Alb 1193, Bouthillier Arthur

> Also if “White” culture is so great, why would one need “education”
> to see this? Are you insinuating that the neo-nazi movement is
> ignorant? Do tell…

People need eduation to take a shit or care for their own
children properly let alone appreciate their own culture. You’re
not even pretending that you want to understand or appreciate what
we’re talking about. Then again, you may not be able to appreciate
what I’m talking about; I don’t care. Besides, what I am talking
about is a White Power movement, not a “neo-nazi” one. That there
will be some nazis, school teachers, socialists, Germans, democrats,
republicans, French, English, young people, Italians, doctors, old
people, lawyers or whatever involved in that is unimportant.

> Gee, this wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that 6,000,000
> of then were gassed in the name of “White identity”?[…]>

Oh! So it’s alright for Jews to generalize and prejudge all Whites.
So, are you also justifying it for the Germans before World War 2?
Have you ever looked at the transgressions of the Jews? Could there
be a reason that the Jews were “unliked” by the Germans? Also, I
don’t believe that “6,000,000” were “gassed.” Some Jews died; as
did many Whites. What does that have to do with my viewpoint?

> At least we agree, you insinuate on purpose to promote hatred.

I insinuate; you insinuate to promote the hatred of Whites. Maybe Jews
should learn to leave us to live in peace. They have their own
homeland; yet their whining rises above the din on every issue
of importance to Whites. I was in sixth grade when I said that
we should stop non-White immigration. My fine Jewish teacher
scolded me: “Don’t say that! That’s just like the Nazis!” Fuck her,
fuck you. I don’t care whether you want to compare me to the
Nazis. I want non-White immigration stopped. I want the destruction
of my society stopped. I want to live as a free White man in a nice
White society with a government that promotes that. Fuck you, fuck
the Jews and anyone else if they can’t appreciate that.

> If you look at the figures, “Whites” are still enjoying the booty of
> their racial transgressions. Please enumerate all present dangers to
> the “identity” and “right to dignity” of the “White” race.

As we should; we should live magnificently. Why don’t you list the
transgressions of Whites. When I see something that I’m guilty of, I’ll
say I’m sorry for it.

Our government is becoming less and less representative of our interests.
This is caused by actions of the government and by an increase in
non-White immigration. As for the transgressions, tune in tommorrow
at this same Bat time on this same Bat channel. Don’t worry, I will
enumerate them at my own liesure.

> “Whites” are still enjoying the booty of their racial transgressions.

Fuck you. I’m not guilty of something I didn’t do. Now, if you wish
to destroy our people despite that; then I will not sit by idly and
let you destroy us.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: The Courage of Arthur Pendragon
Date: 4 Nov 1993 17:11:12 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

> Feeling persecuted? Oh, what a terrible shame! Whitey cant take it!
> You cant compete on a level playing field!

No, betrayed; we will not take it.

> Whiteboys, your too soft, and all of your macho postuering and whitey
> agrandizment wont keep your kind alive.

Time will tell.

> The world moved while you where asleep, you missed the boat, now
> you feel lost, without a home.

Then we will build a home; true Whites need no one else to do what is

> Blame it on fags, if you must, blame it on everyone else, if it helps
> you sleep. But the truth is, you willallways be on the bottom, because
> you dont have the brains, you dont have the real courage, and you dont
> have the strength to stand onyour own in this world,

I don’t blame anybody but silly White people and traitors. All the others
are only doing what they should be doing. It is stupid Whites or traitors
who have gotten us into this position. Whethere we survive or not, only
time itself will tell. If I have anything to do with, we will have a
brilliant future.

> You could not take what Blacks, Gays , NativeAmericans, etc have taken
> and still maintain dignity, self respect ,and pride. You are your own
> worst enemy.

Again, time will tell.

> You are obsolete, I beg you to go buy an island somewhere and form your
> own little paranoid delusional society, take the rest of your ilk with
> you, and leave the rest of us alone to drink our beer, live our lives and
> suck our cocks.

I know you would like us to believe that; and in fact your brashness is
dependent on that mistaken notion. Again, only time will tell.

By the deeds of heroes
and the blood of martyrs
all good things come to be.

We aim to be free
Arthur Bouthillier
[email protected]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

P.S. Faggot is Faggot; don’t even begin to compare yourself to the Black man

From oneb!!!!!!!!
not-for-mail Sun Nov 28 18:56:00 PST 1993
Article: 5340 of alt.revisionism
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:3386 alt.revisionism:5340
Path: oneb!!!!!!!!
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Arguing with you people is useless
Date: 26 Nov 1993 21:59:23 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 360
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>

In order to show that I’m not above ad-hominem attacks or revenge, I will
take this opportunity to express my utter amazement at the stupidity of
one of my detractors.

> Beg pardon, sonny, but if you’re crossposting an article to
> alt.revisionism, this little claim becomes rather watery under examination.

Beg pardon, pops, but I didn’t crosspost it; probably one of your
exterminationist butt buddies did.

> Anything you happen on to post on the net is fair play for examination
> by _anybody_ who happens to read it, no matter how intelligent (or, in
> your case, idiotic) the argument.

You can “examine” my posts in any way you want; I’m not obligated to
engage in a dialog with you.

> Your ideas are fair game if you circulate them publically no matter what
> the forum is. _Capische_?

As are your’s. N’est pas?

> You were the bright boy who decided to crosspost this to alt.revisionism,
> buddy. No one forced you to.

Again, I did not crosspost. More than likely, some of your fellow
exterminationists were feeling that they were losing the debate and
thought that they would bring in some “big guns;” I only wish they had.

> I’d have to say I’m quite honored if my dislike for cretins like you
> pisses you off, as getting a rise out of racist feebs is an extremely
> amusing recreational pastime.

I’d have to say the same to you. :->

> I’m so sorry you can’t handle the idea of plurarism, disturbed as you
> must be about the possibility that not everybody is lured into the
> festering hatred you espouse.

Here is where I must ask YOU for proof. Could you please offer proof of
what you call “festering hatred?” If anything, your post festers.

> You’re assuming all opponents of Nazi doctrine are Marxists.

No I’m not.

> Ever heard of the absurdity factor in making such blatant assumptions?

Ever heard of pulling ideas out of your ass? That’s what you’re doing.

> First, you claim that your opponents are Marxists, and then claim that
> what they _really_ are are radical individualists.

Some of my detractors are self-professed Marxists.

> Odd….Secondly, the word “social group” seems to denote some sort of
> comfy herd men-tality.

Yes, I am in fact talking about herd mentality.

> Goodness, are you saying that the Mighty Aryan Warrior is scared of his
> own shadow? Odd. Very odd.

I’m not saying anything of the sort.

> Stupidity upon stupidity. You’re assuming that all interests automatically
> engender total hostility towards _other_ interests.

Studpidity upon stupidity. I am not assuming that.

> This, of course, comes with the tacit assumption that everyone would
> either _want_ such an invariably fatal hostility to occur without some
> sort of negotiation or mediation to prevent it.

As has become the trend in your posts, you are wrong.

> Fond of blatant assumptions, are we?

Yes you are.

> What you stand for is quite repulsive, kiddo.

You don’t know what I stand for asshole. Maybe you should read, think
consider, evaluate, before reacting.

> Hating somebody for what they do or the values they espouse is one thing,
> but hating them merely for an accident of birth or their ethnic background
> is exceedingly dimwitted, to say the least.

Speaking of dimwits, have you been taking your pills lately?

> You’re assuming, of course, that this “presence” (?) for the cause of your
> “people” is only extended to the membership of your particular coterie of
> _Hitlerjugend_.

As usual, you are assuming that I’m assuming certain things. As usual, you
are wrong.

> I severely doubt the vast majority of “Nordic” people in the U.S. would
> retain the services of a intellectual dead-end such as yourself to put
> forward their, er, “cause”.

I’ll speak my mind. If someone likes it, good; if not, tough.

>> Whether you, or anyone else likes it, there are millions of whites
>> (and quite a few Whites) in North America.
> I happen to be one, sonny.

And you’re a pretty pathetic specimen too.

> I don’t want your services, and I don’t buy your ideology, your line of
> reasoning, or even the fact that you wrote this little tirade without
> assistance from a professional typist. Savvy?

That’s fine. I don’t buy your’s either.

> This is a bit like saying that the Constitution was written as a
> precursor to _Mein_Kampf_. Talk about your sick leaps of logic….

Talk about sick leaps of illogic (or nonlogic)….

> Once again-even if I bought the lie that resources are _that_ thinly
> stretched, what’s wrong with compromise and negotiation? You really
> _are_ into the robber-baron mentality, aren’t you?

Tsk. Tsk. I thought you multi-culturalists were against prejudging another?
Or do you only reserve that for your opponents?

> Yeah, right. You do know that 1933 was followed by 1945,

No, 1933 was followed by 1934.

> I take it that you’ll feel no hostility if they don’t particularly
> feel a kinship for you, either.

I might feel hostility; then again, I might not.

> You’re assuming that “white” is a homogenous ethnic grouping which has
> no national or regional distinctions.

No, I’m positing the existence of A group (maybe not the same one to
which you are referring). As for regional distinctions, I do rethem.

> Not only is this a ridiculous generalization, but I have my doubts that
> “whites” would be willing to buy into any sort of neo-Nazi schemes for
> “maintaining” an already suspect racial distinction.

A belief is not necessarily a generalization; go back and studyepistemology.

> Russians, Swedes and Spaniards have a “common descent”?

Yes. It’s called European or Aryan.

> You’re assuming that there’s a single definition to “culture”or “society”
> that everybody in your little Aryan world must subscribe to.

Again, you’re assuming that I’m assuming.

> Unless you’re suffering from from a massive case of egotism, what you
> choose to support and promote is _not_ beyond reproach or debate merely
> because you support it or promote it.

I’m not obligated to support conclusions to which you’ve come, especially
if they’re based on flights of fantasy.

> If that were the case, you wouldn’t’ve crossposted this to alt.revisionism.

Again, I didn’t crosspost; one of your loser friends did.

> Really? I happen to be “white” myself. I choose to oppose you.

That’s fine; I choose to oppose you and what you advocate for Whites.

> I’d be more kind if you displayed more intelligence, but I’d have to
> say that it’s your tough shit if you dislike this fact.

I WILL be more kind to you should I post toward you in the future
since explaining things to a child always has the possibility of
that he might misinterpret what one says.

> However, why is it impossible, at least in your imagination, for
> the above definition to be applied to a multi-racial society? Don’t
> disappoint me in your rebuttal, now….

Because it would only come at the expense of what I feel is good. I
have limited resources and I don’t want to promote something that
will let me promote something. I just want to promote something.

> It may’ve taken centuries to develop a racialist politics
> of hate based on psuedoscience, yet yo-yos such as yourself manage to
> remain a cohesive group even if your “theories” are a kit-bag of gross
> contradictions and race hate based on gimpy “scientific” theories.

And idiots like you abound, becoming the “useful tools” of those with
an agenda.

> You’re confusing biology and ideology again.

No. You are jumping to conclusions based on incomplete info, a sign of
a weak thinker.

> Being “white” merely means you’re caucasian as far as physical
> characteristics are concerned. Any other definition is suspect, to
> say the least.

Then suspect all you want.

> The “higher end” you speak of is not a universally shared definition,

I never said it was.

> and I hope you’ll eventually realize that since nobody’s telepathic,
> one man’s “higher end” is another’s bottom of the barrel.

Well, your multi-racial society is definitely at the bottom of my barrel.

> “Lineage”? For crying out loud, are you saying that human reproduction is
> akin to _horse-breeding_? Please say yes. I haven’t had a good laugh in
> weeks….

I don’t understand your question; so I won’t answer it.

> Unless, of course, the family doesn’t fit your lame definition of”Aryan”.
> That family would be in serious trouble if you had your way.

How do you even know what my definition of a family is?

> You’re reifying the concept of “culture” when you says it tells you some-

No, I’m speaking metaphorically. That you happen to be equivocating
different concepts is not my problem.

> Bushwah.

Hey! That’s a real word!

> What is the ultimate logical source for this hierarchy?

Causality and implicit funcationalism.

> Does it with-stand contradiction, even in the slightest?

I don’t know. It’s withstood it pretty well up ’till now.

> Why does “maintenance of (your) people” automatically precipitate the
> subjugation (or worse) of others?

It doesn’t.

> Have you ever heard of the concept of _individual_ guilt for supposed for
> misdeeds,as opposed to _collective_ guilt, especially based on something
> as tenuous as ethnic characteristics?

There is no such thing as collective guilt. An individual is guilty of
illegal/immoral actions that he performs. Maybe it is YOU who is positing
collective guilt for White people.

> Once again: Why does this mean wholesale hostility toward other parties?

It doesn’t.

> Why does this hostility always engender violence and exterminism as a
> necessity?

When dealing with issues among millions of people, a small percentage
of individuals will prefer violence over peaceful activity. With millions,
that often means tens of thousands who advocate violence.

> Come on, now…take a shot at answering. I want to see _some_ sort of a
> reply, even if it’s a hopelessly illogical one.

Have you been acting this way since you had that bump on the head the
other day? You should go see a doctor.

> You’ve got little proof that resources have been stretched to the
> point of a Malthusian collapse, or that science and technology can’t
> deal with such problems.

You’re assuming that I’m saying something that I’m not.

> We’re no longer living in a subsistence-level society, Oh Potentate of
> Knowledge. Have you noticed that lately?

I’ve noticed; still, we’re not beyond the laws of nature.

> I’d ask “_which_ people?”, but I suspect I already know the
> (unfortunate) answer….yawn.

Those who agree with me….cough!!

> Any clue as to how a living, breathing human being with the same basic
> chemical and biological make-up as you has been magically transformed
> into a “mythical” being?

Show me a humanity someday. It’s an abstraction not a perceptual entity.

> Oh, of course. Nazi apologists _always_ see any other possibility as
> being invariably fatal. Paranoia rears its ugly head, yet again.

Oh, Of course, anti-Whites always try to portray us as fearful, paranoics.

> Yup. Never mind the native american, inuit, african and other “lesser”
> people who ended up getting subjugated, enslaved or killed along the
> way. I guess _these_ are the “mythical” people you’re babbling about.

Fuck ’em.

P.S. I’m a “native american.” Or are some people just more native than

> You’re still assuming that these ancestors of ours had some sort of odd
> sympathy for the mewlings of the crazed wallpaper-hanger from Vienna,
> which is a bizarre belief, to say the least.

You’re still assuming that I’m assuming certain things.

> You really enjoy demeaning people through (a)historical association,
> don’t you?

You really enjoy demeaning yourself by taking a position against which
you know nothing.

> Your definition of the hypothetical “Aryan” race smacks of xenophobia,
> arrogance, and just plain ol’ fear of that which doesn’t fit your
> pigeonholing. A shame. A real shame.

Even if that were true, it’s not illegal.

> Yeah, democracy and pluralism are _such_ destructive values, aren’t they?

Democracy as its practised in this country is a sham and a game of
name recognition.

> Both of you are so terrified of the real world that you’d rather blow
> it up than let anybody less inclined to your variety of psychosis live
> in it.

Do you have proof of this assertion or is it just another one of your
half-baked idiotic suppositions?

> Have a nice day, willya?


P.S. I will not respond to you further until you send some degree of
apology for your hysterics or I can make an example of further
silly things you say.

By the deeds of heroes
and the blood of martyrs
all good comes to be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From oneb!!!!!!!!
not-for-mail Sun Nov 28 18:56:29 PST 1993
Article: 3385 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!!!!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Date: 26 Nov 1993 20:05:13 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

Quoting Aristotle (and consistent with teleology):

“Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit
is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has
rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.”

I think this expresses some of your notion of “ultimate truth.”

> Things can be defined and enumerated only within a particular schema.

Again, I think you mean paradigm. As I see it, a paradigm provides the
underlying symbols and final end of a symbolic, goal-directed system.
Within those confines, schema are produced to represent perceptive

Choose a “schema” to express your ultimate truth; I’m flexible. 🙂

> It follows that the conception of an ultimate truth or good that
> transcends all our schemata is the conception of something that
> exceeds our ability to define and enumerate.

No, it would follow that one would have to choose a paradigm (schema)
in which to express those underlying truths. Of course it might not
be perfect, but it would at least be expressive and provide some means
to infer the referents. I’m not trying to be flippant or ridiculous
here. I am truthful in my request that you make some attempt to express
these underlying truths. You are implying (as I infer it) that I am
not considering ultimate truths in my enquiry; I assure you, I have
considered such things.

> The conception of an ultimate truth and goodness that we can approach
> but never fully grasp does that.

An understanding of one’s ultimate ends can be grasped and expressed. It
requires careful thought and truthfulness.

> Another beneficial consequence of the conception of an ultimate truth and
> goodness is that it makes it at least conceivable that people who accept
> different schemata or paradigms could talk to each other productively.

I would state what you just said by saying that it is important to realize
that all human activity (barring irregularities) works toward some end.

> Does tribalism refer simply to solidarity with people with who you share
> common ethnicity, or does it refer to the belief that such solidarity
> should override all other kinds of solidarity (family, class, religious
> or whatever)?

Tribalism refers to a basic human tendancy toward group identification
and ethical thought as a member of that group. Ethnicity is one expression
of that as is family, class. However, one ultimately works toward a certain
kind of society; that is the tribe. It is underneath of that that all things
are justified and explained.

Look at the roots of the words ethnicity and ethic. They are: ethnos, and
ethos. I speak of a White ethos and a drive towards a White ethnos.

> If you think that the division of labor is not something that is going
> to go away, then you should also think of class consciousness as a
> permanent feature of human existence.

I do. However, I recognize that each of those is means to an end. I also
recognize that a good cultural system will put those things in perspective
and justify them to the individual. Because of human nature, justifications
of individual and group existence are basicly universally understood.

> If what life is like is determined by a number of things, including
> ethnicity, class, religion, personal predilection and so on, then maybe
> what would be best would be a society that (in opposition to the current
> antiracist ideal) recognizes that ethnicity has a valid and important
> place in the world but doesn’t treat it as necessarily overriding.

The way that I interpret your statement is that you are suggesting that
I choose a society which lets me do what I want. But I want a society which
*is* what I want. Do you understand the difference? This is important to
what I am saying.

> Suppose in the United States we greatly reduced immigration, repealed
> all laws against racial discrimination, reduced the role of government
> (so that people would take care of the needs they can’t take care of
> themselves through association with people who feel like associating
> with them based on ties people actually feel) and emphasized federalism.

My end is not the maintenance of a system which lets me do what I want to
do, but a system which does what I want it to do. I don’t have to bargain
with my government; it had better express my interests or it is in
violation of them. If I have to bargain with anyone, it will be based
on the assumption that there are certain premises which are fixed and

> How would that fall short of what’s needed for the white race and way of
> life to thrive?

Accepting the premise of an agreement, I would have to say that it would
only be a means and not an end. There are numerous additional changes which
would be required before I would be willing to come to any such agreements.

Since we have a right to self-determination, I advocate the formation of
a White government and the creation of the status “White national.”
There would have to be a voluntary choice to have one’s taxes go there
instead of the U.S. Federal Gov’t. Additionally, the U.S. Federal Gov’t
could not have veto power or any other powers over the White Gov’t. and the
nature of the relationship between the White Gov’t and any other government
would be in accordance with treaties. Of course there are a number of
issues which are not subject to debate (chiefly related to the maintenance
of White self-determination).

As I have stated previously, our interests are fivefold: Culture,
Economics, Politics, Territory, Population. The control over each of
these issues relates to our existence and self-determination; therefore,
the nature of the treaty between the U.S. Gov’t and the White Gov’t would
require that White Gov’t decisions be more binding on White nationals
than U.S. law. Additionally, there would have to be regions for which the
White Gov’t had supreme legal status (in other words, a White state).
Within this region, White law would be supreme and non-White nationals
would be subject to a different body of law than White nationals.
I don’t advocate that these laws be overly coercive but they would limit
the rights of non-White nationals within the White state. Additionally,
the travel of non-Whites into that region would be subject to control
by the White Gov’t as it sees fit to secure the interests of the
White nation.

All of the above is in accordance with my principle that:

“The nation should define the state; the state shouldn’t define the nation.”

If there is such a nation, let’s see if people will support it. I think
that many would. Without the restrictions of current Federal Law, I
think that such a gov’t could be much more productive in providing the
necessities of life and a better way of life for Whites. It would also
force the Federal Gov’t to provide incentives for Whites to want to
have its control over our lives. If it can’t offer a better program
than a White Gov’t (or even a Black Gov’t for Blacks), then it will
suddenly start changing its policies to provide better incentives
because it will whither away from loss of population.

Not being unreasonable, and in order to secure mutual security, there
could be articles in the treaties recognizing an obligation to provide
certain funds for the common defense of both White and U.S. nationals.
Still, it is also in the interests of the White nation that it have
the means to defend its interests and have control of the economic
means to secure its interests.

This approach is one which I feel is intermediary to White rights
without sacrificing the interests of the White nation. It would also
create more equitable circumstances for all peoples in the U.S. It is
also not illegal (although it would be highly unpopular with the

All of the above is also consistent with the principle of social
contract. However, I am just ensuring that certain aspects of the
social contract are more explicit. Whites have a right to nullify
any contracts which they feel are not conducive to their interests
(contractual consideration) as well as engage in any other such
contracts which we feel ARE in our interests. The process which I
have outlined above ensures that these contracts be somewhat more
explicit in certain important cases (like what is the nature of the
society in which one engages).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From oneb!!!!!!!!!!
not-for-mail Mon Nov 29 04:43:03 PST 1993
Article: 3392 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!!!!!!
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Date: 27 Nov 1993 13:53:27 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 222
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

> It seems that ultimate truth should be independent of the particular
> qualities of the knower and therefore should be the same for all rational
> beings.

I’m not so sure that such things exist and if they do, they would not be
a sufficient basis on which to build a society. They would be an
underlying set of moral rules but they would not be the sufficient goals
by which to derive all activity or specify the goals of a society. A
complete society would have to be based on certain other non-ultimate
truths, which are ultimately pragmatic.

Also “rational being” does not imply that the receiver of a message has
the necessary knowledge to interpret what is being said. Often a complete
understanding of a position requires possibly years of research on its
background before it is understood. Additionally, the encoding of a
message and the process of expounding its position takes time. My end
is not to make everyone understand my end (especially those hostile to
it) but to attain my end.

Following the “burden of proof” dictate, it would not be unjustified to
ask for proof of ultimate truth.

> In the case of ethics and politics, it follows that a full justification
> of an ethical and political position would justify the position by
> reference to principles that could and should be acceptable to everyone
> because only then would it be shown that the position is consistent with
> ultimate truth.

I think that the idea that there is an ultimate truth is itself an ethical
axiom under which you are operating. I’m not so sure that I hold that
axiom. If ultimate truths existed, there should be some means to derive
an understanding of them. An “ultimate truth” which I recognize is that all
ethical systems are based on certain axioms; it is only with reference
to those axioms that an ethic can be understood or determined to be
consistent. Another “ultimate truth” which I recognize is that people are
goal-oriented. This is not just an accident of humanity but is the nature
of all living things. Another “ultimate truth” seems to stem from tribalism
but I am not altogether saying that tribalism is an ultimate truth. Another
“ultimate truth” about my position is that it serves the lives and interests
of some people.

I would be very careful about adopting your position of “ultimate truths”
because using that as an axiom, one embarks on a never-ending quest
for a thing which does not exist and which may not improve the lives of
those around him. In examining your earlier justifications for your idea
of ultimate truth, you only showed its utility by saying something like:
“the concept of ultimate truths is a useful concept” ( A paraphrase
becayse I didn’t save the message). There are a million things that can
be shown to have utility. I must ask to what end they have utility.

> Therefore, “it’s the goal I have chosen” doesn’t look like a satisfactory
> justification for making the well-being of Whites the ultimate goal of
> your political activity.

I was merely stating that when I am confronted by what I believed were
arbitrary choices in goals, I choose that which benefits my people.

> “Man is a social animal and societies evolve over time and are held
> together by myths, of which the myth of common ancestry is one of the
> most powerful” might be the beginning of a better justification.

I like your statement. I agree with it. Actually, “man is a social animal”
is a precept of my viewpoint. It is also a precept that man does not engage
in economic activity or other activity but with reference to a cultural
system. Without that cultural system, an individual would die because he
would have insufficient understanding or drive to attain such things.

It is my position that economics is not man’s end, politics is not man’s
end, but social intercourse is one of man’s ends by nature. It is by using
this innate desire for social intercourse that people operating under
cultural systems train each other toward specific political and economic

I and most White nationalists, do not feel compelled to desire any kind of
social system other than a White society. It is both compelling and
sufficient for our existence. The society under which we run sufficiently
satisfies our social needs so that we are not compelled to change for
anyone’s benefit. In fact, it satisfies our needs so completely that we
take any attacks on that system as personal attacks.

Also, with regard to myths and so forth, I believe that any good myth
should have both historical and biological bases. It is only when they
are written with regard to them that they most accurately reflect the
needs of man. One of those needs is for historical continuity. It is in
the nature of humans to try to correct cognitive dissonance, especially
as it regards to who and what they are; since the human mind operates
on temporal and categorical relations, it is not unreasonable that one
would organize his understanding of the world in those terms. The other
needs are related to those that biology imposes on us. Any good society
should provide supports for the biological basis of humanity. By support,
I don’t mean that it should let them happen, but that provisions to
promote them should exist, that the general ends of human nature should
be part of the structure of that society.

Additionally, philosophy has shown that virtually any moral system can
be broken down and that the epistemological basis of any system of thought
can be broken. However, Descartes expressed one particular strong notion
which I would express in my own terms as: “We think, therefore we are.”

> What bothers me about saying that the ultimate goal is the “well-being
> of Whites” or “victory of the Revolution” is that such statements appear
> to cut off the process of finding common ground with non-Whites or
> opponents of the Revolution, and similar slogans have led governments
> to act as if they were in an irreducible state of war with large groups
> of people subject to their control. The results have been bad for
> everyone.

Well, what is YOUR ultimate goal. If it doesn’t serve White interests,
how can you justify to me that it *IS* some kind of ultimate truth?
Any ultimate truth must also serve to represent our interests and needs.

