VMI better than the “movement.”
I’ve written about the issue of plagiarism before, and now I would like to cite comments on that topic made by the Virginia Military Institute. Thus I quote this website (proper credit given!), with the following excerpts (italicized bold emphasis added):
Plagiarism is dishonorable. It involves using the words, information, insights, or ideas of another without crediting that person through proper citation. Since authorship is ownership, using the intellectual property of others without credit is theft. Passing off another person’s work as your own is lying. You can avoid plagiarism by fully and openly crediting all sources used…
…Parallelism means paraphrasing material but keeping a source’s argumentation and paragraph structure. This is not acceptable. Not only words and phrases and sentences require footnotes. If you borrow someone else’s ideas, you must also acknowledge the fact by a footnote. Even if you cite another person’s ideas in your own words you must indicate this with a footnote or it constitutes plagiarism. Give credit where credit is due. You wouldn’t want people to steal your property – – don’t steal theirs. You will have to use other people’s discoveries and concepts to write your paper, but build on them creatively. Do not compromise your honor by failing to acknowledge clearly where your work ends and that of someone else begins.
In today’s corrupt, Judaized society, I’m sure that these principles, the invocation of honor, will be met with eye-rolling and snarky scorn. The same will hold within the “movement,” which is as Judaized as anything else (indeed, some plagiarizing writers who are the most critical of Jews tend to be the ones who themselves display Jewish-like behavior). In the “movement” we see the same lack of principle at work as we see in the general society – a society that the “movement” allegedly opposes: short-term convenience over long-term principle, doing what’s easy over doing what’s right, tactics always considered and strategy ignored, and a mocking attitude toward principles of behavior such as honor and loyalty that which were, at one time, essential components of White European Manhood.
There will be excuses of course. One can imagine it: “We are in a fight for survival! We can’t play by the rules when the Jews and Leftists do not! We can’t sacrifice White survival on the altar of honor!” Yes, indeed, one can imagine that very well, since we’ve all read it and heard it before.
But do codes of honor, such as what applies at military academies, really preach that behavior should be so rigid that one should choose national destruction with “honor” over survival depending upon more questionable behavior? No. Let’s not confuse means and ends. For a military officer, the End, the Objective, is (or should be) winning the war, defending the nation. So, yes, when the ultimate objective is at stake, when the prize is nothing less than what one has become an officer to defend, then one does, at that point, what’s required to achieve that objective. That’s a moment of supreme decision, a moment that you would want someone of sound character making that ultimate decision (more about that in a moment).
But, let us be honest. All the steps toward that ultimate objective are not “life or death” decisions. At each step, the individual will almost certainly be able to choose between two alternatives, BOTH of which would enable the individual to advance toward the goal. One alternative would consist of doing the right thing, being honorable, and displaying sound character, even if it takes a bit more effort. The other choice is taking the easy way out, the convenient short-cut, the more dishonorable way, sacrificing character for expediency. And let us be honest again: the “movement” today is far from the point of making supreme decisions for White racial survival, the “movement” today is in fact at the point in which “activists” engage in the daily decisions leading toward the far-away final objective, those every day steps along the path in which choices exist between doing what’s right and doing what’s merely easy and convenient. There’s no existential racial crisis at stake today in “movement” politics or in blog posting. Let’s be realistic, shall we?
Putting aside then the pompous blowhard excuses of “anything is required for racial survival!” we then ask: why do military academies put such an emphasis on honor, integrity, and character? Is that just some sort of antiquated nonsense of “dead White males?”
Actually, these academies train for, and select for, character as much as, or more, than they do for intelligence or military skill. And here is the reason why. An officer will need to lead men, including leading men into battle. An officer will be making life and death decisions. An officer will often be tempted between doing what’s right, what’s best for his men and for his country, or doing what’s easy, what’s convenient, what’s personally expedient and privately useful. An officer will need to distinguish between a brief, fleeting tactical advantage and long-term strategic goals. An officer may be faced between winning a battle and gaining personal glory or winning the war and safeguarding the nation. In more extreme cases, an officer will be faced with a choice between maximizing personal comfort, wealth, and security by turning traitor or sacrificing oneself for the nation. It stands to reason that you absolutely require officers of sound character, of firm moral principle – men who can be trusted to do the right thing, even if doing the right thing is more difficult than to cut corners when it is personally convenient. Who wants to be led into battle by the morally defective? By the disloyal? By the dishonorable? By the weak, who can’t be trusted to sacrifice a bit of effort to do things the right way? And, finally, when a supreme decision needs to be made, when survival depends on a possibly “unethical” action, who is better qualified to make that decision and to live or die by its consequences – the man of honor or the morally corrupt and selfish weakling?
Military academies value honor and integrity because, all else being equal, the honorable officer is the better officer, the more trustworthy, the one who has the moral stamina to survive the crucible of war without breaking, without committing treason for expediency, the one who will do the right thing, and display clear-thinking and courage in a crisis. The dishonorable officer, who “did what I had to do to get by,” will be the one to collapse under pressure, to turn traitor, to panic, to sacrifice long-term advantage for immediate gain and glory.
The same applies to the “movement.” Which is why it is so troubling that the despicable moral turd Andrew Hamilton is allowed to be an active and valued participant on “movement” forums. Well, I’m sure it’s convenient to plagiarize, and I’m sure it’s expedient to have a popular writer on staff despite continued questionable behavior. But it’s not the right thing to do, it’s not an existential issue of racial survival – footnoting articles is an issue of personal moral character, not of racial extinction – and there’s simply no excuse for it. And this is all relevant to “ethnic genetic interests” and racial nationalism, because it is this culture of convenience, the attitude of corner-cutting expediency, which has contributed to the failure and dysfunctional nature of the “movement” and has put our EGI in jeopardy.