From Nature’ birthright to twenty-nine human rights

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 02 October 2016 18:11.

The application of what are called human rights by what, these days, is adjudged to be the human rights industry is roundly and rightly deprecated by nationalists.  This isn’t news.  But it is not only us.  It’s fair to say that the white man in the street tends to much the same view.  By natural instinct alone he understands that none of the silvered words of the great panjandrums, those politico-corporate whores and criminals who wallow in their own faux-virtue at the UN and all the international conferences, and in the TV studios … none of their gracious, corrupt schtick is meant to benefit him.  He is not one of their designated victims.  He knows elitism when he sees it, and it isn’t deference he feels toward it.  Ask him about the Human Rights Act (or, if you like, dress it up as the European Convention on Human Rights) and he will tell you about some Pakistani hate preacher or African multiple rapist who says and does what he wants but, somehow, never gets deported.  Ask him about the human rights lawyers who work the courts and win these verdicts, and he’ll narrow his eyes and tell you he’d like to ship the lot of them off to Somalia for a little life-education.  It is the stubborn, abiding dissent of the sturdy yeoman, and it comes straight out of who he is, defiant and unabashed.

He’s probably far from alone, too.  I imagine that even in these neo-Marxised times there are plenty of perfectly liberal-minded lawyers operating in other, less rarified areas of the legal system who also have some mixed feelings on the subject.  They might say of their HR colleagues, “Good luck to them if there’s money in it”.  But classically liberal-minded lawyers and judges will care about the integrity and political neutrality of the law.  The judiciary, after all, is its custodian and interpreter.  Judges, if they have not grown political themselves, should tend to discomfort with any politicisation of the justice system.  The overt campaigning fervour for social justice which typifies HR progressives ... indeed, the whole idea of an intrusive hyper-egalitarian, internationalist political bandwagon really ought to offend against their professional principles.

That said, this essay is not one about signs of light in the darkness.  This essay is about the fundamentals of the life which our history has vouchsafed us, and which has brought us to the pass in which we now labour.  It is about a history of serial anti-identitarian developments, of which human rights and the universalism which underpins them are but a sign and a sadness.  My apologies for the length.  I hope it will prove interesting and informative.

Rights, but how human?

For our part, we nationalists are bound to ask how, in practise, that seminally Christian ideal of an overriding and overarching love of one’s fellow man, and compassion for his suffering, degenerated into an instrument of global political activism undertaken for the purpose of solidising and advancing a new technocratic elite whose priestly function is to stand over the world and make moral distinctions between “the rich north” and “the poor south”, or “privileged whites” and “oppressed non-whites”, or “narrow-minded, xenophobic racists” and “suffering refugees”, etcetera.  The answer, of course, is that love has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Indeed, these men and women who affect to love everyone love no one but themselves.  Their self-interested political activism is the inevitable precondition for regulating and maintaining a panoply of positive rights which are, without exception, contingent upon other values and sensibilities about what is just and fair.  Even the perfectly understandable claim in Article 3 of the 1948 UN Declaration, that “everyone has the right to life”, is not actually natural in kind (something I will come to later).  It, like the other twenty-eight articles, is grounded in Western presumptions and preoccupations, and interpretations which are quotidian, fluid and highly susceptible to political fashion.  Consider Article 22, which states:

Everyone, as a member of society, … is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

… or Article 24, which solemnly informs us that:

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

These are standard, ethically quite marginal desiderata of the liberal right and left.  Yet here they are in a proclamation of the highest international standing, a significant function of which, according to its preamble, is to gift men with means of recourse against tyranny and oppression other than rebellion (ie, to forestall the necessity of putting life at risk).  It is almost as if the teenage idealists’ desire to campaign for anything, really, runs away with what started out as their parents’ project to secure against the pain and loss and destruction of conflict.  It is really rather odd.

The very first and most basic of those “Western presumptions and political prejudices” is that justice and fairness themselves have a generality and permanence which is (a) attributable to Nature and, therefore, (b) universally applicable.  The original idea – I believe, Aristotelian – is that because we all have a sense of these things, they must somehow constitute a definite, natural, homeostatic force in the life of Man.  The first problem is the patchy, careless way in which thinking from the normal sensitisation for the evolutionarily adaptive has been attenuated beyond the evolutionary and into broad and objectively neutral principles.  A clear case of this can be seen in the eagerness with which evidence for “a sense of justice” among animals, particularly monkeys, has been imputed where the intelligence for simple envy and self-interested competition plainly exists.  The evil genius of monkey nature, of course, would appeal much more to the parsimonious Brother Occam.  If he was still around today, and had the intellectual courage to read Darwin, he might also cut to the view that the animal propensity for excess which excites such envy is also innate, and a perfectly reasonable response to an unforgiving environment and an unpredictable future.

