What ‘The Turner Diaries’ is all about

by William Pierce

It is important for us to understand that one person is not a Methodist and another a Catholic and a third a Marxist as the result of any rational process—at least, not in the vast majority of cases, although there are individual exceptions.

That is, one is not a Methodist because one sat down and studied the Methodist doctrine, compared it with other doctrines, and decided that Methodism was what made the most sense. One is a Methodist, generally, because one’s parents and neighbors were—that is, out of an entirely unreasoning desire to conform, to believe what one perceives that one is expected to believe. John Wesley undoubtedly was an exception to this rule, but very few other Methodists have been.

There has been strong resistance to accepting the implications of this important facet of human behavior. People seem to want to believe that we are all quite rational, when most of us aren’t. For our purposes, the implication of the fact that most people are governed far more by herd instinct than by reason is this: Insofar as the general public is concerned, truth cannot fight its own battles. As long as Norman Lear, the Jewish television producer, has more kilowatts for reaching the public than we do, it will be his view of history and, more important, his view of what is moral rather than ours which will be generally accepted and which will govern the political process.

This means that we can realistically expect our educational efforts to be effective with only a rather small minority of our fellow citizens. We cannot expect to make a partisan for our cause out of the average man or woman who perceives, even unconsciously, that our cause is not popular, no matter how many books or leaflets we may coax that person into reading. We win only two types of people: One is the person who is already alienated to a certain extent from Mr. Lear’s world and does not fully feel himself a part of the herd to which Mr. Lear is preaching with his cleverly designed television sermons. Unfortunately, in many cases people are alienated for reasons which are entirely or partly wrong from our point of view. That is why protest movements and revolutionary movements always pick up lots of defective people. On the other hand, alienation is certain to remain a growth industry, as they say, and one can hope to see many more essentially healthy people becoming alienated from the mainstream in the years ahead.

The second type of person we are able to win with an educational effort at this time is the person who is one of those rare exceptions to the general rule, a person who is strongly motivated by ideas as well as by instinct, and who has already been groping in our direction. Our effect with such a person is primarily to help him clarify his ideas and to lead him more rapidly to their logical conclusions.

This contrast between idealistic motivation and herd instinct tell us only part of the story as to why people behave the way they do. The rest of the story takes us into the realm of values. Consider your average man or woman, your ordinary White American: what, other than herd instinct, determines his behavior—in particular, the way he votes?

Well, he generally likes to be warm, dry, and comfortable. He likes to eat. He likes sex. He likes to feel secure. He likes to be entertained. He likes to own shiny things, such as automobiles, boats, houses, new golf clubs, and jewelry. And that’s about it. If these desires of his are gratified, then he is satisfied. If he thinks a politician will satisfy him, he’ll vote for the man.

Now, if this average citizen hears that Blacks are rioting and killing Whites somewhere 1,000 miles away he will be annoyed—if Norman Lear hasn’t already affected his mind too much and he still has healthy instincts. When he hears that hundreds of thousands of non-White aliens are pouring into the country, again he’ll be annoyed. All these things are, to a greater or lesser extent, perceived as threats at the instinctual level. They trigger his normal territorial or xenophobic reflexes. But unless the threat becomes very direct and very personal—unless the riot is in his neighborhood, unless a member of his immediate family marries a non-White, or unless he receives a special tax bill in the mail to provide welfare payment for more immigrants—the annoyance remains minor. It does not override his desire to be satisfied.

When it comes time to vote, if one candidate is in favor of forced busing or more boat people and a second candidate is against these things—and if all other factors are equal—then he’ll vote for the second man. But all the other factors are never equal. And if the pro-busing man has a nice smile and a warm personality that makes the voter feel more secure, while the anti-busing man wants to raise the charge for fishing licenses, say, and the voter likes to fish, then he’ll vote for the pro-busing candidate nine times out of ten.

That is why a state like Minnesota, which has one of the racially healthiest populations in the country, could keep sending a piece of filth like the late Hubert Humphrey back to the U.S. Senate term after term. Old Hubert could stand up in the Senate and support forced busing, forced housing, forced hiring, and everything else that most Minnesotans didn’t favor—except, of course, those Minnesotans already convinced by Norman Lear that they should favor those things—and then Hubert could make up for it all by going for bigger farm price supports than his opponent and by being, as they say in New York, a mensch. And the good folks of Minnesota would re-elect him.

Many people don’t like the view of human behavior I am presenting to you, because it is mechanistic; it reduces man to no more than another animal. And I’ll admit that it is an oversimplified view. But it is nevertheless a fact that man is an animal, and that fact accounts for 99 per cent of his behavior. In particular, it accounts for the way he votes. That’s why democracy is such a catastrophe.

I said the fact that man is an animal explains 99 per cent of his behavior, and anyone who wants to change the world in any way must take that fact into account. But it is the other one per cent of human motivation that I’m more interested in and that the Alliance is more interested in. It’s the other one per cent that explains why Earl Turner, the hero of The Turner Diaries, did the things he did.

Earl Turner was a man whose priorities were different from those of your average American voter. Earl Turner liked to be warm and dry and to have a full belly, just like everyone else. He enjoyed sex. And, presumably, he liked to own shiny things. But when Blacks killed Whites 1,000 miles away, it wasn’t just a minor annoyance to him. He had a larger view of the world and of his race and of his relationship to them. He could abstract what was a minor, personal threat to your average voter, and he could relate that abstraction to his view of the world.

When Earl Turner saw a racially mixed couple on the street, the sight did more than arouse a twinge of xenophobia or offend his sense of beauty. Unlike your average voter, he saw all the implications of that mixed couple. He saw mongrel children and mongrel grandchildren; he saw a race defiled. He saw a threat not just to himself, but to the whole upward course of life; a threat not just to his race, but to what his race could become.

And it was this that was important to Earl Turner: it was this that counted more than being satisfied, more than owning shiny things. And that’s why he didn’t behave like your average voter. His priorities were different.

Actually, there are two concepts here. First, Earl Turner had the capacity for abstraction, for taking an idea out of a specific set of circumstances and putting it into a more general context: for converting an idea into an ideal. That is a capacity which distinguishes our race from Blacks, in general, but it is still a capacity which relatively few Whites have to any significant degree.

And, second, there are values, the choice of which things count most. For most people the things that come first, even if they have the capacity for abstraction, are entirely personal. It is only for a minority within a minority that the long-range things are the ones that count. Only the very few can feel that it is more important that strength and beauty and wisdom prevail and become stronger and more beautiful and wiser with each succeeding generation than it is that any individual—or a million individuals—have full bellies.

In The Turner Diaries the real struggle was not so much one of a revolutionary band against the government as it was of one set of values against another set. Earl Turner and his Organization were the champions of a life-centered set of values, a set of values in which the central reality is not the individual, but all of Life: the Cosmos, in its entire temporal extension. Opposed to them were not only the values of the government and the media and the plutocrats, but also the individual-centered set of values of mass man, of the average voter. And in The Turner Diaries the life-centered values won, and those values then ruled. And the whole world was changed: its government, its racial composition, its art and industry, it life-styles, and all its priorities.

Human nature didn’t change—that is, the mentality and the values of the average White person didn’t change, because those are things which can only be changed over the course of generations, through the evolutionary process. But a different set of values, the values of an elite minority, gained precedence over the values of man. That’s what The Turner Diaries is all about.

And as I said earlier, it’s not a plan or a blueprint. The details—the bombings and assassinations, the nuclear war and its aftermath—are all fiction. But the struggle for dominance between the two sets of values portrayed in the book is not fiction. That’s real. And it is in this regard that Earl Turner’s Organization is the model for the National Alliance.

We are concerned, then, not only with education, with helping people clarify their thoughts and reach the proper conclusions, but also with embodying and institutionalizing a set of fundamental values and a view of the world. We are convinced that, unless our values prevail and rule, unless it is our world view which determines the shape of the future by setting men’s priorities and guiding them in their decisions, then there will be no future—that is, no future worth mentioning, because it will be a retrograde future, and our race will not be a part of it. And, in fact, the only valid reason why our race should survive is that it is the bearer of the values that we are determined shall prevail. For life loses its intrinsic value when its only motive is to increase its quantity, when its only goal is satiety.

The value of every form of life—of every race—of every individual—is not that it is an end in itself but that it is a means to a higher end. The value of a man’s life is not to be found in the degree to which he enjoys himself or in the amount of wealth or power he accumulates—and it especially is not to be found in the so-called good he does by making life more comfortable for others. It is to be found only in the extent to which he helps prepare the way for a higher, a more fully conscious life than his own.

