|
|
Another Year, Another Bay Area National Anarchists Protest VideoPosted by Søren Renner on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 08:44 PM in Comments:2
Posted by seawolf on October 14, 2009, 11:06 PM | # I’m getting very interested in this group Bay Area National Anarchists. I’ve heard of them, but never knew how intelligent and politically sophisticated they are. I live in the Bay Area and would like to meet a few of these young kids. I think there is some potential there. 3
Posted by Andrew Yeoman on October 14, 2009, 11:15 PM | # Hi Seawolf, Drop me a line at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) Cheers! 4
Posted by Dasein on October 15, 2009, 05:05 AM | # The silver lining of the Mestizo/Negro takeover is that they will probably put an end to this shit. 5
Posted by Søren Renner on October 15, 2009, 12:48 PM | # seawolf, if you find a little shotgun mike (perhaps on craigslist) and give it to BANA, that will be a revolutionary act. They need one. (Obviously.) 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 15, 2009, 07:53 PM | # On the subject of the current usurper-régime’s outrageous abuse of our children, here’s an excerpt from a log entry by someone who signs as “Matamoros,” just posted over at Hunter Wallace’s( * ) (title of the entry: “The Education Establishment’s War Against White Children: Part I”):
______ ( * Hunter Wallace is Prozium’s new pen name) 7
Posted by seawolf on October 15, 2009, 08:05 PM | # I was born and raised in San Francisco and spent 30 years in the SFPD. I’ve seen all kinds of deviant behavior. Before AIDS, I saw the bathhouse community flourish throughout the city. But of course, there was a price to pay as there always is. It is no different today, these communities (as the politicians like to refer to them) are killing themselves with AIDS, a plethora of venereal diseases, out of control infections, drugs, depression, suicide and both intentional and unintentional hanging. It’s a depressing and pathetic community which fortunately rarely breeds into the next generation. So, a shotgun isn’t really necessary, but I certainly understand the temptation. I raised two strong and intelligent sons who have been educated about the threats to our race and culture and I know that we can rely on them to stand up for us. I only wish that I had a dozen sons. Anyway, when I see these young folks at BANA, healthy and intelligent white kids who are smart enough to think for themselves, I feel assured. And I think they know what’s at stake. We need to support them. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 15, 2009, 08:44 PM | #
God bless you! God bless your sons! Pray that the day never dawns when sons of yours or anyone’s will have to stand up in the way you may have meant, and defend us. But if it does, on that day not “a dozen sons” but dozens of millions of sons — and I hope mine will be among them — will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with your sons, and with you and with me, stand like a rock, and not permit our people to suffer the eclipse the other side plans for our exit from the world stage. On that day someone will exit history all right. It will not be us. We haven’t been on this Earth ten thousand years just to be snuffed out by the likes of what the Gavin Newsoms of this world are sending against us, not by a long shot. Have you got a Plan-B by any chance, Mr. Newsom? 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 15, 2009, 08:46 PM | # Here’s the specimen, for the non-Yanks out there: 10
Posted by Søren Renner on October 15, 2009, 09:16 PM | # No, no, no! A shotgun MICROPHONE! So that they can film without ambient noise being too loud on the audio track! I was suggesting that you might want to help them with media equipment. I have NEVER * advocated illegal violence at this or any other site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone * (directly) 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 15, 2009, 09:28 PM | # Here’s a shotgun link (more “directional,” gets you right to the intended place): 12
Posted by DRS on October 16, 2009, 12:37 PM | # The Røde video mic is quite cheap. About 80 to 90 pounds in the UK. 13
Posted by danielj on October 16, 2009, 06:51 PM | # I wish I was aware of this group when I lived in San Francisco. It would have made it more bearable. 14
Posted by Effecto-Man on October 18, 2009, 04:22 PM | # Fat slobs with no self-respect cut a fine image! More of them are needed. Stopping the children of people who are your sworn racial enemies from viewing “bears” fellating each other is beneficial how? May a million Folsom Street Fairs blossom! May a million adopted Guatemalan and Korean children get to experience their parents’ particular brand of tolerance. One day, perhaps when the mastodons return, you’ll stop being simple ineffective reactionaries. Until then, though, keep on designing clever icons representing eight-man strong organizations. Keep on wearing matching teeshirts. Onward to victory along the same circular path! Dungeons and Dragons shows us the way! 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 18, 2009, 04:46 PM | # Effecto-man sounds a lot like “Uh,” a defeatist who’s been posting lots of defeatist commentary over at Proze’s. I’m glad to report nobody likes him or is taken in by him. 16
Posted by Captainchaos on October 18, 2009, 05:23 PM | # We must trust in the good motivations of duh, despite all evidence to the contrary, for to do less would be ‘ungentlemanly’, indeed, our ‘status’ may suffer if we do not: kumbaya. 17
Posted by Søren Renner on October 18, 2009, 10:34 PM | # Uh is a sockpuppet for Prozium. Probably Proze/Fade/Hunter/... uses dozens of sockpuppets. I feel bad for the OQ crowd that they’ve been taken in. He’ll do plenty of damage. Oh, the rage. http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/5op/ch02/figs/narcissus.jpg 18
Posted by Q on October 18, 2009, 11:15 PM | # What is needed are great men like John Sobieski and Charles Martel to ‘sweep’ the streets of these ungodly perverts. 19
Posted by uh on October 23, 2009, 08:11 AM | # I’m glad to report nobody likes him or is taken in by him. Nobody here in the Land des Glaubens, at least. 20
Posted by GenoType on October 23, 2009, 03:19 PM | # Uh’s identity or popularity is irrelevant. When the easy online racialist cheerleader Fred Scrooby calls somebody or something “defeatist,” I know it’s time to take a look:
This point is worth constructive thought. It shouldn’t be dismissed. The only reason it is dismissed is because pompous, ineffective reactionaries don’t like to be criticized. 21
Posted by GenoType on October 23, 2009, 03:33 PM | # Not bad:
22
Posted by GenoType on October 23, 2009, 04:04 PM | # This is what I call the “Reality Bites” post:
I do not altogether buy historicism as philosophy, for it’s fatalistic. However I do agree with Uh’s views on racial specialization. Sally Cathcart-wearing laborers, Joe n Sally Soccermom, fat girls at Starbucks, narcissistic intellectual boobs - all are products of environmental shaping of the genetic stock over time. Culture didn’t make them this way. They are what they are. Persuading them is not worth the effort. A new strategy is required. Here’s to the throwbacks! ; P 23
Posted by Dasein on October 23, 2009, 04:19 PM | #
There could be merit to Uh’s point. But doesn’t it take all types, also for a race? Maybe a caste system would satisfy him. I’ve known many ‘low-IQ’, ‘aesthetically repulsive’ types through menial jobs I’ve had, and from office jobs where late hours brought me into contact with janitorial staff. To some degree I am motivated to protect these people from the mud flow, as they’ve abandoned by those they were told are looking after them. Now, maybe it’s not IQ and looks that are the basis for ‘racial’ subdivision among Whites. But what traits are we talking about, and how are they distributed throughout the population? 24
Posted by Captainchaos on October 23, 2009, 04:54 PM | # The following is a comment I posted at Occidental Dissent regarding the contributions, such as they are, of Uh:
25
Posted by uh on October 23, 2009, 06:47 PM | # Man, crossing-posting your own words in isolation. Bad taste.
LOL. Scrooby was the off the hook in that thread. I couldn’t even begin to respond. Maybe a caste system would satisfy him. Not the point. What I’m trying to put my finger on is the assumption of the structural demands of White Nationalist rhetoric (collective identity and responsibility) by the isolated, frustrated ego identifying itself as “white”, and the semantics of wish-fulfillment (here expressed as political ideology). So, talking at the level of which system or configuration of society would satisfy me, would be precisely what I’m pointing to in the rhetoric of others. What I want doesn’t matter, neither what you want, or anyone else, because wants are not the meat of political action and the state of affairs permitting it. The White Nationalist also says you and I don’t matter, but only because he calls himself a “nationalist”, which means, at least, that he must believe he is “fighting” or engaged in a political “struggle” where the reward is an entire nation, race, tribe or people; I’ve said at OD that this is the ego abstracted as group. White Nationalism, then, hinges on a fantasy of group identity because the latter is written into the name and the content of its ideology; it is impossible for most to stop at criticism of Jews and the suppression of white interests / identity—it is but a step to false teleology and the rhetoric of “inevitabilism” to fill the uncomfortable gap between learning one is a member of an oppressed race and the need to believe that state of affairs is soluble or susceptible to direct change by this group ego, which believes its extensive power is that of the group as a whole if the obligation to “wake them up” could be fulfilled. In other words the group ego places over itself impossible obligations which are then turned on defectors from the “correct line” in the manner of altruistic punishment. I appreciate GenoType’s, well, appreciation, but I don’t think it’s simply a matter of not liking criticism. In essence what I’m doing is saying all of this—every piece of rhetoric and all White Nationalism—is totally in vain. Considering how much time you guys spend believing and hoping this and this will come to pass, if only that and that were so, considering that this is much of the content of your ego, it’s no wonder people will get pissed. Very nasty business knocking people’s beliefs. But beliefs always have a hollow look, and every time you knock them, you hear that telling echo. A long time I tried suggesting that white nationalists, lower case, should get themselves out from under the yoke of the collectivist-soteriological delusion and live for themselves, while making real life contacts to soothe and, hopefully, support each other. That that is all we can really manage, exactly what each of us can do in his life. There’s nothing daring about that—we are alone. You wake up, you eat, you go to work, you go to bed, and throughout this mundane little farce of a life you’re (probably) alone. I ask the white nationalist to step back from the computer and look around for this ship of kin that Scrooby and Captainchaos would bully him into thinking is his responsibility. It doesn’t exist. None of it exists. There will no “caste system”, no elite, no Jeffersonians or Nietzscheans, nothing. There will be an elaboration and perfection of what there already is, because that’s how things go; there are no collapses or epistemological breaks on the horizon, and none can be achieved via the internet or any other means at our disposal. You can insert your own desired constructions in at any point you like, but mistaking it for “inevitability” because it’s your desire is the height of philosophical vanity, reached most famously by Hegel—GW’s favorite, significantly. 26
Posted by uh on October 23, 2009, 06:54 PM | # it is but a step to false teleology and the rhetoric of “inevitabilism” to fill the uncomfortable gap between learning one is a member of an oppressed race and the need to believe that state of affairs is soluble or susceptible to direct change Because it relieves tension, the sense of desperation—needless to say. But it’s the most important thing about this. What motivates the white nationalist to believe in disaster scenarios, revolution, etc., in short final states where he is enfranchised through his participation in the group ego, is just this “moment” of tension—which doesn’t really exist as such, and is a convenience of speech—where he learns he’s at the bottom and, in keeping with the instinct of the cornered animal to lash out when backed into a corner, or in some way to defuse the tension of a threatened or anxious state of existence, begins to imagine that there’s a way out of it, which generates the rhetoric of salvation, or “hope”. What else can be said? There is most often no way out. Happy endings are for movies. Thinkable does not equal feasible, much less “inevitable”. 27
Posted by Captainchaos on October 23, 2009, 07:47 PM | #
Let me get this straight, Desires don’t matter as to achieving goals? No, desires are not the object desired itself, nor the physical means pursued in attaining said, but they are the internal impetus and incentive which propel us forward.
Where was this said?
You make it seem as if the reward is only enjoyed by “nationalists” and not by individuals that have been brought into a reinvigorated collective. I beg to differ.
Only if the people do not share the desire to affirm their peoplehood, and this desire can never be evoked in them.
No, dipstick, it is the desire of White Nationalists to see the object of their desire, a reinvigorated collective, achieved. If it were already extant there would be no need to long for and strive after it. 28
Posted by Captainchaos on October 23, 2009, 08:12 PM | #
Community formation is great, but for its raison d’etre to be a glorified support group, as you ostensibly suggest - and as consistent with your psychoanalysized point of view - for it to end there and advance no further, would be pathetic.
Only that it does exist nascently. Ask someone sometime, Are most of your friends White? Why is that then? And so it begins. 29
Posted by uh on October 23, 2009, 08:28 PM | # Desires don’t matter as to achieving goals? You’re either misunderstanding or rewriting the meaning of my words. To be clearer: Desires matter when those goals are achievable. The goals of White Nationalism, which are taken for granted, are not achievable. I may desire to go out and nail this hot blond down the hall from me, but I have no reason to believe there’s anything I can do to achieve this desire. My desire is impotent, my will ineffectual. It’s really quite simple to understand, but as said, you have to block it from reaching White Nationalism because it threatens things taken for granted in WN discourse, and to which you’ve latched your identity. So it becomes more a matter of offending you than saying anything scandalous, illogical or inconceivable. but they are the internal impetus and incentive which propel us forward As you like: but the way forward is blocked. Which is why we’re here talking about it, and ever shall be. I should add that speaking of “the way forward” presumes far too much of the coherence of WN desiderata and strategy in the first place, or that any kind of “strategy” matters, etc. The White Nationalist also says you and I don’t matter, Where was this said? Paraphrasis. I am distilling a common theme from WN discourse—that it is the welfare of the group that matters, not you or I as individuals—which is false (insomuch as it is only as individuals we truly exist anyway, and race-consciousness cannot be created, it evolves), and saying, instead, that we don’t matter because we are politically ineffectual and useless to the system. You’ve said it too in various ways, usually along the lines of calling me an anti come to “divide the camp” with poisonous individualism, or whatever. Again, this presumes a camp, presumes the camp is really threatened, presumes real group activity and effectuality, and it presumes the camp has a right to believe it is in a real contest for mastery, or is right to believe its goals (which merely follow from the reactionary content of its collectivist ideology) are feasible or inevitable. Many presumptions, no substance. You make it seem as if the reward is only enjoyed by “nationalists” and not by individuals that have been brought into a reinvigorated collective. I beg to differ. No doubt the goyim would feel good about it. Point is, there’s no justification for belief in “it”—so the only people who can enjoy the thought of “it” (and “it” is only a thought experiment) are the white nationalists who obsess over “it” despite the total lack of real-world extensive power and the circumstances which would permit such power to operate. Again, what the goyim would like, what you and I would “like”—irrelevant. What counts is what is given, not what can be imagined here in the doldrums. Any departure from what is given, if it is not immediately operating within the networks of power which determine the character and course of society, is fantasy. Only if the people do not share the desire to affirm their peoplehood, and this desire can never be evoked in them. Well, the word “evoked” (like “stimulated” or “awakened”) presumes that racial identification is inherent, or at least the kind of immediately observable physical fact that is sufficient to spontaneously generate an actionable racial identity; but obviously it is a social awareness which was already weak enough in whites owing to the intellectual complexity of their civilization (and other deeper things) that it could be completely dismantled in a matter of decades and effectively suppressed, indefinitely. This is, at bottom, to assume that acknowledgement of racial belonging is enough—which it isn’t. It is a weak, cerebral, “white” thing, and really your own conceit, in the end. Given your miraculous white “meeja” in the Pig Riddle Reich, such mass-awareness as you imagine would have to be quite rigorously imposed on a great many people, who would resist you. A sanguine proceeding to which you are, I have no doubt, eminently suited, but here we are again in the ghostly halls of “would”. If it were already extant there would be no need to long for and strive after it. Miss my point, because we’re talking on different levels. You’re arguing with the terms provided by White Nationalism itself; I’m drawing from rhetoric, transaction analysis and sociology in an attempt to expose the presumptions of White Nationalist discourse. From this perspective, then, there is a thriving group mentality among White Nationalists, which is perfectly analyzable (“knowable”); whereas to you, from the subpolitical perspective with its need to see fulfilled the criteria of a “successful movement”, there is only division, etc. 30
Posted by uh on October 23, 2009, 08:42 PM | # Community formation is great, Wasn’t talking “community”—I deny that community as sociologically defined is possible. Only, friends. Like Effecto-Man up there. He’s an IRL buddy. I <3 him. but for its raison d’etre to be a glorified support group, Ha. Um, your social club—“White Nationalism”—is the glorified support group, which I’ve been saying all along. You’re misconstruing my use of the word “support” according to the “strategic” conceit of WN discourse. I’m not talking strategy or anything heroic, man. But you would miss that nuance, you and Renner with your weirdo impersonal non-friendship. That’s the kind of thing you’re comfortable with. Because you’re a stiffneck, I guess. Ever notice that none of the Third Reich stiffnecks is ready today? We still read Hitler, who didn’t allow Goebbels to ban Pola Negri’s films; Goebbels, who used to nail a Jewess. The greatest minds of the Reich were more socially flexible than the bureaucratic “architects” of its excesses. We don’t read Bormann, because there is no literary Bormann, and we don’t read Himmler’s scribblings because they suck. for it to end there and advance no further, would be pathetic. And again the conceit that only what is strategy-oriented is worthwhile. Ok, so, friendship is “pathetic” if you like. What do I care? I say White Nationalism is pathetic. 31
Posted by Frank on October 23, 2009, 08:44 PM | # Uh, would Aristotle or Cicero or Plato put the state ahead as CC does here? Of course they would. Such is then traditional. However, it’s also best for the state (an institution existing to serve the nation), to allow for decentralisation. You seem to believe communities and larger nation-states are mutually exclusive? Nonsense. Btw, according to The American Prospect, yuppies are out forming “whitopias”. If Balkanisation isn’t inevitable, it’s at least highly likely. 33
Posted by Frank on October 23, 2009, 08:45 PM | #
I’d be interested in hearing more on this… 34
Posted by Captainchaos on October 23, 2009, 08:54 PM | # I may be inclined to address your “points” point by point at a later time, but for now I’ll say: It was precisely the plan of the Frankfart Slug hebes with their psychoanalytic Kikeical Theory for racially cohesive behavior to be pathologized, for one who was a sad sack to admit that he was and to be patted on the back, in other words, to encourage dependency and demoralization (not to mention atomization). They got you hook, line and sinker. So just what the fuck is Kevin MacDonald talking about when he refers to implicit White communities? Eh? Castles In The Air or facts observable in the world? Pay less attention to “sociology” and more attention to MacDonald, because, er, he’s right and ‘they’ are full of shit! 35
Posted by uh on October 23, 2009, 09:08 PM | # Wiki-Mart informs us that - In sociology, the concept of community has caused infinite debate, and sociologists are yet to reach agreement on a definition of the term. There were ninety-four discrete definitions of the term by the mid-1950s. Traditionally a “community” has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a common location. The word is often used to refer to a group that is organized around common values and social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units larger than a household. The word can also refer to the national community or global community. We can dispense with the last sentence, of course. Simply put: we aren’t and won’t be living in a common location. Assuming comm?ni(s) goes back to a Latin expression “com + munis”, shared defensive wall, as opposed to the admittedly presumed “com + m?nia”, shared duties or impôts, we may take locus as the deciding factor in real community, unless we prefer to believe that taxes are what bound the ancient Latins—wouldn’t surprise me. Thus the “strategic” imperative / conceit of Captainchaos misinterprets what I suggested—deeper bonds of friendship—as virtual “community”, as something actionable according to the WN rhetorical scheme. 36
Posted by uh on October 23, 2009, 09:36 PM | # Pay less attention to “sociology” and more attention to MacDonald, because, er, he’s right and ‘they’ are full of shit! MacDonald is a sociologist. So were Adorno and Horkheimer, at least. That they were Jews with an agenda doesn’t lessen the value of certain of their works, or even that part of it devoted to “pathologizing” white fellow-feeling and ideology. You just have to know why you’re reading it. I read them to get a more objective handle on what goes in the heads and comes from the mouths of you White Nationalists—reading everything MacDonald’s ever written didn’t hurt either. “They” don’t “got” me. You “got” yourself. So just what the fuck is Kevin MacDonald talking about when he refers to implicit White communities? Implicit white communities—which have nothing to do with us as politicized actors, and you in particular who wish to control such communities. The White Nationalist gaze, God forgive me, is perpetually unfocused, for to focus on any of the faits sociaux which stand in the way of the miraculous enactment of his inevitable Reich, from the smiling feel-good religion of the goyish majority to a ten-block strip of concrete urban decay, would be to finally discover his total inability to master them. In that respect I’m much closer to the Carhartts, for example; whereas the White Nationalist has no real concern for the content of the Carhartts’ lives, and utilizes them idealistically as faceless white masses to be enfranchised, ruled and forgotten. 37
Posted by Frank on October 23, 2009, 09:37 PM | # I certainly exist in a community. Some of my good friends were friends with my parents. Others are kin of mine. When I have children, I’ll certainly see them as part of myself. I won’t be an “individual” who happens to be raising little “individuals” who may or may not become socially bonded with me… I derive my traditions and beliefs from my ancestors who are not some “idea” - they existed as surely as I exist today. And while you might dismiss continuing to honour what they sacrificed in order for my being here today, I “choose” to continue honouring them. I value their existence, and I wish for them to continue indefinitely. Unlike Jews and other mulattoes, whites are largely pure. We have a distinct ancestry we trace back tens of thousands of years, unlike Jews and other mulattoes who’ve mixed away into a shell of their former selves, or part of their former selves.. If we’re merely individuals, why stop there? Why aren’t we merely cells that came together to form multicellular organisms due to survival benefits and random chance as biology teaches? And why stop there? Why aren’t we merely atoms - why aren’t atoms the end all of our existence? This deconstruction only works in a college dorm among those who haven’t heard this stuff before. Man is a social being who builds societies in order to enjoy the good life as Aristotle pointed out. It’s the natural state of man to be within a social group, and because it’s both natural and tradition it is the truth we can stand upon. You speak of groups of friends, but many of these friends will have children and will marry. They will form their own little clans which will be founded on blood. They may disown their own kin and ancestors, but nature calls. Race simply begins anew. 38
Posted by Frank on October 23, 2009, 09:38 PM | # *Some of my good friends’ parents were good friends with my parents. 39
Posted by Captainchaos on October 23, 2009, 09:41 PM | # I think you realize you are slithering away from the central issue in the process of erecting a straw man, uh. Whatever “block” there is in our path is not essential and permanent. The Jews have experienced innumerable (deserved!) pogroms and expulsions at the hands our people over the millenia. Whatever block that exists is purely notional, and we know who put it there, and who keeps it wedged in place. However cheesy and reductionist it may sound - and that is unavoidable as it is the simple truth - it is precisely our White manhood that our enemies have suppressed in us. So that it is no longer felt as imperative, as a duty, that a White man is his brother’s keeper. Buchanan, who is with us in spirit, says as much here: 40
Posted by Frank on October 23, 2009, 09:43 PM | # My community is largely racially oriented still - that much remains. And my form of WN (or related term since we have few standardised definitions), calls for founding microcommunities that will develop true community, albeit with likely much more outside influence than previous communities. Presently I and other whites live among many blacks, but they exist as a sort of separate nation. The ideal is to relocate with kin and community to an area free of blacks. 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 23, 2009, 10:02 PM | # “Uh’s” stuff, what little of it one can stand plowing through — which is, admittedly, not a whole lot — reads exactly like what you’d see from some guy who’s bipolar going through a hypomanic phase. You bipolar, Uh? 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 23, 2009, 10:04 PM | # All guys here who are bipolar are requested to get back on their meds before they waste any more of this blog’s bandwidth. 43
Posted by Captainchaos on October 23, 2009, 10:20 PM | # GT calls on us to form system-independent microcommunities so that we can engage in activism for our race. Uh scorns the latter as the Jews have stripped him of his manhood. I look to free my brother, and to hold him accountable in a way that if he were not I would not. 44
Posted by Frank on October 23, 2009, 10:25 PM | # CC, we already exist in communities though. And we’re already a part of an American tradition (as well as German and Celtic etc.) of racialism. All we have to do is return to our ways. I acknowlege some might reject Christianity, but we have other ways that aren’t, at least explicitly, Christian. Uh dismisses all as a mere idea, but it’s an idea that’s lived long and continues still as an unbroken thread. America was founded on WN; only whites could be citizens. It continues still with some continuing with a rough sense of those same ideas. When Jews lose faith, they remain Jews. When white Americans lose racial identity they remain white Americans. 45
Posted by uh on October 23, 2009, 10:38 PM | # I look to free my brother, You are neither my “brother” nor my “keeper”, and I have no feeling for you on any grounds, real or imagined. I despise your type—and wish only the worst for our kind just for the sake of the suppression of yours. Scrooby one can laugh at; Frank is boring; but you—you’re the type I want to see crushed. Have a ball with that. 46
Posted by uh on October 23, 2009, 10:40 PM | # just for the sake of the suppression of yours Make that—“and for the hardening of mine.” 47
Posted by Captainchaos on October 23, 2009, 10:52 PM | # Uh, I don’t believe that is the type of thing a White man would say, not one so well acquainted with our issues, when he is free to speak his mind. Yes, and I will say it, it is the type of thing a Jew would say. I am now vindicated and you disgraced. How else could it be? White men of honor will always lay down their lives for their brothers, for their people, as their solemn duty, and Jews will forever be execrable cowards. When I tell you I am not afraid of the Jews, you can take that to the bank because it’s gold. P.S. I’m half German, just thought you should know. 48
Posted by Frank on October 23, 2009, 10:52 PM | # So CC is dangerous, but I’m not? Awe, come on. “I despise your type—and wish only the worst for our kind just for the sake of the suppression of yours.” You’ll change your mind. May I ask why you despise racialists? 49
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 23, 2009, 10:53 PM | # You’re a crashing bore, Uh. What are you doing here other than wasting perfectly good electrons? Go away. Fuck off. Go be hypomanic to your heart’s content somewhere else.
I’d rather be in das Land der Gläubigen than das Land der Manisch-Depressivs. 50
Posted by uh on October 23, 2009, 10:55 PM | # P.S. I’m half German, just thought you should know. I assumed so: such rigorously obtuse moralism can only come from the purest wellspring. 51
Posted by Captainchaos on October 23, 2009, 11:26 PM | # I dedicate this song to you uh, and your fellows (you know who they are):
May the Fatherland live forever. 52
Posted by Effecto-Man on October 23, 2009, 11:46 PM | # Way to nail that crypto-jew defeatist, Cap! Imagine the look on his face when he innocently clicks on your link only to hear the opening trumpets of the Horst Wessel Lied. It will probably blow him right out of the plate glass window of his Manhattan penthouse! Tonight I’m downloading that National Vanguard list about Jews and media, finding email addresses, and sending every last one of them that link. I’ve had it with their execrable cowardice! I’m about to fight back, just like you. Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen! 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 23, 2009, 11:58 PM | # Does everyone see the guy signing as Uh is someone in the hypomanic phase bordering on manic, of bipolar disorder? You don’t see it, CC? Read his comments here and at Occidental Dissent. It’s blinding. You’re talking with guy who’s gone off his meds. Consider what Soren said and put two and two together before continuing to feed this troll in dire need of strong medication. Erasing all his manic/logorheic comments here wouldn’t be a bad idea either. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on October 24, 2009, 12:10 AM | #
I can see you uh, but you cannot see me. I abhor cruelty, done down to the smallest mammal (and birds, I shouldn’t neglect our feathered friends). You, as a result of a your tragic evolutionary history, will never know love, nor truth. And will certainly never be able to bring yourself to admit, that Germanic Man is your racial superior, all things considered, in almost every way. Your people are not morally fit to rule, my people are. You are fond of psychoanalysis, so you should appreciate this, it is not I, or any one of us, who truly wishes to harm any Jew, it is you that project your exterminatory malice on to us. Yet a man, good though he is, and a man, cannot sit by and watch his enemies take everything that makes life living in this world from him - he cannot do it. You must think on that, and tell your brethren. 56
Posted by Captainchaos on October 24, 2009, 01:17 AM | #
Jeez, uh, I can almost find it in my granite slab of a heart to feel sorry for you, the Jewish Century is indeed coming to an end. It had to happen eventually, you guys do have the annoying habit of consistently fumbling the ball just before you get it across the goal line. Our time is coming once again (I think you’ll understand what I mean by that). Kevin MacDonald has generously provided us with the skeleton key, it’s all downhill from here. Shalom shithead. 57
Posted by Frank on October 24, 2009, 02:00 AM | # Uh writes:
True nationalists do care for their own people. Since as you indirectly point out, strangers cannot be trusted (and a stranger of one’s own race is a stranger nonetheless), then there’s need of a decentralised system that allows those with true social ties to care for their own as is natural. The true nationalist is interested in strategy so he can help his people. He does not dismiss the weak or sick or elderly. He does not write off friendship but seeks to develop healthy social ties and from them learn to love others. Anyone speaking otherwise ought to be held suspect. Some self described WN are not truly WN. 58
Posted by Captainchaos on October 24, 2009, 02:30 AM | #
Now Frank, I hope you are not insinuating I dismiss the bonds of affection born of kinship at whatever level this may manifest. What careful reading of what I have written could bring you to such a conclusion? I clearly meant that it is “pathetic” (a word, perhaps poorly chosen, but one intended to stigmatize - I think rightly) for those that can do for our people, not to, you know, do for our people, and merely sit merrily by while our world burns to ashes - which is what uh bids us do as that suits his ethnic interests just fine. It does not, however, suit me, nor should it you. 59
Posted by White Preservationist on October 24, 2009, 02:42 AM | # Despite commenter uh’s bleak negativism, he makes a few good points. The founding of various small to medium-sized face-to-face communities, colonies, think-tanks, and so forth in America is definitely called for, and it is the next step in the White nationalist struggle (at least here in the USA). We are still early in the struggle, in some senses it hasn’t even truly begun yet. On the internet and elsewhere we are just fleshing out ideas, agreeing on future plans and actions, debating pros and cons, and engaging in a lot of mythmaking. uh’s pessimism and hyper-rationalism is dangerous in that it seeks to undermine the non-rational mythmaking currently taking place in some WNist quarters. Constructive criticism is certainly helpful, but not destructive criticism which seeks to crush the idealistic attitudes of some WNists. 60
Posted by Wandrin on October 24, 2009, 04:59 AM | #
I don’t know enough about it to tell although now you mention it it does make me think that not all seemingly hostile comments are neccessarily from crypto-enemies. Some may just be people who’ve lost their medication. 61
Posted by Effecto-Man on October 24, 2009, 06:28 AM | # I’m with Scroob. Anyone who doesn’t agree with us is clearly mentally ill. In the context of our online WN society, dissidents constitute a deviant element. They behave and speak in ways that are different from ours and, for that reason, they are rightly seen as strange. After all, isn’t it strange when someone openly says things that, under the conditions of our struggle, we all know to be dangerous? When fellows like this come along, Scroob and the Cap’n and I are immediately struck by this sense of strangeness, a sense that is compounded when the dissidents start using seemingly cogent reasoning and three-syllable words. The sense that someone is strange is not infrequently followed by the suspicion that the strangeness may be due to mental illness. In our future world, as soon as that suspicion arises in the minds of our authorities, we will have powerful reasons to call upon psychiatrists to examine these dissidents from orthodoxy. Get this guy his medication! Don’t allow his ravings to distract us as we type on keyboards, typing, typing our way to glory! 62
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 24, 2009, 09:19 AM | # This comment is addressed solely to Captainchaos: it’s been claimed within the past few days by someone that Uh is Prozium posting under a different name. You know about this claim — it was made here, and you responded to it in a thread at OD. When I saw the claim it astonished me. I had no idea whether or not it might be true, zero idea. Yesterday morning I still had no idea but by that point was growing suspicious. Then when Uh resumed his harrassment over here I went back and re-read several of his long comments at OD and here, looking for clues that might shed light on that claim. A big clue emerged on re-reading several of his long posts: the person signing as Uh, whoever he is, writes/thinks in a way that most definitely could correspond to someone who has bipolar disorder and is in what is called the hypomanic phase. When one adds a few further clues that I’ve noticed, the claim becomes very plausible, but I’ll stop there except to say I’ve gone from having no idea if the claim was true to seeing it as 95% likely. If the claim is true, clearly your continuing this debate is of questionable benefit. And of course if it is true it’s also extremely unfortunate with regard to the wider context we all find ourselves in, unfortunate in ways I don’t have to spell out. Effecto-Man and Uh are obviously creations of the same keyboard. 63
Posted by Effecto-Man on October 24, 2009, 09:47 AM | # “I’ve gone from having no idea if the claim was true to seeing it as 95% likely.” I’m with you, Scroob, but forget 95%, I’m more along the lines of 97% or even 97.4%! These percentages are even higher than yours! I’m off to rake leaves now - VIA COMPUTER. 64
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 10:36 AM | # Imagine the look on his face when he innocently clicks on your link only to hear the opening trumpets of the Horst Wessel Lied. OMG 65
Posted by Armor on October 24, 2009, 11:10 AM | # If Uh is bipolar, we have to determine how long are his optimistics spells and how long are his pessimistic spells, so we’ll know when to ban him from the website, and when not to ban him. 66
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 11:30 AM | # Constructive criticism is certainly helpful, but not destructive criticism which seeks to crush the idealistic attitudes of some WNists. I believe that (uh’s) criticism destructive of “idealistic attitudes” is a positive contribution, where it may ultimately serve to interdict another catastrophic fuck-up of a White-oriented mission that has achieved any semblance of progress. Idealism is a form of intoxicant that diminishes judgment, and even the highest leadership of past racially-oriented movements have shown themselves not immune to believing their own propaganda - with disastrous consequences. Thus, WN must now be led and followed by “Birds of Prey” - not by starry-eyed youth. (But others’ may feel that any future fuck-up is preferable to the present regime. So, this needs to be hashed out in discussion that “uh” is now provoking with remarkable facility.) NN 67
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 24, 2009, 11:30 AM | #
LOL, that’s funny but in fact you actually can tell with fair accuracy if you’re in the habit of following the commentary of a certain other individual. And of course what characterizes this writing when it starts going off the rails isn’t just optimism versus pessimism, although that also figures into it in ways, it’s the typically bipolar-hypomanic-manic style of logorhea. If you’ve had exposure to it you know it when you see it, especially when you’re looking for it, but even if you aren’t it sooner or later strikes you, it’s so blatant. It can fool you because it can look like brilliance, genius even. It’s not, needless to say — it’s closer to mindless babble. If I were GW I’d erase all Uh’s comments here right now. 68
Posted by Silver on October 24, 2009, 11:33 AM | # Scrooby, Your track record in calling out socks is spotty at best. Uh has previously posted here (and elsewhere) as ‘GR.’ Interesting fellow. Perceptive. (He’s got me pegged: “not really funny or clever when not engaged in dialogue.” Too true. I’m a piss poor writer for a blogger. But that’s no reason of itself to be dismissive: there was a Greek feller who once made a bit of an impact on the world with his dialogues.) But you can tell there’s something seriously afoot upstairs when he churns out crud like: The goals of White Nationalism, which are taken for granted, are not achievable. I may desire to go out and nail this hot blond down the hall from me, but I have no reason to believe there’s anything I can do to achieve this desire. My desire is impotent, my will ineffectual. It’s really quite simple to understand, but as said, you have to block it from reaching White Nationalism because it threatens things taken for granted in WN discourse, and to which you’ve latched your identity. So it becomes more a matter of offending you than saying anything scandalous, illogical or inconceivable. That’s just a fancy schmancy way of saying “give up.” And why? Because success isn’t guaranteed and one should only undertake a course of action whose outcome is 100% within one’s own hands. Presumably that’s how Uh makes it to the bottom of a flight of stairs. But even that’s not really certain. How does he know there won’t be an earthquake in the next few seconds that will shatter his illusions of making it to the bottom step? He doesn’t, but he bravely presses on anyway. Well, on the flip side of that coin, how does he know he won’t catch that hot blond when she’s hot for it and so succeed in nailing her? And why on earth would he imagine that nothing he does could possibly improve his odds of success? That’s taking deterministic thinking (“we can’t do media because we’re not Jews”) way too far. Unjustifiably far. But to point it out is a more a matter of offending Uh than saying anything scandalous, illogical or inconceivable.
Get this guy his medication! Don’t allow his ravings to distract us as we type on keyboards, typing, typing our way to glory! Every revolution has been preceded by discourse. This one will be greatly aided by the fact that it’s occurring on keyboards, rather than in person or via snail mail. What is incredible is not the volume of typing that has taken place before this one, rather that previous efforts managed to succeed at all. For that reason I expect this one to run a lot more smoothly. I mean, geez, it’s not as if Marx was published one year and then the next year they shot the czar. Why was American immigration reform killed when it was (95, 96) and direction abruptly reversed into antiracist hyperdrive? One word: Internet. (Same reason the Fed keeps inflating, btw. Got to keep them distracted while you’re replacing them. Otherwise they might notice and object.) So here we are. The anti-racists have run out of bullshit and the Feds have run out of money. “Typing, typing” in order to communicate this and offer up kick ass alternatives is the exactly the right thing to be doing. There’s no question that the average modern racialist isn’t streets ahead of his counterpart from the 70s and 80s, whose crude verbiage amounted to little more than taking a nigger by the hair and cupping another hand under his chin and fuming, “Look at him! Go on, look! Not only does he look like that, he’s as dumb as a rock,” before flicking him away in disgust. Sure, you had writers like McCulloch, who, if you’re nordic, can’t be beat.* But the average racist was like that guy on the “Race and Reason” public access TV program.
69
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 11:37 AM | # And all the facile, low-brow pop-psych is so…Kosher! I mean, be man enough to deal. 70
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 24, 2009, 11:45 AM | # “If Uh is bipolar, we have to determine how long are his optimistic spells and how long are his pessimistic spells,” Of course if he’s on meds he shouldn’t be fluctuating very much. He should be fairly stable. What he may be doing is fiddling with his meds, going on and off them, something like that. Of course what he does in that regard is strictly his business until he starts going around loudly and aggressively disrupting public thread discussions because of it, even waxing only more brazen instead of less when others gently hint that they know what’s going on. Then it becomes our business and we are entitled, nay forced to talk about it. That’s his doing, not ours. 71
Posted by Lunatic Express on October 24, 2009, 11:57 AM | # Uh: I may desire to go out and nail this hot blond down the hall from me, but I have no reason to believe there’s anything I can do to achieve this desire. Insane. The viewpoint of one of life’s losers. A classic beta attitude. Roissy would have a field day psychoanalysing this sad sack. It sounds as if uh/Prozium/whoever the hell he is today, isn’t getting much these days. I suppose I’d be depressed, too. If he is off his meds, I do wonder if there is a way to push him (VIA COMPUTER) over the ,edge. 72
Posted by Lunatic Express on October 24, 2009, 11:59 AM | # Did I say beta? I meant omega. Lesser omaga to be exact. 73
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 12:04 PM | # The sense that someone is strange is not infrequently followed by the suspicion that the strangeness may be due to mental illness. In our future world, as soon as that suspicion arises in the minds of our authorities, we will have powerful reasons to call upon psychiatrists to examine these dissidents from orthodoxy. Get this guy his medication! Don’t allow his ravings to distract us as we type on keyboards, typing, typing our way to glory! A sad commentary on our context - the lower elements of both the Left and the Right of the goyim generally want to *medicate* their intellectual superiors, rather than take advantage of wisdom that requires some investment of which few are capable. So, one need not wonder why the Jews are supreme by virtue of their own habits. 74
Posted by Battle for the Bundu on October 24, 2009, 12:13 PM | # How is it at the, er, Institute? 75
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 12:36 PM | # Fundamental Number Two: You goyim do not live in a democracy or a “Representative Republic”. Your numbers and popularity do not and will not count, power-wise. You are wasting your time with the cultivation of bigotry and bourgeois resentment. You live under an alien oligarchy, according to the Iron Law, that has controlled “your” military forces, to its own ends, foreign and domestic, for a century now. Your objective should be to persuade friends and family who are member of their military - just as you would educate and elevate yourself - to thus “overcome” themselves and to “become who they and their institution (ostensibly) are”. 76
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 12:58 PM | # “Get this guy his medication! Don’t allow his ravings to distract us as we type on keyboards, typing, typing our way to glory!” Every revolution has been preceded by discourse. This one will be greatly aided by the fact that it’s occurring on keyboards, rather than in person or via snail mail. What is incredible is not the volume of typing that has taken place before this one, rather that previous efforts managed to succeed at all. For that reason I expect this one to run a lot more smoothly. I mean, geez, it’s not as if Marx was published one year and then the next year they shot the czar. Revolution! Unfurl the Bloody Banner! To the Streets! Off with their heads! (LOL - time for a nap) 77
Posted by Captainchaos on October 24, 2009, 02:13 PM | # Uh’s analysis produces observations that are not empirically validated, he expresses genuine malice for common White people, he rejects as maniacally repressive a level of group cohesion and accountability that would be no more severe than found in any major political party. I truly fail to see any attraction a reasonable pro-White individual could have for what he has presented hitherto. Whether it is the product of psychological trauma of some kind or malice born of ethnic grievance it is effectively the same. If Michael Levin wanted to work with a pro-White group at the level of political organization I wouldn’t object for a second, but then again he doesn’t spout distorted, anti-White BS nor have his head up his ass. 78
Posted by Captainchaos on October 24, 2009, 03:03 PM | #
Just who is uh the mental superior of? Me? LOL!
The Jews are cocky so long as they have brainwashed White men standing behind them, but when pressed upon for real they fold like the little bitches that they are, just like uh. I recall when I was going after the faileocons at Takimag, specifically Gottfried and his protege Spencer, toward the end Gottfried actually came out and started whining and sympathy mongering to the peanut gallery. LOL! That says it all. 79
Posted by White Preservationist on October 24, 2009, 03:14 PM | # The calls encouraging commenter ‘uh’ to “get back on his meds” are reminiscent of Judeo-Soviet psychiatry and ought to be cut out. A lot of people who have a tendency toward ‘hypomanic’ spells have made many great contributions to Western civilization, for instance see the books TOUCHED WITH FIRE or THE HYPOMANIC EDGE, among others. That ‘uh’ is a negativist, a defeatist, and a pessimist is clear, but again he makes a lot of good points; he is just being brutally realistic in his attempt to ‘banish illusions,’ and I see nothing wrong with that—all views should be allowed to be spoken here. When and if the American White nationalist project ever truly gets off the ground though, such views publicly aired will be considered a treasonous assault against morale which should be discouraged except in private conversations. —-
I fully agree with that assessment (which is based on Nietzsche’s views as laid out in his GENEALOGY OF MORALITY). Birds of prey (especially hawks) have always been my favorite birds and even my favorite animals beyond some breeds of dogs. Here is a poem you and other Nietzscheans might enjoy: “Hawk Roosting” by Ted Hughes I sit in the top of the wood, my eyes closed. The convenience of the high trees! My feet are locked upon the rough bark. Or fly up, and revolve it all slowly - The allotment of death. The sun is behind me. 80
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 03:18 PM | # I truly fail to see any attraction a reasonable pro-White individual could have for what he has presented hitherto. Then one fails to grasp that being “pro-White,” as Whites are presently configured - with or without racist propaganda in their cranial cavities - is to be pro-conceit and pro-stupidity (i.e., pro-goy), and that uh is thus patiently trying to obliquely suggest, with the tools at his disposal, re-constructing yourselves so that you might one day be equipped to govern yourselves. So there needs to be an *inward* “revolution”. Death - rather - to Fantasy and Delusion! [And remember that famous NeoNietzschean formulation: No Cowboys without Cattle!] 81
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 03:33 PM | # ”...the lower elements of both the Left and the Right of the goyim generally want to *medicate* their intellectual superiors,...” Just who is uh the mental superior of? Me? LOL! I have yet to discover his peer around here in dealing with a metacritique - let me put it that way. “So, one need not wonder why the Jews are supreme by virtue of their own habits.” The Jews are cocky so long as they have brainwashed White men standing behind them, but when pressed upon for real they fold like the little bitches that they are, just like uh. I recall when I was going after the faileocons at Takimag, specifically Gottfried and his protege Spencer, toward the end Gottfried actually came out and started whining and sympathy mongering to the peanut gallery. LOL! That says it all. I think not. But I congratulate you on your ascendancy over these subalterns. Do you have plans to submit David Rockefeller in the near future as you work your way up to a confrontation with *his* superiors? 82
Posted by Captainchaos on October 24, 2009, 05:10 PM | #
All I can say is I hope it ain’t so, Fred. If it is he has my sympathy. 83
Posted by el viejo on October 24, 2009, 05:54 PM | # Fred: “Effecto-Man and Uh are obviously creations of the same keyboard.” And what about NeoNietzsche? From what slime did this middle-class i-fantasist crawl? 84
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 06:24 PM | # Fred: “Effecto-Man and Uh are obviously creations of the same keyboard.” And what about NeoNietzsche? From what slime did this middle-class i-fantasist crawl? From the same slimy keyboard of course, children. Now back to the business of bigotry with you. So much plotting and planning to do. [You *are* plotting and planning aren’t you? Not just playing with yourselves, I hope.] 85
Posted by el viejo on October 24, 2009, 06:30 PM | # Laughing at you, NeoNietzsche, esteemed i-philospher. 86
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 06:42 PM | # Laughing at you, NeoNietzsche, esteemed i-philospher. Delighted to have encountered one of the better-behaved captives. 87
Posted by el viejo on October 24, 2009, 06:59 PM | # I-gents unite! Together, arm in arm, we will smash the imperative mode, smite the pathological optimism, and put these impudent WN-peasants in their rightful place: on their knees, kissing the supple vamps of our leather boots. Er, right, NeoNietzsche? 88
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 07:15 PM | # I-gents unite! Together, arm in arm, we will smash the imperative mode, smite the pathological optimism, and put these impudent WN-peasants in their rightful place: on their knees, kissing the supple vamps of our leather boots. Er, right, NeoNietzsche? Not quite, el. We are hoping thus to enhance and elevate the peasantry around here such that they will one day be worthy of intercourse with our boots. 89
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 07:45 PM | # BTW, el, you rather stupidly enhance someone else’s sense of class supremacy by reacting stereotypically to such with underclass vulgarity. The terms “slime” and “scumbag,” in particular, are time-honored giveaways as to low origins and one’s own sense thereof. Their use does not enhance the peasant who uses them. So everyone take this as a cautionary tale at el’s expense. 90
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 08:27 PM | # NN: Idealism is a form of intoxicant that diminishes judgment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control and even the highest leadership of past racially-oriented movements have shown themselves not immune to believing their own propaganda - with disastrous consequences. 91
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 09:08 PM | # and that uh is thus patiently trying to obliquely suggest, with the tools at his disposal, re-constructing yourselves so that you might one day be equipped to govern yourselves. Incorrect: there is no teleology lurking in my critique. Need there be some scheme for social betterment behind every attempt to dispel error? That, exactly, is the seed of self-interest preventing the White Nationalist from thinking critically (the intrusion of ego in dialectic). I’ve noticed in you this lingering attachment to teleology—interest or belief in general social betterment—but I can’t follow you there, friend. It keeps us grounded in the rhetoric of collective salvation, and that’s what causes all the misunderstanding in those identifying with “White Nationalism”. Bigotry wants uncomfortable truths suppressed because expression thereof threatens (real or imagined, and in this case imagined) group solidarity in the service of (real or imagined, again imagined) tribal or national goals or status quo. I say this group solidarity is illusory (it exists online) and its goal is impossible (which is why it exists in a vacuum); maintaining the teleological rhetoric provides Captainchaos and Scrooby with illusory enemies / heretics, whereupon they act out the usual farce of coming up with ad-hoc rationalizations for a counter-narrative they’re not able to face (from fear—acknowledgement signifies the disengagement of ego from group ideology; cf. “exit therapy” for cult members). I am forced into this role by their dedication to the rhetorical game beyond which they cannot see. To say, then, that in the end I really do care about the quality and content of White Nationalist discourse, that I just want to purge it of prejudices to improve its chance of success—is precisely to move back into the confines of their rhetoric, to validate the terms of illusion, expressed here as the omnipresent false telos dictating what may and may not be said, establishing the “correct line”, etc. In a clinical setting this would be to validate the rationalizations of the subject in denial, which does nothing for the subject. Of course, therapy is most often perfectly useless, and nothing can be “done” at all, there is no “cure”, again a presumed final state. At no point am I permitted to acknowledge or play along with the illusion of the telos, for to do so is, in the end, to relapse into the whole complex of theological errors from “God” to “free will”. White Nationalist rhetoric relies on “if” and “when”, in other words on posited ideal conditions which will lead to ideal results, completely separate from verifiable trends obtaining in the real world. This “if / when” is in essence deus ex machina, “chance”, “free will”, the ghostly agency inserting itself into the unassailable conditions of the real world—in other words the White Nationalist’s ego obtruding itself via tricks of speech upon a world which has disowned his kind, and against which disowning his only recourse is idealism, which he must misunderstand to prevent himself from falling into despair, angst, whatever it be called. Even this despair is interpreted by the politicized ego from what I’ve called the “strategic conceit” angle of the rhetoric—it is “counterproductive”, which presumes that the whole matter, the reversal of the character of our total environment (the world), really depends on what the individual White Nationalist feels and does, i.e. the character of the world depends on the daydreams of the desiring ego. The very magnitude of what stands in the way of the desiring ego mastering his environment plays a central role in the maintenance of the illusion that he has the necessary extensive power, for it is a trick of “perspective”, in that the ego does not permit itself to reconsider the innumerable, and immediately insuperable, faits sociaux which serve in his every day life as so many galling signposts of his powerlessness; by not focusing on this or that, by allowing it all to be just “world”, in the abstract—expressed perhaps as “the people”, “the masses”, “co-ethnics”, i.e. formless mass of bodies idealized through hollow biological identities—the ego is permitted to talk about it in a masterful way. “Illusion of control” means that the optimistic subject consistently exaggerates its relevance to a situational outcome, while the pessimistic subject is more usually correct in its underestimation of its extensive power or relevance; White Nationalists “suffer” from illusion of control, their optimism is “pathological”—precisely because they are healthy, extroverted subjects and interpret “the world” as susceptible to their will from the perspective of greater social fitness. But this fitness keeps it grounded in illusion, in error, and here your error is in ascribing to me the teleological bias of thought which I am putting my finger on in WN discourse. I hope you get my meaning; Lord knows I’m no good at this. “A Finn” came very close to my point of view sometimes—being well read in Foucault, at least—but he couldn’t breathe this kind of air. 92
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 24, 2009, 09:17 PM | # QED. The person signing as “Uh” who wrote the comment just above is immediately recognizable by any first-year psychiatry intern as being bipolar, off his meds, and in the throes of hypomania. Now, connect the rest of the dots. 93
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 09:22 PM | # Needless to say “the rhetoric” can absorb and reinterpret anything by now, because here it has a mind like GW to direct it. GW’s danger is precisely that he’d like to co-opt every metacritical objection to White Nationalist ideology and reinterpret it with his postmodernish prose in terms acceptable to the group conscience. Thus, as I mentioned to you earlier, “illusion” becomes “myth”, because “myth” is poetically serviceable according to the rhetoric. “Myth” suggests pleasant national traditions which, they want to believe, can be popularized in their Pig Riddle Reich to mislead the goyim in a more salubrious direction. Ultimately they want to rule: and rule they will never. Even the “strongest” White Nationalist cannot permit himself to meet metacriticism on its own terms, for again, the slightest break from his own rhetoric signals its collapse. He is ever at pains to abide by the the libidino-political mise en scène, the stage-dressing of the illusion. GW comes a good way out, appears as though he’s about to put his finger on something deeper (or higher) than the usual wrangling over terms—then retreats by making that “something deeper” part of the terminology, casting it under the unobtainable White Nationalist telos. If it all could stop at the expression of desire to live among only our own kind without interference form Jews, etc., or description of the events and currents which have led us hither, there’d be relative truthfulness. But land is the ego’s reich of wishful thinking and make believe. 94
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 09:26 PM | # Now, connect the rest of the dots. Ever get the feeling that people of quality are laughing at you in private, Fred. I suspect even the Guru rolls his eyes at your “performances” from time to time. 96
Posted by Søren Renner on October 24, 2009, 09:31 PM | # Uh just sent me email! I don’t understand it, not completely. Maybe the commenters here can help me puzzle out the meaning of this—this gift—this outpouring of ambrosial excess.
97
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 24, 2009, 09:33 PM | # Oh, they do it in public, Uh — all the time. You’ve never heard of Silver? Nux Gnomica? Friedrich Braun? Oh, that reminds me — Who penned that “Big Von” hit-piece a couple of years ago? Prozium said the other day it was you. But Friedrich once insisted that it was .... well, someone else. Do you know who wrote it? 98
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 24, 2009, 09:35 PM | # Oh god, did you really write that bipolar gibberish to Soren, Uh? Really now, isn’t it time you got back on your Abilify? 99
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 09:47 PM | # @White Preservationist: Well, I disagree with the rhetorical concatenation of the “postmodern”, “politically correct” West with the social culture of the Soviet empire; here again, as I once tried very much in vain to explain to Alex Linder (on “Kirksville Today” I think), we see a kind of rhetorical opportunism in White Nationalist discourse, where an identity is proposed from ideological motive—to link, in the minds of White Nationalists, what’s going on in America and the West, today, with what went on in the East under Soviet rule, i.e. the “strategic conceit” / teleology which makes assumptions from false belief that it is politically serviceable. Same goes for the crocodile tears shed for Palestine, or any scandal-mongering about Israel, by anyone on the right; Palestine serves nothing because we are not engaged in a real political struggle. If we’re not engaged in a real struggle, rhetorical weaponry is useless and nothing but canards. Of course now you’ll want to drag me into a debate about how much life in the USSR really was like life in the kwa, but I disagree, because it is specious both morphologically (the details of the proposed identity itself) and semantically (the subpolitical need it serves via rhetoric). But back of that is a good sentiment—that “pathologizing” is a cheap rhetorical neutralization of the truth-content of opposing discourse. We say: Jews have you all fooled. Jews say: They’re crazy! Goyim say: Baaaaah! (“you’re crazy”). Very few have the faintest idea what real clinical “craziness” looks like or have ever cracked a book on psych., of course, so it’s always possible to avail oneself of this sinister ad hominem and find group affirmation / back-slapping from others participating in whatever illusion is meant to be shielded from criticism. In this case it’s criticism of White Nationalist discourse, which gives Scrooby vertigo, and for someone like Scrooby, doubtless the most viciously self-“colonized” White Nationalist you’ll ever meet, there’s no question of how to respond—with the cheapest, gaudiest caricatures of his opponent in the manner of women who, to shield “their kind” (the general bio-characteristics with which they are prompted to identify in the moment of challenge) from criticism, call one homosexual, etc., or Meeja scriveners who say we’re all in our parents’ basements, etc. Scrooby plays this exact role in the group interaction ritual of White Nationalism, Captainchaos the persistent bully, Renner the guru, etc. etc. etc. 100
Posted by el viejo on October 24, 2009, 09:52 PM | # Greetings NeoNietzsche. I-gents reporting for duty! Maybe I should write the terms in French, like this: bave and sac de sperme. There. Is that upper-class enough for you? Le petit chien pense qu’il est un grand chien. Chacune rit de lui, mais il ne le voit pas. 101
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 09:53 PM | # But Friedrich once insisted that it was .... well, someone else. Do you know who wrote it? Ja, I did. Braun removed my name from the piece for whatever reason—which bugged me enough to PM him on VNNF about it. He told me to “fuck off and get a life”, and duly chastised, I let the matter drop. Oh god, did you really write that bipolar gibberish to Soren, Uh? You’re so easily convinced by your peers. He was kidding, obviously. He does that. Pig Riddle Reich, you see. He’s trying to say that I’m writing pseudophilosophic gibberish, which is probably right. Then again, as I’ll never tire of reminding, he’s the guy who intoned something or other is “the answer to Habermas”. I’ll never know what that means, and it probably means something very profound, beyond my power of understanding; but it serves me well in caricature—Renner the guru, the sporadic propounder, the proposer of mysteries to the flock, etc. 102
Posted by el viejo on October 24, 2009, 09:55 PM | # Ever get the feeling that people of quality are laughing at you in private, Fred With uh and NeoNietzsche, people of quality laugh at them in public. ‘People of quality’—is that like an i-gent? LOL! You’re so bourgeois. 103
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 10:01 PM | # Is that upper-class enough for you? Ah ouais—tu sais que le Scroob aussi aime bien parler (ou lire au moins) en français: est-ce qu’il est donc aussi un “i-gent”?? Ne nous casse pas les couilles sans raison .... 104
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 10:04 PM | # ‘People of quality’—is that like an i-gent? LOL! You’re so bourgeois. No no—I’m a Marxist! But come on, mock-impress with more French or something. 105
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 24, 2009, 10:17 PM | #
But I cudda sworn Braun insisted someone else wrote it. In fact I’m certain he did. Can you guess who he insisted wrote it? 106
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 24, 2009, 10:20 PM | # I think it’s time whoever controls the delete button around here limbered up his delete-button finger and went to work on all of Uh’s output. 107
Posted by el viejo on October 24, 2009, 10:22 PM | # No one’s trying to ‘mock-impress’ you, except perhaps in your imaginary i-kingdom. No, they’re laughing at you. LOL!! <--- that's me, laughing at you. Nothing funnier than watching a burgher play i-gent. 108
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 10:51 PM | # LOL!! <--- that's me, laughing at you. Nothing funnier than watching a burgher play i-gent. Unfortunately you’ve been confusing me with NeoNietzsche, whether because you’re participating in their weird gang ritual where everyone they don’t like is collapsed into a single entity waving a hand full of malicious “sock puppets” at them, or you just aren’t paying attention, I don’t know. Nonetheless I know what you’re getting at, and am not doing it. So I don’t know what your beef is.
I think it’s time whoever controls the delete button around here limbered up his delete-button finger and went to work on all of Uh’s output. He’s never banned / deleted me before. It takes real trolling, and a lot of it, to move him to do that. Of course I’ve seen you frantically calling for someone to be banned before. Has never happened to my knowledge. But I cudda sworn Braun insisted someone else wrote it. In fact I’m certain he did. Can you guess who he insisted wrote it? I really don’t know what you’re angling for. You’re way too paranoid to bother with. And Braun’s a self-absorbed shyster. 109
Posted by Captainchaos on October 24, 2009, 10:53 PM | # Uh, tell Prozium the best way to make Occidental Dissent Forum a success is to get the ball rolling by populating it with sock puppets, each more deranged and pretentious than the next. 110
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 24, 2009, 10:57 PM | #
I think you do. Now, how about getting back on your meds like a proper Southern gentleman?—wasn’t that the “role” you said you played? How about getting back in costume then? 111
Posted by uh on October 24, 2009, 11:05 PM | # Uh, tell Prozium Prozium? ..... He isn’t here right now ........ He’s hiding. He says you’re mean man. A very bad man who wants to hurt us. what—- i .......... They say I can’t play with you guys anymore. :( 113
Posted by Frank on October 24, 2009, 11:41 PM | # CC writes:
I didn’t intend to insinuate such a thing. Apologies. It sounded as if he’d picked up a bad impression from other nationalists. - Judging by what I’ve read from you over the years, I’m confident you sincerely do care for whites and sincerely do not hate nonwhites. 114
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 24, 2009, 11:47 PM | # Greetings NeoNietzsche. I-gents reporting for duty! Maybe I should write the terms in French, like this: bave and sac de sperme. There. Is that upper-class enough for you? Le petit chien pense qu’il est un grand chien. Chacune rit de lui, mais il ne le voit pas. Is that upper-class enough for me? No - but the fact that it suggests itself to you as such is telling. And I *now* await, in slight disbelief, your *next* classic example of underclass misapprehension! “N’interrompez jamais un ennemi pendent qu’il commet une erreur” - Napoléon Bonaparte 115
Posted by Frank on October 24, 2009, 11:50 PM | # Uh wrote:
I intended to counter this by pointing that both 1. we do care for the weak even if the whole is more important than any part and 2. we do exist as a real entity. It didn’t enter my mind that I was attacking you CC. I don’t know what past conversations have taken place. 116
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 12:05 AM | # Friendship and personal ties are important and have their place. The state should take the whole into account as best as is reasonable possible, but individual citizens ought to put their own friends and family before the state within a limited extent. Where the lines ought be drawn are somewhat fuzzy, but it’s clear that someone acting directly against the state, e.g. plotting to aid a foreign invasion, deserves betrayal. The nation in such a case comes before the individual. And on the other side: a parent wanting to aid his child in his training ought to do so, and the well off or well connected will likely have an advantage as a result. So the playing field won’t ever be entirely level, even though upward mobility is desired for those who deserve it. And just so it’s not a negative / positive divide: a relative plotting to weasel out of a traffic ticket oughtn’t be betrayed. It’s better not to have a Soviet style watch in place. - And as usual I’m thinking back to a book I read - not many original ideas of my own. If I can find the book, it’s by a Roman, I’ll post it. 117
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 12:08 AM | # In other words, putting particular ties before the state can ironically serve the state better than the reverse. Uh sounds upset by a misunderstanding of at least my form of nationalism. 118
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 12:09 AM | # Incorrect: there is no teleology lurking in my critique. Need there be some scheme for social betterment behind every attempt to dispel error? That, exactly, is the seed of self-interest preventing the White Nationalist from thinking critically (the intrusion of ego in dialectic). I’ve noticed in you this lingering attachment to teleology—interest or belief in general social betterment—but I can’t follow you there, friend. It keeps us grounded in the rhetoric of collective salvation, and that’s what causes all the misunderstanding in those identifying with “White Nationalism”. I think of the effect of your critique, whether intentional or not, as discharging the battery so that it might be properly recharged. My apologies for evidently imputing a motive not present. Reciprocally, I have no belief in “general social betterment” and would argue against it. The question regarding self-government is whether a population can, out of intellect and inclination, organize itself for an attempt at mere survival, at this point. No “betterment” involved - just stayin’ alive! I would take it as a given that self-government, as opposed to alien government, is a prerequisite thereto. 119
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 12:35 AM | # Fuck, forgot—@ Silver: That’s just a fancy schmancy way of saying “give up.” Huh. Playing Captainchaos sock puppet, now. I’m a piss poor writer for a blogger. But that’s no reason of itself to be dismissive: there was a Greek feller who once made a bit of an impact on the world with his dialogues You’re a poor blogger because you’re reactionary—not the political kind, I mean a reactionary personality, like me: you’re at your best only when fielding questions or attacking someone. Left to create something on your own, you’re sterile and come off as “forced”. You make promises you know you can’t keep. You’re easily distracted. Difference between you and me is that I don’t liken myself to Socrates, or any famous personage. You are full of yourself, but you know that, it is part of your shtick. “I’m Silver, I’m catty and contumacious, ha ha ha.” You’re kind of a queer, actually, though I do appreciate your more careful approach to solving all the world’s problems. If any of your Reichs were possible, the Silverian Reich would be the fairest and most easily constructed. I’d live there. I’d probably beat your face in because you’re so gd annoying, but I’d keep everything the way it is. Because success isn’t guaranteed and one should only undertake a course of action whose outcome is 100% within one’s own hands. You have obliterated White Nationalism’s collectivist ideology: for the only courses of action “in our hands” lead nowhere near influence or power, collectively or individually. What I’ve been saying all along. You’re refreshingly careful, but the folksy metaphors that follow are spurious. How does he know there won’t be an earthquake in the next few seconds that will shatter his illusions of making it to the bottom step? Lord, why bother with this. HOW DO I KNOW THAT I KNOW???? and other burning questions from Philo 101. Is this all your inevitable Reich depends on—an earthquake? Well, on the flip side of that coin, how does he know he won’t catch that hot blond when she’s hot for it and so succeed in nailing her? Well, my glib woggish friend, something called “scientific procedure” operating informally by observation of behavioral patterns, repeated outcomes based on those patterns, and assumption by inference that such will (and must) continue—you’re essentially arguing against that walk down the stairs, because it is predicated on the rarity of earthquakes, at least when not atop a fault-line. Similarly, it is no stretch, or evidence of “depression”, “not getting any”, or any other high school ad hominem, to assert that based on a lifetime of experience with females of a certain order (or wild animals, or cars rushing by at high speeds—anything operating regularly in a certain way to be interacted with on its own terms), and inquiry into primordial and modern criteria of sexual selection, etc., that I can’t get the “hot blond down the hall” (who doesn’t exist). We observe, we classify, we order phenomena according to their qualities and the patterns of behavior in which they are engaged: that’s science, and you “beg” its nature from bias. What bias? The bias to ensure that White Nationalism has the appearance of real-world viability, which it doesn’t. Your tactic is different, but at bottom you rely on the same “if / when”, not too cleverly twisted back at me in your reductionist manner. And why on earth would he imagine that nothing he does could possibly improve his odds of success? As said, because nothing could. Hope vs. science. Go punch a brick wall—ouch! Do it again? Probably not. Why on earth would you imagine that the next punch mightn’t be the one to send your fist through to the other side??? Because we know the brick wall is harder than the human fist and the force with which it can be projected by the shoulder. That is science, you see. We can also observe that women, esp. pretty blond women—a world commodity more valuable, more expensive than gold when considering all the markets devoted to her vanity—have certain immutable selection criteria in mates, and then again certain modern ones which, though grounded in the immutable or “evolutionary” criteria, are apparently counter-evolutionary. We can further observe that I may not meet those criteria. We may observe that most people are extremely stupid, think and act in much the same way, and would be unjustified in assuming a departure from normative behavior based on personal desire. Such an assumption would be, you feel me, unscientific. Thus, if we know what they want and how they behave, and the pretty blond down the hall bears all the right visual markers of belonging to that type, and her behavior can to some extent be observed, and if I know myself and am intelligent enough to assume or to analyze myself as a prospect according to her criteria—we can very justly conclude that there is, really, no chance of success whatever, and to proceed as though there were would be persistence in error and, socially, further schooling in the fucking ways of the world you know informally anyhow. Again: you argue against this from biased motive. Because if there is “chance”, “randomness”, if there is no rigorously exclusionary norm, in short if nothing is for the most part determined by insuperable and ineluctable social facts—then your Reich is possible, too. Then again, you are a narcissistic type, and probably act the Lothario in real life, so you might also assume that what has been possible for you, or what you like to believe is always possible for you, must be possible and true for anyone else “if they’re confident”. Faith moves mountains. It spreads legs. It demolishes the world and replaces it, in mente, with the one it prefers. Faith / hope vs. science. Simple as that. That’s taking deterministic thinking ... way too far Which is indeterministic thinking, and moralism. Because you don’t like determinism—i.e. that one’s extensive power is in cases insurmountably limited—you assert it can’t be so. It’s “too far”. Why? because you have to hand the armchair “diagnosis” that instead of proceeding rationally from experience and observation, I’m—oh, poor me ova hya—really “painting myself into a corner” by “self-fulfilling prophecy”?? Brilliant, dude. And it isn’t even that that’s false—it’s rather the lay belief that pathological avoidance / behaviors lack or cannot be formed on rational grounds. So someone suffering from real schizophrenia, for example, isn’t suffering from any internalized circumstantial problem, it’s “just a chemical imbalance”. Prob. Big Pharma and its media pushers are responsible for this isolation of the classification from the circumstantial grounds (or possibly rational social context) for its genesis. White Nationalists, like Christians before them, mistake their abhorrence of determinism for disproof. Neo didn’t want to believe he’s not in control of his own destiny: Neo was a moron. Indeterminacy is ahistorical, ahistorical is theological, theological is totemism, totemism is s a v a g e r y. Or, why White Nationalists are powerless in the fullness of the most complex civilization the world has ever seen. Savages clinging to dead, boring idols and habits of thought. 120
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 12:36 AM | # 1. we do care for the weak We are the weak: the rest follows. 121
Posted by el viejo on October 25, 2009, 12:36 AM | # Uh - “Unfortunately you’ve been confusing me with NeoNietzsche…” You’re the one who responded (at 02:01AM) to my post to NeoNietzsche at 01:52AM, which indicated to me you’re one and the same. You slipped-up. I-gent is getting sloppy. NeoNietzsche - “And I *now* await, in slight disbelief, your *next* classic example of underclass misapprehension!” I understand your sort only too well. I’ve got you pegged. Hence the laughter. We await more of your middle-class wisdom, gleaned no doubt from a lifetime of living in your parents’ basement. 122
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 01:07 AM | # Prozium, the reason your psychologized “analysis” continuously produces faulty deductions of what is in the world is that you are attempting to force the square peg of your understanding of your own psychological imbalances into the round hole of the state of our people - the two are not one and the same. You project the misery and powerlessness which is the product of your abysmal psychic state onto the world at large, blaming the world for what is mostly in your own head. You blame White Nationalists for not fixing what is wrong with our world in lieu of taking responsibility for your own problems. You feel at an emotional level that they have betrayed you in that respect, and ought to be punished for it, for what they have allegedly done to you. 123
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 01:12 AM | # I understand your sort only too well. I’ve got you pegged. Hence the laughter. We await more of your middle-class wisdom, gleaned no doubt from a lifetime of living in your parents’ basement. Number three - ahead of schedule. One would think that the gods would have, in charity, dispensed some compensatory intuition to the intellectually deficient. Son, my parents are dead of old age - I’ve been married for 34 years - I drive a Lexus and wear $2000 worth of semi-automatic pistols on my hips as do-it-yourself personal security. Please say that you don’t believe me, for a predictable Number Four. 124
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 01:18 AM | # I thought this was supposed to be “Majority Rights” - not Hebrew Hive with all this “analysis”. 125
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 01:18 AM | # I think of the effect of your critique, whether intentional or not, as discharging the battery so that it might be properly recharged. Huh. Well, who knows how certain souls will take it. That those souls will necessarily or likely coalesce into an actionable political grouping and thereby validate White Nationalist ideology, I deny. The question regarding self-government is whether a population can, out of intellect and inclination, organize itself for an attempt at mere survival, at this point. No “betterment” involved - just stayin’ alive! My problem with this is the assumption of a real, visible, coherent, actionable “population” that is charged with the need to survive en masse. Silver will fly at me with his usual counterargument, but I don’t believe whites, taken in that useless broad taxonomic sense, are in danger of extinction. I argued on AD a while ago that White Nationalists love to point to Brazil as “where we’re headed”—Brazil, where millions of whites live very comfortably, just as we do, alongside and among the same non-white elements, just as we do. Even in those areas in northern Brazil where miscegeny has been most prevalent historically, one still finds pockets of whites (Portuguese, German or Slavic), which means at the very least that even in such a wildly miscegenating society as the Brazilian, whites still exist as such, descriptively speaking. What the White Nationalist demands on the other hand, and believes is feasible, is that these whites exist under the raincloud of his assumed group identity—his terms, in other words, for the underlying need here is for the ego is to “absorb” others into his politicized (I almost said socialized) ego, much as Nietzsche’s paramecium exhibits the lowest (and purest) form of “will to power” in reaching out to absorb bacteria and other cilia. Thus White Nationalist desiderata represent not objectively feasible sociopolitical goals, but the ego’s drive to master other entities by symbolic (rhetorical) means, which I’ve called “subpolitical motive”. This is all just to say that White Nationalism is shadow-play on the internet, political Dungeons & Dragons—as most people recognize immediately, then look away. Anyway, this reliance on the specter of an ahistorical, coherent, non-contingent “population” is, I believe, a false note shared with other White Nationalists. I could be very wrong and talking beneath your level, I’m not sure. To me, the moment I see a “monad”, an identity, an idealized subject moving across a figurative chessboard-world rather than navigating real life circumstances, I’m put on guard. Well, you say it is a question—that’s all right. I’m sure you could guess I say no, “it” can’t, because there’s no historically (morphologically, organically) valid “it”. The precedent must be there in the real world that has evolved, not posited as something that can at some point when certain conditions are met decide on its course of action. Even if we grant the existence of a coherent actionable “it”, or population, a population that is stuck at this level of “deciding what to do”, or merely agonizing over how to consolidate itself, is already a fatally retarded social body and certainly has no natural right or claim to make on the world. Only white people wring their hands about “who they are” and “what they should do”. Jews know the minute they walk out of their first day at yeshiva. Negroes know the minute they spot a comely white whore. Chinese know the minute their uncle or cousin tells them there’s a dishwashing job waiting for them over here. White people are corrupt, oversocialized, overly complex, overly conscience ghost people. They couldn’t create a successful “population” of the kind you propose if there ten of them left on the planet. Reciprocally, I have no belief in “general social betterment” and would argue against it. Well, I view the insistence on the survival of a “population”—rather than of you and yours, me and mine—which is the central illusion / presumption of White Nationalism (got from the days when “nationalism” referred to coherent and racially unmixed populations, and not the idealized taxonomy of whiteness or European-background) as in essence concern for “social betterment”: the population is the socius, and as survival implies mortal threat, rescue from that threat would necessarily be “better” than the foregoing condition. So if you presuppose the coherent population, and presuppose total taxonomic extinction (and not merely the extinction of those aware of the tragedy, which is a moral judgement), you are arguing for the improvement of the lot of that population, which is “general social betterment”, it is really is “just stayin’ alive”. This isn’t peculiar to you—all political ideology is necessarily concerned with the improvement of someone else’s circumstances, otherwise it wouldn’t be ideology, or political. I drag the White Nationalist into question for presuming he has a right to the political. If he have not, his schemes for enfranchisement of other “taxonomic” whites (his ego absorbing others in this figurative rhetorical way which relates to a certain part of his brain responsible for regulating emotions) is, from a social perspective, a mere fantasy of oppression. Anything beyond you and yours, me and mine, any attempt to subsume others beyond the immediate circle of kin and friendship, while noble and generous and all that faggoty white rot, is unreal, figurative, symbolic, of purely rhetorical value. Even “you and yours” cease to matter after your own death, and when enough generations have intervened. And Silver’s right about this—“if the time-line is long enough”, it is probable that whites will go extinct, or something very close to it; but to stretch worry for kind to that extent is, well, a truly gargantuan abstraction of the ego to dominion over—fuck, everything. 126
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 01:28 AM | #
Courtesy of our latter day Fromm, Prozium. 127
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 25, 2009, 01:32 AM | # That last paragraph just above will really nail down Proze’s writing gig at the Occidental Quarterly, Glenn Johnson and their readership are gonna love that — they will NEVER drop him now, he’s in solid. 128
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 01:44 AM | # psychological imbalances It’s all perspective. You project the misery and powerlessness which is the product of your abysmal psychic state onto the world at large, All I’ve really said is that you project—and again: you’re cribbing from me whenever you use such words, i.e. I’ve given you a social cue on a means of attack, to which you’re not entitled by the use to which it is put and the motive inspiring it—your ego, which is the product of your something-something psychic state, onto the world at large. And here it is fed back through the Chaotic woodchipper and spat at me, a sincere, anxious attempt at what Renner jokingly expressed by putting my shit into some garble client. The fact is, then, that I make you anxious enough to employ some pretty cheap tactics that remind me of, like, my step-sister and I arguing, which in turn cheapens everything I’ve said. That bothers me, and that is all that bothers me. Anyway. You’re all bizarre. 129
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 01:51 AM | #
That’s right man, you invented the concept of projection, and what is more, I learned about it first from you. LOL! Dipshit. Do yourself a favor take your meds. 130
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 01:58 AM | # So far as I know I’m the first to bring it to bear on White Nationalist discourse, though certainly not other manifestations of nationalist discourse. Remarkably, your use of the concept in precisely the same context as mine followed mine by, oh, an hour or so. This is either a very astonishing coincidence, and evidence of a concurrence of thought strangely not reflected out in our dialectic,—or it’s you cribbing from me. Hey, I don’t mind. You’re at a loss, and I pity that. 131
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 02:11 AM | # Jesus H. Fucking Christ you are one grandiose piece of work. I bring it up as a rhetorical counter to your pretentious, over-globalized use of like concepts and, well, because it fits the bill pretty well in your case. Now doesn’t it? 132
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 02:30 AM | # Uh, my friend, How may we refer, terminologically, to “the survival of… you and yours, me and mine” and likewise to the contrasting proposition, that of an atomized “population”. If we understand your (realizable/conceivable) objective to be confined to the former, you nevertheless (I will argue at length) will require some consideration of and from the latter to that end, whether or not that consideration has any prospects or not. And you may well argue, as you seem to do, that no such prospects exist for and from the domestic portion of the racial “population” that is of concern for the purposes of our “nuclear community” (if you will allow that term). So, our nuclear community is doomed, by implication of the synthesis of your reckoning and mine. Then we are speaking for the record - for our post mortem prestige in history - as was done at Hitler’s HQ in the closing stages of a war that was reckoned as having been lost. That works for me. I am willing to reproach, in futility, the hopelessly inept and detached for their inescapable ineptitude and detachment, as though the alternative were a possibility. But if I understand you correctly, in so doing, I am offending your sensibilities and thwarting your purposes with a counter-productive pretense. Seemingly, you would have the cattle contemplate the abattoir or the abyss in realistic resignation. It is not clear what, if anything, you anticipate in consequence of fulfillment. 133
Posted by White Preservationist on October 25, 2009, 02:55 AM | # Well, uh does seem increasingly unhinged on this thread, definitely displaying some hardcore nihilistic tendencies combined with what does indeed look to be mental mania and extreme mental agitation of some sort. As a nihilist he has at this point nothing much to offer us except resignation, defeatism, and ultimately nothingness. uh: instead of coming here to berate us, why not channel all of that creative verbal/mental/literary energy in to writing something constructive such as a pro-White novel or treatise or something like that? uh: all people need things to believe in…otherwise, what is there to live for? As a nihilistic/atheistic type you may not believe that, but it is true. Maybe some people believe in Jebus, or Yahweh, or Krishna, or Thor, or the love for their spouse, or their children, or pets, or their jobs, or their possessions, or Nature, or their social/political ideals, etc. We here believe in the preservation of the White/European race and preventing our ancient biological and social heritage from being subsumed in to a racial swamp of ever-encroaching biological inferiors; that is what we believe in. We believe that our culture, our civilization, our ideals, and our way of life, all of which is largely based upon our racial heritage, is superior to the the worse way of life which currently threatens to replace us via the slow invasion of billions of slavish and mostly degenerate muds who will eventually turn the continents which we settled and built up in to intellectual, political, economic, and physical deserts under the wayward direction of world-wrecking international Jewry. uh, you ought to get out of his head for a while and out in to the world more, or at least take a vacation from intense writing/reading until you get your head back on straight. You ought to know when to stop yourself, or at least when to slow down. More exercise and fresh air plus a better diet is likely in order, laying off the alcohol, drugs, and carbs/wheat and eating more fatty foods such as meat, cheese, milk, almonds, and so on. Also, more communion with Nature will likely help you to put things in better perspective and hopefully work to refresh your spirit. Good luck to you. 134
Posted by Wandrin on October 25, 2009, 05:09 AM | # Someone: Conan! What is best in life? 135
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 06:20 AM | # Occidental Dissent is now revealed as nothing but a vehicle to stroke the ego of its leading, defective personality. If it were not, then why would “Hunter Wallace” offer up writing which lauds the desirability of a White Nationalist movement and point to trends which inspire optimism in his readers that its coalescence is nearer now than in past years and achievable on the one hand; but, on the other, argue entirely to the contrary on his own blog under the name “uh”, thereby deceiving his readers? To ask the question is to answer it. The only question then is: What emotional needs does “Hunter Wallace” gratify with his pathetic little charade? As Soren Renner observed, “Hunter Wallace” gratifies his narcissism. In what way? Well, “uh” tells us it is a circle of friends which will meet in the flesh and form a true community of like minds which is his desired outcome - with no greater ambitions than that being desirable or achievable. But, his recent meeting in the flesh with individuals that now contribute to his blog, and others, including the respected blogger Tanstaafl, occurred under the pretense that their meeting was to be the beginning of something more, the seed of a future movement. That is why the others came and met with each other, not simply to keep “Hunter Wallace” company. After all, doesn’t “Hunter Wallace” have other friends (he claims he does) who also ‘don’t like niggers’? Yes, so it is not merely the laudable goal of forming the circle of like-minded friends which “Hunter Wallace’s” sock puppet “uh” claims he is after. What is it then? The need of “Hunter Wallace” to be admired and at the center of things under false pretenses consistent with his pernicious narcissism. So why then is “uh” needed, couldn’t “Hunter Wallace” have that without that obnoxious little turd’s help? In the short term, yes. But - and this is the reason those men came together in the first place, and the only likely reason they would be inclined to stay in long-term contact and not drift apart - if the movement were to actually gather steam, people with a higher social aptitude than “Hunter Wallace” would be needed, and if attracted, would inevitably take center stage, hence taking it away from “Hunter Wallace”. And he couldn’t have that, narcissist that he is, now could he. So, for the long-term viability of his narcissistic platform “uh” was introduced. As crazy as it sounds, but hey, the guy is crazy. 136
Posted by hair standing on end on October 25, 2009, 06:22 AM | # this should make Rienzi’s hair stand on end “Silver” is really an obsessively sick individual, is he not? I haven’t been on MR threads for what - a year? - and he still can’t think of anything but getting in his juvenile potshots. What a turd - or, in how own language - a “shiteating asshole.” 137
Posted by Effecto-Man on October 25, 2009, 07:51 AM | # Mr. Scrooby and the man who modestly calls himself Captain Chaos, who, were I running the world, be promoted to AT LEAST the rank of Major, have given a sound ideological thumping to this crypto-Jew uh. I, like they, am sick of a world where intellect brashly deigns to lord it over men who mutter a few impassioned insults and accusations of mental illness. Like Mr. Scrooby, I too want a world of censorship and deletion of historical discourse. Marching arm-in-arm, electronically, we will rid this world of mental defectives and meta-thinkers. Together we will bring about our desired society by gathering all the disenfranchised men who resemble bit actors from “Hee Haw” and protesting decadent street fairs and writing poems and watching the Seven Samurai together. I have already enlisted this racial brother to further outline strategy: http://www.ehow.com/video_4411666_character-attributes-dungeons-dragons.html# Remember, though our charisma may only be in the single digits, for constitution we’ve rolled an 18. Let that be the basis for OUR Horst Wessel Lied, Major Chaos. Our constitution is 18! 138
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 08:36 AM | # Uh, I, for one, appreciate very much your deft wielding of the meta-critique. Its rare to see such a powerful and delicate thought apparatus wielded with so much felicity, and you even made jokes. I appreciate the aspects of your critique which allow a man to liberate himself from the compulsive aspect of political ideology. I formulated a similar critique and was able to disentangle myself from egoic imprisonment in some of these thought forms - it has been thoroughly vivifying. However, you must understand that these critiques can be applied to anyone operating on this egoic level - just as easily, therefore, perhaps more so, to someone in the mainstream political establishment. Although in that case, the lack of cultic/isolated/old-testament-prophet/eschatological psychology might make it hard to be so incisively polemical as you have been. Of course, it does say something about you, uh, that you have chosen to use this tool-set, so amenable to dissection of all human affairs, to excoricate specific entities here on this board. You say you want to crush CaptainChaos - can I ask why? To what end? In the service of whose will is this critique being wielded? I can tell from the galloping tempo and hyperbolic tendencies in some passages of what you have written, that there is real feeling behind your condemnation. Thus I suppose there is some ego structure at work here too - why the wish to exhibit these critiques here? Whence does that come? Its always interesting to see both sides of the coin - not merely critique and critiqued but also the critic. Further, I think the strictness of the terms of your non-meta critique reflects merely one paradigmatic view, and not the strongest one, rather one that is deliberately harsh probably on the basis of pre-conceived ill-will towards WN. I’m saying I think the root of your hard-headed determinist criterion for the success of WN is a pre-conceived dislike of WN. In which case, since we are being honest and trying to work without illusion, why even bother disqualifying WN on the basis of your assessment of its potential to fulfill its objectives? Why not just say you dont like it, and follow Friedrich Nietzsche’s saying: “Where you cannot love, there you should pass by.” WNs must achieve appreciable power in order to strategize? Community does not exist? There can be no social betterment? What CC “would” do, accounts for nothing? One can always choose an ungenerous intellectual paradigm to view things which one isn’t emotionally well-disposed to - and each of your objections are valid and yet not totally comprehensive. Why hold up Brazil as a favorable example, as you have done in the past under different pseudonyms, to people who explicitly do not wish to recreate Brazil? Because you have a superior understanding which reveals Brazil del Norte’s “inevitability” to you, as demonstrated by…. the paragraphs surrounding this reference in your comment, i.e. the lack of any positive manifestation of WN in 2009? Funny to see such a great tool set wielded with the ‘little man’ still operative, and apparently still driving. cheers 139
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 08:46 AM | # For the record, and for the assistance of Captainchaos in particular, who is now making a hopeless hash of things in his conflation of participants: 1) NeoNietzsche are different persons. The present imputations to #2 are particularly egregious in their misrepresentations. Behind the scenes, we find this confusion amusing - but it’s getting out of hand and is making discussion stupid. Nevertheless, there is a side to this division between the Patricians and the Plebeians that is instructive: Rasse ist nicht alles [I think I hear thudding suggestive of bodies hitting the floor in a faint.] 140
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 09:05 AM | #
How are we weak? Only a few ever understand what’s going on in the world. Most people are happy-go-lucky to go with whatever just so long as they don’t have to face difficult reality. Among activists are those who understand what’s going on, as well as those who don’t but are involved for various other reasons. Those who are awake and understand have a duty to help awaken others and get a movement going. It’s high time for this period of sin and corruption to end and for virtue to return. You can dismiss “awakening” with deconstruction, but race still exists and hasn’t be eradicated yet regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it. And with the race comes all of the traditions and heritage of ancestors. - CC, Original Dissent is another board. 141
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 09:08 AM | # I don’t need godly amounts of money or guns to protect loved ones. I’ve strength enough to protect those I care for, and I suspect you do too, uh. I’m weak on certain planes of competition against someone like Soros or Murdoch, but money and media power aren’t everything. They can only do so much to destroy my loved ones. 142
Posted by Effecto-Man on October 25, 2009, 09:08 AM | # uh has met his intellectual match in White Preservationist who, akin to Marx completely grasping the genius of Hegel and standing him on his head, has done the same with E.O. Wilson and other biologists, “social” and otherwise. For years I struggled with biological concepts of fitness. I assumed that the concept of “inferior” in ecology meant not an arbitrary assignation, but simply increasingly lower levels of resource acquisition by a particular species relative to others and an increasingly lower rate of fitness due to the inability to adapt to its environment. White Preservationist’s view, however, has lent me pause. For the first time “inferiors” (i.e. those who cannot adapt to environmental change) are bringing about an extinction of “superiors” (i.e. those who can adapt to environmental change). This is fascinating and, I daresay, revolutionary. When uh goes outside to get his fresh air, he should be careful not to step on any ants, the biological inferior of cave lions and mammoths. I must go. My grandmother has made some awesome pickles, which are, of course, cucumbers preserved in brine. 143
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 09:17 AM | # Brazil as the ideal? What would those people fight for? What ancestors would they look to? I shudder to think of being born as such trash. They’ve no heritage! They’re untouchable. What would a man serve? They’ll never amount to much more than they are because they lack heritage. Genetic quality is not everything. 144
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 09:18 AM | # NeoNietzsche, You’ve impressed me in the past with your contributions here. But how do you write stuff like this:
How did your nuanced brain manage to retain its belief and attachment to the idea of natural social classes? Not yet met enough people to see the flawed nature of those categories? In this case are you the patrician, and those who dont apprehend your meaning, plebeians? I also don’t get the textbook deutsch to enunciate a point which is already obvious to any mind who has thought for a moment beyond the constraints of WN ideology - and whence the desire to stir up these people if they do exist, since they clearly can’t interface with your thinking properly? And whence the desire to score points off them? I mean its more polemics, unfortunately. I just can’t understand why obliquely baiting and whipping a true believer WN would still be interesting to you, as it appeared to me that larger philosophical prey fell within your compass. 145
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 09:24 AM | # I, like they, am sick of a world where intellect brashly deigns to lord it over men who mutter a few impassioned insults and accusations of mental illness. (Effecto-Man, with tongue in cheek) Indeed, the “cause” of WN (and I have now been sensitized, by uh, to the impropriety of such usage) fundamentally and ironically lacks self-organizational tendencies in anywhere near sufficient measure. For it is ludicrous, is it not, that bigots insist upon their own equality of status with all others of the designated community of interest. Crypto-liberals all. Thus more to the taste of Marx than of Gobineau. They cannot and will not acknowledge as such their own natural leadership. They believe that the organizational challenge that they face amounts to no more than electing their primus inter pares in a tribal democracy, located somewhere in a pathetic Vilcabamban reserve for “free White Men”. And note the irruptions and eruptions in the monkey house when a natural leader fails to conceal himself as such! The screeching and the shit flying ueber alles. Ludicrous and pathetic. 146
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 09:38 AM | #
Or to sacrifice short term pleasures in order to do their duty, but if not doing one’s duty the reality of such will likely be blocked. There are never more than a few good men in any society. Within the ranks of WN are many of our awakened good men. - I dunno about this master rubbish. Rather than masters, there’s need of gentlemen who serve the race. 147
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 09:52 AM | # How did your nuanced brain manage to retain its belief and attachment to the idea of natural social classes? Not yet met enough people to see the flawed nature of those categories? In this case are you the patrician, and those who don’t apprehend your meaning, plebeians? I also don’t get the textbook deutsch to enunciate a point which is already obvious to any mind who has thought for a moment beyond the constraints of WN ideology - and whence the desire to stir up these people if they do exist, since they clearly can’t interface with your thinking properly? And whence the desire to score points off them? I mean its more polemics, unfortunately. I just can’t understand why obliquely baiting and whipping a true believer WN would still be interesting to you, as it appeared to me that larger philosophical prey fell within your compass. This is my means, my tactic, in locating an “uh” - an “Effecto-Man” - a “PF” - and identifying myself to them. Evidently, this is the sort of place where your sort hangs out and I get recognized as the same. Please direct me to other or more productive “fishing” holes, if you know of them. And correct me in my choice of “bait,” if you please. [Meanwhile, “larger philosophical prey” in range will please saunter over to “superhuman” for dismemberment, mastication, and digestion, chop-chop.] 148
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 09:53 AM | # To whom is that reply addressed, NeoNietzsche? In case it was obliquely addressed to me, I reply thus. I still think that negative philosophy belongs to spiritual immaturity, essentially reflecting the time of life when one marvels that one can destroy and deconstruct, and what all one can destroy and deconstruct. Look at what falls apart under the withering glance of this or that criticism or this or that mental toolset or algorithm. One is amazed at the power to pull apart. The ability to convincingly diagnose the realities of others as dreams is a part of the dream which one oneself still believes in as a reality. Otherwise why such triumphalism? When one stands knee-deep in life, in mid-stream, and faces its questions, its suddenly no longer comforting to brow-beat mental images of those less enlightened than oneself - be they shoppers at Tescos, or true-believer WNs. Gaining some appreciation for one’s own ignorance, the ignorance of others is no longer a comfort. The Schadenfreude and one-upmanship is itself a form of idiocy, not yet apparent to the nascent GENIUS parading his concepts in triumph. Thus I see no value in what you’ve just posted except as a signpost for yourself to indicate to yourself that you’re possibly passing beyond something you formerly were enthralled to - and these poor guys on here are surrogates for your old self, to be flagellated as best serves your purposes. Its clear to everyone that the ideas here are passing in too rapid succession for anything to be truly built. One destroys in a whimsical mode, but builds in a meticulous and patient one, and I see none of that here. 149
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 10:02 AM | # Oh, I get it. The best fishing hole I’ve found is pathwaytohappiness.com He provides tools for self-deconstruction that are better than those offered here. They cost money though. I also like Eckhart Tolle and recently have been put onto Gurdjieff by GW. That is the extent of my success finding self-analysis tools. Guessedworker knows more than he lets on about this stuff, and will exude the knowledge in cryptic little nuggets which you have to prize out from his essays and comments. cheers and good luck, 150
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 10:08 AM | # In this case are you the patrician, and those who don’t apprehend your meaning, plebeians? No, this reflects the importation of a discussion over at OD. Therein I am drawing a contrast between those who are, self-admittedly and aspirationally, plebeian peasant agriculturalists - and who explicitly resent, and will resist with force, any over-class, any fundamental societal stratification. I am, perhaps, mistakenly imputing to participants of what *apparently* is the same orientation, *factually* the same orientation, here at MR. 151
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 10:29 AM | # In case it was obliquely addressed to me, I reply thus. I still think that negative philosophy belongs to spiritual immaturity, essentially reflecting the time of life when one marvels that one can destroy and deconstruct, and what all one can destroy and deconstruct. Good point. I take issue with the insinuation that I am a propounder of “negative philosophy” if reference is had to “superhuman”. Look at what falls apart under the withering glance of this or that criticism or this or that mental toolset or algorithm. One is amazed at the power to pull apart. The ability to convincingly diagnose the realities of others as dreams is a part of the dream which one oneself still believes in as a reality. You misdiagnose my motivation and sensation. Otherwise why such triumphalism? It is the satisfaction of putting in proper place that which belongs in its place. It is a martial inclination evident in the orderliness of the natural soldier. When one stands knee-deep in life, in mid-stream, and faces its questions, it’s suddenly no longer comforting to brow-beat mental images of those less enlightened than oneself - be they shoppers at Tescos, or true-believer WNs. Another good point. More insinuation with which I take issue. Gaining some appreciation for one’s own ignorance, the ignorance of others is no longer a comfort. The Schadenfreude and one-upmanship is itself a form of idiocy, not yet apparent to the nascent GENIUS parading his concepts in triumph. Third episode. Thus I see no value in what you’ve just posted except as a signpost for yourself to indicate to yourself that you’re possibly passing beyond something you formerly were enthralled to - and these poor guys on here are surrogates for your old self, to be flagellated as best serves your purposes. I am disappointed with yet another “analysis” that considerably misses the mark. Given the obvious gifts displayed otherwise by my “analyst,” I will account myself partially responsible for this errant essay by virtue of having created a mis-impression, reasonably misinterpreted, of the basis of my contributions. Its clear to everyone that the ideas here are passing in too rapid succession for anything to be truly built. One destroys in a whimsical mode, but builds in a meticulous and patient one, and I see none of that here. 152
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 10:33 AM | # The last paragraph, previous comment, should have been italicized. That means the brain is fading again and it’s time for breakfast. 153
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 10:42 AM | # I have the feeling that I have been conflated with “uh”. Has the Captainchaos conundrum struck again? 154
Posted by el viejo on October 25, 2009, 11:26 AM | # uh/NeoNietzsche - “Son, my parents are dead of old age - I’ve been married for 34 years - I drive a Lexus and wear $2000 worth of semi-automatic pistols on my hips as do-it-yourself personal security.” Honestly, I don’t know what to say. There’s little I could add to the obvious lunacy contained in your comments. I mean, are we supposed to be impressed by the ,Lexus, and the firearms? We’re still laughing at you. Can you hear it? uh/NeoNitezsche - “This is my means, my tactic, in locating an “uh” - an “Effecto-Man” - a “PF” - and identifying myself to them…Evidently, this is the sort of place where your sort hangs out and I get recognized as the same.” LOL!! Sort of like an i-gents’ club? A comfy i-club where you can hang out with your i-chums, smoke i-cigars, and solve the important issues of the day? You’re certainly amusing, uh/NeoNietzsche, but you’re also pathetic. I guess Real Life isn’t working out too well for you. 155
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 11:29 AM | # How did your nuanced brain manage to retain its belief and attachment to the idea of natural social classes? It does not. Ancient social class is both cultivated artifice and imposition by force in consequence of inter-tribal warfare. Modern society is fairly meritocratic. Not yet met enough people to see the flawed nature of those categories? In this case are you the patrician, and those who dont apprehend your meaning, plebeians? As explained above, this is not the case. I also don’t get the textbook deutsch to enunciate a point which is already obvious to any mind who has thought for a moment beyond the constraints of WN ideology - and whence the desire to stir up these people if they do exist, since they clearly can’t interface with your thinking properly? The latter point is your presumption and generalization - I prefer to be more conscientious by closely investigating and testing the capacities of my specific interlocutors, in fair assessment and in hopes of finding peers. And your observations provoke the question of why *you* bother to comment in this venue, in so elevated and detached a manner as you seemingly urge upon me, amidst all of the ineducable non-interfacers for whom *nothing* can be “patiently built” with what you have displayed of *your* tool-set. And whence the desire to score points off them? A contest draws a crowd and brings attention to the issue. I mean it’s more polemics, unfortunately. I just can’t understand why obliquely baiting and whipping a true believer WN would still be interesting to you, as it appeared to me that larger philosophical prey fell within your compass. Please be more specific as to “larger philosophical prey”. The heavy artillery is firing over at “superhuman”. The sniping gets done here. 156
Posted by Halloween Strategy on October 25, 2009, 11:29 AM | # For NN, an i-club for i-gents is better than his parents basement! 157
Posted by Effecto-Man on October 25, 2009, 11:35 AM | # Mr. Frolic, from his enlightened perspective, has clearly let know Mr. NeoNietzsche that having an enlightened perspective is a sign of immaturity. 158
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 11:40 AM | # Crappin’ chaos: I bring it up as a rhetorical counter to your pretentious, over-globalized use of like concepts and, well, because it fits the bill pretty well in your case.
How may we refer, terminologically, to “the survival of… you and yours, me and mine” and likewise to the contrasting proposition, that of an atomized “population”. Simple. One is real (immediate), the other isn’t (abstract). One would have to “capture” the “population”, which is absurd. And not even one’s own are always salvageable. That’s a problem for each man to face in private, I suppose. If he has extended concern analogically beyond his own, he has taken upon himself no less a purely fictive burden than the Christian with his Judgement Day, and so on. Then we are speaking for the record - for our post mortem prestige in history - as was done at Hitler’s HQ in the closing stages of a war that was reckoned as having been lost. I believe that’s worthwhile, yea. We wouldn’t be who we are without that record, after all. But it is, here again, fallacious to assume that the record isn’t already laden enough with “signposts in the other direction”. But, I shouldn’t pursue the ego even into this rarefied realm of its vanity. Let a man not escape the notice of history. But if I understand you correctly, in so doing, I am offending your sensibilities and thwarting your purposes with a counter-productive pretense. Well, you don’t offend me, of course. You may be “thwarting” my critique (ugh—sick of that word already) in continuing to posit the existence / necessity of an non-contingent “population” of assumed, analogical taxonomic interest, but that’s ultimately your own thing to work out. If you want to believe that people like you beyond your immediate kin can be “saved” *by you*, that there *is salvation from history* and evolution, so be it—but you’re a believer in “salvation”, and I wonder that this could be so.
The morbidness of reality is no proof against reality, is it. A guy has cancer—he doesn’t want cancer! can’t believe he has it! surely there’s a way to cure it! But no, he’s stuck with cancer. Reality bites, as someone put it on OD. There is not always a solution. Sometimes you just have to stew, have to watch as you and your fellows are herded ever closer the abattoir.
Anticipation of consequence = “final state”, a moral-teleological expectation of events entirely beyond my control. My place is not expecting anything but what is to elaborate itself according to its constitution. Anything more is fantasy to soothe my angst, yadda yadda. Man can live with his angst—it is possible. Other fantasies are possible, not just the political. But the political has this peculiar power that personal fantasies (goals) lack. I may want to move to Bavaria and sleep with a dunkle Maedchen, and all that’s necessary to at least attempt it is money, decent clothes, beer money and German conversation. There is no political content—or nothing structural. When political rhetoric is introduced to what can only be the ego’s own personal sphere (ego - own - personal, lol), the ego is obliged to speak of itself as a real political actor, which of course in this case it is not.
definitely displaying some hardcore nihilistic tendencies I’m going to start a band with the name Hardcore Nihilistic Tendencies, thank you. And thereby I shall rise myself in the selection scheme of the hot blond down the hall who doesn’t exist, and thus demonstrate the non-contingent efficacity of the eternally self-convinced will. As a nihilist he has at this point nothing much to offer us except resignation, defeatism, and ultimately nothingness. Well yanno .... that is all nihilism offers. What you want is panacea, solution, salvation, to feel good about where you find yourself in the political scheme obtaining in the kwa. You don’t have to be resigned—“hope” and “believe” all you like. The opposite of resignation isn’t necessary success of your worldview or fulfillment of the desiderata which constitute it; it is rather the ceaseless gnashing of teeth athwart the rock of reality for the sake of “not feeling bad”. That’s what it all boils down to for your kind—not “getting down about life”, evading unpleasant feelings arising from unpleasant thoughts, mistaking this for valid, feasible political ideology. As I always say, I’m no defeatist, we are defeated and you’re in denial about it. LOLercaust. Again, again, again: that “nothingness” upsets you is no proof against it. Your feelings—your state of mind—are no argument.
You mean aid the illusion by the device of fiction? Yea, that’s what I ought to do. We ought to make up “encouraging” scenarios because all we need is “motivation”, etc.
Yea, well, I said that up there somewhere. You’re not laying something new on me.
Incorrect: You believe in the absorption of white / European people into your subpolitical ideology. Whites will survive long after you in any case. What you dislike, on cue from the alarmist collective ideology you’ve allowed to take over your mind, is the form of that survival—which you would like to alter to suit your own ego ideal. and preventing our ancient biological and social heritage from being subsumed in to a racial swamp of ever-encroaching biological inferiors Seems to me that cat’s out of the bag. But this is where the WN launches into fantasies of reversal. We can just pay all the Pakis and Mexicans to leave, “when the time comes”. LOL. We believe that our culture, our civilization, our ideals, and our way of life, all of which is largely based upon our racial heritage, Much of your civilization has its roots in epochs when whites were barbarians at best. you ought to get out of his head for a while and out in to the world more, It is precisely “the world” that tells me your clique is living in fantasy. You ignore “the world”—allowing its content to impinge on your consciousness would destroy your fantasies of success and control. It is you who avoid, and grossly misinterpret, “the world”, at bottom because you—posit the advent of another. Also, more communion with Nature Right. The miraculous advent of the Pig Riddle Reich depends on me “communing with Nature”. How dully, aimlessly Aryan, how passé and bizarrely incongruous with the grandiose claims of eventual political mastery contrary to history (which is: evolution)—this “starry-eyed” inconsequence posing as therapy. Good luck to you. This is what chicks say after they reject you. Trying to sound the condescending high note, you see. “Good luck—yer gonna need it, you poor thing.”
The White Nationalist always falls back on “inspiring” words, because he systematically mistakes his ego, his feelings, for the only valid political criterion. But looked at from a few steps away—it’s just some guy calling himself “Wandrin” quoting a stupid old movie. You think I don’t thrill to the same words? Difference is, I don’t mistake them for politics.
“NOW REVEALED”, huzzah! Love that declarative tone, like the old wrangling of British journalists. SO-AND-SO IS REVEALED TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN ..... [sequi reductio], etc. If it were not, then why would “Hunter Wallace” offer up writing which lauds the desirability of a White Nationalist movement and point to trends which inspire optimism in his readers that its coalescence is nearer now than in past years and achievable on the one hand; but, on the other, argue entirely to the contrary on his own blog under the name “uh”, thereby deceiving his readers? A cat behaves something like a dog, but are a cat and a dog the same species? Yet you evince no conception of behavioral difference observable in my posts and Prozium’s, and have convinced yourself we are the same entity, which plays into your paranoid personality—a paranoia stemming from angst, the need to shield yourself, and the political discourse in which your self is draped, from metacriticism, i.e. from direct challenge to the ego ideal. Anyway, sounds to me that you’re a little disappointed. Prozium has inspired you with optimism—which is your assumed criterion of real political validity and success. But because you believe Prozium is a wildly, nay prodigiously schizophrenic entity playing advocatus both angeli and diaboli, you feel jilted, played, jerked around. In other words you’re betraying your vulnerability—you hit these blogs for pleasantries, to “feel good”. And that’s ok, it really is. As that stunning genius White Preservationist recently informed me, people need to believe, they need to feel good about life. Have to wonder how this strikes Prozium, if he even pays attention. Either annoyed, amazed and/or dying of laughter. The only question then is: What emotional needs does “Hunter Wallace” gratify with his pathetic little charade? You’re becoming still more bold in this petty copying. I’m preeetty sure I came on with just that purpose and wording. Anyway, if you believe Prozium and uh are the same entity, then your premise is flawed and the question cannot be answered. If Prozium is one and I another, then we might say Prozium feels much the same way as you, and the emotional need I meet is the free exercise of destructive intellect. Or, if you like, I am gratifying my “negative self-conception” by exposing its real-world determinants and reminding you that you operate within the same. What you’re trying to say is that this has objective validity”, but because it is negative (descriptive) rather positive (prescriptive), which is what White Nationalism does, it alone is equipped to muse objectively about reality. This has been studied by a few psychologists, one of whom I know personally, but that wouldn’t interest you, I know, because psychology is Jewish—which you seem to have forgotten in this bid to try your hand at psychological rhetoric to, I don’t know, “turn the tables” on me. What you miss is that because I take psychology quite seriously, I don’t leave myself out of account—which is why we’re in this dance where you call me x, I say yes, but here’s why that’s relevant to discourse, and you seize on that and call me y, etc. etc. You literally cannot conceive of someone unafraid of exposing its own weakness and implication in the very dialectic it wields against others. That’s ok—you’re a moron. As Soren Renner observed, “Hunter Wallace” gratifies his narcissism. Yeeeeaaa, because SOREN RENNER isn’t guilty of narcissism. Come on, dude. Ever wonder why Soren never addresses anything I say at length? I won’t say it’s because he can’t, because he’s a smart guy. It’s for the same reason CvH never did: He can’t “acknowledge” a competing interpretation of himself, because to acknowledge is to shatter his ego illusion. Well, “uh” tells us it is a circle of friends which will meet in the flesh and form a true community of like minds which is his desired outcome Nyet. You ascribe that to me as a “desired outcome”—whereas I threw it to, well I forget whom, as a bone. I like having two or three good friends, but I don’t abstract them into a body of “political” significance. I don’t think they do, either. A friend is a friend. It isn’t an “ally” in the “struggle” or “Kali Yuga”. White Nationalists can barely manage real interpersonal compassion, nevermind communal. At bottom, fear of intimacy. But, his recent meeting in the flesh with individuals that now contribute to his blog, and others, including the respected blogger Tanstaafl, occurred under the pretense that their meeting was to be the beginning of something more, the seed of a future movement. Well, I agree that Prozium’s conception of real world meeting is unjustifiable from the political perspective. I don’t tell him that because I like the guy, want to meet him myself, and there’s no harm in seeking real world contacts, at all. It’s a world better than what’s going on here. Some of us positively ache for real world contact—why not seek it out after wrecking our eyes and backs and wrists sitting in front of the screen like the sick monkeys we are? What is it then? Quiritur. Captain, here, is giving us a rhetorical cue that he imagines that at this point he’s brushing aside the foregoing tangential consideration and putting his figure on the answer to his own misbegot premise, i.e. is playing the precise psychiatric diagnostician. On my example. LOL. The need of “Hunter Wallace” to be admired and at the center of things under false pretenses consistent with his pernicious narcissism. Prozium is extraordinarily low on the pettier characteristics common among White Nationalist personalities, and categorically not a malignant narcissist—whatever “pernicious” is supposed to signify, presumably the schizoidal entity’s tendency to send off sock-puppets to bother the flock. But - and this is the reason those men came together in the first place, and the only likely reason they would be inclined to stay in long-term contact and not drift apart - This is amazing, though. Here they are actually separate entities, which have “come together” and desire to not “drift apart”—where just above they were the same entity. I don’t even know what I’m looking at anymore, and should move on. 159
Posted by askari on October 25, 2009, 11:41 AM | # “Occidental Dissent is now revealed as nothing but a vehicle to stroke the ego of its leading, defective personality.” (CC) I’m sure others have noticed over the last several days that Prozium/HW’s decline in output at OD has coincided with the appearance of his sockpuppets. 160
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 11:41 AM | # PF: Thanks. I wouldn’t say it’s very delicate in my hands, though. Could be so much better if conditions were otherwise. But that’s life. I appreciate the aspects of your critique which allow a man to liberate himself from the compulsive aspect of political ideology. I formulated a similar critique and was able to disentangle myself from egoic imprisonment in some of these thought forms - it has been thoroughly vivifying. Brilliant—“allow a man to liberate himself from the compulsive aspect of political ideology”. You’ve just described, as I’ve elsewhere described, the goal of “exit therapy” in the counseling of ex-cult members. I won’t say that’s been my aim, but at some point the need to posit an aim presses on me to relieve the aridity of my critique, and that’s all that can be got from it—liberation from illusion. Where did you “formulate a similar critique”? Would like to read it. Or do you mean informally, for yourself.
Not clear on what you’re getting at. Of course, it does say something about you, uh, that you have chosen to use this tool-set, so amenable to dissection of all human affairs, to excoricate specific entities here on this board. You say you want to crush CaptainChaos - can I ask why? To what end? In the service of whose will is this critique being wielded? Very well, we’re on the same page and you’re asking real “meta”-questions. Of course I am not exempt, as said above; but what it says about me is qualitatively different from the subject I’m analyzing. Again, it’s the difference between the negative-descriptive and positive-prescriptive. I describe (negate) because I am “pathologically negative”, they prescribe (posit) because they are “pathologically positive”, or optimistic. It’s much more complex than who feels happy or sad and what conclusions they reach based on that, naturally—not everyone who agrees with me is a “chronic ruminative”, for example, which tells us that the chronic ruminative, from the right standpoint and equipped with the appropriate terms to classify the phenomena about him, can be correct in his “negative” assessments, as we see in studies of the illusion of control bias (cf. in partic. those of Lauren B. Alloy). What is negated is the posited (scenarios) and the positive (feelings). Early on psychoanalysis splintered into negative and positive: Freud and the Jewish clique who were, of course, rigorously negative—and the “positive”, romantic psychology of Jung. Jung mistook the cultural context of his patients’ dream imagery for “collective unconscious”, or inherent symbolism (“myth”), which is nonsense collectivism, and precisely the reason Jewish psychoanalysts still spurn Jung as a “Nazi”. Thus I suppose there is some ego structure at work here too - why the wish to exhibit these critiques here? Whence does that come? Boredom, mostly. As Prozium noted elsewhere I’ve “been in this scene for years”, so it’s most familiar. Unfortunately interest in the “tool-box” preceded and overrides crude cultural fetishes which I still share to an extent with White Nationalists. White Nationalism makes an excellent subject for analysis, and it’s something I know well enough to analyze, what can I say. Nietzsche blasted Wagner not because he once loved him, but because he found he’d been a fool to identify with Wagner at all, and more importantly, enjoyed the critique itself. Now, this doesn’t mean I was ever a “true believer” who became “jilted”, per desperate psychologizer Crappin’chaos; in fact from the moment I got in the habit of killing time on these forums, I’ve come up against the malicious faithful. It’s just taken me this long to be able to express exactly why this and this is so, etc., and I get a kick out of it. Yea, it’s idle sadism. Is that what you want me to say? I don’t give a fuck. Its always interesting to see both sides of the coin - not merely critique and critiqued but also the critic. Don’t presume I’ve hidden. I’ve answered every personal question as forthrightly as I can, and have told you, explicitly, that I am implicated—but rather than being invalidated by my “personal issues”, as you all are trying to say, that precisely is why I am fit to criticize in this way, and am doing so: because it is “negative”—not “positive”, i.e. laden with ideological content motivated by wish-fulfillment. Further, I think the strictness of the terms of your non-meta critique reflects merely one paradigmatic view, and not the strongest one, In other words, determinism isn’t necessary, i.e. is indeterminate.
Negative. The preconceived ill-will is for all easy belief, all hiding of the ego in idealistic platititudes. I read Freud long before I knew of people calling themselves White Nationalists. That I “woke” to the JQ, and was naturally exposed to White Nationalism and at times prodded along by its narrative, is what set me on the path of criticism. I couldn’t help noting inconsistencies, romantic errors, that offended my “intellectual conscience”. A few people are bothered by this sort of thing and are never able to subordinate their ego to the orthodox (group) ego. Fact of life. In which case, since we are being honest and trying to work without illusion, why even bother disqualifying WN on the basis of your assessment of its potential to fulfill its objectives? There is no potential—and that’s why we’re here, the Jews out there; which is my entire point, fyi. What you’re saying, though, is that if it is true my critique proceeds from rancorous dislike (or per Crappinchaos, “resentment”) of WN, which I’ve shown it does not, why am I bothering with it in the first place? Precisely it does not proceed from rancorous dislike, but more from scandalized amusement and the thrill of annihilating illusions. Why not just say you dont like it, and follow Friedrich Nietzsche’s saying: “Where you cannot love, there you should pass by.” Because it isn’t sufficient. By asserting it is sufficient to only dislike White Nationalism, you shield it from metacriticism, i.e. investigation of its structural implications and the psychology behind it; you assert or imply that the only valid critical approach to White Nationalism is the mere expression of distaste, precisely the treatment you’re used to getting from “the world”. Jews go into fits of rancor because they allow the political content to blind them to the obvious;—I go into fits of analysis, from reading too many Jews, ironically. WNs must achieve appreciable power in order to strategize? Because “strategy” is taken from political rhetoric, which indicates that White Nationalists are romanticizing themselves. White Nationalists have no right to “strategy”. They are all clackers on keyboards, just as in the seventies they were “nutzis” marching in the streets. The scene has shifted, and this shift, because it is the ultimate neutralization, has allowed White Nationalism to subtilize its ideology—allowed it to refine the rhetoric of its delusions of mass-enfranchisement, revenge, etc., which all boil down to the old laughable formula, “tomorrow belongs to me.” Klar?? Community does not exist? Not in the idealized WN sense, obviously. Your ideal communities do not exist, that is why part of your ideology is obsession with “creating” them. You populate the barrenness of the world with your idealized relations. There can be no social betterment? For you and yours—if you’re lucky. What CC “would” do, accounts for nothing? Yes. None if it “counts”. What takes place subpolitically, does not count politically. It really isn’t that incredible. If you were reading a forum for piss freaks and they’re discussing political influence and power, you’d laugh. Now of course a piss fetish isn’t political, and White Nationalism is, but only by rhetoric—neither by actual potential. Rhetoric is mistaken for potential, i.e. ahistorical idealism. One can always choose an ungenerous intellectual paradigm to view things which one isn’t emotionally well-disposed to - and each of your objections are valid and yet not totally comprehensive. Because the White Nationalist paradigm is comprehensive—yes? Why hold up Brazil as a favorable example, You impute here a moral judgement, or ascription of moral value, to my analysis of the role played by “Brazil” in White Nationalist discourse, which is moral, and not morphologically correct. I “help up” Brazil because millions and millions of white people, most of them better-looking which is to say racially better than us, live there in much the same circumstances as we do here. But the White Nationalist falsifies Brazilian demographics because to acknowledge that there are very many pure whites down there—and not just scattered “descendants of German colonists”, but entire metropoleis—would obligate them to also wish to enfranchise (dominate mentally, absorb) those whites, which they can’t. In other words it’s a very quick wholesale write-off of a huge population of whites, because they lie too far outside the assumed sphere of future White Nationalist control to be of value. Because you have a superior understanding which reveals Brazil del Norte’s “inevitability” to you, Well dude, I’ve lived there and I’ve read books about it. What in fuck do you want from me? Funny to see such a great tool set wielded with the ‘little man’ still operative, and apparently still driving. Funny to see what began as a congenial response end in jewy—W. Reich’s “little man”, you know?—ad hominem. Shove those cheers up your ass. 161
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 11:48 AM | # For the first time “inferiors” (i.e. those who cannot adapt to environmental change) are bringing about an extinction of “superiors” (i.e. those who can adapt to environmental change). This is fascinating and, I daresay, revolutionary. When uh goes outside to get his fresh air, he should be careful not to step on any ants, the biological inferior of cave lions and mammoths. Christ, this is why I envy you. Why couldn’t I “just say” that? 162
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 11:53 AM | # uh/NeoNietzsche - ”Son, my parents are dead of old age - I’ve been married for 34 years - I drive a Lexus and wear $2000 worth of semi-automatic pistols on my hips as do-it-yourself personal security.” Honestly, I don’t know what to say. There’s little I could add to the obvious lunacy contained in your comments. I mean, are we supposed to be impressed by the Lexus, and the firearms? No - you are to understand the implicit complete contradiction of your depiction/insinuation of and as to my personal circumstances, about which you stupidly and erroneously speculated. We’re still laughing at you. Can you hear it? I hear the cackling of what one would judge to be an idiot, from your failure to grasp a completely obvious implication. But you redeem yourself, in part, by not adding a fourth indicium of your underclass status with an expression of disbelief (we take it, then, that you have implicitly dropped your allegation/speculation as to my life-long residence in a parental basement) - only to devise another means! One sniggers indelicately at your expense, in a lapse you’ve made irresistible. uh/NeoNitezsche - ”This is my means, my tactic, in locating an “uh” - an “Effecto-Man” - a “PF” - and identifying myself to them…Evidently, this is the sort of place where your sort hangs out and I get recognized as the same.” LOL!! Sort of like an i-gents’ club? A comfy i-club where you can hang out with your i-chums, smoke i-cigars, and solve the important issues of the day? Good idea. You’re certainly amusing, uh/NeoNietzsche, but you’re also pathetic. I guess Real Life isn’t working out too well for you. If it comforts you to think so, keep sucking that thumb. 163
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 11:59 AM | # The optimistic ego is accustomed to evading the absence of responsibility, of properly accounting for itself; This is unclear. What I mean is that this optimistic ego or subject is accustomed to its own self-ascriptions of authority (extensive power) beyond the objective limits imposed by the case (situation / state of affairs / “world”), and esp. to projecting its misconceived authority onto the abilities (extensive power) of others, who become “sinners” against their imagined authority (extensive power). This is the American “can-do” attitude, which bids one “make it” and those who can’t, not as systematic failures, but as “slackers” or “defeatists”. Which doesn’t mean there are no slackers or defeatists, naturally, only that the pathologically optimistic ego obliterates (ignores from semantic-emotive bias) the systematic nature of life in its ascription of total responsibility of the individual for his own state. Hope that’s clear, LOL. 164
Posted by el viejo on October 25, 2009, 12:11 PM | # uh/NeoNietzsche - “No - you are to understand the implicit complete contradiction of your depiction/insinuation of and as to my personal circumstances, about which you stupidly and erroneously speculated.” Some i-gent makes online claims about something or other and I’m supposed to believe him? LOL!! Come on, you’re not that stupid. Or are you? Maybe not stupid, but certainly naive. You are American, I believe, after all. Which causes me to ponder for a moment the profound absurdity of an American—a mongrel American for Odin’s sake!—setting himself up as some sort of i-patrician. Oh, the irony. LOL! The implication of this is of course that I do not take seriously either your insults, or your pseudo-intellectual gibberish. This isn’t real. I’m having fun with you because you’re a figure of fun. A prig. Or should that be, an i-prig. Maybe you’re a nice fellow in the real world. uh/NeoNietzsche - ”(we take it, then, that you have implicitly dropped your allegation/speculation as to my life-long residence in a parental basement)” Not at all. And I bet your mom served you pancakes in bed—no, make that pancakes in futon—this morning. uh/NeoNietzsche - “Good idea.” As I said, I guess the real world isn’t working out too well for you. Sad. 165
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 12:14 PM | # Frank: How are we weak? Uh. Are you invited to Presidential dinners? Only a few ever understand what’s going on in the world. Most people are happy-go-lucky to go with whatever just so long as they don’t have to face difficult reality. Awareness is not political potential. It is just awareness. The White Nationalist romanticizes awareness as political potential. It’s high time for this period of sin and corruption to end and for virtue to return. Christian rhetoric. Time for the Advent, let’s get this party started. You can dismiss “awakening” with deconstruction, I don’t dismiss the awakening of the individual to his state of disenfranchisement and impotence. I dismiss the projection of this personal experience onto the mass, an ego trying symbolically to absorb what it cannot politically. but race still exists Never said it ain’t, but like NeoNietzsche I deny the “vatic” sense of primum mobile and summum bonum given it by White Nationalist ideology. Try, just try, to not ascribe the usual objections to me. I know you’re used to them. I know you expect them and your ability to respond is tailored to them, and right now it’s impossible to meet me in any other way. But, try. This is the rhetoric that has hold of you. and hasn’t be eradicated yet regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it Nor will it be. So what are you worried about? And with the race comes all of the traditions and heritage of ancestors. Eh. My ancestors ate pasta and fucked sheep. I don’t care about them, and they’re irrelevant to real politics. I don’t need godly amounts of money or guns to protect loved ones. I’ve strength enough to protect those I care for, and I suspect you do too, uh. Not really. We’re all at the mercy of the first strapped spic or nigger who comes along to assert himself. You’re at the mercy, if nothing else, of the state. But this is quibbling. I’m weak on certain planes of competition against someone like Soros or Murdoch, but money and media power aren’t everything. Yea man, they are everything. Your family is politically irrelevant. You mistake touching words about love and family for politics. That’s all I have to say. I shudder to think of being born as such trash. They’ve no heritage! They’re untouchable. This is .... Hindu rhetoric? Woh. Rather than masters, there’s need of gentlemen who serve the race. Caaaaareful Frank, I don’t want to see you mistaken for an “i-gent”. 166
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 12:22 PM | # For NN, an i-club for i-gents is better than his parents basement! LOL (Halloween Strategy) Ya know, HS has done me a good turn. I just got a very pleasant recollection of my parents’ basement from decades ago! Pool table, ping-pong, slot cars - those were some damn good days! Long before I realized that I was living on the old Circle K ranch. Amidst lots of cows for the cowboys. 167
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 12:25 PM | # I also like Eckhart Tolle and recently have been put onto Gurdjieff by GW. That is the extent of my success finding self-analysis tools.
Fuckin’ GW—reading Gurdjieff. Makes sense.
I’ve already addressed GW’s “nuggets”, and it’s prise.
168
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 12:26 PM | # GURDJIEFF—GREATEST PSYCHOLOGIST WHO EVER LIVED! ah god i expire 169
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 12:30 PM | # el, You persist as though you have not been comforted. Your thumbs are the inner-most digits of your hands when you view your hands palms-down from above. 170
Posted by Effecto-Man on October 25, 2009, 12:42 PM | # As my grandmother’s pickles are cucumbers preserved in brine, Benny Hinn is Gurdjieff preserved in Kwa. 171
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 01:25 PM | #
In the end we see that Bradley Dean Griffin (yet another phonynym? - most probably) isn’t above descending to the level of “crude ad hominem” which he postures as being above, which shouldn’t surprise. Btw, when you brought out that bit about being the first one to apply (sloppily) psychological and sociological tools to an analysis of WN issues (as if MacDonald hadn’t done it first!), and insinuated you therefore deserved sole and eternal credit when anyone else did likewise, I almost shit myself I was laughing so hard. And then you defend the intellectual legitimacy of the Frankfurt School (!), which ought to be notorious for creating a paradigm which yielded interpretations of data that fit its desired outcomes (which is what your shtick is all about!), LOL! You fucking pinhead, this is your Waterloo. Bradley Dean Griffin, neither patient, nor an intellectual, and if indeed Southern, just another cracker. 172
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 01:27 PM | #
Anti-Christian Pavlovian bark… Pleasure-seeking and other corruption are societal defects to be cast out. Regarding my “power”, I never said I was lower class or without connections. 173
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on October 25, 2009, 01:27 PM | #
How typical. When every other well of criticism runs dry, our European (or whatever) friends fall back on the “Americans are racially impure” crutch. And then they wonder why we are not well-disposed towards them. 174
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 01:32 PM | #
Such a joke how whites have been played by modernists. Christian institutions have become anti-white and jokes otherwise, so white patriots are readily anti-Christian… And then the next step is to provide the alternative to “Christian” with modern corruption. There are pagans to look to, and the best wisdom from them is partly in agreement with the Christian. Jeer as you please, but when the excitement settles you might think on how a state can be built to serve loved ones. Put down the pipe, pass on the sex - think for a bit. 175
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 01:33 PM | #
My blood’s not mongrel. 176
Posted by Hunter Wallace on October 25, 2009, 01:43 PM | # Can someone who runs this site - Soren, GuessedWorker - please cure Captainchaos of the delusion that “uh” is a sockpuppet of mine? I’ve always posted on this site from the same IP address. I have seen uh’s IP address on Occidental Dissent and neither of us are using proxies. For the record, “uh” is a well known figure in White Nationalist circles. He used to post on the VNN frontpage years ago when Linder still ran it. He posted as “Marshal Lentini” on The Civic Platform; Sudaka on VNN Forum; and here (I think) as GenoSnipe. We’re not the same person. We don’t have remotely the same views. We don’t even have the same writing style. Also, for the record, NeoNietzsche isn’t “uh” either. He’s a separate person. I know NeoNietzsche in real life. Whoever runs this site should be able to confirm that all three of us have different IP addresses. 177
Posted by White Preservationist on October 25, 2009, 01:50 PM | # uh’s ravings here read like they come from the addled brain of a Frankfurt School kike all hopped up on crystal meth who is having a psychological break with reality. What a terrible spectacle to behold.
I know your comment was facetious; however, I’ll respond anyhow. This is all the result of the creeping Judaistic Bolshevization brought on by the last century, the 20th Century, which was without a doubt the ‘Jewish Century.’ Much of this was explained and predicted in Stoddard’s 1922 book THE REVOLT AGAINST CIVILIZATION: THE MENACE OF THE UNDER-MAN (a book which the Nietzscheans here are likely to enjoy). Jewry, liberated from their ghettos beginning in the Enlightenment Era and in to the 19th century, then began their long march to undermine White-Western culture which has now mostly succeeded and is leading to the steady degeneration of the White West via Jewish-led orientalization/democratization, i.e. those (White/European) humans most capable of maintaining and advancing a high-level of civilization are being slowly ’swamped’ and replaced by masses of (non-White/non-European) humans who are generally incapable of maintaining and advancing a high-level of human civilization, thus leading to the steady degeneration and degradation of humanity as a whole. The Jews love to see all this because, like cockroaches or deadly bacteria, they thrive best in filthy conditions. If one thing is clear it is that the Jews should’ve never been liberated from their stinking and diseased ghetto cages by various White/Western idealists during the Enlightenment Era; they should’ve been left caged up like the anti-civilizational reptiles which they are. We won’t make the same mistake again. 178
Posted by Hunter Wallace on October 25, 2009, 01:51 PM | # For the record, I haven’t been posting as much because - surprise, surprise - Occidental Dissent has four writers now. I’ve been letting the new contributors make their first posts. It takes the pressure off me to post something new every day. If you must know, I wasn’t online yesterday (after noon) because I was out drinking and watching college football games with some friends. I just came online and found all the Cap’n's bullshit about “uh” being my sockpuppet. 179
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 25, 2009, 01:56 PM | # Hunter, Friedrich said you, not another guy, you wrote the “Big Von” hit-piece a couple of years ago which was posted at his blog. He said it in a thread at his blog some time later, and insisted on it, insisted that you were the author of the piece, when a commenter (not I) told him he was mistaken. Can you explain that? 180
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 02:05 PM | # Uh oh, here’s where it gets sticky, someone is lying. Is it you Brad, or it is Braun? 181
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 02:09 PM | # Uh, now that I’ve responded it sounds like I’m painting myself as something special… I suspect rather I’m pretty typical of anyone whose kin work hard and get educated and live in the same area for centuries. I’m doubtful my connections grant me any modicum of useful power though… My goal is to ultimately relocate to a whiter area and to entice friends and relatives to move there or at least keep the light on for them whenever the darkies and mongrels get out of hand. To the extent I care anything about politicians and other bigwigs, I just want them to gridlock for a few years and appear as incompetent and anti-white. If they but do nothing, that would be wonderful. Hate laws are on the horizon, as is amnesty and even more big government and more big business. Regarding class: I judge men on their character, not on their pocketbook. But I don’t want to pretend I’m something I’m not here… I’m doing fine with my work. 182
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 25, 2009, 02:11 PM | # Well, let’s ask the man: Did you, Fade, write a lengthy piece on Hoffmeister a couple of years ago? 183
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 25, 2009, 02:19 PM | #
For the record, this is false. I was never contacted on VNN or elsewhere by someone claiming that he wrote it and not Fade. 184
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 25, 2009, 02:20 PM | # He’s already denied writing it. Start here, http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/10/18/cryptos-ii-overlapping-circles-moles/#comment-21235 , and read down to comment #12. 185
Posted by Hunter Wallace on October 25, 2009, 02:20 PM | # No, I didn’t write the piece. If I remember correctly, Marshall Lentini (uh’s pseudonym) showed up on The Civic Platform and posted a few negative comments about Hoffmeister. friedrich went over to VNN Forum and posted it there. uh/Marshall Lentini/Sudaka pillored Hoffmeister in a memorable thread there. The name “Big Von” stuck and I have called him that ever since. That was the first time I remember our paths ever crossing. I had vaguely known of uh/Marshall Lentini/Sudaka from reading VNN over the years. He knew of me from my old forum. I want to say he used to be associated with Richard Barrett of the Nationalist Movement in Mississippi. “uh” used to have a website with something about Barrett on it. When “uh” showed up on Occidental Dissent, I didn’t know who he was until he said he was the one who came up with “Big Von.” Then I remembered that old VNN Forum thread about Hoffmeister. In any case, we are not the same person. GuessedWorker can confirm this by checking our IP addresses. 186
Posted by Frank on October 25, 2009, 02:23 PM | # Uh, Murdoch and Soros want my children and kin brainwashed, doped up, serving Israel, and race mixing if having kids at all. I’ve but to unplug the TV and home school them to defeat those two. And if I can find other home schoolers, we could run a little school. So long as we live in a white area, the black crime couldn’t get to us. We’d be safe for a decade or two while our children grow up and get the skills they’ll need to continue the clan, and thus the race. And if such groups became powerful enough within a state, they might find time to play at local politics or a wider reaching media. I don’t need to take on Goliath. I just need to survive and raise children. That alone is winning for me. Soros and Murdoch don’t win until whites are extinct. That hasn’t happened yet. They are incapable of taking us on, due to our “power”, and forcibly race mixing us. We’re free right now to raise our children because we’re stronger than they are on that plane. - Uh, apologies for rambing a bit but now you understand my view. I’ll reply on your points directly shortly - I need a nap. 187
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 02:23 PM | # “Which causes me to ponder for a moment the profound absurdity of an American—a mongrel American for Odin’s sake!—setting himself up as some sort of i-patrician. Oh, the irony. LOL!” (el viejo) “How typical. When every other well of criticism runs dry, our European (or whatever) friends fall back on the “Americans are racially impure” crutch. And then they wonder why we are not well-disposed towards them.” (Mark I.) So, el viejo - who displays and resorts to every underclass attribute and device - speaks to us of genetic breeding? My turn to indulge in hearty laughter! For I can now well believe that he knows whereof he speaks in his suspiciously jargon-laden depiction of artful boot-licking - and given his proximity to “real” aristocrats with whom he can indulge himself, on his side of the water. 188
Posted by Hunter Wallace on October 25, 2009, 02:24 PM | # friedrich, No, that was Marshall Lentini. http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2007/050101.html
189
Posted by Hunter Wallace on October 25, 2009, 02:28 PM | # I did some Googling. Fortunately, Hoffmeister transcribed the comment that “uh” left at The Civic Platform as “Marshall Lentini” on Viva Malta. http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7880 http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/03/07/why-i-am-a-member-of-the-npd/
190
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 02:29 PM | # Much of this was explained and predicted in Stoddard’s 1922 book THE REVOLT AGAINST CIVILIZATION: THE MENACE OF THE UNDER-MAN (a book which the Nietzscheans here are likely to enjoy). (WP) An indispensable perspective contained therein: The primitive and the degenerate united in common purpose, worldwide. 191
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 25, 2009, 02:36 PM | # “In any case, we are not the same person. GuessedWorker can confirm this by checking our IP addresses.” My understanding is IP addresses mean zip. 192
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 25, 2009, 02:41 PM | # Well, I don’t read enough blogs and Web sites to know who said what exactly. I thought that piece on Hoffmeister was quite brilliant at times and it sounded like you, Fade. 193
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 02:53 PM | # IPs can be feigned, sock puppets produced by the same “man” can similar material at around the same time, and can cite the latter for purposes of “plausible” deniability. And one man’s plan does not a conspiracy make. This is not the first time Walleye has been accused absurdly derisive characterizations of WN in years past, and not the first time he has been accused of seemingly shifting personalities (and all accusations of such behavior referring to and directed at a single phonynyn of his). The best way to move forward is, Punter: If it is indeed not you, ban such personalities from posting material at your site, and if it is you, stop now. Ain’t that right? 194
Posted by GenoType on October 25, 2009, 02:56 PM | # Uh’s background and motive is irrelevant. MR prides itself on ideas. Uh has provided several thought-provoking philosophical nuggets and plenty of grist for Google searches. However, with the exception of the cheerleading MR-insider Fred $crooby who claims that Uh has nothing interesting to say, please note the absence of MR’s dominant intellectual personalities. Are they preparing for a counter-assault? Is there a behind the scenes flurry of private messages? Or does $crooby’s posturing mask the fear of egoists who have decided on some level that discretion may be the better part of valor? —————— Cap’n Chaos, Not that Uh thinks better of us, mind you, but why do you defend the perspective of metaphysical hitchhikers – disenfranchised conservatives without clue or guts – who consider us to be nothing more than worms? 195
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 25, 2009, 02:59 PM | #
I have asked Hoffmeister whether his mother was American and he said that she was German (as is his father). The author doesn’t know Hoffmeister as well as he thinks he does. 196
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 03:23 PM | #
I’m not aware that I have defended them per se, GT. Yet some conservatives are obviously worse than others. Buchanan clearly wants his people to survive, though he doesn’t come right out and say it, which is annoying. But if he did say it, he’d be cut off from MSM access. He is more useful to his people where he is than in exile. 197
Posted by danielj on October 25, 2009, 03:31 PM | # Man… All these accusations and counter accusations are positively dizzying! I just want to know if somebody can clarify once and for all whether or not, there is or is not, a hot blond down the hall from Uh. 198
Posted by GenoType on October 25, 2009, 03:52 PM | #
Ok. This means much of your tactical thinking remains “national” and you’ve not fully grasped the importance of building genuine opposition to the enemy through local autonomous systems, which requires considerable personal involvement. Ultimately Buchanan is a system flautist and the problem with him is that people are led to believe that a “national solution” is possible with minimal personal involvement. Buchanan may have been a stepping-stone for you and I, but he fails as a builder of movements. His approach has been tried and failed for 55 years. Our approach, if we are serious, must be grass-roots: Local groups for the white suburban fringe and microcommunities for the rural, linked socially and economically. As a general rule, microcommunities would provide the goods and local groups the services. 199
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on October 25, 2009, 03:53 PM | # Uh = GR = Marshall Lentini = GenoSnipe = Sudaka = others? The guy has a distinctive style. He’s frequented VNNF, MR, Silver’s site, Eye 4 Knowledge (now defunct) in recent memory. My opinion is that Uh is pessimistic/dismissive about WN’s prospects and based on our condition I cannot disagree with him. Sometimes he’s a bit mean-spirited, yes. Well, I’m the thick-skinned sort so I can take it. What are people here afraid of anyway? That we might be offered an intellectual challenge for once, i.e. offering a reasonable answer to his pessimistic outlook? Just saying. If some jaded Joe Blow off the street like this can cause such frenzy and confusion amidst our ranks it isn’t a mystery why Jews and Liberal Untermenschen lord over us. 200
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 04:07 PM | # FB: I maintain that you deliberately expurgated that piece, deleting my name and re-posting it to VNNF about a year after I originally did. Why you or anyone would do this is anyone’s guess; possibly to evade association with my old blog, which contained some blood-curdling stuff about White Nationalism generally. I did PM you in accusation, and you denied it—in much the same way you do here. “Oh, well, I don’t really know ....” Now, I know people have been confused about you before, so I’m going to hazard the belief that you were and are lying. That’s ok, because it was just a funny “hit-piece” for everyone’s amusement. It’s sad someone would have to misrepresent it, though. GT: Uh’s background and motive is irrelevant. Ahh, for once! However, with the exception of the cheerleading MR-insider Fred $crooby who claims that Uh has nothing interesting to say, please note the absence of MR’s dominant intellectual personalities. Are they preparing for a counter-assault? Is there a behind the scenes flurry of private messages? Or does $crooby’s posturing mask the fear of egoists who have decided on some level that discretion may be the better part of valor? LOL. My thoughts exactly—I really did imagine an agitated flurry of private email, and I’m sure it happened just like that. Where’s GW? Wintermute? the Guru? why do they never challenge my obscene waffling? are they that gurutastic? are they busy reading Gurdjieff, Boethius, Norman Lowell—transcending the world changed by the latter’s book? could one of them agree with me and be reluctant to shock the faithful by supporting the heretic? have I said something GW has thought before, but has been hesitant to pursue publicly or without attractive trim? is the Guru incapable of defending himself? or are they all just not as trenchant as their pomo-classicist stylings have led us to believe? Then again, it is Sunday. God rests, why not the gods? Ah, it’s all ego, all vanity. When the White Nationalist says “his own”, he is using a word derived from Old English ?gen, a cognate of OHG eigan, modern German Eigen—and Latin ego. His “own”— are himself. This is what I mean by “ego absorption”. The WN ego subsumes the abstracted, taxonomically-related Other into himself, as “own”, but is left with the impossible task of trying to capture that Other bodily. Jesus, didn’t anybody else read their Stirner in junior high? But on your very satisfying note, GT, I take leave of this fiasco. 201
Posted by uh on October 25, 2009, 04:09 PM | # I just want to know if somebody can clarify once and for all whether or not, there is or is not, a hot blond down the hall from Uh. There’s a very hot Australian broad on the first floor. But I’m on the second, and she’s a cunt. :( Byebye now. 202
Posted by GenoType on October 25, 2009, 04:12 PM | #
Precisely. Examine Uh’s original comments from Original Dissent, which I copied to the first page of this entry in response to $crooby’s remarks toward Effecto-Man. There has been precious little quality response from MR. Yet much of what Uh writes logically follow from these points. Pretentious dismissal, identity games, accusations of mental illness (imagine that, Mr. Freud!), etc., are not the answer. This is what the conservative-mentality does as it retreats. 203
Posted by Hunter Wallace on October 25, 2009, 04:22 PM | # CC, Frankly, I am growing tired of your sanctimonious bullshit and absurd posturing. Now you are peddling baseless conspiracy theories. I’m not “uh.” We don’t share the same views. We don’t have the same writing style. We don’t have the same IP address which GW can verify. “Uh” is a well known internet personality who (like NeoNietzsche) has been around this scene for years. I have no reason to come online and say the exact opposite of everything I write in the comments. Honestly, I don’t know what else to tell you. A few Google searches is sufficient to reveal that “uh” has a paper trail all over the internet. Did you bother checking any of that out or are you just too lazy? Why don’t you ask him about the history of his involvement in the White Nationalist movement? Judging from the above, he loves to talk about himself. Finally, I have no plans to ban “uh” from Occidental Dissent: for one, unlike you, he hasn’t attacked me. He is obviously intelligent and I have welcomed reasoned criticism. 204
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 04:30 PM | # Good remark: Just saying. If some jaded Joe Blow off the street like this can cause such frenzy and confusion amidst our ranks it isn’t a mystery why Jews and Liberal Untermenschen lord over us. (Mark I.) Indeed, something is lacking here - what could it be? 205
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 04:34 PM | # Posted earlier at OD: “HW’s style is fairly blunt and to the point. Uh’s posts are more like dialectic, examining the situation from angles. NN’s posts, his blog notwithstanding, are incisive and brief generally. Three very different approaches. I can’t see them as the same person.” (Mark I.) Indeed. “Hunter” and I became personally acquainted at a recent function. I am in personal contact with “uh” and know him not to be Hunter. “Effecto-Man” writes with an attitude more like my own than any other, and we are not one person. What an irony that the Captain’s obsession with imagined sock-puppetry is now simulating the trollery that he would be the first to denounce. 206
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 25, 2009, 04:35 PM | #
I have no idea who you are or why you’re lying and I’ve never been to your Web site. I did post that piece on VNN while attributing it to Fade simply because I was led to believe that he wrote it. It was obviously an honest mistake. Since you apparently wrote it under one of your countless pen names, what does it matter? I have no clue who you are but you come across as a deranged psycho and/or a pernicious troll. 207
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 04:42 PM | #
No. I believe both tacks are potentially viable, and important, and need not be pursued to the exclusion of the other.
In the instance that a mass movement consonant with a “national solution,” if not less involvement in terms of man-hours put in, then certainly less ‘involvement’ of the jack-of-all-trades sort would be required as a result of a proper division of labor according to the talents and specialties of the individuals involved. Besides, we cannot count on most people being as gung-ho about this as we are, at least not at this time, which is obvious, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. Even assuming quality activists were freed to engage in more hardy activism after having build microcommunities, there task would be two fold: 1) That of encouraging others, and presumably the more passionately ethnocentric, to also erect microcommunities; 2) Getting those that will do something, however little, to do that something - even if they will not too go the microcommunity road. So, the essential dynamic of a mainstream mass movement will be manifested via the microcommunity method anyway; and, without sufficient numbers, both are doomed to be crushed with maximum ruthlessness as a latter-day incarnation of “Nazism” when, or if, decisive moves at separation are made.
But a stepping stone none the less. And he reaches far more people than we can at the moment, and will be able to for the foreseeable future, and we cannot shut him up even if we wanted to. His activity acts as a funnel for the few to our cause, better to have that funnel than not, and again we cannot get rid of it. Further, the more people hear ideas similar to our own from a source they perceive as “respectable”, the more they will be softened to absorbing the more radical version. If that is the only function the BNP and faileoconservatism serve it should be obvious that an as-wide-as-possible exposure of them can be of some help. But if not, they are a part of the political landscape that we should anticipate growing, and be prepared to engage with as we move forward. 208
Posted by GoyAmongYou on October 25, 2009, 05:05 PM | #
OMG “uh” is ROBERT LINDSAY
Shocking evidence 209
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 05:11 PM | # Wallace, I was not the only one to make the accusation, yet you single me out, why is that? I was not the only to have come to the same conclusion based upon the same circumstantial evidence. I was not the only one privy to just that evidence, which is certainly not inconsistent with what I have argued. Further, I attacked “uh” only after being attacked by him first, and attacked you only after having been convinced that you were him, if indeed you are not. If you are indeed not one and the same, then I offer you my apology, provisional though it may be. Moreover, I see nothing “reasonable” in “uh’s” “analysis” - and am under no obligation to do so. If “uh” is prepared to criticize, then he should be prepared to be criticized; and if sanctimony and smears are his rhetorical cudgels, then he should be prepared to pay in kind. 210
Posted by White Preservationist on October 25, 2009, 05:13 PM | #
Now on this here glorious Sunday he is quoting Judeo-Christian scripture at us. Who are you uh, a Baptist seminarian preacher-in-training or something? I should at least mention here that Ecclesiastes (along with Job, Proverbs, much of Isaiah, and the other other portions of “wisdom literature” contained within the ‘Hebrew Bible’) are ancient Aryan/European writings co-opted by Jewry for their own religio-cultural enrichment at our expense. 211
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 05:31 PM | # Uh, Its fascinating to read where you’re coming from with this, uh. Since you’re obviously more clued in than I am philosophically, can you recommend literature? So I mentioned Gurdjieff - you scoff. Who is better? Point me the way out of my ignorance, if you would. Sorry about the ad hominem, I suppose its a reflex given your provocative tone. Do you have a philosophical justification for the necessity of that, or is it a stylistic choice? I do suspect your critique can be submitted to a critique which at the moment Do you believe completely in the validity of your critique, or are In what way does the critique’s following points not apply to every political movement: - powerlessness : the followers of mass politics are likewise often unempowered despite the fact that their parties nominally reign. What do the Democrats on DailyKos or Slate have in terms of power? I can see them as agitating together in a crude way to see the victory of their sensibility - I don’t see them actually wielding influence over the party leaders who actually hold power in Washington. I’ve known some liberals who were fiery supporters of Democratic causes and politics - yet the idea that they had any power was also an illusion. They just happen to be swimming with the current rather than against it (as in WN) and so the illusion appears more real. Who of the hundreds of thousands of people involved in political activism, actually has a hand on any lever of power? Your critique remains valid on this point but loses some of its sting when put in this wider context, I think. You would make WNs appear uniquely fantasist, but with the toolset you are using, all humans are fantasists - and all but the most effective political participation falls under the blade of this critique. - the cultic mindset: this exists in mainstream political groups almost as much as in WN; granted it is driven to extremes by the social marginalization of WN. I think the cultic mentality is well established amongst the Democratic-liberals who I’ve known in America. Admittedly, less extreme as in WN - but to be fair, your idea of WN appears crafted on its most extreme examples (possibly because as you say you once were one of these devotees)... Look at Danielj, or Bill, or the multitude of other readers and commentors who don’t fit your psychological critique as well as CaptainChaos and Soren. This further relativizes your critique, realizing that the psychological profile of the true believer which you are lampooning is only present in pure form in half the participants - even here of all places. - imagined community: this is kind of cheap shot, given the nature of human consciousness and the way the modern world works with long distance communication etc. Of course people ‘imagine’ a connection to others, even Amazonian villagers who have lived together forever operate on the basis of ‘imagined’ connections, insofar as they have to operate through mental images of one another which are necessarily somewhat subjective. We have mass mobility and mass information movement nowadays, so its hard for minds to grow together slowly on a single place. No doubt Soren’s connection to his political buddies isn’t as real as the amazonian villagers who fish together every day. Yet the modern world is predicated in lots of ways on relationships exactly like this, and the circle of relationships which could be critiqued in this way extends as far as one wants to extend it. Families break down all the time because illusory ego bonds and imagined connections falter - they are not immune to the same dynamics. I agree that forums are bad for fantasism, especially political ones. But even a forum for artists, or computer geeks, or internet entrepreneurs, exhibits the same ‘psychosocial’ dynamics. People are creating fantasist realities and illusory social bonds everywhere, all the time - people in groups of all sorts exhibit cultic mentalities - and the vast majority of energy put into politics does not result in any appreciable change. If you had mentioned this, that WN is a cramped and perhaps extreme iteration of human social dynamics that are observable everywhere - your critique would be less provocative at least to myself personally, and I think most would grant the validity of all that you have to say. Please do recommend literature. cheers 212
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 05:34 PM | # Moreover, I see nothing “reasonable” in “uh’s” “analysis” - and am under no obligation to do so. I suppose that I, the political economist, see uh’s psycho-sociological metacritical work as “reasonable” for having come to the same general conclusions by a completely different path. Same thing with Nietzsche, the philologist/philosopher. What, if anything, do you bring to the issue, Captain, by way of an academic emphasis? Not that you need to - but I draw your attention to this interesting convergence, in any case. 213
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 05:54 PM | # The point of convergence: “I behold the progressive enslavement and self-oblivion of white races and see the intractable pitiless march of history, where you see a kind of leisurely stroll that can be directed anywhere with enough preaching”. The specifics thereof, according to my own investigation, are listed in the History of the Faustian Pact, and rationalized in the Posts at “superhuman”. Professor Nietzsche specified that “conceiving reality as it is” was the path to man’s greatness. This has, of course, not come to pass, and man is now a rope stretched across an abyss to the underman. 214
Posted by White Preservationist on October 25, 2009, 06:11 PM | #
Indeed. Have you ever read that book? If not, I highly recommend it along with most of Stoddard’s other works. Here is the chapter list for those possibly interested in reading it: [download the full PDF here] I. The Burden Of Civilization II. The Iron Law Of Inequality III. The Nemesis Of The Inferior IV. The Lure Of The Primitive V. The Ground-Swell Of Revolt VI. The Rebellion Of The Under-Man VII. The War Against Chaos VIII. Neo-Aristocracy —- We are rapidly approaching the evolutionary stage of social, political, economic, and spiritual development wherein the lowest-common denominator, the ultimately sterile and destructive Judaic-Bolshevist spirit, will triumph over the more creative and constructive European-Aryan spirit. If we and other similar groups do not at least partially succeed in reversing ominous future trends, then all that is best about humankind will gradually vanish from the Earth and this world will slowly become a desert (figuratively and likely literally) in keeping with the native/preferred habitat of nation-wrecking Jewry. 215
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 06:11 PM | # And a WN mission that does not proceed in mind - rather than in ignorance - of these vital considerations…should be aborted. Do not further protest that mindfulness is demoralizing. Ignorance is now criminal. 216
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 06:15 PM | # Indeed. Have you ever read that book? I have, hence my remark regarding its content. 217
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 06:31 PM | # NeoNietzsche, Sorry I underestimated you and responded in a haughty way. Its amazing to see people alternating between bait-and-switch stuff and high calibre philosophical disputation, thats what threw me. Rather than be a pompous interlocutor to you, I’ll just say some stuff that I’ve been working on, I read Nietzsche long ago, the complete works, and was kind of ‘converted’ very strongly to his way of thinking. Anyway, years go by, and I start to piece together bits of a critique against his beliefs. There are lots of weaknesses in him, if one chooses to look for them. Do you know all this already and are being tongue-in-cheek with your directly lifted terminology? Or do you really believe in Master and Slave morality in the sense in which Nietzsche propounded it? Anyway, I will elaborate the sources of the critique. The critique of Nietzsche I found in several books was illuminating. Wilamowitz discusses his accuracy as philologist interpreting Greek history - its a pendantic (sp?) critique but it makes clear that Nietzsche’s philology wasn’t the raw, powerful, unquestioned scientific thing one might infer just from reading his works. Wilamowitz takes issue with Nietzsche’s subjective use of Greek history as a means for self-exploration, and basically suggests that Nietzsche waxes rapturous and poetic over certain insights into Greek history which, when viewed coldly, would have to be stated with more reserve. This pamphlet by Wilamowitz, available after a google search, was the reason why Nietzsche’s philology career was basically destroyed and he lost all adherents and students. His philology was shown to be fantasist, idealist, and speculative. The next source of criticism was reading F. A. Lea’s biography entitled : Nietzsche, the tragic philosopher. It is such an unknown gem, I can’t stress the beauty of that book enough. If you want a critical biography of Nietzsche showing him as the man he was, from the pen of a man who understands his ideas and their implications and their derivations - and views them from a place of mature, sympathetic interest but also cautiousness - that is the book. Nietzsche is critiqued there from multiple fronts: his lack of an objective study of history, for example. He was not actually big into analyzing history, he sort of did it whimsically and poetically - and his cautiousness was impinged upon in his assertions by his experimental understanding of the nature of philosophical discourse and the suspicion he had of the ultimate nonexistence of truth. In short, Nietzsche’s historical analysis is not as sound as one might conclude from reading his aphorisms. He was more interested in art, literature, and philosophy than he was interested in factual historical accounts. This was surprising to me because in all that he says he appears such a master. Several years ago I became skeptical of the master/slave morality thing through my own study of history. I just couldnt see the clarity of that breakdown. Unlike some people [ For example, his idea of the Genius was a formative factor in his life, one that he received mostly from Schopenhauer. That idea could be tied to almost all of his career, his posturing, his social stances as “Shock Jock” and Rebel, etc. etc. He very much believed that men of Genius made the world turn, etc. etc. I can’t do justice to it here of course but its beautiful to understand. Especially as I myself was struggling to be a ‘Genius’ i.e. was not impervious to the implications of this idea. Its freeing to see the silliness of it. Lea also criticizes Nietzsche’s occasional lapse into Solipsism - which F.N. rarely did, but nevertheless occasionally. I was surprised by that. Even more surprising was Lea’s critique of Nietzsche’s understanding of Christianity. It forced me to realize that Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity was basically a critique of his Naumburg Pietist childhood upbringing - it was from that that he derived his understanding and picture of Christianity. Not from an objective study. Lea finds similarities between Nietzsche’s revelations and the insights of Christ - and says that so far from being oppositional characters, they are in fact very similar. He ends by questioning whether the transvaluation of all values was really a transvaluation at all. Its quite amazing - and kind of sad and relieving at the same time, to see Nietzsche put in his place. Thats my reaction to it. Plus if one sets oneself to it there are all kinds of little critiques one can invent to be rid of these ideas. Thats what I’ve been doing informally, basically looking at them one by one and saying: “Does it have to be this way? Could this too be an error? In what situations may this not hold? What artifacts of perspective are present in this assertion?” . Hope that is of some value to you, please cut me to reveal more truth if you see fat anywhere on me. cheers 218
Posted by Effecto-Man on October 25, 2009, 06:38 PM | # Previously Mr. White Preservationist boldly reinterpreted ecology. Now he does so with the English language. I am empowered by this new direction the Anglo tongue is taking. Anything we say, no matter how mundane, can now be interpreted as a reference to some more famous work, merely if words or roughly tangential sentiments are shared. The sun has come out again. I am going outside to continue raking leaves. I have just mentioned one of the 14,000 words used in the Bible - “sun”, to be exact. I have now quoted Judeo-Christian scripture. And Walt Whitman in the second sentence. As for the leaves in my neighborhood, they’ve really piled up in front of the house across the street from mine. Everyone else on the street can afford to hire a gardener, who now does the yards of the whole block. My poorer neighbors across the street have a rake, but they hold it upside down. Almost everyone on my street holds their rake upside down, but their leaves don’t accumulate because the gardener takes care of the yards. Anyway, for years uh has stopped by and told my neighbors that they should stop holding their rake upside down. Though it was clear that it was upside down, they insisted that it was not and that it was the way they’d always raked leaves. These neighbors had an intelligent son who came home from college on the week the gardener went to visit his town in Mexico. There was a slight accumulation of leaves on the lawns of those who could afford to partake of the gardener’s services, and these people were now raking on their own in his absence, rakes upside down. The smart college student looked up and down the street, saw that, though the yards didn’t have nearly as many leaves in them as his family’s yard, the neighbors were still holding their rakes upside down, turned and shouted across the street where uh was practicing to be a Baptist seminarian preacher-in-training or something, that the criticism of his family was unwarranted in the area of rake-holding. It is a bizarre neighborhood. 219
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 06:40 PM | #
What you catalogue there can be summed up more felicitously than uh does as the pattern of White power elites striking alliances with alien peoples to increase their own reproductive fitness without regard for their ethnic genetic interests. This can plausibly be explained by the increasing landedness of the aristocracy, consistent with an ever more complex division of labor, which concomitantly increased their separateness in terms of dependency on their co-ethnics. Now, perhaps these true warrior-aristocrats were more ethnocentric at the beginning of their family line, but, due to marriage with increasingly less ethnocentric stock consistent with their now landed detachment, and regression of ethnocentrism towards the mean in their off-spring, and the above mentioned environmental influences, they degenerated from the role of guardians of their people - from an aristocracy into a treasonous plutocracy.
I’m afraid an evolutionary analysis must trump Nietzsche’s, who rejected Darwinian evolution by the way. Can it truly be said that our past treasonous elites did what they did in knowledge of Salter? No.
“Greatness” in the cultural/technological sense is not an end unto itself, life’s only function is the transmission of itself through time. Even Nietzsche’s conception of the will to power as the defining characteristic of life is highly dubious given life fluctuates up and down in terms of complexity consistent with environmental stimuli (selective pressures) with the overall pattern being entropy. Nietzsche’s will to power can perhaps describe the human male impulse to climb in the social dominance hierarchy, yet even this is not as aggressive as in, say, lions. It is not as ‘masculine’, it is more ‘feminine’, as the needs of other males are taken into greater consideration for the life of the tribe. The White man’s will to power, in the more brute and primitive sense, is less ‘masculine’ than the Negro’s. Yet none of these facts stopped us from achieving all we have, and in standing up to Jewry periodically. It is not plausible that we have undergone such a spectacular biological degeneration in just half a century. The problem is in our heads, the problem is that we do not possess a true understanding of our interests; that is we, enough of us, do not possess the truth - and most importantly a true aristocracy does not possess it. P.S. If you think that duh has come away unscathed in our encounters then you haven’t been paying attention. 220
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 25, 2009, 06:46 PM | # Watching these guys talk to Uh and Effecto is like that scene in the 1950s film “Lily” where the girl, played by Leslie Caron, comes up to the puppet stage and talks to the puppets as if they’re real and they talk to her as if they’re real. 221
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 06:46 PM | # Effecto-man wrote:
You obviously put some time into crafting that interesting parable. Who is the gardener, GW? Is white preservationist the college student? or am I? I dont think you mean CC or NN. I guess the WNs are people holding their rakes upside down? 222
Posted by Anthony on October 25, 2009, 06:53 PM | # 334 The benefactor – The benefactor satisfies a need of his nature when he does good. The stronger this need is, the less he enters into feelings of that other person who serves to still his need, he becomes rough and, on occasion, offensive. (This has been asserted of Jewish benefaction and charity, which, as is well known, is somewhat more effusive than that of other nations.) Such wonderful analysis and understanding! The fatuity writes, ““conceiving reality as it is,” not realizing the inherent contradiction in the phrase. It is an “iron-wood” as Schopenhauer would say. Notice also the fatuity’s use of the term “man”, a universal concept that is fairly empty. The use of such large concepts that pertain to indistinctness is a sure indicator or magical thinking. He would scoff at the talk of a universal “God”, but a universal “man”… well, one can see his abysmal failure at deep thought by his failure to consider the law of specification. Slave morality, master morality, are this and that as people choose to use them. Empty husks of ideas, like sinner and saint. There is White morality and jewish immorality. That is all. The real problem is people like prozium and even kinists think he has something to offer. This does not shine a good light on their own intellectual ability nor their connection and understanding of what it means to be white. The battle lines are being drawn between the white world-view and the jewish. Choose to fight for White. 223
Posted by Captainchaos on October 25, 2009, 06:53 PM | # Uh is welcome back any time as I eagerly anticipate nailing his ass to the fucking cross. 224
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 07:15 PM | # Effecto-man, OK, the gardener cant be GW because he visits all the yards of everyone else (i.e. people who are not WNs). Are the leaves untruths, or poor outcomes? If I am the student, i.e. the one who upbraids Uh for criticizing the ‘rake-holding’ (enlightenment and political actionability/potential) of my ‘family’ (i.e. WNs) - then let me say that this meta-critique was the most interesting thing I’ve read on here for a while! I’m done with strategizing and grand schemes and all that, so I like this sort of thing you bring to the board. Ultimately I’m more interested in the implications of what you’re saying than any kind of defensive ranting or re-circulation of the same 20 basic thoughts that makes up most WN discourse. I don’t fully get ‘you’ yet but the ideas are muy interessant . cheers 225
Posted by Effecto-Man on October 25, 2009, 07:18 PM | # For PF: “the followers of mass politics are likewise often unempowered despite the fact that their parties nominally reign. What do the Democrats on DailyKos or Slate have in terms of power? I can see them as agitating together in a crude way to see the victory of their sensibility - I don’t see them actually wielding influence over the party leaders who actually hold power in Washington. I’ve known some liberals who were fiery supporters of Democratic causes and politics - yet the idea that they had any power was also an illusion. They just happen to be swimming with the current rather than against it (as in WN) and so the illusion appears more real. Who of the hundreds of thousands of people involved in political activism, actually has a hand on any lever of power? Your critique remains valid on this point but loses some of its sting when put in this wider context, I think. You would make WNs appear uniquely fantasist, but with the toolset you are using, all humans are fantasists - and all but the most effective political participation falls under the blade of this critique.” As for the bizarre neighborhood I live in, the people directly across the street just shouted these absurdities: “The battle lines are being drawn between the white world-view and the jewish. Choose to fight for White.” 226
Posted by Anthony on October 25, 2009, 07:20 PM | # Here is an example: http://www.toqonline.com/2009/10/theseus-minotaur/ Now the author has a website where he displays his “art”. http://www.jonathanbowden.co.uk/gallery/album/index.html Go have a look at it. As you go through notice the crude bondage “paintings”. It is degenerate “art” (even if it rises to that level). It is not a matter of taste. It is crap that any real white would be ashamed to produce let alone display. No standards is the problem. Degenerate rubbish we can get from the jew. But who wants it? Is that the world you want to fight for? 227
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 07:31 PM | # Antony, are you somebody’s disembodied antithesis running around under a different pseudonym? You start with a critique of NeoNietzsche’s idea of the moral validity of the search for truth and end bashing degenerate art. Here, have a cookie, bro *hands cookie*. Here, be reintegrated into whomever you sprang from *pushes him back into his progenitor with a “shlupping” noise* 228
Posted by duh on October 25, 2009, 07:37 PM | # What better metric of the super ego is there than art? None, as it is the only, truly. The ones we champion our best, are no champions, look at what they paint: Bitch Tied To Bed… waiting for it… doesn’t know if she wants it…she’ll know soon. A glorious eruption of...flaccid disappointment. Untie me, I said now! Yes ma’am. Hot blond next door, don’t want me, she fucks niggers. No hope…no hope. LOL! 229
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 07:42 PM | # Duh, Apart from all these societal/salvationary schemes that politics loves, and apart from the critique thereof, do you have any ideas about how man, as in me and you and others, should best live? 230
Posted by duh on October 25, 2009, 07:53 PM | # Do not allow your ego ideal to surpass the bounds of the subpolitical to the political as then niggers will no longer be able to fuck blonds, and if I can’t have her, better a nigger than a White man; the former inflames my sense of inferiority (er, I mean my realistically calibrated ego ideal) complex in a way the latter does not. Plus I like to watch. 231
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 07:58 PM | # Duh, I dont get it. Where are you going with this? 232
Posted by duh on October 25, 2009, 08:09 PM | # PF, I tell you now the truth, listen well: Look after your fellow White man, fuck the shit out of your fellow White women, raise children that will do the same and don’t take shit from niggers. Measuring these solemn duties by ego idealism is for fags. 233
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 08:25 PM | # Duh, Bro, are you serious? You want me to do what I was already doing (except for the fucking, which I’m finding problematic) - just without the ego idealism of believing I’m a soldier in a movement born to save the world? I mean, thats awesome! Cuz thats exactly what I want to do anyway. So you really are at heart a loyal white man who just wants to liberate his fellows from distorting political dogma? Thats cool. I couldnt tell. What are some authors who can help me get away from ego idealism? 234
Posted by duh on October 25, 2009, 08:28 PM | # Fading away now…fading away…yanked was I from paradise, inside moist - sanskrit chiseled walls, outside soft (golden hair)...wet as sprinkled with morning dew. My mother’s twat. Back I will go. Goodbye cruel world. When I wake up I will be reborn, but the world the same, back I’ll go again. I want to be safe. I apologize for having suckered you all, goodbye you bastards. (Heil Hitler!) 235
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 08:44 PM | # You’re cool duh. You should explain your thought processes at more length when you get the time. Have fun in your mom’s belly 236
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 25, 2009, 08:52 PM | # Here’s this thread, in a couple of snap shots: 237
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 25, 2009, 09:21 PM | #
Geez, it took you long enough.
If it enhances fitness, is it treasonous?
Only in a closed system, which is hypothetical. Nature is full of examples of order arising from disorder. 238
Posted by danielj on October 25, 2009, 09:54 PM | # Only in a closed system, which is hypothetical. Nature is full of examples of order arising from disorder. How many times do I have to knock this down? Provide an example please. Cue: GW to accuse me of derailing the thread. 239
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 10:02 PM | # PF, Sorry I underestimated you and responded in a haughty way. Apology accepted - but I remain confused as to what provoked your remarks, and I would appreciate some clarification of the above. In what respect and why did you “underestimate” me, and why did you respond as you say you did, lacking any (intended) direction of my remarks toward you in general or specifically? Its amazing to see people alternating between bait-and-switch stuff and high calibre philosophical disputation, that’s what threw me. I suppose that by “bait-and-switch” you refer to what we call a “pissing contest”? And you are unaccustomed to someone who can both piss and think? Do I correctly take that to be your meaning(s)? Rather than be a pompous interlocutor to you, I’ll just say some stuff that I’ve been working on, that might be of interest. You have my attention and interest. I read Nietzsche long ago, the complete works, and was kind of ‘converted’ very strongly to his way of thinking. Anyway, years go by, and I start to piece together bits of a critique against his beliefs. This is mostly to free myself from them, since I had absorbed them so unquestioningly. There are lots of weaknesses in him, if one chooses to look for them. Do you know all this already and are being tongue-in-cheek with your directly lifted terminology? Or do you really believe in Master and Slave morality in the sense in which Nietzsche propounded it? That depends upon what one means by “the sense in which Nietzsche propounded it.” I find that few people recognize the profound psychological and ideological/theological insight implicit in what I call the parable of the Bird of Prey and the Lamb. I cannot say that I am troubled by Nietzsche’s “terminology,” so you will have to be specific about that with which you now have difficulty. As to “weaknesses in him” I am aware of these both in general and with regard to specifics. These are aspects of his thought that make extraction of its enduring value a matter of extended study and reflection. The critique of Nietzsche I found in several books was illuminating. Wilamowitz discusses his accuracy as philologist interpreting Greek history - its a pendantic (sp?) critique but it makes clear that Nietzsche’s philology wasn’t the raw, powerful, unquestioned scientific thing one might infer just from reading his works. Wilamowitz takes issue with Nietzsche’s subjective use of Greek history as a means for self-exploration, and basically suggests that Nietzsche waxes rapturous and poetic over certain insights into Greek history which, when viewed coldly, would have to be stated with more reserve. This pamphlet by Wilamowitz, available after a google search, was the reason why Nietzsche’s philology career was basically destroyed and he lost all adherents and students. His philology was shown to be fantasist, idealist, and speculative. This all may be the case. It is not evident that this has specific implications for his political philosophy - though one finds difficulties therein that betray some of the same symptoms you list. The next source of criticism was reading F. A. Lea’s biography entitled : Nietzsche, the tragic philosopher. It is such an unknown gem, I can’t stress the beauty of that book enough. If you want a critical biography of Nietzsche showing him as the man he was, from the pen of a man who understands his ideas and their implications and their derivations - and views them from a place of mature, sympathetic interest but also cautiousness - that is the book. Nietzsche is critiqued there from multiple fronts: his lack of an objective study of history, for example. He was not actually big into analyzing history, he sort of did it whimsically and poetically - and his cautiousness was impinged upon in his assertions by his experimental understanding of the nature of philosophical discourse and the suspicion he had of the ultimate nonexistence of truth. In short, Nietzsche’s historical analysis is not as sound as one might conclude from reading his aphorisms. He was more interested in art, literature, and philosophy than he was interested in factual historical accounts. This was surprising to me because in all that he says he appears such a master. Again, the question unanswered here is as to what is contained in this biography that reflects a more satisfactory, if any, account of N.‘s thought, as I have made use of it. I recognize problems in his historical accounts - but you will need to be more specific in this regard in order to be persuasively skeptical about his genealogy of morals as a conceptual framework. Several years ago I became skeptical of the master/slave morality thing through my own study of history. I just couldn’t see the clarity of that breakdown. Because Western Culture was/is shot through with slave morality from top to bottom throughout its history. The manifestation of master morality therein was preciously infrequent, more infrequent than even N. himself allowed. It’s all “Christianity,” as Nietzsche so insightfully realized, and so the absence of the “clarity” you sought was to be anticipated. Lea also criticizes Nietzsche’s occasional lapse into Solipsism - which F.N. rarely did, but nevertheless occasionally. I was surprised by that. Even more surprising was Lea’s critique of Nietzsche’s understanding of Christianity. It forced me to realize that Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity was basically a critique of his Naumburg Pietist childhood upbringing - it was from that that he derived his understanding and picture of Christianity. Not from an objective study. Lea finds similarities between Nietzsche’s revelations and the insights of Christ - and says that so far from being oppositional characters, they are in fact very similar. He ends by questioning whether the transvaluation of all values was really a transvaluation at all. Its quite amazing - and kind of sad and relieving at the same time, to see Nietzsche put in his place. Thats my reaction to it. I think it specious to reduce Nietzsche’s very generalized critique of “Christianity” to terms in which sectarian characteristics can be attributed to it where it counts. Whatever else he wrote, he condemned the essence of the *ethic* of Christianity in the Beatitudinal attitude. Hope that is of some value to you, please cut me to reveal more truth if you see fat anywhere on me. To that end, I would appreciate your response to my questions and observations, above. 240
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 25, 2009, 10:10 PM | # Ocean waves, sand dunes, wind-produced sand ripples, the formation of crystals from solution, and, of course, snowflakes. 241
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 10:15 PM | # I note the return of mighty Antonius Cincinnatus, who hopes to inseminate you all somehow, despite the absence of genitals amputated by his master, Schopenhauer. 242
Posted by PF on October 25, 2009, 11:20 PM | # Neo, Cutting to the core of things, then, it seems we would be debating two things. 1) Master/slave morality, the legitimacy of it, does it exist (for me it plainly doesnt, at least 2) Christian ethics and whether these posit an oppositional pole to master morality (not really, in my view). (This may be necessarily condescending but I want to lay out the prior thinking I have before going into these) Preamble: I should say beforehand that there is a general skepticism of ideas which I have. It is the reason why you may see I don’t take much intellectual stuff seriously (for better and worse). This is because I ultimately don’t believe that the ideas we use accurately describe underlying truths of nature - I believe that they describe them paradigmatically, meaning they describe an aspect of a phenomenon as it shifts through time. For me, our mind is a symbol system that can never accurately contain within its symbology a full understanding of phenomena. The properties of our sensory and symbolic system introduce artifacts of their own and determine the ‘truth’ we see in reality - often quite significant artifacts, which I’ll give examples of later. We can approach a very accurate understanding of some things like material forces i.e. gravity. But for the mind itself to understand its own complexity, there is no evolutionary aptness for this - so I expect it to go badly and it often does. Yet because each new concept does reflect some glimpse of truth, we accept it until the error contained in it becomes manifest - usually it has to do us some harm before we recognize this. This is why knowledge of complex truths seems to work on this hegelian basis, swinging between extremes of thesis and anti-thesis, and ultimately reaching synthesis. One example where I derive this from is the social realm. I look at the variety of stories people create about situations, motivations and relationships. Just observe how difficult it is to distill the motivations of a single person in a single scenario. What was that person hoping to achieve? Why did they do that? What motivations were they conscious of, and which are they unconscious of? If they are unconscious of aspects of their own motivation and the causation underlying it, how much more must I, an outside observer, be. So you see I think if the average person can’t even understand entirely their motivation in doing important acts - I think its hard to generalize about scenarios involving multiple people. Extrapolate that into historical time, and you are developing psychological rubrics involving the categorization of hundreds of thousands of people - who, we must admit, we do not even know - and the likelihood of even a great lone genius hitting upon some unifying rubric shrinks, for me, to nothing. I’m not saying we can’t generalize or that generalizations don’t have validity, I just think they can ultimately often be shown to lead to hilarious contradictions, insofar as its possible to test them. I’ll try and adduce specifics below. So enough of that - just so you see why I always come nowadays from a position of scepticism regarding abstract concepts applied to unknown millions of people. Such as the endeavor to try to suss out the moral code of long dead civilizations - the sources of error there boggle the mind . But, here we go.
I think a close investigation of the example produced would show it as being problematic, hence the question. What access does the person making the assertion about this epoch have to the psychological underpinnings of its actors - those presumed to embody this morality? Does he have original texts? Biographies, hagiographies? Where do we derive our knowledge about master and slave morality? Is the first question. I ask this question because I think that Nietzsche’s mental reconstruction of ancient cultures and civilizations is something likely to be prone to enormous, enormous error. Just like, to choose a mundane example, he was not able to predict the response of Lou Salome to his courtship - if he could not get inside the head and suss the motivation of one of his most intimate friends, why not assume fallibility in this far more daring, far more error-prone assertion? Lea and Wilamowitz provide instances of where Nietzsche gets carried away with his trans-historical analogies to the point of absurdity. These are in specific psychological parallels he draws, but the same error is likely to be present in his grander supra-historical claims. To what extent is slave morality related to higher conscientiousness, as a group survival strategy? How do master and slave moralities relate to the characteristics of groups using r and K survival strategies, or are these moralities independent variables? Is there an African slave morality, for example? I say this because I dont think an analysis of master and slave moralities can account for the confounding variables of the development of civilizations and intelligence. Manifestations of violence and domination become more subtle as men become civilized. Ideas are more important to them, so they can be ruled through subtle intimidation. Men live in urban environments, and so are more highly socialized and more aware of what hurts and scares other men. Group solidarity becomes more important than the individual strong man. This is observable in the history of northern europeans from the Viking age to now. Master morality is depicted in outline as consisting in the subjugation of others to violence - where do questions of group solidarity enter into this? Was Attila the hun exhibiting master morality when he conquered the slavs? Or was King Harald exhibiting master morality when he demanded tribute from Scandinavians? Were the Vikings Master moralists, to go to Iceland, or were the Swedes master moralists, to remain home and not cause trouble?
Here is what I mean when I say Nietzsche was a romantic writing to fulfill his own psychological needs. I think he needed to 1) condemn his epoch, because he was alienated generally and needed to produce a reason why he should be ejected from society at large. The actual reason was his identification with his own unique ideas, which were the foremost priority of his life and which he imagined as giving him messianic significance qua Schopenhauer/Wagner as ‘The Genius’ of his age. For this reason he had to tend to them with the utmost seriousness and work ceaselessly on their iteration - but he also had to view their propagation in society as of the utmost importance, even a prerequisite of salvation (in his terms). There are many passages in Nietzsche where he intimates what he believes is the centrality of his thought to all future human development, as in, it would not take place if he didnt develop the ideas. He wrote to his sister “I quite literally hold the whole future of humanity in my hand right now.” This conceit condemned him to exile, just because if you draw the logical consequences of it, an alienated self-seriousness results which makes normal life amongst your contemporaries completely impossible. Therefore he could not ‘get along’ with anyone in his childhood province, nor anyone from his university, nor anyone from Bayreuth/Wagner’s circle, nor scarcely anyone in Basel. Explaining this alienation by another means is thus a prerequisite for any idea that will simulatneously elucidate something paradigmatically or partially true in history while vindicating his own self-effected ostracism which was the psychologicaly foremost reality of his later life. Nietzsche also needed to 2) vindicate the past which he had spent his life studying and being immersed in, and to which he was in the end more connected than the present. This requires positing glory - somewhere in the distant past. Nietzsche did this vigorously with Hellenism, and the crazy backward-reaching nature of his investigations is shown for what it is in many passages in Lea and Wilamowitz. I think its legitimate to alledge that some dynamic of escapism is present here. First it was the glorious past of Hellenic culture, then it morphed into some other vision. The Christians who created the Christian tradition were not logical extrapolators looking at specific passages in the Gospels with the question: “Alright, whats the crux of our religious ethic?” That would happen later with certain sects of Protestantism, I think. In the beginning there was a more messy, broad Christian tradition based on The Bible. The story of Genesis and the old Testament were important to the formation of the Christian tradition. All I’m saying is that a logical reductionist approach - “what is the heart of your moral code - oh, the Beatitudes” is not warranted here. We know that in some European cultures (in England for example) the part of the Christian tradition which resonated most strongly was the Old Testament. When one decides to condemn Christianity then its acceptable (apparently for FN) to criticize it in this way and simplify it. But if one is interested in looking at the complex, many-sided tradition for what it was, I dont think his assertions hold true. Its his own Christianity he attacks, not the essence of it as it was throughout history. Well, thats a start. 243
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 25, 2009, 11:21 PM | # “The specifics thereof, according to my own investigation, are listed in the History of the Faustian Pact, and rationalized in the Posts at ‘superhuman’.” What you catalogue there can be summed up more felicitously than uh does as the pattern of White power elites striking alliances with alien peoples to increase their own reproductive fitness without regard for their ethnic genetic interests. This can plausibly be explained by the increasing landedness of the aristocracy, consistent with an ever more complex division of labor, which concomitantly increased their separateness in terms of dependency on their co-ethnics. Now, perhaps these true warrior-aristocrats were more ethnocentric at the beginning of their family line, but, due to marriage with increasingly less ethnocentric stock consistent with their now landed detachment, and regression of ethnocentrism towards the mean in their off-spring, and the above mentioned environmental influences, they degenerated from the role of guardians of their people - from an aristocracy into a treasonous plutocracy. *Frankly* (a little academic humor there) the Gallo-Roman population at the foundation of the nascent Western Culture and their regnant Germanic tribes were stupid. Christian stupid. Voodoo niggers, to a Roman Senator of the Classic period. Thus was needed the perpetual assistance of entities that could compensate for the average lack of other than narrowly technical intellect in Europe, the home of many a *technical* genius. “Professor Nietzsche specified that ‘conceiving reality as it is’ was the path to man’s greatness.” I’m afraid an evolutionary analysis must trump Nietzsche’s, who rejected Darwinian evolution by the way. Can it truly be said that our past treasonous elites did what they did in knowledge of Salter? No. You miss the strictly *political* context and sense of Nietzsche’s prescription. Darwinism is thus misapplied, as in your remarks above, where you know not whereof you speak in referring to “their people” and the “evolutionary” pattern you have imaginatively invented and imposed on the period. You cannot have paid attention in a Medieval History class, if indeed you were so involved. “This has, of course, not come to pass, and man is now a rope stretched across an abyss to the underman.” “Greatness” in the cultural/technological sense is not an end unto itself, life’s only function is the transmission of itself through time. Depends upon whose value system you’re consulting. Nietzsche felt that high cultural efflorescence *was* an end in itself. You evidently have a more plebeian sensibility, in this regard. But it seems that one is on the way up with Nietzsche or on the way down with you, unless I can persuade you to apostatize. Yet none of these facts stopped us from achieving all we have, and in standing up to Jewry periodically. It is not plausible that we have undergone such a spectacular biological degeneration in just half a century. Speaking of “achieving all we have” has to be very heavily qualified, as cannot be done in a comment - and I have written, above, that the level of intellectual quality in the tribal/national populations was in insufficient measure *from the beginning* of the Culture - hence your justified incredulity, if “half a century” is taken as the span of time involved. The problem is in our heads, the problem is that we do not possess a true understanding of our interests; that is we, enough of us, do not possess the truth - and most importantly a true aristocracy does not possess it. A profession of faith that I am reluctant, for sentimental reasons, to affront. But conscientious investigation of varied disciplines results in diagnoses at variance with your own, however admirable its inspiration. I say again that you must proceed in light of and despite the demoralizing truth lest you bring about yet another catastrophe. I and others will work to abort an enterprise that proceeds under false pretenses. Your misapplication of Darwin in constructing a fantasy account of Western history, above, suggests that your involvement in the conceptualization of the challenges facing us is premature and awaits further instruction from such as uh and myself. (And try to restrain your incredulity and outrage at this presumption on my part - you are no match for me in a pissing contest). P.S. If you think that []uh has come away unscathed in our encounters then you haven’t been paying attention. The issue had not arisen in my mind. 244
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 26, 2009, 12:37 AM | # PF, Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I find interesting the material prior to this passage, which I reproduce as pertinent to the issue of concern: 2) It is also overly convenient in my view to assert that the essence of Christianity’s ethic is found in a passage from Jesus on the Beatitudes. Or even that the whole essence of Christianity is found in the Gospels. As to the first sentence, I invite a survey of quotations from Yeshua that does not, in the greater part, prescribe detachment from or inversion of good sense, absent an acceptance of his imagined mission in the saving of souls in a righteous world to come on Earth or in Heaven. And I/we are not concerned with “the whole essence” of Christianity, with regard to the second sentence. All I’m saying is that a logical reductionist approach - “what is the heart of your moral code - oh, the Beatitudes” is not warranted here. We know that in some European cultures (in England for example) the part of the Christian tradition which resonated most strongly was the Old Testament. With which Nietzsche would not have taken issue. We can say, likewise, that any single characterization or condemnation of Marxism is not altogether justified - but polemical habits rule in our vocabulary. Nevertheless, we understand, from Nietzsche’s remarks, what is was that N. condemned as to morals, however you want to label it. One recognizes it when one encounters it. When one decides to condemn Christianity then it’s acceptable (apparently for FN) to criticize it in this way and simplify it. But if one is interested in looking at the complex, many-sided tradition for what it was, I dont think his assertions hold true. It’s his own Christianity he attacks, not the essence of it as it was throughout history. You have dropped the vital distinction between the essence of the *ethic*, where such exists, and the essence of the totality of the expressions of the faith, which essence may not exist. Evidently, “his own Christianity,” whatever its sectarian character, contained the common ethical elements, and thus suffered his condemnation as anti (this) world (“the only world there is”). 245
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 26, 2009, 01:39 AM | #
Absolutely, because it turned Nietzsche’s view of society on it’s head displacing the “inevitable dominion of the average, even sub-average types”. “...the species do not grow in perfection: the weak prevail over the strong again and again, for they are the great majority — and they are also more intelligent. Darwin forgot the spirit (that is English!); the weak have more spirit.” 246
Posted by Frank on October 26, 2009, 02:01 AM | # It’s surely possible humans are devolving as well… How man evolved from ape has yet to be explained. 247
Posted by danielj on October 26, 2009, 04:54 AM | # Ocean waves, sand dunes, wind-produced sand ripples, the formation of crystals from solution, and, of course, snowflakes. Entropy increases every step of the way in the formation of a snowflake. There is no order in a snowflake or a crystal or anything else you’ve brought up. Explain to me exactly (or point me to someone who tries to) how a snowflake violates the law of entropy because it doesn’t. 248
Posted by superman on October 26, 2009, 06:18 AM | #
(sniff, sniff) Smells like a shitting contest.
You piss lemonade, don’t let anyone tell you different. 249
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 26, 2009, 09:30 AM | # ”...you are no match for me in a pissing contest” (sniff, sniff) Smells like a shitting contest. We awake this morning to discover that MR may boast a connoisseur of excretory products among its participants. Willing to place his nose where others will not go. Polite applause, please, for his intrepid exploration, as above. “Nietzsche felt that high cultural efflorescence *was* an end in itself. You evidently have a more plebeian sensibility, in this regard.” You piss lemonade, don’t let anyone tell you different. Ah, an unsolicited encore! Please, everyone, before the gifted nose and tongue retreat, slake his thirst for your “water” with an outpouring! Know thyself, as now do I, without soiling yourself, as will he. 250
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 26, 2009, 10:12 AM | # There is no order in a snowflake or a crystal or anything else you’ve brought up. Given that definition of “order,” there is no order anywhere, even in the origin of species and the phenomenon of human existence - and there is nothing then for which to account. But order *does* occur, transiently, even in the strict sense, in a jar of gas, when molecules accidently concentrate in one section thereof, in very short-term, only to disperse immediately in “long-term” preservation of the law of entropy. To imagine that entropy proceeds with rigid precision in every collective molecular event is to posit a cosmological deity preventing the normal activity of Brownian motion: “Consider a large balloon of 10 meters in diameter. Imagine this large balloon in a football stadium. The balloon is so large that it lies on top of many members of the crowd. Because they are excited, these fans hit the balloon at different times and in different directions with the motions being completely random. In the end, the balloon is pushed in random directions, so it should not move on average. Consider now the force exerted at a certain time. We might have 20 supporters pushing right, and 21 other supporters pushing left, where each supporter is exerting equivalent amounts of force. In this case, the forces exerted from the left side and the right side are imbalanced in favor of the left side; the balloon will move slightly to the left. This type of imbalance exists at all times, and it causes random motion of the balloon. If we look at this situation from far above, so that we cannot see the supporters, we see the large balloon as a small object animated by erratic movement.” Organic molecules defy entropy, not in the strict sense, but by preserving a series of transiently improbable moments by replicating themselves (while individually succumbing to entropy) or by having been accidently replicated and destroyed in proto-organic form (again, in compliance) before the emergence of the fully organic molecules with their reproductive ability. Thus, complex order in the subjective sense, which is what is really being discussed, arises naturally from the dynamic environment of our planet. 251
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 26, 2009, 10:19 AM | # The last use of “transiently” should be excised. 252
Posted by Jealous of BANA on October 26, 2009, 12:10 PM | # These comments are certainly not respectful toward BANA. My suspicion is that most of the off-the-wall comments are by people who feel emasculated by anyone who goes onto the streets with a message. If anything could indicate the death of White Nationalism it would be these three pages of comments—an incredible number of great puffs of air, and little substance. What other explanation for this vitriolic outburst when the way of the future is set out so clearly for us by BANA, whether you believe in anarchism or not? Their street activity is worth 900 of these three pages of comments. Apologies to BANA for the conduct of this crowd. 253
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on October 26, 2009, 12:54 PM | #
Which analysis, specifically? And just because Nietzsche’s opinion re: Darwin is not correct does not nullify every good thing the man said.
Nietzsche was still correct that allowing the Untermenschen power will result in civilization decay and death. So the weak triumph over the strong, so what? I don’t see how it puts Nietzsche’s view of society “on it’s head.” One can easily point out the negatives and lack of positives in the modern scenario, which tells me that Nietzsche’s view was not incorrect at all, in fact he is proven more right each day. 254
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 26, 2009, 06:15 PM | # For Nietzsche’s world view to exist it had to be distinctly Lamarckian, that acquired characteristics are heritable, a manifestly false view. Some passages may be interpreted as cultural (rather than biological) transmission of acquired characteristics. Not entirely dissimilar to Dawkin’s meme theory, which also heavily relies on a Lamarkian interpretation. The weak don’t triumph over the strong and the dominion of the average is not inevitable for Darwin. Natural and sexual selection enhance fitness. 255
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on October 26, 2009, 06:33 PM | #
Only if you consider the warlike and intellectual qualities in “humans” to be “acquired”, which I do not. IQ or the elusive “heart” are heritable. That is to say, warriors and intellects are born rather than nurtured. 256
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 26, 2009, 07:02 PM | # Nietzsche does. He believed that humans could acquire the traits of the Übermensch and pass these on to posterity. Darwinism destroyed Nietzsche’s avenue of escaping nihilism. 257
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on October 26, 2009, 07:45 PM | #
Bullshit. And even if so, I disagree. What do you say to that, genius? You’re going to deny that there are those who are elevated in terms of intellectual or warlike capabilities? I suppose we ought to just admit that “all whites are ekwal.” (rolls eyes). 258
Posted by Søren Renner on October 26, 2009, 07:51 PM | #
Dear Jealous: 259
Posted by GenoType on October 26, 2009, 08:13 PM | #
Sorry Cap’n, but they are mutually exclusive and I won’t waste time refuting, for the umpteenth time, this “it all be good n shit” attitude. Seriously. If, by now, you’re incapable of understanding this, then there is nothing more I can do. 260
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 26, 2009, 10:09 PM | #
“What we have here is failure to communicate” 261
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on October 27, 2009, 02:21 PM | #
Ok, you get points for wit. But those might as well be erased since otherwise you refused to answer any of my points. Jew. 262
Posted by ??? on October 27, 2009, 05:42 PM | # Keep the white post-intellectual “discourse” going! I will reserve you all a front row seat in valhalla. 263
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on October 27, 2009, 09:52 PM | #
Fuck off, Indo-Shitskin. 264
Posted by dodheim on October 27, 2009, 10:06 PM | # shitskin? hilarious, more lazy white post-intellectualism. let me guess you parasite, they kicked you out of the hammerskins for being an overachiever at Verzögerungjugend camp? you must have nice GPA and great interior decorating skills. truly an asset to your race. herr IJsseldijk, i salute your mongrel presumptions. zerstören Sie sich. 265
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 28, 2009, 09:26 AM | # shitskin? hilarious, more lazy white post-intellectualism. let me guess[,] you parasite, they kicked you out of the hammerskins for being an overachiever at Verzögerungjugend camp? you must have [a] nice GPA and great interior decorating skills. truly an asset to your race. herr IJsseldijk, i salute your mongrel presumptions. zerstören Sie sich. Finally, some feces flung with flair! What next of well-digested fruit from the peeling-piled platform behind the bars? 266
Posted by nietzche was a hipster on October 28, 2009, 10:53 AM | #
“erste ist von vielen”
268
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 28, 2009, 02:26 PM | # You who are the beast tithing the white man to his fate as a catabolising e-professor hoping to win a hot viking online girlfriend with his wit… Who’s hoping? 269
Posted by PF on October 28, 2009, 02:52 PM | # Look, lets just all agree that each of us is better than the other, and call it a day. Everyone posting in this thread is superior to everyone else posting on this thread. That way, everybody wins. 270
Posted by Frank on October 28, 2009, 03:56 PM | # I was thinking in the car about the spirited weak overcoming the strong. Assuming such is true and in our society the spirited weak do triumph over the strong: Within a relatively safe environ the weak are the only ones struggling. The strong might be more spirited were they too forced to struggle, which is supposedly the natural state of man. Deep thinking I know, but I had to post it. 271
Posted by Revolt on June 22, 2010, 09:00 AM | # I just finished reading through the majority of the comments under this article, and I have come to the conclusion: You are all a bunch of “geeks”, verbally ejaculating on one-another. “uh”——-It matters little to get “it”, if you don’t got “it”. Next entry: Still not en vogue Previous entry: Utopian idealists, moral cowards, traitors, and heroes of our nation |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. HA Creams commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/21/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) property management fort lauderdale commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/21/12, 04:06 AM. (go) (view) alex commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 1' on 05/21/12, 03:12 AM. (go) (view) Leah commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 1' on 05/21/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) alex commented in entry 'Starvation to keep the masses on a leash' on 05/21/12, 03:02 AM. (go) (view) Leah commented in entry 'Starvation to keep the masses on a leash' on 05/21/12, 03:01 AM. (go) (view) air jordan commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 1' on 05/21/12, 02:25 AM. (go) (view) air jordan commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/21/12, 02:21 AM. (go) (view) air jordan commented in entry 'A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect' on 05/21/12, 02:19 AM. (go) (view) air jordan commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 02:16 AM. (go) (view) air jordan commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 3' on 05/21/12, 02:14 AM. (go) (view) tuttcoavore commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 02:08 AM. (go) (view) best golf sunglasses commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 02:06 AM. (go) (view) baogejianb commented in entry 'Music, freedom, revolution' on 05/21/12, 01:15 AM. (go) (view) Offelfrof commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 01:11 AM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 12:37 AM. (go) (view) baogejianb commented in entry 'Music, freedom, revolution' on 05/20/12, 11:48 PM. (go) (view) rhypsustott commented in entry 'Were the original Indo-Europeans from Europe, Asia or India?' on 05/20/12, 11:35 PM. (go) (view) James Bowery commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 11:17 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/20/12, 10:41 PM. (go) (view) sedofleenly commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/20/12, 10:32 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:31 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:27 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:22 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:13 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:09 PM. (go) (view) pletcherzxy commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/20/12, 09:50 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 09:42 PM. (go) (view) Haiseelo commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 09:05 PM. (go) (view) advansarl commented in entry 'Latest Link' on 05/20/12, 08:56 PM. (go) (view) Haiseelo commented in entry 'Why Only Fourteen Words?' on 05/20/12, 07:42 PM. (go) (view) Haiseelo commented in entry 'A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect' on 05/20/12, 07:36 PM. (go) (view) indian strategy commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 05/20/12, 05:17 PM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 12:51 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
hope that isnt too snarky? ], I think a knowledge of the psychology behind any critique or statement does constitute an implicit critique of the statement, while not completely invalidating its claims. Because in the moment of critical truth ‘ringing through’, the critical observation appears free from the perspective which wrought it - and therefore, to be taken in utmost seriousness. But knowing the visceral background involved in any critical statement of truth relativizes it - one sees that here too, a human being was struggling to assert himself. Its just another perspective. To that end I enjoyed the dissection of Nietzsche’s belief system. 
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 14, 2009, 09:27 PM | #
Nauseating.
How sick must parents be who bring their toddlers in strollers to that display?
Notice the two young children shown who were clearly extremely distressed, the one who was pointed to by the sicko (in every shot of that child, and there were a few different ones, he appeared ill at ease, agitated, not happy to be there), and the one who had to stop walking, apparently to vomit. We don’t have see what these kids had to watch, because it said at the beginning of the video that the overt perverted sex displays had to be edited out so the video wouldn’t be taken down. What kind of sicko parents bring their children to these things? And what about the bondage gear for toddlers? (Of course, last time we saw this group’s video, there was a shot of a toddler in a stroller actually tricked out in S & M gear, complete with a collar around its neck if memory serves.) Was that toddler leather-gear booth unfricking believable or what????? That stuff’s allowed to go on, for Christ’s sake???????????? What the fuck???????