Ass Hat
Home
News
Events
Bands
Labels
Venues
Pics
MP3s
Radio Show
Reviews
Releases
Buy$tuff
Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls
  
  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food
  
  New Thread
  New Poll
Miscellaneous
Links
E-mail
Search
End Ass Hat
login

New site? Maybe some day.
Posting Anonymously login: [Forgotten Password]
returntothepit >> discuss >> Things they won't tell you by infoterror on Sep 21,2005 8:02pm
Add To All Your Pages!
toggletoggle post by infoterror  at Sep 21,2005 8:02pm
September 21, 2005

Things they won't tell you
By Tim Stillwell (www.nationalistpartyusa.com)

Our society operates on the principle that what people want to hear - and will pay for - is right. Through this mechanism, we've unhooked ourselves from reality as a consistency between external events and internal thoughts, and therefore, are often "surprised" or "shocked" by aspects of reality that were known to our ancestors and many others worldwide. Some still hold on to these truths, realizing that when we as a species fully detach from an awareness of our world as a continuous operating principle, disaster awaits.

When we say a "continuous" operating principle, what is meant is a system where both external and internal happenings can be described by the same logic. In our modern worldview, this is not the case, as we believe in a strict division between internal desires and external outcomes, such that our desires do not correspond to natural functions (power, reproduction, sustenance) and their outcome is determined by our "intent" or "feelings," not by the mechanics of nature. This article takes on several examples of this dischord and explicates them according to the principles of our ancestors.

1. Malthus was right

We don't like to think about this, but much as our lives are finite, so is the space on planet earth. Thomas Malthus formulated his famous theory by observing that while population grows exponentially, food supply at best doubles per generation. While the specifics of his theory are open to debate, the inevitable truth is that population grows exponentially and earth stays the same. Even more, if we allow population to dictate how we use land, we will eventually consume enough land that we will shatter the natural ecosystems upon which we depend for many food sources and their support systems, including clean air and water.

2. Pollution hurts all of us

It would be nice if someone dumping toxic waste in Siberia did not affect the fortunes of those in Oklahoma and Indiana. However, that's far from the case. We live on a planet where every space is connected to every other by air and water, and one in which pollution from any one area will eventually make it to other areas in trace amounts. Trace amounts do not "sound" problematic, until one considers that they accrue, so that one generation's trace amount is soon doubled and tripled. For this reason, while they are receiving trace amounts of pollution, the amount of pollution - usually highly toxic chemicals that require centuries to break down naturally - in their environment is far from a trace amount. Pollution with these toxic chemicals rarely kills outright, but has been linked to cancer and other diseases, most of which have experienced a steady increase among humans since the start of industrialization.

3. Leadership is needed

"We have to say that we can't go on like before, where we could take on new debts every year and think we could afford it. We can't have all these expectations, that we go on having three vacations every year, a house for everybody, that we can study at university for free and so on. We can't afford that any longer, and the sooner honest words are spoken from on high, the better."1 - these words, spoken by a German commentator, reflect the current state of the West. We have been living in luxury thanks to our fossil fuels and economies predicated on constant growth. Each time we chose to invest in something, we could count on a gold rush like the Internet or the automobile, and therefore, we did not choose carefully 2. Now this constant wealth has gone away, and we are left with the residue of bad leadership. For us to move in the future, we need leadership that can make decisions that will not be accepted by all citizens, but which are good for society as a whole. These leaders will need to look past the illusion that whatever we do will succeed, and will need to make the hard decisions the West has avoided for many centuries. True leaders do what is right without worrying how popular it is, and now that the wealth which made an idiot seem equal to a genius is gone, they will need to resume making the difficult decisions that define societies in times of duress.

4. Pluralism will not work

Strong leadership is always beneficial, but at this point, we are trying to restore ourselves from many years of bad leadership. In a time when leadership is needed, it is important to have a basic agreement on the values of a culture, namely what goals they wish to achieve, which methods are acceptable, and what ideals are represented by those decisions. Healthy eras refer to such value systems as "culture," although now we tend to think of culture in terms of cuisine and music and language. Pluralism is the idea that multiple cultures can occupy the same space and come to an agreement about these basic value systems, but by doing so, pluralism denies the diversity of culture. Pluralism thus negates the idea that there can be a single values system to a society besides on based on compromise between its multiple factions. Compromise never works when one needs strong leadership, and it implements a version of the values system that offends none but also achieves the goals of none, creating a culture that collapses inward to the lowest-common-denominator values shared by a random selection of cultures. Since these values usually involve common sense protections of individuals, soon that becomes the highest goal of the mixed culture, and its future is determined by an increasingly dramatic fascination with the self and its desires.

