Rhadley
January 10th, 2006, 07:24 AM
Greetings Comrade,
Thanks for the letter, which again raises some interesting and very important questions. So, some more ramblings from me...
You wrote, regarding collaboration between National-Socialists and Muslims, that someone had said to you (quote): "I'd rather blow my brains out than shake hands with Muslims..."
To me, someone who says such a thing does not really understand National-Socialism, and moreover seems to have been taken in by the Zionist propaganda about National-Socialism. Adolf Hitler himself shook hands with Muslims; as did Himmler, and Leon Degrelle, and Otto Remer, and many, many others.
As I have endeavoured to explain several times, how we as National-Socialists and Aryans relate to people of other races and other religions is determined by our own National-Socialist, Aryan ethics. Our ethics are based upon personal honour, and honour demands of us that we only ever judge a person on the basis of personal knowledge of them: and moreover, with this personal knowledge of a person extending over a period of time. If we have no personal knowledge of a person, or have only met a person once or a few times briefly, then we cannot in all honour make any judgement about them. The race, the religion, and of course the political views of the person are totally irrelevant. Honour demands that we treat people, regardless of their race, their culture, their religion, their "political views" with fairness and respect. That is, honour demands that we have manners and are polite: that we strive to act with nobility of character; that we judge people by their deeds and in particular by how they act toward us.
Has the person who said the above actually met any Muslims? Have they talked with them? Shared a meal with them in their home? Do they actually know anything at all about Islam? Have they been to a Mosque? Have they visited an Islamic country? Have they talked to Islamic scholars about Islam? If the answer to all these questions is no, then the person cannot judge Islam, and their opinions about Islam and Muslims are just that: personal opinions, and opinions, moreover, dishonourably held because contrary to fairness and reason.
This assessment of mine may seem harsh, but it really is about time that we who uphold the noble way of life which is National-Socialism lived according to our own ethics and began to explain, openly and in clear words, the noble reality of National-Socialism. No matter how dire our situation may be, or appears to be, and no matter how many non-Aryans may live in what were once our own nations, we must hold fast to our own ethics and not allow ourselves be tricked into accepting the Zionist version of "National Socialism" with its hate-filled, irrational, Hollywood "nazis".
How should we treat those - like others races, and Muslims - who now live in what were once our own, Aryan-only, homelands? Our own ethics provide the answer. We must be honourable, fair, and just. To treat such people with hatred, to be disrespectful toward them and their way of life, is dishonourable.
Our way is about love of our own folk; about being proud of our culture and heritage, respectful of the culture of other people and respectful of people who belong to other races and who live according to beliefs and ways different from ours. Our way is to honourably (and I stress honourably) strive for our own homeland where we can live according to our own Aryan laws. Such an honourable striving means seeking to find fair, just, rational, solutions to the problems of our times.
We can and indeed should talk to and collaborate with Muslims, and we can and indeed should talk to and be friendly toward people of other races, other cultures, other ways of life, always bearing in mind (as I have written elsewhere) that our fundamental aim of creating a free, Aryan-only, homeland for ourselves is not open to negotiation under any circumstances.
Our Aryan way is about looking outward, from this planet, toward other stars and toward fulfilling our Destiny of establishing colonies on other worlds. One day in the not too distant future we may well meet other intelligent and alien life, either beyond this planet which is our home, or by such aliens visiting our planet.
How are we to react to such alien life? With hatred, and saying such things as: "I'd rather blow my brains out than shake hands with an alien from another planet" ?
Or would we strive to be rational, fair and honourable (that is, civilized) and so treat them with courtesy and respect (while at the same time being, as warriors, prepared to defend ourselves if threatened or attacked)?
Seen in such a cosmic perspective, the attitude of the person you quoted is shown for what it is: petty and irrational and uncivilized. How can we even begin to build a Galactic Empire with people of such petty and irrational attitudes?
Of course, I admit there was a time when I went around with such petty and irrational attitudes, even though it really was not my nature to do so. For several years I myself preached intolerance, believing it was necessary, and the right tactical thing to do, for surely the very survival of our race and culture was at stake?
But the more I thought about such tactics, the more uneasy I became. It took me several years to consciously understand and express in words why I felt uneasy: it was because such racial intolerance, such tactics, contradicted the very essence of National-Socialism. In brief, I re-discovered the essence of National-Socialism: its ethics, its values, its morality, its way of life. Of course, I had always instinctively felt and understood this essence: the goodness, the nobility, of National-Socialism even as a school-boy after learning about National-Socialist Germany for the first time. I felt even then, for instance, that there was something wrong with the "story of the six million" even though the "evidence" seemed to convince others.
But being able to rationally, consciously, in expressive meaningful words, convey and communicate this essence is quite different from feeling it in one's very being. And it is only in the past few years that I have been able to convey this essence in such a way. In a sense it is the difference between feeling that the story of the six million is wrong, and being able to tell others why it is wrong by presenting facts, evidence.
One of our tasks is to get people to view things from a higher perspective: to use the title of an article of mine, recently written, to get them to "Consider the Centuries, not the Years..." To view things in the perspective of the birth, growth, decline and future renaissance of our culture: from thousands of years ago, to perhaps a thousand or more years into the future.
As I have written and said many, many times, one of our greatest problems is that of egotism: of having the perspective, the desires, of an individual. We think certain things, certain feelings, are so important: wealth, personal comfort, our happiness.
Our society is besotted by the cult of the ego: books, television programmes, films, literature, magazines, are awash with stories and
dramas about personal relationships: who-loves-whom, who-is-bonking-whom; who-wants-to-bonk-someone-else; who-is-cheating-on-someone; who-is-angry-with-someone-for-something; who-has-more-money and so can afford luxuries and self-indulgence; and so on ad nauseum. Not only no honour and very little loyalty, but certainly no notion of either duty or Destiny: of what we human beings can or could be if we used our will to discipline ourselves and strove to continue our evolution in a natural and numinous way.
The perspective is personal: of our own lives. The feelings are our own feelings of personal love, hate, greed, vengeance, or whatever. The pain is our pain.
For a long time I have remembered a phrase learnt in my early youth during Martial Arts training in the Far East: "To really live, to fight like a warrior, you must always remember that this day could be your last day of life on this Earth..."
We should live as if our own death could occur at any time. But this does not mean an anarchic self-indulgence, as the second part of the phrase (imbued with the essence of Taoism) explained. Rather, it means we should strive to live, and die, honourably, balanced between the past and the future: in true harmony with ourselves, the world, and Nature because we are but one presencing of Nature, one nexus between the past of our folk and its future.
As Lao Tzu said:
Ten thousand things may grow upward, together
But in this moving up is their return.
Then, having grown, they may flower, and, having flowered,
Return homeward to the root which is their source...
The simple truth is that honour is balance: it creates a harmony because it is an expression of those things that enable us to live, respectfully, as a nexus.
I have on several occasions been faced with the reality behind living each day as if it were my last. I remember, once in the desert, being alone hundreds of miles from any civilization: each hour was both a trial to be endured and joy to be savoured because I was still alive, balanced between living and death, and able to appreciate the essence of life, of what is really important. In such moments one goes far beyond one's own selfish desires, and experiences the essence of our humanity: of how we should really strive to do good, be noble, avoid doing what is wrong, dishonourable, and respect Nature and that supreme power, however named, which we cannot control.
I remember the "foreigner" I met who gave me water, food, shelter, and an unaffected hospitality. I remember another such occasion, in what was once called darkest Africa: being ill, fevered, far from any semblance of Western culture, being cared for by a woman "as dark as the ace of spades". Of course, the person quoted earlier would have rather died, or killed themselves, than smile at such a woman, thank her, and spend some time with her family, recovering, treating them all with honour and respect.
In many ways, I feel wisdom is the slow remembering of such experiences. Wisdom, and civilization, are acquired through being near to death; through honourably enduring through suffering and privation. Being human, we tend to forget, and when strong and healthy again, or not faced with death, we tend to revert back toward egotism and thence to barbarism.
Has the person you quoted - and the many, many, like him - ever been seriously ill? Ever been faced with their own imminent death: a bullet passing so close by one's face the searing air could be felt? Ever travelled to the very edge of their personal endurance, their thread of life, almost breaking, held aloft by Fate? I doubt it.
National-Socialism, properly understood, is no different from Islam, Buddhism, Taoism... It is a way of viewing life, the world, the very cosmos itself. It gives us guidelines on how to live. And just like all the many other ways of life it gives us a human, a moral, perspective.
If we have a mission in these dark and dishonourable times it is to preserve, to hand on the human wisdom, and the unique understanding, which National-Socialism reveals to us. I personally believe that this mission is more important, at this moment in time (with no Vindex) than any amount of political striving.
The uniqueness of National-Socialism lies in the combination of personal honour, loyalty to those given allegiance, and striving in an honourable way to do our duty to our folk and to Nature. It provides us with a new perspective: of ourselves as a living nexus between the past of our folk and its future; of our folk as a presencing of Nature; of all cultures, all races, as a presencing of Nature; of Nature as a presencing of order, of life, on this planet, and of the Cosmos as a vast place probably teeming with other sentient beings. National-Socialism provides us, through honour, and through the principle of Triumph of the Will (of using our will to change ourselves and our world for the better) with a means to continue our human journey, our human evolution, by seeding ourselves across the Cosmos.
This, surely, places the above quotation in the correct context.
Friendship and collaboration with Muslims? Yes, certainly. Friendship and collaboration with non-Aryans? Yes, surely, in order to create the new world, the new civilization which is but the beginning of our new Galactic quest.
With good wishes and 88!
David Myatt
(c.112yf)
Thanks for the letter, which again raises some interesting and very important questions. So, some more ramblings from me...
You wrote, regarding collaboration between National-Socialists and Muslims, that someone had said to you (quote): "I'd rather blow my brains out than shake hands with Muslims..."
To me, someone who says such a thing does not really understand National-Socialism, and moreover seems to have been taken in by the Zionist propaganda about National-Socialism. Adolf Hitler himself shook hands with Muslims; as did Himmler, and Leon Degrelle, and Otto Remer, and many, many others.
As I have endeavoured to explain several times, how we as National-Socialists and Aryans relate to people of other races and other religions is determined by our own National-Socialist, Aryan ethics. Our ethics are based upon personal honour, and honour demands of us that we only ever judge a person on the basis of personal knowledge of them: and moreover, with this personal knowledge of a person extending over a period of time. If we have no personal knowledge of a person, or have only met a person once or a few times briefly, then we cannot in all honour make any judgement about them. The race, the religion, and of course the political views of the person are totally irrelevant. Honour demands that we treat people, regardless of their race, their culture, their religion, their "political views" with fairness and respect. That is, honour demands that we have manners and are polite: that we strive to act with nobility of character; that we judge people by their deeds and in particular by how they act toward us.
Has the person who said the above actually met any Muslims? Have they talked with them? Shared a meal with them in their home? Do they actually know anything at all about Islam? Have they been to a Mosque? Have they visited an Islamic country? Have they talked to Islamic scholars about Islam? If the answer to all these questions is no, then the person cannot judge Islam, and their opinions about Islam and Muslims are just that: personal opinions, and opinions, moreover, dishonourably held because contrary to fairness and reason.
This assessment of mine may seem harsh, but it really is about time that we who uphold the noble way of life which is National-Socialism lived according to our own ethics and began to explain, openly and in clear words, the noble reality of National-Socialism. No matter how dire our situation may be, or appears to be, and no matter how many non-Aryans may live in what were once our own nations, we must hold fast to our own ethics and not allow ourselves be tricked into accepting the Zionist version of "National Socialism" with its hate-filled, irrational, Hollywood "nazis".
How should we treat those - like others races, and Muslims - who now live in what were once our own, Aryan-only, homelands? Our own ethics provide the answer. We must be honourable, fair, and just. To treat such people with hatred, to be disrespectful toward them and their way of life, is dishonourable.
Our way is about love of our own folk; about being proud of our culture and heritage, respectful of the culture of other people and respectful of people who belong to other races and who live according to beliefs and ways different from ours. Our way is to honourably (and I stress honourably) strive for our own homeland where we can live according to our own Aryan laws. Such an honourable striving means seeking to find fair, just, rational, solutions to the problems of our times.
We can and indeed should talk to and collaborate with Muslims, and we can and indeed should talk to and be friendly toward people of other races, other cultures, other ways of life, always bearing in mind (as I have written elsewhere) that our fundamental aim of creating a free, Aryan-only, homeland for ourselves is not open to negotiation under any circumstances.
Our Aryan way is about looking outward, from this planet, toward other stars and toward fulfilling our Destiny of establishing colonies on other worlds. One day in the not too distant future we may well meet other intelligent and alien life, either beyond this planet which is our home, or by such aliens visiting our planet.
How are we to react to such alien life? With hatred, and saying such things as: "I'd rather blow my brains out than shake hands with an alien from another planet" ?
Or would we strive to be rational, fair and honourable (that is, civilized) and so treat them with courtesy and respect (while at the same time being, as warriors, prepared to defend ourselves if threatened or attacked)?
Seen in such a cosmic perspective, the attitude of the person you quoted is shown for what it is: petty and irrational and uncivilized. How can we even begin to build a Galactic Empire with people of such petty and irrational attitudes?
Of course, I admit there was a time when I went around with such petty and irrational attitudes, even though it really was not my nature to do so. For several years I myself preached intolerance, believing it was necessary, and the right tactical thing to do, for surely the very survival of our race and culture was at stake?
But the more I thought about such tactics, the more uneasy I became. It took me several years to consciously understand and express in words why I felt uneasy: it was because such racial intolerance, such tactics, contradicted the very essence of National-Socialism. In brief, I re-discovered the essence of National-Socialism: its ethics, its values, its morality, its way of life. Of course, I had always instinctively felt and understood this essence: the goodness, the nobility, of National-Socialism even as a school-boy after learning about National-Socialist Germany for the first time. I felt even then, for instance, that there was something wrong with the "story of the six million" even though the "evidence" seemed to convince others.
But being able to rationally, consciously, in expressive meaningful words, convey and communicate this essence is quite different from feeling it in one's very being. And it is only in the past few years that I have been able to convey this essence in such a way. In a sense it is the difference between feeling that the story of the six million is wrong, and being able to tell others why it is wrong by presenting facts, evidence.
One of our tasks is to get people to view things from a higher perspective: to use the title of an article of mine, recently written, to get them to "Consider the Centuries, not the Years..." To view things in the perspective of the birth, growth, decline and future renaissance of our culture: from thousands of years ago, to perhaps a thousand or more years into the future.
As I have written and said many, many times, one of our greatest problems is that of egotism: of having the perspective, the desires, of an individual. We think certain things, certain feelings, are so important: wealth, personal comfort, our happiness.
Our society is besotted by the cult of the ego: books, television programmes, films, literature, magazines, are awash with stories and
dramas about personal relationships: who-loves-whom, who-is-bonking-whom; who-wants-to-bonk-someone-else; who-is-cheating-on-someone; who-is-angry-with-someone-for-something; who-has-more-money and so can afford luxuries and self-indulgence; and so on ad nauseum. Not only no honour and very little loyalty, but certainly no notion of either duty or Destiny: of what we human beings can or could be if we used our will to discipline ourselves and strove to continue our evolution in a natural and numinous way.
The perspective is personal: of our own lives. The feelings are our own feelings of personal love, hate, greed, vengeance, or whatever. The pain is our pain.
For a long time I have remembered a phrase learnt in my early youth during Martial Arts training in the Far East: "To really live, to fight like a warrior, you must always remember that this day could be your last day of life on this Earth..."
We should live as if our own death could occur at any time. But this does not mean an anarchic self-indulgence, as the second part of the phrase (imbued with the essence of Taoism) explained. Rather, it means we should strive to live, and die, honourably, balanced between the past and the future: in true harmony with ourselves, the world, and Nature because we are but one presencing of Nature, one nexus between the past of our folk and its future.
As Lao Tzu said:
Ten thousand things may grow upward, together
But in this moving up is their return.
Then, having grown, they may flower, and, having flowered,
Return homeward to the root which is their source...
The simple truth is that honour is balance: it creates a harmony because it is an expression of those things that enable us to live, respectfully, as a nexus.
I have on several occasions been faced with the reality behind living each day as if it were my last. I remember, once in the desert, being alone hundreds of miles from any civilization: each hour was both a trial to be endured and joy to be savoured because I was still alive, balanced between living and death, and able to appreciate the essence of life, of what is really important. In such moments one goes far beyond one's own selfish desires, and experiences the essence of our humanity: of how we should really strive to do good, be noble, avoid doing what is wrong, dishonourable, and respect Nature and that supreme power, however named, which we cannot control.
I remember the "foreigner" I met who gave me water, food, shelter, and an unaffected hospitality. I remember another such occasion, in what was once called darkest Africa: being ill, fevered, far from any semblance of Western culture, being cared for by a woman "as dark as the ace of spades". Of course, the person quoted earlier would have rather died, or killed themselves, than smile at such a woman, thank her, and spend some time with her family, recovering, treating them all with honour and respect.
In many ways, I feel wisdom is the slow remembering of such experiences. Wisdom, and civilization, are acquired through being near to death; through honourably enduring through suffering and privation. Being human, we tend to forget, and when strong and healthy again, or not faced with death, we tend to revert back toward egotism and thence to barbarism.
Has the person you quoted - and the many, many, like him - ever been seriously ill? Ever been faced with their own imminent death: a bullet passing so close by one's face the searing air could be felt? Ever travelled to the very edge of their personal endurance, their thread of life, almost breaking, held aloft by Fate? I doubt it.
National-Socialism, properly understood, is no different from Islam, Buddhism, Taoism... It is a way of viewing life, the world, the very cosmos itself. It gives us guidelines on how to live. And just like all the many other ways of life it gives us a human, a moral, perspective.
If we have a mission in these dark and dishonourable times it is to preserve, to hand on the human wisdom, and the unique understanding, which National-Socialism reveals to us. I personally believe that this mission is more important, at this moment in time (with no Vindex) than any amount of political striving.
The uniqueness of National-Socialism lies in the combination of personal honour, loyalty to those given allegiance, and striving in an honourable way to do our duty to our folk and to Nature. It provides us with a new perspective: of ourselves as a living nexus between the past of our folk and its future; of our folk as a presencing of Nature; of all cultures, all races, as a presencing of Nature; of Nature as a presencing of order, of life, on this planet, and of the Cosmos as a vast place probably teeming with other sentient beings. National-Socialism provides us, through honour, and through the principle of Triumph of the Will (of using our will to change ourselves and our world for the better) with a means to continue our human journey, our human evolution, by seeding ourselves across the Cosmos.
This, surely, places the above quotation in the correct context.
Friendship and collaboration with Muslims? Yes, certainly. Friendship and collaboration with non-Aryans? Yes, surely, in order to create the new world, the new civilization which is but the beginning of our new Galactic quest.
With good wishes and 88!
David Myatt
(c.112yf)