Martin Heidegger
1,408 words
Martin Heidegger is one of the giants of twentieth-century philosophy, both in terms of the depth and originality of his ideas and the breadth of his influence in philosophy, theology, the human sciences, and culture in general.
Heidegger was born on September 26, 1889, in the town of Meßkirch in the district of Sigmaringen in Baden-Württemberg, Germany. He died on May 26, 1976 in Freiburg and was buried in Meßkirch.
Heidegger was from a lower-class Catholic family. His family was too poor to send him to university, so he enrolled in a Jesuit seminary. But Heidegger was soon rejected by the Jesuits due to a heart condition. He then studied theology at the University of Freiburg from 1909–1911, after which time he switched his focus to philosophy. Eventually Heidegger broke entirely with Christianity.
In 1914 Heidegger defended his doctoral dissertation. In 1916, he defended his habilitation dissertation, which entitled him to teach in a German university. During the First World War, Heidegger was spared front duty because of his heart condition.
From 1919 to 1923, Heidegger was the salaried research assistant of Edmund Husserl at the University of Freiburg. Husserl, who was a Jewish convert to Lutheranism, was the founder of the phenomenological movement in German philosophy, and Heidegger was to become his most illustrious student.
In 1923, Heidegger was appointed assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Marburg. There his intense and penetrating engagement with the history of philosophy quickly became known throughout Europe, and students flocked to his lectures, including Hans-Georg Gadamer, who became Heidegger’s most eminent student, as well as such Jewish thinkers as Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, and Hans Jonas. In 1927, Heidegger published his magnum opus, Being and Time
Heidegger was elected rector of the University of Freiburg on April 21, 1933. Heidegger joined the ruling National Socialist German Workers Party on May 1, 1933. In his inaugural address as rector on May 27, 1933, and in political speeches and articles from the same period, he expressed his support for the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler. Heidegger resigned as rector in April 1934, but he remained a member of the NSDAP until 1945. After the Second World War, the French occupation authorities banned Heidegger from teaching. In 1949, he was officially “de-Nazified” without penalty. He began teaching again in the 1950–51 academic year. He continued to teach until 1967.
A whole academic industry has grown up around the question of Heidegger and National Socialism. It truly is an embarrassment to the post-WW II intellectual consensus that arguably the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century was a National Socialist. But the truth is that Heidegger was never a particularly good National Socialist.
Yes, Heidegger belonged intellectually to the “Conservative Revolutionary” milieu. Yes, he thought that the NSDAP was the best political option available for Germany. But Heidegger’s view of the meaning of National Socialism was rather unorthodox.
Heidegger viewed the National Socialist revolution as the self-assertion of a historically-defined people, the Germans, who wished to regain control of their destiny from an emerging global-technological-materialistic system represented by both Soviet communism and Anglo-Saxon capitalism. This revolt against leveling, homogenizing globalism was, in Heidegger’s words, “the inner truth and greatness” of National Socialism. From this point of view, the NSDAP’s biological racism and anti-Semitism seemed to be not only philosophically naive and superficial but also political distractions.
Heidegger knew that Jews were not Germans, and that Jews were major promoters of the system he rejected. He was glad to see their power broken, but he also had cordial relationships with many Jewish students, including extramarital affairs with Hannah Arendt and Elisabeth Blochmann (who was half-Jewish).
In the end, Heidegger believed that the Third Reich failed to free itself and Europe from the pincers of Soviet and Anglo-Saxon materialism. The necessities of re-armament and war forced a rapprochement with big business and heavy industry, thus Germany fell into the trammels of global technological materialism even as she tried to resist it.
Heidegger was not, however, a Luddite. He was not opposed to technology per se, but to what he called the “essence” of technology, which is not technology itself, but a way of seeing ourselves and the world: the world as a stockpile of resources available for human use, a world in which there are no limits, in principle, to human knowledge or power. This worldview is incompatible with any sort of mystery, including the mystery of our origins or destiny. It is a denial of human differentiation — the differentiation that comes from multiple roots and multiple destinies.
Yet, as Heidegger slyly pointed out, the very idea we can understand and control everything is not something we can understand or control. We don’t understand why we think we can understand everything. And we are literally enthralled by the idea that we can control everything. But once we recognize this, the spell is broken; we are free to return to who we always-already are and destined to be.
But on Heidegger’s own terms, it is still possible to combine a technological civilization with an archaic value system, to reject the essence of technology and affirm rootedness and differentiation. This is what Guillaume Faye calls “archeofuturism.”
Ultimately, Heidegger’s philosophy — particularly his account of human being in time, his fundamental ontology, his account of the history of the West, and his critique of modernity and technology — is of greater significance to the project of the North American New Right than his connection with National Socialism. It is a measure of the embryonic nature of our movement that we just beginning to deal with his work. Heidegger is widely cited in our pages. But so far, we have published only the following pieces related to Heidegger:
There is also some discussion of Heidegger in Trevor Lynch’s review essay on Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight.
Finally, our most recent book, Collin Cleary’s Summoning the Gods, is deeply influenced by Heidegger.
When we commemorate Heidegger’s birthday again next year, I hope this list will have grown considerably.
Heidegger is a notoriously difficult stylist. But he was a brilliant lecturer, and his lecture courses are far more accessible than the works he prepared for publication.
There are two useful anthologies of Heidegger’s basic writings: Basic Writings
Eventually, every reader of Heidegger will have to conquer Being and Time, but a useful preparation for reading Being and Time is the contemporary lecture course History of the Concept of Time: Prolegomena
Other essential lecture courses are Introduction to Metaphysics
There is an immense secondary literature on Heidegger, but most of it is no more accessible than Heidegger himself. The best biography is Rüdiger Safranski, Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil. Another highly interesting biographical work is Heinrich Wiegand Petzet, Encounters and Dialogues with Martin Heidegger, 1929–1976, which gives a vivid sense of the highly cultivated people in Heidegger’s generally right-wing and National Socialist milieu.
As for Heidegger’s philosophy, Richard Polt’s Heidegger: An Introduction
Michael Zimmerman’s Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity: Technology, Politics, and Art is one of the best books ever written about Heidegger. It is clearly written and thrilling to read. It deals with Heidegger’s thought in the context of the Conservative Revolution, extensively discusses his relationship to Ernst Jünger, deals with Heidegger’s relationship with National Socialism, and situates it all in the context of the development of his fundamental ontology.
Julian Young is another very lucid expositor of Heidegger. He is the author of three books: Heidegger’s Later Philosophy
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
27 comments
There are two significant omissions in this otherwise excellent piece. First, you neglected to mention your own recent publication of Collin Cleary’s SUMMONING THE GODS. Cleary’s essays are heavily influenced by Heidegger. Second the best book on Heidegger I have ever read is Michael Zimmerman’s HEIDEGGER’S CONFRONTATION WITH MODERNITY. This work not only gives one an excellent overview of Heidegger’s thought, it explains his engagement with National Socialism probably better than any other book.
Good points. I have rectified the omissions.
Three additions:
There are two translations of Heidegger’s Introduction to Metaphysics
, a key introductory work — which is probably the best place to take the plunge. Young readers, though, should avoid the Mannheim translation and get the latest one by Fried and Polt (2000).
As to the secondary literature on MH, one of my favorites, better than Zimmerman, IMHO, is Charles Bambach, Heidegger’s Roots: Nietzsche, National Socialism, and the Greeks
(Cornell, 2003).
Readers of this site might also be interested in my “The Primordial and the Perennial: Tradition in the Thought of Martin Heidegger and Julius Evola,” TYR 3 (2007).
Now, after actually reading the piece: Very Nice!
A few things in it I see differently — especially regarding Catholicism (whose Gothic spirit so much infuses my own ‘style’, positively and negatively). And many things in it made those ‘unconcealing’ connections I always hope to find in thought.
An interesting association. I’m suddenly (unknowingly?) thinking of that dance AH once wrote about: one starts it, two makes it a tendency, another makes it possibly a movement — in our case, a movement to redefine the thought opposing the System — this ethnocidal instrument of the inner enemy.
Our Metpol, I’m convinced, can out-dance not just the collapsing System, but the scientific racists and anti-Semites whose narrow views are holding us back — from what needs to be known and, more important, from stRiki-Eiking roots in the conscious elements of our people. The contest, anyway, is a shoo-in: like one on the JQ between the left-footed Julius Streicher and the master dancers W. Sombart and J. Evola, even O. Weininger and Finkelstein.
Heidegger is primary because he is the philosopher of the last half-millennium — the primary philosophical critic of modernity. I once thought he might be a way to break off a part of the intelligentsia — at least those sympathetic to Heidegger — but little yet has come of it .
What really still interests me are the great stories that need to be told or re-told of our kind.
When I was entering puberty — already resentfully Irish, Catholic, and working class — I aspired to be a hanging judge — to track down, in the histories I would write, those who had harmed us, trying to make us who we were not — something we knew that couldn’t compare to what we already were — for we were obvious the Homeric nobles, favored by the Olympians, and they but the Low-Church machine builders, who had unleashed the Titans.
My class, ethnic, and religious roots still affect me — they always will. But today, my foremost concern is to exalt MY AMERICA against the blood-sucking aliens presenting destroying her European essence — my America that was seeded by the Cavalier South and the Celtic Borderland, by Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, by Jesse James and Denis Kearny, Father Coughlin and Francis Parker Yockey — an admittedly very Irish/ John-Ford like America — but nevertheless the America I know to counter the monstrosity that is killing us.
THEIR PURPOSE IS YOUR GENOCIDE. WHAT’S YOURS?
Helvena:
I would not presume to speak for Michael O’Meara.
I can offer a short discussion of the difference between the “scientific racists and anti-Semites,” and those who support a metapolitical perspective. Better, I can offer it from a Northwest Republican perspective – I hope, and if Harold Covington does not object too much.
The best that can be said for the “scientific racists and anti-Semites” is this: they provide intellectual support and analyses to help our Mind accept what our senses are telling us, as a counterweight to the Propasphere – the 24 hour a day relentless indoctrination into what currently is defined as Cultural Marxism. AmRen and VNN offer information that helps, but must be seen as means to an end. For most of the failures who self-identify as White Nationalists, this is all they need – something to support their nihilistic personae, which have already accepted The Enemy’s Words and Definitions. They have already surrendered, and are reactionary in practice, trying to find some small measure of support for their acceptance of the learned helplessness that is the result of their constant demoralization.
They hold on to that one piece of the puzzle with all of their might, and ignore the rest of the puzzle, much less where the puzzle came from, and much less indeed, as to what they can Do About It.
I see the American Cultural Moment as one brief expansion of Europe that has been captured at the Cultural level, and this will eventually manifest at the Political and Economic levels. If you haven’t noticed, all are failing, and people are going to great lengths to avoid facing the implications of the Decline, and Fall, of the American Empire.
What will – MUST – replace them is a new social order, a new nation, based on a Positive Theory of Race. This requires action – Initiative, and lots of it. As the old order faileth, what will replaced it? Organically, a new nation, developing organically, reflecting a new outpouring of Western Civilization, offers us infinite possibilities, that too many of us see as insurmountable opportunities.
Again, in summary, the “scientific racists and anti-Semites” want to be better players in a game that they can not win. Look at all of their analyses, and ask The Question Harold Covington asks in all political discussion, “And THEN What?”
Eventually, even if you grant the” scientific racists and anti-Semites” totally validity on all of their issues, then what?
Here’s the mature answer for the Charlie Browns among us:
One, The Owners of this country hate us, hate our Families, hate our Race, and are doing all in their power to destroy us, by literally performing genocide I repeat genocide against us. Their undeclared Race War has been remarkable effective for the last half-century or so, and these intellectually rational statements pale in comparison to ruthless effectiveness of the soft genocide they have been performing against us (YOU!), our Families, our Race.
Two, compared to that, all intellectual analyses fall before the motivating power of the emotional reality of pure hatred. We made the fatal error of being rational with the irrational. You can do the best analysis of The Problem, and it will do you no good whatsoever as they follow you down a dark alley, slash your throat, and, for good measure, put cold steel between your ribs, to make of you an Example.
Practical demoralization in action, that.
Three, “And Then What?”
The Answer is a Northwest Republic, a Racial Homeland for the Racially Conscious Community, where none may make afraid. From there, to The Stars.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
“scientific racists and anti-Semites”
A tiny minority during the struggle over the Second Reconstruction. Would it have been even worse had they been more prominent?
Race matters, Jews matter. They are huge parts of the problem, though not the whole of it. Another part of the problem is our own corruption. A case in point being the conservative movement. You can’t fight a war without naming the enemy, and only a fool or a coward or a traitor leading his side to slaughter would float such a notion.
I think that Jean-Paul Richter once wrote: “Weaklings have to lie.”
Helvena,
Scientific Racists and anti-Semites are the two tendencies that have dominated the racially conscious community for the last couple of decades. Most of the racially conscious sites you read probably fall under these headings. I oppose them because they are purely NEGATIVE expressions of white nationalism — and thus lack any mobilizing potential.
Yes, Organized Jewry is anti-white, and yes, physical and even some behavioral differences are genetically based. How long have we known this and how long has this approach failed to make the slightest dent in the System’s anti-white offensive?. This is because they are both political non-starters. We’ll never build a viable white resistance on the basis of their so-called ‘truths’. We need to think like nationalists — which means history, culture, and above all politics.
A single historian who knows something about our people and what moves them is worth, at this point, a hundred geneticists; one radical white folk singer changes more minds, more profoundly, than a thousand carping Jew-haters.
I don’t understand your reference to ‘homophobes’ and ‘bigots’ — but let me say that any nationalist movement not formally anti-homosexual and pro-Christian hasn’t a chance in hell. I’m also not bothered by the fact that words are ’emotional and malleable’ — for words are words, but deeds are what get things done.
From now on, I am not going to allow comments that contain crude or “un-nuanced” anti-Semitism or crude or “un-nuanced” anti-anti-Semitism. Crude anti-Semitism will be defined as blaming it all on the Jews, or on all the Jews. Basically, crude anti-Semitism lives down to the parodies of anti-Semitism constructed by Jews and philo-Semites to avoid the fact that there REALLY is a Jewish problem. One can construct an anti-Semitism that is not crude. Crude anti-anti-Semitism will be defined is treating all anti-Semitism as if it is crude.
I think that we need to make a distinction between matters of explanation and matters of identity. Scientific racists provide an explanation for something that people can observe with their eyes, if they are open: that the races are biologically different, and that different races living under the same system or in the same living spaces inevitably come into conflict. Anti-Semites provide an explanation for much of the decline of our race, including race-replacement policies and cultural degeneracy. They also correctly point out that the organized Jewish community is the hard core of opposition to any policies that will save our race from extinction.
But as explanations, these are not enough. We also have to explore our own susceptibility to Jewish subversion and racial betrayal, ethnomasochism, xenophilia, etc. The post-1965 flood of non-whites into America would not have happened without Jews. But Jews did not force previous generations to buy blacks or import Chinese coolies. The civil rights movement, affirmative action, and pervasive negrophile propaganda would not have happened without Jews. But Jews did not run the abolitionist movement or cause the Civil War and the emancipation of black slaves. A complete explanation of our racial situation does not exculpate the Jews, but it does indict many white attitudes and institutions. One needs to give biological racism and anti-Semitism places in an overall account of our racial situation, and one needs to keep them in their place, resisting the tendency of some to reduce a complex phenomenon to one simple cause.
But there is another issue here: even a complete explanation of our racial decline is not enough to reverse it. Knowing how we got here is necessary to save us, but it is not sufficient. We also need to have a sense of where we are going, not just what we were made into but also who we wish to become, not just our heritage but also our destiny. Mere backwards-looking preservationism is not enough.
Is there some basic flaw in our make up? Is our heroic, adventurious Nature balanced out by an inner weakness and desire for compromise? An inability to live with conflict and tension? When Christian Europe and Viking Scandanavia were in conflict, the Vikings began to name their sons with Christian names. A cultural capitulation followed by a gradual collapse.
Contrast this with the supple attitudes of so many minorities be they Black, Brown, or East Asian: they are capable of liking Whites, joking with them, even being friends of a kind with them – but never for a moment do they forget who they are and where their allegiance lies. They put our either/or rigidity to shame. Most Whites can’t maintain their feeling of alienation without actual avoidance or overt unpleasantness. Otherwise they’ll go into “buddy” consciousness – the mindless friendship which is driving us to extinction.
I think some of it comes from our excessively extroverted way of life. And again, some of it may be a genetic flaw.
We have no idea if the ‘flaw’, as you call it, is in our organic nature or not.
But we do have a great many ideas about why that flaw came to dominate America.
The key idea: American racialists can’t wrap their mind around the fact that ‘It’s the Culture, Stupid!’.
For their sense of racial supremacy is inevitably a sense of Anglo-Saxon supremacy. Everyone knows it except the Anglo-Americans.
‘We Continentals’ figured that out long ago (even we ‘Continental Irish who have a good deal of Viking blood in us). ‘Les Anglo-Saxons’ are the elect — it’s their way or no way.
It’s just a coincidence that Anglo-American peoples have been the world’s foremost champions of liberal capitalism. And it’s just a coincidence that liberal capitalism happens to favor the non-European skills and values of those who flourish under the reign of quantity.
(And you don’t have to be an Anglo-Saxon to be an Anglo-Saxonist. Think of Manifest Destiny’s John O’Sullivan.
I like Greg Johnson’s distinction here between matters of explanation and matters of identity. I was thinking of this when I recently wrote: “What we need is cultural anti-Semitism — an anti-Semitism as total as Semitism — rather than vulgar anti-Semitism or effete anti-Semitism. This is more a matter of being who we are than of hating the Jews. It is as Indo-Europeans, and not simply as anti-Semites, that we must shake off our Jewish parasites.”
I likewise agree with Michael O’Meara’s view that “We need to think like nationalists — which means history, culture, and above all politics.” What might be loosely called “White nationalism” in America is effectively apolitical. As Francis Parker Yockey diagnosed it: “American nationalism has no connection with a grand tradition of life, thought, and action. It finds itself charged with a politically revolutionary mission, but the American people is not revolutionary. Its reaction to a Cultural disease is in a crude racial form. It faces a mighty political task, but is unconscious of the necessities of power-thinking.”
As I see it, scientific racism and anti-Semitism are not to be rejected, but rather put in their correct place within nationalist thought. They constitute parts of a worldview rather than an entire worldview in themselves. While I think that scientific racists and anti-Semites have their facts right concerning race and the Jews, I also think they aren’t nationalist and aren’t political in a genuine or profound sense. It sometimes seems that they want the system without the non-Whites.
To second WR’s point. The criticism above is not a matter of rejecting or discarding scientific racism and anti-Semitism per se, however limiting, short-sighted, and unpolitical they may be. Rather, it comes from the realization that these two ways of looking at the world are inadequate to white NATIONALISM, that our movement can’t be based on them, and that all effort to do so diverts us from the most fundamental task that every successful struggle needs to undertake in order to liberate the ‘nation’: i.e., the affirmation and assertion of who we are — the affirmation and assertion of our identity as a people. Jesse James and Denis Kearney in this sense speak more profoundly to our ’cause’ than the impressive scholarship of Frank Salter and Kevin MacDonald.
All please pardon my verbosity; there’s one last thing on this subject I think needs saying.
I’ll not explain it — for reasons of time — but the thing that deep down most irritates me about American anti-Semitism and scientific racism is my feeling that it is ultimately based on an academic understanding and middle-class experience of our world.
I’m a bigot, I know; my fascist hands are stained with blood and I am proud of having been a blue-collar Bolshevik.
Bigot that I am, I don’t want to be part of a middle-class, academic movement. I want to be part of a revolutionary nationalist movement that throws off not just the blood-suckers, but the system based on blood sucking.
Imagine: Pickett’s infantry capturing Cemetery Ridge, at the very moment New York’s Irish rise against the oligarchs.
I take it that you would sympathize, as I do, with Maurice Bardèche’s words: “Ni le travail ni la nation ne peuvent triompher sans écraser par la force les intérêts privés qui s’opposeront à leur suprématie. Leur victoire a pour condition un césarisme, qui n’est pas le symbole de la servitude ouvrière, mais, au contraire, le signe de sa puissance.” (Les temps modernes, Paris, Les Sept Couleurs, 1956, p. 208.) As Bardèche previously explained: “Il y a nécessairement du jacobinisme dans tout mouvement national. Les États forts sont comme un grand vent qui fouette le sang du peuple. Ils s’adressent à ce qu’il y a de meilleure en lui, mais aussi ce qu’il y a de plus brutal. Ils s’adressent à ce qu’il y a de physique, à ce qu’il y a d’animal en lui, ou plutôt au bel animal qui est dans chaque peuple, au lion que chaque peuple de race blanche méritait de porter dans ses armoiries, lion capable de courage et de grandeur, mais aussi de férocité.” (Ibid., pp. 59-60.)
WP,
I’ve read a lot of Bardèche, including his big books on Balzac and Céline. Years ago I was ecstatic to discover that Berkeley’s Doe Library, one of the world great research libraries, has a large (though incomplete) collection of his Défense de l’Occident, which includes articles by all the major anti-liberals of the 1950s and ’60s.
You might be curious to learn that the ND — at least judging by the review of his autobiography that appeared in Eléments many years ago — was rather dismissive of his ‘grandpa’s fascism’. If I remember correctly, he was a model of what the ND did not want to be.
Not being a New Rightist myself, I find Bardèche an indispensable source for many things related to the postwar French right. But still I have to acknowledge that he was mainly a ‘literary fascist’ and had an extremely ideal and not completely accurate image of fascism — hence his Qu’est-ce que le Fascisme?.
This of course doesn’t prevent me for honoring his personal integrity, the impressive legacy of his works, and the important role he played in the ’50s and ’60s in keeping anti-liberal ideas in circulation.
Maurice Bardèche is reported to have expressed sympathy for the Nouvelle Droite around the time it generated controversy. Bardèche certainly would have known some of the people active in the Nouvelle Droite.
I’d agree that Bardèche was essentially a literary fascist and that his view of fascism was highly idealistic. Bardèche’s work would not have the charm that it does without these characteristics. Even liberal academics have acknowledged the literary beauty and seductive imagery of Bardèche’s work.
I think that there is a place for “the poetry of promise” (José Antonio Primo de Rivera) and even “beautiful ideas which kill” (F. T. Marinetti).
However, I think that the political fascism of a François Duprat may be more timely and constructive than the literary fascism of a Bardèche. I intend to elaborate upon these things later. It’s regrettable that there aren’t any media in English like those published by Duprat — he published several periodicals simultaneously, including Année zéro, Cahiers européens, and the Revue d’Histoire du Fascisme — dealing with the history, current affairs, and organizational affairs of movements on our side. Such media would be very useful for the political formation of nationalists.
And there’s no army that fights without its generals.
Helvena in blockquote:
I know a little about this issue on several levels. This is a series of rationalizations trying to build support, to make an invasion of Iran seem not just desirable, but necessary, inevitable, and part of God’s Work.
Sarkozy can not control the banlieus, much less Algiers, much less Iran. Don’t worry about that. The British need us for transporation with Afghanistan, and to Tripoli. Don’t worry about them.
Worry that Russia’s geopolitical strategists, who are every bit the equal of ours, and I might say better, see us boxing in Russia at all points, and trying desperately to transform their unique social system -Russian Orthodox at its founding, and very much Russian Orthodox in its soul – sees Iran as our last part of the puzzle to boxing them in. They will not allow this. If that requires a decapitation strike against the mullahs, trust me, THESE are the men to do it. Russia has al;ways considered the Middle East THEIR near abroad, and have military development activities under way in Syria, and that’s for openers.
You watch RT. Great. Watch when Al Grunov has on some of their policy analysts. Better, download what their military analyst Kruschev has to say. Remember, RT transmits in Arabic, and Kruschev himself has Farsi as his second language. I think “Veterans Today” has an interview with him.
Many, many countries now quietly recognize that Russia is the one, I repeat, the ONE nation on Earth that can tell us to go to Hell, and back it up.
Here’s where my patience grows a bit short.
The issues is not “Who controls the US?” There have been several Cultural Moments in the history of the US, reflected in its Constitution, and its currency.
THIS is why Harold Covington is so damn important. He GETS this, he understands this on a profound level.
The issue is, “Who controls YOU?” Who controls the pictures you see, the words you read, the music you hear? Ultimately, YOU Do.
Your Enemies, outside very precisely defined limits, have only the power over you that you allow them. You don’t like “X,” then change it into “Y,”” or see how to make something of it, something much better.
This is how we’ve been Charlie Browned for almost a century.
The anti-Semites became the functional equivalent of Jews, in their gratuitous attacks on Christianity, and their defining their actions and goals solely in materialistic terms. The scientific racists became soft co-conspirators, while offering us nothing better but the ranting and raving of those who have learned helplessness. Indeed, I refer you back to Greg Johnson’s piece on how what has been called “White Nationalism” has attracted the defeated, who manifest their despair in nihilism, and very foolish behavior. They run from Adult responsibilities, quite happy to blamer “the Jews,” “the Coloreds,” “the dot-heads taking their jobs away,” whatever.
We have to Do Better, and it starts, purely on a technical level, on doing what works in the fulfillment of a metapolitical purpose. This is what has worked for the Jews, and it can work for us. My suggestion: instead of merely blaming the Jews, let’s learn from them.
That takes us to the great ideas of VNN/F’s “Hugh,” in his “A World View ” thread, which I will deal with directly. That will help us develop ourselves into the Living Foundations of the New Nation, and new economic and political systems.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
@ VNN/F’s “Hugh,” in his “A World View ”
Link please?
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Helvena:
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify some of my remarks.
One, When I said “we have to emulate the Jews,” what I meant was we have to do what is done to be successful, personally, and Racially.
For example, Jewish families remove all excuses for men not to achieve. Achievement is measured subjectively, and objectively. Look at how well the Jews dominate the professions, not because of their deep networks within those professions, or even controlling gatekeepers. They do it because their sons learned focus, and discipline, pulled by their fathers, and pushed by their mothers.
I attended a commercial real estate settlement some years ago. The Other Side had the best law firm in town, Jews to a man. Our Principal took us aside before the settlement began and said, “Watch and see how the Game is played.” Our lawyers, recommended by the bank financing it, were outpointed on every issue. The Jewish lawyers saw it as tactics, united with strategy. They didn’t just know the law of real property, and financing. They were quoting back our business plan to us. They didn’t just know “what” – they knew “why,” and “how.” I watched in horror as our Principal asked questions, and our lawyers looked questioning. The Jewish lawyers said, “No,” and followed that with a small lecture on WHY “No” was the right answer.
What did our Principal do? He told me to catch their attorneys on the way to the parking lot, and get their business cards. He liked t be on the winning team. Later, he told me, “Look, they are at the top of their professions. yes, you have to pay more, but it is done right the first time.” He also noted their lawyers thought like bankers who knew the law. They never stopped being better lawyers. They had the Greater Context in mind at all times.
I worked with a welding company. The top welder was a Jewish guy. The manager told me he could hire burner welders for a dime a dozen, right out of the prison vocational programs. THIS guy was aerospace certified. He was the kind of guy they called to weld, say, Space Shuttles and stuff like that. He was the first guy I met who could weld PVC and have it hold under pressure. He never stopped being a better welder. He had the Greater Context in mind at all times.
Yet, WE used to do all of this, and more. We also shifted from a Culture of Achievement, multiplied like compound interest over centuries, to a Culture of Hedonism, dividing by two until one remains – one, alone, unarmed, unskilled, and a Child in so many ways. A happy Child, though. For now. Turning that around will be impossible, until the prairie fire of bitter failure has burned our failures out, replacing the seeds that remain with new opportunities.
Two, when I quote Jim Giles, I do so in context. Your question carries the seed of its answer.
Chechar in blockquote:
For more than half a century, we have had too many damn fools advocate the use of force, the direct use of force, in an aggressive manner against the most powerful military and intelligence systems in the history of the world.
Those that were not agents provocateurs, and many were, whether they realized it or not, did so from a mistaken belief that the use of one Form of power would compensate for their lack of effectiveness in all areas of their life. The exceptions of the misguided and misled Robert Mathews and David Lane are just that – exceptions.
That’s why I cite VNN/F’s “Hugh” so often. We’ve been like dogs chasing a car; we wouldn’t know what to do with it if we caught it. We mustn’t be like the dog, easily distracted, and easily neutralized. We must be like the wolves, working together intelligently to be Better than we were, both personally, and in a group working together to fulfill a common purpose. We must become Better – better welders, better teachers, better students, better lawyers, better husbands and better wives.
Then we won’t fall into the Enemy’s trap of chasing a car; we will buy the damn thing, and the car companies, as well.
All of that can be done in the same manner the Jews took over America without firing a shot, in less than a century, in an “apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
This is why I recommend one and all understand their local and State laws regarding the use of force continuum, realizing that you might be in the right morally – in a purely self-defense situation – but in the wrong, “legally,” as the District Attorney, and System Press, might see it. (I also recommend one and all get a copy of the mp3 “Let’s Get Small,” from Edgar Steele’s website.)
