Layout Options
Which layout option do you want to use?
Wide
Boxed
Color Schemes
Which theme color do you want to use? Select from here.
Reset color
Reset Background
Forums
New posts
Trending
Random
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Rules
Libraries
New Audios
New Comments
Search Profile Audios
Clubs
Public Events
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Trending
Random
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Forums
Boards
/rps/ - Religion, Philosophy & Spirituality
The aryan man is superior culturally, they are the founders of civilization Sieg Heil
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Naofumi" data-source="post: 47489" data-attributes="member: 39"><p>3.10 THE DESTRUCTION OF THE IDEA OF LEADERSHIP</p><p>Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honor?</p><p>Shouldn't every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself</p><p>to the level of a political gangster?</p><p>And, on the other hand, doesn't every gangster feel the itch to 'play</p><p>politics, ' seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him</p><p>personally but rather with an anonymous, unaccountable mob?</p><p>Doesn't our parliamentary principle of majority rule necessarily lead</p><p>to the destruction of the idea of leadership?</p><p>Does anyone honestly believe that human progress originates in the</p><p>brain of the majority, and not in the brain of the individual personality?</p><p>Or may it be presumed that future human civilization can dispense with</p><p>this as a condition of its existence?</p><p>Or rather, doesn't this seem today to be more indispensible than ever?</p><p>The parliamentary principle of majority rule rejects the authority of the</p><p>individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In</p><p>doing so, it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental</p><p>law of nature-though it must be admitted that this principle is not reflected</p><p>in the decadence of our upper 1 0,000.6</p><p>The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not</p><p>easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish press, unless the reader</p><p>has learned how to think independently and examine facts for himself. This</p><p>institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre</p><p>people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a</p><p>man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to</p><p>refrain from taking part in politics; under these circumstances, the situation</p><p>doesn't call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship</p><p>but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favor of the</p><p>majority. The situation appeals to small minds, and it attracts them</p><p>accordingly.</p><p>The narrower the spirit and knowledge of our leather-handlers, the</p><p>more accurately can they assess their own situation. They will therefore be</p><p>all the more inclined to praise a system that doesn't demand creative genius</p><p>or even high-class talent, but rather the craftiness of an efficient town clerk.</p><p>Indeed, they value this kind of petty craftiness more than the political</p><p>6 In other words, of the "1%".</p><p>1 1 2</p><p>CHAPTER 3</p><p>genius of a Pericles. 7 Such mediocrity never worries about responsibility.</p><p>From the beginning, our parliamentarian knows that, whatever be the</p><p>results of his ' statesmanship,' his end is already written in the stars; one</p><p>day, he will have to clear out and make room for another equally great</p><p>spirit.</p><p>It's a sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen</p><p>grows as the caliber of individual personality dwindles. That caliber will</p><p>inevitably shrink as the individual politician increasingly depends upon</p><p>parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be</p><p>the lackey of idiotic incompetents and big-mouths. And they in turn, being</p><p>the representatives of the majority-and hence of stupidity-hate nothing</p><p>so much as a superior mind.</p><p>For such an assembly of wise men, it's always a consolation to be led</p><p>by a person whose intellectual stature is on par with their own. Thus each</p><p>one may have the occasional opportunity to shine in debate; and above all,</p><p>each one feels that he too may rise to the top. If Peter be boss today, then</p><p>why not Paul tomorrow?</p><p>3.11 THE EXCLUSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LEADER</p><p>This invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar</p><p>phenomenon that has recently become a real disgrace-namely, the</p><p>cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever</p><p>important decisions must be made, they always find themselves fortunate</p><p>in being able to hide behind the so-called majority!</p><p>In observing one of these political manipulators, one notices how he</p><p>begs the majority for their approval for whatever action he takes. He needs</p><p>to have accomplices, in order to shift responsibility to other shoulders</p><p>whenever it is convenient to do so. That's the main reason why this kind</p><p>of political activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage. At the</p><p>same time, it attracts inferior types; for a person who is not willing to accept</p><p>responsibility for his own actions, but is always seeking to hide, is a</p><p>cowardly scoundrel. Whenever a national leader comes from that low class</p><p>of politicians, evil consequences will soon follow. No one will then have</p><p>the courage to take a decisive step. They will submit to abuse and</p><p>defamation rather than rise up and take a stand. And thus nobody is left</p><p>7 Pericles (ca. 495 - 429 BC) was one of the great Athenian statesmen.</p><p>1 1 3</p><p>MEIN KAMPF</p><p>who is willing to risk his position and his career, if necessary, in support of</p><p>a determined line of policy.</p><p>One truth must always be kept in mind: the majority can never replace</p><p>the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice.</p><p>And just as a hundred blockheads don't equal one wise man, so a hundred</p><p>cowards are incapable of any heroic action.</p><p>The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the</p><p>greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity,</p><p>will come to place their immortal energies at the service of the nation. They</p><p>are so anxious that they find it hard to wait their turn . They stand in a long</p><p>line, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them, and</p><p>calculating the hours until their turn comes. They watch every change in</p><p>personnel, and they are grateful for every scandal that thins the ranks ahead</p><p>of them.</p><p>And if someone sticks to his stool too long, they consider this as almost</p><p>a breach of a holy pact of solidarity. They grow vindictive, and don't rest</p><p>until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over</p><p>his cosy berth back to the public. After that, he will have little chance of</p><p>getting another opportunity. Usually those creatures who have been forced</p><p>to give up their posts try to get in line again, unless they are hounded away</p><p>by the protests of the others.</p><p>The result of all this is that, in such a state, the succession of sudden</p><p>changes in public offices has a very troubling effect in general, one that may</p><p>easily lead to disaster. It's not only the ignorant and the incompetent person</p><p>who may fall victim to those parliamentary conditions; the genuine leader</p><p>may be affected just as much as the others, if not more so, whenever Fate</p><p>has placed a capable man in a leadership position. If the superior quality of</p><p>such a leader becomes recognized, it will result in a united front against</p><p>him-particularly if that leader, though not coming from their ranks, should</p><p>fall into the habit of intermingling with this exalted society. They want to</p><p>have only their own types as company, and they will quickly take a hostile</p><p>attitude towards any man who might show himself superior to them. Their</p><p>instinct, which is so blind in other ways, is very sharp in this respect.</p><p>The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class</p><p>steadily declines. One can easily predict how much the nation and state are</p><p>bound to suffer from such a condition-provided one doesn't belong to</p><p>that same class of 'leaders. '</p><p>The parliamentary regime in the old Austria was the purest form of this</p><p>institution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Naofumi, post: 47489, member: 39"] 3.10 THE DESTRUCTION OF THE IDEA OF LEADERSHIP Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honor? Shouldn't every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political gangster? And, on the other hand, doesn't every gangster feel the itch to 'play politics, ' seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but rather with an anonymous, unaccountable mob? Doesn't our parliamentary principle of majority rule necessarily lead to the destruction of the idea of leadership? Does anyone honestly believe that human progress originates in the brain of the majority, and not in the brain of the individual personality? Or may it be presumed that future human civilization can dispense with this as a condition of its existence? Or rather, doesn't this seem today to be more indispensible than ever? The parliamentary principle of majority rule rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so, it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature-though it must be admitted that this principle is not reflected in the decadence of our upper 1 0,000.6 The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in politics; under these circumstances, the situation doesn't call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favor of the majority. The situation appeals to small minds, and it attracts them accordingly. The narrower the spirit and knowledge of our leather-handlers, the more accurately can they assess their own situation. They will therefore be all the more inclined to praise a system that doesn't demand creative genius or even high-class talent, but rather the craftiness of an efficient town clerk. Indeed, they value this kind of petty craftiness more than the political 6 In other words, of the "1%". 1 1 2 CHAPTER 3 genius of a Pericles. 7 Such mediocrity never worries about responsibility. From the beginning, our parliamentarian knows that, whatever be the results of his ' statesmanship,' his end is already written in the stars; one day, he will have to clear out and make room for another equally great spirit. It's a sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows as the caliber of individual personality dwindles. That caliber will inevitably shrink as the individual politician increasingly depends upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the lackey of idiotic incompetents and big-mouths. And they in turn, being the representatives of the majority-and hence of stupidity-hate nothing so much as a superior mind. For such an assembly of wise men, it's always a consolation to be led by a person whose intellectual stature is on par with their own. Thus each one may have the occasional opportunity to shine in debate; and above all, each one feels that he too may rise to the top. If Peter be boss today, then why not Paul tomorrow? 3.11 THE EXCLUSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LEADER This invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon that has recently become a real disgrace-namely, the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions must be made, they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the so-called majority! In observing one of these political manipulators, one notices how he begs the majority for their approval for whatever action he takes. He needs to have accomplices, in order to shift responsibility to other shoulders whenever it is convenient to do so. That's the main reason why this kind of political activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage. At the same time, it attracts inferior types; for a person who is not willing to accept responsibility for his own actions, but is always seeking to hide, is a cowardly scoundrel. Whenever a national leader comes from that low class of politicians, evil consequences will soon follow. No one will then have the courage to take a decisive step. They will submit to abuse and defamation rather than rise up and take a stand. And thus nobody is left 7 Pericles (ca. 495 - 429 BC) was one of the great Athenian statesmen. 1 1 3 MEIN KAMPF who is willing to risk his position and his career, if necessary, in support of a determined line of policy. One truth must always be kept in mind: the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads don't equal one wise man, so a hundred cowards are incapable of any heroic action. The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will come to place their immortal energies at the service of the nation. They are so anxious that they find it hard to wait their turn . They stand in a long line, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them, and calculating the hours until their turn comes. They watch every change in personnel, and they are grateful for every scandal that thins the ranks ahead of them. And if someone sticks to his stool too long, they consider this as almost a breach of a holy pact of solidarity. They grow vindictive, and don't rest until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth back to the public. After that, he will have little chance of getting another opportunity. Usually those creatures who have been forced to give up their posts try to get in line again, unless they are hounded away by the protests of the others. The result of all this is that, in such a state, the succession of sudden changes in public offices has a very troubling effect in general, one that may easily lead to disaster. It's not only the ignorant and the incompetent person who may fall victim to those parliamentary conditions; the genuine leader may be affected just as much as the others, if not more so, whenever Fate has placed a capable man in a leadership position. If the superior quality of such a leader becomes recognized, it will result in a united front against him-particularly if that leader, though not coming from their ranks, should fall into the habit of intermingling with this exalted society. They want to have only their own types as company, and they will quickly take a hostile attitude towards any man who might show himself superior to them. Their instinct, which is so blind in other ways, is very sharp in this respect. The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class steadily declines. One can easily predict how much the nation and state are bound to suffer from such a condition-provided one doesn't belong to that same class of 'leaders. ' The parliamentary regime in the old Austria was the purest form of this institution. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Boards
/rps/ - Religion, Philosophy & Spirituality
The aryan man is superior culturally, they are the founders of civilization Sieg Heil
Top
