When was the last time you cried? by IndianaJones in AskSaidIt

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Their trump card has been remembering why they practice their customs. There is an allusion to this by Seneca. Let this letter from Julian serve as an illustration: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letters_of_Julian/Letter_20

"...whereas we are in such a state of apathy about religious matters that we have forgotten the customs of our forefathers, and therefore we actually do not know whether any such rule has ever been prescribed."

Future predictions thread- How do you think the world will be in 2100? by ifuckredditsnitches_ in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. Those who know will be silenced, it's almost the same thing as being killed off. Yeah, if the lid blew off, they'd likely try to contain it in a religious environment. The holy joes with their "end of the world" talk discourages people from taking any of this seriously. It's not for nothing that bible thumpers are portrayed as crazies in shows and films, and actual serious survivalists, preppers, hikers, etc. are being cast in the same light in disaster films.

Future predictions thread- How do you think the world will be in 2100? by ifuckredditsnitches_ in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Comrade, can you please check your inbox? I would like to gain insight into your views and divulge to you some of my research obtained from interviewing many users of interest.

At the time I made my contributions in this thread, I admit I hadn't read your posts when I ventured to warn about solar flares and the cosmic event! What are even the odds?! I just edited my main post to reference yours.

Indeed, you won't hear about this on the news, even though it's anticipated by scientists. They'll probably just reassure the public and say it's a long way from now.

Future predictions thread- How do you think the world will be in 2100? by ifuckredditsnitches_ in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It does seem like we're heading for a new Cold War situation with different power blocs competing among each other. The issue is, on what basis will this be done? Communism is gone, so there can be no coherent ideological dispute to serve as justification.

Far from it. The Cold War was never ideological. It pertained to the relations between governments, it concerned world hegemony and the fight for resources. The conservative Jewish historian John Lukacs made this abundantly clear to me in his book Through the History of the Cold War. Even Hitler observed in his days that the international war had been largely displaced by the territorial war. And Stalin explicitly told FDR's son what the Cold War was really about. As president Nixon pointed out, America opposed Communism without willing to know what it was about and the danger it represented. Americans abandoned their patriotism for anti-communism, which developed into a habitual tendency to blame external problems for everything that went wrong with their country.

I maintain that we are not in another Cold War, we are in the prelude to WW3. It begins with the class struggle (which inevitably degenerates into the race war highlighted by Rathenau), but the two hatreds will develop into a struggle between freedom and tyranny (it's not just liberal propaganda!), as a result of the masses becoming disillusioned with the ruling authorities and desperately turning to political activity as their only lifeline. In Inside Hitler's Greece, the Jewish historian Mark Mazower drew my attention to how many even on the Right came to embrace the Left, which is in accord with Nostradamus' prophecy, except the great seer adds that they will return to the Right.

Future predictions thread- How do you think the world will be in 2100? by ifuckredditsnitches_ in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The nukes will be mostly displaced for chemical, biological, and psychotropic weapons.

Chemical weapons predicted by seers Alois Irlmaier and Dannion Brinkley. The latter also appears to have anticipated an escalation of Islamic attacks against the Charlie Hebdo magazine by several decades, culminating in a large-scale chemical poisoning of the water supply.

Recently, the Havana syndrome was brought to my attention. The CIA mostly ruled out Russian interference, but the American government still suspects Russia. I wonder how much of it is projecting and how much of it is mass-psychosis.

I read a contemporary prediction from a clairvoyant that America would use psychotropic weapons against Russia, but found it dubious; among the Orthodox, there was a reported "child" seer Vyacheslav Krasheninnikov who predicted that it'd instead be used against the Chinese. A number of the claims attributed to the latter are outrageous, but he still got some things right.

A renewed conflict between Russia and China is exceedingly probable. The West's hatred for Russia causes them to overlook the Chinese menace. The Chinese intervene in the European front on their behalf. The West will only interfere if the Chinese get too close to their borders for their liking, only then will they help the Russians drive them off.

Future predictions thread- How do you think the world will be in 2100? by ifuckredditsnitches_ in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It'd be highly advisable to focus on the 2025-2035 period.

The thing to really watch out for are upticks in heart attacks and strokes caused by solar flares. There are such warnings from contemporary scientists dating back to at least 2018.

The whole vaccine issue may serve as a red herring from the actual cause of deaths, in the hopes of stirring up panic and civil unrest.

My correspondents drew my attention to how their illnesses in winter lasted longer than a week, upward two weeks. They indicated that it felt different from Covid. I don't think it was caused by the flu or as a result of people being confined indoors for very long. The seers warned that the air itself would be poisoned.

Russia and Europe unite loosely?

At first, there will be a loose alliance between the Russians and eastern Germans (Prussians).

The notoriously harsh crackdown on the Reichsburger movement and the German media pinning it all on Heinrich Reuss (when in reality, it is a very broad movement with divergent sects) shows that they don't want any movement setting a precedent for others to follow.

"Should one State alone preserve its national strength and its national greatness the empire of the Jewish satraps, like every other form of tyranny, would succumb to the force of the national idea."
– Mein Kampf

Not that Heinrich Reuss is actually a threat. I watched a speech video where he basically admits that 30 years of inquiring into the financial world brought him nowhere. All he could furnish was an outdated quote from an important member of the Rothschild family.

The Russian historian Andrei Fursov is much more credible with his claims. I remember watching a video of him documenting how Stalin had his personal intelligence infiltrate western European historical archives, investigating the financial elite. He draws attention to how there were other banking families which have since fallen out of prominence.

Also, there's this insightful talk from the revisionist Carolyn Yeager: https://www.bitchute.com/video/uMdz80CvvgDm/

When the combined alliance has been utterly defeated and humiliated by the Catholic "great monarch" (the real Antichrist), then the genuine leader of Germany will appear from their ranks. This second monarch, directly inspired by Hitler's speeches and precedent, will be the one who expels Jews and foreigners from Germany. (Prophecies: Das Lied von der Linde, Holzhauser, Wessel Dietrich Eckart)

Btw Hitler predicted that the Catholic Church would collapse within 100-200 years.

Jews exit Europe and Russia and flood into Asia.

Yes, they will have to leave Russia as well.

Hitler predicted that if the Jews were removed from the European life, it'd take approximately 300-400 years before they returned to Europe as merchants. The Czech and Chinese also serve as historical examples of how a people could discreetly conquer a nation by being obliging and servile, displaying themselves as subservient to national interests. The Orthodox seers predicted that Siberia would be overrun by China, not as a result of being delivered to them by the Western powers, but due to the Chinese establishing good relations.

If Israel manages to complete the construction of The Third Temple, we'll see how accurate the rest of that prophecy is.

I maintain that the Zionists will never be able to produce a great political or military leader, certainly not someone of Napoleon's caliber, that the Antichrist cannot possibly come from their secular or religious programming, and if he did, he would not be as dangerous as Christians make him out to be.

Only someone who has an inconceivable hatred of Zionism would have the gall to bring Armageddon into fruition, and in their place. Nothing would be more humiliating than for them than to be on the cusp of realizing their goals, only to have someone snatch their glorious moment from right under their noses. It's the perfect revenge.

There is, in fact, a historical precedent for this in the rule of King Alexander Jannaeus. The fact that the proto-Zionists used the same methods employed against Gentiles (external force and internal dissent) in a botched attempt to undermine his rule should speak volumes!

Their method was: 1) arranging for the Greek-Syrian king Demetrius III to enter into Jerusalem for negotiations and 2) under the guise of Pharisees, inciting the Jewish masses to rebel against their king. He in turn opposed their leadership by means of a council & the great men he gathered to him.

"The Jew knows very well that he can undermine the existence of European nations by a process of racial bastardisation, but that he could hardly do the same to an Asiatic national State like Japan... Therefore, he seeks to destroy the Japanese national State by using other national States as his instruments..."
– Mein Kampf

It must be remembered that whether Palestine/Israel collapses or not is inconsequential to Zionist interests. As long as they're not the ones managing the state of affairs, they don't give a shit about what happens to their base of operations. As soon as a genuinely representative Jewish leader seizes control, they will sabotage everything they worked so hard to build up.

