Why we fight
I am sure that in the course of 5870 posts over 294 pages the question "why do we fight" has been asked in the Section not once but several times. But it is a question that underpins everything in the British nationalist effort. To my mind the most perfect summation was authored by David Lane:
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
... which, because I am English, I like to amend to sixteen words thus "... and an English future for our English children."
One advantage of Lane's formulation, of course, is that he can add "Because the beauty of the White Aryan women must not perish from the earth." I am not sure that one could make quite the same romantic claim in respect to English womanhood. I think our weakness for irony might get the better of us if we tried.
Anyhow, Lane's formulation is only one answer, and we all have our own personal take on the final value. What is yours? Why do you fight?
Same as you Henry, although I extend my loyalty to the indigenous northern Europeans in particular and the White race in general. Not to save everyone, as so many do not deserve to be saved and they are determined not to be saved from extinction. I hope to help salvage enough of our civilisation that we can recover our destiny, and not allow dysgenics and infertility to finish us off as we descend into a future that threatens a lonely fractured existence of misery, violence and suffering - where no one cares.
You're like so totally whatever!
I will offer my view, which I know you two love so very much :-)
I fight for justice, namely to do good to those that would do good. This means defending people who have committed no crime, and persecuting those that would harm others for no good reason. It's a subjective philosophy, but I think it is the most important one there is.
Existence trumps abstract neo-Christian ethics, Jamie. Something you have not yet understood.
When it is looked at more closely you will find that a great many of those you defend are committing crimes and that they are all about treading on others and spoiling the good things others have made. Defending such people and excusing their actions makes one look as if one is with them and therefore against those they are damaging.Originally Posted by Jamie M
You're like so totally whatever!
I would rather die than become evil. What I believe defends our existence, anyway. Unless you happen to harming those that don't deserve it, then I can't help you.
I will defend no one who intentionally harm others for personal gain. I will defend those who live here, and always have done. If they commit no crime, then my quarrel does not lie with them.
The ethics you have internalised are Jewish anti-European ethics ... the ethics of, to all intent and purposes, a European genocide. There is nothing ethical about promoting a genocide. You are not "good". You ARE evil.
All peoples have a (contingent) right in Nature to life, and this is the highest of all values. The greatest of evils consists in denying that right to a people, as you deny it to our people.
Your Jewish ethics are, for a European man, bourgoies and false. Grow - up.
My ethics were inspired by a Jew, that is true. However, Jesus was neither borgoies or false.
Tell me, where do you lose out in my philosophy? Unless you are intentionally evil? Again, I will defend innocent people. I believe the best way to defend the British people is to rebuild democracy as a fairer and better led system, so contrived as to benefit Britain before others. Why do you find this objectionable?
I'd stand well back Jamie, he seems to be really on one today. Those flecks of spittle can carry all sorts of germs, so don't stand downwind.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks