Philosophers

[0th0d0xypr0xy]

I've come to realise how frequently figures such as Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Evola and of course.. Hitler feature within conspiracy theory and also heavily within the ideas, concepts and model in which both our civilization, world is argued should be conceived as.


Now I personally understand the apathy and comatose prevalent within the Left, but also perceive incandescent hate within the Right. Those who view this tend to drift toward syncretism, radical nationalism or in my case lone-wolf anarchism. Personally, I hold Mikhail Bakunin, Julius Evola and Maximilien de Robespierre as my favourite philosophers, politicians and men of letters. I understand the need to defend my people but also do not reserve compassion for my fellow man, favouring jaw jaw over war war and reason over ruthlessness.

Names such as Jonathan Bowden frequently describe themselves as Nietzschian, referring to a sense of Germanic-Paganism (of which are a continental import and do not reflect the true nationalisms of British history, culture and society. Rather they are a pseudo-Germanic-Jewish import mentioning Odin, Thor whilst always forgetting the Brigantes, Sami peoples and those of Cornwall and Leeds.

Anyway, I just wondered what you guys may think on this issue. As discussion of ideas is something I sincerely believes need to discuss both within our conduct and day-to-day lives but also a way in which we are to re-base our ideas and understandings should people find themselves together after the worst should happen and civilisation needs again to be re-seeded.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I'm not familiar with a lot of those people you just mentioned. Robespierre was a retard, IMHO, and the whole French Revolution was a retard festival. Nietzsche is almost king of the retards.

Aquinas, having synthesized Aristotle, has the most complete and consistent philosophy I have ever read. 

[0th0d0xypr0xy]

I'm not familiar with a lot of those people you just mentioned. Robespierre was a retard, IMHO, and the whole French Revolution was a retard festival. Nietzsche is almost king of the retards.

Aquinas, having synthesized Aristotle, has the most complete and consistent philosophy I have ever read.

Hey Marlowe, I don't think Robespierre deserves all the bad rep he is afforded. His loyalties were first and foremost with the peasant, his quotes indicate an impressive intellectual figure who seemed to have bitten more than he could chew:

"lf the attribute of popular government in peace is virtue, the attribute of popular government in revolution is at one and the same time virtue and terror, virtue without which terror is fatal, terror without which virtue is impotent. The terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue."

The Reign of Terror went after many of the petite bourgeois, Freemasons and people who attempted to direct it. Speaking with friends, they seemed convinced that the French Revolution could have spread throughout all Europe had Maximilien avoided defamation and survived his premature death. Bear in mind Robespierre attempted to cultivate the 'Cult of the Supreme Being' which admittedly does sound Freemasonic but importantly the atmosphere in the French Revolution was not one of atheistic materialism (i.e the work of Jews - at least not until Robespierre's death).

As for Nietzsche, I agree. His works are filled with constant despair, nihilism and race fetish.. It is perhaps no wonder why both Jews and Nazis alike have a mighty respect for his 'superman' concept.

Thomas Aquinas from what I remember in my religious class was an interesting theologian and philosopher. I believe he wrote extensively on the theological matter of the Problem of Evil, in which he sought to understand evil as a privation of good. It would be interesting if he ever wrote anything concerning the Jews. John Joseph Proudhon himself a French anarchist philosopher wrote of the Jews:

"Abolish synagogues and not admit them to any employment. Finally, pursue the abolition of this religion. It's not without cause that the Christians called them deicide. The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated. By steel or by fire or by expulsion the Jew must disappear."

What I like about Proudhon within his book 'Property is Theft!' is that he recognised the importance of debt bondage and the disproportional level of control Jews had in this regard.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I'm not familiar with a lot of those people you just mentioned. Robespierre was a retard, IMHO, and the whole French Revolution was a retard festival. Nietzsche is almost king of the retards.

Aquinas, having synthesized Aristotle, has the most complete and consistent philosophy I have ever read.

Hey Marlowe, I don't think Robespierre deserves all the bad rep he is afforded. His loyalties were first and foremost with the peasant, his quotes indicate an impressive intellectual figure who seemed to have bitten more than he could chew:

"lf the attribute of popular government in peace is virtue, the attribute of popular government in revolution is at one and the same time virtue and terror, virtue without which terror is fatal, terror without which virtue is impotent. The terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue."

Robespierre is ridiculous, and that quote reveals the disordered nature of the French Revolution. Virtue is impotent without terror? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying, "Ice cream doesn't taste right without a turd." Virtue is entirely separate from terror. Perfect love drives out fear.

St Thomas Aquinas had a lot to say about virtue. Here is one answer that seems on point:

Aquinas, Summa Theologica, SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 65, Art. 2]

Whether Moral Virtues Can Be Without Charity?

... It is written (1 John 3:14): "He that loveth not,
abideth in death." Now the spiritual life is perfected by the
virtues, since it is "by them" that "we lead a good life," as
Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. ii, 17, 19). Therefore they cannot be
without the love of charity.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 63, A. 2), it is possible by
means of human works to acquire moral virtues, in so far as they
produce good works that are directed to an end not surpassing the
natural power of man: and when they are acquired thus, they can be
without charity, even as they were in many of the Gentiles. But in so
far as they produce good works in proportion to a supernatural last
end, thus they have the character of virtue, truly and perfectly; and
cannot be acquired by human acts, but are infused by God. Such like
moral virtues cannot be without charity. For it has been stated above
(A. 1; Q. 58, AA. 4, 5) that the other moral virtues cannot be
without prudence; and that prudence cannot be without the moral
virtues, because these latter make man well disposed to certain ends,
which are the starting-point of the procedure of prudence. Now for
prudence to proceed aright, it is much more necessary that man be
well disposed towards his ultimate end, which is the effect of
charity, than that he be well disposed in respect of other ends,
which is the effect of moral virtue: just as in speculative matters
right reason has greatest need of the first indemonstrable principle,
that "contradictories cannot both be true at the same time." It is
therefore evident that neither can infused prudence be without
charity; nor, consequently, the other moral virtues, since they
cannot be without prudence.

It is therefore clear from what has been said that only the infused
virtues are perfect, and deserve to be called virtues simply: since
they direct man well to the ultimate end. But the other virtues,
those, namely, that are acquired, are virtues in a restricted sense,
but not simply: for they direct man well in respect of the last end
in some particular genus of action, but not in respect of the last
end simply. Hence a gloss of Augustine [*Cf. Lib. Sentent. Prosperi
cvi.] on the words, "All that is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23),
says: "He that fails to acknowledge the truth, has no true virtue,
even if his conduct be good."

The Reign of Terror went after many of the petite bourgeois, Freemasons and people who attempted to direct it. Speaking with friends, they seemed convinced that the French Revolution could have spread throughout all Europe had Maximilien avoided defamation and survived his premature death. Bear in mind Robespierre attempted to cultivate the 'Cult of the Supreme Being' which admittedly does sound Freemasonic but importantly the atmosphere in the French Revolution was not one of atheistic materialism (i.e the work of Jews - at least not until Robespierre's death).

I believe the French revolution was masonic/illuminati/jewish from its inception. E Michael Jones points out that the Weishaupt Illuninist system originated in Germany, but was driven underground. Then it was transferred to France, and the revolution broke out two years later.  He also notes that this "science of control" is very similar to what was found in the Bolshevik revolution of 1917.

Here's another guy who is making similar connections:

http://judeo-masonic.blogspot.com/2010/02/4-adam-weishaupt-and-bavarian.html
In 1772 Weisthaupt became a professor in law, and then a professor in cannon law in 1773 after Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuit order.

Weishaupt travelled through France between 1773 and 1775; were he made a friendship with the Marquis de Lafayette (general in the American Revolution and personal friend to Washington and Franklin, promoter of the French Revolution, member of the National Assembly, general of the revolutionary army, commander of the National Guard in Paris, [1] and Freemason [2]) and with Maximilien Robespierre (one of the most influential figures of the French Revolution, and a central figure in the Jacobin Club [3]).

As for Nietzsche, I agree. His works are filled with constant despair, nihilism and race fetish.. It is perhaps no wonder why both Jews and Nazis alike have a mighty respect for his 'superman' concept.

Thomas Aquinas from what I remember in my religious class was an interesting theologian and philosopher. I believe he wrote extensively on the theological matter of the Problem of Evil, in which he sought to understand evil as a privation of good. It would be interesting if he ever wrote anything concerning the Jews.

It's amazing how deep Aquinas' philosophy is. If I ever have a question, I look in the Summa Theologica and I can find a good answer.   I'll have to look do a more thorough check to see what he said about the Jews....

John Joseph Proudhon himself a French anarchist philosopher wrote of the Jews:

"Abolish synagogues and not admit them to any employment. Finally, pursue the abolition of this religion. It's not without cause that the Christians called them deicide. The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated. By steel or by fire or by expulsion the Jew must disappear."

What I like about Proudhon within his book 'Property is Theft!' is that he recognised the importance of debt bondage and the disproportional level of control Jews had in this regard.

I liked that quote, except for the "exterminated" stuff. I think some people read things like that and come away with the opinion that the holohoax was real.  As a general rule, I don't think good things are ever accomplished by people killing a bunch of other people.  Whenever that happens, people tend to look on those periods as "evil". 

I think that anyone who reads the Bible with wisdom will understand that the future is bleak for these people.  I don't believe that people will be responsible for this, but rather God. There is a divinely ordained punishment to be meted out for centuries of wickedness. 

[0th0d0xypr0xy]

Robespierre is ridiculous, and that quote reveals the disordered nature of the French Revolution. Virtue is impotent without terror? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying, "Ice cream doesn't taste right without a turd." Virtue is entirely separate from terror. Perfect love drives out fear.

Thomas Aquinas from what I remember in my religious class was an interesting theologian and philosopher.

I'm defending Robespierre as I'd imagine I would defend my own actions in a revolutionary environment. From reading his speeches and his writings he was also a moral man, not usually something one finds within a leader, certainly not customary of the far-left. He opposed the death penalty, he cared not for the King only his crimes against the people. I like this quote:

"To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is barbarity"

Like all revolutions Marlowe, blood is bound to be spilled. I wouldn't say I coined the phrase but the statement "all the pacifists are dead" has a cynical tinge of truth to it. Bottom line is, if you are not prepared to stand up for yourself no-one will. In order for others love you, you must first love yourself. I reject 'anarcho-pacifism' and elements of Christian dogma insisting upon reverent humility, constant shame and masochistic grovelling simply because it isn't pragmatic..

Saying that, I wouldn't want to live in a society where 'survival of the fittest' is the cardinal virtue of all interaction. I never understand why certain human behaviors become enveloped as their own ideology be it sharing > socialism, individualism > capitalism, hate > fascism..

Anyway, returning to Robespierre - have a read of this:

"Is it not He whose immortal hand, engraving on the heart of man the code of justice and equality, has written there the death sentence of tyrants? Is it not He who, from the beginning of time, decreed for all the ages and for all peoples liberty, good faith, and justice? He did not create kings to devour the human race. He did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals, to the chariots of kings and to give to the world examples of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery and falsehood. He created the universe to proclaim His power. He created men to help each other, to love each other mutually, and to attain to happiness by the way of virtue"

He was a theist. Most revolutionaries are either Satanists, atheists or Jew. I think he knew more than what he originally let on and the 'Reign of Terror' was much like Stalin's Great Purge eradicating Jewish influence or potential trouble so that change can be engendered and promoted.