nsbm

[Longinus]

Shitty analogy cthulu.

 

[coolsnow7]

Have you considered that the pride may come from a race's acheivements? Often, in white vs. black arguements, an analogy is used where things invented by white peaple are listed against things invented by black people. I'd rather associate with those that are attracted to NSBM due to the positive nature of ideals, the self pride, as opposed to those who are attracted to nihilistic black metal because the ideology reflects their in inadequecy at living, and the resulting anger and blame that they throw at humanity.

Along with the other arguments, you're really dumb. Even aside from race, why should your pride be a function of anything other than yourself? Chances are, like most people dumb and smart who support white power, you're just an arrogant fool who is looking for any reason at all to be proud of himself, rather than admit to defeat and shortcomings. Why do you think that's such a heavy stereotype? Most of the time it's true.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

Shitty analogy cthulu.

is there anyone here who likes this guy?

 

[Ermz]

I think most divisions between people are cultural. Australia prides itself on being 'multi-cultural' (yeah-fucking-right) yet its obvious that in practice this system doesn't work. You can't simply lump a bunch of cultures into the same geographic space, all holding different values and outlooks on life, and expect them to get on all fine and dandy.

If there is anything I'm proud of, it's the European exploits into the 'new world' (okay sure, heinous acts were committed etc. etc.) and the rapid spread of English/European culture to the world. The only way I think we're going to get anywhere as a species is to break culture barriers, silly notions of patriotism and all strive for the same ideals in life. That means to assimilate into a global system of values, beliefs, ideas, ideals, outlooks etc.

This view might seem more than just a little extreme to some of you, but my life experience from having been a refugee early on in life, to having lived in 3 different countries over 18 years tells me this is the only way. Australia is a perfect example of why multiple cultures in the same space simply DO NOT WORK

 

[Justin S.]

Im such a liar... cant stay away from this one for even a day. I think ive said im quiting this forum like 5 times now.

Moonlapse: "You can't simply lump a bunch of cultures into the same geographic space, all holding different values and outlooks on life, and expect them to get on all fine and dandy.

"multiple cultures in the same space simply DO NOT WORK."

then...

"That means to assimilate into a global system of values, beliefs, ideas, ideals, outlooks etc."

Who decides what to select as the global system? Who implements it and ultimately enforces it (a HUGE logistical and ethical problem)? If the ends justify the means, how can one criticize the methodology of Nazism (not talking content here)? Or for that matter any ideology, as regardless of one's pursuasion what one thinks = right and correct in their mind and others are wrong- including those who proclaim "tolerance"; with this thinking non-tolerance becomes the "wrong" and "un-tolerable" thus undermining the position and revealing the fallacy of the idea of non-judgement.

 

[Justin S.]

Have you ever considered that achievements aren't a function of race? Have you ever considered that the notion of pride and unity might just be a euphemised front for an agenda of irrational hatred?

We simply dont have the technological ability or understanding to say definitely and to what extent "race" or genetic decent play in the formation of individuals or intangible qualties. To oversimplfy and reduce race to "just a pigment difference" is both incorrect and as hasty as creating an ideology of hieracrchy (also biologically unsupported at this time).

You may be correct that there is not a causality between race and "achievement" (however one wants to define this- lets keep it simple and stick with complexity and mastery of surrounding environments); but do you deny a correlation?

Why is it that certain people are talking about quanta and microprocessing and others are living barely removed from the non-cognitive animals around them? Are you willing to make a HUGE assumption and declare it luck? If you say "culture", then what is cultural comprised of and who determines it? No easy answers, and we are certainly not in the position to dismiss ideas of differences caused by gene expression.

Too complex, too many variables, and far too little information to make sweeping value judgements on the functioning of genetics at the present.

 

[Justin S.]

If I'm supposed to take pride in the achievements of white people, why shouldn't I take pride in the achievements of tall people? Hey, I'm 6'5", that's pretty exceptional! I think I'll base my self-esteem and worldview itself on what tall people have done...

That is a drastic simplification and reduction. Obviously people take pride in all sorts of often unearned or above average qualities such as health, natural intellectual abilities, appearence, and strength- in all genetic groups and societies.

What I think people mean by having pride in their "race", is the acknowledgement of deeds done by people they decend from. A small example; its rather nice that technology has developed to the point that I can talk to you all regardless of your position on the Earth dont you think? Can we not look back at the link to certain ideas and technology with pride and praise?

 

[Justin S.]

i think Justin S.'s point is that NS has some benefits.
i agree this is probably true. a lot of media does paint the all-bad picture. this is an approximation of what really goes on...however, stacking the benefits vs the disadvantages, it's immediately clear that the "bad" vastly overweighs the "good" that could come out of it. for that reason, i'm completely against the philosophy of it because 1. it will never work. & 2. it requires that humans apply natural selection, which imo should not be for us to decide.

