| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"www.anus.com/metal" |
| Date: |
25 Nov 2004 05:22:51 PM |
| Object: |
Thanksgiving, or why the West is dying |
As we gather around tables across the land, getting ready to gorge
ourselves on justified excess, no one is actually fooled into thinking
this holiday is significant. We all know it's a day off and time to
spent with the family in a nation where you work 50 weeks a year.
Hell, even if it were "National Rectal Exam Day" we'd love it as a
holiday. We are surrounded by food, family, and comforts; insistent
Death is far away.
However, the people who are neurotic because of their wealth and
positions of relative uselessness - everyone from the soccer moms to
the newspaper commentators to the talking heads on television and the
"celebrities" - will moan about the genocide of American Indians.
There will be self-blame, and weeping, and then self-flagellation, of
course, because it's easier to cry over a situation than to fix the
problem that caused it.
A little blasphemy is in order. First, "Native Americans" is a bigoted
term since they weren't native to America; they were Asians who came
later than the Europeans who apparently first explored this terrain
(see site for links) and assimilated what was left of those
settlements into their own. Second, they weren't genocided. They were
aided in their self-destruction, since by the time the white man
arrived the Indian empires of North and Central America had ceased to
function autonomously and had collapsed inward.
This isn't to excuse what some fanatical Christian ex-criminals like
Hernan Cortez did when they tore up remnants of an ancient culture,
melted them down into uniform size blocks of uniform weight, and
mailed them back home so that God could have greater funding. Clearly
he's a hollowpoint to the forehead case as well (in my view,
"Christian euthanasia" is all but redundant). However, the Aztecs were
at the time already necrotic and unable to reference the world outside
of their own civilization, part of a long downward slide.
The Maya were in a similar position. Surrounded by the ancestors of
modern day Mexicans, who served as slaves for both empires, the tribes
were distinguished by their neo-Semitic appearance, being of hybrid
Asian-Caucasian origins. They once had been great civilizations, with
the Maya being descendants of Toltecs and Olmecs before them, and the
Aztecs having had a warlike, glorious reign of centuries across modern
Mexico. Yet the original impetus to those societies, and the blood
that had formed it, was gone.
I am not arguing here that they were Caucasian. I don't know, and I
don't think I care. It is possible they were, or that they were
Semitic, or other forms of Asian hybrids, but that requires more
conjecture than I care to undertake. What is certain is that they were
once a different tribe than that of their slave populations, who were
squat, brown and somewhat stupid, hence were subjugated viciously by
the Aztecs and Mayans in order to put them to some practical use,
since they would never invent civilization on their own.
How did Hernan Cortez, with a few hundred men with rifles, conquer the
mighty Aztec empire? The answer is simple: the Aztecs had degenerated
as both empire and in quality of individual warrior, and thus were no
match for rifles even when they outnumbered him ten to one. But the
more enduring answer is even simpler: Cortez promised "rule by the
majority" to the slave tribes of the Aztecs, and then marshalled them
into an impromptu army which - as is the case with all slave
populations - far outnumbered the Aztecs, and was inflamed with blood
lust to kill them.
It is a classic case of resentment. The dumber, uncreative,
servitude-bound people are promised a heaven if they overthrow their
"oppressors," who with that "oppression" have created a great
civilization where otherwise mud huts of a single story and communal
sewers would have reigned. When one looks at the isolated jungle
civilizations of the Yucatan region today, one can see roughly the raw
material both Maya and Aztec empires were using: simple people whose
ascent to civilization would not have happened without the brutal
"oppression" that turned them into non-chattel slaves for a great
empire.
The Aztecs never get blamed for being "racist" or for their slavery,
at least in the American press, but they did what any sensible people
would have done with these blockheads: they turned them into beasts of
burden. And as the Aztecs were, like the Romans and Mongols and every
other empire that has risen from muck, generous masters who cruelly
punished infraction, the lives of these blockheads were improved in
exchange for loss of "freedom" to live in jungle poverty, afflicted by
disease and their own failure.
Being somewhat dumb, and not very creative, these people could not
create a civilization, but were glad to be given an easy excuse:
namely, blame their masters, or whatever the Aztecs were at the time
that was of a clearly different genetic status than the slave races
the Aztecs used as manual labor. Modern people like to try to paint
these issues in black and white, but they forget that in Africa, the
more advanced black races enslaved the Bantu (average IQ: still 60)
because they saw those blockheads as nothing but pack animals. Same
case in Asia with imperial Chinese and Japanese using Koreans,
Vietnamese, Thai, etc. as indentured servants because of their lesser
tendency toward civilization.
This excuse, resentment against those who could create what they could
not, gave these slave peoples incentive to join Cortez and overthrow
their masters, crushing the remnants of a great civilization. I say
remnants because, over time, the Aztecs had become interbred to a
small (probably 1-2%) degree with their slave populations, and also,
had become correspondingly inbred in an attempt to conserve the
creative force of their civilization. This column doesn't argue that
either of these is the "cause" of their decline, or that it is not,
but that both are symptoms of the decline of those who created the
civilization, and their replacement by those whose role was limited to
living in the civilization created by others.
In the Yucatan, the Maya faced a similar problem. Their religion was
in decline; their royal bloodlines had decline; few people even
remembered how to decode some of their most ancient knowledge. They,
too, had interbred with their slave populations and failed to keep up
internal breeding standards, producing a group of people with no
ethnic ties to the civilization in which they lived. Once again, the
creators were gone and left those who could survive only in an already
created civilization, or, of course, return to living in mud huts by
open sewers.
One of the sacred myths of a modern time is equality; we can all do
the same work if exposed to the same indoctrination, training, and
opportunity. This is true where what is called for is something of a
basic nature like maintaining equipment others have designed,
advancing already created technologies, operating a printing press or
being a CEO. You don't have to create anything, but you must be adept
at manipulating that which others have invented. Such people lack the
ability to create civilizations, and while the average Caucasian or
Asian in America may be able by virtue of natural intelligence to do
better than mud huts, they are without the civilization creation
impulse and ability.
Something similar, at a more advanced degree, afflicted "American
Indians." These people, being of predominantly Asiatic descent from
the most recent influx of displaced persons, had once created
civilizations that ranged from mud huts/open sewers to relatively
advanced tribal cultures. Another sacred modern mythos is that of
"profundity" in Otherness; we like to believe in Noble Savages who,
having never left nature, are in every way more spiritually aware than
we are. This mythos is promoted relentlessly in our media, who love
cliches because they're crowd pleasers, and thus recently transitioned
from placing oracular "American Indian" characters in movies to using
"people of color" in the same roles.
The civilization creators among "American Indians" were in the
minority. For the most part, the tribes lived separately and crudely,
eking out an existence and occasionally making extinct the species
around them. They had little medicine, frequent internal wars, and
superstitious pantheistic religions that demanded they appease
primitive gods with sacrifices. All of this is taboo to say today,
because of the Noble Savage myth, but civilization creators both among
Europeans and "American Indians" recognized this, and thus enslaved
the lower grades of "American Indian" so that civilization could
prevail.
(Mythology as in non-supernational spiritual belief, where forces of
our natural world are personified as Gods who are not moral, but
capricious and unconcerned with the ways of most humans, is a positive
and healthy thing in my view. When you start getting Gods in magical,
pure worlds who need us to impose their order on this earth, neurosis
has set in. The best aspect of knowing truth versus falsity is to
spend no emotion on falsity. One can focus on reality, and create,
where others indulge in tears and righteous anger over spiritual
symbols with no grounding in reality; symbols that, in the
Judeo-Christian tradition at least, are opposed to reality.)
