January 2, 2005

• 
  

  The Eighty-Eight Precepts - Continued
  

  The 29th Precept: "The concept of "equality" is declared a lie by every evidence of Nature. It is a search for the lowest common denominator, and its pursuit will destroy every superior race, nation or culture. In order for a plow horse to run as fast as a race horse you would first have to cripple the race horse; conversely, in order for a race horse to pull as much as a plow horse, you would first have to cripple the plow horse. In either case, the pursuit of equality is the destruction of excellence."

  
  

  The pursuit of equality... or the imposement of equality. It is largely the latter at work; even though a brief, casual reflection upon the concept of 'equality' will result in recognizance of the fact that there is nothing good to be gained from it, devout television-watchers everywhere swallow up and freely regurgitate the slogans and propaganda of the egalitarian myth-mongers: "We are all the same!" "We are all equal!" "We all bleed red!" and similar meaningless fallacies.

  
  

  The 30th Precept: "The instincts for racial and species preservation are ordained by Nature."

  
  

  Those races and species which did not develop, or respond to, instincts for self-preservation can be summed up with a single word: "extinct".

  
  

  The 31st Precept: "Instincts are Nature's perfect mechanism for the survival of each race and species. The human weakness of rationalizing situations for self-gratification must not be permitted to interfere with these instincts."

  
  

  This is where the modern Liberal screws itself. "The anti-racist sentiment is so strong in the crowd of peers about me!" thinks the Liberal; "Speaking out against the fallaciousness and foolishness of anti-racism will bring great pressure to bear upon me; they will stare at me, call me names, yell at me, talk behind my back and put me down... therefore, I will take up their stance as my own, and decry racism as they do; and thus, I will be accepted, even applauded, by them and I will be happy!" The Liberal who thinks thus then commits himself to the war against the existence of his own race. If you were wondering why White Nationalists refer to anti-racists as 'lemmings'... wonder no more.

  
  

  The 32nd Precept: "Miscegenation, that is race-mixing, is and has always been, the greatest threat to the survival of the Aryan race."

  
  

  What other threats are there? Warfare, of course; but every race and species must face elements and entities which war against them, and strive to survive and overcome these. And warfare drives a beset people together and can thus strengthen their unity. The Aryan race has proven excellent in handling wars. Miscegenation, on the other hand, can be quite insidious; whether the consequence of a perverted individual's willing act, or of a malign entity's designs against a race; miscegenation can often seem innoccuous and inconsequential - until it gets to the point where one looks around and realizes that his race is being replaced by a hybridized substitute.

  
  

  The 33rd Precept: "Inter-species compassion is contrary to the Laws of Nature and is, therefore, suicidal. If a wolf were to intercede to save a lamb from a lion, he would be killed. Today, we see the White man taxed so heavily that he cannot afford children. The taxes raised are then used to support the breeding of tens of millions of non-whites, many of whom then demand the last White females for breeding partners. As you can see, man is subject to all the Laws of Nature. This has nothing to do with morality, hatred, good or evil. Nature does not recognize the concepts of good and evil in inter-species relationships. If the lion eats the lamb, it is good for the lion and evil for the lamb. If the lamb escapes and the lion starves, it is good for the lamb and evil for the lion. So, we see the same incident is labelled both good and evil. This cannot be, for there are no contradictions within Nature's Laws."

  
  

  I questioned the opening statement of this Precept once, arguing that it was inter-racial compassion which truly causes the most problems; whereas different races were similar enough that they were inherently rivalrous, both requiring the same sort of territories and resources, different species were often so different as to offer the prospect of symbiotic relationships. However, upon further consideration, through examining the example of the dog, it occured to me that 'Man's best friend' was in fact more accurately 'Man's most abused slave'. Many dogs are indeed loyal and friendly, but many have been bred to such a degree of dependance upon us that they could not survive upon their own merits if commited to Nature. And most dogs are unswervingly loyal even if their masters couldn't care less if the dog was hit by a truck or afflicted with a disease - there are dogs who would happily die for men who would forget about them the next day. So, while Man has indeed benefitted from his millenia-long experience with dogs, the dog has actually gotten a pretty poor bargain in the overall deal. Their cousin, the wild wolf, is in far better shape because it has pretty much stuck with its own kind; had they the intellect to reflect upon this matter, I expect they'd be appreciative of the positive results of Man/Wolf Apartheid.

  
  

  ---

  
  

  Read David Lane's new novella, KD Rebel
  

  • 3:47 am
  • 8 Comments