1:01:00
Luke Ford's question:
Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?
CK:
A lot of Mein Kampf is about German matters of Germany in the 1930s. Its preoccupations would be quite different to the alt-right of the West now because alt-right is preoccupied with immigration and Nazi Germany didn't have an immigration problem, did it?
LF:
So let me just run it by you again. I'll just go point by point. Hitler had a biocentric worldview perspective on life: first of all a referenced nature so that is identical with the alt-right's perspective. The alt-right and its leaders are overwhelmingly atheists.
CK:
Hitler pretended to be Catholic. In his table talks he he actually favoured Islam because he thought Christianity was a stupid religion, although he was confirmed as a Catholic, so there were lots of things that he wanted to do but he knew he couldn't. He wanted to abolish usury. He did know something about Islam and thought it was a more masculine ...https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe. Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/187128/nazi-romance-with-islam
LF [pretending I had gone off topic when what I said was exactly on point because he did not like me suggesting that Islam is the answer because Christianity is kaput]:
OK, Claire, I need you to stay on topic. So Hitler had a biocentric worldview. His perspective on life was first of all referenced in nature. He contended that before anything else we must attend to nature the world of living things in their environments and is not separate from or above nature but rather a part of nature we need to come to grips with how our nature actually operates, we must align our lives with nature, we must obey nature's laws. That is the alt-right's perspective.
CK:
Is it? I wasn't aware of that. I didn't even know Hitler said all of that. It sounds very vague.
LF:
You know, it sounds pretty clear to me. I mean I don't know what to say if you don't see that that's the that's the building block for Social Darwinism ....
CK:
Is it arguing for Social Darwinism or something like that is that? Is that what you're saying?
LF:
I don't know how you can get more clear than this: Hitler had a biocentric worldview that we must ...
CK:
What does that mean? Does it mean German-centric?
LF:
Does biocentric mean German-centric? Really that's what you're asking me? Biocentric is very clear, Claire, it means a worldview based in nature that humans must align themselves with nature, obey nature's laws that we're not separate ...
CK:
What does that mean? Does it mean empire?
LF:
Because we are in nature, frequently our choice is either kill or be killed ...
CK:
OK, so he started acquiring empire and it ended badly so maybe that's not always the best thing.
LF:
I'm not talking about whether this is the best thing to do, I'm asking if you can come up with any significant differences between ...
CK [answering the question immediately and succinctly]:
The alt-right are not about war but about pogrom.
LF [pretending I had not answered the question because he didn't like my answer]:
OK, you've got to stay on topic Claire. When I ask a question you've got to respond to the topic. We can't just go spinning off. Glib, do you want to jump in ...
[Glib and LF talk and I was invited again to comment on what they had just said, which wasn't about anything much in particular as far as I could tell.]
1:10:00
CK:
... biocentricism meant social Darwinism: eugenics ... was that what you meant?
LF:
I give up I can't be any more clear than than I was ...
CK:
Can somebody explain to me then? I don't think people understand either. By nature do you mean nature raw in tooth and claw?
LF:
Yes, that's that that's the beginning of the Mein Kampf worldview. It's the beginning of the Dissident Right worldview. The Dissident Right is not a theistic movement. The main intellectuals of the alternative right - Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor, Kevin Macdonald - they're all atheists. They all have a a social Darwinian perspective on life which I'm trying to see how there's any difference from that and the worldview of Mein Kampf.
CK:
Well, Mein Kampf is really more about culture and sociology even because Hitler does write knowledgeably and some compassion about how the poor used to live and and architecture and and lots of other things but you know if you read Greg Johnson's White Nationalist Manifesto, there is actually very little about culture. It's basically "I'd like to kick them out and I want to kick all of them out by 2060" and that's it. Mein Kampf is a more rewarding read. I would suggest for White Nationalists and compare what the white man was in the 1930s and what he he is now. In fact, recently I was watching these videos of these schizophrenics in lunatic asylums in America and it struck me how articulate even these mentally ill people stuck in asylums were compared to the tongue-tied people you have now.
It really was astonishing. Obviously, something bad has happened to to the white race and and and this catastrophic drop in in IQ and obviously it's all to do with religion in the sense that the least that a religion can make you do is make you marry before you have children and parent or children properly - that is the very least. Forget all the frilly bits like not eating pork and shellfish and that kind of thing. That's the very least your religion should do for you and and if you won't enforce that then your population will age and become stupid and weak and people will come in and take your stuff, and that's what's what's happening now.
[Luke Ford mutes me and turns to Glib again to talk about nothing much in particular.]
Stupider and sluttier
https://www.theweek.co.uk/94224/why-iq-levels-are-falling
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
Rabbi Sacks:
For a whole variety of reasons, some to do with medical developments like birth control, in vitro fertilisation and other genetic interventions, some to do with moral change like the idea that we are free to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others, some to do with a transfer of responsibilities from the individual to the state, and other and more profound changes in the culture of the West, almost everything that marriage once brought together has now been split apart. Sex has been divorced from love, love from commitment, marriage from having children, and having children from responsibility for their care.
The result is that in Britain in 2012, 47.5 per cent of children were born outside marriage, expected to become a majority in 2016. Fewer people are marrying, those who are, are marrying later, and 42 per cent of marriages end in divorce. Nor is cohabitation a substitute for marriage. The average length of cohabitation in Britain and the United States is less than two years. The result is a sharp increase among young people of eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, stress related syndromes, depression and actual and attempted suicides. The collapse of marriage has created a new form of poverty concentrated among single parent families, and of these, the main burden is born by women, who in 2011 headed 92 per cent of single parent households. In Britain today more than a million children will grow up with no contact whatsoever with their fathers.
This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of “two nations” a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer. And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic instances of what Friedrich Hayek called “the fatal conceit” that somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the lessons of biology and history.
http://rabbisacks.org/love-brings-new-life-world-rabbi-sacks-institution-marriage/
2:10:00
CK:
CK:
In every nation and every government there will be in every nation every government will have a rent a mob and Antifa is our one now.
Antifa are probably part of the Deep State.
2:29:00
Claire, is the left simply more committed than the right?
CK:
Yes, simply because it's easier for them because they're already in charge at the top of the tree. Trump is trying very hard to dislodge them but he hasn't the manpower, I guess. There is no other big idea. I keep going on about religion simply because it has this kind of moral authority - an instant appeal to people. If the alt-right is just about race and immigration it's not a big enough [idea]. If you wait for everybody to be affected to support you then then it'll probably be too late, so you need some Universalist idea that's capable of appealing to people but I guess the alt-right are the last people prepared to support marriage and family values.
****************************
Sexual corruption leads to moral corruption.
Moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption.
Intellectual corruption leads to your leaders not being able to submit to the truth, exercise logic or conform to the moral rules necessary for you to keep your society in existence and in good health.
This is the only explanation I can think of for Luke's strangely obstructive behaviour when I tried to answer his questions, which the others also noticed.
IN THE COMMENTS
kissmyass682
Why'd Luke get so aggro with Claire? He went from 0 to a 100, is there some history there?
Claire Khaw
Not that I know of, except that, possibly, he didn't like the way my answer was going to his question "Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?"
Matvei Daniilovich
Wow, luke actually got a little triggered with Claire.
Claire Khaw
Since I never got to answer the question properly before he muted me, I can only think that it was because he did not like the direction my answer was going to his question "Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?"
Alejandro Black
Loved Luke’s Modafinil rage with Khaw
Claire Khaw
I don't think that was anything to do with drugs.
Lou Duva
Very odd.
Claire Khaw
@Lou Duva I thought it was a bit odd too, but I think it was because he did not like the direction my answer to his question was going"Is there any significant difference between the worldview of Mein Kampf and the world view of the alternative-right?" From what I can make out, Luke was implying that both Mein Kampf and the alt-right want a pogrom. He knew I would say that the answer lies somewhere in between the status quo of liberal democracy and the pogrom the alt-right are proposing ie the civic nationalism of Secular Koranism and he didn't want me mentioning that again on his show.
No comments:
Post a Comment