At the point in time when Europeans made a serious effort to colonize
the Americas, the Indian populations from Inca to Cherokee were in
decline. Weakened by internal wars, loss of leadership bloodlines, and
famine owing to lack of economies of scale, these tribes had lost the
impetus toward civilization building and were collapsing. In their
prime, no group of men with flintlock rifles could have beat them, as
in the woods a rifle of short range and limited accuracy is only of
marginal advantage. But their warriors were not those of the days of
civilization building, and thus despite their bravery, they lacked the
intelligence to wage war effectively and were slaughtered.
There were exceptions, as Custer found out at Little Big Horn, when
effective "American Indian" leaders arose and kicked some *****. These
were the minority of all interactions and tragically for the "American
Indians," did not occur strategically, thus were of little effect in
stopping the war machine from rolling over them. Once carbine rifles
and other rapid fire devices were invented, the days of the "American
Indian" were over, as they faced a technology of substantial killing
power. However, this only occurred at the same time Nietzsche was
writing his books, when the writing ("FAILURE") was already on the
wall regarding "American Indian" survival as tribal entities.
Now, of course, a modern society sits on America, and periodically -
because it is easier to cry about a symptom than to take action to fix
a problem - the wailing about how "noble" and "pure" and "innocent"
the "American Indians" were begins. This is an artifact of a bloated,
wealthy, neurotic society, and each of those three causes contributes
to the other. Its wealth means no direct contact with the source of
production, creating a bureaucracy. As a result, people who can't
exist outside of civilization (or mud huts) are bred, causing bloat.
Then, because it is in decline and doesn't know why, the neurotic
whining and harrowingly insane self-examination begins, usually
concluding in the crying about symptoms, since taking action is a Big
Deal that would mean leaving comfortable civilization-life to reinvent
civilization - something these people cannot do.
So we gather around tables and pig out, because that's what our
society offers us, and wealthy leftists shed tears for "American
Indians" whose culture they would have eliminated by forcing them into
the same boring jobs all of us, "successful" or not, are forced to
have. The passive side of society whine about "genocide," and the
burly and aggressive side crows about how great our open-air-mall of a
disposable country is. Both are avoiding the most obvious truth: much
as the Inca, Aztec, Maya and "American Indians" were in decline, so
are we, and the truth-avoidance is one of the most potent symptoms.
Civilizations collapse when the population of those who can
do/create/lead is replaced by those who would not exist, or would
exist next to open sewers, without someone else having created that
civilization first. To the dismay of racial fanatics, this includes
many causes, ranging from inbreeding (generally occurs in groups of
under 1000 people) to outbreeding to bureaucracy, which breeds fools
who cannot do anything but follow the letter of the rule, to wealth
without challenge. America's greatest hour may have been WWII, because
she arose from her stupor to face a real enemy; when Vietnam rolled
around, the decadence was so great that Americans collapsed when
opposed with even a minimal military presence ("FAILURE").
As every civilization declines, it replaces observations of reality
with observations of its own belief system and operations, things we
might call "pleasant illusions" or "populist mythos." The idea that
savages were noble falls under this aegis, as does the concept that we
can train, educate and force people to be equal in opportunity and
output. These oversimplifications exist because the truth offends,
whether it's the fact that not all races are equal, or that not all
individuals are equal (translation: being white doesn't automatically
make you better than anyone else), or that bureaucrats and academics
tend to be small-minded fucks who could not survive a night in the
open forest, even if we made it easy on them and gave them a machete
and flint.
Indo-Europeans, the group including both Caucasians and pre-Caucasian
Europeans, have been among the greatest and most ambitious
civilization builders, and history shows us they have the farthest to
fall as a result. Rome collapsed inward; eventually, some barbarians
showed up and kicked in the front door to show the world it had become
dead inside. And what killed it? We can list symptoms: decadence,
alcoholism, inbreeding, miscegenation, cowardice; however, these are
symptoms not causes. What killed it was its self-referentiality as a
limit of perception. The people who inhabited Rome when it fell were
not the same as those who had created it. They were those who could
not create it. They were people who could only relate to the society
itself, and who could not conceive of having to create one without a
prexisting civilization.
The cause of this self-referentiality is wealth without a goal. When
one is clearing forest, conquering enemies, cutting fields, etc. one
has a constant goal: achieve civilization. Once civilization has
occurred, the enemy goes within and becomes complacency; people lack
any ability to deal without reality outside of the imposed value
system of that civilization. Thus you have silly rules like "don't
kill," which makes no sense unless you're 100% dependent upon a legal
system to kill deviants for you. Suddenly, not offending your
coworkers is more important than being able to survive a night in the
forest alone.
What follows after this happens with amazing rapidity, considering
that history is normally measured in millennia: within a few
generations, dysgenics - the opposite of eugenics, or breeding better
people - occurs. Those who succeed are the socialites and flatters,
while those who lead and therefore are often bearers of socially
unpleasant truth, are demoted and breed less. The people who enjoy
bureaucratic jobs outbreed the others. Dysgenics occurs first within a
population, and then external populations are bred into it; without
resorting to gutter racism, we can acknowledge that mixing two
populations replaces them with an "average" of both, not the "best
traits" of both, since they self-bred for different things (otherwise,
they'd be the same population).
It only takes a few generations. The small-minded rule followers get
the big houses and pretty girls because to them, any life outside of a
bureaucratic job distant from the rule of nature is inconceivable.
Those who strike out independently, think creatively and could create
a civilization are not needed, and are bred out. They tend to become
artists or intellectuals, and thus survive for a generation or two
before they cease to see the need to breed. Degeneracy spreads, first
in the cities, but eventually everywhere, as the social pretense that
governs the city is imposed on all subjects to avoid
socially-unpleasant truths. Such was the case in Rome, in
Tenochtitlan, in Chichen Itza.
Civilization is more than technology, or learning. It is the ability
to exist in some degree of harmony with nature while asserting an
order on human society that makes it more of a warlike, conquering,
creative mindset. When that is achieved, technology and learning occur
naturally. When it is absent, bureaucracy replaces technology and
learning. Those who create civilization are the great heroes, while
those who uphold it in its final days are the unsung villains;
passively, they destroy by NOT creating, without taking the assertive
destructive action one would expect from, say, a Biblical Satan. The
true evil for us mortal humans at least is becoming passive and
self-referential.
But look at us now. We have wonderful technology, and we've conquered
all of nature. Our enemies cower in fear of our nuclear weapons and
world police. What could go wrong? Nothing outside of our society,
definitely, but that's the catch: we're not looking for enemies
within, and therefore, we are as surely falling as the Aztecs or
Romans. Enjoy your mass-produced dinner. Enjoy your dysfunctional,
combative family relationships. Enjoy tolerating your dysgenic
relatives. Enjoy your bureaucratic job. These are all things which
become necessary in the final days of civilization.
For Indo-European civilization (the "Western" world) an ugly and
powerful weapon was required to bring it to its knees. Much as the
slave peoples of the Aztec and Maya, who could not create
civilization, felt "oppressed" and thus overcame their masters, paving
the way for the downfall of their society, populist revolts in Rome
and Greece replaced the civilization builders with what I call "the
crowd": the group of people made undifferentiated by their lack of
distinct traits, by their passivity and self-referentiality both on a
personal and social level. The crowd only exists after civilization
has been founded by others.
The populist revolt in the modern West is also the one that helped end
Rome: Christianity, and its secular counterpart, liberalism (note:
this includes modern "conservatism," which is essentially reactionary
liberalism). The crowd feels that the civilization builders have
oppressed it, and thus they have made everyone equal, so that any
leaders bearing socially-unpleasant truth can be revenged upon and
forced into not breeding. Surely we have made a paradise, now that
with the same education/indoctrination/opportunity we can each and
every one be whatever we desire, regardless of breeding, talent or
character!
They felt the same way in Rome, too. Finally, "enlightenment" and
"progress" had come, and there was no more discrimination against
those who - having immortal souls as ordained by a God in a
supernatural reality separate from this one - simply had the
misfortune to be born into poverty, stupidity or mud huts and open
sewers. They were souls, people, after all. This is the language of
the civilization in decline. It separates reality into Gods and men,
individuals versus nature, but doesn't recognize the continuity of the
whole, which as a smoothly functioning machine demands that
civilization builders rise above the rest in order for civilization to
exist.
Hope you like that turkey which was grown on some mass farm staffed by
illiterates earning $5/hour. Maybe you'll enjoy those imported
potatoes, mashed with butter filtered and processed by machine, and
all the other good things that one requires only society's tokens to
self-referentially purchase. If you're lucky, you can even have a good
cry over the "genocide" of the "Native Americans," who you view as a
society more profound and truthful in every way, and (sob) we just
killed them. No, my friends - what killed them is the same death that
awaits you. And if this coward of a society is all that opposes it,
evil is entitled a feast as well. That which is dying must die, so
reality can be reasserted, and the civilization builders if any remain
can start anew.
This Thanksgiving, let Death feast.
http://www.*****.com/zine/articles/thanksgiving
.
|
|
| User: "FussyKatie" |
|
| Title: Re: Thanksgiving, or why the West is dying |
26 Nov 2004 12:05:18 AM |
|
|
What a load of fascist crap!
Katie
{snip neo-nazisms}
.
|
|
|
| User: "www.anus.com/metal" |
|
| Title: Re: Thanksgiving, or why the West is dying |
27 Nov 2004 12:20:53 AM |
|
|
"FussyKatie" <acmathis@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<yIzpd.4143$NU3.2458@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
What a load of fascist crap!
Katie
{snip neo-nazisms}
Had to put it in a neat little box so you could ignore it, did you?
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Thanksgiving, or why the West is dying |
27 Nov 2004 08:19:17 AM |
|
|
www.*****.com/metal wrote:
....
Hope you like that turkey which was grown on some mass farm staffed by
illiterates earning $5/hour. Maybe you'll enjoy those imported
potatoes, mashed with butter filtered and processed by machine, and
all the other good things that one requires only society's tokens to
self-referentially purchase. If you're lucky, you can even have a good
cry over the "genocide" of the "Native Americans," who you view as a
society more profound and truthful in every way, and (sob) we just
killed them. No, my friends - what killed them is the same death that
awaits you. And if this coward of a society is all that opposes it,
evil is entitled a feast as well. That which is dying must die, so
reality can be reasserted, and the civilization builders if any remain
can start anew.
This Thanksgiving, let Death feast.
Do a poll to find out how many folks prefer to kill eachother over a
remaining wild turkey for dinner, or cave dwelling, or whiping their *****
with grass instead of toilet paper. Do you live like the Unibomber? Does
your family? Every time you open you silly mouth to eat, somebody killed
for you to eat it unless you killed it yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Thanksgiving, or why the West is dying |
27 Nov 2004 01:06:42 AM |
|
|
yu mite enjoy Machiavelli, Discourses, and Steven Pinker, 'The Blank
Slate'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "www.anus.com/metal" |
|
| Title: Re: Thanksgiving, or why the West is dying |
27 Nov 2004 10:02:53 AM |
|
|
Day Brown <daybrown@hypertech.net> wrote in message news:<41a8180f$1_2@127.0.0.1>...
yu mite enjoy Machiavelli, Discourses, and Steven Pinker, 'The Blank
Slate'.
Thank you for the suggestions - I enjoy Pinker's "The Blank Slate"
quite a bit, as I do a recent discovery, Pentti Linkola:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/penaintr.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