We may expect another benign usurper like Julian the Apostate to make his stage appearance in the Middle East.

Future predictions thread- How do you think the world will be in 2100? by ifuckredditsnitches_ in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To start off, it's probably not given to even the ordinary clairvoyant to look past year 2075. They are particularly blocked off from glimpsing past year 2025-2026 and anybody who claims to see beyond those years must be either wholly unreliable or as pious as Nostradamus. The critical periods are between 2025-2029 (a crossroads for contemporary science to reconsider its self-destructive path and turn back to nature) and 2029-2036 (comet Apophis).

As a rule of thumb: the more detailed a prediction (i.e. Gottfried von Werdenberg), the less likely it'll happen exactly as described. Predictions must allow leeway for alternate possible scenarios. It'd be wise to bear in mind that:

"Things always exceed what we prophesy. Things are on the move, transforming the prejudices, obscurities, and complexities of the past with a hard, but orderly hand. How can we even begin to say what tomorrow will bring when we can hardly understand what is happening today!"
– Goebbels, 1940-1941

Let Goebbels' prediction of year 2000 serve as a guideline for further predictions: https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb49.htm

Personally, I regard most given dates as superfluous and the years can be moved up (the cosmological events slated for ww3 were supposed to take place in Luther's time and in the aftermath of ww2), the years can be delayed indefinitely.

What really matters is the general outline (i.e. predictions of Russia invading western Europe in collusion with eastern Germans; America, Britain, and France being saved from total ruin by female leadership; France being permanently neutralized as a political factor by Germany; peasants and farmers from the mountains restoring the social order), as well as the given months. Those are more or less fixed points in history.

According to Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler believed that certain historical events reoccurred cyclically on particular months; for him, November was the month of Revolution and May was deemed propitious for undertakings (i.e. Kemal Ataturk's decisiveness salvaged Turkey from British intrigues).

I must also point out that the month of June happens to be the most opportune time to launch an invasion against Russia, it was neither coincidental that Hitler's invasion was just a day or two after Napoleon nor that the Soviets were blindsided to their vulnerability. Furthermore, the Orthodox Russians have a prophecy (being taken seriously by some of their military officials) that within six months of the Kiev Caves (Lavra) being seized by illegitimate sects (which incidentally happened back in December 2022) the reunification between Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus would occur six months later.

It's also worth mentioning the predictions from the Russian official Dmitry Medvedev, he seems to let on more than he knows. Perhaps it serves as a misdirect from the real threat to Russian interests: the Chinese. The Orthodox seers predicted that the Chinese would discreetly take over Siberia.

Here is one unfulfilled prediction from Hitler for consideration:

A renewed war between Britain and America. The serial killer Carl Panzram, who being acquainted with all types of criminals offers profound insight into the criminal mind, incidentally detailed in Killer: A Journal of Murder how he would mastermind it: a false flag attack on British ships being blamed on Americans was entirely possible, not to mention such a contingency for this conflict existed, at least on the American side (War Plan Red).

But the more probable way it'll come about is over Russia. There is a prediction from seer Van Rensburg that the British would betray American military secrets to them, a plausible scenario. But bear in mind that his prejudice against the British may have clouded in judgment, and like FDR, he was steeped in the hatred of the Old Testament. These factors make him far less reliable than other, more important seers (typically Austrian/Bavarian, such as Waldviertel and Irlmaier). However, at least two contemporary seers I've corresponded with (not the usual psychics/astrologers) predicted that several nations (especially Macron's France) intend to pursue non-intervention pacts with Putin's Russia in all secrecy.

Anti-aging tech and other more esoteric techniques will allow the post-ww2 ruling class of today to largely remain in power.

The ruling authorities will either be executed by revolutionaries in the cities or they'll flee to the mountains/wilderness, but they won't be physically adapted for the radically changed climate, particularly the atmospheric energies pouring in through the dwindling o-zone layer (see Thomas Brown, Jr.'s prophecy).

Proklos draws attention to in his commentaries how humans are adapted for destruction by water and fire; Plato interpreted the myths of Phaethon (and of Atreus & Thyestes) to indicate a fiery devastation of mountainous regions combined with deluges caused by a readjustment of planetary bodies; and the historian Herodotus recounts testimony from Egyptian authorities who informed him of the changes in the rising and setting of the sun. In the myths, Romulus was said to have disappeared in a whirlwind of water, while the Jews maintain that "Elijah" disappearing in a whirlwind of fire (chariot and horses of fire are a clear allusion to Phaethon).

There will indeed be a large scale cosmic event (edit: Carrington, as indicated by the user Alphix), which will render technology non-functional and the technicians and engineers with the know-how to maintain technology will have disappeared. So both the knowledge and the means to apply it will be lost. There was at least one contemporary clairvoyant I corresponded with who claimed that the solar flares would attain their apogee in early-mid 2026.

The farmer Franz Kugelbeer predicted a renewed ideological conflict (or collusion?), over freedom and tyranny, between the combined forces of Communism and National Socialism, which would be particularly directed against the priesthood caste. His predictions correspond to what was laid out in Plato's dialogue Laws. One wonders whether he ever heard of Plato and was literate. For comparison:

•The earth is a corpse field like a desert. Humans come out quietly, frightened from their houses. The corpses are collected on waggons and buried in mass graves. Neither railways nor ships function, nor cars as in earlier times. The factories do not work, the fast pace of former times has stopped.

•After the great destruction we may imagine that the earth was a desert... At first, the few inhabitants would have had a natural fear of descending into the plains... having lost the arts, and having no means of extracting metals from the earth, or of felling timber; for even if they had saved any tools, these would soon have been worn out, and they could get no more until the art of metallurgy had been again revived.

First Nietzsche book i should read?? by Poclurker in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nietzsche, as a philologist and professor, began with studying the ancient Greeks, therefore you should proceed with Early Greek Philosophy.

Do you support Israeli independence? by Mr_Tee in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1) Rightly said, Zionism was, is, and will be highly impractical, it's doomed to fail. Indeed, they had no legitimate claim to Palestine, they obviously didn't procure the land for the purpose of living in it. Their goal* is to amass wealth, absorb territory, and eliminate the original inhabitants.

2) Good catch. They never had a state of their own, but they cause the collapse of all other states. "State within a state" is somewhat misleading, it's more about dominating others than refusing to assimilate and claiming privileges (Sanhedrin 39a). Also, their religious conception is purely physicalist, one has the impression that the concept of a Hereafter was systematically eliminated from their sects, combined with threats of rejection calculated to keep them on their destructive path. It's easy to see how the exclusive affirmation of physical reality necessarily leads to world expansion and the cultivation of temporal values (conquest, glory).

3) There were observations from the ancients that the Jews alone remember why they practice their rites and customs, whereas their victims have long forgotten it. These customs were conceived in direct opposition to the rest of the world. There were indications that the old hatred between Germans and Jews was dying out in the early 20th century, but the feud was renewed by Zionists and anti-Semites. Both factions mutually benefit from each other's existence. They're locked in a perpetual stalemate, neither able to overcome the other.

In Christian terms, this is the relation between angels and daemons, neither can bring about a decisive resolution to their conflict, without the participation of humans. What is needed to intervene in the struggle between Zionists and anti-Semites is a new type of man who embodies steadfastness as a virtue.

I think there was a view that the creation of Israel would temper some of Jews neurosis, hostility and subversive tendencies, but it only seems to have made them worse.

I'd make a study of how American and British ambassadors conducted their interviews with Hitler. It illustrates their naivety sufficiently. They believed they could regulate the distribution of jews in influential positions.

4) Obviously they intend to use them against the Arabic world during a world war, when America can no longer be relied on and Europe lies in ruins. They'd prefer to die out with the old order they've become accustomed to, rather than assume responsibility for the mischief they caused. This mentality also characterized the Americans (blaming everything that is wrong with the world on Soviets) and Soviets (refer to Hitler's Table Talk, September 25, 1941 entry).

*It's important to differentiate between the a) mentality, b) instinct, and c) passions that lies behind their world domination aims. Ultimately, the goal is world annihilation. Dietrich Eckart perfectly captured their mentality, at the end of his diatribe Bolshevism: From Moses to Lenin (attributed to Hitler) and in an article The Earth-Centered Jew Lacks a Soul published by Rosenberg (erroneously attributed to Rosenberg).

a) "He must wear down all the rest of mankind, he persuades himself, in order to prepare a paradise on earth. He has made himself believe that only he is capable of this great task." They have a predilection for self-deception, obsessed by delusions and unreal ideas, no sense of proportion on world affairs.

I assure you that this mentality is not exclusive to their race. I've undergone it myself. The more cognizant they become about their role and purpose, the more knowledge they're burdened with, the more appealing dragging the rest of the world down with them becomes.

Only jews like Ludwig Borne and Isaiah Berlin, who have arrived at the realization that they cannot achieve their desired liberation without helping to raise Aryans from their degrading social conditions, and that the jewish question isn't the only cause in the world, are in a position to develop self-sufficiency.

Otto Weininger was one of the few jews recognized by Hitler for his decency. Regarding Judaism, Weininger pointed out that it entails both a worldwide distribution and proliferation of jews, in the vague hopes of giving birth to a world conqueror. The explanation for jews wishing to return to their host nations after repeatedly suffering expulsions is a dormant yearning.

b) "His nature compels him to that goal, even though he dimly realizes that he must thereby destroy himself." Here, it may be added that the worship of the intellect signals the decline of a state.

c) "This realization of the unconditional dependence of his own existence upon that of his victims appears to me to be the main cause for his hatred." There's nothing more shameful than a stunted growth.

I was obliged by circumstances to drop out of high school and give up on a graduation. As a result, I spent over a decade in confined to my household, in near total isolation from society. I get by partly by relying on parents and partly through governmental aid. And as an intellectual, it's impossible for me to identify with the bourgeois masses.

Btw I sent you a DM asking about Hitler. I'd like to hear your thoughts on him and his impact on the Aryan people.

Do you support Israeli independence? by Mr_Tee in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Superb resolution! What's your view on Zionism as an ideology? Also, your view on the Madagascar plan?

Saidit users who aren't "alt-right," why aren't you? by Markimus in politics

[–]UncleJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Conversely, what kind of leaders would you say were mostly good for their country?

Are you part of a Nationalist group IRL? by VraiBleu in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Stauffenberg and his ilk, led by rebellious generals, had an eye increasingly to their profession, as Goering and Himmler later did. They were principally bureaucratic-minded people, no different from the inept policy makers running our affairs. It wasn't on behalf of Germany that they revolted. Whereas Georg Elser was a man of character remaining true to his principles, which is also apparent in his features. He saw himself as a modern-day Herostratus. Hence, he received special treatment in the concentration camp and wasn't promptly executed.

5 people you would like to have dinner with by Charles9 in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Listing the greatest of Westerners and their Oriental counterparts, in light of their revolutionary utility and future relevance for political revolutions:

1) Hitler/Stalin.

I think I could actually keep up with him in his table talk to a considerable extent since I've conducted a thorough study of his ideology and the ideologues who influenced him. Though like Bormann, I'd have to regularly consult my notes to refresh my memory.

Normally, it'd take a whole series of books to delve into Hitler's greatness, but such an endeavor wouldn't be able to pin it down, let alone summarize it for the masses.

So here's a summary of Hitler's greatness:

Hitler indicated that all he ever wanted to be was a drummer boy marching before an army, an alerter of his people. He got what he wanted. He was not a product of his times, he wasn't a man of history, he wasn't making an impact on the world. He rose above his circumstances, he shaped his epoch. He didn't just play a pivotal role in history, he directly impacted the world. Though he wasn't the German messiah, he laid down the foundation for Germany's religious transformation.

According to anecdotal reports from his table talk, he himself indicated that his two greatest merits were:

1 - establishing (ennobling) culture as the bulwark of German greatness (according to Christa Schroeder, he said Wagner's greatness was arousing German culture from the spirit of music)

2 - helping to re-establish racial theory as the highest law.

Although I personally wouldn't put Stalin on the same level as Hitler, he was acknowledged by him as an equal colleague. It's tempting to say that Stalin was just another Peter the Great continuing the legacy of the Tsars and holding back the Russian people's development by attempting to turn them into civilized Westerners. Yet he fulfilled a similar role as Hitler did for the Germans.

2) Wagner/Mahler.

Very few understand the influence Wagner's music exerted on Hitler, particularly the compositions Rienzi and Rheingold. Hitler wasn't intoxicated like the ordinary German listener, but in full control of his faculties. He displayed a remarkable knack for being able to hum or whistle Wagner's compositions after hearing it only once or twice. The ecstasy glimpsed in his oratory is closer to the Russian composer Scriabin (who incidentally also mastered the Marxist doctrine in a short amount of time). Supposedly the Russian seeress Duniushka, if she even existed, exhibited virtually identical symptoms in her prophesying.

As for Mahler, it must be remembered that he upheld Wagner's music more than anyone in his days. He made no secret of his Jewishness (Jewish composer Aaron Copland even drew his readers' attention to it being more noticeable than Meyerbeer. It's also worth noting Wagner's differentiation between Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer) and claimed to Natalie Bauer-Lechner that he had uncovered what was hidden in the mime role portrayed by Julius Spielmann in Wagner's Siegfried. He himself had attempted to embody this figure.

3) Frederick the Great/Tsar Nicholas II. It was precisely Frederick's historical precedent was the main reason for why Hitler held out for a miracle against all odds. And who could overlook the quality of the letters exchanged between Frederick and Voltaire?

As for the Tsar, there was a far more spiritual significance to that role than any of the other European autocrats. We haven't yet seen the last of the Romanov bloodline... I perceive we'll be seeing him again soon. Putin, having unconsciously seized upon Hitler's playbook, is merely preparing Russia for a future ruler, the last finishing touches to its political renovation.

4) Rousseau/Rasputin. Their shared view of life was nearest to Nature. It's also worth mentioning philosopher Carl Rogers in this context. Sparta was Rousseau's ideal society. Hitler had organized Germany along Spartan lines*, not Roman. Sparta also happens to be Stalin's original template for Russian revolutionary sweep (via historian Robert Vipper). What is certain: any future revolutionary society which undertakes reconstruction must uphold Sparta as its undying model, whether communist or nationalist.

Will the world become Fascist? I do not know. Will the world become National Socialist? I do not believe so. Will the world ultimately rid itself of the grave dangers of Bolshevism? I am profoundly convinced of this.”

*Please note how Hitler differentiated between Roman civilizational values/education and Hellenic idealism in Mein Kampf, and indicated that it was precisely this combination which produced a culture, with the civilization serving as a preliminary basis for it, much like how political stability is prerequisite for the growth of art and religion. He also drew this distinction in reference to Alexander the Great's role in salvaging Western civilization and the Greek spirit, according to Otto Wagener.

5) I'll need more time to reflect on my fifth candidate. There are too many potential colleagues (i.e. Voltaire, Pushkin, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) I'd delight in making the acquaintance of. Ideally, I'd have liked to hold a table talk with the likes of Plato, Shakespeare, Goethe, etc. but I doubt even I could keep up with them.

I wanted to be both fair-minded and objective in this assessment.

5 people you would like to have dinner with by Charles9 in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What about Antonescu? From a NS pov, Codreanu was insufficiently revolutionary.

2012 Olympic Ceremony. How many satanic and globo homo agenda items can you find? by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then by your logic, apostle Peter, who was the first to deny Christ, is of Satan. And by extension, the Catholic Church which has built its foundation on his legacy, is satanic. A write-up I prepared the other day:

Between Peter and Paul, Paul usually receives blame for inventing theology (distortion of Jesus' teachings). Yet we hear from Paul (Galatians 2:12) about Peter hypocritically distancing himself from gentiles and leading fellow Jews astray with this symbolic gesture, fearing men more than god (John 12:42-43). Please note that such leaders were differentiated from the Pharisees. There's even an account of Peter being invited to eat unclean animals (Acts 10:11-16). According to George Nelson's research, only people who are destined to become cannibals receive such visions.

So who really was the traitor? Judas? Then how come we hear nothing about him until his betrayal? It's almost as if he were introduced as a mere plot device, to move it forward.

It seems the title "the Zealot" was originally intended for Peter. Peter's fanaticism (John 13:8-9, 37; 18:10; Matthew 19:13, 18:7) exceeded even Jesus' expectations. Perhaps it wasn't storms or the waters Jesus had tried to calm, but Peter's outbursts.

The most compelling indictment of Peter wasn't in his denials, but in his hindrance of Jesus' intentions:

Matthew 16:22-23 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

This rebuke is commonly assumed to be Satan momentarily obsessing Peter and speaking through him. Similar verse in Luke 22:31 (no parallels). Yet in Luke 22:3 & John 13:2, 27, Judas had no speaking roles, he just did what he had to do.

And oddly enough, nothing said about James and John (Luke 9:54-55) being affiliated with Satan. So why was Peter singled out as a representative of Satan, why was this the only time Satan spoke through a man? Who is the antichrist but he who denies knowing Christ (1 John 2:22)?

How is it that the three disciples who accompanied him up the mountain and into the garden were the most fanatical yet they couldn't even manage to keep watch for very long?

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be evident that they all are not of us.

Is it not possible that the trip to the garden was just a ruse to expose those who didn't want to remain in communion with their brothers? The fanatics clung to Jesus like how flatterers clung to Stalin before coming out into the open and undermining his legacy.

2012 Olympic Ceremony. How many satanic and globo homo agenda items can you find? by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

John 8:44 - Christians ignore the context, this is not an indictment of all Jews. John 8:31 indicates that he was addressing Jews who believed in him, not his Pharisaical adversaries. Narratively, that makes little sense, unless he only had Jewish leaders in mind (John 12:42). The only way it could be refashioned into a general condemnation of Jewry is if you read it as an indictment of the human intellect.

The lie in politics, religion, etc. originated with an one-sided intellectual development and the Jewish intellect (purely destructive) developed as a result of external circumstances (i.e. persecutions, climate). That's why the NS were hesitant to displace them into Siberia, where the harsh climate makes physical development superfluous and forces them to adapt.

Basically, the ability to lie develops from intellectual capacity alone, and the "art" of willful murder developed from cunning. You could probably form a decisive argument against gun control from this pov, since taking away guns doesn't do jack squat about people's penchant to get "creative" with makeshift weapons and devise clever, convoluted murder plans.

2012 Olympic Ceremony. How many satanic and globo homo agenda items can you find? by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I concur that a fixation on this alleged aspect of Judeocracy is detrimental to the movement and leads to endless speculation, as seen in Pizzagate, QAnon, and the public's fascination with puzzle films.

The flagrant abuse of symbols in media (i.e. hexagram, in connection with planet Saturn) is merely part and parcel to the old Jewish contempt for the stars and other planets. That's why the ancient thinkers (i.e. Celsus, Porphyry, Julian) found their views so peculiar.

I don't believe the artists and show creators behind "predictive programming" are seriously expecting cosmic events, I think they're just being unconsciously inspired to convey these warnings.

The obsession with symbols must be redirected towards an occupation with problems and ideas; for it is ideas, and not symbols (as erroneously maintained by the Zionist-owned website VigilantCitizen), which shape epochs.

It must especially be noted that Hitler had called out both the churches and Freemasons for their activities in mystic "twilight", contrasted with his own movement's open and airy design (i.e. Ehrentempel).

Admittedly, the Gothic cathedral design with its stained window induces a contemplative disposition into worshipers. There was even a mystical film Leni Riefenstahl made on their behalf, titled The Blue Light.

The subject of satanism must never be addressed from Christian lens, except for propagandist purposes. Satanism is a very real phenomenon which should be divorced from Christian superstitions and (militant) atheist interpreters who view it as hedonism.

Their three most fundamental principles I know of are absolute power, self-assertion, and pragmatism.

This is bad. Support for Russia declining even among European Right wingers. Support for Putin is abyssmal. by Sinbucket in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right now, Russia is the only counterweight against western culture and degeneracy.

Conflating Western culture with degeneracy... you're saying that the cultivation of the arts in the West is an act of degeneracy. Very confused thought!

Russia could only be seen as the ultimate counterweight against Western civilization (that is, artificially designed societies with artificial values and alien laws, i.e. Judaized, mechanized) if it linked up with Germany and its intelligentsia was predominantly Nordic.

For a historical example of defending Western culture, Hitler points to Alexander the Great. By founding the city of Alexandria, he provided the conditions for artists and scientists to prosper. He indicated it was a balancing act between Greek/heroic spirit and Western industrialized societies which broke the advance of barbaric Asiatism. That was the secret to his movement, reconciling agriculture and industrialization.

This is bad. Support for Russia declining even among European Right wingers. Support for Putin is abyssmal. by Sinbucket in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know anything about Spengler and dont much care,

All Spengler really did was summarize prevailing perceptions, no different from journalists. Spengler and his contemporary Toynbee merely represented the lack of idealism of their times. They inaugurated no new ideas, offered no working solutions. So why give them any attention? Nobody in their right mind regards Spengler as an authority.

Spengler was explicitly rejected by Hitler in his May 1, 1935 speech. Spengler's fatal defect was that he neglected to take unpredictability into account, he was unwilling to admit that chance plays a part in our lives.

Nikolai Trubetskoi, who rose up against Spengler's brand of Eurasianism, demonstrates a superior grasp for nationalism in his works (i.e. The Legacy of Genghis Khan). Fascist Otto Dickel also furnished a counterweight for Spengler's pessimism. Even John Lukacs, a conservative Jewish historian, points out in his book Historical Consciousness that a history of Eurasia would be utterly meaningless. His criticism for Spengler and Toynbee was that they were unable to give an account of their nation's histories and instead drew comparisons between them and failed ancient models.

Developments on Darya Dugina's assassination by NeoRail in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

First off, I don't agree with depicting the moralists as a "horde of vultures". Vultures never prey on fellow bird species, only their deceased and they take no pleasure in it. They are simply needed for life and in the days to come.

My own observations seem to align with these - people really do seem to celebrate the murder of a civilian far more than the killing of Russian generals or the sinking of the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. It is a strange and disturbing phenomenon.

That's what Joker was trying to get across in The Dark Knight film. "Nobody panics because it's all part of the plan." Because for centuries, war has been upheld as a glorious, honorable, noble and good thing, a virtue in itself, a privilege to die for. All this senseless killing has been to satisfy one's pride.


"Xerxes must make war on Greece, not because its conquest will add to the greatness of the Persian Empire, nor out of revenge for the Athenian attack on Sardis, nor because Athens represents a threat. He must go to war because changing his mind, once he has announced his decision to go to war, gives the appearance of weakness."

Whether the vision was true or merely from his subconscious (as implied by the third vision), the fact remains that Xerxes did not wage war in the usual Western pagan manner, with openly stated intentions. All this senseless killing has been secretly to satisfy one's pride.

War is an euphemism for officially sanctioned mass-killings. When people who've never experienced wartime conditions excuse their conduct by saying "war has its own laws" or "war is hell", and by invoking the "law of the jungle" and "might is right", they're really saying war is supernatural, that it exists beyond natural laws, that the actual laws of nature ("free play of forces" – AH) don't apply to their concept.

All of this jargon serves to masquerade the fact that man-made war is purely bred from artificial conditions (waged for profit, power, pride, revenge), not truly patterned on the animal kingdom (territorial war for the feeding ground – AH). This can be read in their post-war stipulations and demands for reparations. Whenever treaties attach the question of guilt, they've ceased to be treaties.

In fact, I have just the perfect quote in mind for this! The writer appears to have ascribed too much influence to the environment and education, at the expense of racial influence, but the weight of his racial background can be turned against his kinsmen as an indictment.

"The more justice you seek, the more hurt you become because there's no such thing as justice. There is whatever there is out there. That's it... The point is we have to redesign the environment that produces aberrant behavior. That's the problem. Not putting a person in jail.
That's why judges, lawyers, 'freedom of choice': such concepts are dangerous because it gives you mis-information that the person is 'bad', or that person is a 'serial killer'.
Serial killers are made, just like soldiers become serial killers with a machine gun. They become killing machines, but nobody looks at them as murderers or assassins because that's 'natural'. So we blame people. We say, 'Well this guy was a Nazi. He tortured Jews.' No, he was brought up to torture Jews."
– Jacque Fresco, Jewish American futurist

This is in agreement with Plato's study of the origins of Laws, who had indicated that mankind's fall from paradise into war-torn societies originated with the need for lawgivers, interpreters.

When Heath Ledger's Joker declared that "the only sensible way to live is without rules", he wasn't advocating for a lawless state of affairs. He was condemning bad policies, artificially maintained conditions (i.e. scarcity). Those who boast about their principles are really upholding policies. Hence, their principles dropped at the first sign of trouble.

The British policy of maintaining their precious "balance of power" beyond its expiration date was a bad joke. Regard for outdated notions. It wasn't for the sake of their empire, for world peace, for ideological triumph, etc. The world war was waged on behalf of a slip of paper, in the inexcusable defense of bad policy. All for the Treaty of Versailles!

What Joker's saying is no different from Stranger Things' Vecna or James Bond's Safin. "All while enforcing a structure of their own. A deeply unnatural structure. Where others saw order, I saw a straitjacket. A cruel, oppressive world dictated by made-up rules." These are distorted portrayals of idealists as anarchist madmen, corrupted by wrong methods, but when closely examined, speaking sublime truths about our world. Western media goes to great lengths to discourage people from following such examples by associating it with extremism and megalomania.

Not Robespierre (upon whose shoulders falls the blame for French Revolution's violent excesses), but Rousseau (spearheaded French Revolution's ideals, but blamed for the French Revolution's decline)!

Rousseau obviously wasn't calling for a return to primitive living, running away into the wilderness. He was indicting Western civilization (not Western culture; i.e. greatness in the arts) as completely and fundamentally artificially designed down to its very roots and urged for the need to build from new foundations, against pseudo-liberalism (incorporating antagonisms + band-aid fixes), against Western democracies. Sparta was always Rousseau's cornerstone.

Hitler was merely carrying out Rousseau's vision of a society modeled on the natural order. In Otto Wagener's memoir, he upholds Alexander the Great as an instrument of god and champion of Western culture.

Christian Nationalism vs Pagan Nationalism: There's Both Conflict & Common Ground. by A_White_male in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think struggle of some kind is unavoidable to reap the reward of a good life. Ironically, the more I’ve embraced that, the better life has been.

Agreed. The struggle principle is perfectly valid in all known, physical forms of life. The question is, whether it is necessary for development of consciousness. Like newborn human infants, freeborn animals gradually develop their consciousness by absorbing impressions from their environment. Children thrown into war don't necessarily grow up to be the best people, that only holds true for those who already had a warrior within them. Instead, it might incline them towards pacifism.

I don’t know if I’d say war should be encouraged...

"In perpetual peace, man's greatness must decline." Hitler was in favour of instigating small wars each time a decade had passed. Not internecine conflicts between Europeans obviously. Rather, a campaign directed towards the East*. This measure would've 1) stabilized the population, 2) as a incentive to produce many children, 3) as a stimulus for artists, and 4) as a constant reminder of the horrors of war. A minor natural disaster prevents a large-scale natural disaster! One is reminded of the periodical fire suppression in California: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/14/california-fire-suppression-forests-tinderbox

*However, it seems like an integration of Nordic and Slavic peoples (mainly Russians) would be better suited for our times, insofar as the latter are not fiercely nationalistic (i.e. Polish, Ukrainian) or simply foreign (Czech).

Btw I'd like to hear about your views on Hitler, what do you suppose were his religious beliefs? What do you believe "Providence" meant to him?

But if you said something like “including war by other means” (outdoing potential rivals in commerce, technology, health, etc.), I’d totally agree.

Well, judging from what I've seen in gaming, whether competition is benign depends largely on the game mode and conditions fostered by game design.

In speedrunning, competition is very wholesome, a community-driven initiative, and often results in the discovery of new skips, exploits, strats, etc. Sensible game developers should always make provisions for it and even sponsor it. But in a multiplayer environment (i.e. For Honor), competition can quickly degenerate into toxicity.

Christian Nationalism vs Pagan Nationalism: There's Both Conflict & Common Ground. by A_White_male in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, but why should duty and responsibility be compelling without higher principles?

Who said anything about a need for compulsion?

According to Hitler, we live in a world where millions accept the principle of celibacy of their own free will, without being obliged or pledged to do so by anything except an ecclesiastical precept. (Celibacy isn't a higher principle, of course.)

Then he proposes dropping such demands and just appealing to common sense by means of reason and persuasion: "Why should it not be possible to induce people to make this sacrifice if, instead of such a precept, they were simply told that they ought to put an end to the original sin of racial corruption which is steadily being committed from one generation to another."

Duty and responsibility are not forced onto people by Nature, but rather, by artificially designed civilization. In the natural order, labour is never looked upon as burdensome and is embraced as a necessity and delighted in. If animals start to exhibit laziness, that's usually due to them being spoiled by humans.

Of course that doesn't apply if you believe in spirituality. You are then required to conform to higher principles.

Higher principles are not confined to a belief in hereafter and god, but include reverence for higher worlds, for natural territories, for laws of nature, for parents. There are many more skeptics who abide by their principles than there are religious believers and ascetics.

These latter deceive themselves into believing they conform to principles. When it's actually a matter of policy for appearance's sake (i.e. politeness, virtue signalling).

Higher principles also become corrupted from the weight of external constraints (conformity, compulsion, conventionality), in a word: dogma. That you value such constraints so highly indicates to me that you're not really acquainted with the inner life.

Even if there was no god and hereafter, instinctive striving and reason would still exist. The animals (birds excepted) know neither god nor hereafter, that doesn't prevent them from exercising restraint in their breeding.

Christian Nationalism vs Pagan Nationalism: There's Both Conflict & Common Ground. by A_White_male in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I 100% see the Liberal worldview as the final product of Protestantism, manipulated and distorted by bad actors.

I concur. All the liberals did was give Jesus the boot, just as the Protestants dropped the pope. They never abandoned the distorted ethics, they just came up with their own interpretations of it.

Flip it on it’s head and you have pretty much my credo.

Does your creed include the principle that struggle is a necessity? Should war be encouraged and welcomed?

Christian Nationalism vs Pagan Nationalism: There's Both Conflict & Common Ground. by A_White_male in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a faulty premise which originated with the anarchistic Dostoevsky. "If god doesn't exist, everything is permitted." Nobody poses the question: Did he really mean what he said? What was his idea of god?

Taken at face value, the phrase is merely church apologism for theocracy. Crime is legally and officially sanctioned as long as it doesn't conflict with church interests. For centuries, the Church was perfectly willing to overlook wars, plunder, slavery, etc. committed under its auspices and with its blessings, instead warring against human instinct and sexuality and undermining man's biological foundations.

Rousseau rightly recommended expulsion for such people:

Anyone who ventures to say: ‘Outside the Church is no salvation’ should be driven from the state, unless the state is the Church and the prince the pope. Such a dogma is good only in a theocratic government; in any other it is fatal. The reason Henry IV is said to have had for embracing the Roman religion—namely that the Roman Catholics did, while the Protestants didn’t, say ‘Our faith is the only possible route to heaven’—ought to make every honest man leave it, especially any prince who knows how to reason.

Source: Social Contract

If the religion isn't a thing, what stops you from get an high paid job and just live the most materialist life you can get?

What stops you from taking up a job for livelihood is an enthusiasm for a hobby. What stops you from living a hedonistic life is the realization that the pleasure of drugs and sex are temporary and these are causes of societal woes (i.e. sexually transmitted disease). In other words, a sense of duty, a sense of responsibility.