The foundation on which acquisition is built, then, is the struggle for existential security, which is the permanent condition of all living things.  After all, security is never more than relative and temporary.  The foundation on which the envy of acquisition is built is the perceived exclusion from security, ie, a relative failure in the same struggle.  The conditioning factor in both cases is self-interest in the competition for resources, including sexual partners.  Logically speaking, this leaves, let us say, a mile-wide gulf to the liberal demand for our endless and non-reciprocal fellow-feeling and charity to the Other.

Happily, if you do not consider that dichotomy fatal to liberal altruism, there is a second crisis of self-contradiction for it, and that is the non-universal nature of the liberal model of universalism.  This is the meat of this essay, and I’m afraid it does require a brief walk through history.  So please bear with me.

That Question again

In its broadest terms - and it is nothing if not a term for breadth - universalism means the death of the self.  Its origin, which is worth looking at in detail, is the (non-possible) Christian practise of love for all Mankind in pursuit of a (non-real) heavenly after-life by (non-available) salvation from a (non-existent) existential moral condition called sin.  At best it is a horribly clumsy and disfiguring social representation of the essential movement within the psyche from absence to presence via conscious detachment.  At worst it is a blind alley created so all Mankind may strive towards the fulfilment of the Judaic millenarian paradigm.  The history of early Christianity suggests that it is very much the latter.  Matthew 5, in particular, leaves no doubt that the early Christian practise, as it contested with that of the other Judaic faith movements of the time, was entirely consistent with Mosaic Law and the Judaic paradigm as such:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

Little detail survives of how the Christ cult was presented to the Jews of Jerusalem in the apostolic ministries of James and Peter.  Paul speaks of “the gospel of the circumcision”, as he speaks of “the gospel of the uncircumcision”.  There are passages in Acts and in Galatians (most notably the Incident at Antioch) which transmit to us something of the Jewish conservatism and sensitivity on the (to them) empty practise of teaching Torah to gentiles free of the obligation to observe the Mosaic Law it contains, including the demand for circumcision and dietary restriction.  It was a test of the ethnic bounds, and of the cultural-religious strictures by which the gentile crossing of those bounds might be acceptable.  Seen as a Jewish unwillingness to compromise on the high personal price paid for their ethno-religious inclusiveness, one’s sympathies as a racially European nationalist today might well attach to the Jews of proto-Christianity.  Why should they lightly dispose of their very identity, as they understood and expressed it?  Confronted with a kind of spiritual immigration, they rightly stood their ground.  What, dear reader, would you have done in their place?

On both sides, then, this was a crisis of the very foundations of the faith and, ultimately, of nationalism and anti-nationalism, identity and non-identity.  Unsurprisingly, two could not be written as one.  An Apostolic Council was convened in Jerusalem around 50 AD, and the profoundly influential decision taken to accede to both sides’ demands.  Only three non-critical Noahide obligations, to do with sexual morality and diet, were laid upon uncircumcised believers.

The matter came to a head, finally, at Antioch, when Paul upbraided the traditionalist faction in the person of Peter, attacking him for refusing to break bread with the uncircumcised.  As Paul describes it in his letters to the Galatians:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

After this event Paul, a Helenised Jew who experienced not the visitation of the risen Christ in the flesh, as had the original disciples – now Apostles - but a mere vision, and who argued for the universality of belief over the particularity of belonging, was freed to shape his ministry to those who did not, and now need never, belong.  In doing so he was, of course, bound to present the dictates of a faith-nationalism somehow, because Christianity remained inherently Judaic.  That left no other interpretation but that the Christianisation of Jew and non-Jew alike must lead to the fulfilment of the Jewish ethnic destiny (albeit without dwelling too much on the Jewish eschatological version of this event).  In essence, the Christianised gentile’s detachment from his natural identity and attachment to the health and prospects of his own eternal soul was the work of making the world ready for the Jewish eschatological finale.

Everywhere that Christianisation took place over the ensuing centuries this act of self-estrangement was dug into the foundations of the personal and collective life.  It could not but be otherwise.  Theologians, of course, were oblivious of this, and up to as late as 1800 focussed their consideration of universalism on questions - so fascinating and fundamental to them - of the divine salvation or damnation of souls.  In other words, with extirpation of the old faith so went the place of the blood and the soil and the heavens in ordinary religious observance.  I have advanced the theory at MR before that so ruthlessly was the old faith extirpated and usurped, so thoroughly was the new one stamped on the land and in the religious feeling of the people, it delivered a shock even unto natural selection itself: by repressive means advantaging among all the ranks of the people the survival and transmission of the faith capacity and, possibly, of altruism too.  If that is so, we were changed … arguably knocked off our natural sociobiological equilibrium ... by this event.  After it we were less able to self-select.  Of course, we will never know for sure.

Certainly, by the early 14th century concern for the civic detriments of Christianity, brought specifically through its constricted and impoverished epistemology, was manifesting itself in early Italian (really, Catholic) humanism.

I know it’s only clever historical fiction but the late Umberto Eco’s postmodernist first novel, The Name of the Rose, set in an Italian monastery in the year 1327, caught the nature of the times.  In one short passage in particular, given to the villainous blind monk Jorge of Burgos to speak, Eco captures the deeply ideological and regressive Catholic conservatism from which the Renaissance sought a popular deliverance.  This is it:

“My brothers, before the known world echoed with long debates about poverty and ownership, from the days of our founder, we, even when we had everything, have never had anything, our one true wealth being the observation of the Rule, prayer, and work. But of our work, the work of our order and in particular the work of this monastery, a part - indeed, the substance - is study, and the preservation of knowledge. Preservation of, I say, not search for, because the property of knowledge, as a divine thing, is that it is complete and has been defined since the beginning, in the perfection of the Word which expresses itself to itself. Preservation, I say, and not search, because it is a property of knowledge, as a human thing, that it has been defined and completed over the course of the centuries, from the preaching of the prophets to the interpretation of the fathers of the church. There is no progress, no revolution of ages, in the history of knowledge, but at most a continuous and sublime recapitulation.”

Contrast that with the assertion of the pre-Socractic philosopher Protagoras, made famous by Plato and taken wholly to heart by the Renaissance schools, that “Man is the measure of all things.”  This was the freeing intellectual counterpoint to the rigid Catholic dogma which Renaissance humanism sought.  Among the hundreds of writers and thinkers of antiquity, neoplatonist and otherwise, who were rediscovered and studied at this time was the second century AD Latin grammarian and antiquarian Aulus Gellius.  He wrote in his Noctes Atticae:

That humanitas does not mean what the common people think, but those who have spoken pure Latin have given the word a more restricted meaning.

Those who have spoken Latin and have used the language correctly do not give to the word humanitas the meaning which it is commonly thought to have, namely, what the Greeks call φιλανθρωπία (philanthropy), signifying a kind of friendly spirit and good feeling towards all men without distinction; but they gave to humanitas the force of the Greek παιδεία (paideia); that is, what we call eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes, or “education and training in the liberal arts”. Those who earnestly desire and seek after these are most highly humanized. For the pursuit of that kind of knowledge, and the training given by it, have been granted to man alone of all the animals, and for that reason it is termed humanitas, or “humanity.”

As a civilising medium, then, the studia humanitatis was in expectation of the revival of the civic, cultural, and intellectual life which obtained before Christianisation, and which was markedly absent after it.  The purpose was not anti-religious, of course.  Nor was it elitist.  It was generous and ennobling and for the common good, but that commonality was universalist in conception and focussed on the civic urban model.  Further, Italian humanism was a reaction (notwithstanding Christian elites and intellectuals, including popes, who counted themselves as humanists, for the movement began within the Catholic hierarchy).  Even as it reacted to the regressive, controlling aspects of the Christian dispensation, it carried within it all the other seeds of that dispensation, and left without it the seeds of that which Christianisation had so completely repressed a thousand years earlier.  If the Renaissance was an intellectual and cultural bridge from antiquity to the Enlightenment, those who crossed it did so not as kinsmen and sons of the land but as participants in a civic project.

So we arrive at the social and political upheavals and uncertainties of modernity, and the great age of the unfettering of the will.  The principal early Enlightenment thinkers were all Christian.  None denied the existence of the Christian God.  They merely denied to the clergy any rational basis for the exercise of power over the secular life.  In any case, in the Protestant lands there was no issue with the authority of the pope above that of the monarch, and in England, after the execution of Charles I in 1649, there was no issue with the authority of the monarch above that of parliament.  The intellectual paradigm pointed squarely to continuing flight from the organic into abstraction.

At the very outset, Thomas Hobbes duly obliged in his Leviathan, published 1651, by introducing into the Western philosophical canon the principles of individual right and the equality of all men.  The future bi-axial form of liberal politics was clarified accordingly, guaranteeing that the long, long line of vestigially Judaic thinking about the gentile suffered no interruption.  European Man was consigned to what would become the denatured condition of an atomised, radically autonomous individual given substance by positive and negative social and civic freedoms.  With John Locke, just a few years after Hobbes’ opus, came the dawning of the self-authored New Man, for what else could freedom mean in a philosophical universe sans Nature and deity.  The fact that self-authorship was and is impossible … that Man cannot, either in his life or in his self, be constructed of choices … and that the whole thing resolves as a post-religious teleology, a species of secular salvation, seems simply to have never troubled anyone.

For his moral understanding in such estrangement from his own natural values, European Man was directed to commit himself in perpetuity and willful blindness to an equalitarian union with the human All.  Very plainly, that which is common to all is particular to no man, exposing right there the Christian denial of what is in Nature in favour of what is in Judaic thinking.  Just as Nature was replaced in the Christian faith by a state of original personal sin, so in the liberal ontology it is replaced by a specious state of enslavement to bounds – those between the European self and the non-European Other, those between Man and Woman, those between that which gives peoples life and that which takes it away.  It is the messianic ideal ... equality as an hermaphroditic condition of panmixia and uniform identity.  Here is Paul, again in Galatians, explaining how and why:

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The liberal’s dilemma

This European journey of two thousand years has produced in our time and that of our children all that is necessary for the dissolution of our precious kind.  Save for what comes from those yeoman instincts, with which I began this essay, and save for our stubborn and necessitous tendency to adopt even imperfect forms such as fealty to the monarch and worship of the Christian God, everything … the grand intellectual and cultural movements, the paradigmatic historical conflicts and shifts … has pushed us by degrees deeper and deeper into our long identitarian malaise, such that, confronted today by a whole array of second-order social, economic, and political pathologies, all of them rooted in some way in our troubled past, our very genius … our last resort ... may prove incapable of fashioning an escape.  The shadow of death is certainly upon us.  It’s in the thin, worthless art and architecture of our time, and in our attempts to make serious new music.  It’s in the anti-racism of our politics.  It’s in the economism and utilitarianism of our work life.  It’s in the progressivism of our churches, and our media.  It’s in the decline of marriage and of the family, and in our birthrates, of course.  It’s in the corruption and careerism of our political class.  It’s everywhere.

And yet it is still quite evident that all the really powerful arguments are ours.  They are the arguments for life. Even on the question of rights we have the edge.  There is one right given in Nature to all living things, and it is the right to struggle for life (not the direct right to life) - always allowing that the natural imperative can be admitted to have some degree of choice or decision in it.  The principle of universality can and does apply here, also.  Either every person and every people, without exception, has this right to struggle for existence, or none has it. 

Clearly, the possession of this right accords with natural justice and leads to diverse humanity as we have known it throughout its history. The denial of this right means that there can obtain no concern for continuity of existence and, therefore, no recourse to defend that existence.  Ironically, this would lead to a social darwinian, racial supremacist hell where power dictates everything, where any group of people can take what it wants when it wants it, and the principle of self-defence itself does not apply.

The first proposition is ethnic nationalist in kind. The second proposition is liberal in its present neo-Marxist, anti-racist form. To be truly liberal, a liberal cannot be neo-Marxistic or anti-racist ... cannot selectively call this natural right “racism” ... but must believe in the universality of the right to struggle for life not just individually but collectively and at the ethnic level.



Comments:


1

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 02:08 | #

This is a brilliant piece, GW.

An amazing piece, but hits a bump at this point, because you are taking a susceptibility in Self 2 (biography/autobiography ..which is by contrast to Self 1, the corporeal self) which can be exploited, e.g. by Jews and liberals and thus render it a white knuckle “fact” that Self 2 is necessarily, deterministically self estranging, and even strictly Jewish in prescription. Here:

The fact that self-authorship was and is impossible … that Man cannot, either in his life or in his self, be constructed of choices … and that the whole thing resolves as a post-religious teleology, a species of secular salvation, seems simply to have never troubled anyone. For his moral understanding in such estrangement from his own natural values, European Man was directed to commit himself in perpetuity and willful blindness to an equalitarian union with the human All.  Very plainly, that which is common to all is particular to no man, exposing right there the Christian denial of what is in Nature in favour of what is in Judaic thinking

Nevetheless, and despite that easily remedied kink, you come to a great finish, addressing what is a key issue, what to do with the issue of individual rights as they’ve come down to popular philosophy ... and you intimate, naturally, correctly, that some idea of group rights must be normalized and institutionalized.

To quote

And yet it is still quite evident that all the really powerful arguments are ours.  They are the arguments for life. Even on the question of rights we have the edge.  There is one right given in Nature to all living things, and it is the right to struggle for life (not the direct right to life) - always allowing that the natural imperative can be admitted to have some degree of choice or decision in it.  The principle of universality can and does apply here, also.  Either every person and every people, without exception, has this right to struggle for existence, or none has it.

Clearly, the possession of this right accords with natural justice and leads to diverse humanity as we have known it throughout its history. The denial of this right means that there can obtain no concern for continuity of existence and, therefore, no recourse to defend that existence.  Ironically, this would lead to a social darwinian, racial supremacist hell where power dictates everything, where any group of people can take what it wants when it wants it, and the principle of self-defence itself does not apply.

