The Problem of Democracy

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2011, 07:27 AM | #

And all of these critical formulas were embedded in [liberal democracy] from the very beginning. That which is appearing now is the outcome: not the evening of [liberal democracy], but the morning of its horror.

Karl Marx said “We are all Hobbes’s children.”

Soren, the “loneliness of the transcendent subject” is a little dramatic, even archly so, suspiciously so.  Beware of beauty.

Human presence (or transcendence) ... witness to being ... is a connected thing, and the disconnection does not come out of that or belong to that.  It comes out of the extreme self-estrangement of personality (self) in the modern liberal age.  This loneliness you talk about, if it can be said to exist at all, attaches to the state we all know and live in.

The healthy, normal personality, abstracted from healthy, normal, “organic” cultural influences, would be, by definition, not a state of estrangement from but of adjacency to the present or transcendent.

Modernity, therefore, is a giver of distance.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 27, 2011, 08:53 AM | #

Thank you for calling attention to ARKTOS Press. I’d never heard of it, but as I’m a fan of Evola among others, like Sunic and de Benoist, I shall certainly get some of their stuff in the future.

On another note: please explain/elaborate upon the following (I cannot divine your meaning):

“... the loneliness here is not that of the liberal “self” but of its opposite, the transcendental subject”.

What is a/the “transcendental subject”? I think immediately of a Christian soul, but I suspect that’s not what is being referred to.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2011, 09:14 AM | #

The Christian has no critique of consciousness because Christianity has no esoteric core.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 27, 2011, 09:40 AM | #

Very interesing story in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right

Maybe something along the lines of a post-modern Wilders style “cultural” nationalism party could work in the UK?

Posted by Leon Haller on February 27, 2011, 10:06 AM | #

Would you call this woman white?

http://www.presidentassad.net/ASMA_AL_ASSAD/Asma_Al-Assad_PhD.htm

Were the original Arabs whiter than they are today? What about Europeans?

Posted by Odin's Raven on February 27, 2011, 11:10 AM | #

Remember that Syria was heavily settled by Greeks in the Hellenistic era, and that Crusaders passed that way in the middle ages, and that the French ruled there in early 20th c., so it’s not altogether surprising that some white dna may still be found there.

Posted by Frank on February 27, 2011, 11:54 AM | #

Leon,

the Marsh Arabs of Iraq had red hair. Heyerdahl thought they were remnant Sumerians.

Remember, whites came from the East (e.g. Tocharians)

Posted by Limey Lemonade on February 27, 2011, 01:03 PM | #

The Limey serves an attentive mixture
in hopes of binding an authentic fixture
Being only gotten
after picking of cotton
Who can divine this transcendent elixir?

Posted by anon on February 27, 2011, 01:32 PM | #

That’s all? It isn’t even a real paragraph.

Posted by Guest Lurker on February 27, 2011, 02:39 PM | #

Remember, whites came from the East (e.g. Tocharians)

You mean there were not whites in Europe prior to the Tocharians, or their earlier Andronovo and Afanasievo precursors?  Please…

Posted by Frank on February 27, 2011, 06:05 PM | #

I mean some whites came from the East…

Posted by Frank on February 27, 2011, 06:08 PM | #

IOW, the area that held whites used to be larger, not long ago.

Similarly, the Libyans in Africa were once white, or whiter.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 27, 2011, 06:12 PM | #

I think I’ve read that whites come from the Indo-Europeans (or Aryans?), who originally settled Europe from somewhere in Central Asia. I’m not sure this is positively known. That whites were the earliest homo sapiens in Europe does not mean they evolved from proto-hominids there.

At all events, what is the racialist line on a, to me, obvious white Arab/Muslim like this wife of the Syrian ruler?

Posted by Leon Haller on February 27, 2011, 06:13 PM | #

The Christian has no critique of consciousness because Christianity has no esoteric core. (GW)

Please translate into intelligible English for the initiated.

Posted by Frank on February 27, 2011, 06:27 PM | #

Race/history/evolution would probably offer some idea; I’ve read some stuff there but not all. Heyerdahl looked in the Black Sea for an older Aryan homeland, but he found nothing. Generally white waves came from the East, and the Tocharians show people similar to us were all the way in western China.

In the third world, the poor sell off their artifacts on the black market, so unless whites regain their societies they might never know.

I don’t see why I’d need an up-to-the-date answer on Aryans in Asia, when it’s generally known even just from mythology that they came generally from “the East”.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 27, 2011, 06:29 PM | #

what is the racialist line on a, to me, obvious white Arab/Muslim like this wife of the Syrian ruler?

Pigmentation is not necessarily coterminous with race.  Race is defined by more genes than those that code for skin color.  There are negroes with blond hair, pale skin and blue eyes due to albinism.  Do we call them White?  No, we call them niggers, or sandniggers in the case of pale skinned Arabs.

Posted by Frank on February 27, 2011, 06:30 PM | #

Leon,

someone that European looking is probably either fully European or half-European.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 27, 2011, 06:38 PM | #

Frank,

A bit of web perusal, though, offers no evidence for your hypothesis. Both her parents have Arab names.

What an amazing woman, incidentally. It actually causes me to question the standard (neo?)conservative line on Syria. If Assad, Jr., would marry someone so Westernized as her, I cannot believe he is truly an enemy of the West (like Qaddafi, bin Laden, the House of Saud, Ahmadinejad, etc). Maybe of Israel, but not Europe. Perhaps he even shares traditional conservative (though not Christian, of course) values, but understands that they are not applicable in the Middle East, contemporary ‘Jasmine Revolutions’ notwithstanding.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2011, 06:38 PM | #

CC: No, we call them niggers, or sandniggers in the case of pale skinned Arabs.

Here, only when you are intent on pushing the envelope.  Which is not something I welcome, as you know full well.  I would prefer that you pushed the envelope of your knowledge of Mind instead.  How about it?

Posted by Thunder on February 27, 2011, 06:39 PM | #

I prefer it when you write like this Soren, allowing your enthusiasm to shine through.  Your brief, cryptic contributions are often lost on me.  Thanks

Posted by Leon Haller on February 27, 2011, 06:45 PM | #

Pigmentation is not necessarily coterminous with race.  Race is defined by more genes than those that code for skin color.  There are negroes with blond hair, pale skin and blue eyes due to albinism.  Do we call them White?  No, we call them niggers, or sandniggers in the case of pale skinned Arabs. (CC)

Obviously. But this woman is no albino! Nor does she look a Semite, like even various blonde and redheaded Jews. She looks white European (a bit Southern Euro at most).

The question is, how do nationalists view someone like this? She may be Muslim only as a matter of ethnic heritage. In reality, she might be a secularist, based on her background, and for all we know. In the white racial state, will we attempt to gather in all such white outliers (ie, those who are significantly European in DNA, but culturally outside the traditional Occident)? There are some in the Near East, and many in Latin America.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 27, 2011, 06:49 PM | #

Posted by Leon Haller on February 27, 2011, 10:13 PM | #

Please translate into intelligible English for the initiated.

My head is really in the clouds these days. I meant to say “uninitiated”.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2011, 08:20 PM | #

Leon,

Your head will be in the clouds forever, then, if you pursue any of this ...

You ask about Christianity’s missing critique of consciousness.

With the exception of Christianity and (I think) Judaism, the other world faiths have teaching traditions centred on the practise and philosophy of metaphysics .  Or it might be more exact to say that these disciplines are distributed among them.  So, for example, in Islam one finds the exercise-based practises of Sufism; in Hinduism one finds both Yoga and Vedantic philosophy; and in Buddhism one finds Vajrayana and Zen (Mahayana).  Such disciplines have nothing to do with being “good” or with believing in something in the Christian sense.  In fact, Christianity has very little to say about the freeing work which these deal in.  What there is exists only as small fragments strewn across the gospels.  If any living esoteric teaching existed at the beginning, it did not transmit itself.  Certainly, Paul’s church exhibited an entirely exoteric form.

Posted by Sam Davidson on February 27, 2011, 08:29 PM | #

But this woman is no albino! Nor does she look a Semite, like even various blonde and redheaded Jews. She looks white European (a bit Southern Euro at most).

If you look closer at Asma al-Assad’s facial features you will notice she has a characteristic “semitic slope” to the outside of her eyes. Very pretty.

Posted by Guest Lurker on February 27, 2011, 08:43 PM | #

I don’t see why I’d need an up-to-the-date answer on Aryans in Asia, when it’s generally known even just from mythology that they came generally from “the East”.

I guess…if you consider the Ukraine to be “the East”.  Anyway, the Indo-Europeans were merely one particular language family of caucasians who were able to spread their language among others via conquest or other means. This doesn’t mean Basques or Ugrians are necessarily any less “White”.  For a good overview, see J.P. Mallory’s “In Search of the Indo-Europeans”. It’s a few decades old, but still quite current regarding the present state of Indo-European (Aryan, if you prefer) studies.

In fact, it may yet even turn out the “Aryans” arose further west. The problem is, archaeologists are still haven’t a difficult time deriving the Corded Ware culture in Germany/Poland and the Kurgan culture from Ukraine from each other, even though they’re both considered Indo-European.  And while it’s been asserted that a subclade of haplogroup R1A associated with Indo-Euros originated in the Ukraine with the Kurgans, recently there have been genetic tests on very early human specimens of the Corded Ware Culture people which have also attested to the presence of that same haplogroup.

Here’s a link for those interested. I think the guy who owns the blog is Polish.

Posted by Guest Lurker on February 27, 2011, 08:50 PM | #

Sorry, here’s the link:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/

Posted by Captainchaos on February 27, 2011, 10:35 PM | #

I wrote:

Pigmentation is not necessarily coterminous with race.  Race is defined by more genes than those that code for skin color.

What about that don’t you understand, Leon?  Many Jews have a skin hue comparable to Northern Europeans, yet are absolutely genetically distinguishable from Northern Europeans.  So those fair skinned Jews cannot be said to be Northern Europeans.  Further, despite the fact that the Jews in question have fairer skin than many Italians, they can also be genetically distinguished from Italians.  So they cannot be said to be Italians.

So too your vaunted pale skinned Arabs.

Posted by Frank on February 28, 2011, 02:47 AM | #

Guest Lurker,

Thanks, though while the Basque are fully white in my mind even if genetically and linguistically slightly and very different, I’m hesitant about the Ugrians, though I suspect they’re mostly white. The US didn’t historically take in many Ugrians, so I’m not familiar with them. It didn’t even take in many French until the Louisiana Purchase… I’m small part French though - from one of the mere 12000 who were here before the Purchase.

Posted by CL on February 28, 2011, 04:45 AM | #

Here, only when you are intent on pushing the envelope.  Which is not something I welcome, as you know full well.  I would prefer that you pushed the envelope of your knowledge of Mind instead.  How about it?

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, unfortunately.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 28, 2011, 07:23 AM | #

Such disciplines have nothing to do with being “good” or with believing in something in the Christian sense. (GW)

So what is their purpose, and relevance to the white race?

Posted by Leon Haller on February 28, 2011, 07:26 AM | #

Posted by Captainchaos on February 28, 2011, 02:35 AM | #

I wrote:

Pigmentation is not necessarily coterminous with race.  Race is defined by more genes than those that code for skin color.

What about that don’t you understand, Leon?  Many Jews have a skin hue comparable to Northern Europeans, yet are absolutely genetically distinguishable from Northern Europeans.  So those fair skinned Jews cannot be said to be Northern Europeans.  Further, despite the fact that the Jews in question have fairer skin than many Italians, they can also be genetically distinguished from Italians.  So they cannot be said to be Italians.

So too your vaunted pale skinned Arabs.

——————————-

But commonsense understandings of race track the genetics pretty closely, don’t they? How do you tell if someone is white - by looking at them, no?

Posted by Guessedworker on February 28, 2011, 08:35 AM | #

Leon: So what is their purpose, and relevance to the white race?