- Since you are a Christian, your ideas on what is "good" and "bad" are very specific and biased. Those that do not share your faith most likely will disagree with your generalizations.

- How do you know NS wont work? What exactly is NS, how is it uniform, and for what reasons are its goals unattainable?

- You belief that "selection" should not be decided by humans is entirely your own stance. Others (obviously the NSDAP) disagree.

 

[Justin S.]

Do I wind t3h prize for filling up the whole goddamn page?

 

[Shadows Skulk]

We simply dont have the technological ability or understanding to say definitely and to what extent "race" or genetic decent play in the formation of individuals or intangible qualties. To oversimplfy and reduce race to "just a pigment difference" is both incorrect and as hasty as creating an ideology of hieracrchy (also biologically unsupported at this time).

Agreed.

You may be correct that there is not a causality between race and "achievement" (however one wants to define this- lets keep it simple and stick with complexity and mastery of surrounding environments);

Your definition is counter to the reference I was making to that other guy's statement. He claimed 'inventions' as an evidence of racial superiority (or at least that's what I inferred), and I generalized a bit more by using the word "achievements."

but do you deny a correlation?

Every situation and correlation to race I can think of at the prompt of "complexity and mastery of surrounding environments" seems to be invalid by cum hoc ergo propter hoc. If you have any other ideas, pray tell.

Why is it that certain people are talking about quanta and microprocessing and others are living barely removed from the non-cognitive animals around them? Are you willing to make a HUGE assumption and declare it luck? If you say "culture", then what is cultural comprised of and who determines it? No easy answers, and we are certainly not in the position to dismiss ideas of differences caused by gene expression.

I would say geography has something to do with it. I would not say luck, nor would I say culture (although the things that influence culture, such as the climate, proximity to water, proximity to other more advanced cultures, etc. would probably have something to do with it too). Who's going to come out better every time, someone living by the Nile, or someone in the heart of the Sahara? Nile means trade means money means technology, etc. Heart of the Sahara means stagnancy. That's the macro, and it's clear in a micro situation too: Los Angeles or bumblefuck, Montana? As recent as they both are, the stagnancy is glaring in the latter. And no mention of race!

Too complex, too many variables, and far too little information to make sweeping value judgements on the functioning of genetics at the present.

Even so, I feel safe hypothesizing that cognitive ability doesn't vary enough in human adults for it to be clearly divisible by race. And though that doesn't answer the larger questions you are asking, it's plenty good for the guy to whom I was responding.

 

[coolsnow7]

Ok, imagining there is a perfect correlation between genetics and accomplishment. Why should anyone be taking pride in the fact that they descend from a race that accomplished plenty in the past centuries? Wow, you can identify your heritage with wonderful people. If you're contribution to existence has been shit, then your contribution has been shit and it doesn't really matter who you're descended from does it? Your race does not make your accomplishments any better does it?

And that's why that German dude is an idiot.

 

[Justin S.]

... And though that doesn't answer the larger questions you are asking, it's plenty good for the guy to whom I was responding.

Yep. Good post.

I do disagree with the "climate determined" emphasis (not saying you are in total support of this) used by many. While no doubt it plays a masive role in the potential for development, agreat counter example to this would be central and south Africa. I recently read an interesting book on the Ju Wasi (commonly called the Bushmen) by a respected anthropologist who spent many years living with them documenting caloric intake, routines, activities etc, and the results where very interesting, especially in respect to diet and standard of living. These people have all the preconditions for further development (surplus, high energy/protein diet, plentyful resources in both necessities and commodities) and yet they lived a very basic, nomadic livestyle up to the 1980's. Why? I think there are interesting questions that should be looked at critically without censoring ideas because of politcal correctness or taboo.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

If one were to boil this exhausted argument down to its essence, he/she would see that it is a simple matter of difference in ideology. Attempting to 'prove' or 'disprove' ideologies is a fruitless endeavor. The most we can hope for from this thread is a greater understanding of NS by those previously unacquainted or simply misinformed. And the belief of a band should not deter listeners, as it has little to do with the actual nature of the music at hand, only the inspiration behind it. The poster who refused to listen to Nokturnal Mortum simply denied themselves the opportunity to hear an excellent black metal band.

If it boils down to opinions for the sake of opinions, it is mine that NS is dangerous and ultimately deconstructionist in nature, elevating unnecessary and at times nonexistent sources of pride to create a dizzying height of pointless self-importance. It also seeks to eliminate any attempt our poor world can make towards creating an equal existence for all its peoples. It is easily enforcable by fascist theory, and although this does not mean an automatic "OH NOES HOLOCAUST RUN FOR IT!!!" situation, it opens the possibility for similar acts of carelessness. It creates a doorway into the Pandora's box of 1984.

Nationalism is foolishness. It is naive to claim that there are no differences in ethnicity and culture between peoples of the world. However, what is forgotten when the admittance of such a fact occurs is the far more important truth that the differences ultimately don't amount to a fucking thing. Someone will have to explain how being black or white actually means anything in the end. Who cares what someone is? The important thing is how that person has lived. That life has nothing to do with their race. Or their culture. It can be argued that culture influences choices and daily habits and routines and the little things which add up the the whole of a person's existence. Who decides which culture produces the greatest results? By what bar is this measured? Each culture has differing values, etc. How can a culture be deemed superior to another? By what criteria? The information that is used to quantify the value of a race is faulty in its nature. The subjectivity of human existence negates the possibility of a supreme culture, or a supreme race. Know your own identity, but do not forget that it is nothing more than that: your identity. Your name. Your description. Nothing more. In the end it means nothing. Your personal accomplishments define what you mean, and that is independent over something as trivial as race. Or eye color. Or height.

That is my opinion.

However, in debates of this nature, individual opinions are meaningless, as NS has not been on trial today or any other day. It remains open to all who wish to subscribe to it. It cannot be proven as wrong. All anyone can say is that they simply diagree.

 

[Kenneth R.]

- Since you are a Christian, your ideas on what is "good" and "bad" are very specific and biased. Those that do not share your faith most likely will disagree with your generalizations.

- How do you know NS wont work? What exactly is NS, how is it uniform, and for what reasons are its goals unattainable?

- You belief that "selection" should not be decided by humans is entirely your own stance. Others (obviously the NSDAP) disagree.

point 1: most people would agree on general terms. i don't see how my religion somehow makes my morality more specific than others.

point 2: why won't it work? we've seen one test run and what it became.

point 3: yes, that is my stance. but those who believe its ok to "eliminate" anyone not like them in strength/stature is almost universally deemed a criminal.

 

[Justin S.]

point 1: most people would agree on general terms. i don't see how my religion somehow makes my morality more specific than others.

point 2: why won't it work? we've seen one test run and what it became.

point 3: yes, that is my stance. but those who believe its ok to "eliminate" anyone not like them in strength/stature is almost universally deemed a criminal.

1- What Im getting at is that "value" is subjective; in this case, human life. This will vary wildly depending on ones conception of what life is and its origin.

2- One example is hardly a proven deal. With Germanys attempt you essentially had many constraining factors (geography, insufficient petrol, political timing, at times bizarre leadership, etc.) that add to the mix. One National Socialism does not equal all NS; similar to saying that the Soviet system proves Marx wrong; thats simply not the case. In addition, having THREE major powers, two of which vastly outproduce you in terms of men and material doesnt help the chances of moving out of phase one... and while Germany most certainly is the aggressor in the second world war, many other factors, including fear of a European hegemon made it almost impossible to succeed from day one.

3- Popluar opinion adds no merit to an arguement. I can give many reasons why Eugenics is neccesary and how we implement it every day with out even acknowledging it.

 

[Kenneth R.]

on 2 again: of course one example doesn't represent all of them, but it shows it has failing points. in this case, those inherent flaws will never allow it to be a successful longterm system.

on 3: so what's your opinion on taking natural selection into human hands? who decides who's worthy of living? by what standards? and with what methods are those unworthy "removed" from the system? it's a rediculous idea.

on 1: what is life? elementary school science class. the definition does not vary. when it begins, that is up for debate. but irrelevant to this discussion. you may have misinterpreted my bad/good point. i'm too tired/lazy to type it all out, i was referring to the advantages and disadvantages of NS. i guess you could say quality of life under such conditions, as well as political and social impact

 

[Justin S.]

on 2 again: of course one example doesn't represent all of them, but it shows it has failing points. in this case, those inherent flaws will never allow it to be a successful longterm system.

on 3: so what's your opinion on taking natural selection into human hands? who decides who's worthy of living? by what standards? and with what methods are those unworthy "removed" from the system? it's a rediculous idea.

on 1: what is life? elementary school science class. the definition does not vary. when it begins, that is up for debate. but irrelevant to this discussion. you may have misinterpreted my bad/good point. i'm too tired/lazy to type it all out, i was referring to the advantages and disadvantages of NS. i guess you could say quality of life under such conditions, as well as political and social impact

2- I simply disagree. In respect to infrastructure and actual power projection, a heavily centralized system will be the future and must occur under conditions of high population density and technological complexity.

3- Its complicated. But such things shouldt be sound bites.

1- dude i need sleep see ya later

 

[Longinus]

And that's why that German dude is an idiot.

De Gaulle was french.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

I think he meant Kush.

 

[Longinus]

Kush huh? LOlz