Besides I think that what I am talking about *IS* the basis of common
ground. In case you hadn’t noticed, my camp has made overtures toward
mutual recognition of existence toward non-Whites. It is only towards
those who refuse to recognize our existence that we will be unmerciful.

> What do you do with ethical commitments (Christianity or commitment to
> the scientific enterprise, for example) that cut across ethnic divisions?

I think that other ethical commitments (with the exception of religion)
will be superceded and justified by that of which I speak. The commitment
to scientific enterprise is not inconsistent with the promotion of an
ethnic community. In fact, we Whites have often expressed an understanding
of the importance of science. However, a pursuit towards an understanding
of nature does not necessitate the abolition of social contracts.
I think that you are being insincere of your positioning of ethnic identity
against those things. There are numerous examples of ethnic societies
which produce great scientific advancements (the U.S. used to be one of
them, Germany, Japan, Korea and a host of others are also examples).
Ethnicity (and the underlying social goals expressed by it) provides
meaning to those endeavors.

The commitment to religious ethics can be a problem; I will not argue
that it won’t be. Within our own Movement, we are a broad spectrum of
religious Movements, most of which are contradictory but all of which
coexist with the pursuit of a White nation. Hell, most of us in this camp
are not even Christians although we fight side by side with Christians.
Even though I am not Christian, I promote Christianity and endorse it,
in certain ways.

> Here I intended to ask why you view tribalism as the ultimate ethical
> principle when (as suggested above) there are important ethical
> commitments that cut across tribalism.

I don’t accept that those things are more important; for those who do,
there could be problems. However, I believe in an explicit social
contract towards a specific end. One can endorse a non-religious
contract and still practice his religion.

> The laws can make it possible for a good society to arise and protect
> it to some degree when it already exists, but the laws can’t create the
> right balance among all the things that go into making a good society.

I understand and agree. The goodness of a society will ultimately come
from the morality of the people. This is why I believe that our Movement
must have a strong moral underpinning.

> My objection to your tribalist notion, at least as you sometimes express
> it, is that I don’t view tribalism as a principle that trumps all other
> principles even though I recognize it as a principle that deserves to be
> given some weight.

Excuse me, but this is extremely important to me and it is for that reason
that I must dwell on it. It is only because of the threats to what I see
as good that I am motivated to engage in the activity that I am. Moreover,
many of the things of which I talk are not transitory, momentary things
but things that must exist for long-terms in time.

Also, I reject your statement that ethnicity is any less important than
anything else. For me, this is as close to any religious belief or any
other such thing. Nation is an extension of family for me.

> it sounds like your proposal is to make the United States into a loose
> structure with common defense and maybe a couple of other things as the
> sole functions of the federal government.

Sound familiar? That’s what America was supposed to be.

> At least one of the states would define citizenship by reference to white
> ethnicity and people could move to whatever state they liked that would
> accept them.

In case you hadn’t noticed, some such states already exist. Given the
option, I think that other such states would exist. However, because of
Federal hegemony, these expressions are suppressed. Look at the Oregon

> It doesn’t sound like it need be all that different from the pre-Civil
> War constitution.

It’s not. What I am talking about is the true heritage of America. It is
only these anti-White assholes who are destroying America. My love is not
for a government or for those who seek to destroy what I think is good;
it is for my people.

> It seems to me you could even accept one of the Civil War amendments
> (the thirteenth, against slavery).

I would accept something like the thirteenth ammendment in my Constitution,
however, I would not accept the 14th or 15th. Non-Whites have no right to
citizenship in a White nation-state nor to decide on issues affecting the
existence of Whites.

> Quite possibly you would want to add some limitation on the taxing power
> of the federal government and maybe other provisions to prevent usurpation
> of power by the feds.

Again, accepting the idea of a compromise, I would have to demand such

> Have you looked at the writings of any of the antifederalists or of John
> C. Calhoun?

No. I will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From oneb!!!!!agate!!!!!!
not-for-mail Mon Nov 29 15:20:27 PST 1993
Article: 5364 of alt.revisionism
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:3404 alt.revisionism:5364
Path: oneb!!!!!agate!!!!!!
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Arguing with you people is useless
Date: 28 Nov 1993 13:44:49 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

> That if history had happened completely differently then everything would
> have worked out just fine, in your mental re-run of the entire economic
> structure of the world? Seems a bit thin, to be kind.

You seem to imply that the U.S. arose out of some kind of swamp in the
mid 1800’s. Even by World War 1 the U.S. was still a largely rural and
agricultural society. Hell, if I remember properly, the U.S. Gov’t couldn’t
even come up with the money to help the French in WW1. The French had to
go to (who?) Rockefeller (or someother). This was the impetus behind the
income tax.

> It was just one pointed example, there’s also the inexpensive labor
> and the cultural diversity.

Each of these is only beneficial as they serve our people. Additionally,
there are a number of costs with any program of this sort. Sometimes
these costs are at a long-term loss in other interests. Additionally,
most Americans didn’t say “hey! We gotta have immigration!” No, it was
only the money interests that wanted it. In many cases, the immigration
served to disenfranchise and worsen the lives for some. In other cases,
it was beneficial. Cultural diversity is not a benefit itself; ideas are
a benefit. We can get our ideas in other ways without sacrificing our
political, cultural, economic, and territorial interests or our people’s

> Or do you think your glorious white culture just invented and developed
> everything that was necessary for (productive) life?

Definitely not. We have borrowed and will continue to borrow as it
serves our ends. We may not even full credit to whomever we stole
the ideas if that serves our interests.

> I mean, not to make too fine a point, but your beloved Christianity
> didn’t even come from “white” people, by your own definition.

I’m not Christian and the full impact of Christianity on our people has
not been assessed. That it might have served a purpose when we were
isolated does not mean that it will serve our interests in a more
crowded world. In fact, Christianity was used to justify why Whites
should conquer and expand; in other words, a way was found to use
Christianity to the benefit Whites above other’s interests.

Besides, what probably benefitted us most was not Christianity as
a philosophy, but the Christian church, as an organized body
representing “The West’s” interests and the centrality of its
moral authority. This only happened because the Christian church
was able to pick up the pieces from the Roman empire. “Christendom”
used to be synonomous with “The White world.”

> how about those Japanese, taught your white culture a trick or two
> huh),

No, they’ve shown us what White culture is truly all about. The Japanese
have adopted so many Western mores that their culture is truly more of an
amalgam of our’s than our’s is of thier’s.

> But ya gonna throw out everything that comes next that doesn’t happen
> to spring from the mind of someone you consider”white”?

Definitely not. But the reason we might adopt these things is because
it serves our interests. Additionally, I don’t complain about the
presence of ideas originating elsewhere, but the presence of people
originating elsewhere.

