|
|
|
A consistent mind
Petrarch, from Africa, written in 1343. The European mind is, in my view, better viewed from the very Anglo-American standpoint of its natural endowment than as a culturally and historically revealed phenomenon, though it is certainly our habit to favour the latter. I confess that I don’t like the light that culture and history throw on the mind. I instinctively want to withdraw out of that light, and withhold my agreement to the descriptions and images that appear in it. What, after all, should we say about the European mind now, in the light of its debilitations in our postmodern age? Perhaps no more than Petrarch said at the close of his epic poem about the great Roman general Scipio Africanus. I don’t expect anyone else reading this to be burdened by this argument with temporality. I don’t expect anyone else to seek a revelation of mind in its consistencies at all times rather than its saliencies in some - its great cathedrals, its epic poetry, its symphonies, its devotion to freedom and charity, and so forth. I quite expect that my search for consistency went unsuspected by anyone who read this question, addressed to Notus Wind on his latest Ontology of Mind thread:
This was an attempt to turn the historical narrative inside out in a few words, and find the mind humming away smoothly inside. Here is Notus’s reply which I thought too good to be left to gather dust on a mature thread that perhaps not everyone will trouble to keep up with.
I thought that was pretty damned hot, and got close to my point, too. There is more respect for and insight into what we are in those few words than in the sum total of all the books and essays by New Right idealists I have read. And the substance of the ideas that Notus did not feel able to comment upon? Well, we have answered that already - all of us - in our rejection of the liberal paradigm, even if, as yet, our ideas have not come even close to taking shape. Comments:2
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 03:13 | #
I feel a pain of guilt. I hope I’m not being judged historically. 3
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:11 | # Guessedworker
He says while quoting the great Anglo-American historian and diarist, Petrarch, (without a glimmer ).
Would it not be more clear to state you wish to hide from it?
Well said. I also appreciate how you reinforce this statement with your other comments. It also underlines your implication that actual knowledge is useless until much, much later…when we awake in pure radiance. I understand better than ever now the concept of the Anglo American’s natural endowment. No understanding necessary - just add water and chalk it up to those omniscient genes.
I like how you balance and separate the consistencies and salients - symphonies and freedom and charities, and so forth. Unfortunately, endowments are not typically unexpected.
Serious questions indeed. However, as they are serious…perhaps they require a serious and impartial understanding of the Enlightenment. Religion, and Faith. Rather than the unspoken assumption (derived from… the endowment?) that this is just more Anglo American chips, and gravy. Of course, that is the antithesis of the assumption of the Anglo-American natural endowment of the mind smoothly humming inside. A novel and piquant concept shocking in it’s implications.
All’s well then. Of course from the Anglo-American standpoint, these ideas will come from somewhere as endowment. 4
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:17 | #
I mostly agree with Grimoire’s statement above. I would however like to admit a portion of the thinking of those who mostly disagree. To do that, I would alter the statement to read. “there is nothing more capable of saving Britain than an adaptive mythologization of Nazism.” I say this because I believe the motive force of revolutionary nationalism is best derived from myth, and the best source of myth is a history shrouded in the disinformation of war. I also like this approach because it incorporates the preferences of “genetic endowment” by admitting that there is no history without interpretation. English Nazism, if and when it arises, will be mythical Nazism, just like the currently dominant Judeo-Nazism permeating the Anglosphere. In a bid for historical greatness, I will hereby christen this future myth, Guessed Nazism. 5
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:57 | # While the physical aspect of the Guessed Nazi salute will closely resemble the Roman salute, the verbal aspect will be “Siege Heil”, wherein “Siege” represents the eternal struggle, against the struggle, against the struggle, for survival. The perennial rising up against the enemies of God. 6
Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:08 | # GW, I’m pleased to see that my response took so well with you as I did agonize over how to answer those questions. I found myself repeatedly tapping out a response only to delete the whole thing and start again.
I think this approach can be made to work as well, but it’s more difficult as it involves stepping outside your own people’s history and trying to make an objective judgment. And that’s always a tall order. In either case, the temporal consistency of the mind is a given for me, although I’m not sure how I would defend this if pressed.
Pretty close indeed.
That’s a mighty fine compliment but I can’t claim it as my own. For my part, I always feel that I learn something new about the European character every time I listen to one of Bowden’s New Right speeches. 7
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:08 | # The symbol of Guessed Nazism should strongly indicate the torsional force required to wrest power from the status quo, without being referred to as a swastika. I suggest Circle of Scrooby, or the Renner-Rooter. “Away goes trouble, down the drain”. We will also need a national animal for a mascot. Inasmuch as the mascot should convey the sublimation of feral energy, I suggest a domestic cat, but not the generic, middle-American house cat that sometimes attempts to burst onto the scene in Hoosier Nation videos. Without the slightest prejudice, I recommend something with more Traditionalist appeal, like the Maine Coon that resides at my house. 8
Posted by PF on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:18 | # You really put a part of yourself into this piece, GW. I think you’ve said something vital. I am drawn to dwell on the first part of the piece, since what Notus has written touches on questions so wide and his formulations seem, as you say, very good. You say that you dont want the Europe of epic poetry, the Europe of the Cathedral, the Europe of symphonic music - you dont want these most beautiful moments to be made to represent the whole as they have. Some things appear to human beings to be salient. The mind naturally thinks it can ‘extract’ these salient points and try to collect more of them, not realizing that they belong to an organic whole. If one loves Europe and takes the matter seriously, I can’t see how one cannot proceed to ask oneself the question: is not this ‘acquisition of salient points’ in itself an act of violence? Lets look at another organic structure with a view to understanding this phenomenon. This time its PF - trolls, prick up your ears. I had a period of five years in my life where I was deeply troubled, reclusive, buried myself in books, and talked to very literally nearly nobody. I shunned the society of men. Then afterwards there was a period where I did my best to reverse this - to go out of my way to get to know as many people as I could, to make as many friends as I could, to live as loudly and crazily as if I could make up for my “misspent” adolescence. Looking at things through salience, which is how the world looks at them, I’m tempted to seize upon the “quiet” period - a time of misery, coldness, barrenness and suffering in my life experience - and declare it worthless. To say, that was a waste. To discount it. And indeed there are no bright experiences, happy moments, or anything externally happening which was very much memorable at all, which I could hold up as a testament to the beauty and ‘worth’ of this period. Yet it was a time where many things gestated which would blossom for me later. I do notice that certain things accrued to me which made my bright periods afterwards that much brighter, as a result of the contemplation, suffering, and misery that took place in the quiet period. Yet if something grand happens in life, if you catch yourself frolicking with laughter amid a cloud of friends, and its that much sweeter for what was learned in the sorry space that came before - no one cares about the silent hours and the monotonous periods of ‘living death’ which taught the lessons that make that newfound fun-havingness so sweet. So I notice that, now, for my friends old and new, its all about the fun times. The times when one was ready to face the sun, to make crazy jokes, to do fun things and go on adventures - and everyone who embraces this, wants to have this and this alone. And if someone admires this, then I have to think how foolish they are in grasping the object by a single-side. Because without the whole evolution this present state could not be. I see a period of time when we as Europeans - but being more honest, the 1% cognitive/spiritual elite who have always haunted us and “justified our existence” in the eyes of teleologists - I see a time when they were ready to shine. They were ready to have great discussions, write silly but meaningful poetry, go on long excursions, trying to reconnect to the beauty of Europe (think Byron in Greece, Nietzsche in Italy, Dostoyevsky’s tour of the Russian monasteries). They were ready to work synergistically with one another and we had a framework (Renaissance Humanism, Industrial Revolution, Science) which allowed them to do so. Yet we also had times when it was not possible for us to shine. The framework might not always be that fruitful, the opportunities for synergy might not always be there, and the 1% might be sent off on errands of an import we could only guess - yet we would still be Europeans, though we had nothing to boast for it. You know how they say one should be pretty comfortable with the way one’s wife looks sans make-up, sans pretty dress, sans hour-long preparations? There should be something there that when she tumbles out of bed, makes you content. To be a lover of something is easy when that thing is at its best, but then one is a poor lover by definition. To call out ‘Europe’ from a mud-pit on the Lüneburger meadow - before Literature, before grand architecture, before anything but the mud-soaked village that surrounds you and the nation that was always with us - it strikes me that anything less than this is worthless. I think people who are dedicated to and impressed by the preservation of words, buildings and music are whores - they think they are safe because of our manifest pre-eminence in all these things. What is it, though, to love a building, or the distillation of a first-rate mind’s thought into verse? One demonstrates and makes obvious how much one has failed to understand that a living being undergirds, creates, and disposes of all these things, and yet remains of superior depth to these things at all times. People do not understand that there is a spark of life - they see only the pottery thats been kindled in its resulting flame, and awed by this, they sell themselves out for a fortuitously struck pithos with Achilles on it. Yet its important to honor the intention of these teleologists. They are trying to love Europe through the haze of their own misunderstandings of life and the world. They are doing their best. Salience and ‘impressive stuff’ is all that they have eyes for. They are trying. 9
Posted by PF on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:38 | # This is not intended as a snipe, but the contrast between GW’s august opening of this piece - as someone once said of Homer, “the song men liken to sea, with every note of music in its tone” - and Grim’s response, is meta-hilarious. GW writes:
Whereupon:
Grim, if you dont understand something or where someone is coming from, its better just to say it - instead of trying to do this ‘humorous take-down/character assassination’ stuff. Nobody who has come earnestly to this discussion with a desire to learn and know will be swayed by what you have said. GW’s ideas are hard, if you dont get them, no reason to feel slighted, you’re in good company. Trying to understand the ideas that GW presents to us is one of the main philosophical struggles we are all invited to enter as we participate on MR. 10
Posted by PF on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 20:14 | # PF wrote:
The situation is the same if you receive a reward for something you’ve done. Like in science when you might get an award of some kind for doing research. You look at the award and you’re like: “Huh?” Now I’m getting praised for something that I was doing for its own sake? How am I supposed to take this applause? And everybody’s like: Look at that, its so prestigious. Oh, you’re a big man now. You just look at it and you’re like “What the fuck? I was a regular guy yesterday, and now I’m a Big Man, because of this social recognition?” So Bach designs a cathedral, Pasteur writes a gripping novel, Dante develops the germ-theory of disease, and all of sudden we Europeans are big men. To interface with yourself, your countrymen, and your ancestors through these distal developments is to start back-to-front, to go about things the wrong way. The primary aspect of the relationship still has to be primal - it still has to proceed through the inner chamber, even after we’ve developed the most beautiful outer courtyard, in literally the history of the world - it is still a courtyard. People who use its language exclusively and chant its praises are saying in effect “Let us stay here” or “this is all there is”. It is still a courtyard and not an inner chamber. Jennifer Lopez once expressed this principle as follows:
From the psychological profile I was able to develop of Alfred Tarski/Ontology of Granite (his primary name is ‘asdddfdsdfdf’ I think) - this should press on one of his pressure points, so I’m expecting a response. Something about how, because I minimize the rigid objectivity of the differences in cultural accomplishments, I make all cultural accomplishments equal and make J-Lo and Beethoven equal. Unfortunately I have exited the realm of seeking foundational knowledge in the objective assessment of cultural accomplishment, or comparisons-of-courtyards in the last metaphor, so I am bound to emphasize the (for me) more interesting level on which all these things are superficial. A Chinese can do many things better than me - of this I have no doubt. But I have resolved the issue of what we are to a level that cannot be outsourced, and this is the meaning of leaving the courtyard. 11
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:43 | # While “Siege Heil” is more euphonious than “Sieg Ontology” or “Heil Heidegger”, all of these suffer from the fault of being single purpose and hunnish. We need something that is useful and appropriate everywhere, from the corner pub to the corner office. Perhaps “Sleep Awhile” with a Scottish pipe dirge…or “Street Sex-Child” with a disco beat. The “Scrooby Çycle” or “Renner-Rooter” is impossible to improve upon. The Maine Coon appears to be almost historically ordained. I foresee future art and music portraying the heroic Maine Coon as a symbolic talisman with a sleek coat and bushytail, yet sharp fangs and claw, while yids and nogs are portrayed as marauding mice conspiring against the volk’s cheese. 12
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 00:18 | # PF:
Thank you for your patience with me PF. I do try so very hard to understand…but as you say, I feel slighted by my incomprehension of these intellectual libretto’s, that seem to my retrograde mentality so much like ludicrous babble. Much of it seems like an absolute and utter lack of respect and knowledge for what it purports to support - the ontology of liquified cheese. Of course these are just symptoms of the compromised consciousness. Forgive me PF….for I am a indeed a sinner. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 00:52 | # Might I suggest, Grim, that you demonstrate your obvious store of goodwill still further by furnishing us with a counter-answer to the one from Notus (you know, to my three little questions). No more of your famous literary excursions, though. There’s only so much of that I can take in one day. It’s not like it’s Vogon poetry or anything. 14
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 04:12 | #
Were you “rolling” on “E” when you typed the above? You little rapscallion, you. It’s a fucking frat house! Mustn’t give in to the Puritanism of the fascist impulse. The (purely rhetorical, I don’t mean to characterize Jewry as a monolith) Jews were right about that authoritarian personality thing, you know. (All in good fun and no offense [to the English] intended.) 15
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 05:09 | #
Who, precisely, is Anglo-American? Is this shorthand for Northwest Europeans who have assimilated to the permutated (e.g., emphasis on individual liberty but no king for America) English way of doing things (e.g., the Krauts over in Germany don’t precisely do it the English way as their genetic baseline tends more towards collectivism)?
Salter mutedly councils the avoidance of symbols to be propagandistically associated with an enthy in the minds of the lemmings to facilitate the mobilization of the latter as the former can be highjacked by free-riding elite race traitors. On the other hand, he mutedly concedes the whole ethny is too large a thing to be grasped sans simple mental representations by the lemmings. This is an evolved trait in his opinion. It is part of the inherent, and not acquired, in the more temporal sense (said trait was “acquired” in the course of evolution). So which is it, to be or not to be (and all that implies)? Guess it depends on how urgently one wishes their people to survive. 16
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 05:40 | # Gworker:
I am not dissatisfied with Notus’s reply, Comrade. I am dissatisfied by the ‘appeal to mass ignorance’ of the Anglo mass of which you frame these remarks. I need to tell you that the concept of ‘the very Anglo-American standpoint of its natural endowment than as a culturally and historically revealed phenomenon’ is the framework within which our nations are dissolved, our people scattered into detached islands of fellaheen. If immediate history is not enough for your so-called ‘empirical’ mindset, what is? You end congratulating yourself on a rejection of the Liberal paradigm. But everything you have written is not a rejection, but an acceleration of the Liberal paradigm to it’s logical end. You might wonder why and how, I, who once considered joining with you in common cause, came to possess contempt and disgust at what I see here. The answer is that I am a European Nationalist….you are not. I ask you to become one if there is yet an ounce of truth left in your body. 17
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 06:33 | # Gworker views “Anglo” Americans with a kind of paternalism so long as they serve and look longingly towards the Mother Country. That is why he and Dare are butthurt lo these many years later by the Amerikwan picking of the Empire’s pockets. Talk about historically conditioned grudges! I thought only the Krauts did that. And what did dear old “Winnie” expect from Jew-tool and crypto-commie Roosevelt? If you lie down with dogs you come up with fleas. Of course the Krauts could have told them that, whatever the Kraut’s state of debasement. Treasury Jew Morgenthau: “I see you still have some gold reserves. Best hand that over. There’s a good lad. But I will dull that sharp edge by giving you generous loans though at a usurious rate of interest. But I know how you love Jews, so I trust you won’t hold it against me.” Churchill: “We rightly owe you nothing. If anything, you should be paying us.” T.J. Morgenthau: “LOL!” 18
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:33 | # It was not Anglo-Americanism but eternal Rome that destroyed Christendom.
It was promoted by the scholars of the Roman Catholic church, the School of Salamanca. The enemy was within. 19
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:26 | # Desmond: (What is extremely frustrating to me when debating self professed atheist intellectuals is that you cannot see the forest for the trees. You claim to be atheist yet your always pointing to some doctrinal deficiency or expressing disappointment at some spurious miracle of fielding questions regarding the likelihood of resurrection or the nutritional value of the eucharist. What are you- frustrated priests? Who cares? Almost any Catholic or Lutheran Priest I have personally known has a more rational grasp of reality entirely outside of mythos than a truck load of atheists…who seem to be mired in an unreality of abstract concepts entirely divorced from reality…. along with a severe crisis in values. ) Obviously Rome did not destroy Christendom., To say such a thing in the face of the evidence in front of you should cause you to question your sanity or provenance of your selbstanshauung. History, is brutally clear. Anglo-Americanism is the natural ally of Bolshevism, the natural enemy of Christendom and Europe. The last heraldic sword struck by the British Crown was made on orders of King George to be presented to Stalin in recognition of his gallantry. The symbolism is clear as crystal but to all but the most deluded. I should add the natural enemy of the British. The Anglo-American compact was a pact between international finance and Capitalist imperialism - it had nothing to do with you - you are just another European race to grind to grist within it’s mill.. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 12:26 | # CC, The Anglo-American and continental traditions are the two traditions of the Western philosophical canon. Nationalism of the variety you favour is a product of the romantic, idealist or continental tradition. Our intellectual tradition is the empirical, analytic or Anglo-American tradition. It should be self-evident that for a nationalism to have political traction - that is, to be sensible to the mass of people in the Anglosphere - it will have to come out of that tradition. This militates foundationally for ontology rather than teleology (or the existential rather than the palingenetic, if you prefer). Of course, it would be a ridiculous to divorce purpose and striving from human action in an ontological system, because these are part of our mind’s natural endowment. But we have two recent lessons from history about what happens when philosophy divorces “what is” from our humanity. One is today’s final, Marxised manifestation of liberalism in which the European race, by the very fact of our existence, must be dissolved. Hence, we are urged, indeed coerced, to strive for the golden dawn of a world without barriers of any sort between gentiles and, therefore, lasting peace and universal happiness. This way, as white people, as males and as heterosexuals we “win” the negative freedom of freedom from oppressing others and the positive freedom to experiment with “breaking the borders”, which is to self-author and realise the “fully human”. The former explains liberalism’s popularity with Jews and the latter its popularity with misfits and homosexuals. The result, inevitably, for us is war with Nature, total conflict in the mind, and the slow, relentless genocide of Europeans. The second example is that one so dear to your heart, in which a model of the heroic, conquering Aryan was reified to mobilise a demoralised people in the cause of their own greatness. But the ultimate greatness is not this at all, but is something else. It does not require flights into fantasy. Quite the contrary. At the end, in the Berlin bunker, the Fuhrer called on his Volk to fight to the end and immolate themselves as Aryan heroes. Fantasies do not sustain life in all its trials and complexity. The shining hero is not a man, neither when he is victorious nor when he is immolated - as he always will be, for victories are passing things. He may rail against demoralisation, it is true, because moral degradation is his raison d’etre. But he has nothing to say in an existential crisis where estrangement from self is the grinding issue. It is men, just men like you or I, who can discriminate for the real, and take possession of themselves and their destiny, personally and collectively, once again. Grim,
And does that extend to empiricism and analytic thought? Oh, apparently it does ...
Liberal thought is not merely Anglo-American in origin, and its Judaization in cultural and postmodern forms is decided anti-empirical, and of the continental tradition.
Perhaps you do not understand what is being said because you cannot objectify that within you which is not your own. 21
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:47 | # Gworker And does that extend to empiricism and analytic thought? Oh, apparently it does ... Lightning reach for the hollywood clichés GW. Empiricism and analytic thought are hallmarks of the Anglo-American tradition? More English Humor? More like an extreme distorted ulterior idealism that immediately hides that which is directly in front of one’s face. To your mind, neo-Darwinism is empiricism. Liberal thought is not merely Anglo-American in origin, and its Judaization in cultural and postmodern forms is decided anti-empirical, and of the continental tradition. This is about as naft a sentence as you can construct. Not only do you need strawmen in your ‘analytico- empirico-mumbo jumbo, but you answer like a strawman yourself. Perhaps you do not understand what is being said because you cannot objectify that within you which is not your own. People that refuse to think like adults, who prefer the romance of make-believe and let’s pretend as a philosophy, who refuse to study and learn, or at the very least respect knowledge and it’s provenance, who prefer to bandy about terms they don’t know, nor will stop to learn what they even mean….....who refuse to be honest, their ‘analyticism and empiricism’ in their minds giving them a especial dispensation (there’s that Anglo-American tradition) to use dishonesty empirically, who use the words ‘analytical and empirical’ yet are unable to apply either. That is what I see here. I cannot objectify what is the most deluded subjectivity. Don’t tell me this is a British pathology. I have many British comrades and none of them entertain these illusions. Listen Gworker, you really must go into politics. Your a very well meaning and ‘club-able’ fellow. I like you very much. However, this superficial flirtation with ontology is nothing more than a muddled mishmash of laughable nonsense and transparent conceit. It is not your forte. Your instincts are good. However no serious scholar is going to supply the raw material upon inspection of the brutal violence committed upon the idea here. To any serious Nationalist, the appeal of false propaganda and the gilding of politically useful conceits dressed as philosophy died some time ago. This ‘idealism’ and ‘romanticism’ of the German you claim, is only you muttering to yourself in the mirror. There is no place in 21st century Nationalism for yellow journalism,.. disguise it how you may. 22
Posted by uh on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 03:47 | # Look at the similarity here: Like it, it is a unfounded phantasy and propaganda,… there is no Anglo-America, it is a dream turned to nightmare, that ends in dispossession… - Grim
Let’s just agree that Anglo-America, Nazi Germany, and the Church all failed to keep our heads on straight. Or is that the problem: GW can’t agree his own nation’s “historically revealed” character cannot be salvaged for nationalist goals? 23
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:49 | # Grimoire,
No one said it did. However, this is not a simple case of malfeasance, this is a fundamental shift in morality. Roman law ultimately changed the moral order of Christendom. Roman law was not just a fund of clever juristic inventions; it was a source of indispensable moral authority. The tale of influence of Roman law is that it allowed the inhabitants of Christendom to slowly shake themselves free of Christian restrictions using the moral authority of ancient Rome. And the ultimate irony, of course, is that it was the product of the Roman Church or shall we say the Roman Converso Church.
Are you really asking us to believe that Zeus’ pursuit of Ganymede “is the organic manifestation, and necessity of the human organizational principle.” Is this a “moral and ordered society of enduring value”? Or is this the product of some profound psychosis? If the Nazis were neo-Darwinists then I’m a Roman Catholic priest. Who are you? Ben Stein..no Darwin no Hitler? Anglo-Americanism is the natural ally of Bolshevism but National Socialism was only an inconvenient lover? LOL 24
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:02 | # Desmond
Non Sequitur.
So you are a Roman Catholic Priest now. I do not know who Ben Stein is.
The Ribbontrop/Motlotov pact was a Non Aggression pact, not Entendre Cordiale…inconvenient yes. Both knew war was inevitable. Fascism in Germany originated for the sole purpose of defeating Bolshevism in Europe, covered in most history books. Anglo-American support for Bolshevism financial and materiel, tactical and strategic - also covered. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:21 | # uh,
I am trying to gesture towards another way of apprehending who we are. Keep looking for my meaning. You have not found it yet. 26
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:06 | # Grimoire,
Does that include the Anglo-American invasion of Mother Russia to “stop the spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia”, or is that just more inconvenience? And Winston’s desire to “strangle at its birth” the Bolshevik state, another non sequitor no doubt? LOL Surely, Grimoire , there must be some enduring moral value in fucking young boys up the ass, no? After all that’s what religion is right? It’s not “a bunch of spirits in sky”, right? It passes from father to son in an organic natural way. LOL. 27
Posted by jimmy Marr on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:43 | #
GW, I’m pulling together your quotes from separate threads. That’s a coincidence of the sequence in which they were witnessed. I interpret your gesture as pointing toward the likelihood that Dasein, (aka another way of apprehending who we are) is without race. 28
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:56 | # GW, If Dasein even approximates Self, and yet is without race, then a racialist society would seem to be existentially dependent on something I read about elsewhere: Weltanschauung. Weltanschauung. Weltanschauung….? 29
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:01 | # Desmond Does that include the Anglo-American invasion of Mother Russia to “stop the spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia”, or is that just more inconvenience? And Winston’s desire to “strangle at its birth” the Bolshevik state, another non sequitor no doubt? LOL Winston wanted to strangle half the planet. As for the rest of the remarks….
I refuse to speculate. 30
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:03 | # Desmond, your reference to the fundamental aspects of religion may be outdated. I am told that now, after dinner, senior Roman Catholic clergy pass round the After Eights not the Under Eights. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:14 | # Jimmy,
Why, as an agency separate from Being and serving to disclose Being, and therefore - if I can offend against the propositionalism of philosophy - part of the function of Mind, would Dasein not possess biological specificity? In our “world” Being is made manifest through organic life, and organic life is genetic. The second characteristic of genes, after immortality, is variation. Everything is this way. To maintain your argument, Dasein must, as some contend, actually be Being or, at least, there must be the classical relation of identity. And then, to respect your assertion of uniformity, Being must be singular and indivisible, but also foundational and, therefore, flowing from “the higher” into the “lower” - Plato’s forms, maybe - and Dasein must be flowing, too, since it has no essence of its own and is not a form but is, apparently, the real thing ... “the same as”. Then, and only then, could human being be the same as that of a pathogenic bacteria, and the being of a West African be the same as that of a Jew or a Meso-American. And now what is to stop us sliding away from Plato into Judaic essentialism and religion, with its added, simple explanation of “where are we from”? “All life is God”, and so on. Jimmy, this is the trap - a human mentational default, for sure - that natural selection allied to morality, or adaptive behaviour, and worked into the faith diktat. Is this, ultimately, where you are proposing we should go? Obviously not. So let’s get back to the programme. 32
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:17 | #
I hope my struggle against the program can be experienced as getting on with the program, in the same way that being’s struggle for particularity can be experienced as disclosing Being’s universality. 33
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:38 | # Oh my God. I think I may have revealed myself as the enemy of God. I’d much prefer if readers could refrain from mentioning this to renneR. 34
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:53 | #
At least for the time-being? 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:33 | #
Well, which is it? Post a comment:
Next entry: Blame whitey, of course
|
|
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— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 02:44 | #
Yes, Notus Wind did an excellent job in responding to your questions. Congratulations to you both.
I thought of you, GW, when I noticed this news item. David Irving seems to imply something like the contrapositive of your thesis that Nazism is Judaic.
Despite Mr. Irving’s occupation as an historian, he provided an entertaining evening for us at Pacifica Forum in June of 2008. We, at Pacifica, did an excellent job of publicizing his visit, and he, in turn, did a great job of getting under our critics skin.
Excuse me for getting slightly off topic.