|
|
|
An email to a friend in New Zealand Ever since this blog launched I seem to have become a serial conversationist. At present, one of my on-going conversations is with a writer and friend in New Zealand, Rod Cameron. Rod is talking to me about his ideas and I am talking back, a little unfairly, about mine. I suppose we shall eventually discover all our areas of agreement and difference. I know these latter include Jungianism, of which Rod is an advocate. But they seem also to include the question of an ontological nationalism. This post is actually a reply to a long email from Rod which arrived yesterday morning, and which was itself a response to a much longer exchange over Skype Chat. I apologise to everyone who is already tiring fast of angels and pinheads. But I think this stuff is quite important. Rod, Obviously, there are scores of very fine commentaries on Heidegger on the net. They will tell you much more than I can about the man and his thought, and I urge you to search them out if you are seriously intending to incorporate even a passing reference to “the existential” in Chapter Five. What I will do here is to reply to two issues you raised about my own very callow observations on same in the (possibly forlorn) hope that we can move towards a shared understanding. You quoted my observation that “Everything begins with being. There is nothing prior, and only diffusion of thought after.” You ask, “Can I take this as an Absolute statement?” Yes, if you recognise that being is a practical experience, a state in Nature we are capable of achieving - indeed, equipped by Nature to achieve. It is not simple this thing called Life, or some particular way of looking at our general experience of living. Being is not general. It is particular. It is the existential exclusive. It is a state that is difficult to reach and hard to hold on to, and like all things that take hard human endeavour, it has a high psychological value. Nevertheless, everything really solid that we can talk about as students of the human begins with it, yes. All the rest, all that we generally know and understand, and think, feel and do, and all that we are, suffers by comparison to the extent that it might be called unreal or a form of absence or exile. Or, in the context of our collective European life, it might be called the postmodern life or simply our collective estrangement from ourselves and from one another. The individual experience in being differs from the collective qualitatively only because of the scale on which the individual life differs from that of the collective. The alcohol has a higher proof, for sure. But they are not different in the moment that they reveal. Being is unity in temporality. Then you write:
Let’s look at this fault line in our respective ways of thinking and seeing the world. You appear to be thinking about the old 19th century fault-line of experience and thought, or the Analytic and the Ideal. That’s there, obviously, and it is still relevant to discussions in our general arena of ideas. But this fault-line is not that. This fault-line is between contact to “ground” and “relation” with an idea, which is also the fault-line between metaphysics and philosophy in the matter of ontology. For example, let’s take a nice, formative statement of the sort which some shaky analytic philosophy student like me might easily make: the self exists and does not exist according to its relation to itself. There is a certain relationship and the self “is”. The relationship is broken, and the self “is not”. Or another one, this time Idealist and complicated by the appearance of God. Here is Søren Kierkegaard’s commentary on faith to “in that relate himself to himself, and the desire [or willingness] to be himself, the self rests transparently in the power, who founded it.” Now, these are both reflections on the existential. The first presumes Man as a known quantity, the second Man and God. In the first the idea is of Man related or denied relation to himself, perhaps as some kind of cosmic trick or evolutionary mistake. In the second the idea is of God as the constant, through relation to Whom the man might overcome his existential inconstancy. But as statements they are both only ideas, and ideas about ideas - including, most obviously, the inconstancy of man’s relation to his self. The philosophical study of ontology is all ideas. It is propositional. It can never go beyond the propositional to the lived experience itself, because to do that one must become practical. One must ground the pure thought-experience of Statement 1 or the feeling-experience of Statement 2 in the physical body. And to do that we have to go beyond the principal restraint of philosophical ontology, which is the identification of consciousness with intentionality, and learn to actually use consciousness as attention. If we have done that just once individually, or even observed it done collectively, we can talk about it as a real event that has happened in the past. And now we have crossed over irrevocably into metaphysics - not necessarily the practical metaphysics of esoterism but an ontological metaphysics that is oriented towards the ground of being, and names things accordingly. Further, this naming contains the possibility of a co-relation with science and its exposition of Man in Nature. This way, the fault-line presumed to have existed between thought and experience begins to look less solid, and a hitherto impossible synthesis hoves into view. Last selling point: if you really prefer to remain amid the familiarities of the propositional you will have to navigate ontology with the aid of definitional instruments like Kierkegaard’s on the by no means desperate self: the relation relates itself to itself in the relationship. I don’t know about you but, personally, carrying that idea on my back would make me pretty damned desperate. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 May 2010 09:07 | # I’ve just made a couple of corrections to that post which I completed, having started out only intending to knock off a quick email to Rod Cameron, at 2.00am British Summer Time. At that hour I seem to retain the capacity to reason but I don’t formulate it faultlessly as typed expression. So that para has an important change in the word-order, and now reads:
My apologies. 4
Posted by Rod Cameron on Fri, 21 May 2010 05:51 | # I have reread the above, slowly and sympathetically, and suddenly it ‘twigged’. GW is right. It is important, quite important. GW is relating an experience, not something he figured out. I am the one doing the figuring out. Once I got past the words, his and mine, I saw we were only differing by angles and not opposites. My Idealism is not purely ideas, it is also physical, simultaneously. Hence, I appreciate GW’s Being is a vivid experience of being one with the moment/event in body and mind. I have not had the experience. I have heard of it and it is special. I know enough to appreciate it has a social/political dimension like a special experience of citizenship and that is where it does get important. So GW & co, I see you. I envy your experience, but it is all rather exclusive. Now to your problem with Jung … 5
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 21 May 2010 07:33 | #
being (noun) - the quality or state of existence; being (verb) - the quality or state of existing Any further extrapolation on that theme (i.e., “Being”) strikes me as esoteric “verbali[z]ation.” Besides, even its proponents admit that hardly anyone experiences that state, and even they not for very long, or very frequently. GW, have you ever experienced “Being?” If so, what’s it like? PF, do you imagine one can attain that exulted state whilst dropping incendiary devices on Krauts? Just asking. 6
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 21 May 2010 09:58 | # A potentially fruitful compromise: Under the new dispensation the lemmings will be encouraged to strive for a state of “Being” as a function of teleological state propaganda - which is what you’d have to do to get them to do it anyway. And the alleged imperative to do it is teleological in character, you know, as one can hardly claim it is absolutely indispensable to achieve genetic continuity. Even if most of them tried, they wouldn’t get there. So the vast majority of them would be left with a kitschy, yes glyphic, grasp of “Being.” All those Krauts burned for nothing. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 21 May 2010 17:12 | # Rod, I’ll answer your emails separately. But as regards your second comment above ...
This is a stick with three ends, Rod, and you just grabbed hold of the least useful one (which I explicitly avoid). The other two are fine, and are ontological theory and social and political application. Obviously, at this nascent stage it is the former we are interested in developing as a truth, a race-realism if you like, of European Man. Later, the understanding of our European-ness, why we are as we are, why we cannot stand in our own shoes when we forget this, and what we can do to remember and to act to live, may come. But we have to begin with the narrow existential focus. In contrast, the rest of European racial intellectualism is continuing along its sweet way with variations on the fascist-traditionalist theme. What connection to our reality these have that they did not in 1933 it would be uncharitable to ask. Greg Johnson’s post-TOQ career will, I understand, involve publishing the European New Right. Perhaps I will ask him in a radio prog some time.
There is not a lot that is exclusive about our mass self-estrangement. CC, Purposivity exists. Dreams exist also. The existence of the one does not imply striving after the other. 8
Posted by PF on Fri, 21 May 2010 18:52 | # CC wrote:
No I dont think this is achievable this way. As an example of being and not-being, the constant references to Germany 1933 indicates absence from our present. The ideological pull of the NS model is so great in your mind that it obscures key facets of the reality that we exist in. This would be like the guy sitting in front of a sunset and replaying what his girlfriend said to him, instead of watching the sunset. For example, I don’t even understand what would lead you to mention this in this context. Blowing up krauts? Does everything I say trigger some relation in your mind to Nazism? I talk about watching a sunset, and you ask me if my secret wish is to blow up Krauts?
If this wasn’t clear before, yes - most understandings we’ve talked about have always been admittedly for the 1%. Most everything we say on the blog is assimilable only to the 1-10%. When we talk about this topic, we’re in the realm of 0.1 and 0.01% if even that. I don’t assume that I’m talking through a bullhorn to the entire white race, laying out a plot for how they best should live. Nor is it my goal to control their minds and replace their idols with more racially productive ones. I want to craft a philosophy based on a recognition of truth that is superior to that currently available, which will turn - in quiet hours and without great fanfare - the minds of those among our people capable of leading men and creating change, to reconsider their ideas and leave behind universalist-style anti-racist ways of thinking. This is how truth diffuses and consensus is built in western societies. Not through people seizing power and dictating all kinds of mythic ideals to the masses. As I understand it, the non-MR radical right does basically nothing else besides strategize on how to get its hands on bullhorns of various sorts and what kind of carefully-crafted EGI-supporting “Mythoses” it would then broadcast. I wish them luck but don’t think the model realistically depicts how things work. Also I think the depiction of our white brethren as lemmings to be force-fed whatever gets them to toughen-up and reproduce, or Frank’s contention that false beliefs gives people a reproductive advantage (in reality it is correlation not causation because stupid people adhere to false beliefs and lack the ability for extended planning and also the career options which lead to this procreation-deferment in intelligent whites) - I think this view is crass and cynical, and thus naive. Its the zero-sum view. Paradigmatically correct, but only paradigmatically. It neglects the imperatives of heart-culture because it thinks everything in the world progresses in those spaces where trust is nullified and “last man standing” competition is the way to get ahead. People view things habitually through this paradigm, and delight in gangster films for example or rap music and all manner of pretend toughness and crassness. They then make statements, and more importantly formulate worldviews stemming from assumptions, of the kind that “competition, more than cooperation, is the Rule of Life.” Ignoring the fact that precisely those moments of family and social life where non-zero-sum interactions take place, and where it becomes possible to develop (always emotively) a non-zero-sum view where “we are the same”, are the storehouses of significance for human beings and those moments of socialization which are remembered with happiness forever afterward. These experiences forge loyalty beyond the compulsive, indoctrinated kind. If ever one has the experience of belonging to a people, it is experienced paradigmatically - meaning, only from a certain viewpoint and only for a time - as merging oneself into the larger whole and no longer needing to worry about oneself or one’s interest. One no longer needs to worry about “gettin’ mine” in black parlance. And if one is going to persecute the truth search on these higher levels where only 0.01% or 0.001% of people are even able to read along with some comprehension, there are certain rules of conduct. One of them is this: you have to overcome your reflexive tendency to censor and regulate your truth search on the basis of what “would” result if your understandings were extrapolated to all people everywhere, i.e. stop thinking as if you had a bullhorn. You also have to lay down meta-strategy for long enough to try to understand what is actually true and what is not. What we have here is people brewing various concoctions of The Noble Lie, scheming about how they are going to distribute their newly fortified brews amongst the populace, and tremulously worrying with each investigative step that puts a question behind their idols and shibboleths (which we are duty-bound to do): “oh no, the strength of my concoction will be thereby weakened”. Intellectualism isn’t about tricking other people, and philosophy isn’t about dreaming up a grand shared delusion which will cause white people to reproduce, and then strategizing about how to grab the nearest bullhorn to shout this into people’s ears. This stuff is setting the bar so low (although still probably impossibly high given that it goes against our white instincts to tell the truth, act in good faith, and use reason for consensus building) that there isn’t even really a need to intellectualize it at all. What will give Mythos respectability - a list of Sources Cited? The name of some archaeology scholars appended to it? What will craft a perfect meta-strategy… more discussion? The action is missing. So if the cynical carrying out of this program is all one cares about… why pretend to philosophize at all? The philosophy I’ve seen issuing from these considerations has mostly been reiterations of this thought:
As I’ve said above, I don’t think anyone is going to force anyone to win any game. All those who we need to influence - the intelligent, the well-networked, the influential, would be forced by their nature to resist the onslaught of the type of influence being suggested. You are not as one-man and two-man armies going to do all the massive amount of water-carrying which we need done to effect a social movement that actually opposes the massively, spectacularly powerful one already in place. You need economics students, law students, disaffected philosophy majors, people who work at bookshops, artists who write the scripts for movies, to create a societal trickle-down effect. This can only come from the proportional realization at each of the different tiers of cognitive ability, of a higher truth and resulting imperatives to action, or a worldview that opposes that currently in place. Nazism is profoundly *not a possibility* because it leaves us with about 5 guys as water-carriers. The zero-sum view likes to believe that society can be strong-armed, if one just has the will, and access to television. Well, this is probably wrong. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 21 May 2010 23:27 | #
This is the purport of most everything I’ve been arguing, produced in one hundred and fifty odd words by someone with the genuine capacity to do what he wants to do in this world. 10
Posted by BGD on Sat, 22 May 2010 09:11 | # PF, as someone undoubtedly not in your 0.1 / 0.001% permit me a couple of comments regardless. I wish you well and pray for success with your philosophical birthing as I do GW, Leon’s Christian theology and others but we can’t assume that the prize is within reach and will be suitable for the task and therefore act accordingly can we? The immediate problem as it seems to me is how to move the natural ceiling that our politics currently has among the general population in our favour. This might seem hideously short termist or cart-before-horsist (!?)even before there is a ‘new understanding’ to disseminate but by the time someone comes down with the tablets from the mountain their flock might have become another people and moved on. Lee seems to be targeting one end of the curve and you the other with the societal stratas that will effect change (and also the methods needed to bring it to fruition). Both are diminishingly small groups (at least if in Lee’s case we’re talking about what might be called the respectable working class - trades etc -rather than the welfare state birthed underclass) and the trickle down process is perfectly logical if we had time on our side but do we? Unless it is a philosophy or war because that’s what it would have to take in 30 years time. I would hope that there are also some short-term fixes while we wait the no doubt important work of giving a solid intellectual bedrock to what we actually feel. Which brings us back to the daily nitty-gritty, how best to engage with different sorts of people at different times and availing ourselves of whatever appropriate propaganda we have to hand for that moment to try to work the odds in our favour. Not Mandelsonian propaganda, different cynical pitches for for a multitude of audiences as dictated by psephologists and focus groups but core propaganda based on self evident EGI disseminated as appropriate for the audience to hand. Perhaps by doing this we’ll also create a wider circle of our people and a higher level of receptivity for any philosophical underpinning that is created. 11
Posted by gt on Sat, 22 May 2010 18:23 | # “This would be like the guy sitting in front of a sunset and replaying what his girlfriend said to him, instead of watching the sunset.” Yes. Or like you trying to describe what “English” meant, instead of what it actually means now. Aaah, the eternal present. The state of a lichen. 12
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 24 May 2010 04:56 | #
Thank goodness, I mean Englishness, you are of that opinion. Otherwise, I would fear for your sanity.
I exist, and so long as I do I cannot help but be. Perhaps you should dispense with this “Being” formulation and instead say ‘awareness of one’s being’ as it has the advantage of superior parsimony and avoidance of confusion.
I can appreciate this irony as my implicit critique of the focus of English “ontological nationalists” as they work for a alleged “philosophy” which suspiciously always seems to come in contact with the crutch of defining their work product contra NS - and the general beastliness of Krauts hopped up on the teleological methamphetamine of National Socialism as told by Shirer and Fest - is frequently registered with a hint of sarcasm by me. I invite you to considered it as counterweight to your [PF’s] wearisome, self-soothing condescension.
It was clear to me before.
You are addressing what you perceive to be my mindset, actually an inept caricature, and not NS as historically incarnated - which was certainly never all stick and no carrot, nor always without any attempt at serious thinking by the best German minds extant. Just one reason why I cannot take you wholly seriously. 13
Posted by PF on Mon, 24 May 2010 09:20 | # BGD wrote:
Right. This idea of trying to think in new ways, and create a new philosophy, doesn’t imply that any of the old methods are wholly ineffective or should be stopped. Nor that the only way to win is the way that I and GW have dreamed up here. Its where I choose to apply myself, of the multitude of possible avenues of action, because after long reflection and conversation with GW I’ve been convinced of the need for a new way of thinking. gt wrote:
The English nation is a blood-related group of people who lived together on an island for 1,500+ years before that lived in… like I said, there is no confusion in my mind and I wonder what offending paragraph may have led to two posters to bring this up to me, as if I am somehow powerless and destroyed by my own relativizing of previous shibboleths and concepts-not-based-in-being (e.g. militaristic glory). CC wrote:
Its a function of the ideological landscape that we live in, that we have to define our philosophy at least partially as being in contradistinction to Nazism. This is because nazism/fascism/palingenesis is the default philosophy undergirding nationalism. It is what all really hardcore nationalists turn to - some variant, and thats why all this body of thought is ‘ever present’ at TheOccidentalObserver, for example. Find me truly nationalist philosophy that isn’t in this vein, I will concede surprise. I wrote:
CC wrote:
Very little has been left open to doubt about what would be “your mindset”. I just deleted two paragraphs offering an extensive list of all the ‘slip-ups’ over the last four months by which you let us know who you think you really are. Decided it was not worth it. Later. 14
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 24 May 2010 23:37 | # A zero-sum view of the world is ultimately the definitive analysis in that there is only a finite amount of resources that can reasonably be exploited to the benefit of our reproductive fitness at a given time. The most tightly-bound and motivated groups acting on behalf of their interests are forged when group members become aware of a threat to their ability to exploit finite resources. That is how it works in the real world. But I wish you luck in your attempt to develop a racism that can attract the SWPL set, though. 15
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 24 May 2010 23:58 | # BGD
I’m pretty much on the same wavelength. I’m curious but want to punch some faces while i’m waiting.
I’m coming round to the view that a lot of the elements i thought were politically important aren’t actually important at all and nitty-gritty propaganda needs to focus on the very basic psychological levels of fear and guilt. Guilt They have the educational and media high ground so they get to define racism as the ultimate sin and they get to decide what counts as racism and so they get to use racial guilt as a weapon against white rabbits. The talking points ive been using (partly unconsciously) revolve around this. 1) The left wants mass immigration to import voters. This works very well in the sense of loosening people from the hold of the mainstream but i only recently realised what i was doing revolved around negating guilt. The enemy have defined a morality where goodness is defined as being in favour of diversity and evil defined as being opposed. By giving them an ulterior motive i remove them from the moral high ground. For example imagine a “right” politician on a podium talking about diversity and the multicult being so wonderful and someone in the audience says “you just want mass immigration for cheap labour”. 3) The left-liberal media censors the truth about racist violence directed at white rabbits. Similar to the other two i try to push this idea as a way to undermine the moral superiority of the broadcasters. These three points (hopefully) help to negate any sense of moral superiority and therefore reduce guilt. The last stage revolves around Bob Whittaker’s mantra idea to take it from: The media and political class are not morally superior for reasons 1), 2), 3) to 4) The media and political class are acting in a way identical to anti-white racists who support the ethnic cleansing and eventual genocide of white people and are therefore the evil ones by their own moral standards. This is literally true. Mass immigration leads to large numbers of foreign young men being concentrated in certain areas. This leads to large amounts of racial violence directed at the original white population. Those who can leave do leave. The remainder become even more outnumbered and are eventually subsumed into the invaders. This is quite literally ethnic cleansing and is supported by the vast majority of the media and political class (although unconsciously in most cases). If it continues unchecked then it eventually leads to genocide. There is no real argument to this as it is completely true. The value of this as a tactic is that it turns their great new morality against them. The answer to “you’re a bunch of Nazis” should never be “no we’re not”, it should always be “no you’re the Nazis”. (With apologies to the Nazis on our side.) The aim is to fight moral fire with fire and stop our people from being guilt-tripped into surrender. I’d also say it’s especially useful for people on the left side of the bell curve who may be more easily brow-beaten by educated enemies on the TV. The downside is that the argument reinforces the whole universalist thing and some people won’t like that. It definitely works though. I’ve completely shut up arch lefties with it because it is their argument. Fear For those who don’t like the guilt option then i think the other core element of our propaganda has to be more fear. This is especially so for more middle class people living far away from the immediate battle grounds. They have to be made aware of what happens to them or their offspring after all the working class have been quietly wiped out and they’re left as a white minority middle class in the middle of a non-white majority working class who are daily being fed anti-white hatred through the school curriculum and Hollywood movies. I’d use modern day South Africa to illustrate their children’s future. That’s my take - decrease the guilt, increase the fear. My game is the former as it suits me. 16
Posted by PF on Tue, 25 May 2010 00:47 | # CC wrote:
I appreciate that you’ve honestly and directly stated exactly the crux of what was at issue here. And really, the validity of this statement is what we would have to debate, if we’re going to get deeper into things than the gesticulating that we sometimes fall into. (my “you=monster”, your “you=ineffective wimpy dreamer”). My view is that life is too great a phenomenon to be properly encompassed by any individual paradigm or perspective, and it is therefore necessary to oscillate between contradictory perspectives and paradigms - apparently contradictory, in fact contradictory only in terms of our symbol system’s glyphs - and tune the frequency of this oscillation to the specific phenomenon being observed and the desired results one wishes to achieve. The only way to know a many-sided phenomenon is to see it from many sides. There is no all-encompassing view to be had of anything, until we get to GW’s metaphysics. So I don’t resolve zero-sum to be “ultimately the definitive analysis”. I think this is the habitual perspective that forces palingenetic nationalists to approach philosophy and its problem set from the same viewpoint, again and again, and never really generate anything new. It is an inner unfreedom, about which I intend to write more in the future. 17
Posted by Armor on Tue, 25 May 2010 01:07 | #
That’s what Rand Paul should reply to the journalists who tell him that freedom of association for the Whites is an attack against the Blacks. 18
Posted by BGD on Tue, 25 May 2010 11:23 | # Wandrin, I think that you’re right that this all plays at a more emotional response level with the general public. I think anger plays a part too though, just channelled in the wrong direction. For instance, the success of the tabloid press is partly due to their being well developed at tapping into the emotional wavelength of their readership (titillation, outrage, fear etc) but they also frame the debate and create the ways in which many of the issues are seen and discussed. The Sun and the Mail will literally produce thousands of negative articles on immigration during each term of parliament and then of course in election season “Vote Tony” or “Vote Dave” before going back to business as usual. Alongside this are articles on racist attacks, discrimination etc. As you say on the one hand fear on the other guilt. Unlike the idealised arguments of JS Mill people don’t (generally) intellectually analyse the issue from every angle before deciding on which is the best for them and acting accordingly. There would be too much ‘noise’ on the one hand. On the other they live their lives at a different emotional level and are happy to delegate responsibility for many things to another strata of society. This becomes the broad status quo and is hard to penetrate in political terms as the recent election has shown. This also ties back into this thread with modes of being. So how does one start to start to drive a wedge between this process? Where does one successfully intervene and change the frame of the argument at grass roots level and inject some counter arguments into the process? Hopefully what starts off as an outbreak of dissent can change into a pandemic. One way is undoubtedly a more sophisticated political campaigning model: Propaganda: bulletproof simple messages that have an emotional element and are duplicated over and over. 19
Posted by danielj on Tue, 25 May 2010 17:33 | # There is no all-encompassing view to be had of anything, until we get to GW’s metaphysics. You’re such a hoot!
Hyper-intelligent whites are the ones adhering to false beliefs. They believe that careerism, degree seeking, self-improvement and fighting with liberals on the internet are more important than having babies. Let me let you in on a big secret: No babies => No people! They are selfish and lazy. They’ll do anything to get outta work. They are the worthless and unproductive “overclass.” 20
Posted by Armor on Tue, 25 May 2010 17:59 | #
What’s better: having a baby or expelling a young non-white ? The problem with expelling non-whites is that they are replaced at once by other non-whites. 21
Posted by PF on Tue, 25 May 2010 19:41 | # danielj wrote:
fascinating perspective. 22
Posted by danielj on Tue, 25 May 2010 20:05 | # What’s better: having a baby or expelling a young non-white ? The problem with expelling non-whites is that they are replaced at once by other non-whites. Our problem is our absolute refusal to concentrate on the one thing needful. Having children and creating cultural space. Everybody wants a digital solution. Philosophy is important, but it has to operate within a community that has a shared conception of the good. No babies = No people = No institutional framework for the operation of PF’s philosophy 24
Posted by notuswind on Tue, 25 May 2010 20:44 | # PF, I hope you don’t mind if I respond to some of your comments from earlier in this thread.
I really disagree with this. The Left has shaped mainstream consensus by first seizing the institutions that govern social capital (media and academic) and then dictating its mythic ideals of a utopian egalitarian society to the masses. In today’s Western world, consensus was formed in precisely the kind of way that you said it could not be formed.
We are past the point for this kind of top-down maneuver. The kinds of people that you are writing about here come from institutions that are jealously guarded by the Left. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 May 2010 22:20 | # notuswind,
The trickle down of ideological beliefs and positions did not begin at a unit the size of “the Left”. There was something prior. That is the point you have forgotten (because you know it very well, of course).
We will never be past it until we perform it. 26
Posted by notuswind on Tue, 25 May 2010 22:50 | # GW,
True. But I maintain that the overall structure of an outside force seizing certain institutions and then using those institutions to dictate certain political ideals to the masses aptly describes how the current mainstream consensuses were formed (contra PF’s claim of how Western society reaches consensus). The true story of how what happened to us and how the current political alignments came to be is far more complicated by comparison.
The Left must fall by its own weight first; then we can perform it. 27
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 25 May 2010 23:19 | # BGD “So how does one start to start to drive a wedge between this process?” I think it could partly be as simple as a change of emphasis. Take for example the BNP election broadcast. Say you started to believed that rational responses to policy details actually had less impact than emotional responses and then sat down and analyzed what emotional responses you thought would do the trick. Say for the sake of argument you decided it was a battle between fear of the future and guilt over opposing the multicult religion. Then you’d change the broadcast to specifically touch on those trigger emotions - increase the fear / decrease the guilt. The same would apply to the news items on the website, local blogs, leaflets etc. At first glance it might not appear much different but you’d be aiming to tweak images and words to target an emotions rather than intellect. In reality the list of emotional reactions you’d be aiming at would be longer e.g anger, outrage etc as you mention - also hope e.g the Swiss minaret vote and the Arizona immigration law to make people realize they’re not alone and this attempted genocide is international. On top of that kind of collective propaganda individuals are doing their own versions in their own way: guilt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFCrfCyklH0 fear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in8LV2pvXHI&feature=related bit of both: http://www.youtube.com/user/1amSouthAfrican#p/a/u/0/oRfuqkPg9Do 28
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 25 May 2010 23:20 | # There was no trickle down. As the Dare series shows, there was only state coercion. 29
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 25 May 2010 23:26 | # There is not sufficient time left for a march through the institutions. The National Socialists proved able to transform the institutions of Germany quickly, but only after having seized power. We will need power before we are able to transform the institutions. That is the only way it will happen. And it is not effete philosophizing that will galvanize the people around a revolutionary movement that can take power, it is a group identity forged in the fire of collective suffering with the promise of triumph over that suffering by which all tears will be wiped away. The in-group, positively evaluated by its members, will come to see out-groups, the Other, as responsible for their suffering, and hence negatively evaluate the latter. 30
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 25 May 2010 23:43 | # CC
I think that’s true plus if you accept which group was doing the marching the only reason it was so easy for them is because they are / were far more racial than the elites they replaced. They’re going to defend their position far better. I’d say creating alternative institutions has more mileage and if you look at the institutions the bad guys targeted then alternative versions of the media, banking and education look like the most important. Alternative banking i.e things like credit unions from the olden days look like they may be making a comeback soon anyway. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 May 2010 00:24 | # Notuswind, I’ve never liked to make too comprehensive a claim for the Long March theory. That’s not because I am unacquainted with it. Between 1970 and 1999 we in England had the infamous Birmingham School: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Contemporary_Cultural_Studies ... to prepare students in the Gramscian art (both in the sense of the little hunchback being the principal lens, post-Althusser, for Literary Theory and for his unparalleled contribution to Marxist revolutionary strategy). Of course the Birmingham School did become the template for a large number of other university departments working in Cultural and Media Studies and sociology generally. But even in the aggregate, I do not judge it sufficient to explain the extraordinarily uniform adhesion of the political and cultural class, and others beyond, to the anti-English dispensation. To my mind, the activists were enormously aided by the liberal atmosphere which we all live and breathe, and which they were able to influence precisely because it is an inherently radicalising political genre. Liberalism migrates leftward over time because its telos is religious and anti-natural in tone, and therefore it cannot come to rest. It is its very totality which provides authority of principle for polital and cultural aspirants. In the total picture it is the total system which regularises (but, of course, does not develop) ideology. Therefore the first and greatest goal of a revolutionary movement is always to overturn and replace the totality. And this is why it matters that the revolution has a coherent ideology of its own, drawn from philosophical schema capable of being expanded over time to this same level of the total system. 32
Posted by danielj on Wed, 26 May 2010 00:26 | # There is not sufficient time left for a march through the institutions. There is not sufficient power with which to seize or destroy the institutions. it is a group identity forged in the fire of collective suffering with the promise of triumph over that suffering by which all tears will be wiped away. There is not sufficient suffering to galvanize the group. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 May 2010 00:26 | # Desmond, Dan’s series demonstrates precisely that there was trickle-down. 34
Posted by danielj on Wed, 26 May 2010 00:28 | # I’ve never liked to make too comprehensive a claim for the Long March theory. That’s not because I am unacquainted with it. Between 1970 and 1999 we in England had the infamous Birmingham School What about Milner’s Kindergarten? Have you read Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope? 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 May 2010 00:40 | # Daniel, My point is that the idea of Empire - or liberalism, or whatever - was more pervasive, powerful and empowering than any band of talented men working to some set end within it. 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 26 May 2010 00:44 | # Guessedworker, The consensus was “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour.” The result was the 1965 Race Relations Act. This is not trickle down consensus building. It is state coercion. It served the self-interest and ethnocentrism of the usual groups. 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 May 2010 01:08 | # Desmond, OK, you didn’t read the comment by PF on May 21 at 05.52:
38
Posted by notuswind on Wed, 26 May 2010 01:25 | # GW,
Exactly! I firmly believe that by the time these kinds of groups were being formed (a la the Birmingham School) the battle for the Western mind had already been lost. In the U.S., the Left had already achieved firm control of the media and academy by the early 60s, which is why the liberal activists that worked in that era had such a conducive political atmosphere (as you noted). Just to be clear, the kind of institutional takeover that I had in mind preceded the the cultural revolution that happened in the 60s.
I completely agree with this as well! I am beginning to wonder if we aren’t so different after all… 39
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 26 May 2010 02:07 | # Guessedworker, Colour me contrary then. However, according to Dan, the message was assimilable by a majority of the voting English public in Smethwick.
40
Posted by hjk on Wed, 26 May 2010 02:13 | # “The English nation is a blood-related group of people who lived together on an island for 1,500+ years before that lived in…” You’re thinking of what your girlfriend said yesterday, rather than watching the reality of the sunset tonight. 41
Posted by PF on Wed, 26 May 2010 02:37 | # hjk wrote:
The belief that one could remain conscious (i.e. “focused on the sunset”) at all times is false. So inevitably one returns to the strictures and structures of thinking, with its past, present, and its absence - although, I’m sure GW could add caveats. One would, I think, be this: that one need not always be absent just because one is thinking. Many higher order phenomenon can only be grasped through the intellect - physics is an example. Interaction is difficult without going into the intellect. And of these thought forms which we inevitably, to our nature bound, dip into all the time - some reflect the nature of what is more perfectly than others. In this case, insofar as you are questioning the existence of the English nation on the basis that thought is used in apprehending the phenomenon, I will tell you that the hypothesis and fact of the English nation’s existence - as it is a thought module/glyph in my mind, or data clusters in a haplotype analysis with sufficient resolution, or similar-looking people on an imaginary Google-Earth photo with sufficient scope and resolution - it more accurately describes the patterns in the underlying reality than the null hypothesis: which is that they do not exist. Predicting the patterns of my behavior, among innumerable other things, is more difficult when the null hypothesis is accepted, which means in the alternative hypothesis we have acquired some knowledge which is otherwise absent from the old model. Uncertainty decreases. Seeking to bind us from higher order observation on the basis of a make-believe imperative to perpetual consciousness is an elegant attempt at entrapment. Good job. 42
Posted by PF on Wed, 26 May 2010 02:49 | #
Oops, I made a mistake! Its not an imperative to perpetual consciousness, but something else. Consciousness can also choose its focus. So the statement is implying both an imperative to perpetual ‘higher state maintenance’ and the idea that this consists in a continual focus on incoming sensory data, absent reflection. 43
Posted by cdew on Wed, 26 May 2010 04:24 | # “So the statement is implying both an imperative to perpetual ‘higher state maintenance’ and the idea that this consists in a continual focus on incoming sensory data, absent reflection.” LOL. You’re like a little toy for me, bro. To watch you continually deconstruct yourself is one of the few reasons I come here (besides watching your mentor get thrashed by Desmond). Do you know how fun it is to simply repackage your silly words in a tiny box, re-present them to you, and then wait for you to throw the gift away? I’ll leave you with this: The ideological pull of the preservation of the English people model is so great in your mind that it obscures key facets of the reality that we exist in. Now I’m off to read my favorite fabulist, Kriloff. Tonight it’s “The Cat and the Cook.” 44
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 May 2010 10:31 | # Desmond, What are you trying to say? That actions arise without connection to prior thinking? That the sort of political moralising that has undergirded the elites’ decision to abandon the English - or the white American or white Canadian - has no genesis in the values of the wider political milieu itself, and these, in turn, have none in political thought? The elites and the left similarly love to portray post-48/post-65 non-white immigration as a natural phenomenon arising spontaneously and quite out of their control. But actions do not arise in the political world free of political thought, which is all we are saying, really. If you want to argue that instinctual, Darwinian group competition is significant, I would agree with you. But groups still have to compete within the mileu or they do so without it, and become revolutionaries. As soon as a group - the English, say - can be persuaded that the mileu is become treacherous and a dead-end for them, they, or a significant portion of them, become accessible to revolutionaries hawking competitive value systems. You appear to be stuck in the usual WN rut of the persuasion process. We are making the point that fascism, as the only available politically systemic competitor, will not persuade, and something else is required. Some people, like Daniel and Matt Parrot, think that something is a return to a “truer” Christianity. Some people, like Lee Barnes, think it is more community and patriotic pride. There are people here who think it is, or starts with, new philosophical thinking. Take your pick. 45
Posted by danielj on Wed, 26 May 2010 15:19 | # Some people, like Daniel and Matt Parrot, think that something is a return to a “truer” Christianity. To be clear, I’m absolutely certain that some of the outgrowth of a proper Christianity will be a morality that recognizes the importance of kinship and a political philosophy that incorporates nationalism. The revival must be built upon a solid foundation that consists of a substantial amount of metaphysical and epistemological philosophy. I’m not simply proposing we whip up some mix of tribalism and fideism, bake for ten years in some institutions, and serve it up to the masses after it has risen. 46
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 26 May 2010 23:28 | #
Sure there is. I hear people bitching all the time about how fucked up the economy is and how the damned illegal aliens are taking their jobs. And we all know it will only get worse. Sooner or later people will make the connection that the racial question and all the other miseries they are increasingly subjected to are one and the same because…it ain’t rocket science.
Yes, worse is indeed better.
Why not? It’s pretty simple really: “Here’s what’s going wrong that you don’t like, what made you receptive to a revolutionary alternative. Here are the ways that fascism can rectify that. So what’s it going to be, become a fascist or die a good liberal martyr?” 47
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 May 2010 00:15 | # CC, You ask why fascism will not persuade, yet you have not risen to the challenge to fascism’s utility contained in PF’s two Palingenesis posts. If the core principle is flawed (if, to be precise, the model of Man it posits is completely non-real), then it cannot produce a sustainable solution. Sustainability is to nationalism what stability is to conservatism. Nationalism’s core value is the continuity of the people. If it is does not produce a sustainable polity it cannot live up to its own billing, can it? 48
Posted by PF on Thu, 27 May 2010 00:18 | # CC wrote:
You’re conceptualizing the rise of fascism as an American peasants’ revolt. Essentially, blue-collar people of various germanic derivations are going to perceive their situation and interests clearly, and cleave to your (to them) ancient, (to them) pavlovianly repellant, (to them) foreign ideology. Its not completely implausible, I’ll give you that. Are you open to the possibility that you might have misreasoned in your thinking about what is politically possible? In case you are, I will rumble on. I do this because from my perspective what you have said has a 10% chance of being achieved, and I want better odds for our existence into the future. This ideology is not crafted for these peasants, who are shot through with liberalism and have little of the strong-core of identity that germans had. The inability of your philosophy to captivate the minds of the higher classes means the peasants will never be crafted for the ideology, because those who are clever enough to achieve influence are also clever enough to see through your philosophy. In fact, one can reckon with the peasants continuing for some time to be crafted (i.e. influenced through television/media) against this ideology. Meaning the higher classes whom your model discounts will (still) be taking their revenge on you by means of their enormous ability to influence, infiltrate, dangle rewards in front of, and generally bamboozle the class of people upon whom you are placing the responsibility of saving the white race.
What authority or other exceptional merit do you have that would lead the bewildered lemming to turn to you? I have a hard time imagining that you are networked with people who are in alignment with your thinking and ready to step into action for you. I see fascism and NS as rather stylized, intellectualized, high-brow movements, although they express a dedication to darker, more instinctive and reptilian (fear-brain) sides of human nature. The reason for this appeal to intellectuality is that NS stemmed from and had to achieve respectability in a cultural atmosphere that was highly intellectualized, literature-and-culture-addled, in short, early 20th century Europe. It may have been mostly about mass appeal and deception, but it had to appeal to the playful literary types in the salons and cafes, the earnest academics, or at least had to have respectability enough in their eyes to sweep them along as well. The opportunistic (i.e. still at that point even only half believing) adherence of people like academics, scientists, writers, and the culture literati, was extremely important for the rise of Nazism. It was not structured as a peasant’s revolt. Nowadays, NS has completely lost that appeal and that respectability in the eyes of the intellectually cultivated. The reasons for this are described in the second critique of palingenesis above. But the trappings of this intellectual appeal make up most of the actual content and the ideological window dressing of NS. And this window dressing is not crafted for our modern, blue-collar, vaguely germanic lemmings. NS is at once too little, where it counts, and too much, where it doesn’t count. I find it highly doubtful then that, after our society descends far enough into the anarchy which you are seeking, that they would choose *your* intellectualized, ideological system to base their world-view on. Firstly these are people who dont think much (good, insofar as they wont question the system, but bad, insofar as its ideological consistency or whatever lure it has for you is invisible to them), secondly, you have conceded that your only chance is to wait until they are in such a desperate, agitated, chaotic state, that they have no choice to embrace what you are selling. What about the more likely option, which is that they spontaneously develop their own militaristic system absent any philosophical and ideational grounding? They wont have European cafe society to answer to, and their culture is already destroyed enough that things dont need to be justified in terms of the past, since on this level, no one understands that there was a past. Its funny how you want to bypass the thinking segment of society. 49
Posted by danielj on Thu, 27 May 2010 00:51 | # Sure there is. I hear people bitching all the time about how fucked up the economy is and how the damned illegal aliens are taking their jobs. And we all know it will only get worse. Sooner or later people will make the connection that the racial question and all the other miseries they are increasingly subjected to are one and the same because…it ain’t rocket science. In rural Michigan? This is anecdotal. If you and me were college pals at University of Michigan we might have a whole different theory on why things are so damaged. Typically, the only people that make the racial connection are people who are already predisposed to do so by virtue of their upbringing. Most of the folk are radically opposed to our concern with race. They consider our concern pathological and psychologically unhealthy and worthy only of pity or treatment. Or, in the case of the militant left, they despise us and wish and plan actual physical harm for us. I was in the anti camp. I remember what it feels like. The only reason I moved my tent was because of the nature and location of my work, higher than average intelligence, devotion to books, passionate intensity for politics, zeal for fighting and an anti-authoritarian streak. There was an unusual confluence of factors that don’t generally exist in the general public. In addition to my personal traits, I was constantly forced to interact with poor colored folk and was also seeing a girl (who is now my wife) who grew up racially conscious and was there to provide kindling for the fires of racial awareness and fan the flames. If the shit hits the fan people won’t have time to make sense of it, to go through all of that. This isn’t to say that they won’t be forced into making sense of it. That is, if the poor colored folks make them make sense of it. I imagine the political establishment will do everything in their power to prevent a race war. Despite antifa sloganeering, they don’t wanna keep us divided, the wanna keep us united, on time for work and consuming. I can’t possibly see how worse can be better. It doesn’t make any sense. I’m willing to allow that it might jar a small number of us into a position where understanding what is at stake will be easier. However, without - at the very least - networks of patriots ready to step into the void after a collapse, I can’t see anything but scattering occurring. Perhaps it is a lack of imagination on my part. Whoever these shadowy patriots are waiting in the wings, better have open arms, food, shelter and comfort to provide if they are going to have a shot at converting people. Why not? It’s pretty simple really: “Here’s what’s going wrong that you don’t like, what made you receptive to a revolutionary alternative. Here are the ways that fascism can rectify that. So what’s it going to be, become a fascist or die a good liberal martyr?” Well, if it is an admiral on the emergency channel stating the case so persuasively, all bets are off. 50
Posted by uh on Thu, 27 May 2010 01:56 | # So what’s it going to be, become a fascist or die a good liberal martyr? You know most of them would only rebel at that to spite us and die good liberal martyrs. You and I are responsive to plain speech, they are not; therefore something other than Fascism - in the still fantasy world inhabited by GW and PF, where there is a way back from the mess - is, logically then, required to steer between the two. But that’s pure logic: there is no steering around the fascism of the majority.
Well said. Anyone who thinks x “is still possible” must refer back to these four sentences and check himself. I can’t possibly see how worse can be better. It doesn’t make any sense. It meets an emotional need of those who can’t admit that worse is simply worse. It’s no lack of imagination on yours, but a banal piece of imagining on theirs, totally unpsychological, unrealistic. 51
Posted by danielj on Thu, 27 May 2010 02:02 | # where there is a way back from the mess The phenotype has left us behind… 52
Posted by uh on Thu, 27 May 2010 02:04 | # Meaning the higher classes whom your model discounts will (still) be taking their revenge on you by means of their enormous ability to influence, infiltrate, dangle rewards in front of, and generally bamboozle the class of people upon whom you are placing the responsibility of saving the white race. In a word, he’s projecting. He should move to Portland—the only place where I’ve seen more dopey, glass-eyed, brainwashed, humorless, docile, worthless germanic palefaces with blue eyes .... was Germany. It may have been mostly about mass appeal and deception, but it had to appeal to the playful literary types in the salons and cafes, You’ll probably know, from Orlow’s history of the Party or elsewhere, that a third (or whatever) of early members were Studenten. I’ve always wondered how many were lit majors, to make matters worse. They wont have European cafe society to answer to, and their culture is already destroyed enough that things dont need to be justified in terms of the past, since on this level, no one understands that there was a past. Takes the wind out of one! 53
Posted by uh on Thu, 27 May 2010 02:17 | # If it is does not produce a sustainable polity it cannot live up to its own billing, can it? How much of the polity do we need? what do you think of “white nationalist” intentional communities, for example? I mean imitating anarchists in collective living, and do NOT mean rune lessons, quotidian calvinism and laps around base-camp. At the very least $ should be pooled to afford a greater number of us to escape life in the thick of it. But of course because this hasn’t been done, it can’t be done; the nature of our desires, though much softened by PF, ultimately “militates” against that sort of medieval Catholic effort. Leave Fascism, militarism, hero-worship, brutality to the dogs, aye, but in the end we can’t escape wanting to restrict, to re-cage, what has been loosed on us; the nature of it is prohibitive, restrictive, un-fun, anxious, deadly serious. What I would like to see, mentioned above, would require a total reorientation, the abandonment of extra-personal projections and the emotional strife it engenders, and the simple desire to live simply. 54
Posted by danielj on Thu, 27 May 2010 02:20 | # Studenten. I’ve always wondered how many were lit majors, to make matters worse. Yeah. Farmers, weavers, machinists, tin knockers, electricians, textile manufacturers and cattle ranchers are too busy living and making one to start dreaming up reasons to kill people. It takes excessive imagination to perpetrate gratuitous and unnecessary violence. 55
Posted by uh on Thu, 27 May 2010 02:21 | # It’s plain stupid we don’t already, by the way. The anarchists do this and half of their morality (nevermind the anti-capitalist chafing) is mainstream. Remember when Socialism was Old World and you didn’t have to like darkies—remember Proudhon, the anti-feminist Jew-hater and advocate of guilds & collective living? 56
Posted by uh on Thu, 27 May 2010 02:28 | # Farmers, weavers, machinists, tin knockers, electricians, textile manufacturers and cattle ranchers are too busy living and making one to start dreaming up reasons to kill people. It takes excessive imagination to perpetrate gratuitous and unnecessary violence. Exactly. And though we do want to perpetuate violence, because we cannot, we should instead be farmers, weavers, and so on. If nothing but the personal is under our command, we must restrict ourselves to the personal. CaptainChaos is the type that wants the world under his heel, relying on constructed scenarios to satisfy this desire; it’s high time someone more systematically analyzed this retarding phenomenon than I ever could, and thankfully PF has stepped up to that. Funny, though not inappropriate, that the Capn has become the centerpiece of that analysis. 57
Posted by danielj on Thu, 27 May 2010 02:58 | # CaptainChaos is the type that wants the world under his heel, relying on constructed scenarios to satisfy this desire; it’s high time someone more systematically analyzed this retarding phenomenon than I ever could, and thankfully PF has stepped up to that. Funny, though not inappropriate, that the Capn has become the centerpiece of that analysis. I don’t think that is true. I don’t think he wants the ring. PF is not analyzing the Captain, he is analyzing a character. PF doesn’t go out for beers after work with the guy! He is just one of the character “types” that Alasdair MacIntyre sees as an essential part of social role playing. And, as gay as this sounds, I’m for the humanizing of the movement; the psychologizing of the movement. I’m for moving past role playing. I’m for a bread and butter, plain vanilla, “Aw shucks,” Roy Rodgers WN. I’m for normalizing the preservatory instinct. I suppose that might put some distance between me and the glory seeker to the right and me and the lit major on the left. We are always under existential threat. There is never a point at which existence is perpetually guaranteed and signed, sealed, delivered. Peoples come and go and rise and fall the same way that empires do, often in concert with these political projects. There is nothing special about the white race and no matter how long a list of achievements one can draw up, no matter how throughly the DNA is analyzed, no matter how big the nukes get, no matter how small the processors get it doesn’t change the fact the we are just flesh and bone. We have no right to anything. We neglect and despise what we do have and cry foul when it is taken away. You assert that the days of guild socialism were somehow superior but you make them inaccessible and off-limit to us by your usual analysis of the “conditions.” You say it is stupid we don’t do we need to do, what we should be doing. Well, I say it is just immoral and that intelligence doesn’t factor into it. People are just really, really lazy. We don’t do what we don’t do because we are inferior human beings compared to our ancestors. I’d take the peasants of old over any of the WN characters any day of the week. If nothing but the personal is under our command, we must restrict ourselves to the personal. I don’t think the lit major is any more concerned with self mastery than the glory seeker. If only! If only the personal was under command we’d not have these problems. 58
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 27 May 2010 06:37 | #
Five years ago I’d have said this is some sort of psychotherapist’s platitude. But I’ve come around to this viewpoint myself. Energy and time wasted on speculation and anger at things which I cannot change just furthers the feeling of impotence, etc. Not to mention it’s damaging to the psyche. On the other hand, pursuing a simple existence is a very appealing prospect. In this way we can better ourselves and perhaps be mentally fitter for the future should any new opportunities for us arise. I’m don’t mean this as any kind of imperative of course, just saying I’ve been down the “WN” road and that this alternative is vastly preferable to that. 59
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 27 May 2010 09:16 | #
What would be the point when any case I would make would be met with more of the same obfuscatory bullshit such as: The appeal of fascism is dependent upon a person internalizing a perception of the societal situation as being one of extreme crisis requiring swift, sweeping and extreme remedies. The transformation of our nations into Third World sewers and a decent into barbarism will not necessarily be perceived as a “State of Emergency.” Who is to say what is a “State of Emergency?” It is apparently not necessarily the former. The intelligent, sensitive, educated classes will apparently be prepared for extreme, exigent action once properly plied with an alleged “philosophy” that has yet to materialize but not by a call to heroic struggle which can yield the rebirth of their nations in the context of a “State of Emergency” which apparently cannot ever objectively exist. In addition, fascism can apparently only appeal to the low IQ, the crass and the cretinous, and yet, simultaneously depends upon a high literary-aesthetic understanding to have appeal. LOL! Need I say more? 60
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 May 2010 09:36 | # CC, You are missing the central point that fascism is untrue in a literal sense, and Fascist Man is impossible, as nineties liberalism’s New Man was impossible, as the Homo sovieticus of Marxism-Leninism was impossible. We are whole men. No matter how much we are narrowed by bad philosophy, that wholeness will always haunt us through our discontents. It will eat away at all the artifical boundaries, as it ate away at the boundaries of people living the Soviet lie. We will achieve nothing historically lasting if we forget that human truth is the only basis for a decent collective life. 61
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 27 May 2010 10:33 | #
Well, GW, guys like Gorboduc and Notuswind, who I presume have fucking-A high IQs, believe that Jebus can make New Men out of ‘em. So apparently life-affirming delusions can mobilize men who are somewhat above the station of inbred, toothless subhumans to the good. Or at least they think it can, and a placebo is perhaps as good as a cure, and all that. Yes, yes, the New Man is a delusion. Yup, okay. But a system that acknowledges appropriate roles for individuals in a cohesive society and encourages them to fulfill those roles according to excellent standards is I think no bad thing. But they’ve got to buy into it, or at least be brainwashed into buying into it (like with Jebus). Lots of people have the faith gene (for now at least), so something that will appeal to them should be taken into consideration. “What, you mean we can rebirth our nation from its present condition as a Third World toilet and be heroes in the process?! No way, man, no chance. Better just let it ride. We don’t want to fuck around with that palingenetic New Man voodoo. Besides, once we get those faithists fired up we’ll never be able to put them back in their places so we can finally snatch their faith genes.” P.S. Nope, PF is indeed correct, the zero-sum view doesn’t apply, especially not to a frickin’ island with sixty million people already inhabiting it. LOL! 62
Posted by PF on Thu, 27 May 2010 17:28 | # CC wrote:
The zero sum view applies preeminently. It is probably the most important paradigm for understanding human action. Of course we are in competition! Not even a question about it, is there? So what am I saying… ? anything? Just that the zero-sum viewpoint is (1) philosophically exhausted, meaning I am bored out of my mind with the analysis which names the bad guy and then meta-strategizes! Its great, and somebody needs to do it, but I’m pretty sure a robot or a computer program could be trained to do it as well as we do! So why would I want to re-iterate the same thought process a million times, scheming, scheming, scheming… leave that to people who can do nothing more. Zero sum viewpoint is (2) not a viewpoint from which one can investigate oneself and one’s people, or the underlying reality of the nation. And this is the juicy, unexplored philosophical territory, not another analysis of who has influenced American media or what the Tories say amongst themselves. Our people dont have access to themselves on this level, giving it to them is better than naming the bad-guy again, or strategizing about “the one strategic change which will give us victory”. (i.e. just seize the media, form microcommunities, hand out flyers, stamp out anti-semitism, etc. etc.). Zero-sum philosophies are “bad-guy-centric” meaning they are more engaged with countering the Other than with knowing and inhabiting the self and nation, i.e. with being what one is. Zero sum invites to self-deception because it is ‘agonistic’ - a fancy word signifying ancient Greek wrestling matches, with the philosophical application meaning “always with one eye on the enemy.” This is a perfect excuse for people to never look in the mirror. CaptainChaos, you are an example of someone who doesn’t care to look in the mirror in any critical way. You just want to stick it to your enemies, end of. A guy wants to rule the world, considers other people lemmings, and wants to get his hands on the reigns of power, but doesn’t even apparently have the ability to consider for a moment the merits of a viewpoint from which he appears in a less favorable light. 63
Posted by bill on Thu, 27 May 2010 21:12 | # CaptainChaos, you are an example of someone who doesn’t care to look in the mirror in any critical way. []...but doesn’t even apparently have the ability to consider for a moment the merits of a viewpoint from which he appears in a less favorable light. You? Saying this? Fantastic. Post a comment:
Next entry: Early thoughts about nationalism in the coalition age
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by PF on Thu, 20 May 2010 02:40 | #
Very nicely and carefully explicated there.
Very good.
Which has a higher proof?