A history of seeking to be

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 01 March 2012 01:22.

I am writing this very brief post to mark a particularly interesting thread-intervention by Daniel2 - the estimable Daniel Sienkiewicz of VoR - on the seemingly non-serious topic of hippies.

He wrote:

Hippies, as opposed to The Viet Nam War, were about a right below rights for the (White) male of the species to Be - that is, to have the right to exist on the basis of intrinsic, inherited value, as opposed to being allowed to exist merely on the basis of accomplishment, what they do or through proof in overcoming brutal rights of passage up to and including war.

The White male motive to be left alone was different from the Black Male motive which aimed more toward the power of rule.

Moreover, the White male motive was a stance against the military industrial complex - wars had become habit form for generations, and had done the White race no good. It was a movement against inhumane demands made upon White men, and a motive to be, by contrast. With male being is a corollary to the right of the White race to exist on the basis of pre-existent evolution.

I like this kind of historicization of a reactive but ineradicable struggle by white men to be. It raises the interesting possibility that spontaneous movements such as the levellers, and popular rebellions such as the Peasants Revolt, religious effusions such as the Canterbury pilgrimage, cultural ones such as the opening of the American West, political ones such as the reception of Adolf Hitler by the German people, and so forth, may have had origins and their place in a grand, Manichean struggle between the forces of light and darkness, and of freedom and enslavement. That the people, or some of them anyway, turned away periodically from the furrow of the plough and the heat of the furnace, from the tyranny of the materialistic and of near concerns, and from harm’s unjust way to seek the conditions necessary for a truly human existence, is a beautiful and encouraging thought.

That living then in a system of such undoubted corruption and emptiness only prompted them onwards to the next cycle of searching, so living now in just such a system will prompt us. It is only a matter of time and circumstance. Therein, then, lies a narrative of our liberation - though, of course, reaction is not enough of itself. A true ontological model of Man must inform and guide the search for it to realise anything useful and permanent.

Tags: The Ontology Project

Comments:

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:31 | #

GW you could also add Romanticism (or the Romantic era/Period) that was an artistic, literary, and intellectual movement that originated in the second half of the 18th century in Europe and strengthened in reaction to the Industrial Revolution.

The difficulty of any ‘spiritual turn’ in culture terms is that everything gets banalised and sold back to us as yet another ‘lifestyle’ (even a ‘counter-cultural’ one) from which someone, somewhere is making money. It’s that dual effect of cynical reason and banalisation of almost everything and the ability for consumerist societies to metabolise, repackage and sell us ‘decaffeinated’ ideas (Zizek has written on the ‘post-political’ nature of liberal tolerance and its ability to neutralise genuine passion and ‘dangerous’ ideas in politics) – also see Adam Curtis and his film “The Century of the Self” on the links between 1960s counter-culture and mass consumerism.

By definition, open-ended tolerance renders us impotent. Requiring passivity, it negates action. An ordered, lawful, moral, and virtuous life - as an individual, city, state, or nation - necessitates constant and intentional effort, often offending lesser angels of our personal or societal nature. Human nature, without appropriate boundary conditions, generally gravitates to chaos. Rather than right a troubled world, open-ended tolerance allows it to turn upside-down. At some point, we must choose, and fight boldly for, the principles that govern us. In a world of social and political open-ended tolerance, we do not inquire, we do not reason, we do not communicate, we do not respect, we simply tolerate. The result is a wasteland of abandoned principles or simply indifference on key questions.

Tolerance, which is good in small doses and the right areas of life (say intellectual freedom), but not as some free-for-all licence (is the ‘right’ to imbibe any substance equally important as the ability to freely discuss ideas?), is the mechanism by which liberal modernity moves cultural boundaries. Robert Bork, in his introduction of “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”, cites the ‘Durkheim Constant’: “Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology, posited that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can ‘afford to recognize’.” As behaviour worsens, the community adjusts standards so that conduct once thought reprehensible is gradually thought to be normal. Bork conjectures that the limits to deviant behavior have expanded in both directions, so that what was deviant is now considered normal, and what was moral is thought puritanical or extremist and therefore irrelevant. Modern hyper-liberalism makes every effort to redefine or blur (whichever is more expedient) both boundaries of the acceptable norm and label opponents as ‘intolerant’ or ‘prejudiced’.

This pushing of the ‘societal envelope’ can be seen, in extremis, in the exponential rise in medically unnecessary adult ‘gender reassignment’ surgery or S&M gear for toddlers apparently observed on sale at a recent ‘gay pride’ march in San Francisco. Which reminds me. I was recently visiting a open-air market in a very genteel, middle-class, northern English town and there was a stall opening selling drug paraphernalia (bongs, crack pipes etc.,) including a gas-mask with a ‘bong’ attached to mouth. I shudder to think the use of such items are put to. Interestingly the stall was manned by Pakistanis – but I’m sure white degenerates could be found to provide a similar ‘service’. I wouldn’t want to upset the Ivan’s of this world.

The controversy over the definition of marriage serves as an example of expansion of both boundaries. On the one hand, homosexuality was viewed as deviant behaviour in the first two thirds of the 20th century. By the end, liberal politics encouraged the acceptance of gay lifestyles. On the other hand, a normal marriage has always brought to mind one man and one woman. Now progressives claim that the definition is too narrow and should include gay unions. To think otherwise in their view discloses intolerance and a homophobic prejudice. What next the ‘right’ to marry multiple people, a donkey or the cooker in your kitchen, invented out of legal thin-air?

In the name of polite statesmanship, non-liberals have allowed the infringements and withdrawn traditional discernment and thereby relinquished boundaries on both sides of that vague line of normalcy. Mr. Bork summarizes: “So unrelenting is the assault on our sensibilities that many of us grow numb, finding resignation to be the rational, adaptive response to an environment that is increasingly polluted and apparently beyond our control.”

The liberal says that “ignorance leads to intolerance.” In fact, tolerance leads to ignorance. Bork recounts the liberal’s dilemma, quoting W.H. Auden: “Emancipated from traditional beliefs of a closed society ... he [the liberal] has found no source or principle of direction to replace them ... liberalism is at a loss to know how to handle him, for the only thing liberalism knows to offer is more [liberalism] ... and that is his trouble.” With no mental exercise of discernment, rationale, or principle required, open-ended tolerance dulls the intellect and implies that we should deny our natural sensibilities while we renounce our discernments. Tolerance presumes that we ignore our capacity to determine and act upon right from wrong, truth from falsehood, or good from evil. Open-ended ‘maximalist’ tolerance denies intelligence as well as moral, aesthetic, cultural and other forms of discernment.

When we allow tolerance to trump principles, we become the allegorical crab in the pot. The chef slips the crab into a large pot of water at room temperature. Every few minutes he turns up the heat a few degrees, until the crab, roused from his stupor too late, acquiesces to the inevitable boil and winds up supper for those who would benefit from his stupidity. Both a properly formulated self-respect and genuine respect for others is the missing virtue. Respect requires us to move beyond transgressions and differences, accept the author of poor belief and action, and in the process, initiate change. Hyper-liberal tolerance identifies the person and belief as one and the same and in doing so is a denial of his or her dignity as a human being that can enter into a dialogue with judgementally rationality. Respect recognizes their differences and embraces the person even when his belief or action may be wrong but as a subject that can be persuaded as to why and how they are wrong.

Open-ended tolerance, or really total indifference, is a very bland substitute for respect for the dignity of the human subject – this indifference is a kind of political and moral quietism – as if, say radical body-modification types, are only harming themselves so what’s the problem? Well they are significantly harming themselves (a bad thing) but also society at large by being terribly bad examples – Mill’s harm principle is effectively useless as he himself conceded. At a human level would not anyone one of us council our friends and family against disastrously stupid or self-harming conduct? Why at a societal level is that deemed a terrible idea that some people simply don’t know what’s best for themselves? Obviously the precise balancing of freedom to do as one sees fit and the need for common boundaries and values is precisely the question that communitarians raise and it is one of the biggest failings of liberalism, particularly of a social order in which maximally understood individualistic liberty becomes foundational – culturally, legally, economically and politically. Under such conditions is it any wonder the zone of ‘me’ concerns and perspective expands to squeeze out any room for ‘we’ concerns and perspectives?

Should our sensibilities stop at every discussion of values, ideology and truth - consider all viewpoints equal and worthy of embrace, even when they are not? Do we abandon virtues citing moral failures? Can we no longer discern right from wrong? We scratch our heads and wonder, “How did we get to this point?” Perhaps we would be wise to recognise that, at their best, inherited borders, boundaries, and limitations, whether literal or figurative, geographical, political, or moral, serve to protect us and ensure a valuable legacy.

Sorry kinda off went off-topic there! But I’m reading and thinking about these topics a lot these days especially does the meaningful life have a ‘broad’ shape to it - if so what would that outline look like?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:40 | #

English radicalism (seeking to be) was the product less of spontaneity and more the product of a discourse, a palingenetic ideology that arose around English racial struggle. Whether the Putney Debate, when Rainborough’s anger is provoked by the argument that the political legacy of the Conquest is legitimate—that is, those who lost the franchise through the Conquest should not have it returned to them, or Lollard preachers framing the event biblically, as a falling from grace and a desire to return to the pre-Norman paradisiacal state, the Garden of England, the theme of Anglo-Saxon freedom from slavery persisted. It is interesting that the golden age of Anglo-Saxon England myth of rebirth lived for many centuries, prevailing in America through Jefferson’s Anglo-Saxonism and yet German and Italian myths of rebirth were short lived. The difference being, it appears that when the State assumed the role of race struggle/protector, it became the oppressor, leaving room for others to become the champion of the oppressed.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:25 | #

At the risk of repeating myself…

One of the hallmarks of liberal modernity is a kind of hyper-rationalism and rationalization, the progressive reduction of the life-world to quantifiable procedures and methods, but the Enlightenment project has disfigured our relationship to the non-human world and, in turn, has led to our own disfigurement. Is not, at base, our problem of the recovery of what was sacred all along, the irreducible, qualitative manifold of being-in-the-world. That being in the world cannot be rendered uniformly/universally homogeneous, or emptied of meaning, without unleashing a great violence against nature and upon ourselves.

Perhaps we need to recover the divine in the brute existence of animal being. A ‘religion’ of immanence rather than transcendence, or rather, a transcendence through consciousness of immanence signifies the reversal of Abrahamic religious conception of the human soul and a return to the ancient view of the soul not as mind but as anima or spirit: affirmation of ‘the soul’ here understood as the irreducibly singular manifold of the living being-in-the-world.

Effectively ontologizing freedom by locating it in the body and the heart would imply that love and the pleasures of sensual embodiment, not primarily in moral or other forms of autonomy, are constitutive of freedom. To speak of ‘ownership’ of the freed self means not, as in liberal ontology economic ownership/labour-power etc., but ownership in the phenomenological, embodied sense of ‘having and belonging’ in the world.

There is no genuine human freedom in separateness or aloneness; the free human being is not so much a social animal as an animal that desires to be ‘loved thoroughly’ and as such be ‘at home in the world’. The meaning of freedom this suggests is to be the state of ‘being beloved’. In Sanskrit, freedom is derived from the word beloved, the condition of being among one’s loved ones. Freedom as love, that is a fierce attachment to the ‘this’ of the world, to embodied being, through a community that enables authentic love-of-self (sensuous existence). It is the love of embodied, sensuous being, the mere ‘animal’ love of affection, companionship, sexual ecstasy, the joy of being alive that ultimately stands behind every emancipatory struggle. We must liberate ourselves from the thin, anti-human effluvia of hyper-liberalism – its deflationary vision of life as nothing but the exercise of that ignis fatuus of the West – the ‘radically autonomous’ individual actor and his free-floating ‘will’.