You don’t have to dig much to see it’s all around you. by Mr9to5 in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It sounds like the boomer arranged his life comfortably enough to be able to procure specialized technicians with his wealth. He ought to learn lessons from Lion Feuchtwanger, who had tried the same thing (sought out a good lawyer, doctor, and banker). The lawyer suffered an accident, the doctor committed suicide, and his assets were either frozen or seized. In the end, all Feuchtwanger was left with were the essentials (his enthusiasm for writing and the early impulses from WW1 which shaped his life). There are great karmic lessons contained in his memoir, The Devil In France, pages 125-130. I highly recommend reading it.

Question: Is Russia experiencing similar developments involving the Chinese?

Would anybody like to do a thought experiment with me? by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well my point is more that you rarely really have much of a choice in these situations unless you were already involved in something in the first place.

There is always a choice presented in these situations. To say otherwise is to absolve oneself of responsibility.

If you're compelled to work for the enemy, there's still a lot of good you can do in their midst.

In the scenario that this happens in 6 months, any ideological question is not ours to decide.

What is important above all is to know the distinction between good and evil, the failure to do so is the cause of confusion.

Besides, 6 months is plenty of time to get the facts straight. In fact, that's how long it took for me to wean myself off of Christianity.

It's better to live to fight another day for your cause than to sacrifice yourself while gaining nothing, not even glory.

A fair point, perfectly in line with the Nordic pov (i.e. Edda), but it still sounds like a convenient excuse. Hitler once quoted from the Edda (paraphrased): in the end, there is only death and the glory of deeds.

If you were in Colonel General Paulus' shoes, what would you have done?

Pragmatism is not individualism.

If the individual puts his and family's interests before the nation, that's pragmatic.

Why aren't Blacks and Hispanics as bothered by noisy areas? by tantamle in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Reminded me of John von Neumann, who could only work in chaotic conditions.

Would anybody like to do a thought experiment with me? by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


Who do you side with? China? Russia? American Military? Local militias?

Ideally, I'll align with the side championing ideals, ideological struggle, displaying bravery, strength, and industry (wholesome integration of whites, blacks, and Asians). In short, achieving greatness, whether material or spiritual.

Ultimately, I'll side with the side which can muster up a Hitler or Stalin, regardless of whether they're good or bad. And if both sides of the conflict manage to produce such giants, I guess I'll be playing for both sides.

It's not really about who wins, but who fights the hardest and lays down an unforgettable legacy. But it seems that both sides will somehow be well-balanced and unable to vanquish the other. Both sides will lie in ruins and a new nation will be founded.

If none of the above factions have these things going for them, then all is truly lost. Realistically, I'll be forced into servitude by whoever wields the gun.

If I even remotely cared for my well-being or for my family, I'd have to look out for their survival. However, my family isn't really worth salvaging (Christian parents, relatives intermarrying) and I've never really been close with them. A great gulf between me and my parents was instigated against me when I was a child and teenager. I also don't have a livelihood or career to worry about. So I find myself in a very fortuitous position where I can ideologically go all-out and not have to worry about losing anything.

Do the Chinese or Russians offer dissidents collaboration deals?

Unless China or Russia were to broker an offer to me on account of my research. I actually had a bizarre dream about this scenario, the only WW3-themed dream to date.

But if they have any good sense about them, they'd know better than to trust traitors and would keep a close eye on them. Three lessons from Aesop: The Partridge and the Fowler, The Flea and the Man, The Thieves and the Cock.

Would they be trustworthy?

Probably not, but the Russians aren't nearly as pragmatist as the Chinese.

Would the US military cut a deal with the enemy?

Unfortunately, I don't know jack squat about the US military.

Would the american economy and populace be strong enough/united enough to fight if the war lasted for years?

They'd need one hell of a president to turn things around. I can name a few non-public candidates, there are real visionaries and pioneers out there in America, but the chances of them getting into power through politics is infinitesimal.

According to Hitler, the only thing holding America together is technology. When that stops working and when they lose their oversea "colonies" abroad, they'd disintegrate more swiftly than India. Like England, the US isn't really adapted to deal with a long-term famine. They've long had their unresolved racial and social problems shoved under a rug or blamed on their enemies. The unwillingness to accept responsibility for the current state of affairs will be their very undoing.


Where do the Jews go?

One might assume that like in WW2, they'd find refuge everywhere and have plenty of relatives living abroad. But that's assuming the cities will be intact, not devastated by revolution and exclusively occupied by revolutionaries.

Historically, their ancestors found solace in the wilderness and desert regions, the question is whether these environments will prove hospitable to them. Doesn't matter how familiar one might be with these places as a survivalist, they'll be radically changed.

Considering the advent of Christian and Muslim predictions, this time around they won't find any places to hide, unless they've effectively ceased to be a Jew and are fully assimilated.

Do they leave before, during or after?

The Third Reich of Dreams highlights how non-entrenched Jews received premonitory warnings of their impending fate, which turned out to be true. Hitler alluded to their uncanny sixth sense, he was unable to descry how much of their activity rested on conscious calculations or unconscious instinct.

Would anybody like to do a thought experiment with me? by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd side with God to let me swim for my life. I'd run with even Israelis if it meant food and safety for my family.

I find this mentality really despicable, I'm reminded of the smug individualism of the past. But that'll probably be most people's preferred course of action.

I think making this out to be some ideological question is asinine.

It's mistaken to believe WW3 would ultimately be about survival, let alone confined to racial/class hatreds. Only a war of ideologies can bring about a decisive resolution to these unresolved conflicts. Unlike the first two world wars, it will not be Pan-Nordic vs Pan-Slavic.

We're at a crossroads of destiny. For the first time in world history, the masses stand a chance of discerning between tyranny and freedom. They're slowly learning that the "freedom" envisioned by the democratic, pseudo-liberal order is a meaningless catchphrase.

The US military remnants would force them at gunpoint and violently purge anyone who collaborated with the enemy.

In WW2, the Russians shied away from executions, preferring to entrust it to Chinese, Mongolian, and Latvian soldiers. And as we all know, their commissars were typically Jewish. The Russians were mainly concerned with engaging German soldiers and didn't really stick around for looting, rape, etc.

It really depends on how much of the Asiatic element is found in these military remnants. Lately, there have been many depictions in shows and films of whites as pragmatic and not sparing their own, as a contradistinction to idealistic Asiatic heroes.

Though I imagine depending on the deterioration of central command they'd devolve into disorganized looting themselves.

Incidentally, the Russian series To the Lake depicts this scenario quite convincingly.

Would anybody like to do a thought experiment with me? by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

America: We don't even really have a country anymore. Just a place we currently reside.

That's exactly what Hitler said about American-based Europeans being reduced to nomads.

Personally, I don't see how notions of "white solidarity" can substitute the duty to serve a country, seeing as how WN is a predominantly American disposition and mentality. Europeans further lower and degrade themselves by imitating Americans instead of doing their own pioneering work into the unknown. In this respect, even Fascism is insufficient. What was really admirable about NS policy was that they insisted that their system wasn't an export article and encouraged other nations to experiment with systems of government.

Europe: Almost certainly side and even suicidally fight with the US.

I don't think it'll be that simple. Certainly there's great mistrust for Russia, but this misunderstanding was largely instigated by the pseudo-liberal order and conservatives.

Poland will most certainly side with America since its long been one of its main beneficiaries. France and Italy will probably be mired in anarchy and civil war. After which at least France may finally come to its senses and give up its political ambitions in favor of renewing its scientific prestige. In Catholic prophecies, France has an important role to play in restoring order to Europe. The seers also predicted that the war in Europe would be divided between the North and the South, that is, between eastern and western European states.

Depending on what transpires in Russia, eastern Germany/southern Bavaria will either be swept up by a non-communist revolution exported from Russia or coerced by Russian communists into collaboration, leading to a civil war between western and eastern Germans. Germany and Russia are destined to unite and their combined might represents the only force capable of posing a threat to US interests.

Suppose the English government still secretly harbors resentment towards America for its lost prestige. If the Rothschilds are still upset about Hitler locking up one of their members after all these years, then why can't there be a faction of British officials like that going behind the current government's back? Then all that's needed is demagogy to transfer it to the British people.

Hitler anticipated England and America to one day settle the score, and looked forward to a day England would side with Germany against America. Our current state of affairs is largely the result of their shared interests (British balance of power vs natural free play of forces, British/American debt slavery and hegemony).

Putting a wedge between English and American interests would be an unprecedented, historic achievement. Strangely enough, the German serial killer Carl Panzram once made a serious attempt to instigate a conflict between these two countries.

Israel: Probably use the opportunity to finish ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, and wage a broader territorial war in the middle east.

Thankfully, they're a very predictable lot. The question is, will they finally receive their long awaited tyrant despot or will this territorial expansion be overseen by bureaucratic mediocrities?

What Are You Reading? by pcpmasterrace in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Arguably, his ideological work An Idea Conquers the World is more important for study and revisionist narratives. Kalergi excuses both H. S. Chamberlain and Gobineau*, distinguishing their racialism from anti-Semitism. He actually met Chamberlain at Bayreuth and had the opportunity to study him closely. I wouldn't be surprised if Kalergi made a similar gesture on behalf of Wagner (he was on good terms with Cosima and her family). He was also an admirer of Nietzsche and claimed him as one of the early pioneers of Pan-Europeanism. He only omitted Luther, but Kalergi distinguished Hitler's anti-Semitism from the traditional religious hatred. Thus, Kalergi has inadvertently furnished arguments against the Sonderweg myth, absolving them of blame for Hitler.

Curiously, he dated Hitler's war "against" Europe from 1919 (signing of Treaty of Versailles), as opposed to 1933 (rise to power) so he didn't succumb to the fixation on details one finds in conventional historians. In this light, it'd be appropriate for Christians to portray Jesus' incarnation as a lifelong struggle rather than starting from his last few years or his death.

And his work Anti-Semitism Throughout the Ages, while full of misleading apologist arguments, is probably pure dynamite in the right hands. At one point, he practically indicts the Western democracies, portraying their "help" rendered to Jews as a largely unsympathetic gesture (which Hitler himself drew attention to in his January 30, 1939 speech) and instead characterizes it as a feeble protest against Hitler's anti-Semitism. Today we see a similar spectacle occurring with Ukraine and Russia.

As for his claim in Practical Idealism about the artificial selection process for future Jewish leadership, there are actually good grounds for his assertion. It's just a question of whether it will be Zionism or (Aryan) humanism which wins the struggle for the Jewish "soul" (see Dietrich Eckart's The Earth-Centered Jew Lacks a Soul). Kalergi's personal list of meritorious Jews blurs the line between the two factions of Jewish greatness (material/civilizational vs spiritual/cultural expansionism).

Of course, Kalergi inclined towards Zionism, and his father naively believed Jews could be assimilated into the West without renouncing their traditional religious/pragmatic values. If one regards a people as an enemy of Nature, one must either convert or destroy them. (Rousseau) They cannot possibly live at peace with them and arrive at a mutual understanding.

*both of whom were regarded by Hitler as mandatory reading for participating in debates on the racial question

What Are You Reading? by pcpmasterrace in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What impedes the readability of Mein Kampf for you? Is it the requirement to be familiar with history and the social conditions of 20th century Vienna? Or does it have to do with Hitler's literary style? For my part, I find his manifesto very clear and easy to jump into. A thousand lessons to learn from it.

There are admittedly some challenging sections, such as where he says Marxism substitutes the aristocratic principle, but I think that has to do with insufficient translation work. Thomas Dalton seems to have produced a faithful rendition. And you can't really go wrong with the Stalag Edition. Probably the best way to read it would be to pick up an interlinear version or have the German version opened side-by-side with an English translation.

Granted, his speeches are inspiring and are more suited for propaganda videos. But the initial religious/devotional phase eventually wears off for most people. One must also display sufficient ambition to follow his lead. Do recall that Italians only appreciated Mussolini from sentimentality.

Who do you think were the best and worst US Presidents? by Nasser in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, he committed a sin of omission. Decisive inaction.

That reminds me of an anecdote I read earlier today in Hermann Giesler's memoir, in which Hitler states that if the Italians really cared about fighting in the war, they'd have prioritized Malta. In their reluctance to fight, they failed to seize upon its vulnerabilities in 1940.

Who do you think were the best and worst US Presidents? by Nasser in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Grant reminds me of Eisenhower warning about the military-industrial complex while actively perpetuating it.

Who do you think were the best and worst US Presidents? by Nasser in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To me, it doesn't really matter how their presidency/policies turned out or even the detrimental impact they may have had on the nation, but whether they maintained sensible views and made meaningful contributions. It seems fitting to lay stress on their virtues and merits, especially from Hitler's pov.

Worst: FDR (above all. The values he put into his concept of freedom were misplaced), Wilson (good intentions, but naive), Lincoln, Post-JFK presidencies.

Best: Jefferson (a man of principle/character, who shared a number of Hitler's views), Truman (a modest man endowed with common sense, uncompromising and firm in decisions, and he furnished one of the best indictments of the Jewish problem), Teddy (he had a daily habit of star gazing and discerning constellations, along the lines of Pythagorean philosophy, which afforded him a sense of proportion), Hoover (he actually met Hitler, and despite viewing him as a madman, he came to regard FDR as a greater menace to world peace), Nixon (saw clearly through communism), JFK (put up a good fight against CIA. In his visit to Hitler's retreat, he delivered an impartial historical judgment to posterity).

Also, both Nixon and Hoover were Quakers, which Thomas Paine argued wasn't far off from the original Deist conception.

Honorable mention for George Washington, for 1) his warning in the Farewell Address, 2) his explanation for why they didn't rush to emancipate their slaves, and 3) voluntarily relinquishing the reigns to power after winning the war (unlike Churchill, he recognized that he was fit for the battlefield, not peacetime).

As for Jackson, he's somewhere in the middle. He wasn't far-sighted in his policies. Jackson was a man of action/history who propelled the nation into material greatness through conquest and expansion, but like Churchill he didn't rise superior to the social conditions of his time, and thus, he didn't shape his epoch in the way Hitler did.

Putin taking a leaf from Hitler? Russia to give awards and monetary bonuses to Russian mothers who have large families by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good question. It's incredible how topics like this are neglected among NS adherents. They appear to have more pressing matters to deal with. I myself haven't looked very deeply into the subject...

The historian Michelle Mouton interviewed a Frau Herford Ludwig, recipient of the bronze Mother's Cross. It seems Ludwig was provided with a teenage caregiver, recently graduated, who helped raise her six children. This is mentioned in her book From Nurturing the Nation to Purifying the Volk and her article From Adventure and Advancement to Derailment and Demotion (locked behind paygate).

Ella E. Schneider Hilton mentions her friend Giesela Schwarzer coming from a family with eighteen children, which was "singled out by Hitler himself"(!) and received the Mother's Cross. Regrettably, Schwarzer didn't describe how her own life was affected, but she mentions that her parents didn't have to work, spared from conscription, and were royally treated to the best of everything, such as seats on the bus.

Goebbels mentions Hitler's belief that only the Mother's Cross, at least in the Bronze category, was being justly distributed. A historian draws attention to the deliberate connection between the date selected for awarding the Mother's Cross medal and the birthday of Hitler's mother. It seems the medal meant a great deal to Hitler himself.

If Felix Kersten's memoir is reliable, Himmler goes into great detail on the Mother's Cross, in the context of discussing incentives for civil servants.

Kersten raised a dilemma, what if mothers bring multiple children simply in order to obtain the benefits from receiving the medal? To which Himmler reassured him that mothers were not comparable to civil servants and would undertake it at the risk of their own lives. Ludwig adamantly insisted that child-bearing was of her own initiative and a private responsibility, not an obligation foisted on her by the state.

It seems Himmler wished to foster competition among the women, even instituting polygamy as a reward for brave SS men. Similar sentiment can be read in the letters exchanged between Bormann and his wife. Bormann's son corroborates this inclination towards polygamy.

Has there ever been antisemitic Communists in history? by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

As for Stalin, I believe the man was very egocentric and hated everyone.

Actually, Stalin resisted his own cult of personality, he only came to embrace it in his last years. The Jewish agitator Lion Feuchtwanger had the opportunity of seeing it up close during his 1937 visit to Moscow. He observed that Stalin was merely a tangible stand-in, an idol, for the abstract communist system Russians were supposedly grateful for. In Christianity, the Virgin Mary was provided as a substitute for the Holy Spirit conception. How could the latter on its own excite devout feeling?

This North Korean propaganda video does a good job showcasing the communist mentality: the featured girl repeatedly turns down an interview, conveying that it's not about her, and it's otherwise unimportant that she's rewarded for her labour. Much like the angels in Christianity declining people's worship and directing them to god. They were sent to the person, not for the person. It's not about the messenger, about delivering a message. The writer is merely the pen.

Since Stalin was merely an abstract representation, like a reflection in the mirror, misdeeds could be perpetuated under his name without nearly as much repercussions than if Stalin alone had come out. In this way, the system is shielded from being discredited, Stalin could be scapegoated or assassinated, and it wouldn't change its course. In the same way, the writer can neutralize moralistic-journalistic calumny by attributing his words to a deceased writer, as Plato did with the personality of Sokrates.

What prompted Nixon to warn against communism in a 1960 speech? He indicated that the communists in their collective subjectivity viewed themselves as necessary forces of history itself, which would emerge triumphant no matter how things turned out.

"One of the fundamentals of the Communist philosophy is a belief that societies pass inevitably through certain stages... there is nothing men can do to change the inflexible sequence which history imposes. It is a part of this philosophy that, as society moves along its predestined way, each stage of development is dominated by a particular class."

Seen from a religious angle: in Life of Apollonios, when Titus declined honors for his feat (the destruction of Jerusalem's Temple and the massacre of rebels), saying that he had merely lent his hand to his deity, he was identifying himself as a force of history, as an agent of destiny.

Stalin is on record condemning anti-Judaism and even made it a death penalty to question them.

Molotov furnishes a credible explanation for Stalin's recruitment of the Jewish element. Molotov indirectly indicted the Jews as hotheaded social agitators, men of action. Eventually, Stalin removed some of them from their positions, since their unbroken solidarity with Jewish capitalists was becoming all too apparent.

And unless Hitler is a liar, he invaded the USSR because it represented Jewish Bolshevism. Wouldn't Stalin have come out and refute this?

If the Table Talk is taken as reliable, he perceived the USSR as a threat because it represented pan-Slavism. Goebbels also saw Stalin as a heir of the Tsars. Bolshevism was merely Stalin's pretext and justification for assimilating the eastern territories, and eventually, a hypothetical expansion into the West. On the other hand, Hitler differentiated between Slavic creative ability and Bolshevik destructive wantonness, and by all accounts, he firmly declined promptings from his advisors to reconcile with Soviet Russia, insisting that he couldn't bring himself to align with them so long as it was still dominated by a Jewish intelligentsia.

Stalin supported Israel and was their first ally, even before America.

Molotov's excuse was that he and Stalin supported "international freedom". It seems they had to at least keep up appearances for appearance's sake. Internationalism requires good intentions. What's important to realize is that the ruling caste in a communist society fundamentally views itself as a force of good, much like the Catholic Church. The shared defect of these organizations is their belief that the masses cannot decide for themselves and that a clique of powerful individuals decides what is truth and lie, "what is funny, or not", and that we're expected to conform to their designs without protest. A communist user wrote me regarding Stalin while championing his legacy: "He underestimated the masses, he viewed them as the leading but blind force who needed guidance."

The religion of the future by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

[–]UncleJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

An ethnie only actually needs ancestor worship and race worship, since those reinforce the rational side of ethnonationalism.

The terrestrial worship is insufficient, there must also be an equal regard for what is above. There's no disputing that star worship is rational, conferring a sense of proportion. Or as Himmler declared in a speech, "He must once again look with deep reverence into this world. Then he will acquire the right sense of proportion about what is above us".

In Against the Galileans, Julian argued that it had been natural for the ancient societies, without exception, to embrace star worship. Similar sentiment can also be read in Thomas Paine's Age of Reason. They both declare that the original worship consists of contemplating reality, which Julian deemed as a "freedom from passion" and Goethe characterized as a "freedom from fear". In Wilhelm Meister's Travels, Goethe relates that the primitive regard for what is above was the prerequisite for revering what is below, the earthly life.

The explanation was that the stars remained eternally fixed in their circuit, perfect and unchanging as the laws of nature. This actually laid the foundation for Hitler's struggle principle: "a universe in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths" (Mein Kampf). Celsus and Plotinos noted that the omission of reverence for the stars was peculiar to later generations of Jewish-Christians.

Anything else, like morality, needs to be grounded in pure reason to avoid its discarding in the event that the 'religion' itself is discarded by some foolish generation at a later time.

A conception of right (part of a Weltanschauung, or view of life) must be grounded in idealism. "Pure" reason is a Kantian fiction. Schopenhauer points out that the intellect is merely a tool devoid of content. Hitler denounced the intellect as "a mere external phenomenon without inner value."

As many safeguards need to be added to the new social order to ensure that no such unraveling occurs, e.g., explicitly racial constitutions or other foundational documents of the new society.

That's approximating the cynical thinking of the Catholic Church and Soviet Union, that the masses cannot think for themselves and must be protected from conflicting truths.

It should be assumed that future generations will quite rapidly seek to undo whatever it is that we achieve... We should assume that the next generations will be total idiots as these preceding ones have been, who will squander everything, and continue from this worst case scenario.

That's a faulty premise to start from. NeoRail has already sufficiently addressed how, logically, this line of reasoning leads to the employment of coercive methods. More specifically, the formation of a priestly caste, which has always counteracted the desired goal.

This is why the Burkean social contract is superior to the Rousseauian social contract.

The same Rousseau who turned to ancient Sparta as his model for rebuilding Western civilization and who laid down the best indictments for democracy and liberalism?

Schopenhauer would've been revolted by how Edmund Burke reduced the principle of religion to a system where god exclusively functions as a paymaster, dishing out reward and punishment. In a letter, Thomas Jefferson expressed his disgust for how Edmund Burke had mingled his seemingly virtuous actions with repulsive motives (as evidenced from Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution).

Just reconstruct an explicitly racialist Paganism complete with the kind of ancestor worship...

Jefferson wrote a treatise comparing Jesus' doctrines with the ancients, in which he noted that they had cultivated a regard for the country, family, and friends, but fell short of social benevolence. Apollonios of Tyana drew attention to how compared to humans, the sparrows practiced social benevolence. Goethe indicated that Christianity, after it had been purged of its defects, ought to become the final religion since it had helped usher in the rehabiliation of the criminal element.

It should be noted that Jefferson was regarded by the eugenicist Hans F. K. Guenther as one of the last genuine Indo-Europeans.

Lastly, religions that place great emphasis upon souls have the potential for great harm, simply because they are an obvious pathway to egalitarian nonsense like 'judge by the content of one's character (i.e. mind or soul) and not by colour (i.e. body or gene)'.

Stoicism, which places such emphasis, remained the only stabilizing edifice in ancient Greece. In Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, he acknowledges the importance of the racial aspect, but also lays stress on the mental link between humans: "What links one human being to all humans: not (common) blood, or birth (seed), but mind. And... that an individual’s mind is God and of God."

Basically, a more physicalist worldview is required (I'm a physicalist-leaning dualist, moving ever-further in the physicalist direction, far away from the kind of metaphysical idealism of the likes of Berkeley or Kastrup, that Keith Woods has dangerously entertained).

Physicalism (the view that only physical matter/ physical world exists) is an errant life view, it has nothing to do with a world view conception. Most Christians are physicalists. Their "spiritual world" has nothing to do with Materialism (world view) since it's the only other world which exists for them. Originally, Materialism was the acceptance of innumerable worlds (Demokritos, Epicurus). Why did Jefferson embrace the Epicureans while rejecting the Platonists?

Indeed, I call for a new culture rather than a new religion per se.

Your proposition actually has very little to do with culture (whatever exerts an ennobling effect on a people's development, whether in the arts or science), but remains tethered to basic necessities of civilization (history, literature, laws, politics, etc.).