It is an eminently worthwhile project to trace estrangement from our biological, systemic, group belonging, to the problem of what to do about the notion of rights that has installed in our nations a technology to send that estrangement into overdrive; particularly as it was minted by Judeo-Christians and is exploited as a language game of estrangement and reversal, particularly by Jews.

Nevertheless, there is a rub, again: While it is absolutely worthwhile to focus on the biology of fidelity to one’s natural kind, and the vital importance of it, the capacity for historical perspective does not necessitate a choice to go against one’s group form toward its dissolution. In fact, that capacity for historical perspective is probably what is necessary to respect and appreciate the importance, the significance of one’s personal and group systemic biology. That capacity for perspective is not deterministically headed in a direction away from one’s personal and group biological system and into estrangement. Although the YKW, for example, would continue to create narratives to take it that way - toward the undifferentiated Gentile other, as you say. It is for us, rather, to render (auto)biographical and historical narrative conducive to our biological, systemic interest, as you so brilliantly have in this piece.

There may be a step further required for liberation from Abrahamic affectation thus, into a more organic and natural basis - that is a recognition of principles which provide perspective on practices which facilitate group homeostasis or dissolution. You approach it here when you say here:

.. but must believe in the universality of the right to struggle for life not just individually but collectively and at the ethnic level.

But it is insufficiently emancipated without raising the issue that this universal rule is contradicted at a point where it must exclude those groups who would not accord group rights for others - viz., Abrahamic religions do not provide sufficiently for the sustaining of our biological systems, group rights of ours and of others; and should therefore not be accorded group rights.

Finally, I believe that with recognition of a sufficiently rendered idea of biological group rights, that the very means of individual liberty is afforded and protected; more, a rendering of individual protection, differentiation, connection among others and actualization far better than Lockeatine rights can impart, is quite possible.


2

Posted by full veil banned in Bulgaria on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 07:58 | #

Speaking of a step in that direction..

Visigrad Post, “The full veil is now banned in public places in Bulgaria”, 4 October 2016:

Bulgaria – Friday, September 30, the Bulgarian Parliament banned “the wearing in public places of clothing masking partially or completely the face” law that would follow the various Islamist attacks that have hit Europe recently.

The ban echoes similar laws in some EU countries such as France, the Netherlands and Belgium. Persons who violate this new law will be obliged to pay a fine of 200 leva (100 euros) and 1,500 leva (770 euros) after the first offense. Exceptions can be made if the face or part should be hidden for health or professionnal reasons.

The Turkish Movement for Rights and Freedoms refused to take part in the vote, saying that the ban would encourage ethnic and religious intolerance.

The ruling party GERB has assured that it has nothing to do with religious clothing, but rather to increase national security and to provide better video surveillance. “This law does not apply to religious communities and is not repressive. We did a very good law for the safety of our children,” assured the MP GERB Krasimir Velchev.

Activists of Amnesty International, meanwhile, claim that the ban violates the right of Bulgarian women’s freedom of expression and religion, and is part of a disturbing trend of intolerance, xenophobia and racism.

Currently in Bulgaria 7.9% of the population is Muslim, mostly from the Turkish minority.

 


3

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 13:15 | #

Glad you found something in the essay of value, Daniel.  I am not sure what you mean about a kink.  The sociopolitical meanings for our kind of the authorial self and of universal equalness are the (never quite reconciled) meanings of the liberal world in which we are seated, which meanings, for sure, have been treated to a large infusion of spanish fly by 20th century Jewish “philosophy”, but which are nonetheless there in the original 17th century musings.  The overall model for us has been formatively Judaic from the start of Christianisation.

I guess all I am saying, and probably all I ever really say, is that changing this ... essentially, taking our formative truth from what gives life rather than what takes it away ... is a very, very fundamental and far-reaching thing, and - ideally speaking - a job for a generation of supremely creative intellects.  I would further say that those intellects are much better advised to build on the work of Martin Heidegger (as someone who produced a much more competent historiography of the Western canon than I have in this little effort above) than to try to breathe life into any of the well-known intellectual reactions and reflexes of our nationalist past.

In that respect I am probably the most radical and ambitious nationalist going.  But the hour is late and everything has failed anyway, so why not!


4

Posted by Uh on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 15:21 | #

GW,

Do you have an e-mail you’re comfortable giving out? Or I could give you mine here, I don’t care. I don’t remember which I used when we corresponded years ago and probably no longer have access, anyway. Or if you’re not in the mood to bother, I certainly understand.


5

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 19:30 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:15 | #

Glad you found something in the essay of value, Daniel.  I am not sure what you mean about a kink.  The sociopolitical meanings for our kind of the authorial self and of universal equalness are the (never quite reconciled) meanings of the liberal world in which we are seated, which meanings, for sure, have been treated to a large infusion of spanish fly by 20th century Jewish “philosophy”, but which are nonetheless there in the original 17th century musings.  The overall model for us has been formatively Judaic from the start of Christianisation.

