Jump to content

Welcome to Iron March Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Liberalism: The Myth of Equality


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1
NSP

NSP
  • Members
  • 801 posts
  • Ideology:National-Syndicalism
  • Location:Western Europe
Some thoughts on "the myth of equality" which finds its roots in Christianity and which forms the foundation of Liberalism.


The Myth of Equality

Every age has had a foundational legend, an underlying mythos reflecting the zeitgeist of the era. Those of us who live in the contemporary West live in the shadow of the Myth of Equality (Liberalism). Our political and social institutions operate on the assumption that humans are fundamentally equal and that any real world inequalities are therefore aberrant and in need of coercive redress. Hiring, firing, entrance into insitutions of higher learning, even our speech patterns, all are dictated by egalitarian principles. We deify the champions of equality as saints of rationality and demonize its opponents as backwoods mouthbreathers or jackbooted thugs. What then are the roots and results of the Myth of Equality?

Equality: Origins of a Myth

Given the way in which the Myth of Equality is packaged and marketed, its origins are rather surprising. Despite being trumpeted as the product of Enlightenment rationalism, and the "logical" choice for the thinking human, egalitarianism is rooted not in scientific evidence or rational inquiry, but rather in Christian theology and metaphysics. Indeed, empirical reality and science remain key stumbling blocks for egalitarian thinkers, for they reveal that human beings are NOT equal, but instead possess widely varying aptitudes and abilities. The simple reality is that some humans are vastly more capable than others, and thus, in a practical sense, are vastly superior to those who are less well endowed. As a result, egalitarians are forced to resort to an essentially metaphysical argument, that humans have equal "moral" or "spiritual" worth and essence, and thus deserve equal treatment. This assumption is, of course, rooted not in rational observation, but in Christian scripture, and derives ultimately from the notion that all humans are equal before God (cf. Galatians 3:26-29, Acts 10:34-35-17:26). Obviously, this gives lie to the rationalist veil in which egalitarians like to cloak themselves (and explains why egalitarians are curiously reluctant to introduce empirical evidence for their positions, while racialists, ethnic nationalists, anti-feminists and other non-egalitarians are able to back their positions up with copious statistical and empirical fact).

Social Consequences of the Myth of Equality

Their are, of course, dangers inherent in accepting myths uncritically, and the Myth of Equality is no exception. The ramifications of egalitarianism are manifest and manifold.

1. The Myth of Equality penalizes the gifted and creates a society of mediocrity. Superior humans, those who are the most capable and most gifted, are systematically shortchanged in the effort to benefit their inferiors (affirmative action is one example of this process). Excellence is viewed with suspicion, and is certainly not rewarded. The end result is an "equality" of uniform mediocrity, a situation that is both counterproductive (obviously) and unnatural (evolution favors differentiation, hierarchy and the advancement of superior life).

2. The Myth of Equality leads to the degeneration of values and ideals. Honor, fidelity and transcendence are aristocratic virtues (that is, they are the virtues of superior men), and, as such, have no place in a society of "equals." The result, not surprisingly, is social decay. Broken homes, broken families, crime, vice, shortsightedness and greed, these are the fruits of egalitarianism. Even art is affected by the malign hand of egalitarianism, for egalitarian society directs all its energies towards the pacification and deification of "The Average Man" (in mathematical terms, the Lowest Common Denominator). The result is meaningless "art," tending towards shock schlock or simply bubblegum. This too is a travesty.

The truth, of course, is that there is no such thing as "equality." Human beings are different, not equal. Thus, human beings deserve, not equal treatment, but treatment befitting their abilities and value to society. The dangerous, irrational Myth of Equality must be rejected, for it is ultimately nothing more than a social cancer eating away the very fabric of civilized society.

J. Smit


There exists no form of thought or activity that is not enslaved by materialism. Our hostility is as great towards Capitalism, as against Marxism. Capitalism, by means of poverty or prosperity, reduces the people to a state of servitude incompatible with the dignity of man. It directs whole classes and one's whole personality toward the acquisition of money: that's the only desire that fills the modern soul. Marxism is the rebellious son of Capitalism from which it received its faith in matter.

We believe not in Capitalism which creates class struggle, nor do we believe in Marxism that exploits it; neither in directors who enrich themselves from peoples labour, neither in politicians who make career out of its resentment, neither in conservative blindness, neither in demagogue impudence, neither in egoism, neither in cowardice, neither in left or right!

#2
FascistCapitalist

FascistCapitalist

    Commie Pinko Scum

  • Gassed
  • 1,010 posts
  • Ideology:Fascist Capitalism
  • Location:Good Ol' US of A
great article, loved every word of it. really makes me wonder why you still support a equalitarian doctrine like Socialism which systematically takes from the superior and redistributes to the inferior, which is another way of punishing talent.
"The real history of capitalism will now begin. Capitalism is not just a system of oppression - on the contrary it represents the choice of the fittest, equal opportunities for the most gifted, a more developed sense of individual responsibility"
BENITO MUSSOLINI

"In small communities where everyone knows everyone else personally, most people must acknowledge that the position of the "haves" is typically based on their superior personal achievement just as the position of the "have-nots" finds its typical explanation in their personal deficiencies and inferiority"
HANS HERMANN-HOPPE

"Property is the direct projection of man on his possessions; it is an essential human attribute"
JOSE ANTONIO

"It is not by chance that one person accomplishes more than the other. The principle of private ownership is rooted in this fact"
HITLER

"A true conservative stands athwart history, yelling STOP, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who do"
WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.

"Socialism can only be realised at the price of national ruin, for such measures are incompatible with the natural order of things, and would bring the nation which should submit to them into such a manifest state of inferiority, compared to its rivals, as would promptly result in their yielding its place to them"
GUSTAVE LE BON

"Left ain't Right"
ME

#3
NSP

NSP
  • Members
  • 801 posts
  • Ideology:National-Syndicalism
  • Location:Western Europe

great article, loved every word of it. really makes me wonder why you still support a equalitarian doctrine like Socialism which systematically takes from the superior and redistributes to the inferior, which is another way of punishing talent.


Bedcause I don't believe that superiority is measured in materialist possesions.
There exists no form of thought or activity that is not enslaved by materialism. Our hostility is as great towards Capitalism, as against Marxism. Capitalism, by means of poverty or prosperity, reduces the people to a state of servitude incompatible with the dignity of man. It directs whole classes and one's whole personality toward the acquisition of money: that's the only desire that fills the modern soul. Marxism is the rebellious son of Capitalism from which it received its faith in matter.

We believe not in Capitalism which creates class struggle, nor do we believe in Marxism that exploits it; neither in directors who enrich themselves from peoples labour, neither in politicians who make career out of its resentment, neither in conservative blindness, neither in demagogue impudence, neither in egoism, neither in cowardice, neither in left or right!

#4
FascistCapitalist

FascistCapitalist

    Commie Pinko Scum

  • Gassed
  • 1,010 posts
  • Ideology:Fascist Capitalism
  • Location:Good Ol' US of A


Bedcause I don't believe that superiority is measured in materialist possesions.


So this whole bit doesnt bother you than

Their are, of course, dangers inherent in accepting myths uncritically, and the Myth of Equality is no exception. The ramifications of egalitarianism are manifest and manifold.

1. The Myth of Equality penalizes the gifted and creates a society of mediocrity. Superior humans, those who are the most capable and most gifted, are systematically shortchanged in the effort to benefit their inferiors (affirmative action is one example of this process). Excellence is viewed with suspicion, and is certainly not rewarded. The end result is an "equality" of uniform mediocrity, a situation that is both counterproductive (obviously) and unnatural (evolution favors differentiation, hierarchy and the advancement of superior life).


?

Ain't that a shame.
"The real history of capitalism will now begin. Capitalism is not just a system of oppression - on the contrary it represents the choice of the fittest, equal opportunities for the most gifted, a more developed sense of individual responsibility"
BENITO MUSSOLINI

"In small communities where everyone knows everyone else personally, most people must acknowledge that the position of the "haves" is typically based on their superior personal achievement just as the position of the "have-nots" finds its typical explanation in their personal deficiencies and inferiority"
HANS HERMANN-HOPPE

"Property is the direct projection of man on his possessions; it is an essential human attribute"
JOSE ANTONIO

"It is not by chance that one person accomplishes more than the other. The principle of private ownership is rooted in this fact"
HITLER

"A true conservative stands athwart history, yelling STOP, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who do"
WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.

"Socialism can only be realised at the price of national ruin, for such measures are incompatible with the natural order of things, and would bring the nation which should submit to them into such a manifest state of inferiority, compared to its rivals, as would promptly result in their yielding its place to them"
GUSTAVE LE BON

"Left ain't Right"
ME

#5
NSP

NSP
  • Members
  • 801 posts
  • Ideology:National-Syndicalism
  • Location:Western Europe


So this whole bit doesnt bother you than

Their are, of course, dangers inherent in accepting myths uncritically, and the Myth of Equality is no exception. The ramifications of egalitarianism are manifest and manifold.

1. The Myth of Equality penalizes the gifted and creates a society of mediocrity. Superior humans, those who are the most capable and most gifted, are systematically shortchanged in the effort to benefit their inferiors (affirmative action is one example of this process). Excellence is viewed with suspicion, and is certainly not rewarded. The end result is an "equality" of uniform mediocrity, a situation that is both counterproductive (obviously) and unnatural (evolution favors differentiation, hierarchy and the advancement of superior life).

?


The only one who interpretates material wealth with superiority is you - nor the author nor I make such a claim.

Socialism has nothing to do with the equality myth, its perfectly possible within a meritocratic system where people are rewarded according to their value for society. This in contrast of capitalism, where people are entirely dependend on their social status and materialist means and where other factors of real superiority don't play any significant role. That's also a waste of talent which leads to mediocracy. Therefore capitalism is not merocratic, nor is it Darwinst - you don't have to be gifted nor aristicratic or intelligent to be rich, only lucky...
There exists no form of thought or activity that is not enslaved by materialism. Our hostility is as great towards Capitalism, as against Marxism. Capitalism, by means of poverty or prosperity, reduces the people to a state of servitude incompatible with the dignity of man. It directs whole classes and one's whole personality toward the acquisition of money: that's the only desire that fills the modern soul. Marxism is the rebellious son of Capitalism from which it received its faith in matter.

We believe not in Capitalism which creates class struggle, nor do we believe in Marxism that exploits it; neither in directors who enrich themselves from peoples labour, neither in politicians who make career out of its resentment, neither in conservative blindness, neither in demagogue impudence, neither in egoism, neither in cowardice, neither in left or right!

#6
Talleyrand

Talleyrand

    The Virgin Tally

  • Black Corps
  • 2,839 posts
  • Ideology:Vercingetorixism
An American article that works in other contexts, thought it was of a similar character to your article, NSP.

Against the Egalitarian Heresy

Jeff Culbreath

Our American cultural crisis has multiple causes. We may cite abandonment of traditional religion and morality, liberation of the sexual appetite, contempt for reason and rational thought, enshrining of greed as a virtue, television, popular music, and the cult of “self-fulfillment” as major contributors to our collective malaise. However, few suspect that our most-prized national characteristic is behind some of the decadence and depravity. To attack Equality, and the absurd ideology of Egalitarianism, is as unthinkable as it is unpatriotic.

Like all heresies, Egalitarianism is the distortion and exaggeration of a truth. Some things are indeed equal. All men have equal dignity, and in some fundamentals, they do have equal rights. Though Jefferson's “all men are created equal” seems to be a dubious rhetorical assertion on the face of it, the slogan can be sufficiently qualified and nuanced to satisfy most truth-loving patriots. Nevertheless, if all men are in some way created equal, they end up quite unequal, both in this world and the next. Marx and Engels famously prophesied that the triumph of Communism would result in the end of all distinctions, not only between social classes, but also between men and women, parents and children, and even between the country and the city. And today we find that the doctrine of Equality has spread from the human to the inanimate world, so that no time or place or thing, no event or activity or behavior, may be objectively considered better or worse than another.

One obvious manifestation of mindless equality is the dissolution of American manners. All titles and customs that reflect distinction, hierarchy, or social inequality are now either threatened or extinct. I once worked with a young woman who refused to address her business letters using the title of “Dr.,” which to her was a sign of pomposity and pretentiousness. Granted, we're talking about public school administrators whose doctorates are in the notoriously dumbed-down field of Education (Ed.D's), but my co-worker's indignation did not stem from this irony. Her refusal was based on her belief that one person should not be distinguished from another on the mere basis of education. And this is a very common opinion today. For this reason, we now find that those who possess doctorates are very often afraid of using their titles: they do not want to be perceived as “snobbish.” Please, just call me Mike.

The abolition of titles began with a vulgar disdain for aristocracy, but it has now spread to include all social distinctions. Back in the '60s, it was fashionable for children to address their parents by their first names. This radical innovation was thankfully not sustained, but today we find students addressing their teachers, and children addressing their elders, by first names everywhere. In business discourse, there is still the initial impulse to use “Mr.” for men, but this formality is quickly dispensed with upon the first or second meeting. Businessmen make a point of being on a “first name basis” with their contacts as quickly as possible.

The feminist movement sought to abolish the distinction between married and unmarried females: the title “Ms.” was contrived for this purpose, as was the custom of married women retaining their maiden names. Less militant feminists were invited to attach their maiden names to their husband's surname, by way of a hyphen, in a romantic compromise with their patriarchal oppressors.

In the churches of our land, Protestant pastors went from Pastor Jones to Pastor Tom, and Catholic priests from Father Jones to Father Tom, in wake of the 1960s upheavals. In some Episcopalian circles, where the ordained priesthood has traditionally been highly regarded, priests dropped “Father” altogether and referred to themselves as “Doctor” instead. (Believe it or not, for High Church Episcopalians, this was an egalitarian move.) The abolition of titles has not resulted in a greater respect for persons, as might have been imagined at first. Instead, the result has been a complete lack of regard for the experience (usually measured in years), accomplishments (usually measured by education), consecration (usually determined by ordination), and natural station (usually indicated by sex and familial relation) of our neighbors. Worse still, the abolition of titles has resulted in the abolition of humility, that virtue which constrains men to consider others as better than themselves. When the adolescent George Washington penned his “Rules of Civility,” which some scholars believe were influenced by Jesuit pedagogy, he provided insight into the kind of manners that form the character of an American gentleman:

“In putting off your hat to persons of distinction, as noblemen, justices, churchmen, etc., make a reverence, bowing more or less according to the custom of the better bred, and quality of the persons; among your equals expect not always that they should begin with you first; but to pull off the hat when there is no need is affectation, in the manner of saluting and resaluting in word keep to the most usual custom.”

“When you meet with one of greater quality than yourself, stop, and retire, especially if it be at a door or any straight place, to give way for him to pass.”

“Artificers and persons of low degree ought not to use many ceremonies to lords or others of high degree, but respect and highly honor them, and those of high degree ought to treat them with affability and courtesy, without arrogance.”

We can see from these examples that customs which recognize legitimate distinctions between men tend to foster humility and respect, not arrogance and pomposity. Sadly, Washington's “bowing … according to the custom of the better bred” seems to be a thing of the past, long since replaced by the more egalitarian handshake or a simple nod of the head. And even the handshake has taken a beating: once reserved to men, women are now so aggressive about shaking hands that men have retreated into the high-school jock-culture of “wassup” and “high fives.”

In George Washington's day one “put off his hat” to persons of quality or distinction. A generation ago, men were still taught to remove their hats when greeting a member of the fairer sex, when entering someone's home, and when dining at a restaurant. Today this is completely forgotten: males wear their hats according to their own pleasure, often backwards, whenever and wherever and however they like.

In addition to titles and manners, dress used to distinguish people from one another. One could identify chefs, farmers, priests, nuns, maids, students, milkmen, postmen, auto mechanics, businessmen, and Montgomery Ward appliance repairmen by their uniforms alone. In the not too distant past, most men had a distinctive profession and were proud to wear the uniform of their class. This gave them a sense of identity, value, and common purpose.

But now we are all individualists, disdaining any group associations (except for a few politically correct exceptions, such as ethnic or gang-related clothing). The modern clergyman has exchanged his cassock and collar for the anonymity of civilian clothes, robbing strangers of the ability to recognize him in an emergency. Ladies' veils, which once adorned the heads of Protestant and Catholic women alike, signifying a woman's submission to male authority according to apostolic command, and publicly identifying a woman's marital status (black for married, white for unmarried), were universally discarded almost overnight by the newly liberated women in the pew. Furthermore, nuns have renounced their habits, businessmen have lost their suits, millers have forsaken their hats, schoolchildren have ditched their uniforms, and all of society is “all casual, all the time” — or so it seems. Not even sex constrains our apparel: our men have rings in their ears, our ladies have tattoos on their ankles, and blue jeans have become the preferred clothing of both sexes. Behold, the triumph of androgyny! Sex, class, and occupation are now viewed as constraints upon our individuality, rather than foundations from which to build. If this experiment was intended to result in more personality and individuality, it has utterly failed. We must now endure a dreary monotony in which everyone conforms to the same fashionable, boring, and artificial “individualism.”

This war against hierarchy and distinction has not been limited to people, but has now extended to places, times, and activities. Men used to “dress for work,” not only for practical reasons, but because work itself was viewed as something dignified and noble, set apart from ordinary household activities. Similarly, families put on their “Sunday best” for church because the public worship of their Creator was deemed the most important thing they did all week. When husband and wife went out to dinner, or to the opera, or even to see a movie, their dress signified that it was a special event. Similarly, mealtimes in the home were once cherished social occasions where conversation and good manners were fine-tuned. Today, fast-food, television, and absentee mothers have all but eliminated this important ritual, turning most Americans into animal-like grazers. As one comedian put it, “I grew up watching 'Leave It To Beaver' reruns, where Dad wore a tie at the dinner table. My father didn't wear a shirt.”

With respect to places and space, we can see runaway egalitarianism in the newer architecture and planning of public spaces. For instance, older homes have lots of walls, borders, and places set apart for special uses; newer homes have “great rooms,” “open floor plans,” huge windows, and gaping holes in the few walls that remain, creating an equality of space. (When we bought our new home, there was no door separating the bathroom from the master bedroom!) Along the same lines, some new residential communities have done away with fences except for those that are sufficiently transparent. Modern office buildings and conference rooms often have glass walls, or mirrors that give the illusion of no walls at all.

In religious architecture, the older buildings are vertical and hierarchical, directed towards heaven and toward the altar. Modern churches are low and horizontal, and sometimes circular, so as to emphasize "the people of God" instead of God Himself or His ministers. Inside an older church building, you will find an altar on an elevated platform, and an elevated pulpit from which to preach; today, everything has descended to the level of "the people,” and the gradations are much less pronounced if they exist at all. The new confessionals have no screens, and some even have glass doors and large windows. The idea here is to erase all hierarchy of space, activity, and persons, which ends in God and in an ordered universe.

We notice a crude egalitarianism in middle class politics, which sees the elite and the humble, the wealthy and the poor, as threats to the middle-class culture of envy (and a culture of envy requires a society of equals). That is why people of the middle class are often as hostile to the poor as they are to the privileged: the former are expected to be resentful of middle class prosperity and are not to be trusted, and the latter are a source of middle-class envy and discontent. This disordered egalitarian impulse explains both the anti-property ideology of the Left and the anti-immigrant populism of the so-called Right.

We may observe the egalitarian assault upon theology, which is manifest in the promiscuous ecumenism of most churches and denominations. The goal seems to be the elimination of all hierarchical distinction between religious ideas, thereby diminishing claims of religious truth and liberating individuals from having to consider truth-claims of any kind.

We even see the destructive influence of egalitarianism upon written communications, particularly in the new trend of writing without capitalization or punctuation — things that assign hierarchical significance to words and groups of words.

It should be mentioned that Protestantism bears much of the historical blame for this state of affairs. The Protestant doctrines of Total Depravity and the Priesthood of All Believers tended to erase all spiritual and moral distinctions between men: the only distinction that mattered was that of believer and unbeliever. As a result, Protestantism smashed the ecclesiastical hierarchy, destroyed monasticism, and sternly prohibited the veneration of saints. Neither did pilgrimages, shrines, or relics escape the wrath of Protestant levelers. Furthermore, the Protestants made no important distinctions among pagans, who were all seen as equally depraved and whose hierarchical sensibilities were not tolerated. The social forces put in motion by the Protestants ultimately replaced the old Christian order with secular ideologies of democracy and socialism.

I suppose that is enough to get the point across. The Egalitarian Heresy has turned our culture into an amorphous puddle of mush, darkening our minds, impoverishing our souls, and blinding our eyes to reality. Chaos, it has been said, is the lack of all distinction. As a popular bumper sticker boldly proposes: “NO LIMITS!.” But alas, our modern egalitarian world is not entirely consistent. Men cannot live without some kind of hierarchy, and so Americans have created shallow aristocracies based upon political power, sex appeal, professional sports, and financial success. Growing movements of Black Separatists, White Supremacists, and ethnic nationalists are also attempting to fill the cultural void with sinister appeals to biological purity. Nature will have its revenge.

What can be done? The answer is not, of course, a construction of new aristocracies based upon pagan notions of race, celebrity, money, or power. Neither is the answer a rigid caste system in which there is no communication or movement between classes. It must be admitted that some forms of hierarchical order can be arbitrary, cruel, and corrupt: let us be careful not to invite the old demons back. No, the answer is a return of our civilization to legitimate temporal Authority, and to our spiritual roots in the Catholic tradition. We have nothing to fear from this. It was the Catholic Church that eroded the brutal pagan hierarchies of old, which ruthlessly divided humanity into masters and slaves. It was the Catholic Church that abolished the harsh, polygamous patriarchy of pagan societies, which gave a man the authority of life and death over his own wives and children. And it was the Catholic Church that attacked the cruel racial castes of ancient civilizations.

Fallen man apparently has tendencies to erase legitimate hierarchical distinctions on the one hand, and to exaggerate and deify them on the other. The answer must be the full development of human personality, which requires individuals, orders and classes. While development implies mobility, the existence of orders and classes imply permanence, and their reconciliation demands the kind of humility that can only be attained through the Christian Gospel.


Posted Image

#7
Kaiser

Kaiser
  • Members
  • 134 posts
  • Ideology:Getting the specifics
  • Location:USA

great article, loved every word of it. really makes me wonder why you still support a equalitarian doctrine like Socialism which systematically takes from the superior and redistributes to the inferior, which is another way of punishing talent.


Being rich doesn't make you superior as a human, it just makes you richer than the other guy.

Of course, this is really rather hard to claim, but there are the examples of those born into it that I'm more calling upon.

I will be gone for the weekend so if you decide to put an argument against me FC, realize that I shan't reply till Sunday or Monday.
Posted Image

#8
hey8

hey8
  • Members
  • 55 posts
  • Ideology:iron march
hey

#9
UltraNationalist

UltraNationalist

    The Amazing Atheist

  • Gassed
  • 332 posts
  • Ideology:Neo-Con Fuckhead
  • Location:United States of America


Being rich doesn't make you superior as a human, it just makes you richer than the other guy.

Of course, this is really rather hard to claim, but there are the examples of those born into it that I'm more calling upon.

I will be gone for the weekend so if you decide to put an argument against me FC, realize that I shan't reply till Sunday or Monday.


Being Rich provides several advantages which does make you a superior human being. You have access to better food, water, education, health care and life style if you're rich. The Poor poverty stricken man is inferior in terms that he has to work hard for very little, only enough to cover a few expenses and with that the cheap health care, food and so forth. So in a way it is survival of the Fittest, except it's not really phyisicaly. I mean, a hardworking masculine factor worker is far more superior then a Fat desk jockey in terms of physical appearance and strength. am I right?
Direct threats require decisive action. -Dick Cheney
We don't point a pistol at our own forehead. That is not the way to conduct negotiations - Benjamin Mileikowsky (Netanyahu)

#10
NSP

NSP
  • Members
  • 801 posts
  • Ideology:National-Syndicalism
  • Location:Western Europe

Being Rich provides several advantages which does make you a superior human being. You have access to better food, water, education, health care and life style if you're rich.The Poor poverty stricken man is inferior in terms that he has to work hard for very little, only enough to cover a few expenses and with that the cheap health care, food and so forth.


That doesn't make you a superiour being, but a lucky bastard. This will lead to mediocracy because the more gifted and talented people within society who don't have the privilege of being rich are denied good education and chances. Why should a lazy rich dumbass or a white collar crininal deserve more chances then certain workingclass people who are much more gifted and talented but are forced to work for their family and don't have money to educate themselves? That's disadventeous for the whole society. Any healthy meriticracy should start with equal opportunities, so all members of society got their faith in their own hands and earn their position within the natural hierarchy and social ladder (instead of simply buying it).
There exists no form of thought or activity that is not enslaved by materialism. Our hostility is as great towards Capitalism, as against Marxism. Capitalism, by means of poverty or prosperity, reduces the people to a state of servitude incompatible with the dignity of man. It directs whole classes and one's whole personality toward the acquisition of money: that's the only desire that fills the modern soul. Marxism is the rebellious son of Capitalism from which it received its faith in matter.

We believe not in Capitalism which creates class struggle, nor do we believe in Marxism that exploits it; neither in directors who enrich themselves from peoples labour, neither in politicians who make career out of its resentment, neither in conservative blindness, neither in demagogue impudence, neither in egoism, neither in cowardice, neither in left or right!

#11
FascistCapitalist

FascistCapitalist

    Commie Pinko Scum

  • Gassed
  • 1,010 posts
  • Ideology:Fascist Capitalism
  • Location:Good Ol' US of A

That doesn't make you a superiour being, but a lucky bastard. This will lead to mediocracy because the more gifted and talented people within society who don't have the privilege of being rich are denied good education and chances.


There's a simple and perfect Capitalist solution to what your whining about that has been around for a long time and is still around today
"Billions for equal chances, not a penny for equal results!" - Charles Murray

We have scholarship programs and all kinds of goodies for gifted children from poor families which let them rise to the top of society along with the rest of the finer genetic stock of the Nation. It's a true Meritocracy and exactly what the author of this paper would support I'm sure. You go ahead a track this feller down and see what he thinks of Socialism, I'm sure he'll tell ya that it's exactly what he warns *against* in his writings, it is the Myth Of Equality *big time* Capitalism IS Meritocracy, Socialism is the leveling down of every one and the social revolt against the genetic aristocracy. You need to read Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace Of The Underman which shows how Socialism creates a dysgenic dystopia, a evil hell on earth where braindead workers run the show
Posted Image
http://archive.org/d...stciv00stoduoft
"The real history of capitalism will now begin. Capitalism is not just a system of oppression - on the contrary it represents the choice of the fittest, equal opportunities for the most gifted, a more developed sense of individual responsibility"
BENITO MUSSOLINI

"In small communities where everyone knows everyone else personally, most people must acknowledge that the position of the "haves" is typically based on their superior personal achievement just as the position of the "have-nots" finds its typical explanation in their personal deficiencies and inferiority"
HANS HERMANN-HOPPE

"Property is the direct projection of man on his possessions; it is an essential human attribute"
JOSE ANTONIO

"It is not by chance that one person accomplishes more than the other. The principle of private ownership is rooted in this fact"
HITLER

"A true conservative stands athwart history, yelling STOP, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who do"
WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.

"Socialism can only be realised at the price of national ruin, for such measures are incompatible with the natural order of things, and would bring the nation which should submit to them into such a manifest state of inferiority, compared to its rivals, as would promptly result in their yielding its place to them"
GUSTAVE LE BON

"Left ain't Right"
ME

#12
NSP

NSP
  • Members
  • 801 posts
  • Ideology:National-Syndicalism
  • Location:Western Europe

the author of this paper would support I'm sure. You go ahead a track this feller down and see what he thinks of Socialism, I'm sure he'll tell ya that it's exactly what he warns *against* in his writings


The author is a writter for the Nouvelle Droite (GRECE) movement which is anti-capitalist to begin with and combines social-revolutionary thought with new left (Mai '68) and rightwing traditionalist thought. But you'll probably will never get that considering it does not fit your American capitalist/right versus communist/left dialectics... :D
There exists no form of thought or activity that is not enslaved by materialism. Our hostility is as great towards Capitalism, as against Marxism. Capitalism, by means of poverty or prosperity, reduces the people to a state of servitude incompatible with the dignity of man. It directs whole classes and one's whole personality toward the acquisition of money: that's the only desire that fills the modern soul. Marxism is the rebellious son of Capitalism from which it received its faith in matter.

We believe not in Capitalism which creates class struggle, nor do we believe in Marxism that exploits it; neither in directors who enrich themselves from peoples labour, neither in politicians who make career out of its resentment, neither in conservative blindness, neither in demagogue impudence, neither in egoism, neither in cowardice, neither in left or right!

#13
FascistCapitalist

FascistCapitalist

    Commie Pinko Scum

  • Gassed
  • 1,010 posts
  • Ideology:Fascist Capitalism
  • Location:Good Ol' US of A


The author is a writter for the Nouvelle Droite (GRECE) movement which is anti-capitalist to begin with and combines social-revolutionary thought with new left (Mai '68) and rightwing traditionalist thought.


he's a writer for a French group with a name like John Smith?? Me thinks your wrong, they probably just uploaded his paper to there crappy interweb page. Why don't you go a head and track down the man, shoot him over one of them emails and ask him what he thinks of Socialism, I dare you.

But you'll probably will never get that considering it does not fit your American capitalist/right versus communist/left dialectics... :D


Sorry I don't do dianetics, I'm no scientologist.
"The real history of capitalism will now begin. Capitalism is not just a system of oppression - on the contrary it represents the choice of the fittest, equal opportunities for the most gifted, a more developed sense of individual responsibility"
BENITO MUSSOLINI

"In small communities where everyone knows everyone else personally, most people must acknowledge that the position of the "haves" is typically based on their superior personal achievement just as the position of the "have-nots" finds its typical explanation in their personal deficiencies and inferiority"
HANS HERMANN-HOPPE

"Property is the direct projection of man on his possessions; it is an essential human attribute"
JOSE ANTONIO

"It is not by chance that one person accomplishes more than the other. The principle of private ownership is rooted in this fact"
HITLER

"A true conservative stands athwart history, yelling STOP, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who do"
WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.

"Socialism can only be realised at the price of national ruin, for such measures are incompatible with the natural order of things, and would bring the nation which should submit to them into such a manifest state of inferiority, compared to its rivals, as would promptly result in their yielding its place to them"
GUSTAVE LE BON

"Left ain't Right"
ME

#14
NSP

NSP
  • Members
  • 801 posts
  • Ideology:National-Syndicalism
  • Location:Western Europe

he's a writer for a French group with a name like John Smith?? Me thinks your wrong, they probably just uploaded his paper to there crappy interweb page.


Its a school of thought that is internationally backed with authors from all kind of nations.

Why don't you go a head and track down the man, shoot him over one of them emails and ask him what he thinks of Socialism, I dare you.


If you want to waste your time on that be my guest.

Sorry I don't do dianetics, I'm no scientologist.


Dialectics: your great philosophical outburst that everything that ain't capitalist must be communist - nothing in between. Must be great to lead such a simplistic life... :D
There exists no form of thought or activity that is not enslaved by materialism. Our hostility is as great towards Capitalism, as against Marxism. Capitalism, by means of poverty or prosperity, reduces the people to a state of servitude incompatible with the dignity of man. It directs whole classes and one's whole personality toward the acquisition of money: that's the only desire that fills the modern soul. Marxism is the rebellious son of Capitalism from which it received its faith in matter.

We believe not in Capitalism which creates class struggle, nor do we believe in Marxism that exploits it; neither in directors who enrich themselves from peoples labour, neither in politicians who make career out of its resentment, neither in conservative blindness, neither in demagogue impudence, neither in egoism, neither in cowardice, neither in left or right!

#15
FascistCapitalist

FascistCapitalist

    Commie Pinko Scum

  • Gassed
  • 1,010 posts
  • Ideology:Fascist Capitalism
  • Location:Good Ol' US of A

Its a school of thought that is internationally backed with authors from all kind of nations.


International pinhead group, roger that. John Smith ain't a member of them, they just stole his paper.

If you want to waste your time on that be my guest.


Scared of the truth and seeing I'm right. I get it. you don't wanna embarass yourself. I would be scared to ask him what he thought of Socialism if I was a Red too,

Dialectics


same crap, different keister. I'm not interested in freaky deaky Marxist theories any more then the ones their scientologist friends come up with.
"The real history of capitalism will now begin. Capitalism is not just a system of oppression - on the contrary it represents the choice of the fittest, equal opportunities for the most gifted, a more developed sense of individual responsibility"
BENITO MUSSOLINI

"In small communities where everyone knows everyone else personally, most people must acknowledge that the position of the "haves" is typically based on their superior personal achievement just as the position of the "have-nots" finds its typical explanation in their personal deficiencies and inferiority"
HANS HERMANN-HOPPE

"Property is the direct projection of man on his possessions; it is an essential human attribute"
JOSE ANTONIO

"It is not by chance that one person accomplishes more than the other. The principle of private ownership is rooted in this fact"
HITLER

"A true conservative stands athwart history, yelling STOP, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who do"
WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.

"Socialism can only be realised at the price of national ruin, for such measures are incompatible with the natural order of things, and would bring the nation which should submit to them into such a manifest state of inferiority, compared to its rivals, as would promptly result in their yielding its place to them"
GUSTAVE LE BON

"Left ain't Right"
ME

#16
hey8

hey8
  • Members
  • 55 posts
  • Ideology:iron march
In the case you are exposing, justice would be made if those working class people with great skills, or any skills that are useful, should be given every opportunity to succeed. A healthy society can put forward the means to do this like FascistCapitalist says and even more if necessary. In any case, the problem is one of justice not equality. When we talk about lazy rich people we have to differentiate; I see rich people who are so through having greater skill, will or effort in what they do, so for me it just for them to earn the money they earn. However, I also see parasitical rich people who do not contribute anything in terms of real work to the economy or who are closer to being criminals than productive workers. Think of drug warlords, stock market giants and many more.

#17
TotalitarianSocialist

TotalitarianSocialist

    a good goy

  • Members
  • 1,034 posts
  • Ideology:Volkstaat Agrarian NS. Pan-Aryanism
  • Location:South Africa

great article, loved every word of it. really makes me wonder why you still support a equalitarian doctrine like Socialism which systematically takes from the superior and redistributes to the inferior, which is another way of punishing talent.

Capitalism is much more egalitarian then Fascist/Nationalistic Socialism. I think it is elitist to have the industry more tightly under state control. Capitalism claims people are "worth" the amount of material wealth they possess, they are judged more on that then they are there characher and abilities. Capitalism is associated with classic liberalism/libertarianism, a very egalitarian ideaology. Not all egalitarians are socialists, I have many capitalists that believe the same BS the commies do. Liberal capitalists just believe in a different economic system. You are a capitalist, do you think a rich ©rapper is superior to a working class patriot? Capitalists genrally do.

#18
Amicus Christi

Amicus Christi
  • Members
  • 88 posts
  • Ideology:Monarchy

same crap, different keister. I'm not interested in freaky deaky Marxist theories any more then the ones their scientologist friends come up with.


You know Dialectics isn't exclusive to Marxism, right?

http://en.wikipedia....alectical_forms

>Dialectics
>Scientologists

Are you... are you confusing Dialectics with DiaNETICS?

#19
AvantiHungaria

AvantiHungaria
  • Members
  • 568 posts
  • Ideology:Muh Hungary
  • Location:Gone fighting the liberal gods!
Sorry for necro but I find the topic interesting.

All I can say is that I agree with the original post. Of course the myth of equality is mixed with the myth of capitalist "meritocracy".
For capitalists it's a race so having more money equals being better. Of course as all of us know most of the times money isn't get distributed based on merit.
Most rich kids end up being the most cosmopolitan and rootless people not to mention that modern global free market capitalism is against nations and cultures in general.

So I say we should have the competition based on real merit ie family or academic success not on hogging money.
Money is only a resource nothing more the real capital is in the heads and the will of the people.
I Corporatism.
New user? Don't be a liberal! Read the rules.

#20
Aristo

Aristo
  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • Ideology:Exploring Fascism
  • Location:United States
^ I'd have to agree wholeheartedly. The amount of money one inherits/has/earns is not an indicator of merit, worth or use to the state. You can earn lots of money through hard work and dedication; that takes merit. But money alone should never determine the value of a person. Status should be earned, not bought.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users