Saturday, July 11, 2015

H8 and the brilliance of the Left

The Left is really smarter than the Right. They, of course, will make that clear, if asked. Or not asked.
Having the great bulk of Ashkenazi brains in their service and controlling the universities' Lefties, it's not surprising. (Now that I think of it, are there any fields in which they are present that they do not exercise significant control?)

Getting the White West to buy their Soap Opera/Passion Play version of history has been an outstanding success. All you have to say is "slavery", "Native American genocide," "Jim Crow," "the crusades" and "the Inquisition," and "colonialism," and the trial is over. Off with his head. You deserve to die, cracker! Oh, but before you die, could you tell me how this thingamajig works?

The invention of the notion of "racism"  --and all the other fraudulent isms and phobias-- has been the cornerstone of their campaign to get the White West to emasculate itself, surrender and commit suicide...all the while congratulating itself on its virtue, just as James Burnham described and predicted more then a half century ago. It's worked spectacularly well.

In a single lifetime, mine, the West has gone from the triumphant event of putting men in space and on the moon --in the midst of carrying on a global contest with Leninist Marxism-- to the current pathetic spectacle of self-abasement and treason by the White Social Justice Warriors, dedicated to gutting and then burning down the city their ancestors built for them in the name of Cultural Marxism. All to appease savages, failures, traitors and enemies.

Another really great tactic has been the simultaneous magnification and exclusion of "hate" from the realm of what is humanly acceptable. And in the battle over Proposition 8 in California, it's ideogram version, H8.

Once noted by everyone as part of life --like smoking-- it is now deemed --like smoking -- a horrific excrescence, an outrage against common decency, the expression of which relegates the sub-human "hater" to the Outer Darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (That's a Biblical reference, btw, for you post-moderns.) As the Ebonics like to say, keeping things simple so they don't get confused, "Haters gonna hate."

We are told that the Victorian prudes attempted to banish Lust. Silly wabbits, that didn't work. We had the Sexual Revolution. Although if you pay attention to college campus feminists, it's still 1895
and they are tender lilies, ever about to be violated by some caddish lothario...

But now we are asked to banish hate entirely and without remainder. Just as, in the last century, we were invited to ignore color in favor of "the content of our character." Note how well that turned out.
The same people who told us that think of nothing but the color of people's skins.

Well, I am not out to banish hate. May as well announce the end of desire or fear. It's a built-in feature, not a bug, a gift from Mother Gaia and Evolution --both of which the anti-haters are supposed to adore.

And despite my Christian history, that Sermon on the Mount stuff was always my least favorite part. So I'll be honest and say that I never bought it. It was a kind of wisdom from (and for) the Twice-Born, like the Buddhist extinction of desire. Too good for this world. And I will admit from my own history that trying to practice it brought me humiliation at a time in life when that was the last thing I needed. So appeals to Christ, etc. fall deafly on my ears. Besides, the New Testament and Christian teaching on hatred is a muddle.

Hate, to me, means a settled attitude of hostility and ill will toward what intends to seriously harm you and yours. It means a devout wish that their ends --which include your end-- be frustrated and fail. And if they suffer in the process, oh well. Nothing to lose sleep over. Their choice. This is not evil, this is rational. Failure to take such an attitude means that you will not survive. Isn't a failure to take an attitude that protects what deserves protection a failure of courage, prudence, justice and love? And if you are not meant to survive, then why the hell were you born and why the hell do you spend so much energy on continuing?

It's a tough (aka Fallen or aka Darwinian) world out there. Not for sissies. Or pacifists.

So, H8 away, sez I. 'Cause the folks who forbid you to hate hate you. Just like the "content of our character" folks...in fact, they're pretty much the same crowd.

All they really want to do is to get you to deprive yourself of yet one more weapon of resistance against them, to continue the hypnosis which has brought them so much power and you so much humiliation and loss.

Me? I hate 'em.

---











5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nietzsche, Ex?

I've started investigating Nietzsche. Some of the stuff I like, some of it I don't. He seems very schizophrenic about religion. One minute, it's a lie that we tell ourselves to save ourselves from the reality of the world... and the next, he's lamenting the decline of spirituality and metaphysics that the Scientific Revolution brought about. On one hand, he sees Jesus as some sort of borderline Ubermensch, but on the other, he despises Jesus' self-sacrificing ways.

His whole "will to power" thing struck a chord with me. His stuff about the innate inequality of humans is a no-brainer to me, but I liked his stuff about the strong being allowed to help the weak become strong. He and I are both in agreement about the dangers of the normalization and veneration of weakness, and the envy that the weak have for the strong.

And now I have new terminology for that tendency that I've observed for some people to judge actions by consequence, and for some to judge actions by intention.

I think Nietzsche mischaracterizes Christian morality: yes, intention is a big part of determining whether an action is sinful or not, but doesn't outcome also play a role in that?

I can understand what you mean about the neo-heathens being Nietzschean in thinking. The whole thing about judging acts by outcome and not intent, living life, accepting that the world itself is divine, disdain for the forgiveness and humility preached by Christianity... yes, I can see where fellows making sacrifices to Odin and Thor would find common ground with Nietzsche. Which reminds me: if Right-wing Heathenry is Nietzschean in underpinning (just as Satanism is Objectivist in outlook), what then is Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox, mind you, not the modern swill)? If one accepts that religion is philosophy with pomp and circumstance, than doesn't it stand to choose one's religion by that religion's philosophical underpinnings?

-Sean

Anonymous said...

Loisy had it right: the Sermon on the Mount expressed a morality for a world that will end next Tuesday. 1st c. Christians didn't have the issue of figuring out how to live in a world that would continue indefinitely, yet here we are. I think I'll hold on to my cloak, thank you very much.

DrAndroSF said...

As you know, ethics is not my thing. A lot of the guys I read like Nietzsche. I read him when I was doing my doctorate on Heidegger, who spend a lot of time on him. Never got bitten by the bug.

I think Aristotle would not be a bad place for ethical reflection. He's a Dead White European Male and that commends him all by itself. Aquinas christianized him, but you can see the aristocratic Greek world clearly through the process.

He did not, for example, think that hatred was anything other than natural and necessary but, like all things, needed management.http://virtueethicsdigest.blogspot.com/2012/08/hate-and-anger-in-aristotle.html

And Aquinas, for example, required us to love the enemy as a creature of God but to hate in him what was of the devil and his own sin. Tiring as a general rule. But if you actually love someone, you can find yourself making that distinction all on your own. Eg. You I love, but I hate it when you do xyz. For general use, though, Aristotle appeals more.

Anonymous said...

I always liked reading Aquinas more than Augustine in Catholic school. Aquinas was far more speculative, imaginative, what humans are permitted to do. I think I liked Aquinas better because he was, of course, quite orthodox in his thinking, but he used arguments beyond doctrine and Scripture to defend his positions. I seem to recall that he actually considered masturbation a higher sin than homosexuality, since homosexuality at least featured the passing of affection between two people; masturbation, being self-pleasuring, is supremely selfish.

Augustine always struck me as too guilt-ridden, cramped and obsessive. Not something a young person dealing with same-sex eros quite needs.

-Sean

-A said...

Aquinas would know a thing or two about selfishness and degeneracy. I could be thinking of someone else but, I believe he went to school in North Africa and was surrounded by an orgiastic and licentious society most of his youth.

Anyway, I think everyone has some kind of balance between intent and consequences when judging someone's actions. You will be happy that the selfish banker built a certain apartment complex because it took up a plot of arid land and it is very beautiful but, he built it to overprice from market standards on his apartments. You will respect the continuous care of negative externalities and positive contributions but you will always keep a look out for what he is reaching out for. I do not trust someone who focuses only on results or only on intent. Such people are either empty or childish. Though, they also could just be over-simplistic. I am also certain that this judgement is likely one of many things that goes without saying among most of the right, especially those who would like more emphasis on results. Their motive is often to reduce puerile debasement of morality and also to remove power from people who only impede good results.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...