24 March, 2006

Aryan Contrasted with Jew

Posted by alex in graphics/toons, Naming the Jew, Nazis at 4:48 pm | Permanent Link

sturm03.jpg


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 03/27/06 “Name That Jew” 16% similar
  3. 04/09/14 Gentile Apologizes to Jew. Why? 15% similar
  4. 26 Responses to “Aryan Contrasted with Jew”

    1. alex Says:

      Aryans enjoy nature; jews enjoy porno.

      This is from Julius Streicher’s newspaper.

      Julius Streicher was hanged by the ‘liberating’ Allies for the democratic crime of publishing ideas the democrats aren’t comfortable with.

    2. alex Says:

      The title of the movie, I believe, is “The Sweet Sins.”

    3. A. Says:

      Nature is pornographic. What turns a man on, a natural woman in all her glory, or some plastic filled wonder trying to look all sexy and seductive?

      Sex as product is a very poor shadow to just natural gusto and perversity ;) Same with mindless sex. You want someone you can grow with in all your different dimensions including sexual. Porn, well it just fills in the vacant hole left by our now un-natural relationships to each other and to the world around us. Better to do it than watch it. But then the puritanical ethos creates its own shadow and forces apart that which God and Goddess would bind together.

      Prisons are built with stones of Law,
      And brothels with bricks of Religion
      — as the good man said.

      Fuck the law, fuck religion, grab your babe and go to a meadow and get dirty.

    4. alex Says:

      Nature is overrated.

    5. A. Says:

      You wouldn’t be here without her buddy and now she’s the only thing keeping you alive. So much for gratitude I suppose.

    6. A. Says:

      Actually a statement like that shows a sort of false pride that can get ones decendents into all sorts of problems. Sort of like we are facing now in fact. You ignore her at your peril.

      Actually to put it more plainly this other-worldly thinking is exactly the kind of thing most of those opposed to Christianity moan about. She was your nurse maid and taught you everything of value you needed to know. All the lies and falsehoods you, or someone like you, had to invented.

    7. Outis Says:

      This “A.” is uncomfortably full of himself.

      Anyway, the word “süß” can also be translated as “dirty”, as in “Jud Süß”, or, as in this case, “lucious” or “salacious”. The French equivalent, “sal” – the muzzies in France call Nik Sarkoma “sal juif”, or dirty jew – is related to our “salacious”.

    8. A. Says:

      The world is your representation Mr. Outis. Press upon me whatever cookie-cutter you desire. :)

    9. alex Says:

      Ah, scholarship, I like it. The Germans call homos “schwuehl,” meaning ‘sultry.’

      I said nature’s overrated, not that I ignore it, nor that I think other-worldly. Rather, I believe we should dominate nature and manage her for our benefit, as best we can given the rules. We should strive to extend our understanding of the situation we’re in. But gratitude for a process I didn’t initiate, that’s just another “Jeboo died for your sins.” That’s great, but it means nothing to me.

      People say “Nature,” they don’t mean nature, which is all-encompassing. They mean selected bits of Nature that suit their taste. I could do without many of Nature’s creations, as can Nature herself, since 99.99% are botches currently existing only available in special limited rock editions.

    10. A. Says:

      Then you and I speak of different things. I speak of nature and you speak of “Nature”.

      “I believe we should dominate nature and manage her for our benefit, as best we can given the rules.”

      Mmmm… interesting… but you understand that you are a part of it don’t you? Again with the teeth and claws and graves eating graves. I believe you don’t think man governs man very well, so there seems to be an error in your thinking. But you know what thought did?

    11. A. Says:

      And are you, are we a botch? That would ascribe some sort of purpose, and that you know that purpose since you know the faulty from the non-faulty. It would also say that nature is a rational power or at least guided by one. More of the otherworldly…

    12. Outis Says:

      Philosophaster \Phi*los”o*phas`ter\, n. [L., a bad philosopher,
      fr. philosophus: cf. OF. philosophastre.]
      A pretender to philosophy. [Obs.] –Dr. H. More.

    13. Alex Linder Says:

      Nature created jews. Natured created a body of creatures, 99.99% of which are extinct. I’m part of nature, and like every other, I strive to make things comfortable for myself, and racialist politics is part of that.

    14. A. Says:

      I despise philosophy Mr. Outis. I thought my anti-intellectualism would have given me away.

    15. Angle Says:

      ‘And are you, are we a botch? That would ascribe some sort of purpose, and that you know that purpose since you know the faulty from the non-faulty.’
      That’s known as the ‘problem of the criterion’ – in philosophy.

    16. A. Says:

      Yes *rubs chin* I see. Now this concerns the idea of concepts and the basis upon which they are build, these labels philosophers like to throw around. Mmmmm…. )o( Looking at the basis of the concept it is no problem at all except for those hung up on fantasy.

      Ha! I like mine classicaly soft boiled. Once one understands that thought itself cannot approach the true nature of reality it frees one of so much hogwash. Poor philosophers… one almost feels, well, sorry for them.

      What is the nature of time for example and how does it relate to the “problem”? Boethius, is there a purpose, some finite point of change, some end in bliss? Ha! Cracks the labouring, self revolving…

    17. A. Says:

      A moiling and toiling and all I wanted to do was stand aside my mountain vastness and use the word “pornographic”. *sigh*

    18. Outis Says:

      “I despise philosophy Mr. Outis. I thought my anti-intellectualism would have given me away.”

      I’d call it nega-intellectualism. You’re stuck in that gauche, Philosophy 101-dropout limbo where asking puerile questions like “are we a botch” still sound good to you. Notice that Linder maintains his line while you twiddle your fingers.

    19. Harry Tuttle Says:

      Alex always maintains his line with very good digression control. A good example to follow even if you don’t agree with all his positions.

    20. A. Says:

      Very good Mr. Outis. :)

      So Mr. Outis, you show me your world through your choices. Through what you choose to impress upon others. Me, I sit twiddling my fingers, but not quite, I am a thumb twiddler.

      And yes Mr. Outis I ask questions to examine the worlds of others. I even wear costumes make a fancy dress ball out of it. What’s my line? Why should I stand naked before you Mr. Outis as you stand naked before me? “You’re stuck in that gauche, Philosophy 101-dropout limbo where asking puerile questions like ‘are we a botch’ still sound good to you.” Oh Mr. Outis you are so unkind to yourself. But what do I impress upon you? You are me, or a least a part of me. And I eat worlds.

      He he he…

      Philosophaster \Phi*los�o*phas`ter\, n. [L., a bad philosopher,
      fr. philosophus: cf. OF. philosophastre.]
      A pretender to philosophy. [Obs.] –Dr. H. More.

      Yes, I eat them too. :) Ad hominems can cut both ways, but only one way if the man they are directed at is not there.

    21. Will Says:

      I wouldn’t call most of natures creations “botches”, much as I would mankind.

      One forgets how long the Earth has been growing all manner of flora and fauna. Have you ever heard the term “2 minutes to midnight”?

      If all of the history of life on earth were condensed into a day, then the appearance of modern homo sapiens circa 260,000 years ago would be very close to the stroke of midnight, which is now.

      The dinosaurs roamed the planet for 250 MILLION YEARS. They’re all gone now but would they be considered evolutionary failures because their kind eventually died out? I doubt it.

      How long can humans last? Another 100 years? Another 500? We won’t need an interstellar comet to put us out our misery when we’ve got the homegrown nukes to do the job just fine.

      One must remember the vast expanses of time we’re talking about before one goes about saying 99.99% of all creatures just weren’t meant to be. Just trying to put things in a little better perspective. Life strives every which way and attempts to occupy every nook and cranny. There are still tens of thousands of species (mostly insects) thriving today, even if in the sum total of species since it all began there were many millions.

      As for the Aryan-jew contrast, it really is night and day, light side and dark side. One is all about enjoying life and the little things, the other is all about profit and greed for the self and the tribe.

    22. alex Says:

      Botches does imply creator and agenda. But damn, I’m not going to legally construe everything I say before hitting enter, so hack away at will.

      Argument from nature is a fallacy since nothing outside nature can exist. It’s a partisan argument pretending to neutrality, much like a “tolerant” jew bent on stamping out “hate.”

      There are different arragements of nature we can make, and of course many things lie outside our control. We all probably favor more or less the same arrangement, I suspect. Ie., more gorillas, less niggers.

      Survival of the fittest is circular. I’d say there are populations subject to pressures. A tidal wave wipes these or those out for no particular reason. A few are left standing. In some way they are genetically slightly different from their fellows that were drowned. That’s something, a change, but it’s not anything properly describable as survival of the fittest.

    23. Merovius Says:

      Nature to me means the Eco-system which is our life support system and living and understanding Natural laws. Part of the reason for this mess is chrisitanity turned reality upside down and wars against Higher Order. The COTC books are what comes to mind when I think Natural Order, science yes, jebus no.

    24. alex Says:

      Don’t disagree, but I grow wary of terms like system and order when describing nature. I emphasize that 99.99% of the species that ever existed are extinct. So, it’s more a death-support system than a life support.

      Nature is not harmony, it’s shifting balance.

    25. Theseus Says:

      Why do we have to ascribe meaning to nature at all? Things like “botch� imply this. Gosh, what if nature has no emotions? And yeah, if you crawl too far up inside your own, er—head, long enough, you may come to realize the senses can’t be trusted, there is no truth, and philosophy is simply the “white man’s mythology.� Then, you want to do stuff like build a shelter or go to the stars. For that, we are back to the senses, notions of objective truth, and philosophical inquiry.

    26. Carpenter Says:

      Good thread. The lesson to take away is: there is no harmony in nature, like some desperately want to imagine. Species kill each other, be they plants or animals, and have always done so. Only mankind, actually only Whites, try to maintain some status quo in nature, even when it doesn’t serve our interests – we truly are unique that way.

      What looks like “harmony” is just the pieces that have managed to survive. And they are in constant change.

      Why is this “harmony” stuff so popular? For one thing, it’s like God and UFOs; people like to believe that something higher is keeping an eye on everything, making sure all will be well. The other reason is, it’s a leftist way of striking at the race that invented technology. Technology is an enormous accomplishment, and the commies gnash their teeth when thinking of how well it proves Aryan superiority. So they came up with, “Aha, let’s make sure people will always think of pollution when they think of technology!” That’s the connection they always make.

      It therefore suits their purpose to have people believe there’s a precious “harmony” in nature, because obviously, newly invented technology cannot belong to that harmony. And so technology must be evil, and therefore the White race must be evil. Whereas 70-IQ Blacks who never invented the wheel suddenly become good and saintly. They didn’t fail to reach above the Stone Age, you see. They refrained from doing so, because of their love for nature’s “harmony.”