
Replies: >>1914 >>1917 >>1918
PDFs are giving me trouble with the file size and its too late to try for a forth time to upload them. I assume >>1908 'll be good untill I upload them tommorrow since you have a physical copy.
>I can't shake the feeling that Spengler sees "race" as more spiritual than genetic. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't understand why he would have given National Socialist Germany such a hard time otherwise.

It certainly seems that way, since he considers Marx English, despite Marx being a jew born in Germany who only lived in England later in life. Whether he truly has jewish ancestry or not isn't something I've delved into, but may give some insight to his view of race.

It's important to note that Thus Spoke Zarathustra had significantly less words per page. I ran both pdfs through a word counter and TSZ came in around 117k words while both volumes of Spengler's Decline were a whopping 505k words total, or roughly twice as long per volume. In light of this, I recommend giving significantly more time for a thorough reading, but I can push myself to finish either way.
Replies: >>1918
The first listed discussion will be for Chapters 1-6 of Volume One, and the second will be for Chapters 7-11 of Volume One. 

Also, the PDF for Vol. One refuses to be posted, so here is the archive.org link for now. Replace the [dot]:
If anybody knows of a way to minimize the files, let me know.

>In light of this, I recommend giving significantly more time for a thorough reading, but I can push myself to finish either way.
Thanks for letting me know, and I agree that we need more time for it.
So far Decline of the West Volume I has been different than expected. Every discussion of Spengler that I have seen has only encompassed his 8 high cultures and cyclical history. Thus far volume I has focused mostly on Spengler's metaphysics and somehow this is completely ignored by commentators. I don't think there is much for us to discuss from a Fascist perspective, but my notes on this are the longest of anything we've read and the length of this post will probably reflect that. If the idle lurker doesn't care for metaphysics, he can go ahead and skip this post, but I think an understanding of Spengler's metaphysics is central to understanding his view of history. Spengler (or possibly the translator) uses much of his own vocabulary throughout and I've tried to summarize this reading to be as understandable as possible.

Spengler begins by discussing the purpose behind his philosophy of history. He sees traditional historians, including Classical historians like Thucydides and Tacitus, as short sighted. They do not consider a cyclical view of history. This is kind of an autistic criticism, because creating an all-encompassing philosophy of world history was never the intention of these historians. Thucydides and Tacitus were not compiling a history of the world; they were merely recording events they lived through as they saw them. I find it even more curious that Spengler seems to praise Eastern cultures despite them having no historians at all. I took an interest in the warring states period for a time and how surprised I was to discover they did not have their own Thucydides! Despite this, I do agree with Spengler's assessment that history should not be viewed simply as the passing of one event to the next. I found a few of Spengler's other historical anecdotes to be inaccurate throughout. For example, in his discussion of mathematics, he claims that the Classical man would be unable to understand abstract mathematics because he is rooted in Actuality, yet one need only to examine Euclid to see discussion of primes and number theory. This is just one example and I think it would be rather pointless to pick apart Spengler's arguments in this manner as they don't encompass the true subject of this book.

Back to the subject of history, Spengler describes how it was previously discussed as either a fanciful or strictly factual phenomenon based on the writer's particular interests. This obscures much of our knowledge of ancient times as Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamians, and the Chinese would replace their history with myth. Spengler says the object of his "Decline of the West" is the liberation of history from the observer's prejudices. Spengler later boldly declares that this "physiognomic of world-happening" will indeed be the LAST Faustian philosophy. A materialist conception of history leads to setting up of usefulness ideals such as "enlightenment" and "world peace" as aims of world history, to be reached by the "march of progress," an idea that is in direct conflict with our ideals and further separates the Marxist ideals from the Fascist ones.

The "Decline of the West" comprises nothing less than the problem of Civilization. Spengler defines Civilization as the inevitable destiny of the Culture. Civilizations are an end, but they are reached again and again by man's inward necessity. Spengler borrows from Nietzsche's revaluation of values when he says that pure civilization consists of a progressive taking down of forms that have become inorganic or dead. Later Spengler says the high cultures of his time (German, French, etc) would no longer exist in hundreds of years. Reading through that the first time, I thought this was purely anti-national, but in the context here we can see that it fits. The German of today is definitely not the German of 300 years ago, even though Germany has continued to exist. The German, and every other culture, has progressively shed forms and revaluated their values for better or worse. However, Spengler fails to notice the racial element that exists at the core of every culture. While some forms will be shed, an unalterable racial soul remains, as we saw some of our previous readings such as the works of Tacitus.

The first volume, "Form and Actuality," starts from the form-language of the high Cultures (Faustian, Apollinian, Magian, Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Babylonian) and attempts to penetrate to the roots of their origins. The second volume, "World-historical Perspectives," starts from the facts of Actuality and from the historical practice of higher mankind to obtain an essential historical experience that we can set to work upon the formation of our own future. Spengler proposes we can use his cyclical view of history not only to predict later stages of our civilization, but also to uncover the secrets of our long forgotten past. He considers two people "contemporaries" if  they exist in the same relative time of their respective civilizations, which I find to be one of the more interesting concepts in these chapters. "Higher history," related to life and becoming, is the actualization of a Culture. Culture, with a capital C, is Spengler's concept of culture as the body of an idea. It is the sum of its visible, tangible, and comprehensive expressions. I could probably go on and on about the material contained in just the introduction, but I'll assume everything else is covered in more detail later and move on.

Spengler approaches history from the viewpoint of a skeptic, denying the existence of a higher thought consisting of general and eternal truths, and asserts that his philosophy of history can only ever be applicable to Faustian man. This is the heart of Spengler's cultural relativism that is spread throughout this volume. The biggest weakness of his analysis has already been discussed, and that is the lack of the racial element. Spengler completely neglects the facts of race and the demographic changes in regions through the ages. He includes Persians among the Magians, along with semites. He believes the people who built ancient Egypt are the same people who were still there 2000 years later showing no cultural or technical progress, who stopped building pyramids and instead tossed their dead into the Valley of the Kings. He says that the musical and artistic tastes of one Culture will be unpleasant to members of another Culture for reasons one cannot identify. Spengler does identify that race exists on page 179, but likens the difference between races to the differences between individuals. While individuals can "agree to disagree," such a thing cannot be said of races who have different ideas of justice and honor or conflicting behaviors due to differences in intelligence and genetics. 

Alongside Spengler's cyclical view of history is his concept of "Destiny." Just as there is a necessity of cause and effect as the logic of space, there is a necessity of Destiny as the logic of time. Spengler has a linear view of time (this must be understood to be separate from the cyclical view of history, which is specific to civilizations rather than time itself) where time is a direct, irreversible, living process. Causality is the reasonable and law-bound badge of our waking and reasoning existence. Destiny is an inner certainty that not describable; it is the living idea of becoming, which reveals itself intuitively. We see this Destiny concept in Mein Kampf in the many mentions of "providence." The causation-free living grace that can only be experienced as an inward certainty. The title of this volume, "Form and Actuality," takes several forms throughout this volume: destiny and causality, time and space, history and nature, form and law, etc. where Form is the hallmark of Faustian man and Actuality makes up the quintessential Apollinian. Space (Actuality) is an instant of time, the snapshot of Spengler's cyclical history that makes up conventional history. Time (Form) is the Nietzschean Will to Power and the infinite while space is the intellect as morality and denial of instinct.

Spengler sees nature as the sum of law imposed necessities. Nature is a strict image projected by a knowing intellect, bound to a set of natural laws. The laws of nature exclude incident and causality; they are "the become" rather than "becoming." Conversely, becoming has no number and lies beyond the realm of cause and effect. History, in the conventional sense, is not pure becoming, but an image created from the consciousness of the historian, in which the becoming dominates the become. Spengler believes the idea of Goethe's "living nature" was true history and pure becoming. In Spengler's view, nature is something real and timeless. It existed before history and will exist after it, and he believes Faustian history is nearing its end. How does this mesh with the Fascist conception of "natural law"? I don't think there's any conflict here. While Spengler doesn't believe Actuality suits Faustian man, we still recognize and respect its existence. While Faustian man may yearn for higher purpose, the rules of nature still exist and must be obeyed.

As I alluded to earlier in this post, Spengler incorporates mathematics into his view of history. Mathematics and the principle of causality lead to a naturalistic chronology and a historical ordering of the phenomenal world. Spengler treats mathematics as an ontological structure more basic than science or the science of mathematics. It is especially clear here that Spengler had a significant influence on Heidegger's early thought. Spengler believes numerical thought has a direct influence on the worldview of a Culture and becomes a view of the universe. In his view, there are as many "number-worlds" as there are higher cultures. Most of Spengler's mathematical ideas were discussed in our reading of Timaeus and I already stated my disagreement with his view of Western vs Classical mathematics, so I won't get further into it here.

The last thing I'll discuss in this post are the stages of a Culture as defined by Spengler. We often see the "good times create weak men, etc" meme attributed to Spengler's philosophy, but Spengler separates the lifecycle of a Culture by the arts or, simply, "style." Style, as a Spenglerian concept, is the outward expression of the soul of a people. First is the timid, despondent, naked expression of a newly awakened soul which is searching for a relation between itself and the world. Then the style-history reaches manhood and Culture changes into the intellectualism of the great cities that will dominate the countryside. Grand symbolism withers and worldly arts dominate. Next is the golden age of style. The soul of the people depicts its happiness, conscious of its self-completion, representing a return to nature. The arts exist as a sensitive longing to the infinite. Finally, the style fades out and is left with the flat and senile classicism of the Hellenistic megalopolis. Money represents the power of a civilization and economic forces dominate politics and culture. The rootless cosmopolitans of the world cities become the economic center and the city culture radiates outward. Style in this period is a tedious game with dead forms to keep up the illusion of a living art. This was the world of Spengler's day and even more so of our own.

I will save Spengler's further discussion of the arts for the next half of Volume I. He covers some in this volume, but it would be incomplete without the discussion from the following chapters and I run a real danger of hitting the character limit at this rate. While much of this doesn't directly pertain to Fascist ideologies and there are some flaws, I think it has been a valuable read. The influence with regard to views of history and the arts that Spengler had on the minds behind National Socialism is clear. The influence this had on Rosenberg in particular, just based on comparison with his Myth of the Twentieth Century, is tremendous. This has been a very slow, dense read and it's understandable if you want to read something lighter between Volume I and II. I also understand wanting to just power through it, so I'm fine either way.
Replies: >>1985 >>1987
I've had a pretty busy last few weeks, so I figure I'll save the more pertinent for next discussion. Who knows, maybe the spirit of Spengler has come out of the pages of the Decline of The West to haunt my life with his pervasive clinically and needless complexity. I see one way to dispel this geist: to reveal his true nature, and through the text of The Decline of the West, at that! All jokes aside, my mind is a little to scattershot to do Spengler's ideas justice right now. With the benefit of the rest of the volume, I'll be more ready do discuss it, but for now I'll examine the core flaw of Spengler's philosophy, and how it corrupts most of his ideas as a result of its existence. 

The main issue of TDOFW for the first seven chapters is, you guessed it, race. From the introduction, the problem is apparent. In it, Spengler says "But in Homeric Greece, as in Vedic India, we find a change, so sudden that its origins must necessarily be psychological, from burial to that burning which (the Iliad gives us the full pathos of the symbolic act) was the ceremonial completion of death and the denial of all historical duration". Here, we find the ever-present a priori, the beloved copout of the semitic minded. The clockwork of nature is suddenly broken, cause and effect thrown to the wind, to justify the view of the spirit emerging suddenly to form culture and then to die by the hands of civilization. The blood of a race means nothing simply because it cannot mean anything for Spengler. From this gall, the poison of the separation of the spirit and the racial body spreads, spoiling perfectly good metaphysics with a miasma of falsehood. The idea of morality as governed by race, which holds real merit, is muddled by the conception of race as spiritual (With the understanding of morality Plato finds in the Republic, which I believe to be true, the morality of each and every living creature corresponds with that creature's nature. This idea insures ensures that you do not grow to hate the "masses", since they are only doing what is in their nature to do. It is you, the aware Aryan, who the onus of helping them lies upon). The analysis of Aryan art at different points in history is butchered into the haggard pieces of "Catholic and Protestant" and "Grecian" style, obscuring their true natures. All of this could be made acceptable if one were able to take Spengler's proposed end of the Faustian age as the culmination of the struggle between the Apollonian and Faustian spirit, but Spengler seems to see this as a death rather than a synthesis and rebirth, despite token phrases that might fool some. At the risk of repeating the words of earlier, I'll again bring up the closing words of Man and Technics. The description of the West's last men as the guards of Pompeii, Spengler shows his true views on the fate of Faustian spirit, which is in truth the Aryan spirit. He sees the Aryan spirit being turned to lava-cast, being remembered only in the distant future as those who struggled, but died. Spengler is not our ally; he belongs wholly to the present era. He planned on going down with the occidental ship at the end of history, entranced with the idea of tragedy as he was. I am sure most people here are aware of this, but it is still important that we keep this in mind going forward with this and future reads. 

I apologize for my post not going as in depth as I would have liked it to, but again, rough few weeks and another few rough days left.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

>I also understand wanting to just power through it, so I'm fine either way.
I'm thinking that, with all we've been hearing about Goethe, I'll do some research and find some shorter selections of his to read.
Replies: >>1987
>"But in Homeric Greece, as in Vedic India, we find a change, so sudden that its origins must necessarily be psychological..."
A good find. This quote really sums up Spengler's obliviousness (willing or not?) to the racial question. The rest of your analysis is spot on, especially about Spengler being entranced with the idea of tragedy. His Schopenhauer-like pessimism combined with a lack of awareness of race is really his biggest flaw and this sends out ripples affecting nearly every aspect of his philosophy. Such a small thing would make him complete, like a puzzle piece that slides perfectly into place to make up the full picture, but its absence has left an immense void.

>I'm thinking that, with all we've been hearing about Goethe, I'll do some research and find some shorter selections of his to read.
It seems we had the same idea! I just ordered several volumes of his works last week, so I'm all for this suggestion.

>page 179
I felt silly when I realized that this may not be very helpful since different versions of books exist. This part was in Chapter V Section V.
[Hide] (3.3MB, 2655x5043) Reverse
[Hide] (1.1MB, 1914x2682) Reverse
[Hide] (6.6MB, 4096x2731) Reverse
The second half of Volume I of Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West" naturally builds on Spengler's metaphysics established in the first half. This volume is almost entirely focused on Spengler's philosophy, without much in the way of actual political thought. I assume that will be the focus of Volume II.

Spengler continues with his discussion of art throughout history and civilization. Technical form-language is no more than the mask of the real work. Style is inaccessible to art-reason; it is a metaphysical order, a Destiny. It has no concern with artificial boundaries of different arts. Spengler sees art as an organism, not a system. The ideas of Newton and Kant are formed from laws and equations that are then reduced to a system. Conversely, the organism of pure history, as the idea of becoming, is intuitively seen and inwardly experienced while being rendered in poetical and artistic conceptions. The becoming effects a become, which signifies time and evokes space. Per Spengler, an art without space ("abstract art") is a priori unphilosophical. As stated in my previous post, the longing for nature, the infinite, and mysterious compassion are the elements of the Faustian soul. A metaphysical element exists within painting and Spengler sees the Western portrait as the ultimate expression of the Faustian soul, at once cosmic and historical. Endless becoming is comprehended in the idea of motherhood. Woman as mother is pure time and destiny. Only through motherhood is the man made an individual member of this world in which a destiny. For Faustian man, the nursing mother is the symbol of life. This is practically absent in non-Western art, but was very prominent in Germany under the NSDAP. Spengler invokes Goethe's Theory of Color when discussing the Western portrait, showing that colors such as blue and green, virtually absent in Classical art, are representative of the great infinite and a destiny governing the universe from within.

Some of Spengler's art discussion contrasts Egyptian and Chinese architecture, but most of it focuses on the differences between the Apollinian and Faustian. Spengler sees the Faustian and Apollinian as opposites, with Faustian man rooted in Form and Apollinian in Actuality. With respect to art, Spengler substitutes "form and actuality" with "imitation and ornament." Imitation is something religious. It consists of an identity of inward activity between the soul, body, and external world. The aim of imitation is effective assimilation of ourselves into something alien, inseparable from creative activity. Ornament is something which does not follow the stream of life, but faces it. Here we have established motives and symbols which are impressed upon the alien being. Ornament employs a language emancipated from speaking, while imitation is speaking with means that are born of the moment and therefore unreproduceable. Imitation is time, but Ornament is pure extension, settled and stable. In short, following our usual pattern with Spengler, Imitation is becoming and Ornament is the become. When civilization sets in, true ornament and great art as a whole are extinguished. At the twilight of a civilization, there is a decline in creative power. The artist requires to be emancipated from form and proportion. Art today is no more than impotence and falsehood. Artists are looking to produce something that will "catch on" with the public for whom art, music, and drama have ceased to be spiritual necessities. Spengler says this and I can't agree more. What can we say we possess today as art? More importantly, how can we revive the Aryan arts for the general public? The easiest method would probably be for the state to act as patron for select artists, but I've seen other suggestions that include giving a set income to all artists. I think this is one of the most important questions for the longevity of the West. Talk about how to gain power is all well and good, as is what policies to set forth once we get there, but the revival of the arts, the soul of our people, is key to the resurgence of the West.

Spengler continues his discussion of the arts and sciences through various media. He says for Faustian and Egyptian man age ennobles all things. However he claims this is the opposite for Classical man, who lives in the present. Our tragedies are of the past and future, where men are shown to be carriers of a Destiny. Nietzsche somewhat agrees here when he says that profound suffering ennobles and history, like all other life affirming aspects, should be an art. However Nietzsche differs himself from Spengler in his unpublished Will to Power when he says the spirit can only be ennobled by blood. Spengler continues his cultural relativism with morality and the Will by stating that each culture possesses a moral constitution unique to itself. While partially true, he fails to mention the differences in morality and justice that form between these cultures and their inherent incompatibility and dismisses Kant's idea of objective morality. Spengler neglects the "world" in "World as Will." Spengler notes that psychology does not possess an object and psychologists cannot define Will, but Spengler falls into the same trap. 

The last art I wish to discuss that is covered by Spengler is that of language. Abstract ideas, representations of numbers, judgments and conclusions, and causality all exist within language. For Faustian man, this includes the previously discussed Will. Some words exist in one language to represent an idea unique to its respective Culture, but will be absent in other languages (eg. "logos" for Classical man). Expanding on the power of language is the power of speech. Spengler says speech is the basic element of Classical life-feeling. We know from our previous readings, and some know this intuitively, that this is true for Western man as well. Mein Kampf and Kampf um Berlin both focus on the power of the spoken word. Great orators are absent in our era where the creative will is dim and art is dying. As with other arts, a revival of the spoken word will also be needed.

Much of Spengler's discussion of art and science focuses on a complete separation between Faustian and Apollinian man, with the Faustian focus on form and Apollinian on actuality. That Faustian and Apollinian man are opposites is a fundamental idea of Spengler's and it permeates the rest of the work, but I have to disagree. I already discussed the issue with Spengler's mathematics in my previous post and I find much the same issues when he applies his theory to the arts. On the subject of speech, Pericles' famous funeral oration focuses on abstract concepts like liberty, freedom, and justice. The metaphysics of Aristotle and Plato can't be said to be representative of Actuality. There was clearly more to Greek metaphysics than "man with thunderbolt who really lives on Mt Olympus." I can't say I have enough knowledge of works of art to really critique Spengler on the subjects of sculpture and painting, but it seems to me that there isn't much difference between Western and Classical sculpture that can't simply be explained by 1500 years of refining the craft itself rather than a difference in subject matter. Spengler says traditional historians are limited by their own personal interests and Spengler falls into this as well in his discussion of art and science.

Lastly, I'll revisit the race problem since Spengler actually addresses it towards the end of the volume. Spengler acknowledges race as an inherent immutable aspect of man. Recognizing Spinoza's jewish nature, Spengler says he was spiritually Magian and therefore couldn't possibly understand the Faustian worldview and couldn't include it in his system. Spinoza lived among the Faustian culture, but his ideas were still alien due to his nature. In his discussion of science, Spengler says the idea of force is the basic element of Faustian science. The significance of Hertz, a jew, trying to eliminate the concept of force altogether seems to be lost on Spengler, but should stand out to the reader who is used to the workings of jews. Spengler's science discussion is also relevant to those who disparage "jewish science" and turn their backs on Aryan science as a result. I'm sure this will be controversial in our circles, but to deny the reality of the work of someone like ((( Einstein ))) is to deny Gauss, Helmholtz, and the rest he stole his work from. Many people in our movement will also deny the scientific progress of National Socialist Germany because of a grudge against the allies for using our best Aryan minds after the war in Operation Paperclip. Discard the jew and then consider the merit of the science itself. The Faustian longing for the infinite extends to all things, and I have to agree with Spengler when he says science is just another way for us to realize that.

Spengler predicted that soulless nihilism would set in around the year 2000. At this time, the brain would rule and the soul of the people would abdicate. In hindsight, this was very accurate. The creative power of our people is currently dead and must experience a revival if we are to survive. That much is clear. However, time has yet to tell if Spengler's tragedy of a 200 year decline will prove true. I believe a resurgence of the West is still possible and widespread National Socialism and Fascism are the keys to the future. As I said earlier, I expect Volume II to cover more concrete world history and politics. I also expect Spengler to expand on the racial issue since footnotes in his sections on Spinoza's jewish nature and race in general linked to sections of Volume II. I look forward to seeing what's in store for us as we wrap up Spengler for good.
Replies: >>2158
Spengler makes a passing reference to the uneasy relationship most artists of the past five or six centuries (or more) have had with Classical civilization, and I think this problem needs more exploring. Many Renaissance works center around biblical figures whose original images clash with their portrayal by artists. The youthful beauty and strength Michelangelo's David is contrasted by the conniving actions and subversion of the natural order of the original David. Raphael's Madonna is a struggle between the historical Mary and the Aryan image of the Mother Archetype. Where Spengler sees a passive rising and falling of different civilization-ideals, I see an active struggle between Aryan and oriental thought. European artists had, for centuries, been uncomfortable with the pagan-ness of their art not because their psychology changed with their state, but because christianity actively sought to disconnect them from their heritage. It is the same reason bathing fell out of fashion and the desecration of groves came into vogue. If one only listened to Spengler on this subject, he would never be able to fight to renew his nations artistic prowess against christian restriction. 

I think Spengler is also wrong about his outer mimicry vs inner exploration dichotomy in respect to art. Aryan art, in the sense of painting, sculpture, architecture, etc., is ultimately an exploration of the patterns of nature that create beauty and an attempt to strive to further and further understand them. Concrete imitation as well as more expressionistic works are fine if they are made in accordance with these rules, but they start to work against the Aryan spirit when they are made to specifically arouse ill feelings like disgust, fear, or lust. Again, we find that Spengler leaves part of the picture out when he presents a faustian vs apollonian dichotomy to the reader rather than an aryan vs semitic one.  

Spengler posits another a priori transformation in chapter 9, as he did in the introduction of Volume One. He identifies a change in linguistics, and, consequently, the soul in the change between conjugated verbs and verbs independent of subject. For Spengler, "feci" must become "ego habeo factum" spontaneously. It is not a question of how this happened, but when and what happened because of it. Ironically, the shift between classical and vulgar latin the two phrases represent was caused by the degradation of the original nordic roman stock, the very phenomena that Spengler chooses to avoid discussing. 

In the last chapter of Volume One, Spengler starts his discussion on "Nature-Knowledge" with an acknowledgement that no scientific achievement comes without "religion", meaning ideological or spiritual drive. I think this is true in a way. Aryan science flourished under National Socialism primarily because of the will to innovate and the love of their people they possessed, and real scientific advancement has stagnated in recent years as a result of the lack of this spirit. Present day "scientific advancement" seems to propel us towards a jewish dystopia. Recent advances in A.I. and network tech are evidence of this. They superficially appear as advancement, but they really serve to keep the world as stagnant as possible. Really, it could be that this is all technology developed by whites that is abused for jewish purposes, but I am unsure. I felt that it had to be acknowledged either way.

>The easiest method would probably be for the state to act as patron for select artists, but I've seen other suggestions that include giving a set income to all artists.
Having a list of artists sanctioned by the state seemed to have worked for Hitler with Breker, Hoffmann, and Goebbels' film projects. Once our art has been cleansed of jewish themes, we would only need to give inspired artists the means to produce and hone their craft. It might be worth looking into how Caesar Augustus handled state funded art, too.

>but to deny the reality of the work of someone like (((  Einstein  ))) is to deny Gauss, Helmholtz, and the rest he stole his work from.
I need to look into this more, as it seems that this holds true for some fields but not for others. I've seen some pretty interesting arguments for there being big problems with modern day astrophysics. Still, I can say I know enough to form a proper opinion on any of it yet.
[Hide] (47.5KB, 400x669) Reverse
Our intermission between Volume 1 and Volume Two of The Decline of the West is:

Faust 1&2
>Written by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I don't know how much we will get out of Faust 1 (sort of a Oedipus Rex and Oedipus Colonus situation), but I figure its required reading for Faust 2.  

Discussion begins on 6/8
Replies: >>2166
>Faust 1&2 PDF
Goethe's Faust is truly a unique work of art. You can't really put it into any genre. It stands alone. It's not simply a poem telling the story of Faust, but an artistic expression of the Aryan spirit itself. At first I was shocked to see how much of our ideology was reflected in the philosophy of Faust, but it should really come as no surprise. It's only natural that the expression of the Aryan spirit in art would share many similarities with the reflection of the Aryan spirit in politics. From self sufficiency and lebensraum, money power, the state of academia, the unification of the Classic and Romantic, the eternal conflict with the jewish spirit, and much more. Even with just the surface level reading I could get done in our limited time frame, there are a number of topics I could choose from. In the interest of not taking up too much space, I will only choose a couple. 

Initially, I wanted an understanding of Spengler's idea of what exactly he meant by "Faustian man," but it turned out this was very basic and introduced early on. Looking back, it's even said by Spengler himself. Faust is introduced as a man who has studied and mastered many fields. He has accumulated much knowledge, but is overcome with ennui, feeling that he really knows nothing. Faust turns to the study of magic. We see him contemplating the signs of the Macrocosm and the Earth Spirit, reflecting on the relationship between man and the universe. As he contemplates, he feels empowered and connected with nature. Here we can see not just the German man, and Goethe himself, in Faust, but we can see a clear reflection of ourselves. Many of us arrived at Fascism and Fascist-adjacent ideologies from various paths, but a good many of us felt the same feelings as Faust before opening up a "forbidden book" and continuing to explore a subject deemed taboo. Upon meeting Mephistopheles, Faust agrees his soul will be forfeit if he is ever satisfied. Faust knows he will never be satisfied by worldly pleasures. This is Spengler's "Faustian man" yearning for the infinite. 

While Faust is a representation of the Aryan spirit, Mephistopheles is the jewish spirit given form. When Mephistopheles introduces himself in line 990 of part 1 he says "I am the spirit who evermore denies!" He is the opposite of affirmation of our world. After the uplifting message from the spirits at line 1256 in part 1, Mephistopheles subverts their message, twisting it and claiming it as his own. When a student tries to approach Faust for advice, Mephistopheles confronts him. The student finds academia stifling. He misses the outdoors and his freedom. Mephistopheles assures him that he will grow used to it and he should study logic and metaphysics instead of law. Every field Mephistopheles suggests is something that could be valuable in conjunction with another field, but all together these are fields that do not have a practical purpose and will prevent the student from contributing to his nation and Volk. In the conversation with the monkeys in lines 2036-2037 of part 1 he shows his affinity with the jewish spirit by saying he takes pleasure in all things ugly and low. His degenerate nature is on full display in the final moments of part 2 when he is overcome with unfulfilled desire at the presence of the angels. He is incompatible with our ideals of beauty. All these are simply examples that show his jewish nature, but the depraved jewish soul of Mephistopheles makes other larger impacts on the story. 

Gretchen is the symbol of innocence in Faust. She is symbolic of the object of human striving as we see at the end of part 2 when Faust is saved in heaven by her pleas and Goethe leaves us with the final message "The eternal feminine draws us above." Faust's salvation is similar to Spengler's idea of the mother as the center of Western art, but it also brings us back to Dante being led to heaven by Beatrice. Mephistopheles using Faust's admiration of Gretchen to plot her downfall is symbolic of the jew subverting German culture. It's fitting that Mephistopheles takes interest in Martha, the materialistic and jaded friend of Gretchen. The materialistic couple of the modern world is brilliantly contrasted with the innocent "first love" of Faust and Gretchen. We see their first kiss and blooming love, but the jew can't have that. He goads Faust into seducing her and leads Gretchen to accidentally poison her mother. When we last see her alive, she is miserable and imprisoned, awaiting execution. This is Faust's (the character) moral downfall and the corruption of the Aryan spirit by the jew.

At the beginning of part 2 we see Mephistopheles has inserted himself into the Emperor's court and Faust tags along, hoping to win a fiefdom and establish a self sufficient nation. The Emperor is the quintessential failed ruler. He does not concern himself with the welfare of his kingdom or his subjects; he only thinks of himself and his own amusement. His land is without law. The judge is on the side of the criminals, the army is without pay, and the state treasury has no money. Mephistopheles "fixes" the problems for the Emperor by introducing paper money. In the pleasure garden we see that the paper money has led to an increase in wealth, but also idleness and self-indulgence. Rather than making this wealth available through labor, the Emperor relaxes and paves the way for the dangers threatening the nation. Finally, in Act IV, the Emperor's actions have led to an insurrection. Faust and Mephistopheles help him put the rebellion down, but the Emperor, rather than learning from the rebellion and establishing a beneficial government, augments the power of the princes and allows them to impose taxes arbitrarily. Meaningless ceremonialism replaces genuine political activity. Currency without a backing, that isn't based on a real value like labor, is bound to destroy the nation eventually and this is one of the most prominent political messages in part 2 that isn't buried in symbolism.

That this may be misunderstood as a Christian work may put some people in our movement off from reading it. It must be understood that religion in Faust is merely a narrative device. We first hear of Faust during the prologue in heaven when God refers to Faust has his servant. One may expect a pious man like Job, but instead we are greeted with a world weary older man studying magic and contemplating suicide. Like Goethe, Faust was turning away from Christianity, substituting a belief in God for a belief in himself. There is a lot of disagreement on what Goethe's religion really was, with theories ranging from simply a Christian with unconventional beliefs, to a polytheist, to a Spinoza style atheist who believes Being = God. While there are Christian elements to the story, they take a backseat to the Classical elements. The only meaningful Christian element is Faust's soul being saved by effort other than his own, but I think the concepts put forth in my previous discussion of Gretchen make up for it.

