6 Women Disappeared
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 05:09.
Trump vs. Clinton Presidential Debate
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 05:10.
Sickle-cell data shows the genocide of the French people
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 26 September 2016 15:39.
Turk Arrested for Latest Islamic Terror
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 25 September 2016 07:21.
The Streets of Paris, September 2016
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 24 September 2016 16:18.
Charlotte: Anti-White Hatred Erupts
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 24 September 2016 08:52.
Invader: ‘I Came to F**k the Women’
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 24 September 2016 08:39.
Crown Jewel of New National Museum of African American History & Culture: Emmett Till’s Casket
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 24 September 2016 07:04.
Why Are Asians Invisible?
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 23 September 2016 20:38.
British women ‘going to the Calais jungle for sex with migrants’
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 23 September 2016 19:40.
Black Insurrection in Charlotte Proof that American Colonization Society Was on to Something
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 23 September 2016 06:16.
Black male indicted for strangling death of White woman
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 22 September 2016 13:44.
81% of Americans Oppose “Aid” to Israel
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 22 September 2016 09:03.
A brutal reality in South Africa
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 17:11.
Croatia: No More Invaders Allowed
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 15:02.
London: White girl, 15, beaten by 5 black girls - minimal media coverage, no mention of race
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 07:59.
Former Australian prime minister Abbott: Europe is Being Invaded
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 02:32.
Guillaume Faye, “The Race-Mixing Imperative”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 12:09.
The EU lends Bonnier billions to advance digitilization process
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 11:05.
Russian MP Tolstoy: ‘We will buy Bulgaria, we already bought half of the coast”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 10:22.
Facebook used to recruit illegal migrant workers in New Zealand
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 02:00.
Details Emerge of ISIS Attacks in The U.S.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 19 September 2016 16:53.
French family told to take down their French flag in case it causes disorder
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 19 September 2016 05:43.
Ghent: Turks Attack European Protestors
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 19 September 2016 05:08.
Berlin elections: Angela Merkel faces new gains by anti-migrant AfD party
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 18 September 2016 15:06.
Migrants Granted Refugee Status Are Holidaying In Countries They ‘Fled’, At Taxpayers’ Expense
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 18 September 2016 11:35.
Auckland too much like China says Chinese immigrant and real estate agent
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 18 September 2016 09:48.
Frauke Petry’s car set on fire the night before election
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 18 September 2016 09:01.
Jewish community of Britain organizing sponsorship of child immigrants from Calais refu-camp
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 17 September 2016 08:08.
World’s Oldest Snowshoe Found
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 17 September 2016 07:57.
“The Baltic Way”
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 16 September 2016 07:41.
Asselborn’s remarks dismissed by Hungary and Austria
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 16 September 2016 07:25.
Intermarium & its connection with Asia strengthened in “Three Seas Initiative”
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 16 September 2016 07:06.
Majorityrights Central > Category: The Ontology Project
This essay must serve as my reply to Daniel’s recent critique. Down the years I have been attacked for word or deed by a fair few here. Generally I will not respond. We have all observed how pulling apart instead of pulling together seems to be a characteristic, perhaps the defining characteristic, of the renegade kind which, because it alone can withstand the relentless moral attack from every direction, is left to uphold the true interests of our race and peoples today. There is quite enough ideological schism and personal in-fighting in our movement without creating more.
So in this case, rather than respond directly to Daniel’s comments I will respond to some criticism levelled against the Ontology Project by James Bowery four long years ago in an unresolved thread discussion about the mathematician Gian Carlo Rota’s conclusion that, ultimately, all ontological investigation is made folly by the sheer indeterminacy of being. It might not seem a very fair or logical way to respond to the criticisms of my friend Daniel. But dig a little, and the logic might become clearer.
James’s own summation of his argument was stated thus:
Ostensibly, James was demanding that this ineffable slipperiness be dispelled by an unremitting (but, in the event, not bowreyesque) intellectual rigour. It is, of course, disappointing that he did not hurl himself into the creative fray and resolve the matter for us. But I don’t think his interest in it extended beyond criticism. What he was really saying was: In its lack of a properly expressible, qualitatively certain foundation, none of this (ie, the pursuit of an existentialist and identitarian philosophy of Man and nation) has enough solidity to stand in the world.
Let’s take a confident, positive and, I hope and believe, realistic view of the British electorate’s intent towards national independence, and fast-forward (at least in the imagination) fourteen days. As this gentleman already has:
It is the morning of Friday 24th June. The political world is stunned. The Westminster bubble people are trying to come to terms with the sheer enormity of it. Why couldn’t it all be like London? London was fine, London was good. The Celtic fringe. The universities. But really, that was it. Across the rest of the country it was a total disaster. OK, the polls had been discouraging for a while. But nothing like this. Even with the huge turnout, there was no, simply no reprieve for Remain.
The BBC and ITV election coverage rumbles on through the morning as a succession of talking heads, jubilant or shell-shocked, come into the studios to explain the new political universe. Nigel Farage, sleepless and as fresh as a daisy, is in philosophical mood now, having got beyond the initial tidal wave of euphoria. For once, he is spared the hackneyed attack-questions by his interviewers. George Galloway, however - also sleepless but looking as though he has been clubbing with winos for the last month - manages to get into an argument with practicably everybody. He doesn’t seem to care, though; and he wins them all.
In fairness, it isn’t that difficult. Everyone now is chorusing that Britain Stronger in Europe ran a disastrously misconceived campaign. Arrogant, supercilious, patronising, bullying, full of over-blown, unbelievable claims that were miles away from the gut instincts of ordinary voters, far too many far too cunning, counter-productive attempts to queer the pitch, simply unworthy of the electorate’s support ... those are just some of the kinder judgements floating around in the cold light of day.
In Downing Street a great gaggle of press waits across the road from No.10 for the Prime Minister to appear. The lectern is in position. A synopsis of the speech has been pre-released to the media by the No.10 press office. First, David Cameron will, as he must, commit his government to honouring the momentous decision taken by the British electorate. There can be no question of disingenuous or partial solutions, nothing that does not respect the very clearly stated will of the people. “The United Kingdom will now leave the European Union,” he will say. “A new and prosperous, secure future for the country must now be built, and all the government’s energies and commitment will be poured into that endeavour, both in terms of formulating with the EU and its member states a new and mutually beneficial, friendly and respectful relationship, and in terms of addressing the great number of implications of yesterday’s vote for our democracy and our economy, and our wider society.”
The coronation of Charles VII of France (1429).
I owe Daniel some replies to his recent comments across two treads about his personal preference for particular intellectual adumbrations as a means, I think, of liberation for a cognitive elite who, as far as I can see, then prescribe benign social inter-action for the rest of us. In the process, I will try to probe the underpinnings of the political. However, first I want to raise another question with Kumiko which is at the heart of the exchange with Daniel also, namely her perfectly natural presumption, with which I do not entirely agree, that:
The question goes well beyond the usual conceptions of the social and economic, because these are not the point of arising of the European malaise. Likewise, the call to self-defence, as a means by which to awaken the people, may fall on deaf ears in the absence of other buttresses to identity. How does one defend something one cannot properly perceive? More concretely, how many people perceive civilisation or the civic space, culture or economics where the true cause is racial and ethnic identity?
In my very meagre work on awakening, it is implicit that a person whom we would describe as awake, or existentially self-aware, is not really in some fixed and enduring condition. Our neurological condition happens to be one in which the intellectual, emotional, and motor functions operate not under direction of any kind or even in concert, but simply as mechanisms made of habit. This is our ordinary waking consciousness, and it will always claim us. It is, after all, the River Lethe, the river of unmindfulness, of existential forgetting. We cannot permanently deliver ourselves from it to abide in aletheia. It is rather difficult for the individual person to traverse, even for a few seconds, into self-awareness in any meaningful sense. But how much more difficult is it for an entire people to do so?