Earl Turner understood that and acted accordingly and we must do the same.

____________

The above material has been excerpted from a portion of Pierce’s address at the Estonian House in New York City. The original title was ‘Whose Values Shall Rule?’ which appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin of June, 1980.

Published in: on October 18, 2019 at 6:15 am  Comments (20)  

20 Comments

  1. Excellent; better in fact than Pierce’s own books (at defining the crux of our situation).

  2. “But it is nevertheless a fact that man is an animal, and that fact accounts for 99 per cent of his behavior”

    Pierce is engaging in his own form of Doublethink when he says things like that followed by this:

    “He saw a threat not just to himself, but to the whole upward course of life; a threat not just to his race, but to what his race could become” (emphasis mine)

    Why should Pierce or anyone else care what the White Race can become when, according to his worldview, we would become nothing more than a slightly better breed of animal? Sorry Bill, but if we really are animals, then there’s no moral justification for White Nationalism or National Socialism or any other type of Pro-White ideology. If we are just animals, then we might as well act the part.

    Chechar, I know that you don’t endorse everything a man says when you quote him, but seriously, Pierce’s core belief that mankind is just another animal is at odds with your own belief that parents can defile and ruin the souls of their children – a belief that I agree with you on, BTW. Pierce, for all his knowledge, was basically a living, walking caricature that Evangelical Creationists have of Evolutionists. His beliefs about man are enough to make any sane person dismiss Darwinian Evolution in disgust.

    I personally believe that the Ancients and the Pagans were onto something with their belief in literal gods and goddesses. And even if it can be demonstrably proved that the gods and goddesses don’t exist, it would still be much healthier for the White Race to view itself as a spiritual people – as a people with a spirit and perhaps even a soul (for those like me who believe in the after life). But if one takes the view of Pierce that mankind is just an animal, then there’s no basis to whine and complain when a pretty branch of humans – the White Race – acts like animals.

    • This is the kind of comments I should not let pass but anyway…

      What do you mean that man is not an animal? Do you subscribe Judeo-Christianity? Today that I had to go to a hospital in Mexico City I saw hundreds of modified monkeys (ugly Mexicans with the appearance of apes).

      There are secular people like the Nobel Prize in literature, the Mexican Octavio Paz (who physically looked like a Spaniard). Despite the fact that Octavio was completely secular, he used the word ‘soul’ (as I use it as a literary resource) without believing in post-mortem survival. To understand how parents ‘murder their children’s souls’ we do not need to subscribe Christian metaphysics: this is enough.

      I don’t see doublethink in Pierce but in those who claim to protect the 14 words and at the same time subscribe the madness of believing that we are ‘spiritual beings’ in the sense of post-mortem survival or substantially different to, say, a horse or a whale. It is not surprising that those who remain faithful to the earth, the Jews, are beating whites that, as those Christians in white nationalism, continue to subscribe psychotic worldviews. (My own definition of psychosis: gross cognitive distortion of reality.)

      • What I mean by “man is not an animal” is this: Whereas actual animals do nothing more than feed and breed, and whereas actual animals do not have a conscience or an ability to think outside of themselves, humans create things such as art and architecture that are not necessary for survival, they control when and where they will breed, and they have an ability to think outside themselves that allows them to contemplate their place in the universe and the meaning of life. Humans are an advanced life form. Animals like horses and dolphins are not.

        I think the difference between me and between you and Pierce is that I believe, like the Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Protagoras did, that Man is the measure of all things. In other words, we don’t exist to serve ideals, or institutions, or some higher moral law. Those things exist to serve us. Those things exist to make us better as we continue to evolve and progress upwards.

        The fundamental mistake Pierce makes in his Cosmic worldview is that he conflates the White Race with Life itself. Life will carry on with or without the White Race, and indeed, with or without the Human Race. Life as we know it has existed for 13 billion years since the Big Bang, and the Earth has existed for 6 billion years. Modern humans, by contrast have only been around for about 200,000 years, and the White Race as we know it doesn’t enter the historical scene until less than 10,000 years ago. If Whites are exterminated, Life will continue.

        The White Race, to me, is the collection of flesh and blood individuals that compose it. Are all of those White individuals worth saving? Of course not. However, what Pierce advocates is ironically similar to what the major religions advocate: That humans exist to serve “God”, or to serve “Life,” as opposed to the worldview put forth by the thinkers of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance that Man is at the center of life, which is what I subscribe to.