I could go on with other subjects, but I'll leave it at this. I would highly recommend Faust to any National Socialist. After reading, I believe we could go as far as to call it National Socialist literature, but it also resonated with other political groups in Germany. It's clear why Goethe's childhood home was considered a place of pilgrimage in Germany. I was lucky enough to pick up a well annotated copy which used several excerpts of Eckermann's "Conversations of Goethe" that helped immensely. Part 2 would have been nearly incomprehensible to me without it. I suppose it's back to "boring" old Spengler next, but I started part 2 today and already saw a reference to Euphorion's fall that I would not have understood previously.

I had trouble attaching "Conversations of Goethe," so here's a link. It mostly seems mundane, but there's some good insight into his writings. https://ia600903.us.archive.org/20/items/conversationsofg00goetrich/conversationsofg00goetrich.pdf
Replies: >>2216
I found Faust to be at once easy and difficult to understand. There are a lot of surface level (not to say wrong or not useful) critiques on Goethe's German society and blatantly presented philosophical insights, like Goethe's parody of court culture and Faust's speech to Gretchen on the nature of god, but some portions of part 1 and much of part 2 do not fall into this category. I tried to read these through a Classical vs. German framework, but this alone did not seem sufficient. Viewing it through an Aryan spirit vs. Jewish spirit lens yielded similar results, with it applying to only portions of the poem. Really, Faust cannot be understood through one dichotomy or another. It is not meant to be a simple argument in favor of one side of an issue or another. Goethe, in the same way Tolkien manufactured a modern day epic, created his own cultural epic through modifying existing folk tales. The breadth of ideology, morality, and human experience contained in the poem is a microcosm of Romantic Germany. 

Characters like the young student and the Emperor represent the physical problems of Goethe's Germany. The student, eager to learn but afraid of being consumed by his studies, is wooed by Mephistopheles into studying Logic. When we meet him again in part 2 he considers himself to know everything that he needs to, and fails to recognize Mephistopheles. It seems that Goethe was dealing with the same sort of slave to "science" that our institutions are infested with today, and that he recognized them as being completely disconnected from any true understanding of the world as well. The Emperor is a caricature of an absentee statesman. He almost always defers his judgement to his court on most occasions, and he is more focused on placating his people with bread and circuses, like in the Lent Carnival, than actually seeing them thrive. Instead of defending his country on his own, he allows Mephistopheles to practically fight his civil war for him. The Emperor is negligent and corrupt rather than malicious because he is meant to represent the issue of corruption in a purely German society rather than a society plagued by jewish influence.

Helen and various mythological and religious figures that Faust encounters represent the inner struggle of the Romantic German. In contrast to what would be expected in a typical christian work, many of the spirits and creatures Faust interacts with are presented as benign or good. The Homunculus specifically is portrayed positively, since he, like Faust, strives for purpose. The departure from the traditional christian evil spirits against yahweh's pantheon approach signifies the struggle between christianity and the traditional Germanic view of the world. The Germanic world is a harmonious struggle. Note that god allows for Mephistopheles to try to steal Faust's soul in order for Faust to grow closer to heaven.

Faust himself represents the Aryan synthesis of life purpose. Faust, just have many of us have, feels empty despite obtaining high status and near mastery over conventional knowledge. Wagner's praise does nothing to soothe Faust. He still feels an existential sense of unease, given form by the hell-hound. Through his first foray into the hidden arts, he accidentally traps Mephistopheles and is thus sent on his path towards finding his purpose. Faust dives into periods of hedonism (his lust for Gretchen), denial of reality (his flight to Arcadia) and egotistical striving (his seizing of Baucis and Philemon's home), but, on the brink of succumbing to degeneracy is saved by just, innocent people like Gretchen, and Philemon and Baucis. Neither is the world entirely cynical as Mephistopheles would have him believe, nor can Faust escape into better times and turn back time. Once Philemon and Baucis have been killed, Faust is forced identify what he truly values, and he dies finally finding true happiness in the striving for the benefit of his people. 

For all the inspiration Spengler took from Goethe, he missed the most important part of Faust. Faust found happiness through striving for his subjects, and not from striving alone. 

>I had trouble attaching "Conversations of Goethe," so here's a link. It mostly seems mundane, but there's some good insight into his writings
Thanks. I feel like I should have gone through it with a commentary.
[Hide] (7.5KB, 188x268) Reverse
We will continue with:

The Decline of the West
>By Oswald Spengler

Discussion of Vol. 2 Ch. 1-7 starts on 6/28
Discussion of Vol. 2 Ch. 8-14 starts on 7/16
Volume 2 of Spengler's "Decline of the West" picks up where volume 1 ends, finishing Spengler's explanation of the arts and continuing into real, physical topics. Much of his discussion involves explanations of historical events, which I won't get into. Instead I will focus on his concepts of the arts, religion, and race.

Spengler begins by discussing music, something that was virtually absent from volume 1. Music lies outside the light-world (the world we can see) and lets us imagine we are on the verge of reaching the soul's final secret. This was the age of Wagner, where music and opera ruled. However, our waking consciousness is dominated by sight. Man's thought is visual thought, with concepts derived almost solely from vision. The modern world is one dominated by television and the internet, much different from Spengler's world of Wagner. Spengler does not account for technological progress; there's practically no mention of the motion picture in his work. With man as a visual being, we must come to terms with the vast influence visual media have on the mind. Propaganda is king and even George Lincoln Rockwell recognized that television was the most potent propaganda tool ever created. This goes back to our discussion of modern National Socialists from "Kampf um Berlin." Modern propaganda must take the visual element into account. A fat or otherwise unattractive person may have brilliant ideas, but he will never be able to send a message to the Volk in the modern day. This should be held separate from the idea of optics. It's more a matter of aesthetics.

Only the active man, the man of destiny, exists in the world of Actuality. This is the world of political, military, and economic ideas. As Goebbels says, form and expression, Spengler's concept of "style," are the elements required of a true man. Only a man of action can be a moving force in history. Spengler says men of theory belong in the background of great events. True statesmen do not follow theory or convention, but rather the path to success. Hitler and Mussolini are the rare exceptions as true philosopher kings. They built up a system and acted within it. Likewise, this is the path that must be taken by modern Fascist leaders.

Spengler talks about the loss of Mesoamerican "literature" under the Spanish, but this is somewhat misleading. He seems to imply that a great deal of thought and knowledge was lost and these people were comparable to our Classical forefathers. Most Mesoamerican writings were songs and monument inscriptions commemorating some deed or other. They didn't have their own Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Thucydides, Herodotus, etc. Spengler uses the loss of his imagined Mesoamerican literature to say that history has no meaning at all. Of course, this could be true when taken to a nihilistic extreme, but history has the ability, as Spengler himself said previously, to give us insight into both the past and future. It seems laughable that any city could be compared to Alexandria or Athens in a society that had no philosophy or history and regularly practiced human sacrifice. Spengler's praise here is mere speculation and he admits that history only has value to the forward thinking Faustian man, who sees history as a source of knowledge for future events. Spengler does not take racial differences into account.

Spengler's splits race into two categories: the physical and the spiritual. Spengler believes that physical race is only skin deep. With modern forensic science we know this to be untrue, but it's understandable for Spengler's era. To people in his age, a skeleton was a skeleton regardless of race. However, it's unfortunate that this opens up an opportunity for subversive elements to take Spengler's beliefs about race out of context to attack those who would build on his work. Spengler also discusses spiritual aspects of race as an immutable characteristic of a Volk. We touched on this previously, but he finally confirms it for us here in volume 2. Race is something innate, written in blood, and can't be attained by simply living among a people for some period of time. So is Spengler a subversive element like the article linked in >>1912 claims? While Spengler seems to downplay the importance of race and demographic shifts through the ages, I'd say the answer is clearly "NO" and I'll elaborate on this in my final post on Decline of the West.

"Race, in the end, is stronger than languages, and thus it is that, under all the great names, it has been thinkers - who are personalities - and not systems - which are mutable - that have taken effect upon life." Wittgensteinians in shambles.

Spengler also touches on the conflict between Faustian and Roman law. Roman law uses experience, the idea of precedent, in its judgements. In contrast, the goal the Faustian law is to create a timeless and eternal law. Valid laws are meant to represent the social and economic existence of their times. Rosenberg also wrote extensively on the conflict between Roman and Germanic law in his "Myth of the Twentieth Century," saying Roman law had a disintegrating effect on the Germanic essence and must eliminated. The attorney who acts on behalf of the state hinders the guiding of the Volk. Roman law is ultimately a product of the Roman people and cannot be imitated by Faustian man. However, knowledge of Classical law can provide us with an example of how a law can develop out of the practical life of its time. 

The contrast of the Magian "world-as-cavern" and the Faustian world as infinity is useful for our movement. While critiques of Christianity in our circles exist, Spengler provides us with a timeline that shows the development of Judaism from Magian culture and how Christianity branches off from there. The Magian aspects of Christianity make it incompatible with Faustian culture. This is pretty well known, but Spengler provides an intelligent and methodical approach to prove this. While I think the problem of Christianity will persist, and many National Socialists before us have come up with mitigating ideas like positive Christianity, Spengler's approach could be used to change the minds of any fence-sitters in our midst.
Accidentally deleted the vast majority of my post, so I'll sum it up.

Spengler's identification of the categories of the "cosmic" and the "microcosm within the macrocosm" are blatantly false. No man can spend his entire day completely consciously aware, whether through the intervention of dreamless sleep or zoning out. Consciousness exists on a spectrum, as observed by the average conscious person. Consciousness as a spectrum also nullifies Spengler's binaries of "tension" and "beat", and "being" and "waking consciousness". Modern discoveries like grief responses in the animal kingdom, plant's responses to music and high-frequency pain responses show that consciousness may be more universal than usually thought. 

Spengler speaks much of causality but never seems to internalize the concept. His dynasties and races seem to appear from thin air. A culture, for him, is somehow able to form from a people a thousand years dormant, despite his acknowledgements that most of the civilizations of the past were founded by roaming bands of Aryans. Further, the aversion to answers to causality Spengler describes is common to the last man (not a pejorative) of today, because the acknowledgement of higher law and consistent causality would harm his ability to convince himself not to act. The more the image of a just world forms in his mind, the harder it is to convince himself that his current lifestyle and actions are just. To avoid taking responsibility, he must hide himself in our current age of "thinking", far away from the future of synthesis of thought of action.

This isn't all of what I had before, but when you see 4/5ths of a (for once) concise and pertinent post disappear in less than a second because you were resting your hand on the keyboard in a weird way, you get a little demoralized. Apologies for the shortened post. I'm almost ready to believe that Spengler's ghost really is haunting, though, for as rough of a time I'm having with his works.
Replies: >>2327
That's a shame. Hopefully you can remember what you had and include it in your next post. 

>Consciousness as a spectrum also nullifies Spengler's binaries of "tension" and "beat", and "being" and "waking consciousness".
Spengler does seem to think mostly in binaries and it's easy to get caught up in his pattern of thought. This is good insight and I'll have to keep it in mind as I continue.
I had a much different idea of what Spengler's "Decline of the West" would be about before we got into it. I expected a political treatise explaining a decline of society and a system that Spengler would conjure to remedy it. However, Spengler sees the death of a civilization as a natural thing and instead gives us a brilliant philosophy of history of which Spengler seems to remain the sole pioneer. I'd like to get Otto Dickel's previously mentioned "Resurgence of the West" translated to see how it measures up, but the quote I got was around 5000 USD so it will have to wait. The second half of the second volume of "Decline of the West" is easily the most relevant portion of the work to modern politics and Fascist movements as a whole. It covers several topics that would be relevant to our movement such as the role of women, asceticism, the role of jews, the concept of "might makes right," war, money, along with topics covered in "Prussianism and Socialism" and "Man and Technics." Since we've covered many of these topics already, I won't go too far into Spengler's own ideas on them.

While we have discussed the futility of retreating from society in our discussion of "Kampf um Berlin," Spengler tackles ascetic ideals themselves. Spengler, drawing heavily from Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals," acknowledges the dangers of flawed compassion and the denial of the blood born out of fear. The priest class is the antithesis of the worker, as is demonstrated in their conflicting attitudes towards woman. Asceticism is the killing of being, a death without heirs. By its very definition, it is a race-denying ideal. However, Spengler does praise ascetics who are men of action (he gives a few saints as examples), willing to sacrifice for the sake of their people. To Spengler, the highest victory of Space over Time is the warrior become ascetic. Asceticism born of fear is a retreat for the coward, but asceticism born of a love that overcomes life is that of the hero and the saint.

The nature of the State is one discussed by several writers we've already explored and Spengler gives us his take on it, mostly agreeing with our Fascist forefathers. A people with History makes up a nation; the individual family is the smallest and the nation the largest unit of History. The nation is a living thing which possesses the State as an idea. As a reflection of the Volk, the State is based on actuality rather than mere theory. Spengler agrees with Hitler and Feder when he says that it would not matter what form the State took. The State is simply a means to an end. Spengler's idea of Caesarism is a return to old forms. Money collapses and race springs forth. Money power has a significant role to play in a declining society such as our own. The power of money over the press and politics as a whole is unmatched. In the old days, and in the coming days, men were wealthy because they were powerful. As things are now, they are powerful because they are wealthy. "Might Makes Right" still rules our society, but as Spengler discusses and as Socrates alludes to in Gorgias, it can change forms over the ages. The "Might" of our declining civilization is that of international money power and scheming. Spengler's Caesarism and the fall of money power would be a return to what some call the "primacy of politics." Marxists have since tried to adopt the term and subvert its meaning, but it was embodied in its ultimate form by the NSDAP.

Perhaps the most important topic covered is Spengler's opinion of the JQ. We have speculated on his views of race and jews and we have found an answer for both here in Volume 2. His view of biological race is lacking but he says "to have honour in one's body means about the same as to have race," which shows an undeniable belief in the spiritual race and we've previously seen his belief that spiritual race is an intrinsic part of every man. However, his position on jews is somewhat lacking. Ultimately, Spengler acknowledges the role of jews in the media and finance, but he attributes this to a differing stage of civilization. He says that because jews are an older civilization, they are different from Faustian man. He goes to say that Romans played the role of the jews during the peak of Magian civilization. Rosenberg disagrees, claiming that the jewish nature of late Rome was due to the involvement actual jews. I don't have enough knowledge on the history and makeup of the late Roman empire to confirm or deny this discrepancy, but based on what I've read it would seem Rosenberg is correct. This could be interpreted as an excuse for jewish behavior on Spengler's part, and it some ways it is, but Spengler never advocates for the existence of jews within Faustian civilization. In fact, Spengler makes a case for the separation of civilizations. Whether jews are simply at a "later stage" or naturally subversive is irrelevant for Spengler. In the essay "Is World Peace Possible?" which Spengler wrote later in life, he said "Pacifism will remain an ideal, war a fact. If the White races are resolved never to wage war again, the colored will act differently and be rulers of the world." There isn't much room for debate on his views of race with this quote in mind.

So is Spengler a subversive element working on behalf of jews as the article in >>1912 claims? On the subject of his alleged Jewish ancestry, I freely admit I don't have enough knowledge of the German language to research his ancestry. However, the Renegade Tribune article cites his Wikipedia article, which references a book written by two Marxist jewish women. Is this book accurate? It's possible that Spengler does indeed have jewish ancestry and his later disposition towards the NSDAP was due to some psychological defensive mechanism, but one must keep in mind that the greatest slander a jew can give his opponent is to include him among them. The later quotes by Rosenberg are not condemnations. A cursory read of Rosenberg's Myth will show significant Spenglerian influence. Rosenberg built upon Spengler's ideas, including the importance of biological race, and his comments should only be seen as a knowledgeable and respectful critique emphasizing how his work builds upon Spengler's. I'm not familiar with the gentlemen running Renegade Tribune. Maybe this is just a bad article, but it would seem that the person writing this article would only have to look in the mirror to see what subversion is. Those who discourage others from reading major works just because they don't agree with absolutely everything within or think something is "too old" to be taken seriously are like a plague in our movement. 

It's clear now why Spengler was a highly influential character among Fascists and continues to remain so. I'd definitely recommend his shorter works and anyone serious about Fascism should at least read the second volume of his "Decline of the West." Spengler's "Hour of Decision" apparently critiques National Socialism pretty heavily, but I think we should hold off on that for now. As for what to read next, I think anything in >>1747 is okay, but I'll leave it to your discretion as always. A lot of these are short enough that I won't mind reading them as a pdf. I ordered a copy of "This Time the World" that has been stuck in shipping hell for over a month, so I'd rather not do that just yet.
Replies: >>2438
Spengler's Idea of Magian Religion may apply to most non-whites, but I do not believe it applies to the Jews. Whereas Arabs, Negroids, etc. often have religions tinted with fear, the jew, like the Aryan, does not. The Aryan frees himself from fear through his own sense of inner justice and then acts in accordance with his inner feelings, and the Jew does the same. Where we differ is in what our sense of justice is. The Aryan is empathetic; he seeks out equal justice for all creatures and wins self-assurance through positive action. He makes himself worthy of life. The Jew, meanwhile, schemes his way around making true sacrifices. Think of the Talmudic practice of "tricking god" by transferring a jew's sins onto a chicken and then killing it, or their invoking of yahweh's wraith and shamanism against their enemy rather than physical confrontation. He thinks it an insult that the world would ask him to prove himself. Here we see that the races of the earth can be defined as either "active" or "passive". The active define themselves in their struggle against one another, and the passive (Magian) are merely a part of the active races' struggles.

Spengler also seems to, at best, not know much about the contents of the Talmuds, or, at worst, be intentionally misleading his readers about them. This quote from pg. 246 of my translation sums it up best.

>>"Gothic Christianity had no secrets and hence it doubly mistrusted the Talmud, which it rightly regarded as being only the foreground of Jewish doctrine"

You would have to be very naive or ill-informed to think that the occult nature of the Talmud is the main reason Europeans fought against Judaism and its adherents. Any of its contents from in-depth guides on how to properly deface idols to its disgusting writings on child-brides and sexuality or its treatment of Jesus would me more than enough to enrage the average churchgoer. There is something to be said about the uselessness of anti-jew sentiments arising from christian doctrine rather than racial sentiments, but I doubt this is what he meant, lest he would have decried it in the same sentence from a more modern perspective.

I am also confused as to why Spengler was so against National Socialism when it would appear to be the "sudden awakening" of a racial consciousness he laid out as the beginning of every civilization. Here is the new State, right in front of him, complete with a new racial understanding of religion, economics, and culture, and yet he is against it. 
In the end, I'm going to have to make the same compromise with Spengler as I did with the Transcendentalists. I love Thoreau's writings and I recognize that they are very spiritually valuable, but the man behind them did not always act in the best interest of whites. He and Emerson are basically the progenitors of the revival of the nature-religion of Savitri Devi and their works read like it, but that doesn't change the fact that Thoreau supported abolition without a hint of support for repatriation and that Emerson refused to remove the veil of Judaism from his almost entirely Aryan-influenced sermons. 

Spengler did away with the judaism of the christian religion, but he failed to grasp the concepts of physical and spiritual race properly. I believe, in chapter 13, Spengler speaks of peasants as being the "plant-like" portion of a nation. This is often true because of the racial make-up of a nation, yet Spengler does not acknowledge this. At another point (I should have copied the quote into my notes), Spengler says that race cannot be preserved because any bloodline will be diluted within a few centuries, or at least something to that effect. Perhaps Spengler was against the Third Reich because of his fundamental misunderstanding of Aryan genetic heritage. If Spengler saw the preservation of the white race as an impossible task, he would surely see the Germany's new nation as a suicidal one. Spengler, then, like Thoreau or Emerson, or, really any author, must be used as stepping stone towards the final synthesis and honing of the idea of National Socialism.

>Those who discourage others from reading major works just because they don't agree with absolutely everything within or think something is "too old" to be taken seriously are like a plague in our movement. 
I wouldn't say that people should be discouraged from reading certain works, but they should definitely be given an idea of the core of an author's philosophy and an outline of their life before they read it. I guess I'm really just describing a book introduction, but it would be nice to have introductions penned by National Socialists in the future, and it would probably pay to do it even now. I also fear that some people will read a book and then become [author's name]-ist/ians, but higher quality people will most likely avoid this.

>Spengler's "Hour of Decision" apparently critiques National Socialism pretty heavily, but I think we should hold off on that for now. 
I wish we would have read it going into Decline of the West so I had a better idea of where Spengler was coming from. I'll check it out on my own time unless you want to save it for later.
Replies: >>2439
>Spengler's Idea of Magian Religion may apply to most non-whites, but I do not believe it applies to the Jews
Including jews, Arabs, and Persians in a single group was a fundamental disagreement I had with Spengler. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on his understanding of the Talmud though. I'm of the understanding that it was fairly secretive before the age of mass media. It also comprises over 70 lengthy volumes (in those including commentary) which would have been difficult to search through manually even if he were able to get his hands on it.

>I wouldn't say that people should be discouraged from reading certain works, but they should definitely be given an idea of the core of an author's philosophy and an outline of their life before they read it.
Agreed. There's nothing wrong with a well reasoned critique allowing a would-be reader to make his own decision. In fact, I hope this thread can serve that purpose for at least one person lurking around.

>I wish we would have read it going into Decline of the West so I had a better idea of where Spengler was coming from. I'll check it out on my own time unless you want to save it for later.
I think it's probably best to save it for last since it was written at the end of his life. As we saw with "Man and Technics," Spengler was much more of a pessimist later on. I was going to read it on my own time as well, so perhaps it would be better to do it as part of this book club, though I'd prefer a few books between now and then to give ourselves a break.
[Hide] (21.6KB, 128x198) Reverse
Our next book is:

Tomorrow We Live
>By Oswald Mosley 

Discussion begins on 7/29
Replies: >>2443
>Tomorrow We Live PDF
Oswald Mosley's "Tomorrow We Live" serves as a good overview of the BUF program. This could be read and understood by the layman, but shows a vision that can also be appreciated by those already familiar with Fascism. I wasn't as familiar with Mosley as others, having only listened to a few speeches and skimmed some of his writings, so this helped put a lot of things into place. He presents an interesting approach to Fascism that ultimately failed to take off, but there are still things worth learning from here. This was written when the world was on the verge of WWII and Mosley's anti-war ideals are on full display throughout. He acknowledges a nation's right to self defense, but also recognized the obvious warmongering of his own nation and France against Germany.

Mosley starts with the failures of democracy and parliamentary systems. He confronts the idea of an "opposition party," exposing just how ridiculous it is to have a party dedicated to preventing the nation from performing its task. That task being executing the will of the Volk. Previous revolutionaries who found a place in politics ended up losing their grit and became part of the system they resented. Mosley proposes that BUF members who were elected to office would not mix socially or even speak to political rivals. This is certainly the way, but I find it interesting that Mosley never refers to his political enemies as such. Mosley is rather mild mannered throughout the text. Whether this is out of concern for appealing to the mainstream is something I do not know, but it makes him look soft.

Ironically, Mosley seems very democratic compared to others. He believes in a majority vote with each profession existing as a voting block (doctors voting as doctors, etc) which would seem like some sort of democratic corporatism if you want to slap a label on it. Local leaders would be selected from the movement from which the majority of people have voted, which would essentially mean that the people dwelling in the cities would choose the political party that would rule every town and village in the nation. This is an obvious weakness from the perspective of modern Western Democracy, but I believe Mosley was thinking ahead to a time where the British Union would be established and the British people have attained a higher conception of life. I doubt he would seriously suggest putting Tories or Labour Party members in charge of the entire Volk.

One thing I appreciated most about Mosley was his ability to be straightforward and honest about his view of the British Empire. He supported the Empire and supported maintaining her colonies. Most modern Fascists seem to shy away from the idea of imperialism and maintain an "ideology of peace" facade, but it's only natural for a nationalist from a nation that has or had a colonial presence to want to maintain or regain it. The downside is the multi-racial aspect of an empire. Mosley boasts that Britain is a multi-racial empire composed of many races. While he supports separation of the races (except jews, apparently), he believes in an Empire where Africans and Europeans work in harmony for the betterment of their respective Volk. This is something that is not possible. For an empire to exist successfully, there must be a superior and an inferior. Once the inferior is allowed rights and equality, collapse is imminent as they are different peoples with differing levels of intelligence and competing goals. Mosley is equally weak on the JQ as he is on the racial question. He is only against Marxists and Capitalists. The poor jew who is simply minding his own business and tending to his shoe store should not be bothered, according to him. Of course, we know these jews only exist in the fantasies of the kind hearted.

Mosley was an interesting personality in the Fascist movement and his only major flaw was the desire to see the best in people, even those who wished the worst for him and his people. Like Goebbels, he focused more on the Socialist aspect than the National, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that at the right time. At the time he lived through, however, it would ultimately lead to obscurity. If only Britain had listened.
Replies: >>2505 >>3966
I found Mosley's Tomorrow We Live to have the best potential for mainstream palatability out of everything we have read so far. The vast majority of what was covered in Tomorrow we live has made it's way into mainstream discourse, from a general dissatisfaction with the lack of representation of the common man in government, to the recognition of the fact that several large monopolies control most media, and a general attraction to civic-nationalism-esque notions of religious tolerance and "white man's burden" style colonialism. Save for the racial components, which Mosley mostly avoided, it sounds like normal republican (local, common people, not news media) talk. It goes to show that our situation government wise is not too different than that of the 1920's and 1930's, and that public discourse is very close (if not already actively doing so) to heavily considering how racial dynamics effect whites in most political situations. 

Free Speech existed in Mosley's Britain in the same way as it does in current day America. Modern day "Free Speech" is mean to function as a play-pen of sorts, wherein people are theoretically allowed to express any idea under the stipulation that they only ever theorize. Should they ever want to act, they must give up the ghost of Freedom of Speech and evolve into complete (ZOG approved) understanding if the world, lest they be annihilated for acting against jewish interests. Mosley reports the same situation, and identifies the core motivation behind creating such an environment. Modern "Free Speech" severs the unity between thought and action inherent to any success movement, and traps them in a loop of philosophizing and adjusting theory.  

Circling back to Mosley's previously mentioned policy of religious tolerance, I found it surprising how easy Mosley went on the JQ. He seemed to only identify jews associated with international finance as enemies of the British state, and he had the same issue in his understanding of how oversea colonies should be run. I don't know much about how much presence the British Union had in British Politics, but I would chance to guess that this attitude is why they did not succeed on the level of Hitler or Mussolini. Hitler's positive Christianity operated with the Aryan people at its center, and a society divided between catholics, protestants, etc. cannot achieve that.

Still, I find Mosley's vision of true democracy charming. I do not think that he would have been able to create such a democracy out of the who's who of Nordic and Mediterranean racial elements that Britain was and currently is, but, given enough time, I believe a healthy stock of Nordic Britons would be capable of democratic rule.  

I was thinking about spending another week or so with Mosley before we move on. Thoughs?
Replies: >>2506
>I was thinking about spending another week or so with Mosley before we move on.
I support it. The BUF seems pretty unique, boldly branching off from Mussolini and Hitler to forge their own path, so it would be worthwhile to investigate in greater detail.
[Hide] (21.3KB, 181x279) Reverse
Our next book is:

Europe: Faith and Plan
>By Oswald Mosley

If anyone can find a copy of "Mosley's Blackshirts" floating around, post it here or in the fascist lit thread. It doesn't look like a pdf is available anywhere. 

Discussion starts on 8/12
Replies: >>2518 >>2606
>Europe: Faith and Plan PDF
About 20 years have passed between "Tomorrow We Live" and "Europe: Faith and Plan." It would seem during this time Mosley changed his tune from British nationalism to pan-Europeanism. Those opposing a European union, and Mosley specifically includes Fascists in this, are living in the past and are afraid of change! Cast aside your culture and values! Only the almighty GDP matters! Of course, Mosley contends that merging all European nations into one union will have no effect on the various cultures. I remain unconvinced, but as I do not live in Europe I will leave judgments on the true value of pan-Europeanism to the discerning European reader.

Mosley's call for a European union is a response to two events: American trade dominating the world and the very real and present threat of Communism. Britain had lost her empire and could no longer even feed her own people without imports. This remains true today, with Britain relying on imports for roughly 40% of their food consumption. Along with this, European nations were (and still are) forced to rely on American charity for national defense. Mosley's solution to this is to unite Europe and create a new economic powerhouse. With the advent of nuclear weapons, he focuses on disarmament as a solution to military problems. Of course, we have the gift of hindsight and know the foolishness of disarmament, but even Spengler warned that making yourself weak will just make you prey. Pacifism and Fascism are incompatible; the father of all things is eternal struggle.

While Mosley wants Europe to expand to Africa to increase economic power, he does not want to reinstate colonialism. He believes Africans are capable of working alongside Europeans as equals. We discussed this already, but it seems to be a core element of his worldview so it's worth pointing out again. 

Much of Mosley's argument for a European union is economic in nature and focused on the wage-price mechanism. In short, this involves the government setting wages and intervening on the price of commodities as it deems necessary. The destructive results of wage control by a central government are well documented in our time. Wage controls have shown up in the West (and I believe this is true for NSDAP Germany as well) during war-time, but the negative impact was outweighed by the war effort. During peacetime, they would be purely destructive and altogether unnecessary. While Mosley acknowledges problems of overproduction during war, where the people, particularly in the case of America during WWII, cannot possibly use all of what they have produced and have to rely on international markets to pass it off, this isn't very relevant in Mosley's day. This is all an attempt to keep wages down and profits up to make Europe the center of the economic world once again. Is it truly necessary to be at the top of the world economy? While any nationalist would be proud to be on top, of course, slavery to the GDP is not the purpose of the Volk. While it's common sense to a Fascist that the economy exists in service to the Volk, Mosley has cast aside Fascism in desperation and claims the business of Europe is "struggling for life on world markets between the rival giants." The idea of self sufficiency supplemented with necessary trade from local nations is not an option to him. If your GDP can't be the largest, why even live? He seems to have adopted much of Spengler's later pessimism when he says "The great qualities in man should grow in proportion to the age, not diminish. Let us remember the past only long enough to learn this. Then let us forget. Europe needs a great act of oblivion, before a new birth."

It may seem like I'm being overly harsh, but that's only because I value Mosley's thoughts as a fellow traveler of Fascism. I want to grab him by the shoulders and say "Get it together, man!" Many of Mosley's positions continued to resemble Fascism in "Faith and Plan", but I don't think I would consider him a Fascist at this point. It's a little surprising to me that Europe a Nation gained a fair amount of support among nationalists across Europe at the time, but with the threat posed by the Soviets I can see how some may have been swayed. I freely admit my own biases against the current European Union have negatively impacted my view of Europe a Nation, but I still can't see it as anything other than internationalism. 

>Mosley's Blackshirts
I wasn't able to find a pdf. Odd since physical copies seem easy to come by, even being sold on Amazon.
Replies: >>2616 >>2617
Mosley's "Europe: Faith and Plan" lays out the basic economic and political structure of a post-fascist Pan-European superstate. Perhaps seeing Hitler's future of an earth dominated by mega-states slowly coalescing, Mosley attempts to give the European man a fighting chance in a world dominated by two states, Russia (communism) and America, that were working actively against white interests by proposing the combining of the small states of Europe into a United European economic bloc. He realizes that the new political landscape (at least for the foreseeable future) support neither "Old democracies" nor "Fascism", and so seeks to adapt to the "fresh truths" of the world through this new government. 

As shrewd as Mosley's proposal of an European Union was, it is destined to fail for many of the same reasons the modern European Union has failed economically. Mosley was naive to expect minor economic guidance to completely transform the more racially degenerated nations of Europe. Countries like Greece and (Southern) Italy would be an economic drain on the Union as they are today without any sort of eugenics program being instituted. The idea of the "Europe-Africa" hegemony would similarly affect the economic destiny of the union, since the establishment of independent African nations would require constant expenditure to maintain a proper state. While I find Mosley's efforts to create a peaceful Africa for both Africans and Europeans noble, I do not think that it is a real possibility. Nothing short of complete colonization and segmentation of Africa would make it fit for long term settlement and economic use. 

There is no way out of our modern jewish, materialist paradigm besides slamming straight through it, and Mosley unfortunately tried to work with it. It's a shame, really. The man was a worthy fascist, he had a little to much sun in him for a world that needed lightning. In the last chapter of "Europe: Faith and Plan", he states the European Man's mission in a phrase that should be familiar to any Fascist, even if he rejects such a label in the book: "Man must either reach beyond his present self, or fail"

>Is it truly necessary to be at the top of the world economy? 
I would say that Mosley saw the world economy as the only way left for whites to effectively defend themselves on the world stage after the defeat of the most influential Fascist states and the subsequent crackdown on their ideas. It was a means to an end rather than an end in itself, an evolution of methods rather than a hopeless longing for what had been very recently lost. I'm not saying that he was correct in his opinions, but I can certainly understand where he was coming from.
Replies: >>2617 >>2630
>>I wasn't able to find a pdf. Odd since physical copies seem easy to come by, even being sold on Amazon.
That's frustrating. I'll have to get a page scanner sometime in the future for things like these.  

>>He seems to have adopted much of Spengler's later pessimism when he says "The great qualities in man should grow in proportion to the age, not diminish. Let us remember the past only long enough to learn this. Then let us forget. Europe needs a great act of oblivion, before a new birth."
I have to admit, I was swayed towards believing in Mosley's genuineness by the closing "form" chapter, so I don't necessarily see that quote as pessimistic. Most Fascists have no illusions about the fact that things will get much worse before they get better, and that, during that time, much will be lost (as we have lost much already), but no one will allow the Aryan race to be lost forever; this is where Spengler and Mosley differ. Spengler fully expects the Faustian lineage to disappear when Faustian Civilization collapses, while Mosley expects full-blooded Aryans to emerge from the ashes of Faustian Civilization, stronger for having survived the collapse.
>I would say that Mosley saw the world economy as the only way left for whites to effectively defend themselves on the world stage after the defeat of the most influential Fascist states and the subsequent crackdown on their ideas.
I suppose in a sense autarky could be seen as the equivalent of hiding out in a cabin the woods. You might survive, but it doesn't do anything to further the cause for Whites overall. I was having trouble seeing Europe a Nation from a Fascist perspective, but this helped settle some doubts I had. I still can't see it as a winning strategy for reasons both you and I already posted, but it's not an unreasonable position given the historical context.

>The man was a worthy fascist, he had a little to much sun in him for a world that needed lightning.
Well said.
[Hide] (18.2KB, 285x445) Reverse
Our next book is:

The Myth of the Twentieth Century
>Written by Alfred Rosenberg

Not including "This Time the World", we have burned through the list of Fascist authors compiled earlier this year. We could take a quick tour of Japanese and Russian (if it can be found) Fascist literature, but, beyond this, either some extensive research on minor fascist authors or a change in direction is needed. We could shift towards more spiritual authors like Serrano, Jung, and Evola, non-fascist works ripe for critique, or primary and secondary source historical writings. All of these options could of course be pursued in any combination that seems desirable.

We'll take the time spent on our next reading, "The Myth of the Twentieth Century", which we will move through sub-book by sub-book, to meditate on these options. The sub-books vary in length, but three-ish weeks for each section should be enough unless proven otherwise. 

Discussion for Book One of "The Myth of the Twentieth Century" begins on 9/2.
>Myth of the Twentieth Century PDF
I first read Alfred Rosenberg's "Myth of Twentieth Century" a few years ago, well before we started this book club. I was planning to give it another read now that I'm more familiar with Spengler and other relevant works from the period. This book was intended as a sequel to Houston Stewart Chamberlain's "Foundations of Nineteenth Century," which I have not read, but the general idea of the work should be clear based on the context Rosenberg gives. Like all great works of philosophy, Rosenberg's "Myth" certainly benefits from repeated readings. This time around has been much more pleasant than the slow struggle that my first read was. It is listed on any basic reading list on National Socialist philosophy, but unlike Mein Kampf, it is not written for the layman and can be difficult to understand. Rosenberg was unique among NSDAP leadership in that he was not a soldier, but an academic, and his target audience was his peers. However, the impact of the "Myth" is not to be underestimated. It sold over one million copies in the Reich and is likely to be the direct cause of Pope Pius XI's encyclical (pdf attached) "Mit Brennender Sorge." It is also extremely likely that writing this book was the great crime for which he was executed at Nuremberg.

Rosenberg's "Myth" casts aside class conflict in favor of the struggle of our spiritual values of blood, race, and Volk. Rosenberg claims he does not wish to be a reformer, but rather wishes to raise a German awareness of soul and spirit to struggle against the chaotic values of his time. His ultimate goal for German society is revitalization of the blood. Race, personality, and culture perish through desecration of the blood. It is through this book that he illustrates the unbending resolution of the nobility of mind of the racial soul. Rosenberg builds on Spengler's racial history, including the biological and spiritual aspects of race. The history of the religion of the blood is the great world story of the rise and fall of peoples and their heroes, thinkers, and artists.

Rosenberg was not a Pagan. He recognizes the church co-opting Pagan symbols and the old gods for their uses, but also acknowledges that the old religions are dead and unlikely to return in their original forms. This came up in our previous discussion of Jung as well. Rosenberg wishes to separate the image of Christ from jewish and the otherwise alien ideas of Saul of Tarsus (Paul) and Augustine, fostering a return to early Nordic Christianity for the Volk. Rosenberg, like Spengler, recognizes that the foreign influences on Christianity are not compatible with the Aryan racial soul. He recognized the Roman church and judaism as responsible for the corruption of Christianity and God's covenant. Naturally, the German church should be based on Germanic values rather than Roman. Rosenberg uses Meister Eckhart as proof that the Germanic soul can still shine through in Christianity. Rather than viewing God as an external being ruling over mankind, Eckhart believed that God was found not in the temples of men, but within their hearts. This bypasses the typical egalitarian nature of Christianity in favor of the idea that a man is only worth as much as the nobility of his soul. To Eckhart, laws and contracts had no purpose to a moral man.

"But isn't Jesus le dead jew on a stick?!" some might cry. Rosenberg saw Jesus as being of Aryan stock, with Joseph leaving Galilee and returning to Bethlehem not as a Hebrew, but as a gentile exile expelled by the jews after they established dominion over Galilee. According to Rosenberg, all claims to Jesus' jewish heritage were due to Saul's influence. As for whether Jesus was religiously jewish, Rosenberg will cover that subject later in the "Myth." 

Rosenberg recognizes love and honor as competing values throughout history. The value that has preserved our race and nations has been honor. This honor is connected to the concept of duty, originating from consciousness of our inward freedom. Conversely, love and sympathy began the ages of racial and national dissolution. Love is the prerequisite for democracy and humanitarianism and is the soul of judaized Christianity. True love is based on inner values, such as pride in self and race, not through an acceptance of destructive or degenerate behavior as your equal. There are two racial types: those with and those without honor. Jews have no concept of honor, which is why their God had to give them a law set in stone. A jew can never display a moral character unless his life or property are placed in jeopardy. Meister Eckhart's internal morality and God of the soul are alien to them.

Luckily, we've already covered a philosophy of history and the Nordic migrations through the ages in our discussions of Spengler and Grant, so we don't need to cover that again here. However, we are left with some questions for discussion that shouldn't be answered too hastily before considering the rest of Rosenberg's "Myth." Can Christianity truly be compatible with the Aryan soul as Meister Eckhart shows us? Is "Positive Christianity" (not necessarily the movement as it existed, but the idea behind it) a viable path forward for White Christians or is it merely a half measure that doesn't solve the real problem? Should there be a focus on the "religion of the blood" or a secular society where religion is considered separate from the Volk and nothing more?

We also have Carl Schmitt to read. Mosley's 100 Questions could be a good read as well. Feder could be read for a deep dive into the 25 points or his Manifesto if desired. I've already him, but a deeper look into these could be worthwhile. If you can find any Japanese or Russian Fascist literature, that would also be very interesting. Branching into some other ecofascist authors like Linkola could work as well. Some good works to critique could be Ted Kaczynski's "Technological Slavery" or Marx's Communist Manifesto and maybe some "Fascist adjacent" thinkers like de Benoist or Dugin. Of course, historical and philosophical writings or literature are always on the table.
Replies: >>2725
The Myth of the Twentieth Century has, so far, been a joy to read. The same "freshness" that pervades works like our previously read Thus Spake Zarathustra is felt here. It is a feeling of sureness and truth that is felt in the depths of the heart, and imparts the body with a lightness not often felt. I couldn't be happier to work with this book for the next six-ish weeks. Despite this, I am at a loss for what to discuss without repeating information, so my discussion will take on a narrower focus.

The figure of Jesus presented by Rosenberg is not one that I am impartial towards. The Jesus of Paul has no documents that can properly claim to back up his character and deeds as laid out by the Pauline Epistles and the first gospel, with the closest thing to a confirmational document being the attesting of Tacitus to the rumor of a figure named Jesus existing, and even this came about 50 years too late.  It is very possible that, as an act of malice, Paul of Tarsus took the image of a recently killed Nordic sage (perhaps by Rome to appease the jews, perhaps by the jews of Judaea themselves out of rage or hatred) and twisted him into a figure capable of relating with Nordic peoples while also spreading semitic ideals. None of this, though, would ever be able to sever the image of Jesus from his association with the faith of the Jews unless all other artifacts of jewish religion were erased from the public conscious.

Rosenberg knew just as well as we do that Nordic spiritually stems from the blood and soul of the Nordic man. He says that Odin had his last laugh though his forcible conversion into figures like St. Martin and St. George, and Baldr still lives on through the Nordic image of Jesus. The solar cycle still has significant relevance, whether subconsciously or fully acknowledged, through major holidays and general interest. Wherever Aryan blood is pure, our gods and spirituality will continue to manifest over and over again. 

This shows that Positive Christianity and Eugenics are meant to work in tandem. Positive Christianity, as it worked in National Socialist Germany, would really be a distraction while the newfound purity of German blood would do most of the work needed to shift the German spiritual perspective. With time and with the absence of the influence of other races, the image of Jesus would, over time, shift towards a more pure manifestation of the Baldr archetype. 

>Can Christianity truly be compatible with the Aryan soul as Meister Eckhart shows us?
Eckhart's christianity is, in essence, completely alien to all modern forms and derivatives of christianity. When discussing christianity, it seems that Rosenberg is really referring to Nordic conceptions of spirituality and honor, while trying to not dishonor the figure of Jesus as the Sage, rather than Jesus as the jewish Messiah.  This would show us that the only way to truly mesh christianity with the Nordic soul is to strip christianity of all of it's doctrine while retaining it's original name. 

>Japanese or Russian Fascist literature
I found a work called "Testament of a Russian Fascist", which seemed to mostly be about Jewish influence in Russian from 1900-40. The PDF was nowhere to be found, though. 

Also, any luck with getting your hands on This Time the World?
Replies: >>2726 >>2727
>Positive Christianity, as it worked in National Socialist Germany, would really be a distraction while the newfound purity of German blood would do most of the work needed to shift the German spiritual perspective.
This is my belief as well. Positive Christianity seems to be a useful practical measure to put in place until the spiritual awakening of the Volk. One fact that is often neglected in our movement is that Christianity has been a major religion in Europe for well over 1500 years. Most people won't be willing to cast it aside so easily when it has had such an influence of our lives, our ancestors, and our culture. Removing the alien aspects of the religion should prevent agitating the masses while also opening the path to their spiritual revitalization.

>"Testament of a Russian Fascist"
I've seen this book as well. It looks to be an interesting read, but I think it was only translated into English this year so a pdf probably isn't around yet.

>Also, any luck with getting your hands on This Time the World?
After much waiting, it finally arrived! I have no idea what a fair price for an old copy is supposed to be, but I believe I got a good deal on it and I was rather nervous about it getting lost in shipping.

Also, I forgot to mention Spengler's "Hour of Decision" as a future read. I didn't want to jump into it right after finishing Decline, but I think Myth, plus anything else you want to cover first, will give us plenty of time to recover.
>Rosenberg knew just as well as we do that Nordic spiritually stems from the blood and soul of the Nordic man. He says that Odin had his last laugh though his forcible conversion into figures like St. Martin and St. George, and Baldr still lives on through the Nordic image of Jesus. 
Pretty much. This is goes along the lines of the many things I say to followers of Christian identity whenever they argue that White people of the distant past have always seen the Israelites, such as Moses, Abraham, and so-on, as "wuz White!". The only reason why the ancestors of White people saw Yeshua as an Aryan is because they're following along their blood-duty of respecting their ancestors, and that Yeshua has been presented with characteristics resembling Aryan sages/warriors throughout all of Europe that made him sympathetic and appealing.
Discussion for Book 2 of the Myth of the Twentieth Century will begin on 9/22.

Also, /fbc/'s 1st anniversary is coming up on the 13th. Its hard to believe its been a year since we started this, but a year it has almost been.
[Hide] (26.1KB, 349x642) Reverse
God, you guys are awful at trolling.
[Hide] (3.6KB, 150x150) Reverse
Happy 1st Anniversary, /fbc/!

So, its been a year! That also means its been about a year since our migration from 16chan, yet both /fascist/ and /fbc/ are still kicking. Between the ever common choice of future, or death, we seem to have chosen future, and I have faith that we, /fascist/, and our greater movement will make that same choice for many years to come.

Thank you to the lurkers, our few ephemeral posters, and, most importantly to the other blackshirt that has stuck with us the whole time. I look forward to sharing another year of discussion with you, and to the future projects that may grow out of /fbc/. 

To the future.
Replies: >>2788 >>2826
happy anniversary :)
In Book 2 of "Myth of the Twentieth Century" Rosenberg focuses on the arts, building mostly on Spengler's views. Much of Rosenberg's discussion focuses on Schopenhauer, the Nibelungenlied, and Faust, which we have already discussed in detail. Luckily, we are still left with a few topics for discussion as Rosenberg addresses many of our complaints about Spengler and improves his philosophy immensely. I find it interesting that Dalton chose to remove chapter 4 altogether. While he claims it's a "mess," the aesthetic will plays a large role in Rosenberg's idea for the creative rebirth of Germany. 

Rosenberg acknowledges that previous philosophers have neglected the idea of the racial ideal of beauty and art. The art of our own people will obviously bring about a different response than art from an alien people. This does not necessarily mean a complete distaste for foreign art. One can respect and appreciate it, much like Rosenberg clearly respects Lao Tzu's writings, but it should be recognized as something that is not compatible with our racial soul. Two things happen when men focus on alien art forms above their own. First, they become frustrated that they can never fully understand the art because they are of a different racial soul. Second, the individual in question becomes a man without a nation or Volk. He cannot comprehend alien art, but also can no longer relate to his own racial art forms. He loses touch with his people without being able to truly join another. For Rosenberg, this also applies to ancient Greek and Roman art. While they had some Nordic relations at certain points in their history, they were never truly Germanic cultures. Art should be adapted to the personality of the Volk rather than focused on technique and aesthetics. Art expresses the highest values of the race. It completes the culture of the Volk, raising it to the highest state of perfection. True art is that which shows the true nature and racial essence of the Volk. Degenerate art depicts racial bastardization and seeks to ennoble alien peoples. 

There are three prerequisites on which European aesthetics must be based for the reawakening of the Nordic West: the Nordic racial ideal of beauty; the inner dynamic of European art; and the recognition of an aesthetic will. The aesthetic will is a concept alien to laws and forms that can only be intuitively perceived. Our concept of aesthetics is different from the Greek. It is based on spiritual content and the longing of the will. The Nordic concept of beauty can only be understood at the spiritual level. The wanderer with no spiritual roots, who only relies on "objective criticism" based on supposed technical laws, will never understand it. A new Myth must be created for the rebirth of Germanic art.

The discussion of art and the direction we should take in our modern day is nothing new to us in /fbc/. Rosenberg seems to come to the same conclusions as we have in previous discussions, both in filling the gaps in Spengler's philosophy and his analysis of the literature we have discussed. I can't help but feel a kinship with him and it feels like we have been guided in our previous readings to lead up to an examination of his work. While I didn't find anything "new" in this part of the "Myth," it tells us a lot about the direction we have taken with this book club and gives an affirmation that we are on the right track.

What a year it has been! When I think about it, it's hard to believe it has already been a year. Yet when I look at how much ground we have covered, it's hard to believe that it has only been a year. What kind of madmen would read Spengler, Rosenberg, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Grant, Jung, Goethe, and so much more in only 365 days? If one were to stack all of these books on top of each other, it would seem a nearly impossible task reserved for only the most hardcore among us and yet we've kept a fairly casual pace of about 20 pages or less per day, showing that consistency is key. I thank the OP of this thread and everyone else involved for these enlightening discussions and superb book choices and I look forward to seeing what this year will bring.
Replies: >>2834
I'm sure I've referenced Grant and The Passing of the Great race enough already, but reading the second book of The Decline Of The West has put the need for a true understanding of the Nordic race into an even greater perspective than before. The contrast between Spengler's muddled timeline of art history, whose excessive use of esoteric terminology and meaningless cultural categories obscure much of the meaningful insight that can be gleaned from such an analysis, save for the refutation of his points, and Rosenberg's clean identification of the Nordic artistic spirit throughout history is clearly evident. Spengler's needless complexity exists in an attempt to justify his false view of history; Rosenberg needs only to state the facts (complexity and simplicity should exist simultaneously). This is part of the reason I am apprehensive about getting into Evola and Serrano, since they both resort to excessive use of specific terminology and write in a needlessly complicated fashion, at least in what I have read from them. When the truth is stated, like in our readings of Jung, Goebbels, etc., it is airy and simple and lofty, and that is the sense I get in reading Rosenberg, so it is no coincidence that he has a true understanding of racial dynamics.

Speaking of Goebbels, Rosenberg's description of the Nordic face within Nordic Art appear's in Goebbels description of the young SA member who had had a glass thrown into his face during a fight with communists. If I remember correctly, he had a gash across his forehead with blood running down it, and yet his face remained firm as he kept fighting. I think this is the beauty of the Aryan countenance, a tense brow and thoughtful eyes, a face without fear, a perfect combination of thought and action. This principle of National Socialism is weaved into the very structure of the Aryan man and woman. In regards to the rest of the commentary contained in the second book, there isn't much to comment on besides the fact that we seem to be in agreement with Rosenberg.

>I can't help but feel a kinship with him and it feels like we have been guided in our previous readings to lead up to an examination of his work
I think that we stand at the same point of the coalescence of a broader movement as the time of his writing of The Myth of the Twentieth Century. We are still in the Opium den, but its walls are starting to crumble and more and more of the sun's light is reaching us. I'm sure most of us know that /fascist/ won't be and hope that /fascist/ will no be the end-all-be-all of the fascist movement, but it is becoming very clear that we have very little time until real communities begin coming together irl (most likely through rural farming co-ops and control of local government). We are on the precipice of this new movement, and I can only hope we will be a part of it. Really, we're only here until we feel ready to lead and help to raise more "zarathustras"; like you said, our progress here is enough evidence that we are on the right path, and will continue to be on it no matter what we endeavor to do, because the Aryan Spirit calls out from within us.
Discussion for Book 3 of the Myth of the Twentieth Century will begin on 10/11
The third book of "Myth of the Twentieth Century" takes a path more rooted in practicality. Rosenberg has laid his ideological foundation and now he wishes to breathe life into his ideas in the new Reich. While we end up covering some familiar ground, as always Rosenberg leaves us with room for discussion as the problems from his time are very similar to our own. I expect their solutions to be similar as well.

Rosenberg spends the first part of this section discussing the effects of feminism and the emancipation of woman on society. I won't beat a dead horse here and Rosenberg reiterates much of what we've already said. I think one quote from this chapter says it all: "In times of external catastrophes and inner disintegration, however, feminist man joins with emancipated woman to become the symbol of cultural decline and decay of the state."

Rosenberg advocates for decentralization of the economy. Decentralization makes use of our "most important capital," our Volk. Rather than massive slaughter houses and giant factories, Rosenberg believes in establishing multiple smaller outlets closer to the sources of production. This would move people away from the cities and found new centers of our society while also lowering the burden on transportation.

Here we also encounter the conflict between Germanic and Roman-jewish law once again. The legal system in Germany prior to the NSDAP favored traitors and criminals over fighters for the Volk, much like many in the West today. As we learned from our look at Meister Eckhart, law is what Aryan men discover to be right and comes from within. This is in line with the Kantian idea that morality is derived from the faculty of reason rather than any governmental or religious system. Rosenberg wishes to restore the institutions of banishment and outlawry to purify the national spirit of the Volk. He also draws from Darré here when he says any German who voluntarily miscegenates will no longer be entitled to legal protection and his children would not be considered German. 

On the subject of schools, Rosenberg advocates for state control of schools. Germany then had similar problems as today with subversive elements controlling the education and development of German youth. Rosenberg saw the only solution to this as taking complete control of education. This is probably the correct answer, but I think advocating for state control of schools in our modern day would be frowned upon by the masses. After all, we essentially have state control of schools already. It's only natural that the masses would oppose it when the state itself is subversive. We would have to establish trust with the masses through proven programs. Something similar to the "Adolf Hitler schools" that provide a high level education for especially gifted students would probably be sufficient for establishing rapport with the masses.

Finally, we'll conclude the discussion of Rosenberg's thought on religion. Rosenberg said the greatest task of the 20th century was to satisfy the Nordic racial soul with a German National Church, but he would allow other religions to practice so long as they do not preach against the interest of the Volk. In this case, the state's role would be preventing spiritual perversion by putting its power between the judaized churches and the Volk. Rosenberg believed in a new (or old, really) Nordic idea of Christianity. This Christianity would be based on values grounded in the German national idea. The supreme value would be honor, both individual honor and national honor and pride. Rosenberg primarily draws on the gospel of Saint John, of Greek ancestry, to show Jesus as a man of action and the type of the Nordic hero, the man who picked up the whip and ran the usurers out of the temple. This Nordic Christianity has little use of Roman Catholic theology and laws. As the weak sentiments, drawing heavily from Saul's forgeries, in Mit Brennender Sorge show, the Aryan man has little to learn from a non-Aryan cleric. If one removes the cowardly aspects of the New Testament, such as the Sermon on the Mount, Christ gives a clear message that men must actively fight evil in order to be saved. The Nordic Christ is not an object of worship, but an externalization of the relationship between Aryan man and God. This goes back to Meister Eckhart's teachings that religion is internal rather than external for the Aryan.

Reading through the Myth again has certainly opened my mind more to the concept of "positive Christianity." I'm no convert by any means, but I think I'll be more open to the idea of it within the movement. As we said before, positive Christianity seems like a practical measure to put in place while the Volk accept a new worldview and would be distant enough from what we know of modern Christianity that it would not be a subversive or alien force. I will have to look into these ideas more on my own in the future. As for a "religion of the blood," I think this may be acceptable in some nations, but probably unnecessary in my own.

Like the modern West, bourgeois and Marxist Germany were without a Myth. They no longer had supreme values in which they were ready to fight for. Rosenberg saw the German soldier developed from the Prussian spirit as the path to the salvation of the Reich. A Myth is only real when it has grasped every member of the Volk. Frederick the Great's concept of honor, Moltke's method of discipline, and Bismarck's will were seen as the three powers which would serve the honor of the German nation and the Myth of the future Reich. Western propaganda attempts to show that German culture from Martin Luther to Frederick the Great, Wagner, Bismarck, etc up to 1914 would eventually culminate in National Socialism. They try to use this idea to claim that National Socialism has no ideas of its own and the thought behind it can be discarded altogether. They also used this to justify the destruction of the German people as a whole in total war. However, Rosenberg is clearly presenting new ideas as well as refining older ones and his ideas are certainly worth putting into practice in our times.
Replies: >>2961
Not much to say aside from what you've already said, but I'll share some thoughts on chapter 12. I'm going to need to rework my note system, because I'm starting to get annoyed with how little I've had to contribute to the last few discussions. Look forward to a fuller post next time. 

Towards the end of the 3rd Book, Rosenberg analyzes the future geopolitical state of the world with the assumption that ethno-states/coalitions would define the latter half of the twentieth century. He identifies the Confucianism as the highest expression of the Chinese ideal, but he also explains that the Chinese have been cut off from this ideal due to foreign capitalist influence. This Chinese ideal still seems to be expressed by the modern Chinese, albeit only in a outwardly facing capacity. One wonders if Chinese business would operate in the same deceitful way it does today without the influence of western commerce (it probably wouldn't , since the Chinese economy would remain frozen in time if it had not been influenced by Europeans). Indians, it can be assumed, adhered to a similarly structured ideal until the European rediscovery of Vedic philosophy and myth, which encouraged the Indians to read the Vedic texts as well. Although the adoption of Vedic lore gave the Indians a newfound feeling of superiority, the Chinese and Indians are still both seen to fall into the same sort of cultural paradigm. Both races focus on face and hierarchy to an excessive degree, and are preyed upon by ZOGs to fill menial to managerial level jobs because of it. Rosenberg also speaks of a "Black Awakening" that would see blacks in America and Africa coalesce to form their own states and societies. I think Rosenberg overestimates the ability of blacks to form functioning societies separate from the influence of whites, but the existence of the Black Awakening as a destructive force has been made apparent in the last 80 years. In Africa, South Africa and Rhodesia have fallen as Nordic dominated states to the African hordes, with power-grid failures and the absence of running water becoming common, and portions of America are not faring much better. Rosenberg offers prudent advice to Americans on a long term repatriation program, though.
[Hide] (20.1KB, 185x273) Reverse
Our next selection is:

Theological-Political Treatise
>Written by ((( Baruch Spinoza )))

Apologies for the delayed posting of this week's book. This reading will most likely be a critique more than anything. At the very least, we should come out of this reading with historical context for the belief that even a jew who is rejected by his broader community still works toward the advancement of the jewish people. 

Discussion begins on 10/29
Replies: >>2972
>Theological-Political Treatise PDF
Spinoza's "Theologico-Political Treatise" is an argument for separating faith from philosophy as well as for religious liberty. Many lines of this treatise could be presented without context and find agreement in Fascist circles. However, everything about Spinoza is just slightly "off." He is often associated with the stoics, but I disagree with this classification. For example, on the subject of liberty, he says that a man is only free when he no longer fears death. A sentiment most could agree with, but Spinoza bases the idea of being free from fear around the search for effeminate desires such as pleasure, comfort, and security. One could hardly call him stoic in this light. The concepts of natural law as we know it and eternal struggle are absent from his thought.

As with Nietzsche, Spinoza's critique of religion is more of a critique of religious institutions and therefore materialistic in nature. Inner spirituality is not mentioned because it does not serve his purposes, so I'll try not to compare his ideas of religious liberty to Rosenberg's because they aim for different goals. Spinoza mostly focuses on Christianity and Judaism because of his education, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for not bringing up Paganism, Islam, and other religions. Unlike other dogmatic philosophers, Spinoza implies that God's nature can be known through examination of the natural world and uses this idea to cast doubt on concepts like "miracles" which work against the natural order.

Spinoza's argument begins by showing that prophets are fallible. They are limited by their own creative abilities and knowledge and they often contradict one another. Spinoza concludes that we cannot go to the prophets for knowledge. I generally agree with these sentiments and I think Spinoza skillfully cuts down the idea that scripture is the inviolable word of God. Spinoza believes that prophets are not limited to geographical range, race, or religion, but can be found anywhere in equal number. He has an egalitarian mindset and believes that all peoples are equal. He makes his egalitarianism even more clear in his discussion of divine law and natural law. Divine law comes from the prophets and is based on the concept of a "highest good." Natural law is the product of human reason and necessity. Spinoza explores whether these two concepts of law are compatible and determines that they are, in fact, one and the same as both have an intrinsically practical nature. If this were true and all peoples were of equal capacity as Spinoza previously implies, then we wouldn't see a variation in laws and the concept of justice between populations. 

Freeing religion from superstition is Spinoza's goal, or perhaps we could call this a "religion of science" if we were to put his ideas in a more modern context. He wants to separate faith from philosophy and maintain the goal of philosophy as the search for the truth through natural law and reason. The goal of faith, on the other hand, is obedience. Piety is nothing more than obedience to the faith. Spinoza considers the obedience required by religion a necessity as he claims very few men can acquire virtue with the unaided guidance of reason alone. This may be true for inferior cultures, but before the rigid structure of Abrahamic religions virtuous men were still found. A conception of life based on pride, nation, and race will create virtuous men without the millstone of mass organized religion. Due to Spinoza's nature, he could never realize this and his views approach "opiate of the masses" rhetoric.

On the concept of freedom, Spinoza believes that men are free when living in accordance with nature, but "in accordance with nature" to Spinoza is something dumb and animalistic; it is an era without sin because reason does not exist and everyone works toward selfish ends. Spinoza's concept of morality is similar to Hume's in that it is individualist and anything exciting pleasure is "good" while stimuli which excite pain or discomfort are "bad." Spinoza draws no line between reasoned and unreasonable men. However, he goes on to say that reason dictates that men would rather live securely and without fear, which would require cooperation and every man would, by necessity, have to defend his neighbors' rights as he would his own. He uses this as his basis to argue in favor of democracy and even says democracy is true freedom. If men act democratically, then spontaneous emotions cannot rule them because they will be overruled by the masses. Spinoza fails to account for the inherent inequality of man and the effects of catering to the lowest common denominator. 

Spinoza is an interesting character. He was educated in the ways of the Talmud and outwardly rejected its teachings to such a degree that he was excommunicated from both jewish and Christian churches, but these teachings are in his blood. One might find his words at the end of the preface, which are repeated at the end of the treatise, admirable, that he willingly subjects his views to scrutiny and will retract them if they are found to be against the public good, but he published this work anonymously. No one was going to come to him with such criticism because they didn't know who he was, and Spinoza, of course, knew this. His jewish nature is on full display in the final chapter when he advocates for those who would do damage to the Volk with destructive ideas because they have done no tangible crime (I may be wrong with my interpretation here as he seems to go against those spouting destructive ideas in his unfinished Political Treatise). If he existed today, he would be but one of many atheistic "anti-zionist" jews who spread their rot on an international scale.  Since such a thing did not exist in his time, he was merely an outlier.
Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise is emblematic of the cultural rot that characterized much of the middle ages, and sept into enlightenment era thinking as a result. The vast majority of Spinoza's writing, up until, give or take, the last two chapters, focuses on analyzing divinity through old testament myth. Though this is to be expected from a jewish author, it demonstrates the extent to which Europeans had allowed jewish thought to infiltrate their society. Instead of taking inspiration from the greatest full-blooded Europeans of the day, European society allowed it's most sacred opinions on divinity to be expressed and warped by a humanist sephardic jew. I understand that some of the writings we have read recently have made positive christianity a much more accessible pathway for spiritual rehabilitation, but it is cases like these that show us that promoting christianity is playing with fire under any circumstance. One cultural slip-up by the Roman Empire lead to a philosophical and spiritual drought up until and after the time of Spinoza. We  must be very careful with how we handle it in the future.  

One cannot also help but notice the cowardly way he presents his treatise. He offers several times to remove any material that would offend the rulers his treatise is published under, which I can only see as a disarming presentation of weakness. His ease of admittance of accepting censorship exists to play down the power of the spread of ideas, and his tonal appeal to the "intellectual" types of his day (he states that only free thinkers will find value in his writing, and who wouldn't want to be a free thinker) only reinforces this.  It is a far cry from the ideological martyrs discussed by Rosenberg, and clearly demonstrates an at least subconscious acknowledgement of the goal of spreading universalist ideas.  

To speak further on the ill effects of christianity on White society, we need look no further than Spinoza's promotion of humanism and universalism, which christianity lays the groundwork for.  Spinoza expresses admirable views on the nature of the highest god, views that I would say are consistent with some of the highest and most ancient views of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but the end result of these thoughts is the useless assertion that "every man ought to choose his religion and customs for himself". This is the same limp-wristed expression of "equality of the soul" that Plato comes to in the Republic, where a universal god somehow lends truth to ideas of universally equal human souls and minds. As one would expect, Spinoza uses this thought to justify a multicultural society. What is not expected, though, is how alike his multicultural utopia, portrayed through a description of Amsterdam, sounds to the modern multicultural fantasies espoused by neo-cons and baby boomers across America. 

<For in this most flourishing state, and most splendid city, men of every nation and religion live together in the greatest harmony, and ask no questions before trusting their goods to a fellow-citizen, save whether he be rich or poor, and whether he generally acts honestly, or the reverse. His religion and sect is con sidered of no importance : for it has no effect before the judges in gaining or losing a cause, and there is no sect so despised that its followers, provided that they harm no one, pay every man his due, and live uprightly, are deprived of the protection of the magisterial authority.

This vision of Amsterdam, where men are only known by being "rich or poor", and "whether he generally acts honestly, or the reverse", is, of course, not possible, and, much more importantly, represents a veritable feast for jews looking to gorge themselves on the bounty of a once stable, homogenous nation. Within the anonymity of the racial patchwork of the Amsterdam streets, the jew is able to lend and extort to his hearts content, freed completely from harassment by the demoralization of the few full-blooded dutchmen that remain in the city. It goes to show that no matter how much other jews claimed to have despised Spinoza and his views, at the end of the day, his ideas still exist to benefit the jewish people. Zionist or anti-zionist, hassidim or jewish-atheist, what does it matter as long as the jew can make his home in any country? Spinoza will always argue in favor of an imagined Amsterdam-like multicultural utopia and he will always instinctively argue his theological beliefs on the basis of jewish myth, Weininger will always divide the White man from the White woman, Spengler always rail against the National Socialists. Blood is destiny, and Spinoza's blood is jewish. With this fact, there can be no negotiation. 

Post script, Spinoza's writing also serves as a great example of how far back the origins of the "progressive disease" stretch. Most would think that the middle age culture, commonly conceived of as "close-minded", would reject jewish thinkers altogether, but early church philosophy and middle age philosophy in general is rife with the influence of Kabbalah, and this extended into the enlightenment with the influence of thinkers like Spinoza.
[Hide] (19.5KB, 183x275) Reverse
Our next reading is:

Might is Right, or Survival of the Fittest
>By Ragnar Redbeard 

Discussion begins on 11/14

Also, let me know if you think Jack London's Iron Heel seems like it's worth a read. William Luther Pierce had good things to say about it.
Replies: >>3052 >>3107
>Might is Right PDF
"Might Is Right" exists as the epitome of 19th century Social Darwinism. Written by "Ragnar Redbeard," a pseudonym widely believed to be used by either Arthur Desmond or Jack London (most likely Desmond), the work is considered by some to be satire. If London were the author, I'd believe the satire accusations, but Desmond is harder to pin down. In either case, the in-your-face style, copious quotes (some of which aren't verifiable), and appearance as a leftist's caricature of the "right" all lead me to believe that it is, in fact, satire. However, if we just call it satire, we can simply toss Redbeard's ideas without giving them a second thought so I'll go through the ideas presented at face value.

The saying "might is right" is one that's empirically true, however the overarching problem of the "might makes right" argument is the inability to define what "might" and "right" really are. We see this in Plato's Gorgias as well, which I'll be referencing throughout this post as no discussion of "might makes right" can really be complete without it. Right at the beginning of Chapter 1 our author laments the men of today who have no initiative or creative thought. They are obedient and submissive, born to be governed by others. Now let's consider what it takes to govern in our modern liberal democracy. Those who have "might" are merely schemers. They are those who will say and do anything to get ahead. They have no loyalty and no community, the antithesis of the Aryan soul. Redbeard says might is "practical, grim, cool, and merciless," so clearly this behavior must therefore be "right." However, in a seeming contradiction, Redbeard also seems to be a man of action. He says one must be manly and wise. A man must be fearless, tenacious, resolute, and bold. Boldness, directed by an overruling intelligence, is the brand of the hero. Those who proudly say "Might makes right!" often mean "whatever ideals I hold are admirable and therefore should be imposed on the masses" and it would seem Redbeard is among this group too as he views "might" as the ability to bend others to one's will. Callicles lamely says that "might" is simply "the better" and either refuses or is unable to elaborate. Until a man comes along who can destroy liberal democracy, jews and their shabbos goyim will continue to be "right" by this logic.

Redbeard bases his ideas on the Nietzschean idea of the revaluation of values. He is an individualist, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. All great ideas must initially come from the individual, after all. However, Redbeard's approach is more like "every man for himself." He illustrates his ideas of slave vs master morality with the story of Columbus's lieutenant tricking a native chieftain into shackling himself. Redbeard despises the masses, which is antithetical to a movement such as ours. He says popular lies are the most potent enemies of national liberty. The masses are not capable of "true freedom," which echoes Spinoza's ideas about the masses and virtue. Consider what Plato says about liberty in Gorgias. For Plato, happiness comes from living a just life and he sees morality as an objective truth born from human nature and reason. He argues that too much of a good thing can have negative consequences and that includes freedom. To Plato, true freedom is the freedom to do what is morally correct, which is similar to discussions of freedom we saw in Jung and Gentile. We know Redbeard would disagree with this sentiment, but I think a denial of a true morality merely comes from one's inability to intellectually defend his values. 

There are many passages in the text that heap scorn on workers and the masses as a whole. Redbeard tells us "calloused hands imply calloused minds" and "the poor and lowly are a creeping pestilence" and he really believes it. Like Callicles, Redbeard believes that unrestrained appetite and the ability to procure its fulfillment is virtuous. Essentially, Callicles and Redbeard want you to forgo your reason in favor of the rat race, chasing after money, power, etc. You should have no self control or sense of justice or righteousness. He would not only deny the need for an uplifting "might" from a just and virtuous soul to bring about good in others, but he expresses outright loathing when he writes "Cursed is he who 'doeth good' unto others, he shall be despised." As a National Socialist, the uplifting of the Volk is your primary concern. Nothing is more important than your own people. This is not to be confused with jewish ideas of universal humanitarianism, of course. However, to Redbeard trampling on your own Volk is merely a matter of course. The strong dominate the weak without regard to race or relation. The superior are greater than the inferior and thus deserve their greater share. This is true and it's a law of nature, but Redbeard and Callicles both want to take all limits from this greater share. The idea of proportionality presented by Socrates and later implemented in National Socialist Germany would be met with derision from these individuals.

Redbeard gives us a criticism of Christianity straight out of Nietzsche's Antichrist when he says "we must either abandon our reason or abandon Christ." It's very entertaining and well written, but I wasn't able to verify a number of his quotes, especially those by Maimonides. It's possible that he was using his own translation, so I won't worry too much about it and I don't think we need a handful of Maimonides quotes to know the threat Christian slave morality poses. I think we've touched the Christian question a fair amount recently so I won't go too much into it even though Redbeard devotes a significant amount of "Might Is Right" to it, but he uses his views on Christianity to transition to a critique of democracy. Instead of a dictatorship of one man, democracy gives us a dictatorship of a majority manipulated by Hollywood and the media. He uses the great lie written in the American Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal to illustrate the fundamental falsehood of democratic ideals. One can reasonably argue that the American founders put this phrase into the Declaration to drum up support for the war and say that Americans as a whole should be equal to the British as a whole, but champions of democracy will always choose to take the words literally. Redbeard also shows that the phrase "equality before the law" is equally false to the idea of equality of individuals. This is an important point that is often neglected. Even those who acknowledge the inherent inequality of individuals will still argue for "equality before the law." Redbeard points out that legal tribunals are based on armed strength, which we see in action today when the legal system is used continuously to punish those of us who fight against jewish liberal democracy. 

All these things said, I think this was an entertaining read, but not really an enlightening one. Since we've already read Nietzsche and I've already read Plato's Gorgias, there isn't really anything unique that Redbeard offers. He could have addressed Socrates' counterpoints and fleshed out his ideals more, but if this work is satire like I suspect, there's no reason to do that. A simple counterpoint (or sidestep, really) would have been that the strong often utilize the weak to consolidate power. This is true both of national movements and democratic ones, though they take very different forms and have different goals. Such a point would maintain the "might makes right" idea, but would also defeat much of Redbeard's and Callicles' worldview. I could see recommending this book to maybe a younger person who's ready to take on the world, but if someone has already read the aforementioned works, they can save themselves some time and pass this one by. Redbeard's aggressive style of argument could be detrimental if someone were influenced by his work. It's an immature style that would reinforce the idea that Fascism is something you "grow out of," an idea that is also reinforced by a lot of our groups that just act as a community for lost young men but lack any real political direction. 

>Iron Heel
Sounds interesting. I don't know if it will be insightful, but it could be a nice change of pace.
Replies: >>3109
 "Might is Right", is, if anything, confused. At one time, Redbeard will say that anyone who can cheat, and lie, and steal successfully is "right", and is thus entitled to all of the women and wealth of the civilization that such a person is pilfering, and at another, the Jew is somehow Redbeard's enemy for practicing what he has just preached. There is a fine line between a need for courage and skepticism in young men, which Might is Right might well inspire, and social darwinism rhetoric, which has been and is currently used by members of the neo-con right to justify the "earned" power of Jews in modern day corporate and governmental positions. "Might is Right" crosses this line, and therefore nullifies any logical consistency its views on race might have had.

I can't help but find a lot Redbeard's statements childish, or at least those fit only for the mouth of an edgy teenager. Redbeard says that a society centered around sport is a healthy, virile society, and that the gladiatorial games of Rome are the perfect example of this. The notion is idiotic. Most gladiatorial games were nothing more than the mass slaughter of animals and slaves, and they only really found their footing as Rome degenerated. The gladiatorial games were a sign of decline in the same way the the modern fetishization of American Football or Basketball is; it is the idolization of foreigners, aliens, and criminals. There are more blatantly egregious comments, too, like his attempt to normalize cannibalism or his glorification of Cecil Rhodes, a man who paved the way for the destruction of one of the most pure and free nations of Nordics the world has ever seen. I don't see how someone who genuinely cares for the white race could put such things to paper.

It is a shame, too, that much of what Redbeard wrote is so incompatible with the ideology of a healthy white ethnostate, because there are some beautiful passages in the book. What he says about force and will being the mover of all things is true, and his recognition of death as a precursor to life is correct, but none of this means anything if it is weighed down by ideas that would ultimately serve to harm the white conscious. How can any state be built if all government is slavery, as Redbeard says? How can a country have a stable working class if the working class must, by virtue of their station, be utterly vile and racial degenerated?  How can we raise healthy, strong children if it is best for us to give into the "charms of life" and bed as many women as possible? The answer to each question is that it is impossible. Redbeard is taking two contradictory worldviews, that of the rightful preservation of whites and that of "might is right" and has tried to stitch them together. He has, of course, failed in this effort. 

>In either case, the in-your-face style, copious quotes (some of which aren't verifiable), and appearance as a leftist's caricature of the "right" all lead me to believe that it is, in fact, satire.
I didn't consider the possibility of it being satire when I read it. I guess you read so many "Bronze Age Mindset"'s that you start to take these things at face value. Really, "Might is Right" is, if not satire, yet another work that fails to realize that you cannot fall back on "tradition", as it is ephemeral, and often influenced by outside, non-white cultures. We are not vikings; we are the modern Nordic man, so we must do what is required of the modern Nordic man, and not vikings. No amount of chugging olive oil or chanting "deus vult" or larping as an Akkadian is going to fix white society. The only way to fix the situation we are in is to cut to the core of why we are in it, and that is going to require us to look to our blood first and foremost.
Replies: >>3110
>fails to realize that you cannot fall back on "tradition", as it is ephemeral, and often influenced by outside, non-white cultures
This is something that really can't be stressed enough since our movement tends to have some overlap with traditionalists. While tradition should be respected as a part of our history and culture, we can't let it rule us and we must be able to cast it aside when the times demand it. There's no "going back" as we are different men in different times, like you said. In our discussion of "Sparta and its Law," we talked about the tradition of whipping young boys, some of whom were whipped to death because they were so determined to bear the pain in a stoic manner. As we said then, there is no reason to preserve such a tradition. 

>"Bronze Age Mindset"
I'm glad this was brought up since Redbeard and BAP have a lot in common both in the nature of their writing and the audience that praises them. Both authors do not live according to their writings and I would bet that if Redbeard were faced with actual barbarians in his lifetime, he would have much the same reaction as BAP in our time. The willingness of their adherents to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the obvious contradictions in their writing just because they're presented in a poetic style all in an attempt to appear erudite is something that has to be broken through if one has any desire to win them over. Whether it's worth our time at all to try and win over this group is a question for the future as I think it's more valuable to build up our own bases at the moment.
[Hide] (25.2KB, 181x279) Reverse
Out next book is:

This Time The World
>Written by George Lincoln Rockwell

Discussion begins on 11/30

Also, I'm putting out a call for a pdf copy of William Luther Pierce's "Cosmotheism: Divine Aryan Consciousness from Man to Super-Man". I can't seem to find one online. Let me know if anyone is able to find it.
Replies: >>3112 >>3113
>This Time the World PDF
>William Luther Pierce's "Cosmotheism: Divine Aryan Consciousness from Man to Super-Man"

This is what I found although it's not by Pierce, but by one of his followers.
Replies: >>3136
"This Time the World" is Rockwell's autobiography and as such can be seen as his version of Mein Kampf. Rockwell tends to be a bit of a divisive figure in the movement. His use of the uniform as a "costume" to agitate is something that will obviously not sit well with some, but he shows a clear respect for the Swastika and the NSDAP. His speeches are timeless and his writing style in his books captures his characteristic sense of humor. He also makes some concessions on the racial question, which may not sit well with idealists. However, this book is more focused on Rockwell's biography and doesn't delve too much into political ideology. Because of this, it falls short of Mein Kampf which is both autobiographical and a political treatise. Of course, there's still much to think about here and this book got me thinking a bit on the nature that would be required of a man who were to lead a successful movement like ours. 

Rockwell begins with his childhood, describing his indomitable spirit and his overpowering desire to make the "impossible" possible. This desire was the driving force for much of his revolutionary thought later in life. There isn't much else to say about his early years, but as he grew into a young man he had his falling out with Christianity. He began to read classic American novels and philosophical works like those of Schopenhauer, which led him to question the world around him. A journey likely similar to many of our own. These passages also show that Rockwell is clearly well read despite his reputation for being ignorant or a "clown." Similar to Spengler and Rosenberg, Rockwell recognized the necessity of religion for the masses and also that this religion could not rely on the jewish slave morality of Christianity. I find it interesting that Rockwell settled for agnosticism since it seems contrary his defined and straightforward personality. Agnosticism seems to me to be living in a state of confusion. Whether God or the soul exists or if there is Being after death are just met with an answer of "maybe or maybe not." Even a simplistic belief like Kant's argument for the existence of the soul would elevate a man above the agnostic, so it's a little strange that, at least publicly, Rockwell never claimed any religious belief. Rockwell recognized the divisive nature of theological discussion among his men in the ANP and forbade it. It was a secular ideology without a "religion of the blood," but considering how divisive religion remains in our movement today, it's a reasonable position to take and probably the correct one for an American branch of National Socialism.

University life and his early Navy years also helped form some of Rockwell's other political views. On education, Rockwell believes in focusing on big picture ideas. Once a person is able to think in terms of society as a whole and has a basic, but wide, understanding of the world, he can have enough mental flexibility to adapt to any situation required of him. Rockwell was introduced to Marxist ideas at university, but couldn't come to terms with the great lie of universal equality. Like Hitler, he also came to understand the jewish style of argument and the "art of controversy." On the feminization of men, subsequent emancipation of women, and relaxation of the military, one would think Rockwell wrote this today! However, he would no doubt be appalled at the current state of affairs where it's considered acceptable for American officers dress like women and dogs. Rockwell understood the need to encourage motherhood as a noble and necessary role in Western society. His ideas of woman as mother and woman as worker were similar to the NSDAP's even before his nationalist awakening. 

Rockwell's political awakening was brought about after hearing Joseph McCarthy speak on behalf of American interests and against Communism. Rockwell later tried to support a presidential campaign for Douglas MacArthur, but was quickly disillusioned due to his discovery of jewish media control. Questioning the jewish narrative led him to Mein Kampf and the Rockwell we know was born. Much of what he discovered about impotent "conservatives" is still true today and the tough lessons he learned about the American political parties are being continuously relearned by those undergoing their own political awakenings today.

Most of the rest of "This Time the World" covers the formation of the movement and the struggles of the ANP. We see things play out very similarly to the second volume of Mein Kampf and Kampf um Berlin with violent agitators, police protecting rioters so long as they attack an "undesirable" group, and media smear campaigns, among other events. He also unintentionally shows the danger of seemingly convenient allies. Rockwell meets a fellow named Dewest Hooker who appears to be a rich nationalist making moves behind the scenes to further the goals of the movement. Rockwell has nothing but praise for him, so I looked into him further. I found that he was also an associate of Michael Collins Piper and gave very similar promises to him. He always had some deal in the works that would fund the movement. You just had to wait and "trust the plan." However, there's no evidence of any deal ever coming through nor does there seem to be a single instance of Hooker personally funding any part of the movement despite supposedly being a millionaire. This is a good lesson to keep things moving on your own so you can be prepared if an ally doesn't pull through, whether his failure is intentional or not.

So was Rockwell a suitable leader for a National Socialist movement? Just by the virtue of being the one willing to rise to the task, you could say yes. But he had a lot of baggage, both personal and ideological. He was lenient on the race question, even willing to give part of America to the blacks if necessary. I'm on the fence about such a thing since I think it would be more successful as a mass movement, but would be more difficult to run the nation later on with such a volatile and unfriendly border nation. Rockwell's take on the JQ was also limited to Zionist and Communist jews. Rockwell was an internationalist who believed that a united White front was the only hope for Western civilization, just as we saw from Mosley in his "Faith and Plan." This is another controversial stance as it takes the "National" out of National Socialism and would present its own unique challenges. Finally, his personal life was a mess. He wrote this book partly to tell his side of the story. There were already numerous smears against him in the press, so I can understand why he wrote so frankly about everything, but compare the smears about him to those about Hitler and you'll find that Hitler's personal life was almost untouchable in comparison. Rockwell's writing did cause me to feel for his situation and knowing the tragedy waiting for him as I read some of the happier times in his family life caused me to put the book down a few times. The physical copy has many family photos throughout, which makes the reader feel much closer to Rockwell as a person. It's a shame he was never able to make up with his family and heartbreak and loss followed him wherever he went. As much as this makes him a sympathetic figure to the reasonable man, it also made him an easy target by the media.
Replies: >>3136
"This Time The World" is a surprisingly intimate account of Lincoln Rockwell's life. His softer stances on the handling of racial minorities in America, and his specification of only hating traitors to America reminds me of Mosley. Rockwell, like Mosley, seems to be another compassionate, energetic soul who was dashed against the rocks of jewish corruption. One of the main takeaways from his life story should be the importance of celibacy when leading a movement. At every turn, the jewish mob took advantage of his love for his family, and this is not to mention the stress the requirements of Rockwell's work already put on them. He who wishes to serve his people must be prepared to give up everything. Rockwell learned this lesson eventually. 

Another aspect of Rockwell's story that deserves to be highlighted is his spiritual experience after the dissolution of his second marriage. Though I've never erected a shrine to Hitler, I can relate to the spiritual feelings he felt in front of that altar. I'd imagine that most men who'd consider themselves National Socialists have felt that feeling at some point- a feeling of electrified blood, of total clarity. For a few moments, one realizes that he was born into the world for one purpose, and that anything outside of that purpose will slowly slough off of oneself until only that purpose remains. You know who you are, and what you are going to do. Rockwell put it to words better than I could, and he is right in saying that this spirituality has a place in our movement. We are driven by providence, and to avoid this fact is to lie to oneself. 

Rockwell presents us with descriptions of several people involved in the broader White nationalist movement, and it is apparent that many of these people bear resemblance to people adjacent to present White nationalist circles. The actions of Snowden and Maguire echo organizations like the Daily Wire and "conservative" business moguls like Elon Musk. While the Daily Wire isn't pro-white in any sense of the word, its programming suffers from the same issue of vaguely defining "our people", and turning out disingenuous content as a result of this. Snowden's TV programing was garbage because he placed profit before his own people and outsourced his writing to Jew owned firms. whether they are a result of controlled opposition or greed, both result in the creation of content completely void of any real value to whites. Maguire, like Musk, talks tough (Musk on twitter, Maguire in private) but takes no real action to support white interests. Maguire allowed communists and Jews to infiltrate his magazine; Musk aids in the completion of the surveillance state through projects like paypal amd neurolink. And, of course, places like twitter are flooded by "hard-cores" who endlessly tweet without organizing irl. As we also learned from "Struggle for Berlin", the field of play may change, but our movement is going to deal with the same core problems it has always dealt with.

Rockwell's achievements should stand as a reminder that our goals are within reach. It must not be forgotten that only two generations ago, we were a hairs-width away from making real, tangible headway towards a white nationalist America, and the same goes for the generation before that. In the 1930's, Father Coughlin's broadcast drew in at least a 5th of the total American population at its peak, and Rockwell was able to organize successful rallies in the D.C. area while forging alliances with similarity minded race-oriented groups. If the effort is made, real progress can be made, and at no other time has this fact been more true  than the present day. The danger of multiculturalism is made more and more apparent everyday as Hispanics are bussed into small, homogenous communities, as Blacks are placed into section 8 housing nestled in suburbs (the Great Migration has long since taken its toll on our cities), and as East Asians slowly take over our businesses. Exposure to the JQ in some form is almost ubiquitous among youths. The next 10 years are the perfect period to make the biggest push for White Sovereignty that the U.S.A, and the world at large, has ever seen, and Rockwell's example and sacrifice should show us that this is more than possible with enough commitment.

Shoot, I thought it was written by Pierce. I'm a lot less inclined to give it a chance now

>Rockwell has nothing but praise for him
One of Rockwell's biggest faults seems to be that he is too loyal to those who harmed him. He praises DeWest, he compliments Maguire for a later donation, and he professes his respect for Stephenson despite his infantile temper and unprofessional conduct. He was too good a guy for many of the traitors he had to work with.
[Hide] (131.6KB, 800x547) Reverse
Our next selection is:

Independent Study

In keeping with our recently established tradition, we will again take a break from our normal readings for the upcoming Yuletide season! The drill is the same: pick a book of your choice, read it, and return for discussion at the listed date. I look forward to reading about your selections.

Discussion begins on 1/2
Replies: >>3232
[Hide] (66.1KB, 488x750) Reverse
[Hide] (178.3KB, 537x297) Reverse
The Origin of Species
>By Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" is a surprisingly different read from one might expect, taking into account present day Neo-Darwinian discourse and the synonymous use of the terms "Evolution" and "Darwinism". Rather than taking a hardline materialist stance, Darwin presents the concept of natural selection in a very life-affirming way (see picrel), albeit still logically incorrect. 

"The Origin of Species" boils down to a methodical proof of natural selection and its implications on our understanding of biological history. Darwin first identifies patterns of inheritance in living things, and established a basis for common lineage between certain domestic animals of disparate traits through demonstrated reversion to more primitive traits. He then shows how certain common species, as much as the term species can really be clarified, vary greatly in form. These species, he says, are driven to pass on forms that best compete with rival organisms through the infinitely variable forces of natural selection. This natural selection, working by these rules, should then allow for the slow changing of the forms of organisms through the accumulation of beneficial mutations. Darwin further reinforces this theory through the fossil record and through the application of his theory to modern day environments.

Despite the validity of Darwin's "natural selection", his logic supporting evolution fails in a number of places. First, Darwin assumes that the variation in traits produced by human domestication is reflective of Nature's ability to produce mutative variation. When analyzed, any cosmetic mutation seen in domestic animals seems to make the affected organism less fit. The Scottish fold cat, known for a mutation that causes its ears to droop, is plagued by cartilage deformities that destroy its joints over time. The vaulted skulls of some chicken breeds that create a feather crest on their heads also lead to a vastly higher rate of death in young chicks and a much more vulnerable skull in adulthood. In no case can a trait that is the result of mutation be found to be beneficial to an organisms fitness, with variations in size, color, etc. being amplifications of existing traits rather than mutations. 

Darwin also assumes that there is no limit to the amount an organism could be changed, and yet modern food crops (in all fairness, Darwin did not live at a point in time where he could see a plateau of crop improvement) peaked in productivity through conventional breeding in the 20th century and have seen only finer and finer improvements through genetic modification, each with less and less return. A more disturbing example of a failure of change can be seen in the "Toadline Bullies" (bear with me) subculture of pit-bull breeding. Successive improvements of an initial skeletal mutation have not resulted in a new species, but in a diseased, disfuntional mockery of a dog which is unable to reproduce unassisted by man. Thus, vast changes to an organism result either in a plateau of efficiency or in degeneration. 

The fossil record is used by Darwin in support of his theory, yet the many problems it brings up with "evolution" are discarded, the largest of which is the lack of intermediate forms found in the fossil record. For this fact to not be a problem, evolution would either have to entail a sudden, enormous change consisting of several small changes over the course of thousands of years, which could occur by Darwin's logic since any recorded mutation in nature results in a loss of fitness, or a enormous change would have to occur in the span of a single generation, which is equally absurd. All of this is ignoring, of course, the infinitely small probability of a trait occurring at the right time, in the right place, in a non-abortive fashion and then being distributed from a single organism into an entire population. Darwin tries to defend against this by saying that the age of life and Earth allow such a small probability to be effective, but the low probability, combined with that action needing to be repeated millions of times invalidates its occurrence. 

I do not find that, like Spengler, or Spinoza, or Ragnar Redbeard did, Darwin reads as in any way malicious. The picture I get from reading is of a brilliant man who has had his brain scrambled by Judeo-Christian and Judeo-Athiest philosophy. Darwin grew up as a fundamentalist Christian who, as he developed his understanding of the natural world, began to grow away from the Christian mythological worldview. But even in escaping biblical myth, he was still caught in the nigh-inescapable orbit of judaic thought. Universalism still pervades evolutionary thought, and the evolutionary timeline still aligns with the linear conception of existence present in judaic thought. And what a shame it is that this held him back! If you haven't read the quote contained in the attached picture, please do so; it is astounding with what reverence Darwin described the struggle of the natural world. How many great minds have been held back by the great false dichotomy of the Judeo-Christian vs. Athiest struggle? It will be our responsibility to dispel this thought-prison in the future. 

The topic of tradition has come up many times in our discussions, and this reading has again brought it to my attention. The influence of Darwinism on Fascist thought is undeniable, and our talk of "Struggle" was, doubtless, inspired indirectly by Darwin's use of the term. There is much to learn from "The Origin of Species", but it also contains much falsehood. In moving forward, we must find a way to take these positive aspects and remove the more "social darwinist" and universalist aspects from our movement, especially when figureheads like Murdoch Murdoch (not that they are a negative influence) promote Darwinism as a core part of National Socialist ideology.
Replies: >>3233
Apologies for the late post. Sometimes travel plans don't work as scheduled. However, after a much needed vacation, I'm looking forward to what the new year brings! I hope all went well for you too.

The book I chose this year was "The National System of Political Economy" by Friedrich List. I chose this because I consider economics not only one of my own personal weak areas, but a weak area in our movement as a whole. I traced back from Feder to Othmar Spann and arrived at List. I found this book to be written in a simple, straightforward manner and List doesn't require any former knowledge of economics to understand his system. List was inspired by American and English protective systems; he wasn't a Fascist by any stretch, but we can still learn a lot from his system. His focus on protectionism was used by nations of all ideologies since he wrote his book, including America in the 20th century, Britain, and the Soviet Union.

List says the distinguishing characteristic of his system is nationality. He contrasts his political economy with the cosmopolitical economy of Quesnay, Smith, and Jean Baptiste Say, who imagined that the merchants of all nations formed one commercial republic (global economy). List's book is a rejection of Adam Smith's system of free trade. Smith ignores the nature of nationalities and seeks to separate politics from the power of the State, presupposes the existence of a perpetual peace and universal union, and underrates the value of national productive power. List speaks of the consequences of free trade in America in the 1770s where merchants sought to buy the cheapest goods and markets were flooded with foreign goods. This led to manufacturers going bankrupt and farmland became worthless. For those concerned with their individual liberty, the difference between freedom and "free trade" should be specified. Freedom of trade is typically spoken of in the same terms as freedom of religion and speech and municipal freedom. This causes classical liberals to desperately defend free trade in all its forms. The difference between freedom of internal trade within the State and international trade is overlooked. The individual liberty of the people can be preserved with protective policies, but on the other hand, free trade will lead to sweatshops, debtors prisons, and other forms of servitude. List does not condemn free trade in all situations, however. As an example, he says a manufacturing industry without competition thrives best under free trade.

Free market capitalists claim laws cannot create wealth. This is true, but List argues that laws can, however, create productive power. Establishing productive power through manufacturing is at the core of List's system. List says a flourishing state of manufactures and commerce has secured to her people a high degree of personal liberty and security of property. Such a state should focus on continuous stability through laws and policy (rather than, for example, a monarchy) to allow the people to strive steadily for their goals. This underlines the importance of the return of manufacturing to our nations today. List likens the trading of agricultural goods for manufactured goods to only having one arm. He does not believe in autarky unless a nation is large enough to realistically achieve it, but a nation must produce what raw materials they can and trade those for other raw materials that can in turn become a manufactured good.

Proponents of free market capitalism believe that the wealth of the nation is the aggregate of the wealth of the individuals in it and that the private interest of the individual is better able than all state regulations to encourage production and accumulation of wealth. They took the distinct term "nation" and substituted it for the vague "society," an idea that can be applied to a single town, country, or all of humanity. List saw these ridiculous claims as an attempt by free market capitalists to "kick away the ladder." Their respective nations and a few merchant friends achieved some wealth and power and want to deny that to others by advocating for an economic system that would perpetuate their wealth at the expense of the people.

The first quarter of List's book is devoted to history. This allows him to deduce the nature of man and relate it to economics using real world examples rather than armchair theorizing. List's system puts theory to practice and rejects rootless cosmopolitanism in favor of the requirements of nations. His historical examples primarily focus on the national protective policies of England. For example, England focused on the import of raw materials and forbade import of those manufactured products she could make herself. The English focused on making their own wool fabrics instead of buying Indian cotton and silk fabrics. They were content to use their own lower quality and more costly fabrics while continental Europe enjoyed the fine Indian fabrics at lower prices. Proponents of free trade would call this policy foolish and even destructive. However, the fact remains that England's development of their own manufacturing power allowed them to produce tens of millions of pounds worth of cotton and silk goods by List's time, supplying the whole world with English made goods. The other nations in his examples, such as conflict between Italian cities in the 12th/13th centuries, failed due to a lack of national identity. 

List puts the economic history of a nation in three stages. He defends and argues for the introduction of protective policies, but maintains that their persistence after the reasons for their introduction had passed were destructive to the nation. The first stage has a nation adopting free trade with more advanced nations, raising themselves from a state of barbarism and making advances in agriculture. Next is the promotion of manufactures, navigation, and foreign trade by means of commercial restrictions. The last stage, after reaching the highest level of wealth and power, has the nation reverting to the principle of free trade and unrestricted competition in domestic as well as foreign markets. This allows farmers, merchants, and manufacturers to retain the supremacy that they have acquired. However, List could probably never have imagined the complete outsourcing of manufacturing from developed nations. That a nation would willingly give up their productive power would seem absurd to him. Yet here we are. So rather than three stages, it seems one could add a fourth stage, or perhaps even create a cyclic model, to represent our modern times.

Many of the later chapters of List's book cover the political situation of his day and are irrelevant today, but if one sees them as a continuation of his earlier chapters on history, he may gain some insight. List was proven correct in many of his predictions, such as the need for Asian countries to adopt Western economic systems to survive. However, he was not "our guy." List condemned the expulsion of jews from Spain and advocated for interracial breeding. One may jump to List's defense here and think that by "interracial" he actually means a German and an anglo or some such combination, but he actually goes as far as to say Whites and Blacks, among other similar combinations. While he accepted the necessity of the nation, he does not acknowledge that race is a part of that nation. This puts him far from us ideologically, but we don't need his personal ideology to learn from his economic policy.

A fascinating choice. I probably never would have thought to read Darwin himself, so to hear what he actually wrote about rather than what people say he wrote about has changed my opinion of him. As you said, his influence on the movement is undeniable and his flaws and the flaws in social Darwinism need to be brought to light. After reading that excerpt, it's clear he understood and set the foundation for our concept of struggle, so it's really too bad he couldn't let go of his universalist thought. I'll have to make room to explore his writing in the future. 

>Darwin grew up as a fundamentalist Christian who, as he developed his understanding of the natural world, began to grow away from the Christian mythological worldview.
Interestingly, this is what Nietzsche was talking about when he said "God is dead." The desire of Christian scientists like Darwin to "know God through His works" ultimately led to the concepts of faith based rather than reason based Christianity and the overall secularization of our world.
Replies: >>3269
[Hide] (42.3KB, 625x1000) Reverse
Our next book is:

The Hour of Decision
>By Oswald Spengler

Discussion begins on 1/21
Replies: >>3235
>The Hour of Decision PDF
Spengler's "Hour of Decision," written over a decade after "Decline of the West," could be considered a supplemental volume to that work. Spengler proves himself once again in his ability to see into the future, predicting unfavorable foreign reactions to the NSDAP and the coming World War. The dangers that Germany faced were many and the stunning victory of the NSDAP didn't negate them. Spengler feared that the victory would cause complacency among Germans and wrote this book as a warning. Wikipedia claims this book was banned in Germany due to its criticism of the NSDAP, but I can't find any other sources that show this. It would have been silly to ban it since his criticism is pretty mild. My 1934 copy has this labeled as "Part One: Germany and World-Historical Evolution" and Spengler implies in his introduction that there was another volume intended. It's too bad he died before this second volume could be finished and it doesn't look like there were any drafts of it that were published posthumously.

This work separates itself from "Decline" by concerning itself with the present. This was Spengler's present, of course, but his words are still true in our time. A sense for the real and practical is required in any movement. Dreamers and theorists are necessary and good, but someone needs to make everything work in practice. Spengler saw many dreamers in the NSDAP and few men who concerned themselves with practical matters like economics or foreign affairs. I have been avoiding mentioning specific groups in my posts out of consideration for those who may be members, but I want to mention the National Justice Party here as a typical example of what Spengler is talking about. They come up with ideas, do podcasts, and give speeches at events; they will pat themselves on the back for weeks over a live speech given to over 400 followers and say "when we take power..." but have yet to run a single candidate, if they even know how, or give any concrete plan for taking power. When these practical matters like economics come up, they imitate Polus in "Gorgias" and simply say "We'll have the best, of course." It should come as no surprise that such groups are bleeding followers and it's happening throughout the movement today. The NSDAP had real support and was made up of men of action, but Spengler criticizes them as well for neglecting foreign affairs and I think that criticism has some validity considering Spengler's prediction of the coming war if things didn't change. In contrast, modern leadership of the ruling parties is the complete opposite. They have no convictions or ideology of their own. They put economics above politics and place the almighty GDP above any other interest or the welfare of the people. This leads to the decline of the national idea and the increase in private interests in politics. Spengler recognizes that the political and the economic are two parts that make a whole of the true state.

Spengler warns of the "White World Revolution" sweeping the West. This is a situation we know well. That is, Bolshevism. Spengler saw the herding of people into great cities, bread and circuses, declining birth rates and the death of the family, the loss of religious faiths, and decadent art and literature in his time and we experience the same in our time. This ties into another warning that Spengler gives us, the "Coloured World Revolution." This is an existential threat to the White world caused by our declining birth rates and the spread of pacifist ideologies. As Spengler says, man is a beast of prey, and there's no room for pacifism from a world-historical perspective. An aging adult population without an adequate child population to replace them has a dysgenic effect on society, which the non-White races are using to their advantage in invading our lands. There are no longer selection criteria at work, leading to an increase in physical and mental defects. One of our adversaries could claim that because Spengler made these comments 90 years ago and we're making them now, nothing has really changed and it's all in our heads. I would argue that the second World War and subsequent baby boom helped to mitigate this since Spengler's time, but the problem has caught back up with us.

Like in some of Spengler's other works, part of his argument on the White World Revolution attacks the worker. He seems to think that the working class man is an inert piece sitting on a game board that only exists to provide labor. While every man should work, he should also have time to enrich his soul with family, fitness, and education. Spengler's arguments in favor of low wages and high working hours fall flat. He also makes the claim that high White wages are dependent on the low wages of foreign labor. This is only true in free market societies. It's interesting that Spengler praises List, but then makes this claim. It's also worth noting that Spengler (or the translator) uses the term "political economy" to have the opposite meaning as List. List calls this the "cosmopolitical economy." In this section Spengler also lumps National Socialism in with Marxists, especially when discussing trade unions and wages. I don't think Spengler had a poor understanding of National Socialism due to his proximity to it, so I can't help but question his intentions here. If he's intentionally misrepresenting them, I believe it's only a contrarian act. His "Conservative Revolution" movement failed and he probably still saw the NSDAP as a rival political party. I do not think Spengler was dishonest or malicious in his writing. 

I found this the most enjoyable read of Spengler's due to its relevance to modern times. It was easy to understand and laid out very well, but I wouldn't recommend it to those who haven't read "Decline of the West." Of course, it wasn't without its flaws. The biggest flaw that I haven't mentioned was his continued unwillingness to name the jew. We're used to this by now, but I still couldn't help but roll my eyes when he called Bolshevism an English invention. I have one remaining question about Spengler's ideology: What is the goal of the state, in Spengler's view? In National Socialism, it's the well-being and enrichment of the Volk. Under democracy, it's profit. Spengler seems to reject both of these options, but his admiration of Mussolini's Fascist state could lead us to the answer. He seemed to be heading in this direction with this first volume of "Hour of Decision," but without the second volume we'll never know for sure.
Replies: >>3269 >>3270
I ended up getting a lot less out of Spengler's "Hour of Decision" than I thought I would. It was mostly a rehash of the topics covered in "Decline of the West" but with a much more contemporary focus, though it suffers from many of the same issues.

Spengler focuses much more on the struggle between the Nordic "White" race and the Alpine-Negroid-Asiatic "Colored" races, rather than a struggle between the Nordic man and the Jew. This is not especially egregious when discussing topics like colored immigration to the U.S.A. or fomenting rebellion in colonial territories, but in the cases of Bolshevism and the first World War it becomes almost unbearable. Spengler claims that England is the origin of Marxism, while also praising Benjamin Disraeli as a "conservative". For the Great War, this quote is particularly infuriating (or funny, depending on how you look at it): "But who, then, really won the World War? Certainly not any State, neither France nor England nor America. Nor white "Labour," though it did to a great extent pay for it: first with its blood on the field, then with its standard of life in the economic crisis. It was the noblest victim of its leaders. It was ruined for their ends. The Labour Leader won the War". 

Despite this, Spengler seems to be able to predict the future political climate with decent accuracy. Specifically, his comment on the nations of the future being ones of "ideas" has come to fruition. People seem to be able to globe-hop wherever they want. Don't like the political climate in your home country? You can ship your family off to middle of no-where, South America. Upset about tech sensorship? Why not settle down in the Balkans? No nation exists as anything more than a choose-your-own economic zone at this point, and everyone seems more willing to run off to the sticks than stick out their own government. This is more of a consequence of the economic based policy of modern nations, as Spengler pointed out, than anything else.

Spengler's comments on America follow much the same path as what I just discussed. Spengler sees American communities as rootless "Bedouin" like groups that wander from state to state in service of pay, and this has only become more true in Modern America. Families routinely move across states for jobs or just for relocation's sake, and it turns property from heritage to a commodity. Most would not give a second thought to selling the home they raised their children in for a profit. The transformation of property into a commodity can only damage social cohesion, and a restoration of Nordic conception of property will be needed in the future to restore our communities. Beyond this, there isn't much to say that hasn't been said during our discussions on "Decline of the West". 

List seems like a very interesting read. I don't know if this is the right term, but did List discuss any "hard economics" in National System? The wider picture analysis is always helpful, but I can seem to find any sort of condensed information of functioning economics, like what sort of definite steps could be taken legitimize a currency, but maybe that doesn't exist.

>He seemed to be heading in this direction with this first volume of "Hour of Decision," but without the second volume we'll never know for sure
I started writing about Spengler's misconceptions on race for my discussion contribution, but I ended up scrapping it because he has a pretty good handle on what the Nordic race is. Still, though, I get a Evola-esque feeling from his talk of "Conservative" resistance. I can't shake the feeling that there is something he is missing. If I had to say, Spengler would probably fall back on the defense of tradition as his platform, albeit a tradition much closer to the core of the Nordic spirit than most "conservatives", centered around the officer/aristocrat class he praises throughout "Hour of Decision". 

>It's also worth noting that Spengler (or the translator) uses the term "political economy" to have the opposite meaning as List
I have to thanking for choosing to read List, because this would have flown right over my head if you hadn't caught it. 

>Spengler's arguments in favor of low wages and high working hours fall flat.
Spengler doesn't seem to have a grasp on what the life of a normal laborer is like, probably because he was ingrained in academia for the vast majority of his life. Hilter, who performed manual labor for an extended period of time, had a much better understanding of the toll such work can have on the mind. A father cannot be expected to work 12 hours a day, six days a week, and then be able to go home and spend an adequate amount of time with his children. A farmer, who sets his own hours and is near his children for large portions of the day is not as affected by this, but a factory worker doesn't have theses luxuries. Spengler doesn't understand this because he never had to experience honest work.
Replies: >>3270 >>3271 >>3273
Also, Spengler's references to Rationalism made me think about doing a short series of readings centered around Humanism, maybe starting at Cicero and moving forward from there. Let me know if this sounds interesting.
Replies: >>3271
>The transformation of property into a commodity can only damage social cohesion, and a restoration of Nordic conception of property will be needed in the future to restore our communities. 
This is a great point to bring up and I believe this is one of the greatest issues we face. It ties into the concept of the family and the idea of leaving something behind for those who come after you seems to have been lost with it.

>did List discuss any "hard economics" in National System?
List tended to focus on international trade and manufacturing. He does use real policy, both past and contemporary, to illustrate this. I'm not familiar with his other work, but he doesn't really mention currency at all in his "National System of Political Economy." 

>Spengler doesn't understand this because he never had to experience honest work.
A good thing to keep in mind whenever reading something written by an academic. Some men like Goebbels and Rosenberg were empathetic enough to be able to understand the unique issues faced by the worker despite being academics, but some like Spengler just see people as numbers or pawns.

Sounds good to me. I've been interested in Cicero's writing after seeing him mentioned so often.
Replies: >>3292
/lit/-tier authors like Spengler and Evola are overrated anyways imo, and get way too much spotlight. At least as Fascist or Natsoc authors (they aren't as fascist neither natsoc as they're made out to be from what I can tell).
Both authors had a misgiving with National Socialism or Fascism and appeal to the hardcore conservative crowd. I also felt disappointed at times, both with these authors, and with their followers, for different reasons.
That is my opinion.
t. /monarchy/ or gracefag

>Spengler doesn't seem to have a grasp on what the life of a normal laborer is like, probably because he was ingrained in academia for the vast majority of his life.
It is strange to me, that Spengler takes this position.
He did write a work Preussentum und Sozialismus
By socialism, Spengler doesn't mean Marxist socialism I suppose. but you would still think he would be conscious on this subject matter.
Replies: >>3292
[Hide] (20.4KB, 181x278) Reverse
Our next readings are:

On Laws, and On the Republic
>By Marcus Tullius Cicero

Discussion begins on 2/10

If I remember correctly, we read "Prussianism and Socialism" right before "The Decline of the West". Spengler is good at describing the nobility of the Aryan spirit (as he does in Prussianism), but he is not very good at extending his understanding of that spirit to the working class. It isn't as weird as you think it is once you grasp Spengler's way of thinking on a more personal level.

Also, consider sticking around for the next reading.
Replies: >>3293
>On Laws and On the Republic PDF (includes some other works of Cicero)
>but I want to mention the National Justice Party here as a typical example of what Spengler is talking about.
To be fair, I wouldn't use them as an example. The National Jew Party was a bunch of literal jewish grifters who only cared about making money off of gullible White nationalists. The National Jew Party merely exploited the dreamers of 4chan and /pol/ who wanted an immediate Third Reich or White labor revolution in the United States. After all, much of NJP is hardly National Socialist considering Mike Enoch endorsed Euroasianist literature, Sven admitting to his hatred of White people, and much of his followers are Nazbols Eurasianists as well. It's no joke, as I've seen it firsthand. /pol/ serves as a better example.

>but I still couldn't help but roll my eyes when he called Bolshevism an English invention.
I believe the reason why Spengler said this was more of him pointing out Marx's narrow-minded thought of the West or the entire world at the time. After all, Marx, before he wrote his manifesto, was living within London at the time, and much of what he identified and disdained as "capitalism" was what he thought and saw of industrial England, from which he came to the conclusion that all of Europe was at the same point of industrialism and modernization as London.
I came out of Cicero's "Republic" and "Laws" with mixed feelings. I agree with a lot of what Cicero says here, but not with how it was executed in reality and I don't think it represents what Cicero actually did in his lifetime. Cicero contradicted his words with his actions and, despite praising monarchy/dictatorship, he is often heralded as the "savior of the republic" by modern conservatives. It's hard to comment on a lot of what he says because it is often preceded or followed by large gaps that have been lost to history. In "Republic" we see a dialogue comparing the monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic forms of government. In "Laws" we see how Cicero believes these ideas should be or have been put into practice in Rome as his idea of natural law. 

"Republic" is presented as a dialogue led by Scipio, so any reference to Scipio should be understood to represent the beliefs of Cicero himself. The first thing Scipio does in this dialogue is define what a nation is. The question "What is a nation?" seems to confuse many people in our modern era. Is it a set of laws, a form of government, some arbitrary lines drawn around a plot of land on a map, or is it simply an idea? Of course not. A nation is a people, a Volk. To Cicero, "a people" is not the mob, but those bound by a sense of common rights and mutual benefits and it is the duty of the state to procure the benefits of an honest and happy life to this people. Cicero does not believe in the equality of men, but believes in "equality under the law," a concept we saw dismantled in our reading of "Might is Right." It should be obvious that men who are unequal will be inherently unequal before the law. Cicero believes that liberty and sovereignty must be equally established for everyone, but this is weak to the vices of the masses. I'd say instead that liberty and sovereignty must be equally available for everyone. Society will function best if everyone is united and just, but this isn't realistic and those who squander their opportunities or turn their back on the Volk should be summarily dealt with.

Cicero begins by discussing the pros and cons of the three aforementioned forms of government. Unfortunately, his pros are lost, but the cons remain and are fairly obvious. Monarchy and aristocracy can devolve into tyranny and democracy can easily turn into mob rule. Ultimately Cicero believes that a mixed government composed of all forms would be best, but would choose monarchy if he had to choose one. This "mixed form" is left extremely vague and I can imagine a follower of any political ideology reading this and believing it applies to them. Cicero believes that the government composed of a single just individual is superior to the other forms. He places dictatorship in the same category as royalty, having the same weaknesses, but the dictator's power is vested in the supreme authority of the senate (or in our case, the party) to which the people deferred. An interesting note is that Scipio uses Zeus as his basis for the monarch, but Zeus was not part of a lineage. As described in the Iliad, Zeus was the king of the gods because he was the strongest and wisest. He was a philosopher king and based his power on the idea that might makes right. Cicero agrees that a hereditary crown can be a terrible weakness to a nation if the monarch fails to produce a wise and just son. While people like to mock Alexander for his desire to pass his empire down to "the best," I can think of no better solution than that based on merit, but obviously a suitable system must be in place to select for "the best."

During the discussion of whether political business can be conducted without injustice and corruption, Philus brings up the point that the people of different nations each have a unique sense of justice and right. If justice were natural and universal, all men would follow similar laws and customs. Philus, taking the role of sophist, is right, yet wrong at the same time. Different populations do indeed have differing senses of justice, but this due to their inequality. Races that lack the sense of duty and reason required to compose just laws will naturally fall short. Following these statements by Philus, Laelius says "True law is right reason conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil" and concludes that a democracy cannot possibly constitute a nation since it is impossible for the mad mob to constitute a Volk. Scipio and Mummius agree, saying that no form of government is less commendable than democracy.

While "Republic" was pretty interesting throughout, "Laws" was a bit more tedious to read. Most of what remains of this work covers the specifics of what Roman law was or what Cicero believed Roman law should be, including specific laws on priests and religious rituals. This is ultimately of little use to us in our times as we are not Romans, but at the beginning of this work Cicero speaks of natural law as compared to civil law. Civil law is that which is produced through litigation, which is divorced from natural law. While Cicero seems to have the right concept of natural law, his tedious discussion of proper Roman laws shows that he can't implement it in practice. We have seen many comparisons of Roman law and Germanic law in our reading. The goal of Germanic law is to create an eternal law. A member of the Volk shouldn't need to ask "Is what I'm doing legal?" in his daily life and should be able to get by on "common sense" rather than consulting an incomprehensible volume of civil laws on where he can dig on his own property or whether he can collect rainwater. In contrast, Roman law is based on experience and precedent. Each unique case produces its own law and influences future cases. This is how Western nations work today and we see our legal systems collapsing under their own weight. Even if there were no malevolent forces behind our justice system, we'd be facing similar issues.
Replies: >>3368
I'll try to touch on some topics that haven't been discussed yet, but I'm disappointed with what I got out of "De Re Publica" and "De Legibus". I can at least say that I have a better grasp on the effects Roman Stoicism and "civic nationalism", or at least ideas like it, had on later enlightenment discourse. Really, I intended this selection as preparation for that, so it has, in part, served its purpose. 

"De Re Publica"'s single glaring issue is its lack of consideration of race ( as important as it is, I feel like I've been saying this too much lately). This manifests in multiple ways, one of them being that Cicero sees a state as being composed of a group of people bound together by common principles. When looked at from a racial perspective, this makes no sense, as different peoples will naturally have different conceptions of what is right and wrong, and the denial of these separate principles is not tenable. What makes this more confusing is that, if I was following the dialogue correctly, Cicero justifies imperialism on the grounds that some nations are less capable of exercising freedom, but he does not explain where a propensity for freedom comes from. 

"De Legibus"'s second book presents us with a rare look of how, at least loosely, a European pagan religion would be legislated. The vast majority of the law laid out would, I think, not be applicable to a post positive-christianity society, but it serves as good food for thought. A future White state will have to deal with the issue of religion, and it is something that deserves some thought before we jump into the deep end of it.
[Hide] (17.1KB, 179x281) Reverse
Our next book is:

The Social Contract
>By Jean-Jacques Rousseau

At the risk of those in /fbc/ having already read this, we are going be analyzing Rousseau's "The Social Contract". A pdf of a lesser work of Rousseau's, the "Second Discourse", will be included in this post as well, so that we can spend a week on it if our time with "The Social Contract" goes well.

Discussion begins on 2/22
Replies: >>3347
>The Social Contract PDF
>He places dictatorship in the same category as royalty, having the same weaknesses
/monarchy/fag here.
Aristotle did the same, and placed a dictatorship among his kinds of royalty.
Aristotle in Politics writes.
>These are two forms of monarchy, and there was a third which existed in ancient Hellas, called an Aesymnetia or dictatorship.
Most royalists are kinda dimwitted and think monarchy is just about wearing fancy clothes and titles rather than true adherence to monarchical form.
Posting this early because I'll be away for a while.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was one of the pioneers of social contract theory alongside Hobbes and Locke. "The Social Contract" explores his answer to the question of why primitive man living in nature would form a government in the first place, but he looks at things from a democratic perspective. Cicero called democracy the "least commendable" of the governmental forms and I tend to agree. Rousseau may be much different than we're used to, but we can learn some things from him especially pertaining to his idea of the general will. Bertrand Russell went so far as to say he was a major influence on Hitler, which I think is slightly inaccurate, but we'll see how the general will compares to the idea of the Volk. 

Rousseau believes the social order is a sacred right and that it is the basis of all other rights. However, he does not believe this comes from nature, but rather convention. He claims war, property, force, and hierarchy are not natural, but mere convention created by man and society. He does not see leaders and subjects, but masters and slaves, and since he does not see slavery to be legitimate, he does not see any form of leadership as truly legitimate. Instead each individual must give himself over to the supreme direction of the "general will." Once man has assimilated with the mob, he can truly be free. In constructing this idea of the sovereign, the general will, Rousseau resorts to mob rule. The sovereign cannot hold interests contrary to the people who compose it and if an individual does oppose the general will, he will be compelled by force or society to obey. Rousseau believes this will make man free and make society free of tyranny. The rights of an individual to his property are subordinate to the right of the community. The social contract substitutes the natural inequality of man with a "moral and legitimate" equality through convention and legal right.

But wait! Isn't this essentially what we believe? Isn't the will of the individual subordinate to the will of the Volk? Isn't this general will just the Volksgemeinschaft? Perhaps they could be considered cousins. The term "Volksgemeinschaft" first came from a translation of Locke, but it has much more meaning behind it. The general will is just the will of the community. It does not account for what said community is. While Rousseau believes in different stages of a nation's lifecycle, he ultimately believes they will end up the same. The general will of the Ethiopians will become the same as the general will of the Germans in time. Of course, this is not the case. A youthful nation can imitate another, but this is premature and each nation should forge its own identity. Each Volk has its own unique will tied to blood and soil. This is what separates our idea of a collective will from Rousseau's.

Rousseau says government is an intermediate body set up between the subjects and the sovereign, working under the direction of the general will. Government is charged with executing laws and maintaining liberty. The magistrate has three distinct wills: the will of the individual, the corporate will of the government, and the will of the people or sovereign will. In the act of legislation, Rousseau believes the general will should dominate. So how will we know the general will? By counting votes in direct democracy, of course! Ironically, Rousseau tells us there has never been a "true" democracy and there never will be. He believes democracy is against the natural order, but for different reasons than we do. He believes those who would never misuse their power in government would never misuse independence and a people that would always govern well would not need to be governed. However, this is only in an ideal society and he believes a direct democracy is the next best thing for most. 

Concerning the three forms of government, Rousseau comes to the conclusion that the form of government taken by a nation should be dependent on material factors such as population size and availability of resources. Once again, the nature of the Volk is not taken into consideration. In this discussion Rousseau rightly measures the success of a nation by population. A successful nation grows. A failing nation shrinks. The Christian man, concerned only with the spiritual, is altogether indifferent to his nation. If the state prospers, he fears nationalistic feelings. If the state suffers, he is grateful for the firm hand of God and the coming test of his faith.

There are a few other interesting bits thrown in, but I don't think they warrant much discussion. An example being that Rousseau sees Corsica as the only nation left Europe still capable of forming a state and this was written 30 years before Napoleon. Fascinating, but doesn't have much to do with us.

Rousseau leaves us with a grim warning about apathy. "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies: under a bad government no one cares to stir a step to get to them, because no one is interested in what happens there, because it is foreseen that the general will will not prevail, and lastly because domestic cares are all-absorbing." One of our greatest struggles is getting White men to care about concepts such as nation, race, pride, virtue, and heritage. This is the biggest hurdle for our movement NOW. It's one that no group has been able to overcome thus far, but those that do will be venerated for eternity.

I found this an easy, but enlightening read. Rousseau isn't someone we would normally agree with, but his ideas are similar enough that they led me to think more about what sets us apart. If you think there's more we can get out of Rousseau, we can continue with his second discourse like you suggested. Although I'd prefer a little more than a week just so I can get back to my PC in time. 10 days should be enough. If you're not interested in pursuing Rousseau further, there's plenty more out there for us.
Apologies for the late post, it has been a very busy past few days for me. Rousseau's "The Social Contract" suffers from the same ideas of "equality under the law", which are easily shown to be untrue through the observation of different races operating under the same law, as well as a general ignorance of the intention malice of certain people groups, like jews. Despite this, I think much of what Rousseau has to say aligns with a fascist perspective.

Starting with Rousseau's views on slavery, I think he is correct in saying that slavery has no moral justification. All men are born free, and, as Rousseau says, they maintain this freedom in defeat. It is only through conscious submission that they subject themselves to slavery. Slavery, then, is immoral because it encourages a man to give his freedom away. This captures part of the picture, but it is much more prudent to acknowledge slavery as a precursor to miscegenation since it plants a large, foreign population in what would normally be a racially homogenous nation.  The natural empathy of Nordic Europeans or the proliferation of the imported slaves then makes the granting of equal rights inevitable. I'm sure that the moral aspect influences this outcome, but the point still stands.

Slavery also leads to the imposing of foreign laws and customs on subjugated races, much like the imposition of a foreign social contract on peoples foreign to a state. Here, Rousseau's concept of "equality under law", which we encountered in our reading of Cicero's work, is shown to be false. Rousseau works with the false assumption that different races are made unequal by circumstance, and will eventually be raised to the same state through societal progress. In realty, a race who is artificially forced to follow the laws of a different race will suffer. They will have to suppress their own racial inclinations or they will form an enclave within the nation, either destroying the social contract through the degradation of their own character or through the division of the general will. When Rousseau says that a greater emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation than punishment in governing, he opens the gates to jewish elements taking advantage of that rehabilitation. Some groups will act with malice despite kindness being shown to them, and a raceless social contract has no way to combat this, again allowing the general will to be divided. 

On a more positive note, Rousseau was almost entirely right about the dichotomy of general vs. personal will, and the right of the Sovereign rule. Rousseau pins down a definition of liberty that is pretty much identical to the NS conception of freedom, which is freedom from degeneracy for the pursuit of a moral life. The key difference between Rousseau and our definition is our freedom is more or less bound by a timeless, eternal law, while Rousseau's is bound by the laws of the social contract. It also shows that the general will is always in line with the individual interest in the long run, which is an important, but not often expressed idea. I think most of us would agree that the pursuit of a moral life is ingrained in us, rather than being created by a government. Moving on to the Sovereign, it's hard not to picture Rousseau talking about Hitler from the start. He is a prime example of the will of a people manifesting through a leader. Funny enough, even American psychologists doing WW2 psychological reports on Hitler recognized this fact, albeit reluctantly and with accompanying freudian analysis (I might post one of these I found for the hell of it at some point. It really reveals the thought process of jewish-influenced Freudian Psychologists). It explains the dynamic between a people and their leader in a simple and correct way. A people grants a sovereign the right to rule through will or submission, and the sovereign grants the citizens their privileges in turn. It works cyclically.

Post Script, Rousseau's civil religion is a good start for a template for an NS spirituality, if a little hollow.
[Hide] (35KB, 183x275) Reverse
Our next book is:

Reflections on the Revolution in France
>By Edmund Burke

This should round out our short tour of humanism with a rebuttal and a description of the dangers of attempting to apply humanist principles to a real state. After this, we will most likely move back into more fascist-adjacent literature for a while.

