|
|
To understand is to defeat.Dugin on the JQ
http://evrazia.org/article/1194 Promoted from a comment by jamesUK Posted by Søren Renner on Friday, December 25, 2009 at 11:58 AM in Comments:2
Posted by alex zeka on December 25, 2009, 01:54 PM | # What the hell can it mean to call Jews metaphysically different? That they’ve got their own religion? But Dugin seems to be saying that these metaphysical differences are more significant than political, cultural and national differences. Sounds like Dugin is just trying to make it seem as if ethnic differences aren’t basically biological but are something else completely. Calling them metaphysical accomplishes that (what can be less biological than differences that aren’t even physical), whilst giving it a sort of traditionalist vibe. I’m not even going to ask what an Indo-European elite is - as no such thing either exists atm or should (in the opinion of anyone who can be called a WN) exist. I can’t take Dugin seriously. 3
Posted by vo on December 26, 2009, 12:48 PM | # He doesn’t stress the importance of the metaphysical more-so over the political and cultural. He says ‘also.’ Understand? I sure as hell don’t, but I’m not into forgiving or defeating, just a sucker for the adage - winning/losing - no thanks - it’s how you play the game. 4
Posted by James Bowery on December 26, 2009, 09:02 PM | # In defense of Dugin, I can easily imagine a philosophy wherein “it” is founded on “bit”—or to use a more common idiom “matter” is founded upon “mind”. In that case the physical is an imperfect expression of the metaphysical. I think few would dispute that our genes are not ideal. What is the ideal? 5
Posted by jamesUK on December 27, 2009, 12:22 AM | # Excellent article and the best single (very) brief piece that defines the fundamental difference between Jew and non-Jew. I had to read the article twice to fully understand what Dugin was trying to convey in the article. I don’t have time to comment on it now but I will cover some of the things in the article and its main thesis commentators here obviously don’t get when reading the article because they only see things through race and genetics prism which is certainly a factor but is not everything. You have to get Professor Dugin on MR Radio.
6
Posted by Al Ross on December 27, 2009, 01:08 AM | # This tedious person’s dull -eyed prophet’s gaze into the far distance and his implied frenetic schedule’s inability to accommodate a weekly shave, combine to render him an ideal poster guru for those who wish to undermine the understanding of the JQ by the employment of faux - intellectualization. Jews adore the phrase, “Gestapo tactics” but here we may usefully observe “Jew tactics”. 7
Posted by Voronin on December 27, 2009, 03:29 AM | # Dugin is a non starter. Convoluted thinking proccesses calibrate his brain. He swims in a sea of theories conjured up in his mind. He sends forth a message , an unintelligible message, only comprehensible to himself. His ideas are so abstract as to be impossible to articulate and act upon in real and practical terms. 8
Posted by Captainchaos on December 27, 2009, 08:49 AM | # Dugin says:
9
Posted by Roger Gray on December 27, 2009, 10:16 AM | # I’m not convinced of Jewish peculiarity: comparative religion has persuaded me that the fabled Hebrew religious genius, though not nothing (Paul is a notable exemplar), owes a debt to several sources, Phoenician, Zoroastrian and Babylonian among them. The monomania for establishing monotheism has an antecedent in Egypt, from whence the Hebrews came; it was a specific movement among the Levite priesthood, and very much against the grain of the religious sensibilities of the ordinary people. The desire to eliminate all gods save one is a political goal: one god, one law, one noose, one neck. Its grim legacy has lasted to the present day. It undergirds hierarchy by abolishing divided loyalties (read: ambiguity). Every white nationalist must be a student of comparative religion: read Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled, Salomon Reinach’s Orpheus, Mircia Eliade, Joseph Campbell (if you’re an American and like beer) and Erich Neumann (if you’re a European and can take spirits). And, of course, Jung. Ambiguity is everything. Our religious ignorance fuels Jewish insolence, which grows stronger and more preposterous by the day. They would like to persuade us that 2,000 years of European history is a footnote in the Midrashim. Fuck ‘em. But what is this truth of which you speak? It is a worthy goal but a worthless prize. It can’t be found, but the looking is everything. 10
Posted by vo on December 27, 2009, 11:24 AM | # Excluded from the subject of metaphysics are accidental beings (entia per accidens) and beings of reason. An accidental being, in the sense excluded, is a juxtaposition of two or more beings which lack any (intrinsic) relation to one another. - Metaphysicorum IV c.1 q.1 s.3 - Pedro da Fonseca (1528-1599) The labyrinth continues in sources Phoenician, Zoroastrian and Babylonian… Blavatsky, Salomon Reinach, Mircia Eliade, Joseph Campbell, Erich Neumann, Jung. The labyrinth is even murkier in translation. No offense to Pedro, but heavens, an Esperanto interpretation might help in leading us out of the Metaphysicorum. I’ve yet to read a substantial amount of Blavatsky, in conjunction with Ouspensky. 11
Posted by jamesUK on December 27, 2009, 11:48 AM | # NEWSFLASH! I CAN’T ACCESS DUGIN SITE OR ARTICLE. IS THIS AN ANTI-DUGIN CONSPIRACY? CENSORSHIP!
EURASIAN COUNTER EURASIA WEBSITE DAYS OFFLINE: 1 Dugin outlines the fundamental difference between Jew and non-Jew western societies and there role in them how the perceive there purpose in the world, of being as a people which most defined by the schism between Jesus and his Christian followers and the Jews and there pharassies elders in Israel and there persecutions of Christians in Israel. Great analysis at the fundamental level to the Jewish psyche in shaping western and world societies. @Captainchaos You fool CC you have taken that one section completely out of context from the whole subject of what he was talking about modernity and post-modernity in western society and what model Russia is trying to emulate. I was going to post the trailers but they do not convey the underline theme of the movies. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 27, 2009, 12:53 PM | #
3,000. (Our history goes back to Homer, not Christ.) It’s 3,500 if you go back to the Mycenaeans, 5,000 if back to the Minoans but those are more “prehistoric” than “historic” so let’s say “The Jews would like to persuade us that 3,000 years of European history (etc.).” 14
Posted by Black Heart on December 27, 2009, 02:30 PM | # I don’t understand why some waste time bashing the likes of Dugin. No, he probably doesn’t present a unified world-view for most here. But there are chunks that are worth digesting. If nothing else his ideas are stimulating. Inspiring. Even Soren Renner gets the old cog-wheels turning. 15
Posted by Roger Gray on December 27, 2009, 02:57 PM | # “Our history goes back to Homer.” So it does. I was thinking of the Judeo-Christian stream, so called, but, being an admirer of Marcion, a stream I prefer to call simply Christian. As I said once to a moralizing Jew who was having a go at me: “When I want philosophy, I’ll go to the Greeks.” Of course, being the coward that I am, I said this with a smile. Even so, I believe he got the message. 16
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 27, 2009, 03:13 PM | # Dugin certainly says lots of good stuff, but 1) Why is JamesUK interested in him, since JamesUK is interested solely in pretend-“geopolitics” and Dugin primarily in ethnocultural/religious/philosophical matters? (Pretend-“geopolitics” because you don’t have real geopolitics when the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, and Russia have all been race-replaced with Negroes, Hottentots, Papua-New-Guineans, Mexican mestizos, Zombos, and North-African mulattoes, a process which JamesUK totally ignores, not understanding that as it advances ever further it does away with anything deserving of the name “geopolitics.” The “geo-politics” you have once that racial transformation is established bears the same relation to geo-politics as the “Monopoly” board game does to the world of investing or the pretend-“history” of Kenya and Angola, which my kids had to “study” in high school history class, bears to the history of Europe, ancient Rome, the United States, and so on, which my generation studied in high school history class.) 2) Dugin’s notion that “we are taking today our final glimpse of people, as the age of post-people, created by genetic engineering, is upon us” is wrong. People, un-genetically-engineered except in very minor ways such as curing certain diseases caused by single-mutation or pauci-mutation defects, are what we will be glimpsing and all we will be glimpsing for a long time to come, maybe forever for all we know. Designer babies are not around the corner. As things stand now, there is as much basis for saying we’ll never have them as for saying we’ll have them in five thousand years or five hundred. The reason they aren’t anywhere in sight is the biology of making significant changes and having them mesh with everything they have to mesh with is unimaginably complex, far beyond human capacity now and no one can foresee any change in that. Almost a decade ago Godless Capitalist was predicting designer babies for intelligence and racial characteristics “in twenty years” and on that basis was dismissing concerns about race-and-immigration on grounds race would be mastered in the designer-baby laboratory in two more decades, so was soon to be irrelevant, a thing of the past. Well, we’re half-way to the deadline and have made how much progress toward that goal? Zero, and worse than that, the obstacles to it are now understood to be way more daunting than they appeared a decade ago when numbskull GC was shooting off his mouth — so in a sense we’ve actually made negative progress toward that “goal.” And the progress is likely to get negativer and negativer, something like our experience with the “progress” toward mastering electric power generation from nuclear fusion only more so. 3) I’m glad Russia (and Slavic/Baltic/Finn Europe in general) is around. As Dugin says, they do seem to be nowhere nearly as mired in self-annihilation as we are. They’re sort of a lifeboat moored alongside the West’s shipwreck. Let’s hope they cut themselves adrift from this foundering sinking hulk before they’re dragged down to Davy Jones’ Locker with it, and make their way back to existence, life, and meaning. Listening here to Dugin, I think I can sense a hint of what CvH finds so attractive about the people, society, and culture he represents. 17
Posted by Roger Gray on December 27, 2009, 03:22 PM | # To those who might not understand what Dugin is referring to with regard to Deleuze and rhizomatic being, this website might help you: http://www.jeffvail.net/ Read “A Theory of Power”, which comes as a PDF. Dugin, a radical conservative, will, I surmise, have none of Vail’s contention that hierarchy is root and branch the cause of humankind’s misery and should be destroyed. I confess that I cleave more to Vail than Dugin. 18
Posted by Roger Gray on December 27, 2009, 04:25 PM | # “The whole of the archaic was pumped into modernity, and fed this huge, demonic energy.” When I heard this statement of Dugin’s, I was reminded immediately of Pauwel and Bergier’s The Morning of the Magicians. In this peculiar book, one statement has stood out for me: that Hitler’s occult-led regime “opened a trapdoor” to another realm through which poured an energy that, for a moment, transfigured mere history into a moment of eternal, spiritual import. That trapdoor apparently shut, but the underground rumour has it that, at least two portals (through which demonic energy has come) have been opened permanently: by Aleister Crowley in Long Island; and by Parsons and L Ron Hubbard in Pasadena. Apparently, the great wave of 1950s UFO phenomena began (was given permission) from the time of these magical workings. What to make of this? Let me go out on a limb and say: Only a bloody Russian would regard Nazism, to this day, as an artefact of modernity. How backward-leaning are these people, anyway? 19
Posted by Captainchaos on December 27, 2009, 06:39 PM | #
Hmm, considering the source I just can’t get too worked up.
Listen to yourself. Are you telling me that Dugin didn’t say what I quoted him as saying?
No shit. But his false dichotomy as laying out the only ways forward for our race as either going back to a total embrace of religious traditionalism or going forward to post-humanity is, well, both a dichotomy and false.
LOL! Damn, you give a garbled rendition. According to Dugin’s own “system” of thought the Russian people have not yet achieved modernity, which he characterizes as being defined by reason and will, both indispensable for self-conscious direction. According to Dugin, Russia is certainly gravitating in a healthier direction than the West, but this is largely unconscious; and also being pushed in that direction by the Putin clique, but, again, Putin & Co. are doing this largely out of an instinctual perception of what is in the interests of their people. In other words, Putin and his men are of good character, though not guided by a systematic intellectual understanding of their people’s interests. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on December 27, 2009, 08:59 PM | # James, CC has good instincts, and in my estimation got it about right with that quote. Like me, he was always sure to remove Dugin’s religionism and related revolutionary conservatism from the equation, and also the commentary about the modernism and postmodernism of the West (which I feel suffers from Dugin’s application of the same rough analytic tool he uses for his geopolitical musings). Certainly, from my own wholly Western perspective, the quote CC pulled from the interview is pregnant with meaning. We in the West cannot “transition into a conservative revolution”, of course. We do “have to go all the way and say that the entire program of the enlightenment, and not just its postmodernistic outgrowths - all of it - is fundamentally and profoundly mistaken.” Whether that makes people like CC and I, who would willingly “go all the way” true conservative believers is open to question, to put it mildly. But speaking for myself, I do not look back to a lost European tradition, conservative, religious or otherwise. I look within to a present European being, and need no intermediary belief to light the way. Perhaps later, if there are friends of MR who calculate that such an essentialist prospect is viable and can contribute to its proper formation ... perhaps then it might be interesting to have a discussion with Dugin. We shall see. 21
Posted by PF on December 27, 2009, 09:10 PM | # Captain Chaos wrote:
well said. 22
Posted by PF on December 27, 2009, 09:13 PM | # Roger Gray wrote:
Hey Rog, I like your viewpoint, have you distilled your thoughts anywhere else on the web, that I might read them? cheers 23
Posted by Guessedworker on December 27, 2009, 09:16 PM | # Hey Rog, I like your viewpoint, have you distilled your thoughts anywhere else on the web, that I might read them? Same thought occurred to me. 24
Posted by Q on December 27, 2009, 09:53 PM | #
Just a word to the wise: Smart, effective writers, write in such a way that make complex issues understandable to unsophisticated readers. 25
Posted by Captainchaos on December 27, 2009, 10:26 PM | # JamesUK has apparently not even gotten past the stage of recognizing that Russians are White. How do I know that? Because he takes great pains in pointing out to White Nationalists upon first encountering them that they do not think Russians are White, despite the protests of White Nationalists to the contrary. Notice, he does not tell those White Nationalists himself that Russians are White, only that they think that Russians are not White, despite the fact that they just told him that they do in fact think Russians are White. The clear inference: JamesUK does not himself think Russians are White. The next clear inference: JamesUK has a thick skull. Take a look at Dugin, will you James? One pasty bastard, no? I mean, shave that beard (or at least trim it), put a football jersey on his ass, break a bottle over his head, and train him in the Scottish brogue and you would not be able to tell him from the brawling hooligans you no doubt have such disdain for. I like Russians and their culture and think that’s the way to go -> Russians are not White -> White Nationalists will therefore reject Russians and their culture and the right way to go = piss poor reasoning I’m sorry to be so hard on you James, only you deserve it. 26
Posted by Søren Renner on December 27, 2009, 11:02 PM | #
What vulgar nonsense. 27
Posted by jamesUK on December 28, 2009, 01:01 AM | # NEWSFLASH! PROFESSOR DUGINS SITE IS BACK ONLINE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfB24v00aSk Don’t know what he is saying as it has no English subtitles but his opening remark sounds like he is calling Obama a freak. He also talks about a beard in another video but that is in Russian to. @Captainchaos
Yes a great philosopher
No, but you have taken the quote out of context from the rest of the video.
No that’s not what he is saying he is saying that Russia like the West is fallowing an imposed alien philosophy with no structured tradition or heritage that we should concern ourselves with that’s why all the European states and especially Britain follow the dictates of the US. The same can be said for our pitiful controlled mass media. The Jews don’t like Obama because they think he will get tough on Israel being a Brzezinski puppet like Carter so they say he is a non American Marxist Muslim who wants to socialise the US creating USSR garbage. Of course the US has been a Trotskyite USSR state for decades. So they create and promote Sarah Palin as Ronald Reagan with tits who will go up against Obama in 2012 and bitch and moan about Obamas policies in the main time (not that she knows what the hell she is talking about) with many Israeli Jews in her staff and unwavering support for the only country to commit multiple terror attacks against the US Israel which is the “patriotic” thing to do. Yawn.
Good summary which is pretty much what Dugin outlined in the establishment of The Centre of Conservative Studies in the Department of Sociology at Moscow State University. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XI3eqEteT0 @Fred Scrooby Pretend geo-politics nothing especially in regards to immigration and is pivotal in understanding human and societal developments. Geo-politics is something that Dugin comments on quite frequently. I will cover each of your points later. 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 28, 2009, 09:01 AM | # As the saying goes, even a broken clock tells the correct time twice every 24 hours, and, consistent with that saying, JamesUK has it right here:
That is exactly, every word of it, correct. Ever since Obama’s Cairo speech he’s been the target of press and media attacks of a kind that were utterly absent theretofore, whether during his presidency or his existence as a senator. He had never been seriously attacked before because the Jews adored the idea of a Negro in high office. To me, as I watched these attacks, it couldn’t have been more obvious it was solely because the Jews, or at least a significant segment of them, disliked his Cairo speech and what they decided it revealed about where his sympathies lay vis-à-vis. You saw lots of commentary around the blogosphere to the effect that “U.S. whites were waking up to the downside of having a black president” (if memory serves, I think our own Bill here at MR posted something to that effect, and you saw it at lots of other places), or “the American people were waking up to the downside of looming USSR type socialism,” but I’m sorry, it’s none of any of that. (Furthermore, there’s nothing wrong with a degree of socialism provided the nation-state is racially/ethnoculturally homogeneous.) It’s only Jews getting restless and firing warning shots across the bow of the Jews who are running the Obama Administration, warning them they had better not let Obama go too far with his pro-Palestinian sympathies no matter how much he, as a Negro and communist who is naturally sympathetic to “people of color,” personally wants to. What you’re seeing is one faction of Jews, a more practical-minded faction, warning another faction of Jews, the more radical Trotskyist types who are running the Obama show, not to go to far in their “even-handedness in the Near East” notions or they’re going to make lots of trouble for their man Obama through the press and media. That’s absolutely all this “new attitude toward Obama” is: two factions of Jews squabbling over not letting U.S. policy toward Israel veer too far toward the kind of even-handedness the marxist faction in the Obama crew desire to flirt with and Obama himself doubtless is attempting to insist on behind the scenes because he’s a communist Negro white-hater. For the Jews running the press and media here, it’s fine if he hates whites if whites means Eurochristians. In fact, that’s the ideal: Jews always want to unleash Negro white-haters against Eurochristians to help keep the latter down and in line. It’s not fine if he starts showing signs of hating Israelis as part of his white-hatred. That’s streng verboten! 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 28, 2009, 09:05 AM | # revealed about where his sympathies lay vis-à-vis Israel 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 28, 2009, 09:13 AM | #
JamesUK: can you understand what race-replacement portends for your cherished geopolitics and for lots of other important aspects of the lives of white-race nations and peoples? I don’t think you can. Do you even know what the expression “race-replacement” means? I don’t think you do. I think you’re clueless in that regard. Prove me wrong. (Now watch him prove me right.) 31
Posted by PF on December 28, 2009, 11:22 AM | # Fred, your style of argument is different from what I remember before, it looks more sophisticated. You’re getting all intellectual on us! 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 28, 2009, 12:35 PM | # I try to keep it down to Earth, PF. I’m a simple guy. I don’t understand big words or notions. I see a race. The white race. I see that race getting replaced. On purpose. I don’t like it. The preceding 19 words sum me up entirely. Those 19 words are the whole story of Fred Scrooby, all there is to him. 33
Posted by Captainchaos on December 28, 2009, 07:52 PM | #
That is a point not worth addressing as it is in stark contrast to reality. The Jews exercise decisive control of the entire spectrum of the political process. There are two things I don’t expect to come from Dugin anytime soon: 1.) The articulation of his desire to see a pan-White block of all White nations come into being. 2.) His exhorting the European-derived people of America to dissolve the American regime so their and the existence of all White people globally can be secured in perpetuity. No, what he says is that he hopes Obama expands the rights and roles of mestizos and Blacks in our society. I have got it from you in the past that you are nearly indifferent to the fate of your own Scottish people and to the indigenous population of the UK generally. Fuck you, and fuck Dugin! 34
Posted by Al Ross on December 28, 2009, 09:16 PM | # As is so often the case, CC displays an instinctively sound grasp of matters combined with an impressive unwillingness to suffer fools gladly. 35
Posted by remnantvnn on December 28, 2009, 09:57 PM | # Hey James, why not post this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxRKPSw4sN8 Dugin laments how Africa ” suffers under the US boot”...he hopes to see 36
Posted by PF on December 28, 2009, 10:45 PM | # What a strange video that is you’ve posted, remnant. It makes obvious how much Dugin’s reasoning is impeded by assumptions he’s made, as any man must, For example, look at him voice the opinion that WASPs somehow are synonymous with America military I think when we talk about Russia, we must make all the same hilarious mistakes as he makes Just let one of us try to reason about Russia, the Russian soul, or the future of Russia, from our distant oh PF, what a great critic you are…. if only criticism had a higher pay-off, I would feel less gay when 38
Posted by Captainchaos on December 28, 2009, 11:17 PM | #
That’s what I was alluding to.
No PF, I’m afraid that is wide of the mark. If Dugin isn’t aware that the “oligarchs” who were calling the shots in Russia for a time were Jewish organized criminals, many of whom have now taken their money and sought refuge in the West, then his head is so far up his ass as not to merit any of our consideration. Now, if he is aware of that, and of course he is, it damn well stands to reason that he knows just who runs shit in America. Of course he is aware of that, it ain’t really that hard to find it out if one will look into it. And if he weren’t aware of it why else would he write this: “The world of «Judaica» is a world hostile to us.” What Dugin is doing is engaging in propaganda couched as ‘sophisticated’ political and ‘intellectual’ analysis tuned to please his benefactors - the Putin clique. In other words, he is lying, and shitheads like JamesUK eat it up with a spoon. Intelligence alone will not suffice to deliver you to the truth, toughness of mind is also required. 39
Posted by PF on December 28, 2009, 11:24 PM | # Thats very interesting CC.
I think it makes more sense than what I was saying - since he appears very smart. I wouldnt think he would think so stupidly about political stuff. What benefit accrues to the Putin clique in getting him to lie this way?
I agree with this. Just wondering - how do you define or conceptualize toughness of mind? 40
Posted by Captainchaos on December 28, 2009, 11:44 PM | #
To criticize their enemies in round about fashion, to protect their power base even amongst their own people as it is obvious the Putin clique is not doing all it could for them - as the Putin clique are not true National Socialists. There is nothing on this earth that would arouse the full wrath of the powers that be in the West were a powerful, or even a not powerful, White nation to challenge them directly. Look at what became of Germany, look at what became of Lindbergh.
One has to understand what one’s true interests are and resolve not, under any circumstance, to be cheated out of them. In short: Never to be played for a sucker. A Leader takes on that responsibility for the group. 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 28, 2009, 11:46 PM | # “It takes years spent in immersion in a country to even be able to conceptualize it as anything but a stereotype.” (—PF) That’s right. It wasn’t until after I’d lived two years in Europe, speaking nothing but French, Walloon, Plattdeutsch, and Flemish the whole time, that I began for the first time in my life to understand Europeans and their culture and civilization and to understand that we Americans were inferior to them. During most of those first two years I looked down on them as inferior to us. Boy was I wrong, as I came to comprehend. When you finally see it, you are astonished at how wrong you were. I always tell Americans who are planning foreign travel exactly what PF said. I tell them “you will not know a country till you’ve lived in it two years, frequenting only the people of the country, speaking only their language, not hanging around with other American expats speaking English and reading the International Herald Tribune. Three months won’t do it. Six months won’t do it. A year won’t do it. Give your self two full years. Then you’ll know the country for the first time, know for the first time in your life something different from being an American.” 42
Posted by PF on December 29, 2009, 12:13 AM | # CC wrote:
So extreme vigilance and distrust are synonymous with mental toughness? I take it as a willingness to embrace one’s antithesis in spite of strong emotional fallout incurred by that decision. Basically a commitment to truth above even one’s own emotional well-being. Just like unqualified toughness denotes a willingness to face realities/experiences without regard to the negative emotions they stir up in oneself, or in spite of those emotions. 43
Posted by jamesUK on December 29, 2009, 01:44 AM | # @remnantvnn
You are taking the comment out of context from the video about Obama being the perceived as the new Gorbachev of the “change” he promised from the previous Bush regime. 44
Posted by Andrew Yeoman on December 29, 2009, 02:25 AM | # I’m a fan of Dugin’s perspectives even if it is not exactly my own. 45
Posted by Grimioire on December 29, 2009, 08:53 AM | # Well. the beard demands respect. Beardwise, the man is a mystic prophet. How many years will pass before you realize that it was never Dugun talking, it was the beard? All along? Many are fooled….still the beard slips in and out of the consciousness of the children of the West…. undetected….a cypher. Dugun will go down for this surely, but the beard will escape….time and again. When will you wake up? 46
Posted by PF on December 29, 2009, 10:58 AM | #
that is fucking funny! I was actually too tied up in trying to realize if you were saying something real/non-facetious to completely let the joy of the joke hit me, but oh well.
48
Posted by Matra on December 29, 2009, 08:58 PM | # identify more with his white identity and continue WASP establishment interests from the Bush regime. WASPs are the American establishment in 2009? Another Russian Stanislav Mishin of Mat Rodina has a similar view. He even blames so-called Anglos for making Russia communist in the 20th century. Forget Judeo-Bolshevism it was Anglo-Marxism all along! 49
Posted by Captainchaos on December 29, 2009, 09:02 PM | #
A man is not a scientific instrument of observation, but a flesh and blood creature, as are his people to which his interests are bound by virtue of that. He and his must have what resources are needed to propagate said, so too his competitors who are the Other. And therein lies the conflict, does it not? The ultimate interest is not truth but the propagation of one’s and one’s fellows being.
“Embrace” to my ear implies more than lending necessary consideration to enable understanding, but extending an attitude of emotional positivity to a given ideational prospect. In other words open-mindedness, and that done for its own sake, as is too common amongst our people, is decidedly not toughness of mind.
Sounds good to me in part, although not complete to my mind in light of a man being a flesh and blood creature; there is the additional criterion of unflinching pursuit of his interests. 50
Posted by Gudmund on December 29, 2009, 10:52 PM | #
Yes, ultimately without the life of our people the search for truth is meaningless. Something many so-called racialists fail to understand. Not that we ought to harbor delusions of course, but we are first and foremost servants of life, not truth. 51
Posted by Q on December 29, 2009, 11:22 PM | #
Vulgar you say? Heh heh heh! Here is another dose of Q’s vulgarity, SR…..Bach extrapolated: 52
Posted by PF on December 30, 2009, 12:29 AM | # CC wrote:
and Gudmund echoed:
The first difficulty arises because we haven’t distinguished between individual survival and group survival. Individual survival is experienced necessarily as a physical event, if one truly is endangered - although there is a mental dimension that this can be experienced in as well. Group survival is necessarily experienced as a mental event and a reality created pre and post hoc, and therefore relies on indices of group well-being to monitor its progress or regress. These metrics or indices might be packaged together in conceptual blocks such as “national glory”, “death of our people”, “thriving of our people”, “Endsieg”, etc. Each of these blocks of indices require intellectual evaluation processes to monitor them, since owing to the progression of time and changing circumstances they are vulnerable to degradation/infiltration/inflation/irrelevance. Therefore on the collective level every action encompassed under the rubric of “being a servant of life” is necessarily qualified by an intellectual evaluation process of whether or not that act of “servitude” is going to result in a net benefit. Being a “servant of life” without any effect does not get one anything, except for non-existent imaginary brownie points. Only people in a certain moral belief system see any value in these points, their real value is nil - since the whole venture is justified and predicated on improved group survival metrics anyway, its ingenuine to give those who tried hard but didnt help some kind of going away prize. People may attempt to do that to prop up the belief system but life does not itself reward fruitless action flowing from supposedly benign motivation. Perhaps in one’s imagination some reconstituted central government would be this brownie point redeemer. Its also disingenuous to seek to label those who are not operating within one’s own framework as “seeking death” or “choosing Truth above life” simply because they are not conscious of our collective danger and because their actions - extrapolated to false finality - would result in the death of our people (according to one’s [very likely fallacious] mental models of future historical development). My point is that neither was the Nazi soldier dying dutifully in fact choosing “Life above Truth”, nor is the mendacious liberal university student choosing “Truth above Life” - because they are both living in error in the moment of their action. The idea that either one of them gets brownie points for having a certain motivation is local indoctrination, and it exists in both systems. There is also something higher than being a committed cog in the wheel of a survival machine for a group of people. 53
Posted by jamesUK on December 30, 2009, 02:44 AM | # @Matra
Are thou Jews not the WASP establishment? Does thou revered noble sages like Jared Taylor not consider thou Jews WASP elites? 54
Posted by Grimioire on December 30, 2009, 04:47 AM | # ponder this: beard = bush regime
When you see those dime-store groucho glasses with the plastic mustachio & hooked nose; you think you know who it is being caricatured….but have you ever asked yourself, what is missing? What is there by not being there? it slips in and out of the conciousness of the children of the west iike a cypher 55
Posted by Gudmund on December 30, 2009, 01:32 PM | # PF, Thank you for your thoughtful post, I agree with most of it to be honest. However I think you were over-analyzing the point I made. In truth it wasn’t my intention to moralize or whatever, merely to make an observation regarding utility, viz. if we are truly racialists the survival is the telos or something like that. I expect no brownie-points in this life nor in any other. 56
Posted by Captainchaos on December 30, 2009, 06:23 PM | #
Strictly speaking, adopting a thoroughgoing materialist perspective (in which the mind does not survive the death of the physical body), there is not survival for the individual or the group. The individual will one day die, and regardless whether or not he reproduces, his self same being will therefore cease to exist. And the group, taken as an enumerated collection of specific individuals, will so too cease to exist in that one and eventually all of said will die and there will be no self same collection of individuals to take its place.
Experienced, yes, but dependent upon, no. Let’s say you are in a coma, you are not experiencing the continuity of your being then, and yet you continue to be, to survive. So I’ll ask you, if you knew for a fact that you would experience a coma in the future, would you be indifferent to whether or not you would be able to go on experiencing your survival, your continued existence, once you came out of it, even though for the period of the coma for all you were concerned you would not exist? Also, what if you knew for a fact that once you came out of the coma you would have no memory at all of the bit of your life that preceded it, would you be indifferent to whether or not what there was of you left survived then? Btw, in pilpuling this thing to death we’re actually doing some relevant philosophy here. 57
Posted by danielj on December 30, 2009, 07:13 PM | # Btw, in pilpuling this thing to death we’re actually doing some relevant philosophy here. Finally…. Sounds like your swingin’ our way by the way. 59
Posted by Captainchaos on December 30, 2009, 07:29 PM | #
I want to see how PF responds to my statements and queries before I lay down my hand. 60
Posted by danielj on December 30, 2009, 08:12 PM | # Maybe you should just keep your cards close regardless? I invest lots of significance in the goings on here so play it right. 61
Posted by Captainchaos on December 30, 2009, 08:56 PM | # I’m not ‘out to get’ anyone, if that is what you are insinuating. This is how I advance my own understanding, with a back and forth. Too dumb to play Heidegger, you know. 62
Posted by danielj on December 30, 2009, 09:00 PM | # Not at all. I was pretty sure you were done with ‘out to get’ after Takimag. Besides, PF isn’t one one should be out to get. 63
Posted by Guessedworker on December 30, 2009, 09:15 PM | # CC, First, the caveat: I think - won’t claim to know - that as one approaches this something called being, one may become at least partially aware of two things. First, one might see that by its very nature thought is a distancing process. It opens spaces between our perceptive capacity and the object of our interest, spaces that cannot be so easily crossed. One can only think about being, and then not exactly about being, but more about what exists - even in quite a coarse sense - and, perhaps, just perhaps, about how we are cast onto the surface of being itself. Our life-process is, at some absolutely primary level, the existent. But that’s the limit of it thought-wise, it seems to me. Being in any pure sense is always beyond that, always too large, too elusive, always too good at defying our puny efforts to grasp it in our fingers. I do not know what it is, or what is, except that it is before everything, and I badly need to acknowledge the limitations of the intellectual method. The second realisation one might have while trying to penetrate the mist is that, for an honest man, it is quickly less clear who is doing this. I mean, it is less clear who is this thinker, and what is he in relation to the being in question? Accepting that the latter must be entangled in, even inseparable from, time, it must possess qualities of singularity and permanence that utterly elude the fractured mess we like to call “I”. And now it might begin to dawn upon us that thought cannot touch the face of this Dasein in Dasein, as Heidegger called it, because in our ordinary state of psychological function consciousness remains rooted in the intellectual centre. The adventure that is the stealing of knowledge of this beautiful, essential Subject is one involving not thought at all but consciousness, and not books but experience. This, however, does not relieve us in the slightest of the obligation to try. Now, the blog comment: Being is essential to Nature. This would be a fine arrangement where it not for the second law of thermodynamics. Imagine the millions of times Nature must have flicked the lighter wheel before the reproductive flame lit, and we mortals, we fronds and fish, bacteria, birds, monkeys and men could go forth and, er ... well. Our brief lives are the sublime carriage of Nature in and through time, or Being-Time, like the steel rim of a carriage wheel which rests on the road surface for an instant and forever. The knowledge of living and dying and the response that we desire to live float up from our established place in this process. The reproductive drive, reproductive interest, interest at the level of the single gene, love of self, love of kind, love of life itself ... all ideational models and emotional consequences stand far apart from the process itself. But all have their arisings in it. Anyone who conceives the possibility of spreading survivalism to Europeans by synthesising them all into a whole tied to Nature and to Nature’s essence may, to borrow from Cpt Oates, be gone for some time! This, however, does not relieve us in the slightest of the obligation to try. 64
Posted by PF on December 30, 2009, 10:36 PM | # CC wrote:
Interesting question. Yes I would want to survive and I would probably have mixed emotions about losing my prior memories, no definite ‘stance’ on that per se. 65
Posted by PF on December 30, 2009, 10:38 PM | # GW just tried to explain what Being is using an extended passage!!!! yeaahh! score! I mean its the first time I’ve seen it happen. 66
Posted by PF on December 30, 2009, 10:57 PM | # GW is clarifying that the intellectually recognized fact of our survival is not the same as Being. CC used the terms interchangeably in two passages above:
The one has to be experienced through the mind (i.e. via thought), the other cannot be. 67
Posted by Guessedworker on December 31, 2009, 12:23 PM | # PF, I am only pointing out the very real danger of taking this venture too lightly and too simplistically. It is, in contrast, the very personification of weightiness and complexity, made the moreso since we are bound to the use of thought, ideational models and words, which are the only tools political philosophy has available. We should be especially careful not to compress the arguments too much, in search of utility. Heidegger wrote a vast book, even inventing his own terms, and spent the rest of his life refining and explicating his positions. That’s how it is, I’m afraid. Politics can’t be plugged directly in to reflections on existence like a household appliance to an electric socket. But that doesn’t mean that the connection isn’t there. Self-evidently, it is. The cord is simply longer than CC is allowing for. It passes through the “sockets” of an organic life and of natural interest, and leads on to Man’s existence in Nature, and finally the absolute of all that is tied to time. If, perhaps, it is dangerous to begin in the end-place, we are not bound to begin at the beginning. But it helps occasionally to explain why an existential curative for an existenial wound is mete. When Soren observed in London that liberalism is the struggle against the struggle for existence, he neatly encapulated the injury inflicted by a global philosophy of artifice upon the global reality of an organic life. It was bound to be thus. Right from its beginnings, liberalism was a thing made grotesque by, basically, an argument by men of faith with their God. In tearing down the intellectual and social suzereignty of God’s Church, these men contrived to tip away Christianity’s only saving political graces: that it did no more than bestow the state of perfection upon the dead and commend adaptive behaviours for the living. The liberal rebels, however, being men of faith and not reason, allocated human perfection to the living, did not distinguish theory from fact, and re-ordered human behaviour accordingly. By these means the life of whites in the West, where lived the 19th and 20th century Jews who have seized upon them for their own millenarian ends, has come to such a pass. And this is why only the most deep-rooted system of existential thought - allowing Europeans our organic life but disallowing all artifice, liberal or Jewish, can make a counter-movement complete and its politics sustaining. 68
Posted by PF on December 31, 2009, 02:36 PM | # If our comments provoke you to write beautiful essays GW than I suppose we should continue to supply them! Recapping what has happened here: 1. We were discussing Dugin’s political commentary about Obama and American culture. I said these were the self-deceptions of a man who had pontificated brilliantly on other subjects but was helpless to pierce the veil of cultural and geographical distance in trying to make for himself a picture of something so complex as “America”. 2. Captain Chaos wrote that Dugin’s stance was a dissimulation(deception) undertaken to support the Putin clique. I agreed with the assertion at the time but since then consider this dubious on the grounds that CC could not have this knowledge, and that Dugin’s idiosyncratic anti-WASP blathering is genuinely his own. I can’t see the reality of a man of his calibre aping rhetoric for a ruling clique. Such a transaction appears implausible. 3. Apparently as a general heuristic, Captain Chaos suggested ‘toughness of mind’ was necessary, beyond mere intelligence, in understanding this problem. 4. Wanting to agree with his assertion instinctively but having no parsimonious intellectual concept of what ‘toughness of mind’ meant, I asked him to explain what he meant by that. 5. CC responded: “One has to understand what one’s true interests are and resolve not, under any circumstance, to be cheated out of them. In short: Never to be played for a sucker. A Leader takes on that responsibility for the group.” 6. I countered that distrusting others and being ever vigilant were not the essence of mental toughness, since this leaves one open to one’s own self-deception (not stated). I therefore said that mental toughness seems to consist in a willingness to embrace antitheses without regard to emotional fallout in oneself. This implies self-criticism and open-mindedness to the Other. 7. Captain Chaos, in scanning what I said, apparently found a mental model which he associates with what he regards as the degenerate strain of American/western culture, which would be “too much open-mindedness” or “too much emotional positivity to the ideations of the Other”. (This is me reverse engineering CC’s mindset and may be inaccurate). He wrote: “In other words open-mindedness, and that done for its own sake, as is too common amongst our people, is decidedly not toughness of mind.” 8. The issue now seems to be that CC is not sure where my advocacy of self-criticism/open-mindedness can be employed for self empowerment without degenerating into some individualized version of the results of our social Culture of Critique. In some way he (probably) imagines that open-mindedness and self-criticism naturally results in something like the Culture of Critique. My rejoinder to this implicit assumption is that it all depends on who the pilot is, and his emotional relationship to the object of the criticism. If refugee Jewish scholars are entrusted with leading American society into self-criticism, they may prove to be bad shepherds, since they are not linked to their sheep by bonds of love. Yet the context of this general heuristic as CC advocated it (toughness of mind) is that one would be carrying it out within one’s own head - in which case, one can presumably be trusted not to deconstruct oneself masochistically. One should consider that the Culture of Critique could in fact be cleared up - by more Critique. Critique negates critique. So even if one piece of critique were devastating at one level, another one above that invalidates it, or rather relativizes it. 9. I critiqued CC’s “survivalism” as expressed in a quote by saying that national survival is not the same as personal survival, and can only be monitored with thought processes. At any point then, an emotional abandonment of the priority of truth in the name of “life” - i.e. dodging self-criticism because one risks triggering a personalized Culture of Critique within oneself if one is too open-minded towards antitheses - that this abandonment of truth would corrupt the “service” of “life” i.e. the furtherance of group survival. A Prussian Nazi soldier dying in a fit of romanticized glory, on the spot where weeks later roving Soviet soldiers will have their grotesque way with all remaining East German women - is an example of collectively laying aside the truth search emotively in the name of an idea of self-preservation. Yet the idea of self-preservation was confused - as it would be when one stops or obviates the truth search. Hitler spoke of the need for grain, the Sudetenland, the importance of Tirol - if anyone fails to see the irrelevance of these things to 90% of Germans, and their mere function as ego-indices of group survival in an us-vs-them napoleonic “national glory” paradigm, they ought to revisit the picture. How many men died in trenches to prevent some imagined form of… dying in trenches? The point is that the idea of self-preservation of a group is itself always open to corruption. 10. CC posed the coma question. I’m not clear where he’s going with that. 11. GW gave a caveat for dealing with being through thinking about being. He then explained that survival as we experience it and conceive of it, and all that we do to achieve it etc. - is not the same as the fact of our being, from which all this arises. 12. Then in response to a comment of mine he further clarified his prior comment and described the interface of spiritual concepts with political ones, putting it all in the context of our historical situation vis-a-vis liberalism and the breakdown of Christianity.
To my mind you were trying to express the fact that thought does not touch being directly. To say that we need to avoid taking things lightly and simplistically seems to mean that we require a perspicacity and thoroughgoingness which would have us pursue critical self-awareness to the point of questioning the limits of thought itself.
I get what you mean by end-place, what do you mean by the beginning? 69
Posted by PF on December 31, 2009, 03:25 PM | # By the way GW what do you make of the English Defense League? They seem to have sprung up overnight. 70
Posted by EuroNationalist on December 31, 2009, 03:44 PM | # Nationalists taking to the streets is always a good thing. We must reach out to the gangs and hooligans, the chaps with the shaved heads and tattoos and Adidas trainers. When the whole thing sets off, like it or not, these groups will be in the vanguard of the struggle. However, with the English Defence League, there are two (2) reservations. (1) The EDL are funded by 4 Freedoms, a staunchly pro-Israel group: http://4freedoms.ning.com/?xg_source=badge (2) This may explain in part the EDL’s obligatory politically correct views on race and the involvment of Africans and mixed-race folk in the group. Maybe at this time this is as good as it gets. Maybe in time the EDL and related organisations will become explicitly White Nationalist. Progress, not perfection. 71
Posted by Guessedworker on December 31, 2009, 10:01 PM | # PF, Excellent summary. You seem to have a weakness for tangible results - I assume that’s why you like to drive the thread doggies to the next waterhole! “The beginning” I provided in that second comment. It is a critical analysis of liberalism and, from what I can see, pretty much the whole of the output of European New Right and White Nationalist thought. It is a dead end. 72
Posted by Captainchaos on December 31, 2009, 10:11 PM | # GW,
That depends upon the scope, quality and comprehensiveness of our perception of a given object. Perhaps a dog’s perception of a rabbit running in front of the former captures the essence of that event more truly than all the myriad ways in which it could be parsed and explained by men of science, yet the dog’s perception is also obviously lacking the insights gleaned by said scientific analysis. So, something gained, yet also something lost. There will be no discovery or application of a second law of thermodynamics used to examine and explain not only the rabbits running but also the universe coming from a dog. As such, the dog’s ability to perceive what is in all its scope is severely truncated as contrasted with a man’s.
But can a dog, or an ape, or a man who can learn to still his thoughts, ever do more than perceive some qualitative (the quantitative requires thought) semblance of being? I can’t see how it or he could.
In that it is manifest within the level of complexity of the dynamic interaction of matter and energy within the spectrum of probability of ‘behavior’ of the material universe Man has discovered through scientific observation and thought. And these same processes are what produces consciousness and thought. In other words, it occurs within the realm of the spectrum of the possible, it is real. That which can be conceptualized beyond the spectrum of the possible is not real, as it is not physically possible. Assuming we define it as such, aren’t we forced logically to say that ‘being’ is what ‘is’, and that what ‘is’ is ‘being’? And if so, how are we to get at the truest perception of being if we cannot first describe, discover and become aware of the fundamental dynamics of what is? Also, clearly perception of being is not syonymous with being (and I never thought or claimed that it was), in that some things are yet do not perceive (e.g., a stone), yet, some things do perceive and are (e.g., a dog), so clearly perception is a (possible) part of being. 73
Posted by Captainchaos on December 31, 2009, 11:34 PM | # PF,
And I came in to critique Dugin’s commentary in that it is easily demonstrably false. My angle? An implicit argument for the superiority of a National Socialist world view and for National Socialism itself. It is a debate well worth having, the fate of the race hangs in the balance. But I think it profitable to come at it indirectly as this is less likely to inflame the emotional attachments and emotional predispositions opponents to National Socialism may have.
Nor can you have the knowledge that what I claim is not the case. What you can do, and what you are doing, is going over reasons why what I say of Dugin is probably not the case. That is precisely what I was doing, except contra.
I did.
You make two assumptions here, the second grounded in the first: that Dugin is “a man of [substantial] calibre” and that therefore he would not play his violin the way Putin likes to here it. I can point out, and with your own words, evidence that to my eye that negates your first assumption, thereby negating the logic for your second assumption, hence negating your second assumption, that is, if you wish to stick with the underlying logic - that is that assumptions of what is when definitive evidence is lacking should be make consistent with what is probably (most likely) the case - that led you to your second assumption. Here we go:
If he can “pierce the veil” of difficult subject matter in other cases - otherwise why call what he says regarding said difficult subject matter “brilliant” if he is not saying something more profound than ‘the bear shits in the buckwheat’ regarding a bear shitting in buckwheat? - then why can he not also do that in the case of who sets the tone and why of the American political dynamic, when the latter is pretty frickin’ obvious, and when Dugin is very much in the habit of commenting on international political dynamics? We have several choices: Dugin is a moron, which is belied by the fact that he comments with some real insight on other heady matters (though his insights fall short of the mark); or Dugin is commenting on the issue of who sets the tone for the American political dynamic in a manner that suggests he has not done bit one of his homework, which is belied by the fact that he has clearly done his homework in other cases so we could have expected him to do likewise with the case at hand; or Dugin is “self-deceived,” which is belied by the fact that he bucks many trends intellectually that the average person, even given sufficient intelligence to understand said, probably wouldn’t have the courage to do, which suggests the intellectual courage to not succumb to self-deception is there generally. Which leaves me with the interpretation I laid out, and again, it is not that hard to find out just what influence the Jews have in America. Although the subject of self-deception is interesting, and can be applied to the subject of an intellectualized rejection of National Socialism. I’ll address that later, along with the rest of your points. 74
Posted by PF on January 01, 2010, 04:05 AM | # This is an argument about reasoning processes, applied to the question “Is Dugin A ‘Moron’ or A Dissimulating Sycophant of Putin?” CC wrote:
Depending on how high one sets the requirement for certitude in order for something to constitute ‘knowledge’, one could easily assert that I cannot have any knowledge of the world whatsoever - this leads higher on the philosophical ladder to something that Guessedworker was alluding to. You’ve ducked the critique implicit in my statement by saying that I can’t prove anything either. Yet I have less to prove than you do because my explanation is more parsimonious. For my argument to achieve plausibility requires only that Dugin be shown to lack insight into American culture and politics and it follows, plainly enough, that he could make erroneous pronouncements about it. For your argument to achieve plausibility, specific knowledge is required. Namely, one has to know Dugin to be in possession of a uniquely incisive and thoroughgoing understanding of American society and culture, such as 99% of our intelligencia and punditocracy apparently does not have. Secondly, one has to know that it benefits the Putin clique for Dugin to produce a certain kind of misinformation. Thirdly, one has to know that the Putin-clique and Dugin have some kind of arrangement, willing or coerced, whereby Dugin broadcasts this disinformation.
The only profundity I’ve seen from Dugin is a recognition of the dead-end nature of liberalism, and a recognition of the role of spirituality in human life. There is no guarantee that a man who can achieve these insights in one area of life (social critique and religion, in this case) can also achieve similar insights in another area of life (politics).
Obvious to whom? Iconoclastic white nationalists with inside knowledge of the culture and years of internet research?
I beg to differ. It isn’t hard to get access to facile truisms like “The Jews run Hollywood” or “Wall Street is You seem to have an expectation that Dugin couldn’t err in this way sincerely. Then on the basis of that expectation we erect this Putin-story about Dugin playing dumb. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility but given the current state of the argument it seems like just another possibility. 75
Posted by Dasein on January 01, 2010, 04:35 PM | #
Some, I suspect unintentional, food for thought there from JamesUK. The Catholic Church and the main Protestant factions are plowing traditional Christianity under, or at least are banishing traditional farmers from their fields. Maybe something healthier is on the way. 76
Posted by Dasein on January 01, 2010, 06:09 PM | # A very thought-provoking comment thread. GW wrote:
My own fuzzy view of the ‘matter’ is that Being is something we come up against, a living subtrate that opens towards us. The path to Being is something individual, the result of a specific genetic code and epigenetic modifications (including stored memories). The similiarities in our paths is what makes a European perspective possible. In the superficial world of the everyday, the divergence of our paths with other races is not obvious. Sometimes you see it, though. Perhaps others have also had friends from other races, where they occasionally say something that strikes you as completely foreign, a connection or valuation you couldn’t have made. It’s what Forster and Kipling described in prose and verse from their experience in the subcontinent.
He put it well. It’s to ignore the revealing of Being, our organic substrate. 77
Posted by Captainchaos on January 01, 2010, 07:08 PM | # PF,
I suppose it could roll of the tongue easily and without much thought, and with the caveat, as you mention, at where the threshold of knowing for ‘knowledge’ to be achieved would be crossed, but I don’t think the assertion that you or anyone that is not a vegetable having no knowledge, precisely none, of the world and its ways is plausible.
No, you said you could not accept my contention as I could not have the needed information to base it upon. I said in reply to that specific statement that you could not have the needed information to disconfirm that what I said was the case. In other words, all else being equal, it is a wash. But, I said in lieu of definitive evidence pro or con, you then went to the circumstantial evidence to see what is most probable in light of your understanding of how the world works (and if you had not knowledge of the world and its ways you could not do that).
That is not the same as saying your car by virtue of its superior fuel efficiency can travel an equal or greater amount of distance than my car as my car is less fuel efficient, it is only saying that your car is more fuel efficient. Yet perhaps my car has a larger gas tank, and can thereby travel further. If the task is to travel as far as possible via car, which car would you prefer? Put it another way, if the object is to arrive at the truth of about a given situation, the clear choice is to choose the method of inquiry which will accomplish that, if indeed one method will do it and the other won’t. 78
Posted by Captainchaos on January 01, 2010, 08:09 PM | #
This is a problem that many ‘intellectuals’ seem to have, an emotional detachment from life, no emotional anchor to life, a retreat into the abstract and abstract reasoning by which they think the truth will be delivered unto them more forthrightly than immersion in certain aspects of the whole. Abstract reasoning does have its place I think in extrapolating upon patterns we observe within our bailiwick, I’ve done it myself in the case of Dugin. But there is a difference between that and a universalized, cheap and effete scepticism which many liberals and ‘intellectuals’ seem to be vulnerable to. I’m reminded of Michael Shermer’s (a secular humanist, ‘sceptic’, and Jew) response to the challenge of revisionists to the traditional Hoaxoco$t narrative: he basically says that since no mainstream scholar will even deign to acknowledge the critiques of revisionists, then neither should you, and neither should mainstream media. Now, of course based upon our knowledge of the ways Jews behave we can surmise that Shermer is engaged in prevarication cloaked as ‘reason’ and proper ‘skepticism’ and what he really wants is to use this false understanding of how and under what circumstances a man really comes to know. You couldn’t know for sure unless you looked into the matter, or at least did so to such an extent that you could have a solid enough grounding to make reasonable extrapolations, but Shermer is using ‘scepticism’ to appeal to the ‘intellectual’ (effete) vanity of his audience to keep them from looking into the matter at all. This goes back to the toughness of mind I referred to earlier, of an emotional orientation to the search for truth, a search for truth that is rooted in manliness. And one’s manliness is properly rooted in climbing the status and dominance hierarchy of his own people, which includes an at least instinctive awareness of the interests - and those that challenge those interests - of his own people. Of course that can be tied into a National Socialist world view as well. I don’t, for the most part, think Dugin suffers from that problem. 79
Posted by PF on January 01, 2010, 09:07 PM | # CC wrote:
Good that you called me on that one. The thread of knowledge frays when one looks at it closely but I did a poor job of describing that there.
Your contention requires a knowledge that Dugin is ‘smart’ i.e. clued into the nature of the American power structure and that he is acting on behalf of or as an auxilliary to Putin. Yet I don’t see any evidence supporting this.
Right. Reverse engineering Dugin’s motivation from an expectation of what he
know, is a technique more applicable to the American pundit scene than the Russian owing to the geographic and cultural divide. For example, Buchanan should have an idea about the role of Jewish media magnates in influencing American culture. We might alledge dissimulation there and use your method.
I totally agree and have seen in real life the benefits accruing to passionate attachments. However the distorting impact of emotional attachments on reasoning processes is well known and still applies. In the case of massive disinformation (i.e. modern culture) it is actually easier to navigate through the labyrinth of judaic lies steering instinctually, than it is to steer through them intellectually. In this case an emotive attachment can actually bring one closer to truth, because the picture of actual reality is carefully concealed under no end of convenient instantaneous reasoning. Viewing things emotively means personalizing them, and this means framing things in the frame of having an enemy. The personal becomes political and one can begin to steer by gut instinct. Sincerely feeling ‘Them vs. Us’ is actually more politically honest than the universalized rationality of introductory Political Science courses, since it implants in one the reasoning system used by those playing the game themselves - something quite different from detached observation. Possessing this mental model then one can draw conclusions about the way they think and their decision making processes.
I’m not sure how to reply to this. Intellectuals and liberals don’t strike me as skeptics, but rather as true believers .They have inherited a critique of blood and soil nationalism and palingenesis, historical continuity, group belonging and other such memes. They blandish the critique but they didn’t create it - they are borrowers, imitators. They would problematize some of your romanticization of things - don’t mean this to offend but you did mention “glory”. All that, they are able to problematize, so they may appear as skeptics because they challenge something you believe in. But I think a true skeptic has to put the knife to his own breast, so to speak, which they do not. Its all about beating up Rudyard Kipling and Hitler, meanwhile themselves they allow the fattest, juiciest, whopping assumptions about morality, society and the universe. What it strikes me that most moderns are vulnerable to is rationalism, materialism, intellectualism (thought-slavery), and positivism; although I worry that I don’t clearly enough know what those terms delineate to be sure that they do not overlap to things I do not wish to say - the gist will be evident to some of those reading this. The idea of something nameless preceding everything is not there. The idea of essences is not there. The idea of there being a mystery, is not there for them. That is how I would characterize the pit into which most moderns have fallen. Deracination is the final robbery, it occurs when moderns believe that abstract reasoning about social relations actually encapsulates the social relations. When the modern man allows reasoning processes to come between himself and his kinship, his community, his blood, his ancestors, his traditions, and begins to view himself and them as part of a sociology professor’s concept matrix.
I dislike writing intellectual and effete next to each other as if they were synonyms. I don’t think any of the hard laboring football playing man’s men are doing any better at resisting displacement than intellectuals are in the 21st century, in fact I think they are perhaps worse equipped, but that gets into theoreticals. I take that by manliness you mean the aggressive emotive response to what one has conceptualized as the enemy. That approach is corrupting on some level because of the fear but it does have some benefits, for one it allows less self-detachment than other methods (i.e. an intellectual method) which means one is less likely to self-deceive. The ability to detach from any problem emotionally means it is more likely one will fudge an answer or accept half-truths, since emotions are prime motivators in any case with humans. If you are scared and think your life and that of your people is on the line, you are less likely to accept half-truths. This is how we got out of the woods called modern culture and arrived at the clearing that is White nationalism. Beyond this I don’t think the toughness of mind serves any purpose. It is simply the truth search and it does not turn the blade on its own breast because it cherishes emotional loyalties which it daren’t upset and justifies this self-protection by pointing to what it is not, which is this scarecrow concept of effete intellectualism. Effete intellectualism exists, but it isn’t the natural consequence of overcoming emotive loyalties by inwardly-directed skepticism. Effete intellectualism exists because our culture worships rationalism and never looks to experience or mystery, and is massively oversocialized. “Toughness of mind” is a ladder out of the swamp but there is a platform above it, where one no longer has to be “tough”. 80
Posted by Captainchaos on January 01, 2010, 09:54 PM | #
Well, I think there are different roles within the collective that different individuals are best suited for, and the prominence and intensity of these roles are differently appropriately manifested as external circumstances dictate as press upon the collective. When the bayonet of the enemy is pressed against the belly of the people there must be the struggle, and of course the struggle for life never does really end, it varies in intensity. With regard to Dugin, as I alluded to earlier, we need not posit that he has a thoroughgoing knowledge of nearly every nuance of the American cultural/political dynamic to say with good reason that he knows about just what role the Jews play on the international stage - and that the primary locus of that is in America. If he has read the works of Solzhenitsyn (and I think we can safely say that if he has not read them he is at least aware of the gist - and the gist that includes the machinations of Jews), if he is aware of the Jewish “oligarchs”, if he is aware of the “Russian” (really Jewish) mafia, if he is aware that many took the money and ran to the West and Israel, if he is aware that the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia are significantly wars for Jewish interests, if he is aware that Russia gives aid and comfort to the regimes in Iran and Syria to counter that, if he is aware of all those things related to Jewry at that international scope, we can safely say, I think, he knows just what a problem the Jews are. And we know that, according to his own words, that Judaism, or the Jewish mindset, is a problem - and can reasonably assume he thinks it is a problem as manifested by all the things enumerated above that we can reasonably expect he is aware of. Point being, if the way we think clouds are ability to see that, then we have a problem. In a way it is The Problem, where is that sweet spot of mental focus and personality appropriate for a given individual within the collective within a given context for the collective. Where should a given man stand on the spectrum of presence and absence? How to live adaptively? Alex Linder says no way out but through the Jews, I essentially agree with that, but would add, no way out but through the personality. How do we rebuild a personality for White men that is adaptive? I mean, if the root of the problem is not in the personality, in the acquired, that is it is in the genome, the inherent, then we are pretty well fucked anyway. I think we should be willing to entertain the methods, at least in part, of National Socialism, in attempting to rebuild and/or repair the personalities of White men and women. But I could be wrong, and if I am, I’d like to know, and suspect the best way to find that out is to be proven so here. 81
Posted by Captainchaos on January 02, 2010, 12:40 AM | # I think the Riefenstahl propaganda film .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)can be watched with profit to the viewer, ‘intellectuals’ included. At 9:08 Rudolf Hess introduces Hitler thus:
At 28:00 Adolf Hitler addresses Hitler Youth:
At 48:00 Adolf Hitler addresses rank-and-file party members in uniform:
Now I realize there is much in the above quotes to trip the Pavlovian sensibilities of literalist and materialist snobs (talk of faith, metaphors, symbolism, etc.), but pay attention especially to the portions I have bolded. As far as I am concerned these are words to live by. The take home point for materialist ‘intellectuals’: when a White man is thirsty you give him some water, you don’t spit in his face and tell him to drink it (give him his faith and symbolism if that is what he needs). 82
Posted by Matra on January 02, 2010, 11:34 AM | # jamesUK:Are thou Jews not the WASP establishment? Does thou revered noble sages like Jared Taylor not consider thou Jews WASP elites? WTF?! 83
Posted by PF on January 02, 2010, 09:49 PM | # CC, GW must be smiling because the similarities between my thought process and yours are quite close, CC. Well, lets admit the personal nature of this question first. It comes from a recognition that to all appearances whites within modern society are doing perfectly fine without adopting any of the personality structures which you have adopted to your cost. Meaning, taking on identity/loyalty costs something, and our society is absolutely booming with people who do not pay the cost yet appear fully adaptive and functioning well. So one looks at these people, feeling the gulf yet not quite the benefit of one’s own meanderings, and asks: ‘Who made the right choice here, me or they?’. All this heterodoxy, passion, loyalty, at least a yearning to do good by our ancestors and parents - where is the pay off? I think cultivating these emotional ties to one’s people/nation, sculpts a certain part of the human persona, and that part becomes handsomer. It gives a surety, a stability, a rootedness, which is tangible and useful. This comes in handy for having children, propagating culture, being a pillar of stability to one’s co-ethnics, and when one speaks, one can do it authentically in the name of that which one has served - even if this is ideation and some degree of self-deceit is present, a feeling of ownership arises. That is the benefit. It isn’t a limitless benefit and it has diminishing returns, thus it can be exaggerated. For example, if one were to believe that the survival of the collective depended on everyone adopting this mindset, and that this mindset were unequivocally good, and that everyone *should* adopt this mindset - one would have a kind of racial-collectivist Kantian categorical imperative. Meaning, we have to all act in a way to maximally further the existence of the white race. I disagree with that because it brings to mind a paradox mentioned by Alan Watts: if in making our choices, we allow our only compass to be survival calculations, then what is the point of surviving anyway? If we can never do what we want, but always what is best for The Herd? Error is fun, randomness is fun, stupidity is fun - and if we have to foreswear this in the name of perpetual service to an ideal of folkishness, life becomes unfun to the point of not making any sense. Duty is an empty word to me and I think all its facets are just excuses to be a slave to something. There is a natural obligation that springs from relatedness, yet need not be named. Just like there is a natural heroism in Hamilton’s theorem c “We are mortal but Germany must live!”In other words, let us die for an ideal of national glory. 84
Posted by whodareswings on January 14, 2010, 03:45 AM | # Roger Gray was looking pretty wise to me until he “cleaved” to the postmodern pomposities of Vail over Dugin, swooned over Marxists Hardt and Negri and then went sailing off the lanai with that “trapdoor to other worlds” stuff left open by Crowley, Parsons, and Hubbard. Sorry, but I can’t take him seriously now. I thought David Mayatt was rather brilliant, too, until I woke up to his sophistry. 85
Posted by jonathan on January 20, 2010, 12:24 AM | # onewhodareswings, i have read about you on the internet. you have sculpted elegantly some tributes to the afterlife. has guessedworker applied his frankfurt school of critical art theory to your products? 86
Posted by David Ben on April 19, 2011, 01:16 PM | # Dazzling video clip created on to understand is to defeat. I assume that the charitable of the Jewish Diaspora from the Indo-European peoples cannot be a informal incident of record. Next entry: BANA vs AIPAC Previous entry: It is finnished. |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) cuiseur automatique seb commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Srakotraqu commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:30 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:19 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 06:26 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 04:46 AM. (go) (view) James Bowery commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 11:17 PM. (go) (view) indian strategy commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 05/20/12, 05:17 PM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 12:51 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 09:15 AM. (go) (view) Hymie in Afula commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 07:24 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 06:39 AM. (go) (view) Joe commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/20/12, 06:30 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by James Bowery on December 25, 2009, 12:29 PM | #
Dugin writes: “defeat with the Light of Truth”
Reading that, it just occurred to me that the old gospel adage: “The truth shall set you free.” is backwards.
It the Degrees of Freedom in ways of life that exposes theocratic rules to the Light of Truth from so many angles that everything is truly illuminated by the willing sacrifice of many lives to their beliefs.
Merry Mithrasmas!