      • Man is not the measure of all things, or are the Neanderthals I saw today the measure of all things?

        Pierce didn’t believe in a personal god, did he?

      • @DP84 Although I have no love for Pierce and I don’t mind your reservations regarding his philosophy, it seems you’re the one who is steeped in greater error than he was, which is saying a lot.

        > Whereas actual animals do nothing more than feed and breed,

        They routinely clean themselves, they lick their wounds, they bereave for their deceased, etc.

        > Whereas actual animals do not have a conscience

        If by conscience, you mean artificially inculcated guilt complex, as seen in Traudl Junge, then the animals already hold a great advantage over human beings. Martin Luther had some choice words to say against relying on one’s conscience.

        > Humans create things such as art and architecture that are not necessary for survival,

        Man does not make culture as a group. Art, music, and especially invention are always the products of one man, without whom we would not have survived.

        > they control when and where they will breed,

        Self-control is not exclusive to man.

        There was a pretty good example mentioned in the book Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are? by Frans De Waal, which preserves a story from a Desmond Morris who mentions some British chimpanzees which had been trained to conduct a tea party, which got to such a point that they outclassed Brits.

        Besides, it’s very easy to observe even the most primitive species exercising self-control, such as with ants in the kitchen. I remember one day where my mother discovered a bunch of them on the carpet sucking up some spilled yogurt. She used her hand to disperse them and sent them into a panic. She asked me to pick some of them up so I obliged. A few hours later, I dropped by to leave some crumbs for them to pick up (I had been routinely providing them with crumbs for over a month or two). They quite deliberately ignored what I had laid down, but had no problem retrieving food which had been left untouched.

        > and they have an ability to think outside themselves that allows them to contemplate their place in the universe and the meaning of life.

        What has been the price of such a mental advantage? Over-rationalizations leading to degeneration in our philosophies, arts, and even music.

        Haven’t you heard of the mirror test, which is documented on sites and books investigating animal cognition?

        > Humans are an advanced life form. Animals like horses and dolphins are not.

        It’s unjust to lump in horses and dolphins under the same category. The former operates on herd instinct, the latter is a potential rival of human beings. In the Table Talk, Hitler said that man wasn’t endowed by nature with the herd instinct and that human society is maintained by strict authority (which gives way the moment liberalism is promoted).

        You should read what Celsus said in response to Christians regarding the view that humans are superior to animals. Celsus compares humans to ants and bees, observing that the latter had likewise established their own colonies, sovereigns attended to by workers, wars between different species, drones and offenders are ruthlessly driven out.
        In his epoch-making work, H. S. Chamberlain likewise distinguished between warriors, workers, idlers, and monarchs in the ant colonies.

        Whereas we have ceased to manage our idlers, which are the root of all kinds of evils, and we emphasize the security of criminals over the people. That isn’t to say we should put all idlers and criminals to death, but laziness is an unchecked evil which is not tolerated in nature.

        Incidentally, Hitler distinguished between humans/rabbits and ants/bees.

        > I think the difference between me and between you and Pierce is that I believe, like the Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Protagoras did, that Man is the measure of all things.

        Protagoras represents sophism in it’s decline. To make this a triumvirate, one can mention Socrates and Parmenides in their old age, who turned to abstract conceptions and shunned natural research.

        Hegel and Kant are examples of modern sophists, the former being called out by Rosenberg for his grotesque declaration that logic was “the exposition of god”, the latter whom Nietzsche rightly labelled as a “concept-cripple”.

        > In other words, we don’t exist to serve ideals, or institutions, or some higher moral law. Those things exist to serve us. Those things exist to make us better as we continue to evolve and progress upwards.

        And by this statement, you have demonstrated to us all that you are no follower of Adolf Hitler.

        “We may safely say that man does not live merely to serve higher ideals, but that these ideals, in their turn, furnish the necessary conditions of his existence as a human being. And thus the circle is closed.” – Mein Kampf

      • I also forgot to include this in my reply:

        So Hitler not only viewed the higher ideals existing for our sake, but also clearly subscribed to the view that we exist to serve them. He recognized the existence of divine/sovereign laws (the laws of nature being included), which he clearly differentiated from the man-made laws.

        As for Pierce, he had at least had the merit of realizing and admitting that NS was designed for the Germans, not Americans, that it shouldn’t be copied. He was obviously more realistic than Koehl and more uncompromising than Rockwell.

      • But it should be copied. Or haven’t you read pages 565-566 of The Fair Race, words by Francis Parker Yockey?

      • > But it should be copied.

        There’s a quote from Albert Speer (whose publications are often marred with pessimism and grotesque exaggerations) in which Hitler dismisses several prominent fascist leaders as blind copyists who would never amount to anything.

        Pierce, via CBS interview (vid’s been taken down):
        “I admire many things that Hitler wrote, many of the programs and policies that he instituted in Germany, but we do not blindly copy anyone else’s policies or programs. We’ve formulated our own program in view of the situation that we face here in America today.”

        > Or haven’t you read pages 565-566 of The Fair Race, words by Francis Parker Yockey?

        Was it posted under his category on this site? I’ve been actually meaning to get around to reading his book, but even for a philosophically trained person like me, it’s not really easy to get into. I find Gunther’s books to be more inspiring.

        Yockey’s push for rapprochement with the USSR, which went against the pro-capitalist tendency of his contemporaries, resonates with me, although I cannot subscribe to his support for Oswald Spengler, who was denounced in the memoirs of Hermann Giesler and Otto Wagener. Spengler, Orwell, Jung, Huxley, Toynbee, etc. were no prophets.

      • I referred specifically to this.

      • @DP84 I sort of rushed my reply yesterday. It escaped my attention for a moment that the latest studies in animal cognition have demonstrated that horses, due to their constant stressful circumstances, are actually very intelligent and not purely instinctive. They’re right up there with other domesticated animals (dogs, cats) and dolphins. My mistake.

    • I agree with you for the most part. What would the point be to continue to strive against the mad crowd if there is no future life for us to enjoy the fruit of our struggle? If we do not reincarnate as whites, or at all, then all striving is only to feed our ego as we live our current short life of desperation. Our deeds will be forgotten by our inheritors if we are not successful to the point of Kingly stature anyway. And we won’t be around to enjoy that either.

      To make it worthwhile, we would have to win and become the elite within our lifetimes, or at least see that we are making really significant strides to the goal, so that our future or present sons can conquer the remainder. Can you see those strides yet?

      Anyway, our fellow ‘whites’ are our biggest stumbling blocks, especially the wicked white witches of the west.

      And yes, there is something beyond our mortal lives here as humans. I have had an unexplained experience which points to the fact. No drugs were required. I know it is just anecdotal, but it was proof enough for me.

      Oh, and though Pierce said so many true and good things, the best he managed was to rile up a great man like Bob Mathews. Personally, he did nothing in reality to change things. A man of action, he was most certainly not.

      • If Pierce wasn’t a man of action it’s because real action is impossible if whites don’t want to fight—it’s just that simple. Didn’t Hitler say that with 9,000 men risking jail he could start something? Pierce didn’t have those numbers even remotely.

        And yes, there is something beyond our mortal lives here as humans. I have had an unexplained experience which points to the fact.

        What are you talking about? A NDE? An OBE? You certainly haven’t read Sue Blackmore (whom I met personally long ago).

      • Well, I work within a university staff, and have first hand access to their way of thinking, which is very much in line with Sue Blackmore.
        What they probably would have done, every one of them, is to have considered Nicola Tesla a complete wack. You see, Tesla described his inventions as pictures that came to him in his head, without any conceivable scientific explanation as to how. Definitely not according to science.

        But he proved them wrong on one or two occasions.

        As to the Pierce bashing in this discussion, I am completely in line with you. He is one of the best in this field, and instead of searching for details where you can make a universe of disagreement, what better can we do than take his ideas with us and run with them. Is he wrong about the 99% animal? Maybe. So what? Is it more like 95%? In the latter case the last 5% could actually amount to an enormous difference. I mean, the cucumber has the same number of chromosomes as us. I do not know how many percentage points that amounts to.

      • I would like those who say that men are not animals to visit me in Mexico, watch the millions of ugly Mexicans I see on the streets, and then say with a straight face that they’re not 100% animals (and unlike horses or whales exterminable animals, according to my books in Spanish).

        In which world are they living?

