The Story of Philosophy, 7

To save the white race from extinction it is not enough to start using the Semitic words that our Christian parents instilled in us as insults to Neo-Christian Aryans. We also have to make a destructive critique of what we have inherited from the secular world in the West. I have said that, if theology has been the wicked party for the West (tomorrow I’ll resume Deschner’s chapter on St Augustine), philosophy has been the stupid party. On Plato, I have little to add about the stupidities of his philosophy to what has already been said in the previous article of this series. But I still would like to say something.

In the section of Durant’s book, ‘The Ethical Problem’, Plato puts Thrasymachus discussing with Socrates. I must confess that I find quite irritating the figure of Socrates, with his eternal questions always putting on the defensive his opponents. If I had walked on the streets of Pericles’ Athens, I would have told Socrates what Bill O’Reilly told Michael Moore when he met him on the street: that he would answer his questions to Moore as long as he in turn answered O’Reilly’s questions. Otherwise we are always on the defensive against Socrates/Moore.

On the next page, Durant talks about the Gorgias dialogue and says that ‘Callicles denounces morality as an invention of the weak to neutralize the strength of the strong’. In the next section of the same chapter Durant quotes the Protagoras dialogue: ‘As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them’. Some pages later Durant quotes one of the passages in which I completely agree with Plato:

The elements of instruction should be presented to the mind in childhood, but not with any compulsion; for a freeman should be a freeman too in the acquisition of knowledge.

Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion has no hold on the mind. Therefore do not use compulsion, but let early education be rather a sort of amusement; this will better enable you to find out the natural bent of the child.

But several pages later Durant tells us that ‘the guardians will have no wives’ and about empowered women, he adds:

But whence will these women come? Some, no doubt, the guardians will woo out of the industrial or military classes; others will have become, by their own right, members of the guardian class. For there is to be no sex barrier of any kind in this community; least of all in education—the girl shall have the same intellectual opportunities as the boy, the same chance to rise to the highest positions in the state.

One would imagine that Durant would strenuously rebel against this feminism in ancient Athens, but no. In the final section of the chapter, devoted to Durant’s criticism of the philosopher, he wrote instead:

What Plato lacks above all, perhaps, is the Heracleitean sense of flux and change; he is too anxious to have the moving picture of this world become a fixed and still tableau…

Essentially he is right—is he not?—what this world needs is to be ruled by its wisest men. It is our business to adapt his thought to our own times and limitations. Today we must take democracy for granted: we cannot limit the suffrage as Plato proposed…

…and that would be such equality of educational opportunity as would open to all men and women, irrespective of the means of their parents, the road to university training and political advancement.

Will Durant, who wrote this book in the 1920s, was nothing but a normie. And compared with us, white nationalists are normies too: as they have not figured out that, in addition to Jewry, they have enemies in the very fabric of history, which is why Plato proposed a static state.

A dynamic society is not recommended because, as we have said elsewhere, the human being is not ready for Prometheus’ fire. Since the Industrial Revolution whites have done nothing but commit ethnic suicide for the simple fact that they are still children playing with matches who burn their own house. That is why, at the end of my ¿Me Ayudarás?, I recommend a static society as Arthur Clarke described it in Against the Fall of Night when writing about Lys, a novella later expanded into The City and the Stars: the utopia that I imagine with the paintings of Le Lorraine.

5 Comments

  1. Plato’s task was to imagine the ideal polis in an almost completely racially homogeneous society that had only primitive technology, while ours is to imagine how to rescue the white race from absorption into a racially diverse society in which the excessive growth of technology itself is the key factor in that absorption. If the global technological system collapses and permanently disappears, a return to the technology of the polis would naturally ensue. The races, too, would naturally separate as like sought out like. With many such polities arising, survival of the fittest would weed out such madness as female guardians. While in certain fields women can sometimes be possessed of technical ability, even occasionally bordering on genius, it’s no accident that there have been no great women philosophers. By hormonal facts of biology that were unknown in Plato’s time, the broad-hipped sex is better confined to childbearing.

    • Perhaps instead of my phrase ‘destructive criticism’ I should have said ‘constructive criticism’…

    • Why do you think that the Races will separate naturally after Technique collapses?

      • Would you associate with niggers or jews if you didn’t have to?

        The technological state forces the races together by means of Affirmative Action laws, laws against “hate speech”, forced school busing, non-discrimination laws in housing, etc. If the races were mixing voluntarily, such laws wouldn’t be necessary. The disappearance of the technological state would allow the natural tendency of races to segregate to be expressed. Immigration would cease. In such desperate times as would ensue after the collapse of the system, the struggle for survival would also compel them to separate. There’d be no surplus to distribute to useless eaters, who would be forced to fend for themselves or starve. As a consequence, Christianity’s most racially destructive activities would be arrested — not by decree of law or by reform, but constrained by hard facts of reality; by Nature herself.

      • What you say makes sense.

        I, however, do not think that Negroes will just up and go. I think that the vast majority of them hate Whites so much (in addition to wanting our shit so badly) that they will go out of their way to push us aside even if it means their own deaths.

        Not just Negroes, but Arabs as well, and Mestizos (Whom Pierce said have a strong disdain for Gringos).

        Hard to tell.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: