Posted by DanielS on Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:07 | #

It’s a very good post, GW, as good as one can muster within the reactionary constraints of wailing modernism. Which is not to detract from it - it is very good, but not quite succeeding, needs just a little push in cultivated turn to get over the hump into non-reaction, into systemic homeostasis.

I particularly liked this flourish, which displays your genius I.Q.:

...an insistent statement of the normally quietist common instinct for life and that simple, precious freedom which abides not in choice but in being.

My concern in this modernist quest for ubernatural foundations, is that in being quite averse to the idea of choice (in your generally correct adherence to emergentism), you are dismissing the concept of choice too quickly as only superficial, whereas it might structure important societal provisions beyond the individual level, that would afford this freedom of being - acting according to ones truest nature.

For a nation to declare that monogamy is possible and a good and important option which merits profound respect, does not interfere with the being of those who cannot abide monogamy, while it does respect the being of those who would find it most comfortable to their nature - and it denies the liberal (and right wing) scientistic fallacy that monogamy is strictly unnatural. Thus giving hope to many young White kids coming of age, that they are not likely to have to settle for what is left over in the “natural” free for all, if anything.

To declare the ethnonation a union of natives, bordered as such, does not interfere with being of individuals or the being of the people. It is not superficial and mere culture to provide this structuring, for people to require some guidance from social structuring - it is part and parcel of our human condition that we are born unfinished - again, the girl who is not spoken-to will eventually lose even the capacity to speak. While we can guess that a world without YKW interference will tend to allow for our “mere cultural” ethnoncentrism, we may also guess that the girl in such a world must be enculturated to understand her responsibility to her people for what she has - and that if she chooses to forego that and breed with others, that it is our prerogative, of our natural interests on the grounds of this structuring, to ostracize her, to not have our resources exploited and our human ecology impacted by her arbitrary choice.

The vague suggestion that our system would necessarily be just fine, like a group of automatons on modernist foundation, if we clear away all that cultural stuff that the YKW like to fiddle with, and get to the ‘deepest’ problem, indeed, YKW, is to posit a situation that is not likely to exist for some time, if ever; and thus divert us from what we have to do anyway in order to wrest our autonomy (our social systemic homeostasis, as opposed to mere reaction) as our systemic reconstruction and autonomy does require routine survey of various concerns, both those healthy and unhealthy - not only YKW.

You go on to say:

Likewise, he never goes deeper than Enlightenment thinking in tracing the cause of our crisis.  Neither does he address that crisis as properly existential, preferring to retire to the safety of cultural and religious decline.

To suggest that Scruton needs to “go deeper” than critiquing the Enlightenment is valid for a casual remark. But taken as a most serious correction, it displays the likelihood of trying to be more modernist than the modernists.

As if to say that critiquing the Enlightenment is a shallow philosophical concern (as if we should merely re-boot a 2.0 version, say, as James would, with some of our more current scientific knowledge) and that it is not a major problem in the eyes of Heidegger and any philosopher worth his salt.

It leads to the epistemological blunder of scientisms and estrangement from our being, centered in praxis.

“Science does not think.”

At its barest level, when all contingent philosophical, religious, cultural and political products are stripped away, and when only the foundation ... the historiographical first cause ... remains, the conflict is that between the Judaic struggle for Olam Ha-ba and the native European struggle to live free.

Again, this quest for natural foundation free of all that contingent stuff indicates a wailing modernist unwilling to abide even Heidegger’s basic existential framework, or non-framework, as it were, of the thrownness of our (biological) condition.

You can ascribe, I wouldn’t mind, ultimately, “foundation” to our genetic groupings, to our borders… but it is an ascription that will not be found as in “natural foundation.” Nevertheless, this social attribution, the cultivated turning, is anything but trivial, superficial, something merely to be cleared away as artifice, though I am concerned that you may continue to say so….

You say:

it permeates everything ... the Christian model of a soul seeking salvation, Catholic humanism, liberal universalism and the dicta of human rights, internationalism, and the elitist struggle for a new global order on the one hand, and on the other, in reply, an insistent statement of the normally quietist common instinct for life and that simple, precious freedom which abides not in choice but in being.

So as not to be mistaken for trying to trivialize the matter of Judaic power and influence, let me say that you are not being radical enough in regard to their influence, as of course they permeate, even instigate, their interpretation of reaction to their abuses and exploitation of modernity, as in (((post modern philosophy))) as opposed to White post modernity), and now, not only in interpretation of critique of “the left” and liberalism, but also in guiding, instigating the interpretation of reaction and the healing process - viz., of being - to be cast in right wing, objective, modernist terms.

“Being must be wholly natural, free of all that human social stuff, or it is ‘Jewish’ ...no unionization and coalition building in order to ensconce it, protect it”.... so the mute girl miraculously spoke the words from her inborn nature - not.

Regarding (((post modernity))), we can be subject to what appears thereof as an egregious prescription to shallow, cynical “irony” for the resultant mishmash, as opposed to the regulated choice, against the deep calibration of our group genetics and emergent interests, to respect benign tradition, even if it is not new; and to leave behind pejorative tradition (e.g., Christianity); to embrace modernist advances where they yield vast improvement to our human condition; and to stave-off impervious universalism and indifference that would run rough-shod in modernist destruction; and turn back against it, in the hermeneutic turn that is anything but ironic, but rather homeostatic, social systemic maintenance of our people.

Lets not take yours and Heidegger’s sage emphasis on emergentism to betray its very principle against Cartesian separation and reductionism.

It wasn’t just Wittgenstein who advised looking into the patterns of ordinary language and depth grammar.

In fact, Heidegger cited semiotic wisdom in the language and its etymological genealogy, so to speak.

Language is semiotic to logics of meaning and action, which in turn, serve to direct (or misdirect) behavior.

The European cognitive elites who pursue the universalist abstraction today may themselves be the historiographical progeny of Plato’s Athenian just man. But the form of their guiding philosophy is Judaic in its origins. To escape its historical dynamic we do need to understand this. But more than that we need to understand our own existential truth, for it is from that understanding that our decision to be grows.

Your use of the word decision there would seem to contradict what was said above that freedom lays not in choice, but in being…

I don’t want to detract from your point, because it is subtle and excellent. For practicality sake, I can bear some ambiguity. And again, this is not a formal statement of yours, but a thought provoking overture to our most radical concerns.

As such, I would like to engage you in the somewhat ambiguous existential realm of the thrownness, called-back from the modernist estrangement into midtdasein… in liberation from mere facticity…to assert the attribution of a right below rights, foundations, if you will, something truly radical that mere nature is not likely to afford, but which the authenticity of true liberation (from mere facticity and its tangles) into hermeneutic coherence, accountability, agency and human ecology will warrant and afford - that is the dasein and midtdasein of White men as having intrinsic value, warrantably asserted as part and parcel of European species, not just a civil right - no less an existential story and call for what is foundational to us and no less important, as it is this attribution in the White post modern turn which is at the crux of our survival as European as genus and species.

White females generally have intrinsic value tacitly attributed through natural upshot of their preciousness as child bearing creatures, more limited fertility, and in protection of their being the weaker, dependent sex. It can be violated, but violation is a significant taboo.

However, an attribution of some intrinsic value to White men, based on their DNA and the fact that we’ve survived this far, among other reasons, does not deny the particular requirements of the male role to be most called upon to fight in the event midtdasein is under siege and attack.

All that said, it is an excellent post GW, bespeaks your genius… but like a great driver who loses one lap (in the mutual quest for theoretical adequacy) to perhaps a lesser driver who has had the luxury of some good coaching and pit crew…

Nevertheless, there is no necessary competition (except against theoretical error) and I prefer to see us being on the same team - I am sure that we have the same finish line, which is a win-win.

Posted by R.I.P. on Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:09 | #

Sir Roger Scruton (75) one of Britain’s most prominent conservative philosophers. A graduate of Cambridge University, Scruton embraced conservative ideas after visiting Paris amid the May 1968 student uprising. A lecturer for many years at the University of London’s Birkbeck College, he carved out a role as a public intellectual—a relatively rare thing in Britain—with more than 50 books on morality, politics, culture, and aesthetics, including The Meaning of Conservatism, The Aesthetics of Architecture, and England: An Elegy. Scruton valued tradition, high culture, and the British countryside; he disliked socialism, liberalism, most modern architecture, and much of popular culture. Knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 2016, he died of lung cancer in Brinkworth, Wiltshire, England on January 12, 2020.

Posted by Roger Scruton on Mon, 04 May 2020 02:19 | #

Sir Roger Scruton: How to Be a Conservative