How do we get to be the District Attorney? The same way he or she did: by acting in an “apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
Now, that last paragraph made a little bit too much sense for the Charlie Browns among us. I understand their head is hurting, and they need to watch some television, and chill out.
For the rest of us, it really is simple.
We must never stop being better.
We must hold the Greater Context in mind at all times.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
@ “The Jews are gypsies with money and that is all they are.”
Nope! If I learnt something from IQ studies it’s that die Juden are at the top of the scale among Caucasoids and the Gypsies at the bottom. Most European whites are at the middle. If Jews had a lower IQ than whites the Jewish Problem would’ve never become a problem in the first place.
THEIR PURPOSE IS GENOCIDE. YOURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Links not working.
vnnforum.com
Vanguard News Network Forum – News & Discussion – General Discussion
“A World View” is close to the top in the general discussion section.
Remember the famous, painfully gained advice of Jim Giles:
“Everything we want to do, we CAN do, in an apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.”
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Thanks for the link. It’s a huge thread but it’s now bookmarked.
I am always curious why do you quote Giles’ “apple pie” phrase. Isn’t it the opposite of the “spooky” characters we will surely encounter when Covington’s novels become inspirational stuff in a dollar-crashed America? I’ve read the quintet and the character I identify with is the most austere Oscar, who would be considered spooky according to Giles’ classification, right? Or do you expect apple pie characters during a bloody revolution?
We need a culture that expresses living truths rather than dead truths or living errors.
It is the ability of ideas to influence thought and inspire action that determines whether they are alive or dead.
Scientific racism is, in cultural and political terms, a dead truth. Michael O’Meara might argue that this is because of what it is, while partisans of scientific racism might argue that this is because it has been killed. I think that the former would be more correct than the latter. While scientific racism would have undoubtedly had greater influence in American culture had it not been suppressed by obscurantist fanatics — it once had considerable mainstream influence — it is rooted in a mentality that condemns it to failure.
But if scientific racism is a dead truth, why does it appeal to many people on our side? I propose the following reasons:
(1) It is, as O’Meara remarks, one of the “tendencies that have dominated the racially conscious community for the last couple of decades.” It is a cultural paradigm for many people on our side.
(2) It is scientifically sound and reinforces the agreeable conviction that we are in the right and our enemies are in the wrong. We often accord to the truth an authority, a potency, and a prestige that it does not have or is not recognized by others. We often think that lies and delusions will ultimately be exposed, and that their proponents will ultimately be disgraced. We can thereby feel confident about our beliefs and optimistic about the future. Unfortunately, this viewpoint posits a respect for the truth, and civic-mindedness in acting upon the truth, that is rare in any society and particularly rare in our own. It also fails to recognize that politics is a category of thought and action that has its own laws. Politics is not governed by the rules of debating societies.
(3) It is hated by our enemies, which leads some of us to think that it really hurts them, and that it must therefore be a potent weapon of our cultural arsenal. I’m not sure that this is the case, for our enemies are intolerant, paranoid, and vicious, and not much is needed to drive them into fury. The fact that our enemies have attacked books such as The Bell Curve like wounded animals does not mean that they have actually been wounded. We need to inflict mortal wounds rather than flesh wounds. I’m not sure that scientific racism is the best means to do this.
(4) Because scientific racism is essentially apolitical, it is a relatively safe and undemanding form of racial consciousness. As O’Meara remarks, “it is ultimately based on an academic understanding and middle-class experience of our world.”
I think that many of us are afraid to think and act in political terms. I suspect that a major reason for this is that we don’t want to recognize our political weakness and our political responsibilities. But our political project must begin with a recognition of these things. As François Duprat wrote: “The consciousness of the state of the dominated nation, which is that of our country, represents the foundation stone of our doctrinal edifice. Indeed, we must consider that our most imperative and most evident duty is to do everything to put an end to this state of affairs.”
@ “I think you guys have Stockholm syndrome.”
I got my views about Jews reading MacDonald. And now that I am awaiting another of his books from Amazon I hope I’ll sharpen my understanding on how their high IQ helped them with their group evolutionary strategies.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment