|
|
|
Review Call: Fighting for The Essence, by Dr Pierre Krebs The excellent publisher Arktos Media Ltd has put out a review call for Fighting for The Essence: Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance? by Dr. Pierre Krebs. Dr Krebs is a leading member of the Neue Kultur (the German New Right) and director of the Thule Seminar. He is a doctor of French literature and also holds degrees in law, journalism, sociology, and political science. Should anyone wish to review Fighting for The Essence for us, please contact me through the button under the header and I will arrange for a copy to be forwarded. Arktos Media’s product description is as follows: Fighting for the Essence is a devastating critique of multiculturalism. In this book, Dr Krebs shows that although multiculturalism claims to be the watchman of racial and cultural diversity, it is actually destructive to both, as it denies the significance of racial differences altogether. He traces its origins to the legacy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and shows how this has developed into many of the most powerful tools of liberalism of our times, which in turn are serving the interests of the global marketplace by turning all of humanity into compliant consumers. Those who endorse multiculturalism are, in fact, the enemies of all traditional culture. Dr Krebs also takes issue with the use of the term ‘West’ to describe our culture, which he sees as an effort to deprive the various European cultures which comprise it of their unique characters and histories and replace them with a grey conformity divorced from any authentic roots, as well as a value system that is frequently used as a weapon against those nations which refuse to share its values. This assault is not limited to Europe, but is something that is going on in every corner of the globe. Dr Krebs says that it is time for all those who believe in the worthiness of their heritage and unique ethnic identity to return to the wellsprings of their peoples, and defend what is rightfully theirs. With a deeper trench between the camps of multiculturalism and traditional culture being dug all the time, this is the conflict that will define the 21st century. Drawing examples from many of the most notable contributors to science, philosophy and religion, Dr Krebs illustrates a truth that is difficult to deny. Anyone who heeds his warning will find it impossible not to accept his challenge to take sides in the ongoing struggle against universal conformity. Table of Contents I. Mahapralaya or Europe in the Age of the Dissolution of the West II. Americanopolis or The Western Occupation of the Earth III. Panta Rhei IV. Eleutheros Comments:3
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:53 | # The Black Sun. The original Thule Society evidently used this:
Some people think symbols are important. Jobbik in Hungary uses a two-barred cross, and their supporters wear uniform to protests. There is a class of people who find such definitional style attractive. It’s not important, though. Ideas are important. 5
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:37 | # Not that this book is, necessarily ‘esoteric’, but Thule Seminar/Society etc., really? Jesus wept. 6
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:55 | # We may take the perfectly rational position that symbols are subordinate to ideas, and therefore ideas and symbols can be readily disassociated, but there is little question that our adversaries take a different view. Once a symbol becomes tainted by association with unapproved ideas it then becomes, to all intents and purposes, not simply useless but actually toxic. That the sunwheel (not to mention the sigtyr rune) has achieved such notoriety is indisputable and its usage amongst serious thinkers and purveyors of ideas is surely to be deprecated. No matter how worthy Dr. Krebs’s book is, and no matter how valuable and original his insights are, by nailing his colours to mast in this way he has ensured that no serious intellectual on the radical right - of the sort that we need to be rallying to the cause - will give it a second look. To support my point, here is a translated excerpt from the website of the Informations- und Dokumentationszentrum für Antirassismusarbeit in Nordrhein-Westfalen (usual disclaimers apply):
While the sunwheel is not (yet) officially proscribed in the BRD - the official list of banned symbology can be be seen here - it is definitely on the ‘watchlist’ and not therefore something that we should be condoning the use of here, I should have thought.
7
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:16 | # @Dan I agree it’s a ‘signal’ of willfully and perversely wanting to be marginal and antinomian. Put fascism into the dustbin of history where it belongs. Its not ‘dangerous’ - it’s dumb. And the brand is radioactively toxic. I’m sure there is a powerful case from within entirely mainstream European philosophical thought, social science and science for a robust but civilised ethno-communitarian politics. Aristotle is hardly a marginal figure! 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:23 | # I would expect the reviewer of Fighting for The Essence to deprecate such symbology if it forms a significant part of Dr Krebs’ thesis. I rather suspect it won’t, however. It is important not to throw the anti-liberal baby out with the fascist-chic bathwater. Let’s wait and see what transpires. 9
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:27 | #
Well, in the interest of providing balance, I’m happy to say that I love esoteric bullshit. Especially Black Sun Bullshit as laid out by Miguel Serrano in Adolf Hitler, el Ultima Avataro wherein he accepts the Jews’ definition of themselves as the children of Yaweh, demiurge of the materialist realm of the Yellow Sun. There’s something reassuring about taking the Jews at their word, that they are the masters of the universe. Only after so doing, can the postulation and contemplation of an expanded universe begin, and what better place to begin than with a metaphor for the spiritual equivalent of an astronomical Black Hole about which the Yellow Sun of Yaweh awaits in its orbit as a satellite on the threshold of its own annihilation? The Jews are right about themselves, but they only know half the story, and it’s by far the lesser half. Siege Heil! 11
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:08 | # I loathe anything ‘new age’ or ‘esoteric’. I am a creature of science and the scientific method. I once spotted in a Barns & Noble a book on postmodern magic and how to do it or some such (the new age section was next to the science section and distressingly much, much larger). I was disgusted such books exist let alone that people buy them. Perhaps Bruno Latour is kinda of right in that the conspiracy-mindset etc., is a super-vulgar version of POMO thinking for the intellectually impoverished, emotionally unbalanced and socially marginal. Like Wicca it’s ‘empowering’ or something. Idiocy might be a better term. 12
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:08 | # Some examples of cutting-edge esoteric anatomical research from Jimmy’s favourite work of real bullshit, as conceptualised by Wolfgang von Schemm. First the Hindu-Nordic ...
and then, for those invertrate purists amongst us, the Odinist account of Baldur’s resurrection:
13
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:31 | #
Small womanish minds shrink and are much distressed by little things. Great minds see them all but are not upset by them. 14
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:32 | # Dan you’re such a bad boy - watch the aluminum sparks fly. Have to say when I was studying anatomy and physiology as an undergrad we were never shown those diagrams - the J-lizards strike again to prevent the secret truth coming out! 15
Posted by FB on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:50 | # I also like esoteric bullshit. Since my teens I wear a dog tag with the Black Sun. The first thing I did when I bought my Rolex was to engrave my name on it in runes. Chicks dig it. I found such ancient Aryan symbolism attractive. I refuse to accept and internalize the demonology of outsiders. 16
Posted by FB on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:55 | # If you purge the National Socialists of Sunic’s or Valer’a calibre in our ranks, you’ll end up with a knitting circle. 17
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:56 | # Only Jews and chinkies swank about their Rolexes. Lee Kwan Yew used to tell the tale about how the movers and shakers in Shanghai have their left jacket sleeve cut an inch shorter than the right for just that very reason. 18
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:07 | # @Grim Obviously as a great mind yourself you would know about such things from your lofty elevation. Still would you like to offer an account of, say the scientific method, for us mere mortals? Or how the ‘esoteric’ beats it? Are you not a ‘philosopher’ of some kind (I recall your idea of apples ‘conforming’ to what, a Platonic ideal of apply essence or something - but I may have misremembered), so you must be capable of such an account regarding more mundane topics such as science, yes? I await with bated breath…no really I do. 19
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:15 | #
I think, Chaim, some who read my initial comment may sense an underlying refutation that there is any need to save anyone from anything. The compulsion to salvation seems to emerge as the byproduct of monotheist scientism, a cruel god under whom I do not suffer. If, however, I did pretend to wield the wand of science, I would first make sure of my competence to do so, lest J. Richards appear and use it to spank me like a churlish knave. 20
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:19 | #
Let me take a wild guess: Leon Haller volunteered to help us out. What a sweet man! And what about that horrible, horrible “indefatigable creep” J-lizards loading him with home work that does not turn him on. He’s got some nerve! We’ve got to do something about it, don’t we, Dr G-clitoris. 21
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:23 | #
If you’re interested in Green Light symbology, Dan, I recommend the work of Henry Corbin, specifically The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism. Omega Publications, 1994. 22
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:55 | # Hey Jimmy, I liked that Lucifer thing. Musical accompaniment wasn’t that good though, I am saddened to say. I turned off the sound and imagined you in your Scottish skirt playing the great highland bagpipe. Much better. Hail Kilt but keep it down, please! 23
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:28 | #
That’s what my green ray reveals on such mundane topics such as Listerology. 24
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:53 | # I don’t believe I’m saying this but that’s not bad, Grimoire. Listerology, ah? Not bad at all! Good for you. There is another funny word that rhymes with it - gynecology. It could be used to dash off a nice limerick around your other interesting idea about our good doctor going through some hypothetical transformation you alluded to. Take it as a free gift from me and use it. Do you enjoy poetry, Grimoire? 25
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:55 | # Ok, that’s enough. Making fun of slinks is ... how did uh put it? .... going for a kill of your fellow commenters is both illegal and in extremely poor taste. Something like that? Anyway, speaking of poetry, here is a quiz for a change. Who wrote this, when did he wrote it, and what do you know about him:
The waves crest as the fresh wind rises, Beneath, the azure current flowing;
26
Posted by anon on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:42 | # I once spotted in a Barns & Noble a book on postmodern magic and how to do it or some such (the new age section was next to the science section and distressingly much, much larger). Unchanneled religiosity. Various priesthoods have been selecting for religiosity for millenia. The attack on Christianity in the West destroyed the dominant local form not the underlying instinct. 28
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:50 | #
Dr.duh…..aluminum hardly throws sparks ...especially the anodized aluminum used in the production of esoteric, conspiracy hats. 29
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:30 | #
Neither did they diagram your Funny Bone, but that doesn’t make it any less humerus. 30
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:53 | # right, when I was a lad studying anatomy and all that, we used to dig up bodies or actually buy them off the street out of our own pocket, sometime through elaborate arangements,(wink) There was no ‘green-light’ skepticism in those purer days - we were too busy savaging bloody meat. Those were days…sigh 31
Posted by Bill on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:23 | # DD @ 6 David Icke (who’d thunked it?) Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891). I’m seeing things,surely. Whose next for a full flush? Alice Baily? 33
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:25 | # @Grim Oh dear had a sense of humour by-pass then? I would prefer my thoughts to attempt to mirror the highest intellect standards and methods, not the lowest. Is that ‘old maid like’ as an attitude? A low tolerance for obvious bullshit is a good thing generally. I guess with have various intellectual style and standards operating at MR. You do know GW’s idea for the site is to beyond easy cliches found elsewhere - to act to add both scope and depth? In all seriousness if you find the spare time - a few hours over the next couple of weeks why not contribute to that. Oh and I do belief invariances and near-invariances are part of the order of things without the need for a mumbo-jumbo supporting mechanism. Is Sunic really a Nazi/National Socialist as say some claimed on this thread? That would not ipso facto invalidate all that he might think or say but it would call into question at least in part his judgemental rationality. As someone mentioned their exciting, babe magnet, esoteric trinkets - well it seems to me another expression of willful antinomianism - for a form of jouissance derived precisely because one is ‘beyond the pale’ - such psychological types cannot and do not wish to go ‘mainstream’ - in fact that would spoil their fun. They are seriously deflationary. 34
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:44 | # “The atom is elastic, ergo, the atom is divisible, and must consist of particles, or of sub-atoms. And these sub-atoms? They are either non-elastic, and in such case they represent no dynamic importance, or, they are elastic also; and in that case, they, too, are subject to divisibility. And thus ad infinitum. But infinite divisibility of atoms resolves matter into simple centers of force, i.e., precludes the possibility of conceiving matter as an objective substance”. Helena Blavatsky Good job my electricity and all those electrons etc., seem to objectively obey the laws of electro-magnetism. The above quote is upmarket Icke-ism – use of scientific terms or scientific-like terms (atoms are ‘elastic’ what precisely does that mean?) in pursuit of a pseudo-scientific ‘insight’ that objective substances/matter cannot exist. Cannot is a rather strong claim, yes? In a word this is drivel for the, more or less, hard of thinking. It’s like those people today that use quantum dynamics language to prop up various forms of ‘new age’ hogwash. 35
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:54 | # @Graham
...about the gayest thing ever heard. However one of your post’s merits is that it is mercifully short, (thank god there is only one haller). However a fault in that is that it leaves no room for properly establishing your claims. However, since it’s doubtful the claims made could ever be established without bending reality through some sort of reverse keyhole matrix, shortness is no defect in this particular case. However you do poorly when you lapse into egocentric judgements based on unsupportable assertions. All in all, the main corpus of your post is tendentious hogwash. You really should apologize to Jimmy’s ‘Green Light’ or his ‘Ray’ which is the source of wonder and delight to tens of thousands… and desist in banal digressions into insignificant piety. 36
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:44 | #
Excuse me, Grimoire, but there are many around here who pen as long or longer posts: Graham Lister, uh, JRichards come to mind. I believe you’ve penned some mountainous diatribes yourself. Of course, what matters is quality. War and Peace and Infinite Jest are hardly equivalent. 37
Posted by Hail on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:00 | # I’m wondering about the origin of the “Krebs” surname. Krebs means cancer in German. I’m also wondering about the origin of the “Pierre” first name. Is he German or French, or half-and-half? Possibly a Alsace-Lorrainer who moved to Germany? 38
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:49 | # @Grim-dim Well your entitled to your views but you’re really an intellectual lightweight – I detect no signs to the contrary. Oh diddums, did I upset the big tough guys by mocking the ‘esoteric’ etc. What’s precisely ‘gay’ about high intellectual standards? What a minute you have no idea what they look like so you will struggle in that area, yes? If I have produced ‘pretentious tosh’ take a hour or two so of your leisure time over the next few days to destroy it in a few hundred words. Should be pretty easy for a superman like your good self. What’s the cliché – shit or get off the pot? 39
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:13 | # *Wait* not what - busy day so doing and thinking about a million things - sorry for the typos. Little time to proofread. 40
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:33 | #
No harm done, Graham. I got in a full eight hours of Sleipnir last night, and the old eight-legged boy remains unfazed by your relentless prosecution in the name of truth and science. He did, however, ask me to search MR for evidence of activity in your name decrying the compulsory indoctrination of English school children with the state sponsored religious dogma of Holocaustianity. I don’t want the sad duty of telling him I can find none, Graham. Please tell me I’ve overlooked something? 41
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:12 | # @Gayham_blister
Bygosh and Bygorrah! Gayham is an heavy weight intellectual now? Forgive me, for I didn’t realize I was dealing with an intellectual lead zeppelin and it comes as something of a shock. Yes, I admit I thought you were brain dead and mindless ninny who can barely has two brain cells to rub together… Which essay to destroy? They are both stupid and worthless peans to a vacant mentality…they are not even worth destroying really. What serious person would even bother to harass someone happily producing such pathetic screeds? You choose which one, for they both seem pretty worthless. The problem with you Gayum, is you do not even know what intelligence or IQ is. For you it’s something concretely linked with ‘status’, not breadth and depth of learning and thought… in your pathetically middle class mind, intelligence is a way to make up for a lack of accomplishment and resources, and get one over somebody - anybody… you poor thing. So what little of your intelligence exists is foiled by attempts to use it in the wrong way - as ‘status’ signifier… a security guard pretending he’s a part of a swat team….instead of policing the escalator like a good drone.
42
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:14 | # Grimoire, You have declined of late. Your comments are all ad hominem, and really quite unfair and unworthy. 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:51 | # Leon is right. Grim is rattling on like a man in his cups. It is not an edifying sight. At least JR, in his criticism of “Haller”, “Lister” and “Uh”, does his utmost to make it evidentially based, and studiously avoids ad hominem. And the idea’s concise - it reduces to a single three-letter word! But in these diatribes, Grim looks suspiciously like a man caught up in the vandalistic joy of destruction. Well, that is his right. It may, though, inform onlookers much more about him than the object of his displeasure. MR is an open resource. It is open to Grim to put his stamp upon it. If he demands material which is more thoughtful and more scholarly than what he encounters here at the moment, the surest way to correct that is to supply the material himself. No one will react to it with ad hominem. What’s the problem? 44
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:52 | # GuessedWorker, J. Richards was, indeed, concise. So much so, that his enemies’ only refuge was to obscure his incisiveness under reams of textual pablum. He had developed a means of combatting that strategy too, but you reversed him. Now, the problem for the word merchants and wallpaper artists, is Grim’s ad hominem proficiency. Have you considered the possibility that your commitment to preserving MR as an “open resource” is akin to a policy of preserving nationalism through open borders? 45
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:41 | # I try so hard to be ever-polite to people ... always assuming the best ... and this ... sometimes it’s gotta be said ... Jimmy, Richards was “concise”? hello? Whatever Richards is (let us be charitable and say “cogent”), “concise” ain’t it. What Lister or I or uh or others in the “noise” write is not textual pablum. Granted, GL tends toward a more stream of consciousness approach than I do, but that (and his innocent typos) really aren’t the problem, are they? The real problems are malice and/or stupidity (at least relatively). Many here don’t like a non-Judeocentric focus (I assume that includes you). That in itself is not a problem. By all means argue your position, head high! Unfortunately, there seems to be tremendous bitterness towards those of us who don’t share that obsession, which gets expressed in personal insults (or in the case of Richards, imputations of malice). This constitutes real malice. The other issue is incomprehension of, or lack of appreciation for, Lister (this sentiment, frankly, I have felt, too, which, as much as new school demands, is why I have been disinclined of late to leave lengthy comments). Lister’s comments are not babble; I follow them perfectly (to tell the truth, I have on any number of occasions found Grimoire’s comments unintelligible; Richards’s comments are mostly, though not always, clearly expressed; it’s their content which is unpersuasive). That many don’t appreciate Lister’s comments merely shows the limited comprehension of too many of his readers. The comments are informative and often extremely funny. I say this even though I have various principled disagreements with Graham. The blunt truth is that Lister is operating on a mental level that is simply too great for too many. Instead of just going along for the ride, however, MR’s proletariat feels the need to disparage what it doesn’t understand. I guess you can’t be a Visconti or a Bergman or a Kurosawa before a crowd that wants its Spielberg. 46
Posted by Circassian on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:08 | # @GuessedWorker
I guess GuessedWorker entirely missed Emily concisely pinpointing what the problem is, just few short days back:
So take a wild guess, GuessedWorker. 47
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:23 | # Fighting evil without naming the devil is fool’s errand. It’s no accident that those practicing it behave as if they are ascending into heaven by mounding up words. 48
Posted by uh on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:45 | #
Have you considered the possibility that your commitment to this affair is overlong, and that what goes on in a digital sandbox is irrelevant to real events? For a better model of nationalism’s failure, actually inability to succeed against the zeitgeist, than we Jews’ failure to bow before the Richards Bot, go review the speedy demise of the Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty coalition, brought on by nothing more than Alessandra Mussolini’s acerbic tongue and the Romanians’ pride. By the way, Guessedworker might not be the author of the comment above. Regard the form and language. Ever seen him refer to Haller, Lister, or Uh in quotes? Whatever. UGH. You need to move on, all of you. The Bot was defeated. You are stuck with all we EVIL JEWS. Deal with it! 49
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:00 | # Seems I’m the focus of some discontent - but the Marxist thing was if anything to show some mild sympathy with the tin-foilers, but on semi-rational basis. In terms of co-ordination problems etc., and spark a debate…oh well…nevermind. Mind you doesn’t MacDonald say that the Frankfurt school promoted their ideas because they were useful to their interests rather than because of the truth value of them? Not massively different at a structural level from Cohen’s outline except the focus of the latter reflects his ideological commitments (the ruling class rather than generic groups/vested interests). But they know in their ‘bones’ that it must all be evil…even if they can’t really state why. Chaps I think with my brain not my gastrointestinal tract which ironically seems to place me in a fairly small minority at MR! 50
Posted by Circassian on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:04 | # @Jimmy Marr Not so fast, foot soldier!
... or, which is infinitely more likely, a red herring of a slick mind. @uh
uh, I’m going to give you a good advice in the form of a hint if you can take advantage of it. Have you ever considered becoming a GOOD JEW? It is entirely possible! In fact, you have already made the first step to becoming one: you have admitted that you are a Jew. I respect that. The second major step is to learn how to be proud of who you are. Listen to me, man, and you can’t go wrong. 51
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:22 | # To those like Graham Lister, who is his hubris thinks logic and science are the orimary motivations energies of men, heres an article from a man who was truly intelligent ;
[‘Soldier’ - Drawing by Maksim Barhatov] In March or April, say the wiseacres, there is to be a stupendous knockout blow at Britain… What Hitler has to do it with, I cannot imagine. His ebbing and dispersed military resources are now probably not so very much greater than the Italians’ before they were put to the test in Greece and Africa. The German air power has been largely spent. It is behind the times and its first-rate men are mostly dead or disheartened or worn out. In 1914 the Hohenzollern army was the best in the world. Behind that screaming little defective in Berlin there is nothing of the sort… Yet our military ‘experts’ discuss the waiting phantom. In their imaginations it is perfect in its equipment and invincible in its discipline. Sometimes it is to strike a decisive ‘blow’ through Spain and North Africa and on, or march through the Balkans, march from the Danube to Ankara, to Persia, to India, or ‘crush Russia’, or ‘pour’ over the Brenner into Italy. The weeks pass and the phantom does none of these things-for one excellent reason. It does not exist to that extent. Most of such inadequate guns and munitions as it possessed must have been taken away form it and fooled away in Hitler’s silly feints to invade Britain. And its raw jerry-built discipline is wilting under the creeping realisation that the Blitzkrieg is spent, and the war is coming home to roost. These quotations are not taken from The Cavalry Quarterly but from a series of newspaper articles by Mr. H. G. Wells, written at the beginning of this year and now reprinted in a book entitled Guide to the New World. Since they were written, the German Army has overrun the Balkans and reconquered Cyrenaica, it can march through Turkey or Spain at such time as may suit it, and it has undertaken the invasion of Russia. How that campaign will turn out I do not know, but it is worth noticing that the German general staff, whose opinion is probably worth something, would not have begun it if they had not felt fairly certain of finishing it within three months. So much for the idea that the German Army is a bogey, its equipment inadequate, its morale breaking down, etc. etc. What has Wells to set against the ‘screaming little defective in Berlin’? The usual rigmarole about a World State, plus the Sankey Declaration, which is an attempted definition of fundamental human rights, of anti-totalitarian tendency. Except that he is now especially concerned with federal world control of air power, it is the same gospel as he has been preaching almost without interruption for the past forty years, always with an air of angry surprise at the human beings who can fail to grasp anything so obvious. What is the use of saying that we need federal world control of the air? The whole question is how we are to get it. What is the use of pointing out that a World State is desirable? What matters is that not one of the five great military powers would think of submitting to such a thing. All sensible men for decades past have been substantially in agreement with what Mr. Wells says; but the sensible men have no power and, in too many cases, no disposition to sacrifice themselves. Hitler is a criminal lunatic, and Hitler has an army of millions of men, aeroplanes in thousands, tanks in tens of thousands. For his sake a great nation has been willing to overwork itself for six years and then to fight for two years more, whereas for the common-sense, essentially hedonistic world-view which Mr. Wells puts forward, hardly a human creature is willing to shed a pint of blood. </em> Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as that of the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to ‘enlightened’ and hedonistic people. What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the S.S. men patrolling the London streets at this moment. Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the ‘sacred soil of the Fatherland’, etc. etc.), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered from. The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions — racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war — which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.<u></u> The people who say that Hitler is Antichrist, or alternatively, the Holy Ghost, are nearer an understanding of the truth than the intellectuals who for ten dreadful years have kept it up that he is merely a figure out of comic opera, not worth taking seriously. All that this idea really reflects is the sheltered conditions of English life. The Left Book Club was at bottom a product of Scotland Yard, just as the Peace Pledge Union is a product of the Navy. One development of the last ten years has been the appearance of the ‘political book,’ a sort of enlarged pamphlet combining history with political criticism, as an important literary form. But the best writers in this line-Trotsky, Rauschning, Rosenberg, Silone, Borkenau, Koestler and others-have none of them been Englishmen, and nearly all of them have been renegades from one or other extremist party, who have seen totalitarianism at close quarters and known the meaning of exile and persecution. Only in the English-speaking countries was it fashionable to believe, right up to the outbreak of war, that Hitler was an unimportant lunatic and the German tanks made of cardboard. Mr. Wells, it will be seen from the quotations I have given above, believes something of the kind still. I do not suppose that either the bombs or the German campaign in Greece have altered his opinion. A lifelong habit of thought stands between him and an understanding of Hitler’s power. Mr. Wells, like Dickens, belongs to the non-military middle class. The thunder of guns, the jingle of spurs, the catch in the throat when the old flag goes by, leave him manifestly cold. He has an invincible hatred of the fighting, hunting, swashbuckling side of life, symbolised in all his early books by a violent propaganda against horses. The principal villain of his Outline of History is the military adventurer, Napoleon. If one looks through nearly any book that he has written in the last forty years one finds the same idea constantly recurring: the supposed antithesis between the man of science who is working towards a planned World State and the reactionary who is trying to restore a disorderly past. In novels, Utopias, essays, films, pamphlets, the antithesis crops up, always more or less the same. On the one side science, order, progress, internationalism, aeroplanes, steel, concrete, hygiene: on the other side war, nationalism, religion, monarchy, peasants, Greek professors, poets, horses. History as he sees it is a series of victories won by the scientific man over the romantic man. Now, he is probably right in assuming that a ‘reasonable,’ planned form of society, with scientists rather than witch-doctors in control, will prevail sooner or later, but that is a different matter from assuming that it is just round the corner. There survives somewhere or other an interesting controversy which took place between Wells and Churchill at the time of the Russian Revolution. Wells accuses Churchill of not really believing his own propaganda about the Bolsheviks being monsters dripping with blood, etc., but of merely fearing that they were going to introduce an era of common sense and scientific control, in which flag-wavers like Churchill himself would have no place. Churchill’s estimate of the Bolsheviks, however, was nearer the mark than Wells’s. The early Bolsheviks may have been angels or demons, according as one chooses to regard them, but at any rate they were not sensible men. They were not introducing a Wellsian Utopia but a Rule of the Saints, which like the English Rule of the Saints, was a military despotism enlivened by witchcraft trials. The same misconception reappears in an inverted form in Wells’s attitude to the Nazis.<u> Hitler is all the war-lords and witch-doctors in history rolled into one. Therefore, argues Wells, he is an absurdity, a ghost from the past, a creature doomed to disappear almost immediately. But unfortunately the equation of science with common sense does not really hold good. </u>The aeroplane, which was looked forward to as a civilising influence but in practice has hardly been used except for dropping bombs, is the symbol of that fact. Modern Germany is far more scientific than England, and far more barbarous. Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany. The order, the planning, the State encouragement of science, the steel, the concrete, the aeroplanes, are all there, but all in the service of ideas appropriate to the Stone Age. Science is fighting on the side of superstition. But obviously it is impossible for Wells to accept this. It would contradict the world-view on which his own works are based. The war-lords and the witch-doctors must fail, the common-sense World State, as seen by a nineteenth-century Liberal whose heart does not leap at the sound of bugles, must triumph. Treachery and defeatism apart, Hitler cannot be a danger. That he should finally win would be an impossible reversal of history, like a Jacobite restoration. But is it not a sort of parricide for a person of my age (thirty-eight) to find fault with H.G. Wells? Thinking people who were born about the beginning of this century are in some sense Wells’s own creation. How much influence any mere writer has, and especially a ‘popular’ writer whose work takes effect quickly, is questionable, but I doubt whether anyone who was writing books between 1900 and 1920, at any rate in the English language, influenced the young so much. The minds of all of us, and therefore the physical world, would be perceptibly different if Wells had never existed. Only, just the singleness of mind, the one-sided imagination that made him seem like an inspired prophet in the Edwardian age, make him a shallow, inadequate thinker now. When Wells was young, the antithesis between science and reaction was not false. Society was ruled by narrow-minded, profoundly incurious people, predatory business men, dull squires, bishops, politicians who could quote Horace but had never heard of algebra. Science was faintly disreputable and religious belief obligatory. Traditionalism, stupidity, snobbishness, patriotism, superstition and love of war seemed to be all on the same side; there was need of someone who could state the opposite point of view. Back in the nineteen-hundreds it was a wonderful experience for a boy to discover H. G. Wells. There you were, in a world of pedants, clergymen and golfers, with your future employers exhorting you to ‘get on or get out,’ your parents systematically warping your sexual life, and your dull-witted schoolmasters sniggering over their Latin tags; and here was this wonderful man who could tell you about the inhabitants of the planets and the bottom of the sea, and who knew that the future was not going to be what respectable people imagined. A decade or so before aeroplanes were technically feasible Wells knew that within a little while men would be able to fly. He knew that because he himself wanted to be able to fly, and therefore felt sure that research in that direction would continue. On the other hand, even when I was a little boy, at a time when the Wright brothers had actually lifted their machine off the ground for fifty-nine seconds, the generally accepted opinion was that if God had meant us to fly He would have given us wings. Up to 1914 Wells was in the main a true prophet. In physical details his vision of the new world has been fulfilled to a surprising extent. But because he belonged to the nineteenth century and to a non-military nation and class, he could not grasp the tremendous strength of the old world which was symbolised in his mind by fox-hunting Tories. He was, and still is, quite incapable of understanding that nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than what he himself would describe as sanity. Creatures out of the Dark Ages have come marching into the present, and if they are ghosts they are at any rate ghosts which need a strong magic to lay them. The people who have shown the best understanding of Fascism are either those who have suffered under it or those who have a Fascist streak in themselves. A crude book like The Iron Heel, written nearly thirty years ago, is a truer prophecy of the future than either Brave New World or The Shape of Things to Come. If one had to choose among Wells’s own contemporaries a writer who could stand towards him as a corrective, one might choose Kipling, who was not deaf to the evil voices of power and military ‘glory’. Kipling would have understood the appeal of Hitler, or for that matter of Stalin, whatever his attitude towards them might be. Wells is too sane to understand the modern world. The succession of lower-middle-class novels which are his greatest achievement stopped short at the other war and never really began again, and since 1920 he has squandered his talents in slaying paper dragons. But how much it is, after all, to have any talents to squander.
52
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:55 | # Jimmy, Those who react against the open source are protecting a closed ideological loop. That is what’s really going on here. If I was a keen advocate of the “German Heavy Model”, for instance, and thought it necessary that we just got on and delivered the thing now, today, and no more talk, well, it would frustrate me no end to find people insisting on talking - and talking, what’s more, about matters not only irrelevant to my own programme but counter-productive for it. But I am not an advocate of the German Heavy Model or any other extant model for the saving of our European race, and I want to talk, and keep talking, and glean some understanding of where we really are and what will really work. Talk is mete. Talk is good. When the moment comes to stop talking it will be because, at last, we know what to do. 53
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:04 | # Uh, You write as if you think my inspiration for exposing the preponderance of Jewish influence in the commission of crimes against humanity derives from my contemplation of a nationalist gambit whereby I imagine the possibility of pushing the correct buttons in order to acquire the desired result, which I imagine as a White racialist utopia. If that assumption were correct, so too would be your assessment that my commitment to the endeavor is overlong. But, as proud as I am of my ancestors , my highest regard is reserved for their ability to pursue truth for its own sake. If, only if, and only to the extent to which that is a racial characteristic can my interests qualify me as a racialist. As unlikely as it may seem, I’m not involved here because I fear or hate other races of people who are simply trying to survive. I’m here because I hate Jews for their disproportionate role in exploiting and cultivating the conflicts, which arise naturally when disparate and desperate peoples are intentionally manipulated into opposition for third party benefit. My commitment to exposing this dynamic is unconditional, and not limited to its efficacy in the promotion of nationalist interests per se, therefore, as long as I draw breath, my commitment cannot be overlong. 54
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:22 | # Materialism is a bit old fashioned LJB unless one is a Trot - its called physicalism these days dear boy. And I am a more of a transcendental realist for the record. I’m entirely agnostic on physicalism per se but I do think that the burden of proof is upon the ‘esoteric’ and religious believer not the other way around. And I have no doubt the role of emotions and ideas in human life and political affairs - in fact I have previously mentioned the vital need to buy ‘moral capital’ with an audience; ‘lowering’ the ‘psychological costs’ for them to listen to a message (being in imaginative sympathy with them) and the obviously love of marginality displayed by the average WN - such as yourself with all those ‘mainstream’ neo-Nazi punk bands you love. I mean yesterday or the day before I made a comment about Aristotelian philia (φιλία philía). It is a virtuous conception of love developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. Hardly ‘ignoring’ the emotional part of life? Let alone your idea to ask Mr. & Mrs. Average to let their sons and daughters go your ‘community centre’ in order to learn about white culture via neo-Nazi techno raves? LJB it’s fairly obvious you are not fit to run the proverbial whelk stall let alone be part of a group that aims to assume the moral and intellectual leadership of a society. BTW the role of emotions in how we reason and make decisions is one of my keen interests. Logic and clarity of thought are not by themselves enough - if they were we would not have ‘hyper-liberalism’ now would we? Now I’m going to listen to some Sigur Rós while thinking about Gini coefficients…I feel a hypothesis coming on. LJB as Leon suggested know what you’re good at and what you’re not - it’s fairly obvious you’re way out of your comfort zone at the moment. I’ll be back later if anyone has anything sensible to say…. 55
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:30 | # GW, I’d suggest that in addition to just ‘talking’ another useful outlet for our energies (and spare funds) is to promote organisations whose objectives are, in the short term at least, roughly congruent with our own. As a general principle, those organisations should be chosen on the basis that their activities are essentially inimical to out-group members. The Optimum Population Trust, for example campaigns for global population reduction, and the RSPCA opposes the legal exemptions that permit kosher and halal slaughter. Just a couple of examples, there are many others. 56
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:41 | # yet again Graham you reveal the one thing that is true about you, that you are a total fraud. The ONLY person who supports your tedious pseudo-intellectual toss is GW. Everyone else thinks your a tedious, self important, egotistical, useless twat. I never mentioed family etc - yet another pathetic straw man argument as you have been exposed as talking shite again. I said, and I will expoain it to you very slowly so you get it - that what motivates men to great deeds are things like myths, faith, symbol, archetypes, visions and dreams - all those things that you, the hyper realist twat, think are meaningless. They are not meaningless Graham - you are. Nor did I mention the esoteric, unless you consider the unconscious as ‘esoteric’. Most psychologists would regard it as a fact. You think Mr and Mrs average care about anything other than soap operas and social climbing. They dont. Their kids go to raves every weekend where they take drugs - and they havent got a clue. The idea we should base our ideological development and social movement on appealing to Mr and Mrs Average is simply because you think you are their intellectual superior - when in fact you are a sub rate mind with a big mouth who is too busy blah blah blahing to listen to anyone and anything other than your own tedious bullshit. As for Sigur Ros - they are band who make music based not on a language like Icelandic but mainly on a made up language which is based on them having a spiritual connection to their Heimat - Homeland, hence the name of their video about them.
what language does jónsi sing in? on von, ágætis byrjun and takk, jónsi sang most songs in icelandic but a few of the songs were sung in ‘hopelandic’. all of the vocals ( ) are however in hopelandic. hopelandic (vonlenska in icelandic) is the ‘invented language’ in which jónsi sings before lyrics are written to the vocals. it’s of course not an actual language by definition (no vocabulary, grammar, etc.), it’s rather a form of gibberish vocals that fits to the music and acts as another instrument. jónsi likens it with what singers sometimes do when they’ve decided on the melody but haven’t written the lyrics yet. many languages were considered to be used on ( ), including english, but they decided on hopelandic. hopelandic (vonlenska) got its name from first song which jónsi sang it on, hope (von). tracks 7-9 on takk are in hopelandic. The words the singer uses in many Sigur Ros songs is not a real language, it is made up of sounds that are not words but emotions framed within the songs. Sigur Ros are in fact the complete antithesis of everything you stand for - they make music for the soul, something which you as hyper realist do not even admit exists . The problem is Graham that you did not even know this - as you are a one dimensional fraud. With your hyper realism you should be calling that total rubbish. As for Neo-Nazi bands - one can compare the thousands of recruits to the movement brought by them and the ...well zero… recruits brought into the movement by you. The neo-nazi bands have proved their recruitment value for decades. I thought that the kind of empirical evidence you hyper realists respected. Obviously not.
What matters is being seen to be powerful these days. The nature of our society, people, communities, morality, values and ethics have changed since Aristotle you dickhead. Or have you missed that ?
Sooner or later the people become sickened at the nature of the corruption, depravity and sickness of their society and then they seek a cure. They dont turn to those espousing Aristotelian philia (φιλία philía) - they turn to revolutionaries, fascists, national socialists, communists. marxists and other ‘extremists’ to smash the old system and build a whole new one based on tribalism, ethno-communalism and the glorification of strength and power. Whenever a system falls they dont turn to those that offer Aristotelian philia (φιλία philía), they turn to those who offer a palingenetic renewal, national rebirth and the exorcism of the old in a revolutionary rebirth with a new system of values. eg French Revolution
57
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:50 | # Well I’ve left the rest of the family to there own devices and have transferred into my study (it’s not grand - just a spare bedroom) for an hour or so of reading and thinking and what book randomly came to my eye? Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? What is this book about? “Are humans composed of a body and a nonmaterial mind or soul, or are we purely physical beings? Opinion is sharply divided over this issue. In this clear and concise book, Murphy argues for a physicalist account, but one that does not diminish traditional views of humans as rational, moral, and capable of relating to God. This position is motivated not only by developments in science and philosophy, but also by biblical studies and Christian theology. The reader is invited to appreciate the ways in which organisms are more than the sum of their parts. That higher human capacities such as morality, free will, and religious awareness emerge from our neurobiological complexity and develop through our relation to others, to our cultural inheritance, and, most importantly, to God. Murphy addresses the questions of human uniqueness, religious experience, and personal identity before and after bodily resurrection”. Much of interest there even if I find the religious claims very unconvincing. Leon you might be interested in the religious/theological elements of such a book. But according to LJB I’m a pseudo-intellectual, half-wit, logic chopper, emotionally crippled, a narrow and close-minded ‘materialist’ etc. Really are you sure? Not ‘projecting’ just a little maybe? OK that was slightly ‘off-topic’ - carry on. 58
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:54 | # I have that Murphy book on my ridiculously lengthy (2000+) and growing To Buy list. I read a not flattering review by a Christian not too long ago - can’t recall where, though. My school has an elective course in Theology and Neuroscience, which I definitely intend to take when I have met the prerequisites. I have a number of books in “consciousness studies” (the real stuff, not tin-foil - Susan Blackmore is one name, Daniel Dennett another). This is the kind of behavior which, though harmless, does make me cringe, as a Christian as well as American: http://news.yahoo.com/photos/snapshots-1320966603-slideshow/snapshots020912-photo-1328831982.html 59
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:59 | # GW, I haven’t watched TV since 1981, so I’m not up to date on the current nuances of the “Heavy German Model” except through propaganda trickle-down, by which I’ve learned that the lampshade and soap themes have given ground to air-permeable cyanide parlors. It’s odd that no matter how the narrative changes, the Kabbalistic wet dream of 6 Megakikes remains what it was even before Jews murdered the royal family of Russia. Your comment suggests that I am interested in something other than talk, and to the extent that providing the Leon Hallisters of the blogosphere with a designated barf-bag is a non-verbal act, you are correct. But, this is a far cry from any kind of hermetically sealed ideology chamber. It would be more like providing them with a special star, so that newcomers could readily identify them as Kosher. And, unlike a Rabbi, I would never attempt to extort money from them for this privilege. Furthermore, if the Kosher commenters were, for any reason, unhappy by their special status, they would be eligible, at any time, for participation in an Arbeit Macht Frei program in which they would complete simple reading assignments and post written responses to examination questions formulated by a yet unformed Kultur Kommission. Now, can I be an administrator? Please? 60
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:04 | # What the Hell?! (Lurker please delete comment #59) Try this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/rick-santorum-encircled-prayer-15541670 62
Posted by uh on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:50 | #
Look bro. There are no Jews here. You are playing a part suggested to you by an outré man whom you do not even know. Do remember yourself, and let us all drop it. Dan has tabled an excellent topic — the inevitable exponentiation of non-white populations. Go read and consider. It is important. More important than any single stutterance of Soren Renner’s will ever be. 63
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:55 | #
I vote yes! Jimmy and Ivan (now banned from using “Ivan” by, I’m guessing GW) have the right way of dealing with Dr. Lister, Haller, Uh, etc.: have fun at their expense. It’s worthless bringing in facts or evidence for a rational discussion when encountering such people. Whereas I retain administrative access, I’m done suggesting the implementation of policies to effect reasonable discussion here. Maybe Jimmy can try his luck. 64
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:58 | # Lee, “The unconscious”? No such resource. There are associations of memories, impressions, thoughts, meanings, and so forth, and in ordinary waking consciousness there is a certain absence and a deep immersion in the object. These things, and these things alone, result in these associations arising in the mind quite mechanically, that is, without attention and selection. You understand, there is nobody there to direct the process or to even observe it. That’s all there is. That is the human condition. Psychologists who still don’t know this, and cleave to the Freudian/Jungian presumptions, are ignorant of the Mind they study. What motivates Man is that which engenders behaviour rooted in the traits of individualism, altruism, and/or faith, with all the emotional triggers associated with them. The greatest of these, as someone once said, is love. For example, my idea to make politics is to offer the English England, to offer the homeless free houses, to offer the indebted freedom from debt, but most of all to offer our people life. What do you think palingeneticism can offer next to that? 65
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:04 | # The defense would like the bench to take note of Exhibit A as proof of unconsciousness: “The unconscious”? No such resource. 66
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:07 | #
@GW
Agreed, and I recommend it, these nattering insects deserve no better - they are ’ controlled opposition’....the don’t need to be jews, being the jew’s or tpb or whoever’s golem is good enough reason to destroy them without mercy. Call it the ‘german heavy model’ as if that was a bad thing….as if the ‘pansy model’ is preferable to the panzer model. As long as the stables are cleared who cares? How to tell who is controlled opposition? Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil.
The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions — racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war — which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action. 67
Posted by uh on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:08 | #
Funny how I have a way of inspiring even my opponents. Snore. 68
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:12 | # The Heavens Proclaim God’s Creation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57BSJj_a-aQ (full screen and CRANK UP THE VOLUME!) 69
Posted by uh on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:12 | # GW, There are associations of memories, impressions, thoughts, meanings, and so forth, and in ordinary waking consciousness there is a certain absence and a deep immersion in the object. With respect to that ... you may find this interesting for a minute (until you leave the room):
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/11/21/environmental-boundaries-can-affect-memory/31727.html 70
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:29 | # Grim, Ivan was banned as Ivan by another admin, not me. Ivan is perfectly welcome to comment but not break the rules - and certainly not to threaten people. Others, including you, have also gone too far. I am asking you to moderate your language and confront those you disagree with through the medium of ideas. For example ... On the Marxian thread you critiqued Graham for having “no ideas of your own”. Now you come up with something suspiciously like fascism! You know perfectly well I can chuck that in the midden in five seconds flat. Racial pride? Done down by hyper-individualism (read Graham’s very New Right “body” essay). It won’t suddenly spring back of its own accord. It requires a reintroduction to self. Leader-worship? Oh good God. People want truth, hope, and vision from their political leaders. We don’t have to pretend that we are all pubescent girls swooning after Elvis with a little moustache and a brown shirt. Religious belief? Well, once upon a time. Love of war? The hyper-individualist and the decent man do not love war. They do not even love victory. They love life and they love the end of war. Only the psychopath loves war. Check your capacity for empathy if you can’t see what everybody else sees on this. 71
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:34 | #
If the Chinese built a cheaper version of Ivan, do you think renneR would buy one? These are serious questions! 72
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:43 | #
I hate to conjecture without evidence, but this sinister deed seems to bear the fingerprints of The Heavy English Hand 73
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:54 | # Uh, Interesting. The place in the associative structure can be reset in a wholly mechanical way. So ... what might the consciousness be like which could enable a willed setting? Answer: attentional. 74
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:05 | #
No, because Ivan is actually a production prototype developed by James Bowery, and renneR would not put his friend at a competitive disadvantage by purchasing a Chinese knockoff. This is mostly a matter of principal on renneR’s part as Bowery is currently engaged in the final negotiations for the purchase of ten thousand units by Richards Technology Inc. Research is also under way for a second generation cyber weapon, Grm II, with a projected release date of early 2013.
75
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:16 | # GW Ivan hasn’t literally threatened anyone or urged violent harm against a commenter. He’s making fun of many here, and this is how you need to read his language. Urging that an ice pick be driven through a commenter’s head is a reference to banning him. Someone has creatively edited the comments of Ivan, and some have been deleted. In one or two cases the deleter was James Bowery. In other cases a suspect is Søren Renner [others left include you, me, Dasein and Lurker]. So when Ivan asks that Søren be circumcised, this is a reference to his administrative powers being limited else he’d be turning Renner’s guts inside out [read: mocking him, more severely, using a different username]. When you have people like Lister, Haller, Uh, Renner, etc. active here, there’s not much to do except have some fun with them because a rational, evidence-based discussion isn’t possible. You’re asking Grimoire to confront those he disagrees with through the medium of ideas, but in Dr. Lister you have someone resorting to vile insults and straw men while refusing to explain some data that should be relevant to liberalism, and he brings in aluminum foils, Icke, monomania, space lizards and other absurdities when confronted with verifiable, falsifiable evidence he doesn’t like. There’s no way to have any exchange of ideas with such a person, and this person is bound to disgust some others, inviting derision and mockery. 76
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:32 | # J. Richards,
Exactly. He essentially admitted his pseudonym is based on the British TV comedic character “Graham Lister”. I could care less about that. What’s more serious is his juvenile role playing of the tv “Graham Lister” character. The Listerbag’s alcohol fueled sub-Gong Show quality tirades are just a waste of time. And he seems to have lots of time to waste, too. He can’t possibly be seriously engaged on anything serious.
Any progress on an “Alpha Site”?
77
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:15 | # @Gworker #70 first of all, I said nothing above about Ivan, so you are mistaking someone else’s comments as my own. second: Graham doesn’t have any ideas…period. So there is nothing to argue about there except the inch count of dead space he uses to run interference on those who still possess a capacity to think for themselves. A natural talent he uses to neutralize, replacing content with postmodernist logorrhoea. third: I could give a toss what I come up with sounds suspiciously like. What is suspicious here is not the sound of fascism, the contrary…and it is suspicious indeed. fourth: grant you five seconds or five years, and you end up pointing to a goat, everytime…do not pretend that you haven’t been given every benefit of the doubt, all the confidence and hope and trust you could ask for, and you’ve betrayed that trust, everytime. You cannot and have not substantiated anything, nor come up with anything but what I’ve included it below…
This dissatisfied whinging fellow, wanting truth, hope and vision from their political leaders, instead of demanding it and taking to the barricades when they don’t get it, is the pubescent girl. 78
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:17 | #
79
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:51 | # Excellent catch, Grimoire. The reason GW has been failing and is doomed to always fail in his quixotic quest to word conquer “liberalism” in “European man” is simple. To paraphrase Pogo paraphrasing Oliver Hazard Perry, “GW has met the enemy and they are him.” 80
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 04:15 | # XPWA The new website will take a few weeks. It’s not just a simple matter of setting up software, but it has to be populated with a handful of entries before it can be presented, and there isn’t enough spare time. It’ll also be a group effort and there will be some delays related to consensus. I’ll email you and announce it at MR when it’s ready. 81
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 04:39 | # JRichards @80 WRT your new website, does this mean you’ll be leaving MR, never to return? Might it be possible to take Ivan, Jimmy Marr, Grimoire, XPWA, Genotype, dc, Helvena, and Mob with you? Seriously, MR is facing some stiff competition from other intellectual nationalist sites like altright and counter-currents and occidental dissent, among others, like old standby (now remodeled) AR. I have great faith that this site could compete with the best; certainly, I’d like to see MR rise in the “hits” ranking to at least Top 10 Most Visited (if not Top 5) among sites of its type. I don’t see how this can be achieved with so much intramural bickering, which must be extremely boring if not bewildering to any earnest newcomer. Make you a deal: leave MR permanently, and I promise I will never visit your site. I bet Graham, “uh” and others you dislike could be persuaded to make the same commitment. Once we’re certain you and your ilk are gone for good, then I and others (perhaps the indefatigable “uh”) can hit the comment boards of other nationalist sites declaring that “MR IS BACK!”, perhaps thereby re-snagging some of the old and worthy fighters who once contributed here. I’m very optimistic. Oft times, a good divorce, a clean break, is what’s needed to renew both parties. After the Richards Interregnum, MR will rise again! 82
Posted by Circassian on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 04:53 | # They say Jacob Bernoulli, who discovered many fascinating mathematical properties of the logarithmic spiral, was so mesmerized by its magical beauty, he had requested that it be carved on his tombstone with the Latin inscription Eadem Mutata Resurgo meaning “I shall arise the same though changed”. Through this self-similar object Jacob Bernoulli symbolically points to the fortitude and constancy in adversity, or of the human body, which after all its changes, even after death, will be restored to its exact and perfect self. I have come here to announce that Ivan, brutally slain recently by Judas Søren Renner, Eadem Mutata Resurgo. My last incarnation, who discovered the functional equation f(x) + f(-x) = f(y+x) + f(y-x) - 2f(y), which contains all three laws of Newtonian mechanics, just like DNA contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms, was so mesmerized by its magical beauty, he had requested that it be carved on his tombstone with the following inscription: I shall not die a whole, but in the token formula 83
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:11 | # More likely time to for the epitaph:
84
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:20 | # Just to say if Mr. Richards and friends are to set-up elsewhere I would not have the slightest interest in visiting them, let alone commenting on such a forum. The internet is a very big place and discrimination is vital. In all honesty I would wish Mr. Richards much speed in his endeavours on this matter. And since when was recalling someone’s actually idea/statements (neo-Nazi techno-raves being one of them..cough cough) ad hominem? If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument per se, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument. It might add spice to the substantive part of the argument but any piss-taking is not necessarily ad hominem in the narrow meaning of that term. And let’s face it some ideas and personalities deserve a little gentle mocking, nor is it asymmetrical here at MR. If we wish to have a new civility code/no jokes or personal comments policy I can live with that. And Grimo-dimmo oh please dear ‘Nietzschean superman’ do spare some time to inform us lowly creatures of your brilliant and original insights oh great one (even if ‘esoteric’). As GW states MR is open for ideas - please, as the Anglo-Saxon terminology goes, perhaps you could complete your act of defecation or remove yourself from the receptacle? 85
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:19 | # Lee, “The unconscious”? No such resource. There are associations of memories, impressions, thoughts, meanings, and so forth, and in ordinary waking consciousness there is a certain absence and a deep immersion in the object. These things, and these things alone, result in these associations arising in the mind quite mechanically, that is, without attention and selection. You understand, there is nobody there to direct the process or to even observe it. That’s all there is. That is the human condition. Psychologists who still don’t know this, and cleave to the Freudian/Jungian presumptions, are ignorant of the Mind they study. What motivates Man is that which engenders behaviour rooted in the traits of individualism, altruism, and/or faith, with all the emotional triggers associated with them. The greatest of these, as someone once said, is love. For example, my idea to make politics is to offer the English England, to offer the homeless free houses, to offer the indebted freedom from debt, but most of all to offer our people life. What do you think palingeneticism can offer next to that? ——————
Individualism as an aspect of community. Altrusim is also an aspect of community, same as faith and family. Love is the emotion that creates communities. It is how the individual reaches beyond the limitations and bounds of his own physicality to create communities.
The issue is how to achieve that. To achieve that will require a revolution, a palingenetic renewal of the entire basis of politics, economics, society, community, the concept of individualism overthrown and replaced by a community consciousness etc etc Individualism will not achieve what you want. Nor will social / political gradualism re taking power or propaganda appealing to the Aristotelian philia (φιλία philía) work to attract people to the movement - as the society in which we live no longer promotes those things , respects those things or even admits they exist. Modern Hyper Individualism and the modern social structure has eradicated Aristotelian philia (φιλία philía ) so appealing to the masses on the basis of them being aware of them is folly. They will exist only after the palingenetic revolution takes power, builds a new society and a creates new consciousness in people so that the Aristotelian philia (φιλία philía) may be re-created. Thats where Graham and yourself are going wrong.
86
Posted by Circassian on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:08 | # Speaking of Ivan and Bernoullis. In 1713, Nicolas Bernoulli, Jacob Bernoulli’s nephew, propounded a problem that became widely known as the St Petersburg paradox. In 1738, Daniel Bernoulli, another Jacob Bernoulli’s nephew, tried in vain to solve it by the concept of moral expectation. A common objection to Daniel Bernoulli’s resolution of the paradox is to question the justification for the logarithmic assignment of utility. The choice of logarithm to quantify the utility of money appears as an ad-hoc device with earmarks of such devices: it breaks down at extremes, and it does not offer a criterion for separating the areas where it works well from those where it does not work at all. The fundamental objection, though, came from Nicolas Bernoulli himself who acknowledged the importance of the concept of utility, but felt that it has little to do with the crux of the problem. In a letter to his cousin dated 5 April 1732, Nicolas wrote: “... I thank you for the effort that you yourself have given to me communicating a copy of your Specimen theoriae novae metiendi sortem pecuniariam; I have read it with pleasure, and I have found your theory most ingenious, but permit me to say to you that it does not solve the knot of the problem in question. There is not agreed to measure the use or the pleasure that one derives from a sum that one wins, nor the lack of use or the sorrow that one has by the loss of a sum; but there is agreed to find how a player is obliged in justice or in equity to give to another for the advantage that therein accords him in the game of chance in question.” In 2011, 298 years after the problem was stated, Ivan de Grozny, my last incarnation who was brutally slain by Judas Søren Renner, has finally resolved the St Petersburg paradox without resorting to the concept of utility: m(f)=(f-2)2^(f-4). This equation, which is as beautiful and simple as everything offered by Ivan, yields a functional relation between the amount of money the player is willing to gamble with (rather than his total fortune, as Daniel Bernoulli would have it) and the entrance fee that makes the St Petersburg game an acceptable proposition to him. Alternatively, this new and final solution to the St Petersburg problem can be stated as follows: It presents a functional relation between the total fortune of the player and the upper limit for acceptable entrance fee in the St Petersburg game. 87
Posted by anon on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:32 | #
One thing that isn’t mentioned much is Denmark where an anti-immigration party started from scratch and won enough support to become part of the government and change immigration policy. That is exceptional but shows it can be done. .
The total carrying capacity of the planet is highly dependent on the global economic system centered around the US. The surplus of that system is dependent on the traits of the people within it and in particular the proportion of commonweal-orientated people. Too many of them have been replaced both at the top and the bottom of society and we’re already past the tipping point where there aren’t enough to maintain the system at it’s current level imo. We’re just waiting for the shock that’ll knock it down. When it happens the carrying capacity of the planet will plummet. This isn’t neccessarily any good for White people because of the floods of humanity who will be on the march but the one thing that is inevitable is the non-exponentiation of non-white populations (except possibly the Chinese). .
I wonder about this. I think the brain takes in a lot more information than it can process so it’s there but only half-registered - a bit like a PC with a large hard-drive but not enough RAM. I imagine the unconscious as the part-processed stuff. .
Very impressive.
88
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:38 | # J Richards
You certainly have my permission to reuse anything I’ve posted here over the years (5?) since 2007. I know GT will agree to this also. At various points we put a great deal of time and effort into exploring numerous facets of localized economic and community organization for white people. We don’t claim to throttle anyone else’s proactive message. But we would like one “clear channel” to present our proposed course, free of jamming. 89
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:26 | # Being incapable of withstanding close scrutiny is not the same thing as being ‘jammed’. The pronouncements of the SJC merchants have been found wanting, and now they thrown their collective dummy out of the pram and are flouncing off, and good riddance. That’s all there is to it, really. 90
Posted by Circassian on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:34 | #
GuessedWorker couldn’t be more wrong on this. What is conscious and is unconscious? The answer to this question was given by Erwin Schrödinger in The Tarner Lectures “Mind and Matter” delivered at Trinity College, Cambridge in October 1956. In Chapter 1, titled “The Physical Basis of Consciousness”, Erwin Schrödinger, one of the principal founders of Quantum mechanics who shared the Nobel prize in physics for 1933 with Dirac, sets the stage as follows. THE PROBLEM The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But is certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence. Its becoming manifest is conditional on very special going-ons in very special parts of this very world namely on certain events that happen in a brain. That is an inordinately peculiar kind of implication, which prompts the question: What particular properties distinguish these brain processes and enable them to produce the manifestation? Can we guess which material processes have this power, which not? Or simpler: What kind of material process is directly associated with consciousness? After six pages of fascinating dissection and analysis of the problem, Schrödinger concludes: I would summarize my general hypothesis thus: consciousness is associated with the learning of the living substance; its knowing how (Können) is unconscious. So, to paraphrase GuessedWorker:
P.S. One of the most fascinating books ever written “What is Life?” bundled with “Mind and Matter” was first printed in 1967 and reprinted almost every 2-3 years ever since by Cambridge University Press. It is available at Amazon. 91
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:46 | # Lee, Believe me, the “unconscious” is an article of faith. But perhaps Uh will confirm that psychoanalysis and Analytical Psychology are not at the forefront of modern psychological practise. Move on from their models. They are not true. On the trait of individualism, the entire dynamic of personal liberty issues therefrom. Altruism is also important, of course. But liberalism is the politics of the unfettered will, not the politics of universal brotherhood. Universalism enters the liberal equation as an adjunct, strictly speaking, social justice being a requirement for negative liberty. This is First Year Politics, and surely should not require explication here! Palingeneticism does not exist in Nature. Men cannot be heroically reborn, or even just reborn. There is no rebirth. It is a misreading of the state of presence to being. As a confected political teleology, whether it is liberal of fascist, it is always doomed to failure. I will tell you plainly that you belong to the German fascist tradition with all those poor fellows who bore aloft the banner of nationalism in the post-war years. They were right in their political and social commentary. Their intellectual predicates, however, were factually wrong, and so are yours now. 92
Posted by Circassian on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:49 | # Sorry, the link resolution in the above comment doesn’t work as expected. To find the correct wiki page google Schrödinger’s book “What is Life?” 93
Posted by GenoType on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:46 | # Danny Boy, The “jamming” XPWA refers to means noise, as in decreasing the SNR (signal to noise ratio) in radio communications. Our ideas have not been found “wanting” except by fraudulent, thin-skinned prigs with elitist aspirations Premature or not fully fleshed out in some cases, but definitely not wanting. So go fuck yourself. GW, As sympathetic as I am toward you, I am inclined to leave this website with its diminishing number of serious individuals. LH, Lister, Dare, & Uh will soon tire of being kings of the hill on MR’s playground. J Richards, I think it’s worth working towards an American version of MR to serve as a dissident b-b-s to Regnery’s CMS-TOO-A3P and Greggie poo’s Counter Currents. 94
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:07 | #
Unfettered? If it is memetic is it not an infection and highly virulent if transmitted horizontally? Is it not the infection or the sickness ‘speaking’ if you will? JB’s bee is an example whereby the parasite forces the death of the bee by drowning. Thus universalism will be a mutant variation of the original meme of liberalism that will have arisen in a different human ecology, be re-transmitted horizontal and thus be highly virulent for the host population it inhabits. Richard Dawkins chapter titled “Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes”:
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/cricket_infected_with_gordian_worm_committing_suicide/ 95
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:28 | #
“Unconscious” is plainly the opposite of “conscious”, therefore anyone asserting that it does not exist is taking the long way around to tell you that he knows everything. They serve the most jealous god imaginable. Here is a perfect example of that jealousy in action. Atheistic Englishmen hiding in the bushes to spy on Muslims en route to prayer. 96
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:29 | #
This is true biologically. However, metempsychosis appears to recur constantly in memetic form in various theological doctrines. It might be plausible and assimilated by some human ecologies, because it ‘robs death of all its terrors’ and thus mitigates a natural primal human emotion, fear. 97
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:23 | # In refutation of those who persist in their allegations that doG does not exist, I present to the court Exhibit B in the case of the People vs. the enemies of doG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugIa4KQiCj8&sns=fb Rise Against the Enemies of doG! 98
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:56 | #
Nice try, Jimmy. But if you really think that “conscious” is a singularity opposite to another singularity called"unconscious”, you were deceiving your zen meister! Unless his name was Sigmund. 99
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 22:43 | # Perhaps GW, your example misled others…for your statements often seem, unconscious. 101
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:32 | # Well, Grim, let’s stick with the contest of ideas. Do you concur with the Freudian model? 102
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:47 | # I see the fraudian model as peripheral to any discussion on the unconscious. 103
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 00:03 | # Now you are wriggling. Let’s make it easier then, and ignore Freud for the moment and travel to the extreme. Do you concur with Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious? 104
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 00:47 | # What is easier is that I do know I do not concur with your particular idea of either Fraud or Junk’s conception of consciousness. I’m afraid I doubt you have properly studied or considered either… instead you’ve absorbed whatever concepts helpful in building your particular strawman hypothesis….which you have constructed with the wicker of phenomenological verbiage, used in an entirely new fashion - against itself… as you seem to have missed that none of husserl’s phenomenology, nor Heidegger’s ontology supports your concept of consciousness. This may explain the ‘shwing!’ you get from making statements like
Such a statement points to fundamental oversight, or more accurately; lack of sight into analyses on conscious by less accomplished and daring beings such as yourself and your coterie. Perhaps your exciting new theory could be called: Gworker’s ‘Cyborg Model of Consciousness’? 105
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:07 | # If you had an answer to the question, you would not hide behind formulations denying its validity, would you? But you reify phenomenology. Well, even if you think that intentionality, say, is true in and of itself, it doesn’t alter the fact that the brain generates both consciousness and the sense of self, and what is outside that narrow field is all the stored web of associations, and nothing else. Brother Occam wins. No model of a unitary unconscious filled with interesting information for psychoanalysts is required - except by the psychoanalysts, of course. 106
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:19 | # Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture According to Prof. Hanegraaff (writing more and more about less and less it seems) “academics tend to look on “esoteric,” “occult,” or “magical” beliefs with contempt…” but some ideas and concepts are marginal and contemptible, like phlogiston theory, a believe in the flatness of the Earth, clairvoyance, and astrology for the very good reason that they are wrong or misconceived – in that the evidence for them is nugatory and it seems highly unlikely any significant new evidence in favour of such ideas will be forthcoming. Gnosticism in whatever degraded form is not a serious or sound methodological procedure. GW – the esoteric masters of secret knowledge never wriggle they merely post hoc, ergo propter hoc and enjoy the Humpty-dumptyism school of linguistic philosophy. And at MR we have no-one at all that displays these traits: Effort Inadequacies and the Need for Certainty, Control, and Simplicity Most of us, most of the time, want certainty, want to control our environment, and want nice, neat simple explanations. All this may have some evolutionary basis, but in a multifarious society with complex problems, these characteristics can radically oversimplify reality and interfere with critical thinking and problem solving. Scientific and critical thinking does not come naturally. It takes training, experience, and effort, as Alfred Mander explained in his Logic for the Millions: “Thinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically—without learning how, or without practicing. People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge players, or pianists”. We must always work to suppress our need to be absolutely certain and in total control and our tendency to seek the simple and effortless solution to a problem. Now and then the solutions may be simple, but usually they are not. 107
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:56 | #
Such a statement does not deserve hiding or an answer, it requires a pharmaceutical. That and his mini lecture on ‘thinking is skilled work..?.’ should calm and restore. Dr. Bafflegab not only endorses his nostrum, he obviously uses it himself, perhaps too copiously….as we can observe in the results. 108
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 02:00 | #
Please explain the portion I have bolded and italicized. In my understanding of “negative liberty”, which I believe is the mainstream view at least within the broad liberal tradition (ie, of persons as diverse as Hayek and Berlin), it refers to the absence of collective coercion (usually understood to mean positive law) preventing or punishing desired actions which do not themselves constitute aggression (understood to mean the use of physical force or fraud against non-aggressive others). “Social justice” is a propaganda slogan, usually associated with the Left, and essentially without any deep or consistent theoretical content. In theory it alleges some injustice in social arrangements; in practice, it is a ‘catch-all’ phrase used by leftists to garner support for wealth redistributionary schemes. How social justice can be seen to be a requirement of negative liberty quite escapes me. 109
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 02:04 | # sorry, I forgot to make easy, or ‘easier’ for the skilled thinkers on board, and the permanently perplexed… hiding behind formulations denying the validity of statements I find laughable….is not really hiding, is it? Or is that not long and involved enough to be comprehensible? 110
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:03 | # Gworker:
First; ‘even?’ - let’s overlook that… it doesn’t alter the fact that the brain generates both consciousness and the sense of self, and what is outside that narrow field is all the stored web of associations, and nothing else. second; whatever ‘even’ could be….it doesn’t alter the FACT??? (let’s not get bogged down here) ‘the brain generates both consciousness and the sense of self, and what is outside that narrow field is all the stored web of associations, and nothing else. So overlooking ‘even,’ and the ‘fact’ , the ‘fact’ remains the supporting clauses point to a bottomless hole, (but let’s not get bogged down) everything outside of the brain is a stored web of associations, and nothing ‘else’.............and not getting bogged down, it follows ‘Brother Occam wins, as in the most logical…. wait….everything stored outside the brain is what? A stored web of associations? Nothing else?
This shtick you run, with the help of other mental cases like Dr. Bafflefagg….you can run that on a lot of people here and get away with it for awhile…especially with the good Dr. on hand to administer more ‘Psuedoetheoryline’ and admonitions that ‘thinking is for skilled workers’ (so don’t do it! Let GW show the way) spread out over a series of essays on the ‘epizootics of the blowhole’ . It doesn’t alter the fact this is presupposing an imaginary planet…with an imaginary logic, and your case is Nationalism is from that planet….and reality is somewhere else. 111
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:13 | # GL, 1. How the hell do you keep track or find all this specialized academic literature? 2. Did you used to write here under the nom de guerre “Pobble-Face”?
3. Elaborate, please. I understand the allusion to Humpty (“words mean just what I say they mean” - a very pronounced problem here at MR; in fairness to JRichards, I don’t think he’s guilty, unless it’s in too narrowly defining words, emphasizing one meaning of a common concept to the exclusion of others, in order to gain rhetorical advantage). But what is the relation between ‘esotericism’ and the post hoc fallacy? I think the latter really comes into play with those who engage in excessively biologistic reasoning (a very, very common problem at MR, and I suspect in the wider HBD community; for the record I do not recall ever finding you guilty of this, which is probably explained by your particular academic specialization). Indeed, a post on the making of correct v. incorrect sociobiological inferences would be extremely welcome. I sense a lot of amateurs around here presenting wild-ass claims, analogies, etc, very few of which would be taken seriously by properly trained and professionally ethical scientists. Speaking sociologically, the internet seems to have democratized the “brilliant amateur” phenomenon. And note, I am sceptical of the very relevance of biology, except in a general way, to understanding human social and political problems. Marx was wrong in blanketly stating that Man makes his own history, but surely Man’s intelligence and culture allow him to make some of it. I find all these allegedly dispositive comparisons between human societies and chimp troops or termite mounds or whatnot to be less enlightening than silly, evasive and finally tiresome. Science can tell man some things about his life, but not how he should live. But you’re right that most ‘esotericism’ is just empty bloviation vomited on the gullible. 112
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:21 | #
So you’re an advocate of Kroll’s “intelligent confusion”? How, pray tell, are Englishmen to benefit from that? Mind you, any answer that implies “we’re all liberals now” will be rejected, unless you care to succinctly define liberalism.
113
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:26 | #
On a more general note, let all of us here wish JRichards and his flock Godspeed in setting up their own little nest in another corner in the vastness of cyberspace. Please do leave -all of you - and as quickly as possible (try to take your fan Ivan with you; you won’t succeed, because he is here at MR on a mission, literally). 114
Posted by anon on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:10 | #
On reflection i think that’s a better fit for the biological view of liberalism also. If liberalism grew out of those people who had left the previous fetters of close-knit extended kin then although one strand might glorify the newly unfettered will i’d say most of liberalism revolves around trying to find alternative methods of refettering it again - a lot of liberalism is totalitarian because of that - supposedly for the greater good - but totalitarian all the same. I’m coming to think the “nice” bit of liberalism is a separate result of the same underlying process i.e. outbreeding selects for more reciprocal altruism genes and inbreeding selecting for less. So you have two processes in tandem: one, outbreeding leading to a weakened kin-mesh leading to a search for a unifying idealogy to replace it - which doesn’t need to be “nice” at all, even if it is universalist - and two, outbreeding leading to a slow shift in average levels of empathy-altruism which part influences the search for a refettered will naturally but which can also be consciously manipulated to influence the search in some preferred direction. The Jewish element comes in through manipulating this process in their perceived interest.
115
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:10 | # @Leon Sunday morning here, (just checking my e-mails) and I am doing other things today, but yes I’ll happily get into some of those issues another time as for Grimmo and his ‘extremely clear’ thinking I doubt he could last more than a minute in an Oxford or Cambridge tutorial with his blustering no matter if the subject was general analytical philosophy, continental philosophy, the philosophy of science, the biological sciences or indeed any topic. I hear we was a star student at the Kendal Mint-Cake Esoteric College (the ‘Age of Aquarius in Alabama’ campus) majoring in Gnostic Astro-Theosophicalism with applied Swedenborgianism. The latter is very useful actually for talking with non-physical beings from Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Saturn, Venus, and the moon. As Swedenborg did himself. Swedenborg did not report conversing with spirits from Uranus and Neptune, which were not yet discovered. This lack is seen by some to raise question about the credibility of all his reports on this matter. This issue has been extensively reviewed elsewhere… Sadly esoteric ideas such Madame Blavatsky’s claim that man was descended not from other primates but instead from spiritual beings etc., is the subject of a very funny book about the Theosophical Society (the dawn of the ‘New Age’ industry in bullshit perhaps?) and what the blurb describes as “a saga of human foibles, charlatanry, bizarre antics” as a putrid amalgam of Hinduism, Buddhism and occultism was concocted (how very ‘Western’). And yes I think the stipulative definition game goes on in both directions witness; ‘relatedness’ comes to mean almost anything (in Hamilton’s work it has a very specific meaning which I’ve discussed with GW in private correspondence) – but especially in an arbitrarily narrow definition of terms – such as Hitler was not a ‘true’ Nazi sophistry or that Liberalism is only post 1960s ‘diversity’ talk – both of which again wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny in any intellectual setting. It’s a very wide topic as to if and how much directionality history, in toto, has but yes we make our own history but not in circumstances of our own choosing, to coin an old phrase. And on Freud just Google the name Frederick Crews for starters. 116
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:53 | # Grimdimmy – Oh I just notice you said you have being working in academia for decades on another thread. Well I do believe you…but being a janitor/custodian isn’t quite what is conventionally understood by your claim. Now watch people here comes Prof. Potty Mouth - “Blister your a hooooooooooooooooooooomo POMO faggot” Still not reading anything like a substantive point from you…are the esoteric elite always so vapid? Don’t worry Richards and his posse are setting up camp elsewhere soon, so like I say don’t worry be happy! On that joyful day for the West you can do all the J-lizards are behind 9/11 stuff, Breivik doesn’t exist talk, babble on about esoteric insights, do costume politics, commune with the mystic green energy dildo until all your little hearts, and even smaller brains are content. I promise as part of the ‘noise’ faction I will never, ever, visit your new collective home to ‘jam’ your excellent collective insights into the non-reality of phenotypic plasticity, or on the scandal of aluminum-foil prices etc. Right I’m off to actually enjoy my Sunday - catch up with you all later. 117
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:19 | # Lee, Believe me, the “unconscious” is an article of faith. But perhaps Uh will confirm that psychoanalysis and Analytical Psychology are not at the forefront of modern psychological practise. Move on from their models. They are not true. On the trait of individualism, the entire dynamic of personal liberty issues therefrom. Altruism is also important, of course. But liberalism is the politics of the unfettered will, not the politics of universal brotherhood. Universalism enters the liberal equation as an adjunct, strictly speaking, social justice being a requirement for negative liberty. This is First Year Politics, and surely should not require explication here! Palingeneticism does not exist in Nature. Men cannot be heroically reborn, or even just reborn. There is no rebirth. It is a misreading of the state of presence to being. As a confected political teleology, whether it is liberal of fascist, it is always doomed to failure. I will tell you plainly that you belong to the German fascist tradition with all those poor fellows who bore aloft the banner of nationalism in the post-war years. They were right in their political and social commentary. Their intellectual predicates, however, were factually wrong, and so are yours now.
2) You are conflating Classical Liberalism and modern Hyper Liberalism - a quick read of Benoists manifesto of the New Right will outline where you are going wrong on the issue. 3) Palingenetic rebirth occurs generation after generation - look at the example of Christ. Every generation he is reborn in the hearts and minds of men. Myths exist outside of time, hence why any great figure in history attains immortality. Each time they attain a new follower, they are reborn. 4) I am not a fascist. Fascism is Italian and based on the merging of the state with the corporations. Thats the antithesis of nationalism. The state in a nationalist model serves solely the people, not the interests of the state or the party or the great leader. Hence why I regard fascism and Hitlerism as neither nationalist nor belonging to any german tradition. The german tradition ended with the Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) who in 782 had 4500 Saxon tribal kings, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. From that point on the German tradition was replaced by the Roman Christian tradition.
118
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:29 | # Leon, I am not writing a treatise on liberalism. The New Right oeuvre is substantially such, anyway. I am not sure why you should be picky about “social justice”. Universal brotherhood is doubtless a catchphrase, and if it is not meaningless in itself it is certainly a call for meaninglessness. But it is also one of the four principal characteristics of liberalism. You can substitute equality for social justice, if you prefer. 119
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:48 | # What’s a matter Gayham, couldn’t find the apple thread? Memory not too good after all? Look you poor man, the reason you go on in every second post and article about your supposed credentials, and such as ’ your opponents not lasting a good tutorial’ and such guff, is because you are an obvious fake. This is something of which you continually remove any doubt. This is also why you detest anyone with ideas, and do your best to dumb it down with another recitation of your fantasy intellectual standards, and imaginary papers….. you’re just a pathetic little man who is full of nothing but stink and hot air. Ideas scare you, as you’re incapable of thinking, you’re limited to posing…must be tragic! Don’t think for a moment if I wanted the info on your academic credentials, etc. ect. I couldn’t find out everything there is to know about you in a few emails and a little elbow english - and show everyone who you really are…I imagine it’s a pathetic scenario indeed. I’d be careful if I was you not to let your big mouth write too many cheques you personally can’t cash. The idiot who enjoys presenting themselves on the internet as something they are clearly not always imagine no one will ever catch them up. It’s obvious enough you’re a burnout, but you may need to learn to fear and respect your betters before you mend the error of your ways. Keep mouthing off you simple little man, and you may need to serve as example of what happens when you make people angry with you, even the most insignificant fool can develop a runaway mouth that gets them into dire straits. 120
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:29 | # MR should be about an ethos of searing intellectual honesty with a a gracious, open minded integrity to evidence, reason and judgemental rationally. Well I may have misremembered the apple comment, whatever, frankly I think life is too short for esoteric obscurantism etc. Please do enjoy Mr. Richards new project. On ethics and politics I’d say I am a bit of a fan of Aristotle and the tradition of virtue ethics. I think of values, culture, and society as a complex combinatorial optimisation problem. Not all desiderata are equally possible to achieve. Virtue ethics has its origins in non-liberal theory unlike deontological or utilitarian ethics which are liberal to their core. Inevitably in any biological system or cultural system there are trade-offs but the trade-offs and values maximally enacted under modern hyper-liberalism are, in my view unsustainable and radically undermine the common-good – at least in part because the ‘model’ of the human self at the base of liberal theory is a poor caricature, at best, of real human beings. Grimbo instead of your jolly jibes directed towards me (fine you think I’m sad-sack full of shit - we have established that is your view at least!) but why not mix it up and critique my views, or offer up your own exceedingly original ideas? I may well be an intellectual pygmy but perhaps I can see further because I choose to stand on the shoulders of giants – real giants not ‘esoteric’ ones. After all this is getting very boring - step up to the plate - I’m sure GW will be willing, if not happy, to post on the front page your esoteric bon mots. OK that’s me I’m done with the ‘masters of suspicion’ for today. Like debating Ickeism what really is the point? 121
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56 | # Lee,
Classical liberalism + Jewish intellectualism = modern hyper-liberalism. It has to be understood that classical liberalism, as a secular abstraction from Christianity (for which I guess one could read Paul + pre-Renaissance humanism), contained all the seeds for the bindweed that now infests our world. Liberalism was always a misreading of human nature, always contrary to it, because it begins in Paul’s Jewish concept of the gentile, ie, an abstract idea of (non-Jewish) Man in the process of having his world perfected!
Now you are the one conflating! Memes are not men. Fascism in the German model does not promise the rebirth of ideas but of the Volk.
I think the inner meaning of Italian fascism was the coherence of all interests within the mission of the State. So I see the Fascist state as being, in the historical sweep, a vehicle of deliverance - a means and not an end in itself.
That is a wholly fascist thought. 122
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:22 | # Grim,
Actually, I said, ““The unconscious”? No such resource.” Can you spot the difference?
No, let’s not. Nip along the corridor to the neuroscience department and have a quiet word about these matters with any first-year student. You will come away, I promise, with the clear understanding that I am right. I happen to have an essay on the blocks now in which the following observation is made: “the characteristic of consciousness always to be directed upon an object ... is an area which, these days, is steadily migrating to neuroscience and perceptual psychology, where it is addressed at the level of brain regions and circuitry for the generation of qualia responses and our sense of the self. That is, it is ceasing to be a problem of philosophy amenable via logic and conceptualisation, and becoming a problem of biology amenable to empirical research.” Go on, check it out.
Actually, I said, “the brain generates both consciousness and the sense of self, and what is outside that narrow field is all the stored web of associations, and nothing else.” Can you spot the difference? Not only do you offer ad hominem in place of reasoned replies, but you do so by wilfully misreading what is said by me. What value, then, does your contribution have? I see none. Come on, Grim, you are an intelligent man. You don’t have to behave in this way. Make the effort to articulate. I want to hear your real voice. 123
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:44 | # Lee, You are conflating Classical Liberalism and modern Hyper Liberalism - a quick read of Benoists manifesto of the New Right will outline where you are going wrong on the issue. Classical liberalism + Jewish intellectualism = modern hyper-liberalism. It has to be understood that classical liberalism, as a secular abstraction from Christianity (for which I guess one could read Paul + pre-Renaissance humanism), contained all the seeds for the bindweed that now infests our world. Liberalism was always a misreading of human nature, always contrary to it, because it begins in Paul’s Jewish concept of the gentile, ie, an abstract idea of (non-Jewish) Man in the process of having his world perfected! = I agree - so you also differentiate classical liberalism with the Marxism infected pseudo-liberalism of modern Hyper Liberalism. The rot did not begin with Paul but with Marx though. Classic Liberalism arose as a revolt against religious absolutism, not as a corollary of it.
Now you are the one conflating! Memes are not men. Fascism in the German model does not promise the rebirth of ideas but of the Volk.
I think the inner meaning of Italian fascism was the coherence of all interests within the mission of the State. So I see the Fascist state as being, in the historical sweep, a vehicle of deliverance - a means and not an end in itself.
Hence why I regard fascism and Hitlerism as neither nationalist nor belonging to any german tradition. The german tradition ended with the Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) who in 782 had 4500 Saxon tribal kings, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. From that point on the German tradition was replaced by the Roman Christian tradition. That is a wholly fascist thought. = That is wholly truthful fact. The fact fascists used it, doesnt make it less true
124
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:11 | # Waiting for the Sunday Roast so I have a couple of spare moments. @Grimveryboring master of the esoteric As one of North America’s most iconic pop-culture figures pleads: A little less conversation, a little more action please… In this context I would suggest you perhaps take some leisure time over the next week or so to enlighten the MR crowd to some of your exceedingly original, penetrating and robust esoteric insights, but many at MR, myself included, cannot speak Jupiterese unlike say one of the master of the esoteric Emanuel Swedenborg, nor I suspect can many of us speak in the Enochian language of angels like one John Dee could. So if your insights were to cover such topic please be gentle and translate for us. Again if you did explain some esoteric thoughts I’m sure you are confident they could withstand anything anyone might wish to throw at them. I fear, if I am honest, that my thoughts are that putative prospect of your soundness of thought and argument from the realm of the ‘esoteric’ might not asymptotically approach one, but I could be wrong. Go on Grimmy you know you want to. 125
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:03 | # Lee,
And the last shall be first: liberalism arose for many different reasons, I am sure. It represents, after all, a flowering of new thought across the continent. But none alters the fact that Christianity is universalised Judaism, with the supremacy of the tribe of the perfect souls downplayed and the idea of a “perfecting” world (ie, this material world in which Jews can, eventually, declare themselves supreme) translated into the salvation of believers for the life to come. The concept of the Original Sin of said believers is just a Jewish view of the gentile, and it is quite possible that the “sin” we bash on about today was not understood at all in our terms in the pre-Christian era: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/jewish_porn_christian_virtue_pagan_love_european_nature The rot was right there at the beginning, Lee. The last two millenia have constituted a process of estrangement from the European self that has ground on at a pace that is sometimes scarcely perceptible and on a scale of phenomenal vastness. Now and again, there has been a spasmodic movement forward as another Jewish idea has been imprinted onto the European intellectual consciousness. But as a whole the movement never stops, and we Europeans that are caught up in it never return to our truth. My argument for a long time now is that we must accomplish such a return, or we cannot survive. And mark the word “return”, not “rebirth”. I am interested only in what is real. Thus:
No vivifying ideas will come from a model of us which is fundamentally untrue. Actions wrought in the name of such untruth will have negative consequences. That is unavoidable.
Well, if you speak of heroic rebirth and the 782 Frankish kings, you must expect me to enquire after your fascist credentials! Glad they are so lacking. 126
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:31 | # I agree with all the above post points. I would add that sin did exist as a notion in the pre-christian era, but it existed in relation to acts against the tribe, faith, folk and family all of which were direct genetic extensions of the self. Unlike Christianity which disconnected the notion of sin from the tribe and universalised it to dismantle the notion of genetic connectiveness required for a universalist religion. Its a shame you havent read a book called ‘The Vision of ALbion’ by GEOFFREY ASHE
He traces it back to Indo-Europeam times such as the Kali Yuga, the Greek Iron Age, Barbarossa, King Arthurs return and William Blakes Beulah, Eden, Ulro leading to Generation and then back again. Read it. Feed your soul. Find your real power. Regards. 127
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:40 | # Well Stevenage vs. Spurs was dull. LJB said “...the state must wither away”. Of course the question of which the Leviathan is an answer is still operational. I’m personally not utopian minded - communist, anarchist etc., or any other species of the flight from reality. 128
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:06 | # LJB said “...the state must wither away”. I wonder where I have heard that before? A curious world-view indeed (Hitler crossed with Marx singing a mutated version of John Lennon?). Well different strokes and all that. Of course the question of which the Leviathan is an answer is still operational. I’m personally not utopian minded - communist, anarchist etc., or any other species of the flight from reality. ——
Imagine Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator crossed with Billy Liar erecting a thousand statues across Britain so Graham can celebrate his own genius. So you dont ‘seek a flight from reality’ - so you are studying Catholic Theology. Oh the irony. In order to defeat a Leviathan you need a Leviathan, just as a counter revolution follows a revolution. Or you can embrace Aristolian Philia, hold hands and pray for things to get better of course. Or pray to GRAHAM to make things better in his name. 129
Posted by FB on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:57 | # What’s the alternative to liberalism if not a form of fascism? I have yet to hear GW give us a political alternative or intelligible philosophical vehicle as an alterntive to liberalism. While banging on about liberalism but also bemoaning fascism, you leave us with nothing. That’s one of the reason MR has been marching in place for 10 years now and has had zero influence on practical politics in the West. We know, everyone knows, that only ethno-nationalism combined with a fascist poltical structure can save us from certain extinction. You know that as well, but if you really don’t and this is not a pose, then you’re wasting eveyone’s time, since you’re psychologically too bourgeois and too comfortable in the current system to reach for the only mechanism that provides any hope. 130
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:07 | # Lee, I ordered Geoffrey Ashe’s Camelot and the Vision of Albion. Thanks for recommending it. 131
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:26 | # Hi Jimmy, let me know what you think of it. There is a circle of nationalists who are using it for a new basis of nationalism. Regards. ———————————————————————————————————————
132
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:06 | # Lee, The goal of all nationalisms is, or should be, the maximisation of ethnic genetic interests, not liberty (which is only a tertiary interest). 133
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:50 | # @Gworker #122: Another point Gworker, your evasions are treading on the fine edge between stupidity and madness. Perhaps you feel this necessary, it’s certainly less pressure than being straight-forward and realistic. Consider that maybe it’s not the fun you think it is…nor is it artful. You’re missing out on a lot my friend, on effecting positive change, in yourself and others. The price of your ‘thought vacation’ is that you turn Nationalist discourse into a tower of babel. The result is always dissolution. @G_bluster a little longer. You know the image you like to present of taking the time from your ‘Sunday Roast’ to tweet a little more rancourous bile and stupidity is rather revoltingly quirky. As I said before, what it must be like to look around your head, it must be repulsively quaint. I wonder what it would explain. 134
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:16 | # Anon,
Not sure about the gene selection part of that, but there is certainly something to be said for kinship being just too foundation to leave “the unfettered” liberal in peace, and forcing him to invent ties of any kind to fill the void. Seen thus, it becomes a kind of madness.
The Jewish element looks too crude to me to fully merit the term “manipulation”, with its overtones of a Machiavellian cunning, centuries of patience, centuries of foresight in the planning, etc. It’s just a basic, importunate shoving of the European gentile in to the form required for Olam Ha-ba. They are fanatics, and have come up with a wondrous variety of shoving angles. But it’s always the same crude demand for us to be now - today - what the rabbi says we will be. 135
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:57 | # @Grimbo OK Prof. of Esoteric Theosophy and Enochian Dialects everyone is still waiting for these examples of mind blowing esoteric wisdom than can beat the silly European tradition of science out of the park. tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock Mr. Richards wanted the tin foil to stop the space lizards attempting to control his mind (why bother I wonder?) were what to you do with it? Turn it into a way of proactively talking with the spiritual beings from Jupiter like that other esoteric giant Emanuel Swedenborg? tick tock tick tock Oh big tough Grimbo I hope you’re not embarrassed to share your esoteric wisdom with the group? Please go on. Everyone’s waiting. Time is getting on - we need these insights to save European man you selfish bastard! 136
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:29 | #
The defence of race against an existentialist threat. Although the Italian (and Spanish) Fascist were not monists originally (they were inclusive of Jews) until Mussolini declared the Italians an Aryan people with his Manifesto della razza. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Race#cite_note-fascismjews-0 137
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:52 | #
It wasn’t. It grew out a discourse of race struggle that developed as a revolutionary historical-political discourse that challenged the theory of Sovereignty. In other words Coke and Locke et al, are challenging the continuity of sovereignty by reasserting the pre-eminence of the original Anglo-Saxon common law. The prevailing belief, set down by those like Geoffrey of Monmouth, that provided continuity to the Norman conquest, was challenged. The discourse shifted, in the Middle Ages, from conquest continuity to one of victor and vanquished, enslaver and enslaved, invader and invaded and thus became a source of a revolutionary doctrine to reassert the rightful place of Anglo-Saxon common law over the claims of the sovereign as outlined by Hobbes and more strictly Filmer. In other words it is a defence of race, a bio-politc if you will. Ditto France, see Boullainvilliers http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm Ditto France, see Boullainvilliers 138
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:26 | # Examine Locke’s notion of terra nullius, outlined, if memory serves, in the constitution he wrote for the Carolinas. A man by his labour, encloses the land he is able to work, cultivate and use the product of, from the commons. In other words it is exclusionary of the native inhabitants living there. It also proved highly adaptive, racially, in comparison to the Spanish model of South America. It is a far cry from the universalism of the UN doctrine and yet certainly must fall under the umbrella that is liberalism. However, it is a vast reach to call it unfettered. It served the ethnic genetic interests of the English people enormously well. 139
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:28 | # LJB, I think you’re getting me and Dr. Lister confused. I’m the guy studying Catholic Theology. Lister is an agnostic ethnocommunitarian social democratic geneticist. Basically, he is a man of what might be called the “conservative Left” (eg, very interesting that in a recent post he referred to the late Christopher Lasch, whom I would likewise place in that category - although Lasch was definitely not any kind of racialist). Put another way, if not for the reality of Europe’s Third World invasion, which Dr. Lister understandably finds objectionable, he would probably be found among that small band of ideological hybrids who combine economic soft-leftism with a respect for traditional culture and behavioral standards, and authentic scholarship. This position, especially when religious scepticism is thrown in, basically constitutes pre-1960s American liberalism. Several of my older college professors in the 80s could have been thus characterized; the younger ones, unfortunately, were almost uniformly cultural marxists, as is most of the Occidental professoriat today. 140
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:28 | # Desmond, I am looking at Locke’s Treatise right now: http://constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm ... and at what is a compact between the individual, all mankind and God, predicated on property rights. That, my friend, is liberalism to the core. Not sure what you think you are reading. 141
Posted by anon on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:24 | # GW
Just a theory. If the altruistic urge is the product of r.e.d (relatedness times empathy times distress) then an outbreeding population will gradually lose r and therefore have a reduced altruistic urge. If altruism within a group is adaptive then the reduction in r creates a potential benefit from increasing the average value of empathy e to compensate. Numerically, say an inbred population has an r of 8 and an outbred population an r of 4 and risk of death of another has a distress value of 8 then in each case the altruistic urge caused by a relative at risk of death would be: To have the same altrusitic urge the outbred person needs twice the empathy, say a value of 1 and 2 for the two populations. Why would it matter? Take the case of a non-relative with an r value of 1: If the altruistic urge is r.e then unless the population is homogenous (or all populations are equally empathic) then more empathy is potentially maladaptive but at the same time it is neccessary to the outbred population to make up for lower r. The more inbred a population the less need for empathy. So i think inbreeding will gradually breed less empathy over time and outbreeding will produce more. The process could go backwards and forwards over time depending on circumstances. (h/t hbdchick) .
When i say Jewish manipulation i don’t mean them manipulating the process of outbreeding and the consequent search for an alternative to the extended family kin-mesh: enlightenment, reformation, liberalism, (nationalism in my view) etc. I see that process as a fluke which created a distinctive biological decision-engine. The Jewish manipulation i mean is distorting that decision-engine mainly through distorting the data received e.g. lots of news about black south africans getting hit by apartheid police followed by a media blackout over the torture-murder of white South Africans today.
142
Posted by anon on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:27 | # Desmond Jones
It’s easier to see (at least the possibility of this) if you look at it from the opposite direction. The Arabs are a good example of the opposite end of the spectrum. Marrying their first cousins makes them score very highly in what i’ve been calling a kin-mesh, a kind of sticky net that fixes people as part of their collective extended family. This leads to very low cooperation between different clans except in times of external threat and therefore very no need for a structure to organise that cooperation. The kin-mesh is like a gravitational field, very secure but very constrained but very secure, like a womb. http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2012/01/voice-of-people.html http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2012/02/voice-of-people-ii-arab-democracy.html ### Take Greece as a second example further along the spectrum, not as extreme as the Arabs but still a kin-mesh with a lot of clientelism etc. I’d say most “civilized” human populations for most of human history were somewhere in between the Arab and Greek place on the spectrum. http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/more-on-greece/ http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/clientelism-in-greece/ http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/democracy-and-endogamous-mating-practices/ If so then how did the Ancient Greeks do all that proto-liberal stuff like democracy? They consciously created a version of what happened by accident in NW Europe much later. http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/demokratia/ ###
Sure. The kin-mesh is extended family and clan. If you loosen those fetters the next stop isn’t kumbayah style universalism it’s nationalism - the earlier UN doctrine of self-determination is universalist nationalism. I think the process of outbreeding has an optimally adaptive point (per size of population) which allows for the maximum level of voluntary cooperation during peacetime while not relinquishing too much surplus to non-kin (i think there’s bound to be some empathic spillage). However i think either the process has gone too far among NW Euros (and associated non NW Euros outside of Europe) leading them into unravelling too much into kumbayah universalism or the decision making process resulting from the outbreeding (rationality and empathy) is being manipulated. I think both. I think NW Euros have unravelled too far and lost too much kin loyalty - particularly among the upper middle class - and i think both the rational and empathic consequences of outbreeding are being manipulated through the simple process of manipulating the data people receive. ### -fettered kin-mesh *a patchwork of nation-states removes their niche and gives them three choices: assimilate, found own nation somewhere or destroy the emerging nation states.
143
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:16 | # Guessedworker, Yes, but the property rights are predicated upon labour. Thus it excludes any right to property that may accrue to a particular native tribe through blood and soil ties. It also excludes those who are dependent upon hunting and gathering to any right to property. It favours, in a huge way, the English colonial, and of course, the historical record supports the contention that it was enormously adaptive for that colonial population. Yes Locke’s treatise is liberalism to the core. No one is denying that, but the contention is that like the apple (to further you fruit analogy) it does not spring fully formed under May’s golden sun. It grows and thus the liberalism of Locke, while still liberalism, is not the non-discriminatory universalism of today. JB’s example will suffice. He spoke of a young couple who hypothetically settle upon a few acres of Ted Turner’s vast untended holdings and work and till the land producing a product that supports them and their family. In Locke’s theory they claim ownership to that land by the fruits of their labour. Such is not the case. The very foundations of Locke’s liberalism have shifted. They have evolved. And this is why the binary analysis, present/absent, estrangement/belonging is fragile because it denies evolution. Natural selection is an incremental process. Again, what is incremental absence? How can you be incrementally absent? Further, from whence does this liberalism of Locke’s arise? It’s the Robin Hood story. It is a product of the historical shift in discourse regarding how the Conquest is viewed. Thus Robin and his band of merry Saxons claim a right to the deer, wild boar and hare of Sherwood Forest by the fruits of their labour. However, that behaviour is declared criminal because the Norman’s enclosed the Anglo-Saxon common by claiming right of conquest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_forest Thus evolved this notion that the Conquest was not somehow founded upon a continuum. It was a story of the oppressed and the oppressor, the victor and the vanquished, the conqueror and the conquered. Thus Locke’s liberalism is a product of that race struggle, and thus Locke himself must be a product of that struggle and cannot remove it from his being any more than we can remove liberalism from ours. Therefore it is impossible for unfettered will to exist because you are shaped by this evolving ideational struggle. 144
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:07 | # anon,
And yet it was the British and el Awrence (among other Europeans) who incited the Arab Revolt during WWI. 145
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:13 | # Desmond, So, let’s dig a little deeper into this. In this treatise, Locke predicated property rights not in themselves as a value but upon the higher value of a fruitful earth made such by man’s labour, not by Nature alone. Property, as you have said, had value for Locke because of human agency, and this value was the justification for ownership. Things had to be worked for. But, in fact, this isn’t the end of the chain because this ordering served not simply to justify property ownership but to constrain the state so it could not “dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily”. In other words, the end of the chain of reason is the protection of the subject, and is therefore the granting of a negative liberty. Locke consistently ground his thought in the freeing of man. That is the real foundation of John Locke’s liberalism and it has not changed, obviously. Karl Marx critiqued Locke’s chain of reason in his own analysis of property, but the notion of man as an abstract, universal entity capable of full autonomy did not waver. Marx, btw, said “We are all Hobbes’s children.” Too bad he wasn’t talking about Locke at the time. It is the model of (i) man - just think of the tabula rasa - and of (ii) freedom that is the basis for my thesis. Naturally, I accept that liberalism is a moving feast, and recreates itself in Time. But if you wish to prove that self-estrangement is not its ineluctable product you must demonstrate that liberalism’s model of man, and Christianity’s too, has also changed. You won’t. The peripherals ... the methodology ... have changed. But the human subject of liberalism has not changed an iota. It happens that today Graham Lister and I were exchanging definitions of liberalism. This was mine:
I will leave Graham to publish his own definition. 146
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:38 | # GW It’s a work in progress: Liberal theory treats the human individual subject as an abstract universal; it is premised on the paradoxical idea that all individuals should be treated the same with regard to a cluster of liberties, freedoms, rights etc., regardless of who or what they are by virtue of their status as radically differentiated and discrete phenomena, that is their own sovereign individuality. What grounds the reality of the social order is the universality of the ‘unencumbered’ and autonomous self, free to volitionally exert its will upon itself and the world. It offers a deflationary and reductionist ontology of the social and an inflationary account of the status and significance of the free-floating individual subject. There are better definitions but nailing it down to a paragraph is not the most easy of tasks! 147
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:36 | #
Not so. Locke (and Jefferson and Paine) in the US ground their ‘liberalism’ in a myth of palingenesis, the myth of a potential rebirth of an Anglo-Saxon golden age that predated the Conquest. It’s founded in a discourse of race struggle. Thus liberalism’s model of man has changed from the defence, however abstractly, of EGI to the universal denial of EGI except in some cases. Tabula rasa is clearly not a model of ‘man’, it is a rebuttal (wrongfully) of innateness. Locke clearly discriminates between the mind of civilized man and that of savage man.
Yet that is not the mantra of modern day non-discriminatory universalism. Locke deliberately outlines that a ‘wild inhabitant of the woods’ will never embrace the ‘reputed principles of science’ of learned men. Thus liberalism’s model of man has changed. It now believes that the wild savage is capable, like the infant in its cradle, of embracing the ‘reputed principles of science’. 148
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:18 | #
And that’s why I find your persistent nostalgia for what you tacitly acknowledge to be a flaming failure so puzzling. Fuck Anglo-Saxonism, Krauts have a better way: “We’re a Master Race! Got a problem with that, motherfucker?!”
A man who could tell the difference between piss and lemonade - the stuff of genius. 149
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:45 | #
Yea, AS liberalism was far more adaptive. And if you take it as nostalgia for failure then either you don’t get or I’m not communicating it properly. Probably the latter.
Like Adolf. 151
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:50 | # Any NSM people here? Where’s Gauleiter Marr? Some dude named Brian Holland, a former bigwig in NSM, tonight on the American Coast to Coast radio program just outed himself as having been an FBI agent for the past dozen years. And Herr Marr expresses wonder and disappointment that I am hesitant over a proposed face to face with him! I wonder if Marr will one day get on the radio and ‘out’ himself as something other than what he appears ... I hope not. I’m surprised that the FBI can use tax dollars this way, essentially conducting domestic espionage (another disadvantage of diversity: we need domestic surveillance of ethnic immigrant terrorists and mafias, but such measures can then be turned against any domestic opposition to the ruling regime). 152
Posted by Daniel Constantin on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:40 | # I quote Graham Lister:
The book is not esoteric at all. As much as I dislike the fact that it is radically anti-Christian and that its author Krebs is the founder and leader of Thule Seminar, I can tell you for sure that other than its radical anti-Christian stance (which is much more rigid than even other anti-Christian New Right members), it is a typical New Right kind of book. Its content is basically what is discussed in the two prefaces to the book; one by Sunic and the other by Krebs himself. Quote Dan Dare:
Yes, some serious intellectuals will ignore it, but I should ask: does that that mean you will ignore it? You see, although Krebs is radically anti-Christian and is the founder of Thule Seminar, that hardly means that all of the identitarian arguments he had to make in the book are just a bunch of crap to be ignored. Those of us who are not fools that will just dismiss this book simply because its author is associated with Thule Seminar (as much as we can criticize that) know that one can learn from it even if one would not use it as a public manifesto or anything like that. So I must implore the audience to take the time to read the book, because it still has some value.
153
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:06 | # Did Leon Haller ever produce his review of this book GW? Post a comment:
Next entry: Marxian Illustrations or Marxian Illusions?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) |
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:52 | #
A reviewer has come forward, I am pleased to say. Comments on the thread, of course, continue to be wholly welcome.