Discussion begins on 3/11
Replies: >>3390
>Reflections on the Revolution in France PDF
Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" is considered one of the defining works of modern philosophical conservatism. Much of Burke's conservative outlook is based on Hume's empiricism and skepticism. Like Hume, Burke believes you can never truly know something, but you can have a level of confidence based on observation. Will my pen fall to the floor if I let go of it? Well, every other time I've let go it has, but this time the laws of gravity could change and the result could very well be different. The only way for an empiricist to know something is to find out in practice. Burke applies this to the political sphere. The only system we can have confidence in is that system we have relied upon in the past. Burke is a very pragmatic thinker and it shows throughout this letter.

Burke begins by comparing the revolution of 1688 to the French Revolution with the belief that the 1688 revolution was what every revolution should look like. It was orderly and respected authority and tradition, unlike the French Revolution where they desecrated their own king. The 1688 revolution cemented the authority of the king and parliament within a constitutional monarchy and established the importance of succession, two things Burke strongly believed in. He did not believe the people have a right to revolution to "elect" a king; he believed the preservation of one unbroken line throughout the age is of utmost importance even if a bad king must reign. Burke saw prudence as the ultimate virtue and his ideal means of reform was likewise slow and prudent, taking place over a period of time. He saw no reason to ruin what's already working. However, after over 150 years of failed conservatism in the West, we know that prudence can be a vice as well. Following the first world war, Ernst Jünger said "It was necessary to lose the war to win the nation." In other words, the sacrifices of the war allowed the complete dissolution of the rotten old Germany and allowed the brilliant awakening of the new Germany to rise from the ashes. While Burke would probably advocate for working within a system and changing it from the inside, sometimes the system in place must be torn out by the root to allow room for a new system to grow and flourish. Fascist ideologies are inherently revolutionary in this respect.

The French Revolution is tangible proof that "social progress" has regressive effects in practice. Unlike Rousseau, Burke acknowledged that the will of the many can lead to catastrophic consequences if left to its own devices. As Burke observed in France, and as we observe in the modern West as non-Whites from the third world riot throughout our nations, Rousseau's idea of the general will as sovereign is unable to hold the mob accountable. Against the concept of the "rights of men" there can be no compromise and no agreement is binding. Those who believe in such a thing would level the same criticisms against any government, old or new, that stood in their way. Burke saw France, giving up monarchy, as spreading the corruption that comes with wealth and power throughout all ranks of society. France gave up her natural rule of law. Laws were overturned, the people were impoverished, and civil and military anarchy reigned. Burke believed the relationship of the king as supreme commander of the military was paramount, while the "rights of men" erode the relationship between officer and soldier. In France, the soldiers no longer respected the officers, seeing them as undeserving of their positions, and the officers no longer respected the king for the same reason. Compare this to Germany during the second world war. A valid criticism of National Socialist leadership is that they often disregarded the advice of their generals. However, even though the generals would often disagree with the decisions of leadership, as we can see in Guderian's "Panzer Leader," they respected the natural hierarchy and carried out their orders swiftly and efficiently. They were able to carry out their role without internal struggle. In France, the wealth owned by the few was split up into very small portions when distributed to the masses. The "redistribution of wealth" is a tempting concept to the less aware, but it often disrupts the natural hierarchy and the redistribution in practice doesn't make any real difference in the quality of life of the masses. Those who promote such ideas never intend to follow through once they seize power.

Burke saw human vices such as pride, ambition, revenge, and lust as the primary causes for strife within civilizations. Religion, morals, laws, and rights of men are merely the pretexts for change. These pretexts do not exist to dissolve the power that comes with tyranny, but change its form. Wise men will attack the vices as the cause of strife and focus little on these pretexts. Those who believe they are waging war against intolerance, pride, and cruelty, such as our modern left, are feeding those same vices in different, often worse, factions. These people pervert history. It falls on men of reason to understand our history and use it to teach the misdeeds of these "leftist" ideals. 

This was a good follow up to Rousseau. Burke rejected Rousseau's universalism and showed that liberty is nothing without wisdom and virtue to back it. Liberty is the freedom to carry out your duty to nation, race, and family. Burke recognized the importance of this even though this is a sentiment I typically associate with Germanic thought. While my knowledge of the actual history behind the French Revolution is laughably poor, following Burke's thought wasn't too difficult in most parts. Burke shows the failures of the revolution and accurately predicts the later effects of the power vacuum left behind by it with the rise of Napoleon shortly after this was written. He gives us a good example of what not to do and lets us question how a revolution would look in our own nations. There is a fine line between respecting your nation's history and desecrating it during a revolution. The French stepped well over that line. As Nationalists, but also as proponents of a revolutionary ideology, we must always be mindful of how we can respect our nation's history while also tearing down the institutions that have been eating away at it.
Replies: >>3450
I'm happy that Burke dedicated a decent portion of his "Reflections on the Revolution in France" to the discussion of the need for the continuity of culture, since the subject has been on my mind lately. I think, for a lot of us, it can be easy to imagine a future NS world as being an entirely new cultural entity, built upon a clean cultural slate. The reality of a successful regime transition, as Burke points out, is one of healthy respect for the customs (and, in a way, a continuation) of the original nation. We should know by now that a nation is formed of its people, and that, therefore, the denial of the practices of a nation that spring from a nation's people, however corrupted they may be at the time of revolution, can only lead to the harm and dissolution of that nation. Burke's example of the treatment of the French nobility and royal family show how forsaking a nation's sacred customs leads to the eventual dissolution of the cultural morality of a nation as a whole. We cannot betray who we are in the pursuit of a better white nation, though I don't think this will be to hard to avoid for genuine actors.
     Burke's praise of prejudice should find itself at home with the ideas of many modern traditionalists. Prejudice, Burke says, being the wisdom of generations past, is invaluable. How could thinkers like Rosseau, who carelessly pick apart the lives and political structures of nations and their citizens, hope to match the knowledge of the hundreds of generations who came before them? The answer for Burke and most Traditionalists is that they can't. The answer for fascists, though, is different. The fascist perspective is able to see that states are capable of harboring several racial groups, and that the culture of a state can be equally influences by any of these racial groups. We then see that it is not the preservation of culture alone that is important, but the preservation of a single people/race's cultural achievements, in our case Nordic. Still, we should be very carful in parsing culture, since the chain of tradition cannot be repaired once it is broken. If we were to completely sever it, it would take us a very long time to recover.
     The concept of a divinely supported ruler is also a point of Burke's that deserves mention. Burke primarily describes this ruler through the lens of the Church of England's authority, and, while this is useful, I don't believe it would apply to a Nordic National Socialist state. Burke's ruler is given divine approval through the power of the English Protestant Church. The Nordic conception of divine right is less afforded through religious authority and much more through natural ability and moral uprightness. A Nordic-style leader makes his state's government worthy of veneration through his own just influence and his upholding of a just state. This justness, as virtue is evidence of divinity in itself, justifies the government. The parallels between this and the National Socialist conception of the volk as a religion are evident.  

>The "redistribution of wealth" is a tempting concept to the less aware, but it often disrupts the natural hierarchy and the redistribution in practice doesn't make any real difference in the quality of life of the masses. Those who promote such ideas never intend to follow through once they seize power
I think many people misunderstand that the economic programs associated with NS Germany are not a "redistribution of wealth" in the revolutionary sense, but simply the result of a functioning economy. Social classes were still present, but the baseline of wealth was much higher than that of western or communist countries. 

>It falls on men of reason to understand our history and use it to teach the misdeeds of these "leftist" ideals
In a functioning society, we would have nearly as much need for discussions on morals and law because a just view on these things would be ubiquitous. The fact that it is surprising to hear Burke speak the truth about liberty goes to show that the Germanic understanding of freedom was the rule rather than the exception in White nations for most of history, and that it only needed to be stated formally because of modern opposition, like that of the French revolutionaries, to it.
[Hide] (15.3KB, 500x773) Reverse
[Hide] (11.5KB, 323x500) Reverse
This week's selections are:

Manifesto for a European Renaissance
>Written by Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier


Beyond Human Rights
>Written by Alain de Benoist

I figured it would be beneficial to look into more modern fascist-adjacent thinkers, whether for informative purposes or critique. I'm thinking we'll try something by Dugin next, and I need to look around for something written by the Northwestern Front people I heard about at some point. I'm open to other options, too.

Discussion begins on 3/26
Replies: >>3457 >>3464 >>3524
>Manifesto for a European Renaissance PDF
>Beyond Human Rights PDF
I'll allow the discussion of Dugin, but he is not fascist adjacent, he is basically an internationalist communist with a focus on a russian/chinese/asian superstate,  if the discussion gets too out of line, I will purge it and you can move on to whatever book you choose next.
Replies: >>3470
Dugin comes up enough in fascist and fascist-adjacent circles to warrant a discussion of his works, if only to strengthen our arguments against him and expose that National Bolshevism/Eurasianism has no place in fascist discourse. We can't fight what we don't understand. 

We've read jewish authors and Ragnar Redbeard without issue, so I doubt we'll have a problem with this.
Despite being a prolific author and a relatively prominent figure in the modern "far right," I've avoided the majority of Alain de Benoist's works based on physiognomy alone. As Schopenhauer says, "the face of a man gives us a fuller and more interesting information than his tongue; for his face is the compendium of all he will ever say." After reading his "Manifesto for a European Renaissance" and "Beyond Human Rights," physiognomy remains undefeated. I have few major qualms with Benoist's conclusions, but I can't help but feel like he often reaches the right answer for the wrong reasons. My notes for this were extensive, but I'll try to condense them for brevity's sake.

Benoist sees the present as a pivotal period in history: the end of modernity. Modernity is the convergence of five processes: individualization, massification, desacralization, rationalization, and universalization. These are secularized theological concepts, dominated by the desires of freedom and equality. Benoist recognizes that modernity will not be transcended by a return to the past, but by imposing pre-modern values in a post-modern dimension. The dominant ideology of modernity is liberalism, which shares its objectives with Marxism. That is, the eradication of collective identities and traditional cultures, the disenchantment of the world, and the globalization of the system of production. As such, liberalism is the main obstacle to anything seeking to transcend modernity. Modernists treat the political as a neutral entity, reduced to managerial efficiency. To them, the purpose of the state is merely administration. In this sense, modern politics is entirely unpolitical and devoid of soul. Defeating modernity requires an attack on individualism, returning to smaller communities and a politics of human dimension. Here it seems Benoist advocates for a federalist society focused on small governments. One could argue that breaking the state up into smaller districts such as the Gau in the Third Reich would also fulfill this ideal, and I believe this would be satisfactory, but Benoist doesn't go in this direction. Since the commodification of the world was brought about by modernity, the end of modernity will see economic laws revert to general natural laws, such as respect for the harmony and beauty of nature.

The French New Right proposes a vision of a well balanced individual, taking into account both inborn personal abilities and the social environment. Man must be conscious of himself and, as we discussed with Burke, man must have an awareness of his own history. Benoist denies Rousseau's idea of the peaceful, cooperative man in nature. Instead, man is rooted by nature in his culture. This leads Benoist to an unfortunate conclusion: that every race and culture is unique and necessary, like a species of animal fulfilling a necessary role in nature. The New Right believes the wealth of the world is in the diversity of its cultures and peoples. Benoist sees the unification of the world under Western civilization as imperialist and ethnocentrist. He wants a multipolar order where every culture is free to express itself among its own people. This multipolar order will supposedly collaborate to protect the interests of humanity as a whole. I see this belief as self refuting. In order to get all cultures and races of the world to hold hands and join this multipolar order, one must enforce this idea, continuing "Western imperialism." Naturally, other races will maintain their grudges and desire for resources. Even among Whites, populations will grow and shrink in response to world events and the demand for more farmland to feed a growing population will create the need for expansion, resulting in conflict. While the French New Right opposes immigration, this opposition is in favor of using our resources to extend a hand to the poor impoverished nations, helping them overcome Western imperialism. Benoist sees immigrants as people who have been wronged by globalism rather than as a hostile invading force. Reading this at a time in which Haitians are quite literally eating one another highlights the absurdity of his ideas here.

Following this, Benoist shares some baffling ideas on the origin of nationalism. He seems to believe that global homogenization and the loss of identity are the root causes of "savage tribalisations" and nationalism. Restoring a sense of identity will allow the various races to appreciate their differences and live in harmony. Somehow. He believes race is real and that racial differences exist, but the differences make every race beautiful. He wants them to remain separate, but equal on the world stage.

Benoist agrees with Rousseau's idea of the general will and wishes for a stronger democracy. Each citizen must pursue the common good or he must be forced to do so. The common good must be identified and upheld through referendum. We already discussed the weaknesses of these ideals with respect to democracy, so I won't go into them again. Benoist touches on other topics such as the role of technology, work, domestic economics, de-industrialization of food processing, and ecology in his manifesto, but I find most of his conclusions agreeable.

"Beyond Human Rights" seems to continue Benoist's pattern of getting the right answer for the wrong reasons. Human rights have taken the place of religion in modern society and as such, one cannot discuss them without being assumed to be stupid or evil. By declaring human rights to be universal, one is removed from the idea of questioning them. These rights are the "ideological armor" of globalism and are used to dominate the people on an international scale. They are the legal manifestation of the moral demand for justice. The philosophy of human rights, based on social contract theory, upholds the belief that all humans everywhere are endowed with the same rights because they are, in fact, united and equal. This is contrary to the rights granted by ancient law, which were based on laws, customs, and the natural order.  

Predictably, Benoist bases his opposition to human rights on his concept of ethnic pluralism. Because he believes all cultures to be respectable, they should not be subjected to the imperialist nature of human rights as an extension of liberal democracy. Within the framework of universal human rights, a twisted version of Kantian ethics, war becomes a duty based on humanitarian interference. A "just war" is by definition total war. By making war in the name of humanity, the enemy is placed outside humanity. At the level of the individual, the enforcement of human rights will result in the extraordinary rise of power of the legal sphere, where judicial decisions replace culture. Rather than resort to the ideology of human rights, Benoist believes a government should honor the so-called "rights of man" for practical reasons. After all, it is not politically expedient for a government to threaten the health and well-being of its people.

Historical criticisms of the idea of human rights are that human rights are usually contradictory, vague, and open to interpretation in practice. There have always been disagreements in scope and content of these supposedly universal human rights. In our discussion of Cicero, I spoke of Kant's ethical system based on duty. While Benoist says Kant justifies human rights ideology, I stand by my statements that morality derived from Kant's ethics cannot possibly be universal due to inherent racial differences.

Benoist is correct in saying that the ideology of human rights has to go. However, the issue with human rights is not that of "western imperialism" but the foundation of these rights in Marxist beliefs which are intended to subvert our Western notions of civic rights based on European culture with rootless cosmopolitanism. I do not believe that people have no rights, but I do recognize that the citizens of a nation will only receive those rights their rulers give them. It is our duty as nationalists to give those rights to the Volk that will allow them to grow and flourish, but not superfluous enough to allow them to fall into degenerate hedonism. These rights could not possibly be universal, but would be limited to a Volk. While I always heard Benoist discussed in Fascist circles, I now have a difficult time thinking of him as "Fascist adjacent." While he advocates for an ethnostate, neither the argument based on Western imperialism nor the third worldist belief that we should extend a helping hand to cannibals can be considered to be in good faith. While I can't raise any serious objections to his system itself, I can't accept the ideological foundation of it. Unsurprisingly, Dugin and Benoist have been in close correspondence over the years, so I agree that his works would be a good follow-up.
Replies: >>3525 >>3528
[Hide] (260.1KB, 900x1280) Reverse
[Hide] (1.6MB, 1000x1545) Reverse
>I figured it would be beneficial to look into more modern fascist-adjacent thinkers, whether for informative purposes or critique. I'm thinking we'll try something by Dugin next, and I need to look around for something written by the Northwestern Front people I heard about at some point. I'm open to other options, too.
Maybe after too much nonsense from de Benoist and Dugin themselves, we should look unto some minor Fascist figures as the first pic related shows.

Overall, after we finish up on Benoboy's 'idol' Dugin himself, we should look onto IM's own collection of articles dubbed "NOOSE" which was dated from 2015 to 2016, this book is not often discussed as their other ones for which it proclaimed the important 'missing' pieces of the puzzle and especially any immemorial warnings it heeded which the modern-day 'Dissident Right' continues to ignore and repeat the disastrous past mistakes to this very day, this book is not often discussed as their other works.
Let me know if it's fine to continue with this after Dugin or we continue on with more fascist-adjacent thinkers.
Replies: >>3537 >>3538
>Benoist sees the unification of the world under Western civilization as imperialist and ethnocentrist. He wants a multipolar order where every culture is free to express itself among its own people. This multipolar order will supposedly collaborate to protect the interests of humanity as a whole. I see this belief as self refuting. In order to get all cultures and races of the world to hold hands and join this multipolar order.
There were whole groups of retards repeating that extremely specific talking point with one spreading to this very board even. But by God, now I know why.
He believes in some Captain Planet-type fantastical faggotry where BRICs as the one group will stand together and defeat the big bad "Western globalist imperialism", and then those irrelevant nations whenever from Africa or Asia will form as powerful and highly advanced nations if they adopt this one specific model they all espouse.
It is a very pitiful, sad and infantile worldview and some strange sort of savior complex too where these "thinkers" genuinely believe that the foreign "multipolar" militaries would invade their own nations and make them the "rulers" where they will be the 'brains' and the 'muscle' will be the foreign soldiers maintaining their "rule".
De Benoist seems to fit under the former category of some delusional mania while Dugin falls into the latter category of maliciously spreading bullshit on purpose to order to indoctrinate lone "thinkers" like Alain here for which due to their weak willpower, they rely on the easy and convenient way of using the "muscle" in order to fulfill this "multipolar order" whenever it would be foreigners or misguided Nationalists rather than put in the harsh work of saving their nation alone without Russia or any other powers that be.
I think that you've touched almost everything of worth from the reading, but I'll throw out a minor observation or two that hasn't been discussed yet.

De Benoist is yet another of the many "armchair theorists" we have encountered over the course of our readings, who, like Spengler, is able to partially deduce the truth while failing to understand the practical implications of his ideas. For a title like "Manifesto for a European Renaissance", De Benoist speaks surprisingly little to how Europe could work towards the "European Renaissance". There is mention here and there about labor reform and "democracy", but there is no real plan of action or prediction of future action presented, something which one would naturally expect from a manifesto. The rest of the content has certain important truths embedded in it, like the origin of modern liberal thought being in the universalist tenets of christianity, but most of the content of value is watered down through effete notions "disenchantment" and eternally peacefully co-existing monoracial societies.

De Benoist, in a way again like Spengler, misunderstands the value of work. He thinks that the belief that "work sets you free" is an invention of modern globalism, and that this way of thinking must be eliminated through the implementation of shorter work weeks and the granting of longer holidays and sabbaticals. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what "work" means to the Nordic white man. In colonial America, newly immigrated Germans found pleasure between harvests in expanding their farms through their own labor, and in the middle ages, farmers would often use their time off to volunteer in the construction of cathedrals. For the Nordic man, the act of creation, or work, one of the things he finds most pleasure in, especially when it is for the benefit of his people. A house-raising becomes an event rather than a chore when it is for a neighbor. He also frames "work" as the chief commodity of a global society, when, in reality, consumption is the highest valued activity. Work is the only thing that will always retain real value and demand, and that is why it is the only proper currency to base an economy on. 

What was most egregious to me about De Benoist's ideology was his condemnation of National Socialism. He seems to misunderstand it completely, seeing it as a reactionary extension of the christian thought-lineage, even though it is something entirely new. 

I don't have anything to add to the discussion on "Beyond Human Rights", other than the obsession with "rights" being stupid. Either moral living is secured by the state or the individual, or it isn't and rights fail. I still see certain rights as being just, but the discussion of fundamental rights often devolves into something entirely separate from moral living and usually goes nowhere. It seems to me that it would be better to restrict the talk of rights to talk of what best facilitates white people to live in a way where they can pursue a just life.

I know I probably came off as a bit unfair and vindictive without cause in my first paragraph, but it is very hard for me to read the thoughts of "intellectuals" like De Benoist without getting angry. It is very clear that the time for play-philosophizing is over and that real, actionable steps need to be planned out for healthy white communities to be created. Contemporary thinkers who are content with hiding in their study and rotting away amongst their stale theory and useless writing, especially ones as ineffectual as De Benoist, can only harm a future white movement, so I can't allow myself to excuse De Benoist's limp-wristed attempt at "saving Europe". In a way, he reminds me a lot of Cicero, but at least Cicero was enough of a man to put life and limb, literally, on the line for what he believed in. He really does look like a goober/caricature of a swarthy Parisian, too.

>Reading this at a time in which Haitians are quite literally eating one another highlights the absurdity of his ideas here.
How he could think that a upright white nation could sit by and watch a bordering colored nation necklace people and make charms out of albino children is beyond me. Conflict is inevitable, or at least the eventual need for more land, like you said.

>Restoring a sense of identity will allow the various races to appreciate their differences and live in harmony
Funnily enough, De Benoist seems to be trapped in the same universalist thought-prison as most of the people he criticizes. Suddenly, when all of the races recognize their difference, everyone will recognize their value. I'm sure if the Haitian revolutionists had just been told that all races are equally beautiful, the thousands of French people they killed would still be alive. In all seriousness, though, I think there is a certain beauty in the diverse morphology of humanity, but that doesn't mean that non-white races can comprehend that or that we are or should be able to respect the barbarity of certain races.

>we should look unto some minor Fascist figures as the first pic related shows
I like the idea. I've also been thinking about us doing Ian Smith's autobiography and some stuff about White Africa, which is sort of in the same vein, but James Mason, Ernst Junger and David Lane could be great reads. It'd be good to actually "REED SEEG", as so many say.

I'd be up for this, too. Sounds like we've got a good backlog for the next few months.
Replies: >>3530
>I know I probably came off as a bit unfair and vindictive without cause in my first paragraph, but it is very hard for me to read the thoughts of "intellectuals" like De Benoist without getting angry.
I can't help but empathize with academics on some level. I'd love nothing more than to come home from work, spend time with my family, and read a good book with my only worry being whether my daughter brings home a Polish boy. Unfortunately, like you said, we no longer live in a time where such things are possible.

>minor Fascist figures
I've had Jünger's "The Worker" on my list for a while. After reading "Storm of Steel" I've been interested in some of his other works. My only experience with Mason was listening to an audiobook of Siege and I wasn't impressed, but perhaps a deeper look would be warranted if only due to the fact that we'll have to win over his followers.

Seems like a great choice.
I genuinely can't believe someone sneaked breivik in there who was a Freemason that didn't mention the Jews once in his manifesto


Replies: >>3542
>>3524 that manlet faggot hitler literally directed murder of codreanu zelea, dont put real nationalists together with subhuman worms

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST Derad & Off-topic moron

Replies: >>3540
First, you'd need to provide proof of this because the only reason Codreanu, christnigger that he was, died is that he accepted the authority of the King of Romania and surrendered to his judgement.
Replies: >>3542
[Hide] (54KB, 500x772) Reverse
Our next book is:

The Fourth Political Theory
>By Aleksandr Dugin 

Discussion begins on 4/13

BO, I'm starting to see why you were apprehensive of us reading Dugin. Seems like discussing modern thinkers draws out the mentally unbalanced.

I get how infuriating it can be to read a post like that, but in the future arguments like this should be brought to another thread. There is nothing to gain from engaging posters like that, besides maybe with an effortpost.
Replies: >>3543 >>3544
>The Fourth Political Theory PDF
That's one of the reasons I was apprehensive, the other is I am uncertain how much useful information can be gleaned from convoluted effortposts by New Right dipshits and Aleksandr Dugin.
BTW I only responded to that faggot to encourage greater effort from others in the future, and himif he decides to come back.
[Hide] (155.3KB, 1280x720) Reverse
I wonder what your thoughts could be of ((( Mencius Moldbug ))), Neoreaction and NRX. It mostly presents itself as an 'alternative' to the 'alt-right'  (codeword for pre-natsoc ideas), led to Nick Land's accelerationism and a bunch of other 'great' ideas. It could be a great read as even though Moldbug himself is a Jew, he accidentally reveals a metric fuckton on how the Zionist system or as he calls it the ((( 'cathedral' ))) controls the world, while also providing interesting critiques of Modernity, Democracy, Socialism and various other Leftist ideas. A big part of his ideology is essentially trying to revive the Monarchy of old.  It could be a great read after dugin's work, especially since we're diving into 'Fascist-Adjacent' works. Pretty sure the first book of Moldbug's is "an open letter to Open-Minded Progressives".
Replies: >>3769
I found Dugin's "Fourth Political Theory" to have little value. At the end of the book, you still don't know what this Fourth Political Theory (abbreviated 4PT from now) is going to look like and that's intentional on Dugin's part. He says at the beginning of this book that the 4PT will not be formed concretely, but will be "in development" indefinitely, which gives him the option to continuously change his views over time. His theory is like a mist where, once you start to believe it will coalesce into a solid shape, quickly dissipates when you reach out to touch it. With this being the case, I think it would be foolish for anyone to consider themselves a Duginist and it would be equally foolish to accuse another of being a Duginist. There must be some -ism for Duginism to exist and there's not much of anything there. Except maybe autism.

Dugin states in the introduction that the 4PT is for Russia. He does not believe that either Communism, Fascism, or liberalism can cater to Russian interests. I am not Russian and I believe Dugin has a better understanding of the political will of the Russian people than I do. Spengler was correct when he separated Russia from the West. Russia is a different civilization with an alien culture and values. Russian man cannot be considered in the same manner as Faustian man. While I will acknowledge the possibility that Dugin's ideas may be useful for Russia, my comments here will be aimed at the idea of applying Dugin's ideas to our own Western civilization. 

Dugin sees the victory of liberalism in the 20th century as an end to politics, but not THE end. Liberalism created a monopoly on the political realm. His solution is the development of a new "Fourth Political Theory" that goes beyond Communism, Fascism, and liberalism. Dugin believes National Bolshevism and Eurasianism came close to this 4PT, but didn't quite make it. Like Benoist, he recognizes the destructiveness of liberalism and the need to transcend it. Dugin wishes to embrace the anti-liberal, anti-cosmopolitan, and anti-individualist features of the anti-liberal political theories as well as their social aspects while rejecting the atheist materialism of modern Communist movements. In addition, he rejects "racism, xenophobia, and chauvinism" from Third Position movements. He argues against bland conservatism and sees a need for "political creativity." I actually like his idea of political creativity and I believe we are engaged in it in this book club as we expand our knowledge, but we're applying everything within a Fascist perspective. We can't just copy old regimes, but I don't think we can just toss them out either. While Dugin sees Fascism as a dead ideology, a victim of "homicide" or "suicide," we recognize it as a truth seeking ideology rooted in natural law and philosophy that can be traced back to Heraclitus.

Each of the three political theories had its own subject. Communism has class, liberalism the individual, and Fascism has the state or race. Meanwhile, the 4PT arises from dissent and goes against postmodernity, post-industrial society, liberal thought, and globalization. Dugin proposes Heidegger's concept of Dasein as the subject of the 4PT. This is as good a time as any to discuss Dugin's views on Heidegger, which take up a significant portion of this book. Dugin seems to agree with Heidegger who, despite his initial support for National Socialism, saw the political movements of his day as an extension of materialist modernity. From a practical standpoint, I don't take issue with this accusation. I'd consider National Socialism to be, in general, anti-materialist, but a practical political philosophy presupposes some level of materialism to function in reality. Likewise a belief in race presupposes a belief in an external world, meaning advocacy for a race will lead to materialist doctrine. We can talk about the Aryan spirit all day, but if every White Western man embodies Devi's Man Above Time, we will die out. Dugin's own book on Heidegger, which I admit I haven't read, is said to be a confused mess of paraphrases and gross misinterpretations with very little actual substance. For example, Dugin believes the concept of Ereignis is describing a singular actual event in the future, a sort of European awakening. For these reasons, I don't believe Dugin has a meaningful understanding of Heidegger, which is probably impossible for a non-Germanic in the first place. Much of Dugin's writing references other philosophers and theorists and I believe this is merely to lend of the illusion of erudition to his work. Dugin reads what he wants from philosophy and discards context. For example, he claims Rousseau condemned civilization, but even a cursory reading of Rousseau's First Discourse will show that he saw man in nature as a constant to measure against, but did not advocate a return to nature. With these things in consideration, there is little actual substance in saying the subject of the 4PT is "Dasein."

Benoist proposed the idea that rather than a "right" and "left" there is a "center" and "periphery" and Dugin follows this system. The center is all of mainstream liberal politics. The periphery is made up of those who fall outside the mainstream. This puts Marxism, Nationalism, Fascism, etc in the same group and Dugin believes these groups should all work together and share in the same goal. This is the basis of the "red brown alliance" and National Bolshevism. Like Benoist, Dugin vehemently rejects racialism. He goes so far as to extend this to culture, rejecting the idea of high and low culture or that one culture can be more developed than another. This opens the door to third worldism, the same trap Benoist fell into. Dugin proceeds to praise Benoist's ethnic pluralism, but to Dugin's credit, he does not propose helping "less fortunate" nations in the manner of Benoist. 

It may appear that the 4PT is traditionalist on the surface, but Dugin sees tradition as a metaphysical concept. He believes that exoteric practices such as doctrine and practice can be eliminated while preserving tradition so long as the "essence" of the tradition is maintained. We've discussed the value of tradition previously, but I believe specifying Dugin's idea of tradition is important. 

Dugin believes the Fourth Political Theory should come from a space "between" theory and practice. I'm more inclined with Burke in that theory and practice are inextricably linked. If something does not work in practice, then it does not work in theory. Likewise, Dugin discusses gender in the first three political theories in concrete terms, but once against falls back on mystifying pseudo-Heideggerian language to describe it in the 4PT, saying the gender of the 4PT is the gender of Dasein and that gender must be somewhere "between."

Monotonic processes, such as the idea of constant growth and development, are incompatible with nature and thus incompatible with society. When this process occurs, it destroys whatever it is applied to. Rejection of these processes turns growth into a natural cycle. Liberal societies are artificially forcing these processes in the modern world with endless population and GDP growth. Dugin's critiques of liberalism, like Benoist's, tend to be accurate and I can't say I have any complaints there. His concept of the "post-political" could even find some use when dealing with weak willed conservatives who go on about "leftist hypocrisy" and constantly quote Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction as if it will one day make a difference if they repeat it enough. However, Dugin is opposed to European nationalism and the idea of a racial criterion of European identity. He is an apologist for Russian multiculturalism and a champion for ethnic pluralism. His pluralism, at least, is not as egregious as Benoist's. He wants to respect other cultures in their own homelands, but doesn't seem to want to interact with them. I believe there is a need for cultural diversity among European peoples, so as nationalists we can apply these pluralistic views to ourselves. I couldn't care less what Haitian cannibals get up to, however. Of course, I've heard from other sources that Dugin's views have changed drastically over the years, conforming to whatever serves his interests at the time. He is accused of being a Communist, a Fascist, a National Bolshevist, etc. In any case, Dugin has some good commentary on liberalism and the history of Marxism in this work, but fails to make any meaningful headway in forming his Fourth Political Theory.

Curtis Yarvin (Moldbug) is popular with some "dissident" pundits such as Auron MacIntyre. I'm not very enthusiastic about reading his work, but I admit it could be useful to understand his positions.
Replies: >>3772
The most worthwhile takeaway from Aleksandr Dugin's "The Fourth Political Theory" is that Russian society and philosophy is completely alien to Nordic Europe. Dugin makes this clear through denial of race as a meaningful part of ideology, which is consistent with what I'd expect from a Russian thinker. Much like Mexico or Venezuela, post revolution Russia is entirely void of any pure racial groups, so they can't rely on any sort of consistent racial consciousness to inform their state. Russians, being part Asiatic, have to rely on a civil identity, and basing a nation on a civil identity rather than a racial one will always lead to decline. I'm not sure Russia can ever really thrive as a nation because of this without constantly playing catch-up with a Nordic Europe it can never integrate with.

Dugin puts verbal vomit onto "The Fourth Political Theory"'s pages without laying out any real arguments, which De Benoist was also guilty of. There is an overreliance on previously established philosophical terms, but at the same time a general misunderstanding of the philosophy behind them, especially with German philosophers, and he doesn't seem to be able to understand National Socialism either. I wish I had more to say, but a rough few weeks combined with a grading read made this a tough read to get through. All I can really say is that Dugin is in now way qualified to inform Europeans on their own political destiny, and that I have less of a stomach for the "New Right" than I previously thought. I'm going to need a few weeks to rinse my mouth out with a decent text, if everyone is ok with that.
Replies: >>3775
>and it would be equally foolish to accuse another of being a Duginist. 
A Duginist, AFAIK, was simply someone caught muscling into /pol/ and fascist/NS twitter and shilling Dugin's "works", despite having no apparent comprehension of anything, including said "works", usually accompanied by their YouTube material that somehow wasn't getting taken down while everything else was.  In particular I remember large numbers of them trying to get their hooks into Patrick Little after he ran for office in California and pivoted to /pol/ for support during his Jew naming campaign across the US.  Their activity seemed to taper off significantly once that Traditional Worker's Party faggot Matt Heimbach was caught fucking some other guy's wife and they disbanded.
Replies: >>3773
>someone caught muscling into /pol/ and fascist/NS twitter and shilling Dugin's "works"
I was only thinking about the label based on ideology, but you're absolutely right. Thank you for the correction.

I would also like to expand on my comment on Dasein, since I failed to include it in my post. Put simply, Dasein refers to the inner place where Being occurs, but it can't be mistaken for a universal concept. However, Dasein does not refer to the individual either. Humans are social beings and how they come to know other beings is influenced by things like language, culture, and race which exist outside of reason and beyond our control. Division of nations along these lines is natural and makes perfect sense. However, this is explicitly ethnonationalist, which Dugin opposes. So I don't take issue with Dasein as the subject of a political theory, but I do oppose whatever Dugin's idea of Dasein may be (he never tells us, of course) because he clearly denies our racial aspects.
>The most worthwhile takeaway from Aleksandr Dugin's "The Fourth Political Theory" is that Russian society and philosophy is completely alien to Nordic Europe. Dugin makes this clear through denial of race as a meaningful part of ideology, which is consistent with what I'd expect from a Russian thinker.
The much more likely explanation is that Dugin is an anti-White traitor like the rest of the new right and national bolsheviks and does not represent the Russian people. You wouldn't judge the entirety of Germany based on the works of Engels, so why do the same with Dugin?
>Much like Mexico or Venezuela, post revolution Russia is entirely void of any pure racial groups
The majority of ethnic Russians are no less pure than Finns yet the Finns have one of the strongest national identities in Europe.
>so they can't rely on any sort of consistent racial consciousness to inform their state.
It is not a matter of capability, what is happening to the rest of Europe is happening to Russia and vice versa.
Replies: >>3831
[Hide] (19KB, 183x275) Reverse
Our next book is:

Can Life Prevail?
>Written by Pentti Linkola

Discussion starts on 4/25
Replies: >>3779
>Can Life Prevail PDF
>The much more likely explanation is that Dugin is an anti-White traitor 
He's not White, he's a jew. Some of his ((( comrades ))) are staunch zionist jews, he represented himself as a champion of Judaism in which he blames the so-called "cosmopolitan Jews" which I think we both know what he actually supports regarding Judaism, he's fine with sodomites and trannies, and has an obsession with niggers present within so many Western jews. He's typical of all jews, you don't need Wikipedia's early life to know his true ethnicity as he very much behaves one of them.
Pentti Linkola's "Can Life Prevail" is the first "ecofascist" work we've read since our very first reading here. It was a bit nostalgic and I'll be referencing Savitri Devi's "Impeachment of Man" (>>457) periodically throughout. Unlike Devi, Linkola sees man as a natural predator and supports hunting and fishing for food as well as using domesticated animals for farming. However, he opposes the caging of animals in farming, the fur industry, and in the case of pets. Devi's environmentalism tended to focus on animal rights and I criticized her ideas as being impractical. Linkola tends to be more pragmatic, addressing the preservation of nature rather than animal rights, however, like many  modern environmentalists, he moves from a pro-nature position to an anti-human one. 

Linkola says he is not looking for a perfect solution or a complete return to nature forever, but he wants a delay to allow nature time to recover. The destruction of the natural world has created a people without direction. A significant proportion of the population relies on drugs, both prescription and illegal, to cope with the society we live in. He also notes that the decrease in physical work has led to widespread physical abnormalities on top of the psychological and spiritual effects. He opposes logging, but there is a need to take down some parts of nature to expand and provide a place for our people to live. Of course, this must be done responsibly and this is where the modern West fails. Between wasteful city projects such as tearing down forest to build a new apartment complex, only to abandon the project once the land has been destroyed, and poor replanting practices, it will take generations to repair the damage already done. 

Similar to Benoist, Linkola criticizes human rights and democracy as "species solidarity," a love of faraway populations that is entirely destructive and unnatural. He believes some human lives are more valuable than others, but he determines this worth by the negative effects a nation has on the environment. Since Western nations are more developed, he believes Faustian man is a greater threat to the Earth and thus less valuable. His plans for population control such as a one child policy and forced sterilization would mostly apply to Western nations. Linkola considers journalists the main culprit behind societal change. In a democratic society, this is unavoidable. However, Linkola says journalists avoid writing about issues such as pollution and extinction. This may have been true in Finland in 2004, I can't be sure, but I've experienced constant bombardment of these subjects since childhood. By 2000 the world will be covered in acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer will make Australia uninhabitable, and the rain forests will be gone! It turns out doomsday porn is very profitable. Linkola also believes in man made changes to the atmosphere and climate change. I have seen some arguments for and against this position, but I admit I don't know enough about the subject to meaningfully comment on it.

War has a rejuvenating effect in that in leads to a population boom and technological advances. Linkola recognizes this, but he sees this as a bad thing and instead hopes for wars that target "breeding potential." That is, women and children. He doesn't seem concerned about the end of humanity. The "end of the world" is just the extinction of a species to him. The "end of the world" happened for mammoths thousands of years ago. It has happened millions of times before and will happen millions of times in the future. What concern is it of Linkola's that it should happen to humans at some point? While some of his criticism of modern society and neurotic regulations such as food hygiene have validity, his life denying rhetoric is unacceptable from a Fascist perspective. The idea of "starting over" or even a "delay" to "give nature extra time" is no longer a real option. Not only would this open your nation up to foreign invaders who simply do not care about preserving your nation's natural resources, but we no longer have the means of developing modern technology from nothing. Surface level coal and oil reserves have been depleted. Modern technology is now required to obtain the natural resources needed to get technology to the level it is at today. The idea of sacrificing the West in the hope that one day Faustian man will be revived is suicidal not just for the West, but mankind as a whole.

Linkola's system proposed at the end of this book would require the whole world to adopt it simultaneously to work. One nation giving up technology would soon cease to exist and one nation maintaining technology would soon rule over the rest. I find it hard to believe that an oriental culture, just to name an example, would go along with such a thing. But if his system were ever adopted by the entire world, Western man would simply not be satisfied with strolling around his garden until the end of time. Linkola's proposed future ignores the nature of the West that Spengler referred to as "Faustian." This puts him in direct conflict with us.

I feel like this post was a bit too negative and I'm not really satisfied with it. I did agree with much of what Linkola said for the first two thirds of the book. His stories about ice requirements and food hygiene regulations and their real effects of placing a burden on producers and increasing transportation were enlightening. I've always considered the wastefulness of the typical grocery store produce section particularly absurd. Do we really need bananas in the middle of winter? Do we really need to waste so much shipping fruits in from all over the world year-round? Probably not. As Linkola points out, taking these things away would be wildly unpopular with the masses. However, it should be done. It should be seen as axiomatic for any nationalist doctrine to engender a sense of pride and duty in being good stewards of our lands, so I can certainly relate with Linkola's frustration. The well being of the nation and the well being of the Volk go hand in hand and we must promote ideas that bring this into the general culture and mindset of the people.
"Can Life Prevail?" was a refreshing read for me after having to suffer through Dugin and De Benoist, even if there was a lot to disagree with Pentti Linkola on. Environmentalism and ecology focused reads are always fun for me because those topics interest me in general, but they do have real relevance to National Socialist community organization and economics as well. So, despite this work not being to heavy on political theory, I do think it was a worthwhile read.

One of Linkola's ideas that really struck a chord with me was his argument against "food hygene"; the surface level presentation of the agreement, though is one I disagree with. There is no need to expose the stomach to botulinum toxin or mold when many of the examples he gives of utilizing "unhygenic" food have much simpler, utilitarian minded work arounds. A home-canned jar of jam could simply be sterilized with boiling water before sealing to avoid the growth of mold (I know from experience. I've eaten home-canned good that were over 10 years old with no issue simply because they were prepared the right way), and moldy bread or spoiled food could be used for compost, a treat for chickens, or slop for pigs. Add to this that may contaminants in crops, like ergot in rye, will unavoidably kill people or make their fingers rot off, and we see how this point is really just a innocent, yet misguided grasp at a return to tradition. There are much safer ways to expose kids to germs and potential allergens early on. I could go on about the historic importance of cleanliness and bathing in Aryan cultures, but I digress. 

The important part of "food hygiene" is that excessive legislation around cleanliness standards kills local industry and workers' and consumers' connection to their land. Linkola gives an example gathered from his time as a fisherman. Post World War II, the finnish government cracked down of transport hygiene more and more until most independent fishermen were priced out of the business, Linkola included. The same governmental practices can be seen in America.  Take, for example, the modern American beef industry. 60 years ago, cattle were raised by a small farm would be taken to local slaughterhouse, where the cattle would be slaughtered without hassle and then quickly distributed to local markets. Now, farmers have  pay to have them shipped to one of the 4 to 6 locations in the continuous United States that the American government authorizes processing to take place in ([spoiler] https://web.archive.org/web/20230413100551/https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/02/14/more-than-money-monopoly-and-meat-processing [/spoiler]). Not only does this make cattle raising much harder for small farms, who live at the total mercy of a processing monopoly, but it also disconnects the agriculture industry from the area that surrounds it. This practice of industrial farming, and many more like it such as focusing on exportation, are completely at odds with a National Socialist way of living. For a people to be proud of themselves and live sustainably, they must be connected to the land they live on and be proud of what they do. I don't believe this is possible with the level of oversight that Linkola has criticized.

The "food hygene" discussion as well as Linkola's somewhat joking mention of "fennotarianism", which he defined as the practice of only eating foods produced within one's own country, has reminded me of a concept I was introduced to while I was reading about Gottfried Feder. Feder promoted the idea of the "Garden City", wherein a community of roughly 30,000 to 50,000 people would consist of a small, planned, urban center a a large greenbelt of agricultural land surrounding it and would be, for the most part, self sufficient. Feder was criticized for the idea by most of his contemporaries, probably because it was ahead of its time. A community like this would allow its citizens to properly connect with the land they lived on, because a large part of their food and products would be coming from the local area. I understand this idea isn't necessarily a part of the text, but I feel that it ties in with it nicely and is disserving of mention, especially if we cover Feder in the future.

Linkola says, at one point in the text, that any action carried out for the benefit of man will inevitably harm nature. I see several problems with this. One is that is fact is being presented as something people should feel guilty about. Any living creature lives at the expense of another. Life is struggle and we are alive. It is natural, so there should be no guilt in responsibly using the natural world. The second is that it is only our ZOG societies and overdeveloped non-white societies that live in a way that harms nature as a whole. Modern industrial farming practices, clear-cutting, and excessive use of plastics surely harm nature as a whole, but these are far from our only options. New permaculture and agroforestry techniques in development present a promising picture of a future where agriculture in integrated with natural processes, and would contributes to ecosystem heath rather than harm it. The fact of the matter is that the white man, like every other living creature, possesses the same right as every other organism: to fight for a future, or die. The only difference is the scale and context we apply this right within. It is also pretty evident that if the Nordic White world were to immediately replace all of are industrial techniques with pre-industral ones, nations like China would take advantage of this and wreak heavier and more wide spread damage on the natural world than we ever could while also neglecting imperiled species, the vast majority of which are monitored and preserve by white people. 

In comparison to Devi, Linkola has a much better understanding of how conservation is actually achieved, despite his faults. He acknowledges the issues that come with what I would call "partial conservation". Devi had a sweet spot for pets, but Linkola avoids this. He is decisive enough to recognize that having resident outdoor cat populations is unsustainable, and that population culling has a real place in conservation, especially with species that have become vermin like racoons (that fact still makes me upset because I like them). Linkola also recognizes that every animal has value within a macro-scale view of nature and that there can be no favoring of predator over prey and vise versa in real conservation efforts. His biggest failing with the realm of conservation thought is probably his blind worship of certain parts of academic consensus. He harps on climate change far to much for my liking, while neglecting much more important environmental concerts like water contamination and poorly planned damming (I need to make a long form post here at some point on how FDR purposedly harmed white farming communities through the TVA and reservoir projects. Interesting stuff), although he does mention water issues briefly. He threw out wild claims like that 500,000 multicellular species are going extinct a year, which, at a total of 8.9 million species globally, would mean that all life on planet earth should have gone extinct between that essay's publication and now. 

Despite my qualms with Linkola, I do want to reiterate that this was a good read. I would like to do more eco-fascist stuff in the future, if we can find more. We might have to be done with Linkola, though, since "Can Life Prevail" is the only text of his that is widely available in english.

>Do we really need bananas in the middle of winter? Do we really need to waste so much shipping fruits in from all over the world year-round? Probably not. As Linkola points out, taking these things away would be wildly unpopular with the masses

Most foods eaten commonly in Northern European countries can be produced at least somewhat locally. I feel like taking certain produce and products out of stories could be sold to people pretty easily, since there's already a growing demand for local goods. I do agree with you though the waste part. That sentiment could be expanded to most U.S. retail industries, too. So much is imported for the sake of importation, its almost sickening
[Hide] (18.1KB, 324x500) Reverse
Our next reading is:

The Programme of the NSDAP and its General Conceptions
>Written by Gottfried Feder

This'll be a short read, and I'm thinking we'll do Mosley's "100 Questions" after. Let me know if it would work better to do both texts at the same time with a longer reading period. 

Discussion begins on 5/4
Replies: >>3839 >>3843
>The Programme of the NSDAP and its General Conceptions PDF
I think doing them separately would be better. This allows us to do more of a deep dive focusing on just the 25 points, which were the foundational principles of the NSDAP.
We did it. We hit the character limit. I guess it's a good thing I didn't have time to finish this project in its entirety, but I refuse to shorten this post in particular for the sake of brevity. Part 2 will be posted a little later.

Gottfried Feder's "Programme of the NSDAP" lays the foundation for the National Socialist worldview. It was created to outline the general party principles rather than to propose real laws or provide a blueprint of the State. Naturally, the social and economic policy of the National Socialist State is based on the "welfare of the whole" and the "common interest before the individual." For social matters the public interest is served before self interest and for economic matters filling demand comes before profitability. At this time in Germany's history, Marxism encouraged brother to fight against brother based on a division of class. This created a highly individualized low trust society where otherwise decent German people would pursue personal gain at the expense of others. This in turn led to widespread misery and depression as people were forced to either join the rat race or suffer. Feder addresses Adam Smith's idea that society is merely a sum of its individuals and likens it to a pile of stones that just happened to take a certain shape. Meanwhile the National Socialist State is like a house, where many components, such as bricks and windows, come together through an intelligent and deliberate design to form a whole. Feder says the National Socialist State is not beholden to any specific political form. Whether it be a monarchy, a federation of states, or a dictatorship was of no issue provided that the interests of the citizens of Germany are protected. Each of these forms have their strengths and weaknesses as we've discussed previously and while I believe in the Führerprinzip, I recognize the need for the dictatorial form is specific to our time, and Weimar Germany's time, and not a universal need.

The Programme is fixed, as Hitler said, and was meant to stand for all time. One who doesn't agree with the fundamental principles of the party has no place in it. Small disagreements are fine, of course, but there's no compromising with someone who refuses to accept the jewish question or other such matters. The NSDAP was not to be an ordinary political party. Once these points and National Socialism as a whole became a part of the German zeitgeist, the NSDAP would no longer have a reason to exist and would be dissolved. New points were not to be added in the future just to perpetuate the party. The original principles and leading ideas that form the foundation of the party were not to be tampered with. This was to protect the movement from "grumblers and know-alls" who provide input unprovoked. Hey, that's us! But it has been 100 years and most of us are not German, so I think it's acceptable to take a fresh and critical look at these points. Many other organizations have created their own copycat point systems, which I don't condemn altogether, but we cannot just copy and paste the original 25 points without considering the time and location. I believe this is what Goebbels meant when he said National Socialism was not an export.

My goal with this post was to examine each point individually. I wrote a brief summary of each point and attached the reasoning laid out in sections 3 and 4 to relevant points to provide Feder's reasoning for their existence. I then attempted to explain how each point was realized in the Third Reich and how it could be realized today. This is a work in progress as I don't have the historical knowledge offhand to undertake such a task. I consulted Henry Ashby Turner's "Nazism and the Third Reich" and Tedor's "Hitler's Revolution" for some information, but I'm limited on time. However, this allows others to provide input, so I think putting up a half finished post is fine. My goal is to add to this over time and compile everything into one thread some time in the future. With that said, let's get into the 25 points.

1. German unity on the basis of self determination. This was to form a homogeneous Germany for Germans and represent German interests in foreign policy. The NSDAP laid claim to Germans in the territory of the former empire, such as the Sudetenland and Austria, and believed in the right of Germans abroad to decide to belong to their fatherland. However, this was not to be imperialist in nature. The reunification campaign is well documented, so I won't get into that, but I take slight issue with the word choice of "self determination." This can open us up to the counterargument that self determination is a universal ideal and all peoples have a right to self determination. "Well what about the American natives or group X or Y?" However, I can't think of an acceptable alternative other than backing it up with other points, as the NSDAP did. In fact, the first 9 points can all be tied together in the goal of creating a new German identity.

2. Equality of rights of the German people on the international stage. The rights of German engineers, doctors, etc. disseminating German culture abroad must be protected and the right to return to Germany must be kept. These are bearers of the Nordic idea. This also involved abandoning the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Saint-Germain. This is obviously irrelevant for most of us, but many nations live under similar treaties or in the shadow of international organizations. Regardless of your nation's international situation, advocating for the rights of the Volk who are away from their homeland and ensuring their right to return is vital.

3. Land for settling a growing a population akin to the colonies of England and France. The new national bank would engage in extensive construction of homes throughout the Reich. Construction of homes to house a growing nation is obvious, but the idea of settling land is outdated in most instances. The dangers of racial mixing in the colonies is well known now and we want nothing to do with it. Settling into other White lands would be equally undesirable. Many nations have plenty of space and once immigrants are removed, locals can be resettled easily. Smaller nations may struggle with expanding production and housing simultaneously and this point may be one they'd want to use, but they'd have to carefully consider the responses of surrounding nations because we all know how much the Judaized neighbors of a National Socialist State will desire their destruction.

4. Only Germans can be members of the nation and therefore citizens. No jew can be a member of the nation. Additionally, Germans who act consciously in a way injurious to the nation forgoes his right to citizenship. I believe this is common sense and speaks for itself. The only thing I would change is adding additional requirements for citizenship such as time in the military or labor service.

5. Anyone who is not a citizen lives in Germany only as a guest. Jews and non-Germans were to be expelled from responsible positions. A jew or foreigner in a responsible position exercises a disintegrating effect on society. In the way a cabbage plant cannot become a strawberry plant even if they are planted together, a jew cannot become a German and cannot understand the German or any Western spirit. Immigration was to be prevented and undesirable foreigners were to be deported. The rights of Germans would take priority over citizens of foreign nations. Again, this point speaks for itself.

6. The right to vote is for the citizen alone. The NSDAP opposed filling Parliament with corrupt officials without regard to character or capability. The NSDAP wished to liberate Germans from demoralizing election contests and the immunity of elected officials. The cancer of democracy has metastasized since then. We must be wholly hostile to democracy. It will spread from even the smallest remnant. Placing strict restrictions on who can become a citizen, binding citizenship to blood rather than ink, and making citizenship something that can be lost are necessary to overcome democratic ideals.

7. The State shall make its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of citizens. If necessary, foreign nationals are to be expelled from the Reich. I see this as a more comprehensive version of point 5. I question the necessity of the fifth point since this covers the same subject in more detail.

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. As with the expulsion of immigrants, preventing them from coming in the first place is also vital. Some foreign born talent can be useful, but they must have hard time limits and be restricted from rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and owning land. Once this person's knowledge as been transferred to our people, they must return from whence they came.

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties. The inclusion of duties here allows us to maintain hierarchy. A belief in equality is naturally flawed because those who are less intelligent or talented will feel as if they've been cheated from their status in society. Hierarchy allows people to be content with their lot in life. Giving citizens equal duties alongside rights requires that the more intelligent or talented citizen use his higher status granted by nature to its fullest extent for the sake of his nation. In general we like to preach meritocracy, but it is natural that men admire traits like beauty, talent, and intelligence which are granted without regard to merit.

10. It must be the first duty of each citizen to work with his mind or body. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole and be for the general good. Every German was free to earn and reap the rewards of his labor. This would also introduce an obligation of every German to work for the State for a period of one year. I did discuss a possible requirement of service earlier and I believe this point and point 4 could be combined without issue.

11. Abolition of unearned incomes (the "thraldom of interest"). Usurers and stock exchange speculators who focus on personal enrichment over the well being of the Volk corrupt the State, both in terms of its politics and culture. The abolition of interest was recognized as a necessity to ensure a future for Germany. The solution of the question of interest is also the solution to the jewish question, and therefore a necessity for ourselves as well. The focus on the abolition of interest rather than the jewish question would also prevent crypto jews and "regular people" who would continue the corrupt system from sitting in the positions jews once had. Feder brings up the subject of limiting wealth several times throughout the Programme and I have mixed feelings. Should the successful businessman and entrepreneur be limited in his wealth? What is he to do when he reaches the set limit? Pack up and go home? Continue his work for free out of the goodness of his heart? In a labor based economy, any man who works for free is led to believe that his labor is, in fact, worthless. However, I have no desire to have elites with essentially limitless wealth doing as they please, sticking their fingers in every pie with abandon. I believe, because most wealth in our society is generated from the stock exchange and interest, the Zuckerberg and Gates types would not be able to exist in the National Socialist State in the first place. There would likely be no need to limit wealth at all.

12. Personal enrichment due to war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. This includes confiscation of war gains and the fortunes of usurers. War gains are still very real today with the cosmopolitan military industrial complex wreaking havoc around the world for the sake of profits. The confiscation of assets and subsequent imprisonment, and more, of those behind these actions should be one of the first steps taken.

13. Nationalization of businesses that formed trusts. The majority of business in Weimar Germany was in the hands of a few powerful companies. Those in charge of production had surrendered to high finance. With labor profits going into the pockets of the bankers through interest and dividends, employers were left in crippling debt. Finance exists for the benefit of the State and its people, not to form a State within the State. This point would also include a nationalization of the banks and the introduction of a fixed standard of currency. However, the NSDAP is not supporting the socialization schemes of Marxism. Along with private property, the NSDAP supported private business and enterprise. The small business owner should be able to reap the rewards of his labor, but a small business owner trying to run a mine or build a highway is not effective or desirable. The NSDAP recognized that a society supported by both small and large enterprises should be maintained. Public services were to be funded not through loans or the mint, but by granting State bonds without interest. The NSDAP raised employment through funding public works and the issue of "Mefo" bills during rearmament. Tax levels were also reduced for farming, small businesses, and heavy industry to incentivize small scale business. While we can't be sure of the fine details of their economic policy, this remains a good model to work from. The West attempted to copy this model in the 1950s, but without the provisions of previous points regarding citizenship and the jewish question, it was quickly subverted.

14. Profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out. This is so the worker may share in the profits of his own labor, however the labor of the worker must be considered in proportion to the management of the other "moving parts" of industry such as the management, the merchant, the accountant, etc. Feder does not give a clear answer on how this would be accomplished, but suggests lowering prices while maintaining wages would be sufficient. Price controls have been attempted numerous times throughout history often with disastrous results. Additionally, as Jung discussed, the problem remains of who takes the burden when a company sees losses rather than profits. It wouldn't do to garnish the worker's wages due to a failure in management, but should the small business owner assume all risk and little to no reward? We discussed this point in our reading of Jung and determined that profit sharing took shape in the form of public amenities, such as the Strength Through Joy program. 

15. Development of provision for old age. This would create Old Age Insurance through nationalizing the system of life annuities. Every German would be guaranteed enough to live on upon attaining a certain age or before if they were disabled and no longer able to work. Feder recognized that the worker's anxiety stemming from his uncertain later years is the leading cause of class tension. In an age where our elderly often meet their end at the hands of migrants in nursing homes, the importance of reforming the way we care for our elderly cannot be understated. While it's ideal that every person should spend his or her twilight years with family, we must also provide security for those citizens who either didn't reproduce due to a genetic defect, lost family through a tragic accident, or otherwise cannot care for themselves or rely on family.

16. Foster a healthy middle class through communalization of wholesale business premises, their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that consideration shall be shown to all small purveyors to the State, district authorities, and smaller localities. This would create a national bank of business development for granting non-interest bearing loans. The NSDAP wished to reform the tax system on social-economic principles. They wished to relieve the consumer from indirect taxation and the producer from crippling taxation. I do not think Feder's dream of a nation without taxation is realistic, but one can't really argue against the promotion of lower taxes and more responsible spending.

17. Land reform, confiscation of land for communal purposes, abolition of interest on land loans, and prevention of all speculation in land. This was poorly written and Hitler later had to specify that the NSDAP believed in the principle of private property and that this point referred to a legal right to confiscate land obtained illegally or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. The two sections preceding the 25 points were written in response to criticism surrounding the 17th point. I largely agree with the proposed agricultural policy as long as the land tax remains low and the Land Courts are administered well. I could see someone taking point 8b on page 12 to mean the courts could confiscate a farmer's land if he had a poor harvest. I think that's a bad faith reading, but I wanted to address it preemptively. Our recent reading of Linkola helps put the points about regulations faced by farmers in their time in perspective. I believe we've discussed the importance of agricultural policy and land reform sufficiently elsewhere, so I'll leave it at that.

18. Ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. As we saw in Goebbels' "Kampf um Berlin," Weimar society was a chaotic one where criminals were numerous and rarely prosecuted. So-called Marxists would sooner stab a nationalist than the industry bosses they supposedly hated. In short, it was a society very similar to our own. Those who cannot see the wisdom in placing their own people above those of foreign or criminal interests do not deserve a place in society.

19. Roman Law serves the materialistic world order and must be replaced with German Law. This would increase protection for personal honor as opposed to one sided legal protection of the rights of property. This would also result in the form of the State most suitable to the German character, which Feder tells us is sovereign control united in a central personal power, such as a monarch or president. We discussed Roman vs German Law in our discussions of Rosenberg and Cicero, so I won't go too far into this. A National Socialist State, wherever it may be, should adopt the system of law most suitable to its people.

20. Education reform. This includes a focus on practical life and the education of gifted children from poor families at the expense of the State. There was to be liberty of instruction in German secondary schools in order to create a ruling class of high minded men. We saw this with the "Adolf Hitler schools" in the Reich which allowed brilliant students from poor families attain a quality education. The NSDAP wished to create a new Renaissance, a brilliant new era in German arts. The recovery of German art was deeply tied to eliminating the corrupt press in point 23.
Replies: >>3913 >>3938

21. Protection of mothers and infants, prohibition of child labor, obligatory gymnastics and sports, and extensive support of youth sports clubs. A Volk of sound body and mind should be common sense. Youth clubs teach necessary practical and social skills early on and sports programs ensure the youth can maintain these skills throughout their lives. This ties into the practical focus of education reform in point 20.

22. Abolition of a paid army and formation of a national army. The armies of the Weimar era were cozying up to pacifists, internationalists, and jews, threatening the defense of the nation against foreign interests. This point included the right of every German to serve and bear arms. This would allow Germany to repel any attack on its land and secure the lives of Germans. Germany was disarmed at this point in history and many politicians believed in an idea of mutual disarmament. As if Germans giving up their weapons would have made the British or the Soviets give up theirs! A national army would allow Germany to truly be a sovereign nation. The USA also adopted this standpoint, but many nations of Europe went the opposite direction. The pacifists, and their reliance on international treaty organizations, need to be expunged.

23. The formation of a German national press. All editors of newspapers and their assistants must be members of the nation and write in German, special permission must be given from the State for non-German newspapers to exist, and prohibition of non-Germans influencing German newspapers, be this financially or otherwise. Newspapers which do not promote the national welfare and erode national life must be suppressed. A press of the nation for the nation is the only acceptable press. In our democratic societies, the so-called "free" press, itself controlled by foreign interests, controls the flow of information and therefore decides the outcome of elections.

24. Religious freedom so long as that religion is not a danger to the State and does not attack or subvert the morals of the German race. The party is said to stand for positive Christianity and against the jewish materialist spirit on the principle of "the common interest before self." This idea of the nation before the individual is the center that all National Socialist social policy revolves around, just as abolition of interest is to economic ideas. "Complete liberty of creed and conscience" is Feder's motto regarding religion. The Christian question remains even under positive Christianity, but I think abandoning jewish influence in the bible, even if that means altering the basic form of Christianity, is an acceptable temporary solution to this question. The question of positive Christianity came up in our discussion of Rosenberg and remains one of the most divisive points in modern movements. Purists won't be satisfied with the NSDAP's stance here, but compromises must be made in any sort of mass movement.

