Financial Times reports that:

Obesity in human beings could be caused by bacterial infection rather than eating too much, exercising too little or genetics, according to a groundbreaking study that could have profound implications for public health systems, the pharmaceutical industry and food manufacturers.

The discovery in China followed an eight-year search by scientists across the world to explain the link between gut bacteria and obesity.

The thing to keep in mind here is that these bacteria alter metabolism, robbing the brain of fuel so as to deposit it in cardiovascular-destroying fat deposits.

A beautiful biological weapon.

Remember “Montezuma’s revenge” aka “traveler’s diarrhea”?

Not only is it unlikely that the west’s medical establishment has been totally oblivious to this, but the political implications are such that if anyone did discover such a link between “travelers” aka “migrants”, and the massive dumbing down of the populations subjected to immigration, they would realize almost instinctively that they were putting their careers at risk to even propose a research study.

Enter the Chinese. 

They don’t have to deal with the parasite load it is the west’s misfortune to endure, hence they aren’t as “sensitive” to certain “issues”.

We can rest assured that the spin-“doctors” of the west will be burning the midnight oil to downplay the societal consequences of debilitated neurophysiology, obscure the origins of these bacteria and make sure that any evidence of ethnospecificity is relegated to the “scientific racism” ghetto.

The full research paper is available online at this link.

James has introduced the concept of foundation from nowhere, based on something Husserl brought into his own work once and only fleetingly.  I am not sure how central it really is to the Husserlian approach to Mind, consiousness, self, and the object .  In any case, there was a certain immanent development (basically, authenticity of Dasein) in Heidegger which was not in Husserl’s (late and defensive) championing of reason and the transcendent ego, and which heads in the opposite direction to foundation.  It is the exploration of this which would benefit James, as it has benefitted many others, and which explains, for example, why Heidegger is revolutionary today as well as why he was foundational to postmodernism during its revolutionary period of inception.  To me at least, the Husserlian approach seems oddly dead and anthropological by contrast.  I will try to explain this further.

Kant said that you cannot demonstrate being.  But you can experience it, under certain psychological conditions.  Otherwise you can only infer it, only gesture roughly in its presumed direction.  Strictly speaking, Heidegger’s project in Being and Time was to explain why, in the West, our inferred sense of being is so different to the sense we think it should have, and which philosophers and spiritual leaders have told us for millenia that it can have.  Heidegger used the phenomenological method to give an account of this “everydayness” ... the life that is ordinarily lived.  But his essentially spiritual quest constituted a complete break with Husserl and a challenge to the study of Mind as pure function.  As such, it was intimately wrapped up with the meaning for us all of a lived life in which Being was rarely consciously experienced, and in which the inference was everywhere employed without thought for qualitative distinctions.  Where no such distinctions apply, the road is open to nihilism and destruction.  Thus seven years later, in his lecture Introduction to Metaphysics, Heidegger made the following remarkable and much quoted statement:

READ MORE...

White Women For Sale!

Experiments with provocative statement and the tropism of highly contrasting sights and sounds - as they are apparently difficult to ignore, this thread will take entries that might exploit this effect on behalf of White interests.

READ MORE...

The foremost living phenomenologist, Robert Sokolowski, starts the introduction to his book “Introduction to Phenomenology” published in 2000 thus:

Introduction

ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

The project of writing this book began in a conversation I had with Gian-Carlo Rota in the spring of 1996.  He was then lecturing as visiting professor of mathematics and philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

Rota had often drawn attention to a difference between mathematicians and philosophers.  Mathematicians, he said, tend to absorb the writings of their predecessors directly into their own work.  They do not comment on the writings of earlier mathematicians, even if they have been very much influenced by them.  They simply make use (emphasis JAB) of the material that they find in the authors they read.  When advances are made in mathematics, later thinkers condense the findings and move on.  Few mathematicians study works from past centuries; compared with contemporary mathematics, such older writings seem to them almost like the work of children.

In philosophy, by contrast, classical works often become enshrined as objects of exegesis rather than resources to be exploited.  Philosophers, Rota observed, tend not to ask, “Where do we go from here?”  Instead, they inform us about the doctrines of major thinkers.  They are prone to comment on earlier works rather than paraphrase them.  Rota acknowledged the value of commentaries but thought that philosophers ought to do more.  Besides offering exposition, they should abridge earlier writings and directly address issues, speaking in their own voice and incorporating into their own work what their predecessors have done.  They should extract as well as annotate.

It was against this background that Rota said to me, after one of my classes, as we were having coffee in the cafeteria of the university’s Columbus School of Law, “You should write an introduction to phenomenology.  Just write it.  Don’t say what Husserl or Heidegger thought, just tell people what phenomenology is.  No fancy title, call it an introduction to phenomenology.

This struck me as very good advice…

Although there are references to philosophers scattered throughout his book, Sokolowski rarely, if ever, resorts to arcane argot such as Husserl’s “Fundierung” preferring, instead, plain English words like “founding” and “founded” with appropriate context to refine meaning. 

This sort of “populist” approach to philosophy is, of course, a grave insult to those who have poured over the texts of the ages and we should expect them to respond with commensurate scorn.  Meanwhile, there is work to be done…

READ MORE...

For the esoterically adventurous in the ontology project only, read on for a disquisition on the question of ontology without reference to existence involving Hilbert, Husserl and Heidegger leading to a syntactic and semantic approach for rigorous philosophical method.

READ MORE...

We are down to 80/20 per cent.  But read on.

That headline news and other key points:

■ White was the majority ethnic group at 48.2 million in 2011 (86.0 per cent). Within this ethnic group, White British1 was the largest group at 45.1 million (80.5 per cent).

■ The White ethnic group accounted for 86.0 per cent of the usual resident population in 2011, a decrease from 91.3 per cent in 2001 and 94.1 per cent in 1991.

■ White British and White Irish decreased between 2001 and 2011. The remaining ethnic groups increased, Any Other White background had the largest increase of 1.1 million (1.8 percentage points).

■ Across the English regions and Wales, London was the most ethnically diverse area, and Wales the least.

■ 91.0 per cent of the usual resident population identified with at least one UK national identity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, and British) in 2011.

■ The number of residents who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 was fewer than in 2001. The size of this group decreased 13 percentage points to 59 per cent (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72 per cent (37.3 million) in 2001. The size of the group who stated that they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15 per cent (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25 per cent (14.1 million) in 2011.

■ Most residents of England and Wales belonged to the White ethnic group (86 per cent, 48.2 million) in 2011, and the majority of these belonged to the White British group (80 per cent of the total population, 45.1 million). In London in 2011, 45 per cent (3.7 million) out of 8.2 million usual residents were White British.

■ Twelve per cent (2.0 million) of households with at least two people had partners or household members of different ethnic groups in 2011, a three percentage point increase on 2001 (nine per cent, 1.4 million).

■ Of the 13 per cent (7.5 million) of residents of England and Wales on 27 March 2011 who were born outside of the UK, just over half (3.8 million) arrived in the last 10 years.

■ Nearly 4.8 million residents held a non-UK passport that was either an EU passport (2.3 million) or a foreign passport (2.4 million).

The full ONS report on ethnicity is here (pdf).

One quote from that report:

The 2011 Census introduced a question on national identity for the first time.  This was due to an increased interest in ‘national’ consciousness and demand from people to acknowledge their national identity.  National identity is multi-dimensional, so the 2011 Census respondents were allowed to tick more than one national identity.  91% of the population identified with at least one UK national identity (English, Welsh, Scots, Northern Irish and British).

English identity, either on its own or combined with other identities, was the most common identity respondents chose to identify with, at 37.6 million people (67.1%)  English as a sole identity (not combined with other identities) was chosen by 32.4 million people (57.7%)

Well, the population of England given in the Census is 53 million (Wales 3.1 million).  On that basis we were actually at 61% in March 2011.  But that is very unlikely to include a satisfactory total for illegals or for legal, non-white non-respondees to the Census.

We will minoritise within a decade by a strict reading (ie, excluding Scots, Welsh, N.Irish, and Irish admixtures as fully English).

Rigor of Being in Identity: toward warranted assertion through operational verifiability of indigenous European identity and difference – differences that make a difference.

READ MORE...

In political thought, perhaps the most basic, formative and necessary intellectual task is to adequately define that which one opposes or seeks to change.  This is especially true for us, devotees of an inchoate and wholly natural politic; and true for us, too, given that there is such a variety of opinion about what it is, exactly, nationalism is fighting.  An adequate definition of that lends coherence to our cause, and refines our purpose.

I thought it might be interesting and revealing to invite such definitions from readers.  Here are a couple from an email conversation between Graham Lister and me last February, which I happened across this evening.  I can’t speak for the care which Graham devoted to his.  Maybe he wrote it on the hoof.  Maybe not.  But I recall thinking quite hard about mine, which follows, and which, when I read it today, I must say seems a little formal and lacking in bite.

Anyhow, to get the ball rolling, here is Graham’s:

Liberal humanism treats the human individual subject as an abstract universal; it is premised on the paradoxical idea that all individuals should be treated the same, regardless of who or what they are by virtue of their status as radically differentiated and discrete phenomena. 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.

And here was the definition of the foundational “problem”, as I see it, which I wrote in response:

Liberalism is a product of the humanist strand in the Christianity of the high and late Middle Ages and early modern era, and the intellectual flowering of the Renaissance throughout this period.  It treats the human individual subject as an abstract universal which is capable of full autonomy but is ordinarily defined, and thereby restrained and bounded, by the given in Nature and in society.  It seeks, therefore, to liberate the subject from this definition and empower it to differentiate and author itself.  Besides this process of radical liberation, it particularly commends equal treatment, universal respect and fraternity, and continual progress towards its own goals as the chief desiderata of society and politics.