|
|
|
Civilization Takedown: Easter We are hearing a lot about the “true meaning of Easter” today—with many sermons on its contamination by “pagan” traditions. What none of them will tell you is the true origin of Easter as the celebration of women’s liberation. There is not one, and I mean not ONE Christian denomination that follows the teachings of Paul regarding women’s role in the church. All, and I mean ALL Christian denominations that proclaim themselves to follow Paul’s teachings are not being honest with themselves. There is a very simple reason for this: True Christianity is not JudeoChristianity and JudeoChristianity is an invention of Jews who found the true story of Jesus mortally threatening. True Christianity is rooted in the commitment to individual sovereignty, eternally and mortally opposed to group sovereignty, as demonstrated by Jesus’s message to us that “Ye are gods, children of the most high.” ANY interposition of church, state, gang or any other group, between the Individual and the Father is of the serpent—the most ancient symbol for the kind of beast that arises when individuals give up their sovereignty to a group. Other symbols were dragons, vipers and, worms. The true sovereign may challenge any other sovereign to mortal combat in a formal declaration. If those sovereigns are groups, then we call it war and we have not peace in the land. If those sovereigns are individuals, we call it duel and we have not war in the land—for during war all individual duels are suspended, as exemplified by George Washington’s orders to his officers during the Revolutionary War. It is obvious why priests, politicians, international bankers, Hollywood moguls and other manipulators would find it necessary to, first, impose silly rules on “duels” so they become exercises in specialized skills disconnected from nature—and then outlaw them entirely because such unnatural “duels” were destructive. Maintaining perpetual war is the preferred mode of operation however since it centralizes power in the group and necessitates inhibition of even natural duel in which two men enter the State of Nature to use only that which Nature provides them to finally permanently resolve a mortal conflict between them as the ultimate appeal in dispute processing. But what of a woman’s sovereignty? That is the sovereignty of a woman’s love—of giving birth to new life. Sacral respect for the individual woman’s choice of her mate, as well as sacral respect for the individual man’s choice of how to sacrifice his life in mortal combat, is alien to all cultures but one: Indo-Europeans. Reflected in numerous traditions depicting the abduction and imprisonment of the dawn goddess by a “dragon”, and her liberation by a heroic god slaying the dragon who imprisons her—we see the true meaning of Easter. The name of that dawn goddess is, unsurprisingly, the Proto-Indoeuropean cognate of the word “East”, and is also the cognate of the word for “morning star”. The name “Easter” is also a cognate reflected in various names for the dawn goddess. Jews, such as Saul of Tarsus and modern day Hollywood myth makers, have, at least since Babylonian times (when they appropriated and altered the story, not only of the “serpent” from the Babylonian legends, but the prior record of how Cyrus came to liberate the peoples previously enslaved by that empire) routinely construct lies with which to manipulate masses. If you think Hollywood Jews are any different from those ancient Jewish priests of Babylon, you are under their spell—currently cast by the new state religion (literally a theocracy to replace Christianity) of Holocaustianity as reflected in the fact that hundreds of movies have been made about the horrors of the Holocaust and not one—and I mean not ONE movie has been made about the Holodomor, in which Jewish leaders of the growing Soviet Empire starved millions of Ukranians to eradicate family farms. The Holodomor occurred one year before Hitler came to power in Germany. “Ye race of vipers.” “Ye are of your father the devil…” The one true religion is that which celebrates the individual as direct descendant of the most high: The individual who rightfully says “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” The miracle is our very Creation—the rest is secondary whether it be third or fourth hand stories, edited by Emperors and Talmudic Rabbis, of healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, or rising, one’s self, from the dead. Priests have always sought to interpose themselves between the Individual and the miracle of Creation. It is that interposition that gives them the power over the masses which they manipulate. Saul, the Jewish butcher of Tarsus, had to imprison the goddess present in all women, in his teachings about the “proper” role of women in the church. This he had to do in order to counter-balance the imprisonment of the god in men implied by the removal of their individual sovereignty by which they could challenge any hypocrite—any liar—any “head of the snake” to mortal combat in the State of Nature, under the authority of his father, Nature’s God, and remove that hypocritical manipulator of masses from the stream of creation. So when you attend an Easter service at Dawn, remember. Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:13 | # Since I have defined “white” in terms of <a >the Indoeuropean eugenic rules that evolved what most now think of as the “white race”</a> and you have not so defined any eugenic rules—the only realistic definition of the word “culture”—that could produce what we think of as the “white race”, your “critique” is a farce, as is the vast majority of what passes for “white preservationism” or “white nationalism”. It is this lack of rigor—indeed lack of integrity—that is at the crumbing foundation of the white race. It is the heroic individual standing against the race of vipers—the individual standing for the direct descent of the individual from the divine—that is the spirit of Christ. Secular? There is no place for separation from The Father. There is only the pretense of snakes, vipers, serpents and dragons—groups—to intermediate between the Individual and The Father that creates that illusion. 3
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:16 | # I agree with Leon on this one - is this some sort of piss-take? @uh - sorry must have missed those posts on the Immortals or was not at MR at the time. And using normative liberal ideas - like democratic consent etc., against the multi-cult is not the only strategy but it is not a bad rhetorical move. And adopting the tropes of a liberation struggle might be quite smart move. 4
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:22 | # Well I want to preserve particular European peoples not some ‘generic’ white race. As for rigor well the OP frankly doesn’t seem to have any. Our communitarian ‘groupish’ ways are as much a part of our evolutionary history as individualism. Nationalism, of any sort, isn’t an individualistic philosophy. 5
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:25 | # “Nationalism” is a confused term. A proper definition of “white nation” is: “A society of individuals related by consanguinity and congeniality.” Under such a proper definition there can be many white nations. “White nationalism”, if properly understood, is then that which promotes white nations. The very notion of “nation” as a nation state is hardly part of the ancestral environment of “whites” except as distorted by JudeoChristianity and other mixings with serpent cultures (societies within which the rules were dysgenic selection of groups at the sacrific of individual integrity) from the Middle East and Mediterranean. 6
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:33 | # G. Lister asserts: “using normative liberal ideas - like democratic consent etc., against the multi-cult” Where was such a tactic employed? Do you think an individual challenging the “duly constituted authority” of a “leader” who has been elected by a “democratic process”, to natural duel, and killing him, is “democratic”? Or is it something about my use of the phrase “women’s liberation” that has triggered some connotation of “democracy” in your mind—even though I clearly defined what I meant as being opposed to any imposition of group authority on a woman’s choice of sire? If it is race mixing you object to on the grounds that it is somehow “democratic” or “multi-cult”, you are simply misunderstanding the culture of individual sovereignty—which would unite all free men in an army to slay all government officials, all businessmen, all priests, preachers, teachers and military personnel who support the invasion of land by other cultures—as well as killing those invaders who participated knowingly in such a group imposition on the individual wills of the men of the nation (expelling the rest along with their offspring). Such a state of war, as I’ve repeatedly stated, is not the state of peace within which natural duel is operative. It is merely a temporary state for the purpose of restoring that peace. 7
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:52 | #
This may be more genius, but you’ve rather lost me here.
Very, very metaphorically speaking, perhaps.
The status of the secular is actually an important subject of contemporary theological debate. You might find this short book to be of interest (it’s from a Catholic perspective, which I suspect you don’t like): 8
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:01 | # You “suspect” that I don’t like the “Catholic” perspective? What ever gave you that idea? The separation of “secular” from the “sacred” is as old as theocracy itself—which vastly antedates JudeoChristianity. It is, in its essence, the separation of man from creation: Damnation. It is the essence of evil as it consigns man to Hell. 9
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:09 | # Graham, Speaking of “civilizational takedown”, why do I suspect that this is what you think of when you think of America ‘culture’? If you have a strong stomach ... http://www.thomaskinkadegallery.com/store/index.php/images-gallery/inspirational-images I couldn’t resist. Mr. Bowery, Re Catholicism: On this, the holiest day of the year, I think this statement might get you refused communion:
10
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:20 | # Apparently this guy made hundreds of millions from this stuff: Take a look at this painting, esp from a biologist’s perspective! I really think someone could write a very interesting piece linking this type of quasi-conservative unreality (is there a chapel in the world which looks like this?) with the more consequential problem of white refusal to face racial reality. 11
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:58 | # As I like telling christian fundamentalists - Jesus didnt write the Bible. Nor did God. A load of sycophants working for a Roman Emperor and operating under a mandate to create a political book to unify the empire under a state run church, who burnt all the real texts about Christ such as the Gnostic Gospels or those who kept them, did. There are no ‘Christians’. There are only Constantinians - those who believe in the book cobbled together by Emperor Constantine and his lackeys. The real Christ is not in any book - as Christ taught in the Gnostic Gospels, the Christ is within - we are all Christ. There are Pneumatics, Psychics and Hylics. Constantinians who read and believe the Bible are Psychics. Those who are atheists are Hylics. Only the Gnostics who have experienced the Gnosis are Pneumatics. The Bible is a mish mash of Christian, Gnostic and Pagan texts designed to create the foundations of a Church that serves the state ( Rome and the Emperor). Jesus Christ wouod have regarded Christianity / Constantinianism as a heresy. The Kingdom of Heaven is within - Every Gnostic is a Christ. And just for clarification - Christ was not a Jew - he was a Samaritan. And the Holy City is not Jerusalem it is Nablus - I will provide links if anyone is interested.
12
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:59 | # Well I’ll leave the theological debate to those interested in it…but I do find hyper-Protestant theology rather not to my taste - perhaps I should become a Catholic? Leon - yes that artwork isn’t quite what I have in mind…kitsch yes but at least it involves painting and drawing…unlike crap like this… or this http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/04/18/yale_abortion_and_the_limits_o/ or this degenerate Please don’t click on the links above unless one has a very strong stomach. For more pleasant viewing… He is Theodore Dalrymple on the ‘wonders’ of the modern art scene. Trash, Violence, and Versace: But Is It Art? http://www.city-journal.org/html/8_1_urbanities-trash.html And here is Roger Scruton’s defence of beauty - much needed in a terribly ugly world http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/Aesthetics/?view=usa&ci=9780199559527 And the TV show based on the book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiajXQUppYY The formation scene from Heideggerian scholar and film-maker Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-FpoobOnUA& Let our minds always turn to more wonderful things… 13
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:17 | # What a shock that Lee John Barnes is a gnostic . . . not. Goes with the territory I guess… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin I would recommend to LJB something from the excellent ‘Current Issues in Theology’ series from Cambridge on the topic of perichoresis. Perhaps something like: “Divinity and Humanity” http://www.amazon.co.uk/Divinity-Humanity-Incarnation-Reconsidered-Theology/dp/052169535X But LBJ has on many occasional told everyone of his inexhaustible contempt for intellectuals… captcha = church95 14
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:47 | # The debate around the issue of perichorisis is not the issue, the issue is the origin of what we define as Christianity, the Bible and the Churches. Debating perichorisis is irrelevant - the very fact a debate exists prove the fallibility of the source of the debate itself - the Bible. The Gnostic does not seek an intellectual understanding of Christ, they seek to become Christ. That was the message of the Gnostic Christ - that some humans, the Pneumatics of the Sethian Line, can achieve the Gnosis.
15
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:55 | # The blithering hypocrites Graham Lister and Leon Haller have yet to name a single Christian denomination that “religiously” adheres to “Saint Paul”‘s teachings regarding women—unless by “religiously” one means twisting words around to mutilate the minds of the masses so they are more manipulable. In short, they are like virtually all “Christians”—they aren’t able to fully and completely adhere to JudeoChristian tradition because Jews have decided they can now use women as weapons against individual sovereignty by appealing to the essence of the white race that values a woman’s right to choose the sire for her children: To, as Tacitus said, treat women as “goddesses”. This Jews can now do because “men’s liberation” has been reduced to a bunch of guys trying to pretend that they aren’t basically castrati as they sit around embodying the form of godliness but denying the power thereof: The power of an individual to challenge an individual Jew or an individual priest or other hypocrite that is “a part of something greater than himself” to natural duel and kill them for their crimes against creation. It simply doesn’t matter who Jesus was or what was written about him or what translations of those WORDS are “correct”. Only one thing stand above words about the story of Jesus: That an individual spoke truth about individuals vs groups and a group killed him for it. The only way JudeoChristianity was able to invade northern Europe where the Caesars failed is that one image—an image that appealed to the heroic white soul. All of the word-baggage that the priests brought along were the poison that was then injected into the white soul. Theology be damned. 16
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:23 | # The ‘priesthood’ of ‘christianity’ is a complete fraud. Just as the priests of all religions are frauds - one either attains the Gnosis / Enlightenment or one doesnt. One cannot ‘study’ and become a Gnostic - the idea that studying = holiness = fraud. James is correct - the Gnostic Christ repudiated all religions / authority / earthly hierarchy and taught that authority was in the individual Gnostic who had attained the Gnosis. One true Gnostic has more divinity within them than the entire priesthood of every religion. Religions, as William Blake taught, are the nets of Urizen - mechanisms created by the Demiurge to prevent Gnostics from attaining the Gnosis so that religions and their lackeys can keep authority over us. 17
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:50 | #
Something like this perhaps? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45av-BcWA1k Sound and looks a little too homoerotic for my tastes. Never been a big fan of D. H. Lawrence myself. Nice to know you clearly know what Jesus was about – pairwise duels to the death! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2becyRCK6LU – if only we all had a Holy Ghost machine gun! Those ‘true believers’ keep getting knocked down – but still they get up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcgYGaqD2iA But which version of American Christianity should we all embrace? This - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7SFcB0vOhQ or this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV415yit7Zg Still God is God and all that… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7SFcB0vOhQ
18
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:56 | # And how can anyone forget this latter day Elmer Gantry? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1OXAi7rNMg Wonderful! 19
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:19 | # The intellectual coward, Graham Lister still refuses to answer my challenge, not to a natural duel, but to simply answer what should be the easiest of questions about supposed “Christians” who claim adherence to the New Testament. He will not because he cannot. There is no substance to his “Christianity” nor to any “Christians” who claim authority from “the WORD of God” as opposed to the simple image that insinuated JudeoChristianity across the lines that could not be breached by the Caesars: Of the individual standing up to the group. 20
Posted by daniel on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:21 | # With the the re-establishment of the White* class bounds, a quaternary system may be used as a topoi to manage fairness and justice in gender relations. It is a post modern idea which I have explained at length elsewhere: With social bounds of the White class, men would be able move into fluid, natural and organic process and not rigidly fixate only on the aim of Actualization (the overcompensation for which has wreaked havoc); they may pursue actualization when and were they are truly ready and not out of desperation, to achieve warranted status atop the society; but they would have the more fundamental needs of Being as well, along with Selfhood, the more routine practices so necessary but not granted sufficient esteem these days. Conversely, women would be liberated as well: just like men, they could elect to emphasize their traditional roles, which for them is Being and Selfhood, but they may also opt for Actualization where appropriate, as we want fully developed individuals as partners, choosing us through their agency; their Actualization. However, it would be in fair exchange for more Being and Selfhood to males. Nevertheless, neither gender would lose their traditional ways; moreover, authentic male Actualization actually requires Being and Selfhood anyway. I imagine women need to express their talents and abilities beyond the home and children and I see no problem in that provided that the situation is fair, which it can be with the bounded class and a quaternary system to manage gender relations within: negotiating these traditional and modernist male and female “roles”.
Are there some Europeans who are less pure? Sure. So, classify them as less pure, aim to let them go to their lands, take measures to arrange so that intermarriage does not go too far so as to lose the distinctions (but don’t take antipathy so far that you lose them as friends and allies in the native European cause) and be done with the matter. I imagine southern Europeans wish to maintain their type as well. I think a lot of “the truth about Easter, Christmas” etc. started with Alexander Hislop, the Scottish theologian determined to trace the Catholic Church to the evil Babylonian Mystery Religion, the worship of Nimrod and his marriage to his mother etc. etc. These stories have made their way through Jehovah’s Witnesses and fundamentalist churches such as The World Wide Church of God. While they are intriguing stories, they are just that - stories. I guess that Hislop wanted to protect his Scottish people as a type distinct from Southern Europeans. I wish that he had a more straight forward way to promote his wishes rather than to vilify the southerners as the proponents of evil. Why the talk of Babylon as evil anyway? Well, of course, because Babylon was the enemy of Jews, whom it had captivated. Then Rome became the new symbolic Babylon when it invaded the Jewish lands and took Jewish slaves, or whatever it did; then it had to be spoken of (by Jews) in the codified terms of “The Revelation.” I have no qualms with north western Europeans or any Europeans for that matter, wanting to maintain their distinction. On the contrary, that is the aim of anybody with decency. There are good and bad southern Europeans as there are good and bad all Europeans. That is why I rely on the 14 Words for its transcendent value, its transcendence of our faults as native Europeans collectively and individually. It works for me. It can serve the religious purpose for others as well. 21
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:23 | # Off topic but it’s nice to see Americans enjoying themselves - death by hamburger and doughnuts! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjrUOlK2714 And should this be the new national anthem for England if/when the UK breaks up? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS-zK1S5Dws
Perhaps changing the he for we etc.? Don’t mind me I’m in a silly mood tonight.
22
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:37 | # Graham Lister provides good advice when he says: “Don’t mind me.” Of course, the presence of such a self-admitted poisoner of serious dialog is an indictment of Majority Rights. 23
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:42 | # Daniel, click through the link in the original article provided to page 225 of “Indo-European Poetry and Myth” By Martin Litchfield West. It in no way relies on the source you cite. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:25 | # James, This is a serious question, not a bit of theistic knock-about. Can you make any meaningful statement about the ontology of the individual beyond the presumption of his existence because ... well, just because, that’s all? Is it not apparent to you that, when examined for his being, we find that the individual is a projection of human personality at best, and a thing of politics at worst? 25
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:28 | # Long live Jesusland - its motto - give me convenience or give me death! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHSjv9gxlE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqCha93nBTU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHTIpNoh7Oc Of course we love you really - one must always distinguish between a régime and the many decent people that must endure under it. 26
Posted by daniel 3 on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:40 | # Look…. I cannot be confused with this new Daniel. His style puts me into a fucking coma. I’m going to be Classic Sparkle [removed] from here on out. Graham, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_Me_Convenience_or_Give_Me_Death 27
Posted by daniel on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:54 | # That’s ok Daniel 3. I do not want to be confused with you either. 28
Posted by Hesper on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 23:41 | # Is commenter ‘daniel’ (without the 3 appended) a whining Pole? My Germanic-Catholic extrasensory instincts are tingling. Well, even so that’s better than the swarms of Jews or juden agenten our typically Anglo-American laissez-faire comment policy permits to gather and congeal here. 29
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 01:27 | # Not wishing to go off topic from such an urgent topic (yet again) but here is a lecture - from Yale of all places - titled ‘In Defense of Politics’ - some discussion of Bernard Crick, Carl Schmitt and Aristotle. Might be of interest. 31
Posted by The Wine-Dark Sea on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 05:11 | # The book referenced in the OP, Indo-European Poetry and Myth by M.L. West, can be downloaded here: http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/eLearning_book/languages/IndoEuropeanPoetryMyth.html A related book is How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics by Calvert Watkins which can be downloaded here: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8253
32
Posted by daniel on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 06:09 | # Hesper, I have done something quite contrary to whining in this post. One one side, my grandparents were Polish catholic - though going back a few generations on my Polish grandfather’s side, his family would have been considered Belarusian (even more specifically, called Lithuanian, though not in the modern sense; rather what Belarusians used to be called prior to Russification and prior to present day Lithuanians adopting the name). I do not believe in Christianity, whether Catholicism or any denomination. If you want to call my trying to gain cooperative positions among Europeans, “whining”, that would be a shame. A “Whining Pole” seems like a smear moniker that you’d like to hang on me rather than see that I am of good will to all native Europeans and rather than your digesting the fact that Germans, like all Europeans, do not have a perfect history either. On the contrary to whining, I say “so what?” let’s not whine about it; let’s make things better. If France, Holland, The UK, Sweden are destroyed it is a catastrophe of itself and could precipitate bringing us all down - including Germany and The White U.S. I do tend to oppose rhetoric which I believe to be heavy handed and one-sided therefore liable to instigate inter-European conflict. That is not whining. And I do not give a fuck if that is ok with “Classic Sparkle” either.
33
Posted by daniel on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 06:13 | # correction, adding dash I do tend to oppose rhetoric which I believe to be heavy handed and one-sided - therefore liable to instigate inter-European conflict. That is not whining. 34
Posted by uh on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 07:56 | #
The problem is you are a total fucking bore, who speaks in a stilted pseudo-sociological idiom that reminds us of a resident of Bangalore speaking a denatured global English, and not the natural tongue of those to whom the language belongs. It’s true — you do not merely whine: you are too busy pontificating about practically NOTHING. You need to stop this pseudo-sociologist pose and go bang a Polish hooker. Seriously. No one cares what you think of hippies. Also, topoi is plural, not singular, douche. I agree about les boches but you whined about it for real. You are a whiner. That you whine in a pseudo-haut register makes it no less whiney.
PS, no single entity here has the wits or wherewithal to make it through Watkin’s nor West’s highly derivative work. 35
Posted by uh on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:02 | # The greatest tragedy in this circle of nobodies is that Silver, the shameless mammonite wog scumbag, has the most sensible ideas. I mean apart from myself. I will raise the wog scumbag his friendlier multiracialism and advocate full-on, all-out, unrestrained fucking MÉTISSAGE. Randy Garver is the man. The genes of you wasters are destined for the dustbin of history. While you whine whine whine and bitch bitch bitch and bicker with each other about “EGI”, REAL PEOPLE are out there PURSUING THEIR REAL GENETIC CONTINUITY. How many heads do YOU claim on your taxes, SienkoBITCH? 36
Posted by George on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:26 | #
What do you mean by “highly derivative”? 37
Posted by daniel on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:52 | # And I do not give a fuck if that is ok with “Classic Sparkle” either The problem is you are a total fucking bore,
who speaks in a stilted pseudo-sociological idiom I make sense and I make consistent sense.
you think you speak for everyone? Who is pompous?
My esteem does not rest upon my English being of its best style. English is a fine language, but it is European peoples that I care about fundamentally, not a particular language. and not the natural tongue of those to whom the language belongs. It is probably not my natural tongue. It’s true — you do not merely whine: you are too busy pontificating about practically NOTHING. I do not pontificate. Everything that I have said has reason, substance and backing. You need to stop this pseudo-sociologist pose and go bang a Polish hooker. What is this pseudo bit? Who is a sociologist? I’m putting out my opinion and one way of organizing things that makes consistent sense. Seriously. No one cares what you think of hippies. Again, you presume to speak for everybody - what a jerk you are.
No, I am not. That is just your opinion, one which does not seem to have constructive and decent aims. You have such a nasty disposition that it is not particularly tempting to engage your concerns.
38
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 09:48 | # Is commenter “uh” here the same as the former “uh” , who was aiding the “noise” in the fight against the Richards Faction a few months back? It’s nice to know who we’re dealing with. 39
Posted by MOB on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:29 | # I haven’t watched it,, so I can’t comment on its objectivity, but, n fact, there is a film on the Holodomor, available from Netflix both Streaming and DVD: http://movies.netflix.com/movie/The-Lark-Farm/70128609 The Lark Farm (La masseria delle allodole) 2007 NR 120 minutes Directors Paolo and Vittorio Taviani present a vividly crafted and harrowing narrative centered on the Armenian genocide of 1915-17, in which more than a million innocents perished as a result of ethnic cleansing. Starring Paz Vega and Moritz Bleibtreu, the film uses one family’s suffering to relate the shocking facts of an episode in history that remains a source of bitter controversy and ill feelings between Armenians and Turks. James, you go on and on about individuality and the plague of groups, when you, yourself, operate as a member of a group, secret, and of course elite, as befits one of your noble ancestry and self-sacrificial character (your words, elsewhere). I see that marriage hasn’t altered your stance on women: here you define them strictly in terms of the men who sire their children. I can’t help noticing that you only returned here, in the form of a Hero come to lead the remnant, when all of the quality contributors had gone. I only dropped in to scan the Comments panel to see if Richards or Chaos had been here. MOB 40
Posted by MOB on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:35 | # Okay, don’t bother. I’ll have to check out Ukraine vs. Armenia. The rest stands. 41
Posted by MOB on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:04 | # http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ufc/news/news_2008_12_2.html http://www.moviesplanet.com/movies/279535/holodomor-ukraine-s-genocide-of-1932-33 http://www.holodomorthemovie.com/ A few years ago, I distributed an email in which I contrasted the living, outreaching, growing memorials, museums, statues of all kinds dedicated to the Jewish “holocaust” - with the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, DC. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=YWNiODY4Y2FmNTM3YTI0YjhlYTc4ZGY0ZjE4ZDIyNDQ - (note difficulty getting funding) The Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, D.C., a replica of the 1989 Goddess of Democracy statue in Tiananmen Square. http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-701&va=ukraine+communist+holodomor (note swastika armband) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/09/lev-dobriansky/ (dobriansky son of Ukrainian immigrants) http://dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0000002.htm - (note plaque—to the more than 100 million . . .) http://www.iccrimea.org/reports/victimsofcommunism.html - Dobriansky not mentioned http://www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org/ (note New entry, Ukraine) I have numerous articles about the Ukraine starvation. There’s also plenty of material on the Holodomor. Just no movies. After all, it’s not a stand-alone; it’s just part of a group. Throw in the old Kosher racket, as well. For Passover this year, instead of just the discrete little Kosher symbols, I had to switch orange juice brands because of the Hebrew writing on the label. I’m gone. 42
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:11 | # Guessedworker asks: “Can you make any meaningful statement about the ontology of the individual beyond the presumption of his existence…?” Individual: a sexual organism. Organism: the aggregation of replicators against which selective pressure is applied. Culture: the artificial selective pressure based on transmissible values and norms. PS: What cannot be said to be a “projection” when examined for its “being”? Is “race” such a “projection” to you, GW?
43
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:39 | #
So are the non-reproductive - say post-menopausal women - not individual beings - ontologically or in any other regard? What’s so artificial about culture? We only have culture because of the type of natural and deeply social animals we are. One can say, as an open-ended phenomenon, that culture can take us very far from its grounding in and emergence from nature, but that’s another discussion. And its far from clear quite how ‘selectionist’ culture is. Very easy to assert, far more difficult to demonstrate. Dueling as some sort of key to history - really? Is that the height of insight? Yes if one wishes to discuss the interconnections between violence, politics and law that is possible but not on this, frankly, terrain of boring idiocy - which seems cover for little more than a sublimated quasi-Lockean ontology - utterly uninteresting and fatally flawed. Why seemingly is every American, in their foundational ideational modalities, some species of liberal? It’s almost if they suffer some type of political apraxia with regard moving to consider any type of non-liberal normativity or form of life. Oh well. MOB - hope you have lots of tin-foil - if your idea of ‘insight’ is the sort of hard of thinking, mono-causality cliché of the ultra-banal Richards et al., please by all means find it out there in cyberspace - your ‘needs’ are well served by many providers, yes?
44
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:32 | # MOB comments (sans ad hominem): “your stance on women: here you define them strictly in terms of the men who sire their children. If that is so then I also define men strictly in terms of whom they kill. So I suppose that would make me both a misogynist and a misandrist. If you disagree that the primary creative acts in which human agency participates are birth and death then we have no grounds for further dialog. If, however, you do agree, then it should be easy for you to understand that assigning these willful acts to the “god-like” aspects of the two sexes is hardly a denigration of the other “terms” in which we may describe them. Nor is this to be taken to mean that a man cannot create through selective preservation just as it is not to be taken to mean that women cannot create through selective destruction. Such acts of will are within the capacity of both sexes—however recessive they might be. The recessive nature of the opposite’s sex within a given sex has its primary value in the way it helps the two sexes appreciate the god-like quality of the other—thereby increasing the attraction and appreciation of “the other”. And this, sexual, means of appreciating “the other” is the foundation for appreciating all others—including creation itself. 45
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:55 | # daniel writes: “NO. The problem is that fundamental problems have to be cleared-up. That it is necessary is unfortunate for those who are ready to look forward and to get onto the more interesting prospects and details of collaboration. Obviously, we are not ready for that yet. ” You (and others) may have a misunderstanding of my “civilization takedown” series of posts here at MR: I am not posting here to achieve a consensus as a precodition for further action. I am posting here to maintain a line of thought in which I have an overriding interest in the hopes that it may reach even a small minority of others who are ready to accept it and constructively criticize it. The vast majority and I have no basis for reaching any verbal agreement on this line of thought—although I suspect if a living example were to present itself words would drop away in the face of the awesome reality, and its truth would immanently manifest to most “whites”. The only consensus I can hope for is that those who mutually consent, to whatever line of thought, may create the living exemplars of their thoughts, so that words may fall away in the face of reality. 46
Posted by daniel on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:25 | # Posted by James Bowery on April 09, 2012, 12:55 PM | # daniel writes: “NO. The problem is that fundamental problems have to be cleared-up. That it is necessary is unfortunate for those who are ready to look forward and to get onto the more interesting prospects and details of collaboration. Obviously, we are not ready for that yet. ” You (and others) may have a misunderstanding of my “civilization takedown” series of posts here at MR: I was not addressing your civilization takedown series in particular. I was not particularly aware that it was a series nor that it had such a name. But fine. No, after having given some thought to matters over the years, working with a few scholars, some scholarly ideas, I have come to see that some of the organizational topoi that I have put together make consistent sense. More, they can often accommodate the ideas of others without doing their ideas and objectives violence. Hence, I am not altogether patient when people immediately dismiss what I say as whatever, pompous, pedantic, academic.. Cooperation does tend to be a very strong predilection of mine. I do not enjoy contentiousness. I will fight, but when I fight it is because I think the matter is important and that somebody is not providing the race with the accurate information that it needs. For me, it is largely about getting it right. When people do get some things right, I am not jealous - I tend to take the attitude that’s ok, great. For example, when Greg Johnson was talking about an ecological perspective on race in a recent Stark interview, a perspective which I, like many others, have been considering for decades now, I did not resent it. He did a fairly good job. I would say that I have advanced upon him in some significant ways however. For example, where he draws a clear distinction between an anthropocentric view and an ecological view. I believe I have done well to merge the two. Moreover, there are other predecessors besides Devi (perhaps typical of him to focus on a third reich devote) but no matter. I have shown that I have been thinking in these terms as well - for decades.
Ok. But I am also inclined to see some of your stuff as a bit too empirical; and, on the other hand, perhaps a bit too mystical. However, the majority of your essays and thoughts are very worthwhile. I particularly admire your honesty - you do have integrity. It is very inspiring to witness your confidence in the face of the dishonest, despite whatever successes that may accrue to them as a result. While I do not presume your aims to be the same as mine nor that you are being iconoclastic for the devil of it I, on the other hand, also have to whom it may concern messages that I care to advance - e.g., to dissuade unnecessary inter-European fighting; I do hope for a modicum of consensus on that account. By unnecessary fighting, I mean fighting with: those who are loyal to Europeans; not promoting the incursions of non-Europeans; or the homogenization of native Europeans; those who will fight on behalf of Europeans. The vast majority and I have no basis for reaching any verbal agreement on this line of thought—although I suspect if a living example were to present itself words would drop away in the face of the awesome reality, and its truth would immanently manifest to most “whites”. The only consensus I can hope for is that those who mutually consent, to whatever line of thought, may create the living exemplars of their thoughts, so that words may fall away in the face of reality. I don’t see what is so appealing about a world without words, nor do I see this vision as a practical objective, but I wish you the best in its pursuit. Nevertheless, words from Sheriff Bowery do tend to be worthwhile. If you could see fit to ease off the empiricism just a bit (without veering off into a mystical other extreme), your work would only be better off for it - awesome indeed. ....if you could see whereas the duel * might serve your objectives without a necessary lethal result, there is some reasonable thinking there as well. * By the way, I still doubt that I’d want to live there. But if you can find people who are into that, by all means, go right ahead and form your county/state. 47
Posted by Alaric on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:49 | # GW has done an excellent job in destroying this website. Christian lunatics now have free reign to post their Syrian garbage as they see fit. It’s… beyond tiresome. 48
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:04 | # daniel writes: “the duel * might serve your objectives without a necessary lethal result” The Valorians did (and if they still exist, presumably still do) substitute exile for death and therefore had to come up with a form of natural duel that was not lethal while providing as much natural selective pressure as possible. “Exile” took the form of loss of membership in a nonprofit and expulsion from the land held by the nonprofit. John Harland in “Brave New World: A Different Projection” attests its effectiveness, however limited. In the case of a collaboration of consenting societies, the most likely consequence of being an “outlaw” within most of them would be exile from the societies whose laws were broken. That is to say, consent would be granted to that individual by fewer societies in the collaboration. As to your desire to see less “empiricism” it is not clear what you would use to substitute for it. Words simply cannot substitute for reality. Thoughts are “all in your mind” even though those thoughts are shared by many others. If you honestly wish to minimize mortal conflict within some group you can’t do better than to allow differences that cannot be resolved verbally to be resolved in an empirical manner if that is feasible. If not, then you are simply deferring the ultimate question as to who is born and who dies. 49
Posted by daniel on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:34 | # Posted by James Bowery on April 09, 2012, 03:04 PM | # daniel writes: “the duel * might serve your objectives without a necessary lethal result” The Valorians did (and if they still exist, presumably still do) substitute exile for death and therefore had to come up with a form of natural duel that was not lethal but still providing as much natural selection as possible given that constraint. “Exile” took the form of loss of membership in a nonprofit and expulsion from the land held by the nonprofit. John Harland in “Brave New World: A Different Projection” attests its effectiveness, however limited.
Sure, I do imagine that their could be rewards and punishments, perhaps even through a kind of duel, not necessarily lethal but facilitating such protection and selection for individualistic types.
That has the potential to be a terrible punishment. I really like your thinking on that regard. There might also be hypocritical states which would not represent punishment enough, but there could be other punishments prior to banishment if that contingency did not represent punishment enough for the time being.
Hermeneutics, a tacking back and forth between close readings of the empirical to broader, narrative frames of reference that provisionally encompass protracted historical and temporal frames of reference (on behalf of the class)...then back again..as is necessary. The class, a hermeneutic notion, allows for: ecology accountability transcendence of jealousy (these are my brothers and sisters) protection through ensconcing of developmental patterns of the life-span (which the empirical notion of rights does not) protection through ensconcing of historical, evolutionary patterns of the race.. ...it protects paradigmatic, qualitative difference..in its meandering, developmental expressions.. Maybe GW will be running an essay soon.
This is a tight knot of thoughts that I’d prefer to leave alone for a moment. If not, then you are simply deferring the ultimate question as to who is born and who dies. If you handicap one persons desirability through punishment for their losing the duel and you increase the reward and therefore desirability of the winner, then you would, in effect, be killing off, at least reducing one kind and selecting for the other. On the other hand, if an individual is all that bad well, I am not against the death penalty - get rid of them. Life should not be considered so precious as to make it unlivable. 50
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:27 | #
Yes obviously you all need more individualism…based on the model of free-floating, volitionally all-powerful, unencumbered, sovereign, self-authored individuals of say classical liberal theory? Good grief I give up… P.S. Europeans are not a class in anything like any conventional sense of that term. Even the most homogeneous mass (multi-million) European societies have economic stratification (distinct socio-economic classes) - such is the nature of any mass society. The question is what degree of such stratification is acceptable or desirable for a given society and the values it wishes to promote/embody? But please carry on with this intra-American discussion.
51
Posted by Patterson on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:34 | #
If you “handicap” someone somehow, the handicapped may still be able to overcome the handicap through other means like manipulation. Also, depending on what exactly the “handicap” is, it may necessitate the formation of a powerful group or government that then takes over or becomes corrupt. If the “handicap” is higher taxes or something, the group or government would need the power to enforce this and then this power could corrupt. This could go for the death penalty as well.
52
Posted by uh on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:37 | #
Is this SienkeBITCH “transcending jealous”? LOL. 53
Posted by uh on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:49 | #
Hey MOB — go have an orgasm. How long’s it been, a decade at least?
54
Posted by daniel on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:01 | # Posted by Graham_Lister on April 09, 2012, 04:27 PM | # Graham, I was not aware that we were supposed to be at odds. I am not all into Jim’s idea. I am just trying to see its positive aspects. I have said, I do not see myself wanting to participate in that particular idea, duels, ultimate valuation of individualism, etc.
However, individuality is not a large priority of mine. On the contrary, I believe we what we largely need is collective effort on our own behalf. That is why I conceive of ourselves organizationally as a class (with subdivisions)> Yes obviously you all need more individualism… No, that is not what we need. And let me add that I do not live in America anymore.
Who said that? Certainly not I.
P.S. Europeans are not a class in anything like any conventional sense of that term. I do not mean a class in anything like the conventional sense of the term. Class is a conservative notion as I conceive it. Paradigmatic conservatism means tight borders. I might have a fair amount of individual prerogative within, should a particular group wish, but its overall purpose is conservative indeed. What I am talking about is not free floating but informed by evolution and largely constrained by brute facts of corporeality and place.
I am not talking about the classic economic class divisions when I talk about class. I am using class as a term approximately synonymous with how others use the word “race.” But among other things, I care to distance myself from empiricism and sheer objectivist efforts in treatment of race, so I find class to be a preferable term. But please carry on with this intra-American discussion. Well, as I said… I am and have been very critical of the American idea, the Constitution in particular, its Lockeatine empiricism, etc.. Hopefully you’ll see…if GW posts a few essays. I was rather impressed with your criticism of Jim’s thoughts..and I agreed… but he has some excellent ideas, is a good man, and why would I want to trash him just because I do not agree with a few of his ideas..moreover, he has shown himself to be amenable to reconsideration. You know Graham, speaking of conflicts I’d like to mitigate, while you are clearly an intelligent, well educated man, you do get a bit carried away with the idea that Americans are all so damn stupid. 55
Posted by daniel on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:04 | # Posted by uh on April 09, 2012, 04:37 PM | # I have shown that I have been thinking in these terms as well - for decades. That’s right, I am not jealous.
That is really clever Uh. It is funny because you are the one who acts like a bitch. Are you a woman? You act like a bad one. 56
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:27 | #
OK, but how would you answer this question? I mean specifically. I have tried to do so, to some extent, in discussions with you. I have talked about what limitations on individualism ought to be instantiated, using the ‘metric’ of what contributes to the overall perpetuity of the System/Nation/Race. So, I’ve spoken of environmental protections, epidemiological measures, anti-immigration and miscegenation laws, economic protectionism for militarily necessary industries, and some other areas where I am willing to contemplate State interference with individual liberty, classically (liberally) understood. What I object to are interferences with liberty and/or the market where those interferences confer specific benefits on individuals (and concomitant specific costs on others), ones that are unrelated (or only very distantly related) to collective System survival. For example, it is probably the case that a system of radical individualism cannot properly deal with containing plagues (you would likely know more about this than I do). Therefore, on occasion quarantine measures may have to be instituted for the collective good which, nevertheless, do, from a purely individual rights perspective, unjustifiably interfere with the liberty of particular individuals (though I’m not altogether certain of this, philosophically). If the collectivity is an independent good, then sometimes it may make claims which override individual rights. The classic example I think would be conscription, whether of men or resources, in life-and-death wartime, though even here, libertarians might be able to argue plausibly that in a real life-death situation, such conscription would be unnecessary, as rational actors would volunteer themselves for the Cause anyway, negating the need for coercion. Perhaps a still better example would posit a private property owner holding title to a particularly militarily necessary piece of geography, who refuses to ‘lend’ his property to the national army for its military use. Would government then be ethically justified in ‘taking’ that property for national/military reasons (albeit, with some proper monetary compensation to the owner)? I think so - because in this case the property owner is standing in the way of the defense of the larger nation or System within which his property is embedded. The part cannot supersede the whole. But, what does this have to do with an individual’s broken elbow in peacetime? That is, if Lister falls off his bike on a sunny day and injures himself, why exactly is it to be thought that it is taxpayer Haller’s financial responsibility to subsidize his ‘patch-up’? Why shouldn’t Lister be expected to pay the entire cost of his own injury? And is it not in the collectivity’s larger (survival) interest that he (and all others similarly situated) be required to do so? I have pointed out the immense intellectual resources of the free market tradition, which demonstrate in great depth and across disciplines why State programs are invariably inefficient (as compared to the market). State interventions in the market render less exact (where they are not so comprehensive as to negate) economic value calculations (Mises); they fail to maximize the use of inherently dispersed knowledge (Hayek, Michael Polanyi); and they inevitably result in ‘free rider’ problems (Burke, W.H. Mallock, Milton Friedman, the Public Choice School). A nation of free and responsible individuals - that is, where individuals must bear responsibility and associated costs for their behavior (the bourgeois vision) - results in a strong collective Society, provided that individualism is not permitted to trump Society’s legitimate claims (ie, to endanger Society’s survival). The trick is getting right the balance between individual liberty and the amount of State coercion necessary to protect the collectivity within which the individual discovers his true self and life.
57
Posted by Patterson on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:04 | #
I think what we have today is pseudo-individualism. Being able to buy more stuff at Wal-Mart does not mean there is more individualism. Engaging in indulgent consumption and behavior, and being goaded to do so by the wider culture, is not necessarily individualism. Some of the most free-floating, wasteful, indulgent people today are the biggest herd animals, taking all their cues from pop culture, advertising, the media, etc. Do you really think being able to shop at a mall is evidence of greater power and sovereignty? 58
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:15 | # Daniel, if by “Hermeneutics” you mean the extraction of meaning from the “scripture” of Nature, then we can agree. I accept no “word of god” but that which Nature imparts. Indeed, the human practice of the scientific method is its exegesis. The “tacking back and forth” of this natural hermeneutics is between theoretic comprehension of nature and its evaluation where evaluation involves the empirical subject to value. As for “If not, then you are simply deferring the ultimate question as to who is born and who dies.” you miss entirely my meaning: What I’m suggesting is that empiricism offers a wider range within which there can be agreement to disagree—so long as the costs of the respective experimental groups are borne by the respective groups in dispute. In this sense, the empirical has value to those who value nonviolent conflict resolution. I will agree there are unanswered questions as to how “costs” are accounted given varying value systems, etc. The primary question being how to allocate territory for different ecologies. I will agree this is a profound question for relatively “situated” human ecologies and it is one I have not addressed. However, what I have done is provided a framework within which a much broader range of humanity can be invited to collaborate to find peaceful resolution to ideological disputes. You may object to this on the grounds that the “class” of “the other” has no capacity for fairness, valuing of truth or providing mutual respect for Euroman. You certainly have some good evidence for this given the double standard applied by non-Euro peoples to notions of “racism” and “diversity”—particularly regarding immigration. That I will not dispute. However, I stand by the idea that if we are going to wake Euroman from his slumber before catastrophic collapse of the biosphere, the acceptance of the empirical as embodied in a collaboration of consenting societies it is a necessary way-station. Other than biospheric apocalypse, nothing short of the _obvious_ denial of <a >truth and freedom</a> by “the other” will wake Euroman from his slumber. 59
Posted by daniel on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:37 | # Posted by James Bowery on April 09, 2012, 06:15 PM | # Daniel, if by “Hermeneutics” you mean the extraction of meaning from the “scripture” of Nature, then we can agree. I accept no “word of god” but that which Nature imparts. Indeed, the human practice of the scientific method is its exegesis. Well, kind of. It is the scripture of nature in that it is not transcendent of nature - it is not Cartesian. But it is not merely bound to science. It does have that, scientific method, as the sine qua non method at one end, the empirical end of a tacking back and forth process. The other end allows for the expanse of narrative comprehension - the more speculative organization, of classification, its systemic implications, relations, its historical process…non-scientific, mythological ideas, should the people wish - though I tend to have an aversion to highly fanciful ideas, ones not verifiable - i.e. I would tend to be somewhat biased in the more skeptical direction of the hermeneutic as you indicate here (but not quite so much). The “tacking back and forth” of this natural hermeneutics is between theoretic comprehension of nature and its evaluation where evaluation involves the empirical subject to value. If you wish to do it that way. Personally, I go with a theoretical comprehension of White people, the class, where you speak of theoretical comprehension of nature…. more concrete evaluation would then be in order, sure…if you want to get radically fancy, you can include its reflexive relationship to the evaluating subject.. As for “If not, then you are simply deferring the ultimate question as to who is born and who dies.” you miss entirely my meaning: Well, maybe I’m referring to the stage of dispute processing where there can be no agreement to disagree. What I’m suggesting is that empiricism offers a wider range within which there can be agreement to disagree— There might be something to that.. so long as the costs of the respective experimental groups are borne by the respective groups in dispute. In this sense, the empirical has value to those who value nonviolent conflict resolution. It could be, speaking for myself, I need to think about that. However, hermeneutics is not against empiricism, it just sees it as one end of an ongoing tracking process….which, if focused on exclusion of the more protracted organization, becomes too relativistic and arbitrary.
60
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:46 | # I don’t think all Americans are stupid - Mr. Haller for example isn’t stupid - just you all seem a little misguided - well at least from the non-random sample at MR. No matter my concerns are not with the agonies of the Republic as such. People think there is something worthwhile that can be salvaged from distinctively American political and social norms - sometimes one has to recognise that others won’t be persuaded to one’s point of view - and that is fine. Simply correct myths and misunderstandings, smile, agree to disagree and accept that there’s just no convincing some people. Otherwise the whole exchange becomes pointless, exhausting and very deflationary. And on consumerism isn’t the shopping mall now the most sacred space in all of American life? Hedonism versus eudaimonia isn’t really a key debate in American cultural/political history now is it? Freedom as individual choice of life-style, religion, in other cultural items, as well of course in the market stricto sensu is cardinal (rational economic agents, let us not forget, are incapable of making a ‘bad’ choice - the customer is always right). Life is to be understood as the ever increasing smörgåsbord of more money, more choice and more individual pleasure. A radical and foundationally formal commitment towards such an inflationary and maximalist interpretation of pluralism and individual hedonic bliss to be found in such a state of affairs is the both the most cherished doxa and praxis of American society. The guy from Yale that I linked to earlier was very proud indeed of that and furthermore that this makes America unique in history. Is he wrong? But what is all this individual liberty, rationality, efficiency, choice etc., ultimately for? 61
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:58 | # Shouldn’t this thread have been called “Jesus wants me for a sunbeam”? Or “New avenues in radical forms of Protestant gnosis”? Sorry ignore me, do carry on. 62
Posted by daniel on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:04 | # Posted by Graham_Lister on April 09, 2012, 06:46 PM | # I don’t think all Americans are stupid - Mr. Haller for example isn’t stupid - just you all seem a little misguided - well at least from the non-random sample at MR. No matter my concerns are not with the agonies of the Republic as such. Well, I am not exactly Mr. Patriotic American. I don’t want to get into Mr. Haller’s ideas on capitalism, but while I am not against free enterprise, I would care to distinguish it from capitalism - I’m satisfied that it is unsustainable in its trajectory and destructive to our race - our race, the most important thing to me (not the American way).
sometimes one has to recognise that others won’t be persuaded to one’s point of view - and that is fine. Simply correct myths and misunderstandings, smile, agree to disagree and accept that there’s just no convincing some people. Otherwise the whole exchange becomes pointless, exhausting and very deflationary. I’ve agreed with most things you say, so far as I recall. I don’t what you are complaining about, quite honestly. And on consumerism isn’t the shopping mall now the most sacred space in all of American life? It’s valid to criticize America and it deserves it, but let’s try to elevate the criticism: America is liquor stores and churches… Seriously, there are lots of Christian Zionists in America..that is a big problem, seventy million of them, the only voting support for the wars…so, there is a yearning for the sacred, but it is largely misplaced.
No it is not. I have heard it said that there is a “democratic” theory which deliberately attempts to keep people focused on light matters. In American graduate schools there can be some heavy intellectual thought going on, but not it is not the standard American fare. Freedom as individual choice of life-style, religion, in other cultural items, as well of course in the market stricto sensu is cardinal (rational economic agents, let us not forget, are incapable of making a ‘bad’ choice - the customer is always right). Life is to be understood as the ever increasing smörgåsbord of more money, more choice and more individual pleasure. These are good criticisms you make (as far as I am concerned). I do think freedom of and from association has an important place for Whites and the problem of how to coordinate these values with the deeper, situated evolution of Europe is an interesting challenge, one which I try to address in a piece that I hope will run shortly… A radical and foundationally formal commitment towards such an inflationary and maximalist interpretation of pluralism and individual hedonic bliss to be found in such a state of affairs is the both the most cherished doxa and praxis of American society. Personally I do not care to defend against these charges. Most White nationalists with sense believe that America is dead. The guy from Yale that I linked to earlier was very proud indeed of that and furthermore that this makes America unique in history. Is he wrong? Probably not. But again, sometimes the criticism of America can use some refinement. Where I am I hear a lot of: Americans are fat, they eat MacDonalds, they don’t know geography. I want people to be critical of America, but I want their criticism to be fine. Yours is good, Graham, but a little knee jerk and cliched. There are brilliant people in America and in the heartalnd especially, there are really good people too. But what is all this individual liberty, rationality, efficiency, choice etc., ultimately for? I would hope that to whatever extent these values would be practicable that they would be ensconced within an exclusively European America. That it would help people to advance creative ways of life for our people. More, if you give Bowery’s notion a chance, he’d probably advocate a few states as for English and Scottish people exclusively - so that they can maintain their human ecology and ways. Increasing their flexibility with new, beautiful lands as habitats. That is the crucial aspect of freedom of and from association that we hope to capture in that aspect. That is what it is for. Posted by Graham_Lister on April 09, 2012, 06:58 PM | # Shouldn’t this thread have been called “Jesus wants me for a sunbeam”? Or “New avenues in radical forms of Protestant gnosis”? Sorry ignore me, do carry on. I am not a Christian. You can say my race is my religion, the 14 Words.. 63
Posted by daniel on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:37 | # When talking about Being, Selfhood and Actualization, there is another aspect that I take for granted but normally goes along with that discussion - Socialization. Neglecting to mention that may have led you to believe that I am all about the free floating individual. In fact, as far as I am concerned, socialization is the only real aspect. The other three are just topoi, hopefully useful. Socialization - if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people there to hear it, it may make a noise but for all it matters to us, it may as well not make a noise. 64
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:58 | # Here is a radical question: Do we have to solve all the problems of social ontology, philosophical anthropology, political economy, criminology and mereology ... before we fucking end immigration?! Sorry. At bottom I really am very practical. Maybe my decades out of the academy are an advantage. 65
Posted by faustus on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:48 | #
You’ve never had a real job. Aren’t you a theology student or something? 66
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 04:34 | # I dont want to derail this thread but in the wake of the John Derbyshire article there are no end of online threads, discussions etc going on in normally liberal territory. Opportunities to talk about the race/crime angle, liberal hypocrisy, the jewish role, you name it. It should be a moment of race-replacement triumph yet everywhere they are instead bleating about the horrible ‘racists’, ‘republicans’ and ‘conservatives’ popping up in their internet backyards. Lets please do our best to contribute to their pain. Im under no illusions about Derbyshire himself, he has paraded his philo-semitism and Chinese wife often enough and where has it got him with these people? Nowhere. 67
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:06 | # Lurker, You’re right. I’ve fought in a couple of places, like The Atlantic, and NRO (the latter deleted me). Faustus, Fuck off. I’ve had real jobs most of my life. I mentioned having not been in the academy for decades (can’t you read?). I only returned to grad school in September. Though my goal is only to have academic or political jobs for the rest of my life. What have you done?
68
Posted by daniel on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:59 | # Classification, Viz. The White Class facilitates: ecology accountability transcendence of jealousy (these are my brothers and sisters) protection through ensconcing of developmental patterns of the life-span (which the empirical notion of rights does not) protection through ensconcing of historical, evolutionary patterns of the race.. (which the empirical notion of rights does not)
69
Posted by faustus on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:05 | # I’ve done more than you, Haller. You’ve never had a real job. You’re an effete layabout. 70
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:09 | #
A rather eccentric definition of narcissism - it makes people think they have more in common with others? Rather than the emphasis being upon their own unique individual ‘specialness’ which must be zealously respected and recognised by everyone else? OK…cause you know sometimes words have no meaning… 71
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:17 | # Sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception – so in a happy land of individual pairwise-duels what if someone decides he is really exceptional and should be the Leviathan after all and he gets ‘on board’ a large number of followers with promises of riches, positions of power etc., once they take over? Why can’t this happen? Just asking. 72
Posted by daniel on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:01 | # Posted by Graham_Lister on April 10, 2012, 05:09 AM | # I should add that it also remedies narcissism - a pathology of modernity’s universalizing - narcissism, the idea that others, such as immigrants, are the same as those within the class. A rather eccentric definition of narcissism - it makes people think they have more in common with others? It may be a rather eccentric definition of narcissism, but it works: Yes, as a result of modernity’s universalizing and the empirical rupturing of classification (as a fiction of the mind), people narcissistically presume that other peoples are more like themselves than they actually are. They see more of themselves and their own motives in other peoples than is actually the case.
Right. It is different from that definition of narcissism - which has currency as well - perhaps more so, you are right. OK…cause you know sometimes words have no meaning… In this case, it has a couple of different definitions - and you are correct to mark that distinction as it was bound to lead to confusion and/or to be exploited, if possible, by the disingenuous. There are other definitions of racism and anti-racism as well, but I prefer this one because it works well: Anti-“racism” in practice, is the prohibition of classification of peoples and the discrimination of them on that basis. That is why you may hear ridiculous assertions in the name of “anti-racism” such as it is “racist” to discriminate against homosexuals. Though jaw droppingly stupid, I have heard it claimed at a university setting - obviously the Frankfurt School Heads thought that they were promoting a very creative, progressive notion. There is also an example of “racism” being used that way - viz., it is racist to discriminate against homos - in Bodeker’s film.
73
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:20 | #
Really? and you know this how? What do you know about me? Given that the answer is nothing, where do you get off saying I’ve never had a real job? Define “real job”. Is it something like working with one’s hands in a blue-collar capacity? All you can claim to know about me is that I’ve done only a very slight amount of blue collar work (detailing cars when I was very young). I’ve worked for two decades, first in law, then in anti-immigration research and activism, then in business (marketing, PR, some campaign consulting). What have you done? Honestly, this is the type of comment that ought to be censored. It’s like my saying GW is gay. What basis do I have for that ad hominem? None at all. Personal statements of a factual nature that cannot be verified ought not to be permitted (unlike criticisms derived from published comments: eg, JRichards is a monocausal simpleton, or XPWA seems like an extremely unpleasant dinner companion, etc).
74
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:09 | #
A short note for the mentally alert. A few decades back the Zionist Astrologer President It was already evident by 1994 to anyone interested that this latest fix wasn’t working as advertised. Again. This was the time when Governor Pete Wilson and old white California rose in political self-defense, probably for the last time. One result was Proposition 187. The California Attorney General essentially sued his own electorate and opposed Proposition 187. It was promptly declared unconstitutional by a Jewess sitting as a federal judge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Pfaelzer In this same era the “Conservative” Republicans obtained control of both houses of Congress and held the majorities for six years from 1995 - 2001. Absolutely nothing was done on the immigration front by the Republican Party. During this time “Conservative” Zionist shill Newt Gingrich did however impeach Bill Clinton for getting a blow job from a slut Jewess. Newt did this right before his own extra-marital affairs were publicized. The chances of organizing any effective political opposition to “immigration” to the “USA” at this late date are precisely zero. Jew Haller knows all this. He simply wants to waste your efforts by directing you up a blind alley.
75
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:49 | # James, A sexual organism is, by definition, part of a pair, and beyond that, a group since before its appearance and after it breeds its distinctive genes are contained within that group. Neither, since Nature’s function is this very transmission of genetic information through Time/Entropy, can it “stand against” the group. It can only stand in the group. Therefore, in Nature the term “individual” has limited taxonomic value, unlike the terms family, tribe, ethny, sub-race, and race. Ontologically, it should be apparent to you that the term “individual” does not describe some extant organism but an opinion of, or ambition for, the self, heavily loaded with post-Christian teleology. We are, of course, not that. We are only men and women. We are weak and strong, good and bad, lovers and haters, and all things in between. We are complex. We cannot be reduced to “the individual”. If anyone actually met “an individual” he’d regard him as sub-human and a psychopath. I recall reading long ago that the word “vice” has its roots in the Greek or Latin term for smallness. Apparently, it did not refer to moral condition, but to psychological health. It implied that a person was so damaged and so reduced psychologically as to become concentrated on some small, destructive aim. This is where you would take us, it seems to me. But I think we must look in the very opposite direction, notwithstanding the fact that it is a hard task, especially for a scientific mind, to find a “key”, or even a single philosophical thought, that might tend in the direction of returning European Man to a good and true life. 76
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:01 | # GW: Obviously my omission of the definition of “group” vs “group organism” in my ontology has failed to nail to the wall two tentacles of the jellyfish—tentacles which are now lashing about their toxins. Can you conceive of a possible difference between a “group” that is not an “organism” and a “group organism”? Keep in mind my prior ontology. 77
Posted by PM on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:07 | # Leon Haller- I thought the comment at number 56 was excellent. You might also want to add that the modern socialist state is extremely dysgenic. Our national health service, subsidised state housing and benefits are allowing the least productive and intelligent members of society to have the most children. Of course it takes a brave person to point this out, and if you do so you will be dismissed as heartless. But I am rather disdainful of those who take the moral high ground without being one of the people who bears the significant burdens of their generous morality. In several generations time it will be those diminishing numbers of people who are productive who will have to bear the social and financial burdens of the generous-hearted morality of those alive today. This is a typical leftist trait in my opinion, similair to those who support third-world immigration without actually living around third-world immigrants. It seems to me that when Britain voted for massive state expansion into all areas of our lives after 1945 that we nationalised our souls, and our sense of responsiblity. We effectively accepted that whatever the state said should be a national (and therefore ethnic) priorities and problems were indeed our national priorities and problems. Before this time people knew that the health of society was their responsiblity, as there was no-one else. They therefore took their lives that much more seriously. They felt a sense of ownership over insitutions like marriage and the family. Like homeowners they knew that our institutions and communities, like houses, must be constantly cared for, renovated and guarded, to prevent them falling into a state of disrepair and valuelessness in the future. Today, people have lost this sense of ownership to the state in many areas, hence we accept that they have the right to allow homosexual marriage and adoption. This freedom from responsibility has reduced our lives and made them more trivial and meaningless. No wonder people give over their lives to rampant individualism, promiscuity and hedonism, and no wonder that the state, so overbearing in other ways, seems so tolerant of our hedonism: they know that this is the deal that we made with them, and they are more than happy to keep it. Of course Nationalists will say that when they have control of thr State they would only use it in the right ways. But by saying this they are making themselves a hostage to fortune. Should they lose control of the State in the future they will cede the state apparatus to their enemies, and will not be able to complain to loudly about state power and spending when they themselves were guitly of the same thing, in another direction. I would have thought that the best chance of an enduring, successful Nationalist revolution would be one that preached the values of self-reliace and a small state in conjunction with strong ethnic and racial pride. Such a system would always be favouring those with the most responsible attitudes, and would be least likely to heed the siren calls of those on the left who offer them free moneyand state-subsidised indolence. If such a Nationalist party could make the idea of a small state axiomatic and non-negotiable, then it would deprive left-wing parties of the large quantities of lucre that they inevitably need to transform society. You ask about achieving the right balance in society, and of course key to this is having strong ethnic pride and family bonds. These are usually strong enough for people to forgo freedoms and indulgence for entirely voluntary reasons. Perhaps part of the reason that America has such a problem with rampant consumerism is not because of capitalism but because mass immigration from non-founding stock nations killed off any nascent sense of ethnic identity that existed in the USA in the nineteenth century? 78
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:10 | #
And a pig just flew past my window - pull the other one it’s got bells on it. It’s funny how self-styled radicals wish to question everything except the unproblematic wonders of a culture and society based around the ‘free-market’. The USA does have a much smaller welfare state than any other Western European society yet according to those radicals at the CIA it enjoys the highest per capita illegal drug use in the world - hedonism is still doing OK for itself in the land of the free. Let alone that the USA - with the smallest per capita welfare state - is the Western nation with the highest non-Euro population - rapidly on the increase by the way - and Denmark with one of the most generous welfare state is happily still well over 90%+ Euro. The precise shape and scope of welfare systems of course might have nothing at all to do with demographic changes but perhaps PM is a Charles Murray style ‘intellectual’ that can only view Denmark with what was it…blank incomprehension. A quite stunning insight from a brilliant mind I’d say. As for ‘dysgenic’ changes in allele frequencies - you do know that evolutionarily significant changes in gene frequencies normally take a relatively long time to occur? 60 to 70 years isn’t a very long time in evolutionary terms in a fairly long-lived mammalian species. But why let facts spoil comforting mythologies - sorry my mistake - brilliant analysis. I really can’t work out why wider society ignores it. It’s obviously not superficial tosh. I suppose some effort to respect empirical evidence places me in the J-lizards camp, yes? 79
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:22 | # @GW Well said.
One could start with questions of Aristotelian mereology or Schmittian political theory. And the general concept of modularity in complex systems. Off topic GW but have you read Heidegger on St Paul? Someone told me it was the key to understanding the early Heidegger. @Leon - I may have missed it but did you formulate a response to why you’re not a Nozickian cosmopolitan? 80
Posted by daniel on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:26 | # Socialization - if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people<u> there to hear it</u>, it may make a noise but for all it matters to us, it may as well not make a noise. Correction: Socialization - if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to talk about it, it may make a noise but for all it matters to us, it may as well not make a noise. 81
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:34 | # Off topic again but what the hell! Given theological-cultural matters has Leon (or anyone else?) seen ‘Antichrist’ by the controversial and self-described ‘Nazi’ Lars von Trier? Just that I discovered this particular Catholic take on the film and its visual theology which might be of interest. Sort of links to the ‘women’ theme of the OP. 82
Posted by Towelie on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:31 | # Just on the drugs issue if you think about legal and illegal drugs along with alcohol is there anyone in America that isn’t stoned, high or a drunk? A new national anthem to reflect the new realities? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw And a new flag?
83
Posted by daniel on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:43 | # Its true, English people do not take drugs 84
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:59 | # GW offers this prediction: “ Apparently, it did not refer to moral condition, but to psychological health. It implied that a person was so damaged and so reduced psychologically as to become concentrated on some small, destructive aim. This is where you would take us, it seems to me.” In this diagnosis, you remind me of those denizens of the therapeutic state which ask “Why are you obsessed with race?” The answer, of course, is that in a healthy environment there is little concern about “race” so it is not the “racist” who is in need of therapy, but the environment. Likewise, there is much that an individual is interested in as a result of his being sovereign. Indeed, there is more in which he is interested and that which interests him arises from his valore. However, I will say that it seems quite sick to me to believe that a lion taking a hunk out of one’s ass doesn’t exist merely because he is an “individual”. “I feel your pain.” is generally a bald-faced lie. 85
Posted by PM on Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:36 | # Graham, in so many of your posts you come across as a sneering, unpleasant and condescending prick; your response above being a perfect example. Why do you call me a ‘self-styled radical’? What claims have I made about myself that could possibly warrant your presumptuous and mocking tone towards someone you happen to think is wrong but know nothing about? Why the sarcastic remarks about my ‘stunning insight from a brilliant mind’? Is this necessary? I know full well what I am, and would never make such claims for myself. I am nothing of note intellectually, I know that and am entirely comfortable with it, I will never be anything more than unskilled/semi-skilled labour on the bottoms rungs of society. I have enough genuinely intelligent friends, and frequent enough blogs like this to know what true intellect looks like and sounds like and always retain a sense of humility and realism towards those who are clearly superior to me in their intellectual capabilities. But I care about my culture, and I think about what I see going on around me, and like anyone I am capable of having those moments of insight and understanding, and I feel like it harms no-one to run such thoughts past people on an open blog if the mood takes me. If my thoughts are proved wrong then so be it, I would rather live my life without illusions or error. But if you wish to correct what you regard as my error why do you have to do it in such an ungracious way? Are we not actually supposed to be on the same side?! Perhaps you think I am simply not worthy of a civil response or even to breathe in the same rarified cyber-air at MR as the great Graham Lister? For what it’s worth, my comment is very far from being a ‘comforting mythology.’ Part of the reason I am a supporter of the nationalist cause is that my life and the life of my family is lived around the have- nots. I vividly understand what it means for the working class, of which I guess I am socio-economically a part, to be morphing into a mixed-race welfare-created and dependent underclass. But this also means that I am advocating the dismantling of a heathcare system which is the only one that I am able to use and which hugely benefits me. I resisted contemplating these ideas for a long time precisely because the thought of not having such things for myself or my loved ones seemed too frightening. But in the end I realised that I simply do not have the right to demand that others subsidise me in this way. If a wealthier person than me would rather have spent the money that they must spend on my operations on better healthcare for their own children, then I simply do not have the right to demand that they do otherwise. I also think that economically left-wing societies are ennervating to the health of the nation. They remove the realities of risk and competition from life, and furthermore the State and its organs come to have their own survival and expansion interests which will push them to interfere in more and more areas of life, and to regard anything not completely under their control as competitors and rivals to their power and ambition. Such is the power of the State I think this process is probably unstoppable and inevitable, and so the only way to stop this from happening is to make sure that no-one, even the type of parties we would like, are able to get their hands on this kind of power. How on earth can you say this is a ‘comforting mythology’? How are thoughts that I have arrived at partly through my own musings and discussions with others be a ‘mythology’ at all? “The USA does have a much smaller welfare state than any other Western European society yet according to those radicals at the CIA it enjoys the highest per capita illegal drug use in the world - hedonism is still doing OK for itself in the land of the free.” I answered this in the last paragraph. Before the twentieth century, European societies had much lower state spending yet they have vibrant and healthy folk cultures and the culture had not given itself over to hedonism. Why? As I said, I would argue that their wider familial and tribal obligations, as well as their religious beliefs, acted as a brake on possible excesses. It’s funny, I can remember you responding to Bill in a post where he mentioned that he is sometimes reticent about posting here because of all the highbrow comments. I seem to remember you reassuring him and telling him that he should go ahead and share and should not feel intimidated—effectively patted him on the head and assured him of your intellectual noblesse oblige towards the lower orders. It stuck in my head because it seemd so insincere coming from you, when as we both know there is little you love more than writing the kind of post above where you get to jump in and jeer at those you feel beneath you. The funny thing is, I have had comments on the internet witheringly deconstructed by people before and felt the weight of their superior minds being brought to bear on my feeble words and have felt suitably humbled. But your response to me does not feel like that at all. Nothing you have said really undermines what I have said, and I feel perfectly comfortable stading by what I have said—although very disinclined to defend them to the likes of you. “As for ‘dysgenic’ changes in allele frequencies - you do know that evolutionarily significant changes in gene frequencies normally take a relatively long time to occur? 60 to 70 years isn’t a very long time in evolutionary terms in a fairly long-lived mammalian species” I never said anything about allele frequencies. Obviously you wanted me to though. I can imagine that any sentence you get to write which contains the words ‘you do realise’ before talking about biology to a non-biologist are pretty much the moments you live for. Hope you enjoyed yourself. 86
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:53 | #
A good reminder, thankyou. There used to be a lot of writing on MR that managed to hit the nail on the head with a minimum of fuss. 87
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 11 Apr 2012 06:43 | # It was not just the modern socialist state that was feared to be dysgenic. A century and a half ago Charles Darwin raised the same concern. He felt the “aid we were impelled to give to the helpless” rose incidently from the instinct of sympathy. However, he concluded, unlike some of his colleagues, that we must endure the effects of the weak surviving and propagating because to do otherwise was to give rise to a an “overwhelming present evil”. And while National Socialism provided state funded health care, subsidized housing and a significant increase in German fertility rates it was deemed an “overwhelming present evil” and thus destroyed. The motive, no doubt, at least in part, arose incidently from an instinctive sympathetic desire to aid the helpless. 88
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:50 | # Any form of a public welfare system, regardless of any other factors or the specifics of how it operates, obviously creates a deracinated multicultural hellhole - an American Republican told me so - therefore it must be true…ontologically true in fact. Neither America (nor England, nor the Anglo-sphere) = the world, contra Charles Murray’s blank incomprehensions. Which is odd given the ease with which anyone can completely understand the moderately complex phenomena of different human societies given two minutes or even just one minute of intellectual effort. Out of interest what’s the difference between necessary causes, sufficient causes and contributory causes? Nevermind. Carry on. On other pressing matters is Jesus OK with me using a Heckler & Koch MP5 in a duel or is that theologically problematic? Seriously I have been worrying about this all day. 89
Posted by Kirk on Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:22 | #
Are guns allowed in the duel thing? If so wouldn’t rifles be better in the natural wooded settings for the duels? The Heckler & Koch MP5 is a submachine gun for relatively close combat in crowded areas with lots of targets. I don’t think it’s good for one-on-one combat. Rifles or revolvers that are decent at longer ranges would be better. 90
Posted by Kirk on Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:47 | # Also if you substituted exile for death you could use paintball guns instead for the same effect as rifles or revolvers. 91
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:03 | #
A life lived according to English Moralism. LOL
Single deadly combat is Nazism for eccentric individualists (like Bowery). P.S. Does this mean you will not be challenging Nick Griffin to single deadly combat?
92
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:08 | #
Or else we could just say that indulging Bowery’s crackpot tendencies has ceased to be amusing. 93
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:59 | #
You strike me as the kind of Polack who tucks his plaid shirts into Dockers that he pulls up to his rib cage. In lieu of single deadly combat, I offer you this challenge: in the next week you are to approach at least five chicks not less than a 6 in looks and not exit the interaction until you have attempted a number-close. If you cannot get at least one number then you are truly a beta, Polack pussy who deserves to be weeded out of the gene pool.
94
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:19 | #
LOL! Uh is a self-loathing, manic-depressive swarthoid who hates the world because he can’t get any Nordic and/or Slavic pussy. 95
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:45 | # Advice for Nordicists: use Med and Slav chicks only for pump and dump. LOL 96
Posted by daniel on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:03 | # Posted by Captainchaos on April 12, 2012, 12:59 AM | # Socialization - if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to talk about it, it may make a noise but for all it matters to us, it may as well not make a noise. Sorry Captainchaos, I had to correct that one - its good now
And white socks with sandals, producing a camel feet effect, to give me a more Germanic look. In lieu of single deadly combat, I offer you this challenge: in the next week you are to approach at least five chicks not less than a 6 in looks and not exit the interaction until you have attempted a number-close. If you cannot get at least one number then you are truly a beta, Polack pussy who deserves to be weeded out of the gene pool. Posted by Captainchaos on April 12, 2012, 01:45 AM | # Advice for Nordicists: use Med and Slav chicks only for pump and dump. LOL Don’t worry Captainchaos - I have seen good looking German women. And as for Nordic women, I have seen some that are not with niggers or arabs - though not so many. 97
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:17 | #
Captainchaos, you speak to the better angels of our nature ... lmao ... 98
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:39 | #
I’m not a Jew. I now the history of 187 very well - I lived it and was involved in it. Many good persons are fighting immigration, and we will and must continue the fight until we have won it. There is no alternative (even for those wanting ultimate white secessionism). What are you doing for the white man’s cause (besides libeling white men as Jews)? BTW, where have you and your fellow Richardsian monocausalists gone off to? I won’t bother commenting there, but it might be good for a laugh or two. 99
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:57 | # @Lister
Not yet, Graham, and I’m feeling guilty about it. Your massive, April 1 comment #85 on the nationalism and money thread is deserving of extended reply, and I just haven’t gotten around to it. Of course, I could toss off something prepackaged, as it were, but that wouldn’t seem sufficiently respectful. Plus, I really feel strongly on this issue (not Nozickianism - though I thought his work Anarchy, State and Utopia was quite interesting (but Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, was better, if one wants a maximalist libertarian statement), and I’ve heard his Philosophical Explanations is very sophisticated), being at once strongly WN and strongly libertarian anti-statist. Reconciling those positions, and then integrating them with my Catholic faith, and publishing the result in book form, is a central goal of the remainder of my life. So I’ve held back because I’ve been so busy of late that I either wouldn’t do justice to my own position (and I’m competitive when criticized from the anti-capitalist Left), or I might end up spending several hours thinking about and formulating a response, which I’d then regret when turning back to my actual work. But I haven’t given up on a response; am just waiting for a clearing in the work-storm that is my life at present. Re: von Trier’s Antichrist, thank you for calling it to my attention. I hadn’t even heard of it (though not having a tv here at school with me, it may be a while before I get around to renting it). I’m rather plebeian in my cinematic tastes. Serious films, unlike serious novels, usually fail to engage me. I’m very biased towards literature (esp the novel) as the main form for interrogating human will and motivations. I just don’t think the visual can ever get as psychologically ‘deep’ as the literary (I may be wrong, of course, and/or aesthetically underdeveloped). I must say, however, that I’m a bit worried by von Trier’s ostensible dedication of the film to Tarkovsky. I’ve seen, I believe, 3 pics by the Russian, and heartily hated each of them. I occasionally attempt to improve my basically prole sensibility by forcing something ‘artsy’ like this on myself, and invariably regret it. I’m much better with literature. I don’t mind meandering about with Henry James; being ‘instructed’ by Iris Murdoch; the intensity of Doestoyevsky is edifying; the delicacy of Proust as well. But for whatever reason, I’m with the admittedly superficial David Mamet (routinely described as “brilliant” in the cultural wasteland called LA), who once memorably said that “movies should move”. Whatever the origins of my cinematic deficiencies, I agree. Tarkovsky is torture; von Trier, possibly, too. But the film does look like it would interest me (I’m sure some of the professors around here have strong opinions about it). Has anyone seen the Jack Londonish The Grey? I recommended it before here at MR, to no response. It was a very tough, unsentimental, even a bit existential little film. Very well directed and beautifully shot, exciting, yet raises (albeit somewhat ham-handedly) profound, meaning-of-life issues. I can’t believe it wouldn’t resonate with WNs, religious as well as atheist. Once more into the fray (My slightly modified version of a poem recited in the film.) 100
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:44 | # PM@77,85 Thanks for your words. Based on your comments, I cannot understand your self-description:
You seem very intelligent, and in the US would certainly not find yourself described as low-skilled labor. I know guys with six-figure incomes who would not express themselves nearly as sophisticatedly or articulately as you do. Is your condition an example of lingering British ‘classism’ (inherited stratification)? Or are you perhaps an untenured intellectual? If you are an example of an unskilled Englishman, then England is in much better ‘cognitive’ shape than my once (and future?) pub-crawls with the proles had led me to believe. Of course, Europeans in my experience are usually smarter than Euro-Americans, but my memories of the British common-man were less than stellar. 101
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:53 | #
Leon hopefully to a therapist of some type. And then a David Icke conference! Or would that be the other way around? 102
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:11 | # Americans work twice as hard as our European counterparts so we can pay for our methamphetamines. Figures that we inorganic fools would pick up chemical uppers rather than some mystical, organic, intoxicant. Mycopheliac cults we’ll leave to our earthy cousins across the Atlantic. 103
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:13 | # Let’s not forget where Icke hails from momo. Across the pond, we have a much more populist, pedestrian variety of conspiracy theory a la Alex Jones that takes concern for practical matters over reptilian bloodlines. 104
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:25 | # Lurker@66 Just something I posted on AR re Derbyshire:
105
Posted by X on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:28 | #
They have a much better grasp on this in Scotland:
“In recognition to his services to the world,’‘ Mr. Brown said as he presented Reverend Jackson the award, a crystal vase. “You have been an inspiration,’‘ the Prime Minister added. The men were joined by their wives as they posed for photographers in front of a huge fireplace in the Terra Cotta Room, where British Prime Ministers hosts foreign dignitaries “What a pleasure to meet you,’‘ Mr. Brown said.” I first heard you speak in 1984 at the Democratic Convention in San Francisco. ‘Keep hope alive.’ Wonderful.’” 106
Posted by Fr. John+ on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:58 | # You must have been smoking some GOOD sh*t to have written this column. What a pile of garbage. I can say nothing else…. well, I could say ‘Anathema sit,’ but that would be redundant. Post a comment:
Next entry: Civilization Takedown: Natural Duel as Universalism
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
(mooning)
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:56 | #
How does someone produce this stuff with an apparent straight face? Or are you having a little laugh at our expense?
If you have a theologically or at least philosophically informed ‘take’ on Christianity from a white preservationist perspective, I’d like to hear it. For example, does WP violate the spirit of Christ? That is not an easy question, implicating, inter alia, the metaphysical status of the secular realm, and the moral status of collective agency as well as attachment.
But this article is nothing but a bunch of undemonstrated and not well linked assertions.