25. The creation of a strong central power of the State. This includes establishing the authority of Parliament over the entire Reich and the formation of Chambers for the purpose of carrying out the Reich's laws. This grants the National Socialist State the necessary power to carry out the other 24 points. 

Feder identified three major obstacles to carrying out the Programme: Marxism, the Parliamentary system, and the capitalist magnates. Marxism promoted class warfare which split the nation, attacked the idea of private property, and took an economic materialist view of history wholly alien to European peoples. Representatives in Parliament were legally immune and therefore unable to be held accountable for their actions or lack of action. The campaign against capitalism was the campaign against Mammonism and usurious interests. Spengler's major criticism of the NSDAP in his "Hour of Decision" was that the NSDAP failed to consider international politics. With the gift of hindsight, we can see how the NSDAP addressed these obstacles at the domestic level and were able to carry out the Programme, but failed to consider these obstacles acting in a hostile manner from outside Germany.

I last read the Programme a few years ago, and I've wanted since to revisit it in more detail, so I'm glad this gave me the excuse to get started. Ultimately, like most National Socialist works we've encountered, it stands the test of time remarkably well. While I'd slightly alter or combine some points to conform to my taste and my nationality, this is just nitpicking and an attempt to refine a future Programme for the modern age. Perhaps the addition of new points to account for technological advances, such as the internet, could be implemented, but I might be getting ahead of myself here.
Replies: >>3938
[Hide] (17KB, 324x500) Reverse
Our next selection is:

Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered 
>Written by Oswald Mosley

Discussion begins on 5/15

Real life obligations have taken up more of my time this week than I thought they would. I'm still expecting to contribute to the discussion of Feder tomorrow.
Replies: >>3928
>100 Questions about Fascism PDF
Feder's "The Programme of the NSDAP and its General Conceptions", save for a vague point or two, functions as a useful condensation of the principles of a Nordic Ethnostate.  Its clear to me that the specifics of each point have already been covered effectively and concisely, so I'll attempt to relate the 25 points to a Modern America. I doubt I'll be able to cover even a fraction of the entirety of this topic, but it can never hurt to get the ball rolling on these kinds of conversations.

Considering that Nordic peoples often hold on to their tribal identities very dearly and that most Nordic Americans define their tribal identities through their physical origin (home state, county, city) or through their European ancestry (German, Irish, English), the NS model of a "union of Germans to form a Great Germany" cannot instituted unmodified. The broader conception of a Nordic or Northwest European people would be needed to effectively organize a Nordic state. Excepting the Midwest and the northern extremities of America, ethic groups of White people are spread out and often have mixed, although still Nordic, heritage. It would, to be, seem preferable that those groups of whites with pure ethic heritage be preserved, but to form a strong nation they would need to be in some way subsumed into a larger national Nordic identity. 

Point two would manifest as a shedding off of the burden of reparations to non-whites and of being the "world police" on the Nordic American citizen. White self-hatred and ZOG appeasement could only hurt this new nation. Point four and six can be applied without issue if the previous revision is considered and point three cannot be applied in any meaningful way. 

The fifth point, instead of applying mostly to East European Jews (although they are still a problem), would be much more useful if applied to the scores of Hispanics, Indians, and Africans flooding into the Unites States. Point eight covers similar territory and can be applied in the same way, and point seven also ties into the point made about point six. Whether in domestic or international markets, the Nordic American labor force is routinely undercut by the hiring of underpaid non-whites and the outsourcing of labor by Jewish interests. This in turn promotes the conception of blue collar work as "beneath" whites worsens an already saturated white collar job market. Much like the conception of the Nordic racial group, attitudes about labor would have to be reshaped not only towards a greater respect of the laboring class, but also towards viewing work as a duty to one's volk rather than a personal burden (This one may come naturally in a homogenous nation). Pints 9 and 10 follow from this.

Points 11-13 cover the same topic- preventing the abuse of a nations economy. Perhaps even more so than in the party's time, business monopolies have a stranglehold on the independence of American citizens. It is necessary that these monopolies are dealt with, but I do not believe that they can be dealt with in the same fashion as Hitler dealt with them. The avenue of political change has been closed off, and interest and financial control will have to circumvented through parallel economies. These parallel economies would take the form of organized ethic enclaves that function on a county level at most, and that are as economically self sufficient as possible. Points 14-19 would then be provided for through the formation of stronger communities until actual government programs could be created.

Point 20 would take the form of community subsidized homeschooling co-ops both small and large in size until sufficient capital or sway in government run school systems could be generated to work around existing systems. Point 21 would function of the same principles and manifest itself as YMCA and Boy Scout type organizations, though allied with a Nordicist community. Private gunning clubs and similar type things for survival training would have to take the place of the standing national army mentioned in point 22.

Point 23 has broader implications in modern America, even if the core of the issue it addresses is still the same. Journalism has gone online and we are not in a position to censor writers. Censorship could be achieved in a roundabout way through more careful use of the Internet and through careful vetting of what is disseminated to the wider community. Local publications are also an option.

I don't know if it is worth repeating our previous discussions of positive christianity, but I believe, like most of the other points, the negative aspects of christianity would gradually fall away in a community based around race. Point 25 would be hard to apply, considering any early community organization or network of communities would be largely decentralized. Any community would still be centered around a capable leader or set of leaders, nevertheless.

Great post
Oswald Mosley's "100 Questions" compiles 100 commonly asked questions about the BUF worldview and desired policy, similar to Goebbels' "Nazi Sozi". Unlike "Tomorrow We Live" or Feder's "Programme," Mosley focuses on the practical application of British Fascism and his plans for a new Britain here. As such, much of this work is outdated since it deals with how a Fascist State would manage the Empire. However, besides a general historical interest or inspirational work, a modern British Fascist could use these ideas for interaction with former colonial powers that still have a heavy British presence. There isn't much to add that I didn't already say in >>2500, so this will be short.

Mosley's political journey would most likely be familiar to the typical modern Fascist. Unsatisfied with the incompetence and inaction of the Conservative and Labour parties, he had to look elsewhere for a solution, finding his answers in Fascism. He chose to be open about his Fascist ideology to let everyone know exactly where he stood. He believed it was up to him to fight the misrepresentations of Fascism in contemporary propaganda and inform the common man of the method of Fascism as it would operate in Britain. There has always been much debate on the subject of optics, but I tend to agree with Mosley here. Honesty allows one to bypass all the typical accusations that inevitably come when a person begins expressing nationalist beliefs. Instead of being put on the defensive by cries of "Fascist!" we can just respond with "Yes, and?" and continue with the discussion.

The focus of British Fascism was the destruction of Parliamentary gridlock and economic chaos by giving the government the power to act. Mosley proposes a new Parliamentary system which would be elected as a party. If the British people vote for the Fascist party, Parliament would become completely Fascist. The multi-party system which ensured nothing ever got done would be replaced with a Fascist government of action. However, if the people were to vote against the Fascist government, the ministers would be replaced by the monarch with those which he or she believed would have the best interests of the British people in mind. The House of Lords would be replaced by a Corporatist system of industry representatives and the people would vote on an occupational basis. The goal of these Corporate entities would be to remove elements of class war such as strikes and lock-outs while systematically raising wages and increasing the power of production. 

A significant amount of Mosley's Corporatist economic plan focuses on a centrally planned economy. Central planning is a hangup from those who came over to Fascism from Marxist-Socialist politics. The 13th point of the NSDAP was for the nationalization of trusts, but nearly all industries were privatized under the NSDAP and this nationalization instead took the form of the requirement that a party member sit on a company's board. This was in stark contrast to the early central planning ideas proposed by Feder and Goebbels and it was much more effective in the end. Some of us may not like Thomas Sowell for being black or a proponent of free markets, but he effectively illustrates the folly of central planning in his "Basic Economics" with several real world examples.

Throughout Mosley's writing you can feel his love for Britain and the British people. He had a genuine desire to rid Britain of foreign influence and see his nation grow and prosper. I don't think someone deeply familiar with Fascism could gain many insights from these 100 questions and answers, but the these would be useful for introducing people to Fascist ideas, which was this text's goal in the first place. I've seen the same questions and comments online again and again in relation to modern movements, so it seems obvious that every movement should have an easy reference such as this one for commonly asked questions both for the purpose of allowing curious readers to inform themselves and for members of the movement to use as a "cheat sheet" when discussing the movement's views.
Replies: >>3967
Oswald Mosley's "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered" is a read I would have appreciated as much as I have if I had read it a year ago. As we've moved through philosophical and theoretical works, the National Socialist worldview, I hope, has crystalized (in the context of this thread). Now that we have a strong ideological foundation, I feel like texts that cover the practical application of NS ideas are much more relevant. Mosley was able provide informed commentary on the state of British policy in relation to potential Fascist policy, as well as a much more palatable introduction to Fascism for the uninitiated than Feder's work. 

Mosley brings up a good point in point 66 when he says that a B.U.F. government would combat "ribbon development". Ribbon development, which finds its modern counterparts in phenomena like the subdividing of larger properties, unintuitive road design, and chain commercial strips, led to the degradation of countryside views across England in much the same way as the previously mentioned building habits have lead to the degradation of modern day North American and, to a lesser extent, European countrysides. In losing the beauty and continuity of a roadside view, a people loses pride in their nation as well. Who could look at a modern subdivision and think that it has any connection to the organically settles farms, towns, and cities that came before it? Our countrysides are in just as much need of just as much improvement as our cities in this regard.

Points 68 and 69 covers the related topic of "Chain Stores". Mosley says that there is room in a Fascist Britain for the small-town shopkeeper and for wholesale retailers, who both provide different but equally productive services, but not for jew-influenced chain stores. The jew owned chain will inevitably snuff out British business, because it seeks to permanently extract wealth out of the British economy and control it rather than coexist for the benefit of the Briton. British owned chains are expectable, however, as long as they do not impede the operation of the first two categories of retailers. This seems sensible to me. Some white men who start small business with naturally strive to grow their business, and these businesses will inevitably involve into store chains. This type of innovation, assuming most growth in a white nation would be driven by innovation or improvement, is healthy and organic, and should be encouraged. Instead, as both Mosley and Feder have said, the focus of a Fascist government should be on keeping these business from acting as trusts or acting against the nation's interest. I'd imagine that a truly healthy economy would mirror a healthy ecosystem, with each element fighting to come out on top yet never reaching total dominance over the others- a noble struggling, if you will. 

Many of the points about the elimination of British reliance on importation (42, 43, 51-55) and direct quotes like "Real freedom is economic freedom" illustrate how vital Mosley thought economic independence was for a Fascist movement and, subsequently, a nation to function. This ties directly into a point I made during our discussion of "The Programme of the NSDAP". No movement can home to gain the loyalty of the general populace unless it can offer a standard of living that outweighs that of the current regime. In Mosley and Hitler's time, that could be achieved through popular election, but in the present day that doesn't seem like an option. I'm sure its already been said enough, but it is definitely an issue that more people in the movement need to be aware of. If you want to win over normal people, you have to be able to afford them a somewhat normal life, and there is no easy way out of this. 

>he effectively illustrates the folly of central planning in his "Basic Economics" with several real world examples
White men specifically definitely require some sort of individualist incentivization to want to participate in the economy, even if they act altruistically in other parts of their lives. It means something to be self-made, and it means more to give if what you are giving is yours. With the central planning, I think of the problems Jamestown experienced in its first few years of development. It was initially run like a commune with little success, but the colonists became much more invested with farming and trading ventures were privatized.
Replies: >>3970
>I feel like texts that cover the practical application of NS ideas are much more relevant. 
I agree wholeheartedly. While the historical and theoretical texts still have value to us, we should be looking ahead to how these ideas can be used in our own nations today. I particularly liked your take on the 25 points to provide not only a practical view of the points, but a realistic view of how they could be realized in an interim period between gaining power and now. It's easy to talk about how things SHOULD be once we have power, but it's much more complicated to put our worldview into practice in the current reality we live in. 

>chain stores
Mosley's views echo Hitler's in chapter 5 of Mein Kampf. As you said, organic competition between businesses owned by the Volk are healthy and good. This ties into the overall economic question, as well, and Mosley was right to place heavy emphasis on this question. I'm more partial to List's ideas of a relatively free domestic market with a protective foreign market to encourage productive power and manufacturing in the homeland. To a White man, productive power is a source of pride not just in himself, but in the nation as a whole. We can even look at historical examples such as the idea of "buying American" to illustrate this idea.
[Hide] (24.8KB, 333x500) Reverse
Our next book is:

The Creature From Jekyll Island
>Written by George Edward Griffin

We're kind of taking a risk with this one, since I'm not sure how well this book will explain the American financial system, but I'm hoping that, through understanding a fiat economy, we can better understand where fascist economists were coming from. We'll only be covering the first three chapters as of now, considering that they contain most of the information relevant to our discussion. We can always discuss the last three if they end up seeming promising. 

Discussion of chapters 1-3 begins on 6/3
Replies: >>3972
>Creature from Jekyll Island PDF
George Edward Griffin's "The Creature From Jekyll Island" shows how banks have not only set up a cartel to operate at the expense of the American people in the form of the Federal Reserve, but financiers have been up to these tricks for hundreds of years around the Western world. In general, the actions of the Rothschilds, Churchill and his jewish handlers, Woodrow Wilson, the truth about the sinking of the Lusitania, and the funding of Bolshevism around the world by American jews like Jacob Schiff is going to be known by any serious person in our movement. However, Griffin backs these up with well researched primary sources including names and dates. When looking up this book, it was described as a book of "conspiracy theories," but nearly everything I followed up on checked out. There were only minor exceptions such as the fact that John Maynard Keynes was not actually part of the Fabian Society, but this is a benign mistake as his ideas and goals were similar to theirs. We can take on Griffin's ideas from a few angles. Would a free market fix central banking? What about nationalization? How could a labor backed currency give us an advantage over fiat? What about the gold standard? 

The purpose of the Jekyll Island trip was to establish a banking cartel that would stifle competition and ruin small firms competing with large banks. These big banks were never really in competition, but needed to prevent undercutting on interest rates by smaller banks. Since these banks were not truly in competition, a cartel was actually feasible unlike a typical corporate cartel where one party inevitably betrays the others to get ahead, causing the cartel to fall apart relatively quickly. The Federal Reserve concept was then taken to the international stage in 1944 with the creation of the IMF and World Bank. These banks operate independently of the interests of their host nations, as seen with American banks loaning to the Soviets, for the purpose of controlling the leaders of less developed nations. Of course, this idea was not new to world history. The Rothschilds were known for funding wars, subverting nations, and profiting from both sides well before these events took place. The United States itself had its own experiments with central banking which also used the "Rothschild formula" before the Federal Reserve took hold.

Griffin blames the (intentional) economic failures of central banking on government intervention and maintains that a free market, and therefore free competition between the banks, would fix them. However, the free market is what allowed a cartel of big banks to form in the first place. An incompetent Congress, funded through donations by the very banks they were passing laws on and working against the will of the American people, only made things worse, but they could have easily broken up this trust if they were made up of nationally minded members of the Volk. Yet the Federal Reserve remains a private institution and has taken over the roles that were originally intended for Congress as they were laid out in the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution.

The gold standard has its advantages because it is familiar and useful for international trade. However, familiar doesn't always mean better. The first central bank of the United States, the Bank of North America, copied the same fractional reserve banking practices as the Bank of England with predictably disastrous results. Fascists will find themselves in the same position as the founders, making the same kind of decision. Do we stick to what we know or tear everything down and attempt to build it anew? The founders chose the former and I can't really blame them. None of them were economists or financiers and neither am I, so I can understand why they chose this path. Griffin describes prosperous times that were brought about through responsible banking practices, but these periods never lasted long because the free market left itself open to subversion. I think it's possible to fix our existing banking institutions through nationalization and regulation, with driving out corruption as the most important point. Back to currency standards, a labor backed currency protects the system from bank runs and bailouts. Inflation due to the Federal Reserve printing money to cover IOUs and unjust taxation would not be a concern with a labor backed currency, unlike with fiat or the gold standard. Labor is clearly superior for domestic use, but it would be more difficult to become recognized internationally as opposed to gold. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and I think the choice of which one to use is ultimately dependent on the nation in question and its needs. For example, I'd expect America to move towards the gold standard because "American labor" isn't really worth anything until outsourcing is ended and manufacturing returns to the US, which would probably take some number of years even under dedicated Fascist leadership. The only absolute is the need to avoid fiat currency as it inevitably leads to economic hardship and disunity. After all, there's a reason fiat currency was portrayed as something inspired by the devil himself in Faust.

Surprisingly, Griffin defends debt based spending so long as it isn't based on fraud (creating money out of debt). He believes that passing our debts off to our prosperity is acceptable because that money would be used to build the system they take part in. I could see an argument for deficit spending in some rare cases, such as rearmament, restoring manufacturing, expansion, etc., but this should be rare and have a clear and attainable plan for returning that money to the nation. Making a habit of deficit spending creates a cascading effect in which the debt is continually expanded and passed down to the next generation. We should give future generations room to grow, not cripple them with a bankrupt nation.

Of course, I expect one criticism to be that Griffin doesn't mention the overwhelming involvement by jews in these banking schemes. Sure, he mentions in passing that the Rothschilds, Jacob Schiff, and Harry Dexter White were jews, but there's no focus on their disproportionate involvement. Of course, one should not expect a focus on the JQ from a work like this. In fact, Griffin focuses on a lot of non-jews throughout the book. Out of the 7 bankers who attended the infamous Jekyll Island trip, only Paul Warburg was a jew. Nelson Aldrich in particular seemed to be of good Aryan stock. It's a good reminder that greed can overcome anyone and we must build a system that protects against this as much as possible. Instilling the Volk with a National Socialist worldview is good and necessary, but, as they say, locks are there to keep honest people honest. Of course, the existence of our own scoundrels does not forgive jewish involvement in subverting the nation. They have to go.

I have enjoyed this read, but I don't think the final three sections will give us much to talk about. I have read ahead a bit and finished section IV and most of what I wrote down in my notes is already covered in this post. I plan to finish on my own time, but I think /fbc/ can move on.
Replies: >>4084
"The Creature from Jekyll Island" is a useful crash course in the inner workings of Central Banking and international finance, even if George Edward Griffin leaves a lot to be desired with his understanding of Jewish influence and non-white psychology. I, as I'm sure many other of our peers do, have an almost embarrassingly light grasp on economics, so it has been helpful to have the smaller mechanisms of a fiat run economy explained to me along with the broader contexts that surrounds these mechanisms. I would say that it fulfilled the purpose for which it was chosen as a reading. 

Griffin's explanation of the failures of fiat currency illustrates one of our most basic moral principles: nothing comes from nothing, or nothing good can be won without honest struggle. Starting from Griffin's example of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, we see a pattern of weak willed men pushing off their debt. The creation of receipt money with no real intention of making good on those receipts leads to the issuing of more receipt money. This excess of receipt currency means that the receipts cannot reasonably be paid in full, which devolves the currency into a fractional state. Further decay of the currency from fractional money to fiat money is then made inevitable. I can't help but notice that this is the same sort of slow degeneration seen when non-whites are allowed to enter white society in any capacity. In both situations, a white man or men ignore their moral duty and their nations suffer for it. In any aspect of society, prosperity depends on the ability of our men to act as men and take personal responsibility for what is going on around them.

Unlike his explanation of the failure of non-commodity money run economies, Griffin's explanations of the failures of third world economies to prosper under loan programs leaves a lot to be desired. Griffin highlights International Monetary Fund loans as the primary cause of disfunction in the third world, since these loans accustom the nations receiving them to "socialism". He argues that this dependency on foreign aid leads to counties that cannot support themselves at the cost of the tax dollars of white developed nations. While he is right about the tax burden falling on white nations, he is wrong about the reason third world nations become a loan void. Most third-worlders, who are incapable of creating a society parallel to a white nation, do not understand loans as anything other than free money. Griffin misses the influence of Jews in the central banking cartel the same way, failing to realize that most jews are incapable of understanding a nation as anything other than a bank account to bleed dry.

Despite the libertarian lean of most of the book, this was an immensely helpful read. I wish I was more comfortable speaking about the hard-economic aspects of this book, but I don't feel like I'm qualified yet.

>Labor is clearly superior for domestic use, but it would be more difficult to become recognized internationally as opposed to gold
I find it funny that Griffin takes a jab at Hitler for dealing mostly in gold when engaging in international trade when the very same banking cartel he is writing about was the reason he was forced to do so. In regards to the gold standard specifically, though, I agree that it would be fine in the interim period between fiat and labor based currency, but I can't see it working effectively in the future. Asteroid mining will almost certainly play a part in the precious metal industry in the future, and unless it is controlled like the diamond industry, gold might not have the scarcity needed be used as a standard. Of course, this may never happen, but the point still stands that no physical commodity holds intrinsic value. The only way to create a sound economy is through sound printing practices and through the the backing of a currency with, like you said, labor.
[Hide] (29KB, 300x456) Reverse
Our next book is: 

Bitter Harvest: The Great Betrayal
>Written by Ian Smith

I'm hoping that this reading will give us some perspective on the realpolitik of maintaining a white majority state despite opposition.

Discussion begins on 6/21
Replies: >>4088
>Bitter Harvest PDF
Unfortunately, I will not be able to participate in our readings for the next couple months due to changes in life and work. I would hate to see the best thread on this board die, so I encourage OP to continue our search for knowledge and I encourage any lurkers to join in, of course. I will still be lurking around and if OP happens to choose a book I've already read and taken notes on, I'll put together a quick post on it, but I will otherwise be absent until at least /fbc/'s 2 year mark. I realize this thread doesn't revolve around me and I wouldn't normally blogpost here, but as one of our two regular contributors I felt like I had to say something.
Replies: >>4311
Ian Smith's "Bitter Harvest: The Great Betrayal" is an invaluable reiteration of a truth we have come to know well in /fbc/: No society, no matter how noble its goals, can survive multiculturalism. Ian Smith, former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, was by all measure a great person. He served his country in WW2, his brothers in arms and fellows in college, his family and wife on his farm, and his people as Prime Minister. At every step of his life, he was a man of action who put the wellbeing and self-determination of his people above himself. Unfortunately, even a man of his caliber was unable to stand up to the combined forces of world jewry, british self-flagellation, and entropy, and I think its worth understanding why.

The killing blow was really dealt before Rhodesia's independence. Smith gives a figure of blacks outnumbering White Rhodesians "20 to 1", largely as a result of modern medicine and agriculture offsetting the effects of infant mortality, disease, and famine without mitigating the high birth rates that came along with it. If the ratio had stayed lower, things might have faired differently, but Rhodesians would end up feeling the pressure of this outnumbering throughout the Independence Crisis as well as the Bush War. Emigration, which was many White Rhodesians' reactions to racial pressure, was primary influenced by the fear White Rhodesians faced over what would happen to them post-economic-or-political-collapse. Political or economic collapse would mean facing violence from the tribesmen in the city or the liberation army. No country can expect its citizens to remain confident in its future when there is a constant, looming, existential threat to their nation's security built into its borders. The population issue is reflected in the constitution of Rhodesia as well. The "B roll" seats in parliament meant that there would always be competing interests, blacks and whites, humanists and realists, leading the country in opposite directions. 

A second weakness was Smith and the Rhodesian Front's trust in the British Empire and the world at large to act justly. Much of Smith's cabinet, as well as himself, were WW2 combat veterans, and Smith spends much of the book comparing National Socialist Germany to communist dictatorships and third world military states. I find Smith's loyalty to the British ideals he fought for admirable, and I think it is proof of him being a genuine actor. This nobleness of character, though, turned out to hurt him rather than harm him. Smith is unable to throw the big lie fed to him during the war. I think this harmed his ability to accurately assess the motives and maliciousness of Rhodesia's enemies, and if he had understood the full scope of the hatred arrayed at him, he might have been able to make better decisions sooner. Still, we can't blame him for most of this. How could we ask someone to recognize the most heroic moments of their life as a lie, or to understand a hatred completely foreign to him? We have the benefit of hindsight, and we are far enough from WW2 that we can view it more objectively. 

What can we take away from this information? Any attempt to establish a White nation must be wholly White from conception, and must understand the realities of the threats it faces. I would also add that it has been made clear that any attempt to make a white nation post-NS Germany through traditional, legislative means has been shown to be impossible. Rhodesia received help in the form of loans, soldiers, and supplies from only two countries, South Africa and Portugal, and Portugal support gave out before the end of the Bush War. No one will help us in any meaningful way besides the everyday white man, and completely centralized organization is suicide. The only way to proceed in in an entirely new manner, and to proceed, we need more men like Ian Smith- well spoken, self-assured, fit, moral men. We should take the positive examples of Ian Smith's life as an example to live by. 

"Bitter Harvest" would be a great entry point for most mainline conservates into white nationalist thought. Ian Smith is a very easy person to respect.

You've been indispensable with your help and discussion in the thread, I really can't thank you enough. I'm planning on keeping the thread going, albeit posting at a slower pace to allocate time to a side project. Well wishes for however long you spend away from the board, good luck with your IRL matters, and thanks for the courtesy of the heads up.
[Hide] (20.8KB, 328x500) Reverse
The next book is:

The Crisis Of The Modern World
>Written By Rene Guenon

I think it's time /fbc/ took on the traditionalist/spiritualist right, and Guenon seems like a good place to start. 

Discussion begins on 7/8
Replies: >>4318
>Crisis Of The Modern World PDF
Rene Guenon sees world history as a cyclical procession of ages that bottom out with the Kali Yuga, a view he borrows from Vedic philosophy. He identifies the current age as the Kali Yuga, the reason for this being that we have moved away from "pure-intellect", or a higher, spiritual view of the world and toward a material understanding of the world nearly as much as possible. Fixed principles, informed by an "unmoved mover" or unifying, top-down understanding of the world, inform thought and intellect, which then make action possible. Guenon's view of the relationship between thought and action clash with the fascist view, since fascists see thought and action as equally important. Action allows for future thought, and thought allows for action to be worthwhile. 

Guenon moves on to delineate between the East, societies of Tradition, and the West, societies of "progress". The East is made up by societies that are in tune with Tradition, which is again informed by the fixed principles of the universe. The West are societies that, influenced by the enlightenment, have forsaken Tradition in favour of materialism and individualism. Eastern societies have preserved the "sacred" sciences, sciences that are guided by traditional, wholistic principles, in some form; western societies value only the "profane" sciences, which observe only the material with no concern for its connection with the spiritual. He says that, although there is some value in the modern sciences, they've come at to great a cost to our principles and understanding of the world to be worth preserving. Guenon is right in the fact that all races and cultures, in their base form, derive their culture from their biology, which was created through a grander divine principle, but, beyond that, I can't justify his fetishizations of the East. The "sacred" sciences he values, like astrology and alchemy, have been warped not by time, but by racial degradation. Modern astrology and tantric alchemy are based in ancient Nordic knowledge, but are now non-white in nature. I concede that this disagreement is mostly semantic, but the East is "Eastern" by no decision of there own, but a biological one. Most non-whites will inevitably return to their base culture, as has just been explained. Its really only Nordic whites who have to battle between the Faustian urge to change and keeping healthy respect for their traditions.

To talk further on the point of "profane science", I think that Guenon judges it unfairly. The true study of physics not only studies the material world, but reveals patterns that open a person's eyes to a unity and logic in the design of the universe. Plato understood this, and many early 20th century physicists understood this as well. The invention of modern machinery by whites is a further extension of this, since the harmony and efficiency of human inventions reflects the functioning of our universe on a certain level. In its truest from, invention and innovation (extensions of the Faustian spirit), are art, and a mediation on the universe. Things invented with good intent by good white people should then be able to be used with good intent in harmony with the Nordic character, since they emerged from it. Much like Guenon's thoughts on thought and action, he fails to recognize that modern technology and timeless principles can and should be used together. 

Guenon closes "Crisis" with a discussion on the virulency of Western civilization. He says that it alone tries to impress itself onto other peoples, which I agree with. This, though, also reveals his contradictory relationship with Christianity. He makes his association with Judaic though pretty clear with repeated, charitable reverences to verse. Guenon says that proselytizing is a unique trait of "Western" thought, but proselytizing is an almost  uniquely Mosaic trait. This makes Guenon's evaluation of Christianity as "eastern" because it comes from a root of principles as the more strange. He also champions the Catholic church as a institution capable of preserving and developing "Tradition", but it should be obvious to most that the Catholic church, even if it is causally related to pagan thought, has not preserved Nordic thought in any useful concentration. My guess is that this is just another case of a traditionalist not being willing to start from scratch, not that I can't empathize. Still, what's dead is dead, and his strange syncretic vision of the church (he describes it as a basis to work toward "unity") isn't useful. 

A big issue I have with Guenon, as well as other side-liners like him, is that they are all too willing to stand by and wait until the West collapses and the majority of white civilization along with it. Rebirth in some capacity is necessary, but very few of these writers seem to internalize what passive western collapse really means: millions of good white people displaced, raped, and killed by the foot soldiers of ZOG. A prevailing attitude of a lot of the modern right, fascist adjacent, and fascists follows the same lines. They believe if they prep and save, they can epic zombie apocalypse the heck out of an economic depression and rampant brown crime. This type of thinking is passive and selfish in a way that isn't helpful to the Nordic cause. Who says there has to be a total collapse? Couldn't we work around the system to create sustainable infrastructure of out own? There is too much to be lost in waiting for the worst, and that's if the worst ever even comes, rather than a slow descent into a beige surveillance state hell. The only way to move foreword is to take total initiative, to be men of action.

Other problems in "Crisis" arise from Guenon getting too attached to his terminology. A good 20 pages of the book are taken up by Guenon rebutting a "M. Henri Massis" over his concern for Eastern ideas infiltrating the west, not realizing that Massis isn't using the terms "East" and "West" in Guenon's sense, but in a political sense. The Russian communist is "Eastern" because his political organization and culture are foreign to the Nordic man, not because a communist state is his ancestral organization. Why keep this confusing terminology when it stifles conversation? I would say hubris and a purely academic-type love of theory, but maybe I'm wrong. 

Guenon's general takeaways about the state of the world and the origin of the modern moral peril are sound, but they've been applied much too rigidly to be of much value and lack any sort of racial consciousness beyond the concern for Asiatics and Africans. He comes off very similar to De Benoist in that regard. Its a short read. I would recommend, but not highly.
[New Reply]
[Hide] (29.2KB, 181x278) Reverse
Our next book is:

Revolt Against The Modern World
>Written By Julius Evola

Discussion begins on 8/8
Replies: >>4432
>Revolt Against The Modern World PDF
[New Reply]
253 replies | 110 files | 182 UIDs
Show Post Actions



Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.4.1