> You’re in la-la-land, you just want to believe this idiotic idea you
> have so badly that you’ve lobotomized your own brain to all sense and
> reason.

Well then, I guess I’m just fat, dumb and happy.

From oneb!!!!!!!!
not-for-mail Mon Nov 29 15:29:14 PST 1993
Article: 3398 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!!!!
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Date: 28 Nov 1993 01:56:07 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 236
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

> However, the belief that there is such a thing is implicit in the way
> we investigate, discuss and think about the world.

No. There is a distinction between developing better generalizations
based on empirical enquiry and some “ultimate truth.” Ultimate truth
as I understand what you are saying relates to a set of moral
propositions, not merely objective observations. There is a diference
between positive and normative propositions. There is also, essentially,
no link between the two.

> I don’t see how to escape it.

By rejecting it.

> What we can’t escape we must accept.

I don’t accept this proposition. I might possibly accept it if I understood
what you were saying to a greater degree than I do now.

> The notion of ultimate truth is the notion of truth that does not depend
> on us or our point of view.

There is a difference between positive, provable facts and normative, moral
axioms. As for “ultimate truth” I posit that there *is* a Reality but that
we may never be able to explain it either due to the limitations of
sampling or resources or other pragmatic limitations.

However, you are using “ultimate truth” to mean more than a factual
representation of what exists. As I perceive your use of ultimate truth,
you are implying that there are certain moral axioms which are universal
to all individuals and in all circumstances. I don’t believe such things.
This viewpoint is very Platonic, but there are a number of weaknesses in

> One practical consequence of the notion is to make discussion between
> two people with different points of view possible because they can
> understand themselves as discussing the same thing even though their
> perspectives differ.

I think that the ability to understand each other relates to our ability
to define new symbolic relations and our ability to accept hypotheticals.
That is sufficient to explain inter-cultural communication.

> Do you think it possible for two people who adhere to different ethical
> systems to have a meaningful discussion about whether something is good
> or bad?

I do think that it is possible for two people who adhere to different
ethical systems to have meaningful discussion. This is possible because
we are able to define new symbols and relations between those symbols
and to assume hypotheticals. In doing this, we can judge these systems
against our own paradigm/goal system so as to see whether or not a
particular ethical viewpoint contradicts one’s own.

> If their axioms are different, do they mean at all the same thing
> when they use words like “good” and “bad”?

Good is that which satisfies a moral goal. Bad is that which is contrary
to one’s moral goals.

>> I and most White nationalists, do not feel compelled to desire any kind
>> of social system other than a White society. It is both compelling and
>> sufficient for our existence.
> That seems odd to me. I don’t see whiteness or even Whiteness as
> determining a social system. White people have created a great many
> social systems and forms of government.

As I have defined it, it is more than a color of skin. It is defined to
be a community of people with certain social goals.

> At times what you say seems to hint that every morality is irrational
> and therefore the thing to do is to choose one arbitrarily and impose
> it by force. That bothers me.

There is nothing irrational about morality; it is based on rationality.

> My ultimate goal is the good for me and the various communities I belong
> to, including humanity generally. The good for humanity generally serves
> White interests because Whites are men.

That’s a good goal. I don’t happen to hold every aspect of your’s but
much of your “ultimate goal” coincides with mine. I however, do not see
humanity as a higher goal than my people. If I engage in any contracts
with “humanity,” it will be as a means and not as an end.

> Specific components of the good for man include membership in a people
> and participation in their traditions. I have a hard time seeing how
> those things can be realized for people in general if ethnicity is not
> recognized as a serious matter.

At least you are willing to recognize that what I am talking about might
be important.

> I no doubt have many faults, but insincerity on this issue is not one
> of them.

I was not implying insincerity on your whole arguing style or on this
issue as a whole, but only on that one particular point. You were saying
that ethnicity was a wholly separate entity from science, religion, or
family (as I interpreted what you said). However, I would point out that
each of those (except religion) can be seen as a functional part in a
moral hierarchy at which ethnicity is at the top; in some societies,
even religion is subservient to the tribe (look at Judaism). In other
words, ethnicity “justifies” or explains those things as a functional
piece of a goal system. Do you understand what I am saying? In other
words, ethnicity is an end to which family, community and science can
serve, however, from your viewpoint, to what does ethnicity, family,
community, and science serve as the means? What end do you seek of
which these endeavors are part?

> It seems odd to speak of commitment to the scientific enterprise as
> subordinate to tribalism.

Well, how would one say that the results of science were good unless
one referenced them to some goal, say to benefit “humanity” or the
“nation” or some other higher goal.

> Scientists constitute an international community with its own
> traditions and standards that develop without special reference
> to the ethnic traditions of particular scientists

The same could be said of any endeavor, even such things as the
community of skinheads, the international community of electrical
workers, whatever…

> There is no specifically German or Korean science, and that’s why
> Germans and Koreans read and rely on each other’s publications.

Science consists of an empirically derived and verified body of knowledge
and the endeavor to maintain and advance that knowledge. I’m sure that
both Koreans and Germans have their own unique bodies of enquiry which
preceded the internation pooling of all such knowledge. Therefore, I do
believe that there can be such things as White science, German science,
Korean science, etc. Additionally, little of science is the result of
random search, but rather goal-directed research seeking to serve social
or political goals.

> The Japanese are indeed an ethnic society, but when they do science
> they are doing it as scientists rather than as Japanese to the extent
> what they are doing is valid as science.

I don’t know how science is justified in Japan well enough to be able
to make that kind of statement.

> If that’s right, I don’t think it was good for science in Germany?

If you recall, during the Third Reich great advances in some fields
were made.

>> Even though I am not Christian, I promote Christianity and endorse
>> it, in certain ways.
> How?

By advocating moral thought and helping others understand some of the
nature of the ethical thought in the Bible. Additionally, I advocate
that those who lack moral and ethical thought adopt some moral system,
possibly including the Bible and/or Christianity. It was Thomas
Jefferson’s opinion that what distinguished humans from animals was
man’s ability to think morally. Although I don’t agree 100% with him,
I think that there is an underlying truth in his statement that says
that moral thought is an important distinction for human-ness. Without
moral thought, one is little more than an animal struggling for
personal survival (sort of the condition that is being created in the
U.S. today).

> My statement was that ethnicity is not more important than everything
> else.

For some, it is more important than anything (especially when it is
being attacked). I am willing to recognize that at other times, it
falls secondary to many things. However, I think that an ethical
system based on ethnicity provides meaning to many of one’s

> Cases arise in which something else takes precedence over my ethnicity.
> I think that is true for you, too.

I agree, although I can’t think of any such times.

> I don’t know what that mutual recognition would amount to if no situation
> could ever arise in which your camp would give up some benefit for Whites
> for the sake of treating non-Whites justly.

I suppose I might be able to say the same thing about your own camp; in
other words, I don’t know what YOUR mutual recognition
would amount to if no situation could ever arise in which your camp
would give up some benefit for humanity for the sake of treating Whites
justly. In other words, every time someone whines that humanity somewhere
is suffering, you would be compelled to put those interests ahead of all
others. I would not be willing to engage in any kind of national pact
with someone who would jeopardize that pact for the benefit of outsiders.
That has been the cause of what has gotten America (and whites in
general into the situation ) where it is today. I will not duplicate the
errors of my forebearers; I learn from history and experience.

Fuck humanity. It and its cause has been the compromise that has led to
the destruction of all that I see as good. I’m not going to enter into
any pact representing an obligation towards humanity which does not
also recognize my right to my nation and ultimately my right to choose
for the interest of that nation above the interests of humanity at times.
If there are poor starving people in Ethiopia, I’m not going to second my
nation to their welfare. They have an obligation to take care of themselves;
if they are too stupid to do that, or circumstances aren’t in their favor,
then too bad. All humans have a right to live but I am not under any
obligation to help them live. Rush Limbaugh stated it properly one time
when he said that such rights only impart a negative obligation against
interference, not a positive obligation to provide resources for other’s
benefit. (P.S. I’m generally not too enamored towards Mr. Limbaugh,]
although I respect him in certain ways).

Rights also imply obligations. Anyone with whom I enter into an agreement
towards recognizing certain rights, also has certain obligations under
that system. Additionally, there is no obligation to enter into a contract
which does not benefit oneself. There is no obligation for me toward
humanity unless I receive some benefit in return. We Whites have received
few benefits from this “humanity” pact. We’ve sacrificed our countries for
the benefit of outsiders and in return, we’re left with dung-heaps for
countries. And don’t try to say that “humanity” or that pact has benefitted
us by stopping agression against us. The only things that has stopped
agression against us has been our overwhelming power. If anything, the
humanity pact has only served to benefit others and provided a means to
tear us down. This is my final statement to humanity: “Leave me to my
country and I’ll recognize your humanity; otherwise fuck you.”

By the deeds of heroes
and the blood of martyrs
all good comes to be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From oneb!!!!!!!!!!not-for-mail Mon Nov 29 15:29:31 PST 1993
Article: 3403 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!!!!!!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Date: 28 Nov 1993 13:39:58 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 167
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

> It relates to moral, physical and mathematical propositions, and to
> whatever other propositions there may be that deal with possible objects
> of knowledge.

Sorry, but moral propositions are in a completely different universe
from empirical observations.

> The claim is simply that there is a truth about such things that does
> not depend on particular features or choices of the knower.

Which moral truths do not depend on particular features or choices of
the knower?

>> There is a diference between positive and normative propositions.
>> There is also, essentially, no link between the two.
> How so? If you are rational you believe positive propositions based
> on your evaluation of the evidence and of the infinitely-many theories
> that are consistent with the evidence. Evaluation is a normative matter.
> For that matter, “rational” is a normative term.

Rational is not a normative term. It refers to the ability to perform
inductive and deductive reasoning. However, the objects from which
inductions or deductions are made are variable. Often these operations
are performed not only on empirical evidence but on subjective or
normative information.

> Do you believe there are certain standards of rationality that are
> universal to all individuals and in all circumstances?

The processes are universal, but the objects of those processes is not

> If you do, then why can’t universal evaluative principles other than
> standards of rationality also exist?

Have you ever heard of proof by contradiction? Quickly, prove that
rationality does not exist! Bzzzzt! Times up! Survey says: contradiction!

> If you don’t, then why are people’s factual representations of what
> exists any more objective than their moral positions?

People’s factual representation are more “factual” because they are
generalizations grounded in reality. But morality is not a democratic
process; one can’t go around asking everyone what they believe and
say “Gee, the majority of people in the world think they’re Chinese,
therefore, we must all be Chinese.”

Morality is not a process of induction; it is a process of deduction
from principle to action. However, on which principles one operates
are largely axiomatic.

> You seem to be saying that for any two ethical systems you could set
> up a scheme of translation and by logical analysis discover the points
> on which they differ. What then? Is that simply the end of the
> discussion?

I was merely answering your question, what else would you like to know?

> It seems to me that people’s ethical systems sometimes change, and when
> a person’s system changes he believes it has changed for the better in
> some way that goes beyond the obvious fact that he now rejects his former
> views.

People’s morality may change but that doesn’t mean that they are not
operating under a moral system at any particular moment. Additionally,
the reason for that change is that one can easily change the basis
of his principles.

Tuesday: “Hmmm…today I think I’ll say that animal’s rights are more
fundamental than human’s.”

Wednesday: “Hmmm…today I think I’ll say that animal’s rights are not
more important than people’s but that the Ethiopians rights are
more important than those filthy capitalist pigs in America.”

See! That’s how liberals think. Without an axiomatic basis for morality,
one can change his principles willy-nilly. What is the “ultimate truth”
about this situation is that people CAN change their moral principles,
and that it is the nature of humans to act in accordance with moral
principles (which are goal-based).

> On your view it appears that such beliefs are illusions.

Well, that’s the mystery of life isn’t it? What is good? What should
one endeavor to do? So forth and so on….

> If I abandon system A in favor of system B, you seem to be saying, it
> is possible through objective analysis to determine what has changed
> but not to say that the change was an improvement. From the standpoint
> of system B the change was progress, but from the standpoint of system
> A it was degeneration, and nothing further can be said.

And then what if you go back to A? Will you say that the choice toward
B was just a childish mistake? No, there are systems of thought which
cannot be mutually evaluated. That is the nature of Goeddel’s theorem;
it also applies to human morality.

> Is it possible meaningfully to ask yourself whether you have chosen
> the right moral goals?

Yes it is.

> Is there more than one rational system of morality? If so, then how is
> the decision to adopt one system rather than another a rational decision?

There is more than one rational system of morality. It’s not irrational,
it’s axiomatic.

> You seem to be saying that science, family and other human practices
> and institutions can exist only as part of an ethical universe, and an
> ethical universe can’t exist in general but only as embodied in the
> outlook and way of life of a particular people.

No, individuals can come up with their own justifications but noone else
is obligated to support it. Additionally, if a hostile ethical system
attempts to impose against my own, I’ll certainly start to value their
lives less than mine.

> It follows that no moral authority higher than the tribe is possible and
> therefore for each of us the tribe is the absolute.

I think it is so, however, which tribe one chooses to enter is subject to
debate and, again, axiomatic.

> Since liberals and most other moderns do in fact reject that view it’s
> no surprise they’ve decided that Nazi=devil

I’m a Nazi, you’re a Nazi, wouldn’t you like to be a Nazi too?

Hell, I was an 11-year old kid when I was first called a Nazi by a Jew. The
term Nazi is used so “liberally” that it has come to mean anyone who opposes
the liberal (and sometimes the Jewish) agenda.

>> What end do you seek of which these endeavors are part?
> The good life.

I am willing to concede with you on this point. Aristotle called it the
good life, Bentham, Locke, Jefferson and others called it “happiness.”
However, what makes one happy is largely a product of one’s system of
beliefs. In fact, cognitive evaluation as a basis of happiness improves
with greater knowledge. This suggests that the basis of happiness is
cognitive appraisal of states and events. All of this is culturally
dependent. The ability to be “happy” is innate; what makes one happy
and why it does so is largely culturally determined.

> If people live best if they have strong family ties then they can’t be
> morally obligated always to think first of the interests of the human
> race rather than the well- being of those near and dear to them.

I know I certainly have much love for non-Whites.

> Most of the time the best thing we can do is act properly toward the
> people we have immediate ties to.

I think that Rousseau’s Social Contract defines the true nature of human
interaction. There are implicit agreements, and cultural axioms that are
held by a body of people and that is what defines them as unique. That is
what creates their “society.” Implicit in the nature of current “American”
society are certain axioms which I feel are hostile to White interests.
Fuck America, then. If I am to have any kind of contract with America,
it had better recognize certain things that I think are good; moreover,
it had better make room for their promotion, not just their existence.

From oneb!!!!!
uunet!!!!not-for-mail Mon Nov 29
15:31:01 PST 1993
Article: 3394 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: “What is to be done?”
Date: 27 Nov 1993 19:12:56 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Keywords: vanguard, separatism, role of the individual, authoritarianism

> What I would be interested in hearing, particualarly from those whom I
> would presume prefer to be referred to as “White separatists”, is what
> exactly the desired “means” are (according to them) to achieve
> political success.

I don’t have a complete plan layed out. I did outline one possible
program in a previous post, but I’m not sure that is the best
solution right now. More extensive programs must be developed.

> Especially in regards to the role of the party (as a vanguard?), if
> any; and as to what roles different individuals would play within the
> movement/(party?)

I think that the role of parties in bringing about social change in
this country would be quite small. The government has created numerous
laws regulating the power of all parties but most especially third parties.
Moreover, the nature of the government itself is corrupt with emplaced
special interests who NEED the current power structure. Therefore, other
means must be utilized to bring about the change that I desire. I think
popular media could play a significant role in that. That’s part of the
reason I’m on this internet (despite the discomfort of my detractors).

Means must be created, of which a party might be one of them. Still, with
what I understand of election laws throughout the U.S., I don’t think
that a “totalitarian” party is possible (or desireable).

> Finally, I think it would be of interest why such an approach (if
> there is any single one) is desirable.

I’m not sure that it is desireable. I want change but I haven’t
developed a complete program to attain it. Even if I did develop
such a program, I certainly wouldn’t outline it here.

I personally see a social revolution as a first step to political change.
Therefore, I will concentrate my efforts to that end. That social
revolution must entail a new set of attitudes and approaches to both
life and government. I am only putting forth my “two-cents” regarding
these issues for other like-minded individual’s consideration.

Arthur Pendragon
Progressive White Power

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From oneb!!destroyer!!!!!!not-for-mail Mon Nov 29 23:07:26
PST 1993
Article: 3412 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!destroyer!!!!!!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Date: 28 Nov 1993 18:26:48 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

>> Sorry, but moral propositions are in a completely different universe
>> from empirical observations.
> There’s only one universe.

By universe, I meant category of knowledge. There are positive
propositions which might be true or false with respect to reality,
And normative propositions which might be true or false with respect
to a belief system and its axioms. There is vast difference between
“can” and “should;” what I can do is not always what I should do.
What can be done is a positive proposition (identifying factual
causal relations); what should be done is a normative one (based on
social goals).

Do you agree that there is a difference between positive and normative

Do you not agree also, that a positive proposition is one which describes
the nature of the reality? Additionally, positive statements can be of
three natures: true, false and unprovable. Do you agree here? By
unprovable, I mean that a statement of the sort “There are an infinite
number of stars” is probably an unprovable statement (at least with our
current technology). Whereas a positive statement like “There is a dog
outside” is either true or false; the truth of which can be determined
empirically. Do you agree with this?

Additionally, do you not agree that there is a body of propositions that
are beyond empirical proof and yet not false or unprovable? For example,
is a statement like “Thou Shalt not murder” a normative or a positive?
Obviously, it is a normative; referring to a moral imperitive of one
sort or another from which we should be able to deduce whether a
particular act or state is “good” or “bad.”

> The Golden Rule [Do unto others as you would have others do unto you]
> and the categorical imperative are examples.

Without going into too much detail, let’s at least recognize that The
Golden Rule and categorical imperitives fall under the body of knowledge
known as normatives. I would also have to say that Kant did not
adequately prove his categoricals although I do accept his idea of

>> Rational is not a normative term. It refers to the ability to perform
>> inductive and deductive reasoning.
> It refers to the ability to do so correctly, and “correctness” is a
> normative term.

On this, I would only say that there are three kinds of thought:
rational, irrational and non-rational. In order for rational thought,
one must examine a body of propositions and follow the inductive and
deductive inferences deriveable from it.

> If you believe that rationality is not a normative matter, and that it
> belongs where moral judgments do not belong, in the same universe as
> rocks, trees and neutrinos, why do you think it isn’t studied by means
> of the physical sciences?

It is, it’s called Artificial Intelligence which is generally studied
under the fields of Computer Science or Cognitive Psychology. These
fields study the PROCESS of thought but not the CONTENT of that thought.
The content is generally studied under the school of arts.

> [A review of the rest of your post convinces me our discussion isn’t
> going to get any farther, at least for the present. Very likely you’ll
> agree, but let me know if there’s anything in particular you want me to
> respond to. I’ll post what I’ve written so far, and you can respond or
> not as you choose.]

I agree, the end to which I would pursue these things would be to prove
that it is within the rights of Whites to want the things of which I
speak. You at least appear willing to recognize that, so it is not
necessary to pursue “Aryan Ethics” any further.

We could probably end this kind of discussion by your recognition of
this proposition:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Last-Modified: 1995/01/09

From oneb!!!!!!!!
not-for-mail Tue Nov 2 19:46:50 PST 1993
Article: 3230 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!!!!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Mr. Pendragon’s reply
Date: 1 Nov 1993 13:58:28 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>