The Führer’s way is the only way

Or:

Niflson responds to Linder

Last month during the second hour of Carolyn Yeager’s radio show, Severus Niflson convincingly rebutted Alex Linder’s libertarian stance against fascism and, although Niflson didn’t mention it, I believe his critique also applies to Greg Johnson’s “New Right” philosophy.

I cannot write shorthand, so forgive me the errors in the following transcriptions of the interview. Specifically addressing what Linder wrote, Niflson said that he, Niflson, is a militarist; and that we cannot have a State without centralization “because it won’t function.”

After a peroration on political sciences, Niflson rephrased Max Weber’s definition of the State: “The State is simply a territory with the monopoly of power,” that is to say, the monopoly of the use of force. Yes, the government runs the State but is not the State.

After Niflson mentioned Bakunin’s critique of Marx he responded to Yeager’s question about clarifying his previous statement:

herrmann_die_fahne“I believe in the esthetics, and I believe in the morality, and I believe in the functionality of military power and of a militarized State. And of course: our ancestors did it historically. Even the modest tribes had basically a war chief, the monopoly of force. The culture of the tribe would be militarized [emphasis in Niflson’s voice]. Everything was focused on making spears, making knives, making swords.”

Using the words “structure” and “hierarchy,” he added that “a glorious thing to do is a militarized society,” and that every State worth of something was militarized; even Bismarck who was not a military guy dressed like one. We never made statues to laypeople but of knights on horses because that’s the only way a nation can defend itself. And there’s the rub:

“Militarism requires strong centralization in the sense that you require the government to focus militaristically on values of marshal heroism.”

That’s why, Niflson added, we are attracted to the military esthetics of National Socialism. After an input by Carolyn, Niflson claimed that libertarians wanted:

“A civilian society of consumers and basic chronic relaxation—in other words: America.”

This, even though the US used to be far more stoic in the past. It is making now a transition toward a bourgeoisie civil society where:

“Civilians make every decision; civilians think everything; civilians decide everything and militarism is related to fighting wars that civilians decide should be fought.”

And it’s far worse today since not even civilian Anglo-Saxons but Jews are ultimately deciding which war must be fought. Nevertheless, Niflson added:

“You cannot have a society without the mechanism of war. Libertarians tend to forget that without militarist ideology you cannot survive—especially us [nationalists after the ethno-state is formed] who will be attacked by everyone.”

And he added that in an ethno-state even the engineers and the architects would wear militarized uniforms because “everything they do they do for military objectives” —i.e., we will have to fight to survive for a long time.

“Every male would have to be ready to pick up a rifle and fight. Because I am a militarist I cannot agree with this naïve libertarianism, which is somehow Utopian—this idea that without a centralized State we can survive.

I have always said that the dynamics of power require structures of power, and the structures of power are militarism. Successful nations are militarized; that’s the truth.”

Keep in mind Egypt, Mesopotamia, Athens, Sparta and Rome. An hypothetical nation of anarchists would easily lose before an organized nation of fascists in a war between the two nations. After Carolyn wrought the subject of Linder’s views again, Niflson added:

“It’s because he is thinking in a non-military context. He is thinking like a civilian. Most of these libertarians believe in pluralism, because we live in a pluralistic society. But at least in the first hundred years we won’t have the luxury of being pluralistic at all.”

Which reminds me of course what the Führer said so clearly during his intimate table talks. Niflson continues:

“We will have to be single-minded, highly structured, hierarchical—and militarized—to be able to survive. We can’t be pluralistic. We can’t have multiple groups bargaining for power in your own nation state…”

This evokes Johnson’s plain antipathy toward NS-like totalitarianism as a template for the coming ethno-state.

“…because the State is the monopoly of the use of force. And that means that others will have to submit.”

After another comment of Carolyn, Niflson added:

“This country [the US] is a civilian democracy of lazy welfare queens. It is a nation of consumers—fat consumers that all they want is to be entertained and satisfied…”

That’s why they don’t want to live in a dictatorship, but be free:

“…inject themselves with garbage; get drunk, etc. These are the types of liberties that are desired.”

After some minutes Carolyn brought back the subject of Linder again. Niflson answered:

“The only effective way is to grow and centralize Federal power; grow and centralize, grow and centralize.”

I guess he said this to confront Linder’s idea of mere “White mania” after whites win their right to an ethno-state, insofar the State would go:

“…after your children, put in them a rifle and say you’ll fight today.”

Linder’s idea—and I’d add Johnson’s stance against genocide as well—is a fantasy because in a new civilization everything is about war; in a federal world these libertarians (or New Righters) won’t have any say on it, no participation in the power of the State. Niflson then satirizes these ideologies:

“I won the war [the creation of an ethno-state] but I’ll make myself weaker. I’ll go for communes and people will run these communes; they will have chickens there.”

Carolyn then made the insightful remark that in the US everyone is afraid of collectivism, that they are even afraid of the word “collective.” But in the past of the US the people had a collectivist vision. Not today adds Niflson, because:

“…people are retreating into their homes, retreating into their fantasies and they don’t want to come out.”

If we are in a middle of a war and a successful nation has been built, the whole point is not “to be a Man” (to use Linder’s term) but simply to win, and that just cannot happen in a pluralistic society insofar as every child will have to be indoctrinated.

Niflson echoing Michael O’Meara:

“Every nation has a myth. The population will grow with this myth and this myth will become reality.”

Though we can speculate about the coming myth, no one knows it because it is a myth that will develop in a given moment. In one of his last thoughts about libertarianism, Niflson added that the majority of us are libertarians, but that it is a delusion because we are all living:

“…under an invisible tyranny: the tyranny of entertainment and consumption, because we are basically forced into our homes; we didn’t want to get out.”

And that fantasy-world is precisely the tyranny, the Matrix that controls us: a fear of the real world.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/the-fuhrers-way-is-the-only-way/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

33 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. I don’t think Linder supports the complete disappearance of the State apparatus (which is tantamount to anarchism, a ridiculous utopia), but a government that restricts itself to its original function: military and law. Criticizable, of course — history has shown countries with liberal mores and culture end up self-destructing — but of a very acceptable intellectual level.

    As to Johnson, I admit his ingenuousness and naïveté on the subject of coercion puzzles me. It’s the one thing I don’t understand in him, who otherwise is a fine and smart fellow. The world has always been in fine based on coercion, rather than persuasion, which is inferior in nature. The strongest can take what he wants. That’s basic things you used to learn in XIXth century high school. Believing that humans can act toward each other through contracts and cooperation solely is disregarding the fact we are animals who sometimes just don’t want to get along and play nice, terrestrial resources and lands are finite (who decides how much territory is allocated to each nation, if not the sword?), and some people just aren’t fit to be individualistic and/or take decisions for themselves.

    If you want my ideal State system, it is the following: coercive on the moral and cultural level (race-mixing punishable by banishment, for example), and liberal on the economic level (very low taxation, but enforced with the utmost severity).

    The NS State was not as collectivist as some idiots like to claim, but it was still too collectivist for my tastes.

    • Deviance (and Linder, and even Johnson) acknowledge Adolf HItler’s singular achievement and even agree with his methods, but then say “but it was still too collectivist for my tastes.”

      Yet, they cannot show that their ideal society has ever, or can ever exist. They are talkers, not doers. This is exactly what is wrong with our spoiled white population. The same goes for Rollory and Herman King.

      Speaking of William Pierce, it seems to me he was trying to build a cadre of fighters — not necessarily all people with guns, but people who knew what fighting meant and understood they couldn’t have it both ways.

      • Yes, we have one model that actually worked and produced a strong state yet we have an endless supply of tinkerers who think that they know better than Hitler how to do it.

    • Deviance wrote-

      “If you want my ideal State system, it is the following: coercive on the moral and cultural level (race-mixing punishable by banishment, for example), and liberal on the economic level (very low taxation, but enforced with the utmost severity).”

      I forgot to mention than many taxes were lowered in NS Germany and were not nearly as high as they are today – in a “liberal” democratic system. You should do some research and present some figures if you are going to make statements like this.

      • Carolyn, you should do some research too. I understand you are — rightly — emotional about defending Hitler and the NS movement, and I perhaps was too vague in my comment above, so don’t take it as an insult. I respect you enormously.

        I am one of the few individuals in the modern WN movement who fought against the erroneous idea “Nazi Germany” was socialistic/collectivist: see for example this lengthy comment on Counter-Currents.

        You mention that some taxes were lowered, which is true; you could also have mentioned that Germany witnessed the biggest wave of privatizations in its history under the reign of Hitler (see this Spanish study (en, pdf)).

        If the Italian fascist regime clearly had populist and redistributivist undertones (which become self-evident in the Repubblica Sociale Italiana, the puppet State of 1943-1945), the German fascist regime was much more complex, and could actually be conceived as libertarian economically. Much more than the Wilson’s America, that’s for sure.

        So, why do I say it was still too collectivist for my tastes? It is quibbling, really. Let’s just say that I believe minimal government interference is the way to prosperity in the economic arena (simply look at the American example vs. the North Korean example), and NS Germany could have done better lowering taxes and regulations even more.

  2. Growing and centralizing is what the US government has been doing for the past 50 years, to everyone’s detriment.

    The problem with a strongly centralized system is that it presents a single highly valuable target for capture. Same way centralized databases of government information result in less security for their citizens rather than more; the hackers always find a way in, and the more centralized it is and the more valuable the data, the more motivated the hackers are.

    A more distributed power structure, where the whole is capable of answering attacks from without while being less prone to internal takeover and corruption, is not impossible.

    • My take on this subject is that the white race will need at least a one thousand-year Reich to make sure whites will be properly allocated in all continents to secure survival (with all the wars of extermination that that would require) and that centralization and totalitarianism will not be relaxed until the last corner of land has been conquered. At least that was Pierce’s dream: but in the real world it might take longer than in a novel.

  3. If we can’t survive without a military dictatorship, we don’t deserve to survive.

    • Being afraid of a military dictatorship in a world with more nations joining the atomic club is like living in an inner world of fantasy.

      • The problem is, who is the dictator? How do you know you can trust him?

        George Washington was trustworthy enough. Adams and Jefferson also. James K Polk did much better than his reputation suggests. Even as late as Coolidge, the presidency wasn’t consistently at odds with the good of the country, but given that Lincoln and Wilson had already happened by then, the trend was clear. That’s about a hundred years. How do you set up a system where the leadership doesn’t degrade at a similar rate – and, once degraded, finds itself with all sorts of power you really don’t want it to have?

        My answer to this is hereditary monarchy, guided by modern understanding of genetics, and explicit advocacy of ethnic intermarriage and restriction of outmarriage. The motivating principles would be family ties and property rights – the ruling family owns the country outright, so protects it on the basis of “it’s ours, we should take care of it”, and the country’s population is part of the family (and occasional regular commoner marriages should maintain those ties while not diluting the genetic talent pool making the monarchy unusual), so they are protected on the basis of blood being thicker than water. These things aren’t enough by themselves – see the current behavior of the Windsors as something that needs to be prevented – but they’re baseline principles that point in the right direction and toward the right results. To a certain extent this sort of thing was already going on in the medieval period – but getting to such a system from where we are now is not at all clear.

        For one thing, an enduring kingship isn’t something that can simply be awarded or seized (or lost) in an overnight coup the way dictatorship can be. It has to be earned – on the field of battle, certainly, but also in the hearts of those who would follow, and proven worthy over multiple generations.

      • As to who will be the dictator, I am fond of Plato’s ideas: that the most honorable (and genetically superior I’d add) must become kings, or that those called dictators must “genuinely and adequately philosophize”. After the racial crisis is over, I’d like a government headed by two consuls, like in Republican Rome.

  4. @Rollory and Chechar

    The best form of government is a selective democracy operating on the Venice City-State/Vatican model: a dictator, around 10 or 12 consuls that went up there because they climbed the Party ladder for their intrinsic merits, and an election by the Consuls when the dictator dies. It avoids the risks of genetic degeneracy and impotent kings that come with hereditary monarchy.

    That’s what Hitler wanted (cf. Table Talk).

  5. My position is that freedom is compatible with racial survival, but there has to be restraints.

    Weber: “The State – monopoly of the use of force.

    Today, what matters is the monopoly of the media. The Jews didn’t conquer the West just by taking control of the police and the tribunals.

    Rollory:

    “Growing and centralizing is what the US government has been doing for the past 50 years, to everyone’s detriment. / The problem with a strongly centralized system is that it presents a single highly valuable target for capture.”

    Today, the Jewish system is destroying us from the top, thanks to a centralized system. But if we take power back, we’ll need a central authority so as to crush anti-White activism and prevent any immigration at the local level.


    William Pierce said this in one of his radio broadcasts :

    Democracy and Propaganda – June 2002

    “I cannot help but agree with Bernays and Ellul that the governing role of propaganda is inevitable in a modern, centralized, technological society. Without propaganda as a coordinator for the lemmings, we would have chaos. The only way to avoid propaganda would be to return to the sort of decentralized society without mass media, based on the farm and the village, that we had during the Middle Ages and in ancient times, and we can’t do that as long as we live in a world where we are surrounded by dangerous enemies: which is to say, we cannot afford decentralization and the giving up of our mass communications capabilities as long as we have Chinese or Jews waiting for us to lower our vigilance.

    The important thing is not to try to avoid propaganda — we really can’t do that — but to ensure that the people who control the content and the direction of the propaganda are our people and that they have the right motivations. That is the essential thing. Beside this, everything else becomes insignificant.”

    • Today, what matters is the monopoly of the media. The Jews didn’t conquer the West just by taking control of the police and the tribunals.

      The media and the banking system are the sole origin of Jewish power, indeed — if they lose their grip on them, as it happened in several European countries in the XXth century, their whole structure collapses in less than a month, and they become the same powerless, hated and frustrated losers they used to find in their enemies. Don’t fight their writers, their activists or even their businessmen: go right for the head and cut it, the body then falls in order.

      But the Jews did not come to such immense power simply by understanding earlier than Whites the importance of newspapers and banking in an industrial world. They did it because they were allowed to do so; because the legal system, the State, did not forbid them to engage in such activities. The root cause is legal egalitarianism, which holds that all breathing men are equal before the law, without regard for race and intentions.

      • Exactly. That’s why it’s paramount to study the passionate discussions of whites against whites about whether or not emancipate Jews during the aftermaths of the French Revolution. The bad guys won that debate. And even if we consider that the Frenchmen went cuckoo by the end of the 18th century, what infuriates me the most, while reading studies on the subsequent rise of the Jews throughout the 19th century, is that European nation after European nation followed the French’s (cuckoo) lead in emancipating the tribe throughout Europe.

        It is Christianity and its secular offshoot, liberalism—individualism, universalism, egalitarianism—, what was behind this astronomic blunder.

        That’s why, from the historical viewpoint, I consider Jews as Enemy #2. But history will never be appreciated within present day-nationalism insofar as most WNists are Christians or at least Christian sympathizers. (Look: even the secular, NS-sympathizer Carolyn Yeager recently forbid the elderly Will Williams to read a text of Wm. Pierce criticizing Christianity in her radio show!)

        These people never learn. As long as WNists are hypnotized with Enemy #2 instead of destroying in their minds what is left of Christian axiology they won’t be able to see what has happened to their civilization.

      • Chechar:

        “European nation after European nation followed the French’s (cuckoo) lead in emancipating the tribe throughout Europe.”

        Emancipation is not the right word. The Jews were not hold in slavery. If the Italian government decides to give free rein to the Italian mafia, it should be called capitulation, not emancipation.

        Actually, there was no intention to give free rein to Jewish malfeasance. The idea was to destroy them collectively by assimilation to the White population. That’s what the government in Paris has long been doing to White people living under its domination.

        For example, one fifth of French people are employed by the administration. You secure a job in the French administration by taking part in a competitive examination. If you pass the examination, you won’t stay where your ancestors have been living for fifty generations. A Breton who gets a teacher qualification will first be sent to the Paris or Lille regions, to teach to the Blacks and the Arabs. If you are a judge, or a high-school principal, you will be moved around from town to town along your career. Even if you are not a public servant, most of the high paying jobs are in Paris. That’s how the French government has been deliberately moving people around so as to create a unified France and destroy the pre-existing nations.

        But it didn’t work with the Jews. Instead of France progressively destroying the Jews, the reverse has happened.

        Chechar:

        It is Christianity and its secular offshoot, liberalism—individualism, universalism, egalitarianism—, what was behind this astronomic blunder.

        The egalitarianism and universalism of the French revolution was a form of parochialism. They thought it would be more convenient if everyone spoke the Parisian variety of the French idiom. If something was good enough for the Parisians, there was no reason it wouldn’t be good for the whole universe. Egalitarianism meant that every one should have the freedom to speak French. Speaking other languages was an offense against the principle of egalitarianism. Political decisions could only be taken in Paris. Otherwise, decisions would be influenced by particularism or by local interests.

      • Don’t idealize the Revolution. It was far more serious than that.

        The French revolutionaries started the beheading of blonds and imported guillotines to Haiti for the blacks to behead whites. All the psycho we see in the liberal world today happened within ten years after the Revolution. “I continue to be amazed by how the French compressed 200 years of republican degeneracy in America into an explosive 10 years in France” —Hunter Wallace. We’ve forgotten just how radical the French Revolution was at the time: abolition, negro citizenship, integration, it was all there at the height of the Jacobin madness.

        All of this has been tried before. Traumatized whites returning from Haiti to Paris were looked down by the revolutionaries and blacks in Haiti idealized.

        Obviously a passion for racial and cultural suicide has happened sans jews and that is what concerns me. If whites were not as nuts as they are, no jew would have taken over their societies.

      • “The French revolutionaries started the beheading of blonds”

        What’s your source for that?

        “abolition, negro citizenship, integration, it was all there at the height of the Jacobin madness.”

        The French revolution had nothing to do with racial issues. What happened in Haiti at that time is really an epiphenomenon.

        “If whites were not as nuts as they are, no jew would have taken over their societies.”

        It must be at least 24 hours since I hadn’t heard of your fetish theory.

      • The source of the beheading of blonds is Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans, 2011 edition, pages 195-198.

        Hunter Wallace is writing a book on the havoc caused by the Jacobins’ suicidal zeitgeist in the Caribbean. He has written quite a few articles on this very subject at Occidental Dissent.

        It must be at least 24 hours since I hadn’t heard of your fetish theory.

        “fetish” (??) – “an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit”.

        If whites had not suffered from psychotic breakdowns sans jews, how do you explain the fanatic destruction of the ancient temples throughout the agonizing Roman Empire, as well of the fanatic destruction of entire libraries containing the accumulated wisdom of Greco-Roman culture after they succumbed to the Galilean cult (cf. the entries in this blog about Julian the Apostate)?

        Whether you like to comprehend it or not, this is the second psychotic breakdown in the history of Western civilization. Yes: we survived the first one, the hostile imposition of suicidal Christianity over the white race, but barely by the skin of our teeth.

      • To Chechar who wrote in the following post:
        (Look: even the secular, NS-sympathizer Carolyn Yeager recently forbid the elderly Will Williams to read a text of Wm. Pierce criticizing Christianity in her radio show!)

        I most certainly did NOT forbid Will Williams (the elderly? do you even know him?) to read the text. He read it. I just stopped him after over 5 minutes, saying we got the idea. I was told by him it was a section, not several pages.

        I’ve noticed you have a real problem getting things right and telling the truth. You prefer to make things up.

      • I guess he’s elderly; might be wrong. Anyway, in other podcasts you have shunned open discussion on the Christian Problem.

      • Chechar:

        Obviously a passion for racial and cultural suicide has happened sans jews and that is what concerns me. If whites were not as nuts as they are, no jew would have taken over their societies.

        As far as I know, that is not true.
        The French Revolution was devised by Jews via Freemasonry; without them, nothing tells us these events would have taken place.

        Plus, saying the French Republic was a creation of Christianity is nonsense: it has since waged a war with the Church that has never stopped (from the deadly repression of the Vendeans who opposed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy to today’s insidious persecution of Christians, and especially under the fanatically secularist Third Republic).

      • I could reply to the Freemasonry claim now but am very busy. Anyway, my collection of articles under the category “Christian problem” contains the answer already. Cheers.

  6. Again, we find ourselves in agreement.

    The thing I personally laugh at the most is the idea of a “Christian anti-Semitism”.

    It is an utter oxymoron, since Christianity relies on the ideas of salvation, conversion and free will, and not ethnic or racial predestination. Franco and Pétain showed this without ambiguity when it was finally time to act: they prevented any deportation they could prevent, out of religious reasons.

    As Alex Linder said, “Christians donate”; I would add “Christians are numerous, optimistic and friendly”. I really like their personality on an individual level. Therefore I cannot find myself drawn to the idea we must ridicule them and expel them ruthlessly from the WN movement. We are already in very small numbers, and any hand or rifle is welcome. But I seriously cannot hide my irritation grows bigger each day when I see Christian comments on websites and forums.

    I would be very interested by your personal opinion on the attitude we should hold toward Christianity and Christians. Fight them until their final death, Linder-style, or keep them as friends? Take your time, the question is more complex than it appears to be, and it has given me more than a few headaches in my life.

    • No need to take time. It’s simple.

      A couple of well-known Christian WN bloggers are my friends (I communicate with them by email).

      It’s unnecessary to offend them (see Matt Parrot’s latest article at CC). But at the same time it is imperative to expose what Christians have been doing to the white race since its origins (see for example my last entry on Vikings and Christianity to see what do I mean).

  7. To the various posters here regarding Christianity; With all due respect Christianity did not become the dominant religion in the West because it was weak, Christianity prevailed through conquest, and the West became the dominant power in the world under Christianity, not under some abstract navel-gazing philosophy. Blaming Christianity is nonsense, it is the feminization of the West through universal suffrage that doomed the West, not Christianity. I consider it likely that Islam would have conquered Europe absent the unifying force of Christianity, the isolated pagan tribes would have fallen one by one.

    You completely ignore the value of a common religion in building and maintaining a civilization; that issue apparently escapes your thoughts completely even though the historical record demonstrates that race alone has never been sufficient to build a lasting civilization and that all great civilizations were built upon a shared religion. Just once I’d like to hear from the Christian-bashers just exactly what you propose to replace Christianity with which makes any sense whatsoever. Without any practical alternative in mind your theories are merely so much hot air.

    • I recognize the merits of Christianity (see my latest post in this blog). As to your latest question above, see the table talks of Hitler.

    • Starera is correct. If one reads Revilo P. Oliver’s work on the Death of the West, it becomes clear that the deeper issue is the loss of our mythic being. Really, what are we striving for? Sorry but ‘race’ consciousness is an earthly level of thought and has never been a serious force for achievement. We want – need a calling from the Godly realm for our people to strive for.

      Nazis were certainly correct in looking for a more scientific approach to enhance the myth aspect… though they chose to recede into a narrower vision of White and failed to light a fire within the other white races of Europe/America. Now guess the only modern grass roots mythic expression that has found some success among whites… Scientology!

      Yes at this point, we might as well join it because it’s the only full spectrum self-empowering force to provide an alternative – which is a sad state of affairs.

      Now everyone can laugh at how Science dealt a severe blow to Christianity, but on it’s current course, it will destroy all your conceptions of the White race long before Christianity dies. If we can make a big purple tomato, how long before we make Supermen of any color they want.

      Not much difference between the Liberals and this current iconoclastic ecstasy. We want to destroy it ALL and will.

      • I agree and disagree at the same time. Have you read a most featured post here, God and white nationalism? We don’t need silly myths like Scientology, it is time for NS.

  8. Yes, Chechar, you are certainly not the worst of the lot on Christianity, but I’ve yet to see you offer any practical alternative as a unifying force for Western Civilization. In my view the Christian-bashing simply alienates the majority of whites who would otherwise be willing to support the values which we share, and to no useful end. That said, there is much about the contemporary feminized version of Christianity to complain of, and I try to not take such views as a personal insult.

    As for Table Talks, and in particular the English translation, I don’t consider it reliable on the subject, as I mentioned previously. Hitler made far too many favorable references to religion in public for me to swallow that whole. However even if you wish to take the alleged comments as true, Hitler must have also felt it advisable to keep such sentiments closely-held, for reasons that still hold.

    Btw, I’ve been reading through many of your posts and I ran across an observation about Hitler’s generalship which I’d like to take up with you some rainy day.

    Thanks again for providing a great source of material here.

    • Thanks to you for commenting here.

      By the by, in my book The Return of Quetzalcoatl, published in this blog, I recognize what the Church did to prevent infanticide among whites. So I am not as black and white on religion as others might surmise.

  9. “Have you read a most featured post here, God and white nationalism? We don not need silly myths like Scientology, it is time for NS.”

    The Greeks were in constant commune with the Gods. The Norse fought and died to enter Valhalla, not for their racial posterity. All too often, men like Pierce, who have achieved a certain amount of fame (immortality) are quick to push some collective ‘die and sacrifice because it’s the right thing to do’ on their followers. Talk about silly.

    Surely as an expert in psychology, you must realize that all men are self-interested. No-one’s going to fight on the level of a holy warrior just so their grandkids can walk on Mars or something.

    • I agree that we need a modern myth. But the old myths are dying. We need something new. Did you actually read Pierce’s essay linked above?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 234 other followers

%d bloggers like this: