Renegade Tribune



Was Socrates a Jew?Listening to a discussion between Kyle Hunt and Tanstaafl on the Solar storm on of 25-05-2015 it became clear to me that in the very lively discussion and the exchange of thoughts there was no final conclusion to the core question of the evening which was relating to the use of the words “white suicide” and “white genocide”, and what should be describing the situation for the white European peoples in the present flow of changes. My understanding is that we Europeans have traditionally overestimated the effect and the influence of literary expressions on the prevailing culture. That is why even brilliant intellectual analysis might not have an impact as one thinks. To influence the masses, at least in a “democratic” setting, one would do better to focus on food, finance and entertainment as the Jews seem to have understood. It is undeniable that white western man has entrenched himself in a way of life that causes not only biological degeneration for himself but, which is worse, spoils the future for his children. A diseased organism attracts parasites and the question is really how can biological organisms be induced to shake off a parasite? The answer that existence shows again and again, besides the act of removing the parasite temporarily , is to become more healthy and vital. You don’t give the parasite a chance.In my understanding it would be more catastrophic to go into action without a proper understanding relating to the above issue than postponing the action to get a clear orientation as to what kind of action for us would be necessary.In the discussion between Kyle and Tanstaafl one thing struck me as meaningful and that was a comment about the importance of a balance between the left and the right hemisphere of the brain, but to my opinion some more digging has to be done here.First of all the use of the words “suicide” and “genocide” logically implies for both a doer. In the first case it is the white man himself and in the second the non-white/ Jew and or others.But what if there is no doer in reality. That means it is a process in which people are driven by forces over which they don’t have the slightest control. To give an example: We know that politicians are liars and opportunists, but every time when they promise all and everything before elections, and we know that not even a quarter of their promises is worth anything, most of us still keep voting for the bastards. Why ? It seems to be the effect of an illusion To give another example to show how little we actually are conscious of what governs our actions and our lives is the following: Some decades ago I had a dental extraction of a molar that was located in front of a wisdom tooth which left a big hole in my upper teeth row big enough to put my tongue in. Some two decades later I suddenly noticed that I could not get my tongue anymore in that hole and realised that without me being aware of it my body had organised to give that wisdom tooth a better place in my jaw and close the ranks for efficient chewing. It all means that there is an advanced scanning system in my body that has the insight that it is much better to have a closed row of teeth and has the power to shove a molar to a different position than it originally had. And the best thing is that I was completely unaware of it ! In this way how much more could be organised in my body and mind for my own survival without me being aware of it!For the time being I make the conclusion out of that example that either it is a purely but very refined mechanical happening, in which case we are all just biological machines without free will, or, there is an entity of a higher order that decides about things in us without asking our advice!Neither suicide nor genocide, but maybe the truth is on another level and of a different nature. It seems not very attractive to go this way because this option of no doer would be upsetting for most of our people because it will take away their illusion that they are controlling their own and or somebody else s life. Be aware that as long as discussions keep going on this fetish quality that language has can keep us like rats in a treadmill without ever coming to our senses. In this case I want to see our struggle in a broader historical perspective to get to a different level of understanding. Have situations like ours arisen before down the ages, and could we extract conclusions from it? Are comparisons possible?In some other articles I have been saying that our present situation in the western world with its move towards multi culturalism and egalitarism , with its high technology achievements but racial disintegration, is basically so unique that this situation has never happened before in history. Indeed every single moment has a uniqueness that will never come back, but we hear sayings like “history repeats itself “. Some essential historical processes seem to behave in a cyclical way. Oswald Spengler, in his book “Untergang des Abendlandes”, has taken this standpoint in explaining the decline of western civilisation, saying that it is just the nature of human cultures on earth, while he is not giving us any sharply formulated root cause which would allow us to change track and revitalise our culture. Without any doubt I think that most of us see it as saddening that great cultural achievements ( I am not talking about great technological achievements) have to go down the drain. To find clarity about this cultural decay is highly urgently seeing the direct future.In spite of the fact that Spengler takes the insights of Nietzsche as the starting point for his famous book “Untergang des Abendlandes” ( “Twilight of the West “), I have the feeling that Spengler missed or either did not grasp that Nietzsche in his last works has given some statements which could expose the root cause of this cultural decline. I have to admit that Nietzsche s statements are generally difficult to interpret.To summarise my point: Every moment in history is unique per se, thus history never repeats itself as a consequence, but seen at a more fundamental level of the functioning of the human psyche , it seems there must be processes that over the span of many generations must be recurring. Let us assume that the process of adaptation of a race or tribe to a geographic situation follows a certain pattern. Most likely this would follow every time a certain procedure because the laws of chemistry and physics that define the functioning of the human nerve systems are remaining the same, if this were not so the human race would have disappeared already.This means that in the human psyche the drive for survival translates in a certain culture or spiritual practice , like the genes which translate themselves with every birth into a different phenotype. In the psyche this is the level of emotions and nonverbal thought, a non verbal mentality, which specific traits are dependent on race and location.. History is repeatedly showing the collapse of cultures after a number of generations. The structure of this collapsing process and not so much its outer appearance is the issue and should be studied in depth.I have come to the understanding that classical Greece of 550 to 350 B.C. had a situation like ours after intense study of the history of that period and certainly after the reading of “ G?tzend?mmerung” ( “Twilight of the Idols” )and “ Die Geburt der Trag?die aus dem Geist der Musik” ( “The Birth of Tragedy “ )by Friedrich Nietzsche, in which he gave extensive comments on the classical scriptures of Greece .What happened to the Greek people and its culture around that time? I hope that the reader will have some knowledge about classical Greece but for the one s who don’t I will just suffice by saying that the classical Greek culture arose out of the chaos and primitive circumstances of the iron age after about 600 BC with an astounding speed and reached to heights of intellectual , artistic and social level which were unparalleled in human history, and which lasted in its glory time from about 500 to 400 B.C. . Greek society collapsed about hundred years later and its peoples never regained that quality and essence again. Its impressive culture was in its outer form saved for humanity because the Romans conquered Greece and adopted its culture Already long ago I was familiar with the controversial insights of Friedrich Nietzsche concerning the nature of the Greek culture, which insights were in stark contrast with the understanding of most contemporary historians. They are mainly written down in his famous book “ Die Geburt der Trag?die” ( “ The Birth of Tragedy “ ), his first major work.Recently listening to an audio textbook of “ G?tzend?mmerung ” on , I discovered again his criticism on Socrates, the philosopher , whom he holds responsible for the fall of the great Greek culture instead of being the hero of dialectics and democracy that almost every historian has made out of him. Carefully listening made me aware that Nietzsche through his criticism of Socrates and Plato was explaining for himself the tragedy of the fall of classical Greece. Again and again listening to his words it dawned on me that the traits that he was finding in Socrates and the explanation that he gave for Socrates his behaviour and his influence in changing the Greeks were essentially resembling the obnoxious traits of a certain faction of people these days !At a certain point Nietzsche is even asking himself the question: “ Was Socrates a Jew?” . He saw the philosopher Socrates and his student Plato as key figures in the decay of classical Greece.Here we are running into the same conditioning that we at school had to take in with this false idea of “the birth of real democracy in Greece”, while they “forgot” to tell us that women could not vote and one third of Athenian society consisted of slaves without voting rights!. This striking insight made me decide to bring here the translations of the related text of Nietzsche s “G?tzend?mmerung” in which he is criticising Socrates. His critique has a psychological depth which is unparalleled and is actually devastating the reputation of Socrates by showing the double bottoms in his personality. It is astounding how much the behaviour of Socrates in a clear way is identical in its features with the slyness and cunningness of a certain faction these days, which all centres around a virtuosity in the verbal domain which white western humanity has taken way too serious, and therefore has lost its instinctive health.For Nietzsche human language is just a system of sound bites connected with metaphors within metaphors, and as such has nothing to do with reality.The quotes from “Twilight of the Idols” ( “G?tzend?mmerung” ) by Friedrich Nietzsche are from the audio book on with the same title, in translation by Anthony M. Ludovici, and are here in running script. Sentences which are in my opinion very crucial I have marked with ( !!! ).Chapter 2. “ The problem of Socrates”1 In all ages the wisest have always agreed in their judgment of life: it is no good. At all time and all places the same words have been on their lips. Words full of doubt, melancholy and weariness of life, full of hostility to life. Even Socrates his dying words were: “to live means to be ill a long while. I owe a cock to the god Aesculapius.” Even Socrates had had enough of it. What does that prove, what does it point to?Formerly people would have said: “ Oh it has been said and loudly enough too, by pessimists loudest of all“ . In any case there must be some truth in this, the consensus sapientium is a proof of truth. Shall we say the same today? Maybe we say so, in any case there must be some sickness here. We may suggest that these great sages of all periods may be examined more closely. Is it possible that they were every one of them a little shaky on their legs, at feet rocky and decadent? Does wisdom happen perhaps on earth after the manner of a crow , attracted by a light smell of carrion? 2 This irreverent belief that the great sages were decadent types first occurred to me precisely in that case when both learned and vulgar prejudice is most opposed to my view. I recognised Socrates and Plato as symptoms of decline, as instruments in the disintegration of Hellas, as suddho Greek, as anti Greek (“The Birth of Tragedy” 1872). That consensus sapientium as I perceived ever and ever more clearly, did not in the least prove that they were right in the matter on which they agreed. It proved rather that these sages themselves must have been alike in some physiological particularity in order to assume the same negative attitude towards life. In order to be bound to assume that attitude , after all , their valuations and judgements of life whether for or against cannot be true. Their only value lies in the fact that they are symptoms. They can be considered only as symptoms, per se such judgments are nonsense.You must therefore by all means try to reach out and to grasp an astonishingly subtle actium that the value of life cannot be estimated. A living man cannot do so because he is a contending party or rather the very object in the dispute and not a judge. Nor can a dead man estimate it. . For a philosopher to see a problem in the value of life for other reasons is almost an objection against him. A note of interrogation set against his wisdom, a lack of wisdom. What? Is it possible that all these great sages were not only decadents, that they were not even wise? Let me however return to the problem of Socrates.3 To judge to his origins, Socrates belonged to the lowest of the low. You know, and you can still see it for yourself how ugly he was. An ugliness which in itself is an objection was almost a refutation among the Greeks. Was Socrates really a Greek? Ugliness is not infrequently the expression of a thwarted development, or a development arrested by crossing. In other cases it appears as a decadent development . The anthropologists among the criminal specialists declare that the typical criminal is ugly; “ Monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo” . But the criminal is a decadent.Was Socrates a typical criminal? At all events this would not clash with this famous physiognomist s judgement which was so repugnant to Socrates his friends . On his way through Athens, a certain foreigner who was not a fool judging man by their looks, told Socrates to his face that he was a monster, and that his body harboured all the worst vices and passions. And Socrates replied simply: “You know me Sir!”.4 Not only were the acknowledged wildness and anarchy of Socrates instincts indicative of decadence, but also the preponderance of that logical faculty and that malignity of the misshapen, that was his special characteristic.>Neither should we forget those oral delusions which were religiously interpreted as ” the demon of Socrates”. Everything in him is exaggerated, buffo, caricature. His nature is also full of concealment (!!!), of ulterior motives and of underground currents.(!!!) . I tried to understand how the idiosyncrasy of the Socratic equation: “reason equals virtue equals happiness” could have arisen, the weirdest equation I have ever seen, and one which essentially was opposed to all the older Hellenes.5 With Socrates Greek taste veers round in favour of dialectics. What actually occurs? In the first place a noble taste ( !!! ) is vanquished with dialectics, the mob ( !!! ) comes to the top. Before Socrates s time dialectic manners were avoided in good society, they were regarded as bad manners, they were compromising, Young man were cautioned against them, all such proffering of one s reasons was looked upon with suspicion. Honest things like honest man do not carry their reasons on their sleeves in such a fashion. It is not a good form to make a show of everything. That which needs to be proved cannot be worth much. Wherever authority still belongs to good usage, wherever man do not prove but command, the dialectician is regarded as a sort of clown ( Jewish” humour”, note by Vig) People laugh at him, people do not take him seriously. Socrates was a clown who succeeded in making people taking him seriously. What then was the matter?6 A man resorts to dialectics only when he has no other means to hand. People know that they excite suspicion with it, and that it is not very convincing. Nothing is more easily dispelled than a dialectical effect. This is proved by every gathering in which discussions are held. It can be only the last defence of those who have no other weapons. One must require to extort ones right otherwise one makes no use of it. That is why the Jews are dialecticians ( !!! ), that is why Reinard the Fox is a dialectician. What? And was Socrates one as well?7 Was the Socratic irony an expression of revolt, of mob resentment ? Does Socrates as a creature suffering under oppression enjoy his innate ferocity in the knife thrust of syllogism, does he wreak his revenge on the nobleman he fascinates as a dialectician? As a man he has a merciless instrument to wield, he can play the tyrant with it, he compromises when he conquers with it. The dialectician leaves it to his opponent to prove that he is no idiot. He infuriates, he likewise paralyses, the dialectician cripples the intellect of his opponent. Can it be that dialectics was only a form of revenge in Socrates?8 I have given you to understand in which way Socrates was able to repel. Now it is all the more necessary to explain how he fascinated. One reason is that he discovered a new kind of agon (old Greek for: open space for gathering and discussion .note by Vig ) and he was the first fencing master in the best circles of Athens. He fascinated by appealing to the combative instincts of the Greeks. He introduced a variation into the contests between man and youths. Socrates was also a great erotic.9 But Socrates divined still more. He saw right through his noble Athenians, he perceived that his case his peculiar case was no exception even in his time. The same kind of degeneracy was silently preparing itself elsewhere, ancient Athens was dying out, and Socrates understood that the whole world needed him, his means his remedy , his special artifice for self preservation. Elsewhere all the instincts were in a state of anarchy, everywhere people were within an ace of access. The” monstrum in animo” was the general danger, “ the instincts would play the tyrant, we must discover a counter tyrant which is stronger than they”. On the occasion when that physiognomist had unmasked Socrates, and had told him what he was, a crater full of evil desires, the great master of irony let fall one or two more words which provide the key to his nature.(!!!) “ This is True” he said,” but I overcame them all”. How did Socrates succeed in mastering himself ? . His case was at bottom only the extreme and most apparent example of a state of distress which was beginning to be general, that state in which no one was able to master himself and in which the instincts turned against another. As an extreme example of this state he fascinated, his terrifying ugliness made him conspicuous to every eye. It is quite obvious that he fascinated still more as a reply, as a solution as an apparent cure of this case.10 When a man finds it necessary as Socrates did, to create a tyrant out of reason there is no small danger that there exists something else playing the tyrant. ( !!! ) Reason was then discovered as a saviour. Neither Socrates nor his patients were at liberty to be rational or not as they pleased.( !!! ) At that time it was an obligation, it had become a last shift, a last option. The fanaticism with which the whole Greek thought plunged into reason betrays a critical condition of things ( !!!) Man was in danger. There were only two alternatives: Either perish, or otherwise be absurdly rational. The moral bias of Greek philosophy from Plato onwards is the outcome of a pathological condition ( !!! ), as is also its appreciation of dialectics: “ Reason equals virtue equals happiness” simply means we must imitate Socrates and confront the dark passions permanently with the light of day, the light of reason. We must at all costs be clever, be precise, be clear. All yielding to the instincts, to the unconscious leads downwards.11 I have now explained how Socrates fascinated. He seemed to be a doctor , a saviour. Is it necessary to expose the errors which lay in his faith in reasoning at any price? It is a piece of self deception on the part of philosophers and moralists to suppose that they can extricate themselves from degeneration by merely waging war up on it. They cannot thus extricate themselves. That which they choose as a means , as the road to salvation is in itself only an expression of degeneration. They only modify its mode of manifesting itself , they do not abolish it. Socrates was a misunderstanding. The whole morality of amelioration, that of Christianity as well ( !!! ) was a misunderstanding. The most blinding light of day, reason at any price, LIFE MADE CLEAR; COLD ;CAUTIOUS, CONSCIOUS WITHOUT INSTINCTS OPPOSED TO THE INSTINCTS (capitals Vig) was in itself only a disease, another kind of disease, and by no means a return to virtue, health and to happiness. To be obliged to fight the instincts is the formula of degeneration. As long as life is in the ascending line happiness is the same as instinct.12 Did he understand this himself this most intelligent of self deceivers? Did he confess this to himself in the end in the wisdom of his courage before death? Socrates wished to die. Not Athens but his own hand gave him the draft of hemlock. He drove Athens to the poisoned cup . ”Socrates is not a doctor” he whispered to himself. “ Death alone can be a doctor here. Socrates has only been ill a long while”.There can be no doubt about it. Judging from his nose Socrates was not a racial Jew ( keep in mind that the shown sculpture is still an idealised portrait ! ) but he represents the essential Jew, or in my words, he has the Jewish mindset. All these beautiful sounding words of him are nothing but inflated idealism from a cunning priest who knows how to tune in to peoples vulnerabilities. Does one really think that by reading a lot of Socrates quotes one s life will elevate itself one single bit ?The only distinction I want to make here is that this mindset can arise in a human being in two different ways. One is involuntarily being overwhelmed by inner torments, which I suppose is Socrates his fate, and the other is being part of a scheme in which ones mental health is being tampered with by the deliberate manipulation called circumcision. But the result in manifest attitude is the same. Conclusion is also that this mindset is not bound to a certain race or tribe. It is just instinctive degeneracy. The essential thing is that it has to be recognised for what it is: a distortion of a natural inner balance in the human mind. Maybe western man has in his evolution for the first time reached a stage that he has to become aware of this and has to consciously define this innate quality of the mind or disappear from the earth.Science, technology and its offspring finance, are our own inventions. They have the potential to become a cancer of the soul and may lead to our extinction when mentally immature scientists keep manipulating with their greedy fingers all and everything that nature has ing back to the beginning of this essay it is now time to formulate what consequences it will have when we accept that the above sketched situation is to be true. Crucial is to start to see that the growth of technology in classical Greece created a pressure on the human mind. This happened at a moment when roughly after 500 BC the Greeks started to consolidate their power in the struggle with Persia, and had to increase their rational faculties in order to be able to cope with the tasks of building fortifications, warships, temples, machinery and the logistics and communication skills to keep it functioning. Summarising all this one could say that through the collective overexploitation of the dialectic faculties of the mind an imbalance between intuition and thinking took place. Although everything in their culture had gone splendidly up to that time, somehow the speed of all these developments after 500 BC might have been too much, not so much for the biological capacities of the brain but let us say that the Greeks were too demanding on themselves. Or in practical terms it could mean that lateralisation ( both right handedness and left handedness ) is already misuse of the human body. Animals might have the potential to be lateralized but they are not so greedy as human beings.!Seen from this standpoint it is also understandable that Sparta became the stabilising force in Greece during those centuries. Because of its strict preference for martial skills it could avoid the economic pressure that drove the Athenians mad. In itself this is a fact which should be noted by the ones who seek to build their culture on solid grounds. !It seems to be justified to say that at that time on the psychological plane an extreme lateralisation in the Greek mind took place which disrupted its whole inner balance. It is curious in this respect that a number of famed historians remarked that in general in Greek society a nervousness took hold of the Greeks in which they both excelled in brilliant artistic and rational achievements as well as were plunging into madness and destructiveness with political adventurism running wild. Coming to the end of the fifth century BC all this resulted in a mutual annihilation through fratricidal wars between the Greek city states. Does all this sound familiar somehow ? I dare to make a few conclusions in respect to our own time. The changes toward a more stable and vital society can only be realised over a time span of a few generations. The imprints in our minds of our diseased culture are slow and only with great effort to change . The best moments for exchanging the “software” of our bio computers are directly after birth.When the drive for change exists the desired changes can only be realised when the newborn generation is raised under completely different and well controlled circumstances.This shows the need of well organised communities that function as cradles for a new type of society. The values that are guiding this process have to be expressed in the widest scale of expressive media possible as to reach as many differently shaped soul.These values have to be as closely linked to a white ethnic history , an arch history so to say, without stifling the formation of new cultural developments.Written by Vig. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download