Pacifism

infoterror

Member
Apr 17, 2005
1,191
2
38
Pacifism

At some point, the West decided it would rather roll over and play dead than deal with the existential stress of having to constantly assert it. To be top dog means you have to act like one, and fight off all incomers, and at some point, people opted for personal comfort instead of being assertive. They justified it of course by saying they weren't interested in "just image," sounding of course like the exculpatory defensiveness of a stoned teenage metalhead explaining why he is, in fact, doing nothing with his life. Sour grapes, as the saying goes.

In the west, there was knowledge of what it was to keep up an empire. It had happened for centuries at that point, since the people of Central Europe went into the far north and thus rid themselves of any genetic strains that could not handle waiting a long time for gratification, and doing what raises one's environment to a higher degree of order regardless of the costs. They had during that expansion merged with the lower white races who had not made that pilgrimage, and picked up remnants of the collapsing Asian and North African and Semitic empires into parts of their bloodline. What it was to be European was changing.

Because they had decided to be pacifists, and not warlike, there was no overall challenge made to this. Anyone who did challenge it was seen as intolerant and mean, and un-Christian, and just downright terrible and unsociable. This caused others to have a second thought about speaking up; most of them turned in bitterness and said, "Well, it's your funeral, but I'm going to have my life and you can't touch me as long as I don't violate this taboo." The undermen - the only people who are ever threatened by anyone have higher-than-mediocre standards - rejoiced, for they knew that in time, they'd take control.

The undermen of course, come from within, and they're very present with us today. There are plenty of Indo-Europeans. The problem is the quality of today's Indo-Europeans. They tend to be small, snivelling people who are good at having office jobs and not offending anyone at parties, thus taking home enough bucks to buy their way out of the ghetto, to get their kids to college and have enough medical insurance to survive the inevitable cancers. If it came down to the line, they'd rather not miss a meal than take on a heroic quest. Although some of them are quite healthy, that number declines every year.

Indo-Europeans at this time tend to be people of mixed tribal heritage, more and more, and they are slowly (1%) beginning the infiltration, again, of bloodlines of other races. Consequently, we're getting even more weird looking people than ever before, because as is obvious, if you mix two differently specialized things, you'll get a weird offspring. We have one Halle Berry for how many million mixed race people? And there you go. Even more, look at the average "100% white" person in America. A mishmash of English, Slavic, Irish, German and French, ending up with something of uncertain origin and purpose. We're making generic people. The undermen love that, as it gives them a good hiding place.

Undermen come about anytime there is a lack of heroic challenge, and therefore, people who cannot act heroically and think holistically are allowed to breed. Traditionally, these people breed more than heroic people, because they are scatterbrained and invest less effort into each offspring. Why are they scatterbrained? Because they have no complete logical philosophy with which to guide themselves. They're bullshitting their way through with bits and pieces there. You can hear these people everywhere talking about philosophy as if it were shopping: "Well, I liked this from that, and that from this, so I put them all together and I've got my own unique incomparable special philosophy" -- no, enough with the idiocy. You've got a philosophical soup that doesn't stand up to inquiry. (Of all the people I've met of this nature, there was one who came close to having a unified outlook, and he flaked out after the second round of analysis.)

Yes, pacifism. Isn't it nice to stop trying - to give in - to relax, to just stop worrying? No longer stressing yourself, not striving for anything, not fighting for anything - it's so easy. Just let it all go away. Stop trying to do better than average; just do what's enough. Why push yourself so hard? Girlfriend, you'll be all stressed out if you do that. Chill out with your bad self. Maybe do some things for The You so you feel good. Go shopping, get yourself a new DVD (that movie where George Clooney saves the AIDS victims from Iraqi Nazis in the Florida Keys) and maybe have a Frappucino. Life's made to be enjoyed.

When you don't fight, you're not testing yourself. When you're not testing yourself, you're not striving for anything greater. Doesn't it make sense that each generation should be better than the last? That we should push ourselves, and grow, so we don't have a constant void of meaning inside? If you think about it, and think you might be able to pull it off, it does. If you're a creeping Underman (or - oh so PC - "underwoman") you'll hate this idea. What? Your entire life - all its meaning - might go away! You could die, or be embarrassed, or be ostracized! Oh noes!

Our ancestors believed in a world beyond the material. It wasn't a tangible world like the Christians believed, but it was far from the negative viewpoint of the Jewish faith, in which there is nothing but the material so you might as well be comfortable. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are all of the non-materialist nature, with varying degrees of adaptation. Those religions represent an advancement over the primal and go-nowhere, know-nothing nature of Judaism. And what has happened?

(The ancient Indo-Europeans considered it positive to be "warlike." That meant taking an active, aggressive role in solving problems, in leaving in every place a higher order of organization than had been there before. This sometimes required brutality, as when slaughtering and raping lesser tribes, but in fifty years, those tribes were twice as adapted as they had been previously. Evolution is an example of this warlike belief in action. In order to take on this heroic view of the world, one must acknowledge that the individual is a transient state, and that when death occurs, if a higher level of organization was achieved, that is more important than the individual's suffering or death. It's a self-negating, but whole-life-affirming, philosophy. It requires one to look at the big picture, namely an order on the cosmic level, so that one can place oneself within it and not have one's world be limited to one's self. This is how idealism becomes realism and then returns to idealism; the world operates like our thoughts, pushing down the weaker and accelerating the more adapted. If the world works this way, we must put it to use in the physical world and acknowledge its operation - that's realism. When one has achieved this state of realism, it is celebrated by a return to idealism, in which one sees the cosmos as a giant mind calculating optimal order. But this philosophy is not for Undermen, who are so underconfident they only accept philosophies which glorify the physical self, its comfort, and its whining drama. What did the ancients seek? A higher order. In everything. And what do we seek now? More cable channels, and better treatment of retarded obese lesbians?)

We're sliding backward, through pacifism. People don't believe in striving for anything, thus over time, natural selection rewards the most pacifistic, and we get short, dark, squat, dumb, passive, sheepish, chronically ill people. This is fine for industry; all it needs are people to pull levers and file reports. But what about our future? Love adversity and love aggression, especially against yourself by challenging yourself to greater heights. Anything else is just an excuse.

DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN - Vijay Prozak

August 10, 2005
http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/pacifism/
 
nice, very Spenglerian. I especially like your critique of the Jewish faith--although I have always enjoyed jewish people.


I remembered a article by Spengler addressing the very same ideas, so I am posting it.




Is World Peace Possible?​

A cabled reply to an American poll

First published in Cosmopolitan, January, 1936.



The question whether world peace will ever be possible can only be answered by someone familiar with world history. To be familiar with world history means, however, to know human beings as they have been and always will be. There is a vast difference, which most people will never comprehend, between viewing future history as it will be and viewing it as one might like it to be. Peace is a desire, war is a fact; and history has never paid heed to human desires and ideals.

Life is a struggle involving plants, animals, and humans. It is a struggle between individuals, social classes, peoples, and nations, and it can take the form of economic, social, political, and military competition. It is a struggle for the power to make one’s will prevail, to exploit one’s advantage, or to advance one’s opinion of what is just or expedient. When other means fail, recourse will be taken time and again to the ultimate means: violence. An individual who uses violence can be branded a criminal, a class can be called revolutionary or traitorous, a people bloodthirsty. But that does not alter the facts. Modern world-communism calls its wars "uprisings," imperialist nations describe theirs as "pacification of foreign peoples." And if the world existed as a unified state, wars would likewise be referred to as "uprisings." The distinctions here are purely verbal.

Talk of world peace is heard today only among the white peoples, and not among the much more numerous colored races. This is a perilous state of affairs. When individual thinkers and idealists talk of peace, as they have done since time immemorial, the effect is always negligible. But when whole peoples become pacifistic it is a symptom of senility. Strong and unspent races are not pacifistic. To adopt such a position is to abandon the future, for the pacifist ideal is a static, terminal condition that is contrary to the basic facts of existence.

As long as man continues to evolve there will be wars. Should the white peoples ever become so tired of war that their governments can no longer incite them to wage it, the earth will inevitably fall a victim to the colored men, just as the Roman Empire succumbed to the Teutons. Pacifism means yielding power to the inveterate nonpacifists. Among the latter there will always be white men -- adventurers, conquerors, leader-types -- whose following increases with every success. If a revolt against the whites were to occur today in Asia, countless whites would join the rebels simply because they are tired of peaceful living.

Pacifism will remain an ideal, war a fact. If the white races are resolved never to wage war again, the colored will act differently and be rulers of the world.

Oh and this, and other interesting and inflammatory ideas are found at this site dedicated to my favorite bald german philosopher: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/spengler/worldpeace.htm
 
You know, I think that it is possible to sum up all your articles in a few sentences: PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL, SOME ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS; CAPITALISM RUINS NATURE; JEWS ARE BAD; MOST PEOPLE ARE MEDICORE, SO IN ORDER TO SECURE THE FUTURE FOR THE INDO EUROPEAN CULTURE WE MUST ELIMINATE THEM; MULTICULTURALISM IS BAD; TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WEST ARE MATERIALISTIC AND DON'T CARE ABOUT NATIONALISM AND THEIR INDO EUROPEAN HERITAGE; JEWS ARE VERY, VERY, VERY BAD.
 
kmik said:
You know, I think that it is possible to sum up all your articles in a few sentences: PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL, SOME ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS; CAPITALISM RUINS NATURE; JEWS ARE BAD; MOST PEOPLE ARE MEDICORE, SO IN ORDER TO SECURE THE FUTURE FOR THE INDO EUROPEAN CULTURE WE MUST ELIMINATE THEM; MULTICULTURALISM IS BAD; TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WEST ARE MATERIALISTIC AND DON'T CARE ABOUT NATIONALISM AND THEIR INDO EUROPEAN HERITAGE; JEWS ARE VERY, VERY, VERY BAD.

:lol:
 
kmik said:
You know, I think that it is possible to sum up all your articles in a few sentences: PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL, SOME ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS; CAPITALISM RUINS NATURE; JEWS ARE BAD; MOST PEOPLE ARE MEDICORE, SO IN ORDER TO SECURE THE FUTURE FOR THE INDO EUROPEAN CULTURE WE MUST ELIMINATE THEM; MULTICULTURALISM IS BAD; TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WEST ARE MATERIALISTIC AND DON'T CARE ABOUT NATIONALISM AND THEIR INDO EUROPEAN HERITAGE; JEWS ARE VERY, VERY, VERY BAD.

Prozak goes a little over the top sometimes. I dont see how you can kill the undermen, nor what the point of such an endeavor would be? First of all it will never happen, and second, I dont see how the world would change? Philosopher kings out of Plato's republic arent going to suddenly take power after the undermen are gone, and institute a golden age. Hell, the intelligent supermen of today perpetuate materialistic capitalism. They support political candidates with monetary contributions, they vote. Whereas most undermen unless they are old or religious dont even bother to vote. Like Spengler says in the first paragraph, we have had undermen for the entire history of humanity, they are always there, and they will most likely never fundamentally change. And although I understand why he hates jews, I think he is falling into a stereotype trap.
 
"Indo-Europeans at this time tend to be people of mixed tribal heritage, more and more, and they are slowly (1%) beginning the infiltration, again, of bloodlines of other races. Consequently, we're getting even more weird looking people than ever before, because as is obvious, if you mix two differently specialized things, you'll get a weird offspring. We have one Halle Berry for how many million mixed race people? And there you go. Even more, look at the average "100% white" person in America. A mishmash of English, Slavic, Irish, German and French, ending up with something of uncertain origin and purpose. We're making generic people. The undermen love that, as it gives them a good hiding place."

So your argument against race mixing is that their offspring don't look attractive to you? Not a very strong argument, is it?

And you're looking at the cup half empty. Why not look at mixed race people as people who have two cultures to take from and be proud of instead of seeing them as "generic"? It's the way you look at things.
 
i would approach it from this angle: pacifism achieves nothing in your favor. not all action must be violent or agressive, but action is necessary to move forward. what one does not actively oppose, one passively supports.
 
i love reading these posts. they are so funny. mixed race people are ugly? of course, unmixed "pure" people are beautful. that's why there are so many beautiful irish people. note the sarcasm. obviously the poster isn't a world traveler. evidence, it all comes down to evidence. these people breed more than heroic people? wow, that's nonsense. i honestly don't believe that intelligent people hold such views, i think this is all just a sham.
 
the alumnus said:
i love reading these posts. they are so funny. mixed race people are ugly? of course, unmixed "pure" people are beautful. that's why there are so many beautiful irish people. note the sarcasm. obviously the poster isn't a world traveler. evidence, it all comes down to evidence. these people breed more than heroic people? wow, that's nonsense. i honestly don't believe that intelligent people hold such views, i think this is all just a sham.
Agreed, I can't believe anyone actually subscribes to this crap. Well...I can believe that they do, but I can't understand why :Spin:

infoterror seems to think Aryan heritage is the key to everything--looks, intelligence, ability to make meaningful contributions to society. News flash, man: there are plenty of ugly, stupid white people. Case in point: yours truly. My ancestors were all German, but I'm neither beautiful nor particularly intelligent. It just takes me a while to get a suntan. Now there's something to be proud of :Spin:
 
NeverIsForever said:
Agreed, I can't believe anyone actually subscribes to this crap. Well...I can believe that they do, but I can't understand why :Spin:

infoterror seems to think Aryan heritage is the key to everything--looks, intelligence, ability to make meaningful contributions to society. News flash, man: there are plenty of ugly, stupid white people. Case in point: yours truly. My ancestors were all German, but I'm neither beautiful nor particularly intelligent. It just takes me a while to get a suntan. Now there's something to be proud of :Spin:

Hey man Holocaust deniers are also some of the first people to believe in alien abductions. Enough said.
 
One has to commend him on his ability to write though. Every point is led to a logical conclusion. Every question has an answer. The ideology appeals to the self-preservation loophole in us all: "What about the children?" What of those who inherit the Earth? What if we're being *gasp* selfish and we don't even know it? What if we destroy the world eventually? It's a great way to put forth an idea. Guilt-trip it. Blame every fault of current society on current society.