5. Multiculturalism will not work

Multiculturalism is racial pluralism. It requires that either every race gives up its own culture and values system and joins in a lowest common denominator compromise, or that eternal strife and inequality between the races prevail. Further, its very nature means that either a single ethnic group is perceived to be "in charge," and thus responsible for stewardship of other races, or that no ethnic group is in charge, and no one's values are represented. These bad solutions please no one, so multicultural societies are wracked by torment until a giant "melting pot" is achieved, obliterating all racial distinction and also the time-tested cultures that went with each. Regardless of the races involved, multiculturalism destroys them and replaces them with a less thoughtful variety. This is not an issue of racial "quality," but one of an ability to exist according to one's heritage and culture. Since government and industry cannot create the values systems that culture provides, it is an essential part of a healthy republic, and that multiculturalism destroys it in all forms signifies the unfitness of multiculturalism as the basis of any society.

6. We are defined by our motivating principles

At the core of any values system is the concept of a "motivating principle," or the single statement of why a society exists. For most people in modern societies, this is "to facilitate individual desires through the accumulation of wealth." In ancient times, a more heroic view was taken; the individual existed to further the development of society, meaning not as much expansion as an increase in quality of life, quality of individuals and quality of thought. Whatever a society chooses as its motivating principle will shape all aspects of its being.

7. Societies that rise are heroic societies

There exists a fundamental difference between societies that advance themselves and those which stagnate. The latter, having no direction that unites their population, tend to relapse into mostly underdeveloped lands ruled by a few elites who live comfortable lives. Clearly the current tendency of our society is toward the latter and not former destination. What is the difference between these two types? Simply put, it is that societies whose organizing principle is heroic are prone to rise, while all others lack a unifying motivator, and collapse into selfishness usually manifested in personal materialism. Heroic societies believe in collective action, and set their own standards of honor and accomplishment according to cultural values; it is considered better to die attempting to assert these values than to shy away with the sole goal of protecting one's own life.

Heroism is enlightened selflessness, in that one sacrifices the self for goals. Its opposite is selfishness, where there are no goals worthy of intruding upon the private world of the mind, and therefore the individual will never sacrifice his or her desires for a collective goal. Heroism is different from blind collectivism in that the hero acts to establish goals, and not merely to preserve the crowd, as it is recognized that lives must be lost for the establishment of any value system. Blind collectivism is an advanced form of selfishness that recognizes that if a group decides to make its goal the avoidance of individual loss of life, it is easier to be selfish and avoid loss of life by calling in the rest of the group to protect oneself.

Selfishness is stagnant, in that it seeks to preserve the physical properties of what exists in the present; heroism looks toward the future, and is willing to sacrifice some aspects of the physical present for future gain. As such, it does not solely involve loss of life, but any kind of long-term strategy that emphasizes quality (correspondence to values) over quantity (individual survival). Parental investment in breeding, chastity, fidelity to friends and ideas, effort put into a community, denial of eating junk food or excess intoxication, and of course displacement of immediate material gratification in favor of investment in family, culture or self-betterment are all heroic values. That which is heroic may not fulfill its individual desires, but it will create a better future for the society at large and thus any descendants the hero may leave.

8. Most people cannot make these decisions

Natural systems are a brilliant form of order because not all of the parts do the same thing, yet together, they create something larger than the sum of their parts. This "inequality" is manifest in the dramatic contrast between abilities among individuals, with some being stronger and some smarter, and some (the lucky few) being more aesthetically appealing. One of the areas inequality is most profoundly felt is in decision-making ability.

If we could quantify this ability strictly by intelligence, our societies would have succeeded already. While it is much more prevalent in the more intelligent, leadership ability requires not just raw intelligence but also a moral compass that applies to the entirety of a social system. Many can handle a morality that says the loss of any life is a tragedy, but this ultimately prevents them from making decisions where death is inevitable, and the question is not avoiding a bad thing but achieving a better design to the system as whole. This is a specialized ability. It does not denote superiority except for the task of leadership; leaders make notoriously bad day-to-day workers.

Most people do not have this leadership ability. For them, the complex decisions required to steer politics toward goals that match with the unifying principles of a rising society are too much. Further, they tend to be disinterested in such things, except for periodic moments of emotional attachment to an issue that has impacted them greatly. Even more disturbing is that they will, being unable to see the whole picture, use their influence to gain power and wealth for that with which they're familiar, namely themselves and those they know.

For this reason, it is unlikely that any system based on majority votes will ever do anything but achieve compromise, further sinking us into a mire of selfishness and self-obsession, and shying away from the heroic unifying principles needed to make the society rise above its origins.

9. Some hierarchy, or aristocracy is needed

When it becomes clear that some people can lead, and others are both disinterested and incapable, it makes sense for us then to desire some system by which those who can lead are the ones available for selection as leader. This would entail the establishment of a hierarchy, or aristocracy, whereby those who were of leadership capability were bred with others of similar ability. While our current society rewards the functionally smart, and advances them through gift of money, it does not assess any of the traits that make a leader do the right thing for society as a whole (as opposed to gaining money for the self). Consequently, most of our leaders are a very subtle kind of criminal. Establishing a leadership section of the population would reverse this.

10. That the content of this article is taboo suggests it has merit.

The ultimate truth of this article is that, were you to state these things in public as a public figure, you would end your career at that moment. The ideas in this article are taboo because they offend the unifying principle of our current society, which is that of self-interest and equality as a means of protecting the crowd against the higher abilities of the few. However, as we have seen from the last few centuries of history, this leads to a system out of control where no one is willing to make difficult decisions to get it back on track. All of us do our best to survive and make as much money as we can, and consider that a victory. Yet no one is steering the ship.

None of the ideas here are illogical, or "bad." Their main crime is that they require sacrifice of the mythos of complete individual autonomy, and duty to do nothing but fulfill individual desire, that has ruled over the West for so long. When we look at most of what is done in our society that is destructive, it occurs because of selfishness, whether of a material kind, or people doing illogical things in order to satiate their self-esteem. While the "Right" gorges itself on greed, the "Left" surfeits itself on egomania by extending pity to others as means of making the giver feel important. If you are the one giving, you are in control, and have reason to feel good about yourself. When understood in this psychological context, Leftism reveals itself as a barren wasteland of ruined souls, in which desperate people make insane decisions in order to appear less desperate.

Although its parts are clearly offensive to most for no logical reason, the gestalt of this article will horrify many (also for no logical reason). They are accustomed to seeing the world as two paths, a good one and a bad one, and they have come to associate individual satiation with "freedom," "equality," "justice" and the good path. This perception is changing rapidly however as more people observe that it is our selfishness and lack of heroism that defeats us from within, every single time. Many of us are tired of being constantly defeated for the egomania of others, and are turning toward a new solution. One wonders for how long this article will remain taboo.

http://www.nationalistpartyusa.com/VP/ThingsNotTold.htm



toggletoggle post by anonyman at Sep 21,2005 8:52pm
what does any of this have to do with national socialism?
you think you just put a big long intellectual thread up saying "everythings all fucked up" and then put a link to a national socialist site ,yeah thats the answer national socialism,didnt someone try national socialism already? im not sure but i think i remember ending in the death of millions and an even more unstable world? correct me if im wrong,please!



toggletoggle post by ArrowHead  at Sep 21,2005 8:56pm
Democracy and Republicanism are flawed. However, socialism is MORE flawed. Eventually what we have now will unravel and fall apart, most likely our debt-based economy will collapse. Socialism collapsed much quicker.



toggletoggle post by anonyman at Sep 21,2005 8:59pm
ArrowHead said:
Democracy and Republicanism are flawed. However, socialism is MORE flawed. Eventually what we have now will unravel and fall apart, most likely our debt-based economy will collapse. Socialism collapsed much quicker.


is it possible that these are the endtimes and it doesnt really matter what we do ,were screwed? {i dont mean it in a biblical way, none of that return of christ garbage}mother nature has had enough?



toggletoggle post by boobtoucher  at Sep 22,2005 12:00am
http://www.parecon.org Thats what I've been looking into, its a new political theory based on aspects of others. A lot of really smart people also been promoting it. Participatory Economics.



toggletoggle post by hoser at Sep 22,2005 1:36am
I think that infoterror has too much time on his hands and should shampoo my crotch instead of copying and pasting these lame articles.



toggletoggle post by davefromthegrave  at Sep 22,2005 6:24am
hoser said:
I think that infoterror has too much time on his hands and should shampoo my crotch instead of copying and pasting these lame articles.


I don't beleive for a second that you have a crotch.



Enter a Quick Response (advanced response>>)
Username: (enter in a fake name if you want, login, or new user)SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
Message:  b i u  add: url  image  video(?)show icons
remember:twy again, dis time wid feewing
[default homepage] [print][6:54:25pm Mar 28,2024
load time 0.01390 secs/12 queries]
[search][refresh page]