I guess all I am saying, and probably all I ever really say, is that changing this ... essentially, taking our formative truth from what gives life rather than what takes it away ... is a very, very fundamental and far-reaching thing, and - ideally speaking - a job for a generation of supremely creative intellects.  I would further say that those intellects are much better advised to build on the work of Martin Heidegger (as someone who produced a much more competent historiography of the Western canon than I have in this little effort above) than to try to breathe life into any of the well-known intellectual reactions and reflexes of our nationalist past.

In that respect I am probably the most radical and ambitious nationalist going.  But the hour is late and everything has failed anyway, so why not!

Hermeneutics is not Jewish, GW. You commend Heidegger’s effort, well, he spoke in its terms. I understand your aversion to how these terms have been abused, but that’s what you are reacting to, Jewish abuse of the terms, not their proper place. It’s unfortunate that you refuse to hear. Being impervious does not make one uniquely valuable, being “impossible to understand” does not make one uniquely valuable, just the opposite.

The difficulty of Western philosophy has been a rigid, aspired-for non interactive focus at first on teleology which then reached an extreme form, or expressive extension rather, in Cartesianism. Jews may have instigated this, partly through their religion, partly through their victim’s desperate wish to escape guilt and insanity by establishing “universal foundations”, but they neither created the epsitemological blunder of teleology, its pseudo cure in Cartesianism, nor its true cure in hermeneutics - which was a project begun with pre Socratics, set in formulaic motion by Aristotle with a step further in observation of the need to take theoria into praxis ... recognized by Vico as the proper turn against Descartes… carried on by a few German monks and picked up by Heidegger…

Hence, the irony of your commending Heidegger while refusing to see this and proclaiming yourself the most radical for refusing to understand this.

The “kink” I spoke of (I was being polite), was this, a straw man criticism of solipsism, and Jewish distortions (i.e., not of social constructionism and hermeneutics):

The fact that self-authorship was and is impossible … that Man cannot, either in his life or in his self, be constructed of choices … and that the whole thing resolves as a post-religious teleology, a species of secular salvation, seems simply to have never troubled anyone. For his moral understanding in such estrangement from his own natural values, European Man was directed to commit himself in perpetuity and willful blindness to an equalitarian union with the human All.  Very plainly, that which is common to all is particular to no man, exposing right there the Christian denial of what is in Nature in favour of what is in Judaic thinking

These are not the words of a great philosopher. These are the words of one who stubbornly refuses to understand, I suspect even read, what I am saying.

Your tight focus on emergence is fine, but impervious to interaction - its constraints and affordances - it is not a sufficient philosophy. Worse, it is recreating the same, rigid, Cartesian response that has got us into this problem in the first place; impervious to the destruction it causes, leaving people rigidly unable to respond properly and blindly susceptible .. including through appeals of what is, at basis, a better philosophy ...which is then distorted, used and abused by our enemies against us.

I realize that you find it painful, but I wrote the criticisms of your outlook for a reason - because, as you say, the hour is late and your obstructions and subversions of better philosophy than what you offer in your reaction (and that’s largely what it is) to social constructionism’s abuses is a disservice. There is much useful material that you simply refuse to recognize, but we will carry on with or without your recognition… I hope that you come off your Cartesian high horse and join us in interactive praxis; in the true human nature that Aristotle began to recognize in Western man; which Heidegger’s unfinished project sought to re-take from Descartes’ estrangement.


6

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 07:27 | #

Why not produce a definitional guide to the various one-word labels you employ so folk can see what it is you are pointing towards?


7

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:46 | #

GW, you need to have a serious talk with your boy to rein in his censorious streak.  What is clear as the noon sun shining to me seems to turn to garbled nonsense once fed through his sperg filter.  If he can’t express his thoughts clearly, then he can’t think clearly.  Simple as that.  Which, needless to say, hardly qualifies him to have his hand on the memory hole button.


8

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 21:20 | #

I find there seem to be two issues which regularly crop up and cause consternation.  The first, obviously, is Daniel’s systematized terminology, consisting of probably eight to ten terms.  These mark out an analysis of a utility I, for one, cannot freely assess and don’t even know I am offending against.  That might be just my limitations, because I have not been through the university system and have not acquired the same thinking and language as Daniel.  Also, in my own little way I have, over my life, developed a Heidegger-like suspicion of academics on two counts; first that those who have what in the past I’ve called a good pair of eyes - original minds, basically - sadly lack an instinctual sense for, and good judgement of, what is real and true, and so tend to destructiveness (usually through fealty to a marxistic or freudian analysis); and second that those who have sufficient instinctual sense not to want to actively destroy nonetheless lack the vision and sense of scale to formulate anything beyond technical commentary of a historiographical and/or analytical variety.  So while I’ve gone off and fashioned a few thoughts about life and Mind and identity, Daniel insists that that’s all narrow and unnecessary.  I’ve got it all wrong, and that the conventional lineaments of late 20th century philosophy, understood as he understands them, do indeed contain the fundamentals requisite to our race’s survival.  However, we have seen only the claim, but not yet actual evidence of this.

The second issue is Daniel’s “Jorge of Burgos” style complaint against commentary which is not at all directly critical of him or his system, but just happens to lie outside or unwittingly contravene it.  Well, every man jack of us is in the explication and persuasion business, not the coercion business.  Nobody out there is obligated to understand anybody else, much less to observe the form of his own thinking, where such exists.  For us, just to receive reasoned and not irrational criticism is a sign that someone has heard us, and is willing to engage.  That’s a privilege, not a right.  If some interested party still doesn’t get it or gets it but still doesn’t agree, and if his or her disagreement is reasoned, then that’s OK.  It should never be a cause for angst, especially among friends.


9

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:51 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 22:46 | #

GW, you need to have a serious talk with your boy to rein in his censorious streak.  What is clear as the noon sun shining to me seems to turn to garbled nonsense once fed through his sperg filter.  If he can’t express his thoughts clearly, then he can’t think clearly.  Simple as that.  Which, needless to say, hardly qualifies him to have his hand on the memory hole button.

Captainchaos, what is clear as day is what I am saying. You need to re-read it. I find myself having to say the same things repeatedly because you refuse to understand. It is expressed clearly, I have expressed it clearly and I will do it again, but not this second. Because I will not hop-to automatically in response to your obnoxious insults - they serve nothing but to distract from important discussion.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Oct 2016 02:20 | #

I find there seem to be two issues which regularly crop up and cause consternation.  The first, obviously, is Daniel’s systematized terminology, consisting of probably eight to ten terms.  These mark out an analysis of a utility I, for one, cannot freely assess and don’t even know I am offending against.  That might be just my limitations, because I have not been through the university system and have not acquired the same thinking and language as Daniel.

Ok, I will define for you eight to ten terms - rather, I’ll do it again, because I’ve consistently discussed all of these terms several times.

Also, in my own little way I have, over my life, developed a Heidegger-like suspicion of academics on two counts; first that those who have what in the past I’ve called a good pair of eyes - original minds, basically - sadly lack an instinctual sense for, and good judgement of, what is real and true, and so tend to destructiveness (usually through fealty to a marxistic or freudian analysis); and second that those who have sufficient instinctual sense not to want to actively destroy nonetheless lack the vision and sense of scale to formulate anything beyond technical commentary of a historiographical and/or analytical variety.

This is a habitual perspective of yours, GW. Though I would not characterize it as Heidegger-like. It is more like I said in the article called “Why people who argue against the left and post modernity are badly mistaken.” Your characterization of academcs general foibles may even be somewhat true, I am not here to defend them, but I am after useful and significant ideas - and that is where your habit of over applying your “skepticism” (more like contentiousness), is counterproductive. You tend to be contentious, particularly of any concepts taking a social group unit of analysis - though it is not only more than valid, it is eminently necessary as race and nation are group units of analysis - but you nevertheless tend to go ahead and deny the truth and utility of concepts, ideas and teminology for immediately prejudicial reasons, not because you understand and make an effort to understand their truth and utility and find it lacking. Rather, you tend merely and immediately to want “to show those academics that you are smarter than them” and you tend to deploy straw men, if anything other than dismissal.

So while I’ve gone off and fashioned a few thoughts about life and Mind and identity, Daniel insists that that’s all narrow and unnecessary.

I have said your view is narrow, I have never said its unnecessary to look at the empirical end. I have said repeatedly that its fine for you to focus on that end and important for all to focus on that end, in verification, in alternating attention and where necessary - repeatedly I have said that! How dare you suggest otherwise.

I’ve got it all wrong,

I don’t say that you have it all wrong. That’s a terrible straw man. I have said it just once - where you suggested that I have it all wrong - that is and would be all wrong to say - otherwise, I’ve repeatedly said, and it is true, that your project can be accommodated with mine, but you refuse to understand that (though I repeatedly say it). You are (overly) focused on one end of a process necessary for sufficient inquiry and exclude the other necessary end - tending rather to say that others, myself included, have it all wrong, when I go there.

...although, ironically, this head post of yours is a marvelous hermeneutic narrative (up to the trouble patch that I call attention to - where you posit a straw man of solipsism which nobody is defending and attribute Jewishness to some academic concerns which are not Jewish).

and that the conventional lineaments of late 20th century philosophy, understood as he understands them, do indeed contain the fundamentals requisite to our race’s survival.  However, we have seen only the claim, but not yet actual evidence of this.

It would help if you didn’t try to subvert what I say with contentiousness.

The second issue is Daniel’s “Jorge of Burgos” style complaint against commentary which is not at all directly critical of him or his system, but just happens to lie outside or unwittingly contravene it

The comment that I deleted by Captainchaos was insulting and a worthless distraction - a trollish wish to distract, subvert and undermine, no attempt to understand and apply constructively whatsoever.

. Well, every man jack of us is in the explication and persuasion business, not the coercion business.  Nobody out there is obligated to understand anybody else, much less to observe the form of his own thinking, where such exists.  For us, just to receive reasoned and not irrational criticism is a sign that someone has heard us, and is willing to engage.

Yes, ok. And that’s the point.

That’s a privilege, not a right.  If some interested party still doesn’t get it or gets it but still doesn’t agree, and if his or her disagreement is reasoned, then that’s OK.  It should never be a cause for angst, especially among friends.

If it was reasoned that would be fine. But it was a combination of ad-hominem and contentious nonsense. If the guy refuses to understand I am not obligated to allow the disinformation of his offhand dismissal (all he was offering) of important considerations to be “underwritten” by ad hominem - e.g., “sperg.” ... this is just standard routine and cliche’d repertoire of troll culture.


10

Posted by getos on Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:21 | #

GW (or whoever else can answer), what happened to “J Richards,” who has written for Majority Rights in the past?


11

Posted by getos on Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:54 | #

It appears J Richards now runs http://femininebeauty.info under the name Erik Holland. He peddles the same content with a similar style, though it is toned-down compared with what he used to post here. Seems to be more down-to-earth.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Fuck You Right Wing. Fuck You Alternative Right. The White Class Will Prevail and is Here to Stay.
Previous entry: Richard Thpenther’s (((Altright tentosphere))): “PQ” (Polish question), Goldstein’s false opposition

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement 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

Comments

49% Jewish, 44% European West commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:52. (View)

Virgin of the Rocks, London commented in entry 'Leonardo da Vinci, Salvator Mundi: Divine Proportion of The Golden Ratio & More' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:43. (View)

(((Ilana Mercer))) commented in entry 'Chinese slur 'White Left' as Cultural Marxist shows Jewish power, influence, aversion to White Left' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:51. (View)

Right wing observations on the controlled right commented in entry 'Chinese slur 'White Left' as Cultural Marxist shows Jewish power, influence, aversion to White Left' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:58. (View)

She's not prejudice, she's postjudice commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:50. (View)

Euromexmix + 2% Mali African commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:14. (View)

100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:56. (View)

30,000 shekels for Israeli deportation workers commented in entry 'Netanyahu: “It Is Time to Deport Africans”' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 02:23. (View)

Iranian Hijab Protest 1979 commented in entry 'Iran protest, organic grievances real, but tactless Trump endorsement abets reactionary entrenchment' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:13. (View)

Intel replacement commented in entry 'Who Is It That Is Instigating Techno-Genocide Against the American H-1b's?' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:08. (View)

Golden Ratio in Da Vinci's Salvator Mundi commented in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 17:06. (View)

Boyo commented in entry 'Mary Beard and the BBC's imaginary Roman Africans' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 04:52. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 03:50. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:58. (View)

The first flower commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:38. (View)

Spencer: on last chance for kosher immigration commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 09:10. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'A crisis in the custody suite – seventh (and final) part' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:52. (View)

This thug raped 64yr old in her home commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:32. (View)

Bringing untreatable forms of TB to Europe commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:55. (View)

TBB in Milan commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:48. (View)

Gurgaon, India, corporate-run city commented in entry 'Who Is It That Is Instigating Techno-Genocide Against the American H-1b's?' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:04. (View)

Melbourne: African street gang problem commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:02. (View)

Heidi Przybyala et al. on Trump's shit hole commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:30. (View)

Steven the virulent bracket commented in entry 'Showcase: Arguing WN against virulent bracketry & why 'Americanism', 'exceptionalism' is ineffective' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:43. (View)

Trump expands offshore oil assault on biodiversity commented in entry 'Paradise lost: Remote Henderson Island in the South Pacific is covered in 18 tons of our trash' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 04:45. (View)

Czech losses 30 Years War/ Versailles commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 04:09. (View)

Ahed Tamimi commented in entry '“Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom”: Norman Finkelstein on the Many Lies Perpetuated About Gaza' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:58. (View)

Susan (((Wojcicki))) commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 03:53. (View)

James LaFond on black hyper-assertiveness commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 03:24. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:24. (View)

Ryan Faulk 1/16th commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:27. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:05. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:52. (View)

DanielS commented in entry '200,000 Salvadorans May Be Forced to Leave the U.S. As Trump Ends Immigration Protection' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:42. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:52. (View)

affection-tone