If taken seriously this is something of an epochal shift in our ontological self-conceptualization to say nothing for our economic, cultural and social modalities. We are ‘divine’ not because we are made in the image of a rational ‘God’ but because the ‘divine’ exists at that moment when Being knows itself - touches itself – and hears its own ‘song’. In replacing the onto-theological story with one of an onto-poetic story of immanence might we affect the re-enchantment of the natural world and in turn of ourselves – the revelation that we are worthy of life-sustaining love. Existentially and ontologically this striving of being-in-the-world towards a fullness of being, a striving manifested in the perpetual ethical dialectic between autonomy and solidarity, self and others is wrongly identified as the ‘will to power’ in Nietzsche’s pseudo-naturalistic ontology, but in reality is ground in love. The objective is to defend this Philia and with it the life-principle, from every social deformation rooted in thantos, the death drive or will to nothingness. The defense of Being understood as not Absolute but as this being-in-the-world, this brute animal existence is not merely affirmation of the wonder of sensuous being. It is a vigorous ethic and passionate politics to defend our life-world. Today is the fight for life, the fight for a properly formulated love of ourselves and our histories, our cultures, our collective survival and flourishing. Is this not the political fight?

Maybe I’m a hippy after all!

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:57 | #

I’m glad this has been moved to a subject for commentary

I should say first of all that I wrote my comments on hippies in a bit of haste and they do not capture the full theory. Being, a motive circumscribed by hippies - though ultimately ignored by feminists, jews, ultra capitalist militariy industrialsits, neo traditionalists, etc - was a crucial part of a topoi: being, socialization, selfhood and actualization.

This is a processual matter and a deconstrucing of Maslow’s rigid and destructive hierarchy of needs (appropriated by Friedan and second generation feminists) in order to deconstruct it and deploy topoi on our behalf as Whites

etc

I should also say that the Black motive was also different in being about something like their version of “dignity”, an awkward contrast to hippie being, which valued weirdness, if that is what it took to Be - imagine Malcolm X and Captain Beefheart togehter..

Now I will have a look at the comments that are here - thanks

Posted by AllSeeingEye on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:08 | #

Time to open your eyes people! Before you’re all dead. Killed by the system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNfGPOu2UM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohtv6YKiK44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbDksABGILo

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:13 | #

Graham,

I’ve gotten half way through your comment. It is far enough to make a few replies. You say:

“By definition, open-ended tolerance renders us impotent. Requiring passivity, it negates action”

If you see my discussion of Being (and I am not insisting that you read it, just explaining), I have built in right from the start the notion that Beign corresponds with boundaries - for Whites Being means boundaries, borders against non-Whites of necessity.

Being implies organic, qualitative delimitation of form - for Whites to have Being they have got to estabish boundaries to non-Whites

I have never discussed tolerance

In my experience, this word was one, like so many others, diversity, multiculturalism, that have been abused by Jewish interests

tolerance as it has been popularly used, goes back to Herbert Marcus’s notion of so called “liberating tolerance” which was tolerant of anything on the so called left and intolerant of anything on the so called right (read, intolerant of anything that protected the interests of White men).

That there can be a bit of tolerance for the less than remarkable and admirable aspects of Being is true as a necessary requirement. And I respect that observation - just don’t want it to be confused with Marcus’s Jewish perversion of “liberating tolerance”

Now I will go back to reading your post, though it is a little painful for me because you are seeing modernity, chaos, dissolution and openness to a whole lot of things that I am in now way advocaitng - this is not the program of White post modernity properly understood - on the contrary it can and will balance and maintain healthy traditional forms.

Ok, let me resume reading…

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:30 | #

Graham,

you say

Obviously the precise balancing of freedom to do as one sees fit and the need for common boundaries and values is precisely the question that communitarians raise and it is one of the biggest failings of liberalism, particularly of a social order in which maximally understood individualistic liberty becomes foundational – culturally, legally, economically and politically. Under such conditions is it any wonder the zone of ‘me’ concerns and perspective expands to squeeze out any room for ‘we’ concerns and perspectives?

and

You will see that I am not a liberal by and large. I am reconstrucing traditional forms where they are healthy and open to progess - where it serves the White Class. I am in no way talking about transgressing the bounds and interests of the White Class.

My answer is that I begin with the social. It is the only reality. Being, Selfhood and Actualization are just topi that seem to have necessary value to our White people in particular. Though there is a problem with actualization being over valued and that is why I bring it in for critique

The outline would look like the White Class. That is, the classification and subgroups of all native Europeans

From there we can distinguish the non-Whites, the traitors, or the unarguably immoral.

Other groups are of primary interest only to see to it that they do not destroy the earth as a systemic whole - through over population, for example

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:43 | #

Graham,

Your second post shows more of an understanding that our motives and what is meant by being is not at odds. Thank you.

You say,

“maybe I’m a hippy after all!”

cool.

Yes, your talk of bordres, of loving folks of one’s own, of liberal pathologies, the Marcusian notion of tolerance… I can dig it baby. True.

Boundaries, manning them..that is a vital part of being..as is organicism and being in the world

Heidegger uses Dasein, the “there being” to undo the Cartesian notion of having to be in two places at once to reflect upon a point in your head???? this connects being to the social as well…

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:46 | #

Posted by AllSeeingEye on March 01, 2012, 09:08 AM | #

“AllseeingEye”, or arrogant Negro, perhaps a more apt moniker. Those is some ugly music links you posted - hideous.

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:19 | #

“I am reconstrucing traditional forms where they are healthy and open to progess”

Written that way, it sounds as if I am advocating modernist progress, striclty. That is not the case. I advocate progress inasmuch as it does not harm the White Class. That is very different from modernity, which would hazard Whites on behalf of progress.

Thus, the sentence shoud have been written as:

I am reconstrucing traditional forms where they are healthy and other hand open to progess, where progress serves the interests of the White Class.

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:20 | #

and on the other hand

Posted by Circassian on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:31 | #

Maybe I’m a hippy after all!

Maybe, maybe not. Shall we take a look?

Hippies were self absorbed, narcissistic, politically impotent, useless bums living off the backs of their parents. Perhaps you have plenty of that Graham. But some of the hippies were quite talented with genuine streak of youthful romanticism like John Lennon, for example. You certainly have nothing of that. So it is only with a big stretch that you can claim the title.

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Yes, Johnny, you were a dreamer - a big time dreamer. And certainly you were not the only one: Hymie’s propaganda works. You were also a miscegenation practicing, dope using dupe - an unwitting pusher for the NWO agenda.

No countries, no religion, one gentile race, one world government with Hymie at the helm? I think not, Johnny.

I am quite certain who you are Graham, and I am certain who daniel is. I’ll get to that a bit later. What I am not quite certain about is this Guessedworker character. Who are you Guessedworker? Why do you keep pandering bull crap producers like Graham_Lister and daniel.

Are you an old English gentleman, or a shrewd player. Are you a Thoroughbred, or a Trojan Horse? A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. But with a bit of help from Ivan I’m gonna crack that enigma, unwrapp the mystery, and solve the riddle. That’s what I do.

Ivan: Ignis vitalis aestimo nobilitatem

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:08 | #

Ivan - I’m calling you out - you’re a Jewish hippy right?

As for nobility, Ivan with you it’s more delusions of adequacy than delusions of grandeur. Seriously a village in the backwaters of the old USSR is missing its idiot. Are any of the Americans that comment here and/or read MR happy with the likes of Ivan in your country?

As for John Lennon and no countries that is more LJB’s bag by reading Hitler via Marx or some such - the state must wither away etc.

Daniel - yeah I guess we all have an emotional life and an intellectual one - both are important in any healthy ‘being in the world’. Re your comments on Being - did you mean here at MR or elsewhere?

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:08 | #

Ivan, you nuissance.

John Lennon is an explicit example of a prominent hippie who did not know what hippie motives were about. I have used his example exactly as that of an inarticulate hippie.

He said the hippie thing was “a great way to pick up girls”

That was a very poor understanding of their motives.

He was a great musical artist and horrilbe philosphically.

His pandering to women was awful. Yoko Ono? Give me a break It was probably she who led him into advocacy of White Panthers who advocated Black Panthers: Lennon performed at a benefit for Sinclair, the White panther that Abbie Hoffman tried to talk about until Pete Townshend’s guitar interveined.

Lennon’s motives were probably co opted by Jewish motives. He did not understand the authentic motives of the hippies, though he may have participated in some aspect of it, with less than full appreciation.

His lyrics in “Imagine” well…who do you know that likes them, except maybe some teenage girls? Awful

Ivan, you are way out of your cultural orbit on this one and should not cloud the issue.

All you are doing is regurgitating the Jewsih and feminist spin on what hippies were about. Useless.

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:14 | #

Graham, I meant elsewhere: in a VoR article - White Individuation and Gender Agendas – An Incommensurate Intersection- and a simiar artilce and one other secret place.

I am afraid they are long and in need of editing still. I wrote them originally as program notes for a show, so there ae some weak points of style, unbecoming to an essay.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:34 | #

The Aquarian Conspiracy

In the spring of 1980, a book appeared called The Aquarian Conspiracy that put itself forward as a manifesto of the counterculture. Defining the counterculture as the conscious embracing of irrationality—from rock and drugs to biofeedback, meditation, “consciousness-raising,” yoga, mountain climbing, group therapy, and psychodrama. The Aquarian Conspiracy declares that it is now time for the 15 million Americans involved in the counterculture to join in bringing about a “radical change in the United States.”

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/aquarian.htm

Oh well, suit yourself. As the late lamented British comedian Frankie Howard would say.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:58 | #

Daniel - thanks for the info I’ll check it out when I have time. I make the odd typo so no worries.

Ivan - sorry mate all you really want is a little respect…and so we can live with peace in out hearts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS9OQbgmlIU

Bill - is it the Age of Aquarius?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0G8XJNz4bY

Or the Age of Little Miss Sunshine?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BtxhqfNnwY

Or the Age of Tin-Foil?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvacBPpYFw

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:01 | #

Bill, can I politely disagree with this theory of what it was about?

Think of Being as opposed to being drafted to go to Viet Nam?

Think of the fundamental organic motives of existence.

Those grounding the competent skills of daily routine - selfhood.

and social responsibility - the ubiquitous category of socialization

those perhaps fostering finer achievements - actualization.

All this stuff from the link that you provide…well I guess some of it touches on being…

but while being was the motive of the hippies, and quit rightly so, it is not enough. It does not mean that men should turn away from socialization, selfhood and actualization.

It only means that Being, as a topoi, provides an orientative framework on one important facet for White people - biological existence.

I am trying to disentangle it from trivializations such as that aquarian consiiracty type of brushing.

There was something profound about it by contrast to corporate/Zionist war. There is something important to ascribing intrinsic value to White men.

Heidegger did not consider Being a trivial matter and neither do I. Because it isn’t.

Suit yourself.

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:21 | #

...and more specifically still, about the Being of White males.

Non-trivial. But hard to manage and articulate in the face of what western expectations have become - particularly expectations of actualilzation, but also of socialization and selfhood.

Socialization for Whites must serve Whites - the White class.

Selfhood is the cultivation of an identificatin with venerable skills…competence and reliability thereof.

Posted by Circassian on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:43 | #

“AllseeingEye”, or arrogant Negro, perhaps a more apt moniker. Those is some ugly music links you posted - hideous.

A truth is still a truth, regardless who pointed it out. Isn’t that true Hymie?

daniel, daniel I, daniel II ... Multiple personality disorder - which is very common amongst Hymie’s tribe - that’s my professional diagnosis for Danny Ill’s medical condition.

Graham_Lust and Danny Ill’s asses need to be corked up as soon as possible, otherwise these two ass holes will drown us in a pile of steamy. I’ll keep providing this invaluable service for free to our British brothers.

Ivan: Ignis vitalis aestimo nobilitatem

Posted by daniel on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:57 | #

Ivan,

Your diagnostic skills are absent. You are a waste of time. You are calling me hymie? LOL.

I began calling myself Daniel2 because I noticed there was an earlier poster named Daniel, whose opinions I disagreed with strongly. It was also to distinguish myself from DanielJ

Does that explain it to you Circasshole?

You are supplying a service to nobody. You are the one shitting in the augean stables.

You are not necessary. here

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:12 | #

Ivan you’re the one attempting to divert all threads onto your preferred monomania with your banalities. People perhaps we need to stop feeding the troll? Yes I know that means me too!

He has nothing to contribute - he is neither intentionally funny nor remotely insightful.

Oh I’ve just seen on the news some ‘Black Britons’ have been jailed as they murdered someone because they thought he was a ‘witch’. For fucks sake I can’t stand this shit. Voodoo is both wrong and stupid. Does that make me ‘intolerant’?

Posted by Bill on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:25 | #

I’ve read somewhere mass third world immigration is happening in all white nations in the West.

I don’t possess a tin foil hat only my moped crash helmet, will that do?

How many of you on this thread were actually Hippies in the USA 1963 -1975?

Do you remember watching our ‘Enery flooring Cassius Clay on black and white tele. Ok I know ‘Enery got whupped with a cut eye, but the boy done good.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:34 | #

The hippie movement derived many of its ideas from English radicalism. The Haight-Ashbury Diggers took their name from Winstanley and the True Levellers who believed that the fruit of the common belonged to those who laboured upon it, and thus the name digger. William Blake was also of great influence, (free love) the same Blake whose mythology grew around his embrace of the golden age of England in his famous ‘And Did Those Feet In Ancient Time’. In other words, hippiedom was a 20th century embrace of an age old palingenetic ideology that aspired to a utopian view of pre-Conquest England.

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?

Posted by Circassian on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:38 | #

I began calling myself Daniel2 because I noticed there was an earlier poster named Daniel, whose opinions I disagreed with strongly. It was also to distinguish myself from DanielJ

That’s exactly my point: A person afflicted by this nasty mental condition does not realize that those different manifestations of his personality are all in one.

But don’t worry Danny Ill, there is one vacant private ward in my clinic right now, next to Thorn’s (Mr Murray the Astronaut spent his last few days there before he tragically ended his life). Don’t panic, I’ll take care of you.

Oh I’ve just seen on the news some ‘Black Britons’ have been jailed as they murdered someone because they thought he was a ‘witch’. For fucks sake I can’t stand this shit.

Dammit, the shit is still leaking from this ass hole. What about us Graham_Lust, we are drowned in it.

Ivan: Ignis vitalis aestimo nobilitatem

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:41 | #

@Bill

If I recall didn’t you recently post comments on Dan Dare’s thread on population about the ‘NWO’ conspiracy to ‘cull’ billions of people…kinda Icke territory don’t ya think?

And if you didn’t say that or it was someone else apologies.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:06 | #

OK Channel 4 - on now “Make Bradford British”...let’s see what this is about…oh good start we have some ‘diversity experts’ on screen.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:00 | #

Just lost another hours worth of reply.

It’s too late to start again, so to summerise, I’m looking for answers, (if there is such a thing) and there’s nowhere else for me to go but here, the Internet.

We are all parroting what we have read or learned and evaluated somewhere. All I can do is filter and evaluate what I have read (and hopefully understood.)

There are far too many occurrences on the Internet where diverse topics (some of which are discussed here) coincide and surprise in the most unexpected of places. I describe such convergences as pinging my radar.

The confirmation of similarities of such seemingly diverse topics are all too numerous not to be taken seriously.

None of us here have a direct red button line to the great call centre in the sky.

GL @ 26

Yes it was me on about reading that a huge cull of the population is in the NWO pipeline. This is just one more instance where this topic can be found in abundance. Icke is is just one of many.

The answer is I don’t know.

I’ve been looking on eBay for a tin foil hat, no success so far.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:21 | #

In Visions, Blake writes

Till she who burns with youth, and knows no fixed lot, is bound
In spells of law to one she loathes? and must she drag the chain
Of life in weary lust? (5.21-3, E49)

From Wiki:

In the early 20th century Pierre Berger described how Blake’s views echo that of Mary Wollstonecraft celebrating joyful authentic love rather than love born of duty,[65] the former being the true measure of purity…As a theological writer, Blake has a sense of human “fallenness”. S. Foster Damon has noted that for Blake the major impediments to a free love society were corrupt human nature, not merely the intolerance of society and the jealousy of men, but the inauthentic hypocritical nature of human communication.

Interesting that Blake rails against the State laws of marriage as being inauthentic impediments to the love found in the authentic human self. This, still, is vastly different from the Marcusian/Freudian notion that society is based upon the repression of instincts, in particular the sexual instinct, in order to channel energy to progress.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:07 | #

It’s unfortunate to conceptually reduce love to sexual relationships, let alone hedonistic ‘free love’. Aristotelian philia (φιλία) is a much broader concept - it includes loyalty to friends, family and community, and requires virtue, relative equality and familiarity. Aristotle takes philia to be both necessary as a means to happiness (“no one would choose to live without friends even if he had all the other goods”) and noble or fine (καλόν) in itself.

‘Do it in the road if it feels good’ is a rather different outlook.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:37 | #

Graham,

One of the hallmarks of liberal modernity is a kind of hyper-rationalism and rationalization, the progressive reduction of the life-world to quantifiable procedures and methods, but the Enlightenment project has disfigured our relationship to the non-human world and, in turn, has led to our own disfigurement.

Disfigurement no. But impoverished us and, thereby, estranged us inwardly in a certain sense. It must be understood that, being drawn from the world, that part of us which is temporalised and enculturated is never of us, and makes inauthenticity effortlessly and with its every breath. In speaking of being, therefore, we have to respect the word enough not to use it promiscuously. The acquired part of us does not know being:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/from_the_final_pages_of_heideggers_the_onto_theo_logical_constitution_of_me

So the step back is a gesture in the direction of a willed alteration of consciousness of a quality very different from that we know when we merely think about metaphysics. If it proceeds to a certain point ... if fracture “withdraws” ... an event of appropriation, a moment of self-possession, will occur, and do so in the nature of an unconcealment. The religionist may assert at this point that being itself, as the ground of identity, is giving or bestowing this wholly familiar and un-new identity ex nihilo. The faithless, however, would assert that the organism is merely functioning normally, and identity or consciousness or Dasein - however you want to angle your way into this - is in its proper relation to being-as-the-product-of-life. Take your pick, according to your constitution.

Whichever the “pick”, however, it sets two related tests for an ontology of nationalism. First, it is very evident that the truths of this moment of self-possession cannot be carried over directly into the collective life. One has to know how that will work (it will). Second, the being of the people, as collective phenomenon, cannot be understood as “racial character” or, indeed, anything descriptive. It can only be understood in and of itself, in the moment.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/daily_mail_talking_like_white_nationalists_or_at_least_paleoconservatives#c123963

Look beyond that, beyond the event itself, beyond the music and the red and white clothing of the Old Oss tradition, beyond the thought that these same people have been doing this each year all their lives, as their fathers and forefathers did. Look at the act of living of the people right there in the moment, unabashed and not at all immersed in the confection of the thing, but freed. There, if you can see, is the authentic identity, the unique racial subject being the same only as itself.

Posted by Silver on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:39 | #

In other words, hippiedom was a 20th century embrace of an age old palingenetic ideology that aspired to a utopian view of pre-Conquest England.

And yet somehow hippiedom took off among peoples that had nothing to do with pre-Conquest England.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:55 | #

Can I just point out that there are still communities of hippies still in existence today. I used to hang out with lots of them down in Cornwall and party and what not with them. They exist completely outside of ‘normal’ UK society and are as much as they can be self sufficient. The lifestyle they lead conforms to the issues discussed in this thread. They are doing it, living the dream as it were, under constant pressure from the state and society to conform. I don’t think you guys would be too impressed with their staggering levels of narcotics consumption, but the beauty is they couldn’t care less what you think, man.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 03:21 | #

The main community I knew lived just outside of a secluded village on the river Tamar called Calstock. They had ‘commandeered’ an unused field next to some woods. They lived in caravans. They got fresh water from a tap in a graveyard nearby. The community was approx 30 people in number which included three two parent family units, two single parent families and the rest, singles. They were all vegetarians and vegans and were growing as much of their own food as possible. They bartered their individual skills with each other and the local community, for example one was a brilliant self taught mechanic who would fix cars in exchange for whatever his families needs were. They were not materialistic consumers so these needs were far less than the average Briton. Their children did not go to school. They were given a more natural education in a curriculum chosen by the parents (this was not popular with the local authorities). They grew cannabis and had access to other narcotics through the underground hippie network. These, in part, were sold to local trusted drug users (a large % of the Calstock population, there’s not much to do in rural Cornwall) and this was their extra source of income that paid for anything they couldn’t produce themselves. They would self identify as hippies and all members of this community would trace their roots to the origins of the hippie movement, many being the offspring of some of the original 60’s hippies. As house prices in the area exploded and locals were forced out of the housing market, the ‘yuppies’ moved in. The ‘yuppies’ didn’t appreciate the hippies, the relationship with the local community broke down, and the hippies were forced to leave (in no small part because of objections and prejudice from the local church whose graveyard they were taking water from). The hippies in this community put the well being of their own community first and foremost. The men and women of the community carried out much more ‘traditional’, natural roles. The women were mothers and carers. The men were the providers. The children were all fit, strong, healthy and very well behaved. This model of existence is sustainable, even now. The period I refer to is between approx1998 to 2005.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 05:52 | #

If the Jew World Order get their way, and we are in the middle of WW3 before the years out, we may find that we are all living a more hippyish existence than we would otherwise choose. Not that it would necessarily be the end of the world. Just sayin’

Posted by Marlowe's Ghost on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:18 | #

One of the most gobsmacking, hilarious and horrifying looks at this period was the very recommended, “Message To Love - Isle of Wight Festival” documentary. Try this 5 minute intro clip as an example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt9BGhpF65I

Posted by Marlowe's Ghost on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:24 | #

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=84c_1283709001

Posted by daniel on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:34 | #

Posted by Bill on March 01, 2012, 03:25 PM | #

I’ve read somewhere mass third world immigration is happening in all white nations in the West.

I don’t possess a tin foil hat only my moped crash helmet, will that do?

We must continue to normalize White separatism and keep them out. There will be ways for them to die off.

How many of you on this thread were actually Hippies in the USA 1963 -1975?

I was child and adolescent in these times. But I watched my older brother (who went to Woodstock) and sister, a hippie/later a feminist. I enjoyed much of the aesthetics of the time. To me, it began dying very quickly when the Viet Nam war ended. I felt something important had been ignored. That is what got me to thinking about it.

Do you remember watching our ‘Enery flooring Cassius Clay on black and white tele. Ok I know ‘Enery got whupped with a cut eye, but the boy done good.

Well, I’ve watched the fight recently on youtube, and I’d say Henry did very well. That was a bonafide haymaker that knocked that loudmouthed negro on his bubble butt.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 01, 2012, 03:34 PM | #

William Blake was also of great influence, (free love)

Posted by Graham_Lister on March 01, 2012, 07:07 PM | #

It’s unfortunate to conceptually reduce love to sexual relationships, let alone hedonistic ‘free love’

There are two similar posts here by Desmond and Graham. They bring up an important matter for clarification. “Free Love” is not genuine part of the authentic hippie-freak motive. This was an affectation of Jewish radicalism and feminism imposed for its subversive and controlling effect.

I hypothesize that the genuine hippie movement was about Being for White males. Now, if the typical White male announces that he wants free love, it is not going to go over very successfully.

On the other hand, if women/feminists announce that they want free love, that might matter.

And Jews, like Marcuse, pandered to female control and manuplation of sex, using it to subvert White male Being.

Having to compete in a free for all for sex partners is not conducive to White male Being, especially if you give other races access to our women.

On the contrary.

Whie male Being requires that their be enclaves where absolute monogamy is upheld, institutionalized as a most sacred value.

That choice is necessary for there to be authentic choice and Being (being unharried, not incited to primitive competition)

Posted by Robert Reis on March 01, 2012, 05:37 PM | #

The truth about Detroit cannot be admitted without fatally undermining the founding principles that have guided the Left ever since the French Revolution: the unity of humanity, the inevitability of progress, the belief in human equality, the existence of “natural rights,” the social contract, the myth of the noble savage, the myth that man is “naturally” born good, liberal democracy as a magic elixir that fixes all ills, etc.

The whole house of cards would come crashing down.

Robert, there is not much I disagree with here. I was born in Newark, New Jersey. It had similar Negro riots as Detroit in the summer of 67 - talk about a tale of two cities (or three, as it were), contrast Newark, Detroit and San Francisco in the summer of 67 - and I was bussed to go to school with Negroes. So, I know what they are about and I would never advocate anything but separatism from them for Whites. Negroes are a nightmare. Whatever Uncle Toms or oreos that the Jewish media promotes, or that the neo traditional religious folks promote, are only all the more dangerous as they open the door for the vast and predictable pattern.

However, I must say that there is nothing in your list that I’m advocating in any of my discussions, not even this one, about hippies.

not the French Revolution

not the unity of humanity

not inevitable progress

not human equality - though I believe the notion of equality non-equality is a bad topoi (too absract, it says everything and nothing all at once - it does not demarcate qualitative differences which make a difference) which has led many people in the White struggle well astray, well off the mark. I talk about that at lenght elsewhere

not about the noble savage

not about the inborn good of all people

nor about liberal democracy as a panacea

If you want to see where the abuse of enlightenment ideas goes into overdrive, look toward the Jews and perhaps some Jew thinking plutocratic elite. That will have more explanatory effect

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:34 | #

The clip from the Isle of Wight festival had a character called ‘the Commander’ his speech and mannerisms immediately reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ezqpFWnfU

Track 4 at 11.03

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:43 | #

The critics often don’t have anything productive to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuiVFwgAkWk

Posted by daniel on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:45 | #

Except for Jimmy Henry* (LOL),

look at the people at the Isle of Wight Festival.

What do you see? An ocean of White people. Talk about implicit Whiteness.

* John Lee Hooker once dedicated as song to Jimmy Morrisson, Jimmy Joplin and Jimmy Henry

Desmond, I love that Blake poem, “Jerusalem.” The way it goes from paganism to Christianity from verse to verse is really cool.

ELP’s rendition of it is terrific. I love it even though I am not English and have never even been to the UK.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:57 | #

Derek and Clive discuss how television can influence the viewer. A Holocaust documentary, for example…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm8gxNXyIdM

Or in musical tastes…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcYNgBDb7QM

Posted by daniel on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:39 | #

Posted by Robert Reis on March 01, 2012, 05:37 PM | #

The truth about Detroit cannot be admitted without fatally undermining the founding principles that have guided the Left

Robert, this is another matter that has to be teased apart. Like the equality/non equality thing, White advocates are making a mistake in ascribing THE Left and in calling it the enemy (as opposed say, to Jewish and internationalist plutocrats)

Notice how when people criticize “The Left” they vacilate between calling it THE Left and calling it “liberalism” - because they are confused. What they are really against is liberalism - the allowing and forced tolerance of non Whites in our midst.

This is yet another Jewish trick - another term perverted, like so many others: multiculturalism is really monoculturalism, diversity is really integration and homogenization, tolerance is intolerance of White men, Civil Rights are a violation of freedom of association…

And what the Jews are calling and having White advocates call “the left” is really liberal imposition of non Whites and destructive values onto Whites

It is Not what a true White left would be - in truth, a White left would be a way to organize Whites as a social group. It would allow us to defend from abuse from above (jews an international plutocrats), from below (black biopower) and from outside - to defend ourselves as a union against non-Whites. The Jews obviousy do not want that.

When I speak of a Left it is The White Left - a left for Whites only. Moreover, it is proposed primarily as means of conceptualizing, classifying and organizing Whites as a social whole; it neither begins with nor focuses extremely on economics; it should have socialist and nationalist aspects, buy there could be plenty of room for free enterprise; only providing that it does not markedly transgress Whites and their habitats.

There are many advantages to a “leftist” perspective and many disadvantages to demonizing it - that is precisely the reason why Jews want us to identify as Rightists and to be pitted against the Leftist concern for social organization - that is the White Class.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:29 | #

@Daniel

Whenever I hear a middle-American rip on ‘the left’ like a dumb-ass I assume they are channelling Glenn Beck – as if the ultra dog-eat-dog world of Randian-Hayekian rampant individualism in the ‘free-market’ is the answer to all of the problems of both the individual and collective human existence. Such people obviously have never heard of ‘the scale of competition’ issue from evolutionary biology/ecology…and oh my collective agency or action is evil under all conditions and circumstances - don’t you know it’s anti-American! Communtarianism sounds like communism so it must be evil POMO J-lizard crap!!!!

Such people cannot be part of any serious discussion of the deep pathologies of Western societies under hyper-modernity; a socio-cultural order now founded completely upon liberal ontological commitments - which may well be in the slow process of destroying itself, but in getting to such a point is facilitating everyone’s ruin. More free-market idolatry and even more consumerist based ‘individualism’ - yes that’s the answer! But what on Earth is the question if that is your answer?

Personally at this stage of the game – right, left, green, whatever - I’m happy to at least engage with the thoughts of almost anyone that isn’t a liberal and isn’t a wannabe totalitarian idiot/scumbag. I’m not happy to repeat the non-thoughts of either left or right facing liberals. I’m not interested in a debate within liberalism - I want to critique the whole liberal project that now has ‘full spectrum dominance’.

Reis is one of those of the mindset (the Richards tendency) that think ‘liberalism’ was invented in 1968 by Jews and it is ‘diversity’ talk plus Bill Clinton or some such utterly superficial nonsense (nonsense both historically and philosophically).

Posted by daniel on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:44 | #

Posted by Graham_Lister on March 02, 2012, 07:29 AM | #

Sounds good, Graham. I can agree with that post.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:40 | #

AllSeeingEye @ 9.08 The average age of the commenters in this thread is 97 so to try and send them a message via the medium of hip hop is a complete waste of time. Get Immortal Technique to reproduce the lyrics with the backing of Beethovens 5th symphony, and you might be on to something. Yes the message in those tracks is, on the whole accurate, and important for all to know. But you’re preaching to the choir here son. To suggest that the folk on this page need to ‘wake up’, is evidently ridiculous. Can you not read?. Maybe you should go back to posting comments under random you tube clips.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:09 | #

I was in the supermarket today and the person in front of me had a copy of ‘Chat’ magazine amongst their items. I quickly scanned the cover – one story featured on the cover was about a young woman that murdered someone to get out of doing the washing-up and another was about a man with massively enlarged testicles.

The subtitle of ‘Chat’ is: Life! Death! Prizes! Quite pithy as a slogan. Can a society that is so banal possibly be saved? I have my doubts.

On other topics as a relatively young 77 year old (approximately) I did used to enjoy NWA in my ‘rebel phase’ (roughly when I was 50-ish). Gwyneth Paltrow is apparently also a fan of that group…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Oej7K469I

My tastes have changed considerably since ‘back in the day’.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 23:01 | #

G_L @ 5.09 LoL. Only messing G.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 02 Mar 2012 23:05 | #

The thought of GW popping to his local dealer and asking for a bag of his finest “cannibinoids” raised a chuckle too.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:50 | #

G_L @ 5.09 “Can a society that is so banal possibly be saved”. Thats why I wanted to make sure you were aware of the existence of the modern day hippies G_L. They are untouched by modern celebrity culture, they do not care for it, nor for many of the other glitter encrusted turds of modern life. And they are a much more peaceful, noble and grounded people for it. I’m sure you know this already, but these groups and others like them are out there, and thriving just fine. This is maybe a bigger thing in the Westcountry where there’s more opportunity to slip under big brothers ever watchful eye. These pockets of non conformity perhaps give an insight into who we were, and who we could be once again. Big argument currently raging in the Guardian re a proposal to privatize 3.5 billion worth of actual real police work in two large constabularies. Not being reported anywhere else. Thought this may be of interest. Goodnight young’un!.

Posted by Gregor on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 04:40 | #

Bill stated: “I’ve read somewhere mass third world immigration is happening in all white nations ...”

Hippies = mere word
Most of the other stuff in this thread = mere words.

What bill stated = more than mere words.

The result of what Bill stated = No more White People.

I would add “... is happening in ALL White nations, and ONLY White nations.”

That’s real, and not mere words.

Posted by Silver on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 05:31 | #

Whenever I hear a middle-American rip on ‘the left’ like a dumb-ass I assume they are channelling Glenn Beck – as if the ultra dog-eat-dog world of Randian-Hayekian rampant individualism in the ‘free-market’ is the answer to all of the problems of both the individual and collective human existence. Such people obviously have never heard of ‘the scale of competition’ issue from evolutionary biology/ecology…and oh my collective agency or action is evil under all conditions and circumstances - don’t you know it’s anti-American! Communtarianism sounds like communism so it must be evil POMO J-lizard crap!!!!

I think this is unfair. Often times they are right to rip ‘the left,’ as they understand it, meaning (the remnants of) the old style communistic left, which transmogrified into the 60s into cultural leftism (though its roots go back much earlier), and today pass itself off as ‘progressive,’ and which is collectively responsible for so much of the wreckage of the middle american world. They are wrong, however, to promote the Fox/Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity talking-points-reduction of jew-created neoconservatism as any serious sort of an alternative/response.

Personally at this stage of the game – right, left, green, whatever - I’m happy to at least engage with the thoughts of almost anyone that isn’t a liberal and isn’t a wannabe totalitarian idiot/scumbag. I’m not happy to repeat the non-thoughts of either left or right facing liberals. I’m not interested in a debate within liberalism - I want to critique the whole liberal project that now has ‘full spectrum dominance’.

Faire enough, but just how far do you want to go?

‘Liberalism’ to me can be summed up as:

- The primacy of reason
- The value of the individual
- The doctrine of equality

The doctrine of equality obviously has to go. People are demonstrably unequal and believing that they are (or even merely pretending to believe they are) has negative consequences. But are these consequences worse than the consequences of exaggerating the inequality between people or insisting that that exaggerated inequality is ‘natural’ (ie keeping serfs and slaves ‘in their place’)? I think in the long run they could well be, but in the short run I find it appalling that people who could not seriously hope to qualify as any sort of ‘elite’ sometimes seem to so gleefully participate in their own enslavement.

Individualism also needs to be pegged back, particularly when it insists that the individual is all that matters. Again, though, it’s a question of how far you want to go. Race is hugely meaningful to people, so the desire to assert ‘racial values’ against the assholes who deny them sometimes blinds people to the consequences of unbridled racial/national collectivism.

Btw, are you really 77?

Posted by HW on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 06:34 | #

Walter Russell Mead has been writing about liberalism at The American Interest.

In his view, the American Left is the champion of what he calls “the blue social model” and subscribes to liberalism 4.1. OTOH, the American Right never embraced the New Deal’s “blue social model” and clings to the liberalism 3.0 that was predominant from the 1870s to the 1920s.

There really isn’t a Left and Right in the United States. Just the modern version of liberalism finding itself at odds with the archaic version. It is two groups of liberals arguing over whether liberty or equality should be the dominant liberal value.

Mead is trying to sketch out “liberalism 5.0.” He can at least be given credit for understanding there is no such thing as a conservative movement or a political right in the United States. There is no political position outside of the liberal tradition within the mainstream.

A real attack on liberalism would entail the rejection of its guiding values - liberty, equality, and tolerance - and a demolition of the natural rights ideology that has evolved into “human rights.” It would also require an attack on the assumptions like the social contract, “original position,” and the myth of the noble savage.

Posted by HW on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 06:48 | #

The Left is not synonymous with Jews.

It is just an example of Jews exploiting a weakness within Western culture and throwing their energy behind supporting its worst tendencies because it works to their advantage.

I suggest a month or two spent studying the Haitian Revolution in Saint-Domingue and how the French abolished slavery across their empire and made all the blacks into French citizens. This can be followed with a study of Wilberforce and the moralizing fools who abolished slavery in the British West Indies.

Then move forward to John Brown and the War Between the States. The ball had been rolling for quite sometime like a virus before it weakened Europeans to the point where Jews began have a greater and greater impact upon our culture and political system.

Jewish power is an effect, not a cause. It is a symptom of the preexisting disease of liberal democracy which created an environment in which groups like Jews thrive.

Posted by HW on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 06:52 | #

Yankee Doodle goes around the world spreading liberal democracy.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:53 | #

Posted by Gregor on March 02, 2012, 11:40 PM | #

Bill stated: “I’ve read somewhere mass third world immigration is happening in all white nations ...”

Hippies = mere word
Most of the other stuff in this thread = mere words.

What bill stated = more than mere words.

The result of what Bill stated = No more White People.

I would add “... is happening in ALL White nations, and ONLY White nations.”

That’s real, and not mere words.

Gregor, what you say here is not true. “Hippies” and the word hippie are not importan per se. But what their motive about was crucially importan and dirctly related to Bill’s concern. Their motive was Being - that is, existence, survival, thriving - for White men.

It is not hippies that were importan, it was their motive for Being - White male Being, existence, that was important.

None of that matters or exists in any meaningful way outside of Socialization - which means our relation to other White people. If a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, it may as well not make a noise for all it matters to us.

Socialization for Whites is a conern for the survival and defense of Whites - our culture, the cultivated turn to not go beyong but to feedback qualitatively to our White people

Selfhood is about competence and responsability

Actualization is the achievement to which most of us aspire but which has been destructively overvalued, beyond our socialization, selfhood and being as Whites. So that is why we talk about these things.

Are you beginning to understand why these are not trivial matters, Gregor?

Please do not try to make these issues seem trivial again. It is crucially important.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:02 | #

Posted by daniel on March 03, 2012, 04:53 AM | #

Posted by Gregor on March 02, 2012, 11:40 PM | #

Bill stated: “I’ve read somewhere mass third world immigration is happening in all white nations ...”

Hippies = mere word
Most of the other stuff in this thread = mere words.

What bill stated = more than mere words.

The result of what Bill stated = No more White People.

I would add “... is happening in ALL White nations, and ONLY White nations.”

That’s real, and not mere words.

Gregor, what you say here is not true. “Hippies” and the word hippie are not important per se. But what their motive was about was crucially important and directly related to Bill’s concern. Their motive was Being - that is, existence, survival, thriving - for White men.

It is not hippies that were important, it was their motive for Being - White male Being, existence, that was important. They had a legitimate, real vital purpose and you are not helping by trying to trivialize it.

None of it matters or exists in any meaningful way outside of Socialization - which means our relation to other White people. If a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, then it may as well not make a noise for all it matters to us.

Socialization for Whites is a conern for the survival and defense of Whites - our culture, the cultivated turn to not go beyond our people, our White class, but to feedback qualitatively to our White people

Selfhood is about competence and responsability

Are you beginning to understand why these are not trivial matters, Gregor?

Please do not try to make these issues seem trivial again. They are crucially important.

Another thing - Jews, (Jewish) Feminists and neo cons want to blame hippies as a diversion from the legitimate hippie motive which was the intrinsic value of White male existence. Get it? It’s important man! Stop buyining into this disingenuous feminist/neocon woman stuff

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:12 | #

@Silver

I would not concede reason to liberals – not for one second – what is alternative the banalities of the ‘esoteric’ and other form of unreason? All our use of reason or rationality is a bounded one. Its boundary conditions are set by our values, assumptions, our ‘models’ of individuality etc., against which our reason and judgemental rationality is employed. For example, hedonism and utilitarian ideas of happiness are different from Greek ideas like eudaimonia. Different starting points can result in quite different ideas as to how and what one understands to be the ‘shape’ of a good life etc.

Secondly you are right that people can ‘over-react’ to liberalism and then move into hyper-reactionary bullshit because, a frankly psychopathic position (let’s have a massive killing spree and some mystical ‘rebirth’ as a result etc.) is easy and expressively satisfying (especially for marginal personality types), but a subtle, sane and sustainable critique of liberalism is genuinely hard-work – it’s not a tradition of thought that our putative ‘5 year old’ can take to pieces in 5 minutes – if liberalism was really that dumb it would not have been quite so successful, both practically and ideologically, unless the European intelligentsia (Locke, Hobbes, Kant et al,) are deemed to be incapable of serious thought – obviously that’s not the case I would suggest.

Next is to acknowledge that liberalism arose for very good historical reasons and we do have to keep what is best in that tradition – intellectual freedom etc., - while absolutely being as searching and penetrating in pointing out its massive failings, blind-spots and distortions – moreover why it cannot be the exclusively foundational building block to a sustainable and healthy social order. And you’re right again about people ripping on equality as an idea with staggeringly unintelligent comments. The Hunter Wallace piece that prompted this turn in our comments (in this thread) is incredibly stupid in many ways. Does Wallace think he is one of those many internet Nietzschean ‘supermen’ that ‘naturally’ are at the top of the tree of human excellence? So if Wallace was, in the manner of the show “Quantum Leap”, placed into a very nasty authoritarian society, and then was in the position of someone facing a firing squad and moreover was told he was being eliminated because ‘the powers that be’ deemed him unworthy and unequal scum – what do you think his response might be? Talk of how unfair that was, demanding his natural rights etc.,? The commander of the shooting squad tells Wallace ‘might is right’ and that power and inequality are natural and go hand in hand, so really what’s his beef? They have the power he doesn’t - it’s an inequality but as a hater of all possible conceptions of equality Mr. Wallace cannot legitimately or coherently complain. I guess Mr. Wallace also thinks the idea of a intra and inter-generational, intra-communal ‘moral economy’ to be the height of insanity? May I suggest Mr. Wallace has no real idea what he is talking about.

Again it’s equality or relative equality of what, for whom, under what conditions, etc. Just a blank ‘inequality is natural and hence good’ stance is really question begging in the extreme. Is Aristotelian philia crypto-communism to these people? Then again we are dealing with people that think Denmark is a ‘socialist hell-hole’ – try North Korea for the real deal perhaps - so how can one enter into a reasonable discussion with such ignorant people?

On the Denmark point they seem to ape Charles Murray and his stance of ‘blank incomprehension’ at why little Denmark (irreligious and prosperous Denmark) can out-perform the USA in many quality of life issues, levels of happiness, less social-pathologies etc. Never let mere empirical facts get in the way – USA no.1 rah rah rah, yes? OK USA minus the blacks etc., (just how is that going to happen?) would obviously counter-factually be no.1 rah rah rah, yes? Oh my what a profound set of insights into the world Mr. Wallace and his ilk have! But wait all those social pathologies etc., also are increasingly found in white America too – even if not to quite to the same extent as in say the black community. Still no need to worry everyone wants to be an American – Homo americanus is the ‘radiant vision’ that all the world naturally embraces – only the wilfully evil would not – remember such spiteful creatures ‘hate’ America because they hate your ‘freedom’, yes?

Personally I can’t for the life of me wonder why anyone wouldn’t want to live in nation that ranks around the mid 30s in the infant mortality league (taking the nation with the lowest rate of infant mortality to be number 1 and so on) despite the USA spending over 16% of its GDP on healthcare (not terribly efficient spending it seems in terms of health outcomes – how much profit does the US healthcare industry make again?) - being out-performed on this infant mortality metric by societal mega-powers like Bermuda; or that the USA has appalling average levels of numeracy and literacy in its school-age population despite being the number 1 nation – yes the sweet taste of American freedom is wonderful to behold. Oh and those stats are from sources such as the ‘left-wing’ CIA world-facts handbook. I’m not saying the UK is really any better, as our public life and political non-debates closely resembles the USA, in part because of the lack of a linguistic barrier and, among the British political class, an unhealthy obsession with all things American to the exclusion of all over possible examples of how to do or arrange things. Switzerland and other nonentities are obviously ‘shitholes’ that can be safely ignored with ‘blank incomprehension’ in public policy matters on both sides of the Anglo-American world.

But one might contra ‘blank incomprehension’ even start to ask what is the statistical relationship, if any, between a proxy for ideological, social and economic ‘individualism’ (and the intra-societal ‘scale of competition’) such as Gini coefficients, and intra-societal homogeneity and resistance to multi-culturalism/mass immigration – but again let’s not try to get too empirical. After all mere facts can be so unsettling at times, especially for Americans – much of public discourse in the Republic being a fact-free charade of ‘debate’.

And for the record I’m not quite 77. More like born very approximately around 1977. I was joking around with the idea that everyone here is a 90+ coffin dodger.

@GW

It’s one thing to say the Cartesian mind/body dichotomy is meaningless – almost everyone does that these days – it’s quite another to actually try to figure out what the world would be like if this deflationary stance were really true. In the modern West we see ourselves as thinking subjects, defined by our conscious thought, autonomous and separate from each other and the world we survey, making our various choices in a solitary way, but research in neuroscience and cognitive science hints that this picture is false. We think with our bodies, in interaction with others, and our thoughts are never completed. Take a look at “The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding” and “From Being to Doing: The Origins of the Biology of Cognition” - they are both available on Amazon – yes a bit out of date, but brimming with fascinating ideas and for a general audience. There is also “Looking for Spinoza” and/or “Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain”. And as I have mentioned before there is the left-field contribution “Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?” which oddly for a theological argument offers an entirely physicalist but non-reductionist account of the human personhood and the human subject. Kinda interesting in its own way, if you can ignore the rubbish about bodily resurrections etc.

One manifestation of our dependency upon others is in the happiness of those we care for – a normal consequence of our tacit understanding that others are woven together with ourselves, which is neither theoretical nor an exercise in imaginative identification but a direct affective reality as neuroscientists are now discovering. The physical toll (stress hormones and associated neuro-physiological effects) of living with another’s disapproval is undeniable, and so is the euphoria seeing ourselves ‘reflected’ in the approving eyes of a lover. This resonance is strongest and most profound in the splendid amalgam of a loving relationship, but it’s present in all bodily grounded, real-world relationships to some degree (cyberspace is another matter). As Mencius argued, to be fully human is – in part – to experience a spontaneous impulse of sympathy for a child in danger. We suffer and rejoice with others and they with us. It is an odd kind of ethics that ignores such things – Western philosophy seems to have lost something when the Scottish school of moral sentiments fell into disrepute.

The self is not some fixed monolithic invariant ‘substance’ with access to a ‘view from nowhere’ but is relational both to itself (as a multifaceted entity) and to other selfs – the whole ‘you never stand in the precisely the same river twice’. The idea of a pure authenticity is perhaps another dangerous illusion but that one, in and through relationships with others, may live a more authentic life, a more rewarding and meaningful life doesn’t seem indefensible. After what does Dostoevsky think hell is? “What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.” If we really were the ‘unencumbered self’ of liberal fiction could we really love anyone other than ourself in narcissistic isolation?

In a way the idea of a free-floating individual – all blank slate, volitional will and Robinson Crusoe like in splendid isolation, is the crude analytic dissection of the human subject that liberal theory assumes captures everything of interest and value in the human subject.

However, many strains within both science and philosophy which militate against the simple-mined liberal ‘aggregated-facts/properties etc.’ perspective on the social world. Both the late Wittgenstein and continental phenomenologists opposed such claims, the former with the concept of cohesive ‘forms of life’, without which propositional knowledge could not have meaning (nullifying silly notions of totally free-floating ‘idea memes’ in any simple sense); the latter invoking the ‘world-hood’ in terms of which historical existence is experienced and understood. Think of these contrasts when someone unproblematically uses ‘a hammer’ as an example of an autonomous cultural atom (or meme) to be observed among others. The first division of Heidegger’s “Being and Time” famously uses the example of the hammer to make the opposite point: a hammer is zuhanden, ‘ready-at-hand’, always already apprehended in its meaningful (functional and expressive) relations to projects, expectations and involvements in a social totality, and thus incomprehensible - as a hammer - in abstraction from this relational totality. Equally would a genuine Robinson Crusoe ‘self’ be comprehesible in the abstract outside of a nexus of a relational totality to other selfs? No because the liberal Robinson Crusoe ‘model of the self’ is a dangerous half-truth at best. But when a misunderstood half-truth becomes ‘the truth’ and ‘the model’ for self-understanding we enter very choppy waters indeed.

@Daniel

I like ‘the cut of your jib’ as we say here. There is at least a broad shape to a meaningful life, and a sustainable collective life – it doesn’t including killing innocent people in Vietnam or Iraq for the interests of mainly Jewish (and other various assorted scumbags and shabbos goy) neo-cons. Christopher Hitches wrote a wonderful polemic on why Henry Kissinger – typical of the type - is a war-criminal. It is well worth reading.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/1859843980

And for balance here is his scathing take on ‘slick Willie’ aka “No One Left to Lie to: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton”

http://www.amazon.co.uk/One-Left-Lie-Triangulations-Jefferson/dp/1859842844/ref=pd_sim_b_2/275-8342331-3724523

Unfortunately Hitchens was, in a way, a victim of radical Islam – well thinking about it precipitated his own mental degradation into cliché and non-thought towards then end of his life. Religious ideas per se seemed to provoke the worst in his character – as if Quakerism, Voodoo and radical Islam are all the same thing in terms of their precise particulars and specific effects upon lived-experience and society.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:21 | #

Sorry if any typographical etc., errors are in my last comment as I didn’t read over it twice, but hopefully the main thrust of what I’m saying is clear enough. And I’m off to enjoy Saturday now, so catch you all later.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:24 | #

Just a quickie before I am busy with other matters - I glanced at my bookcases and this came to my eye:

“Persons in Relation” by John Macmurray

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Persons-Relation-John-Macmurray/dp/1573926256/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_7

I skimmed these as a first year undergraduate but Macmurray’s ideas might be worth a second look.

From his wiki page

The main themes in Macmurray’s philosophy are the primacy in human life of action over theory, and the essentially relational nature of human beings. These themes are the basis for his Gifford Lectures delivered in 1952 and 1954 at the University of Glasgow, and entitled ‘The Self as Agent’ and ‘Persons in Relation’ respectively. The overall title given to the two lecture series was ‘The Form of the Personal’. Macmurray summed up his philosophy in the introduction to ‘The Self as Agent’: “The simplest expression that I can find for the thesis I have tried to maintain is this: All meaningful knowledge is for the sake of action, and all meaningful action for the sake of friendship”.

Macmurray rejected mind-body dualism and argued that the nature of human beings is personal, rather than mechanical or organic. He argued for the importance of emotion as motivating action, and looked to infancy and early childhood for evidence of the universal desire for relationship. He distinguished between society and community, with society being for organizations to achieve particular purposes, while community is an end in itself.

In dismissing the Cogito and its legacy of the primacy of thought over action Macmurray saw himself as breaking with the Western philosophical tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Macmurray

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:59 | #

If taken seriously this is something of an epochal shift in our ontological self-conceptualization to say nothing for our economic, cultural and social modalities. We are ‘divine’ not because we are made in the image of a rational ‘God’ but because the ‘divine’ exists at that moment when Being knows itself - touches itself – and hears its own ‘song’. In replacing the onto-theological story with one of an onto-poetic story of immanence might we affect the re-enchantment of the natural world and in turn of ourselves – the revelation that we are worthy of life-sustaining love. Existentially and ontologically this striving of being-in-the-world towards a fullness of being, a striving manifested in the perpetual ethical dialectic between autonomy and solidarity, self and others is wrongly identified as the ‘will to power’ in Nietzsche’s pseudo-naturalistic ontology, but in reality is ground in love. The objective is to defend this Philia and with it the life-principle, from every social deformation rooted in thantos, the death drive or will to nothingness. The defense of Being understood as not Absolute but as this being-in-the-world, this brute animal existence is not merely affirmation of the wonder of sensuous being. It is a vigorous ethic and passionate politics to defend our life-world. Today is the fight for life, the fight for a properly formulated love of ourselves and our histories, our cultures, our collective survival and flourishing. Is this not the political fight?(Lister)

A lot of interesting stuff. I wish I had more time to engage it.

1. Could you possibly state the above more simply?

2. What - in simple terms - does all this interesting critique of liberal selfhood have to do with the political problems of nationalism? I’d like to know where you’re trying to get to with this approach to the race problem. I have certain suspicions in that regard, but I’d like to hear from you.

Indeed, I’d like to know why you think a critique of modern race-liberalism from within classical liberalism is inadequate (I mean philosophically; as you’ve alleged implicitly, and as I’ve pointed out explicitly, in the US your approach to arguing against racial PC would get you nothing, and not merely because it might be too intellectually complex for most: it is simply too alien as well). I happen to disagree, as I suspect HW would, too. Some systems are purely dysfunctional (eg, the Aztec sacrificial system, communism - a different form of human sacrifice); others are objectionable on strictly moral grounds (Nazism, Islamism, Idi Amin’s cannibalism - in addition to Aztecism and Sovietism). But classical liberalism, at least from a Christian moral standpoint, is not obviously evil. And under its broad aegis arose the mightiest, freest, and for a time even wealthiest nation of all - so clearly, “empirically”, it can work (and please don’t fool yourself, Graham: no, America would hardly be perfect sans nonwhites, but that fact does not obviate the contention that most of our degeneracy is due, directly or indirectly, to the nonwhite presence; America without nonwhites, even if it included those dreaded Jews, would be a very, very powerful and desirable country).

3. This type of deep critique of the Western crisis is all very interesting, and obviously the purpose of a metapolitical nationalist website. But of what practical use is it? Wouldn’t it be more useful to argue from within than without a majoritarian ideological tradition, esp insofar as we both inhabit democracies?

4. Your reference to irreligious Denmark obviously does not negate Murray’s broader point. Do you see that, or disagree?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 14:57 | #

Graham

I understand the authentic as that which possess itself and manifests as presence, or consciousness of being - perfectly detached from thoughts, feelings or movements, ie, those processes of the mind/body that are cognitive in origin. It is fixed and it is singular.

Now, it’s OK if that doesn’t mean anything at all today to the reader, and it’s OK if neuroscientists rush out stupid assertions about it. One cannot expect the generality of people, educated or not, to know that “authenticity” refers to a very particular event that is quite difficult to replicate and quite distinct from ordinary experience, and which has theoretical value to a nationalist ontology in precisely the same way that the unfettered will does to liberalism. The ideational/ideological struggle, meanwhile, manifests on the field of struggle which is the human personality, and the (inauthentic) subject therein is, of course, as you describe.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:45 | #

Leon Haller Said

What - in simple terms - does all this interesting critique of liberal selfhood have to do with the political problems of nationalism? I’d like to know where you’re trying to get to with this approach to the race problem.

I deal with selfhood and its place in White nationalism in this article:

http://reasonradionetwork.com/20110812/white-individuation-and-gender-agendas-an-incommensurate-intersection

and with a critque of liberalism in some of my other articles there at VoR

GW: my understanding of “authenticity” in the literature shows that it corresponds not only with guidance by the lights of one’s own endogenous interests, but also a freedom from acting on them impulsively - that is, one has a protracted sense of the full social systemic pattern of which one is a part; that allows one to act when the time is right and in proper interaction with the social whole.

For example, that is why a Karl Jaspers might say “there is no possibility for authenticity in Darwinism.”

I don’t know how the social can be parceled out of philosophy or a notion of authenticity; the social would seem integral to our struggle on behalf of Whites, right from the onset.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:25 | #

Desmond Jones:

I see classification of Whites as one means of transcending sexual jealousy - it helped me anyway, seeing Whites as my brothers and sisters; teamwork. When another is looked upon as being on one’s side you want them and ladies to be happy - within reason, of course.

But it is conservatism of the class, its bound, wich enables this bit of liberalism within the class.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:40 | #

Desmond Jones,

I should add that I do not doubt what you say about William Blake’s influence on Hippies.

I am just trying to parcel out a topoi of White male Being in the times, which in my estimation, does not correspond with free love.

It has been brought to my attention that Tolkien was another influence on hippie times.

To this remark of mine:

I should also add that we, as Whites, object, or should object, to our inventions, jobs and production being sent abroad to slave labor nations. That is also a White Left objection.

Posted by HW on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:52 | #

Graham,

1.) I actually don’t recall ever claiming to be a “Nietzschean superman.” Perhaps you are confusing me with some of your MR commentators like Captainchaos.

2.) Historically speaking, I don’t recall American colonists being arbitrarily murdered by firing squads before the Enlightenment and American Revolution, but it is true that many people lost their lives in that gruesome way during The Terror in the French Revolution, as well as elsewhere in Europe where they were executed for being “counterrevolutionaries.”

3.) The fate of the Whites of San-Domingo is the most spectacular example of the application of European liberalism to a North American context. I can think of many other examples in Africa: Rhodesia, the Belgian Congo, Algeria, Rwanda and other places where liberal democracy triumphed and produced a similar result.

4.) I would say that the modern UK, France, and the Netherlands where this disease first came have reached the heights of insanity. They have followed the principles of “liberty” and “equality” to their logical conclusion.

5.) Objectively, the removal of blacks and Hispanics from the United States (or any other Western country) would raise America in OECD international comparisons, as blacks and Hispanics are included in things like the poverty rate, the incarceration rate, access to healthcare, and so on.

6.) I don’t recall ever saying that “Americanism” should be exported across the world. “America” is nothing but a laboratory for the worst ideas of Europe: liberalism, capitalism, evangelical Christianity, Marxism, “postmodernism,” political correctness, “anti-racism,” “anti-fascism,” etc.

7.) If anything is true, the decline of the White working class in the UK is probably worse than it is here in the United States.

8.) The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is higher than it is in Cuba because ... hmm, I don’t know ... maybe because prenatal care here is better and more babies that would have died in the womb are born and their deaths are recorded in statistics?

9.) What do those stats look like when blacks are Hispanics are subtracted from the American ranking in the OECD comparison?

10.) The difference between the UK and the U.S. on immigration and multiculturalism is that the UK is a small country and will be overwhelmed by immigrants much faster than Americans who can simply pack their bags and leave Los Angeles and move to Boise or Helena or the next Whitopia.

Here in the United States, you can also criticize blacks and make politically incorrect comments. In the UK, you are prosecuted for criticizing Islam like Nick Griffin. In Canada, you can be prosecuted by the “Human Rights Commission.” In Australia, there are similar laws against “hate speech” and it is worse in Germany and Sweden than anywhere in the West.

When Americans contemplate going into exile somewhere, the UK and Canada don’t come to mind as alternatives because multiculturalism and “anti-racism” are stronger there than they are here.

Posted by HW on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:50 | #

After four centuries of philosophy, the British have managed to talk themselves into their present condition in the UK. I think that says a lot about the value of their great ideas.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 04 Mar 2012 05:00 | #

As the English tell it themselves in this thread Anglo-Saxonism culminates not in Panzers rolling out to destroy Judeo-Bolshevism but in a lot of pathetic faggotry (poems that inspire hippies, and so forth).

Yawn.

After four centuries of philosophy, the British have managed to talk themselves into their present condition in the UK. I think that says a lot about the value of their great ideas.

That’s right, fuck Anglo-Saxonism.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:53 | #

When Americans contemplate going into exile somewhere, the UK and Canada don’t come to mind as alternatives because multiculturalism and “anti-racism” are stronger there than they are here.

Why is that the case? It’s because US founders like Thomas Jefferson, a son of Virginia, embraced the discourse of English radicalsim, whereas Canada and the Uk did not.

