Axiom: for a Surt (negro), a Muspelheimer (Jew) or a Skreal (no-Aryan -gypsy,arab etc) one legitimately possesses only what one can defend.
In other words, the only valid title to property is the ability to take it and prevent it from being taken away from you.
Now, this conception of a primate is as foreign to the fundamentally meritocratic, i.e. aristocratic, spirit of the Aryan as it is vitale to the souls of our occupants.
For us, it goes without saying that conquering a good by hard struggle or by hard work gives the right to its possession, and that it is in order to protect this right that society exists.
For them, no. In the mind of a Negro, a Jew or a Gypsy, all that one can take is one's own, and this is precisely why these people have never been able to create the shadow of a beginning of civilization: since work does not guarantee that one enjoys its fruits, what is the point of working? The one who works is necessarily a slave, that is, someone who, too weak to steal what he covets or keep what he owns, enters the service of someone stronger than himself, whom he asks to provide for his vital needs.
If blacks, Jews and gypsies always seek the proximity of the white man, it is simply to be where there is something to steal. But this proximity will never correct their conception of property, any more than all the world's speeches can prevent a Chinese from thinking that the scale has five notes.
It is, therefore, foolish to declare the nigger "bad", the Romano "vicious" or the Jew "evil" - they are what they are, and I don't know that cockroaches, tapeworms and lice are blamed for their essential nature: as with their humanoid equivalents, the trick is not to have any at home.
We must preserve the existence of our people and the future of white children.
In other words, the only valid title to property is the ability to take it and prevent it from being taken away from you.
Now, this conception of a primate is as foreign to the fundamentally meritocratic, i.e. aristocratic, spirit of the Aryan as it is vitale to the souls of our occupants.
For us, it goes without saying that conquering a good by hard struggle or by hard work gives the right to its possession, and that it is in order to protect this right that society exists.
For them, no. In the mind of a Negro, a Jew or a Gypsy, all that one can take is one's own, and this is precisely why these people have never been able to create the shadow of a beginning of civilization: since work does not guarantee that one enjoys its fruits, what is the point of working? The one who works is necessarily a slave, that is, someone who, too weak to steal what he covets or keep what he owns, enters the service of someone stronger than himself, whom he asks to provide for his vital needs.
If blacks, Jews and gypsies always seek the proximity of the white man, it is simply to be where there is something to steal. But this proximity will never correct their conception of property, any more than all the world's speeches can prevent a Chinese from thinking that the scale has five notes.
It is, therefore, foolish to declare the nigger "bad", the Romano "vicious" or the Jew "evil" - they are what they are, and I don't know that cockroaches, tapeworms and lice are blamed for their essential nature: as with their humanoid equivalents, the trick is not to have any at home.
We must preserve the existence of our people and the future of white children.