|
|
Niall Ferguson suggests we make brainwashing funFirst, a bit of relevant background on Ferguson: [IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/article-0-082D3860000005DC-68_468x3.jpg[/IMG] Here are the recommendations of this ‘right-wing’ academic (who was recently commissioned by the Tories with overhauling GCSE history):
There was one interesting bit, though, which is not propaganda, and useful for analysing race-replacement in white countries:
The study of history, besides chronicling events, is the search for patterns. Here is the answer to the assertion that whites have agreed to have their countries colonised by the 3rd World (“but, it’s a democracy!”). I doubt such an obvious interpretation would make it into Ferguson’s curriculum, though. Posted by Dasein on Saturday, July 10, 2010 at 10:36 AM in Comments:2
Posted by Dan Dare on July 10, 2010, 07:50 PM | # Ferguson is a strange cove who is capable of good work -The Pity of War and Empire - come to mind, but then fatally compromises his academic reputation as a serious historian by taking commissioned hagiography like the Hose of Rothschild, front telly-ephemera like the ‘Ascent of Money’ for PBS, and grabs at a Jewish-endowed professorship at Harvard. Not to mention his private shenanigans which have been aptly described as demonstrating the locheness of a professional footballer. He reminds me of nothing other than a gentile Simon Schama. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on July 10, 2010, 08:15 PM | # It is the possession of such “qualities” which qualify him for the career he has had, Dan. If he was a loyal-hearted son of his nation he would be given nothing. 5
Posted by PF on July 10, 2010, 09:11 PM | # GW wrote:
Watching you guys having this discussion conjures an image which I’m going to describe in this textbox, although there is no guarantee that reading this will benefit anyone. Imagine you have a chessboard with millions of squares - each one represents a viewpoint. There is a leather sheet overlaid on top of the chessboard with holes symmetrically placed every 4,000 squares across horizontallly and every 4,000 squares down vertically. This is like the ‘perspective matrix’ of all currently existing viewpoints, geographically limited to people of age +22 in western societies. One in every 16,000 people gets to have a viewpoint which is expressed through the channels that guarantee it is amplified - these squares align with holes in the leather sheet which otherwise covers up each square on the enormous chessboard. This means there are going to be about 4,000 influential people whose voices get amplified in UK discourse, there being 62 million british squares on the chessboard. Liberalism gets to determine the pattern of the holes in the leather sheet and rejigger this according to its biases - so Niall Ferguson is a revealed square. He gets to say a lot. Richard Dawkins is smart and in spite of understanding the truth of life and its implications, he wants to remain an uncovered square, so that he can write his books and (speculating on his motivation) further infuse anglo culture with his scientific vision. The soul-crushingness of things is in how perfectly they control the holes in the leather sheet so that they always land on some spineless man-child, which sways all the in-betweens to believe that there exist nothing in the world but spineless sell-outs and manchildren. Ferguson and others like him being held up as an example is debilitating to all those who lack the fortitude of John Lee Barnes (for example) but who could nevertheless be made to take a stand. Of course I have said nothing really new to anyone here. Its funny that men like this are allowed to speak, while we are considered bores. Dangerous bores. If ever there was an indication of a looming contradiction lurking behind society’s thought, it would be the positing of an area of thought that is simultaneously boring/old-fashioned/uninteresting, and dangerous. Obviously both of these opinions cannot be true. You can see quite clearly how anyone with a crumb of manhood left in him is crowded out of our cultural space. They use our own flotsam so cleverly against us. 6
Posted by PF on July 10, 2010, 10:36 PM | # what the fuck is this: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Johnson-Is-Racial-Purism-Degenerate.html#GJ Greg Johnson writes:
Sorry I cant be more charitable with this brother. Going back to Spengler as the basis for intellectual fodder on a subject infinitely clarified by post-Spengler science? Militating against WN for not being as cool as star trek? Receiving a vision of futurity from Kurtagic’s Fascist Fashions Quarterly and O’Meara’s ‘Myth of Our Rebirth’? Seeing this man writhe within the confines of his own intellectual framework, lining up his various glyphs - is it degenerate? racial purism? white nationalism? star trek? - hoping to come up with something new by juxtaposing the shiny glyphs (racial purism) with the shit-stained ones (“degenerate”) like an ape in a cage who is driven mad by boredom and turns his cell into a scatological post-modern work of art one day - dare I pose the question: am I allowed to fret about the straightness of my putative grandchild’s nose without being smeared by Johnson’s convolved Spenglerian analysis of motive - that profound psychologist that he was - with his extrapolation about the end-result of human action and the therefore-this-is-degenerate analysis which posits the mettle of the motive being inferable from end result and its net racial productivity. Again people are sensing the necessity of a psychological critique of the inner unfreedom which characterizes movements of any kind - necessarily limiting, in some sense, as it becomes a habit and a one-sidedness a la Nietzsche’s jedes Handwerk zieht krumm (every specialization warps/twists/makes a hunchback of you in some way) . This analysis gestures towards the question which someone on this website was able to work through: can a man be big enough - internally, now - to absorb the shock of racial dispossession, understand in all its depth and extent the disastrousness and absolute finality of the impending conclusion of the fugue, find within himself the strength to stand against all this, enter into the intellectual arena with a view to conducting battle there against the Zeitgeist and an army of useful idiots millions strong, and then finally also be big enough to step outside internal compulsion - since it will be almost impossible to complete this intellectual Werdegang without having accumulated all manner of compulsions - and be free and unstultified in his love and relation to his people? A tall order; small surprise there are so few contenders. It is for lack of ability to do all this that our lovers - which Johnson senses are lacking in WN, perhaps not because they are actually lacking but because the nature of moral polarity and discourse determine which sentiments are easily emphasized and that these dominate - our lovers can’t step outside the circle of nativism and actually say anything. Because to say anything at all that is radical they have to build a bridge across Nazism, whistling for comfort a la Nick Griffin and Paul Collette, Tomislav Sunic and Kurtagic, because this is the only intellectual path presently existing. One must therefore be driven by love - or despair, disgust? - to become that great end-product of nationalist self-development: a reformed nazi. Thats why there is such tremendous value in hacking out an alternative pathway that doesnt lead over Spengler, Decadence Critique, Heroic Virtue, Worship-Of-Historical-Saliency-Artifacts, because the alternative is the flowering we see at occidental observer. 7
Posted by danielj on July 10, 2010, 11:48 PM | # One must therefore be driven by love - or despair, disgust? - to become that great end-product of nationalist self-development: a reformed nazi. Thats why there is such tremendous value in hacking out an alternative pathway that doesnt lead over Spengler, Decadence Critique, Heroic Virtue, Worship-Of-Historical-Saliency-Artifacts, because the alternative is the flowering we see at occidental observer. We are all well aware you’d prefer us all to become fully entelechified Englishmen with the required impoverished ontological perspective. A bunch of tea-drinking, crumpet-eating, cock-sucking, ontologically poor, teleologically deprived Diogenian cynics. Thanks but no thanks brah. Perhaps you prefer we worship the artifacts of techne or your precious scientism method? Everybody follow PF out of our Swastika decorated, cave of the thousand year Reich out into the Anglo sun so we can all get a tan. I’m sure you’re a real golden brown. 8
Posted by PF on July 11, 2010, 12:53 AM | # danielj wrote:
LOL 9
Posted by Grimoire on July 11, 2010, 01:17 AM | # PF> 10
Posted by PF on July 11, 2010, 03:01 AM | # Grim wrote:
You’re write, oops, I mean right. These trainwreck sentences absolutely need to be paired down and the ideas placed in a format where they are accessible - not only to the philosophically inquiring reader but also to the more moderately inclined blog reading lay-person - which necessitates the careful formulation of sentences with a view to compressing their structure so as to convey meaning in a way undistracted by the vagaries of my personal recreational experiments with style which - if we are honest with ourselves - one has to admit stretch the boundaries of the reader’s patience and risk the possibility of unnecessarily provoking readers’ sensibilities and biasing them against the content which is already so difficult to convey as to be near impossible, nevertheless it is essential to find a suitable vehicle for these truths and that involves the search for a style which is both pointed, concise, and accessible - a difficult feat on terrain so ... slippery; all these things notwithstanding, one must soldier forward in the battle to clarify fine distinctions and reverse engineer reasoning processes which often were carried out intuitively, with a view to bringing white man as we find him post-post-modernism, onto the same page with respect to the issues that concern our future existence most direly. In other words: mo’ money, mo’ problems. 11
Posted by danielj on July 11, 2010, 09:58 AM | # Hey were in California now PF. We’re staying with friends and don’t have our own place yet but you should come and get a normal tan when we do! 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 11, 2010, 10:16 AM | # “A thesis can grow increasingly transparent the more words you use to clothe it.” (—Grimoire) Did you mean “decreasingly transparent”? True but sometimes the long way around is as effective as the short way or more so, provided you’re a good writer. In the following passage Ralph Waldo Emerson (writing here in the mid-1800s) had to explain that nature is no sentimentalist, and we don’t always get what we deserve. He could have written something like precisely those few words and left it at that, but look how he chose to get his point across:
Wordy but absolutely unforgettable. 14
Posted by Dasein on July 11, 2010, 12:17 PM | # It’s interesting how many white mainstream ‘conservatives’ are involved in relations with non-whites. Examples: (as mentioned) Niall Ferguson left his wife and children for a negress. Charles Murray married and had 2 kids with a Thai woman. Victor Davis Hanson married and had 2 kids with a Japanese woman. And I remember an interview he gave some years back where he mentioned that his kids were dating Mexicans. John Derbyshire married and had 2 kids with a Chinese woman. 15
Posted by Leon Haller on July 11, 2010, 12:34 PM | # Three comments: 1. Ferguson may be a moral shitbag, obvious grubby career builder (what do we think his marriage was about?), and racial/national sellout, but I must say he is a very impressive historian, especially for his still comparatively young age, and considering his amazing output (he has written more fat books than many scholars by the end of their lives - and those books are real scholarship, even if he obviously does not do much original, ‘in the archives’ research). I have most of his books, and though he is hardly one of the “world’s top intellects” (or whatever the article’s phrasing was), I must say he is a very competent writer. ... in this most unlike Obama, considered one of the world’s leading orators, despite an inability to - as yet - pen a single memorable phrase. Affirmative action is what it is; but it does mean that exalted whites, at least males, usually have to have some real ‘goods’ to reach the stratosphere ... To PF: 2. Dawkins most certainly does not understand anything about “the truth of life”, except its biological fundaments. A mole burrowing forever underfoot, afraid to look up, and then denying the sky. 3. On the delicate issue of literary style, or at least intelligibility, I have noticed a growing divide across the English family pond. British writers and scholars not all that long ago were unquestionably superior stylists compared to us ‘colonials’. That seems to be changing. When in my favorite book megaplex, I often enjoy browsing your Spectator magazine. I am, if not often, then more than occasionally, unable to discern exactly what this or that writer is talking about (and not only because I’m not too familiar with parochial British politics and culture). The writing style over there seems to be getting more opaque over time. Part of this may be pollution from postmodernism seeping out of bad philosophy and worse literary studies into the broader culture. But I’m not sure that’s the whole story. (In fairness, The Economist has remained admirably clear.) I confess to having had difficulties understanding many of your posts in the past. This has been somewhat vexing, as I sense that you might be saying some interesting things. I am also vaguely disquieted by the thought that perhaps my reading comprehension just isn’t quite up to certain tasks (I don’t think that’s the case with the Spectator, however). I’d hate for you to feel that you had to ‘dumb-down’ your comments merely for the likes of me, but, at the risk of presumptuousness, you might wish to consider the following: First, go easy on sentence length. I understand that the ability to form complex sentences is often the hallmark of mental fineness, but doing so risks losing at least some of your intended audience. As the famous guide admonishes, let every word tell. Second, avoid overly obscure, ‘in-group’ vocabulary. At a minimum, offer exogenous readers some definition of words that the ordinarily literate person cannot be expected to know (eg, what is a “glyph”?). Third, be frugal with metaphors. 16
Posted by Leon Haller on July 11, 2010, 12:42 PM | # To Dasein: OK, dropping the professorial stance - are you telling me you wouldn’t bang that particular Negress in that gorgeous cobalt blue outfit??! I find blacks incredibly ugly as a rule, but, perhaps because she is East African, or whatever, Ms. Ali is one fine woman ... I can hardly blame Fergo for having the hots for her. Racial loyalty is for the group level (which does include choice of wife). But on the weekend ... have some fun, dude! 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 11, 2010, 02:58 PM | # PF and Leon Haller mention Dawkins. So does Ted Sallis, here, http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sallis-Salter.html , and not that flatteringly. It’s a piece from a year ago on Salter’s ideas, which I happened to re-read just now. There’s not a lot about Dawkins but Sallis touches on his failure to grasp certain fundamental ideas in biology including a couple of Hamilton’s. 18
Posted by Thorn on July 11, 2010, 03:13 PM | #
Fred Scrooby is correct. It doesn’t really matter how many words you use, its clarity that matters. In the war of words and ideas, clarity is high explosive. BTW, the meaning of the picture John posted is unclear to me. Is he responding to Leon’s post? If so I’d say its a stupid response. 20
Posted by Armor on July 11, 2010, 07:03 PM | #
It doesn’t matter if you increase or decrease the word count. It works both ways: once you’ve nailed a truth that needs to be popularized, then, for maximum effectiveness, it must both be expanded into books and distilled into mantras. You must go back and forth between theory and practice, between short posts and long posts. — I think it’s the Jews. Their influence now permeates the whole culture. “I confess to having had difficulties understanding many of your posts in the past.” It means that PF has been permeated by the Jews too. 21
Posted by Armor on July 11, 2010, 07:08 PM | # Dasein: “The Raj was based on collaboration between a tiny British elite and Indian elites.” I think it’s called co-optation: Ferguson has been co-opted. Even though Ferguson isn’t interested in “offering a Eurocentric version”, the Daily Mail says he advises Cameron on how to promote ‘Britishness’. It probably means that britishness is transracial. I wish Ali would go back to Africa with her new love. I don’t believe the story that she can only be safe in Europe and America. And I don’t think she has anything important to teach us about islam, apart from fatwa sex. Here is how the New York Magazine describes fatwa sex: “If sneaking around on your spouse is hot, sneaking around under threat of jihadist militants is undoubtedly way hotter”. At least, it makes the “counter-jihad” neocons look foolish. 22
Posted by Our Saviour Silver shows us the way on July 11, 2010, 07:28 PM | # Silver tirelessly continues showing us the light and telling us “hate is bad” 23
Posted by Captainchaos on July 11, 2010, 11:28 PM | # In Ferguson’s The War of the World, a book which allegedly seeks to explicate the prolific wars and slaughter emanating from Europe in the twentieth century, Lazar Kaganovich is not listed in the index. It is not plausible that Ferguson is ignorant of the Jewish center of gravity of Bolshevism. His omission is intentional; his book is semitically correct. Ferguson is a knowing shill for Jewish power and historiography. Ferguson is confident of his status, and that of his three White children, as part of the global patrician class - the rest of his people be damned. 24
Posted by Captainchaos on July 11, 2010, 11:59 PM | #
What makes you think Johnson et al. do suffer from a “internal compulsion” to employ palingenetic myth as the engine of a White awakening and do not merely appreciate said’s utility? Do you suffer from a compulsive need to deconstruct palingenesis? ‘But…but…palingenesis has no such utility.’ Horseshit. Does so. 25
Posted by PF on July 12, 2010, 02:08 AM | # CC wrote:
If Johnson or anyone here was merely ‘appreciating its utility’, then that person would own a perspective from which they can perceive also its untruth, its sketchiness, which in an intellectually honest person drains it of militating content. Why would one craft lies if one did not believe in them, at least half-way? This flickering, oscillating belief in noble lies is characteristic of the best of their authors, just like the most successful deceivers often trick out themselves, something I’ve recently seen in an overconfident relative who believes his own spiel so much that he takes himself in and is literally dazzled by his own successes. If there does exist this freedom, which I say exists only here - where are the question marks? Intellectual freedom manifests itself as a willingness to explore alternative possibilities. I haven’t seen that… one will commit to this superficially with words but one’s deeds betray the idols which are problematically erected and held erect within one’s heart. By which I mean to say that the belief in fascism and Rebirth and the great myth is something that the most convincing liars oscillate towards and away from - just like you could be shown to oscillate between unquestioning, uncritical acceptance of old old thinking, and an awareness-of-external-critique which consisted simply of reigning in the more obvious excesses of your worldview - i.e. not getting caught with your pants down fellating a statue of Von Hindenburg. If alternately spewing pablum and covering your ass by claiming my characterizations to be straw men is the action of a man fully invested with intellectual freedom, then I am a wog. Ask a friggin’ question about something, do something beyond these reflexively defensive vignettes and occasional forays into prose summary, and I will believe that you are free to think and can think. In the absence of this I have to assume unfreedom which is the default human position on highly polarizing, emotional, propagandized topics. I know why men linger at night on WN message boards: not because they want to objectively consider and play with ideas, but because visions of Endsieg are become their hearts desire or more probably because visions of Untergang are become their hearts fear (fair enough! me too!). And if there is this much-vaunted, much-pretended love of white life, then let me hear a celebration of something, preferably of the beauty of our living kith and kin who are the reason why any sane man would fight. For me to believe you are a lover I need to hear something besides compulsion, duty, and all those other baubles for the non-selfdirected. At the very minimum I need to hear an evenness in your tone such as would indicate a man who has grown beyond habitual adolescent mood-mongering and defensive grunting. Not that I need these subtleties, but they are what would betray a side of you yet undiscovered - in the course of our month long odyssey tour of your argumentative battery, I found nothing out except that you can’t think beyond Hitler and that you play paintball. Please tell me now why there are no harmonics in your pitch indicative of a deeply resonating instrument. As the beautifully english John Watts sings: “Something I know, something I know, please don’t tell me something I know.” This oscillation between half-embracing monumental mythos (thesis) and avoiding egregious expressions of enthusiasm for noble lies (...antithesis?) is about as much freedom as the other side brings to the argument. I give all these a free pass as brothers in loyalty but they lose, necessarily, the claim to be able to think freely. Which makes talking with them laborious, since I am perfectly capable of building a mental model in my mind and I could actually write articles that you approve of. You could not expound my philosophy in any detail - although you can describe its outline as danielj did above - but if I wanted to I could write stirring appeals to the power of ethnocentric Myth and the grandeur of germanic dreaming and wholesomeness. I could write these things but I have glimpsed a truth which makes me not believe in them. Johnson actually senses this disconnect within palingenetic WN, which is why he is doing the best he can within his framework to launch a critique of the WN movement .... using Spengler and Star Trekk. It isn’t the critique that will bring us to ourselves, but it stems from a realization of the going-nowhereingness of Stormfront style affirmations. Palingenesis wins the battle for the street in your mind, assuming mass participation (and other things), but you such as you are can never win mass participation from society’s successful elements. I learned this at college, where even the most disgruntled conservative crowd I could get in with, and even the germanists, and even the overlap between these groups, would not seriously countenance Nazism. Johnson has realized how alone he is, a fact which you do not yet know. You are surrounded in your mind by ghostly legions of disgruntled germanic americans who, given enough poverty and wog-infiltration, rally to your imaginery standard. If this works, I’ll drop ontology and be among your recruits and you wont even know I strayed. I suspect it will not work, so I use what mental freedom I’ve won for myself to dream up possible alternatives. 26
Posted by Grimoire on July 12, 2010, 03:42 AM | # There would be no discussion of ‘palingenesis’ here, if it wasn’t continually mentioned, usually by PF, who wrote an unreadable essay on the subject. ——————————————————- I see conflict here between this very short essay - and PF’s very long and incoherent one. So, is it an understanding here….that palingenesis is a discredited thesis ? Ah….PF weighs in with some obtuse hyperbole:
It seems to me that one is not in good faith when they begin an argument not on it’s own merits but on a ‘conceit’ they inject into someone else’s thoughts and claim that they ‘own’ this addendum and then go on to describe how they use these imagined added thoughts, such as in the opening paragraph of PF’s rebuttal. I think the intellectually honest person here would just stop reading this nonsense.
This is obviously PF confessing his ‘magic realism’ technique. The exception being, that it is not successful, just ignored as nonsense
The tactic of using clowns as antithesis, is commonly found to be used by….other clowns. You are surrounded in your mind by ghostly legions of disgruntled germanic americans who, given enough poverty and wog-infiltration, rally to your imaginery standard. If this works, I’ll drop ontology and be among your recruits and you wont even know I strayed. I suspect it will not work, so I use what mental freedom I’ve won for myself to dream up possible alternatives. This statement makes me sad for it’s lack of resolve….but optimistic at the first sign of open-mindedness, 27
Posted by Guessedworker on July 12, 2010, 08:07 AM | # Grimoire, I trust you agree that we, as thinking men and as European dissidents at the end of Europe’s history, can never, in our adumbrations, escape the polarity of being-becoming. The point of bifurcation is too close to the root, too intrinsic to our minds. Given that, the nationalist thought of both poles is, in a sense, ontological, though it might be better to fuzzy it up a bit and say “of life” (in the sense that Soren identifies liberalism as “the struggle against the struggle for existence”). Nationalism is the politics of life, and we are for life whichever pole we, as individual thinkers, are oriented to. But that said, the turn to teleology contains some dangerous impurities that, by definition, do not exist in what we could perhaps term the Heideggerian moment ... the moment of discovery and habitation of self. For one, it is a playground of the inauthentic and the false, for authenticity can address becoming within certain natural bounds but is lost the instant the modality, to use PF’s term, changes and the act of considering takes over from experience. For another, teleology is the vessel of faith, and secularised beliefs of all kinds, including the nationalist, are compromised by their religious decontextualisation. To my mind, PF’s critique of palingenesis, as the default of teleological nationalism, is sound precisely to the extent that it, palingenesis, is a product of, and is compromised by, “impurities”, and is non-real. The critique is also a necessary act of intellectual warfare. The torch-bearers of myth and false grandeur have to be challenged and their suzereignty ended, or we will never come to grips with the existential nature of our crisis. 28
Posted by Dasein on July 12, 2010, 09:35 AM | # Leon, I think Africans are on a spectrum between butt-ugly and merely weird-looking. Ali is more towards the weird-looking end of the spectrum (do a Google image search on her and observe her facial proportions and pigmentation, head shape, teeth and gums, ears, body shape, hair, etc. She is not attractive, or even feminine). 29
Posted by Leon Haller on July 12, 2010, 09:41 AM | # “Paligenesis” was a descriptor coined by historian of fascism Roger Griffin to try to classify types of radical ultranationalism. I don’t think we need some heroic “white rebirth” model of activism. I’m all for it, of course, provided it can be accorded with Christian morality (and it can, as long as it is confined to the Western fatherlands). But the proper approach to winning our struggle for racial survival at this moment in history is fear. We just need to get the facts out to our people - and then laboriously if necessary spell out their implications for the future of Western hedonism, which, if not the state religion (which is obviously Diversity), is certainly the people’s. Too many non-whites = high taxes, crummy services, unsafe streets, weird habits, sexual theft of white females, etc. Eventual Islamicization in Europe, Mexicanization in US. Why do we need to go searching for the deeper philosophical and cultural roots of our dilemma? Not that such discussions aren’t interesting in themselves, but ... every month in the US we are admitting about 140,000 legal immigrants, almost all of whom are coloreds. How many for Europe? The REAL problem, as I keep reiterating in a dozen venues, is that most whites think even thinking about race survival is immoral, to say nothing of our doing the hard things that will inevitably be required to ensure it. Our task is : first, theorize the compatibility of race-patriotism and Christian ethics (at least in US); second, explain that compatibility as widely as possible; and third, engage in practical racial consciousness raising and concurrent political activism aimed at halting immigration. Once we’ve stabilized the population (a huge and still improbable victory), then we can take a breather for deeper theoretical debates. So any new ideas for getting truth to our people? 30
Posted by Leon Haller on July 12, 2010, 09:44 AM | # I’m not obsessed with her, I just thought her picture in the blue dress was very fetching. (East Africans are definitely better looking than their more Negroid brethren to the west.) 31
Posted by Leon Haller on July 12, 2010, 09:59 AM | # More from Niall Ferguson:
What an ass. Knows nothing of monetary economics. (There are no dangers to deflation. It’s the other way around.) Surprising, though, as his recommendations re federal fiscal policy (spending cuts, business incentives, debt reduction) are all sound. 32
Posted by PF on July 12, 2010, 12:29 PM | # Grimoire, You are entering the debate from its least factually interesting, most polemic and therefore most distracting angle: the discussion of palingenesis via a personality-critique and style-critique of its advocates and antagonists. Not only that, but you enter after months of degeneration have set in. You admit to not being able to understand my critique of palingenesis - whose problem is this exactly?
I begin with a critique because the genesis of palingenetic thinking (e.g. Nazism) lies so profoundly enmeshed in how one thinks about man, how one thinks about oneself, and how one thinks about history, that it is difficult to start at the beginning. I am working on a series of essays which will start from the beginning and will name the errors committed in analysis which lead to the conclusion that is palingenesis, grand mythos, rebirth, heroic virtue, etc. For now it is easier to hold up the end-product (as an example, CC’s model of heroic virtue, or CC’s model of mass political action, or CC’s model of the diffusion of ideas, most of which are unarticulated borrowed thought content piggybacking off the assumptions of palingenesis (just because people seem to have difficulty understanding me here is clarification: when you accept an idea set you unwittingly accept corrolaries and assumptions latent in that idea set unless you explicitly explain why they are not true - he has not done this, but no one can escape the fact that these ideas are all linked and fascism is not really a ‘modular’ system. For example, can you really be for the Fuhrer principle, and against state censorship? The structural relation of ideas to one another limits the scope of possible interpretations which is why I can smear CC with the discredited corollaries of his thinking which he is not a strong advocate of - but there is no ‘one quarter nazism’.) Not only did I offer a critique of corollaries but I am offering a critique of first principles - the models of self and of man which preced the acceptance of this philosophy. So I am hitting here on a few levels: 1. Model of self inherent in teleology I offer 5 because our conversations degenerate so easily into polemics and being an ex-palingeneticist it is easy for me to ‘see inside’ despite the raging proclamations that I have not felt the fiber of their fabric. Here as elsewhere, one is oneself always a special case, immune to generalization from outside (I guess). People say this while they unabashedly parrot and borrow phraseology and ideas like mad, most of which they apparently haven’t even researched! I wrote:
Whereupon Grim commented:
Don’t read too much into it, the parties who are interested in an actual discussion of the issues at hand have flown or are being silent, and what remains is me relaxing myself on Captain Chaos with personality- and style-critique while I cyclically resummarize my ideas so that I can distill them to greater effect later, as an aid to myself in generalizing. Also writing is fun! 33
Posted by HATE USURY on July 12, 2010, 07:39 PM | # Niall Ferguson predicts the American empire may collapse.—-> “Historian warns of sudden collapse of American ‘empire’” - http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/141349 Harvard professor and prolific author Niall Ferguson opened the 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival Monday with a stark warning about the increasing prospect of the American “empire” suddenly collapsing due to the country’s rising debt level. “I think this is a problem that is going to go live really soon,” Ferguson said. “In that sense, I mean within the next two years. Because the whole thing, fiscally and other ways, is very near the edge of chaos. And we’ve seen already in Greece what happens when the bond market loses faith in your fiscal policy.” 34
Posted by Lurker on July 12, 2010, 09:43 PM | #
I do my bit in various venues too. Just joined that British Democracy Forum that GW was on, there is a bit of sport to be had there. Anyone else can join too, dont be shy. I dont think I’m persuading anyone directly, I like to think by winning arguments Im swaying a few of the waiverers, the lurking onlookers. If they see someone, a race replacer, fall flat on their face, hopefully repeatedly, their protestations of the rightness of their cause will start to ring hollow. Ive said all this before. If nothing else Im there to remind the bad guys that not everyone has been co-opted yet, that there is another pov and that they have not won yet. That was the revelation of the internet itself, things I though were just me turned out to be bothering other people too. The race replacers mission is always to imply that no one is against them. Merely by existing at all we deny them that.
I still think there is a huge mileage in sites like Antiwhitemedia.blogspot.com, the job is barely started. When the the powers that be are obfuscating about crime, education, illegal immigration etc they can suceed, the obfuscation works up to a point. Blacks commit more crime? Thats down to poverty, education family breakdown. Well meaning whites can be thrown off the scent over and over with those red herrings, jumbled up with numbers and PC. But when it comes to what is seen, in advertising, movies, TV etc the lie is right there on the screen, it has to be. The incorruptible asians resisting the two-faced whites, the calm, earnest blacks taking charge of panicking white men, the stern women/lesbians making those life or death decisions while white males flap about ineffectually, like girls in fact, cannibalistic rednecks - the list is endless and its right there, little interpretation needed. People can see that it doesnt relate to their everyday experience, that these outliers are being deployed to tell huge lies. To make it clearer what those lies are is pushing at an open door. Still hoping MR can link to that site, I just have to keep moaning on I suppose. 35
Posted by Armor on July 13, 2010, 12:02 AM | #
If you tell normal white people that it is our sacred duty to save the white race, they may be a little uneasy about the idea because they have been brainwashed by the media. But if you tell them that you are worried about the future of your grand-children, and the fact that the Whites will soon be a vanishing minority, I think most people will listen to you. Most white people who approve of mass immigration don’t hate other whites and couldn’t care less about non-whites. It is mere posturing. They just want to make clear that they are high-minded immigration enthusiasts. They would probably like immigrants to self-destroy after a few months so they can keep cheering for more immigration. In a similar way, most white people who squirm at the mention of race survival, do not want the Whites to become a minority at all. I think the brainwashing is only superficial. The result of external pressure by the anti-white forces is that the Whites no longer have a consistent behavior and set of opinions: they don’t want to be replaced by non-whites, but they are afraid to say so. They have a defensive posture. It makes it difficult for them to elaborate a coherent opinion and say what they want. Since words like “race survival” make them squirm, it could be argued that most whites think thinking about race survival is immoral. But it would be a wrong and self-defeating conclusion. It could just as well be argued that since most white people say they want western civilization to endure, we have definite proof that they want the white race to endure too. (After all, it is a fact that western civilization cannot exist without the white race). We know that most of the propaganda by the anti-white forces is self-contradictory and makes no sense at all. We should expect more coherence from normal white people, but not total coherence. They will only say what they think can politely be said under the present circumstances. The solution is to have a flexible approach. If “race survival” doesn’t sound right on TV, or if the media have managed to make one word taboo, there is always some other way to say something equivalent. We can not expect the average white man to make a speech in favor of white survival, but there are other ways he shows his attachment to the white race. Just look at the polls about Arizona. In fact, the idea that white people have no objections to the end of the white race is silly. Such an idea should only come from our enemies. 36
Posted by Grimoire on July 13, 2010, 04:34 AM | # Guessedworker: In Europe the Oak tree is the ancient and core symbol of Palingenesis….the tree of Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, etc. The Tree of the Aryans…..(ie.) Tueton, Celts, Slavs and Mediterranean. This because the Oak, the sole tree to do so….will completely heal any wound inflicted upon it….(ie.) if you lop off the limb of a Fir, Elm, Cedar, Yew, Maple or any tree, the scarification and the remaining nodal site will never completely heal over, regardless the tree exists for millennia. You can cut off the branches of an Oak, major or minor limb…within a few seasons the nodal site will completely heal as if a branch was never cut from, nor intersected the site. Within a decade, the grain of the wood will return to edged form, straight and true. It is this regenerative (palingenetic) singularity that set the Oak tree apart….. the Oak was venerated….it’s grove was a place of sacred imminence. Thus Palingenesis is central to the ancient concept of race as the higher living being the man lives and dies within, and if worthy, is reborn and thus lives within eternally. It is the motive of sacrifice to the greater good. It is a central to all great races and civilizations. How does the above apply to this discussion? Because it is farcically dangerous, overwhelmingly inauthentic, false, counterproductive….but most importantly - intellectually dishonest to salt an immemorial theme .....for the purposes of discrediting ultra-racialism. PF is a fine lad….energetic, committed, hard-working,worthy…. however his critique on Palingenesis is a flawed specimen from the first paragraph. It doesn’t entertain logic, and thus bear truth, as much as it entertains conceit for the purpose of offering rejoinder to ultra racialists such as CC. I hasn’t had any measurable effect on CC…nor anyone else… in a positive sense, because it has no substance whatsoever. That said, the turn to teleology contains some dangerous impurities that, by definition, do not exist in what we could perhaps term the Heideggerian moment ... the moment of discovery and habitation of self. For one, it is a playground of the inauthentic and the false, for authenticity can address becoming within certain natural bounds but is lost the instant the modality, to use PF’s term, changes and the act of considering takes over from experience. For another, teleology is the vessel of faith, and secularised beliefs of all kinds, including the nationalist, are compromised by their religious decontextualisation. I urge you to reconsider. For it seems to me in your haste to deflate ultra-racialism you have landed firmly in the ‘playground of the inauthentic and the false’. . Between ourselves, in this forming of a ontology of European nationalism…we have no right nor excuse but to be honest, frank and forthright with each other and ourselves….however we differ in outlook. palingenesis |?palin?jen?sis| Perhaps a more respectful, measured and impartial study into the origins and ends of the mythological vernacular may help. I assure you this would be more enlightening and productive than snide aspersions cast as philological argument, or the co-option and redefinition of words and terms no honest person has any business or right redefining.
What is ‘real’? The inner being or the external being that shares the evidence of the senses with the reason and sense experience of other beings, many who do not exist corporeally ? How is palingenesis compromised by impurities, and non real - when it is an inner truth or insight into processes beyond ’real’? Palingenesis does not exist, yet it is real. The critique is also a necessary act of intellectual warfare. The torch-bearers of myth and false grandeur have to be challenged and their suzereignty ended, or we will never come to grips with the existential nature of our crisis. Guessedworker dear friend….it is a very poor and unnecessary act of intellectual warfare. The suzerainty of myth and ‘false’ grandeur runs far deeper and draws from sources more timeless than any improvised act of intellectual warfare. It can never be defeated, for it originates in the deeper being and life of the European man, even if you exterminate the carrier, as ‘uh’ suggested on behalf of the hebrews in another thread…it will redouble and come looking for you. If you exterminate every origin of palingenesis, your own children will come for your throat while you sleep. The torch-bearers of myth and false grandeur have to be challenged and their suzereignty ended, or we will never come to grips with the existential nature of our crisis The existential nature of our crisis is our own, not the enemies. Therefore we must face it head on, yet with the care and diligence of a physician, not an assassin.
“Paligenesis” was a descriptor coined by historian of fascism Roger Griffin to try to classify types of radical ultranationalism It was not coined by Griffin, however much he applauds himself with his counter-mythology. The word comes from the Greeks and was central to their cosmology. The concept is common to all civilizations. @PF You are entering the debate from its least factually interesting, most polemic and therefore most distracting angle: the discussion of palingenesis via a personality-critique and style-critique of its advocates and antagonists. Not only that, but you enter after months of degeneration have set in. Unfortunate yes…but degenerate ideas don’t grow better through more degeneration. You admit to not being able to understand my critique of palingenesis - whose problem is this exactly? I understand it completely. It is a totally facetious concentration of rot. It was so bad that I did ask myself ‘whose problem is this exactly?’ From the first paragraph to the last it stunk to high heaven of fallacious logic. I’m one of these people to whom logic equates to truth that can be revealed concerning the premises and propositions at hand. I saw nothing there but false assumptions masquerading as propositions and expedient fallacies serving as premises. Don’t read too much into it, the parties who are interested in an actual discussion of the issues at hand have flown or are being silent, and what remains is me relaxing myself on Captain Chaos with personality- and style-critique while I cyclically resummarize my ideas so that I can distill them to greater effect later, as an aid to myself in generalizing. Also writing is fun! more forthcoming, honest. So what do you want to do with such as CC? Hinder and sabotage? Annoy and provoke? Irritate and vex? Why not try dialogue and respect? 37
Posted by Al Ross on July 13, 2010, 08:44 AM | # Ferguson’s father was our family doctor. The old man was more than race - conscious - he knew his ethnic gradations and was an old fashioned Glaswegian Orangeman and Rangers fan. Niall Ferguson’s history teacher at Glasgow’s Colebrooke Street School may well have spent some wasted hours teaching my inattentive self. 38
Posted by Leon Haller on July 13, 2010, 09:44 AM | # The solution is to have a flexible approach. If “race survival” doesn’t sound right on TV, or if the media have managed to make one word taboo, there is always some other way to say something equivalent. We can not expect the average white man to make a speech in favor of white survival, but there are other ways he shows his attachment to the white race. Just look at the polls about Arizona. —— I agree, mostly. However, do not underestimate the number of sincere race-liberals. They are not all Jews, or even otherwise leftists (look at the ludicrous libertarians with their ‘open borders’). I run across really racially closed-minded whites all the time. They are probably unreachable. But I also come across many perfectly decent persons who just don’t feel comfortable re race. There is a deeper concern here. All exogenous trends are militating against white racial survival. The death of our race is not due simply to alien connivance, or race treason - or even polite PC. It is also due to racial passivity. If whites simply do nothing (to worsen things), we still die. Thus, if we wish our race and civ to live, we are going to have to employ very coercive measures to reverse broad facts/trends (past immigration, aboriginal peoples, Negro slave descendants, Big Business wanting cheap labor and short term profits, belief among whites that racial coercion is immoral, psychological preference for doing nothing, etc.). Basically, we need the racial state, somewhere. At a minimum, assuming that it should be (in) Europe, this means non-whites must be physically removed from territories, and either killed (if there is violent resistance), or at best dumped into countries which probably won’t want them, and to which many of those removed will have had no direct connection. But this is the tragedy of history. Are whites going to go along with this cleansing agenda? Not in their present state of ethics - at least until the oppression of whites has gotten so obvious and bad, that whites are willing to revolt. But at that point we might not win (especially if deportees appeal to co-ethnics overseas for military aid - ESPECIALLY viz the Euro-Muslims and wider Islamic world). The idiot white race NEVER NEVER NEVER should have allowed ANY immigration. But reversing it will be neither logistically/militarily easy, nor as morally unimpeachable as keeping the aliens out in the first place. And so the need to convince our people of the higher morality of (white) racial survival. At the risk of sounding like a pompous twit, what I wrote above, however hasty and inarticulate, really is vitally important. No survival without cleansing, no cleansing without new racial ethics (even if they must be rooted in Christianity). 39
Posted by Guessedworker on July 13, 2010, 12:41 PM | # Grimoire, But I do not see that it follows…, at all; nor that it is sensible, to falsely characterize a concept intrinsic to the question of meaning in existence, within a man’s brief time-of-life among a larger body, such as family/faith/nation/race, that lives on, provided care and effort, and grows stronger, replacing injury with strength, continually subsuming and growing anew. Perhaps it is necessary to find the bounds of “becoming”, in the sense this is architecture we can observe and model mentally (as opposed to a wholly invented if alluring idea). PF is thinking from within the bounds. His critique of palingenesis as interest in “a larger body, such as family/faith/nation/race, that lives on” is that it is NOT an interest in the natural sense. We know what interest is, and it is material, ie, ethnic-genetic. It has instinctual agency. It is real, or - to borrow from PF - it is at least an “is” modality going on “am” (“real” modulates between “is” observations and “am” experiences, the latter having the relation to the former, in my personal opinion, of the conscious to the mechanistic). Palingenesis is central to the ancient concept of race as the higher living being the man lives and dies within, and if worthy, is reborn and thus lives within eternally. It is the motive of sacrifice to the greater good. It is a central to all great races and civilizations. Race as the “higher living being”? You seem almost to be dwelling in some Jungian universe where archetypal imagery is permanently etched into the European mind. It is not. All that was permanent before the old faith is permanent now, and all that was taken away with it was not, and is lost. Let me expand on that. Palingenesis was a small part of a systemic, not a universal, truth. Our pre-Christian forefather’s belief system was broken and usurped, leaving only rumours after the holocaust of the first evangelical era. The mere rumour of rebirth which has come down to us, and to which you refer, is nothing, not even the full bone set from a severed leg, when the body of the system is lost. Grimoire, we do not have the time to continue trying to spark intellectual life out of a few scraps of bone. It has been done to death. It does not work. It was relevant to, and in, an age of mud and ignorance, out of which European Man has forever emerged (in part, in response to the alien-ness and falsehood of the usurping faith). And this is good. We - that is, you and I and all those here who understand - can only go forward, using the tools and talents available to us. We can never go back. And who would want to? We can safely say, from our eyrie of discontent in the twenty-first century, that the old way of doing things in tribal Europe was not a conscious and true understanding of love and life for our collective human organism. Like all religion, it was an unconsciously employed proxy for adaptive mores. But the gods were not real. In death, the warrior-kings did not go to their ancestors. There is no reward for the courageous warrior in the after-life, only adaptive choices in this life. Take them then. Use your talents. it is farcically dangerous, overwhelmingly inauthentic, false, counterproductive….but most importantly - intellectually dishonest to salt an immemorial theme .....for the purposes of discrediting ultra-racialism. First, I am an ultra-nationalist. It is my contention that the highest truths are sovereign, and licence actions free of the clutter of tradition, religious constraint, and other social considerations of a secondary nature. We face an existential threat. We need complete freedom of action in order to survive, and only the highest truth will sustain us in that. Second, the quality of truth is the determinant of authenticity (if I am permitted the “redefinition”) and intellectual honesty. On what basis do you judge that the experiential truth of human presence is lower in the order of things than the fantasy of a putative glory? You will not sidestep the challenges of the ‘polarity of being-becoming’ by synthetic redefinition of terms so that they suit your purposes. This is the tactic of the enemy. It demonstrates no commitment to truth of being - to the life of our people, in history as well as the body. You have not understood. You seriously underestimate what is being said. Now, ordinarily I would not worry about that, and would trust to time and repetition to provide a foundation in these things. But in your case, because of the utility of your intellect and the breadth of your education, I am not willing to let you go so lightly. Do you merely know what is meant by Being, or can you say “I am”(and, indeed, “we are”)? Because the knowledge alone is not enough. It is the experience in the present which marks the possibility to be of the people, like rocks on the landscape. The knowledgeable can only speak from estrangement, no matter how honeyed or how informed or carefully thought out are their words, and nationalist intellectualism among Europeans has never been more estranged from the people than it is today. The experience, of course, is the life of the “authentic”, and invites the intellectual re-ordering of everything, all the world, on this axis of, let us say for the sake of this discussion, authentic <> inauthentic, though we can present that in a number of ways. A mass movement, then, in the wake of an intellectual, cultural and political flowering - the whole leading away from inauthenticity and toward authenticity, away from absence and self-estrangement and towards presence and self-possession - is the inevitable, Nature-conforming result of an ontological nationalist zeitgeist. This is what a few of us here are at the very beginning of speaking about. We believe that in the world of lies, the world of entertainment sans political struggle, the world of silent oppression in which not merely the right to a collective life is denied us but the very fact of our existence now, today … in this world there is no greater and more necessary but also more real and indissoluble redoubt than this return to self-hood. A fantastical Phoenix be damned. I want a real one. Perhaps a more respectful, measured and impartial study into the origins and ends of the mythological vernacular may help. By all means, write it and we will post it accordingly. What is ‘real’? The inner being or the external being that shares the evidence of the senses with the reason and sense experience of other beings, many who do not exist corporeally? Right at the outset, the duality you propose is flawed. There is no inner being sitting in your head, waiting for the light to go on. Actually, I even dislike the word “inner” and distrust the people who use it. When the light goes on, the “inner man” is discovered living outside because the world is the only reality. To be serious, there is union of two or all of our three cognitive functions or there is separation - a kind of psychological dismemberment. Ordinarily, we live in the latter state and call it consciousness. Something of an over-estimation. How is palingenesis compromised by impurities, and non real - when it is an inner truth or insight into processes beyond ’real’? Palingenesis does not exist, yet it is real. Well, we must hope to come up with a few better insights than that! There isn’t much truth in palingenesis. Fantasies built of idealisations are not generally true. It is the underlying adaptiveness that is true. In execution, however, the will to rebirth tends to display some red-light maladaptivities, perhaps because it has come down to us shorn of its religious setting but mostly, I think, because people are self-estranged and live in personality, and personality is constructed without the conscious participation of the subject and from the myriads of external influences which, in these end-times, include a lot of things we nationalists do not respect or desire. The suzerainty of myth and ‘false’ grandeur runs far deeper and draws from sources more timeless than any improvised act of intellectual warfare Are you conflating the mythicisation from, say, the romantic era of nationalism with something older? You shouldn’t. You cannot demonstrate the line of transmission from Gilgamesh and Enkidu to the SS because it does not exist. The intellectual warfare I am speaking about is against the ambitions of the modern. The ancient is lost, except where it is not (as in those Padstow videos you may recall, for example). You cannot call it back, and all attempts to do so are condemned to inauthenticity. It can never be defeated The Christian Bishops already did that a millenia and a half ago. it originates in the deeper being and life of the European man It is not depth but presence that treats of Being. Words of power and meaning come from there. The spring is living with us. It did not flow only once, in the long-distant past when the bards sang. I repeat, I am interested in a new intellectual and cultural flowering. We will make myth, all the myth we want, if we can move even a little from what “is not” in us to what “is”. This is the true renewal. How can I help you to understand this? Intellectual warfare with the mythic body of European man is fratricide and civil war. I do not want to upset my German friend whom I greatly respect. But this is not a sentiment appropriate to you. it is not your right or your affair to interfere or dictate the contents of the inner life of another through any but truth and persuasion…. there is no excuse for expedient lies and ‘necessary acts of intellectual warfare’ upon our own people. More vision, Grimoire. You need much more vision. 40
Posted by PF on July 13, 2010, 01:33 PM | # Grim wrote:
I could never surpass GW’s clarification above, but I will say something in response to this. All this stuff - meaning the mythico-conceptual panorama of ‘old fashioned conservative European thought’ - whether in its watered-down varieties as British paleoconservativism or in its ferocious 1935-NS formulation, or in any of the old varieties - is dead or at least relativized for all living young European-blooded people. Part of this is ignorance, part is the culture of critique, part of it is alienation - but hold on, you and other traditionalists dont get off so easy because - part of it is the fact that a critical mass of intelligent people have glimpsed the reality beyond these terms and found them only partial descriptors. Meaning they contain some truth, and some error. Now the Left posited the thesis that they contained no truth. Race, heroism, tradition, was all just pure nonsense to them. With this understanding they remade the world. Average Euro-man now experiences in his vague forebodings as he surveys his demographically transformed city-scapes, that there must be something to this whole traditional/territoriality/social-cohesion/racial thing. By submitting to empirical testing of the Leftist anti-thesis, we come to the conclusion that the thesis/theses (imagine 20 main theses of European racial conservativism) have validity, but need to be articulated in another form. Hamilton’s theory of altruism and Lorenz’ explication of the evolutionary roots of territoriality and aggression are not the same as our great-grandfathers’ Heroics. EGI is not the same thing as Bismarckian realpolitik, Bethman-Hollweg’s Grossraumpolitik, Metternich’s diplomacy, or Clausewitzian Total War hypotheses. EGI gives a clarity that might prevent a German from capitalizing ruthlessly on his every advantage in a conflict with a Dutchman, which perspective tended to get lost in the midst of European fury. Genetic similarity theory and Rushton’s divergent evolution hypotheses are not Gobineau’s and the pre-Hitlerites Spirit of the Race meanderings, which blather on forever ascribing all manner of misty qualities to ‘The Teuton’. (Not that I don’t love talking up The Teuton but we have better methods now, allowing more precision). Jingo-Patriotism and Empire-seeking Patriotism and Spirit-of-the-Race nationalism and their attendent political forms (Palingenesis, Empire) are most certainly *not* what we will arrive at given a new philosophical synthesis. Plus the worst has already happened, only in the minds of certain people has it not yet arrived: Europeans no longer believe or are susceptible to these theories. The culture of critique upped the ante and demands us now to do something besides ‘defend’ old theories from the discrediting internet attacks of people sympathetic to our cause (me). Everyone who tries to fit themself into these old procrustean suites of Evola-juiced, Ludovici-juiced traditionalism looks ridiculous. For gods sake, on Counter-Currents (G. Johnsons’ blog) there are articles about game - how to pick up women - next to page-long block quotes of Ludovici about what specifically constitutes proper female virtue. This is a shambling quizzical contradiction-filled farce, to not admit the critiques which have relativized and problematized ‘virtue’ (Nietzsche) and yet be awash in our 21st century reality where nerdy kids scheme to break through self-imposed social constraints using techniques gleaned from the internet. To entertain those disperate elements one would have to not have perceived the contradictions in them. Either synthesize Ludovici with your own relativizing critique or indulge in moral priggishness and remove the post on ‘game’ - dont present your naked intellectual self to the world half-washed, half-dressed, half-shaven in this manner, looking as if you don’t know whether you intended to go out or stay in, or whether this is 18th century London or 21st century Mississagua. 41
Posted by Captainchaos on July 13, 2010, 06:28 PM | # I have to congratulate PF on his creativity, he always manages to conjure a view of things that I do not recognize as reflecting the real world. “Discredited corollaries?” Like slavery, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, censorship, warmongering, ultimate betrayal of or failure to realize the ethnic interests of majority populations? I guess democracy is destined for his bin of verboten political systems as well. Sound statecraft is more vital to the problem at hand than philosophy. A constitutional republic with racially exclusive citizenship enshrined in that republic’s constitution, along with mechanisms in place to impeach elected officials who transgressed against the republic’s racial exclusivity would be the best bet for securing the genetic continuity of the race along with preventing abuses of power. Because, you see, even amongst our exalted democratic politicians, there are always at least a few who will abuse their power because they can get away with it - and there is nothing any philosophy would do to hinder them. And palingenesis is essentially a, yes, “modality” of propaganda, not a “model of man.” Once PF can free himself of his seemingly compulsive need to argue by way of strawman, not to mention ad hominem, he may come to realize that. 42
Posted by PF on July 13, 2010, 07:12 PM | # CC wrote:
Constitutional republic? Not a dictatorship? A constitution enshrines ideas. The American Constitution was possible because the ideas it discussed had not been problematized in the minds of those who ratified it - freedom, reason, truth, happiness, fairness, “equality” (in the heavily conditional sense that they meant that), justice, “citizens” (idea deriving from the Greek tradition of polis), etc. Even a republic is kind of a funny idea when you think about it. My only point is that this:
might be a little bit wrong, because insofar as philosophy is an understanding of the how the world is, and constitutional republics are founded on constitutions which enshrine/enforce ideas, your ‘currency of consent’ is still ideas. Its shared thinking, and Ben Franklin and all the founding fathers were the old timey ‘smart fraction’ - which our equivalent smart fraction is presently disunited and in arrears. We must assume that among certain elements of our smart fraction - ‘we’ do not even exist. Even ignoring and discounting these people, what kind of intellectual climate is that to forge a constitution in? The culture of critique has us on the run. This thesis is cooler than what preceded it IMO. 43
Posted by Captainchaos on July 13, 2010, 07:34 PM | #
An honest and provocative statement; worthy of the Fuhrer. So then, there is a space in which all constraints must be cast aside, including moral ones. The reason? Necessity. Just don’t say it too loudly, or too often, the lemmings might hear. 44
Posted by Captainchaos on July 13, 2010, 08:05 PM | # Order, creativity, beauty, excellence, duty as the expression of the life of a given people: these are the virtues palingenesis strives for. These are not the qualities of barbarians, but of civilized man. I must question a man’s commitment to his people and to civilization if he does not wish to instill said in his people. Whether palingenesis can indeed do that can be questioned in my opinion, but not the desirability of those things. Also, there is a a readily discernible and eminently reasonable standard for the limit of authoritarian regulation. If it is not necessary to regulate a thing, or if not regulating it is more efficient, then it is a stupid misapplication of time, talent, resources and money to regulate it. However, if a thing must be regulated, then it should be done so, and with all due efficiency. 45
Posted by Armor on July 13, 2010, 11:26 PM | # LH: “this means non-whites must be physically removed from territories, (...), or at best dumped into countries which probably won’t want them, and to which many of those removed will have had no direct connection. But this is the tragedy of history.” Non-whites will be reunited with their own people. That’s great! It isn’t a tragedy at all. It will just hurt their wallets. They don’t mind leaving their families and friends to move to the West, so they won’t mind going back home, except for the financial loss. As has often been said here, (here, for example), self-deportation should be encouraged. Some people won’t go willfully, but I think it would be easier to move the whole population of Los Angeles back to Mexico than to try and impose “democracy” in Iraq and Afghanistan. It won’t be the end of their lives. “Are whites going to go along with this cleansing agenda? Not in their present state of ethics” You mean in their present state of brainwashing. If they really believe that race makes no difference, they shouldn’t agonize over non-whites having to live among other non-whites. If they really believe that it is all right to inject non-whites in the West against our will, I wonder what makes them think that it is immoral to inject them back into the third-world. Their present ethics don’t make sense at all. What I find ominous is what’s happened in Brazil. The Whites there are a minority, but I haven’t heard of a white nationalist movement. I suppose there is one (?), but probably marginal. “No survival without cleansing” I like better the mantra ‘Separate or die’. So far, we are the real victims of the ethnic cleansing. We need to put a stop to that, and get racial separation, or we’ll be cleansed for good. 46
Posted by Grimoire on July 14, 2010, 05:09 AM | # Guessedworker:
I do not see the clear picture you claim. On the contrary, I see a threadbare system of self referential sublogic designed around a closed loop more akin to religion and ideology than science.
Q: What is material anyway?
The second sentence does not properly support the first.
Palingeneis is certainly a first principal, and is of course, as is effortlessly observable…a universal first principal of this mode among all civilization. Christianity, which in common use is not Christianity but pre-diaspora Judaism, is bedrock Palingenesis…and Christianity itself acknowledges Palingenesis, however does not concern itself much with, except that which one at least ‘render unto Caesar’ . Ditto classic aboriginal religion. So Christianity or whatever it calls itself replaced nothing. You have defined Palingenesis as something it is not. And you refuse to admit what is obvious.
Good argument, but still a strawman fallacy. Have you read the Aesir Saga, the Greeks, the Romans? It is the thinkers and those who Do and create, we go back to, not a peasant in a mud hut. And a heading forward is not an option, but inevitability.
I like this. I add only that we also need complete freedom of thought to reveal this higher truth. (my comment on ultra-racialism was concerning our colleague Leon Halle assertion Palingenesis is a term coined by said writer to describe Nationalist Socialist thought. Correctly btw. However incorrectly in terms of exclusive use….The NS were not original in form but in expressed emphasis in the priority of needs.Palingenisis is known mostly from the Pythagoreans.)
I know. I hope and imagine we all do or can. It was among our first fully conscious thoughts. I think it is known, before it is articulated…the act of articulation separates us from the experience, and i would characterize it not so much as experience of the present, but experience itself alone; experience outside of the present. I imagine you will say ‘there is no experience outside of the present’, due to your rigorous application of the materialist worldview. However, the present is a moving target. Try to experience, or effect the present, and you are effectively in the past looking forward, or looking back to a present that happened and is receding into the past. There is mystery to time, outside of our accommodations…the experience I talk of is at one with time.
‘Inner’ as it is meant in this case is not and has never been in question, except perhaps with fictional alien robots contemplating human folly, nor will I pretend with you it is. That paragraph is a facetious statement on your part. I distrust pretentious statements, and that was one.
I have vision. I’ve had more of it than most men. It is neither material nor at issue. With Respect and Affection. 47
Posted by Anonymous Nationalist on July 14, 2010, 10:33 AM | #
Yes, the answer lies in the title of the thread: The bulk of the population thinks differently to you. To get them round to your way of thinking, you need to brainwash them. But people won’t volunteer for brainwashing unless you make it fun and entertaining and don’t tell them that it’s brainwashing. This is what the left has been doing since the 1960’s, it’s what the media specialises in. If you want people to listen to your message, then you must become entertaining. If you are entertaining then people will naturally want to listen to you.
1) A boring doom and gloom “it’s the end of the world, wake up sheeple and think of your race” lecture type video. Would most white people naturally want to watch this and pass it onto their friends? No they won’t. 2) A video that is funny, stupid, crude, entertaining *yet* contains an important nationalist message slipped into it. Would most white people want to watch that and pass it along to their friends? Yes they would. So if you want to hold people’s attention and get them to listen to you then you must become entertaining. Make entertaining cultural products laced with nationalism. The left refer to this as “the sugar coating on the bitter pill of our left wing messages”. 48
Posted by lurker on July 14, 2010, 10:20 PM | # Armor:
The elites see a future with whites, at best, as a sort of high technocratic/miltary/farming slave caste. They will be allowed to prosper up to a point but must never seek to act ethnocentrically or have any political power in their own right. (a) Anywhere whites are a majority they are constantly reminded that (non-white) minorities must be represented politically. (b) Anywhere whites are a minority they can have no political power, at least not as a group – see SA & Zimbabwe and Brazil The elites and their non-white pawns are all anxious to move us from situation (a) to situation (b) as fast as they can. One of the self-fulfilling effects of (a) is that whites are not allowed to intervene politically in the changing of demographics that leads to (b), most obviously immigration. 49
Posted by Guessedworker on July 15, 2010, 11:09 AM | # Grimoire, You write:
I know you do not see. But we will come to that. What you have done here is to shift the focus of your original comment, to which I was responding, which was:
The latter two-thirds of that comment describe Salterism rather well. Because it is not my purpose here to attack you and “win the thread” but, on the contrary, to invite you into our house, I did not demolish the point you were making - which it now seems I must - but simply replaced it with the Salterian alternative. You reject the replacement, which is hardly surprising. You write:
Richard Dawkins name is often employed by anti-evolutionists sans further explanation, meaning as a signifier, and he is obviously well on the way to taking his place in the pantheon of debate-killers like Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot. The question, however, is whether the “larger body, such as family/faith/nation/race … grows stronger, replacing injury with strength, continually subsuming and growing anew” in a solely cultural way or, via culture to a degree, in a genetic way. Now, the answer to this question is not a rabid, “I despise these amateurs, these anti-empiricists, Darwin and Dawkins …” meaning ultimately, as the Jew-left instructs us, that man is only the ideas in his head. But if, on the contrary, it is that the genes which make us, in our case, distinct as northern Europeans - meaning, possessed of all the qualities particular to northern Europeans - are privileged by continued selection, well, we are speaking about the same thing, albeit you are doing it in an aggressive, culturalistic way and consider yourself to be arguing for something not only different, but in opposition. Not for the only time in this response I am going to request you to take a reality check. You are arguing for a false distinction. And should you resist … should you consider this an insult to your life-long learning, which is impressive I must admit … I would ask you right now to draft and sign a deed, to be lodged with your legal representative, stating that should you fall ill you hereby refuse all medical treatment flowing from modern genetic science. That, at least, will convince me that you are sincere. Mad, obviously, but sincere.
You are right. There is something which is missing, something complementary. I habitually hunt without the aid of logistic strings, partly a consequence of having no education and a very second-rate intellect, but partly also a consequence of a peculiar and no doubt very annoying talent for pushing people towards this particular something.
Since it is in service to something else, which can itself be said to be in service to something else, I think not. However, the question, really, is: what is a principle in this context? What is its chief characteristic? Let us be communitarian and say that for both of us the chief characteristic is efficacy ... an interest ... something efficacious both in the life of the individual and in the life of the race. Which translates to “fitness” in the Darwinian model and … what, exactly, in yours? In a purely culturo-imaginary sense, of course, because we don’t want to fall back into the Material Trap of genetic interests. I mean, where is this going, Grim? Ah, this perhaps …
The purveyors of externalistic religion and of the politics of rebirth alike are wrong. All of them at all times, Pythagoreans not excluded. The rebirth meme is not a mere article of faith or some archetypal imprint on the “racial brain”. It is not for the many, the race-babblers and the god botherers, but for the few … actually the very, very few. Their tremendous exclusivity invites misunderstanding by the excluded, and that’s where the problems all stem from … Jesu at Calvary dying for our sins … the SS mulling over their racial virtues at Wewelsburg … all the childishness of some new permanence, a-filled with glory or sainthood or love. All of it is, to be kind, an ever so slightly disastrous misreading. But that’s only because rebirth is such an easy term to misread. And it is not an accurate term. It is only a partial descriptor. Actually, it does not describe Man in the anthropological sense at all. Neither does it refer wholly to Dasien nor even, in my lowly opinion, to the facing of the singular creative moment which Dasein performs. It refers to what happens next, which is a dissolution not a rebirth. Nothing goes forward for there is nothingness where the thing would be, nor is this anything we can speak about. Of rebirth there is no sign. No Sein. So, Grim, what are you left with? Well, the good news is that my ontology and your palingenesis are one. The bad news is that your externalist, mass-market palingenesis is a misreading, a mistake. There is nothing inside the box, but a lot of people have suffered and died so we might understand that.
Well, make your mind up. Is it, at the end of the day, genes or isn’t genes? And what is “character” in the sense you mean the term but the behaviour-set phenotype of good European genes? If it’s genes we want to respect, and culture is merely a carrier of that respect, why the aggression against Salter? You seem to me to be manufacturing dissent.
I do, and I do.
I hope I can see what palingenesis is. But our nationalist intellectual Establishment does not agree, and it is using it daily in precisely the sense we complain about.
Here is the question: If it is only possible for life to be real in the present, whether that life is individually or collectively experienced, what is it, exactly, that experiences outside of the present?
Well, “inner” is in question with me. In its place I posit “conscious”. It is different, of course. It is the characteristic of presence, and the characteristic that seems to be missing from the Heidegger I have read. It would be interesting to hear how you would interpret “absence” in its relation to consciousness and time. 50
Posted by Grimoire on July 16, 2010, 02:04 AM | # Guessedworker:
The inference was the case for Darwinism is in error, and I see this clearly. Not that ‘I do not see’. I see clearly.
To begin I am not familiar with Salter or Salterism. Perhaps you can understand my irritation with being included with same, of who I am unaware. My comments are mine own and derived from my learning, thought and experience, unless noted and attributed. Please desist from replacing my arguments with others.
Yes, the man is a social cockroach as apposed to butterfly. But he appeals to all absolute asses who like to get up and lecture their imagined inferiors, and make good coin at it. Aesop’s fable of the asshole versus the rest of the body is perfect here.
This is extremely poor argument and tactics. Genetic Science is not Darwinism. Genetic science is a physical science dealing with healing the body. Darwinism is a talk shop that conflates itself with real science and pretends to others that they know the meaning of everything and everybody and if you disagree it is because you are wrong and have bad genes. Also the inference that my argument precludes me from the aid of science is bad form, old friend. Also I am completely sincere and sane, arguments otherwise are.’ Ad hominum’ , evasion and admission of a need to lean on dilatory tactics. I must leave these points for later in the interests of time:
That character is not formed by genetic information alone should be obvious.
Who the hell is Salter….is he a scientist? No? Then I have nothing to do with him. If you would be so kind as to include a quote or two to support your remarks, and desist in insulting me with this conflation, it would be appreciated. Salter is nobody to me - neither do I need him to make my point.
Ah riddles…...at present I have no time.
You are being specious and evasive. And the answer is: unconscious, or comatose. Unfortunately I am out of time With Respect and Affection, yet Stern Admonitions against Cupidity and Petulance. 51
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 16, 2010, 03:22 AM | #
What?! Genetics is the science of heredity and variation in living organisms.
Really. What is “real” science?
Yes, even to Darwin. 52
Posted by Guessedworker on July 16, 2010, 07:42 PM | #
I am pleased to see you retain your sense of humour. The standard assumption that, having gone in so deep with all that romanticism, Germans had no energy left for cracking one has taken a hit.
I understand the need. However, I am restricted not by what I want to say but by what I can. Why the heck do you think this conversation largely proceeds by you making condemnatory accusations and me asking slightly weird questions? See, there’s another one.
Please specify which mysteries of existence you mean. I am quite happy to be attacked in specific instances. But I suspect you are using the term as a put-you-to-sleep device, and in reality - not really, of course - you can’t name a mystery beyond the utility of palingenesis I am making any claim whatsoever to have “dealt with”. Even then, the real work of assigning a true utility to palingenesis is not being undertaken by me, but by PF using a methodology of his own. What really underlies your criticism here, of course, is your own claim to an understanding of the mysteries. So, then, speak. My house is yours.
Well, let us be the judge of that. With which of these ideas do you disagree, which do you accept, and which are borderline acceptable? Evolution
There are references under Ethnic Genetic Interest on the sidebar - the PDF is a good basic introduction. The idea is that all members of a given ethnic group share genetic interests. An ethnic genetic interest is, literally, the number of copies of one’s genes in the world, outside of one’s immediate family. Interests are anything that tends to the maintenance and increase of the number of copies. Dr Frank Salter, a political scientist at Max Planck, did the theoretic work with the help of various specialists, including Cavilli-Sforza and Henry Harpending.
But to me there is no spirit. There is Being. There is our time-bound personality that ordinarily we acquire and live completely through, and that contains all that you are speaking about. One can say that there is what is and what is not, there is presence and absence, consciousness and mechanicity (or comatosity, if you prefer). All these are ways of seeing Man as he is in the world. And what one sees, vaguely and without too many excited claims about the sword in the stone, is a way, perhaps, to create a synthesis. I’ve no objection to people believing in the spirit or in an inner life or in gods or anything else, any thesis that conventional minds believe. I cannot stop them. But they live, as we all do, in personality and absence, and they experience what is not. So please understand, it is not the quality of the aesthetic or of intellect or of any other marker for the European which has value, because in absence and mechanicity everything has the same value, and everyone will share the same fate - which, in our time, is racial dissolution. What has value, and what is missing today, is the conscious antithesis.
Itself a riddle and, taken literally, an excellent way to answer the question without implicating yourself. Here, if you have this time of yours, is the riddle again: If it is only possible for life to be real in the present, whether that life is individually or collectively experienced, what is it, exactly, that experiences outside of the present? 53
Posted by PF on July 16, 2010, 10:32 PM | # Grim wrote:
Genetic science… ? We have acquired knowledge of genetics in the last 50 years. This knowledge confirms Darwin’s and Mendel’s hypotheses about how natural selection works on organisms over time. Natural selection - which is the core of Darwin’s idea to my understanding and thus of ‘Darwinism’ - is actually an inherent property of DNA-based/RNA-based replicating systems. A person could be told about how DNA replicates and on that basis alone could draw conclusions about the arms races that would result when the DNA’s structure evolves to code for a vehicle which can be assembled to (1) propagate and (2) maintain that DNA longer than free-floating DNA has a chance to. So natural selection is prefigured in the nature of DNA’s volatility and the unforgivingness - in a chemical sense - of most environments with respect to DNA. Meaning DNA without a vehicle only survives in a microenvironment, for a short time, and can only copy itself once per generation and only with the fortuitious floating-in of nucleic acids, which eventually would form a chain. Much better to find an assemblage of lipids that shields the DNA, self-assembles its own nucleotides internally, and can replicate more quickly and exist in more microenvironments. The requirements of a microenvironment for successful DNA replication would actually be incredibly stringent and limiting, but throw a lipid shield around the molecules and they can ‘wander’ through early Oceania, possibly even creating nucleotides on the basis of their own metabolic processes. Anyway, my point is that ‘Darwinism’ follows inevitably from a knowledge of biochemistry and some other things (on which I am fuzzy!!) such as the nature of replicating systems (of course those that reproduce more win out… having to do with the all-or-nothing nature of genetic information accumulation, because the original evolution of each self-replicating strand was so precarious that a deleterious mutation means game over - if there were intermediary states where survival was possible we would have seen a proliferation of possible vehicles). I understand that Ive worded this somewhat convolutedly but if you look into the processes themselves and read about RNA-world and DNA-world hypotheses, etc., as well as Dawkins and a Genetics textbook, its possible to see how all this stuff is prefigured in the most basic things - which for me rids any of it of the suspicion of being ‘manufactured’ - this kind of post hoc verification is characteristic for patterns observed in reality, that you can find confirmation for their ‘necessity’ (metaphorical!) or better, their cause, emerging from the next-lower level of complexity. In addition to the myriad other practical applications, the molecular clock, etc… 54
Posted by Grimoire on July 16, 2010, 11:12 PM | # Desmond:
Poor wording on my part. My point was that ultimate end of biologic science was medical. However I see your point has merit. Unfortunately, you do not have the luxury of being able to claim interference by Guessedworker.
Real science must by nature be forthright and honest with it’s results. Psuedo-science like Freudian psychology and Darwinism must build and rely on network effects and delaying tactics such as infiltration and corrupting results that disprove it’s thesis…. The scientific theory at the heart of Darwinism - the organizing principal through random selection - is at odds with material science. Attempts to negate the findings by addendum and biased selection of facts to support the theory have been found to be not only misleading - but suspiciously intentional. Why would a purportedly scientific theory of evolution concern itself with the religious/numinous character of man? Why would it pretend to develop a logic, demonstrably false logically, and use this as a pretense that it can answer all questions that man has spent a millennia developing colourful and quixotic theatrical set pieces to celebrate, enjoy and commune together upon? Darwinism will never fly unless it’s adopted by the present ruling class and imposed. Resistance would be immediate and commited. Scientifically, it’s history already. The present ruling class that might cynically adopt it, will soon be deposed and sent packing. Darwinism itself is as anti-Europe and One-World a theory as it is possible to invent. One good fellow - Gorboduc, expressed a suspicion that Darwinism was somehow an infiltration into the normal evolution of European man’s organisation principle, by our friends the ‘chosen people’. I’m sure they worked on making a dollar from it, while at the same time recognizing it’s disruptive potential on the market… but from the most part I think it’s derived it’s major impetus from a repressed English (as it is an English evangelical phenomenon) sense of ‘Inauthenticity”. 55
Posted by Grimoire on July 17, 2010, 12:24 AM | # Petulant Guessedworker: Your stereotypes concerning Germans are hilarious and I can’t stop slapping both knees. Verrücktes Englischer, thank god we haven’t killed you all yet or we’d have no where to look for jokes and laughter.
“Why the heck….?” Mensch…you have a good language, do not be ashamed of it.
Guessedworker Unmasked = The Artful Dodger.
I notice PF stalking the goal. Perhaps I shall take this ball and you may find the answer for you both at the back of the net. Or perhaps I shall dazzle with teutonic footwork and break up the formation before striking inside and deflecting into the sack. Whatever, you shall have to keep guessing..
I don’t need Salter to know this. I detest these white-coats who explain the obvious, as if splitting an atom. We Germans could use some white-coats to explain English humour. From where does it come? What is it’s purpose? How to make it stop? When can we reasonably stop pretending to laugh without offense? Is it curable?
Utilizing Hegalian dialectics - an antithesis is opposed and negated by the central thesis in a crisis/reaction cycle. The resulting synthesis is dissolution of the two opposing thesis’s motive, resulting in a unbiased plateau. Therefore our goal must be to harmonize and bias the life supporting impulse of the two opposing thesis, and dissoluting the death directed impulse. The resulting synthesis in accordance and harmony with the central motive of European man of history.
Good eye for detail.
The question is; on the night of the murder, what is the significance of the fact the hounds did not bark? 56
Posted by Grimoire on July 17, 2010, 12:24 AM | # PF: 57
Posted by Guessedworker on July 17, 2010, 08:27 AM | # Grimoire,
What gladiator ever fought by appealing to patience? Beware the proletarian thumb. Courage now, take a step forward. Try a thrust. All that can happen in this arena is that the life-blood of ideas will flow.
We are far from the stage of synthesing anything. As things stand, we are forever stuck at the stage of formulating the antithesis. That is because the inherent fascism of the ENR/WN intellectual establishment, as represented in the Anglosphere by the Regnery circus, does not engage with the existential nature of the thesis. As you already know, some of us here understand the urgent necessity of producing a real statement of this European life. The question is, are you one of us or not? 58
Posted by PF on July 17, 2010, 08:51 AM | # Grim wrote:
The critique of scientific theory as repressed English emotionalism. It would need to be elaborated to include the true impetus behind the theory of gravity… 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2010, 10:01 AM | # “the inherent fascism of the ENR/WN intellectual establishment, as represented in the Anglosphere by the Regnery circus” (—GW) I respectfully dissociate myself from that statement. “some of us here understand the urgent necessity of producing a real statement of this European life. The question is, are you one of us or not?” (—GW) After a couple of years of trying I regret that I’m not “one of us.” I know PF is one, GW is of course, Jim Kalb is, maybe Paul Gottfried, mayb Soren, looks like the commenter “Uh” is, I’m certain Grimoire is. I haven’t got those particular synapses so can’t contribute, but I’m damn glad somebody has them, if this philosophy stuff really is essential as is claimed. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2010, 05:57 PM | #
My synapses function more like Kievsky’s: what’s happening isn’t philosophy but down-to-Earth stuff, tribal war, tribal revenge, tribal humiliation, castration/emasculation/impotencization of the rival tribe’s males (the decades-long Jewish-concocted “War on White Males,” anyone? Sound familiar?), and sexual humiliation and degradation of the rival tribe’s women, it’s intertribal genocide. What’s happening is stuff like the following just posted over at OD — this is old, old, old stuff from ten thousand, forty thousand, two million years ago, it’s tribal war not philosophy:
What can be done about it? Coming up with a new philosophy? I’m skeptical but hey I’ve always said, I’m for anything that works. Anyway, here are some of Kievsky’s thoughts on the matter:
This is not philosophy. It’s tribal war. A new philosophy won’t get us out of it. Tribal awakening and tribal defense will. —My two cents. 61
Posted by Guessedworker on July 17, 2010, 07:35 PM | # Fred, Let’s say you and Kievsky go out one fine morning and, after many labours, make a new home for white Americans. Say there are tens, even hundreds of thousands of grateful men, women and children who look up to you as their saviour. It’s a big deal. You tell them that now they can live their lives as white people free of all the trespasses of the past. No one is ever going to try to force them out of existence again. “Just go and live free white lives,” you say. Then one day someone who you have heard is a respected guy comes to see you and explains that a lot of inequality has developed - not just in the arrangements which govern the place but in the economic outcomes which obtain there. You are sympathetic. You agree to get some people together and talk it through. Some decisions are taken and some new rules are made. But then another guy calls on Kievsky and says, “Hey, we gotta have some real liberty round this place - damn it, we’re living like slaves all of a sudden.” Kievsky is sympathetic and agrees to hold a meeting to discuss the issue. Well, one thing leads to another and before the two of you know it you are looking at a pair of highly oppositional political movements, one calling itself Social Justice Now and the other Free4All. The intellectuals in the SJN so value the concept of equality, and so raise it up to the neglect of everything else, that they begin to extrapolate new principles from it which, hitherto, nobody had worried about, least of all you and Kievsky. All men must be equal, they say. True equality can never be realised unless it is universal. And after all, universalism is but the child of brotherhood, and brotherhood among men, be they rich or poor, strong or weak, black or white, is the natural state of a just society. Seeing this, the intellectuals of the Free4All movement also begin to extrapolate their basic position into new and exotic forms. They theorise liberty as an absolute state of the unfettered will. Save what may harm another individual, they say, there cannot be any restraint on the individual. And what is a fully-human man or woman but a self-willed entity free of all bounds, all claims, an entirely self-authored being for whom the very colour of his or her skin does not constitute definition unless it is so willed? Well, you and Kievsky are wise old birds, and it doesn’t take too much ringing of alarm bells before you decide that it’s time to crack some heads together and put an end to this. You call in the wisest and most knowledgeable men in the land, and tell them that this mess isn’t what you began the revolution for. You tell them you want suggestions on the way out. They are horrified. “But,” one of them says, “are you so illiberal and, frankly, fascistic that you would stand in the way of the will of the people?” “Didn’t you know,” a second says, “that the development of these forms of liberty was always inevitable? If you don’t like them you should have thought about it long ago, when you had the chance.” 62
Posted by Kulak on July 17, 2010, 08:23 PM | # Race-mixing as a modern Kholodomor Were all “Kulaks” now! 63
Posted by Grimoire on July 18, 2010, 01:01 AM | # Guessedworker:
Time is a weapon. At this time, palingenetically, this gladiator is a veritable incarnation of Maya, with one hand with Dussack and Korbschläger, one with Rapier, another Dagger, one the SwordStaff and one the Halbert. A champion of Fechtschule Baltic and Brandenburg Ober-Havel feels no immediacy, nor serious intent in the bread-and-circus amusements of the new model army and it’s anemic attempts to blind with (sic) science.
I’m with you….if Scrooby can join too. Scrooby is a good drinking companion and has a fine tenor voice. The problem is the materialist theology. Materialism is a creed for office-workers and the over-socialized. The Regnery circus has too many enemy outposts within their own minds. We need a creed not just for thinkers or brawlers, but warriors in thought and deed.
That state which seperates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools” 64
Posted by Grimoire on July 18, 2010, 01:04 AM | # PF:
You’ve lost me. 65
Posted by Lurker on July 18, 2010, 01:19 AM | #
Same here. I did a course on philosophy at uni, just for a term, Monday afternoons. I nodded off more than once. Until reading Fred’s comment I had completely forgotten even taking the course, hadnt given it a thought in years. 66
Posted by Armor on July 18, 2010, 07:06 PM | # “if this philosophy stuff really is essential as is claimed.” Guessedworker likes philosophy partly for the sake of philosophy. I think a philosophical approach can be useful to give some meaning to our lives (or to make our lives seem less absurd). In the long term, having the right philosophy should facilitate the long term survival of our race. In the present crisis where our collective existence is threatened, the promotion of a simple, healthy philosophy can help us win people over to the white cause. The message should be that, in order to be happy and have a meaningful life, we need to be part of something bigger than ourselves: our race, and our nation. That’s what I call philosophy! I can’t contribute to high-brow philosophy, but I think some low-brow, common sense “philosophy” is useful. If in the end we win the race war, I think white people will revert to their true nature: less materialistic, more philosophical, and not suicidal at all. But I don’t expect they will start reading philosophy books. Once we are demographically out of danger, and the Jews are happily living in Israel, we’ll still have to take radical measures to fight social anomy, and the leftist disease, and other social ills. We have to try and see what works. I think it would help a lot to have a decentralized society. I agree with what Fred said in the thread about the popularity of Arizona’s new law : “Same with Bolshevism in the Russian Empire: for decades before its final collapse everyone there knew it was a tragic sick joke but no one could dislodge it because it had been entrenched by diabolically clever men who profited from it. Today’s race-replacement régime is analogous, I believe. No profound world-historical philosophical revolution was needed to get rid of slavery or Bolshevism; neither will any be necessary to get rid of race-replacement.” We should study closely how the political system works, how it is manipulated at the practical level, who holds the real levers of power. Then, we won’t wonder so much what’s wrong with the European mind, and why people go along with a corrupt system. Instead, we’ll have a better idea how to break the system through counter-activism. It is normally the job of journalists to investigate political trickery, but most of them are paid by the anti-white side. It doesn’t really matter, as it is already clear that our institutions have been infiltrated, and our elites co-opted by Jewish and leftist activists, in a climate of moral corruption. When an old, naive person is cheated by a crook, we blame the crook. We don’t over-analyze what’s wrong with the victim. When we are manipulated by our crooked rulers, it is natural to complain that there is something wrong with white people, but the important thing is to denounce and challenge the over-representation of Jews and their leftist allies in the key positions of our institutions. 67
Posted by Guessedworker on July 18, 2010, 08:13 PM | # Grimoire, I am intrigued that you think I have been obfuscating. I thought I have been casting a net, that is, putting “out there” certain positions to be attacked, and I’ve asked a number of (admittedly, quite leading) questions of you as well. The purpose in both cases was to engage you on terms that would open out the debate, beyond the current sterile oppositionalism. In particular, I wanted to get beyond the negative presumptions of our position which you currently entertain, and which constrain you from thought.
Fred can and does speak for himself. I am sure he would not wish to be the cause of you tarrying any longer than you have to.
It seems to me that we need a creed of truth, not something forced and utilitarian, something known beforehand to have a certain value. We need to cleave to what is true, and let the form determine itself from its content. If it is truthful the rest - the wider take-up, the general utility, may flow. 68
Posted by notuswind on July 18, 2010, 11:53 PM | # GW, You can’t discover the political philosophy that you seek by proceeding from the stale facts of science for the same reason that you can’t derive an ought from an is. I understand that this seems the natural course to you because we live in a very materialistic age that values scientific knowledge above everything else. Nevertheless, it is the wrong course. Allow me to recast the problem at the meta-level in a more holistic fashion. Your task is to find a philosophy that can appeal to the European mind with ideas that are naturally resonant with the European spirit whilst also having inbuilt mechanisms for the defense of the European body. From this large and difficult task we note in passing that the three major ideological debacles of the past few centuries are liberalism, socialism, and fascism. Of the three major ideological systems only fascistic nationalism claimed to defend the European body, which is why certain notorious personalities around here still cling to it; however, each of these does have at its central core one important idea that we need to harmonize because of its resonance with the European spirit. These central ideas are respectively liberty, justice, and identity. Those three words represent the political elements that we need to harmonize for the salvation of European man. For no extra charge I’ll note in passing that we can thank a Jewish political vanguard for causing the European mind to confuse justice with equality. Whatever philosophy we develop needs to address this confusion. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to harmonize these core ideas of liberty, justice, and identity, we must also package them in such a metaphysical fashion as to give our middling lives a grander purpose and meaning that can transcend the wretched facts of our material existence [see what happens when an American Puritan tries to channel JB]. This metaphysical framework must be the power plant for the European spirit, providing the requisite energy and inspiration that will make real politics possible, otherwise we will be lost to inertia and stagnation. As an example, in pre-modern times this was accomplished through the idea of Christendom. And now I have succinctly described your true philosophical mission, if you choose to accept it. But what of the science of modern genetics? I am afraid its role is quite limited, it is merely an answer to the contemporary who denies or questions the existence of the European body. We now have the answer in hard science, which is no small thing when you consider all the failed attempts of various 19th and early 20th century investigators. The toy may be new and shiny but it’s not the stuff political foundations are made of. Forgive my condescending tone, I am trying to synthesize the accumulated political wisdom that I’ve garnered from browsing the nationalist web while still leaving open a channel for subconscious truths. 69
Posted by Grimoire on July 19, 2010, 01:41 AM | # Guessedworker:
Obfuscation?
No movement can form or exist without the participation of alcohol… and people who are decent enough types, to drink the required amounts with appreciation and style . Liquid palingenesia.
I’d contribute. 70
Posted by Guessedworker on July 19, 2010, 07:18 AM | # notuswind, I like the association with Mission Impossible. Not only literally true, but also encouraging in a back-handed way. The series was one of the first outings for the soon-to-be eponymous black technical genius. A theft from the European genius.
From what I see at this point, science is not the intellectual foundation but, along with common experience, the verification. Relating an analytic approach to verifiability is not new. Alain Badeiu has used Set Theory in his ontology (Alan Sokal says erroneously, but that’s by the by - Badieu is a leftist). What it means is that what is true by experience and what is true scientifically do not conflict either directly or consequentially. Of course, there have been prognoses on what truth is for thousands of years, and doubtless many large thought-rocks lurk unseen under the water. We will see whether we can traverse them. The following is a pebble:
But you can predict consequence from an “is”, and from consequence you can infer interest or the lack of it, and from that inference you can discriminate. That’s the sequence, if one is has to employ reason in the writing of important (self-important) treatises or whatever. The logical fallacy is simply an intellectual bluff that sounds convincing to people who haven’t noticed that it excludes the requisite intermediate stages. However, the reality of discriminative choice is much more interesting than this, and quite beyond our power of decision. It is necessary here to understand, and hold in one’s mind, the fact that we, as thinking beings, do not decide. “It” decides several milli-seconds before the cumbersome and slow thinking faculty can get involved, leaving us to (wholly convincingly) construct agreement and label it as “decision”. “Should” is a mode of discrimination without which Homo sapiens, and probably all sentient life, cannot survive. It has been around a long time, before Mind was very much at all. It comes from the way Mind perceives “the thing out there”, which is its function, at the neuronal level. Almost instant comparisons of changing states are firing off all the time in our heads, providing a constant discriminative calculation. Thought and reason simply float on top of all this, rubber-stamping when required. The logical fallacy is for stupid smart people. No need for you to be one of those. Your task is to find a philosophy that can appeal to the European mind with ideas that are naturally resonant with the European spirit whilst also having inbuilt mechanisms for the defense of the European body. The scale of this endeavour is beyond just us, working alone. We will have done something, at least, if: (i) We can plot the psychological route out of the single creative moment as it involves into the life we have, which is our life of error and estrangement from self, and - most importantly - back again (the difference being that between unconsciousness and consciousness). (ii) We have begun the process of replacing 19th century thinking in New Right and WN discourse. For example, Mind, yes ... Spirit, no. There is none. It is only a way of talking about ourselves, a habit of thought that is very stubborn, certainly, but self-deceptive. What I see is a need to dynamite this defunct and constipative, pseudo-religious morphology, and found discourse on what is and is not, what we are and are not, what belongs to us and does not, for this is what an ontology of nationalism (and, indeed, a true religious esoterism) must be.
They are European goods, among many others, of course. But as active political components in the sense you imply - the usual sense, in fact - well, that is way downstream today. In any case, once you ally with truth you are in its grip, and where the stream goes, so go you. Let’s see where that is, and make no early utilitarian grabs for this or that overhanging branch.
No, I welcome your interest and engagement. Thanks very much. 71
Posted by notuswind on July 19, 2010, 01:06 PM | # GW, As you know I always appreciate the level of intellectual effort that goes into these exchanges. It is an unspoken measure of respect in this medium. You gave me a lot to chew on in your response and for that I am continually thankful.
The more I learn about who we are, in relation to everyone else, the more optimistic I become. I’ve come to understand that we really are the aristocrats of the globe and the only ones capable of reigning in the destructive forces of modernity, which we created in the first place. As we serenely contemplate our future in this forum, the East - our only natural competitor - is destroying itself with our technology (I note this with some sadness). The global economy won’t survive the East’s [environmental] demise and neither will our farcical politics. Change is coming.
Touché. While you are entirely correct here I would like to focus on your use of the word infer. Considerable difficulty lies behind this word and allow me to illustrate it with a brief anecdote. There is a friend of mine who is very smart and whose political views are passionately held, if quite conventional for his elite [academic] class. But like so many of our finest he has abandoned his political mind to society. Nevertheless, he puts on the pretense that he is a man who thinks for himself and critically examines the world around him from the seat of his consciousness, that he happens to agree with everyone else in his social class is just a happy coincidence. Naturally, I want to liberate his mind from the invisible mental cage that constrains it. So here’s what I did, I bombard this fellow with as much scientific data as I can about the true nature of the world around him. And that many of the social ills that plague Western society have biological sources that can’t simply be changed through egalitarian social programs, evidence for the failure of these same programs is also abundantly supplied. I then proceed to taunt him to apply his brilliant mind to this data, like an alien intelligence might if he were to visit planet Earth. He counters that I am wrong and that all of these ideas about our identity are just products of society - myths that were created long ago to forge imaginary bonds between strangers inhabiting the same geographic area. He can’t accept the premises that lie behind the terminology of the data that I’m forcing down his throat. But then I pull out my trump card, which I’ve been hiding for just this moment, by logging into my 23andMe account and show him that this company was able to correctly identify my socially constructed racial and ethnic background just by having me spit in a tube. It was a knockout blow. Months go by and my friend eventually admits to me that all the wicked things I’m telling him might very well be true. But he still doesn’t accept the interest that I am inferring from this data. Unfortunately, all the data and rhetorical hard work (on my part) that I’ve thrown at him still haven’t put a dent in his egalitarian values. The coup de grâce to my efforts comes when he tells me that even if the end result of what our society unleashed in the cultural revolution is the destruction of the same society (necessarily) it would still be worth it because what we did back then was the right thing to do. What society ought to do didn’t change for him. In my disappointment I proceeded to mock him to his face. That his egalitarian values were planted in his skull by people he’s never met through the movies and television that he’s watched all his life. And how mine are based on the same truths that he now grudgingly accepts and not propaganda that was manufactured in Hollywood. And while I’ll always admire his technical brilliance that I hold his values in contempt (politely, of course). As you can imagine, we don’t talk politics anymore. But I did learn a valuable lesson from all this, that the transition from consequence to that of inferring interest cannot be done with just scientific (or analytic) truth. More is needed. [I am not done responding to you] 72
Posted by notuswind on July 19, 2010, 02:10 PM | # GW, Sorry for how long this response is getting. My “brief” anecdote turned out to be much longer than expected. The words were just coming to me and I couldn’t stop, I hope you enjoyed the story in any case.
I am also familiar with the work of Benjamin Libet and would advise caution in making these kinds of statements. As a general rule, we understand very little about what’s going on inside our heads and that makes it very difficult to interpret our results in this fashion. Paradoxically, Libet developed his own theory of free will from his research, in contrast with his colleagues.
Agreed.
[chuckles] I am glad to see that my deliberate use of the world “spirit” tweaked you, which was its purpose. My use of the word “salvation” was also intended to have the same effect, but you didn’t bite that apple. Anyway, I could have also used the term “European essence” and I think it would serve the same purpose without all the ontological hand-wringing. I am sure that such a thing exists and functionally serves as the unconscious mind of European man. He’s not always aware of how it shapes his consciousness but it’s there nonetheless. However, I would be remiss if I didn’t tell you that the spirit world does exist, contrary to our materialistic era where it is uncritically assumed that such things are just nonsensical holdovers from the benighted past. You should reject this anti-intellectual attitude and open your mind to the possibility that when all previous generations talked about the spiritual world they weren’t just sipping crazy sauce. If the vast bulk of this discourse could be accounted for as simple ignorance of the natural world then I think you (and this era) would have more a point. But it can’t. In every generation there are stories of skeptics who are unexpectedly confronted by the reality of the spiritual world and are forever changed. Surely you don’t think that all the many thousands of such accounts can be rationally explained. More to the point, you already know that our era’s politics is a bunch of crap, so why can’t its metaphysics be just as wrong? Since you are an Englishman I will recommend to you a fellow countrymen of yours by the name of Rupert Sheldrake. He has written some provocative material about various experiments in parapsychology as well as his personal theories of an extended mind. While he doesn’t write about the potential of a spiritual reality per se, what he does do is present experimental data that will challenge your [materialistic] metaphysical beliefs. “The Sense of Being Stared At” is a nice easy book of his that should give you a gentle introduction to his work.
Thank you for the encouragement. 73
Posted by Dasein on July 19, 2010, 04:02 PM | #
JWH also commented on this a while back at TOQ:
Just about anything can be shoehorned into a fallacy of some sort. D.S. Wilson has also written about this: http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/DSW14.pdf And something else from Wilson, that might interest Gorboduc: 74
Posted by PF on July 19, 2010, 04:15 PM | # GW wrote:
We disagree here. I think it makes no sense to talk about an animal’s “should”. Where I have used this term in the past, I use it exclusively to refer to human beings socially, verbally, convincing one another that certain behaviors are good or bad. Repulsion at incest isn’t a ‘should’, but an ‘is’ when the feeling of repulsion (or knowledge of consequences) is mentally realized and an ‘am’ when experienced as a feeling of repulsion. It becomes a ‘should’ when someone says ‘dont f*** your sister’. One’s personal internal conjecture about what best to do is not yet a ‘should’, but the constructions of ‘shoulds’ from ‘ises’ and ‘ams’. A ‘should’ that you come up with on the basis of your own ‘ises’ and ‘ams’ is an ‘is’ statement about an ‘am’. Qualitatively different from a ‘should’ because other people cannot map our ‘ams’ but they presume they can! Thats what the ‘should’ wants to do. The internal ‘should’ developed self-referentially is an ‘is’ - I should strive for consciousness because it has always made me feel more alive. An ‘is’ derived from an ‘am’, articulated superficially as a ‘should’, but it does not become a ‘should’ properly until it (1) is foisted upon others and (2) uses other ‘shoulds’ as a foundation along with its ‘ises’ about ‘ams’. Should doesnt happen until we become social *and* verbal *and* intelligent. I’m not talking about instinctive drives and hormonal cues to action. I’m talking very specifically about the “the coercive mode” which is not even perceived as such. Animals had no way to do this to one another - verbally, and hence abstractly. 75
Posted by Guessedworker on July 19, 2010, 06:09 PM | # PF, Is there an element of animal “should” in or behind the calculation of “can”: 76
Posted by Guessedworker on July 19, 2010, 06:50 PM | # Grimoire,
Certainly the reverse of ontologesia anyway. Where did I put my car keys, by the way? Actually, where am I and who are you? No, wait ... who am I?
That is my hope. 77
Posted by Guessedworker on July 19, 2010, 07:53 PM | # notuswind, I am happy to be able to defer to PF on matters neurological. It is safe to say he knows more about the human brain than I ever will. But in any case, like all science, Libet and his heirs are a pocket compass, not the sun and stars. What we are looking for is concurrence, not foundation.
You are right to pick up on that. I wasn’t entirely happy with the word when I typed it. But the exact right one did not crystallise, and I wanted to get on with the rest of the reply. I should have paused and found the right word. It’s not that easy. Perhaps “attribute” is better, thus: But you can predict consequence from an “is”, and to consequence you can attribute interest or the lack of it, and with that attribution you can discriminate. As for your friend, we all know how stubborn people are, how personally they take the ideological struggle, and generally how very difficult it is to bring someone to the realisation that he has spent all life long possessed by “values planted in his skull by people he’s never met.” But, of course, this describes all of us at all times. The condition is absolute. It is not resolved by racial consciousness, or by the possession of a certain critique of politics and a certain understanding of history. These are very valuable things. But they are not everything. There will be much more to say about this in due course. As for salvation and spirit, I am afraid I shall have to keep repeating my suspicion of the genetic basis of faith in the hope that those with it will stand back and allow the explication of truths to which they may, in fact, adhere. But that’s for the future too. 78
Posted by notuswind on July 19, 2010, 09:15 PM | # GW,
Understood.
I still think that the jump from consequence to interest is problematic regardless of our choice of words. There is an is-ought problem here that just can’t be eliminated with perfect diction.
Really? Granted, the vast majority of our values and beliefs are not invented by ourselves; however, there is a difference in how these things can be obtained. In the case of my friend, and many other liberals, he did not come to his egalitarian values consciously but rather from an unconscious process of absorption through repeated exposure to egalitarian propaganda, which is deliberate and unnatural. Ergo, I would say that the propagandist is placing certain ideas in his skull through a process that is meant to bypass his consciousness. I don’t need to tell you that this couldn’t be more starkly contrasted than by the process through which we (as dissidents) developed our own racial views and beliefs.
I am looking forward to it all. 79
Posted by Grimoire on July 20, 2010, 01:56 AM | # Excellent comments by notuswind. There was an excellent comment also by Lurker, regarding the need for engaging the audience. A broadcast message or philosophy for the masses is by requisite nature, anodyne…. not a category we easily express or our message fits within. Humour and paradox works here. The central philosophy reserved for those discontents with both intelligence and expansive minds who are capable of thinking critically….we must be careful not to be definers, lexicographers, but observers, witnesses….allowing a philosophy to grow ‘genetically’, in the Aristotelian sense. An essential point is to sweep all po-faced morality of preconceived guilt and self+group degradation into the rubbish…. and be who we are….palingenetic giants as a civilization and as individuals who are creators and products thereof. This is why GW….not only your distaste for ‘spirit’, etc. and sundry opposed explanations; Darwinism and materialism, counter to every enduring body of insight into ontology of not only European, but of world civilization… is unsuitable as a foundation for anything but the necessary empirical logic of discourse. Extreme rationalism is required here, but it must be veiled with respect and discretion for those things which rationalism cannot grasp or express. (a Rationalist Socialist Workers Bund? The Razi Party? That may have legs….). 80
Posted by Al Ross on July 20, 2010, 06:46 AM | # The most important task of any nationalist government is not to engage in MR - style displays of dubious intellectual pyrotechnics but rather to control that necessary part of every population, viz., proletarians, in the interest of a civilisation they may not understand. 81
Posted by Guessedworker on July 20, 2010, 07:40 AM | # Al, read the second part of this ... notuswind,
Is that jump problematic if your child is bitten by a venomous snake? Is there a barrier of any sort to the arrival at a decision to apply a tourniquet if possible, and race to the nearest source of medical help? The “is”: Your child has a snake bite. The consequence: Snake bites can kill. The interest: Your child’s life is the most precious thing in the world to you. The discrimination: You should forget everything and look after your child now. Long ago I used to work as a copywriter, and one of the first lessons I learned was the magic AIDA formula: Attention, Interest, Desire, Action. It’s not so different. We are dealing with a natural phenomenon here, and if a clever intellectual trick appears to disqualify it, there’s something wrong with the clever intellectual trick. Actually, the mechanism of discrimination for action is the free will element on which the evolutionary process, and therefore life itself, depends. It is an “ought” or “should” process, insomuch as a “must” process would be mechanical and would disallow the perpetual refinement of fitness (this is the heart of my small disagreement with PF about animals and the “should” consideration).
Perhaps you are too close to the postmodern action, and perhaps also you ascribe too much agency to the Self. I am more interested in getting at the actual condition of Man - really, of his ordinary waking consciousness - because this is the negative aspect of his ontology. The element missing from previous attempts from the radical right to describe him is precisely the one that has made the Jewish cultural attack so powerful. It is the reason for the ease with which bad data can be inserted into the culture and thence into Personality, and become self-reinforcing. I’ve said elsewhere that the three very specific characteristics of our ordinary waking consciousness are absence, suggestibility and mechanicity. It was my intention, when I began the series on What It Means To Be Human, to define, open out and fit together these three next. I have held back from doing so because it is so difficult, almost impossible, to be make this intelligible to the casual reader. Like your friend ... like everybody ... people who happen to visit MR still lack the appropriate interpretive data. They are, in fact, literally full of bad data, every kind of misapprehension about what we and they individually are. And they didn’t acquire this in a semi-volitional way simply from books and films. They acquired it with the acquisition of personality. The symbiosis between cultural goods and personality formation is near enough to absolute for it not to matter. Show me a man who is not a prisoner of his time and his culture, and I will show you a priceless savant but also a naked and damaged soul. The real point here is that we cannot directly give full understanding even to the mass of intelligent people. We can perhaps put good data into circulation via the radical right mechanism, and this is what we shall try to do. 82
Posted by notuswind on July 20, 2010, 11:10 AM | # GW, I feel like I am getting your best stuff now.
Don’t me get wrong, I don’t disagree with your ordering of is-consequence-interest-discrimination. All I am trying to say is that the jump from consequence to interest is not of a purely analytic nature and involves questions of value. And at the higher levels of consciousness these things can be very difficult to change, like with the example of my friend and our yearlong political conversation. No matter how many facts (or “is”) I brought to bear on the discussion I still could not argue him out of his values and prevail upon him to make the same jump from consequence to interest that you and I have already made. Of course, life isn’t usually so complicated and we don’t have any trouble making this kind of jump, like with your example of the parent trying to heal his child or many other such examples that we can easily imagine.
This is a beautiful paragraph, I completely agree with it.
I believe that man is both individual and collective; conscious and unconscious; material and spiritual. And that all of this is necessarily the case. I also believe that the conscious individual has more power over his mental development than you realize. But claiming our conscious minds from the other aspects of our person is no easy matter. In fact, initiation in the traditional world was often meant to accomplish just this (the claiming of one’s manhood).
But you just said that when we discriminate between actions we are exercising our free will. When you go to the ice cream parlour and pick for yourself one of many flavors how is your choice mechanical (clearly, this isn’t a matter of suggestibility or absence)? My apologies for this, I have a hard time letting your ideas about consciousness go unremarked because I spent close to a year in an AI research group and have developed views on the matter well before I came to racial consciousness.
Here in the United States I can show you whole communities who have cut themselves off from the culture of their time, like in M Night Shyamalan’s movie, “The Village”. I can even show you communities who are capable of maintaining one foot in the culture of their time and one foot in a world of their own making. Perhaps it wouldn’t surprise you to know that I was born out of such a community. We have more power over our development than you realize.
Agreed. 83
Posted by notuswind on July 20, 2010, 11:14 AM | # Grimoire, Thank you for the compliment. Al Ross, MR has always been a heady place. 84
Posted by PF on July 20, 2010, 02:07 PM | # GW, I wanted a separate modality for the way humans coerce each other using morality. That, to me, is both evolutionarily new (insofar as it is done with words, and refers to abstractions), We have to get beneath this human ‘should’. The fact that animals can make calculations about the outcome of actions and rank the desirability of possible outcomes - is not the same as the way human beings do this, verbally and with imagined images, expressed as abstraction. Some large portion of the ‘junk thinking’ we have to cut through is the ‘should’ element behind morality. It is the abstraction that prevents the real from being perceived. We are full of ‘shoulds’ and in some deeper sense, they are all wrong and prevent the realization of Being. That is my contention. Apologies that I am not expressing my thoughts at all well recently. 85
Posted by Guessedworker on July 20, 2010, 07:32 PM | # Grimoire
Which is as close to what I have said as to make no difference. But then, in the very next sentence you define the end:
It does seem that you don’t want to risk the Aristotelian trip. However, not content with that trespass upon your own methodological rule, you make matters perfectly plain with a quite gratuitous return to the defence of spirit of race:
Well, there is a reason for this haughty distaste of mine. Answer me this. Does this towering and, of course, palingenetic numinosity which is “the spirit of race” inhabit that moment of presence with which ontology obtains its first insight? Or is the moment an affirmation of the peculiarly, positively concrete? You see, I don’t think you can interpolate 19th century romantic notions into Being. “I am” is at once a realisation and a separation. The myriad thoughts that filled that separation, including long-standing intellectual positions, religious convictions, political convictions,and what have you, are no more. They are switched off like Christmas tree lights on the twelfth night. An ontology of nationalism cannot guarantee to put “those things which rationalism cannot grasp or express” back at some future point. The only guarantee for any given element is if it emerges as a link in the chain of ontological truth. I am not ruling that out. There is such a thing as teleology, and it is anchored close to the beginning (but not at the beginning, in my view). But I think the palingenetic may be a lost cause owing to the reasons I gave in my comment on July 15 at 03.09pm, to which you did not reply. Instead, you have unloaded your emotion thus:
If we discover that “one of the pillars of European man’s organization principle” is an egregious self-deception we shall have performed a useful service, no? Are you willing to run the risk? Or are you really only a modern nationalist Fidei Defensor? 86
Posted by Guessedworker on July 20, 2010, 08:00 PM | # PF,
Everything prevents the realisation of Being. The enormity and complexity of the data which greets every new human mind, its sheer mass and disorganisation and relentlessness ... the strange and fateful condition of our consciousness, its habitual descent into a comfortable inattentiveness ... the evolutionary determination with which we cling to a self which is never more than an idea ... the general rule of hazard that unfailingly rearranges all our best laid plans ... there is so much that militates against the life of the real, it’s less a wonder that things are as they are than it is that next to nobody sees it. You, at least, see it, and that’s no small thing. 87
Posted by Guessedworker on July 20, 2010, 08:33 PM | # notuswind,
I will bear that in mind.
All is material. Man, generally, speaking, perceives that he has a spirit. As to consciousness, it hardly serves us to speak of Man as a conscious agency, unconsciousness is so endemic. You write:
... but consciousness is both a normal and a very particular and high thing. The conscious individual is someone who, for a few fleeting moments in his life, is functioning “normally” rather than “ordinarily”. We deceive ourselves if we confuse the two, or ascribe to ourselves the superior.
Ordinary waking consciousness works mechanistically. Thoughts, feeling, body movements rolls without our conscious participation. The evolved capacity to discriminate for or against the adaptive survives the descent into mechanistic working, and is the true limit of extant free will. It is, obviously, very much weaker than the free will commonly conceived by philosophers of the liberal right (which we know to be a fantasy). But it is sufficient unto its task. It cannot be other than free will, incidentally, for the reason I gave earlier - natural selection cannot operate mechanistically because it is a refining, not repeating, process.
Remember Libet. There is no self-conscious centre deliberating over decisions. There is only the processes of our mental faculties over which the story of Self is woven.
Then you should have a lot to contribute. 88
Posted by Grimoire on July 21, 2010, 03:22 AM | # Guessedworker
It’s like this Guessedworker… understanding ‘things’ and ‘events’ using formal logic and deductive reasoning can arrive at correct conclusions regarding the relationships between things and actions, but only general and often self serving assumptions of the nature of the things in themselves.
So in answer to your question:
I must answer the question is propositionally incorrect, and the question and result will always be incorrect. For the outcome is not the result of x, y and z propositions, and neither can a question formed on these propositions lead to a provable outcome.
Unfortunately Guessedworker, it is you who emphatically uses 19th century romantic notions of logic and being. False and irrelevant delineation’s such as archaic/modern - classic Cartesianism (I think therefore….. “I am”) - arbitrary and useless separations of mind and being. ...all this is of no account,... neither negative or positive or relevant to a logically consistent conclusion.
I do not remember if I read your mentioned comment. However it is unfortunate you need to characterize my comment as ‘emotion’, for you only confirm the passage you characterize as such. The comment was an observation for which fresh evidence continually pours in…..and was meant as a word to you to desist using the thought patterns you insist others erroneously use…. emotionalism, premises based on false propositinns , irritating value judgements, ad hominems and categorical imperatives outside and irrelevant of the question at hand.
Unfortunately GW, it is you who grows weak in the knee at considering anything outside false, archaic pre-rationalism….even if the qualities which frighten you so terribly….are irrelevant to the premise, except the question of why you rule out qualities essential to the subject…..for which there is no rational reason but fear. If you are so interested in logic and rational insight, why are you so dependent on false characterizations, unspoken presumptions , falsely characterizing arguments you are fear facing unaided. Myself I grow tired of these characterizations. If you cannot argue your point honestly, then you have no point, however you characterize whatever. Stop pretending. The pretense you are just trying to elicit comments….is an insult - I argue a point rationally and expect and demand a rational and intelligent answer from those who claim rationality and intelligence…not subterfuge and obfuscation…or the conclusion is obvious. As for your pretense you are rational and logical, and others are irrational, mystical, religious and/or unintelligent. This is bullshit, and do not think I do not see straight through it for one second. 89
Posted by Grimoire on July 21, 2010, 03:35 AM | # Guessedworker:
Regardless the satisfaction you derive from such comments. It is completely unsupportable. A logical and truthful man would never make such a foolish mistake. Oh yes….unconsciousness is endemic…..straight from the horses mouth. 90
Posted by Leon Haller on July 21, 2010, 10:06 AM | # To Grimoire (in his last comments): Good stuff! I call your attention to what I posted earlier in this thread, concerning clarity of thought and [removed]originally addressed to PF): 3. On the delicate issue of literary style, or at least intelligibility, I have noticed a growing divide across the English family pond. British writers and scholars not all that long ago were unquestionably superior stylists compared to us ‘colonials’. That seems to be changing. When in my favorite book megaplex, I often enjoy browsing your Spectator magazine. I am, if not often, then more than occasionally, unable to discern exactly what this or that writer is talking about (and not only because I’m not too familiar with parochial British politics and culture). The writing style over there seems to be getting more opaque over time. Part of this may be pollution from postmodernism seeping out of bad philosophy and worse literary studies into the broader culture. But I’m not sure that’s the whole story. (In fairness, The Economist has remained admirably clear.) I confess to having had difficulties understanding many of your posts in the past. This has been somewhat vexing, as I sense that you might be saying some interesting things. I am also vaguely disquieted by the thought that perhaps my reading comprehension just isn’t quite up to certain tasks (I don’t think that’s the case with the Spectator, however). I’d hate for you to feel that you had to ‘dumb-down’ your comments merely for the likes of me, but, at the risk of presumptuousness, you might wish to consider the following: First, go easy on sentence length. I understand that the ability to form complex sentences is often the hallmark of mental fineness, but doing so risks losing at least some of your intended audience. As the famous guide admonishes, let every word tell. Second, avoid overly obscure, ‘in-group’ vocabulary. At a minimum, offer exogenous readers some definition of words that the ordinarily literate person cannot be expected to know (eg, what is a “glyph”?). Third, be frugal with metaphors. _________________________
I do know, however, that the “Continental Tradition” lends itself to easy and often deliberate obscurantism. Those expostulating in this vein seek to elevate themselves through the employment of ludicrously specialized, really “in-group”, vocabularies, whose precise meanings are necessarily slippery. The worst offenders of this have been, as you doubtless know, the deconstructionists, whose rhetoric is intentionally incomprehensible, the better to sucker the proles into thinking them the possessors of Deep Thoughts and Indescribable (ie with normal language) Insights. [It hardly needs to be said that when one does take the trouble to parse their ostensible profundities, one invariably finds so much less than one’s initial impression.] A very good deconstruction of, inter alia, deconstruction is Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction, which makes very short work of these people, and really should be read as an intellectual inoculation, or, if not too infected, antidote, against the sort of nonsense that these days (though less of late, thank God) passes for intellectual depth or sophistication amongst the semi-literati. Saving the white race from extinction requires not a new ontology, but the recovery of an older ethics. 91
Posted by Guessedworker on July 21, 2010, 07:27 PM | # Grimoire, Heidegger stated that logic systems obscured Being. You must know that, which makes me wonder to what degree you are engaging in good faith. However, I must ask you to answer the same question I asked before, but constituted this time in a way which I hope will satisfy your not terribly Heideggerian requirement for formal consistency: In being, is the entity of Dasein heroically reborn? Well, it isn’t, is it? That would be like saying the tyre-tread on a wheel is fast. Dasein is not a subject, and beyond its truth or falsehood it cannot be qualified as such. Dasien is Being or in-Being or, anyway, there is a certain unity, like the contact of a tyre tread on the road surface (generally understood as an event not an action, I believe). Since 1927, ontology proceeds from here, and the problem of palingenesis therefore becomes one of meaning and place. The resultant discussion can include assertions, for example, that it, palingenesis, is the primary characteristic of the European race. It can include contrary arguments, for example, that its irreducible core is not, in fact, a fact, and there are much better ways of not only talking about who we are, but experiencing it. But you, my friend, appear to be opposed not just to the contrary arguments but to the very principle of contrary argument. It shows in your decision to attack perceived near-objects like Richard Dawkins, though the discussion was never about Dawkins, and Darwinism, though you claim to accept the major elements of Darwinism (but declined to tell me which elements these are). Do you have the remotest idea how insincere and artifice-ridden you sound launching a wild epistemological attack on the abstraction of thought from evolutionary theory (Dawkins and Darwin as social climbers, ffs) while insisting that fascist idealism crazy-paved into pre-Christian religiosity be respected? Not that you have any information at all about pre-Christian religiosity. A dispassionate observer would be justified in demanding to know what is going on. But I suspect he wouldn’t do you the courtesy of asking for a more expansive statement. The burning question - the one that gets to the knub - would be: what on earth makes you think that your Weltanschauung is valid? Because that’s what is really at stake here for you. A stated initiative in revolutionary thought may not leave your thought in tact, indeed may sever it epistemologically in the mind. Just so. And the reason you have now launched a fire-bombing raid in which everything has been thrown out of the aircraft, including the crapper, is not that you are defending a particular view of European Man which is uniquely noble and true, or that you are disinterestedly defending the time-honoured rules of formal discourse from some ad hoc comments in a blog thread, but that you are defending yourself by any damned means you can. You and I both understand that. The turn to the existential necessarily has this effect. Here is Rule 1 in the rule-book of equitable discourse: I try to convince you of the truth of my case and the falsehood of yours, and you try to do convince me of the opposite. And may be the best case win. So how about it? Leon,
Moral systems emerge from the struggle for survival. When a system is stretched beyond what is adaptive so as to accomodate social or religious change, the tendencies to maladaptiveness increase. Does the “older system” you have in mind contain maladaptive ethical direction? 92
Posted by Grimoire on July 22, 2010, 12:17 AM | # Leon Haller: 93
Posted by Grimoire on July 22, 2010, 08:29 AM | # Guessedworker:
Heidegger was referring to the neo-rationalist malarky to which I also refer. Heidegger intuited and preceded the dawning revolution in physics and cosmology occurring in Germany at the time, and correctly predicted it’s course. What was this concept ?
Let me begin by stating, that although I have not read Heidegger for some time. I understand him in ways that…. not that you cannot, but you refuse to comprehend. Heidegger is outside of your way of thinking at this time, of that be sure. And it is really not too hard. It is that you refuse to be honest with the subject, as it clashes with your fixed ideas. You refuse to deal with the points that i make, all historic, verifiable, relevant and logical. You refuse to respond to my points cooperatively, and here again you ask a question that is completely invalid and illogical.
Here you assert Dasein is an object.
And as an object it has properties similar to a tire tread on a road….parable worthy.
Palingenesis is, it seems, a thorny knot for you. To begin with; we can classify Palingenesis in the category of subject in which we find mysticism, religious experience, esoteric insight, paranormal phenomenon, etc. Experiential matters for which we have neither the data, nor logic to correctly compute. Again, this is because logic cannot compute the nature of things in themselves. They are in effect subjective and experiential, however common, they are singular and exceptional only directly to the subject who experiences them. They are , in those who are sincere - a pure experience of being…or so attested. Outside of this experience, there is nothing but metaphor and memory…as those who experience these things struggle to relate the subject within a frame of logic so that others may understand. But there is no real data to access, no cause and effect beyond testimony.
Dawkins is a good but pathetic example of those anti-scholars who are completely trapped within their little early 20th century world of expected reward for limiting mans boundaries of knowledge to concepts easily manipulated by bureaucrats and flunkys . There is in Britain, and has been for a long time, a fear of outside ideas that will disrupt the lackey to flunky transmission of the ‘power of the pulpit’. A fear of upsetting the status quo, and a lickspittle urge to harmonize academia with government social policy .
But I disagree with the first part. Part of the reason I am being a bastard with you…is to shake you into investing some brain into this… instead of dancing off and looking for some religious concepts to make unsupportable and ridiculous comments on….satisfied the patina of rationalism is the trump suit in hand.. Well…, the Emperor has no clothes. You may not have followed along closely. But i have outlined for you how the central tenet of your Darwinism, along with it’s whole edifice of a false logical genesis has been demolished. I applaud your patience in overlooking this.
I have desisted from expressing my personal interpretation, preferring to instead pro-offer the documented supporting science that forms the basis of my thought. I think that if it is possible to transmit philosophical ideas and theory in a forum such as this, first the limits and boundaries of the logic used to ascertain these ideas, as well as the body of knowledge drawn from, must be understood. I apologize if I use more force in argument than is politésse….however you are evading the subject…so I must use dogs to flush you from the underbrush.
I am not defending myself Guessedworker…, you are. Nor defending anything noble or true, but attacking nonsense. Perhaps your eye has been fixed on Palingenesis, but I regret to inform that you overlook I have won every point. Perhaps you may do me the favor of paying attention. 94
Posted by Grimoire on July 22, 2010, 08:30 AM | # Guessedworker
Dawkins is a good but pathetic example of those anti-scholars who are completely trapped within their little early 20th century world of expected reward for limiting man’s boundaries of knowledge to concepts easily manipulated by bureaucrats and flunkys . There is in the Anglo sphere, and has been for a long time, a fear of outside ideas that will disrupt the lackey to flunky transmission of the ‘power ’. A fear of upsetting the status quo, and a lickspittle urge to harmonize academia with governmental social policy . But there I go fulminating against the ass Dawkins, validating the second part of your paragraph statement….point to Guessedworker. But I disagree with the first part. Part of the reason I am being a bastard with you…is to shake you into investing some brain into this… instead of dancing off and looking for a religious concept to make unsupportable and ridiculous comments on….satisfied the patina of rationalism is the trump suit in hand.. Well…, the Emperor has no clothes. You may not have followed along closely. But i have outlined for you how the central tenet of your Darwinism, along with it’s whole edifice of a false logical genesis has been demolished. I applaud your patience in overlooking this.
I have desisted from expressing my personal interpretation, preferring to instead pro-offer the documented supporting science that forms the basis of my thought. I think that if it is possible to transmit philosophical ideas and theory in a forum such as this, first the limits and boundaries of the logic used to ascertain these ideas, as well as the body of knowledge drawn from, must be understood. I apologize if I use more force in argument than is politésse….however you are evading the argument…so I must use the dogs to flush you from the underbrush.
I am not defending myself Guessedworker…, you are. Nor defending anything noble or true, but attacking nonsense. Perhaps your eye has been fixed on Palingenesis, but I regret to inform that you overlook I have won every point. Perhaps you may do me the favor of paying attention.
Who wrote the following?
What I have been trying to accomplish in argument (as you refuse to debate my points) with you dear friend - is to demonstrate the falseness and illogic of including or precluding concepts of which you have no ability to ratiocinate. I know you think you do - but you cannot logically prove it. A mistake that you make, - is that you think because you say something ought not be real, along with sound reasoning - then therefore it is not real…or ‘ought’ not be real. However, if it were not real….you ‘ought’ not have to say anything, nor could your sound reasoning have anything to do with it. It would be apparent without having to say anything about it….’Is’ instead of ’ought’. Perhaps lookup meta-ethics, David Hume. ‘A Treatise on Human Nature.’ (a little fun) A: Palingenesis, it is a phantazm of your mind!
Sound rules. However, while you have the rulebook at hand please look up what to do if a dear friend refuses to debate your points, simply refuses to acknowledges the logical core of the argument…. instead insists on asking questions on flowery and heroic concepts despite the fact they are neither negative or positive nor germane…because they feel if they can stick on a flawed concept, perhaps they can hang you with it. So they refuse to budge from it. Regardless how you demonstrate this anti/pro approach can prove nothing, is complete fallacy. 95
Posted by Grimoire on July 22, 2010, 08:31 AM | # With apologies to Leon Haller and Guessedworker as I had no time to properly edit the above 96
Posted by PF on July 22, 2010, 11:41 AM | # Grimoire, You wrote:
You have refuted the central tenet of Darwinism? Please explain!
So thats the rationalization for your clunky condescending faux-friendly rhetorical style, that its necessary to keep GW’s thoughts from straying. On the contrary, it makes it difficult to find the meat of what you are saying beneath all manner of unnecessary repartee such as:
I want my 1.4 seconds back, Grim.
Where did you show this?
Apparently Q doesn’t understand man’s tendency to self-deception and hypostatization, and false thinking generally? Anything that appears on the mind’s conceptual register must de facto exist in reality? We dreamed up multicultural utopias and where are those at? 97
Posted by PF on July 22, 2010, 11:43 AM | # hypostatization = hypostasization i.e. thinking stuff exists because you can picture it in your mind. 98
Posted by PF on July 22, 2010, 01:58 PM | # Grim wrote:
So you arrive at an epistemological critique of the possibility of all-inclusive rational knowledge on the basis of Goedels incompleteness theorem, hint that Heidegger expressed the same thing, and use this as a critique of neo-darwinist rationalism? The Darwinism under discussion is a model for the generation of biological life, for the evolution of replicating systems that use genetics/DNA. There is no credible anti-thesis to his thesis that I have ever seen presented, and your epistemological critique, if it is to be taken seriously, would critique the whole edifice of knowable rational knowledge, would it not? What areas are exempt from your Goedel-derived critique? You are willing to critique Darwinism, and yet not palingenesis? I just do not understand that. GW has a critique of the limits of intellectualization which is based in lived experience and practical knowledge of ways of experiencing reality (esotericism). I have a critique that is based on neurobiology and perspectivism, but which is shoddily articulated in off-the-cuff blog comments. Between us three we can certainly recognize that this system has limits - it strikes me as absurd that you argue one of GW’s fundamental points as if it were a critique of his thinking uniquely. It is also a critique of your own, it is a critique of everyone’s. Yet some concepts are allowed to stand and others fall. Darwinism will stand, it would be a truly learning-filled day if you were able to disprove it. Being, Dasein, these are things we struggle to get at because they are at the end of the idea-matrix, where it trails off and becomes Life. So arguments about these things will largely be semantic. But here you are with idealism in tact (the noble, the true, cowards/heroes in your prior comments) and a wish to defend some Ur-palingenesis which you find in history[??](please supply the lacking argument when you get the chance). Why do your heroes get to stand, while Dawkins is maligned again and again and again? One understands you have a personal distaste for what you perceive as being the cultural trends that Dawkins represents and is spearheading. I suspect this has to do with it disallowing the possibility for thick-layered German Romanticism, the dissolution of this into minimalist Anglo empiricism. But if you are going to rail on about these things, at some point you have to interface with the ideas themselves and tell us what is wrong about them. Why does your idealism get a free pass from the epistemological constraints elucidated - supposedly (I do not know this precise area of knowledge so cannot check the veracity of your assertions about ‘logic’) - by mathematicians and physicists, and given the kiss of confirmation by Heidizzle? One other point - you discussing at length the supposed constraints of our knowledge systems - and then lampooning GW for claiming that man is unconscious, rings false. GW wrote:
Whereupon Grim replied:
You are saying above that logic systems cannot contain total knowledge of reality - that they are empty places to look for a knowledge of ’ the spirit ’ - and yet you say a logical man would never make a mistake such as GW’s in claiming that all is material? Which is it? How would a logical man know, given the limits you wrote about above, whether all was material or not? With your last rhetorical flourish you imply that GW’s level of unconsciousness (because he disagrees with you in an argument) is uniquely high for human beings. Thats the meaning of saying ‘straight from the horses mouth’ in this context, it means “GW you are unconscious, I am inferring this because you dont understand my ideas, so it makes sense you would claim unconsciousness for man.” If GW disagreeing/not understanding you on a fringe blog is evidence of his unique unconsciousness, then what is the state of man, who 99.9% of the time would never even deign to think for a moment about the very issues we are discussing? Is it wrong for me to hold you to consistency in your rhetoric? Fair enough, I dont like it when people analyze my rhetorical statements too deeply. But are you sincerely looking at this world and conceiving an image of man as a conscious being? Precisely what he is unconscious of and perceives as ‘necessary’, ‘part of himself’, ‘belonging to the nature of things’ is precisely that which leaves its strongest mark in him - what he can see and be aware of quickly revealed to be in flux. Significance is usually posited by our species at or near the horizon line - at the border of unconsciousness. People neither know what they are striving for, nor the taste of the realities they plan on creating, nor the factors that influence them, nor the content of other minds, nor more than a few strands in the interwoven fabric that decides their lives. This is the fate of mankind in the main, who struggles to even hold an idea in its mind for more than 10 minutes if the idea is not foisted upon it by circumstances. To this being you are attributing consciousness. 99
Posted by PF on July 22, 2010, 02:15 PM | # This is the best Television show ever - watch this if you like MR, you might like this… http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=58172429 100
Posted by Grimoire on July 22, 2010, 08:37 PM | # PF:
This should be…science has refuted it.
Take it and spend it wisely.
Q’s point is that characterizing concepts does not render them immaterial….it reiterates their existence whether you label them good or bad. Please try to remember we are talking about concepts….not the class of 98. Further, characterizing reality is a convenience, not the germ of an axiom. Things are what they are…not that which you like them to be.
I see your vaguely grasping something of what I wrote. I apologize again for disorder in my writing style. However the point, however hard it may be to distill - is not so much a critique of the possibility of all inclusive rational knowledge…. and not critique, but evidence, that the formal logic used to construct what is called ‘rationalism’ is incomplete and produces incorrect results.
Like other dogmas, Darwinism likes to conflate science in order to distract attention from what makes ‘Darwinism’ unique. And that is it’s theory on the origin of life - not replicating systems via DNA - which is genetics - which is a empirical science…. not a dogma which pretends to utilize empiricism.
Yes, I’ve stated above, Godel’s ‘Incompleteness Theorem’ not only critiques the whole edifice of rational knowledge….it proves it. ‘Theorem’ in formal logic and mathematics does not mean ‘theory’ as one might expect….it means ‘statement’. PF you need to wake up, we live in history….look to it and you will see the whole edifice of rational knowledge is continually razed and rebuilt as we learn more. Similarly in history there is always a class of mandarins or bureaucrats who resist change by promulgating dogma as science and therefore ultimate proof and control of how people think. Pace ‘Darwinism’.
Just rising from a slumber PF? Yes, critiquing my own…..the difference is knowing of the error and the necessity of the critique.
I predict you will not know it nor learn much from it for some time. It appears PF, in line with most Darwinists - characterize Darwinism with ‘all good things that will never pass’.... much like local old time Religion and the contemporary morality of the middle class.
I’m not defending Palingenesis, it is what it is and thus requires no defense - I’m attacking the false rationalism which characterizes it and thus pretends it is consistent with rationality to exclude it. My point is this is not rationality, but irrationality…with an obvious ulterior motive.
How about logical precision and formal consistency versus scientific plagiarism utilized as Nationalist/Imperialist propaganda and social engineering? Also a Copley medal and K.G and more for those who can pull it off. The same people who loot the continent and falsify history at every step also retard and impair the advancement of science and the body of knowledge of Britain and the British.
My ‘idealism’ does not get a free pass.
People who think they are being rational critiquing religious or ‘magical’ thought are irrational.
I am saying the logic of the system has been proven false.. Also the above paragraph is inconsistent. Yet I must commend you on your writing. It is much easier to address your points as they are straight forward and on the whole consistent. I will study the great improvements you have made, and try somewhat to incorporate your innovations in my comments.
To begin, it is careless to substitute your inferences for my own… unless you wish to falsely characterize my words. My inference to GW’s level of unconsciousness is only pertinent to the question at hand - not in general - for which I would argue the opposite.
yes it is wrong…..wait, you’ve already answered on my behalf….thank you….for your fairness…..
First of all, the ratio of conscious/unconscious is still the great unanswered question… and the questioner himself first must be studied, before externalizing the problem…. which itself is the greater part of the answer to the question. and the greater part of the problem itself. Shakespeare, as was his habit, took this ancient lore and fashioned something equally immemorial, beautiful, true.
Heidegger, who was a horrible stylist and to my mind, felt it necessary to butcher the language….said much the same in his remark ‘To understand Dasein one must be rooted in reality.’ 101
Posted by Guessedworker on July 22, 2010, 09:11 PM | # Thank you for riding shotgun, PF. But Grimoire’s epistemological shells cannot hit my house because his gunsight does not align on it, irrespective of what he thinks. And the same is true in reverse, let it be said. Practic and theoretic are not subject to one another’s laws. Each watches the other eternally missing the point. Witness the confusion over those two little words, “I am”. “Can you say them?” demands the practitioner, already knowing the answer, of course. Grim, I thought you might be interested in the following quote which I found in one of my Heidegger books:
On the applicability of the terms conscious and unconscious, both of which are, as things not terms, relative, of course, it would be useful if you would listen more and speak less. You are missing the precise meanings and context of their usage. In fact, in general you have not lined up any of the ducks. You are too eager to pull me into your conceptual machine, and show not the slightest understanding that that is impossible. The experience of which I speak is. Not. A model. Your shells are falling elsewhere. 102
Posted by Captainchaos on July 23, 2010, 12:51 AM | # I remember once posing two questions to the “ontological nationalists”: 1) Had any of them personally experienced a state which they would characterize as “Being”? 2) And if so, what is it that one could do to experience such a state? I received no answer, leading me to the obvious conclusion that none of them had experienced such a state and had no idea how to achieve it. Kinda like a guy who affirms the existence of Shangri-La, only he has never seen it, and doesn’t know shit all about how to get there. It is an article of faith for him. P.S. If anyone here can offer definitive proof that nothing exists beyond the material realm then let him do it. And if he cannot, then let him stop pretending that his advocacy for materialism is anything but his preferred dogmatism. 103
Posted by Captainchaos on July 23, 2010, 01:24 AM | # Are one’s perceptions more or less accurate when one is in a state of “Being” as opposed to when one is not? There is no need to guess, it could be tested empirically. Also, why not simply describe such a state as a heightened degree of perspicacity as against an individuals baseline level of awareness? But that would mean stripping “Being” of its mystical-sounding gloss, and what a pity that would be. 104
Posted by Grimoire on July 23, 2010, 01:55 AM | # Guessedworker: ‘I am’, as you will have guessed….’mystified,’ by the meaning of the dialogue between Mr.P and Mr.T. Be careful with these books on Heidegger good friend. You know his body of work gave rise to the reinterpretations of the post-modernists and deconstructivists. Their love of gobbledygook and dense, suffocating, meaningless bullshit infects every interpretation and translation. My observation, is that attempts are made continually to stifle the philosophy, and turn it in accordance to the marxist world view. Thus controlling how the academia thinks and grades new work…. similar to how Neo-Darwinists infect the social sciences.
The applicability of the terms conscious and unconcious, and whether things or terms, is completely irrelevant. My point, is that you are being illogical and irrational… the paragraph above: exhibit A. 105
Posted by Captainchaos on July 23, 2010, 02:06 AM | # When pressed to the wall the “ontological nationalists” will state that they are genetically, intrinsically, constitutionally incapable of faith. Not that objects of faith do not exist, only that they cannot possibly believe in them. Correspondingly, what if faithists are genetically hard-wired to believe in faith objects? What if, just as the “ontological nationalists” claim, they cannot do otherwise? “Spinach tastes like shit.” “No, tastes good.” “You’re only saying that because you are genetically predisposed to find spinach tasty. Here, let me try these arguments out on you to convince you it tastes horrible. And if that doesn’t work, I’ll simply breed the possibility of finding spinach tasty out of your progeny.” “The hell you will!” “Watch me.” “Then you will have debased yourself.” “Nope, that only applies to the Krauts, or whoever else I find it expedient accuse of having done that.” LOL! 106
Posted by Captainchaos on July 23, 2010, 02:38 AM | # Grimoire, if you truly believe your faith, or anyone else’s, is not based in the happenstance of your/their genetics, then why not give your assent to the “ontological nationalists’” Mengelian desire to tamper with genetics as they allege it relates to faith? And for the “ontological nationalists”: Do you truly believe drastically decreasing the percentage of the White population which possesses a genetic predisposition to faith is absolutely, indispensably crucial to saving the race from genetic annihilation? Are you absolutely committed to saving the race? If “yes” to both these question, I suppose it goes without saying that if necessary as many faithists as need be would be rounded up and shot in the back of the head at your behest. Evasion of these questions will only go to show the lack of conviction on both sides, but of course that will be the case. 107
Posted by Grimoire on July 23, 2010, 02:54 AM | # Captainchaos I second the motion we strip the mystical sounding gloss, bullshit, ect. from our concepts of ‘Being’ and everything else along side. This is why I assert the need to be honest, and logical, with each other and the subject at hand. As to whether anyone here has personally experienced a state characterized as “Being”. The dilemma, cleared of bs. is the internalized garbage which disallow us from being who we are, collectively and individually. People turn to different things to experience being, - music, vacations, drugs, sex , violence and war as substitutes to induce the peak experience that often brings about the intense, recognizable experience of being. Heideggers philosophy was that understanding ‘being’, how it was revealed and understood, would provide us with the knowledge to clear away the external misdirection and bullshit and live at our most powerful and intense potential of intelligence and being. 108
Posted by uh on July 23, 2010, 05:13 AM | # The ancient Greeks asked this question, their answer: “????? ??????? gn?thi seauton”
Not you too! Dang. 109
Posted by Guessedworker on July 23, 2010, 05:14 AM | # Grim, Glad to see your sense of humour is in tact. In-Being, the epistemology of experience is consciousness. From your gun emplacement you cannot hit consciousness with formal logic any more than you could hit a house with technical drawings of shells. Logic is just a way of constructing thought. There is no correspondence. Furthermore, your confidence that, by logic, you can capture the particular quality which consciousness has is resolved, I am afraid, by the fact of the unconsciousness of the logician. Consciousness in toto is known only to itself and to no other. Understand, we are not talking about mysticism here but, obviously, neither are we talking about ordinary waking consciousness (which is a better formulation, in my view, than “unconsciousness”). We are talking about what I have described elsewhere as the moment of discovery and habitation of the self, and which Heidegger would refer to as Dasein. So, to repeat, Dasien has “everyday-ness”, as opposed to mysticality. There is no “mystical sounding gloss, bullshit” to strip away. It is an epistemological mistake to see the mystical here.
The meaning is the self-referentiality and non-correspondence of experience and thought. Same old, same old. And yet, to move forward together intellectually in the common cause you succinctly express at the close of your response just above to CC, there must be at least a workable degree of correspondence. Where is that going to come from? Not here, I fear:
This is a decision of the logic machine, which cannot process qualitative distinctions in consciousness. And so one gets ...
Self-referencing complete. 110
Posted by Guessedworker on July 23, 2010, 06:22 AM | # Grim, A little earlier in the thread you wrote (of palingenesis, but that isn’t important):
All obvious. But then:
And that is not true, strictly speaking. The subjective experience of, let us say, In-Being (or the individual Dasein, if you prefer) is communicative. Not intentionally so - it radiates, and that way its particular quality can be seen or felt from outside. It is the true, and I stress true, medium of fraternity. But ... it can’t be got at and captured by thought, of course, because:
Do you see how thought closes the door on itself? And with such confidence that the job is correctly done and there is nothing more to see or know. 111
Posted by Grimoire on July 23, 2010, 07:13 AM | # Guessedworker: Apparently, you have no intention to do other than talk complete nonsense.. And so there is no point in corresponding with you, on this or any other subject. Good luck to you on your endeavors whatever they may be.. 112
Posted by PF on July 23, 2010, 12:58 PM | # Grim wrote:
This, it seems, is your refutation of Darwinism. I don’t see a link. What your comment touches upon is more the concept of selection being ‘random’ than any critique of natural selection as a thesis. Is selection random? Mutations can occur randomly, stochastically, from molecular interactions that, for example, prevent a DNA polymerase from accurately copying its template strand. If we had total knowledge of the universe of course, we would see all processes as being pre-determined, so the concept of stochastic/random is a relative one. Relative to our ability to know. We cant predict the precise paths of molecules so we cant foresee what chemical interactions would have happened throughout evolutionary history. I’m not sure that ‘structure’, ‘innate’, ‘universe’ and ‘closed system’ aren’t themselves concepts which reflect reality splayed through the prism of the human sensory system. At any rate, I would be careful about arriving at fundamental truths about the nature of the universe by using these, or any concepts, because concepts have their origin in the mind. The mind is a neurobiological symbol system, prone to various sorts of artifacts and errors. You said as much when you applied the critique of complete knowledge taken from Goedel to ‘rationalism’ - only apparently that distrust of rationalism which has you mistrusting Darwinism, one of the most robust (hypo)theses to emerge in the history of science, does not prevent you from authoring such rationality-bound statements as “Structure must be innate, if the universe is a closed system”. How can a man with a critique of rationality claim to ratiocinate about the nature of the universe in the very next breath? Grim wrote:
Q in your dialogue asserted that palingenesis was real because it existed in the mind of man. This is absurd, because in my mind right now a pink puppy dog is sliding down a rainbow into a pile of ice-cream, and yet none of this is real. Either your grasp of English or your understanding is faltering. Grim wrote:
Does it prove the critique, of the whole edifice of rational knowledge? In critiquing the possibility of semantic/rational completeness this theorem would also put enough question marks behind each ‘theorem’ to make it effectively a ‘theory’. If there is a way around this - it is technical, and I ask you to explain it to me. Grim wrote:
We live in history? What history am I living in right now? Darwinism is not established dogma in our societies, it is something that is consistently subjected to empirical verification by scientists. It is therefore different than the religious dogmas that it is replacing. Your grasp of historical archetypes is dangerous (for the consistency/truth-value of your thought process) because I can see it already fueling inconsistently applied personality-based critiques which allow you to make yourself triumphant over people whom you shoe-horn into various glyphs (ich meine du steckst diese Burokraten in eine bestimmte Schublade, schablonenhafterweise, und mit solch einer Vorgehensweise muss der Basis deiner Kritik in deiner Persoenlichkeit bestehen - was Wahrheitsgemass uninteressant ist). For example, it results in you making generalizations about Englishmen for not sharing your romantic-inspired thought process. The same personality prevents you from access to the perspectives employed by said Englishmen, so you are just describing the view from outside, not actually gaining an understanding. This is the difficulty inherent in Personality-based critique, it is always me-against-the-world. Grim wrote:
It is not rational to characterize Palingenesis on the basis of its attendent forms (dictatorship), and this is demonstrated by your citing Goedels incompleteness theorem as the basis of a critique of rationalism? How does Goedel’s critique apply to some rational statements and not others? Grim wrote:
Science was never ‘magical’, its a trial-and-error based knowledge search that differs from magic in its verification methods. Science and magic are fundamentally different, as magic was never submitted to testing, nor is it undergirded by an understanding of cause-and-effect. It is an anthropomorphicization of the physical world which is beyond critique in traditional societies since humans famously have moods, therefore a sacrifice not producing rain can always be attributed to the moodiness of Gods. The physical world is posited as containing humanesque inconsistency. Captain Chaos wrote:
Unfortunately Being is not so abundant with human beings or easily communicated that it can be approached with this kind of prove-it-useful-or-not mindset. Its a much larger question about escaping from certain traps which the mind has fallen into as a result of sociality, and how this allows one to experience oneself in a dilated form which, in the cave, one had never before thought possible. I don’t think anything cares about the mystical-sounding gloss of ‘Being’, in fact the confusion around this is a detriment to all of us. But it is natural, because those who do not know, cannot speak, and those who do not know and have never known, can neither speak nor comprehend. You will only get so far with the critical modus because these processes are intimate. The moment of experiencing an adrenaline rush during paintball was probably closer to Being, insofar as it was a heightened awareness. 113
Posted by Captainchaos on July 23, 2010, 04:44 PM | #
Well, you could say the same about the frequency of first hand viewings of the Loch Ness monster, and the quality per precise detail of their descriptions. Kinda like the Krauts and their alleged gas chambers, you know. And unlike the Krauts, it seems to me you English (or half English as the case may be) have a duty, consistent with your espoused principles, to offer objective and quantifiable results, insofar as this can be achieved, in an effort to bring about a racialism which may avoid the alleged pitfalls of the Krauts’ congenital subjectivity. But even if you do, there are obvious limits to the effect this will have. One can easily imagine Grimoire going to his death for his Fuhrer with glistening eyes; one can easily imagine GW giving the order himself to burn all those Krauts alive, because he would have and does perceive them as Eisenhower described, a “synthetic paranoid” under the thrall of Nazism - a rabid dog in need of putting down. Each intellectually able to understand what the other is saying, only the constitution for emotional resonance lacking. Two ships passing in the night. 114
Posted by Leon Haller on July 24, 2010, 11:03 AM | # Posted by Grimoire on July 22, 2010, 04:17 AM | # Leon Haller: Grimoire: I meant neither criticism nor disrespect. Indeed, I was agreeing with what I took to be your literary-style criticisms of some of those here designated as “ontologists”; to wit, that they exhibit a tendency towards wrapping what in effect are mere unproven (unprovable?) assertions in intentionally obscure, perhaps even “in-group”, verbiage - an annoying habit amongst those overly impressed with the contemporary Continental Tradition in philosophy. Most of what I addressed to you had originally been addressed at the beginning of this long thread to someone else. I merely thought you would find it supportive of your own position. I periodically make my schoolmaster’s plea (an expression: I’m in business) for precise diction. Postmodernist jargon strikes me as yet another element in the West’s decline. 115
Posted by Leon Haller on July 24, 2010, 11:52 AM | # From GW: Leon, Saving the white race from extinction requires not a new ontology, but the recovery of an older ethics. —————————— A few lines, yet so so pregnant with implications and implied questions ... 1. Moral systems emerge from the struggle for survival. Well, I hope you are aware of what an enormous and controversial statement this is. In a sense, this is simply the atheist view of morality. Assuming no Deity, everything human emerges from the blind (note how I already must employ anthropocentric vocabulary) processes of natural evolution. 2. I think the implicit point of your comment is something like this: Moral systems (including their extensions into the social and political realms) do not exist of themselves (ie, in a Platonic or Ideal sense); they are not inherent in reality. Thus the value of any moral system or ethics can only be assessed from a utilitarian vantage. For you, that vantage is the extended genetically related kinship group comprising a sub-species of homo sapiens; that is, a race. For you, then, we must assess any proposed ethical system in light of whether it favors (is “adaptive” in your language - a classic example of the inappropriate importation of the language of science into the realm of philosophy; but I suppose I’m begging the question here) the genetic interests of (let’s get practical here) the white race; that is, the interests of the genes comprising the white race in their own reproduction in perpetuity. 3. I’m speaking loosely here (this is a blog, not a grad school exam), but I think your essential point is to inquire whether the West’s traditional moral system (Christianity) has become maladaptive for white preservation. Again, I think your root assumption is that religion, or any supernaturalism (I’m sure you are too intelligent to believe in the physical existence of Wotan or Thor!!), per se is false, and thus can only be judged instrumentally - “but is it good for the Aryans”? And looking at the racial preservationist value of Christianity, you find it wanting. 4. I’m not capable of disabusing you of your atheism (perhaps no theist can ever do so for any atheist, at least given the present configuration of knowledge). I certainly cannot prove the existence of God, let alone the (ontological) truth of Christianity, though I would note that there are many brilliant men alive (and many more in the past) who are Christians, and that Christian philosophy is vastly more detailed and sophisticated than the caricature presented by Dawkins. 5. For me, being practical, the more interesting question is not whether God exists (I believe so, and am content in my belief, even though I continue to read books on both atheism and apologetics), but whether a) Christianity is indeed maladaptive for our race as a whole (it certainly isn’t for those fundamentalist American Christians who have huge families out of a sense of fulfilling divine edict; indeed, contemporary American whites who do have greater than 4-5 children are almost invariably very serious Christians; I would hazard a guess that even a substantial majority of those who have more than two children are religious), and b) whether it must be maladaptive as a function of its essential theology and internal philosophical coherence. These are big issues - and the empirical evidence is not in the least one-sided in your favor. I’m going to post this now, and think about it a further response over my breakfast. 116
Posted by uh on July 24, 2010, 12:38 PM | # 4. I’m not capable of disabusing you of your atheism (perhaps no theist can ever do so for any atheist, at least given the present configuration of knowledge). Ugh. This is pure slime. 117
Posted by Leon Haller on July 24, 2010, 01:03 PM | # 4. I’m not capable of disabusing you of your atheism (perhaps no theist can ever do so for any atheist, at least given the present configuration of knowledge). _________ Why? My statement seems unexceptionable. 118
Posted by Leon Haller on July 24, 2010, 01:52 PM | # 5. For me, being practical, the more interesting question is not whether God exists ... but whether a) Christianity is indeed maladaptive for our race as a whole, ... and b) whether it must be maladaptive as a function of its essential theology and internal philosophical coherence. (- me above) As to question (a), a few thoughts. If all that matters is the genetic perpetuity of our race (that is certainly not why I’m in this “race business”), then the issue for GW would seem to be twofold: first, does Christianity within a population have the effect of increasing or decreasing fertility; and second, does Christianity pose some type of “macro-threat” to societies in which it is the dominant ethical system (eg, by enervating the warrior spirit necessary to group survival, or promoting passive race-replacement by encouraging the ‘humanitarian’ admission of racial aliens into Europoid territories/ecological niches)? If Christianity is maladaptive wrt fertility, then why are Christian whites having the largest families? Indeed, why has white, and especially European, fertility fallen the most precipitously in tandem with rising secularization? This has little to do with the Pill, either. My maternal grandparents both came from enormous families (14 kids, 11 surviving to adulthood; and 9, with 6 to adulthood), yet they managed to have two children. Those children were born, and the huge drop in global white fertility began, well before the advent of the Pill. Even today, the most Catholic (indeed, Christian) white nation is Poland, and it has the highest fertility in the white world (not that it’s very high absolutely, but virtually every other white nation, except the US due to its high-fertility minorities, has a below-replacement rate of fertility (I think one or two other countries, maybe Ireland, are hanging in there with bare 2.1 replacement fertility), many appallingly so). Why Christianity is adaptive for fertility I’m not sure, though I could adduce many conjectures, if I had the time and desire. I merely note my speculation (I suspect this will displease GW and MR generally) that the far future will see a resurgence of Western Christianity, if only on demographic grounds - it’s the committed Christians who are having the kids!! Surely you sociobiological determinists can see the writing on that wall? As to question (b), this is likewise a big issue, and I’m not fully qualified to attempt a definitive answer. I would note, though, that Christianity was never historically opposed to the existence of nations, anti-miscegenation laws, immigration legislation, aristocratic distinctions, or slavery. With the exception of the latter, which could no longer be justified within the contemporary Christian consensus, Christianity, as traditionally understood, does not disallow any of these aspects of any healthy race-preservationist regime. That much present-day Christianity is race-treasonous (functionally, and often intentionally) is more a result of its pollution by liberalism, than of any defects inherent in its core theology (at least as far as I have gotten in my studies of it). I end by reiterating my essential thesis on all this: practically (but also ultimately philosophically, I believe) we would do far more good, in terms of theoretical work, trying to render Christian social thought compatible with racial preservation, than in reaching for some new ‘ontology’ which few can understand, and almost no one cares about. Our traditions are powerful, and did not prevent our greatness in ages past. Let us recapture them for our present purposes. 119
Posted by PF on July 24, 2010, 02:29 PM | # CC wrote:
You are dead on with this. Its the same reason why I was critiquing GW’s philosophy - GW can I get a link to the post that inspired ‘Reply to HC?’. I too was engaged about 1.5 years ago in the game of smear-GW-for-not-being-able-to-explain-himself-in-simple-concepts. If you havent had the beginnings of this experience, or begun to doubt certain things about life, this Being stuff is just purely meaningless to you. If a person interceded intimately (with deep knowledge of your life) they could show you, perhaps, how your own life experience contains conflicts which could only be resolved by delving into these concepts. But I respect, no one-upmanship intended, the desire to call a spade a spade, and the tendency to doubt the existence of spades for which one doesnt have a reference. For the man in the street, for most people most of the time, there is absolutely no need to ever have this discussion. One redeeming thing is that the critiques forged as a result of this understanding, ought to hold up pretty good when brought into normal everyday understandings. So GW’s critique of greatness, although he hasn’t articulated it very much on here (doesnt see the need?), is very good. Understandings forged in everyday consciousness have certain shared weak-points which, knowing something about Being, one can attack quite readily. This is because our whole thought universe is in certain difficult-to-perceive ways, slightly off. It doesnt really fit 100%. And when your going for abstract truth and basing your whole reality-view off of something, it being 2% wrong can be quite a big deal, just because of the way understandings build on one another. 120
Posted by uh on July 24, 2010, 02:35 PM | # If Christianity is maladaptive wrt fertility, then why are Christian whites having the largest families? You omit urbanization as a cause (really a bundle of causes) of reduced birthrate. The breeding whites are rural or suburban. In any case I’m tired of you theologians arguing that we should all “go back” to Christianity because Mormons or whomever have big families. You also omit this crucial fact: modern Christians are DOPES. If they were all Gorboduc, as I’ve said before, I’d be the first to enlist. Sadly, they’re typically fat, slimy in the religious way, and obnoxiously stupid. I don’t think you or Gorboduc could take thirty years of matrimony with some of the “good traditional girls” on offer at those Catholic singles sites, for example. PEOPLE’S RELIGION HURT SMART MAN HEAD. If this were Darwin’s day, when women kept quieter, had less presence, it’d be fine; today they TALK, and when they TALK ABOUT JESUS IN THEIR HEARTS, it’s an offense to taste if nothing else. We should soil racialism by MAKING IT CHRISTIAN? Don’t think so! If this be the end, I want to enjoy what little there is left of good sense in the world UNHAMPERED by considerations of WOMAN and CHILD. IDAHO and MONEY are adaptive “for” fertility, NOT Christianity. Give me money, I will get both wife and many child. MONEY = WIFE = CHILDREN. Sounds more sensible (IN THE PRESENT CONFIGURATION OF KNOWLEDGE!) than CHRISTIANITY = BIG FAMILIES. Guatemalans don’t have big families “because” they are “Christians”; they have big families because they are squat brown folk with less going on in their heads. The white Christians have more money, almost as little going on mentally, but are significantly more obnoxious about it. But ok, accepting your straw-man—that to defeat the age what we TRULY need are more Poles & Irish!—it isn’t like ANYONE IS LISTENING to ANY permutation of racialism. Dress it up how you will, it will be but “HATE IN DISGUISE” to the mediated rabble. There we are. We’ve learned that revolutions don’t happen because you’ve found just the right configuration of ideas after interminable online debate to trick the masses into doing what you’d like them to do. No new Heliand of racialism, certainly no Heideggerian opus, will achieve anything beyond its own domain, and to believe otherwise is folly. Personally, by the way, I’d rather the white races be whittled down to virtually NOTHING than be surrounded by even more FULSOME IDIOTS yapping about Jesus in their hearts, being saved, and the rest of that fatuous, slimy old rigmarole. 121
Posted by uh on July 24, 2010, 02:44 PM | # The White Nationalist’s error is always mistaking his preference for the rabble’s. We have to give ___ a new ___, then they will come to us. No, that isn’t how it works. Successful mass-ideology isn’t born that way. What works is emotionalism, feel-goodism, and martyrdom. Even the skinheads propagate their ideology by appealing to martyrdom, if you’ve ever seen the old “crucified skinhead” tattoo, or been exposed to their repulsive, sanctimonious exclusiveness. “You lot” are just too smart for mass appeal, and there’s no way around it. 122
Posted by Guessedworker on July 24, 2010, 09:02 PM | # PF, Here’s the Reply to Happy Cracker: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_reply_to_happy_cracker/ Very basic stuff, just trying to keep you pointing in the general direction. Well, it certainly looks like we will never know how Grim privileges his own point of view in his Goedelian landscape. I would also have liked to ask him how and to what degree whole classes of thought unrelated to number theory cease to be valid because they may contain the potential for inconsistency. 123
Posted by Guessedworker on July 25, 2010, 05:35 AM | # And here is the post - some critique! - that the Reply replied to: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/didacticism_and_virality_a_rant/ Regarding Grim, I would also like to know whether, in his view, theories are ever complete, or the product of closed systems of logic. I would like to know whether the human mind is a closed system. I would like to know whether consciousness of being, should such a thing exist, can be logicalised, and made closed. Quite a lot, really. 124
Posted by Leon Haller on July 25, 2010, 07:46 AM | # Although my remarks were intended for GW, not uh (who needs a better online moniker), I will respond only to a limited extent, as I have already addressed many of these issues at other times (I suppose I should gather everything I have posted here pertaining to Christianity, rework it into one cogent piece, and then post it as a guest-blogger, so that I could refer back to it in the future when confronted with ignorance already disposed of). 1. Old time Christianity was hostile to neither white reproduction (quite the contrary!!), nor the maintenance of racial boundaries. Modern liberalism/leftism is premised on egalitarianism, which is asserted most strongly in the area of race. This liberalism has admittedly infected Christianity, but is not intrinsic to it (again, quite the contrary). It is liberalism which is destroying the West, racially as well as in many other ways, and it is liberalism which must be discredited. 2. As I keep pointing out, even if Christianity were empirically false, we race defenders should still advocate a non-liberal version of it publicly. The faith is traditional to the West (and whole mode of viewing reality); it has moved men to great achievements (we will see whether Heideggerianism, skinheadism, or other alternative ontological and (anti)ethical systems ever do the same - I utterly doubt it); it provides the metaphysical justification for an ethic of sacrifice, which will be needed if whites are to reject individualist hedonism in deference to racial preservation. 3. Those here who reject Christianity do so because they either perceive it to be cosmologically untrue, or otherwise have some personal animus. Unfortunately for them, atheism provides no justification for personal sacrifices, which absolutely will be required by many if our collective race is to survive. It is much easier to go along with the herd towards oblivion, than to try to wake up that herd, at great sacrifice (even if only in time blogging - but more likely, in much else). 4. The trick is not to dismiss something so elemental and powerful as religion, as you will simply alienate the bulk of your fellows, but rather to capture it and start using it for our purposes. At the very least, Christianity must be intellectually neutralized as a factor promoting race extinction. You don’t neutralize it by discrediting the whole religion, as too many (especially on the Right) have too great an emotional investment in it, and simply will not adopt atheism (and if they do, we go back to the problem of hedonism vs racial sacrifice). You neutralize it by uncovering exactly why Christianity does not mandate multiculturalism. 5. The equation of wealth with fertility is so ignorant as to be idiotic. Wealthy people tend to have the lowest fertility. This is true both within Western nations, and between richer and poorer countries. In the US, serious (white) Christians, regardless of personal wealth, have larger families than wealthier secularists. Christianity promotes family, both theologically and sociologically. Secularism does not promote family, and it leads to declining birthrates (which is why we should want to push it on the Third World, including programs to “raise the social status of women” - anything to depress their birthrates). 6. Modern Christians are not “dopes”. Sure many are morons, but so are many of all people. Secularists tend to be a bit more intelligent and better educated, but to those of us who are truly educated and intelligent, the average secularist is nothing impressive. What remains true is that secularists as a whole do not have large families. [Incidentally, who is “Gorboduc”?] 7. uh has no understanding of the history of revolution. He is correct that men are not moved to the barricades by rational arguments. He is wrong to fail to recognize that revolutions are built on the slow accretion and permeation of ideas, often over decades. Indeed, how did we get to our present racially confused state? The white man was not defeated in battle by non-whites, though they behave as though that were the case. What happened was an ideological revolution in Western conceptions of justice, away from traditional notions, and in favor of a radical egalitarianism extended across the planet. 8. Whites are confused about their real interests, to be sure. But they are even more confused about the morality of asserting those interests. The task of the serious racialist intellectual is to integrate race-realism and racial nationalism into traditional Occidental (Christian/Western) conservatism. This is the task I will be pursuing in the coming years and decades. I understand the necessity of mass appeal. But the core doctrine must be developed first. 9. In future years you (all) will see that my approach is correct (at least for the US, but I suspect for the whole white world). The white race will be saved by collective action based on a renewed race-realistic Christian conservatism - or it will proceed on its present path to majority genetic amalgamation, territorial diminishment, and, for the final remnant of the racially strong (like us here), either systematic or more likely chaotic extermination. What is absolutely clear is that the secular society has racially failed. 125
Posted by Guessedworker on July 25, 2010, 07:55 AM | # uh,
It isn’t a democratic process. It is a revolutionary process. It doesn’t require “appeals” to the masses to awake from their racio-political slumber. It requires the formation of a revolutionary idea, then an ideal - yes, ideal - then an ideology, then an ideologically-driven revolutionary corpus. Whether this corpus pursues the route of politics, culture war or revolutionary violence is unknown - and cannot be known - today. We are still at the beginning of the process, and this is why debates among intellectuals matter so much, and why there is an urgent need for the ENR/WN intellectual Establishment to be challenged to a debate. We are not wasting our time, or anybody else’s. We are trying to fashion the necessary challenge - perhaps not very successfully, but we are too few at this time. This is why I view Grim’s departure with sadness. He has the formal knowledge to contribute. But he appears to be interested only in seeking dominion through the exclusion of parts, certainly, of the Anglo-American tradition of empiricism as it is reflected in WN thought, and also through the exclusion of our interpretation of the main themes of Heideggerian thought. It’s a loss. 126
Posted by Captainchaos on July 25, 2010, 12:58 PM | #
Did Hell just freeze over or something? 128
Posted by Leon Haller on July 26, 2010, 11:34 AM | # GW: I’m surprised you have no response to my lengthy comment(s) above. Obviously, the sense of the MR community is that Christianity is a racial(ist) dead-end. Time will tell. 129
Posted by Guessedworker on July 26, 2010, 11:37 AM | # Leon, Have not forgotten, and I will write a full post. I have some other calls on my time to deal with at the moment, though. 130
Posted by PF on July 26, 2010, 11:50 AM | # everytime I read something I wrote in the past, it makes me either cringe or laugh. such presumption. 131
Posted by Leon Haller on July 26, 2010, 12:34 PM | # GW, No problem, we’re all busy. It must be a huge time commitment just keeping everything here humming along. Perhaps I’m merely beating a dead horse. Not that I believe that, but I’m sufficiently versed in currents of modern thought to recognize the considerable challenges to Christian belief therein. I do know this, though: absent utter, exterminatory cataclysm, white Americans are not going to accept the somewhat hard measures necessary for racial (or even mere national) preservation unless those measures can be squared with Christianity. This opinion is borne of long direct and indirect involvement with the Republican Party and its activists. I know the American Right. It is not all fundamentalist Christian, but most self-identified conservatives are Christians (even if not Bible-thumpers - God knows I’m not one). Those on the Right who are non/anti-Christian are usually either weirdly pro-immigration Libertarians, or viciously pro-immigration Zionist/Big Business “neoconservatives”. Yes, there are racialists, but they are not per se hostile to Christianity, at least for the most part (those who are, are beyond marginalized from mainstream discourse). The vast bulk of the American Right are Christians, either High Church (like me), or fundamentalist/evangelical. Interestingly, most of these persons are also racially conservative (their leaderships are another story). Joe Sixpack Conservative is Christian. His Christianity is finally more important to him than his racial loyalty. Most of my family are like this. Most of my friends and their families are like this. Racialism must be made acceptable for Christians, or it won’t ever take flight. I would advocate a religiously acceptable racialism even if I were an atheist, based on brute political calculations. 132
Posted by notuswind on July 26, 2010, 02:12 PM | # GW, I abandoned this thread last week because I couldn’t sustain the quality of effort that I was putting into our exchange without also impairing my professional research activities. I also can’t shake the feeling that so long as I try to keep up a high level of discourse that maybe I should be contributing to this website in a more official manner, as an act of good faith in this direction I am (for the first time) recording one of my real email addresses in the appropriate field for this comment.
You write with so much confidence here and yet you cannot prove that “all is material” anymore than I can demonstrate the existence of the immaterial. Here’s an exercise that I will recommend to you, try to construct an argument in the [English] tradition of analytic philosophy, which is to say line-by-line, that demonstrates why all is material. I can assure you that it can’t be done because there is no good way of defining what it means to be material nor is it possible to analytically argue for why everything must be material, but you must find this out for yourself. There is a more highbrow reason for why this can’t be done but I think I’ll save it for later. As you probably suspect, my suspicion is that your confidence in materialism stems from the fact that it was unconsciously imbibed from the metaphysics of elite Western society (such as it is right now) and was never critically examined and made your own. To wit, on whose authority do you speak? Is it the logic of your own mind or the unconscious beliefs of a certain class of strangers. 133
Posted by notuswind on July 26, 2010, 02:29 PM | # GW and PF, I actually know what Grimoire was trying to say (he was doing it rather badly) but I am not sure if it’s worth the effort. I suppose that I am trying to gauge how much interest there is in a more comprehensive take on the relationship between Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, reductionism, consciousness, and the “whole rational edifice”. 134
Posted by PF on July 26, 2010, 02:58 PM | # notuswind
From my POV, very much interest. I’d love to read a lucid explanation of this. In fact I’m going to look it up and do some research of my own now that a second voice confirms it as worthy. I wish Grim had stuck it out and calmed down to explain it a bit more. 135
Posted by notuswind on July 26, 2010, 03:26 PM | # PF,
Great! In addition to the philosophical analysis I can also provide what I believe to be the best references for researching into this matter. For the moment I’ll wait on GW to weigh in on whether such an effort is worthy of an entry at MR. I’d hate to see such an effort buried as a comment in a long thread such as this. 136
Posted by Leon Haller on July 27, 2010, 06:44 AM | # I’d love to read a new posting on, let us say, “racial materialist metaphysics”, especially if terms are defined, and objectives stated, carefully from the outset. It would also be taken far more seriously if specific references (at least to named philosophers), if not more precise bibliographic details, were provided. Indeed, the editor might consider a macro-discussion of Ten Areas of Racialist Controversy, and then allow for a short (or long, as desired and/or produced) statement laying out some thoughts on the particular topic du jour, to get discussion started. Who knows? Eventually these discussions could be culled and condensed into an actual book, something like Defending Our Genotype: Selected Essays from majorityrights.com. I’m half joking about the title - it seems to sum up MR’s outlook - but wholly in earnest about the project. Serious discussions on such vital topics should be at least somewhat conducted with a view towards developing a coherent body of thought to present to the wider world. 137
Posted by Guessedworker on July 27, 2010, 07:00 PM | # Give me some time, Leon. Not long. Notuswind, if you feel you want to contribute formally that would be of very great interest. Mail me whenever you like. 138
Posted by notuswind on July 27, 2010, 07:17 PM | # GW,
Alright, should I send you an e-mail through the “Contact” tab on this website or is there a more explicit e-mail address that I can use? 140
Posted by notuswind on July 28, 2010, 11:14 AM | # GW,
Done last night. Next entry: Science on the dark continent Previous entry: 2011 UK Census to be neutered |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Daniel Mccumllam commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/22/12, 04:57 AM. (go) (view) Scewoweks commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 02:51 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Shamim commented in entry 'Dawkins sides with the race realists.' on 05/22/12, 02:24 AM. (go) (view) Facebook Application Developer commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/22/12, 01:14 AM. (go) (view) rags6 commented in entry 'Black serial-killers' on 05/22/12, 12:23 AM. (go) (view) abibemume commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/22/12, 12:06 AM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/21/12, 09:58 PM. (go) (view) alexaesjiong commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 09:53 PM. (go) (view) cocreneamenrYk commented in entry 'Time travel and a pol in the MultiCult' on 05/21/12, 09:51 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 09:12 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 08:46 PM. (go) (view) sweectexcagma commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 08:45 PM. (go) (view) Hinksmick commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 08:43 PM. (go) (view) pet sitting commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/21/12, 08:36 PM. (go) (view) aharlesjaj commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/21/12, 08:26 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/21/12, 08:25 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 08:02 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) InsetaTemwews commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 07:08 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:54 PM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/21/12, 06:37 PM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:29 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 05:48 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 05:23 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 04:41 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 04:19 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 03:33 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 03:08 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 02:25 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) BroowlorCliEf commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/21/12, 12:44 PM. (go) (view) trobojertunny commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/21/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) trobojertunny commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 12:29 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by CFE on July 10, 2010, 05:45 PM | #
Ferguson also wrote:
The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money’s Prophets
and
The House of Rothschild: Volume 2: The World’s Banker
...which were “short-listed for the Jewish Quarterly-Wingate Literary Award and the American National Jewish Book Award”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson#Rothschilds
He is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University.
His book “The Ascent of Money” is sometimes recommended to me. I haven’t bothered.
Sometimes I think that the truth about Jewish money is being revealed to us to divert attention from even more important matters - like our survival.
Surely this court historian (whore of the innermost court) knows which side his bread is buttered. I can only hope he chokes on it.