It's unfortunate that anyone who engages in public speaking is smeared by his opponents. In the age of the internet, thankfully, this smearing process cannot dissect people's personal lives and have ad honimems used against them. The idea that 'the person saying these words is bad, and thus the argument is bad' is a logical fallacy, as the two really have no relationship. If a bad guy says water is wet, it doesn't follow that water isn't wet. If a murderer endorses the death penalty for murder, it doesn't follow that the death penalty for murder is wrong. The argument stands or falls on its own merit, regardless of who said it. Another fallacy of ad hominems isn't simply saying the argument must be false because the person who said it is a bad guy, but runs with it in another direction:
Whoever is saying it, is trying to persuade others for the sake of his own self-interest. All we have to do is figure out this person's secret connections and desires, and we will find out his true motive for encouraging various public policies, which will always just be a matter of private enrichment, rather than whatever public good he harps on. Thus if a gay person advocates gay marriage, we can discount anything he says because "he just wants to marry a gay guy, it's all in his own self-interest." Or if a straight person advocates gay marriage, he is pilloried as "oh he must be gay and just hiding it, otherwise he wouldn't be advocating for gay marriage." Both of these are ad hominems and are still fallacies. Even if the law described would suit someone's private interest, this doesn't somehow banish all the arguments he made for its public interest, they don't just disappear. If building a dam would both be a great benefit to the community and the person advocating the dam building, how is he wrong in suggesting a dam be built? Whether it benefits him or harms him is irrelevant, the question still remains, is it a good idea? Would it help the public interest or not? Regardless of the person's motivations, if building a dam really would be good for the community, then the man by arguing for a dam building has done the public a great service. Questioning his motivations or assigning him a false, secret agenda doesn't actually address the question at hand. Was it a good idea or not? As such, all such questions are irrelevant, fallacious, and harmful, as they simply obscure our ability to debate objectively and based on the facts about the actual issue.
Another ad hominem is requiring the person have some sort of credential or authority on the topic before his words be given any weight. "Only professors can know right from wrong on these issues, everyone else is a priori false." The question isn't what degrees the person has who is saying the words, the question is whether what he said is true or false. Whether his suggestions were good or bad ones, whether they served the public interest or not. Independent of whatever degrees the man has, if he suggests we should all stop eating and just live off air, it's not a very good idea. And if an opponent with no education argues back to this person of high authority and pedigree that we must keep eating if we hope to survive and air is no substitute for food, he is not a priori wrong and his words dismissible for lack of expertise on biochemistry and anatomy and metabolism, etc etc.
It is as pointless trusting the word of an authority figure or credentialed academic over common sense on any issue as it would be to abandon eating because the Pope told us to. i don't care if ten thousand scientists got together and signed a bill insisting we all stop eating and begin the new 'age of inhalation.' I'd trust the hobo on the street's opinion ahead of all ten thousand, because the only arbiter of any argument is reason, and every man must reason for himself. That is why we are equipped with brains, so that we can come to our own conclusions based on the light of reason, not just be programmed with commands or directives from on high. The only sovereign any individual can ever serve is Reason. Every other authority is illegitimate and a logical fallacy. If Reason shows that the person speaks the truth and makes good sense, it doesn't matter if he's an illiterate madman murderer cannibal who stands to make a million dollars from the decision.
Furthermore, if someone is wrong on one issue, that does not make him wrong on every other issue 'a priori.' If someone comes to an outlandish conclusion about one subject, it just means he's not perfect and is capable of being wrong. When he turns around and makes a sensible conclusion on another field, that conclusion is still sensible regardless of anything else they've suggested. Consider the madman again. The world has gotten together and agreed to give up food, and start on the new age of inhalation. The government has set up the program, the media has trumpeted it, and the populace have voted for it in an overwhelming referundum and staged parades of joy for its passing. Now, this madman, who says UFO's have landed and half the people on earth are actually space slugs masquerding as humans, publishes an essay in the local paper saying 'the age of inhalation is a fraud, humans must eat to live. Everyone should continue eating like their ancestors have throughout all time.'
Imagine if the response in all the outraged letters to the editor read like this: "This guy is a madman." "This madman doesn't have a college degree, what does he know?" "This is the same guy who wrote a month ago half of humanity were in fact space slugs." "This guy probably has stocks in the grain industry or owns cattle." "I'm outraged that a madman was allowed to speak in this way, he hurt the feelings of all inhalers everywhere. Speaking for the 6 billion inhalers on the earth, I demand this man be fined or imprisoned for his insensitivity." "This man is stuck in the past and doesn't realize we are all inhalers now, the march of progress can't be stopped, I pity the man for being controlled by his senseless fears and hatred of breathing." "This madman was probably abused as a child." "Next he'll be telling us to eat space slugs."
This verbal diarrhea could go on and on and on, without even once addressing his central point, his argument that is flawlessly stated and the God's own truth. People do, in fact, need to eat to live. Breathing air as a food substitute is, in fact, a bad idea. And everything else mentioned, every single accusation leveled against him, is a meaningless side issue that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. MUST MAN EAT TO LIVE OR NOT? IS BREATHING REALLY THE SOLUTION TO HUNGER? This is the power of mass distraction. Logical fallacies abound, and they are devilishly effective, because people keep on assuming that some unrelated issue, is somehow related to the truth or falsehood of the statement at hand. The answer is to ignore all the distraction and address the argument. Ignore all the rumors and concentrate on the issue at hand. Is what he is saying true or false? Is it in the public interest to adopt his policies or not? Is this argument reasonable? Does it make sense? Are the facts on his side? These are the only questions people should be asking themselves as they read an argument. Every other argument is something contrived by the losers. IE, anyone who would lose in the field of facts, logic, and reason, resorts to side issues and irrational criticism, in the hopes of obscuring the debate and replacing it with some other arbiter, so that they can still win despite being the clear losers.
If anyone addresses the man's vices or failings, or what other arguments he's made at other times, or what degrees he has, or who his friends are, or what business interests he holds, or anything of the like, he's a weasel using logical fallacies to avoid addressing the actual issue and argument at hand. Of course, one of the most oft-repeated arguments is 'don't listen to this guy, he's an idiot.' What does that matter? If an idiot speaks sense, if an idiot is reasonable and believes the truth, if an idiot makes a compelling and strong argument to adopt various policies, what would it matter how stupid he was? I'd accept wisdom from a donkey's mouth, much less an idiot's. All I care about is the truth, what would it matter if an inanimate rock said the speech instead of an idiot? Would it be any less true? And yet 99% of arguers will insist their opponent is an idiot or stupid, as though that has some relevance to the issue at hand. All they want to prove is how dumb their opponent is, and substitute the entire issue at hand, for an argument on whether their opponent is dumb or not. Or substitute 'stupid' for some other senseless statement: "this person is a loser." "this person is poor." "this person doesn't have a girlfriend." "this person is a sex-starved loser." "this person lives with his mother in a basement." So what? Who cares? Is what he said true or false? Is he right, or is he wrong? If a rock sat in a basement, and said e=mc^2, would it be any less true? So what's wrong with a human being doing it? The whole tactic is senseless, and is simply bullying and obscuration.
For those confident in their beliefs and the strength of their arguments, they never have to mention their opponent or who he might be. All they have to do is point out the flaws in the opponent's reasoning and show how the facts disagree with his conclusions, and that is that. There is really nothing left to say. Either the facts aren't true, or the reasoning that follows them is illogical and fallacious. Once either of those things have been pointed out, there's hardly any need to add in "oh and he's an ugly nincompoop." Who cares? I already agreed he was wrong before then. Learning he was an ugly nincompoop in no way strengthened the case against his argument, as it was already 100% made. All it does is add in vitriol and emotions into an otherwise cool, rational, and truth-pursuant debate. All it does is muddy the water and complicate issues and make personal that which should be completely objective. Who does that serve? The person with truth on their side, or the one without it?
Beware of false thinkers bearing ad hominems and logical fallacies. There is no point to anything they say, and there is no truth in anything they say. The more you heed them, the further from the truth you'll stray. Not because they are necessarily wrong, they may well be right. But because they are substituting reason, the touchstone of truth, for some other, different judge. That judge may be right or wrong, just as a broken clock can by pure coincidence be right at least twice a day. But it is not using a scientific system meant to produce truth, its methodology is not sound and it can never be relied upon to render a true conclusion consistently. Those who would replace the one and only sound method to reach the truth, Reason and logic, with their own pet distractions, can only make things worse in the end. Truth will recede from the listeners like tantalus trying to sip water in Hell. You'll never quite reach it, ever again.
Now going from general to specific, I'd like to deflate some of the completely irrelevant rumors floated around against me, even though it shouldn't matter one way or the other:
1. "Diamed endorses genocide and an all-white world." I never said that. It's just a lie. What I did say (and is then twisted into a ridiculous pretzel by people who hate me) is that in the event a white nationalist state came to power, it was possible the world would unite against it and try to crush it, like how monarchists all around Europe united against revolutionary France and tried to crush that new republic for upsetting the apple cart. In such a case, it would be not only justified, but necessary to defend ourselves, even to the point of destroying the entire rest of the world. I've also said that if whites are victorious, it will be necessary to secure not just our immediate future but a future for all time, by making it impossible for non-whites to threaten us again. I've also said at various times that it would be better for Africa to be inhabited by whites than blacks, and I would see no problem with evolution taking its course there and replacing inferior subhumans with superior humans via colonization. I've also said that taking America from the savages and replacing them with hundreds of millions of beautiful, brilliant white babies was one of the best things that ever happened in world history. I've also said adherents of Islam have declared universal war on all non-believers and thus should be destroyed in our own self-defense, especially considering their expansionist jihads that have left the greatest death toll in all world history and has never let up even once in their history of 1400 years. I've also said that I admire Dr. Pierce and liked the Turner Diaries, as far as a work of fiction goes. (check it out, it's a good read, and all the violence in it is also done in self-defense.) Sure, this adds up to a lot of violence, but it hardly consumes the entire non-white world. Furthermore, it's all conditional on the actions of other races, it is always a RESPONSE to their choices, if they play nice so can we. Rather than advocating we go out and destroy the world, I have always said 'so long as islam threatens world conquest, we must destroy it.' 'so long as blacks breed out of control, we must stop them,' and so on. Violence is always the solution of last resort. I believe in the 14 words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. "Must" is an imperative to me. It means what it means. When I see a threat to the white race's very existence, what do you want me to do, play nice and advocate a bake sale in response?
And maybe most importantly, I've said, and will say again, that I'd rather the entire rest of the world die than the white race die.
I think we are more valuable than everyone else combined, and if it comes down to our annihilation or theirs, I would choose them. This doesn't mean the ideal choice is their annihilation, simply that it is better than the death of my race, the white race, the best race on earth who are responsible for almost 100% of everything good on earth, from art to science to literature to freedom to economics to military prowess to physical beauty to truly happy homes, whites stand an order above the rest of the world. Ignoring how special and valuable we are, artificially handcuffing our own willingness to defend the white race by various stuffy moral 'do nots', is not for me. I reject out of hand any moral code that would ever reach the conclusion that the white race should perish for the sake of our inferiors.
If the white race stands at the brink of destruction to the breeding of the blacks, the lies of the jews and the anthill like efficiency of the chinese, and I were given a red button that says: "push button to kill all non-whites," I would press it. If I were instead given two red buttons, one that says, "push button to kill all non-whites," and another that says, "push button to teleport whites to another dimension where non-whites can never hurt them again," I would push the second button. And if I were given three buttons, one that says, "kill all non-whites," another that says, "teleport to new dimension," and a third that says, "live in peace with all our neighbors and uplift them to a comparable level to whites," I would push the third button. But the second button is technologically unfeasible until we at least invent inter-stellar travel, and the third button requires the cooperation of the other races and their good faith. What happens if they refuse? If buttons two and three are unfeasible, all that leaves is button 1. In real life terms, it means the unleashing of the russian or american nuclear arsenals on the rest of the world, making all our worries vanish overnight. Do you think Israel wouldn't do it to stop the arabs from destroying their race? Whites are being pushed to the wall just like Israel is, we are under attack from all sides, and if we wish to live, we must be as hard and determined as they are to live. The strong survive and the weak perish. In this case, if whites make it clear that a third-world aggression on our territory (whether by jihadis using weapons or merely a camp-of-the-saints illegal immigration invasion) would be met with nuclear annihilation, and that they had better learn to live peacefully and co-exist with the white race rather than attempt our downfall from without and within, no violence will even be necessary. They will get the message and cease and desist all their pernicious deeds. If we don't make such a stand, however, we simply radiate weakness and invite catastrophe. In fact, the entire plot of Camp of the Saints was this central message: Either we resist with violence our dispossession, or the entire white race will perish from the earth. The drama played out across hundreds of pages, in one of the most poignant and true books ever written, but in the end whites didn't have the guts. They couldn't fire on the third world, and thus they were overrun and obliterated themselves. I simply take the opposite position to that of the Camp of the Saints French who gave the world away: I will fight. Don't think I won't. I'll kill every last one of you if I must, so don't make me. Or as a black would say: "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing." Genocide for genocide. YOUR call, not mine. I don't want any genocide, including the current genocide going on against my race. But if there must be one, I'm going to make sure as hell it isn't my race in the trash heap of history. I'll make sure as hell WHICH one there is going to be. And any white nationalist worth his salt, will say the same. If not they are simply crybabies who need to go home to their mommys. This is a philosophy for white warriors, not ninnies. Get a backbone and come back when you're ready.
I don't endorse violence or bloodshed. In fact, I have an entire post showing how the world could be saved without 'harming a single hair on anyone's head.' But the longer people ignore all the peaceful solutions to the white race's crisis, the more bloody the war will eventually be. The more war will have to solve in its own, violent and pitiless manner. The more that will be left to the butchers which could have been left to the surgeons, if only you had heeded us sooner. And if, God forbid, the decline of the white race to non-existence is entirely peaceful and nothing is ever done to prevent it, what have you achieved? Is this really the moral victory and a high five for the good guys? You've just destroyed the one race that brought us to outer space, the one race that brought the world individual liberty, the one race that fed the entire rest of the world, the one race that cured all the major diseases on earth, the one race that brought about world peace, the one race that carries the legacy of Greece, Rome, France, Germany, England, Russia, Spain, and America, both by culture and by blood. Are you really so proud to see such a painless, bloodless end? Is this moral? The good outcome? The ideal world we should be building towards? I flatly disagree. There are worse things than war. "Peace at any price!" is not for me. Or J.S. Mill for that matter:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
2. "Diamed wants to swamp all white communities with asians and jews and turn them into some sort of alien super-breed."
This is nonsense. What I have said is tangentially related to this paranoia, but like usual it is nothing like the statement above. I think interbreeding is the solution to the jewish problem. I say this for many reasons, 1) it is already occurring and well on its way to completion, so is an actually practical solution. 2) Jews are highly intelligent and I want their genes in our gene pool. 3) If jews interbreed with whites, they will become loyal to whites and identify themselves with us, losing their particular ethnic chauvinism and religious exclusion of the 'gentiles.' 4) Jews will cease to exist, but the white gene pool will barely be touched, as we outnumber them something like 100 to 1.
I think interbreeding with or living alongside asians is not a disaster, as both races are moral and intelligent human beings. Asians have no real vendetta against whites and usually leave us alone, which makes me comfortable living alongside them. They have no social delinquency problems, are net benefits to our economy, have made great art (like anime and video games) and technological innovations (like cell phones and tvs and cars). That being said, I would not like for a total integration of whites and asians. For one thing, east asians outnumber whites, and thus it would not really be a 'white-asian' super-race. It would be more like our annihilation and a few of our genes floating around in a predominantly chinese world. Second, I honestly believe whites are superior to asians. Even if some asian genes are better than ours, the only way to fish these genes out of the asian gene pool and into ours would be through careful and limited selection and interbreeding in a controlled and limited way. Third, I think asian-white crossbreeds aren't that attractive physically and would ruin the distinct look of both the asian and the white race, which lowers everyone's quality of life. Fourth, I think diversity is disquieting, not 'enriching,' and that people feel most at peace and happy and trustful with people like themselves. Therefore, even if there is nothing all that objectionable with asians, or white-asian hybrids, it is not fair to subject their presence on a homogeneous white community.
This is why I would desire a consent based world of communities, where those whites who don't like diversity can be allowed to celebrate their own people's lifestyle, looks, and laws in their own nation. And those who desire, could try out a pioneer's path of white-asian symbiosis and interbreeding, which would exist for only those people who want to give a go at such a project, and would not feel unhappy living in such a nation. Everyone gets their way in my world. I have no objection to either community, though I would prefer the first nation to the second, on aesthetic grounds. I do object, on moral grounds, to the interbreeding of whites with amerindians, dravidians, negroes, aborigines, and the like. Because I consider them lower links on the chain of human evolution and sex with them to simply be a defilement and rejection of everything good inside a white. Whites are halfway on their way to becoming angels, blacks are still half devils. Any mixing between the two is just a step backward, and a betrayal of the thousands of generations that worked so hard to improve you through so much hardship and effort. I despise all such race-mixers and would never wish to live alongside them, or their half-breed kids.
3. "Diamed is a jewish (or maybe asian) government agent meant to undermine all reasonable white nationalist thought and discredit us in the eyes of the populace."
^_^. I'm just an ordinary guy. I don't really care if I'm unpopular, because the populace is rarely (if ever) right about anything. I'm white, and I don't work for the government. As to the charge that I'm doing more harm than good:
There has to be a sea change in opinion before white nationalism gets off the ground. A paradigm shift much like lifting mt. everest from the bottom of the sea to the top of the world. This sea change either won't occur, so nothing we do matters. Or it will occur, in which case it will need a philosophy to lead it into humanity's new dawn. I'm not writing for the current public's opinion, but for that future one. The one I hope for, the community I consider myself a member of. I write for all time, not just the present, and I hope to appeal to those who come millenia later, or who lived millenia ago, not just the current brainwashed masses. If the paradigm shift occurs, the standards of judgment will be completely different then than now. If what I write currently drives people away, who's to say it won't do the reverse and attract people after the paradigm shift? The only way whites will survive this coming century is a paradigm shift, something that completely re-orders all our current values and replaces them with wholly new ones. At that time, I might be a very appealing voice, who's to say? Nietzsche was never appreciated in his lifetime. I can just imagine all the people urging Nietzsche to tone down his rhetoric to be more accommodating to the people of the age, so that he could be more 'popular' and have more 'influence.' Nietzsche refused and wrote in a completely rebellious and devil-may-care attitude, exactly what he felt and thought. Now he has phenomenal influence across the world, and is recognized as one of the top ten philosophers of all time. By not compromising, he has had more impact than if he had compromised. The Truth is something we write for all time, not just this time. Those who wish to write propaganda for their time alone, can find some party hack to churn it out.
I also find it comical when people council moderation and outright lying to further our revolution. Moderates never change the world. Moderates never seize power. Moderates are worthless weak losers, just like the republican party in America which has done nothing but watch as liberalism swept across and conquered America piece by piece, decade after decade. People are attracted to clarity, focus, and strength. In times of chaos and tumult, they look to something powerful, self-assured, and drastic. Not to moderates, waverers, weasels and softies. Since the world is heading into a period of chaos and tumult, we need to be more fanatical with each passing day, not less. When the shit hits the fan, do we want to be a lot of women's lib, gay right's, hug-your-brother Jesus worshipers? Or something much cleaner, sharper, and more serious? My politics is not designed to appeal to people in times of peace and plenty, but in times of rack and ruin. Since the end times are coming, you do the math.