After reading, the smile on the reader's face grows taut with glee as all the answers to the civilized world are revealed. And then after another moment, the mind snaps back with a "Whatchu talkin bout Willis?"

I commend the article's aesthetic value, but I think kmik summed it up very well with sarcasm and 10293847 with the subjectivity argument I adore so much. This is all based on one's point of view; one's idea of purpose and existence. Good read, nonetheless, as his articles almost always are.

SS, the use of the word pacifism in what context? Being passive? Or avoiding war and unnecessary struggle?
 
pacifism in any respect. inaction. if you find fault in something, but do nothing to stop it, you might as well be supporting it, for your inaction gives no resistance.
 
I commend the article's aesthetic value, but I think kmik summed it up very well with sarcasm and 10293847 with the subjectivity argument I adore so much. This is all based on one's point of view; one's idea of purpose and existence. Good read, nonetheless, as his articles almost always are.

What does that mean? Whenever anyone does anything, there's not really any reason for it. If you keep asking "why?" eventually, the answer is either that there is none or something like "it is our nature to do so."

Why not look at mixed race people as people who have two cultures to take from and be proud of instead of seeing them as "generic"?

2, 3, 6, 10, eventually it's going be dissolved. No person is going to even know about their ancestors, much less hold them in any regard and identify with a unique culture.

these people breed more than heroic people?

Uh, I think they do. I might not choose "heroic" to make the statement true, but "more intelligent."
 
Intelligent people are also detrimental to the ecological well-being of a species because they are capable of transcending instincts and thus not spreading their own genes, superior for survival, though they may be.
 
"2, 3, 6, 10, eventually it's going be dissolved. No person is going to even know about their ancestors, much less hold them in any regard and identify with a unique culture."

If I am part Asian, White, Black, and Hispanic, how hard is it to remember what I am? What, do I need to run around the jungle, with bow and arrows, and kill lions to retain my "Black" culture? Do I need to grow rice to remain Asian? Do I need to listen to country music to remain White? Should I start drinking mead and sing Viking songs? What if I drink the mead, but I don't sing? Will I still be a viking? :err: If I don't, have I lost my culture? :cry: :tickled:

You get the point. Are we supposed to do exactly what our ancestors did? Is it that difficult to retain photos and writings from your ancestors? It's not impossible to remember where you came from. You object, because we aren't exactly the same as we were years and years ago. You are living in a wonderland. And sorry, but your name isn't Alice.
 
NeverIsForever said:
Agreed, I can't believe anyone actually subscribes to this crap. Well...I can believe that they do, but I can't understand why :Spin:

infoterror seems to think Aryan heritage is the key to everything--looks, intelligence, ability to make meaningful contributions to society. News flash, man: there are plenty of ugly, stupid white people. Case in point: yours truly. My ancestors were all German, but I'm neither beautiful nor particularly intelligent. It just takes me a while to get a suntan. Now there's something to be proud of :Spin:

Excellent post.

Infoterror has truly given us all on this board a gift. He has at once shown how ridiculous many of these concepts of racial purity are, yet, he also reminds us race is of some importance. Apart from all these somewhat comical ideas of breeding etc, lies the implicit knowledge that race is still important to mankind. A liberal or scientist can go on how unimportant race is, but we all know the reality. We all know just 10 years ago the Serbs and Croats decided their particular race was far superior to those wrecthed Albanians and Islamically influenced, possibly intermixed Bosnians. We all know what the Hutus thought of the Tutsi's in Rwanda--two ethnic groups or tribes that none of us could ever tell apart. And we all know if we walk down a inner city street at night as a white man, we are asking for trouble--and the same goes for a black man walking through a rich white neighborhood.

Race still is important, and no matter how crazy some of these notions of infoterrors are, they should be discussed, not hushed up as non-pc.
 
Let me explain why I care. I think to center a person's behavior, it's integral for him to be able to identify with nation of relative homogeneity. We need a shared culture to not feel dislocated. The absence of this leads to a lot of modern difficulties. There is less calling for the average person to act "ethically" because there's less reason to care about surrounding people. I mean, they might as well be in another country, so who cares?
 
Demiurge said:
Let me explain why I care. I think to center a person's behavior, it's integral for him to be able to identify with nation of relative homogeneity. We need a shared culture to not feel dislocated. The absence of this leads to a lot of modern difficulties. There is less calling for the average person to act "ethically" because there's less reason to care about surrounding people. I mean, they might as well be in another country, so who cares?

Evidence of what you refer to is found in most every homogenous European country. Although I feel it is not anymore about the genetic makeup of the race itself, but more about the culture each race or group of people developed that makes race so important. One doesnt have to be a light skinned blue eyed aryan to enjoy the ideas and benefits of say Scandinavian culture.