|
|
|
The ontology of the material: part 2, Being and multiplicity Introduction Mention ontology to even an educated fellow nationalist, and certainly to an activist, and he will very likely gaze unawares at the ground beneath his feet. After a few seconds the void of understanding will fill with something very like scorn. He will level his eyes at you and deliver himself of the opinion that that sort of thing has nothing to do with the world of struggle in Nature and politics that he knows and sees everywhere – the struggle which European Man is so demonstrably losing. Too detached from reality, too self-absorbing, he will say. Too many dancing angels. And then, to set you right, and quite without irony, he will remind you of the great existential plaint, the crisis of the crisis. While you are engaged in all this intellectual vanity, he will say, we Europeans are growing older and weaker by the day, our lands more lost to us, our family lines more negroidalised, the political class more traitorous (if that is possible), the bankers and corporate scum more rapacious, the Jews more audacious. You will see how the collective angst, unspoken by his people, unacknowledged amid the culture of greed and celebrity and political hype, is torrenting through him, defining him politically, driving him. What do we do? Now! Today! That is the question, de-Barded and anti-intellectual though it is. That is what he will want you, somehow, to answer. You will nod, and search for a way to explain that revolutions without founding ideas cannot sustain. “But supposing,” you say, “you get your call to political arms, or military if you prefer, and the people come to your side. You win. What do you do next? And why?” Radical liberal, conservative or nationalist, anyone who does not want simply to bring God to us and who looks into ontology in the Western canon for an answer to those two eternal questions has to negotiate a pair of formidable philosophical obstacles which lie across the path. The effect of these is especially disruptive for the nationalist. In the first case, it diverts his investigation back towards the teleological and, in the second, it provides false witness to who and what we are. In this second part of my essay I will restrict myself to addressing the first of these two problems, as a way of advancing the concept, seemingly counter-factual to many, of a materialist ontology. Being and multiplicity The first problem is that of the finite and the infinite, no less, and the emasculation of identity which proceeds from the common apprehension of the latter. At a superficial level, this emasculation is the real reason that nationalists complain of ontology’s lack of political agency, and the real reason that nationalist thinking romanticized in the 19th century and vaulted the heavens after myth, glory and heroism in the 20th. Both were flights from a flawed essential conclusion which militated an appeal to a non-reality. Let us decide here and now for the material, for experience, and for the definitely real. It is self-evident that human identity demands to be considered in ways appropriate to individuals and groups - that is, in ways recognising their multiplicity and difference. The predominant methods of considering, categorising and discriminating humans are, first, biological, then, as externalisation and superficiality take hold, socio-economic, religious, political, etc. So far so good for nationalists. But being is near-uniformly considered as the singularity of some unknowable meta-space, a universal substrate that is indivisible, prior, and, for faith-folk, endowing. Endowing or not, it swallows up all differentiation. Identity - self - cannot get hold of it and use it as a tool, as it is accustomed to using everything. It becomes, instead, the tool itself, a vessel to be filled. In its most complete and final relation to being, identity cannot hold that which differentiates even vessels, and is itself annihilated – at least until it separates and returns to its ordinary, fallen state of absence. Mysticism has held this to be the case for an extremely long time, though it is, of course, perfectly unclear how reliable religionists are on this or anything else. Nevertheless, a materialist must acknowledge that something significant for identity is happening here. If the infinite, the All, is claiming the whole of Man’s being in the final, ecstatic revelation, then that being must belong within infinity in every other conscious state, regardless of ordinariness. How can the materialist address such a conclusion, and remain a materialist? There are (at least) three points which he may make. Final value and the decision for life The first is that the “consideration” which we accord, respectively, to human difference and being needs, itself, to be considered. There can and should be an important, even dominant qualitative distinction to how we perceive of being. After all, it is not for nothing that obscurity rolls off the mystic tongue like fog on the Tyne, and not for nothing that Martin Heidegger invented an entire ontological lexicon in Being and Time. Heidegger’s lexicon is as much a comment on philosophy’s previous ontological exertions as it is on the particular nature of his subject. He sought to force us to think about being in a new way. But thinking, even Heidegger’s, can only ever model. It can never see directly. What’s more, the ordinary waking consciousness in which it is habituated is itself an obscured light. But there is one certain clarifier of human difference and of what is truly, naturally important, and for those who have a place for it, it cuts through everything. Nationalists, for whom the reality of ethnic dissolution is already disclosed, know something of final values. They know these values are existential - values of survival and continuity, of life and being. Nationalists also know (only too well) that these values are absent from the emotional responses of those still enmeshed in the little ontology of the liberal individual. Nationalism is defined by them, energised by them. Nationalists, ultimately, measure all politics and all culture by them. This particularity of nationalists obtains regardless of the imperfections of our ordinary waking consciousness. It is emotionally-centred but not instinctual. It is in the realm of the higher emotions. Its activation requires no input from thought. The emotions can’t use thought in that way, actually. They work too quickly. For the avoidance of doubt, final value is not racial consciousness, which, although it plainly carries implications for values, is simple awareness of the racial dimension. Likewise, final value is not ethnocentrism, which is a large precondition for nationalism and, therefore, for nationalism’s final value. It is part of that value, but it is not that value. Final value is the psychological end-product of nationalist thinking, and it is indicative of a consciousness of, and therefore seriousness about, oblivion. When everything else has been stripped away this is what is left singing in the ears. It and it alone makes the decision for life, including decisions to fight, to sacrifice. It is the final redoubt of nationalism, and its final testimony of truth. It is its comprehension of what is truly great. Never mind the striving for the Nietzschean bauble of glory, never mind palingenesis – mere pretence, affectation, both of them. This is the generative force of true heroism: that there shall be life regardless of cost to self. It is a force which abjures nothing from itself, no detail of present circumstance, and that is the source of its moral power. Naturally, it utterly disdains self-regard not only in terms of personal survival but also personal reward. It is how men should reason and stand when the flow of history necessitates, as it does today. Heidegger had two ideas which bear on final value. The first, which, in fact, brought him back to a single causal foundation for Dasein, is solicitude, concern or care for being (Fürsorge). In offensively scientistic mode, one could possibly associate this at the group level with ethnocentricity. However, its claimed foundational character begs equation with that other, markedly empirical starting point of genetic interest. But at this point infinity and immateriality and the irredeemable propositionalism of Western philosophy step in. The carer for being and the carer for gene interests reveal themselves to be facing different ways, and the equation falters. But I’m not going to expand on this now. EGI is the last of the three matters the materialist can speak about in defence of his claim to difference and multiplicity in being. We will come to it shortly. Heidegger’s second idea is especially germaine, and is Being-towards-death (Sein-zum-Tode). This discriminates between an inauthenticising escapism from physical (ontic) death and an authenticising comportment towards death. It depends on being conscious of the possibility that, eventually, existence itself will certainly become impossible. The beauty and value and downright necessity of existence, of raw, visceral life, then soars in our estimation and – pardon the logical fallacy – this ought to trigger the decision to put away escapism and seek an authentic relation to being. For Heidegger, this “ought value” is the beginning of engagement in an existential project. In the European circumstance today, for Being-towards-death we have the general, on-going disclosure of the reality of demographic replacement and ethnic dissolution. The “ought value” which should materialise out of that disclosure is nationalism’s final value. Under its imperative we “ought” to create an existential project in the real political and ideational world - the liberal thought-world in which we are enmeshed and out of which the cultural component of human personality is formed - of transformation to a world informed by an ontologically-coherent and freeing, life-giving politics of nation. But the stubborn auxiliary “ought” applies. By itself, final value does not move us one inch beyond the activist’s conundrum: What do you do next? And why? I should add that Being-towards-death is the inherent condition of Nature herself, since she is a process of survival against the oblivion of Time/Entropy. The final value reveals nationalism in the fullness of itself as the politics of Nature, and the pointer to right and good for all Europe’s children. I should also add that Heidegger made a point of differentiating among ways of being. In addition to his qualitative analysis of authenticity he also proposed a locative scheme. He identified environment (Umwelt) where one is “Being-in”, the connective universe (Mitwelt) where one is “Being-with”, and, of course, the inner- or self-world (Eigenwelt). In his essay Freedom’s Racial Imperative, Michael O’Meara makes great play of Mitwelt. I find a danger in this kind of relativised, horizontal differentiation that discussion of it will inevitably involve into characterisation, and therefore inauthenticity. In thinking about Mitwelt it becomes more important than ever to focus on ontology’s single, seminal point of reference, for the authentic being of a group of beings can be found in no other approach. To return to where we began, nationalism’s final value is not ontology’s only final value. Faith, which makes a nexus of the higher emotions of piety, devotion, reverence, awe, humility, etc, also claims these. In Christianity, the final value is eternal life in the hereafter. But it is the value attached to what (truly) constitutes the esoteric – that is, the value of presence or consciousness towards being - which most closely mirrors nationalist values. For, just as the nationalist must fear and mourn the dissolution of his people and desire their health and strength and life in perpetuity, and will discriminate in his decisions accordingly, so the esoterist fears life-time lost to absence, to “not-being”, to illusion, and desires to live in the moment and to know truth of the self and of all things. There is a unity here from which the nationalist thinker may draw important conclusions about mind and matter, about the intersection of the physical world and the moment of human presence. One day. For now, it is only true that, other than Heidegger himself (if he can be claimed), nationalist intellectualism has produced no serious ontological reflection at all. In the latter half of the 20th century, the French radical individualist tradition alone has produced Derrida, Althusser, Foucault, Lacan, Deleuze, and Badiou, among others. The latter two devoted themselves to demonstrating, in differing mathematical and rational ways, the principles of multiplicity and difference, thereby claiming them, ridiculously, for the liberal tradition. Now it’s time to move this post on. We nationalists all know final value. It lets us discriminate for consciousness on an ontological basis. But it does not disclose multiplicity in being. There is, though, a second point a materialist can raise when confronted by the claim to singularity. Identities and their respective being Ontology is really not difficult, let alone impenetrable, for any reasonably contemplative person. Just as the final ontological value can be understood by any sincere nationalist, so all the rest is within our personal experience – if it is true, of course. This is true. At some time, perhaps many times in adult life, everyone without exception experiences the inner Helios rising. It need not have anything to do with an “authenticising comportment” or fifteen years sitting cross-legged, palms up, in the sand dunes on some Californian coastline, or experimenting with H in a toilet cubicle at 5.00am on a cool London morning. It may not come strongly. Its coming may not be much understood. It will be accidental, cued by some unexpected physical or emotional association – cresting a hill, perhaps, and finding the world falling away before one, or coming across something that carries meaning from the distant past. Something will come back to one. And it will come as an unconcealment – what is there now was there before, was always there. It is, if not eternal return, a return of the eternal. Consciousness sharpens. The field of sight may gain a new depth, beginning at the surface of one’s own skin. An awareness of the process of breathing or the small muscle movement of the face may obtain. The attentive focus recrudesces, and the old, habitual mental immersion in otherness suddenly seems impossibly foreign, which it is. In this peculiarly attenuating moment, what was thought and said before, what was so firmly espoused or rejected, fought for or against, desired, feared ... all that is stilled, along with that stranger who disappeared into the thinking and speaking, espousing and fighting. He is not, but for now, at least, “I am”. Heidegger called this “the step back into the essence of metaphysics” and spoke of “roads” and “ways” for its onward journey. But we are engaged in an exercise in a common essential truth, not in mysticism. As such, the step is simply right - a coming home of one’s Nature-given sense of being, from which we thinking apes are so divorced in our ordinary waking state. And if we are divorced as people, we are divorced as peoples. But here’s the rub. Being belongs to all organic life … to every living thing, from the strangest bacteria in some hydrothermal vent or sub-glacial lake to the future genius born somewhere among Europeans today. All living things make being and have being. It is not the other way round somehow. It does not become the other way around just in Man’s case because he has evolved an intellectual faculty and higher emotions. We are in Nature with all of Nature, and we are not an exception to Nature. All is multiplicity. In this way, being is Nature’s cumulative constant. I hold the view that animals are, within their own bounds, constantly true to their being. But we men are not constantly true to our being, except in the special moment I have described. We are fallen in the significant respects – the subject of part 3 of this essay. Therefore, we alone experience that inner divorce, and this, of course, is the tragedy of the human condition. Nonetheless, while we have life, that is our moment of potential for the realisation of being, and there is no other. Each holds being, therefore, in relation to the self, and it is the unconcealment of this being, and not just the glory of her raiment, which is Nature’s sublimest part. Our inner Helios rising is our witness of that sublimity. To refute this argument with faith … to say being is from a god ... is good only if the saying of it advances the wholly materialist making of adaptive life choices (the material being distinctive genes, of course). And likewise, therefore, to objectivise it as the universal, indivisible, prior, and endowing substrate – that, too, is good only if it enhances fitness. Faith is there in our emotional faculties because genes for it have enhanced fitness and been selected accordingly. The pre-frontal cortex, where all those higher emotions occur, is a product of natural selection like anything else. The pre-frontal cortex is also not on holiday during the being-episode, the moment of presence. It is functioning as always, as it must, and the faith nexus sings as sweetly in the ear of the risen man as ever it did in his predecessor’s (and soon to be successor’s, for presence turns constantly towards absence unless it is attended to actively). That is how the being-as-singular, how immateriality, enters metaphysical thinking, and not from any bona fide witness of an ontotheological reality. There has never been such witness outside of religious thought. But if Western metaphysics is to avoid appeals to an immaterial authority it must find for multiplicity. And to be consistent it must, in turn, acknowledge that objective reality cannot be known or experienced – not even in the moment of ecstatic revelation and annihilation of the self that I mentioned at the beginning. Everything is perception. Of what is, we can know and experience only the reality of our own being in the world, and that reality is informed and coloured by, and situated within, the reality of Man’s being and of the being of kinds of men – Heidegger’s Mitwelt, as far as it goes. So this is my principal argument for multiplicity. There are certainly others. One is very familiar to readers of this blog. Everything in Man, nothing outside Man One day the winter before last I met MR’s resident geneticist and Heidegger hobbyist “Dasein” in the coffee lounge of a Central London hotel. We had a couple of hours to talk, during which he explained that Frank Salter’s thesis on genetic interests held profound implications for Heidegger’s ontology. Heidegger himself, he said, would have been obligated to overcome his anti-scientism and incorporate them into his thinking if he had known about them. We have (the far from uncomplicated) task today of correcting that blameless omission. The signal character of Salter’s thesis is that it is ethical as well as empirical. As such, it challenges philosophy’s liberal perceptions of race and ethnicity from a novel angle. Furthermore, since reproductive interests exist as described and constitute the ultimate interest in organic life (ie, continuity), they should have some place in ontology. After all, is not every ethical question also an ontological question? To maintain any system of ethics at all, and avoid the slide into utility, arbitraryness, relativism, and nihilism, must not there be some testable and solid basis to ethic? Here and there you can find echoes of the evolutionary in Being and Time, as for example in this, from Section 64:
Well, we uncouth Darwinians and materialists know that conscience is but another nexus of higher emotions, which include guilt, and which evolved through natural selection in a complex social environment. Surely we can find our way to a linkage of an evolutionary analysis of human nature to the ontological analysis of human being? Of course, this is the hermetic realm of propositionalism. But you never know what encouragements might turn up, like this in Section 59:
Heidegger the anti-scientist did not mention evolutionary science in his brief list of “everyday understanding of conscience”. But then he published Being and Time in 1927, and EO Wilson did not publish Sociobiology until 1975. In truth, Martin Heidegger never really resiled from religious thinking. As I said earlier, one of the clearest examples of this in Being and Time is his exclusive reservation of being for Man on the basis that, alone among all Nature’s creatures, we possess a consciousness (Dasein) informed by “the phenomenon of care”. Let’s see what happens when we test this thesis. Obviously, animals have no use for “anxiety about the potentiality-for-Being” because they are not “falling into the they” - they are not sinking in absence. On the contrary, they live with one ear and both nostrils firmly in the present (albeit it for the usual reason). With animals, the maintenance of alertness, of presence to threat, is already care for survival. Presence, then, is evolutionarily adaptive. Absence, for an animal, would be profoundly maladaptive. So now we can say that when any organic being is present and cares to survive it performs an act of synthesis. Biology and being are together. Man is not less than an animal in this regard simply because he has evolved a thinking faculty and higher emotions. Actually, by extension we can say much more in his case because he has a whole intellectual history predicated on the non-correspondence and irreconcilability of biology and being. A man who is present to his being and who makes adaptive (ie, ethical) life-choices reconciles these two worlds of thought – the worlds of truth and beauty, or experience and thought, or empiricism and idealism. In that moment everything, perhaps, can be spoken of together - at least until he returns to his ordinary, fallen state of absence. Why not? I will repeat that because it is quite a large claim! Truly conscious life-choices bring together in human presence biology and being. Or ethics and ontology, or Salter and Heidegger. Our limitation, unrelenting and intractable, is that “Dasein is falling into the they”, and that is the doorway through which all confusion and self-estrangement, all duality and fracture within, all religious presumption, all speculative teleology, and all philosophical propositionalism enters. Such is man. But at least, if we accept the syncretic proposition, we can say that EGI and its dictum that fitness redounds to the group and is a moral concern of the group, is ontologically valid. We can say that genes and genetic variation are not locked in perpetuity in some universe where philosophy cannot be discussed, and vice versa, and where we can only demonstrate being to our individual self within the paradigm of absence ? presence, and can’t slot it into a genetic framework at all. The extent of our unity is boundless. As is the degree of our essential multiplicity. When EGI is admitted to the unity of human presence, multiplicity is the condition of human being. And we know EGI in all its uncompromising materiality to be a human truth. With that, I will now leave this investigation of difference and multiplicity. Part 3 will address the second “formidable obstacle” that stands across the path to a nationalist ontology, and that obstacle is the question of the subject. Comments:2
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:50 | # Bravo! However, William’s connundrum about the salmon and the bee still exists. Presence in animals is estremely proximate. The bee is ever alert to the well-being of the hive, however, is entirely absent if there was a threat to the entire race of bees, if you will. If bees in general were facing extinction it would not change the behaviour of the hive. Thus bees, salmon, lions and bears are absent and present simultaneously. How can that be if absence is maladaptive? It works because the “the phenomenon of care” is reserved for the genetically most similar. However, humans are not salmon or bees and thus Williams suggests
3
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:38 | # Grim,
Yes, but it is titled a project, not a production. Desmond,
Well, let’s change bees for Modern Africans and then see what we get. Modern Africans are evolved for a high-r existence not because they are conscious that a lot of baby-making is a functioning strategy against the threats of disease and drought, but because the genes of the more sexualised ladies and gentlemen survived and were passed on. The “choice” to get on down in the long grass with Miss Sub-Saharan Africa 15,050 BC wasn’t made in consciousness of threat or strategy. But the fitness gain redounded to the race nonetheless, and the race prospered. In any case, as regards presence “we can know and experience only the reality of our own being in the world.” 4
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:18 | # Mention ontology to even an educated fellow nationalist, and certainly to an activist, and he will very likely gaze unawares at the ground beneath his feet. After a few seconds the void of understanding will fill with something very like scorn. He will level his eyes at you and deliver himself of the opinion that that sort of thing has nothing to do with the world of struggle in Nature and politics that he knows and sees everywhere – the struggle which European Man is so demonstrably losing. Too detached from reality, too self-absorbing, he will say. Too many dancing angels. And then, to set you right, and quite without irony, he will remind you of the great existential plaint, the crisis of the crisis. While you are engaged in all this intellectual vanity, he will say, we Europeans are growing older and weaker by the day, our lands more lost to us, our family lines more negroidalised, the political class more traitorous (if that is possible), the bankers and corporate scum more rapacious, the Jews more audacious.(GW)
On the off-chance that you might be, how many converts to the task of preserving white EGI do you expect ontological nationalism to make? (Very sophisticated essay, however.) And can we infer that Dasein is British (not strictly, but it seems more likely than not)? I’m disappointed with myself: being a ‘narcissist’ (according to pinhead ‘bubba’), I had assumed he was American. He expresses himself too clearly to be European (let alone Heidegerian! surprises, surprises) ... (Thanks, btw, Dasein for your interesting suggestion some weeks ago of Scotland as the White Zion. I’m sceptical, because it’s not a sovereign polity (yet); does not seem to have many ethnonationalists among its people; and yet has an old culture and history - I think the deracinated ‘new territories’ of North America and Australia - or portions carved out of them - are riper for ideologico-demographic conquest than any old nation would be. But whatever works has my support!) 5
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:34 | # GW - very interesting and thought provoking. I look forward to the next essay. I agree that for the both physicalist and the non-physicalist, for the monist and the dualist, questions of ontology are inescapable. Of course multiplicity and universality are at odds, but what of the ‘false-multiplicity’ of the liberal worldview? Free floating individuals in an ever-expanding sea of contracts and consumption, wants and lifestyles. Might there be a distinction draw from a life-sustaining adaptive/functional worldview that values genuine multiplicity within a set of interconnected and interdependent relationships and one that is nothing more than the gloom of the grave? Clearly questions of conflicting optimization goals enters into biology – trade-offs in life-history theory etc., but also in politics and culture. One cannot have all possible things, all the time. Hyper-liberalism certainly must be functional for some agents, some groups. But whom and why – and moreover why is it so successful in defining the limits of possible thought for the vast majority of both intellectuals and the everyday people that might think about such things? 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:39 | # I shall try to find some time over the next few days to give this essay the close reading it merits (and I guess I’ll have to read its predecessor, which I’d likewise only skimmed). However, after skimming it, I can only say that the rabid materialist really ought to go ‘whole hog’. God is the ground of meaning. No God, no values of any kind, including life itself, let alone tribe, nation, etc. Put another way, without God, you are simply projecting your own values and concerns onto Being as such - and the globalist does the same with his opposing preferences. This may as a matter of fact be ontologically true (or it may not), but didn’t an old partisan opine that the purpose of philosophy was not only or primarily to understand the world but to change it? And is pursuing this mode of analysis really the best way to change the world in accordance with your (our) preferences? 7
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:13 | # For example, this is what we should focus on: I don’t think O(nt)N(at) will offer sufficient motivation to do anything about arresting our racial plight. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:07 | # Leon,
Yes, of course.
I expect nothing. However, I would like to cause some competent thinkers to look to their truths and to those I am trying to talk about, and to come away from their past ideas and begin to think creatively. That has been my aim for a long period of years, since well before I started this blog.
This entire essay - all 4,000 words of it - addresses the absence of ground as I understand it. Ground is a construct of the faith-informed intellect. If one’s intellect is not informed by faith, no ground can be constructed. Not a single man or woman among the faithless thirty per cent or so of Europeans can faithfully construct this ground. They can only mimic faith in someone else’s construction.
If we are to remake our life free of liberalism (in the general sense of a formative thought-world) we do need to start thinking foundationally. This is the real revolution, Leon.
I know. “Too detached from reality, too self-absorbing, he will say. Too many dancing angels.” 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:31 | # Graham,
The radical individualist wing of liberal thought endeavours to replace God the Creator with Man the Creator, but it is not ontologically consistent, and we are left with many more questions than answers, including why Man-as-God is at war with God’s creation. It seems that the only statement of omnipotence which the new self-authorial Man-God can make is destructive (although one needs to add the caveat that much of the destructiveness originates in the philosophical adumbrations of our Elder Brothers in Frankfurt and elsewhere). Actually, critique of the radical individualist paradigm, and of liberalism generally, is the one thing that nationalist thinking has got completely right - particularly continental European nationalist thinking. But there comes a point at which critique is no longer enough. The European New Right and Judeo-centric American WN, race-realism, and the Christian right are all essentially reactionary critics, and that spark of philosophical life which is really needed for change at the paradigmatic level is simply not there, imho. 10
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:56 | # GW yes I agree, in the main, that one must move from critique to a positive project. As I discussed over our email correspondence I doubt that institutional Christianity can or would have any substantive and foundational role as the sociological/cultural basis for an anti-liberal politics and, even if it did play a part, really cannot be at its center. And while ethnocentric concerns/issues are of importance they are not exhaustive of the deeply problematic paradigm of individualistic liberalism, but rather one of its most pronounced symptoms. And you are right that, to be, first one must exist and ultimately to care for the all the things that facilitated that existence. As for the question as to the ‘practical’ use-value – I can hear already the calls for neo-Nazi techo raves in my mind – this level of thought is not in the first instance even for the activists and political foot-soldiers, rather it is for the strata of organic intellectuals to better understand an anti-liberal worldview as deeply and profoundly as possible. It is from this new and emerging ‘deep ideology’ that the secondary issues of policies and strategies can be formulated and not the other way around. In terms of evolutionary biology it is the distinction between ultimate and proximate mechanisms/causes. One final thought, scientific ‘racism’ is not enough to critique or understand the failings of liberalism as the project of modernity. On that front, really it could be ‘objectively’ superior little green men with IQ’s of 200+ taking over my society – I would still not want it. The issue at a politico-sociological level is that I do not wish to go from being in the overwhelming majority ‘in-group’ to one which approaches anything like non-majoritarian status, for obvious functional reasons. 11
Posted by Christian M on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:38 | # Paraphrased from Horus the Avenger: Whites are the only people in history who have ever asked the question: “Is life worth living?” Whites are the only people in history to answer this question by saying “No.” 12
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:14 | # Guessedworker, The same can be applied to 13th century England. There was no consciousness of threat, but certain individual traits accumulated a reproductive differential that not only benefited but fundamentally changed the race incidentally. However, go forth and multiply is not the advice either you or Salter are providing. It is constantly being alleged that the English are facing genocide. The question you and Salter are posing is how do you inspire the English to act in a group interest to stem the tide of extirpation when there is no evolved tendency to do so.? How are the bees encouraged to recognise the threat and then act outside of the hive? It is here that the human capacity to strive beyond the direct action of natural selection is to be found. Unless the strategy is changed and you see the solution to the impending genocide as one of go forth and multiply? Which in and of itself is not a bad strategy. Amalek:
13
Posted by danielj on Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:39 | # Indeed. One of Desmond’s best comments. If the English and the Germans fail to survive and perish in this hellish nightmare the white race has little prospects for surviving this dark age. Nobody else is in the condition to pull us through in Europe. 14
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:54 | # Discourse methodically shapes the objects of which it speaks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKQdJCOjLlE&feature=youtube_gdata_player 15
Posted by Guest Lurker on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:36 | #
As an aside, I just returned from Germany today after spending a month there, predominantly in Bavaria. The last time I visited the place was 20 years ago. My god, how that place has changed in 20 years. I guess I shouldn’t be shocked, but when you observe it up close, it’s truly disturbing. Even the smallest villages seem to have minorities in them- frequently negroes. They have left no stone unturned. 20 years ago I was perturbed when I discovered so many Germany girls cavorted with negroes. Today that has borne fruit in the many mulattoes one witnesses throughout the land. As your travel throughout the country by train and it stops even in small villages, you will frequently run across negroes or Turks either boarding the train or exiting it, even in such small and apparently still pristine looking places. My father and I visited nearby Branau in Austria as well. Even there, we came across an interracial couple with a frizzy haired mutant. That especially struck me. Whereas here in the states the blacks just use white girls sexually and move on, the blacks in Germany are actually marrying these women and settling down to have families with them. Most of these seem to be charcoal black Africans. I guess they’re doing their bit to “integrate” rather than creating the parallel societies that many of the the Germany faux right bemoan the muslims are doing. I think I witnessed more interracial “families” in Germany in 1 month than I do in the US in 1 year. The bigger cities are not what they once were. I recall talking to others who had traveled there about the time I visited Europe 20 years ago. The consensus was Germany was so clean, you could eat off of the floor. Not anymore. Towns like Nuremberg are awash in graffitti and filth..and naturally German women parading with their negroes and their mulatto offspring. Word apparently has gotten around that Germany is the land of milk and honey. There was a news program on Germany language and integration courses for Bulgarian and Romanian gypsies. Gypsies are generally scorned in Eastern Europe where the people, men and women, won’t have anything to do with them. But they asked one Romanian gypsy whether he missed his relatives in the Balkans. He stated no, and that he would stay in Germany. When asked what integration meant to him, he answered that it meant “togetherness” and finding a nice German girl to marry. And why shouldn’t he aspire to this, when he observes German women spawning their coco abominations? 16
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:38 | #
As you indicate, ontology is something very very few think about in any meaningful way. So really the question is of elite -who they are. An elite can corral the masses to war over Jerusalem or it can corral them into the glue factory. We are ruled over -And we are ruled. That is a part of ontology that may be left out of even those who consider such things. Which is to say (frankly) politics is irrelevant. Because,
It’s not politics that will drive Jr. back to the country. So philosophy, in such matters, comes down to authority. I bring this up because I recently re-read Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and for the first time it occurred to me that Tolkien was making a very pointed juxtaposition between power and authority, rather than “good and evil”. Which is to say, power does not equal authority, though authority does equal power. So the start of ontology in this context might be to ask the question, who among us will or can speak and act with authority on behalf of us? Who will declare to Jr. his ‘divine duty’ and his moral right to go back to the country and reclaim his heritage? Ontology, really, starts with an elite. Who and what they are and represent will determine our future, if we have one. ... 17
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:10 | # Guest Lurker, Here is where the need for authoritarianism comes in. Idiots like Graham Lister, Jimmy Marr, Dirty Bulshitter and other riff-raff who plague WN, want economic communitarianism, a socially as well as economically fatal policy. Nationalists want social communitarianism, where a man is fee to dispose of his property as he sees fit, but where the gene pool is considered a collective good (as it is). Actually, that sounds pretty much like the old USA, with its “one drop rule”, and nearly perfect property rights. I wonder if the conjunction between racism, capitalism and ultimate national power is correlative or causal? 18
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:36 | # Obviously the confluence and combination of racism, capitalism, and Christian values has worked extremely well in propelling the white race to the top. Unfortunately the Cultural-Marxists have been extremely successful at the chipping away of all three pillars. Hence, as a result of their success, we are witnessing the demise of the Western Culture and the attendent genocide of its people. Of course I’m not the only one who finds it very odd that most so-called “WNs” (wittingly or unwittingly?) ally themselves with the cultural-Marxists. Which brings us to the crucial question: Are most so-called “WNs” inherently stupid?........ or just easily brainwashed? Or is there something else at work here that compels “WNs” to promote anti-Western ideologies thus become perenial losers? 19
Posted by curious ... on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:31 | #
Some interesting quotage with regard to that ....
... and then:
20
Posted by curious ... on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:38 | # What if that is all we are waiting for—some politician to fall backwards into opposing the narrative in some spectacular fashion and find in it their political advantage? 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:54 | # The used hypos that litter your beard tend to give the game away, Soren. Dasein, I look forward to your comment. I am trying to provoke better minds to venture onto this territory. In O’Meara’s 2006 essay he stopped short of making any creative effort. We have to do that, in my view. 22
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:03 | #
I’ll put the question to you, Why do you care about Nordic preservation? Why do you care if there are yet Nordic people once you are dead and your consciousness has been reduced to oblivion? “Self-interest” is not a satisfactory answer as once you are dead, at least as you believe, your self will be no more. 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 18 Jun 2011 14:11 | # The onto-nationalist cares about Nordic preservation in the here and now. It’s not primarily about the individual considered as a creature alone, but about the individual psychologically identifying with something larger than himself, with the well-being of that thing a precondition of his own well-being, even if the thing’s well-being is projected into a much greater future than the individual will experience. Reasonably expecting my race and even my nation (it is unusual perhaps for an American to be concerned with blood and soil preservation) to endure brings me a certain psychic contentment now (though these days it’s the opposite situation which mostly impacts my psyche). Is this rational? Perhaps not - I don’t know. Is playing chess? I enjoy the latter. But seeing my race dishonored bothers me; contemplating its future discontents bothers me still more. So even if there is no philosophical justification for concerning oneself with Nordic preservation, it may be considered psychologically rational, if one’s psyche is oriented towards nationalism. That sounds a bit circular, but I don’t think it is. The fundamental theologico-ethical issue in all this is less whether God wishes for the preservation of biologically pure races (perhaps He does, though I suspect perfect indifference on His part), than whether it is allowable for men to concern themselves with such matters as racial preservation at all, and, if ‘yes’, the scope of moral action divinely permitted to actualize the requisite conditions for such preservation. This latter question is what interests me among the philosophical aspects of our struggle (in part because it obviously has a very practical aspect, but also because I believe real progress can be made towards answering it. I’m not sure discussions of ontology (or metaphysics or even epistemology) actually make much unquestionable progress. The purpose of ontology, I think, is to investigate the nature of Being, in the process, it is hoped, coming to some correct conclusions about reality. Onto-nationalism, which I do not understand very well (in either substance or purpose), seems to be about demonstrating that concern for EGI is integral to the fullest development of human personality. That is, that Western modernity made some basic errors in its understanding of the human condition, errors which the onto-nationalist seeks to identify (and later expunge), and that these errors possessed an inner logic, the intellectual working out of which has culminated in the cult of ‘diversity’, whose practical realization now not only threatens the survival of our race (and for me, therefore, our inherited civilization), but which leaves us whites, as individuals, profoundly alienated from what ought to be our true selves (that is, how we ought to be in the world, and understand the world). I don’t doubt but that is a gross simplification of onto-nationalism. Perhaps if I studied Heidegger (or 20th century Continental philosophy more broadly) I would grasp its deeper subtleties, the relevance of which to our time-sensitive political (and evolutionary) struggle still seems remote. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Jun 2011 15:25 | # Leon, In the next couple of weeks I will write up the conclusion to this essay, which will deal with the elements of the personal that are absent here - which absence you are responding to. In general, however, you should understand the ontological approach to nationalism to be primarily concerned with the development of a new and truthful world. It is not a critique of effects of Jewish liberal/neoliberal ideology in our experience of life today. It is prior to that in its focus. We try to begin at the purest part of the spring. 25
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 18 Jun 2011 23:14 | # Aristotle held that the whole is necessarily prior to the parts, to a polis however this ‘whole’ or collective political community would need to have both homogeneous and heterogeneous qualities. Aristotle wrote: “It is true that unity is to some extent necessary, alike in a household and a polis; but total unity is not. There is a point at which a polis, by advancing in unity, will cease to be a polis: there is another point, short of that, at which it may still remain a polis, but will none the less come near to losing its essence, and will thus be a worse polis. It is as if you were to turn harmony into mere unison, or to reduce a theme to a single beat.” Every political form can be said to rest at some distinct coordinate on the continuum of identity and difference. Just as there can be no absolute identity between parts and whole – ontological fusion – there also cannot be complete “differentiation” or non-identity, for then we could no longer even speak meaningfully of a society or community. Liberal thought based on the fiction of radically autonomous subjects, pursing maximally individualistic goals, ignores this insight. 26
Posted by anon on Sun, 19 Jun 2011 01:50 | # Graham, You and Aristoteles just blew my effing mind. Every time someone quotes the latter that occurs, yet when I pick him up to read, I’m blown away rather by how bone-dry it is. 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:21 | #
It’s because it will be a big collective “fuck you” from the grave to all who sought to destroy the Great Race from all who sought to preserve it. I want it to survive because they wanted it to survive and I am of them. It still does not change Williams point that ethnic nepotism is not an evolved trait but also that self-interest has given people the ability to “espouse remote and inclusive ideals far removed from the selfishness that gave rise to the power to do so.” Yes it stems from biology but it is ‘beyond the direct action of natural selection’. 29
Posted by anon on Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:23 | # Gee Dubya, You may find this of worth - a long debate between Dugin and Olavo, the Brazilian “traditionalist” neocon. Someone posted it at OccidentalDissent. 30
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:11 | # Perhaps what the liberal ontology of the isolated self-made individual misses was the ontological implications of Darwinism. For Darwin, Homo sapiens was not qualitatively different, biologically and evolutionarily speaking from other animal species. This assertion of biological continuity could only imply a significant refutation of traditionally understood Judeo-Christian onto-theology. The revolutionary significance of Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’ lay here, in its systematic, empirically grounded decoupling of human being from divine being. Darwin essentially conformed what Pythagoras had believed several thousand years previously that human beings and animal beings are ontologically similar. 31
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:14 | # And Leon Haller - I’m trash? Really? I notice all you can do is offer insults - you have nothing of any intellectual or political substance to say, especially on environmental or socio-economic matters. Do you really think economists do not make prescriptive recommendations and have no ideological assumptions? That markets don’t have negative downsides? Moreover I understand where you are coming from (and I don’t accept it) but you seem to get very angry if anyone dares not to accept your ‘wisdom’. It seems your world-view is little more developed than Gordon Gecko (greed is the ultimate good) with some racism thrown in. Hardly inspirational for any moderately thoughtful person is it dear chap? Little bit of a hard sell perhaps? But carry on because you have all been doing so well in achieving your political goals, yes? Personally I do not conceptualise myself as a ‘WN’ - in my mind that brings up images of skinheads, people with a Nazi fetish, and of individuals that think reading ‘Sociobiology’ makes them experts in evolutionary biology and genetics. Which it does not. I am centrist, ethnocentric communitarian and moderate nationalist. Not really down with the whole love of militarism/fascism et al., of the far right. But I do believe in persevering our European homelands and peoples. Even if they are, in your mind, ‘socialist hellholes’. But the politics will be particular to each society. I’ll make a little wager that Denmark will be in much better shape - ethnically and in quality of life terms, than the USA, in 20 years time. Well it already is and isn’t predicted to have a 50%+ non-Euro population in the blink of a historical eye. But you enjoy Mexifornia. And what is all this 5th rate ‘racial’ theology crap about? God wants races to survive – oh really what a knock down argument that is…NOT. And you dare to assume you’re an ‘intellectual giant’ - it’s not so much delusions of grandeur more of adequacy I would say. 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:22 | #
But they were, for Darwin, qualitatively different on an evolutionary scale; thus the title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin’s position, in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex is essentially you cannot be conscious of that of which you are not conscious of and thus he says of a supreme being…
He continues…
Once man’s self-awareness reached an intellectual level where he was curious about his being and existence a belief in spiritual agencies then arose. In other words Darwin believes that spirituality or faith, if you will, requires the prerequisite of consciousness and consciousness for Darwin required a high intellect which he believed was sexually selected; thus the title of the book: The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 33
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:14 | # Graham: Good ‘God’! , how you Darwinists butcher both reality and history to support of your novelist thinker.
34
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:32 | # Desmond:
A important, ‘one of a kind’ and yet ample observation, found only in Darwins groundbreaking work. 35
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20 | # Our cognitive abilities obviously are different from any other animal. Biology is both a science of similarities and differences. What I meant about ontological similarities between humans and other animals is that we do not have a slice of specific ‘God stuff’ in us; nor are we from without the natural order. Humans are part of that continuum of animal life, in fact of all life. Post-Darwin we cannot reasonably believe, without massive qualifications, the simple story that we are ‘divine beings’ thrown from the Garden of Eden into the lowly natural world. Agree that sexual selection was a crucial factor in the evolution of our brains and cognitive abilities along with the highly enriched social world of early hominids a.k.a the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis. http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/11/machiavellian-intelligence-hypothesis.html 36
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:42 | # And Leon Haller - I’m trash? Really? I notice all you can do is offer insults - you have nothing of any intellectual or political substance to say, especially on environmental or socio-economic matters. Do you really think economists do not make prescriptive recommendations and have no ideological assumptions? That markets don’t have negative downsides? Moreover I understand where you are coming from (and I don’t accept it) but you seem to get very angry if anyone dares not to accept your ‘wisdom’. It seems your world-view is little more developed than Gordon Gecko (greed is the ultimate good) with some racism thrown in. Hardly inspirational for any moderately thoughtful person is it dear chap? Little bit of a hard sell perhaps? But carry on because you have all been doing so well in achieving your political goals, yes? Personally I do not conceptualise myself as a ‘WN’ - in my mind that brings up images of skinheads, people with a Nazi fetish, and of individuals that think reading ‘Sociobiology’ makes them experts in evolutionary biology and genetics. Which it does not. I am centrist, ethnocentric communitarian and moderate nationalist. Not really down with the whole love of militarism/fascism et al., of the far right. But I do believe in persevering our European homelands and peoples. Even if they are, in your mind, ‘socialist hellholes’. But the politics will be particular to each society. I’ll make a little wager that Denmark will be in much better shape - ethnically and in quality of life terms, than the USA, in 20 years time. Well it already is and isn’t predicted to have a 50%+ non-Euro population in the blink of a historical eye. But you enjoy Mexifornia. And what is all this 5th rate ‘racial’ theology crap about? God wants races to survive – oh really what a knock down argument that is…NOT. And you dare to assume you’re an ‘intellectual giant’ - it’s not so much delusions of grandeur more of adequacy I would say. (Graham Lister) _______________________________
What makes you so pathetic - I mean this quite seriously - is that you continually not so much misunderstand, as simply misread, what I’ve written. I really think you are somewhat dyslexic. I may be wrong, but I’m not being deliberately polemical. I neither said nor implied: a. that economists have no ideological biases; The fundamental theologico-ethical issue in all this is less whether God wishes for the preservation of biologically pure races (perhaps He does, though I suspect perfect indifference on His part), than whether it is allowable for men to concern themselves with such matters as racial preservation at all, and, if ‘yes’, the scope of moral action divinely permitted to actualize the requisite conditions for such preservation. (Haller) How, from what I have copied, and especially underlined, do you interpret my argument to be “God wants races to survive”? How?! Only one answer: very poor reading comprehension skills. The larger point is that, strange as it seems to me, given that I am a clear writer, you repeatedly fail even to understand what I write (let alone appreciate its value, which requires wisdom more than intelligence). You then inadequately attempt to knock down ‘straw men’ I never put up: eg, because I recognize the economic (and ethical) superiority of free markets over socialist or regulated ones, therefore, according to Graham, [note the blinding non sequitur!] I must endorse Gordon Gecko’s “greed is the ultimate good” (what the character actually said was “greed is good”, because it is “an expression of the underlying evolutionary process”, or something like that; this from the first Wall Street, which I saw two and a half decades ago, though I still recall Michael Douglas’s very well-delivered speech). I suppose I do get a bit flummoxed when faced with argumentation of such poor quality (especially when confidently expressed). Face, it - like a lot of people in these parts, you have a kind of irrational closed-mindedness about God. You remind me of Richard Dawkins (perhaps you can aspire to be like him, though you will have to improve your writing ability). He blissfully asserts his atheistic arguments, completely unaware of how amateur is his philosophizing. [Disproving Dawkins does not prove God, of course; though it must also be noted that not proving God is not equivalent to disproving God.] I have repeatedly stressed the practical aspects of my assertions re the fundamental question of the compatibility of Christianity and racial preservation. No question will prove more determinative of the outcome of the racial struggle (and I have argued repeatedly why that should be so; I refuse to do so again here, just for your benefit). As a strictly pragmatic matter, if measures empirically necessary to the survival of the white race cannot be shown to be ethically compatible with Christianity, then our race will go extinct. “Ontonationalism” may or may not possess some ultimate worth, but propagating it as a strategy for white survival, in lieu of returning to the historic faith of the West, will prove a dismal failure. The task for the sincere, serious and relentlessly practical WN is to reclaim Christianity for the West (ie, to remove those liberalism-informed theological errors which enable it to be used against Western survival), and then work with those conservative elements seeking to re-Christianize the West. The model here is not Hitler but Enoch Powell [note to Lister: Powell was not only a race realist and British patriot, but also a Christian and staunch supporter of the market economy]. This may disappoint the Nazis, but their time is long past (outside of the most extreme racial conditions, like mixed-race prisons). As I’ve said before, I shall enjoy watching the Listers squeal as atheism increasingly retreats from the fore of WN consciousness (though this will come about not from salutary conversions of WNs to Christianity, but from the ever-increasing recognition among the larger conservative population, which is far more Christian than either the WN or liberal communities, that racial integration and mass immigration threaten the very survival of our civilization, as well as everything conservatives wish to conserve). But enough. You are neither intelligent nor wise enough for me to wish to continue to respond to your ill-argued broadsides, nor shall I do so in the future. And as to my offering only insults - I invite dispassionate others to peruse the first five posts on the current MR homepage, to see whether I or Lister is more guilty of that charge. 37
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:48 | # Well, i will offer a vote Leon. Your past five posts have been tainted by an arrogance that discredits anything you have to say. It is quite simple, this is not how discourse is conducted. Insults traded here and there are natural, ultimately however it comes down to respect given is respect earned. Perhaps introduce this principal into your discourse, compress your posts (out of respect for your readers time) and observe if your ideas do not receive a more favourable exchange. 38
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:51 | # Graham: Yes, our cognitive abilities are different from any other animal as you suggest. However, you do not complete your logic with the self-evident, that the cognitive abilities of animal to animal is equally different, and that in many respects a great number of animals are superior to us in many cognitive abilities. A little more thinking on your own would have put your understanding in a whole new light. The suggestion that Darwin is the heir to Pythagorus is a resounding whopper. Judging by the actual surviving works, and not their use as a rhetorical hat tricks by materialists, Pythagorus would possibly see bad tidings not so much with Darwin as English society for not digesting Darwin’s tabloid exegesis on the self-evident in a socially self sustaining manner. I think Pythagorus might see Darwinism not so much as empirical method as much as a symptom of degeneration caused by the greed and materialism that has infected a society. 39
Posted by anon on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:34 | #
Haven’t encountered a such stunning reduction of Darwin’s writings since the old “He says we’re from MONKEYS!” canard. 40
Posted by Ambitious Outsider on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:00 | # Just let’s remember the days of the caveman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InqYC-XwXcw and that we are nothing more than relatively hairless monkeys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSiW38G4Kx0 Go and try climbing a tree and you’ll love it 41
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:02 | # Happy to rekindle your attachments to your old comic books anon. 43
Posted by Ambitious Outsider on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:13 | # Eating meat is bad m’kay? Really…but I love those Jew baby hearts so damn much 44
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:23 | # fresh jew babyhearts with pepper and onions…mmmm.. it will make you fat! 45
Posted by Ambitious Outsder on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:29 | # I was joking… I can’t help myself isn’t the elements song rather spiffy? 46
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:45 | # Life contracts and death is expected, As in a season of autumn. The soldier falls.
He does not become a three-days personage, Imposing his separation, Calling for pomp.
Death is absolute and without memorial, As in a season of autumn, When the wind stops,
When the wind stops and, over the heavens, The clouds go, nevertheless, In their direction.
Wallace Stevens, ‘The Death of a Soldier’ 47
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 07 Sep 2011 23:14 | # I shall look forward to reading these thoughts, Dasein. Perhaps, since you are more interested in MH’s later work you should have called yourself Ereignis! 48
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:09 | # DASEIN, Sounds very interesting. What books will you be referencing? 49
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 04:25 | #
Williams and Dawkins will disagree.
50
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:43 | # Thanks for that link, Desmond. How some of you find what you do on the web never ceases to amaze me. I guess I’m still basically a book-dude. Probably my age, just a bit pre-internet. 51
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:04 | # I think many of you here at MR, interested in questions at the intersection of philosophy and science, might find this journal a useful and intriguing resource: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/browse_byissue.asp 52
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:51 | # ... Post a comment:
Next entry: The Situation
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:55. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:26. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:49. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View) shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) |
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 15 Jun 2011 05:10 | #
Still logical holes, otherwise not bad.