|
|
|
Why I don’t like tradition or traditionalists by PF Gorbudoc wrote:
But what is tradition to me? A fat, middle-aged white man justifying how his personal hobby of reading Latin and Greek makes him an oracle of higher wisdom and a good candidate for Founding Mandarin of a reborn white civilization. A similarly fat, similarly biblio-erotically inclined individual who snoots and scoffs at every normal white person in a permanent game of oneupmanship. His love of the past kept him habitually out of our present, where white people are playing sports, listening to heavy metal, being fallible, and living lives in 2010. A man who takes a knowledge of Tertullian and Tacitus to be some keystone of Nordic survival. A man who can look at the whole confused hodge-podge of our past, claim ownership, and say: “see that thing there, that massive blob of basically everything that happened before 1945? That is our salvation. Imitating that is our salvation. Instead of saying “imitating” I say “returning to”. Oh no, Sally, its not quite that simple. He will have rarified his argument. It was the years between 1437 and 1489 where we really hit our stride. No doubt it was also because of “Factor X”. A man for whom mental models of the past are more real than the life that pulses all around him. A man who wants to step away from our modern confusion in thought, taking shelter from it, and retreat into a classical past that didn’t exist for the people who lived in it. The classical past as reconstructed from two hundred texts authored by the top cognitive 0.0001% of that society and passed through his own subjective prism - he will of course have his favorites, but it’s all part of “the blob” so its OK. A man who believes that this knowledge puts him above those who start businesses, become engineers, and aren’t past-hungry and escapist, because it provides him with clues about “how to build successful societies” and “what are the cornerstones of virtue”. Meanwhile the whole thing that is being described, beyond some interesting political theory, social dynamics, individual psychology, and the classical foundations of science - the whole big blob is basically white sociobiology across time, skinned and mounted on display for the world. Yeah - white society - that did tend to work pretty well. Tradition means you get to search forever through the historical dumpster trying to find “the key” of the one trend, the one cultural practice, the one thing that you can analyze out from the rest of the blob and become an advocate for. Oh, it was because they were pious. Except when they weren’t. It was because they weren’t promiscuous. Except those that were. It was because they ... etc, etc. When a traditionalist puts up his pantheon of clay gods and tries to warp every available worldview into subordination to these dieties he’s piggybacking and parasitizing off of white success like everyone else. Only now because he is the mandarin responsible for parsing the discourse of these dead civilizations, he acquires a special status. It’s like affirmative action for fat, bookish geezers. Three million more-or-less-white Romans can build a successful civilization? Well, let me spend my life reading the output of their smart fraction to see why that society might have succeeded. White men who create compelling realities in the present: be warned. Unless you follow the blueprint laid down by Mr. Corn-Beef-Sandwich-Sitting-In-The-Library-For-Two-Hours, oops ... I mean our civilizational forebears ... everything is going to become chaos. Let’s defer to whomever Corn Beef spent the last five years reading, because the blob is so precious, he has distilled its magic into a usable form. That’s why I don’t like tradition and its advocates. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:54 | # I think you’re talking about snobs or something, PF. That’s not it, snobs aren’t it. It’s astonishing if that needs to be pointed out. Astonishing. 3
Posted by Matt Parrott on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 01:56 | # I’m a Traditionalist with a BMI of 30, and my jowls are warbling with indignation right now at this hurtful screed. In all seriousness, I think a distinction must be made between those who advocate a restoration of a more healthy and sustainable way of life and those I call “cryptkeepers”, who are truly committed to the anachronistic fetishization of bygone nations, defunct oligarchies, and obsolete behavioral patterns. It’s easy enough to tell who they are because they’re the ones who never even think to explore ways to bring people who exist now to the place they ostensibly wish to take them. They’re not trying to heal the living. They’re mourning the dead. But it’s not the fault of Tradition that people lack the imagination to usher in its restoration. Individualism and the Gods of the Marketplace are both the quintessence of Modernity, and they’re both fatal to our Tribe. Tradition is fealty to a priesthood that honors the preservation of our tribe. Tradition is the intergenerational glue that preserves a Tribe across the centuries. Tradition is submission to that which is greater than the self, including the willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice. The bottom line is that those who are truly Modern are unfit for the struggle that awaits. Any man who asks himself “Am I going to get out of this what I point in it?” will realize sooner or later that the answer is a resounding no. Women who don’t see having an abundance of children as a transcendent duty won’t have enough children to carry on the Tribe. Men who weigh the relative benefits of a life-long marital commitment against pump ‘n dump will too frequently decide in favor of the latter. 4
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 03:14 | # With some of the people pushing variations on the “back to tradition” angle it seems it’s more about using the current oncoming extinction event as a tool to proselytise for their favourite religion or hobby horse than trying to ensure survival. Obviously that’s just an impression but it seems that way.
Well put.
I think individualism is at the heart of our tribe - as a trait - although perhaps over worshipped. From the Kalb article: “The scientistic outlook has to be ditched in any event, since it’s at odds with the needs of human life.” The western tradition would have been completely destroyed centuries ago without science. 5
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 07:52 | # A shameful article. It is unfortunate that those who kid themselves of the ‘pseudo’ scientific basis of their worldview, yet who’s knowledge of Science, among other things… not least History, Philosophy, Psychics, Philology, etc. has been demonstrably shown to be little less than shallows… have such difficulty and are so easily spooked by the people of the culture they claim to be interested in perpetuating…..With no ideas your own… you offer instead, that Darwinist standby - attack the traditions of our forefathers and the people who still respect what was timeless and beautiful in the culture of the Europeans. This underlines the patent insincerity of your whole half-baked world view, which you can only fitfully articulate. You are not even capable of constructing your ideas in a form that would be anything other than pitiful and worthless - garden variety persiflage of no moment or meaning… ‘why I don’t like traditionalists’ (because PF, like GuessingWorker have no ideas as people familiar with the concept continually point that out…. and you don’t like it. ) You have become more of a English caricature of the American, than any self respecting American. For your polemic, (or characterization, as that is your primary and apparently only skill with argumentation) against the folly of traditionalism and it’s dead weight of ideas - we have you as the ultimate proof. And you are only dimly aware of it… As for Gorboduc and his ilk,,. You don’t have the faintest clue what he is talking about… it is hard for you to understand and you don’t like it. The past is all around you in several dimensions, not least those who inadvisably speak of it…and yet you find it a irritating hinderance to the progress of the great crusade to nowhere. You really find the historical British culture of depth and spirit, as foreign and exotic as the science you don’t read or understand . Your mind has become a 99p cheeseburger…. a rich and evocative triumph of the lack of ideas and taste. You are a colonial who never left the islands. Neither the experience of a new world, nor the knowledge of the old, still living world of enduring strength and power…. far beyond anything your two penny ideas will ever have on offer… and requiring more from the carrier, a responsibility and respect for truth to a degree your wobbly little mind cannot bear. The underlying motive of your pathetic article, of which I said you are only dimly aware… is not the childish squeaking of a boy who’s esteem is threatened and feels it’s his turn to be ‘smart’ without study, or ‘accepted’ without accomplishment… it’s the fact you are the intended product of the Frankfurt school, and you find it quite liberating. You are an example of the sheared progeny separated from the flock and the shepherding of the ‘authoritarian personality’ of the culture of your ancestors. You are a working example of a ‘manchurian candidate’ .... fashioned not in Red China but in the school of the defeated and the ‘diversity’ of television, fast food and cheap ideas. 6
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 08:06 | # Wanderin: This pretense of ‘science’ is laughable. It is only an admission you are denatured products of a technological society directed at your abasement. It firmly closed the door between you and the living spirit of your people and told you it was for your own security and safety… reasonable claims. This science is what you have now that you are confirmed laboratory rats chewing on steel bars and expecting to prevail. 7
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 08:43 | #
There were Arab slave raids on the English coast into the 1600s. They weren’t stopped by praying. They were stopped by better ships, better cannon and better guns. I’m not against praying - it’s a good morale-booster and i’d prefer both, but if i had to choose between praying and better guns i’d choose better guns. 8
Posted by Bill on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:22 | # Like beauty, tradition is in the eye of the beholder. Postmodernism has pronounced God is dead. They assert the shackles of moral restraint have been smashed and we are now free. As our civilization crumbles, progressive modernists proclaim from the rooftops religion is dead - long live religion. Thus Postmodern liberalism is born. Releasing the God is dead Genie has struck our civilisation a mortal blow; it is dying an agonising death. It is too late; the Genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Christianity could not withstand the hammer blows of the miracle of modernism and its postmodern deconstruction, and yet in my mind it is Christianity which has given us the harmonious tradition of stability in the guise of nation (family) and all that stems. There are tens of millions of those who have rejected Christianity who paradoxically still crave and cling tenaciously to the tradition(s) that Christianity gave them. Not only are these same people (nationalists) rejecting the old religion but are also despising (albeit mutely) rejecting the new. (Postmodern liberalism) Before readers start foaming and pounce on their keyboards screaming Christian nationalism and family and the like gave us nothing but wars, slavery, nuclear weapons, environmental rape and the whole evil ball of wax, then I would say to them, one must look elsewhere for such explanations. It is the very nature of man himself, which is I suppose, in the end is what it’s all about. In the midst of all this, we do not have the answers to the questions we pose. Why are we here? What is our purpose in life? In short, what’s it all about? If the assertion God is indeed dead and is largely accepted, then where to now? Cue the philosophers. Western civilisation is poised on the brink of yet another civil war that will further decimate our race nearer toward extinction, which I suppose, in the end, is the whole point. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:42 | # Matt wrote, “I think a distinction must be made between those who advocate a restoration of a more healthy and sustainable way of life and those I call “cryptkeepers”, who are truly committed to the anachronistic fetishization of bygone nations, defunct oligarchies, and obsolete behavioral patterns.” Some further distinctions from the great mass of the undecided: 1. The Christian evangelisers who, at bottom, want everyone to feel what they feel and think what they think, which is that Man is created to glorify God, and everything else comes a country mile after. One might consider DanielJ and Gorbuduc and, indeed, anybody who buys into salvation/damnation to be in this category. Explications required, guys. 2. The not particularly Christian and non-Christian culturists, proponents of the view that fixing the collective practise of life will fix the Man. I might ascribe Matt to this category, also Leon. 3. The essentialists who believe either that Homo sapiens literally has an invisible spirit or, a bit more subtly, that he kind of gives off a “glow” particular to his race. Grim’s thing, and the default for thinking nationalism generally. 4. Assorted materialists and existentialists. I, for example, divide Man’s experience of life and of himself between what is, respectively, real and authentic, and what is not, and hold that all else - the sense of spirit, the power of faith, the love of practise, everything - comes after. 10
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:28 | # Traditionalists vs non-traditionalists; theism vs atheism; materialists vs spiritualists; Christianity vs Darwinism; praying vs physical action; etc. etc. etc…. For rational people, none of the aforementioned dialectics boil down to an either or proposition. There can be a synthesis (not compromise) that takes place. In most cases there is. For example: Belief in traditional Christianity and accepting the Theory of Evolution as credible science are not mutually exclusive. One does not preclude the other. In fact they can compliment each other. After all, there are those amongst us that can still chew gum and walk at the same time. 11
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:02 | # It’s funny how most of these ‘traditionalists’ hold up someone like Savitri Devi who married a non-white and died childless (as far as I know). Alot of good she did her race. 12
Posted by Selous Scout on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:40 | # Good article. ‘PF’ could be me, as we share many of the same sentiments and frustrations. ‘PF’ accurately describes, in my personal experience, the egg-heads in the Chronicles crowd and the pompous chubby college grads writing for WN websites such as Occidental Dissent. There’s too much ‘hot air’, intellectual one-upmanship, and showing off in online WN circles. Which is why nothing ever gets accomplished. One White Nationalist corporate executive is worth at least a dozen of these pompous windbags. One White Nationalist business owner is worth at least two dozen of these cyber sofa samurai. Fewer words. More action. This is what we need. 13
Posted by Matt Parrott on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:33 | # Selous, Action without thought behind it is thrashing. You don’t know the first thing about “why nothing ever gets accomplished”. Perhaps nothing ever gets accomplished because people like you attack those of us who are fatties, hurting our feelings and demoralizing us. I’ll bet you any item on the Dollar Menu that my fat ass has done more for our people than your dumb one. 14
Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:01 | # This is quite a thread to wake up to in the morning! Blood has been stirred, Matt’s jowls are warbling and Grimoire’s brow is sternly furrowed. I can’t say the same as I am stilling polishing off a White man’s breakfast of bacon, eggs, and coffee; the blood won’t leave my stomach until at least noontime. Clearly, I checked out of MR too early last night. Hopefully someone enjoys these humorous asides. Anyway, I feel like I should have something to add here seeing as how PF is responding to a comment from Gorboduc that was directed to me.
Ah, and here our question presents itself. Is tradition just so many clay gods to be neatly smashed or is it something more? For smashing clay gods is an easy thing, I’ve been officially censured for doing just that in my offline writings on more than one occasion. I feel that everyone should openly mock Western officialdom for its moral insipidness and intellectual vacuity at least once in his life. My take is that tradition is the sum of all things that we ever were, a cathedral that we are born into and from which we cannot escape, it is the wellspring from which we form our identities. We can come to terms with this cathedral as is - with all of its attending flaws and glory - or we can close off certain rooms and choose to live our lives exclusively in others, but we cannot escape it. To list off but a few dimensions that make up the Western tradition: biological, historical, artistic, aesthetic, intellectual, moral, religious, metaphysical, initiatic, martial, etc. If we reject the religious or metaphysical it is usually at the expense of prejudicing the intellectual (and vice versa); those who reject the biological usually do so at the expense of prejudicing a certain strain of our moral and intellectual tradition. To close off one room is usually to flee to another, but from the cathedral of our tradition there is no escape. If nothing else the regulars at MR wish to preserve our biological heritage, and in that very minimal sense we are all traditionalists.
Kalb was writing about scientism and not our scientific tradition.
I’ve got an article in the works that I am dedicating to you, I hope you stick around long enough to read it.
Exactly. We should always reject intellectual contrivances for what is real. Although you and I might appreciate this statement in different ways it is nonetheless the position that I stake out for myself at MR, we should always be able to test our claims about what is real through the fire of our intellect and experience. Of course, each of us has to bring his own promethean fire to MR’s round table.
If you want to know why it’s so hard to get things done why don’t you read my article about the molding of our people’s minds. Otherwise, why are you wasting your time around here? Go out and act soldier! 15
Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:21 | # Grimoire,
You can’t possibly be serious with this bit of rhetoric. Both men have lots of ideas, they are just different from yours in certain respects. 16
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:09 | #
Ah. 17
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:24 | #
True, and what’s more, almost everything done in America from a pro-white standpoint since the end of WWII has been “thrashing.” What I don’t understand is why so many people paint a false dichotomy between thought and action. The most effective politics incorporate both. 18
Posted by Selous Scout on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:37 | # Matt, I’ve been involved in the ‘movement’ in Europe, South Africa, and US for over 15 years. And when I say ‘involved’ I mean in the streets in political confrontations. These days the involvement is more behind closed doors but all the same… I’ve seen little pups like you come and go. In time you’ll follow suit believe me. Get a real job, make some money, lose some weight, lose the cat, make some money, start a family, make some money, infiltrate some respectable organisations if you want to be politically active. You’ll be more of an asset that way, than by acting out some ‘lone warrior’ or ‘White Intellectual’ fantasy online. You need a thick skin to prevail. Go get ‘em cowboy. ENOUGH with the intellectualising and i-posturing. Okay, we get it. You pompous chubby college grads are geniuses, budding Nietzsches, Spenglers in the making. We get it. The REAL work ahead of us, however, is in the realm of organisation-building, fund raising, marketing, and practical politics, which means joining existing groups where surprise surprise you won’t get to be top dog. Stop trying to reinvent everything, as if every few years WNs feel the need to start at zero, tabula rasa. The intellectual groundwork has been laid. It’s up to the younger chaps to get in line and start acting like foot soldiers. 19
Posted by Greco-Roman on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:42 | # Modern ‘Traditionalism’ might be an artificial construction, but much chaos has ensued since The West abandoned the Classics as a field of study. Ezra Pound said or wrote once that usury and Jewish economic domination began to increase as The West slowly abandoned study of the Classics, since the ancient Greeks and Romans wrote about the evils of usury, bankers, culture ruined by mercantilism, even Jewish influence to some extent, and so on in many of the works studied by former Classic grads. Now that so few are familiar with the Classical works, we have not been warned. If more of these college grads had studied the Classics instead of ‘liberal arts’ or sociology or ‘media studies’ or whatever else, The West would be better off. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:54 | # Selous,
It got unlaid in 1945, and nationalist intellectualism has been trying to put it back ever since. Doesn’t work. Can’t work. So whatya gonna use? Race realism? Rushtonism? Judeophobia? What? None of it measures up in any way to the task of replacing liberalism, overthrowing liberalism’s elites, ejecting the Jewish niche-fillers. Historically, only fascism has demonstrated a capability to do that, and it is a busted, busted flush. 21
Posted by Matt Parrott on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:44 | # Selous, 15 years? Then I owe you a sausage biscuit if we ever cross paths. Given that your 15 years of action following your selected paradigm have not yielded any real and quantifiable successes, you should excuse me for being skeptical of its utility. 22
Posted by Bill on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:39 | # What is Tradition? This was my time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5kLJdCEgU4 Commentary is a bit naff. 23
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:51 | # Selous, You can look at what Matt does here http://www.hoosiernation.us/ then decide if it has value or not. Personally i think it is a very good model. I find the whole “fat” aspect to this thread a bit strange. It reminds me of a woman i knew who decided against internet dating in case the man was a “fat axe murderer”. I’m not sure i see how relevant it is. 24
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:09 | #
Truth in this i think. To me the foundations of the west have been 1. Free tribes. Christianity has two parts imo. The poisonous Old Testament from the middle-east and its attempted rejection in the New. Because the poisonous element wasn’t cut out cleanly the Old Testament poison has been waging war against the other three elements ever since. (That’s sort of mythological politics obviously.)
I’m going with liberalism constrained by empirical data and biological reality. It works well for my purposes as i’m mainly concerned with trying to attack the existing culture rather than finding its replacement. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:12 | # Regarding Bill’s linked video above much could be said of the immense message Bill was intending to communicate but am in the middle of something, just sat down at my machine for a minute, with glass of juice and some cheese (wife’s away, that’s supper) then back to what I was doing so can’t take the time now, but I do want to say just one thing: There’s nothing more beautiful than a steam locomotive. The sight, the sound, the strength, the purity and simplicity of the mechanism by which it functions, the way it makes that chug sound slowly at first then more rapidly as it accelerates pulling out of the station. Have only seen them in old films from the thirties, in Westerns, and so on. Also here and there online posted by enthusiasts. Oh and once rode in a touristic train pulled by one — may have been in New Hope, Pennsylvania, I forget. Maybe somewhere else. China still builds them I believe. Lucky Chinamen to have that beauty, that sight, that sound, still functioning as part of everday life. Gals don’t try to understand, this is strictly a guy thing — those among us guys who have it, admittedly far from all. 26
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:26 | #
Many argued, including Adolf Hitler, that Roman law was a moral menace…
27
Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:52 | # As I seem to be one of the tactless ones whose carelessly mislaid pile of Victorian school editions of Tacitus and Tertullian has tripped up PF, causing him fall awkwardly and void the whole content of his bilious stomach all over everyone, I suppose I ought to reply. All the same, let’s take a few points in order.
Sorry that you have no concept of the meaning of “tradition”, PF. You thought it was a song from “Fiddler on the Roof”, so you didn’t pursue enquiries any further? I see. Or is it that you rejoice in rootlessness? Sorry about that. So where DID you come from? Odd, though. I thought that a lot of people came here because they wanted to share in a defence of Western traditions. Let’s pass on.
Ah, we’re coming to specifics. FAT: guilty as charged! Absolutely Gargantuan! Like Thomas Aquinas I have to have a semicircle sawed out of the table befor I can get to my beer or my book! MIDDLE-AGED: even guiltier! Whom the Gods love die young! How they must hate me. PF must occupy one of the extremes on either side of middle age, downy-cheek’d youth or drivelling senility. WHITE MAN: yes, yes, well spotted! Wait a minute, what’s wrong with being white?! What’s wrong with being male?! WTF? Hold on, PF. don’t tell me that you’re Paula Feltz, the grey-haired harridan of Hampstead? She doesn’t like white men either. But perhaps in your emetic ecstacy you failed to keep your eye on the ball. On second thoughts, I think I was merely the catalyst for PF’s technicolour yawn. I don’t think that PF’s ” individual who snoots and scoffs at every normal white person in a permanent game of oneupmanship.” touches me anywhere. I actually don’t know what PF’s definition of a “normal white person ” is. Oh wait a minute Sally, it’s in the next bit: “white people are playing sports, listening to heavy metal, being fallible, and living lives in 2010.” Yes, he’s got a point there. I HATE white people who play sports - I prefer them to merely watch games, (preferably through their televisions) and not to participate, and I think our professional footballers WONDERFUL and dreadfully underpaid. Roll on the day when all our parks and playing-fields are built over! Look, PF, I can’t keep this up: I’m now convinced that I’m not one of your intended targets at all. For a start, I NEVER use the word Nordic.And I’m not at all sure that, having tried to read through your post crefully, it’s easy to see what you object to. It’s all so unspecific. I have to go to bed now: Mass tomorrow, but before I go I’ll leave you with an off-the-cuff list of English traditions that you probably won’t like. Shame. Oh, and PF. there are some great old English traditions that I DON’T like. Please explain the corn beef sandwich joke. 28
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:05 | # 60163 Tornado again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeFDvKH5rqQ&feature=related I’m unsure whether the diesel engine at the rear was being towed home or had been added for extra ballast! 29
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:44 | #
It’s depressing to look at old photographs. You’ll see things like community picnics, local charitable organizations (they helped poor widows and not meth addicts), and healthy white children. Oh, and the towns were beautiful! No monotonous office buildings or sprawling suburbs. All of the buildings in town demonstrated local craftsmanship and style. People wore suits and ties around town because it was simply normal. No one dressed in sloppy t-shirts or ill fitting clothing. (The only exception was perhaps the Mexicans in California who wore clown-like ‘zoot suits.’ White people, who were still 90% of the population, did not dress like scum.) When I was a boy, my friend’s grandfather owned the local gas station. His son operated a mechanic shop nextdoor. The mechanic shop is still owned by his son but the gas station belongs to a multinational corporation and is operated (exclusively) by Indians. The rest of the local businesses have likewise been eaten up by corporations. These businesses are selling products from Mexico, Vietnam, Phillipines, and China. Americans used to manufacture all of these things themselves. Who could write something like this today? 30
Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:46 | # PS to PF; perhaps this is why your attack is actually so windy and ill-focussed;
I certainly disagree strongly with what I think you’re saying: but I’ve nothing against you personally. You know that I’m not. How? Oh and btw, someone up there mentioned Savitri Devi. She and Guenon and Evola are often put forward as traditionalists. Is this entirely sensible? Isn’t that a bit like the old joke: There’s another “traditionalism” that has a theological basis: the late Coomaraswamys (senior and junior) are reasonably well-know upholders of this system which is actually an attempt to prove that certain features of Judaeo-Christianity are also found in apparently unrelated faiths, demonstrating that a primary revelation of truth was made by God to lots of other older and more distant sages. It has a certain use in Christian apologetics, in explaining why other faiths have important Son-Mother relations, dying and resurrecting gods, trinitarian formations, baptism rituals etc. Moses, King David and Orpheus, various Sybils, Hermes Trismegistus, Druids, Chinese sages and I don’t know who else are brought into this and mixed up together: the resulting revelation is known as Gentilism. Some Church Fathers seem to have subscribed to versions of it, it had a vogue in the Renaissance, and an 18th century Jacobite Freemason the Chevalier Ramsay seems to have cemented it into contemporary politics. Guenon had some connection with the matter, and it’s possibly that that that led him to convert to Islam. I suppose it’s possible that Savitri Devi knew a bit about it, but to regard Evola as being interested in Gentilism as such (apart from in certain aspects of Hindu aristocracy-cults and world-cycles) seems wrong. He was more interested in extirpating Christianity from Europe rather than in harmonising it with Druidism. 31
Posted by Mike on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:34 | # OK, some of these criticisms are a bit unfair, but there are also some good points here. As a generation X atheist, white majoritarian, conservative I find both the paleosquares and the white nationalist hotheads a bit extreme and impractical. I recently heard for example that Chronicles readership has gone from 6000 to 6000 since its inception - not exactly runaway progress. Often its the little things that seem to get in the way. A discussion of music at Alternative Right for example, becomes a slanging match between those who like only classical music and people who only like death metal. The idea that some people might sometimes like something in between (say, French folk, southern bluegrass or Italian progressive rock) doesn’t seem to enter anyone’s mind. Nothing wrong with respecting our classical cultural tradition or considering plan B options like ethnic separatism, but can’t we discuss more moderate steps and policies for dealing with the here and now? 32
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:52 | # Mike, I think it’s an unavoidable fact of life that people who are the least swayed by any dominant culture are likely to be some of the most non-conformist and one of the main reasons for non-conformity is egotism I think WN sites need to decide at what level they are going to operate at and if they decide to be entry level or mid-level then they censor some of the arguing that isn’t relevant to their purposes purely on the basis of not putting off newbies. I think the full-on sites will always be full of arguing however and i think that’s ok as good things can come out of it. Everywhere shouldn’t be like that though. 33
Posted by Michael Vilmar Avery on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:14 | #
Radical Nostalgia is a good one. Alot more descriptive then and understandable then ‘Palingeneticist’! Actually there are still areas out there where one-self can still remember the good old days: The county I grew up in has only about 2% negroes. There were hardly any illegal brown-skins here in the 1980s. Everyone was White! There was still a sense you could trust your neighbors. (Putnam has done research on how Diversity destroys this sense of community) The movies were still over-whelmingly White! ‘The Breakfast Club’ and ‘Heathers’ being chief examples. Then Clin-toon ruined everything (in accordance with the Jewish plan laid down in the Protocols of Zion) when he started letting the illegals in in droves! The Jews in Hollywood went totally hostile and began producing abominations like ‘Save the Last Dance’.
Exactly! There is a difference between being a Radical (which means literally ‘returning to the roots’) and being an extremist!
Every man has a home and is a King in his Castle! ( http://szabo.best.vwh.net/semaynes.html ) It shouldn’t really matter what weird sub-culture a fellow White is into as long as he is in the confines of his own zone! Even pop culture gets this right sometimes! Look at the Smurfs, they are all Blue and belong to the same Race, but have their own individual personalities in-tact and more or less get along… well.. Smurfy. Also: Smurfs: Aryan Puppets or Harmless Cartoon Toys? 34
Posted by danielj on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:01 | # That’s why I don’t like tradition and its advocates. I don’t recall anybody expressing any interest in your opinion on the matter but if I had to guess, I’d have to say it has something to do with the fact that you really, really like jungle bunny music…
You mean to tell us you really don’t understand the benefits of learning Latin as a second language? Really? To paraphrase the apostle: For when for the time ye ought to be a teacher, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of white nationalism; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. It would be sad were it not so nauseatingly sickening and maddeningly frustrating. 35
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:59 | #
Is that a line from ‘Idoicracy’? Anyway, I guess in another generation we’ll hear many scoffing at the useless old White men who read and write. The fools!
You know, I don’t like to get personal. -And part of me thinks that that has to be satire-. If it isn’t, it is the single dumbest thing I’ve seen written this side of Atlantic Monthly articles. Sports and Heavy Metal and “living lives in 2010”? Are you 14? Seriously, you have to be under 20, no? If not, well….. .
Well, your prescription is generally true, but it’s not so much a check-list of to-do’s as life generally takes us down that path anyway. But like all other things, it’s a 50-50 turnout. Half of those who make a good living, have a family and a nice home tend to become insular. They exert every strength they have to maintain the family, home and income and all else becomes superfluous. Most are in debt up to their eyeballs. And when debt has you by the balls and you have a family to take care of, you tend to narrow your focus to the point that you see nothing else besides keeping home and family financially stable. If you were to go back about 60 years, you’d probably find that the average 30-50 year old White male was much more hot blooded, outspoken and quick tempered than their 2010 counterparts. Today, we’re almost completely sedated by a mixture of prescription mood altering drugs and mind numbing media. Too many people are hiding. Some behind drugs like prozac, others behind distractions like “sports and living for the moment” and still others behind the intentionally stress-induced narrowed worldview of keeping their “good job and nice home and I can’t worry about the rest.” Yes, thought comes before action, most of the time. But in order for thinking to commence, we have to come out from hiding and actually look around and accept and asses the situation.
... 36
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:42 | # The REAL work ahead of us, however, is in the realm of organisation-building, fund raising, marketing, and practical politics, which means joining existing groups where surprise surprise you won’t get to be top dog. Stop trying to reinvent everything, as if every few years WNs feel the need to start at zero, tabula rasa. The intellectual groundwork has been laid. It’s up to the younger chaps to get in line and start acting like foot soldiers. - Selous Scout __________________ Well, yes and no. SS is correct that we are in a race against time (remember that lovely line from the beginning of The Dispossessed Majority,[pub. way back in 1972, as I never tire of reminding folks] about us being in “a race between the ripening harvest, and the encroaching jungle”?), and that we no more need a perfect nationalist Theory of Everything (as some of the more prominent persons at MR suppose) before proceeding with the political activities finally necessary to saving our race, than scientists need fully to understand the phenomena they propose to study before crafting a viable research program. At several points here at MR, I have proposed, to typically underwhelming response, that we need to theorize a “nationalist minimum” (of strategic objectives all patriotic forces can agree on), and then a formal “nationalist manifesto” outlining our goals, and then the various political and polemical tactics for implementing our objectives. And then, at that point, SS would be correct: we need actually to start getting things done in the real (non-intellectual as well as non-cyber) world, because the elements of our racial extinction are growing stronger and more pronounced each day (ie, cascading numbers of immigrant invaders, multiculturalism becoming more rooted, race-mixing, fraternization and miscegenation always increasing, etc). By the time we develop that Perfect Ontological Nationalism, the game on the ground may be over. I think many of us can agree that the “minimum of the minimum” is stopping lawful non-white immigration. That is far more popular than bashing Jews, or demanding non-Europoid expatriation, and far more efficacious than contesting multicultural lies and the erasure of our own national cultures. If you’re in a hole, stop digging. I still hew to my recommendation that, at least in parliamentary systems (which is funny for me to contemplate, as I believe that encompasses all white nations, except my own, the US, about which I’m most interested and knowledgeable), we need to develop a mass anti-immigration party, movement, discussion groups, chat rooms, etc. That is, we simply need to reach an agreement among ourselves about the facts of immigration, and their (wholly negative) implications for national, physical, and epidemiological security; economic prosperity; and environmental preservation - and then relentlessly present these facts to everyone, everywhere, as often as possible. Once we attain that glorious day when non-white immigration has been ended (in all our respective homelands, which of course will not all happen simultaneously), then we can begin again “upping the ante” with new objectives, this time focusing on repatriation, restoring cultural traditions, erasing non-white cultural residues, etc. SS is wrong about the usefulness of continued theorizing in one respect, however - as I never tire of pointing out, here and in other venues. Western Man is Ethical Man. That is our virtue and our vice. It is our supreme justification for racialism, and, in our present ethical configuration, what is destroying us. But mark my words, people: we must make racialism ethically acceptable, or we are doomed before we begin. Unless we change the “multiracialist” ethics that now enslave white majorities everywhere, we will continue to languish and remain ghettoized. The new ethics of racial tolerance (and acceptance of race-replacement - not the same thing) did not arise suddenly. The groundwork was laid in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with the somewhat concurrent rise of secular individualist liberalism and Social Gospel Christianity. These ideologies remain hegemonic; indeed, we all know their grip, not only politically and legally, but also intellectually (I mean in terms of the sociology of the intelligentsia - most definitely not in terms of their inherent intellectual cogency or persuasiveness, which is much weaker today than in the mid- to latter half of the 20th century). We have only partially philosophically overturned the anti-racial preservationist ethics of liberalism. We have proven, if not widely disseminated, the thesis that white racism is not responsible for the ‘underachievements’ and social pathologies of non-white minorities. This is important. We have also disproven many multiculturalist canards about whites, non-whites, racial biology, the alleged value of racial diversity, and similar topics. These efforts, too, have been vital. What we have yet to do, at least convincingly to well-meaning, intelligent whites, some significant number of whom must finally be rallied to us (I’m referring here not to die-hard liberals, who are mentally defective and unreachable, but to non-racist conservatives, and non-ideological independents) is to provide a full and persuasive case for an ethic of white racial loyalty; in a word, white racism or supremacism. We must make the ethical case to a majority of our fellow whites that it is morally acceptable to keep out non-whites because they are non-white; that interracial marriage should be forbidden; that white nationalism is morally acceptable. Until we make that case, we will never take back our civilization. But that case for racism has not yet been adequately made, and thus Selous Scout is premature in his derision of WN theorizing. 37
Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:47 | # Leon,
Right. But we have to understand how our people got to be indoctrinated in the false morality of egalitarianism to begin with and how their acceptance of this morality is sustained. I give my answer here and here. On my view, there is a propaganda-feedback-loop that needs to be addressed before our people can be made to accept a new ethical system. 38
Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:49 | # Well, if someone could be called a ‘H8r’ I would say the poster of this dung qualifies. But, no matter. “I know whom I have believed and I am persuaded that He is able,” etc. I also know that ‘once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,’ etc. The West has decided. It thinks it can exist without God. You can’t replace something with NOTHING. http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2010/08/till-end-of-time.html And the person that thinks the West can renege on her covenant with Almighty God, is a fool. 39
Posted by PF on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:49 | # Friar John, Thou callest me a h8r, and aye, the charge ringeth true,
He who doesn’t bow with ye, before your zombie Lord
Said the white in the marketplace: I have read Ayn Rand, Though ye read from an older blueprint, and follow an age old code 40
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:48 | # At its simplest there are two forces or vectors pushing against each other, the force of white survialism pushing in one direction and the force of a genocidal multicult pushing the other way. So there are two paths, 1) increasing the force of white survivalism, 2) decreasing the force of the multicult. Increased activism in theory increases the force of white survivalism but only if it is pointed in the right direction. Decreasing the force of the multicult (which is my main focus) can’t achieve success on its own but it can make it easier for people pushing against the multicult.
I think both of those are true and any activism directed in that very simple and straightforward direction is useful and worthwhile.
I think the success or otherwise of this is what ultimately limits the success of simple anti-immigration activism and if we can’t halt immigration then we can’t halt anything else either.
I think this is at least partly true as well. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. It might be (and i think probably is) true that we’d need both a set of survivalist racial ethics that the average person would accept *and* some method of disconnecting them from the matrix *and/or* some weakening of the multicult *and* more activism, as long as it’s accurately targeted at the weak spots. So 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:34 | # Wandrin,
Political revolutions do not happen among the masses. They happen among the cognitive elites and thence, like dominoes falling, among the political, cultural and military elites which are intellectually subservient to them. Like it or not, we really are the intellectual vanguard of a revolution. We have to present an ideas feast to the hungry, and the ideas have to be cooked to perfection. That is our purpose. Those who want progress now, today, and are driven to look for it in simplifications and familiarities are honourably inclined, and I do not say that no progress is possible. Up to a point, it happens “inevitably”. But one intellectual can lift the weight of a thousand average men, and probably more, and quality, not quantity, remains the key to eventual success. Such it is. In an earlier comment: ... I listed the broad categories of nationalist actor. I have to say that at least two of those categories are concerned with the defence of prior beliefs, as if upholding such was more necessary than making revolution - and, in truth, for Christians and some palingenicists it is, or certainly seems so. Those who resist intellectual exploration in the name of preserving existing structures might profitably ask themselves where their real loyalty lies. 42
Posted by Mike on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:50 | # “I think it’s an unavoidable fact of life that people who are the least swayed by any dominant culture are likely to be some of the most non-conformist and one of the main reasons for non-conformity is egotism.” Good point, perhaps I do have a tendency to be over-critical of eccentricity. As a person of modest talents and relatively obscure, but ultimately middle-brow tastes, I may be too hard on more talented but eccentric types. Perhaps someone like me is better supplementing the smarter, more extreme and more eccentric types with my middle-brow perspective rather than trying to force them to be “moderate and sensible”, which itself may actually be quite unrealistic and eccentric. Jewish outlier Lawrence Auster for example, ruthlessly attacks the eccentric and extreme, yet fails to acknowledge that he himself is a misfit with his rather unusual blend of white majoritarianism and unconditional support for Israel. 43
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:20 | # GW, I pretty much agree however there’s also the question of giving people things to do to keep their morale up even if it’s the old army way of digging holes and filling them up again. Pushing simple work-safe talking points aimed at undermining the morale authority of the multicult, as well as being useful, gives people something to do.
I wouldn’t say you’re over-critical exactly. If only 1% of people are free of a particular dominant culture then the odds are a lot of them are going to be particularly independent minded and therefore argumentative. It’s just one of those things you can’t do anything about. 44
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:28 | # “I think it’s an unavoidable fact of life that people who are the least swayed by any dominant culture are likely to be some of the most non-conformist and one of the main reasons for non-conformity is egotism.” Valid point. Some people don’t conform because, “nobody tells ME what to do” Others won’t march in step because, “I’m listening to a different music.” 45
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:06 | # Good Lord, GW, I just noticed this from you just up above (natch!)
I know it’s late now, but WHA-A-A-T? Well I’d have thought that upholding prior beliefs was FAR more necessary that “making revolution” (which, if I were to interpret that TOO literally, must mean “returning to prior beliefs”. (That’s me: toujours le literaliste.) Hilaire Belloc wrote a story in which two 18th. century French soldiers are having a discussion: “They say we’re going to have a Republic!” “A Republic? What’s that, then?” “I don’t know, mon ami: but it sounds bloody good!” “No no,” says GW, “the point of a Revolution is to boldly go where no-one has…” Oh, I see: we won’t be “scientific” any more, we’ll make it all up as we go along. No hearth and home, no people, no faith, no ancient freedoms… just the overthrow of proved and generally-accepted TRUTHS in favour of some ramshackle and gimcrack contraption with a few Hegelian ontological knobs on top: “in truth…[it} certainly seems so.” So what’s “truth” got to do with it? Invoke the poor girl in this frivolous way just once more, and she’ll stalk off in a huff, leaving you only the rags of imposture to cover your bare arse with. Long live the revolution that’s got no aims, no method, no (ahem) teleology. How will we know when it’s begun? Or when it’s succeeded? TROTSKY (Bronstein) anyone? And for PF, before my usual good temper’s restored, AYN RAND (Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum), anyone? And, GW, I’m asking myself FURIOUSLY where my real loyalties lie. 46
Posted by cladrastis on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:42 | # natch? Gorby, you spend an inordinate amount of time on this blog for an elderly Christian fellow who contributes nothing but dissension; i would inform you of the 90-9-1 rule, but I suspect you are already familiar. 47
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:46 | # Gorb, Don’t worry, I’ll ask you. If a faith system which seemed to be true in all its essentials came along and demonstrated that it could do a better job of preserving European Man than Christianity can, would you convert? 48
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:12 | # GuessedWorker:
Well Maestro, if one has no idea where one is, or where one is going; can one go wrong marking that spot as the ‘Vanguard’? Depends on one’s standard of orientation! There is also a vanguard for those going nowhere; generally no fixed control points, misunderstanding declination between chart latitude and terrain, inability to distinguish topography from elevation… ‘innovative’ interpretation of chart data. In both cases your ‘vanguard’ is of the latter sort. Unfortunate.
Yes, but can your intellectual superman lift the weight of ‘one’ average man or must he hide in the abstraction of a ‘thousand’ average men, never revealing himself until he comes out able to abstractly lift the weight of ten or a hundred thousand average men? Or does that requirement of actually being able to lift the weight of one ‘average’ man, detract from the grandeur necessary of such intellectual thousand man muscle ? We ‘average’ men who understand the weight and burden required of the ‘average’ man… are more than a little skeptical about these ‘intellectuals’ of quality who claim they can lift the weight of a thousand men in a single metaphor. A metaphor.., very poorly chosen, yet revealing. .
Sullen suspicion, as good an explanation as any as to why your ideas yet cannot lift the ideal weight of ‘one’ average man….. (because it is an gross and impertinent impediment to lifting the weight of a thousand average men…. ) I suggest it is those who claim to be working towards lifting the weight of a thousand ‘average’ men, yet have no little idea of what the average man bears…who claim to be on a ‘exploration’ -not hopelessly lost, who phantasize an elite bettering all average men and all culture, history and the knowledge derived from this, as inessential deadweight as the ‘average’ man himself…. who needs to ask where loyalty lies. Is it to your ‘elite’ - of which you only have the program - not the actual elite themselves yet? The Quality over Quantity? Or the program - is that where the average man becomes a nuisance? Certainly myself, being an ‘average’ man, could never join. I have been irredeemably dumbed down by tradition, superstition of ancient practices and methods which require discipline and attention to master. A entirely different school where the elitism is in the practice, not an extrapolated program directed only to men of Quality and promising utopias incomprehensible to the ‘average’ man. So miseducated have I become I erroneously assume such utopias to be expedited passports to Hell….and by this I do not mean the afterlife… but here and now.
49
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:55 | # Grim, Maps? Quite close to the beginning of our lengthy exchange on the Ferguson thread: ... I wrote:
Had you been able to answer my question “can you say “I am”?” I would be engaging with you more substantively. But you conclusively proved that you do not understand the question, and consequently your engagement soured into a pointless grasping for intellectual suzereignty, the latest example of which I read above. So we are forced to discuss your intellectual pride. You have been gifted with a fine mind and a long intellectual career. You are not doing yourself justice in your present engagement here. You know this is an open resource, and you have been invited to make use of it. Do so, and be assured that only goodwill towards you and interest in what you have to say obtains here. 50
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:37 | # Today is the anniversary of Alaric’s Sack of Rome. GW asks me:
Well, “faith systems” (and I’d like a definition of what that actually means) don’t just “come along”. What I need is a racial and cultural environment in which my faith can be experienced in its fulness. Look, you can’t have European Man (I’d prefer European men, but I’ll play your game) AND Evolution at the same time. I believe as I did when I first started looking in here fairly regularly that the evolutionary view you take isn’t going to help you much. European Man(I re-enter a caveat, I don’t believe in Him the way you do) is, in the light of the Evolutionary Hypothesis, ONLY A TEMPORARY ARRANGEMENT. In fact, you may be helping your enemy, who can say: Your best-case scenario is this: you’ve got the possibility of a slow decline that won’t be too painful for you or the next few generations of your descendants, and will be easier the less you maintain an aggressive and completely unproductive reaction. I put that as a 75% - 25% solution. He could continue: “You mentioned the possibility of maladaption: correctly, for of this you are an example. You’re a late unevolved and unfit Eohippus, a sport, a throwback: or you’re the Neanderthal who went on dragging his knuckles and grunting after his kin had risen erect and learned the art of civilised converse.You and your attitude have no survival value: you declare yourself deselected.” Your enemy might conclude: Look, GW, I’m with you 100% in your identification of the enemy: but just supposing the very weapons you were hoping to deploy against him are those he himself has forged? Are you sure scientific evolutionism is the way to save us? Of course, as I don’t accept the Evolutionary Hypothesis (although of course I accept that variation arises within species), I don’t feel compelled, as an evolutionist might, to accept the above nasty chunk of deterministically-inspired speciousness. Cladrastis; I’d never heard of the 90-9-1 rule, but I’ve just looked it up. Can’t see the application, myself. I don’t contribute nothing but dissension: I dissent when I see cause to. Or is your attitude an expression of the state-sponsored and censorious culture of rigid compulsion and conformity that one or two of my fellow contributors seem to wish for? It seems that I’m finding myself in loose agreement with several other contributors: it’s to be hoped that they too have received little warning notices. ASfter all, Cladrastis, it’s my future and that of my descendants that you’re claiming to be settling, isn’t it? If it’s a serious claim, I reserve the right to comment: but perhaps it’s not. 51
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:24 | # OK, this isn’t particularly relevant to this thread, but ... on the subject of activism, I hope people here don’t simply spend all their blog time talking to each other. WNs need to get out there all over the web, at least the ‘conservative’ one, just to make sure our voices are registered, and to chastise racial deviance, as I did very quickly to this libertarian ass “intellectual” below. LH
Now, though, the right is making things much easier than usual. The Republicans’ incessant whining about the non-mosque that is not at Ground Zero, their war on immigrants, and their calls for war against Iran make me hate both parties equally — so I won’t have to feel at all bad for temporarily liking one of them (I don’t) or feel betrayed by them (since they never showed any real promise anyway). Tagged as: conservatives, Democrats, elections, Ground Zero mosque, immigration, politics, republicans LikeDislike Leon Haller 0 minutes ago You are some kind of intellectual? You are what Lenin would have recognized as “a useful idiot”. While I am sympathetic to libertarian calls to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government, especially wrt economic freedoms, deregulation, and broader de-socialization, and while I think the US Empire needs to be downsized, for fiscal as well as strategic reasons, you obviously understand nothing about the role that coercive racial diversification through unwanted mass immigration/invasion has played in the real loss of the real liberty (not to mention property rights) of real Americans. Because you lack a realistic view of the evil (and again, coercive nature) of immigration, I will simply point to one statistic: Obama 08: white vote: 43%. More significantly, Obama, the most socialist president ever (as well as culturally and morally enervating - though as a libertarian, you understand nothing of the racial, cultural and moral bases of really existing liberty), was as a fact elected by post-1965 immigrants and their adult descendants. Now I certainly hated McCain (aka “Senator McAmnesty”, aka “Senator Traitor”). But from the libertarian perspective it is impossible to deny that Obama is more hostile to liberty as defined by libertarians than was the not very good McCain. Under McCain (whom I did not vote for; I wrote in Ron Paul) we would not have had medical socialism, nor likely cap and tax, nor two radical new socialist judges on the Supreme Court, nor the $800 billion ‘stimulus’, nor many other Obamarxist evils. We might not even have had more warmongering! So your filthy immigrants have lessened your beloved liberty. And just wait for the future, as more and more it becomes clear that the ONLY libertarians in any great numbers are whites, while the engine for constant state socialist expansion will be an ever-increasingly non-white America. I could offer many other arguments for why the Big Government Federal corporate as well as social welfare program called “immigration” has been and is a disaster for the real liberty of real Americans. But I suspect you would be too stupid to understand them. 52
Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:46 | #
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” - Charles Darwin 53
Posted by John on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:43 | #
The late middle English second person plural pronoun in the accusative case is “you”. Ye is nominative case. 54
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:48 | # Guessedworker… wrote:
The quester seeks answers to questions they must ask of themselves… I recommend you engage this more substantively. If I come across, in the flesh, a public forum where such is happening, I‘d flay them alive very slow and painful. Understand that I stand for Europe and the European Race and Culture. You presume a superiority over European Culture, but cannot substantiate or defend these insults. I point this out this grievance… and expect either justification or clarification. You will not, because of the inconsistency of the internal logic of Darwinism requires strawmen, not real men…..the truth is you cannot… provide either. You will not defend your radical materialistic dogma, which you assume couples conveniently with Martin Heideggers philosophy of the ontology of being - because you cannot. Your faith in synthetic theory is even more illogical than the faith of the iconoclasts. MR invites your input…. but then endorses the most stagnant and stupid of insults even filthy jews would find lightweight and counterproductive. 55
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:21 | # If Islam demonstrated that it could do a better job of preserving European Man than Christianity would Gorboduc convert? Possibly no choice will be given. The problem with Gorboduc’s analysis is that
56
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:44 | # Desmond Jones: the question, as posed by GW, about my possible conversion, was originally posed thus:
It’s a loaded question: it doesn’t say to whom the religion would appear essentially true, (it’s only my reading of it that makes me the experiencer of the “seeming”), and of course “could” isn’t conclusive, and “could do a better job of preserving” might be better replaced with “had demonstrated conclusively over many many years that it had successfully preserved”...and there’s another implication that I don’t accept, which is that there’s ANOTHER religion which is as true in all essentials as the one I’ve already accepted. Even if Islam HAD the power to protect the white race - which it doesn’t, and neither is it likely that it can be re-designed with that in mind - the answer is, obviously, and as you might have expected, NO. A couple of years ago, when I first posted a few comments here, I suggested that perhaps MORE important than the survival of the White Race, was what it survived AS. Predictably, that didn’t go down well with some. Islam is a heresy of both Judaism and Christianity: who of you would embrace it, knowing it to be false? On July 03 at 20.10 I posted here a copy of Campion’s Brag which is a document in which one of the bravest and noblest Englishmen of his time threw down his defiance to Elisabeth I and her Church of England, and expressed his willingness to meet martyrdom - which he later willingly embraced - rather than to accept doctrines he knew to be false. 57
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:02 | # Gorb,
But Islam had a sacred core in certain of the Sufi sects. The same core - it is always the same core because Being is unchanging - may have existed at some time in early Judaism. It has never existed, in my view, in Christianity, which is an wholly exoteric system of belief. It reproduced the appearance of the esoteric in the life of devotion and discipline of the monk, for example. But the golden chain never ran through it. I would hazard a guess that the lack has always been known to some, and may even have motivated the early Knights Templars (there were only nine at the beginning, they say) in their quest for the Grail. You are a believer, Gorb. You can conceive of nothing greater or higher or nearer to you than the god of the NT. I’m sure we all understand that. But let’s test you out on another question: If it transpired that no religious belief can save Europeans from their present travails but an atheist, materialist and Darwinist philosophy could, would you oppose it? 58
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:24 | # Grimoire, You write:
... and yet when we engaged on the Ferguson thread and I asked you substantive questions about your objection to said “dogma” you were curiously silent. Specifically, if my memory serves me right, I listed the components of Darwinism and asked which ones you disagreed with. Given that your disagreement was obviously violent I had every expectation that you gladly explain yourself. I received no reply. I asked again. Still nothing. How am I to engage with someone who employs “Dawkins” and “Darwin” as terms of abuse but will not answer for himself when we get down to particulars? What, indeed, is there to engage with? The paint on the front of the house? Now you suddenly inform me that I:
I do? I should ask you to instance that, but I know you cannot. Let me save you the trouble. Specifically, I am discontented with the fascist presumptions which continue to underlie European New Right and WN ideology. I have said so many times. If you can elide criticism into a “superiority”, then I won’t argue too much with you. Even to name an object evinces a superiority of sorts. But ... the whole of European culture? What do you mean? Wait ... is it an ontological thing? But how so? European culture is not simply or even particularly the meme of rebirth to which you are so partial (without, I suspect, understanding very much about it). It isn’t even all teleology, all striving, is it? But perhaps I am missing the point that fascism is much more central to European culture - not just politics - than I ever suspected. Is the critique of fascism (that its central myth is not a human truth) also a critique of European culture? Are you claiming that no man may put his hands around the fascist neck and squeeze without also assaulting the culture of an entire continent? Well, no. European culture is a bit on the vast side for such a simplistic argument. So what is going on here? Grim, I don’t expect you to faithfully represent what I say in our amusing debates. But I don’t expect you to make such a desperately poor job of misrepresenting it. If, on the other hand, I have misrepresented you, now’s your chance to put that right. Explain yourself. Let’s see some of this intellectual flaying you so bravely claim you can effect. You can begin by telling us which of those Darwinian components you disagree with and why. Look, I’ve searched the Ferguson thread and found them for you:
Until you address this question I do not see how I can answer your expectation of “either justification or clarification” of something or other. A guilty charge of some sort. Possibly “the inconsistency of the internal logic of Darwinism”. You’ll have to help me with that. Ah ...
But I tried. Hard. On the Ferguson thread I asked you a question which I referred to above: can you say “I am”? You showed that you could not, because you dived into an embarrassingly confused reflection on passing time and “being” “outside time”. In other words, you did not know what “presence” meant. To you it meant nothing. This only provoked another question:
Now, here I am asking you to comment on the realness or otherwise of the subject. I knew you couldn’t get to the question, and you didn’t. You were silent - a different silence this time, the wisely discreet silence of the confused rather than the silence of the charlatan who can’t argue against the (Darwinian) precepts at which he rails. But a telling silence nevertheless.
You don’t know this. As so often, you are just saying it. In fact, you lack all necessary intellectual or experiential foundation to form a judgement. I know that. I have known it from the beginning - yes, an unacceptable example of superiority. My bad. Of course the syncretic is elusive. No one supposes otherwise. But no one seems to have approached the matter from the practical direction we are able to, free from the propositionalism which is so fatal to efforts to approach the empirical from the direction of disassociated thought.
The anti-Semitism aside - it does you no credit, by the way - there’s a cultural misunderstanding here, I think. My final paragraph at 09.55AM yesterday was an Englishman’s way of saying “put up or shut up.” The invitation remains open. 59
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:15 | #
And yet the RC church accepts doctrines today that they know to be false. For instance, Benedict XVI bluntly rejects the “ecumenism of the return.”
If the Catholic Church is no longer the ‘truth’, (Mathew 10:33) then would you oppose it?
60
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:50 | # Grimoire, GW had this to say in the Sarrazin thread which touches upon The Question as relates to our mutual concerns, just what is it that can fuel the engine of White ethnocentrism and collective action:
So, if not inevitablism, then what? The “ontological nationalists” will say a philosophy which engenders a presence in Self that produces the effect of heightened perceptual awareness, this awareness including a sense of one’s connectedness to one’s racial fellows as an extension of one’s being (in Being one senses the full expanse of one’s being?), will do the job. Though they concede that only the very few could be expected to achieve such a state, a state they implicitly confess they have not achieved themselves. How such a philosophy, which can only be expected to be significantly operational at a level of elitism that presumably excludes even themselves, will bring about the necessary ethnocentric feeling and resultant mass action in a majority, or at least a sufficient number, of Whites is left conspicuously unanswered. That is why, until a better alternative is presented, I’ll stick with palingenesis. 61
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:33 | # Desmond: In ‘Being And Time’. Heidegger firsts asks about the fundamental reality of the external world, and it’s reliance on understanding of Being, and determines that reality is subordinate to Dasein. ‘Wiederholung’ (recall, retrieval) is the word of which I wonder you refer to in translation as ‘innate language’. For there is Heideggers acknowledgement of the concept in other philosophie, and then there is his own work with problems involved with volk, history and Dasein… such as his later dispute with Berger, etc. In the latter part of ‘Being an Time’, Heidegger declares ‘The essential being of language, cannot be anything linguistic.’ and ‘innate language’ as not a past, but presence. 62
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:51 | # When we lose our fundamentals, we supplant them with increasingly inferior values which we pretend are the true values – Schopenhauer:
I’ve learned that this is your technique. When we are engaging another issue, you bring up a list of tinkerbell questions irrelevant to the issue at hand - if I answer them, you disappear and reappear with more abstractions, usually incorrect ones. If I don’t answer them, (because they are irrelevant) you use that later in another thread to cover the issue of your ducking and hiding in the previous - or you employ PF for squid’s ink . Or, one particularly rich, you insinuate you are testing us….with foolish riddles and so on. Worth a laugh. I think I just expect too much of you. I do think you are a good chap, truly. But I must take you as you are . I don’t really care about Darwinism and so on - ‘the teleology of the ‘genesis of the pipsqueak unto Exodus of the pipsqueak’.
Far be it from me to point out one occasion where you erected a strawman, I can think of one in particular called ‘Palingenesis’ and then committed unthinkable and monstrous depravity to the boy. Not only was it senseless and unjustified - but it had no meaning whatsoever. This was extremely troubling. PF’s article on the subject was a complete bucket of shit from top to bottom - unworthy of contemplation by a dog…....YET YOU ENDORSE this type of madness for apparently, as you put it somewhere, mystical far-sighted purposes.
Is this a defense of feminism? Are you going to tell me that you consider European culture to be too diverse for you to possibly be superior to the whole of it? This is something about Religion you do not understand. You think it is belief, dogma and cant….and you are correct. But this is not what makes it endure. Neither is Faith belief in miracles or resurrection. The intiate believe in insisting on the textual word…but the literal word is irrelevant. Faith untroubled by metaphysical nattering is nothing less than supreme and unassailable confidence, resolve and courage
At the risk of rattling your gramma…..fascism is inherent in all politics.. good and bad, now and in the future. Stop conflating politics with WWII propaganda. Walk outside of judgment and see things as they really are.
Don’t kid yourself….your efforts validate Fascism, not squeeze it’s neck… it’s why I suggest you knock it off.
I’m too busy for these kindergarten assignments. Not only are these questions familiar, but when I tried to deal with you on this subject, you started reciting pallid Husserl and Heidegger for no reason. . If I answer these, you either say ‘well, you didn’t answer my question on Joubert over in the Finkenberg thread. At first i found it insulting that you would think your technique wasn’t patently obvious. Now I realize it’s just what you need to do to maintain this Darwinism thing. Pretending that ‘it’s all genes - only genes expressing themselves’ is apparently comforting to you. Fine. Then perhaps you should respect that which offers comfort and guidance to others, I think for the most part you are a Gentleman. Don’t you see how unGentlemanly, how stinking low it is, to comment spuriously on matters of faith of another European? No matter what righteous fire Dawkins fills your cup - this is no more respectable than the greasy fulminations of the caricature evangelist soapbox preacher. Do you not see how religious your anti-religion is? And it is more unworthy of you than it is of the religious, as it is completely incompatible with being a Gentleman.
Your faith in synthetic theory is even more illogical than the faith of the iconoclasts.
Was the above enjoyable to write? Feel better? Good.
I thought the anti-semitc comment had a touch of the common man. At present I am engaged in some very difficult political study and exposition for a journal on the continent . At this time I’m curious as to whether a good man such as yourself will grow a pair . 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:51 | # CC,
Something like that. The “full expanse” thing is off-target, though. There is no mysticism involved. Collectives cannot be present to Being in the same, extensive and nimble sense an individual can, and for that reason it is not always apposite - it can mislead - to employ a word like “self” too indiscriminantly. For specificity, Dasein is more appropriate. If it does not do too much violence to the word, I might like to redefine Dasein as “present to” and, therefore, as a subject state (but not the subject itself, of course). This differs from the interpretation of Dasein as an act or event in that it would mesh with the commonality of “absent to”, which is important for a putative onto-nationalism and which is missing from Being and Time. It would also deal with the tendency to equate Dasein directly with Being, a conflation which always seems a little lazy to me. On that basis, and speaking of the collective, the issue would become not the simple act of “being” European Man in some sense, but the quality and, specifically, the distance of the state we inhabit in relation to this being. We may become far distant from it or we may draw close to it. Which it will be is determined by our sociality - the way we are in the world - and will be visible in our “weight” or lack of it, and by our naturalness or artifice. All this depends on what the world makes us into individually, for we are not Er in Plato’s The Republic. We are not, as individuals, free to choose. The following is from a comment of mine to Notus on his The Molding of Minds thread, and it is fashioned at the individual not collective level:
The contention here, obviously, is that modernity is a very bad parent. It forms a sociality filled with difficulties for the relation to being - for Dasein - consigning us evermore to the left of the line, deepening our absence and increasing our self-estrangement. The costs of this we all understand. Now, at this point it is clear how onto-nationalism parts company with traditionalism. Adherents to tradition seek to effect a topical solution to the problem. They want to battle directly with our declension. Their watchwords are God, blood and honour, etc ... oh and let’s have a few less births out of holy wedlock, please. But onto-nationalists, if they ever exist, will come at the problem of modernity from below. They will seek to ground not only political discourse but all the primary determinants of our lives in what is real about and true to us, in an effort to move the human product, as it were, at least a little rightward along the line. Traditionalism’s unacknowledged pursuit of adaptive behaviours would be met by this means, out of a renewed European authenticity, out of what is, and can only be, “Europe in me”. Heroic rebirth it ain’t. But it would encompass the heroic inasmuch as heroism is true. And beyond that, CC, is nothing stable and capable of permanent agency - fascism’s principal sin. 64
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:14 | # Dasein, Do you really think Grim’s missive at 10.51AM was a heavy blow? I’ve just read through it for the first time, expecting to find at least something of substance to which I could offer a reply. It is not there. There is nothing there at all. Perhaps he will think better of that and try again later, when he has time to think. 65
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:38 | # Really excellent comment by Bill, early on. Hit several nails on their heads. Of course, we don’t actually need to answer all of the questions of philosophy in order to recognize the moral bankruptcy of liberalism, and to reject race-replacement. We do need a metaphysical standpoint, though, from which to make our arguments. The problem with the GW/PF/Dasein/Notus Wind/Desmond/Wandrin, maybe/ etc approach is that they smuggle a lot of Christianity back into their pronouncements on topics other than pure metaphysics. For example, they make commonsense moral recommendations or observations, seemingly failing to recognize how thoroughly implicitly Christian those are. Their very language of justice, what outrages them, their sense of forensic ethics, are derived from earlier Christian categories. The deeper problem is that these gentlemen really don’t have the guts to follow their analyses to the bitter end. I really must leave this site for now, so I offer this question: Is your final goal the extermination of the other races? If not, why not? I can answer that question in the negative for myself, and for what must seem to someone like GW for the most childish of reasons. I believe in the Christian God. Not that strongly, to be honest, but enough that it prevents my moral erring (from the proper Christian perspective, which is emphatically not the smuggled-in liberalism of today’s church!). I believe in God, because I believe in the resurrection of Christ; or more precisely, I’m willing to give His NT story the benefit of the doubt. I do so partly out of a “will to believe”, but also out of what might be called evidentiary instinct. I’ve done a lot of thinking in my life, a lot of observing, a lot of hypothesizing (and a lot of reading, but that is less germane to my point). I’ve found my hunches to be invariably correct or borne out by later events. To take the first two fairly simplistic and not really impressive examples that come to mind (many others are personal to me, and would be meaningless to strangers). I recall the college economics class in which I first learned about the American Federal Reserve Board. I was immediately skeptical, sensing something very wrong with the discussion of monetary theory. Eventually, I independently theorized my way to a facsimile of the Friedmanite quantity of money theory (the Fed should not manipulate interest rates, but simply announce a set rate of monetary expansion at the beginning of a new cycle). I was not smart enough to reach the Misesian view of central bank abolition (though I recognized its soundness the moment I heard it years later), I admit, but my skeptical instinct was spot on. I have been sound in political instinct, too. I nearly got thrown off a GOP campaign I was staffed on back in ‘92 for loudly telling volunteers and plain citizens that it was vital for the party as well as conservatism that Bush/Quayle lose. Many famous intellectuals on the Right wanted Bush to win (and were then intending to attack him from the Right). They were devastated by the Clinton win. But I was right - as also with Obama, whom I predicted, on various blogs, would be very good for 1) the GOP, 2) the revitalization of conservatism, 3) the marginalization of the Christian Right (and man was I correct about that! just think if Hillary had won ... all the energy on the Right would have been devoted to the abortion issue), and 4) the expansion of the Racial Right. Amidst all the “death of conservatism” one read about two years ago, I was going against the crowd. Perhaps I will go into this at greater length tonight, but for now I only say that I don’t think the story of the Resurrection would have survived all this time if it were not a real historical event. Think about it. Why did Christianity survive and advance? The ancient Mediterranean was not primeval Africa. These people were more ignorant, but no less intelligent, than we are. If you told me you saw a man jump over the Eiffel Tower, why would I believe you? I wouldn’t. Only a few retards might. Who would ever believe that a man who was widely witnessed crucified, widely saw to be dead, and undeniably buried rose from the dead, to be seen by many persons, none of whom are in any way presented as madmen? What utter nonsense! People would laugh at the story. But they didn’t. Moreover, the men who claimed to have seen the risen Christ were utterly transformed to the point of willingly accepting gruesome martyrdom. Would you martyr yourself to the cause of some jackass who claimed to have jumped over the Eiffel Tower, or saw someone else do it? Obviously not. No, you can’t lie about something like this and really be believed. One lunatic might fit the bill, but not a large group - and not the Apostles as they are presented in the NT. They were believed by converts because they were convincing. They were convincing because they were willing to die for Christ, something that at first they had not been willing to do (recall Peter’s denials). They became willing to die for Christ ... why? Because the truth of his teachings was in his physical resurrection. So it is simply my gut instinct, which has done me well over the years, based on what I know of men and the reality of the world of men, to believe in the historicity of Christ. And that gut belief in Christ prevents my doing evil. Because I accept Christ, I am inclined to accept the rest of the core Christian message (albeit in a somewhat purified, and thus heterodox, form), part of which is that all men are presumptively possible brothers in Christ, and thus deserve the benefit of the doubt, too. This in no way implies that I am a pacifist, or believe that race-replacement is part of Christianity (it is not; it is liberalism, which unwise Churchmen have unthinkingly and improperly adopted). But, although I am even a strong eugenicist, I cannot accept an exterminatory ethic, at least not an initiatory one. That is why I would not exterminate the other races. But I don’t see what holds you people back (other than the law; but we speak theoretically here). If I were an atheist, I can see no reason why the other races should be permitted to exist. There is no Darwinian morality. Is there insect morality? It is not good for the propagation of my genes that I must compete for finite resources with other races. Indeed, from a Darwinian perspective, one must be an exterminationist. The only problem, however, and it’s a real fly in the ointment for you people, is that natural selection is finally individual organismic selection. I care about racial survival only to the extent that it aids my genetic propagation. But what if my genetic propagation is enhanced by marrying a non-white - or by being a race-traitor? 66
Posted by Angry Beard on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:56 | # Christianity was just one of a number of multiple competing cults in the Levant at that time. 67
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:02 | # Leon,
There is only Darwinian morality or, at least, morality based in evolutionary adaptiveness. A morality such as egalitarianism which constrains peoples from making adaptive life choices is a faux-morality. 68
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:41 | # Leon, The two positions you put forth are contradictory from a Darwinian perspective. Even if we accept the model it is impossible to be an exterminator and self-interested. The group with the greater altruism will out compete the other. Therefore the self-interested will be exterminated by the altruists and will not propagate their genes. After all why would they fight for their race? They are race traitors. The problem then becomes that altruism, in civilized man, and its incidental by-product, sympathy, as Dasein explains, grows wider until, as Darwin suggested, it eventually encompasses all sentient beings.
Mankind and insects did not trod the same evolutionary path. 69
Posted by PF on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:16 | #
The Darwinian framework is supra-moral because it encompasses and explains morality. That is the epiphany behind evolutionary psychology. It turned out there are no stable moralities that go against evolutionary imperatives and no moralities that don’t arise from the service of evolutionary imperatives. This generalization might be too cut-and-dry, but where people have ‘peered in’ using these analytical frameworks, the analysis has stuck - preliminary results are very, very promising. It looks like morality is piggy-backing off a deeper behavior-structuring framework which is, obviously, our will to survive. One way to find test cases for this hypothesis is to find examples where the two systems - or “evaluative frameworks” - are in conflict, and see which wins. The Shakers, if I recall correctly, foreswore sexual intercourse. Morally thats a pretty nice solution to the messy problem of how to regulate this burning, consequences-be-damned thing that sexuality is. Evolutionarily its disastrous. So you look at the world and try to determine who “won”. Which framework encompasses the other. Morality is always about His Master’s Voice - i.e. someone, dressed in robes of authority, ready to play the role of Daddy to the supplicating Moralist. Often this is a compendium of voices (the Torah? society’s Elders, etc.), an abstracted Choir, or even a reasoning from possible consequences (Kategorical imperative style). Morality is a way of knowing and understanding the larger framework - its a tentative knowledge-system developed to probe the larger thing that we now understand abstractly. Its wrong to take morality at face value and think there is meaning in its scriptures or dictates - none of them mean what they pretend. The moment they contradict strategic advantage, they destroy the User and are abandoned. If they had inherent value this would not be the case. So, morality is Darwinism seen through the prism of group shaming. Given that we now have direct, abstract understandings about the consequences of action, strategic understandings and how-do-I-want-to-structure-my-world replace fire, brimstone, evil, shaming, etc. If anything this has got to be the biggest plus of smart fraction membership, that you get to shurk this hairshirt and try to live on purpose. The brain, getting smarter over the last 10,000 years through nerds finding nerd-love, corrects for the artifacts introduced by necessity in earlier stages of its evolution and allows reality to be perceived with a greater degree of clarity. amazing. 70
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:02 | # Grimoire, For example this passage (apparently from the 1947 “Letter on Humanism”)
(66) Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism,” trans. Frank A. Capuzzi, J. Glenn Gray, and David Farrell Krell, in Martin Heidegger. Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell, rev. ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), 217. “The word is not imposed on the thing; it emerges from the thing itself. In a certain sense, the thing comes to be in the word.” 71
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:11 | # I do not expect to be understood. So with that caveat ...
For me, a problematic sentence on two counts. First, thinking accomplishes the relation of the subject to the object, as do, within their respective domains, emotion and physical sensing. All three systems are evolved through selection pressure for sensing what is beyond the organism, and that is all. That is the sum total of their function. The only authentic relator to Being is actually a state of consciousness, not a thought or an act of thinking. Indeed, this state is produced by a relinquishment of our habitual attachment to thinking and to thoughts, itself the product of a certain exercise of attention. Second, the phrase “essence of man” begs questions like crazy. What Heidegger means by it I do not know. But all one can say is that the sense of self-hood, the sense that “I am”, the sense of inhabiting one’s own self from which one has been estranged for a very long time ... this sense is not “essence”, if essence is some hidden and perhaps immortal life-force travelling through time. And while it might be permanent in relation to what went before, it is not in relation to Being - before which, ultimately, it is nothing. A little while ago PF stated that the “self” is always there, watching, making recommendations, not being heard. I think all the traffic moves in the other direction. One might, through work of some kind, strengthen connectivities to it while the wind blows and the rain lashes down, as usual. But the self, real or unreal, is still brought into being through an act of ascription (or appropriation): ... and without the ascription there is no thing. This I do believe. But it would be nice if Grim or someone could explain how Heidegger treated this quite important and not at all subjective subject. 72
Posted by PF on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:14 | # GW,
You are coming through loud and clear over here, GW. In an effort to produce something besides frustration, you can if you want, struggle with my struggling with this para:
Interesting. Should people without this knowledge hold a place-holder in their minds, allowing for the possibility of this state existing? Or should they assume that you are a liar? Perhaps that is another question entirely but it interests me right now. Now as for the metaphysics, here is my struggle. I am going to posit a different paradigm to understanding the moment of Being, which is taken from sources other than your own, but will no doubt be familiar already from other things you’ve read. You’re going to have to forgive the self-help/esotericism/spiritualism which is going to attach to what I say next, since it was a necessary prelude to me understanding what you are talking about. I am not presently able to converse with you in a form other than this one. Please don’t attack me for it. Michael Brown, the guru whom I most like and am interested in, says the following about ‘what is’: The sense in which he means that is this: the increased experience of life, or if you like, the increased resonance/meaning/depth, and what he calls love or ‘vibration’ which manifests in our experience - resonance being the exact term Gurdjieff used in Life Is Only Real to describe a moment of ‘I am’ - this increased experience is what you are laying claim to as being Consciousness, the source of true Objective knowledge, our path of aquiring knowledge of authentic Dasein. I know this is true. It is very hard to realize what this is, and only a few paths actually work, and each requires tremendous effort (AFAIK). According to you, there is Being, and there is acquired self. There is no path to incrementally increased experience of Being through shedding/transcending of acquired self. Each layer of self is self. You either have Being or you dont. Each layer is acquired, you can’t get nearer the center. My question is: if this is true, why did I return to reading your essays in 2008? How did I know that you know? Put another way, how does anyone ever find the center of this labyrinth? You are saying there are no clues contained in its walls. If the Roarschach is meaningless, how does anyone ever see the light in it? The authentic Dasein might not itself find accessible expression in *any* structure within ourselves that we can see or know. But in becoming more authentic, in stripping away layers, the vibration increases and roars through us much more loudly than with incremental layers of pretence and falsehood thick upon us. People experience when they move towards authenticity in their relationships for example - the relationships ‘hit’ way more deeply and mean much more. In Brown’s paradigm, this means we have gotten closer to the vibrational energy that is our life and which, in its purest experience, is Being or Love. I am of a different mindset than yours on this issue. I think everyone, irrespective of who they are, is on exactly this same path which you are trying to describe the destination of. They are all, all of them, marching towards Being in the best way they know how. Some of them are doing this in ways that will require thousands of years to arrive, which they dont have. Some are doing it in ways that require hundreds of years. Many, many people could get there if given 150 years to live, act, and think about life without their health decaying. This is my hypothesis. So what do you say? 73
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:16 | #
How about Being is disclosed/revealed to consciousness through language? 74
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:14 | # Desmond:
Consciousness and language are the phenomenological world we live in - ‘UmWelt’. Therefore it is anterior to being…(part of being but not it’s origin) Awareness of the self - that self or consciousness is subject to the dictates of the past we cannot change and a future we cannot get beyond…allow us to realize what is always ‘there-bieng. ‘There - Being’ is a literal translation of Dasein. In English it is perhaps more sensible and sonorous to say ‘Being-There’. Heidegger describes realizing or revealing Dasein, or being to itself as ‘Care’. 75
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:15 | # GuessedWorker: 76
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:28 | # Grim, Thank you for that. Two clarifications. 1. The ascription I was trying to talk about - obviously not successfully - on Notus Wind’s Ontology of Mind thread is not of Dasein. The ascription is of the subject ... self-hood. It is quite probably an autonomic response to the work of consciousness, for the assumption that “I am” is endemic to all levels of non-mystical consciousness, including dream-states. So again we come to the non-subjective status of Dasein, and my contention that it can be profitably understood as, authentically, the state of consciousness which discloses Being and, inauthentically, the state of (ordinary waking) consciousness which discloses the existent Personality. Thus, I agree with you that Dasein, in one quality or another, is always there. But ... 2. PF’s assertion was that an essential self is at all times present, and this I am contending on the opposite basis to the contention for the continuity of Dasein, namely that:
In other words, this self-hood is case-specific. Discovered and inhabited from Personality - from “they-self”, perhaps - it is familiar, authentic, and singular and, therefore, seemingly a permanent fixture in our psychology. But now we come to the limit of Heideggerian discourse. For it is claimed in mysticism that the state of consciousness (Dasein) can move further in its revelation of Being, closer to it. And here, it seems, there is no ascription and, therefore, no self-hood. Whatever survives of the self at all is only a viewing platform of some kind, some stable base. It has not a name. There is no “I”. 77
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:41 | # A good topic on which to bid fair adieu ... Dasein: I have never believed that Darwinian evolutionary theory precludes Christian belief, though that, too, has been a mere hunch of mine which may not stand up to critical examination (as Christianity itself, or any religion, may not ultimately be justifiable). I would definitely like to see a satisfactory (scientifically grounded) theological reconciliation of Christ and Darwin (really Christ and all science), and believe that to be a chief task of theology today. This vital and fascinating issue was not, however, what I was originally discussing. Your dichotomy between religious myth and superstition is intriguing precisely because I don’t know what you’re referring to. Please elucidate. In his book, Salter speaks of genetic interest portfolios. One example of the progression of concentration of your genetic interests would be: yourself -> children -> immediate family -> extended family -> nation (ethny) -> race -> species -> closely related species (e.g. chimps) -> less closely related species (e.g. insects). A rational actor could choose to keep a balanced portfolio. So there is also a ‘Darwinian’ response to the ‘exterminationist imperative’. I find this discussion unclear and unpersuasive. I don’t recall this progression from Salter, but regardless, I don’t understand what relation is signified by the arrows, at least in the context of my large comment above. I do find a great deal of this genetic interests stuff ludicrous, at least insofar as one supposes one can derive moral precepts from it. Indeed, the whole field of sociobiology is useful in gaining us insights into man’s evolved statistically significant psychological nature(s), but useless for moral discussion. Humans are obviously not mere instinctual automatons, as are animals. We choose to do actions, even if the genesis of that choice-making arises in our basic biological constitution(s). [Note: I keep adding (s) because we have to be very careful to remember that there are different types of human natures or psyches: the general human -> the tribal -> the individual.] What is the point of all this EGI stuff anyway? Basically, I just thought Salter’s work demonstrates that Diversity Sucks; that is, that it is natural (ie, we are genetically so ‘hardwired’) to prefer cohabiting in communities of one’s own genetic kind. I have a greater sense of kinship with my own children than with those of other whites; with those of other whites than with non-whites; by logical extension, with non-whites over space aliens. What matters is degree of genetic similarity (though even there we have to step back and use commonsense: how many persons hate their parents, siblings, etc?!). Morality concerns itself with how we behave, especially (but not exclusively) interpersonally - not how we are. “Nature,” says the Christian Katherine Hepburn in The African Queen, ” is what we were put on Earth to overcome.” Of what real use is Salter’s work to white nationalism? As far as I can tell, only that it gives the lie to the notion that racial diversity is not psychologically alienating or discomforting. It establishes that ethnic or racial prejudice is natural, not per se that it is moral. Essentially, Salter tells us that we’re not wicked for being emotional racists, whether we understand that as preferring our own kind, or disliking other kinds. Furthermore, if some human attribute is deeply grounded in our evolved natures, then that fact establishes a boundary that should be respected if we wish to maximize human happiness. Anyway, to the topic at hand, your possible “Darwinian response” to the “exterminationist imperative” would be valid only if exterminating The Other lessened one’s own reproductive fitness. This situation would apply to an average black Zimbabwean today wrt any remaining white Rhodesians. The whites are so superior that when they were in charge of Rhodesia the blacks enjoyed a measure of prosperity, too. By exterminating the whites, they are ultimately exterminating themselves. So, yes, there can be cases where a rational Darwinian atheist would not want to exterminate some out-group. But this simply avoids my challenge in your cases, gentlemen, because you know perfectly well that whites derive no enhancement in their reproductive fitness from the presence of diversity, esp of the African variety; absolutely the opposite. If you are an atheist, Dasein, and it were feasible to exterminate the other races, on a finite, overcrowded planet, why wouldn’t you? You have not adequately answered me. 78
Posted by Angry Beard on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:52 | # Darwin and the essential message of christianity can never be reconciled. 79
Posted by Angry Beard on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:09 | # Not wishing to answer for Dasein, Mr. Haller, I offer you a submission. 80
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:10 | # There is only Darwinian morality or, at least, morality based in evolutionary adaptiveness. A morality such as egalitarianism which constrains peoples from making adaptive life choices is a faux-morality. (GW) I profoundly disagree. I find it difficult to believe anyone would agree. See my response to Dasein (the webmoniker, not the Heideggerian fiction) above. I would add that the essence of true morality is self-sacrifice. The Bible contains the parable of the Good Samaritan. The essence of the moral act was the personal sacrifice of the Samaritan. Without sacrifice, however slight, there is not morality. Morality involves doing something for the benefit of someone else, who could also be God (eg, not using illicit drugs, which potentially harms no other, but is deemed immoral because such behavior is thought impious). Moral obligation has always been thought, by traditional Western thinkers (including the ancients), to encompass duties to all rational creatures - though the degree and scope of those duties varies by relationship (including genetic similarity, I would hold). What is an “adaptive life choice”? It is one which increases my reproductive fitness. What if it increases my reproductive fitness to rob people? rape women? Are these actions then moral? Evolution by natural selection is blind to motives, and pitiless. It is a natural process. Nothing traditionally recognizable as moral derives from it, per se. This is not to suggest that modern race-replacement is not immoral. It certainly is, because it introduces present and future unhappiness into people’s lives, for the benefit of the malevolent or greedy few. (There is another reason r-r is immoral, and still another to justify resistance to it, but I’m not going to elaborate, as that discussion forms the heart of my book on racial ethics, unfinished and so still unpublished.) 81
Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:36 | # Leon,
Most people would disagree with that view (including myself) but it is nonetheless the mainstream view in elite academic circles. If you had the patience to really press these types on where the form of the good is to be found they would answer that it is nowhere to be found because it does not exist. The is-ought problem between empirical facts and the form of good is addressed by eliminating the latter as a platonic form and reframing the phenomena of morality in descriptive terms. The latter being just the sum total of what the history of our evolutionary development says is adaptive and the phenomena of morality is explained as the mechanism through which our biology reveals to us its cumulative understanding of what is adaptive. Therefore, to know what is adaptive is to know what our biology recognizes as being morally good.
By writing this paragraph you have finally piqued my interest about this project of yours. I can see now what you mean when you say that we do not have a good argument for why race replacement is wrong on the grounds of traditional [Christian] morality. 82
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:03 | # Angry Beard: What you say is true and interesting, but irrelevant to moral philosophy. First, the essential message of Christianity is NOT that “the meek shall inherit”, but that the good shall. Part of being good is practicing humility. A humble character is not necessarily the type that allows others to rape and pillage him. Its essence is NOT self-abasement (that is more Nietzschean nonsense). I try to be humble, respectful, non-aggressive towards good people. On the other hand, when dealing with the arrogant and immoral, I am very pushy and abrasive. In America (probably now in Un-Great Britain, too), black male youths like to walk down sidewalks in such a way as to require other pedestrians to have to make a special effort to get out of their way. They make no effort to accommodate others. Well, I make no effort to accommodate them. I really do get a secret thrill out of “unintentionally” smacking right into them (sometimes adding a bit of shoulder, if possible). But, I will walk far around a woman with a stroller, or little kids, even out into the street, if necessary. I never make them adjust to me. That is true Christian humility. I am a true Christian (the milquetoast priest is just a liberal coward dressed in religious vestments). Your point about enforcing EGI leading to greater reproduction is true, but not quite apposite. You seem to imply that the leftist critique of Euro-settlement of NA is correct: that we ‘stole’ ‘their’ land. Rubbish! That a few hundred thousand wild savages had developed a kind of hunting life across the vastness of NA did not entitle them to ownership of the whole continent forever. They had a moral duty to share the land; that is, at least not assault peaceful Europeans wanting to settle it and develop civilization. Whites did not have a moral right to kill Indians (unless attacked), but we absolutely had the right to ‘move in’, and homestead land. 83
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:07 | # Notus, I feel guilty here. It seems as though you may have put some serious thought into this paragraph,
The best ‘naturalistic morality’ types can come up with is this Salterian utilitarianism, which boiled down (as I wish more persons here would try to do - there is no shame in simplicity, only over-simplicity) says, to the racial Other, “Your presence does not conduce to my people’s long-term happiness, understood selfishly, because EGI theory tells us that like prefers like, and you are unalike. So stay out.” Oh, “And we have the right [“right”? normativity smuggled back in?] to utilize brutal authoritarianism against our own people not fully committed to EGI in order to enforce maximizing EGI at all times.” And, “We call this tribalist tyranny morality.” Is this a joke? What would Jesus say? Moses? Aristotle? Spinoza? Kant? G.E.Moore? My argument is much, much more involved. I do not believe in morality apart from God. What angers me about today’s Christians is that they use the collective Church, its moral prestige, to push an unChristian, basically liberal, agenda. Liberalism with a theistic patina. I’ve said this for years now, including for a while here. No God, no morality (big claim, worthy of a book itself - but eminently arguable). So the dilemma for GW et al is why be moral when you don’t believe in God? (I had a whole discussion on this earlier in the summer, remember?) Why adhere to the ethical essence of Christianity - “Do unto others..” - if there is no God, soul, Heaven, etc? If humans are nothing more than evolved animals (which we are, in part, but not whole), then morality can only extend a limited (genetic, sympathetic) direction - and that’s not true morality anyway. And humans can choose to violate that even limited morality - and some do ... But to reiterate my long post above: For GW et al, why not exterminate the other races? Note he hasn’t provided an answer. He can’t. But this is GW’s political fallacy: Face it, bro: we’re not going to save the West without a fight (as I keep saying). We are being euthanized today. Actually, I have a neologism to describe exactly the process: “extinctionated”. The West is being extinctionated. That is, we are not being exterminated per se. But we are coercively forced to tolerate conditions which so act upon our race as to have the effect of shepherding us to extinction. (This is not “passive genocide”, either, as would be the case with a foreign plague. This is active extinctionation.) The political fallacy is why sacrifice for the race? Why make personal sacrifices, reducing or risking one’s personal reproductive fitness, which is what evolution acts upon, right??!! for the benefit of an abstract entity like the white race? I gotta get to work, but, my need to move on notwithstanding, I will flesh this out more (and respond to PF and Desmond) tonight. (This comment to you is really badly written, but I hope you can see some suggestive aspects to it.) 84
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:28 | # Leon,
Logically, why not exterminate every other male? Logically, because genetic interests reside in said males, and cost/benefit therefore applies. This is only what Dasein has already told you, and I see no reason why it need be repeated. 85
Posted by Angry Beard on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:30 | # The only ‘morality’ is of survival. As Jeremy Bentham said “Any notion of ‘natuarl rights’ is nonsense upon stilts”. 86
Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:33 | # Leon, In my opinion, the best way to demonstrate the correctness of your approach is to develop your ideas privately and then test them on unsuspecting White Americans and see how well they work. If the results are positive then you can come back to websites of like-minded people (such as MR) and share with us the ideas that you’ve developed and how you’ve made them work as a practical matter. 87
Posted by Matra on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:33 | # Basically the essential teaching of christianity (ie the meek shall inherit the earth), is diametrically opposed to the essential message of evolution through natural selection (ie only the strong and ruthless shall inherit the earth). If the English settlers of the uSA were not so covetous of the bounteous land of the Amerindians, nor so ruthlessly devoted to their own EGI Of course, those English settlers who were “ruthlessly devoted to their own EGI” were, for the most part, Christians. So much for the meek inheriting the earth. Today many of their descendants are neither Christian nor devoted to their EGI and are indeed meek, and their earth is being inherited by stronger, mostly Christian, Latin Americans. Anyway, back to the endless mental masturbation about Christianity’s incapability with our EGI. 88
Posted by Reginald on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:37 | #
I’m not getting this analogy. If you killed every other male, the males left alive would be no more related to you than the males who were killed. This doesn’t apply to killing off another racial group, assuming the genetic distance was great enough. 89
Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:28 | #
I’m not sure I agree with the proposition that most American whites are meek. In my experience, many of them have stronger racial instincts than Europeans. Many are also Christian, although I don’t buy this alleged positive correlation between Christianity and racial instinct many of you are selling - in my area of residence the Churches are heavily involved in importing all manner of racial aliens to my living space. It hardly matters whether the “true Christianity” is or is not racialist, you see, since the large body of people identifying and active as Christians in America are working against the interests of the white (barely a) majority. Let’s not forget that America, for our purposes, can be viewed as being occupied by an enemy regime. The supposed “strength” of the Latin Americans would evaporate quickly if the enemy regime were not there to persecute racially aware whites and aid & abet the invaders in every way. They, not the religiousness of our people, ought to be the focus of any racial movement as it is they who have done the most damage through political activity. And it will take violence to extirpate them, there is no option for our survival that won’t involve a day of reckoning at some future date. 90
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:57 | # Grimoire, Is not language only phenomenological when it is divorced from Being? Might we say that, by the proposition “language is the house of being,” Heidegger means that there is nothing outside of language? Language is being’s home, the place where being is allowed to be. Might this be Heidegger’s meaning? 91
Posted by Reginald on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:50 | #
The actual message of evolution is that the well adapted shall inherit the niche. Sometimes being strong and ruthless is adaptive, other times it is not. By the same token, sometimes being meek (another word for humble) is adaptive, other times it is not. Obviously if a trait, such as humility, wasn’t adaptive at least some of the time (at least in the not too distant past), it wouldn’t have persisted in the human population. And if only the ruthless inherited the Earth, it would follow that everyone would be ruthless by now. 92
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:59 | # Desmond:
Language cannot exist outside of Being. I have understood Heidegger’s later interpretations of Language as ‘a priori’- knowledge of being, difference and plurality. :For there is no Being without understanding of Being” MH . Heidegger interprets the ontological difference, (the distinction between being and beings) such that it follows that there can be no access to entities without a prior understanding of their being.
I think you are right. Yet Heideggers Dasein is triune on all levels, The ‘world’ -Eigenwelt, Mitwelt and Umwelt (each with specific meaning relevant to being) might be described as the house of Being… however the world, like Being, cannot not exist without understanding of it I think in understanding this passage of Heidegger, we must understand the word ‘Language’ in terms of Logos. 93
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:17 | # Leon, For GW et al, why not exterminate the other races? Logically, why not exterminate every other male? Logically, because genetic interests reside in said males, and cost/benefit therefore applies. _______________________________ This is an inapposite analogy. GI reside in fellow white males - unless we’re in a lifeboat situation with limited sustenance, of course. GI do not reside in other races; quite the contrary. On a finite planet, with a shrinking resource base, and ever more large-scale threats due to the greater human ‘footprint’ viz the biosphere, whites would be in an infinitely better position in terms of their ... (this is so silly) ... ‘genetic interests’ if other races simply did not exist (were not competing with us for resources and power). Is someone here denying this?! So, back to the unanswered (and unanswerable) issue: why not exterminate (if feasible) the other races? I wouldn’t because I am a Christian (not in the least a fundamentalist one, however), and know that the slaughter of non-enemies (“enemies” to be understood as criminals or foreign military aggressors) is wicked in the eyes of God. Maybe I am empirically incorrect in my ontology, but my position is not illogical. A Christian does not kill the innocent. But for the racist atheist, why not (assuming feasibility)? It certainly would have been preferable in terms of EGI, or, more relevantly, quality of life and even physical survival, for the Boers simply to have exterminated SA blacks. You are saying they should not have done so ...? I can make no sense of your position. 94
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:44 | # I’m not sure I agree with the proposition that most American whites are meek. In my experience, many of them have stronger racial instincts than Europeans. Many are also Christian, although I don’t buy this alleged positive correlation between Christianity and racial instinct many of you are selling - in my area of residence the Churches are heavily involved in importing all manner of racial aliens to my living space. It hardly matters whether the “true Christianity” is or is not racialist, you see, since the large body of people identifying and active as Christians in America are working against the interests of the white (barely a) majority. Let’s not forget that America, for our purposes, can be viewed as being occupied by an enemy regime. The supposed “strength” of the Latin Americans would evaporate quickly if the enemy regime were not there to persecute racially aware whites and aid & abet the invaders in every way. They, not the religiousness of our people, ought to be the focus of any racial movement as it is they who have done the most damage through political activity. And it will take violence to extirpate them, there is no option for our survival that won’t involve a day of reckoning at some future date. (Gudmund) ___________________ I agree with most of this, except the part about most Christians being active race traitors. This is incorrect. Most anti-immigration conservatives, for example, are self-identified Christians. Non-Christian or atheist self-identified conservatives are much less rightist on immigration issues. Sorry, pal, just a fact. The Churches are useless, but then so are the media, the universities, the political parties, etc. Race treason permeates our culture and society at all levels. You can’t assume from this, however, that the Churches are doctrinally correct in their treason. They are not. They are being liberal, not Christian. Waking people up to this fact is of the highest practical, strategic importance. Even if you are an atheist, most whites (especially in America, though also in South Africa, and several European countries, like Poland) are Christians. Moreover, an even greater percentage of white conservatives are Christians, and indeed, take their Christianity very seriously. Certainly, most Christian conservatives take their ethical relation to God to be of greater importance to their lives than their political conservatism, let alone their racial loyalty. You don’t deny this, do you? So demonstrating the compatibility of Christianity with white race loyalty is something even an atheist should strongly back. Because otherwise, at least in the USA, I’d really like WN atheists to identify for me exactly who and where are these untapped legions of white atheists who will soon take up our banner. Most white atheists, btw, are liberals. 96
Posted by one on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:09 | # Christians are not newcomers to racial egalitarianism, and Christianity is no bulwark against multiracialism. Madison Grant noted in The Conquest of a Continent that many Christian churches were “trying to break down the social barriers between Negro and White.” Some will protest in typical fashion that multiracialist Christians are not “true Christians,” as if such a term has any meaning. It hardly matters what your version of “true Christianity” is when 95% of Christians vehemently disagree with you, think “racism” is a terrible sin, gleefully promote interracial marriage and adoption, and organize refugee resettlement into homogeneous white areas. They will claim just as strongly that you are not a “true Christian.” 97
Posted by one on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:12 | #
Whom the Gods Would Destroy by Richard McCulloch 98
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:56 | # Some will protest in typical fashion that multiracialist Christians are not “true Christians,” as if such a term has any meaning. It hardly matters what your version of “true Christianity” is when 95% of Christians vehemently disagree with you, think “racism” is a terrible sin, gleefully promote interracial marriage and adoption, and organize refugee resettlement into homogeneous white areas. They will claim just as strongly that you are not a “true Christian.” (One)
McCulloch is right in his criticisms, but an ignoramus and moron in his conclusions. The correct question is whether the “One World, One Race” ideology is imperative for Christians, that is, inherent to Christianity, and the answer is no, it it is not. Christians are ethical universalists, not (per se) racial integrationists. The point is that the Church, understood doctrinally, is neither pro- nor anti-white, in favor of or against immigration. That today’s Church hierarchies are filled with filthy race traitors means they need to be racially reformed - not that we should leave Christianity. This is high school logic - but ungraspable in these parts. Well, the ignorance must be changed. Anyway, just keep living in the Neo-Nazi dreamland just over the rainbow, coming on the day after tomorrow. I’ll keep trying to educate one and all in a realistic strategy for race survival. 99
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:36 | # Fred, Aside from the Sharon boast and the famous Billy Graham - Richard Nixon tape, which only ventured into control of the media: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Graham_Nixon.html ... there is no formal evidence of Jewish control of or influence over the policy of Western governments. But real, cast-iron, incontrovertible evidence is needed before you can successfully make your case. Assertion is not enough. In the world beyond the Judeophobic right it has no utility whatsoever. You have to be able to prove it. 100
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:09 | # I consider it obvious from all the evidence and books taken together but if you prefer I tone it down here, GW, I’ll tone it down. 101
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:33 | # Yes, it’s obvious. But it has to be evidential to satisfy non-racialists. Assertion without evidence backfires every time. 102
Posted by pug on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:24 | # Guessedworker, What about this?
What about Netanyahu pointing out that “America is something that can easily be moved?” What about this comment by an AIPAC staffer?
Or this?
Or this paper discussing the demographic future of world Jewry, stemming from a thinktank called Jewish People Policy Planning Institute dealing with issues Westerners are not allowed by Jews to discuss and starring White race-replacement advocates such as Abe Foxman, admitting that anti-Semitism is an inconsequential non-issue despite organisations and constant browbeating to the contrary, that world Jewry is the most economically advantaged ethnic group in the world and at the zenith of their wealth creation in history, a trend expected only to rise while the middle class in most White nations is dissolving? See a summary and link to the PDF at <a href=“http://www.vdare.com/sailer/100712_demography.htm”> It may have some ideas worth poaching for future MR projects as it deals with demographic survival as well. Or what about Jews organising editorship at Wikipedia to promote Jewish interests? 103
Posted by pug on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:26 | # Sorry, the link to the Sailer article describing the JPPPI paper should be this: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/100712_demography.htm 104
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:11 | #
Now that I think of it, my comment was aimed more at Churches and their activities, you see where I live they are involved in importing mass numbers of foreigners. That policy doesn’t actually reflect anything close to the majority’s will, it was ill-considered for me to suggest so. I agree that the major problem with Christians is their cognitive dissonance which leads to inaction. This can sometimes give the misconception that Christians willingly acquiesce to race-replacement in America. What I’m interested in, though, is practical results, as I’ve said; in that light - how do you propose to “demonstrate the compatibility of Christianity with white race loyalty”? 105
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:36 | #
What about: -The Neocons: Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle determining foreign policy; Krauthammer, Kristol working propaganda for same. This is formal evidence of Jewish control and influence in America. And that’s just off the top of my head. Who knows what deep research would uncover. 106
Posted by one on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:57 | #
So in your best case scenario, Christianity is indifferent to racial survival. As it is now, Christianity completely and enthusiastically supports racial nihilism. Adherence to a religion that condemns our vital interests, but which, if you can formulate your philosophy and somehow persuade Christians of its correctness, would only be indifferent to our racial interests, is supposed to be crucial to our racial survival?
If anything is a dreamland, it is your fantasy of the resurrection of Crusader kingdoms. It is telling that when pressed you resort to calling us neo-Nazis.
Attempting to resurrect a centuries-gone Crusader Christianity is “a realistic strategy for race survival”? 107
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 01:28 | # PF,
I hope the best of them will reflect upon how the thinking apparatus works by modeling and, therefore, is given to artifice and distance; and I hope that, desiring to find some way out of this sterility, they will conceive of the possibility of a more holistic and direct approach through attention, stillness and consciousness. But you know the real likelihood of that ever happening. Likewise, no one is going to go to the trouble of erecting a place-holder because of anything we say. As for the masses, well, posterity must be given sweet, fresh water in which to swim. That’s what all our discussion is about, ultimately.
He is a priest, that’s the first thing to say about him. The metaphysical model that Michael Brown adheres to, though he modifies it, is that of Plato’s “Good” which stands at the head of the ontological line down which Being flows to the world of men. Without “Good” there is no flow, and therefore no being. Heidegger, on the other hand, seems to contends that there can be no being without Dasein’s revelatory relation to it. It’s like saying unity cannot exist without all three parts of the trinity, and Dasein is the Heilige Geest. Instead of “Good” and the flow of being in which, finally, all things are grounded, we have relation and revelation. This is the creative act in perpetuum. We are created and create. In fairness to Michael Brown, I think most people with a metaphysical bent - not only faithists - finds it easier to think in terms of flow and ground, God and Man. I tend to, after my own fashion, and it is an effort to apply myself to the much more exciting and inspiring philosophical alternative of relation. No doubt, trained philosophers are the exception to this, and find the latter quite straightforward. Michael Brown’s modification of Plato’s ontological line allows, instead of being, for love to “vibrate” from “Good”. So we have moved from a thought-model of creation to a faith-model of maintenance - and what looks suspiciously like a 1960s hippy-Christian model at that! Is it true? Do we emotionally-process a great wind of love flowing from the Source? I suppose the emotional system could be understood as a cosmic wind chime in the manner that this suggests, but not by me. Let’s keep our feet on the Darwinian ground. The emotional system evolved to ascribe value to events “out there”. It’s the usual story. Evolutionarily positive feelings - for example, pleasure at performing a task well or apprehension at the sight and sound of battle - further our survival. It is a mechanistic process, but it is also an active, not passive, process involving a degree of learning and adaption. In perhaps 20-25% of people it is the dominant force in their mental functioning.
Information is gathered and acted upon in the acquired self - obviously not, in this context, for the purpose of “self-help” or “self-healing” or anything to do with changes or improvements to the acquired self, but for stepping out of the dust, no longer being claimed by it, and to be. In or out, to be or not be, there are no half-measures.
But all of us know the difference between light and dark, freedom and slavery, power and powerlessness, and so on. We all have some idea that we should possess the positives in some form. People move between all manner of formulations about how that might be done, and some of them keep moving, refining their techniques as they go. Hell, jewdar isn’t that different in principal - a bit easier to acquire, maybe!
What is it that is supposed to be becoming more authentic here? What does “more authentic” mean? How can authentic Dasein relate a bit more? More than what? A bit less authentic Dasein? Dasein means “there-being”. It’s corollary is “not being”. Where is this succession of petty Dasein-steps to authenticity? Is it, in reality, that Michael Brown is wrong or working off a religious model, which is the same thing?
That is his interpretation. Another is the artificial excitation of emotion as, for example, when one leaves a play or concert with a terrific buzz inside. You’ve done that, I’m sure. There are people who get addicted to working-out and don‘t feel so very different after a big session. There are guys who feel really alive when they are surfing a killer wave or skiing a black. There are women addicted to being loved … even women addicted to sex, I am told. If one strips away the religious overtones in Michael Brown’s formulation … strips out commentary about “the purest expression of our lives” residing “in Being or Love” … is the emotional expression in all these cases so very different? Are we to argue next that surfing a killer wave is “presence to being”? No, let’s be rigorous and clean in our thinking, and not confuse activity of the acquired self at any level and of any type with the state of freedom from that self, however momentary that state might be. It is in that freedom’s complete uniqueness that its veracity lies.
A charitable estimation. As long as you are not asserting that they progress anywhere until they get there, I’ve no problem with that. 108
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 05:47 | # GuessedWorker:
Lesser men, after delivering a line like this, pull a radio communicator from their utility belt and notify the starship they are ready to be beamed aboard. The chairman requires no such externalities.
The flesh of a young girl tastes exactly like suckling pig…......
Mount Olympia is not called the ‘Big Easy’ for nothing….
This I object. The wind chime of the emotional system is a large cosmic hind of pork.
\
pace report ‘Cultural Learnings of GW for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Daseinakhstan.’
Absolutemento! More Authentic Dasein is like Ham….it nourishes the people.
Never!
Join the Freedom Train !
Liquidate them! oh merciful GW! Purge the counterrevolutionaries who assert progress before they get there ! Mediation and Re-education for mechanistic passives! Forward ever, Backward never! From oppression and backwardness to liberatation, education and production!!!
Bored? Fatigued? Depressed? Why not try a Darwinist/Authentic Dasein Revolution! Studies show that smashing traditionalism, religion and rooted European culture is the best and most healthy alternative to passivity and inauthentic Dasein ever created! 109
Posted by PF on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:29 | # GW, A recurrent theme of our tete-a-tetes seems to be that what you wish to hold is a singularity, I wish to make a gradient; philosophical entities and states which you wish to make discrete, I wish to make continuous. This may have something to do with the fact that my skepticism extends even to our understanding of the metaphysical epiphanies which we bring back into the mind from our higher experiences. I think that the highest knowledge of ‘what is’ might not translate at all back into our rational framework - so from that viewpoint, I am calling into question your reasoning-back-to-Dasein from moments of consciousness.
Yet you have read Sufic philosophy. Do you believe that Dasein and Being are separate entities? The analytical desire for separation into discrete parts is a specific human desire with a specific psychology - ultimately fear and desire for security and “an ordered universe” - and absent this world-structuring imperative, which must needs be absent in the moment of presence, there is no separation. The hippies know this second-hand and may imagine they have approximated it in moments of drug use, and it is summarized in the cliche: “Its all one”. Right now, from my superficial understanding, it looks like you’ve travelled this path to the end of it, but managed to bring along your analytical Western mind. But that is a paradox, or am I deceived? As for this:
What does the anti-teleological part of you have to say about this? Are we self-authored? Can we really do something? I know you don’t mean we are created and create in the sense that Great Men Create Their Destinies By Infallible Striving Towards Greatness. You are speaking of a metaphysical act of relation to Being. Why is this act fundamentally different from all others? In my view, it all takes place in the sloppy foamy grey-and-pink thing inside the skull. This argument echoes our previous discussion about Gurdjieff being unique in his creating on the metaphysical level. I strongly disagree that Gurdjieff has done something fundamentally different from Thomas Edison, in his invention of the lightbulb. I hope I can elaborate without appearing patronizing - since it is entirely probable that you have already understood everything I intended, and that I have not understood you. Edison worked on the physical materials necessary to keep a filament glowing within a glass bulb. Gurdjieff worked on the acts of attention necessary to marry man’s separate faculties into the wholeness that can experience Being. From the perspective of a larger, neutral, non-human observer, these are equally mundane tasks. We ‘light up’ with a deep experience of resonance when in the states under discussion. To me, that is all that is taking place. One of the consolations of being a materialist is that I know with as much certainty as I know anything, that the difference in these states would be measurable on a brainscan. Recent research has shown as much, although they were only able to get meditating monks and nuns, not people who actually… you know. Gurdjieff fiddled with things to make something light up, Edison fiddled with something else to make something else light up - where is the difference?
Interesting, and thank you for the elaboration. You know from discussion with philosophers that they, like as not, mean something completely different from what you mean when they talk about Dasein - or am I wrong? Haven’t we seen philosophers pretend-comprehend this on the blog and elsewhere? Is Heidegger’s conceptual schemata - absent practical road-maps - anything but a conceptual placeholder, presuming the same good faith that you above declare to be non-forthcoming? Its my drearily self-satisfied presumption that the ‘Heidegger epiphany’ is the realization of the inherent weakness in symbolic reasoning structures - and thus an opening up of a gap in the faith in the mind which is our modern western religion - by showing that we don’t know what ‘is’ is, among other things. I haven’t experienced it - Dasein would be the guy to ask. This is a contingency shock - and a glance at Being; it is not the sustained practice to which you have access. In this business, what is a picture of the destination? It seems neither here nor there!
I think Presence is a term I like more than Dasein - it is also used by Michael Brown. Brown’s model is developed to provide a framework to the practice of self-remembering which he teaches, not the reverse. He inherited some conceptual stuff, as we all have, but he is reasoning up about the structure of Heaven, so to speak, from facts on the ground.
This point is echoed by Brown and he has recently revised his works to avoid mention of the word ‘healing’. The reason is exactly the one that you mention.
How do emotions constitute ‘the acquired self’? Do physical sensations also constitute the acquired self? Is the body also acquired? Is there any way you can work out a list of what is acquired and what is not, or work on explaining this more?
Progress towards what? In the sense of establishing their relation to Being? Brown calls this ‘being Present’. He would say that while in the acquired self, one has difficulty gaining present moment awareness. If changes in relation to Being are the goal, they are causally dependent on the realization of precursor steps which do not alter the relation to being but point to where it can be effected. 111
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:36 | #
A damning if affectionate indictment. 112
Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:49 | # Lots of great stuff in this exchange between GW and PF.
Did Heidegger really write something to this effect or are you generously paraphrasing? I am curious because I have experienced such an “epiphany” years ago and it profoundly changed the direction of my analytical and metaphysical development for a time. However, I know very little about Heidegger and the continental tradition that he came out of and so for him to write about something years ago that I might have independently experienced while playing with symbols would greatly astonish me. 113
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:27 | # how do you propose to “demonstrate the compatibility of Christianity with white race loyalty”? (Gudmund) Yes, that is the issue. That is what I am working on. I don’t wish to be coy, because I do have answers on a number of philosophical levels, but I prefer not to discuss them until I am near publication. Unlike the selfless and self-effacing GW, an atheist who is to some extent a better Christian than I am, I’m intellectually ambitious and seek to make a name for myself in real world scholarship, writing at the intersections of Christian (esp Catholic) natural law theory, conservative traditionalism, biological realism (I am pro-Darwin, not pro-atheist), and racial nationalism. There are two separate issues. Should Christians be white preservationists? And, may Christians be white preservationists? The former is more difficult, and requires a very different approach to Christian theology. I am still researching this, but I believe I understand how I shall come down, though it could involve developing an entirely new way of conceiving Christian metaphysics (and thus politics). I’ve never encountered anyone else using my approach; thus, as long as I am unpublished, I keep it to myself. Sorry. The latter is much simpler. I prefer to say that Christianity properly understood (not the secular leftist shit smuggled into today’s Churches) is not incompatible with a non-aggressive white preservationism. Here the issue pertains to the Christian justification for any boundaries in life. This, too, gets into a very long chain of reasoning, but commonsense is good enough for a blog. Does Christianity object to private homes? No. Does Christianity object to the preservation of historic traditions, provided they exist within the bounds of moral law (eg, the Aztec ‘tradition’ of human sacrifices is not to be respected by the Church, nor a Nazi tradition of beating Jews, nor Islamic tradition of denying education to females, or practicing polygamy, etc)? No. Does Christianity demand the destruction of historic nations through immigration-swamping? No. Does Christianity deny public recognition of scientifically established differences in abilities between the races? No. etc etc. WNs need to be very careful to avoid the secular liberal (and often Jewish!!) equating of Christian moral and social values with liberalism or socialism. The latter doctrines have deeply infected modern Christianity, but that just means Christianity needs a racial reformation - not that Christianity is defective. Don’t buy into the self-serving liberal/Jewish caricature of the Faith of your forefathers!!! And always remember: it is easier to take over and build on what already exists, than to construct something wholly new. I have not even scratched the surface of my thoughts on this, but rest assured: it is better for WNs to (racially) ‘subvert’ Christianity, than to antagonize it. 114
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:02 | # Very good comment by Leon just above on Christianity. My take: Christianity, as Leon says, does not mandate race-replacement; in other words, Christians have the option, within Christianity, of taking reasonable, humane steps (such as in the setting of immigration policy) to avoid their group’s racial/ethnocultural extinction. I used to think that, beyond the above, Christianity was neutral, neither preferring the racial/ethnocultural self-preservation of racial/ethnocultural groups nor frowning on it: i.e., Christians could preserve their group if they wanted (provided it was done humanely), or not, as they wished: both were acceptable. I now think Chrisitianity must frown on genocide no matter whether perpetrated wholly by an enemy group or partly by an enemy group, partly by traitorous elements of the target group itself. Either way, where I find fault with the Vatican and mainstream Prods is in their not pointing out one or the other of the above to their flocks in this time of imminent genocidal cataclysm, imminent cataclysm that must be obvious to the Vatican Curia and Lambeth Palace as it is obvious to us, nay more obvious, they being scholars, wise and intelligent, seeing things better than laymen like us. For this omission the Vatican is committing such a grave crime and sin it cannot escape the accusation that it is what the Protestants called it, the Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon. As for the Prods, in most cases they can no longer even be considered a religion. 115
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:03 | # Posted by one on August 28, 2010, 10:57 PM | # the Church, understood doctrinally, is neither pro- nor anti-white, in favor of or against immigration So in your best case scenario, Christianity is indifferent to racial survival. As it is now, Christianity completely and enthusiastically supports racial nihilism. Adherence to a religion that condemns our vital interests, but which, if you can formulate your philosophy and somehow persuade Christians of its correctness, would only be indifferent to our racial interests, is supposed to be crucial to our racial survival? Anyway, just keep living in the Neo-Nazi dreamland just over the rainbow, coming on the day after tomorrow. If anything is a dreamland, it is your fantasy of the resurrection of Crusader kingdoms. It is telling that when pressed you resort to calling us neo-Nazis. I’ll keep trying to educate one and all in a realistic strategy for race survival. Attempting to resurrect a centuries-gone Crusader Christianity is “a realistic strategy for race survival”? ______________________________________________________ So little understanding .... this is why I need to move on. It’s just a waste of my time endlessly bickering, leading mules to water .... After these threads peter out, my presence at MR will consist solely of asking questions. Much less time consuming. Let others talk. I will learn, or ignore, as the case may be. It would represent an enormous improvement in the prospects of whites if Christianity could be racially neutered in the conservative public mind (leftists are hopeless and always will be, and thus should be ignored by us). As it stands, most conservatives think there is something, well, unChristian about white racialism. They have religious guilt over being pro-white, even though they instinctively know that we are right politically and empirically. That guilt has to be shown logically/doctrinally to be erroneous. And all that is necessary is to demonstrate that one can be a good Christian (ie, one is not jeopardizing one’s immortal soul) and a white preservationist (or “true conservative”, as I prefer to think of it). Christianity as a doctrine does not support racial nihilism. Institutional Christianity as it exists today sadly is another matter. But just because the worldly Church is corrupt (this time ideologically) doesn’t mean its philosophical essence is incorrect. When I call you neo-Nazis it is not meant as an insult. It is what I think you must be logically if a) you reject God, and b) embrace WN. Nazism is the logical place for someone who rejects transcendence and yet is racist. I happen to think Nazism (or at least exterminatory racism) is morally wrong (an atheist WN doesn’t, to be logically consistent, have to accept the Fuhrer Principle, fascist economics, secret police, etc, all the non-racist elements of the Nazi ideology), but that’s because Nazism surely is incompatible with Christianity (no theologians, traditionalist or modernist, disagree on this point). But what is relevant here is that I think Nazism, or any anti-Christian WN, is strategically wrong. It will forever remain ‘ghettoized’, which is ultimately not useful for saving our race. Re Crusader Christianity: I was speaking metaphorically! I’m not trying to reestablish medieval Acre. I would like to see a new, tough Christianity (such as existed during the Crusades) replace today’s milksop version. You need to increase your literary understanding. 116
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:52 | # Fred, Your instincts are dead-on right, and I agree. What is happening to us is the ‘extinctionating’ (see my def above - or on another recent thread, I forget) of our people, who happen to be the best on Earth, and who have created the most magnificent moral (and everything else) civilization in history- the one which most closely approximates St. Augustine’s “City of God”. This induced genocide is really and truly evil, in itself, as well as from the perspective of the intentions of those whose interests it serves. No, the Church in its essence is not indifferent to the genocide, representing an unprecedented lowering of the existential moral level of humanity, but it is a shame how morally corrupted the Church has become that it does not fight this - even when one huge aspect of the genocide is the Islamification of Christendom! The Church’s pretending this genocide is not occurring is a deeply sinful act of bearing omissive false witness on the part of its leaders. Enoch Powell was the better Christian, as well as shrewder man, when he spoke of the statesman’s duty to speak out especially against “preventable evils”. “A stitch in time saves nine”!! They could use their moral authority to denounce the false, utopian, Tower of Babel god of One Worldism, with all its ensuing horrors built into the historical pipeline. Instead, they ignore reality, preferring to be comfortable than confrontational (how different from their founder on the Cross!!). But for good men to acquiesce in these falsehoods, to be indifferent to the Church’s own indifference, would itself constitute an immoral abandonment of the Way and the Truth. The flock is leaderless, but it must still act. Inaction in the face of great evil is evil action. We do not choose our duties; they choose us. 117
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:02 | #
Well said and extremely important. Why are laymen like Leon Haller forced to be the ones to thrash this out and clarify it? Why isn’t the Vatican doing it? The Vatican has theologians galore just sitting around idle with nothing to do. Why haven’t the aging fags who run the place set these theologians to work clarifying this vital issue for Euro-race Christian flocks Eurospherewide who are presently threatened with genocide? Because the present Vatican, Pope included, is theologically the Antichrist: well, what else does one call a Pope who actively, knowingly colludes in the greatest genocide in civilizational history? There is only one explanation possible: he’s the Antichrist and the institution he heads is the Whore of Babylon. Anyone think of another name for it? I can’t. 118
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:05 | # Leon’s follow-up comment of 4:52 is also excellent and extremely important. 119
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:16 | #
Sorry to have to disabuse you on that one, Leon. Grimoire, the Tiresias of the Tyrol, has got me down as only just behind Richard Dawkins for only thinking about me, ME, I tell you, and actually ahead of Charles Darwin for vainglory. 120
Posted by PF on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:39 | # Notus Wind wrote:
Heidegger’s discussion in Being and Time is partly dedicated to the fact that we don’t know what ‘is’ actually means. No one can define it. And then after dropping this pebble in our mental lake, he observes the concentric rings that it causes, by looking at the implications of this epiphany for us: If we dont know what ‘is’ is, how can we say A is or is not B? What does it mean to say something ‘is’ something else? How do we have 2,000 years of philosophical tradition without this question being answered? That is the extent of my knowledge of where Heidegger has touched upon this problem, but I also understood this (insufficiency of presently existing symbol systems for describing Being) as being the general thrust of a lot of what he had to say. There I am generalizing. There is also an intuited component of what I wrote. Because I feel that this epiphany - this loss of faith in the mind, however temporary, the feeling of ‘the picture breaking up’ - I hypothesize this is accessible to people working in different knowledge domains, provided they look hard enough and deep enough, with enough insight, at the conclusions which the mind is actually calling on us to draw. Its fascinating that you, Notus, have experienced this, apparently in the mathematico-logical realm? I experienced this in the psychological realm, after looking again and again at the biographies of people, the descriptions of life, looking into myself and seeing what was there. A picture began to emerge for me of a human face - and that face is human nature. But I began to realize that, if you look closely enough, there are cracks in this picture. Look more closely, and all you can see are cracks. The presence of even one crack begins to invalidate the facade, because it proves that there is something underneath it, that it is actually covering something else up. I think Heidegger arrived at this through thinking about Being - and I think the epiphany is very similar, at least in how it *feels* if not in its consequences. My point is that some aspects of this epiphany- or related set of epiphanies - are accessible to people working in different knowledge domains. 121
Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:20 | # PF,
Yes, at the time I was dabbling in mathematical foundations (i.e. logic, set theory, model theory, proof theory) so my thoughts were of a rather technical nature. I certainly wasn’t reading anything like Heidegger.
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to say whether you, me, and Heidegger are having the same sort of experience, but if we are then that makes such an experience all the more interesting and remarkable. 122
Posted by PF on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:42 | # Notus wrote:
Agreed. The meaning of these epiphanies for the person having them might be the same irrespective of it occuring in different theoretical frameworks. It is the sudden realization that a fundamental assumption underlying the whole endeavor of thinking in that realm - now in reality no longer holds, or may no longer hold. In each of the three cases mentioned, a person is looking at the limits of what can be known within their knowledge domain. Heidegger is thinking about what can be asserted logically-philosophically, I’m looking at what can be asserted positively about the nature of a human being, and Notus you are looking - speaking outside my actual knowledge here - at what can be said/thought/reasoned/posited mathematically. You realize that there is this whole structure of thinking that is built up, and that you can’t actually grant it as being definitive. In my way of thinking this is the realization that the symbol system in the brain does not contain absolute reality descriptors. Or the accidental nature and - get this - superficial nature of people’s most deeply held convictions, the superficiality of character, and the meaninglessness of everything people point to when they say “I am X” or “he is X”. A girl gets abandoned by her father at age 5, she spends her whole life working through this with food and drug addiction, resolves these issues with meditation - and then points to her self at age 45 and says: this is who I am. Yet that whole structure which is being called solid is actually liquid - it was constantly amenable to change from outside, especially early on. What of anything within that structure has actual fixity? A few different career choices and I would be a lawyer, a professor, a scientist, a surgeon: what meaning does it then have to assert “I am a surgeon”? Does that actually convey information about the life-process going on inside me? Or does it merely convey information about what happened in 1973-1978 when I was at my most influencable (theoretical case). 123
Posted by one on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:21 | #
Then move on. Stop wasting your time trying to educate us benighted fools.
Why not transform racial preservationism into a “liberal” movement? Neutralizing liberal resistance to racialism would do more to advance our cause than neutralizing Christian resistance.
There are a million “true Christianities.” Christian racialists explain Christianity’s support of racial nihilism today on the grounds that Christians have merely gone along with the prevailing social ideas and trends. If we accept this, this means Christianity is weak and will bend to the will of dominant social influences. Then we ought to ignore Christianity and focus on advancing racial preservationism. If we succeed, Christians will have “revelations” and re-interpret their doctrine in accordance with the prevailing philosophy of the day.
“Think” is the operative word. You have not even begun to demonstrate that “logically” you must be a neo-Nazi if you are a non-Christian racialist. 124
Posted by Reginald on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:52 | #
But it’s the liberals who created a situation in America where “politically incorrect” opinions are looked down on. Just look at what the liberals at Harvard did to their Jewish president after he said some mild things about sex differences. I can imagine if Summers said something about race which was outside the narrow liberal line, they would’ve been even harder on him.
Much of the liberal resistance is Jewish resistance, and might tend to prove intractable. 125
Posted by one on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:56 | #
You didn’t answer the question. All you’ve told us is what we already know, that liberalism is at present antagonistic toward racialism. Conservatives and Christians are nearly as antagonistic toward racial preservation as liberals. Why would it be more difficult to neutralize liberalism’s resistance to racial preservation than Christianity’s? If you can capture the liberals, the Christians and conservatives will follow right along in their typical manner. In the worst case, Christianity is inherently hostile toward racial preservation. In the best case, as presented by racialist Christian apologists, Christianity merely bends to the will of the dominant social ideology. Thus, as long as racial nihilism reigns supreme, Christians will adhere to racial nihilism.
I’m talking about converting liberals of Northern European descent, not Jews. 126
Posted by Reginald on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:34 | #
My point was that you’d have to convert all the Liberals at once, or at least an unrealistically large portion of them. If you convert the Liberals one at a time, they’ll just be purged from the Liberal order one at a time. If you convert the Liberals two at a time, they’ll just be purged from the Liberal order two at a time. ETC. To some extent the same principle applies to non-Liberals, but not to the same extent. There’s more of a purging mechanism with Liberals than anyone else when it comes to these subjects.
If Christians and conservatives followed the Liberal Elite on everything, there wouldn’t still be a 1st or 2nd Amendment in the United States.
So you’re saying all that matters is what the Elites think? How do you think the Elites could be converted?
So the core of Liberalism, which consists of Jews, would remain intact. Jews need their Swipple allies less and less with each passing year, due to steadily increasing voting power of non-Euros. 127
Posted by Reginald on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:41 | #
And that’s important largely because European-American Liberals only really have power because they are part of a general Liberal order that’s propped up by Jews, Minorities, and the Government. You take a White Liberal gentile out of the Liberal order, and you have something which is basically nothing. 128
Posted by one on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:25 | #
For nearly all intents and purposes your purported objection to converting liberals applies just the same to conservatives and Christians. Conservatives and Christians purge “racists” as readily as liberals.
Racial nihilism is the dominant ideology. Christians and conservatives most definitely follow along when it comes to racial nihilism. They may dissent on other issues, but it hardly makes a difference. Christians and conservatives may lag behind liberals by a few years, but they inevitably follow along on the important matters.
No, read what I said. I said that even according to its racialist apologists, Christianity is supple and will bend to the will of the dominant ideology. If racial preservationism takes over, Christians will have “revelations” and re-interpret their doctrine in accordance with the new thought. The key is advancing a racial preservationist ideology, not worrying about placating Christians. The decades-long strategy strategy of pandering to conservatives and Christians has produced nothing. Conservatives and Christians are “beautiful losers.” 129
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:57 | # Gorboduc:
Cool, I was just doing that myself, my secret vice is now exposed! 130
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:52 | # Why are laymen like Leon Haller forced to be the ones to thrash this out and clarify it? Why isn’t the Vatican doing it? (Fred Scrooby) Fred, Why, indeed? I admit it has been incredibly dismaying to me all these years watching the Church ignore the moral right of indigenous Europeans to preserve their historic communities in the face of unprecedented demographic assaults allied to domestic treason, while loudly defending the exact same rights to communal autonomy when voiced by non-whites. It is Satan who is supposed to be the Prince of Lies (and Hypocrisies)! A few years ago I attended a conservative conference on the subject of Christianity, the West, and Islam. At one point I publicly asked one of the speakers why the recent Popes were so reticent on the Islamic colonization of Europe. I noted that Islamic guestworkers could conceivably have flown under their radar back in the 50s and 60s, but not even the most cloistered of Pontiffs (and John Paul II was anything but that!) could watch the building of thousands of mosques on once Christian soil with benignity. What gave? Basically, the scholar could only state what I have reiterated here at different times: that the Popes themselves “have been influenced by secular currents of ethnic tolerance” (a rather anodyne way of expressing the ecclesiastical non-response to Christendom’s ethnoreligious catastrophe!!). I’m not quite sure the senior members of the Magisterium quite rise to the level of the Antichrist and his minions, but they have certainly been derelict in their pontifical duty to educate and guard their flock (esp JPII, with his excessive media vanity and ecumenical outreaches). Of course, this only reminded me of another event I attended at my parish church a few weeks after 9/11. The Monsignor (head priest) invited a socialist labor law expert (whom I provoked, in a now legendary encounter in my neighborhood, into admitting he knew very little about Islamic history) to lecture us about how 9/11, though horrific, was an understandable reaction to past US involvement in the Middle East (OK, there is about 3% truth there, and we know why, but at the time and in context, the guy was trying to muddy ‘the rolling river of righteousness’), and how the “truest American values” were expressed by some coven of Iowa race traitors who donned the veil for a week “in solidarity” with Muslim women in the US about to suffer a presumed nativist backlash!! (If only!) However much our people have been brainwashed, there is still some mental defect or soul-sickness in too many of them, one that is clearly autochthonous, and which we must consider a racial trait we need to work through or around. Finally, I note that I, too, really do wish some leading Vatican or High Protestant theologian (or Orthodox - they are actually the best, esp wrt Islam, probably because they have had centuries under dhimmitude, and more generally, come from a part of the planet less infected with Judeo-liberal antagonism to (white) national identities; but the Orthodox have limited influence in Western Europe and the Anglosphere), one dripping with Latinate erudition, and all the right post-doc training and ecclesial offices, would step up to defend the preservation of Europe. Even just forthrightly condemning EU-imposed Islamic colonization would be a huge start. But do we wait in vain? I can’t help recalling Raspail’s musings about The Beast and its role ... 131
Posted by one on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:07 | # William Saletan makes the same point I made above.
132
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:12 | # Beck is sickening, as well as stupid. But the Tea Party types (I know some and went to one rally) are potentially receptive to a far tougher message, only Beck is just building his career as a sellout (he wants to make money off the TP, while not alienating himself from the MSM). 133
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:04 | # Further to my and Leon’s comments of Aug. 29 regarding official Christianity’s <strike>seeming support for</strike> crystal-clear support for and active collaboration with government-enforced race-replacement of whites, Jim Kalb has an entry in which he proves by citing a few papal pronouncements and some fundamental biblical texts that Christianity does not require the government-enforced race-replacement of all white people on the planet — in other words, Kalb proves that a person can question present Eurospherewide official government policy of exterminating the white race everywhere it exists and still be a good Christian: http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2861 . I’ll ask the same rhetorical question I asked in response to one of Leon’s posts: why does it fall to a layman like James Kalb to clarify this issue (the most important issue Euro-race peoples have faced in the last ten thousand years) when the Vatican has theologians galore just sitting around idle with time on their hands and nothing to do? Why don’t the aging and totally out-of-contact-with-reality fags who run the Vatican set their underemployed house theologians, university professors, and whatnot (hell, a few grad students are probably all that’s needed!) to work clarifying this crucial issue instead of forcing laymen like Leon Haller and Kalb to shoulder the burden? They excommunicated Bishop Richard Williamson, these moral midgets did? Every single senior Vatican official today deserves to be excommunicated. And deserves to rot in hell. 134
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:19 | # I’ve been hammering the Catholics, it’s time to let the Episcopalians (= Anglicans) have a little: here’s Peter Brimelow in a log entry posted tonight:
And let’s not even talk about the Lutherans. 135
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:50 | # At the following link is scholarship, published twelve months ago, on the subject of what Christianity does and does not mandate in regard to immigration: http://www.cis.org/ImmigrationBible . Here’s the intro:
At the following link is a point-by-point refutation, from a Christian perspective, of the arguments of those Prods wanting to grant citizenship to the 40-million-odd nonwhite Third Worlders in the country illegally and already totally ruining every city, town, village, community, region, and state they descend upon en masse, driving white people out as a result: http://www.lenmunsil.com/2010/08/critique_of_evangelical_princi.php . Vatican please take note! 136
Posted by why i don't like the traditionless on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:10 | # But one of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and the laws are consecrated, is lest the temporary possessors and life-renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors, or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters; that they should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail, or commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society; hazarding to leave to those who come after them a ruin instead of an habitation—and teaching these successors as little to respect their contrivances, as they had themselves respected the institutions of their forefathers and that by this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often, and as much, and in as many ways, as there are floating fancies or fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken. No one generation could link with the other. Men would become little better than the flies of a summer. - Edmund Burke: Reflections Post a comment:
Next entry: The BNP Reform Group
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:50 | #
I think you have a different view than some of us of what tradition is, PF.
Look, I won’t go into it but maybe you’d better check out the following, posted this afternoon over at Richard Spencer’s — it explains it:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/what-is-it-to-accept-tradition/ .