by Gaedhal
Let us take the problem of pornography. Pornography cannot be banned anywhere unless it is banned everywhere. To ban pornography, anywhere—and thus everywhere—would require global governance.
The beginnings of global systems of governance such as the UN and Interpol allow us to tackle the global problem that is the trafficking in child-abuse imagery on a global scale.
Ultimately, I am not a white nationalist, I am a white globalist: I want a white globalist imperium. However, that imperium would consist of self-governing vassal states. To the extent that these vassal states or client states do not cause any global problems, the Global Imperium would leave them alone. However, once a vassal state starts causing global problems, then the legions are sent in to subdue them.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s 2 cents:
This is precisely what Adolf Hitler attempted. For having lost, look at the grotesque state Europe is in now. By the way, I fixed a few typos of my article about my visit to Europe this year, and the revised PDF can be read here (I’ll delete the now-obsolete PDF later today).
17 replies on “Imperium”
I second your motion Gaedhal (although I would yearn for a Nordic global imperium, rather than merely white, much as I understand that as a position for the future’s future, so to speak – sorry if I’ve misinterpreted you, I wasn’t sure if the term was being used synonymously).
I have a brief question, having read your full article, if you have the time: why English, as opposed to, say, German? I know English is currently pretty much the global tongue, only I wondered, considering we are expecting a major multipolar (well, to a degree) population reduction in the not very distant future, why, say in aftermath, would it be necessary for the survivors?
I personally like the English language, as a native speaker myself (although I too consider it effeminate, long-winded and somewhat illogical as a tongue, as I think was raised on here a good while back) but I wondered if, for deepest Aryan cultural reasons, a return to Northern European language(s) for prime communicative speech might be more appropriate. I fear English has fallen to the insidious corruption of Americanism these days (not that the Normans helped it very much either). Of course, one could always learn it multilingually as a foreign language if they were interested, or wanted to review older documents.
Indeed, when I read this statement from our friend Gaedhal, I thought that another Germanic language would be better for our Fourth Reich.
I’m glad you confirm my point is at least considerable on that. Just to summarise what I extrapolated on below (which could be construed as obtuse), I was thinking very much of 1984 but from a slightly different conceptualisation. ‘Americanese’ is very trashy and has some inordinately trashy concepts. I also know from cognitive neuroscience and what I remember of my university postgrad degree in Formal Linguistics (although I think this would be Psycholinguistics) that, given that our species think in words, what one has available in their lexicon as both words and ideas shapes what they can think, as evidenced by the lack of mathematical concepts, family relationships, and accurate time-keeping in African languages. Hence why, ironic as hell as it sounds, I think there should be a mass ‘crossing-out’ of quite a lot of words, in the hope it voids future human beings of the ability to conceive of degenerate/regressive acts.
On a curious – not speculative – side note, it’s almost like thinking of the famous cou/beef debate in Anglo-Saxon/Norman-French. I’m too historically illiterate to know the real reason, but oddly, I think I prefer ‘beef’, as, though these animals were being used for food then, at least beef distinguishes that it’s ‘a piece of meat’ (at least in modern context) whereas cou/cow is the living animal also, much as I’m not sure if Anglo-Saxons and Normans at that point ate the entire animal, in the manner of Neanderthals according to Them and Us , scraped bones and all (I’d suspect not). It’s a strange example to give, and there would be far better, but I hope it conveys the gist.
Not to limit their imaginations to oppose torment, as by Orwell, but to prevent active traitors-in-the-works from unseating that glorious and eternal imperial rule by language-aware subversion.
There were some White Nationalists, back in the day, who advocated learning Esperanto; that Esperanto should be the new white Yiddish, i.e. a white lingua franca. Esperanto was designed for it to be easily learnt. It is a quirk of history that English became the international language. English has quirks that would suggest its unsuitability as an international language. Esperanto was specifically designed not to have these quirks. There are no irregular conjugations, declensions or pronunciations in Esperanto.
I was reading Oxford English Grammar. It goes into how widespread/extensive English is in our world. Given that English is already this widespread; that it is already the international language of Science, aviation and the internet, then I think it better to stick with it. I am not fluent in German, though I have tried, and continue to try, to learn it. I would suggest that most white people are not fluent in German either. I think that Ben Klassen advocated for Latin sine flexiones, a simplified version of Latin, to become the white lingua franca.