Do you mean the purpose of Christianity or the purpose of the metaphysics in other faiths?

Posted by Randy Garver on February 28, 2011, 09:43 AM | #

Guessedworker:

The Christian has no critique of consciousness because Christianity has no esoteric core.

What about the esoteric writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite which had a direct influence on the likes of St Thomas Aquinas?

Posted by Revolution Harry on February 28, 2011, 10:13 AM | #

If any living esoteric teaching existed at the beginning, it did not transmit itself.  Certainly, Paul’s church exhibited an entirely exoteric form.

The esoteric teachings of Christianity were suppressed, largely by the Orthodox Church of Rome. They haven’t disappeared entirely though.

I have to add that the idea that Paul’s church was entirely exoteric is highly debatable at best. The Gnostic Valentinian school ‘saw themselves as successors of Saint Paul’.

Posted by Sam Davidson on February 28, 2011, 10:35 AM | #

With the exception of Christianity and (I think) Judaism, the other world faiths have teaching traditions centred on the practise and philosophy of metaphysics .

What you’re looking for exists in Hasidism and Kabbalah, if it exists at all. And Kabbalah maybe, but Hasidism definitely, were created relatively late in Jewish history, only with the beginning of the early modern age. (Which may explain why you find the inherited Christian texts to be severely lacking in actual substance.)

Free Will is Part of the Illusion of Separateness

So it is for the Creation and the Einsof, except for one difference: in the case of the Creation, relative to the Infinite, the “rays” have never really left the sun. There exists no metaphysically real principle of individuation of a ray (creature). What exists is merely a consciousness of “rayness” (creatureliness), when in fact all the fire and all the light (all of the substance of what is real), are really within the undifferentiated mass of the sun (the Einsof) itself.

See: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Free_Will/Responses/Medieval/Hasidism.shtml

Posted by Frank on February 28, 2011, 11:37 AM | #

Kabbalah is bizarre:

“I do not mean to suggest that magic is not a part of Kabbalah. There are certainly many traditional Jewish stories that involve the use of hidden knowledge to affect the world in ways that could be described as magic. The Talmud and other sources ascribe supernatural activities to many great rabbis. Some rabbis pronounced a name of G-d and ascended into heaven to consult with the G-d and the angels on issues of great public concern. One scholar is said to have created an artificial man by reciting various names of G-d. Much later stories tell of a rabbi who created a man out of clay (a golem) and brought it to life by putting in its mouth a piece of paper with a name of G-d on it. However, this area of Kabbalah (if indeed it is more than mere legend) is not something that is practiced by the average Jew, or even the average rabbi. There are a number of stories that discourage the pursuit of such knowledge and power as dangerous and irresponsible. If you see any books on the subject of “practical kabbalah,” you can safely dismiss them as not authentic Jewish tradition because, as these stories demonstrate, this kind of knowledge was traditionally thought to be far too dangerous to be distributed blindly to the masses.

It is important to note that all of these magical effects were achieved through the power of G-d, generally by calling upon the name of G-d. These practices are no more “evil” than the miracles of the prophets, or the miracles that Christians ascribe to Jesus. In fact, according to some of my mystically-inclined friends, Jesus performed his miracles using kabbalistic techniques learned from the Essenes, a Jewish sect of that time that was involved in mysticism.”

I don’t know if it has esoteric teachings, though such wouldn’t surprise me. The Talmud likely does as well.

—-

There are some mystical schools of thought that believe resurrection is not a one-time event, but is an ongoing process. The souls of the righteous are reborn in to continue the ongoing process of tikkun olam, mending of the world. Some sources indicate that reincarnation is a routine process, while others indicate that it only occurs in unusual circumstances, where the soul left unfinished business behind. Belief in reincarnation is also one way to explain the traditional Jewish belief that every Jewish soul in history was present at Sinai and agreed to the covenant with G-d. (Another explanation: that the soul exists before the body, and these unborn souls were present in some form at Sinai). Belief in reincarnation is commonly held by many Chasidic sects, as well as some other mystically-inclined Jews. See, for example Reincarnation Stories from Chasidic Tradition.

link.

It’s amusing how the Chosen may believe in reincarnation, but if a European mentions such he gets his head cut off, lol.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 28, 2011, 10:23 PM | #

Rohaller: God is Dead

Posted by Leon Haller on March 01, 2011, 07:09 AM | #

Such disciplines have nothing to do with being “good” or with believing in something in the Christian sense. (GW)

What is the purpose of these metaphysical traditions or disciplines in other faiths? What is yoga or the other metaphysics of non-Christian religions supposed to teach or do?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on March 01, 2011, 07:50 AM | #

What is the purpose of these metaphysical traditions or disciplines in other faiths? What is yoga or the other metaphysics of non-Christian religions supposed to teach or do?

To engage these questions dialectically is to exotericize them. The esoteric methods are experientially directed. They are about being who we are rather than being what we think. As such, they are inherently racializing.

The self-realized man is radical. He speaks from the soles of his feet, (without footnotes).

Posted by Randy Garver on March 01, 2011, 10:19 AM | #

Leon Haller:

What is the purpose of these metaphysical traditions or disciplines in other faiths? What is yoga or the other metaphysics of non-Christian religions supposed to teach or do?

Leon,

Experiential practice isn’t meant to “do” anything. Quite the contrary. The purpose of such, to the extent which one can articulate it, is to quiet the internal mental dialogue and connect one directly with the godhead, universe, ground of being, what have you.

Nationalists and racialists should probably stick to dualistic, confident, bossy religious practices, as esoteric experiences may cause one to conclude that none of man’s schemes and machinations make the least bit of difference.

Posted by Drifter on March 02, 2011, 07:00 PM | #

Here is some reference material online for the side discussion.

http://www.friesian.com/hist-1.htm#late

Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2011, 08:21 PM | #

On the “side discussion”, to be perfectly unfair and completely hypocritical ...

Never read about human presence so that everything stays within the mind, which is useless.  And never repeat what have you read about.  It will only be something which mechanically comes back to you on reading something else here, and that, too, is quite useless.

After all, what you are is not something you can refer to with links to dead men’s thoughts, and we are only interested in what you - we - all are, what we are together.

Find ways to know that directly, and ways to show that here, and you will move the discussion from the side to the self, and towards the experience of that which is us.

Posted by Captainchaos on March 03, 2011, 01:04 AM | #

Never read about human presence so that everything stays within the mind, which is useless.  And never repeat what have you read about.

The proclamation that “I am” would make for dull reading.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on March 03, 2011, 01:38 AM | #

The proclamation that “I am” would make for dull reading.

This may be true, but it’s certainly been a best-seller.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on March 03, 2011, 03:17 AM | #

The proclamation is perhaps more interesting when posed as a question.

Posted by Captainchaos on March 03, 2011, 03:59 AM | #

I’ve heard it put this way:

Before enlightenment: draw water and hew wood.

After enlightenment: draw water and hew wood.

The point is that one’s being, however much more richly experienced, is still firmly and only instantiated in the physical world.  There is no salvation such as offered by the Jewish god. 

And the point, for the purposes of this blog, is that chasing after salvation of the Christian variety can only lead into an absence from self in which the ultimate interest is the salvation of a soul (an imperishable “I”) which does not exist and not the ultimate interest of the continuity of one’s genes.

But is not the faith gene also a genetic interest for its carriers?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on March 03, 2011, 10:32 AM | #

Something refreshing I found on Original Face: Play it.

Posted by danielj on March 03, 2011, 08:57 PM | #

Esoteric Christian if there is such a thing.

The point is that one’s being, however much more richly experienced, is still firmly and only instantiated in the physical world.  There is no salvation such as offered by the Jewish god.

The New Heaven and the New Earth will be situated at the rupturing of time and the ingress of eternity.

Body and soul in Hades and Body and soul in Heaven is standard Christian doctrine. Just because people don’t like the fact that the physical and spiritual eschaton isn’t immanent doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.