|
|
|
Ethics and morality: the absolute ideal of race by Grimoire Recently, in the thread to Mr Rod Cameron’s Idealist Critique, Mr Leon Haller asks:
And I agree with these questions. The summation I leave as self-evident and up to Mr. Cameron, but the ethics question I thought important. Also, in discussion with Mr. Cameron this idea came up as a point of disagreement also with GW et al, the result being general disagreement ... I expect no less. Normally, I wait to make any positive statements except critique, since I am usually in complete disagreement with the general temper. But Mr Haller has asked an honest and direct question that I feel I should answer regarding the role of Ethics in Nationalism, which I believe are paramount, and an “absolute idea” of our race [viz-a-vis Leon’s own insistence that European Man is Ethical Man - Ed]. The root of my disagreement is deep, and branches into many facets of the problem of the psychology of modern man - particularly that emanating from the problem of predicate thinking, of which I will write later. But now i want to write briefly as possible, per Mr. Hallers request, on the the role of Ethics in Race. I have protested to many here that they do not understand the implications of the rhetoric of Darwinist theory in practice on Mankind - or the theories of “Natural Selection” and “Survival Of The Fittest” - and its predicate assumptions regarding evolution, that there is a vast difference between evolutionary psychology and true evolution, and that these are in direct conflict with that which created our Race. For it is ethics and morals which create race and human evolution, as most of you will vehemently deny. I will tell you why I think you are wrong. I already understand most of you will resist this with vigour. So I will be brief. “Evolutionary Adaptation”, “Survival of the Fittest” and “Natural Selection” are theories derived from zoology, not anthropology. In anthropology they are associated only through predication, as these loose catch-all syllogisms are at best folk-wisdom with the imprimateur of science. Only the most rabid Darwinists support the idea, and most educated people feel, in the words of a historian of culture and ideas:
The reason is intuitive sense; theories that apply to animals do not apply to Man. Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest apply to animals because they live in their natural environment. Man does not. In man’s environment, “Natural Selection” and “Survival of the Fittest” kills the courageous, the noble, those who resist injustice and deselects and disadvantages through progeny those who are of advanced intelligence. Natural Selections favours bestiality and stupidity … and continually selects in a manner devised to return Mankind to animality and a state of nature in coherence with the great apes. Ethics and Morality are the counter of this, and serve as a method of un-natural selection and adaptation. Ethics and Morality place un-natural environmental burdens over and above the natural environment ... such as monogamy and enduring, extended family and values that support cohesion and endurance as a social unit. These accrue to Race. These create Race. Race is a result of limits imposed by ethics and morality. All Race, culture and language arise out of these limits, and distinguishes between the ultimate values of ethics and morality and through this distinguish between peoples. The result leads to our un-natural civilization. For Mankind is not natural, as it is understood regarding all other life-forms on this planet. The Aryan concept of history is of the constant de-evolution of mankind, and is shared with all great classic cultures, and all eastern Aryan derived cultures. It is the central tenet concerning history. This tenet also contains the warning that when the values of a Race are discarded, you get Africa to put it succinctly. The Modern idea of the evolution of mankind is in direct contradiction to what you see around you if you walk the streets of any western metropolis. So in summation: Ethics and morality are a foundation of Western culture. And those who propose “evolutionary” or “Darwinist” values are in discord with the values that have preserved the branches of the Aryan race from the dawn of its history. Comments:2
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:18 | # The elites of today are evidence to support your last sentence. 3
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:54 | # I too am against vulgar ‘social-Darwinism’ as an explanation of just about anything and a lot of evolutionary psychology is in the realms of the ‘just so’ story. However it is a false dichotomy between evolutionary biology and culture. We are only able to have culture, ethics and so on because of the type of animals we are - hyper-social primates – and we are this type of animal due to our adaptive evolutionary history. Admittedly, anthropologically, there has existed a deal of plasticity in human socio-cultural/symbolic activities and systems but human behaviour is even, in this facet, shaped by functional considerations. 4
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:23 | # Then you Graham, along with Gworker are unconsciously (I assume) adherents of multi-culturism, as you see no conflict between the absolute ideal of race and culture and evolutionary biology. Hyper-social primates adapt to their environment based on physical needs, not on teleological concepts like an absolute ideal of race and culture. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:42 | # Grim, “Race” means there is a certain centering genetically. Races evolved because geography, basically, reduced gene flows at the periphery and similarity obtained as a result. There was never any ideal at work because mate selection was possible only within the locale. 6
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:48 | # These results are exactly the implications of your materialist world view…and your myopia concerning race and it’s development. So now you may choose to mate with blacks as they are within your locale in abundance. Why do you persist in the subterfuge of concern with racialism, as your own views predestine and direct your race to defeat and dissipation? 7
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:04 | # Are not the ethics, morals and values of the elites you (I assume) disparage in your first comment; materialist, darwinist - ‘survival of the fittest’ etc.? Then if you truly have concern for your race in terms of blood and culture, how is this possible when you yourself promulgate the same values - which lead to the same ends? 8
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:26 | # It can easily account for the fitness trade-off between intra-group and inter-group selection, and it’s the cutting edge of evolutionary theory (see “The Foundations of Social Evolution”) 9
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:31 | # Non-existence is absolute. To be first one must exist. Is that not the point? Hard to make a materialist ontology any simpler surely? 10
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:52 | # Is it just my imagination, or is Grim beginning to walk on his hind legs? 11
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:17 | # Graham: 12
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:25 | # And now that you have reduced materialist ontology to it’s simplest form. Is not it’s redundancy obvious? Redundancy as in (def.); Explain to me the advantage to race of materialist ontology. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:32 | # The “advantage to race of materialist ontology” is that it is true in the world. Ideals are not truths. They are markers of an unreliable trajectory. If the ideal - say, that the Germanics are the master race - is not attainable the results will be likely to disappoint. This, btw:
... is beneath you. We were discussing the evolution of race. Keep it on the island. 14
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 01:10 | #
Not only is this beneath you, Grim, it contributes to the fog of Danielj’s race and paternity. Shame on you! 15
Posted by Steve on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:29 | #
Socialism and civilization have lowered the threshold of survival, allowing all to mate. Monogamy allows even the lowest ranked males to find mates. The default christian/socialist/puritanical morality is the root of our problems. In the natural state, intelligence resulted in higher reproductive rate… this is obviously how humans evolved from more primitive bipeds. Socialism functions as an environmental force to select for those with lower IQ. 16
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 04:42 | #
Do you understand the meaning of predicate thinking? It is when token words are used, as in marketing or political messaging, and two disassociated ideas become illogically associated. Example: -Materialism is espoused by impressive didactic scientists with complex formulas and bonafides on the office wall. - Materialism is the ontology Gworker purports to espouse. _Therefore Gworker is a impressive ‘scientistic’ ontologist, and he will save the British race, therefore complex formulas are ipso facto correct and inevitably the bonafides will materialize on the office wall….as if ‘apriori.’ Do you love your daughter? How about your Dad? Well that’s impossible because love is not true in this world. Why not just send them some elemental materials and be done with it? ————————————————
My statement above logically follows the statement of yours below.
————————————————— Why are materialists so god-darned stupid? Why do they say the darnest things like children? Because materialism is an induced consciousness. You have been rendered of no account. If Idealism is illogical and not true - then it is as if designed perfectly for you. 17
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 04:47 | # Steve:
18
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 04:55 | # Steve: 19
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:15 | # It is morality, and its ultimate tendency to diffuse, which is the greatest burden upon civilized:
Descent of Man [ 1871 ] Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties 20
Posted by Ambitious Outsider on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:42 | # Interesting news (if off-topic) Banning the Blade A group of “intactivists” opposed to infant circumcision — which they call “male genital mutilation” — said they have collected more than enough signatures for a proposal to ban the practice to appear as a ballot measure in San Francisco during the November elections. The leading proponent of the ban, Lloyd Schofield, 59, acknowledged that circumcision is widely socially accepted but said it should still be outlawed. “It’s excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that’s forced on men when they’re at their weakest and most vulnerable,” he told Reuters (Apr. 27). The ballot measure, which would only apply within San Francisco city limits, would make it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years of age, regardless of his parents’ religious beliefs, and would carry a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and a year in jail. Let’s hope so! We should ban this discussing Jewish practice. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:14 | # Grim,
Idealism within the bounds of a person’s (or a people’s) innate possibility can be achievable and, therefore, may produce results as intended. Idealism without the bounds of the possible is not achievable and therefore, if pursued, will produce results that are not intended (and, therefore, not ideal). This is the sense in which Nature’s bounds regulate idealist teleology. Germans who are self-estranged and ethno-masochistic can strive for a recovery to the norms of ethnic comportment, and the result may be vivifying and good. They cannot strive to racial mastery over the Jew and the Slav or, as you like to think, to some great world-educational purpose. It would be a lie, though a very romantic one that lots of German racial religionists could all too easily fall for. Again.
Someone was once rumoured to have said, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” There are only three, in fact: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_2/ ... and to gather two is sufficient. As I said to you elsewhere to simplify the principle:
My “adherence to materialism”, as you put it, is the same as, identified with, and inseparable from the disclosure afforded by this event as experienced by someone in whom the faithist writ does not run. Rod has some experience of this event and was able, accordingly, to speculate about where my Weltanschauung springs from. You don’t and can’t with any accuracy. But that does not stop you from offering some quite ascerbic opinions. Look Grim, if I don’t find the human being to be other than human and a part of Nature, then I am somewhat unlikely to find “spirit of racism” and over-reaching Idealist teleologies to be true in themselves, right? Ultimately, to get at (rather than into) my thinking you have to prove the existence of a god or gods. Go right ahead. But if you can’t, you must acknowledge that what I am saying about ontology, Nature and the possible is reliable - at least, more reliable than your attempt here to demonstrate that evolution is involution for Man. 22
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:58 | # ‘Prove the existence of Gods?’ I like this, classic. You need a substitute for irrationality, rather than using your rationality. “more reliable than your attempt here to demonstrate that evolution is involution for Man.” I said look outside your window - walk the streets, see for yourself. That is your materialist evolution. 23
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:10 | # Gworker:
Passages like the following are nothing more than superstitious babble, similar to a voodoo epistemology with the addition of the new-age borrowing of concepts from philosophy and meditation practiced in a attempt to widen scope of appeal. Syncratism, or Synergism as it is called.
Logical? After the string of babble, comes the illogical association/disassociation and confession of the faith, or ‘disclosure’ moment:
This is the disclosure moment, or confession that is found in all your pronouncements. Notice the contradiction “ is the same as, identified with, and inseparable from the disclosure afforded by this event as experienced by someone” now the oxymoronic “ in whom the faithist writ does not run. “ Play it back “the same as, identified with, and inseparable from the disclosure “ I see clearly now your materialism with it’s Darwinist rhetoric is the 21st century analogue of the cargo cult. With the material as evidence of the benefice of the materialist anti-gods and anti-faith. You are not religious, but superstitious, as a prehistoric aborigine - but like the aborigine the logic of your rationality is shattered with ‘the faithist writ. You are the example of exactly what the Talmudists declared they would achieve. The modern technological negro/slave stripped of the civilization creating faith and traditions that gave rise to self-determination of the society you inhabit. A metropolitan aborigine that is helpless, without bearing and have no choice but to release his hand over the maintenance of civilization to those who are of the original materialist, anti-god, anti-idealism, anti-religion, anti-national, anti-race faith - the supra-irrational, the Talmud. You are in effect a ‘golem’. This is what unconsciously draws you to Nationalism. You put up this site to spread a personal acceptance of collapse and defeat to other nationalists. For there is nothing in your gabble, and there never has been - of anything of use to Nationalism - but the promised return of the cargo of materialism. With it’s collapse of the natural instinct for preservation….as you explain with confused jargon and nonsense about ‘being’...which is sufficient and will be mandated as solely sufficient in a society run by the dictates of the Talmud. Your instincts are induced instincts. Induced to guarantee surrender and to influence those who have instincts left that would cause resistance. Like you anti-faith, anti-idealism… your anti-German/anti-palingenesis is illogical for someone who wants his country to survive and prosper. Germany and Britain joined could rule the world for the betterment of all . Your conditioned /controlled being is induced to repulse and replace thoughts of self determination with a mystical union with the illusive material/being. Germany perhaps can not succeed on her own, but she has no choice. It is either that or accept debasement and surrender that your country has been the locus for spreading throughout the world. You are indeed now a true British Israelite… a delusional and wholly controlled entity, a slave in mind as well as soul. Very similar to the rat in a maze being conditioned to find or not find cheese, or a pigeon striking a bell and receiving grain. My primary interest in MR has been to study what I could of the mentality of controlled defeat and collapse. It has been known for some time now that the Metsada org. is primary in setting up, and the taking over of Nationalist sites. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/11/false-flag-racism-the-internet-proxy-war/ Often through rabid anti-semitism , but all manner of techniques from the vulgar to subtle inducement to predicate-thinking concerning key issues that they attempt to associate with controlled issues… using the same techniques used to sell coffee, cigarettes, car insurance and anti-perspirant deodorant. The techniques learned will be used to counter the effect. So far it’s understood once someone has been conditioned, logic or rationality can no longer reach them. The question then is, what type of illogic and irrationality can bring a person back to rationality? The question with MR has been, are you a paid entity, volunteer or as I suspected unconscious and culturally conditioned. I have bet on the latter, and this is why I have been studying you. Like your BNP, your ontology of the material is a political/psychological program designed to collapse only at the correct moment. When reality outside your cultic perceptions on the ‘material’ rudely pushes aside your ‘ontology of the material’ and reveals a superficial attempt to avoid the responsibility of a citizen, and not a subject… you will collapse into subjectivity, until the chance of resistance passes. You will be comforted by the fact that subjective ‘being’ will soon be all that is left to you, as you will soon no longer have the opportunity to control your own destiny and the simple getting in touch with mystical ‘being’ will offer a superficial analgesic. Perhaps a true resistance will wake you…I think you will fight this and anyone who works to organize their responsibilities. I believe at heart you are good fellows. But you have freely chosen the ‘blue pill’ blissful ignorance of illusion against embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality….and prefer living in simulated reality, or the ontology of the material, as you term it. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 01:07 | # I am going to try to reach out to you, Grim, because we are talking past eachother and it is not profitable. In another article here I wrote:
Take the example of this little chap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFt7VeKRfj0 We can agree, I hope, that his flawless calculations of purchase occur at a speed thousands of times faster than the human intellect, with its cumbersome modelling mechanism, could manage, and several times faster than our emotions, with their system of value assignment, can. In animals, of course, there are only two such systems operating. But the motor function of our brain is not remarkably slower than that of our little Caprinaec friend. The speed differentials between human motor calculation, emotion assignment and thought modelling are definitely non-trivial - something that, as far as I am aware, no Idealist philosopher has troubled himself to explain. Assuming, of course, that a non-materialist explanation better than Heidegger’s “Animals have no being” is available in Idealism. But to return to the rock-face, the really interesting thing about this little fellow is not just that he calculates his purchase so fast and so flawlessly but that he calculates the purchase after leaps he has not yet made. His calculation is predictive, not merely reactive. Right there is proof that even animal presence, balanced on the edge of existence as it is, is Idea. But let’s conduct a little thought experiment - this sort of thing goes on all the while with Idealism, after all. Let’s assume that the little goat, fearful on his rock-face, is deeply religious. Since this is our Idea, does it not follow that the goat must have being (at least for us) and it is demonstrating in the video not simply the all too materialist animal talent for survival but the unity of goat-thought (OK, motion calculation) and goat-being, with all the implications that carries for the purveyors of the Absolute? If not, why not? 25
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:10 | #
If we are not going to talk past each other, what does a fucking goat have to do with anything? You have no concept, no ability to gauge what a goat is thinking, or doing, remembering, or believing, much less having anything to do with nationalism. Do you understand? The goat is not a variable…not an ‘x’. Heidegger never said ‘animals have no being’. He said they have no ‘hand’. Animals inhabit being, while man only dwells. Heidegger’s Geschlecht v.2, Vorhandenheit / Zuhandenheit. ....Heidegger for you is more role playing. Whatever role insanity, delusion and make-believe play for you….why not embrace it? Why pretend it’s something it’s not and in so doing damage yourself, and a cause you purport to espouse (nationalism)? PS: the answer to the goat is it’s source is the absolute…not material. That it is provided with everything it needs for to accomplish incredible feats over material. It needs no fixing. The mystery of the goat is that you see only material, the same as the rock it scales, you do not see that it is alive. Your broken abstractions grind and turn out insanity because you cannot see what is in front of you…and admit it into your being. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 10:08 | # Grim, The animal, in Heidegger’s thin presentation of it, is denied Dasein because temporalisation and care are denied to it. It is as if the animal being falls into the mountain ravine between the ontic and the ontological and between carnality and Dasein, and cannot be rescued. Because, if it was rescued the consequences for human Dasein, as presented by Heidegger, would be killing. It is a significant weakness. Got that? But my question was not about Heidegger’s problem. My question is a serious one about the basal weakness of your Idealism as a system in which thoughts (under the subtle discriminative influence of the faith instinct) order meaning and even what exists and what does not. For example you declare that the goat is “alive” and this aliveness is from “the absolute”. The absolute, therefore, exists already! Anything and everything else, even, is mere appearance. The foot has fallen with mechanical accuracy, the wire has been tripped, the earnest devotion has flowed, and the decision for fantasy has been taken. The very British phenomenon of common-sense insists that this is a closed system - a self-proving system - of reasoning that reduces everything to the game of saying, “There, a goat! An Idea ... the Absolute!” rather than anything useful, or anything at all, actually, about Nature. You can only talk about Ideas. To you, the goat is not a goat in itself. You do not grant the goat his superb calculation, which calculation is in the world and makes him a goat every bit as much as his bleat and his tongue flapping and his leg pawing. You do not, one must therefore presume, grant your own motor calculations as your body walks or cycles or plays tennis their human-ness as such, or even their existence except as an Idea in your thinking faculty, notwithstanding the fact that they take place thousands of times faster than your ideational system can process. It does not work, does it? Here’s a conundrum for you. If Hegel has never been born, would there be an Absolute Idea? Here is my answer: perception, too, is in the world. 27
Posted by anon on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:10 | #
You don’t seem to grant the goat much either from that “thin presentation”!
Would that be a talking goat? 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:16 | # If you want a treatise on goats you probably need to speak to an Afghan. Their national sport is goat-grabbing. Very few of them have read Hegel, apparently. 29
Posted by anon on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:39 | # No, I spoke too soon; I see above you gave him due respect for his deft purchasing of the heights. 30
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:51 | # There are several posts with comments directed to me to which I should like to respond, but I’m just extremely busy at the moment. Apologies. One point nagging at me about this GW/Grimoire scuffle: DOES ANY OF THIS REALLY MATTER? To varying degrees, every white nation is under racial siege, and soon (in historical time - within a decade or two), every white person will be under racial assault. Time is running out. The era to have done all this philosophizing was when it first became apparent that Western intertribal morality had undergone a complete inversion, one probably unrivaled in history, and that this was occurring at roughly the same time as 1) an unprecedented population explosion in the Third World; 2) the rise of Western feminism, with its emphasis on female careerism and therefore clear hints of a future fall in white fertility; 3) revolutions in communications and transportation technologies; 4) increasing global trade flows, as well as de-territorialization of capital; and 5) ‘non-discrimination’ enactments to Western immigration laws. [This list of the origins of the present catastrophe is not meant to be comprehensive; eg, we would have to include the Holocaust cult arising in this period of the 60s (and not in the first two decades following WW2, during which time Jews were mostly embarrassed by what had transpired, and maintained a low ‘Shoah-profile’).] It was in the period during and immediately after Enoch Powell’s great “River of Blood” speech that nationalists needed to develop a whole ethics and even theology of ethnocultural resistance to totalitarian integration and genetically incompatible immigration. Some great and vitally important books were published (eg, The Dispossessed Majority, The Camp of the Saints, both 1972, Which Way, Western Man?), but, at least in the Anglophone world, a comprehensive racial philosophy (ontology, ethics, political thought, etc) was not, to my knowledge, developed. I intend to devote a large portion of what I hope will be the second half of my life to this recondite task (which is specifically for me, as I’ve stated previously, the philosophical integration of scientific race realism with classical conservatism and Christian natural law). But I can’t help wondering if it wouldn’t be more useful for all real or self-styled WN (I prefer WP - “white preservationist”) thinkers to devote their time to propaganda (awakening the slumbering masses of our people before their doom), and racial and political organization. We know the substance of any “lowest common denominator” WN: stopping immigration, and resisting racial oppression from above (eg, affirmative action, multiculturalist mendacity), and violent racial assaults from below. A movement, a great, sweeping movement, can be built on this lcd-WN without us actually having to solve all (or any) of the great questions of existence which have always bedeviled ratiocinative beings. Once we have actually secured our racial future, we can set about ex post facto giving the new dispensation its appropriate theoretical raiments. Time is not the white man’s friend. 31
Posted by Anti-WOG Alliance on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:59 | # Apparently according to the “White” Nationalist dunces this is a non-white and a non-Aryan:
32
Posted by Anti-WOG Alliance on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:09 | # Repeat the 14 words after me folks: “We Must Secure the Existence of our People and a Future for Swarthy Children.” 33
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:22 | #
Goatworker, The animal, in Gworker’s illiterate, unlearned, ignorant, made-up, uncomprehending, divorced from reality, inability-to-consult-proper-text presentation of Heidegger’s presentation, is but another fractured funhouse mirror image of no meaning. Gworker’s sense of reality falls into the mountain ravine between the ontic (a word Gworker uses to mean - ‘nothing’) and the ontological (here Gworker means ‘studies of ‘nothing’’) and between carnality and Dasein (which means Gworker tries to order pizza but finds himself only able to babble about ‘nothing’) and cannot be rescued (the babbles about ‘nothing’ have become automatic ). Got that?
An even more very British phenomenon is their global supremacy in world beating twit-itude.
Here I presume, Gworker means by ‘goat’ , himself. The parallels are obvious - a goat goes ‘blaaah blaaah’, exactly in the same manner Gworker goes ‘blah blah’...in a ceaseless fashion. By ‘superb calculation’, Gworker means how he replaces Heidegger’s phenomenology with the very British phenomenology of ‘blah blahs’ of a goat, in a manner a thousand times faster than our ideational system can process. Here’s a conundrum for you. If the goat had never been born, would Gworker have any Idea? Here is his answer: “blaah blaah”, “blaah blaah”. 34
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:45 | # Leon: it does matter very much. As you can see, this site purports to be about a particular European nationalism. A quick study reveals the principal characters are obviously ‘cognitively insane’. How many other sites are, without humour or self-consciousness - this idiotic? Almost none. This level of idiocy usually precludes expressing oneself in a linear manner. Is Nationalism itself insane? Hardly, any intelligent person is at bottom a nationalist - it’s part of the survival instinct, the survival of the group is survival of the individual. A European more so, as a member of a declining apex culture. Why the decline? What is going on here? Who are these people? And what is going on here? 35
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 06:57 | # Grimoire: I agree with what you say about the innate survival instinct, and our ‘apex’ culture (that’s a good expression, which I shall appropriate in the future). My point was a simple and pragmatic one. The Occident is being colonized at such a clip that I question whether we have the time to engage in these extended ontological disquisitions and debates. What do they realistically hope to accomplish? If I, a reasonably bright, Ivy-educated, middle-aged man who has done a great deal of serious reading (albeit not in metaphysics or ontology or advanced logic), and certainly has been intermittently studying and reflecting upon the decline of the white race for more than two decades, have difficulty understanding this level of philosophical abstraction, then of what use is it relative to the most pressing issue of our common concern - stopping the legal invasion-by-immigration - which also happens to be visceral and thus easily understood by the masses? WPs need to get their priorities straight. My emphasis on racial ethics of survival is at bottom a very practical one. If I thought the matter solved, I would devote my energies in this area to pure informational propaganda (ie, disseminating as widely as possible the basic facts of the Third Worldization of the Occident, and what this will portend for whites in the future). Unfortunately, the left has somehow managed to win the “Is white preservation evil?” debate, and I strongly believe that that fact accounts for much of the reluctance of many whites even to face the reality of their racial dispossession, let alone to resist it. But WN ontology? If most persons are cognitively incapable even of grasping the relevant issues, why should any extended elaboration of such be considered as (let alone more) useful than writing directly to the masses in plain language about their impending and dangerous foreign subjugation? This all seems obvious to me. BTW, despite my strategic disagreements with GW, I think him very far from being ‘insane’. And most of us here are similarly sane (there are some exceptions, of course). 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:13 | # Isn’t it obvious, Mr. Haller? It is not intended for most people, thus the term “ontology of discrimination”. Plain language was used since the days of Grant and Stoddard but doesn’t work. Why? It’s because people pursue self-interest/family interest. Any benefit that then accrues to the group is incidental. ‘The survival of the group is survival of the individual’ is nonsensical because the group can only exist of individuals. Nationalism is as often the enemy of the race as it is its protector. 37
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59 | # Pursuing complete self-interest on the part of whites would be sufficient to save the white race. What is my self-interest in being turned into a minority in California, and soon throughout the US? I have met very few white immigrationists in my time. A few sick freaks, from “right-wingers” to leftists. The embrace of the Cult of Diversity really transcends normal ideological categories, though most diversitites are leftists. Yet I have also met few white nationalists (outside of specific political conferences). Most whites, in the privacy of the voting booth, would probably vote against legal immigration, if offered the chance. But getting most of them to move beyond this level of survivalism to thinking in ‘group-conflict’ terms invariably bumps up against the “that’s racist” (ie, immoral, wrong, bad, evil, etc) response. If a majority of whites won’t reason their way past that response, we will go extinct. That reasoning involves ethics, not ontology, and it is understandable by at least the more intelligent in a way that ontology will never be. And of course the clock keeps ticking ... 38
Posted by CS on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:02 | # Leon, Recently I have come across two white posters who plan om moving from their countries to a “whiter” country. One of them was actually considering moving to the UK until other posters warned them that the UK is even worse than America. Since some of our people are going to move anyway, wouldn’t it be best that they all move to the same country and even better the same city? The sooner we pick a few countries and corresponding cities, the better off we will be. 39
Posted by anon on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:35 | #
I just see it as needless obscurantism, of which philosophers have oft been guilty. Despite appeals to big mystery I don’t believe there is one awaiting us at the other side, or not that can’t be discussed in simpler terms. It is, essentially, training oneself to think of existence in the terms of a given philosophical rhetoric — one making almost no appeal to psychology, political science, sociobiology, biology of any sort, etc., which must all be supplied by Guessedworker. One must put aside visions of sour grapes and furtive consultation of Dummies books and merely ask if if makes any sense at all to plunge one’s mind into this alien, disembodied grammar of 19-whatever it is, without reference or contingency to any of the main currents of scientific thought. It is simply romantic to allow oneself to get lost in one man’s private grammar. A small dose of Wittgenstein could do Guessedworker some good in that regard. But it ought to be clear that the hole left by the relentless exile of teleology from his worldview is filled or perhaps covered with the romantic appeal, the semantic aura of Heideggerian metaphysics. There are quite rigorous rationalists who don’t believe metaphysics is necessary. If Guessedworker finds it a chore to drag us all with him after the ontological truth, he may pause to reflect that there’s more to the demurral than mere confusion and a desire to gaze at one’s shoes. 40
Posted by anon on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:42 | # CS, I have come to believe that living around more white people is not the solution. At least not the ultra-white northerners of WN daydreams. Call me a crypto-wog but I find them all CRASHING BORES, and usually some grade of sissy. I exclude what I’ve seen of Americans in states such as Montana, the Dakotas and parts of Washington. Thems real hod workers hab no time fuh sissyin’ about. Basically wherever white men wear Carhartts and drink lots of coffee, one may be assured of manly company. But wherever Europeans are gathered the testo factor plummets dangerously and life seems a circus of dreadlocks and McVitie’s. 41
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:44 | # Jesus, Anon. You’ve driven me into an identity crisis. I’m sitting here in Oregon sipping my ninth cup of coffee in a Carhartt kilt. I’d never heard of McVitie’s until I googled them a minute ago , and now I’m dying for one. Fortunately, I have diversions. 42
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:31 | # “Voegelin’s principal statement on Hegel’s Hermeticism is a savagely polemical essay, “On Hegel: A Study in Sorcery,” referring to the Phenomenology of Spirit as a “grimoire” which “must be recognized as a work of magic — indeed, it is one of the great magic performances.”” 43
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:48 | # J. Marr: your diversion sums up all of history in 39 seconds. Materialism will not work, people’s understanding at bottom is designed to comprehend more than the material. Argue with a materialist for more than moment, and they will start expressing their materialism in teleological terms - terms of faith. Point this out and they start lying and using obscurantism, any diversion they can claw out. This is a great weakness. This great weakness is in the existing power structure because it is materialist oriented…it’s power rests on materialism and need. Unfortunately not just the power structure but the peoples movement is filled with materialists. Materialists are usually as anon observes - cowards - beings with no ‘there’ there. As a result of conversing with the good people here I have been a few some good ideas on how to counter the effects of goat materialism. I see my usual habit of slapping the stupid and ignorant across the face doesn’t translate to good effect via the internet. A technique and logic that encapsulates or circumnavigates slapping someone pervasively across the face, or throttling them, or directed persuasion in metaphysical terms, is needed. I have a good idea where to get it. 44
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 20:59 | # All this talk of materialism is a little like an SWP meeting. The correct term is physicalism. Some philosophers suggest that ‘physicalism’ is distinct from ‘materialism’ for a reason quite unrelated to the one emphasized by Neurath and Carnap. As the name suggests, materialists historically held that everything was matter — where matter was conceived as “an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist” (Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, par. 9). But physics itself has shown that not everything is matter in this sense; for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Lange 1865, Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983). 45
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:16 | # I notice that it was suggested that GW needs a dose of Wittgenstein - oh the irony of Hegelians calling someone out for mystification! If I say ‘This is a very pleasant pineapple’ is it really a statement about how the merely existing pineapple has successfully adhered to the ‘absolute ideal’ of the pineapple? Much of philosophy is but language gone on holiday - and in the case of Hegel - cloud cuckoo land. 46
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:29 | # Couple of books that might be on interest Things Merely are: Philosophy in the Poetry of Wallace Stevens & Very Little…Almost Nothing: Death, Philosophy, Literature and a little poetry… Of Mere Being The palm at the end of the mind, A gold-feathered bird You know then that it is not the reason The palm stands on the edge of space. 47
Posted by Ambitious Outsider on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:49 | # Where is God in the ‘absolute ideal’? After seven days The people sipped their wine God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them; So he said:“Once there was a boy God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them; The people sat waiting God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them; 48
Posted by CS on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:32 | # Anon, The point is not to live with just white people. The point is to live and be governed by white nationalist (or whatever you want to call them) people. And to do that we will need international white flight from all countries into one or two small ones. And even better, they should all move to the same city at first. The more of our people in any one city, the more it will attract others of a like mind and repel those of an opposite mind. 49
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 03:07 | #
Good. Tell us about it when you’re ready. 50
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 07:37 | # @ Jim: I will do that. I’m making plans with a few individuals to setup a European multi-language site. I hope to arrange a cross publishing agreement where articles from all European sites can be translated and made available in all languages, so anglophones and anglo-saxons can get a taste of nationalism free of the compromised idiocy so prevalent in this sphere, perhaps feel what it like to be Europeans instead of manque jews who pride themselves at their skills in exploitation, spoiling, sabotage and dishonesty. People need now a Nationalist site with a constructive/intelligent/courageous orientation and not the defeatist/apathetic/pansy orientation such as our gracious host offers here without embarrassment. I have still as of yet not received the book “The Wasp Question”, and am committed to write a review for MR, and it will be a few weeks collecting and translating and deciding the format - but when online I will forward an invite to Mr. Marr and all true nationalists. It is intended to present Nationalism as positive experience so there will be only membership posting and commenting for most…or it may be a dark site not open to the public or even on web protocols. I shall need some capable anglophone administrators and I hope to invite you. 51
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:54 | # What will the end purpose of this proposed site be, and how will you achieve it? My thought has for while now been that an intellectual nationalist site ought to be about soliciting ideas on particular topics with a view to formulating collectively a comprehensive nationalist ideology and policy agenda, which can then be translated into propaganda for widespread dissemination. Different persons bring different backgrounds and areas of expertise to the common discussion, and out of that ‘diversity’ could be found the expertise to develop an intellectually tenable nationalist philosophy, as well as programmatic political agenda. It could also serve as a networking site for nationalists, facilitating activities in different geographical areas (eg, who are the WNs in, say, Orange County, CA, USA?) - as well as the site for Pan-European WN to advocate and coordinate the years or decades-long quest to establish the White Zion. 52
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:11 | # Graham, I like how you bring bibliographically relevant citations into discourse here. I thought you were a biologist. Is philosophy a hobby? I’ve thought about buying that Frank book in the past, but its mathematics was too intimidating. Also, I don’t see the need to try to understand these matters at that level of quantitative sophistication, at least for the political theorist. I’m not sure this is correct: However it is a false dichotomy between evolutionary biology and culture. We are only able to have culture, ethics and so on because of the type of animals we are - hyper-social primates – and we are this type of animal due to our adaptive evolutionary history. Admittedly, anthropologically, there has existed a deal of plasticity in human socio-cultural/symbolic activities and systems but human behaviour is even, in this facet, shaped by functional considerations. (GL) Human culture may grow out of human biology, and thus ultimately evolutionary adaptations, but hasn’t the growth and development of civilizations now long since moved out of natural evolution’s shadow? Certainly, the rate of human agent-based change vastly exceeds undirected genetic changes. 53
Posted by anon on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:48 | #
54
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 19:48 | # @Leon: @anon 55
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:37 | # Yes I’m a biologist but one member of my family is a physicist and another a philosopher - so family conversations are interesting! I try to read widely. I’m thankful my parents cared about our education. The Frank book is very hard going - I had to explain parts of to my PhD supervisor - he had never even seen the book before I introduced it to him. But it gives a wonderful grounding in ‘the social’ from a Darwinian perspective. Look guys from a wider perspective should we not try to use civil ‘methodologically neutral’ language when discussing things? Everyone can be guilty on the net of going over the top with being rude etc., I know I have been guilty. Should we not try to understand why someone is saying what they are and assume that they are not, ipso facto, an idiot because they might have a different emphasis from our own. For example, I personally think that a politics of sustainability; of environments, cultures, and people is a good place to start from - the idea of healthy collective and individual limits is no bad thing and a rather plastic and fuzzy concept. It is not immediately going to horrify Mr and Mrs Average. Others might not agree and so should we not be able to have a civil discourse about such things? 56
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:53 | # I hope we won’t eliminate rudeness altogether, Graham. I was losing interest in this site until I saw your reference to Leon as an “insufferable wanker”. In many cases, I find this sort of thing very refreshing as long as it is not directed at the man I love. 57
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:24 | # Actually, it was quite a while ago that Grim himself suggested we allow ourselves one personal swipe per post under the auspices of artistic license. I remember this very well, because it elicited a cascade of doggerel from me. 58
Posted by anon on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:27 | # Grimoire, There is really no need for insults though. I agree with you as far as Guessedworker’s pursuit of “nationalist ontology”, or however he understands it. Actually that link Jimmy posted to Voegelin’s essay on Hegel aligns neatly with our rejection of ontology, describing Hegel’s Phänomenologie as a mystical imaginative project. My view of Heidegger’s work is no more charitable. There is no need to get bogged down in their terms anymore than there is with leftist utopian rhetoric; the values are different but the element of fantasy, of building after [nachbauen] reality in figurative language [reiner Quatsch] is strikingly similar. It’s all the useless lucubration of professional metaphysicists [ernste Nabelforscher].
Well, that may be the case with some. Often after reading discussions of genetics or the like, my mind exhausted after one paragraph, I feel as a negro servant may have felt attempting to piece together the rococo English of an abolitionist broadsheet in the big house after massa had gone to bed. But in the main it seems to me you are dealing with an intelligent lot, whatever their precise levels of formal education. Graham Lister at least is no amateur. Guessedworker has never claimed to be anymore than just that, but he is obviously well-read. Sure, there is some posing, but if left entirely to academics, we should never arrive at the fullest truth of all that is going on. That’s why Kevin MacDonald has loomed so large — one stateside academic took the great plunge. Europe has the revisionists. We have psychology. It is clear you do not like it, but so far you’ve done little more than mock. And entertaining it’s been, but nothing disproved. The breakdown here is rather between your normative push and the descriptive tendency of blogs like MajorityRights. Ontology is the hobbyhorse Guessedworker has chosen to attempt to ride into the normative. I say it’s a lame horse. I just don’t like seeing you lose your handle on civility like others I’ve seen — Fred Scrooby, Gorboduc and ‘uh’ the most salient.
Naturally — it can’t survive it. And all your appeals to “faith”, being honest, amount to nothing more than a sideways admission that the full disclosures of science are ultimately in disservice to ethnic organization. Yes, of course, eggheadism stymies action, faith encourages it. Kern and Fischer died atop the Burg Saaleck fighting for “ideals”, not analyses of genes and IQ scores. Tu, was du muss; Sieg oder stirb; und lass Gott die Entscheidung!” But be aware that you have merely departed from the ranks of full scientific disclosure in favor of a cruder ideology more amenable to group action. Yes, we are hobbled by science. No one cares about the latest revelations of the geneticists or behavioral psychologists. It doesn’t move the masses. Nothing does — except good looks, money or lack of money, and amusements. 59
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:35 | # Graham, In case you missed it, I posted a short answer to one of your inquiries on your neoliberal thread. 60
Posted by anon on Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:37 | #
It is refreshing. But now he is calling the host “insane” and telling us to shack up with blacks because he needed reminding that the evolution of race was, like everything else, a haphazard affair and not the operation of an Ideal elaborating itself through the medium of History. Actually that too was funny, but unintentionally telling: proximity is precisely the fait social we are up against in the desire to control our people’s breeding habits. A German or Latvian girl treated to the presence of that one negro in one-thousand will go straight for the negro. 61
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 10 Jul 2011 00:57 | # OK thanks have not had a chance to read all the threads yet (it’s very late here). Off topic but I’m enjoying listening to ‘Derek & Clive’ right now. Check out this skit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yi5bV5qHjY or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj3U1DQurew or even this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm8gxNXyIdM Warning not very black or Jew friendly. It’s the most anti-PC comedy I can think of. 62
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:48 | # @anon: You say I mock your psychology?...What psychology? What is there to disprove? Is the attempt to fashion a totally bullshit ontology….psychology now? You think you can fool the mass if you fool yourself first?
Lord fuck a duck, this strains a brain beyond relief. I’ve shown in the past with accredited scientific reference, even the beloved wiki links, that this science is 19th century bullshit - propaganda that has overstayed it’s validity only because of it’s social relevance in terms of conditioning and propaganda. As I recalled the most constructive response was a gentleman here leaping on it and applying English name prefixes to the research, falsifying providence, to make it more palatable to the hopelessly devoid of integrity or undirected thought.
The host is insane in that insanity is his technique in getting over the fact he doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about, and if the other doesn’t know either what he is talking about then it’s quite likely he will get away with this bottomless stupidity and actually come out at least sounding impressive. This is in a nutshell is his and most of MR’s idea of science. Well there is nothing more to say. I like all you fellows. Unfortunately complete wastes of time like ontology, your backwards ideas on genetics, and your mutually reinforced stupidity has rendered you insignificant, and it’s clear that is what you want. 63
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:55 | # I don’t think anyone here, including Grim, thinks our host consciously advocates for T.H.E.M*, but many of us can recognize the potential of radicalizing the dichotomy between the relative vertices of ontological materialism and ethical idealism for the purpose of expediting a triangulation to the apex of Absolute Nationalism.
64
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 10 Jul 2011 06:34 | # Excuse me. I see that I neglected to assign the word “Hebrew” to the letter “H” in the acronym above. I discovered this acronym while perusing the contents of Marcvs Idevs’ Imperian Manifesto: A Doctrine of the Coming of a God, a Government, and a New Age 65
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:15 | # Daesin - so cruel but it’s true Grim has been ‘ranting’ recently. 66
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:21 | #
Really? Guess I will have to recall one of my papers about genetics that appeared in “Evolution” as I didn’t have it peer-reviewed by a chicken farmer. 67
Posted by Ajax on Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:25 | # I think he means the anglo bait and switch - taking german breakthroughs and repackaging them to fit their worldview and calling it british. Face it the british have no science, never have and never will. They are pawns led by newspapers. 68
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:39 | # Ajax - do you honestly believe that? There are many great British scientists and many great German ones. Let’s not have some silly pissing contest. Science is a collaborative and cumulative phenomenon carried out by many individual actors. 69
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:15 | # I hope Grim doesn’t think all the materialist ‘dumb’ Anglos are ganging up on him Post a comment:
Next entry: Debtocracy and default
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:13 | #
OK, thanks for explaining the nature of your disagreement.
It does appear possible, at first glance, that you have accorded ethicism - and here I mean the tendency to extrapolate emotional knowledge of good life-choices (where “good” = adaptive) into socially-based behavioural systems - an oppositionalism to evolutionary fitness and natural selection that it does not possess. It seems obvious to me that social complexity is itself an evolutionary pressure accounting not only for our higher emotions but also the faculties of conscience and faith which appropriate certain of these.
I see no opposition. As is apparent from the absence of moral terminologies in Sub-Saharan African languages, and from the absence of abstract moral modelling in Sub-Saharan African speech, negroid peoples have never developed the ethicism one encounters among peoples with complex social organisation. Africa does not represent a terminus of moral involution. Africa is Africa and represents only itself - a particular line of evolutionary development.
I would also dispute that natural selection “kills” the fittest, excepting only that insomuch as “the fittest” means the elites, and elites, not peoples, make wars, the “noble” and “courageous” suffer the consequence - and the race with them.