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).
8 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/beer 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.
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).