Paine:

“It is very well known that in England (and the same will be found in other countries), the great landed estates now held in descent were plundered from the quiet inhabitants at the Conquest. The possibility did not exist of acquiring such estates honestly. If it be asked how they could have been acquired, no answer but that of robbery can be given. That they were not acquired by trade, by commerce, by manufactures, by agriculture, or by any reputable employment, is certain.”

The remedy was a private-property order based on equal liberty:

“As property, honestly obtained, is best secured by an equality of rights, so ill-gotten property depends for protection on a monopoly of rights. He who has robbed another of his property, will next endeavor to disarm him of his rights, to secure that property; for when the robber becomes the legislator he believes himself secure.”

The US was birthed from the womb of English radicalism (yes, even Southern “States Rights” owe its foundation to this palingenetic ideology, this myth of rebirth of a utopian pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxon England).

However, this ‘origin’ bears no resemblance to modern day American ‘liberalism’. In modern day America, as elswhere in the Anglosphere, the great landed estates now held in descent were plundered from the quiet inhabitants by a new breed of aristocratic sychophants.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 04 Mar 2012 10:06 | #

pathetic faggotry

Unlike the Nazi version, that grew from the homo-erotic myth of the trenches, during WWI, where beautiful young men, from a superior homosexual warrior aristocracy were idolized by the ‘faggots’ in the SA, no doubt Blake’s search for authentic love would have been viewd as that of an “hysterical women”. Interesting that Rohm, like Blake, railed against the State laws opposing homosexuality as being inauthentic impediments to the love found in the authentic human self.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 Mar 2012 10:38 | #

I see you have discovered a new toy.

By your reading, Desmond, all socialism is palingenetic in character, since the optimum arrangement for social investment is the tribe and the tribe in Europe has been replaced by the nation.

You are stretching a point as if you need to redeem palingeneticism for your own purposes, whatever they may be. Of course, you will take issue with that, But, as an Englishman, I do not see rebirth at work in the equalitarian impulse of liberal England. I see the will to liberty processed in negative terms.

Here, by the way, is the same sentiment from Paine which you quoted, but expressed in religious terms:

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Are we to conclude that, actually, Paine is agitating here for the rebirth of the righteous faith of pre-Christian England? Nope, he’s just inveighing against faith vehicles. Apparently a common trait among us Lewesians. Check it out.

Paine was one of those troublemaking types that were well ignored in England. But his radicalism was well attuned to the colonies. Here is something I could almost love the man for: “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

Posted by daniel on Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:05 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on March 04, 2012, 12:00 AM | #

As the English tell it themselves in this thread Anglo-Saxonism culminates not in Panzers rolling out to destroy Judeo-Bolshevism but in a lot of pathetic faggotry (poems that inspire hippies, and so forth).

Yawn.

After four centuries of philosophy, the British have managed to talk themselves into their present condition in the UK. I think that says a lot about the value of their great ideas.

That’s right, fuck Anglo-Saxonism.

Captainchaos, I have tended to like your posts and thus am reluctant to disagree with you, but in this post, I do disagree on a few points.

1. First, I am sorry that you insist on ignoring my point about hippies, that there was an important motive there, which is connected with White male suvival and defense. Rather, White men who resist are a convenient target for Jews, Feminists, neo-cons and your generally ignorant truck driver types, who think they are cutting to the quick, but who are really plowing over crucial distinctions: I know the type, because my father was one - and he was doing no service to the race with his “no nonsense” stance.

2. Panzers rolling over to destroy Judeo-Bolshevism, for example. This ignores the fact that Pilsudski and co had already successfully defeated the Bolshevik’s at Warsaw, Bosheviks who were on their way to destroy Berlin. That they, the Poles, were a natural enemy to The Soviets, would and did fight them tooth and nail, very effectively at that. Thus, in theory, for the sake of Whites, The Germans and Poles could have been allied agaisnt Jewish interests.

But not only the Germans and Poles.

The Germans could have been allied with the Belarusians, who hated the Judeo-Soviets perhaps more than anybody; fought and died by the millions fighting them. This was another failed alliance, that could have been.

Same with the Ukrainians.

Probably the same for Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Slovakians, smaller groups in that area, such as Boynks and Lemke’s, etc as well as Hungarians, and more.

Thus, I do not look upon an admiration of Uncle Adolf and his Panzers (which did not really blitzkrieg, but rather came in after surpise bombigns); which did not go against Polish cavalry (Nazi propaganda footage); etc.

Rather, I look upon this as truck driver style “cutting to quick”. i.e., ignoring hugely important distinctions as if they are “all nonsense”

I should add finally, that I am not a pacifist. And a I do not believe that the motive of Being is pacifist. It is, as Heidegger says, a verb. It requires instantiation of borders for Whites.

However, it is not about putting White men at risk for Judeo and corporat/industrial complex campaigns in foreign lands, unrelated to the vital interests of White men.

Graham Lister was reading more symapthy in my motives than was really there. While it is true that I do not see the point in going to kill Viet Namese and Iraquis, my concern is more that I do not want to risk White men for such irrelevance to them, the evil motives of elite Jews and neo cons. etc.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 04, 2012, 04:53 AM | #

If it be asked how they could have been acquired, no answer but that of robbery can be given. That they were not acquired by trade, by commerce, by manufactures, by agriculture, or by any reputable employment, is certain.”

Taking for granted private property ownership so much as I do, I almost always forget to say that I advocate private property ownership when I try to propose a “White Left” position. I think Bowery et. al have a good position in that once private property ownership goes past a certain point, it should be taxed for the sake of distributism or perhaps better, I would say, for jobs such as manning the borders against non-Whites

Graham Lister and GW

I have learned something from you in this thread and your peripheral discussions:

That is, that I have been somewhat snobbish toward the notion of “ontology”. Not that many of my concerns would not have an ontological type concern, it is just that I have tended to de-emphasize that in order to not go to that end of the Cartesian extreme.

When I speak of Being, that certainly would be ontological. I have coined the term “corpisocial’ in an effort to bridge the Cartesian gap between the authentic biological self and its social correspondence.

However, you are right, there is a more authentic self, cybernetic, systemic patterns within the corporeal self which can guid ones motives. Which should point to the interests of a White man as opposed to the imposed Jewish and other non-White interests. Point well taken. I have acknowldegeed this in discussions of the profundity of our biolgocal evolution, not to be ignored - as Nietzsche might say, our bodies, evolved over tens of thousands of years are bound to be more wise than our conscious selves…

But yes, you cause me to realize that I have tended to be a bit of a snob toward ontology, finding it rigid.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:56 | #

I see the will to liberty processed in negative terms.

What hinders a man from doing what he hath the will to do? Conquest? The will to liberty must exist in all mankind, however, English radicalism was only found in England and its offshoots.

Are we to conclude that, actually, Paine is agitating here for the rebirth of the righteous faith of pre-Christian England?

How does one disprove the other? Is it impossible for the man to hold both positions? Is it not possible to inveigh against religious vehicles and also feel that an honest man was robbed of his property? Does all socialism arise from a discourse of racial struggle?

Posted by daniel on Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:57 | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 04, 2012, 01:56 PM | #

Hello Desmond,

Sublime English, as are your matters of consideration. I feel privileged to reflect on what you say.

I see the will to liberty processed in negative terms.

It makes sense to me, but I hesitate to offer more prior to contexting information.

What hinders a man from doing what he hath the will to do? Conquest?

One thing that I can offer with fair confidence, based on my own experience would be social disapproval, especially of those most closely related. Perhaps that is not a revelation, but it is important to keep an eye on the social, with remedial attention for individualistic peoples, such as the English.

The will to liberty must exist in all mankind, however, English radicalism was only found in England and its offshoots.

My experience tells me that is pretty much true.

But I guess that some would equate that to a broader group, consider it fairly synonymous with Nordicism or Germanics. True, there would be a valid contention that Germans think more collectively.

The differences between English and Germans are interesting. As are all the diffrences between Europeans. I enjoy the variety and I hope that other people do as well. I believe that enjoyment is related to important human ecological disbursement, however. Not merely a pleasure, as beauty is semiotic of health and more.

English people, culture, language, architecture, land etc are wonerful - I have always admired them. I cannot imagine not fighting for them. Perhaps their liberty need not be expressed in negative terms of snobbery, but rather of separatism.

With that, being half Polish, I would like to express regret that your country is indundated by Poles. I wish it were not so, but not only for English people and culture, but also for Poles and Poland.

Are we to conclude that, actually, Paine is agitating here for the rebirth of the righteous faith of pre-Christian England?

I would hope that he would well, not agitate, but advocate an English category of the 14 Words. That may sound trite, but the words serve as the central core of a new religious function for me - I hope and believe they can for others as well.

They are forward looking yet practical, palpable,yet transcendent: their transcendence is one of their crucial religious functions. Lets face it, most White people, I’m sure English too, are not very good, or have aspects about them which are extremely hard to tolerate. Reverence for the 14 words allows for transcendence of flawed individuals and aspects of our peoples. In moving our concern to the well being of the group, we may see the context of positive individuals who, and postive aspects which are fostering and amelirative of the systemic pattern - for example fo the English

It serves a religious function for me, anyway, as I am otherise secular and recognize the empiricism of the founding American fathers, their Lockeatine influence, as insufficient

I should no more about Paine before I speak, however. He was obviousy a sharp man. Thank you for highlighing him, as he was apparently necessary to instigating the kind of revoltuionary mindset that Whites are in need of.

How does one disprove the other?

I have been giving this some though lately as I think it is one of the most important considerations. That is, what do we, who have been violated, do with our righteous rage, if not hatred? How do we punish the traitors and violators?

I would love to burn many at the stake, indeed. However, there are so many, such a large percentage who need to be punished that it is impractical.

Having he opportunity to remove myself from the source of irritation - i.e., There are very few non Whites where I live and I do not attend to Jewish media, that I ahve been able to calm down enough to take advice.

Bowery and Soren Renner clued me onto the idea of separatism as punishment. For example, we can, with perfect reason, expect mudsharks to go and live with Africans and not force them and their destructive ways upon us. More, they are, in all lkelyhood, going to suffer grave consequences, and deservedly so, by living with Africans.

And this would apply across the board to Jews and all other non-Whites, that they be required to live separately from native European folk and suffer the consequences of their ways, not to imose them upon us.

Is it impossible for the man to hold both positions? Is it not possible to inveigh against religious vehicles and also feel that an honest man was robbed of his property?

I believe it may be possilbe, and that it is possible without the major religions here-to-for, but I would not know how to do it without transcendent function of accountability to the White class (or its sub categories, such as the English), allong with coherence, agency and warrant.

There are grammatical lapses and some tactical errors in this piece which have been corrected in a revised version that has not been granted time to post. However, it puts together some thoughts as I have garnered from scholars along the way…

http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111029/kants-moral-system-as-coherence-accountability-agency-and-warrant

Does all socialism arise from a discourse of racial struggle?

It would make sense if it did, that we had concern for our extended family. And for others only inasmuch as it would help them to not impinge upon our people and habitats. Otherwise it would be just more insane liberalism, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet throwing money into the abyss of sub Saharan Africa.

I hope this did not offend you Desmond. I do not think that I am capable of enlightening you much. But it was enjoyable to have a try at a conversation…thank you.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:20 | #

Thank you for the insights, Daniel and don’t worry about offending me.

Posted by Cothrom Amháin on Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:09 | #

Oh the theme of the hippy ethos:

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our minds

The higher you build your barriers
The taller I become
The further you take my rights away
The faster I will run
You can deny me, you can decide
To turn your face away
No matter ‘cause there’s
Something inside so strong
I know that I can make it
Though you’re doing me wrong, so wrong
You thought that my pride was gone, oh no
There’s something inside so strong
Oh something inside so strong

People in the struggle for their inherent dignity and right to be is part of the hippy attitude. Why not for whites? A beautiful idea I think.

Posted by Cothrom Amháin on Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:27 | #

More hippy vibes:

It’s time to stand up and fight
It’s alright It’s alright
Hand in hand we take a caravan to the mother land
One by one we gonna stand up with pride
One that can’t be denied
Stand up Stand up
From the highest mountain, valley low
We’ll join together with hearts of gold

This is a better place for us to be
The place in which we were born
So neglected and torn apart

I’m your brother
I’m your brother don’t you know?
She’s my sister
She’s my sister don’t you know?

We’ll bring the young and the old
Won’t you let your love flow, from your heart?

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Mar 2012 04:15 | #

The differences between English and Germans are interesting.

In the final analysis, the (genetic) differences between the English and Germans lend themselves to Germans being constitutionally better equipped to lead the struggle for racial survival for all Europeans than the English can be. This time - if there is a “this time” - the English ought to learn not to cut off their own noses to spite their self-righteous faces.

Posted by daniel on Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:47 | #

Captainchaos,

That the Germans made war on just about everyone else, not only the Jews, not only on an effort to expell them from Europe and Russia, is evidence to me that their effort was not sufficiently wise, not even for their own sake.

In the White nationalist struggle, there has been much rhetoric on behalf of a uber-German nationalist perspective, and not near enough of a balance.

The rhetoric on behalf of Germans has been so one sided (I don’t watch mainstream anymore, so WN is my media), that it sounds Jewish in style. Nazis are always good, always the victims and eveyone else is always bad and naive. Corresponding to being totally one sided their rhetoric, there is a great deal of dishonesty in their arguments.

I am not against Germans, but I find them against other Europeans at times where they do not have to be.

The list of arguments against the Nazis is too long to go into. So, I will just put my toe into a sample..

Heinrich Himmler. Himmlerstadt. Was that a matter of Germans just taking land back that was once theirs?

I heard one Nazi saying, ‘what did the Poles expect after Bromberg?”

Looking back on the incident, I discover that the event, used as propaganda ad nauseum by Goebbels, occured two days after the surprise bombing on Gdansk by a German ship that was granted right to dock.

After Polish citizens took up arms and resisted the subsequent land invastion for a half a day, they were lined up against a wall and shot.

Two days later, the retreating Polish army was sniped from houses in Bromberg. In the context of shock and horror of the past two days events, including armed Polish civilians being shot, they took rounded up Germans with arms and executed them in the streets of Bromberg. The Nazis used this as probagand for how justified they were. When they arrived in Brombrg (now Bydodgzsz) they killed exponentially more Polish citizens in retaliation - I believe their policy was ten to one…

We have Germanophile rhetoricians arguing today that the Bromberg event was supposed to demonstrate the inherent evil of Poles - comletely taking an event like that out of context. That is how stupid and inaccurate their rhetoric is.

They procede with this disingenous, Jewish style rhetoric, showing no balance. Hence, when you hear about Dresden - a horror, lets pleas agree that all European lives lost are a horror - not only do they possibly exaggerate the number fo deaths by a hundred thousand, but completely ignore the destruction and civiliand deaths of Warsaw, which were, in likelhood, about the same.

They talk about Hitler just wanting Gdansk back. So why didn’t he just settle for Gdansk?

They will never mention that while north-west Poland was originally Germanic, that Poles started living there in the 600’s. It is not a simple matter. Berlin, Dresden and Cottbus were originally Slavic.

On the matter of living space, if Hitler were really wise, he could have dropped the issue of Gdansk and began coordination of the fact that America is mostly a Germanic country: and so cultivate its German communities there - talk about living space.

Poznan is one of the founding cities of the Polane, so I dop not see the need to argue much.

Breslau, now Wroclaw, was originally Czech. It changed hands bettween Czechs and Poles a few times before a Mongol invasion killed the Poles. Ther Germans moved in, you might say opporuntistically.

At any rate, the Poles there in Wroclaw now, were moved from L’viv, a beautiful city that they’d built and lost, but they regained Wroclaw in compensation.

Prior to world war 2, there are many horror stories of Germans committing atrocities against Poles. The rhetoric you hear in WN is not presenting this side fo the story. Moreover, the Poles were fighting for their nation, which had been erased for a hundred years, as the Germans would fight for theirs.

I could go on but would rather not, and I use the Polish example because I know it best.

Belarusians, Ukrainians and more also have a similar perspective in which they would have and did fight for their country, knew what Jews were about and fougth the Soviets…

The bottom line is, Hitler and co. bear a lot more responsibilty for the unnecessary war than German ubernationalists care to admit.

Not that he was a trustworthy character from the start, and he clearly ONLY cared about Germans, the seriouis flaw of some of our prominent rhetoricians, but Hitler really took a turn for the worse on the light of the long knives when he went from national socialist to imperialist capitalist.

Posted by daniel on Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:04 | #

I would like to add that I see little merit to the argument that National Socialist Germany was in danger of being invaded or losing its buffering. Again, the Pilsudski example is salient. As are the Belarusians and Urkainian naitionalists. The Soviets would have met resistence and would have lost as they tried to move west.

Posted by daniel on Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:19 | #

I’d also add that the Poles lost Grodno and Vilnius…cities they controlled, property they lost, people forcibly moved west (from these places) too.. and I am not arguing that they should have them back.

The point is to be glad to be alive as Europeans.

Another point - Germany apparently had some help with the Marshal plan to aid in their rebuilding.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:23 | #

Hitler cared for the German people? Really?

As the Red Army approached Berlin and the Anglo-American forces reached the Elbe, on 19 March 1945 Hitler ordered the destruction of what remained of German industry, communications and transport systems. He was resolved that, if he did not survive, Germany too should be destroyed – what a caring patriot!

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:11 | #

And which genetic differences might they be, Cap’n? The only significant strains that are present in modern Germany but not to any significant degree in England are the Alpinid and Slavic. Is that what you refer to?

I forgot to mention the Turkic too.

Posted by daniel on Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:18 | #

Hitler cared for the German people? Really?

Well yes, very good point. His self-absorption did supercede the interests of Germans. You are right and that is a telling example. True, he was more than willing to sacrifice the Germans.

There are similar issues of his transcending the interests of Germans with regard to selling out of the National Socialists in favor of the Capitalist, military-industrial complex, empire building project.

Lee John Barnes also made some articulate statements to the effect of Hitler’s megolomania going beyond the interests of Germans. However, I am hesitant to invoke his name as it seems you two are at odds. Sorry about that.

Posted by daniel on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 06:55 | #

People who hate hippies are people who want White men to die in war for stupid reasons - reasons counter to their own interests as White men. People who hate hippies are those who oppose the being of White men, which is synonymous with being against those who oppose White genocide. People who oppose hippies are complicit with: crass traditional women, who expect a man to be a “man” (to blindly follow orders), irrespective of whether he is Black, Mulatto, or White, and will breed with which ever of these who militates against Male Being (White male, as it concerns us). People who hate hippies are complicit with feminists, whose agenda, completely out of turn, eclipsed White male self defense, and with it, White people’s defense overall. People who hate hippies play into the hands of Jews, who tried to present their agendas as representing the hippie motives, which of course, they did not: It was Jews who were promoting alliance with Black Power; Jews who were promoting “free love” via Herbert Marcuse in conjunction with radical feminist. Males, “hippies”, could hardly have promoted such a notion and it would not ultimately, be in accordance with their being, their existence, as it is too based in sheer (race blind) competition, too much of a female dominated game. Hippies corresponded with a protest to The Viet Nam War and a response that they, as White men, ought to have the right to Be - i.e., the right as White men, to exist - to not be genocided.

Now, it was only part of the equation to full White existence, but it is the most fundamental part, and that which the Jews and feminists have obfuscated - having distracted conservatives so as to miss this crucial matter by appealing to trivial distastes and interspersing Jewish and feminist motives with their depictions of “hippies;” thereby confusing an already inarticulate lot (hippies and the greatest generation both). Hence, when people criticize hippies, they are doing Jews and Jew trained feminists a big favor in advancing our enemies interest to suppress our natural instincts for survival as White men.

That is not to say that there are not certain rigorous disciplines to adhere to, societal standards to respect and meet - there are, just as importantly: but the hippies were presaging that the society itself was not worth participating in as it was; nor worth the discipline of obedient participation as society in its trajectory, as it did not respect their being, their existence.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 01 Sep 2012 03:10 | #

The origin of the “hippy” might be traced to the first “The Human Be-in”, apparently taking its name from the impulse to “be”.

However, it was doomed from the start by the impulse to “be” a tribe (as in all you need is love) conflicting with the impulse to “be” an individual (as in “do your own thing”).

The white male was submerged, on the one hand, in the tribal impulse that gave rise to communes and, on the other hand, the inability to answer feminine individual choice with a masculine response.

One perspective on authentic being is inescapably ecological:

Being free of extended phenotypic virulence.

This may not necessarily mean being free from the tribal impulse since the authentic tribe might be thought of as non-virulent ecological being. For instance, genetic correlation structures maintained and grown by consanguineous living over many generations can express exquisite qualities of being with others through vertical transmission within the tribe or, in more biological terms, the deme. Such genetic correlation structures create a different kind of tribal dependence than the parasitic castration so typical of more cosmopolitan tribes and advanced eusocial organisms.

At this point, a quote from Burton Frye’s “Regional News” (Lake Geneva, WI) review of John Harland’s “Brave New World, A different projection” is appropriate:

“As I predicted, the brighter lights of the rebellion of the sixties would only show their color after the hubbub subsided.”

Posted by daniel on Sat, 01 Sep 2012 06:09 | #

.
The origin of the “hippy” might be traced to the first “The Human Be-in”, apparently taking its name from the impulse to “be”.

Yes, that was where my hypothesis began.

However, it was doomed from the start by the impulse to “be” a tribe (as in all you need is love) conflicting with the impulse to “be” an individual (as in “do your own thing”).

It wasn’t so much doomed as it was inarticulate - because it was about Being for White men (somewhat taboo as it was a less than masculine requirement; hence, stigmatic to articulate). Nevertheless, it was their motive to not have to comply with the draft; to not have to lose as much distinction and indication of feminine ease as possible in regimentation; to not be required to go to Viet Nam and die - just because they were male.

The “do your own thing” aspect was not so much about individualism properly understood, but about the organicism of Being.

The white male was submerged, on the one hand, in the tribal impulse that gave rise to communes and, on the other hand, the inability to answer feminine individual choice with a masculine response.

This was a balancing act, and one that the hippie males handled pretty well - they really were not effeminate in their manner. There were, however, Jews and disingenuous men and women (feminist and traditional both) who, as soon as the Viet Nam War was over, 1973, were ready to launch into inciting and regimenting their masculinity again.

The masculine response would have been to assert the class, to recognize that masculinity is an optimal trait at its best and negative when maximized - as demonstrated by Blacks. Thus, the proper response would have been criticism of men and women where their requirements for masculinity are toxic and repeating the toxic norms that have resulted in senseless wars and the like.

Hence, although I don’t see the hippie situation as an equation quite like you’ve set it out (perhaps your are not taking into account enough the biological requirement of optima, as noted by Aristotle) the endgame you propose seems to match well with their benign and organic motive, viz. the Being for White men.

One perspective on authentic being is inescapably ecological:

Being free of extended phenotypic virulence.

This may not necessarily mean being free from the tribal impulse since the authentic tribe might be thought of as non-virulent ecological being. For instance, genetic correlation structures maintained and grown by consanguineous living over many generations can express exquisite qualities of being with others through vertical transmission within the tribe or, in more biological terms, the deme. Such genetic correlation structures create a different kind of tribal dependence than the parasitic castration so typical of more cosmopolitan tribes and advanced eusocial organisms.

At this point, a quote from Burton Frye’s “Regional News” (Lake Geneva, WI) review of John Harland’s “Brave New World, A different projection” is appropriate:

“As I predicted, the brighter lights of the rebellion of the sixties would only show their color after the hubbub subsided.”

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments