|
|
|
The problem of the power elite It is the chief myth of our age that the legitimacy of government is derived by Lockean consent. Consent is the founding principle of democracy and everyone knows how sacred, beautious and alround super-desirable democracy is. Well, we do, don’t we? That’s what we are told, anyway. But it doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t matter what we think because all the noise about consent is a screamingly obvious sham. The interests of the ruling elite simply do not lie in its own submission to popular consent. They lie in securing and ever-strengthening its hold on power, infuence and wealth. The elite will, therefore, seek by any and all means the submission of the people to that end. It will manufacture consent long before it will relinquish what it loves. And where consent cannot be manufactured it will resort to more coercive means, only the most benign of which is to spin popular opinion into its opposite (“We are more tolerant oblique open to change oblique eat more chicken tikka marsala than ever”) and blithely go about its business. In this essay I will explore the roots of the modern managerial power elite, that loose association of political, cultural and corporate players who, though constantly changing, are nonetheless changeless and number globally perhaps no more than a few tens of thousands. It is an alliance of interests and natures and origins. In its generality it is not a conspiracy, although at the highest, most Bilderbergian levels all the characteristics of conspiracy - exclusivity, secrecy, conversation and decision - do indeed apply. Even there, though, I wonder whether most of the 130 or so little big men who get to be ushered past “Security” really are the stuff of global dictatorship. We do well to remember that the elite is not wholly of one mind and arose, indeed evolved over a lengthy period from a multiplicity of directions and through several agencies. In all important respects that evolution was more organic than conspiratorial and more accidental than organic. The origins of the elite All political systems produce an elite because human beings differ, have their preferences from among one another and can attain their own increase more effectively in self-defined interest groups than in isolation. Elitehood cannot be prevented (sorry Perry). It can be negotiated towards the common good, but only on occasion and then only insomuch as it comprehends its dependency upon the ruled. The archaic tradition of King for a Day, whereby once a year some wretched felon would be crowned in laurel and granted every whim by his blue-daubed tribe before, at the going down of the sun, being put to death on the sacred oak, was an exquisite acknowledgement that kingly privilege was collectively lent and that continuity was never to be taken as a right. In the fullness of time it was, of course, taken anyway - and with an iron fist. The template for modern elite mores was forged the first time warfaring in the tribal interest was replaced by warfaring for the king. When William’s army marched from Senlac Field they did so as mercenaries for an elite that would slowly but surely eradicate its Saxon predecessor throughout England. They had come not to take possession of wealth, as the marauding Danes did, but to take possession of the crown and its subject people. Their separation from that people was reflected in the resentment and distrust of both sides, and in the frequent popular rebellions. Not for the only time, it now seems, the English people had no purchase on the elite that ruled over them. The history of warfare in the English-speaking world after that was the history of warring elites. It was not, of course, restricted to wars between crowns. Civil wars fought over succession, such as the thirty-two year Wars of the Roses, were transparently the product of competing elites. The theory of competing elites can equally be applied to revolutionary war. There is one great difference, though. The revolutionaries sought to sweep away not only the physical presence of the old elite but the very ground upon which it stood among the people. If successful, the resultant systemic political change was the basis for a legitimation far beyond that of mere victory on the battle field. The American intelligentsia, for example, who made themselves revolutionaries under a British monarchy became Founders and political giants under the liberal democracy that they fashioned, and bequeathed their legacy to more than American posterity. But for the most spectacularly rags-to-riches case of post-revolutionary legitimation one must look beyond the lands where English is spoken to 1930s Germany. There, a man who had served as a despatch rider in WW1 and in peacetime drifted into violent street politics was briefly raised to the status of a demi-god. So completely did the German people return his love, he could set upon their heads the near unearthly duty to tear down Yahweh’s Chosen elite and become master of the European house. It is rare, however, for systems to be authored by an elite as they were in revolutionary America and Nazi Germany. Occasionally, an extramural system might offer advantages to an incumbent elite, as in the case of Henry VIII whose motive for conversion to Protestantism was a Tudor one and only opportunistically Lutherian. But by and large, a systemic change portends a change of the elite with the same certainty that water changed for air in a goldfish bowl will portend a change in the creatures that can sustain life there. Thus even Henry’s selfish revolution eventually brought us William of Orange. It is all a matter of environment. When we come to examine the modern elite we must acknowledge at the outset the longevity and complexity of that environment. We are not dealing here with a single seminal moment in time, a single author, a single leader, a single movement or a single idea. We are dealing with many intertwined histories that are not all political, and with a sometime fractured but ultimately unifying philosophical accretion. There is a view sometimes expressed by Jim Kalb that the original Enlightenment values of reason, liberty, justice, and progress were enough in themselves to bring us to our present, insane danger. In its appeal to the organic this is an idea I find attractive - but with the caveat that one cannot extrapolate too directly. I see connected causalities elsewhere - certainly connected - but, critically, more specific to the murderous antipathy of advanced liberalism to European Man. I look at the liberal attachment to anti-Nature, at the shocks to the European psyche of 19th century urbanisation, industrialisation and 20th century World War, at the flight into a narcissistic individualism in the expectation of finding freedom there, at American cultural imperialism, at the cosmopolitanism and culture politics that stand for ethnic interest in Jewry ... I look at all this and see a deep Marxian slash - a more than Marxian slash - across the fundamentally well-meaning face of the liberalism of Locke, Mill, Hume and Smith. How much of this stuff can ultimately be traced back to those 17th and 18th century sages? Some, for sure. But some is, frankly, an accident of history and some has a parentage than is not liberal at all. In seeking to understand our elites it is essential to account for the disfigurement and for the environmental effect - the goldfish bowl effect - it has had upon them. The nature of our elite The modern elite is a revolutionary elite. It is the most revolutionary of all Western elites, and the first to seek to destroy its own people. That is the effect in question. Today, the air in the goldfish bowl - actually the air of post-WW2 liberalism - can only sustain gens proditor. How did that come to pass? Certainly, in England, which happens to be the place I know best, the old elite first saw that it would be tipped out of the bowl around 1944 when the idea began to be put about of “a land fit for returning heroes” where we could not be allowed to go back to “the old way of doing things”. The self-interest of the old elite was property-based and it sought permanence in inheritance, in family, in tradition, faith and nation. These things were the water in the bowl. The revolutionay hand upon the bowl went unseen in the extremis of war. But the deed was soon done in many connected fields and the waters of national fidelity were duly emptied out. For the evidence of that a better historian than I might look - to name but four factors - to the return to the international table with the setting up of the UN in 1945 and the Treaty of Paris in 1951, to the American antipathy to Empire, to the American-Jewish power-lock on the post-war treatment of Germany, and to the influence spreading through government of Marxist philosophy, including the first stirring of the new culture politics. Plainly, there are respects here in which the moving political spirits were not completely unlike the belief-driven, upstart revolutionaries of colonial America or the Bolsheviks of 1917. But how much less is that true of the elite today! It does not put itself at risk. It does not burn with an ideological desire to sweep away the old order. It simply inherited the new status quo and, like any wastrel son, it believes in the vanities and comforts of power well before it truly believes in philosophical ideas. Indeed, ideas are not really to be believed in but to be useful and, most importantly, compatibility with the ultimate elite loyalty: internationalism. That already implies a powerful disconnect to the ordinary people, of whom they offer a vision that never rises above economism as a means to keep the patient prosperous and sedated. But internationalism also implies a strongly progressive political bias. Modern power people have things to do: wars to end, diseases to cure, poverty to make history, hunger to banish, and all manner of little unfairnesses to ease. Help is needed. So voluntarism and minority activism are natural bolt-ons. Then, the elites love big politics. Lately, we’ve had the Blair-Mandelson Third Way, The Schroederite New Centre, The New American Century. God knows what left-of-centre rehashes are doing the rounds now. And then the elite loves new political theories. Frankly, it has what is known in certain quarters as a habit, with no “ism” too exteme. Even transsexual rights. In practise, however, new theories are usually a bit more seriously cutting-edge than that. They are soaked up from the zeitgeist or learned directly from the mouths of the real ideologues. By itself, the elite doesn’t even manage to manage the implementation of these pearls of wisdom. That, too, is learned. Probably from kinfolk of the ideologues ... the kind of helpful chaps who man the minority advocacy movements and get themselves appointed to those very well-paid posts in the voluntary and non-governmental sectors. Of course, it’s all a rather cheap and pathetic way to go on for the sons and grandsons of the men who struggled to put on a gas mask in the trenches of Northern France or quartered the northern Sahara in a tank-killing Hurricane. But the mind of Man, you should know, is highly suggestible. Never is that more true than with the soft, unnoticed enslavements of received wisdom, and that applies no less to ambitious and intelligent senior Ministers and Secretaries of State than it does to the impressionable young. Suggestible minds are defenceless minds. Cleverness and ability are not defences. That clever men who have already ingested the modern political norms may, as they rise in the world, become enculturated in ways ever more detached from and harmful to their native peoples should surprise no one. The evidence is indisputable and is with us every day. Likewise, if I say that we dissidents are the free, that we alone bear the burden of pulling down the deathworks, I mean it as no praise of us. Our freedom and wakefulness are as accidental and unearned as are the beliefs and silly prejudices that fill the heads of our opponents. So I mean no criticism of them personally in that respect. Nonetheless, theirs is clearly not quite a case of “Forgive them, Oh Lord ...” At some level these guys know what they do. They must, even if they lack the love to comprehend it. They are traitors to their people and for that they wouldn’t be dispensed much mercy by me! There are six categories of traitor that I can divine, the first truly global. A large proportion of elite members may straddle two categories, some perhaps more. Jews are present throughout, as one would expect. All members’ ultimate loyalty is - I repeat - to the internationalist outlook (Israel excepted), and that is the key to everything else. These are the categories:- 1) Transnational: The grandees of globalism, running from the ten or fifteen members of the Bilderberg Steering Committee and senior (sometimes royal) Bilderbergers down through the leadership of the major international bodies such as Nato, Club of Rome, World Bank, United Nations, European Union, CFR, Trilateral Commission, World Economic Forum, IMF, etc. 2) Political: The power loop of senior politicians of all mainstream parties, past and present, in or out of actual power, and their chief advisors and key public servants. 3) Opinion-forming: Big Media owners, “respected” journalists, and occasionally (and probably fleetingly) influential writers and artists. 4) Corporate and financial: The cost-conscious, profit-driven CE’s of Fortune 500-type companies or any major businesses operating across datelines. 5) Foundational and Charitable: The queen ants of the progressive agenda, especially the race-replacement business. 6) Intellectual: Leading economists, (mostly Jewish) exponents of Critical Theory. I don’t think I’ve forgotten anyone. But my apologies to any poor-lamb elitists who feel left out. Will 7) None of the above do? The interests of the elite All six elite categories are in some respect managerial. With a few exceptions of the ill-gotten, new-money kind, elite members are not owners of substantial assets. They manage assets, however one defines the rather flexible word “asset”. And the management of those assets constitutes their primary individual interest. Collectively, however, all these interests are congruent. Politicians like profitable businesses. Businesses like immigration. Jewish philosophers like cosmopolitanising Western societies. And they all like power and influence. Much has already been said by others - most effectively and truly by the late, valiant Sam Francis - about managerialism. As individuals, elite members all tend to their areas of competence in that sense - even the intellectuals who labour in thought to further critique and cultivate us. Their asset is our somewhat wavering progressiveness, their production line our suggestibility - just as it is for the peddler of life policies or high fashion. They are managers, manipulators too. Elite members have no stake in our future as European peoples. They are not dependent on passing on the assets they manage. What heights they achieve, what honours they win in this life will pass into nothing with their own passing. They are not, of course, inter-connected by blood or even by class but by networks. As befits internationalists they are huge consumers of air-travel and move pretty much constantly between the main centres of international life: New York, London, Tokyo, Singapore, Paris, Berlin, Rome and, now, Shanghai. We are the unseen, earth-bound orders over whom they pass on their way to another rarified encounter with some psychologically deracinated soul they have known since their days at the Sorbonne. We, though, are nobody. We do not matter. Our Nature-given interests do not matter. The life-experience of putative elites does not admit to itself our loves and loyalties. It is a process of enculturalisation in elite dissonance. It is both spiritually impoverishing to them and spiritually insulating. So, can we formulate a case with Sam Francis that a permanently ingenue managerialism, being profoundly contrary in interests to the loyal old elite whom it once replaced, is enough in itself to explain the treachery of the modern elite mind? Is a lethal cocktail of internationalism, progressivism, profit and plain human suggestibility the reason for that awful post-WW2 disfigurement to the liberal face ... the grave step from a politic that, while still liberal, at least respected the natural lineaments to one that would, if it could, sweep them all away? Well, I struggle with it. I know it must be true in large measure, and if one throws in the Pavlovian horror that attends all mention of Third World reality and the Pavlovian horror of a regnant nationalism and the Pavolvian horror of hearing the word “Holocaust” adjacent to the word “myth” and the promptings to Pavlovianism that stream non-stop from Organised Pavlovry, well yes, the argument has legs. But I still have to keep reminding myself of all of the above, so fantastical does it seem that my own kind - men of like background and tastes - truly desire to nullify our common blood for ... what, really? A stride or two on the world stage? Political fun? I’m still working on it, then. If you’ve got an answer, let me know. Comments:2
Posted by PF on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 02:29 | # http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-8243793086044653903 I hope the post above wasn’t too convoluted to be understandable. Assuming what I wrote made sense, I would say something else… Trying to answer Guessedworker’s question of why is this treachery going on.. I once saw an interesting discussion of why multicultural ideals have survived as long as they have- the thought itself is the brainchild of Peter Brimelow. He made the observation that people tend to change their ideas only slightly after they reach 30 or 40 years old. Assuming one first ascends to true power around the age of 35 or 40 (earlier people being acceptions), and then can remain there until age 60, most of the people at the helm of Western States will have experienced childhood and formative years in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. I think we can all say very easily what sort of ideas were circulating when their brains were most permeable- Seargent Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band, [I just shuddered]. These were truly the glory years of the Media- they had just gone public with the drive to eradicate us, and yet all the stability and complacency of the old society was still there to give them cover. It was optimal. What about those of us who grew up later on? We inherited a much less stable world. And I’m sure most of us have lived more in the extremes of worry, depression and anxiety than those who came before us. It was more difficult to sleep, to remain asleep, in the times that we lived in. Especially for those of us living in the cities. This is why it’s possible to be a traitor nowadays and not be nervous - to do it convincingly, because you lived 20 years without ever being forced to experience group conflict, in a society that revelled in an apparently permanent peace. Social justifications and defenses of the Status quo in the future will look increasingly threadbare, increasingly implausible, increasingly desperate. As one example, I present to you Russell Brand, as he harrasses Youth BNP leader in this film: Pay attention to the scene at the picnic. What do you think his desperation is indicative of? 3
Posted by Election Summary on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:54 | # I’ll toss in a side note that political science as taught has been Boazied (and remains so), and that’s why the general population hasn’t the slightest clue as to what a government is… 4
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:01 | # I don’t really want to get into a pedantic argument over what Locke said and didn’t say—after all Strauss claimed that Locke was actually Hobbsian so we can see how ridiculous philosophical arguments can be. Having said that <a >>it is probably a kind of Straussian distortion of the left to claim that Locke was a supporter of liberal democracy</a>:
The really important idea of Locke was the mixing one’s labors with territory to produce subsistance as the pre-governmental property right and self-determination. After that, all is social contract within the constraints of Malthus. 5
Posted by PF on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:43 | # In history, I see vigor and forward impetus supplied again and again from monoethnic entities- ethnostates, tribes, or homogenous European states, and I see again and again that vigor petering out, becoming atrophied, in the formation of Empires and ideologically-based Supraethnic nations. It seems to me that what holds together disparate ethnies is either force (Turkish Empire, British Empire) or invariably only an idea(America, Late British Empire). The idea is advanced in a time when cooperation was perhaps mutually beneficial, and morbidly asserted as a pillar of social order after it has become established. Roman Empire, Soviet Empire and British Empire started off as enterprises of force, then became ideologically justified. [laugh laugh!] The cult of the Empire, trade, and \‘Roman civilization\’ as binding forces in the one example. If blood doesn\‘t bind them, and if force doesn\‘t bind them, it can only be an idea. The problem with that, is that we outgrow ideas very quickly. But the ideological Empires are somewhat interesting in as far as they allow an idea to be tested. For example, out of the wreckage of once-proud America are emerging some of the most interesting thinkers and researchers of the race realist/WN movement (Kevin MacDonald, Jim Kalb, Frank Salter, Rushton, Jensen). I don\‘t imagine that one would find such an interesting crop of writers on this subject in a country like Poland, for example, where this subject could not be \‘lived out\’ in all it\‘s ... horror. Then again, if something like Stalin\‘s purges occurs in the interim, it\‘s likely that there will be no one to write books. I plead near-ignorance of Soviet and post-Soviet Russian thought to protect me from insulted Russophiles, but I have never read a book from post-1920 Russia which was worth reading. Solzhenisyn I haven\‘t read. So intraethnic Empires carry out interesting thought and policy and ideology experiments, then crash and burn or rot away. An ethnostate is not based on an idea or principle, but rather on a biological fact, and therefore endures, and changes it\‘s ideas many times flexibly. Of course, if you knew all this- namely that ethnostates are the only political structures which are stable in the long run - you could spare yourself all the horrors of these \‘experiments\’. But what are our sources for this knowledge - \‘gut feelings\’, \‘ancient wisdom\’ to be sure - but the scientific explanation for much of our knowledge, that which has ratified our primal instincts, are the results of various botched attempts at Empire which have occured throughout history. Some of us here probably did some dumb stuff in our lives, which we should have known better than to do, but in order to know that it was wrong, you had to first make the mistake yourself. I don\‘t want to allege, by the way, that any accumulation of knowledge or cultural products justifies endangering native EGI, as Empire formation usually does. I just want to say that various things have been clarified through the risky behaviours of those who went before us. We can view the age of Empires and the New World as the collective youth of northern and western European peoples- they took greater risks then, and understood themselves less. 6
Posted by Count Sudoku on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:10 | # “As one example, I present to you Russell Brand, as he harrasses Youth BNP leader in this film:” If only Fred “race replacement” Scrooby was there to unload on this useful idiot. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 08:36 | #
Our sources? A pair of functioning eyes. Oh, I nearly forgot — the eyes also have to line up with the holes in your face, or as the Frogs say, “Tu dois avoir des yeux qui sont en face des trous.”
Thanks, CS; actually that happens to be exactly what I was thinking as I watched (with horror) the video: I’d love to have been there standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the BNP guys confronting this walking talking pile of dog mess who was harrassing them. Notice by the way the film’s effect on viewers was the diametrical opposite of what Russell Braindead had hoped: I’m sure most viewers sympathized with the polite, intelligent, reasonable, respectful BNP guys rather than with the hysterical, rude, in-your-face, far less intelligent Mr. Braindead. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 08:45 | #
MacDonald, Kalb, and Jensen are Amerikwans; Salter is Australian if I’m not mistaken; Rushton’s an Englishman now in Canada. 9
Posted by Retew on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:23 | # PF wrote; Quote ==================================== What about those of us who grew up later on? We inherited a much less stable world. And I’m sure most of us have lived more in the extremes of worry, depression and anxiety than those who came before us. It was more difficult to sleep, to remain asleep, in the times that we lived in. Especially for those of us living in the cities. ======================================= What you’re overlooking here is the Cold War, and the existence during that time (more than four decades) of two nuclear-armed superpowers poised to incinerate one another and their “allies” at the drop of a hat. Trust me, that reality caused those of us who lived through it plenty of “depression, worry and anxiety.” 10
Posted by Election Summary on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 13:53 | # Alex, Could you write a bit sometime on the level of Jewish governmental influence in the USSR after Stalin’s purge? The following article, for instance, suggests that powerful zionists survived at the highest levels of the USSR central government through the 1960s and 1970s at least. See the section on “New York/Moscow/Tel Aviv Triangle”: http://www.davidduke.com/general/america-firster-exposes-israel-and-zionism_1144.html This period and place of Jewish history is entirely obscure to me (and I would guess to many others outside of the Eastern Bloc), yet is of importance in understanding exactly what happened in later years. 11
Posted by PF on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:42 | # Retew wrote: \“What you’re overlooking here is the Cold War, and the existence during that time (more than four decades) of two nuclear-armed superpowers poised to incinerate one another and their “allies” at the drop of a hat. Trust me, that reality caused those of us who lived through it plenty of “depression, worry and anxiety.” -\” I don\‘t know. Comparing the theoretical dangers of the Cold War with race-replacement, I\‘m not sure if it fits. Cold War danger is far removed, and what could the average person do? And, provided escalation was prevented, how was the average citizen effected? But race-replacement means the town you grew up in becomes unliveable. It means you have friends who have gotten beaten up, it means you know that you can no longer travel to or through certain areas. It means you see your country transformed before your eyes and know you can do almost nothing but leave, or stay and be miserable. I think this is more unsettling to the average person than the Cold War. Perhaps its just my perception, my first memories are from many years after the wall fell. For those of you who lived through both, which is more scary, living through the Cold War or living through race replacement? 12
Posted by PF on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:12 | # Fred Scrooby quoted me(PF): “[E]thnostates are the only political structures which are stable in the long run [...]. But what are our sources for this knowledge?” (—PF) and wrote: \“Our sources? A pair of functioning eyes. \” If functioning eyes were all one needed to know that ethnostates alone have a shot at historical longevity/stability, then all States throughout history would have been ethnostates. We would be living in one today, if that were true. If all States had always been 100% strict ethnostates, there would be no empirical basis on which to base a scientific defense of the ethnostate. The potential of multiethnic States would never have been tried. Thus one would have to argue for an ethnostate from pre-scientific grounds, with scant empirical info. Western pre-scientific culture is a Christian universalist egalitarian culture. Hard to argue for an ethnostate when you only have access to those memes. All western States failed to make this argument: all are now multiethnic States. I wish that Asian states had carried this experiment out, while Western states sat back and watched amusedly. In fact, its the other way around. But had multiethnic states never been tried, there would be no scientific empirical evidence on which to base the apotheosis of the ethnostate. Using our memes - evolutionary psychology, EGI, the selfish gene, conflict analysis - the ethnostate argues for itself. Go back to 1950, and try and use their terms to argue for an ethnostate. Basically, it\‘s much more difficult. All Im saying is that western experience with multiethnic States was important for the formulation of scientific arguments against these same kind of states. The scientific arguments for an ethnostate are to be cherished, like history, which Thucydides called \“a possession for all time.\” If they ever become the possession of the people, if they ever become generally accepted, become the kernel of a mass movement, then they will be impervious to the specious arguments which destroyed all our ethnostates post 1960. And they will forever be impervious to these specific arguments- although new ones may arise. (One had better learn with whom to stop arguing…!) Yes, I would never have wanted this, its far from ideal, its horrible. But if this is how complacent and universalist and puppy-dog-hearted our former civilization really had become, can anyone regard our acquisition of this bitter truth as anything other than a just dessert? True, the elite was responsible for this- but we were responsible for the elite, and having not forgotten that, I dont know how anyone could assert that what happens to us came undeserved, (except when arguing with foreigners & hostile parties). The blame lies ultimately 100% on us, on what we did, even if the primary causes lie elsewhere. So maybe this knowledge was ultimately worth the trade. We couldn\‘t have remained complacent and spiritually disarmed forever, and kept our possessions. Do you want to go back to the days of Seargeant Peppers Lonely Heart\‘s Club band, back to that fat, trusting, decadent society that essentially rolled over and let itself be raped rather than cause a fuss? Rewind to 1960, near-ethnostates with no justification for their existance. Fast forward to 2006, crumbling multiethnic States with pockets of resistance - who defend their justification vigorously and ferociously! 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:05 | #
That situation — the Nato/Warsaw-Pact nuclear stand-off — only ended in 1991 (the cracks in the situation first opening in 1989). I lived through it and it didn’t cause me any “depression, worry, and anxiety” — not a bit. I agree one-hundred percent with PF (1:42 PM): the current forced-race-replacement régime is what bothers me. PF’s post of 4:12 PM is excellent and deserves to be read by everyone but I disagree with his apportioning blame excessively, I think, on “us”: the current race-replacement régime is being imposed with a mailed fist. We’ve not been given a fair chance to have a say in it. It’s less “our” fault than PF says, in my view. But that’s OK: we’ll soon wake up and overthrow it. (Oh and, uhhhh ..... we’ll settle a few accounts along the way ... Just thought I’d throw that in ...) 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 03 Jan 2007 05:44 | # Here’s something (below) which I ran across while having a look around the ‘net just now — it’s well done and à propos so I thought I’d post it in this thread. I’m not sure I’ve heard of this Rick Darby chap (I may have — name sounds very vaguely familiar though I may be thinking of Larry Darby ...) but from the look of things he’s got his head screwed on frontwards.
15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:40 | # Sean Gabb analyses the ballerina flap:
Post a comment:
Next entry: A Father’s Torment
|
|
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— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by PF on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:44 | #
Thanks for the essay! I think you make some brilliant points!
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7009998324250484369
I’m not going to comment on the video. But it’s interesting, and gives an insight into whats going on. There is a question posed towards the end, essentially, “who is really sovereign?”, and the answer, coming from who it does, seems to me to carry weight.
“How much of this stuff can ultimately be traced back to those 17th and 18th century sages? Some, for sure. But some is, frankly, an accident of history and some has a parentage than is not liberal at all.”
We can decide on what terms we should condemn these old liberals. I would condemn them for being a) universalist in their conceptions of ideas and prescriptions which relate to human interactions/society. The reason why this is so fatal, IMO, is that human systems are still too complex to understand scientifically, hence these memes are non-scientific, they are largely plastic, subjective, abstract and semi-nebulous concepts.
Scientific fact is universally true. The codons that make up my DNA, code for the same amino acids as in a Japanese man. Gravity holds us both down. And the plants we both eat did perform photosynthesis while they were alive. Scientific truth is universally applicable, in all cases I am aware of.
But what ‘freedom’, or ‘rights’, or ‘happiness’, or ‘reasonable’, or ‘legitimate’, or ‘hatred’ means to me, and what it means to a Japanese person- are very very different. That’s because these concepts, and almost all of our concepts relating to the human mind, and human-human interaction, are a kind of shorthand. This shorthand works well, but it is not scientific, and it cannot be made into the basis for universal scientific truths.
Our psychology is hardly based on anything concrete, physiological. We have no idea, for example, what ‘love’ actually is, physically. It’s a certain pattern of neural networks, firing in conjunction with the Amygdala and neural networks of the lymbic system (I suppose). But thats not yet proven and it’s far from being generaly understood. So when a philosopher speculates as to the meaning of love- he plays with it, like Play-doh, and shapes it into whatever he wants. Actually, this concept lends itself to such playing.
Love is a pretty tight concept, it fits reality pretty well. But concepts that have to do with the interactions of large groups (i.e. political analysis) and tracking these interactions over time, and everything from the genesis of elites to their downfall, these concepts are far from being well-developed.
Furthermore, our ability to understand these concepts is always linked to our understanding of history, and is generally formed by our limited life experience of these things.
Yet those who play with these concepts, at least previously, had no hesitation to elevate them to the level of scientific truth- thus Marx’s rather arbitrary conceptual framework, is presented as though it were absolute truth.
And the fatal mistake of these people is- unscientific memes are nebulous, subjective, and abstract - and they are easily manipulated and changed. They can be changed to better fit reality, or to deliberately distort it. If one is living with one’s enemy- i.e. inhabits the same cultural and political space as another tribe, with which one is (knowingly or not) at war - then these concepts are subject to malevolent manipulation.
DNA and Gaussian flux as concepts cannot be malevolently manipulated, since they are capable of being empirically verified.
Thus ‘all men are created equal’ became the anti-White revolution clarion call. Well, what do I dislike about this phrase? It’s universalist pretensions, its rejection of further empiricism in a quasi-religious declaration.
What are ‘men’? We know the answer, but these authors thought they were talking only about whites. ‘Created’? The Bible as source of truth.. that won’t bear much empirical investigation nowadays. ‘Equal’?. A mathematical concept applied to a Creation event which, biological evidence suggests, never happened?
I don’t begrudge people the attempt to understand the world around them. I begrudge the arrogance with which they think they have mastered the world, with a few paltry concepts, and immediatley author some new universalist slogan for universal appropriation.
How about this: “Things are made for us! We are going to have power! This land was formed out of Sedimentary rock!”
If you make this statement the conceptual underpinning of your existence as a State and people, all I have to do is convince you of a new definition of ‘Things’ and ‘Power’ and you will be forced to do whatever I want. Since our psychological shorthand is not scientific, it’s difficult to confirm or deny empirically, especially when a ubiquitious apparatus exists to falsify empirical evidence(the Media).