Thank you for answering my question Gaedhal. I see more of where you’re coming from now. I think part of me is still worried about the creep of American ideas into everyday common usage (I’m sure I do it too; know in fact that I do sometimes when I let my guard down) among the citizenry at large, outside of academic Science and the rest – see the book Vassal State: How America Runs Britain by Angus Hanton.
I think what I would say from my side – and I think this is a compromise – is that for the moment English (in my opinion) should be retained from a practical perspective, but later (and this is the idealist in me) it should, for cultural reasons beyond globalism, though still inspired by it – I imagine the ‘administration’ would be centred on Europe – defer to more ancestral Northern tongues, much as they may prove tricky (or merely a challenge to rise to) to learn. It’s very hard for me on this issue as – as I’m sure is obvious – I’m not Nordic, and certainly do not want to be seen as ‘putting words in the mouth’ of my racial superiors.
Also, on a side-note, I feel the introduction of neologisms and the postwar-coined portmanteaus which can often go hand in hand with them should be kept to the bare minimum until the lexicons of more people are significantly widened. One cannot really help for slang among the youth. I wasn’t pleased when I read recently that around 50% of German Police can’t comprehend adequate German. Yes, as Cesar says, perhaps Germanic rather than simply Deutsch (standard High German?).
Just for the record, my own language skills aren’t great. I look up at your erudition and competency with awe. I learned Latin and Greek at school, plus the mildest French and German, and continued with the Duo Lingo Latin refresher course recently, along with the Duo Lingo and LingoMastery Russian, and the Michel Thomas method Spanish 8-hour beginner’s course. I have a long (!) way to go with each of these (the Greek especially). I shall research Latin sine flexiones. Thank you.
Although I dabble in a number of languages, I am not fluent in any of them… apart from English! Here is the Wikipedia article on Latino sine flexione. In the middle ages and the Renaissance, all educated people were able to read and write in Latin. Erasmus even wrote a book on Conversational Latin. I think Klassen favoured Latin Sine Flexione as the international white language. English need not be a race to the bottom. We could bring back the high-register of KJV English. We could promote the Received Pronunciation, the high register/style of English pronunciation that is employed almost exclusively by whites. Blacks have their own pronunciation of English called “Black English” according to that Oxford Grammar book. Good speech and good grammar is, in its own way, a protest against the vulgarity of the times.
P.S. on the subject of those self-managed vassal states I’ll put my point across a little further. I often hear foreigners here talking into their phones loudly in public, or talking briefly to their friend on the train, and it’s a given that sometimes they are talking about the person opposite them, and indeed insulting them, safe in the knowledge that it’s very unlikely (they’d usually think impossible) that they can be understood.
To expand this analogy… what if one of the choices of that vassal state were to speak English (merely as an example!) only? Over time, they would be able to converse on many private things, just as other vassal states (geographically likely to have other languages of their own) might have trouble keeping up, and adopting fluent bilingualism. Classical cryptographic measures in the English-speaking vassal state would be at an advantage also.
It just seems like, for whatever unknowable reason, if that vassal were ever to become disgruntled, or experience an internal paradigm shift or revolution of its own, it would be at awarded easier opportunities to plan global rebellion or secession from the imperium, and could, one would think, be very sneaky about this (or a lingering external traitor, not yet found with his clan and executed, even generationally, may infiltrate with this mission eventuality in mind).
That’s what worries me about 2+ planetary languages under one Imperium. A secondary point is arbitrary (or by forced design) shift and word exchange from one to another, say, the ruling house and the administrative zone to the vassal states.
Does this make sense?
I have noticed this right-wing hostility against pornography elsewhere before, and I find it rather curious. Do the representatives of this hostility realize that the pre-Christian Ancients did not use the original Greek word “πορνογράφος” (pornographos) at all in the modern sense to denigrate sexually suggestive material? That, in fact, sexually suggestive material was virtually everywhere in the pre-Christian Ancient world (nude statues in public squares, depictions of nudity and even outright copulation on frescoes, pottery, etc.)?
This already starts with Cro-Magnon (who, if we follow Vendramini, exterminated the Neanderthals) from whose cave dwellings in Paleolithic Europe we have retrieved phalluses carved out of bison horn and vulvas inscribed on rocks. These findings led British anthropologist Paul Mellars to proclaim that, “It’s sexually exaggerated to the point of being pornographic.” Mellars, incidentally, was a fellow of Corpus Christi College.
Hence, as should start to become clear by now, the denuncation of sexually suggestive material as “pornography” is first and foremost expression of (neo-)Christian morality and corresponding parental introjects. It was, after all, no other than Paul the Apostle himself who supplied the conception of “sexual immorality” and “sexual sins” (1 Corinthians 6:18) alongside his insidious religious concoction that eventually destroyed the entire Ancient world—Christianity.
Even if Gaedhal (whom I do not know, but whose nick suggests an Irish Catholic background) only had in mind what is popularly known these days as “porn,” i.e., the visible fallout of yet another particularly Ashkenazic line of business (Leonid Radvinsky is the founder of MyFreeCams and majority owner of OnlyFans), he would thus still proof either a) myopia with regard to the CQ (“porn” as just another part of the JQ, resulting in the “corruption” of the Goyim) and/or b) having fallen right into Paul’s trap and its Judeo-Christian inversion of Europe’s original pagan axiology (turning life-affirming sex positivism into life-denying sex negativism).
In Nietzsche’s words, reactionary demands for a global ban on pornography prove above all that those making these demands have themselves drunk deeply from the cup of Christian poison (see BGE 168, “Christianity gave Eros poison to drink. . . .”). Anyone wise on the CQ and committed to the revaluation of values should thus reject such reactionary demands.
Perhaps you missed Yockey’s point, linked in my featured post:
See the context here.
That might be so, but right now I do not see how I am supposed to have “missed” said point? For, in consequence, how does the demand for a global ban on pornography (which would include present “porn” as well as any other sexually suggestive material) not uphold and/or stem from the Christian moralism of “Eroticism as vice, the cult of immorality?”
As Nietzsche said in Twilight of the Idols, “It was only Christianity which, with its fundamental resentment against life, made something impure out of sexuality: it flung filth at the very basis, the very first condition of our life” (Things I Owe to the Ancients 4). Thus, banning any depiction of the very first condition of our life can only be justified under (neo-)Christian morality (and, in fact, can be derived directly from it).
If this very first condition was not devalued as “filty,” “sinful”, or “immoral,” but revalued positively, then a ban on its depiction would not merely be unjustified but antithetical to the very aim of re-sanctifying “Eroticism as legitimate source of joy and fertility!”
The problem, then, is not (pace Gaedhal et al.) “pornography” (= sexually suggestive material) as such, but that it is currently a tool in the hands of our mortal enemies, enriching them while at the same time delegitimating our source of joy and fertility (by making it appear “filthy,” “ugly,” and “sterile” in line with Christian preconditioning). As I pointed out above, a global ban would mean to fall into Paul’s original trap once again—by bringing us to (inadvertently) fill up our source of joy and fertility and thereby forego the necessary revaluation of its value!
I wonder if you’ve read what William Pierce says about the Republican Romans in Who We Are or what Eduardo Velasco says about the Spartans?
In both cases, it’s clear that pre-Christians, before they miscegenated in decadent times, were Puritans precisely because of what Yockey says: you have to procreate (instead, modern-day pornography doesn’t encourage Aryans to have children).
Yes, I have read what you included of Pierce and Velasco in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour some years ago already.
However, I am hard put to classify the European pre-Christians as “Puritans” (in any sense of the word) even on that basis. Take, for example, Pierce who informs us in Who We Are that already “[a]t the beginning of the Roman Republic the Romans and other Latins were a racially and culturally mixed people. The invading Nordics had absorbed some Mediterranean blood, and their religion and customs had also been affected by Mediterranean influences.” Hence, miscegenation did already happen in the Roman Republic and is not an entirely new phenomenon of the “decadent” Imperium.
And even if I accepted the precept that one has to be puritan to ensure procreation (which, frankly, I do not), then, again, Pierce himself disproves its practical usefulness in Who We Are where he observes that “the Spartiates did not produce enough children to make up for their losses in war. Even heavy penalties for celibacy and late marriage, and exemption from taxes for those Spartan families with four or more children, did not solve the problem.” Hence, purported Spartan puritanism was not sufficient to boost fertility.
Finally, with regard to Sparta, the poems of Alcman (foremost poet of the Laconian vernacular) from the 7th century BCE praising the beauty and physical traits of Spartan girls, arguably in an erotic style, directly contradict any ascription of puritanism (at least during the city state’s Archaic “pre-decadent” period, 650-480 BCE).
Or is there even a single Puritan poet who agonizes over how to make his audience “sense” the beauty of this one Puritan girl? Who does not hold back lyric descriptions of her bodily details, like the splendidness of her ankles and goldenness of her hair, the way Alcman does when extolling the beauty of Hagesikhora, the girl chorus leader, in the Partheneion?
Praising the beauty and physical traits of Spartan girls is extremely healthy, just as it was healthy for these girls to parade naked before men so someone would ask for their hand in marriage (to the father of course).
This has nothing to do with today’s pornography. One of Hitler’s first measures was to ban it (along with gay bars, etc.) because it’s all about healthy reproduction.
On the other hand, what Pierce says about the ancient Latins cannot be compared to the great interbreeding with Mudbloods in the first centuries of the Christian era, which caused the fall of the empire.
I have been forced to rethink pornography given my exposure to anti-porn arguments. In particular, the book Deadly Silence by Jacqueline Connolly. Porn serms to have been a catalyst for so much enormity in this instance of family annihilation. Alan Hawe began with abusing pornography… but it did not stop there. He became addicted. He needed harder and harder versions of porn, culminating in Child-Abuse material. A tolerance to pornography develops just like a tolerance to hard drugs or alcohol can develop. One needs harder and harder versions of pornography to satisfy his porn habit. Hawe also began crossdressing. In my view, Porn is a gateway drug to things like homosexuality and transgenderism. Porn-induced erectile dysfunction is another of pornography’s rotten fruits. Although a deconverted Catholic, I base my opposition to porn on secular argumentation.
My own thoughts on pornography (I think in general I’ll keep out of this debate!) are that it is indeed very harmful. Sorry for my bluntness in the following lines, I’m not sure how else to express it curtly.
Sometimes some men will be wankers. I suppose that would be ok (and who would need to know?), but would it not be ok for them simply to use their imaginations, without the need for all of this horror?
It is gratifying to see new couples embracing (in real life), or to sense this, or sense this coming, and know they are in love and there will be children later, plus all tasked/inspired aesthetic cultural representations of Yockey’s sort seem fine to me, and a good encouragement.
Pornography/porn – and I think I know it when I see it – does not seek to validate that (and how could it?). It leads the man to himself, peering in another’s hooker window, so to speak, or worse, on another couple (which is bizarre). Females copycat, and ruin their bodies. It’s foul somehow (and definitely so beyond adolescence).
I am all in favour of people not wanking if they can keep that up, as they may notice, when they do finish the process each time, that they seem a little more feminine afterwards, from the buzz of pleasure, or hormonal actions within the body (I don’t know the specifics, and I don’t want to know). One concludes that it would be best to do this as little as possible, if at all. It’s not the right conditions (would it ever be?) for hedonism/solipsism.
If they had a wife, what on earth would she think? She might also wonder what he was imagining, even (and I think I know to some degree the inventive male mind). It is a given she would feel discarded, and insulted.
If one merely wishes to see ‘joyful art’, I think that is what antique oils and watercolours and the like are for (and new painted Art in time). Call me cynical, but I think there’s some ulterior motive here.
A random loss can turn into an addiction, or semi-addiction, or a long buried habit resurrected later in unsuitable circumstances, when one is no longer alone with the benefit of their fully private thoughts.
This is as best as I can put it. The joy of life is enough (concessions obviously to my mind made for newlyweds). I hope this doesn’t seem silly.
P.S. I used my English idiom as I do not like the word ‘masturbation’, which feels deeply Catholic as a term somehow, and tied to the ‘self-abuse’ Victorian-era and some of their weird deterrents.
The situation is very simple: neither porn actresses nor most porn addicts have families with several Aryan children. It’s obvious that, like homosexuality, porn is a “short circuit”: instead of wiring connected to a light bulb it short-circuits our pleasure—no new light! In Spanish, the expression dar a luz (literally “give to light”) means to procreate: the baby sees the light for the first time in his/her life!
The short circuit of porn addicts (or perennial homosexuality; I’m not referring to a minor sin by a teenager) doesn’t result in any baby seeing the light. It’s an aberration: like the rats in the experiment with electrodes in their brains pressing the pleasure button!
Even the pre-Christians of Sparta and Republican Rome knew that the obligation to the state was to reproduce. The hedonists of today don’t.
To return as best as I can to the original point I wanted, but was too verbose to put, before it was derailed, and in brief, I remember Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s point in his… I think it was one of the audio speeches preserved in the Warning to the West he gave (with a translator present):
I sense this will be a harder debate for the future. I hope sincerely that it isn’t a harrowing one.