        As to Pierce, this month I modified the Preface of The Fair Race after a very slow rereading (purposedly slow) of Who We Are, and the PDF now contains that updated Preface. In a nutshell, I wouldn’t have understood the phenomenon of white suicide without him.

  3. No, neither of the two as far as I’m aware. I will spare you the details, but I was not falling asleep, nor waking up from it. I have experienced the sleep paralysis before though, as I remember it from childhood and/or adolescence a couple of times. It happened when I was waking, lasting only a second, but it was rare anyway, and has never happened in adulthood. Either way, nothing could convince you or anyone else for that matter, unless it also happens to that person. I would be very sceptical myself, but still intrigued if I was told about this from someone I knew.

    I remember reading something George Lincoln Rockwell said about Pierce, and it basically came down to the fact that Pierce was a bit of a sissy. Sure, he could wax on and on about the problems we face, but all of us do that. And Bob Mathews, who should be admired above Pierce, had enough of the talk as well. The Order was, for a brief time, a very real threat to the stability of the ZOG of the USA, so in my estimation, he is the greater, even though he had Christian Identity beliefs underpinning his actions. He had enough of a natural instinct that he wanted to kill a white teenage miscegenating girl when he saw the two together. So he had the right mindset for the revolutionary goal of complete Aryan domination.

    Still, Pierce is good to listen to sometimes, not gonna lie.

    • A one-second subjective experience of yours is proof of post-mortem survival, LOL!

      Bob Mathews, who should be admired above Pierce

      You are speaking nonsense. Mathews was a dwarf compared to Pierce. Just see what I said in this thread about changing the Preface.

      A crazy dwarf—as it is nuts to charge at the enemy if you don’t have the numbers. And we don’t have the numbers precisely because what Pierce said in his three books and in some speeches. This week Goebbels Hub embedded one of those speeches in his site where Pierce blames middle-class Americans of his time for the mess, as they egotistically didn’t want to fight (like today’s WNsts, who are not preparing for a revolution).

      Even the above essay makes this point, with the fictional character of Earl Turner. The fact is that Americans are Homo economicus, the polar opposite of the German overmen.

      • Take two.

        I’m glad to see that my comments about humans and animals have sparked a lively discussion. This is a conversation I’ve wanted to see in the Pro-White Movement for a long time. I shall respond to a few points and summarize my own beliefs in the process:

        @Janus Quirinus:

        Art, music, and especially invention are always the products of one man”

        Technically true, but then again, 97% of art, music, and technological inventions were made by the White Race, according to a 2003 book by Charles Murray and Ricardo Duchesne, “Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950.” Cultural accomplishments are ultimately collective accomplishments by specific groups of people, and individual accomplishments are a reflection of the group they belong to.

        “a story from a Desmond Morris who mentions some British chimpanzees which had been trained to conduct a tea party, which got to such a point that they outclassed Brits”

        This is a good time for me to insert I found on BBC explaining the differences between humans and animals better than I can. Since I don’t know how to do hyperlinks, here’s the headline you can google:

        “Traits that Make Humans Unique”-July 6, 2015

        There’s no further need for me to expound on my view that humans are animals are different after what you said here:

        “In the Table Talk, Hitler said that man wasn’t endowed by nature with the herd instinct”

        My entire point was exactly that: Humans, particularly Aryans, are not herd creatures like Pierce asserts. To be an animal is to be a slave to basic instincts. That may be true of Mexicans and Africans, but its not true of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, the Vikings, the Explorers and Artists of the Renaissance Age, the Englishmen who conquered North America, or the Germans who tried to liberate the White Race in the 1930s.

        Furthermore, I think we can all agree that the word “animal” is a pejorative term. To call someone an “animal” is as insulting as going after their mother. Granted, calling people animals is justified in many situations, but that doesn’t mean its not a pejorative. So then, when Pierce claims that White people are just another type of animal, it doesn’t matter how much he misconstrues Darwinian Evolution to make his point, because everyone is going to interpret him as saying that Whites=Animals. How then can he claim to be defending the White Race when he sees Whites are just another, prettier type of animal? It’s self-discrediting,

        One last thing: To assert like I do that humans are more advanced than animals does not mean that all humans have equal worth. The Mexicans Chechar sees in his home country have no inherent worth. The Aryan Race? Different story. Not all Aryans have inherent worth either – witness Antifa, for example – but the point is that I’m not defending all humans when I say that humans are, generally speaking, better than animals.

      • > 2003 book by Charles Murray and Ricardo Duchesne, “Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950.”

        I’ll need time to go through this book.

        > Cultural accomplishments are ultimately collective accomplishments by specific groups of people, and individual accomplishments are a reflection of the group they belong to.

        Where exactly did you obtain this view? There seems to be a modicum of truth to the former half, although the latter half is grievously misleading. I’ve committed extensive research to this subject on my site, if you don’t mind me linking it.

        Individual accomplishments are most certainly not a symptom of their times, the environment, or the group.
        Those who subscribe to this view are dangerously close to falling in with Otto Strasser’s reasoning, who denied that individuals could make epochs and that NS was original.
        These dissidents preferred to ascribe NS’ intellectual merit to Alfred Rosenberg, despite Hitler rejecting his work as a representation of NS ideology.
        https://hitlerianhylozoics.wordpress.com/#fate

        Mainstream historians and politicians, on the other hand, have acknowledged Hitler’s originality in politics, but refuse to recognize his book as a literary achievement and often downplay his intellectual side.
        https://hitlerianhylozoics.wordpress.com/#originality

        A split between historians who portray Hitler as an irrationalist and between those historians who acknowledge Hitler’s statements on the Enlightenment is illustrated in Richard Weikart’s book on Hitler’s Religion, under the chapter Was Hitler an Atheist?

        > BBC

        A dubious source, even if it is focused on animals in this case. I did enjoy watching BBC presentations on the animal kingdom.

        > “Traits that Make Humans Unique”-July 6, 2015

        Your source doesn’t seem to be available online, but there was a pdf (Humanizing Learning by Dani Johnson) which cited it. I’ll go through that instead.

        “Comparative studies between humans and chimps show that while both will cooperate, humans will always help more. We know that chimpanzees also work together and share food in apparently unselfish ways … but they will only cooperate if there is something in it for them.”

        Altruism should be considered an ennobled egoism. Even in their loftiest moments, humans are ultimately propelled by egoistic interests.

        The pdf’s claim that collaboration and organization are one of the distinguishing human traits is erroneous. That is merely a basic prerequisite for a successful life, even in the animal kingdom. Once again, this falls dangerously in line with Otto Strasser’s overrating of unity as the highest European ideal.
        https://hitlerianhylozoics.wordpress.com/#unity
        And this is actually the main criticism I have for white nationalist and fascist sects. They uphold an arbitrary white unity without regard for distinctions (i.e. between Americans and Europeans, between the city-dweller and the man living in the countryside or the mountains).

        Universality (universal regard for life) is one factor which distinguishes humans from animals. Another distinction is the view of work as a necessity.

        Storytelling, which is basic to human civilization, can be easily ruled out.

        As for dreaming and imagination, the book of Sajaha suggests that it can happen with animals and plants. I consulted one of my German acquaintances about this literature and she distinguished it from the Oera Linda book, it seems to bear much more significance among the pagan sects.

        > My entire point was exactly that: Humans, particularly Aryans, are not herd creatures like Pierce asserts. To be an animal is to be a slave to basic instincts.

        When you put it that way, we are not at disagreement, but you seem to take this to mean that the white man cannot regress back to the animal level.

        > Furthermore, I think we can all agree that the word “animal” is a pejorative term. To call someone an “animal” is as insulting as going after their mother.

        Hardly. In one of her letters to Matt Koehl, Savitri Devi refrained from calling negroes animals, since she perceived animals to be beautiful. She seems to have been chiefly referring to the Americanized ones, the descendants of negro slaves, overlooking the fact that the African natives subscribe to healthier practices.

        > How then can he claim to be defending the White Race when he sees Whites are just another, prettier type of animal? It’s self-discrediting,

        I think you mean self-deprecating. Pierce seems to have had enough sense of proportion to not draw the wrong conclusion that humans are superior to animals and that all things exist for the sake of man’s development (let alone his physical development). I would like to point out how man’s concerns for preserving trees and for adopting vegetarianism stem from a purely physically advantageous standpoint. There is no longer any consideration for the influence trees exert on the “spirit”.

      • “A one-second subjective experience of yours is proof of post-mortem survival, LOL!”

        Did I state that it was? I also didn’t state that it lasted for one second (that was in regard to sleep paralysis, so think twice before mouthing off), you obviously didn’t read my comment properly.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: