Category: The Ontology Project
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 07:27 AM
Not everyone wants to deviate from authenticity, devote time, money, resource and brain cycles in order to “game” women. Indeed, should we try to live according to the values of puerile female inclinations - fierce and frenzied incitement exacerbated by the exponential pandering to her position with modernist, liberal internationalist disordering and the YKW prohibition of social classification for Whites?
A better sort, the kind who like themselves and their kind, prefer to display power by identifying one who is an acutely appropriate match in reconstructing their type and genetic system, together with whom to explore life. Further, they recognize that playing the field leads to terrible injustice regarding our social capital, demoralizes, undermines trust and moral warrant to defend ourselves as a people.
However, the preference of those who would rather not “game” needs to be institutionalized so that their choice does not get diverted into gaming where they rather search for an appropriate partner; as opposed to (another) one they tricked, a woman who could be another man’s appropriate wife, taken through the instigated anxiety of going out of character and into the “fair game” of boundless competition.
As opposed to gaming what would be someone’s singularly important mate or gaming whorey left-overs or leaving whorey left-overs…
Thus, an endorsement for the option of sex and monogamy as sacrament and voluntary enclaves in that recognition.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 06:14 PM
MacDonald At Stockholm, Sweden, April 20th 2015
Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 07:19 AM
- By Dr. Graham Lister
Look, I don’t have the time or inclination to point-out the half-baked thinking of MR’s commentators or interviewed guests (if I think them to be in error). Kevin MacDonald can defend himself can he not? After all, if his ideas are completely robust how can he be subject to a ‘humiliation’? All ideas, political, philosophical and scientific, have to be stress-tested in order to investigate their validity. Why anyone is so much of a ‘special snowflake’ that they get an apriori exemption from this process is beyond me.
Now, no-one that’s sane thinks the individual per se can or should be ‘abolished’, but people have very odd and damaging ideas about what ‘the individual’ is and what it represents - such that over the longer term the ideology of ‘individualism’ has extremely deleterious effects as its model of reality is not in alignment with the true social ontology. Human beings, including Europeans, evolved in small, highly social/group orientated bands. It’s really not rocket science to understand that variation in fitness is partitioned into a group element and an individual element (whilst obviously selecting for or against specific alleles and associated phenotypic traits). In fact, such an observation mathematically and logically flows from basic population genetics, which Hamilton went on to describe as ‘inclusive fitness’ and the importance of relatedness to the evolution of behaviour and life history traits (like female biased sex-ratios in the Hymenoptera etc). Price simplified inclusive fitness theory with his work. And it’s developed since. Steven Frank’s book on social evolution is still the best starting point for anyone seriously interested in the topic.
Returning to the politics and philosophy parts of the discussion, Aristotle is my favourite thinker in these areas. First of all, he would suggest that a proper balance between the ‘parts’ and the ‘whole’ (individuals and the group) is necessary for both to fully flourish. There is a mutual interdependence and reciprocity between the two levels of social reality. Secondly, Aristotle would suggest that there may be many ways to live (like being a Lockean liberal perhaps), but many ways to live are ultimately sub- optimal with the goal of full and genuine human flourishing. And this is true at both the individual level and the group level. And yes the interests of a given individual and a given group can be conflict (again this flows from very basic evolutionary biology and the game-theoretic issue of ‘free-riders’). Thus there must be mechanisms for maintaining the health of both individuals and the collective. It starts by the recognition of the fact that the individual is social and utterly dependent upon the collective in numerous ways that liberal ‘individualistic’ ideology willfully ignores.
Ultimately, I reject liberalism as a set of false ideas about the human world - it has the ontology of humans both as individuals and as communities wrong. Bad ideas eventually result in bad consequences and one hopes vice versa. Thus, I am broadly an Aristotelian communitarian. And I think that must incorporate the realities of human nature (groupishness) and our bio-cultural differential status regarding different groups of human beings. Note, it’s a political axis of differences (bio-cultural) that ultimately ends up in the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction, not some bullshit about equality vs inequalities except that I very naturally value my own well being and life more highly than a random stranger’s and I also value the life of my extended community both today and tomorrow (the idea of an intergenerational ‘moral economy’).
Being a non-liberal, I am against cheap all-encompassing forms of universalism or the moral plateau as philosophers call it. Rather I believe in a nested hierarchy of moral responsibility. I have much more moral duties to my own children than my next door neighbour’s kids, let alone some family in China (that of course does not imply I, by default, hate people in China or wish them harm just that I feel I have minimal moral responsibilities towards them). But I do have some properly warranted moral responsibilities to my neighbourhood and my community. Moral responsibility varies with proximity (properly understood).
Roger Scruton writes about a hierarchy of moral responsibility often. Here he speaks about in the context of the absurd (and liberal) idea of ‘animal rights.’
OK, I have previously attempted on many occasions to write about and explain my thoughts on topics such as societal homogeneity and social capital etc. I will not endlessly repeat myself.
As for the idiotic, paranoid reaction by some to my reappearance, it was simply a function of me taking a quick look at MR in a quite moment and seeing folks speculation about my death! And I posted some chucks from an essay I had been reading. I am starting to get to grips with using a tablet and MR as a site isn’t the easiest to use; so out of laziness I didn’t put the comments in quotation marks. Only when someone posted them to the front page as my own did I feel duty-bound to privately point out that fact. But they’re still good points that I agree with about 90%
No coordination with Danny or GW etc. Seeing a conspiracy at every turn is how Jews think - they project onto others their own deeply ingrained mindset. It’s both pathetic and undignified to follow that way of thinking quite so slavishly.
Speaking of slaves, can anyone seriously doubt the USA is a vassal state of Israel? The best superpower money can buy? And yet Americans still persist in their hurbris that they are the model Europeans ‘must’ follow? Look, if KM or indeed anyone else is pushing that as some sort of ‘idea’ they can go fuck themselves. Savvy?
If Mr. Bowery wishes to contribute to MR go for it. Who the fuck cares either way?
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:59 AM
On the radio page now, Greg Johnson, editor of Counter-Currents Publishing, talks to GW and Daniel about the crisis confronting our race, about liberalism and modernity, and about Martin Heidegger, his revolutionary 1927 opus Being and Time..
Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 07:31 PM
This essay, which is long (sorry about that) and quite detailed, picks up certain themes that were first introduced at MR five years ago. It is, more or less, a summation of my present understanding, as someone pondering the crisis of identity, power, and existence which we Europeans are facing everywhere in the West today. But it is also a contribution to MR’s Ontology Project. As such, it is a modest step towards a firm proposal for a politics for the true European life.
One of the beautiful characteristics of existentialist thought is that an investigation of specific phenomena in the mind or in the lived life can begin with anything, and profitably so. This is because relatedness is inherent to it. All things, even opposites, are related, whereas fracture is the natural estate of non-existential thought. This is a particular theme of this post, in which I am trying to cohere the freedom, unity and Life which should, in my opinion, be the very meaning of nationalism in its 21st century struggle. Let us, then, take as our beginning this idea of struggle, and work from there.
In what struggle are nationalists truly engaged? Well, yes, the struggle for the future of our people: a struggle for survival, a struggle for autonomy, a struggle for homeland, a struggle to live unburdened by the racial Other. That is clear. A process of deliverance, of salvation, then. But also deliverance and salvation from the entire political, social, and economic form of the modern world, meaning from its economism, its egalitarianism, its “liberty” and “progress”, its “tolerance” and universalism … even, for some, its democratism because that, too, is a modernist massifying ideology.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 at 03:06 AM
In citing Yockey’s definition of liberalism, I do believe Tanstaafl captures some of the “it’s a bit more than that” to the definition of liberalism that GW advised over and against the one that I was proffering in the interview with Metzger.
Fortunately for me (and for us as a race), it is not really contradictory of the definition which I would venture as most useful. Though it is, I admit, more articulate in some significant ways that GW would/does appreciate.
I would have liberalism be defined primarily as permission of the violation of the classification - which is the parameters of the group systemic organism of race.
Yockey, like GW, focuses even more meticulously on the individual (as well), to where liberalism would be the experimentation with going beyond the normal parameters of our biology as individuals as well.
That would have several “more than that” interesting implications which provide clues as to where GW was going.
One implication would indicate why GW focuses so much on the Ontology of who we authentically are as European group(s) and individuals. We cannot even know what liberalism is, entirely, or what is inauthentic response to liberaism, a reaction, until that is settled…
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at 08:18 PM
Competition’s authentic value as opposed to its having been the most overvalued, misinterpreted biological fact of European Peoples’ interests (thank you Mr. and Ms. Dumb Bastard, Right-Winger).
This will not be a rigorous piece, rather it is meant to shed some light on a few important considerations by moving them through the terministic screens of a personal history. The issues taken into consideration are the over-valuation of competition - which corresponds closely with boiling everything down to equality/inequality being the problem, that is, the stupid right-wing position of being against “egalitarianism” - to the detriment of other methodological concerns in evaluation of qualitative identity.
Objectivism results in a susceptibility in Europeans to having their enemies shift close genetic identity into objectivist individualism and liberalism, leading to their adopting an array of absurdly affected, non-European identities. While there can be many such diversionary sub-identities, such as student/teacher of a particular non-European study at university, universalism, eastern mysticism, religion, of course, even foreign cuisine, any full treatment of diversionary identity must address sub-identities in music and sports – these will be a predominant theme here as I am familiar with them as identities, strongly held, yet come to recognize where they were more or less diversionary from European identity, quasi identities and competitions to be set aside in favor of more authentic identity.
It should not be too hard to provide facts and numbers as to the impact of these competitions and identities on European people, nor that these can significantly diminish our resource of European identity. Nevertheless, while youth in particular may be susceptible to such diversionary competition and identity, these activities also model means of identity, social participation and evaluation in determination of authenticity which do not necessarily entail violent conflict, immediately lethal, zero sum results – which we should be particularly concerned to keep to a minimum within European genus and species.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, January 26, 2014 at 06:29 PM
A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance
His colleagues noted that some species of crabs have asymmetrical appendages, one being larger than the other, but when one of the pair was lost, another grew back in mirror image to the other. To this they were disposed to ask, how did the crab gain symmetry?
Through the extended analysis, Bateson hypothesized that his colleagues had been asking the wrong question. They should rather have been asking, “how did the crab lose asymmetry?”
It was in fact, in the course of this very investigation into the biological laws of symmetry that William Bateson first coined the term “genetics.”
The rule by itself is not of particular relevance to our concerns for European ontology and nationalism. However, steps taken in ecological and cybernetic analysis and arrival at Bateson’s rule of morphology do have significant implications, suggesting hypotheses for semiotics of ecological (and ontological) correction - including of human ecology.