All revolutionary movements seek ownership of the future. They are, therefore, interested in the young, who are the demographic which is easiest to enlist and the natural constituency to rebel against and, just possibly, overturn the world of their parents. Serious revolutionary movements have invariably established youth wings, even movements. But there is something killing in the prescriptive nature of the exercise. Not even the völkische movement of 19th century Germany reached the lofty estate of an organically rooted, freely arising, creative culture. In its contest with modernity it, too, stooped to prescription, forcing a romantic nationalist mask on the face of the German national character because, of course, romantic nationalism was all it knew.
Spontaneous (ie, authentic) counter-cultures are great rarities. But in my late teens and early twenties I saw and experienced one of those ... a genuine attempt by a great number of genuinely intelligent young people all across the West and, to a degree, in the satellite states of the Soviet Bloc, to live true to themselves and free of the “system”.
Why genuine? Because it wasn’t artificially generated. Why a culture? Because it wasn’t just a pre-adulthood right of passage, like every earlier or later youth rebellion and fashion. Why “counter”? Because its concern ... its sorge ... was for existence, for the life that is lived in an age when that life ceased to have human meaning and value for the rulers of America (and those of the white world beyond). It was an attempt to make a revolution in that life in such a way that its human worth was reclaimed and re-stated in every living, breathing moment. It had, if not a formal philosophical critique, then certainly a question and, in answer to that, a generalised opinion and a settled will. It had a definite, positive vision, morally and sexually, aesthetically, spiritually. It had, if not a plan of how to go about things, at least a confident expectation that it would, by its actions, change the world and do it in one generation.
Greg Johnson, editor of Counter-Currents Publishing, talk to GW and Daniel about Heidegger and a new politics of identity in a liberal age. 1hr 16min; 69.5MB.
This essay, which is long (sorry about that) and quite detailed, picks up certain themes that were first introduced at MR five years ago. It is, more or less, a summation of my present understanding, as someone pondering the crisis of identity, power, and existence which we Europeans are facing everywhere in the West today. But it is also a contribution to MR’s Ontology Project. As such, it is a modest step towards a firm proposal for a politics for the true European life.
One of the beautiful characteristics of existentialist thought is that an investigation of specific phenomena in the mind or in the lived life can begin with anything, and profitably so. This is because relatedness is inherent to it. All things, even opposites, are related, whereas fracture is the natural estate of non-existential thought. This is a particular theme of this post, in which I am trying to cohere the freedom, unity and Life which should, in my opinion, be the very meaning of nationalism in its 21st century struggle. Let us, then, take as our beginning this idea of struggle, and work from there.
In what struggle are nationalists truly engaged? Well, yes, the struggle for the future of our people: a struggle for survival, a struggle for autonomy, a struggle for homeland, a struggle to live unburdened by the racial Other. That is clear. A process of deliverance, of salvation, then. But also deliverance and salvation from the entire political, social, and economic form of the modern world, meaning from its economism, its egalitarianism, its “liberty” and “progress”, its “tolerance” and universalism … even, for some, its democratism because that, too, is a modernist massifying ideology.
John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”
“Giambattista Vico is best known for his verum factum principle, first formulated in 1710 as part of his De antiquissima Italorum sapientia, ex linguae latinae originibus eruenda (1710) (“On the most ancient wisdom of the Italians, unearthed from the origins of the Latin language”). The principle states that truth is verified through creation or invention and not, as per Descartes, through observation: “The criterion and rule of the true is to have made it. Accordingly, our clear and distinct idea of the mind cannot be a criterion of the mind itself, still less of other truths. For while the mind perceives itself, it does not make itself.” This criterion for truth would later shape the history of civilization in Vico’s opus, the Scienza Nuova (The New Science, 1725), because he would argue that civil life – like mathematics – is wholly constructed.”