I have been thinking about Iain Davis’s magisterial essay series on multipolarity – the prospective global power dispensation proposed by the WEF, the UN, and all the other internationalist bodies, and advanced via the BRICS nations in opposition to America’s current monopolarity.  Unless a fifth appears, it is a four part series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I heartily recommend the series to one and all.  Davis is a libertarian.  So not every position he adopts is agreeable from our standpoint, or wholly free of the conventional liberal dictates and blindspots.  He has no holistic identitarian or ethnological reading of our race and kind.  He does not fully comprehend the Western elites’ long campaign against our life.  He has no critique of the Jewish paradigm.  There is no evidence that he even has an understanding of it.  His is, therefore, a view of a single, completely political project conceived by past generations of Western elites, and adapting to various challenges along the way (such as the fall of the Soviet Union).  But that simplification aside, to my mind his Multipolarity series is still a signal achievement in the dissenting analysis of power in this world, and unequivocally presents to us the Chinese, or Russo-Chinese, piece in the jigsaw.

Accordingly, it explains the respective, perfectly consonant Chinese and Russian power strategies we witness today.  These strategies are not solely the products of Russian or Chinese agency.  To all intents and purposes, they are facilitated by a Western elite which has, for four decades or more, been pursuing the replacement of Western power - and thus the basis of the elites’ own power - with a radically general distribution of economic and geopolitical power.  In the modern language of internationalism that means transitioning from leadership by America and the other G7 economies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom to leadership by the G20 economies, ie, adding to those seven the five BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa and the other developing G20 economies of Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Turkey.  To a greater or lesser extent all of these last seven are there to make up the numbers and provide a semblance of global action.  The real revolutionary change is being wrought by China and Russia, but ... only because the Western elites licenced it.

This, then, is the background against which Donald Trump’s parochial and unfulfilled campaign to Make America Great Again figured as a grand heresy in the minds of the entire Western political, governmental, academic, cultural, corporate and banking class.  It is the background against which Brexit has never been effectively pursued (beyond a formal, only partial separation) by any British government since the momentous vote of 23rd June 2016.  Both of these developments stood as a popular rebuke to the ruling classes for the manner in which they had narrowed party and thus national politics to exclude the life-interests of the mass of white Americans and native British respectively.  Supporters in both polities rightfully expected change, including to the elites’ migration agenda.  I don’t need to detail the actual outcome, only the fact that the elites regard themselves as absolute rulers of our world, and no wants and desires but their own will ever be actioned even if what was a social contract in Rousseau’s time has to become a social dictate in ours, or what was the legitimacy of government in Locke’s time has to become a lie.

READ MORE...

Back in pre-Covid times, within a month of Boris Johnson’s great Brexit election victory of 12th December 2019, the globalist monster began to assert its will on the new United Kingdom government.  From that first moment of hope betrayed it’s been downhill all the way.  The present crisis afflicting Liz Truss’s government, if one can call it that without heavy irony, is the lowest point so far.  The country’s first African Chancellor of the Exchequer is out on his ear, guilty of cutting taxes without cutting expenditure.  No one believes that Truss herself can survive more than a month.  The candidate she soundly defeated for party leader, the Indian midget Rishi Sunak, is now widely expected to replace her in a coronation event, without a further vote among the party members in the country.

Isabel Oakeshott has set out the coup in all its audacity at The Spectator (paywalled):

The first step of their plan involves market turmoil on Monday morning. Sunak and his supporters hope that more financial panic will be enough to force Truss to quit – whether voluntarily; or via a threatened change in the party rule book that theoretically protects her for a year; or via some other mechanism they have yet to come up with.

Step two involves the coronation of King Rishi, the argument being that he is the only figure that can at least semi unite a furious and fractured parliamentary party. Jeremy Hunt may fancy his own chances, but is unacceptable to many MPs who backed Sunak. The idea is to keep him where he is – in No. 11 – while offering the other big Tory party leadership contest loser – Penny Mordaunt – another of the great offices of state (Foreign Secretary).

Step three involves convincing a mutinous parliamentary party that this new set up is better than the alternative: Truss/Hunt attempting to play political Siamese twins, when he has just publicly junked her entire economic agenda and she is Prino: prime minister in name only. Nobody really believes this macabre charade can last long.

Step four is something all sides can agree on: resolving to do whatever it takes to avoid a general election. Sunak’s outriders – already busily working the phones – will argue that their proposed solution restores some political stability, deferring the terrible day of reckoning that looms at the polls. Two years is an eternity in politics, they argue – perhaps in the interim, something will come up?

So, what is one to say when such schemers and deceivers are in the ascendency, disposing of the party rule-book and the voice of the membership in the country.  There is no respect, no fear, no dignity, no sense of right and wrong, or of fair play.  There is just ambition and opportunism, and much arrogance.  To an outsider, the overall impression is of something dead or dying, in a poisoned world of many dead and dying things; a sentiment rather accurately expressed by a commenter on the thread to Oakeshott’s article, Demosthenes by name:

Demosthenes • 6 hours ago
Pathetic, cowardly, cuckolded, snivelling empty husk of a once proud political party. When they’re turfed out at the next election they will have nothing to show for their decade and a half in power but bigger government, higher taxes, diminished personal freedoms and unrelenting, pitiless, unprecedented levels of mass immigration year after year after year.

Whitehall see themselves as the true masters of this country, and frankly I have to agree with them. While conservatives may frequently be in office, it is the liberals who are permanently in power. That’s just the politically-correct, morally-relativist soup they all swim in.

It’s said that dead things can go with the flow, but only alive things can go against it. There are many dead things floating along with the currents of modern Britain, not just the civil-servants. Indeed, virtually every public institution I can think of; the BBC, ITV, the Police, the NHS, universities, judges, lawyers, the charity sector, even the army… all our cultural elites in fact, are as dead as any other rotting carcass.

You are a fool if you believe the so-called Conservative party is any different. It took the biggest voter turnout in our nation’s history, and the prospect of electoral armageddon, for the Tories to be dragged kicking and screaming over the Brexit finish line, pathetically diluted and delayed though it was, and carving out a large portion of our country to live indefinitely under foreign laws… Celebrate that if you really want to, but on every other issue that truly matters; mass-immigration, climate apocalypticism, political Islam, anti-white racism, historical masochism, etc. etc., the Tory Party is just another dead thing going with the flow towards the fast-approaching waterfall.

If the plotters succeed in installing Sunak at No.10 it is inevitable that a terrible punishment awaits the Conservative Party at the next election, scheduled by December 2024.  One awaits the next word from Nigel Farage, perhaps in the ear of Oakeshott’s live-in boyfriend Richard Tice, who runs Farage’s former Brexit Party under the title Reform UK.

What if the probability of Putin detonating a nuke in Ukraine before 2023 were 7%, as is the current estimate at the Metaculus prediction “market”? 

At the very least you should consider taking out insurance in the form of thinking about what will happen to the monetary regime relative to your local property rights.

Militia Money is Property Money defining its sovereigns—“those who place their flesh, blood and bone between chaos and civilization”—as those who are registered for the draft.

This definition overcomes a number of barriers to putting Property Money into practice:

• It operationally defines who sovereigns are thereby reducing rhetorical attacks by reducing the “argument surface”.
• Draft registration is a legally recognized class distinction.
• This class pertains specifically to “those who place their flesh, blood and bone between chaos and civilization” .
• The mandatory nature of draft registration implies that society owes a debt to this class.

Moreover, because the draft is currently restricted to men, Militia Money ameliorates the catastrophe befalling the developed world whose economies outbid young men for the fertile years of economically valued women—thereby depleting from the next generation economically valuable characteristics.

As Militia Money is adopted, it is likely that the existing political entities will, using Israel as an exemplar, attempt to re-impose this catastrophe befalling civilization by expanding the draft to include young women.  This disingenuous tactic will backfire for 3 reasons:

1. Israel’s government did not make the mistake of subverting the evolutionary psychology of its young women by rendering, in their mind, its young men manifestly impotent to defend their territory against the mass immigration of military aged men who would be viewed as de facto conquerors by the primitive emotional brain centers of both men and women.
2. Neocons and most members of American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) both played conspicuous roles in encouraging the West to make this mistake and both are Jewish-identified movements/organizations.
3. Awareness of both of the above will expand along with Militia Money for the simple reason that the evolutionary psychology of territory will begin to re-emerge in the waking consciousness of young men, thereby remediating their self-esteem and freeing their minds from taboos of the post-WW II era.

The primary barrier to adoption of Property Money, hence Militia Money, will be the inability of property owners to recognize that property titles are founded on and granted by sovereign force.  In discussing Militia Money with property owners, the best way of helping them recognize this origin of entitlement is to ask them whether they would prefer that their tax revenue go to politicians or to young men who are registered for the draft.  Although it is true that most property owners—particularly employers—will have a low opinion of young men generally, forcing them to compare with politicians may help them.

Obviously, as can be seen in the very wealthy and among employers who contribute to the Republican establishment candidates that are soft on immigration, some of these property owners will not be swayed.  Moreover, they will likely recognize that Militia Money is a threat to them since they have sold out their people and their nation and will likely be seen as the traitors they are. 

But at least you will have given them a chance to escape that fate.

Other property owners will recognize the business opportunities represented by the privatization of all functions of government.  These property owners will be among the new Founders.

See also “Property Money Quick Start Guide”

Yes to childbirth.
Yes to state support for motherhood.
Yes, therefore, to family.
Yes to the Italian people, the Italian identity, Italian patriotism.
Yes to restoring Italian legal supremacy over the EU.
No to abortion.
No to illegal immigration and to demographic change.
No to “the violence of Islam”.
No to the trans attack on womanhood.
Indeed, no to all the desiderata of progressivism, to its barriers to the human norm, to its dictates and “cancelations”.
No to Establishment politics, and to Mafia parasitism thereon.
No to financial speculators, and government run for financial speculators.
No to the global corporations’ model of Man as “perfect consumer”.

And so forth.  That pretty much sums up the ground on which Georgia Meloni, after yesterday’s election Italy’s first female prime minister, currently stands.  As a nationalist myself, I would not categorise it as nationalism because it is not developed out of a philosophy of kind and home.  It is, though, adjacent in parts.  But her politics are almost entirely reactionary, and are, ultimately, articulated from a conception of human being which is Catholic and naturalistic, and thus socially conservative.

Of course, in today’s progressive dominion that is radical and alarming to all those who have come to regard neo-Marxist imposts as the norm, even politically centrist.  The Italian political Establishment has particularly good reason for such alarm.  Meloni, 45, is a natural-born change agent.  She does not come from their privileged world.  She comes from the post-WW1 garden suburb of Garbatella in Rome, and something of the place flows in her veins.  She speaks not of euros and the financing of Italy’s vast sovereign debt but of the things of the instinct and, as she says, “common sense”.  In support of that she is passionate and combative, populist and brave.  Occasionally at the dais when her voice rises and her tone hardens, she can sound demagogic; and doubtless that plays into the Establishment’s frequent association of her and her party Brothers of Italy with fascism and, of course, the r-word.  Not unlike Marine Le Pen, she has reacted by removing people who have praised Mussolini or said something somewhere that could be construed as racism.  Many party members might prefer a sturdy and unashamed line of attack to that.  But she’s not trying to placate the Establishment but to reassure the voters, and evidently that strategy has paid off.

We shall now see how the entitled political class and technocrats and the sclerotic governmental machine within Italy respond to her election.  In Brussels, Ursula von der Leyen has already threatened “consequences” and spoken of “tools” to bring the Meloni government to heel if required.  Much attention will be paid in Brussels as to who Meloni appoints as minister of finance.  But it will also be interesting to see how Matteo Salvini and that great lover of partying with unclothed young ladies, the octagenarian Silvio Berlusconi, will be rewarded for their parties’ participation in the governing alliance.  Both are displaying sympathies for Vladimir Putin, probably in Salvini’s case because the Russian autocrat extended banking facilities to his party.  But Meloni, a staunch supporter of NAT0 and the Ukrainian people, speaks instead of responsibility.  For all her ringing hostility to the deeds of globalism she isn’t buying the anti-Western argument.  I hope we learn more about that.  As for Salvini, if he is back at the Interior Ministry he might have the pleasure of aborting his own trial for blocking NGO vessels full of North and Sub-Saharan African immigrants in the salad days of the 5-Star/League coalition.  He would also have the pleasure of testing von der Leyen as he reduces the immigrant quota the Draghi government agreed upon to nil.

Italian politics promises to be more entertaining than ever.

This essay is the third instalment in the on-going authenticity series but the second of my reflections on technology and its totalistic, artificialising co-option of the life which we in the West know today and lead, and can lead; and as things stand will know much more co-optively tomorrow.

This is not an especially ideological essay, or a “nationalist” essay.  Its intent is to further shape our consideration of technology’s synergy with Man, the technological animal.  To that end, a distinction will be made between the effects and meanings of the four ages in this, a history almost as ancient as the first hominid.

The essay will be followed by a final offering in this triptych titled Opening and Presence, which will ask what, as the only viable conclusion to be drawn from Martin Heidegger’s valedictory advice on technology, the thought and speech of a naturally emergent life would actually look and sound like in practise - which is also, as it happens, where we begin here!

2. INTO HEIDEGGER WORLD OR INTO THE HYPER-WORLD

“So I ask, in my writing, What is real?  Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms.  I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power.  They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind.  I ought to know.  I do the same thing.” ― Philip K Dick, 1928-1982, science fiction writer and visionary.

Here is a radical thought.  What shared future, within reasonable material parameters, would our people desire and choose for our progeny?  Let’s pitch that future not too far ahead: say, that of the adult lives of our grandchildren.  What if that question - admittedly, a question which, in its fullness is not easily framed - could be answered definitively enough to then adduce a majority opinion?  What if that opinion could be employed as a filter for politics such that everything incompatible with it, everything restrictive or exploitative of it, is itself restricted or excluded completely?  Other things being equal, what if by careful discrimination and curation, government could create the conditions in which the desire of the nationalist heart can become the reality of our people’s life?

Only eight years (we are told) short of the age of Technocracy, you may be thinking that this is a somewhat naïve and idealistic bet on politicians’ respect for our ethnic person, as well as for the liberty and democracy they affect to hold sacred.  But, actually, it is a bet on the timelessness of human authenticity and its agency in a world in which Power is intent on bringing forth no less human artifice, diminishment, and subjection than ever did Philip K Dick with his Tyrell Corps replicants.  As Heidegger himself said in his long essay Discourse on Thinking, published in 1966, with material written eleven years earlier:

... the approaching tide of technological revolution in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle, and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking.  What great danger then might move upon us?  Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing indifference toward meditative thinking – total thoughtlessness.  And then?  Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature - that he is a meditative being.  Therefore, the issue is the saving of man’s essential nature.

That said, what if the present-day Tyrell Corps were, in fact, operating from a sounder psychological and sociobiological basis than we nationalists?  What if authenticity resided deeply enough in, and synergised enough with, technology itself that it - authenticity - transported us not to Heidegger World but to Technocracy?

It is a terrifying thought that we may belong too much to modernity and the technological paradigm to escape even the negatives of its grip upon us ... that its diminishments are also a part of us.  But this is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from Heidegger’s appeal to his goddess of truth.  Let us examine it.

The ages of the god of the forge

We can clear the way a little by finding a meaning - not necessarily only Heidegger’s - for “what makes up what is most modern technology’s own.”  To that end, we shall not be examining technologies as such, or how men have thought technologically of Nature (the outer meaning of “standing reserve”).  Rather, we shall trace the eras of technology’s making of Man in pursuit of Heidegger’s “construct”.  We will find throughout that development, from its beginning to the present day, technology’s innermost power of human transformation of his body, his personhood, and his mind’s ordering of reality.

First, though, let’s trace the history of Man and his technology and, too, their seeming future.

Technology as such pre-dates the genus Homo sapiens.  Driven by life’s will to survival and continuity, our hominid ancestors increased the possibility of life in their environments by whatever means their creativity allowed.  “Found” clubs and projectiles for hunting and fighting and stones as hand-tools were the beginning of technology.  Although there is a 700,000 year break between the date - four million years ago - assigned to the development of bipedalism and the archaeological evidence for simple “found” tools (from the age of Australopithecus or “Lucy”), it is bipedalism which is usually associated with the evolution of tool-use and tool-making.  Certainly, bipedalism freed the hands for additional tasks, particularly during movement, and there is no better candidate for the absolute point of origin of all our technology today.

There is another 700,000 year break to the Olduwan Industry period of some 2.6 million years ago, to which the oldest knapped stone tools have been dated.  Subsequently, hand actions such as throwing, cupping, and gripping have shaped technology and been shaped by it.  Within the whole organism of the hominid body, including the brain, it was the hand which most directly testified to that wild synergy, and the hand that, by its dexterity and versatility, extended the crude striking of stone against stone and stone against animal flesh to the working of wood, and of skins, clay and natural fibres, and the control of fire.  With each advance the world opened up as an ever more negotiable and manageable evolutionary space.  Our ancient predecessors made themselves as they made the world about them.  For example, they acquired control over fire perhaps 400,000 years ago, setting in motion the rich history of fuel.  So, when Homo sapiens arose between 260,000 and 350,000 years ago, they were essentially pre-technologised, and technology itself was inseparable from human being because both were entered synergetically into the natural, daily processes of life.

This first, organic phase of technologisation, the phase of physical synergy, lasted as the only phase through the pre-Neolithic, when animal husbandry, a true symbiotic form, first developed.  It took another 5,000 years until the Neolithic Revolution of 10,000-11,000 years ago for the cutting and dressing of stone to produce permanent structures (as, for example, at Göbekli Tepe in Anatolia, dating from around 9,000-10,000 years ago, or nearby Karahan Tepe, a ritual site which may be two thousand years older).  Within a millenium or two, crop farming came to (what we know today as) the Fertile Crescent.  The farmer and the stone tool-maker together made possible the urban settlement; and, thereby, civilisation itself.  The metal-worker - Hephaestus at his forge - joined them 3,000 years later.  The potter’s wheel took another 3,000 years to arrive.

READ MORE...

Canterbury, the old surviving English cathedral

James Bowery has raised a question about the cognitive verities of our being-in-the-world, characterising it as a point on a faith continuum.  In a comment on “The final question” thread he writes:

Every decision is an act if not leap of faith.  All our decisions are informed by our limited knowledge and limited intelligence to act on that knowledge.  While we may remain true to ourselves in our phenomenal perceptions, we are on shaky ground the moment we begin to interpret them - yet interpret them we do without so much as a prayer that we may “bracket” them to attain the elusive transcendental attitude.

So we are creatures of faith.

Now, you may wish to interject a qualitative distinction between the kind of faith it takes to, say, interpret a collection of sensations as an object of our world, vs faith it takes to believe in a big hairy thunderer who intervenes in our affairs based on what rituals we engage in, but I would assert that these are on a spectrum of faith.

Well, I do wish to “interject” some qualitative distinctions; or at least to set forth the meaning and relation of things as I understand them.  So, to that end ...

I will not spend too much time on the first, which is the human brain’s rendering of a representative reality from the raw data of the world beyond the organism.  Obviously, the brain stands at the apogee of three and half billion years of evolution, from the first simple cells which sensed light in darkness and succeeded in transmitting that capacity to other cells.  Figuratively speaking, God was light.  Non-figuratively, the whole, limitless noumenal truth is le soleil absolu, but the form in which we limited beings re-cognise it is strictly shackled to planet earth.  My favoured guide Martin Heidegger accepted the Cartesian subject-object duality but placed human being in the “there-then”, which is a human-scale objectification of that whole truth.  But the whole question of how we are evolved to “sense light” therein, how we autogenetically construct from the input of our five senses a sublime simulacrum limited to our own cortex, and how we then filter it through the great external-facing, associative systems, remains; and it is, of course, that most important and ancient mystery which is the Mind-Body problem.

There are many theoretical solutions, the most populous among academics being species of physicalism and emergentism.  With so much post-Christian, blue planet, Gaia thinking prevalent in the West it is perhaps not a surprise that pan-psychism is making a bit of a comeback.  Beyond formal academia, in the badlands, Chris Langan’s CTMU appears to be both pan-psychist and a mathematical proof.  Even by the standards for pan-psychism, it is not taken seriously by academics outside his own immediate high-IQ cohort.  It is at least complete, or claimed to be.  Not one of the other theories are claimed by anyone as adequate at this stage.  All are problematic.  All are contested.  No one has anything even close to a definite and provable account of brain function. 

This is true even of accounts of how the sleeping brain conjures into existence its dream-world.  We know in our waking hours that dreams are brilliant, strange fictions.  But however improbable or fractured a dream may be, once the brain chemistry flows we are totally immersed and certain of the dream’s material reality. One would think that this contradiction might help in the formal search for a solution, but it hasn’t yet.  Anyway, in my distinctly informal estimation, certainty speaks of an evolutionary attention to survival and continuity which is so needful that all that is Mind derives from it and serves it, and so constant that no moment of human experience escapes it, not even what we dream.  The mechanics of it are absolute.

READ MORE...

Given that the West is saddled with a tradition of freedom and democracy (which its elites want to retire, of course, but never mind for now), and given that a Sino-Russian global hegemony is the end-game of the Ukraine adventure, should we not look into the Eurasian face, mindful of its natural affinity for authoritarianism and conformism, and ask the final question:

Would it be easier for us to fight for our people’s life and land in a Western hegemonic system or in a socialist system under the tutelage of, principally, China, with input from Russia, India, and Iran, if these are indeed the alternatives?

Today, a nice piece by the writer Frank Wright appeared on the state of affairs appeared at what we must now call TCW but was, until a few weeks ago, The Conservative Woman, virtually the last surviving British “right-wing” site at which a free man can sound off.  Frank is awake, to put it really rather mildly.  He seems to model that rare conservative estate which is one step away from nationalism, and which is too well rooted to be susceptible to the customary scarecrow tactics.  His piece, titled “The more normal you are, the more the Regime hates you”, and is well worth a read.

Very rarely, the writers of pieces above the line venture below and converse with the hoi polloi.  But Frank was kind enough, or crazy enough, to get himself into a conversation with me, which went something like this:

UKCitizen • 6 hours ago
Unfortunately they found it is difficult to generate widespread resentment among the normies so they needed to create as many divisions as possible to make being normal a minority. Can’t control and gain power from a content and happy populace.

guessedworker  UKCitizen • 6 hours ago
“They” were the gentlemen of the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt University. Their creation was Critical Theory, and they and it have since proved to be a curse on our race.

Frank Wright  guessedworker • 4 hours ago
I’d argue for Bernays and Lippmann as the engineers of consent, perfecting a method of the attachment of emotions to symbols by means of the creation of false events.

guessedworker  Frank Wright • 4 hours ago
Perhaps they are both creatures of subversive persuasion rather than subversion as such. Convincing people to act in some way is fundamentally less dangerous than forming them from childhood for that action.

Frank Wright  guessedworker • 3 hours ago
I’d argue they created the modern personality.

guessedworker  Frank Wright • 3 hours ago
You can argue it, but I would question your theory of Mind.

Frank Wright  guessedworker • 2 hours ago
Go on then.

guessedworker  Frank Wright • 2 hours ago • edited
OK, well, first, I applaud your clear-thinking. You are right that the sum of the acquired is the nidus of our sorrows. I only wish more of our people understood that the way out, so to speak, is through our own immersion in the formative influences of the day. But there are many sources and levels of influence. We can never be pure nature. We always carry the mark of what does not actually belong to us but, subject to its difference from nature and its reliance on a state of psychological lightness and/or suggestibility, structures us. But not all influences in that regard are equal.
The question you are really asking me is: how do we measure the structure for its fundamentality. Half of my answer is that there is the Jesuitical sense, there is the propaganda sense, and there are degrees in between. The degree to which we are made the possession of what we are not varies accordingly. But there is another half, which is the solidity and internal connection of the subject. Human beings can, under negative familial circumstances, suffer from a lightness of being which opens them out to, as they say, “support the latest thing”. They have no personal richness, no source of internal self-validation. Three or four generations of that will produce societal insanity in every way, from elite decadence and corruption to general criminality and psychopathy.
Lippman and Bernays dealt in the shallow end of the pool, softly drowning the weakest of us on a daily basis. But Jesus, Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Voltaire, Marx, Freud, Adorno, Hirschfeld, and a cast of Enlightened and Marxised thousands have worked weakness into our very bone, and it is that weakness which, ultimately, we have to find the philosophical means to address and restore to health.

Frank Wright  guessedworker • 2 hours ago
I think there is no means by which man can transcend himself, which is the very essence of the progressive idea. I do not think man has progressed morally at all, and think efforts made to demonstrate this an illusion.
What I am on about with the Bernays stuff is that we have become more machine like as this machine becomes more integrated into our lives. This is not an accident. In fact, I’d argue the self is to a greater degree dependent on or addicted to the updates in worldview, feeling, orientation and so on provided by mass media. We have fallen in love with our own reflection, but it is not cast in some impassive mirror - it is a vision granted by Satan’s window, that spellbinding instrument through which all our thoughts are delivered.

guessedworker  Frank Wright • an hour ago
Man’s essential self is not his received/constructed self. His fallenness from his essential self into his received self is the general form of “the problem”. The individualised and marxised/universalised received self of today is simply what must be transcended.
How this might come to pass is the substance of my own intellectual enquiry, which I write about, in so much as I am able, at my own website. Is transcendence possible? Yes, if we accept that there is always this struggle between presence-in-being and absence; and we all, individually and as a people, traverse the line between the two. We are not fixed. That is the human condition. What vivifies our kind ... what clarifies our will to increase ... that is what lights our way towards presence. We may, as individuals, traverse the distance in a manner in which we never can as a group (and certainly never can as “Man”, all men), but the general good of facing the right way is really the object of the common struggle. Our systemic philosophy, our politics, should lead us that way.
It is interesting to have a real conversation with someone, even though we are only lightly touching on the potentials and points of interest. Thanks for bearing with it and not reflexively shooting off into the emotional defence of prior certainty.

Frank Wright  • an hour ago
Well I never. I will try to give your arguments the response they deserve- on your own site - at another time. I’m on the phone, have a cold (it’s not AIDS honest) and can’t give you the reply your thinking merits right now.

Frank Wright  • an hour ago
I can’t find your website. Do give me a link. I’m interested to talk to you about these ideas.

guessedworker  Frank Wright • an hour ago
My site is majorityrightsDOT com. You will find the work of many others there, from all walks of the dissident right.

I don’t know if Frank will show up here.  But it would be good to explore his position in greater detail.